Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-23-1998 Council Packet
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAi^, MARCH 23,1998, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) 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. Memos regarding each of the Agenda itei^^^^vmlable in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. MAR 23 1998ROLL CALL 0 ^ 1. CONSENT AGENDA ^ ^ ^ 2. Authorization of the Execution and Delivery of a First Amendment to LeSe*P^5ffi9N0ontract with the HRA for the City Facilities - Resolution ADJOURNME^ 3. HRA MEETING 4. Authorization of the Issuance and Awarding of the Sale of Public Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998; and Authorization of a First Supplemental Indenture and a First Amendment to Lease-Purchase Contract - Resolution ADJOURNMENT RECONVENE COUNCIL MEETING APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. Regular Meeting of March 9, 1998 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS 7:15 P.M. 6. West Hennepin Recycling Commission Report - Amelia Kroeger PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Bill Stoddard, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) 8:00 P.M. ^ 7. SHORELINE/HERITAGE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - PUBLIC HEARING A. Order Plans and Specifications for Shoreline/Heritage Sanitary Sewer Project - Resolution ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Tom Okerstrom, 770 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Resolution Khasrow Daivari, 1082 Loma Linda Avenue - After-the-Fact Variances - Resolution Orono Development, LLC - B-5 District - Amendment - Ordinance Adoption Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee, 3285 Carman Road - Variances - Resolution James D. Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road - Preliminary Subdivision Approval - Resolution Daniel J. Anderson, 905 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Preliminary Subdivision Approval - Resolution Timothy & Bonnie Johnson, 627 Femdale Road North - Variance - Resolution Douglas & Marilyn Holcombe, 1056 Loma Linda Avenue - Variances - Resolution 8.#2292 9.#2317 10.#2327 11.#2335 12.#2339 13.#2341 ^14.#2343 15.#2344 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 23,1998, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA 16. #2346 Mark and Pamela Palm, 1447 Park Drive - Variances - Resolution 17. #2348 Mary Jane Hauser, 1540 Bohns Point Road - Variances - Resolution 18. #235 1 Laura Zauner, 3262 North Shore Drive - After-the-Fact Variances - Resolution 19. Park Dedication Amendment - Zoning/Subdivision Ordinance ^ 20. Land Alterations Amendment - Zoning Ordinance MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 21. March for Parks Proclamation 22. Park Commission Appointment ENGINEER REPORT ^ 23. Award Bid for Park Mowing 24. Seasonal Employees for Orono Golf Course CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 25. Preliminary Design - Highway 12 and County Road 6 Interchange 26. DNR Natural and Scenic Area Grant Application - Resolution ^ 27. Resignation of Planning Intern ^ 28. Proposal to Hire Full-Time Staff Person in Building and Zoning Department ^29. Authorization to Refund Park Dedication Fees on the Withdrawn Subdivision Application at 809 Brown Road North ;4G0. Amendment to Industrial District Moratorium Ordinance - Ordinance * 31. Investment Report for the Year Ended December 31,1 997 (Information Only) ^ ^ 32. Receipt of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting-1996 Financial Report (Information Only) CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT * 33. LICENSES * 34. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 1228 03/23 - Council meeting, 7:00 p.m. 03/25 - Council Work Session with Hennepin Parks, 8:00 a.m. 04/01 - Highway 12 Design Review Committee meeting, 5:30 p.m. 04/06 - Park Commission meeting, 7:15 p.m. 04/13 - Council meeting, 7:00 p.m. 04/20 - Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m. 04/22 - Board of Review, 7:00 p.m. 04/25 - Joint Orono/Long Lake Cleanup Day, 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. 04/27 - Council meeting, 7:00 p.m. 05/02 - Goodwill Collection Day, 9:00 a.m. - 1 :00 p.m. 05/09 - Joint Orono/Long Lake Cleanup Day-Construction Debris Only, 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Public A ttendance Meeting D ate C ouncil □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other SBQUESIED BELOW FOR 0«« CTTY RECORDS. ' ■ NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1 __Sn A Lr; C rtn'T^/J //X>/ A 4 . ^ ____IC^O LtStAA. >. ^ ^ E. \cflfC’’ I9L< C^c < C /J/?_____________ 7 Raj ^7vv? K' \'Ju:4 Pr 9. 10. ^JaIcVv X \-L:/Ck \\x;0 ^u,vxv\.i r\l\Lv^<.VtA^^U.nJix^L i/xrui^n^. '^-1 L /9T^0 Xko:-Ai\i. Of-_______________ 12..1 6 1 4 t;X >4A ^ 7 /Lcf/C ^ .iC ,K «: •7 14. ^A- lio l: A». ^Lw P». y<^ ^4 ___//) A ‘t.4/1 BID TABULATION $2,400,000 Public Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998 Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Orono, Minnesota SALE : March 23.1998 AWARD: MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER RATING: Mood/s Investors Service, Inc. “Aa2" NAME OF BIDDER MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER Chicago, Illinois PAINEWEBBER, INC. Chicago, Illinois EVEREN SECURITIES, INC. Chicago, Illinois MILLER. JOHNSON & KUEHN, INC. Mirmeapolis, Minnesota JOHN G. KINNARD & COMPANY Minneapolis, Minnesota 4.15% 4.25% 4.35% 4.40% 4.45% 4.50% 4.60% BBI: 5.19% RATE YEAR NE1 TRUE PRICE INTEREST INTEREST COST RATE 4.10% 2002 4.20% 2003 4.30% 2004 4.40% 2005-2007 4.50% 2000 $2,376,000.00 $755,893.13 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 $2,378,640.00 $764,023.85 4.5362% 4.5810% DAIN RAUSCHER INCORPORATED Minneapolis. Minnesota 4.50% 2002-2000 $2,386,324.10 $766,750.90 4.5935% PIPER JAFFRAY INC. Minneapolis, Minnesota FB8 INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC. AN OPERATmO DIVISION Of U S. BANCORP INVESTMENTS. INC Minneapolis. Minnesota MILLER & SCHROEDER FINANCIAL. INC. Minneapolis, Minnesota Z L. .Ji Ehlara 8t Aaaociates, Inc. LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE 4.375% 2002-2005 4.40% 2006 4.50% 2007-2008 $2,376,191.55 $765,560.48 4.15% 4.30% 4.35% 4 45% 4.55% 4.60% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 4.65% 2008 4.5961% $2,376,600.00 $775,972.40 4.6541% SOSO Centra Point* Driv* RmavtB*. Minneeot* 55113-1100 (S12I St7-aS00 • FAX (01210074666 www.«M*n-inc.coni r $2,400,000* Public Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998 Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Orono. Minnesota Page 2 NET TRUE NAME OF BIDDER RATE YEAR PRICE INTEREST INTEREST COST RATE CRONIN & COMPANY. INC.4.30%2002 $2,376,000.00 $793,133.44 4.7577% Minneapolis, Minnesota 4.35%2003 SALOMON SMITH BARNEY 4.45% 2004 ■i Chicago. Illinois 4.55%2005 14.65%2006 4.70% 2007 ; 4.75%2008 .^v • i Date e/ol/1998 2/01/1999 8/01/1999 2/01/2000 8/01/2000 2/01/2001 8/01/2001 2/01/2002 8/01/2002 2/01/2003 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 8/01/2004 2/01/2005 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 8/01/2007 2/01/2008 Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Minnesota S4.000.GOO Public Facilities Revenue Bonds Existing Issue (Callable February 1. 2001) PRIOR ORIGINAL DEBT SERVICE TOTAL Principal Coupon 275.000. 00 290.000. 00 310.000. 00 330.000. 00 355.000. 00 375.000. 00 400.000. 00 5.900« 6.000« 6.loot 6.2004 6.3004 6.4004 6.5004 Interest Total P*I 115.076.67 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 64.567.50 64.567.50 55.867.50 55.867.50 46.412.50 46.412.50 36.182.50 36.182.50 25.000.00 25.000. 00 13.000. 00 13.000.00 115.076.67 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 347.680.00 64.567.50 354.567.50 55.867.50 365.867.50 46.412.50 376.412 50 36.182.50 391.182.50 25.000. 00 400.000. 00 13.000. 00 413.000. 00 2.335.000.00 1.033.216.67 3.368.216.67 FISCAL TOTAL 115.076.67 145.360.00 145.360.00 420.360.00 419.135.00 421.735.00 422.825.00 427.365.00 425.000. 00 426.000. 00 Ehlers t Associates. Inc. Public Finance FILE QRONO-91 lease SINGLE PURPOSE 3/23/1998 11:16 AM • 4 r Orono Housing and Redevelopoent Authority. Minnesota Proposed Refunding of 14.000.000 Public Facilities Revenue Bonds Refunding Issue DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P-*-I FISCAL TOTAL 4/16/1998 2/01/1999 8/01/1999 2/01/2000 8/01/2000 2/01/2001 8/01/2001 2/01/2002 8/01/2002 2/01/2003 8/01/2003 2/01/2004 8/01/2004 2/01/2005 8/01/2005 2/01/2006 8/01/2006 2/01/2007 8/01/2007 2/01/2008 300.000. 00 4.loot 310.000. 00 4.200t 325.000. 00 4.300t 340.000. 00 4.400t 360.000. 00 4.400t 375.000. 00 4.400t 390.000. 00 4.500t 82.448.13 52.072.50 52.072.50 52.072.50 52.072.5C 52.072.5t 52.072.50 45.922.50 45.922.50 39.412.50 39.412.50 32.425.00 32.425.00 24.945.00 24.945.00 17.025.00 17.025.00 8.775.00 8.775.00 82.448.13 52.072.50 52.072.50 52.072.50 52.072.50 52.072.50 352.072.50 45.922.50 355.922.50 39.412.50 364.412.50 32.425.00 372.425.00 24.945.00 384.945.00 17.025.00 392.025.00 8.775.00 398.775.00 82.448.13 104.145.00 104.145.00 404.145.00 401.845.00 403.825.00 404.850.00 409.890.00 409.050.00 407.550.00 TOTAL 2.400.000.00 731.893.13 3.131.893.13 YIELD STATISTICS Bond Year Dollars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $16 735 00 Average Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.973 years Average Coupon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3734277t Net Interest Cost (NIC). . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5168397$ True Interest Cost (TIC). . . . . . . . . . . . . 4!5362259t Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes. . . . . . . . 4.4044559$ All Inclusive Cost (AIC). . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7830675$ IRS FORM 8038 Net Interest Ctst. . . . . . . 4.5299612$ Weighted Average Maturity. . . . . . . . . . . . 6.969 Years Ehlers & Associates. Inc. FILE - ORONO-98 xref 91 leas- SINGLE PURPOSE Public Finance 3/23/1998 11:16 AM r Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Minnesota Proposed Refunding of S4.000.000 Public Facilities Revenue Bonds Refunding Issue DEBT SERVICE COMPARISON Date Total P+I Existing D/S Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings FISCAL TOTAL 4/16/1998 .. 2/01/1999 82.448.13 (82.448.13)115.076.67 115.076.67 115.076.6‘»• 8/01/1999 52.072.50 :52.072.50)72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 ■- 2/01/2U00 52.072.50 (52.072.50)72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680 00 -• 8/01/2000 52.072.50 (52.072.50)72.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 2/01/2001 52,072.50 (2.387.072.50) 2.407.680.00 72.680.00 72.680.00 -- 8/01/2001 52.072.50 .52.072.50 72.680.00 20.607.50 2/01/2002 352.072.50 •352,072.50 347.680.00 (4.392.50)16.215.00 8/01/2002 45,922.50 .45.922.50 64.567.50 18.645.00 2/01/2003 355.922.50 -355.922.50 354.567.50 (1.355.00)17.290.00 8/01/2003 39.412.50 ..39.412.50 55.867.50 16.455.00 • 2/01/2004 364.412.50 ..364.412.50 365.867.50 1.455.00 17.910.00 8/01/2004 32.425.00 --32.425.00 46.412.50 13.987.50 2/01/2005 372.425.00 -372.425.00 376.412.50 3.987.50 17.975.00 8/01/2005 24.945.00 .24.945.00 36.182.50 11.237.50 2/01/2006 384.945.00 ..384.945.00 391.182.50 6.237.50 17.475.00 8/01/2006 17.025.00 •17.025.00 25.000.00 7.975.00 • 2/01/2007 392.025.00 .392.025.00 400.000.00 7.975.00 15.950.00 8/01/2007 8.775.00 .8.775.00 13.000.00 4.225 00 2/01/2008 398.775.00 •398.775.00 413.000.00 14.225.00 18.450.00 TOTAL 3.131.893.13 (2.625.738.13)2.740,796.67 3.246.951.67 3.368.216.67 121.265.00 PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY (NET TO MET) Net PV Cashflow Savings 9 4.783* (AIC). . . . . MET PRESENT VALUE BENEFIT NET PV BENEFIT / >2,335.000 REFUNDED PRINCIPAL.. NET PV BENEFIT / S2.400,000 REFUNDING PRINCIPAL. 89.917.03 $89,917.03 3.851* 3.747* Ehlers & Associates. Inc. Public Finance FILE - ORONO-98 xref 91 leas- SINGLE PURPOSE 3/23/1998 11:16 AM r Orono Housing and Redevelopaent Authority. Minnesota Proposed Refunding of S4.000.000 Public Facilities Revenue Bonds Refunding Issue SOURCES S USES Dated 04/16/1998 Delivered C4/16/1998 SOURCES Of FUNDS Par Amount of Bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.400.000.00 TOTAL SOURCES S2.400.000.00 USES OF FUNDS Original Issue Discount (OID). . . . . . . . . . 5.473.50 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.772t). . . . . . . 18.526.50 Costs of Issuance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.225.00 Deposit to Crossover Escrow Fund. . . . . . . . . 2.337,924.72 Rounding Amount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.650.28 TOTAL USES S2.400.000.00 Ehlers & Associates. Inc. FILE - ORONO-98 xref 91 leas- SINGLE PURPOSE Public Finance 3/23/1998 11:16 AM COUNCIL MEETINQ MAR 23 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION etlYOFORONO DATE: March 20, 1998 ITEM NO: Qu Department Approval: Name Ron Moot je Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Authorization of the Execution and Delivery of a First Amendment to the Lease-Purchase Contract with the HRA for the City Facilities - Resolution The City Council has authorized staff and the City's bond consultant to proceed to obtain bids for the sale of bonds to enable the advance refunding of the bonds used to finance the construction of the City facility. The bids will be received and reviewed early afternoon on Monday, March 23. Based on the bids received, the bond consultant will provide a recommendation as to whether to award the sale of the bonds. The advance refunding of the bonds used to finance the City facilities '’uires an amendment to the lease-purchase contract between the City and the City's HRA to reflect jie replacement of the initial bonds with the refunding bonds. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary for the City Council to adopt a resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a first amendment to the lease-purchase contract with the HRA. The necessary resolution is attached for Council action. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the execution and delivery of a first amendment to the le’se-purchase contract between the City and the City's HRA. PSTANIND HRA RESOLUTION RELATING TO PUBLIC FACILITIES REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1998, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ORONO; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE-PURCHASE CONTRACT WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Orono, Minnesota, has undertaken a redevelopment project under the Housing and Redevelopment Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047 (the ”Act"), consisting of the construction of a new city hall and facilities to house the police and public works departments (the ’’Project ”) and has financed the cost thereof by the issuance of its revenue bonds denominated Public Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series 1991, dated as of December 1,1991 (the "Series 1991 Bonds"); WHEREAS, the Authority proposes to issue an additional series of revenue bonds pursuant to the Act, to be denominated Public Facilities Revenue Refimding Bonds, Series 1998 (the ’’Bonds ”) for purposes of refunding in advance of maturity the 2002 through 2008 maturities of the Series 1991 Bonds (the ’’Refunded Bonds"), such refunding constituting a "crossover refunding ” as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, subd. 13; and WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued pursuant to a Trust Indenture, dated as of December 1,1991, as amended and supplemented by a First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 1,1998 (as so amended and supplemented, the "Indenture"), by and between the Authority and Firstar ^ank of Miimesota, N. A., successor to American National Bank and Trust Company, as Trustcw (the "Trustee"); and WHEREAS, all bonds issued under the Indenture will be secured by a pledge and assignment of the Lease-Purchase Contract, dated as of December 1,1991 (the "Original Lease"), as supplemented and amended by a First Amendment to Lease-Purchase Contract, dated as of April 1,1998 (the "First Amendment to Lease"; the Original Lease, as so supplemented and amended, is hereinafter referred to as the "Lease"), by and between the Authority and the City of Orono, Minnesota, and of the revenues derived by the Authority from the Project, and the bonds and the interest thereon shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged thereto and no bonds shall constitute a debt of the Authority within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation nor shall the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the Authority be pledged thereto; and Page 1 of 7 WHEREAS, the Authority has offered the Bonds for sale by means of an Official Statement, dated March 12,1998 (together with an Addendum thereto to be prepared and distributed prior to delivery of the Bonds, the "Official Statement"); and WHEREAS, forms of the First Amendment to Lease and the Official Statement have been presented to this Board and are hereby ordered to be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Or '>NO (the "City"), as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by this Council that the First Amendment to Lease and the Escrow Agreement, dated as of April I, 1998 (the "Escrow Agreement"), between the City and Firstar Bank of Minnesota, N.A., as escrow agent, substantially in the forms presented to this Board, are hereby approved. The Mayor and the City Clerk (or, in the event of their absence or disability, the acting Mayor or the acting City Clerk, respectively) are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the First Amendment to Lease and the Escrow- Agreement in the name of and on behalf of the City. All of the provisions of the First Amendment to Lease and the Escrow Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated herein. The First Amendment to Lease and the Escrow Agreement shall be substant’ally in the form now on tile in the office of the City Clerk, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as the Mayor shall determine to be necessary or appropriate, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determinations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby approves the form of the Official Statement annexed hereto and it is hereby determined that the information contained therein regarding the City is accurate and complete. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificates as may be appropriate concerning the accuracy, completeness and sufficiency of the Official Statement insofar as it coniaiiis infcvmation describing the City and the Lease. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board hereby authorizes and directs officers of the City to execute such other certificates and documents as may be necessary' and appropriate to effectuate the transactions contemplated by the First Amendment to Lease and the Official Statement. Page 2 of 7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City hereby makes the following covenants with respect to continuing disclosure: (a) Limited Exemption from Rule. The Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) has promulgated amendments to Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 C.F.R. § 240.15c2-12) (as in effect and interpreted from time to time, the Rule) which govern the obligations of certain underwriters to require that issuers of municipal bonds enter into contracts for the benefit of the bondholders to provide continuing disclosure with respiect to the bonds. This Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the Bonds are exempt from the application of paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule by reason of the exemption granted in paragraph (d)(2) thereof Specifically, this Council hereby finds that the only obligated person (within the meaning of the Rule) with respect to the Bonds is the City and that, giving effect to the issuance of the Bonds and any other securities required to be integrated with the Bonds, there will be no more than $10 million in principal amount of municipal securities outstanding on the date of issuance of the Bonds as to which the City is an obligated person (excluding municipal securities exempt from the Rule under paragraph (dXO thereof because, among other things, they were issued in minimum denominations of $100,000). In making such finding, the City hereby represents that it has not issued within the six months before the date of issuance of the Bonds and that it reasonably expects that it will not issue within six months after the date of issuance of the Bonds, other securities of the City of substantially the same security and providing financing for the same general purpose or purposes as the Bonds. The exemption from the Rule for the Bonds is conditioned upon die City agreeing to provide certain continuing disclosure as hereinafter provided. The City has complied in all material respects with any undertaking previously entered into hy it under the Rule. (b) Purpose and Beneficiaries. To provide for the public availability of certain information relating to the Bonds and the security therefor and to permit participating underwriters in the primary offering of the Bonds to comply with paragraph (b)(5) of the Rule, which will enhance the marketability of the Bonds, the City hereby makes the covenants and agreements contained in this section for the benefit of the Owners (as hereinafter defined) from time to time of the Outstanding Bonds. If the City fails to comply with any provisions of this section any person aggrieved thereby, including the Owners of any Outstanding Bonds, may take whatever action at law or in equity may appear necessary or appropriate to enforce performance and observance of any agreement or covenant contained in this section, including an action for specific performance or a writ of Page 3 of 7 mandamus. Direct, indirect, consequential and punitive damages shall not be recoverable for any default hereunder. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event shall a default under this section constitute a default under the Bonds or under any other provision of this resolution. As used in this section, "Owner" or "Bondowner" means, in respect of a Bond, the registered owner or owners thereof appearing in the bond register maintained by the Registrar or any Beneficial Owner (as hereinafter defined) thereof, if such Beneficial Owner provides to the Registrar evidence of such beneficial ownership in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Registrar. As used herein, "Beneficial Owner" means, in respect of a Bond, any person or entity which (i) has the power, directly or indirectly, to vote or consent with respect to, or to dispose of ownership of, such Boiid (including persons or entities holding Bonds through nominees, depositories or other intermediaries), or (ii) is treated as the owner of the Bond for federal income tax purposes. (c) Information To Be Disclosed. The City will provide, either directly or indirectly through an agent designated by the City, the following information at the follov'ing times in an appropriate manner: (1) At least annually to the state information depository then designated or operated by the State of Minnesota (the "State Depository"), if any, or, if no State Depository then exists, to any i^rson or entity upon request, the information (the "Disclosure Information") of the type contained in the Official Statement under the following captions: "Current Property Valuations," "Larger Taxpayers," "Direct Debt," "Overlapping Debt," "Debt Ratios," "Tax Levies and Collections," "Tax Capacity Rates," "Larger Employers" and "Employment/Unemployment," which information may be unaudited and which, for financial statement information, shall be for the most recent fiscal year of the City (if in response to a request, the most recent fiscal year ending not less than 365 days ^fore the date of the request), and, for other such information, the information most recently compiled by the City on a customary basis and publicly available under applicable data privacy or other laws. The City Clerk is hereby designated as the proper recipient of requests for Disclosure Information. Any or all of the Disclosure Information may be incorporated by reference, if it is updated as required hereby, from other documents, including official statements, which have been Page 4 of 7 submitted to each then nationally recognized municipal securities information repository under the Rule or the SEC. If the document incorporated by reference is a final official statement, it must be available from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. The City shall clearly identify in the Disclosure Information each document so incorporated by reference. If the Disclosure Information is changed because it is no longer compiled or publicly available or this paragraph (c)(1) is amended as permitted by subsection (d), then the City shall include in the next Disclosure Information to be delivered hereunder, to the extent necessary, an explanation of the reasons for the amendment and the effect of any change in the type of information provided. (2) In a timely manner, to me Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and to the State Depository, if any, notice of the occurrence of any of the follo\ving events which is a Material Fact (as hereinafter defined): (A) Principal and interest payment delinquencies; (B) Non-payment related defaults; (C) Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (D) Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (E) Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (F) Adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the security; (G) Modifications to rights of security holders; (H) Bond calls; (I) Defeasances; (J) Release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the securities; and (K) Rating changes. As used herein, a "Material Fact" is a fact as to which a substantial likelihood exists that a reasonably prudent investor would attach importance thereto in deciding to buy, hold or sell a Bond or, if not disclosed, would significantly alter the total information otherwise available to an Page 5 of 7 investor from the Official Statement, information disclosed hereunder or information generally available to the public. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, a Material Fact is also an event that would be deemed "material" for purposes of the purchase, holding or sale of a Bond within the meaning of applicable federal securities laws, as interpreted at the time of discovery of the occurrence of the event. (3) In a timely manner, to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and to the State Depository, if any, notice of the occurrence of any of the following events or conditions: (A) the amendment or supplementing of this section pursuant to subsec ion (d), together with a copy of such amendment or supplement and any explanation provided by the City under subsection (d)(2); (B) the termination of the obligations of the City under this section pursuant to subsection (d); (C) any change in the accounting principles pursuant to which the financial statements constituting a portion of the Disclosure Information are prepared; and (D) any change in the fiscal year of the City. (d) Term : Amendments: Interpretation . The covenants of the City in this section shall remain in effect so long as any Bonds are Outstanding. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, however, the obligations of the City under this section shall terminate and be without further effect as of any date on which the City delivers to the Registrar an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that, because of legislative action or final judicial or administrative actions or proceedings, the failure of the City to comply with the requirements of this section will not cause participating underwriters in the primary offering of the Bonds to be in violation of the Rule or other applicable requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or any statutes or laws successory thereto or amendatory thereof Page 6 of 7 This section may be amended or supplemented by the City from time to time, without notice to or the consent of the Owners of any Bonds, by a resolution of this Council filed in the office of the recording officer of the Cit> accompanied by an opinion of Bond Counsel, who may rely on certificates of the City and others and the opinion may be subject to customary' qualifications, to the effect that: (i) such amendment or supplement (a) is made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in law or regulation or a change in the identity, nature or status of the City or the type of operations conducted by the City, or (b) is required by, or better complies with, the provisions of paragraph (d)(2) of the Rule; (ii) this section as so amended or supplemented would have complied with the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of the Rule at the time of the primary offering of the Bonds, giving effect to any change in circumstances applicable under clause (i)(a) and assuming that the Rule as in effect and interpreted at the time of the amendment or supplement was in effect at the time of the primary offering; and (iii) such amendment or supplement does not materially impair the interests of the Bondowners under the Rule. This section is entered into to comply with, and should be construed so as to satisfy the requirements of, paragraph (d)(2) of the Rule. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and that copies be forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for *he City of Orono. Adopted by the City Council this 23rd day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 7 of 7 COUNCIL MEETING mar 23 1998 OTYOFOnONO HRA MEETING 00UNCLMEET1NQ MAR 23 1998 REQUEST FOR HRA ACTION CIIYOFOBONO DATE: March 20, 1998 ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: A Item Description: Authorization of the Issuance and Awarding of the Sale of Public Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998; and Authorization of a First Supplemental Indenture and a First Amendment to Lease-Purchase Contract - Resolution The City Council has authorized staff and the City ’s bond consultant to proceed to obtain bids for the sale of bonds to enable the advance refunding of the bonds used to finance the construction of the City facility. The bids will be received and reviewed early afternoon on Monday, March 23. Based on the bids received, the bond consultant will provide a recommendation as to whether to award the sale of the bonds. If the recommendation of the bond consultant is to award the sale of the bonds, and if the City Council and the HRA accept the recommendation of the bond consultant, the City Council and the HRA must each adopt a resolution relating to the issuance of the bonds and/or the amendment of the lease-purchase contract between the City and the HRA. The resolution to be adopted by the HRA is to authorize the issuance and awarding of the sale of Public Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998; and to authorize a First Supplemental Indenture and a First Amendment to the Lease-Purchase Contract between the City and HRA. This resolution is attached for HRA action. HRA ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the issuance and awarding of the sale of Public Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998; and authorizing a First Supplemental I.-^.denture and a First Amendment to Lease-Purchase Contract. BONDSALB HIM RESOLUTION RELATING TO PUBLIC FACILITIES REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1998; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, AWARDING THE SALE AND PRESCRIBING THE FORM THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE AND A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE- PURCHASE CONTRACT WHEREAS, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Orono, Minnesota (the "Authority") is authorized, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469 (the "Act"), to issue bonds to finance or refinance a redevelopment project and the principal and interest on the bonds may be payable exclusively from its income and revenues of the project financed or refinanced with the proceeds of the bonds; and WHEREAS, the Act further authorized the Authority to make any of its land in a redevelopment project available for use by public agencies by sale, lease or otherwise; and WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a redevelopment project consisting of the construction of a new city hall and facilities to house the police and public works departments of the city as an authorized project under the Act, and has finemced the cost thereof by the issuance of its revenue bonds denominated Public Facilities Revenue Bonds, Series 1991, dated as of December 1, 1991 (the "Series 1991 Bonds"); and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Authority issue an additional series of revenue bonds pursuant to the Act, to be denominated Public Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of refunding in advance of maturity the 2002 through 2008 maturities of the Series 1991 Bonds, aggregating $2,335,000 in principal amount (the "Refimded Bonds"), such refunding constituting a "crossover refunding" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, subd. 13; and WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued pursuant to a Trust Indenture, dated as of December 1,1991 (the "Original Indenture"), as supplemented and amended by a First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of April 1, 1998 (the "First Supplemental Indenture"; the Original Indenture, as so supplemented and amended, is hereinafter referred to as the "Indenture") all by and between the Authority and Firstar Bank of Minnesota, N. A., as successor to American National Bank and Trust Company, as Trustee (the "Trustee"); and Page 1 of 7 r WHEREAS, all bonds issued under the Indenture will be secured by a pledge and assignment of the Lease-Purchase Contract, dated as of December 1, 1991 (the "Original Lease"), as supplemented and amended by a First Amendment to Lease-Purchase Contract, dated as of April 1,1998 (the "First Amendment to Lease"; the Original Lease, as so supplemented and amended, is hereinafter referred to as the "Lease") all by and between the Authority and the City, and of the revenues derived by the Authority from the Project, and the bonds and the interest thereon shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged thereto and no bonds shall constitute a debt of the Authority within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation nor shall the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the Authority be pledged th. -eto; and WHEREAS, under the Lease, the City is to pay to the Authority sufficient money each year to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the bonds issued to refinance the Project, and City is to provide the cost of maintaining the Project in good repair, the cost of keeping the Project properly insured, and any payments required for taxes and any expenses incurred by the Authority in connection with the Project; and WHEREAS, forms of the First Supplemental Indenture and the First Amendment to Lease and a form of the Official Statement, dated March 12, 1998 (together with the Addendum thereto to be prepared and distributed prior to delis ery of the Bonds, the "Official Statement"), have been presented to this Board and are hereby ordered to be placed on file in the office of the Secretary; and WHEREAS, the Authority ’s financial consultant, Ehlers and Associates, Inc., as an independent financial advisor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 475.60, subdivision 2, paragraph (9), has solicited bids for the Bonds on behalf of the City, and, pursuant to the Official Statement, a bid for the purchase of the Bonds has been received, opened, read and considered, and the purchase price, interest rates and net interest cost under the terms of such bid are found to be as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Orono, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. This Board acknowledges, finds, determines and declares that it is in the best interests of the Authority to refinance the Project in that the Authority will realize a substantial interest rate reduction, a gross savings of approximatciy______________and a present value Page 2 of 7 savings (using the yield on the Bonds, computed in accordance with Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, as the discount factor? of approximaiely $_______________. Section 2. For the purpose of paying certain of ihe costs of the refunding, there is hereby authorized the issuance of Public Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1998 of the Authority in the aggregate principal amount of $2,400,000. The Bonds shall be issued in fully registered form, shall be in such denominations, shall be payable on the dates and in the principal amounts and shall be payable from the sources and in the manner provided in the Indenture. The Bonds shall bear interest at the ra^es set forth in Section 6. This Board hereby authorizes and directs the Chairperson to execute and the Secretary to attest under the corporate seal of the Authority the First Supplemental Indenture in the name and on behalf of the Authority and to deliver to the Tmstee the First Supplemental Indenture, and does hereby authorize and direct the execution of the Bonds in accordance with the provisions of the Indenture. All of the provisions of the First Supplemental Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated herein. The First Supplemental Indenture shall be substantially in the form on file in the office of the Secretary with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as the Chairperson, in his discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Chairperson shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. Section 3. The Chairperson and the Secretary are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the First Amendment to Lease. All of the provisions of the First Amendment to Lease, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated herein. The First Amendment to Lease shall be substantially in the form on file in the office of the Secretary, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions and insertions as the Chairperson, in his discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Chairperson shall be conclusive evidence of such determinations. Section 4. No covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement herein contained or contained in the Indemare, the Bonds or the Lease shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement of any member of this Board or any officer, agent or employee of the Authority in that person’s individual c:' y, and neither this Board rior a y officer executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof Page 3 of 7 Section 5. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this resolution, the Indenture, the Lease and the Escrow Agreement for the full, punctual and complete performance of all the terms, covenants and agreements contained in the Bonds, the Indenture and the Lease and this resolution, including the execution and delivery of such closing certificates, arbitrage certifications and similar documents as may be required by bond counsel in connection with the issuance and delivery of the Bonds. Section 6. It is hereby found and determined that the most favorable proposal received for the purchase of the Bonds is that submitted by _______________________ of _____________,_________________, and associates (the "Purchaser"), to purchase the Bonds at a price of $_____________, plus accrued interest to the date of closing, the Bonds maturing in the following years to mature in the principal amounts and to bear interest at the designated rates set forth below opposite such years, respectively: Maturity Principal Amounts Interest Rate Maturity Principal Amounts Interest Rate 2002 200? 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Said offer is hereby accepted and the Chairperson and the Secretary are ’''^reby authorized and directed to execute a contract on the part of the Authority for the sale of the Bonds to the Purchaser. Section 7. The Official Statement prepared and distributed on behalf of the Authority by Ehlers and Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and the Official Statement is hereby deemed final for purposes of SEC Rule 1 5c2-12(b)(l ). The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificates as may be appropriate concerning the accuracy, completeness and sufficiency of the Official Statement and to deliver to the Purchaser within seven business days after the date of adoption of this resolution copies of the Official Statement in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of Sale, supplemented so as to contain the terms of the Bonds as set forth in this resolution and the reoffering and other information provided by the Purchaser for inclusion in the Official Statement. Page 4 of 7 Section 8. Anthr>ri7ation nf Payments . The City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed on the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds to pay from the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds the fees and expenses of the following persons incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds up to the maximum amount set forth opposite the name of such person upon receipt by the Authority of a satisfactory statement therefor: Service Performed Maximum Amount Financial Consultant Trustee and Escrow Agent Bond Counsel Rating of Bonds Payes Ehlers & Associates, Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota Firstar Bank of Minnesota, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Moody's Investors Service, Inc, The claims of the above persons up to the maximum amount set forth opposite the name of such person *3 hereby approved and no further action of this Board shall be necessary in connection with the payment of such fees and expenses of issuance of the Bonds. Section 9. Qualified Tax-F.xemnt Obligations . In order to enhance the marketability of the Bonds, and since the Authority and all subordinate entities do not reasonably expect to issue in excess of $10,000,000 of governmental and qualified 50l(cX3) bonds during calend^ year 1998, the Bonds are hereby designated by the Authority as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" pursuant to Section 265(b) of the Code. Section 10. Redemption of Refunded Bonds and Certification of PrOCecdiOgS- (a) The Secretary is directed to call the Refunded Bonds for redemption and prepayment at their earliest permissible redemption date (Feb^ 1,2001) and to give notice of redemption in accordance with the resolution authorizing the issuance of the Refunded Bonds. Page 5 of 7 (b) The Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this resolution in his office, together with such additional information as required, and to issue a certificate that the Bonds have been duly entered upon the Secretary's bond register and the tax required by law has been levied. (c) The officers of the Authority are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser, and to Dorsey & Whitney LLP, the attorneys rendering an opinion as to the legality thereof, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the Authority relating to the authorization and issuance of the Bonds and such other affidavits and certificates as may reasonably be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as such facts appear from the officer's books and records or are otherwise known to them. All such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the Authority as to the correctness of all statements contained therein. Section 11. Arbitrage Rebate Exemption . It is hereby determined that the Authority will qualify for the exception from arbitrage rebate for the Bonds provided by Section 148(0(4)(D) of the Code since: (a) the aggregate face amount of the Bonds does not exceed $5,000,000; (b) each Refunded Bond was issued as part of an issue which was treated as meeting the requirements of Section 148(fX2) and (3) of the Code by reason of Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Code; (c) the average maturity of the Bonds (_ remaining average maturity of the Refunded nds (_ years) does not exceed the _ years); and (d) no Bond has a maturity date which is later than 30 years after the date the Refunded Bonds were issued. Page 6 of 7 Section 12. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Orono, Minnesota this 23rd day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Secretary Chairperson Page 7 of 7 COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MAR 23 1993 DATE: QfnfiCF29KMdB ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Approval of Minutes of the March 9, 1998 Council Meeting The minutes of the March 9, 1998 Council meeting are not yet in final form for Council approval. A draft set of minutes has been included in the Council packet. The final draft will be provided to the Council for approval at the April 13 Council meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action required. ORONO CITV COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 9,1998 draft ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present; Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson, and Richard Flint. Representing StafiFwere City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barren, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Planning Intern Brad Brcssler, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Sherry Frost Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p m. (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items #12 and 17 were added to the Consent Agenda. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (•«) REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23,1998 Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council MeetingofFebruary 23, 1998. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Park Commission Chair McDermott i soiled that Amelia Kroeger was presented with the Friend of the Parks Award at their ist meeting. Kroeger would like to see a recycling program started at Bederwood Park. McDermott said the OBA has requested to amend their contract regarding use of Bederwood for baseball to allow one extra night of play for the intermediate, or 13 year old, level. This would affect 28 Orono students if all played baseball. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#3) MARCH FOR PARKS PROPOSAL McDermott distributed samples of the pledge form, which wUl be used for this event Park Commissioner Use has investigated the national program, which involves obtainmg pledges for walking or biking to raise funds for parks The event is tentatively scheduled for Sunday, April 26, from 10:00 a m. to 3:00 p m. The Cities of Mound, Long Lake, and Minnetrista will also be involved. The funds will be raised for the cities. The Orono Park Commission is recommending the funds be used for a short court basketball at Antoine Park or for landscaping of parks. McDermott indicated that a possible matcWng of funds using park dedication funds was discussed as well. He asked for the Council’s support and assistance with this event He noted that remote parking with shuttles may occur to Bederwood from the school and city office areas due to limited parking at Bedcrwood Park. Walkers will walk from the park towards Long Lake Bikers will bike from the park towards Minnetrista. KcUey noted there are only about 20 parking spaces at Bederwood Jabbour commented that the area by McCulley Road could be used as an alternate site. Gappa felt that site would be too muddy. Flint said he supported the activity but was also concerned with parking. KeUey suggested the option of using the Orono School’s parking lot, and using the Old Crystal Bay Road trail from the school and city offices, where the bikers and walkers can travel to the Luce Line and split off from there. He noted that it would be impossible to shuttle the bikers if need be Jabbour suggested McDermott speak with school district representatives. Sherokee Use will be the contact person for the City of Orono. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Park Commission’s proposal for a March for Parks event Staff* will present Council with a proclamation at the next Council meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Chair Sandra Smith had no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ’S REPORT (Agenda item U4 was moved to later in the agenda due to the absence of the applicant) r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#5) #2323 TLVl NELSON ON BEHALi OF DAVID POMIJE, 3120 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2323 at the request of the applicant. Kelley asked how long the Council should continue tabling the application Moorse referenced the memo from City Planner Van Zomeren noting the need to obtain an agreement from the aj^licant for an extension of the 60 day period. Barrett suggested passing a motion for denial if the agreement for an extension is not received. He indicated that a majority of the 60 day period has passed. Barrett said Staff can determine if the applicant agrees to tabling the application and revisit it at the next meeting. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2323 upon receipt in writing of an agreement granting an additional 60 day time period. If the agreement is not received, the motion will revert to a denial of the application. Peterson noted the conflicting application numbers between the packet information and the referenced memorandum. Moorse said he would correct the error. Kelley asked how much time would be allowed to receive the extension from the applicant Jabbour amended the motion, Peterson seconded the amendment to the motion, that the agreement for a 60 day extension of the application process be received by the end of the business day on Wednesday, March 11, for tabling of the application or the application will be denied. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2326 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADVWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4043 Tom Dillon and John O’Sullivan were present. Gaffron reported that the application was presented to the Council at their Februai> 23 meeting, where the commercial site plan was approved on a 3; 1 vote. Staff was directed to draft a resolution for approval with findings for hardcover and front yard parking setback variances. The resolution includes 17 conditions on the development. Gaffron said there were some items still needing to be resolved, including the formal vacation of Navarre Lane before development commences and calculations regarding the number of sewer units to be charged prior to issuance of the building permit. Gaffron said the general issues have been addressed. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9. 1998 draft (#6 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Dillon indicated that he has received a copy of the resolution and was satisfied with its contents. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4043. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays I, Peterson (#7) #2327 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC - B-5 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Gaffron reported that the code amendment is in conjunction with the previous application but is a separate item. The applicants have requested that the B-5 district standards be amended to included coffee and bagel shops as conditional uses. The B-5 district has not previously included any restaurant uses. Council has directed staff to draft an ordinance for such an amendment. Gaffron met v/ith applicants regarding the possible conditions for such uses as listed on page one of the memo, #1-4, Gaffron indicated that the reasoning behind limiting the percentage of gross floor area of an individual building was to eliminate the possibility of the use being conducted in a free standing building. Gaffron reported that the discussions resulted in staff concluding that the City's goals could be accomplished through the following conditions; 1) The use shall not exceed 50% of the building area. This would eliminate the possibility of a free-standing restaurant and concerns surrounding its potential for reuse as another type of restaurant not allowed by code; 2) the coffee or bagel store shall not exceed 2,000 s.f in gross floor area or 4000 s f for the combined coffee/bagel use; and 3) the use must meet parking requirements for the total site. An ordinance is included in the information packet. The ordinance makes such use a conditional use, whi^h must be reviewed and approved by Council each time the use is requested. Gaffron noted that the B-5 district is limited in area, while pointing the specific areas out on a map, and recommended approval. Jabbour asked if these uses were appropriate to all the B-5 district in Orono. Gaffron said he did not believe the use would present any problems in these areas that abut residential and noted that further conditions could be placed on the use as well. Jabbour said it was important that no precedent is being set. He does not believe the code should be changed to accommodate one application He did note, however, that times have changed and the list of allowed uses needs revision. Gaffron said he has noted that the code standards for each business district should be updated to fit today’s needs. It was noted that the amendment is not specific to the applicant's property, and he will have to apply for a conditional use permit at the time a speciftc user is identified. Jabbour asked thr applicant if this was what was understood. He added that an applicant cannot apply « use that does not exist Dillon said he had not understood it in this manner but would do what is necessary. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#7 -1^2327 Orono Development Ordinance Amendment - Continued) Kelley commented that some bagel shops are actually restaurants He asked if this use could be allowed in the B-5 district Gaffron said, while the bagel use will include some sit-down seating, it is not specifically defined as a Class 1 or 11 restaurant. Jabbour said his concern would be that the use would grow into something that does not fit their understanding. Gaffron said the placement of conditions can control that from occurring. Kelley noted that many of the bagel shops include fiill menus, while others only sell bagels. He would like to see a clear definition of what is being considered He asked Council to consider how intense the use should be. Jabbour said if the Council feels the sit-down use is appropriate, it should not be confused with a full-fledged restaurant, which he views differently. Gaffron said his vision for this use is a 2000-4000 s f shop similar to a Caribou Coffee He said the Council should revisit the issue if they art: not comfortable with it as presented. Jabbour said he was supportive of the req tested uses with a limited space allotment. He noted that these restrictions are sometimes pushed to their limits and sees the need to oocument the Council's intent for amending the code. Gaffron commented that there was a relatively strong possibility that someone could make an application that would stretch the limits of the amendment. He questioned where the City will draw the line when a slightly different type of use is requested. Jabbour supported applicant's right to request an amendment but would like to see controls in place that limit the use. Goetten agreed with Jabbour. Peterson questioned whether the use could be confined to only the coffee and bagel use. Jabbour felt the size of the establishment would limit the use. Goetten asked if more detail is required. Kelley said he would support the use with no seating. He felt adding seating would •''Hange the use. Goetten countered that coffee shops usually having some seating. Kelley asked if the use should be in the B-1 district. Jabbour said a full-fledged restaurant could be built in that district. Gaffron concurred that the B-1 allows for both Class I and II restaurants. Jabbour felt if the use was a conditional use as proposed with documentation and history behind the amendment, the City would have more protection '* ^m misuse Kelley said he would agree with Goetten regarding the need for some seating but would like the seating limited in number. Goetten felt this request was reasonable. Peterson agreed. Gaffron noted when considering the square footage limitation and the likelihood that half of the space would be for a work station, there would typically be about a 30’x30' section available for seating for an individual bagel or coffee use. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#7 - #2327 Orono Development Ordinance Amendment - Continued) Peterson asked if there was adequate parking to support this use Gaffron indicated that only two more spaces than for a retail store would be required for the use at the applicant's property, which is met by his proposed site plan. Kelley asked if the resolution as drafted would limit the conditional use for seating purposes Gaffron indicated it did not, and recommended a limitation be placed on seating at this time Barrett agreed Gaffron said he was not sure what number of seating should apply. Jabbour informed the applicant to limit the use to distinguish it from the B-1 district uses and market it as such. Leisel Cox, owner of a coffee shop on CoRd 15, asked the Council to consider traffic She indicated that she has one customer every minute. Jabbour noted that the ingress/egress was better on CoRd 19 than on CoRd 15. Dillon said he had not contemplated the amount of seating He noted that he had requested outside seating be allowed as well Jabbour suggested tabling the application to further review the issue of seating Kelley suggested polling coffee shops to see how much seating is necessary. H- did not feel it should be incumbent upon the applicant to provide these figures. Kelley <fsked that Staff determine the number of seats for inside and outside seating. Jabbour asked the applicant to submit any seating plans they may have to Siaff Jabbour polled the Council for their support of the amendment to allow the coffee and bagel shop use. All Council supported adding the use Council agreed to have Staff review seating and make a recommendation. Flint said he was unclear what a bagel or coffee shop would include. He asked if such a shop would sell orange juice and muffins. Gaffron said this has not been discussed. He noted that most listed uses in the B-5 do not go into such detail. He did feel that some definitions were necessary. Gaffron said he would speak with other cities and users. Dillon said he thought similar shops have coolers from which they sell bottled water, juice, and pop, and may have muffins as well. The primary focus would be on bagels. Jabbour noted that the two uses are compatible and sometimes overlap. Gaffron indicated that the code presents a problem with not setting very detailed performance standards for each district or use He felt the potential problems that have been noted suggest a need for setting such standards. ^aft MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#7 - Wiyil Orono Development Ordinance Amendment - Continued) Flint said he did not object to the use but only wanted some clarification He does not believe everything can be listed but some guidelines are necessary for whatever is being «ivisioned iabbour reviewed for Staff that the Council supports the change to the ordina- o j 'nd bagel and coffee shops appropriate uses. The use could include co*d and wann j , and a variety of muffins. The Council would like to see some limitations placed on the use to limit expansion. Inside and outside seating will also require review Goetten asked about a portable use. Barrett responded that the shop would still most likely have a kitchen. Hv siip^gested Council consider whether food can be prepared to order. Barrett suggest! the possibility of adding another restaurant class, III, to limit it Jabbour suggested Staft'review the matter with Barrett Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to t^le Application #2327. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. O'Sullivan asked afr'tit the time frame of the review and whether the entire B<5 use list would be reviewed He noted that cellular phone sales was not included on the list and was a possible tenant. Jabbour informed O'Sullivan that the Coundl has other priority items that will take precedence before a full review is done of the business districts He said the City would like to do a comprehensive review. Gaffron concurred that the need to review such matters is necessary, but it will not happen in the near future. Jabbour informed O'Sullivan that he can apply for any use, but approval would be dependent upon the Council and their viewpoint. Gaffiron said if the use was a similar use, an applicant can appeal i ' a finding of similarity; if not similar, an applicant would have to ^^k to amend the coue Jabbour noted that any use needs to fit in with the vision of the B-5. (#8) **2326 BRUCE NEWTON, 3580 FREDERICK STREET - AFTER-THE- FACi VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4044 The Applicant was present Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The application is a request for an after-the- fact rear setback variaiu:e for a deck replacement that was illegally rebuilt. The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the variance As a condition of the approval, the applicant has agreed to provide a roadway and utility easement for the portion of the roadway crossing the property and the area 5' behind the curb as no legally described easement has been recorded Bressler reported that this portion of the road has been used by the City for many years, and the easement will clarify its use. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, i99» (#8 - #2326 Bruce Newton - Continued) ; A Mr. Newton said the deck has been in place for 23 years, and he just replaced it. He reported having read the resolution and is satisfied with it. It was noted that the one year stipulation for using the variance would not apply in this case as the deck replacement has already occurred. Barrett asked that the decision to grant the easement should be be a condition of the approval. He suggested this be removed, and the applicant asked separately if he would allow the easement to be granted over the portion of the property in question. The applicant agreed. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4044 for a rear setback variance. The motion does not include the casement as noted above. Vote. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Jabbour asked the applicant if he would grant the easement for the road. The applicant agreed to do so. (#9) #2338 GRANT WENKSTERN/LAKEVTEW GOLF, 405 NORTH ARM DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - RESOLimON NO. 4045 The Applicant was present. GaBron reported that the application is for the next phase of the master plan for the Lakeview Golf Course The plan calls for grading for two projects The first is to expand the tees and creation of a pc r.d for hole # 18 near the northeasterly side of the golf course. The second is an expansion of tees and creation of a pond near the center of the .curse between the 4th green and 5th tee. This expansion would include gi adiiit; within 26' of a wetland requiring a variance in addition to the conditional use permit Uu' jixading in excess of 500 cubic yards. There will be no significant impact to the wetlandi The City Engineer has asked for culvert invert elevation readings to ensure that the culverts will handle the runoff The fill will be balanced on site Gaffron said Staff recommends approval of the application. Jabbour asked if the pond acreage being created is bankable Gaffron said this has not been investigated. He acknowledged that potential banking of wetland credits is a topic that needs to be resolved. Ho suggested reviewing with City Attorney. Kelley noted that Wenkstem has done a beautiful job with the golf course. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELL ON MARCH 9,1998 (#9 - #2338 Grant Wenkstem/Lakeview Golf - Continued) Peterson asked Kellogg to respond to the reference in the City Engineer ’s letter regarding f a 10:1 bench, now shown at 3 :1. She asked if this was an appropriate change. Kellogg indicated that a 10:1 bench establishes an aquatic buffer as a safety factor but is not desirable on a golf course. He did not believe this was a big issue and would support the 3:1 bench. Garffron concurred, Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No 4045 granting a variance and conditional use permit to Lakeview Golf Course for land alterations involving expansion of the 5th and 18th tees and creation of two ponds Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0 (The motion had been amended as it originally only included the variance without the CUP.) (#10) #2339 JAMES D. RENDER, 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY PLAT The Applicant was present. Gafffon reported that the application is for preliminary plat review of the 1.9 acre parcel proposed for three building sites. The property had been subdivided in the past as part of a larger subdivision and now consists of three lots which were legally combined. The property is located in the 1/2 acre zoning district, and the lots meet that requirement. The Planning Commission reviewed the application both as a sketch plan and preliminary plat. The main issue for discussion is access. A 3-lot subdivision typically calls for a private road. This was originally proposed as a backlot configuration. The Planning Commission and Staff have concluded that a 50* corridor should be established for a road to potentially connect Birch Lane to Tonkawa. The Long Lake Fire Chief was present at the Planning Commission meeting and noted the difficulty with for emergency vehicles when road systems are minimized. He cited a recent problem gaining access to a fire in a home. Staff recommended bringing a road to at least the west end of the property with a cul-de- sac. The applicant proposed a road that ends with a T that would be functional for the fire department to use as a turnaround. This is tht .ire department's least desired option; they would prefer a through road and cul-de-sac. The neighbors, however, find a number of problems with having a connecting road. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued)^Pr Gaffron indicated that Staff is today in receipt of a stormwater plan, but it has not yet been reviewed by Staff. Gaffiron said he would recommend that the application be tabled after discussion of the proposal. Staff recommended a private road be platted with an underlying easement to the City. Gaffron asked Council to consider whether the 42' in width for the outlot added to the 8' of adjacent easement will satisfy the 50' corridor. It will have to be confirmed by the City Attorney that the city has roadway rights over the 8'. The Council is asked to determine whether the corridor should serve as a link to connect Birch Lane to Tonkawa. Gaffi-on indicated that the applicant has asked for a 17' credit towards hardcover if he gives more than 25' for the road as he would lose area that could be considered in the hardcover calculations Gaffron said Staff reluctantly supports that request He noted that larger homes could be built if there w<^re only two lots instead of three. One lot includes the existing house but the garage is located over the proposed lot line requiring further review. Gaffron reviewed the issues for discussion #1 through #5 as noted on page 4 of the memo. Mr. Render said he would like to create three lots with similar size homes to the neighborhood with about 4000 s.f. of hardcover. Render said he is not in favor of the cul-de-sac option due to the public landing nearby. He agreed with the need for good planning indicating a possible need to connect Birch Lane to Tonkawa in the future. He reiterated his request for a hardcover variance to offset the property given for a road easement Render said the only other issue of concern is the requirement for a NURP pond. He said the proposed pond has been pulled back on the property to protect two large oak trees. He feels the rate of flow can be handled without requiring a NURP pond. He suggested the possibility of making a cash contribution to the Watershed for mitigation. Jabbour informed the applicant that the City of Orono requires that all mitigation be on site. He would not support any cash contributions in lieu of ponding on site. Jabbour said, while he is not an advocate of the cul-de-sac requirement in the code, a cul- de-sac cannot be selectively chosen. Jabbour feh it is best to look at the issue comprehensively. He felt it would be better not to have a cul-de-sac if the concerns of the fire department could be addressed. He f^t the road should be 28* wnde. Gaffron said he is obligated to defend the code. He suggested the code be amended if the Council is not comfortable with it as written. Jabbour said he is also concerned with violating the Comprehensive Plan by having a private road in an urban area r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) ^ Kelley disagreed with Jabbour He felt it was appropriate to have a cul-de-sac with a 28* i wide road. Kelley said the lots will be restricted in hardcover and no parking will be available for these homes with a small narrow driveway. A 28' road with cul-de-sac would enable more cars to park and enable fire trucks to better access the properties if need be. Kelley noted that roads also become narrower in the winter months with snow storage. Jabbour did not support giving credit for hardcover for the road easement as it would set a precedent Goetten agreed. Jabbour asked if the NURP pond was considered hardcover, Gafiron said it was not allowable towards the defined lot area, but he noted hardcover credit has normally been given for wetlands in the past, and logic would support giving hardcover credit for a pond as it is similar to wetlands. Goetten is concerned with having a snowball effect with a 28' road, cul-de-sac, and a future connection of Birch Lane to Tonkawa. She feels the connection is not necessary and would impact the neighbors. She felt the connection road would be used by drivers to by-pass major roads even if it is a private road. She reiterated she would not support giving credit for hardcover for the road easement. Goetten felt a large cul-de-sac for three lots was more than necessary. She felt the T would be sufficient if it adequately provided for the fire department needs. Goetten indicated she also supports the need for the NURP pond. Jabbour polled the Council He noted that if the cul-de-sac was eliminated, a reason would have to be established as the code calls for the cul-de-sac. He noted this has been a concern in other small subdivisions in the last few years. Gaffion indicated that there are many rural 3-lot subdivisions with cul-de-sacs. Gafiron cited examples of where cul- de-sacs were and w ere not used Goetten indicated that the need for cul-de-sacs has been reviewed case by case. Jabbour indicated that if the Council agrees with a hammerhead style, they would then be agreeing that it is a suitable substitute Moorse noted that the requirement for a cul-de-sac is to enable a fire truck to turnaround. He said that with smaller lots trucks do not have to go as far into the property, and this can be used as a reason for a T versus a cul-de-sac He noted the fire chief indicated that a T is adequate but not as easy for the trucks to maneuver. Moorse suggested reviewmg the length of the road may be a consideration on whether a cul-de- sac should be required. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Gaflfron clarified for Goetten that there is an easement for the sewer as well as an access easement. Kelley indicated that fires where no hydrants are available are fought by setting up a svkdmming type pool Tankers bring the water to the pool where it is dumped into it and pumped out by pumpers to extinguish the fire. This allows for a continual stream of water and requires a tremendous amount of room. Kelley said if a hammerhead is considered, the Council must also consider how fires are fought. He noted that the Council is charged with protecting the citizens' health, safety, and welfare. Goetten said she would support the hammerhead if no credit is allowed for hardcover. Jabbour said he agreed with Moorse rega. ding considering the proximity of the homes to the road. He indicated that fire equipment could be set up along Tonkawa to serve these homes. He also agreed with Kelley. Jabbour felt the road should be private Dan Regan, 3410 North Shore Drive, reported having a problem with the fire department technology requiring large vehicles when the environment is full of small lots. He felt fire equipment should be geared to the size of the properties they are protecting He asked why the lake was not being used in fighting fires He suggested the fire department determine in advance how they would gain access to properties in the city. He felt it would be ridiculous to require a 28' road for three properties. He said the three lots are marginal at best and do not fit in with the community. Jabbour reported that there are four fire departments that work within the City. He indicated that the issue of large and small trucks has been discussed in the past Jabbour noted that milfoil presents a problem with clogging up equipment when lake water is used. In response to Regan's comment about marginal lots, Jabbour said the applicant would not receive credit for the road easement towards hardcover. Jabbour noted that time was given for public input at the Planning Commission review. Ken Carlson, 3498 North Shore Drive, reported that Birch Lane is only 20’ wide and considered an alley. He noted that some of the garages are close to the road. With the concern expressed with fire equipment gaining access to properties, Carlson questioned whether the properties in this area are currently protected. He suggested a suction box be used in order to use lake water. He questioned why there is a fire lane nearby if the lake is not used to fight fires. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH % 1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Carlson indicated that the low portion of Birch Lane is »n a flood plain He asked how far the flood plain extends Jabbour suggested Carlson discuss the issue with staff He noted that the Watershed District was redefining the flood plain, and this is a concern for the Comprehensive Plan update Jabbour informed Carlson that the Council will be discussing stormwater at their work session. Carlson asked that an answer be given regarding the possible connection of Birch Lane as it will affect many homes Mr. Lindner, 3440 North Shore Drive, reported that there are 4 homes served on his 10' driveway. He noted that the fire chief had indicated at the Planning Commission meeting that a fire truck must be within 500* of a pool to serv'e a property. Lindner said all of the homes located in the back of the area can be served from CoRd S1 so questioned why access needs to be provided elsewhere for the equipment. He felt a 28 ’ road was not aesthetically pleasing, noting there are smaller roads in the City. Lindner said he has experienced problems with having the Maxwell Bay access nearby. He felt the road would add to that problem, and he would be further affected if the road was connected. Lindner noted there is no room for children to play in front if the homes and the road would eliminate the ability for the children to play in the rear of \ e homes. Lindner reported that his home is 1500 s.f and others were about 2000-2500 s * He questioned how the proposed 4000 s.f homes would fit in to the neighborhood. Render responded that the 4000 s.f includes all hardcover, including driveway Lindner said he would like to see the property divided into two lots only and asked that no variances be allowed. Ed Engler, 3450 Birch Lane, reported that Birch Lane ends at his g'urage. He noted the large amount of traffic due to the public launch, the public access, and nearby marinas resulting in no shelter from traffic for many of the neighbors If the road was connected, it would increase this problem. He felt the road conntction would be dangerous and create an unhealthy situation. Debra Robertson, 3440 North Shore Drive, said the 10' driveway has served the four homes for over 30 years with no problems. It baffled her to think that a 28' road was required to serve three homes. Robertson reported that Birch Lane did run through the property 80 years ago and a trade for access to Crystal Bay was made for CoRd 51. The road connection would result in their losing their access to North Arm, and the properties would be surrounded by three roads causing increased traffic. Jabbour reported that the reason a 28' road was recommended was due to the vision of it becoming a public road in the future He said the Council is obligated to recommend access that would accommodate fire trucks. Jabbour said the council is aware that the area is congested and is attempt g to control it as much as possible He said it is not the Council's vision to surround homes with roads. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Mark Gronberg commented that the hammerhead is an approved fire truck turnaround in many cities. He noted that the uniform fire code calls for a 20’ road. He also referenced the close proximity to Tonkawa. Gronberg added that the three lot subdivision would be in keeping with the neighborhood. Goetten asked if Jabbour did not visualize the street going through, what width he felt the road should be and whether private or public. Jabbour responded that this is the best time to obtain an underlying easement He asked the Council whether the City needs the easement and how wide it should be and how long the road should be. Peterson said she agreed with Kelley that the Council is to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its community but noted that qualify of life is also important She felt a narrower road was appropriate for the neighborhood. Jabbour said he agreed with Moorse in questioning if the intent of the code can be met without having to build a major road while providing fire protection for the homes. He does not feel the welfare of the people would be placed in jeopardy but questioned where the new re«dents will park. Kelley commented that the first three homes access on CoRd 51 and that is the logical place for access for all of the homes. Council members agreed. He noted that if all of the homes were being plotted today, ail six lots could access from a 28' easement at the rear, but he understands that this is not possible. Jabbour concurred that the Council must work with what is there. Render suggested an alternative of a 25' road easement on the property at this time. In the future if more roadway is needed, easements can be acquired from other properties. Jabbour agreed. Gaffron was asked to verifr' that there is 16' of easement now and the IT additional feet would equal the 25' Gaffron said he would have to confirm with City Attorney Barrett that the 8’ easement could be used for a road. Gronberg indicated that information indicated it was a road easement and not a driveway easement. Jabbour asked Council if the easement is necessary. Kelley said the minimum amount of easement should be 33'. Flint said he also favored the 33' easement but did not support the road going through. Peterson and Goetten agreed. Goetten said she assumed this did •not include any credit for hardcover. Jabbour confrmed that it did not. He noted the applicant would also be required to mitigate on site for ponding. > MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9.1998 (# 10 - #23 39 James Render - Continued) Jabbour reiterated that the plan should include a 25' easement for a total of 33', There would be no hardcover credit for the road, and the applicant would have 16’ for a driveway. A hammerhead style turnaround would be acceptable with parking at the end of it. Kelley said he would not support any proposal without a cul-de-sac and 28' road. Peterson asked what size cul-de-sac would be required. Gaffron said it would normally require an 80' paved surface to provide the necessary benefits. Jabbour suggested all properties likely would be served from Tonkawa for fire emergencies and the hammerhead would provide the needed parking space for the residences. Jabbour reiterated the outlot would be 25' plus 8' for a total of 33' for the easement. The road would be 16' wide with a hammerhead. No variances would be allowed for lot area, lot width, setback, or hardcover. Jabbour questioned whether credit would be given in area for the ponding. Gaffron indicated that the pond area could be credited towards hardcover in the 75'-250' setback. The credit would not be for lot area, which has been done in sewered areas only with wetlands. Gaffron indicated that the pond would only affect the one lot in which it will be placed. Gronberg noted that the attempt was to accommodate the neighborhood drainage but suggested the pond may be built to only treat these 3 lots. Gaffron indicated that the City Attorney has suggested if there was any variances that a 60-day extension be requested after the initial 60-day period Jabbour asked if any variances were anticipated Gaffron said a road width variance would be necessary. Render was asked for approval of the 60 day extension. Render asked if ail of the 60 days were necessary. He was informed that it would probably not take the entire time period. Render indicated the property is to close on May 1 but would give approval for the extension. Barrett indicated that consent is only necessary when the City goes beyond the 60 day time period. Kelley asked for clarification on the road easements He was informed that there was 8' on the south side as part of the 33'. With the additional 17' to the 8' on both sides, the total would be 33’. Jabbour said the 8’ easement requires verification Kelley suggested that it be stipulated in the resolution that no hardcover variance would be allowed. Gaffron said a statement of intent could be included. Kelley asked that this be done Jabbour agreed that the City should take a more aggressive stand on this issue. Harold Gillette, 3470 North Shore Drive, said he has lived in the neighborhood for 50 years. He voiced concern for the children if the road were to go through to Tonkawa. Jabbour informed him that this Council felt strongly that the road should not go through at this time. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 [j (#10 - #2339 James Render - Continuwd) Mr. Carlson asked if the Council can add language stipulating that the road will not go through in the future. Jabbour informed him that this Council cannot bind future Councils but indicated that the minutes will reflect the Council's desires. Mrs. Robertson asked if all of the neighbors were contacted regarding the application. Jabbour said any review of the road will not occur without the neighbors being contacted. Mr. Regan asked about the pond. He was informed that the pond acreage will not count against the hardcover but only applies to the one lot unless the pond is built as part of two lots. Gronberg noted that the pond is bigger due to the runoff from Tonkawa. Gaflfron recommended the application be tabled for preliminary plat review noting the conceptual direction given. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to table Application #2339. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A short recess was held.) (#4) #2317 KHASROW DAIVARI, 1082 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to obtain an extension of the time period for review of the appUcation. If the extension is not granted by the applicant by the end of the business day on March 11, 1998, the application will be denied Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. Staff was asked to explain to the applicant that State Statute mandates the extension be provided. (#I 1) #2341 DANIEL J. ANDERSON, 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH - PRELIMINARY PLAT The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is for preliminary plat approval of the 17.5 aCTe Carpenter property. The sketch plan included 8 lots. The plan has since been revised to 7 lots. The property is located outside of the MUSA boundary and will require septic and well A 700' road with cul-de-sac is being proposed Gaffron reviewed the house locations. The 7 lots will be served by a private road. The 7th lot will have a driveway that is an extension of the private road. This has been approved by the County. The existing residence on Lot I will remain and will meet all setbacks. Lots 1 and 2 are technically through lots. Lot width variances are required for Lots 2 and 3 as they do not meet the 20(y width requirement at the 50' setback MIN UTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO OTY COUNCIL ^ MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#11 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) The proposed radius of the road is requested at 125'. The 275' radius requirement would impact the property's topography, lot layout, and septic sites. Gaffron noted that Lots 4, 5, and 6 are riparian lots meeting the 30' setback but will require average lakeshore setback variances. The property is affected by the bluff impact zone. Grading is being proposed for a walk out building pad for Lot 6. Gaffron reported that no grading is allowed in the bluff impact zone. The Planning Commission has asked for a 15' easement for a trail along the eastern boundary of the property. The Planning Commission has asked to keep options open regarding the trail location along Old Crystal Bay Road. It is currently proposed for the east side of the road. If the trail were to be placed along the boundary of the subject property, there are a couple of locations where the septic sites would be encroached. Gaffron indicated that the Planning Commission has requested a tree, woodland, and vegetation preservation easement be placed on the property, especially in the bluff area The applicant has expressed his desire to maintain the naturalness of the lakeshore area. The concern is with future property owners wanting a view corridor to the lake. A draft ordinance is included in the packet for an ea ement. Gaffron indicated that Hennepin County has asked for an additional 7' of right-of-way The Comprehensive Plan stipulates that a scenic parkway only requires 66' of right-of- way, and Staff recommended that no additional right-of-way be required. The current right-of-way is 66'. Gaffron reported that no stormwater ponding has been proposed. Conceptual direction should include the stormwater pond and address the drainage issues noted by the City Engineer. Gaffron indicated that if the layout is changed, the Council may want to send the application back to the Planning Commission for further review. He said the preliminary plat should be revised to eliminate any grading of the bluff impact zone. Gaffron noted that final septic designs are needed. The testing has taken place. Gaffron felt there were suitable sites for septic and may include some trench systems. Gaffron reported that an extension up to 120 days is a result of the request for a lot width variance. Jabbour questioned how the application got this far in the process without any mention of a stormwater pond. Gaffron indicated that the applicant has knowm all along that stormwater ponding was part of the review process. Jabbour asked that Staff send a letter to the Watershed District notifying them that the City of Orono will not allow cash contributions towards ponding but mitigation must take p ’ace on site. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 ^raft (#11 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson 'Continued) Daniel Anderson indicated to ti .v ' .hat if the property is walked, they would note that the land teepees up to where the existing residence is located. He said he reviewed the topography with the Watershed District and asked for their opinion. From the preliminary discussions, Anderson felt it would be somewhat of no use to have a pond. He noted that the foliage by the lakeshore catches runoff from entering the lake. Jabbour asked Anderson how he has addressed street runoff. Anderson said a concrete gutter will border the road with catch basins. The water will then run under Old Crystal Bay Road to the swan’p Jabbour said the intent of the City is not to divert water across Old Crystal Bay Road but keep runoff on the property. Gaffron noted that the City has the authority to require stormwater ponding. Jabbour reiterated his disfavor with cash contributions to the Watershed. Anderson said his plans were made from feedback received from his engineers All Council members agreed on the need for stormwater management on the propertr Jabbour informed Anderson that he will need to go back to the Planning Commission :o develop stormwater management plans. Goetten inquired of the lot sizes. Anderson said the lots are a minimum of 2 acres, some are larger. Goetten asked for clarification on what the property included. Jabbour noted that misinformation was given to Mr. Dayton regarding neighbors vtio are landlocked and want dock privileges. Jabbour said these properties can have two boats but be licensed to anyone. He would like Mr. Dayton to be informed of this information. The substantial vegetation of the lagoon was noted. It was emphasized that this vegetation cannot be harvested. Gafiron responded that while the LMCD may feel one way about docks, City code says that dock space cannot be provided to anyone but the occupant ol the property except in the B2 zoning Gaffron said he would argue that the City has in place through the code the right to limit dockage Anderson asked if a dock can be part of a homeowners association. Gaffron said that would require a joint use license, w hich does not allow docks in excess of the lots that abut the lake. Kelley asked if an association dock can be done through a PRD. Gaffron said under the Shoreland Ordinance, the amount of shoreline would determine the docks. The shoreline amount w ould be divided by 200' to determine what number of docks would be allowed. He noted that this has only been done at Landmark Drive. 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cl'n COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NLVRCH 9» 1998 (#11 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) > Kelley said he is in favor of maintaining the vegetation to the extent that the City design the access of the individual homes on Lots 5 and 6 for obtaining access down to the lake. He would like to see t^ * bluff impact zone roped off Goetten noted an example of where vegetation has been cut dowTi entirely by a resident. Jabbour indicated that erosion of 2’ per year has occurred in the area where the clear cutting happened. Anderson said he believed the property owners have the right to get to the lakeshore but agreed that this issue requires monitoring. Jabbour asked what agency gets involved with dredging Gaffron said the DNR, Corp of Engineers, and Watershed District are notified. He indicated the problem arises with these agencies having little say in historic dredging. Jabbour asked if the had the power to locate docks. Gaffron said there are no standards in the code but the City has the ability through an easement to limit cutting through trees. Barrett said the City has the powc ' do as Jabbour noted but may not have oone so in the past. He indicated the City hi :he right to control the land to the shorelir , and the dock must touch the shoreline. der'^on noted that there is 60' of wetlands on Lot 6 requiring the dock to be placec closer to Lot 5. Goetten was informed by Flint that if the trail easement was taken on the property and the trail not developed on that side of the road, the City could not go back and ask for a cash contribution to park dedication Flint reported that the Park Commission has reviewed the trail extensively for location on the east side to an area north of the Luce Line. The trail south of the Luce Line is difficult due to houses being so close to the road. Goetten said she thought the trail location has already been reviewed and determined McDermott reported that the trail was reviewed recently on the site He indicated there are problems areas on both sides of the road. It was already agreed that the trail would •: % located on the east side with a dedicated trail except for one piece of property on the 'A>uthwest corner across from French Creek where the regional park can be accessed. There are difficult topographical areas for grading on the west side of the road requiring major retaining walls McDermott noted where the trail location and crossing was being considered Jabbour questioned why the road crossing does not occur where the site lines are best. Anderson indicated that cars drive fast around the road where it comers and would be an unsafe area for the trail to cross. Jabbour suggested the trail crossing be at the stop sign. i M*iVUTES OF TOE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#11 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - ContinUvJ.)‘ -j y TTie question of usin^ County land was discussed Jahbour noted that the County land had restrictions placed nn it. The spc. tic restrict' v'c^e unknown. Keiley suggested the trail crossing occur at Fox S -t. There would then only be four properties that are of concern past that point, all of which have homes that are located back on the lots from the road On the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road, Kelley indicated therv were alot of homes close to the road that would have to be dealt with. He felt a four way stop would happen in the near future at fox Street Kelley indicated that with ♦he school bus traffic and the southern portion of Orono traveling to the schools and accele.’atinu speeos, iliC stop sign is inevitable McDem'ott suggest ;d the road not be crossed. Kelley said it must be crossed at some point. Flint agreed with tlie location for crossing as noted by Kelley. McDermott indicated that the costs associated with the retaining walls i vegetation would be high. Jabbour Slid consideration also has to be given to the difficulty in having an otF-trail shoulder with the wctlandi. in area. Bridget ’ .''Minneapolis, whose parents live at 820 Old Crystal Bay Road, noted there' a icticns on the County land in Nocienberg Park. She said her parents proper jroblem with its close proximity to the road. She felt there would be a problem h acquiring sn easement from the property with the pond. She questioned why the trail should be located on the east side if the dc\ eloper was willing to grant an easement on their property and the neigfiutti S desired the trail to be on the west side a* well. Sf. ''elt her parents property has historic value and the trail wou ’'^! destroy it ar.J affect n ; quality of life vrth the additional noise Must asked that the council not fyrcc her parent:, to have to move Jabbour clarified for Must that the Counci, has not made rhe decision on the trail location and it would be irresponsible for the City not to keep their options open. Goetten noted that open discussion is part of the • rocess and needs to be allovved to happen. Eve Rue, who live-^ on the southeast comer of Fox Street and OM Crystal Day Koad, said he has lived in the home for 1C years He said representatives r» Hennepin Pfincs haw said that the extemic*' cf hike paffi south of the Luce Line is a secondary consideration He doco ik*‘ beliew there is a need for a scenic bike rou*e and considers th^ current bike path to be an aberration He believes the trails are not in keeping with the rural character of the City Rue felt the City w as becoming a roadw ay of fences and had no concern for the watershed Rue said trees would also be affectcxl H the trail He would like to see detailed plans of the trail before it is ‘'■lilt Rue said he would not allow any trees to be cut on his property or allow at;y easement to be granted j MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING » 0N MARCH 9, 1998 (#11 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) Rue indicated that bikers do not use the bike path. Rue does not allow his children to use the trail and considers it a fancy whim of the City. He does not believe Noerenberg Park is a destination for children or bikers. Rue feels the thoroughfare invites additional traffic. Jabbour explained that the road is considered a scenic road The City’s p^ority is for smaller roads, not larger roads. Gaffron elaborated that the Comprehensive Plan labels roads for consideration as a scenic parkway to eliminate them from becoming freeways. Jabbour reported that the City took a proactive approach to CoRd 6 with a bike path. There are locations where the Dike path is an extension of the road. It is not the desire of the City to have trails in everyone's yards. Flint said engineering will o determine trc il location as well as acquisition of easements. Flint suggested the Engineer review where the right-of-way is located and the possible trail locations for engineering problems and utilities, which are located on the west side of the road north of Fox Street It was noted that moving utility poles is an expensive venture. Rich Wysocki, 2770 Rainy Road, said his property abuts Old Crystal Bay Road on the east side. He felt consideration should be given to the f ; that the builder is in favr ** donating land for a trail and location of wetlands and old timbers. Hust added th> retaining walls would be required on both sides of the road for trails. Jabbour asked if the Park Commission's recommendation contradicted that of the Planning Commission. Gaffron explained that the Planning Commission felt the City should keep their options open by taking an easement when it can and determining the location at a later date. Jabbour said he would agree with Flint that an easement should not be taken if it is not necessary He also informed the audience that the Council does not easily condemn any property. Hust coumered that her neighbor, Mr. Ellis, had land taken in the past. Jabbour indicated that the condemnation was a resulting of sewering. Flint said he was aware of the problems for ? trail on the Hust property. He noted both sides of the road include problem areas Hi.' 'clt the City has to make the best decision for the public Jabbour asked whether tiie four neighbors on the west side have been contacted to discuss the trail. They have not been contacted. Anderson noted that if the trail easement was taken on the property, an alternate site on Lot 2 would be affected He suggested a solution of allowing an 8% slope MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, ivva (#11 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) Jabbour clarified that the Council does not support taking additional right-of-way. Stormwater ponding must occur on the site. He asked Staff to review the trail situation from CoRd 51 and 84 to Fox Street for options and give Council advice regarding easements. McDermott suggested that may be the best crossing for the trail is at the Luce Line. Flint agreed but noted that this was only one factor to consider. Peterson asked Staff to review the Hobby endowment at Noerenberg Park to see what restnctions are on the property noting they may attect the outcome. She felt there were too many bike trails in the City. Flint related some history of the bike trails. He said the adverse impact that was expected from the trails never occurred. He has only received praise for the trails that the City has developed. The trail where easements were not acquired is less satisfactory than it would have been if the easement had been acquired. Mr. Rue asked that the City consider demographics. He reiterated his concern with destruction of the rural character of the City. He would like the City to communicate better with the people on issues. Rue asked that engineering comments be made known to the pubi!*.. Jabbour reported that the bike path is being discussed for input purposes The final decision will be made by the Council. The only notification received by the public is for the public hearing held at the Planning Commission. Jabbour said the City makes all attempts to keep the residents informed. Hust said the decision to place the trail behind French Park was changed by the Council from the recommendation made by the Planning Commission. Flint said it had been determincvi that the best location was along the road as it would least impact the neighborhood. Kelley said the Council needed to uiscuss the lot width variance, the cul-de-sac, and the tree, woodland, and vegetation preservation easement. Goetten said she supported the cul de-sac variance and the easement. Kelley asked how large an easement should be requested for Lots 5 and b to create a corridor to the lake. Jabbour said the ordinance allows the residents the right to walk to the lake. He felt the width should be relative to the width of the steps allowed at 4' and defined that no clearing allowed beyond that limit. Anderson clarified that no clearing would be allowed beyond a 5' width. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 (#11 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) Kelley said he would like to clarify where the vegetation line should be drawn for Lot 6. He asked that the property be marked. Anderson said the best way to determine the density is by walking the site. There are many small trees that will need to be removed. He noted the importance of maintaining the mossy groundcover. Kelley said he would like to know exactly where the vegetation line is on the lot. His main concern is the view from the lakeside. Barrett suggested the conservation easement describe the protected area. Kelley asked that the applicant and staff work together to define the area. Flint suggested a snow fence be placed where the vegetation is not to be disturbed. Flint suggcat^d tne pond be located in the domed area of the property. Anderson said the runoff'hits the vegetation and acts like a natural silt fence. The pond v.'ould have to be located ai a nigher point. He said the oitiy runoff is from the cul-de-sac. The catch basins would monitor the flow and the gutter will control the amount of flow. Jabbour noted that any ground clearing would result in erosion. Anderson said he believed the people who will purchase the property will be buying it for the privacy it delivers. Jabbour asked that the pond be constructed to the City Engineer's satisfaction. Anderson said he will work with the City Engineer. Kelley asked about the radius of the road. Gaffron showed where the septic sites are located that would be affected if the standard was required. Jabbour inquired about the curb cui location. Gaffron noted where the curb would be flattened. Anderson indicated discussions he had with the County. He said the road would be posted for 20 mph. He is concerned with damaging the rolling hills and would like to see the road placed in the area that fils with the topography. He noted that the original driveway will be moved Jabbour concluded that one of the two curb cuts will be eliminated. Council agreed with the i25 radius Gaffron said speed is the only reason for the radius standard and supports the 125* radius proposal Jabbour informed the applicant that an extension is necessary for the time period of the application due to the request for two variances Anderson agreed. Barrett said the next 60 days is at the option of the City and beyond that time frame requires applicant’s approval. Gaffron said due to tabling the application, an extension should be rece: ?d at this time Anderson agreed to the extension. i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 0/>/r A (#1 1 - #2341 Daniel J. Anderson - Continued) Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to table Application #2341 to the March 23 Council meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Kellogg informed Jabbour that he understood the request regarding the trail in determining the best location. Anderson will place markers along the protected vegetation areas for review by Council. Kelley suggested the applicant give information regarding hardcover to the homeowners. Jabbour suggested the use of a<i architectural committee. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT • DISCUSSION REGARDING PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Jabbour indicated that the City did not receive any new applications for the open position on the Park Commission. Moorse will provide the Council with the current applications to enable the Council to appoint a new member at the next Council meeting. Kelley asked about procedures for the time frame limitations on application processing. Jabbour said the topic will be discussed at the next work session. It was noted that the length of review time prior to Council review is resulting in applications being extended beyond the 60-day period. Goetten said a report is being prepared to send to Mn/DOT regarding the Hwy 12/CoRd 6 intersection. She asked for Council comments. Kelley said his main concern is with the evening traffic traveling westbound on CoRd 6. He would like to see an acceleration lane dedicated to the traffic coming oft' of Hwy 12 onto CoRd 6 to eliminate the need for these cars to stop. Goetten said that issue has not been discussed. Jabbour noted that metering may occur in the future. Goetten said she would discuss the matter with Tom O'Keefe. Kelley said he would also argue that the eastbound traffic is just as critical if traveling east on CoRd 6 to the interchange and needing to make a right turn onto a ramp He suggested the lane angle off to provide for stacking. Goetten said the plans were to make the interchange as safe as possible with the least expense. Kelley felt it would be short sighted of Mn/DOT to build a substandard road. He believes there will be a need for four lanes in the next 20 years. Goetten said Mn/DOT believes they are responding to the future needs. She suggested Tom O'Keefe meet with Council on this issue Jabbour agreed this would be a good idea MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Kelley said the design of Hwy 12 and CoRd 15 is an excellent example of design and should be used in considering the Hwy 1 2 and CoRd 6 area. He feels development will increase towards Minnetrista. Goetten indicated that information was presented at the east and west neighborhood meetings. The preliminary design will be completed in the next few months. She indicated that the needs of Long Lake are being seen. Information is being sought on noise abatement. Jabbour noted that credit should be received from the railroad for closure of crossings. Jabbour reported that the CoRd 6 bids have been awarded and construction should occur this year He reported that 30-40% of the right-of-way has been acquired. The CoRd 15 construction w ill resume shortly as well. Jabbour reported that Brook Park Realty would like to meet with the Council regarding development plans for the property in Navarre A resolution was passed at the last work session endorsing findings on the need for a nark in the Casco Point/Navarre area A recommendation was made to acquire homos adjacent to the Navarre Park. The Council had been polled regarding a joint venture with the developer in accomplishing these goals. The developer is in favor of worki'>js with the Council. Flint felt this would be an excellent way to proceed to gain a win-win development for the City and applicant. He asked that the property to the west be considered as well. Jabbour said the applicant w ould like to have access from CoRd 15 instead of through the neighborhood. Kelley said he was in favor to working with the developer to reduce the density and create a park in the area. He felt the park was necessary for the children who live on the small lots Jabbour asked that the meeting be scheduled for next month. ENGINEER REPORT REQUEST FOR PA\ MENT ^8 - NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUN FRY CLUE SEWER PROJECl Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Request for Payment #8, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $26, 746.30. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9, 1998 A.. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#13) OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD BIKE TRAIL AGREEMENT Moorse reported that the agreement involves the construction of the remainder of the trail to Baker Park and on-going maintenance by Hennepin Parks. The trail will become part of the Hennepin Parks Regional Park System. Flint expressed concern with paragraph 11 regarding hazardous materials calling for the City to indemnify Hennepin Parks. Barrett said the County views the trail as the City's property and wants to be held harrriless. Flint noted that the City does not own the property but has an easement. Barrett said technically the person responsible for any hazardous material would be the person who deposited the material on the property. Barrett did not believe the indemnification created any new liability. Barrett felt it was a problem of practicality noting the expense is in proving who did what Flint agreed with Barrett. Barrett suggested paragraph 5 include the additional statement, "unless mutually agreeable substitute is developed". Jabbour was informed by Barrett that the City would have to be reimbursed if the Highway Department takes the property. Kelley asked what happens if Hennepin Parks' standards change. Flint referenced 6a regarding the scope of the license. He feels this would override any change in standards. Flint said 6b indicates the City will have to be notified. Kell -y asked what happens if the policy of no plowing changes. Jabbour said Herinepin Parks does not wane to change what is occurring in a City. Jabbour said the into. or the City to learn how to improve trails and encouraged continued dialogue Barrti. t the County has the discretion i o remove snow if they deemed it necessary-. Moorse mted the trail connects to the Luce Line which is not plowed Jabbour said the Council has to make a decision and identify goals and objectives. He said he is an advocate for partnerships and all scenarios cannot be projected. Jabbour noted that the Council asked for a minimum document. Kelley said the Council needs to be aware that the City is giving up its rights and giving the County the power. Jabbour indicated that the County has listened to issues of concern Goetten noted that these same issues were discussed in the beginning of the process Jabbour said the issue boils down to whether the Council wants to move forward with the agreement He noted that Hennepin Parks has made major contributions to ihe City. Flint commented that major concessions have also been made by the County from the first document, and he favored adopting the agreement MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEEiiNG HELD ON MARCH a ivvS •X, (#13 - Old Crystal Bay Road Bike Trail Agreement - Continued ) Flint moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the agreement with Hennepin Parks for the construction and maintenance of the Old Crystal Bay Road bike/nike trail. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#14) INTERIM ORDINANCE ENACTING A MORATORIUM SUSPENDING CERTAIN USES IN THE CITV ’S INDUSTRIAL ZONE - ORDINANCE NO. 169 Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve interim Ordinance No. 169 enacting a moratorium suspending certain uses as permitted or conditional uses in the City's industrial zone, effective March 9, 1998 and terminating September 15, 1998. Flint questioned whether a 6-month moratoriiun was adequate. Moorse said it was. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#15) APPOINTMENT OF PAYROLL/UTILITY BILLING SPECIALIST Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the appointment of Sandra Pettit to the position of Payroll/Utility BUling Specialist effective March 16, 1998 at a starting pay rate of $13.51 per hour. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#16) PAY INCREASE FOR PLANNING INTERN Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to increase the pay rate of the Planning Intern position to $9.00 per hour effective March 9, 1998. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Appreciation was extended to Bressler for the excellent job he has been doing for the City. (*#17) APPROVE CDBG GRANT APPLICATION - RESOLUTION NO. 4046 Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4046. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#18) SCHEDULE HRA MEETING TO APPROV E REFUNDING BOND SALE Moorse reported that the meeting is to enable the City to take action on refinancing the City Facilities bonds Jabbour moved, Petersor. conded, to schedule a meeting of the City's HRA for 7:05 p.m. on Monday, March 23, 1998. Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCEL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 ^ ^ (#18 - Schedule HRA Meeting - Continued) Kelley asked Moorse about the leaking roofs of the city buildings. Moorse reported that leaking has been on-going at the Public Works Building. More recently, similar problems have arisen in the valley and soffit areas of the other two buildings. Bonestroo has identified the problems and letters have been sent to the construction manager, sub contractors, and architect asking for their response to these problems to aid in determining the course of action to remedy the problems. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Barrett had no report. (*#19) LICENSES Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the following licenses: Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. •i •>» ^ dj Reside itial Kennel License Special Event License: D. Brian Fulmer 3505 Vv ayzata Boulevard Tony Eiden Company Spring Preview of Homes 2425 Thoroughbred Lane February 28, 1998 - March 18, 1998 3:00-7:00 p m., Monday thru Friday Noon-6:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday (*#20) BILLS Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 5, Nayo 0. r 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MARCH 9,1998 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Jabbour adjourned the meeting at 11:53 p.m. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Nv / I ‘ COUNCIL MEETING MAR 23 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cmroFORONO DATE: March 20, 1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: West Hennepin Recycling Commission Report - Amelia Kroeger Amelia Kroeger, the Recycling Coordinator for the West Hennepin Recycling Commission, will present a report regarding current recycling activ ities in the cities of the West Hennepin Recycling Commission, and identifying issues to be addressed in relation to the future of curbside recycling. The report is attached for Council review. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action requested. r West Hennepin Recycling Commission A Report Spring 1998 Contents Past, Present, and Future 1997 Tonnage & Participation Tables Hennepin County Compiu*ison Statistics The Past The West Hennepin Recycling Commission (WHRC) is a joint powers entity among the cities of Greenfield, Independence, Long Lake, Loretto, Maple Plain, Medina and Orono. The conunission was formed in 1989 to jfficiently and effectively promote, educate, and administer recycling op^- tunities and programs. Each city appoin. a representative to the commission to direct and oversee recycling programs within the seven cities. Each city supports the worV of the WHRC through an annual contribution. In i997 that continuation, by city, was: Actual cost to your City for WHRC in ‘97 Greenfield $2,041 Independence $ 3,508 Long Lake $ 2,063 Loretto $ 482 Maple Plain $ 1,720 Medina $4,013 Orono $9,103 1997 WHRC Expeiiditures $22,930 There is one part-time recycling coordinator. -Over- r Since 1989 the WHRC has provided a wide variety of recycling opportunities to residents. The cornerstone of recycling opportunities has been curbside recycling collection. From 1989 - 1997 curbside recycling tonnage has been: WHRC Curbside Tons Recycled All Cities 1989-1997 S 1500 H 1000 From 1991 - 1997 residential participation has been: >VHRC Curbside Recycling Participation All aties 1991 -1997 80.0QP/b M 60.00“/bGQ g 40.00®/ot 2Q.m'o omo 1^1 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Year A major objective for WHRC and it’s member cities is to encourage residents to keep waste, especially hazardous wastes, out of the waste stream by reusing and recycling. Most cities sponsor residential clean-up days which accept not only debris but items for reuse or recycling such as appliances, scrap metals, and tires. The WHRC hosts two Goodwill Collections each year. In 1997 nearly 30% of the estimated total waste tons (includes the safe disposal of hazardous wastes) among WHRC member cities was kept from the waste stream. WHRC Waste & Recycled Tons Curbside 27% Drop-off 2% Waste 71% Goals set in 1994 that have been met include: • A waste reduction guide, the Recvclopedia. was produced; • New residents are sent post card encouraging recycling; • Four WHRC cities now' schedule joint clean-up days; and • The WHRC annual budget has been reduced 15%. 3 -Over- r The Present In addition to emphasizing the significance and importance of keeping hazardous substances out of the waste stream, in 1998 the WHRC will promote ‘Buy Recycled’, encouraging the purchasing of products produced from the highest possible recycled materials content. The WHRC continues efforts to build on the current 27% curbside recycling abatement percentage (18% is mandated), and to explore and implement strategies for saving time and money. Recycling information is included on the Internet Home Pages in Independence and Maple Plain, and will be included as other WHRC cities join the Internet. Your Recycling Coordinator has email - ackroeger@aol.com. The Future Waste tonnages are increasing throughout the State, especially in the 7 county metropolitan area. This reality has driven governmental environment commissions, committees and departments to rethink plans for the future that will more directly address the issue of overall waste reduction. There are discussions currently underway that might redirect SCORE funds away from Hennepin County Environmental Services after 1999. None of this has been decided, yet it would be prudent for our cities to develop a plan that can at least maintain the current level of recycling services to our residents and meet the challenge of doing this with no grant dollars (Exhibit A). It is time to determine if the benefits (Exhibit B) of our joint powers agreement out weigh the possibility of increased actual cost to cities/residents for recycling programs. Should the WHRC be phased out? What will it mean to each city to go it alone? Are there ways we can do more to ensure that curbside recycling eventually becomes self-sustaining? These are difficult and challenging questions. We are the people who need to address them. 4 1997 Tonnage and Participation Tables 29.15% of estimated total waste tons was recycled in 1997. Participation by residents in our curbside recycling programs averaged nearly 65%. WEST HENNEPIN RECYCLING COMMISSION 1997ABA TEMENT REPORT Cl YEAR TO DATE THROUGH DECEMBER EST TOTAL ANNUAI.ACTUAL TONS CURBSIDE YTD WASTE TONNAGE RECYCLED ABATEMENT CURBSIDE 1997 YTD (18". MANDATED) GREENFIFXD 582 189.13 32.50% INDEPENDENCE 1.133 273 77 24.16% LONG lAKE 887 193 96 21 87% LORETTO 162 5941 36.67»o MAPLE PLAIN 805 173.97 21 61% MEDINA 1.243 371 00 29.85% ORONO 3,257 923 14 2834% SUB-TOTALS-Cl RESIDE 8,069 2,184.38 27.07V. DROP OFFS/ClEv^^^...................... GREENFIELD 18 46 INDEPENDENCE 17 13 LONG LAKE 302 LORETTO - MAPLE PLAIN 882 MEDINA 15.10 ORONO 1287 CANMAN .3483 CKXTDWILL 35 42 SCRAP 21 96 OTHER - SUB-TOTAI.S DROPOFF 16761 ALL ABATEMENT 8,069 2351.99 29 15% WEST HENNEPIN RECYCLING COMMISSION 1997 PA RTJCIPA T/0.\ REPORT CfMnjVTIVE YEAR TO DATE DECEMBER CITY GREEN- IM>EPEN- LONG MAPLE FlEl.D DENCE LAKE. LORETTO PLAEs MEDINA ORONO TOTAL TOTAL homes ! 6U 1 ..Q65 | «7 | IS3 | 520 1 UI6 1 2,768 1 6.972 JA.NXARY 370 716 5W 94 451 791 2.423 3J3? FEBRUARY 341 717 504 113 531 1.109 2.147 5.531 MARCH 361 743 523 91 316 1.067 2.449 5.626 APRIL 371 544 379 77 319 1.065 2.449 5J25 NUY 402 541 285 65 339 637 1,535 3.802 lUNE 390 532 315 -56 260 6*7 1.597 3.177 lUTY 39.1 530 371 73 .399 717 1.664 4.153 AlOlST 395 547 312 91 342 132 1.621 4.216 sfj>tf:mder 311 560 312 8t 345 775 1.664 4.1*4 OnoBER 364 561 341 71 348 794 1.232 3.737 NO\T.MBER 37«560 407 97 392 119 1.617 A267 DEtl-MBER 36.'611 407 97 354 836 I.T09 A-^to A VO. • Rf.CY CLING 37*602 466 85 374 842 IA43 4JJ1 A\ C. •. RE.O a ISO 64 7-r^.56 56*9 64,795%55 525%71 9*5%69 245.66 575%64 9*5. 5 -Over- Hennepin County Statistics for Comparison In order to review how WHRC cities compare to other Hennepin Coimty cities, here are the most recent County statistics: 1994 - 1996 Hennepin County Municipal Recycling Statistics 1994 1995 1996 Recyclina Cost Cost Recycling Cost Cost Recycling Cost Cost city Rates Per Ton PerHH Rates Per Ton Per HH Rates Per Ton Per HH Bloomington (**)24%$62 $25 25%$36 $14 25%$38 $14 Brooklyn Park 21% $130 $40 19%$150 $43 19%$135 $38 Champlin 23% $118 $34 29%$94 $32 31%$94 $33 Corcoran 18%$95 $21 17%$122 $26 17%$112 $'’3 Dayton 21%$92 $23 19%$97 $21 18%$107 $23 Deephaven 34%$66 $28 36%$59 $26 34%$57 $23 Eden Prairie (**)25%$61 $20 27%$28 $9 23%$28 $8 Edina 30%$81 $36 31%$6-$30 30%$84 $36 Excelsior 21%$132 $41 20%$106 $41 19%$87 $34 Golden Valley 31%$64 $28 31%$67 $29 30%$57 $24 Greenwood 18%$115 $23 33%$73 $22 27%$71 $21 Hanover 25%$59 $19 29%$68 $19 30%$71 $21 Hassan 20%$96 $23 26%$93 $24 26%$87 $23 Henn Rec Group (1)22%$80 $26 21%$87 $29 18%$119 $33 Hopkins 23%$69 $36 19%$78 $34 18%$78 $31 Maple Grove 24%$84 $26 24% $86 $24 24%$92 $26 Minneapolis 20%$121 $30 19%$124 $30 21%$123 $30 Minnetonka 29%$71 $31 30%$62 $27 32%$60 $27 Minnetonka Beach 29%$69 $24 32% $63 $24 31%$71 $26 Minnetrista 25%$106 $27 28%$93 $25 25%$103 $25 Mound 31%$84 $33 30%$79 $28 28%$82 $27 Osseo 18%$87 $26 23%$74 $28 28%$66 $30 Plymouth 26%$79 $29 31%$64 $25 28%$74 $28 Richfield (**)23%$58 $21 20%$32 $10 22%$28 $9 Robbinsdale 29%$85 $29 26%$86 $29 24%$92 $29 Rockford 21%$53 $18 26%$73 $20 24%$81 $20 Rogers 40%$76 $44 44%$86 $27 29%$95 $33 Shorewood 28%$74 $24 29%$79 $26 1 28%$87 $28 Spring Park 20%$100 $47 20%$97 $24 1 18%$61 $25 St. Anthony (**)28%$57 $21 24%$10 $3 11 26%$26 $6 St. Bonifacius 18%$69 $21 23%$87 $24 30%$51 $22 St. Louis Park 36% $52 $26 23%$58 $22 23%$109 $40 Tonka Bay 35%$84 $32 32%$132 $47 33%$170 $62 Wayzata 35%$75 $43 33%$79 $39 28%$105 $45 West Hn Rec Comm (2) 28%$76 $26 28%$76 $26 28%$78 $25 Woodland 25%$161 $48 24%$170 $48 33%$125 $48 1 TOTAL/AVG. (3)24%$88 $29 23%$82 $26 II 24%$85 $28 I (1) Hennepin Reading Group (Brklyn Clr., Crystal. New Hope). (2) WHRC (Greenfield, Independence, Long Lake, Loretto, Maple Plain. Medina & Orono). (3) Includes appliances attributed to cities. (**) Residents billed directly for curbside. This report is copied on high post-consumer content recycled paper 6 Exhibits to Spring 1998 WHRC Report Exhibit A Recvciine Grant - an estimate of impact on WHFtC cities a998naures) City Grant Curbside Contract WHRC Contribution Cost to City w/ Grant Cost to City w/o Grant Greenfield $ 5,416 $11,877 $2,181 $ 8,642 $14,058 Independence $9,310 $22,844 $3,748 $17,282 $26,592 Long Lake $ 5,476 $15,349 $2,205 $12,078 $17,554 Loretto S 1,278 $ 3,648 $ 514 $ 2,884 $ 4,162 Maple Plain $ 4,564 $12,730 Apts. $ 1,824 $1,838 $11,828 $16,392 Medina $10,649 $28,370 $4,288 $22,009 $32,658 Orono $24,158 $67,002 $9,726 $52,570 $76,728 Exhibit B Benefits WHRC membership provides Administration Promotion & Education Drop-Offs 1. Monthly tonnage/participation reports 2. Monitor curbside vendors 3. Contract negotiations with vendors 4. Hennepin County grant applications 5. Hennepin County reports 6. Hennepin County contract 7. Insurance 8. Secretary/Treasurer for WHRC 9. Bonding of Recycling Coordinator 10. Administrative postage 11. Legal revi«’ vvs when necessary 12. Travel 13. Office supplies & equipment 1. 7-day a week phone 2. Voice Mail 3 E-mail and Recycling Networks 4. Armual schedules to residents 5. Monthly Recycling Column 6. Press Releases and Ads 7. Presentations: organizations/schools 8. New resident post cards 9. Special bin flyers 10. Membership in related organizations 11. Tracking important related issues 12. Special events 13. Special promos (i.c. Recyclopedia) 14. Reports to cities________ 1. Goodwill events 2. Clean-up events -new vendors -tonnage rpts. COUNCIL MEETING MAR 23 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: March 23, 1998 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer ’s Report Item Description: Public Hearing and Plans & Specifications Resolution Shoreline/Heritage Sanitary Sewer Project The Shoreline/ Heritage Drive/Lane area, was included in the recent MUSA expansion for sanitary sewer installation. The residents along Shoreline Drive have contacted the City to complete a sewer project in their area. In the Heritage Drive/Lane area, several neighborhood surveys have shown that approximately half of the residents are in support of a sewer project. I have attached a copy of the letter that was sent to the project area residents along with the official public hearing notice. This letter provides a description of the project and the City's policy regarding resident exclusion from the project. A map showing resident interest in the project is also included. A resolution ordering preparation of plans and specifications for this project is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the Resolution Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the project A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SnORELINE/HERTTAGE DRIVE SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared a feasibility study to determine the feasibility of serving the Shoreline/Heritage Drive neighborhood with sanitary sewer; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 1998 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4039 receiving the feasibility report and calling for a public hearing for the Edgewood Hills sanitary sewer improvements; and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon jn the 23rd day of Mar ch 1998, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby direct the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the installation of sanitary sewer for the Shoreline/Heritage Drive neighborhood. Adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on March 23, 1998 by a vote of____ayes and_____nays. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk COUNCIL MECTINQ MAR 23 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: March 23, 1998 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Public Hearing and Plans & Specifications Resolution Shoreline/Heritage Sanitary Sewer Project The Shoreline/ Heritage Drive/Lane area, was included in the recent MUSA expansion for sanitary sewer installation. The residents along Shoreline Drive have contacted the City to complete a sewer project in their area. In the Heritage Drive/Lane area, several neighborhood surveys have shown that approximately half of the residents are in support of a sewer project. I have attached a copy of the letter that was sent to the project area residents along with the official public hearing notice. This letter provides a description of the project and the City’s policy regarding resident exclusion from the project. A map showing resident interest in the project is also included. A resolution ordering preparation of plans and specifications for this project is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the Resolution Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the project CITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323 0066 February 26, 1998 Dear Project Area Residents: The Orono City Council will be holding a Public Hearing to solicit public comments on a proposed sanitary sewer project to serve the Shoreline Drive, Heritage Drive and Heritage Lane areas. This public hearing will be held at 8:00 P.M. Monday, March 23rd at the City Council Chambers. Introduction This area was included in the recent MUSA expansion for sanitary sewer installation. The residents along Shoreline Drive have contacted the City requesting completion of a sewer project in their area. In the Heritage Drive and Heritage Lane areas, several neighborhood surveys have shown that approximately half of the residents are in support of a sewer project. The Council previously ordered a feasibility study to analyze the options for sewer in this area. The intent of this process is to develop a sewer project that will serve the greatest number of interested residents at the lowest cost. On February 12th, a neighborhood meeting was held to solicit resident comments on the propo: Jd project. The project area contains a total of twenty-two parcels eligible for sewer. Residents representing ten properties attended the neighborhood meeting. Written comments were received, in the mail, from an additional three property owners. Resident interest in participating in a sanitary sewer project is shown on the attached map. This informa'.ion was obtained from neighborhood meeting cormnents, and from the neighborhood surveys. There is uncertainty in project interest for several parcels, and some responses shown may be incorrect. Telephone (612; 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Public Hearing Resident Input The intent of the formal Council public hearing is to solicit public input to finalize a decision on ordering preparation of plans and specifications for this project. Please plan to attend the public hearing. Your input is important. The City needs to obtain a firm commitment of the number of residents interested in this project. The responses of several property owners are still unknown. After the public hearing, the City Council will need to make a decision on how to proceed with this project. This decision will be based on the resident interest in this project. Therefore, it is very ’ important the Council receive input from all of the project residents. Resident comments will be solicited at the public hearing or written comments can be provided to the City prior to the meeting. All written comments received will be included in the Council packets for the public hearing. All of the comments received regarding the neighborhood informational meeting will be provided to the Council, so it is not necessary to resubmit written comments. Project description The attached map shows the preferred option to serve the greatest number of re.sidents at the lowest cost. This is a difficult area to serve with sewer because of the differences in elevations. The project area consists of three separate subareas separated by high points. Based on resident comments, the subarea on the western side of the project will be dropped from further consideration. This is a separate project that could be requested by the residents at a future date. There are fifteen parcels in the middle subarea that can be served by gravity sewer for an estimated $19,100/ unit cost. Property owners for all fifteen of these parcels are being notified of the public hearing. Eight of the ten parcels in the downstream segments of the system have indicated interest in the project. Project interest in the upstream segment of the area is less certain. The most feasible option for the properties in the eastern subarea would be to provide service with individual grinder pumps that would be owned and operated by property owners. Any or all of these properties could connect to the system, with a grinder pump, at an estimated unit cost of $19,100 per unit. Two of the five properties have expressed an interest in sewer. The estimated costs for gravity flow from each parcel to a City owned lift station would be $42,800/ unit, and would require the participation of all five property owners. This option is clearly not feasible. The grinder pump option provides flexibility for sewer hook up in this area, at a more reasonable cost. All five of these property owners are being ^;otified of the public hearing. Project Assessments and Costs This will be a fully assessed sewer project. No City contribution toward the assessments will be provided. The proposed project assessment is $19,100/unit payable over a fifteen year period. Options for prepayment of the assessment are also available. Based on several projects completed in 1997, the estimated interest rate is 6.25%. Based on a 15 yeai issessment at 6.25% interest, the annual assessment payments will average approximately $2,000. The first assessment payment would be added to the 1999 property tax bill. The property owner is also responsible for payment of a $1,000 SAC (Sewer Availability Charge) at the time the permit for connection is issued. This money is collected by the City and then forwarded to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division. This money is used to pay for the additional opacity built in to the MCES sewer interceptor pipes for future connections to the "ewer system. 1 s is a standard charge per rew sewer unit for the entire MCES system in the metro area. The sewer service pipes will be stubbed out to the property line. The property owner is then responsible for hiring a licensed plumber to complete the hook up to the new sewer and to properly abandon the existing septic system. The estimated cost for this work is approximately $1,000 to $2,000. The City fee for the connection permit is $35.00. The quarterly sewer rate for the entire City is a flat fee of $76.85 Exclusion From The Project The ideal situation is that all of the property owners will be included in the project. It is difficult to have all of the owners in a project area agree to an assessment sewer project. Recognizing this fact, the C'ty has adopted a policy that allows property owners to request exclusion from the project if they havw . conforming septic system. If a property is excluded from the project and requests a sewer connection at future date, a connection fee will be charged. This connection fee will be the full project assessment, increased each year according to the annual inflation rate. This entire fee will be payable upon connection without the benefit of the fifteen-year assessment option for repayment. Currently, property owners have a seven year period, from when notified their septic system is determined to be non-conforming, within which to replace the system. The property owner will be required to connect to sewer if the existing septic system becomes non-conforming due to any future septic system regulations. Major repairs or replacement of an existing septic system will not be allowed in an area where sanitary sewer is available. Because the City will be covering the debt service charges for any properties excluded from the project, the number of properties that can be excluded without making the project economically unviable is limited. If a substantial majority of the properties are not included in the project, the project will not be financially feasible and will not be completed or will be reduced in size. The proposed project is of reasonable size to solicit good bids for construction. Splitting the project into several segments may result in higher construction costs and higher interest rates on assessments. Interest rates are very favorable at this time, resulting in lower assessment payments. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely; % a"B— Gregory A. Gappa Director of Public Services Copy: Orono City Council Tom Kellog, Bonestroo Engineers a ii<fU Md iUlTttt.T5 exCLUV) E fHOM P{lOjlC\ ‘ lApoo /uw r i<i‘ |j(j /UMy(-6h,iU))^h G /I ;iuP£ R fUMP y/\yfnn ^ FORCEMAIN GRAVITY SEWER O GRAVITY MANHOLE O RESIDENTIAL GRINDER STATION Scale tn left _____________________^ilNUC.r\ .:> I A\ _______________________ K(.loo/tiW\T ^B.bi/1^ Sflvfp, hpsiv OU IS URllTi HERITAGE DRIVE ORONO, MINNESOTA SANITARY SEWER 1391004.0WC 2/20/98 FIGURE 4 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\[| Associates Engineers S ArcMecfs COMM I3qinn REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING MAR 25 1998 CITYOFORONO DATE: March 23, 1998 ITEM NO.; ^ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkawa Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:13,440 s.f. (.31 acre) Application: The applicants are requesting variances to construct a detached garage on the property. Variances are required for hardcover, structural coverage and street setback. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to: Approve a variance of 5% hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback to allow 30% hardcover where 25% is allowed and 29% was proposed. Approve a structural coverage variance of 2.5% to allow 17.5% where 15% is allowed and 18.9% was proposed. Approve a street yard setback of 15' to allow the garage to be located 20' from the street lot line where 35' is required and 8' was proposed. The pitch of the garage roof shall not exceed 10/12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, drainage shall be redirected away from the property to the north as stated in the temporary certificate of occupancy. The 64 s.f. shed near the lakeshore must be removed upon final inspection of the new garage. • No future variances shall be granted to the property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(C), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, AND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5(B) FILE NO. #2292 WHEREAS, Tom and Susan Okerstrom (I .cinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 770 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: See Exhibit A for legal description (hereinafter "the property"); and VrUEREAS, the applicant? have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C), Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B) to permit the construction of a detached garage. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2292. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 13,440 s.f or .31 acre. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 16, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: 1. The zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements. Page 1 of 5 3. Currently, all vehicles are stored outdoors on the property as there is no garage on the property and no sod or driveway has been installed. The 35' setback could be met, however meeting this requirement would result in a higher percentage of hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely sen'e 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 Plar. of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C), Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B) to allow construction of a detached garage requiring a variance for hardcover of 5% in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback to allow 30% where 25% is allowed, a variance for structural coverage of 2.5% to allow 17.5% where 15% is allowed and a variance for street yard setback of 15' to allow the garage to be located 20' from the street lot line where 35' is required. Page 2 of 5 Approval was subject to the following conditions. 1. The pitch of the garage rood shall not exceed 10/12. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, drainage shall be redirected away from the property to the north. 3. The 64 s.f shed near the lakeshore must be removed upon final inspection of the new garage. 4. No future variances shall be granted to this property. 5. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with ihe 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 (March 23, 1999). 6. Violation of or non-cjmpliance 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 pumshable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 5 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owners S'l ATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of March 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Notary Public , 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 5 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 5 of 6 /r 1 '4 >\e3»acf^oz/ The Northwesterly Helf of Lot 14. -Parten's Point, First Divisi icnoc/ I beeia>3*2|i,^p^ a line drawn from the midpoint of the southwesterly lino of said Lot, northeasterly paralldrwith the Northwesterly line of said lot, and its northeasterly extension. For purposes of this survey the Southeasterly i H,. TO: Chair Smith aiid Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant DATE: March 6, 1998 SUBJECT: #2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkawa Road Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Lot Area: 13,440 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.31 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of a 648 s.f. detached garage with a dormer above. The application was previously tabled at the September 15, 1997 Planning Commission meeting as the survey did not accurately reflect hardcover on the property. Variances are required for hardcover, structural coverage and street setback.________________ Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage • Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements • Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations U2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkava Road Variances March 16. 1998 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140 ft.35 ft.10 ft.30 ft. Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside .32 acres 51 ft.92 ft.-existing 20 ft.-proposed 10 ft.109 ft. Lot size and width do not meet the zoning district requirements. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 13,783 s.f.1,528 s.f.-existing 2,212 s.f.-proposed 11% 16% A variance for structural coverage is needed to build the proposed garage. U2292 Tom Okersirom 770 Tonkawa Road Variances 9/8/97 Page 2 Hardcover I Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'3,000 s.f.253 s.f (8.6%) none 253 s.f (8.6%) none 75'-250'10,440 s.f 2,039 s.f (19.5%) 2,610 s.f (25%) 3,032 s.f (29%) 422 s.f (4%) A variance for hardcover in the 75' to 250' setback is required. The revised survey has determined that none of the lot is in the 250' to 500' setback. The lot also does not meet the hardcover requirement in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See Attachment A for the applicant's statement of hardship. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The residence was newly constructed in 1996 without a garage. The property can be put to a reasonable use without the proposed garage. However, a garage would provide the applicant with a means of protecting various vehicles and equipment j. om the elements and open view. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. While the zoning lot does not meet the requirements of the zoning district, part of the hardship has been created by the applicant. The existing residence and deck were constructed in the past year and could have been designed in a manner to allow for a garage without requiring variances. U2292 Tom Okersirotn 770 Tonkawa Road Variances March 16. 199S Page 3 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The varianc-'s for hardcover, structural overage and street setback will not change the character oj ihe area. 4. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A garage of the proposed size is permitted in this zoning district. 5. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining propert>'. Many lots in the vicinity do not meet the minimum zoning district requirements. 6. The conditions do not apply generall in which said land is located. other land or structures in the district 8. Most properties in the area have garages, while the subject property does not. rVhile the garages on the adjacent properties appear to meet street setback requirements, most along the east side ofTonkawa Road do not. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The application can be revised to reduce the magnitude of the variances required. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Due to the limited lot size and the size of the existing residence, it is difficult for the applicant to construct an adequate garage and driveway that meets all zoning district requirements. lisues 1.The lot area and width do not meet zoning district standards, which impedes meeting zoning district requirements, particularly hardcover. #2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkauv Road Variances March 16. 1998 Page 4 2. By constructing the existing residence and deck at 19.5% hardcover in the 75' to 250' setback, it is not possible to meet the requirements. 3. When construction of the current residence was completed in 1996, drainage patterns were altered resulting in a negative impact to the adjacent property to the north. The temporary certificate of occupancy approved February 21, 1997 states that drainage on the north side of the property must be redirected away from the adjacent property to the north by July 1, 1997 before a final certificate of occupancy will be issued. As of yet, this condition has not been satisfied and the applicant does not have a final certificate of occupancy. 4. Hardship was created by the applicant to some degree as the residence constructed in 1996 could have be constructed in a manner to eliminate the need for future variances to construct a garage. 5. While the 35' required street setback could be met, this would result in an approximate increase of 315 s.f. of hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback, or 32.1% hardcover where staff recommends approval of2^%. -30.\ 6 If variances to construct a garage are denied, a paved or gravel driveway will likely be added resulting in a similar amount of hardcover to what is being proposed on the lot. Vehicles and other equipment will also remain stored outside, which may have a negative visual impact on the neighborhood. 7. The survey for construction of the house noted that the 64 s.f. shed on the O' to 75' setback would be razed. It remains on the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed 648 s.f accessory structure with a dormer above subject to several amendments and conditions. • Staff recommends approval of a variance of 5.1 % to allow 30.1 % hardcover in the 75' to 250' zone where 25% is dlowed and 29% is proposed. This 1.1% increase recommended by staff is to allow for additional driveway required for moving the garage 20' back firom the right-of way. The increase is somewhat offset by the reduction in the length of the proposed sidewalk. If the 64 s.f shed to be removed in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback is considered, there is a net gain of 51 s.f of hardcover on the lot. #2292 Tom Okersirom 770 Tonkawa Road Variances March 16. 1998 Pages • Staff recommends approval of a structural coverage variance of 3.4% to allow 18.4% structural coverage where 15% is allowed and 18.9% is requested. The .5% reduction is accounted for by the removal of the shed. • Staff recommends approval of a street setback variance of 15' to allow the accessory structure to be located 20' from the platted right-of-way where 35' is required and 8' is proposed. Having a 20' setback allows adequate room to park a car in the driveway without encroaching into the right-of-way in case Tonkawa Road is expanded in the future. . Staff recommends that prior to the issuance of a building permit, drainage shall be redirected away from the adjacent property to the north. . The 64 s.f. shed near the lakeshore must be removed upon final inspection of the garage as this will reduce hardcover in the O' to 75' and reduce the magnitude of the structural coverage variance. . Staff recommends that as a condition of approval that no future variances be granted to this property. • Staff recommends the applicant note that the garage may not have plumbing or heating facilities and the dormer above may not be used as living space. The applicant has indicated that til i dormer will only be used for storage and a workshop not requiring plumbing or heating. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Property Owners List D Location Map E 1 opographic Map F Permit Record G Survey H Elevation ^ I Hardcover ‘ ets U2292 Tom Okerstrom 770 Tonkawa Road Parlances March 16. I99S Page 6 Application ft Date Received ^ J Amount Paid .^ 'Inso CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 7*7Q Ka.iAj<x. . & S Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)__ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ftg U~i i^nrvOff Acquired_ tiqn if not incluV.^/kcDatePrope___________________ I (do) go nop also own the adjacent parcels Of land. Present use of property: X residential ___^other (specify)_ Zoning District:_____L, R f ^_____________________ (month/year) APPLICANT Name Address: 1 7 Tirs OWNER (if different than applicant) Name /5_______ Phone (home)_ _____ Phone (woik)_ City: n Phone (home)_ _____ Phone (work)_ 0077 __Zip: Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: U)±_________________ lAit additional sheets if ne Estimated Construction Cost $ ' .SVut Hit} VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area (attacft^ additional sheets if necessary) pc HardcoverLot Width Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) "fn oX- Yie.^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:jUi. Styvygjil Ibf JTf LjJL hi^cP (k LUi(hA Ibi. A. Coi. id Jocr^ ,(^ch additional ^eets if necessary) ^ , nort woc.,'1^ h£. less - V REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2.X. 4. No 5. 6. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property O'WTiers List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels mapfrnm Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center,(^8-3271^ IOC>^iC^L Certificate of Surv'ey (signed by a li^nsed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 814" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'A" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 814" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not currei.: owner(s). As an addendum to tliis application, please attach a separate list of **y other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applican: 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 .'onsultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the infcnnation supplied is true and correct to th^est of his/J^r knowledge. Applicant's Signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultantSy<l^nts, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation yfQfid veriju:a)fon of thisp^pest. -ir/>//97Owner'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. 8 ■-'{'.5) ■<3'' ,,- ftk^-5; ' V** ^ f' ■'•. ^ / r^^>‘ ;V; .. , • 0 V' /S(^\ V, ,'' V >-^' •r n I i -1Q I NT^ i^ -.J7--------T--------- ; c00.4f-J^.-- P A ^ T ^ :i xV ®a' V. g—|u.«* \ ■’* '% ■ V LOI I (I) (13) ❖ \ \ \rJ> \X5sl \ \ o6-irr-2i-2f^ \ \(2) \ \ \\\ 5 (12) ^0.94 119.3 £// <5<.3rv - OUUGl C V^v ^ 2 (M.i jFAifS^iS' RUN DATE 08/21/97 DATCH 511 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OIINERS LISTPROP ADDR OM^ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 05-117-23 33 000300755 TONKAHA RDJ A L ROGERSJOHN E A LOIS A ROGERS755 TONKAHA ROLONG LAKE KM 55356 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 38 05-117-23 39 0008 00770 TONKAKU RD T S A S J OKb'RSTROM THOMAS S A SUSAN J OKERSTROM 770 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE M.4 55356 PROP ADDR OmtR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 05-117-23 39 0013 00875 PARTENKKXIO LA J P A E K BECHDOL JOHN P A ELIZABETH K BECHDOL 875 PARTENHOOD LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI93S901 PAGE 2830 05-117-23 39 000600750 TOtA'AHA RD LAHRENCE H EDELMAtM LANREKKCE H EOELKANN 750 TONKAHA RP LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 39 000700760 TONKAHA RD C BEHTELSON A A DERTELSOTK CHARLES A BERTELSON 760 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE IM 55356 38 05-117-23 39 0009 00779 TOKKAWA RD AKiN C FISHER AKM C FISHLR 779 TONK'.AHA RD LONG LAKE KM 55356 38 05-117-23 39 0010 00780 TOtKKAHA RO T R A T J HAUGAN TODD R A TERESA J HAUGAN 780 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0001 00801 TOKKAHA RO J E A L B MOURE J E A L 8 MOORE 601 TONKAHA RD LOKJG LAKE KM 55356 TOTAL BATCH 511 00008 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REl'RtCt NTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE OKI THE RECORDS OF THE HEIMEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, tq THE BEST or KtY KNOMUDGE AND BELIEF. O DATE o PERMIT RECORD Permit No. /V3 ___ ioii‘7___ -3-lSJi ___ ____ Hs-ai___ JliJA.___ -SPJLb___ 3">/9 ? 0 Date Type of Permit ^63 I - ^ L 5- C» / ____________ ___ yo- ^'74 SAC sao^i^ H. 3'7-^g' W-//- 79 J.ij±±k- ________ UjSlc^ ^"~7iti-0 ^JL<U^(jUi. CJ2-^ gL.6^ ^(oS^ 3 -9 (g /cP '«P7 "7lLx g-^/~N ___ HY-LAND SURVEYING. P.A.Top o< Block UND SURVEYORS O 5 Iron Monument3700 Jtderior Highwoy De..otes Wood Hub SetCorogb rioor For Eicovotion OnlyLowell Floor Oiieo, Minneioto 55369 >000.0Denotes Esisting ElevotionType ol Building -493-5761 ci:>Denotes Proposed Elevation §>urofyors Cttprltfiratf Denotes Surface Droinoge "AS BUILT* THOMAS OKrRj^TRQM -zso u«*- ■ > art kwpi MU •• non •' l Surxyor unap U» •' >M Slolt o' Unooiolo Survoyod by in tnit _2!i!— «oy o'-----0C206£R_ bew Foo 'C, HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250* 250-500* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X ______________ 500-1000* Length Width B. C. Garage Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other Shed 8 X X X X X X X X X 8 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 253 -i- B 3000 X 100 PROPOSED HAT /COVER IN ZONE A. House ________ Length Width B. C. Garage Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X 189 3000 8.6 189 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 189 *5* B 3000 X 100 189 6.3 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. ■ S.F. ; S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. ■ % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ; S.F. S.F. ; S.F. S.F. ] S.F. S.F. ■ S.F. " S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B p HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250’250-500’500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Ava Length Ava 29'2” Width 1432 B. C. Garage Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio L^^rape ' 1. Und^ain By/Phmic G. Other X X X X X X X X X 3.5 154 44 396 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERIT AREA IN ZONE 2039 10440 2039 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Avg. 49___ Length B 10440 X 100 X Avg. 29*2” width X _________________ X _________________ X 19.5 1432 B. C. Garage Avg Driveway ____ D. Sidewalk E. Pali F. fcandsMpe 38 Un^lU^in ________ Byri^tic ________ X X X X X X X X X 646 3.5 12 y 396 3< 1.5 G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 3032 -f- B 10440 X 100 3032 10440 29.0% S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. ■ S.F. ; S.F. . S.F. S.F. ' S.F. ■ 7c S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. . S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. 7c COUNCIL MEETING MAR 23 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ciTV OF OfiONO DATE: March 23, 1998 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:j!'2317 Khosrow Daivari 1082 Loma Linda Avenue Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:10,350 square feet (.24 acre) Application: The applicant is requesting after-the-fact variances to allow the retention and completion of a screen porch constructed over an existing deck. The porch was built without a permit and requires after-the-fact variances for average lakeshore setback and structural coverage. The application was previously tabled at the March 9, 1998 City Council meeting as the applicant failed to appear. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: 1. Deny an average lakeshore setback variance allowing 6.5' encroachment where no encroachment is allowed. 2. Deny a structural coverage variance of 1.4% to allow 16.4% structural coverage v. ]'cre 15% is allowed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed denial resolution. i A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDFVTSION 14(C) AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C6), FILE NO. #2317 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a m • cipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Minnesota. WHEREAS, pursuant to state statutes 412 et, seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of public hezilth, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Khosrow Daivari (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1082 Loma Linda Avenue v^ithin the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Loma Linda (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit the retention and completion of a screen porch on the lake side of the residence that encroaches into the average lakeshore setback and exceeds the allowable 15% structural coverage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2317. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. The property consists of 10,350 s.f. or .24 acre. Page 1 of 3 r 3. The porch encroaches 6.5’ ahead of the average lakeshore setback where no encroachment is allowed. 4. The porch increases the percentage of structural coverage on the lot to 16.4% where 15% is allowed. 5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 17, 1998 and recommended denial of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: 1. Adequate hardship has not been demonstrated by the applicant. 2. Allowing the screen porch to remain and be completed may have a negative impact on views. 3. The porch was constructed over an existing deck. If the necessary variances were approved, significant retrofitting of the structure would have to take place to bring the structure into compliance with city code. 4. While not enclosed with a solid roof or windows, the porch is considered structure. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are not peculiar to it and apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, it is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; it is not necessary to preserv e a substantial property right of the applicant; and w'ould not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 7. 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. Page 2 of 3 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C6) to deny an average lakeshore setback variance for an existing 207 s.f porch to encroach 6.5 ’ forward of the average lakeshore setback where no encroachment is allowed. Further, the City Council hereby denies an after-the-fact variance for structural coverage of 1.4% for 16.4% structural coverage to remain where 15% is allowed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of March, 1998. ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of March 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notziry Public Page 3 of 3 TO: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant DATE: February 2,1998 SUBJECT: #2317 Khosrow Daivari 1082 Loma Linda Avenue Variances-Public Hearing ____________ Zoning k>istrict: LR-IB Lot Area: 10,350 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.24 acres)______________________ Application: The applicant added screening and supports over an existing deck in the summer of 1997. No building permits were obtained for the enclosure. After the fact variances are needed for average lakeshore setback and structural _____________coverage in order to complete and retain the enclosure. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Structural Coverage • Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B): Average Lakeshore Setback • Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C6): Average Lakeshore Setback §2317 Khosrow Daivari 1082 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 2/17/98 Page 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard LR-IB requirements 1 acre 140’ subject property .24 acre 51'atOHWL 50' at 75' setback 111’with porch 121.5’ without deck 9.55’15.15’ The zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements. Recently in this area there have been lot line disputes regarding lot width. The existing residence does not meet side or street setbacks. The screened area that was added is not located in either of these setbacks. The enclosed area is located in the lakeside yard and encroaches in the average lakeshore setback. Average Lakeshore Setback No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings or lock boxes. Decks that are less than 30" above grade and do not have guardrails are considt.red a non-encroachment. Converting the deck which was considered a non encroachment in the average lakeshore setback to an enclosed area requires a variance. The screened area encroaches approximately 7' in front of the average lakeshore setback. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 10,350 s.f.1,698 s.f.-with porch 1,490 s.f.-without porch 16.4% 14.4% A structural coverage variance is required. The deck that had not been enclosed did not contribute to structural coverage because it did not have railings or walls that extended more than 6’ above ground level (Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C2)). The enclosed deck becomes structure and exceeds the 15% lot coverage requirement on lots that are less than 2 acres in area. The total ma.\imum allowed lot coverage for the subject property is 1,552.5 s.f. or 15%. m23n Khosrow Datvari 1032 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 217/93 Page! Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0 ’-75 ’3,841 s.f 987 s.f. (25.7%) (643 s.f., 16.7% w/o plastic) none 987 s.f. (25.7%) none 75'-250'6,509 s.f.3,840 s.f. (59%) (2,330 s.f., 35.8% w/out plastic) 1,627.25 s.f. (25%) 3,840 s.f. (59%) none The subject property does not meet hardcover requirements in the O' to 75' or 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. Hardcover variances are not required for this application as the structure was built over an existing deck. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's statement of hardship is included as Attachment J. The minutes from the July 28 City Council meeting including the testimony of the applicant in regard to hardships is also included as Attachment K. He should also be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can be put to a reasonable use without screening over the deck. However the applicant previously indicated to staff that he wanted to screen the deck because of mosquitoes. B23I7 Khosrow Daivari 1082 Loma Linda Avenue yariance 2/17/98 Page ' 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. While the property does not meet the lot area requirement, it is still allowed 1,500 s.f. or 15% of structural coverage, whichever is greater. In this case, 15% allows for the greater amount of structural coverage. The enclosure exceeds the structural coverage limits. 3. The variances, if granted, may alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for average lakeshore setback and structural coverage may change the character of the area. 4. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permi J under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Su .'ere i porches for residential purposes are allowed in this zoning district. 5. T e opecial conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar ‘o .sooh property or immediately adjoining property. The subject piM>erty is near the maximum allowable 15% of structural coverage. There is no hai'istiip for increasing beyond this limit. The location of the residence on the lot is also consistent with adjacent properties. Allowing the structure to encroach ahead of tl e average lakeshore setback line may have a negative impact on neighboring views. The conditions do not apply general in which said land is located. 'r land or structures in the district The adjacent properties are aligntu ii ici /ely straight line along the lakeshore. These properties have decks, rather than t ..dosed porches. The deck on the property to the south is considered a structure because it is more than 6' above ground level. It is not an enclosed structure and is located lower than the subject property. It is not detrimental to views. Most other properties in the area are similar in size and subject to the same structural coverage regulations. H2317 Khosrow Darvari I OS 2 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 2/17/98 Page 4 The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a su’^stantial property right of the applicant. The deck as previously existing is in character with the neighborhood. The applicant will not be deprived of use or enjoyment of the property by requiring the removal of the screening over the deck. 8.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Allowing the applicant to enclose the deck would serv'e as a convenience to the owner and is not unique in its configuration or physical layout. I?§U€S 1. The property does not meet lot area or width requirements. There is a significant amount of rock over plastic on the property in both the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. 3. 4. There is a non-conforming deck near the lakeshore. The subject property is situated significantly higher than the property to the south. Screening over the deck may interfere with the views 5.The screening was added to the existing dedc without a building permit. The Building Inspector has indicated that if the variances are approved to retain and complete the porch, the applicant needs to provide plans indicating how the porch will meet building code requirements, particularly deficiencies in the roof and base. According to the building code, structures require enclosed roofs. The screened porch does not have either a solid roof or windows. The screens can be removed. The screening and supports are considered structure. U23I ~ Khosro\¥ Diiivari 1082 Loma Linda Avenue yariance 2/17/98 Pages STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the necessary after-the-fact variances to complete and r-*ta!n screening over the deck. • Staff recommends denial of an average lakeshore setback variance to allow the screened area to encroach 6.5' ahead of the average lakesb' re setback line where no encroachment is allowed and there had previously been no encroachment. • Staff recommends denial of a structural coverage variance of IAV^ to allow 16.4% structural coverage on the property where 15% is allowed. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Property Owners List D Location Map E Topographic Map F Permit Record G Survey H Hardcover Worksht^"* j I Elevation Drawing J Statement of He u K ^ity Council Mmates - f July 28,1997 Regarding Mr. Dai vari’s Testimony U2117 Khosrow Daivari 10S2 Loma L inda Avtnue VoftH-xe f jge 6 Application H Jl 3 I 7 Date Received hAmount Paid ,c c CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE Al PI ICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance''. Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTA LNFORi\LATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0^ —^3- ^3 OOO^ Attach legal description to application if not included or Date Property Acquired_______/\^ 4 ^ I (do) (do not) also own the adjac^ parcels of land. on required survey. _(month/year) vn the adjac^ parcels of land. Present use of property. /^Residential ___^other (specify). I (do) (do not) also Present use of ] Zoning District; APPLICANT'PJLltJAlN lV ' • Phone fhoae) }'iol Name //Ao^/pCJ ______ Phone (work) '74' 7 ^ 7 V' Address: ^ \ K</ CJc\ e.>rry o cL fid City: M Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_______ ^_____ Address:_______. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:.Zip:, DESCRIPTION or LST Describe request in detail: Ci/*^ Estimat^Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets r ecessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area •| Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover ___^Lot Coverage Rear ^ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:______________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 r RUN DATE 12/02/97 BATCH 501PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 38 08-117-23 23 0005 01056 LOMA LINDA AVE C 0 « M J HOLCOMBE C 0 S M J HOLCOMBE 105«> LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 HEmnPlN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST38 08-117-23 23 000601058 LOMA LINDA AVE R F OORLOG S K J OORLOG RICHARD F A KAREN J OORLOG 1058 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 138 08-117-23 23 000701066 LOMA LINDA AVE CAROL M RADUNZ CAROL M RADUNZ 5505 RIVER BLUFF CIR BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 38 08-117-23 23 0008 PROP ADDR 01074 LOMA LINDA AVE OWNER NAME MARGARET E MATTSON TAXPAYER MARGARET E MATTSON NAME/AODR 1074 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0009 01082 LOMA LINDA AVE K H S F DAIVARI KHOSROW t FATEMEH DAIVARI 2354 CHERRYWOOD RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 08-117-23 23 0010 01090 LOMA LINDA AVE H H BOCKMANN S N L BOCKMANN WILLIAM H BOCKMANN 1090 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 38 08-117-23 23 0011 01098 LOMA LINDA AVE ROBERT J GOUNTANIS ROBERT J GOUNTANIS 1098 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0012 01130 LOMA LINDA AVE H H BOCKMANN ET AL W/L EST WILLIAM A BOCKMANN 1130 LOMA LINDA AV MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0021 01119 LOMA LINDA AVE H J a C J POLLARD WILLIAM J a CAROL J POLLARD 1119 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 23 0022 PROP ADOR 01045 LOMA LINDA AVE OtWER NAME T G OSTERBERG/K J OSTERBERG TAXPAYER TIMOTHY G/KRISTI J OSTERBERG NAME/ADOR 1045 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ^ 12.'~3 ^BYDATE r ORONO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 9/30/ 1997 ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. JOB NO. 971260, RO CALL JIM PARKER. 474 7964 WITH QUESTIONS SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE)0-75 ’ I75-250 ’ 250-500 ’ 500-1000 ’ >/y / EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE Length Width Area Area Area Area 1 RIPRAP1 124 S.F. : 2 R1PRAP2 295 i S.F. 1 3 LAKEDECK 198 S.F. 4 RETWALL S.F. 5 ROCKPLASTIC3 344 sf;- * • -- 6 S.F.............. 7 S.F. 8 ' S.F. 9 ■S.F. 10 S.F. ___! 1 S.F. 12 1 1 S.F. M3I S.F. 1 I14j S.F. : :i5 S.F. !1G^S.F. i 17l s.f: i18 1 S.F“. • .... -! .r !" S.f: " ;20j "S.F. ! L21J.S.F.' ! 22 1 1 S.F. |23|S.F. |24 s:r 25 S.F. 26 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 987 1 S.F. A 1 i TOTAL PROPERTY AR^ IN ZONE 384r ! ^s.f:**^b i PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE =25.7% 'iA/B % i ' , i 1 . ! ' PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN~ZONE ^ I ; i 1 Length Width i ; 27 TOTAL PROPOSED AND EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE* TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 987 S.F. 'C! PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING & PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE~ 3841 S. F. D 25.7% C/D % J. c. - f IT'rORONO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 9 / 30 / 1997 ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. JOB NO. 971260, ROSS WZHAD CALL JIM PARKER. 474 7964 WITH QUESTIONS “ -r- y V.'^ HZ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE 0-75 ’ I 75-250' 1 250-500* 500-1000' Length Width Area Area Area Area 1 X 2 HOUSE X 878_______S.F. ' 3 GARAGE X 431 S.F. 4 SHED X 81 S.'F. 5 WALK X 411 S.F. 6 WALK2 X 46 ________SF. 7 DRIVE X 236 S.F. ' 8 ROCKPLASTIC1 X 581 S.F. 9 ROCKPLASTIC4 X 584 S.F. IO'rockplastics X 53 S.F. 1 r ROCKPLASTICe X 292 S.F. 12 RETWALL X 39 S.F. 13 X - ..S.F. 14 X _... .S,F, 15—X ________S,F. 16 X S.F. 17 TOTAL HC „„SF. 18 GREEN1 5087 X S.F. 19 GREEN2 46 X S.F. 20 GREEN3 368 X ______SF-..,^.... '21 GREENS 22 X S.F. 22 TOTAL ________SF. 23“TOTAL 10350 X .........S,R 24 % HC _ .SR 25^Shed 4.1 X S.F. 26Shed 12.2 X . S:F... TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE _ 3632 __________S.F. A ^PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE =55.80%'A/B % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE Length Width 27 PORCH ~s:r s".r SR' TOTAL PROPOSED AND EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERtY AREA IN ZONE ^ ^ _______ PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING & PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ^0% , 6509 C/D % J ZT ’y: A5 ^ # ■‘7 Khosruw Daivari 2354 Cherry Wood Minetonk? ' ^ “305 January 27, 1998 City of Orono Planning Commission Re: Variance Application #2317 Dear Planning Co imirtoe; 1 anr uesting an approval of a variance for screen porch for my house located at this address iu82 Loma linda . 1 use my house mostly in summer time. Because of excessive mosquitoes we can ’t use and enjoy our outside deck after sun set. This screen porch hopefully help us to get a better use of our house. This is a screen porch with screen roof and removable screen. / .Sincerely Khosrow Daivari MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 K PUBLIC COMMENTS Mike Barrett Continued Greg Gappa said it was his understanding that the City has not maintained the road but will follow up on the issue. Jabbour instructed Staff to review the facts and make a recommendation. He asked that the affected residents be notified prior to the August 11 meeting if the issue can be resolved. Khosrow Daivar, 1082 Loma Linda, informed the Council he had added a screened in area on his deck and the work W2is stopped by the building inspector, who informed him of the need for a building permit and a variance from the average lakeshore setback requirement. The screened area is complete except for painting. Daivar said his property is on a peninsula. Daivar said he spoke with Van Zomeren of the need to make an application for a variance and provide a survey of the property. Daivar feels the law should be changed. He indicated he feels he has a hardship regarding the screened area. Jabbour informed Daivar that only the building inspector can make the determination regarding the need for a building permit. Barrett agreed that a building permit cannot be waived, but if denied, it can be appealed to the Council. Daivar voiced his concern with the cost of th-* application. He feels the process is a hardship. Jabbour noted the purpose of the law and his support of it. Goetten reiterated that the work was begun without obtaining a permit, and Daivar was notified of his need for a variance. Daivar said he did not think he needed to have a building permit. ’.(Sr MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 c\ PUBLIC COMMENTS Khosrow Daivar Continued Jabbour told Daivar that all similar cases require going through the variance process. Kelley related the importance of the law. He informed Daivar that with the hardship as noted, he should probably be able to receive the variance for the screened area. Van Zomeren indicated that there is no survey on file. She said the need to acquire one would involve a time issue for Daivar. Jabbour said staff would have to review the history of the conformity of the property. He asked Van Zomeren to work with the building inspector in the variance process. Allan Engleman, 315 Old Crystal Bay Road, voiced his outrage with the defacing of the City property by landscape workers using a skid loader. He informed Council that the damage must be corrected. Council indicated the matter would be addressed. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (*#4) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3931 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, :o adopt Resolution No. 3931, granting side setback, average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback variances for construction of additions to the residence at 3265 Sixth Avenue North for Donald and Robin Helgager. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING MAR 23 1998 Date: Item No.: I 0 Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: #2327 Orono Development, LLC - Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - B-5 Conditional Uses: Bagel and Coffee Retail Stores Ordinance Adoption - Second Review Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District Application: Request to have 'coffee and bagel retail stores' added to the list of allowed conditional uses within the B-5 zoning district. List of Exhibits A - Seating/Parking Analysis B - Revised Draft Ordinance C - Notice of Council Action 3/19/98 D - Staff Memo and Exhibits of 3/3/98 On March 9th Council tabled this item and directed staff to do some additional investigation in regards to the bagel/coffee use, including defining more specifically what it is, as well as placing some restrictions on it to avoid expansion that would be not in keeping w ith the intent of the B-5 district. Council identified a number of issues, including: Will a coffee o; bagel shop be limited to just coffee or bagels, or will it allow sandwiches, juices/soft drinks, muffins, etc.? Do we want to attempt to limit the type of foods allowed? Or, accept that allowing the use inherently results in all the ancillar>' products that normally go with it? How will the food be prepared? Might limitations on the extent or naiure of kitchen facilities be appropriate? Should the amount of seating be limited to a relatively low level to eliminate potential parking problems as well as limit the types of restaurant uses that might be attracted to locations in B-5? #2326 - B-5 Amendment March 19, 1998 Page 2 Range of Products and Ser\ ices As discussed at the March 9 meeting, both coffee and bagel retail stores, as contemplated by staff and the applicant and as commonly exist today, will provide a variety of related products. Coffee shop will likely serve some sort of food, muffins, cookies, etc. along with coffee and possibly other drinks. A bagel shop will likely have juices, soft drinks, and bagel based sandwiches, chips, dessert items, etc. Both will function as a 'convenience' type restaurant where food is obtained by the customer at a counter, likely w ithout waitserv ice. Both will provide some amount of seating, and will expect a portion of their customers to 'eat in' while others 'grab and go'. Parking Not Necessarily a Limiting Factor The amount of parking on the applicant's site, for e.xample, is 62 stalls, apportioned as follows: Bank and Office (5200 net sf; 1 stall reqd. per 200 sf): 26 stalls Retail (4500 net sf; 1 stall reqd. per 150 sf): 30 stalls Extra stalls provided 6 stalls Total 62 staha If the maximum allowable retail space is devoted to a resinurant use (4000 gross sf), with a net public floor area of 60% or 2400 sf, our code (1 slall:80 sf) would require 30 stalls, which at a 3:1 ratio (see below) translates to 90 seats. Therefore, parking is not going to limit the seating in and of itself. Seating as a Limiting Factor Please see Exhibit A, which briefly compares various restaurant uses w ith their seating needs. Fast food restaurants typically require 75-100 seats. Family sit-down chain restaurants are typically in the 150 seat range. Bagel and coffee shops are somewhere in the 25-45 seat range individually, or 30-65 seats as a combined use. A standard parking-to-seating ratio for restaurants is 1 stall per 3 seats, although fast food restaurants typically are at 1:1.2 or 1:1.5 due to the nature of their high lunch-hour traffic. If the Council's goal is to limit the restaurant uses to those which are low traffic generators, limiting the seating to, say 45 seats for an individual coffee/bagel use or 60 seats for a combined use, would likely make the location less attractive to the typical fast food or family restaurant chain users. #2326 - B-5 Amendment March 19, 1998 Page 3 Other Possible Limitations Staff has not had a chance to investigate the potential methods for limiting the kitchen facilities, methods of food preparation or packaging, range of products offered, or other factors involved with the restaurant business that might be used as limitations. Most zoning codes vve have revievved don t get into such details, although e.xamples likely can be found. Goal: Regulate Impacts Rather Than Products It still is staffs opinion that we should concentrate on regulating the impacts a business or category of businesses have on the surrounding area, rather than dictating what products or services are provided or how they are provided. Creating classes of restaurants of varying levels of impact in regard to parking, traffic, noise, lighting, odors, litter generation, demands on public services, etc. will provide a more solid basis for allowing one specific use but not another. Under our current 'specific listing' method of allowed uses, it is difficult to define those characteristics of similar uses that differentiate one from another in regards to impacts. How is the impact of a Subway any different than that of a Bagel Shop? Why should we allow one but not the other? Ultimately, as Council has noted, we need to revamp the Business District code sections; not only to update them to reflect the current state of commerce, but to make it easier to deal with the vast variety of contemporary business uses while being sensitive to their probable close proximity to residential uses. This will take a thoughtful process, one which stall has not really had an opportunity to commence. Staff Recommendation The attached ordinance adds 'ci ffee and bagel retail stores' to the list of B-5 conditional uses, which gives the council ability to establish additional appropriate conditions when a CUP for a given location is applied for. Such uses would, of course, have to comply with all lighting, signage, parking, and other standards of the B-5 District. Given Council's intent to further limit the expansion of such use into sometliing of greater impact, staff recommends a fourth CUP condition (in addition to the three previously suggested) that will specifically regulate seating for the 'coffee and bagel retail store use'. If Council wishes to delve more deeply into other possible limitations on this specific use, that will take some time. The four specific conditions proposed for the 'coffee and bagel retail stores' conditional use are as follows: a. No more than 50% of the gross floor area of any single building shall be devoted to coffee and/or bagel retail store uses. #2326 - B-5 Amendment March 19, 1998 Page 4 b. No individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall exceed 2,000 s.f. of gross floor area. A combined coffee and bagel retail store use shall not e.xceed 4,000 s.f. of gioss floor area. c. The number of incremental parking spaces required for the coffee and/or bagel retail store use shall be calculated using the zoning code parking requirement standard for restaurant uses. Applicant shall demonstrate that the total parking needs for the site will be met. d. An individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall be limited to a maximum of 45 seats. A combined coffee and bagel retail store use shall be limited to a maximum of 60 seats. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance, or revise it as necessary to accomplish the Council's objectives for the B-5 District. Seating/Parking Analysis - Restaurant Uses Summary of Contacts with: John Scalzo, DSU, Inc. - typical parking requirements for: - mid-sized family restaurant, no bar: 1 stall per 3 seats (Orono code 1:80 net sO - large (8-10,000 sf) restaurant vv/bar: 18-20 stalls per 1,000 gross s.f (Asuming 60% of gross sf is net public space, Orono code would only require 8 spaces per 1000 gross sO - office/bank: 5 stalls per 1,000 gross s.f. (equiv. to Orono's 1:200 gross sO - retail: 6.5-7 stalls per 1,000 gross s.f (equiv. to Orono's 1:150 gross sf) - typical bagel or coffee shop: 30-50 seats Perkins Restaurant Corporation: - typical prototype is 156 seats, 85-95 parking stalls, i.e. 1 stall per 2 seats McDonalds Restaurants Corp. Jim Heilman: - high-volume site: 80-100 seats, 70 parking stalls, i.e. 1 stall per 1.2 seats - medium-volume site: 60-70 seats, 60-65 parking stalls - low-volume site: 50-60 seats, 50 parking stalls - Long Lake faci’ity inch Playland: 130 seats, 77 parking stalls Burger King, Long Lake: Approx. 80 seats (counted) in approx. 30'x40' (1200 sf) public space Subway, Long Lake: 22 seats (counted) in a 20 ’x22’ (440 sf) public space O’Sullivan's, Navarre: 110 seats in a 45'x40' (1800 sf) public space Tom Dillon/John O'Sullivan - contact with bagel & coffee retailers: - typical seating by retailer: Bruegger's Bagels: 40-45 seats Chesapeake Bay Bagels 40-50 seats Bixby Bagel & Coffee 60-65 seats Caribou Coffee 20-40 seats Einstein Bros. Coffee & Bagels 25-50 seats Summary Typical seating Typical parking Orono code reqmt. requirements: reqmt. at 1:3 ratio: (1 stall/80 s.f. publ. space) Coffee 21 bagel shop: Coffee and bagel shop: Fast food restaurant: Family restaurant: 25-45 seats 8-15 stalls 30-65 seats 10-22 stalls 80-100+ seats 28-35 stalls 150 seats 50 stalls 12 stalls (1,000 sO 24 stalls (2,000 sO 30 stalls (2,400 sf) 38 stalls (3,000 sO ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10.44 OF THE ORONO ZONING CODE BY ADDING COFFEE AND BAGEL RETAIL STORES TO THE LIST OF CONDITIONAL USES WITHIN THE B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORliOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT The City Council of Orono ordains as follows; Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.44, Subdivision 4 (A) is hereby amended by adding the following uses and related standards to the list of conditional uses allowed within the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District: CofTee or bagel retail stores, subject to the following conditions: a.No more than 50% of the gross floor area of any single building shall be devoted to coffee and/or bagel retail store uses. No individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall exceed 2,000 s.f. of gross floor area. A combined coffee and bagel retail store use shall not exceed 4,000 s.f. of gross floor area. c.The number of incremental parking spaces required for the coffee and/or bagel retail store use jhall be calculated using the zoning code parking requirement standard for restaurant uses. Applicant shall demonstrate that the total parking needs for the site will be met. An individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall be limited to a maximum of 45 seats. A combined coffee and bagel retail store uses shall be limited to a maximum of 60 seats. Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 23rd day of March, 1998 by a vote ayes and ___nays. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor 1 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. #2326 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: March 19, 1998 TO: Tom Dillon COPIES:Ted Christianson Orono Development, LLC Adam Smith Co. 5000 Glen wood Avenue #225 700 Cedar Street #121 Minneapolis, MN 55445 Alexandria, MN 56308 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Zoning Amendment DATE OF MEETING: March 9, 1998 VOTE:4 FOR 0 AGAINST COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION Tabled to the March 23 meeting (begins at 7:00 p.m.) in order to allow staff to investigate further possible conditions and limitations for the coffee and bagel retail store conditional use. Council members generally indicated support for the proposed amendment, subject to the establishment of appropriate limitations including seating. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: March 3, 1998 Item No.:'■/ Department Approval; Name: Michael P. Gaffron > Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2327 Orono Development, LLC - Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - B-5 Conditional Uses: Bagel and Coffee Retail Stores - Ordinance Adoption Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District Application: Request to have 'coffee and bagel retail stores' added to the list of allowed conditional uses within the B-5 zoning district. List of Exhibits A - Draft Ordinance B - Notice of Council Action 3/2/98 C - Staff Memo of 2/20/98 Summary On February 23 the Council tabled this item and directed staff to draft a zoning code amendment to allow 'coffee and bagel retail stores' as a conditional use within the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District. Staff met with John O'Sullivan and applicant Tom Dillon on March 2 to review the initial draft of the amendment. That discussion resulted in staff revising the draft slightly to accomodate specific square footage needs of the applicant, and also resulted in some good discussion regarding the actual need for detailed restrictions in the B-5, given the limited size and small number of properties in this district. Staff initially suggested the following general conditions: 1. Coffee/bagel retail stores shall not be the primary tenant of a building. 2. Coffee/bagel retail stores individually or as a joint use shall not e.xceed 40% of the gross floor area of an individual building. 3. A coffee or bagel retail store shall not exceed 1,500 s.f. in gross floor area, and a combined coffee/bagel shop shall not exceed 3,000 s.f. in gross floor area. 4. Applicant shall demonstrate that the coffee/bagel uses will have adequate parking available per City codes. #2327 - B-5 Amendment March 3, 1998 Page 2 A question arose as to what was meant by 'primary tenant'. Staffs intent was to limit these two restaurant uses by making them a secondary use of any given building, the intent being to eliminate the possibility of a free-standing coffee or bagel shop. One concern is that once such a separate building is constructed, if the coffee or bagel shop closes, the building is automaUcally attracUve to (and perhaps only suitable for) other restaurant uses which are not approved in the B-5 district; wWle a lea.sable space in a building devoted primarily to a non-restaurant use, is likely more flexible. It was noted that a simple requirement that bagel/coffee shop uses cannot occupy more than 50% of an individual building’s gross floor area, would accomplish the same purpose. Dillon also indicated that the square footages needed for such uses may be somewhat higher than than the limitations initially proposed. A maximum of 2,000 s.f for an individual coffee or bagel use and a 4,000 s.f. maximum for a combination of the two, was suggested. What Degree of Limitation is Necessary ? Council should consider whether there are compelling reasons to establish size limits or other types of limitations specifically for these two new uses. The 'coffee and/or bagel retail store use in itself is very limiting, in that very few types of food serving establishments would fall into this category. Orono's zoning code sections regarding the 'B' districts are generally in need of an update. There are many types of commercial uses today that weren't contemplated when the current code was adopted. Rather than merely adding to or subtracting from the lists of specific uses on an as requested' basis, it may be most appropriate to clearly redefine and refine the general goals for each district, then establish and update specific performance standards that should apply to all uses in each district, and ultimately allow only those uses which can meet all the standards regardless of whether the use is specifically listed. Adding 'coffee and bagel shops' to the B-5 is relatively low-risk in terms of potential impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. Council should consider whether rigorous limitations are actually needed on these two uses. Pla:ining Commission left it up to staff and Council to determine what is appropriate. As time permits, staff would prefer to take a comprehensive look at the B district standards rather than attach an exh lustive list of specific limits to each individual use. r #2327 - B-5 Amendment March 3,1998 Page 3 Staff Recommendation The attached ordinance adds 'coffee and bagel retail stores’ to the list of B-5 conditional uses, which gives the council ability to establish appropriate conditions when a CUP for a given location is applied for. Such uses would, of course, have to comply with all lighting, signage, parking, and other standards of the B-5 district. Staff recommends three conditions that will specifically apply to the 'coffee and bagel retail store use': a. No more than 50% of the gross floor area of any single building shall be devoted to coffee and/or bagel retail store uses. b. No individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall exceed 2,000 s.f of gross floor area. A combined coffee and bagel retail store use shall not exceed 4,000 s.f. of gross floor area. c. The number of incremental parking spaces required for the coffee and/or bagel retail store use shall be calculated using the zoning code parking requirement standard for restaurant uses. Applicant shall demonstrate that the total parking needs for the site will be met. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance, or revise it as necessary to accomplish the Council's objectives for the B-5 district. ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10.44 OF THE ORONO ZONING CODE BY ADDING COFFEE AND BAGEL RETAIL STORES TO THE LIST OF CONDITIONAL USES WITHIN THE B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.44, Subdivision 4 (A) is hereby amended by adding the following uses and related standards to the list of conditional uses allowed within the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District; 9. Coffee or bagel retail stores, subject to the following conditions: a. No more than 50% of the gross floor area of any single building shall be devoted to coffee and/or bagel retail store uses. b. No individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall exceed 2,000 s.f of gross floor area. A combined coffee and bagel retail store use shall not exceed 4,000 s.f of gross floor area. c. The number of incremental parking spaces required for the coffee and/or bagel retail store use shall be calculated using the zoning code parking requirement standard for restaurant uses. Applicant shall demonstrate that the total parking needs for the site will be met. Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 9th day of March, 1998 by a vote of___^ayes and___nays. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2327 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 2. 1998 TO: Tom Dillon Orono Development, LLC 5000 Glenwood Av'e, #225 Minneapolis MN 55445 COPIES: Ted Christianson Adam Smith, Co. 700 Cedar St, #121 Alexandria MN 56308 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Zoning Amendment DATE OF MEETING: 02/23/98 Motion #1 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST To conceptually approve amendment of B-5 district to allow coffee and bagel retail sales as a conditional use; Motion #2 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST To table the application to the March 9th meeting, directing staff to draft a zoning code amendment for adoption, containing appropriate CUP standards and conditions. This item will be brought to the Council for consideration on March 9, 1998. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Because review and adoption of the B-5 amendment cannot be completed within the original 60-day time frame due to Council meeting schedules, the review period is het^by extended an additional 60 days to April 22, 1998. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: February 20, 1998 Item No.: ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2327 - Orono Development, LLC, 2380 Shadywood Road - Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: B-5 District Conditional Uses Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District Application: Request for an amendment to t le B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District to allow, as a conditional use, three specific additional uses including: 1. Coffee retail sales 2. Bagel retail sales 3. Pizza retail sales. Each of the proposed uses could be categorized as a restaurant. The B-5 District cun ently does not allow restaurants as such, but does include as a conditional use the following specific use: "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drinks store." List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 2/2/98 B - Memo and Exhibits of 1/12/98 C - Planning Commission Minutes 1/20/98 Summary of Request In conjunction with the proposed bank/office/retail building proposed at 2380 Shadywood, applicant proposed to include certain restaurant uses such as a bagel, coffee or pizza shop. It was noted that these uses are not specifically allowed in the B-5 District. Staff concluded they are so dissimilar from any of the B-5 permitted or conditional uses that an amendment to the B-5 list of allowed uses is the only method under which they could be considered, hence this application. Please review the memo and exhibits of January 12. The pro's and con's of adding bagel, coffee, and pizza retail sales are discussed, as well as the City's goals and objectives for the B-5 District. #2327 - B-5 Amendment February 20,1998 Page 2 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this request at the January 20 meeting, and on a vote of 4-1 retail sales, but not pizza retail sales (see January 20 minutes). It was concluded that pizza sales would be a high traffic generator, in conflict with the intent of the B-5 district, and potentially could have odor problems, late hours of operation, and other potentially negative impacts as compared to most other uses contemplated for the B-5 district. Commissioner Hawn was the minority opinion, indicating that the rezoning of the applicants site a year ago did not contemplate restaurant uses, and that such uses are not generally appropriate for the B-5 district. Planning Commission also recommended that staff research and draft appropriate conditions for these tw'o uses in order to limit them in scope, magnitude and character to a neighborhood use rather than as something that would draw from a wide region, in keeping with the neighborhood services intent of the B-5 district. Such conditions might include: That the restaurant use must be a non-primary tenant in a building used primarily for a permitted or conditional use that is not a restaurant (this could be a method to avoid freestanding fast food operations) Limitation on square footage, and/or percentage of total building, devoted to each individual restaurant use Limitations on the capacity of fans allowed for exhaust venting (i.e. do not allow operations which require exhaust venting above a certain cubic feet per minute) Strict adherence to signage limitations Such conditions and limitations have not yet been developed; how^ever, if Council conceptually agrees with the Planning Commision recommendation, staff will draft ordinance language for the March 9 council meeting. Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission recommendation iiuicrcntly suggests that the B-5 (and perhaps all our zoning districts) need to be updated to reflect current use categories. The coffee and bagel retail sales uses are appropriate in the context of a locally-oriented service district abutting a residential neighborhood, as long as controls are in place to avoid those uses or activities which could be a Wiyil - B-5 Amendment February 20,1998 Page 3 nuisance to the neighborhood. Staff agrees that pizza retail sales may have certain aspects that are not as appropriate when in close pro.ximity to a neighborhood. The applicant agreed to amend the application to include only coffee and bagels. Council Action Requested Review the proposed amendment to allow coffee and bagel retail sales as a conditional use in the B-5 zone, and if it is agreed that this is appropriate, direct staff to draft a zoning code amendment with appropriate conditions and limitations. \ \ CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Cr> stal Bay, MN 55323 473‘7357 ZONING FILE #2327 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: February 2, 1998 TO: Orono Development, LLC COPIES TO:Adam Smith Co. 5000 Glenwood Avenue #225 700 Cedar St. #121 Mpls.,MN 55442 Alexandria, MN 56308 ATTN: Tom Dillon ATTN: Ted Christianson TYPE OF APPLICATION:Zoning Amendment DATE OF MEETING: 1/20/98 VOTE: Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. 4 FOR 1 AGAINST NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Planning Commission recommends that the B-5 list of conditional uses Ve amended to include coffee retail sales and bagel retail sales, but not pizza retail sales. 2. Staff to draft appropriate conditional use standards for the coffee and bagel uses and submit directly to Council for review. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; City Council, Monday, February 23, 1998, 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. Note that once the B-5 zone is amended, you will have to formally apply for the CUP if you actually propose a coffee or bagel tenant. If you have questions, please contact Mike Oaffron at 473-7357. X;\APPS\\VPWIN60\WPDOCS\CAROLE\PCACTION\2327-2 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator January 12, 1998 SUBJECT: #2327 Orono Development, L.L.C., 2380 Shad>-\vood Road - Request for Amendment to B-5 District Allowed Uses - Public Hearing Zoning District: B-5 Application: Request for an amendment to the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District to allow, as a conditional use, three specific additional uses including: 1.Coffee retail sales 2. Bagel retail sales 3.Pizza retail sales. Each of the proposed uses could be categorized as a restaurant. The B-5 District currently does not allow restaurants as such, but does include as a conditional use the following specific use: "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drirdis store." List of Exhibits A - Applicaiion B - Plat Map of Applicant's Proposed Development C - Navarre Area Map Depicting All Properties Zoned B-5. D - Letter of Request E - Zoning Code Section 10.44: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District F - Comprehensive Plan Excerpts Regarding Commercial Areas B-5 District Purpose The B-5 District is intended to "provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the B-5 District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre". Zoning File #2327 January 12,1998 Page 2 The permitted uses in the B-5 District include both service and retail businesses, the majority of which are typically low traffic volume and typically not 24 hour uses. (See Exhibit E) The current list of conditional uses in B-5 was last amended in October 1996 with the deletion of "home and garden equipment rental", which was concurrently made a permitted use in the B-1 District. The B-5 conditional uses include some which may involve higher traffic volumes, or somewhat more intensive use than the permitted uses. For instance, a "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drinks store" such as the Dair>' Queen, has a more intense use of the parking lot and drive thru, and has perhaps more lighting than most of the other allowed retail uses. B-5 also lists "kennels" as a conditional use, which has the potential for disrupting a neighborhood due to noise levels and possibly odors. The "home and garden equipment rental" use was moved out of the B-5 District on the basis that such use could be noisy or create noxious odors, involving the operation of engines, as well as tending toward fenced storage areas which could be visually disruptive. The B-5 District was primarily created in 1975 to accommodate existing businesses adjacent to existing single family residential areas. The intent was to limit the intensity of uses in the B-5 District to those which would not only be good neighbors, but provide a valuable service to the surrounding neighborhood. Consequently, the number of properties zoned B-5 is extremely limited, comprising approximately 5.9 acres in total, all of which is in Navarre (see Exhibit C). Nature of Proposed Uses The proposed uses appear to be primarily restaurant type uses. The zoning code defines two types of restaurants: 1."Restaurants (Class I)" - Food is served to the customer and consumed by him while seated at a counter or table and the restaurant does not serve intoxicating liquor or provide live entertainment. Food is selected by a customer while going through a serving line and taken to a table for consumption. "Restaurants (Class II)" - Fast food convenience, drive-in and liquor service restaurants. A restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises, or to be taken to a table, counter, automobile or off the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in w'here most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served; or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. It is unclear whether the uses proposed by applicant fall strictly into a Class I or Class II category. This is partly due to the nature of the deft- =ons, and to some degree a function of the nature of restaurants in today's world. Staff envisions ; 'fel shop or coffee shop to be of a Class II nature. Zoning File #2327 January 12,1998 Page 3 where tie customer would order items at a counter which are provided to him either packaged to leave the premises, or on a tray to be taken to a table within the store for consumption. A pizza retail operation could be very similar, or it could range from a sit-down restaurant where items are ordered via a waitress from a separated kitchen; or could be merely a takeout/delivery order base station with no food eaten on the premises. It is significant to note that the only other food service type operation in the B-5 District is the Navarre Dairy Queen. It operates as a conditional use under the "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store" category. Note that the Dairy Queen continues to closely conform to the letter of this unique use, in that while it does have a drive thru window', it does not have any indoor seating, is only open seasonally, and has not become a "brazier" store where foods are fried; hot dogs/brats and barbecue are all heated on the site but no grilling occurs. The nature of this use has not, therefore, expanded to the classical restaurant type use, although it might fall under the definition of a Class II restaurant by virtue of the drive-up window . Are the Proposed Uses Appropriate in the B-5 District? Planning Commission should consider the following questions in determining w’hether certain limited restaurant uses might be approved within the B-5 District: 1 . Are restaurants an appropriate use in the B-5 District given the intent of that district and its proximity to residential uses? 2. How will the proposed restaurant type uses impact the neigh' ’•hood? Traffic? Lighting? Odors or noises? Hours of operation? On-site parking? 3. Can the identified impacts be mitigated or avoided by limitations on the nature or type of restaurant uses allowed? 4. If the uroposed uses are allowed, do sufficient controls exist to exclude other restaurant type uses which would be objectionable in the B-5 District? Analysis The B-5 District was created in 1975 to provide limited business activity compatible with the adjacent and surrounding residential uses. The B-5 was also intended to provide for businesses that serv’e "residents in the surrounding neighborhood" as opposed to a place for City-wide or regional oriented uses. Those uses would be reserved for the B-1 or B-3 Districts. The nature or existing uses in the B-5 to a great extent matches the B-5 goals, i.e. a Dairy Queen, an auto parts store, an animal hospital, low key retail, professional office, furniture store, and (albeit non-conforming) auto repair operation, all tend to serve the surrounding neighborhood. Likewise, the nature of the Zoning File #2327 January 12, 1998 Page 4 proposed limited restaurant tv-pe uses would serve the same general neighborhood area, without being a major destination bringing in significant traffic. In that respect, the proposed uses might seem to be in keeping with the intent of the B-5 District. However, certain restaurant type uses would create potential problems in the conte.xt of the B-5 District. These problems might include: Exhaust venting of smoke/odors from baking, fr> ing, or grilling operation. The glare of lighting, traffic volumes, litter, and other nagative impacts often associated with individual free standing fast food operations. The impact on parking need for sit down restaurants such as the Culvers in the B-1 District adjacent to applicant's development site. Hours of operation potentially extending past normal business hours. If the proposed restaurant type uses are allowed in some limited fashion, Planning Commission should direct staff to develop conditional use standards that would limit those operations to a scope and level appropriate for the B-5 District. Such limitations might include, for example: That the restaurant use must be a non-primary tenant in a building used primarily for a permitted or conditional use that is not a restaurant (this could be a method to avoid freestanding fast food operations) Limitation on square footage, and/or percentage of total building, devoted to each individual restaurant use Liniitations on the capacity of fans allowed for exhaust venting (i.e. do not allow operations which require exhaust venting above a certain cubic feet per minute) Strict adherence to signage limitations Staff Recommendation Plaming Commission should discuss whether an amendment to the B-5 district to allow limited restaurant type uses may be appropriate. If so, direct staff to draft standards for the level of use you feel may be appropriate, for review at your next meeting. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of the proposed amendment with no specific conditions. Table, direct staff to develop standards for some defined level of restaurant use. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Other. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETINQ MAR 23 1998 crrYCfORONO DATE: March 23, 1998 ITEM NO.: // Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2335 Lawrence Molsathe- and Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Vat iances Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One I-amily £ akeshore Residential District (1 aue) 19290 s.f. (.44ac;e) Application: The applicants are proposing the rebuilding and expansion of an existing deck on the lake side of the residence. Variances are required for structural coverage, hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to: • Approve a structural coverage variance of 2.3% to allow 17.3% coverage where 15% is allowed and 16.3% is existing. • Approve a hardcover variance of 15.5% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where none is allowed and 14% is existing exclusive of plastic under rock. • Approve a lakeshore setback variance of 22' to allow the deck to be located 53' from the OHWL where 75' is required and 58' is existing. • Approve an average lakeshore setback variance allowing 32.5' of encroachment where none is allowed and 27.6' is existing. • * lV^II plastic under rock and the flagstone walkway shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. ♦ • No future variances shall be granted to this property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(C), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1(A) AND 2 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C6) FILE NO. #2335 WHEREAS, Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of tlie property located at 3285 Carman Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and Itg.'.lly described as follows: Lot 7, Block 1, Carmen Cove (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C), Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(A) and 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C6) to permit the rebuilding and expansion of a deck on the lake side of the residence. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2335. The property is located in the I R-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 19,290 s.f. or .44 acre. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this applica* on March 16, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variances t pon the following findings: 1. The zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements. Page 1 of 5 5. The current deck is 2.5' wide, functional. A deck of this configuration is not 3.The deck expansion would result in negligible increases in structural coverage, hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback, encroachment on the lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback. The City Council finds that the conditioris existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Ccuncil has considered this application including the findings and reccmmendations of the Planning Comr.' ission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. COfvCU SIGNS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances Id Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C), Section 10.22, Subdivision !^^A) and 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C6) for a structural coverage variance of 2.3% lo allow 17.3% coverage where 15% is allowed and 16.3% is existing, to allow a hardcover variance of 15.5% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where none is allowed and 14% is existing exclusive of plastic under rock, a lakeshore setback variance of 22' to allow the deck to be located 53' from the OHWL where 75' is required and 58' is existing and an average lakeshore setback variance allowing 32.5 ’ encroachment where none is allowed and 27.6' is existing to allow the rebuilding and expansion of a deck on the lake side of the existing residence. Page 2 of 5 Approval was subject to the following conditions. 1. All plastic under rock and the flagstone walkway shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit as noted on Exhibit A. 2. No future variances shall be granted to this property. 3. Authorities gianted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date 23, 1999). 4. Violation of or non-compiiuuce with any of the terms and cond-» 'is 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 Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owners Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of March 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Notary Public 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) NOTARY PUBLIC 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 5 Fi&up£~7.3z: TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant DATE: March 9,1998 SUBJECT: #2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road ___________Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B Lot Area: 19,290 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.44 acre) Application: The applicants propose rebuilding and expanding an existing upper level deck on the lake side of their residence. Variances are requned for structural coverage, hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback. The application was tabled at the February 17, 1998 Planning Commission meeting as the applicant was directed to reduce the proposed deck size in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. ________ Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage • Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A): Lakeshore Setback Regulations • Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations • Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C6): Average Lakeshore Setback Regulations M233S Lawrence Mohalher/Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances March 16. 1998 Page 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard LR-IB 1 acre 140'75’ subject property .44 acre 142' at OHWL 118'at 75’ Setback 58'-existing 53'-proposed 16.13'42' The subject propcity does not meet lot area or width requirements. The lakeshore setback does not meet the minimum requirement. The proposal would encroach an additional 5' into the required setback. Lot i rea and width variances are not necessary ’ for this application. A lakeshore setback variance is necess.i:y. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 19,290 s.f.Existing: 2,758 s.f (w/o overhangs)14.3% 3,137.31 s.f (with overhangs)16.3% Proposed: 2,950.3 s.f (w/o overhangs)15.3% 3,329.61 (with overhangs)17.3% Currently, the lot does not meet the structural coverage requirement if all portions of the residence having an overhang e.xtending beyond 1.5' from the structure are counted toward structural coverage. City polic y states that if overhangs extend beyond 1.5' from the structure, they count as structure. If overhangs are not counted toward structural coverage, the lot currently meets the 15% structural coverage requirement. As proposed, whether overhangs are counted toward structural coverage or not, a structural coverage variance is required. Most overhangs on the residence appear to be approximately 2', while the rear overhang is 3.4'. The amount of proposed structural coverage has been reduced from the previous proposal. U2335 Lawrence Molsaiher.'Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road I’ariances March 16. 1998 Page! Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75’11,185 s.f.2,116s.f. (18.9%) *2,140 s.f. (19%) none 1,711.3 s.f (15.3%) *1,745.3 s.f (15.5%) 1,711.3 s.f (15.3%) *1,745.3 s.f (15.5%) 75 ‘-250 ’8,105 s.f 2,701 s.f (33.3%) 2,026.25 s.f (25%) 2,701 s.f (33.3%) none *Hardcover calculations show the appro.ximate increase in hardcover if portions of the residence with an overhang exceeding 3' are calculated as hardcover. City policy states that overhangs extending beyond 3' frori structures count as hardcover. >\^ile not reflected on the survey, the elevation drawings show that the entire existing deck is located undei the overhang on the lake side of the residence. As existing, the lot exceeds allowable hardcover amounts in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. As proposed, hardcover would be decreased by 4.5% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. Approximately 572 s.f of rock under plastic and 25 s.f of paver stones exist in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback that, wcr*' not reflected in the previous survey or hardcover caiculations. This additional hardcover considerably increases the amount of existing hardcover on the lot, however. If rock with plastic is not considered, there is a 1.5% increase in hardcover in the O' to 75 lakeshore setback. A hardcover variance in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback is not necessary- as no construction is proposed in this zone. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicants ’ statement of hardship is included as Attachment J. 1 hey should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. U2335 Lawrence Mohalher/Linda Sallee 32S5 Carman Road Variances March 16. I99S Page 3 Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The existing residence and deck were built prior to current zoning regulatiom. Any proposed improvements may require variances for structural coverage and hardcover. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. The house and deck were also constructed before the current zoning requirements. This results in a lot that exceeds the allowable hardcover limits. 3. The variance, if granted, may alter the essential character of »he locality. The variances for structural coverage, hardcover in the O' to 75' lake shore setback, lake shore setback and average lake shore setback may change the character of the area. 4. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not peimitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A deck is allowed in this zoning district. 5. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. While the existing residence is closer to the lake than several residences in the neighborhood, many other lots in the neighborhood also have hardcover excesses. 6. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Many lots in the area are already fully developed. Lawrence Molsather/Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances March 16. 1998 Page A 8. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The consensus of the Planning Commission is that the applicant is entitled to build a functional deck. The granting of such variance will not merely serv e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The existing use of the deck is limited in its current state. Issues 1. 2. The zoning lot does not meet area or width requirements. The current deck is 2.5' wide and underneath the 3 4' overhang on the lake side of the residence. The deck could be expanded to 3.4' wide and which would not increase either structural coverage or hardcover nor would it further encroach on the lakeshore setback or the average lakeshore setback. The Planning Commission has determined a deck of such size is not functional. 3. Further encroaching on the average lakeshore setback may negatively affect views for the adjacent properties 4. A variance application was submitted in 1990 for the addition to the south side of the residence. The application was tabled for lack of an accurate survey. The application was not brought before the Planning Commission again and the addition was not built. 5. The applicants hardcover calculations for the revised deck reflect the percentage increase in hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. The applicants calculations reflect a less than 1% increase, which is for the entire property. The increase in the O' to 75 ’ lakeshore setback is approximately 1.5% exclusive of the plastic under rock. Based on consensus reached at the February 17 meeting, the Planning Commission appeared to favor a deck increasing hardcover less than 3%, preferably no more than 1%. 6. Much of the rock over plastic near the house to be removed is located under the proposed deck. The hardcover calculations in this report indicate that removal of hardcover under the deck and overhangs will not significantly offset the amount of hardcover added by the deck. H2335 Lawrence Molsather.'Lmda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Variances Starch 16. 1993 Page 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of variances to allow the reconstruction and expansion of an existing deck that would consist of 192.3 s.f extending beyond the edge of the overhang on the lake side of the residence subject to several conditions. • Staff recommends approval of a structural coverage variance of 2.3% to allow 17.3% coverage if overhangs exceeding 1.5' are calculated as structural coverage. • Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance of 15.5% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback to allow a 1.5% increase in hardcover exclusive of rock under plastic where 14% hardcover is existing and none is allowed. • Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance of 22' to allow a 53' setback from the OHWL where 75' is required and 58' is existing. • Staff recommends approval of an a\ erage lakeshore setback to allow 32.5 ' of encroachment where none is allowed and 27.6' is existing. • Staff recommends that as a condition of approval all plastic under rock and the flagstone walkway be removed. The applicants have agreed to this condition. • Staff recommends as a condition of approval that no future variances be granted to this property. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Property Own-;> cist D Location Map E Topographic Map F Permit Record G Revised Survey H Hardcover Calculations and Revisions 1 Revised Elevation Drawings J Statement of Hardship Lawrence Mobather/Linda Sallee 3285 Carman Road Idriances March 16. 1998 Page 6 Application # cP Date Receiyed |-^o A Amount Paid r^no.o^_____ ' CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORIVIATION SiteAddreSS 328*> carman RnaH Excelsior. 55331 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.1 20-117-23 14 0013 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_March 31^ 1 QQ4 _(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: x residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:_____lr • ib________________________ APPLICANT Phone (home) (612) A7l-1039„ Name Lawrence R. Molhather and T.-(nda D. sa 1 1 cPhOCe(woik) (612) 832-278.0- Address: 3285 Carman Road_______________ Citv: Fvcplsior. MN SS33lZip:-------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Same_____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: Replace and Extend Existing Deck on Lake Side of House VARIANCES REQUIRED . Lot Area ___Lot Width (attach additional sheets if necessary) X Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HABDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: spp At-rachment 1---------------------------— (attach' additional sheets if necessary) r HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST38 20 117 23 14 0010PROP ADDR 3245 CARMAN ROOWNER NAME C A STEIGER 6 W N KUENDIGTAXPAYER C A STEIGER & W N KUENDIGNAME/AODR 3245 CARMAN RD05/30 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 10/27 38 20 117 23 14 0011CONDHN « 3265 CARMAN RDB D & K A MILBRATH BENJAMIN C. KAREN MILBRATH 3265 CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN It 38 20 117 23 14 00123275 CARMAN RD MICHAEL HALLADAY ET AL SQPVWE G HALLADAY j275 carman ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN » 38 20 117 23 14 0013 PROP ADDR 3285 CARMAN RD OWNER NAME L R MOLSATHER & L D SALLEE TAXPAYER L R MOLSATHER 6 L D SALLEE NAME/ADDR 3285 CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 20 111 23 14 0014 CONDMN It 3295 CARMAN RD T P LOWE i R A LOWE THOMAS P LOWE 3295 CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 20 117 23 14 0015 3300 CARMAN RD JOAN E NIELSEN JOAN E NIELSEN 330C CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CONDMN » 38 20 117 23 14 0016 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME VILLAGE OF ORONO TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 20 in 23 14 0025 2655 KELLY AVE J W EUGSTER 6 C M EUGSTER JACK EUGSTER/CAROL M EUGSTER 2655 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR no PO--.-si I CERTJ?^ THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPl^ EiVii^lTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS ' 'HIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OP THH HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OP PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE !-2 d-^)8 ,, 052 bTKi:.LT ViL\j_^ CUrrH '^ R/J. PERMIT RECORD PERMIT NO. <?35 DATE . '9^6. 3-^f) 9 6 TYPE OF PERMIT AiPsi^^ L }n if'' /*rv7 f. firy. S^V7'U /hiu)CJt^ nn /O'X -UL U -^1-SS 'JlZQJC 0 •• y' ••••* •*; y, •*^' < \...................... .•■ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Block 1/ CARMEN COVE Hennepin. Country, Minnesota Area above 929.4 feet contour line 19,290 sq. ft. H) HARDCOVER PERCENTAGES: Hardcover': House Deck & _ Concrete ZONE 1: O'-75* Area above 929.4 contour 968 sq. ft. s^. //: 3Z sq. ft. 253 so . /K 1,619 sf. Pfio^eseo 3rr /gje 11,f5£ sq^ ft. ,■ percent hardcover Hardcover:.* . • Driveway . . , • . 720 sq. ft. Sidewalks, planters^J66/^//»^*^/)5^^*«^ .v 361 sq. ft. House * •» ■ 1,620 sq. ft. Total ' ■ ■ ■ . ZONE 2: 75'-200' Lot area .al^ve 929.4 contour r;. . • . 2,W sq. fti 8,105 sq. ft. •33.3 percent hardcover . •• '*> t ■PREPARED FOR' __ CrrH OF&pouO Fvt£ LAvj(ietJce MoLS^THef^ U'^toA.^Ati-cS ■32,6 s C a RM-M^ t^sAjp &«,tWS\OR , (V\Si C££31 PfeR Urr Sui^&.f Of 10/10/^7 •. ' DVG(2.ftu_ Urr ARSA, = l‘),^2.'^0 kL PKofat&D |iJc,R.eA$E Irt rtARDCov/ea For peqc EjcrERsioNT^As pevvseo) •=• Y, ivicaeA-sa r x i05 = '0,<\']l% <1% 1. #. •SEE ATRsc-viMej^^V AoDiTior^AE Ra3<ACT\o>J II-} HA^caO^R. - PtMov/e. FvAWToAt nJal K-WAV - ■Sv/_. _ ; CofthiEK OF TO 5T&P5 "TE WAKE.-. K®£A “ '24-x l-*> ■>' G-T ^ 25 feoucnotj fe^ovTAL er Pi-Atmc u ^k >sr, kocp - - U\x )£r TEPfiA^cg, gy, LM^CAMO UMDER, PROPOSED p&MSi • hi ORE OF THIS N?&K vMs I^JG-UUDEO \t5 PRSA/IOUS HARP <2oo &A dAsUFusAT/OO*;, » Lo-RetE ToRawie AR£a ^ 382. SIJ. jf4 * Kooi (5V Houee . UiooeR. E?EQC=. 'Jfco '5<^,-f+. “See FHtAfa wemt, \3 '(f’Viif- ■see: '■'c ' AtTrA ^KtAgJ^T - /\ ULAT'cJKi OF Co'/eR. S'V D60^ k j >d ci XI i +% >D J X o d «4 ■f oo cM -»- 0. \ 09 I \r% 1 q ci c^ cr*v> CM iT- 3/o+|% f > > 3; ! s & lA > r T1 5S-S~5=j Barr. mrniiUt gk,; ir«i»p - ry |f~p<voJrr7‘'PtAfr ptot l?CPl>t.CMt>»T / ExltHtlOM tiVai.iftTM£R I SUM RMitenct iZK ItOkO, cxata, KK r* 5 Attachment 1 City of Orono Variance Application Molsather/Sallee Deck Replacement/Extension 3285 Carman Road Orono, Minnesota Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions: Our existing deck has aged to the point where it needs to be replaced. Our records indicate that the house was built in 1962 or 1963. The existing deck was poorly planned in that it cannot be used if of the crank out windows are open. The windows extend 2 feet out into the deck walkway which has a clear width of just approximately 2-feet 6-inches. In addition, neither of the two doors to the deck can be fully opened since they are 3 foot doors and again the deck with is just 2-feet 6-inches. Encroachment of the windows or doors into the deck space creates a potentially unsafe condition in case either door must be used to exit the house to the rear from the first floor. In addition, maintenance of our roof gutters along the back (lake) side of our house requires that we work from the roof or from a ladder at a height of approximately 17 feet above the ground. We have a heavy tree canopy over our house, and we have to clean our gutters about every two weeks and/or after most storm*' The requested extension of our deck will enable us to keep our lakeside gutters clear of leaves, * :ds, and branches without the existing hazardous climbing or working from our roof. In addition to t abo.e, the existing deck is basically useless for enjoyment of our view of the lake. It is so narrow that there is no room to place a chair to simply look out on the lake. This seems unreasonable. Ar. extension of our deck as requested will in no way interfere the view of the lake by any of our neighbors since we are located on a gradual point, and each adjoining neignbor s faces the lake at an angle away from our house. Also, the view of our house from the lake will be virtually identic to the current view from the lake. List of Legal Names (including marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property: Lawrence R. Molsather and Linda D. Sallee, Husband and Wife 3285 Carman Road Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 471-1039 COUNCIL MCETINQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 1993 Date^rr?^4.i?^NtP98 Item No.: / ^ iiepartment Approval:Adminivii'‘ator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2339, ^ames Render . ' ’S5 Tonkavva Road - Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre, sewered. Proposal: Subdivide this 1.9 acre parcel into three building sites. Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Council Action 3720/^^8 C - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing and Grading Plan 3/18/98 D - Memo and Exhibits of 3/4/‘^8 On March 9 Council reviewed thi.« preliminary plat application and gave applicapf and staff conceptual direction as follows 1. Applicant to plat a 25' private road outlot at south end of p.operty, abutting existing 8' easement on adjacent property for a total nseflil right-of-wav •• -dth of 33'. Such existing easement subject to confirmation by City Attorney. 2. Within this outlot, applica :c to consmict a private road 16' emergency »le tumr?:-und located between Lots 1 ar ! ‘.V 3. Lots 1 2 shall use a shared drix'* to access the ou • • 4. A stormwater pond shall beconstrucied by the applicant on the property. ITie area of said pond will not be coun. ’ toward lot area for density calculation purposes but may be used for hardcover :redit. ' 1 5. The area of the private road outlot shall not be used as hardcover credit. It is Council's intent that m icover or setback variances be allowd for development h' lUPs on the properly Zoning File #2339 March 20, 1998 Page 2 Council made it clear that the City has no at this time to connect this private road wit!. Birch However, an underlying road easement should be granted to the C :y to make this right-of-way available if such connection becomes necessary in the future. Stormwater Plan Review Applicant's revise.’ preliminary pla* drawings and stormwater plan were received by staff on March 19 and by the City Engineer on Maich 20. As of this writing the Engineer has not re\’ievved the drawings, but has indicated he will advise of any problems prior to Monday's meeting. Assuming no issues are lound, it is appropriate to grant preliminary approval subject to me attached resolution. Existing House and Garage Encroachment Note that applicant proposes to live in the t^'^use on Lot 1 for a period of time before selling or CO* ructing a new home on t 9, The o on Lot 1 currently overlaps onto Lot 2, and its detached garage is entirely v ouri . . op i<^ns for addressing this issue include: a. Require that the . jns of house and garage encroaching into or existing in Lot 2 and those portions of house within the required 10' side setback for Lot 1, be removed within a specified time period (either prior to final plat approval or within one year of final plat approval). AND/OR b. Allow the house and garage to remain as-is for an indefinite period of time, subject to a Special Lot Combination Agreement (resol ''n to be drafted by City and executed by applicant) which would disallow Lots 1 2 from being sold separately and prohibit issuance of building permits on Loithe encroachments have been removed. While the garage could function to s».. .e a new home on Lot 2 in the future, it also encroaches the side lot line of Lot 2 and does not appear to be located where it would have much value to a new home on Lot 2. Applicant should advise Council of his intent with the house and garage, and Council should direct staff how to proceed. The Resolution as drafted (see condition #11 on page 4) requ’.res removal within one year as well as a Special Lot Combination. Zoning File #2339 March 20, 1998 Page 3 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends preliminary plat approval per the attached resolution, subject to: 1. Council determination as to how existing house and garage encroachments will be addressed. 2. Subject to confirmation from City Engineer that stormwater plans are acceptable or that any required revisions will not result in an altered plat layout. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Address the two issues noted in the staff recommendation and adopt adached Preliminary Plat Approval resolution. i ; A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - FILE NO. 2339 WHEREAS, James Render (hereinafter the "subdivider") on January 23,1998, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a three lot residential plat of property legally described as: That part of Lots 13, 14 and 15, "LYDIARD’S PARK" Lake Minnetonka lying northwesterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southwesterly line of said Lot 15 distant 225 feet northwesterly from the point of intersection of the southwesterly line of said Lot 15 with the base line shown on the plat of said "LYDIARD'S PARK" Lake Minnetonka; thence northeasterly perpendicular to said southwesterly line of said Lot 15 to the northeasterly line of said Lot 13, and there ending. All in Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono’s Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 17, 1998, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular ,M..x:tings held on March 9, 1998 and March 23, 1998, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of one-half acre of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The propeily contains a total of approximately 1.91 acres of land. There are no wetlands located on the property. Except for a portion of the road ditch along Page 1 of7 Tonkawa Road, the property is above the floodplain elevation of 931.5', and homes can be developed without the need for filling or encroachment of the floodplain. 3. The proposed plat consists of three residential lots each meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, each meeting the minimum 1/2 acre lot area requirement and each having 100' in defined width at the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and at the 75' lakeshore setback line. 4. All three lots are served with municipal sewer and have been fully assessed for sewer. All three lots will be served by private wells. 5. Lot 1 contains an existing residence structure which encroaches across the easterly lot boundary into Lot 2. Lot 2 contains an existing detached garage which encroaches within the required 1 O' side yard of Lot 2. The portions of the house which encroach the 10' required side yard of Lot 1 and which encroach into Lot 2, and the detached garage in Lot 2, shall be required to be removed within a specified limited period of time after subdivision approval and shall be remov'ed prior to any sale of Lots 1 or 2 into two separate ownerships. 6. All three Lots shall be serv'ed by a private road designated on the plat as Outlot A. Said pri\ate road Outlot shall be 25' in width, realizing a total 33' ftmctional width when used in combination with an adjacent 8' City road easement on the adjacent property to the south. Said road shall be constnicted to a 16' paved width, with a 'T' turnaround for emergency vehicle access. These dimensions require the granting of a vziriance to City road width and cul-de-sac standards. The basis for such variance is the negative visual and traffic impact on neighboring properties that would occur if such private road was constructed to City standards at this location near the Maxwell Bay lake access. Said Outlot shall be subject to an underlying road, drainage and utility easement to be granted to the City for possible future use. 7. The City has no intent to continue said private road westward to Birch Lane at this time. Page 2 of 7 1 8. Lots 1 and 2 shall gain access to the private road via a shared driveway in order to minimize hardcover on those lots. 9. A stormwater pond will be developed within Lot 3 and a drainage easement will be granted to the City over said pond. 10. Thomas D. Johnson, Transportation Planning Engineer for the Hennepin County Department of Transportation, in his letter of February .2, 1998, approved the proposed curb cut location to Tonkawa Road (County Road 135). 11. The Orono Park Commission has recommended that no additional right-of-way or trail easements are required from this developer since any future trail needs can be accomo-^u ed within the existing right of way. 12. The area of the stormwater pond shall not count towards lot area of Lot 3 for zoning purposes, but shall count towards lot area credit for hardcover calculation purposes only. The City intends that no hardcover variances will be granted for development of homes on Lots 1, 2 and 3. 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 application of James Render at 1365 Tonkawa Road per preliminary plat drawings by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed surveyor of Coffin & Groberg, Inc, dated March 18, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. Proposed Road (Birch Lane) on said preliminary plat drawing shall be platted as a private road outlot to be designated as Outlot A. 2. A variance will be granted for the 25' width of Outlot A and for the 16' paved width of the private road which do not meet the 50' outlot width and 24' paved road width or 80' paved cul-de-sac standards for a private road serving 3 or more residences. 3. All Lots shall access to the private road in Outlot A. No direct access to Page 3 of 7 r 5. Tonkawa Road shall be allowed for any Lot. Lots 1 and 2 shall access the private road outlot via a shared driveway as shown on the preliminary plat drawings. The private road in Outlot A and the stormwater pond located in Lot 3 per the preliminary plat drawings shall be constructed by the developer subject to a Developers Agreement to be executed between the City and the developer. Private road and stormwater pond construction can begin as soon as the engineering plans for the road and pond have been approved by the City and the Developers Agreement has been executed. The private road shall be allowed to access directly to County Road 84 subject to conditions for such access as imposed bv the Hennepin County Department of Public Works in their required access permit. The private road shall be privately owned and maintained per the appropriate access easement/maintenance documents to b executed by the developer. The developer shall create a homeowners association for such ownership and maintenance. 7. No building pf ’ s will be issued until the private road base work has been completed and i approved by the City. 8. The developer shall grant to the City an underlying Road and Utilities Easement for Outlot A. 11. Subdivider to designate drainage easements over all drainageways and stormwater ponds within plat. Subdivider is hereby advised that the City will not grant final plat approval nor allow road and pond construction to commence until the MCWD has approved all grading and drainage improvements on the property. The portion of the existing house on Lot 1 that is within 10' of the east side lot line, as well as that portion which encroaches into Lot 2, and the detached garage on Lot 2, shall be removed by the applicant within one (1) year of final plat approval. Applicant shall execute a Special Lot Combination Resolution to Page 4 of 7 r be filed in the chain of title of I ots 1 and 2 which disallows Lots 1 and 2 from being sold separately until such removals occur, and which would disallow any building permits for Lot 2 until the encroachments are removed. 12. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee. 13. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of Council approval, March 23, 1999. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with 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. These submittals are as follows: 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (orK • y for 'he City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and on^ (1) coj'^y reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: a. Lot lines platted per preliminary' survey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. dated March 18, 1998. b. Private road to be designated on the plat as Outlot A. c. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5' along the internal lot lines. d. Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention ponds and drainageways as shown on preliminary plat.. f. The naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: a. Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or Page 5 of7 r 3. d. g- h. others with propert>' interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. Signed and executed Developer's Agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements and construction of private road (Outlet A), drainage facilities, etc. Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat. Signed and executed Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement over Outlet A. Signed and executed "Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration of Maintenance for Same". Completed "Application for Private Road Name". Special Lot Combination Resolution (to be drafted by City and adopted by Council at time of final plat approval). Fees to be paid: Total due: $400.00* a. Final plat fee = $200.00 Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $200.00 c.♦Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as Vssessor's report has been filed with City. Page 6 of 7 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 23rd day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of March, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, 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 7 of 7 E CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2339 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 20, 1998 TO: James Render COPIES:Gale Putnam 9331 Yukon Avenue South 1365 Tonkawa Road Bloomington, MN 55438 Long Lake, MN 55356 Mark Gronberg 482 Tamarack Ave. Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 3/9/98 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: To table, giving applicant conceptual direction regarding the plat, as follows: 1. Applicant to plat a 25' private road outlot at south end of property, abutting existing 8' easement on adjacent property for a total useful right-of-way width of 33' Such existing easement subject to confirmation by City Attorney. 2. Within outlot, applicant to construct a private road 16' in paved width with a 'T' -ency vehicle turnaround located between Lots 1 and 2. 3. Lots 1 and 2 shall use a shared driveway to access ths outlot road. 4. A stormwater pond shall becoiistructed by the applicant on the prope. y. Thn area of said pond will not be counted toward lot area for density calculation purposes but may be used for hardcover credit. 5. The area of the private road outlot shall not be used as hardcover credit. It is Council's intent that no hardcover or setback variances be allowd for development of homes on the property. 6. Council made it clear that the City has no intent at this time to connect this private road with Birch Lane. However, an underlying road easement should be granted to the City to make this right-of-way available if such cornection becomes necessary in the futuu/. This item will be brought to the Council for consideration of preliminary plat approval on March 23, 1998. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. 1#2339 - Notice March 20, 1998 Page 2 If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. :e law provides that Cities shall meike decisions on zonin within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be . 'd uy notification to the applicant. Because review and adoption the preliminary plat ma> .lOt be be completed within •he original 60-day time fhune due to Council meeting schedules, the review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to May 23, 1998. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR JIM RENDER IN LOTS 13, 14 AND 15. LYDIARD'S PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA LEGAL OESCRPTON OF PREMISES; Thot port of Lots 13, U and 1'5. "LYDIARO' S PARK" Loko Minnetonko lyinq northwesterly of o line described os follows; Beginninq oi o point on the southwesterly line ot soid Lot IS distont 225 feet northwesterly \ from the point ot intersection of the southwesterly fine of soid Lot 15 \ with the base One shown on the plot of soid "LYOIARO' S PARK” Loke Minnetonko; thence northeasterly perpervlicular to said southwesterly line of sold Lot 15 to the northeosterly line of soid Lot 13, ond there ending. o kon morker Beorings shown ore based upon on ossumed dotum oesoco COFFIN St GRONBERGy INC. CONSULTNC ENGJCERS, LAM) SURVEYORS, SJTE PLAMCIS 4B2 TAMARACK AVEM.E LONG LAKE, kK 55356 812-473-4141 I »€R£BY COtirr THAT T«S Pt-AN, SPECSICAIION, OR RDWT WAS PRCPAKD BY tC OR tMXR UY OREOT SUPCRVISON AM) THAT I AM A DULY UCEKSEO PROFESSIONAL EM»CER UCER TIC LAWS OF TIC STATE OF UeeCSOTA _____ UCENSE MAflER /J SCALE r=50' DATE 3/18/98 JOB NO. 97510 r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron | Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Approval: Date: March 4, 1998 Item No.: /O Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2339, James Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road - Preliminary Plat Review Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre, sewered. Proposal: Subdivide this 1.9 acre parcel into three building sites. List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 2/26/98 B - Planning Commission Minutes 2/17/98 C - Hennepin County Public Works Comments 2/12/98 D - Applicants Letter to Planning Commission 2/12/98 E - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing 2/13/98 F - Memo and Exhibits of 2/13/98 Brief History of Application At the January 20 meeting. Planning Commissi jn reviewed the applicant's three sketch plan concept drawings and some additional conceptual sketches by staff. Since all lots were proposed to meet the 1/2 acre/100’ lot standards of the LR-IC zone, the primar>' issues surrounding the subdivision were related to access, as well as buildability of the lots in relation to hardcover allowance. Planning Commission expressed a concern that a full cul-de-sac as recommended by staff might be excessive to serve just these three units. Planning Commission suggested that use of a private driveway, with a "T" emergency vehicle turnaround and a shared driveway for Lots 2 and 3, is likely more appropriate than a cul-de-sac for this magnitude of development. The formal plat application was reviewed by Planning Commission at a public hearing on February 17. At that time staff again recommended that a full private road and cul-de-sac be developed for these three lots, with additional right-of-way dedicated for a future public road connection to Birch Lane (see discussion in staff n.ujno of February 13). Long Lake Fire Chief Mike Brown made a presentation to the Planning Commission regarding the need for adequate emergency vehicle access (see Planning Commission minutes). Zoning File #2339 March 4,1998 Page 2 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Plat a 42' private road outlot along the length of the southerly property boundary (assuming that the City has a legitimate 8' road easement over the adjacent property). 2. Build a 28' paved width private road from Tonkawa Road to approximately the mid point of Lot 1, with a T emergency vehicle turnaround as proposed in revised plan. 3. Lots 1, 2 and 3 should be credited with 17' of the road outlot area for hardcover calculation purposes, based on the fact that applicant is providing 17' more than half of a 50' road corridor that will serve the entire neighborhood. 4. Subject to items #5,6, 7 of February 13, 1998 staff memo: (5) The applicant should address all grading and drainage is and develop a plan for a water quality pond on the site per the F -'s recommendation (This is required before Council can nal preliminary plat approval). (6) The standard park dedication fee should be required. (7) The standard drainage and utility easements should be required. Staff Recommendation Regarding Future Access Staff concurs with the recommendation that this subdivider be required to plat a private road outlot along the southerly border for the entire width of the property, to accomodate potential future road needs. An underlying road and utility easement would be granted to the City. One way to minimize the impact of this road outlot is to make use of the 8' access easement on the adjacent property to the south. That roadway easement appears to have been created in the 1950s or earlier, and would need to be confirmed as legitimate and acceptable by the City Attorney. Assuming it is usable, only a 42' right-of-way need be platted from applicant's property. The applicant's revised plat drawing (Exhibit E) depicts this arrangement. KKa Zoning File #2339 March 4, 1998 Page 3 Road Standards Planning Commission felt there are substantial reasons to not create a cul-de-sac on this property, relating to the site's proximity to the Maxwell Bay access. To reach a compromise between a driveway and a full-scale road plan, Planning Commission recommended that a private road of 28' paved width be constructed by the applicant to a point midway along Lot 1, with a "T" turnaround at the entrance to a shared driveway serving Lots 1 and 2. This would be less likely to cause traffic or parking problems for the residents, and Lots 2 and 3 could reduce hardcover impacts by sharing a driveway. Staff continues to recommend that a cul-de-sac be constructed rather than a "T" turnaround, based on the provision of suitable emergency access. The premise that we need a cul-de-sac purely because our code standard requires it for serving three or more lots, is secondary to the needs of the fire department for accessible properties. Lot Standards and Hardcover Impact Lot Standards . With Planning Commission's recommended layout, all 3 proposed lots will technically abut a private road and therefore will not require variances from the back lot ordinance. Each proposed lot meets the 100' LR-IC zoning district standard for lot width. However, extracting a 42' road outlot along the south boundary of the property will reduce the total usable acreage from 1.9 acres to just over 1.6 acres. Lot lines as shown on applicants February 13 plan (Exhibit E) show that each lot will maintain the required 1/2 acre area and 100' width at the shoreline and at the 75' setback line. Hardcover. Planning Commission agreed with applicant's position that his property is taking a severe hardcover 'hit' by providing a 42' right-of-way rather than having to only provide half (25') of the necessary 50' corridor to eventually serve the neighborhood. Based on this conclusion. Planning Commission recommended that each of applicant's lots be granted the standard hardcover credit for the 17' additional right-of-way being platted for future public use. Staff is unaware of any precedent for such a conclusion, but it has some merit. Engineering Issues Please review the City Engineer's comments. Exhibit G of the 2/13 memo. His recommendation is that a grading and erosion control plan for the site should be required, and that a water quality pond should be located on the site to provide for stomi water treatment. No grading or drainage plan has been submitted as of this writing. J Zoning File #2339 March 4, 1998 Page 4 General Subdivision Comments 1. Park dedication . This property does not abut any proposed City or County proposed trail system. The Pcirk Commission has recommended payment of a park dedication fee. 2. Access Location . Hennepin County Department of Public Works has indicated the proposed entrance location on Tonkawa is acceptable, and no additional right-of-way is needed. 3. Floodplain . Applicant's surveyor has confirmed that the property is almost entirely above floodplain ele vation except for a portion of the ditch along Tonkawa Road. No filling of the floodplain in conjunction with this project is anticipated. Issues for Discussion 1.Does Council agree with the staff and Planning Commission's recommendations that a future through road connection to Birch Lane be provided for at this t me? Does Council agree with Planning Commission's recommendations regarding construction of a 28' paved private road with 'T' turnaround? Or, should a cul-de-sac be required per staffs recommendation? Does Council concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to grant 17' of hardcover credit to each lot based on the right-of-way dedication? 4. Does Council concur that a water quality pond should be required for this site? What is the impact of such pond on lot areas? 5. Does Council have any other comments or concerns regarding this plat proposal? 2. 3. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends conceptual preliminary plat approval, as follows; 1. Platting of a private road outlot along the entire length of the south boundary. The outlet can be 42' in width if it can be confirmed by the City Attorney that the City has roadway rights over the 8' adjacent easement. 2. Applicant to grant City an underlying Road and Utilities Easement for the road outlot. Zoning File #2339 March 4, 1998 Page 5 3. Applicant to construct a 28’ paved roadway with a temporary 80’ dianK lgr cyil-de-!>ac located approximately between T-ots 1 and 2. based on fire department needs and code standards. Note that if this was being proposed as a 2-lot plat, the need to provide a corridor for future through road would still exist, but code would not require the establishment of a road and cul-de-sac at this time, since the threshold for full road status is j or more lots. 4. No variances should be granted for lot area, lot width, setbacks, or hardcover (except that staff reluctantly recommends approval of the allowance of 17’ of hardcover credit for each lot - this reluctance is due to the possible precedent-setting aspect as well as having to administer this site somewhat differently than all others in regards to hardcover). The hardcover associated with the cul-de-sac would not count against the hardcover allotment for the respective lots, if Council so chooses. 5. If a temporary cul-de-sac is required, it should be on a separate easement which could be separately vacated in the future. 6. The applicant should address all grading and drainage issues, and develop a plan for a water quality pond on the site per the Engineer ’s recommendation. 7. The standard park dedication fee should be required. 8. The standard drainage and utility easements should be requires. 9. Extension of the 60-day statutory review period to 60 days (to 5/23/98). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Provide applicant conceptual direction regarding the road, hardcover and stormwater issues. Based on such direction, direct applicant to provide additional information, plan revisions, grading and stormwater plans, etc. as necessary and direct staff to prepare a resolution for preliminary plat approval for adoption at a future Council meeting. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2339 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: February 26, 1998 TO: James Render 9331 Yukon Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55438 COPIES TO:Gale Putnam 1365 Tonkawa Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 Mark Gronberg 482 Tamarack Ave. Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Subdivision 5 FOR 0 AGAINST ,4 DATE OF MEETING: 2/17/98 VOTE: Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Plat a 42' private road outlot along the length of the southerly property boundary' (assuming that the City has a legitimate 8' road easement over the adjacent property). 2. B- lid a 28' paved width private road from Tonkawa Road to approximately the mid point of Lot 1, with a'T' emergency vehicle turnaround as proposed in revised plan (attached). 3. Lots 1, 2 and 3 should be credited with 17' of the road outlot area for hardcover calculation purposes, based on the fact that applicant is providing 17' more than half of a 50' road corridor that will serve the entire neighborhood. 4. Subject to items #5, 6, 7 of February 13, 1998 staff memo: 5. The applicant should address all grading and drainage issues, and develop a plan for a water quality pond on the site per the Engineer’s recommendation (This is required before Council can grant formal preliminary plat approval). 6. The standard park dedication fee should be required. 7. The standard drainage and utility easements should be required. 5. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, March 9, 1998, 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 b> the Planning Commission. X:\APPS\WP\VIN60\\VPDOCS\CAROLEUK:ACT10N\2339 r FEB-17-1993 1?:40 FROM HENN CTY PUBLIC WORKS 94730510 P.03 Hennepin County .______________________JL AnE*^tjlOpportmiUySn\ployfef e February 12. 1998 \’fike Gafiron City of Orono 27^0 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re; Proposed Plat - Jim RenderI'roposea v CS.AS 135 Section 8, Townsliip 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2446 Review and Recommendations Mike: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require county re\’iew of proposed plats abutting county roads. We re\iewcd the above plat and make the following comments: • The 33 foot right of way is acceptable. • Access via an upgraded street entrance at outlet ‘A’ is acceptable. All proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at'’930-2550 for the appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within the county right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548. As a matter of procedure, we request that the City Clerk inform us of the City Council's action on the right of u \y and access provisions. Sincerely, Thomas P. Johfi^on, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ,/DKZ/]rh cc: PeteTulkki Dave Swenson Di^ctintat of Public W'orta 320 VVasluUiflon Avnjuc Swirh Horkiut, i\rinnei0U 32343449^ (612)930-230(1 FAX:(612)J30-23n TDD:(612).S30-2696 r FEB-13-1993 13:34 2-12-98 PEhLT'.' HCIIJSE 612 844 1320 P.02 02 James Render, the applicant proposing a three lot subdivision of the property located at 1365 Tonkiwa Road is planning to build three architecturally unique “cottage” style homes, one of which will be his personal residence. These homes are proposed to be approximately 1800-2000 square feet on the main level with smaller finished aiea on the second level, and finishable area in the walkout lower level, and three car attached garages. The plan would be to build on lot 3 in 1998 while living in the existing house until the new one was complete, the existing home would be removed along with the existing detached garage within 24 months, prior to any construction beginning on either lot 1 or lot 2. Applicant proposes to either giant an easement for roadway purposes or dedicate right of way along the southeasterly 42 feet of the property for the future construction of a roadway to connect with Birch Lane. Applicant further agrees to accept the prorata share of special assessments relative to the cost of constructing this roadway when and if it is built. In the interim the owners shall have the right to construct and maintain a priv'ate road/driveway within this easement area. Applicant does not wish to see a city' standard roadway with a temporary cul- de-sac at this time for the following reasons: 1) 1 see no need to create so much unnecessary' hardcover area when it will not be used for many years, if at all. 2) Would create a potential nuisance to the neighborhood as it would atti’act boat/'trailer parking and turnaround traffic. 3) Would not conform to the style and feel of the exi^‘ing neigjiborhood. 4) Would require public maintenance , which would bt an unnecessary City expense. Applicant requests City approval to subdivide the property along the above referenced guidelines. TOTAL P.02 PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR JIM RENDER IN LOTS 13, 14 AND 15, LYDIARD'S PARK o Iron morker Bearings shown ore based upon on ossumed dotum DtMKirnc*^PncEiM r’DAMDror' Txrr’I hi'irbv u'flily IhjI lh«> surxcy vxj\ prepjrx'd bv rm* t»f unilof mv direct super- March 15, 1998 Mr. Gabriel Jabbour Mayor Orono City Hall 2950 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 55356 9 p i;:93 C'.T\ c.- C, Re: Development of the Carpenter Property COUNCIL Meeting MAR 2 3 1998 CITVOrOHONO Dear Mr. Mayor, I do not believe that the discussion at the March 9 City Council Meeting concerning the development of the Carpenter Property was complete. Specifically, the issue of granting an easement for a bike path was not resolved. Several points need to be considered. First, the developer is willing to grant the easement. Several neighbors welcome and appreciate his offer. I am sure you can understand that a development as large as the Carpenter property is causing some anxiety, but Mr. Anderson seems to be responding to the city's and the neighbors' concerns. His offer to incorporate an easement for any possible bike path is welco Further, there is simply no reason to turn down this offer. The Planning Commission also recommended that a bike easement be incorporated into the development. While the "park contribution" will be r :duced, there would be no contribution if the property was not developed. A smaller contribution is not a loss — it is still a contribution and it will still be quite large. The easement will also allow the city to keep options open. However, the issue, unfortunately, has become which side of the Old Crystal Bay Road is better for a bike trail, rather than whether any bike trail south of the Luce Line makes any sense. The assumed destination of the this bike trail would be Noerenberg Park. While the covenants associated with Noerenberg would most likely allow construction of a bike path adjacent to the property, it makes little sense to construct a bike path to this park. The bikers would not be allowed to bike in the park, as the property north of 51 is a Wildlife Sanctuary and the property south of 51 is a small, 15.98 acre garden area. On many, if not most, summer weekends, there are weddings held at the park. Any number of bikers would be disruptive of the ceremonies. In addition, I doubt that Noerenberg would become a destination for bikers, no food or beverages are allowed in the park There are not many days when the park is open and the park receives f?w visitors. A bike path along the southern part of Old Crystal Bay Road would also raise serious safety concerns. Creating a bike crossing anywhere on Old Crystal Bay Road from Fox Street to 51 will be very dangerous. The traffic is erratic and is fast-moving. Due to the praKimity of the schools, many young drivers travel on Old Crystal Bay Road. The fast speed of the cars, combined with the changing hills and dips and curves, create many blind spots. Further, a possible bike path south of the Luce Line would have a major impact on the property owners' use and enjoyment of their property. My parents home was built in 1909, long before the set-back rules were established. The house is about 50' to 53' from the edge of the roadway. If a bike path is built, not only would near-century old trees have to be removed, but the entire landscaping would have to be redone, due to the changes in top<'graphy. Our neighbors house, the Blair's, is even closer. Mr. McDermott from the Pai k Commission raised two concerns at the March 9 Council meeting about building a bike trail on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road: the need for retaining walls dong much of the area and the fact that the city already owned easement rights from the French Creek Development. On the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road, not only would retaining walls be needed along more of the area, but Hennepin County owns Noerenberg Park, from the edge of the Carpenter Development to North Shore Drive. A bike path along that side of the street would not be inconsistent with the covenants imposed on the property. The other side of the street from Noerenberg is all private property Further, near the comer of Fox and Old Crystal Bay Road, there is a wetland that drops away from Old Crystal Bay. It would be near impossible to build anything along the roadway at that location. After the meeting, Mr. McDermott mentioned that the stone gates on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road would be problematic, however, Mr. McDermott failed to realize that there are stone gates on Mr. Art Ellis' property, on the east side of the street. Rather than focusing on all of the problems associated with building any bike path in this area, Mr. McDermott only presented his opinion that a bike path should be built on the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road and, unfortunately, gave an incomplete presentation. Let me be clear — my family opposes any bike path that would be built south of the Luce Line on Old Crystal Bay Road. Talk of the proposed path has caused my parents, who have poured their hearts and souls to rebuild the home of the Stubbs Family, to consider moving. They could not bear to see their home destroyed. Their other option would be to build a very high privacy fence, which is also not desirable. While the impact to my family and the Blairs would be more severe than to other homeowners, we will not allow this issue to divide the neighborhood. We will oppose any bike trail, on either side of the street. My parents purchased property that once belonged to 9m membe^f the Stubbs Family, the Maxwell Family and Newton French. My parents rebuilt — and saved — one of the first homes in the area. While development has occurred all around my family's property, we have tried to be accommodating and neighborly as possible, by agreeing to grant variances for tennis courts, by not complaining about the sewer smell when it was in operation, and by cleaning and restoring a historic home that was once an eyesore. We fe r ask that the City take Mr. Anderson's offer for an easement in case future residents demand a bike path. It seems only fair to put future homeowners of Old Crystal Bay Road IHi on notice that this is a possibility. However, we ask that if anyone does appear before you to ask for a bike path on Old Crystal Bay Road, the City start by asking not where, but whether the proposal has merit: Where will the path go? What will be the safety implications? Does the city already have enough bike paths? What will be the costs, both financial and to the quality of life? Do the homeowners along Old Crystal Bay Road want the path? I appreciate your consideration. Please respond to my letter through my parents at 820 Old Crystal Bay Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 . They will be back in the country on March 24. You can also reach me at 929-4845. Sincerely, Irideet Hust cc: Orono City Council Mike Gaffron, City Planner REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING MAR 23 1998 CITYO^ORONO Date: March 20, 1998 Item No.: /3 Department Approval: Adminutrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior anning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2341 Dan Anderson, 905 Old Crystal Bay Road - Preliminary Plat Approval Second Review Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Site Area: 17.5 Acres ± Proposal: 7 Lot Residential Subdivision (Single Family Homes) List of Exhibits A - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing B - Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan C - City Engineer Comments re: Grading & Drainage 3/19/98 D - City Engineer Comments & Map re: Trail 3/18/98 E - Notice of Council Action 3/20/98 F - Memo and Exhibits of 3/6/98 On March 9 Council reviewed this preliminary plat application and tabled it on a vote of 5-0, providing applicant with the following general direction: Applicant must develop a stormwater plan for the property that is acceptable to the City Engineer. Applicant to define the proposed area for tree/woodland protection by roping it off for staff and Council to review on the site. A legal description will be required for the easement once the boundaries of the protected area have been accepted. Staff to review the trail situation on Old Crystal Bay Road from North Shore Drive to the Luce Line, including possibilities for a trail adjacent to or in the Noerenberg Park site. #2341 - Dan Anderson March 20, 1998 Page 2 Lot width variances required for Lots 2 & 3 on the cul-de-sac are acceptable. Private road horizontal curve radius variance from 275' to 125' is acceptable. 60-day review period extension. Stormwater/Drainage/Grading Plan Applicant submitted a grading, drainage and erosion control plan on March 18. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and has a number of concerns (see Exhibit C) which have yet to be addressed by the applicant's engineer. Lot Layout Issues - Lot 7 As noted in the March 6 memo, the City does not credit stormwater ponding easements toward dry buildable lot area. Applicant was advised on March 18 that this was a problem since the grading plan placed the 1/2 acre pond in Lot 7 which has only 2.3 acres to start with. On March 19 applicant provided a revised plan (Exhibit A) that continues Lot 7 to the main body of the private road, rather than the road outlot extending parallel to Co. Rd. 84 to Lot 7. This results in Lot 7 now having its defined front lot line at the private road but needing a lot width variance because it is only 50' wide along the private road rather than the 200' required. Also, given the as yet unknowns about the actual extent of ponding easement, it is unclear whether Lot 7 under this layout contains 2.0 acres exclusive of the ponding easement. Functionally, Lot 7 appears to still have two septic sites and a (fairly inflexible) house site meeting required setbacks, if the pond does not change in shape or size. Trail Easement Discussion Please review City Engineer Tom Kellogg's letter and map of March 18 regarding trail location and construction issues, he is recommending that the trail easement be taken from the Anderson property and the trail be aligned on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. Alignment of such a trail will be impacted by the proposed stormwater pond as well as the alternate septic site in Lot 2. Will this applicant be required to bulH this trail if approved? If so, will the value of the trail easement be subtracted from the park dedication fee? #2341 - Dan Anderson March 20,1998 Page 3 Potential for Municipal Sewer At a work session on March 12 Council advised staff that there is Council support for developing this property with municipal sewer rather than with septic systems, w ith the stipulation that only as many lots as could be developed with septic systems will be allowed for this property. Applicant was advised of this on March 19 and was generally in favor of such a scheme. Applicant did have concerns about the timing, as well as the mechanics (who will design it and build it, who will ovm it, how will it be paid for, etc.). He would prefer that it be assessed to each benefitting lot over some time period. Staff has not yet formulated any recommendation on this topic, but has initiated contact with Met Council as to the timing and process for a MUSA amendment. It is possible that a MUSA amendment will take some months to procure, and applicant is hoping to have road construction happening in June... Tree and Woodland Impacts Council on March 6 requested thai applicant rope off the proposed tree preservation easement boundary for staff and council to view. Staff walked the site on March 19 with applicant, and staffs vision of the area to be protected varies somew hat from that of applicant. The boundary was located along the lake side of the old field road wandering parallel to the shoreline, below the top of the bluff and lakeward of the eastward extent of tree line. Staff would rather have seen the boundary along the fence line w-est of the field road. It is imperative that Council view this proposed boundary in person to reach a conclusion whether it appropriately placed. Staff has not made any revisions to the proposed easement document language, and that is a topic for discussion. Staff Recommendation Council should discuss each of the topics listed below, and any other issues you feel are outstanding: 1. Stormwater plan 2. Layout/variances for Lot 7 3. Trail location and construction 4. Sewer possibility 5. Tree preservation boundary Staff again recommends that the applicant be given conceptual direction, and that no preliminary plat approval be granted until the stormwater issues have been resolved and final lot lines established, and any other issues adequately addressed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Give applicant conceptual direction on issues of note, and table the application. LITTLE ORCHARD & EROSION CONTROL PLANLITTLE ORCHARD LANpy development y :< ■'•■'.■•■ .V -i - . .#• r.-‘• / -t >• V'- ■ . ■' ."• / THJO V ■■.*• - 'lH-320 '■■■ y ■ I ij . TH-4© SB-4 MSB-3,1 TH-3 4 >*P-2 •I ‘ I -EXIS'^ING DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED I ‘‘V C u ! .-■ 1* / T * y 4 , «IH-27 2.4;. Ac. r /•/^n^L, ;*th-5 .\ e »st 7 . ;se-5 ®p ^ My' ' yMM EklSTlNG DRIveWAY ..■•■ . '“''^TO BE removed; '/ •' «P~^% T>^-‘TH-6 P-l 15*FES i , i /lnv= 954.00. I .V; CBMHi'. ? ; '7 I -Rim-955.00 ; CREE^- i/ S* lav-952200 . Efio CURB ic GUTTEIJ AT V CONSTRUCT BITUMINOUS SPIUWAY “tBRn 2 TH-3^ee-s / A \ V) y c -Rim.t955.00 ' ^lo^951,75 ^ ' MHl -Rim-955.00 . lnv-951.25 •wco. ;'--M 1 t N. * 7"^^ iVSB-lOx-^ 3.3 Ac." 7 ' \• TH-12/- / / % ..^WL*9^0 \ Skimmer OHW3&941.5 **Outl0t Structure /ci ':s;- fc. *•r' %SuSUi^eA-! HE’ .--■K Q ^ i v-i*p i- 3 \ ! i Bonestroo ^ J Rosene ■ Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Match 19, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Andersen Subdivision File No. 139-2321 Dear Mike; Bonnt'CO Rcsene Anderhk ,tnd Assoa-tees Inc n An Alfirm.irvc Action fiju.i/ Opportunity employe’ PrinciDAls C.to G Bone-.troo, PE • JO»«ph C AnOe^lik. PE • Mitrvin L Sorv.lM PE • PicnardE Turner PC • Glenn R Cook PE • Robert G Scnumcr't. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Roiene. PE and Susan V Eberlin C PA Senior Consultants Asiocuite PrincipAls Ho.vard A Santord. P? • Keith A Gordon PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard ‘M Foster. PE • Dawid O Loskota PE • Robert C Rusiek A I A • Mark A Hanson. PE Michael T Rautmann PE • Ted K Field PE • Kenneth P Anderson, PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE , L S • Robert F Kotsmith Officei St “aul Rochester Willmar and St CiOud MN • Mil'.v lukee. Wl C 's*\:' vjr Yesterday we received a mailing from Otto and Associates that included a preliminary plat, drainage calculations and a grading plan for the proposed seven lot Andersen subdivision. The site is located west of Old Crystal Bay Road South (C.R. 84) in the northwest quarter of Section 9. We have reviewed the submittal and observed that the plans and calculations contained some errors and omissions. The grading plan shows a storm water pond in the eastern corner of Lot 7. It appears that the poiul irjip. lutherly to a wetland on the east end of Maxwell Bay. The draft version of the City’s Surface Water ManagenR iii P»., ^SWMP) classifies this we-'and as being moderately susceptible to nutrient and sediment loading. We rerommend that pond cakulatioiis be submitted that identify both pre and post development peak flows and nutrient loading... In accordance with Lie SWMP ar.-.i to protect the downstream wetland, post development flows and nutrient loadings should not exceed pre tleveliipir.ei;: conditions. Wc al.so recommend that the following information be submitted or corrected: • A detailed drainage area map clearly showing pre and post development drainage areas, size of areas, runoff coefficients used and any assumptions used in the calculations. • Calculations showing pond sizing to meet NURP standards for the drainage area reaching the pond should be provided. The calculations submitted show that the pond is sized to treat the entire site (17.5 acres). • Corrected pool volume calculations. The contour areas provided in the calculations do not match the pond contour areas as measured on the drawing. • The pond should ha'. e :» 10:1 bench at the pond NW'L to provide a barrier of safety. • The Ftorm sewer design should be clarified. Do flows from CBMHI go to CBMH2 and then to MH1 ? Plans should show pipe si:'.es, pipe length and grade. • Storm sewer calculations should be provided to verify the proposed design. • Outlet slructu'c details and design should be provided. • A revised plan set should be submitted that shows specifically where the downstream drainage from the pond goes. If tl.e City choose.s to construct the trail south of the Luce Line on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road, it is our recommendation that the trail be graded along the ea.>.t edge of the Andersen property as part of this project. Please contact me .t. (tH)4-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours ver, truly. BONES rUOO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. /07^ Tom Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax; 612-636-1311 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects March 18. 1998 i .•-r •».;cr .•;rj 're r r */'r—-r .t .■*c:inn Ijt, n Cz: ’• "C C-«s 0;:o 0 **£ • JO.c^f Z ?s • '.Mrvm L So'v^i.* ’£ • ’ J e tafr'e' • ."■crn .? C30«. ?: • ffotje't G Senuf'.:"!. PE • Jerry A PE • 'U Bose''? ’i pra luiar \1 Eoeriiri c PA Senior Co-ijIMnrs A, ;cr- r'e “nre c^ : “owarfl A Sanfo'd ’P • Keitn A Go'don ’E • BoOer: B p'e*'*' * ’ = B. rrara JV POiter >E . Oavid O lotKCia PE • BoOer: C A. A . Mark A Harjsr PE \li:naei T Bautreanr ’£ . Ted < Field. ?E • Kenne:n P Aode'ion. PE • Vl..r« B ’c:fi »E S.sre/ P aniiiar —.r.- »£ l S • Pooer: P KoMrpirn Z“ ert Si ’aui *:;-e;:er 'JViiimar and St Cloud. VM • V.'.,,>i.»ee 'Jfl Mr. Greg Gappa City of Orono PO'B o .x 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323-0066 Re: Old Crystal Bay Road Trail, south of the Luce Line File No. 139-GEN Dear Greg: We have reviewed the proposed future southerly extension of the Old Crystal Bay Road Trail from the Luce Line Trail to County Road 51. It appears that costs to construct the trail would be comparable whether the trail is located on the east or west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. Both routes would require retaining walls in some locations and a curb and gutter section along most of the length. Impacts to existing homes would be similar on either side of the roadway. Locating the trail on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road offers some advantages. From a safety perspective, an alignment on the west side of the roadway would minimize the number of trail crossings on Old Crystal Bay Road and improve pedestrian safety. The existing Luce Line crossing could be utilized rather than adding a crossing somewhere further south. A second advantage is in easement acquisition. The City currently has the option to take an easement across the Andersen property. Also, since Noerenberg Park is a Hennepin County park, it is anticipated that easement negotiations for a trail across this property would proceed fairly and in a timely manner. The Andersen and Hennepin County properties account for almost half of the length of the trail between the Luce Line and County Road 51. The result would be fewer property owners to negotiate easements with. Based on our findings, we would recommend that a future alignment of the Old Crystal Bay Road Trail be on the west side of the roadway and that the easement across the Andersen property be acquired now. We have enclosed a drawing of the proposed alignment for your review. Please contact me at 604-4863 if you have any questions. Sincerely, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg ^2/ 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 oc 73m mX (7) zo T) XI O tomo X> “ |isi' ii'lilo oIw in Bo sip;m #iy »li ■ n:- ;i/^ - v,(: V., ...... |i«ll|:M■.til ;W&B S5® rnm^ CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2341 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION TO: Dan Anderson 3540 Montgomerie Avenue Deephaven, MN 55391 DATE OF NOTICE: March 20, 1998 COPIES: Ed Otto, Surveyor 9 West Division Street Buffalo, MN 55313 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 3/9/98 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: To table, giving applicant conceptual direction regarding the plat, as follows: Applicant must develop a stormwater plan for the property that is acceptable to the City Engineer. Applicant to define the proposed area for tree/woodland protection by roping it off for staff and Council to review on the site. A legal description will be required for the easement once the boundaries of the protected area have been accepted. Staff to review the trail situation on Old Crystal Bay Road from North Shore Drive to the Luce Line, including possibilities for a trail adjacent to or in the Noerenberg Park site. - Lot width variances required for Lots 2 & 3 on the cul-de-sac are acceptable. - Private road horizontal curve radius variance from 275' to 125' is acceptable. 60-day review period extension required. This item will be brought to the Council for further consideration of new information provided, on March 23, 1998. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are aviilable from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Because review and adoption the preliminary plat may not be be completed within the original 60-day time frame due to Council meeting schedules, the review ,>eriod is hereby extended an additional 60 days to May 23, 1998. -IP kF.QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date; March 6, 1998 Item No.; j j Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron ' ' Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description; #2341 Dan Anderson, 905 Old Crystal Bay Road - Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution Zoning District; LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Site Area; 17.5 Acres ± Proposal; 7 Lot Residential Subdivision (Single Family Homes) List of Exhibits A - Draft Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 3/2/98 C - Comments from Hennepin County Public Works 2/12/98 D - Draft Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement E - Memo and Exhibits of 2/12/98 Overview This is a preliminary plat for the 17.5 acre Carpenter property located just north of Norenberg Park on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. Seven single family lots will be created, three of which will abut Maxwell Bay. This property is outside the MUSA and will be served by septic systems and wells. Applicant proposes to provide access to all lots via a 700' cul-de-sac private road. The property contains some woodland, and a bluff feature along most of the shoreline which will impact lake setbacks. Please review the memo and exhibits of February 12! Major Aspects of Proposal Important aspects of the proposal a * iewed by the Planning Commission include: Lot width varianc' ired for Lots 2 & 3 which are on the cul-de-sac #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6, 1998 Page 2 Private road horizontal curve radius variance from 275' to 125 ’ requested, based on protection of drainfield sites, especially in Lot 1 Existing residence on Lot 1 will remain, meets all setback requirements but needs a new septic system Lots 1 and 2 technically are 'through lots, any future accessory structures need CUP Lots 4,5 and 6 are the only riparian lots, and have buildable envelopes very restricted by septic sites, lake setbacks and bluffimpact zone setbacks. Staff i§ rggpmmgndmg that these threp lot<^ he exempt from average lak--horg sefb^gk requiremgnlS which would have little or no positive protective impacts given the size, orientation, and restrictions inherent in these lots. Grading is proposed in Lot 6 to create a walkout building pad about 150' from lake Neighborhood comments at Public Hearing resulted in PC recommendation to require a 15' trail easement along east property boundary abutting Old Crystal Bay Road, to leave this as a potential trail corridor option even though it could negatively impact septic sites and require significant retaining walls Planning Commission recommended that a Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement be required to protect the unique wooded shoreline. Applicant has conceptually agreeed to grant such an easement. Such an easement has been drafted by staff for Council and applicant review and comment (Exhibit D) Hennepin County has requested additional 7' of right-of-'''''y for Old Crystal Bay Road. The official Hennepin County Bike Trail Plan does not show a trail here, and the Orono Comp Plan only calls out the need for the existing 66’ of R.O.W. Staff recommends no added R.O.W. be required. No 5;tnrmwater ponding has been nronosed. This is the ginslg. gritjpaj shortgQmiPg of the current proposal, in staffs opinion. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission first reviewed this in January as an 8-lot sketch plan with two private roads and a driveway. Applicant w as advised to make a number of revisions to that plan prior to formal plat application submittal. The plan was revised to 7 lots served by a single private road, and #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6, 1998 Page 3 reviewed by Planning Commission at a public hearing on February 17. Planning Commission r® ommended as follows: 1. Approval of lot width variances for Lots 2 & 3. 2. Acceptance of proposed access for Lot 7; all existing accesses to Old Crystal Bay Road shall be eliminated. 3. Approve private road radius of 125' as proposed due to septic site impacts if a conforming radius is required. 4. Applicant to grant a 15' trail easement along easterly boundary of property. 5. Applicant to develop stormwater ponding or provide a letter from MCWD re: ponding. 6. No bluff impu. v'ariances will be granted; revise grading etc. for Lots 5 & 6 to be conforming. 7. Applicant to grant a tree/woodland/natural vegetation preservation easement specifically for the areas abutting Maxwell Bay. 8. Adherence to normal development requirements. Stormwater/Drainage/Grading Plan At this time, applicant has not proposed any stormwater ponding on site. The City Engineer has recommended that stormwater ponding be provided for this site. This also needs MCWD review. The City has consistently required stormwater ponds for this type and magnitude of residential development, and developer has provided staff with virtually no strong basis to suggest that it is not needed for this site. It appears to staff that drainage from the private road and a portion of the east half of the property could be directed to a pond that could be developed near the entamce of the private road. Development of such a pond might result in lot areas being somewhat smaller, since the City does not credit stormwater ponding easements tow^id diy buildable lot area. r #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6,1998 Page 4 Septic Testing and Site Availability Steve Weckman has confirmed that all lots have viable primary and alternate sites, and that ftiture testing v/ould be needed to confirm whether less costly trench systems can be used on certain sites where mounds are now acceptable. Actual system designs for each lot have not been submitted, and they will he required prior to final plat approval. Bluff Impacts Lots 5 and 6 contain a bluff, and the 'top of bluff was defined by staff during the sketch plan review. A 30 ’ setback from top of bluff is required for a*'.y structures, and fill or excavated material is not allowed to be placed within the bluff impact zone. The top of bluff as depicted in the preliminary plat for Lot 5 does not match the top of bluff location identified by staff, and top of bluff actually is very near the proposed house location on Lot 5. Lot 5 has a very restrictive building site due to the street setback and top of bluff setback requirements. This lot appears to be the least flexible of the lots in regards to house placement. The top of bluff needs to be accurately depicted for Lot 5 on a revised version of the final plat drawings, for future reference. Tree and Woodland Impacts: Easement Proposed Tree lines and wooded areas are shown on the topographic background map (See Exhibit I of Sketch Plan memo). Most of the wooded areas are near the shoreline or along the west property boundary. The dense woods along the shoreline will be under tremendous pressure. We could expect that individual homeowners will want to establish views of the lake from their new homes, by thinning the woods or creating open corridors to the lake. Such changes in the nature of the shoreline landscape would be unfortunate in the context of this virtually untouched arm of Maxwell Bay. The tree preservation ordinances currently in place would disallow cutting any 6' or larger diameter tree within 75' of the shoreline, and prohibit 'intensive vegetation clearing’ within 75’ of the shoreline, on steep slopes and in the bluff impact zone. During the sketch plan review. Planning Commission agreed that it would be appropriate to require that some type of ’tree conservation easement’ be specifically developed for this site. This would appear to be possible under the provisions of Section 11.60, Subd. 1. The developer should also be required to plant boulevard trees along all roads per the subdivision code requirements. A draft Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement is attached for council review and comment. #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6, 1998 Page 5 Issues for Discussion 1. Will Council approve lot width variances for the two cul-de-sac lots? 2. Will Council approve a variance for the 125' road radius? 5. Does Council concur with Planning Commission in requiring granting of the 15* trail easement along Old Crystal Bay Road? Should the value of such easement be subtracted from the park dedication fee? Does Council see any reason applicant should not be required to provide stormwater ponding for this development? Does Council have any specific concerns, comments or suggestions regarding the tree/woodland/vegetation preservation easement? Staff* Recommendation Staff recommends conceptual approval of this preliminary plat, subject to: 1. Applicant to develop a stormwater management plan for the site to include water quantity and quality ponding (this may have an impact on lot layout). 2. Applicant to address other street and storm sewer design and site drainage issues raised by City Engineer in letter of 2/12/98. 3. If changes to the road design, grading plan or stormwater pond development will cause significant changes to the lot layout. Council may wish to refer this back to Planning Commission for further review. 4. Applicant to revise preliminary plat drawings and grading plans to correctly depict the top of bluff and bluff impact zones and eliminate any grading encroachments of same. 5. Jcant advised that final septic system designs for each lot will be required prior to final proval. 6. Extension of the 60-day statutory review period to 120 days (to 5/23/98). The attached Resolution for Preliminary Plat Approval is presented for review purposes only and will likely require revision based on Council's action. Staff recommends that the applicant be given conceptual direction as noted above, and the application tabled until the remaining issues are addressed. r #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6, 1998 Page 6 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Give applicant conceptual direction on issues of note, and table the application for additional information. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - FILE NO. 2341 WHEREAS, Dan Anderson (hereinafter the "subdivider") on January 23,1998, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a seven lot residential plat of property legally described as: Beginning at a point on the East line of Lot 7, Section 9, Township 117, Range 23, 17.14 rods South of the Northeast comer of said Lot 7; thence West parallel with the North line of said Lot 7, 28 rods; thence South parallel with and '>8 rods from East line of said Lot 7 to shore of Lake; thence Southeasterly along said .aKe shore to East line of said Lot 7; thence North on said East line of Lot 7 to point of beginning; except that part thereof described as follows: Beginning at a point on East line of said Lot 7, 17.14 rods South of the Northeast comer of said Lot 7; thence West parallel with North line of said Lot 7, 28 rods; thence South parallel with and 28 rods from East line of said Lot 7, 20 feet, thence East at right angles to said last mentioned line 28 rods to East line of said Lot, thence North 20 feet to point of beginning. AND Commencing at the Southwest comer of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 117, Range 23; thence North 6.57 chains to the center line of the Crystal Bay Road (so called), thence Southeasterly along the center line of said • road 11.89 chains to the South line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 9, thence West along said South line 10 chains to the place of beginning, all according to the United States Government survey thereof. AND ^ All that part of Government Lot Seven (7), Section Nine (9), Township One Hundred Seventeen (117) North, Range Twenty-three (23) West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on a line drawn parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Government Lot Seven (7), Which said point is three hundred two and eighty-one hundreds (302.81) feet South of the North line of said Government Lot Seven (7); thence Southwesterly along a line which makes an angle of uvelve degrees, fifty-four minutes, and forty seconds with said line which is parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Government Lot Seven (7), a distance of seven hundred sixty-sbc and seventy-six hundreds (766.76) feet; thence Southerly parallel with the East line of said Government Lot Seven (7) to the Page 1 of 10 shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Southeasterly along said shore of Lake Minnetonka to a point in a line drawn parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Lot Seven (7); thence North along said line parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Lot Seven (7) to the point of beginning. All in Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 17, 1998, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings held on March 9, 1998, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 17.5 acres of land. The only wetlands located on the property include two wetlands adjacent to and within the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka, comprising less than 0.1 acre in total area. All portions of such wetlands located above the 929.4 OHWL shall be subject to a Flo wage and Conservation Easement. 3.The proposed plat consists of seven residential lots each meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, except as follows: Lots 2 and 3 front on the proposed cul-de- sac and do not meet the defined minimum 200' lot width requirement as measured at the rear line of the defined front yard. Lot 2 has a defined width of 110' and Lot 3 has a defined width of 170'. However, the granting of a lot width variance for these lots is justified by the fact that each of Lots 2 and 3 contains a suitable building site meeting all required lot line setbacks without the need for further variances. Page 2 of 10 J 4. Lots 1 and 2 are ’through’ lots subject to a conditional use permit requirement for placement of any accessory structures. 5. Lots 4, 5 and 6 have very restrictive building envelopes due to topography, bluff impact zones, and drainfield sites, which in combination leave little flexibility for the location of the homes to be constructed. Each of these three Lots contains sufficient width, and each is oriented in a manner in relation to the shoreline such that application of the average lakeshore setback ordinance to these Lots will not serve its intended purpose of preserving adjacent Lots ’ views. Therefore it is appropriate to exempt said three Lots from having to meet ’average lakeshore setback’ standards. 6. The property contains approximately 800 ’ of relatively undisturbed, heavily wooded Lake Minnetonka bluff shoreline abutting Maxwell Bay, located across said Bay from Norenberg Park. As one of the relatively few such undisturbed areas left on Lake Minnetonka, this unique natural feature is of such value to the public, especially as viewed from the lake, that special protection measures are warranted in order to preserve such features in as natural a state as possible. 7. All lots have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site septic treatment facilities providing both a primary and alternate site for each of the seven lots. Final septic system designs are required for each lot. 8. Lot 1 contains an existing residence structure which meets all required setbacks for the LR-IA district. However, said residence is served by a septic system which has not been located and which is likely non-conforming and which is likely to be located outside the boundaries of Lot 1. 9. All seven Lots shall be served by a private road designated on the plat as Outlot A. 10. The private road proposed to be constructed in Outlot A is proposed with a horizontal curve radius of 125 ’ where City code standards require a 275 ’ radius. The 125 ’ radius will be approved based on the short length of the road (700 ’) Page 3 of 10 and because the 125' radius allows a design speed of 20-25 mph which is not inappropriate for this length road. The variance is further justified in order to protect drainfield sites which would otherwise be eliminated if the road was designed to meet the 275' radius standard. 11. THE CITY ENGINEER HAS RECOMMENDED THAT STORMWATER PONDING FACILITIES BE DEVELOPED FOR THE SITE AND SUCH PONDING HAS NOT BEEN PROPOSED, HENCE THE PLAT LAYOUT MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGES WHICH AFFECT THIS APPROVAL!!!! 12. Thomas D. Johnson, Transportation Planning Engineer for the Hennepin County Department of Transportation, in his letter of February ’ 12, 1998, approved the proposed curb cut location to Old Crystal Bay Road (County Road 84). 13. The City will not require that an additional 7 feet of right-of-way as requested by Hennepin County be granted for Old Crystal Bay Road , because the Orono Comprehensive Plan categorizes County Road 84 as a 'scenic parkway' requiring only a 66' right-of-way width, and any future trail needs can be accomodated via a 15' easement along the right of way which the developer has agreed to grant. The Hennepin County Bicycle Trail System Plan dated Septemebr 1996 does not include a trail at this location along County Road 84. 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 application of Dan Anderson at 905 Old Crystal Bay Road South per preliminary plat drawings by Edward J. Otto, a licensed surveyor of Otto Associates Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc., dated January 23, 1998, most revised date January 29, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. A variance will be granted for width of Lots 2 and 3 which do not meet the 200' width requirement of the LR-IA District. 2. A variance will be granted to allow a horizontal cur\’e radius of 125' for the ^ ‘ ate road in order to preserve identified drainfield sites. Page 4 of 10 I ■ 3. 5. 8. 11. # 4 Lots 4, 5 and 6 shall be exempt from meeting the 'average lakeshore setback' standards of the Orono Zoning Code. Lots 4, 5 and 6 are subject to City Shoreland regulations regarding protection of the bluff located on said Lots. Setbacks for all principal residence construction shall be as depicted on the preliminary plat drawing. All Lots shall access to the private road in Outlot A. No direct access to Old Crystal Bay Road shall be allowed for any Lot. All existing accesses to Old Crystal Bay Road shall be removed prior to City final approval of the private road construction. The private road in Outlot A shall be constructed to City private road requirements, subject to a Developers Agreement to be executed between the City and the developer. Private road construction can begin as soon as the engineering plans for the road have been approved by the City and the Developers Agreement has been executed. The private road shall be allowed to access directly to County Road 84 subject to conditions for such access as imposed by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works in their required access permit. Driveway to serve Lot 7 shall extend from the private road in Outlot A within the portion of said Outlot extending along Old Crystal Bay Road. 10. The private road shall be privately owned and maintained per the appropriate access easement/maintenance documents to be executed by the developer. The developer shall create a homeowners association for such ownership and maintenance. No building permits will be issued until the private road base work has been completed and been approvea by the City. The developer shall grant to the City an underlying Road and Utilities Easement for Outlot A. Page 5 of 10 13. The proposed grading plan for creation of a building pad within Lot 6 shall be revised to result in no encroachment of the bluff impact zone. 14. Subdivider shall plant boulevard trees along the private road per the requirements of Section 11.60 Sub. 2. 15. SUBDIVIDER TO DESIGNATE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS OVER ALL DRAINAGEWAYS AND STORMWATER PONDS WITHIN PLAT. 16. Subdivider is hereby advised that the City will not grant final plat approval until the MCWD has approved for all grading and drainage improvements on the property. 17. All identified primar>- and alternate sewage system drainfield sites within the subdivision shall be fenced off prior io any land alterations, and such fencing remain in place until such time that each Lot is developed. 18. Subdivider shall develop covenants for each lot for protection of t^rainfield sites within each Lot. Covenants shall include protective language for alternate septic sites along with site plans locating both primriy and alternative sites. Applicant shall include language alerting future property owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. 19. Applicant shall submit complete and acceptable septic system designs for each lot prior to final plat approval. 20. Subdivider shall be responsible for installing a new conforming septic system to serve existing residence on Lot 1 within 1 year of the date of final plat approval. 21. Subdivider shall grant a Flowage and Conservation over those portions of wetland located above the 929.4 OHWL. 22. Subdivider shall grant a Tree. Woodland and Vegetation Preservation easement over the shoreline and bluff impact areas within Lots 4, 5 and 6. Page 6 of 10 23. Subdivider to grant a Bike Trail, Drainage and Utility easement vide adjacent to Old Crystal Bay Road (County Road 84). 24. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee, in addition to the granting of an easement for the trail. 25. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of Council approval,__________, 1999. Should the subdivider fai' to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessar>' for the siibdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with 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 Mcndays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy redu' ^ to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: a. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Edward J. Otto of Otto Associates Engineers and Land Sur\'eyors, Inc. dated January 23, 1998, most recent revision January 29, 1998. b. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10’ wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5’ along the internal lot lines. 15’ drainage and utility easement adjacent to County Road 84 to include trail easement in favor of City (refer to special form attached). c. Dedication of right-of-way for County Road 84 at 33 ’. Page 7 of 10 r d. Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention ponds and drainageways as shown on preliminary plat.. e. Designation of Outlot A to serve as a private roadway. f. The naming of plat. 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 Developer's Agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements and construction of private road (Outlot A;, drainage facilities, etc. d. Signed and executed Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement. e. Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainagoway and detention areas within plat. f. Signed and executed Drainage, Utilities and Trail easement over 15 wide drainage and utility easements adjacent to County Roads (see sample enclosed). g. Signed and executed Flowage and Conservation Easement over wetlands located above the 929.4 ’ OHWL. h. Signed and executed Road and Utilities Easement over Outlot A. i. Signed and executed "Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration of Maintenance for Same". Page 8 of 10 r 3. j. Completed private covenant for all Lots regarding protection of drainfield sites. Covenants to include protective language for primary and alternate drainfield sites and to include the site plans locating both the primary and alternate sites. Subdivider to develop language alerting future owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Covenants must be in a form suitable for filing. The City has samples of protective covenants used by former developers. Subdivider may wish copies and should notify City. k. Completed "Application for Private Road Name". Fees to be paid: Total due: $400.00* a. Final plat fee = $200.00 b. Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents = $200.00 c. *Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value c the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as Assessor's recort has been filed with City Park dedication fee shall be based on 8% of the fair market vali.^* i>f land within Lots 2 through 7. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this __day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Page 9 of 10 ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ___day of March, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of tlie City. Notary Public Page 10 of 10 6 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2341 NOTICE OF PLANNLNG COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 2, 1998 TO: Dan Anderson 3540 Montgomerie Ave Deephaven MN 55391 COPIES: Ed Otto, Surveyor 9 West Division St Buffalo MN 55313 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 02/17/98 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of lot width variances for Lots 2 & 3. 2. Acceptance of proposed access for Lot 7; all existing accesses to Old Crystal Bay Road shall be eliminated. 3. Approve private road radius of 125' as proposed due to septic site impacts if a conforming radius is required. 4. Applicant to grant a 15' trail easement along easterly boundary of property. 5. Applicant to develop stormwater ponding or provide a letter from MCWD re: ponding. 6. No bluff impact variances will be granted; revise grading, etc. for Lots 5 & 6 to be conforming. 7. Applicant to grant a tree/woodland/natural vegetation preservation easement specifically for the areas abutting Maxwell Bay. 8. Adherence to normal development requirements. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; City Council, Monday, March 9, 1998; 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. ?i^CiiV3C CZ' Hennepin County^ 2 ° " ________ JL Aa Equal OpporluiulT Employer February 12, 1998 Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box fib Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Proposed Plat - Little Orchard CSAH 84 Section 9, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Piat No. 2445 Review and Recommendations Mike; Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require county review of proposed plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments; • The developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of road right of way, for a total of 40 feet from centerline. This dedication will accommodate future utilities, snow storage, ditch maintenance, etc. • Access via a street entrance at outlot ‘A’ is acceptable. All existing driveways must be removed and no other access will be permitted. All proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit ......................at is not limited to access drainage and utility Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for the prior to beginning construction. This includes, bu^is not limited to" kcess drainage and utility* construction, trail development and landscaping. appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within the county right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548. As a matter of procedure, we request that the City Clerk inform us of the City Council's action on the right of way and access provisions. Sincerely, Thomas D. Jcmnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DKZ/jrh cc; PeteTulkki Dave Swenson Dfparliiient of Public Works 320 Washington Avouje South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-S496 (612)930-2300 FAX:(612)930-25 13 TOD:(612)930-2696 SetjtlniTif*! % TREE, WOODLAND AND V EGETATION PRESERVATION EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND WAIVER OF DAMAGES 4^1>:r THIS INDENTURE, made and entered into this __day of and between __________ __________, 19___, by __________________________________________, and its heirs, assigns, and successors [hereinafter collectively referred to as the Grantor(s)] and the City of Orono, its successors and assigns, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the Grantee.) WITNESSETH, Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, hereby covenant, grant, gift, quit claim and convey to grantee the right to restrict and grantor(s) agree to limit and preclude the use, improv ement and development, under the conditions and covenants herein contained, the following described Land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota: as follows: 1. Grantor(s) hereby covenant(s) and agree(s): A. No structures shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon, above, or beneath the Land e.xcept the following: 1) one lakeshore access stairway per Lot, such staiiAvay being nor more than 4 feet in width, subject to City approval; 2) one dock structure e.xtending from the shoreline; if such structure includes a canopy-covered slip, such canopy to be green or brown in color; 3) one lockbox limited to 20 s.f area and 4 feet maximum height, finished in natural earthtones; 4) one mechanized lift dev ce for transporting persons up and down the bluff. All such structures or devices shall be designed, located and finished to be consistent with the natural state of the land and screened from view as viewed from the lake to the greatest extent possible. Where feasible, stairways and lifts may be designed to run diagonally across the slope in order to maximize natural vegetative screening and avoid vertical cuts in the shore landscape. B. No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be destroyed, cut or removed from the Land except as authorized by written consent of Grantee. Clearcutting of vegetation shall not occur except to the minimal extent necessary to accomplish one of the improvements in (A) above. Selective Page 1 of3 vegetation removal within a narrow corridor to gain views of the lake shall be limited to a width of 50 feet per Lot, and such removal shall not occur within 75 feet of the shoreline, and shall be limited to the minimal extent necessary' to gain a partially obstructed lake view. C.There shall be no change of the topography of the Land without the written consent of Grantee. D.There shall be no fences, play structures, decks, accessory buildings or other temporary' or permanent structures placed on the Land. Except as herein provided, no use shall be made of the Land except uses, if any, which will not change or alter the natural condition of the Land, and no use which would tend to change natural visual characteristics shall be made of the Land.. Grantee may enter upon the Land for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of the covenants contained herein and to cause to be removed from the Land without any liability any structures, uses, materials, substances, or unnatural matter inconsistent with the covenants contained herein and the natural state of the Land. In addition to any other remedy the grantee may have, the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. Grantor(s) do not intend that the public should have any interest in the above land by virtue of this indenture or otherwise, except as hereinabove set forth. The Grantor(s) herein certify that the land herein described are free and clear of all encumbrances except: All provisions hereof shall run vv-ith the land and shall extend to and bind the heirs, successors, representatives, grantees or assigns of the respective parties hereto. Page 2 of 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. This instniment was acknowledged before me this ______________,19 ____by ___________________ day of NOTARY PUBLIC STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON; This instrument is drafted by: City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Page 3 of 3 To: From: Date: Subject: 7, Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator February 12, 1998 #2341 Dan Anderson, 905 Old Crystal Bay Rd. S. - Preliminary' Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsevvered Site Area: 17.5 Acres ± Proposal: 7 Lot Residential Subdivision (Single Family Homes) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat Map C “ Property Owners List D - Preliminary Plat Drawing ^ E - Preliminary Grading Drainage & Erosion Control Plan F - Comments from Steve Weckman, Septic System Inspector G - Comments from Hennepin County Public Works {Nor ficMb ^ o/= H - Draft Planning Commission Minutes from Sketch Plan Review ^ /-r-? 6 I - Wetlands Assessment J - City Engineer Comments K - Memo & Exhibits of January 14,1998 (Sketch Plan Review) Summary The applicant has addressed most of the issues identified during the sketch plan review, and has submitted a preliminary plat that creates seven lots rather than eight, three of which are lakeshore lots. All access is now proposed via a single private road entering Old Crystal Bay Road at a location that Hennepin County finds acceptable. The applicant and his consultants have completed additional soils analysis for septic systems, and Steve Weckman indicates that each proposed lot now has suitable primary and alternate drainfield sites. Conformity to Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Standards The proposed subdivision creates a residential development of 2+ acre lots served by septic system and wells, confcmiing to the LR-IA Zoning District and Comprehensive Plan rural residential standards. r To: From: Date: Subject: 7. Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator February 12, 1998 #2341 Dan Anderson. 905 Old Crystal Bay Rd. S. - Preliminar>- Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Site Area: 17.5 Acres ± Proposal: 7 Lot Residential Subdivision (Single Family Homes) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Preliminary Plat Drawing ' Av^ E - Preliminary Grading Drainage & Erosion Control Plan F - Comments from Steve Weckman, Septic System Inspector G - Comments from Hennepin County Public Works Arf op 3 H - Draft Planning Commission Minutes from Sketch Plan Review ^ /-r-^ S I - Wetlands Assessment J - City Engineer Comments K - Memo &. Exhibits of January 14,1998 (Sketch Plan Review) Summary The applicant has addressed most of the issues identified during the sketch plan review, and has submitted a preliminary plat that creates seven lots rather than eight, three of which are lakeshore lots. All access is now proposed via a single private road entering Old Crystal Bay Road at a location that Hennepin County finds acceptable. The applicant and his consultants have completed additional soils analysis for septic systems, and Steve Weckman indicates that each proposed lot now has suitable primary and alternate drainfield sites. Conformity' to Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Standards The proposed subdivision creates a residential development of 2+ acre lots served by septic system and wells, confomiing to the LR-1 A Zoning District and Comprehensive Plan rural residential standzirds. r File #2341 February 12. 1998 Page 2 Relationship to Surrounding Development Noerenberg Park abuts this property on the southeast. To the west, north, and east of the site exist similar low density residential developments. The proposed subdivision is in keeping with the general character of its surrounding neighborhood. Lot Layout and Lot Standards Each lot meets or exceeds the 2.0 acre minimum lot standard for the LR-1A district. Lots 2 and 3 are cul-de-sac lots, being approximately 110 ’ and 170 ’ in defined width respectively. However, each of these two lots exceeds 200 ’ in functional width and the City has commonly granted lot width for cul-de-sac lots. Due to the unusual shape of i e site, the topography, and the location of septic sites, the lots in this subdivision are uniquely shaped. However, each lot appears to accommodate a suitable house location that is somewhat flexible with out encroaching into septic drainfield sites which must be preserved. Applicant’s surveyor has depicted the required setbacks on the preliminary plat drawing. The setbacks shown by dashed lines appear to be correctly depicted. Lot 1 is technically a ’through’ lot having roads on three sides, surrounding the existing house which will remain. Lot 1 will accommodate the existing house without the need for any setback variances. All other buildings on the property are intended to be removed, so that Lots 2 through 7 will become new building sites. Lots 4, 5, and 6 are lakeshore lots, and each meet the 200' minimum width requirement as measured at the shoreline and at the 75' setbar*^ line. Jote that Lot 6 has an hourglass shape that leaves a functional width of 165' at the pro 'ilding site. The road outlot, Outlot A, has been c.\ the southeast to provide a driveway corridor for Lot 7 without requiring direct access to Old 3u> Road. Staff sees this as a positive improvement, and recommends that this layout be providing suitable access to Lot 7. Note that while Lot 7 has 600' of frontage on Old Cr>'stal b ^ Road, the City will require that all existing direct road accesses to Old Cry stal Bay Road be eliminated. This likely will aiso be required by the County. Because of the 50' proposed width of the access for Lot 7, staff does not consider Lot 7 as being a back lot, and it therefore does not have to meet the higher standards associated with back lots. In general the proposed lot layout appears to provide for sufficient building envelopes for each lot, and the only variances apparent would be for the width of the two cul-de-sac lots. File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 3 Road Layout and Standards City Engineer has reviewed the road layout and his comments are attached as Exhibit J. The horizontal curv e for the private road at 125' radius does not meet the City's 275' standard for a 30 mph road, but would for a 20-25 mph posting. Wc nonnally don't post speed limits on private roads. Revising the road to meet the 275' radius will likely impact septic sites on one or more lots. The Engineer has also noted additional information which is required for submittal. Park/Trail Easements/Oi Dedication Applicant has shown a 10' bike easement along Old Crystal Bay Road, based on the P^k Commission recommendation. Because such easement is concurrent with the 10' drainage and utility easement along that east boundary, the easement has not been subtracted from the calculated lot areas. Staff does have a concern that actual construction of the trail might have significant impact on the future use of the alternate septic sites on Lots 2 and 7, with the toe of the alternate mound site of Lot 2 being only 10' from the trail easement, and that on Lot 7 being only 15' from the trail easement. Also, on Lot 2 the shoulder rises steeply above the road, above which the septic site is perched. Staff would not Want to see a bike trail developed so close to a septic site, which would actually put that site out of conformity because a 20' setback to any hard surface is required from the down hill toe of the mound. For the reasons noted above, staff hesitates to recommend granting of 10' bike way easement in Lots 2 and 7 at this time, given that no definite trail construction plan has been developed by the City as of this date. While it might be appropriate and consistent with City's past practice to require this developer to construct a segment of trail along the road, note that the City also gained an easement from the French Creek Woods Plat to the east for trail use. If the intent of the City (and the County?) is to connect the Luce Line to Noerenberg Park, careful planning is need to ensure proper siting of the trail. Given that the existing house is intended to remain on Lot 1, only Lots 2 thru 7 are subject to the Park Dedication requirements. Per the City's current ordinance, the City As.sessor will be asked to provide a pre-development fair market value for Lots 2-7, with an 8% park fee. The City Council will determine whether the value of the easement and/or any trails constructed by applicant should be deducted from the park dedication fee. The City Council has indicated an intent to establish a cap on per-lot park dedication fees which may apply to this property. File #2341 Februar>- 12, 1998 Page 4 )ad Improvrments and/or Eascmcuts Needed Hennepin County is likely to indicate that additional County Road right-of-way should be granted for future needs. The Comprehensive Plan categorizes this segm nt of Old Cr> stal Bay Road as a 'scenic parkway’ which requires a right-of-way width no greater then 66’. Since 66’ exists, and since no additional right-of-way granted or reo' d , .om the French Creek Woods plat acioss from this proposed subdivision, the City would be consistent in not requiring the dedication of additional right-of-way for Old Crystal Bay Road. Applicant has provided a gi ading plan for construction of the road in Outlot A, with the intent that the future owner of Lot 7 wouid construct a driveway within the portion of Outlet A dedicated for that use. Note that the length of the proposed road and cul-de-sac is approximately 700’, meeting the City’s cul-de-sac length limitation. Storinwatet/Drainage/Grading Plan Exhibit E is the applicant's preliminary grading/drainage and erosion control plan. A; th!" time, applicant is not proposing any stormwr>ter ponding on site. The City Engineer has recommended that stormwater ponding be provided tor this site. This also need> MCWD review. The City has consistently required stormwater ponds tor this type of residential development, hence tl?‘.* develope r will have to make a strong case ‘o ;o« ii;ice staff that it is not needed for this site. Note h"‘t most proposed grading stays within the right-of-way of Outlot a portion of the grading exte/. 'h> into the adjacent lots. It is especially critical to maintain the grading 1* '•♦s within Lot 4, whe^ nil will be needed directly adjacent to the primary septic site, as is also in Lc‘ 5 '• Lot 1, the grading also is very close to both the primary and alternative tre- extreme caution must be taken to a^oid un-iurbing those sites during the ro^ ' For Lot 6, proposed graditig to create a walkout site is proposed near I • mic . i e iOt, Tnu’ grading appears to cxtei . slightly m*o the bluff h < zone (20 ’ from t< • • itid : lou’d b< revised slightly to avoid such encr. ..iiment. All- ; lots appear to have sv.ti n nuhng sitea for the intended house types, with no grading projiosed for the building locations on those lots. Utilities Smee there are no City utilities serving this part of the City, there are no assessment or connection fees required. The applicant is respom or arranging neces.'id»-y electric/gas/phone/cable utility lines as needed .. se. vc the plat. File #2341 February 12, 1998 Pages Septic Testing and Site Availability Steve Weckman ha^ contirmed ihat all lots have viable primar>' and alternate sites, and that future testing would he t. - .ded io confirm whether less costly trench systems can be used on certain sites where mounds are now acceptable. Bluff Impacts Lots 5 and 6 contain a bluff, and the 'top of bluff was defined by staff during the sketch plan review. A 30' setback f . n top of bluff ‘ j required for any structures, and fill or excavated material is not allowed to be placed within the bluff impact zone. The top of bluff as depicted in the preliminary plat for Lot 5 does not match the top of bluff location identified by staff, and top of bluff actually is ver>^ near the proposed house location on Lot 5. Lot 5 has a very restrictive building site due to the street setback and top of bluff setback requirements. A more thorough analysis of the allowable building site should be considered for Lot 5, since that lot appears to be the least flexible of the lots in regards to house placement. T e and Woodland Impar' oposed Tree lines and wooded area ? on the topographic backci ound map (See Exhibit I of Sketch Plan memo). Most of the woov. a t^eas are near the shoreline or along the west property boundary. The dense woods along the shoreline will be under tremendous pressure. We could expect that individual homeowners will want to establish views of the lake irom their new homes, by thinning the woods or creating open corridors to the lake. Such cha.»j;,:s in the nature of the shoreline landscape would be unfortunate in the context of this virtually untouched arm of Ma.xwell Bay. The tree preservation ordinances currently in place would disallow cutting any 6" or larger diameter tree within 75' of the shoreline, and prohibit 'intensive vegetation clearing' within 7.5' of the shoreline, on steep slopes and in the bluff impact zone. During the sketch plan review. Planning Commission agreed tL ould be appropriate to require that some type of 'tree conservation easement' be specifically developed for this site. This would appear to be possible under the provisions of Section 11.60, Subd. 1. The develojxjr should also be required to plant boulevard trees along all roads per the subdivision code requirements. Issues for Discussion 1. Will Planning Commission accept the two cul-de-sac lots which require width variant File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 6 2. Does Planning Commission accept the proposed method of access to Lot 7? 3. How does Planning Commission view the road radius issue, especially if making it conform to the City standard will have an .mpact on septic sites? 4. Should the trail easement be granted at this time? Can it be relocated around the potentially impacted septic sites on Lots 2 and 7? If so, will this have an impact on the area calculation for those lots? 5. Is there any reason applicant should not be required to provide stormwater ponding for this development? 6. Is there any reason why the grading of the building pad on Lot 6 should be allowed to encroach the bluff impact zone? 7. The bluff impact zone should be correctly depicted for Lot 5, although this will show to an even greater extent how limited the building envelope is for this Lot. 8. Does Planning Commission have any specific guidelines to propose for a tree preservation easement to be developed for the lakeshore lots? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the applicant addressing issues noted by the City Engineer prior to presenting this proposal to Council for preliminary plat approval. If changes to the road layout, grading plan or stormwater pond development will significantly change the lot layout, staff would want to first bring this back to Planning Commission for further review. Any recommendation for approval should include r address the following: 1. Approval of lot width variances for Lots 2 & 3. 2. Acceptance of access method for Lot 7, including a requirement that all existing accesses to the county road be eliminated. 3. Road radius issue. 4. Trail easement and location. 5. Stormwater ponding. 6. Bluff impact variances or adherence to standards for Lots 5 and 6. 7. Tree preservation easement. 8. Adherence to normal development requirements, including perimeter drainage and utility easements, private road easements and covenants, developers agreement, park L File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 7 dedication, etc., all of which will be formally identified in the resolution for preliminary plat approval. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval with conditions as noted above. 2. Table for further information (specify). 3. Recommend denial, staling reasons. 4. Other. COUNCIL MEETING MAR 23 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION rqONO DATE: March 23, 1998 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2343 Tim and Bonnie Johnson 627 Ferndale Road North Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District:RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres) Lot Area:90,265 s.f. (2.07 acres) Application: The applicants are requesting variances to construct a 736 s.f. detached garage with a dormer above to provide additional storage space on the property. Variances are required for locating an accessory structure nearer the front lot line than the principal structure and side setback. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 3 to 1 vote to; • Approve a v 'nance allowing the accessory structure to be located 227' from the front lot line where the principal structure is loc.ated 329' from the front lot line where no accessory structure is allowed to be located nearer the front lot line than the principal structure. • Deny a side setback variance allowing the garage to be located 5' from the side lot line where 10' is required for accessory structures. The requested variance would result in encroachment into a 10' drainage and utility easement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. r A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 8(D), FILE NO. #2343 WHEREAS, Timothy and Bonnie Johnson (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 627 Femdale Road North within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: See Exhibit A for legal description (hereinafter "the property"); ?’nd WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 8(D) to permit construction of an accessory structure on the property. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2343. The property is located in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 90,265 s.f. or 2.07 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 16, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: 1. The lot configuration and location of the existing residence on the property restrict locating an accessory' structure behind or next to the residence. Therefore, a variance is required to locate an accessory structure in front of the residence. Page 1 of 5 2. The garage doors will not be visible from the street. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. 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. 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 10.03, Subdivision 8(D) to allow the construction of a 736 s.f '» 'rage located 227' from the front lot line where the principal structure is located 329' fro* ' front lot line and where no accessory structures are allowed to be located nearer the front . . line than the principal structure. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will empire on that date (March 23, 1999). Page 2 of 5 2. 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. The uiidersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of ♦^^emselves, 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 Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of March, 1998. ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owners STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of March 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the Qty of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on beht '' of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 5 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 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 5 DESCRIPTION: P arccl c * That port of Lot 1, Block 1. LAURENT ADDITION, described os follows; .beginning at the northeost corner of Lot 1. Block 1, LAURENT ADDITION; thence on on Assumed beoring of South 89 degrees 58 minutes 33 seconds West, o dislonce of 53.86 feet; thence South 4 degrees 28 minutes 58 seconds West, 0 distonce of 237.00 feet; thence South 34 degrees 28 minutes 58 seconds West, o distonce of 59.46 feet to the south line of sold Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 30 seconds Eost olong said south line, o distonce of 83.68 feet to the southeost corner of soid Lot 1; thence North 4 degrees 28 minutes 58 seconds Eost. olong the eost lino of soid Lot 1, o distonce of 286.17 feet to the point of beginning. parcel 0: Thot port of Lot 2, Block 1, LAURENT ADDITION, except thot port described os follows: Commencing ot the northeast corrje of Lot 1, Block 1. LAURENT ADDITION: thence on on ossumed beoring of South 89 degrees 58 minutes 33 seconds West olong the northerly line of said Lot 1, o distance of 53.86 feet; thence South 4 degrees 28 minutes 58 seconds West, o distonce of 237.00 feet; thence South 34 degrees 28 minutes 58 seconds West; 0 distonce of 59 46 feet to the south line of soid Lot 1 ond the point of beginning of the troct of olnd to be described; thence continuing South 34 decrees 28 minutes 58 seconds West, o distonce of 108.31 feet; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 30 seconds West, o distonce of 69.28 feet to o westerly line of soid Lot 2 being 225.59 feet in length; thence North 4 degrees 28 minutes 58 seconds East olong sold westerly line o distance of 18.58 feet to on ongle point in said westerly line; thence South 89 degrees 59 minutes 30 seconds West along o southerly line of soid Lot 2. o distance of 108 58 feet to the most westerly corner of sold Lot 2; thence North 8 degrees 54 minutes 33 seconds East olong the most westerly line of Lot 2 o distonce of 71.61 feet to the southwest corner of soid Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 30 seconds Eost olong the southerly line of soid Lot 1, o distonce of 226.64 feet to the point of beginning. TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant March 5,1998 SUBJECT; #2343 Tim and Bonnie Johnson 627 Femdale Road North Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB 90,265 One Family Rur ji 'esidei;tial District (1/2 Acre; square feet (2.0''acres)___________________ Application:The applicants are proposing the construction of a 736 s.f. detached garage with a dormer to provide addi^jonal storrne space on the property. Variances are required for locating an a cessory structure nearer the front lot line than the principal structure and for side yard setback.____________________ Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.03, Subd. 8(D): Location of Accessory Structures • Section 10.03, Subd. 15(F): Setbacks for Accessory Structures U2343 Tim and Bonnie Johnson 627 Femdale Road North Variances March 16. 1998 Page\ J ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot h^.h Front Yard ' Yard Rear Yard RR-IB 2 acres 200’50’3u' (10’ for accessory structures) 50’ subject property 2.07 acres 98 ’329’31.’ L 5’. 222 ’ The subject property currently meets all zoning requirements except Ic; adih. As proposed, the side setback requirement would ?!so not be met. Stnictural Coverage Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Staff estimates the amount of structural coverage on the property as approximately 4%. Hardcover Hardcover is not an issue with this application as the property is not located within a shoreland overlay zone. ST \TEMENT OF HARDSHIP Refer to the application (Attachment A) for the applicant's statement of hardship. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The p»’operty in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can continue to be put to u reasonable use in its curren* state as an attached hvo-car garage cw -.ntly exists on the property. The configurable^ \ '-f the lot makes constructing a detached garage on 'he property difficult without variances, howeve*-. !t234i Tim and Bonnie Johnson 627 Femdale Road S'orth Variances Starch 16. 1998 Page! 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The house was constructed on the zoning lot in a fashion that makes locating an accessory structure that meets zoning requirements difficult. The portion of the property abutting the street is a long, relatively narrow strip. The location of the residence prohibits locating the structure on either side of the existing residence, or expanding the existing attached garage. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for locating an accessory structure nearer the front lot line than the principal structure will not change the character of the area. The variance for side setback may change the character of the area as the garage would be located 5’ from the side lot line and would encroach 5' into the 10' drainage and utility easement running along the east side lot line. 4. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected \ ’rson's land is located. A garage for storage purposes of the proposed size is permitted in this zoning district. 5. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property The subject property does not meet lot width requirement. The existing residence is locate^ ’ in the portion of the primary building area that is located nearest the street. The survey of the property (Attachment G) demonstrates this lot configuration. Constructing the garage in a viable location that meets all zoning requirements would be difficult. 6. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most lots in the area meet lot width requirements and are generally rectangular. 112343 Tim and Bonnie Johnson 627 Ferndale Road Sorth Variances March 16. 1998 Page 3 7. 8. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The property currently has an attached two-car garage. A garage of similar size could be built elsewhere on the hi. The approximate proposed location appears to be the most viable. however. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Due to the configuration of the subject property and location of the existing residence, constructing an accessory structure in a viable location on the property without variances is difficult. issues 1. The property meets all zoning requirements except lot width. 2. The lot configuration and location of the residence on the subject property makes constructing an accessory structure that does not require variances difficult. 3. The garage doors will not be visible from the street and will face the residence instead. 4. The applicant is proposing the garage be located 5' irom the east side lot line. There is a 10' drainage easement along this lot line and granting the side yard variance would result in encroachment into this easement. 5. The dormer over the garage will not be used for additional living space. The garage will not have plumbing or heating. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this application to allow the construction of a 736 s.f garage with a dormer with the condition the 10' side yard setback be met. . Staff recommends approval of a variance allowing the accessory structure to be located 227 from the front lot line where the principal structure is located 329' from the front lot line and no accessory structure is allowed to be nearer the front lot line than the principal structure. . Staff recommends denial of a side setback variance of 5' to allow the accessory structure to be located 5' from the side lot line where 10' is required for accessory structures. H2343 Tim and Bonnie Johnson 627 Femdale Road North Variances March 16. 1998 Page 4 Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Property ' ers List Location Mu^. Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Elevation Drawings M2343 Tm and Bonnie Johnson 627 Ferndale Rjad North Variances March 16. 1998 Page 5 i Application n Date Received Amount Paid ■^3dO CITY OF ORONO - VARLAJS'CE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $2-20:00 ^^O c\d (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S 120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming strucmres S220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) A #23 PROPERTY ENTORNLATION Site Address 627 Ferndale Road North, Orono, MN 55391 Property Identification Number (T.I.D.) 36-118-23-11-0029 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_ Mav. 1985______________________________(month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specif>’)_ Zoning District: \ 'fe_________________________ applicant Name____Tinnthv D. Johnson Address : 627 Ferndale Road North OWTSllR (if different than applicant) Name ^ '-Ronnie D. Johnson _____ City:. Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Orono 473-2507 338-5912 Zip: 55391 Phone (home). Phone (work)_ same) 74-wRn/!.'l Address:(Same)City:.ZiRl DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S 20,000--------------- Describe request in detail: Variance from setback requirements to locate a 23'x32 detached 2-car garage in front of residenc e and 5' from property line.------------ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:X Front X Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore_ Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: There is no other site location nnssibifi given location of house on the property and the unusual conf iguration prnnprtv. Current attached 2-car oaraae inadequate,________________ of the (attach additional sheets if necessary) r RUN DATE 02/04/98 BATCH 502 38 36-118-23 11 0007PROP ADDR 00585 FERNOALE RD NOi«CR NAME DANIEL D DANIELSON ETALTAXPAYER DANIEL D DANIELSON NAME/ADDR 585 NORTH FERNOALE RO HAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST38 36-118-23 11 000900635 FERNOALE RO N L JACOBSON * V A O’NEILL LARRY JACOBSON VICTORIA A O'NEILL 635 FERNOALE RO N ORONO MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 338 36-118-23 11 0010 00645 FERNOALE RD N RICHARD E STRAND ETAL RICHARD E « JOAN M STRAND 645 NO FERNOALE RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0016 PROP ADDR 00775 FERNOALE RD N ONNER NAME B A A K J ERICKSON TAXPAYER BRADLEY A A KAREN J ERICKSON NAME/ADDR 775 FERNOALE RD N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSI6NE0 KAREN BELDEN FREY HILLIAM R COBB 793 FERNOALE OR N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0021 00625 FERNOALE RD N FRANCISCOS G BASTIAENS FRANCISCUS G BASTIAENS 625 NORTH FERNOALE RO HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 36-118-23 11 0029 00627 FERNOALE RD N BONNIE D JOHNSON BONNIE 0 JOHNSON 627 FERNOALE RO N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 14 0002 00575 FERNOALE RD N J G S M M DAYTON JAMES G A MEGAN M DAYTON 575 FERNOALE RD N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 11 0031 00629 FERNOALE RD I J R THOMAS SNA THOMAS JOSEPH R S NANCY A THOMAS 629 FERNOALE RD N HAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 14 0009 00585 FERNOALE RD N DANIEL D DANIELSON ETAL DANIEL 0 DANIELSON 585 NORTH FERNOALE RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 14 0001 00575 FERNOALE RO N J 6 S M M DAYTON JAMES 6 S MEGAN M DAYTON 575 FERNOALE RO N HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 502 00011 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUTTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ^ DATE ^ ^ BY A J’ n Ffr 1/1 Jole l\Jor^i\ r il fc E c=» cz:> [!□r:::.; •CD O CD CZ] o ■ A o « A —----------- ----------- CD Mr --------------- «n NE 1/4 T I t QW ) Permit No. ^?S>7 (»7o7 7^90^ sk&lfil--. cR <R 9m V75' ^ ^V7 ■UL .V PERMIT RECORD Date •^-/i,-9'S( 9-^/-9-A /o - /- 9^ /^ -n-rs. 7R-)-0m 9-50-90 5) ■ 1^-9 c'_______ Ic-jo-X Q ^7- *7/ Type of Permit Jn// -U un^- I — TkjcJ-^ PJLU ^uP/- \jy )-rl-9P F "?Kf cy-^ (d - - - to the point of beginning. ^ ^ i S89-58'33‘W ...j-- 100.00 .......- / Ihol this mop was prepared by me or under my Ion end thot I am o duly Registered Lond Surveyor . of the Stole of Minnesota. lory, 1998. by:___! ^ Jock Bolke Minnesota License No. 20281 f this beoring system is bosed on the eost line LAURENT ADDITION which is ossumed to hove o *4 degrees 28 minutes 58 seconds West. } furnished for the preporotion of this survey to escription or the existence of ony eosements or erty described hereon is 90.265 squore feet or 15 1^* I=3C7 255.20 , S86‘22’00 W A C- ■scuTi-i ei_i=:^/5.-noi—I /69UMr5NOI9KPOf6-mcx.v\metcm,^.-ntockmcrof^MV K Aik IK 11/A K)k:/-i/-ki ik i ffspwotra TiM COUNCIL M££T\NQ1^^P 25 199B REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION crTY 0^ OBONO DATE: March 23, 1998 ITEM NO.: ^5" Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Brad Brassier Title Platming Assistant Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2344 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:12,204 s.f. (.28 acre) Application: The applicants are requesting variances to rebuild a main level deck on the lake side of the residence and enclose the area below to be used as a porch. A new stairway, deck and steps leading down from the main level deck on the lake side of the porch are proposed to provide access to the yard. A new second level deck is also proposed. Variances are required for hardcover in the O' to 75' and 75 ’ to 250' lakeshore setbacks, average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and structural coverage. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to: • Approve a hardcover variance of 4.2% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where none is allowed and 9.3% is existing. • Approve a hardcover variance of 30% in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback to allow 55% hardcover where 25% is allowed and 55.4% is existing. • Approve a structural coverage variance of 4.7% to allow 19.7% structural coverage where 15% is allowed and 21.3% is existing. • Approve an average lakeshore setback variance to allow 41' encroachment where none is allowed and 49' is existing. r Approve a lakeshore setback variance of 13' to allow the deck to be located 62 from the OHWL where 75' is required and 53' is existing. As a conditioii of approval the illegally constructed lower level deck nearest the lakeshore be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1 0 approve or amend the enclosed resolution. L A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(C), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1(A) AND 2 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C6) FILE NO. #2344 WHEREAS, C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1056 Loma Linda Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: See Exhibit A for legal description (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C), Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1(A) and 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C6) to permit the construction, replacement and enclosure of decks on the lake side of the residence. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2344. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 12,204 s.f. or .28 acre. 'I'he Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 16, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: 1. The zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements. Page 1 of 7 5. 2. The main level deck is a replacement of one that had existed. 3. The enclosed porch and second level deck will not further add to hardcover, structural coverage or encroachment on the lakeshore and average lakeshore setbacks. 4. The stairway leading down from the main level deck and walkway and steps around the porch are necessary fo» a secondary means of egress from the main level and to address sigivdicant topography. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 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. Page 2 of 7 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C), Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1(A) and 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C6) allowing a hardcover variance of 4.2% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where none is allowed and 9.3% is existing, a hardcover variance of 30% in the 75; to 250' lakeshore setback allowing 55% hardcover where 25% is allowed and 55.4% is existing, a structural coverage variance of 4.7% to allow 19.7% structural coverage where 15% is allowed and 21.3% is existing, an average lakeshore setback vrr .aiice allowing 41' encroachment where none is allowed and 49' is existing and a lakeshore setback variance of 13' to allov, the deck to be located 62' from the OHWL where 75 is required and 53' is existing to allow the construction of a new second level deck and stairs and walkway and the replacement of a main level deck and porch enclosure below. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. The illegally built deck nearest the lakeshore as shown on Exhibit B must be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 23, 1999). 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 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 Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of March, 1998. Page 3 of 7 ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owners STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of March 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Notary Public 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 7 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 (diey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION:That part of Lot 4, Lome Undo and the property described as follows: That part of Lot 36 including the accretions thereto, *Lomo Linda^ which lies easterly and southerly of the following described line: Beginning a( a point on the South tine of said Lot 36 distant 200 feet easterly of the southwest corner of said Lot 36: thence northerly, at a right angle to said south line, a distance of 106 feet; thence northeasterly, deflecting to the right 56 degrees 00 minutes to the south line of the north 40 feet of said Lot 36; thence easterly, along the last mentioned south line, a distance of 157 feet; thence northeasterly, deflecting to (he left 70 degrees 00 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating. Which lies southeasterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 36; thence easterly along the South line of said Lot 36 a distance of 304.46 feet to an angle point in said South tine and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflecting left 29 degrees 26 minutes 50.70 feet to the south line of said Lot 36; thence deflecting right 13 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds 139 feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating, said Lot 36 being established by judgement entered in Hennepin County District Court Cose Number 449127 and recorded in Book 550 of Miscellaneous Records, page 410. TO: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Brad Dressier, Plaiming Assistant DATE: March 11,1998 SUBJECT: #2344 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances—Public Hearing ____________________ Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) 12,204 square feet______ square feet (.28 acre)____________ Application: The applicants are proposing to rebuild a main level deck on the lake side of the residence and enclose the area below to become a porch . A new second level deck, a stairway leading down from the main level deck and a deck and steps along the lake side of the porch are also proposed. Variances are required for hardcover in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250 lakeshore setbacks, _________average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and structural coverage. Pertinent Ordinances: . Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage . Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A): Lakeshore Setback Regulations . Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations . Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C6): Average Lakeshore Setback Regulations C. Douglas and Marilyn J. Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances March 16. 1998 Page I ANALYSIS T ot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard LR-IB 1 acre 140'75'10'35' subject property .28 acre 94'atOHWX 72' at 75' setback 53.'-existing 62'-proposed 1 8'-existing 1 1'-proposed 27' The subject property does not meet lot area, lot width, lakeside setback and street yard requirements. For the purposes of this application, a variance is r^'quired from the lakeside ya/d setback. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 12,204 s.f.Existing: 2,600 s.f.21.3% Proposed: 2,406 s.f 19.7% The property does not meet structural coverage requirement as existing or proposed. The proposal decreases the amount of structural coverage on the properly. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'6,080 s.f 568 s.f (9.3%) none 254 s.f (4.2%) 254 s.f (4.2%) 75'-250'6,124 s.f 3,391 s.f (55.4%) 1,531 s.f (25%) 3,370 s.f (55%) 1,839 s.f (30%) Variances are required for hardcover in the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. While the requirements will not be met, hardcover will be reduced in each setback. U23-N C. Douglas and Marilyn J. Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances March 16. 1998 Page 2 STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Refer to the applicants statement of hardship (Attachment K). Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property is dilapidated in its current state and remodeling is taking place. As part of this remodeling, the applicants wish to replace and enclose decks primarily in the same footprint as approved by a previous variance. These replacements cannot take place without the granting of variances. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the lar iowner. The existing residence was built prior to current zoning district requirements. While the portion of the lower level deck nearest the lakeshore was added by a previous owner illegally, the majority of the replacements being proposed are within previously approved footprint areas. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for hardcover, average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback will not alter the character of the area. 4. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The porch and decks are permitted in this zoning district. U2344 C. Douglas and Marilyn J. Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances March 16. 1993 Page 3 5. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The zoning lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. Due to the non- conforming lot size, meeting the hardcover requirements is difficult. The location of the residence on the applicant's other property to the north at 1040 Loma Linda Avenue is farther west than the subject property due to the northwest slant of the lakeshore, which makes meeting the average lakeshore setback difficult on the subject property. 6. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Most of the lots along this portion of Loma Linda Avenue were platted prior to current zoning requirements and the residences on them also were built before current zoning and are therefore non-conforming. Not all residences in the neighborhood are located as close to the lakeshore as the subject property, however. 7. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants would not be able to replace the dilapidated decks that were previously approved by variances without the granting of variances at the present time. 8. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necf'ssary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The proi . to rebuild and enclose a portion of the decks that have been previously granted a variance. There will be a decrease of hardcover on the property. Encroachments on the average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback will be reduced also. i^2344 C. Douglas and Marilyn J. Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances March 16. 1998 Page A Issues 1.The property does not mec» lot area or width requirements. A lot line rearrangement between the subject property and the applicant's property other property at 1040 Loma Linda Avenue to the north was approved in January, 1998 that improved ♦he conformance of the lot. 2. A variance was approved in 1969 to deem the lot of record buildable. 3. The stairs and decking around the porch will be the only increase of hardco\ er and structure over what was approved in 1977. While the porch and decks could be constructed without increasing the footprint beyond what w'as approved in 1977, the downward slope away from the porch and need for a exterior means of egress from the porch and second level necessitate the construction of the 3.5 ’ wide stairway and deck. The alternative would be to build a grade level stairway that is allowed by code but would increase hardcover in an equal or greater amount. 4. When the variances were approved for the existing decks and lakeside addition, average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and structural overage apparently did not apply as these variances required row were not necessary for the addition at that time. While the ’ts were not mentioned in the vai lance report, the elevation drawings showing thei.. is approved. 5 Allowing the enclosure of the area under the main level deck will not increase hardcover or structural coverage since the existing main level deck already counts toward structural coverage and hardcover. Furthermore, it will not increase encroachment on the lakeshore or average lakeshore setbacks. The second level deck will be located over the existing decks and will not increase the magnitude of the necessary variances. 7. The existing lower level deck nearest the lakeshore was built without variances or a permit. 8. It appears as though all decks as existing and proposed are considered structural coverage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the necessary variances to allow the replacement of existing decks and enclosing the area under the main level deck, replacing the existing main level deck which will be constructed on top of the porch, constructing an new additional 6' by 8' second level deck and adding a 3.5' wide stairway and deck leading down from the main level deck and around the porch. • Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance of 4.2% in the O' to 75 lakeshore setback where none is allowed and 9.3% is existing. Un-f-tC. Douglas and Marilyn J. Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances March 16. 1993 Page 5 . Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance of 30% in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback to allow 55% hardcover where 25% is allowed and 55.4% is existing. . Staff recommends approval of a structural coverage variance of 4.7% to allow 19.7% structural coverage where 15% is allowed and 21.3% is existing. . Staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback variance to allow 41' encroachment where none is allowed and 49' is existing. . Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance of 13' to allow the deck to be located 62' from the OHWL where 75' is required and 53' is existing. . Staff recommends that as a condition of approval the illegally constructed lower level deck nearest the lakeshore be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicants have agreed to this provision. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Property Owners List D Location Map E Topographic Map F Permit Record G Survey H Elevation Drawings I Hardcover Worksheets J City Council Minutes From July 11,1977 K Applicant's Statement of Hardship U234-t C. Douglas and Marilyn J Holcombe 1056 Loma Linda Avenue Variances March 16. 1998 Page 6 I #23 h Application # Date Receilved z/17/AL Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no '.e from original application) Variant non-conforming structures $250.0 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address i_oma A\/t^ Property Identification Number (T.I.D.) cf / na.3 D006 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prc^erty Acquired _______________________________(month/yea^ I(^^p(do n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. -+Lfl. tdoATw .. Preset use of property; residential ___pother (specify)^____________________— Zoning District: ft I T>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT r!’one (home) snv j<g>o Name MAaiuvui4CL.l>xcjccA3 MoLCC/v\Ag Phone (work) i Address: loMo Lcma U^':>A Av/fT.______City:_Oj^orot2___________Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address;City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constniction Cost $ coo_____ Describe request in detail: J C-l^‘ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area S, Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side r\"^ardco" V Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ___________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All cf the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x 11" for reproduction. 4. ___ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (I) copy S'/z" x 11" for reproduction. 5. ^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/z" x 11"). 6. List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 7. ___ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that ymu: variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature 0 __________ Date >// _________ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The ouTier hereby acknowledges 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 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 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 ad\ise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 L fliiiliWiPpI ’__.. *■;■;•■ ■••1. £l \ • I -N;; ■; ' ^.i:' ■ HENNEPIN COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE Parcel Information Parcel ID Oe 11723230005 House Numtief 01056 Sired Name LOMA LINDA AVE Condominium Ttt% « not a lrga»r '*« map I a compaaocn o< aVormattoo and data *rom cay Courry and ru» read a^arw^t ar^ oe«c« u»^9% RUN DATE 02/12/98 BATCH 507 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE 39PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 2303980 DAHL RD THOMAS P MCGLYWI THOMAS P MCGLYtM 7350 COMMERCE LA MPLS MN 55932 0001N E 38 08-117-23 23 000501056 LOMA LINDA AVE C D S M J HOLCOMBE C 0 S M J HOLCOMBE 1056 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUMO MN 55369 38 08-117-23 23 000601058 LOMA LINDA AVET M A M L SCHAIBLETODD M S MICHELLE L SCHAIBLE1058 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND IN 55369 38 08-117-23 23 0007 PROP ADDR 01066 LOMA LINDA AVE OWNER NAME CAROL M RADUNZ TAXPAYER CAROL M RADUI^ NAME/ADDR 5505 RIVER BLUFF CIR BLOOMINGTON MN 55937 38 08-117-23 23 0008 01079 LOMA LINDA AVE MARGARET E MATTSON MARGARET E MATTSON 1079 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55369 38 08-117-23 23 0009 0108-* LOMA LINDA AVE K H A F DAIVARI KHOSROW A FATEMEH DAIVARI 2359 CHERRYWOOD RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 23 0022 01095 LOMA LINDA AVE T G OSTERBERG/K J OSTERBERG TIMOTHY G/KRISTI J OSTERBERG 1095 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55369 38 08-117-23 23 0025 01090 LOMA LINDA AVE C D HOLCOMBE A M J HOLCOMBE C DOUGLAS HOLCOMBE 1090 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55369 38 08-117-23 23 0023 01035 LOMA LINDA AVE R C BROWN A M A BROWN ROSS C A MELINDA A BROt'IN 1035 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55369 TOTAL BATCH 507 00010 38 08-117-23 23 0029 01038 LOLU LINDA AVE ROBERT B ANDERSON ROBERT B ANDERSON 1038 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55369 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE MEtJNEPIN C0U4TY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TA>JkTION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE Q '' V' Ntt C-\ r\ W. ^ a c- PERMIT RECORD /OS6f /-^Crnna. A/\ndCi.F Permit Wo. {n'7^ Date /n- /Xl-'PK- >f-/P-77 /<T- 76" Type of Permit y^^/c/a/lCS ■/?<?<..i^/€y'i(ljr y^r.^/f r^/cr>n /nerT:cj^ ■-’■w u,,vv;, . - ESj 1#! ■ /7!oo^r^-^ - ' ...,^— ' ■'■ — HARDCOVEgXAl CULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZOPTC: (CIRCLE ONE) Q-7^ 75-250’ 250-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______________ Lengih B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk i E. Paiio/Deck *: T. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric/J,.Other L'M TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE s c> ^ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other Widih ■i- B O jCSO X 100 WiOth TOTAL HARDCOVER’N ZONE , - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - A ZSW + B X 100 500-1000’ ^3" S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^^5 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S6S__________S.F. C»8c S.F. ■9.3 % J^3 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /O/ Jf S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. __________S.F. 4.^^____% lIARDCOVttt CALCUL^lUIi^OUKSlltET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 250 500’ f yiSTlNC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Lengih Width B. Oarafe C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. LaodKapc Underiain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A__________________■* ® . fnOPOSEn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________ * X 100 Length Width B.Oarage, a ■ bl C.Driveway R'.- Ki-'i D.Sidewalk E.Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlrin By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ + B - I i [^500-1000’ 1.94"^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. O S.F. ni‘1 /. ^ S.F. S.F. 9^ 1 2 74 S.F.33 r S.F.. 8 5 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. n(^Q S.F. • 3. ^ S.F.A CJZ-4 S.F.B ZJSI S.F. S.F. S.F. >.F. S.F. J S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ;s.F. S.F. 'S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 S.F. S.F. 55.6_ _% p 0 ■i'. iiJ •;r 0/ ^*>U2 csta:^ ccs3<ci‘l« jol ^ u, 1977 * .i v>i 1 r PA90 11 V^^^Lina. •276 Donald Ekoborg 7 ;i^/2ZV iC*:hi.c^^ Uxnildino 6 S^ning Adiainiatratorff ino;> tbo rocord following roquost o£ c^:^Z2 Mcotxurtj# 1056 Loaa X*indA» for a lot area iUid VAzlanco, datod Juno 15# 1977# which atut&ns« la roqueting a v&rianeo for construction of a 12 X 15 addition to hia existing houso. The itself was hailt suLsequant to a variance <;:?>rov4$d in October# 1974. The addition %#ould r^ot t>^ required side yard and lakeshoro oatbacks itl'Ui Uj;: oarmor is jui«t 75* from the top of tho asd ia in an area prosontly occupied £h wr;^n duck. Tl'tu addition would not extend p^st tlw adjoining houe. • ^5.560 aq. ft.; Mvj^I 10,250 aq, ft.; Variance 33,310 sq. ft. (761) *ot ^icth Botjuared: 240 ft. Actual - 50 ft. Variance - 90 ft. • 641 Hardcover: Existing - 1,752 sq. ft. • 17t Addition - 180 jq. ft. • 1.81 Total Proposed - 1,932 sq. ft. - 18.81 (f .• variance required) Planning Coftoiesion Meeting • July 5# 1977 :ucoxswr,dad approval because addition would not obstruct the neighbor*e lake view end does not u..croac'a on the lakeshore setback area. > Council Meeting - July 11# 1977 hu'clur laovod# Maouongale &ocondod, to ar«prove the Vursancu reguoat of Donald EkoUirg# 10S6 Z.orria h:;.r.wtu# por ti'.o Plar.nino CoAiiisoion reconuAenoations \ of'July 5# *1977. Motion, Ayes <5} - Nays m'O) . •i huhich, iJuilding a lionini, jtracer, rc-u ii'.-o Che record the followir. .guost of ruiv i-lotn, VonXawd Koad, for o variance, w.,:ed June 15, 1977, which states: A;vl«CuAt is r>’.*Quosting a lot area variance for uo^struction of an addition to hin existing hone. The proposed addition will laeot all setback rocpiirunenta. There is an existing garage on the property very close to the highway. Mr. Uloth status that his plans are to eventually reaove this and replace it with a new garage north of the house. 1 think that we should encourage that plan. The property is now three separate parcels (Lots 3 & 4, and part of Lot 5; and Lot 6 and port of 5) which should bo coinbined into one parcel. Lots I, 2, 15 s 16 were the subject of a variance approved in February, so no additio.ial land is available for this property. VARIANCE 473 Tonkawa Road #277 Ray n'nth (Continiaed) 4.L O /I 7V' " 1 ' ” ' •■S J V, ^■••''' ■ < - Re: Application for Variance In Setback at 1056 Xomaldnda /Tvig! A brief history: We bought 1056 Lome Linda under the assumption its footprint had been approved years ago. We discovered, when we brought in our plans, that the deck on the ground level had never been approved. This Is why we are applying for any variances. Our original plan did not exceed any of the original footprint. We had no intention of seeking any variances. However the variances we do seek will greatly reduce the present hardcover and will fall under previous approvals In 1977. There is one small exception, and it will add no hardcover that wouldn ’t be added by the alternative. The original plan approvals in 1977 did call for a 12x15 ’ deck off the main level of the house with a stairway leading to the ground level. Beneath that deck we want to put in a porch. We would also like to put in a 3 ’ x 15 ’ walkway on the lakeside of the porch which gives us access to the yard. Othenivise we would have to extend the stairway a significant amount to reach the yard because of the steepness of the slope at that point. The hard cover required would be about the same either way. We would also like to build a small 8’x6 ’ deck off the upper level over the main floor deck where hardcover already exists. We will tear up the ground level deck and will only replace that portion that is directly under the main level deck plus the walkway that gives us access to the yard. We also will take out the wooden walkway that is on the north side of the house and leads from the main entryway to the lakeside lower deck. This lot is a small lot, typical of this portion of the lake. The present hardcover in the setback zone of 0-75’ is 568 S.F. With our proposed plan, we have reduced the hardcover to 254 S.F. That takes us from 9.3% to 4.2%. 45 S.F. are the new walkway which we would have if we have to extend the stairway. The rest of the hardcover is previously approved hardcover in 1977. In the 75-250 ’ zone there is minimal change. The present hardcover Is 3391 S.F. and our proposal calls for a very slight reduction to 3370 S.F. This changes the percentage from 55.4% to 55.0%. Although we hate to lose the present deck which is in good repair(one of the few things that are), we also want to make sure what we do have Is built correctly, and can be maintained or improved in the future. Wo do not want a future buyer of the property to encounter the surprise we did. K COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^3 1998 DATE: ITEM NO.: /jb Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Zoning Title Planner/Zoning Administrator Item Description: #2346 Mark & Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 16,883 sq. ft. including vacated Forest Lane (.387 acres) and 14,653 sq. ft. without vacated portion of Forest Lane (.336 acres) Application: The applicant is requesting a side yard variance to add a second story to the existing residence. The proposed addition would include a master bedroom, a bathroom, two other bedrooms, and storage. A side yard variance is required because tlie existing residence is 3.4 ’ from the property line where 10 ’ is required. i ; PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to approve. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24 FILE NO. #2346 WHEREAS, Mark Palm and Pamela Palm (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1447 Park Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 15, "Saga Hill, Revised, Hennepin County, MN" (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal 7onimz Code Section 10 24, to aUow a second floor addition to an existing residence that ^rache’fddtoTnto the’required side yard A vanance for side yard setback is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2346. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 16 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings; A. The subject lot does not meet lot width, lot area, hardcover or structural requirements. B. The proposed addition does not encroach into the average lakeshore setback. Minnesota; 1. 2. 3. Page 1 of 5 C. The topography of the lot slopes from the street side of the residence to the lakeside of the residence. D. The chimney is considered an encroachment in the side yard E. The existing residence encroaches 6.6' into the required side yard. The proposed addition would increase the amount of structure in the required 10' side yard F. The applicant is advised to obtain a maintenance easement from the adjacent property owner. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty, is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER /VND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a side yard variance along the west property line to allow a second floor addition to an existing residence per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24. Thereby increasing structure in a required 10' side yard where 3.4" is existing and proposed. 1. The applicant shall combine the vacated portion of Forest Lane with the subject property. Page 2 of 5 1 Future variances to increase structure or hardcover will not receive favorable recommendations for approval. 3.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 23, 1999). 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 Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of March 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and 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 5 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 exe'^uted 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 ) Notary Public On this day of , 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared____________________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator March 4. 1998 SUBJECT: #2346 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Dnve Side Yard Variance-Public Hearing ! i Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (1 acre) 16,883 sq. ft. including vacated Forest Lane (.387 acres) 14,653 sq. ft. without vacated portion of Forest Lane (.336 acres) Application:The applicant is requesting a side yard variance to add a second story to the existing residence. The proposed add ion would include a master bedroom, a bathroom, two bedrooms, and str ge. A side yard variance is needed because the existing structure encro es i.ito the required 10' side yard Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24, LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.03, General Standards, Subd. 15, Non-Encroachments U2346 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive March 16. 1998 page-1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area 43,560 sq. ft. (1 acre) lot Width 140* Street Yard 35' Side Yard Lakeside Yard 75' and average lakeshore setback Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lol Area Lot Width Street Yard S, • '^'^rd Lakeside 16,883 sq. ft. (.387 acres) i2' at street .14'at ..veshore 28' approximately to garage 3.4' for west side yard; chimney is 1.7' from west property line 108' approximately to deck; meets average lakeshore setback The subject prof »-rt> does not meet the minimum lot area requirement of 1 a*, re. with or without the vacated portion of Forest Lane. The applicant is pursuing attachir'g *.ne vacated portion of Forest Lane to their property. Other parcels in the area have attached the Vac ited portion to their property as shown on the plat map from Hennepin County which re‘'erences document numbers for the vacations. The subject property does not meet the lot width requirements. The garage encroach*'' inio the required street yard. The existing residence does meet the average lakf -ore setback * id the 75 setback from the lakeshore. Tli? ing structure encroaches 6.6' into the required 10' side ya^r The chimney is 1.7' from the pr ’p..ny line. The chimney is 1.7' x 5.5' in size. The chimney is not an allowed, encroachment in the side } ard because it is more than 18" in depth. The proposed addition would be located above the e.xisting structure. A side yard variance is needed to allow more structure to be added in the required side yard. U2346 Mark and PameLt Palm 1447 Park Drive March 16. 1098 page-? i Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Allowed Existing Structural Co\'trage 16,883 sq. ft. with vacated Forest Lane 2.532.45 sq. ft. (15%) Garage=939.9 sq. ft. House= 1,208.85 sq. ft. Porch=96 sq. ft. Deck=452 sq. ft. Total=3,636.75 sq. ft. (21.5%) 'Hie subject property currently exceeds the 15% lot coverage requirement as cairulated including the ated portion of Forest Lane. The proposed addition will not be located over existing structure will increase the amount of structural coverage. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover T -tposed Hardcover Variance ^ Requestet 0'-75'3,678 sq. ft.92 sq. ft. (2.5%) None 92. sq. ft. (2.5%) None 75'-250 ’10,050 sq. ft.4938.4 sq. ft. (49.15%) 2.512.5 sq. ft. (25%) 4,938.4 sq. ft. (49.15%) None 250’-500’3,155 sq. ft.1,285 sq. ft. (40.73%) 946.5 sq. ft. (30%) 1,285 sq. ft. (40.73%) None The subject property exceeds hardcover requirements in all three setback zones. The hardcover in the 0'-75' setback is 92 sq. ft. or 2.5% for wood steps ihat provide access to the lakeshore. In the 75- 250' setback the deck, house, rock/plastic, and rock .s ail cover 4,938.4 sq. ft. of area or 49.15% of the area in the setback. In the 250'-500' setback, the garage and driveway cover 40.73% of the total area in the setback where 30% is allowed. U2346 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive March 16, 19Q8 page-3 STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant has stated on ..le application that their hardship for requesting a side yard variance is the location of the existing residence on the property. The chimney is 1.7' from the west property line. The lot narrows from the street to the lakeshore, varying from 65.12' at the street to 49.15' at the lakeshore. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The house can continue to be used without the addition. The proposed addition includes a master bedroom/bath and two additional bedrooms. The existing house has a 1,208.95 sq. ft. footprint. 2. The plight of the landowner is dn> to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The need for a side yard variance is created by the location of the existing structure and the landowner's desire to build an additional floor using the existing foundation and walls. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for a side yard variance will change the bulk of the house by adding a second floor. The height of the building needs to be 30' or less from the street side elevation. Because the topography slopes down towards the lakeshore, the height will be more dramatic .:om the side >ards and lakeshore yard than the street yard. 4. Economic considerations alone shall no^ constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. 5. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Residential uses are allowed in this zoning district. U2346 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive March 16. 1998 page—4 6. The special conditi''’'S applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The subject property is similar in size to other properties in the area. The location of the house close to the property line is unique. 7. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. All properties in this zoning district are subject to the side yard requirements. 8. The granting ol tnc ai'plication is necessary for the preser\'ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants will need to provide the Planning Commission with testimony regarding their ability o enjoy the curr “nt residence as constructed compared to their need for a second floor addition. 9. The granting of the proposed variance w ill not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The applicants caiuiot add any more space to their current residence because of hardcover and structural coverage requirements. The applicants have two options to have a larger house on this site. The first is to seek a side yard variance to add another floor. The second option is to remove the existing structure and build another house with a footprint of 1,500 sq. ft. or less. Construction of a new residence on this lot would be restricted if the garage remains because the garage is 939.9 sq. ft. and the allowed structural coverage is 2,532 sq. ft. Therefore, the footprint for a new residence would be only slightly bigger than the existing residence. U2346 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive March 16, 1998 page-S Issues 1. 3. 4. 5. The subject lot does not meet lot width, lot area, hardcover, or structural coverage requirements. Average lakeshore setback is not an issue with this property. The topography of the zoning lot is higher at the street yard and slopes down to the house and lakeshore. The existing residence is 3.4' from the west property line. The applicant should discuss obtaining a maintenance easement from the adjacent property owner to be able to maintain the west side of the residence and the chimney. If the adjacent property owner decided to construct a fence on the property line, the subject property owner would have difficulty making improvements to the residence. There is a considerable amount of rock over plastic on the property. The existing deck should not be enclosed or remodeled because it would require additional variances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adding a second level is the only available option for the occupants to add additional living space. This option requires a side yard variance. It is not practical for the applicant to relocate the residence to fit inside the allowed building pad. Removing the house and keeping the garage would be restricted to a footprint approximately 384.55 sq. ft. larger than the existing residence, i .us amount does not include the deck or porch. The house, deck, and porch exceed the 15% limit by 68.85 sq. ft. The Planning Commission needs to discuss the impact of adding structure to a building that currently encroaches in the required side yard given the limitations of the lot. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Adjacent Property Owner's list D Floor Plan E Hardcover calculations F Survey G Building Pad H Topo I Building Elevations U2346 Mark and Pamela Palm 1447 Park Drive March 16. 1998 page--6 A Application it Date Received Amount Paid c .___ crr\ OF ORONO - variance application Initial Application Fee $250.00 550.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) property information ^ Site Address H # rf' - f-' " Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) fY\ *• OOll ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. rilVL Date Property Acquired__^ ^__________________________(month/year) 1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propert>" y residential __^other (specify) ZonineDistrict: 1& Drv FnrY\iK| ____ applicant _ _ Phone Oiome) 412 - 3^^ ... Name Phone(utirk) y 7t-ll Z.'7 Address: lUM-l PAR.1C City: QC^Ci^O_______Zip:_SS3J^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $ 10,000 Describe request in detail: ^i;£yNi i) ^ MASTtSVL l^ATK ^ MA5fC^ ^ 'L ^OQ mS (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHii'/DESCRIPTION O * USUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or pra cal difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing cornpliance with Zoning Code requirements:___________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. >C Completed Application Form 2. yC Certified Property Ov\-ners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt CenteF,^8-327T> 3. X Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surv’eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x H" for reproduction. 4. ___ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVz" x 11" for reproduction. 5. _X. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 ‘/2" x 11"). 6. 'yC List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 7. ___ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. _Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that jifiur variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zcii’* ■ Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payme and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the knowledge.information supplied is trde^^idjsorrect ^ the^es^if-ht^^ Applicant's Signature \aKilu. Date Zj \ ^% OWNER'S SlGNATURt The owner hereby acknowledges 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 jbf investigation apd-v€iifiqatkm-t>fdh*^ request. Owner's Signature \avdW\cA>— 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. 8 «! ;.i k ■ 7j ,IC%.•-'"••% Cl/ . -'v :. J I (we)A Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the clans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at DC_____also referred to as Land Use Application No. . 1 (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 O Date Property Owner Date ilf^*«**4‘***i‘*****************>¥1i1i1i1i1,iitrk*ii*il€iiii**********************i>************ I rw-el 6t>JTt.gTT~ [print name(s)] PfilU'E [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 1HM~1 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. -1:u. t Am. Property Owne{Date (T 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. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEt 1 H»ui- k^v/«£0 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250'250-500-500-1000' FOISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Len*ih Width B. c. Garage Drivcwiy St«p:S D. Sidcwatit E. Fatio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plasiic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - ___X = PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House______________ t Width B. Garage' C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE lOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -»- B X 100 S.F. S.F ■u.S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. t j S.F. S.F. X A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % 13 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' HARDCOVER CAl-CL'LATION WORKSHEET 75-250’ CTsO-SOOl) 500-1000* A.House X -S.F. Lcn|ih X Width s S.F. X =S F. X &S.F. B.Garage X as S.F. c.Driveway X as 679.0 S.F. X s S.F. D.Sidewalk £ X S3 S.F. X =S.F. E.Patio/Deck r =s S.F. X ar S.F. F.Landscape X A S.F. Underlain X S * By Plastic X as G.Otherfije.r’fea 3& X s 30,4-S.F. lAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE o S.F.A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE --^/5V5-S.F.B A /2S£,0 -!- D K 100 =% PROPosEirmRDCOv: V in zone A.House X B S.F. •Length X Width S.F. rt X S S.F. X as S.F. B.Garage'X S.F. c.Driveway X B S.F.*. X B S.F. D.Sidewalk X B S.F.rr X 8 S.F.^. * E.Patio/Dcck X B S.F. X »S.F. F.Landscape X ; S.F. Underlain X s S.F. * r -..By Plastic X ts S.F. G.Other X 8 S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F.A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZCNf .S.F.B A + B X 100 8 % 1 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ I;.yiSTlNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEE1 250-500- -7-"‘ / 500-1000' B. C. Garage Len^ihz Driveway D. StdewaHe E. Tah«4Dcck 'Poac^H F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Widths 9 A ^7 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -5- B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7n^^^ A. House Length Width B. Garage' C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •i- B yZo3,/ Z5.7 /y?.8 ^03 6^7.7 37.7 S.F. SF. S.F. ^4^,8 S.F. gzo.z S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. <^9SS.4- S.F. tOOSa S.F. % X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B I • I Xh’i b'i+ I im mvAMOhi ‘CAi i/'V'-r MA PE5l(JiNJNC. 80 W.78tli.5t„ Suite 210 Chanhassen, AAN 55517 !) 954-7440 FAX C 612) 954-4505 isscmzrcjRi /W/Sf^K. F»>\AA F-z^/VA u?r Ipuxx Icchmyi T1AAPERLPEVBtr^MCNf 5tlKf/W?l®55 H47 P0VE OfY.wms C^eCM?.MN COUNCIL mar 2 5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: March 23, 1998 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Brad Dressier Title Planning Assistant Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2248 Mary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 57,200 s.f. (1.13 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of a new residence on a vacant lot that would not meet hardcover requirements. A variance for hardcover is required in the 75' to 250 lakeshore setback. The applicant had previously proposed a stormwater detention pond as a means of offsetting the hardcover excess. This proposal has been excluded under the revised proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to: • Approve a variance of .9% hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback to allow 25.9% hardcover where 25% is allowed and 29.8% was proposed. Exhibits A and B are die revised ^survey and hardcover calculations, respectively per Planning Commission rcconimendatiou. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. CERriFICATE OT SlJ^VtY FQR COMMERCIAL PARTNERS T(TLE. LLC, MARY JANE HAUSER AND RALPH D. BJRGESS, JR. N GOV'T LOT 1, SECTION 9-H7-23 ME^^VEP1N COUNTY, M-NNESOIA .sr.’L-rsr.'EL bardcotex CALCi'U'nD.'xs - Aotmt a Urn 4 » W imW ^ ritf Ik »• i»M tf «M «« ——J Jr. T_^-1 - ,■ II •n tv nu»iUf<OHiv SkCVik WmC^ TOtAL »A»rODVn WLaL Cfitf m.oirvBM UnU9Mr any i4tf OBtf icncaujxomaivM Mti r\^Ai.n(rmTAMUni9<i ii.w# nWU'ti.MVtf «0<4% Picpi;Sil by: keenan «& svcivcii inc. Prelimiliar}’ Site Plan - Sclicme A 7u r*«««OikiC<fii« WfrsaiKMn»i4 W#i-UB. Mi-samu ?:^n^i.U :IDI jr^ o5<o keo § VJ .■is.i-s'^sjTJT.r y %''M s# » /certificate or SURVEY FOB COMKtERClAL PARTNERS TITLE, LLC, MARY JANE HAUSER AND RALPH 0. BURGESS. JR. IN GOV'T LOT f. SECTION 9-117-23 HENNERN COIAITY, MNNE50TA ii.<MicoviBiiur.a .■no?6-5ag>ai tmiv-ar *ii3 »»•»■»««< «ai ■ |MW*«Mat 0x1 49y Vm^Jyrn^mm tu -------------------- . --------------------„ _ _ for4LiAramvmo(-v>« ............ , JLriM i \uottt O^^^iiiiMCaa Iimo XMILSI1. ILKCrf «i$a% «n l••M•••>«|*««• «Rf| iH.a mm>rnmm-UL4e> mg IM4# fora, Ht»«ccvn nrotff H4i g mrtL rto’OTT aaca pi mm mjw « Maia/ti.vo#»9a* Prepwedhy: kceiuii A( svciven iiic. tfgwt rMrt Cnlff IJSCi>W»rx»«.Baulr*«i Wt/ttU. MfmM Isrr.ifr.'Prcliiniiiarv Site Plan - Scheme B SENT BY:RELIANCE R.E. SERVICES: 3-19-98 : 3:31PM : (612) 338-8971-6124730510:#'3/ 5 I7l HAUSER RESIDENCE HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS ~ SCHEME A Zone 75’-250’ House 3860 sf Garage 881 sf Driveway 2390 sf Front Walk/Stoop 258 sf Mudroom walk/Stoop 52 sf Slab @ back of Garage 16 sf Spa Deck 280 sf Main Deck 429 sf Tops of Retaining Walls 96 sf TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 8262 sf TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 31,900 sf 8262 sf / 31,900 sf = 25.9% Zone 250L500’ Garage 702 sf Driveway 1412 sf Monuments 45 sf Retaining Walls/Steps 180 sf Road 350 sf TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 2689 sf TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 11,500 sf 2689 sf / 11,500 sf = 23.4% 3/17/98 SL\T‘BY:RELl.VsCE R.E. SERVICES: 3-19-98 : 3:32PM :(6121 338-8971-612473U510:?: 5^ 3 8i HAUSER RESIDENCE HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS - SCHEME B Zone 75'-250' House 3860 sf Garage 881 sf Driveway 1885 sf Front Walk/Mudroom Walk & Stoops 528 sf Slab @ back of Garage 16 sf Spa Deck 280 sf Main Deck 429 sf Tops of Retaining Walls 96 sf TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 7975 sf TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 31,900 sf 7975 sf/31,900 sf = 25.0% Zone 250'-500' Garage 702 sf Driveway 1824 sf Monuments 45 sf Retaining Walls/Steps 180 sf Road 350 sf total HARDCOVER IN ZONE 3101 sf TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 11,500 sf 3101 Sf / 11,500 sf = 27.0% 3/17/98 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE NO. #2348 WHEREAS, Rick and Mary Jane Hauser (hcreinatter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1540 Bohns Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: See Exhibit A for legal description (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a new residence on a vacant lot that will not meet hardcover requirements. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2348. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 57,200 s.f. or 1.13 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 16, 1998 and recommended approval of fhe proposed variance based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 5 1. The hardcover requirement in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback could be met. Denial of the variance would result in the driveway being reconfigured in a manner to meet the hardcover requirement. This option has several negative effects on the property and neighboring property including: significant grading would need to occur to construct such a driveway, headlights would be directed at a the residence across the street, a utility pole would need to be relocated, significant trees would need to be removed. The proposed driveway reuses the existing driveway. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty, is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. 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 wel%e of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Mimicipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow construction of a new residence on a vacant lot requiring a variance for hardcover of .9% in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback to allow 25.9% where 25% is allowed. Page 2 of 5 Approval was subject to the following conditions. 1. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 23, 1999). 2. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of ‘s variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3. 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 Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owners Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instmment was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of March 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Notary Public , 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 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 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of March 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Notary Public , 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 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 5 Legal Description That part of Lot 1 in Section 9, Township 117. Range 23. described as follows: Commencing at a point on West line of said Section 9, 225 feet North of Southwest corner of said Section 9. thence North atortg said West line of Section 9.175 feet thence East on a line parallel to the South line of said Section 9 to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence in a Southerly direction akmg the shore of Lake Minnetonka 181.64 feet more or less to a point where the said shore is intersected by a line drawn through the point of beginning and parallel to the South line of said Section 9; thence West on a line parallel to 'ihe South line of said Section 9 to the point of beginning, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder. Henr>epin County. Minnesota r I /c- TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant DATE: March 13, 1998 SUBJECT: #2348 Mary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road ___________Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B Lot Area: 57,200 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) square feet (1.13 acre) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of a r. v esidence on a vacant lot that would not meet hardcover requirements. A u.ri.^n. e for hardcover is required in the 75' to 250' setback____________ Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations • Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C6): Average Lakeshore Setback Regulations *2348 Mary Jane Hauser '40 Bohns Point Road i ■ ■J’.-*' At.: 116. 1998 Page 1 Lot Area and Yards ANALYSIS Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard LR-IB 1 acre 140'75'10'35' subject property .1.13 acres 183'atOH\\T 182'at 75’ setback 118' to main deck 130' to house 14’ proposed 37’ The subject property meets lot area and lot width requirements. All setbacks will also be met as proposed. Furthermore, accessory structures are allowed to be located closer to the street than the principal structure on lakeshore lots as there is a detached two stall garage proposed in this yard area. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 57,200 s.f.5,524 s.f.9.6% The property will meet structural coverage requirements as proposed. Mary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance March 16. 1998 Page! Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75’13,800 s.f 24 s.f (.1%)?none 24 s.f (.1%)none 75'-250'31,900 s.f +-1,500 s.f (old driveway) 7,975 s.f -9,524 s.f (29.8%) 1,549 s.f 250'-500'11,500 s.f +-700 s.f (old driveway) 3,450 s.f (30%) 2,439 s.f (21.2%) none A hardcover variance is required in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback. In the O' to 75' setback, there is 24 s.f. of steps that are shown on the survey that may be existing and are allowed by code. These steps are not included in the applicant's hardcover calculations. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Refer to the application (Attachment A) for the applicant's statement of hardship. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. It is possible to construct a house and driveway that meet the hardcover requirement. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot meets area requirements and meeting the hardcover requirements should not be problematic. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for the requested amount of hardcover in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback may alter the character of the neighborhood. U2348 XfaiyJane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance S/arch 16. 1998 Page 3 4. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for aiiy use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A single family residence is permitted in this zoning district. 5. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property o»- immediately adjoining property. The proposal is for a new residence on a vacant lot that meets all zoning requirements. There are no peculiar features that necessitate such a variance. 6. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The immediately adjoining properties have been granted variances for hardcover in the 75' to 250' setbacks in recent years unde*" different circumstances. The lot to the north has less area and also has a residence on it built prior to current zoning requirements. An after-the- fact variance was granted in 1988 to allow 26.4% hardcover for the construction of a deck. The property to the south had built a pool when the residence was constructed which was not considered hardcover at the time. A variance was granted in 1996 to allow 27.18% hardcover to remain when an addition was made as the amount of approved hardcover without the pool was calculated at 25%. These residences were both built prior to current zoning requirements, versus this application which is for new construction. 7. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant can build the house essentially as proposed. By eliminating the loop driveway and reducing the size of the decks, only minor adjustments would need to be made to the footprint of the house to meet hardcover requirements. 8. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Granting the variance would serve as a convenience as the hardcover requirement could be met with minor adjustments to the application. H2348 Mary'Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance March 16. 1998 Page A r 5. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A single family residence is permitted in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to tne structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The proposal is for a new residence on a vacant lot that meets all zoning requirements. There are no peculiar features that necessitate such a variance. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The immediately adjoining properties have been granted variances for hardcover in the 75' to 250' setbacks in recent years under different circumstances. The lot to the north has less area and also has a residence on it built prior to current zoning requirements. An after-the- fact variance was granted in 1988 to allow 26.4% hardcover for the construction of a deck. The property to the south had built a pool when the residence was constructed which was not considered hardcover at the time. A variance was granted in 1996 to allow 27.18% hardcover to remain when an addition was made as the amount of approved hardcover without the pool was calculated at 25%. These residences were both built prior to current zoning requirements, versus this application which is for new construction. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant can build the house essentially as proposed. By eliminating the loop driveway and reducing the size of the decks, only minor adjustments would need to be made to the footprint of the house to meet hardcover requirements. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, blit is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Granting the vari would serve as a convenience c.' Che hardcover requirement could be met with minor c ents to the application. U2348 Mary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance March 16. 1998 Page 4 Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Econom ic factors may be a consideration with this application as the applicant has stated the hardcover variance is necessary to build a house in keeping with the value of the lot. Issues 1. 3. 5. 7. The property meets lot area and width requirements. Constructing a residence that meets all zoning requirements should not be problematic. The main deck on the lake side of the residence is a non-encroachment on the average lakeshore setback as it is at ground level without a railing. The deck and spa on the south side of the residence may be considered an encroachment if it is 6' above grade or 30" above grade with a railing. This second deck is not shown in the elevation drawings. The applicant has indicated that this deck will be constructed to either be a non-encroachment or pulled back behind the average lakeshore line. The amount of hardcover could be reduced by having the driveway coming straight in from the street. A significant amount of grading would be needed to do this, however. An existing driveway is existing in the approximate location of the proposed driveway. This proposed option uses existing grades. The applicant has stated there will not be sufficient oiT street parking if the loop driveway is not allowed. Staff feels this should not be a problem as there is a total of five garage stalls on the property in addition to the parking areas in front of them. Allowing a hardcover variance for new construction on a lot meeting all zoning requirements may set a negative precedent. The brick columns near the street are non-encroachments and are allowed by code. The applicant is proposing to construct a stormwater detention pond in the natural swale on the south side of the property. The applicant has stated this is being done to offset the hardcover variance. The Planning Commission and City Council have historically not looked favorably upon using stormwater ponding in lieu of meeting hardcover requirements on residential properties. H23-(S Mary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance March 16. 1998 Page 5 8. A conditional use permit is not required for the pond as it would not be constructed within 5' of a lot line, would not be located in the 0’ to 75' lakeshore setback and would not alter more than 500 cubic yards of earth according to the applicant. Since these standards are met, this project can be undertaken with a staff issued permit. The ponds shown on the drawings were conceptual and do not accurately reflect the applicant's latest proposal. The neighbors to the south have expressed concerns about the possibility of breeding mosquitoes in the standing water. The applicant has stated the pond would normally be dry. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of a variance of 4.8% hardcover in the 75' to 250' setback to allow 29.8% hardcover where 25% is allowed. A residence and driveways can be configured in a manner to meet the 25% requirement without difficulty. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C operty Owners List D ..ocationMap E Topographic Map F Permit Record G Survey H Hardcover Calculations I Elevation Dravvings J Letter in Support of Variance From Neighbors to the North K Letter of Concern from Neighbors to the South tH348 Mary Jane Hauser 1540 Bohns Point Road Variance March 16. 1998 Page 6 it A *•':\-.y Application # ^3 Date Received zy/ f^/ Amount Paid 5 X ?>0 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORALATION Site Address ^^40 Bohns Point Road s a6 2 1'^ in- I Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 09-117-23-33-0007 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey, (see enclosed survey) Date Property Acquired_______October 1, 1997 _________________________^(month/year) I 0flc5(^do not^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Presentuse ot property: ____presidential x other (specify) Vacant Land - Residential Zoning District: _____________________________________________________ APPLICANT Name Mary Jane Hauser Address:3425 Warner Lane Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ (612) 472-7177 (612) 338-1000 City:.Minnetrista Zip: 55364 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name n /a Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 1,000,000 +/- Describe request in detail: Hardcover variance fron 25% to 29.8% in the 75* to 250* zone to accommodate the substantial natural steep slopes and drainage (including drainage from (attach additional sheets if necessary) adjacent Lots & Bohns Pt. Rd.) as described herein. VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area Lot Width X Hardcover Setback:Front Lot Coverage Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Substantial natural steep slopes across the property, lot configuration, and existing drainage (including drainage from adjacent lots & Bohns Pt. Rd.) The house is positioned in the natural level area of the lot (attach additional sheets if necessary) (same location of previous house) to disturb as little natural grade as possible. 7 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the applicatioTi deadline date_in order for vour anplication to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. N/A N/A Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/2 x 11 for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V2" x 11 for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8V2 x H )• List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property'. This would include name(s) of z; plicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that y .QUI variance application is not complete if the above information not been included, APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE u 7 • 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 _2\. 5. 6. 7. 8.N/A Date 0OWNER’S SIGNATURE . u, The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and furtner authorizes reasonable entry' onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Ow-ner's Signature Date 'X n \ Applicant must have aff su^iUals into the City offices 25 days before the Pl^ng 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, p ease 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. RUN DATE 02/09/98 BATCH SOA 38 08-117-23 94 0019PROP AOOR 01535 BOHNS POINT ROOHNER NAME RICHARD A BORN TAXPAYER RICHARD A BORN NAME/AOOR 1535 BOHNS POINT RO ORONO MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST38 08-117-23 99 001501595 BOHNS POINT RO C J A S L WINSLOW CLARK J A SHARON J WINSLOW 1595 BOHNS POINT RO WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 3038 09-117-23 33 000501500 BOHNS POINT RO BARBARA B JOHNSON TRUSTEE EUGENE A BARBARA JOHNSON 1500 BOHNS POINT RO WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0006 PROP AOOR 01520 BOHNS POINT RO 0»MER NAME DOUGLAS E KIRCHNER ETAL TAXPAYER DOUGLAS E KIRCHNER NAME/ADOR 1520 BOHNS POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0007 01590 BOHNS POINT RO MARY JANE MAUSER MARY JANE HAUSER 1590 BOHNS POINT RO WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0008 01580 BOHNS POINT RO RICHARD M KOVACEVICH ET AL RICHARD M KOVACEVICH NORWEST CENTER 6TH t MARQUETTE MPLS MN 55979-1062 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR TOTAL BATCH X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KfWWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE yio/96 ,2^ a ^ 7 '{or fcrx O. r;*-: *ifT / O’ o V P ^O^f\-y • t V. 1 \ %% PERMIT RECORD Permit No,Date A-'k-’Sl. Tvpc of Permit ^^/I.r\-rvQ l-r-.s^II-'R-^^ ____rrrl o-'^ - Ifc)- (--.--A'7 Hnrrl/AK^Ps ’TvS'-/\\~\i^-i<~l . , 1 Oir^r.ulhy^ "^C Jr 1 1 ^0 A -- ID 'Sl-^l ^vTX^ucJ^ ^ BOHN ’ S POINT ROAD#?| a -■ y-v-v^N. o<nio-oo;t-e': ■, - HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 ^ 75-250^) 250-500* f VTSTTNC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House_____________ Length Width B. C. Garage Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pado/Dcck F. Landscape Undeilain By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Length Width B. C. Garage Driveway D. Sidewalk ’ E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X 4 X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B 500-1000' X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.r::\ S.F. S.F. S.F.•* , S.F.J S.F.f \ i S.F.' V.:.- . “ AS.F. S.F.i ‘ ^S.F.%» .* S.F. S.F. S.F.B % ^•^44-S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. IBS S.F. 52 S.F. 1 S.F. S.F. Ct?Ol S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.A S.F.B % HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250* ^250-5^ 500-1000' F.yr.STTNG HARDCOVER TN ZONT. A. House ___________ Length Width B. C. Garage Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pado/Dcck F. Landscape Underl-j,. By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZOl'TE ___________+ B X 100 PR; OSED HARDCOVER TN 70NK A. House Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk ’ E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. -Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IW ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B IhSOO X ICO 350 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Bl(h S.F. /4r^g>S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. __ S.F. SOO S.F. 2/. 2 % iftSOC ■ Hz A B •■r.. ^ . B ' Exterior Finislics: Brick and Shaker Roof*L" (:fr -S'. ■5Tg£€>r eu£v^.t^aU Exterior Finishes: Brick and Shaker Roof -t-- m 4 ^ xv4<c- i February 27,1998 Rick 8l MJ Hauser 3425 Warner Lane Minnetrista, MN 55364 Greetings neighbors-to-be! Kathy and I look forward to having you as neighbors on Bohns Point Rd. Your proposed home looks lovely and will be a great addition to the Point. We have signed and mailed the forms you sent Hopefully the city will approve the variance you need and construction can begin. You have our endorsement, if requested. We have lived at 1520 for over 23 years and have enjoyed this location immensely. We have 3 married sons who have blessed us with 9 grandchildren, from 10 months to 9 years old. You’ll see them around on weekends. Maybe they will be playmates for Matthew and Amanda. On the survey of your property you can see that our house is lined up with the lake shore like yours, rather than the lot line. As a result the property line appears to cut diagonally across our front yard. Many years before we bought our home the rock at the lake shore was placed in front of the house which resulted in some 20 or so feet of rock being on your land. Please let me know if you plan to remove the rock that is on your property and install some other type of lake shore treatment. If so, we may want to work with your landscape people and go aU the way across our lot with the same. Let tlie construction begin! Sincerely, Doug Kironner H 471-7581 W 546-5440 Fax 546-3858 <■ ll JErOEN HOIDES.INC CARLSON CENTER • 601 CARLSON PARKWAY. SUITE 1225 • MINNETONKA, MN 55305 • 612 / 475-0548 • FAX 612 / 475-2459 303 ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER. SUITE J • ASPEN, CO 81611 • 970 / 544-8036 • FAX 970 / 544-8038 March 9, 1998 Brad Bressler Planning Assistant City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE. Mary Jane Hauser Variance Dear Brad: On behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Richard Kovacevich, residents at 1580 Bohns Point Road, I would like to present the following comments and concerns. It is my understanding that the setback line established by the homes on either side of the proposed residence is to be drawn from the points closest to the lakeshore. I believe the closest point on the Kovacevich residence would be at the northeast corner of their home. Should this be correct the proposed setback line would be located further back from Lake Minnetonka. The natural drainage way between the Hauser's property and the Kovacevich residence now proposes the addition of two “Ponding & Detention Areas”. In that this drainage way has always been free of standing water to the best of our knowledge we would like to discourage the construction of artificial ponding areas. It is our view that the possibility of additional mosquito production would be most undesirable to all concerned. I would like to review these issues with the City of Orono prior to the Planning Commission Meeting on March 16. Sincerely: JiL. James N. Jensen President cc: Mr. & Mrs. Richard Kovacevich 1580 Bohns Point Road 9S FRI 13:33 F.\X 6123441366 MALKERSON GILLI LAND ©MM2 Malkerson G illiland Martin ilf Suite isoo a Tc-T Tower »OI Ma POu CTTC AvcnliC I N N e A A O L I S. M I N N C S O T A 65402*3205 TELERMONt ©12-344-1111 Facsimile ©12-344-1414 'Z-H i‘ Bruce D. Malkerson. Esq. Dir. : Dial (612) 344-1699 March 20, 1998 Mayor and City Council City of Orono P.o. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Application by Mr. and Mrs. Hauser for a Variance from the Hardcover Standards to be Heard on March 23. 1998 Dear Mayor Jabbour and City Council: Introduction. I represent Mr. and Mrs. Hauser, who have applied to tlie City of Oro.io for a variance relating to the hardcover restrictions to enable them to build their proposed home on Bohn's Point Road. This letter is similar to one I sent to the Planning Commission, but it has been updated to reflect the discussion of the Planning Commission on March 16,1998. 1 am mindful of the City of Orono’s desire to protect the environment within the City, including but not limited to Lake Minnetonka. In fact, I was the City Attorney for the City of <3rono from 1973 to 1984, after which anotlicr member of my then-law firm took over as the lead uUoniey. Since 1984, from time to time I would assist the City Attorney in understanding some of the factual history relating to some of tlie zoning and other matters that took place w^hile I was the lead City Attorney. I left the Popham Haik law firm in 1984 to act as in-house counsel for a client. I then returned in 1988 to the Popham Haik firm, where I stayed until two years ago when I started my own firm. I note this history' to you so that you understand that I have personal knowledge concerning many of the ordinances oftlie City and the legislative history' relating to them. In regard to the hardcover ordinance, as 1 recall, I drafted it in 1975 after input from the Planning Commission and Council relating to the objectives w'hich were sought to be achieved. At that time, quite frankly, it was a very radical ordinance \\ that I cannot think of any other municipality that had in effect then hardcover restrictions, other than what was then a 50-foot I5264BDM 03 20 9S FRI 13:33 FAX 6123441366 MALKERSON GILLI LAND Mayor and City Council March 20, 199S Page 2 setback of principal stnictiucs from the lake, which later became a 75-foot setback in the City of Orono and elsewhere. At that time, we developed these hardcover standards without having, as I recall, any empirical data to support the percentages that were set forth in the proposed crdinancc. This was in part because of the lack of data available. However, it was thought that the percentages that were adopted would generally allow for the development of high-quality horres around the lake, which could comply with those general standards, absent long lots, unique tomography, unique situations relating to treed areas, etc., that in any event should be preserved from alteration if at all possible. The intent of the Council then, at least, was to grant Vitriances liDerally, as long as the variances did not result in too much alteration of the standards, absent extreme situations, because at least we had established a general standard that could be modified liberally as necessary to allow for development. In fact, the shorcland regulations in effect today, that are promulgated by the State of Minnesota and must be incorporated as minimums into shoreland ordinances only require a haidcoN’cr restriction of 25 percent applied over the entire lot and not a 2.5 percent restriction between the 75 and 250 foot setback as is set forth in the City’s ordinance. My clients propose a home on Lake Minnetonka which is not extraordinary in size, number of bedrooms or garage stalls, etc. As can be seen from the plans submitted by my client, the home is a four-bedroom home with a ihrec-car garage, and one of the bedrooms is in the basement. That is aot an extraordinarily large house for a Lake Minnetonka home, or, quite frankly, for any new home in the City of Orono. How-ever, because of the distance tif the home location from Bohn’s Point Road, the drivew'ay leading to the home tliat Is within the 75 to 250 foot setback is longer than one might normally find on some lots that are of a normal configuration so that the home site is closer to the public road. In this case, the lot length has resulted in a need for a longer driveway that has contributed to Uie hardcover slightly in excess of that which is allowed imder the ordinance >vithout a variance. As my clients will demonstrate, they could move the house further back so that there need not be a driveway of such length within the 75 to 250 foot setback area, but then that house would look out of place when it is viewed from the lake or from Bohn’s Poir.t Road. Moreover, the view to the lake from that house at that location would be blocked substantially by houses on each side that have been built at the 75-foot setback line. As my clients will discuss, they have with their archilccl mid builder somsidered various I5264DDM Mlt.3 -Hf 9S FRI 13:39 FAX 6123441366 MALKERSON GILLILAND Mayor and City Council March 20. 1998 Page 3 configurations of the house to iiy to be in a position, given that long access driveway, so as not to require any variance, or if any variance is required just a very modest one of cne to two percent. Moreover, they looked at moving the house further back, even though there would be visual impact to the lake, but there would be a need tlten for extensive moving of dirt or filling of lower areas on the lot. Therefore, tlicy propose to build the home outside of the 75- :bot setback area and on the building pad of the home that was there previously. In any event, at the present time, the hardcover as allowed by the City- ordinance, would be 7,795 square feet, or 25 percent of the area between the 75 and 250 feet, ar d 3,450 square feet, or 30 percent of the area between 250 and 500 feet. The total area for the lot >s 57,063 square feel. The total hardcover allowed without a variance for the entire lot would he 11,245, or 20 percent of the entire lot in this situation. My client proposed a total hardcover on the lot of 11,963 square feet. 11,963 square feet 57,063 square foot lot - 20.9 percent. That hardcover of 20.9 percent for the entire lot is in confonnance with Minnesota Rules Sec ion 6120.3300, subpart 11, which states in relevant part the following specific standards; “1. tlie lot area.’ Imperv’ious surface coverage of lots must not exceed 2 5 percent of In fact, under State law, my client could have 14,266 square feet of hardcover (57,063 square feet X 25 percent = 14,266 square feet). It is clear from a review' of the Minnesota Rules that the Department of Natural Resources, the MPCA and others that were in\ olved i;i tlie development of them did not believe it w-as necessary to restrict hardcover less than 25 percent for the entire lot. I realize that is not necessarily controlling on the decision-making of the City of Orono, but it does indicate that there is nothing wrong from the Slate’s perspective of allowing var' mccs to your standards in such a way tliat do not exceed overall 25 percent impcr\'ioi:s surface for tlic entire lot. The Application of the Undue Hardship Standard in the V’arianye Sometimes people feel that the variance standard is such that it should be strictly applied in all situations. Even if one were to apply that feeling here, I believe that th:s variance request is justified under the variance standard for the following reasons: I. The hardcover that my clients are proposing is not excessive, given the location of the home and the neighborhood. 2. Part of the reason w-hy the general standard is exceeded is because of the configuration of the lot and the need for a more lengthy driveway to reach 'i.' h me site. 12: "M4 I5264BDM 03 20 9S FRI 13:34 FAX 6123441366 M.ALKERS0N GILLI LAND "0003 Mayor and City Council March 20,1998 Page 4 3. To move the home site back to the road does not make sense, because then the view to the lake would be adversely affected by the adjacent hoincs, and the house would look out of place both from the lake and from the roadside. 4. My clients, by adding some holding ponds to their property, are making sure that the surface water rur.off in any event is treated better than it would be with th.i normal development of the home, which would not provide for holding ponds on the site. 5. Much of the surface water runoff on this property now- and in the future is from the public road, which water is passing through the property, untreated presently, and that w’ater and the lake would be benefitted from my clients proposed treatment ponds that otherwise would not be built, unless the City wished to acquire an easement over the property and build tliose ponds. 6. As my clients will demonstrate, they could move the driveway to a new location which would then result in no need for a minor variance. However, in doing so, my clients would need to fill over the existing paved driveway, regrade the area from tin- street to the house, remove several large trees and the electrical pole. The lights from the cars exiting that drivew’ay would shine into the home across the street. All of the above adverse effects could be eliminated by using the existing paved dnveway, which necessitates a minor variance. 7. Granting of a variance would not set an adverse precedent, since this fact situation, as noted above, is readily distinguishable from other situations. 8. The legislative history is, as I recall, that variances within reason should be granted liberally because ofliow stringent tlie 25-pcrccnt limitation between 75 and 250 tcctof the lakeshore was. 9. The State standard is 25 percent applied to tlie entire lot, which w'ould allow hardcover of substantially in e.xcess of what my clients are proposing. In Rowell v. Board of Adjustment. 446 N.W. 2d 917 (Minnesota Court of Appeals 1989) the Court interpreted the State mandated variance test which applies to cities in a very flexible manner. The Court clearly allows and promotes such fle.xibility. For examp .e, the Court stated: “The first requirement is that the property cannot be put to a reasonut lc use without the variance. This provision does not mean that a property owmer must show that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. In such a case the constitution would compel a variance regardless of ilxs statute. 15264BDM -40 9 S FRI 13:34 FAX 6123441366 MALKERSON GILLILAND [£oo6 Mayor and City Council March 20, 1998 Page 5 See Holasek v. Village of Medina. 303 Minn. 240, 244, 226 N.W. 2d 900, 903 (1975). The statute is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility tc grant variances in cases where the constitution does not compel it. Thus, we read the first part of the definition of “undue hardship” as requiring a showing that tlic property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance.” The Court in S.ip.stetter v City of St. Paul. 529 N.W. 2d 488 (Minn. App. 1995), approved of the decision in Rowell and provided additional guidance which would support the City of Orono’s granting a variance to my clients as follows: A reviewing court will set aside a city’s decision in a zoning variance matter if the decision is unreasonable. ... Reasonableness is measured by the standards set out in the city’s ordinances, hi. Reasonableness can be stated in tern's of what is not arbitrary and capricious. . . . Appellants construe the statute and ordinance sections, vvhich state that the property ‘‘cannot be put to a reasonable use ’ under the strict prc\'isic'ns of the code, to mean tliat if the property can be put to any reasonable use, then granting a variance is unreasonable. This court has previously construed this language to mean that the landowner would like to put the land to a reasonable use, but tliat tlie proposed reasonable use is pi ohibited unde: the strict provisions of the code.... Here, the city wants to put the land to a reasonable use: placing a dome over the field to enable year-round use. The design of the entire park results from the city’s desire to ameliorate local problems by adding parking spaces, concession facilities, and public restrooms. These are reasonable responses to valid concerns. Evidence was presented that soil conditions and a sewer main prohibited excavation that would allow the field to comply the 30 foot height limitation in the ordinance. The plan alleviated parking problems, and if a different design were used, the plan would not provide as many parking spaces. The evidence supports the city council’s determination that unique conditions justify a variance in this situation. We ask that the City be similarly flexible in applying the standards. Tdy clients had originally proposed a plan which resulted in 32 percent hardcover in the 75 foot to 250 foot area. Through numerous changes, they cut back the plan to 29.4 percent. The Planning Commission reviewed all of the above reasons lo grant the variance and noted that altliough they had understood from prior Council statements that variances should not be granted in the case of “new construction”, they fell the reasons for a variance were compelling and they recommended a variance of 25.9 percent. Wc believe that the “new' construction 15264BDM r 03 20 95 FRI 13:35 FAX 6123441366 MALKERSON GILLI LAND Mayor and City Council March 20, 1998 Page 6 informal test should not apply since this is a lot which had been developed years ago for a house. The house has been removed, but much of the previously “developed ” iot remains, which my clients wish to preserve such as: 1. The trees along the existing driveway and the front of the lot. 2. The location of the existing power pole. 3. The existing paved driveway, the use of which does not result in car lights shining into the home across the street. 4. The existing house pad. 5. The existing terrain between the house pad and the street. Therefore, we believe that this is not totally “new construction.'’ The development pattern and restrictions for this lot were established years ago by the above factors. In response to the Planning Commission’s rccomniendarion, my clier.ts have redrafted the plans further to comply with the recommended 25.9 percent variance. We respectfully request approval of that recommended variance. Very truly yours. Bruce D. Malkerson cc; Tom Barrett, City Attorney Mr. and Mrs. Hauser IS264BDM r COUNCIL MARREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION r iTv r-RONO DATE; March 23, 1998 ITEM NO.: 1% Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2351 Laura Zauner 3262 North Shore Drive Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District:i X-lC-1 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area:12,118 s f. (.28 acre) Application: The applicant is requesting after-the-fact variances to allow the retention of a rebuilt deck on the lake side of the residence. Variances are required for hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recomm'*”ded b a 4 to 0 vote to: • Approve a hardcover v -*f 15.1% in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where none is allowed. • Approve an average i..ke. tiback variance to allow 39' encroachment to remain where none is allowed. • Approve a lakeshore setback variance of 40.7' to allow the deck to remain 34.3' from the OHWL where 75' is required. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or .tend the enclosed resolutic- A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10,22, SUBDIVISIONS 1(A) AND 2, AND SECTION 10,56, SUBDIVISION 16(C6) FILE NO, #2351 WHEREAS, Laura Zauner (hereinafter "the applicemt") is the owner of the property located at 3262 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: See Exhibit A for legal description (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1(A) and 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C6) to permit the retention of a rebuilt deck Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2351. The property is located in the LR-lC-1 Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one half acre in area. The property consists of 12,118 s.f. or .28 acre. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 16, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: 1. The zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements. 2. The deck is a replacement of one that had existed. Page 1 of 5 3. The deck does not affect views, hardcover or lakeshore encroachment beyond whut has historically existed. 4, 1 lie City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring prope; t\’; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by C:i'.s staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed varianc-.- on the healtli, safety and welfare of the community. conclusions , order and rONDiTIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the (^'ity Council hereby giSTits after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22 Subdivisions 1(A) and 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C6) C the retention oJ i- deck replacement resulting in 15.1% hoidcover in the O' to • sz hert none is allowed, 39' encroach ’I ♦ent into the average lakeshore set owed and a lakeshore setback variance of 40.7' to allow the deck to rei.,.i . TWL where 75' is required. Approval was subject to the following 1. Auihot ties granted by this vanai.ee lun \vith the property not with the applicant, ’'ut 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 (March 23, 1999). Page 2 of 5 2. Violation of or non-compliance .vith 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. 3. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themself, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Coui^il of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of March, 1*598. ATTEST: mda S. Vee, City Clerk.Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPI>’ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged befor<f -’e on this 23rd day of March 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary yublic Page 3 of 5 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) exece ,'d the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of NOTARY PUBLIC , 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 5 Ihit part of of the 5hh TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant DATE: March 11, 1998 SUBJECT: #2351 Laura Zauner 3262 North Shore Drive Variances-Public Hearing __________________ Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-lC-1 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) 12,118 square feet (.28 acre)_________________________ Application: The applicant is requesting after-the-fact variances for the replacement of a deck on the lake side of the residence. Variances are required for hardcover in the 0’ to 75 ’ lakeshore setback', average lakeshore setback and lakeshore _______setback. Pertinent Ordinances: . Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (A): Lakeshore Setback Regulations • Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations . Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C6): Average Lakeshore Setback Regulations i I WJJ/ Laura Zauner 3262 Sorth Shore Drive Variances March 16. 1998 Page 1 analysis T.nt Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Rear Yard LR-lC-1 .5 acre 100'75'10'10' for side loading garages on lakeshore lots subject property .28 acre 63'atOHWL 63' at 75' setback 34.3'10'14' The subject property does not meet lot area, lot width, lakeside setback requirements. For the purposes of this application, a variance is required from the lakeside yard setback. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 12,118s.f.1,833 15.1% The property does not meet structural coverage requirements. This is not an issue with this application. H23SI Laura Zauner 3262 Sonh Shore Drive Variances March 16. 1998 Page! Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0’-75'5,250 s.f.795 s.f. (15.1%) none 795 s.f. (15.1%) 795 s.f. (15.1%) 75'-250'6,868 s.f.3,486 (50.8%) 1,717 (25%) 3,486 (50.8%) 3,486 (50.8%) A variance is required for hardcover in the 0' to 75' lakeshore setback. The amount of hardcover in the 75' to 250' setback is not an issue with this application. Before the deck reconstruction, 15.6% hardcover existed in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. The removal of a concrete patio located mostly within this zone accounts for most of the decrease. For unknown reasons, the amount of hardcover in the 75' to 250 increased from 50.6% to 50.8% since 1992 when a variance to build a garage was granted. There has been a net decrease of hardcover on the property, however. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Refer to the applicants statement of hardship (Attachment H). Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The deck is a replacement of a previous one of similar size. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The residence and original deck were built prior to current zoning requirements. 3. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for hardcover, average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback will not alter the character of the area. M235I Laura Zauner 3262 North Shore Drive Variances March 16. 1998 Page 3 4. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The deck is permitted in this zoning district. 5. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question ? e peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The residence is on a lot of record that does not meet current zoning requirements. Due to the limited lot size, v 'eting hardcover and lakeshore setback restrictions is difficult. The property is also located at the end of a long shared driveway and its location on this driveway is the reason for it being located closer to the lake than the adjacent residences. 6. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 7. The immediately adjoining properties were also platted prior to current zoning requirements but they were not built as close to the lakeshore. The granting of the application is necessary' for the preser\ ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants would not be able to retain the variances. repla nient without the granting of 8. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The deck replacement is similar to the previous one and would not intensify non conformance beyond what existed. Issues 1. 2. The property does not meet lot area or width requirements. The substandard lot size creates a difficulty in meeting hardcover and lakesho “ setback requirements. Variances were granted in 1992 to allow the garage on the southwest portion of the lot. The intent of the garage was to replace several accessory structures on the property that had a greater combined footprint. H23SI Laura Zauner 3262 Sorth Shore Drive Variances Starch 16.1998 Page 4 3.The majority of the residence is already ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Allowing the deck to remain would not further encroach on neighboring views beyond what has historically existed. The applicant had removed several hardcover areas in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback when the deck was rebuilt, which resulted in a decrease in hardcover in this setback. It is not clear why the 75' to 250' setback has been revised to reflect a .2% increase over what had been approved with the variance in 1992. Even with this increase, there has still been a net decrease of hardcover on the lot. Much of the hardcover in 75' to 250' setback is accounted for by the shared loop driveway that crosses the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the necessary after-the-fact variances to allow the retention of a rebuilt 18' by 19' deck on the lake side of the residence. Staff recommends approval of a hardcover variance to allow 15.1% to remain in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback where none is allowed. Staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback variance to allow 39' encroachment to remain where none is allowed. Staff recommends approval of a lakeshore setback variance of 40.7' to allow the deck to remain 34.3’ from the OHWL where 75' is required. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Property Owners List Locatior. Map 'fopographic Map Permit Record Survey With Hardcover Calculations Applicant's Statement of Hardship U235I Laura Zauner 3262 North Shore Drive Variances March 16. 1998 Pages V n O ^.0 6^jy 3 / Application # Date Received Amount Paid 23^1 yz^?e i <’«> CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 f (no change from original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 « After-the-Fact F ees (Double application fee) ^ •’i PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address kJoiLTH Sblg>r^^ *1) n. i O C“ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) - <V / - QOQ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired, __________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; residential ___other (specify)______________________ Zoning District:____________________________________________ ; APPLICANT Phone (horne)_y:^t£^ Name ___________ Phone(work ) Address: kHoWH 1,V City; ______Zip: SS3 *T I OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail; ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessa;>> VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover ___Lot Coverage __Rear A^ferage Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^<^4^ A*TTAC.ffCb _______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) V n O ^.0 6^jy 3 / Application # Date Received Amount Paid 23^1 yz^?e i <’«> CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 f (no change from original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 « After-the-Fact F ees (Double application fee) ^ •’i PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address kJoiLTH Sblg>r^^ *1) n. i O C“ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) - <V / - QOQ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired, __________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; residential ___other (specify)______________________ Zoning District:____________________________________________ ; APPLICANT Phone (horne)_y:^t£^ Name ___________ Phone(work ) Address: kHoWH 1,V City; ______Zip: SS3 *T I OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail; ___ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessa;>> VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover ___Lot Coverage __Rear A^ferage Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^<^4^ A*TTAC.ffCb _______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. __ Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-b'^^ Govt Center, 348-3271). __ Certificate oi jurvey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVj" x 11" for reproductio __ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy iVz" x 11" for reproduction. !/• Sketche*' '■ i plans of ^oor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8‘A" x 11"). __ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). __ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. __ Additional Jltems as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properly Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yfiUT. variance application is not complete if the above information has not been, included. ^PLICANT’S SIGNATURE he applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered b' original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this applicatiop ’ certifies that the information supplied isjtrue and correct to the best of his/he. knowleot,.;. _____________ Date ________Applicant's Signature!^ OWNER’S SIGNATUl The owner hereby acknowledges 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 investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Dale .\pplicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Coinmis..on Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings cf the Planning Commission and Council. If nii applicant is unable to attend a schedule,* 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. 8 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 08 J17 23 41 0005 PROP ADDR 3240 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME NORTH SHORE MARINA INC TAXPAYER NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NAME/ADDR 3222 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08 117 23 41 0006 CONDMN « 3250 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 3E 08 117 23 41 0007 3260 NORTH SHORE DR DANIEL J rORBERG DANIEL J TORBERG 3260 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN « 38 08 117 23 41 0008 PROP ADDR 3262 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME LAURA ZAUNER TAXPAYER LAURA ZAUNER NAME/ADDR 3262 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08 117 23 41 0009 3268 NORTH SHORE DR RONALD D STAUFFER JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08 117 23 41 0010 3290 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 CONDMN 8 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08 117 23 41 0011 328a NORTH SHORE DR STATE OP MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08 117 23 44 0018 3280 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OP MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08 117 23 41 0012 3324 NORTH SHORE DR MINNETONKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR ORf.iO MN 55391 38 08 117 23 44 0001 3264 NORTH SHORE DR RUSSELL A NORUM RUSSELL A NORUM 3264 NORTH SHORL ^R WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN tt I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE c/ cr SEl/4 SEC T117N.R2 HENNEPIN C( Permit No. if3U, iJu43 ‘ilCpl PERMIT RECORD Date •lAi'Un '(.f, LJCr Ph 3^l\cri_ ^ F Type of Permit rcrdiAZ^'r)^ pfU/nbJ^ '^nud^ ^ CITY OF ORONO jL site plan __ GRADING PLA^ •§ APPROVEDt, A.^HKy VcD C APPROVED VVITH'.REVlSiO.vS^ O.fs'l^l9t T ojau Stoop (4x10)40 40 Walk (2.5x36)90 90 Houeo (nom)436 660 660 Dock (16x19)342 342 Step (2x4)S 6 (2.5x3.5)9 9 Chimney (2x6)12 12 Slab (nom)1056 1056 (travel Onvc (nom)1426 1426 Retainin^walls 0 0 0 Totals 795 3466 4261 5250 =15.1% *76666 =50.6% J '•«» r £j<t ^77joc»^ Jr^/trs^<^'' «=<-=- ,_. OrP£!_Tr::.2-ral 2. 3 /OO^. .SlxjsL __r________?q. jt-'ac,_____sif^ ^c»o_____r— -751______h— KLEiiiJOl AiO—V » Ii»T- I^Vg A.«»N rT7 ___ ■■■■■ i-t-jo' ^pp^)\/£^ ^1 p/A?y> C£>\f'£^ j to HAve ;e.ier>-© f/^i=VJD'-C3t-V 1 <?.2T* x«.r' 2c? vz'^ __ /C in /Afpfeuci. /i -e=n ™ .3^0. ’ /5-_ /2. ,/pslC._____Z2st._ ;s. -2. nsiso "~i.9c-s ^__________^ — ‘7rrVi ^ ' I! ino V;;. / “'■> V? ..'•cl LAK/tA iikfUyuO^ir— ^ Aa€T UM7H ^XJ\/OfJUx^ fo 1K‘>C£^«5 'TH< H<w.Jc»vav iX. 7H4 7^i'- ?.?d' «1<U xC,6-. W£ Vofeius. KM/1$€C> Tl^r" Tl+t<> ^KV*^6A-7T7 /Vmv^: bhM<4>C^&tO R^'juxh.fiMf iu*7- ^ 4L.C ArrA:cN€^> j^|L^(n;</l [4-Ar»Lja fi. ^h^€tT. •— Su«A«»-fen. ^‘?fe 4ie 5!6cT\«ni Tieck^ JlxtyiV 7b TH^ t+/^?'C Lu)t5 Tio % ftieU-^Ca 7/^ Hnise- , J?6dK- U£portiei> k>P6!^ , Y-ttdt ^ tf/6 u''*^ Vi£rfUAC^^ Ua. ' VK-^ ^Cil- ^ “t*j6. kb^T^Lv.\v ^:> no Ttf (a£Lt€U-^ Y^T Ci'6- Ou^L'l^i> MiCj^ /o 6iftrD •pv/’Trh ff f;J r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING MAR 23 1998 Date: March 18, 1998 Item No.:/I Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron^’ Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment - Section 1 1.62 List of Exhibits A - Ordinance for Consideration and Adoption B - Ron Moorse Memo 2-9-98 Please review Ron's memo dated February 9. The proposed ordinance revisions address the rough proportionality issue, providing a basis for determining the amount of park fees in relation to the impact of both residential and commercial subdivisions on the City's park system. The ordinance also establishes that there will be maximum and minimum 'per dwelling unit' ('per employee' in the case of commercial) park fees established by resolution each year, (see Subd. 3A and 3B) Additionally, the ordinance provides for a park dedication exceeding the 'maximum amount per dwelling unit' up to the 8% standard where a subdivision to be served by a neighborhood park derives greater benefit from such park than the general population, (see Subd. 3C) The ordinance adds language regarding how park funds may be used, (see Subd. 4) The ordinanace eliminates the prior language which established a minimum contribution per lot of $500 or per dwelling unit of $300. (see Subd. 5D) The ordinance does not establish park dedication requirements for the development of properties absent a subdivision/PRD/PUD process. It is not yet clear whether it is legal to do so, hence this is left for future discussion. Planning Commission Recommendation A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 16. No members of the public commented. Planning Commission recommended approval c f the amendment on a vote of 4-0. Ip^' Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment March 18,1998 Page 2 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance, or direct staff to make any revisions you feel are appropriate. ORDINANCE NO.____, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 11.62 REGARDING DEDICATION OF LANDS FOR PUBLIC USE FOR PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH CLASS II AND III SUBDIVISIONS The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Municipal Code Section 11.62 is hereby amended as follows: SEC. 11.62. PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, CLASS II AND III SUBDIVISIONS. Subd. 1. Lands For Public Use. The City finds that when land is subdivided, including planned residential development or a planned unit development, the resulting additional hpustPR units or commercial/industrinl h.iildinps have an import nn the City’s nark system. Therefore. Ppursuant to Minnesota Statutes, (1989), Section 462.358, subd. 2b, the City requires all persons, corporations or other legal entities that subdivide land within the City of Oronoi.as a prerequisite to approval of a lot division, final plat, ui development of any latid previously divided by plat, metes nnH nr nnv othe r meansr planned residential developrgent pr unit dgvglQpmgntLtQ 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 imprQvement 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 the need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The amount of the dedication requir ement shall be roughly prQPQrtipn^l tQ the impart of the subdivision on the City's park system. Subd. 2. Dedicated Land Requirement ‘S !nnd to be dedicated as a requirement of this Section shall be reasonably adaptable for the above public purposes. Factors used i v^Juating the adequacy of proposed dedicated areas shall include size, shape, topography, drainage, geology, tree cover, access and location. Subd. 3. Land Dedication Minimum Area. Subdividers shall be required to dedicate to the City for parks, playgiouuds, 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: A. Residential/agricultural/multiple residential zoned land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted; qt subdivided , or c.xisting lot of record . The dedication required shall be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City's park- system. Because of the vastly differing land values in Orono. the 8% park dedication requirement could result in park dedication requirements tnat are either significantly greater than or significantly less than the amount which is rouehlv proportional to the impact of the proposed development on the City ’s park system. Each year, therefore, the City will establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per dwelling unit based on an updated projection of the cost of the ritv'.s park system, and the proportionate share of this projected cost to be borne bv new dwelUnp units in Orono. This will be done by a resolution of the Citv Council. B. Commercial/industrial zoned land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted qi subdivided or cxisting-lot of record. The dedication required shall be rnuphlv propoitional to t\ e projected impact of the proposed development on the City ’s nark system. The City finds, bar-fd on Its experience, that the employees of commercial/industrial developments in the City make use of the City ’s park system, particularly trails and natural areas. Because the City's park system is focused on trails and natural areas versus active community parks and hallfields. commercial/industrial employees use the City's park system in wavs similar to City residents. Therefore, the commercial/industrial dedication requirement will be tied to the residential dedication requirement by detemiining the number of employees that is equivalent to a residential dwelling unit in terms of impact on the City's park system. Each year the Citv will establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per employee based on this determination and the determination of the residential dedication requirement as set out in Paragraph A of Subdivision 3. This will he done by resolution of the Citv Council. Ci Because the Citv of Orono's park system is focused on trails and natural open space areas, the City does not have a broad system of neighborhood parks. If a subdivision is planned to be served bv a neighborhood park, this subdivision will receive a greater benefit from the City's park system than that received bv the general population. Therefore, the maximum park dedication amount as determined in Paragraph A may be e.xceeded up to the full 8% dedication requirement in the case of a subdivision that is planned to be served bv a neighbe -hood park. Subd. 4. 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 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. These funds are to he used only for the acquisition- development and improvement of public parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open soace.s. and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes. Subd. 5. Fair Market Value of Lands. "Fair Market Value" for purposes of this Code shall r 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; A. The City Assessor shall recommend to the City Council as to the fair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. b. If agreement is not reached between the City Assessor and subdivider, then the fair market value shall be determined in accordance with the following: 1. 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. 2. 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 iTi 'V 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. 3. The subdivider may appeal any final determination of fair market value as provided by Minnesota Statute Section 462.361. C. The determination of fair market value of the undeveloped land by the City Assessor, City Council, or designated appraisers, shall be determined as-ef ai the time of preliminary subdivision approval ia-granted as-long as provided that 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. 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. D. Nohvithstonding the above, in no event shall the cash cont ribution per lot be less than $500.00 per loH>r $300.00 per dwelling unit. Subd. 6. Development of Land Previously Platted. (Repealed per Ordinance #89, Second series, adopted October 8, 1990.) (Editor's note: This subd. had stated, "If the land has already been previously subdivided and a fee had not been previously paid, the requirements of this division shall apply at the time of the issuance of a building permit for the primary structure".) Subd. 7. Future SubdiviiJon. Any land which is ftirther 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 peicentage of land or equivalent market value in cash to be dedicated. Subd. 8. Administrative Procedures. The City Council shall establish such administrative procedures as they may deem necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of this section of the Code. Section 2. Adoption and publication. This ordinance shall be effective after the date of approval and pub*' Cation. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 23rd day of March, 1998 by a vote of__ayes and___nays. ATfEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor TO:Sandra Smith, Planning Commission Chair, and Planning Commission Members FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE: February 9,1998 SUBJECT: Park Dedication Ordinance Amendment In recent years, Supreme Court rui.ngs have effectively placed restrictions on dedication requirements cities can place on land subdividers. One of these restrictions is that the amount of a park dedication must be roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. The City's current 8% park dedication requirement does not in itself meet the Supreme Court test of rough proportionality. Because of the vastly differing land values in Orono, the 8% park dedication requirement could result in park dedication requirements that are either significantly greater than or significantly less than the amount which is roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. It is recommended that the current park dedication ordinance be amended to retain the 8% park dedication requirement, but to indicate that the dedication required cannot be greater than the amount that is roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City's park system. This can be accomplished by determining both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount to ensure the dedication amount will not be greater than or less than the proportional impact of the development on the City's park system. The maximum and minimum park dedication amounts for residential subdivisions can be determined each year based on an updated projection of the cost of the City's park system and the proportionate share of these projected costs to be borne by new dwelling units in Orono. Commercial and industrial development also has an impact on the City's park system, as the employees of these be nesses make use of elements of the City's park system such as trails and natural areas. Although the general park dedication requirement for commercial/industrial zoned land is 8%, the dedication requirement must be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed subdivision on the City's park system. This requirement will be met by determining a maximum and minimum dedication amount based on park system impact. This can be done by determining the number of employees that is equivalent to a residential dwelling unit in terms of impact on the City's park system. The City can then establish a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per employee that is tied to the residential dedication requirement. This amount can be set each year by Council resolution. An amended park dedication ordinance that reflects these proposed changes is attached for Planning Commission review. DEDICATI MEM SEC. 11.62. SUBDIVISIONS. PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, c V a SS II AND III SUBDIVISIONS. I Subd. 1. Lands For Public Use. The City finds that when land is subdivided, including.^ planned residential development or a planned unit development, the resulting additional housing units or commercial/industrial buildings have an impact on the City's park ,^vstem. Therefore, -^pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, (1989), Section 462.358, subd. 2b, the City/requires all persons, ^rporations or other legal entities that subdivide land within the City of Qronoj^as a prerequisite to approval of a lot division, final plat, planned residential development or planned dnit development: to convey to the City or dedicate to the public, for use as parks, playgrounds, trails, or open space, a given percentage of the land bei»'g 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 improvement of pnhfic parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands or open spaces and deb .‘tirement in connection v\ith 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 the need and conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The aptQmil of the dedication requirement shall be roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the. City's park system. Subd. 2. 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, tree cover, access and location. Subd. 3. 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: A. Residential/agricultural/multiple residential zoned land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted or subdivided. The dedication required shall be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City's park svstem,_ 3ecau$e Qf tbS vastly differing land values in Orono. the 8% park dedication requirement could result tn dedication requirements that are either significantly greater than or significantly less than the amouh t which is roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development on the Citv's park SVStqilL Each year, therefore, the City will establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per dwelling unit based on an updated projection of the cost of the Citv's park system, and the proportionate share of this projected cost to be borne bv new dwelline unit s in Orono, This wfil b .e done bv a resolution of the Citv Council. B. Commercial/industrial zoned land. Dedication requirement of 8% of the land being platted or subdivided. The dedication required shall be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development on the City’s park system. The Citv finds, based on its e.xperience. that the employees of commercial/industrial developments in the City make use of the City's park system, particularly trails and natural areas. Because the City’s park system is focused on trails and natural areas versus active community parks and ballfields. commercial/industrial employees use the City's park system in wavs similar to Citv residents. Therefore, the commercial/industrial dedication requirement will be tied to tWe residential dedication requirement by determining the number of employees that is equivalent to a residential dwelling unit in terms of impact on the City's park svstem. Each year the Citv will establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per employee based on this determination and the determination of the residential dedication requirement as set out in Paragraph A of Subdivision 3. This will be done by resolution of the Citv Council. C. Because the Citv of Orono's park svstem is focused on trails and natural open space areas, the Citv does not have a broad svstem of neighborhood parks. If a subdivision is planned to be served bv a neighborhood park, this subdivision will receive a greater benefit from the City's park svstem than that received bv the general population. Therefore, the maximum park dedication amount as determined in Paragraph A mav be exceeded up to the full 8% dedication requirement in the case of a subdivision that is planned to be ser\'ed bv a neighborhood park, Subd. 4. 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 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. These hinds are to be used onlv for the acquisition, development and improvement of public parks, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open spaces, and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes. Subd. 5. Fair Market Value of Lands. "Fair Market Value" for purposes of this Code 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: A. The City Assessor shall recommend to the City Council as to the fair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. B. If agreement is not reached between the City Assessor and subdivider, then the fair market value shall be determined in accordance with the following: 1. 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. 2. 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 subdivider. 3. The subdivider may appeal any final determination of fair market value as provided by Minnesota Statute Section 462.361. C. The determination of fair market value of the undeveloped land by the City Assessor, City Council, or designated appraisers, shall be determined §t the time of preliminary subdivision approval is granted provided that 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. 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 membe' ; of SREA or MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies. X \APPS\WTWIN60\’.VPD0CS SLBDIVIS 1162 REV REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNUL ME'iTlNG MAR 23 1998 Date: Item No.: 1) Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. Gaffi-on Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: Land Alteration Ordinance Amendment - Lakeshore Property List of Exhibits A - Ordinance for Consideration and Adoption B - Staff Memo and Exhibits of March 12, 1998 Please review the staff memo and exhibits of March 12. Per council's direction, an amendment is proposed to allow minimal land alterations within the Shore Setback Zone via staff-administered land alteration permits without the need for CUP review. Staff is recommending a maximum amount of 10 cubic yards be allowed to be graded, filied or excavated via staff-issued permit. This amount is based on the size of a typical dumptruck load, and v/ould be the equivalent of a 1/2" depth aver a 100' x 75' area. Council may wish to consider whether this is an appropriate volume ,'r whether it should be revised up or down. Staff would have the authority to refer such permit requests to Council for review and approval in cases where staff finds the potential for negative impacts or for projects staff feels are not in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. We hope to have a list Monday evening of certain types of projects sta‘^ would likely refer for your review, and reasons why. The proposed language does not allow such filling in wetlands near the lake, and does note that other agencies may have concurrent jurisdiction (such as MCWD and DNR for filling within the flood plain). Ceil Strauss of the DNR has indicated the proposed ordinance is consistent with DNR policies. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on March 16. No members of the public commented. Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the amendment as presented. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance, or direct staff to make any appropriate revisions. ORDINANCE NO.____, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 21; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(J)(2); AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 10(A) TO ALLOW CERTAIN LAND ALTERATIONS IN SHORELAND AREAS VIA STAFF-ADMINISTERED PERMITS 1. 2. The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 21, is hereby revised as follows; Subdivision 21. Land Alteration; Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the following land alteration activities: Normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building. Any earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. ^ firading. filling nr excav =^*ipg c»bic yards or less within the ShO ES Setback Zone of all enumerated in the Sforeland Management segtiop of the Zoning Code, Such grading and earth movement shall be subject to approval by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of a building permit, provided that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Where such earth movement is not being performed in conjunction with a building pemiit, a separate land alteration permit shall be required. Any unusual land alterations including earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in this Chapter. The following land alterations shall be considered as 'unusual land alterations : All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet average depth it ^y amount of the excess matenal removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 500 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footing protection; the intent being that structures shall not be artificially raised above the pre-existing surrounding topography. Grading or alterations that that would propose any changes in elevations Page 1 of3 A. B. C. r within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. The Building Inspector shall have the authority to refer any requests for land alteration permits to the City Council for review and approval in instances where said land alteration appears to potentially create negative impacts or be not in keeping with the goals and policies of the Orono Community Management Plan. Section 2. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(J)(2) is hereby revised as follows: J. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. 2. Grading, filling and qt excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section. Grading, filling or excavating of 10 cubic yards or less shall require City staff review and permit and be subject to other pertinent sections of the Zoning Code. Section 3. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subd. 10(A) is hereby revised as follows: Subd. 10. Flood Fringe District. The following uses have a low flood damage potential and do not obstruct flood flows. These uses shall be permitted within the Flood Fringe District to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other City Code provision and provided all permits or authorizations are received as may be required by other City Code provision or regulation of other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, including without limitation the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creel Watershed District, and the Lake Minnetonka Conserv ation District. In addition, no use shall adversely affect the capacity of tlie channels or floodvvays or any tributary to the main stream or of any drainage ditch or any other drainage facility or system, and no use shall adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water runoff or the quality of the natural environment. A. Permitted Uses. (When in conformance with this Chapter): 1. All uses permitted in the Floodway District. 2. Agricultural uses such as general farming, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming and forestry. 3. Recreational uses such as golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, parks and nature preserves. Page 2 of 3 r ^ In areas other than wetlands, grading, filling or excavating oF 10 cubic yards or less, and snhiect to the appropriate permits as regulated elsewhere in the City Code. Section 4. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall become effectiye upon adoption and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 23rd day of March, 1998 by a vote of___ayes and____nays. ATTEST: Lmda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 3 of 3 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Date: March 12,1998 Subject: Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - Staff Administration of Limited Types of Land Alterations on Lakeshore Property List of Exhibits A - Existing Code Sections: B - Legal Notice -10.03 Subd. 19 - 10.03 Subd. 21 -10.56 Subd. 16(J)(4) -10.55 Subd. 8,10,11 Proposed Co Vc Revisions The primary inte»)t of this ordina:ice is to allow small amounts of filling/grading/excavation within the shore setback zone (i.e. within 0-75' of Lake Minnetonka) without requiring a conditional use permit. This change will be of benefit to residents who wish to perform very minor filling, excavating, or grading within their lakeshore yards in amounts up to 10 cubic yards. Under the current ordinance a Conditional Use Permit involving review by both Planning Commission and Council is r.r.4fUired for any land alterations within 75' of a lake. Under proposed new ordinance, land alteration permits could be issued by staff for up to 10 c.y. of earth mo\’ement for those p 'urects which are determined by staff on a case-by-case basis to have no negative impacts. Any rr' . - h the shore setback zone involving more than 10 c.y. would still require a CUP, and sla ' v ..ti Id have the authority to refer to Council any land alteration project where negative impacts are anticipated, regardless of the amount of fill involved. As a gauge of the impact of 10 cubic yards of fill, this is the equivalent of one 10-yard dump truck load. This amount would cover a typical 100 ’ by 75' lakeshore yard to a depth of 1/2 incli. Section 10.03 Subd. 19 was recently reorganized for clarity (Ord. 163 2s.) with no substantive changes in intent. Subd. 19(C) requires a CUP for all grading/filling/excavating activity on lakeshore properties. Section 10.03 Subd. 21 constitutes the "Exceptions" to the provisions of Subd. 19. As recently revised, Subd. 2) limits to 500 c.y. the amount of land alteration allowed via staff permit. r Proposed Zoning Amendment - Land Alteration March 12, 1998 Page 2 To accomplish the proposed change, an additional 'exception' should be added to Subd. 21, as well as language referencing the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, as follows: Subdivision 21. Land Alteration; Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the following land alteration activities: 1. Normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway ser\'ing such building. 2. Any earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. ^ Grading, filling or excavating of 10 cubic yards or less within the Shore Setback Zone of all lakes enumerated in the Shoreland Management section of the Zoning Code. Such grading and earth movement shall be subject to approval by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of a building permit, provided that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Where such earth movement is not being performed in conjunction with a building pemiit, a separate land alteration permit shall be required. Any unusual land alterations including earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in this Chapter. The following lariJ alterations shall be considered as 'unusual land alterations': A. All excavations for foundations in e.xcess of 12 feet average depth if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site. B. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 500 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footing protection; the intent being that structures shall not be artificially raised above the pre-existing surrounding topography. C. Grading or alterations that that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. The Building Inspector shall have the authority to refer any requests for land alteration permits to the City Council for review and approval in instances where said land alteration appears to potentially create negative impacts or be not in keeping with the coals and policies of the Orono Community Management Plan. Proposed Zoning Amendment - Land Alterations March 12, 1998 Page 3 Section 10.56 Subd. 16(J)(2) regarding land alteration permits in the Shoreland Overlay District, would be revised as follows to also reflect this change: J. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. 2.Grading, filling and or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75' of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of this section. Grading . filling or excavating of 10 cubic yards or less shall require City staff review and permit and be subject to othe^ pertinent sections of the Zoning Code. Section 10.55 Subd. 10 provides for permitted and conditional uses in the Flood Fringe District (the area between the OHWL and the 100-year flood elevation, i.e. the floodplain). It is staffs assumption that Council intends to allow up to 10 cubic yards in the Floc-d Fringe, although filling in the floodplain may also require MCWD approval. An additional Permitted Use in the Flood fringe would be added as follows: Subd. 10. Flood Fringe District. The following uses have a low flood damage potential and do not obstmet flood flows. These uses shall be permitted within the Flood Fringe District to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other City Code provision and provided all permits or authorizations are received as may be required by other City C 'de provision or regulation of other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, including without limitation the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Lake Minnetonka Conser\ ation District. In addition, no use shall adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways or any tributary to the main stream or of any drainage ditch or any other drainage facility or system, and no use shall adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water runoff or the quality of the natural environment. A. Permitted Uses. (When in conformance with this Chapter): 1. 2. All uses permitted in the Floodway District. Agricultural uses such as general farming, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming and forestry. 3.Recreational uses such as golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, parks and nature preserves. In areas other than wetlands, grading, filling or excavating of 10 cubic yards or less, and subject to the appropriate permits as regulated elsewhere in the City Code. Proposed Zoning An^endment - Land Alterations March 12,1998 Page 4 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance because it will give residents more flexibility in conducting minor lakeshore land alterations without the typical 2-month delay caused by the CUP process; because it gives staff the authority to refer questionable projects to tl e Council for review; and as a side benefit, may slightly reduce the number of CUP's needing processing. .X 9/^ I' ^7 4*^ c ORDINANCE NO. SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19 AND 21, AND SECTION 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16 (J) TO REVISE AND CLARIFY REQUIREMENTS AND LEVHTATIONS ON LAND ALTERATION AND LAND ALTER.\TION PERNHTS The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10/03, Subdivision 19, is hereby deleted and a new Subdivision 19 substituted in its place as follow^ Subdivision 19. Land Alteration; Prohibition. It is unlawiul for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by tl.e Council: A. Remove, fill, use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar earth material within the limits of the City. B. Fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land to elevate or alter the existing natural grade. C. Build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of.lakeshore property. All of the above-referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed only with "clean fill" as defmed in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. ____ Section 2. Municipal Zoning Code Sectfon 10.03, Subdivision 21, is hereby deleted and a new Subdivision 21 substituted in its place as fidlows: Subdivision 21. Land Alteration; Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the following land alteration activities; 1. Normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the drivew'ay serving such building. 2. Any earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. Page 1 of3 Such grading and earth movement shall be subject to approval by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of a building permit, provided that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. \^ere suc^l earth movement is not being performed in conjunction with a building permit, a separate land alteration permit shall be required. Any unusual land alterations including earth filling, removal or grading proposed by builder shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit as provided for in this Chapter. The following land alterations shall be considered as 'unusual land alterations': A. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet average depth if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site. B. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 500 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate firost footing protection; the intent being that structures shall not be artificially raised above the pre-existing surrounding topography. C. Grading or alterations that that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent • 'dential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. The Building Inspector shall have the authority to refer any requests for land alteration permits to the City Council for review and approval in instances where said land alteration appears to potentially create negative impacts. Section 3. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, SubMsion 16(J)(4) is hereby ^leted and a new Subdivision 16(J)(4) substituted in its place as follows; J. Topographic Alterations / Grading and Filling. 4. Except for those projects requiring permits for constmction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways, a land alteration permit will be required as follows: a. For movement of 1-500 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, a staff-issued land alteration permit shall be required. b. For movement of more than 500 ''ubic yards of material within the Shoreland Overlay District, conditional use permit approval by the City Council is required in addition to the required land alteration permit. Page 2 of 3 Section 4. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 8th day of December, 1997 by a vote of 5 ayes and o nays. ATTfiST /J^ l3orothy M. City Clerk Gabrief^abbour, Mayor Publish the week of December 20, 1997, in the Laker/Pioneer newspapers. Page 3 of 3 I I I 1 1 1 I I I i i i i i i I j 0 •IL. OX^) ; (v)§ 10.56 fro°m thrir/ntipa^ dwelUng picni^/aretsf access orovided that the water, ‘'assuming summer, leaf-on facilities as viewed Jr"® reduced,conditions, is not substantially recu J. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. ^ ^ 'ey a 4” irrThese®"/acl!lititrdrnot require ^\®=g “raa?ng°^and li“9 treatment sIcS-filling standards tKi^section I 2. jGrading_r filling and e xca vati„g( 2. Grading, i-xxa.-a*, water "Level of the prohibited ''i’^;",^^,^i^,^^SubdTvisitn^ of this section. public waters emmhtated' in j-iveways, parking areas, SC^S" f°rom"l?ew"fr::%^'bUrwrters.- designed and consti waters consis«-ent jurisdiction. b. All roads and parking ^f^iblic to minimize and ;ff°aqencies withthe requirements of all agencie Except for those svstems, permits, for con^^uf^n be required as and driveways, a land cy. ^ ^ follows: alteration permrt wiix ORONO CC 376-14 (2-^24-91) § 10.56 issued land alteration permit shall be requir b. For movement of more than 100 cubic yards of material anyvnere is reauired inConditional use permit approval by City ^ou addition to the required land alteration p 5 The following considerations and variances and subdivision approvals. a. Grading or filling in any Type 2, 3, e j 4- >10 #svaluated to determine how4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 land must be eval^^ following extensively the proposed activity functional qualities of the wetland: and retention; prevent or reduce flood damage; (1) Sediment and pollutant trapping Storage of surface run-off to (3) Fish and wildlife habitat; \t] Sunfor baS^ stabilization; (6) Noteworthiness, including spe cial qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat endangered plants and animals# or others. This evaluation must also | determination of "Ipprovals^'by ot^^^ local State or requires permits, >^®'''^f"® limited to watershed districts. Federal agencies f Ipspurces, or the United StatesMinnesota Department of Natural Rescurces, Army Corps of Engineers- b. Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of g?ouSd is exposed for the shortest time possible; c. Mulches or similar materials ““St be pl^\'nelt"“geL “”rclVer°Ls\^r«^^^^ fc trap sediments before they ^^U%ft?ict^ware^^e\^?urf be used; ORONO CC 376-15 (2-24-92) \ § 10.56 I I I e. Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service; f. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope; g. Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by the City Engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30% or greater; h. Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones; i. Any alterations below the Ordinary High Water Level of public waters must first be authorized by t .a Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources under Minnesota Statutes, Seciton 105.42; j. Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to penaitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property; k. Placement of natural rock rip rap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical, the landward extent of the rip rap is within 10 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level, and the height of the rip rap above the Ordinary High Water Level does not exceed 3 feet. A rip rap permit shall be obtained per the requirements of Section 10.03, Subdivisions 22, 23 and 24 of this zoning code. 6. Connections to Public Waters. Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, are prohibited above the Ordinary High Water Level. Such excavations below the elevation or the Ordinary High Water Level are subject to approval of the Department of Natural Resources and other agencies with concurrent jurisdiction. K. Storm Water Management. The following general and specif.ic standards shall apply in addition to those standards found in Sections 10.55 and 11.41 of the Orono Municipal Code: 1. When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to convey, store, filter and retain storm water run-off before discharge to public waters. ORONO CC 376-16 (2-24-92) \ iOr 'sC § 10.55 Subd. 6. Zoning Use Districts. The Zoning Use Districts as designated on the Official Zoning Map shall remain unchanged with the adoption of this Section. The provisions of this Section, including the designation of Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Areas, shall be in addition to all other provisions of this Chapter. Whenever conflicts occur between other provisions of this Chapter and provisions of this Section, the "most restrictive provision shall prevail. Subd. 7. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments onthe flood plain. A. The regulatory flood protection elevation within the Floodway and Flood Fringe Districts shall be established by adding 1.0 foot to the Base Flood Water Surface Elevations within Floodway listed in the Floodway Data Table contained in the Flood Insurance Study. Regulatory flood protection elevations between cross-sections shall be interpolated. B. The regulatory flood protection elevation for Lake Minnetonka shall be 932.5 MSL. C. The regulatory flood protection elevation within the General Flood Plain District shall be calculated by a qualified registered profession^l engineer in .accordance with procedures set forth herein. A Subd. 8. De^lopment Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereihafter specific^adly permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, exca ion dcove r , temporary or permanent structures, obstruclrroTTSTysept ic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary highwater elevation of any lake shoreline, nor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting said area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in this Section and the preservation of those conservation areas in their natural state. Subd. 9. Floodway District (FW). The following uses have a low flood damage potential and do not obstruct flood flows. These uses shall be permitted within the Floodway District to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other City Code provision and provided all permits or authorizations are received as may be required by other City Code provisions or regulation of other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, including without limitation, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. In addition, no use shall adversely affect ORONO CC 365 (4-1-84) § 10.55 Eg m m m m kI m the capacity of the channels or floodways or any tributary to the main stream or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system, and no use shall adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water runoff or the quality of the natural environment. Chapter): A. Permitted Uses. (When in conformance with this 1. Agricultural uses such as pasture, grazing, and wild crop harvesting. 2. Fish and wildlife sanctuaries. 3. Recreational uses such as fishing accesses, unpaved hiking, biking, horseback or nature trails, and picnic areas. 4. Residential uses such as lawns and gardens provided no filling, grading or hardcover is involved. 5. Seasonally installed residential boat docks for single family dwellings. 6. Natural stone rip rap shoreline protection. 7. Sand beach blankets meeting the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources Regulation 6MCAR15021B. this Chapter): B. Conditional Uses. (When in conformance with 1. All other forms of shoreline protection including wood, metal, mortared stone or concrete seawalls. 2. All dredging or excavation of material from any lake bed, pond, or wetland or from land adjacent thereto. 3. ' All permanent boat docks or other similar structures. 4. All multiple boat docks including residential or commercial structures, whether seasonal or permanent. 5. ‘ Water control structures such as dams, culverts, and weirs. 6. Bridges and abutments. 7. Utility lines. 8. Other similar uses not specifically listed when approved by the Council and other regulatory agencies, but no use shall be approved which will restrict or obstruct any flood flow or which the level of any flood flow. ^Subd. 10. Floc^ Fringe District (FFD). The following uses h^e a low flood d^ace potential and do not obstruct flood tlowsf These use^.-©ir^l be permitted within the Flood Fringe District—to--ttTe''‘¥xtent that they are not prohibited by any other City Code provision and provided all permits or authorizations are received as may be required by other City Code provision or ORONO CC 366 (4-1-84) § 10.55 regulation of other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including without^ limitation, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. In addition, no use shall adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways or any tributary to the main stream or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system, and no use shall adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground water runoff or the quality of the natural environment. ^ ^ Chapter):A. Permitted Uses. (When in conformance with this District permitted in the Floodway 2. Agricultural uses such as general farming, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming and forestry. ^ , 3* Recreational uses such as golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, parks and nature preserves. this Chapter):B. Conditional Uses. (When in conformance with Floodway District. conditional uses as listed in the 2. Residential accessory structures such as rf|u^re®d b^Subd^itisrin^l.^''"''®'^ "^e setbacks 3. Commercial storage of boats and marina equipment in the "3-2" Zoning Use District, provided all storage meets the requirements of the "B-2" Zoning Use District. 4. Other accessory uses not specifically listed when approved by the Council, but no use shall be approved which will restrict or obstruct any flood flow or which will raise the level of any flood flow. ^ ^ 5. All structures constructed as conditional uses shall beconstrueted in accordance with the State Building Code. ^ ^ ^ Conditiinaf^uses.'"- Floodway and Flood Fringe All Uses. No structure (temporary or permanent), fill, deposit, obstruction, storage of materials, or equipment, or other use-' .^ay be allowed as conditional uses which, acting alone or in combination with existing or reasonably anticipated future uses, adversely affect the capacity of the floodway or increases flood heights. ORONO CC (4-1-84) r I I I I I I r m m PI m § 10.55 B. Fill: a m a m m m 1. No fill shall be deposited in the floodway and any fill deposited in the flood fringe shall be no more than the minimal amount necessary to conduct a conditional use listed above. Generally fill shall be limited to that needed to grade or landscape for that use and shall not in any way further obstruct the flow of flood waters. 2. Spoil from dredging shall not be deposited in the floodway nor in the flood fringe. 3. All fill shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover in the form of grass, natural ground covers, shrubs and trees as determined by the Council. 4. All filling and grading activities shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-88 C. Structural Work For Flood Control. Structural works for flood control such as dams, levees, dikes and floodwalls shall be allowed only upon issuance of a conditional use permit. In addition, any proposed work in the beds of public waters which will change the course, current, or cross-section of the waters shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1976, Chapter 105, and other applicable statutes. Subd. 12. Conditional Use Permit Review. Applications for conditional use permits shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Council in the same manner as other zoning conditional use permit applications. No conditional use permit shall be issued unless the applicant, in support of his application, shall submit certified engineering data, surveys, site plans, flowage calculations, and other information as the City may require in order to determine the effects of such development on the affected land and water areas. A, vtice to State. Upon filing of an application for a conditional use permit, the Zoning Administrator shall submit to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed conditional uses sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. A copy of all decisions granting conditional use permits shall be forwarded to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten days of such action. B. Conditions of Approval. In granting a conditional use permit the City may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards, which are in conformity with the purposes of this Section. Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the conditional use permit is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Section punishable as provided herein. ORONO CC 368 (4-1-84) a CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parlovay, P.O. Box 66 Cn stal Bav, MN 55373 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE The Planning Commi' sion will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, March 16,1998 on the matter of proposed amendments to Orono Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19 & 21; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.55, Subdivisions 8, 10 & 11; and Section 10.56 Subdivision 16, to revise requirements and standards for the issuance of land alteration permits within the Shore Setback Zone of lakes within the City. The intent of the proposed revisions is to allow City staff to administratively issue permits for specified low-impact, low-volume (up to 10 cubic yards) filling, grading, excavation or land alteration projects within the Shore Setback Zone. The meetmg begins at 6:30 p.m. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. Written comments are solicited. A copy of the proposed revisions is av allable in the City offices for review. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator To be published the week of February 28, 1998. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING MAR 23 1998 rrrvo-ORONO DATE: March 20, 1998 ITEM NO: ' \ Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator’s Title City Administrator Report Item Description: March for Parks Proclamation The City Council at its March 9 meeting at<prcved a proposal from the Park Commission related to a planned March for Parks activity. The Park Comj ^ssion has requested that the Council adopt a resolution proclaiming April 25-26 as Miuch for Parks Weekend. The proclamation is attached for Council action. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution proclaiming April 25-26 as March for Parks Weekend. A PROCLAMATION ESTABLISHING APRIL 25-26,1998 AS MARCH FOR PARKS WEEKEND WHEREAS, April 25-26,1998 has been established as "March for Parks Weekend"; and WHEREAS, the purpose of organizing March for Parks was to plan a nationwide demonstration of public concern over the perilous condition of the nation's pa^'ks and public spaces; and WHEREAS, these events will not only raise awareness, but also necessary funds for park improvement, protection, and education projects benefiting national, state and local public parks; and WHEREAS, those participating in March for Parks are demonstrating that they are committed to protecting and revitalizing our national treasures for generations to come; and WHEREAS, everyone must become familiar with the environmental consequences of their actions and the impact it will have on future generations. NOW, THEREFORE, I, the Mayor of Orono, do hereby proclaim / pril 25-26, 1998 as "March for Parks Weekend" in Orono, Minnesota, and call upon the residents of this city to observe and participate in this weekend, as well as the days ahead, with sensitivity and respect for the nation's precious parks and public spaces. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 23rd day of March, 1998. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Page 1 of 1 COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MAR ^3 1^98 DATE: ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: tA Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: Park Commission Appointment Attached are applications for the vacancy on the Park Commission. The applications are from the most recent appointment process. A recent advertisement for additional candidates resulted in one new application which is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to select a candidate for appointment to a term on the Park Commission, expiring December 31,1998. t >0 Pr^rtleton Voice 472-66f5 To Orono City Council at CilyotOrono Pape 1 of I Feb 19 199? 3 JO Si c m Feb 17. 1997 COUNGIL ' MAR 2 3 W98 cnv or ORONO City Council City of C»rono 27(k;i Kelley Porkway Ciystal Bay, MN 5.^32.^ EViar Council Members I wouI J like to appl\- tor the open position on the Orono park commission I have an application on tile from a previous inquiiy regarding joining the planning ana-or park commissions I have been an i>ono resident for over three years, and mv wite Meg and 1 plan to rai.se our s oung famils’ here V^ e have a great intere.st in parks and open spaces as we enjoy bic\ cling, horseback riding, jogging, and Keating on Lake Minnetonl;a Like many C>rono residents, we lelt cit>- living to enjoy the semi-rural outdoor oriented flavor of this community, and It has more than met our expectations I would like to contribute some of my time and energy toward preservation and turther enhancement of the city's parks, recreation facilities, and open spaces VkTiile I have not held any pre\ioas city positions, my work as a pilot i.Airbas .V32o Captain) and Program Manager tor cockpit communicatioas computer systems at Northwest .Airlines entails considerable long term planning and methodical analysis I believe these skills coupled with my frequent use of the citv's outdoor tacilities and appreciation tor our natural surroundings m.il.e me well suited for this position I would welcome the opportunity for an interv iew, or I may be contacted by telephone at -472-.^6S5 Thanl: vou for your consideration Sincerely. Jon M Pendleton - * r»CITY of ORONO \fttn*rfeAl Off CBSMunidpalOffces ?ostOfBc«Box66 Cryrjl Bay, Miiwe«ta 5=j 23^»66 . IELEPHONE-473-7357 • F.\X.47MS10 APPtlCATIOS FOR CITIZEN ADVISORT COHMI Coramission Auplyinc For: Planning ComiTiission Parks Coitunission □ conmunitv Task Force (Nane) ----------------------------------------------------- I,....-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ ? Wo rtf) fifh ^4 4-g._______—---------------------------- ^ ‘Address -------------—------------- post Office s Zip code -----^ /7Z-5'<»S' _____ W - ---------- ■Telephone (hJ -------L------------------------------- Resident of Orono A------^years- Wotle Experience: AV//,<T . I 9 SY - frertn^t--------------------------------------------------- ’ . Education Civic and volunteer Activities (past and present): r^..U rAM,., k..Lc, -7- ^ Aifl.h^r __5c ^^*f f Ci ^ for wanting to serve on this Conmission r fA“%%^rens"^"p%="”ras%^ossible! Ose aaaitionaX sheet i. ' necessary.) ^ ...'A ..J <c ^ ^ ----- ■ 7 ....iJ /,V> *> y> ^ ^ ^ ....... ------1 fy ,.v,r.v ■------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . ?. -rj- ........... What is your view of the role of the Coom.ission? •-£- u/l— -fvt fi--., A.--.s^^. ^ u. .(.i r. ^ ■r.L .J. VtSS?£ofe^hr: c74-“coa^ii°Io^“c1.:sfa7r/o'?hlt infonnatioD you woola like the Cit^ seeking. lou may riso"“ttil/^\Ye%“^Vte\"fa?ry ”r«oura like the Council to consider.) 1-. .... .4- , r U’'^ M' ■'3 W..<J .../ v»r...y r^A^’-r q..rdur A./;.^ f Uo ■ .L.;u .; -t^.Y tf ?. • (i |V «,-f 4'ii/i^t ^< A hUwo^i!^ ^ ^ 4^ai ^u ^A»^ 4^ltxU(£ X3----—£'yy iA— — ma., Jl ■ --------------------- • _ 'fkM^ t^O'' co^^'^<ktr^'^^ . I understand this appointment may be discussed at a pa meeting. 3/L*/y 4 T Signature Date CoK^i •'f \ — f -H, C.rr.vf .V ^ dC^tlwjfAxtJ' u>t^^i\ jvt/^ «f iye t^rtLA. r«M«^r <f ;<4c r APPilCATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION CITYof ORONO 2 Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mallini Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Commission Applying For: S' Parks Commission □ Planning Commission □ Community Task Force (Name)__________________________ Name Address ^'7C Q C0\>S'^ r“ Post Office & Zip Code Telephone (H) Resident of Orono ( '/a. (W) C(l- 3 -? o years. Work Experience: i^tvS^orfMvp's. Pu$^c^yL, vu>/icfh^, HG^cctt , ^$^LUC*Tr, Education: BA- O/VTCrvHxk/TJt Cou^^ .Mvf lAfdThyC- /<L> t^4Voi<-A;4-rt445- Sn/t J Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): TcrT»< i^p^ciTY g.KrC<Hu> AtcAAls7\ VI s PBc.T\>^ D>^T»*I«>/TK ^«>c6CSi? sTVOgA/T-f O 1 ^ I - Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {Please be es specific as possibie. Use additionai sheet if necessary.) fiTTi4c ___________________________________________________________________ What is your view of the role of the Commission? Other Comments: {Use this space to include any further information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) lATTt^H-e-r? I understand this app^intq^ent may be discussed at a public meeting. __________ _____ DateSiglfature ( **NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number will become public information. \ ■ 040S96J Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. My grandfather was a recognized and well-known conservationist and outdoorsman in Pennsylvania. As such, I grew up with a strong appreciation for the powerful role that natural open spaces can play in a person’s physical, emotional and value system development. Having lived in the city of Chicago for years, and then in a typical suburban Chicago "collar" community, our move to Minneapolis in 1995 was spurred by a desire for a better quality of life for me and my family. In Orono, we found a home with incredible open space and natural beauty--something we had always yearned for, yet was not accessible in Chicago. My objectives in bjing on the commission are fourfold. First, I have a desire to ensure that Orono’s park resources are preserved for the future. My family and I are frequent users of Baker, the Luce Line trail, and Biederman park, and discover new natural resources regularly. I hope to foster the belief that our parks are an asset which help to build a stronger community and advantage all ol the residents of Orono. Second, I want to ensure that the tremendous number of new residents to this area have an understanding of our Parks issues, and a commitment to the preservation of Orono’s unique natural resources. As one living in an area with 14 new homes and additional construction nearby, I am uniquely able to solicit the participation of these residents and ensure that the Commission's initiatives are communicated and understood. Third, I have a desire to make a tangible, long lasting commitment to my community. The parks commission provides an opportunity to create a legacy which will benefit future residents. I wish to preserve the natural resources which have made life here so wonderful for me and my family in the hope that others may enjoy it as we have. What is your view of the role of the Coinmission? Webster provides five definitions for the word "park", most of which assume that the land is privately owned and/(n utilized for some commercial purpose. However, there is one definition which 1 believe should guide the decisions and aaions of the Parks Commission: "an area maintained in it's natural state as public property". rWebster ’s New College Dictionary). My belief is that the Parks Commission must acknowledge and balance the concepts of demand, preservation, access, vision and accountability in carrying out it's mission. ♦ Demand: The incredible growth of Orono and the western suburbs has put increasing demand and pressure on existing parks resources. This must be acknowledged, especially as it relates to future parks planning. ♦ Preservation: The need to preserve and protect the unique open space feeling and resources which attracted all of us to Orono in the first place. ♦ Access: The recognition that Parks resource must provide access to all Orono residents who fund the parks Commission ’s efforts through their tax dollars. ♦ Vision: A vision for the future of Orono and a mandate to anticipate, rather than react to, future parks needs and opportunities. ♦ Accountability: A recognition that the commission must be fiscally accountable for it's actions. other Comments As I pondered this application, I found inspiration in the words of Aldo Leopold "In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo Sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow members, and also respect for the community as such." CAldo Lci'pold, A Sand Countv Almanac) I hope to have the opportunity to bring my talents to bear on the Parks Commission, whose decisions will have a long lasting impact on the city and it’s residents Thank you for your consideration. r A V til APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION GITYof ORONO Municipal OfTiccs Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkwny Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Commission Applying For; B^arks Commission □ Planning Commission □ Community Task Force (Name)_____________ Name Address <zy c- Post Office & Zip Code Telephone (H) "^7^^ ^ ^______ Resident of Orono ________years. (W)Y7 7 57'/’^ Work Experience: 7/fS £^/^e7f C(7. f Education: Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): * /^/7 CC^C^/^____________ /A^ C^yyyh^/S!£^~/f> c ^/S/f C4^ Telephone (6U) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {Please be as specific as possible. Uss additional sheet if necessary.) fyfytrfC )f~ ^7T ^Yc^ar^ac. What is your view of the role of the Commission? Z~ /<^A -P *>'-^ A^-^-^cQ- d yfi^ jy^yfC^ Other Comments: {(/se this space to include any further information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you fee^h t^^avant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materia!^, v ju vjouidiike the Council to consider.) I understand this appointment may be disr.LSased at a public meeting. ^ Vf' -7^ Sign^tur.Data **NOTE:Volunteer comns^ssiun member's name, address and phone number y if’ become public information. 4 •*9d.2 -. ‘ ' r' I: CITYofOKONO ///^ Mun-cpd 0=« \m/ .. ■ W PcsK oescs Sox 6o 1 - ‘ /» w Mun-cpal CSsss Peat OeScs Sox 6d CrvTJl Bav, MLy.»oc» =ti^,13-00oo _ __ telephone -473-7357 • EVX-47^^510u MAY 1 2 1995 , r'T'T'T'rvx, advisor ? COMMISblfjNSapplication rOR CI-T«w!^» Con-jnission Applying For: rn Parks Ccrr;ission r~l Community Task Forca (Name) ^ Planning Commission Name fiKit)g.EW ;,acress rASCO PO/^^U§0^ post Office S Zip Code ------55'3'U--------------------- Telephone (H) l-~?30M------ Resident of Orono _jJ/M_years *<• i ‘ —----------------------------------------------------- ■ Educationjducacioa &vin/iVv*> S~^~- 01^^^ Civic and volunteer Activities (past and present) = L . - ^ serve on this Conmission ■■■••SXease state your /^oslibie. Ose additional sheet if (Please he as sped necessary-) * ^ . . -i. -lease be as spedi^^- r: .essaryO )rs<« a.^r7/rc-- ^<2. IWe, (^v\ MkH^ (^sco —-----—^ ^3, is your .ie« of the role of the iT -(_ ,.//", rs^ihiM- other comments: the City Council to you may H^Sri^s ^elerni^3.?PP°lr^“o•=u?d^Y-renhe louuciX ho _ -.*.+-a/-'h other ma 9 J — ^.r- -hjL /-Kf-<res,tLja£- - , ^ ^ axsv —— consider-) >,- discussed at a i understand this appointment may he dr skj3£-' I DdeeAJj .—i\s\\cnai-Mre APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMW.lSSION miX M GlTYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Commission Applying For: p Parks Commission □ Planning Commission □ Community Task Force (Name)__________________________ Name ^oh f') rl\ i >♦1 i-K7 € 5 / Address p-/- /S/ Post Office & Zip Code iA'a v/ Z-tt. 'fo- .5~t) .3 9/ Telephone (H) V7 ______ Resident of Orono ^_________years. (W) Work Experience: /• n J 1 iT l^UJ ^ f\CSCC (_ f^yi27 I 4iF />Ua fin'^ecf^rt^es Education: S’/‘, A 4isrx/^ 57^ '77io)>K\S // A) -r Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): ?&e iXce. cao-c-L G Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {Please be as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.) JZ" cx. 'Fa ‘ir 4-rec. ci»ric/ /•ke. ko ke/t> //7 _________________ What is your view of the role of the Commission? / 75 ryiak^ Sure ^ fPc^rk^ are ^or £lJJ fhc __________ Other Comments: {Use this space to include any further information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. 0.1- __________P-- /Izl7_ / ’ Signature **NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number will become public information. .• * rt CITY of ORONO // O , .O'A MunidpalOfEca ____ f \ \ Pos: OfEct 65 H ( telephone - 473-73S7 CTTYOF ORONO ' . ........illtlEtllj^ii .T3S7 • ECC-CTJiM APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY C01«ISSI0NS ^9® - V----- Commission Applying For: Pxl Parks Commission I 1 Community Task Force (Name) Name ‘RICHARD P. MEYERS___________________ I I Planning Commission Address 2195 Bawlew Place. Orono Post Office & Zip Code 55391-9546_ Telephone (H) ______471-8288__________ Resident of Orono years (W) 348-6589 Work Experience: qt,»r<ff-Henn»Dln County Sheriffs Department 18 years-past five years_a rPSDonslble for the South & West Metro region; Previous llve_y_±ars Deputy Warrant Deputy assigned to the Water Pacrol. Lake Mlnnetonka_ Education p A Urban Studies University of Minnesota 1976 M.A. Public Safety Curriculum and Instruction University of St% Thomas 199|^ Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present) - nF rhp Citizens Advisory Committee fgr th^ Minnehaha §t;at;e ?arK RPnrma ■ prciec.:; Hbmber of the planning co^ittee for Cedar Lake Park renovation. _ *•**"'- ^aeonc for wanting to serve on this Commission necessary-) I want to be of service to my community-.- I have a lifelong Interest In conservation issues and want to help enhance and preserve Orono*s quality .of life.—Park planning is my .avocation and my legacy for future generations.__I want to_help devel_qp an 56ftfegTa&'i®Hing and biking trail system for Orono. What is your view of the role of the Commission? ■ 1 a T ^a^nr hprupen tb** rlrly.ens* , A ’^9'nin]'* ^*^~^ *^^**'** T n£ th 9 parks i ” ..........................................................-............nn-. inr.rpsr., Msg T hfHeyg s tosnis.loner K. ,n >d„.nbnr on n.rV rrrr.ar1n..1 'l--..ps an gdvjcnr nr fhe .roicgical- -fmp.rra; nf ^ 1 P.ndpr in rmrmnnfry invniYPnrm fpy Ornnn anr^ a rriffr whpH nprps.saty- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- other Comments: city Council to consider, or. that informatxon you you are seeking. You may you feel would like the Council toalso attach other materials i consider.) .,nbn.,.b nv wife Jan and I have been In n„n new hone for only two years. 1 an knowledge nf Orono. I spent\s years with the Watdr Patrol so I ha;^ knowled^n nf the lake, its Islands, and surrnnndInK coamunitles. .Ihave • ......a nhn T.Mr.D on safety and .n.,^nnn.nntal issno^ For fbe past fivej^rs ' j bg»n'rhe Sheriff's Deputy rpsnonslblp for serving any arresf warrants Jp ,- - - --- - - -I am a1-n vail ac,ygtnted ..Irh y^nr poUcg V„.,ia H..,. .n.pd nlsew^-T- Utfcjju^l^xano . provides. I an an avid hiker, biker, and ^<>«er. a^J «tuire you^ark^ Tarkways on-a dally basis. We hope to discasred “t’a pabHc I understand this appointment may. te aisc meeting. O'X i~i Date 4 V? V ^ ™ 61997 APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION GITYof ORONO Municipal OfHces Street Address: CITY OF ORONO ^750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Commission Applying For:SJ^Parks O □ Community Task Force (Name) Commission CD Planning Commission Nam e P -ij r-s f Address N1 'ti'A K'q w lPuN ( O (T Post Office & Zip Code_tQ(iij£^j; (F A ___________ Telephone iH) ^'12 I'lCK _________ (W) Resident of Orono years. rk Experience: ^ rpf-lcil 6rok'idxpt^_____ VUorl /W’Mla/irliTri\>>U ^Tlanali/i —^iicA5lr^pf pv—_______________ luiiA Ct4u /i7.1b{7Ttfu^-- (tlshm Education:tuuuauuii. . ^ tiia^iifV^ , l/prrii In4im Sr fli ^( roflHiniiita - i <3n"rtrnA4tvipi f!>, ^errcH>^r7a( fn i fTi?■ ^vic and Volunteer Activities (p^ and present): T.jpis onCK I Kfl'tf. S^r^lTillTfcaiT^nrtfi^ ^ 0t^:TrVi'ar^?^(xy(Afcr-4.4..' (/in nM-. tit i-Y<i?3 ’itlA)'^n 9) nrlf^ ^a'irtjueiD &^^Aa ‘40ulic^^^ i\ ^ Tyi:t|icn.5ocG?j^Y - ^a'inYeio &^^Acl‘40uM;l' _ Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {Please be as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.) rir4\i ’4 ‘ ifl iW XM5iai iA4t4> m<P imrli-^ niMh ^ a CctWlXJicyl. Xjn^rL j- b-Mf) nr\;firl. rn^n.hH-J 4n rxv utpIIaaiYi )rij> J> "4rirr ix\fA'~ilrinr/i rffiii(M),T.5fm»____________________ 0 What is your view of the role of the Commission? hnT/rr CinwO U)r;T CtAo^ Hrt (Irp^erirf, cl'ki'0 ( ' ’fVTi^Mn\ rrrirl Hx 'i ir-LYV, Other Comments: {Use this space to include any further information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) I und^r«an^f4his appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. ______ iture **NOTE: VolunteeKcommission member's name, address and phone number will become public information. February 14,1997 City of Orono Council Members and Commissioners P.O. Bo * 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323-0066 To Whom It many concern; We write to you with recommendation of Patricia Aifeldt for her application to the Park Commission. We have known Patricia through our work together in the Saga Hill Preservation Society and through our common membership at Fairview Covenant Church. We find her to be a very honest person with great integrity and determination for completing tasks and projects. Her love of the community shows in the interest she has taken in it, and 1 think the Park Commission would benefit greatly by her involvement. Patricia is reliable, caring, dedicated and responsible. 1 support and recommend her desires to serve on the Park Commission. Sincerely, /V\pov w V ow Brian and Mamie Peterson 1100 North Shore Drive West Orono, MN 55364 received FEB 1 R ^997 CITY OP ORONO RECEIVED FEB 1 9 1997 CITY OF ORONO February' 17,1997 The City of Orono Council Members and Commissioners P.O. Box 66 CrvstalBay.MN 55323-0066 Dear Council Members and Commissioners: This letter is to offer Patty Affeldt as an excellent candidate for the position of Orono Park Commisioner. Ms. Affeldt has been an active member of her community for 4 years. SI.- tabines her luve for the Orono area with leadership skills, large group organization experience and skill of being a good listener. Ms. Affeldt’s talents were most recently honed in dealing with the Saga HiHs project Stirrounding neighborhoods were organized, funds were gathered and difficult objectives were completed. Her Qkiiu as a player and a self motivated organi/er gained her the respect of all involved. Please consider Ms. Affeldt as very worthy c.mdidate and one who will be a great asset to the Orono Park Commission. Sincerely, Robin Helgager 3265 County Road 6 Long Lake, MN 55356 475-1022 Orono Resident for 10 years APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION i - •X V M CITYoTORCro Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: 55323-0066 Commission Applying For: ^ Parks Commission □ Planning Commission □ Community Task Force (Name) ________________ Name S> I ^ (W) 6WZ ^ Address (jOcgT^-\- Post Office & Zip Code Or o o o_____________________ Tei ihone (H) _______ ____________________________ Resident of Orono ___________years. Work Experier-c $,: Oi rcPoKj r ArriVx^rSi" H« > \ cXg i <u-V->fNs ^A<=.r^«=.c^(s>r V_______________ Q-e\*^Vv^os cA^-n^: e f ^ HV '■ oe ________ Education: JHncXg^:x?nA er\~V StVAC^y-^ rNcSt-y? P>c€r 1 iT-*=-«^os (Ao'wJgr s\A-<?\V J oWrtiNeL ’bvj/j Iilrr^OLC .\Ow’oc-V\s<>r) ^ t3c^\oy^ lA^Wer'S iV^j \^A> j cAo^v<gc6>_________________________ Civic ai.d Volunteer Activities (past and present): ^\e-V^ CV^<^^pVg.r M.tnrNgso'V^ ~Tr\A^j Ac:)vM"v;Si:>r^ UJ\l<3^e-r ForecV^ VAc-Aog S~\. NJ uofNg r o va S \DO<^r^ s . '\ >>c\ L. i ~H\Q* £ rO"VV-e<^5 Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {Please be as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.) IT OroAo <^r»oA. \Ar ( f <zr^o^rOT-Tor . JIT pgr^crr>^( -Cir>^ 4W p^V>V\C- Sp<-C,e5~ *1 ^por4-s r r^pvaro ’s -Tor C\Vi'?-Co5 crf ^-U Q-f Q>peo 'Sp^c.c?^- c=r>c\______ 1^goS\V\Me r^<ro <?l oorr-en V '~\o ’^v->>Ppor'^ O-TOOP 5 gr D va>VV> . What is your view of the role of the Commission? ~To ‘Serxxe -fV-g CTi-V^ <CD-o^^Cl^\ vr> \A~?> HI oC n ^Tdo ^ rg\<=^-V-eoX -ho ~Wo C 5: ______ Other Comments: {Use this space to include any further information you would like the City Council to consider, or th^t you feet is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public rr^eeting. **NOT€: 'V , Signature Ji Date Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number will become public information. 12.02-96 0S:.'>S FAX 612 379 4679 TRI-TECH ELECTRO ©001 /O' APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION 1: %'m^'CITYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailinf Address; P.O. Bex 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0056 Commission Applying For: G Parks Commission □ Planning Commission □ Community Task Force (Name)_____________________________ Name svip 11 V r.i 1 T p ^fii i c 4- Address 3490 Birch Lane Post Office & Zip Code Orono. MN 55391 Telephone (H) 612/471-7255 Resident of Orono ^ (W) 612/379-4407 years. Work Experience: _ _Employed as a bookkeeper for a commercial electrical contractor Previously worked n years for a commercial general contractor. Education: Graduate of Pohhirign.^'[<=> —nnong^r ui gVi . Pa in rn-r'iir;''*!_______ from the University of Minnesota, continying education courses in Accounting and computer software and hardware. Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present); none Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 12 02 •96 0S:5S FAX 612 379 4679 TRI-TECH ELECTRO ©mi 2 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {Please be as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary-) ±.y-cxnt tp serve on f-he Park-s rnnm i -i; ^ ^ c; p4 i-y need s control relentless beyond? I ^an^ ;; see O^ono -------------------------■■ existing fiatural enyironmgnt. To do rhi<r ^ einmf^f^rtck t.fV . I ---------i—l-—l. — rs. ^- - - - - -——— - - I ■-■■ -,——, X kj. un I s . 11" Ka.<® ^ to sides of the issue. It takes someone vho - - - - - - - -a^c-^guide through thorough, veil thouahn- r.nh . 1 and more importantly, reasonable str?i*^»rrv‘ • -J.Obg. term goals of the City of O^ono. i^^noS I be made in order to accommodate our natural envj ronme.nb. I believe that ggmorom- and balance betvv'een all sides is what matters. What IS your view of the role of the Commission? ^ believe that the roifa Pti>-ir«a /‘’/■srrrT'i'ja.^r-oi >■1^ Of 21st^Centur?^g^o°?^etre?egy!^^h??e''^eLmbe?ln^gu?^4sotrgeI ll7 ^.. ... — - - - - -- - - - - »vj,c>n cne strLerthL/x::K^^gg tbin^mg, and guidance to formulate Other Comments: {Use this space to include any further information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) I have en i oyed—1 i vj ng_in Ornno nnd T !>7anr d-^ p-i. ^ ..... ....i , next century. The metropolitan area is experiencing'Ltri^dina. demands on. it’s limited natural resonrre^^. =, a.. , "holcerTnSst be challenging decisions of the century. The hard '^noices must be made if i,-e are to l:eep our city and our metro area a healAy, stable and viable place to .live, „orK and raise our families. ..xne cnoice.? ve make m^y prnvg -tr> >ia unoooui.ar in the cthnrh ^p^en^ these decisions win guide us into the next century and beyond, i.h.aye no experience as far as rmiUce 0..'.,^^...,.'/= v-.. ^ i- - - Strong sense of community and have a strong desir”to be involved _1.T making the right decisions not only for the current r,onn1e^^^n but I understand J^lls" 'be"l?s"uulieS’iro p°ab^ib°m'e'ifikg.• ♦•NOTE; O Si^^l V. 2 Decemhi^r 19Qn D«H« Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number will become public infoimation. .1 N APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION GITYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Commission Applying For: Parks Commission □ Planning Commission □ Community Task Force (Name)___________________ Name UJt'nfei- Address <^00^^ LOoocI^ D h. Post Office & Zip Code 5‘S'3S"4 Telephone (H) Resident of Orono_______/ (W) years. Work Experience: tfecuHvt Seci-e'^^y S-Uu-^li' /l'u/7ie Coin^ munijif -Uet Education: Unit/. o-P A/^. Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): Chutck /ead^/siip q Uo/uH-^Pt^ i^TA . Sci/ci Oc>/u*tlH’€ De-pi, oP j/fjrn /j'Ual Pj^/fuet^y^ Jr. jLejtc/e/s/ff> / 'ft)r' Undptr^-*>—*•.* Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 MAR ^ ^ I -j Ur Cr.Ci\'0 Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. (Please be as specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.) A5 a T Sec ri. ioe£cI ~rcr JU/fT^r^fS in 7^ Gentle a tea.. , oA /Ve (j^Ke^cise (2nd fJ/'OOQh'h i/d !uF5 CAh O.// lOt fT’CUec/ dh aretL (jQltk 0~ u'lr^l/ /2ddiL t AH(. G^-m (Uid l^ealiz^e d/m ('mnu ___________________________ What is your view of the role of the Commission? . 7c Uhi'~k n,-)Lr^mu.i,ii'k^ ParJ^s (?nd «• 7o (LI 5u5'feh -f'/'lai As Saf(L ^ad 7uMc/'0'ud An heSidefok oA /hU gafA Other Comments: (Use this space to include any further information you would like the City Council to consider, or that you fee! is relevant to the appointment you are seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.) I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting. U)jdCtUj_____________ _____ Date^ Signature **NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number will become public information. COUNCIL ^y1££TiNG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MAR 2 5 1998 DATE: ITEM NO.: i> Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: .1^ Agendr. Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Park Mowing For 1998 and 1999 We have advertised and obtained sealed bids for the mowing of City parks for the 1998 and 1999 seasons. Bids for park mowing are taken on a two year basis. For the 1996 and 1997 seasons this work was completed by Lawn Detailers of Minneapolis. We received 12 bids for this work. A tabulation of the bids received is attached. The low bid of $18,200 was received from William's Lawn Service of Maple Grove. This bid is $8,390 lower than the next lowest bid, and $8,200 lower than the cost for the 1596/1997. We have contacted the references that were provided by the contractor. The comments received from the references were favorable. We have also contacted Mr. Williams. He is satisfied with his bid, has adequate equipment and personnel to complete this work, has viewed all of the parks, and is aware of the scope of work. Our recommendation is to accept tlie bid from William’s Lawn Service of $18,200 for 1998 and 1999 park mowing. Proof of insurance per the bid requirements will need to be provided by the contractor before any work is completed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept the bid of $18,200 from William's Lawn Service, Maple Grove Minnesota for Park mowing for the 1998 and 1999 seasons. LAWN MAINTENANCE BID OPENING MARCH 4,1998 10:00 A.M. 1.LawnDetailers/WoiH 28.200 2.Kelly Shaughnessy w)28.000 3.AGI, Brad Schopf 27.331 4.West Central Lawn Care — 5.Moms II 66.625 6.Steve Hammerschmidt (S-26.900 7.Talberg Lawn Care 8 51.955 8.Supreme Companies 1 30.239 9.Aspen Lawn 52.800 10.Sam's Lawn Care >0 58.200 11.Steve's Lawn & Snow^26.590 12.William's Lawn Service 6'roi/?1 18.200 (r^ Aue b>4 37,73(7 COUNCIL MtETINQ MAR 23 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CFTYOFORONO DATE: March 23, 1998 ITEM NO.: f Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Seasonal Employees for Golf Course I have attached a memo from Ron Steffenhagen, Golf course Superintendent, regarding seasonal employees. We are proposing a pay range of $6.50 to $7.25 per hour for this season. The 1997 pay range was from $6.25 to $7.10 per hour. The attached memo contains a list of employees for this season. The employees are hired under two different provisions of the PERA rules. Three employees will be hired under the 6 month rule which allows unlimited earnings for a 6 month maximum time period. These are the main employees with the majority of the hours during the season. The remainder of the employees work less hours and will be hired under the PERA maximum earnings provision which lumts earnings to $425 per month. This allows for flexibility in use of employees to cover the winter season when the course is open for sliding. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve a seasonal employee pay range of $6.50 to $7.25 per hour for the 1998 season. Motion to hire the employees listed at the proposed wage rates and under the applicable provisions of the PERA rules. TO: Greg Gappa, Public Services Director FROM: Ron Stefifenhagen, Golf Course Superintendent DATE: March 18, 1998 SUBJECT: Golf Course Superintendent These employees are all retuining employees. The proposed hourly wage rates are based on previous work experience and the number of seasons they have worked as seasonal employees. ITST OF PROPOSED SEASONAL GOLF COURSE EMPLOYEES Employee 1997 Hourly Wa£;e Rate Dan Oas $7.25 Bill McIntyre (6 month employee)$7.00 Jack Peterson (6 month employee)$7.00 John Ross $7.00 Jan Blair $7.00 Don Yeager $6.75 Tom Docken (6 month employee)$7.25 Jane Dalaney $6.50 in the newspaper for this position. 1 he employees listed as 6 months employees will be hired for a 6 month time period under the PERA rules with no limit on earnings. All of the other employees will be limited to maximum earnings of $425/month under the PERA rules. jig COUNCIL MEETING MAR 23 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY C" ::-q0^■0 DATE: March 20, 1998 ITEM NO : Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Review of the Preliminary Design of the Proposed Interchange at New Highway 12 and County Road 6 The City Courcil at its March 12 work session reviewed the preliminary design of the interchange at County Road 6 and Highway 12 prepared bj- Mn/DOT. The Council raised a number of questions and concerns regarding the preliminaiy' design. These were focused on five main items: 1. The "S" curve on County Road 6 on the west side of the interchange bridge. 2. Provision of a free right turn with an acceleration lane for traffic using the loop from westbound new Highway 12 to westbound County Road 6. 3. Provision of a free right turn from eastbound County Road 6 to eastbound new Highway 12. 4. Ensure the traffic projections on which the interchange design is based are as accurate as possible. 5. Provision of a median barrier at entrance ramp/acceleration lane area. Since the work session, staff has had discussions with both Tom O'Keefe of Mn/DOT and Denny Eiler of SRF regarding the items listed above. A summary of the discussions related to each of the items is outlined below. "S" Curve Tom O’Keefe of Mn/DOT indicated the "S" cur\ e has a design speed of 40 mph for the horizontal alignment which is the same design speed as the portion of County Road 6 to be reconstructed by the County in 1998. The vertical alignment design speed which would relate to sight distance coming off of the bridge is 50 mph. Denny Eiler indicates it is important that the design speed of the "S" curve matches the design speed of the roadway at each end of the "S" curve. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 March 20, 1998 Review of the Preliminary Design of the Proposed Interchange at New Highway 12 and County ______Road 6 ________________________________________________________________ Free Right Turn at Top of Loop Tom O’Keefe indicates this may be a good idea if the weaving movement works to merge the traffic from the loop with the traffic moving westbound on County Road 6. Denny Eiler indicates this may require a long acceleration lane. Tom O’Keefe indicated Mn/DOT is contemplating a four lane bridge to address left turn issues which could accommodate the acceleration lane. Free Right Turn to F.astbound New Highway 12 Tom O’Keefe indicates Mn/DOT will review the free right turn option. Denny Eiler indicates the additional bridge structure necessary for a free right turn would not be difficult or overly expensive to provide. Traffic Projection Denny Eiler indicated he is doing some analysis of projected traffic and will contact the City prior to the Council meeting if his findings have an impact on the design of the interchange. Tom O’Keefe has indicated Mn/DOT is planning to generate traffic forecasts for the year 2025 by mid-April. Median Barrier Along the Merge Area Where Traffic from Countv Road 6 Enters the Traffic Qp Ngw Highway 12 Denny Eiler has suggested that a median barrier along the area where traffic from County Road 6 is merging with traffic on new Highway 12 is important from a safety standpoint. Tom O Keefe has indicated a median barrier would be beneficial. Mn/DOT is analyzing the engineering issues related to including a median barrier. City Response to Mn/DOT Regarding the Mn/DOT Preliminary Design It is staffs understanding that the five items discussed above were the key items identified by the Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to identify the key items to be addressed in moving toward a preliminary design for the interchange of County Road 6 and Highway 12 that is acceptable to the City. ------ ‘V; ~■*—^ ^ \.: te-;-' /^^^:.- -.s . -ij- ' •• *t- y ' .;n Vv"- v ■ •■> lr‘ ^ V; Z' ’\••'^■'v^^ ’ ■■’ ■ ' ■ ' '•; ^ , a(M COUNCIL MECTINQ MAR 23 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION crrY OF CRONO DATE: March 20,1998 ITEM NO: 2 Department Approval:Administrator Paviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Natural and Scenic Area Grant Application Attached is a letter from Kathleen Kasprick regarding a proposed grant application for the purchase of an additional 8.3 acres of land to be preserved as a natural area in the Saga Hill area. The grant application requires the City to be the grant sponsor and the purchaser of the property. The grant application proposes that the land acquisition be funded %vith a 50% grant and a matching amount collected through a private fund raising effort. There would be no City expenditures involved. This land acquisition would eliminate the need to serve three major parcels using the Garden Lane right-of-way which runs through the current natural area. However, this does not necessarily solve all of the potential issues related to access through or adjacent to the natural area to serve existing lots. A map showing the existing lots that would remain to be served is attached. The grant application requires the adoption of a resolution in support of the grant and agreeing to comply with a number of grant requirements. This resolution is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve/deny the City's sponsorship of the Natural and Scenic Grant Application, and if approved to adopt the attached grant application resolution. ORAVTAPP.NSA NATURAL AND SCENIC AREA GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Orono act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the Natural and Scenic Area Grant Program Application submitted on March 31,1998 and that the City Administrator is hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Natural Resources for funding of this project on behalf of the City oi Orono. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Orono has the legal autliority to apply for financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate acquisition, maintenance and protection of the proposed project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Orono has not incurred any costs, and has not entered into any written agreements to purchase property proposed by this project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Orono has not violated any Federal, State, or Local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, graft, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other unlawful or corrupt practice. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application by the state, the City of Orono may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-referenced project, and that the City of Orono certifies that it will comply with all applicable laws and regulations as stated in the contract agreement and described in the Compliances section of the Natural and Scenic Area Grant Program Application. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the applicant. Page 1 of2 I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on March 23,1998. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk I i Page 2 of2 "1*^.7.-.---------f -i,7.r..TT in ii ? —■—■ ">• f^OO- a ^ r qAP'^ I ' .3t9 «!.• vf* <•'«;» -5«.• * 07$/17/9S 14:35 FA.\ 612 725 3527 FWS ENGINEER INC (llOOl March 16. 1998 Ron Moorse From: Chair Person of the Park, Open Space and Trail Commission, Andrew McDermott RE: Saga Hills Grant Proposal: I reviewed the fax you forwarded to me and the Park Commission and I have the following concerns and questions. 1. The Park Commission assumes that park dedication funds will not be used to purchase this property. 2. Will the DNR place the same restrictions for use and development on this new section of acquired property? Does the DNR then become the owner? Do they provide any tax or revenue sharing payments as the federal government does for wildlife refuge land it owns? 3. With the individual parcel (parcel closest to Tonkaview Lane) included in this purchase will there be special conditions placed on this piece, so the city can construct a road across it, or construct a parking lot on it. We need this so the city can provide public access to the original DNR acquisition and the Hennepin County tax forfeiture property. At this time the only access the city can develop to the site is to construct part of Garden View Lane. 4. Will preserving a larger section of this land diminish the possibility of developing an active park on the tax forfeiture parcel? Would the proposed use disturb the wildlife? 5. How could they enter a purchase agreement with the owners in February but not officially contact the city until March 10*'’? 6. If the DNR owns land on both sides of Garden Lane can they prevent the city from developing the road or vehicular site access? See project “time frame ” Sept 1998. Also, see item seven below. 7. The map supplied does not clearly represent the site. There should still be one small privately owned parcel of land located at the top of the ravine, and along Garden Lane. Why b the land outlined to the north of the two northern striped lots? Is something planned by the Saga Hills Society for this lot? 03/17/9S 14:36 FAA 612 725 3527 FWS E.NCI.NFERl.NC (2)002 8. In answer to the question of open space need and is this the area of greatest need, the answer would be no. The section of the city with the greatest need is the south west corner or the Navarre area. The Saga Hill area would fall somewhere in the top 20%. This does not mean the city should not consider encouraging them to pursue purchasing It. The Saga Hills area has a group of Individuals who actively try to preserve land that is in close proximately to their neighborhood. The other areas of the city that do not have any. or only a small amount of open space also has no one interested in dedicating as much time as the Saga Hill residents have. 9. I do not think the city will overuse their ability to go to the DNR to secure this type of funding. The DNR stated that very few cities apply for these funds and it might be because of the restrictions the DNR places on the land. By the time the Park Commission or the city ever develops a similar group of individuals, in other sections of the city, the money source will probably vanish as many government programs typically do. 10. Under the section Transportation; they should remove the word "small" from the parking lot description. If we do not have a formal agreement with the church, they should also remove the mention of using their parking lot from this section. What do they mean when they state "developing a safety access for foot traffic?" 11. Environmental Intrusions; In this section they state that the new acquisition has “no roads or driveways." Do they mean developed roads? It will havu plated Garden Lane and a new road and parking area as stated under the transportation section. 12. The fact that the Environmental School used the land occurred because at the time the school was in the church across the street. The school might use many other areas now that they are In old Crystal Bay. 13. After reviewing the comments about the natural and historic features of the proposed purchase it appears to me that many sites throughout Orono contain similar features. 14. The only significant natural feature that we will preserve Is a small section of the ravine that the original purchase did not protect. The City has an obligation to provide access to every park and to provide recreational activities that all can enjoy. My biggest concern is that the city will enter into an agreement with the DNR and the Saga Hill Preservation Society that will only allow city residents to use the land for only Saga Hill neighborhood sanctioned activities. Sincerely, r Mr. and Mrs. Lyle K asprick 1067 LINDEN LANE ORONO, MINNESOTA 55364 m 1 0 1993 c»YVC^c;^c^:o March 9, 1998 Mr. Ron Morse, City Administrator City of Orono 2730 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 55356 Dear Mr. Morse: Thank you for suggesting an appropriate course of action to work with the Orono City Council, the Park Commission and the DNR in our effort to secure a grant from the DNR. As I mentioned on the phone this morning. The Saga Hill Preservation Society is working with the property owner Ms Sollner-Webb on an option to purchase her 8.3 acres of land which abuts the existing Saga Hill park land. Now, we are requesting time at the City Council Meeting on March 23, 1 998^‘collaborate on an approach to the DNR for funding. In order to give all parties time to become familiar with what is being proposed, I have enclosed: 1. A map of the land we hope to secure for the City of Orono with the help of the DNR. 2. An Appraisal of the property. 3. A copy of the proposed funding request from the DNR which includes: A. Project Narrative B. Site Evaluation C. Cost Breakdown I also have a copy of a professional archeologists report which I can furnish to accompany the proposal. Please let me know if there is anything further I can furnish to help the City and its officials work with us to secure a grant from the DNR. cerely, Ka^leen Kasprick en closures ^C7pfrtie5 @ 4or cr- t Saga Hill Expansion Project Narrative In 199o, a successful public/private partnership enabled an open space of historic importance to be preserved in the City of Orono. A Natural and Scenic Area Grant, combined with private ftmdraising and the work of the Minnesota Land Trust, allowed the city to acquire 11 acres at the top of Saga Hill. This was combined with a 9.7 acre tax forfeit parcel to create a sorely-need new park in densely populated western Orono, above the shores of Forest Lake Bay and the West Arm of Lake Minnetonka. One concrete example of the benefits of this project is that a school with an environmental curriculum opened nearby and uses Saga Hill as its classroom. Over the past two years, much has occurred. The Saga Hill Preservation Society has been working to demonstrate the unique character of this property. An archeological team completed a Phase One survey (findings attached) and concluded that there is good reason to believe that Saga Hill was once home to ancient indigenous people. A thorough vegetation inventory showed that there are wetlands on the uplands of Saga Hill, as well as at the base. This evidence helped forestall a proposed 26 home development on the remaining unprotected parcels surrounding the natural area. Ironically, protecting a portion of Saga Hill has made the remainder even more attractive to developers. Fundraising has continued, and the Saga Hill Preservation Society has secured an option to purchase the last critical parcel adjoining the natural area. This 8.3 acres consists of heavily wooded parcels on both the north and south sides of the park. This land is vital to the Saga Hill project: if not preserved, its development will require that a .73 mile platted road be built through the park. And, it is the last piece need to complete the Saga Hill project. Once this property is protected, the Saga Hill Preservation Society will shift its focus to working with surrounding landowner to protect their property wiA conservation easements. Without this final phase. Saga Hill will remain under siege from developers. As Orono and neighboring Minnetrista rapidly becomes developed. Saga Hill remains one of the few open spaces providing a pristine habitat for birds and other wildlife. The expansion of the Saga Hill Natural Area is a collaboration between the City of Orono, a citi7 jn's group called the Saga Hill Preservation Society and Minnesota Land Tmst. The th»ee entities have come together again to fulfill their commitment to an open space of historical importance. Project Site Evaluation I. Description of the Environment and the Environmental Impact of the Proposed Project. A. Present Land Use The proposed expansion of the Saga Hill natural area is an open space that has, so far, escaped rapidly encroaching residential development. The 8.3 acre property targeted for preservation is a de facto bird and wildlife s^ctuary used by Orono and Minnetrista residents for minimal impact activities like walking, cross country skiing and bird watching. The parcels adjoin 20 acres previously acquired by the City of Orono through a Natural and Scenic Area Grant, private fundraising and tax forfeiture. If this property is not acquired by the City of Orono, it will inevitably be developed. B. Proposed Land Use The City of Orono anticipates that the property would join the Saga Hill natural area to remain a minimally used natural area and wildlife habitat. C. Fish and Wildlife The Saga Hill natural area is the highest point in Western Hennepin County. Its woods and meadows shelter dozens of species of birds and small mammals, including a number of fox. Deer also frequent Saga Hill. A bird inventory was t^en on April 26,1995 by University of Minnesota ornithologist Bob Janssen. He sighted the following species: Double-crested Cormorant Canada Goose Northern Harrier Broad-winged Hawk Ring-necked Pheasant Mourning Dove Great Horned Owl Red-bellied Woodpecker Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Northern Flicker Pileated Woodpecker Eastern Phoebe Blue Jay American Crow Black-capped Chickadee White-breasted Nuthatch Golden-crowned Kinglet Ruby-crowned Kinglet Hermit Thmsh American Robin Cedar Waxwing European Starling Northern Cardinal American Tree Sparrow Chipping Sparrow Song Sparrow Swamp Sparrow Dark-eyed Junco Red-winged Blackbird Brown-headed Cowbird House Finch American Goldfinch House Sparrow Mr. Janssen noted that at least 83 additional species of birds would inhabit Saga Hill once the spring migration is completed. Acquiring the property would protect the existing birds and animals, whose habitat is threatened by impending development. D. Vegetation An evaluation of the proposed Saga Hill natural area was conducted by Lee Frelich, Chair, Evaluation Subcommittee of the MNDNR Commissioners Advisory Committee on Natural areas and Nongame Wildlife. Mr. Frelich found: "The parcel consists of several vegetation types: Upland Meaaow, formerly agricultural land; Multi-aged forest dominated by sugar maple, basswood and red oak, with some black cherry present; Young, even-aged forest of bigtooth aspen, quaking aspen and basswood, with a few older sugar maples scattered throughout; Red oak, basswood and sugar maple forest; Young quaking aspen and green ash and; Lowland marsh dominated by grasses with thickets of red osier dogwood anu clumps of green ash on higher ground." Mr. Frelich estimated that trees within the Multi-Aged forest average 60 - 80 years of age with some up to 150 years old. He concluded his report with: "It appears that most of this area will succeed to bigwoods if left undisturbed. The area has high quality silt and clay loam soil that will support good tree growth. Even the upland meadows will succeed to bigwoods after several decades." E. Water Resources Saga Hill is the upland watershed of Forest Lake and the West Arm of Lake Minnetonka. Two of the three parcels are quite steep. Should they be developed, the hardscape would cause additional run-off into the wetlands at their b^e, creating the potential for erosion and damage *o Forest Lake's water quality. Preserving the land as natural area would help protect that watershed. F. Geologic and Physiographic Features Saga Hill is the highest point of Western Hennepin County and offers panoramic views to the north and glimpses of downtown Minneapolis to the east. The Sollner-Webb property is comprised of heavily wooded steep slopes. G. Air Quality/Noise As Orono continues to develop, acquiring additional property for Saga Hill natural area will have a positive impact on both air quality and noise. Existing and future vegetation provide a sound buffer for adjacent homes. Creating the natural area will have no detrimental effect on either of these factors. H. Historical and Archeological Significance Saga Hill is an area of historic, literary and religious significance. It is bounded on the west by the Mdewakanton trail, now known as County Road 19. The first white settlers came to the area around 1864 according to records on file with the Western Hennepin Historical Society. By 1875, the neighborhood included a church and a "Swede School" or Eckstrom. In 1890, E. August Skogsbergh came to Saga Hill. This evangelist, the "Billy Graham of his day", established a congregation that survives today on property adjoining the proposed Saga Hill Natural area. Skogsbergh preached in Swedish on Saga Hill to recent immigrants who commuted to his services by train and ferry. A colony of Nonvegian academics purchased land adjacent to Saga Hill in the early 20th Century. Dr. Theodore C. Blegen created an enduring memoir in his book. The Saga of Saga Hill, in which he speaks of the milk cow residents grazed in the meadows above Forest Lake. Another noted Minnesota writer, Borghild Dahl, wrote vivid descriptions of her years growing up on Saga Hill. In Minnetonka Memories, she recounts stories of the gypsies who traveled County Road 19 and the luxury Hotel del Otero across the bay in Navarre. The high ground on Saga Hill has escaped development for more than 130 years and serves as a monument to the rich natural and human history of the area. I. Transportation The Saga Hill natural area is accessed by County Road 19 and Tonkaview Lane. Both are served by mass transit. The Fairview Covenant Church, whose property adjoins the natural area, has made its parking lot available to visitors. The smaller, upland Sollner-Webb parcel could eventually accommodate a small parking lot and trailhead. A safety access will become another entry point for foot traffic. The expansion of the Saga Hill natural area should not increase traffic significantly. II. Environmental Intrusions Saga Hill is ringed by houses on the Forest Lake shore, Tonkaview Lane and County Road 19. They are served by utilities, including city sewer. The proposed natural area expansion has no buildings, utility poles or lines, roads, driveways or known pipelines. in. Scenic Characteristics and Impacts of the Project cn Those Characteristics A. Scenic Characteristics The targeted property on Saga Hill offers especially fine vistas to the north, with panoramic views of the surrounding countryside. Its views also include wetlands, a stream and the Saga Hill ravine. The land itself is a viewshed - an unbroken vista of woods, with birds soaring above, rising dramatically from a wetland, easily experienced from an automobile as well as on foot. In fact, this property is the "face" of Saga Hill, the only part that can itself be seen from a distance. This makes the natural area, with great flocks of birds soaring above the trees, accessible to passersby as well as users. B. Access and Protech cn Acquiring the property will both protect the Saga Hill natural area and enhance access. Because a platted road runs through the natural area, the city is now required to build a road to provide access to the two landlocked parcels once they are sold for development. If a grant makes it possible for the city to acquire this property, the road will be vacated permanently. The third parcel is in close proximity to Tonkaview Lane and could eventually become a parking lot to serve the natural area. And, by acquiring the north slope of Saga Hill a future access could be added, off West Branch Road. Cost Breakdown The Saga Hill Preservation Society has been able to negotiate a purchase price for the 8.3 acres that is $60,000 below the appraised market value. Land acquisition per option to purchase $ 145,000 Closing costs and miscellaneous expenses $5,000 TOTAL;$150,000 Natural and Scenic Area Grant request Local Match $75,000 $75,000 TOTAL:$150,000 Agreements An agreement has been executed with the property's owner, Dr. Barbara Sollner-Webb to purchase the property. Two members of the Saga Hill Preservation Society: Steven Bell and Jane Klein, husband and wife, have executed the agreement on behalf of the Saga Hill Preservation Society. Project Timeframe Purchase agreement executed Closing Platted road vacated February 1998 August 1998 September 1998 COUNCIL MESTINQwar 23 1993 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CfTYO-CRONODATE: March 20, 1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: ^4 Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Resignation of Brad Bressler fro.n Planning Intern Position Brad Bressler has served as a Planning Intern with the City for approximately nine months. During this time. Brad has provided valuable assistance on numerous planning and zoning activities. His assistance in the review of planning applications has been particularly helpful. Brad has accepted a position as Planner/Housing Coordinator with the City of Northfield. His last day of employment with the City will be Thursday, April 2, 1998. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the resignation of Brad Bressler from the Planning Intern position, effective April 2, 1998. r DATE: March 10, 1998 TO: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Greg Gappa, Public Services Director Liz Van Zomeren, Planner/Zoning Administrator FROM: Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant RE: Resignation from position of Planning Assistant I am writing to inform you that I will be leaving my position with the City of Orono of Planning Assistant as I have been offered and accepted the position of Planner/Housing Coordinator with the City of Northfield. This is a full-time, permanent position that I will begin April 13,1998. I greatly appreciate the opportunity I have been given with the City of Orono. Without the experience I have had here, this employment opportunity would not have happened. Each of you and the City staff as a whole have been instrumental in making this a valuable experience in which I have had the opportunity to work on a diverse variety of projects. I thank all of you for providing me the necessary mentorship in leeiming my way around the workings of municipal government. My last day of employment here will be Thursday, April 2, 1998. At that time I will be embarking on a week long trip to Boston for the American Planning Association national convention before beginning at Northfield. Thank you again for having given me this outstanding experience! r • ▼COUNCIL N't . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^3 1998 DATE: ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moore Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: m Agenda Section: Cit>- Administrator's Report Item Description: Authorization to Add a Full-Time Position in the Zoning Administration Area Background The workload related to the review of planning applications has been very high and is projected to remain very high. To date, the number of applications reviewed in 1998 is well above the average level of the past twenty years. This workload has consumed all of the time of the City's two full time Planning and Zoning staff, plus the time of a full-time intern position. Based on past years planning application levels, unless there is a significant change in the economy, this workload will remain at a high level. The heavy workload creates two major problems. First, it requires the City's Planning and Zoning staff to work a substantial amount of additional hours on a continuous basis. Secondly, the City's Planning and Zoning staff do not have time to address important land use policy issues. In 1997, the City hired a part-time planning intern to assist with the planning application review process. As part of the 1998 budget, the Council approved $14,000 for a planning intern to work full-time from February to November to assist with the workload related to planning applications. The planning intern has been of substantial benefit in assisting with the planning application workload. However, the intern position is not an adequate solution because a substantial training period is required before the intern can provide significant assistance, and an intern position is a temporary position generally not lasting longer than one year. Recommended Solution The solution recommended by staff is to add a full-time position to the Planning and Zoning area wit’i the specific responsibility of handling the review of variance and conditional use permit applications. This will enable the workload to be handled within a reasonable work schedule and may also free up current Planning and Zoning staff to address land use policy issues. Pay Level and Funding Plan It is recommended that this position be placed into the City's pay schedule at Level 6, which is the same level as the On-Site Septic Manager position, with a pay range of $30,000 - $35,200. Assuming this position would be filled by May 1, the cost for 1998 would be a maximum of $28,000. r Request for Council Action continued Page 2 March 19,1998 Authorization to Add a Full-Time Position in the Zoning Administration Area______ Because the cost would be offset by savings related to a number of other position changes and temporary position vacancies that have occurred in 1998, and by the remaining $10,000 budgeted for the intern position, there would be $6,000 of additional expenditures required to fund the position in 1998. These additional expenditures would be offset by the $6,000 - $10,000 of additional revenues projected from Building and Zoning permit fees beyond the amount budgeted for 1998. The funding of this position beyond 1998 will be addressed in the 1999 budget. A copy of a proposed job description and summary of qualifications is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the addition of a full-time Zoning Administration Assistant position to be placed into the City's pay schedule at Level 6, and to amend the 1998 General Fund budget to increase expenditures and revenues by $6,000. r JOB DESCRIPTION ZONING ADMINISTRATION ASSISTANT Salary: S30.000 - S35,200 Primary Objective of Position Through coordination of the City's review process for variance and conditional use permit applications, works with property owners, developers, and contractors to facilitate successful residential building projects compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances. Major Areas of Responsibility 1. Meets with property owners, developers and contractors to review proposals for residential building projects that involve requests for variances to the City's Zoning regulations or conditional use permits. 2. Explains City Code requirements as they relate to development proposals. 3. Explains the City's application review process. 4. Applies the City's Zoning Code to development proposals to .djr.tifv where the proposals meet the City's requirements and where they do not meet the City’s requirements. 5. Encourages compliance with the City's requirements. 6. Applies City policies to determine whether variance or conditional use permit approval is warranted. 7. Prepares and presents reports to the Planning Commission and City Council for each application describing the proposal ’v:ating relevant Code requirements and policies, providing analysis regarding the proposal's compliance with the City's Codes and regarding whether the variance or conditional use permit is warranted based on C ity policies. 8. Coordinates the application review process. A. Reviews each application for completeness and works with the applicant to ensure a complete application. B. Prepares notices of public hearings. C. Forwards application materials to the City Engineer for review when needed. D. Reviews information in City files related to the subject property. E. Prepares reports to the Planning Commission and City Council. F. Keeps the applicant updated regarding the review process. (1) Provides applicant with a copy of the reports to the Planning Commission and City Council. (2) Provides letters to the applicant regarding the action of the Planning Commission and the action of the Council. r 9. Keeps a record of key application dates. 10. Prepares letters required to comply with the 60 day application review rule. 11. Keeps the application files organized. Qualifications 1. Excellent customer service/interpersonal relations skills. Excellent organizational skills. Detail oriented. Excellent verbal and written communication skills including public presentation skills. 2. 3. 4. 5.Ability to readily levelop an understanding of the City's Zoning Code requirements regarding residential development, and how they are applied to residential building projects. 6. Strong math skills. 7. Knowledge and understanding of, or ability to readily develop knowledge and understanding of, basic legal and technical concepts related to property and real estate, such as property descriptions, easements, topography, etc. 8. Training and experience equivalent to a two year technical degree in a related administrative or paralegal area, or in engineering or construction. r .A COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approyal: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description:Request for Refund of Park Dedication Fee and Filing Fees by Dennis Platteter, previous owner of 809 North Brown Road Mr. Platteter has sent a letter to the City of Orono requesting cancellation of the two-lot subdivision for 809 North Brown Road. The City Council approved the final plat on December 8,1997. At the time of final appioval, Mr. Platteter asked staff u delay filing with the County because an interested buyer was considering the entire parcel. Staff did not proceed with filing the s»t^:division with the County per his request. Mr. Platteter has now sold the property as one parcel. Mr. Platteter is also requesting that the $6,000 park dedication fee and the $200 filing fee for legal review be refunded. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve a refund in the amount of $6,200 to Dennis L. Platteter. ri1 CITY OF '|!n . ORCV*■ 1 iiuiiEr' , March 18, 1998 MAR 1 8 1998 Ms. Liz Van Zomeren Planning/Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 RE: File 2306 (Winds Reach Estates) Dear Ms. Van Zomeren, Please consider this letter to be a formal not’ce of termination of the development of the property at 809 North Brown Road, also known as the proposed Winds Reach Estates subdivision. With the sale and close on the property as the original undivided property in February, the subdivision of the property has been terminated. I understand the new owner has already visited with various City staff and begun the process of constructing a new home and out building(s). Please return the Park dedication fee and any other fees that may be refundable. Your assistance would also be appreciated in resolving another problem. During the title search as part of the closing on the property sale, the Title Company noted that the City of Orono had assessed “delinquent utility fees" of approximately $90 each year that was collected as a part of the property tax bills for years 1997 and 1 f j8. I have called the City several times to determine the source and reason, but no one as yet has been able to help. I believe the assessments to be “annual septic inspection fees" that should not have been billed. The property was vacant and there was no dwelling unit on the property since eawf 1996. I would appreciate your assistance in obtaining a refund of the assessments that I paid in order for the sale to close. Thank youjof-ypur help. Dennis L COUNCIL MLE’ • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MAR ^ 3 1998 DATE: 1998 ITEM NO: 3 0 Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Amendment to Industrial District Moratorium Ordinance The City Council at its March 9 meeting adopted an ordinance enacting a moratorium regarding development in the City's industrial district. A large portion of the property in the City's industrial district is owned by VCI Capital. This is the property where the Van Dale Company vyas located. VCI Capital has expressed concern regarding a financial hardship the moratorium will place on them. The timing of the moratorium places them into a difficult position because they have had significant turnover in tenants, leaving their building 50% unleased. They are currently aggressively marketing the property to potential tenants. This process would be delayed for six months by the moratorium, leaving the building 50% unleased during this time. VCI has indicated they are limiting their lease terms to a several year period because they want to maintain flexibility regarding the use of the property. VCI has requested the City consider allowing them to continue their leasing activities at some level during the moratorium. One option to address the concerns of VCI is to amend the moratorium ordinance to provide for an exemption from the moratorium in a situation of undue hardship, if a proposed use meets a set of standards set by the City. A suggested set of standards are as follows: 1. The proposed use must not have an adverse impact on the City's residential neighborhoods. 2. The proposed use must not have an adverse impact on the development of adjacent properties. 3. The use must not have adverse noise, visual or odor impacts. 4. The proposed use must be a currently permitted use in the industrial district. 5. If a proposed use meets the above requirements, but is incompatible with the City's land use concept plan for the area, the use must be discontinued within three years unless the City Council approves an extension. mt ^ Request for Council Action continued Page 2 March 20,1998 Amendment to Industrial District Moratorium Ordinance Staff Recommendation In order to address potential haidships that may be created by the development moratorium, staff recommends amending the moratorium ordinance to provide an exemption under the conditions outlined above. A proposed ordinance amendment is attached for Council consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the adoption of an amendment to the moratorium ordinance providing for exempt! ns from the moratorium. ORDINANCE NO.SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 169, SECOND SERIES TO PROVIDE FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE INTERIM MORATORIUM REGARDING CERTAIN USES AS PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL USES IN THE CITY'S INDUSTRIAL ZONE, AND ON THE GRANTING OF BUILDING PERMITS, LAND SUBDIVISIONS, REZONING APPLICATIONS, CONDITIONAL OR SPECIAL USE PERMITS, VARIANCES OR OTHER AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIALLY ZONED PROPERTY IN THE CITY The City Council of Orono does ordain: SECTION 1. Statement of Policy. The purpose of Orono Municipal Code Chapter 10, Land Use Regulations, is to provide for the orderly development of commercial and industrial properties in accordance with the long term land use plan for the City as set out in the City's Comprehensive Plan. As part of the City's current Comprehensive Plan update process, the City Council has adopted a resolution setting out a general concept plan for land use along Highway 12. A number of types of land uses currently listed as permitted or conditional uses in the City's industrial zone may be incompatible with this concept plan. Therefore the City will conduct a study to determine the types of industrial uses compatible with the City's long term land use plan, both in terms of the character of Highway 12 and in terms of the rural residential character of tlie City. To ensure that, during the study period, uses that may be incompatible with the City's Highway 12 land use c< i - ept plan are not added or expanded; the City is hereby imposing a moratorium pursuant to Minm- i i Statute Section 462.355, Subdivision 4, on adding or expanding certain permitted and conditional uses in the City's industrial zone as listed below, and on the granting of building permits, land subdivisions, rezoning applications, conditional or special use permits, variances or other authority related to development in the City's industrial zone: SECTION 2. Exemptions from the Moratorium. Exemptions to allow new, permitted uses may be granted from the moratorium by the City Council in situations where the restrictions imposed by the moratorium would cause undue hardship, provided that the proposed use(s) meet the following conditions: 1. The proposed use must not have an adverse impact on the City's residential neighborhoods. 2. The proposed use must not have an adverse impact on the development of adjacent properties. 3. The proposed use must not have adverse noise, visual or odor impacts. 4. The proposed use must be a currently permitted use in the industrial district. 5. If the proposed use meets the above conditions but is incompatible with the City's land use concept plan for the area, the use must be discontinued within a period of three (3) years unless the City Council approves an extension. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon approval and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 23rd day of March, 1998, by a vote of— ayes and__nays. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk COUNCIL MEhTiNG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION jggg DATE: Marfjrt^cW^tyjo ITEM NO: 3/ Department Approval: ^ Name: Tom Kuehn ’ Title: Finance Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Investment Report for the Year Ended December 31,1997 Attachment: Investment Portfolio at December 31,1997 Investment Interest Earned compared to Revenue Budgets, 1997 The unaudited statement of earned interest for the year ended December 3 1 ,1997, reflects interest earned of $482,143 compared to budgeted amounts of $436,060, for a favorable variance of $46,083. This compares with $468,905 interest earned in 1996, and $445,902 in 1995. The average yield for the year was 6.07%, compared to 6.19% for 1996. and 6.06% in 1995, reflecting the continued stability in interest rates. The investment portfolio, at cost, on December 31, 1997, was $9,384,889, including $421,263 held by the Trustee for the H.R.A. bonds. This compares to a tota. investment portfolio, at cost, of $8,341,492, on December 31, 1996, and $9,837,418, on December 31, 1995. The increase in investments from December 31, 1996 to December 31, 1997 was primarily a result of: (1) unspent proceeds from the 1997 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, issued for construction of the 1997 sanitary sewer improvement projects; and (2) prepayment of special assessments levied to fund the 1997 General Obligation Improvement Bonds. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Information item, no action required. T0MWIS>VUNVRPT97 CITYOFORONO INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO AS OF DECEMBER 31.1997 MARKET Investment Type Vendor Smith Barney Smith Barney Norwest Investment FBS Investment Smith Barney Dain Rauscher Dain Rauscher Dain Rauscher Dain Rauscher Smith Barney Dain Rauscher Smith Barney Lyon Short Term Funding Comm Paper Smith Barney FP Funding Commercial Paper Gotham Fund Commercial Paper Fed Nat Mortgage Assoc KZH Soleil Commecial Paper Bavaria Universal Comm Paper KHZ Crescent Commercial Paper MN HFA Rental Housing 91 A Goodview MN G.O. Taxable Bond Federal Farm Credit Banks Bavaria TRR Commercial Paper Tennessee Valley Authority Bond Gotham Fund Commercial Paper General Electric Cap Corp Comm Paper Smith Barney Fed Home Loan Bond Dain Rauscher Fed Nat Mortgage Assoc FBS Investment Fed Home Loan Bond Smith Barney Imperial T/L, Glendale, CA, Cert of Dep FBS Investment F.N.MA. Step-Up FBS Investment Fed Home Loan Bond FBS Investment First State Bank, Excelsior Cert of Dep FBS Investment MN HFA Rental Housing 91A Dain Rauscher Oewen FSB, Fort Lee, NJ, Cert of Dep Fed Home Loan Bond Fed Home Loan Bond Fed Nat Mort Assn Med Term Bond Fed Home Loan Bond Fed Home Loan Bond Federal Farm Credit Banks Provident Bank, OH, Cert of Deposit Fed Home Loan Bond U.S. Treasury Notes Fed Home Loan Mortgage Corp Debs Fed Home Loan Mortgage Corp Debs Fed Home Loan Mortgage Corp Debs Fed Home Loan Bond Fed Nat Mort Assn Med Term Bond Fed wat Mort Assn Med Term Bond Fed Home Loan Bond Fed Home Loan Mtg Corp Bond Fed Home Loan Bond Fed Home Loan Bond Fed Home Loan Bond Money Market Fund Money Market Fund Money Market Fund _________FOOTNOTES______________________________________ (a) Maturity date shown is the interest step-up date (b) Actual maturity date is shown but interest rate is adjusted quarterly Interest rate shown is the minimum rate (c) Investment held by H.R.A. Trustee for H.R.A. Building Bonds Reserve (&) Purchase date shown is the latest step-up date FBS Investment Smith Barney Smith Barney Dain Rauscher Smith Barney Dain Rauscher Smith Barney FBS Investment FBS Investment Firstar Trust Dain Rauscher Dain Rauscher Dain Rauscher FBS Investment Smith Barney Smith Barney Dain Rauscher FBS Investment Smith Barney Smith Barney Smith Barney Norwest Investment FBS Investment Firstar Trust Purchase Date Maturity Date Coupon Rate Cost Par Value VALUE December 31 12/30/97 01/02/98 6.00%S258,870.50 S258,870.50 S258.870.50 07/16/97 01/02/98 5.81%243,329.86 243,329.86 243,329.86 12/10/97 01/09/98 6.03%447,750.00 447,750.00 447,750.00 01/10/96 01/13/98 5.38%149,964.84 150,000.00 149.988.00 1! 13/97 01/14/98 5.78% 430,714.77 430,714.77 430,714.77 09/16/97 01/26/98 5.69%440,809.50 440,809.50 440.809..50 12/08/97 01/28/98 5.85%349,107.73 349,107.73 349.107.73 09/24/91 02/01/98 8.25%175,000.00 175,000.00 175,308.00 09/26/94 02/01/98 6.90%50,000.00 50,000.00 50,034.50 12/05/96 02/03/98 5.73%100,000.00 100,000.00 99.996.00 12/03/97 02/27/98 5.85%809,683.43 809,683.4:809,683.43 07/24/97 03/04/98 5.13%99,656.25 100,000.00 99.904.00 09/23/97 03/19/98 5.76%288,822.60 288,822.60 288,822.60 12/03/97 05/13/98 5.76%341,156.18 341,156.18 341.1.56.18 09/06/95 10/14/98 4.89%48,187.50 50,000.00 49.687.50 12/10/93 12/10/98 5.30%199,906.25 200,000.00 199,250.00 12/22/93 12/22/98 5.40%300,000.00 300,000.00 298.875.00 12/23/97 12/23/98 5.67%94,562.65 94,562.65 94,562.65 02/16/96 (&)02/16/99 5.72%100,000.00 100,000.00 99.750.00 04/23/96 04/23/99 6.13%100,000.00 100,000.00 100,531.50 04/11/97 07/12/99 6.16%88,875.36 88,875.36 88,875.36 09/24/91 08/01/99 8.40%60,000.00 60,000.00 61.903.80 11/29/96 11/29/99 6.31%83,892.62 83,892.62 83,892.62 12/20/96 12/20/99 6.27%200,000.00 200,000.00 200,062.00 10/21/93 03/22/00 (b)5.00%251,250.00 250,000.00 244,232.50 09/20/97 11/16/00 6.20%100,210.94 100,000.00 99,984.00 12/29/93 12/29/00 5.95%200,000.00 200,000.00 198,688.00 12/30/97 01/24/0!6.12%200,000.00 200,000.00 199,126.00 02/12/96 02/12/01 6.05%2.50,000.00 250,000.00 248.740.00 08/28/96 08/28/01 6.50%95,000.00 95,0:0.00 95.000.00 09/04/96 09/04/01 6.76%21.5,000.00 215,000.00 216.512.53 02/03/97 01/31/02 (c)6.25%400,250.00 400,000.00 407.2.52.00 05/15/97 01/28/02 7.00%200,000.00 200,000.00 200.188.00 06/18/97 03/20/02 7.08%1.50,890.63 1.50,000.00 150,141.00 11/03/97 07/31/02 6.65%251,132.81 2.50,000.00 2.50.702.50 08/13/97 08/13/02 6.62%200,000.00 200,000.00 200.688.00 09/16/97 09/18/02 6.54%200,000.00 200,000.00 202.260.00 06/20/97 06/17/04 7.25%200,696.00 200,000.00 201.430.00 08/06/97 08/06/04 7.00%300,000.00 300,000.00 301.218.00 09/16/97 09/16/04 7.07%100,000.00 100,000.00 100,8.59.50 09/19/95 09/19/05 7.39%100,000.00 100,000.00 100,125.00 07/30/97 07/30/07 7.25%100,000.00 100,000.00 100..500.00 09/10/97 09/10/07 7.25%200,000.00 200,000.00 202,7.50.00 183,718.38 183,718.38 183.718.38 5,437.35 5.437.35 5.437.35 21,013.06 21.013.06 21.013.06 S9.384.889.21 S9.382.743.99 ^9.393.431.32 TOM\INVESTU997\EOYVALUE City of Orono Interest Earned on Investments Comparison With Budget Year Ended December 31,1997 Fund Budget Actual Prior Over/(Under) Year Actual Budget Actual General Fund General Special Revenue Funds Park Improvement & Equipment Outlay Building Outlay Debt Service Funds 1982 Improvement Bonds 1991 HRA Building Bonds (Trust) 1992 Improvement Bonds 1995 Refunding Bonds (1985 Imp Bonds) 1997 Improvement Bonds Capital Projects Funds Permanent Improvement Revolving 1997 Sewer Construction Enterprise Funds Water Operating Sewer Operating Sewer Operating Construction Golf Operating Grand Total All Funds $63,950 $74,493 $10,543 $68,070 15,000 9,225 (5,775)16,368 18,000 18,554 554 19,390 140,000 146,875 6,875 147,658 1,350 2,706 1,356 2,554 22,500 26,415 3,915 26,453 42,750 39,647 (3,103)31,203 5,710 8,895 3,185 9,030 0 1,760 1,760 0 30,000 20,493 (9,507)20,289 0 20,436 20,436 0 4,700 10,128 5,428 7,999 50,000 43,197 (6,803)50,906 36,000 43,634 7,634 45,388 6,100 15,685 9,585 12,573 $436,060 $482,143 $46,083 $457,881 TOMUNVESTM997UNT- EARN COUNCIL ME£n^ ' MAR ?3 199S REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CTTV 0^ DATE; March 17,1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: .1/ Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Tom Kuehn . City Administrator's Title Finance Director' tiv /n Report Item Description: Receipt of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting-1996 Financial Report Attachments: • Notification letter from the Government Finance Officers Assoc., dated 2/13/98 • Sample news release. • Award of Financial Reporting Achievement. The City of Orono has been awarded the G.F.O.A.'s Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996. This is the tenth consecutive year that the City received this prestigious award. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. I would like to thank the finance department support staff for their ongoing efforts and assistance in achieving this award, and the audit staff of Malloy, Montague, Kamowski, Radosevich and Co., for their valuable assistance, and the City Council for their leadership in supporting and encouraging the City to seek this award. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Information item, no action requested. TOM\MS\\'\GFOACERT GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 180 North Michigan Avenue. Suite 800. Chicago. Illinois 60601 312/977-9700 • Fax: 312/977-4806 February 13, 1998 The Honorable Gabriel Jabbour Mayor City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mayor Jabbour: We are pleased to notify you that your comprehensive annual finan cial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Awaii of Financial Reporting Achievement is also presented to the individual designated by the government as primarily responsible for its having earned the certificate. Enclosed is an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement for: Thomas M. Kuehn, Finance Director. The Certificate of Achievement plaque will be shipped under sepa rate cover in about eight weeks. We hope that you will arrange for a formal presentation of the Certificate and Award of Financial Reporting Achievement, and that appropriate publicity will given to this notable achievement. To assist with this, a sample news release and the 1996 Certificate Program results are enclosed. We hope that your example will encourage other government offi cials in their efforts to achieve and maintain an appropriate standard of excellence in financial reporting. Sincerely, GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 9 Stephen J. Gauthier Director/Technical Services Center SJG/kas Enclosures WASHINGTON OFFICE 1750 K Street. N.W.. Suite 650. Washington. DC 20006 202/429-2750 • Fax: 202/429-2755 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 180 North Michigan Avenue. Suite 800. Chicago. Illinois 60601 312/977-9700 • Fax; 312/977-4806 For information contact; Stephen Gauthier (312) 977-9700 February 13, 1998 NEWS RELEASE (Chicago)--The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Finan cial Reporting has been awarded to: City of Orono, MN, by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) for its comprehf 3ive annual financial report (CAFR). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and finan cial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. An Award of Financial Reporting Achievement has been awarded to the individual designated as primarily responsible for preparing the award-winning CAFR. This has b^en presented to: Thomas M. Kuehn, Finance Director The CAFR has been judged by an impa. Danel to meet the high standards of the program including ie rating a construc tive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the CAFR. The GFOA is a nonprofit professional association serving 12,625 government finance professionals with offic^^'^ in Chicago, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. - 30 - WASHINGTON OFFICE 1750 K Street. N.W.. Suite 650. Washington. DC 20006 202/429-2750 • Fax: 202/429-2755 . The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada presents this AWARD OF FINANCIAL REPORTING ACHIEVEMENT to: Thomas M. Kuehn Finance Director City of Orono. Minnesota The Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is presented by the Government Finn nee Officers Association to those individuals who have been instrumental in their government unit achievinga Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting A Certificate of Achievement is presented to those government units whose annualfinancial reportsare judged to adhere to program standardsand represents the highest award in fpvernmentfinancial reporting. Executive Director Date February 13, 1998 COUNCIL M££TiNQ mar 23 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cmrcrcaQNpDATE: March 20, ITEM NO: ^3 Department App. >'>val: Name Lin Vee Administrator Reviewed: Title City Clerk Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Colinci! Approval SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Gear West 5 Kilometer Running Race Route. r‘ comer of Brown Road North and Orchard Lane and end at same location. April 4, *1998 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. 18th Annual Norwest Half Marathon Route: Lake Street to Femdale Road to County Road 15 to Orono Orchard Road to Fox Street to Old Crystal Bay Road to Couui) 51 to County Road l9 to Northview Road to Lake Road u County Road to Old Beach Road to Count}' Road 19 to George Street to Wester Street May 3,1998 8:00 a.m. - ILC’uc.v.m. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: i.lotion to appro /c/dery the 43f-jve listed liej tses. Date:March 19,1998 To:Lin Vee, City Clerk From:Gary Cheswick, Chii^f of l\)lice-7 Subject:Special Event Permit I have reviewed the application hy sponsor Gear West to hold a foot race on April 4,1998. Recommended restrictions: Runners are not to obstruct traffic and must have traffic control personnel to direct and assist runners where needed.! \ With above restrictions, I have no objection to the issuance of the permit. PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Permit #: Fee: $50.00 Date Received: Phone Number: Name: 6--etK.r L/e<t ~3n'o^ Address:____^ /u'J. City, State, Zip: . M Location of Parade or Event: <f dX Date of Event: H'' 9^_______ Hours of Event: ?« OOapi^ ~ f. Type of Event: ^ ____________________ Amount:Insurance Company:_________________________ (Copy of insurance certificate must be submitted with this application) I am aware of all applicable State '^nd other laws regarding parades and special events and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City of Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise (-( 'ectly or indirectly from the parade of special event approved by the granting of this permit. I understand some events may require off-duty or reserve officers and a fee may be required for these services. ^ Signature Date Approved: CD Denied: [H By:, Remarks:________________________ 0103fl6.3 n'/ Foo (s ^okCe Coat'S^ Date;March 13,1998 Lin Vee, City Clerk Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police To: From: Subject: Special Event Permit I have reviewed the application and past records involving the Norwest Half Marathon scheduled for May 3,1998. Arrangements for traffic control will need to be addressed by Norwest and communicated to our Reserve Liaison officers. I have no objection to the issuance of this permit. PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA MAR 1 ) 1993 Permit Fee: $50.00 Date Received\ 3/n Phone Number; 476-3882 Paul Maahs Name:Norvest Bank Minnesota, N.A. Address:900 E. Wavzata Boulevard City,State, Zip: Wayzata, mn 55391 Location of Parade or Event:Please see the attached race route Hours of Event: 8;00 A.M. - 11:00 A.M.Date of Event: May 3, 1998_ _ _ Typeof Event: IStn Annual Norwest Half Marathon (formerly Lake Minnetonka Half Marathon) Insurance Company:_____Continental______________Amount: $5,000,000_______ (Copy of insurance certificate must be submitted with this appiication) I am aware of all applicable State and other laws regarding parades and special events and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City of Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise directly or indirectly from the parade of special event approved by the granting of this permit. I un^rstand some events may require off-duty or reserve officers and a fee rnay be required fdr these services. March 9. 1998 Signature Date Approved: □ Remarks: Denied: □ Bv: 01039S.3 19 Mar 1998 Thu 5:51 PM Check Number Check Number 55862 Check Register City of Orono Date 55862 ASCOM MAILING SYSTEMS 19-Mar-98 ASCOM MAILING SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 55862 ASCOM MAILING SYSTEMS Check Number 55863 ASPLUNDH COFFEE 55863 19-Mar-98 ASPLUNDH COFFEE Totals Check Number 55863 ASPLUNDH COFFEE Check Number 55864 AT fc T WIRELESS SERVICES 55864 19-Feb-98 AT 6 T WIRELESS SERVICES 55864 19-Feb-98 AT 6 T WIRELESS SERVICES 55864 19-Mar-98 AT 6 T WIRELESS SERVICES 55864 19-Feb-98 AT (■ T WIRELESS SERVICES Totals Check Number 55864 AT 6 T WIRELESS SERVICES Check Number 55865 AT&T - KC 55865 19-Mar-98 AT&T - KC Totals Check Number 55865 AT&T - KC COuNCiL meeting mar 2 3 1998 Page 1 Check Number 55869 CERES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 55869 19-Mar-98 CERES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Transaction 189.00 METER RENTAL-4/1-6/30/98 189.00 135.00 COFFEE 135.00 5.50 5.49 211.89 129.65 5.45 5.45 CELLULAR CHAGS CELLULAR CHAGS PHONE CELLULAR CHAOS Check Number 55866 BUDGET PRINTING 55866 19-Mar-98 BUDGET PRINTING 5.17 SHIPPING 55866 19-Mar-98 BUDGET PRINTING 25.45 COLORED COPIES 55866 19-Mar-98 BUDGET PRINTING 4.12 MARKERS 55866 19-Mar-98 BUDGET PRINTING 5.11 COPIES 55866 19-Mar-98 BUDGET PRINTING 21.51 STAMP 55866 19-Mar-98 BUDGET PRINTING 150.17 BUSINESS CARDS 55866 19-Mar-98 BUDGET PRINTING 5.64 ENGRAVING 55866 19-Mar-98 BUDGET PRINTING 2,130.00 POLO SHIRTS Totals Check Number 55866 BUDGET PRINTING 2,347.17 Check Number 55867 BURTON EQUIPMENT 55867 19-Mar-98 BURTON EQUIPMENT 184.58 RACK, DIVIDERS Totals Check Number 55867 BURTON EQUIPMENT 184.58 Check Number 55868 CEAM 55868 19-Mar-98 CEAM 40.00 MEMBERSHIP Totals Check Number 55868 CEAM 40.00 LOG DISPOSAL r 19 Mar 1999 Thu 5:51 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 2 Check Number Date Name Check Number 55869 CERES ENVIRONMENTAIi SERVICES Totals Check Number 55869 CERES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Check Number 55870 CHESHICK. GARY 55870 55870 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 CHESHICK. CaVRY CHESHICK. GARY Totals Check Number 55870 CHESHICK. GARY Check Number 55871 CITY OF LONG LAKE 55871 19-Mar-98 CITY OF LONG LAKE Totals Check Number 55871 CITY OF LONG LAKE Check Number 55872 CITY OF MINNETONKA 55872 19-Mar-98 CITY OF MINNETONKA Totals Check Number 55872 CITY OF MINNETONKA Check Number 55873 CITY OF MOUND 55873 19-Mar-98 CITY OF MOUND Totals Check Number 55873 CITY OF MOUND Check Number 55874 CITY OF ORONO 55874 19-Mar-98 CITY OF ORONO Totals Check Number 55874 CITY OF ORONO Check Number 55875 CITYVIEH PLUMBING & HEATING 55875 55875 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 CITYVIEH PLUMBING & HEATING CITYVIEH PLUMBING 6 HEATING Totals Check Number 55875 CITYVIEH PLUMBING & HEATING Check Number 55876 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. 55876 19-Mar-98 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. Totals Check Number 55876 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. C... Number 55877 CONSTRUCTION MARKET DATA GRP 55877 19-Mar-98 CONSTRUCTION MARKET DATA GRP Totals Check Number 55877 CONSTRUCTION MARKET DATA GRP Transaction Amount 121.00 36.00 157.00 27.329.00 27.329.00 154.80 154.80 21.163.50 21.163.50 138.20 138.20 83.25 113.64 196.89 898.06 898.06 47.85 47.85 Comments PANTS & SHOES PTO LUNCH 1ST QTR FIRE SAFETY TRAINING 2ND QTR FIRE CONTRACT PETTY CASH HEATER-NAVARRE PLANT HEATING SYSTEM PD MARCH LIFE LAWN MOWING ADV 19 Mar 1998 Thu 5:51 PM Check Number Check Number 55878 Check Register City of Orono Page 3 Date Name 55878 CRYSTEEb 19-Mar-98 CRVSTEEL Totals Check Number 55878 CRYSTEEL Check Number 55879 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC. 55879 19-Mar-98 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC. Totals Check Number 55879 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC. Check Number 55880 CYS UNIFORMS 55880 55880 55880 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS Totals Check Number 55880 CYS UNIFORMS Check Number 55881 DENNIS PLATTETER 55881 55881 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 DENNIS PLATTETER DENNIS PLATTETER Totals Check Number 55881 DENNIS PLATTETER Check Number 55882 DNR HATERS 55882 19-Mar-98 DNR WATERS Totals Check Number 55882 DNR WATERS Check Number 55883 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS 55883 19-Mar-98 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS 55883 19-Mar-98 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS 55883 19-Mar-98 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 55883 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS Check Number 55884 EXPRESS MES.SENGER 55884 19-Mar-98 EXPRESS MESSENGER Totals Check Number 55884 EXPRESS MESSENGER Check Number 55885 FEDEX 55885 19-Mar-98 FEDEX Totals Qkeck Number 55885 FEDEX Check Number 55886 FERGUSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC. 55886 19-Mar-98 FERGUSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC. Transaction Amount 266.30 266.30 23.06 23.06 443.75 39.95 475.00 958.70 6,000.00 200.00 6,200.00 86.00 86.00 41.11 41.11 48.04 130.26 22.75 22.75 17.45 17.45 390.00 Comments STROBE LIGHTS 0425 MISC PARTS MCNALLY SHOES-TCMCZYCK VEST - MCNICHOLS REFUND - DEDICATION FEE REFUND - APPLICATION FEE PUMPING FEE SCAN TO PLOT SCAN TO PLOT SCAN TO PLOT MISC DELIVERY SVCE LINDOUEST-MARCO ISLAND 9MM BARETTA 19 Mar 1998 Thu 5:51 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 4 Check Number Dace Name Check Number 55886 PERGOSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC. Totals Check Number 55886 FERGUSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC. Check Number 55887 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 558B7 19-Mar 8 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY Totals Check Number 55887 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY Check Number 55888 G fc K SERVICES 55888 55888 55888 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 G & K SERVICES G A K SERVICES OAK SERVICES Totals Check Number 55888 G A K SERVICES Check Number 55889 GALL'S INC. 55889 19-Mar-98 GALL'S INC. Totals Check Number 55889 GALL'S INC. Check Number 55890 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE 55890 19-Mar-98 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE Totals Check Number 554»yi GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE Check Number 55891 HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC. 55891 55891 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC. HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC. Totals Check Number 55891 HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC. Check Number 55892 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE 55892 19-Mar-98 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE Totals Check Number 55892 HENNEPIN CO-0? SEED EXCHANGE Check Number 55893 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 55893 19-Mar-98 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Total* Check Number 55893 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Check Number 55894 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN 55894 19-Mar-98 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN Totals Check Number 55894 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN Transaction Amount 390.00 169.00 169.00 5.93 100.11 12.15 118.19 45.98 45.98 185.00 185.00 101.38 40.00 141.38 98.99 98.99 331.74 331.74 1,186.49 1,186.49 Comments QUARTERLY FIRE ALARMS STEFFENHAGEN UNIFORMS RATHBUN TRAFFIC FLASHER MCFOA CONFERENCE ACID DEMURRAGE SiJNNY MIX JANUARY BOOKING FEES ROOM & BOARD 1/98 r 19 Mar 1998 Thu 5:51 PM Check Number Check Number 55895 Check Register City of Orono Page 5 Date 55895 JIM HATCH SALES CO. 19-Mar-98 JIM HATCH SALES CO. Totals Check Nutnber 55895 JIM HATCH SALES CO. Check Number 55896 KUEHN, THOMAS 55896 19-Mar-98 KUEHN, THOMAS Totals Check Number 55896 KUEHN, THOMAS Check Number 55897 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 55897 19-Mar-98 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Totals Check Number 55897 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Check Number 55898 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY 55898 19-Mar-98 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY Totals Check Number 55898 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY Check Number 55899 LASER LABS 55899 19-Mar-98 LASER LABS Total* Check Number 55899 LASER LABS Check Number 55900 LOE'S COMPANY 55900 19-Mar-98 LOE'S OIL COMPAIVY '• Check Number 55900 LOE'S OIL COMPANY Chec. 55901 55901 55901 55901 55901 55901 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 19-Mar-98 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 19-Mar-98 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 19-Mar-98 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 19-Mar-98 LONG LAKE BIO A AUTO PARTS 19-Mar-98 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Totals Chec.: Number 55901 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Check Number 55902 LONG LAKE FAMILY PIDfSICIANS 55902 13-Oct-97 LONG LAKE FAMILY PHYSICIANS Totals Check Number 55902 LONG LAKE FAMILY PHYSICIANS Check Number 55903 LONG LAKE GLASS INC. 55903 19-Mar-98 LONG LAKE GLASS INC. Tran.saction Amount 139.98 139.98 15.75 15.75 1,812.00 1,812.00 14.74 14.74 75.00 75.00 65.00 65.00 -8.38 2.09 1.42 1.65 58.63 55.41 174.00 174.00 369.00 Comments HYDRANT MARKERS '•Fnnro - DENTAL PREMIUM NEW RADAR REGISTER ROLLS CALIBRATION OIL FILTER DISPOSAL PREV BALANCE SLDE CONN DI'JCONNECT GROMMET 425 SOCKETS VACCINATION WINDOl.'S - GRADER 19 M«. IW': Thu b:51 PM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Page 6 Date Name Check Number 55903 LONG LAKE GtASS INC. Totals Check Number 55503 LONG LAKE GLASS INC. Check Number 55904 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 55904 19-Mar-90 3NG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 55904 19-Mar-98 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 55904 19-Mar-38 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 55904 19-Mar-98 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 35>U4 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Check Number 55905 LOND, ROBERT 55905 l9-Mar-90 LUND. ROBbPT Total A Check Number 55905 LtIND, ROBERT Check Number 55906 MAGIC ClEANERS 55906 19-Mar-98 MAGIC CLEANERS Totals Check Number 55906 MAGIC CLEANERS Check Number 55907 MCFQA 5S9C7 19-Mar-S0 MCFOA Totals Check Number 55907 MCFOA Check Number 55908 MEDTOX LABORATORIES 55900 31-Dec-96 MEDTOX LABORATORIES Totals Check Number 55900 MEDTOX LABORATORIES ■Jlheck Number 559C9 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 55909 19-Mar-98 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Totals Check Number 55»09 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Check Number 554* MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY •, ;»10 19-Mar-90 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Nunc^ r 55910 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Check Ncmber 55911 MIA^ -ISOTA CONWAY T. nsaction Amount 369.00 55911 55911 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 MINNESOTA CONWAY MINNESOTA CONWAY 7.33 51.91 3.66 0.49 63.39 250.00 250.00 42.60 42.60 185.00 105.00 35.00 35.00 17,946.16 17,946.16 27.00 27.00 42.2U 751.93 PIN HITCH O-RING, TIP, f.- DISC SCREW SET REF 2345 BOHNS POINT RD BLANKET CLEANING CONFERENCE DRU'j TESTING SEWER SERVICE COMPRESSED OXYGEN, ACETYL RECHARGE ANNUAL EXTING INSPECT 19 Har 1998 Thu 5:51 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 7 Check Transaction Number Date Name Amount Comments Check Number 55911 MINNESOTA CONWAY 55911 19-Mar-98 MINNESOTA CONWAY 240.20 ANNUAL EXTING INSPECT Totals Check Number 55911 MINNESOTA CONWAY 1,034.33 Check Number 55912 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 55912 19-Mar-98 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 1,182.00 WATER TEST FEE Totals Check Number 55912 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 1,182.00 Check Number 55913 MOORSE,RON 55913 19-Mar-98 MOORSE,RON 29.10 REIMBURSEMENT Totals Check Number 55913 MOORSE.RON 29.10 Check Number 55916 NAVARRE HARD./ARE 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 6.25 MISC SUPPLIES 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 3.18 DISH SOAP 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 6.70 FLOOR WAX 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 5.31 FOAM SEAL 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 38.23 BATTERIES 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 3.56 COUPLING 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 13.42 NUTS 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 19.27 BOLTS 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 6.73 BRUSHES 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 35.00 TAPE, ENAMEL 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 31.94 GRAIN SCOOP 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 10.16 VELCRO 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 11.70 25' TAPE 55916 19'Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 2.64 COUPLER, NIPPLE 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 4.25 COI7 CORD, COUPLER 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 5.24 ENAh.^ti - TAILPIECE 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 10.37 STRAINER 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 27.27 SAFETY SUPPLIES 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 9.89 SAFETY SUPPLIES 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 5.69 KEY 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 8.28 FUSES, DEGREASER 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 0.15 BOLTS 55916 19 Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 10.61 ENAMEL 55916 19 Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 8.26 VELCRO 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 10.61 ENAMEL 5591«19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE i:.. 51 MISC SUPPLIES 55916 19-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 19.15 ICE MELT Totals Check Number 55916 NAVARRE HARDWARE 325.37 Check Number 55917 NSP 55917 19-Mar-98 NSP 1,183.03 STREET LIGHTING 19 Mar 1998 Thu 5:51 PM Check Number Check Number 55917 55917 55917 55917 55917 55917 55917 Check Register City of Orono Page 0 Date 55917 NSP 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 22-Jan-98 19-Mar-98 05-Feb-98 05-Feb-98 NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP Totals Check Number 55917 NSP Check Number 55918 OMAN, LYLE 55918 55918 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 OMAN, LYLE OMAN, LYLE Totals Check Number 55918 OMAN, LYLE Check Number 55919 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 55919 07-Mar-96 PERA LIFE INSURANCE Totals Check Number 55919 PERA LIFE INSURANCE Check Number 55920 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 55920 19-Mar-98 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR Totals Check Number 55920 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR Check Number 55921 PHEOLL 55921 19-Mar-90 PHEOLL Totals Check Number 55921 PHEOLL Check Number 55922 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS 55922 55922 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 55922 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS Check Number 55923 R.O.T.A. 55923 19-Mar-98 R.O.T.A. Totals Check Number 55923 R.O.T.A. Check Number 55924 RADISSON ARROWWOOD RESORT 55924 19-Mar-90 RADISSON ARROWHOOD RESORT Totals Check Number 55924 RADISSON ARROWHOOD RESORT Transaction Amount 193.71 1,505'. 97 7.74 67.00 202.57 15.05 17.43 3,272.58 19.84 22.40 42.24 144.00 144.00 9.70 9.70 72.47 72.47 393.49 750.00 1,143.49 100.00 100.00 220.47 220.47 ELECT SERVICE ELECT SERVICE ELECT SERVICE DEC ELEC HIGHWAY 12/WILLOW SEWER LIFT ELECT SER'aCE MILEAGE MILEAGE APRIL INSURANCE PROPANE BOLTS & SCREWS DICTATING MACHINE MAINT CONTRACT DUES MCFOA CONFERENCE 19 Mar 1998 Thu 5:51 PM Check Number Cheek Number 55925 55925 Check Reglscer City of Orono Page 9 Date Name 55925 RAIL AMERICA 19-Mar-98 RAIL AMERICA 19-Mar-98 RAIL AMERICA Totals Check Number 55925 RAIL AMERICA Check Number 55926 RC IDENTIFICATIONS 55926 19-Mar-98 RC IDENTIFICATIONS Totals Check Nutnber 55926 RC IDENTIFICATIONS Check Number 55927 RITZ CAMERA 55927 19-Mar-98 RITZ CAMERA Totals Check Number 55927 RITZ CAMERA Check Number 55928 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES 55928 18-Mar-96 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Totals Check Number 55928 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Check Number 55929 SCHOENING EXCAVATING 55929 19-Mar-98 SCHOENING EXCAVATING Totals Check Number 55929 SCHOENING EXCAVATING Check Number 55930 SCHWABB INC. 55930 19-Mar-98 SCHWABB INC. Totals Check Number 55930 SCHWABB INC. Check Number 55931 SEARS 55931 19-Mar-98 SEARS Totals Check Number 55931 SEARS Check Number 55932 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 55932 19-Mar-98 SENIOR COmmiTY SERVICES Totals ChecK Number 55932 SENIOR COWUNI'r- SERVICES Check Number 55933 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION 55933 19-Mar-98 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Totals Check Number 55933 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION Transaction Amount 250.00 250.00 6.39 6.39 15.88 15.88 6.721.78 6.721.78 672.00 672.00 30.89 30.89 168.30 168.30 3.405.00 3.405.00 25.00 25.00 ELECTRICAL CONDUIT ELECTRICAL CONDUIT ID CARDS-HULSE,REED FILM & DEVELOPING APRIL ASSESSING FEE SNOW FROM NAVARP'* LOT NOTARY STAMP-JOHNSON 3 JAW PULLER 1ST QUARTER PAYMENT REGISTRATION 19 Mar 1998 Thu 5:51 PM Check Number Check Number 55934 55934 Check Register City of Orono Page 10 Date Name 55934 SNYDER DROG STORES 19-Mar-98 SNYDER DRUG STORES 19-Mar-98 SNYDER DRUG STORES Totals Check Number 55934 SNYDER DRUG STORES Check Number 55935 STERLING FENCE INC. 55935 19-Mar-98 STERLING FENCE INC. Totals Check Number 55935 STERLING FENCE INC. Check Number 55936 STREICHERS 55936 55936 55936 55936 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS Totals Check Number 55936 STREICHERS Check Number 55937 SUBURBAN TIRE INC. 55937 55937 55937 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 SUBURBAN TIRE INC. SUBURBAN TIRE INC. SUBURBAN TIRE INC. Totals Check Number 55937 SUBURBAN TIRE INC. Check Number 55938 TCLL CAS & WELDING SUPPLY 55938 55938 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY Totals Check Number 55938 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY Check Number 55939 TOXALERT 55939 19-Mar-98 TOXALERT Totals Check Number 55939 TOXALERT Check Number 55940 TRUCK UTILITIES 55940 55940 55940 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 TRUCK UTILITIES TRUCK UTILITIES TRUCK OTILITIES Totals Check Number 55940 TRUCK UTILITIES Check Number 55941 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 55941 19-Mar-98 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Transaction Amount 32.76 25.51 58.27 1,138.80 1,138.80 25.07 77.07 223.31 45.36 370.81 -100.00 95.23 558.23 553.46 29.66 41.00 70.66 115.00 115.00 -219.87 111.83 275.53 167.49 235.73 BATTERIES FILM MACE HOLDER BATON AND HOLDER BATON 6 HOLDER AMMO OVERPAYMENT TIRES 712 TIRES T VISOR, HEADGERAR WELDING SUPPLIES SERVICE CO DETECTOR CONTROL CORDS CONTROL CORDS CONTROL CORDS MCNALLY - MISC 19 Mar 1998 Thu 5:51 PM Check Number Check Number 55941 55941 55941 Check Number 55942 Check Number 55943 55943 55943 Check Number S'; 344 Totals Che Check Number 55945 VIKING SAFETY EQUIPMENT 55945 19-Mar-98 VIKING SAFETY EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 55945 VIKING SAFETY EQUIPMENT Check Number 55946 VILLAGE CHEVROLET 55946 55946 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 VILLAGE CHEVROLET VILLAGE CHEVROLET Totals Check Number 55946 VILLAGE CHEVROLET Check Number 55947 H.W. GRAINGER INC. 55947 55947 19-Mar-98 19-Mar-98 W.W. GRAINGER INC. W GRAINGER INC. Totals Check Number 55947 w.w. GRAINGER INC. Check Number 55948 WARNING LITES OF MN 55948 19-Mar-98 WARNING LITES OF MN Totals Check Number 55948 WARNING LITES OF MN Check Number 55949 HESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE Check Register City of Orono Transaction Date Name Amount Comments 55941 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 19-Mar-98 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 127.85 FARNIOK - MISC 19-Mar-98 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED -37.75 SHIRT RETURNED 19-Mar-98 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 50.90 SHIRT, BELT Number 55941 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 376.73 55942 US FILTER 19-Mar-98 US FILTER 237.51 TUBING, MISC TOOLS Number 55942 US FILTER 237.51 55943 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 05-Mar-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 41.43 JAN PHONE CHGS 05-Mar-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 45.94 JAN PHONE CHGS 05-Mar-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 88.75 JAN PHONE CHGS Number 55943 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 176.12 55944 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH 19-Mar-98 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH 50.07 MILEAGE/PARKING Number 55944 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH 50.07 Page 11 123.92 123.92 7.01 127.95 134.96 77.89 145.37 223.06 98.41 98.41 REFLECTIVE VESTS FLASHER PARTS #710 SIGN BOX SAFETY SUPPLIES BARRICADE RENTAL 19 Mar 1998 Thu S:S1 PM Check Number Check Number 55949 Dace Name Check Register City of Orono Page 12 55949 NESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 19-Mar-9B NESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE Totals Check Number 55949 NESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE Check Number 55950 WIDMER INC 55950 19-Mar-98 WIDMER INC Totals Check Number 55950 WIDMER INC Check Number 55951 YOCUM OIL CO INC. 55951 19-Mar-98 YOCUM OIL CO INC. Totals Check Number 55951 YOCUM OIL CO INC. Transaction Amount 10.00 10.00 TIRE REPAIR 1,260.00 WATERMAIN BREAK 1,260.00 1,333.44 DIESEL FUEL 1,333.44 Grand Total 110,615.05 11 Mar 199B Wed 4:59 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044144 044144 PETERSON, BARBARA A. Totals Check Number 044144 Check Number 044145 044145 MOORSE, RONALD J. Totals Check Number 044145 Check Number 044146 044146 FLINT, RICHARD Totals Check Number 044146 Check Number 044147 044147 GOETTEN, J. DIANN Totals Check Number 044147 Check Number 044148 044148 JABBO'JR, GABRIEL E. Totals Check Number 044148 Check Number 044149 044149 KELLEY, CHARLES Totals Check Number 044149 Grand Total Check Date lO-Mar-98 10-Mar-9B lO-Mar-98 lO-Mar-98 lO-Mar-98 Page 1 Check Amount 269.36 269.36 184.70 184.70 269.36 269.36 269.36 269.36 323.22 323.22 269.36 269.36 1,585.36 ; u Mar 1998 Wed 5:01 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 1 Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044097 044097 JOHNSON, MARY ANN Totals caieck Number 044097 Check Number 044098 044098 GEMAR, JAMIE L. Totals Check Number 044098 Check Number 044099 044099 HASEMAN. CAROLE A. Totals Check Number 044099 Check Number 044100 044100 MOORSE, RONALD J. Totals Check Number 044100 Check Number 044101 044101 VEE, LINDA S. Totals Check Number 044101 Check Number 044102 044102 KUEHN, THOMAS M. Totals Check Number 044102 Check Number 044103 044103 OLSON, RONALD J. Totals Check Number 044103 Check Number 044104 044104 ANDERSON, BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 044104 Check Number 044105 044105 BOBZIBN, SUE A. Totals Check Number 044105 Check Date ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 Check Amount 435.51 435.51 493.13 493.13 657.88 657.88 1,470.03 1,470.03 1,005.33 1,005.33 651.43 651.43 844.12 844.12 1,050.92 1,050.92 644.28 644.28 -4 11 Mar 1998 Wed 5:01 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044106 044106 BORIS, SCOTT H. Totals Check Number 044106 Check Number 044107 044107 CARLSON, MICHAEL B. Totals Check Number 044107 Check Number 044108 044108 CHESWICK, GARY B. Totals Check Number 044108 Check Number 044109 044109 CORNICK, JAMES L. Totals Check Number 044109 Check Number 044110 044110 DEMBOUSKI, JAY C. Totals Check Number 044110 Check Number 044111 044111 ERICKSON, KURT R Totals Check Number 044111 Check Number 044112 044112 FARNIOK, CORREY L. Totals Check Number 044112 Check Number 044113 044113 FISCHENICH, DAN T. Totals Check Number 044113 Check Humber 044114 044114 KANSING, CAROL J. Totals Check Number 044114 Check Number 044115 Check Date ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 Page 2 Clieck Amount 877.53 877.53 659.53 659.53 1,532.67 1,532.67 1,185.90 1,185.90 1,149.17 1,149.17 1,175.67 1,175.67 1,012.36 1,012.36 1,144.21 1,144.21 399.76 399.76 r 11 Mar 1998 Wed 5:01 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number En^loyee Name Check Number 0441x5 04411S JOHNSON, BRADLEY P. Totals Check Number 044115 Check Number 044116 044116 KNOLLENBERG, KRISTIN L. Totals Check Number 044116 Check Number 044117 044117 MCNALLY, STEVEN A. Totals Check Number 044117 Check Number 044118 044118 MCNICHOLS, DAVID L. Totals Check Number 044118 Check Number 044119 044119 MOPOWCEYNSKI, JAMES Totals Check Number 044119 Check Number 044120 044120 PERSELL, WILLIAM R. Totals Check Number 044120 Check Number 044121 044121 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B. Totals Check Number 044121 Check Number 044122 044122 THOMTON, MARK R. Totals Check Number 044122 Check Number 044123 044123 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F. Totals Check Number 044123 Check Number 044124 Check Date ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 Page 3 Check Amount 987.07 987.07 632.13 632.13 833.34 833.34 440.73 440.73 1,508.29 1,508.29 488.67 488.67 1,181.62 1,181.6.-’ 984.26 984.26 240.14 240.14 11 Mar 1998 Hed 5:01 PM Check Register City of Crono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044124 04«124 TOMCZYK, MARK H. Totals Q.eck Number 044124 Check Number 044125 044125 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K. Totals Check Number 044125 Check Number 044126 044126 WITTKE, ANTHONY A. Totals Check Number 044126 Check Number 044127 044127 BRESSLER, BRADLEY J. Totals Check Number 044127 Check Number 044128 044128 QAFFRON, MICHAEL P. Totals Check Number 044128 Check Number 044129 044129 GAPPA, GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 044129 Check Number 044130 044130 OMAN. LYLE E. Totals Check Number 044130 Check Number 044131 044131 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZAPETH Totals Check Number 044131 Check Number 044132 044132 VANG, BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 044132 Check Number 044133 Check Date ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 Page 4 Check Amount 1,235.37 1,235.37 57C.60 578.60 228.95 228.95 463.08 463.08 1,116.97 1,116.97 1,513.07 1,513.87 1,088.75 1,088.75 1.385.93 1.085.93 1,111.42 1,111.42 r 11 Mar 1998 Wed S:01 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044133 044133 VECKMAN, STEPHEN J. Totals Check Number 044133 Check Number 044134 ‘ i BRINIOIAUS, JOHN P. Totals r ck Number 044134 Check Number 044135 044135 DEBAERE, DONALD L. Totals Check Number 044135 Check Number 044136 044136 GREGORY, JAMES D. Totals Check Number 044136 Check Number 044137 044137 HANSEN, STEVEN C. Totals Check Number 044137 Check Number 044138 ^38 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT G. Total* Check Number 044138 Check Number 044139 044139 OBRIEN, RANDY L. Totals Check Number 044139 Check Number 044140 044140 PALMER, GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 044140 Check Number 044141 044141 RATHBUN, BARRY J. Totals Check Number 044141 Check Number 044142 Check Dat: ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 Page 5 Check Amount 40.56 40.56 1,055.63 1,055.63 870.65 870.65 820.47 820.47 770.78 770.78 749.85 749.85 200.52 200.52 710.62 710.62 1,102.77 1,102.77 H Mar 1998 Hed 5:01 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044142 044142 SKREEN, DALE S. Totals Check Number 044142 Check Number 044143 044143 STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD E. Totals Check Number 044143 Check Date ll-Mar-98 ll-Mar-98 Page 6 Check Amount 666.95 666.95 1.054.36 1.054.36 Grand Total 40,151.78 11 Har 199S Hed 5:05 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044093 044093 ENGLISH III, IRVING H. Totals Check Number 044093 Check Numbci.- 044095 044095 ENGLISH III, iRV^NG R. Totals Check Number 044095 Check Date 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 Page 1 Check Amount 866.69 866.69 2,945.95 2,945.95 Grand Total 3,812.64 information COUNCIL MCsrtNG MAR 23 1998 crrYOFGfiONO ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL Ml£iT»iv3 MAR 2 3 1998 CHYOFOfiONO OF C ouncil MesT'iMG War 21 J99g crrycFGRQNo CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING ■ ^ar CITYq ^998 The Orono City Council will meet in a work session at 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 25, 1998 at the Lafayette Club, 2800 Northview Road, Minnetonka Beach, Minnesota. The purpose of the meeting is to meet with representatives of the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District to discuss issues of mutual interest. This meeting is open to the public. /s/ Linda S. Vee City Clerk Posted at: City Hall Navarre Post Office Long Lake Post Office Crystal Bay Post Office 'vUUNGILMthT'N'G MAR ^3 Trails, commercial development top agenda for Orono Councih % Ry Laura Khramjian Noi everyone likes a bike trail. This was certainly apparent at the March 9 meeting where bike trails encountered bumps and even some boulders in the course of Orono’s City Council discussions. The first obstacles appeared during the lengthy and emotional discussion of a proposed residential subdivision on the west side of Old Ciystal Bay Road. Owner Dan Anderson was seeking approval to develop the 17.5 acre property, just north of Norenberg Park, into seven single-family lots. Three of the lots are on Maxwell Bay. At the public hearing for this project, comments from neighbors prompted the planning commission to recommend at 15- foot trail casement requirement along Old Crystal Bay Road, as a potential trail corridor with a bike/hike path. Hennep n Parks has long term intentions for a trail system connecting the Luce Line to Norenberg Park. Park Commissioner Andrew McDermott pointed out that, "We already have a trail system on the East side of Old Cry.stal Bay Road.” The trail on the cast side of the road comes from the north and stops at the Luce Line, though there is a further ea.sement, which could be used for a trail, on that side. But it was during the discussion on extending the trail and where it could cross over to the West side to eventually link up with the park, that things heated up. One woman, who requested her name be kept out of the paper, because quite distraught when it looked like the bike uail would go through her parents ’ property. She accused McDermott of inaccuracy and the council of forcing her parents off their property and called the trail, "a fancy little whim of the City of Orono." One resident complained that bikers were noisy and undesirable. "We don’t want them by our homes and Norenberg Park doesn’t want them there, either!” Councilmembcr Richard Flint tried to explain the history behind the city’s interest in bike trails, but one man was not impressed. "The people in favor of the bike trails arc the Nou’veau Riche. They get transferred here and there by large corporations. Those people don’t really care,” he said. The rest of the council appeared startled when Councilm»*mber Barbara Peterson , "I personally think that Oro has too many bike trails." One member of the audience called out. "Could we pass a resolution on that?” Obviously, the many Orono residents, as well as those from other cities who frequently bike and walk on these trails, were not present at this meeting to give their side. But Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and other councilmembers tried. Though many people seem to want and enjoy the trails, it is clear that very few want it running too near or through their yard. When the furor over the trail ’s extension subsided. McDermott made a final comment. "Maybe the Luce Line is the best place to cross. ’ There was favorable response to that suggestion and attention eventually returned to the matter of the subdivision. Jabbour felt the city should get a conservation casement for the wooded area along the shoreline of the property. There were other problems, including bluffs, trees, drainage, cul-de-sacs and road widths, beside the question of the trails, the the council needs to study. The application was tabled with a 60-day extension, but the council hopes to take it up again at the March 23 meeting. The trails, however, didn’t stop there. Also on the night’s agenda was a draft for an agreement with Hennepin Parks for the construction of the 'Me •Q, remainder of the trail on Old ‘0 Crystal Bay Road and along County Road 6 and into Baker Park. According to the draft, the park district will bear all the costs of the construction and will maintain the trails in the same manner they maintain their other trails. The license enabling the park district to use the trail is perpetual and irrevocable, and the trails will be used exclusively for pedestrian and bicycle uses. Pedestrian uses include, but are not limited to, walking, jogging and in-line skating. City Administrator Ron Moorse stated one of the major benefits of the agreement was that it connects the Luce Line with Baker Park. Councilmembcr Charles Kelly wondered who has all the power in the agreement, and then he answered his own question. "Hennepin Parks. We’re giving up all our rights.” Rights or not, the council generally agreed that it was a beneficial project. “Hennepin County Parks have a big investment in Orono and - we have a big investment in the Hennepin County Park System," said Mayor Jabbour. The council passed a motion to authorize the agreement on behalf of the city. The proposed commercial development on Shadywood Road (County Road 19) and County Road 15 in Navarre was revisited. The council approved a resolution for the commercial site plan and variances. That was the easier part of the matter, which had already ''cen decided at the last meeting. This time the council wrestled with amending the zoning ordinance for the B-5 district to allow the serving of some types of food items, so that a proposed coffee and bagel shop could be part of this commercial enterprise. The idea for a take- Orono... con’t on P. 2. Orono out pizza restaurant had already been eliminated. The big concerns were irafnc and parking on this very busy intersection. Jabbour asked senior planning coordinator Mike Gaffron if the new use would cause any problems in other B-5 zoning areas; "It’s imporuni to me that we don’t change our ordinance just to accommodate one particular business." he explained. Gaffron said they needed to update some of the zoning ordinances, anyw^ay. and said he didn't sec this a problem in the B-5 business district. After some discussion on control and scaling, the council finally came down to the heart of the problem. “1 would like to hear a definition of a coffee and bagel shop,” said Flint, who expressed it best. "Can you serve orange ... From page 1. juice or muffins there?” "A coffee and bagel retail store is just to open-ended,” said Flint. "I would not contemplate ham and eees." The item was tabled until the next council meeting. The council wants to decide what food items will be sold and exactly how many seats would be allowed both inside and outside the shop. This delay will also give more time for updating the B-5 zoning district ordinance. The council also approved an ordinance enacting a moratorium to suspend certain uses in Orono ’s industrial zone. They recently adopted a concept plan for land use along Highway 12 with a ferus on preserving the city ’s natural rural character. They also wa.n to facilitate high quality dc^elopmenl and employment opportunities, such as high-tech manufacturing, medical office/scrvicc and similar uses. The moratorium is expected to last six months, from . March 9 to Sept. 15, while these issues are studied. A funding request from the Community Development Block Grand (CDBG) Program wasj; approved for the Navarre Housing. _ Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $107,500. The council also approved the park commission ’s proposal to hold a "March for the Parks” day. The event is being planned for April 26, from 10 a.m, to 3 p.m. Interested residents will solicit pledges for walking or biking on the Luce Line Trail and the ' money used for funding specific i improvements in the city parks. [ The exact routes and parking i locations still need to be worked out MAR 1 i) 1953 CITY Or g;-:o.\'o WINSTON LAW OFFICE 4420 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TEL: (612)341-9800 FAX: (612) 338-6351 March 16, 1998 COUNCIL MEETING MAR 2 3 J998 crrvorc-RQw / JOHN B. WINSTON ^^_,-^DIRECT: (6121 341-9813 C • % '•'4^0 Patti Token Project Manager Mn/DOT metropolitan Division Water's Edge 1500 VV'est County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 RE: Tmnk Highway 12 Corridor Dear Ms. Token: We are in receipt of the Highway Re\iew newsletter recently sent to homeowTiers in the neighborhood of the proposed Trunk Highway 12 Corridor. Our family lives at 155 Wear Tane North, which is probably a little more than a quarter of a mile South of the proposed Corridor. We are concerned about the impact of the Corridor on our home. The greatest concern is with noise, but, to a lesser extent, we are also concerned with vibration, light and air pollution. One factor which I know the Study Committee is focusing on, and which is of great concern to us, is the elevation at which the Corridor roadway will be constructed. When one passes over the existing railroad right-of-way on Old Crystal Bay Road, a false impression of elevation is created. When one is South of the railroad right-of-way, and to the West of Old Crystal Bay Road, one finds that the land slopes to the South, and that the railroad right-of-way is actually higher than the land to the South. Surprisingly, we actually look up to the railway grade from otir home. We are very much interested, then, in the proposal that both the railroad right-of-w'ay and the new Corridor be lowered in elevation or grade, to guard against the adverse effects of the new construction. As far as my family is concerned, the lower the railroad right-of-way and the lower the roadway are constructed, the better, and the more that can be done to shield the impact of both the relocated railroad right-of-way and the new roadway, the better. Considering our distance from the existing railroad line, it is quite surprising to hear how loud the trains are when they pass to the North. When the railroad is relocated to the South, and the noise of the Itighway is combined, w'e have great concern tliat the noise will disturb/intcrfere with and reduce our enjoyment of our property. Thus, anything that the Highway 12 Corridor Committee can do to address these concerns and to lessen the impact of the project would be most appreciated. March 16, 1998 Page 2 We know the Corridor highway is coining, but we want to make sure that its impact on our neighborhood is understood and addressed. We do not know whether you have any mailing list or other process for notifying interested property owners about future developments, but we would appreciate being on any such notice list. We also will try to review local newspapers so as to be alert to future meetings involving this project. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, . Winston JBW/krm cc: Ed Callahan J. Diann Goetten Ron Moorse Jim Murphy . JI RAMSTAD THIRD DISTRICT. MINNESOTA WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE TRADE SUBCOMMITTEE ... ' WASHINGTON OfFICE COUNClL C annon H ouse Office Buhdino MAR ?3 1998 Washington . DC 2051S 12021225-2871 OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE March 13, 1998 CongreBB of tlje fHniteb ^tateB ^ouBe of j^epreBentatibcB ®Hafitjington, J3C 20515-2303 OISTBICT OFFICE. 8120 P enn Avenue South. #152 CnYO^GftON' ) BiOOMinoton , MN 55431 ^ ' 1612)881-4600 O,:. Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator City ofOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Ronald: I am writing to invite you, as a community leader, to attend any of the town meetings I will be holding throughout the Third District this spring. Enclosed is a list of these town meetings. As you will notice, there is one in your area. I urge you to attend and express your concerns and ideas. If you have any questions, please call my Community Relations Director, Susie Holdemess, at 881-4600. Thank you for your consideration. I sincerely hope you can attend. Let's keep in touch! Sincerely, JIM^5MSTAD Member of Congress JR:sh 6 «T?I PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER r NEWS FROM --------- Jim Ramstad Minnesota's 3rd District %■ '"^Xp f> % 1998 SPRING TOWN MEETING SrHFmiT.F Tuesday, April 7 E^Una Southdale-Hennepin County Library 7001 York Avenue South Noon -1:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 8 Champlin City Hall Council Chambers 11955 Champlin Drive Noon -1:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 8 Orono City Hall Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Thursday, April 9 Hopkins City Hall Council Chambers 1010 1st Street 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Monday, May 4 Corcoran City Hall Council Chambers 8200 County Road 116 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Monday, May 11 Plymouth City Hall Council Chambers 3400 Plymouth Blvd. 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Washington Office 103 Caimon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-2303 (202) 225-2871 Minnesota Office 8120 Penn Avenue South, Suite 152 Bloomington, MN 55431-1325 (612) 881-4600 ' OUNCIL MtSriNQ MAR ?5 1998 CITYof ORON’^^ Municipal Offices^p Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 C/ Maill7ig(4ddress: P.O.Box 66 ■'Crystal B^>MN 55323 0066 March 20, 1998 Gary & Sandra Welsh 1214 Wildhurst Trail Mound MN 55364 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Welsh; We have received your letter requesting revisions to the City's Draft Storm Water Management Plan. In this letter you request consideration of alternate locations for water quality Pond FL- QI5 proposed for the shoreline area of Forest Lake. The City of Orono is in the process of developing a Storm Water Management Plan to evaluate various methods of reducing flooding problems and improving the wate. quality of the lakes and wetlands witlrin ihe City. This plan includes conceptual locations for storm water ponds and other storm sewer system improvements. One goal of this plan is to complete conceptual designs for storm sewer systems to reduce flooding and improve water quality. The basic concept for the design and location of water quality ponds is to locate them as close as possible to lakes and wetlands to capture and treat the maximum zimount of water before it enters the lake or wetland. As ponds are located further from the lake or wetland, the amount of flow captured is reduced ard improvements to water quality are reduced. This basic design and location concept is followed throughout the plan. This plan presents conceptual designs in conformance with the plan goals. The designs shown are conceptual in nature based on topographic mapping derived from aerial photography. Before any projects are approved £ind constructed, feasibility studies and p ’ms and specifications will need to be completed. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 \ Gary & Sandra Welsh March 11, 1998 Page 2 of 2 The City's Draft Storm Water Management Plan has been discussed by the Council only in a preliminary manner. More discussion on this plan by the Council will occur before any formal approvals of this plan are granted. The approval process will involve a public input process to solicit citizen comments on the Storm Water Management Plan. At this time, the position of the City is that eliminating or changing the conceptual locations of any ponds or other storm sewer facilities is premature. Responding to individual requests for changes could undermine and invalidate the entire planning process for possible storm water system improvements. Final decisions on the actual locations of storm water facilities cannot be made in a fair and objective manner until feasibility studies and designs have been completed for individual projects. Regarding possible diminished property values, planning activities undertaken by any level of government may affect property viues. This includes other projects currently in the planning stages such as the proposed new Highway 12 relocation and several sanitary sewer projects. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact us should you have any questions. Sincerely, 2?, Gregory A, Gappa Director of Public Services GAG/jlg cc: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and Orono City Council Members Gary and Sandra Welsh =iii^iii^iii^iiisiii^iiii=iii^iii^i 1214 Wildhurst Trail • Mound. Minnesota 55364 • Telephone 612-472-6955 • Fax 612-4!’2-5663 RHCEIVED JAM 3 0 199B C\TV Or ORONO Mr. Gabriel Jabbour Mr. Charles Kelly Mr. Richard Flint Ms. J Diann Goetten Ms. Barbara Peterson Re: Orono Draft Water Management Plan impacting some owners, of lakeshore on Forest Lake. Dear Mayor and City Council Members; The seven (7) following homeowners: Gary and Sandra Welsh (1214 Wildhurst Trail); Robert and Marit Birkeland (1298 Wildhurst Trail); David and Kate Kruskoph (1200 Wildhurst Trail); Brian and Sandra Rasmussen (1186 Wildhurst Trail); James and Roxanne Stasik (1270 Wildhurst Trail); Lyle and Joan Rahn (1146 Wildhurst Trail); and Sanford and Margaret Erikson (4455 Forest Lake Landing) as you are aware are concerned about the impact of one aspect of the Orono Storm Water Plan regard'mg their properties. Refer to the letter of December 9, from James Steilen of Briggs and Morgan. The Plan if implemented would easily destroy up to 50 percent of the affected property values along with diminished enjoyment of the property. We feel our properties are worth less after the revelation of this draft plan. When one sells property, relevant disclosures are required. If relevant disclosures are not made prior to a sale, the new owner could have cause for action against seller and seller's agent. BOTTOM LINE: We are "held hostage" by this proposal. The only way we can sell is to disclose this matter that could result in a greatly diminished selling price. All we are asking is for the City to eliminate that pond from the plan. If you should decide to implement the overall plan there is a viable alternative to the pond on the lakeshore. Barr Engineering is suggesting one or two ponds up on Saga Hill would be a viable alternative and less costly. Enclosed is text and drawing. Expediting this matter would be greatly appreciated. We realize with so many issues before you, it becomes difBcult to devote enough time to each one. However, this matter needs to be concluded. Gary and Sandra Welsh Enclosures cc: Robert and Marit Birkeland David and Kate Kruskoph Brifand Sandra Rasmussen Ja .nd Roxanne Stasik Lylcc-iid JoanRahn Sandford and Margaret Erikson Ron Moorse, City Administrator (w/encl.) Michael Gaffron, Sr Planner (w/encl.) NOU 21 ’97 16:22 FR BARR ENGINEERING 612 832 2601 TO 94725663 P.02/04 Barr Engineering Campsny November 21, 1997 Saga Hill Preservation Society c/o Steve Bell VICOM Science Center Drive New Hope, MN 65428 Re: Alternative Locations for Water Quality Pond FL-Q15 Proposed for Forest Lake, Orono, Minnesota Dear Mr. Bell: Background On October 31,1997,1 inspected the proposed LGA Development site and the surrounding area. On November 3, 1997,1 was contacted by Gary Welsh who expressed concern over the locaUon of the proposed water quality pond shown in the "Stormwater Management Plan, Orono. Minnesota. 1st Draft.." dated July, 1997. Mr. Welsh was concerned that approximately 250 ft of valuable Forest Lake shoreline would be destroyed in order to construct this pond. He also felt that an casement for access to such a pond may come from Forest Lake Landing which would encumber additional shoreland property. On November 18.1997, Mr. Welsh requested that we evaluate the feasibility of relocating the water quality pond to another location which may result in more prudent expenditure of public funds. I contacted Patti Afelt and was given approval to proceed with this additional evaluation. Proposed Water Quality Pond FL-Q15 Pond FL-Q15 is proposed to span approximately 250 ft along the shoreline of Forest Lake east of WUdhurst Trail as shown on Figure 1. In this location, the pond would fully encumber the shoreline of two lots and approximavely one-half of another lot. The presence of a water quality pond in this location would prevent the use of the shoreline by those property owners. Mr. Wels.*\ has indicated that the value of the affected properties is in excess of $1 million. It appears that access for maintenance of Pond FL-Q15 may be obtained from the extension of an eristing grave t driveway originating firom Forest Lake Landing. Mr. Welsh indicated this access drive and associated easement would devalue four additional shoreland properties also valued in excess of S million. l^SiCO Nccnin Certv Or.e MN 5S137-I026 Prxrs:iS12}632-2SC0 Fv {S}2)832-2S}1 35SSWest2mSt/^t Hbbing.MN 55746 FfKcrpIS; 252-3465 Fax □ CTVrfeifSupenySJex Frr«.(2J6)727-52JS Fex (2!S}727SisO DP.O.ECX 130917 A'vlAtor.M46tl3-C-f:7 FttOK:(313}327-12X fix ais^w-iin NOU 21 ’97 16:22 FR BfiRR ENGINEERING 612 832 2601 TO 94725663 P.03.'04 S«ga Hill PrtservaUon Sodeqr P-ffe2 r.;ove«b«r21,1997 5— l, upstream End ot South BaviM ta titat tunoR .Eea and volume at tie head of the south ramue ^n undeveloped pToperty ftora the 16 acres tributaiy to this access could be obtained from the eiistme and no valuable shoreline is encumbered, “‘“'f Garden Trail easement so no additional properties would be an the upstream Side of Wildhursi Trail. One property would be affected by this of the FL-19 Subwatershed npst^"" J ^ pood at this locatif - could be easily “.tut r^TLlat~ a.ataeme »..la.. adverse impact on the water quality ef Forest Lake. 3. Combination of taOCatl«s 1 *2: it mey i>« *" ::":bt":tiofi« the outlet from Location 2 as shown in Figure L Respectfully yours, Mark Jacobson Water Resources Scientist MAJ/ytnh Enclosures NEWPR0J\56266-1 Figure 1 . 03‘17.98 08 :45 FAX 612 725 3527 FWS ENGINEERING 121001COUNCIL MAR cmroFORONO March 16. 1998 C ^ f. a* ' % \ To: Ron Moorse From: Chair Person of the Park, Open Space and Trail Commission, Andrew McDermott RE; Navarre townhouse development; At the last council meeting, a possible meeting betw jn the council and the developer of the Navarre town houses was briefly discussed, I feel that the elevations of the townhouses and the relationship of the garage to the front door could be greatly improved. I found two typical elevations that in my opinion, would give the city a better appearing and marketable project. One of the plans Is from an architectural magazine and the other is from the Star and Tribune. If Navarre's townhouses resemble either of these, it would vastly improve them. Please share them with the council If you feel it is appropriate, remember I am only a LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. The City has an obligation to its citizens to assure that the appearance and function of tha townhouses conform with the image Orono has developed Ttie builder only has to unload them, but the City has to deal with them for the next fifty years. Sincerely. r F«S EM.INFER INI.(2111112 '■'i Power Prices m-^ T^L-:j1 littiffi Mil ‘.S Mil • ✓.v* P >a,Tc'. Sbckvd windows in tfie Baldwin model's family room create a detacli«l-bome feeling In the IJS^-Miiiarv-foot townliouig at TTi# Clusters at Clifton Mill. ' ‘ j^i bL rrj -f— Sccurul FU m>i -—H r!i^ Fir.1 H'.,ui Bordentown, N.J. trjccnc pricing is tSc iccrct III the success I'l 'l'llC . 'V Clusters at Clihcn W„-i^ Mill- l’nce<:l from S;i25.‘»’'C to Sl:*",ovti. ilic townhiMiscs .ire atticuung seven buyers a mondi in the lukcwarnt southern New Jersey nijrhct. M.my of the cor.'.r.Uiili:> a empty-nester anJ yueng prnfessinn.il buy ers .ire Miiviiig from central inl nnrtl'.i.m .'Neu Jersey, where hoin.. prices jivl cOai of Imnjj are s:jfn;ic-.inriy higher And even local praiecct Can’t rr.atch the rock-Lioaom price? at The Clusters Charging I-SS iJun the emr,petition wja a catcubred risk for buililcr-dcvc'uper The Quaker Group, which made in: ilglnn m the iloutls Jersey market with this proie'Ct. “\\c wanted The Clusters to make an impan with I'orh buyers and die real esr.tre fouum nity in •renoril,” S;ivS Stephen Shilling, Quaker s rranac'ng p.irrncr “5o. we Jesignefl the pn-iduct line to include innovative floor plan fua- rurts but kept the p'H ing vcri' cornpeiiir. c.” Bcfiirc vlniwins; ap plans, the company surveyed odier tn'.vrhouses in die area It O^jiilc up with a list Ilf fea tures the competition didn’t have—such as d-foo: tirrt- tlvior Ceilings and !a\ii.r\- baths —and included dicni to nuke product Stand out even more. —M.D. Piofcct: Trc C uiief? at CiiRon V :• »dlos BlartaH- Apiil 1997; Tcit.ll iHimbof ol units: 109. Numliei lalsasi.J' '' / Snl«« t^rou^:h Oocemb«f 1997: 64; Ptice. usk :» I-., tlSi'.-.9&0. Uiili tUo. 1 C-aS; 'O a 7a6 sqtia»g •..01. oenslts: 33 ur 'b Dtwjicre Dovaloper/Bc'IOot: the OciUKer ' ‘ uiubp V.-rvgorr,er .vii'e. Pa : Arenitact. T' c Om~i Or&uD Ho'snsfr., Bj : litlerlor dcsisnar: Cesen V.jrVi Point Piiar..liil. P.i Maikoll.ie con»ullant; Rjno M.k .'c I r.g !',r.-«jr. Somef ville. N J All ugancy- raoe .soceMlsin)?. Nev r*-M C<’k local maikat Inlodns tlon il-jjs rg Oiilb RAfiOilS. V.iin r C BEST:SELLERS MARCH ! V V y BUILDER r 03 17'98 08:46 FAX 612 725 3527 FWS ENGINEERING L femes STAHTRIBUNE*PAGE HIS (1/5) Home plan D«vatopcr: Bright Kays Building and Development Corp., 407-8813 or 430-1400 Award: Award of Excellence Single-fanuly attached — $117,000*' 1 ! hOUsVl^e«tu%3*^flim^ CCHlnes. • Ptivalo P-I-O, O walk-ln pui.Uy. an op^ sta.rcasc. a j center j>.l«ind in the kitchen, o (ircploce antJ a waV lhrOueh necond-floor bath, oom I • Price when judged 1 j |f(an, call the bitiUUr listed. V... . V • V* ©00.^ 0317'9S OS:46 FAX 612 725 3527 F«S ENGINEERING lomes star TRIBUN6 • PACE H1 3 (I/5) Home plan D«v«lopcr: Bright Kays BuUding and Development Corp^ 407-8813 or 430-1400 Award: Award of Excellence Single-family attached — $ii7,000* TWc two-story tr>wnhouSC l3 In th« WiHow Gl«n housing cJirveloorwM near Main St. cet and 20Ui Avemi« in C«nl€rvtllc. It has 1.-183 (ini*h«d SQuafr. (ael. one bedroom, 8 loft, two DBin- rooms and MWO cclV'te#. • Ptiveie p*t>o. a woU« in punUy. an open staircosc. a center island in the kitchen, a (IfCDlace and a weV-lhrough spcond-floor bathroom • Pflcc when iudged i liu<iWert AtsnelatUm nflhw Twin Citlei. Homes nrejmiged by nrehtlecls, inienor I ftlnn, call the buiUUr luted. Lott Bath Cir'u -111 Open to Ivnc room Bedroom Mastur bedroom S«cona level ticof piw. • . • ■ -s « t K-.V-iVA inw i2ii.iii.:» 1 council Mt.£TlNQ MAR 2 3 W38 crrYoroBONO Dave and Pat Spilseth 3233 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 phone 471 7152 March 16. 1998 'A'c /4 CfTy ^998 Or Dear Orono City Council members and City Administrators; This letter is to reemphasize our opposition to the Silus request for a conditional use permit or any variance in regard to the property at 3235 Casco Circle, Wayzata. Our next door neighbors. Steve and Elaine Silus, are requesting a conditional use permit to erect a retaining wall within the 5’ setback established by Orono City ordinances. As property owners at 3233 Casco Circle, next to the property in question, we feel that the 5’ setback is an important ordinance providing neighbors better esthetics, protection from runoff and possible flooding, snow removal and other maintenance Infringements, and accessibility to the lake. Therefore, we strongly urge the observance of existing property ordinances that Orono has established to protect individual properties. This ordinance is supported by countless Casco Circle property owners’ calls and letters of protest to the Orono City Offices. We want this letter to be placed in the city file urging Orono administrators to make sure that drainage from the new Silus construction will not go onto our property. We are concerned about flooding and erosion. Mayor Gabe Jabbour and the Orono Council had the Silus request tabled at the February 23 council meeting In order to give Siluses an opportunity to talk with their neighbors, the Spilseths, about a satisfactory, mutually-agreed solution to this problem. The Siluses have riot contacted us regarding this or any other adjoining property questions at any poinl. We feel the 5’setback should be upheld as written In Orono City Ordinances protecting Individual properties. Respectfulli^submitted, David and F^tricia Spilseth 19 \m CiTYQr G.s0.s;o MTKA MIDDLE SCHOOL-Eh:. TEL :612-yy>:-Kxe>:Mar 23 yr- 15:17 Mo.009 P.Ol March 18. 1998 The Honorable Mayor Gabriel Jabbour Orono, MN FAX: 473-0510 Tone ■o Dear Mayor Jabbour, The Minnetoka Beach Civic Association has sponsored a Beach clean-up project for many, many years. This year the association is promoting an expanded project that includes a major recycling effort. It is our hope to join In the Orono and Long Lake clean up days on April 25 and May 9 and encourage our residents to recycle to the Orono Public Works site and the Good Will project at Orono Schools. I have discussed this with and have support from Greg Gappa, Public Service Director, Orono, Marv Wurzer, Public Works Director, Long i ake and Amelia Kroeger, Recycling Coordinator, West Hennepin Recycling Commission. We would provide staff support at the site on the clean up days. This effort is supported by the Minnetonka Beach Council and has a supporting letter from Michael Bloom, Mayor Pro Tern. The Civic Association would appreciate your support in this effort. Sincerely, Patty Rezabek, Minnetonka .Beach Civic Association w-906-2540; h-471-8289 Mh P 10 '^S 0T:44Ftl LEh CJJE OF Nfl CITIES P.l LMC of Minnotota CilUt Cihoo promoting oatcotlmico Friday Fax COUNCIL r/'.:r mar 23 1998 A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities March 20.1998 Tax Bill: Governor Chimes In Late this afternoon, the governor sent a letter to the Tax Committee chairs in dicating his demands for the final 1998 tax bill. Included in his demands are an immediate phaseTn of reduced class rates for many properties, and extension of levy limits through taxes payable in 2000, a 1999 pro; ertv tax rebate of $750 million and the < rGation of an income tax reduction account. The governor’s letter indicated that he is disappointed in the property tax class rate compression included in both the House end 3^ r jte bills. He states, "Neither bill as passed con tains the compression necessary for real reform, and this must be ad dressed." He suggests that the con ference committee adopt the Senate class rates, but phase J-in ttie com pression immediately for taxes pay able in 1999. The only exceptions de manded by thr 'ivemor are that home value greater than $75,000 not be reduced below 1 7 percent, that the first $75,000 of cabin value not ex ceed . ^rcent and that the balance of cabin pi ^^^erty not exceed 2.3 per cent. Under the Senate bill, home value in excess of $75,000 would be classi fied at 1.6 percent, and cabins would be classified at 1.25 for the value un der $75,000 and 2.2 percent for the value over $75,000. However, the Senate would not have implemented these dess rates until pay 2000. Kelative to the Senate dass rates, tfle effect of the governor’s demands will be to provide less relief to high value homes, but to guarantee relief for cabin owners. Levy Limits The governor also demands the exten sion of levy limits According to his letter, “Levy limits are necessary as we continue major structural changes to our state’s property tax system. The Senate's position of repealing levy limits is not acceptable." The governor’s position will certainly make the removal of levy limits more diffi cult. Nothing in the governor’s letter addresses the impacts of class rate compression on tax Increment financ ing districts. This will likely be a last minute conference committee deci sion. The letter to the tax chairs was not received until after the committee re cessed for the weekend and there- fora, the committee did not have time to react to the governor’s demands. Obviously, the demand for a rebate will not be greeted warmly by the Sen ate members who have no rebate in their tax bill. The reaction of the House members is more difficult to gauge. Other Conference Committee Developments Limited market value is also evolving into an important issue among confer ees. Although the House bill included an aggressive limited market value provision, none of the House confer ees voted for the amendment. Many Of tfie conferees have expressed sig nificant concerns about the precedent established by the limited market value prov'-^v - ome even equating it to Ifie Caiil j : ’oposition 13 provision that has dev astated that state. Senator Doug Johnson has errtergod as the strongest supporter of the House lim ited market value provision. The House limited mari> ' a is significantly more expansiv ..ar' the current law provision: All property would be covered by valuation limits for a period of three years. For as sessment year 1998, the increase m property market values would be lim ited to the rate of growth in the con sumer price index, which is currently less than 3 percent. For th.e following two years, property market value in creases would be limited to the lesser of the consumer price index or 5 per cent. In a memo to the conferees, a Senate staff member highlighted the p>i oblems that could occur under lim ited market value and the difficulty of rerrxjving the provision in three years. The limit would shift taxes from high growth property to properties with low market value growth The limit v/ouid be difficult to remove because the taxes on those properties that benefit from me limit could potent'ally in crease dramatically. The governor did not express any particular position on the limited market value provisico. However, the Department of Revenue has expressed concerns about moving away from a true market value basis for the property tax. Fvr more information on city legklotht issues, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities intergovernmental Relmtioma team.