Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-13-1990 Council Packet
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990ZONING FILE #1555-LANDSTAR INC. CONTINUED lots will be protected. Mabusth replied, "The City of Orono will take conservation and flowage easements over the entire area where the elevation is below 931.5." Bellov/s said, "I do not approve of the proposal to excavate in a protected area within Orono, to compensate for filling that will occur within the City of Minnetonka Beach. The City of Orono does not allow excavation or filling within a lakeshore protected area." Mabusth took the opportunity to briefly review the subdivision proposal for the benefit of the public (see Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated July 12, 1990). {Ir. Drew Gesell, 2755 Kelly Avenue, asked what must occur after this evening if this proposal is to be approved. Kelley explained the process required for subdivision applications. Mr. Don Schultz, 2585 Shadywood Road, said, "All of the runoff from Kelly Avenue runs to my property, under County Road 19, and drains into this property. How will the subdivision affect my property?" Mr. Sandin replied, "Not at all. We will not change the culvert." Mr. Gesell asked for information regarding the size of the lots and homes that will be constructed if the subdivision is approved. Mabusth reviev/ed the lot size of each of the lots located in Orono. She also provided the dry buildable areas for each lot. Kelley noted that the lots contain 2 acres of dry buildable area. He questioned whether it would be possible for each lot to subdivide further, and, if so, if anything could be done to prohibit that. Mabusth answered that it would be possible to further subdivide the lots provided the standard lot width along the roadway is maintained. She noted that placement of the principal structures will affect the ability to further subdivide. Mr. Dave Schneider, 2540 Old Beach Road, drainage does run down Old Beach Road to Lot 4. drainage will be handled beyond that point. - 3 - stated that He asked how . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1555-LANDSTAR INC. CONTINUED Mabusth asked Mr. Rudnicki to address question. Mr. Schnieder's Mr. Rudnicki replied, "Drainage behind the house pads will be handled with a swale system that will allow the water to continue to drain into the wetlands." Mabusth stated that she had asked the applicant to provide specific drainage information at the sketch plan review and that this specific information was requested. She said, "This area is a major drainage collection basin for this neighborhood. It is important that the drainageways are protected, designated and easements taken over them." Bellows observed that the grading plan did not provide specific information regarding the cutting and filling in relation to grade change. Bellows also noted that the grading plan indicates that all spoils from the excavation will be deposited on Lot 8. Bellows informed Mr. Rudnicki that the grading plan does not show where that soil will be deposited. She said that the gradina plan should show not only the present grade, but the proposed grades once the project is completed. Bellows suggested tabling the application until all of the necessary information is provided, including how the City of Minnetonka Beach is going to proceed. Johnson added, "We also need information regarding how grading that v/ill occur for the individual house pads will affect the drainage for each lot." Mr. Rudnicki explained that it is difficult to provide such information because the size of the lots will allow a structure to be placed in a variety of locations. Johnson stated that the sketch plans do show basement elevations. He also noted that the grading plan does not indicate how drainage from the 4 existing culverts (three from Old Beach Road and one frjm Shadywood Road) will be addressed. Mabusth suggested that the Planning Commission may wish to recommend that Mr. Sandin file a separate Conditional Use Permit and variance applicat-ion. She said, "The applicant is going to have to provide hardships relating to the variance in addition to a grading plan." Mr. Gesell expressed concern for traffic safety due to the increase in curb cuts resulting from this subdivision. Mr. Gesell stated that he was also concerned about how the development of this property will impact the wetlands. He said, "Most people use chemical fertilizers on their lawns. In this case, all of the chemicals will drain directly into the v/etland." - 4 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1555-LANDSTAR INC. CONTINUED Kelley noted that the leeching of fertilizer is not a situation unique to this subdivision only. He stated that anyone living around Lake Minnetonka can fertilize their lawns and that it all drains into the lake. Mrs. Schneider stated that she too had concerns regarding the increased traffic on Old Beach Road. Mr. George W. Ronald, 2480 Old Beach Road, asked when information will be available regarding the size of the homes that will be constructed in this subdivision. Kelley explained that the City has no ability to regulate the size or architecture of homes that are constructed. He said that the residents can come into the City o. t construction begins to find out more information. He suggested that the area residents may wish to meet with the developer to discuss his intentions. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and Kelley continued the Public Hearing. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Johnson, to table this application pending the receipt of a grading plan showing any and all land alterations and grading in relation to the existing culverts, in addition to the house foot prints. Further, that the disposition of the City of Minnetonka Beach regarding the filling be determined and that the applicant submit a Conditional Use Permit and variance application for the excavation proposed. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Cohen abstained. Motion carried. #1564 JOANN GRIMES 4720/4730 NORTH ARM DRIVE SUBDIVISION/LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:17 P.M. TO 8:20 P.M. Ms. Grimes was present. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailin.n were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed the information regarding this application for a lot line rearrangement (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated July 7, 1990). There were no comments from the public and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Coi'.en, to recommend approval of the Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement for JoAnn Grimes and Jim Hoffman, 4720-4730 North Arm Driv<» West. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. - 5 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 #1536 STEVE GARDINER 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD VACATION-VARIANCES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7;47 P.M. Mr. Gardiner was present. TO 7:50 P.M. Gaffron briefly explained the revision Mr. Gardiner is proposing to his initial plan (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated July 12, 1990). He suggested that the issue of the alley vacation be separate from the variance application. Bellows asked for clarification regarding the floor space that will be added to the second floor. additional Gaffron showed a sketch of the addition and noted that one side will remain open to the living room. Bellows stated that there should be requiring that the open space remain as such. specific language There were no comments from the public regarding this application and the Public flearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the side setback variance for Steve Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Road. Bellows asked Kelley whether he wished to include a recommendation thst the resolution require that the addition be constructed as proposed with the open space to the living room. Kelley amended his motion, Cohen seconded. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. With regard to the alley vacation, Kelley asked, "If the alley is vacated, how will the City respond to the location of Mr. Gardiner's garage?" Gaffron replied, "The alley is public propeLty now in the sense that the easement provides for public access. If the easement is vacated, it reverts back entirely to the fee owners and would then be private property." Mr. Gardiner provided the Planning Commission with the history of the garage/alley situation. He noted that he has been trying to solve the problem by asking for the consent of the neighbors. Mr. Gardiner stated that he has been unable to obtain any response from his neighbors. - 6 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 #1551 ROBERT WAAOE 998 WILDHURST TRAIL PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:55 P.M. TO 8:15 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Waade were present. Mabusth provided a review of the information regarding this subdivision (see Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated July 10, 1990). Mabusth noted that the City is nov/ asking the property owners abutting the existing sewer line to consider granting the City a utility easement She stated that the City has concerns regarding the road design because it terminates at the property line of a new lot and will not allow adequate area for snow maintenance and sewer lines that are located out of the right-of-way. She said that the City will also ask for 5'to 8' of easement to cover snow maintenance needs and access to sev/er lines. Ms. Barbara Kosch asked whether it would be possible to have all other utilities installed along the south side of l.’ildhurst Trail. Ivelley asked whether it would be appropriate for the City to require that electric, gas, etc. be located along the south side of the road. Mabusth replied that though it has not been done before, this situation is unusual in that the existing neighboring property owners are being asked to dedicate property for road and utility easements. Mr. Waade pointed out that the utility lines would have to go through the wetlands if they are placed on the south side. One of the neighbors indicated that currently the underground phone and cable lines are located along the south side of Wildhurst Trail. Mr. Waade indicated that he would have no objections to placing the utilities along the south side. Kelley said, "In light of on-going problem we seem to have with creeping hardcover percentages, I would like the resolution to include language that would prohibit any of these new houses from being granted hardcover variances in the future." Mabusth noted that the applicant's engineer is being asked to include hardcover percentages for each lot on the grading plan. She said that maximum hardcover percentages will be recorded for each lot. Mr. Chris Morgart asked how far north the width of the road will extend. - 7 - iSmm ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1551-WAADE CONTINUED Mabusth replied that the developer does not intend to extend the road any further north than it is presently. Ms. Kosch stated that Nancy Carlson had expressed concerns regarding drainage across her property. Mabusth said that though she was not previously aware of Ms. Carlson's concerns, she would have the developer review these concerns. Rowlette stated that she had walked the property and could not see how the third house will be constructed due to che steep slopes of the land directly adjacent to a flood plain area. Mr. Rudnicki said that the area will be filled somewhat and that retaining walls will be used to minimize the amount of fill required. Mabusth asked Mr. Rudnicki how high the retaining walls are proposed to be. Mr. Rudnicki estimated that the retaining walls will be approximately 7' to 9'. There were no additional comments from the public and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval of the Preliminary Subdivision for Robert Waade, as well as the lot width variances required for Lots 1 and 2, subject to staff conditions 1 through 7. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. #1553 MICHAEL PIERCE 480 DEBORAH DRIVE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:20 P.M. TO 8:25 P.K. Mr. Pierce was present for this Public Hearing. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mabusth asked Mr. monuments be located. Pierce how far from the road will the Mr. Pierce replied that the monuments will be 30' from the road. Mr. Bob Biesterfeld, 450 Deborah Drive, stated that the Deborah Drive Homeowner's Association has submitted a letter in opposition to this proposal. - 8 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE 11553-PIERCE CONTINUED Ms. Johanna Heggelman asked v/hether the City had specific requirements as to hov/ far from the property line the monuments must be located. Mabusth replied that the monuments would be considered accessory structures, and as such, must be 10' from the lot line. There were no additional public comments and the Public Hearing was closed. Kelley stated that he has consistently recommended denial of driveway monuments and would not vote differently this evening. Mr. Biesterfeld stated that allowing 7' monuments at this time may facilitate a future request for a 7' fence. He said that having a 7' fence along his property line would decrease the value of his property. Ms. Heggelman did not like the aspect of viewing a 7' high monument from her house. Rowlette noted that Mr. Pierce's house sits far back from the road in the woods. She asked why the lights on the monuments are necessary. Mr. Pierce replied that there are no street lights end the monument lights will help to define his driveway at night. Johnson asked Mr. Pierce whether he had given any consideration to reducing the size of the monuments. Mr. Pierce stated that monuments the size he is proposing are not uncommon in Orono. He also noted that he intended to plant white pines behind the monuments to screen them from the neighbors. Rowlette stated that she did not favor Mr. Pierce's proposal. She said that these monuments impact the neighbors more than other monuments she has seen in Orono. Johnson indicated that he has been inclined to look favorably on driveway monuments unless there is public concern. He said in this case the neighbors have made their views known and they oppose the proposal. Bellows concurred with the comments made by Rowlette and Johnson. She stated that the posts are massive and solid in appearance, rather than being a simple post. Cohen noted that should Mr. Pierce revise his plan to construct monuments no more than 3^}' , he would not need a - 9 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1553-PIERCE CONTINUED variance. He believed that 3^5' posts would serve to define the driveway equally as well as 7' posts will. There were no additional comments from the public and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows- to recommend denial of the height and street setback variances to construct monuments at 480 Deborah Drive, due to a lack of hardship. Motion, Ayes-5, Mays-0. Motion carried. #1554 TIMOTHY GRAMENTZ 4680 NORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:38 P.M. TO 10:39 P.M. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to table this application until the applicant and/or a representative are present. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. #1556 GERALD NELSON 1629 BOHNS POINT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. TO 8:37 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Nelson were present. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed his memo dated July 9, 1990 pertaining to this application. Mr. Nelson explained that the excess hardcover areas were installed prior to his purchase of the property. He said, "We v/ere given a Certificate of Occupancy in 1987 when we purchased the property. At that time, the City did not advise us that hardcover exceeded what had been allowed by a previous resolution. It is odd that the City approved a 3-car garage for this property when it v/as not possible to construct a driveway large enough to serve all three stalls. Also, in order to stay within the confines of allov/ed hardcover, it would not be possible to have a front walkway or steps. I do not understand what happened in 1985 when the house was constructed. Vie do need additional storage area because we do not have a basement." Rowlette stated that she would find it difficult to hold the Nelsons responsible for the builder's violations. She also said that the driveway and sidewalks that now exist are appropriate for the house and that it is hard to find areas that could be removed. She noted that the hardcover calculations presented do not include the landscaping around the house. Rowlette stated that she had looked at the landscaping on the north side of the - 10 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1556-NELSON CONTINUED house and fiber glass exists under the rock. There v/ere no comments from the public regarding this matter and the Public Hearing v/as closed. Bellows sympathized with the property owners, but found it difficult to approve an increase of the hardcover on this property. It v/«s moved by Bellows, seconded by Johnson, to recommend denial of application #1556, due to a lack of hardship and the fact that there is presently excessive hardcover on this property. Motion, Ayes-3, Cohen, Rowlette, Nay. Motion carried. #1557 MIKE CULLEN 2700 PHEASANT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:42 P.M. TO 8:45 P.M. Mr. Greg Peterson, of Peterson Pools, was present on behalf of the applicant. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron summarized the information presented in his memo dated July 10, 1990 regarding this application. Kelley asked how much hardcover v/ould exist if the landscaping plastic is not removed. Kelley believed that the plastic may be removed nov;, but would be put back again in the future. Gaffron stated that the rock and plastic are approximately 1430 s.f. He said 1% of hardcover in this area is equivalent to 200 s.f. and would mean an increase of 7% to 34% in the 75-250' zone. Cohen referred to the letter that had been received from Mr. Cullen's neighbor, Sarah Dale expressing her support for the project. Johnson asked whether the water surface of the pool is now considered to be hardcover. Gaffron stated that it has been a consistent policy of the City to consider only the patio around a pool as hardcover. There were no comments from the public and the Public Hearing was closed. It v/as moved by Johnson, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend - 11 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1557-CULLEN CONTINUED approval of the hardcover and average setback variances to construct a pool. Plastic is to be removed, reducing hardcover in the 75-250' zone to 26.3%. Motion, Ayes-3, Kelley, Nay, Cohen abstained. Motion carried. #1559 AND #1560 JOHN & ROBERTA HENRICH 4125 HIGHWOOD ROAD VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:49 P.M. TO 9:07 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Henrich were present. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed the information regarding application #1559 (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated July 12, 1990). Mr. Henrich advised Gaffron that he did not intenc to turn the area between areas "F" and "G" (see Exhibit F) into hardcover. Kelley asked Mr. Henrich whether he would consider a recommendation that would require him to maintain the percent of hardcover at 43.6. Rowlette asked why the access to the garage is not direct rather than how it is proposec through areas "G", "D" and "F". Mr. Henrich explained that he wishes to maintain a storage area under the garage and to do so. must access it from that side. Kelley asked Mr. Henrich whether he could remove portions of area "D". He said, "It is difficult for me to consider additional hardcover on this property when there is such a large blacktopped area." Johnson, Bellows, Cohen and Rowlette indicated that they concurred with Kelley. Mr. Henrich stated that he would be willing to keep hardcover at a maximum of 43.6% and would reduce the garage to 750 s.f. to eliminate the need for a street setback variance. Rowlette questioned whether the lot combination must occur prior to a building permit being issued. Gaffron advised that the lot combination occur He said, "All hardcover calculations are based on the lots being combined, and the garage must end up on a lot containing a principal structure." - 12 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILES #1559 & 11560-HENRICH CONTINUED There were no comments from the public regarding application #1559 and Kelley closed the Public Hearing. It wcs moved by Johnson, seconded by Kelley, to recommend approval of the hardcover variance to construct a detached garage no larger than 750 s.f., as well as additions to the existing residence, provided that hardcover in the 75-250' zone remain at 43.6%. It is further recommended that the lakeshore setback variance be approved. Kelley advised the Henrichs that should they intend to put landscaping plastic and rock anywhere on the property, it will be necessary to remove hardcover from elsewhere on the property. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. Kelley opened the Public Hearing for application #1560. Gaffron noted that the issue of whether one or two retaining walls is necessary has yet to be determined by the City Engineer. Kelley stated that he is indifferent as to whether or not hardcover should be reduced as long as the retaining walls are constructed to provide maximum safety and erosion control. There were no public comments and the Public Hearing was continued. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Rowlette, to table application #1560. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. #1561 CHRISTINE BECK 3820 CHERRY AVENUE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:38 P.M. TO 10:39 P.M. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to table this item until the applicant and/or a representative are present. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. #1563 MAURENE & JERRY DENZEL 1295 ELMWOOD AVENUE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:07 P.M. TO 9:20 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Denzel were present. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Hailing were duly noted. Mabusth summarized the information in her memo dated July 13, 1990 pertaining to this application. Kelley noted that the 1.49% increase in hardcover is mainly due to the relocation of the garage for safety purposes. Kelley asked whether the hardcover calculations include landscaping. - 13 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1563-DENZEL CONTINUED Mabusth replied that the only areas not included in the hardcover calculations are the overhang and the cement wall along the property line. Mabusth also noted that the applicants have j^0stored and continue to maintain the City's unimproved right— of-v/ay. Rowlette noted that there are other areas of the City's right-of-way that have not been attended to. Sh« asked whether there is anything that can be done. Mabusth stated that though the property is located in the road right-of-way, it is usually the responsibility of the property owner to maintain it. Mabusth said that this area is unique and that the problem may v/arrant City staff to look further at the situation. Kelley asked Mr. and Mrs. Denzel if they could maintain the hardcover percentage as it is currently. Mrs. Denzel replied that they have discussed that possibility and have been unable to find removable hardcover. She stated that part of the rock wall along the property line can be removed, though it has not been determined how much must remain to control erosion. Kelley asked whether it would be possible for the City to vacate the fire lane. Mabusth was uncertain, but did not believe that would be an option. Kelley stated that the fire lane should be credited to the Denzel's property because they have improved and maintain it. There were no public comments and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback, side setback and hardcover variances to construct additions to the existing residence and relocate a detached garage. Kelley noted that he viev/s the fire lane as an extension of the property and the increase in hardcover is justified by the increased safety provided by relocating the garage. Motion, Ayes-4, Cohen, Nay. Motion carried. Cohen believed that hardcover should be kept at the existing percent. - 14 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 #1565 LEESA ft RICHARD ANDERSON 3205 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:21 P.M. TO 9:50 P.M. Mr. Anderson was present. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron briefly reviewed the information regarding this application (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated July 13, 1990). Gaffron noted that Mr. Anderson has a comprehensive landscape plan for the property v/hich indicates it will result in a net decrease of hardcover to 31.7% in the 75-250'. However, there is fabric proposed under the rockbeds which must be included in the hardcover calculation, resulting in 36.3%. Kelley notec that neither of the structures on this property have a garage. Gaffron stated that there is no garage and showed where the parking areas are located on the property. He said, "The rear parking area abuts the Dakota Rail right-of-way. If I am not mistaken, Dakota Rail has begun the process of re-claiming its right-of-way areas within the City of Minnetonka Beach." Councilmember Callahan stated that he too had heard of Dakota Rail's reclamation of their right-of-way areas. He said that it may result in the inability of persons living on Crystal Bay Road to access their properties from the rear. Kelley asked Mr. Anderson if anyone is currently renting the other house structure. Mr. Anderson replied that the other structure is used for an office and storage area. Kelley questioned whether the office use may warrant the need to have Mr. Anderson apply for a home occupation license. Gaffron replied that he that and Mr. Anderson have discussed the potential need for a Conditional Use Permit for the guest house. He said that this was the first he had heard of the structure being used for an office. Mr. Anderson stated that he manages the Wayzata Yacht Club and that he takes phone calls at his home office. He said that he does not have people coming and going. Bellows asked Gaffron whether he had received the information regarding the elevations for the sun porch as he requested from Mr. Anderson. - 15 - ORONO PLANNING COflMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1565-RICHARD ANDERSON CONTINUED Gaffron replied negatively, noting that he was also concerned about grading and drainage in this area and questioned whether retaining v/alls would be constructed in the rear yard. Gaffron noted that Mr. Anderson's landscape architect had not shown retaining walls on the plan submitted, and it is assumed that the property will be graded smooth. Mr. Anderson said, "This plan is very preliminary. Mike suggested that I have a comprehensive plan drawn to show all of the improvements I intend to make and how hardcover v/ill be affected." Kelley asked Mr. Anders ;n why he had not come forward with his application prior to this time. Mr. Anderson replied, "I don't know. One of the reasons is that the application fee is $350.00. I also had difficulty in getting the hardcover calculations completed the way the City asked them to be. The landscape plan also took some time to prepare." Mr. Timothy Schupp, 3215 Crystal Bay Road, stated that he has a small lot and that his house more than likely does not meet the current side setbacks. He expressed concern regarding encroachment of Mr. Anderson's decks into the the side setback area. Bellows asked what specifically it is that Mr. Anderson is asking the City to approve. Gaffron stated that in addition the after-the-fact deck, Mr. Anderson is planning to construct a future three season porch, screen porch, and to add on to an existing deck. Bellows stated that there was not sufficient documentation to address anything but the after-the-fact variance for the deck. Rowlette stated that the portion of the deck on the side of the property is very wide. Kelley asked how much hardcover would exist on the property if the deck v/ere removed. Gaffron stated that hardcover would be approximately 42.6%. Rowlette asked how wide the deck would be along the side if it were re-constructed to meet the 10' setback. Gaffron stated that the house is located more than 10' from the lot line. He said if the deck is lowered so that a raiiing is not needed, the deck can be located 2' from the lot line. - 16 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1S65-RICHARD ANDERSON CONTINUED Johnson suggested that the applicant be required to meet the 10' side setback and that he reduce hardcover to the percentage that existed prior to the deck being constructed. Gaffron stated that the City has no definite record of the hardcover that existed prior to the deck being constructed. Mr. Anderson stated that he has pictures of the property. Jo-inson also advised Mr. Anderson that the normal application fee at the time of his deck construction was $150.00. He said that it is now $350.00 because of his failure to obtain a permit. Mr. Anderson stated that he had previously constructed a deck without being required to obtain a permit. He reiterated his explanation for why he was presenting a comprehensive plan for the property at this time. Kelley indicated that the Planning Commission would consider the other structures in the plan when Mr. Anderson was ready to proceed with the project. Mr. Anderson stated that he is ready to proceed with the plan and that hardcover on the property would be reduced to 31.7%. Gaffron suggested that the Planning Commission could exclude the three season porch and deck additions from consideration at this time. He said that Mr. Anderson v/ould have to come back to the City if the future structures require variances. He stated that the Planning Commission could recommend a certain hardcover percent that must be maintained and allow staff to work with Mr. Anderson to work within that. Gaffron stated that it is difficult to separate the various hardcover issues involved with this property and that a comprehensive site plan may be the most appropriate means to resolving the issues. Bellows said that Gaffron's proposal was fair, but that Mr. Anderson had not submitted all of the information that he was asked to provide. There were no additional comments from the public and Kelley continued the Public Hearing. It was moved by Johnson to recommend that the deck conform to the side setback variance by either reducing the width of deck, which would require railings to be placed on the portions exceeding 30", or lowering the deck. It is further recommended that hardcover on the property be reduced to 42.6% which existed prior to the deck being constructed. Gaffron noted that due to - 17 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1565-RICHARD ANDERSON CONTINUED the proximity of the neighboring property, Mr. Anderson cannot opt to increase the grade under the deck. After some discussion of the ramifications of asking Mr. Anderson to bring the deck into conformance, Johnson withdrew his motion. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Kelley, to table application #1565. Motion, Ayes-3, Cohen, Rowlette, Nays. Motion carried. #1566 DR. ft MRS. THOMAS REGNIER 1205 ELMWOOD AVENUE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:55 P.M. TO 10:02 P.M. Dr. and Mrs. Regnier and Mr. Dale Mulfinger, Architect, were present. Gaffron explained the proposal being presented (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated July 10, 1990). Mr. Mulfinger stated that the plan proposed this evening will make the most of the existing layout of the house. 'owlette asked whether a floor plan had been submitted with the application. Mrs. Regnier provided a copy of the floor plan. Kelley asked Gaffron whether staff had been able to verify that the surveyor had included all existing hardcoyer in the calculations provided. Kelley noted that the information indicates that there is no hardcover on the north side of the property. Rowlette noted that there is a fenced area on the north side of the garage that does not show on the plans. Gaffron replied that he has reviewed the surveyor's calculations but did not take the time at the site to verify each item shown. Gaffron stated that due to the bulk of applications, staff no longer can spend a great amount of time re-checking surveyor's hardcover calculations. Especially when those calculations use standard City forms and appear complete. He said that the City is going to have to rely more on the applicants and their surveyors to provide accurate information. consider She also Rowlette asked the applicants if they would removing the fencing on the north side of the garage, noted that there is a section of fence missing. Dr. and Mrs. Regnier indicated that they do not use the fenced area and would consider removing it. - 18 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE 11566-REGNIER CONTINUED There were no comments from the public and the Public Hearing was closed. Rowlette reiterated her suggestion to have the one portion of fencing removed and the other section filled in. She also suggested that plantings be placed along the road where the addition will be located to lessen the visual impact. Rowlette agreed that the proposed location of the addition is the most logical. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend approval of the side street setback variance to construct additions to an existing residence, provided that hardcover is maintained at or below 25% and that the fence along the north side of the garage be removed ind plantings be placed to screen the addition from the street. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. #1567 ROBERT & LOUANN POWELL 2916 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:08 P.M. TO 10:12 P.M. The applicants' contractor was present on their benalf. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron summarized the information in his memo dated July 12, 1990 pertaining to this application. He noted that one of the applicants' neighbors had contacted him and expressed concern regarding the boat canopy and other issues unrelated to the deck. Rowlette stated that the configuration of the deck seemed odd in relation to the existing patio and tree. Applicants’ contractor stated that the applicants preferred to have the tree located in the middle of the deck. He also said that the proposed configuration will allow more light into the lower level of the house. There were no public comments pertaining to this application and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recommend that hardcover remain at 41.8%. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback variance ct 13 feet. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. - 19 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 #1568 JAMES & JUDITH PIERPONT 1801 WEST FARM ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 10:15 P.M. TO 10:23 P.M. Mr. Pierpont was present for this Public Hearing. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mabusth reviewed the information presented in her July 11» 1990 memo regarding this application. Mabusth informed Mr. Pierpont that she has recently been advised that there are no footings under the stable. Bellows stated that in her opinion, if there are no footings, she would recommend that the structures either be relocated or re-constructed to meet the required setback. Mr. Pierpont stated that he would have no problem moving the structures one foot to conform to the street setback. However, it would be impossible to move them 30' to conform to the side setback. Bellows indicated that it may be side setback that would be a compromise. possible to establish a Rowlette stated that she ioes not object to the present location of the structures bee .e of the existing screening and support for the proposal expressed by the neighbor. KelJey stated that until it is confirmed that there are or are not any footings, the matter should be tabled. Mabusth suggested that the Planning Commission may wish to give Mr. Pierpont some direction in the event footings are not found to exist. Mr. Pierpont questioned whether he structures and put a foundation beneath them. could raise the There were no public comments regarding this matter and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Kelley, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and setback variances to convert a stable into a guest house and attach it to an existing garage. The structures will have no negative impact on the neighbor and the hardship is the lack of area adequate to relocate them. If no footings are found to exist, the applicant may raise the structures and place a foundation beneath them without having to relocate them. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. - 20 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990#1569 SAN MCCLOUD 4280 BAYSIDE ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:25 P.M. TO 10:37 P.M. Mr. Neil Weber, Architect for the McClouds, was present on their behalf. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mabusth summarized the pertinent information relating to this application. She noted that staff has received the result of septic testing, indicating that there is adequate and suitable soils to support two mound systems to serve an eight bedroom home. Mabusth stated that eight bedrooms is the maximum capacity allowed for a mound septic system. Mabusth said that she has asked Gaffron whether it would be appropriate to have two mound septic systems constructed to serve this 10 bedroom house. Kelley asked where the water from the indoor pool would be drained when it was necessary to do so. Mabusth stated that the pool cannot be drained into the septic system. Gaffron stated that Kelley's question would apply to every swimming pool that has been constructed in the City of Orono and assume^ ♦^.lat pools are drained onto the lawn. Bellows questioned whether the Planning Commission should consider access into the house in relation to the "servant's quarters" and the potential guest apartment use. Mabusth replied that in this case, there is no kitchen provided for this area of the house. She noted that the applicants have been placed on notice that should a kitchen be installed in the future a conditional use permit will be required. Mr. Weber explained that the purpose of this area is to provide living space for the t^xtended family and any live-in help that the McClouds may employ. With respect to the septic systems, Mr. Weber said, "We don't believe that we would exceed the 1200 gallons/eight bedroom capacity for one system. We are suggesting that such a limit be part of the approval of this application. The McClouds would be willing to have a meter to monitor the use." Gaffron replied that the issue is whether to consider that there will always be one person per bedroom or potentially two. Septic system standard design criteria are based on two persons per bedroom. - 21 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE 11569-MCCLOUD CONTINUED ,, , , Kelley noted that a house such as this will lend itself well to entertainment. He did not believe that they should deviate from the criteria provided in the Septic Code. Bellows suggested that two systems would be appropriate and that each system would not have to be designed to handle the maximum capacity. Mr. Weber stated that he would be willing to work with Mike to meet whatever septic requirements are necessary. Kelley asked whether any concerns have been expressed cy Mr. Parten. Mr. Weber indicated that he has talked with Mr. Parten and he indicated that he did not oppose the proposal. Mr. Weber also noted that the retaining wall will not be 12', but will be approximately 5' to 6'. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval of the front and street setback variances to construct a new residence for Sam and Kelly McClouu. The hardships are the elevations of the property and the location of mature oak trees. The septic issues must be addressed prior to the review of this application by Council. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays~0. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-JUNE 18, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Kelley, to approve the minutes of the June 18, 1990 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Planning Commissioner attend the August 13, 1990 Council Meeting. Bellows would ADJOURNMENT 10:40 P.M. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to adjourn the July 16, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. - 22 - r MllVnUEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387. Wayzata. Minnesota 55391 MAan ns itsMAfiaiS- James R Soenslevi Pres • John E Thomas • R»charO R Miller cUsoo Linciey > Thomas Macie.^ iSUilLj July 25, 1990 i 1990 TO: : RE: Interested Citizens 3989 Annual Report Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed is a copy of the Annual Report of the Minnehaha Cr^ek wiLrshed District for 1989^ '^3^^ questions regarding the District’s aotyities, please fee. to contact any member of the Board of Managers. Very truly yours. ■jar^ R. Spensley, President Board of Manageis . Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ALPS105(8) MTNNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1989 July, 1990 tntrqductioh This Annual Report of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District provides a summary of the major activities of the Board ^crntlc? THF HAMAnFRS AND MEETING-IWEQBHAIIQM As of De-ember 1989, the Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District were as follows: Robert Erickson Albert L. Lehman 2300 McKenzie Pt. Road Wayzata, MN 55391 3604 West Sunrise Drive Minnetonka, MN 55345 Clarkson W. Lindley 15500 Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 53391 C. Woodrow Love Richard R. Miller James R. Spensley John E. Thomas p. 0. Box 524 Excelsior, MN 55331 5340 Hollywood Road Edina, MN 55436 5117 Chicago Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55417 6326 Smithtown Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Term Expires March 8, 1990 Term Expires* March 8, 1991 Term Expires March 8, 1992 Term Expires March 8, 1992 Term Expires March 8, 1991 Term Expires March 8, 1990 Term Expires March 8, 1992 The officers for 1989 were: James R. Spensley C. Woodrow Love John E. Thomas Albert L. Lehman President Vice President Secretary Treasurer During 1989, twelve regular meetings were held by the Managers on the third Thursday of every month at 7:30 regulatory activity in 1989 requited four additional special meetings of the Managers. •Manager Lehman moved out of the District effective March 1990. He -as replaced by year Managers Spensley and Erickson were reappoxnted to new th y terms in March 1990. I?- The Managers exchanged information with other governmental units affected by the programs and policies of the District, and honored requests to attend meetings of municipal, county, and state officials as well as meetings of interested citizens. The Managers received support and assistance from the Hennepin and Carver County Boards of Commissioners through the year which greatly assisted the District in carrying out its programs during 1989. The Managers continued to work during 1989 with other organizations concerned with water resource issues. Manager Miller served on the Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force and the Board of Managers heard reports from the executive director of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District concerning this problem weed, and other issues concerning Lake Minnetonka. Manager Lehman and the District Engineer served on the Technical Committee of the Hennepin Conservation District to develop uniform erosion control guidelines. The Board participated in the activities of the Metropolitan Area section of the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts, and in the deliberations of the annual state-wide meeting of the Association. The Managers supplied copies of minutes of all meetings and reports to interested citizens and to public officials throughout the District. Copies of the 1988 report were filed with the Minnesota Water Resources Board, the Department of Natural Resources, the Boards of County Commissioners of Hennepin and Carver Counties, and with State Senators and Representatives from the area withiri the District. PERMIT APPLICATIONS The District received 207 permit applications during 1989. Each application was reviewed in detail for compliance with the District’s rules. Applications were received for projects such as dredging, shoreline erosion protection, stream and lake crossings, wetland and floodplain alteration, and stormwater management plans for site development. Prior to action on the applications, the District sta,.- spent considerable effort with city staff and/or applicants to bring some of the proposed projects into compliance with District rules. A summary of the permits reviewed by the Board in 1989 is attached to this report as Appendix A, showing the project location and type of application received. As in previous years, a large majority of the applications received were from the Lake Minnetonka portion of the watershed district, reflecting the continuing urbanization of this area of the District, and an increase in the number of dredging applications. - 2 - All permits issued by the District require compliance with applicable municipal ordinances and, if the permit involves docking on Lake Minnetonka, the applicable ordinances of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. In addition, permits issued by the watershed district require compliance with any applicable rules of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The Board of Managers also took action as necessary concerning complaints, permit violations, and activities which had been undertaken without a required permit from the District. HYDROLOGIC DATA COLLECTION The District continued its Hydrologic Data Collection Program during 1909. The data for 1988 were published in the Annual Hydrologic Data Report in July 1909. This is a comprehensive program, which, along with data from other agencies, has formed a long-term data bank for use in managing the water resources of the District, particularly Lake Minnetonka and the Minneapolis city lakes. Copies of this report were submitted to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil R-sources, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Natural Resources, the Fresh Water Biological Institute, and local government officials, citizens' groups, and interested citizens. No major changes in water quality occurred during 1989 in Lake Minnetonka, and stream quality in the District also remained essentially unchanged from the prior year. HEAl’IfAIEBJLJDAM-.AHQ. CONTROL STRUCTURE (GRAY*S BAY)__AND_JAKE MINNETONKA ELEVATIONS/MINWEHAHA CREEK FLOWS During 1989, the District operated the Headwaters Control Structure at Gray's Bay u-.ider the management policy and operational plan as reapproved by the Department of Natural Resources in March 1906. The District's application to rer*w the permit for the control structure remained pending before DNR in 1909. Due to exceptionally low precipitation during 1989, and abnormally dry conditions throughout the summer, the level of Lake Minnetonka remained low and the control structure remained closed throughout the year. Lake Minnetonka reached a low elevation of 926.00 on November 3, and a high elevation of 928.20 on April 18. Due to the low lake level (below the established discharge elevation of 928.6), no discharge from the Headwaters Control Structure occurred. The Managers continued to rely heavily upon participation of each of the municipalities on Minnehaha Creek in recording creek elevations and flows and reporting that data to the District. The District prepared monthly summarie*: of this data during the open water season and made the summaries available to interested municipalities and citizens. The assistance of each of the municipalities is invaluable to the District in making the necessary operational adjustments to accomplish the management objectives of the Headwaters Control Structure. - 3 - I WATKBRHFD MANAGEMENT PLANMIMG: CHAETEB__^5 During 1909, the District's proposed Chapter 509 Surface Water Management Plan was before Hennepin County for review, along with a proposed agreement concerning financing of the Capital Improvement Program. The District forwarded the Chapter 509 Plan to the Metropolitan Council for its review in March 1990 ftFVTSTON OF THE DISTRICT*S RULES In April 1989, the District adopted revisions to Rule E concerning dredging, and adopted Rule K providing for licensing of dredging contractors. These revisions were adopted following extensive meetings by the Board's Rules Committee, input from District staff and members of the public, and a public hearing on April 20, 1989. The changes to Rule E arose from the District’s experience with compliance problems and the need for more specific criteria concerning hydraulic dredging. Specifically, the revisions address hydraulic dredging standards, requirements for submission of soil boring logs, protection against seepage and subsurface drainage, the steepness of slopes in dredging projects necessary to avoid frequent re-dredging, and the use of silt curtains. Rule K requires the licensing of dredging contractors who perform projects in larger "priority" lakes within the District. The District had been concerned with unuermitted and unfeasible dredging projects performed in the past, and determined that the licensing of contractors is a reasonable and necessary means to ensure that projects are performed by qualified, dredging contractors in compliance with District rules. Rule K was also intended to protect consumers from enaaging dredging contractors who do not have the necessary and proper equipment to perform the project. OTHER DISTRICT PROJECTS AND COWCERMS At the request of the City of Shorewood and the Village of Tonka Bay, the District studied the feasibility of various alternative remedies to a persistent drainage problem at the intersection of Glen Road and County Road 19. The District Engineer continued with additional hydrologic analysis in 1989, recommending a number of drainage improvements in this subwatershed area to be submitted for review by the City of Shorewood. Manager Spensley met extensively in 1989 with officials from the City of Minneapolis to review plans for storm sewer and paving projects near the intersection of 42nd Street and Bloomington Avenue, and Sibley Park. The District entered into a contract with the City in 1989 to perform a hydrologic analysis for this project, known as the HEC II study, which was completed in May 1990. - 4 - The District began a monitoring program in 1989 as Phase I of a project to abate non-point source pollution of Long Lake. The District began this project in cooperation with the Cities of Orono and Long Lake, Hennepin County, and other interested parties pursuant to a Clean Water Partnership Grant with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Phase I of the project will be completed in 1990. 1990 BUDGET As required by law, the nagers held a duly noticed public hearing on September 28, 1989 concerning the proposed budgets for the District’s Administrative Fund, Management Planning Fund, Water Maintenance and Repair Fund, and Survey and Data Acquisition Fund. Following the public hearing, the Managers adopted budgets for 1990 for these funds and certified tax levies to Hennepin and Carver counties for collection. FIHAWCIAL RECORDS The financial records of the District are kept by a certified public accountant. All financial transactions are recorded in the minutes of the District’s meetings. The Treasurer of the District maintained separate records for the following four funds in 1989: (1) The Administrative Fund; (2) The Management Planning Fund; (3) The Water Maintenance and Repair Fund; and (4) The Survey and Data Acquisition Fund. Records for each of these funds include the dates and amounts of all expenditures, the names of individuals receiving payment, and the purposes for which payment is made. The official depository for the District is the wayzata State Bank, in Wayzata, Minnesota. During 1989, the financial records of the District were audited for the year 1988 and a copy of the audit was filed with the State Auditor for the State of Minnesota in April, 1989. A copy of the combined statement of revenue and expenditures for the year 1989 is attached to this report as Appendix B, and a copy of the complete financial statement is available upon request. Respectfully submitted. James R. Spensley, President Board ot Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ALPS105 - 5 - > ( MUNICIPALITY CHANHASSEN DEEPHAVEN EDINA EXCELSIOR GOLDEN VALLEY GREENWOOD HOPKINS INDEPENDENCE lAKETOWN TWP. LONG LAKE MAPLE PLAIN MEDINA MINNETONKA MINNEAPOLIS MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA MOUND ORONO PLYMOUTH RICHFIELD ST. BONIFACIUS ST. LOUIS PARK SHOREWOOD SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA NAYZATA WOODLAND 1989 PERMIT Ar*‘-LICATIONS TYPE OF PERMIT 14 4 1 1 2 10 2 1 12 13 2 8 7 13 TOTAL 8 4 2 4 0 12 3 1 0 0 2 1 22 4 1 10 21 37 4 0 0 9 15 3 15 14 13 2 TOTAL PERMITS 68 207 PERMIT APPLICATION CATEGORIES B» STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS C- FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION D- WETLAND ALTERATION E- DREDGING F- SHORELINE IMPROVEMENT G- STREAM AND LAKE CROSSING EXHIBIT A Associates L td . HIKCmi^ OSEK WIB5ED ISSim GDflDG) SDOBEKT OF REVDCE, BQSCDUES inZI/VOACIUAL RX HE ^ BCE) EE2SR 31. 1969 ttSBlE te SflCtlanaxs (Mxs 2) LttDBBC cd Oder OOEBOnUCS E^dt&lagicBl Qdlactiai Sbiletjcn Adtainis^eciai Srmairinl. Sn>lia & tUling Aoooxcing ml AiUtlns BiginBBdrg Gssol Byraeclng, Ftenit iWiew ftjginBBdng. CcnpLaiita & Vinlacifra Sarvioes ttewiyn tar Diaa & D^anaea RW<r<Wiini Oder fto jBCts ItaODnool Stneaie taixxaanoe Qbc Apl^catioi B obx I Irririatiiri taojsxs Bgoeas (CHrimy) of taveiJBS (Xer Bqanditixes Utter Sxwjr and Hdncmmz CUa Dxal AUiilsaaci^e FLamuig ml Repair AiyiLdtlm All Rid Rxd Rid Rid Rida 1989 BdB^ Actual Ouer (Ihder) Budstt $ 125,336 $1U.6SZ $17,036 $ $ 254,066 $ 252,500 S 1.556 6,123 3,295 2,668 3.647 U,733 17,733 133.461 114,977 19,7)4 3,647 271,789 252.500 19,289 25,606 25,605 24,000 1,605 24,495 3,3a 27,876 24,000 3,a6 2,115 2,U5 2,5D ( 385) 6,427 1.5CD 9.927 8,300 1,427 27,109 53,9U a,020 64,000 17,020 54.699 54,899 40,000 14,899 14,467 6.182 20,649 8,000 12,649 59,878 12,072 71,950 40,000 a,990 10,242 10,242 12,500 ( 2.258) 73 12,500 ( 12,430) 1,500 ( 1.500) 1,143 1,143 20,500 1,143 ( 20.500) 201,71 102.651 1,143 305,496 $ 258,000 $ 47.496 S ( 6B.»1) $ 12,326 S W.TDfc $ 2.SCX. S( 33,737) SE K7QS ID FINVOAL SmBCNS EXHIBIT B LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA D ,ip 7:30 a.m., Saturday, August 11, 1990 JIIBlc,.JJ n Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road AUG 6 1990 1. License renewals: A. Clay Cliffe Home Owners Association license renewal and temporary low water variance application to extend to 100 feet with a change in configuration to acommodate canopies. B. Eagle Bluff license renewal. 2. Letter from Minnesota Transportation Museum regarding plans to restore and float the 1906 streetcar steamboat Minnehaha for public passenger service on Lake Minnetonka, for committee discussion. 3. Staff recommendation for refund of 1990 license application fee to Lyle Berman. 4. Staff report on dock license and temporary low water variance inspections 5. Deicing a, cation progress status. 6. Additional items recommended by the committee. ENVIRONMENT 1. Weed harvest progress reports July 23-27 and July 30-August 3. 2. Equipment performance update. 3. Overview of the operations to date. 4. Additional items recommended by the committee. 8-3-90 M Wednesday Saturday Saturday Friday Monday Wednesday 7-27-90 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 473-7033 L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE August 1990 A cavcP rqcNO [lESQ^H JUL 3 0 M90 1 Advisory Conunittee, Management Plan 5:30 p.m. Tonka Bay City Hall Public Officials Lake Tour 10:00 a.m. Lafayette Club docks Water Structures & Environment Committee 7:30 a.m. Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 a.m. Freshwater Foundation Navarre Lake Use Committee 4:30 p.m. Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road LMCD Board of Director's Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m. Tonka Bay City Hall LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ADVISORY COmiTTEE Meeting Notice Si3D pmi Wednesdayi August li mO I Tonka Bay City Hall ■ With sufficient progress being made-, this could be the last review meeting- The July Ifl meeting discussed the Board make up- A revised objective on that recommendation will be presented- Appointed vs- elected board members was also discussed at length- New city issues will be discussed which have not been covered during the Uayzata-. Orono-. and Woodland reviews- A revised set of objectives on funding and tax levy procedures will be presented- Since this is likely to be the last Advisory Committee meeting to consider public comment before submitting to the LMCD Board-, agency representatives are encouraged to attend as well as all LMCD Board members- 7-27-90 League of Minnesota Cities 183 University Ave. East St. Paul. MN 55101-2526 (612) 227-5600 (FAX: 221-0986) July 23, 1990 •JOL 2 3 1090 To: Mayors, Managers, Clerks, Council (% Clerk) From: Darlyne Lang, Director, Conference/Building Subj: 1991 Conference Planning Committee If you were one of the {f87 municipal officials who attended the League's annual conference last month, you know what a terrific job the Conference Planning Committee did in putting together the program for 1990. As a city official, you have an opportunity to make a valued contribution to planning the League's 1991 annual conference. Your firsthand knowledge of the problems confronting city government can provide the insight needed in planning programs to benefit other municipal officials. It's important that we have representation from cities of all sizes. In addition to maintaining the continuity and knowledge provided by previous committee members, we need new views and input from new members. This past year we had an excellent response. To accommodate as many as possible, we must limit the representation to one per city, while maintaining some previous committee members along with new members. The Conference Planning Committee will convene this fall, meeting five or six times prior to the conference. The meetings are initially scheduled monthly, 2-3 hours in length, with the final meeting held at the conference. The 1991 conference is scheduled for June 11-14, at the Rochester Mayo Civic Center in Rochester. If you are interested in becoming a member of the Conference Planning Committee, or if anyone in your city has an interest, please complete the attached form and mail it to my attention. Your participation is welcomed. [ MAIL TO: Darlyne Lang League of Minnesota Cities 183 University Avenue East St. Paul, MN 55101 I am interested in becoming a member of the 1991 Conference Planning Committee. I previously served on a Conference Planning Committee _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . year(s) I have not previously served Name:Title: (please print) Address: City:Zip Code: Telephone #: League of Minnesota Cities July 19, 1990 183 University Ave. East St Paul, MN 55101-2526 (612) 227-5600 (FAX: 221-0986) TO: Mayor) FROM; Don OM, Mai RE: Managers, Clerks Slater, Executive Director Registration for 1990 NLC Congress of Cities Enclosed please find a copy of the program and registration materials for the 1990 NLC Congress of cities. The annual conference of the National League of Cities will be held in Houston, Texas, December 1-5. Please complete and submit conference registration and request for hotel accommodations as soon as possible. Note the important information regarding registration deadlines and procedures for hotel room deposits and hotel reservation guarantees in the instructions. IMPORTANT REGISTRATION DEADLINES Deadline for early registration (at reduced rates) is September 14. The last date for advance registration is October 31. After that date, you may not be able to obtain hotel accommodations at the rates quoted in the brochure. LMC will mail information on available airline flights to Houston to all NLC direct member cities within the next week. You may also obtain a copy of the travel information by contacting Ann Higgins at the League office, (612) 227-5600. All conference sessions and meal functions, including the banquet, will be held at the George R. Brown Convention Center (See "A** on map inside NLC brochure.) Hotels located in the Galleria section will be the location of many of the receptions and other social functions held during the conference (#'s 10, 15, 16, and 10). No conference-related activities have been scheduled in the five hotels located closest to the convention center, although they are convenient to the site of the conference programs. There will be shuttle transportation available from hotel properties located farthest from the convention center. DIRECT NLC MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION Minnesota city officials actively take part in NLC programs and policy development. At present, a total of 49 cities in Minnesota are direct members of the National League of Cities. If your city has not joined NLC, please contact Ann Higgins for information on membership dues and ser\'ices. PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL CITIES LMC member cities which are not NLC direct member cities are also urged to send officials to the conference. Programs are targeted to a wide range of cities. Included in this year's conference program are sessions on policy leadership, technology, environment, finance, economic development, housing, and public safety as well as education, health and human services. Smaller cities receive additional attention in the program. Worksh ?s scheduled throughout three full days of programs are designed to address concerns from the perspective of smaller units of government. Topics included for those sessions include * water conservation programs that work; * financing and techology options for sewage treatment; * budget management and planning; * downtown revitalization successes; * getting the most from police department dollars; * environmental liability. LMC DELEGATION ACTIVITIES The NLC annual conference is the largest gathering of city officials in the nation. The League of Minnesota Cities will sponsor additional activities and hospitality for Minnesota city officials attending the conference. Prior to the adoption of NLC policies at the annual business meeting, city officials will receive a briefing on the key issues of concern to Minnesota cities. City officials who register will receive a detailed schedule of LMC Delegation activities and programs during the conference. PARTICIPATION IN POLICY DEVELOPMENT City officials may also participate in the final meetings of the policy committees at committee business sessions. LMC is represented on all five NLC Steering and Policy Committees. Those registered for the conference may attend any of the policy committee meetings, held Sunday, December 2, at which recommendations for policy changes are considered. Only policy committee members may vote at the sessions, but all NLC direct member cities participate in final policy adoption during the NLC Annual Business Meeting on Wednesday, December 5. Official voting delegates for each city, along with city officials who are designated as voting delegates for LMC, are eligible to be seated on the floor of the meeting and play a direct role in the debate and approval of final NLC policies. APPOINTMENT TO NLC COMMITTEESVacar'ies on policy committees will be filled prior to the conference. Several city officials have already indicated interest in appointment to those vacant positions. They will receive notice of their appointments later this summer. Those officials interested in being considered for appointment to 1991 NLC policy committees are encouraged to contact the League following the conference. NLC policy committee appointments and nominations for appointment to steering committee positions (by NLC steering committee chairs) will be made in January - February, 1991, for terms that end following the 1991 NLC annual conferenc;- Appointments to NLC policy committees and nomination for reappointment to NLC steering committee positions are also determined by the LMC President. Service on committees is encouraged. For additional information concerning steering and policy committees, contact Ann Higgins at the League office, (612) 227-5600. Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission 443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612)474-5539 SIT''Off DATE:July 30, 1990 AUG 1 TO:LMCCC MEMBER CITIES FROM:Jennifer Watts, LMCCC Administrator RE:1989 FINANCIAL REVIEW REPORT Attached is a copy of the 1989 LMCCC Financial Review report prepared for the Commission annually per Article VI, Section 4 of the joint powers agreement. The Executive Committee members presented the report in June and asked to bring any questions they might have concerning it to the July committee meeting. At the July meeting, the committee voted to accept the document. If your LMCCC representative or any of the city council members h^ve any questions regarding the contents of this document, please share those questions with me either by calling me directly or by asking your LMCCC representative to bring them to the August 21st meeting of the full commission. Thank you. — LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31.1989 AND 1988 W. F. DENNY & CO. ACCOUNTANTS AND AUDITORS Excelsior, Minnesota IJVKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TART.F. OF CONTENTS INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: SCaueraents of Assets, Liabilities and Funds - Cash Basis Statements of Income and Operating Fund - Cash Basis Statements of Restricted Funds - Cash Basis Statements of Cash Flows - Cash Basis Notes to Financial Statements Pafte No 1 2 3 4 5 6-7 7/(&, -(^. S!i7cc^€Ui,Aaji^ a^u/ /A'/y/.j/^,i</yArccc^-&.0, - TPcf 0XCC^!ui^f*-. e/i^y4S/«lfc^#& SSSt!7/ Lake MinncConka Cable Couununicacions Corarolssion Excelsior, Minnesota INDEPENDENT AUDITOR*S REPORT We have audited the accompanying statements of assets, liabilities, and funds- cash basis of the Li\KE MIiNNETONKul CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COIUMISSION as of December 31, 1989 and 1988, and the related statements of income and operating fund-cash basis, restricted funds-cash basis and cash flows-cash basis for the ycar> then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Commission's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditiiig standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statcmciits arc free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall fii... acial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. As described in Note 1, these financial statements were prepared on the cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the assets, liabilities, and fund balances of the LAKE MINNETONK/\ CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION as of December 31, 1989 and 1988, and its income and expenses operating fund balances, restricted fund balances, and cash flows for tin. years then ended, on the cash basis of accounting described in Note 1. Excelsior, Minnesota Hay 2, 1990 W.F. DENNY & CO. CU.A7 f - 1 - IAK K MI^TT^rnNKA CABLE rOMMUNICATTONS COMMISSION STATEKr"I "f OF ASSETS . LIABILITIES AND FUNDS * CASH BASIS nF.CEMBER 31. 1989 AND 1988 1989 1988 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS: Cash PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, NET $ 52,525 5.036 S 57.561 $ 62,647 2.870 S 65.517 LTABILITTF..<; ■ RESTRICTED FUNDS. AND OPERATING FUND CURRENT LIABILITIES: Withheld taxes payable $ 274 RESTRICTED FUNDS: Restricted fund balances 13,785 OPERATING FUND: Operating fund balance - -^31.5.Q2 S 57.561 $ 795 i:. ^ 51.064 S 65.S17 The accompanying notes ire an integral part of these financial statements - 2 - LAKE MINNETONKA CADLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND OPERATING FUND - CASH BASIS Y?AP5 ended DECEMBER 31. 1989 AND 1988 1989 1988 INCOME: Franchise fees (Note 3) $43.022 $88,852 OPERATING EXPENSES: Wages 34,704 32,740 Legal fees 1,162 332 Office supplies 1,802 1,992 Telephone, reproduction and postage 1,345 1,337 Dues and subscriptions 1,345 1,145 Conferences and schools 3,957 3,574 Accounting 3,832 2,116 Depreciation 1,201 756 Insurance 3,303 3,578 Auto expense 466 509 Miscellaneous 602 355 Secretarial service 1,036 1,049 Payroll taxes 2,68.’.2,098 Video expense 1,099 - - Pension contribution _ _Hi 1.106 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 59.247 52.687 OPERATING INCOME^LOSS)(16.225)36,165 OTHER INCOME: Miscellaneous income 3,285 326 Interest 5.352 2.685 NET INCra** (LOSS)(7.588)39,176 TRANSFER TO (FROM) RZ5' RIOTED FUNDS - NET 26 (13,812) OPERATING FUND BALANCE, BEGINNING OF YEAR 51.064 25.700 OPERATING FUND BALANCE, END OF YEAR S 43.502 S 51.064 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. - 3 - i LAICE HINHETONKA CADIE CQMMUWt CAT TONS COMHISSIOM STATEMENTS OF RESTRICTED FUNDS - CASH BASIS DECEHDER 31. 1989 AND 1988 Fund Balance Add Deduct Fund Balance Restricted Fund neninnim of Year A.)oroDriations Expenditures End of Year Transfer of Ownership S (59)$ 59 S S Studio Operations (95)95 - -- - Financial/Triax 1,700 1,000 1,6B5 1,015 Technical Audit 5,500 1,500 - -7,000 Legal 1,500 1,500 Studio Equipment 3,370 2,246 1,313 4,303 Miscellaneous Video 1.742 . .1.775 (33) Total Restricted Funds S 13.650 -S 4,900 $ 4.773 S 13.785 The accompanying notes arc an integral part of these financial statements. - 4- ^ ..1_ _ i t TAKE MINNF.TQNKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS-CASH BASIS CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Nec Income (Loss) Non cash items included in net income Depreciation Increase (decrease) in withheld taxes payable Decrease in accounts payable Increase (decrease) in restricted funds NET CASH PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Purchase of equipment NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH CASH AT BEGINNING OF YEAR CASH AT END OF YEAR IQftq AND 1988 1989 1988 $ (7.588)$ 39.176 1.201 756 (521)267 (517) 154 Cl) (6.754)39,675 n.368)(1.502) (10,122)38,173 62.647 24.474 S 52.525 S 62.647 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements - 5 - LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31. 1989 AND 1988 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies The Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission is a joint venture of fourteen (14) communities; Excelsior, Orono, Spring Park, Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach, Deephaven, Tonka Bay, Woodland, Victoria, Minnetrista, Greenwood, St. Bonlfacius, Shorewood, and Medina, organized to control and regulate cable communications with the public in the respective cities. The financial statements of Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission have been prepared on the cash basis. The sign ficant policies followed are described below. Fund Accounting To insure observance of limitations and restrictions placed on the use of resources available to the commission, the accounts of the commission are maintained in accordance with the principles of fund accounting. This is the procedure by which resources for various purposes are classified for accounting and reporting purposes into funds established according to their nature and purposes. Separate accounts are maintained for each fund. Property and Equipment Prup* rty and equipment are reported at cost. Maintenance and repairs a I f' charged to expense as incurred. The commission provides for depreciation using the straight-line method at rates to expense the cost of equipment over five (5) years. Property and Equipment A summary of property and equipment follows: Furniture and office equipment Accumulated depreciation 1989 19 S8 $ 7,694 2.658 5^036 $ 4,327 1,457 S 2,870 LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION NOTES TO FTNANrTAT. STATEMENTS (CONTINUEDl FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31. 1989 AND 1988 Revenues The Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission receives an annual franchise fee equivalent to five percent (5X) of all gross revenues collected by Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. for a period of fifteen (15) years from date of inception, May 11, 1984. Revenues for the periods ended December 31, 1989 and 1988 amounted to $43,022 and $88,852 respectively. The annual fee may be subject to renegotiation at anytime after the fourth year of the franchise. If property grantee and city do not agree in negotiation, the franchise shall remain unchanged. Financial Statement Reclassification The Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission has elected to report restricted fund balances separately. For comparability, certain amounts in the 1988 financial statement have been reclassified, where appropriate, to conform with the financial statement presentation used in 1989. - 7 - GoveruB«nt & CommunUjr Kelations Carl W. CainmiBS. Ill Director S«MW M. Ibrbct Administrator Government Relations Kiaibciiy M. Rodea Administrator Community & Government Relations ^jl/^/megasco A Company of Diversified Energies. Inc. ClTV 0= ~ 'iPfl -/ * ♦ I ' July 31. 1990 Dear Mayor. AUG 1 19* Diversified Energies, Inc., Minncgasco ’s parent company, yesterday announced that it is merging with Arkla, Inc. Arkla is one of the nation’s largest natural gas companies, with assets of nearly $4 billion and serving more than two million customers. Arkla is based in Little Rock, Arkansas; Shreveport, Louisiana; and Houston, Texas. This merger has been approved by the boards of directors of both companies and must now be approved by a majority of each companies’ shareholders. The merger is also subject to certain regulatory approvals and other conditions. If the merger is approved, DEI s name will be changed to Arkla, Inc. Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty III, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Arkla will continue in those offices following the merger. Albert D. Etchelecu, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of DEI will serve as Vice Chairman of the Board of Arkla and will continue as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Minnegasco. Minnegasco and the other DEI subsiuianes, E.F. Johnson, Inc., EnScan, Inc. and Minneapolis Energy Center, Inc. will retain their respective identities and will continue to maintain their headquarters in Minneapolis. "Mack and I both believe that it is important for our existing businesses lo continue to be based in Minnesota so that we can maintain the superior level of service which our customers have come to expect, said Etchelecu. We at Minnegasco look forward to continuing to provide high quality energy services to all of our local communities here in Minnesota. If you, your staff or any of your constituents have any questions about this merger, please feel free to contact me at any time at 342-5161. Very truly yours. Carl W. Cummins, III 201 South Seventh Street CITY OF ORONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 •Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 30, 1990 Mr. Greg LaMond 2054 Shoreline Dr. Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. LaMond: aug 1 1890 Congratulations! As your Mayor and a true admirer of your accomplishment in the world arena of cycling, I extend to you, your family, and team, from all of your fellow citizens in Orono, our hearty Congratulations. Your fellow citizens followed your steady progress in France, your well-executed strategy, and your final day ’s victory on the Champs d ’ Elyss^e in Paris. The emotion, the physical effort, and ecstasy of victory were shared by all of us here in Orono. We are as proud of you as a competitor, an athlete, a family man, a representative of our beautiful country as we are of our beautiful Orono, Minnesota. Best regards. CITN OF ORONO JameslR. Grabek Mayor' JRG;ih BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 • ASSESSING ADVLNISTTIATICN A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 ?! UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Fisheries and Wildlife College of Natural Resources St. Paul Minnesota 612-624- 7/31/90 Mr. Mark Bernhardson City Manager City of Orono P.O. Box 86 Orono, MN 55323 2 1890 ! , Dear Mr. Bernhardson: We are just completed the Canada goose capture and translocation in the Metropolitan Area. A total of 2,819 geese (1,097 adults and 1,722 young) were trapped at 49 sites and transported elsewhere. Oklahoma took 400 adults and Mississippi 697 for release on their wildlife areas. The goslings were transported to Minnesota sites, mostly in the north, and released. The crews trapped 97% of the geese they attempted to capture. In spite of the hot weather, mortality during capture and transport was very low (2 birds) and similar to previous years. The locations, dates, and number of geese captured in your city were: Location Date Young Adults Total NORTH SHORE DRIVE NARROWS BRIDGE AREA Wocawvui- COUNTRY CLUB TOTAL 6/29/90 6/29/90 7/9/90 26 25 1 6 67 40 1 2 9 61 66 37 25 128 The cost of the 1990 removal was $1,000. Ms. Burgess has informed me that the City of Orono will pay $200 and that the Pheasant Lawn Homeowners will pay $800. Please make the check payable to Jim Cooper- Canada Goose Program. Thank you. Sincerely yours. Dr. James > per Associate ProL*ssor CITY" OF ORONCF CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66 •Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 8, 1990 Mr. William C. Kallbsrg 1015 Linden Lane Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Kallberg, In response to your letter dated July 13, 1990, I have reviewed with staff the issues you have outlined in your letter. I understand your apparent frustration regarding Orono’s hardcover and setback regulations. These regulations are enforced when property owners propose structural improvements to their property. The City has a long history of limiting the amount of encroachment in the 0-75 foot lakeshore setback zone, and has occasionally in the past required people to remove structures that were built without appropriate permits. Additionally, the City has often concurrently required greater reductions in hardcover in cases where proposed additions or remodelings would exceed the hardcover limits. To specifically address your concerns, I would like to make the following responses: House Location - It is our understanding that when this was constructed in 1978 the City required that the house and decks be located to meet the 75 foot lakeshore setback. As a result of this, the original owner chose to place it as he did. Survey - Unfortunately the issue of the survey requirement is more than just the location of the house, as any structural improvement to a lakeshore property would require that a survey of your hardcover also be done. After the Fact Variance - I am sure that the additions you made to the house seemed relatively minor, however, they do require building permits. Had you applied for such permits, the issues now brought to your attenti n after the fact could have been dealt with prior to your expenditure of time and money on this project. BliLUING Sl zoning - 47^7357 ASStSSi.NG VDMIMSI RATION A HNANCt - 473-735H TAX - 4734I5I0 PI BLIC V^ORKS - 473-7359 Mr. William C. Kallberg August 8, 1990 Page 2 Although these requirements may seem excessive for such a small addition, the City has on several occasions encountered persons who, even when told to stop and get a permit, have continued working on their improvements, in the mistaken belief that once construction was completed, the City would be more likely to allow the improvements to remain even if they didn't meet code requirements. If the City allowed this to continue, people would begin to ignore the regulations to an even greater degree, which would defeat the whole purpose of limiting structure and hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. In order for your requested improvements to be given full consideration in the same manner an many other similar requests throughout the community, I would encourage you to provide the necessary survey and hardcover information. If it is determined by staff that your improvements do not meet zoning code requirements, you certainly have the option of applying for a variance, as have literally dozens of other lakeshore homeowners. If however, the variances required and you do not fee^ that it is worth the time and expense to apply for one, I recommend that you have the improvements removed, since they would in that case constitute a violation of the City's zoning code. In your letter you indicated that you had a difficult time with the City staff in dealing with this matter. It is my understanding you have only had one opportunity to talk to them and they remain at your disposal for a phone call or appointment. Please feel free to contact either Mike Gaffron, Jeanne Mabusth or Mark Bernhardson our City Administrator, to discuss your project in detail. They would be happy to review past applications where residents have constructed similar projects in which the City required the same things that are being required of you. Sincerely J^raes R. Grabek Mayor cc; City Council Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Mike Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. Iidl5 Linden Lane Mound (Orono), MN 55364 July 13, 1990 City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 •' ?An Attention: Ci^y Council Chair-nan Dear Mr, Chairman, I am writing this letter in the hope that you can give me some relief assistance in ►nat I believe is an overly-restrictive requirement. In 1986, my wife and I moved to Orcno after purchased a modest heme on the shore of Lake 23 years in Bloomington, Minnatcnka*a Forest Lake, We Ue were really excited about this move, because we had had a cabin near finnandale and -wanted weekends. to be able to enjoy lakeside living every day, ’nstead of just on This home had been built in 1978 or 1979 after the original building on the site had burned to the ground. Because the lot is rather narrow at the lake, the house was positioned sideways on the lot, with the long sides (^ront and back) parallel to the side lot lines. The construction of this house included a concrete patio cn the walkout lower level with a wood deck above it on the • raper level, both facing the lake. The lot slopes mcoerately downward from the street to the house, levels slightly along the house, and then slopes more steeply from the house to the lakeshore. There is extremely little area on the lot that could be even considered as level, where one could place outdoor furniture and be able to set a beverage container without spilling the contents. This Spring, in order to more fully enjoy our property out-of-doors, we decided to screen the pat ip area under the existing upper-level deck and add a small (8»xl0») wood deck extension on the lake side of the concrete patio. The edge of the patio is almost two feet above the ground and the ground slopes sharply down from there, so we can make much better use of the space where it was hard to grow grass or maintain natural ground cover. My real problem is that I did not consider that this little open-slat wood deck would be a problem and innocent../ omitted applying for a permit. The construction was discovered by one of the Building and Zoning personnel who was on my property for an unrelated issue, I now find out that Pm supposed to not only have a building permit, but possibly need a variance. The deck may extend into the 75’ lakefront zone, but I need a certificate of survey to show this, A simple measurement would show this, but I am presumably not to be trusted to tell the truth, even though a City inspector i^culd come out to verify it anyway. The City of Orono has on file only a marked-up copy of the original plat of survey showing "proposed house." I have contacted the surveyor who did that and they have no "as' i’‘*nt" survey. I was unable to locate the contractor who built the house, s. :j ' touch of the person who owned the property in 197B and had the hous^ ' 'e assures me that an Orono inspector was on the site during construct. ^ »rify that the house was placed according to code and gave approval. The»re was never any mention to him about an "as-built" survey. This person also assured me that the patio and deck were constructed at the same time as the house. Because of the steeply sloping lakefront yard, this person or another owner before us terraced and landscaped the lower half of the area between the house and the lakeshore across the full width of the lot. If I had been the person building on this property, I think I would have done a lot of things differently, such as placing the house further back to allow for modifications, possibly placing it at a different elevation, doing a better job of grading to restrict velocity of surface drainage. I now am informed that an ordinance on hardcover allows 0 (rero) hardcover within 75* of some specified shoreline. There is already some hardcover that was placed by previous owners that is beneficial in protecting an otherwise steep slope from erosion (which is just as important as filtering the runoff water through grass). It doesn't seem right to me to include slatted decks in the definition of "hardcover", especially if the deck is placed o''®r an area that is hard to keep covered with grass and subject to soil erosio' ! have trouble talking to anyone at City Hall about this because I work outside the Metro area and they can't return ray long distance call if they happen to be cut or busy when I call. The point of all this is that the fees for surveys, permits, variances, consultants, etc. will far outweigh the cost of this little deck. It seems that the ordinances involved are intended to prevent or discourage property owners from making useful, attractive improvements to their lakef*^ont yards. After all, if I didn't want to enjoy the lake every day from my lakefront yard, I would be living somewhere else. My neighbor to the South has considerable ‘hardcover" in the 75' zone and has such a tall house that my sunlight is restricted, but no one seems to have ever worried about that. I would appreciate it if you would reach me by telephone during the wo My number is 507-451-2480 (Cwatonna Public Utilities). I am sending a’ t this to Mike Gaffron, so he knows that I am trying to get something worker since his letter of June 25, 1990. Yours truly, Uilliam C. Kallberg cc: Mike Gaffron, flss't Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: July 25, 1990 TO; Officer Bruce Anderson FROM: Chief Mel Kilbo SUBJECT: Letter of Appreciation I appreciate your handling of this difficult case. Your com passion and empathy are appreciated not only by the Twin Birch Staff but also by myself and this department. This reflects the positive public relations attitude of this department. Thank you. cc: V^rono City Council Spring Park City Council Minnetonka Beach City <^ouncil Long Lake City Council - r> J n-ZO-CO0|j|a.(Lu.v-> CUvliluievo, -fVc. -pav* J-Kxii or>i(£'vJ:h • l.\£^ vjviopcYviUd. (X C/xi-L Jx&rro 7a/o moX+K Ca.vt Cx-aI l/o «-■« a-LicXt: LoviiW do acLryu,tUcU Jt^-x- vY\JU>^AC^^x J\f5'mx_j . 4 '^ajd LOa/'vlci.O '^o vJL,^|^^Jrr^ ^CuJ \divjd ac,4tPA-i jtW cU^^icu-Ct. .4i,4tLa.+i &iA>i V- ejCAmuLfvdaljCo. -4 i^lNOrd. aiv- C|.'pS'l'iu/iil^ dc o^'^xux. -tvvjx cU^jjicL^L't jtKjod Ch- v^&Lv-C j-; 6|^.lCU.o X-Stpuckd "tO a(xd Loaivttcl ^ Ltd. i^i.o ^^^CLO +Ha.^ -p'ie|£^.iLeiia.Lj,A^ a/vd u^etcvj -|a\. H-U-t "-<cr'iix'>-t\£Ai.j" dVvjL ^,"i,v>u.ad' . uiCL-i appUCiat/iiC,' lAJCifClUt^ yCcO cO&Ud (,/o /C3° u.'fa.ikL’-'y Clid" <3v HL« pac'trxt.A^t) c.^ c rr> % >-'(p '-'YVS-oJ Cip^Sji tx txH" / cD^ <^(>'V ■“ tACU I a>\c\ -tkji JLV.e(Uc.+(£rvO (5^ Jf-lo. ' C^W.-^ oOfl-N-'UiL u':/c. ^^ouj V/VA-t uyvo cuv^i Ci^p--\i u.tfL.U.cC Joi'j-'^^4 Ti,Oi/\ )dt'<.t-0 '■^'^4 ' vStACI.^xUt.. Vi V'Voou.o.i^O h (JA, dLi"<U- ai. i cx-T DATE; August 6, 1990TO; Officer Kurt Erickson FROM; Chief Mel Kilbo SUBJECT; Letter of appreciation case 90-2002 On April 29, 1990 you were called to the Spring Park Spur StaTiion on an employee embezzelment case. You put together a difficult case and presented it to the County Attorney for charging. On July 25, 1990. t.ic suspect entered a guilty plea. Restitution was order«2d and the LaBatts received a large preliminary payment that very day of the guilty plea. The County Attorney complimented you and the department and Mr. and Mrs. Labatt have written a letter to the Spring Park City Council, complimenting you and the department to which I add my ♦•hank you. from the desk of Terry 6c Bonnie Labatt LABAH'S SPRIMQ PARK SPUR C3LCn LAKE SPUR 4311 Shoreline Drive 14525 CMcelsior Blvd. Spring ParK MM 55384 Minnetonha, MM 55345 471-7955 955-4244 A/<Y^ G/iy uutub- /I At jyuM o<t-L from the desk ofTerry & Bonnie Labatt IA8/Sn*5 SPRiriQ PARK SPUR QLCn LAKE SPUR 4511 Shoreline Drive 14525 Excelsior 8lvd Spring Park, MM SS584 MinnetonKa, MM 55545 » 471-7933 933-4244 (fi! 1990 ''{oLfJi OtUMlJi MutJuAU ■ jUAJL^'iU^AjdJvu/j OiytM^UfrUAt ^ Vj U (Jw ^ X hL^C^ d ithduM^ uatJ^ l\ju jjjjuJ V* -'^ ^_cuul u«aV ^A<Xtt£*H '“ &5tz< ^ ^ ‘ V;: %o.i^jf‘ ^ > ht°^ V to\juu»\jJ2t'''tJ-^ ^ ••-•t' . . *'•. •■ V / ..>Tv- ■ 0 . ■*■ -i\. ■ .##»'#?»» “s^ilS’ ^' W;t DATE: August 6, 1990 TO: Officer Brad Johnson FROM: Chief Mel Kilbo SUBJECT: Letter of appreciation case 90-3915 I wish to express my appreciation for your diligent patrol, for being alert, and for continuing to investigate Mr. Carlton Clark and subsequently arresting him and bringing the case to the County Attorney for charges. Even though to date we have been unable to bring charges against Clark, we were able to take the stolen car into custody. I am very frustrated that we are unable to charge Mr. Clark with possession of stolen property which I believe would be the appropriate charge. Thank you for your fine patrol work. (r^lPfh Sh^ 'f^\7 7 7y tiLM-nc-'.^-^- u:< nnu(Ac/ a-i da n CCrCtrTj 6^'' Ou-ra /W. AvW Undl^O-'rtdin^ JidfUd. Uhl^ tvtyJ^-hud cvnd ^ ^ i' CO. Cu y ficCU^i^ ^ thoM^.^ cO^ ^ Ud M^7■ * *• •• 'V* *. •.■»c ^ <•• .•••... . . , . ‘>7%« I ..■• •.'•.•• ii*»’*,* ** ■ .•. •••i ^... ir ;;.!r.-.r"... • -I • * **• . .V Loren V. Butted eld Greenhouses Wholesale Growers of Plants and Flowers 3925 NVatertown Road .Maple Plain. .Minn. 55359 PHONE 473-9128 ZZr •-1»." r?..—r-vv-:-^ v'cri; t- ■ '*'<> •* •*./'••.«*! . ;• ; .-I.' .. ;.*J : f’ ‘^ •. *• • n- '.-*r^r \ 'i '■ : :..■ '•*• "• ».* -x-*,. ;.•••>. ■' .. . •• .'•'< ■'■• * V.B. , . . *:—- . ; ■ r :.;' --:r *•.■■, -i..*' - **, ■• .1 ••- -.'" . ■ ♦.- -------- .. l^-Ae.f . -.r. ; -. »'.•.* »^v- .. •.*. ■ • " •-»'• *.• ;■ ■ -“•• V .•v •*•■■ j. • tV. •■ • l-.\ - • *:-.M •• •' ~Lko ^ {P tx ,V. Si'5^3 MKi i» ^ 'C<^ x^osc^^ VvC4^ yiS2-*«-T2^ /jf y . - A C ^''-*C_o^—Vi- j'''JC^—/^cX«d-i2cO^^ JLco\j iu^ I ^ / Action 1. Discuss. 2. Adopt. 3. Amend and adopt. 4. Table. 5. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommer.ded , given the problems created by ongoing business in a particular location intensifying the land use, that the .City Council undertake the following by amendments to its solicitation ordinance: A. Limit transient merchants to no more than 10 days operating per year and that be within no greater than a 120 day period. B. Require that all other merchandising of products and services that do not fall under the transient merchant definitation or solicitation definition be conducted in a permanent structure in accordance with all applicable land use requirements. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council direct staff to draw up the appropriate ordinance amendment in line with the principals set forth by the Council. Ayes _, Nays cc: Westonka Chamber, 5600 Lynwood Blvd, Mound 55364 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator '3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: July 26, 1993 SUBJECT: 1989 Financial Report 72690.10 <^(7^ '■'-13 1990•u L- • !T7 r.- C-, ISSUE - Giving Council an opportunity to ask any additional questions they may have on the financial report. INTRODUCTION - At the Council’s July 9, 1990 Council meeting the Financial Report Summary was adopted, but it was requested that it be tabled to allow the Council to further study the matter. It is placed on the agenda to determine whether Council has any further questions at this time or not. 72590.8 t' :i«ai mttiisu '■.L'G 13 i990 "'!T? npc-Q TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATF- August 2, 1990 SOBJSif ?*: 19 90 P lice Contract Attachment; A. Proposed 1990 Police Agreement ISSUE - Determine if Council will grant its approval to a proposed contract settlement. INTRODUCTION - After several months of negotiation, a settlement with the police patrol contract has been reached. Wages 3.25% plus a $.05/hour "Lump Sum" Insurance From $191to $211 Vacation Increase carry-over maximum from 112 to 120 hours Duration 1 year All other terms would remain the same. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the proposed settlement be approved. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to approve the 1990 Police Agreement as presented. Ayes _, Nays _. TABLE OF CONTENTS Article Page I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 RECOGNITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 EMPLOYER SECURITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 EMPLOYER AUTHORITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 UNION SECURITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 SAVINGS CLAUSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 SENIORITY. . . . . . . . . . 10 DISCIPLINE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 WORK SCHEDULES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 OVERTIME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 COMPENSATORY TIME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 CALL BACK TIME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 UNIFORMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 INJURY ON DUTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 WAGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 INSURANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 VACATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 HOLIDAYS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 SICK LEAVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 SEVERANCE PAY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 DURATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ORONO AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC. ARTICLE PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is entered into as of August 13, 1990, between THE CITY OF ORONO, hereinafter called the EMPLOYER, and LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC., hereinafter called LELS. It is the intent and purpose of this AGREEMENT to; 1.1 Establish procedures for the resolution of disputes concerning this AGREEMENT'S interpretation and/or application; and 1.2 Place in written form the parries' agreement upon terms and conditions of employment fr,r the duration of this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE RECOGNITION 2.1 The EMPLOYER recognizes LELS as the exclusive representative, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 179.71, Subdivision 3, for all police personnel in the following job classification I Police Officer 2.2 In the event the EMPLOYER and LELS are unable to agree as to the inclusion or exclusion of a new or modified job class, the issue shall be submitted to the Bureau of Mediation Serivces for determination. ARTICLE III DEFINITIONS 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 UNION: Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. UNION MEMBER: A member of Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. EMPLOYEE: A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit. DEPARTMENT: The CITY OF ORONO Police Department. EMPLOYER: The CITY OF ORONO CHIEF: The Chief of the CITY OF ORONO Police Department . UNION OFFICER: Officer elected or appointed by Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. OVERTIME: Work performed at the express authorization of the EMPLOYER in excess of the employee's scheduled shift . SCHEDULED SHIFT: A consecutive work period including rest breaks and a lunch break. REST BREAKS: Periods during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the employee remains on continual duty and is I revSponsible for assigned duties. 3.11 LUNCH BREAK: A period during the SCHEDULED SHIFT during which the employee remains on continual duty and is responsible for assigned duties. 3.12 RESIGNATION: Resignation with two (2) weeks advance notice. ARTICLE IV EMPLOYER SECURITY LELS agrees that during the life of this AGREEMENT that LELS will not cause, encourage, participate in or support any strike, slowdown or other interruption of or interference with the normal functions of the EMPLOYER. ARTICLE V EMPLOYER AUTHORITY 5.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all manpower, facilities, and equipment; to establish functions and programs; to set and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; to select, direct, and determine the number of personnel; to establish work schedules, and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by this AGREEMENT. 5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this AGREEMENT shall remain solely within the discretion of the EMPLOYER to modify, establish, or eliminate. ARTICLE VI UNION SECURITY 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 The EMPLOYER shall deduct from the wages of employees who authorize such a deduction in writing an amount necessary to cover monthly union dues. Such monies shall be remitted as directed by LELS. LELS may designate employees from the bargaining unit to act as a steward and an alternate and shall inform the EMPLOYER in writing of such choice and changes in the position of steward and/or alternate. The EMPLOYER shall make space available on the employee bulletin board for posting LELS notice(s) and announcements(s). LELS agrees to indemnify and hold the EMPLOYER harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the EMPLOYER as a result of any action taken or not taken by the EMPLOYER under the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE VII EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE DEFINITION OF A GRIEVANCE A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. UNION REPRESENTATIVES The EMPLOYER will recognize REPRESENTATIVES designated by LELS as the grievance representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities established by this Article. LELS shall notify the EMPLOYER in writing of the names of such UNION REPRESENTATIVES and of their successors when so designated as provided by 6.2 of this AGREEMENT. 7.3 PROCESSING OF A GRIEVANCE It*is recognized and accepted by LELS and the EMPLOYER that the processing of grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the employees and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only v;hen consistent with such employee duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved employee and a UNION REPRESENTATIVE shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss in pay when a grievance is investigated and presented to the EMPLOYER during normal work hours provided that the employee and the UNION REPRESENTATIVE have notified and received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the EMPLOYER. 7.4 PROCEDURE Grievances, as defined by Section 7.1, shall be resolved in conformance with the following procedure: Step 1. An employee claiming a violation concerning the interpretation or application of this AGREEMENT shall, within twenty-one (21) calendar days aftPL such alleged violation has occurred, present such grievance to the employee's supervisor as designated by the EMPLOYER. The EMPLOYER-designated representative will discuss and give an answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) calendar days after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing setting forth the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based, the provision or provisions of the AGREEMENT allegedly violated, the remedy requested, and shall be appealed to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar days after the EMPLOYER-designated representative's final answer in Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by LELS within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 2. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by LELS and discussed with the EMPLOYER- designated Step 2 representative. The EMPLOYER- designated representative shall give LELS the EMPLOYER'S Step 2 answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2 may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER-designated representative's final Step 2 answer. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 by LELS within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. 3. If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by LELS and discussed with the EMPLOYER- designated Step 3 representative. The EMPLOYER- designated representative shall give LELS the EMPLOYER'S answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 3 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 3 may be appealed to Step 4 within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER-designated representative's final answer in Step 3. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by LELS within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 4. A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed to Step 4 by LELS shall be submitted to arbitration subject to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971, as amended. The selection of an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the "Rules Governing tne Arbitration of Grievances" as established by the Public Employment Relations Board. 7.5 ARBITRATOR'S AUTHORITY A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modity, nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The arbitrator shall consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the EMPLOYER and LELS, and shall have no authority to 3 decision on any other issue not so submi tte^i. 7.6 B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws, rules, or regulations having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator's decision shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following close of the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the EMPLOYER and LELS and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the express terms of this AGREEMENT and to the facts of the grievance presented. C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne equally by the EMPLOYER and LELS provided that each party shall be responsible for compens.-1ing its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, providing it • pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings the cost shall be shared equally. WAIVER If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered "waived." If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the EMPLOYER'S last answer. If the EMPLOYER does not answer a grievance or an appeal thereof within the specified time limits, LELS may elect to treat the grievance as denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit in each step may be extended by mutual written agreement of the EMPLOYER and LELS in each step. 7.7 CHOICE OF REMEDY If, as a result of the written EMPLOYER response in Step 3, the grievance remains unresolved, and if the grievance involves the susper ion, demotion, or discharge of an employee who has completed the required probationary period, the grievance may be appealed either to Step 4 of Article VII or a procedure such as: Civil Service, Veteran's Preference, or Fair Employment. If appealed to any procedure other than Step 4 of Article VII the grievance is not subject to the arbitration procedure as provided in Step 4 of Article VII. The aggrieved employee shall indicate in writing which procedure is to-be uti 1 ized--Step 4 of Article VII or another appeal procedure--and shall sign a statement to the effect that the choice of any other hearing precludes the aggrieved employee from making a subsequent appeal through Step 4 of Article VII. ARTICLE VIII SAVINGS CLAUSE This AGREEMENT is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota and the City of Orono. In the event any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgment or decree no appeal has been taken within the time provided, such provisions shall be voided. All other provisions of this AGREEMENT shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision may be renegotiated at the written request of either party. ARTICLE IX SENIORITY 9.1 Seniority shall be determined by the employee's length of continuous employment with the Police Department and posted in an appropriate location. Seniority rosters may be maintained by the Chief on the basis of time in grade and time within specific class i fications. 9.2 During the probationary period a newly hired or rehired employee may be discharged at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. During the probationary period a promoted or reassigned employee may be replaced in his previous position at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. 9.3 A reduction of work force will be accomplished on the basis of seniority. Employees shall be recalled from layoff on the basis of sen ’.ority. An employee on layoff shall have an opportunity to return to work within two years of the time of his layoff before any new employee is hired. 9.4 Senior employees will be given preference with regard to changes in job classification through transfer, assignment or promotion when the job relevant qualifications of employees are equal. 9.5 Senior qualified employees shall be given shift assignment preference after eighteen (18) months of continuous full-time employment. 9.6 One continuous vacation period shall be selected on the basis of seniority until March 15 of each calendar year. ARTICLE X DISCIPLINE 10.1 The EMPLOYER will discipline employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in one or more of the following forms; a) oral reprimand; b) • written reprimand; c) suspension; d) demotion; or e) discharge. 10.2 Suspensions, demotions and discharges will be in written form. 10.3 Written reprimands, notices of suspension, and notices of discharge which are to become part of an employee's personnel file shall be read and acknowledged by the employee. Employees will receive a copy of such reprimands and/or notices. 10.4 Employees may examine their own individual personnel files at reasonable times under the direct supervision of the EMPLOYER. 10.5 Employees will not be questioned concerning an investigation of disciplinary action unless the employee has been given an opportunity to have a UNION representative present at such questioning. 10.6 Grievances relating to this ARTICLE shall be initiated by the UNION in Step 3 of the grievance procedure under ARTICLE VII. ARTICLE XI WORK SCHEDULES 11.1 The normal work year is two thousand and eighty hours (2,080) to be accounted for by each employee through: a) hours worked on assigned shifts? b) holidays; c) assigned training; d) . authorized leave time. 11.2 Holidays and authorized leave time is to be calculated on the basis of the ac**ual length of time of the assigned shifts. 11.3 Nothing contained in this or any other Article shall be interpreted to be a guarantee of a minimum or maximum number of hours the EMPLOYER may assign employees. ARTICLE XII OVERTIME 12.1 Employees will be compensated at one and one-half (1- * 1/2) time the employee's regular base pay rate for hours worked in excess of the employee's regularly scheduled shift. Changes of shifts do not qualify an employee for overtime under this Article. 12.2 Overtime will be distributed as equally as practicable. 12.3 Overtime refused by employees will for record purposes under Article 12.2 be considered as unpaid overtime worked. 12.4 For the purpose of computing overtime compensation overtime hours worked shall not be pyramided, compounded or paid twice for the same hours worked. 12.5 Overtime will be calculated to the nearest fifteen (15) minutes. 12.6 Employees have the obligation to work overtime or call backs if requested by the EMPLOYER unless unusual circumstances prevent the employee from so working. ARTICLE XIII COMPENSATORY TIME 13.1 As an alternative to payment of overtime compensation, the employee may receive on hour of compensatory time plus one half-hour in cash for each hour worked for time worked as follows: a.) All hours worked over 171 hours in a 28 day work period. > m^9m^ II 13.2 13.3 13.4 b.) Recalls to work to fill in shifts, including but not limited to filling in shifts for vacation, sick leave, holidays. For other hours not covered in 13.1, the employee by mutual agreement may receive in lieu of overtime payment in cash, one hour of compensatory time for each hour worked. The employee may accrue up to 40 hours in a compensatory bank to be used within tho compensatory policy of the City. Prior to December 31st of each year, an employee must cash out all but 10 hours of compensatory time and those remaining hours not cashed remain available for use in the following year. ARTICLE XIV CALL BACK TIME An employee who is called to duty during his scheduled off- duty time shall receive a minimum of two (2) hours* pay at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the employee's base pay rate. An extension or early report to a regularly scheduled shift for duty does not qualify the employee for the two (2) hour minimum. ARTICLE XV UNIFORMS The EMPLOYER will provide all City-required uniform articles and equipment. ARTICLE XVI INJURY ON DUTY Employees injured during the performance of their duties for the EMPLOYER and thereby rendered unable to work for the EMPLOYER will be paid the difference between the employee's regular pay and Worker's Compensation insurance payments for a period not to exceed ninety (90) working days per in:ury, not charged to the employee's vacation, sick leave, or other accumulated leave, or other accumulated paid benefits, after a three (3) working day initial waiting period per injury. The three (3) day working day waiting period shall be charged to the employee's sick leave account less Worker's Compensation insurance. ARTICLE XVII WAGES a.) The following wage schedule shall be in effect as of January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990: Wages Start After six months After 1st year After 2nd year After 3rd year Per Month $ 1,889 2,034 2,325 2,615 2,906 Per Hour $ 10.899 11.738 13.414 15.091 16.768 In addition, for 1990 only. Officer's shall receive in addition to their base rate a $.05/hour lump sum payment for 2,080 hours Cr • 4 following signing of the contract. Should an Officer leave prior to the end of the year a prorated reduction of this amount will be nade. b.) LONGEVITY After 4 years. . . . . . . .3% additional to base rate After 8 years. . . . . . . .5% additional to base rate After 12 years. . . . . . . .7% additional to base rate After 16 years. . . . . . . .9% additional to base rate ARTICLE XVIII INSURANCE Effective calendar year 1990 che EMPLOYER will contribute two hundred eleven ($211.00) per month per employee toward health, life, long-term disability insurance and the cost of the single coverage of the group dental insurance plan selected. a ARTICLE XIX VACATIONS Employees will accumulate vacation leave according to the following schedule; 0 through 5 years of continuous service; 6 through 10 years of continuous service; 11 through 15 years of continuous service; 16 years of continuous service: 17 years of continuous service: 18 years of continuous service: 19 years of continuous service: 20 years and over of continuous service: 10 days ( 80 hours) 15 days (120 hours) 18 days (144 hours) 19 days (152 hours) 20 days (160 hours) 21 days (168 hours) 22 days (176 hours) 23 days (184 hours) The maximum carry-over of accrued vacation from one calendar year to the next is 120 hours. ARTICLE XX HOLIDAYS Each employee shall receive 11 (88 hours) floating holidays accrued on a prorated basis each year to be used in the same manner as vacations. For each holiday hour not used each employee shall receive an hour pay up to 88 hours per year. Payment is to be made on the first day in December of each ARTICLE XXI SICK LEAVE a. ) Each EMPLOYEE shall earn eight (8) hours of sick leave per •~onth. b. ) Each EMPLOYEE shall be allowed to accumulate sick leave up to the maximum amount of nine hundred sixth (960) hours. c. ) In addition any hours over 960 hours accrued shall go into a catastrophic sick leave bir.k which may be used any time the person is sick for more than 30 consecutive calendar days. The maximum accrued in this bank is 320 hours and is not useable for severance purposes under Article 27. ARTICLE XXII SEVERANCE PAY Each EMPLOYEE with three (3) year or more of service with the EMPLOYER will receive, upon honorable termination of employment, one-third (1/3) of the EMPLOYEE'S accumulated sick leave as severance pay. ARTICLE XXIII DURATION This AGREEMENT shall be effective as of the first day of January 1990 and remain in full force and effect until the thirty-first (31st) day of December 19S". IN WITNESS WHEREOFr the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the 13th day of August, 1990. FOR THE CITY OF ORONO: FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES, INC.: 1. Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator : John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director : August 10, 1990 SUBJBCTt Community Development Block Grant Program Agreement Year XVI For the past several years the City of Orono has received funds from HUD for Community Development Block Grant programs. For Year XVI the City will receive $23,176 to be used for the following programs Interfaith Outreach Transportation Rehabilitation of Private Property Westonka Community Action Westonka Intervention $ 1,000 20,176 1,000 1,000 $ 23,176 FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval In ordei^ to receive those funds we must enter into the attached agreement with Hennepin County. RECOMMENDATION - To approve entering into the subrecipient agreement with Hennepin Coun'iy for Community Development Block Grant Funds for Year XVI and to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the agreement. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, Seconded by _, to oprove entering into the subrecipient agreement with Hennepin County for Community Development Block Grant funds for Year XVI and to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the agreement. Ayes _, Nays _. 8990.3 4^ TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator raOH: John R. Gernhardson, Public Works Director DATE: August 9, 1990 AUG 13 'G'-o • iT f f SUBJECT: Salary Adjustment Barry Rathbun - Maintence Worker Barry Rathbun began employment with the City of Orono as a maintenance worker in the Public Works Department on July 6, 1988. According to the City of Orono compensation plan Barry started in Group 5, Level 2. On July 6, 1989 Barry moved up to Level 3 of Group 5. At this time I would recommend an increase in his hourly rate between Level 3 and 4 of Group 5 with a review in October of 1990. Recommendation - To adjust maintenance worker Barry Rathbun hourly rate to $12.00 per hour effective July 6, 1990 with a review in October 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by to adjust maintenance worker Barry Rathbun“*’s hourly rate to $*12.00 per hour effective July 6, 1990 with a review in October 1990. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. 8990.2 lj(o '' * ■' i,} TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director DRTB: August 9, 1990 f r ■ w u 1 3 SUIUBCT: Salary Adjustment Randy O'Brien - Maintenance Worker Randy O'Brien began employment with the City of Orono as a maintenance worker in the Public Works Department on July 13, 1988 • According to the City of Orono compensation plan Randy started in Group 5, Level 2. On July 13, 1969 Randy moved up to Level 3 of Group 5. At this time I would recommend an increase in the hourly rate between Level 3 and 4 of Group 5 with a review upon Randy receiving certification in sewer and water maintenance. Recommendation - To adjust maintenance worker Randy O'Brien's hourly rate to $12.00 per hour effective July 13, 1990 with a review upon certification in sewer and water maintenance. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to adjust maintenance worker Randy O'Brien's hourly rate to $12.00 per hour effective July 13, 1990 with a review upon certification in sewer and water maintenance. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Data: July 22, 1990 Subject: Re /cling Report - First Half 1990 ■LG UivjD Attached for review is the recycling report for the ’rst half of 1990. The report is very encouraging and speaks very well for the Orono residents. There will be a continual effort by the Rerycling Commission to increase the tonage and participation. TO; Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratoi^'tiH Forwarded recommending acceptance HENNEPIN RE(|i^!te^)MMISSIONGreenfiekHndependence-Long Lake-Loretto-Maple »ain-Medina-Orono 1630 Maple Ave. Maple Plain, MN 55359 479-2540 JUL 2 0 1990 July 19. 1990 TO:Mayors and CounclImembers of the cities of? Greenfield Independence Long Lake Loretto Maple Plain Medina 'Orono RE: 1990 Semi-annual Recycling Report I am pleased to report that the member cities of West Hennepin Recycling Commission have, as a group and individually, surpassed our six month goal of recycling at a rate 10% of our estimated residential solid waste. In fact, the Commission achieved an overall abatement rate of 19.8% (783.5 tons) through the recycling of cans, newspaper, glass and corrugated cardboard alone. That rate is even higher when yard waste, appliances and household goods are added. All of the member cities are currently offering bi-weekly curbside recycling services to their residents, and six of the cities host either a permanent or mobile drop-off site. Though we can all be proud of our citizens’ participation in these programs, there is still room for improvement. A new promotional brochure will be mailed to each household soon, reminding people to continue (or start) recycling. Adding plastics to the list of recyclables by next year is becoming a reality for our programs. These measures, along with your conti.iued support will help add to the success of our cities programs. I have enclosed a report to each city of their individual abatement and participation rates as well as tonnage of recyclables collected. If you have any questions regarding this report, or recycling in general, please do not hesitate to call me at 479-2540. Very truly yours, .’T . Margie Vlgoren, Recycling Coordinator ' t- . enclosure ^ Funded by • S0% funding by Hennepm County Printed on Recycled Paper RECYCLING REPORT FOR THE CITY OF ORONQ JANUARY THROUGH JUNE, 1990 TOTAL Curbside Jan.56.4 tons Feb.41.8 tons March 43 17 tons April 51.7 tons May 54.18 tons June 49.32 tons 296.57 tons Middle School Navarre Mobile: Navarre City Wide Total: 6 Months 6 Months 6 Months 10.23 tons 13.39 tons 320.19 tons Orono's waste abatement rate* for the first half of 1990 was 22.5% (Hennepin County's goal for municipalities' waste abatement for 1990 is 10%). An average of 43.4% of Orono's households participated in each curbside recycling pick-up. The actual total participation rate is most likely higher than 43.4%, as some residents may choose not to put their bins out for each collection day. *Waste abatement rate is calculated by dividing the weight of recycled materials collected by Orono's estimated weight of municipal solid waste for the same length of time. VIGOREN 7/19/90 ■ I 62590.4 TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^O August 7, 1990 13 19S0 '' ^ 0"?r-:'Crq SUBJECT: Drainage Problem - 3779 Casco Avenue Attachment: A. Drainage Problem - 3779 Casco Avenue Memo Dated 5/10/90 ISSUE - Provide Council with information related to resolution of the matter at 3779 Casco Avenue. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's May 14, 1990 meeting the issue related to drainage at this address was discussed. Subsequent to that meeting John Gerhardson, Public Works Director and Glenn Cook, City Engineer met with the property owner on site. They jointly developed a solution which should be ameanable to the property owner which will result in the City personnel locating the underground tile and Mr. Greimann performing the repairs. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Take no action. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - Is is recommended that Council accept the information presented as an appropriate means of addressing the problem initially raised at the May 14, 1990 Council meeting. seconded by that CouncilPROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, - - - - - . _ accept the information provided regarding 3779 Casco Avenue and the private solution to remedy it. Ayes _, Nays _. 15990.3 //•i TO: FHOM: DATS: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director May 10, 1990 SUBJECT: Drainage Problem - 3779 Casco Avenue Mr. Dean Greimann, 3779 Casco Avenue has submitted a request for assistance of a drainage problem in his back yard at the above address. Mr. Greimann and I have discussed the matter on more than one occasion in the past few years and I have advised Mr. Greimann that he is responsible for the repairs to the underground pipe. Mr. Greimann is now requesting a feasibility study to determine the most feasible and cost effective way to correct the problem. Glenn Cook, City Engineer, has stated that a very rough estimate for a feasibility study will cost $1,500. RECOMMENDATION - To review the information presented with comments from Mr. Griemann and to respond to any questions from Council and to table any further action until a later date. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to review the information presented with comments from Mr. Greimann and to respond to any questions from Council and to table any further action until a later date. Ayes , Nays _. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. m DEAN GRELMANN 3779 CASCO AVENUE WAYZATA, MINN. 55391 ^1^-471-7993 /TW^cH Si9, /990 Mpcac/'/ ciry ficryyt/tE.i^oR citV of o/^orJo /r.R, ^EP.P/H/^PLEOA/ : IT ihNE been pi FtoBEfry -WP Ftl7/na cm^B// OF ~n^E. City OF DFcflO FoP nOE-L'/F y.e/?,f5 BT ■t'P e : l-lecYE A./ETciC YlCEFEBE. JT//^PEBF//'. E B/TN EcBN ab FHPB c^cn C'fi 3~F?-9C ^//Fcr/rEB /rE ec V-BiTE this lETTBP Or FCr^P 7'E f EO^L Esr' FCF' fEviEii. B'/ rPE B/F1 CouN'c /E /liy fEQlEer uOs Bcp THE CiT'/ Cf CBc/Jo Tc CCf.UOr h FFp'olBiLlT'l HTiCV To iHQOhE r.f/C j:n)FBcyE -p\E cBPir/B4E b Ybtep '^ (liProEf/rEoi to cpa -^Ect PIP/C TFMBP oBT NpTEfB TUN off rBO/Ti tHE d'E/ ^rFEET3 3UBRCU0/Bir/4- my FFcfETry. Tf>E E//3T//'/4 xFP iNP&e Tile i~3 btf Fe /]/ ccipflet ^U BLOCKEEi iopb Fe nrr T6 ^uPR o^ee jo op E//l)> xFP hn UrPre ni1 FFopeft I. thib b ^ocbaqe c/Hj^sa SEYEPE EFoBIOA/ ■CtPl/'/S THE ELEYEA/ TA'CH ^ FouF HoOF FftiN TN tHE BitmmER OF l^n. :zr l^Jcyu^ lh<b to ai /h<^ X/nPPOYBfflE/i/Tji JT/ 7T1£ £jP)CP^ )!/^ r///a ^PO^IOU Mo oCvt^r^-O. tt have : /3/ fy CCf/mflCraP in' !a JoUL£> VBBLB3^ {Jf\/riL TffT: ^T^CTVffiL pp£ COn^PLETTEBi 3rrl ■Pfifi/f/ n EuD. SoilK r\)osT xmirriBOiATE Attea /t/^/y' LBTTB^ bJliVLO SE Y£jPl PAUCP fiFP^EC/ATBD ei roE. PEsPEc'PFui-L'1 yeu^^ jnn]\jY<^FnmYy~ QfEimKr/ L - .. r'v i Si TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato July 31, 1990 AUG 13 19G0 HTv nr q ;^g’:o SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Attachment: A. Stubbs Bay Sewer Packet to Residents ISSUE - Presentation to Council of information transmitted to the residents in Stubbs Bay. INTRODUCTION - Staff has been working to finalize the documents to be sent out to residents over the last couple months and were able to transmit those on Tuesday, July 31, 1990. It is anticipated that we will review the number of those interested in about 45 days for the Council's meeting on September 24, 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Council accept the information presented by staff regarding Stubbs Bay. Ayes _, Nays _. 72690.11 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: August 8, 1990 SUBJECT: Assessing Contract Termination Ji.-jti ivit;-;; AUG Hi 190n rnv LT omm Attachment: A. Notice of Termination Dated 7/31/90 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to Council regarding notice of termination for their acceptance. 2. Presentation to Council of direction for assessing services. INTRODUCTION - The City's Assessor as outlined in Attachment A has exercised his option of termination effective October 31, 1990. DISCUSSION - The City's options for new service would be: A. ) In-house Assessor B. ) Contract independent Assessor C. ) Contract with Hennepin County Following the receipt of termination from the current Assessor, the City Assessor for 6 years prior expressed interest in again contracting with the City under the same contract as in the past. The cost of this would be about 10% above that for the 2nd lowest proposal from lact time. This is estimated to be about 15-70% below an in-house assessor. Given the persons's experience in the City it may well be beneficial for the City pursue this avenue for a contractor replacement. ALTERNATIVES 1. Concur with the termination. 2. Accept the information as to future assessor. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council accept the the termination. It is additionally recommended to table this until the August 27, 1990 meeting. If anyone has objections to pursuing an arrangement with the former assessor, please contact me prior to Thursday, August 23, 1990. seconded by __, that Council the termination and that they table for further PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by concur in consideration to the August 27, 1990 Council meeting. Ayes _, Nays A Mark Bernhardson City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 July 30, 1990 AUG 1 1880 • — — « * - • - R.E. Article # d of the assessment agreement Dear Hark, I would like to exercise my rights to terminate the assessment agreement in accordance with Article 8 (effective date of agreement and term). This notice will serve as the required written notification and run from August 1,1990 thru October 31, 1990 in compliance with the 90 days. Respectfully, Paul y. Smith A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD SEPTEMBER 11, 1990 BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Election Laws - 204B.21, Subdivision 2, the following persons are appointed as election judges for the Primary Election to be held September 11, 1990: A1 Ackermann Jan Johnson Barbara Garcia Cherry Stubbs Barbara Olson Kenneth Turnham Sharon Guimond Marjorie Gasch Norma Dickey Vernice Berg Betty Ekeberg LouAnn Powell Miriam Johnson Mary Butler Dorothy Rauschendorfer Val Elliott Rose Madden Christine Peasley Ruth Eisinger Lillian Stubbs Arliss Gadbaw Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held August 13, 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk From: Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Theresa L. Naab, Deputy Clerk August 8, 1990 /.uG 13 Subject: Appointment of Election Judges for the Primary Election Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Per State Statute 204B.21, Subdivision 2, the City must appoint election judges for the upcoming primary election 25 days prior to the election. Attached is a draft of a resolution listing those persons qualified and willing to serve as election judges for the Primary Election to be held on September 11, 1990. Currently, 21 judges have indicated their intent to work. There may be additional persons appointed at a later time through an additional resolution. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by ___, seconded by ___, to adopt Resolution #_______ appointing election judges for the Primary Election to be held on September 11, 1990. Ayes ___, nays ___. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarded recommending approval. 8790.1 i.: TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: August 7, 1990 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information ■I■-M ! '•. ^ 1 r:, :i n r ADVISORY BOARD SELECTION PROCESS GUIDELINES - Attachment A is the guidelines revised In accordance with the direction at the July 23, 1990 meeting. ADMINISTRATOR'S VACATION - On August 25th through September 1st John Gerhardson will be the Acting Administrator in my absence and for the Council meeting on August 27, 1990. GOAL SETTING - See attachment. JUNE RECEIPTS & DISBURSEMENTS - See attachment. WIRE TRANSFERS - See attachment. CORN DAYS PARADE - The City's new street sweeper will be shown off occupying the last position in the parade. Given its position it will also demonstrate its abilities to clean streets. I GO^ to w mfH QJ Xi c 6 ^ 4J 5- .tISae GO 4J Q C 0 \ 0^ O Dg S« «.5>«-s:j3l3IQ fH r-l C U •O C p O iJ -H >p J U ^ -H u (UPlpp g- 8ISI * *5 8 rH U g y S Is 8.“*i| 0» fH *n Q S H CM 0\ > 5 S §o o 3 flj i-j Aj eh 8 = 3 Ilf•H IQ U) •8 lu ■u O10 Cg’Ss 11 *3 *j § 8. .m ^ ^ 03 I 8 ° 8 5 4J *“ 2 0 4J u E IQ 'O i> 8 w g. .g ’g 'gl ’S^ in to Q U D> (/) 4J o S ^ O ^ O M CM 3 CM ■-< I si - i1^ ■y U§ s SSs •sfl5§f gs: m g e.g fH «§ 14 3 >18 U *«4•2SS3U ^ 8 gu•H «#4 rH *J §8 •33*> 4J -4 t> CJ^ 35 3 l§ to ^ 04 XJipi AJ Ta o 5 8 o\ in Qi'8 self H4 to S o ON CO > o I I o g*A 88 u O 10 O , (U 3g3 si“ “fiS I’ 3* ns H'’? |a a c S »p ns O' u *S 8*8 U IQ 0<>U Un.*«^ o m 'O W •'f ^ 8*2 ^ tfS rH I.) § g 5 §.IQ S I 1 g a I ?•H*u & £ "* u (6U XJ 5gg ft! 5 o» I IQ 0> S'ns I,8.215 S.2^•o g*a s. ga•iH tM tW AJ C 3.2s5 S 8*g.5 p! S IS S 8. ^ 8 8g ■gs 01 10 e .5 to 2 ‘ * Sc 88* •g? 8 a>A< -A AJ .Mgo ! W #H 3 c S 5 5 5 § - ■“ a 8*M n gi »H ra 3 33 CO o\ o GO CD 0> —----?■■•-V I o § s.•& I•rf I *J $ iJ 10 fl 5 !ir ‘Hi •-H fH|a ■SR ul 8 s 3-S *ta •2 I S 2^ -HO“•.sa 5*^ 3 bt|8 “"I; n c -H u in <q Q. X* cj> B Q ■‘J -w aVi -r^ j3 ...I VI ■-• ai (0 >-4 ••4 0) 0)1« S|s II >.I o J r^ CO o^ 00 00 00 o| U-l g 2 8*8 S-8 S I 8®Is Win ^ .i 2 2 0) 2| |S Is •M >8 «H U-l •4»< U4u « 1 \">^82 it! s;:^ •goii ®;H'g Ij rsia. §^l Is S 0 0 rH 8 *<U •8 u. 8p |i||:n ;§" |S5 |55 (Q c3 5 §» ___h 5 a “ S a w ^ 8 •g sI U S o•H s coo o\ o\ o\ 0 O I-I In 1 I 2<Q <n 01 u )d g *j *j 8 u e in rt '3a> u . .Ifts: 88u '3 01 8 U Q)^ a4J CT» O O #H rH iH • » • (7\ ON ON ON ON ON C/» rH rH O O O O iH I » 8.2 a <0 in <5f a^§ s g *J 4J 4J .-ti 2 22 I) 4J •PTi-cn flTjligSgag H! JO 8 ‘1 'o’ O4 •« u dj Cl ISa* J"' S2 o«04<<a:ot^OO • III y « # s? Ls•H 4i Q s in w < i ? -7 II 5:: I Sa 3 2s s Scu •H S 9, S ^ §O O O f-f o Ct O Ot o o\^ ^ ^ Sr^ 00 ’ o o o o 9 Sr s ^ § O iH g fH ’S w O I fi. 3 U)s s inu 0 1< o a o> O)g- w w O M ec K o O D Ma o C“-E S* U K U M K m >*ii s » o rn I! :: I ■H I si M I Z j § Ia I H H U 8S w 5 o R8 g g a* s a IS; I H O Z a I f I feP , o I S3 ~ o I M H Ov I O M I H C M Si 8 I U I a I So { a z o> I ® is ■ M_ I i^l z 'i I tm m m m m m O ^ m CD r* r* #n €M u> CM r* o> CD CD M n ^ « 00101 I I 100000000 ^CO O iHO<£OOi-4ir^ O o »H cnor)^sr>«OiH ^inomoGor^m o<^^OmoDoo rH ^ 9-4 ^ r> ^ ! "1 5 I IN 00100 •H O 00 O cn mo « a a % ^ O r> O M IN 00 mo I 00000000 omoooino^o moor^cNOiOGD crr^voovoa'in fH ^ rH ! 2 . ^ 5 -. o *0 9 a < « CV C 00 o r: I m«oom^oocDOtf>r»(Dor^^Otf> ^ IN M inou>mooo^inomw>mr*) 00 r«o oooorNmiNCOf-^Mom^r <n (NM oorNOeo^^DOorN^m^o ODO ino-^or^oov#H^r^in^oiH o «H «H IN IN r**ooof^r-m*-4'»’knomoooDO> m m rt^cDtnr*o^^^ von o n omiococo^^CNO CNOn <n O ot^mo^or^ncD 000 r* IN o n o in o n IN r^vv 00 n r4 fH IN #H IN n Of^oonocDOr^iooDinvvvoD n rN m i-4 CD oor*inr*ovr^i-in \o nin IN Oi£ifiva*^o^vv in IN tpo vr*»-<i-«ion\£)vooD V r-< .H «-i n IN CN «-4r^€Dnin 00 *H n n voocNCDon»-HOf^oonovr* o^ vO f^OnomncNiNoooiN^n o^ oninoinoononODOn n on OvDnvou^rsi#HinvAQoo(NfH v•H V so O novr^viAOiNCD nCD n iNrN iDOmvnvHvnm o cuu9T}c^Maaaav<aix^o «cS(r<H9«>EE&E><9VOOObuuaxaw»-iM»i>^uxMua wiSzSaaSz ki ^ «l 3 tl «l «M •-< uI b «i <M U 4J t ^ ^ i <v 01 I 9> ! 2 S O j ! I o\ S • ! »H I O' I t: ! I V I? I rJ I •-• I O' I - I 'i o I CN I % o in 0 I n I !In i V I a I I m I to I 01 ! SI I \ I o t o o> « r> r- • V p-* I 00 mi «o •H 2 a ■ S m I a I -I 1 a I a I :i I I i ! I I I I I a I 2 I -< ■ aa ■ !g S I I i 0 I 1 i m I ^ I r'l ■ :■! CD I IN I vi I 0 On 2a ki •»<o « «M u m **>um «o •9 ^ • •H « O «H ^c 6 a •H O «H\ so ^ « C « K4 10 O n f ti «6 nz%° §» K O *0 « C 9 JD I •O S ^ C n -H 9 « «M «M 10 O u a c o ^ m a m « n o 8.S ^ O W CO «M b Uo « O <M T1 c o « M— «» aa « ~ • 4J £ Ou u a z a ^ h ®1u ■H R O ■o 2 « asu ■o •H *s O■ •S ii 2 § U *Hc ^ ••4 ^ m ? ** c § us ° • s *i « « 9a•a «3 ua c<0 c «— • « ^a ^ > u « —> U • w jQ « M 1 SI 000 09 Z U C Z <M « u m m -H U 2 i 9 «»4 2*l io u c o« >1 ^ o V c U •H U rH •I 9 ^I: > »i O .0u « ■g-2 . 9 U M r-< »* « O « kl 4J U « « C ® ii 19 «C ® I ^ ^ «P ^ o a a r- a N o a o V O' o m ri m n m a I «-< a I ri k ■ I 8 I Ii I I Iorvaopiooiiiin I aamom -t i r- ir>aa*-ioB oja^k aamar* (n i r- a »a^-iairar» I a [I 00000000 I o aoomoo o l >-ivmr'«wmo vio %»•««« a| % ^OD^nmin miv OnincNno •-( I in on^r^rHvH I IN * «> t §U «l« > >tU 9) U K •*• M m > u« o o CO o ^ C U c 9 44 U m V « £ M S • c«9«CiO) •c» K04iO^C«i«jC H«-3MUftoMf-*0 z D O oo• o oo o om o\ fH cs CVJ 00 oo• 00 00 CN CM I—< • CM Or« o o• o o o CM VO VO 00 in• in in <n ON ONro o o• o oo CM O r* VO VO rH CM w o o iH O o• o oo oo iH o in• CM CJN rH O O iH O C^ o rH 00 g| (0 0) to ij c 10 pa 4Jw fH 0) 0) <0 tJ c (0 CQ 4J CO rH W 0> (0 IJ .aO C <0 PQ 4J CO rH JZ X) uo S COo pa <0o COa) (0 i-a C <0 PQ x> (0 iH I PQ 0) 4J JJ <U 3 D* 14 tos CO 0) (0 c to PQ CO rH CO QJ tc s CQ 4J CO rH CO rH D4s c ton 4J CO rH CO 0) to•-a c to to 4J CO fH zo p4 CO rH 04 c to PQ 4J CO rH C to p 0> 4J JJ (p 3 O’ V4 toa: x: 4J >4 O» COo CQ c •H to Q (0 0) h ; to •J c to p 4J CO iH UQ 4J U O 5 COo p c •H to Q (0 0) to »-} j*:cto p 4J CO fH M Cto P <u 4J 4J (1)3cr t4to 2 Hicto p 0) 4J JJ 0)3cr 14 tos <0 0) h : 3 •J Cto p 4J CO iH V 4J 0) 3crutos p 0 p p H Cl4wz1 E-t fH U4 kl to 0 (U •H Of »o XJ 4J O <v to kf 0) •H •H 14 XJ P 0)kf to CO 0)to Of 3 o o e O rH to 4J a a E •H to P to 0)O 0 U4 •H £ Q O CJ •H O r-l XJ kl to kl «44 U4 U4 >0 kf (1) «H o 0 0 0 o>(V E O Of to u E kl to CO CO 4J to O 0)p (U 0) O jC C U E XJ 4J Z U 0 g rH to (0 ki »o 0 to u O 3 XJ 0) CJ •H •rH rQ •H »0 P to XJ CO •v u U4 0*U4 <V (D >H to PI <u - H •H U •H kf kl kf CO £ 0 u 0> XJ 3 XJ 3 OJ a; 0 U 3 E kf XJ u XJ 04 XJ Of kf 4J Jj E 0) to (U to to C 0)3 Q» <0 O u z:U £ P M Q P Z £u 0) CO to £o 14 3 P 14 0)a to p TQ <1) I 14 4J 2 •*-> to Z C S P u "O V 0> Of to to to p £ <o 4J C 'O (U (U e CO 0) to Q) x: jj u o c cn i4 < 3 P <U to U4 to O x: O -M 0)E (U 0) 14cr< fH iH kl 0)kf a> (u to to 3 CO 3 Z CO •H •H p to Of to u O JC <i> 03 x: U kf PI u p <u u 0)0) 0 kl U kf E E 3 ^ ^ 2 E E PI Of £ p> Of 0 0 0> 0)Z to <u u U Z P P £ P U4 o 0) 4J too •H U4 •H 4J k4 <V U »o <p to 4J to *H .C COo o u Of 3 0) P Q xic(U6 0) 0)ucr < o to tox:uu 3 Of 0) *0 P 9> M 2 4J Z CQ P S u E-t< Q O ON m rH VO o o ON m rH VO O o ON CM O o o ON CM o r* o o ON rH fH o o o. fH fH r>- o o ON in CM r* o o ON om o o <7N O ro o o ON a> o GO O V- \ i ^: i LIST OP LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OF August 13, 1990 <T^ S; : Home Occupation License - North.Shore Roofing & Exteriors, Inc. 3980 North Shore Drive 4- CITY OP ORONO P.O. Bex S6, 1335 So Brown Rd Crystal Bay, Mil 5532 3 Application Date:_ _ _ _7^ Date License Approved;_ _ _ _ _ , *.*• ----- Date License Expires:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICATION FOR ANNUAL HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE Initial Review Fee - 550.00 Annual Review Fee - $30.00 4 XZjc, PHONE; _ _ _ _ _NAME: /Lor-it SL ADDRESS: sC: /s^'a'-hL ^Lct^ Ot,CITY; - .w <4 gr~j~3<i- v No. of Employees within operation:/ Provide list of names of employees on back of this application. Type of Business to be Operated; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ License may be revoked if any violation ocenrs. City staff shall have five (5) business days in which to investigate and make a recommendation pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.02 & 5.03. If a site inspection is required by City staff, the review time will be extended to ten (10) business days. The license application with staff recommendation will be scheduled before the Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting held on the second and fourth Monday of each month. ssss=ssss SB = = = = = = = = = = = = = — = —— ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS ON HOME OCCUPATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 4 (C) sxssssssssss: Prohibited Home Occupation Practices. 1. OFFICE ^311Fcvij(;0 01 CEi ^.00cm a 3FLE:?r-lF^ ;W_ .. It is unlawful for any business operating as a home ocjcupa tied nut engage in operation without proper licenses. 2. 3. All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling. No commercial signs permitted other than signs permitted in the residential zone. 4. 5. 6. No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. Over the counter retail sales is not allowed. Entrance to the home occupation must be gained from within the structure. ssssssss:sssssssssrss:ssssssssss: The undersigned hereby agrees to the conditions quoted above from the Orono Municipal Code and any additional conditions the City may require. “Date; Bss:=s3ssss:ssssss: .Signature of Applicant; SB BBSS SB s as s V s ai 3B a s SI 3B s a sa s SB s a FOR CITY USE ONLY: After review of application following; _ _ _ Approval of License _ _ __ Denial of License =sz3=:=========== =========== , Staff recommends the Signature of Zoning Official Signature of Fire Inspector Date; ^ ~ f - ^CL Date: F* • 5-9 0 I . . •• • • V •«. ■ 'rv ^ V. r- * - • • * .^ ■ ■■. ' i . ■•- . - r, „ • ■ . .-v^r V ■ j ' • . - • * •*• i * ■ ' • •• • « . * J ,' -A ■•• ' \ •• r'-'r. .. • .. . -f I* ■ -• - • > ' ^... '• -v-’. • ,• f:ty . .■■■••• “ " ■-■■■■ * ■ - ' ■ ■“■’■ • ■ .1^:’ . ,' •.* .. . ./ • -v •. *; • ••; • . , .* • .*■ •. • . ■;• ;•• . ........................... ... •- •.• ' . •V. >.;■ -v-: - V * •• * V*. I ' 1 OfJ/jl/90 PR; 62 CM PRREGOR NAME CALLAHAN. EDWARD J QOETTEN, J DIANN GRABEK. JAMES nettles. ALAN R PETERSON. BARBARA A SG CITY OF PAYROLL YTD CURRENT DPT GROSS GROSS FIT 11 11 11 11 1933.36 1933.38 2400.00 1933.36 241.67 241.67 300.00 241.67 11 1933.36 241.67 1.266.68 mm% ' C -G m^Oto^tMOcn-HOoo —«nOo>oontM«3—«Otn(NootnrMO'trOtnooi/ir^O«)r~Tro—<r^on0)0^'»i/i CNj—<Onoofsio«D-HO^r^oof\j-Hnn(o-Hh~oocM—iLr>mLnOin^oooor^«TO(NJinoooo(Mr~^oo^(Mr4(jDr~ 0<oc-^-h-hoo—<oopsioonO(oO(OOiDooOtnro<MCT>inairi»i-<orMU3ini^«-^—•o)-HTrLf>om(vj»JCT) 0)«^infMCMr*.«ocoo>«D-Hoo(M-^oo«ooocoo>r»tf>ooinr»o>^0««DC«jr»^t^ooro(MfMO)r>i>^«»nooo-H»noo ^nrjwimn—•n^rvj^o) «» ninronr^csj-HO^iorgroocnoo jo—«nooo) a> co ee r\i-< o O «h-4 . >H CM -H —4 -H—<—«-4—l-H-H-H -H -H —t —I —« —(—< -H —«-H f^a>-^f^Ttir)0-*con(MmooomnoocDooc7><7)mt^r^oo—<o)-«^ooLnOir)Or^r~.ir)in<Mr~^o(Mt^(M(^Ln r~-^Or)C0CMOV—«f~-innLr)oot^(£>f^ooo>r~or\(r^nocooooo(o —<r^0^incj)f^ro^OooTtou5oniriOr^ iD'WoocncMr'CMntomrM —<0^o>(NioorouDnt7)iDr^mTior^OtMOr^c7>-Hr--.r^n—<o—•«»r~'»t'»oia>cMO o»cnmr~ooooo>rMinr>-M(MO'^00)a>Oino)r)«H<MO^«»(VMoo>(MO>o)0)ino>o«5tD'MO)Ot^o)co^incM o>««ct^cDO>n —<-^a5C~iDoou3(M«-Hi£)'!TLnn—<^«LnLnO(NiOnr^oonr~oooiooo(or~—<nLDtMoo-H"«jir> C3^CD«JO>CM—<rsjnn«»oo rsifsin—«oo-Hoor~-oo^-H^—I'^cn CD ^ idotid—<r^(Dr^oo-4 CMCOn-H (MfM M CM CM CM CM CM CM CM-H-H CM CO —I (M CM CMCM-H —«-H <M-H—4 a>-> Z o-o: •-too t- X </> UJ •-> X LU < £ co-HCMCM-HCM —trocM —<-4C0CM(MCMCM—t—ICO—t—(inmcororo —i-HCsJtncMrofMfMrMrMfMCOco cnro-M-^co-^tow^rorororororoDjroooronTTTC-tKjnncnnn-i-Hcnrocnron-^ncTJn^cocD^^wcn O »-< UILU - - - — < u. -J t-tv) t- X»o>»-<£ < z O oea: CD<-JOO<o: ST-iZO o*^>- o *- Q o: < OO ujlli<< kz (/> ae-i z ujx >- ujh- xO£«-tujui >- ec KU£X<-I< I>- </)>->-*-IC3t-<Z<O00IZ_l-J00>- _J >zt- oc<>- u) >- U.3 »-OcE -uj<O 3o:OXX'->uj>-ujOQujic:Z(roo<Z-iu. -<Ov O oc -t— or - -aJUJ^Qe»n<ZX'^oc -0=> OO XO>o:<a:OHt<<Q<< m(/>t-ioluOUior■->UiZ»— -CO Z Z 3*-t t-lUJ O O < *—t-lQlir -<0rUJ<Q:O'-t>I£ UJ35CSCUJ>Z uj Z < —lUJUJ Z OOuOXorOQ - c/»f> - I-I X XZt->Ot-UOQu.oe-JOO -•-> oetooe<<aior>-mz<00o o -ooto <ujO10 -Z -1-4 - -o - O Q</> UJ XX -<ZUJOO:_IC3< XO< oozoQ 0£Osc< -scz zzt-tor -OO - . . . -j; -»-o -o:X>-x >• 3 0 x • XOoeorZ - <0>-'^OOOXOOZujZQ>■ • -OZXni Z od>-> Nil- • -_l - Z*-) -ZOO <00<<UJ -Z -X»-HI-00</></)00</)uj_JOoro:ZZZOOl- -O >-»- -O ZZ oe -lO ZujZ xe»:xx>-i<<Zis:3t«'-'0»-Ht-iicJCXNior<Oi-iujt-iooQrt-iOoozcrtt/)(/)Z3 -Ouj -ujkco uju.uj <UJZZrMX£OZOO»-iZOQZ_IOOOI-U.XO-JtOOOZI-ZCDI-XQO-J<Oa3C/J>-tZXOOXOOUJU.> orOQro:coco3<*-'UJororXZC3'-<*-tcoi-iu.a:uj-JZZXOoa:-J3uJZa3-Jarar<—io:<—i<i-ooorujuj CDZUJujOOOQ:oeXXOujujZorQr*-ie»:<ujQr<<<00<»-'Z3i-i<*-<00<uja3XO<<5ti-i- < < m m ca m OQ ffi CD o U o o a UJ uj UJ u. u. o O O X X X ^ >-3 jc jc Jd ^-J X £ £ £ z z O O o-O a: (o (/) (/) (/> i to H I Ml H 1 —0) cd*9’«doo»m4»—40roi-HH I M z00 -hoo-^oocdcjidO-h I OO II ujO ............................................. ■ “ cc q: eo 00 ^ CO ro (d n o <v i n m rooocDr~ooir)-H*#ro i uo ii D CO CO CO CM N-M 0> ID I « N fj --I —I —t I • M I CO II I in M I H I II C) OO cjun —I ID CO-41" o CO i n I- 00 ^(X^COO—IIDOO>-o ..........................or —lO^mNcoinuso) o CO « 0> O N C J CO OO CM -HOCOOIOOCOCMCOO CM^CMUOUOCO^CM—I CM CM CM —I —I -H-H-HCOCMOOinCOCO COCOCOCO-HCO—ICOO) KXO Q 0___I q:uj3 :<:3)i:-J 0“--ar<oc cnzzuK < _J < UJ H »-l I— Z X XO<I>-n/)0 - 30UJ O-orz)c: - - ZU^QQi-i 00 Z - Ouj>- -J -ar<(k: h-XM ‘ XujXuj xooo -tnt-itio 0££ZUJ-I-IO< X O O < UI <t < UJ UJ (- C/)zw uj O OCQC oca 3o Or^fNJ—<UD^OO 1t^^tn«o—<oom I <M(oifinir>inO—• i 0(00)0000^0 I O) « O fo.O) (D I I - II I <0 H ■ m II Ot/) i-co>-o oca —iiooofsjr^iooo I (DfM^«»00-HOO) (MO—10(000(0^ 1000(3)10—1^(7) tooioo—I0r~(3) fsi-iioinoo-H <N (Nl —< —< -H—lOCMlOlOOO OOO-HO—lOO) ooa O) UJ \q: (M CC (MO. \ l^CD oo aza Ulo z UJ3 oe. 3 _J o o. _i <(£ (/)ZZUJ< —I < UJ )-u-ii—Z ZOO-ICOO - OOuJ Q 5i: o:Z)c - - ox:o3i-i </)Z ■ UJ >- —I •Q£<Q£ XISI - Iuj Zujooo -(/))-)«:a 00<UJ<<UJUJ Z(/> ujO Qco; era oo 0-((0<ooooor>jO<oin<«»in(OOoo(N40'Ho<iJMneor>~o<ooino)Or^r>'<Otr)h«-tDtDrNj-40<*»0(0 iO(MOoo(oooo-HO^(M(00)(M-Jiooor^oo(0-HiO(oOooc7)^oooofM"<»0—<iOooor-~r^r^o<oo(Mr\iujO—< ■ccM—I—ii^ooo—i(»(Nir^^LniM»»Lr>Oooor^ooio(Ni—*(o^-j Oo<oOooo—<rvi(7)o-H—<^iooc\.»3—<oo 0<(Ni(N^ooio(J)(OC7)i^^<0(0<MOo(0'Hio<Moo(3)00(OOr^o^-Oo^rsiOa>ior>.o<i^O—iiorjo —K<NO)io<(MO<(Mr>^oo<o—lor^mor'--^—iOiD»»(MiocT)<T)eo to (m <o <7) —< —tcNjo<000—<—<o •H OJ •-< ^ ^ ^ Otn (M(M—•Ooooo(MO<<io<ioiOh~(sioo<j)ooiocnoa)a)i^<or^iocooo)0—<io^—lOiooor^ooooo I— (/) iooOLnoOf^Or~0(or^io(M<(Niooor>io)<oi^iO(N)oo(Mfs(ooo(M(3)u^(o<Nuoto<ooo-iox—1 —irvKOo>-o ............................................................................................................................................................. q; tnooooO(0(si(>jir>r^p(M(oorMCNjoOinooo<(Nj<inoor^cooo(0(o<rsiOO)0)oor^>^o(Moo-«Or^r~-4o a <■'^0(0—ioo)(0'OOoi^(MO^r--(Oior^Of^f^«»a)—<—MMOTfMto—ir~ior~0(Oioi^(N/(OfNj-Hoooa)00) ooOTjooo(oa)iO(NJ<0(oo)—looo—«oo—KM^OoOf^o^Oo—iooior~o)io—ir~0)^o-jeo—t(MO.~ io«»<oo-H —I <Nj o o lo -HO(MO(OOi^(ooo(\i-Hoa)ooo m o lO o —<ior^TTO(oiO(or^—<o CM O —I (M (Nl (M (M rsl(M(M(M(M(M-H—1 CM <NI —< (M CM CMCM-< -<-4 CM -4 —I —< —< CM a: Q. CC Ooa C7) UJ 'Mo: rjcc CM CL -M r*. CD OO < Zo oa I— 0-HCM-HrM*^0CM-4—1-4 —I—«0—I—I—lOCMCMCMCM—4-40 —I—liomooo—I—ICMlOOCMOCMCMCMCNICMOO—I Q. («O-^O-4(D0XOOOr'O0)OOOO<<-4nOO0)OO - »'HO)00)00>^0(7)0)0<0)CJX< 0)0)0a O < Q 1-4 UJ >- a*-» (/) -J Q£ —I Z CL oc Q. UJ O X UJ UJ—u. —I i-H </) )— Z •-> t— < Z O CK CQ<-io><a; Z-JZO oo>- o t- Q a: < UJUJ< (tz (/) tc-j Z UJX > UJ)- XOZ»-lUJUJ O-JO -J oeoZ<-i< x>- co>-i-4a)-<z<Oi/?xZ-J_ico>- _j >Zf- o:<>- </) >• U.O »-Oa: -UJ < Oq:OXX'->uj )-uj OOuj ^Zq:co<Z_ju . -<00>- O cl -t- iC oe UJUJ20ft:o<ZZ o -OO OO ZO>oe<a:o>-i<<Q<< *-4(/))-i oujOujocoujZi-ir -CD Z 3>-4i-iuj aO< ►HOit: -oi-i -<o:uj <q:0*-4>XZ uj 3 ic:^uj>-jz uj Z< _iujuj < z OcoZecoD • ao -)-4 X ZZOOt-UOOu-ftc-JOO -o (L(/)a;<uj<ujtt;>-OQZ<aooZ O -CO <uj O(/) z ►hh-i ■ o • O oa UJ XZ -<ZujQ)-i(»:-io< xo< azQ -o Qc=)sc< -jc zzi-ioe -to - . . . -►-o -ceZ>x z > 3-0 x • - ZOeeZ - <Oi-45Ct0XOOZUJZO>- • -aZZM Z 0:xo NJ>- -< • z*-> -ztoz <tO<uj -Z •X*-4)-OOC/)toauJ-»OQiQ:ZZZOOH- -O -O ZOZ a -O ZUJZO X CC X *-i< < z 3 toi-4 o>-4SCit: X iMirc< Oi-iuj*-i(/)a: «-iO to z a to toz 3 -O uj -uj )— 03 -uju -ujh - UJ <UJZfMZZOZt0*-<ZC0_JOaOt- Xa-Jt0t0Z)-ZQ0l-XO3-J<O03t0 -i-4ZZC0X(/)UJU.>r Z Q£ o CC CDto 3 < i-luj (L a: Z a>i>-ito . oct j —/z z I to tc —lOuj z m —loi cc <—itocc <-j < i—tocc ujuj O < m z uj OOOq: o: X XOuj zq:q£>- ^ <ujcc < <<00<»-4Z o>-4< i-400<lu<oaZ <o<< c: ►-»-1 z <<cQQOcocDCD(Duoooujujuju.u.aaaxxx'-)»->c:^:c3e:-JZZZZzzoooaooc(/3toatoi- Ulo<a. Ulo<(/> CO trt o (/> o > CM CN ^ lO cn CM r^cM o o CM ^ m —^ cn CM CNl/1-<*H^fn cn •-C ccncn^cn ^05 o o ^ ^^cnrn^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 -H-Hcncncno 1 1 1 1 1 1 o 11 O) 1 1 1 1 1 1 O) O O O) ^ O)cn OCT)r»o CT O) 0> O) ^ O)oooooo o o cn lo o CM ^h-oo O o n m to CNjr- ^cn CD CM CN o o z CM JDOO-H-^CM -H om O)o 000'H-h(m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t in 1 h- t 1 1 1 1 1 1 oooooo o cn o o OOOOOO oooooo CN Z ^ ^ ^ ^ ^CN M CO CNCN CM CM CNCN cn o cn CN CM CM CM CM CM cn cncn to rsi nnnooo cn cn cn cn cn cn CM o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1o11 1 1 1 1 1 t-«1 1 -4cn •H ^ ^ <o oooooo o Of^o oooooo ooooor^fN. z q:UJ o Ul </) to to to CO to IH _i Itl liiIt 1 It 1 It 1 It 1 < I--1 ►H »-< H-l 1-1 l-l H-l Ui OL o -l-l-l-J—l—1 OC H4 OC X X X X X X t-to OC xxxxxx to 1 o z oooooo Ui <1-CD to 3 to to CO to to CO z -lO Ul <o -IOC 3o-J tU liJ ixJ Lii liJ X <1-1 oooooo X mo o z 1 —►H »-l I—1 »—O—M—1 UJ Ul z X xxuxx -1 X X ►- I—Ul U X X X X X Ui XIX z ►1 a:oooooo t-ococ HH 00 on 00 00 (/) 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1 ■ I li I li I !■ I It I !■ I OOCJOOOoooooo q: a: ao cc (rae ql IX Q. a. a. a. <<<<<< <<<<<< OOOOOQ ......................I It I Itl It I zzzzzzoooooo CL Q. a. X Q. Q. Itl ItlIt I It I Itl It I 1111 .1111 1 .11 11 1 1 1 Ul Ulu.u.ou a Ul oc tco Ul Xo z Ul oc. < :x:zo OC I- O Ul o z z z Ul> r oooooooooooo a: ae OC (c OC a: xxxcLa.x (/) CO (/) CO CO oozzzzzz 00 00 00 00 00 00 CD CD CD CO CO OQ C/> CO (/) CO CO CO Itl Itl ItlIt I 111 It I jt3 3333 oooc::3oa oo z X hH X X X mo:a H-l-X < 00 oo>XX z >- to -l-i <X XX m X o X X mac z <<<< > VH l-X o coco I-I X X OC X •0 -i-i X X»--i-i X X<<<<< It 1 1.1 It lit I It I 111 CO CO 00 01 to CO oooooouuuuuu ZZZZZZ |_4 »-| l-l 1-1 »-< »-< iiliiloooooo UUCJCJUU «€««€« oo OO ooooo^oocN oooo 0)00)oo min oo in CD (D CO CO (D cn coco ocncM imn 0)0 r* CD CD CO O) CD cn ^ m CD CO -H —« CM 00-4 ^CD^ -4 CM 98798775675600 00 oo uo oo 00 r«- OOOCMOOtO CM CM CMC*! CM CM CO O in to —< c lO n m O m ^ m COc*> Ozo oe O o o» <o oooooo o> o> <n o> o 00 00 OO OO 00 oooooooo oooooo oooooooooooo o oo O O CD O) cn 05 Ol V.V. 00 coco OO eo o oo o o V* 00 CO oo oo oo o oo o o OOOO^. v. O 0> CT) C> 0> O oooooooooooc OOOOOO on oooo cooo eo OOOOOO OOOOOO 0> O) O) O) 09 00 00 00 00 00 OOOOOO oo oo oo oo 00 00 OOOOOO O o% ^ iO CO CO CO CO OOOOOO OOOOOO mtOimmmn CNj cvj cNj rsi <M fM CN<N<NCM<MCM OO 10(0 CN CM CM CM OOOOOO m n CO n CO n OOOOOO to lOlO lO f i ‘ CM CM <M CM fN( mNCMCNCN n fo o o o OOOOOO (O lO U'UO lO iO CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM cno (O n UJ O<a. o at Uia< 00(/> UIr oc UI o UI oe <y> o 1 — a.z ZZ*-•a:_J —I oe H-l-C/l _i <►-* t-4 O M»-)UI o QL uu(/)XXX X u*O <UI (LO. Q UlUlH-*O oo UI UI 3 v>X <_j_i Z UUO z to UI UJui UI UUZ a <-1 >> 1 —oo<*-(oc l-t UlLLl K*oocn (/>1 —Z oo U.U.U UlUIUI ouo UlUIUI zo 00 moo CO XX OlCL << a: ocooOO oz< C/IC/M/) UlUlUJ ooo <<< OO XX 0.0. 00 00 Xie: OO << CQOQ oooo 0)0»roro OO OO OO OO io<oh>>rofocoroi^ zo §< coco —4 (NItM to to CMfM COCO ooo O O O 0 0)0 o o O\ ooeo 00 oo OO oo OOO o O o UI 1-oo oo oo oo OO oo<ooo O O o OO O) o> OO OO OO OO OO OO U Q OZ > Z CM !*•CM —4 CO at atat —t 1 COCO 1 1 o> 1 1 1 o>m cn O) ^<jy o atat at at csr^z tftuttn CM o CM m 1 1 —1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I—CM CM CM CO o OOzoooCOeo CO o CM CM 00 CM o CO CM CM CM o Of ^ ^xf o 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I o of^of CM <o o o OO Of^l^ cn uo (O'^oo C7) (M <(/) < CO o o» 0)0) oooo (0(0 oooo oooo tozu OO n n f' (M (N u z «at €ift €Cn.«m4 ^«OO «o « o rococo o «to m fN.m WOO O)«•H m o UI OOO o «o «o m oo «o m o>X m m m «m «m «m m m m c m •m « O)o CM CM CM «(M CM •CM m CM CM «CM CM « MCMCM «CM «CM ■CM «CM CM €CM «CM « OOora: UI UI CD CO OO a: Oi OO *-(»-• (X.U. OO ococ OO zr u u u u OO OO l-i- 0.0. UJUl OOzz OOOO OO atat oooooo (M Csl toto tnn atom OOOOlo —< oi OO o>a> c>c*a>a> oooo OO ooeo OO ooo OC oooo OO ifi in <M(M (MfM lOin (MINI CM CM CM -H m • sin oo o>o (OOO —•n oo 1 o> 1 Or^N atv oo CO O)O CO nr~oo m m <M^o-(00 1 1 CM 1 CM (0(0 (0(0 OCM CM O OO OO OCM CO 00 coco ron mcM xf ^ncM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • CO • 4(0 —< —«-xxf fN.OCM OO Ol>^ zcx. ao Q o > >-<31--1 —1 crO oo o lU—1 •->»-> Q)-zz CD UJO -i-i XX mo _i_t << oo l-l->>-u u UIUI oo IrtCO*->>XX UlUJ u.Q.OCX OO _l _l hH o oo HH << Q.Ut 00 ZZ </)(/) X X << (/)(/) UJUl <<(/)(/) >> UI UJ Q£0C I I OOOO OO atat oo OO OO oooo OO / *v.. mm <MOsl CM 04 c/>'X.o o m >z 13ouo< CMi/1 —<—t—in-NCNirg—<CMO -H ro n o n <r ^ ot cn cn II I I I I I I I I • 0)0>—<u3cn«»c7>cn(7)cna50 OO-^—<—<—"fNfNjcviLDinin fMCNI<NirM(MrMrMCMCM(NirSICM■rtirti/^irtimotnirtimninin I I I I I I I I I I I I OOOOOOOOOr^r-r^ r4 r*.cn »M(M c^CM-^CM CM CM —• o>CO r>n> #7» o>CJ»0 0)0)o>*n 0)0 cn o»«n cn a*a>CM CM o ^^ O) ^>« ^ o om iT'm •—CM CM CM CM CM o 1 1 n n ^ <-4 CMCM-H ID -C CM CM 09 CO r> ^moo CM r: I-)CM CM r) ro C^(MCMCn ocn^ ^ ^ 1 f 1 «»^ •H cnro —1 —I o Ol^OO c OOO oo CO</5COOO(/)V1(/U/)t/>l/H/)t/>zzzzzzzzzzzz I—11 —1 »—< »—t *—I •—I »—< -< l-H Kl *-l »-l oaaaoooooooo ooz z UI o UI i-i »— I— q: cc IC << UI UI m 1— 1— zz -3 torn H-I-O UI U. U S »-►- 1-OO z u u<cncn (/) UI 1-4 1-4 UI UI ud ZQ -J-l o O OEoe UI <(,•>(/» cn < UI UlUi _ii—0.0.UI l— h- 1—UI X 1— I—com zz KOCDC O-J<<<Zui Z)0 >-«<<< z 33 Ul>0.0.X Q. Q. Q.XX ac ui o UJoe Xu UIXo o.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a. QCO'KKKQciQiaeKCKaca:ooaoaoooooao IAI 111 ^ QJ QJ QJ l.'J Ixi U.U.U.U.UU.U.U.UUU.U. »-l»-«H4l-4»-<»-l»-0'-ll-ll-l»-ll-l OOOOOOOOOOOO xxonnasacocoLocarxx 1.11 .1 ii I li 1 It 1 1« I m ii 11« I itl li 1 liJ 8ooou888c8SS oooo ZZ ooo "'O u oo zzocnXX crae cncnin oo (, 1 .1 1 JUI L 1— 1— 1—»-»*3 X -1-oe a: ct: o cc uJUl <<<i-Z X o.0.0.0.oozzu u.'v cn m <<1-4 »4 z UlUIUI oo CJO ZZ o zzz ac<x ►4 »-4 .33 oeoe ac >—1 >—1 1-4 << _J _l UI UI u.333 XI —1 —1 7»Z‘r u.ZZZ ec a:. >-j —<UlUIUI UJUI ou t»o UlUi o aao OO inioOinooorMrgfMf'jniritn O—<^ir>cncnn’»’c»<»r'0o—I ooiriincM-Hm»T-i —I—<rvj CM CM k> -H in in fMCM oo '>oooooo ooo in mo cnooo^ oinoco —I oo CD OCM-<^ CMI^ -<o> O 0£o o 88 ■,:j 300000 3} o oi o> <y> cj) o> eooouo^4 <» 03 oo oo 00 oo 00 f.OOOi-OOOOOOO ^00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0000 OOOOOOOOOOO o l.iO O w o o .<u oo O)■ r »0»n»o>Cl c»o>o> ■v. 90 OKt -4 • ;OO oo oo 09 00 00 OU OO o OO OO oo O OOO OO 'v'v.V.w (O oo oo 00 oo oo oo oe oo 00 00 oo oo O oo OO oo <r ooo OO O X €rocnnoonoo^roncno m f •€OO ««t «»«00 09 m «CD (O ID r^r^ u m €«in lA c mm «<7) O)«•in in m m m O Ui m ^ ^ »H «€«-4 —4 *>4 «CM «CM CM CM CMCM a>X m lDlOiniDU*)lDi/*)i/>ir)il^iDU^«tD 41 in in «mm €in m 0 in in in m m m at u CM CM CM CM CM CM C * iM CM CM CM C c «CM «CM CM c CMC'i m CM CM m CM «(M CM CM CM CM -4 <MCMCMCMCMCM<M<MCM<M CM CM CM It CM CM ■CM CM m CM CM m CM «CM CM CM CM CM oc Ui»- lU o </> o (/) o o • UJ -(Z -jO ►im (sj m>r «M '**. 3oe 'VCM OO uj O <vim ZH- 1—Or^oo>- UJO I— oca _j _i n o oooom t-l 1-4 liJ lU u. u. Dear OO u. u. O >z OO in ^-4 (MiTintNj—ifsifNin fM (N CMCsICM M •-4 OO go con ■* ot 1 i 11 O) 1 1 OO 1 1 1 1 ^ Cfl O O)^«•0)0»o»a»«»«o>o»o»o OlOt 91 m OI o» o OO ro r»o m n CsjfM r» in <o <o o>«IO «»•»<• z rsi OO OOOO oo-<<Mmmmm mm 1 1 CM CM <M 1 1 1 CM « 1 H* 1 CO 1 1 oooo fMrsirNifNJfSIfNKMtM m^(M CM CM 25 00 o ro CO o 3 CO (O <o m rsir)mommcnmmo r>o CM (M CM <n O cn n ♦»» »» 1 1 ^ ^ n 1 1 1 1(JQ •1 1 till ^ ^lO —t O -H -H —1 •« <c OO oooo fsl OO OOOOf^r^f~t~Or*.ooo o —I _I_J _j UJ*-o oooo z Z z 2 Zr-iZ oe ►-►-4 X Q<< <m< X t-t K->-ac <2 zz zo.»-i I—«►H »-i r- >-<mr-H*<OLi.OU.U.U.U.<u.m ac < o a.•u <_j *-i a Ui -J•LU <-J -j-j-j-i Ub~l z o U. oe o.<»- < < eo<1—1 z -I 3 Z3300 >->-a:OS _J -JQ a-zmt-izz z _i_i <Z-J Q. Ui ►h O mzo<zzoz OO lU »-< >-UJ 3 0(/)z<<x<<<<m-ju QC tn o QC 8§mmmm ococacOOO > UI UI z z oooo o h-z en oc zz acacacad z OO lUlU OOO UJ 3 »-»-»-»—hi ac ac < < <(/)(/)J-l——1 <<<<o:acac u <H-l »-l 1-1— 1- *—-i OO -J-l h- 1- h-UI UJ UI QC UlUl u. u zzzzXXXZ hi ac zz<<aa ooo z 1-^ o z z lULUIUlU o h- h-zz acacac ►- ac OO acacacas mm OO ooo o >u u 1—< »-< hi •—1 _j ocacocacacocaca:-i-i U.U.U.Ui Ct h-) 1 (-►-r-i-—1 m</»1. II.Ill 11■ 1 lilli 1 U 1 Itl z OO lUlUUiUJ Ui zz U.U.< Ui O UU oeacacac 3 LULU ZZ IX LULU OO <<<<<<<<OO _i _i —I >zz z ZZzz UlUI II ICMAICMAICMAICMA<n> Ui SiC THE 1 THE 1 THE 1 THE 1 THE 1 THE 1 THE 1 THE 1>>- h- h- hi hi OO LONGLONGLONGozo -J o OO ooo r 1 CM CM CM OO mm ooo OOOOOOOOC*)• rsicD CO CM r* m o OO (DCMOU m -1 -1 m CM O r» r*(ooaohs.oomo*f (00(0 in OO CO o OO o m <tf o) -1 -ia> -1 fSIfSI <o o>m oocMin«foo(M*»co mom r*.cn-ic*) J-z r>oooo O in in m m 0)00 00 01(0 r> 0)0) <ou> m LO ncn rMO)r*(Mu>Or>u>ca CM-1 -M r> QO CM *1« 00 lU -1 <n i o OO oooo O OO a 0)01 O) O) 0) O)O)O) 9)\'n V. OO Z09 on rooooo 00 oooo o OO OOOO O OO LU ■*S^ \w. h-OO oooo OO oooeoo 00 oooo<O OO O 300 O OO oz o lU Xu O -H-t —I —< r» «no in in in «M (M rj <M <M CM oooo nnno n n in in in in CMfSirMIM (MlMCsKM mm o»cn n n mm «M(M <MOJ oooooooooi CD oi m o) OO OO 00 00 OO OO OO OO OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oooooooo OOOOOOOO m m m u'l m m m m OO OOO o (7)0)0)0)0)O) 'v.V,\ 00 QO 00 oooo OO OO ooo o •M. OO OO 00 OO 00 OO OO ooo o r>r> m m <M<M oi m oi n n n ^ ^ mmm (M (M (M (MP'JCU «! M 8 • I•% o o « s X M ►- VI Ma 1Cu $o r» § •« l)Ku «* M U «• tflu VI M.u VI )C ►- o V( OIOI•«* -< u IV OO v>v> O O om OO OO MM O <J» O •«>« m ««•••«•«» aiAVIVI M « 0>6i«i«r>vi«ioov>«a»AaM9><*oo di«i<>«r^«««iai««««M*<««aiOT 00'^-*»^<NO»r<¥itnVMr<v»M'iViv>ir< ooo-^<^i*'Of^r^r^or’nmocoo «-H-^<\>rsn<nrscnn«#«* O O O O O O O O *>i> »>■ v> VI «/i v> VMM tn v> «/)«/> <1^ VI Id VIVI IV IV M W IV W hV Iv WJ IV IV Vl VI tV IV M t^MMMI-IVIVOWO-tVtiVI^IV*-”"**^ K- V I a.a.a.a.a.a.dL&.a.&aL5.a.a.a.a.a. l/>(/)>/'l/IVlVlV1</IVIVI(/>l/IVI(/H/>VlV0 ZZZZZZZZZ2ZZZZZZZ ior\#ocMV«e7»f~iOOmO-*-<cNjO —<n noioi «>Or4 (M—<(N—<n(Mn—<inn f*ri<M»*ir*-H —' onr^ '■> -• OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0l<l>OTO»O»O>WCT<7»O*®>O»(5»O><»WO> •oooaaoDMaoeeaoeDOOMflaeoaoaoaoM OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO aooaooaooaaaaoaoaeaeaeMaeeoaoaovi OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO o lO in IOIO(O<OIO(OU7IO(DCCIO<DIOiO(DlO<0inuiioiDi/iuiininuii/iiniruriuiuii/iin irnnir»i/ii/ii/iwiuiif>i/ii/nnir>ifii/iif>in VI fno*invo»tn<a«so*0<o00)i'«00(isri OM«0>('IO»«aO^'l'V'^V>Mi/l<MMO in CM (M lO>o ss I I CO IM<*» « (A r» cn i»i|> *U4 IV § in I/I «nm ir> iT^ CMfM <MCM 8 I § o CM 2 % IV u I OO mo in Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml 01 iMOCM n-r- Ifi vO —o -<to to A A«o «o nOro >4 ^V A OO C»CMA AM •V -<0» «nc*i O OO O o A 01 <3*A at "V 'M M OO aO A OO o OO O o M,'M>V 'M 00 0000 A A o OO o O m CM CM J 1 t 2 - M O •mo «> ^ d» -4 •4« 4» 9 « 111)111 0imm09> 0»o• • OOOtMiOirrf* OOOQOQO OOOOC500 r> o r>» r> r-i —• »N <*) <• O O ^ p^mm I t Imumat (TM«« —• in Wfl* r)« ss >n in« « I I I I 1 I I I I I I 000-«*^-*»N)^in 1 I I I I I I I I «-4 ^rf'inininininirDn OOOOr OOf^ri. I I ) I I 1 I I > I I I •» oacooo«»9io«m 0t)0000-»<>)«*'«'* I I I I J I I I I I I I -«r4f*'nr*»or^r'r^«oiP4 oooooooooa** aoooooooaoKM X in V* t-* a mui >■ >-x M )M >- >- >* oi z«[«a. «.«> O'V.^S )-• tj o*^*"""* m t/i UJ K m <<< Ot- •- «&u»-*^ «♦ Oou»- -> m (/» _i _i _J So^^**5 ►-' )ik.)/»»-) ^-< *-« a < < tab. to. u. ^ t/* i/U/* t/U/U/><A SSSSS58 oc ac ac ae oe « at a: I . I * 1 1 11 I t» I Ii4 z z ar z z z z z z z z z z z 5 z« i^i a. a. CL a. a. 0. a. a. a. tUUiUi fcac at ac a: at acaeat ►-►-►- ««•/)</» >■>->• acacas ac a: at toi UJ uj ac CL a. OO EE t-4 L-l i/ft/t )-« ►-< uo iMtoi OO z z z zoo«/))/) ae oc toi UJ OL O. ZZZZZ 'ZZZ IML-))-) bki Ww IX X I X X X z I r i/uyi in in i/y i/) i/u.'t i'l (JOOCJOUUOO {/:(/* (n in van (/tin >->•>■>->->->•>->- XXXXXXXIX a.&o.ti.a.a.a.a.a. Jto a r:-)ujai ►-» </»0 a: Z X O SGiS t~lKU< < </>at X. *- Oixat UJ at < ac a. >. Ol ilPll •-» >-i »-> ^ *-» •-» oooooo Ip )/> •ouuuou 53^53555553 i4j ii^ WU iAJ IW bij 8888^88^888 \nv>imn in inimni'uniA m in in m in i’> i't m m i'* iA <<<4.4<<<«. << •a<4*4*d*a*d*a<d<^4<a>« <<<<<<<<<<IXIXXXXIIXcLa.acLix.a.a.a.a.cLa, oooooooooooeLO.CLa.aa.a.a.a.aa. OOoo oooooooooooooooo in ooooinoo -< <D O O «0 (M «• < r*r» —«—• -H (p OOOO ooo iTKtOiO OOO r«<M«a< «arx«M OOO —I (S) n ooooc ooooo C OOin»ifiO<—»n oe -ucMooruOtntnmto moofNjoo—<«»knin<~»^ •c*i»«anr>r»0-^tM< mm o<aoom<< < <rsioom <M ''• Oaeinr^r^«3<0»uiOr» t^p* pv <])<p0*<oo>cn « < oaOl <■ < 0« O r»p^ r«. CM < o«m OZo oc O ooooooo O) O) CTi (7) <7) OO OO «0 «0 OO 00 QO OOOOOOO oo oo oo oo oo oo oo OOOOOOO ooo 9) 91 oooooo ooo oooooo ooo oo CD O) «» 00 oo oo oo oo OOOOOOOOO Ob 9b 9b 9b 9b 9b 9b 9b 9b •oaoeoooooeoaoeooo OOOOOOOOO OftOOOOOOODCriOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO ooooooooooo 9b 9b <7b 9b 9) 9b 9b 9> 9b 9b 9b OOOOOOOQOOOOCOOOQOOD09 OOOOOOOOOOO oooooooooooo«ooooooooo OOOOOOOOOOO oz «o ee os oe os ar> OOOOOOO iO UP up (O (A ^ ff> i/> UP «Tb in 4Tb iTb i/> ru rsj <M ru fsi fsi C4 ru <N ru <M ru <Nj <N rborb (D<0 u> in UP UP (MfNiru cucsir4 U> <D uPin ru CM fNir^rururucursKNifM io lO tn i£) (O (IP 40 upinupinupupubini/p rj rj CM nj ru ru rj r-j nrsiru<MrsinrucNCM do oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo 00 oo CM <M <N rj rsi ru (M rj T4 ru rs4 <OtO(^UP4£l(£)(^UP(£>U}UP UPUPinuPinmuPuPinuPUP rur-jrurirurufsjfucMiNru r4 T4 <N 04 (M CM CM r4 IM r4 rj 8< f m x: U) W U 3 «* Xu Xu O S 883 • I I • — ’• Q X»««m • ««o ••XX < I xx» XI<• I in Ml •X• IX XI »x X • XX o -•-« «X«XfX ^JfXfX XXX I I I ooo .t^iXXOI • XIXXX <•>x^>. X X oc5-»«mn ooo ooxxxxxinrto x«x ^ ^«4fX<X OOOi^-lo • X cr C-* ikr%n X • X IX oo 0X1 r4in I c^cx on ill»no*x <J ► otu mm iujO, IMUIM OO^ X « i; m m m m m oocoo UJ i>>< !•> UJ UJ X X r X Xm </> c»</» m <<<<xo u u o o a. X A- a. a. «. I t* I UJ a: X Ik: X X »-< •-« -i -Joomm 35 mm oo •- ►- XX 03*-»•-» 8 ui 4 oaa uu< Xo 888 3 ooummm►I < or mm «<x: -1u>•s XXX o IM UIUJM -a £ ^« >-« tx) ■-• ttl 1- Q ‘6S‘J V XXX 5 <u<<<<IK K <X XXX o XO.O.<<<Ui oco o oeoc oc UJ X a. a.X 0.0.0.(K m m m i/i m XXXXX hW m m m m m >->•>->->- mmmmm UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ x« acxx oz x«i-< UJUi 1- _J -J < u. u.>mm oouu a u. XX <o X §§mm oo (Umm X-1oo8XX mm Ui Uiz z UiUi Z 00 03 t-< t~t t— h-t Ui X X _l . •X K O << 30 X X X oo <<o oo X K -i -i m mm ■ IT* m o "X <S3f^x ox o»xo n OO mr«fxn oo 1-•-t IMIMz-- - 3 X IMCM i< >4 fxoOin -•xfxai o> Ar^r>^ fX (X<X XX (X(X OI o o o o oia»o>mmai xxxxinx oorxxx lx OOO ooo oo r»or»ooo oo ooo ooo XX >4X01 ooo (OX OXM tM><n CVIfM <M-4n IM<M — ooat mxoi M «-4<n «x-^n ooo X oi on o at ooo cn 0) o oo ooooo 0) O O O 00 OO o <n OO OO o X oo XX '■v's. io XXXooo V. X o 00 00 00 ooo 00 o oooooooooo OOOOO 00 00 OOw oo oo OO X O V. XX oo Xo UI ►-<XXX ooo X o oooeeo ooo oo o 00 oo oo oo oo OOOOO oo oo OO oo 00 OO X a XX oo % coeooo in vn in CsICMfsl (0m 00 09 00 nr>r> (0^10 tn in in CMr4f^ <>4<Nfsl ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ <0 (0 lO (0 <0 <0 <0 10 <0 <0 in in in in in <M rg fsi r j <N< CM <Nr4 CM IM min <0(0 m m rjcM CsKM mm 00 00 <0(0 m m CM<M fslCM o» (0m CM (M o>cn <0 <0 m m fMfs# (M€M wo IkJo< wu X O i X Ui fM ^-4-4 r» 0)0101 O) otoi 000 1 I I rvir<4<M tnM nrv n r» OOO in a o> O) w (M fM fM OOOooo oooooo 000 1 I I««« P4<N04 eN*csir<* I I I mr) o COr» oo o -i —I ►- H->S.< < CJO O o >> UJUl aa S Qu.-j X X OO o Z *-<OOO Ui Ui ae as Q£o <<<ae oe a. a OQ o (/>(/)(/»(/>«/i oe a.i-j a. a:)~OC a Ui (/I >->->-Ui Xxo- z U <a >O Ui < UJ Ui Ui <-i <300 O )—Ui -JKoe ae 1-4 o X O Ui O •"i g e o OOUJQOZ > oe u. u. O Z Z K UiOOOuiOOuj ckL O oeZZa. QQ i-Hi-iO OuiacZZoet-t- Z >»-00)-<<ui o O 3 m flO 3 a oe </) U. K • I UJUJOCa.aca.o.aeo.a.0 -JI3XI3000 < 1-4 (/)>-< l-l (/) O OC KOC uiXo>Ocsio)ujuiu. Za:ao<»coae»—3_' UJtucncT>cj)(5)<ujO QQ. — -4—.jtOO K U1»-«/) 1-4 o bJoc 5c: 0 u>1o z >•o Ooz*-4 oe H4 <>a t/i a Ui oe Ui X z Ui Uixxz1-4 Ui o o Ui UiIffXoUiQoooinOUiUiUiUiO ae ooo z a •d UJ oo<<<UiUiUi oe 1 o ooo OC I—X <<<UI »—oezaeaaet—o 333 o Ui Ui Ui UJ Ui (n z ae Ui a><z o OOO 00 Q X X X iC a Ui aeaeae _l O OOO Z o z a )-»—»—U)z oo<1-4 o UiUiUi UI < ucDoa h-»-4 X X XXX Ui O •-» »4<o»or)4»io(Mn^0«MP4^<wr^r»r«. OOOOOOOOOZ3EZZZZZZ2 U.U.U.U U.U.U.U.U. o •oiuoin OO oo oo in m OOOO OO 22 oo o -4 r-. O o)oo oo oo in in OOOO oo oo oo ♦(Mininri eo oo oo oo OOOO *» 4f «mm in in oo •H )- -4 omno) «4 -4 m n 00 oo ^ 4f no oo CMCX OOOO) «n IT) lOin <7>OI r» )>«. 4» 4# oo (MOM n 'nooinOOn-^.H -<oo(vnnOfMin a o^r^'^^O'^OM•»(MiT>mooOuD-4oo oocoa>a)c7)0u30)io <D 00 (O-«(M « ooo o o O o OOO O O o ooo o a»o>o O O) o>o>Ok Oi o \\\ z Moe«a oo oo oo oo OOOO CO 00 00 oo o O O O O OOO O O o a Ui ^ ooo V.\V,V.\ o »-ao » es oo oo oo oo 00 00 oo oo oo oo<OOO o O O O OOO O o O u.Qo >•O H Z1-4 O u:OOO O CJ n ^ <er ^m (O CJ ooo 44 —1 —4 -H o Ui o o o o cn <7>o CTJ CJ) ^Ol cn O) o X in in IT)in m m in m m m m in m o u curMoi <M CM CM CM CMC^JCM CM CM CM tsiru (M ru CM M CM CM CM CM CM CM CM c. wm f . i , I 1 •> . 1990 ELECTION INFORMATIONAugust 1990 '5 ■** The Primary Election will be held on September Hr 1990; polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. August 71st will be the last day to pre-register to vote in the primary. The office will be open until 5:00 p.m. that day for registrants. Persons not registered by this date may vote at the polls on the primary by supplying the proper identification. If a person does not wish to vote the primary# their card will be held until after September 11th for processing so they may vote the General Election. The General Election will be held on November 6, 1990. Once again the polls will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Preregistration for this electior will close on October 16th at 5:00 p.m. The following municipal positions are to be filled at the General Election: Mayor - 2 year term (James R. Grabek's term will expire 12/31/90) 2 CounciImembers - 4 year terms (J. Diann Goetten ..2/31/90; Alan R. Nettles 12/31/90) Candidates may file for these positions from Tuesday, August 28, 1990 - 3:00 a.m. through Tuesday, September 11, 1990 - 4:30 p.m. The filing fee is $2.00. Persons out of thu precinct on election day may apply for an absentee ballot by filling out the application prior to the election. Also, the office will be open on Saturday, September 8th from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. and Monday, September 10th until 7:00 p.m. for anyone wishing to absentee vote. (Appropriate personnel will also receive additional information on procedures for abrentee voting.) The following locations will be used as polling places: Precinct 1 - City Council Chambers - 1275 Brown Road South Precinct 2 - Gray Freshwater r'ological Institute - 2500 Shadywood Road Precinct 3 - Lakeview Golf Club Drive se - 405 North Arm Precinct 4 - Schumi.:.** Elementary School, Room 16 - 765 Old Crystal Bay Road MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Planning Commission Chair, Charlie Kelley, and Planning Commission Members Jeffrey Johnson, Maureen Bellows, Ed Cohen, and Candace Rowlette. The following represented the City Staff; Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Scheffler. Councilmember Callahan was also present. INTRODUCTION-PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER ROWLETTE Kelley took this opportunity to introduce Candace Rowlette and to welcome her to the Planning Commission. #1555 LANDSTAR INC. 2501 OLD BEACH ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 TO 7:45 P.M. Mr. Dennis Sandin, Landstar, Inc., Mr. Bill Rudnicki, Surveyor, and Ms. JoEllen Hurr, Zoning Administrator for the City of Minnetonka Beach, were present. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mabusth noted that this subdivision was also scheduled for the Minnetonka Beach Council Meeting tnis evening. Kelley referred to a memo that had been received from JoEllen Hurr. He questioned whether it was appr*. priate for the Planning Commission to address the issues raised in the staff memo as it appeared that Minnetonka Beach would have to table the subdiv^isicn review until wetlands ordinance is passed.. Hurr explained, "The Minnetonka Beach City <jncil is consider an ordinance that would pertain to wetia- , and flood plains. is anticipated that the issue will be resolved at their Aug . meeting." Kelley suggested that it may he appropriate to hold the matter in abeyance until that time. Hurr replied, “I don't believe that the City of Minnetonka Beach expects the Orono Planning '’''mmission and Council to delay action due to issues that Minnetor. * Heach is considering." Kelley advised tnat Orono is being asked to approve of certain land alterations within the flood plain of our City pending resolve of the filling activities within Minnetonka Beach. - 1 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1555-LANDSTAR INC. CONTINUED Mabusth asked the Planning Commission co explain any concerns they have regarding this subdivision for the benefit of the applicant. Bellows stated that one of her concerns is the proposed ex .ation which would occur in a wetland area. Rowlette stated that she was concerned about the lot line rearrangement that is proposed with Lafayette Ridge owners. is V * noted that the purpose of the lot line rearrangement e additional boat slips for Lafayette Ridge. ir. c.rence to the proposed excavation, Mabusth asked the Planning Commission whether they would recommend that the applicant file a separate Conditional Use Permit and Variance application. Mabusth asked, "Would the Planning Commission consider a compensating excavation in Orono's protected wetlands/flood plain area to mitigate filling done in a protected area in another City?" Johnson asked the applicant to provide additional information regarding the excavation. Mr. Kudnicki explained that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requires the compensation for a wetland area that is filled. Kelley asked Mr. Sandin what position the Freshwater Biological Institute has regarding the disturbance of the wetland area. Mr. Sandin replied, "I received a letter from Marty Jessen, President of the FWBI, which indicates that they have no objections to disturbance of the wetlands provided that construct'Oi does not occur." Bellows read the letter from Mr. Jessen. She said, "I do not interpiet this letter to mean that the Freshwater Foundation approves of the proposal to excavate the wetlands." Kelli • asked Mr. Sandin whether Mr. Jessen has been specified y apprised of the proposal. Mr. San^ ‘ indicated that he has proviJf^d a sketch plan to Mr. Jessen. JoEllen Hun said, "I have talked with wr. Jessen and I am sure that he is aware of the proposal to excavate." Johnson asked whether the wetlands existing on the private - 2 - 7 1 CITY OF HOUND By:_ _ _ _ _ Mayor Date: By: CTerk Date: CITY OF ORONO By:. Mayor Date: By:. Clerk Date: CITY OF SHOREWOOD By:_ _ _ _ _ __ Mayor Date: By:. Clerk Date: CITY OF SPRING PARK By:_ _ _ _ _ _ __ Mayor Date: By:. Clerk Date: CITY OF TONKA BAY By:. Mayor Date: By:. CT^ Date: CITY OF VICTORIA By:_ _ _ _ _ __ Mayor Date: By:. Date: CITY OF WAYZATA By:. Mayor Date: By: Clerk Date: CITY OF WCjDLAND By:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mayor Date: By:. Clerk ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST Once all the below listed tasks are corr.^;Ieted, checklist and all required documents to the State, final payment will be authorized. please sign and return the This must be returned before 1. 2. 3. Date of published hearing notice. Date of postmark of hearing notice to Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources/Area Hydrologist. Date of hearing(s). Date of ordinance adoption. If ordinance is published in entirety, date and affidavit o* newspaper publication of adopted ordinance. (Include three copies of ordinance) If only ordinance summary published, date and affidavit of newspaper publication of ordinance title and summary along with certified copy of adopted ordinance in its entirety from the Clerk. (Include three copies of ordinance) Date of official filing of adopted ordinance with County Recorder (_ _ _ _ _record book number _ _ _ _ _ _page number). Board of Adjustment/AppeaIs has been estabiished. *Note; Cities under charter must also submit a list of any additional requirements for hearings, notices, etc. stated in their charter. Please specify; 61490.10 (76) TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrato DATS: August 6, 1990 a"- 13 nncr-r) :vCIi.TECT: Park Dedication Attav':hneiit:A. C. E. VanEeckhout Letter Dated 4/25/90 B. Park Dedication Memo Dated 4/6/90 C. Draft Response to Mr. VanEeckhout D. Park Dedication Fee Implementation Process Draft E. Resolution #1252 - Park Dedicacion Fund Dated 2/23/81 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to Council regarding objections to Council's adopted ordinance by Mr. VanEeckhout. 2. Allow Council to determine what action, if any, they want to take based on those objections. INTRODUCTION - Hr. VanEeckhout’s objections 1?.'^. k° Ue City Attorney’s office. These issue. Attorney's office with him and reviewed as to their legality. DISCUSSION - Hr. VanEeckhout raises three specific issues as to legality ’^f the following: 1. Obtaining a park dedication from land previously subdivided. 2. Use of park dedication fees for development or maintenance. 3. How directly must a cash in lieu of land be related to that subdivisions impact of the park syrtern? Additionally he raised the issue of adopting a Park Needs Assessment prior to an ordinance. The is«-ue that is most sensitive legally is previously subdivided property paying a dedication. 6oes present substantial problems in determining tubdVvided o\er 20 years ago. The other two areas questioned in the ordinance have adequate legal foundation although the term maintenance should be refined. Additionally the Attorney recommended adoption of the following additional languauge in Attachment D. Park Commission reviwed the issues at their August 7th meeting and decided to table for consideration at their next meeting. (Attachment Cis drafted as a response to Mr. VanEeckhout.) ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Indicate what action, if any, the Council desires. 3. Refer to Park Commission any or all of the issues for further review and comment. 4. Take no action. RECOM!!ENDATION - It is recommended that Council tab* pending recommendation by the Park Commission on repealing the action on payment of previously subdivided properties. At present while there is no direct statutory authority for such has not been ruled legal. (The policy arguement could be made that the new home will place a burden on the park system and those previously developed were "just lucky".) Staff does have a substantial concern on the fairness as this impact will fall directly on somebody who has acquired a piece of property and being faced at the time of building permit with a park dedication fee. This is a different situation than a person acquiring a piece of property from someone who has subdivided the property with the park dedication already built into the purchase price. Additionally we are not aware of other cities that do require it for property owners in the category of previously subdivided property paying at time of building permit. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council table consideration pending a recommendaTIon from the Park Commission. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director a April 25. 1990 "MAY 1 1990Mr. Jim Grabeck 3050 Jamestown Poad Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Jim: It seems to roe that any reasonable reading of the statutes and case law leaves some serious questions as to the validity of the recently enacted Park Dedication Ordinance. I am firmly behind park land acquisition and development, but am strongly opposed to any ordinances that may not be legally defensible. I would like an explanation of the apparent incompatibility between the ordinance and the statutes and case law. I have noted the statute language and ordinance language by reference number. 1) The statute has no provisions for park dedication for previously divided or platted lands. 'i;,'■'2) The statute does not allow for park dedication funds to be used for development or maintenance. This provision was included prior to 1980 but was repealed in 1981 by the Minnesota legislature. 3) The preponderance of case law and the statute are 'very clear that the amount collected, if cash is collected, must be directly related to the impact of the affected subdivision on the overall park system. I have highlighted a few areas to support this argument. Many cities that have adopted Park Dedication Ordinances that seem to be consistent with the statutes have first determined their land acquisition costs, estimated the total potential residential units and divided to obtain the costs per unit and thus assessed this flat fee per unit as development occurs. Your response to these concerns will be appreciated. Sincerely, ^4^ C.E. Van Eeckhout CEV/sjc 12.0 BitOuJAj ^3. Ijoajci -5^552? 1 5 M *£»Ti\Tuni: 2-b CoLU\% 1/5 rb(J 8'lo Sup. /Nsso uurruiz. / <* . ORDINANCE #_J1_, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11.62 OF THE ORONO CITY CODE RELATING TO PARK DEDICATION AND CASH FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND. follows The City Council of the City of Orono ordains as Section 1. Section 11.62 of the Orono City Code is hereby amended and the current fee schedule ^ ,r park dedication fees is hereby repealed. Section 2. Section 11.62. Parks, Playgrounds and Open Space. A. Lands for Public Use. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, (1989), SeetTon 465".368, subd. 2b„ the City requires all persons, corporations or other legal entities that subdivide land with the City of Orono as a prerequisite to approval of a lot division, final plat, or development of any land previously ^ divided by plat,' metes and bounds, or any other means, must ^ convey to the City or dedicate to the public, for use as parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space, a given percentage of the land being platted or developed as hereinafter specified, said portions to be approved by the City. In lieu thereof, the subdivider shall, at the option of the City pay to the City, for use in the acquisition, development or maintenance;of public parks, playgrounds, trail's, wetlands or open spaces and debt retirement in connection with the land previously acquired foe such public purposes, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the fair market value of the land to be developed. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the City Council based upon the need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Dedicated Land Requircments. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this section shall be reasonably adaptable for the above public purposes. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tree cover, access and location. , C. Land Dedication Minimum Area. Subdividers shall be required to dedicate to the City for parks, playgrounds, trails, open spaces and other public purposes as a minimum that percentage of gross land area, or other such amount as may be determined by the City Council, as set forth below: (1) Rcsidential/Agricultural/Multiplc Residential Zoned ' Land. izi’ (f Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted, subdivided or existing lot of record. (2) Commercial/Industrial Zoned Land. Dedicated requirement of 8% of the land being platted subdivided or existing lot of record. 13 Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands^ In those instances whore a'cash contribution is to be made by the subdivider , in lieu of a conv<'yance or dedication of land, tne cash contribution to be contributed shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the equivalent undeveloped land that would otherwise have been conveyed or dedicated. The City shall account for such funds in a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. Fair Market Value of Lands. "Fair Market Value i.or purposes of this Cod “lhIll be the iXnd pre-development value to be determined by the City Council as of the time of preliminary plat application in accordance with the following; (1) The City Assessor shall recommend to ’ the City Coucil as to the fair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. If agreement is not reached between the City Assessor and subdivider, then the fair market value shall be determined in accordance with the following: (a) Fair market value as determined by the City Council based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider, at his expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are approved members of SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate societies. (b) If the City disputes such appraisal amounts, obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified teal estate appraisee which the City Council selects and which appraisal may be accepted by tne City as being an accurate appraisal at fair marxet value. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the subdivider. (c) The subdivider may appeal any final determination of fait market value as provided by Minnesota Statute Section 462.361. The determination of fair market value of the undeveloped land by the City Assessor, City Council, or designated appraisers, shall be determined as of the time of preliminary subdivision approval is granted as long as there is final plat approval within the time limits as set forth in this chapter. The time of ireliminary plat approval is utilized because the nature of the subdivision, its probable population, lot size and value, and other relevant factors are known. If an extension of the time limits in this chapter is approved by the Citv council, the fair market value shall be determined" as of the time of the approval of that extension. In determining the fair market value as of time of preliminary plat application, or the thereof,^the factors to be included in the analysis shlli include any and all factors which are generally accepted and used by approved members of SHEA or MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. $300.00 per dwelling unit. p nrvfloDinent of Land Proviouslv Platted. If the .ir/a’dv been ptevious'ly subdivided and nee had not been rhr l’=s’suln1e^‘;ra”'ifu?fdl-^^ \hc structure. 1=1 % imposed upon that lana ir hho Citv be liable for anypreviously paid In no !^rii-tfoe=pcrcenrage “:f'ranrer°equivalen"t n,ar.ct value in cash to be dedicated. O administrative Procedures. The City C.uncil shall ”ceL^L"y o"r“^proprra"t“?“Impleaen%^%':^^^ provisions ot this section of the code. Section 3. This ordinance shall have full force and effect upon its ^assage and publication. passed by the Coucll of the City of Orono. Henne^pln County, Minnesota, this 9th . day of AprU ATt4$T: /'Dorothy City Clerk Publish tW week of April 30, 1990 in the Laker/Pioneer newspaper. 3 y © . ....----- ws/.iL.wis auu me comprcnensive plan. The regulations may prohibit certain classes or kinds of subdivisions in areas where prohibition is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the purposes of this section, particularly the preservation of agricultural lands. The regulations may prohibit, restrict or control development for the purpose of protecting and assuring access tc direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The regulations may prohibit, restnet, or control surface, above surface, or subsurface development for the purpose of protecting subsurface areas for existing or potential mined underground space development pursuant to sections 472B.03 to 472B.07, and access thereto. The regulations may prohibit the issuance of building permits for any tracts, lots, or parcels for w hich required subdivision approval has not been obtained The regulations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on the construction and installation of sewers, streets, electnc. gas, drainage, and water facilities, and similar utili: rs and improvements or. in lieu thereof, on the receipt by the municipality of a cash deposit, cenified check, irrevocable ietter of credit, or bond in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to assure the municipality that the utilities and improvements will be constructed or installed according to the specificat ions of the municipality. Sections 471.345 and 574.26 do not apply to improvements made by a subdivider or a subdivider's contractor. The regulations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on compli ance with other requirements reasonably related to the provisions of the regulations and to execute development contracts embodying the terms and conditions of approv- al. The municipality may enforce such agreements and conditions by appropriate legal and equitable remedies. Subd. 2b. Dedication. The regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as streets, roads, sewers, elearic, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds and similar utilities and improvements. In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that (a) the municipality may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for pan or all of the ponion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval. (b)^any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality us«i only for the purposeyfor which the money^was ybtained (c) in establishing the ^asonable ponion to be dtfdfcated, the regula^ions^may consi« the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and (d) the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that ponion of land for the purposes stated in this paragraph as a result of approval of the subdivision. [For text of subds Sa to 10. see M.S.J988J Histon-: 1989 c 196 s 1: 1989 c 200 s I 462J597 INTERIM USES. STA’Hjnr Subdivision 1. Definition. An “interim use" is a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Subd. 2. Authority. Zoning regulations may permit the governing body to allow interim uses. The regulations may set conditions on interim uses. The governing body may grant permission for an interim use of property if: (1) the use conforms to the zoning regulations; (2) the date or event that will terminate the use can be identified wirh ccrtaintyv.3^ (3) permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future: and vl COLLIS V. cm- OF BLOOMINGTON Mi""- 19 .he ..,pe of paroi evidence p.ainuff a^u. inco,l.«d ,n. un^ ^o ----------- to Lhe inal court. unconstitutional taking of prop erty without just compensation. M.S.A. § 462.358; U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 5; M.S. A.Constl974. art 1. § 13. sort teU ‘ sought to submit to Lhe trial court Affirmed 2. Municipal Corporations *=»43 , Within meaning of statute authoncing j municipalities to require, as condition aor ^ subdivision approval, dedication of reasona- , 4 ble portion of subdivision property for George C. COLLIS, et al.. PP« narks and playgrounds or pajTnent of fees V. to be used therefor, term "reasonable por- CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. ReapondenL — No. 45523. Supreme Court of .Minnesou. Aug. 13. 1976^ Subdividers brought action against city Challensing fecial constiw.ionality of sut- uw au.horiiing mumcipaiilies to requir dedication of land for parks and p.ay- groor.ds or payment of fees to be used therefor as condition for subd.v.s.on ap- proval, and city ordinance tion" would be construea lo mean tion of land which evidence reasonably cs- Ublishes municipality will need to acquire / for purposes staled as result of approval of / subdivision. M.S.A. § 462.358. 3. Constitutional Law «=»63(2) Municipal Corporations *»43 Statute authorizing municipalities to require, as condition for subdivision approv al. dedication of reasonable portion of su^ division property for parks and playgroun s or contribution of equivalent amount in cast! to be collected inU) fund to be usedIsSlil fisssj and ordinance, and plaintiffs iherefore. did not constitute an unconstitu- The Supreme Court. Kelly, u.. held that of powers to municipali- sutute authorising municipalities to reqmre ^ dedication of land or payment of tees was not on its face, an unconstitutional taking ^ Eminent Domain •=2(1) of Vrocertv without just compensation: city ordinance providing that, aa gen- It such sutute waa not an unconatitu- .,t i, reasonable to require « tional delegation of powers to municipali- jonjiiion for subdivision approval. dedi«- ties- and that city ordinance implementing io% of subdivision pro^ y or such statute was within sco|« »f enabling p,,,, p,.>.gr„unds •r^contnbutmn^^_^such siaiuie .......... legislation, and was not, on its face, a Uk- ing of property without just compensation. Affirmed. Equivalent amount in cash, was w.thm scope of enabling legislation, and was not, on its face, a Uking of just compensation. M.S.A. § 46^3o8. U. . C.A.Const. Amend. 5; M.S.A.Const.l9 , 1. Eminent Domain «=* 2(1) art. 1, § 13. Statute authorizing municipalities to k, i^jpal Corporations «=»43 require, as condition for ’ u„dcr city ordinance providing that »t- .1. dedicotioh of a "^‘r" ‘Z7 oloy. is reJon“bL u, require, os condition for ;^“n^rTn:LGo„‘’"^,l.^ent subdivision approve,. dedicaUon of ‘an (D MllUlO SJPP^;>Av£f^juoo*'Tb KJtt V i: 26 Minn. 246 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES [1, 2] While in general subdivision regu lations are a valid exercise of the police power, made necessary by the problems subdivisions create—i. e., greater needs for munieipa! services and facilities—, the pos sibility of arbitrariness and unfairness in their application is nonetheless subsUntiai: municipality could use dedication regula tions to exact land or fees from a subdivid er far out of proportion to the needs creat ed by his subdivision in order to avoid im posing the burden of panng for additional services on all citizens via taxation. To tolerate this situation would be to allow an otherwise acceptable exe.-cise of police pow er to become grand theft But the enabling statute he.-e prevents this from occurring by authorizing dedication of only a "reason able portion" of land for the purposes stat ed. We therefo.»‘e uphold the statute as constitutional. A "reasonable portion" is Construed to mean that portion of land which the evidence reasonably establishes the municipality will need to acquire for the purposes stated as a result of approval of the subdivision. This is. of necessity, a facts-and-circumsunces test, but it is the only kind of test that will consider the myriad of factors which may bear on a municipality’s needs for certain kinds of facilities and the relationship of a particular subdivision to those needs. In articulating this test, we decline to follow the extreme approaches of the Illi nois and Montana cases discussed herein. We choose instead to follow the lead of Wisconsin, California, and New York, and those cases which hold that a reasonable relationship between the approval of the subdivision and the municipality's need for land is required. [3] 2. The issue of delegation of au thority to municipalities and their officials to regulate subdivisions is raised by the parties. The subdivision-control statute in this case imports a standard of reasonable ness and otherwise clearly specifies the type property boundaries with which (he legal sys tem is accustomed to dealing. Frequently, use of any given parcel of property is at the same time effectively a use of, or a demand upon. AJCt 7 4 of regulation authorized and the standards \ to which such a regulation must conform. This is all that .Minnesota case law requires. O'Brien v. City of Sc. Paul, 2S5 Minn. 378, 173 N.W.2d 462 (1969); Ue v. Delmont, 223 Minn. 101, 36 N.W.2d 530 (1949); State ex re!. Interstate Air-Parts. Inc. v. Af. A. C, 223 Minn. 175. 25 N.W.2d 718 (1947). 3. Th.-ee aspects of the Bloomington or dinance present further problems: (1) The requirement that 10 percent of the undevel oped land must be dedicated or its cash equivalent paid: (2) the definition of unde veloped land value as the estimate of mar ket value made by the city assessor: and (3) the use of the date of approval of the final plat as the date upon which undeveloped land value is determined. Since none of these aspects of the ordinance is mandated by the enabling statute, we might choose to hold that any or ail of them is beyond the authority given by that statute. For the reasons that follow, however, we find such a holding unnecessary. Requirements based on portions of the plat and ratios of the plat to acres have been upheld in the cases discussed supra. Billings Propenies, Inc. v. Y’eUowstone County, supra (V» to Vi? of the plat); Associ ated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay. Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, supra (2‘A acres of park or recreation land for each 1,000 new re.sidenis); Jenad, Inc. v. Village of Scarsdale. supra ($250 per lot); Jordan v. Village of .'^fenomonee Falls, su pra ($200 per lot). One case has held that a 7-percent requirement was arbitrary as a matter of law, using the "specifically and uniquely attributable" test. Ansuini v. City of Cranston. 107 R.I. 63. 264 A.2d 910 (1970). Two commentators have made the follow ing statement regarding flat percentage of land requirements in school dedication cases: .K requirement such as land dedication for schools, however, poses a property beyond the border of ihe user." Tak ings. Private Property and Public Rights. 81 Yale L.J. H9. 152. C^' ' i w BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA 2469 UNIVERSITY AVENUE. ST. PAUL. MN 55114 (612) 646-7959 March 23, 1990 Council Members City of Orono P,0. Box 66 Orono, Mn. 55323 Honorable Council Members; On behalf of the Builders Association of Minnesota I would like to express concerns regarding your proposed park dedication ordinance. There are several areas in this ordinance we feel should be further examined before adoption. We would appreciate an opportunity to meet with City staff and attend the public hearing scheduled for March 26, 1990 to contribute our comments and suggestions. There have been some long standing features of park dedication ordinances as accepted by state law in Minnesota. It should be noted that those include a deuication of land in relation to a specific subdivision and is similar to dedication of land for roads and other public purposes. The purpose of collecting monies in lieu of taking land is in order to provide the city the ability to pool it*s money to buy larger park property. The purpose therefore is that instead of dedicated land the city may purchase property with collected fees. The monies collected therefore are not to be used for maintenance and improvements of existing parks. Another key component of park dedication ordinances as outlined by Minnesota Statutes la that the fee is collected at time of subdivision, and the "fair market value" is based on the raw land value, not the finished land value. This proposed ordinance has several deviations from the standard park dedication practice. In Section 2.A. of the proposed ordinance under Lands for Public Use, it should be noted that the city uses an incorrect citation of Minnesota statutes, 1971, Section 462.358, subd. 2. This section was repealed in 1980 and replaced by subd. 2b. Reference made to retiring debt and other purposes has been removed from the statute based on a number of court cases and proceedings. It should be reiterated that the monies collected in lieu of land should be used to purchase only park property. Under Secfion 2.B. it should be noted that in present MN Statutes park land dedication is allowed for passive recreational purposes. The Statute after the 1989 law change includes wetlands and open space. There is nothing to prohibit a developer from designating wetlands and more passive recreational areas of the property as open space and therefore could be used in lieu of a park dedication fee. Therefore the land dedicated by tbe developer does not have to be maintained for active residentia: ase. The factors listed in proposed Section 2.B. tend to indicate only land suitable for active recreational purposes would be accepted as dedicated lands. Regarding Section 2, caution was given by the Supreme Court in Collis V. city of Bloomington that no specific*fee amounts should be indicated because the amount of land and or fees collected should be based solely on the particular sites resulting need for recreational uses. There has to be a relationship between the recreational need generated by the development and the amount of money or land dedicated. It should be especially noted the problem of including existing lots of record in both the residential and commercial area. In Section 2.D. cash collected in lieu of land should be specified as for it's specific purpose. The ordinance should specifically indicate that the funds will be used to purchase land and that the purchase should be part of a CIP program that has already been adopted by the City of Orono. The fee should be equivalent to the fair market value of undeveloped land, and not based on preliminary plat value. The preliminary plat indicates the potential for development and potential for a revised fair market value based on finished lot. The fair market value should not be based on preliminary plat but on raw land prior to platting, not on future value. Under Section 2.E. entitled Fair Market Value of Lands, the subdivider should prepare in accordance to accepted practice the appraised value of land. However, if the city disputes that appraised value, the city, at it*s expense should find a appraisal to refute the findings of the developer. Section 2.E.,(3) further expresses the city's desire that the "fair market value” should be determined at preliminary plat rather than using raw land values. Once again, the standard established under Minnesota Statutes is the fair market value be based on raw land prior to development. Section 2.E.(4) establishes a minimum cash dedication is inconsistent with existing case law. In regard to Section 2.F., the existing dedication statutes provide for dedicating land for public streets at the time of platting. If at some time in the future the city determines the need for other roadways the city is required to purchase land easements from the respective property owners. To go back and ask for a park dedication fee after the property has been platted just because it is currently vacant is similar to taking an easement which the city would otherwise have to purchase. There is no foundation under Minnesota Statutes that we are aware of that would allow cities to require a dedication after a plat has been recorded. Instead of a dedication this would appear more like an easement or taking which would require compensation by the city rather the the reverse. We find no foundation for this type of practice. In conclusion, it woulu be important for the City of Orono to investigate other community's park dedication ordinances that might be available for review. Also, as a guidance and a useful tool, the city might consider contacting Joel Jamnik, who is the League of Minnesota Cities legal consul. Joel has been involved in park dedication issues and might have some comments and sugo"^stions for your city. As an organization we have been involved with assisting cities and working closely with them in their park dedication and similar types of ordinances. We would be glad to offer our expertise and any information to assist in this particular project. This ordinance was brought to our attention by several of our members that do develop in your community and we look forward to representing them on this issue. ban M. Archer xecutive Vice President 0 .r V *■t TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: April 6, 1990 SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fees 4690. Attachment: A. Park Dedication Fees Memo Dated 3/14/9P (Cover and Draft Ordinance Only) B. Minute Excerpts Park Dedication Discussion 3/26/90 C. Proposed Revised Ordinance ISSUE - Determine if the Council desires to make amendments proposed by the City Attorney, INTRODUCTION - Council adopted an ordinance regarding a change in the park dedication fee at its March 26, 1990 meeting. Because of irsues raised in conjunction with that consideration the City Attorney reviewed again the Ordinance and has made some suggested changes to that. DISCUSSION - The changes as noted in the Attachment are as follows I 1. Change cite in Ordinance to conform to 1989 codification. 2. Indicate the City has the ability to determine that wetlands are an optional consideration. 3. Clarification as to final determination as to amount. 4. Clearly indicate that the value is pre-development value. 5. Further rights of appeal in accordance with case law. 6. Clarification as to time for determination of fee. / 7. Determination as to whether this applies to ^11 applications not given preliminary approval by May 1st or to applications received after May 1st. Part of these recommendations were incorporated in the motion as noted in the minutes. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt 2. Amf^nd and adopt. 3. Table. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENATION - It is cecommended that Council adopt the recommended changes with the clarification that it applies to application submitted after May 1, 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council adopt the proposed changes to its Ordinance as outlined in Attachment C. Ayes _, Nays _. 31490.2 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATS: March 14, 1990 SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fee Attachment:A. Park Dedication Memo Dated 2/23/90 B. Public Hearing Notice C. Draft Ordinance Language D. Comprehensive Plan/Park and Open Space Plan E. Ordinance 11.62 ISSUE - 1. Hold a public hearing to gather input on the proposed amendment. 2. Determination as to what changes, if any, the Council desires to inact; A. Chapter 11.62 regarding park dedication and B. Chapter 1.05 the Fee Ordinance as updated by Ordinance 62 of the Second Series. INTRODUCTION - At Council's December 11, 1989 meeting the Park Commission made recommendations regarding an increase in the park dedication ordinance. This was discussed further at the Council's January 8th and also at the Febrary 26th meeting with a public hearing being scheduled for this meeting. The City Attorney's office has reviewed and developed language proposed in Attachment C. DISCUSSION - The issues outlined in A.ttachment A that are incorporated in the language are as follows: A. 8% dedication level B. Basis for valuation - valuation is set on the predevelopment value. C. Per Council directive no phase-in is proposed. D. Effective date - established to be effective for all applications received after 1 May 1990. Additionally Council discussed with the Park Commission to work on developing a capital plan for the parks. Park dedication fees are viewed by the development community as one of several types of development fees to which they generally ®xpc*?ss reservations. The general issues related to any developer's fee ate as follows: Caoital versus Operations - Generally dedication are ioc caoi til" expend! tut es only, it is expected that operational expenditures would be handled by existing tax base for Lhe portion of operations used by the current users and new'tax base for the use by the new development. capital Costs Split - To the extent that any new 73^^17 ri” soley for use by new development, the total should be paid by the developers. However, for those facilities which there is service to both current development and new development and necessitated by both it is felt the issue relates as to how that is s?lit. (It is assumed that costs for current “sers would ^ithe be through general tax base or some type of assessment.) How Constructed and Paid - construction - Either built by the developer or by contract and'construction under City auspices. rlnancinq - Privately - ^>tber paid , ivately by the developer and ilnaiiced in either private sales mortgage costs. Publicly - Payment can either be through a levriopet’s payment up front or an assessment. zSninV s'taSJafd"\ht'c~\Ty |«”'iyTtem\'’VVhe"?0-3°0% of thi land that is left undeveloped awaiting to be subdivided. that new units create a potential impact on the park syst-m. The use of park land falls into three catagories. open space - This element recognises the benefit^ toj ^iTv oT^eas which are not built on. *n urban environment of central cities, such open space is Critical and"“in many of the redevelopments do"e in the central cities they work to free up open space for small Hrks and plazas. In a suburban area because of the larger sized lots this is not as critical an issue. Pa,!«ive Park Space - This represents the for ^mizttTSH"ar^wn on the Comprehensive Plan that allows peopl'? to walk, relax, enjoy, photograph, picnic, etc. in the park. Arfivo Racreation - This is when areas are created and develop'^d in a' pTrk for team sports, such as baseball, soccer, tennis, skating, softball together with uses for bike/hiking etc. Th« cataqori-s for functional use of open space, passive and Ic-iv- not mutually exclusive, but can be the same act«age^and serve all three purposes. Parks in suburban ar.as particularly developed within the last 20 years tend to be incorporate all 3 aspects. in th. case of Orono, Attachment D, which is the ^ ^tc. (in part because those lots are often wCoded a'reas o'r not fiat enough, which effectively limits sue Sports activity). 1975. Vr.y Tf the Citv would look to pick up between 5 and to be dedicated. For tne of contribution at todays^\rues\he°C^ty would pick up t^^'an In iri%nd dedication would yield about 3.2 acres. The impact of subdivision and the way to monetarily gauge it can fall into two catagories. A per Onit - From a park demand standpoint i" the area Cre=sfm^"demin°r f^or;°rTani%ed play as would a four bedroom house on 2 acres or on acre lot. Ld in turn intensity dictate the demand o^^^ park system. For example a 10 P®’:'; lots or 2 developed into 10 one acre lots, 5 two ac - EVlJvVir.' '“ - system than the one acre lot.) valu^ for comercU^ ani of the density, they do ’have the one hand for for particularly one larger need for „ou\d have a demand *fr rit'\haTis less than that for the four bedroom house. Snn"tog%“ther llth** thVimpact%rthe “%* an “the"?llua'tion is^s follows; Lot Size 5 Acre 2 Acre 1 Acre (Already Sewered) Commercial- Industrial Cost Acre $6-7200 7600-13200 21-29000 28-31000 Pet Unit (One House) 8% Unit Pec Unit Under Present Schedule $30-36000 $24-2880 $100 15200-26400 12-2100 200 21-29000 1680-2320 400 8% per acre 2240-2480 $500/acre park Development - standards together with the limited tET-City base<T5n “he Jafge lot toning, and the need need for open fPa=«“/urisdictions recreational ■:”ources to take advantage of ^ ^ity itself however, while located within the comrauni y* small neighborhood parks perhaps not having a large need £o 1 9^^ ^2 cres and serving a very l^^^hed “rea, oniy_^^^ of any Hackberry at 4 acres under ^ be developed. The reasonable size ^developed for its sports Ichool District does have certain fields « acquired an which are used for /^st side of Old Crystal Bay Road additional 50 acres the . ^ the development ®ny which would be “does ^ve a very limited ability park plan. the inLeasing demands for the organized Park Acquisition - The Comprehensive Plan speaks to the need not to acquire any further park land. It is approporaite that this be reviewed by the Park Commission if the the City needs to acquire any addition park land which should be done within the next 5 to 10 years as by the year 2000 the City is expected to reach full development at the current zoning standards. In other suburban communities the land is often acquired early-on when it is relatively cheap and av’ailable in fairly substantial segments. The communities in acquiring that land often "bank it" until additional funds become available and there is a demand for upgraded facilities. In Orono*s case the initial monies would be used to acquire any land for parks desired together with trails and bikeways system through contributions and dedications for these facilities. Once the land is acquired it can be developed as the demand dictates. This allows the flexibility, should zonings in any area be changed to allow more intense development and placement of additional facilities in those parks should greater community development be allowed. Future Lot Subdivision - Under the current system once lots are ready to be subdivided and pay an additional park dedication fee on the number of'additiona1 units. It should be made clear in the ordinance that regardless of the system the City adopts that should additional lots be subdivided that an additional burden is created. Under the proposed ordinance it is valued at the next subdivion and credit is given for that parcel from the amount paid at the previous subidvision. Value of that lot should generate monies for park system because it is intensifying the use. To a degree contributions on a per unit basis are easier to handle than giving credit for value based on the future subdivision. Credit/Non-Credit for Select Improvements - As noted in the City's current ordinance together with those of other communities they define what limited credits, if any, will be given to the park dedication fee or lands in advance. Included for consideration although not necessarily specifically for credit are the following: Wetlands Trails Tennis Courts/Other onsite recreational improvements The City's decision as to which should be credited and which shouldn't assists in administering the policy. In the case of wetlands for the City, the City only takes an easement and as such is not taking title to the land. It may not be appropriate that it be given any break on the park dedication fee as it is still under private ownership. As noted in the current ordinance the City doesn't take credit for the open space in a planned unit district either. Caps - Because of the demand for packs is not necessarily fully a function of the value of the property, the City could look at placin9 a cap on the amount of development in any unit would necessarily contribute. Currently in the proposed ordinance there is a provision that the minimum has to be contributed. ALTERNATIVES - Issue #1 - Public Hearing 1. Hold. 2. Conclude. 3. Continue. Issue #2 - Ordinance Amendment 1. Adopt. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the language presented is acceptable tor an 8% of the land assessment of a preliminary plat. The concern is however, that each and every subdivision needs to be evaluated separately to determine the actual "valuation basis" and several of these in the future will probably be discussed at Council level. As an alternative staff still recommends taking an average value lot in each catagory an applying 8% to be used as the per unit lot figure for the following year. (The catagories would be the 5 acre, 2 acre, 1 acre and then gearing the multiple development to percentage at 75% of the single family 1 acre.) Additionally it is recommended that the Park Commission be directed to come forward with methods for doing the appropriate Park Development Capital Plan. Once the Council has adopted the new park dedication ordinance, language to amend the fee ordiance will be submitted. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 26, 1990 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members pj^0sent: Mayor Grabek# Councilmembers Goetten, Callahan and Peterson. CounciImember Nettles was absent. The following represented the City staff: Acting City Administrator Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Attorney Barrett, City Engineer Cook, Police Chief Kilbo and City Recorder Scheffler. YEAR XVI C.D.B.G. FUNDS PROPOSED USE PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:02 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication was duly noted. Acting City Administrator Gerhardson stated that the purpose of this Public Hearing is to obtain citizen input. This year Orono will receive approximately $23,000.00. There were no public comments regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Goetten informed those in attendance how the funds are proposed to be disbursed. She said that in addition to the $20,000.00 for housing redevelopment, the City will grant $1,000.00 each for Westonka Intervention, Westonka Community Action and Interfaith Outreach. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2783 allocating Year XVI Community Development Block Grant funds as that Resolution indicates. Gerhardson requested that the motion include that those organizations proposed to receive funding submit a written statement as to the intended use of the funds. Gerhardson said that HUD requires the written statement as part of the approval process. Goetten amended her motion to reflect Gerhardson's request, Peterson seconded. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. PARK DEDICATION FEE ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING 7:10 P.M. TO 7:21 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication was duly noted. Gerhardson explained that the Park Commission has prepared and is presenting an Ordinance to amend the Park Dedication fees due to the fact that the existing fees collected are inadequate. Park Commission Representative Flint listed the conclusions the Park Commission had determined after two years of studying the Park Dedication fee Ordinance; 1) The current Park Dedication fee schedule is woefully - 1 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 26, 1990 PARK DEDICATION FEE CONTINUED inadequate. 2) The park program has immediate needs for funds that would be generated from raising the fee. That would be to undertake a comprehensive planning process and to build a trail system. 3) There is a window of opportunity to raise the appropriate funds by placing the new schedule in effect as soon as possible because the development that is likely to occur will occur within the next several years. If there is any further delay the needed funds will not raised. 4) The fee schedule should be based on pre-development fair market value of the land. 5^ The Park Dedication Fee should be established at 8% of the fair market value of the land. Marla Meredith, 3685 Watertown Road, Linda Whitman, 3620 Eileen Street, and Scott Stein, 3575 Christine Drive, indicated that they supported the Ordinance Amendment. Councilmember Callahan asked the Park Commission why they recommend that the Park fee be based on 8% of fair market value rather than an established average that would be set for each of the various lot sizes within Orono. Flint replied, "We favored the use of the fair market value because it seems to be common among other cities. We have talked with Orono's Assessor and he sees no problem in providing a fair market value. Taking an average does not comply with the intent of the Park fee which should be relative to the value of the land. The use of that method would not be fair in that it would not consider the variation for example in the cost of a 2- acre lakeshore lot and a 2-acre inland lot. The fair market value method would automatically reflect the rate of inflation. Mr. Tom Owens, an Attorney, expressed the concerns of his client, Robert White who resides at 4245 Bayside Road. Mr. White is in the process of gifting a portion of his property to his son and will now be subjected to this increase in the Park Dedication fee. Mr. Owens questioned whether there would be any further public hearings or meetings prior to adoption of the amendment. Gerhardson replied that this public hearing could be continued if the Council chose to table this matter for this evening. Mr. Owens said, "The imposition of a mature community such as Orono amending this Ordinance at this point, puts the burden - 2 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 26, 1990 PARK DEDICATION FEE CONTINUED of the park system on those with considerable acreage yet to be subdivided." There were no further comments from the public and Mayor Grabek closed the public hearing. In response to Mr. Owen's comments. Mayor Grabek said, "I don't think that we should put aside all of the Park Commission's hard work over the past two years because of one incident and objection. We have not heard any opposition from other Orono residents. The Park Commission has done an admirable job. We have delayed action on this long enough." Gaffron asked at what stage of development would a parcel of land be assessed for Park Dedication fee. Gaffron also asked the effective date of the Ordinance and how the Council will address those applications for subdivision that have already been received by the City. Councilmember Callahan suggested that applications now in the process of review by the City would not be affected by the Ordinance Amendment. Callahan believed that an effective date of May 1, 1990 to be appropriate and that the property value be assessed as of the time that preliminary subdivision approval is given. Councilmember Goetten stated that she agreed with Councilmember Callahan. Goetten indicated that this is an appropriate time to implement this change and that she felt comfortable doing so. Councilmember Peterson concurred with Callahan and Goetten and had wished that this had been done long ago. Peterson thanked the Park Commission for their efforts in researching and preparing this Ordinance Amendment. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt the Park Dedication fee Ordinance amendment, with the clarification that it become effective May 1, 1990, that applications for subdivision that have been filed up to this point not be covered by the new ordinance and that the assessed fair market value of a property be based on its status as of the date of preliminary plat approval. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. CONSENT AGENDA* Councilmember Goetten requested that items #4 and #23 be removed from the Consent Agenda. It was requested by Acting City Administrator Gerhardson that items #15 and #17 be removed from the Consent Agenda. - 3 - ORDINANCl #, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION OF THE ORONO CITY CODE RELATING TO PARK DEDICATION AND CASH FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND. The City Council of the City of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Section 11.62 of the Orono City Code is hereby amended and the current fee schedule for park dedication fees is hereby repealed. Section 2. Section Parks, Playgrounds and Open Space A. Lands for Public Use. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, i9?i (1989) , Section 462.358, subd. 2 the City requires all persons, corporations or other legal entities that subdivide land with the City of Orono mast as a prerequisite to approval of a lot division, final plat, or development of any land previously divided by plat, m^tes and bounds, or any oth^'r means, to must convey to the City or dedicate to the public, for use as parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space, a givf'n percentage of the land being platted or developed as hereinafter specified, said portions to b^ approved by the City. In lieu thereof, the subdivider shall, at the option of the City pay to the City, for use in the acquisition, development or maint^'nance of public parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands (optional) or open spaces and d^'bt retirement in connection with the land previously acquired for such public purposes, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the fair market value of the land to be developed. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by th#' City Council based upon the need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. D e d _i c a^e d_L a n d Re quirements. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this section shall be reasonably adaptable for the above public purposes. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tree cover, access and location. C. Land Dedication Minimum Area. Subdividers shall be required to dedicate to the City for parks, playgrounds, trails, open spaces and other public purposes as a minimum that percentage of gross land area as set out beiow-r ,or other such amount as may be deter ntin^^d by th<^ City Counc i 1, as set f oc th below! (1) Residentia 1/Agr icu11ura 1/Mu 11iple Residential Zoned Land. Dedication cequirerarnt of 8% of the land being platted, subidvided or existing lot of record. (2) Commercial/Industrial Zonk'd Land. Dedicated requirement of 8% of the . subdivided or existing lot of record. id being platted D. Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands. In those instances where a cash contribution Ti to be made by the subdivider, in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land, the cash contribution to be contributred shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the equivalent undeveloped land that would otherwise have been conveyed or dedicated. The City shall account for such funds in a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. Fair Market Value of Lands. "Fair Market Value" for purposes of thTs Code sHall be the land pre-deyelopment value to be determined by the City Council as of the time of preliminary plat application in accordance with the following; (1) The City Assessor shall recommend to the City Coucil as to the fair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. (2) If agreement is not reached between the City Assessor and subdivider, then the fair market value shall be determined in accordance with the following; (a) Fair market value as determined by the City Council based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider, at his expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are approved members of SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate secieties. (b) If the City disputes such appraisal amounts, it may obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real eastate appraiser which the City Council selects and which appraisal may be accepted by the City as being an accurate appraisal at fair market value. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the subdivider. (c) The subdivider may appeal any final determination of fair market value as prov ided" by Minnesota Statute Section 462.361. (optional) (3) The determination of fair market value of the undeveloped land by the City Assessor, City Council, or designated appraisers, shall be determined as of the time of preliminary plat application subdivision approval is granted as long as there is fina ”I plat approvaT within the time limits as set forth in this u chapter. The time cf preliminary plat approval is utilized because the nature of the subdivision, its probable population, lot size and value, and other relevant factors are known. If an extension of the cime limits in this chapter is approved by the City Council, the fair marxet value shall be determined as of the time of the approval of that extension. In determining the fair market vatue as of time of preliminary plat application, or the extension thereof, the factors to be included in the analysis shall include any and all factors which are generally accepted and used by approved members of SREA or MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. (4) Notwithstanding the above, in no event shall the cash contribution per lot be less than $500.00 per lot or $300.00 per dwelling unit. F. Development of Land Previously Platted.If the land has a Fee had not beenalready beenpreviouslysubdivided and previously paid, the requirements of this division shall apply at the time of the issuance of a building permit for the primary structure. Future SubdiV ision. Any land which is further subdivided, divT3‘e<Tor repTatted subsequent to May 1, 1990, shall be sutiect to the requirements of the ordinance then in effect conct-cning dedication of land for public purposes, and credit shall be liven for any changes previously imposed upon that land if the subc’ivider can prove that fees were previously paid. In no event shill the City be liable for any payment which may be due because of a subsequent reduction in the application percentage oi land or equivalent market value in cash to be dedicated , H, Administrative Procedures. The City Council shall establish such idministrative procedures as they may deem necessary or appiopriate to implement the provisions of this section of the cod'. Section 3. This ordinance shall have full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Passed by the Coucil of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1990. ^ST: James R. Gcabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hdllin, City Clerk ORDINANCE i , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11.62 OF THE .’’ONO CITY CODE RELATING TO PARK DEDICATION AND CASH FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND. follow;: Thr City Council of thr city of Orono ordains as S^'ction 1. Section 11.62 of the Orono City Code is hereby amended and the current fee schedule for park dedication fees is hereby repealed. Section 2. Section 11.62. Parks, Playgrounds and Open Space. A. Lands for Public Use. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, (1989), Section 465".T58, subd. 2b, the city requires all persons, corporations or other legal entiti^'s that subdivide land with the city of Orono as a prerequisite' to approval of a lot division, final plat, or deve'lopment of any land pr^'viously divide'd by plat, mete's and bounds, or any other means, must convey to the City or dedicate to the public, for use as parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space, a given percentage of the land being platted or developed as hereinafter specified, said portions to be approved by the City. In lieu thereof, the subdivider shall, at the option of the City pay to the City, for use in the acquisition, development or maintenance of public parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open spaces and debt retirement in connection with the land previously acquired for such public purposes, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the fair market value of the land to be developed. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shall be decided by the City Council based upon th*' need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. ®• Dedicated Land Requirements. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this section shall be reasonably adaptable for the abov* public purposes. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tree cover, access and location. C. Land Dedication Minimum Area. Subdividers shall be required to dedicate to the city for parks, playgrounds, trails, open spaces and other public purposes as a minimum that percentage of gross land area, or other such amount as may b*' determined by the City Council, as set forth below: (1) Residential/Agricultural/Mul tiple Residential Zonk'd Land. Dedication r<'quiof 8% of the land being platted, subdivided or existing lot of record. (2) Comm*'rcial/Industrial Zoned Land. Dedicated requirement of 8% of the land being platted subdivided or existing lot of record. D. Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands.In those instances by the subdividet, inwhere a cash contribution is to be made -------- lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land, the cash contribution to be contributed shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the equivalent undeveloped land that would otherwise have been conveyed or dedicat^'d. The City shall account for such funds in a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. E. Fair Market Value of Lands. "Fair Market Value" for purposes of'thls Code shall be the land pr‘'-dev<'lopment value to be det'^rmined by the City Council as of the time of preliminary plat application in accordance with the following: (1) The City Assessor shall recommend to the city Coucil as to the fair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. (2) If agreement is not : 'hed betw'^^'n the City Ass^'ssor and subdivider, ther ' fair market value shall be determined in accordanc- with the following: (a) Fair market value as determined by the City Council based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivid»'r, at his expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who ate approved members of SREA or MAI, or equivalent teal estate societies. (b) If the City disputes such appraisal amounts, it may obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser which the City Council selects and which appraisal may be accepted by the City as being an accurate appraisal at fait market value. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the subdividec. (c) The subdivider may appeal any final determination of fair mark*'t value as provided by Minnesota Statute Section 462.361. (3) The determination of fair market value of the undeveloped land by the City Assessor, City Council, or designated appraisers, shall be determined as of the time of preliminary subdivision approval is granted as long as there is final plat approval within the time limits as set forth in this chapter. The tim? of preliminary plat approval is utilized because the nature I < of thr subdivision, its pcobabl^' population, lot siz^' and valup, and other relevant factors arc known. If an extension of the time limits in this chapter is approved by the City Council, the fair market value shall be determined as of the time of the approval of that extension. In determining the fair market value as of time of preliminary plat application, or the extension thereof, the factors to be included in the analysis shall include any and all factors which are generally accepted and used by approved members of SREA or MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. (4) Notwithstanding the above, in no event shall the cash contribution per lot be less than $500.00 per lot or $300.00 per dwelling unit. F. Development of Land Previously Platted. If the land has already been previously iubd i v idea and i Fee had not been previously paid, the require^aents of this division shall apply at the time of the issuance of a building permit for the primary str ucture . G. Future Su bdivision. Any land which is further subdivided, divided or replatted or applied for such subsequent to May 1, 1990,- shall be subject to the requirements of the ordinance then in effect concerning dedication of land for public purposes, and credit shall be given for any charges previously imposed upon that land if the subdivider can prove that fees were previously paid. In no event shall the City be liable for any payment which may be due because of a subsequent reduction in the application percentage of land or equivalent market value in cash to be dedicated. H. Administrative Procedures. The City Council shall establish iuch administrative pTocedures as they may deem necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of this section of tne code. Section 3. This ordinance shall have full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Passed by the Coucil of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 9th day of _ _ _April_ _ _ _ _ _, 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, CityClerk 8890.1 d rp in ll,i IniLL> U.U Mr. Charles VanEeckhout 120 Brown Road South Long Lake, MN 55356 Lfcdr Mr. VanEeckhout, In response to your letter ancT converstation with me regarding t ® legality of the selected aspects of the City's new park dedication fee, research related to those points has been done by the City Attorney. As a result of this review, the City is considerin' 'ending the Ordinance as it relates to the section on co3 cion of a fee from lots that were part of a subdivision that had not previously paid a fee. In addition I have asked for a revision to clarify the intended definition of "maintenance", and possibly amend it to "capital improvement". The intent was not to use funds for the operations of the park but strictly to do significant capital repair together with facility construction which is felt to have adequate legal support, as does the relation of cash to impact of the subdivision of the parks. The Park Commission will be reviewing this at their September 4th Park Commission meeting. The delay in response is regretted but deemed appropriate in light of the significant issue you have rasied. We appreciate your participation is this process. Sincerely, James R. Grabek Mayor 51690.1 in fci /T Puli13 J U TO:Department Heads FROM:Mark E.Bernhardson,City DATE:May 16,1990 /r -Jj Li SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fee Implementation Process Attachment: A. Orono Ordinance No. 82, Second Series - Park Dedication Fees B. Resolution Establish Park Dedication Fund Dated _ _ _ ISSUE - Presentation of the process for implementation of the revised park dedication fee. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's April 9, 1990 Council meeting they adopted Attachment A revising the basis on which the City, determines park dedication and what situations it applied. process for deterraini t ion of a park dedication fee was based on a formula depending on the number of dwelling units in a subdivision. The new ordinance is based on the land value for residential purposes prior to the subdivision. In addition it does provide a means for collection of a park dedication fee for lots that have not previously paid a fee. To process can be handled in the following manner for all applications submitted after 1 May 1990. A. Subdivisions - The process for new subdivisions is as follows: 1. Receipt of subdivision by the Building & Zoning staff. 2. Referral to City Assessor for determination of the appropriate preliminary subdivision value. 3. Once the value is determined, referral back to Public Works Director and Park Commission for recommendation as to the amount of land and/or fee that they desire. 4. Once recommendation has been, referral to the Planning Commission and/or Council as appropriate and timely prior to consideration for preliminary subdivision. 5. If the applicant does not agree provision for the appeal is set forth in the ordinance. 6. Upon final subdivision approval payment to the City to be placed in the City's Park Dedication Fund. BUILDING PERMITS - Each new building permit should be for a new primary structure on a lot should be researched to see if it has previously has paid a subdivision fee. If not: 1. Referral to City Assessor for an appraisal 2. Submission back to Building & Zoning and Public Works for discussion of fee. 3. Imposition of payment of fee prior to issuance of building permit. PARK CAPITAL BUDGET - In addition to the means for collection the Park Commission will undertake the solicitation of request for proposal to engage a consultant to develop a capital budgeting plan for the parks. Once completed, they will make a recommendation to Council as to capital improvements budget for utilization of the funds. Amendments to this procedure will be distributed and placed in the Orono Resource file. Orono Resource City Assessor ORDINANCE SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11.62 OF THE ORONO CITY CODE RELATING TO PARK DEDICATION AND CASH FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND. follows: The City Council of the City of Orono cedains as Section 1. Section 11.62 of the Orono City Code is hereby amended and the current fee schedule for park dedication fees is hereby repealed. Section 2. Section 11.62. Parks, Playgrounds and Open Space A. Lands for Public Use^ Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, (1989), Section 4oT.T58, subd. 2b, the City requires all persons, corporations or other legal entities that subdivide land with the City of Orono as a prerequisite to approval of a lot division, final plat, or development of any land previously divided by plat, mete's and bounds, or any other means, must convey to the City or dedicate to the public, for use as parks, Dlaygrounds, trails, or open space, a given perc^'ntage of the land being platted or developed as hereinafter specified, said portions to be approved by the City. In lieu th<'r*'of, the subdivider shall, at the option of the City pay to the City, for use in the acquisition, development or maintenance of public parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open spaces and debt retirement in connection with the land previously acquired for such public purposes, an equivalent amount in cash based upon the fair market value of the land to be developed. The form of contribution (cash or land, or any combination thereof) shalx be decided by the City Council based upon the need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Dedicated Land Requirements. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this section shall be reasonably adaptable for the above public purposes. Factors used^ in evaluating the adequacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tr'^e cover, access and location. C. Land Dedication Minimum Area. Subdividers shall be required to dedicate to the City for parks, playgrounds, trails, open spaces and other public purposes as a minimum that percentage of gross land area, or other such amount as may be determined by the City Council, as set forth below: (1) Residential/Agricultural/Multiple Residential Zoned Land. 1 Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted, subdivided or existing lot of record. (2) Comicercial/Industrial Zoned Land. Dedicated requirement of 8% of the land being platted subdivided or existing lot of record. D, Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands. In those instances where a cash contribution is to be made by the subdivider , in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land, the cash contribution to be contributed shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the cquival''rt undeveloped land that would otherwise have been conveyed or dedicated. The City shall account for such funds in a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. E. Fair Market Value of Lands. "Fair Market Value" for purooses ot this Cod “ shall be the land pre-development value to be determined by the City Council as of the time of preliminary plat application in accordance with the following: (1) The City Assessor shall recommend to the City Coucil as to the fair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. (2) If agreement is not reached between the City Assessor and subdivider, then the fair market value shall be determined in accordance with the following: (a) Fair market value as determined by the City Council based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider, at his expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are approved members of SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate societies. (b) If the City disputes such appraisal amounts, it may obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser which the City Council selects and which appraisal may be accepted by the City as being an accurate appraisal at fair market value. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the subdividet. (c) The subdivider may appeal any final determination of fair market value as provided by Minnesota Statute Section 462.361. (3) The determination of fair market value of the undeveloped land by the City Assessor, City Council, or desicnated appraisers, shall be determined as of the time‘of preliminary subdivision approval is granted as long as there is final plat approval within the time limits as set forth in this chapter. The time of preliminary plat approval is utilized because the nature of the subdivision, its probable population, lot size and value, and other relevant factors are Known. cxtensio^ of the time limits in this chapter is approved by the City Council, the fair market iu.t det^rminod'^ as of the time of the approval of that extension. In determining the fait market value as of time If preliminary plat application, or the -thecf'of, the factors to be included in the analysis chill include any and all factors which are .‘nerally accepted and used by approved members of S?EA or MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. $300.00 per dwelling unit. F - -- of Land Previously Platted.. structure. subdi V idelPd-MlIj^Y^J^^ purposes, and c- dit shall ^ ^^,,3 j:r,Yo..T;pS" k; r,ruS»o ‘"1 ■*“' *•to be dedicated. H. Administrative ^ section of the code. Section 3. This ordinance shall have full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Passed by the Coucil of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this 9^ day of ' 1^90. )ocothy Publish t1 lilinrcity Clerk week of April 30. 1990 in the Laker/Pioneer newspaper city ; City of OROINO resolution of the city council 1252NO. A RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION #675 establishing a park fund The City of Orono hereby amends Resolution #675 to read: WHEREAS, City of O^ono ^au’^Hsh^contributions establishment Jo/conveyance or dedication of Tanl'for farL!“ptay^rounda, and other public purposes. BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Par. Fund estabUshed^^ - sfhfru?^^b^ -li^P^^to-ria^^F^nd^ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED or^a^SSlBS^, be used only for ^surface water holding areas limited of public parks, P^^y^^^^^^d^b^rLirement in connection with land Orono. ... rtf Citv of Orono, Minnesota at aAdopted by the City Council ^he City or regular meeting held February 23, 1981. . ^ / y ' \ . 1 / ’il H i. . .— william B. Van Nest, Mayor Attest: .Alberta Strom, city cjierK RESOLUTION # 675 A RESOLUTION TO AI4END RESOLUTION #480 ESTABLISHING A PARK FUND WHEREAS, the City of Orono wishes to amend Resolution #480 to read: be it hereby RESOLVED that the Park Fund be established and all park dedication fees collected by the City according to Ordinance #184 be credited to the Park Fund. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the monies in this fund will be used for the purpose of land acquisition or whatever purpose the Council deems for park purposes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held April 12, 1976. Robert L. Searles, Mayor Attest:Walter E.^enson, Clerk-Administrator Li' ft RSSOLOTIOH #4SO A RSSOKJTIOU SSTABLISHma A PAfiK PO!ID WEBBBAS, «!• Pillags of Orono wishes towithin tho Gonoral Pond fo? tho pUPposfi of land acquiai-lon for neii^borhood parks. Council also bo oncuaborod into this Fund. Adopted by th. Tillas# CouaoilHlzmoaota at a regular moating held .lanwiry 22, 1973# Attoatx '3!amoa Cosby, Clark-Admlniatrator ' *1 8790.2 C TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator August 1, 1990 13 SUBJECT: 1991 Budget Attachment:A. Propose Maximum Levy for 1991 B. Propose 1991 Budget (to be transmitted prior to 8/27 meeting to Council) C. Tax Extension P.ate in Hennepin County INTRODUCTION - As discussed at the last meeting, the City is required to set its maximum levy for Truth in Taxation hf*arings in November or forepart of December. In addition the City is to adopt a preliminary budget. The preliminary budget may either be increased or decreased after the initial submission, however, the maximum levy can only be decreased for the 1991 budget. The same type of newspaper notice that was required for the 1990 Budget will be used. For the 1992 Budget, in Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. Louis Counties property specific notices will be prepared and sent to each property taxpayer in advance of the Hearings. DISCUC .ION - The proposed maximum levy, as outlined in Attachment A, una.^rtakes a full levy limit increase of 3.7%. This is a combination of an allowed 3% inflation rate plus approximately 1/2 of the growth the City realized in households between *88 and *89. In addition to this recommendation for that maximum levy the City staff is recommending special levies which monies would go directly to the General Fund together with levies for the various debt funds. In the case of the 1980, *82 and *85 bonds these are levies to assist in paying off the debt. The levy for the 1989 oonds however, is a proposed levy to assist the City in allowing to retain its strong financial rating by having money available to pay off the bonds when they are callable in about 1996, at which point the City could then eliminate the balance of that debt. While tax monies would be used for this initially, the special assessments over ‘the original length of the bonds would then go directly into the general fund and reimburse the City for the monies it raised through taxes. This however, would provide the City with cash that it would not in the long terra otherwise be able to raise. Together with placing the City in a stronger position over the longterm the net effect would be property taxpayers would not, in fact, be paying for the bond issue. This is done, in part, as a result of the fact that the City as being a "good steward" lost $200,000 worth of levy ability back in 1988. ISSUE - Determination of maximum levys and establishment of budget in advance of Truth in Taxation deadline of September 1, 1990 for the 1991 Budget. As for the budget the preliminary proposed budget will be presented to the Council during the interim so that the Council may at its August 27, 1990 meeting adopt a preliminary budget. The effect of the budget, absent any property tax growth, would raise the City tax capacity rate from about 12.77 to about 14.4 which would still place it at one of the lower tax capacities in Hennepin County (see Attachment During the budget period staff will do a 4 to 5 year projt ion of major funding sources and expenditures to track the j ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt the maximum levy and budget. 2. Table to the August 27th meeting to adopt both. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the v 'jum levy be adopted at this time and that the budget be sub I to adoption at the August 27th meeting. Should Council desi- co table both until the August 27th, I would be available through the 24th to discuss any questions Council may have on that. cc: Department Heads 8790.3 1990 AND 1991 LEVYS Tax Capacity (Change #'s) Collectable Collectable 0% 1990 1991 Change 3.7%General Ad Valorum 1,585,546 1,644,831 Special Assessments 0 5,910 TOTAL 1,"85,546 1,650,741 Bonded Debt 1980 Bonds 17,700 17,300 1982 Bonds 0 5,500 1985 Bonds 35,000 40,000 1989 Bonds 0 140,000 TOTAL 52,700 202 00 Maximum Levy 1,638,246 1,853,541 13.1% TO: FROH: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate!^* ^ July 27, 1990 72690.6 n.iG 13‘yiO fi subject: 1991 LMCD Budget Attachments: A. 1991 LMCD Budget Dated 6/28/90 ■. 1. I ISSUE - Determination as to action Council desires to take regarding the LMCD budget. INTRODUCTION - Attachment A was presented to the Council as part of the 1991 Budget package at the Council meeting of July 23, 1990. The City annually reviews the budget but there is no specific adoption of the budget by the City required nor a specific date by which cities need to respond. DISCUSSION - The budget as presented represents a 17.9% overall budget Increase. The administrative portion of the budget is increasing 19.2%. Of that, the revenues which come from the cities and make up just under 50% increase from $149,490 to $166,825, approximate 11.6% increase. About 40% coming from the cities is for the milfoil program ($63,000). For Orono the share is up 12.8% from $25,862 to $29,1 73. This is still below the $32,000 paid by Orono in 1 989. (If there was not a mill cap on the individual city levies, which currently effects only Minnetonka, the Orono share would have been only $17,050. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt as presented, 2. Request changes. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council approve the budget as proposed. The only significant reduction could be in the elimination of the technical position which was added not only for doing the shoreline regulation but for generally assisting the District in carrying out their mission. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by that Council agree with the LMCD budget for 1991 and so direct its representative. Ayes , Nays cc: Eugene Strommen, 402 East Lake Street, Wayzata JoEllen Hurr, 930 Partenwood Road, Long Lake f)/ LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVE 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA. MirjNESQTA 55391 / EUGENE R. ST BOARD MEMBERS Oavid H. Cochran. Chair (jraanwood Alban O Foator, Vice Chair Oeephaven Jan Boswinkel. Secretary Minnetonka Beach John Lawman. TVeasurar Minnetrista Douglas E Babcock Spring Park Marvin BfOrlin Tonka Bay Jamas N Grathwoi Enceisior JoEHen L Hurr Orono John G Maiinka Victoria Thomas Martinson Wayjata Roben K. Pillsbury Minnetonka Robert Rascop Shorewood Thomas W Reese Mound Roben E Slocum Woodland June 28, 1990 fJUN 2 9 1980 - i . •• av. < *■ TO: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPALITIES Your Board is pleased to enclose the 1991 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District budget. It has been certified by the LMCD Board of Directors at its regular meeting June 27, 1990. Revenue projections show decreases in Court Fines for 1991, reviewing forecasts based upon 1990 experience. Boating While Intoxicated citations tend to produce less revenue and more prosecuting costs. Licenses and permits will fall back to 1989 levels due to the morato" rium in force through 1-31-92 on new dock licenses. Increases projected for 1990 will not materialize due to the moratorium. Shore- land Rules grant addition reflects the LMCD responsibility on facili tating the lake municipalities shoreland rules adoption process through 7-31-91. Budget expenses reflect a strengthening of staff through the addition of a full time administrative technician position which is effective in July 1990 as budgeted, and carried forward for a full year in 1991. Professional/Contract Services are similarly reduced reflecting con tract savings with the new administrative technician position. Office lease expenses reflect a provision for a new office lease in anticipated larger quarters. Consulting serv complete. for the long-term management program will be Public information budget is being reduced, shifting a portion of that reliance to the non-profit "Save the Lake" funding potential. A contingency of $10,000 represents three (3) per.cent of the..budget, _ viewed as exceptionally modest. • ' ■ •' i.. . . . . . Eurasian water milfoil weed harvesting obligations are continued at - the 1990 level of $63,000, considering 5X. for^inflation. T. . . . .. •. - , .. . . .. ► C- *..* .y^>a V •. ^ rt-A wr-i I t. -. It . - *• ••/r * Your Board , representative , .. Chair ^ Dave Cochfan^"and . the ...Executive , Director will . welcome discussion-^of this _ 1991^budgetYour_ advance ... invitation, to do so is encouraged. /i. . . 1... - , “a:.*•. ai^-.a^ ^ -rr- - (continued)^; L, «* *#LAKEMINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Municipalities June 28, 1990 Page 2 Minnesota Statute Chapter 907, Section 4, provides! "Expense of the district shall be borne by the municipalities. The portion of the expenses borne by each municipality shall be in proportion to its assessed valuation." Section 5 provides: The.board of directors of the district shall on or before July 1 of each year, prepare a detailed budget of its need for the next calendar year and certify the budget on that date to the governing body of each municipality in the district together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. The governing body of each municipality in the district shall review the budget, and the directors, upon notice from any municipality, shall hear objections to the budget and may, after the hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the municipalities of modifications or amendments. It shall be the duty of the governing body or board of supervi sors of each municipality in the district to provide the funds necessary to meet its proportion of the total cost to be borne by the municipalities as finally certified by the directors, the funds to be raised by any means within the authority of the municipalities and to pay the funds into the treasury of the district in amounts and at times the treasurer of the district may require. The municipalities may each levy a tax not to exceed one mill on the taxable property located therein, to pro vide such funds. Said levy shall be within all other limitations provided by law. Thank you for your positive support. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT John Lewman Treasurer enc Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1991 BUDGET 1989 Budget 1989 Actual 1990 Budget 1991 Adopted REVENUE LMCD Cooununities $ 99.032 $ 99,032 $ 89,490 $103,825 ^ Eurasian Water Milfoil -0-82,653 60,000 63,000) Court Fines )31,317 40,000 35,000 Licenses & Permits )65,185 80,000 65,000 Interest )119,990 7,716 10,000 8,000 Deposits on licenses & permits )3,860 4,000 •2,000 Other Shoreland Rules, MN DNR )1,679 3,000 1,000 Adoption, Grant -0--0--0-45,000 Shoreland Rules, MN DNR Admin/Cons.-0--0--0-15,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE *Total LMCD communities ■ $166,825 $219,022 $291,442 $286,490 $337,825 DISBURSEMENTS Administration Personal Services Salaries $ 68,172 $ 70,196 $ 84,060^^$100,500^ Auditing Services 650 750 750 775 Total Personal Services 68,822 70,946 84,810 101,275 Contractual Services Telephone 780 1,391 1,400 1,475 (c Postage 1,900 2,597 1,900 2,280^ Printing, Legal Notices 2,850 930 2,500 2,000 (d Utilities 360 450 360 600^ Maintenance, Office Equipment 900 1,206 1,500 1,600 Provision for computer equip, maint .-0--0--0-1,800 (A Janitorial Services 780 637 720 ^,080^*^ 900^^ • Professional/Contract Services 10,800 4,111 5,800 Total Contractual Services 18,370 11,322 17,460 16, 55 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1991 BUDGET - Continued Commodities & Supplies Office Supplies General Supplies Subscriptions Total Commodities & Supplies Lease, Insurance, Employee Benefits Office Lease Provision for new office lease Insurance and Bonds Employer Contributions Mileage, Expense, Training Total Lease, Insurance, Employee Benefits Capital Outlay Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment Total Capital Outlay Total Administration Legal Legal Services Prosecution Process Service Total Legal Consulting Services Long-Term Management Program Shoreland Rules Total Consulting Services Committees Studies, Lake Inspection, Reports Public Information Total Coomittees 1989 Budget 2,100 380 490 2,970 3,600 -0- 3,300 12,300 1,360 20,560 1,800 1,800 18,000 i4,500 -0- 32,500 30,000 -0- 30.000 4,000 15.000 19.000 1989 Actual 1990 Budget 1991 Adopted 9,285 2,500 2,625 1,472 400 450 180 210 210 10,937 3,110 3,285 3,600 4,140 5,400 -0--0-4,*200 4,077 3,500 5,050 10,548 13,810^^^14,800 1,151 1,300 2,360 19,376 22,750 31,810 350 2,500 3,00u 350 2,500 3,000 112,931 130,630 155,825 13,643 18,000 20,000 20,043 13,500 20,000 206 1.400 500 33,892 32,900 40,500 145,011 42,960^^^1^^ -0- -0--0-12,500 145,011 42,960 12,500 1,696 5,000 4,000 2,457 15,000 5^000 4,153 20,000 9,Of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1991 BUDGET - Continued 1989 1989 1990 1991 Budget Actual Budget Adopted Contingency Contingency 25,000 -0--0-10,000 Total Contingency 25,000 -0--0-10,000 Deposit Refunds Deposit Refunds -0--0--0-2,000 Total Deposit Refunds -0—-0--0-2,000 Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed Harvesting Program EWM Harvesting Program -0-82,653 60,000 63,000 Total Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed Harvesting Program -0-82,653 60,000 63,000 Shoreland Rules Shoreland Rules, City Reimbursement , Total Shoreland Rules, City Reimb. -0--0--0-45,000 -0--0--0-45,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND DISBURSEMENTS % $219,022 $378,987 $286,490 $337,825 ^^^Transferred $3,000 from Consulting Service to support salary for Administrative Technician position addition. ^**^Average increase figured at 5Z. (c)'Projecting 20% postage 'ost increase. ^**^Includes provision for enlarged office space. , ^•^Transferred $1,000 from Professional/Contract Services to Salaries. ^^^Transferred $2,000 from Consulting Service to Employer Contributions to support Administrative Technician position. ^*^Anticipating computer > ipment addition, partial donation, plus software and operator training, office furniture and files additions. 6-28-90 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1991 BUDGET DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSE Deephaven Excelsior Greenwood Minnetonka Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Mound Orono Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Victoria Wayzata Woodland, Total , Net Tax Capacity $ 5,558,790 2,526,823 1,116,512 67,212,191 1,593,049 4,767,438 6,941,044 12,892,214 7,197,406 1,922,112 2,694,546 2,094,664 8,003,606 1,670,620 $126,191,015 7. of Total " Net Tax Capacity 4.41 2.00 .88 53.26 1.26 3.79 5.50 10.22 5.70 2.13 1.67 6.34 1.32 100.00% % of Budget Resulting from $33,365 Maximum to Minnetonka 7.55 3.43 1.49 *20.00 2.16 6.47 9.41 17.49 9.76 2.61 3.66 2.84 10.86 2.27 Share of $166,825 1991 Budget $ 12,585 5,718 2,526 33,365 3,605 10,784 15,706 . 4 . 29,173 ' ; 16,287 4,349 6,097 4,740 18,110 3,780 100.00%$166,825 \\- 1^ *Maximum of $33,365 6-28-90 Z' "1 ''' 'y i .. A' • , TO: Mayor and City Council PP.OM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Admin’ strato DATE: July 25, 1990 SUBJECT: Council Salary Adjustment 72690.8 (! Q 'i': 13 Attachment :A. AMM Councilmember Salary Survey Dated 5/25/90 B. Draft Ordinance Amendment ISSUE - Determine whether the Council in advance of the election a’^iTfes to adjust the Council salary's that would be effective for the next two years. Attachment B represents a draft ordinance should Council care to consider such an adoption. INTRODUCTION - In 1986 in advance of the election the Council did raise Council salary's from $2,640 to $2,900 and the Mayor's salary from $3,300 to ■ ^,600. DISCUSSION - As you may recall State law requires that any increase in the salary be done in advance of an election. The Council has until October 22, 1990 to adopt an increase. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt. 2. Not adopt. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - Council has until October 22, 1990 to determine whether they desire to adopt any increase in their salary. A salary increase that would be in line with the general inflation would place them at the following; Council salaries would go from $2,900 to about $3,125 and the Mayor's salary would go from $3,600 to about $3,900. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Council having considered an increase in their salaries adopts Ordinance # , Second Series indicating salary amounts for 1991 and 1992. Ayis , Nays _. cc: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director association ofmetropolitanmunicipalities May 25, 1990 TO; Chief Administrative Official AMM Member Cities Enclosed is a copy of the 1990 Elected Officials Salary Survey prepared and distributed by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM). Please direct any questions regarding this survey to Carol Williams in the AMM office (227-4008). We thank each of you for providng the information which made the enclosed survey possible. Sincerely, '{JjL- - Vern Peterson, Executive Directcpr Association of Metropolitan Municipalities VP/cw end. 183 university avenue easi, $t. paul. minneaoCa S5t0l (612) 227<4008 •w 00 00 oo o o O o O O m PM Oo f\l oo lA oosOo 600600460006oo PM 480X ffi5 0> iH p^n (N CN «H •H % b fH w *% rH « PN cn PM PM M U tmf c/v • 2bu b» r ao Ov O o O O U)O o o i—' O Cj o Q oo Oo oo o o o 00oo> 00 O' o CM o r» o fH o fH PM iH W PM U 1 CM V0 w VC VC o PN PM b* o b I fH PM % CM fH •H fH fH PM cn pn fH PM o H <u VT g •J o O O O m O O o O o o o oo o"o oo o 00 oo <i o O' O' o rg on #bJ o rH% o rH% PN iH w CM w cn% rH w VC w b- PM VC Vr VC pn o <n PM fH PN PN »ir lO b CN s iH rM r>i • z X 00 O o O o o o #—N o 1—5 Oo Oo oo oo O vC Oo Om ooo X b« o>< 00 O' fH o tN O O' CO W CM% W in« I>m/ 00%00 bi^vr r*PM m PM p^VC zo X X fH if. PM •H rH fH rH fH PM PM fH b’PM fH PM w M o o O o O O O o lO O o O Q Oo Oo Oo Oo O in oo3 D >* X O' 00 O' o 00 o O' or* O W in W 00 111 r* w ••p^rj in o m p'vC a2 <cn rH fH i/> PM <M fH fH .rH fH PM PM rH V pn fH PM X •J O o o o r**i o O o O o oo Oo oo Oo oo o in Oot-t M < D o O' o 00 o O' o p^ O Tf o in w 30 li 1 p^b-p^<N in o in p'vC z Zz O' fH fH PM PM iH iH rH fH PM Pf rH IT pn fH PN Viu • r>i X CmHHuZ 9u • sj X fH PM H fS|PM (N PM PM PM M PM PM fH PM PN o b3 OC I 00 0^ M ^ Uz Z Do « o M U U s 2 V£> 00 rH <«r vC iH VO iH \£) »H vO v£> *-• o f** r*“ ir> n rj f-t VO ov o ^ n n m (N PM 00 VO ^ p^ O P^ r-i O «-i <N ^ O r»« • » m o > Om M •Js Mu•»< z co ■iJ «M < •»4 s c« TJ U< at (0c atc <0 »-< CU 4-> Wioa « ^^ o ^ Wi 2 £ u c« Imouu 0a c 0 >. to Q c«> IQ £a Qt 2 £ 2 n (0 tow «u Xu OB U XI O' « b. cou O'c i e to b. at natuo b. « 2 m <0X o 0» 3 X ooo« o iH oo ID s zo M %M s g M wu M Mu • 00 tfi 00OS o\ 0 H 5Ug O (^ CO> <r»0 i ou0 oo\c o 00<«r oo 00 o o O 00 •H H iH fNJ o o O 00 CM *<r 00' 00o> rH < og s; < Oo CM oo O' oo 00 oo 00 o VO O' o VO O' o VO OV o VOo oo 00 oo 00 o o O 00 IH rH oo O' oo rj oo CM O O rvj o oo o ■rr VO o oo o ^ VO o oo o Cl in fH iH on •H o oo ••• 00 VO m rH tH O O O 00 VO rH Oo CN iH <M n rH oo«r Oo <er O O *>T oo in oo in oo in o 00o o CO O o 00o oo 00 o in •H oo 00 rH fH oo in oo CO iH rH O O in m CN IN oo '<T oo VO oo VC oo VO oo VO o 00 o 00 o CN 00 oo CN O O CN oo•«r oo o o o CN O O fH rH O' Oo VO o CN rH Oo o oo o CO ♦ oo 00 ooo o o CO O rH o o 00 o rH i"* oo OV oo 0^1 oo ■>o rH n oo CO ooo oo VO o o o 00 o o rH o VO rH CN 00 1-3 IJV M rH U 0 D O 0 O H U U H 0 VO C* O HT VO 00c* c» in lf|(^a'CNCNCN r»lHC^r'CDCNCNrHOfNCvr-HTinrHCN O' m n 00 U 4-»n &H 0 •0 O'u <0 IQ Al c 01 0 10 0» c«OJ 4J« •rH •0 M M £•o k; e rH JC«o T3 01 <0 •rHu 4H c 10 (0 O Mo 0)a c (U ij V rH 8 « C 0 4J O •o 0 uu r H 01 TJ 0>0 4H •rH T3 c c t . *0 U X c x:rj C c 3 M A0g o <0 •rH •rH <0 0)•rH 0 O Q u X M .2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z n (ji fH fH (H cH r*- (0 x:cr» •rH s xcu (C 0 JOaO ocouo ORDINANCE NO., 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA, AMENDING ORONO CITY CODE CHAPTER 2 ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT” AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 23, 2ND SERIES, ADOPTED AUGUST 11, 1986, BY CHANGING A PROVISION RELATING TO SALARIES OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE ORONO CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO ORDAINS: Ordinance No. 23, 2nd Series is hereby amended to tead: Sec. 2.17. SALARIES OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. Subd. 1, Salaries of the Mayor and Council members, effective January 1, 1991, and which amounts are deemed reasonable, are hereby fixed as follows: A. The salary of the Mayor shall be $3,900.00 per year, paid monthly. B. The salary of each Council member shall be $3,125.00 per year, paid monthly. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the date of its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council this 13th day of August, 1990, by a vote _ _ _ ayes and _ _ _ nays. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Published in the Laker/Pioneer Newspapers the week of 1990. 72690.7 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat^' July 26, 1990 t- SUBJECT: Transient Merchant 13 'V'O J’*-V rr n'y(\ Attachment: A. Recodified Section 5.30 Including Proposed Language B. Transient Merchant Memo Dated 7/20/90 ISSUE - Presentation to Council to determine whether they desire to adopt the proposed language relating to transient merchants. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's July 23, 1990 Council meeting. Council directed that staff present language incorporating the limitation as to definition for transient merchant. DISCUSSION - Attachment A presents draft language for Section 5.30; A) Modifies the definition of established place of business to indicate there must be a building, the use of which is subject to all applicable zoning ordinances. B) Clarifies that business solicitation does not include what is classified as transient merchant activity. C) Limits transient merchants to a total of 10 days per year. Additionally, we have had an inquiry regarding "Flea Markets" in which one person would work as a organizer and has merchants coming in on a first come first serve basis. Our current ordinance would require licensing of each individual seller. Under both the current and proposed ordinances each vendor would be required to obtain a license. This may make such flea markets difficult for an organizer. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt the language as proposed.. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table for further consideration. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt the language presented in Attachment A. ■•n , seconded by , that Council set forth in ^Ftachment A and approves the Official Summary for Publication. Ayes __, Nays __. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by amends Ordinance No. 5.30 Wfsstonka Chamber, 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound A1 Penke, Rt. 2, Box 223, Cokato 55321 55364 73190.3 fi SEC. 5.30. SOLICITOR AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS Subd. 1. Purpose. This Section is not intended to in any way hinder, delay or interfere with legitimate business or organizational activities. The Council finds, however, that solicitors have used public streets and their direct contact with residents of the City for the illegitimate solicitation practices of harassment, nuisance, theft, deceit, or menacing, troublesome or unlawful activities. This section is intended to ferret out and control; (1) businesses and organizations using solicitation as a means of concealing unlawful activities; and (2) busine*^ses and organizations which, though its activities be lawful or even commendable, use such illegitimate practices in solicitation; and, (3) individual natural persons who, though they represent lawful business and organizations, use such illegitimate solicitation practices; and, (4) businesses and transient merchants, though legitimate, which cause, or are likely to cause, a traffic hazard or other inconvenience or danger to persons or property. The Council further finds that a large number of the residents of the City are employed as their livelihood and means of support by manufacturing plants and other businesses on shifts rotating between night and day, and to disturb them during their sleeping hours for the purpose of solicitation is a source of nuisance or even harassment and should be subject- to control. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall be the meanings stated: A. "Solicitor" means any person making the solicitation, including such common terms as "pe(V^j..er", "transient merchant" and "canvassar". B. "Solicitee" means the person solicited. C. "Goods" means any tangible thing of value, but not including money, things in action or intangible personal property other than merchandise certificates or coupons as herein described. The term includes such chattels as are furnished or used at the time of sale or subsequently in the modernization, rehabilitation, repair, alteration, improvement or construction of real property so as to become a part thereof whether or not severable therefrom. The terra also includes merchandise certificates or coupons, issued by a retail seller, not redeemable in cash and to be used in their face amount in lieu of cd^h, in exchange for goods or services sold by such seller. of any kind. D. "Services" means work, labor, or services E. "Established place" means eeal estate a bui lding and its real estate that const i tu te a principa l use under the zoning code in the City owned, leased or occupied on a month-to-month or term-certain longer than sixty (60) consecutive days subject to a^2 aPP1 icable zoning ordinances . The term inrludes a booth, compartment, or area leased or assigned during and for the length of an event or occasion. F. "Business solicitation" means an attempt by a solicitor, which is not a transient merchant activity, engaging in transactions of the same kind, to sell or distribute for a consideration any goods or services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, when either the nlicitor or person acting for him contacts the solicitee by telephone or in person, other than at the established place of business or solicitor, except: (1) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee personally knows the identity of the solicitor, the name of the business firm or organization he represents, and the identity or kinds of goods, services or things of value offered; or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee has first initiated the contract with the solicitor; or, (3) an attempted solicitation of a newspaper subscript on in which the solicitor is a minor child engaged in both the delivery and sale of the newspaper; or, (4) an attempted solicitation for the sales of products of a farm or garden occupied or cultivated by the solicitor, when facts of such occupancy or cultivation are proven by the solicitor. G. "Contribution solicitation" means an attempt by a solicitor to ob ‘-ain money from a solicitee for any cause or purpose, when either the solicitor or person acting for him contacts the solicitee by telephone or in person other than at the established place of meeting, business, service, or activity of the organization represented by the solicitor, except: (1) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee personally knows the identity of the solicitor, the name of the organization he represents, and the identity of the services performed or offered by the organization, or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee has first initiated the contact with the solicitor or the organization represented by him. H. "Transient Merchant Activities" means engaging in any temporary, intermittent, or transient sales or exchanges of any goods, wares, or services by setting up any outdoor stand or structure, or by using any truck, automobile, or any other vehicle, at any point or plac*:» in the City. I. "Transient Merchant" means any person engaging in transient merchant activities. Subd. 3. Merchant Practices. Prohibited Solicitation and Transient A. It is unlawful for any solicitor to engage in solicitation for any unlawful business or organizational purpose or activity. B. It is unlawful for any solicitor or transient merchant to practice harassment, nuisance, theft. deceit, or menacing, troublesome or otherwise unlawful activities during the course of solicitation or transient merchant activities. C. It is unlawful for any solicitor to enter, or attempt to gain entrance, to residential premises displaying at such entrance a sign with the words "Peddlers and Solicitors Prohibited" or "Solicitors Prohibited". D. It is unlawful for any solicitor to refuse to leave business premises when requested by the owner, lessee, or person in charge thereof. E. It is unlawful for any person to engage in contribution solicitation without completion of licensing or registration as herein provided. F. It is unlawful for any person to engage in business solicitation or transient merchant activities without a license as herein provided. G. Transient merchant activities can only be conducted on commercially zoned properties. H. A transient merchant can only be licensed for a maximum of ^ days per year. Subd. 4. Application. Applications for solicitor and transient merchant licensing or registration shall contain the name and address of the solicitor or transient merchant and such other information as may reasonably be reauired by the Council as a condition to registration or licensing or to permit investigation into the applicant's background and past solicitation practices or cransent merchant activities. Application for solicitor licensing shall also contain the name and address of the business or organization for which solicitations are sought. Subd. 5. Investigation, Approval or Disapproval. A. All applications for licensing or registration shall be immediately referred to the Chief of Police, and by him or other person acting in his stead, investigated as to the truth thereof, and as to any other factor which may result in a hazard or danger to persons or property. The Chief of Police shall have five (5) business days within which to investigate and make a recommendation thereon. B. If he finds no past history of the applicant indicating violations similar to those declared unlawful in this Section, ard if he finds that to grant the application is not likely to result in a hazard or danger to persons or property, he shall recommend issuing a license or approving registration, as the case may be, and the City Clerk shall forthwith advise the applicant. The City Clerk shall issue I a license, upon payment of the fee therefore, to the approved applicant for business solicitation or transient merchant activities, and shall approve the completion of registration by the applicant for a contribution solicitor. C. If the Chief of Police finds a past history of the applicant indicating violations similar to those declared unlawful in this Section, or if he finds that to grant the application is likely to result in a hazard or danger to persons or property, he shall recommend denial of the license or registration. In all matters of recommended denial the applicant shall be forthwith advised thereof, and the application shall be referred to the Council and considered by it at its ne't regular or special meeting occurring more than ten (10) days thereafter. The applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard at such meeting. Subd. 6. Duration of Contribution solicitation Registration. Registration of contribution solicitation shall expire sixty (60) days after registration is approved. ORDINANCE NUMBER SECOND SERIES SUMMARY APPROVED The Council hereby determines that the text of the summary of this ordinance marked "Official Summary of Ordinance No. _ _, Second Series" and a copy of which is attached hereto, cleairTy informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determines that publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. I OFFICIAL SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NUMBER , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 5.30 ADOPTED APRIL 1, 1984, AND ORDINANCE NO. 50, SECOND SERIES ADOPTED APRIL 25, 1988, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SOLICITOR AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS The following is the official summary of Ordinance Number _ _ _, Second Series approved by the City Council of the City of Orono on August 13, 1990. Thf following Subdivisions have been amended or added. Subdivision 2. Definitions. E. "Established place" means a building and its real estate that constitute a principal use unde the zoning code in the City owned, leased or occupied on a month-to-month or term- certain longer than sixty (60) consecutive days subject to all applicable zoning ordinances. The term includes a booth, compartment, or area leased or assigned during and for the length of an event or occasion. F. "Business solicitiation" means an attempt by a solicitor, which is not a transient merchant activity, engaging in transactions of the same kind, to se13 or distribute for a consideration any goods or services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, when either the solicitor or person acting for him contacts the solicitee by telephone or in person, other than at the established place of business or solicitor, except: (1) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee personally knows the identity of the solicitor, the name of the busing*?? firm or organization he represents, and the identity or kino.- ot goods, services or things of value offered; or, (2) an attempted solicitation in which the solicitee has first initiated the contract with the solicitor; or, (3) an attempted solicitation of a newspaper subscription in which the solicitor is a minor child engaged in both the delivery and sale of the newspaper; or, (4) an attempted solicitation for the sa.Tes of products of a farm or garden occupied or cultivated by the solicitor, when facts of such occupancy or cultivation are proven by the solicitor. Subdivision 3. Merchant Practices. Prohibited solicitation and Tranjieut H. A transient merchant can only be licensed for a maximum of 10 days per year. A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the City Clerk. This Ordinance becomes effective upon publication. Adopted by the City Counil of the City of Orono on this 13th day of August, 1990, by a vote of ____ ayes and ____ nays. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 62790. TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administra- July 20, 1990 SUBJECT: Transient Merchants TjtJ^<rr^ At*-achment: A. Transient Merchants Memo Dated 6/14/90 (Memo Only) ^ B. Survey of Communities - Transient Merchants ^ Dated 7/17/90 C. Ordinance 5.30 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to Council regarding information of transient merchants regulation and alternatives. 2. Allow Council the opporcunity to determine what regulation they may desire of transient merchants. INTRODUCTION - Council at the the June 25, 1990 meeting requested that the sta ff come back within a month with recommendation on dealing with transient merchants. DISCUSSION •• The City has not had a substantial amount of transientinerchants conducting business outs,.de nf a place of business to any great degree. However, t. re have been a couple of perennial vendors, including Mr. Penke, over the last four or five years. In addition they are increasing requests to allow such an itinerant vending of merchandise. Attachment B represents a survey of the different ways surrounding cities handle these types of merchants. The City’s ordinance does set forth three categories under i‘.;s solicitation ordinance: Business Sollcition - This is a Person who sel_ls_a producTor^ervices^rom other than an established place of business. Contribution Solicit - These are pe«^sons generally affiliated with charitable relig.ious or public interest groups who uses a telephone or goes door to door solic ing contributions. Transient Merchants - These are persons ^ar e merchandising from one locatiog with patrons 9^ that location to obtain their prodvcts rather t they going door to door. AS you may recall the term transient merchants v\s de'ined bacis I in 1988 to address this class of merchants and at the same time stated the already existing implicit requirement that such types of sales could only be from commercially zoned properties. At the time of the definition the issue of what constituted a transient merchant as opposed to a non-transient merchant was left unaddressed. To the extent however, that a person who is merchandising from a location at more than an infrequent basis is intensifying the land use of that location. To the extent it becomes a perennial business it is causing an intensification of the land use without an appropriate land use review. Such a commercial site plan or zoning review would look at issues as far as setbacks, minimum building sizes, traffic flowr., structure reviews, parking, etc. which become part and parcel of any substantial change in a commercial site use. In order to address this land use concern which translates into issues of public healch, safety and welfare a pos rble strategy would De: A. Define transient merchants as those persons conducting business for no more than a certain number of days or occasions per year. Variations on this could include actual number of days operated, a specific block of time that would be allowed, etc. 3. Specifically state that in the solication ordinance and possibly land use that all other merchandising that did not qualify as transient merchants, business or contribute -n solicitation would be required to be conducted In a permanent structure in accordance with the applicable land ise regulations. (There may need to be a "fine tuning" of business and contribution solicitation definitions.) ALTERNATIVES - Policy A. Regulate as at present. B. P.equirc less rcgulaition. C. Defer discussion. D. Define the terms or what constitutes transient merch.ints. E. Explore an increased fee such * a vendor fee (currently th«! v ‘ dees not license businesses generally.) F. Explore other' altera^tives (see survey). 62590.3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: June 25, 1990 SUBJECT; Highway 12 Citizen Task Force Advisory Attachment;A. Highway 12 Citizen Task Force Outline Role B. News Release Regarding Request for Appointment C. Letters of Applicants D. Letter to Applicants Dated 7/5/90 E. Interview Responses (Draft) ISSUE - Determine method to select two individuals to serve on that Task Force. INTRODUCTION - When the process for the Highway 12 Corridor Study was initiated there were three committees set up including the Policy, a Technical and a Citizen Advisory Committee. Attachment A outlines the anticipated role for the Citizen Group. A notice was placed, as noted in Attachment B, in the paper the week of June 25th with a closing date of July 5th for persons interested in that position. The City had received a number of letters of intent prior to that as indicated inAttachment C. DISCUSSION - To date the role for this group is not fully defined however, it is hoped that in the initial meetings with the consultant this month that will be further refined so that the role that the individuals play will be l^etter understood at the meeting at which you make the selection. Given the large number of interested individuals and the substantial agenda for this meeting Attachment D was sent. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Interview the applicants. 1. Request that applicant sumbit written questionnaire respont ; (Attachment E). 3. Screen/select from written or a reduced number of applicants. tT5. Take no action. 6. Make an appointment. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the selection be based on a reduced pool of applicants (perhaps four for interviews) with those selected for interview being based on written respons^. In addition the final selection be tabled until the first meetipg ^ ■ 4. Table for further consideration. NEWS RELEASE The City of Orono is currently seeking applications from residents who are interested in serving on the Highway 12 Citizens Task Force Committee. This Task Force will address the longterm issues of Highway 12 from the citizens viewpoint. Interested residents may apply by sending a brief resume to; Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323. Resumes should be received no later than Thursday, July 5, 1990 and Council will interview applicants at the July 9, 1990 Council meeting. CIT' CF nqONO iSiseso' July 3, 1990 JUL 1990 Dorothy ; ' iin City ot ^'ono P.O. Bo* *.6 Crystal ii/Jty, !i>J Dear Ms. Hallin: City Cleric 55323 I'm writing to express interest in serving on the Highway 12 Citizens Task Force Committee. As background: My family and I have been Orono residents since 1986. My interest in serving stems from a desire to preserve the low density residential nature of our community. I'm concerned that commercial development currently underway in Long Lake may eliminate the current roadway as a viable highway corridor. I also would like to encourage the railroad right of way as an alternative corridor site. Occupationally, I'm a 14 year employee of General Mills where I've served several years as a Director of Marketing (consumer) Research and currently am a Director of Marketing. If more detailed background information is desired, please call at 476-6264. Sincerely, Bob Bruce 2205 Abingdon Way Orono, MN 55356 MERCHANTS GOULD June 25, 1990 Mercbant, Gonld, Smith. EdeU, Welter & Schmidt Professional Association Patent, 'frademark & Copynght Lawyers 3100 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis. Minnesota U.S.A. 35402 FAX 612/332-9081 Telex 290393 M&G Mps 612/332 5300 Direct dial: 336-A633 John 0. Gould Phiilip H. Smith Robert T. Edell Paul A. Welter Cecil C. Schmidt John S. Sumners .Alan G. Carlson .Micheal L. Schweipnan Earl 0. Retland Charles E. Golla Oou^as J. Williams Oou^as A. Strawbndge Albert L. Underhill D. Randall King "Norman R Fnedenchs .Michael B. Lasky Curtis B. Hamre Michael 0. Schumann Michael L. .Mau John A. Clifford Mark J. DiPletro Steven W Lundberg Warren D. Woessner Janet R. Westrom David G. Johnson •Alan W. Kowalchyk Michael S. Shemll Timothy R. Conrad Daniel W. AlcDonald R. Carl Moy Robert C. Freed Daniel J. Kluth Wendy M. McDonald Linda .M. Byrne Marx D. Schuman Randall A. Million John P Sumner Brian H. Batzli David K. Tellekson Haiiie A. Finucane John J. Gresens Steven J. Jyeough Paul E. Lacy-, ------ John L. Knjblie Michelle'.M. MicheL. Philip P.|Caspers_. Gregory A. Sebald Jane H. Arrett A. James .Nelson Robert C. Beck George H. Gates John M. Kelly Gregory M. Tiyinr Kristine M. Strodthoi/ Thomas E. Jurgensen Steven C. Bruess Joel A. Rothfus Mark A. Krull Ms. Dorothy Hallin City Clerk P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Hallin: JUiV 2 7 1990 On May 21, 1990, I wrote to Mark Bernhardson and requested that I be included as a member of any groups which are convened to study the Highway 394 corridor. I am enclosing a copy of that letter. This last week, the newspaper indicated that applications are being taken from residenrs who are interested in serving on the Highway 12 Citizens Task Force Committee. I am writing this letter to restate my interest in serving on that committee. My brief resume would state that I have been a resident of Orono for ten years. I own a fair amount of property in Orono and am interested in the proper development of our city. I am both an engineer and a lawyer. I would devote the consider amount of time which will be necessary to resolve this issue. Very truly yours. AGC:Imb Enclosure mi Alan G. Carlson 5lSS~ ~Fo-Ci C 1 *«»• Pw »*l f • I t W MERCHANT &G0 ULD May 21, 1990 Mertbint, Goald, Smith, Edell, Welter & Schmidt Professlonai Association Patent, IVademtrk k Copyright Lawyers 3100 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, .Minnesota U S A. 56'102 FAX 612/332-9081 “Wex 290593 MiG Mps 612/332-5300 Direct dial; 336-4633 John D. Go ''.d Phillip H. Smith Robert T. Edell Paul A. Welter Cecil C. Schmidt John S. Sumners Alan G. Carlson Micheal L. Schwegman Earl D. Reiland Charles E. Golla Douglas J. Williams Douglas A. Strawbridge Albert L. Underhill D. Randall King NormJh P Frlederichs Michael B. Lasky Curtis B. Hamre Michael D. Schumann Michael L. Mau .ohn A. Clirrord Mark J. DiPietro Steven W. Lundberg Wirren D. Woessner Janet R. Westrom David G. Johnson Alan W Kowalchyk Michael S. Sherrill Timothy R. Conrad Daniel W. McDonald R. Cart Moy Robert C. Freed Daniel J. Kluth Wendy M. McDonald Linda M. Byrne Mark D. Schuman Randall A. ilillson John R Sumner Brian H. Balzli David K. Tellekson llaliie A. Finucane John J. Gresens Steven J. Keough Paul E. Lacy John L. Knoble Michelle .M. Michel Philip P. Caspers Gregory A. Sebald Jane II. Arrett A. James Nelson Robert C. Beck George H. Gates John M. Kelly '• Gregory M. Tbylor Kristine M. Strodthoff Thomas E. Jurgensen Steven C. Bruess Joel A. Rothfus .Mark A. Krull Mark Bernhardson City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55356 Dear Mark: I am writing to request that I be included as a member of any groups which are convened to study the High'rfay 394 corridor Very truly yours. Alan G. Carlson AGC:Imb C m MERCHArn-m^V^^ercbant, Goald, Smith, deU. Welter & Schmidt ProfesrinaJ Association Patent, Tl-ademark & Cop>Tiiiht Lawyers >f/ty issQ 3100 Norwest Center 30 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, Minnesota U.S.A. S5402 FAX 612,'332-9081 Telex 290593 MAG Mps 612/332-5300 May 21, 1990 Direct dial: 336-4633 John D. Gould Phillip H. Smith Robert T. Edell Paul A. Welter Cecil C. Schmidt John S. Sumners Alan G. Carlson Micheil L. Schwe^man Earl D. Reiland Charles L. Golla Douglas J. Williams Douglas A. Straw-bridge Albert L. UnderhUl 0. Randall King .Vorman P. Fnedenchs Michael B. Lasicy Curtis B. Hamre Michael D. Schumann Michael L. Mau John A. Clifford Mark J. DiPietro Steven W. Lundberg Warren D. Woessner Janet R. Westrom David G. Johnson Alan W. Kowalchyk .Michael S. Sherrill Timothy R. Conrad Daniel W. McDonald R. Carl Moy Robert C. Freed Daniel J. Kluth Wendy M. McDonald Linda M. B)Tne Mark D. Schuman Randall A. Hillson John R Sumner Brian 1!. Bauli David K. Tellekson Hallie A. Finucane John J. Gresens Steven J. Keough Paul E. Luy John L. Knoble Michelle M. Michel Philip P. Caspers Gregory A. Sebald Jane H. Arreit A. James .N'elson Robert C. Beck George H. Gates John M. Kelly Gregory ,M. Thylor Kristine M. Slrodthoff Thomas E. Jorgensen Steven C. Bruess Joel A. Rothfus Mark A. Krull Mark Bernhardson City of Orono P.0. Box 6 6 Crystal Bay, MN 55356 Dear Mark: I am writing to request that I be included as a member of any groups which are convened to study the Highway 394 corridor Very truly yours. Alan G. Carlson AGC:Imb I ‘•in«a,|r.>IU Pyitl MARK F. ENGEBRETSON 2905 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 April 6, 1990 V V Ms. Dorothy Hallin Orono City Clerk City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono, MN 55391 Dear Ms. Hallin: I am writing to express my interest in serving as one of Orono's representatives on the Highway 12/394 citizen's task force. I grew up in Deephaven, Minnesota, and graduated from Minnetonka High School in 1971, Dartmouth College in 1975 and Harvard Law School in 1978. I joined the Faegre & Benson law firm in 1978, and have practiced in the area of commercial real estate ever since. I have lived in Orono since the fall of 1981, first at 3120 North Shore Drive (with time out for a two year tour of duty with the firm’s branch office in Denver), and second, since the summer of 1988, at 2905 Fox Street. My interest in the task force comes from two sources. First, my family and I appreciate very much Orono*s natural surroundings, its schools and its approach to development. I have been delinquent in devoting my time and efforts in repayment for the benefits of living in Orono, and the citizen's task force appears to provide a means to start that repayment. Second, my real estate practice has focused to a large extent on the development of major mixed-use projects in Minnesota and other states. I hope that that background can bring some experience and perspective to the tremendous issues involved in the Highway 12 upgrade and its development implications. If you have any questions, or if I should provide any more information, please call me at work (336-3198) or at home (475-3460). Very truly yours. Mark F. Engebretso MFE/pkk 1547W March 13» 1990 Michael J. Hilbelink 85 Golden View Drive Long Lake/ Minnesota 55356 Orono City Clerk Dorothy Hallin P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay/ Minn. 55323 Re: Highway 12 Citizen's Task Force To whom it may concern; This letter is to let you know of my interest in serving as one of the representatives on the Highway 12 Citizen's Task Force. I have lived in this area virtually all my life/ with the exception of 4 years of college and the first 4 years of marriage. I have been involved in real estate sales and developement in this area for the last 10 years. I am very interested as to how the expansion will affect our community. Because of my employment/ my hours a very flexible and I am sure would accomodate most any schedule. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. I will look forward to hearing from you. i a n k^ 6^ Daytime number: Evening nu' '• er : 475- 2411 476- 1867 OTYOf ORONO MAR 1 ^ 99'^oa<J u _ jr3~^-R~s i ‘ ^ ^Z=JL ^J^irdz i ^ /7 ^ ^ ^ ^PZ^C^s-T-e^ ..-attl^SzrT C^n-l4>la,rU?^iji^ ' /? - -A jr ^^ X----------------------- j XJc>£"'7^ 21 March, 1990 900 North Shore Drive West Mound, MN 55364 Ms. Dorothy M. Hallin City Clerk City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Hallin, I ani interested in being appointed to the Highway 12 Corridor Citizen's Group. I have been a resident of Orono for two years. My educational background is in Transportation Engineering and Planning. I am a Registered Engineer and work with private developers and cities on residential, commercial and Industrial projects. This background would be an asset to the Corridor Committee. Our home is several miles from Highway 12, so I will be completely impartial. I have the time to devote to the group and look forward to serving. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Steinien M. Johnston March 23, 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Attn: Dorothy Hall in “MAR '2 6 1390 Dear Dorothy, I would be interested in being on the citizen advisory committee for Highway //12 I have lived in Orono for 25+ years, am married with one daughter who was in the Orono School system K-12. I have worked for the City of Medina for 6 years. I am interested in keeping informed about things that will affect the future of Orono and its citizens and I believe- that all the citizens should be kept informed. Sincerely,sin^eiy, ^ Sandie Larson 4285 6th Ave. North Long Lake, Mn. 55356 473-4643 - Work 473-7492 - Home (2| . VV ola . Cl. CUl\ (>3tL^ ^ ^ 0/v-vw-o p. 0. *®(o (V^tJ VW 5-5323 JpC CfTYOF II____CRONO itiE30\^Si . may 2 1 1990 ( ) .<rv\X>(5.0 LK)-«- C^-L^.4-cJ /Vj2-CC*v,C^ ^ 9 (p\A^ jUxjdL\^Ajku^ ~f~^<iL. (O. ^ JU^-f^^ (jU) VK-tt^v-^ OA^iMi cXtZSyiACO ^ ,M^~cuoA. ^ (LJru-t •-i^x^czi~'-''^ , Y^1aj.^>-iJUJ~C^ mp. □"ovtsl \cV, NA©?\peTT4 uitVre^rtDUJNJ ^oA-d o^oAoc , A^/^. 55-3?^ . i < * .• *.>•>.: . . . ;, «♦* •4 • ^ *i — • ••• •. ; • ■■ • • ■ -■ . •’ ’»• * , • *, * .; *■ •. ■ ^ ’v-. ; 6c>/r) 34o s* L^. L ^ ^-6d 4 iS'4c43 • . i .^ . 4 .. , , • - • ► ‘ ^ •• jJ^Co^cj- II- Cc/;!rni'h- :• ^ y ■ '. .- ••. - . ■• i:vyy-v:';.<-y;yy;.y i.v ; • yvr\’V‘*‘ ■ • - . .. .’. ' •*. . ‘ . ■ ■ *. ' r' .■•■•••;■•• -f------ . --’vv- v:*;. ...V . .................... . ... ;.;r'i- v:*. 1 ■•.. •• ..V —»■ , : - . -.y.. iI* • •■ ~ r.•r i • *. ... * . .*.. , . .. ... >• •• *"**-•.■'■ * **■ ***. ■. * *•'. • ' !*'‘:K ' •■ .1; 'V”-"" ■*J ■•.♦<•;•r-y.'-V'. V; : ;*v "T- <’:♦ .'.•*» r'* • ■. • - . 4- .. - •.•r-’-- r-v ••; . wH' JUi 2 isso June 29, 1990 Dorothy Hall in, City Clerk P.O. Box 60 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Hal 1 in: Please accept my application to serve on the Citizens’ Task Force for the Highway 12 Committee. As a homeowner in the area, I am deeply concerned about the issues facing our community and believe that the decisions made about the future of Highway 12 will have a significant impact on this community, our property values and our quality of life. By serving on the committee, I want to represent my views and the views of other concerned homeowners and families. My leadership and communication skills weld be an asset to the task force as well as my broad experience in business and real estate. Thank you for accepting my application, opportunity to serve my community. I hope to have the Sincerely, Melanie Rose r MELANIE ROSE 1020 N. Brown Road Orono, MN 55356 (618) 476-8312 BACKGROUND: - Employed as an Account Executive for AT&T Network Systems - Bachelor’s degree in English from University of California, Master of Education from Harvard University - Licensed Realtor with the Relocation Center Realtor?. Member Greater Minneapol"' Area Board of Realtors, Minnesota Association of Realtors and the National Association of Realtors - Extensive training in sales, communication skills, negotiation, management and marketing Uv 10 years experience in hi‘gh technology sales to major corporations. 4 years experience as a public school teacher Instructor for Cardinal Stritch College college degree program Homeowner in Orono. Husband, Dennis Kirby, is also a Realtor with the Relocation Center. 3 year old son Russell attends St. David’s School. DONALD C. WILDMAN 745 Spring Hill Road Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612) 475-0218 CITY Of ORONO JUdEHO^y July 2,w 5 1990 Dorothy Hallln, City Clerk P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Highway 12 Citizens Task Force Connnittee I would be interested in serving on the Citizens Task Force, I believe it is imperative that Orono does its utmost to insure minimum impact from the Highway 12 corrider study on its environment and land values. I have lived in Orono since 1984, am married with a son in Orono High, and am president of Scoville Press, Inc. Thank you. Sincerely, Donald C. Wildman DCW/jal Names to be considered for the Highway Citizens Committee Donald C. Wildman 745 Springhill Rd. Wayzata , Mn. 55.191 El Winston 765 Springhill Rd. Wayzata, Mn. 55391 Robert Hare 1600 Long Lake Blvd. Orono, Mn. 55356 David Floren 465 Springhill Rd. Wayzata, Mn. 55391 Joan Floren 465 Springhill Rd. Wayzata, Mn. 55391 /JiruA- ,0ridma.n i) ROGER M. IttB-Presidenl MARVIN W. Z^i.B-Vice Pres.lSales MARILYN M. Z^£B-Vice President JACQUELYN JOHNSON-ZWanaffer KAREN KIMBREL-r/ava/Coorrf/Vjafor ; 1589 HIGHWAY 7 HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343 612/933-6216 June 26, 1990 Ms. Dorothy Hallin City Clerk P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 Dear Ms. Hallin: I would very much like to serve on the Highway 12 Citizens' Task Force. I have listed below a few facts about myself. I have lived in Orono for J2 years. Mar’-ied and the Father of three girls. I hold a BA dif-rttce Fliilosphy and Political Science. My occupation is Ttavfil Agent and I am President of the above company. If I qualify for the Task Force, you can contact me at my business number, 933-6216 or my home in the evenings, 476- 4309. 2905 6th Avenue North Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 JUN .2 T . . .i : .-V. -■ 1990 -rcnrrr^ QRQH€t fc'- July 17, 1990 Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, N On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka THIS LETTER, QUESTIONAIRE & RETURN ENVELOPE WAS SENT TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: Bob Bruce Alan G. Carlson Mark F. Engebretson Michael J. Hilbelink George A. Johnson Stephen M. Johnston Sandie Larson John Massopust John H. Merideth Kevin Reilly Melanie Rose Danald C. Wildman Eleanor Winston Robert Hare David Floren Joan Floren Roger M. Zeeb Subject: Highway 12 Citizen Task Force Dear Applicant, We have received a letter of intent from you indicating your interest in the Citizen Task Force on Highway 12. Attached is a copy of the initial expected role that the various boards, including the Citizen Task FOi.ce, is to play in the study. At this time we do not have a definitive schedule or know when that group would be meeting. If you have a continued interest in participating with this Task Force, please complete the enclosed questionaire and return it no later than August 3, 1990. Should you have questions, please feel free to contact Sincerely, Mark E. Bernhardson City Administrator Enclosure cc: Mayor and Council me BUILDI.NG Sl zoning - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMIMSTR-ATTON Sl nNANCE - 473-73511 FAX-4734)510 PUBUC WORKS - 473-7359 HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: HOME BUSINESS 1. Summary of education background: 2. Summary of experience background: 3. What interested you about service on the Task Force: 4. What concepts, if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: 5. Any other pertinent information; 6. When would you usually be available to attend meetings: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday A.M. Early P.M. Evening 1 * i 8290./?rmm^"h HIGHWAY 12 CITIZEN TASK FORCE LIST OF CANDIDATES Bob Bruce Alan G. Carlson Mark F. Engebretson Michael J. Hilbelink George A. Johnson Stephen M. Johnston Sandie Larson John Massopust John H. Merideth Kevin Reilly Melanie Rose Donald C. Wildman Eleanor Winston Robert Hare David Floren Joan Floren Roger M. Zeeb NOMINEES (Please list 6) i-TTi4QiMJex/r Dear We are very appreciative of your willingness to serve on a Citizen's Task Force regarding Highway 12 and your willingness also to submit a questionnaire regarding that possible service on an advisory committee. The City received a letter of interest from 17 parties. As the City could only nominate a primary and an alternate to the Committee, it was determined that the field should be reduced to individuals for interviews. At this time yours was not one of those nominated, however, the City is most appreciative of your willingness to serve and will retain your name on file for possible other openings with the City. sincerely. James R. Grabek Mayor 8290.2./?■'b HIGHWAY 12 CITIZEN TASK FORCE LIST OF CANDIDATES Bob Bruce Alan G. Carlson David Floren Joan Floren George A. Johnson Stephen M. Johnston Sandie Larson John Massopust John H. Merideth Melanie Rose Donald C Wildman Eleanor Winston Roger M. Zeeb NOMINEES (Please list 6) rrmMMetjr e Dear We are very appreciative of your willingness to serve on a Citizen's Task Force regarding Highway 12 and your willingness also to submit a questionnaire regarding that possible service on an advisory committee. The City received a letter of interest from 17 parties. As the City could only nominate a primary and an alternate to the Committee, it was determined that the field should be reduced to individuals for interviews. At this time yours was not one of those nominated, however, the City is most appreciative of your willingness to serve and will retain your name on file for possible other openings with the City. Sincerely, James R. Grabek Mayor ■i ! ,1 1 HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTTONNAIRE NAME: annRRSS! 2^0S' A6/UjA^^ ^ ^^AJO j^SS^C, PHONE: HOME ^74 — AZ4>^ BUSINESS ~ 3*^^?-*^- - 1. Summary of education background: 2. 3. 4. /^SA A»o /^3A ^ D CITY OP 0«CN0 lldEElG^El AUG 6 1990' Summary of experience background: Hs,7Tio^: /^A£jcerr?/oo- ^y£eei€>~>ce • MAe.i^eni^ ~ What interested you about service on the Task Force: A 'TM/irr 0(^KiO NJCfT AS5KTS> a -STC^OKiC? 1\J TMt 'St»^D04 pPoCe^>2> to v>Axe . ALt>o COr-^CBt^^ ^ nnxjxT UoMCr v>c»^\<-€. ^eoevjo?r^«^*-^ “Tv\€- c \t«« ^o*i.»Tvo»-o /^/\lKir*T TW^ CovCP-t»Jt pa)As'C> “TVrtw ^v*Tt <TOvmJT> Av»vjce^e<,«-^ \»sAeAc.T O«o»oo*:l looation'^oran ipg?aded^Highway^l2:°-r>w«- 0«~»v'-rn. e\-»iC>tx-«<».v i^> stVexx»-i^ tz^fVNA^vV-^ ^ os»oc .udP/v \c .i-t pa»oR-iT»-\ ^v*^ "nvnzeCJ92t_ •YVSC. Cv\<£C2fe«^"^ <*»vVo<-4_«J> t5)C. Pt^vOitiTL^. PteO'OeVA S>T£ uj>-nv OCLOSC.P(U^<-^.T^-TO-TV>«. <l^ecr«vrT V—— j, . -•• » '•_V------- oP PnaPtfrr u ^ »^C) uuVrL^too oC. «jodHX»-c» Qk€. a ') 3-r «jootAx^ (0<rr AOreCT OOeXJWTO^ieJ V.O»00— rr \s'TOwcc:> f3»<^ S,'«U\LA<2- use. A«-»0 __ ^ ^ ^ ^ _ w ___M ^ t ^ - — aMM ^ ^ . « T^ ;eAJL«_c»c*txi^ -TH€. U dcx AST- ObtST- C«k.STC uCTU/' When would you usually be available to attendwnen wouro you *.W (^^^y ( Thursda^ /%4^ k.-A. C^arly P.^^ (^^venin^ I July 10, 1990 ! Mr. Len Levine Columisbxoner, MN Dept, of Transportation John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 Mr. Levine: I»m writing in regard to the corridor study underway for Highway 12 from Wayzata westward. I believe your attention and input on two topics would benefit the evaluation process. It would also minimize the negative impact of the corridor selection on homeowners in this primarily residential area. First, the city of Long Lake is permitting and has encouraged significant development along the current road site. This development, intentional or not, may negate the current roadway as a feasible highway corridor and should be checked during the selection period. The ability of residents to organize politically is limited relative to the commercial interests along current Highway 12 in Long Lake. Therefore, your office's assistance in protecting the current roadway as a priority corridor site is essential. Secondly, the evaluation team should be encouraged to access the railroad right of way through Long Lake as the southern alternative corridor. The required 300 ft. right of way is virtually protected (undeveloped) and minimal demolition would be needed where building has occurred. I believe dual use (train and highway) and minimal access until west of Long Lake should be considered. Re-zoning is not required since adjacent properties were built recognizing and expecting a similar use (train traffic). Also to consider, is developme: t during the planning period (next 10 years) cannot infringe on the railroad right of way; protecting it for highway construction. Your comments to these suggestions as well as action on them with the city of Long Lake and the Corridor Task Force would be appreciated. Sincejpely, ^ Bob Bruce 2205 Abingdon Way Orono, MN 55356 r HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE name : Alan G. Carlson ADDRESS; 3125 Fox Street PHONE; HOME 476-24A2 BUSINESS 332-4633 1. Summary of education, background; , ^ Purdue University - B^ichelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering with honors 1967 Ohio State, U of M, ^William Mitchell - Juris Doctor with honors 1971 2. Summary of experience background; Honeywell 1967-71 Engineer and Patent agent Merchant & Gould 1971-present, Senior Partner 3. What interested you about service on the Task Force; I would like to offer my skills in technology, communications and law to ensure that the highway has the least disruptive effect. 4. What concepts, i£ any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: a) The location of the highway should displace as few families as possible. b) The interests of people should be preferred over those of business. 5. Any other pertinent information: I have the time, energy and skill to help this project. 6. When would you usually be available to attend .oeetings: l am very flexible, Tuesday Wednesday Thursday FridayMon A.M.Early P.M.Evening I HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE I cnvOF CRo:.o NAtlE:. T)A\ud FiaeMJ ADDRESS! J^pnwGr //,// /&c/-_________ PHONE: HOME 47Ce ~ g33? BUSINESS •JUL 2 -0 -t99 & 1. Summary of education background: ^ yjfS 5. Summary of experience background: 2ot’ //u /4 /^il^/s. 3. What interested you about service on the Task Force: 0w(e<7(^ pTCIfiA^tj , /&e, /4 ^Ct- -Z’- 3?^ BK7<T*fS/o(/^ What concepts, if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: -Tie ex/eeiubAj Ke /fr/esexl-Sefo^ //cm /Z- -//tciTi^// Atc ^ //e»e:Z^, ^cet/ Coeaae. e/A» /zi /iJ //ccce 6/e^) c/y A/ctc M /ce. Any other pertinent information: C//Sc^aM/Me/{ dfsi/aifhm cj Gs-J'cMu4/iif 6. When would you usually be available to attend meetings; Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday (^£7^ Early P.M. (^^enin^ NAME; HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE ADDRESS: PHONE: HOME BUSINESS ------ 1, Summary of education background; EWL 2 0 1990 2. 3. Summary of experience background: what interested you about service on 0^. ^(?og£.p.-Vv^ ■'+W.'V COU.VA poAVv 6^ c€ ct"vS Task Force: \q^ 10 Ca>£<^ kt V v\ “i-Ue |0o<e.H> o-C 4. What concepts, if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: X+Uou-U S£4:M-Vo At. +W¥ u5.d£«.A^ -tW<L p,«£Sf.^+ fSooi loj :Oou.U Cavxs.t \t^ c^iS^u^V^ovx^ £joOv^o^^k^^\ , o.U l£S^ v«0.y<. MOJ>A^/^lo.vs+iiu-ciiov. -tWd»i Oja^ • 5. Any other pertinent information: 6. When would you usually be available to attend mee^^gs: 'l^SJJday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday A.M. Early P.M. Evening 0f^£«O HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TA5K FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE NAiiE: A. J/)kK?san ADDRESS; Mnir-jh Rr/OWn RodJ PHONE; HOME 7______BUSINESS Lion^ Inkp.. 1. Summary of education background; i r I My educcrficnal bflckgi'cand is d BacMor or Science decree -+nim sf. Cloud vS"ha4e Un I VC rs Mos4ei^ drf Science dearce. “Ircnn Mortem S^zrle Hni\/6rs}~fy/ ancl dh adJi+Iondl cre<d\\’ji *rn Eleme»rmiy Eduoi+ion- My curreni' d-^cl^'tr\g pcs'i+lor) *is lAh cind 7-fh c\\rcxde science crT -fhe 0^-cnc Mldcltd. School* -X hau'C H“au0h+ ‘in +he Ore no sys-ferr) -fcv- 4Ke po^ ye^ars, 2. Summary of experience background; /o . i. . iU X hdi/'e teen mVdUecI in-^eKesded *nn-fhe Highway (2 ProjecT since ^ ‘iKiCCp'fion dnd conclusion od" -Hie re^cm‘mg In Orono ct pnesenT Hign'<^<ay i * X jo'med 4he HighWdd IZTosk Force |V^ 4Vie summer o-f im. My objec+li/e Wcis dt) exchange lyidonyvrF'ori bedv^een “VVie k PcJ^ce d^d 4He Oreno c:crr\- iriunidy. Being -Wie cniy represen+^id-ive -fi'om 4tis esreex^ X made condefed" 3. What interested you about service on the Task Force: Coi'eK') De^livia w’tdK children in-4Ke many -feceds de^ichlny ; ceaching^ and as d -fetdher c-P -H\ree> s‘a-fe+y on Mighwcy 12 has teen d higin prloFrhj^ X Seen ederdhs and hrva\or ctecidervds a> my school Kiclsy parenus^ cinci oHier^ aver -4H^ IdLsi" decades ."This Xsk Force 1-s only one. af-4V\e many •^deps along dhe way do complefe a long overdue projecT: 4. What concepts, if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: X have Y)o preconceived M^cis as da where dhe nevv Kcii^e should ao, X do -feel -Hie mad -fea-ffi'c in Ui-ee Volumes. X Would like -fe a WalnVay wi4h -freeway standards and d ^ /w/>- 'imum speed. Xi adcll^or\j OT shduld cansidetr al-^ei-pariVC -forms 0-f -financina incluji'ng <d road.Any otner pertineat information: 6.When would you usually be available to attend meetings: Monday Tuesday Cwednesda^^ Thursday Friday A.M. <^atl.y P.^ <gyeni^ I it wl4f> 'W\e O)rono Village a-f¥iclcils cxnA -Hie |oc^ll KieiOspetper^ O'? wliicli Michael l6T4se Ulro+e seVeml -fine arHdes 4© ar*d eA\xccAe, ou)r jputilc. Xn dddl+ion^ X have "fes+i-fiej be-fore CD»v\mlsrionei^ LeVme, Governor f^rpich; dnol Var/ous o+her s-hxle and local dgenc/es on behdl4 o-f our local Co>^munl4y concerning -4he -firfure Ujpgmdfng cind so4e4y o'? l-ligii- Way 12. HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE NAME: Stephen M. Johnston ADDRESS; 900 North Shore Drive West. Mound. MN 55364 ]W\ 2 6 PHONE; HOME 472-8007 BUSINESS 533-75^ 1990 1. Summary of education background; Bachelor of Civil Engineering* University of Minnesota, March 1984 Continuing education in design and management *Major emphasis in transportation engineering and planning. 2. Summary of experience background; June 1981 - Jan 1986: City of Maple Gi'ove - Engineering Department Jan 1986 - Present: Merila & Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers, Surveyors and Land Planners 3. What interested you about service on the Task Force; It is a way of serving my community which has been niy goal since I first moved here. 4. What concepts, if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12; At this point, I do not feel that I have sufficient information to have formulated a concept relating to location. However, I believe that the impact of the roadway on the natural environment is at'least as critical as the impact on existing businesses, homes and recreational facilities. The latter can be replaced, a forest or wetland cannot. 5, Any other pertinent information; I believe that since my home will not be directly impacted, I will be able to be totally unbiased during the reviews. When would you usually be available to attend meetings; Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday A.M. Early P.M. Evening I am available any day of the week at anytime, although evenings nrpfprabie. OTVC' ORC* HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE D 3 1 1990NAME: , ADDRESS :________^ ^ Z, ^ ^ PHONE: HOME 73 ^ 9BUSINESS ^3^73 ' ^3 1. Summary of education background: 2. Summary of experience background: 3. What interested you about service on the Task Force: ^ What concepts, if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: /? O caL. C-> Any other4 pertinent information: 6. When would you usually be available to attend meetings: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday A.M. Early P.M. Evening -07 ,1 ) ^ HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE NAME:John B. Massonust ADDRESS: 440 South Bro\v7i Road. Orono. MN S5591 PHONE: HOME 475-2724 BUSINESS 536-9109 crfvoP juv.3 0 1990 1. Summary of education background: Edina High School - 1969 Colorado College - 1973 William Mitchell College of Law - 1978 2. Summary of experience background: Lawyer, Robins, Zelle, Larson 6 Kaplan - 1977-1988 Lanver, Zelle 5 Larson - 1988-present President, Access Management - 1988-present What interested you about service on the Task Force: I air concerned about the impact of upgrading highway 12 upon our conminity. It is a sensitive issue that will have significant impact upon many individuals and businesses. If the reasons for the final decision are not fully com municated and understood, there will be community wide resentment to the entire project. What concepts, if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: At this time, I do not have enough information to form an oninion. 5. Any other pertinent information: 6. When would you usually be available to attend meetings: Monday J Tuesday Wednesday C^Thursd^. A.M. Early P.M. (^^ening Friday HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE name: JfVHO ^\. , U.-&.____ .nn.r... 3feg5 ^0/VTgeTcujN] RD_ CiPctOc PHONE: HOME A'15-^'^'^b _______ CITVCF oacNO' • .-1 I iu[l[£ll0\if[l BUSINESS 5~ ^ JUL 2 ~r 1890 1. Summary of education background: _ /^or T-t/ /7/^/ gs P|t75iCUO(^y CKlAH^wA (T/ if'?/ t'cc'R^ATe cF Met>ic/MF ^ /?/^Loe. Goii-eG-F rF ,CITFP^ircAicv F/V^iuy ppArriCF' ///ao.u4. p/7'7- -"77 7M'/, f F CKL/itfil-ir 2. Summary of experience background: . . . .• Curr-'-d ’ '’■''V^' wvAvv.^rCMS ivv MCA .5cc,;.+v, of Vv'AvA)^r ' Ct«*>''-Abo«’ - N-cr1<N Kpiu.cr<^l ' frvsrdscoi' - (\',v?.1tv p^ rvrcf-o-K l.*/ «C7f'OA.-K»V, ('}f4'FF7 3. What interested you about service on the Task Forc^^ ^ j ^ 'l k^l fiv-t’v,icu£(>.| ;>^ v'.ct c■>^^ *-ccfi> > be ,b:ZV aUc -K. h "V^-f tO-S^-oL:/ O retold 4. What concepts, if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: , ^ . / VavJe \i\yCLj(' iWj^A/T a\ C^v-ciud ^ c^r'hiVN we\.cyL\icr^cQcis , . l 5. Any other pertinent information: Ue , 6. When would you usually be available to attend meetings ^'^onday Tuesday A.M. Wednesday Thursday Evening'Early P.M.' Friday ^CKV^ HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE NAME: ADDRESS: tO. t f^\O^W'-tsL. ? p 1990 PHONE: HOME BUSINESS 7 1. Summary of education background: ^.f^. \r> 5.(\cV^ls ^ ^<^\jr_OoVvjj-ON - l\r\vv><Ais.\vv >si ^ '* vj c Vvyo r 'i r,Vt. v\'-j Tr^A Of Ow” 2. Summary of experience background: ^ \AivW, KT^cr Qo ''-— !Scn,W«i ro-jjro.^iflL •vjrcv.Vu.^^ 3. What interested you about service on the Task Force: 'ro<^ cj0'c.',rrvv>-«~«O^ o> ‘ Jrcr«‘'0 Uo^vf^ - Hva \«v>s'^C ‘Ct: -tW ck.<Lcj^,^v^ Vjov\\ KckS->^ OT^ VVa^ 0*7 , S<L»'-'kA.Oo rrs,rv» o^vO^ V ro rcoU»<^ 4. What concepts, if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12; — CckltJl>rN ^ ~ Coov^^..,cr<v^^^ OosW VvooO<^ ^ Vjvs.<-^A_^ 4 5. Any other pertinent information: \\o S^OO^v-^cK A ^ V 0.fl^^v-O£» kov>fV '^^Vo<Lo3:'..rr^ CiXv'-'Vc?-'\_ 6. When would you usually be available to attend meetings: ([^Monda^ Tuesday Wednesday A.M. Early P.M. Thursday ('"^Friday^ ^TEv^inp HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE ( city op \ [ OPCNO J jH[1(£;[id'^ NAME:V.nJJ c. WM ADDRESS:l/‘// • PHONE: HOME 4l^' OZn BUSINESS c JUL 2 7 ^ 1.Summary of education background: _ ^ j / J ^ g 5, Xjtf-uc 'U‘*, ^ If ^4 d ~4t^ 2. Summary of experience background: /jtTCf/ , ;,SC ^ ^ \ /C^Uu. Si.Uffi.- ~~ !fi7 / </ . What interested you about service on the Task Force: 4. What concepts, if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: ^ A J4 ^ ^ tf^lt -w m • , »--T ^ W M -- - - - -- _AcT'/i^ jt 5. Any other pertinent information; / */ * « •*/f ,'X C'idnc^ C^-r*ct i^ UUy ' ^ /'^^7’ 'j/ y(/tf 6.When would you usually be available to attend meetings: Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday A.M. Early P.M. Evening NAIIE: HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE C* Alston ADDRESS; PHONE; HOME ^7^ “ l.X lo EBUSINESS 'JUL' 2 0 iggo /2cJ . /jLJs ^y^/ 7 1. Summary of education background; r-? ^2/79 » Coo -/V- / ^ ^ y- f^^/L ^ ^ /I'yc^ . A^cc^ n-^cJ ^ S ^ 2. Summary of experience background; ^ &i/. r<> SHcu^Oix^^ ^ ^<^0/ .^^C/ jST YLf,x^ c) ^ 4 ? )^7o- 9o CDA^ <a-c? t^sz£f <a^ ST^h^^^l^^ttT'yo^teStrt TaTTrSFcel —^------------------- * C^'U^cA • ^ ^ __^ <^ <=/ ’, do you have on issues related to the V ^ A-A2e 72P C'A^'^ 4. What concepts, if any location of an upgraded Highway 12; , ■_ V- <^=*—O / -*- 74. ■f^/>^/’‘^ ^ . >.// ^ - -X.- /) /. c. A ■t>i- (_^ <-e-^— 5. Any other pe -f -^{/c^c/c^ -7- <0-4 <^ 7^ ,V When would you usually be available to attend meetings; (Tuesda? V^glne^a^ ^gursj^ ^^^^id^. A.M. Early P.M. C^^^Evenin^ 0 5 ^ i 9 S'acJyL . R/hL /O^Tt c jA c<4> HIGHWAY 12 CITIZENS TASK FORCE POSITION QUESTIONNAIRE D NAME: ROGER M. ZEEB lUI ADDRESS: 2905 COUNTY RD. 6 LONG L.\KE, m. 55356 PHONE: HOME 476-4309 BUSINESS 933-6216 .nil 2 5 1860 1, Summary of education background: Graduate of Minnetonka HighscLool Graduate of St. Cloud College. Hold BA in Philosophy L BA in Political Science 2. Summary of experience background: I have worked in the private business sector (transportation/services) for the past 16 years. Holding the position of President of ZTA Travel for the past 5 years. 3. What interested you about service; on the Task Force: I am proud of our area and wish to becor..e more actively involved with community service. I feel that the Hwy. 12 improvements will greatly impact our neighh- rhoods and that thoughtful nlanning is critical. What concepts, if any, do you have on issues related to the location of an upgraded Highway 12: Existing right of ways should be utilized as much as possible. Public lands and institutions need protection from unwarrented development. t 5. Any other pertinent information: I and my family have resided in Orono for the past 14 years, J 6. When would you usually be available to attend meetings: Mpnd^ pTuesd^ Wednesday Thursday Friday A.M. Early P.M. EvenJ^^ 8990.1 TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATS: August 9, 1990 SUBJECT: Transportation Consultant t i fttj.'rtls AUl, 131390 • (TV PiJO-’l It is requested that this item be tabled until the Council's August 21, 1990 Council meeting. 72690.? TO: Mayor and City Council FROH: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: July 26, 1990 SOBJKT: Highway 12 Corridor Study ■AUG 13 1990 IT? r Attachment: A. Corridor Study Process Draft ISSUE 1. Presentation to Council of the corridor selection draft. 2. Update as to next round of meetings. INTRODUCTION - During the July meetings the consultant made the initial presentations of his draft process and will be working, as noted on the schedule, during August to refine the process and begin the goals and objectives selection together with identification of issues. The August meetings will be held as follows: Technical Coamittee - Augut*: 21, 1990 1:00 P.M. Delano City Hall Policy Committee - August 22, 1990 5:30 P.M. Maple Plain City Hall ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the•information. 2. Table for further discussion. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that Council accept the information presented by staff regarding che Highway 12 corridor process. Ayes _, Nays _. TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY - TH 101 TO TH 25 SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES Activity Estimated Completion Date 4 ! 1 1. 1 ORGANIZATION Establish Committees/Roles/Process Aug. 1990 2.IDE.VnFY STUDY AREA GOALS/ISSUES/CONCERNS Meet*with representatives(s) of affected agencies, cities and groups Aug. 1990 3.PREPARE EVALUATION CRITERIA (Based upon goals, issues and concerns) Aug. 1990 ^4.IDENTIFY POTENTLALLY FEASIBLE CORRIDORS (500’ wide) ^ 5.DATA COLLECnON/MAPPING Sept. 1990 6.SCREEN CORRIDORS Preliminary evaluation of potentially feasible corridors based upon evaluation criteria (reduce number of corridors to maximum of six) Oct. 1990 7.PREP.ARE PRELIMINARY L.AYOUTS OF REMAINING CORRIDORS Nov. 1990 8. ; IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF EACH CORRIDOR Dec. 1990 9.PREPARE DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT (SD) (Project need, alternatives considered, issues, potential impacts) Jan. 1991 10.PREPARE DRAFT SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT (SDD) (proposed alternatives, issues, impacts and special studies to be addressed in EIS) Jan. 1991 11.REVIEW DRAFT SD AND DRAFT SDD Feb. 1991 12.HOLD PUBUC MEE"nNGS AND PUBLIC HEARING March 1991 13.REVIEW/REVISE DRAFT SDD May 1991 L ' 14.APPROVE SDD June 1991 !! 15.SELECT PREFERRED CORRIDOR July 1991 1 ' t4t70/SCHEDULElMD 8690.1 5// 13TO: Mayor and City Council FROM; Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administra DATS: August 10, 1990 SUBJECT: Facilities Citizens Review Committee^ ISSUE 1. Establishment of a meeting with the Facilities Committee. INTRODUCTION - At the Facilities meeting on July 26, 1990 they reviewed issues of site, materials, architectural design and site layout. DISCUSSION - At this point of the Committee's work it would be appropriate for Council and the Citizens Group to hold a work session to discuss progress to date and determine directions of facilities from this point forward. The suggested date for this is: WEDNESDAY AUGUST 22, 1990 7:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council establish a meeting date with the Facilities Group. t; 1 seconded by that CouncilPROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _. - - - - - . establish _______ as a meeting date with the Facilities Committee at _ _ _ _ in the Council Chambers. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Facilities Committee Members Jack Boarman, Boarman Architects, 222 North 2nd Street Minneapolis 55401 Department Heads 8690.2 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat<^t' August 6, 1990 TO: FROM: DATS: SUBJECT: Bow and Arrow Deer Hunting - 'uai.oa Attachment: A. Chief Kilbo's Memo Dated 7/25/90 ISSUE - Determination by Council as to whether they want to alter the current arrangements for bow auid arrow hunting. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment B the success of the program has been somewhat limited with approximately 5 deer being taken in each of the last 3 years. In contrast the "road kills" have averaged 20 to 25 per year. In a phone call one property owner Indicated the deer continue to be a growing problem particularly for persons raising crops/flowers and apples in the northwestern portion of the community. DISCUSSION - The primary concern of the police department has been the fact that the administrative problems associated with this program have outweighed the benefits (even though the City receives a $10.00 fee). Issues and alternatives related to the hunt which is only during the bow and arrow season of October and December are listed below: 1. Procedures have to be simplified. 2. Raise fees to ccr: '^'nsate for the administrative work. 3. Simplify procedure for the number of sites and/or licensing. 4. Hold the hunt every other year. 5. Eliminate the hunt entirely. 6. Increase the number of sites (we currently have five.) 7. Allow for more hunters in the site. As noted in Attachment C, if in fact/ there are greater numbers of deer, the number of takes may increase. Alternatives are: 1. Allow the hunt every other year. 2, Not allowing hunting at all. 3. Look at different way of processing the hunters and the sites. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that for 1990, the property owner must provide the police department with a letter indicating that he or she will permit hunting on their personal property. The property owner must indicate in which way the deer are causing nuisance or damage to their property. Further, the property onwer must provide description of the property owned, (ie. the number of acres, address, sketch of the property in conjunction with the roadways, etc.). There must be a minimum of five (5) acres on the property for safety reasons. The number of permits given out on a property will be up to the property owner. Each property owner must decide how many persons he permits on his property. The City will not limit the number of hunters allowed on each property. Each hunter, however, must have written permission from the landowner before the City will grant a permit. All hunting will be done from a stand at least four feet in elevation. The hunter must have a proper state license to bow hunt deer. The hunter must have the appropriate city permit on his person at all times while hunting. The hunter must not shoot within 100 feet of any property line, within 100 feet of any building, within 200 feet of any livestock. The hunter, in tracking animals, must have the permission of any landowner before retrieving deer. The permit may be revoked at any time for cause. The hunter must submit the Limited Firearms Use Permit Report Form prior to January 20, 1991, indicating whether or not he took a deer. Failure to submit report will result in future permits being denied. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that Council direct staff regarding the deer hunting for 199*U7 A*^«s , Nays I Interoffice Memo Date: To: July 25, 1990 Orono City Council Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator From: Re: Melvin Kilbo, Chief of Police Bow & Arrow Deer Hunt In the past few years, the City of Orono has allowed bow and arrow deer hunting? permits on private property with certain restrictions (such as 10 acre minimum property, etc.) In reviewing records from the past two years, it was determined that only five (5) deer were harvested in 1989, and six (6) deer harvested in 1988. It has been estimated that in 1989, approx. 24 deer were hit by vehicles on roadways. Note that this number is approx, five times the number of deer that were actually harvested by hun ers. There have been shotgun hunts regulated by Hennepin County Park Reserve in Baker Park for the last few years. In 1986, 54 deer were harvested, with a 72% harvest, in 1987, 41 deer with 50% harvest, and in 1988, 51 deer with a 65% harvest. It should be noted that there is not a deer hunt planned for 1990. Mr. Larry Gillette of the Hennepin Parks indicated that the deer herds remain very stable year to year, and that all the hunting has done is shift the deer herd from one location to another. The deer herd in Baker Park at the present time is down to a manageable level. The primary purpose of the City allowing permits in the past I was to help alleviate problems associated with the deer ruining crops and being hit by vehicles. As you can see from the above statistics, there have not been enough deer harvested to make a difference. F - .'2^:' ri: /4 /9 ^■J' 5 3 3 /dc^V ./x Uu. ^IjioO 0--tAjO ^cy^'^X ^t^ji/iX \-X> C^/— 4^ -Xi^C-A^^c^A^.^&:/ -jL 0/'^yuu. \<Uaia y^iCi.y^ ^'>-#L.o>?V lJ.^^<AA-X^a ^ (^1-—y Aa yj /hcA,y'^‘^ u ^<.c-{^ l <^•^11 \U / ' i Loren V. Butteriield Greenhouses Wholesale firowers of Plants and Flowers •925 VVaicTii’Wti R'laJ Maple Plain Minn. 55159 Pim\l 47V9128 it j 1^—” {p • ‘ L..„ !* Loren V. Butterfield Greenhouses Wholesale Growers oi Plants and Flowers Ujtcrtiiwn R<w*l Plain Mmn. 55359 PtIONf 473 9128 ./' //y .-L xf-X. / i Ut^ I;. 72690.3 tr* TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato«, DATS: August 10, 1990 SUBJECT: Octoberfest - (Orono School Fund Raising Event) ISSUE - Presentation to Council of items related to participation by the City at Octoberfest. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's July 23, 1990 Council a request cn"l)ehalf of the school's Octoberfest Advertising/Media Committee was made to see what level of participation the City would be interested in regarding this fund raising event. Specifically it was requested that the City participate in purchase and erection of a banner for the event. DISCUSSION - The following represent the issues for the event to be held on October 6, 1990: Acquisition cost (estimated $250,00—$350.00) MnDOT and/or DNR approval City sign ordinance application Sign placement RECOMMENDATION - The amount for the acquisition of the ,*^3njier by the City would perhaps best be done as a donation to the School District for this event. The City will work with the Minnesota Department of Transporation for P«^^"'|ssion for placement o^ the banner over Highway 12 by the schools and/or DNR for one on the Luce Line Bridge. Also staff will review the City ordinances for any temporary sign permits. In addition, as the City does have the necessary equipment (high ranger) the City will contact NSP to see if they would be willing to do such placement. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Indicate participation. 3. Take no action. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by having indicated the level of participation in this directs staff to undertake that direction. Ayes _» Nays _. f Wtomz Da^e: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Memberc: City Administrator Bernhardson Building & Zoning Administrator r > Lyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector August 7, 1990 Ordinance 87, Second Series - Adoption of Current Minnesota State Building Code Attached for review and adoption by the City Council is an ordinance which provides for the inclusion of the currently revised Minnesota State Building Code. A summary ordinance has been drafted for publication of only the changed portion of the previously adopted Ordinance #37,Second Series. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by ___, seconded by Ordinance 87, Second Series. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. , to adopt ORDIHANCE NUMBER 87, SECOND SERIES SUMMARY APPROVED The Council hereby determines that the text of the summary of this ordinance marked "Official Summary of Ordinance Number 87, Second Series" and a copy of which is attached hereto, clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determines that publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. OFFICIAL SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 87, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE AND ALL OTHER ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH. The following is the official summary of Ordinance Number 87, Second Series approved by the City Council of the City of Orono on August 13, 1990. The following Chapters of the Minnesota State Building Code have been adopted to reflect the current adoption by the State of Minnesota. Administration Required. 1. Chapter 1305 - Adoption of 1988 Uniform Building Code by Reference. 2. Chapter 1315 - 1987 National Electrical Code. Permits, Inspections and Collection of Fees shall be provided for in Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code 1985 Edition. A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the City Clerk. This Ordinance becomes effective upon publication, the week of August 20, 1990. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 13th day of August, 1990, by a vote of _ _ ayes and - - nays. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor ORDINANCE #SECOND SERIES An Ordinance adopting the Ninnesota State Building Code; providing for its adainistration and enforceaent; regulating the erection, construction, enlargeacnt, alteration, repair, moving, ^‘•■oval, deaolition, conversion, occupancy, equipaent, ust. ght, area and aaintenance of all buildings and/or structures in ti. of Orono; providing for the issuair c of peraits and collect .01. v. I fees therefore; providing penal ti«=s for the violation thereof; *a®nding Section 12.01 - Building Code Adopted, of the Orono Municipal Code and all other ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict therewith and repeals ordinance 37, Second Series which was adopted by the City Council on June 29^ 1987. The City Cout^'Til of Orono ordains as follows: Subdivisi a 1. Building Code. Mir.nescta State Building Code, established pursuant tc Minne ; ta Stat Statuses 36B.59 through 16B.73, oiie copy of which is on t'^e office of the City Clerk, is hereby adopted as the Buj diu . v^oe for the City of Orono. Such Code is hereby incorpc .c'^^ in this Ordinance as completely as setout in full. A. Administration Required. 1.Chapter 1300 - 2. by Chapter 1305 - Reference. 3.Chapter 1315 - 4.Chap er 13. 0 - 5.Chapter 1 32^ 6. Chapter 1330 Shi^lters. 7. Chapter 1335.0600 to 1335 • 1335.; 8.Chapter 1340 - 9. chaptt Condition! WO - P 10.Ch-'i 11.f.i' '' 12.C * — 13.Cha^n.‘.6'- ■ •4.Chapter 4215 - elevator and 'ocated Machines 1- " fystems . - Technical Required for Fallout Flood P’-oofing Regulations - Parts !00, and < ections 205.4 t <.,2. ''aci.iti the Handicapped. Min'^esota ii^»ating, Ventilating, Air [j'-‘ Ion Code. jctured Homes. - v-mbing Code. Ptef ricated Structures. B. Administration Optional. 1. Chapter 1305.0150, Subpart 2, 2. 'JBC Appendix Chapters 1, 7 38 and 55. 3. Chapter i:0b.6905 - Special Fire Suppression Systems with Option of Group B-2 2000 or More Gross Square Feet. Subdivision 2. Organiza;.ion and Enforcement. The organization of the BuildingDepartment and enforcement of the Code shall be as established by Chapter 2 of the Uniform Building Code 1905 Edition. The Code shall be enforce*- -'th the corporate limits of the City and extrat'^rritorial limits permitted by States Statutes 1984. A. The Building and Zoning Department sh/ill be the Building Code Department of the City of Orono. B. The Administrative Authority shall be the State Certified Building Official. C. The appointing Authority shall designate the Building Official for the jurisdiction of Orono. Subdivision 3. 1. Permits, Inspections and Fees. Permits, inspections and collection of fees shall be provided in Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code 1985 Edition. 2. Surcharge. In addition to the permit fee required by Item #1, the applicant shall pay a surcharge to be remitted to the Minnesota Depar*'.ment of Administration as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes 1984, Section 16B.70. Subdivi ^nnes fine o. tut JO. ations and Penalties. Shall be in keeping with 609.03? “ 609.034 which provides for a maximum oubdiv\i*-.ii 5. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be effeccive upon adoption, and a short summary shall be published in the Laker and Pioneer newspaper. Adopted by the City Cc vocil of Oron- on t iis 13th day of August, 1990, by a vote of _ ayes and _ _ na s. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Jrabek, Mayor 7269C.4TO:Mayor and City Council Administrator ft ‘ 4 * M PIOM:Mark E. Bernhardson, City DATS:August 8, 1990 SUBJECT: Lake Use Management ISSUE - Update to Council as to progress on review of LMCD's plan by their Advisory Board. INTRODUCTION — The Advisory Board conducted their rap up review of the Cities comments at their August 1st meeting. A new plan draft is apparently underway but not yet complete. 72690.5 V 6 '■'Wli TO:Mayor and City Council \ ^V. \ FROM;Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate^ ^ DATE:July 25, 1990 f O .i o :i-in SUBJECT; LMCD Shoreland Regulations Agreement Attachment; A. LMCD Shoreland Agreement Dated 6/5/90 ISSUE - Determination as to whether the Cit> desires to join in the agreement with LMCD for shoreland management work or if it chooses to do so in conjunction wfch DNR directly. INTRODUCTION - On June 5, 1990 the City received from LMCD their proposed agreement for coordinating the adoption of the shoreland regulation drafts contained in the LMCD report. Initial concerns regarding this were: A. What future authority would this give LMCD over Orono land use regulation if the City cooperatively participated in it. B. Would LMCD's coordinating participation remove funds that otherwise would be available to the City for dealing directly with the Department of Natural Resources. DISCUSSION - Additiona1 LMCD authority - In the Comprehensive Plan it is indicated that the LMCD will contract with cities to give them the power to review and comment on selected items, including grants in shoreline regulations and building height in the community. Based on the reviews, but not present yet in the revised document, was the indication that this is stictly voluntary and up to the cities. A review of Attachment A does not seem to indicate that the City would be in any way required to contract with LMCD or that by participating in this that LMCD would be given any direct authority. The City of Orono, however, has to be concerned in these regulations with not only Lake Minnetonka and those standards but also the standards applicable to Long Lake and other lakes in the community including the following; Lydiard Dickey Classen Mooney In a review of this matter with John Shardlow, who has done work with the City of Burnsville, in relationship to the DNR regulations he has indicated that classification of that lake becomes a significant item as: A. For those four lakes the City has not e.stablished lake zones around them so that the various lake setbacks found on Long Lake and Minnetonka do not apply to these lakeSf apart from the 26* wetlands setback. The classification of lakes may in fact create a greater setback requirement than the City's 75* setback if they are determined -natural environment lakes". ThLs may have a severe impact on the developability of currently developed properties plus those that may in the future develop. The agreement, as such, would have the City working directly DNR in establishing requirements for those four plus Long Lake. Should the Council choose to deal with DNR directly it is anticipated that the City woulu still be dealing with the same regulations for Lake Minnetonka whether it is though the LMCD or the DNR but it may not have as much clout singly as it would jointly through LMCD. This may be particularly in light of the City wanting changes that LMCD may accept but the DNR, because Orono is not participated with LMCD, may not be as inclined to accept. It is estimated, depending on the classification and development, that such a project for a private consultant to assist would take up to or to the expected reimbursement cut could be considerably less if those classifications do not place too restrictive a burden on development of abutting properties. ALTERTNATIVES - 1. Adopt the agreement. 2. Propose changes. 3. Take no action. 4. Choose to deal with DNR directly on all shoreland regulati *^s. 5. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is expected that the City would work through LMCD as much of the staff work for their regulations has been done but the dealing independently with DNR on the entire amount may take considerably more time. Additionally it is requested that the City be allowed to work with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban in the development of standards for the other five lakes in the community. This item is currently not budgeted specifically but money would be available in 'SO and could be budgeted in Si. it may be appropriate to add a line to the proposed resolution that such joint participation does not obligate the City to have their land use controls at all subject to LMCD. It is recommended at this time, however, that it be tabled for further review by the City Attorney and await the next draft of LMCD's plan as the language has the City agreeing to adopt standards in conformance with LMCD*s plan. To date we’re not sure what it will finally say and whether participation in the joint development will give any of tne City’s land use authority to LMCD. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that Council table consideration until after consideration on Ffie next Comprehensive Plan draft emd Council directs staff to work with John Shardlow and the Department of Natural Resources to determine shoreland issues on other lakes in the community. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: JoEllen Hurr, 930 Partenwood Drive, Long Lake Eugene Strommen, LMCD, 402 East Lake Street, Wayzata BUAHD MEMBERS Davi<> M Civ-hran. Chair UraenwCHx) Aibiix O Fo*ia.. vtca Chair Dooph,iv«*n Jan Hoawmh»»l Sncri>laiv Minii«>ioiika Hnach John Lawrnan Treasurer Minnelrisia Oour)ias e BabcocK Sprinq Park Ma» n Bforiin Tonka Bay ^ames N Giaihwol Enceisior JoEHen L Hurr Orono John G Maiinka Victoria Thomas Martinson Wayrata Robert K PiMsbury Minni>innka Hohmt M.f.r;ni> StiorfiwiMiil Thomas W Hoese Mound Robert E Slocum WoiMM mil LAKE MINNETONKA 402 EAST lake street WAYZATA MINNESOTA 55391 EUGENE R June 5, 1990 /JU'5 1990 The Honorable James Grabek Mayor, City of Orono 3050 Jamestown Rd Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Jim: The MN DNR Statewide Standards for "Management of Shoreland Areas" were adopted July 3, 1989. These revised standards are expected to be adopted by all cities. As a special accomraodatlor to the 14 Lake Minnetonka cities, the MN DNR invited your Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to facilitate the adoption of the shoreland standards among its member cities. Coincident to the development of the Long Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka, the Shoreland Rules study was the first to be conducted. Your city participated in this shoreland rules assessment in the winter of 1988-89. Profressional staff and some elected official participation in this study resulted in the recommended Shoreland Management guide distributed with eight other study areas in November, 1989. Workshops sponsored by the MI4 DNR were held in la e January, 1990. We believe all lake communities participated in these workshops. The process for each community's responsibility in adopting the revised Shoreland Rules was reviewed in detail. LMCD's role as the facilitating agency for the Lake Minnetonka communities was also explained by DNR officials. The Shoreland Grant Agreement is now ready after a careful review of its contents with the MN DNR. Your LMCD Board has reviewed and approved it for your subsequent review and, we trust, adoption. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Municipalities DNR Shoreland Rules June 5, 1990 Page 2 Certain funding reimbursement for eligible costs is being provided-by the MN DNR through LMCD as the facilitating agency, A provision to fund necessary consulting service to assist the cities in the adoption process is also included as part of the agreement. Eligibility for the matching funds is available through July 31, 1991. That is the deadline for all LMCD cities to complete their shoreland rules adoption. This leaves just a year to accomplish this task upon your prompt review and signing of the agreement. .-lay we count on you and your City Council to favorably adopt this Shoreland Grant Agreement in June so we may move ahead with the maximum time available? You may direct questions to me personally at 47A-4743. or to Executive Director Gene Strommen, 473-7033. Thankyou for your positive and early response. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRIC'^ David H. Cochran Chair DHC;am enc:agreement etcity administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SHORELAND GRANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by the State of Minnesota, acting by and through the Commissioner of Natural Resources, hereinafter referred to as the "State"; and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, hereinafter referred to as the "LMCD"; and, the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Orono, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria, Wayzata and Woodland, hereinafter referred to as the "Cities". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the State has been granted certain responsibility for regulation of shoreland development, as provided by Minnesota Statutes 105.485 and Minnesota Rules parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900 pertaining to "Sta^^wide Standards for Management of Shoreland Areas"; and WHEREAS, the State is authorized by the Laws of 1989, Chapter 335, Article 1, Section 21, Subdivision 3 to provide gru..* ^ssisU :e for local governments to adopt a shoreland management ordinchi:.^ consistent with statewide standards, and to develop comprehensive lake management strategies and plans; and WHEREAS, the LMCD has prepared a Lake Minnetonka Comprehensive Lake Management Plan which includes a strategy for shoreland area management; and WHEREAS, a coordinated, comprehensive approach to shoreland standards for the shoreland areas of Lake Minnetorua will result in greater local consistency and acceptance of the controls, and WHEREAS, the LMCD and the Cities have submitted an application for grant assistance. 1 NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto: I. LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY A. CITIES' RESPONSIBILITY 1. Shoreland Ordinance Adoption. After the official two year notice has been given, per Minnesota Rules part 6120.2800, subpart 2., and before July 31, 1991, the Cities agree to adopt a shoreland management ordinance consistent with statewide standards and the Lake Minnetonka Comprehensive Management Plan. 2. The Cities shall document all eligible costs defined in Section II.A. of this agreement, and report them to the LHCD for payment. B. LHCD RESPONSIBILITY 1. Local Government Coordination. After the official two year notice has been given, per Minnesota Rules part 6120.2800, subpart 2., LHCD agrees to coordinate the shoreland ordinance adoption for the shoreland areas of Lake Minnetonka (I.D.#27-133) of the following local governments: City of Deephaven City of Excelsior City of Greenwood City of Minnetonka City of Minnetonka Beach City of Hinnetrista City of Mound City of Orono City of Shorewood City of Spring Park City of Tonka Bay City of Victoria City of Wa>4ata City of Woodland 2. Ordinance Certification Checklist. Within the adoption schedule described in item A.l. above, the LHCD also agrees to ensure completion of all the tasks and return the attached ordinance certification checklist for each City to the State. ! I 3. The LMCD shall pay to the Cities from funds received pursuant to Section II.A of this Agreement 50% of all reasonable ordinance adoption expenses (described in item 4, below) up to a maximum of: a) $2,500.00 for each of the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Mound, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata and Woodland, and b) $5,000.00 for each of the Cities of Minnetrista, Orono, Shorewood and Victoria. 4. Documentation of Actual Costs. The LMCD agrees to provide to the State documentation of all actual eligible costs, defined below, in the adoption of shoreland ordinances for the Cities, and the coordination of sh^reland ordinance adoption by the local governments lifted in item B.I., above. Examples of allowable costs are: a) Publishing costs for hearing notices and ordinance provisions; b) Consultants fees and/or legal fees involved in the ordinance adoption process; ** c) Hailing costs associated with ordinance adoption and publication; d) Education and training costs including, expenses for attending the DNR workshops; e) Costs of holcififi public information mratings; f) Costs of shoreland classification reviews, including map revisions and ordinance development; g) Costs for comprehensive plan development and revisions pertaining to the shoreland district only, unless combined with the •i Floodplaii and/or Wild and Scenic Rivers program.. h) Costs for upgrading zoning administration forms such as: permit application, permit certification, variances, conditional uses, special uses, zoning changes, amendments. i) Costs resulting from tasks performed by local appointed officials, employees or staff involved in the adoption process of a shoreland ordinance. 3 j) Coordination costs of local government shoreland ordinance adoption relating to: meeting attendance, training and explanation of county codes and ordinances for compatibility, lake and stream classification review for county wide consistency, review and comments on local government controls and ordinances for county consistency and state compliance, and review and comments on local government administrative procedures for consistency and compatibility with the county. k) Office computeriiation relating to shoreland management. 5. The LMCD shall return to the State any grant funds advanced which are in excess of 50% of actual costs and which have not previously been paid to the Cities. Funds which have been previously paid to the Cities which are in excess of 50% of actual costs shall be returned to the State by the Cities. 6. If any City does not adopt a shoreland ordinance by July 31, 1991, then all grant funds for the purposes of adopting a snore!and ordinance for that City shall be returned to the state. 7. Each City shall provide to the Department for review a draft ordinance at least 60 days before the deadline date defined in item 6, above. II. GRANT A. The State shall pay to the LMCD up to a maximu' $45,000.00 for payment to the Cities of 50% of all reasonable ordinance adoption expenses for the services authorized hereunder. Invoices willf be submitted ‘‘uble the requested payment amount to demonstrate both ^he Heal and state share. Final payment will be made after the Work has beer, ^.•'"'nlfted and if costs and Work for which invoices are submitted are satisfactory the Commissioner of Natural Resources. This also includes submittal of the Ordinance Certification Checklist. r Advance payments to the LMCD by the State not to exceed Sn% of the grant amount may be authorized if a listing of anticipated inr. r-ed expenses are submitted by the LMCD to the State. The LMCD and/or Ciuieu agree to pay all expenses not paid for by the grant. B. The State shall pay $15,000.00 costs of coordinating the adoption of local controls up to a maximum of $15,000.00. Examples of allowable expense are described in Section I.B.4. of this contract. III. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1. The LMCD agrees that in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or sub-contract hereunder, neither it nor any contractor, material supplier or vendor shall engage in any discriminatory employment practices as such practices are defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 181.59 and Chapter 363, or in any practices prohibited by Minnesota Statutes Sections 177.42 and 177.43 (1988). 2. The LMCD shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless the State, its agents and employees from all claims or actions which may arise from performance of this Agreement. 3. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures, and practices of the LMCD relevant to this Agreement shall be subject to examination of the Department of Natural *•« wurces and the Legislative /editor. 4. The State agree, to provide technical and coordinative assistance to the LMCD and/or Cities for the adoption of shoreland '•ontrols for non-Lake Minnetonka shoreland areas within the Cities of Minnetrista, Orono, Shorewood, and Victoria. 5. The State intends by this Agreement to eliminate unnecessary duplication of ordinance adoption procedures by requiring all ordinance standards prepared by the Cities to be coordinated with the LMCD prior to submittal to the State for approval. Failure by the Cities to coordinate with the LMCD will result in non-payment of eligible costs to the Cities by the LHCD. IV. TERl'l This Agreement shall become effective when all signatures required have been obtained and when the funds have been encumbered by the Commissioner of Finance, and shall continue in effect until the agreed tasks are completed or until July 31, 1991, whichever is earlier. V. TERMIflAriON The State may terminate this Agreement “with cause". "With cause" shall mean that the LMCD and/or Cities are not performing the Work in accordance with the terms of U.j Agreement or the Work is not being performed to the satisfaction of the State. If this Agreement is so terminated, the S.'dte shall only a liable to pay for Work found acceptable. In the event of termination of this Agreement ai heretofore provided, the LMCD and/or Cities shall have seven (7) days prior w, t .en notice and if the Agreement is being te*^niinated "with cause" the LMCD and/cr Cities shall have until che date of termination to show cause why the Agreement should not be terminated. If it is determined by the State that the ’.HTD/Cities default was Leyorid its control or it was not otherwise in default, the Agreement shall not be terminateu. Zoning File #1569 July 13, 1990 Page 2 of 4 5. Septic code requirement. As of this writing, the City is not in receipt of the final perc and boring tests performed on July 12, 1990. We are assured by the on-site septic evaluator that he will have the information into staff by late Friday or early Monday so that staff can confirm suitable area for on-site sewage/disposal systems for the proposed 10 bedroom home. The evaluator has found suitable area based on slope conditions and 75' set back from the wetlands (review Exhibit E). 6. Section 10.03, Subdivision 21 - Exception. A determination as to whether the proposed land alterations fall under this section or require separate conditional use permit review. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit Bl-2 - Applicant's Addendum Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Plat Map Exhibit E - Conceptual Septic Mapping Exhibit Fl- Topographic Survey 1=100' approximation Exhibit G - Site Plan Exhibit H - First Floor Plan Exhibit I - Lower Floor Plan Review of Application - The applicant proposes the residential development of the 20+ acre site to the immediate east of the Parten property. If members remember, this is the property that is served by the 60' wide easement through the Parten property. Staff has never received a copy of the easement document. Technically the property appears landlocked. Prior to scheduling the application before the Council, the City must be in receipt of a copy of the easement document. Applicant will be responsible for extending the existing private drive to the west boundaries of the property. Based on all previous reports, the current easement will allow a driveway within the 60' right-o^-way as shown. Review Exhibit E, the site plan that locates septic systems to serve the proposed residence, the proposed barn at 57'x40' must be relocated on the site to meet the setbacks defined above. The property with total acreage at 20+ acres would permit a 3,000 s.f. oversized accessory structure. The proposed structure is 2,280 s.f. Zoning File #1569 July 13, 1990 Page 3 of 4 It is not customary for tb i City to ask for septic lasting when dealing with a 6*5 acre dry contiguous site. Many portions of this site are restricted for septic use with severe slopes and by the required setback of 75' from the wetland. In addition, please review the floor plans of the proposed structure. There is a total of 10 bedrooms proposed for this residence. Two of those bedrooms are proposed for guest or domestic staff use. The two sle.eping rooms-are located on the first floor. Note tha there are no kitchen areas proposed. Applicant is advised that if kitchen areas are ever installed to serve this section, a separate conditional use permit wil] be required for a guest house/non-rental apartment. The crucial issue for this review will be if applicant's consultant can provide test results that confirm the site can maintain a 10 bedroom home. Once again, staff will confirm the capabilities of the site at your meeting. In reviewing the site plan (Exhibit F), note the grading proposed as a result of the major cutting and filling to be J^one on the site. The applicant will be expected to file detailed grading and drainage plans wi^h the building permit application, providing detail on all retaining walls on the site. Note the retaining walls proposed are located well within the required setback for accessory structure. Applicant's representative should provide information as to the maximum height of the walls proposed. It is difficult for staff to determine whether a separate conditional use permit review would be required lacking detailed plans. As one may argue that because of the topography the necessary land alterations and retaining walls are required to protect the foundation of this oversized principal structure. The building and zoning code would allow such land alterations under a building permit. Planning Commission may wish to asx further questions of the applicant and to provide direction to the staff. Please review Exhibit Bl-2, Mr. Webber has provided a listing of the hardships and unique findings for this seeking a front/street setback at 68' where the 100 setback is required. They are reviewed as follows: 1. The majority of the home meets the 100' setback. The setback variance is sought for only a garage and entry addition to the residence. 2. The house has been placed at the edge of the ridge in order to minimize erosion and the major cutting into the more steeper elevations. Zoning File #1569 July 13, 1990 Page 4 of 4 3. The severe slopes to the east and north required placement at the top of the ridge in order to minimize impact on extreme dense vegetation. This will minimize the removal of trees in the steeper elevations decreasing potential for erosion problems. The total finished area of the house is approximately 11,594 s.f. (7,402 1st floor, 4,192 s.f. finished -area lower level). Applicant should be advised that any future development of the lower level involving higher water usage may be very difficult based on the limited area of dry lands at 6% or less. Options of Action - Denial. If denied, please refer to the necessary findings in Section 10.08; or Approval, pending confirmation that there is adequate area for on-site sewage treatment facilities to serve a 10 bedroom home approving a front street setback variance of 32' or 32% for Sam McCloud for the property located at 4280 Bayside Road, based on the findings set forth by applicant's architect noted above, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to provide detailed grading/drainage plans with detail on retaining wall upon application for a building permit. 2. Applicant/owner is placed on notice that additional improvements to this structure involving increase in water usage may be prohibited based on limitations of available dry lands at less than 6% slope. Pending final determination for need for separate conditional use permit review, applicant may be allowed to proceed with setback variance application and file a separate conditional use permit for August meeting if grading is found to exceed the allowed amount associated with a building permit; or Table subject to applicant filing a conditional use permit application. Zoning File #1569 August 1, 1990 Page 5 Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation - Additional Exhibits - Exhibit J - Webber Letter dtd 7/27/90 Exhibit K - Planning Conmiission Action Notice Exhibit L - Elevations The Planning Commission granted unanimous approval of the front street setback variance, approving a 68* setback instead"of the required 100' for the principal structure. In addition, the Planning Commission found the extent of the proposed grading and installation of retaining walls did not require separate conditional use permit review, noting the grading and drainage review can be done under the authority of a building permit review. The severe sloping topography will require major cuts into the bank. The proposed retaining walls will provide stability to the foundation and allow the preservation of adjacent mature trees. Such alteration are customary when dealing construction at such several slopes The Planning Commission accepted the applicant's findings of hardship listed on Page 3 of the staff memo. They conditioned approval on applicant's submitting additional septic testing prior to the Council meeting to assure that there is adequate area to support a 10 bedroom home. Applicant's original submittals provided septic testing that would satisfy the needs of an 8 bedroom residence. Staff is in receipt of a letter (Exhibit J) from applicant's architect, Mr. Webber, stating that the building plans have been revised reducing the number of bedrooms to 8. Please review Exhibits H and I, the original septic test information submitted for the Planning Commission review will satisfy the septic needs for the proposed house. The enclosed approving resolution is presented for Council's review and action. i:1 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.27, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) PILE #1569 WHEREAS, Sam McCloud (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 4280 Bayside Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; The West 23 acres of that part of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 31, Township 118, Range 23, lying South of the Electric Shortline Railway Company right- of-way, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit the construction of a single family residence located 68' from the front street setback line instead of the required 100', requiring approval of a 32' variance or 32%. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1569. 2. The property is located in the RR-IA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a total of 5 acres of dry land, 2 acres of v;hich must be contiguous. 3. The property consists of 23 acres, 6*5 acres of dry contiguous, and the remaining 16^1 acres is wetlands. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990, and recommended unanimous approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings; A) The majority of the home meets the 100' setback. The setback variance is sought for only a garage and entry to the residence. Page 1 of 4 I B) The house has been placed at the edge of the ridge in order to minimize erosion and the major cutting into the more steeper elevations of the more easternly por4:ions of the dry buildable envelope. C) The severe slopes to the east and north required placement at the top of the ridge in order to minimize impact on extreme, dense vegetation. This will minimize the removal of trees in the steeper elevations, decreasing the potential for erosion problems . 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit the construction of a principal residence to be placed 68' in the front/street setback line instead of the required 100', requiring approval of a 32' or 32% variance. This approval is subject to the following conditions : 1. Applicant to provide detailed grading/drainage plans with detail on retaining wall upon application for a building permit. Page 2 of 4 2. Applicant/owner is placed on notice that additional improvements to this structure involving increases in water usage may be prohibited based on limitations of available dry lands at less than a 6% slope. 3. Applicant/owner is further advised that if a kitchen area is to be installed within the guest or domestic apartment area, that a conditional use permit will be required. 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 of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 13, 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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of August, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of August, 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) NOTARY PUBLIC ) SS . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to liTe to be the person(s) described Tn and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 pt ^Dt>9 CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variai Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original applicati' After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION CITY OF uFC}^0 Site Address kiOT ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Address: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name UtOjBOO Phone (home) Phone (work) City; /ttPUV Zip : Address: 61C\ ^ .SOfft lOWcltv: AtfU. Phone (home) ^(A\ Phone (work) ^SOl Zip;S54lk Date Property Acquired month/year) I (do) 'dor^t) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $_ _ _ _ _ _ Describe request in detail; fllOMT fltOM 100 TO VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other 1^0 FroQ^(So H») Lot Width Front Stf ___ Hardcover Side Rear) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical ^^ifficul_ty^ resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; _ _ _I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions pre,venting compliance with Zoning Code Requirements;_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. 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 ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll* 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 conplete 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 an» LTTArect to t^\e gt>est. of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature LTryect to t^e^est c re [AXaI 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 fgr* purposes of investiga tion and verificationthis requ^s^^- Owner's Signature------Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices ?Z dcwyo th<5 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 CJifice gf Khis change prior to the meeting. 0-1 SCHWARZ/WEBER ARCHITECTS 3952 LOUISIANA AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS • MINNESOTA • 55426 (612) 926-1156 June 22, 1990 #1 Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN ^Qa 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: Enclosed you will find an application for a front yard set back variance from 100’ to 63 ’. We have worked very hard to complete a design that would reduce the amount of variance requested. At this time we are submitting: 1. A competed application form with check for fee 2. Certified property owners list within 150’ 3. Plat map 4. Topographic survey Due to the death of my father-in-law I will submit site plans, grading plans and other site data the first part of next week. We are requesting that the front yard set back which you indicated is 100’ be reduced to 68’. Most of the home would be set back at a distance greater than the 68’ point. We have worked hard on the design of the home to hold it as far from the property line as possible. As you can see from the topography, the site falls off quickly to the east and north. The slopes required that the home be placed ul the top of the ridge. This means, in turn, that the home impose on the 100’ set back line. We require no other variances on the site. The site topography and extremely dense vegetation cause Mr. McCloud hardship in siting his home. The home is large (approximately 11,000 S.F.) and has been designed to take advantage of the site conditions and vegetation. It is important to us to maintain as much of the vegetation as possible. RICHARD i ' C H \V \ R Z NEIL WEBER I ANDRE LATONDRESSE I I;Jeanne Mabusth Page 2 June 22, 1990 # i R' j. o It should be noted that although the westerly edge of the properfv designated as the front yard, it really does not function as a front yard. Since there is no public right of way. In reality, the sits has two side yards. The site is unique in that way. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, SCHWARZ/WEBER ARCHITECTS, INC. y V’ / * Neil Weber, A.I.A. NW/sk Enclosure /6- J rtf M.-.io SCHWARZ / WEBER ARCHITE C T S 395"> lO LIS! AN A AVENUE SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS • MINNESOTA • 55426 (612) 926-1156 July 27, 1990 Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ivj\-^0 RE: Sam McCloud Residence - Set Back Variance Dear Jeanne: Enclosed you will find revised floor plar^ which show a reduction of the number of bedrooms from 10 to 8. This revision does not effect the set back variance since there was no problem wilth the set back at the bedrooms previously and therefore there is no problem now. We now have 8 bedrooms which means that the septic system information previously submitted should be adequate for the 1200 gallon system required. If you see any problem at all regarding the septic system, please let me know and we will get you additional information. Thank you. Sincerely, SCHWARZ/WEBER ARCHITECTS, INC. Neil Weber, A.I.A. NW/sk Enclosure RICHARD ) SCHWARZ N E I 1. V\ E B E R ANDRE LATONDRESSE CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 55323 ZONING PILE #1569 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 07/24/90 TO:Sam McCloud 5101 Highway 55, Minneapolis, MN Suite 1000 55422 COPIES TO: Neil Webber Schwarz/Weber Architects, Inc. 3952 Louisiana Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55426 TYPE OP APPLICATION:Variance DATE OP MEETING; July 16, 1990 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Plauining Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the front/street setback variance as proposed. Approval was subject to the following conditions : 1. Prior to scheduling the variance application before the Council for final action, staff must be in receipt of additional septic testing confirming that there is additional area on the site to satisfy a 10 bedroom home. Septic testing must be received by August 2, 1990 if the application is to be scheduled for Council action at the August 13, 1990 meeting- The deadline for the August 27, 1990 meeting of the Council would be August 16, 1990. The Planning Commission also found that the proposed grading and installation of retaining walls did not require separate conditional use permit review and noted that the grading and drainage review can be done under the authority of the building permit review. The Planning Commission adopted the staff's approval recommendation as set forth in the staff memo dated July 13, 1990 sent to you prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth (473-7357) if you have any questions concerning the directives noted above. , * s*..*is II11^i5 is 112| 11^ , :i I ii j iifei '1 J ■ ■' ' - ; =. !• In?'** * t . I' Ivii'ij ii 1| 1 mm Hllii■iiii >-i-'i ■;' r'* |i »im im iH ]■<'■'&■ ». / * K. L ^ • * . — • «• • - ' - .ifMm.p11li k:mfel m.- '.'Site i-.^- ',vA.'.r‘^':«.iV fA: ri‘n> -:•. ■■ ■ m •‘ • - V-H-’ • ■ ■, ; - . ■. i; • i... • itev ,y-. '■■ ..-p.;:. - - rp I '1 i-■'• i -■ ■ •- vr >oi . • ■Ma:-:- •ii 5;.!;<:j To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Prom: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato'^C^' Date: August 8, 1990 Subject: Public Facilities - Zoning r71190.1 .-b G 1 3 !590 nr Attachment - A - Moratorium Non-City Facilities Memo dtd 5/15/90 ISSUE - 1. Determination of approach for regulation of facilities owned or used by other governmental units under Orono's land use ordinances . 2. If allowed, what conditions would be attendant to such uses? 3. Refer concepts to Planning Commission for their consideration. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's May 29, 1990 meeting, a moritorium ordinance was adopted to limit the construction of facilities by oth-:9r local ‘governmental units in the City's boundaries. The issje raises a more general issue of facilities of all governmental units in the City. DISCUSSION - The City in its zoning code permits its municipal facilities, except utilities which require a conditional use permit, to be located in residential zones. It additionally allows, by conditional use permit, school buildings to be located in those zones. The intent is to allow facilities to be located near where the "customer base" is. The location of the facilities of other governmental units, may serve either local or regional needs. To the extent that they serve regional needs, their locations close to the customer base could be more generally located. The issue of whether other governmental units should be located in the community raises the following issues; A) Tax exempt status. The development of governmental facilities removes those properties from the tax rolls and to the extent that they are primarily for regional needs, places a burden tax exempt on the City for a regional or State need in a single community. Public Facilities - Zoning August 8, 1990 Page 2 of 4 Minneapolis and St. Paul are good examples of this with the University and State government complexes removing substantial portions of valuable property from the tax rolls. (Other cities may desire to locate facilities in this community because they do not either have enough land for such facilities or choose to use available land in their community for taxable purposes.) B) Annexation. To the extent that facilities of other cities are located in border areas near those cities, they may make them ripe for a petition for annexation. Whether they are ultimately successful or not, the City bears the expense if it chooses not to allow the land to be annexed. This would additionally remove what would have been potentially taxable property not only from the City's tax base but also its jurisdiction. C) Non-local use. Generally these facilities serve regional purposes and their location in selected residential zones may not be appropriate. D) Control of use. Once such a facility is located, it may be difficult, particularly in a residential zone, to control growth of other uses of that site desired by that governmen‘‘..al unit. Currently apart from highways, roads and utility lines other governmental units have the following located in Orono: University - Fresh Water Biological Institute Hennepin County - Maintenance Garage - North Arm Landing - (Library Land on Highway 12) Park District - Baker Park - Noerenberg Park - Portions of Big Island Long Lake - Discontinued Sewer Plant MWCC - 3 Pump Stations In addition, the postal system does rent space from public/private owners. The following represent the various governmental units who might locate facilities in the Community with the second column listing potential uses. This list is not intended to be inclusive. Public Facilities - Zoning August 8, 1990 Page 3 of 4 Jurisdiction Type Federal State Regional (including regional operating agencies) County Park District Other Cities Schools (outside jurisdiction) Vo-tech Schools (within jurisdiction) Type of Uses Service Branches Offices "Light Industry Type-uses" Parks - including buildings and public access Schools Public Utilities Streets/Roads Tower Structures - including water Pump Stations/Lift Stations Airports Wells/Water Treatment Plants Recently a suburban city to our northeast has considered the placement of city wells in another community because of the difficulty of finding well sites within its own boundaries. In general, facilities of a city within their own jurisdiction zoning are allowed in all districts for the following reasons: A) The City Council, which ultimately is responsible for regulating land use, also decides locations and use of such facilities. B) These city services are local, and services such as parks, are generally located close to the persons they serve. ALTERNATIVES - Policy. 1. Treat facilities of other governmental units the same as Orono city facilities would be treated. 2. Treat them in the same category as the Orono City facilities but subject to conditional use permits in the same manner as schools. 3. Differentiate them from City and school facilities within their own municipal or district boundaries. Treat them in a manner that would be similar to a private owner of similar land use in the zoning code (i.e. no offices located outside zones where offices are allowed/no maintenance buildings where light industrial is not allowed). Public Facilities - Zoning August P, 1990 Page 4 of 4 4. Limit all units of government, including the City, to the same categories as one would find for a private enterprise. 5. Split consideration as to allow zoning by whether the facility serves essentially a local Orono purpose. A non- Orono/regional purpose would have greater limitations as to the districts that those would be allowed. ACTION - 1. 2. Discuss to determine desired Council direction. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - The following represent recommendations; A) Clarify language by indicating that municipal facilities allowed in residential zones are only those for the City of Orono. B) Amend the conditional use permit for public utilities to allow those deemed appropriate, primarily for local use of the C:.ty of Orono, excluding structures/above ground structures not specifically serving Orono from residential districts. (It may be desirable to split consideration between governmentally owned utilities and privately owned utilities such as telephones, electric and gas.) C) Specifically limit above ground structures such as office buildings to business zones and uses similar to light industrial uses by other governmental units to industrial zones and only as conditional uses. D) Limit facilities of educational institutions, research institutions, e‘c. that are apart from schools within their own judicial boundaries to the RR-lB-1 zone or in a business zone subject to a conditional use. E) Look at receiving a fee in lieu of taxes as part of a conditional use for facilities that become tax exempt. As a related item, scheduling on on-site visit is currently being arranged and hopefully a date will be presented at the Council meeting. Proposed Motion - moved by ___, seconded by ___, that the Council after discussion give staff direction for development of draft language to be presented at the Planning Commission meeting for a public hearing. Ayes , nays MEB/tln 51590.1 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^^^ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Moratorium - Facilities Municipalities May 15, 1990 ■ H MfEUM MAY 2 9 1930 ^ITY OF OROHo for Mon City of Orono At*-achment* A. Draft Ordinance No. _ _# Second Series ^ B. Ordinance No. 10.20 - 11-1-=^ One Family Residential Zone C. Ordinance No. 10.40 D. City of Wayzaoa Letter Dated 5/23/90 ISSUE - 1. Hold the public hearing. ? Determine if the City desires to impose a moratorium it relates to facilities of other units of governemnt otner than **hose of the Citv of Orono and the school aistricts ou^aide u..- jurisdictional boundaries, to determine what zoning category and regulations are appropriate to such use. 3. If so, adopt Attachment A, effective -------------,• TNTRODUrTION - In the past there has been one case oE the location-JF -selected facilities of another municipality being located in the City of Orono. This has subsequently resulted an, i?-tmoted annexation. As Council may be aware there has been interest exoressed in another parcel by another municipa 11.-/. considerations that need study. City can adopt a moratorium for up to 13 months ® Lbs^eauently extend that moratorium subject to a public heari g for a*p®^i°<5 exceed an additional 12 months. AS you will note in Attachment B the City does allow l°=ftion of usage is considered an office usage.r Vi the Mil received a response from that community.) A moratorium makes the issue moot.. The proposed moratorium would not apply to any facilities the 'Gi:t'y: i'.tsVl’f was contemplating but only those of local -governmental units, apart from the School District which is already addressed in the code as a conditional use permit. (Local "government facilities currently located in the community are the "Hennepin County Public Works garage, Noerenberg and Baker Parks.) It is anticipated that the consideration of this should take no more than six to nine months and the City staff will provide to the Planning Commission alternatives regarding possible changes to our ordinance. Once 'acted on by the Plann-ing Commission it would be presented to the Council for a determination. If concluded earlier and policy adopted the Council could repeal the moratorium earlier. ALTSHNATI^/SS - Policy for consideration during the term of the moratorium - 1. Clarify in ordinance that 10.20 applies only to City of Orono facilities. 2. Determine if the City desires to allow governmental facilities (apart from School Districts which are already a conditional use permit) as permitted or a conditional use permit and under what zoning categories they may be allowed. A. Any residential zone. B. Selected residential zones. C. Commercial. D. Industrial. 3. Allow no other local governmental entities or category of governmental entities to construct such facilities in the City of Oronq. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - 1. Enact a moratorium effective immediately. 2. Direct staff to undertake the necessary consideration and study of such facilities. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. ^ ! recommendation - It is recommended that the City adopt the Ei^essary moratorium regarding the governmental facilities apart from its own and the school district. The moratorium puts other jurisdictions on notice that Orono is considering the moratorium and under what conditions the zoning code would permit such. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council adopt Ordinance NO. / Second Series establishing a moratorium on governmental facilities apart from its own and the school district as set forth in the moratorium. Ayes __, Nays __. 72590.2 O'? TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: August 8, 1990 - SUBJECT: Wetlands Protection I',-.,!!. I'stti'j'ita AUG 13 ‘ii90 Attachment: ISSUE - A. E. W. Blanch Application (Memo Only) B. City of Orono Letter Dated 8/2/90 C. General Map Showing Wetlands 1. Review of City policies related to wetlands and floodplains protection. 2. Determination as to whether the Council desires: A. To modify protection B. Impose a moratorium INTRODUCTION - At the Council meeting of July 23, 1990 the issue of wetlands protection particularly as it related to the pending Blanch application on Old Beach Road was raised. Included in the application are questions regarding setback from wetlands together the proposal to fill in wetlands within the City of Minnetonka Beach and dredge out a compensating amount within the City of Orono. In addition, was the question of fill already deposited upon the property and also the developability related to the property. DISCUSSION - The City's Comprehensi ve Plan Objective - The primary thrust of the City's Comprehensive Plan related to improving the quality of Lake Minnetonka through the removal of sewage going into the lake together with not creating greater non-point pollution in the process. This non-point pollution particularily came about from storm water run off. The Comprehensive Plan addresses it through the large lot zoning in the rural area of the community together with the hardcover regulations and wetlands protection. The primary goal of wetlands protection was to allow these natural stormwater ponding areas to provide some cleansing effect to improve the water quality before it goes into Lake Minnetonka. Wetlands Genera lly - While wetlands have been more and more protected for natural habitats together with some improvement in water quality, not all experts ai . in agreement that over the life cycle of a year or two that the wetlands naturally will have a net improvement in the water quality. Wetlands Purpose - The purpose of wetlands as noted is for: A. Storm water ponding B. Water quality improvement C. Wildlife habitat While cattails etc. do remove nutrients during the growing season, during the winter these die off and may in fact re deposit their nutrients in the wetlands which are flushed out in the spring thaws and dump more nutrients back into the lake. The second problem with wetlands are that over time they do silt up and have mature growth. (i.e. Willows etc.) Such was the case in a wetlands near the Gregory property at 1420 Shoreline Drive which the Council in 1985/65 allowed to be re-configured to restore it back to a less mature state. Wetlands Classification - Attachment C represents the various types of wetlands that can be found in the community. The DNR classification system recognizes the difference in the type of wetlands and the purpose of those. It should be noted that the DNR does not protect certain classifications. Floodplain and Flood Fringe Protection - The City does regulate building and construction in these areas. Restrictions in these relate to the Federal flood insurance program. These regulations are similar to Federal regulations and were put in in order to allow City residents to participate. Jurisdictional Protections - Wetlands in various circumstances are concurrently protected or addressed by the following jurisdictions: City DNR (particular classifications) Corps of Engineers Environmental Protection Agency Minnehaha Watershed District Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (below 929.4) State Pollution Control Agency There has been a substantial shift in policy as to view of long existing regulations by the Corps of Engineers. This has come into play in the Carlson application as noted in Attachment F, which the City did approve for construction of a road with compensation in a wetlands that is not DNR protected. This is an area that was tiled out 30 or 40 years ago and has little, if any, of the type of vegetation normally found in wetlands. The Corps of Engineers recently indicated that they would not approve it since there was another route that could minimize the construction in the wetlands. The developer is currently reviewing his options in this matter. It is interesting to note, however, the Corps of Engineers within the past several months has given their tacit approval to a similar situation in Medina. Process - With all of these agencies it becomes a substantial coordinating process to determine whether such developments will go ahead. Currently the Corps of Engineers has directed that a City work on approving . subdivision before they will review it. This however, does place the applicant at considerable expense before their review by the Corps is undertaken. 21^ ^EEli.££J^l£Il " This property which previously was owned by the Freshwater Biological Institute was sold to Mr. Blanch. There have been proposals submitted by FWBI in prior years which contemplated various types of multiple residential, duplex, single family development of this property. The property outside the designated wetlands has been available for development since its purchase. The fill that was placed on the property was the result of suction dredging done in Lafayette Bay (main lake) in 1978. It was an experiment by FWBI to see what could be done with dredging spoils without having to cart them out of the area. Controlled experiments were done to determine the amount of nutrient run-off from this fill into the wetlands. While fill such as this is not usable for spetic systems, it is with appropriate soil boarings a property that can be built on. It should be remembered the City did allow such suction dredging in North Arm in an application in 1987. Waade Application - This application was for construction of a road which bordered along some wetlands and floodplain areas. Orono Protection of Wetlands - The City protects its wetlands in the following ways: 26 Foot Setback for Structures - This is a primary control that not only keeps construction out of existing wetlands but also gives a reasonable setback. In addition the City does not allow any fillirjg or grading without a variance and conditional use permit. “ This has been a popular term used regarding any wetlands alteration that the amount of storm water ponding area not be reduced by any work that has been done. Generally this is done by compensating either for surface or depth in another area of the property. ALTERNATIVES POLICY 1. Maintain current protection. 2. Revise protections. A. Increase protection B. Decrease protection ACTIONS A. Direct changes be initiated regarding wetlands protection B. Direct that a moratorium be undertaken following a published public hearing C. Table for further discussion 1 D. Take no action RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council accept the information and table further discussion to the September 10, 1990 meeting. In general it is felt that the City's current regulations give the City adequate authority to protect wetlands appropiately yet leaving a flexibility to allow for improvements in those situations. The problems related to these applications is that as long as they meet the development stantards set forth in the ordinance they would be allowed to get the development. In order to restrict development in these cases the City may need to set up extraordinary setbacks, which would severly limit not only these properties as far a developabi 1 ity but would have a substantial negative impact on the developabi1ity of substantially other properties within the City. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Council after discussing this information tables this to the September 10, 1990 me®* ’ ig. Ayes _, Nays _. From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administi 1 July 12, 1990 #1555 E.W. Blanch, Jr., 2501 Old Beach Road - Preliminary Subdivision Class III - Public Hearing Zoning Districts - B-4 & LR-IB Total Area = 31.26 acres Pertinent Ordinances - Chapter 11 Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A) - Minimum lot area requirements. The property may receive credit for portions of land located within wetlands and floodplain as property is sewered, but in no case can a dry buildable envelope be less than 1/2 acre of dry contiguous land. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit- F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Staff Memo - Sketch Plan Review Planning Commission Action Notice Staff Sketch - Amended Sewer Plan Preliminary Plan Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan The applicant has filed a preliminary plan for a 9 lot plat located within both the Cities of Minnetonka Beach and Orono - Lot 1, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 within Minnetonka Beach and Lots 3 through 8 within the City of Orono. At the sketch plan review, the applicant was asked to define the purpose of Outlots B and C located within the City of Minnetonka Beach. The Zoning Administrator of Minnetonka Beach has advised that she had asked the applicant to eliminate the outlots as currently shown. Applicant should provide the City of Orono with some background on this matter. In general, the City staff has no major concerns with the preliminary plan submitted for our current review. The preliminary plan is reviewed in detailed below. Zoning File #1555 July 12, 1990 Page 2 of 5 LOT CONFIGURATION - All lots continue to meet the required lot width to the rear of the 35' front setback line. Lot 9 has been omitted, replaced by Lot 8. Lot 8 is defined along the existing B-4 zoning line. As a result, the applicant did not have to file a petition for rezoning with the preliminary plan. Lot 8 is to be donated to the Freshwater Foundation for future use of the institute. As already noted at the sketch plan review. Outlet A will also be in the control of the foundation for fixture use by the Fresh Water Institute. During the sketch pla review, the applicant was advjsed that designation of the outlet as proposed needs a Vc nee to the normal procedures of the City and that wetland ar . were to be incorporated w'thin the boundaries of the residential lots. Applicant had advised that the foundation wished to retain the wetlands area so that appropriate controls could be developed on the property as further restrictions on the institute's use of the wetlands. This appeared to be acceptable to members of the Commission. Applicant was further asked to provide documentation concerning the specific controls to be placed upon the outlot. As of this writing, the City has not received the special covenants although applicant has contacted the administrator of the foundation who may have the covenants by our meeting date. ACCESS - Lots 3 through 7 shall achieve access via Old Beach Road. Lot 8 shall achieve access via the defined road systems within FWBI property. Access is not proposed directly onto Shadywood Road for Lot 8 at this time. It is staff's understanding that Lot 8 shall serve for future dormitories for visiting students. In discussions with the City Engineer and the Public Works Director, staff has been advised that Old Beach Road, at least the portions within the City of Oronc, have been scheduled for upgrading within this year. The road at an approximate 24' width is scheduled for leveling and 2" bituminous overlay. Applicant shall be asked to make payment for these improvements. It may be appropriate for the City of Minnetonka Beach to coordinate required improvements with the City of Orono. Staff will review this matter with the Zoning Administrator at a later date. The City will ask for 33' dedication of right-of-way for Old Beach Road as shown on the preliminary plan. Zoning File #1555 July 12, 1990 Page 3 of 5 SEWER & WATER UTILITIES - Already noted in the sketch plan review, there will be a sewer unit charge of $897.62 for each sewer unit based on the 1990 fee schedule. This fee is adjusted each year based on an inflationary rate. There will be no water unit charges for the 6 lots within Orono. Minnetonka Beach shall be charged at the same sewer unit rate quoted for Orono. There will be a charge of $1,691.78 per water unit for lots within the Minnetonka Beach area. There is an existing water main within Old Beach Road. The applicant proposes a 500' extension to the north to serve the northern lots within Minnetonka Beach. The City of Minnetonka Beach shall be responsible for portions of the water lines within the boundaries of their City. This may also be an issue to discuss at a future date with the administrator of Minnetonka Beach. Please review Exhibit F, staff must ask that the proposed 8” sanitary sewer line be amended as shown on the staff sketch (Exhibit F). The City does not approve of public utility lines placed within the private boundaries of properties because of the difficulties of achieving access and creating an impact upon existing improvements within those lots. The City staff recommends that the sewer line be routed down Old Beach Road and then along County Road 19 up to the lift station. The City will ask for a 25' wide drainage and utility easement along the street lot lines of Lots 6 and 7 up to the lift station in Lot 8. Applicant's surveyor should designate existing utility easement over lift station within Lot 8. DRAINAGE/GRADING PLAN - At the time of the sketch plan review. City staff had asked that the revised grading plans show locations where fill had previously been placed as part of the dredging project within the Lafayette Bay area in 1978. The filling involved Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 within the City of Orono. Note that the wetlands has been defined at the 931.5' elevation. The major concern for this review is that the City of Orono is asked to approve excavations within the defined wetland area to offset filling of the flood plain/wetlands/lakeshore protected area of Lot 1, Block 2 within the City of Minnetonka Beach. Applicant failed to advise the City of this land alteration at the time of the sketch plan review. If the City had been advised of the proposed land alterations, a separate conditional use permit and variance application would have been required to be filed within the preliminary subdivision application. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 prohibits the filling of floodplains, wetlands and lakeshore protected areas within the City. If an applicant wishes to fill within these protected areas, a variance application is required and a statement of hardship must accompany that application. Zoning File #1555 July 12, 1990 Page 4 of 5 The applicant has been made aware of the need for a separate filing and has asked that the preliminary subdivision application be considered independently from the conditional use and variance application. The staff has discussed the proposed land alterations with the Zoning Administrator for Minnetonka Beach. She advises that the City of Minnetonka Beach currently has a moritorium on all proposed land alterations of flood plain and wetland areas within their city. The City of Minnetonka Beach cannot affectively act on the request to fill within Lot 1, Block 2 at this point. Applicant proposes placement of approximately 1,800 cubic yards of fill to be placed below the 931.5' elevation but above the 929.4' OHW of Lake Minnetonka. The excavations within the City of Orono are to compensate for the storm water storage volume lost within the Minnetonka Beach portion of the flood plain. The purpose of the filling appears to not provide greater area for the building envelope, but merely as an expansion of the yard area. Isses for Planning Commission's Consideration Regarding Land Alteration Issue: 1. Should the City of Orono permit excavations within flood plain/wetlands for filling projects that would be in complete violation of the codes of our City? 2. Should all compensating excavations be completed within the City of Minnetonka Beach? 3. Based on the configuration of the floodplain within the Minnetonka Beach area, compensating excavations may be severely limited? - Should filling be limited to the ability of Minnetonka Beach to locate suitable area within the floodplain boundaries of Minnetonka Beach? Planning Commission should advise applicant as to their position regarding a conditional use permit and variance that would ask for excavations within the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka for filling within a lakeshore protected area no matter what city the property is located. The applicant has failed to show drainageways that enter the property along the east and southern boundaries. The drainage map should be updated to locate drainage paths and their impact upon the dry buildable envelopes if any. Zoning File #1555 July 12, 1990 Page 5 of 5 Options of Action - 1. Table application providing applicant additional time to file a conditional use permit and variance application with the City for the excavation of wetlands/floodplains within the City of Orono; or 2. Approval finding the 6 lot proposal meets all standards of the zoning code and subdivision regulations of the City. In addition, there is adequate sewer and water capacity within existing lines to serve the new development and that all lots achieve access via an approved public roadway. Approval is subject to the following conditions: a) Payment of a park dedication fee based on 8% of the fair market value to be determined by the City Assessor upon final approval of the preliminary plat by the Council of Orono. Payment to be made by applicant upon filing of the final plat. b) Granting of Flowage and Conservation Easement over the wetlands defined below the 931.5' elevation. Wetland to be defined as drainage easements on the final plat. c) Applicant to dedicate and designate all drainageways on the plat as drainage easements at a minimum width of 15'. d) Applicant to be responsible for expansion of municipal sewer service and upgrading of Old Beach Road consisting of leveling and 2" bituminous overlay e) The City of Orono shall agree to the creation of Outlot A for the exclusive ownership of either the Fresh Water Institute or Foundation. Such usage to be limited by special covenants to be approved by the City. Such covenants shall not be in conflict with the ordinance of the City that protect wetland floodplain areas as set forth in Section 10.55 of the municipal code. f) Final plat to show a 25' wide drainage and utility easement along the street lot lines of Lots 6 and 7 through Lot 8 up to the utility easement over the City's lift station. Final plat should designate existing utility easement over lift station. g) Applicant to provide amended sanitary sewer extension plans for final approval by the City. h) Applicant is advised that the current sewer unit charge for new construction for the year of 1990 is $897.62. This will be adjusted each year based on the inflationary rate. crnr* OF kaHONO^ CITY< Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minn On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 2, 1990 Bill Rudnicki William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc. 1107 Har.eltine Blvd., Suite 480 Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Bill: In consideration of Ben Wopat's letter (Corps of Engineers) received by this office July 26, 1990, the City must ask for the following amendments of the preliminary plat application: 1. Per Item c of that letter, define 1 acre wetland within Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block 1. This wetland area is also designated within City's wetlands maps. (See enclosure.) Applicant may wish to make soil borings to confirm actual limits of Glenco soil as dry buildable envelope is severly impacted by the placement of the wetland within Lot 4. Note house pad must be located 26' from the edge of newly defined wetland. If filling of this wetland is proposed, a separate conditional use permit will be required. 2. Per Item d, wetland within the Orono portion of the subdivision must be redefined at the 934' elevation. 3. Provide amended dry buildable area calculations for each of the six lots within the City of Orono based on the newly defined 934' wetland elevation. In reviewing the sketch included with Mr. Wopat's letter, it would appear Lot 8 will not meet the required 1/2 acre of dry contiguous land area. It may be beneficial to your client that we meet to discuss the scheduling of the application before the Planning Commission at their upcoming August 20th meeting. In reviewing the most recent information from the Corps of Engineers, we have newly defined major issues to be resolved. BLILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION Sl FINANCE - 473-7358 FAX-473-0510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 J Bill Rudnicki August 2, 1990 Page 2 Please contact my office at your earliest convenience so that we may schedule a meeting with both myself and the City Engineer. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Adminstrator cc: Dennis E. Sandin, Landstar, Inc., 6100 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, MN 55422 Jo Ellen Hurr, City of Minnetonka Beach, 2945 Westwood Rd., Wayzata, MN 55361 Glenn Cook, City Engineer Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator JAM/1sv DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYsr pAui. DisrmcT. COMPSo<= eNGiNee«5 •4JI u 3 POST 0>=PiCE » CUSTOM h OUSC sr PAUL. MINNESOTA SS10I-I4/9 July 23. L990 •€*L» TO ArrcNriON or Conscruccion-Operacions Regulacory (90-2549N-92/90-2550N-92) ClT^ C' OK' jugE50\yiJLil JUL 2 6 SUBJECT; The Marsh ac Lafayecce, Residencial DevelopmenC, Sec. 20, T. 117 N. , R. 23 W. , CiCies- of Orono and Minnetonka Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota Bill Rudnicki William R. Engelhardt Associates. Inc. 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard, Suite 480 Chaska, .Minnesota 55318 We have reviewed the information provided us about your project. The work is authorized by a nationwide Department of the Army permit, provided the enclosed conditions and management practices are followed, and provided that you incorporate the changes discussed in your telephone conversations with Joe Yanta of our staff. These changes are summarized below. The enclosed map provided some approximate wetland locations, although the flags placed in the field should be considered a more definite wetland delineation than the approximate lines on the map. a. Omit the wetland fill in Block 2, Lot 1. 'Larry Smith of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Joe Yanta met Dennis Sandin of Landstar at the site. Mr. Yanta marked the wetland line in this lot (approximately at elevation 931.5-932). Any wetland fill in this lot would require an individual permit. As Mr. Yanta explained to both you and Mr. Sandin, this proposed fill would be difficult to justify under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines because you already have a developable lot. The resource agencies that review individual permits have often opposed such fills. The FWS has already informally indicated that it would object to this part of the project. b. Avoid wetland fill in Block 1, Lot 1, below the wetland line marked by Mr. Yanta. This line appears to be generally somewhat above the 932 elevation (see map), as shown on the. enclosed map. Some of the wetland line may lie slightly below 932 because portions of this lot have been filled with miscellaneous material and have been effectively converted to non-wetland areas under Federal criteria. If you are planning any fill that might fall below 932 inside the area marked as upland, however, you should check with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to ensure that you do not place any fill below the ordinary high water mark of State-protected Wetland 27-912W. Previous correspondence from the MDNR indicated that they had not established an ordinary high water elevation for this wetland but that you were not planning to place any fill below 932 along it. A very short segment of fill for the driveway appears to lie below elevation 932, but this fill would be authorized by a nationwide Department of the Army permit, as long as it contains a culvert to maintain existing drainage. You should contact the MDNR directly to determine whether this driveway/ditch crossing requires a State permit. c. Avoid ocher wecland fill, exceoC for che rainimura necessary co fill in Block 1, Loc 4, in an essentially isolacea pockec separate from che larger marsh. This pocket does not show on che National Wecland Inventory map but does appear on che soil survey as an isolated area of Glencoe soil. The wecland pocket (shown on che accached map) is separated from che main marsh by a ridge of upland soil (shown on che county soil sun/ey and verified by field inspection) with only an old, dry ditch connection to convey high water. This wecland pockec covers approximately an acre of grassy, type 2 wecland, with a wooded fringe. Your grading plan shows chat che house pad in Loc 4 may require a very small area of Chis wecland. Although che nationwide permit would allow up co an acre of fill* or grading in chis wecland, we suggest Chat you minimize filling and other adverse disturbance there. (On chis site, only chis small wecland qualifies for this nationwide permit. The ocher wecland require individual pennies for residential or other fill and grading.) If you, or a subsequent landowner, wishes to excavate a wildlife pond in Chis area, we can make some specific suggestions. This wecland encroaches slightly into Loc 5. d. Keep other fill and gr-jmg around che main marsh above elevation 934. Mr. Yanca did not mark che entire wecland, but he did verify that che wecland generally seems Co go abovo elevation 932 but not quite to elevation 934. Your grading plan does not show any fill or grading below chis elevation, aside from the two areas discussed above chat would be covered by nationwide permits and the area in Block 2, Loc 1, chat we suggest you do not fill. Some of che area shown as old fill in che county soil survey (see attached map) still appears to be wecland, with saturated hydric soils and wecland vegetation. Perhaps these areas were low, wet spots partly filled with hydric soil chat has since subsided and taken on a more natural wecland character. If you plan to fill or grade below 934 in these areas, we would require a delineation of che entire wecland. We could do this delineation ourselves, although it would be several weeks before we could schedule it, or you could hire a qualified consultant to do the delineation and submit a report chat would be subject to our review and approval. e. Clean excavation of che area shown in Block 1, Lots 5 and 8, would not require a Department of che Army permit if the excavated material is placed on an upland area and if no ocher fill or grading is involved in che excavation. (This excavation would probably receive only partial mitigation credit, if any, for wecland fill authorized under a Department of the Army permit because the excavated area appears co be all wecland. The excavation would only convert one wecland type to another, rather chan create or expand an existing wetland.) If these changes are acceptable and no orh-r .'»■ anges chat might involve wecland fill are necessary, we do not require any fui review of your project or processing of your application. The nationwide permits for che fill described in sections b and c are already in effect. If you wish to apply for a permit to place fill in Block 2, Loc 1, or in any other wecland areas adjacent to Wecland 27-912W, you must apply for an individual permit for che entire project. (Your current application covers only che proposed fill in Block 2, Lot 1.) This determination covers only che project referenced above. If the design, location, or purpose of che work changes, you should contact us to make sure che work would not result in a violation of Federal law. Our telephone number is (612) 220-0375. This verificacion will remain valid uncil che naCicnwide permit is modified, reissued, or revoked. All che nacionwide pennies are scheduled Co be modified, reissued, or revoked before January 13. 1992. Ic is your responsibility Co remain informed about changes Co che nacionwide permits. Ue will issue a public notice announces the changes when Chey occur. Furthermore, if you begin or are under contract to begin this project before the date the nacionwide permit is modified or revoked, you will have 12 months from Che dace of the modification or revocation to complete the project under Che present terms and conditions of this nacionwide permit. It is your responsibility Co insure Chat Che work complies with che cerms of Chis letter and che enclosures; IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS BEFORE YOU PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT. If you have any questions, please call Joe Yanta at (612) 220-0362. Enclosures Ben Wopat Chief, Regulatory Branch Construction-Operations Division Determination: 330.5(a)(lA) and (26) - Minor isolated/beadwaters wetland fill of less chan an acre. road crossing and .i‘ •• ’ ••i:! Ti'\ ■ ■ "-fcll.'iSfis^M .:! • 'i ■T’ 'S. '.-. .r^ mmmm^ •f'Si-'' :i?5^ TX" ‘ij rwrnFTTTr •^i::U*- -ITT^ vXvroWK--- - - • • T:- -? WK^)if» ooco Urno >-tzo c2 o >• O *1 *i 2 U > « O 4i 0 o u T3 4^ fj ^ U 4i « c V a C H M 4 V) 9 &i U ^ r t x; V cr u u *2 ^ t: V«S25 JS-S u u <3 -rj jc w § - • • C fl O M •< * U o »- « - Q.^ O.W O' y "aS“i!?5 (• 3 U X) O £ § c S o • o » y u TJ W« C TJ *1 hr, ::le OM gS So s3 ^5 u » *4 tr > • n m ill u o S'* is i| « C UK » 5 SSS 3,* g>a W Jl «4 * *i C >"-•:s 2 2S § 2 u 2 ?S*?**3 J S G !12252S<5:4i M U a 9 %j 91^5 e 9ir .-‘s-a. 2Sg22,S §.22,o«22 « 3 U C C -< TJ I O u > I 0 4 t o |ijr,is ^SSgS25%4 4i *4 4i 4i l^ssgcs .•s2Sg.2S5 S-*c3SG S3 .-5.2S V o m m , 2 m5 . 5-** •> g >. 3 w o 3 • 5'r,o esrsissc 2 4 > TS >4 ■• r-s-stii*;s?5Su5 j * V-[-l 7 J 72590.3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Admin is tratorij DATE: August 9, 1990 SUBJECT: Hardcover Variance Protection 'i- ihi’j r: 13; Attachment: A. Standard Language for Hardcover Variances B. Mike Gaffron Memo Dated 8/9/90 ISSUE - At th<5 Council's July 23, 1990 meeting Counc i Imember Callahan raised the issue regarding hardcover growth on selected properties. In particular he cited the Foster “nd Nelson applications in which new property owners found that when they wanted to do improvements to the property were substantially in excess of hardcover variances granted to a previous owner. While they may have been not granted any variances absence removals within the existing variance numbers, the e)cess hardcover, these unauthorized increases made it that much more difficult for them to deal with getting a variance. As noted above since 1985 the City has used the standardized language 'n Attachment A in inclusion in all hat.Icover variances. These have teen filed with the chain of title (al*-bough the Hennepin County Recorder's Office has been reluctant to take these with registered property.) While listed, the a is nothing that alerts a title exam.ner to the fact that chis may be a problem for the purchaser. DISCUSSION - The City currently deals with hardcover on a property when the owner is looking to make some permanent structural improvements. '^hese hardcover regulations have been in effect since the 70's. Over that period these have gone, although placed in cid'nance, from being "a guideline" to being a significant stand&rr. to bo dealt with. In that period of time the issue has gone iron, being a kind of "eye ball" look to a very refined objective mo -surement. An additional change has been definition of what has been considered hardcover with plastic/punch plastic and permeable £ brie being the most "gray area". While hardcover over those numbers on any property does represent a violation of the zoning code the City has never taken the position of dealing with it on more than additions, remodelings or developments. The following represent alternatives to consider for dealing with hardcover. A. Comprehensive Hardcover Inventory - The City could explore establishing a hardcover inventory for all properties that do fall within the category. This would either necessitate each property within a 1,000 feet o^ the lakeshore to have a survey done or in manner similar to the septic program, have the City hire staff to go out and inventory hardcover on each property. The City then could inspect on a regular/occasiona1 basis to determine if that property remains in conformance. Should the property not be in conformance, the City would then require the property owner to come into conformance with the established baseline. The problem with this approach would be that the City, once the baseline is established, would be in a position for the City determine on a case by case basis which ones would be allowed to be over the given percentages. Or it may in fact require the City to either grant variances to be above those or just to accept each one with a blanket acceptance statement as of a certain date. B. New Construction/Add i t ions - If the City wanted to continue only dealing with properties when they are seeking to expand buildings that require permits (or on a complaint basis for other structures), the City could continue in the manner in which it does but do one of the following to insure that what was approved is in fact what is installed. These include: A. Requiring the property owner to have a surveyor reconfirm upon completion that the hardcover existing on completion date is in fact that what was approved. B. Have staff do the indepth measurements upon completion. (The City currently only does a cursory review which only yields if specific items are removed as indicated.) Such a proposal may require that the City for such variances have a type of "certificate of occupancy" for completion of project. In addition the City could look to require security in order to ensure that if prior to a certificate of occupancy for this, that the hardcover is in line with the approval. This approach however, would not deal with improvements made after the "certificate of occupany" is granted, however, it may be difficult for people given variances to have indiffinate bonds/letters of credit outstanding on the property. C. Revised Standardized Language - As discussed above the current language does not necessarily place new property owners specifically on notice regarding problems. Revised standardized language together with inclusion of the survey in the recording could more specifically alert a title examiner and therefore a prespective buyer to the fact that effectively anything on the property that is not shown on the survey may in __ fact be considered hardcover. This may entail at property exchange time additional staff work to confirm what in fact is hardcover and what is not. An alternative to this would be reference to have them, at each property change, contact staff specifically for an inspection. (This would be even more staff intensive.) D. Revision of Standards for Hardcover - Instead of the current standards the City could look at revamping to a standard of no more than 25% overall on the property which would be in line with what LMCD and DNR regulations establish. In addition the City would restrict no hardcover within the 0-75*. The advantage to this is that persons can arrange things on the property and probably would affectively reduce the number of variances required, however, the net effect given no hardcover in the 0-75* may be not substantially different from the present. If we remain our own standard there may be times when the City*s proposed LMCD*s may be in conflict. E. Develop A Storm Water Run-Off Computer Model - An alternative way to handle the hardcover would be to establish specific run-off rates for specific rain fall rates based on topography, soil conditions, and the amount of impervious surface. While this type of modeling would be possible and would really get at the issue of hardcover run-off, it may make what is already a difficult exercise infinitely more complex as each property would need to do a topographic survey and have that computerized to the model. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Indicate any desired direction. 3. Take no action. 4. Table. RECOMMENDATION - Given the range of alternatives the following are recommended as the roost fruitful approaches to address the problem without a substantial increase in City staff or expense. A. Explore upgraded standardized language and inclusion of survey with property filings. B. Require a reconfirming survey of hardcover as a condition to satisfy the variance with the possibility of security to ensure that such a reconfirmation is completed . C. Look at revising the standards during the process of bringing the City shoreline regulations into accordance with DNR/LMCD. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council direct staff as to the areas it desires to improve hardcover protection. Ayes _, Nays _. To: From: Date: IJeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrate Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator August 8, 1990 Subject: Standard Hardcover Resolution Wording Please consider the following slightly revised hardcover boiler plate: 1.Hardcover in the zone is approved at a level of _ _All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram enclosed with this resolution as Pages _ _. The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Please review and revise this as you feel appropriate, and then let’s have Teri print up a new "standard format" resolution for variances and variances/CUP's that includes this boiler plate. To:From: Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratorMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator August 9, 1990 Subject: Hardcover Standards List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Survey of Hardcover Ordinances Exhibit B - Diagrams Relating Various Ordinances We have conducted a survey of the hardcover ordinances of all of the Lake Minnetonka cities, the cities abutting White Bear Lake, and certain other cities with significant lakes in the metro area. The findings were not surprising, but do indicate that Orono indeed has a unique hardcover ordinance. Of the 14 Lake Minnetonka cities, only 2 did not respond to our request. Of the 12 for which we have information, 5 have hardcover regulations. These 5 are Wayzata, Shorewood, Minnetonka Beach (all of which allow 30% of the total lot area to be hard surfaced), Minnetonka (allows 30% of the 0-150' zone to be hard surfaced with a 50' setback from the lake) and Orono (with our incremental hardcover zones). In the White Bear Lake area, the cities of Birchwood, Dellwood, and White Bear Lake all have a "30% of total lot area" impervious surface limitation. This 30% limitation has also been adopted by Eden Prairie and Plymouth. A few of the other Lake Minnetonka cities have "lot coverage by buildings" standards. Minnetrista is at 20% of the lot area covered by structures. Greenwood allows 30% of lot area covered by structures. Woodland allows only 0% covered by structures. The Department of Natural Resources in their proposed Shoreland Regulations would limit impervious surfaces to 25% of the total lot area. The DNR informs me that many of the cities who previously adopted a 30% standard are opposing the idea of having it dropped to 25%. Having discussed our ordinance with many contractors who work throughout the Lake Minnetonka area, with the DNR Division of Waters personnel, and now having reviewed other cities ordinances, I am convinced that Orono's hardcover restrictions are by far the most restrictive in the area. In researching many of the documents which resulted in Orono's wholesale rezoning in 1975 (which included the adoption of our current hardcover regulation), I have been able to find no documentation that technically supports or proposes the specific percentages and incremental zones which Orono adopted. One can look at this as the City Council being farsighted and putting Orono in the forefront of lake protection. One can also look at it as being excessively restrictive, inconsistent with restrictions imposed or proposed by the DNR and surrounding municipalities, and leading to the need to grant excessive umber of variances because an unusually high percentage of properties in the City do not or c'nnot conform to the standard. Hardcover Standards August 9, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A is a synopsis of the hardcover ordinances of 22 cities which surround or abut Lake Minnetonka, White Bear Lake, or other significant lakes in the metro area. Exhibits B are a series of diagrams showing the relationship between Orono's hardcover allowances on a given size/shape property, compared to the DNR standard and the standard adopted by some other cities. Maps 1 through 3 show the variability based on lot width. Maps 4 through 6 show the differences in allowed hardcover related to lot depth and lot shape. It is clear from comparing Maps 1 and 3 that most other lake communities allow almost twice as much hardcover as Orono, on typical rectangular lakeshore lots. Maps 4 through 6 indicate that as the proportion of lot area in the 0-75’ zone increases, the differences between Orono's limits and those of most other lake communities are even more disproportionate. This also holds true for pie shaped lots. The point of this memo is to document the significant differences between Orono's code and virtually all other area municipalities' codes. In light of the fact that a high proportion of building permit requests in our lakeshore areas require hardcover variances, Orono's staff spend a disproportionate amount of time on hardcover issues, and there is no question that much private time and money is spent in planning for property improvements only to be held up or denied ultimately because of hardcover issues. In most cases, a home owner or contractor who has not previously dealt with Orono's hardcover codes would not "in their wildest dreams" think that they had a hardcover problem, based on their experiences in most other cities. The concept of hardcover zones, rather than just a percentage of the entire lot area, is most often the point at which homeowners and contractors throw up their arms in disbelief. That is also one of the reasons why staff has to spend significant mounts of time reviewing hardcover calculations - quite often they are not done correctly, due to the complexity of multiple zones. Lacking clear documentation that Orono's position is definitely correct and other cities are definitely wrong, I would hope that we could move towards taking some of the complexity out of our hardcover ordinance, and work toward a total lot area denominator concept while still not allowing hardcover in the 0- 75' zone. (That raises another issue - our 75' setback vs. the DNR's 50' setback for Lake Minnetonka - but that is an issue for a future date.) EXHIBIT A Status of Hardcover/Lot Coverage Ordinances (residential districts)(GD lakes) ^ke Minnetonka; Tl Chanhassen - did not respond. 2. Deephaven - no regulations. 3. Excelsior - did not respond. 4. Greenwood - maximum 30% of lot area may be covered by buildings. 5. Minnetonka - maximum 30% of 0-150' *in shoreland areas. 6. Minnetonka Beach - 30% of lot area - 75' setback. 7. Minnetrista - maximum 20% of lot area covered by structures. 8. Mound - pending. 9. Orono - 0% in 0-75'; 25% maximum within 75-250'; 30% maximum within 250-500'. 10. Shorewood - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland areas. 11. Spring Park - pending. 12. Tonka Bay - no regulations. 13. Wayzata - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland areas. 14. Woodland - maximum 10% lot coverage by buildings. White Bear; 1. Birchwood - maximum 30% (not verified - sent us wrong code section). 2. Dellwood - maximum 30% impervious surfa a site area. 3. Mohtomedi - no (pending). 4. White Bear Lake - maximum 30% impervious surface* in s) aland areas. Other; 1. Eden Prairie - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland areas. 2. Lino Lakes - no regulations. 3. North Oaks - did not respond. 4. Plymouth - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland areas. DNR PROF “ED STANDARDS - maximum 25% of lot in shoreland areas. LMCD PROPOSED STANDARDS - maximum 25% of lot in shoreland areas. * 50' impervious su '< > setback from Ordinary High Water Is Li Ci^ Vi Oo c-O u- i\ e». c> I w> . - ~ c fe O o ± vM ^ :r “ r. a o^ <Mr. r\ ^O > fl o ti o 5 3= i c n 1 Si c- u. v5 *< v%' ^ c^. i\ c CO 0 0 'I- -a d. " w 0<^* , v»v» -i C’l ^ vv sr „ vl N i\ ® rc*' t «o >-o II.c Osi i: \n E b £i ^ O ■X 3-a r o<. / <i^, < i/1 C\1 IV 4«y rs <1 <-HT i/«HN* o <r- ^ - tr ^ a *x r4 Q (Yl u 1 i o t^ 5 t^< v> 5 c<i ri »l 0^ o to 0 •S’ %1 i'' tj cv U >* c VI ~ o *1rv> a V- O m >• -J VI ^ ri II a- 'll TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Director Date: August 8, 1990 Subject: Pur.if^iiouse Bid Award - Well #3, Highway 12 Sewer & Water The City of Orono advertised for and received bids to construct a veil pump house for Well #3 Highway 12 Sewer and 'Wat-^r improvement area. The bias were opened on July 13r 1990 at 10:00 a.m. Four bids were received (see attached schedule). The lowest responsible bidder was Richmar Construction Company, Fridley, Mn at a base bid :f d,440 (Engineering estimate $233,900). Richmar is an ei: . blished company and has constructed several similar facilities. The bid allowed for an option on the roof material fnr the mansard roof. The base bid required wood shake shingles. The alternate bid for preformed metal in place of the wood shingles increased the bid by $2,900. The pref^rme'^ metal requires less maintenance. Recommendation To award the b. ^ Well Pumphouse for Well #3 to Richmar Construction Compa*i> an amount of $211,340 which price includes ‘ le option of a preroi.med metal roof for the mans'rc' rooi in pla<~* of the wood shake shingles Proposed Motion Moved 2nd to award the bid for the Well Pumphouse tor Well #3 tc Richmar Construction Company for ar amount of $211,340 which price includes the option of the prefcr.v^d metal roof for the mansard roof in place of the wood shake shingles. Idv or and City Council 4ark E. Bernhardson, City Administratoi|- r u ac ">mmending approval. 8 • « : s i S t:8 5 Ui S 5m w s s I - s s I « 8 S I *. 8 i ^ i I-< a « c. —- r- 4^ s “ ? § o a 8 -> ; 115r- . u 8 . 8 • H w V•- y ? ?5 § 5 S 8 8 8 8 3 § i ~ I i M M M U •« O U ■ —> —' 3 i • • *1 -> - w . f t • «• -« B *- O cu C m'^wi- 0 «= t Jr - £ ^ a X T, * - 8 • 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ^ S S 8 * ta 4-* :r g ? 11 I. «• ll 4) 3 ^ z ^ I c l/i - 8 ao of / * 8 5 Si 8 w O i i « 8 ^ I I « 8 i £ 8 $ £ ui i i: CK < Q Ui 3 UJ 5 2 !lf UJi i:ae < oUi 3 Ui5 I If 0 " 1 ^ I Ml w 5 8 - 8 8 S ^ 6 ^ g 8 th ii§ 3 ZI I I I I ii f i t: S Ml a K 03 M. ^ I g 3 i i i i s * § ijn 5 ti S S !’• LftJ d i-i 8 S 5i * : ligi s i M K .. j:.< ^ se m K 6 To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: July 25, 1990 Subject: Lift Station # 8 - Renovation In 1965 Lift Station #8 was constructed at West Lafayette Road just off Shadywood Road near the narrows bridge. The lift station was constructed to serve the West Lafayette Road area including Old Beach Road, The lift statx^n is a very high maintenance station requiring daily maintenance. In the last five years it has become very difficult to attain the necessary replacement parts for the lift station as this type of lift station is becoming obsolete. In 1990 the Utility Department budgeted for the replacement ot the lift station from a dry well to a submersible duplex system. On July 19, 1990 the City received and or-'ned bids for the renovation. The lowest responsible bidder was Northwest Mechanical Inc., Long Lake, at a bid price of $48,000. The Public Works Department budgeted $65,000 in the 1990 budget which is adequate to pay for construction, engineering, and administration costs for the renovation. Recoaaendation To award the bid for renovation to Lift Station #8 to Northwest Mechanical Inc. for an amount not to exceed $48,000. Proposed Motion _____ Moved _____ 2nd to award the bid for renovation of Lift Station #8 to Northwest Mechanical Inc. for an amount not to exceed $48,000. _____ Ayes _____ Nays To Mayor and Council \ Mark E. Bernhardson^ VJ Forwarded Recommending Approval Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects July 23. 1990 Otto G 3orrwoa PE (tooen '*■ Dcnene p£ Joievr c Anoen*. PE VUrvm i. SorvM* PE XcnjKJ E PE ij'"M C Ctwn PE Oienn 9 Cook PE Thomii £ \o>w. PE Pooen G ScAuncnt PE Suur M Eop>mi C pa KMTl A Gomon PE •KAMI *■ fomt PE OoruKj C Bu<q«dL PE Je*TV A Bomoon PE Mjrti A Hjnwn PE K P>nd PE T Riutmano PE iiDoet B p*emffw. PE 0««0 O UMPDU PE Thomji wu Ptnnon PE VAcAJpt C Lyncn PE jamn « Maisno p£ ppronn P Anoerjon PE M#« B no«l PE Hocprt C RuueP AI A TNynai £ Anguv PE )-«CMv«a A Sanpyd. PE 0**^ j Edge»TOn PE VW» A Sec P£ PA«o J C«sw«P PE twnaet Mamnn. pe MafP O \M»v PE Tfxynai 8 Andffion • car, P Byurxxf. PE MBPS B Jemen PE I PAt*p Gra»«« IB. PE Bpne C Piuman. A i A Agn« M Bing AlCP Jrrry O AP*Olcn PE CeciBo Ov*f PE Cnarm a Encoon Leo M Pavneuky Hanan M Oior Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono 1335 Brown Road South Orono. MN 55323 Re: Lift St2tion No. Orono. HN File No. 13945 8 Renovation ^330 Dear Mayor and Council: Enclosed are 10 copies of the Bid Tabulations for the Lift Station No. 8 Renovation Project. This letter will review the bids and provide a recoounendation of award of contract. The low bid of two bids received was from Northwest Mechanical, Inc. Their total base bid was $48,000. The base bid was based on City Standard Flygt pumps and controls by Consolidated Electric. Auroca/Hydromatic pumps and Healy Ruff controls were offered as an alternate bid for a deduct of $2,000. We have discussed this alternate bid with the City Public Works Department and recommend that it not be accepted. The base bid pumps and controls are similar to the pumps and controls in the other City lift stations. This is beneficial to the Public Works staff by providing familiarity with the equipment for maintenance purposes and simalarity in spare parts inventory. Therefore, we recommend that the City award the contract to the low responsive bidder. Northwest Mechanical, Inc., for a total bf ’ bid of $48,000. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Me lESTROO. ROSENE, ANDE Mark D. Wallis MDW:lk John Gerhardson Glenn Cook Enc. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 6# . 6-4600 July 25, 1990 , 1 Dear Very soon you will notice construction activity at the sanitary sewer lift station on West Lafayette Road just off County Road 19 (Shadywood Road). The reason for the activity is to rebuild the lift station because it has become obsolete. There will not be an assessment. There will not be any interruption of sewer service. The lift station is one of the the first lift stations constructed in the City of Orono in 1965. Construction should begin in August or September and be completed in October 1990, with restoration completv^’ in the spring and early summer of 1991. We hope this will not cause any inconvenience and we thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 473- 7357. Sincerely, John R. Gerhardson Public Works Director JRG/lsv TABULATION OF TWO LOW BIDS OF TWO RECEIVED PROPOSAL FOR LIFT STATION NO. 8 RENOVATION PROJECT NO.FILE NO. 13945 BID OPENING lOtOO A.M.. C.D.S.T.. THURSDAY. JULY 19. 1990 ORONO. MN I hereby certify that this is an exact reproduction of bids received. Rea.Wo.19145 Mark D. Wallis. P.E. PROPOSAL ITEM 1 NORTHWEST MECH INC. 2 PENN CONTRACTING INC. Description Quantity Units Unit Price Total Unit Price Total BASE BID Lift station renovatfor Inci. removal of ex. equlpt. 6 installation of duplex submersible pump system; installation of a concrete top slab v/access hatch; site improvements; electrical work; painting li other misc. items TOTAL BASE BID $48,000.00 $55,146.00 ■PROPOSAL FOR LIFT STATION HO. 8 RENOVATION PROJECT HO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ORONO^ MN PAGE 2 FILE NO. 139A5 PROPOSAL ITEM 1 NORTH'.LST MECH. INC. 2 PENN CONTRACTING INC. p€*crlption Unit Quantity Units Price Total Unit Price Total ALTERNATE EQUll'THlfMT BID 1. Item Mamif Bcl.tirer Add or Deduct LIFT niMPS IIYUROHATIC RunMFRRini.E iMini’.s IIYUROHATIC $700.00 - DEDUCT 2. Item Manufacturer Add or Deduct CONTROLS HEALY RUFF $2,000.00 - DEDUCT CONTROL PANEL HEALY RUFF $700.00 - DEDUCT 3. Iten Manufacturer Add or Deduct ************************************************************************************************ BID BOND, CERT. CHECK, CASH DEP. FIRM BY TITLE ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. 5X 5X NORTHWEST MECHANICAL PENN CONTRACTING,INC INC. PAUL T. OGLAND PRESIDENT 432 MILL STREET P.O. BOX 40 DEAN LUXEN9URG PRESIDENT 1697 PELTIER LAKE DR CENTERVILLE, MN LONG LAKE, MN 55356 55030 (612) 473-0101 ( ) 426-9150 m Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Obo O BonniiOQ PE SbOf'i iV PE josetiP C Andpmn PE Mjivn L ScxvM PE •cnafl £ Vnet PE C Odoo PE Cj*nn « Coofc PE TNjm« E No»«. P£ •ooenG ScPtjmcP* PE SoMO M E(»^i C PA Engineers & Architects A Goiflon PE »ir^*0 W Pone* PE OorMKl C BungJAX. PE Jttr)/ A BOUdOn PE Mart A Hamon. PE 7W K F*«. PE McPae* T Baurrxanp. PE Aoord R Ptertertf »E DavNi O UMkou PE Tdomaj W PE Mcdaet C Ly<f’ PE Jan>« 8 Maiand PE 8e*wn P Anofnon P£ Mart 8 llciPi PE Booed C 8uuet. Ai A Tdomaj £ Angui PE HowaAl A Sartbo. PE Dame* ^ Eogemjn PE Mart A Seio PE Prtto J Caswei PE i»nae< eunmer P6 Mart 0 VM»v PE Thomai 8 Anoenon AIA oary F 8y<ander PE MPet B Jenwn PE L Pdrtp Gra** M PE 8ene C PVjfnart. aia AgnnM t*ig AlCP jefry o Pffmcd. PE Ceow 0<vie» P£ COann a Enmon Leo M Pav>*H»y Hadan M. 0*jr* , ‘ 1 August 1, 1990 -a<-':0 SsEIiQ^Ls iin ''■b 'AUG 6 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Attn: Mr. John Gerhardson Re: Veil Number 3 Pay Request Orono, Minnesota Our File Mo. 13940 Dear Mr. Gerhardson: Attached is Pay Request Number 4 for Orono Well Number Three. The pay request covers work completed through July 31, 1990. Please take action to pay the contractor the amount due. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Daryl L. Kirschenman DLK:dh Enel. dlk/56 2335 West Highway 3o • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 •REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DATE:August 1, 1990 FOR PERIOD: PLACE:Orono, Minnesota From: June 1. 1990 PROJECT:Municinal Well No.3 16* Production Well SPECIFIED CONTRACT PROJECT NO.•FILE NO.: 13949 COMPLETION DATE: CONTRACTOR:Revs Well Drilline Company June 15. 1990 ADDRESS:413 North Lexinaton Parkway St. Paul. MN 55104 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.:4 SUMMARY: 1. Original Contract Amount Change Order - ADDITION Change Order - DEDUCTION Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Less Retainage 5 Z Sub-Total 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.:. mended for Approval by: ONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. By: 70,155.00 70,155.00 52.089.00 0.00 52,^089.00 2,604.45 49,484.55 42,791.80 6,692.75 OWNER APPROVAL: By_ _ _ _ _ _ By_ _ _ _ _ _ Date: PR13949 PROJECT: Municioal WeTl No. 3 16" PT.ACE! Orono. Minnesota Prmliirt ion Well PAYMENT NO.;A • FILE NO. :139A9 rnNTRArTORs Kpvs Well Drilling Company DATE:AUKUSt 1. 1990 % STATEMENT OF WORK Unit Est' d Quantity Amount Contract Item Unit Price Quantity To Date To Date RTD II - 16 INCH PRODUCTION WELL Item 1 Mobilization, transporting of materials k equipment & setting up same for constru tion of 16* production well L.S.$6,000.00 L S 0.5 $3,000.00 Item 2 Drill open hole into top of Limestone to set 16" production well casing L.F.35.00 315 310 10,850.00 Item 3 Place 16" casing in open hole L.F.32.00 315 312 9,98A.OO Item 4 Place neat cement grout in annulas around 16* production well casing C.Y.200.00 20 2A A,800.00 Item 5 Drill 16" open hole through the Limestone and Jordan L.F.25.00 160 190 A,750.00 Item 6 Dynamite for blasting incl. labor for shooting, caps & wire Lbs.2.00 300 AO 80.00 Item 7 Bail C.Y.AO.00 AOO 3A0 13,600.00 Item 8 Furnish, install k remove air compression equipt. for air surging of the well L.S.1,000.00 L S 1 1,000.00 Item 9 Air surging of the well lirs.100.00 AO 30.5 3,050.00 Item 10 Furnish, install, ( remove test pump for capacity teat of well L.S.2,500.00 L S PR13949 Page 1 PROJECT: Municipal Well No. 3 16* Production Well PLACE:_ _ _ _Orono. Minnesota_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONTRACTOR! Revs Veil Drilling Company_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PAYMENT NO.:_ _ _ _ _4 FILE NO.!_ _ _ _ 13949 DATEI August 1, 1990 STATEMENT OF WORK Contract Item Unit Unit Est'd Quantity Amount Price Quantity To Date To Date Item 11 Test pumping Hrs Item 12 Televis: completed well L.S Item 13 Sterilization of well upon completion, cleanup & weld cap on 16" casing L.S TOTAL BASE BID II - 16" PRODUCTION WELL 90.00 950.00 1,000.00 100 L S L S $51,114.00 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 Item 1 Provide silt fence along Hwy 12 L.S $975.00 L S $975.00 TOTAL BASE BID II - 16" PRODUCTION WELL TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - ADD TOTAL WORK COMPLETE) TO DATE $51,114.00 975.00 $52,089.00 Page 2 PR13949 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS CITY: Orono, Minnesota PROJECT: Municipal Well No. 3 - 16' Prc-i-iwilon Well FILE NO.: 139A9 CONTRACTOR: Keys Well Drilling Ccmpany ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $70,155.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS $975.00 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $71,130.00 DATE 5-22-90 NO.CHANGE ORDER DESCRIPTION 1 Provide silt fence for Hwy 12 2 3 AMOUNT $975.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS - ADD $975.00 PROJECT PAYMENT SUffllARY: PAYMENT NO. 1 FROM PERIOD TO PAYMENT THIS VOUCHER VALUE COMPLETED RETAINAGE 1 Start 3-30-90 $21,456.70 $13,850.00 $1,129.30 2 4-1-90 4-30-90 10,315.10 33,444.00 1,«72.20 3 5-1-90 5-31-90 11,020.00 45,044.00 2,252.20 4 6-1-90 7-31-90 6.692.75 52,049.00 2,604.45 total PAYMENT TO DATE RETAINAGE FOR PAYMENT NO TOTAL LUZ COMPLETED $49,484.55 2,604.45 $52,089.00 PR13949 72690.1 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhacdson, City Administrato|!(^^^ July 25, 1990 O • ' j*. i ’r^:s*,vy H SUBJECT: Highway 12 Citizen Task Force Advisory Attachment: A. Highway 12 Citizen Task Force Advisory Memo Dated 6/25/90 B. Sample Letter/Quesionnaire C. Response Questionnaire (To Council under separate cover) D. List of Candidates for Nomination E. Proposed Letter to 'Candidates Not Further Nominated ISSUE - Determination by Council of persons to be interviewed for the Task Force. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's July 9th meeting it was determined that questionnaires would be sent out to interested applicants to reduce the number for interview down lo the range of 4 to 6. Attachment B represents the letter that was sent out with the attachments and C were the responses. DI £ U S SION - Once Council has had an opporutnity to review the names , Tt” is suggested that they, on Attachment D, list 4 to 6 names that they would desire for interview. These will be matched and the highest "nominee ge*-ters" will be scheduled for an interview at the Council's Augu««- 27, 1990 Council meeting. ALTERNATIVES 1. Agree on process and submit 2. Alter selection process. 3. Table. PECOMMENDATICN - If the process is agreeable to Council,, it is recommended that they submit their nominee lists to the City Administrator by Friday, August 17, 1990, in o ler to allow sufficien*- time to contact th» Individuals and have th-^?m ;ii ac^endan -or the August 27\.h meeting. In addition those individ^a’*' a»..o have not been nominated for interviews will sent a letter thanking them for their par t icipat i'^n as noted in Attachment E. PROPOSED f h' N - Moved by _, seconded b _, that Council having agrea. the process, es-^ub? ish interviews for the August 27, 1990 icje. .y,. Ayes , Nays Zoning File #1564 July 7, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Discussion - When the original subdivision "McHaney Addition" was developed, the existing drainfield for the house at 4720 extended northwesterly from that house. In order to keep that drainfield within the property boundaries while giving 2 acres to the westerly roperty, the lot line was jogged around that drainfield, yielding a somewhat contrived lot line. That lot line also left the alternate site for the easterly lot in a relatively less suitable area than had been initially proposed. Applicant Grimes is intending to sell the house at 4720, aid a septic system review requested by the buyer found the existing trench drainfield system to be failing. During inspection of the site with the current and proposed owners, applicants ’ site evaluator determirjed that while a septic system might be developed in a number of locations on this property, each of those locations would require extensive cutting of mature trees. The only open area on the property is the northerly triangle to be traded, and Mr. Hoffman to the west was amenable, since his alternate drainfield site would not be affected and his property line would be straightened out. Staff Recommendation - Staff would recommend approval of this subdivision, finding that each lot maintains the required 2 acre minimum lot area, with the following conditions: 1. Applicants immediately submit a request for vacation of the existing drainage easements. This is not only appropriate, but necessary because the proposed replacement drainfield system will straddle the existing easement. 2. Applicants should then concurrently be required to provide new drainage easements, 5' either side of the new lot line. CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APP PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^72 n AJO/(m Mm h^lOZ^ U)t67' Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) OG -Qo IS, Oot*f Please check one - Property _ _ abstract or \ torrens? Attach legal description to application. i^cT 7^^ d>l-OCfc. ^ Phone (home ) ^^4 ■" licCi_____ _______________ Phone (work) Address: Uc. iZ^j City; l^vlc zipt APPLICANT Name J(yAu.kl CWk\/\aQS, OWNER (if different than applicant) Name S^hi O (^S d\)C\}iL^ Phone (home) _ _ _ _ _—”* # Address: _ _ _ _ Phone (work)_ _ _^ City;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Zip; (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE V' 5- 5/Ay ’6LC •» TOa. Bur lot Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check)4. Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District^ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Propcsl^ Gross Density; Minimum Lot Size: ^ropusetr Use: (check) 77#“C Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per S Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application FormPreliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 2. 3. 4. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is coj'.olete. . '^ng Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i.. 3. 4. 5. Pa.yment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) w^igned certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Firial Plat Application is complete, Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FEES X Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 250.00 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 th’': application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature y Date Owner's Signature (3 Date 6 - J2/-90 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. I TO: City of Orono, FTIOM: Joann Grimes DATE: 21 June 1990 RE: 4720 North Arm Drive West, Orono #1 64 I am the owner of the above-referenced property. IXirin? the process of attempting to find a site for a new septic field, it was discovered that the balance of the land on my projxjrty was unsuitable for such a purpose. I h.a\-e met with my neiihhors tlint border my property on trie west edae, the Hoffmans, and e?;piained my situation to them. The Hoffmans are agreeable to .a rearrangement of the lot line dividing our properties to accemmodate the placement o: jr.y new septic system. Attached to this letter are the following items: - Subdivision Application for a Subdivision of a Lot Line Preliminarv plat information on Certificate of Survey C.^rtified Troiierty Cj:.nors List of ot.ners tdthin if’ - My check for* sLnO.OO Should vou have any cuest;ons or need aiiditional infoin’a.ii-.i, please call either me or my REALTO.^.’ Michael Mueller. Michael's phone r.vimbers are: 47J-9500 lOfficeJ, *472-5302 Jh.ome) and 642-7599 (\oice j^agei ). 6ltO/v/£.BtAG ^ ro STUFF hiRS^TV' ffl6 OFFiCC. T0IS hM£ V./ « CMs sS s a lu V . ae S“-i UJ <s X It S ifl < g g s ss|§|l!l S^““5,I ^ ^ geT e e iii UJ z g .siisM e O O Kt K M S K N < UJ M S S O S ?i ssoi^^ < B SI ss »!i§ •rgisi'"N> o < r ‘3lS! - o UJ UJ MCO O UJ UJ K> O "> “> a:% go < e o ae 4 UJ o o :s CSI 4 jlg^^ Z M ft 0“2Mi Io o o K «• i» ss > O 2^ O N N _ M S ^ Z O ^JO k> X < < K in CM H> « a < in I ae (9 (9 ^5 o o *- •-ssss CO 4’ M M <0 M O »- »- <T o er. o o “5JQ M X N 1- 1^1 - _ M §gS "■-.sI.M OX <»5^ Q <9* UJ g < K O K < UJ M Ul °S9*« assislaI ae UJ^Q> jj ®S5 j>» r U. IL,o _1^ o a o o M X U CU K « I qt UJ ::;Sg X sUl ® — o Z Ul X « ^ O <9* UJ 'O iiiaz < m <oo on IV «•ss-> n X -li o x o a it <0gg-'s ^ailsK at < o *o N g K 2 < iri rL|S!-*? s'^is sssi!s oiSSisSm o < z '9’ Z K ^ g iiiiQ. O H BSI in o M V) CA ®S isI e M M o K K X fC 4 C9 O H i Illssi^s?<f So X °S S<r V) (A r w I X M M K o XQ X X X M 2 (9 (9 I- Z Z g 2 oMils So o ^ I CM <ZX^ .^gE^z V go;5 '® ly s: _« rt ^ Q M ~ 5 oiv •« *9 m*9 i - O KM O X X « X Z g 0 4X0 X 4 UJ osii a d »- 1 CD iO TS % UJ X X z o s§gs 4 >- N X 4 UJ X 5 < z CL O TO: FROM: DATE: it; Mayor and City Council ‘ ^ - vo Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. August 1, 1990 /B SUBJECT: #1566 Dr. and Mrs. Thomas Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue - Variance - Resolution Application - Request for side street setback variance to construct additions to existing residence. Zoning District - LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential - 1 Acre Sewered. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7/17/90 Exhibit C - Memo and Exhibits of 7/10/90 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of July 10th. ^ Briefly, applicants are requesting approval to construct additions 6.5 feet from the north (side street) lot line where a 35 foot setback would normally -e required. The additions include completion of the second story over the center portion of the house, and an addition to the west. Existing 75 - 250’ hardcover is 23.19%. Applicants intend to maintain hardcover at or below the the 25% limit. At their July 16th meeting. Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 for approval, finding that the second story addition will have no significant impact on the perceived visual density of the neighborhood, and that the existing house location and lot width are hardships, since only a 15 foot wide building envelope paralleling the south lot line would be available under the code standards. Planning Commission conditioned their recommendation for approval on the following: 1. Hardcover in the 75 - 250 foot zone shall not exceed 25%. 2. Applicants to remove fenced area on north side of garage, and provide additional vegetation screening along north side of new addition. Regarding the Planning Commission recommendation for screening. Planning Commission gave no direction on the height, amount or opaqueness of the vegetation required. In the resolution, staff is recommending that the screening provide a minimum opaqueness to minimum height of 10' at maturity, along the File #1566 August 7, 1990 Page 2 of 2 proposed addition to the west. These figures certainly can be revised at Council's discretion. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached. i’4 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24 SUED. 5(B) FILE #1566 WHEREAS, Dr. and Mrs. Thomas Regnier (hereinafter "the applicants") are ow..ers of the property located at 1205 Elmwood Avenue within the City of Orono, (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 5, Saga Hill Revised Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24 Subd. 5(B) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence, such additions being located 6.5 feet from the side street lot line where a side street setback of 35 feet is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as zoning file #1566. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variance on a vote of 5 to 0, based upon the following findings: a. The additions will have no significant effect on the perception of visual density in the neighborhood. b. There is no other reasonable and feasible location for the addition meeting the code requriements, the hardship being the existing house location and the lot width in relation to the required side street and side yard setbacks. Page 1 of 5 c. with appropriate vegetative screening and removal of an encroaching fence along the north side of the garage, the additions will have no detrimental impact on the neighborhood. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24 Subd. 5(B) to permit the construction of a second story addition and westerly extending room addition to the existing residence, such additions being 6.5 feet from the side street lot line where a 35 foot side street setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants shall remove the existing fence area located on the north side of the garage, prior to footing inspection for the additions. Page 2 of 5 2. Applicants shall limit hardcover in the 75 - 250 foot zone to 25%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance application is recorded on the survey and hardcover caculation attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. The current owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall be maintained at the current levels, and any proposed improvements to this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City and such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal, as shown in Exhibit A must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. 3. As part of the building permit application, applicants shall provide a vegetation/screening plan for the area north of the westerly addition, such plan to provide a sufficient number and size of plantings to yield a 70% opaqueness at full maturity to a height of at least 10 feet. These plantings shall be completed within 90 days of the date of final inspection of the additions, and failure to provide such plantings shall be considered a violation of the terms and conditions of this resolution. 4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 13, 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, a.id shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 5 ! 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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of August, 1990. ATTEST:James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on the 13th day of August, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Me or and 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 CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 55323 ZONING PILE #1566 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 07/17/90 TO: Dr. & Mrs. Thomas Regnier 1205 Elmwood Ave. Mound, MN 55364 COPIES TO: TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE or MEETING: JTily 16, 1990 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Approved subject to limiting hardcover in the 75-250' zone to 25%, with applicants to remove fenced area on north side of garage, and provide additional vegetation screening long north side of new addition. Applicant's next scheduled eeting is confirmed as City Council on Monday, August 13, 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 Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. /y From: Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orcr.o Planning Co. Ission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator July 10, 1990 Subject: #1566 Dr. & Mrs. Thomas Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for side street setback variance to construct additions to existing residence List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit F - Elevation Views Exhibit G - Hardcover Calculations Pertinent Facts - 1. The existing house is on a corner lot at a jog in Elmwood Avenue. The existing house is 6.5 ' from the north lot line, which would be considered a side street lot line in this case, normally requiring a 35' setback. The existing attached garage is 5.3 ' from the east lot line. 2. Applicants propose to construct an addition to the west side of the house, extending the existing north line of the house 6.5' from the lot line. Additionally, a second story addition is proposed to complete the existing partial second story, also being as near as 6.5' to the north side lot line. 3. Existing 75-250' hardcover is 23.19%. In conjuction with the additions, applicants propose to remove enough existing retaining wall and concrete sidewalk hardcover to maintain hardcover at or below the 25% limit. 4. Existing lot coverage by structuras is 12.8%. With the proposed addition, lot coverage will be 14.8%, meeting the 15% limit. Discussion This lot is by definition a corner lot, and the defined front lot line would be the east lot line, with the side street Zoning File #1566 July 10, 1990 Page 2 lot line being the north lot line. In the LR-IB zone, the required side street lot line setback is 35*. The existing house is approximately 10' from the paved driving surface of Elmwood Avenue on the north side of the house, and the addition will similarly be approximately 10 or more feet from that road. Absent the need for hardcover or lot coverage variances, this lot is still limited by the location of the existing house so nv^r the roadway. Traffic heading southward then eastward along Elmwood might perceive this house after additions as substantially increasing in bulk near the traveled roadway, although there is some minimal existing vegetative screening in that area. Because neighboring adjacent lakeshore residences are much nearer the lake than the existing house or proposed additions, there is no average setback encroachment. Staff Recommendation Answering the following questions should help the Planning Commission in determining an appropriate recommendation for the propose! variance request: 1. Will the completion of the second story above an existing substandard street setback increase the visual density in the neighborhood? 9. Will the additional structure located 6.5' from the side street lot line, have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood? 3. Can the proposed westerly addition be constructed at a location further from the side street lot line, or is the existing' house location sufficient justification for allowing that addition as proposed? ^77 <5/0 - I “^iCITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATIO 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) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 12^? Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ _ 66 ^ a CITY OF OfiOSQ iP’ Attach legal description to application if not in::luded on required survey, iMj'DT.Tr'aia'T ’Phone (home) ^”^2.'AJr itIj DR 4 MRS THOMAS DAVID REGMER Mama Elmwood Avenue Phone (work) Address:Citv:Zio : Name Phone (work) Address :Citv:Zio : Date Prooertv Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land 1. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zonino District LH-IB Present. Use of Prooertv Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Pe-h-ima^-ad rnnstniction Cost $ naor»'r*i ’v»a yomie^r in detail:Seei^ l/A(2JAuoi? Fk4?>A So ADO»Tf«?rvl Aul^td lAi VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other_ _ __ Lot Width Hardcover Front fe.S Side Rear) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; ^ AtO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) 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. to include YOU ARE 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 the best of his/her knowledge. <P^I Q K3 Date (n ' ^ OWNERS SIGNATURE Applicant's 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. Date 0-^3-Owner'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 & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. M h ?"S»g•• is oj 3 2 Be o o •H S o risigs 3*0 — "* O U) « Of m a in in “ = gi (Q M 8 Ui NPt o oe o ^ 3 JSiiS moon O -> -> M 2 CO CO iO tH 3 Ik SSI M •*■ li!i M X S u in NM<i^<in MSg*SM o ee ^ “ O^Z M •• _ _ * o z S 3 8 s! M£gSg<^ < UJ Ul eg <a z HI M X oe CK a in (M M uj ui < in I K o o ro Q 4 < X 3*J^i^fes r!. ««S* o in o -I -j in N 3 3 o o M < < N M O Q. a. M V 0 0*1 X a uj ° S X X r M u u o 3CO M M M ro Q HI O « X M z i I w % si :5 _ oi a ^ M 111 UJ Q N X O 2^iii o SUfj;. V o «Si*M •n o (S o 14•ii w O < M O Z •« 3 M *at„ 2 to ui UJ Q Ui 7g “5 “ 3S|g 7 3u.g .iS£i$ m o (S u (j N SSori iiii O. O h- e o X o mI?® UJ UJ SS ".. X in . o -I o m X »- < >«>>-»' M X X >o <0 M 4 < M M O O U M UJ X X £ Q sisg "*x5;i in > 111 °5S = « M X _ < O ^ as-'-lK • X •« «• SS>«5, i S-'l®K UJ UJ 2 o in X 4 o o X in zeg O (J CO 3 n M (g Q M O Z £ M £ X ^ a 0 4X0 O z UJ 4 4 > N X 4 UJ SS2 = «J Ui M ^ a o w UJ o > o ^ Sg-'SSfSg £ UJ 4 Kl 3|4gaiS rJ.5-.28 M UJ UJ X _7 g"*i5 r*»* UJ UJ Ui oKl eg 4 X M UJ UJ X X £ O l«5? IIP frr HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' (Y50-5QQ^ 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House ^;< Zo- 3 LENGTH WIDTH 3. Garage _ _ _ _ _ _ _x c. Driveway x D.. Sidewalk J_ _ _ _ _ _x E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape areas underlain BY .. . plastic SHEETING G. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone /yv. / s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, / ^9 S.F. /2 € s.F. S.F. __ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i. s.F. _ S.F.B y/y. / ^[T] X 100 =72. 3 % f /< HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKS^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' Existing Hardcover in Zone W1 fO-5lS«^00 i-«*s A ' Untie?^^.3 X /?. F _=FFA 7 S.F. LENGTH 3i?.Z X WIDTH 2.6 =25^.7 S.F. - /2. J X <?. 9 s /I/. F S.F. ,vc- 7'r'ira •/5. 2 X 2i?.3 s Fi7F.S.F. P. ^ X r. /a */a.?S.F. / fA>/?. 5 X V. 5 Co . F S.F. Hri r \tn\AK^Am.^ X a ?0.9 S.F. C « We * VCTfMT— X a S.F. ■ n C-tJiCU/AI-V-p. ^ X j>/y. F S.F. X _36?.S.F. 2 j*. 2 X _/V3 ’ F S.F. e. ’atio/ Deck /-S'. ^ X s ./yf.y S.F. 5*a /(T S.F. r • uMMUw'-Mr u — AREAS UNDERLAIN Q\/ •. O'/" - k V Z / X 0.9 F,y S.F. plastic SHEETING 2./ V X 0.(7 .2 _ /V. / F.y S.F. W > X O.n a 2/. ! S.F. , nru.» X _ZZ3 S.F. s Total H ardcover in Zone -29cy.3 S.F. T otal Property Area in Zone 6 s.F. d o 9/T| 7y«fy. 3 -rfll X 100 ^ _2J_:2Z—^° /"A* -/./ cT/r HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) Existing Hardcoveh in Zone A.HmiSr.■X s LENGTH X WIDTH s S.F. X ss S.F. • X . S.F. X as _ S.F. B.fiARAGE X s S.F. C.Driveway X =5 S.F. X s S.F. 0* !S idewalk ‘X ss S.F. /L A. -r/f'- X J?.s S.F. X as 22. ¥ R.F. E.^ATIO/Deck X S.F. c,Landscape X ss S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X S.F. PLASTIC . SHEETING X _S.F. X s _ S.F. G. Other X =S.F. if Total Hardcover w Zone Total P roperty Area in Zone 22.y -r B 2i. V S.F. __IZj£i_s.P. LS. ?/P? X 100 = ^ I AUul3i990 " /? From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek S Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson • ; p:. -s , . .. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator August 8, 1990 #1567 Robert H. Powell, 2916 Casco Point Road - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, *5 acre, sewered Application - Request for average setback and hardcover variance to construct a deck on lakeside of house. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 7/12/90 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of July 12, 1990. Briefly, the applicants are proposing to construct a first story deck above their existing walk-out patio. A portion of the deck will be over the existing lawn area. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 41.8%. At their meeting of July 16th, Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of 5-0, subject to equivalent concurrent removals of existing hardcover areas, yielding no net increase in hardcover. The most easily removable hardcover area would be the plastic and fabric underliner from the rock landscape beds near the front entry. Planning Commission also reviewed the average setback encroachment of approximately 13' and felt that this would have no significant impact on the neighboring property. Applicants' contractor noted that the deck would partially surround an existing tree without removing it and the loc.-tion of the deck was placed to minimize reduction of light into the lower level of the house. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, a neighboring property owner had contacted staff to request consideration of removal of the boat canopy in the lakeshore yard, and expressed other concerns unrelated to the deck issue. Planning Commission did not act on this request. Staff Recommendation - Staff would recommend approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution reflecting that recommendation is attached for Council review. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 fi 2 PILE #1567 WHEREAS, Robert H. Powell, Jr. (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2916 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described followed: Tract L, Registered Land Survey #461, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of a decJc at the la)ceshore side of the existing residence, such deck encroaching past the defined average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and such deck comprising additional hardcover in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1, This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1567. 2, The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3, The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) Existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 41.8%. There are areas of existing landscape bed hardcover that can be removed, to result in no net increase of hardcover in the 75-250' zone. B) The 13' encroachment into the average lakeshore setback zone by the proposed deck will have no significant impact on the lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners, due to the angle of the deck and relationship of the adjacent houses, and due to topography at the site. Page 1 of 4 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and reconunendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon 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 deck on the lakeshore side of the house, such deck constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed, and encroaching 13' past the average setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall not exceed 4,046 square feet or 41.8%. In order to accomplish this, applicant shall remove at least 133 square feet of plastic or fabric underliner from rock beds in the street yard, to result in no net increase in hardcover on the property. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance application is recorded on the map and hardcover calculation attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the current level and any proposed improvements on this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval might result in a requirement for removals of existing hardcover in equivalent or greater amounts than the proposed improvements. All existing hardcover required to be removed per the conditions of this application must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Page 2 of 4 t * 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (Augus" 3, 1991). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of August, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of August, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy,.^ Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 a I j , ’ i> I!! STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appearedknown to theme to be the person(s) described in and who executed foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING PILE #1567NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 07/17/90 Robert H. Powell 2916 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: July 16, 1990" VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Comnission recomnends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission recommended approval of average setback variance and hardcover variance subject to equivalent concurrent removal of existing hardcover areas so that existing 75-250' hardcover of 41.8% (4046 s.f.) is not exceeded, i.e. Because the deck will constitute 133 s.f. of net additional hardcover, you must remove 133 s.f. of existing hardcover in another area. (The most likely candidate area would be to remove the plastic/fabric underliner from your rock landscape beds in the front yard). Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council on Monday, August 13, 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 Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ' ' '.d ZONING FILE #1566-REGNIER CONTINUED Public There were no comments from the public and the Public Hearing was closed. Rowlette reiterated her suggestion of fencing removed and the other section filled in. She also suggested^ that plantings be placed along the road addition will be located to lessen the visual impact. Rowleuue agreed that the proposed location of the addition is the mos. logical. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Rowlette, to reco^end approval If the side street setback variance to construct additions to an existing residence provided that maintained at or below 25% and that the side of the garage be removea anc plantings be pla-ed to scr.en Ilf adL^iln^rom the street. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. #1567 ROBERT & LOUANN POWELL 2916 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:08 P.M. TO 10:12 P.M. ^ The applicants' contractor was present on thei- behair. The Affidavit of ?ubl' Ion and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron summarized the information in his memo date,. July 12, 1990 pertaining to this application. He noted ^hat one of the applicLts- neighbors had contacted him regarding the boat canopy and other issues unrelated to the dec . Rowlette stated that the configuration of the deck seemed odd in relation to the existing patio and tree. Applicants' contractor stated that the applicants preferred to hav^the tree located in the middle of the that the proposed configuration will allow more light i lower level of the house. There were no public comments pertaining to this application and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, ieconded by Bellows, that hardcover remain at 41.8%. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, ^o recoi^end appr./al of the average lakeshore setback variance of 13 feet. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. - 19 - Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson li Frons Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: July 12, 1990 Subject: #1567 Robert H. Powell, Jr., 2916 Casco Point Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre, sewered Application - Request for average setback and hardcover variance to construct a deck on lakeside of house List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Letter of Request Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Property Ovmers List Exhibit E - Survey Exhibit F - Neighborhood Survey Compilation (Average Setback) Exhibit G - Hardcover Review & Sketch Exhibit H - Construction Plans Pertinent Facts - 1. Applicants propose to construct a deck that will be partially at grade level and partially about 8' above grade. 2. The deck will encroach approximately 13' past the defined average lakeshore line. 3. Hardcover on the property is as follows: Existing 0-75* 544 s.f. (5.8%) 75-250* 4046 s.f. (41.8%) Discussion Proposed Same 4179 s.f. (43.2%) Allowed 0% 2420 s.f. (25%) The proposed deck encroachment past the average lakeshore setback line should have no significant effect on views enjoyed by neighboring property owners, since the deck is behind the lake facade line of the neighboring house to the northeast. The location of the house to the southwest suggests that no view encroachment from that side is anticipated. -o ^ fc'?PfL .cr o 1Zoning File #1567 July 12, 1990 Page 2 The excessive hardcover on the property is partially due to the relatively wide concrete driveway, along with a substantial concrete patio already existing at grade level on the lakeside of the house. While the proposed deck is partially over that patio, even more of the lakeshore yard will be hard-surfaced when a deck is added. Thei. are a few small areas of landscape ro”ck over deteriorated plastic which have been included in the hardcover calculations, '’e.aoving plastic from those areas would seem to be the least di >tive method to concurrently reduce hardcover. Removal of ti. 258 s.f. of plastic from all rock bed areas would reduce hardcover after the addition to approximately 3921 s.f. or 40.5% from the existing 41.8%. Any other hardcover reductions in the property would involve removal of concrete patio, sidewalk, or driveway areas. Staff Recomendation The Planning Commission should consider whether existing lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners are significantly impacted by the proposed deck. If not, a recommendation for average lakeshore setback variance approval would be appropriate. Regarding hardcover. Planning Commission should consider whether the additional hardcover area is appropriate for the property, and if approval is recommended, define which areas or specific amounts of hardcover, if any, should be removed concurrently to minimize hardcover on the property. 4^' /S/^')CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE ^PLICATION Initial Application f4^$175.^ ($50.00 per each additionax^ariance Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site .oQ/6 CA£C j7^ PT- M- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0 / f ^ 3 ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. _i*=. APPLICANT Name Phone (home) Roh^/'-j- H: - Po^LLI ‘'Th- Phone (work) Address:r^^lio -4- Zip; OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ __ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address: Date Property Acquired _ _ _ City;, 73 Zip; (month/year) I (do) no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District ~~ Present Use of Property __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^ / in detail; ^^JTliAJLj^ CijL _ _ _ _ ___ _Describe request VTUIIANCBS REQUIRED - Lot Area SetbacJc Variances (, Other ______________ Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) —/^C> HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficult^^es^ting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: __ _ _ _ _ __— DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _^ »_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form T, 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. 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 ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF 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 the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature _ Date - -^ OWNERS SIGNATURE ^ r 4-uThe owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and rurtner authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City sta*^f, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of tj>^ request. ^ 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 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. T 1 Robert Powell 2916 Casco Cove Wayzata, Minn. #1 4.-67 City of Orono: Variance Application HARDSHIP: Undue hardship and practical difficulity resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations are the home was built in 1958 and we purchased it in 1973. When our home burned in 1977 it was built with plans for a deck off the dining room with a door leading out to the deck. At the time we could not fianance the deck after our loss. Now we would like to complete our plans. DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS: The unusual property conditions preventing compliance with zoning Code Requirements are that the home was built on this property in 1958 and was purchased by us 15 years later,the home cannot be moved to comply with the new Zoning requirements as there are now homes on eithei side of us. Part of the deck will be over an existing patio. 1 d IM o ♦ Ms sSi £ >V) 5 H itUi 6 UJ o o oO K ^ ^ O M Ul Ui < O ^ C C S M iH O £ w (- M ssiis rlS‘"“-oz M o n y r V o g < UI o z Z u ex CM X) S S ec •H £ Z CO < CD N < < 9! ^o (X a (vj z <M < •-I O t >- M m o. o UJ z u)DC M ut M O •• IX O CM u < a rl2t*oz•H u Ui a u z IH IX V) I K -I 4 < SoSsS Q CM M 9> 4 M O Z £ CM Z °5i S M s H* s a CDO"CM U -I -I Q. I z z 4 4O U HCM O ID (/) 4 S' S ^ ° >CO CM 4 4 O' 4 M O -> -) CM i O O 4 CM a H K> UiO t o O Z DC « K IH M “J -» O' M s ^ ^ a S'"'a 1-4 U Q £ M z z Jo S as ^ ^ U Koe a < UI UI nO N UJ 2! O iH UJ UJ UJ O' >-l > -I 5 i/l m 4 UJ UJ Z ut U. -J Ui CD Kl O UJ UJ > CM U 4 U. 4 ■ M Z UJS2-» = §5 ? g a 4 4 O S K U »- CM O 4 4 4 O Z Z O N >0 U U O > a K\ M M vO 4 M o a z 10 z £ S£ 3 siO OC u. °Uj“Sc S -4 > ^ et io M 4 u> U)4 in •no > >CM u a K 4 I a w a K 4 g ui o Z^ U 2 :C UT T £ 4 4 4 O U. U h- CM O 4 Z 4 40 « UJ O N -O O K- 40 >- a 40 UJ >0 4 40 o o. a 40 z 10 ■ I SS 5!!ei!Su h>M a ^5 _J _J O N O' 4-4 4H ^ > a CM z Z » 4 40 o a a CM z UJ Kiisi 4 M|i -s 40 O 7«u, K 4 (J • a. S « z O' 4 a CM 40 o a UJ « a “•“S ■’SE5|r zS4 (J t- 5S»4 O' 4a CM z « ee a > NOC < ^ erS OK <3o z a 4-4 4 4 O' 40 O ^ ^|a -S'"?*^ UJ Ui (7 O > > CJ K O' Q a 40 > a CM o o O' 4 40 O K a CM z a « 4 UJ 4 z UJ IX or z a a 4 K a a z M < K 4 UJ SS5i« z < z a o H ■fi!’' 'y/i tLARIHG^SHOWN ARE ASSUm^. . ' -r^..........-K'rw-— I ■ — '2^/Lp C^Seo /^ACi ^OT“ /4^A :iy^\Vs/u^'/^r^ ; -7£r-2.rT3 M^L>cc!/£yS. : 1^ r ^.o./ *-- ?ys A 2,7. 2- 2 ’S //' 7^*/f- II '21.'-/ >- 2S-, /c ii / ‘/5-,r r Ci P f .u r ^i,tV«J~- - /‘^ CrV<^r t/- I0~i J- 11 s-rx/i - r4..'^ r 1 2 ’.jr >■ //" 3^c. 1 <3. r >” 5"-- /? J>iLI'Jiy^A-'-}2o./ x/S ^ 2/.^s ( 1 7 r z' ' J.• ^2. It E( y'/.r/s^- a;-7 «c CI^WC, v^AT^O !</ ><C,.^/^= II y!\/-z^= i^'r 1/?S v^e/i = 3SO /'J ll 3 3 >-2.1 /2 - Z‘^‘1 <2> ^CA^*^fiu£TTC -■ 2-sa> (hi, 8 '/o') P|T2oP=>;ft ^C»X.(£. l^y-2J^ r ^3.Co LfTLZ Fo(inot<^ “ Vy*^/'Vy _*r_ vs ^:x>^ S^4L«/€ryo,^ 72>'na<, P^PoZt^^ » Uj(7l ^30 "^3,e% 0-'75 : /446A-0 ?ViX> s.^.t ■^cM^'i-IU>3i-^S'1'izi. =-5TS % (^/oo cMfxw' ^^/Zoi^oiec)) J SURVEY FOR: Mr. Mrs Robert Powell 2916 Casco Point Road Wayzata, Minnesota. ^ini U(yxo & c/fiioelaUi, On PnonSSKMAL LAMO tUMVCVOm AMO lANO OBVKLOPMCNT CONSULTANTS (612) 421-9126 13621 VINEWOOD LANE DAVTON.MNM»7 / __________/ vVi)o DESCRIPTION: Lot L, Registered Land Survey No. 461, City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. o Denotes Iron Monument SCALE: I" = 20* NOTE: The location of the proposed deck is per sketch plan by Sears Decks, \ based on tree location. All hard surface areas are as shown.\\\i'Av I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 18th day of June, 1990. V Minn/?Bota:a License N^ 12:12267 M 7^-75 ' / /a; <r p j /.f*. __>A// y ’V Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Z 13 ^ (y Pros: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:July 11, 1990 A. B, Subject: #1568 James & Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Public Hearing Zoning Distruct: LR-IA Pertinent Ordinance- ^r.rtLnn 10.28, Subdivision 3 (A) - Conditional Use Permit required for proposed conversion of stable into independent guest house structure. All regular lot requirements shall be met by guest house area. Required = 4 acres (2 acres for each residential unit) Proposed = 5+ acres Required separation per LR-IA zone = 60* Existing = 58* Structure in its present location will apparently never be a prinicipal structure if property is to be subdivided. If Lot 14 is to be divided from existing homestead (Lot 15 + 1/3 of L-.>. 16) structure would have to be reconverted to an approve ' accessory structure without a dwelling unit or remov» j. C. Review of existing side setbacks (north lot line). Refer to Exhibit G. Required = 30* Barn =5* 4" Garage =1* 6" Street Setback Required! *- 50* Stable = 49* Note new connecting add*'‘:ion will be ’from north lot line. Side setback variance required for total structure = 28* 6** or 95.3% Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) - Detached garages and other ac .essory structures may be located within street yards as property is considered a lakeshore lot (with the acquisition of 1/3 of Lot 16 as a result of a recent lot line rearrangement. The lot would be technically defined as a lakeshore lot.) 5 Zoning File #1568 July 11, 1990 Page 2 Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover Regulation As property would be allowed some 43,560++ square feet of hardcover. Hardcover facts have not been required. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D-1 Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Application Property Owners List Plat Map and D-2 - Bracken Letter Immediate North, Part of Survey of Property Septic Map On-Site Inspection Report 7/7/87 & Survey 3/17/78 Confirming Setbacks Structures from North Side Lot Line Building Section Floor Plans Elevations Site Plan Lots 14, 15 and Part of 16 Survey 2/20/90 Lots 15 and Parts of Lot 16 (Owner of Property to Lots 16 and 17) and 4/24/90 of Accessory Review of Current Application - Applicants propose conversion of an existing stable into a guest house unit. Full conversion consists of a silo like addition to connect the adjacent garage as one structure. The new addition is placed approximately 1' from the north lot line and will be approximately 6' 5" x 13' 6". The addition will consist of a first floor utility room and staircase to an open second floor level. The first floor of the evisting barn will be converted into a living room, bath and ;.-.’‘c.ien area. The loft area of the barn will be converted into a bedroom. The applicant advises that his architect confirms the existing foundations are in good condition. The barn floor will be paved with cement and covered with a layer of brick flooring. The conversion of structure into a residential unit will require that the structure meet all pertinent standards of the building and fire codes. All improvements of the north side of the existing garage and guest house must meet the standards of the state fire code requiring special fire wall construction. The proposed silo addition will not exceed the height of the existing barn. The neighbor receiving the most impact from the proposed improvement has sent a letter confirming his approval of the project. Review Exhibits D-1 and D-2. Note neighbor's house has been placed 150'+ to the east on Lot 17 and receives no visual impact from the improved structure. Zoning File #1568 July 11, 1990 Page 3 The applicants have recently acquired Lot 14. To staff's knowledge, we are not aware if the applicant has applied for the legal combination. If the City is to approve a conditional use permit for the guest house unit, the applicant must apply for the legal combination prior to the issuance of the building permit for the conversion in order to meet the area requirements for an independent guest house unit. As already noted above, if Lot 14 was to be divided at some future date from the homestead property, the guest house unit would have to be converted to an approved accessory structure that should not contain a dwelling unit. This would also be a condition of the approval of a conditional use permit. Please review Exhibits E and F. The City has no knowledge of the capacity of the exisitng septic system that serves the current residence. Please note the tanks have not been pumped since 1980. In April of this year the owner was advised once again of the need to pump the system. If a second residential unit is to be approved for this property, the owner has the option to either use the present system to serve the proposed guest house and to install a new conforming system to serve the existing residence or to have a contractor confirm by uncovering existing system for staff's visual inspection. Staff may then determine if existing system is capable of serving both existing house and guest house unit and what other improvements may be necessary to serve both units. Options of Action Denial - If denied, please refer to Section 10.09, Subdivision 6 for the necessary findings for denial of conditional use permit and to Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) for the necessary findings for denial of the variances. Approval - To approve a conditional use permit for a guest house unit and existing setback variances as follows: A. A variance to the required separation setback from one principal structure to another approving a 58' setback instead of the required 60' separation. B. An existing 1' 6" setback from the north side lot line (garage portion of structure) instead of the required 30* setback. C. An existing street setback of 49' 1" instead of the required 50' (setback from stable/barn structure) D. Proposed side setback variance A side setback for the proposed addition located 11+' instead of the required 30'. r m Zoning File #1568 July 11, 1990 Page 4 This approval is based on one or more of the following findings or hardships: 1. Property consists of 5+ acres. 2. “The property owner to the immediate north that receives the most visual impact from the structure has submitted written approval of the project. Property owner's house is located 150+' further east of the subject structure. 3. Existing structures and foundations are in good condition and will be able to sustain the proposed renovations and improvements for residential habitation. 4. There is adequate and suitable area for on-site septic development to support the second residential unit with one bedroom. Approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to submit an additional $50.00 payment for the variance portion of the land use application. 2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for conversion of the stable into a guest house, applicant must provide proof of the legal combination of parcel 14 with the homestead parcel. 3. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, applicant shall advise thp orono staff as to their plan for serving the existing guest house with a sewage treatment system. Options available: a. Contractor to uncover existing system tor City's evaluation . b. Connection of guest house to existing system and installation of new system for existing residence. 4. Applicant is placed on notice that at some future date if Lot 14 is to be divided from the homestead parcel, gues house structure must be converted to an approved accessory structure that does not contain an independent dwelling unit. 5. All portions of improved structure located less than 5 from north side lot line shall meet all fire code standards. Zoning File #1568 August 6, 1990 Page 5 Additional Conents and Planning Commission Recommendation Prior to the meeting, staff was advised that the barn/stable to be converted to the guest house did not have footings as shown on Exhibit H. The applicant advised the Planning Commission that it was his understanding from earlier review comments by his architect that there were indeed footings under the stable structure. The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the application with the understanding that footings/foundation would have to be installed under the stable structure. Since the meeting the applicant's building representative has called for a site inspection to confirm that footings exist under the stable. It has been the City's policy to require that a structure meet the required setbacks when a new foundation is to be installed. In the matter of the Pierpont application, the existing footings/foundation will serve the proposed alterations to the structure. The Planning Commission's unanimous approval was based on the written support of the neighbor to the immediate north who sustains the most visual impact from the intensification of the structure. In addition, the residence structure on the property to the north is set 150+' further east. The Planning Commission adopted the findings and conditions of staff's approval option set forth on Page 4 of this memo. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission's recommendation for review and formal approval by the Council. A RESOLOTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL OSB PERMIT AND VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 3(A) PILE #1568 WHEREAS, James and Judith Pierpont (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1801 West Farm Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Review Exhibit A Attached (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, per Section 10.28, Subdivision 3 (A), the applicant has made application to the City of Orono to permit the conversion of a detached stable and garage into a guest house that will be located 1'6" from the north side lot line instead of the required 30'and that said structure will be located 49' from the street lot line instead of the required 50' and that said structure will be located 58' from the existing principal structure instead of the required 60'. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1568. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 2 dry contiguous acres in area for each residential unit. 3. The property is approximately 5+ d’-y contiguous acres in area. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990, and recommended approval of the conditional use permit and variances as proposed based on the following findings: a. The property consists of 5+ acres in area. b. The property owner to the immediate north vhat receives the most visual impact from the intensification of the structure has submitted written approval of the project. Page 1 of 4 The property owner's house is located 150+' further east of the subject structure. c. The existing structures and foundations are in good condition and will be able to sustain the proposed renovations and improvements for residential habitation. d. There is adequate and suitable area for on-site septic development to support the second residential unit with one bedroom. 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 vould not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor p:»se a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the conversion of the stable into a guest house unit 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 a conditional use permit and variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 3 (A), subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall make payment of an additional $50.00 for the variance portion rf the land use application. 2. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for conversion of the stable into a guest house, applicant shall provide proof of the legal combination of Lot 14, Block 1, The Farm at Long Lake, with the homestead property. Page 2 of 4 3. Upon application for a building permitr the applicant shall provide the necessary septic testing and documentation to confirm suitable area for on-site sewage treatment facilities for both principal and guest house structures. This shall include evidence of suitable area for alternate on-site sewage treatment facilities. Applicant is placed on notice that at some future date if Lot 14, Block 1, The Farm at Long Lake, is to be divided from the homestead property, the guest house structure must be converted to an approved accessory structure that does not contain an independent dwelling unit. 4. All portions of improved structure located less than 5' from north side lot line shall meet all pertinent fire code standards. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (August 13, 1991). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of August, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 15, Block 1. THE FARM AT LONG LAKE, ALSO That part of Lot 16, Block 1, THE FARM AT LONG LAKE, accordinil to the re corded plat thereof on file and of record in tiic- office of che County Re corder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, iyinij southerly ot tho north 104.72 feel and northerly of the following described line: Commencing at .the southwest corner of said Lot 16, tlience North 02 degrees 12 minutes 03 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the West line of said Lot 16, 101.24 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 07 degrees 47 minutes 57 secondta East, 277.16 feet; thence North 04 degrees 53 minutes 26 seconds East, 454.32 ft.ut to a point on the northeasterly line of said Lot 16, distant 3LS.57 feet southeasterly of the northeast .orner iiiid I.«.»t 16 arnl there terminating. 1 1 hereby certify that this survey was prepared by my or under my direct .:u• pervision and that I am a duly Registereu l.au i Survcyci- under the lav/s of the State of Minneosta. r — r*• 9 . 1 CITY OP ORONO PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address /SC/ a o PLI k/e-^r D f A w'WU^l^V'VVV 01 150.00 ^iJS£^(Pc:or^'im2:^06/22/VC Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^01- Please attach legal description to application if not included TOXMT Phone (home) • 9/93AJr ItIjX Vi.Aril' Name x 7^Phone (work) 3^/ Address /f;/ .Citv kChtOr ZiD _ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone Address Citv Zio Dai-.e Pronertv Acauired / (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own theK adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL USE 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.) $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 ^ , w 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 PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: ^ _ _.a/ -/ ( c < \ .I--/ Z'/ U 7 -rY t //, • REQUIRED.SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 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). Plat Map. 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 requirements). 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. 6. 7. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll" 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. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of 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 unusual 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 7^ cJ> V Date OWNERS SIGNATURE 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 this request. Owner's signature ^—.t/yioYrty)rx Lnto^ Date -A the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meetings are held on the Applicant must have all submittals int Planning Commission Meeting, 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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. s M OS-> h Is z E § CO Ui lU °r-'^jQgS 5|§girK» _i ^ < S ii55S=5 ;^o22r*-' a Ui u o S ^ CO <H = X N CO o M O t- t- U r1 -J O S O wis ?Riii£ CO Ui o a >-) X < < »> Ui •H CO ^ M o h» w^sseog SS^jrsS K O S o oe Q <o O S _ in vl-sS“S ::§si csi ^ lu «i 2 f-i 2 uj t- Ui J =zl3W O' •• M ^ > O' ta _ 4 Ui K O' 2 CO •>* <<0 0m o X £ iH o q: S0 !| =SK SSsSr" SS CM O' a; >. <0 •'< < rv O Ki o ^ a ^ & 2 CO s o o- asr < CM ►— sO Ui in K Kl < in u m z < a . UJ X « I CO d «o r ?! Sg2r<ui P:-:igg CO »H X i-( K 6K) O X X M _i o u. K M X Ni Ui O K2^52^25 r-4 X < «0 i- Ui to j«:rJ. "»*g< CM ^ *0 (0 § X S OS3-»g25 K> (0 M O (0 X a -aSSo"UWj V ^ UI Ui o: K» O CD Ui Ui pcoS^^si K) O O O K ^ M M 2 Ui tu (U Mo z ^ o Z «e Sm M o i- i- in ^ a to toM M O cC ? § § o Z cii§i“ = ' 3 < ^ Ui uj a .4 ^ o CD 2S^io|i CO o <x «i (0 5 Kl O O O -I in o O Z CM CM a u ^ -• ae >• ee iH . _ Q o o «> K O CO < •H 00 K Ui M £ T S O O M O- K < g O coi-yjs^ m O K QC M u Iss O Z UJoi$ _ ~a§ o ac ^ 'O u CM o 5r-l K M w z < ffi o i s "li CO K> N o Ui o SSK <« Ui Uisssa M £ ta (0 2 ;2ii2r~ ■ iiS M Q Ui UiS3c2 <<Mg^. r ^u. f. _i O 2 O N ® O U _i gS.i 3 = SS I 2 iig 12 K> I igS •H 2 Ui <-l M ) U. C'. CM O' a K te o •-) io O tt Q lU in < <o u in U Q K) Ui a in Sr'^ K K-2g «I _ »- Ui |i! 2 O' p ffi ^ -I ocg g o < d: o O Z Ui < o o o q: O £ sI=n! V as§^li 0C« gsggs iiii to in a Qc Ui Ui O Ui Uio to to m O Z CO ® M MM mSSss Ui Ui lO 2 »- K ‘J'in-og? CD Z c-t CD «« «8 2 UI 7 totoS^ ^ o: ce or -I ^ ^ Ui Ui CD oS^^sg K» O “1 -> _i UJ X K r o o < « o O Z Ui < < > \ a < UJ a lu a X O X X < £l2 = O Z •H Q •-I a KIZ 7iz2g£ 9 K M to M®yr|S ) 9 5 < <o K a ^ CO o o o o a.i“5gg 10 o > > tt _i or^ g o <c « o o z u < X < UJ ggSi q: 5 < z a o H o <« < m O fO K IT. O o z (M O M X MZ 2i «M 2 OC ^ a; 2• O Ui M (0 S « o: M X •1 S M X X Ui ^ Q o4 O M N 5 CD O Ui O M o S r Ni -I £§.ig = !s; QC < Ui a 2 «t z —1 . . M ^ IQ S ^°z_ X M M >- 2 uj U. Z X 5" u »- (/I LU Si u. u. M X o o ■’.■■ ■■■■'■ :: i:.■'■.■'I V'''•■■■■ ■."•■i.. ^^■^.v;rv V-;j , - •* * fcwi > - ;•' >■• 4A''. V.*'v '■••;• • •. ,* -. - .h ., • pISffl 5r ^ •■•‘<^* •• ** ••* ' ‘'*-,1 *y > v.**« *-a^**:> rv; i'/;.fa ,.t .» ;--W:mfW::f ^Vf.tu ?/-.-?o »*, '*1 ■ 19 isigi :>t' .' ■ ■/ ■ ;._nxv‘-V‘ L 2rft!fta ttf l*s.- t!*v a-f :rsPt .23? I Rtht 4<i. • ^'^.? • t ' m « • • l^fi .:«iMt « JiiSi-.-i * ♦rs^r.-: i*fr»2K sana;t;sri*. •«* :4-t.r tns*xf- V#'. ^t»r -fikr..-.fi >V Cur arasfrt/. :7r: :v#i* Asad. .i nSvist-.t ta t^*t Aitrcoftt'l ta tr.t nsr:r ire :%ort*'*tit. mnd a^.# viftnst “5 I a trsm cur icut^ a<‘cc«r-v • . r# . *V- •:•! l*‘2 T “I’* •!••* ••• ^2." a’d e*rft Oi ;%-i;» *•■: »*« t.-.arr ■ !■» Wft.r r'*>• •*«i!'. ss. -k.t •■; ;i. ;: tn» C v :p«r: ;r»f>f-; r‘.» It 54 if*.:aa^> '.*ir:%f.:♦ :r*'2* t .«• •sarfu ♦ ra*^? racutiaaa. r *•.. .a u>v- •- •£r i.e/f r. k J i . ■ :4 i. -:-4fV ri's,’ , /■ .— T *? • ,1 • .*! :-•?.# - .... -.1 *1 .' '.^k.' '.V- /■ V : v.--‘.w«r.-••:■'' *•.<“ " .' -:-r-- • ' ■-. i. v, •■>.-« V •r^—/,?: 'r*.' *" ■■ ' Cl Smit /^o...-V.tT ^•"'• -------------- .^■'3 Vo' ov*- o Denotes I X000.0 Denote? lOOO.Oi Denote^ Denote* ' ^ nnumfr "lev .1 Elevation 1 of Surface Drainage Proposed Tup of Foundation Elevation = ?/• o Proposed Garage Floor Elevation = Jo.i ___ Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation = O I hereby certify mat this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lot 17 and the north IOA.72 feet of Lot lb. Block 1. THE FARM AT LONG LAKE according to the plat thereof on file or of record m the office of the Registrar of Titles. And of the location of oil buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me thls^o^h^ of ^ I”------• ^ ; >7Thomas S- ^ j,,uist Registe '*nd Surveyor, Minn. Lie. No. ‘‘ ^ - ^ \ SATHPE-BERCQUIST. INC. 7 M» lAtT VMA»«AT» : J • WATMTA. *•« 1M»1 miAMOMI AlA<AT«.aMa •CALI r 1100 FACt // riLiNa 1000-/3 K.*- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for BRUCE BREN HOMES •*; *. •' V'•■'1 ., V. v--: •’ .4 O O J •-;-- . - ' ■ . ; •■•( * \\ 1 1 ^ 1 4-1r1^ \ \ I I \ - K Iliii 5 i r.S i S yf ■-■'XT''•*•:- - .-■■V \e’“r O S § \ VS n T 1 «< c i % <3C r- 4*0 1 V)a 1H1 i 1 -s ! f1 .5 5. "o o S o s S z I* ^^4r' ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT INSPECTION REPORT On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka OF ORONO POST OFFICE BOX 66 1335 S. Brown Rd. Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 OWNER ADDRESS i ( 1 Ali3J.^r fhcrr\ PERMIT NO.'S.P qat ES ^ ^ i I •*CONTRACTORS fe4;4 Co. City Ordinance No. 210 requires that each on-site sewage treatment system in Orono be inspected . n a regular basis. The on-site sewage treatment system at the above address has been inspected and appears to fall into the category checked belo w. (This is yBl an existing system □ new construction) I—I s Meets or exceeds current City standards in all respects relating to desip , construction, .nd c:ation. Appears to be operating I—' ' prcperly. Sl2 □ 3 Does not meet all current City standards for new construction 11978 Code) but in most respects appears to be designed, located, and constructed generally in accordance with previous codes. System appears to be functioning properly; no major upgrading of the system is required at this time. Does not meet current City standards in many respects relating to design, construction, or location. Appears to be operating adequately at this time, but has a relatively h-^i potential for future problems. No maior upgrading of system n requireJ at this time. □ 4 System may or may not meet cur.ent City standards for design, construction or location, but is failing to property treat and dispose of the current input, and is endangering a water supply, or is a source of pollution to surface or groundwaters, or is creating a safety hazard, or is otherwise creating a public nuisance. Please contact the City Inspector to discuss system repair/ replacement procedures. If draintieid replacement is necessary, soil testing will usually be required, and a design and site plan must be submitted for review. Your contractor must obtain a permit before work is started. SYSTEM CONDITION ( (2 Checked items may require you' action) Tank inspection indicates: D Pumpout not needed at this time. □ Solids accumulation in tanks indicates they should be pump ed out this year to help prevent future problems. □ Solids accumulation in tanks is at a critical level. Tanks should be pumped out at soon as possible. □ System it discharging to surface. Tanks must be pumped within 48 hours to eliminate surface discharge. B Inspection risers miMing—tanks could not be inspected. Inspection risers (4" dia. pipe) must be installed in each tank at next pumpout. If tanks have not oeen pumped out within the last three years, they shoulc be pumped out now. D Inspection pipe is located directly over tank baffle. (Does not give accurate measurement of solids accumulation.) If tanks have not been pumped out within the last three years, they should be pumped out now. Drainfield inspection indicates: / H Drainfield is dry. no surfacing evident. (.1 O □ Some evidence of surfacing, not critical yet. □ Drainfield is saturated and visibly discharging untreated effluent to the surface. This condition may require replace ment or additions to drainfield. Contact the City Inspector immediately. Retuirs must be completed within 90 days. C Drainfield extent and condition unknown. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Limiting Site Factors □ Slope O Soil □ High water table □ Lot site □ Lake, wetland, or stream O Drainage Potential for System Failure (depends on soil types, water table, and system condition) □ Low 8 Medium □ High □ System is causing visible surface discharge. Site Capabilities for Future Expansion B Adequate □ Fair □ Poor □ Inadequate COMMENTS: n 1 1r^^. /j /d fo"> p. (r{ 11 a./J r» r^*;. 4 (L - r«g pri'iPC. ---------------------O Ai u v,-7-y-? Date of Inspection Septic Syj Note; In the event that this inspection report is used to satisfy the requirements for a mortgage or other transfer of property, ^ this report does not guarantee or certify that an existing system will continue to function properly, but is merely an oomion of the adequacy of the system under current conditions based on the available information. This report must be kept on the premises with system location and pumping records. WHITE COPY / Inspector's File GOLD COPY / Homeowner On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT INSPECTION REPORT OF ORONO POST OFFICE BOX 66 1335 S. Brown Rd. Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 OWNER CPj'irA ADDRESS PERMIT NO.'S.dates CONTRACTORS City Ordinance No. 210 requires that each on-site sewage treatment system in Orono be insoected on a regular basis. The onsite sewage treatment system at the above address has been inspected and appears to fall into the category checked below. □ l JSfz (This is □ an existing system □ new construction) Meets or exceeds current City standards in all respects relating to design, construction, and location. Appears to be operating □ 3 □ 4 properly. Does not meet all current City standards for new construction (1978 Code) but m most respects appears to be designed, located, and constructed generally m accordance with previous codes. System appears to be functioning properly; no maior upgrading of the system is required at this time. Does not meet current City standards m many respects relating to design, construction, or location. Appears to be operating adequately at this time, but has a relatively high potential for futt-e problems. No maior upgrading of system is required at this time. System may or may not meet current City standards for design, construction or location, but .s failing to properly treat and dispose of the current input, and is endangering a water supply, or is a source of pollution to surface or groundwaters, or is creating a safety hazard, or is otherwise creating a public nuisance. Please contact the City Inspector to discuss system repair/ replacement procedures. If drainfield replacement is necessary, soil testing will usually be required, and a design and site plan must be submitted for review. Your contractor must obtain a permit before work is started. SYSTEM CONDITION ( (3 Checked items may require your action) Tank inspection indicates: □ Pumpout not needed at this time. □ Solids accumulation in tanks indicates they should be pump- ed out this year to help prevent future problems. □ Solids accumulation in tanks is at a critical level. Tanks should be pumped out as soon as possible. □ System is discharging to surface. Tanks must be pumped >tithin 48 hours to eliminate surface discharge. ^3lnspection risers missing—tanks could not be inspected. Inspection risers (4‘* dia. pipe) must be installed in each tank at nr .jmpout. If tanks have not been pumped out within the last ihree years, they should be pumped out now. D Inspection pipe is located directly over tank baffle. (Does not give accurate measurement of solids accumulation.) If tanks have not been pumped out within the last three years, they should be pumped out now. Drained inspection indicates; SiOrainfield is dry, no surfacing evident. u Some evidence of surfacing, not critical yet. □ Drainfield is saturated and visibly discharging untreated effluent to the surface. This condition may require replace ment or additions to drainfield. Contact the City Inspector immediately. Repairs must be completed within 90 days. □ Drainfield extent and condition unknown. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Liming Site Factorsnmr 0 Slope □ Soil □ High water table □ Lot size Q Lake, wetland, or stream □ Drainage COMMENTS: oMOixlh loi^ bu-tjJ: Potential for System Failure (depends on soil types, water table, and system condition) □ >ow 5g Medium □ High D System is causing visible surface discharge. —£c.. ptupi>5^ Site Capabilities for Futuri^Expansion jSTAdequate □ Fair □ Poor □ Inadequate OfWS.ft4L “t' dJh( rnor ui'X IJ ill 4a AdtL 'Ifi/WiJv acauAs_____ /;^fk t4A ite of Inspection Septic System Inspector NO,.: li. the event that this inspection report i, used to satisfy the requirements olpro^^^ this report does not guarantee or certify »h.t an existing system will continue to function properly, but is merely an op.mon oi the adequacy of the rystem under current conditions based on the available information. This report must be xept on the premises with system location and pumping records. WHITE COPY / Inspector's File GOLD COPY / Homeowner CLARK ENGINEERING COMPANY □ 2815 WAYZATA BOULEVARD □ MINNEAPOLIS. MINN. 55405 □ (612) 374 4740 i 'i £xHl0/r-0& ,-r»5.6' SE E HOTE I -mi.*' SEE SOTE 2 5i7*4l 2^' IM27E.29 Lt37.0S' CI 37.03 . . CB »N54«S0 19 E M92«00 ’00"W 62.80 #317 • --EAST 227 00 mouse J LOT 15 BLOCK I lO'Oralnagt BUtilify £a$tm0itt ^ \ _1 f(LB' ' IQO\ uo(>^r- ---WEST 32 8 SO- - NOTE 1. Q 2. Barn - 1 foot roof overhang, also a hayloft overhang, 1.2' within North line of Lot 15. Garage - 1 foot roof overhang, 0.6' within North line of Lot 15. Scale 1" = 100' o Denotes Iron Monument PROPOSED DESCRIPTION •-f Lot 15, Block 1, The Farm at Long Lake CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Land Surveyor under the lawsUS of-iiie State,^af“Minn^t^ , . . : ( ________DATE:J /.^-7^ Bi^ce R. kelley. P.E. S L.5t^ MN REG. NO. 5713 OATC 3-17-78 □ RAW«N JRS COMM. NO. 7839 T PROPOSED LOT 15, BLOCK 1 THE FARM AT LONG LAKE FOR TIM ADAMS SHEET NUMRE R 2 of_2_smts. I 6^:r.■1.• 'sS'?• fvOO^ A!*s^ ■ •^.F. ' ..f n~=^- ••-■ 9 T * !• iih. |fei I r I 5' o. I i I I I ') .K-if ■:®/t r"!?fif ill"i® :;>) H' .1-'liM IK’ fii illli. IIM : vi’iii MiPlIil III 1^^ '«, Wm^ s:ri: »‘t illif- 14'ff|:: ■^^Siilst;t ill. illfmmm ^iif|A>j ei^yi all ii • It.- ii'jKjWte P«;' y;:;..- ?Vteir^?ir r::v<;S;-n- iiiv K-h O' NO^iir, K-lN'HI•li; j.‘>i- .y^i •irO'""]!:'-"O'•io-: ’:, JrmM- i|ifi Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson , 'j i 3 »f 'to From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator July 13, 1990 #1569 Sam McCloud, 4280 Bayside Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IA Pertinent Ordinances & Special Issues to be Addressed for this \,>view - Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (A) Area: Required Existing 5 acres 6.5 acres (contiguous dry land above 935 elevation) Front/Street Setback: Required = 100' Proposed = 68' Variance = 32' or 32% c) Height of structure to be confirmed at your meeting. Applicant has not included elevations of structure. Staff does not foresee a problem as this is a one story walk-out structure. 2. 3. Section 10..7, Subd*/ision 4 (A) - Sectj.or 10.02, Definition - Animal unit and Section 10.2“, i?ubdivsiion 4 A). In addition to all accessory struc** .vTe ordinances. a) Current location barn e\s shown on your plans is not find as the proposed septic sites will be located in that same location. The barn must be placed on the property to meet the following setbacks: 100' from front street yard 26' from wetlands 935' elevation 75* from all other property lines b) Based on the 6.5 acres of area, horses may be maintained on the site. a total number of 4 4.Sfcc^^'ion 10.03, Subdivision 5 iC> • Allowed area for accessory ».cructure ** 3,000 s.f. Proposed * 2,280 s.f. (57'x40 ‘) c^/ k/t 03 Cl V u <o Es Ce a si, o ? s oe K3 11Lu —I cr cp c: c X <o a:so 0> 03 — •J <o rj o O CO O «0 03 ■O w ^ 03 X 03 -i — C u. — o> U. C7» Co c q O Ut —3 \ Cf' cjr, Qvn /:^ <5- O Vy J <d Kj sJ ✓n U> s5 V* csl /I i SI r-^ «■ Vj Ci ^ »»r ■I Ip ^1'^ N 5: !I! S ii : i N ' % City of OROIN O OTY OF ORONQ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2534________ I » 1 ^ ( > '..0 A RESOLUTION GRANTING AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22r SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 AND AN AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE #1309 WHEREAS, Gerald Nelson, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1629 Bohn's Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tract A, Registered Land Survey #565, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono to allow a pond of approximately 165 s.f. constructed without the necessary permit review, located within the la)ceshore protected area, and within the floor plain of La)ce Minnetonka where no such alteration is allowed per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Secticn 10.55, Subdivision 8, and in addition, seeks a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 required for the installation of a pond. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1309. 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 1 acre in area per residential unit. 3. The property is approximately .8 acr'.s in area. 4. The Orono Plan..ing Commission reviewed this application on August 15, 1988 and October 17, 1988, and recommended approval of the after- the-fact variances and conditional use permit as set forth above, based on the following findings: Page 1 of 4 CITT OF ORONO city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________ A) The improvement as amended by the Planning Commission will provide the least impact on the adjacent lake and within the flood plain of Lake Minnetonka. B) The excavation of the pond has been equalized by "tbe placement of the excavated fill within the flood plain area and has been found to have no negative impact on the flood plain ot Lake Minnetonka nor on the adjacent properties. C) The property receives the majority of run-off from the adjacent properties located within the immediate watershed. D) The installation of the pond and the drainage path constructed in the south side yard that carries run-off to the pond and eventually to the grassed lakeshore yard meets the original intent of the grading and drainage plans approved at the time of development of this property. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this pro perty are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other properuy in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demon strable 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 ComT^-ehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit ^o allow a 165 s.f. retention pond as amended by the City will no 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 property values and that the proposed level of will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONSr ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.2 , Subdivision 2, and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and grants a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to allow the remain within 75' of the lakeshore and within the flood plain of Lake Minnetonka where no such excavations are allowed, subject to the followinc conditions: ^ ^Page 2 of 4 cmr : QRONa City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________ 1988. 1. The plastic liner underlying the entire pond excavation and the crushed rock/wood chips with underlying fabric are to remain as installed. 2. New plantings within lakeshore yard may remain as long as underlying geotechnic or filter fabric is removed. Wood pulp/chips or crushed rock may remain as long as they are installed on top of existing or natural grade. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by applicant comoleting the directives set forth above within the lakeshore yard‘by November 15, 1988 or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date. 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and condi tions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on beixalf 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 24th day of October, /borothy' City Clerk ^ Jamel^ R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner (“s) L' Page 3 of 4 i Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson 16. Prom; Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator August 8, 1990 #1557 Mike Cullen, 2700 Pheasant Road - Variance - Resolution 13 Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, I: j acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover and average setback variances to construct pool and associated patios on lakeside of house. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B “ Planning Commission Action Notice Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes 7/16/90 Exhibit D - Supportive Letter from Neighboring Affected Property Owner Exhibit E - Memo & Exhibits 7/10/90 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of July 10, 1990. Briefly, the applicants propose to construct a pool and associated patios in their lakeshore yard. Due to the location of houses in this neighborhood quite distant from the shoreline, there will be no encroachment into the 75' lakeshore setback area. The proposed pool is in a location somewhat lower in elevation than the affected residences, hence even though there is an average setback encroachment of 74', this will have little impact on lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. Existing hardcover on the property is 29.0%. The applicant proposes to concurrently remove underlining plastic from all rock beds, result in a 75~250' hardcover of 26.3%. Planning Commission Recommendation - At their July 16th meeting. Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of 3 in favor, 1 against, and 1 abstention. It is unclear from the minutes the exact reasons for Chairman Kelley's nay vote, however, he expressed some concern about plastic potentially reappearing if it is removed now. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution, per the majority recommendation of the Planning Commiss. on. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 fc 2 PILE #1557 WHEREAS, Michael J. Cullen (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2700 Pheasant Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 18 and all that part of Lot 17 lying North of a line running from a point in the Northerly line °f. 1°^, distant 64.25 feet Easterly as measured along said Northerly line, from the Northwest corner of said lot to a point in the Easterly line, 25 feet Southerly, as measured along said Easterly line from the Northeast corner thereof, 'Pheasant Lawn", according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, in anf Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the property ); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of a pool and associated patio areas located on the lake side of the residence, such patios constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250 setback zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed, and such pool and patios encroaching 74' past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1557. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990, and on a vote of 3 in favor, 1 against, and 1 abstention, recommended approval or the proposed variances based upon the following findingw- A) The topography and relative elevations of the proposed construction and the neighboring residences is such that no existing lake views enjoyed by neighboring properties owners will be encroached by the proposed improvements. Page 1 of 4 B) The applicant's proposal to remove plastic underliners from existing landscape rock beds on the property .to make them non-hardcover is appropriate and will result in a net reduction in hardcover on the property from 29.0% down to 26.3% in the 75-250' zone. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance o.i the health, safety and welfare of the community. • 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and ComprehenSj.ve Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORD.2R AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of a pool and associated patios in the lakeshore yard, such pool and patios comprising hardcover in excess of tne 25% hardcover normally allowed in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone, and such improvements encroaching 74' past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is approveo at a level of 26.3%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. The current owner and all future property owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level, and any proposed improvements of this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent, equivelant or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construe^'on. Page 2 of 4 2. All plastic or fabric underlining existing rock beds on the property shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the proposed pool and patios. Those removals are noted on Exhibit A. 3. The property owner is placed on notice that the existing boat house in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone is considered as a non-conforming structure, subject to the pertinent zoning code sections which regulate such structures. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with tie property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permiv. within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 13, 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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of August, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 im:. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of August, 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 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. On this day of 199 personallybefore me a Notary Public within and for said county, appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1557 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice; 07/17/90 TO:Mike Cullen COPIES TO:Greg Peterson 2700 Pheasant Rd.Peterson Pools Excelsior, MN 55331 13110 Excelsior Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55343 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: July 16, 1990 VOTE: 3 For 1 Against 1 Abstain Planning Comsission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS; Planning Commission recommended approval of average setback variance as proposed and approval of hardcover removals subject to concurrent removal of plastic/fabric from all rock beds (1430 s.f.) on the property, resulting in a net hardcover decrease from the existing 29.0% down to 26.3% in the 75-250' zone. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council on Monday, August 13, 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 Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. denial of appiicawion 51556, cue co a x^ck. oz r.arcon±p anc fact that there is presently excessive har-cover on this property. Motion, Ayes-3, Cohen, Rowlette, Nay. Motion carried. #1557 MIKE CULLEN • 2700 PHEASANT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:42 P.M. TO 8:45 P.M. Mr. Greg Peterson, of Peterson Pools, was present on behalf of the applicant. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron summarized the “information presented in his memo dated July 10, 1990 regarding this application. Kellev asked how much hardcover v/ould exist if the landscaping plastic is not removed. ^ Kelley believed that the plastic may be removed nov;, but would be put back again in u. future. Gaffron stated that the rock and plastic are approximately 1430 s.f. He said 1% of hardcover in this area_is equivalent to 200 s.f. and would mean an increase of 7% to 3'»% in the 75-250 zone. Cohen referred to the letter that had been received from Mr. Cullen's neighbor, Sarah Dale expressing her support for the project. Johnson asked whet.her the water surface of t.he pool is now considered to be hardcover. Gaffron stated that it has been a consistent policy of the City to consider only the patio around a pool as naracover. There were no comments from the public and the Public Hearing was closed. It v/as moved by Johnson, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend aporoval of the hardcover and average setback variances to construct a pool. Plastic is to be removed, reducing hardcover in the 75-250’ zone to 26.3%. Motion, Ayes-3, Kelley, Nay, Cohen abstained. Motion carried. #1559 AND #1560 JOHN & ROBERTA HENRICH 4125 HIGHWOOD ROAD VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:49 P.M. TO 9:07 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Henrich were present. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed the information regarding application #1559 (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated July 12, 1990). Mr. Henrich advised Gaffron that he did not intend to turn the between areas "F'* and "G" (see Exhibit F) into hardcovv; Vat 1 ■eked Mr. Henrich whether he \/ould consider a "-'■'' ■■'■ —--=—n|t“”-' CTYOF' - ' - |inV'-■*-• •- '■ ■ ■■ '■ -v:: -,'r-:- .'i' UJ[ oro.no____j\ i' -- i'.. .-»<•>».% .■• «.<^»■''.______* .;v‘£^^Ste.Vv •■jiic.'^aatssarzi'. ISiSi fPSi ia.“* ■:r.~-'^'^‘z.:':. » ■■.■•••/•.vU.'-' JUL 1 e"’i99<:* . ..J'LZ r^o ------ K J J^A^/La^ y<L/€iyy\'y^ .^ruL^'h % JTU'JL> llJ^ Lrs 7^ \fZl>\A.yCuyi/^i~yi /id a firu^.LrxJto ^Jit__ /yuJu^ y hjf ^/a-ii^i .A^ o. j0.d7^ U^i^lP yyh.4^ le JIa QMai jp O^n^O (2i^ Jai X a __ r :t # rr. .“• =“-j • -/.• • • %••• -- ;■ .vv vC-vV ;■■•.i- t- ■ ‘>^5-I * ' ' >:.•■■- — ..................................................... ............................................................................................................................................. ■••_ _■ ^ To; Planning Commission Chairman KelleyOrono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: July 10, 1990 Subject: #1557 Mike Cullen, 2700 Pheasant Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-ID, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover and average setback variances to construct pool and associated patios on lakeside of house. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Letter of Intent Exhibit C - Flat Map Exhibit D - Property Owners List Exhibit E - Survey, Existing Exhibit F - Survey, Proposed Site Plan Exhibit G - Staff Hardcover/Lot Coverage Review Pertinent Pacts - 1. Hardcover Summary: Zone Existing 0-75' 864 s.f. (9.1%) 75-250* 5966 s.f. (29.0%) 250-500’ 1079 s.f. (17.0%) Proposed Same 5516 s.f. (26.3%) Same Allowed 0% 5148 s.f. (25%) 1910 s.f. (30%) Applicant proposes to decrease 75—25'J' hardcover by removing plastic from all rock beds. 2. The houses in this neighborhood are generally in line, and all angled slightly in relationship to the road. The proposed pool requires an average lakeshore setback encroachment of 74*. 3. Lot coverage including the house, three season porch, pool, patios and associated decks, amounts to 12.7% where 15% is allowed hence no lot coverage variance is required. Zoning File #1557 July 10, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Discussion - The applicants proposes to construct a pool of 596 s.f. water surface area, with additional patio and decks. The pool is proposed at grade level at the lakeside of the house, hence the actual degree of lakeview oivcroachment will be minimized. Due to the angling of the houses in the neighborhood, the adjacent residence to the north at 2690 Pheasant Road will be the most 'affected. The 74' average lakeshore setback encroachment would be perhaps typical of any of the houses along this street that wished to construct a pool. The typical lot widths of 100' tend to mitigate the impact of pools or other improvements in the lakeshore yards. Also note that the pro osed pool at its closest point is 125' from the normal shoreline, hence this house and most of those in the neighborhood have unusually deep lakeshore yards. Applicant proposes to remove whatever plastic e^.sts under decorative rock beds on the property. The applicant's surveyor has assumed that all such beds on the property are underlain by plastic, although he has not verified that. Such removals would result in an actual decrease in hardcover to nearly the 25% standard. However, the only other possible hardcover removals without starting to remove structure, would be in the sidewalk or driveway area which are established and functional improvements on this property. The boat house on the property is considered as a non- conforming structure, and is subject to the ordinances pertaining to such structures. Generally, those ordinances allow non- structural repair and maintenance (reroofing, residing, painting, etc.) but would not allow replacement of the stricture if it was destroyed or became structurally unsound due to aging or other deterioration. Staff Recomnendation - Planning Commission should address the issues of hardcover and make a recommendation as to whether the proposed degree of removals is acceptable. Planning Commission should further determine whether existing lakeviews enjoyed by neighboring property owners are adversely affected. Any recommendation for approval should specify the hardships and justifications for granting of the requested variances. CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICAlfoi^?^ M A!*,Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional vari Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) b -------------- cool ao{jW‘ ;; 9^ PiU- CAdj-uS!^ P, l\J / PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address_ _ _ _ _ _ PrQp©rty Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT _ Phone (home) ^ ^ Name __________ Phone (work) ^ <o ~ ^ 3 5 ^ Address;.^ 7 Citv: 'C^'ji OLpZip; 5~S ^ ^ / OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)- - - - - - - --- - Name __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Phone (work)- - - - - - - --- - - Address: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City;- - - - - - - - - -^Zip;- - - - --- Date Property Acquired __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ___ _ (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY . AinPresent Zoning District ^ n f ^ Present Use of Property ______ ____________________(Residential _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost Describe request in Q.y>JL£L^ i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area _ _ _ Lot Width V _ Hardcover Setback Variances (_ _ _ Front _ _ _ Side -(l. Rear) ^ Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _^A\Ji:rA6^ HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations;_ _ _ _'p^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ DESCRIPTION OP DNUSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. S)cetches or plans of floor and elevation views. 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 Ci -y staff. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll" 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 infomation 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 the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's Signature^>I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hate ^ - - - 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. Owner's Signature Date ^ c^l c) 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 L-’±ouI '■ c H</0 dJi^CUlA^ A^^\-03JLo (jU-^yvJL CA-OV lA-e~AAQ__ )f/0 ,£oi^ ^\-6l>AA^ ^ '- ~ ■ U' ^3 ' JUUA. " "" VK u-a_,LJlQ. n ; jy/^A u^ '' ,wvJ) lc{ b<^U^ -, 1, 'W« WH ■ Ja_ v-O CJll UAV-^jMk. ^ ;3o^,, Ujy) ^ '^jlJ^JL/v.<x£>■A~^ I ) 2i i; O <&^aUUi.^f^3-x^ ■ j,'YLt-'V'-'v-^2_4-a5-YsJ'l-cu-', ^ 'bi P K_i>v-si_ y 1^10 T /w») VJ^I-.V^ ^rti'/-^v of ^:ziO_Jlilf££2.ril_i Iprint name(s)I ’ [print addressj /ZJ.. ri-tj. ■ have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ,^?J0 j . also referred to as Land Use Application No. _ _ _• I (we) understand that in executing this ac)cnowledgement, I (we) am (are) not as)ced to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner s~- o Date D7 ) So o o a m ^ KlgS liin^.g I X X X M >-• a M(M O -J -J _J O O O O lu CO ac K o u CO (VJ < <( (0 XM O U U CM Ul Kt MM U) <-•O O >• > Klo a ui uj Kl-I -i 10 SgSsS-" K» tf)M < UJ UI ' Ui ^ -J N- X < «» 10 M a > > <M_ _UJ OJ. S5£SM O M M •J M «J .J O UJ K ^ ^ CM O I? M (O M w <t Ui UJ Z ZI V - -I -J < SX < < (0M a > >■ < geT rxSlM < 9 a (/)CM O M M -J CM -J -J O UJ _J _J CM U e (M M M rv X K> O Z X CM UJ o ae a « a o et < ^ r >6^o</ere ~ ~c~iOO ^)il^7nfsu CPetz. 0~1^' %oi>erno<^ze y/1.3 *= 5~~?0 aVv^.r =2^V. Cb ®iV. CJ uy 4 ^ = ?./^ 7^-2 ro / ^5'.7 2j ^7^/z^ bn E C £ O (0 ^ J ^7 V2- ■2S‘.^ X %S> ■2.1 V "5 U 2-.5'>' n 't- 2i'-2rfts. /’»«.(•'. I>gc<c I/O Patio ]2^ck-~’i- Pa ^:t7c - }on - 70 L> - 7^ ’ Z'B // x/S /0;x/C. 2 <A(;»”7 z^,o% -/B> is: 92x0 V.a% “72P)^^ 7r-2.ro' Pe^ /^Pu(c^*r^ /.rT-T-ft^ <^>F ,/e.ev^A^ f^£ncL fi^uc^ (t(^z /aJ ^/(P~l^ —/^2D s:^'. 7r-2^ST)' ce>^^ i-F* 5"‘?^4>7<SO-/»y2^ r rr/6.^6»y/ “ •" / IL G) " t^STJNC^ 0 '-7r' >ro -ST?o .A /O/Z^pos o ‘Aff<i>V :r. C9./>0 B^l(^ ST!t^t\.CzU,-iA jrTyS :/.6s-“/<. /071 ^P. (17.0 %J y9/d 1 rC C^o l_rr-— CcnjtrtAA,.? S S<!^S ^ ^ /'(»0 ?«5t-+ftr'n0 //^ 2. |?:wt>'n- ?^!>l-e-“'^- 9C1 ;^V ZUi^HC vvr /z.'? /|i/4», Strra/!^ {jT'JO^AeHHnvOT^ p^,er>+?iT fs-ij/AJr 5 'Z^1^ fooi, SCT^Atv^TO r /j^'a^ /"0//VT- njo .It i lttimia 13-^0 / h Proa: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson nn V- Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator July 13. 1990 #1563 Maurene & Jerry Denzel, 1295 Elmwood Avenue Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Required Area * 1 acre Existing « 12,789.7 s.f. or .29 acres Pertinent Ordinance- Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 - Average lakeshore setback Proposed access stairs from lakeshore deck encroaches average setback line by approximately 2'. Applicant can be encouraged to realign access stair so as not to encroach average setback line. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover variances 0-75' area = 4,350 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 120 s.f. (4' wide access stairs to lakeshore) 7d-250' setback area = 8,439.75 s.f. Existing = 2,616.8 s.f.*l or 31% Proposed * 2,742.6 s.f.*2 or 32.4% Total Increase in Hardcover = 125.8 s.f. or 1.49% *1 Garage plus step = 443.6 s f. House = 880.29 s.f. Paved/Concrete Walks = 314 s.f. Drive = 747 s.f. Rock Garden = 232 s.f. *2 Garage - 672 s.f. Access Drive/Parking Area * 434 s.f. House = 1,173.2 s.f. Deck/Steps/Cement Walk = 463.4 s.f. (includes rock garden at 176 s.f.) Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) - Side setback variance Required = 10' Existing = 4' Variance- 6* (Second floor dormer expansion within substandard side setback) Zoning File #1563 July 13, 1990 Page 2 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit A-1 - Applicants Addendum Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledgements Exhibit F - Elevations Exhibit G - First Floor Plan Exhibit H - Second Floor Plan Exhibit I - Basement Floor Plan Exhibit J - Garage Elevation Exhibit K - Garage Floor Plan/Foundation Plan Exhibit L - Garage/Section Exhibit M - Average Lakeshor Setback Line Review of Current Application - The applicants propose a dining room, 3-season porch and deck addition at the first level providing a new formal entrance to the house within the dining room addition. The 8x8 second floor dormer expansion will provide room for a second floor bathroom. In addition, applicant proposes relocation of existing nonconforming detached garage with a new conforming detached structure. The existing garage is located approximately 1-2* off the existing right-of-way of Elmwood Avenue. The new garage will be placed 10' off the right-of-way with doors facing away from the roadway providing turnaround on site consistent with the directives of the ordinance for lakeshore lots and detached garages within street yards. The applicant has already discussed the use of the unimproved right-of-way adjacent to the property. John Gerhardson has approved the use of it as long as the owner assumes the complete maintenance of his driveway within the unimproved public right-of-way. The City does maintain Elmwood Avenue. As applicants addendum notes they have maintained unimproved right-of-way by removing debris and junk and maintaining drainage. They have provided erosion control by installing plantings within the severely sloped areas adjacent to the lake and have continued to maintain drainage through the ditch and culvert. The applicant asks that this approximate 2,000 s.f. of unimproved right-of-way be credited against their property as a consideration in the hardcover review. As already noted in the factual findings above, the access stairs from the lakeshore deck encroaches the average lakeshore setback line by approximately 2'. This can be adjusted with a simple realignment of the stairs. r pZoning File #1563 July 13, 1990 Page 3 Staff has met with the applicant on site and has reviewed the proposed improvements in relation to existing mature trees. It would appear that only 1 tree shall be removed as a result of these improvements and it would appear to be a tree that hangs dangerously low over the existing residence. Review Exhibits F & I, a drainfield is proposed to handle drainage from walkout basement door at south side. Detailed plans of drainfield must be provided with building plans at time of application for building permit. There is a concrete block wall that has been placed right on the shared lot lines of the property. The wall is in a serious state of disrepair. The applicant has advised that they have no plans to replace the walls that have already fallen adjacent to the house. It is not the City's intention to get in the middle of a potential dispute between the neighbors nor do we wish to create one. The hardcover facts did not include the partial encroachment of the wall into the applicants property nor was the improved overhang included as it did not exceed a 1 1/2' width. An additional 125.8 s.f. of hardcover is proposed as a result of the improvement. Please review Exhibit A-1, applicant's comments on the hardcover issue. Options of Action Denial - If denied, please refer to the necessary findings in the variance sections of your code. Approval - If approved, the following findings and hardships may be considered: 1. There are no additional lands available to acquire. Applicant does have the benefit of a non-hardcover area located within the 50' unimproved right-of-way adjacent to the property. 2. The improvements appear consistent with the recent upgrades of the properties within the neighborhood. 3. The following conditions may be considered by the Planning Commission in their recommendation; a. Proposed hardcover cannot exceed the level of existing hardcover at 31%. Applicant must agree to remove 125.8 s.f. or 1.49% of existing hardcover. b. Applicant to redesign staircase from lakeshore deck so that there is no encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line. c. Any others deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. ■"^ning File #1563 August 3, 1990 Page 4 Additional Coanents and Planning Conmission Recommendation - The Planning Commission voted unanimoui approval of the variances proposed by applicants (2' encroachment of access stairs of average lakeshore setback line^ increase of 125.8 s.f. or 1.49% hardcover within 75-250' area, and side setback variance for second story improvement within existing substandard side secback). The Planning Commission's unanimous approval was based on the following findings: 1. The proposed garage that would now meet the required setbacks from the street will improve safety/traffic conditions for the users of the roadway. The existing garage is located less than 2' off the street lot line. 2. An unimproved fire lane of 60' is adjacent to property, applicant has maintained portions of the fire lane as part of their yard area. In addition, applicant has maintained drainageway that flows through public right-of-way and has removed debris and junk dumped in the right-of-way. 3. Existing hardcover consisting of landscaping/retaining walls within street yard are required to maintain steep elevations along north property line. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. The resolution is presented for Council's review and action. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 & 2 AND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) PILE #1563 WHEREAS, Maurene and Jerome A. Denzel (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1295 Elmwood Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Lot 3, Block 5, Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit the encroachment of 2' by an access stair where no encroachment is allowed; and per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 seeks approval of a hardcover variance within the 75-250' setback area resulting in a total of 32.4% where only 25% is allowed. The property already contains 31% hardcover within the protected area resulting in a net increase of 125.8 s.f. or 1.49%; and per Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B), seeks approval of a side setback variance for a second floor dormer expansion of portions of the structure located within the required 10' side yard setback. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1563. 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. The property consists of 12,789.7 s.f. or .29 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) The 2' encroachment of the access stairs will provide no visual impact to the adjacent residences because of the sloping topographies of the lakeshore yards. B) The location of the proposed garage will now improve saf ly/traf f j c conditions for the users of Elmwood Drive. Page 1 of 5 C) An unimproved fire lane of 60' is adjacent to property. Applicants maintain portions of unimproved right-of-way as part of yard area adding an additional 2,000+ s.f. of non-hardcover lands to the property. D) Existing landscaping/retaining walls within street yard are required to maintain steep elevations along north property line and to require removal will necessitate additional filling and grading within yard. 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 variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND 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 and 2 and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of an addition to the principal structure consisting of a dining room, three-season porcn, lakeside deck, and second-floor dormer expansion for bathroom expansion and a detached garage structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance application is recorded on Page 5 of this resolution (0-75' = 120 s.f.; 75-250' = 2,742.6 s.f. or 32.4%). The current owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall be maintained at the current level and any pro p o s e d improvements of this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City and such approval may result in matching or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Page 2 of 5 2. Applicants shall obtain all necessary permits from the Public Works Director for use of unimproved right-of-way for driveway purposes. 3. 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 (August 13, 1991). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Cour Minnesota at a regular meeting helf 1990. \ of the City of Orono, the 13th day of August, ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on thxs 13th day of August, 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 Page 3 of 5 r.^re-i CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCB APPLICATION #15Initial 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) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address LOcyp d r)oe*JcL<^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Property Identification Number (F«I«D*) OO/# # i’lry cf iMMi nmi£ OFFICE 13002000^ It, 01 CSI &.O0 ais2no C001 FOi nojctOi/22/90 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) Name, Mo-Uy-^Pig- ^,.>^jgit ay'D«WZ.e \ Phone (work) Uf (‘^35-b‘TC l) Address! r\r>^LOOoa Au-^ City: Or COO Zip: 5~trj(p.i£ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (wor)c)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Zip:- - - - - - - Date Property Acquired __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property _ _ _ _ Residential _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ *^0 ^ Describe request in detail: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _—- - - - - VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area _ _ _ Lot Width X Hardcover SetbacJc Variances (_ _ _ Front X Side _ _ _ Rear) Other __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ *»«nrih«a nnHne hardship or practical difficulty^ resulting from strict f zoning regulations: A^O fi/7£i^S><5j rrcifSA^^ O/i)/i0(z£<3Cir^ f~R^hn^] ajo ei.^rW^d)C^ DBSCRIP^Idii opajnds Describe unusual erty conditions preventing compliance with ZoningDescribe unusual property conditions preventing compliance witn zonir Code Requirements; LOTi C/^L/Ofy r>A ’f^£cO(^i^TQ V/P^gT-(D.^ g a<^ uJdi ii>- 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 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. S)cetches 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 ARE 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 inforaation 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 the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date y 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. _ _ _ Date U^/9dOwner'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 & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. #1563 jynyCi>L(t>cu 7 ynuyt^ __ uiMi^.^.Uu jL^.-ri'C’rt:^-^__---------------------------------------------------------- V^/r?v1 oJ . ^^4 ^ _ _^^_./£^v' Ly\j2^o^:'t^Cr^^^-------- #ic y~i>— ^.^^Wr2c«)_^ 3 /f-" •'.? ^ .' ~^ - u. /•/' /! ^/ ■■a '.'/,.:. -'f.-.^A .. '• ---yp X/O ' " :,■ ------^ VLy / - &4 c«=^*£; '.££^ t '• .' • i-4- ■ .■ ■ / • . • . w.- >. • •< • • ■ • ' .. * • . • • ■ * • . * ■ . . ..• , .,. ., . , ''y r.' \ .'' \ • f'h I IS C'd CD rH (H Ul (K < X _J 2*1? K K OIo tf> uj o g O' u O' 2 «-• •• irt O' 3 (0 iH Q M o “>“> i-i r oe “S o a 2 _O gx ?SrS,_ a X in N CO U CO g iH MM M O X X r« M s 1^ UJ ISa iM us tf Sli m lu UJ g CM oc a 2 I o o N. a o S-*5 o CM^ «rl o < I _ _ S o In u u M O' o ° ?l| 3 asl|23a|S|i ^ O X _ 2 .53141 ro O « O M X g 2 O' -I CM K a §“S 5 »- o S£aiis >!.Si:3x ^ 2 UJ oJ K 2 32Mo M >c jiC g o u i>c 2 m z M o 3g M g CO Q Kl O UJ Ul M X > 9 I <« V <H UiK si3§ 5S|g rl. ■'So g UJ gS;:EM o g u g ^ osissO 2 M ro iH « o o o SSJ 2 MSgSS<^ « < UJ UJ _ 'O < g •n X S S g In 7fcSS'*“’K 5 < < X rl> g g S gSgS^S CM X g 9 g rl E z •■ g M UJ 0 ^ X — r" g UJo g a o -J -J g 2 CM 3 a o 3 °S“‘|g| CM M o O 3g M < < CM g M O & & M X m o »- H ^ X g a h.a o H g g a UJ <> s. g£ g s!>sI g ^ asiss ipa 8 K M UJ _Z ssS* ®SSS<ro u o CO 0^ M M M^ o tf oe g |S a o < g oO Z UJ < < > N g < ulili !• I i I M las I Ulhtac oca» Ul CO CD O K « V) O uj . U A Ui 10 JU * Xhf rH Ul K M O M H p u.2§ K a K < a a SkS Ui A Z A < Ul 1^ t M K O ISK! -r — Tt - T - r - r -r - - - - - .:..:..Ui-i-fr:-: ?'! I : r'V’" * (J/,. ... .k.*. --------------------r** - - . • I I I • « • A 1 -roof <Tm» « ** l-.lUVli!--------------,--T- ; -.u. /r-N:-: ‘ ‘P. -- : • (2:3) * iT» I rm 1 n » «q *^-.^(65) m (6-3) ----------------------->-i I • '%•-“--r-T-r-*i“-r-TT-i : ; : ; ^ \ i » f--.* • • * '• -—■--) . I i-... • •.. ■•• r • I ■• .1 ^ - “1 --r • 1* I I. : ; ; ; T •• •.; : ; : V;; ; .;.-r r' : : .....-I r t" -------ij : .............................:....................... «.n« (60)1* __ ISSN T T T09 » '•VW lyt lOBU ■'>Soj 1 h ^0 IB 63 Adjacent Property Oimers' Aduiowledgement Pom I (we) hKd '■of Qfe A\>r-tk j^f. [print address][print name(s)] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 'F/^JncuPPC^4^1 so referred to as Land Use Application No. _ _ _. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner 0 Date/ Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building 6 Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 5^15S3 I (we) Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form ygbg£g7~ //cYc-f-JuO of AJ^yS-s- Iprint name(s)J (print address] have reviewed t'.e plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^^so referred to as Land Use Application No. _____• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plana and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. ^ - -Z i - Property Owner ^Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to ti.^ Saliding & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. * f 1 (we) Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgeeent Form Jokr, 4 Vho btiS, of /^(o5 EkniAjQcc) Av€- [print name(s)T [print address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed Improvement or proposed use of the property located at 1^^^ ElmUIOCd /4c/ftlso referred to as hand Use Application No. _____. 1 (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to 'eclare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. VJ Date / ^/^^roperty plner Date Ifyou have any Information that may assist the City 1" the of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the liaing a Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting da.e. I 5: #1^ Adjacent Property Owners' AcJuiowledgenent Form I (we)“rUe>i.wy^S ^ • ft )r.{nt name (sj j I ^ tt-IH U ' Ipr.lnt name(s)J [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or propose, use of the property located at ^//7?UJOOcf /^L^also referred to as Lard Use Application No. _ _ _. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ^1&63 r"‘. Adjacent Property Oifners* AcJcnowledgement Form 1 (we) r)^ ^ /u cHAjJyJchr^cy^ of m uoc^~^ [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Au(^ also referred to as Land Use Application No. ^ I (we) understand that in executing this ack..owledgementr I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of t. a property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner DJte' J<^/9 Property Owner Date If you have any i'^formation that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Applicationr please submit your comments to the Building 6 Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 'I I (we) Adjacent Property Owners' Aclcnowledgement Form 7^ (print addressJ[print name(s have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /^9S^ £//^us.foo c/ referred to as Land Use Application No. _____. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgements I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neignbor's project or use requ^es Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Applications please submit your comments to the Building fi Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. i #1563 I (we) it Propel^ Owners* Acknowledgement Fora f/yic4^yy^ of u^'n^Aj)^ ;print naAie(s)J (print address^ have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at i —* also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. ^ - &''0 property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. #;j^563 1 % y' I (we) Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form C^a /\fc I _____of i7¥ (A/otry /Q [print address][print name(s)J [print have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at f/Muy>ncf /4>^also referred to as Land Use Application No. _____i I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked'to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project cr use requires Council approval. Property Owner z2/ Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the "view of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building * Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date* #15 : Adjacent Property Oimers' Acknowledgement Form ___of (Xol aj ■ DrI (we) FrvcK /^'l/c-.irv/p Iprint name(s)J[print name(s)] ' [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at f^ ^/h) lU o O Iso referred to as Land Use Application No. _ _ _. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. ^ 1 II 1/^ Q C Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. \ I (we) Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form StCi4Qvru ______ of l^. Av-wv ZJ [print address![print name(s)J have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at f/Jr) nJnCrJ Aj^ also referred to as Land Use Application No. _____. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the .r^roperty or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. V «n \■l^±h Property Owner :j Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building 6 Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. #l56 Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (we) 2^0 ns7\^r\PPtn of ///0/^'CJcJ(2)(l. y^i/ £ Fnrinh name (8)1 Tprint address 1(print name(s)J Tprint address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^^ty^also referred to as Land Use Application No. _____. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgementr I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvemerytT plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use .requires Coun Er^erty Owner / If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. -u J V*. z w *.» . f '* i'T • ;• If!.- • .-.1 \A p-1hgt •' • . *. .• ;• It 1 |=n r -, CO 'i-M -------------r + I '< • ‘ j . if - .J ; ■ ■ #■• •*. .V '• •... n.J-.^4CAC)C Q ^ 2io^Asp//HT JlA/Mr-fL , *‘. T«iG o?x f.Ly., • : /Tolled Wefcme*^ ^oeo, 5TACTtBSTOp CeomiffSCiA-* /i pLVy/^>0D s«rriT .-(^owr i/tAJ-Ti . •* W Eu.ur V^IC.-'^T . ’ '•■ ^ (o E:xpo;iED 5MCCT4 up. ^iDtN)<3» zxe fLLx.iSi l(p'oi,.[n I > ^lyCofoKAA. jKi5L. -^ P- ly j/i"Ct>»JC F’Loofs.-v ^■ , , ^jH n )5u L>^TE KifA^tiT — Sill 5c.ale(5- U^''n'aC r/D-CoLirs-ts//. /• , CAL- e>LoCi^ ^ev^w C»<KLe. z- «?ciKiro<ceMKr>f KoOS i - ff I ' //-rvptctsV w^\A. stcTiON) 'k = \-Q AbOl"fjC>NJ FO(^: DtAiStU »CAI.«: ^s f'ioTfcD A^^i»OV&0 sv.OMAMM Wf o.Tt if/f<)/qo ■CVittCO i t *.v !■ i: j i-:l aI I U 0 0. Im! h ^ V ■' •<* CO » ^2^f I Ui! OJa U ! \\^ \w \ \ \ iU Oi I ' I I Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson • • ^ u |7 From: Date: Subject: rf',- t O ,- Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Aditfihrstrator August 3, 1990 ' f' #1564 JoAnn Grimes/James Hoffman, 4720-4730 Worth Arm Dr W - Metes and Bounds Subdivision (Lot Line Rearrangement) - Resolution Zoning District - RR-IB, Single family rural-residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for lot line rearrangement to accommoda*-e alternate drainfield site while retaining existing wooded area. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Survey Exhibit C - Planning Commission Action Notice 7/20/90 Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 7/7/90 Discussion - Please review the memo of July 7, 1990. Briefly, applicants are proposing to rearrange the lot line to allow for construction of a new septic system for the Grimes property. The intent of the lot line rearrangement is to avoid destruction of a major portion of the dense woods on the property. Planning Commission recommended approval of this lot line rearrangement on a vote of 5-0 at their J. y 16th meeting, subject to vacation of the drainage and utility easement along the old lot line and dedication of a new easemv. alon-^ the new lot line. Applicants have submitted the proper v Yent acation request, which will be reviewed by the Planning vommis^ion on August 20th and brought back for Counc:.l approval on August 27th. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement per the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR JOANN GRIMES AND JAMES HOFFMAN AT 4720-4730 NORTH ARM DRIVE WEST FILE NO. 1564 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision by JoAnn Grimes and James Hoffman (hereinafter "the subdividers") of properties legally described as follows; Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, McHanney Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for a metes and bounds subdivision for division and combination purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the metes and bounds division of a lot line rearrangement for JoAnn Grimes and James Hoffman as shown on the Certificate of Survey by Mark S. Gronberg dated June 21, 1990, revised August 2, 1990 and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, subject to the following cc“ iitions: 1. Upon approval of this subdivision by the City Council of the City of Orono, the owner of Parcel A as described in the Certificate of Survey referenced above must apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel D as described in that same survey. Likewise, the owner of Parcel C must apply to the City for the legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel B as described in that survey. Page 1 of 2 2. The aforesaid division as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office on or before February 13, 1991 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution, 0 The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 13th day of August, 1990. ATTEST; Dorothy A, Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of August, J 990, 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 Page 2 of 2 ZONING PILE NO. 1564 CITY OP ORONO NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice; 7/20/90 TO. Joanne Grimes COPIES TO: James Hoffmann 4429 Cedar Lake Road 4730 North Arm Dr W Minneapolis, MN 55416 Mound, MN 53564 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision - Lot Line Rearrangement DATE OP MEETING: 7/16/90 VOTE: £"For /^Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Subject to concurrent vacation and re-granting of drainage and utility easements along lot lines. (Vacdticn application will be scheduled for a public hearing in August.) Your subdivision of a lot line rearrangement will be presented for final approval by City Council upon receipt of the following: 1. Provide 3 copies of a Certificate of Survey per the survey dated June 24, 1990 by Mark S. Gronberg. Each of the 4 parcels of property must be labeled as separate tracts, and in addition to the existing and proposed legal descriptions, descriptions for each of those 4 parcels should also appear on the survey (see attached sketch). 2. The drawing must also include signature lines for all property owners with an interest in the subject properties (spouses, etc. signature lines must be signed by all owners), the Mayor, City Clerk and date of final approval. 3. Provide 1 copy of survey at a scale of 1"*200' for City records. 4. All benefitting property owners must complete combination forms at the City offices upon final approval of the subdivision: A) Owner of Parcel A must combine with Parce’’ B) Owner of Parcel C must combine with Parce d. All final submittals mast be submitted to this office 10 days before the meeting at which Co^'ucil will gr- -t final subdivision approval. The Council meets on the second and f< h Mondays of the month. If you desire certified copies o le official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commisslou. If you have any quest. please contact Mike Gaffron at 473-735/. / U^JOl^ 'i 2 M O W O I fv' o e r % ^ 1^ £ ^ «f•» y O V Z ^ 5 7» « - •> O— O O «“ 0 Otf £ :5i U k 2 ^ d :/ 5 w e - 9«# 1 e — ^ 4# 3 « 4f :!." 5 •' - t, «. r ::.US 5.:;| o ^ - 5 ^ 2 -5 ^./» O O -c< a e& «5 t£^ < U. = O ** •- w ^ o w w — £«•*«»•• 9 . *. M ^— J; ^ 3 c — O ~ t/l ••» a V 9 e fSi w o«> c « ^ - ^ o»S o - c # * - ^ c » •» C £ • O ^ «« ^ 9 tf • O O w a w o • #1 •««# • W C 9 M#« oa - ^«» c 9 a • o c c 45 ■ - - ^ ^ 4» • A - Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson cA- Prom: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator July 1, 1990 #1564 JoAnn Grimes/Jim Hoffman, 4720-4730 North Arm Dr W - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IB, Single family rural resident!^ 1, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for lot line rearrangement to accommodate alternate drainfield site while retaining existing wooded area. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Site Plan with Septic System Site Information Pertinent Pacts - 1.This proposal results in trading equal areas of property. Each property will maintain in excess of the 2 acre minimum lot area requirement. 2.The proposed dividin*^ line actually results in a more uniform and usable situation fo^ both lots. "The subdivision that created these two lots vras approved in 1983 and left a jogged lot line to accommodate the septic system fcr the easterly p.^rcel. That septic system has since faile'"* ^nd is intended to be abandoned. The new line* opens up adv?- tional area to the north for replacement of that systeir, whil'' giving the westerly lot a more rectangular parcel. 3. 4. Required side setbacks to existing houses will be maintained with the pioposed line. It became apparent during this reviev; that vacation of the existing drainage easements and rededication of new easements along the new lot line would be appropriate, since the proposed drainfield will straddle the existing line. Such a vacation was not requested. Staff would recommend that application for such vacation be submit^-. by the 'pplicants. This could c. andled concurrently at the nominal $50.00 fee, but require publication and a separate public '.earing. A 3. Applicant is advised that any regrading of the driveway area within the County right-of-way, requires Hennepin County Highway Department approval. 4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 13, 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. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of August, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Giabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for s.aid county, personally appeared_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _known to me to be the person(s) described in and who ex6»cuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 !( From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator , , , ,aon '" it'li.'riliAugust 7, 1990 r.l'O 13 ■ :T7 #1551 Robert Waade, 998 Wildhurst Trail - Preliminary Subdivision Class III - Resolution '^«?:tinent Ordinance - ... Chapter 11 - Class III Subdivision Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A)2 - Minimum lot area may be divided by flood fringed land, provided at least *5 acre of dry land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and iegai is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. Review Exhibit N, all lots satisfy dry contiguous land requirement: Dry Buildable Lot Area; Required * .5 acres dry contiguous Lot 1 = 1.45 acres Lot 2 * 1.04 acres Lot 3 = .96 acres Lot 4 * .95 acres Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) - Lot width variance required. Lot 1: , 1 j \Required * 140' (rear of front street setback line) Proposed * 70' Variance * 70' or 50% Lot 2; Proposed * 121' Variance * 19' or 13% List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit F • G • H • I • J ■ K • LI- Exhibit M Exhibit 0 Application Property Owners List Plat Map ^Map of Proposed Road Improvement & Location of Affected Property Owners Map of Existing Right-of-way (Highview Lane/ Wildhurst Trail) Flood Plain Elevation - Designation on Plat Park Dedication Fee Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes 7/16/90 Cook's Report Cook's Sketch Planning Commission Action Notice 3 - Agreements to Dedicate Right-of-way Property Owners to North Applicant's Engineer's Addendum Preliminary Plan - 4 Lot Plat (VI Zoning File #1551 August It 1990 Page 2 of 3 Brief Review of Subdivision - (for more detail, review enclosed staff memos dated June 13, 1990 and July 10, 1990) All lots satisfy the *5 acre dry contiguous standard excluding the areas within the wetland defined at the 930' elevation, and above the 929.4' ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka. All proposed house sites are located behind the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed building pads for Lots 3 and 4 meet the required 26' setback from the wetlands. Lot 3, the most restricted envelope due to the encroachment of the flood plain elevation of 931.5', will require filling and the installation of retaining walls all located out of the flood plain area and well beyond the 26' setback from the wetland area. Lots 1 through 3 will be served by the extension of Wildhurst Trail. Note Highview Lane will be redesignated to Wildhurst Trail. Owners of 995, 997 an 999 Wildhurst Trail have agreed to dedicate portions of their property up to the northern edge of the existing road (review Exhibit N). The City will ask for an additional easement for snow maintenance purposes and to provide access to the sewer lines that exist within the boundaries of the above referenced private properties. Please note the improved roadway will continue to serve the two homes to the east (975 and 993 Wildhurst Trail - see Exhibit D). The proposed extension of Wildhurst Trail will be an urban section at a 28' finished paved width with curbs. Applicant proposes taking drainage collecting at the southwest edge of property via a new storm sewer to an existing drainageway that drains to the wetlands within Lot 4. Drainage will no longer fan out along *-he shared lot lines between Lot 4 and the property at the southern boundary nor impact lift station with overflow drainage. Surface runoff will now be conveyed via the storm sewer to the wetland just to the north of the building envelope of Lot 4. A baffle wier is to be installed at the inlet to the lake within Lot 4 for the purpose of skimming floatable material and preventing it from entering into the main lake. The catch basin (CB2) at the northwest corner of the property shall be provided with a sump in order to removal large, granular/sediment from surface run-off from the roadway before entering wetland. 4 Zoning File #1551 August 7, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Applicant will be filling minor portions of the flood plain as a result of the upgrading of the road. The watershed district may ask for an additional excavation to match fill placement within the flood plain. There is adequate area within Lots 3 and 4 to meet this requirement if the watershed makes this a condition of approval of the plat. If this is the case, applicant must show this compensatory excavation on the final grading plans of the subdivision. Please note the applicant has provided erosion control where ever land alterations are proposed for either residential or road construction. The Planning Commission adopted the findings and conditions of approval as set forth in the staff memo of July 10, 1990 on Page 3. The enclosed resolution has been drafted for Council's review and action. . w-1 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OP WILDHURST ESTATES APPLICATION NO. 1551 WHEREAS, Robert L. Waade on May 25, 1990 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a 4 lot residential plat of property legally described as follows; Lot 1, Tonkaview Gardens, Lots 1 through 9 inclusive now vacated also includes adjacent vacated street and alleys. Block 4, Forest Lake Park; Lots 2, 3 and 4, Tonkaview Gardens; Lots 2 through 10 inclusive now vacated also including adjacent vacated streets and alleys. Block 3, Forest Lake Park; Lots 1, 2 and 6 through 12 inclusive now vacated also including adjacent streets and alleys. Block 5, Forest Lake Park; Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property") and; WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on June 18, 1990 and July 16, 1990 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on August 13, 1990 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Robert L. Waade, noting the following findings of fact; 1. The property is located within the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 1 acre of land within each newly created lot. 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A)2 will allow credit of lands within protected areas if both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that site and as long as there is h acre of dry contiguous land provided. The four lots consist of the following dry contiguous lot areas: Lot 1 = 1.45 acres Lot 2 * 1.04 acres Lot 3 = .96 acres Lot 4 = .95 acres Page 1 of 5 3. The property contains a total of approximately 5+ acres in area. 4. Each lot shall be served by municipal sewer. There is adequate area within the existing municipal lines to support three additional units. 5. The existing structure on Lot 1 meets all required setbacks of the LR-IB zoning district. 6. Lots 1 and 2 do not meet the required lot width to the rear of the front yard setback line per Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B). At the Planning Commission of July 16, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot width variances based on the following findings; A) The two lots are located on a cul-de-sac. B) To move the cul-de-sac further east would require the removal of two sets of mature pine trees and create a major impact closer to the lakeshore based on severe sloping topography. C) Granting a lot width variance for lots on cul-de- sacs is consistent with previous City action. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat of Wildhurst Estates per the survey dated April 26, 1990, revised July 5, 1990 by William R. Englehart, a licensed surveyor, and a lot width variance for Lots 1 and 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Final grading plans must specify the following information: A) Allowed hardcover within 75-250' and 250-500' setback areas based on lot line configurations approved by Council. B) Based on Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's final directives, final grading plan to show excavation to replace areas within flood plain filled by road construction. Page 2 of 5 m 2. Final plans to specify the following: A) Designation and dedication of Drainage and Utility Easements on plat of property owners located at 995, 997 and 999 Wildhurst Trail, or execution of Drainage and Utility Easements by three property owners for access to sewer and snow storage. B) Designate 15' Drainage Easement from 930' elevation leading to lake at invert to wetlands. C) Prior to the issuance of building permits for new construction, the road base, all sto r m sewer construction and other required land alterations must be installed and approved by the City. It should be noted prior to any land alteration, that all erosion control as shown on the approved grading plan must be installed. Please note the City Engineer must approve all road plans, storm sewer plans, and lot grading plans prior to any land alteration. Applicant to provide engineering plans for an urban road section (28' paved width with curbs), road profile sections, etc. D) The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District must grant the necessary permits before the any of the above referenced improvements can commence. 4. Applicant is placed on notice that all entrance monuments in excess of 3h* shall require variances. In addition, any filling to be done on sites that are not connected to the protection of the residence foundation or to provide positive drainage from residential structures will require conditional use permits if that fill is in excess of 100 cubic yards. If fill is under 100 cubic yards, a separate land alteration permit may be issued by the City. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTALS The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month; A. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200'. Drawing to include; Page 3 of 5 a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by William R. Englehart dated April 26, 1990, revised July 5, 1990. b) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines - please omit adjacent to lakeshore and wetlands. c) Designation and dedication of Drainage Easements over the wetlands defined at the 930* elevation, define all drainageways at a minimum 15' width, include the one referenced above that leads to the lake from the wetlands. Please assure that all drainage/structure improvements are located within the public easement areas. d) Define lakeshore at the 929.4' elevation. e) Dedicate Wildhurst Trail as a public road, entitled "Wildhurst Trail" not as an outlot. B. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required: a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b) The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c) Signed and executed Flowage & Conservation Easement over the wetlands defined as drainage easements within the plat (sample enclosed). d) A sample of a Drainage and Utility Easement has been enclosed for the use of the three property owners to the north to be used only if the designation and dedication cannot be completed on the final plat. This easement should be no less than 5' and no greater than 10'. The width of easement must include sewer line. Page 4 of 5 C. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $300.00 a) Final plat fee * $150.00 b) Legal review and filing fees of $150.00 c) The City Assessor shall determine the fair market value of the property. Applicant shall be asked to pay a Park Dedication Fee at the rate of 8% of the fair market value of the undeveloped lands. The City Assessor has advised that he will make the final determination prior to the meeting. The Park Fee must be paid upon the filing of the final plat application. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 13th day of August, 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of August, 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 Page 5 of 5 Prom: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator July 10, 1990 Subject: #1551 Robert Waade, 998 Wildhurst Trail ' ^ . Preliminary Subdivision (Class 3) - Continuation of Public Hearing Additional Exhibits Exhibit I - Cook Report Exhibit J - Cook Sketch Exhibit K - Planning Commission Action Notice Exhibit L 1-3 - Agreements to Dedicate Right-of-Way Owners to North Exhibit M - Engineer's Addendum Exhibit N - Revised Preliminary Plan - Property Review of Current Application - Preliminary subdivision application was tabled pending receipt of additional information and amended preliminary plan. Please note with revised plan applicant still seeks lot width variances for Lots 1 and 2 as follows: Lot 1 - Required Proposed Variance Lot 2 - Proposed Variance 140' (rear front street setback line) 70' (original plan 68') 70' or 50% 121' (original 121.4*) 19' or 13% Applicant has noted (Review Exhibit M) that to move cul-;de- sac area further east would allow all lots to meet the require lot width but would have a major impact on the steep slopes and plantings within area. Lot width variances at cul-de-sac areas have been granted for subdivisions in the past, the mcst recent the Fullerton application where a lot width variance w^3 gran to open up a building and septic envelope. It should be noted the lot was not located on a cul-de-sac. Lot Configuration In addition to the comments set forth in the staff memo of June 13th per Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A) 2, all lots continue to have a 1/2 acre plus dry contiguous lands above the ' i^levation. The house to the immediate south on Lot 4 nas Zoning File #1551 July 10, 1990 Page 2 been designated. The proposed house location for Lot 4 has been placed behind the average setback line determined at proposed house on Lot 3 and the existing house to the south. (Review Exhibit H.) Note the proposed house has been moved away from the southern lot line providing a greater buffer to existing development along the south. Note Lot 4's building envelope has been defined 26' from the 930 elevation of wetland. Access/Road Improvement Applicant has relocated road within existing dedicated right-of-way, applicant's property and southern portions of these properties to immediate north (review Exhibit L). Owners of 995,997 and 998 Wildhurst Drive have agreed to dedicate portions of their property up to northern edge of existing drive. Review Exhibit N. Applicant shows Wildhurst Trail extension as an urban section with a 28' finished paved width with curbs. In reviewing the most recent revised plan, the City Engineer has recommended that applicant approach the 3 property owners to the north as road will be placed at edge of newly defined southern boundary of northern lots and to request the granting of easements over existing sewer lines and for area for snow maintenance. Property owners should be advised that the area of the easements is not excluded from the buildable envelope areas. Upon Council approval of the preliminary plat, staff will ask for engineering plans for the urban section of road. Such plan shall locate each access drive to be served by proposed road. This will also include shared drive that serves the two h-.mes east of cul-de-sac. Note applicant had proposed the road to the northern edges of the existing roadway along the portions of the property where there is a dedicated 60' right-of-way providing minimal impact upon the properties to the west. DrainageA^etlands/Grading Plan The wetland is now defined at the 930 elevation. Applicant has taken drainage collecting at the southwest edge of property via a storm sever to the existing drainageway that drains to the wetlands. Drainage will no longer fan out along the shared lot line between Lot 4 and the most southern property. Surface run off will now be conveyed via the storm sewer to the wetlands just to the north of the building envelope of Lot 4. As requested, the applicant's revised plan shows drainage easements at a 15' minimum width. At the inlet to the lake, a baffle wier is to be installed for the purpose of skimming floatable material and preventing it from entering into the main lake. In addition, a catch basin (CB 2) at the northwest corner I Zoning File #1551 July 10, 1990 Page 3 of the property shall be provided with a sump in order to remove large granular particles/sediment from surface run-off from roadway. ^Applicant will be filling portions of the flood plain as a resu.' t of the road construction. Subdivider may be asked to provide additional excavation to match fill placement within the flood plain within the road area. The excavation must be made below the 931.5 elevation. There is adequate area to meet this requirement if the Watershed District makes this a condition of approval of the plat. Applicant must provide an amendment to the grading plan if the Watershed District requires a matching excavation for fill placed within flood plain final grading plans). Applicant has provided erosion control wherever land alterations are proposed as a rt lult of residential construction or road construction. Options of Action Denial - If members seek to deny the proposed 4 lot plat, please refer to Section 11.02, Subdivision 10 for the necessary findings . Approval - Finding the subdivision has met all pertinent standards of the zoning and subdivision regulations of the City and grants a lot width variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) based on the following hardship and finding: 1. Lots are located on a cul-de-sac. 2. To move cul-de-sac further east would remove 2 sets of mature pine trees and create a major impact closer to the lakeshore based on severe sloping topography. 3. Granting of lot width variance for lots on cul-de-sacs is consistent with previous City action. Approval of the subdivision is based on the following conditions ; 1. Final grading plans must specify the following information: a) Allowed hardcover within 75-250' and 250-500' setback areas based on lot line configurations approved by Council. b) Based on MCWD's final directives, final grading plan to show excavation to replace areas filled by road construction . Zoning File #1551 July 10, 1990 Page 4 Final plat to specify following: a) Easement area to be obtained from neighboring property owners to the north for utility and snow storage/maintenance purposes (5-10*). b) Provide 15' easement from 930 elevation leading to lake at invert to wetlands. 2. City Engineer to review storm sewer plan for drainageway at southwest corner to determine if 24" CMP is adequate for watershed, etc. Applicant to provide engineering plans for road (urban section 28' paved width with curbs). 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits for new construction, the road base, all storm sewer construction and other required land alterations must be installed and approved by the City. It should be noted prior to any land alteration that all erosion control as shown on the approved grading plan must be installed. 4. The City Assessor shall be asked to determine the fair market value of the property. Applicant shall be asked to pay a park dedication fee at the rate of 8% of the fair market value of the property. The City Assessor shall be in contact with the developer prior to making final determination of the fair market value. All such park dedication fees shall be paid upon the filing of the final plat application. 5. Applicant to designate wetlands as drainage easements on the final plat and to grant flowage and conservation easement over the designated wetland area. 6. The property owners at 995, 997 and 999 Wildhurst Trail to be asked to grant utility and snow maintenance easements not to exceed 5-10' for areas adjacent to proposed road along north side. 7. Applicant is placed on notice that all entrance monuments in excess of 3 1/2 feet shall require variances. In addition, any filling to be done on sites that are not connected to the protection of the foundation or to provide positive drainage from residental structure will require conditional use permits if that fill is in excess of 100 cubic yards. If fill is under 100 cubic yards, a separate land alteration permit may be issued by the City. From: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 13, 1990 A Subject: #1551 Robert: Waade, 998 Wildhurst Trail Preliminary Subdivision (Class 3) - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Total Area = 6.54 Acres Wetlands =* 1.304 Acres Dry = 5.23 Acres Pertinent Ordinance Chapter 11, Class 3 Subdivisions, Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A) 2 - Minimum lot area may be divided by flood fringed lands provided at least 1/2 acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. Please note - dry buildable lot area calculations on preliminary plan have been listed incorrectly and should be reversed in order. Lot 1 consists of 1.19 acres above the 931.5. Lot 2-1 acre. Lot 3 - .51 acres and Lot 4 - .61 acres. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) - Lot width variance required. Lot 1 - Required = 140' to rear of front street setback line Proposed = 68' Variance =72' or 51.4% Lot 2 - Proposed = 121.4' Variance =18' 6" or 13% List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Map of Proposed Road Improvement and Location of Affected Property Owners Exhibit E - Map of Existing Right-of-Way (Highview Lane/Wildhurst Trail) Exhibit F - Flood Plain Elevation Designation on Plan Zoning File #1551 June 13, 1990 Page 2 Exhibit G - Park Dedication Fee Ordinance Exhibit fi-----Pj?eaJjniinary-P4€Hb 5^^ <V Review of Current Application - Lot Configuration Each of the lots meets the required area standard as required per Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A) 2. The property is involved with flood plain and wetland areas; each building envelope has 1/2 acre of dry contiguous lands above the 931.5'. The proposed new house location for the remaining 3 lots would appear to satisfy an average lakeshore setback. In order to confirm the setback for Lot 4, the house to the immediate south must be shown (only the closest projections of house to the 929.4' elevation). In calculating hardcover for the lots, the areas of the wetlands and flood plain located out of the lakeshore protected area (0-75') may be credited. The structure to remain on Lot 1 meets the required 10' side setback from the p. posed division line. It should also be noted that the prinicipal structure is 75+' from the 929.4' elevation. All other structures on the property are scheduled for removal. Review Exhibit F. All houses have been proposed above the 931.5' elevation. Pending final resolve of the exact elevation of the wetlands, staff would recommend that the proposed house on Lot 4 be shifted further north and the drainageway that runs along the southern lot line of the property be realigned at street and an underground drainage tile installed to the wetlands. Access/Road Improvements Applicant will be responsible for constructing portion of road shown as Highview Lane on preliminary plat to City standards. The road will be a municipal road and maintained by the City. The City currently maintains up to the intersection of Wildhurst Trail and Highview Lane. The current road improvement shows the encroachment of properties to the north side. Please review Exhibits D and E. Western portions of Highview Lane remain at the 60' total dedicated width but the eastern portions beginning at uhe east lot line of the property addressed 1001 has been vacated to a 30' width. The revised plan must relocate the cul-de-sac and improved road within portions of dedicated right- of-way and within subject property. No encroachment will be allowed into the private properties to the north. The revised plan should also locate improvements immediately adjacent to improved road on the north side so that property owners can relate to the impact of the proposed road improvement. Access to Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall be via the new road extension along the Zoning File #1551 June 13, 1990 Page 3 north. Lot 4 shall achieve access at the southeast corner along Wildhurst Trail. Review Exhibit D. Certain neighbors along the north side of Highview Lane have asked that the new road section be named Wildhurst Trail. City staff sees no problem with that, in fact the addresses have been assigned based on the grid system for Wildhurst Trail. In earlier meetings the applicant has discussed a desire to install monuments at the entrance of each driveway. If those monuments exceed 3 1/2' in height, they will require separate variance approvals. Drainage/Hetlands At the time of the sketch plan review j.t was thought that the wetland would be designated at the flood plain elevation of 931.5. In review of Exhibit F, a wetland at the 931.5' elevation would not be feasible or realistic for the property. If you have the opportunity to get out to the property, review the section of Lot 3 under the 931.5' and you will find established grass lawn areas. Staff has had further discussion with the applicant's engineer on the issue of the wetland elevation. We have asked for the elevation of the culvert that runs under the gravel driveway through Lots 3 and 4. In addition we have asked to shoot the elevations of the driveway sections between the wetland and the 929.4' elevation. Until the elevations of the culvert and gravel drive are designated, staff cannot determine the impact of the lake elevations on the wetlands. Staff Recommendations Staff must recommend the tabling of the application until resolve of the following issues; 1. Final determination regarding elevation of wetlands. Applicant to provide additional topographic information. 2. Preliminary plan to be amended noting the following: a. House to south of Lot 4 to determine average lakeshore setback and correct placement for house on Lot 4. b. Relocated portion of Wildhurst Trail (formerly Highview Lane) no encroachment of private properties to north allowed. Roadway can only be placed within 60' right-of-way dedication along west side and within 30' dedicated right-of-way and within subject property. c. Areas of lots to be determined exclusive of road area, areas below the 929.4 elevation and the wetland within Lots 3 and 4 (areas below the final determined wetland elevation). Zoning File #1551 June 13, 1990 Page 4 It should be noted for the applicant that as the subdivision was filed after the May 1, 1990 effective deadline for the new park dedication fees, the developer shall pay 8% of the fair market value of the property at the time of the preliminary subdivision application. Staff has enclosed a copy of that ordinance for the Planning Commission's review and for the developers information. #4-5-CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. PROPERTY LOCATION " ' Site Address y' Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) _ _ _ Please check one - Property abstract or Attach legal description to application. torrens? Ul 900.00 13^200000 if 01 OEH 250.00 13H0200000 a 01 (Li 360.00 CHtCK ii 1510.10 l<EaiPr-!HJfSK YOU 4179730 cool HOI 712:02 05/25/9C APPLICANT Phone (home) Name Phone (work)^ "y'~> Address: /r''-city:Zio: OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax jrarceli- Develooment Size 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 Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites; Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use; (check) /Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per _ _ Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable* Residential Other (specify)_ ?4I!IIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONCompleted Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). ^ ^ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - Date- - - - - - - - - -- 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date__- - - - - - - - FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 250.00 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. DateApplicant's Signatur Owner's Signature -*plicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the ■«ning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the . Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is 11 ' -o attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an ’ 1 agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning 'his change prior to the meeting. I Date X" \rr^ os M K Mh o. M ae o ►- ►- tf) CM ae M X CMog KM^uiX ^ X X CO a r/i (/) in oc in I Ul UJ M X “ISIsi CO M M M O Q m o o a ^ X fH 4^ Z S^xr3 a-‘->->s3 h> M •• 9 m MO -J in N uj > > in IXlUtUf- h. o _j _J o 5‘"gbSz I M M O X K X U. MX -i OH > M O > Ui < aSI*'% «xS “i;a •/SiiiiS” H M X H X > > O ^ H -i 2I -I -I M X H UJ UJ X o in < < o >t X X in 2 o u u >r ,1 10 H M M o g M o r X H £ 4 o H a _ o _J ff> M M O lU O ^ ^ O O H IH o H -»■ CM X -J -J 'O □ -J _l H M M X UJ UJ o in CM o X X X in I _J X X 3 N- M UJ UJ X rC X U. U. O _ F-f HZ rl O H > >- O o u g 2 oSl|S§ M O Z Z •-< £ sa ^ X <«' CM O I- M>O Ui lU M M UJ o o H in CM X 4 4 O in ji.g5S| H ** H -I a 2 rl = o CO X X X g K» UJ UJ 2 O A A €0 S flO O O O Cl K> o a a: ^ £ IO UJ 4 O ^ H _J H lU <«' CM 4 -O H H 4 ro M O UJ H in CM UJ O I X UJ H K O O Or4 u. CO UJ U> i-l X O X 2I UJ CD O X H > X U. “S^SIoi UJ o in a'o o g CO CO O O O H M M o n X M» X »> 4 CM X X o'” *” <9- O -I N o CM X 4 H X >0 CM a X a in I -J N u -JH M H O M d ^H 3 4 2I X CM X r» u > COo in o UJ CM g o 4 X X CO H 4 0 M o X X 2 M O 4 O Z H X jH 3 UI O ff' N o z S z in ^122:^3 “’ CM X X u a O 4 H4 rv o X o O 2H 4 U „ O Z Z U H ®S5S:oS O > UJ o > CO O _J H O' 4 M O 4 O CM X O' X m o> O O O O' m o X X O' UI X SixS X 4 UJ Ssxi X X 4 Z a o H o X H 3 I X_ UI UI M M X o o H in CM O 4 4 O in rLriSSiK M ^ Z -^35 CO M H H M I sO X X zO' UI UI SSSgO X X O' UJ XX r o 0 4X0 O Z UJ 4 4 > N X 4 UJ a UI a X a o H *^3 §UI vT UJ X 'O > 4 M o -J in CM UI O O I X H o t-l u. 0) Z H X UI o •H CU UI -J UI 7 °5*-oi 4 UJ in 3 M O o o ^ z X 4 UJ lili X O l- O -J O UI°S^ fe- a-'Sx-s «R"5SaCM lU Z O X I X g 4 H u. 2 CO ^ 2 ■1 < _ “ I X z o H 4 4 o in z X UJ z F-( UI g <o- g g (0 2 CO O' O O '' M M o 3 X « z UJ X sixS OZ^4 X 4 UJ a UI a z §155 a o H M O jgS 4 M _j in CM UI > > I X UI UI H H O -I _J O i-i u. X X UI _ 7 ii§5 UJ X X Z a 0 4X0 4 ^ > S X 4 MX UI X Zim kI t t aSo p « M X 4 O CM O MI -I O UI X _Ssiasg* fl. 0x5^3 o eo -J O' M ® _ 'O 3 H X X o UI 4 > N X UJ X O Z X I J O'^OINANCS No. 82. SECOND SERIES AN ordinance amending SECTION 11 82 ■ OF THE ORONO OTY CODE HEUTING TO PARK DEDICATION AND CASH FOR DE VELOPMENT OF LAND. Tho Cty Cotrxal of Cty of Orono onSam as follows; Ssction 1. Ssction 11.82 of m# Orono Cty Cods is hsrsoy «nsrdtd and ins currsnt let scnsdult lor oarh dsd.eanon lees is fiersOy reoeaisd^ Section 2. Section 11.62. Parks. Playgrounds and Open Space. A. Lands lor Public Use. Pursuant to Min> nesota Statutes. (1969). SEdion 462.3S8. suod. 2b. tne City reouires ar oersons. cotjo - rations or otner legal entities tnat suOdiviOe land with the Cty of Orono as a prercawsite to approval of a lot division, final put. or de- vetopment of any land previously oividtd by plat, metes and bounds, or any otner means, must convey to tfie Cty or oedicate to tne pub lic. for use as parks, playgrounds, trails, or ooen soaee. a given percentage of tne land be ing platted or oevsiooed as neremafter speci fied. said portic.-.s to oe approved by tne Cty. In lieu tnereof. tne suodivioer s-nan. at tne op tion of me Cty cay to tne Cty. for use m tne accuisition. development or maintenance of puoiic parks, piaygrooncs. trails, wetiancs or open spaces and oeot retirement « connec tion witn tne lanc previously acomreo lor suen puolic purposes, an eouivaient amount m casn based upon tne fair market vaiue of tne land to oe developed. The form of contneunon (cas.-j or land, or any comomation tnereoll snail be oecided by me City Council basco coon tne need and coniormance witn tne Comcrenen- sive Plan. 8 Dedicated Land Reouiremants. Any land to be dedicated as a recuirement of tnis section snail be reasonaoiy aoaoiaoie lor me aoove puoiic purposes. Factors used m evalu ating tne aoeduacy of proposed oeoicaied areas snail mciuoe siae. snaoe. topograony. oramager. geoiogy. tree cover, access and lo cation. C. Land Dedication Minimum Ares. SuO- divtoers snail be recuired to oeoicate ic me Cty lor parks, ptaygrcuncs. trails, eoe.'i spaces ano otner public purposes as a minimum mat percentage of gross land area, or otner suen amount as may be determined by the Cly Council, as set form beiow: (1) Residentiai/Agncuiturai/Multipie PesiCen- • tial Zoned Land Dedication recutremom of 8 percent C tne land being piatted. subdivided or existing lot of record. (2) Commercial/lndustnal Zoned Land. Dedicated reouirement oi 8 percent of me land being platted subdivided or existing lot of record. D. Caah Contribution in Lieu of Lends. In mose instances wnere a casn contnbuiion is to be made by the subdivider. ei teu of a con veyance or dedication of land, me casn eon- tnbutton to be eonlnbutad snail bo eounralcnl to me lair market value of in# equivalent, un- developed land inaf would omerwoe fiave been conveyed or dadicaiedr The Oty snal ac count for suen funds m a soedai fund named Park Dedication Funds. E. Fair Markot Valuo or Lenda. "fm Mar- ket Value" for purposes oi mis Code snail be me lend pra-daveiopment value to be defer- nuned by me Oty Council as of tne ivne pi prekmmwy pUt epplicatioi. <n accordance wim me following: (1) TtM Oty Assessor anaU recommend to tne Oty Counot as to ttia far markoi value ol the land after eonsuitalion wkn the suDOivider. (2) If agreement is not reached between the Cty Assessor and suodnnaer. then me ter mar ket value sned be diiirmmtd in accordance wiin the foflowmg: (a) Fair market value as datermined by the Cty Council based uoon a currant appraisal submitted to the Cly by ttia eubdMdar. at hia expanse. The appraisal snail ba made by ap praisers who ara approved members of SREA or MAI. or oqwvaiant rsal tstaia aociallos. (bl It tn# Oty (Ssoutaa such appraiaal amounts. It may obtain an appraisal of ths property by a Qualified real estais appraiser wnicn mo Oty Council selects and wmen ap praisal may be accepted by the City as bemg an accurate appramal at lav market vama. The cost of the appraisal snaU be paid by ms sub- dcvidtr. (cl The subdivider may appeal any fin^ da- termination o' fav markai value as providad by Minnesota Statute Section 462.381. (3) The deltrmmlion of fair markai value of the undsvsiopad land by me Oty Assessor. Oty Couned. or oesignsta appraieara. snail ba - Oeiarminad as of tna tima ot prthminary sub division approval is granted as long as tnera is final plat approval wiinm the time umits as sat forth m this chaoier. The ftm# of prefimmary piat approval is utiUxed because the nature of me suooivtsion. its prooaote pooutation. lot sut and value, and other relevant factors ara known. If an extension ot me time limits m tnis chaoter is approved by me Cty Council, ma lair markat vaiua sned be oetarminad as of the time of me aoorovaf of that extaruion. In de termining the fav market vaiue as of time of prtiiminary piat aooucation. or me extension thereof, the factors to La mciuoed in me anal ysts snail inctuoa any and ail factors which are generally accepted and used by approved memoers of SRE4 or MAI or eeuivaient real es tate appraisal societies. (4) Natwimsianamg me aoove. in no event snail me casn conmoution cer lot De less man S500.C0 per lot or S300.C0 per dweUing unit. F. Development of Und Previously Piet- ted. If me land has already been previously suodivided and a lee had not baen previously paid, me reouiremencs of this orvision s<iaU ap ply at tna time of the issuance of a ouUdmg per mit tor tne primary sinieture. G. Future Subdivieion. Any land which is funner suooivideo. oivioeo or rapiaMed or ap plied for such suoseouent lo May 1. 1990. snail be subiecf to me reouiremer is of me or- oinance men in effect concerning i.'edicalion ol land lor pubbe purposes, and credit snail be gr.en for any charges orevious/y imposed uoon mat land if mt suodivioar can prove mat fees wore previously paid. In no event snail me Cty Se liapie for any payment wnicn may be oue because of a suoseouent •eduction m me ao- pucation perctntage of land or eqinvaleni mar- - kal value in casn to be deoicaied. . H. Administrative Preesdurse. The Cty Counol snail estaoiisn suen acmmistralive procedures as they may deem necessary or ao- proonata to implemenl me provisions of mis section of tna code. t # . . Section 3, ■ ITUS’ordinance snsd have lull force and ef fect uoon Its passage and publication. Passed by the Council ol the Oty of Orono. Hannecm County. Minnesota, (tvs 9tn day of April 1890. ■ . -. • . • J«nes R. G/abek. Mayor • ** ■..• . - ' Alteat: ' " ‘ - . . •••••• • Oorotny M. Haffln. Oty Oeik * „ . * .1 J -•»"• - •. - • (Published in The Lakar and PSoneef Apol 30. 6’. 1990) V I I • r HORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 18, 1990 ZONING FILE 11536-GARDINER CONTINUED preferred to have the Planning Commission's recommendation prior to incurring the expense for septic testing. Mr. Gardiner indicated that he v/ould be willing to revise his addition plans to make the situation more acceptable. Gaffron stated that it is questionable whether the existing septic system will adequately serve the existing residence for a long period of time. There were no comments from the blic and the Public Hearing was continued. Johnson asked whether it would be Hennepin County's decision as to how the alley property would be divided once the vacation occurs. Gaffron said that he had discussed that with a County Surveyor who indicated that normally they would split the property in half. Gaffron also spoke to the City Attorney who recommended that once the entire alley is vacated, the property owners and Hennepin County should determine how the property will be divided. Kelley suggested that since Mr. Gardiner's garage is located on the alley easement that the vacation be approved with the condition that all of the property be acquired by Mr. Gardiner. Hanson stated that it may be necessary to remove the garage. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Mr. Gardiner should attempt to obtain the petition from the remaining property owners abutting the alley. Mr. Gardiner should also ask the property owners to the west if they would agree to give him their half of the alley. With regard to the expansion of the house, the Planning Commission agreed that the property should either have a septic system meeting the current code, or sewer. Gaffron noted that a letter had been received indicating opposition to the City granting setback variances (see the letter from Julie Harren, 175 Landmark Drive, dated June 18, 1990). It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Moos, to table application #1536. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0. Motion carried. #1551 ROBERT WAADE 998 WILDHURST TRAIL PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 8:15 P.M. TO 8:20 P.M. Ihe Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. - 2 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 18, 1990 ZONING FILE #1551-WAADE CONTINUED Mr. and Mrs. Waade, and Consultant, were present. Bill Rudnicki, applicant's Mabusth referred the Planning Commission to a letter she uad received from Mr. and Mrs. Ole Overboe, 4450 Forest Lake Landing, dated June 18, 1990, expressing concern for the wetland area on the Waade property. Mabusth noted that the wetland will be designated and that building envelopes must meet the standards of City's flood plain-wetlands -regulations. She said that the building envelopes must have a minimum of one-half acre of dry, contiguous land. Mabusth informed the Planning Commission that there were several neighbors present this evening. She introduced B' rbara Kosch, a representative for the neighborhood. Ms. Kosch stated that she is objecting to the road encroaching on her property, causing trees to be removed. She said that she does not object to the road, but would prefer that it be constructed further south. She said that is the general consensus of the neighbors. Kelley advised the IVaades that he consistently recommends denial of variances for new subdivisions. Kelley also stated that he would not approve the encroachment onto neighboring property owners. Ms. Kosch was confident that the issue of the road location would be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. She stated that the residents are concerned about how they will access the cul- de-sac frcm their private driveways. Kelley suggested that no further discussion take place until the issues referenced in staff's memo are addressed (see Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated June 13, 1990). It v/as moved by Kelley, seconded by Hanson, to hold the Public Hearing for application #1551 in abeyance until the issues noted by staff are addressed by the applicant. Motion. Ayes-6, Nays-0. Motion carried. #1465 GERALD MCCOURTNEY 1055 FERNDALE ROAD WEST VARIANCES REFERRAL BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. and Mrs. McCourtney were present, contractor, Mr. Gerry Wenkus, was also present. The McCourtney's Gaffron showed the Planning Commission the areas of hardcover that currently exist and those areas that have been removed. Gaffron explained the McCourtney's revised proposal and noted that a revised survey has been submitted. The survey shows approximately 1% additional lot area and indicates that the house - 3 - || I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & ly I Associates Engineers & Architects Ono G Bcf'MODO PE UOOfiT W PE Jo^epn C »ry3f»ML PE l Styvan PE ftKt'iia E Vrff PE Jjm« C Oiion PE G«nn R Coo*. PE Thofrai E NoyM. ®£ RDOW G Scrurhcm. PE Suun V tbemy CPA pceur A Go«Jon PE Renan w Foatf. PE Oonan C Burgant PE Jtry A Bounon PE Mark A Hartaxi. PE TW K F«n. PE Menaei T Raumarm PE Rocen R P*fPR«f PE Divxi O Loiwxa PE Thoniai W FWenon, PE Menaet C Lyrxn, PE jamn R \4aum. PE kerwiem P AnOenon. PE \iart R Ro*v PE ROOCft C RUMW. A I A Tnomai E Anguv PE H<v/an A Sanft^a pe Daniet j Eogetton, PE Martt A Sen PE pniH) j Casvkefl. PE ianae< Mannez: PE Mark 0 'JbWbl PE Thomai R Anoewt AIA Gary F Ryianoer PE Mae? B Jerweo. PE L pn«p Grave* « PE Rere C PVimaa AiA Agrei M Rng. A iC P Jerry D Permcn PE Ck ‘o Ow pe Cnanej A Enckion LeoM Pawettky Hartao M Oljon June 14. 1990 i - 0 1590 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55232 Attn: Jeanne Mabusth Re: Vildhurst Estates Our File No. 139-1551 Dear Jeanne: We have reviewed the proposed Wildhurst Estates Development. There several issues that need to be addressed relative to the proposed plan. are The cul-de-sac at the end of Highview Lane should be moved 10 feet south of the location shown. We will need topography and contours to the north property line of Highview Lane. The developer should also provide a design profile for the street. Wt will need soil borings where Highview Lane crosses the low area. We would also recommend stabilization fabric in the low area. Storm sewer will be necessary in the future to pick up the drainage from Wildhurst Trail. Storm drainage easements should be provided across Lot 4 as shown. Drainage and utility easements should also be provided along all lot lines. A drainage and conservation easement should be provided over the wetland area. The developer should place a storm sewer culvert from 10 feet south of the lift station to 10 feet north of the proposed driveway on Lot 4. Construction of a drainage ditch to the north of the driveway will be necessary. Please contact this office if you have any q. - stions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:dh Enel. grc/60 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 i '.’’ • ■ * . ! :• \ V •; ♦ . f \ \ ,/ It XM' ■iSi- >S rfi \/ ft aNvni3M '*</yy J ,3U«0D 0 \^ 1 sr . - ^' --7" va\ \ — / \) .. 3NVn '«---------------------------------------------------------,*i .—M31AH9101_ l!!JK A \ t---------->-------K -----------------------0— ; ..... -1 -------------/L > t2C2C fih to ICC SO • ® at on M«L zz (CC4t St'CI 40J » D*I N|« N J K CITY OP OROHO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 55323 ZONING PILE #1551 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: June 27, 1990 TO:Robert Waade COPIES TO: Bill Rudnicki 998 Wildhurst Trail W.R. Engelhardt Associates,Inc. Mound, MM 55364 1107 Hazeltine Blvd., Suite Chaska, MN 55318 480 TYPE OP APPLICATION:Preliminary Sabdivicion DATE OP MEETING: June 18, 1990 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Preliminary plan to be amended designating the following: a. Elevation of wetland areas at 930' elevation. b. Designate 15' wide drainage easements over drainageways leading from culverts along west side of plat. c. Designate storm sewer culvert from 10' south of lift station to 10' north of the proposed driveway on Lot 4 locate drainage ditch from north of driveway to wetland (option to connect with most southern drainageway defined at Wildhurst Trail). d. Closest projection of house to the south of Lot 4 is to be shown in order to determine average lakeshore setback and placement of proposed house. Staff would also recommend that proposed house location be moved further north rather than placing house 10' from southern lot line. e. Position roadway along north border. Proposed road can only be placed within 60' right-of-way dedication along west side and 30' dedicated within eastern portions of the road. Note: Cul-de-sac must be located within portion of right-of-way and subject properties. f. Areas of lots to be recalculated. Such areas to be exclusive of realigned road, areas below the 929.4' elevation and the wetlands within Lots 3 and 4 at the 930' elevation. g. Area between 930' and 931.5' elevation to be designated as flood plain zone. r Planning Commission Notice June 27, 1990 Page 22. To submit the information requested by the City Engineer in his report dated June 14, 1990 already submitted to you at a recent meeting.3. Submittal of all information to be submitted to the Watershed District as set forth in the report dated June 15, 1990. Please note the amended preliminary plan should locate the excavated area to compensate for fill placed within Lake Minnetonka flood plain. Grading Ians should include erosion control and quality control structure at entrance to lake from wetland. As confirmed you on Mond conversation with Mr. Rudnicki, staff will meet with __ _ _ July 2, 1990 to provide additional information on watershed area that contributes run-off to the subject property. In order to assure scheduliiig on the Planning Commission agenda of July 16, 1990, the above information must be submitted to the City no later than July 6, 1990. DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY Date:y-s- /g For valuable consideration, hereby convey to the City of Orono, a b06.HM_______________, grantors, municipal corporation, a right-of-way for the construction, use, general maintenance, and repair of Wildhurst Trail, across real property of the grantors located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Said right-of-way shall be limited to a strip of land t h i r t y”f"3 0) —in wid^h extending North of their southern boundary line.'^« This right-of-way shall run with the property and shall be binding upon the grantors, their heirs, successors, and assigns. Signature: Printed: Signature: Pr inted: DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY Date: '/ For valuable considera ion, H. , grantors, hereby convey to the City of Orono, a municipal corporation, a right-of-way for the construction, use, general maintenance, and repair of Wildhurst Trail, across real property of the grantors located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Said right-of-way shall be limited to a strip of land thirty 4 30-) fa01 in -Viextending North^of their southern boundary line.-h»Tve This right-of-way shfall run with the property and shall be binding upon the grantors, their heirs, successors, and assigns. Pr inted: Signature: _ _ _ Signature: /CJ- Printed:zharH/i 4 L~z DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY Date: \ ^ For valuable cons Iderat ion, V\.t>^wVA_ _ _, grantors, hereby convey to the City of Orono, a municipal corporation, a right-of-way for the construction, use, general maintenance, and repair of Wildhurst Trail, across real property of the grantors located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Said right-of-way shall be limited to a strip of land t+rt-r ty (3 6-) ^ fg<t in -width extending North of the i r souther n boundary cage of cJI • X""j r.oT -H This right-of-way shall run with the property and shall be binding upon the grantors, their heirs, successors, and assigns. Signature: Pr inted: 'A •=__ - vl Signature: Pr inted: ?, a t t ] 5" /neMo ro * jTcm>J /^i. .' OJ/U^fAi^ ^o£^tckil Q /LctJO ^ASSD CaJ Tf*€ AJS./&f^eo/^C^f^Cus^taJ ^ ^ -------- .,/-/ JT /^eutSBo Tf^ Pl A/0 A(c^o/^/;y/Ai^L<^, XT S^uuO ^ AJorej^ TfMiJEe U^ee: fAuo/LAfi>L,e tt> ■fo^ fU0^ P/CDf^5€i:> PoAb J &i>(T OML>^ 'Tff^ C-OAJO /T/O aJ T cmt rr$> ec^G»€ oJ/c^l ^ se S4/^^€: eooe qp //oPcAc^r, ftPD tW DOC^A^im. Tf^T" Xh€ ^A/r^/eesr t }^ />JBtc>H AcP^ >*3 Thhs.'i 6tv^l^ uv5» Tfre P^UiuiAJAH^i A^rhhcO^'Ti Fed. £>fr*/i/CAr/ONi Of- (,\J i UO Hif dST TPA^Cf T^ P/a/AC. PoC-'rt^eT^Ti UJ(LL /A /iccc^/vi.de' ^ 5>77^mf^s, S^cotp {S» ACi/fSo^y-f aac7-b^ O^y yau-P, >^d?i//£SUfiAJ2S A> C/^rBP /Ay you^e. A/or^ar OAnn:^ 27 -71^^170, /vsr 6/5rS> /A^‘ Xh^ 3/J/ks ' /}, f^eTLAAya eesy c^ /5t6L/^//uvt.y /=>cat : 0, o/y T^ A^^^tsev ppsuf'^^AJAf^i fukt £ m pcy\jy SRtf^s A 30' exr&js.fTiAy tt> CoL(^yy^T, A MAAJt*i>LS AajO aaj AOO^X/oaM^ /SO OF^ C/aP -Yt Cci/AJFCr u/fTp rpp pdA^Ajfi^^ c^L.O€iir AJO^XP oF S/rff-. OhJ /^/S£2D Pl J^ . X A^o>>«r£> Tti€ hho^ I^C^TTV ok J fOo^H A5 iC6 ’CoHA.yu6MD6T:> 6^ SmPF T/A€ f\AJ2frzj ry 0^ 7%^^ /LfC^P^ IPA*/ /^ ^0^ pAPPEkry , 77^ TFaLbF /e'€’l<sP/5cf^ 7?/^ AJCfiTf/ 6>t\^€N P^t&fFr cF u.Ay 5 7^ /*/ tJX ^ M-A vj C ^Calcucate T^ , A ll Lots rv\^ST th^ .. l^crr fLR.£K^ SUiuC^AaL£ C-P-»T(5^A. ^ "Z- . DO Mor Lct u3» c>rrt- \j/K<evANdff. X 6SLiev/(E ..Tfff*? 1^ sr/o. acc (2J>tA6 l^ a ^ ir is a clm^ or sac _ Cor k>^l+iCH b€At-lK><b UJ»TM. Lv^oo,,€^ Th-€^ ColcD€ Sa 6XTS^^(t)^J To ~Ti-r^ OWt Rj EtwooC “TWO PifJ^ A^C> TI*^ 5LoA^ ^ LoiOs,7J2.oCt/cO LOOW»^X> #?>«" -C>< f^tCu^uT. SHt>wa^>^ 0»J ^gDi<,^D> PfteLA <^iA)AA*f PCAT p-e^<rr-^ ^ no4<i.5» ^71'^ o^xi -cL^*” SVd^-Ov\ /vvov_>4uJ ot\ A€Aj;«»e.ci ^f®-l.*Av:^ pVa+ ” prov;;ArLj -Vofo Vo ncr4v ^ ^rof^A^ \ » SWtvo,^ iLO cx OV\ prC«liV*W^ pl-cf o\^ ^'0-\oy-*;c_ »^| l| ]pc. *fuo^ Covv^YTuc/h <jv> p\c\M^ *juX^ \jUO*-*^ld SOj'^vtx.l V)ori^ OO^Ul -hAi, Soil Covi^;-hff>^5 OA 0^1. X don'f uocuxf ■Vt? 6oxh oi^*K| 'fw, 1^ dec CJ+tj, epkJi buj -fluL. 5/ 1^^0jUv "SV«J ^Ao^io*^ OoJ^TCOi^ AC>&€T> -JD TH^ PCA/O r" IvAT^ d\jFL.{T^ ^T3C vc,72/^ CauA^tf^e-T* * ADQ^ T2> Cf<rcM BAS//4 ^2., To: Fron: Date: Subject: ♦CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernnardson ■'■'.'G ir.: •'■0 Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator August 1, 1990 #1552 Renee & Steven Foster, 1800 Shadywood Road - Variance - Request to Table I have contacted the applicants and we have discussed their options. They have been working on a revised proposal which they believe will not need any variances. At my suggestion, they are requesting that action on the denial resolution be temporarily withheld until staff can verify that the new proposal does not need a variance. (If it did need a variance, the adoption of a denial resolution would mean that they would have to make an entirely new application.) Proposed Motion: Moved by ___, seconded by _ , to table action on Application #1552 until staff can verify whether the revised proposal requires a variance. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson AL’G 13 1930 /3 Frooi: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator July 11, 1990 #1553 Mike Pierce, 480 Deborah Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IA Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) - Driveway monuments exceed allowed height of 3*5* requiring the following variances: Height - Allowed > Proposed Variance 3*5' « 7* : 3*5*or 100% Street Setback - Required = 100 Proposed = 30* Variance =» 70* Section 10.03, lighting. Subdivision 15 (B) - Setback required for Required Proposed Variance 5* 4* 1*or 20% List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Applicant's Addendum Exhibit E - Date Plan/Elevations Exhibit F - Survey Review of Application - The applicant proposes the installation of driveway monuments and electric gates at the entrance to the property at Deborah Drive. In addition, the applicant proposes 3* high fencing of the 16 acre homestead to maintain horses and llamas on property. Zoning File #1553 July 11, 1990 Page 2 of 2 The required opening excluding the gate portion of the structure at the proposed setback must be at a minimum of 16' based on width of fire emergency vehicles. The fire chief of Long Lake has advised that if entrance monuments with gates are setback 20' off right-of-way, that opening could be allowed at 14'. As gates will be electrically controlled, the emergency agencies ask that a lock box (knox box) be provided for ease of access by emergency vehicles. Manual override instructions in case of power failure should be posted inside lock box. Maximum height of the entrance monuments is 7'. Interior pillars will hold the lighting fixtures set 4' off the right-of-way of Deborah Drive. The ordinances require a minimum of 5' setback. Options of Action - 1. Denial. If denied, please refer to the necessary findings set forth in Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A). Applicant may be advised that entrance monuments and gates may be at an allowed 3%' height, but that if lighting is to be used on the entrance monuments, that the monuments must be set back 5' from the right-of-way; or 2. Approval. To approve variances to Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (B) & (C) granting height and setback variances for the proposed entry monuments (maximum height of entrance monuments = 7', height of gate = 6*;' measured from existing grade), based on the following findings; 1. Entry monuments provide no hazards to the users of the private road, Deborah Drive. 2. The City has received no negative comments from the neighbors notified for this variance review. 3. Applicant claims gates will be used to contain animals on private property. Approval is subject to the follow conditions; 1. Opening at entrance excluding area of gates must be at a minimum 16' width. 2. Lock box (knox box) must be installed at entrance for use of emergency agencies. Manual override instructions to be posted inside lock box. 3. Pillar to retain lighting must be mj>ved 5' from the street lot line of the subject property. Applicant is further advised that lighting must be shicj.dod downward or at a dim density so as not to create a hazard for the users of the adjacent roadway. Zoning File #1553 August 3, 1990 Page 2 No variance required for proposed lighting. Please review applicant's addendum, Exhibit G. Applicant sites reasons for the request of variances. Note applicant has amended the site plan showing a 14' separation/opening for gates now that monuments are placed 20 + ' in from roadway. Applicant notes the following in his addendum as supportive findings for variance request: 1. Need to contain horses and llamas within front and rear pastures. 2. Security problems as house is 700' back from road and surrounded by trees making house invisible from Deborah Drive - also alleges there have been break-ins in the neighborhood. 3. Problems with snowmobilers, children, horses, and trespassers on property. 4. Extensive landscaping will minimize impact of monuments within front yard and effectively will not be visible from the neighboring homes. It should be noted that as long as the lighting is placed 30' back from the street lot line, applicant need not apply for variances. Lighting will be subject to other pertinent ordinances of the City requiring shielding from adjacent property lines and reduced intensities. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny app’icant's request based on the following findings: 1. Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient hardship. 2. Proposed entrance monuments with lighting creates a major impact on this rural designed neighborhood. Options of Action Options of action are already noted on page 2 of this memo. Please note Finding 2 of the approval option is not applicable as neighbors have filed a petition in opposition to the placement of these monuments. (Review Exhibit J.) Council Action To provide staff with conceptual direction so that an appropriate resolution can be drafted and present d for Council's action at their August 27, 1990 meeting. Zoning File #1553 August 3, 1990 Page 3 Additional Coaments and Planning Comission Recomendation Additional Exhibits Exhibit G - Applicant's A^Jendm:i Exhibit H - Survey/Skotcli by Applicant Exhibit I - Amended Sit** r lan/Elevations Exhibit J - Neighbors' J^uL.ition Review of Aaended Application - Prepared for conncil Meeting of 8-13-90 Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) A. Variance - Monument Height Allowed =31/2' Proposed « 7' Variance = 3 1/2' or 100% B. Variance - Fence Height Allowed =31/2' Proposed = 4' Variance = 6" or 14% Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) A. Variance - Setback for Monuments Required « 100' Proposed = 30' Variance =70' or 70% B. Variance - Location of Fence Required * 10*' .Proposed = 0' Variance® 100' or 100% Applicant's sketch (Exhibit H) fails to locate fencing on property. Applicant's addendum speaks to the fencing of the front and rear pasture areas. Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (B) A. Setback Required for Lighting Required » 5' Proposed = 30' ‘D OCITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION* j a ^ Initial Application Fee $175.00 -I ($50.00 per each additional varianc^l Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site PuBCet^H D/LVUC-_____________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) \ ^ o ^ 0YCF OROi^O ^^rfmc£ OFFICE n:i;200ooo_ . ^ o c? ;•! Attach legal description application if not included on required survey. applicant Phone (home) ^7^ * J (j'l ^ _ Name _______________ Phone (work) S‘fl- jlOO Address! 5->fVie._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _J.ltli.f.flfS—— OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)- - - - - - --- - - - Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Phone (work)_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ Address: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- - - - - - --—^Zip:^ - - - - - Date Property Acquired_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY P - /Present Zoning District_ _^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ p I Present Use of Property ^ «_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _— Residential _ _ _ _ _ _ _Other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construct .on Cost $ » Describe request in d.r.n : IC-^ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area _ _ _ Lot Width _ _ _ Hardcover Setback Variances (_ _ _ Front _ _ _ Side - - - Rear) Other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- H20U:3HIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. 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 (ll* X 17'' OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your varlamce 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) jnd/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and ■ .lies that the information supplied is true and correct to ^e^est of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signa*-ure :orrect to t^e VWa 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,rtmd Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of thisgNrequest. Owner's Signature Date S - - So 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. , i #loo s S r M s Is UJ SJ: « O! Q. UJ 9> K lit ig g M UJ UJ N X U U _< S X X Z Ki It UJ UJ a £ 'i'SSSxz (0 Ui < H S“““g2 I «j «j S a. r4 UJ UJ UJ K»OgSOUJ m o z z £ I UJ UJ(!) ^ «« o (d in 0 UJ UJ o »o 5i*"§° = iSS-’SS S“5-g3 1 S52“- Kt O O M a UI •H UJ -J -IsS*riS| lA o z X in z iss o 0 lilh CO O 1^ Ife < M 3-‘>>g2 1 Ui UJ 00 a. s 00-I -J UI _l -I O UJ <^ II S g ““ S 0 « u. UI m O -J UJ M X ^ > CM X UJ *-« _ < •• < X zMX X o £ is “s55 3°5-g3 1 Si-2“- m o CD o UI CM UJ u •§*825 M O X X £ e UI eu. _l X UJ Ui u. &;2 Ui —(/) CD UJ - Z n Ui SxS-> i ^ o S X ^ 5 O 2 U ui < M ::“^gg3 J, -1^2““ K> e X X a UJ in Ui UJ ^ %m% si§i§i g ^ UJ Ui •H 10 l_> o»oo®i l/i X X lU ^ UJ UI UJ > N X M M < I o a a Z ssxx^! rH O' X I _J -J iH H UI UI OM o < < in 5 X X ^^‘ £ O U U CO > o O M ^ -J r» o £ z i-i a P' ^ UJI $ 0X0 O' in M X 0 2 M S X O S 7g-Sxz SsiS|3I M u 2 a Pi < UiM in X 0 o «S “|S| M O -0 -> ^ Z X X 3 >- •< ilM X CMXUII- < u. 0 X Z M X X UJ O £ CM o UI M I 2 K tt X Z O UJ 0 <3•H O UJ O X 7 S (0 g o. >-< UIM o CD «a o lu o M O X X ^ O < X o O Z Ui << > s X < UJlilia 5 H u % S2 o2 §|2 ‘"a ^ 5 0 X lU SoSiiii: 0 -J 0 X Z <*■ UJ X o o £ O b) X X Z a o u < M 3-‘2^g3• ^ ^ 0 aM> UI M Cl O O O UI o§3Ss| UI X 3x0 Z w < X < g|2 ^5 < = ^ X <c Si£3 nila o H fe ■ ti'ei §a => e@*-RECT PRODUCTS, INC. 7105 Medicine Lake Road Minneapolis, Minnesota 55427 U.S.A. • |Jg:54^p00 FAX 612-542-9205 May 30, 1990 Dear Orono Planning Commissioners:#1 C- ) Q D r am requesting city approval for the installation of driveway monuments and electric gates as per the plan submitted. The location as shown on the survey will be on my lot and not on the plotted roadway of Deborah Drive, which is a private road. We plan to enclose our sixteen acres with a three foot fence so as to keep our horses and llamas on our property. Your approval^f this request will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely. o Michael B. Pierce 480 Deborah Drive Orono, MN 55359 'JUn 'i iSdo u manufacturers of quality products since 1957 OTYCfORC^OUDM I June 15,1990 The Homeowners Architectural Committee for McCulley FaSUC 1 9 1990 would like to state for the record that we oppose the request of Mike Pierce of 480 Deborah Drive for a height variance for entrance monuments and an electric gate within the front street yard of his property, at this time. Our concerns are threefold: While Mr Pierce's property is exquisite in its own right. It's modern white architecture is contrary to the rest of the homes in our neighborhood. This contrast has not been obvious previously as his home is surrounded by woods. We feel his plans for a stark white fence, gate and monument of this magnitude is adverse to the nature of our neighborhood and the many homeowners original motivation for purchasing property in McCulley Farm. We find the intrusion of a large white monument, electric gate, and fence in the middle of over thirty unobstructed acres objectionable. Secondly, is the issue of lighting on the monument. Adjacent neighbors could be adversely affected in the evenings by the height and wattage of the lighting. Lastly, is the electric gate and fencing itself. We are concerned for setting a precedent in the neighborhood. We do not want to become a fenced compound. If Mr. Pierce feels he needs an electric gate and monument for his personal safety we recommend he put it in the woods next to his home where it will have no adverse affect on his neighbors. Signed Address » ■ijeSjD’CCt lo H X. if L/ 7 y" ^ mI 3 uJ f £ V3 > \- oJ ( f 6r‘ Page Two City of Orono At the planning commission meeting our two neighbors were present and expressed concerns about lights on the top of the monuments. These lights could be eliminated from our proposal. There will be extensive landscaping both in front and in back of the monuments so that our neighbors will not see the monuments from their homes. Our other neighbor complained about the fact that his dirt driveway is very close to our property line. The fence will be white vinyl and enhance the appearance of both our properties for years to come. All three of our lots approach sixteen acres and our property was especially purchased to contain not only our home but our pets. consideration of our variance request will be mostYour carefu appreciated Sincerely, Michael B. Pierce 480 Deborah Drive Orono, MN July 20, 1990 t-TB fJUL 2 3 1390 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 To the Council: We respectfully request your attention to the proposed variance, Height of Monuments: Allowed = 3 1/2 feet Proposed= Variance= 7 feet 3 1/2 feet or 100% Street setback of Monuments Required= IjJ feet Proposed= 30 feet Variance= 70 feet Fence Height: Allowed = 3 1/2 feet Proposed= 4 feet Variance= 6 inches After the electrically controlled gates are installed many eighteen foot white pines will be placed behind the monuments so they will not be visible from either the two sides or the back of the house. The eighteen foot trees will be place along side our 700 foot paved driveway leading to our house which is surrounded by trees and not visible from the road. The reasons for this project are listed below: We would like to contain horses and llamas on both our front and rear pastures. We have a security problem because the house is 700 feet from the road and completely surrounded by trees. This makes it invisible from Deborah Drive. Because of recent break-in's in the neighborhood ve feel the gate is essential. 3) We have a problem with snowmobilers, children, horses, and trespassers on our sixteen acre lot. L Prom: Date: U i .l-tL 1 Jtti.'Wy:"fi n-m Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator August 1, 1990 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson /V Subject: #1556 Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Nelson, 1629 Bohns Point Road - Variance Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to construct room addition over existing grade-level hardcover area. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice 7/17/90 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes 7/16/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 7/9/90 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of July 9, 1990, and the Planning Commission minutes. Briefly, the applicants request a hardcover variance to enclose a 7'xlO' existing hardcovered alcove to create a closet. Although the existing hardcover percentage would not increase, a hardcover review determined that the hardcover existing as of June 1990 exceeds the hardcover approved in a previous resolution by 1,051 s.f. (allowed 25%, existing today is 30 ^%). As staff noted in the Planning Commission memo, the City's ability to monitor hardcover increases on a given property is constrained by a number of factors. In this specific application, the excessive driveway and sidewalk areas were apparently constructed before the applicant purchased the property. In discussing the hardcover excesses with the Planning Commission, applicants felt that the existing driveways and side walks were just adequate for the property, and while hardcover is excessive numerically the existing improvements are functionally appropriate for the house. They felt that removals of existing sidewalks or driveway would be a problem. The existing 5,776 s.f. of hardcover is 30.6% of the 75-250' zone. This does not include the deck on the west side, which was specifically approved as non-hardcover (see July 9th memo). This also does not include the rock beds which have a fabric under liner which was generally allowed at the time this house was constructed. These rock beds have been estimated by staff at approximately 600 s.f. Zoning File #1556 August 7, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Planning Conlsslon Recomendation - Planning Commission voted 3 * ommend denial of this request based on no hardship and tu hat hardcover exceeds the previously imposed limits. The opinion was that the addition is minor in the scope of the overall hardcover on the property, and that the sidewalks and driveway as they exist are functionally appropriate for the property. Staff Rec dation - Council would have the following options; 1. Conceptually approve with no hardcover changes, directing staff to draft a resolution for your next meeting. 2. Grant conceptual approval subject to removal of existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone to a level of _ _%, staff to draft a resolution. 3. Conceptual denial per Planning Commission recommendation. If conceptual denial adopted, does Council wish to pursue the existing hardcover excess? 4. Other. Based on Council's action, staff will draft a resolution for your next meeting. CITY OF ORONO P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1556 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 07/17/90 TO: Gerald Nelson 1629 Bohn's Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 1990 VOTE: 3 For 2 Against Planning Condssion recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPBCIAJu CONDITIONS: Motion to recommend denial was based on current existing hardcover exceeding the limits allowed in Resolution #1776. The minority opinion was that the exisitng hardcover was appropriate, and that the originally approved amounts might not have been realistic for this magnitude of house and garage. Applicant may wish to consider whether there are any areas of hardcover that may be removed to compensate for th. addition. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Counci' on Monday, August 13, 1990; meeting stares at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commi uori minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. 4680 NORTH ARIl DRIVE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:38 P.M. TO 10:39 P.M. Iz was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to table this application until the applicant and/or a representative are present. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. #1556 GERALD NELSON 1629 BOHNS POINT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. TO 8:37 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Nelson were present. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Gaffron reviewed his memo dated July 9, 1990 pertaining to this application. Mr. Nelson explained that the excess hardcover areas were installed prior to his purchase of the property. Ke said, "v;e were given* a Certificate of Occupancy in 1987 when we purchased the property. At that time, the City did not advise us that hardcover exceeded what had been allowed by a previous resolution. It is odd that the City approved a 3-car garage for this property when it was not possible to construct a drivev/ay large enough to serve all three stalls. Also, in oraer to stay within the confines of allowed hardcover, it would not be possible to have a front walkway or steps. I do not understand what happened in 1985 when the house was constructed. We do need additional storage area because we do not have a basement.” Rowlette stated that she would find it difficult to hold the Nelsons responsible for the builder's violations. She also sai that the driveway and sidewalks that now exist are aopropria': j for the house and that it is hard to find areas that could be removed. She noted that the hardcover calculations presented do not include the landscaping around the house. Rowlette stated that she had looked at t.he landscaping on the north side of the_ _ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 ZONING FILE #1556-NELSON CONTINUED house and fiber glass exists under the ro^ There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the Public Hearing v/as closed. Bellows sympathized with the property owners, but found it difficult to approve an increase of the hardcover on this property. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Johnson, to recommend denial of application #1556, due to a lack of hardship and the fact that there is presentl excessive hardcover on this property. Motion, Ayes-3, Cohen, Rowlette, Nay. Motion carried. #1557 MIKE CULLEN 2700 PHEASANT ROAD Tf7\PT AMr'’:* Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 7 From: Date: Michael P. Gsffron, Asst Planning & Zciiru, Administrator July 9, 1990 Subject: #1556 Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Nelson. 1629 Bohn's Point Road Variance - Publxc Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family “lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to construct room addition over existing grade level hardcover area List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E ~ Hardcover Calculations Exhibit P - Construction Plans Exhibit G - Resolutions #1726 and #2534 Pertinent Facts - Ir Allowed 75-250' hardcover (per Resolution #1726): 47'iS s.f.*. Existing 75-25''' hardcc er as of June 1990; 5776 s.f.*2. 3.Applicant Is requi^sting to enclose an existing alcove area on the north side of the house, which currently is hardcover (concrete slab) but which was not originally approv ’’ cs hardcover. 4.The proposed construction meets all required setbacks, and will have ro visual impact in the neighborhood. *Additioi. Resolut' j P i.bedded deck was allowed as non-hardcover per not appear in these calculations. Disciii.*ji •’hf addition is minor in scope relative to the existing housb, . i robabiy not be v.sifcTy noticeable by anyone except the adj* o. n^*ighbor. However, absent the visual impact, the proposal does increase che amount of structural hardcover on the property and review of the request has found existing hardcover is significf .itly in excess of that approved in Resolution #1726. Zoning File #1556 July 9, 1990 Page 2 In 1984, the builder of this residence, Bill Krutzig, was granted a building permit to construct a house with a minimal driveway, and he immediately applied for variances to construct sidewalks, decks, and a larger driveway. The result of that application was to allow only the 25% standard hardcover, but in addition allowed a 900 s.f. deck constructed over a sand base with specified plank spacing, so that that deck would not be considered hardcover. There we^c perhaps a handful of similar applications for decks approved by the Council as "non-hardcover" in early 1985, a practice which did not continue. Disregarding the deck, existing hardcover within driveway, sidewalks# etc., is approximately 1,051 s.f. in excess of that which was approved. It is likely that the hardcover additions were not verified upon completion of the house, and the various hardcover items contributing to the excess probably occurred over a three year period while the house was being constructed. The current owners purchased this house in June 1987. Inspection records do not confirm when the driveway or sidewalks were installed, and those items do not require' permits, hence the City's actual ability to monitor hardcover increases o:. a given property is very limited. Staff RecoMnendation "following issues should be addressed by Planning Commi t : 1. Will the proposed addition be approved? 2. Should the City require any concurrent reductions to hardcover, i.e. reduce driveway, sidewalks, etc.? It appears that both sidewalk areas and driveway were constructed wider than proposed by the builder. /lA^TToo ; >>e<vjy - lOo c. f-zzt f/1'' — ^ ~ 2. ! . '> r /r (J i. ••'‘j V- •>1. Sn *“ : ^ CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175*00 ' m m ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application)y ^ After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION mUM nr^frc Site Address BoI)a^S /?^>4ZL -------------------- ■ i.D.i in-un-3^i-n-o^r 06/19/ Property Identification Number (P Attach legal description to application if not included on nT»r»T T/'iiMfn Phone (home) HI/- 0 Name M R-^/iMLZ (2 SRfiLt) M EL^O/^ Phone (work)£<si n Address: PZi Citv: ^tlOAro Zio: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ ^ C- Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:Citv:Zio: Date Prooertv Acauired y. MS 7 (month/year) I M) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land, PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zonina District ^6 Present Use of ProoertV X Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Est.t -----------------------------------”7F/’~C?^”c^efe. tkt, VARIANCES REQUIRED « F H/vp-t C^>ve dA/ tAe Lot Width / Hardcover ;_ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other ■■■■ Front Side Rei>,r) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zonina reaulations: "t. hXJix r*/*> ribe undue hardship or practical airricuiry resulting tra rcement of zoning regulations; hum't. hXJix ,, DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS D^'scribe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning^ Code Requirements; RjL^usLcujL ^ u/viiiAiuaP \ie^ $> lo-fl.»Xjt. cJL^AJCX i>w CL-wxj rrTZXju\. OLy\JL^ , REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form J/: Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain ^ this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center ^ 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. ^ Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. ^ >•-<-.-- As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this applicatic”'. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 4. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll" 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 the best of his/her knowl^ge. Applicant's Signature OWNERS SIGNATURE Date t Ifio C 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 purpos'.!i» of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature __________ Date ________________________-(^------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before 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 autho*ized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I ■ - Jt4AJ^ /‘??0 ^S^2SO ^ ^^e‘U =■ /8y"^00 zrz. ^ 7**^ H a^co ^J6^ ^ro^ rr 112X0 ® //(!?t4S^ -i- 3^XTO c.rC, f=rrc^> 77^ ^ V7 lr"a -J££ li^eCvL )^xrj:^c..yj Vf^' JT, /4ii-a'vr'2-. -y./c-rfit-. ;,2 ' r: V 5}rAfAi/ /A,iit r/r:c" ijK'^^fS f LCO^f^ /a -'ttc' (s^ 'jTMrr-*j^tiy:iyl^10 f^n-r i/)A*-w,ZID S3 P(LLA:i^C 2D iv»r V (/r'ricT; C-Ills'. 5~77Cs> s:t (^fL^S ’A^oM-u^^CiCovef?-" t'^c.K OF /^cmX. 9or> r ^ 0.................- 3.0.U ?C •^.* ■* •• •:.tV .*. . i-(o-u • |0^ I -0 L hw,'!- 2-'i- ' ' ^ I • \ '1-3, V iAr>p. ; ■ ■ hiu.ivl- >c' '■•-'/J City of ORONO CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY^^OyNCIL NO. __17 26 . iTf ? OF ORONO A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE NO. 881 WHEREAS, Krutzig Custom Homes, Inc., 'j Minnesota corporation, (hereinafter "the Applicant”) is owner of the property located at 1629 Bohn's Point Road within the City of Oronc (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Tract A, Registered Land Survey Mo. 565, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "Property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision^ 2, to permit the construction of declcs, sidewallc, and driveway which would increase the hardcover from 3,950 square feet or 21% to 5,950 square feet or 31.5% in the 75' to 250' setbaclc zone where only 25% or 4,725 square feet of hardcover is 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 effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Couacl 1 of Orono, Minnesota, hereby denies the application of Krutzig Custom Homes, Inc. for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 for the property legally described above, based on one or more of the following findings: 1. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 19, 1984 and recommended denial of the application based on the .*■ 1 lowing findings: a) Applicant was made fully aware by City staff of the hardcover limitations on the property at the time of application for a building permit. b) The lot is substandard in area and width in the LR- IB Zoning District in which it is located; however, the property is substantially large enough that it could be developed within the hardcover limitations. f.) The additional hardcover requested is not necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the owner, and the conditions leading to the need for a variance were created by the applicant. pane I of 4 CityofORO^S,,,. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ' ViK KB■f\U CITY OF ORONO NO.1726 d) The property currently accepts the natural flow of runoff from the surrounding properties and additional hardcover will decrease its capacity for accepting this flow. 2. The Council finds that the proposed deck design, which includes 5-1/2 inch decking with 1/2-inch spacing, underlain by a level sand absorbtion layer of 12" thickness, with no barrier layer between the sand and the underlying ground surface, has been demonstrated by applicant to be sufficiently permeable in this instance so as to not be considered hardcover. 3. The Council finds no undue hardships to the property that justify granting a variance to the hardcover limitation of 4,725 square feet in the 75-250' s tback zone. FURTHERMORE, BE IT RES'^LVED that the City Council of Orono hereby approves the construction of deck, sidewalk, and driveway improvements to the property subject to the following conditions; 1. A permit for the proposed deck of 900 square feet in area must be obtained prior to construction. The deck must meet the following minimum design requirements: a) Width of decking boards may range from no less than 4" to no more than 8" in width. b) Ratio of board width to spacing width may be no greater than 12:1 (8.33% open space). c) ^ 1/2-inch high wood strip must be installed along the upper perimeter of the deck to prevent d:.rect runoff. d) A minimum of a 12-inch depth of sand must be placed under the entire area of the deck and extending downward through any fill layers to the original soil surface. e) The deck platform shall be no higher than 12" above finished grade, or if it is higher, a suitable barrier must be placed between the deck and the ground surface to prevent any access which would allow future place ment of impermeable materials (plastic, concrete slab, etc.) under the deck. page 2 of 4 1 City of OROISO ' V > 'iS W'* cji *' f.} RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL- V*? CITY NO. OF ORONO 1726 -----------------------r-T-T.iv j 2. The applicant is placed on notice that the deck and the areas above and below it may never be covered with impervious materials, enclosed, or in any way altered so as to become hardcover, without the granting of a hardcover variance by this or a future City Council. 3. The sidewalk and driveway are limited in hardcover to a total of 775 square feet, and any porous pavement or other innovative surfacing methods proposed to be used in order to exceed tnis amount are subject to review by the City. 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. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council on this 11th day of February, 1985. ATTEST: allih. City Clerk Mary C.tier. Mayor ll) Property Owner page 3 of 4 =: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) l^r'On this Publ ic _ _^_ _day of wrthin. . and ^or said _ _ _ _, 1985 , before me a Notary "County, personally appeared known to m 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this Public within day of_ and for be the person(s) described instrument, and acknowledged (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Ju/ofe. // MY COMMISSION EXPIRES r 1985, before me a Notary said County,personally appeared known ’ -i- ;ne to in and who executed the foregoing that he (they) executed the same as his NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMIS.-TON EXPIRES It STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) CITY OF OROND ) I Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono. Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I h' /e compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting; of said City Council held on February 11 , 19 85 , and that the same is a true and correct Topy of said resolution was duly adwpted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my \'.n 1st , day of _ _ _ _ March_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :J and seal , 19 85 (SEAL) This document is being recorded for the benefit of ^»he City of Orono per Minnesota Statutes 386.77. Thenids J. Radio, City Attorney State Deed Tax Due Hereon: Exempt This Instrument was drafted by: City of Orcno P.O. Box C5 Crystal Bay, MN 5532^ CITY OF ORONa City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2815 _____ NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for Constance M. Scott that proposes a 2 lot Class III subdivision per the survey undated by Theodore D. Kemna of Schoell & Madsen Inc., subject to the following conditions; 1. The future owner of Lot 1 must apply for a driveway permit from the Public Works Department upon application for a building permit. 2. The plat was filed prior to the May 1st deadline for new park dedication fee schedule, subdivider need only make payment of $200.00 for proposed Lot 1. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTALS The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: A. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200'. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Theodore D. Kemna of Schoell & Madsen Inc. undated (preliminary plans used for public hearing review on May 21, 1990 ). b) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 5' each side of the internal property lines. c) Name plat. B. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required; a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b) The subdivider must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ORONO City of ORONORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2815________ c) Subdivider to provide appropriate documentation insuring future owner of Lot I’s responsibility of share in the cost of the upkeep of the private road known as Longview Circle. This would also include partial ownership of private road outlot. I C. FEES TO BE PAID; Total Due $425.00 a) Park dedication fee per current schedule: Lot 1 0 $200.00 b) Final plat fee = $150.00 c) Legal review and filing fees of $75.00 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 11th of June, 1990. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of June, 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. y THERESA L NAAS NOTAflV PUBUO . MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY oon—iMiPM mfttm Notary Public Page 3 of 3 From: Date: • /»:»Mayor Grabek & Council Members * ‘ ^ City Administrator Bernhardson ■ 5 '* r i * . • 5 ; ) Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning A<^minis€rator August 8, 1990 Subject: #1536 Steve Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Road Variance - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IA, Single .Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Application: Request for Side and Rear Setback Variances to Construct Main Floor and Second Story Additions List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes, 7/16/90 Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 7/12/90 Discussion 4 Please review the memo and exhibits of July 12th. Briefly, the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the main floor of his existing residence, and do some roof expansion in the second story, such existing residence being located 3.5' from the north lot line where a 30' setback is normally required and being 20' from the west lot line where a 50' setback would be required. Footprint of the house would not change. The proposed additions would not increase hardcover on the property which currently meets all hardcover standards. The applicant originally proposed expansions that would significantly increase the living space in che house, and increase from the one existing bedroom to a total of 3 bedrooms. Noting the staff's review of the existing substandard septic system which can't be expanded to accomodate additional bedrooms, Planning Commission rejected the initial plan. Applicant revised his proposal to maintain a single bedroom within the residence, while to a lesser degree expanding the roof line to allow for additional storage space. As part of this proposal, the existing 10' X 24' easterly wing will have a new foundation within the same footprint. Planning CouBission RecooMendation Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of the setback variances for the proposed revised addition, with one bedroom only, subject to adhering exactly to the plan presented, with the easterly portion of the new second floor to be "open to below", not as future useable space. Zoning File #1536 August 8, 1990 Page 2 The applicant was not in favor of postponing his original proposal until such time that the mur'icipal sewer becomes available. The City is still in the process of determining whether such a sewer is feasible. The application also included a request to vacate the adjacent alley. Because less than 50% of the neighboring affected property owners have petitioned for such a vacation, the Planning Commission tabled that request until the required number of petitions has been received. The Planning Commission felt that the revised proposal reduces the extent of the additions to a magnitude which is not affected by the vacation or non-vacation of the alley. Staff Recoimendation Based on the Planning Commission recommendation, recommends approval per the attached resolution.staff A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) PILE #1536 WHEREAS, Steve Gardiner (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of property located at 3770 Bayside Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Ottoville, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Secttion 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) for additions t.o expand the second story of the existing structure located 3.4' from the north lot line where a 30' setback is normally required, and 20' from the west lot line where a 50' setback is normally required. Minnesota : NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1536. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono City Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: a. The applicant originally proposed additions to the footprint of the existing residence and proposed to expand the number of bedrooms in the house. The Planning Commission advised the applicant to revise that proposal based on the lack of capability to expand the sewage treatment system to serve those expansions. The applicant then submitted a revised proposal for remodeling and a lesser degree of expansion of the roof areas, yielding no additional bedrooms from the current one bedroom status. b. The Planning Commission finds that remodeling within the existing footprint and revision of the roof line to Page 1 of 4 expand storage space in the second story area without creating additional bedrooms, is appropriate for the property while not creating any new encroachments of the existing substandard setbacks. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow remodeling and upward expansion of the existing residence located 3.4* from the north side lot line where a 30* setback is normally required, and located 20* from the west lot line where a 50* setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is granted with the specific condition that the house remain as a one bedroom residence, adhering exactly to the plan presented, with the easterly portion of the new second floor to be "open to below", not as future useable space. Any future interior remodeling to create additional bedrooms will require City approval. The approved floor plan layout for this addition is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 13, 1991). Page 2 of 4 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall.automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood 'and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of August, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of July, 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 Page 3 of 4 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) } ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN- ) On this day of 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 STATE 0F MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 199_, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay« MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1536NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 07/17/90 TO:Steve Gardiner 3770 Bayside Road Long Lake. MN 55356 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION? Variance Vacation (Remains tabled until enough petitions are received) DATE OF MEETING: July 16, 1990 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Conalsslon recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Approval of setback variances for proposed revised additionsr subject to adhering exactly to the plan presented, with easterly portion of new second floor to be "open to below", not as future useable space. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council on Monday, August 13, 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 Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. ■ii ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 16, 1990 #1536 STEVE GARDINER 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD VACATION-VARIANCES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:47 P.M. TO 7:50 P.M. Mr. Gardiner was present. Gaffron briefly exolained the revision Mr. Gardiner is proposing to his initial' plan (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated July 12, 1990-). He suggested that the issue Oi. the alley vacation be separate from the variance application. Bellows asked for clarification regarding the additional floor space that will be added to the second floor. Gaffron showed a sketch of the addition and noted that one side will remain open to the living room. Bellows stated that there should be speciric language requiring that the open space remain as such. There were no comments from the public regarding this application and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend aoproval of the side setback variance for Steve Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Road. Bellows asked Kelley whether he wished to include a recommendation that the resolution require that the^ addition be constructed as proposed with the open space to the living room. Kelley amended his motion, Cohen seconded. Motion, Ayes-o, Nays-0. Motion carried. W'ith regard to the alley vacation, Kelley asked, "If the alley is vacated, how will the City respond to the location of Mr. Gardiner's garage?" Gaffron replied, "The alley is public property now in the sense that the easement provides for public access. If the easement is vacated, it reverts back entirely to the fee owners and would then'be private property." Mr. Gardiner provided the Planning Commission with the history of the garage/alley situation. He noted that he has been trying to solve the problem by asking for the consent of the neighbors. Mr. Gardiner stated that he has been unable to obtain any response from his neighbors. - . - 6 - MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 18, 1990 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley and Planning Commissioners Johnson, Bellows, Cohen, Hanson and Moos. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative was present. #1536 STEVE GARDINER 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD A) VACATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY B) VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:07 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Gardiner was present for this public hearing. Gaffron reviewed the information regarding this two-part application (see Gaffron's report dated June 11, 1990). Gaffron noted that it will be necessary for the other adjacent property owners to petition to have the alley vacated. Kelley suggested that the Planning Commission provide Mr. Gardiner with opinions and a possible consensus, but hold the Public Hearing in abeyance until a petition is received. Gaffron stated that he sees no reason for neighborhood opposition to the vacation and that the matter could proceed to Council with the condition that the petition must be received. Mr. Gardiner stated that he had secured the signature of one of the four property owners and was attempting to obtain the other three. With regard to the variance portion of this application, Gaffron stated that the capacity of the existing septic system is a concern. Kelley asked when City sewer will be installed in that area. Gaffron replied that the City is currently sending letters to all residents in the area to determine how m» zh interest exists for the project. Kelley asked whether staff is recommending approval of Mr. Gardiner's addition without the property having City sev/er. Gaffron replied that the property should have City sewer if the house is to be expanded. Gaffron stated that the applicant - 1 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 18, 1990 ZONING FILE #1536-GARDINER CONTINUED preferred to have the Planning Commission's recommendation prior to incurring the expense for septic testing. Mr. Gardiner indicated that he v/ould be willing to his addition plans to make the situation more acceptable. revise Gaffron stated that it is questionable whether the existing septic system will adequately serve the existing residence for a long period of time. There were no comments from the Public and the Public Hearing was continued. Johnson asked whether it would be Hennepin County's decision as to how the alley property would be divided once the vacation occurs. Gaffron said that he had discussed that with a County Surveyor who indicated that normally they would split the property in half. Gaffron also spoke to the City Attorney who recommended that once the entire alley is vacated, the property owners and Hennepin County should determine how the property will be divided. Kelley suggested that since Mr. Gardiner's garage is 1'cated on the alley easement that the vacation be approved with the condition that all of the property be acquired by Mr. Gardiner. Hanson stated that it may be necessary to remove the garage. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Mr. Gardiner should attempt to obtain the petition from the remaining property owners abutting the alley. Mr. Gardiner should also ask the property owners to the west if they would agree to give him their half of the alley. With regard to the expansion of the house, the Planning Commission agreed that the property should either have a septic system meeting the current code, or sewer. Gaffron noted that a letter had been received indicating opposition to the City granting setback variances (see the letter from Julie Harren, 175 Landmark Drive, dated June 18, 1990). It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Moos, to table application #1536. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0. Motion carried. #1551 ROBERT WAADE 998 WILDHURST TRAIL PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 8:15 P.M. TO 8:20 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. - 2 - i I From: Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator July 12, 1990 Subject: #1536 Steve Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Road Variance (Revised Proposal) - Alley Vacation - Second Review List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Notice of Planning Commission Action 6/21/90 Revised Construction Plans Survey Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Barren, 175 Landmark Dr. Memo & Exhibits of 6/11/90 Sample of Vacation Request Letter from Applicant to Landmark Fomeowners Pertinent Pacts - 1. The applicant has revised his proposal to do additions only within the existing footprint of the building, with some expansion of storage space on the second floor. This proposal includes the following improvements: a. Replace the existing 10 x 24 easterly wing in the same footprint, providing an adequate foundation. b. Raising the roof along the east/west line of the house to create a more open character in the second story, providing additional closet space for the single bedroom which will be retained. c. Total remodel of main floor within existing footprint. 2. Recall that the existing house is as close as 3.5' from the north lot line where a 30' setback is normally required, and 20' from the west lot line where a 50' setback would be required. The proposed additions extend no closer to the lot line than the existing house. 3. No additional bathrooms or bedrooms are proposed. The additional space created in the second floor is basically storage, and would not appear to increase the potential load to the septic system. 4. Regarding the alley vacation, the City is in receipt of a letter to Mr. Gardiner from the Barren's at 175 Landmark Drive. The Barren's homestead lot does not abut the alley, but they are one of four property owners who are served by and have an interest in Outlot D of "Bayside Landing", the cul-de-sac known as Landmark Drive which does abut the V ,Zoning File #1536 July 12, 1990 Page 2 alley. It is not clear from the letter whether the Harren*s are the official representative of the 4 property owners, but they are certainly the most affected current resident served by that road. The applicant has approached the property owners surrounding the alley, and the only response so far has been from the Barren's, who suggest that until the alley is vacated, they have no strong desire to discuss selling their half to the applicant. This would appear to be somewhat counterproductive to the Planning Commission's June 18th recommendation. Discussion Absent any expansion to create more bedrooms or bathrooms, the revised proposal for remodeling, partial foundation replacement, and roof line expansion, should have no impact on the septic system, hence that issue is effectively eliminated. The existing house location near the north and west lot lines might be considered as a reasonable hardship to support a recommendation for approval of the revised additions. With the current property boundaries, applicant has no options available which would avoid needing a setback variance. Planning Commission must decide whether the revised proposal has a significant visual impact on surrounding properties, or whether other expansion options shcu''d be considered. Regarding the application for vacation, the Barren's petition suggests that if the alley is vacated, the portion adjoining Landmark Drive becomes "part of a lot with lake access". It would seem however that the west half of the alley would be acquired by the Landmark homeowners as an addition to the private road right-of-way, and (Outlot D), Outlot D is not a buildable lot with lake access. The City would in no instance consider that applicant's acquisition of the entire alley gives him any lake access rights. Only Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2 of Bayside Landing, have lakeshore access over Outlot h. The Barren petition leaves applicant one petitioner short of the 3 petitioners necessary for proceeding with the vacation request. Also, before the Barren's petition can be considered, the City must be assured that the Barren's are the official representative for the Landmark Bomsowners Association (if one exists). The Landmark Drive road outlot currently is listed in Bennepin County property information records as being owned by Austin and Diane Evans, the owners of vacant Lot 1, Block 1. Zoning File #1536 July 12, 1990 Page 3 If the vacation does not proceed. Planning Commission may wish to consider whether relocation of the garage would be an appropriate condition of variance approval. Virtually any such relocation would require variances, but could be a further revision of the current application, if the applicant so requested. Staff Recommen^'ation 1. Staff recommends tabling the vacation request until the required majority of abutting property owners have petitioned for the vacation. 2. Planning Commission should determine whether the revised proposal for improvements minimizes the intensity and character of the requested variances from a level which is acceptable, and should consider whether any further conditions are appropriate if a recommendation for approval is forthcoming. OnL^I ?b-(^ S~-0 CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, HM 473-7357 55323 ZOHING FILE #1536 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: June 21, 1990 TO: Steve Gardiner 3770 Bayside Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance Alley Vacation DATE OF MEETING: June 18, 1990 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Alley vacation tabled pending receipt of petition from a majority of the abutting property owners. 2. Variances tabled, with the following concepts to be further considc. »d: a. Because existing substandard septic system likely cannot be made fully conforming. Planning Commission noted expansion of the house should probably wait until municipal sewer is available. b. Concern was expressed regarding granting variances for house expansion while the garage is partially on neighboring properties; applicant to look into acquisition of property from Landmark Drive Outlet A (also, applicant should explore whether he can acquire the west half of the alley if it's vacated). Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as Planning Commission, Monday, July 16, 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 at 473-7357 if you wish to discuss your options. <^UtvVBtC^ ayjalfL (MW cno*3 aimONl-Taaauaj 9=M3dl<v^ -jiar'lga-Ttv^ E9BSI Vr ____\iSI r "A e>77o f%A{? -.7/// to r- i« i J € l<W lit I Hl » 'in iiR. STEVE GARDINER 3770 BAY3X0E ROAD long lake, iiN. 53356 JULY 9, 1790 Dear Steve, We ^ouid like to see the city vaca^ the alley between your property and tne Landmark homeowners with title to the Easterly 15 feet to be deeded to you and the Westerly I*" feet deeded to the Landmark property owners. The city may consider this corresponoence as a petition Prom us to vacate the WG liave some dif f luu.. l/ with your apparent desiro to coinPuie the vacation of the property with acquiring th« pioperty from us when we currently do not own it, [t ieems to me that oy combining all the issues you have made it complicated enough io that no one will act for feai that the outcome will have an unanticipated endlncu We J’lave read the or Orono !-'’lannin<i Commission meeting minutes of June l-S, and concur with their tabling /out request roi" variances foi the reasons ccatod in iiieii minutes. incidentiy, we are iiiv>re inclined to accept tl»e idea put I'oi ch Py the Ci.;v to sail part ol‘ outiot 0 than Lo giaiiL an easement for the property under your garage. In any event you should remove the junk store*! vehind the garsge because it is an eyesore- if the City vacates the alley, the portion adjoining Landmark Drive becoMiwS part of a igt wLLh Uke a^Qe.ss.«. Consequently, Wo have no interest in negotiating from your present position. After the vacation process has been completed by you, we will be inti! ecte-J in i«ur-:uing thi*? further Sincerely, CCrCITY OF ORONO LEE & JULIE HARREN 17S LANDMARK DR. LONG LAKE. MN. 55356 To; Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: June 11, 1990 Subject: #1536 Steve Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Road - Alley Vacation - Setback Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application: A) Request to vacate 30' alley adja »nt to property. B) Request for side and rear setback variances to construct main floor and 2nd story additions. List of Exhibits / Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit I. Request A - Street Vacation Application B - Variance Application C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Applicant's Letter of Request F - Survey G - Construction Plans H - Hardcover Review I - Letter to Applicant 10/29/86 J - Septic Capability Diagram - BvA;iJ;A^ewwsu>r6 for Vacation of Alley - 1. Applicant's property consists of 4 tiny lots within the plat of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka, platted in 1887. That plat extended to the west side of the alley in question, therefore, if this alley is vacated, its ownership is split down the middle between the property owners on either side. In this case, the west half would go with Outlots C and D of the plat of Bayside Landing, and east half would go the applicant. 2. There are no City utilities within the alley, and none proposed. Municipal sewer contemplated for this area would not make use of the alley. Staff is currently requesting verification from other utility companies as to existing or expected use of the alley. Zoning File #1536June 11» 1990 Page 2 of 4 3. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.12 requires that vacation of an alley requires a petition by the majority of the land owners abutting the property to be vacated. Technically, there are four property owners abutting this alley, as can be noted from the plat map. Therefore, technically, the vacation cannot proceed until at least two more abutting owners join in the petition. Technically, Mr. Burger at the end of the alley would not gain any land, but the other three owners would. 4. One of the concerns of vacating the alley is whether it will limit access to other properties. Currently, all properties abutting the alley have their main legal access at some other location. The only property that could conceivably benefit from this alley would be that of Hazel Anderson, directly north of Gardiner, which does not abut a public or private road, except that her property abuts Outlot C of Bayside Landing, a driveway outlot to serve a new residence north of the wetland. Also, Mrs. Anderson presumably has an easement across John Burger's property along Gardiner's north lot line, to use the driveway shared by Gardiner and Anderson. If Mrs. Anderson has such an easement (this must be verified), vacation of the alley would not deny her access. 5. The Public Works Director notes no problems with allowing the vacation. II. Variance Application - 1. Applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition and eastward expansion of the existing house, in addition to revising roof lines. This house is currently considered by staff as a 2 bedroom house, and is proposed to be converted to 3 bedrooms. 2. Exhibits X, Y and Z indicate the allowable building envelope under 3 scenarios: a) the existing property; b) the existing property pi a half of vacated alley; c) existing property plus entire alley. In each case, expansion of the house eastward requires a setback variance to allow a north lot line setback of 4* where 30* is required. Zoning File #1536June Ilf 1990 Page 3 of 4 A variance would similarly be required for conversion of the deck on the south side of the house to a screen porch, since portions of that deck are less than 30' from the north lot line. Side street lot line setbacks would be required also under the first 2 scenarios. If applicant acquired the entire alley, his house would be at the 50' required setback from Landmark Drive. 3. Hardcover within the existing property boundaries is within the prescribed limits. However, much of the driveway and existing garage are outside of applicant's property. The most reasonable and consistent method for determining a hardcover percent would be to presume that applicant will gain half of the alley, and credit him for his existing property, half of the alley, and the area of his improvements that occur outside his property. This is shown in Exhi'oit H. Having spent more than an hour reviewing hardcover numbers on this application, my estimation is that the proposed additions per the architect's plan, fall within the letter and intent of the hardcover ordinance under the assumptions noted above. III. Discussion - Sept./stem Concerns The existing system is extremely substandard, e'. after drainfield additions that were done in 1987. Those additions were done on an interim basis (see Exhibit I). There is one relatively small septic tank, and approximately 400 square feet of drainfield. Making reasonable assumptions about the Kilkenny loam soils mapped in this area, one would expect a perc rate of 30-45 minutes per inch, requiring 300 s.f. of drainfield per bedroom. The proposed 3 bedroom house should have 900 s.f. of drainfield, but less than half of that exists. It is unlikely that the existing system could be upgraded to serve a 3 bedroom house within the setback and design requirements of the septic code. From Exhibit J, expansion area is very limited, even with additional land from the alley. There would not be room available to develop a mound system if soil conditions indicated one was required. No testing has been submitted. Based on this, staff would not recommend approval of expansion of this house to 3 bedrooms unless municipal sewer was available. A decision^ by the City Council whethei or not to sewer this area is still pending. Zoning File #1536 June 11» 1990 Page 4 of 4 Staff Recommendation - Regarding the alley vacation, staff would request tabling pending the following additional submittals: 1. Petition signed by a majority of the neighboring property owners for vacation of the alley. 2. Verification that the Hazel Anderson property has a legal easement across the Burger property (and the Gardiner property) to Bayside Road. 3. Confirmation of no objection from the utilities which may currently or potentially use this alley. Regarding the setback variances, Planning Commission should consider whether expansion of this house entirely within the 30 rear yard setback is appropriate, or whether applicant should consider expansions southward away from the north lot line. Finally, staff would recommend that the proposed expansion to create a third bed-oom (or the potential space for a third bedroom), not be approved until such time that municipal sewer is available to the property. Alternatively, applicant should provide septic testing and design work to show that this property can support and develop a septic system meeting all code requirements for a 3 bedroom house, plus an alternate site for equivalent septic expansion. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address *^7 70 __Q/Qi^n Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 5"^ 111' IL Please attach legal description to application if not includ^!^^|^ on required survey. _ _ _ __ _ _ _ Phone (home) ^ J Phone (work) APPLICANT Name (yd Addre '070 R,\ City _—_fj;gr££.lr^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)- - - - - - --- - - - -- Phone _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _N2Lme Address _ City Date Property Acquired _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _—— (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - 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.) _ _ _ _ $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 ~ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS _ $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ w $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 ant fees) PRESENT OSE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify)_ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request inp ^ _ _ _ _ detail: lA. io' /\li^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 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). . r •• 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if ^.an 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. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR_ _ A WORKING COPY (ll* 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. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of 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 bv 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 knowledge. Applicant's signature ' /fDate —^ / / Q- - - -- OWNERS SIGNATURE , . ^ _ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. 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 tne 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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^1 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) #1536 PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^7 70 Po/iri . CVo^o 01 i3 CW R Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Ob *1(7- ^9- 0 \00 llECtIPT-Tii^^,•K fOU c<t)(^ I V COvI iiOl ll0*\ O I o 2 / i 0/^ O\o^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name vS'-Rv/P Address; 3770 *>\c(o R-J City Phone (home) V 7(o - Phone (wor)c) _ _ Zip; Cs OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (wor)c) Address:City;Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ L() dOO - /OOpOO Describe request in detail; £y^»y/ -A<» t ■u(l J 5r-/c/‘v' VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setbaclc Variances ( Other Lot Width Front ?_ _ Hardcover Side Rear) BLARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: /o•^^ _ a 0LC 1/ c cv •'lA Au uv^A / ‘ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: -Uix 'fA hc^ r (<l (O p ^CJ ^ Q fob Pc. O-^vlO^v/^-r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. YOU ARE 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 variamce 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_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ar-».?LICANT*S SIGNATURE T)ie 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 the best of his/her knowledge. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ _ _Applicant's Signature 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. 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 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. M 4Adjacent Property oji^rs _ _ _I (we) CptfJCif)-CE E. n^6u/laTTe of 3775*/3^s/0 ^ /Q q[print nameCsJJ ’ [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 3 7 7^ f^D also referred to as Land Use Application No. _____. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. m Property Owner Date / ffO Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. M s ►jl I W ^ s ro M N (/) •H CO in ^ ors. flQ €0 Kl Kl O •) S >0 132 2 4 in z Ui in UJ ^ X UiX in in M UJu. > 4 CO 4 0r -r Kl lA 3o < z > O Z UI UJ ~s m Ui X X Kl M Ui '"13 = 5 Kl Ui Z rH ■*^324 PH 4 in UJ CM X UJ UJ1 o z z K Q PH PH4 Z Z z M m o X m O UJ5 CM X Ui O 1 O X N Q O 4 rH 4 Z 4 CO pJ ^ a o a 7 _l _linO CO > > 1- h- Ui Z ^32 n« m «H 4 X in U. zO (0 O M Kl fc- iS3 I C3 »- S3" ^15£S5I <H ca o o vO in S ino M Cl UJ ffi -ilgo“®\ fOiisa \« fo O O ro O m o “) ”j M -j a «M ui_____o k,2s§“ C n J O Cl Cl UJ Z I > ex tt o ZK <t UJ UJ i"i ^ fi a o o Ui V in CD-Io o _J _J CO Ui Ui O (9 ^- N M CO Z CO m < < O Ki o X X m -i Ui « X Z o Q < K O5 = ^^ K 4 Ui ol Ui a rgjsl O O<0 O UJ Ui \ rH M O X 00 U K) z Ui •H X •H K O X < 0 O X CM ao SCM X si: .i.az •H _J UJ fH ex 1 a in < oinx <o3 “ Kl O -i z XI - X < M Z -J mm Ui a •• Z < M H- Ui m >^iSS s M o IX ex (X O O <Ui Ui - M Mtn Z ^ csi c u u rli55$z I H 4 in z z *1 ►- o m z 4in > > 55 N o X X > CO O 4 4 O 4ro o 19 u <r z X z 5 0 4X0 4 ^ o ~ > \ 4 Ui ilM 3 in o m S4 4 l- U. 4 o I- in o > CO O O 3 CM 4 in o Ui 4 in z ^ IS m 4 O X X > 0 a w Ui gc Kl >; l-l Ui Kl CM X z z in 4 4 o in M z Z M XCM g g Q ^ 4 o •• Zi z rC _i z M zrH 4 X X 1 X 4 U\ U.Z4I-o in o >H u. 4 in I- N io 3 w C' in 3 'O o 4 in 4 in O Z 3 Z Kl 3 4 in <9 ’ z Ui m CM in _ o «n Ui z X Kl Ui 4 CM X 3 O Ui Z IQ 3 O Z N O 4 M pH 4 4 in Ui ~ S=,5S < CD «J Z o §i «K> CO o ® § ° S Kl O 3 3 Kl _i »• in in •n in 3 o o 4 in 4 m°s|^ S z Ui m CM in o in UJ z X M Ui 4 _7g'’ggs C m O 4 IH rH 4 4 m Ui 7 !3o55 Kl Ui O U CO z o ZcMK(no> ocoroz C0om3CM4 COO 4fMOinoui4inz mo33»n_i >» in CO in Kl Ui Ui CM X I O X Xo Kl in in 32 N> O Ui Ui M ^ < O O O _ r-i ex ex > ^ I D D 3 in CO CD cu ^ O €0SiiSg CO o O O O M o 3 3 in -J Kl in o o “I. Cl K Kt UJ UJ <SJ O I O X X o 2K O UI UJ )-4 < O O Cl Ui ^ ex (X > ^ I D D < m (D CO o) <-i O (0 O X X S Z CO O O O O Kl o 3 3 in _i §M ^J Cl €0 c o « - eg Cl M M Cl -I Z lAKl UJ 1-4 < M ex Z U K I O < Cl :::5^ix5 pH X M I- Jio eo Ui o Z > K) M < o z Cl <r -j00 O ex (M UJ Kl O O Z M o Ui OC Z £ O o < z o o Z UJ < < > \ Z < UJ a. Ui a £ 2552 Q. O K o 5 M • lU & M vO »H in o o ro oe uj lu in a lu UJ IK VS55S5N < (S K M r< CD O UJ7 S-'55 in o CD .J =S“iws r>. DC DC 1^ S CO M UJ r«> a »n o U u Ki ^ ai M »o C? O M O I a M M a £ N> a o o M •H < cx o: in UJ 7 SS55 in CD-I o •• UJ r^. 2 CO o H- N. o m o in M in -I ee ^ ao < DC o oz^< DC < UJ CL UJ CL £ii^i h O .J in c o »H 4 1 >C i/) CD O 'T 1-^ < IH o S “s 3 u. 5g w V.) 1- h- o 1 X X Z ^S!S: « K\ UJ UJ Ui UJ M QC o o a Kl UI UI O UJ eg X a 2 ui^ sX o UI X > 1 o K O O O UJ IQ O o K> C3 O X rg 4 Z O I- pg 3 o «n g&in -J iiJ 4 38 05-00038 STATE L CITY OF corr/EYc 2/8/82X UI X SSZ X t 1,38 000038 STATE STATE COfA'Ew Z M 01 Ul V ^ CO X «n h- <n a Kl Ui UJ Q M <K O 2 I O Or- o o "iH < I _j u. O' in oO CO UJ V. Kl H > sc KlO 4 I- OC *H CO o M 4 SKl o V) a a 'T Ui 0£ o! r a a 4 K a O Z UJ 4 4 >a 4 UJ OL UI CL Zgs^ia o ►- M UJ SC I- CO Ui ec UI X > UJ X H Z u aUI Ik u. M X a c y-' •!;;:;':'C If ■V' S-- n - V ’--- f:'-- if ?-;;'.K' . • j6 1 3770 Baysxdti Rd Orono, MN 55356 Mpfilw To: Th« City Of Orono, Enclosed are two applications concernAng ray pi’oposed plans for remodeling my house at 3770 Bayside-Poad. The first application is for the vacation of a city alley that is west of my property- In discussing the vacation Nith Orono city officials, there is a question whether the adjacent property owners would be entitled to half of the alley because they are in a differer*tt subdivision or plat* Enc'o«,ed ■»« check for *250 for the vacation fee- The second application is fcr a conin-i variance for a lot under the 2 acre minimum. The house was originally built in 1905 and remodelled 2 years before I bought it in 1983. No building permits were issued for that remodeling- Much of the new remodel 1 ing I am planning concerns bringi-Tig the building up to the building codes- The remodel 1ing will be extenslve- The rernodei 1 mg will axceriC tne ease- wall fiur feet- anc add a raw second story. The large back shown in the plans will not be built but the eiiisting d-acic might be turned into a three season p-rc:*i. "^he :* a.r.o.r'rH:" 1 ing v.il.l be deno by Sylvestre Construction wh«o has r«srnodell2d raanv beautiful ho».4se3 in the Orono area. Another large issue will te ^he saptic/sewer system- It is my hope that the city sewer does get approved so a new septic system will not be needed. Wit'*- a addition of drain fields we installed three years ago, cur septic system has been adequate for the two pe-apls living here- Enclosed is a check for *’75 for the variance application fee. Pl-aase contact me at work <330-5233) if vo-u need any further info-rmation. L____ 5 jr 1^___]_| ; b:>---l .. ? •< IS , 2.rz { -<:;. [li; : . : • • ’•; *. ■ i^'l vJ I I I I MbKnu-i--M. I SI b •' ■ t- 11 . I •• .’ft 4tC li k. , » ■ ................ ' >•< i » 1. ' \ $ I V 4 I I. . .i ;i:i v: i :! ’ .:• • ' I • . I ;r, • m ! i- ■ • . I jpiiii!i?;v-'3»h'-:’'--5|;p,:>:j;,-,';r,; .t' \ I- JU •■'*'*■■ ’V •'** Xv4'' »;i > 'i - • 1 ., ,yl^ ■> • ■■■;.'•• • liV 1-' ^ 1 1 i 1 4----------12 $4- I Vv. .• • ^ • ‘-.r; t lii'i ’;*■;)! T.f • ‘ :i:| ) ; ‘ ■ i . V : ,x ! ’ . ■ V I . » ■• , > !; ‘f i '• .'»•'»>•. * ' ' . i‘ ’ .f : • ' •KiV:? - *• 4, n ._• ' ■ •; ■ • ! »■. •'*1::___|:1 .a --------- , ii;i--------1 r • 1 ¥:. ’ ■ •■ ■ I..n 1 Lj 1 .V!hik?i \t --,f ^'l>T ' 15 ■1 1 'f I •' ijiSSlSi^iSi : EI ' ? * . » I A 8 •f’ !, .• 1 t «. ■. #• »• J'ii v';4i'L;::!:: •• ... %'\ '1'*^ i *1 j J4 Ticjl Jjiy!] ••* !i - : M ~ ^zfl'?< /s^/33 - -.Tr. ^LUtCv;r-'- = .30 V ^-20j ^ 7S3 '. f . j^AiJbco'^e^ i 3*770 £^j-fc^tr > /'/^'-'r S' 2-V. 2_ y 2 -f. z ‘-r-r^.V 7r-73 !TD * ^l^z.3^3 7 y-2^1 -- ;V7 —)^1 "S* ’' s ’ 6.-V —<2.'/ )o xz>f = 7'-/D ISO C«>»oc. fihb. 3.- ! -.^-/2“ (ir/CS. , Psii-Tic/^ /^j(^ U.zy’io..3 -- /2-G —/ 2-d, Cj/3^ /T^Ct^Z /"i - — ,——-T. ^ = S-7D -70 S70 /73r =7/2-373, jAj ^A-« /■’. V^r* r.T'y ^ # 7^10 ;/0 r,i.' \- /oy , /cri.2 <r = 7rO //Vi ; j. 0=’^Vi'> -7(530 ’ f i’ r -“V c- />/ I i.^ — W-. • — ^ ,. . ( -A - — ruvK'-•.^J O.t. ^ -/aC, - 6'1'E C:r. (H'tirO' ^^pjsoposcr-l^ ^/^t>lT7D^^ <:?r Mi^. ' . tto (s>^Z^7^''/ " So, '0 'X 2-0 5X/(c,' iLfe Dc-^lu ^i->^r. 7J-. j5-o' .'^Ci . \t.^Ltr-J - li,/BJ -■3 '^' A/e^t-o>» “r-ir's’ ''^‘^1-. irrjr-f.« / ue-/= 13 ;3i -• -.. -py.-2.^70 ' ty^-i- Pf^pS-fr'Cij CM -;- • ■f'* --*^IZ. }QB>0 ^/iZ'TfN <U rsf^^ £T4?*S> r'^r'^o:C5?T^ ia*?-?- ^ruO“ *7 5 S7i ?n:> JT7-T (f I Bi c:^ 2.2. /( ^5 “-^ » 'i/* /^ r^T *aJ CO o >^tj:^'T70AJ-r f.* op osec^ 25^ • 2^0 ^ /Cr^'2_(?^ cy I • ^ / - '^' , — .^o’ A^^>- /Aott-. Ac^-W - 2S-2.«i 4-(9SX'Sp * t/. '7T'V^C> l<c^ - /B, e/c-rf><=. j ^ C a J ^ A-^ ii t_0 ' /ET^VS3> 2)e^*^2jn:> ' f^/^f'yz^^ P;. "7 .' ' - / *7 / ^C» S^S /^i:>^T7CAJr /02>o “D>-U;/^/ 2-^t^O - r / /6,r/^ 2.:T^-vT2>0 Lc^ fijcLitr^ ^ ty.';r:An. /32.0 "V or £rU,tfY ■p5t5 /W iu.Asty*J i JO'SCO I 6rO^ C.iZti'J^L. If^ '^’i.» r. ^oce^ ________________ -2<»1 *1«?J *• ^2^0 H -bajo.^ 7rr2^ST5' pAo?osrti-t!)urr7A*(:. ?-^g5U ^^5. :^sw/,^^ = SV/» !• ______ r .20/r^lo^ , ^sn r S2.'?^ J.4. • r CITYof ORONO Post Ofrice Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota !m323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 29, 1986 Steve Gardiner 3770 Bayside Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Septic System Repairs Dear Mr. Gardiner: On October 16, I visited your property at your request to review your septic system. I noted the following: 1. There is one septic tank of apparently about 650 gallons capacity. (Code for new systems requires two tanks of 1,000 and 750 gallons respectively.) 2. This tank is located 30' from your well. Well apparently was installed in 1973 with little regard for it's proximity to the septic system. A minimum of 50* well-to- septic tank setback is required by the State Health Department. However, given the 111' depth of your well and the clay layers it penetrates, I doubt that you would ever experience any contamination problem. 3. The drainfield, apparently located east and south of the septic tank, is. discharging to the surface and you are correct in assuming that it needs some work. The extent of your drainfield is not known, but I suspect it is no more than 200 s.f. or so. Your property is located in the Stubbs Bay Sewer Study Area. The City is currently studying the possibility of extending municipal sewers to serve portions of the developed area around Stubbs Bay. Although the City has not reached any final conclusion on where sewers will go and what properties will be served, I see your property as a likely candidate to be sewered, and it would be unwise and unfair to require you to replace your system with a totally conforming system if it will not be needed in a very few years. BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING administration a FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Steve Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Road October 29, 1986 Page 2 of 2 Given these facts, and given that you are concerned about your septic system surviving the winter, it seems appropriate that you install some additional drainfield as an interim measure. It appears that you could install one or two drainfield lines, running north-south, to the east of your existing drain- field line, using drop boxes. You probably will be able to add from 200-400 square feet of drainfield. It appears that this new drainfield can be placed so it will be well above lake level and will be at least 50* from your well. Considering that this is an interim measure, we will not require soil testing. You should be aware that even if you do add drainfield, the system will not be considered as meeting all currant code standards for a new septic system. In order to be totally in compliance, you would have to 1) install new precast concrete tanks meeting a 50* setback from your well; 2) have soil testing completed and construct a drainfield system based on the soil and water table conditions on the site, and being at least 75* from the well. I think it is unlikely that you could construct a totally conforming system on your small lot. I am enclosing a list of contractors licensed with the City to install drainfield systems. Your contractor must obtain a permit before commencing work. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaf-fron, Assv Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/tln Enclosure Sketch List of Licensed Se^^cic Contractors I L. L Is T>' \-^5- V> \^ 'X\ \ «:‘^2v\;i;' M-Z't^XcOS 1 V- N •“ N. J \\ V5$r^e C\« crz \i ^----*0O'ZVj— ^ rnr:"V.*/ /\._J IN 1 V \ TO: THE CRCNO PLANMIHG COMMISSION FROM: STEVE GARDINER 3770 BAYSIDE ROAD ORONO, MN RE: ITEM 1536 ENCLOSED ARE COPIES OF THE LETTER I SENT TO THE LANDMARK HOMEOWNERS AS A RESULT OF THE SUGGESTIONS OF THE JUNE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ® ___crrvop •^^ON'O i 1 2 1890 s/ luly 3. 1990 D«ar Mr Auexin Evans. I want to thank you for the tiae you spent^discussing the alley vacation during the '-eekeni of June 16 and present plans include postponing enlarging my house but I would like to pursue vacating the city alley that exists between my lot at 3' 7Q Bayside Poad and Landmark Drive. ^ If the vacation of the 30 ft alley takes place, lo it would go to the Landmarx Home Owners and 15 ft would be added to my lot. I would then like to buy the 15 ft of alley the Landmark Home Owners would receive and get a easement for where my garage extend.^ into the Landmark out lot D. Also. I would be very interested in ouying a portion of Outlet D ■^hat is west ci the ailev hut east of Landmark Drive. need vour hein in: 1. .signing a petition allowing the vacation :“t alley. 2. Agreeing to the sell 15 ft of the ailev and granting easement for my garage, if this is acceptable with the other Landmark Home Owners The price I am willing to pay^for the lot is negotiable. The part of the alley x want to buy is approximately 15 ft by 165 ft f.05 :f an acre). It seems that lot prices in our area without lakeshore access .seems to be about $30,000 - $40,000 an acre. I calculated $30,000 X 05 = $1..S00. Please discuss my proposal with the other pi owners. Also, please respond with the enclosed le July 13 so I may report your decisicn to the Oron Commission on July 16. The Landmark Home Owners are: - 475-3113 - 473-0340 :• ‘-y --y .anning Austin Evans Lee Harren Pichard Kyle - 471*9533 Gary Ross - 476-C655 Thank you for your time «ni I hope to be hearing from ___ - --- .. - (330-5283) or at home (476-you soon. Please call me at 0254) if you have any quest Steve Gardiner 3770 Bayside Rd. Orono, MN 55356 To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & 'Zoning Administrator Vu’ August 8, 1990 #139 David Filkins, 3905 Shorelin.. Drive - Variance - Revised Request - Resolution List of Exhibits ~ Vi 1 3 A - "Applicant's Plan #1", Approved per Resolution #2828 B - Staff Concept Plan (now requested by applicant) C - Resolution #2820 D - Revised Resolution Draft Discussion ~ CounciImembers will recall the aoplicant's request to attach an existino detached one car garage, in order to get it off the County Road 15 right-of-way. During the initial review, two concepts by applicant and one by staff were presented for review. Planning Commission and Council approved "applicant's plan #1" which resulted in a 7% hardcover reduction in the u-75' zone, and out of necessity leaving substandard setbacks to the lake, side lot line, and street lot line. After lifting the garage and t«' ly setting it in place per applicant's plan #1, the ap£ etermined that the turning radius into the garage would iic functional, and he proceeded to maku preparations to move it iurther back into the propeity, essentia !''y yielding a site plan p«-r the "staff concept." plan atta< ?.d as Exhibit B. The following table compares che new pro^jsal to the approved plan. 0-75' Hardcover Garage Setbacks: '■'^UGG '.i.'..e Pre-Existing 53% 2' Over 4' 54' (house is ?6') Approved Per Proposed Code Resr^Xr ?828 Plan Standard 50% 0% Attached Attached No;;:/hbor's Garage 3.5' Neighbor's House 14' 4' 8' 40' 9' 14' 10' 7' 34' 8.5' + 13' 30' 10' 75' 10' 10' Zoning File #1539 August 8, 1990 Page 2 of 2Two minor changes to the staff concept plan are requested by the applicant. First, he has determined that in order to rearOiiably attach the garage without damaging the existing house foundation, he will have to off-set the garage approximately 1' from the house to accommodate footings. While this 1' gap will be enclosed and still serves to attach the 2 structures, this does bring the garage approximately 1' closer to the west lot line than originally proposed. Also, applicant notes that at the northeast corner of the house, the area of concrete proposed to be removed serves as sidewalk to the main entr/ to the house, and in retrospect he would prefer to not remove that hardcover. However, the other hardcover removals between the house and the shoreline would still yield a 3% hardcover decrease or: the property. The proposed revisions are relatively minor in the scheme of this property, however, they do result in a few changed setbacks and a slightly smaller decrease. There is no significant change in the effect this has on the neighboring properties. Staff Reconmiendation - All things considered, staff recommends approval of this request, finding that t';e revised proposal provides a safer and more functional garage* access for this extremely substandard property. The proposal still results in a decrease in overall hardcover on the property, with the areas to be removed being nearest the lake. A revised resolution is attached for Council review. PROPOSED MOTION; Moved by ___, seconded by ___, to approve revisions to the previous attached garage approval per the attached resolution. Ayes ___ nays ___. CE RTIFICA TE OF SU R VEY P,epared ,or : ___________PAVE PILKIMS ^ Une o( 20, T. Ill, R 23 e/HiSitr B 7 QP-B n Af A: '''--■ _______ (of>c\rclp Wrtll/ ------ DR. Cof>c\rclc Walk Arn«r «r L«I2 ' ^ ««)ee ^ N't*.UARD COVER CALCULATlOt^^o — lONE HARO COVER ZONE Area area 41<>1 ZZ18 15-290'leA- 'ii' ' Arp^ icA^"^ ^ ^ / Pit!At PESCRIPTIOH! ^Al\ that, part of l.ot 1, Olock 0, Townsite of l.anqdoii Park. tloRcrlbprl as follows: npqlniilnq at a point on the North lino of said l.ot I, distant .IIZ.'IO fr.pt Wost of thf* cornor of said l.ot 2. foitned by thp 1ntnrsoction of the Wosterly lino of Uiinwoody Avenue with the Southerly line of the County f?oad iir; nhowii on hlio p'. .it of RtilrJ Townfilt*?; theiico deflectlnq to the left, deflection angle 73 degrees. Ifi minutes a distance of Od feet more or less to tlie shore of bake Minnetonka; thence Northwesterly along said lake sliore a illstance of 50 feet more or loss to a point on said lake sliore in a line deflecting to the left, deflection angle /3 degrees. 57 minutes from a point on said Northerly line of said Lot I distant 60.011 feet West of the point of beginning; thence Northeasterly along said line a distance of '.'•7 feel, mote or lesr. to said North line of said hot I: thence East along the North line of said l.ot I a distance of 60.00 feet to point of beginning. AHI:a ^ ‘n7‘i sgnare (.-el lo 929.4 contour line n . 1,1 k J r 9794 ,-, . GENERAL NOTESIIoieS Ml d»r.«v ba\td lr*m ^V)A ci»n _jcl'- - - -u _.. o Denotes iron n, ' lent * Denotes cross chiseled in concrete X 939.7 Denotes xisting spot elcvotlon [939] Denotes proposed spot elevotion <--------- Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existing features Proposed lop ol foundation elevation = Proposed basement floor elevation = Proposed gorage floor elev ' t = BENCHMARK: ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Ph: 475-1433 I hareby ctrlify thol this survsy, pWin or fEport was prspared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the lav*s of the Stole of Mmneso' SCALE 1 ’'r 20' BOOK PAGE i 24- 26> 1........----- ^ nAir 6////9C? ___________FILE NO. ^0071 f\ ' Prepared (or: CERIXOCATE^^ PAV£ FILKINS ^Nsrlli lin, ,f s<t. 20, T.IIT, R.2J -:.5W el,ne zoMe HAROu»feii ZOME AREA area 41*^1 ^^l8 15-7SO*104 "'Vo VIARD COn/ER CALCULMmi^ ' rt« conMiirt« or »w«E' 53% B'3% tSTAPF CoMCePT LEtJAL UESCRimONi All tlint pnrt or Lot 1, Block 0, Townslt« of l.nnqOon IViik, described ns followsi Beginning at •1 polnl. on tlie North line of snid Lot 1, distant ,11?.76 reel Went or the corner of said Lot 2, formed by the Intersection of the Westerly line of Diinwoudy Avenne with tlie Southerly line of the County Road nn shown on Ine plat of said Townslbe; thence deflecting to the left, deflection angle 73 degrees, 16 minutes n distance of Od feet more or less to the shore of Lake Minnetonkat thence Northwesterly along raid lak»> shore a distance of 50 feet more or loen to a point on said lake shore on a line deflecting to the left, dor lection angle 73 degrees, 57 minutes from a point on said Northerly line of said Lot 1 distant 60.60 feet West of the point of beginning; thence Northeasterly along said line a distance of 57 feet more or less to said North line Of said Lot 1; thence East along the North line of said l.ot 1 a distance of 60.60 feet to point of beginning AREA 1175 S'pi.sre feet to 929.4 contour 11 tie note 5 AU ArCAV ba«<j fr«m Il'J.'l'C'diiur ^ ^ ^ _ Denotes iron monument Denotes cross chiseled in concrete Denotes existing spot elevation Denotes proposed spot elevolion Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour linos denotes existing features K 939,7 [939 1 <------- Proposed top ol foundoiion elevation = Proposed basement floor elevation = Proposed gorage floor elevation = BENCHMARK: ALL-METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesolo 55356 Ph: 475-1433 1 litraby cariify Ihot this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the lavri o( the Stale o( Minnesota. I70Z^DATE FILE NO. 50071 A City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 2823__________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.55 r SUBDIVISION 8, SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B) AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 13 PILE #1539 WHEREAS, David Filkins (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3905 Shoreline Drive witnin the City of Orono {hereinafter “City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property ”); and WHEitEAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municioal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions * a.nd 2 and 10.55, Subdivision 8 to allow construction of an attacned garage w’-thin 75' of the shoreline, where no structure or hardcover i normally allowed,, and a variance to Section 10-25' '^sttbaolc is to allow a sice vard setbacjc of 8' where a 10 side setbao)c is normally required,‘and a front (street) yard setback of 4 where a 30 setback is normallv required, and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 13 to allow garage doors facing the street to be less than the required 30' from the property line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1539. 2. The property is located in the LR—IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reva.ewed app 1 ication on June 18, 1990, and recommended approval of the p p variances, on a vote of 4 to 1 with 1 abstention, based upon the following findings: a) Aoplicant is moving the existing e location within the property boundaries, but will not chang the footprint dimensions of that garage. b) The proposed relocation and attachment results in a more conforming situation than the cu conditions. c) The applicant can concurrently hardcover on the property, resulting in a net hardcover decrease in the 0-75' zone from 53% down to 46%. 1 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2828__________ OHaNQizi) While the oroposed attachment will leave the garage 9- from the neighLrs existing detached garage which is also Unconforming in nature, the attachment leaves a setback from the neighboring residence structure o. 14 , adequate fbr fire safety purposes. Vetback zonei°’hence°theilrdsh"ip\% that^^^ithout a Applicant would not be able to locate a garage within the oroperty boundaries. 4. The City Council has f""‘>h%%"ia^ ^^^o^t^'^b^-^C^ty :-r l^lir^ran'd t^lf^re IV tlSof the proposed variance on tre .^eai.n, sai-r/ community . 5. The City Council finds tnat = prcoerty are peculiar to the variance property in tr.is = light, air nor pSsi^a"f°re"tIzfr^- o"r VthL-'da-n-ger' to neighbor^ property; would the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of t..e C-... CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based UDon the above findings, the Orono '=i=/''°“subdi vision grants variances to Municipal -‘»iocation of the 1 and 2 and . ^Mshore sitbick zone where no existing garage ° allowed: and crants variances to hardcover or structure is . street lot line setbac.’c of Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (S) to . . '’and a side setbac.k of 8' 4- Where a 30* setback is such structure being where a 10- setbac-. is "“^"^“^/Xre a 7 5^ setback if normal ly teVbfck^ i’s to%falfyfeV\fed-fuf,eft fo fhf toMfwifgiofditions: ht.Shli,'iSU^n'l’r^Jo c“o “»' tro. S 1, to ‘’“‘‘/"/o".;; i'.'tVo"”.'t r. » roS;Mo:°ftS siKtVtVn't ..... increase in hardcover. L n - --i '' - ^ f * City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2828__________aRawcr ^aSS^plicant shall attach the garage as shown in Exhibit B, and shall install fire walls in the garage as required by the building code, and shall be allowed to revise the roof lines as necessary to eliminate potential roof drainage concerns, subject to staff approval. 3. Applicant is advised that rny regrading of the driveway area within* the County right-of-way, requires Hennepin County Highway Department approval. 4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (July 9, 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. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of July, lll James R. GrabeA^^J^yor Page 3 of 5 City of OR-OINO r QRoriCJ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2828__________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged 9th day of July, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Halim, & 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 -I I City of OROIVO CtTC OF QRONa RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO_________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of I99O before me -a Notary Pub^c within and for siaid county, personally appeared t)rju'^f<U. C- /-^ )^U*vu? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(s) described _n and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. / NOTARY PUBLIC L STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to theme to be the person(s) de ibet in and who executed ----- foregoing instrument, and acxviowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free a;t and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 I EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 2323 legal DESCRIPTION; Ail blinb parb of Lob U Biocic 0, Townsibe of Langdon Parle, described as follows; Beginning ab a poinb on bhe Norbli line of said Lob 1, disbanb 312.76 feet Wost of blie corner of said Lob 2, formed by bhe inbersection of bhe Wesberiy line of Dunwoody Avenue vita bhe Soubherly line of bhe County Road as sliown on the plat of said Townsibe; thence deflecting to the left, deflection angle 73 degrees, 16 minutes a distance of 04 feet more or less to bhe shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Norbhwesberly along said lake shore a distance of 50 feet more or less to a poinb.on said lake shore on a line deflecting bo bhe left, deflection angle 73 degrees, 57 minutes from a point on said Norblierly line of said Lob 1 distant 60.68 feet West of the point of beginning; thence Northeasterly along said line a distance of 57 feet more or less bo said North line of said Lob 1; tlience East along bhe North line of said Lob 1 a.distance of 60.60 feet bo point of beginning. ALL IN HENNEPIN COUNT j. ,• 'MINNESOTA. I e^)BtT s CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY . ^z-sz-s Preparad for: PAVE FILk^mS ^Mor4h line o-T ^c. 20,T.IIT, R.23 ^rcOU^ ROAD 15 .^’^TsHORELINE r \ ~ ^___4- ^ ^ ~Corcrde Wal!4 DR. r(3»rner U UfZ ' /APPUCA^JT^ 'p4A/o ^ / 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONj. UARD COVEfc CALCULAT\Ot^^o_ nt cwnt M J ZONS O -T V 15-250 roM« AKEA MAA0COV«a AA6A 104 2218 Of ca^cAME 63% 8*3% ..£r=-£™ 8ho«"orJaJ said la»c9 shore a distance of 58 feet mor« A ooint on said Lake shore on a line deflect^ thS left? deflection angle 57 minute, from a point on said Northerly distao 60.68 feet West of the faint b«?lnnlng. riori i?57 feet more or less to said Nortn 1 • Lot 1: thence East along the Nortn line o . ^ _ Lot I a distance of 60.68 feet to point of tegin .mg AREA - <375 square feet to 929.4 contour line , . . GENERAL NOTES Mote i Ml rr»*« c«*<i»ur A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B) AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 13 PILE #1539 WHEREAS, David Filkins (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3905 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and 10.55, Subdivision 8 to allow construction of an attached garage within 75' of the shoreline, where no structure or hardcover : normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow a side yard setback of 7.5'where a 10' side setback is normally required, and a front (street) yard setback of 10'where a 30' setback is normally required, and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 13 to allow garage doors facing the street to be less t n the required 30' from the property line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1539. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning C-" "ission reviewe . xs application on June 18 , 1990, and re mmended approv-- of the proposed variances, on a vote of 4 to 1 with 1 abstention, based upon the follow^’^q findings; a> olicant is moving the existing detached garage tc? a loo n within the property boundaries, but will not change the tootprint dimensions of that garage. Page 1 of 5 m b) The proposed relo^:ai£.ion and attachment of the garage results in a more confcrrming situation than the current conditions. c) The applicant can concurrently remove existing hardcover on the property, resulting in a net hardcover decrease in the 0-75' zone from 53% down to 46%. d) While the proposed attachment will leave the garage only 9* from the neighbors existing detached garage which is also nonconforming in nature, the attachment leaves a setback from the neighboring residence structur*' of 14*, adequate for fire safety purposes. e) The majority of the lot is in the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone, hence the hardship is that without a variance, applicant would not be able to locate a garage within the property boundaries. 4. The City Council adopted Resolution #2828 on July 9, 1990 per the site plan recommended by the Planning Commission. 5. After lifting the garage and temporarily placing it within the proposed location, applicant determined that the resulting turning radius to enter the garage was not functional, and further determined that due to ♦•he nature of the existing house footings, parallel garage foc .ing would place the garage approximately 1* closer than anticipated to the west lot line, while still being attached to the house. The result is a greater setback to i'^e street (10* instead of 4*), a side setback of 7* instead of 8', and a lake setback of 34* instead of 40*. These setbacks will result in no significant chi.nge in the effect on neighboring properties. 6. The applic;*^-t further determined that removal of the 89 s.f. hardcover cid'.vvaik area leading to the main entry door of the house would nor be practical. Without this removal, but with other proposed removals at the lakeshore side of the house, hardcover on the property still will be decreased from the existing 53% down to 50%. 7. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and rercwmendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect Page 2 of 5 of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the conununity. 8. The City Council finds that the conditions existing n this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substant.al property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zcring Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2 and 10.55, Subdivision 8 to pe^-nit the relocation of the existing garcge within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and grants variances to Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow a street lot line setback of 10' where a 30' setback is normally required, and i side setback of 7' where a 10' setback is normally required, with such str ucture being located 34' from the shoreline where a 75' setback is normally required, and grants a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 13 to allow a 10' setback for the garage doors facing the street where c*. 30 setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall remove hardcover as shown on Exhibit B attached, resulting in a reduction from 53% to 50% har>dcover in the 0-75' zone. Such removals shall occur prior to continued work on the garage. The applicant is a;' ’ised that any future proposals to increase hardcover on tiie propi; ;rty will not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover, resulting in no net .■'P ''ease in hardcover. 2. Applicant shall attach the garage a^ :hown in Exhibit B, and shall install fire walls in the garage as required by the building code, and shall be allowed to revise the roof lines as necessary to eliminate potential roof drainage concerns, subjsc to staff approval. Page 3 of 5 PUBLIC ATTEMDANCS CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER r" ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regalar Meeting of July 23, 1990 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1990, 7:00 P.M, (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. lojiit'jii tvittjffvi; ri'jl3i990 riTv HROfM PART COMMISSION COMAENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Maureen Bellows Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Liait 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ♦♦APPLICANTS** Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions, vacations and denials. 3. #1334 Rebers Construction - Sugarwoods Plat - Reconsideration of Conditions of PRD Approval - Resolution 4. #1473 Jacquelyn Kelly, 2056 Shadywood Road - After the Fact - Variance - Request to Table * 6.' #1506 Carol Senn, 3220 vjatertown Road - Final Subdivision - Resolution 7. #1509 Earl Freeman, 4505 Watertown Road - Variance - * 8. #1528 Constance & Don Scott, 2300 Longview Circle - Final Subdivision - Resolution 9. #1536 Steve Gardiner, 3770 Bayside Road - Variances - Resolution 10. #1539 Dave Filkins, 3905 Shoreline Drive - Variance - Revised Request 11. #1551 Robert Waade, 998 Wildhurst Trail - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution * 12. #1552 Steven Foster, 1800 Shadywood Road - Variance - Request to Table 13. #1553 Mike Pierce, 480 Deborah Drive - Variance 14. #1556 Gerald Nelson, 1629 Bohns Point Road - Variance 15. #1557 Mike Cullen, 2700 Pheasant Road - Variance - Resolution 16. #1563 Maurene & Jerry Denzel, 1295 Elmwood Avenue - Variance - Resolution 17. #1564 JoAnn Grimes, 4720/4730 North Arm Drive - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution 18. #1566 Dr. & Mrs. Thomas Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue - Variance - Resolution 19. #1567 Robert & LouAnn Powell, 2916 Casco Point Road - Variance - Resolution AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1990, 7:00 P.M. Farm Road - ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT - Continued 20. #1568 James & Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Resolution 21. #1569 Sam McCloud, 4280 Bayside Road - Variance - Resolution 22. Public Facilities - Directions For Zoning * 23. Wetlands Protection 24. Hardcover - Protection and Enforcement ENGINEER'S REPORT 25. Pump House - Bid Award 26. Lift Station #8 Renovation * 27. Pay Request #4 - Well #3 MATOR/COUNCIL REPORT 28. Highway 12 Citizen Group CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT * 29. Transportation Consultant Highway 12 Corridor Facility Citizens Review Committee Bow and Arrow Hunting October fest 1988 Building Code Adoption - Ordinance Lake Use Manangement LMCD Shoreland Regulations Agreement Park Dedication 1991 Budget Process 1991 LMCD Budget Council Salary Adjustment Transient Merchant - Ordinance Amendment 1989 Financial Report 1990 Police Labor Contract Sub-Recipient C.D.B.G. Year XVI - Resolution Barry Rathbun - Salary Increase Randy O/Brien - Salary Increase 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. Sem:-Annual Recycling Report Casco Avenue Drainage Stubbs Bay Assessing Services Election Judges Appointment - Resolution Administrator's Information Advisory Board Selection Process Guidelines Administrator's Vacation Goal Setting June Receipts and Disbursement Wire Transfers Corn Day's Parade CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (55*) BILLS (56*) UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 08/13 - Council Meeting 08/20 - Planning Commission Meeting 08/27 - Council Meeting 08/28 - First Day (8:00 A.M.) for Candidates to File for City Council 09/03 - Holiday - Labor Day 09/11 - Last Day (4:30 P.M.) for Candidates to File for City Council MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 ' ‘. 1 3 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. , --- The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, and Councilmembers Goetten, Nettles, Peterson and Callahan. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Alternate City Attorney Lewis Smith, and City Recorder Scheffler. CONSENT AGENDA* City Administrator Bernhardson noted that item #14, Pump Well #3 Amendment, is to removed from the Agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held July 9, 1990. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments from the public. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS: Park Commission Vice-Chair Vongries stated that the Park Commission would like to receive the plans for any new subdivisions occurring in Orono. He asked if the plans would be sent to Park Commission Members at the same time the information is sent to the Planning Commission. He said, "Our feeling is that it may be more appropriate to have land dedicated to fulfill the needs of the community with respect to parks, bike/hike trails, etc. We wish to be able to review a new subdivision to see whether land dedication would be appropriate. V/e are asking the City Council to establish a formal procedure to assure that the information is received by the Park Commission.” Mayor Grabek stated that it is a good idea for the Park Commission to receive new subdivision information and assured Vongries that staff will send the information to them. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1334 REBERS CONSTRUCTION SUGARWOODS PLAT RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS OF PRD APPROVAL Bernhardson requested that this item be tabled August 13, 1990 Council Meeting. until the - 1 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table this matter until the August 13, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1429 RALPH BURGESS 2610 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD VARIANCE REVISED PROPOSAL RESOLUTION #2837 Mr. Mike Peters was present as the representative for Mr. Burgess. Bernhardson explained that Mr. Burgess has significantly revised his requests following Council's review of this application several months ago. He stated that Mr. Burgess is now seeking a hardcover variance so that he can replace the existing detached garage on the property. Gaffron noted that existing hardcover on this property currently exceeds 25%. He stated that Council has an opportunity to reduce the amount of hardcover on this property since Mr. Burgess is removing the existing garage. Gaffron said that is the reason this is being presented to Council even though Mr. Burgess is not proposing to increase hardcover. Councilmember Goetten stated that she did not object to the applicant's request to re-construct the detached garage. She questioned whether it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to review this application. She said, "The Planning Commission has not seen this particular plan regarding this property." Gaffron replied, "The garage will be constructed in the same location and same dimensions as the existing garage. Council tabled this application when it was last reviewed. That is why staff has brought it back to Council without Planning Comruission review." Mr. Peters commented that the request is very simple and that Mr. Burgess wishes to proceed with this as soon as possible. Mayor Grabek asked staff whether they felt it necessary to refer the application back to the Planning Commission. Gaffron replied, "In my opinion, it is not necessary." Councilmember Callahan stated that it is a good policy to consider whether referral to the Planning Commission is appropriate in these situations. Callahan also questioned whether there are two garages on this property. - 2 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 ZONING FILE 11429-BURGESS CONTINUED Gaffron stated that there is a two-car garage attached to the house. Mr. Peters added that the attached garage is very small. Nettles did not believe it was necessary to refer the matter back to Planning Commission because the new structure will be the same as what exists now. He added that it is getting late in the construction season. Callahan said that he is concerned about two garages on the property when there is excess hardcovc:r. He stated that he did not want to see the driveway area increase as part of the garage replacement. Callahan also asked that notice be given to future owners of this property that hardcover cannot exceed 33.7% existing now. Mr. Peters said, "We are only trying to make the property marketable. Mr. Burgess purchased the property with the intentions of tearing it down. The only part of the house that has any real value is the foundation. V»’e would not do anything more than what we can to facilitate selling the property." In response to Callahan's third concern, Gaffron stated that a standard advisory clause will be included in the resolution advising future owners of this property that hardcover cannot increase. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Resolution #2837, granting a hardcover variance to construct a detached garage. The resolution is to include a clause which will place future owners of this property on notice that hardcover in the 75-250' zone is not to exceed 33.7%. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1445 GREGORY PETERSON 1355 ARBOR STREET VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2838 Mr. Peterson was present. Bernhardson provided a summary review of this application (see Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated July 19, 1990). Mabusth added that Mr. Peterson has provided a showing the fencing plan for the entire yard. sketch Mr. Peterson stated that the fence had been included in the permit that he obtained for the porch and pool. Mabusth replied, "If the fence had been included in the pool - 3 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 ZONING FILE il445-GREGORY PETERSON CONTINUED permit, it would have alerted staff at that time to the need for a variance for the fence. Did the valuation given for the pool permit include the fencing?" Mr. Peterson stated that the fence valu i was included in that permit. Mabusth stated that it would be necessary for staff to review the pool permit application. Councilmember Peterson referred to a letter from Mrs. Barb Garcia that had been submitted by Mr. Peterson in support of the fencing. She noted that Mrs. Garcia had not signed the letter. Mr. Peterson explained that the letter was not because both he and Mrs. Garcia have been out of town. signed Councilmember the letter signed. Peterson stated that she would like to have Bernhardson advised that staff will ask Mr. Peterson to obtain Mrs. Garcia's signature. Councilmember Peterson stated that she has had a problem with this application from the very beginning. She said, "There was extensive conversati-“n regarding the location of the fenre in relation to the pool. I understand the need for a 5' fence. However, the north side of the property is heavily vegetated with an existing chain link fence. Wouldn't it be possible to use chain link rather than wood. I am opposed to the boxing-in effect and chain link would not be so opaque." Mr. Peterson replied that chain link fencing is more expensive than wood. He added that there is currently wood fencing around other portions of the property and he would like a more uniform appearance. Councilmember Gcetten also expressed concern about "boxing in" the property with fencing. She said, "The Petersons took exception to the first Council decision, which was then changed. They took exception to the fact that Council approved fencing around the pool and placed it around the yard. They were then given approval to put fencing around part of the yard. The Petersons were told to come back for approval for the rest of the fencing. There was confusion about that request as the Petersons did not believe it was necessary to come back to the Council. I want to be sure that whatever decisions we make this evening are very clear and fully understood by the Petersons. I cannot vote in favor of this application. I believe it sets a poor example to allow a yard to be completely fenced." 1 - 4 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 ZONING FILE #1445-GREGORY PETERSON CONTINUED Peterson stated that the Planning Conunission had not expressed any problem with the fencing proposal. Councilmember Peterson said, "The Planning Commission may have interpreted your request for a fence to be around the pool, not around the yard." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2838, granting the street/front setback and height variances to construct a fence, subject to Mrs. Garcia's letter being properly executed and to staff's determination regarding a permit. Motion, Ayes-2, Callahan, Peterson, Goetten, Nay. Motion failed. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to conceptually deny the application of Gregory Peterson for front/street setback and height variances to construct a fence. Callahan noted that Mr. Peterson is required to have a 5' fence. Goetten stated that Mr. Peterson's insurance company is requiring a 5' fence around the pool, not around the yard. Mabusth stated that Mr. Peterson has the right to place a 5' fence out of the 50' setback areas along the side yard. Callahan stated that since opaqueness of the fence seemed to be the objection it may be appropriate to require that chain link be used rather than wood. Mr. Peterson indicated that he is opposed to chain link. Nettles suggested allowing a 3>j' wood fence with 1^5' of lattice board on top to reduce the opaque nature. Mr. Peterson stated that the wood sections he intends to use 5'4". Mr. Peterson indicated that he has considered removing every other picket to make the fence less opaque. Motion, Ayes-2, Grabek, Nettles, Callahan, Nay. Motion failed. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2838, granting the street/front setback and height variances to construct a fence, subject to every other picket being omitted from the fence, the letter from Mrs. Garcia be executed, and staff's determination regarding a building permit for the fence. Motion, Ayes-3, Goetten and Peterson, Nay. Motion passed. #1473 JACQUELYN KELLY 2056 SHADYWOOD ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE Mr. Dennis Johnson, Ms. Kelly's Attorney, was present on her behalf. Bernhardson informed Council that Ms. Kelly is presenting a revised plan from the original that she proposed when Council last reviewed this application. He noted that plastic underlining would be removed from existing rock beds and in the 250' - 500' zone, fabric would be placed beneath the landscaping. - 5 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 ZONING FILE #1473-KELLY CONTINUED Mabusth added that hardcover will be reduced 982 s.f., or 4.7%. This further reduction would bring the total hardcover to 52.5% for the entire property. Mr. Johnson noted that approximately 3' of deck would extend beyond the average setback line. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to conceptually deny the after-the-fact variances for Jacquelyn Kelly. Goetten stated that hardcover on the lot is more than double what is allowed. She also objected to deck structure encroaching into the average lakeshore setback area. Staff is directed to prepare a resolution of denial to present at the August 13, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1502 MICHAEL HILBELI.^K 2180 PROSPECT AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2839 Mr. Hilbelink was not present for this matter. Mr. Jentilucci, adjacent property owner, and his Attorney, Neil Heikkila, were present. Mayor Grabek indicated that Mr. Hilbelink had no concerns regarding the Resolution presented for Council to adopt this evening. Bernhardson stated that the drainage issue has been addressed since Council's last review of this application. He said, "The City Engineer has worked with Mr. Jentilucci, Mr. Hilbelink and the property owners' association to the rear. It will be necessary to excavate 150 cubic yards from the French Creek property to alleviate ponding above the 952 elevation. The Homeowners' Association has agreed to allow the excavation and the temporary easements necessary. Mr. Hilbelink has agreed to pay for the excavation portion cf the project which will be done through a City contractor." Mr. Jentilucci expressed his appreciation for the efforts of the City to resolve the drainage problems. He stated that he was still concerned that development of the property could move the existing swale nearer to his property. He said that the swale is not on the property line, but is 10' to 15' into Mr. Hilbelink's property. Mabusth stated that Mr. Hilbelink is aware of the existing swale and has indicated that it will not be moved. She said, "Mr. Hilbelink is providing the City w'tn i-» ac,?i ona I feet of drainage easement along his northern property line. Mr. Jentilucci has also agreed to execute an agreement." - 6 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 ZONING FILE #1502-HILBELINK CONTINUED Mr. Jentilucci asked when the drainage project would begin in relation to construction of Mr. Hilbelink's house. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Jentilucci when he preferred that the work be done. Bernhardson stated that the work would more than likely be done before construction begins. Mr. Jentilucci stated that he wanted assurance that the drainage work would be done before there is any hardcover on Mr. Hilbelink's property. Mayor Grabek stated that the resolution would include language in accordance with Mr. Jentilucci's request. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2839, as amended to include language requiring that the drainage project be completed before any hardcover exists on Mr. Hilbelink's property and that the existing drainage swale remain in its present location. Further, that Council approves the agreement between Mr. Hilbelink and the City regarding the division of costs for the drainage project wherein Mr. Hilbelink has agreed to pay $400.00. Motion, Ayes-4, Peterson, Nay. Motion passed. Peterson objected to granting variances for a new residence. #1516 WHITNEY MACMILLAN 1560 FOX STREET FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL RESOLUTION #2840* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2840, granting final plat approval for Mr. and Mrs. Whitney MacMillan. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1527 LYNDON S. (BILL) STUBBS 2555 FOX STREET VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2841 Mr. Stubbs was present. Councilmember Callahan indicated that he concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the lot should not be developed. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2841, granting a lot area variance for Mr. Bill Stubbs to develop property located at 2555 Fox Street. Motion, Ayes-4, Callahan, Nay. Motion passed. - 7 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 #1538 LAUREN BORN 1432 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2842* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2842, granting hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for Mr. Lauren Born to construct access stairs and a landing at property located at 1432 Shoreline Drive. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-O. Motion passed. #1543 RICHARD C. REED 1000 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2843* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2843, granting an after-the-fact height variance for entrance monuments constructed at 1000 Old Long Lake Road. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1552 STEVEN FOSTER 1800 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE DENIAL RESOLUTION The applicants were not present. Mayor Grabek noted that the applicants were not present for the July 9, 1990 Council Meeting when this application was reviewed. He questioned whether it would be appropriate to vote on the matter without providing an opportunity for the applicants to express their views. Gaffron suggested that it may be unusual to adopt the resolution in this case because the applicant has not been before Council at all. He added that staff did mail the information presented this evening to Mr, and Mrs. Foster. Mayor Grabek suggested tabling the application to allow staff the opportunity to verify that the applicants have in fact received the information mailed to them. Councilmember Callahan stated that he would be in favor of tabling the matter again this evening. He recommended that this be the last time that the matter is tabled. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to table this application until the August 13, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. - 8 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL JOHN WOJCIK 3310 BAYSIDE ROAD ADDITIONS TO RESIDENCE SECOND REVIEW Bernhardson briefly reviewed this matter and the discussion and action taken at the July 9, 1990 Council Meeting. He noted that the information presented this evening included a listing of requests for additions to properties with similar septic capabilities (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated July 19, 1990). Mayor Grabek stated that the V/ojciks could have additional persons move in and live with them tomorrow. He did not believe that adding an additional bathroom and increasing the size of a bedroom would necessarily increase the septic system usage. He said that if the Wojciks were adding a bedroom, he would have reason for concern. Councilmember Goetr.en was concerned about doubling the size of the master bedroom. Councilmember Peterson concurred with Grabek in that -he number of bathrooms does not indicate the amount of use each will have. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the request of the Wojciks' to add an additional bathroom to their existing residence. Callahan asked what the Wojciks must do if their septic system fails. Gaffron replied that they would likely have to use a holding tank until such time that City sewer is available. P^rnhardson suggested that the applicants cculd be asked to -gn a hold harmless agreement. He stated that such an agreement would protect the City in the event the septic system does fail. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Wojcik if he would object to signing such an agreement. Mr. Wojcik stated that he would have no objections. Motion, Ayes-4, Goetten, Nay. Motion passed. Goetten stated that she did not object to the Wojciks' application, but was concerned about the seotic system. She added that Michael Gaffron is the City's septic inspector and that she supports his recommendations. Gaffron indicated that it would be necessary for Mr. Wojcik to submit a survey and go through the variance process for the side setback variance tnat may be required for the addition. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT: OTHER: Councilmember Callahan stated that there are an increasing number of properties that have more hardcover than the City has approved or allows. He suggested that staff research possible - 9 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT-OTHER CONTINUED methods of holding property owners responsible when they exceed the allowed or approved hardcover. He suggested that applicants seeking hardcover variances be required to post a bond, or other form of security, to protect future property owners. He stated that the security would be filed against the chain of title for future reference. Callahan stated that it is unfair that subsequent property owners be held responsible for the actions taken by previous owners. Bernhardson stated that staff would research the matter and bring the information back for Council's review. Councilmember Peterson stated that she would like to receive Council Packets earlier in the week. Bernhardson staged that staff is attempting to send Zoning application information ahead of the Council Packets to provide Council with more review time. Councilmember Callahan informed Council of the new subdivision that will be presented for their review. He stated that the property is located between County Road 15 and County Road 19, off of Old Beach Road. He suggested that Council may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to have a moratorium on developments that involve wetlands. He stated that residential structures are encroaching closer and closer to wetlands oecause of the low water. Callahan believed that it may be necessary for the City to re-examine its present wetland ordinances in light of the increasing developments near wetlands. Councilmember Goetten concurred with Callahan. She also asked staff to provide Council with more information regarding the new law for compensatory replacement of wetland area that is filled. Callahan asked staff to provide Council with information regarding the regulations established by other cities to regulate marinas and docks. Mayor Grabek noted that the committee established to raise money for the Orono Schools has asked the City to provide $250.00 to $300.00 for an Octoberfest celebration sign. He stated that the sign would be re-usable. He asked staff to present a memo regarding the donation for the August 13, 1990 Council Meeting. APPOINTMENTS PROCESS Mayor Grabek stated that this matter was tabled at the July 9, 1990 Council meeting to allow full Council to vote. He said that he did not believe there is need for a formal process. Councilmember Peterson stated that paragraph #6 is not - 10 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 APPOINTMENT PROCESS CONTINUED necessary. Peterson also suggested revising paragraph #2 by eliminating all words following the words "further solicitation of people". She believed that the additional lang'iage made it sound as though Council could pick and choose persons they wished to have participate in the process. Bernhardson explained that the purpose of paragraph #2 is to allow applications received between the deadline date and the Council Meeting to be included in the process. Councilmember Nettles believed that paragraph #6 is necessary. He stated that thank you letters were not sent immediately following the Park Commission appointment. Councilmember Callahan suggested that paragraph #4 state that Council "may" hold interviews, rather than Council "wi''" hold interviews. He further suggested the addition of language to the effect that lack of an interview will not automatically disqualify an applicant. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles for the purpose of discussion, to continue the appointments process as it has been done in the past. Nettles stated that he would not vote for this process because he believed there were wrong doings on behalf of the City. . viewed the process presented this evening as more of a directive to staff as to how the process will be handled in the future Peterson agreed with Nettles. Grabek withdrew his motion. It was moved by Nettles, seconded by Peterson, that the advisory board selection process, with the revisions noted by Callahan, Peterson, and Nettles, be a directive to staff for future reference. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT; TRANSIENT MERCHANTS Bernhardson suggested that Council may wish to re-examine the Transient Merchant Ordinance. He suggested that Council may wish to more specifically define the word "transient" and limit the number of days such a merchant can operate from a particular location. Councilmember Peterson asked Bernhardson to clarify his definition of a permanent structure. Bernhardson replied that it would be necessary to obtain a building permit for such a structure. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to direct staff to further research a method of - 11 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 TRANSIENT MERCHANTS CONTINUED efficiently limiting and controlling Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. transient merchants. LAKE USE MANAGEMENT Bernhardson reported that he and Councilmember Callahan attended the June 11, 1990 Plan Review Meeting to discuss the LMCD'S response to Orono's comments. He presented to Council the preliminary comments of the consultant regarding Orono's comments. Bernhardson stated that the initial comments were disappointing, but that additional comments are expected sometime in August. Council accepted the information presented and took no formal action. REQUEST FOR SITE VISIT Bernhardson presented information regarding a site visit to the location on which Wayzata is proposing to construct a public works facility. Bernhardson suggested that Council may wish to have a general discussion of the issues of public facilities at their August 13, 1990 meeting. Mayor Grabek agreed that the issue should be discussed at the next meeting. He asked Bernhardson to contact each Councilmember to determine an appropriate date for the site visit. There was no formal motion. 1991 BUDGET PROCESS Bernhardson stated that he was unable to provide attachment C this evening. He said that Council has to adopt the maximum levy by August 27, 1990, but that it can be reduced anytime prior to the final hearing in December. It was agreed that Council would meet on August 22, 1990, at 4:00 p.ra. to review the budget. Callahan suggested that if the purpose of the meeting is only to set the maximum levy, that a meeting may not be necessary. Bernhardson suggested that Council reserve August 22, 1990 for a possible meeting. He stated that he would schedule this matter for the August 13th Council Meeting to inform Council of what the maximum levy will be. They can either vote to approve it on the 13th of August, or meet the 22nd. It was the consensus of Council to proceed as Bernhardson recommended. - 12 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 23, 1990 1988 BUILDING CODE ADOPTION - ORDINANCE It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to table this item. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. ASSESSING SERVICES CONTRACT ADDENDUM* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve adoption of Addendum #1 of the Assessing Services Contract as outlined in Attachment B. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR * S INFORMATION* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Inf•■'rmation regarding: 1972 Shadywood Road, Electrical Utilities Territories, Peterson/Stodo^, and Highway 12 Corridor Study. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: There was no City Attorney report. LICENSES* There were no licenses to approve. BILLS* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT 8:20 P.M. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 8:20 p.m. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk - 13 - To: Prom: Date: : 13 ‘-"nMayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson , .... Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 9, 1990 Subject: #1334 Rebers' Construction - Sugarwoods Plat Reconsideration of Conditions of PRD Approval List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B ~ Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Staff Memo to Planning Commission Planning Commission Action Notice 5/31/90 Lot Area Map - Sugarwoods Topographic Map BRW Table of Building Pad Areas Resolution #2652 - CUP Approving PRD Planning Commission Minutes 5/21/90 Olson/Cook Memo Engineer's Driveway Illustrations Proposed Resolution Amending Resolution #2652 Review of Issues r At their April 23rd meeting of this year, Council directed staff to present to the Planning Commission the issue of allowing additional paving improvements outside the approved single access drive at a maximum width of 20' within the front street setback areas of the Sugarwoods plat. The issue arises whenever specific site conditions require placement of either the entire house or portions of a house at the 50' setback line. If houses are placed at the front setback line, portions of backout drive and turnaround improvements (backout aprons, loop drives, Ys or Ts) must encroach the setback area. In preparation for the Planning Commission's review, staff and applicant's consultants met to discuss the various site conditions that would necessitate the placement of the house at the front street setback line and to develop standards to limit these improvements within the setback area (i.e. size or area of improvement would be dependent upon area of front street setback yard, amount of lineal footage adjacent to roadway, limits on improvement based on 50' of distance from garage to street). Council members may wish to review the staff memo presented for the Planning Commission's review (Exhibit A). Zoning File #1334 August 9, 1990 Page 2 of 4 As for the specific site conditions that would create the need for placement of a house at the street setback line, the following have been developed and agreed upon by both staff and applicant's consultant: 1. Limiting site characteristics of building envelopes, such as shape and limited area. 2. Unique or mature trees within the building envelope and the desire of the future owner to preserve a unique specimen. 3. Topography. 4. Placement of house may be done so as to minimize impact on adjacent properties, specifically, the case of a corner lot where the rear of the house may be placed against the side yard of the adjacent property such as the case of Lot 2, Block 1 that Council reviewed earlier this year. Please review Exhibit G for background on the Planning Commission discussions. The concensus of the Planning Commission was that each individual case should be reviewed individually. If special standards and a review process are created, this would encourage encroachment when not needed. Although the Planning Commission referred to the encroachment of the front street setback yard as a variance, it is technically not a variance and if we are to present these matters before the Planning Commission, a public hearing need not be scheduled. A special request can be set before the Planning Commission and immediately presented for Council's review at the next meeting so as to speed the review process. It should also be noted that the Planning Commission did not wish to deter the developer from working with staff to develop appropriate standards for such encroachments nor the criteria to determine when such encroachments are required. Staff would concur with the Planning Commission's findings that to develop tables on allowed hardcover encroachments of the front street setback area or other general tables for use would tend to encourage these encroachments of the protected area. Zoning File #1334 August 9r 1990 Page 3 of 4 Obviously, the procedure recommended by the Planning Commission is viewed as a major obstacle to the processing of building permits by the developer and the developer asks Council for special consideration. In an attempt to present a compromise position for Council's consideration, staff has asked the City Engineer to develop design criteria for driveways and backout aprons within the 50' front street setback yard designed to minimize impact on the setback area. Please review Exhibits H and I, the illustrations I-l through 1-4 depict drives and backout aprons for three car garages (Sugarwoods covenants requires 3 car garages). Note that the drives have been adopted to fit the two typical designs for three car garage openings. I-l represents a minimum turning movement required for a car parked in front of a garage stall to backup, turn and drive forward onto the street. 1-2 through 1-4 are interchangeable designs and may be reversed without affecting the layout. Note the engineer has also provided the amount of area needed for these improvements: 1-2 at 1,618.64 s.f.; 1-3 at 1,590.46 s.f.; and 1-4 at 1,508.21 s.f. It would be staff's recommendation that if a builder provides satisfactory evidence to th» reviewing staff that specific site conditions necessitate house at setback line that either one of the design presented by the Engineer will be acceptable without further review by the Planning Commission or Council. If the builder wishes to provide other improvements outside those allowed within the approved illustrations, than they must appeal their position to the Planning Commission and Council. The builder would also be given a right of appeal if staff found that the specific site conditions did not warrant the placement of the house at the setback line. Staff sent this memo to both the Chairman and Co-Chairman of the Planning Commission. Staff will ask for their comments prior to the meeting. Co-chair Bellows will be the Planning Commission representative at your meeting and will be available for comment. Zoning File #1334August 9, 1990 Page 4 of 4 Options of Action - A) Adopt the procedure recommended by the Planning Commission requiring individual review of each request that does not meet the standards set forth in Resolution #2652. B) Provide for an abbreviated review process whereby the staf^ may approve additional encroachment of the front street setback area (outside of the allowed single drive at a 20* width) upon satisfaction that certain site conditions exist for a property. Such encroachments would be limited to those improvements set forth in the Engineer's illustrations. All other improvements (i.e. expanded backout aprons, loop roads, "T'-s or "Y"s, etc.) of the front street setback yard shall be approved by both Planning Commission and Council. Staff Recominendation - To accept Option B and to adopt staff resolution. Exhibit J. A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION #2652, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVING A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS SUGARWOODS WHEREAS, Resolution #2652 dated July 10, 1989 and approved by the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "Council”) granted to Rebers Construction Company a conditional use permit pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (H) for a Planned Residential Development known as ”Sugarwoods”; and WHEREAS, Condition #1(F) on page 5 of resolution 2652 reads as follows: ”F. The applicant has created a "no grading" zone/woodlands protection a*:ea within the private open space outlets (namely Outlets A and B) and the setback areas defined within each building lot. Within those areas no future owner will be allowed to remove trees in excess of 2" in diameter at 4' above grade. No grading is allowed within the protected areas. However, each residential lot may include one driveway 1£1 ££ i£££ £££li- Illil driveway may be graded and trees of any size may be removed to build it. The subdivider's agreement should also define the protected areas such as the setback area of each lot and the private open space outlets" (hereinafter "condition"); and WHEREAS, the Council has found that the strict enforcement of this condition is not practical nor workable when one or more of the following site conditions requires placement of a portion or the entire house at the front street setback line: Page 1 of 4 - The shape or limited area of a building envelope. - Unique or mature trees within a building envelope and the desire of an owner to preserve a unique specimen. - The topography of a building envelope. - Placement of house so to minimize impact on adjacent properties. Specifically in cases of corner lots where the rear cf the house may be placed adjacent to a side yard of an abutting property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Orono shall allow additional encroachment of a front street yard within the Sugarwoods plat upon satisfaction that one or more of the above site conditions exist for a property and to direct the Orono staff to present the owner's or builder's written request before the Planning Commission at their earliest upcoming meeting (third Monday of the month) for immediate review and action by the Council at the following Monday meeting (fourth Monday of the month). Such written requests shall include the following information: 1. Survey/site plan designating drive(s) and type of bacJcout improvement ("Y"s, "T"s, loops, etc.). 2. Amount of hardcover within front setback area - these areas to be shown on site plan. 3. Topographic mapping of property if topography is site characteristic under consideration. 4. Location of mature, unique tree specimens. 5. Other unique physical characteristics of property that require special placement on site. Page 2 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council will allow the Orono staff to approve without further review and approval by the Planning Commission and Council additional encroachment of the front street setback area if such improvements are limited to either one of the illustrations included in this resolution as Pages _ _, _ _t and _ _, and upon satisfaction by the staff that one or more of the above noted site conditions exist for the property. The design standards used in these illustrations are taken from the "Architectural Graphics Standards, 7th Edition" by Ramsey/Sleeper, pages 48 through 52 for Group IV - large cars. The design standards and specifications employed represent minimum turning movements required for a car parked in front of a garage stall to backup, turn and drive forward onto the street within the 50' front yard. The Orono staff is responsible for reviewing such requests and the review shall consist of a representative of the Public Works and Building and Zoning staffs. All written requirements must be submitted to the Zoning Department and shall include all pertinent information listed above. Owners/builders may appeal all decisions of the Orono staff to the Planning Commission and Council. Page 3 of 4 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, this 13th day of August, 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of August, 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 Page 4 of 4 /7,f^ Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A, Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Subject: Sugarwoods Plat - Request to amend Resolution #2652 - Section that limits structural and nonstructura 1 improvements within Front Street setback area Staff Memo to Council Site Plan Approved with Building Permit for Lot 2, Block 2 Sugar Woods Plat Topography Map Attorney's Letter/Sample Turnarounds Staff Sketches-Turnaround, Backout Apron Table of Front Street Setback Areas for 25 Lots within Sugarwoods Resolution #2652 - Condition 1 P The applicant has created a no-grading zone woodlands protection area within the private open space outlets (namely Outlets A and B), and the setback areas defined within each building lot. Within those areas no future owner will be allowed to remove trees in excess of 2" in diameter at 4' above grade, grading is a 1 lowed within the protected areasy however^ each residential lot may include one driveway up to 20* wide leading ^ the loop road. This driveway may be graded and trees of any size may be removed to build it. The Subdivider's Agreement should also define the protected areas such as the setback area of each lot and the private open space outlets. This specific condition was an attempt to minimize the impact on the existing tree growth by limiting access drives to one at a maximum width of 20'. The question of interpretation of this section arose at the time of the issuance of the building permit for Lot 2, Block 2 to Steiner and Koppelman (Review Exhibit B). Based on the location of this house in relation to the Front Street setback area, portions of the backout apron and turnaround must encroach the front street setback area. Specific site conditions for this lot required that a corner of the house be placed at the 50' setback line. This will also be the case for other lots within the plat where the desire will be ff Sugarwoods Plat May 16, 1990 Page 2 of 4 to minimize the impact on trees , locate house on gentler elevations or take advantage of other natural topographic features . In reviewing this issue with the Public Works Director, he advised that with the recent amendment to Chapter 6 that provided standards for dri vay approaches to both private and public roads. Properties are limited to one driveway approach and loop roads were to be discouraged. This ordinance was approved in 1988. Gerhardson notes that in reviewing requests for loop roads since the passagae of that ordinance the following criteria have been used in such considerations: 1. Amount of frontage along the private or public road 2. Unique physical conditions within yard such as topography and placement of trees 3. Type of roadway to be accessed ~ M.S.A. classified, heavily trafficed public roadway, private road. Chief Kilbo has advised the City against allowing a property to be newly developed where only a backing out onto a roadway is permitted. He cautions that a driver is in violation of State law if the driver does not back out into the direction of the flow of traffic. At the April 23rd meeting of the Council, Council accepted the staff findings and further directed staff to work with the developer and contractors to develop standards or criteria for the "necessary" encroachment of nonstructural improvements within front street setback area facilitating a backing out maneuver and access from and to the site. Please note these special standards are to be employed by both developer and the reviewing staff when clearly defined site conditions necessitate placement of the house near or adjacent to the front Ssreet setback line. In early discussions, staff attempted to control improvements within front street setback yards by placing limits on size, width and length (i.e., backout apron from garage limited to a depth of 20’; a turnaround backout apron limited to 15', loop drives limited to 12' widths, etc.). Refer to Exhibit A and F. Staff also noted that a loop road would not be allowed on lots that had less than 200' of frontage on Sugarwoods Drive. This would qualify 7 of the 25 lots for loop drives. In addition, if such lots are on curves and there are safety concerns that turnarounds would have to be provided within interior of lot. I _ Sugarwcods Plat May 16, 1990 Page 3 of 4 As you may recall, development vvithin this project is limited to no more than 80% of the defined building pad being covered with hardcover improvements. The normal lakeshore hardcover regulations do not apply. In review of the most recent application for Lot 2, Block 2, the smallest of the building pads, it would appear that the 80% hardcover allowance is not a problem, that is if additional turnaround improvements were required for this site. There is an additional 3400 s.f. of additional hardcover available for the improvement of Lot 2. In no case can the total improvement of any of the pads within the Sugarwcods plat exceed the 80% allowance. Since the Council meeting of April 23rd, staff held a meeting with consultants, the developer and contractors within the Sugarwoods plat. It became apparent that the first attempt at a control on limiting such improvements to a specific size would not be functional nor realistic. Tne developer's engineer plans to develop various site plans for specific pads with various alternatives providing interior cul-de-sac turnarounds, turnaround aprons and loop road configurations. It was the consensus of this group that should the need arise that each pad be allowed a percentage of hardcover within the front '^^'reet setback area to insure minimum encroachment. (Lots 100'-180' allowed 20%, Lots 181'-200' allowed 15%) Staff conceptually developed a table for hardcover allowances by grouping lots based on frontage widths (i.e. 90'-119' allowed 30%, 120'-139' allowed 25%, etc.) and soon realized that this would not be workable. It may be more appropriate to develop a table defining allowed hardcover for each of the 25 lots based on a specific amount of hardcover rather than on a blanket percentage. Review the table of Front Street Setback Areas for each lot. Review of Previous Considerations Staff's first attempt at presenting the issue to Council dealt with setting limitations on backout improvements (turnaround apron, interior cul-de-sac or loop road) and driveway widths within each front street setback area. Since the Council meeting, staff has met with agents of the. developer and staff consultants. It was determined that possibly a hardcover limitation would be more appropriate as it was obvious you could not set limits on the sizing of turnaround improvements that would respond to each individual lot's final development needs. I Sugarwoods Plat May 16, 1990 Page 4 of 4 Staff has explored the idea of limiting such improvements to a specific hardcover percentage based on frontage area of each lot but this method may not provide staff with adequate control. Staff has yet to receive site plans developed by developer's planner providing graphic examples of such improvements to determine if the hardcover control would work. Council has asked for direction from the Planning Commission to determine if members have any comments concerning issues raised by staff and developer. Is hardcover control a valid method? Do Planning Commission members have other suggestions or ideas? In consideration of the extremes in area from the smallest lot frontage at 99' to the largest at 349', staff feels each individual lot should have a specific hardcover allowance if indeed hardcover is the agreed upon method of control. I have created a listing of front setback areas of each of the individual 25 lots in Sugarwoods for your consideration. Please let me know prior to the meeting if you would like other exhibits or information prepared to assist in our discussion. Planning Conmission Action To provide further direction to staff on the following issues to assist staff in preparing final amendment for Council's review and action: A. Define site conditions that would suggest need to locate home at front street setback line. Do you agree tree location, topography or other unique physical conditions are acceptable? B. Method(s) to control amount of encroachment 1. A minimum of 10-20' is needed to back out of garage 2. A minimum of 15' is needed for turnaround apr CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO:Sid Rebers 3525 Webster Avenue St. Louis Park, MN 55416 COPIES TO:Bob Kost BRW 700 South 3rd St Minneapolis, MN 55415 Stephen Pflaum Leonard, Street & Dienard 150 S 5th St, #2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 TYPE OP APPLICATION:Reconsideration of Specific Condition of Approval of PRD for Sugar Woods DATE OF MEETING:5/21/90 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The Planni Commission voted unanimously to recommend to Council that each specific i est to expand on the allowed 20' single drive through front street setoack area must be reviewed . odividually by Planning Commission and Council. It was also noted that chis would not be a formal variance review and public hearing notices would not be required. A request could be placed on the Planning Commission agenda and placed immediately on the next week's Council agenda. Planning Commission concurred with staff's comments that it was difficult to establish a table of hardcover limitations for each lot as it would appear that the City would be encouraging the encroachment of the front street setback area even when conditions on the site would not call for such encroachment. Per our recent conversation, I will reschedule the application before the Council at their July 9, 1990 meeting. If your consultants wish to provide additional information in response to the Planning Commission s recommendation, please see that they submit the additional information ny the deadline of June 29, 1990. A \ {i: I r ' ^ I S jii:/ / !l : 2i; , k':___U-./—/- -------------- I I l.li / ! ‘ ' ^ '“ ' ' ' ' I) ' s//>; AREA CALCULATIONS FOR DETERMINING HARDCOVER AT SUGARWOODS PRD, ORONO, MN LOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BLOCK 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING PAD AREA SQUARE FEET OF FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA 14,900 14,240 19,635 13,260 16,555 12,605 14,710 6,955 27,720 5,950 12,407 8,735 12,510 8,007 10,650 15,06512,790 8,52011,700 7,87510,724 7,980 10,245 15,250 8,910 14.205 11,130 8,0809,130 7,796 11,773 7,836 11,240 15,475 11,190 23,130 18,830 13,570 13,005 11,825 9,980 12,445 8,118 5,242 5,851 8,108 7,780 8,405 8,610 9,337 r • j »:mI mi -3:01 06. 93 d35 p CITY OF ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652__________ A RESOIOTIOll GBAMTITO A COHDITIONAL USE PEIWIT PER MUMICIPAL ZOHIRG CODE SBCTIOR 10.20, SUBD. 3(H) - File Mo. 1334 WHEREAS, Sidney Rebers and Barbara Rebers, husband and wife and Rebers Construction Co. (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached hf I copy from plat (hereinafter "property"), and WHEREAS, the Rebers Construction Co. has applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(H). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Findings 1. The application was reviewed as Zoning File No. 1334. 2. The property is located in the R-IA Zoning District. Page 1 of 8 CITY OF QRONQ city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652 3. On September 19, 1988 and October 17, 1908 the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval. 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 the effect 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 planned residential development will not be detrimental to the health, safety and 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. 6. The City Council finds that the applicant has proposed a planned residential development plan for development of the property based on one or more of the following findings noted by professional representatives of the applicant: A. The topographical and physical characteristics of the property suggest a need for special design considerations. Variations in topography range from 1,044 CITY OF QRONa City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652_ _ _ _ _ feet at its highest point to 994 feet at its lowest, resulting in over 50 feet of grade differential. B. On the site there are mature maple and other deciduous trees. There is a densely populated forest of maple trees in the west portion of the property and in the east portion of the property there are young to mature nursery stock of evergreen trees and other deciduous trees C, There is a need for an open space buffer along the lot lines of surrounding rural residential properties, especially to the north and west. Page 3 of 8 OF - ORONQ City of OROiNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652 Conclusions, Order and Conditions "iased upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(H) to permit the use of a planned residential development, subject to the tollowing conditions: 1, All provisions of the subdivision regulations have been followed under the planned residential format as follows: A. Outlots define the commercial corridors not considered under this current subdivision plan. These are Outlots D, E and F in the final plat. B. . The road serving the residential lots will be designated as a separate outlot, namely Outlot C in the final plat. The open space areas surrounding the residential lots will be Outlots A and B in the final plat. C. A separate outlot will define the portion of the future east/west road access located within the southern portion of the property (commercial corridor). This is Outlot D in the final plat. D. Each residential unit will be defined as a lot on the final plat survey (average lot size of each unit « 41,000 s.f.). These are Lots 1 through 6 of Block 1, Lots 1 through 6 of Block 2, Lots 1 through 5 of Block 3 and Lots 1 through 8 of Block 4. Page 4 of 8 City of OFtOINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652__________ E. The actual building pad defined by the required setbacks of each lot cannot be shown on the final plat, but are shown on the Preliminary Development Plan last revised January 24, 1989. F. The applicant has created a no-grading zene/woodlands protection area within the private open space outlets (namely Outlets A and B) and the setback areas defined within each building lot. Within those areas no future owner will be allowed to remove trees in excess of 2 inches in diameter at four feet above grade. No grading is allowed within the protected areas. However, each residential lot may include one driveway up to 20 feet wide leading to the loop road. This driveway may be graded and trees of any size may be removed to build it. The Subdivider’s Agreement should also define the protected areas such as the setback area of each lot and the private open space outlets. G. Each building pad (defined by the setbacks for each lot) is limited to 80% hardcover improvements as defined in the declaration covenants. Such improvements will include the access road through the portion of the property located within the front street setback area. H. In a preliminary report, the City Engineer Glenn Cook has confirmed that there is adequate sewer capacity Page 5 of 8 - CITY OF Lqrono City of ORONO RESOLUnON OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652_ _ _ _ _ er through Long Lake by the Joint Powers Agreement or by constructing a new interceptor along the Highway 12 Corridor. I. Applicant has submitted a Storm Water Management Plan to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and has received preliminary approval. The applicant will be required to install a detention pond within Outlot F. J. All lots shall be served by a private loop road with a single, divided ingress/egress access at Brown Road. No additional curb cuts will be approved for this property at this time. Curb cuts to serve outlots B and F will be considered when those outlots are developed. The City may petition for a curb cut to serve the City’s lift station and the subdivider and its assigns agree not to contest such a petition. K. The recorded plat of Sugar woods conforms to all requirements of the Subdivision Code, Chapter 11. 2. Both the private covenants and the Subdivider’s Agreement should include the restrictions r ^orth in paragraph l.F and l.G of this resolution. 3. Entrance monuments have been approved by the City staff. Any changes to monuments will require staff approval. 4. No changes shall be made in those provisions of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions Restrictions and Easements for Page 6 of 8 C^TY OF QRQNQ City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652_________ Meyers Woods required by this C.O.P. unless the City council aqrees to the amendments by amending this Conditional Use Permit. 5. Violation of or noncorapliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute s violation of the Zoning Code, and the City shall have all enforcement procedures granted by law, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned owner has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terras 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 day of Jvly , Page 7 of 8 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652__________ CITY OF ORONO “STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of July, 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. LAURIE K. SCHEFFLER HorAk> rustic _ MiN.NKorA H£Nf.c?iN COoNTY Wy commtj.-.ci 4.3.93 n u\ I ? Notary Pub 1ic y. V Jn /•/PfA STATE OP MINNESOTA- ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this /day of /?/1. before me a Notary Public within and for' said county, p^J^sonally ' ' -- - - known to me to be the persbn(s) described in and who executed the foregoing appeared r y ^ instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ■ - .. i . .. a N oACHER ^ u .'.I.JIN couNnr Ap,,i 21. /y NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this D day of yyT.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. s' (<'*.!*• -A. 11 — lA • M . .. :|N rCUNlf A.. IV9I. a 'A NOTAR/ PUBLIC Page 8 of 8 './f- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 21, 1990 FILE #1534-AMUNDSON CONTINUED ■*®*^^”Hanson stated that if Mr. Amundson would Provide a survey .howinr exactly where the fence is to be located, he may look favorably upon his request. Mr. Amundson said that the survey would cost more than the fencing. Kelley asked Mr. Amundson if it would be possible to reduce the size of tne '-'ennel. Mr. Ar.iun.isor replied that'it is necessary to have lara» enough -u the dog can reach the road. He said that otherwise the dog would not detect anyone trespassing on the property. Kelley polled the Planning Commission for their opinion regarding app^roval of the kennel. Kelley indicated opposed \o aocrovinc the varMnce. Johnson, Hanson, ”oos and Bellows indicted that they .d look upon the request more favorably if a survey were su tied. tha- Mr. Amundson should be required to subm-t a survev. He said that it is a requirement and though it ma^be a firani^ hardship, it is required of everyone that applies for a variance. Kelley asked Mr. Amundson whether he would like the Planning Commission to table this matter. Mr. Amundson stated that he would have a survey prepared for the Planning Commission to review. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Moos, to table this application until the applicant submits a survey. Ayes-5, Nays-0, Cohen abstained. .Motion passed. (Cohen depa-..ed at this time, 9:50) #1334 REBERS CONSTRUCTION, SUGAR WOODS PLAT RECONSIDERATION OF ALLOWED HARDCOVER WITHIN FRONT/STREET SETBACK AREA Mr. Robert Kost was present for this matter. Mabusth reviewed the information contained in her memo dated May 16, 1990. Kelley stated that he would pref-r to have each cannot meet the intent of standards' that wouldindividually, rather than creating special standards tnat only encourage encroachment when not needed.. Mabusth noted that it may be a hardship i a builder if he S' - 17 - O'ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 21, 1990 permit. Mr Kost said that he and City staff have attempted to establish objective criteria that would provide staff with the , ability to determine whether a proposal is acceptable. He staged r tha*- it is difficult to establish a basic criteria because of the ^oc^tion of trees and other factors unique to each lot. prooosai^sLuld^br^r'lvi^^^^^^^ separat^ly!""^ KeUey said that in his change the "rules of the game" at this point. Bellows stated that the houses can be designed to comply with the standards established with subdivision approval. said <-ha*- the Citv and the Developer have interpreted some of the standards differently, particularly in recarr to the driveways. He stated that the stancards do not soecify that there be only one curb cut said that in situations of a tuck under lot. it ^ that the house will be placed at the 50' setback line. ii. *e that tne nouse setback line, only a 20 drivLay will be’ allowed. A 20' driveway will not adequately serve a three-cur garage. Bellows reiterated that in those situations, necessary to design house that will take that i consideration. Kelley asked Mr. Kost if he would like to continue to work with staff^to prepare criteria that will mutually sarisrac. y. Johnson questioned whether allowing no flexibility^might force the builc^' to excessive grading in order to -ocar- tn- houH in such a way to allow for additional driveway area He suggested thia may have more of a negative impact on th. lot, than allowing c. -oop drivev/ay. Bellows said that is another reason for asking to review each lot individually. She stated that the essentially asking for a variance from the original standards an that variances require Planning Commission review. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission be no amendment to Resolution #2652. builder has a hardship and cannot comply with the standards set forth, he/she should have to come before the Planning Commissi . - 18 - DRAFT COPY DESIGN MEMORANDUM TO: Jeanne Mabusth, Planning and Zoning Administrator FROM: JCO/GRC SUBJECT: Driveway Standards, Sugar Hills DATE: August 1, 1990 OBJECTIVE; Develope driveway standards for Sugar Hills that minimize both intrusion into setback areas and amount of hard surface cover. DESIGN CRITERIA: Driveway width at property line - 16 feet Minimum setback from property line - 50 feet Garage size - 3 Car/3 stall Design vehicle - Passenger car (Group IV-Large Car) DISCUSSION: Passenger car design data +or this analysis was taken from the ••Architectural Graphics Standards, 7th Edition" by 48 through 52. Copies of these pages have been included with this draft for your information and review. Considering the type of development for which these are being developed. Group IV - Large Cars was selected as the design vehicle (see copy of page 40). The width of the driveway at the face of the garage is dependant on the arage and the type of door opening, options available for garage doors - 1) wide single door for all three stalls; 2) a double door and a single door; and ■■>> three single doors. The large single door •' 'r all three stalls is not considered practical because of the large spi> . a header over the door and the diff.cuUy of operating such a large door structure. We have chosen to consider options and 3). Sketches of the three options for garage doors are enclosed for your consideration. (See copy of page SO for additional comments on garages). There is very little information available in the transportation manuals regarding turning templates for passenger cars generally do not govern the geometries of design for Therefore, we have developed our own turning templates 9 passenger car (Group VI). This is shown on Figure No. One. Fiaure No. One represents the minimum turning movc-ments required for a car parked in front of a garage stall to back up, turn and drive onto the street. The edges of the driveway are one foot wider than t edge of the vehicle's path while making this maneuver. Please note the wide swing of the right-front corner of the vehicle while backing. Figure No. Two represents the driveway required for a three stall garage with individual doors, with a right hand turning bay. The 16 foot section of the driveway near the property line can be located at any position within the 34 foot section near the garage. It is shown centered on the middle garage bay. The layout is also based on the assumption that the driver will not have to “Jockey around" within the driveway area by making several back and forth movements to get his vehicle turned around. If this were permitted, the size of the driveway layout could be reduced. Figure No. Three indicates a different arrangement whereby the right hand parking stall would back to the left in the same but opposite manner as the left hand stall shown on the drawing. Figure No. Four is a variation on Figure No. Two. It is shown with the turning bay to the left. Please note that any of the arrangements shown can be reversed without affecting the layout. Please review the enclosed information and determine where we go from here. We can prepare, if you wish, some additional drawings illustrating various alternatives to the layouts shown on the enclosed plates. The information presented is in draft form for your review. Upon completion of Staff review, we will complete the detail plates and resubmit. j! 1 1 1 1•1 1 8.00 1 a.'po''a.po ‘ r 1 !^-2t00^=2.00 ! !l /'’4: :1 '^ /If, l" 4X44^ O^O-rJJ I/ll Bon««troo Rotana Andarlik A |\j| Ataocfatas Eimtn—r» AArcfill*el« SI. Pau4 MlitAMOla Date: Comm.Rg. No.r K:\ 1 39\ 1 39\GEN\3CAR2 t I I I Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson I i'AL ly; f r Proa: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Dates August 7, 1990 Subject: #1473 Jacquelynn Kelly, 2056 Shadywood Road - After-the-Fact Variances - Request to .Table Final Action by the Council Staff has contacted the applicant's attorney, Dennis Johnson, to further discuss the hardcover facts. If Council remembers in an earlier meeting, the removal of all landscape hardcover w."* thin the 75-250' zone resulted in a 10% reduction. At the July meeting, staff's review found the landscape removals resulted in only 4.7% reduction. Staff misinterpreted the attorney's letter with the original memo prepared for the meeting as to proposed hardcover removals. Staff strongly recommends that we provide additional adequate time to meet with the applicant to review all hardcover facts as they relate to the inventory of the existing and actual areas of hardcover that were scheduled for removal. In fact this is a necessary step, if this matter is to be resolved in the courts at a future date. Staff will reschedule the application before the Council with the final hardcover facts. Applicant may at that time wish to present an amended proposal for Council's reconsideration. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by ___, seconded by ___r to table Application #1473 of Jacquelynn Kelley for the property located at 2056 Shadywood Road to allow both staff and applicant adequate time to review the hardcover facts for the property and to bring these findings back to the Council at a future Council meeting. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. ■vS 13 ;<-•:) ' f'' Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froai: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 7, 1990 #1506 Carol L. Senn, 3220 Watertown Road - Final Subdivision - Resolution The applicant has fulfilled all conditions of Resolution #2790, the resolution granting preliminary approval of the two lot plat. Staff recommends approval of the final plat, Senn Orono Addition, subject to the findings and conditions of the enclosed resolution. I A RBSOLDTION APPROVIIIG THE PLAT OP SEHN ORONO ADDITION FILE NO. 1506 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a two lot plat by Carol L. Senn, the subdivider; and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-IB zoning district finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including; 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution #2790, a resolution of the City granting preliminary approval of the subdivision. 2. Dedication on the plat of Drainage and Utility Easements. 3. Dedication on the plat of Drainage Easements and the execution of a Flowage and Conservation Easement providing for limitations on the use of wetlands and/or drainageways described therein and shown on the plat as those "drainage easements". 4. Dedication on the plat of right-of-way for Watertown Road. 5. Creation of Outlot A, created exclusively for shared driveway purposes. Page 1 of 3 6. Applicant has submitted engineering plans for the private driveway that will serve Let 1. Such plans include erosion control and design and specifications for wood plank/steel support bridge. 6. Payment to the City of a Park Dedication Fee in the amount of $200.00. 7. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat and easements in the amount of $150.00. HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the p^at of Senn Orono Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; subject to the following condition: 1. The subdivider shall apply for the legal combination of Outlot A with Lot 2. 2. Owner of Lot 2 to grant driveway easement over Outlot A in favor of Lot 1. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for residential construction on Lot 1, the City Engineer must a^jprove the design and specifications for the bridge that will expand the creek providing access to Lot 1 via Outlot A. 4. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or the Registrar of Titles Office on or before February 13, 1991 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution and executed copies of the documents noted above. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 13th day of August, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 2 of 3 STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of August, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municinal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 3 CITY OF f ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2790_________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A PLAT AT 3220 WATERTOWN ROAD PILE NO. 1506 WHEREAS, Carol L. Senn (hereinafter "the applicant") on February 23, 1990 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a 2-lot residential plat of property legally described as follows: The east 10 acres of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 118, Range 23, according to the government survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property") and? WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 19, 1990 at which times all persons desiring to be heard 'ncerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon? and WHEREAS, at their .«gular meeting held on Ar il 9, 1990 the Orono City Counci, considered the subdivision ap’ ication of the applicants, noting the following findings of fact 1. The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning Distr.ict requiring a minimum of 2.0 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 8+ acres, 2.6 acres of which is considered as wetlands. 3. The proposed plat contains 2 lots each exceeding the 2.0 acre minimum lot area requirem.ent. 4. Acce&s to both lots shall be via a shared private driveway. 5. 0-^ T ch 7, 1990, Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning and •' -administrator, confirmed that both proposed lots hav- ^able tested sites for primary and alternate sewage ..^f^^cmer.- mound drainfield systems. Page 1 of 3 : ciTv" loRONCh City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ He p: oposed configuration and overall design of the lots within the plat finds tha^ ach lot satisfies the lot standards of the RR-IB zonin^ district requiring no variances with the granting of this subdivision. Each lot can be developed as a residential unit without the need for future variances to the standards of the zoning district. 7. Minor portions of the private driveway will intersect the designated wetland located at the 970* elevation. The encroachment of the driveway will have a negligible impact on the wetland. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for Carol L. Senn at 3220 Watertown Road per the survey dated January 16, 1990 by Phillip A. Nelson of All Metro Land Surveyors, and the variance to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 that approves the encroachment of the edge of a wetlands, subject to the following conditions: 1. Outlot A has been created for shared driveway purposes and shall be legally combined with Lot - 2. Owner of Lot 2 to grant driveway ecseiu^nt over Outlot A in favor of Lot 1. 3. The future owner of Lot 1 has hereby been granted access via a private driveway through a road outlot, and at the time a future west access corridor is installed at the north border, a future owner will have the option to achieve access from the north. 4. Prior to final p^at approval, applicant shall provide engineering plans -r a private driveway. Such plans to include erosion *rol and design for wood plank/steel support bridge. v City Engineer must approve such plans prior to any construction. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTALS The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the reguiarly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month; A. record flat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200'. Drawing to include; Page 2 of 3 CITY OF oRorN*a City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO '^790 _ Lot lines platted per p?'^. ^ -.ary survey by Phillip A. Nelson of All Metro Land Surveyors dated January 16, 1990, b) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' vide along all perimeter property lines and 5 ’ each side of internal property lines. c) Dedication of 33 Foad . of right-of-wa,v for Watertown d) All wetland areas and drainageways w’ithin plat defined below the 970' elevation to be shown as drainage ecsements to be dedicated on the plat dr a win.; 5-. B. LEGAL DOOL’KENTS required: a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All Cc^ners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sig.i the plat and all other documents affected by such ir* ;t. b) The applicant must pr; • recorded easements currently tified copies of all ting the property. c) Sieme''' and executed drainage easement document for .he drai ge easeme.its within Lots 1 aiid 2 (see sample enclosed . C. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $500.00 a) Far): dedication fee per ''"’’rent schedule: "200.' 0 for Lot 2 (tl ’s no charge for Lot 1 as theie was an existing residence) b) Final nJat fee - $150.00 'al review and filing fees of $150.00 •pted by the City Council of the City of Orono, :4 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson 7 From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 10, 1990 #1509 Earl L. Freeman, 4545 Watertown Road - Variances List of Exhibits ’ 13 r' Exhibit A - Council Minutes of 5/29/90 Exhibit B “ Staff Le' er dtd 7/25/90 Exhibit C - Survey o,. Property Exhibit D - Oman Memo Exhibit E - Staff Letter to State Health Department Review of Application - At the Council's May 29, 1990 meeting, Mr. Freeman was given to June 15, 1990 to "clean up" the property and remove ® ^ ^ °“ that would allow the accessory structure to remain on the property without the principal residence until June 1, 1991. IE at that tiire a building permit was not issued for a prin^cipal residence, the structure was to b® the debris ar . clutter were to return on the directed to bring the matter before the Council for further action. Please review staff letter dated July 25, 1990. Staff has directed the applicant to proceed with the removal of vehicles ap^.ila7;''"and’'%“a‘ff^ would appreciate clarification on this mat _er. On August 9, 1990, staff made a status inspection of the property and can report no activity since an ®®*^^ter inspection the State Health Department, specifically the ' Control Unit for enforcement. As Counc.l will remember, no longer has any authority over these this year. As an update, there were no 2-3 wells on the site, but rather only 1 well strv bu. I 'f cannot determine what is being stored in the accessory cfi as a covering has been installed over all wiii'iows. mO remains secured. Zoning File #1509 August 10, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Staff has had further discussions with the attorney regarding the City's legal authority to require the removal of the accessory structure. It was the City Attorney's opinion that the City has questionable authority to require the removal, and in fact, a property owner may claim this would be a "taking". The City Attorney may be asked for additional input on this matter. From the City's position, it may be best to approve a variance for the now legal non-conforming structure and require specific controls in its use during this interim period where the property lacks a principal residence. Freeman or an authorized representative will be present to discuss these issues with the Council at your meeting. Freeman has contracted with a local person to implement the clean up of the property. Staff has been in contact with the individual, and he has advised claim that it takes time to complete all of the required tasks. As three months have past since our May 14th meeting when this was first presented to Council, staff would contend this is adequate time to complete the total clean up of the property. Staff Recommendation - 1.Refer the improperly abandoned well matter to the State Health Department (see enclosed letter). 2. 3. Require the immediate boarding up of the root cellar. Mr. Freeman should advise who maintains the grounds around the building as the growth of weeds, etc. may be a fire hazard to the existing structure during the drier, fall months. 4.Direct staff to draft an approval variance resolution that would deal with appropriate and reasonable controls for the use of this property during the time of its use without a principal residence as follows; A) Mr. Freeman/owner is responsible for maintaining current liability insurance on the property. B) address and phone number of local agent to be kept f . file with the City. C) Exterior yard to be maintained free of debris and junk. D) Grounds maintained to provide adequate protection from hazard of fire, specifically around the building. 1 Zoning File #1509 August 10, 1990 Page 3 of 3 5. Council to provide direction to staff regarding the storage use of the existing facility. If adequate liability insurance is provided and the storage appears to be for the exclusive use of the owner, this may not be an issue of concern for the Council. Once again, in reviewing the minutes of the May 29th meeting, this did not appear to h' one of the conditions of the approval. 6. Staff to issue a citation for the storage of debris and junk on the property. The citations are to be issued Tuesday, direction so that an oresented for Council's ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 29, 1990 rr.. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2812, granting side setback, street setback and hardcover variances to construct a 2-car garage. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. EARL FREEMAN informed Council that the hazardous structure had been removed from the property sometime ago. He stated that a sheetmetal building remains on the property and that Mr. Freeman is asking to retain the structure until a principal structure is constructtid. Bernhardson noted that concerns had been raised by Planning Commission and Council regarding the condition or the property. Mabusth stated that unlicensed vehicles, garbage and debris cluttered the site. She noted that Council had given Mr. Freeman until June 15, 1990 to clean up the property. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Freeman if meeting the June 15 deadline. he would have a problem City staff had indicated there were 3 wells, he knew of only one. Mabusth asked Mr. Freeman if he was aware that the^items in the shed must also be removed by the June 15 deadline date. Mr. Freeman stated that he would have all items in the shed removed. Mabusth asked that Mr- Freeman provide staff with the names of his local agents. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Freeman what plans he has for the property. nr. Free.-nan stated that he had originally hoped to build a home on the property. However, he was transferred to Chicago. He stated that a developer ha? expressed interest in purchasing - 12 - t J0--ORONO REGULAR COUIICIL MEETING HELD MAY 29, 1990 FREEMAN CONTINUED the property to construct a home. Mr. Freeman asked whether it was necessary for a building permit to be issued by October 31. Mabusth stated that Mr. Freeman is correct. Mayor Grabek asked when the building was razed. Mabusth replied that the guest house was razed in October, 1989.- The principal structure burned down in 1984. Mayor Grabek stated that if the shed and grounds are not cleaned up by June 15th, Mr. Freeman will oe required to remove the shed. He informed Mr. Freeman that if a principal structure is not constructed by October 31, 1990, the shed must be removed. Mr. Freeman indicated that he would require additional time to sell the property and asked that the deadline by extended to next spring. Callahan indicated that an extension to spring would not be objectionable, but questioned whether Mr. Freeman would be able to meet that deadline if he could not meet the October deadline. Mayor Grabek suggested giving Mr. Freeman until Jane 1, 1991. He stated thaV staff may order the shed removed, with Council approval, if the cluttered condition returns. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, that the property be cleaned up by June 15, 1990. If the property is cleaned up, staff is directed to prepare a resolution allowing Mr. Freeman to retai- .he accessory structure on the property v/ith no principal structure until June 1, 1991. If the June 15, 1990 deadline for clean up is not met, the shed must be removed. If the property returns to a state of clutter any time before June 1, 1991, staff is directed to bring the matter before Council to have the shed removed. Motion, Ayes- 5, Nays-0. Motion passed. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: CHANGE ORDER |1, WELL #3* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve Change Order #1 for Keys V7ell Drilling for $975.00 for placing silt fencing erosion control as needed. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. PLANS AND SPECS FOR PUMP HOUSE Bernhardson stated that this item was to provide approval of the pump house pl;>ns and direct the Engineer to advertise for bids. - 13 - eiTV - OF aHQNO CITYof ORONO Post OfTice Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Munidpai Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 25, 1990 Earl L. Freeman Route 5, West Bluff Road Lamont, IL 60439 RE: 1509'- Variance Application for Accessory Structure - 4545 Watertown Road Dear Mr. Freeman: Staff has completed a recent inspection of the above referenced property to determine the status of the cleanup and removal of materials and vehicles stored in the accessory structure. As of July 16th, staff observed little progress from the original inspection 2 weeks prior. Staff must schedule your variance application (1509) before the Council at their meeting of August 13th to report on the status of the cleanup. If the conditions of Council's approval have not been met by August 8, 1990, staff would recommend that you make arrangements to appear before the Council at the August 13, 1990 meeting. If you are unable to attend, please see that you have an authorized representative present in y ;ur place. In reviewing Mr. Anderson's directives regarding the cleanup project of the property, he advised that you had not dealt with the issue of the removal of materials and vehicles stored within the accessory structure. Please be advised that Council's directives to you included the removal of all items stored within the accessory structure. Please contact rry office if you have any further questions concerning this matter. S^cerely r/.^ /_ iL Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator Paul Andersen, 3533 Crystal Place, Wayzata, MN 55391 JAM/lsv HI ILUING 1 ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSINC; ADMINISTHATtON A FINANCE - 4:>735* FAX 4734WI0 PLBLlC\AnHK> 47.V-35» To: From: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Lyle Oman^ Senior Building Inspector April 30, 1990 Subject: 4545 Watertown Road On April 27, 1990 an Inspection was conducted at the above subject property. The following is a list of items staff feels must be resolved before Council considers action on the retention of the existing pole barn: 1. There are 2, possibly 3, wells on the property. Our records reflect only 1 that was drilled in 1963. I presume there is a hand dug well under the windmill and possibly a third well within the foundation nearby that has some water piping in it. All wells must properly abandoned by a licensed water well contractor per State Law. 2. The foundation near the windmill must be cleaned out and investigated for the presence of a well, then removed from the property. 3. There is a root cellar that is built into a hill that has been filled with trash and debris. This root cellar must be emptied of trash and the structure completely removed from the ground and moved off the property and properly disposed of. 4. There are 2 unlicensed, inoperable vehicles behind the shed. These vehicles must be removed from the site. 5. There are various piles of jv* Jc, debris and brush around the property that must be removed from the site and properly disposed of. 6. Fish houses, trailers, farm machinery and car parts must be removed from t* ’ site. CITY ORONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 •Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 •Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 10, 1990 Attn; James Nye State Health Department Ground Water Control Unit 717 Southeast Delaware Street Minneapolis, MN 55414 Re; 4545 Watertown Road Dear Mr, Nye; This letter is written to advise of an improperly abandoned well at a property located at 4545 Watertown Road (31-118-23 24 0004), owned by Earl L. Freeman, Rt 5, Westbluff Road, Lamont IL 60443. The condition of the well was disclosed to the City during a recent variance review. The owner of the property has been advised of the condition of the well and had been directed by the City to correct the violation. This had not taken place as of the writing of this letter and as the City does not have the legal authority to enforce the proper abandonment, we must refer this matter to your office. Please contact my office if you nave any questions pertaining to the above request. Sincerely, c. // ^r/ Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/tln cc; Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Tom Barrett, City Attorney Orono City Council Bl liniNG A ZOMNC; - 473-7357 ADMINISTRATION A HNANCl 473.735* IA\ - 47341510 PI Bl IC MORAN - 473-7j»0 To: Fron: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator. 13 19G0 August 3, 1990 ''IT'/ nROrT #1528 Constance M. Scott, 2300 Longview Circle - Final Subdivision - Resolution The applicant has fulfilled all conditions of the preliminary subdivision resolution #2815. Staff recommends approval of the final plat*, Longview 3rd Addition, subject tc :he findings and conditions set forth in the enclosed final resolution granting approval of the two lot plat. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OP LONGVIEW 3RD ADDITION PILE NO. 1528 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and ex-sting under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Crono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic an safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a class III subdivision by Constance M. Scot^, the subdivider; and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-IB zoning district finding that each 1^ xs of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a sing _e family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution #2815 of the City of Orono. 2. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 3. Payment to the amount of $200.00 fc ty of a Park newly created Lc cation Fee in the 4. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat in the amount of $75.00. 'OW, THERBPORB, BE IT RBSOLVQ} that the City Council of the Ci» ■ Orono hereby approves the plat of Longview 3rd Addition, ..ennepin County, Minnesota; subject to the following conditions: 1. Future .iwner of Lot 1 must apply for a driveway permit from the Public Works Department upon application for a building permit. Page 1 of 2 t ^4 2. Future owner of Lot 1 is hereby advised of the private covenants and easements that are in effect for this property that convey.shared/partial ownership in Longview Circle and shall require participation in payment for the cost of permanent and seasonal maintenance of said road. 3. The aforesaid plat shall be filed bv the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County He .order's Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before February 13, 1991 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plav has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, 1^ will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Crono for subdivision review. Dated this 13th day of August, 1990 ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk w imes H. Grabek, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF Hj.i^NEPIN ) The foregoing instrrment was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of August, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor * City Clerk of the City ot Orono, a Minnesota municipal corf.t>/»cion and said instrument was executed on behalf cf the City. Notary Public” Page 2 of 2 OF ORONO city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2815________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A 2 LOT PLAT AT 2300 LONGVIEW CIRCLE* PILE NO. 1528 WHEREAS, Constance M Scott (hereinafter "subdiyider ) on April 26, 1990 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a 2 lot residential plat of property leg y described as Lot 5, Block 1, Longview, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter ’’property”); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orcno Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 21' -990 all persons desiring to be heard concerning this applicata.../n were given the opportunity to spu&k thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on June 11, 1990 the Orono City Council considered the subdivisioii application or Constance M-, Scott, noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2.0 acrgs of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property conta'r.s a total of approximately 4.0 acres, all of which is considered dry buildabl* lands. 3. Each of the lots contain :.C acres of dry contiguous land, and each meets the requir*-^ width tc the rear the 50' front setback line. 4. On-site septic testing confirms adequate and suitable areas for on-site septic development on the prct^osed new lot (Lot 1) and adequate and suitable area for on-s..te septic development for an alternate system on proposed Lot 2. 5. All existing improvements on proposed Lot 2 meet the r. jqnired setback from ti . newly proposed division iine. ' iiach lot can continue to be developed for without the need for variances t the RR-1« zoning standard. or on-site septic code of the City. ' Page 1 of 3 y- . ■- W-'1^ Hi'' ' HeNN. CO. soeu&foes coP^-^■hry, ^ O ?hi90 ^ Isolo \ ' \ \ M vrX' :<a|;^^a'^:Hvv'-:f;®:«•w . LONGVIEW 3RD ADDITION U1 iy'5/9o /S^s- LT. DOC. Ha T^.ZS,^SJSKi^^ ------- M t. !«•€» I. !«■*»». miMtlm «• «»• rmarm »U» »mm». ^ Sw'T'iJH-t.i.srr'jisrs; r.wysyi'S ’JiM! - lars ria;!=:i'»*r?.3r•*“ - ^ ,\ ‘,.\. ^',. ' v; ,. /;■ ■■pv:| ■ 1. : ■ V -i ;■ i>’^ /■ ■v■-^v,. ■ yv'^-^; e::. :'v iSySS SSSS*. ie««IVSS2<I'S!’SS. •* »<••• ®^^®„_1X'S55! rSCu-JSSSr" tSf!^,aoQ'* * wmM * iwr ** ito ^ r Hn ut i. mwi k555rw‘s*™rar'^" ........ =,v..-2;ti^'-* iii illiM (■ >’ MR eriiwr IM PNK we»*r^i**;«e w !«.i ,P^!!;l:h- ''fj'ri if•f:r- rf-i '! ®8 s @) (3,8 ! ®>,« 8 (5) 8 («8 III PCli ‘ ^+f€HVfEW- U« 5 ^(f3) - X IS (22) SB . ^ — e ' (21) 516.5 cX _ Ae^iU. C. ___U>jD±. ■fv0^lii% 'bi-i-Cir, «^WH' -T-r-f'-r-i •■•-•,—-.i-i.l.I..l.LJ.J.J11 i \^-ti ----- \4“i l;v::/rr- 1 !•-/-— 't1/-v ri±7 \M§. "'‘I''- '%',T V VV' • ft.®?-: PR^LIMWARY PLAT : WLDHURST ESTATES ORONO,MN p.„ /^T/ 1 '' '4 f O _____i_____1 U_.L_ — BcliiR 5.00 fi-ol tn wl<)lh and adjolnlnit lot lini-a unlras ■Hhc-rviac imllc.ltcd on pl.il and bi-inR 10.00 fnnr In width and ad |ninine rlRhl-uf-way lini's, iinifsa nthiTwfae indicall'd the plat. ENGINEER WILLIAM R. ENGELHARD? ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1107 HAZELTWE BOULEVARD • SUITE 480 CHASKA, MNNESOTA 55318 CERTIFICATION IMIRIBY CtmifY THAT IMIS flAH SKCinCAIKW OB BtPOBt WAS PBCPAflCD ev U€ OB UNDCB MY DIRSCT SUt IBVIStON AND THAI I AM A DULY BtGISTEBtO PBOftSStOHAL ENGINEEB UNOEB THE LAWS OP THE STATE Of MINNESOTA ‘//i £/to /S03^(>_________ DAtf ' BEGISIBATIONNO DESIGN ^ESlGNKmr CHECKED UV: REVISIONS DESCRIPTION OWNER ROBERT WAADE CUSTOM B'JILL G PROJECT WILDHURST ESTATES wm ESSSi**- -v'easr.A VICiWITY MAP OWNER AND DEVELOPrRi Robert Vasde Custom Building 998 Wildhurst Trail Orono, 8f4. S336A William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc* 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard, Suite A80 Chaska, Ml. 33318 SURVEYORI DemarS'CabrleI Land Surveyors, Inc* 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite ill Plymouth, Nil. 33AA/ LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS! PID #07-1 17-23.29-0 Lot 1, Tonkaview Caro v* Hennepin County, Ml. PID #07-117-23-13-0087 Lots 1 - 9 inclusive new vacated, also includes adjacent vacated street and^alleys, Block 9, PID #07-117-23-29-0010 Lots 2,3, and 9 Tonkaview Gardens, Hennepin County, NM. PIO #07-117-23-13-0086 Lots 2-10 inclus lacent vacated street ana aiieys, oic est Lake Park, Hennepin County, Ml. 9-0010 Tonkaview Gardens, Henr 3-0086 us e now vacated, also including I streets and alleys, Block 3, Hennepin County, Ml. icated, al ley, Block 3, , Ml. irest Lake Park, PID #07-117-23-13-0088 Lots 1, 2, and 6-12 inclusive now vacated, also including adjacent streets and all« Forest Lake Park, Hennepin County, PRESENT ZOHIHCt Single Family Residential LR - IB PROPOSED ZOWINGt Single Family Residential Ut - IB MINIMJM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS! Front 35 FT. Rear 30 FT. Side I'' FT. Front 35 FT. Side/Street 35 FT. Rear 30 FT. Lake Shore 73 FT (measured - - - Irom OHW elev. 929.9) Wetlands 26 FT. LOT AREA TABULATIONS: (Areas above 929.9 cn"*' .') Lot 1 I.3P Ac Lot 2 I oa At Lot 8 I 01 Ac Lot 9 I HZ Ac LOT WIDTH AT FRONT SETBACK: Lot I TP Lot 2 ifc' fr Lov • 390 Fr Lot • la-t pr DRY BUILDABLE LOT AREAt Lot I /it Ac Lot 2 1.99 Ac. Lot 3 01s Ac. Lol * 0 5fA, SHEET ITLE PRELIMINARY PLAT _AmL,J9?p_ SCALE PLAN _JJL<|oL ___ Hlittli.:________ PROJECT NO ___90-j48:08 SHEET NO. y±..smmn mmrn *■"ps|r :li ■'. <3 '[mmW^yyy'yyM ■'?« ill 'VV«.V3! •••;*iv*r, ^ X^- M‘^:- :--h %<» ^v'' ^i<Z«N>0 CD&Y li mM fiss BRfm CEPTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MCNULTY CONSTfiXTION OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, HcCXLEY f HENNEPIN COUNTY, HJMBESOTA ..MiH ^ r-v,. ■ ’-5 F 4x- -. ::;p m- I'l ^■3# -«V5 _b^-“k . y.,.. %- SGBar . .«¥pg s'_v ,AK£ f1lH>4tTt>HKA Ele« * / \ • ____cn.w*«r.------------\ r^f«.47 %#iqj56 !f' ^ COFFIN & 6R0NBER6, INC. Engineers,Surveyors •& Land Planne Long Lake, MijlTSSo^ —^5^^P^j(Np \/: 1 h-i-m L m§m .'itT;;' K?:- ■*«»r<.->‘«'»^'‘'^ -.W’. r* ■t»l'%».sfc--* , >..._ "-V v>' n wm ■;4-‘.:'V- * ■ ^-hf^ »^/s“ ^"//3/?o ^ j‘^^7 71 LEGAL DESCRIPTIQM- JL-T!. ~ s^-vs s:-"«^sr ■" “ “'STs.t;:;.r?3.i. pRpfoSC^ NORTH SCA«:i--^ 30 AREAS; fexwTWQ cowomowa 1 wwocovew zow COW^Tt 4 Wft 0 -7* 3T?5r 75.210 |>aso. ^oiztf^ /Zti ZO.i<k) 1.00 A 7^ 7i^'0«.k Acoin^tJ i'ifu' Sfoil' -4'oreV«/fc' Sfoil' -t'orop ! jo'«»o'&ri«.4U-iL D<»!^ I(r'*^' C>rMr«!.«utC dtJ^- m««*i«3 Ai»c Ar*"*/ .Ki;...::, •1^ :ii;- : • :.•■!, * ■ “ . • ■' -‘ • t . lake MWNEToifliii , i ^ i ,'^(^*<>1* MK»p* oi h»ih^r '\ ! P«V(«r ^4ftA<.. Aia Mif 'I Company, inc. i «o* fw m% tmi\ »»w ti« ******* / i IjASBUIlT SURVEY ...:w:;'! ^ ^•.: ji: ■ 1 iEiiiig?: f-fec W i •i.-SSSjhS^ srf:S:li^r'"3: iiii- ^ -i ■ :’SisSS“ ==- -jS 11! ii! IE IS! IS! Ill III I W— e o — e o iilihli H!iH!iWin i.:ih:i ir il=-=sis-srs -■•ISj-l;; ii5:|li; »SK.!n HiJiil; \AlUi liiil ^Ky<^/7 81 1^/70 *W-: \ - v^--'/. ■:; ,^\ ' "C ■ ■vV# ■ m' •c-; 31^' ‘ .;m :.;■ s-.-; •: .:'.? r).- ;'!:■. 3 ■■ ^V'.W- '■! • .•'V.VC S: :■•".r !•:! Kr;-m•T: :-K v'7^.v-^av f, m §If*'i 'Au te^SSaii®, •’! ■ : • •■■, ■■'»id- ; ;i •'fl :l-‘ A c..,S o ‘h- O 1 "1 co 11 ■!iH //; ■^y jl:'^V /V. ivJ. fV‘ .i’dd :‘:- :i'^; w -Ci/ i|! ill l|8 Ifsill i lis|IS| SlJf ij5l i^1l I « M ill ill ill ill jSj «! Hi’ Hj•'' II 111Ilfi Hi -Iil llii -ij3 -ai^hit |si; 5jJ 2*5 2,* j|l I|l j]l 111;lJ \U 1^ il lil III III 8=39 8339 8339i| III l| l|a|* a|- 1 ■s ! i J 1 1 l|l? Ijlijlii llii |jl!i lill Hi 111 ill III ill I! 11! !l!fp ip i ip hili ih »!; i!= llilil ii| i| Sif Hi |j! il: 11: il: a?:,!.ill •;i| -illil|1 ilf- |i|? ^ “I I_ *5 llll ;i|| :S|| ;if3 :!|i lit l^}il » *h IHi IH3 It^i -s’ lolf't 1^11 tjli ijll f.ili li] 1 3|i3 3|i! s|3i j|l| i|| ill if ilil ihl alil ilj' Hi iaSilll'^ ' \ '-A k ,; ■ \ ' 'iJ -it. .-ii: V CLflSVM S!. piwau gcec^fgiJ ;‘:2« Ml n-*"-' ^ -‘ts '■S' [Q 10 1 X ^j; ^ #1566 ■•■' < ‘.; \-': ‘i ^^'.y.- , " : mmmr*. • ■ ■ .-;*l ■ :mm<^ :..J v;,:j^rii: ^.' -?i;WmAM HIiIIhS N I MmiMSiSiiiii'iiBw MMiiM P' ■ -n :m ■:W-. .-1?. 1'^ n i.i' ft ms iiii I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that 1 am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Hinnesota, I;; •t" 4 if- COFFIN t GR0MBER6. INC. y, ^- - - Nark S. Gronberg MH. Lie. No. 12755 Engineers. Land Surveyors. Planners Long Lake, Hinnesota Swimh'tty /km! IPGAL description of premises SURVEYEDl Lot 1. Block 5. -Saga Hill Revised. Hennepin Co Minn" i i' ini #1566 f/'S/9o »L ’ A\/ertue. & HMMll wBycigHny f » •-•2.^".. Certificate of Survey for Jane Regnier . . . . of Lot 1, Block 5. “Saga Hill Revised Hennepin Co Minn" Scale: . 1 inch - 20 feet Date : June 19. 1990 0 : Iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. as m I'. ’f.. ■•If • ■■ - iPi • -'il wvmi yp.: ^ ' ^ * , ’«! ■ ■ ; mm ■ :m' ; • ’ r’ .7: , mssm E,. S^7 kz \y>cr::5s. m V ■''■ /• zm¥-- ^ :‘llf •■■' ■' ■ . -. '■ r ^; :.-7; A .. ■ Itel : ■' 7fL-c3.y ?h5/9Q X \ i ^ .,: •W■T"-’’mm tm B ■sm■ :;:i Hlr-', S.r7-'x-:i. x‘ ■ zzm.•■•'SiW-' ■'S'A W'-M 7#7-*’ir^-'' • ■< Sa«li: r ' "ia m HiiliS wms-: WMm. 1%: W&B m. ' ^ ■ v"':.:..'; mm 'mme \ - -\:-m- pi,';.o:,;:. r ^ iwi ■ .V-: :■ ■■' .« -ill M