The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-24-1990 Council Packetr PUBLIC ATTENDANCE iCITY OF ORONO eETcK^C--MEETING DATE () PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORi-lATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAi-lE OR NUMBER V....U. V.v. ^ ? ' _ 2.VvVv i V iU 3 A.L> 1 i/vVi. i ,w£ /iJj cf. 4-^Olt fCc i ^2_ ** * (■"j 1 'T-j:.—‘/ M---------------- ------------ !r: V//Y-c t.: ■•' ’ 6 - X\\. \^ V C V' S ? >;< - » •1.^ O \ iv K_.v ..,. A /! 7.iC' ',\o C^u.., PJ ^^■1o P *^W 1 V-—_\ 1 1 ■>. 9.l4.V\', , _____/t( vO'v^'v1>^b^.'A- A VJ :A 1 . ,? d r" * W----* W .’W-----^ n IP^C( Kir-CK'^7 s / 3 .1 yydchfd '/a , : :- y^>.TL()y 7 . Ifh'i.': ‘7 i './ , ' •' ''47">\'\i . ..tt :l ----/) q . d . *5. fi - 7. R q . >0.--------------------------------------________________________— AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1990, 7:00 P.M. (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL 1. Recognition of Employment - J *•. Jass 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - 2. Storm Sewer System Navarre Heights Area 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - 3. Highway 12 Improvements 4. CONSENT ACENDA* SEP 2-! 1990 CITY OF GRONO APPROVAL OP MIHDTBS * 5. Regular Meeting of September 10, 1990 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT - Jo Ellen Hurr 6. I:ake Use and Management PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ♦♦APPLICANTS** Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions, vacations and denials. * 7. #998 Maureen S. Bellows, 265 Brown Road South - Byfield Plat Access - Resolution 8. #1334 Rebers Construction - Sugarwoods Plat Reconsideration of Conditions of PRD Approval - Resolution * 9. #1470 Bill Knapp/Dan Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Proposal * 10. #1532 Fullerton Properties, 2225 Sixth Avenue North - Final Subdivision - Resolution - Request to table to 10/8/90 * 11. #1552 Steven & Rene Foster, 1800 Shadywood Road - Variance - Denial Resolution 12. #1579 Gerry Everson, 4755 North Shore Drive - After the Fact Variance 13. Public Facilities 14. Hardcover Variance Protection 15. Wetlands MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER'S REPORT 16. Request for Payment #1 - 1990 Sealcoating 17. Request for Payment #5 - Well #3 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1990, 7:00 P.M, CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 18. Stubbs Bay Proposed Sewer Project 19. City Facilities 20. Comprehensive Plan Responses 21. David Prass, 1065" Linden Lane * 22. Fence Acquisition - Navarre Playground * 23. Administrator's Information Well #3 Update Bicycle Disposition Assessing Service Cable TV Lorraine McGowan Western Hennepin County Pioneers Association CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (24*) BILLS (25*) UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 09/24 - Council Meeting 10/08 - Council Meeting 10/15 - Planning Commission Meeting 10/22 - Council Meeting 91390.4 / TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato September 13, 1990 CC'JWtIL r*EET!NG SEP211990 CITY OF GRONO SUBJECT: Recognition of Employment - John Sass Attachment; A. City of Orono Resolution Adopted 9/10/90 INTRODUCTION - On John Sass* retirement after 10 years with the City it is felt appropriate that he be recognized for his service to the community. In addition to the recognition a get-together was held on Wednesday, September 19, 1990 for interested city employees. OTY OFOflONO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEABINQ A pubkc mMtmg wm be conducted on Sep tember 24 1990 at 7 30 o m m the Orooo Counal Chambers 1275 Brown Rood South The MbHc hearing is tor the pjrpooe of con- atdenng an underground storm aewer system for Navarre Hotghts generally deacrltMd as those proportlao seat of Blaine Avenue north of Lyric Avenue south of Crystal Pleoe and west of Shadywood Road (County Road 19) Enomeors esMmalsd cost of this project is $32,200 Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting Dorothy M HaAin City Clerk (Published in The Laker wid Pwneer Sept 10 and Sept 17. 1990) l! ISER 2 4 Affidavit of Publication State ot Minnocota. County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, bcinrj duly sworn, on oath says an authorized agent and employee of the Publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound. Min nesota. and has full knowledge of the facts which arc elated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the require ments constituting qualifications as a qualified nowDpaper. as provided by Miiincoola Stalulo 331A.02. 331A.07. and other applicable l.aws. as amended. D.) The printed __J\& — which IS attached was cut from tlie columns of said newspaper and was printed and published once each ,^eck for. ^-------------successive weeks; It was first published Monday, the day el and was thereafter printed and published every Monday, to and including Monday. the i2£*'day el 10^ \uthorizcd Agent t;/:rrA A STRAUS .JiA.'iV PUBLC .amVlR county N £>piH£3 »I-9» Subscribed and sworn to me on this day of__ Notary PublicBy: Rale Information (1) Lorvost cte.lllcd f.ilo p.iid by commcrcl.il users lor compaia- In, MoalS .i«o»X «10. S™"' sr,cc“S lasS ^»r CITY Of ORONO Notice OTPOBOrtlEARlNQ TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Notice is hereby given ttwi the council w« nieet st 7 00 p m on September 24 1990 to pass upon the proposed ssseesment for the sewer end water improvement abutting the north aide otWsyzatsBouiBvard (US HigJwwy 12) from the northwest quadrwit of Brown Roed and Wayzsta Bomovard and to wid ndud <ng the northeast quedrwt of WWow Road w<d Wayzata Boulevard The proposed BaaeaBment roa « on fMe for public napection at the city derh a office Tne total amount of the propoaed assessment is S29Sjp28 4e Wntten or oral obisctions MS be conaiaerod at the meeting No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an asaesament un* less a Signed, wrttten obtsction «filed with the clerti prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing The cow>cil may upon such notica consider any obfaction ttMIlMBnRMhMAa pnpgepd mcHvlduai aaaass^ moot at an ad)oumed meeting upon such fur Iher notice ‘.o the affected property owners as it deems advisable If an assessment is contested or there is an adKiumod hearing, the toSowmg procedure win be followed 1 The city wilt present its case first by call mg witnesaea who may testify by narrative or by eumination. and by the introduction of e* hibrts After each witness has testified, the contesting party wiH be aliowed to ash ques lions This procedure will be repeated with each witness unM neither side has further questions 2 Aner the city has presented aH Its evi dence. the objector may call witnesses or present such testimony as the obiector desires The same procedure lor questlorMng of the aty s witneaaes will be followed with the objector s witnesses 3 The objector may be represented by counsel 4 Minnesota rules of evidence will not be stnctiy applied however, they may be consi dered and argued to the council as to the weight of Items of evidence or testimony presented to the council 5 The entire proceedinga will be tM>e- recorded 6 At the close of presentstion of evidmce. the objector may make a final presentation to the counui based on the evidence and the law No new evidence may be presented at this point An owner may appeal an assessment to dis tnct court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sec tion 429 081 by serving notice of the m>eai upon the mayor or clerk of the city within 30 days after the adoplKm of the asaesament and filing such notice win the dtstrict court withm ten days after servic upon the mayor or dark C«,C,« (Published in the I iker and Pioneer Sept 10 and 17. 19901 Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota. County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, bchia duly oworn. on ,n lulhorizod ngont and employee o( II o PdWisnor oUhe nowspeper kno'.vn es THE LAKER. Mound. M,n- ncr.ot.n. and tas lull knowledge ol the Incia whicn arc utated Dclow. A ) The newDpape, has eoraplied with all Iho require- rnn*'titulinn qualifications as a qualified nl-wseaper ns ^o"ded by Minnesetn Statute 331A.02. 331A.0r. and clhcr applicable laws. a., amended. D.) The printed which attached was cut Irom the columns of said newspaper, and was pmi.ed and '.vock for —--------------------- It war. first published Monday. and ;^heroallcr printed and published every Monday, to and including Monday. me LTf^day f?// Authorized Agent 1TA A STRAUS .•.«v Pu BLC fTR COUNTY i l AMlHlS >t-96 Subscribed and sworn to me on this • ■> , day of^ (.rt -- 4 V "C'VV I V ' L 6 'rf, Notary Public iSEP. 2 .4 1890 P, n,-.ic w.K-k S3 3« per Inci. ■:v , . L-^~i ^ ’*' ■ -................................................ 91390.5 TO:Mayor and City Council FBOH:Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate^ * \^ SEP 2.11990 DATE:September 13, 1990 CITY Of ORONO SUBJECT: Storm Sewer System - Navarre Heights Area Attachment: A. Storm Sewer Memo Dated 8/23/90 B. Hearing Notice Published 9/10 and 9/17/90 ISSUE - 1. Hold a public hearing prior specifications on the project. to ordering plans and 2. Determine whether Council desires to have plans and specs developed on the project. 3. Determine type of desired solution. INTRODUCTION - This issue was discussed at the Council's August 27, l990 meeting with a public hearing scheduled for the September 24, 1990 meeting. Attachment B reflects the hearing notice that was transmitted. DISCUSSION - Ii addition to the issue of whether the Council desires to go ahead with the proposed project or not is an issue what alternatives exist for resolving the issue. Alternatives regarding the storm water ponding are as follows: A. Status Quo - Taking action to leave matters as they are with no formal drainage system. The resident may choose to do something minimal on their property. B. Surface Drainage - As noted in Attachment A a surface drainage outline had been prepared as a possible alternative that could be done privately. It is our understanding that a neighborhood petition to request that this matter be undertaken and the City do so as a public project to be assessed has been circulated although the City has not received a copy. C. Underground Storm Water Piping - This is the project that has been proposed for a considerable period of time and is designed for a five year storm. In this situation this may be more expensive than a surface solution, but also the one that perhaps limits the city's liability to the greatest degree. In addition the alternatives for financing are: 1. Priv ate Financing - Any of these alternatives could be done by the neighbors in conjunction with each other, however, the larger the cost of the project the more difficult it becomes. 2. Public Financing - This would entail the City engaTTng a contractor and specially assessing the cost against the storm sewer area that is served. Not only does this put the city's stamp of approval on the project but regardless of the route taken puts the city at risk for financing to the degree the risk has not been limited by special assessment waivers. The City does have some concern regardin'^ the city's participation inabove ground a storm sewer project in this particular situation. The underground solution would be built to the 5 year standard and the city's liability would probably be to the extent of the 5 year design, however, the above ground solution may in fact result in the assumption that it will handle any storm. While this "ay not be the case, it may handle the water better than not doing anything. An avenue related to an above ground solution would be the possibility that the City "reacquire" this parcel from the Cuffs as part of the solution. ALTERNATIVES Issue 1. !ublic Hearing 1. Hold the public hearing. 2. Close the public hearing. 3. Continue the public hearing. Issue 2. Development of Plans and Specs 1. Direct plans and specs be developed. 2. Direct an alternative system be designed. 3. Take no action. 4. Table for further discussion. Issue 3. 1. Approach al Status Quo b) Aboveground c) Underground 2. Financial a) Private b) Public c) Waiver of Assessment RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the public hearing be herB*”and uporfconclusion of the public hearing not undertake plans and specs until the neighbors have agreed upon a solution and signed petition waivers if they desire the City to do a public project. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by _, that Council after the public hearing direct >ff to undertake plans and specs to the point that a significant majority of the neighbors are interested in doing the project and have signed petition waivers if they desire the City to do a puLlic project. Ayes __, Nays 814' ') ! • To* Mayor and city Council ^ROM: Mark p n A..„„ Attachment: A. Livi CuJf.Y?t°e ^ -c°e%%^"i?®a "elm • i§Sm£lm - lnlb*u!r''*°" Pe°pi “ln%?rarla/"°®®®= -his was discussed at "" "he absence of 1“®®'=®*^ that the pr'ivnr^\K"®® that Co??ciJ^dl^°“"®’^'e «®y 29 Xn^^* PetitioS?HS'F SSllf to7i7head^^*trVh “°" "‘•‘"•uS.'Vt'^i°/Vh7 ""A Project Petition "®'^' edification of petit-i D, siv ,-j£e- Ians and Specifications Bidding Project Hearing Assessment Hearing 30 Day Appeal Period Ordering in the Project Project Construction Alternatives to this are: A. Project hearing - This could be held either prior to plans and specifications and bids being sought or afterwards. The advantage of waiting until afterwards is that the cost would be known for the project more firmly than the initial estimate. The advantage to holding before the plans and specifications are that depending on the input at the public hearing, the Council may or may not proceed with plans and specifications and the associated cost. B. Holding the assessme^ hear ing prior to the project being adopted. - The assessment hearing can either be held prior to the project or it can be held after the project completion. The advantage of hoxding before the project is ordered, but after the bids are received are that the assessment would be fairly accurate as to costs and the City does have the option of a supplemental assessment later, if project construction costs radically exceed that. The advantage of waiting until afterwards are that the full project costs would be incurred and known. (The City could do a supplemental assessment should project costs exceed the original assessment.) C. Combination of Project and Assessment Hearings. The process would allow for the project and the assessment hearings to be combined with the Council adopting the assessment first and then after the 30 days appeal period determine whether they desire to order the project. (It would be appropriate to continue the pujlic hearing on the project until the project is ord':ed.) As a reminder the 35% petition is needed for the Council to be able to order the project on a 3/5's vote. If it does not have a 35% petition it would require a 4/5's vote. D. Signature of waivers - As the City is currently doing tor iituobs BayTHFTounci 1 may desire to require waivers signed by a specified percentage prior to further work being undertaken. This was not previously a condition stated to the residents. ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Initiate the process with ordering the plans and specs with an anticipated combination of the project and assessment hearings. 2. Hold the piblic project hearing before ordering the plans and specs. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Councilr given that the 35% petition is verified, proceed with plans and specifications, then to bidding and combining the project and assessment hearings as proposed above. Staff still does that the proposed private surface alternative is feasible, but if the property owners are willing to pay for the public improvement project, that the City proceed. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council direct staff as to the process they desire to undertake in relationship to this. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Karen Cuff, 3572 Livingston Avenue, Wayzata 55391 \ TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adminiotrator , FROM: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director DATE: May 19, 1989 SUBJ: Livingston Avenue Storm Sewer On April 24, 1989, Council accepted a feasibility report from the City Engineer regarding a storm water runoff problem at 3572 Livingston Avenue. The feasibility report was the result of a petition from Mark and Karen Cuff of the above address requesting a solution to th*2 flooding problems they have experienced after normal to heavy rainfalls. Following the April 24, 1989, Council Meeting, staff supplied information to Karen Cuff to exhibit to the affected pi^'Oerty owners regarding location of a storm sewer and costs per lot. Since that time, neighbors of the Cuff's Lave submitted preJ-minary sketch plans (f an alternative to the storm sewer by dirisJting the storm water above ground to the culvert inlet on Crystal Place. Regardless of which option is taken, easements from the Cuffs, as well as all properties affected downstream, will have to obtained. Cuffs have also submitted information objecting to an above ground drainageway and wish to proceed with an underground storm sewer system. The information presented by 1 Cuffs on Friday the 19th is additional information that staff c* *d Council has not had time to review. Recommendation: To accept the information from the Cufffs and table any action on this matter until staff has had time to review and report to Council the effect, if any, regarding chemicals being discharged onto the Cuffs' or neighboring properties. Proposed Motion: It was moved by seconded by to table any action on this matter until there has been further staff review regarding chemicals being discharged onto the Cuffs* o.. -ighboring properties. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate^'' Forwarded recommending tabling as proposed. August 9. 1990 City of Orono Attn: John Gerhardson Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear John, Per our phone conversation, please find enclosed the petition for the storm drain system on Livingston Ave. in Navarre. I have twelve signatures in total. Most of the people that have signed this petition requested that the city should expedite this matter as soon as possible. We feel that the weather pattern of the area since spring cou’d possibly mean a heavy snow season. If this is the caset there are several of us that could hnve major damage to our property and basements due to the excessive snow. (this summer has been quite an experience to most of us) This drain needs to be installed before the ground freezes. This has been a lengthy project for my-self and the city. I feel that I have done my part in obt: ining 38.7% of the property owners in the area to agree to be assessed for this project. Per the counci 1 minutes of May 29, 1990 "the city maintains its position of agreeing to order the storm sewer project if 357, of the residents agree to sign a petition asking for the project. Please put this request to proceed with the storm sewer project on the city counci I agenda for the earl lest meeting date possible. I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future. Sincerely, Karen Cuff 3572 Livingston Ave Wayzata, MN 55391 cc: Mark Bernhardson Anthony Gleekel petition „e the undersigned, hereby petition for the installation of a storm drain to be located at 3572 Livingston Ave. This drain will go through Block 3, Lot 17 on the easterly edge an o north to Crystal Place and flow into the swamp. This wiii be brought before the City Council of Orono at the next meeting. This will collect all run off between Navarre Ln. and Slgna *1^r WXtneTS ^ Address f\ X ^ £- «5»jMo55y° ............... ...................................... ,yV TO?-2?^ :-i^y y<? g-- •7 - / - ^ (Uhi.--------- ' 5f"i 7- 1 /'^/•r.L •? 'ry< ----- ^<X7<r Cju^-AI 7- fO_ ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 29, 1990 LIVINGSTON AVENUE DRAINAGE CONTINUED soecilicaily for Council to deny. Ha suggested that Council reiterate their previous notion asking the Cuffs to continue to obtain a petition of 35% of the area property owners. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to direct staff to continue to explore options to resolve the drainage problem. In the neantime, the City maintains its position of agreeing to order the storm sewer project if 35% of the residents agree to sign a petition asking for the project. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR MEETING Bernhardson informed Council that he has confirmation of the date for the Policy Meeting. not received TRANSIENT MERCHANTS Bernhardson provided information regarding the history or Mr. Penke's business and apprised Council of the recent events that have occurred (See Mark Bernhardson' s memo dated May 25, 1990). Bernhardson stated that he has received letters from fir. and Mrs. Kramer, Bayside Floral, and Mr. and Mrs. Labatt, Spring Park Spur, expressing concern about the safety hazard Mr. Penke s business is creating in its present location. He said that Mr. Penke’s attorney, Mr. Indritz, had indicated that fir. Keaveny had given Mr. Penke permission to sell from his property. Bernhardson also noted that a letter had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Butterfield protesting against transient merchants in general. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Penke why he had not applied for a license in the last two years. Mr. Penke stated that at the April 11, 1988 Council Meeting, there was discussion as to whether he was classified as . a solicitor. He said ♦'hat Council had asked Mr. Larson, the property owner, to submit an application to rezone the property to Commercial, but that did not occur. Mr. Penke said that he was notified of the need for a license by the Police Officer that ticketed and shut him down on Mother’s Day. Mr. Indritz stated that in his opinion, communication has been a problem. He said that Mr. Penke has sold flowers from one location for 5 years and there have been no complaints about the business during that period of time. Mr. Indritz said that the safety issue seems tc be a new concern and was not brought previously to Mr. Penke's attention. He noted that it is ^ir. Penke's competitors that have written to the City regarding the safety issue. He said that there have been no reported incidences of safety hazards during the last 5 years. Mr. Indritz stated that the Ordinance Amendment regarding transient merchants did not take place until after the Penke's appearance - 20 - TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: June 19, 1990 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information NAVARPE/LIVINCSTON STORM SEWER - Attached please find a copy of a letter sent to the residents regarding a potential private solution in the area. (Attachment A) SANDY BEACH RESORT - Staff has been working with the owner of the property and it is anticipated that the owner will file a sketch plan review for that property presented at the Planning Commission's July meeting. COUNTY ROAD 15 WELCOME SIGNS - It was felt by John Gerhardson that it would be appropriate that any sign have incorporated in it the logo. We aVe currently awaiting the completion of the logo contest. Additionally the initial plan had expected to have up to three signs in the area. If they are the same type as those going up in Mound and Spring Park it is estimated that all three signs may cost in the neighborhood of $3-4,000. Cnee a design is developed this will be presented for Council consideration . BEDERWOOD "GRAND OPENING" - The opening was rained out on Saturday, June 16th and has been rescheduled for Saturday, June 23rd. BEDERWOOD PARK - PARKING LOT - In preparation for the open house the meta 1 posts were placed to indicate car centering. As a result of this, it is anticipated that 40 cars will be able to park in the parking lot. Depending on the initial months level of business at the park will determine whether the current parking lot is configured as adequate or if it will need to be expanded as proposed as part of the ’eview. ELECTRICAL UTILITY TERRITORIES - Attachment B is a letter sent to the electric utilities regarding a meeting on territorial areas. Attached also is a letter from Marlow Peterson along with copies of Northern States Power electric rates. NATURE CONSERVANCY/BAYS IDE - LUCE LINE As you may recall during the Par ten discussion there was an incl ica tion 40 acres currently owned by the Nature Conservancy adjacent to his property on the west was being offered for consideration by the City for its ownership. This will be referred to the Park Commission at their July 1990 meeting. BIG ISLAND TOUR - JUNE 27 - Attachment C was given to Council regarding the upcoming date. Only two persons between Council and Planning Commission have indicated interest in attending this, if so it may be appropriate to delay that tour until more people can be available. Please contact Jeanne regarding whether you will be able to attend or not. C ----- OE= QBONC^ June 19, 1990 CITYof ORONO Post Offic* Bo* 66-CrysUi Bay. Minnasou 55323 • Municipal 0«c* On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka Karen and Mark Cuff 3572 Livingston Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Karen and Mark, on Wednesday, June 6th, City Engineer Glenn Cook^ your property to see tne.ee area. After a “""ff,^*na"rl r'tierof tie site Var"k arrfved home and we were ?b!e to dVs^cuss wrat you anticipated as far as future plans for the property. Based on that and further discussion v a te a?te7na“tive\s‘oullinVd ?n \''he“Att\Vp^'n/lV'%> this apr^^ar^s to ^^n*un=lfo^“wul, y-rn^^rghblrtrthe permits from the Ci.y oepenainy ui cubic yards it could -that would be ,required. If it require a be a permit issued by -i is poss'ible that a condiUonal “S® Permit ^ conj^ction with a Mark E. Bernhardson City Administrator cc• Md'^or and City Council John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer^ ,Mike Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin building a ZONING - 473-7357 assessing administration a nNA.NCE - 473-735* FAX-4734)510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 July 27, 1990 City of Orono Attn: Dorthy Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 3 0 1880 55323 Dear Dorthy, Per our phone conversation, I am sending you the Information that you requested for the assessments for the water and sewer lines that I have paid for on lot 17, block 3 In Navarre Hts. PID #17- 117-2343-0137 (now PID #17-117-2343-0150) Per Mary Sarcoa in the State Land Department 348-3256 all of the following payments were made to Orono In May of the following years. 1982 $757.74 #5383 for residential water main 1970LW1 1982 295.84 #3309 for lateral sewer 64-18 1982 12.24 #3302 for Inprec san sewer 63-IB 1983 362.27 #5383 for residential water main 1970LW1 1984 247.88 #5383 for residential water main 1970LW1 $1,675.97 Total Please find enclosed a copy of the sewer assessment for I960 showing the first year that the aisessment was effective. Your records should show receipt of these funds from the county for forfeit land tax. I had originally paid $6,000.00 for this property on May 10, 1982 and the assessments for 1932 that I paid were part of the purchase price of the property. ($1,064.82 assessments, $4,935.18 property) This is my formal request for a refund of these assessments. I feel that since this property had been owned by Orono, Hennepin County, and the State of Minnesota, and the fact that you claim to have been using this as a run off site, this property should not have been assessed for these improvements. If you need additiona1 me. information, please feel free to contact ,S i ncere 1 y, ;aren 3572 Livingston Ave Wayzata. MN 55391 - ’^V*. " fH-;^-.;L..T.. “-i^sisrr^-rszsr^ in ji”.. ,1!. MB «»»i 9- SiiS^iis:iijL^?4^«fcif5*^-5? ^, .7^«. M>i=-“ti —■5(.r~v’‘*' Vi <‘-~*—' ' 3T' ^TTU T^. ’ .rz Z 'jT.^^rfr »HLZ—^ ___^_:=ri=; A "I ''' iI CITY I Of 1 ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1314 TAX FORFEITED LANDS RELEASED FOR PUBLIC SALE WdEKZriS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporations organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuanc to Minnesota Statutes 282, the City has received from Hennepin County a list of lands within the City which have become the property of the State or Minnesota for non-payment of real estate taxes: and V7KEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners classified said lands as non-conservation land and have aunhorized the sale of each such parcel of land subject to review and release oy the City; and VC-iEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lands for comcliance with local zoning ordinances, for the amoi^nt of outstanding scecial assessments remaining unpaid to the City, and/or for poss.»ble public use by the City as authorized by the Statutes. NOW, THERZrOP3 BE IT ■dSDL^’ED that the City Council of the City cf Orono, oursuant to M.»nnesota Statutes 282, herecy approves the classification of each of the following parcels of land as non conservation land, and furthermore, approves the public sale of eac.. parcel cf land as listed below. Release of these lands by the City Council does not con stitute an assurance that each parcel is or will be approved as a building site. All parcels remain subject to all applicable^zoning ordinance provisions, including those regulations providing -.or minimum lot area and minimum lot widtn. .'Substandard parcels may oe useable only in comisination with other ac^oining parcel (s). Release of these lands by the City Council is subject the condition that all outstanding special assessments shall be paid in full to the City upon return to private ownership. Any amount not recovered at the time of sale shall be subject to reassessment by the C: **v. Parcels Released For Sale - Per Hennepin County Letter - August 7, 1981 DISTRICT PLAT PARCEL F.l.D. 36 41317 4250 17-117-23 22 0002 LEVY OUTSTANDING amount dud ^f4048 $3,340.40 #5383 2,309.85 T. 55,550.25 H 'V I CITY lORONO Cit" ofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1314 DISTRICT PLA":PARCEL P.I .D.LEVY OUTSTANDING AMOITNI DUE 38 41336 3037 36-118-23 44 0002 none -0- 38 42000 4950 07-117-23 32 0013 #3302 #5382 #6660 $ 31.05 2,724.70 550.09 T.53,305.84 38 42060 5000 17-117-23 22 0025 #3302 #4048 #5383 $ 50.60 3,054.72 1,503.94 T.54,609. 38 42620 5550 06-117-23 41 0085 #5382 52,844.53 38 42620 5600 06-117-23 41 0086 #5382 53,119.02 38 4274C 2250 17-117-23 43 0037 #3302 r3309 X c ■? C *JTT - W S 8.80 217.36 6"0.0C m ^ •$1,096...6 38 4274C 4650 17-117-23 43 0073 #5383 $ 870.00 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a recrular ir^eetir.c held the ^^4 ____ day of September____, 19S_, 4by a vote of a'^es and 0 navs. ATTEST: y Alberta H. Strom, City Clerk t • ihr/KW/Hevr V AUG 2 1 1990 August 20. 1990 City of Orono Attn; John Gerhardson PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Dear John, Per my phone conversation with Bernhardson, he has requested me to submit a list of people that have had problems with excess water In their basements due to the run off on Livingston Ave. Mark & Karen Cuff 372 Livingston Ave Elizabeth Balter 3577 Livingston Ave James Smith 3580 Livingston Ave Mark Spaulding 3508 Livingston Ave Robert Peters 3554 Livingston Ave John Rosholt 1600 1st Bank PI W Paul Anderson 3533 Crystal PI Chester Versailles 3472 Livingston Ave Roberr Paige 3493 Crystal PI Don & Evelyn Lange 3585 Crystal PI Daniel Radford 1246 90th St E Inver 3593 Crystal PI Luoe Gomez 3408 Livingston Ave Dean Young 3555 Crystal PI Genevieve Ebert 3520 Livingston Ave David Re inhold 3551 Livingston Ave Donna Meyers Banchie 3585 Livingston Ave Cheryl Goulet 3485 Crystal PI Grove Hts Please note that the majority of the homes that are affected on Crystal Place directly north of our property is due to the amount of water that runs of through lot 17 on block 3. The homes that are just to the north west of lot 17 get flooded from the excess water that backs up off of the street in front of our house and then proceeds north down our drive way (^ot 16 block 3) through our back yard and then on to their property. The Lange's (lots 8,9, & 10 block 3) are having an extensive amount of water flow onto their property and into their basement when the water backs uc. The water enters the south end of lot 9 block 3, f'ows over their retaining wall 1ike a water faH, then proceeds to run into their foundation. This causes water to enter their basement and has damaged landscaping around their home. This home is only 7 years old and they feel that th?s drain syster.j is very necessary. Dean Young (lot 7 block 3) has ' trench doug around his home that is quite large. The amount of water that runs though lot 17 hoS caused serious erosion to his property and water in his basement. He would like to build a garage on his property, but knows that he can not build one due to the amount of water that runs around his property. James Smith (lot 15 block 3) has had damage to his .iriveway due to the amount of water that runs through the west side of our property. His drive way is attached to ours. Our drive way has been sinking the last few years and is causing his drive way to sink ana crack along with it. Elizabeth Balter (lot 9 block 4) is having the end of her driveway washed away every time it rains. Due to the amount of water standing in the street and because the water is so deep on the north side of t*~e street, everyone drives on the end of her drive way packing it down and causing the water to move further into her drive way. Mark Spalding (lots 23 & 24 block 3) gets run off from the homes on lots 1,2, & 3 block 4. These lots are on higher ground and causes the water to flow across the street into the front of his house, forcing the water to enter their basement. If a curb or berm was placed across the south end of their property it would cause all the water to flow down Livingston Ave into the future storm system. Daniel Radford (lot 11 block 3) has water running off of the street on Crystal Place into the northwest corner of his house. This is causing water to enter the crawl space. He feels that if that area is wet for an extended period of time, it will cause structural damage to the floor joists Paul Anderson (lots 3,4 & 5 block 3) has water pooling in the low spots on the west side of his property due to the amount of water from lot 17. The culvert in the street in front of his property is not large enough to handle the amount of water. John Rosholt (lots 1 & 2 block 3) has had quite a bit of water in the south east corner of his basement. The water comes off of Navarre Ln down the drive way, then enters though the foundation. By looking at the water marks on the sheet rock in the basement there has been between 2 ar J 4 inches of water in most of the basement. Lupe Gomez (lots 11,12, & 13 block 2) has water entering the south west corner in his basement. Either the water goes through the culvert or over Livingston Ave across the yard and enters the basement. He feels that if the culvert was removed a or Derm was Installed around that corner of his property, v . water would flow into the future storm system instead o^ his basement. Donna Meyers BancMedot 10 block 4) has had water entering her basement from surrounding property and from some of the run off on Livingston Ave. other people that live on higher ground that have signed the petition realize that the run off from their property is causing an excessive amount of water to be forced through our P'-oPe’-^V; One feels that curb and gutter world be the best solution, but knows It is not economically feasiole in this neighborhood. Others are having water problems in their basements due to higher ground around them. Robert Picha. 5930 Seamans Dr. has stated to me that he will not volunteer his signature but will pay the assessment project goes through. There are a few others that own rental property in the area that feel the same way. There response was to increase the tenants rent to pay for the project. the residents in the area feel that there is a real drainage problem on Livingston Ave in general. As for Mark and I, we have water on 3 sides of our house, and nowTng through both of our lots (16 S 17 block 3) most every time it rains. Our sump pump is running continuously when we ge more than 1/4 inch of rain and it can not keep ^P amount of water coming in. This causes water to stand in our basement anywhere from 1 to 4 inches of overflow from the sump pump hole. The amount of water standing in the street Is causing damage to the street its-self. The asphalt is breaking and sinking. During the winter months any melting turns to a frozen lake. This is a hazard to anyone driving or walking over this area. It has also created an un-safe play area for the neighborhood chi 1dren. Anyone with water in their basements more ^^^n once in a great while looses resale value of their property. If this drainage system was installed it would correct this problem for may residents of the area. I have not been able to speek to . 5^® ' ’nnt'^easvassessed project. Between my schedule and their s it is not easy to get a hold of everyone. I look forward to meeting with you on August 22 at my over any questions and show you the areas affected. horn*’ to go Sincerely, Karen Cuff cc: Mark Bernnarc^: n Anthony Gleekel /JrTno/^/i'SXjT- ^ CITY OP ORONO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing will be conducted on September 24, 1990, at 7:30 P.M. in the Orono Council Chambers, 1275 Brown Road South. The public hearing is for the purpose of considering an underground storm sewer system for Navarre Heights generally described as those properties east of Blaine Avenue north of Lyric Avenue south of Crystal Place and west of Shadywood Road (County Road 19). Engineers estimated cost of this project is $32,200. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting. Dorothy M. Hallin City Clerk Published in the Laker and Pioneer newspaper the week of September 10, 1990 and September 17, 1990. 91390.6 TO: Mayor and City Council FBOM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DAnE: September 21, 1990 REVISED rEEim StP2.l >‘^^0 CITYOFORONO SUBJECT: highway 12 - Sewer and Water Improvements - Public Hearing Attachment: ISSUE - A. Hearing Notice Publish Dates 9/10 and 9/17/90 B. Letter of Notification Mailed 9/13/90 C. Petition Dated 7/24/89 D. Resolution 1. Hold public hearing regarding assessment for sewer and water on north side of Highway 12. 2. Following the close of the public hearing determine the assessment for those properties. INTRODUCTION - As you may recall Attachment C is a signed petition representing the property owners affected under this proposed assessment. The assessment was a follows: Part I - This is for the sewer and water improvemen that total $891.20 per unit for water and $1,551.58 pe. unit for sewer. This total without the capitalized interest of $41.49 is $2,442.78. This is within the $1,810 plus $1,000 allowed by the petition under Phase One. Part 2 - This is for the balance of the project and will Fe determined when the well, tower and the sewer interceptor upgrade are completed. Depending on how the City proceeds with the tower and the interceptor portion, those may either be assessed against these properties or the well to be assessed against these properties with the balance to be handled against the other properties in the corridor would need to have in order to change their zoning. (As is noted in the attachment. Part II is to be assessed following the assessments for Part T.) Some of these units have already been pre-paid as follows: Otten Reber 10 units 25 units Given the petition the public hearing results in a formality. ALTERNATIVES - Issue 1. Public Hearing 1. Hold. 2. Continue the public hearing. 3. Conclude the public hearing. Issue 2. Assessment 1. Adopt the assessment. 2. Table the assessment. 3. Not assess. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the units not already pre-pa id be assessed $905.05 per unit for Part I water and $1,573.82 per unit for Part I sewer improvements. CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice Is hereby given that the council will meet at 7:00 P.M. on September 24, 1990 to pass upon the proposed assessment for the sewer and water Improvement abutting the north side of Wayzata Boulevard (U.S. Highway 12) from the northwest quadrant of Brown Road and Wayzata Boulevard and to and including the northeast quadrant of Willow Road and Wayzata Boulevard. , The proposed assessment roll is c-* file for public inspection at the city clerk's office. The total amount of the proposed assessment is $295,628.48. Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. If an assessment is contested or there Is an adjourned hearing, the following procedure will be followed: 1. The city will present its case first by calling witnesses who may testify by narrative or by examination, and by the introduction of exhibits. After each witness has •testified, the contesting party will be allowed to ask .Vquest ipns. This procedure will be repeated with each ' witness’ until neither side has further questions. 2. After the city has presented all its evidence, the objector may call witnesses or present such testimony as the objector desires. The same procedure for questioning of the city's witnesses will be followed with the objector's witnesses. • * ■ fc 3. The objector may be represented by counsel. 4. Minnesota rules of evidence will not be strictly applied; however, they may be considered and argued to the council as to the weight of items of evidence or testimony presented to the council. ■5# • The entire proceedings will be tape-recorded. '6. At the close of presentation of evidence, the objector ‘ may make a final presentation to the council based on the evidence and the law. No new evidence may be presented at this point. An owner may appeal an assessment to district court to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of^ appeal upon the mayor or clerk the city within 30 ^ the adoption of the assessment and filing such "°tice ^it district court within ten days after service upon the mayor clerk. Dorothy M. Hallin City Clerk i; »• ! : ■ » r, ■ ....U 9 I ..U I. Un ,1,- 10. 1990 and Seotember 17, 1990 .n 82790.2 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the council will meet at 7:00 P.M. on September 24, 19®0 to pass upon the proposed assessment for the sewer and water improvement abutting the north side of Wayzata Boulevard (U.S. Highway 12) from the northwest quadrant of Brown Road and Viayzata Boulevard and to and including the northeast quadrant of Willow Road and Wayzata Boulevard. (Tne amount to be specially assessed against your particular lot, piece, or parcel of land is $_ _ _ _. You may at anytime prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the iiiLire assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the _ _ _ _ _ _. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this assessment. You may a. any time thereafter, pay to the Cty the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued .o December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such ^jayment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If you decide not to prepay the assessment before the date given above the rate of interest that will apply is _ _ percent per year. The right to partially prepay the assessment is not available.) The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the city cleric's office. The total amount of the proposed assessment is $_ _ _. Written or oral objections will be considered at the meeting.consiu = L=u NO appeal may oe taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the cleric prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of a individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. If an assessment is contested or there is an adjourned hearing, the following procedure will be followed: The city will present its case first by calling witnesses who may testify by narrative or by examination, and by the introduction of exhibits. ?! a = ?testified, the contesting party will be allowed to asK questions. This procedure will be repeated with each witness until neither side has further questions. After the city has presented all its evidence, the obje^'tor may call witnesses or present such testimony as the objector desires. The same procedure for questioning 1. 2. of the city's witnesses will objector's witnesses. be followed with the 3. The objector may be represented by counsel. 4. Minnesota rules of evidence will not be strictly applied; however, they may be considered and argued to the council as to the weight of items of evidence or testimony presented to the council. 5. The entire proceedings will be tape-recorded. 6. At the close of presentation of evidence, the objector may make a final presentation to the council based on the evidence and the law. No new evidence may be presented at this point. An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the mayor or clerk of the city within 30 days after the adoption of t.ie assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after service upon the mayor or clerk. Dorothy M. Hallin City Clerk PETITION FOR LOCAL INPROVE21ENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA: n , 1989 The undersigned Petitioners, being all the owners of real property abutting the North side of Wayzata Boulevard (U.S. Highway 12) from the Northwest quadrant of Brown Road and Wayzata Boulevard and to and including the Northeast quadrant of Willow Road and Wayzata Boulevard sketched on Exhibit A annexed hereto (the "Assessed Parcels") hereby petition that construction of sanitary sewer ajid water facilities (the "Improvements") be undertaken by the City of Orono pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 as follows: Phase I: a) Sewer and water trunk to serve the Assessed Parcels. Phase II: a) b) c) Well, pump station, connections for Assessed ’Parcels and related inprovements. Sewer upgrade to connect Phase I (a) Metropolitan Waste Commission interceptor. Water tower construction and connections. trunk subject to the following conditions: 1. Final Plans and Specifications. The City has engaged the City Engineers to prepare detailed plans and specifications for completion of the Phase I Improvements, including preparation of estimates, special contract provisions, preparation of proposal forms and designation of the description of all necessary and permanent temporary easements. The City will engage the City Engineer to prepare detailed plans and specifications completion of the Phase II Improvements at such time as the City is prepared to undertake the Phase II Improvements. Plans and specifications for Phases I and II shall be coordinated with Petitioners for proper placement of the driveway curb cuts, individual building utility services, and water service stubs. 2. Easements. Petitioners shall make available to the City, at no cost to the City, all permanent and temporary easements necessary for the installation of the Improvements within the Assessed Parcels, as determined by the City ^gineer. Each such easement requested by the City shall be in writing, in recordable form, and on terms reasonably satisfactory to the City and the affected Petitioner. C:\OOCS\TTU\PETITIOM.7/21/89 3. Total Ccsts of Pro'^ec’^. In consideration of the action of the City Council authorizing the construction of the laprovenents, Petitioners hereby agree to be assessed their fair share of the cost of the Improvements, including reasonable engineering, legal and administrative costs incurred by the City, according to the number of units allocated to each Petitioner (as set out opposite their signatures hereto). The City Engineer has estimated that the assessment for each unit will total $1,810.00 for Phase I Improvements and $3,240.00 for Phase II Improvements. The City may, at its election, may determine to perform certain Phase II Improvements as a part of Phase I and increase assessment for Phase I Improvements by up to $1,000.00, provided that the Phase II Improvements are ratably reduced such that the total assessment for Phase I and Phase II Improvements, regardless of when constructed or assessed, does not exceed $5,050.00 (plus capitalized interest, if any). Nevertheless, Petitioners agree to be assessed for up to 10% more than such amount. The final assessment roll shall be based upon the final cost of the Improvements and the units allocated to each assessed Petitioner. 4. Special Assessment Installments; Interest. Each Petitioner's share of the cost of the Phase I Improvements shall be paid by the Petitioner to the City as a special assessment levied against such Petitioner's benefitted parcel or parcels in five (5) equal annual installments of principal and capitalized interest (if any), and with interest on unpaid installments at an annual percentage rate to be established by the City at the t.i.me of the sale of the Improvements bond issue. Each Petitioner's share of the cost of Phase II Improvements shall be levied against such Petitioner's benefitted parcel or parcels, in seven (7) equal installments of principal and capitalized interest (if any) beginning in the fourth year following the payment of the initial annual installment for Phase I Improvements. 5. Reimbursement of Assessments. The City will reimburse any Petitioner who fails to b-: able to utilize the number of units reserved herein, only if the Ci cy refuses to approve a development plan allowing use of the total number of units reserved herein, in an amount equal to the total assessment paid for each unit the Petitioner is unable to use, together with interest thereon. Reimbursement by the City shall be paid in lump sum if accruing after all installments of special assessments have been paid. If final City action denying development utilizing the reserved number of units is taken prior to payment in full of a Petitioner's installment obligations, then the City shall reimburse such Petitioner in lump sum for the portion of the assessment already paid (including interest paid thereon) with respect to unused units, and in equal yearly pa>'ments over the remaining term of the special assessment period for that portion of the remaining installments (and interest thereon) allocated to the unused units. Notwithstanding any right to reimbursement that has accrued or may C;\D0CS\TTU\PETITIOM.7/21/89 accrue, any installment pa^^ments of special assessments due hereunder shall be fully paid when due. 6. Acceleration of Payment. Petitioners herein agree that prior to the granting of a building permit for a Petitioner's parcel, the special assessment petitioned for herein for such parcel, including all remaining installments and any interest due thereon, shall be fully paid; provided that if fewer than the total number of units allocated to a Petitioner herein are allocated to a portion of such Petitioner's parcel, pursuant to a development plan approved by the City, then this special assessment shall only be fully paid with respect to the units allocated to such portion. 7. Exclusion from Initial Assessment. Petitioners Williaun J. and Mable J. Wear (PIN 34-118-23-24-0001 and PIN 34-118-12-21- 0002) (the "Wears”) enter into this petition on behalf of themselves and their successors or assigns. It is understood that the Wears currently receive sewer and water service from the City of Long Lake. The Wears will be assessed for ten (10) units hereunder. An additional thirty-two (32) units will be reserved for the Wear property for five (5) years following the date of Wear's execution hereof. At such time as the Wears, or their successors or assigns, petition to utilize the reserved units and be connected to the Improvements, they shall be assessed based upon then current unit values as determined by the City. 8. Payment Dates. If the special assessmt ts levied by the resolution of t.he City Council pursuant to this . etition for Phase I (and subsequently levied for Phase II) are adopted by and between October loth of any year and April 10th of the following year, it is understood and agreed that the Petitioners will pay the City Clerk one-half (1/2) of the first annual installment with interest on or before May 31st next following the levy, and will pay the remaining one-half (1/2) of such first installment with interest to the City Cler.k on or before the following September 3 0th. All remaining installments shall be paid as assessments to the Treasurer of Hennepin County as and when the general property taxes become due upon Petitioner's respective properties. If the special assessments levied by the City Council pursuant to this Petition are adopted between April 11th and October 9th of any year, then all installments due hereunder shall be paid as assessments to the Treasurer of Hennepin County as and when the general property taxes become due upon such property. 9. Waiver bv Petitioners. Petitioners agree to waive, and hereby do waive, any and all rights to appeal the special assessments, including any supplemental assessments, with regard to any procedural or substantive rights, rights to a public hearing, rights to any notices under Minnesota Chapter 429 or any other ordinances of the City, and the constitutions or laws of the State of Minnesota or of the United States. C:\00CS\TTU\PETITION.7/21/89 Succsssors and Assigg*;^. The terms and provisions of the Petition shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, and shall be binding on all future owners of all or any pairt of the Petitioners' respective properties and shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall be enforceable by the City against the Petitioners, their heirs and assigns. '.ETITIONERS:ADDRESS NO. OF UNITS ALLOCATED TO EACH PETITIONER »wners of pin 34-lia«23-2l»QQQi2 Rebers Construction Co. ... X^S'-idney/ B.—Rebers //J,. Barbara Rebers / 'o Rebers Construction Co. 3524 Webster Avenue St. Louis Park, MN 55416 c/o Rebers Construction Co. 3524 Webster Avenue St. Louis Park, MN 55416 inters of pin 34-118-23«24~00Q1 and 34-118-12•21-0002 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ william W. Wear 36 Hackberry Hill Orono, MN 55356 'Tl^ O-Uk 0-. h U.jut' Mable J.^Wear 36 Hackberry Hill Orono, MN 55356 mers of pin 34-118-23«22-0Q13; / Ju /t //• ( Charles y, Rin<^(^r ;;?T Mary y. Ringer C:\D0CS\TTU\PET1TIOM.7/21/89 405 Willow Drive South Long Lake, MN 55356 405 Willow Drive South Long Lake, MN 55356 69 -^0 \ - 40 B') * / 3 - •Ia /> / ' ^ //7 -/c ;./:L JP.l /^lr±_LLH fT5v Cliff^d 'Otren ana Louise W. Ottan, husband and wife, as Optionees under Option Agreement dated 4t h I BxamiMd, ch«c!tad and found to ba in propar fora sigaa?^ tha raquirad nuabar of ownara^f proparty affacted by tba making of the improvements petitioned forafora /ld-LpO^~y^. /fl3 Xity Cle^ C;\D0CS\TTU\PETIT10M.7/21/89 eO' i ICO cu zustoCOuCOCO< sMCO I HI 04 mn (N (N fH O t—4 \oer 00 r* co in (M in (M in co inn GO 00 rH 00 r* (N <N o ^ in m« « « M <y» r-t r- o I—I o o pH V0 CO\o VO CO in o> CO 00 ro •v in CM• in CM in r* om o> VO o CM T31) 4J 4J •0 r-4acD m cc •pH oa;to nro -a XJ 4J 10 fHacD Vm co •H 4J OOto inmm pH pH cmm cm rH 00 r> CM ovro 00 VO 00r-vo 00o CM CO CO in VO CMm pH CO- o CM CM O VO f''v> XJ O iH XJ 3O oo tou0)cnC •Ho: mon VO XJO pH XJ3O (0 T38 u <0 u> 3to CM pH m 00 O o iH in O o o o O o o o iH XJ4 CM -M* CM CM CM CM ro m tn n CM CM CM CM 1 1 1 1 00 00 00 00 iH pH iH pH iH rH iH pH 1 ’1 1 •X •p««x •Hf A RBSOLOTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR SEWER AND WATER IMPROVEMENT - PHASE I NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 12 - BETWEEN BROWN ROAD AND WILLOW DRIVE WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to th proposed assessment for the improvement of sewer and water betw '-n Brown Road North and Willow Drive North on the north side of Highway 12, and; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED PY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included in hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 5 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1* '1 and shall bear interest at the rate of 7.75 per cent per am m from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assest. nt from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1990. '1 - each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or, interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the council this 2*ir day of September, 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Haliin, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING r HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 F2.1 1990 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. tJTY OF ORf ^jQ The Council met on the above date with the following member present: Mayor James Grabek, Councilmembers Diann Goetten, Allc Nettles, Barbara Peterson and Edward Callahan. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Engineer Cook, City Attorney Barrett, and City Recorder Scheffler. CONSENT AGENDA* Bernhardson requested the addition of a report from the LMCD Representative following Agenda Item #2. He also asked that item #18, Lake Use and Management be discussed at that time. Goetten requested tnat items #2 and #25 be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Callahan asked for the removal of item #4 for the purpose of discussion. It was moved by Mayor Grabek. seconded by Callahan, to approve the Consent Agenda, with the addition of a report from JoEllen Hurr and with the exception of items #2, #4, and #25, which were removed and discussed in the order appearing on the Agenda. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* Goetten referred to the item pertaining to the disposal of City property, (see page #20 of the August 27, 1990 minutes'. She asked Bernhardson if the City wll in fact destroy 14 bicycles as stated. Bernhardson explained that the bicycles have been stored in the Public Works shed and are severely rusted. He stated that it is not known how the bicycles will be disposed, but that he would inform Council of the method that is recommended. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held August 27, J.990. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. LMCD REPORT-LAKE USE MANAGEMENT LMCD Representative JoEllen Hurr was present. She stated that it was her understanding that Council would delay a vote on this matter until their September 24th Meeting. Callauan indicated that is correct. Mayor Grabek asked Councilmembers Callahan and Nettles to make a brief presentation of their views regarding this issue. - 1 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED Callahan stated that he and Nettles had met with JoEllen Hurr, Gene Strommen and Bob Rascop to discuss the report. He said, "I think it is fair to say that the new report is better than the old one, particularly in regard to clarity. A number of the items noted in our letter have been addressed with better organization and clarity. The report now clarifies the views of the individual LMCD Board members. I think they should be congratulated for their response to the input from the various cities. However, Allan and I still do not think that the report should be adopted. It is very difficult to explain all of the reasons why. I would say that this plan is an LMCD plan only in the sense that they gathered the people to make the plan. It is a plan that has been ni ie and developed because of a request from a Metropolitan Council task force. It is not at all certain what the plan does, other than oeing an expression of the views of the various members. I don't know what the impact, authority or meaning of the plan is other than to say that this is a good report to have. I believe it i: very difficult for individual cities to adopt the plan because »f the uncertainty of what they are adopting in relation to authority from other governmental bodies. Moreover, it is focused upon, and starts with the premise that this is a plan that the whole system of government related to the lake, think would be an overall, broad plan. In my opinion, the LMCD adopting the plan compromises a number of views that would not have oeen compromised had the LMCD started with their own plan. The plan seems to fall back on the authority of the Metropolitan Council. When I say that it misses the LMCD's point of view, as an agency, I thi k it necessarily fails to involve a f >cus on the pollution and aesthetic aspects of the lake at the expense of some other things. For example, I believe that the plan ought to state what the reasonable limit on the lake is. I myself thick it should be what has been suggested by other State agencies, which is 10 acres per boat. The plan should set clear ideas to mind as to how they will proceed if that i' fact is the standard. The plan still strongly focuses on the recreational activities of tiio lake as a goal of the LMCD. It sets forth the expectation that there will be a number of parks around the lake. However, it does not focus on what the LMCD's response is to how those recreational activities will impact the lake. I am opposed to the giving of the any kind of authority, review and comment authority, to the LMCD over the shoreland management. I believe Mr. Nettles opposes this also. I would be willing to cooperate only so far as to provide a copy of shoreland actions taken by the City to the LMCD once they have occurred. The terms review and comment are very vague and I don't know where it will lead. I am also not in favor of the tax increase, because I do not support the items for which the funds would be used. I do no believe that there should be additional, non-city members added to the LMCD Board. Finally, because this - 2 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED plan is designed to have the LMCD as the managing entity, I believe that in the long run the LMCD will be supplanted by other agencies that are more bureaucratically staffed to take care of it. Therefore, the benefits that the City can gain from the LMCD will be lost. I believe that the LMCD is becoming a mouthpiece of the DNR because it is beginning to take money from the DNR to perform the functions and activities of the DNR. I believe that the City Council should vote against this plan." Nettles said, "I agree in large measure with the things that Ed has said. I would like to thank JoEllen Hurr, Gene Strommen and Bob Ragcop for taking time to meet with us. It helped me to better understand the position of the LMCD. As 1 thought more about the plan, I compared it to the internal tension that was built into our Constitution, checks and balances. There are many agencies that are involved with Lake Minnetonka. The Legislature has repeatedly given bits of power co each one. You can make the argument that this was done tc keep some of that tension in check to prevent any one agency from becoming too powerful. I feel that, even though the motivations of the plan may be positive and sound, we are concentrating too much on what the DNR and Metropolitan Council want to do. The LMCD takes on the position of being a hand maiden to those two organizations. As I understand it, the LMCD was started because of the need for a coordinator for the cities to regulate environmental efforts. I am worried about setting a force in motion without knowing v/here it will go. I'm afraid of what may h ppen once the Legislature gets involved with this plan. I think it is important for everyone to know that really the way the DNR and Metropolitan Council are treating Lake Minnetonka is different from the manner in which lakes are normally treated. The issue of acres/boat for example is one where I believe Lake Minnetonka is looked upon in a different way. It seems to me that the number of boats per acre has been determined arbitrarily. The number has no bearing or footing in ; ^tion to what is safe and environmentally sound. It is just :d on the fact that there is a large population here. I share .-s , feeling that one of the primary things we ought to look at is what should be the standard. Do we wait until the last boat is put in on top of the one that preceded it, or is there some other way to do this? That is of great concern to me. If a conclusion cannot be reached, then I would like to see an environmental impact statement, in the truest sense, each time this issue is considered. Some users are going to be forced off of the lake if usage continues to grow. As I understand this report, better though it is, we don't get down to saying there isn't going to be anymore access until 929 boats are added to the lake, if I understand that right. I can't imagine 229 more boats on the lake in peak hours before we get tc 7 acres per boat. - 3 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED I'll explain my reason for objecting to land use controls by the LMCD. Orono is the most restrictive of any of the lake communities. The pressure can only come one way, which v/ould be for Orono to become more lax. I agree with the plan's statement that the pressure for re-development is probably the biggest concern. I think that is an appropriate concern for the agency. However, I would suggest, that perhaps we look to tne LMCD to establish standards that are held in common, but leave the enforcement of those in the communities that surround the lake and actually have the lakeshore management." Hurr replied, "Those standards were still left for the cities to enforce. The LMCD is not becoming the enforcement agency on shoreland standards. The DNR came to the LMCD and asked us to work on the shoreland management regulations that every city has to adopt. The DNR asked us to establish a unified plan that would be accepted by all communities. I think if we had uniform standards it would better protect the lake as a whole. The intent was never for the LMCD to become a shoreland enforcement agency." Nettles stated that Orono would still come under pressure of the other communities that wished to have less restrictive standards. With regard to the overall plan, he said, "I think the LMCD is on the right track, but I'm not ready to approve this plan. I believe this is one of the most important issues before the City of Orono. I think the City should develop our own committee for lake use and other issues. It may be appropriate for marina issues, etc., to be given back to the cities because if affects their land use decisions." Mayor Grabek asked Hurr for her opinion on the comments she heard this evening. Hurr said, "The LMCD was mandated to prepare this plan. If we didn't do it, the Metropolitan Council was going to do it for us. The reason I am not as worried as CounciImember Callahan about another agency taking over the plan is because the other agencies were involved in the plan. I think the LMCD has been realistic about our role as it relates to other agencies. We really are part of these other agei *ies and because of that we will never be able to do everything by ourselves. Compromise is necessary. As far as shoreland management, I wish all of the communities were as strict as Orono. I'm concerned that if there are no regulations, there will be development around the lake that you and I v/ould not favor. I agree that there is the threat of future developers pressuring Orono to relax its standards. The boat/acre issue is tough because there are so many kinds of boats." Nettles asked Hurr v/hether the LMCD has considered looking - 4 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED at the issue of varieties of boats, power restrictions for boats, etc. Hurr replied, "We have talked about the idea of limiting horse power. We do limit size, to some degree, to 65'. If we were to lessen that it would eliminate the ability for charter boats to use the lake. If we were to specify that charter boats can be larger, then everyone will have a charter boat." Mayor Grabek said, "It seems to me that the language in the plan is very vague and may be interpreted different ways. For example, it could be interpreted the way the DNR wanted it many years ago. That there be parks and docks, etc. They may use the plan as the opportunity to take over those areas." Hurr replied, "The LMCD had nothing to say about the park on Halsteads Bay. That was a land use issue. On one hand the cities don't want the LMCD involved with land use issues and yet they are requesting us to help keep out Hennepin Parks. Either you deal with land use or you don't. The LMCD has no right to keep out parks. We have in our plan that if so many boats are on the lake, and we do boat counts every year, then we trigger more water patrol. Then the County has to come up with a good amount of money to provide more water patrol or we won't allow 'x' number of boats on the lake. I agree, and I believe Bob Rascop did too, about the environmental assessment is something we should add to every category we have in the plan. That is a good point that Allen suggested." Mayor Grabek stated that it appeared as though JoEllen was trying to sell the plan. Hurr replied, "I am trying to answer some of the questions. I am comfortable with the plan and am sure that it will pass anyway. That doesn't mean that Orono should vote in favor of it. Out of the 14 communities, I'm sure there will be 8 that will vote in favor. I'm not asking you to jump on the band wagon. If you don't believe in the plan, then you should vote accordingly." Mayor Grabek said, "I believe that there are a lot of generalities in this plan and that caution should be exercised. I think if we wait until the vote on the September 24th, we may miss an opportunity to convince one or two more communities of our position. If Council can reach a consensus this evening, I think we should prepare a draft to send to each of the other communities stating that we are voting no and the reasons why. V7e could invite representatives from those cities to meet v/ith us to discuss the plan before they vote in favor. That could be the official position of the City and JoEllen can take that to the meetings." - 5 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED Callahan agreed that there is no point waiting until September 24th to express Council's opinion. Mayor Grabek asked Hurr what will happen if the plan is not accepted. Hurr replied, "Then it is put on a shelf." Callahan said, "We really don't know because no body knows what accepting or not accepting means." Hurr added, "I think if the plan is not accepted and vt.ted on, then the Metropolitan Council Executive Committee will call it a critical review area and they will step in. I think if that happens the cities will loose the clout that they have in interpreting this plan and making it happen. I believe that the Metropolitan Council will look at the fact that all agencies sat in on the preparation of this plan in conjunction with the lake cities. If the cities are still not willing to accept the plan, the Metropolitan Council will step in." Mayor Grabek said, "Just because these agencies v;ere involved with the preparation of the plan, does not mean that the cities h~ 'e to agree with it." Goetten said, "I think that drafting a letter is a good idea. We should include in the letter the portions of the plan that we approve. It is obvious that the LMCD made a good faith effort to revise some of the items that concerned us. I also feel that Orono has been a leader in these areas and the environment. We are more strict than any other community. I think that unless there are further changes in the plan we couldn't possibly support it because of who we are as a community. I don't think that should be a direct cause of the Metropolitan Council taking over. They could do that anyway." Hurr said, "I think they would be likely to do that if they can point to the fact that the cities have not accepted the plan." Nettles said, "I don't think that any of us are absolutely rejecting this plan. As Diann said, there are good points in the plan. I think the LMCD is on the right track. On the other hand, if that is the way it is going to be presented by these other agencies, they are putting us in a take it or leave it position. I think there are some things in the plan that are very vague. Why can’t they accept the fact that v/e have some good faith questions about aspects of the plan?" Hurr replied, "The Metropolitan Council is going to say that tv/o years have been spent drafting the plan. They started - 6 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED looking at Lake Minnetonka back in 197 3 and the lake area communities have not responded to the concerns they expressed. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I believe that's how they will look at this. They'll feel that they have now given the cities the opportunity to be involved and they are still not satisfied." Goetten and Mayor Grabek stated that the City of Orono has been responding to this issue for some time. Mayor Grabek said, "We have responded to issues such as parking in a manner we believe is best for our community. I think the Metropolitan Council is looking for smooth, political way, over a long period of time, to get what they want. If they are going to get what they want anyv/ay. no matter what we do, then I think we ought to be on record stating that we do not approve. I would like to propose that we impose on Ed and Allan one more time to draft a position paper that the Council approves and send it to the other communities. The letter can request that they come to our September 24th Council Meeting. V7e can hold a special meeting if need be." Hurr stated that many other cities meetings on the same Monday nights. hold their council Mayor Grabek suggested that staff identify the cities that are in question of Orono's position and concentrate on them. Hurr stated that she could provide a list communities that have voted to support the plan. those Mayor Grabek said, "Each of us could attend the council meetings for those cities not yet decided and present our position." Goetten stated that she would still like those cities that are already in opposition to the plan to get a copy of the letter. Callahan said, "Just one additional point. The City of Orono is not against additional parks or access on the lake. What we oppose is the fact that the plan does not address what impact those additional factors will have on the lake and what should be done accordingly. Also, if this plan ends up before the Legislature, it is impossible to guess what will they will do with it. It doesn't seem that it would be the way to proceed to get your way." Hurr agreed. Mayor Grabek confirmed with Hurr that the position is - 7 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 LMCD REPORT CONTINUED the way that she will vote and what she will present to the LHCD. Hurr replied, "That is correct." Callahan asked whether the LMCD budget had been voted on, and if so, how JoEllen had voted. Hurr replied, "The budget was voted on and I abstained." PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS; Planning Commission Representative Moos was present but had no comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS; None ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT; #1334 REBERS CONSTRUCTION-oUGARWOODS PLAT RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS OF PRD APPROVAL Bernhardson explained what it is that the applicant is asking Council to reconsider and why (see Jeanne Mabusth’s memo dated August 9, 1990). He stated that the Planning Commission had recommended that each driveway that did not meet the standard 20' width allowed, be reviewed individually rather than giving a blanket approval. Bernhardson said, "The proponent was hoping that it would not be necessary to bring each situation before the City. The City Engineer has provided us with sketches of possible driveway configurations that the City might approve. The proposal is that staff would determine if there is a hardship for an extraordinary driveway in the 50' setback area. If a true hardship is demonstrated the applicant could choose one of the options provided by the City Engineer. If the applicant does not wish to use any of the options, then it would be necessary to appear before the Planning Commission." Callahan asked whether the plan being presented this evening had been presented to the Planning Commission for their review. Mabusth replied, "It went to the Planning Conunission. They have given their opinion which is that they prefer to review each case. They are opposed to deviating from what had been approved in the PRD resolution." Callahan asked, "So the consensus of the Planning Commission was arrived at after hearing of staff's suggestions?" Mabusth replied, "No. this specific resolution has not gone to the full Planning Commission. Maureen Bellows reviewed the resolution and had some comments when she appeared as the Planning Representative at the August 13th Council Meeting. The information was also sent to Charlie Kelley for his comment, - 8 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 ZONING FILE 11334-REBERS CONTINUED which he made to both staff and Maureen, the Planning Commission Representative. The enclosed resolution reflects the Planning Commission recommendation for an approved procedure of review for such requests. The illustrations were added by staff in an attempt to provide an abbreviated review." Callahan said, "It seems tu me that we are going around in circles if staff changes the plan after the Planning Commission has given their consensus." Mabusth clarified, "Staff did not come up with a different plan, we are merely proposing a simple amendment to try to appease both the Planning Commission and the applicant." Callahan said, "We do not know that this plan will appease the Planning Commission." Mabusth replied, "It wasn't an attempt to appease the Planning Commission. It was an attempt to present a moderate position to the Council. This has not been presented back to the Planning Commission for their comments. They were very specific about their position and you may wish to ask Sara to comment further." Moos said, "I think the Planning Commission felt that we preferred to review the cases individually, because giving a blanket approval defeats the reason why we set so many specific standards when this was presented as a PRD." Mayor Grabek asked Moos for her opinion regarding the plan proposed this evening. Moos stated that she had not had the opportunity to completely read the information packet prepared for tonight's meeting. Goetten asked why only Bellows and Kelley had been given this most recent information. Mabusth replied, "We quickly wanted to be sure that the Planning Commission Representative, Maureen Bellows, who was to attend the Council Meeting, had an opportunity to consult with Charlie Kelley. It is appropriate that the Planning Commission Representative be informed of any significant changes to be presented by staff. It was appropriate for Maureen and Charles to review this. If it is Council's wish to have the Planning Commission review this, it can be reconsidered at their next meeting. However, the Planning Commission was very adamant about their position regarding any deviation from what was originally approved. I believe Maureen stated that at the August 13th Council Meeting." - 9 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED Goetten said, "The Planning Commission has not had an opportunity to comment on this. That doesn't mean that some might feel it was appropriate, it may be that most of them wouldn't. I believe that is the role of the Planning Commission. They spent a great deal of time reviewing the pros and cons of this application. I think it is only fair that they see this before Council votes on it." Mabusth stated that it v;ould be appropriate to have the applicant's representative give their opinion of this matter. Mr. Robert Kost, a representative for Rebers Construction, said, "We would like this issue decided this evening. However, we would r^'spect Council's opinion to have this matter referred back to Planning Commission." Callahan asked whether the applicant has reviewed this proposal prior to this evening. Mr. Kost replied, "We did receive this proposal a couple of weeks ago. However, we have spoken directly with staff about our opinion. After reading the resolution, we have no major problems with this. There are elements of prior solutions that we had worked with staff to achieve, but were re3ected by the Planning Commission. Just the same, it is lacking other elements that Planning Commission felt were not in keeping with the spirit of the original resolution. There is some give and take in the resolution. As we understand it we would still need vO work with staff through the building permit process and discuss the pros and cons of the building site and unique characteristics that would allow us to provide the turn-around in the front yard setback area. If we didn't agree with the staff's findings, it would be necessary to appear before the Planning Commission. Given the history of the subdivision and unique characteristics, I believe that we will be back before the City anyway. There are some sites on corners that are heavily wooded and have a large amount of frontage that, for safety reasons, people will probably want a loop driveway. Given the nature of the price bracket and the size of the homes and some of the properties, some people may want cul-de-sac driveways. It may be more appropriate, given tne placement of trees and unique characteristics, to have such driveways in the front yard setback area rather than the building pad. It seems that the three options proposed by the City will work." Mayor Grabek said, "If I understand this correctly, you are asking for the ability to install a driveway that meets the needs of the house and considers the trees and other characteristics of the lot, cr, well as the restrictions. You are asking for this flexibility to eliminate the need to come before the City every time one of these cases arise." - 10 - s > ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 ZONING FILE #1334-REBERS CONTINUED Mr. Kost replied, "That is correct. Additionally, V'l ability for the driver to head out to the street, rathei backing out. Because of the curvilinear nature of our street - the heavily wooded character of the site." Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Kost if it is the timing factor that presents the problem. Mr. Kost replied, "It is timing, but also the fact that we wish to prevent the construction of driveways from becoming a major public policy decision." Mayor Grabek asked why the Planning Commission had made a recommendation stating that each case be reviewed individually. Moos replied, "It was not so much the issue of a driveway, it was giving blanket approval for removal of trees with no specific plan showing the hardship to do so." Kost added, "I believe the Planning Commission did not want to encourage excessive tree removal and felt it was appropriate to look at each case to see that only what is necu-ssary is approved." Goetten reminded everyone that was approved as a PRD rather than a standard subdivision. She said. "The PRD allowed more homes to be constructed than the number of homes that would have been allowed with a standard subdivision. Because of that, controls and restrictions were established. I believe that the Planning Commission spent a great deal of time on this. In my opinion, it is appropriate for them to review this proposal." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Peterson, to refer this matter to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1476 DAVID PRASS 1063 LINDEN LANE RESOLUTION #2865 Councilmember Callahan had requested that this item be removed from the Consent Agenda. He said, "Mr. Prass is proposing a cover for his swimming pool. The City wanted to have pool permanently covered. The resolution refers to the pool cover as temporary. How did the City come to agree on a temporary cover?" Peterson asked inspections. how the City would monitor the monthly Mabusth stated that Mr. Prass has proposed a specific schedule that he would follow with regard to constructing a - 11 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 ZONING FILE #1476-PRASS CONTINUED principal structure. She said, "Because we have specified that a principal structure ist be completed by December 1, 1992, Council approve a u.>.*.iporary cover for the pool. At our last meeting. Council had been asked to reconsider the n ed for a permanent pool cover by the applicant because of the expense involved. '* Council asked to have the City Engineer review the cover that the Brasses are intending to use. Cook said. "First of all, with regard to the monthly reporting, the City could do it or rely on the property owner to do it. I talked with staff and they felt it would be appropriate to leave the responsibility with the property owner. The major reason to review it monthly is to assure that the fence is in place, that the cover has not been damaged or vandalized, and that the pool is pumped out. The cover that is proposed is porous and will allow water to go through. Any water that falls on the pool area will go into the pool and stay there. The cover is heavy duty, but is not a barrier that can withstand vandalism. Allowing Mr. Prass to report monthly on the condition of the pool would also leave him responsible and liable for its condition." Mayor Grabek asKed the City Attorney if the City has any liability for the condition of the pool. Barrett replied, "There is always an opportunity to be sued in these circumstances. However, the City's first obligation is to determine v/hether or not this is a hazardous structure. I believe you have done that. Secondly, whether or not the measures which the owner is supposed to take are reasonable to prevent the hazard. The City is insured for a risk such as this and has sovereign immunity. I can't say positively that a jury will agree that putting this cover on the pool and having Mr. Prass report monthly was sufficient if someone gets injured." Mayor Grabek stated that he preferred to follow staff's recommendation. He suggested that staff may wish to periodically check on the property. It was moved by Mayor Grabek. seconded by Goetten for the purpose of discussion, to adopt Resolution #2865, allowing the swimming pool to temporarily remain at 1065 Linden Lane without a principal structure. Staff is to periodically inspect the condition of the pool site. The applicants are put > ./ :J that should the City deem the conditxon of the pool ’tie at any point, alternate action mi.st be taken. Motioi ..... .A, Nays-0. Motion passed. - 12 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 #1493 CHUCK DOWNEY 2665 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE Mr. Downey was present. Bernhardson provided a brief sunimary of Jeanne Mabust^.'s memo dated September 6, 1990. Bernhardson noted that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of this application with a 3 to 2 vote. He said, "The two descending votes were based on opinion that the applicant should not pay a double fee for the after-the-fact portion of the application." Mabusth added that the Planning Commission also reviewed Mr. Downey's Conditional Use Permit application. She said, "They recommended that the Variance application be separated from the Conditional Use Permit application. This stemmed from Mr. Downey's reguest to be able to proceed with the front entry project to his house. It will be necessary for Mr. Downey to come back with a revised plan for the land alterations in the lakeshore yard. That application was tabled. The Planning Commission did act on the application for the hardcover Variances." Mr. Downey noted that the resolution states that the front entry will be 11' x 6' which is incorrect. It will be a 19' x 6' addition. Mabusth agreed that the resolution was incorrect and should read 19' x 6'. Goetten stated that she would prefer to see hardcover, other than landscaping plastic, removed as a means of reducing hardcover. She suggested portions of v/alkway could be removed to bring hardcover to 45% as originally approved. Callahan asked how much hardcover will be added by the land alteration project. Mabusth replied, "It is difficult to determine at this point. The specific areas where erosion exists are located in the 75-250' setback area, and if retaining walls are to be installed, additional hardcover must be approved in that area." Goetter said, "I believe this is why we asked to look at this property from a comprehensive view point." Callahan concurred with Goetten that the applications should not be separated. Mr. Downey said, "We are talking about hardcover in two separate areas. I don't believe that the Planning Commission is going to approve anything that is excessive. The Planning - 13 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 ZONING FILE ;i493-DOWNEY CONTINUED Commission understood that I have been trying to do this addition since January. I have tried to work with the City in any way possible. I am taking 480 s.f. of driveway away, which is more than just landscaping plastic. The retaining wall work cannot be done until spring. The erosion problem stems from a project done on the neighboring property which the City of Orono approved.” It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Nettles, to accept Che Planning Commi:. v ion' s recommendation which includes the payment of a double fee. Motion, Ayes-2, Callahan, Goetten, and Peterson, Nay. Moti.'ii failed. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Peterson, to table the Hardcover Variance for a front entry addition until such time that the Conditional Use Permit application is presented for action. Motion, Ayes-4, -<jr Grabek, Nay. Motion passed. #1550 GERALD NELSON 1629 BOHNS POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2866* It was moved by Mavor Grabek, seconded by Callahan, to adopt Resolution #28o6, granting a Hardcover Variance to construct a closet addition at 1629 Bohns Point Road. Motion, Ayes-5. Nays-0. Motion passed. #1561 CHRISTINE BECK 3820 CHERRY AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2867 Mrs. Beck and her son were present Bernhardson revv^nved the information pertaining to this application (see Jea»ne Mabusth's memo dated July 12, 1?90), and noted that the Plannjnq Corrj^ission had recommended apprcv iV. Mabusth, us. . • a sketch plan, showed the location of the deck c idition and the 4” encroachment into the lakeshore setback area. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Cal. Resolution #2867, granting a lakeshore setback hardcover Variance to construct a deck at 382^ Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-C. Motion passed. n .to adop^ #1572 GUENTHT t GERTPUD NOL'LTING 1060 TONKAWA ECAD C-KDITIONAL '.SE PERM.TT/VARIANCF RESOLUTION 12868 Mr. and Mrs. li,x;lting wei. present with the..r Neil Weber. it^j-t, Mr. - 14 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 ZONING FILE #1572-NOELTING CONTINUED B©rnhardsori provided a brief summary of the information “ntained in Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated August 16, 1990. Bcrnhardson noted that the Planning Commission had recommended approval with the condition that the dock be no more than 3' above the ordinary highwater mai’c. Goetten stated that this application shows why it is necessary to have surveys submitted with permit applications. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Go^^ten, to adopt Resolution #2868, granting ^ Conditional Use Permit and Variances to construct a dock at t0‘==.0 T;>nkawa Road. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1573 CAROL KELLY/JAMES MASSEY 3020/3030 CASCO POINT ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2869 Ms. Kelly was present, as was her Surveyor, Mr. Bob Smith. Bernhardson revi "'xed Ms. Kelly's application the Planning Commission had recommended approval. stating that Callahan asked whether the City's code is to be interpreted, that there be 100' of lot width at the lakeshore. Mabusth replied, "No, there is to be 100' width at the 75' setback line, based on the standards of the code and the policy of the City. Callahan said, "I wouJd recommend that the code be amended to reflect that the 100' width is t be maintained at the lakeshore." Peterson and Goetten cone It was moved by Mayor Grab seconded by .ettles, to adopt Resolution #2869, granting preliminary approval of a plat at 3020/3030 Casco Point Road. Motion, Ayes-3, Peterson, Callahan, Nay. Motion passed. Callahan asked that the code be amended and a public hearing be scheduled for the October Planning Cjr„.mission meeting. #1575 JUDSON DAYTON 1111 TAMARACK DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT r:i":V:ii^rdson stated that Mr. Dayton has asked to withdraw uhis application. He said, "Though this is to be cons. red a pre*'School, it does fall under the State Statute for a dc re. Under that statute, Mr. Dayton is allowed to have 14 .»nts. Daycare is a permitted use in the Zoning District. Mr. .. -on - 15 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 ZONING B-ILE #1575-DAYTON CONTINUED ha3 reduced the number of students he Intends to enroll from 18 to 14. This wou’i mean that no further consideration is necessary and Mr. Dayton is withdrawing." Callahan asked the City Attorney to define the terra daycare as it relates to the State Statutes. Barrett stated that he would provide Mr. Callahan with that informat 'n at a later time. Peterson noted that Mr. Dayton was C4.iginally proposing to have up to 28 students enrolled. She asked how the City will be assured that he does not exceed 14 as he now proposes. Mabusth replied, "State licensing will be a form of regulation. The City can send a letter to Mr. Dayton putting him on notice of what must occur if he goes beyond 14 students." Peterson asked if the residents who attended the Planning Commission Meeting will be notified of the reasons why this application was withdrawn and the fact that Mr. Dayton will be able to operate the pre-school. Mabusth replied, "Mr. Dayton did mention that aspect of his proposal during the Planning Commission Meeting. Also, i have talked to some of the residents subsequent to that meeting. Peterson asked that staff notify the neighbors of the status of this application. No formal action was taken #1577 NORMAN TORRISON 2250 LONGVIEW CIRCLE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2870 A representative was present on behalf of Mr. Torrison. Bernhardson briefly explained the information relating to Mr. Torrison's application (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated August 24, 1990). He stated that the Planning Commission had voted 3 to 2 to approve this application. The two members that voted no did so based on no hardship and the need for additional screening. Gaffron noted that the Planning Commission also recommended that the tennis court ot encroach tha 10' utility easement. Mayor Grabek stated that Mr. Torrison had called him and explained that he would be unable to attend this meeting due to job-related conflicts. - 16 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10. 1990 ZONING FILE #1577-TORRISON CONTINUED Goetten stated that she too b«3lieves there should additional screening for the benefit of the neighbors. Nettles concurred. He questioned whether it was necessary for Council to be specific as to the height of the screening. Mr, Torrijon’s representative said, "I'm sure Mr. Torrison will be happy to “comply with Council's requests. There are trees to the south where the significant slope occurs. There is a neighbor directly to the east. We have agreed to move the tennis court as far west as possible. The neighbor to the northwest is at least 250' from the tennis court. Mr. Torrison has planted an apple tree orchard to the direct west." Goetten suggested that the trees be 6' high. It v/as moved by Goetten, seconded by Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2870, granting a side setback Variance to construct a tennis court at 2250 Longview Circle, provided that 6' trees are provided to screen fhe neighbor to the east. Motion, Ayes-4, Peterson, Nay. Mot?, tn pcssed. #1578 AL AND LIBBTE HQPWCXDD 1205 LAKEVIEW AVL JE AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2871 Ms. Hopwood 'as present. Bernhardson provided a brief summary of the information presented in Michael Gaffron's August 24, 1990, memo. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Gaffron displayed a front vj3w of the deck. Bernhardson said. "The Hopwoods immediately ceased all work until they obtained the proper permits. Staff felt it may be appropriate to have the applicants pay only a double fee for the building permit and not the zoning application. It may be an issue Council desires to consider." Peterson noted that the tuck-under garage was converted to a bedroom. She said, "The driveway still exists that served the tuc.k-under garage. Does the City have any requirements stating that it must be removed?" Gaffron replied, "There is nothing in our code requiring the driveway to be removed as it has existed for a long period of time." Peterson asked how the City inspects after-the-fact structures constructed without the benefit of a building permit. - 17 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 ZONING FILE #1578-HOPWOOD CONTINUED Gaffron replied, "The City Building Inspector would have to probe to locate the footings.' It may be necessary to ask the property owners to uncover portions of the footings. Following a thorough inspection, the Building Inspector may require that portions of the structure be revised or replaced. It is difficult to review footings after-the-fact." Peterson stated that in her opinion, the applicants should be required to pay a double fee for zoning and building permits. Goetten asked staff to clarify how applications are normally handled. after-the-fact Mabusth said, "Normally we ask for the double zoning fee." Gaffron added, "I don't believe that anyone realized this was an after-the-fact application until the Hopwoods had already submitted and paid their zoning application and fees." Mabusth said, "In this case, Michael found the owners to be very responsive to the stop work order." Mayor Grabek asked how much the double fee is in this case. Gaffron replied, "The zoning fee is $175.00, plus the additional cost for the building permit which may be another $50.00 to $100.00." Nettles indicated that he preferred not to fine the Hopwoods because they did cease work on the project right away. Goetten stated that she concurred with Nettles. Nettles asked how fees are addressed in the resolution presented this evening. Bernhardson replied, "The resolution makes no reference to the fee at all. it will have to be amended to reflect -ouncil's decision." It was moved by Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2871, as amended, granting approval of after-the-fact front and side street setback variances to construct a deck/walkway, with no double fee for the building permit, nor the zoning apolication. There was no second. Motion failed. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Callahan, to adopt Resolution #2871, as presented, granting approval of after- the-fact front and side street setback variances to construct a deck/walkway at 1205 Lakeview Avenue. Motion, Ayes-3, Peterson, Nettles, Nay. Motion passed. - 18 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 #1580 PATRICIA PLANT 2245 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2872 Mrs. Plant was present. Bernhardson summarized the information presented regarding this application (see Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated August 15, 1990). He informed Council that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval. It was moved by Goetten. seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Resolution #2872, granting a front street setback variance required for a 1/2 bath and closet addition at 2245 V/atertov/n Road. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1581 ROBERT KOEHNEN 537 HANLON AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2872 The applicants were not present. Bernhardson reviewed the information pertaining to this application (see Michael Gaffron’s memo dated August 24, 1990, noting that the Planning Commission had recommended approval. Goetten said, "The applicants are not present, but have been before us previously. They have done a very nice job improving their property. It is unfortunate that the house is located where it is on the lot." It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2872, granting a front setback variance to construct an attached deck and gazebo. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. SPECIAL DRIVEWAY PERMIT 265 BROWN ROAD SOUTH Bernhardson provided a summary of Jeanne Mabusth's memo dated September 6, 1990. He noted that Mabusth had asked the City Engineer to review the existing access within Lot 2. Cook said, "I see no problem as long as the driveway is raised up slightly." It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to conceptually approve the plan for separated accesses for 255/265 Brown Road South. Staff is dir. ^ed to prepare a resolution to be presented for Council's review at their September 24, 1990 meeting. Motion. Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. - 19 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10» 1990 #15ie WHITNEY MACMILLAN 1560 FOX STREET PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT Mr. Jack Taylor, Attorney, and Mr. Herb Baldwin. Landscape Architect, were present as representatives for the MacMillans. Bernhardson stated the road configuration in this recently approved subdivision was unique. He said, "Only the upper part of the road is included in the subdivision, the lower portion is not. Originally, the applicants requested that the City not be allowed to convert Outlot C into a public street unless all other private streets in Orono were converted likewise. Staff and the applicants have reached a compromise between their request and the City's normal road standards. We are proposing that the City give the applicant's additional notice prior to the conversion occurring and that a 4/5ths vote be required from Council to approve the conversion. This proposal would not preclude the City from making the conversion, but would allow the applicant an opportunity to propose alternatives." Goetten questioned whether this proposal may set a precedent for future developments. Bernhardson replied, "We consider this case to be unique in that only part of the road would be subject to the City's control. We don't see that occurring with most standard subdivisions. v;e can't say absolutely that the City will not be approached by future developers wishing to have this exception. Also, should the City feel it necessary to provide this compromise again in the future, it will not preclude the City from making the conversion." Goetten asked why then the City would go to such lengths when it can achieve the same thing without the easement. Barrett replied, "This agreement gives the applicant additional time to react to the City's notice to convert the road and to consider alternatives. The requirement of a 4/5ths vote was added for the benefit of the applicant." Goetten questioned why the issue of public/private roads was being addressed only with this individual circumstance. She believed the issue should be addressed comprehensively throughout the City. Callahan did not feel it was necessary to give the applicants the provision of a special majority. He believed that the usual 3/5ths vote should suffice. Mayor Grabek concurred. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Peterson, to - 20 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 ZONING FILE 11516-MACMJT T.AN CONTINUED approve the proposed easement with the exception that only a 3/5ths vote be required. Nettles asked Barrett v/hether this agreement will change the legal powers of the City in any way. Barrett replied, "In my opinion, it will not." Motion, Ayes-3, Goetten, Nettles, Nay. Motion passed. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT: None. ENGINEER'S REPORT: CHANGE ORDER #2, WELL #3 Bernhardson reported that a flow rate for well #3 has been established in the range of 1,200 to 1,600 gallons/minute. He said, "However, there has been a problem with loose sond under the bedrock accumulating at those rates. Continuous pumping at those rates of 500 gallons per minute would provide a continued flow free of sand, but starting and stopping the pump would cause about a minute of sand to accumulate. This would not be desirable over a long period of time. This is the appropriate time to try to eliminate the sand entirely. We are recommending approval of change order 42 to accomplisn that. Mr. Dick Foster of Bonestroo is present this evening to answer any questions." Goetten questioned whether the additional costs will be passed on to the users of well #3. She said, "Well #3 has been brought before us several times now and is becoming increasingly more expensive." Bernhardson agreed v/ith Goetten, but stated that this is the first change order that has been presented to Council for well #3. He said, "VJe will assess all of the costs of this to the benefiting property owners, either through assessment or connection charges. We could also add user revenue to assist with the costs." Callahan asked if well for the new facilities. #3 will serve the location proposed Bernhardson replied in the affirmative. Mr. iter said. "It is unusual for these circumstances to occur. * area is right on the edge of the bedrock formation. A lot of Ic.. eshore wells are drilled in the Jordan and limestone formations. As you approach the Orono School those formations are gone and it is necessary to drill deeper for water. Vie v/ere fortunate in this case to find Jordan formations. The well does have a very good yield. The problem is that there isn't enough cavity. Vie need to enlarge and stabilize the cavity. The change order reflects our estimated cost to do that. The estimate is on the high side. In our opinion, it is better to invest the additional money now to make the well efficiently functional. - 21 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 CHANGE ORDER WELL #3 CONTINUED Otherwise it may be necessary to go back and make repairs ten years from now.” It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Nettles, to approve Change Order #2 increasing the contract amount for well #3 to $101,630.00 as proposed by the City Engineer. Motion, Ayes- 5, Nays-0 Motion passed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: FLEXIBLE BENEFITS Bernhardson presented information for Council to review pertaining to the selection of a vendor to design a flexible benefits program. He said, "We are recommending Safe Benefits, which is affiliated with an insurance company, but is independent of them and is strictly a third-party administrator. We would bring the plan back for Council approval once it has been designed.” Goetten said, "I think it is great that we are going to provide this for our employees. I've looked forward o this for some time." It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Peterson, to approve the concept of a flexible benefits program and to direct staff to work with Safe Benefits to develop a flexible benefits program which will be submitted to Council for approval. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY Bernhardson presented information to Council regarding Highway 12. He said, "There are two items for Council's consideration. The first item is that staff is proposing a list of draft issues for submission at the next Policy Committee meeting. The other item is that the City consider utilization of outside expertise to assist the City during the process. Becajse of the experts that are involved with MNDot, staff felt it may be appropriate for the City to enlist the services of a consultant that would also be an advocate of the City's position. Staff is recommending that we hire John Shardlow to develop a work program at a cost not to exceed $5,000.00." Goetten asked when this position would take effect. Bernhardson replied, "Staff would work with Mr. Shardlow during the next two weeks and have something to present at the September 24th Council Meeting." Mayor Grabek believed this was a good way to approach the Highway 12 Corridor Study. - 22 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY CONTINUED It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Nettles, to accept staff's recommendation to enlist the services of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban regarding a work program for expertise on the Highway 12 Corridor and a transportation subcontractor as needed, in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. LAKE USE AND MANAGEMENT Bernhardson had requested that this item be discussed at the time of the LMCD report. ON SITE SEPTIC MANAGER POSITION Bernhardson stated that staff has included in the budget the request for an additional position for an on-site septic manager. He said, "It has become increasingly more difficult for staff to keep up with the program. Staff is presenting information relating to the septic program. My position at this point is that this should be considered as a full time position during the 1991 budget discussions. This evening I am asking Council to consider whether they object to considering this position in the 1991 budget. If there is an acceptable level of interest for further consideration, staff is asking that the current temporary position be extended through to the end of the year. We do have a good employee and would like him to continue on a temporary basis until the end of the year." Goetten said. "I think this additional position would be helpful, especially with the work to be done for Stubbs Bay sewer (it the project proceeds). My only concern is where this person would have a desk. In talking with staff I learned that the Council Chambers is presently being used by the temporary person performing this function." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Goetten, to accept staff's recommendation to continue the program through the end of the year and will table the balance of the discussion until the budget discussions later this year. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. 1991 BUDGET/WORK SESSION It was the consensus of Council to set November 8th at 6:00 p.m. as the tentative time and date for the work session to review the 1991 budget. ASSESSING SERVICE Bernhardson said, "Staff is recommending that we again hire Mr. Rolf Erickson as the City Assessor. I realize that the cost of the contract is substantially higher than what we are currently paying. I believe that the quality of Mr. Erickson's service warrants the increased cost." - 23 - IFf" ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 ASSESSING SERVICES CONTINUED Goetten asked what reasons Mr. Erickson gave to support his reguest for $66,000.00. Bernhardson stated that Mr. Erickson was losing money on Orono. He said, "Mr. Erickson indicated that if he came back to work here that he could not afford to lose money. Orono is one of the most difficult communities to assess because of the extensive variety of housing and property. I don't believe that anyone else could provide us with the well-defined assessments. He has also been very responsive to the citizens during the Board of Review." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Callahan, to authorize the establishment of a contract in the amount of $66,000 with Rolf Erickson for the next assessing year ending August 31, 1991. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BUDGET RESOLUTION #2874 ^Peterson sta id that the LMCCC budget had already been approved. Bernhardson stated that it was understanding that the cities had 30 days to respond to the budget proposal from the date it was received. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2874, directing approval of the Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission budget for 1991. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. FALL CLEAN-UP DATE* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Callahan, to designate October 20, 1990 as Orono Fall Clean-up Day. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. JOHN SASS RESOLUTION #2875* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Caijflhan, to adopt Resolution #2875 recognizing J->hn Sass's years of service to the community and to present the resolution to John Sass at the regular Orono Council Meeting on September 24, 1990. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. FENCE INSTALLATION-NAVARRE PLAYGROUND Councilmember Goetten requested that this item be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. She asked whether the Park Commission had reviewed this recommendation. Bernhardson stated that he would have to report back to Council with that information. - 24 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 NAVARRE PLAYGROUND FENCE CONTINUED It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Peterson, to table this item until it is determined whether or not the Park Commission has reviewed this proposal. Motion, Ayes-5, Kays-0. Motion passed. EMPLOYMENT-GOLF COURSE* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Callahan, to confirm the employment of Aaron Burdich as a temporary groundskeeper helper at the Orono Golf Course effective August 28, 1990 at $5.00 per hour. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR * S INFORMATION* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Callahan, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Dakota Rail, Goal Setting, July Receipts and Disbursements and VJire Transfers. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: None. LICENSES* None. BILLS* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Callahan, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT 9:34 P.M. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Nettles, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:34 p.m. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk - 25 - 91390.7 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATS: September 20, 1990 SUBJECT: Lake Use and Management ccmi mtms SEP 24 (990 CITy OF OROHO Attachment:A. City of Lrono Letter to Other LMCD Communities Dated 9/19/90 B. Lake Use and Management Memo Dated 9/4/90 C. Lake Use Chart (Inadvertently omitted in last packet) D. City of Wayzata Letter Dated 9/14/90 ISSUE - 1. Presentation of letters from 2 of the 14 communities. 2. Further discussion and direction, if any, regarding the comprehensive plan. INTRODUCTION - At the last meeting Council directed that a letter Be prepared to the other communities and perhaps making presentations at each of those. Because of the logistics involved it was determined by Councilmembers Callahan and Nettles that it would probably be best to go with the letter rather than attempt to discuss it with each w® the Councils. DISCUSSION - The following communities have indicated that they accept the plan: Excelsior Shorewood Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Woodland Mound The following communites have indicated their opposition. These include: Orono Minnetonka Wayzata Spring Park Others who have reservations or are undecided Tcnka Bay Greenwood Deephaven Victoria ALTERNATIVES - 1. Direct continued opposition to the plan. 2. Direct abstentions. 3. Direct s )rt. 4. Pursue the matter further as to the City's position to the Metro Council. 5. Table. RECOMMENDATION representative outlined in the ..s recommended that the Council direct their /ote against the plan for the specifics X*. -er together with pursuing the matter further with the Metro Council. At issue, if you pursue it with the Metro Council, is since the city maintain that the Metro Council should not have any control over the LMCD to any great degree that this may be a position that is at odds with one things the city wanted to see changed within the LMCD plan. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that Council continue in its opposition to the adoption of the plan as presented. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: JoEllen Hurr, Orono LMCD Representative Gabriel Jabbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, 55356 Eugene Strommen, LMCD, 402 East Lake Street, 55391 September 19, 1990 LMCD Plan Mayors, City Council Members and Managers The City of Orono remains opposed to the LMCD long-range management plan in its present form. A copy of our response to the LMCD is attached for your information. We believe that this plan remains of great concern to all of the lake communities, despite the fact that in the revised draft the LMCD has, in our opinion, clarified its intentions, better organized its proposed plans of action, and made every effort to explain its intentions, which may have been misunderstood from the original draft. We believe they have attempted to respond to the concerns expressed by Orono and other communities, but, the disagreement between us on the general philosophy and anticipated outcome of implementing the plan remains unresolved. While we have no desire to interfere with the decisions of each of you on whether to support the plan, we ourselves do not believe it should be supported. We urge you to familiarize yourself as much as possible with its terms and the philosophy underlying the plan, and to take conscious action to instruct your LMCD representative about your wishes before September 26th. Whether you ultimately decide to support or reject the plan, we would also like to say to you that Orono regards this event (tho consideration of the LMCD plan) as a strong reminder of the inter-dependence of our lake communities, and of the necessity of the community representatives to keep in close and if possible, harmonious touch with their neighboring communities and affairs. We are in receipt of the letter from the City c Wayzata dated September 14th. The idea expressed of a meeting on the subject to the LMCD Plan is an idea we had ourselves incorporated in the actions at our City Council meeting of September 10th, as some of you may have seen in the local press. We believe that a meeting such as proposed in Mr. Gisvold's letter is a good idea. Sincerely, h-rrus JRG/tln Tames R. Grabek, Mayor of Orono 9490.1 TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATS: September 4, 1990 SUBJECT: LMCD Longterm Management Program rrnG^^!> Attachment:A. LMCD Longterm Management Program (Revised Dated 9/90 Previously Presented) B. LMCD Response Comments to City of Orono's Comments Dated 8/15/90 (Previously Transmitted) C. 1991 LMCD Budget Memo Dated 8/14/90 (Memo Only) D. Draft Access Growth Chart ISSUE - 1. Determine comments, if any, Councilmembers desire to give LMCD Representative. 2. Determine desired direction they would like to give the LMCD Representative for the pending vote on the Plan. 3. Determination of action the Council desires to take regarding the 1991 LMCD Budget. INTRODUCTION - Attachments A, B and C were presented to the Council as part of their packet for the August 27, 1990 meeting. As noted in Attachment B, channes were made to the Public Draft that primarily relate to clarifying roles on: Shoreline regulations role for LMCD Revisions as to funding Modification as to promotion of access for 700 parking slots The revised draft is to be considered by the full Board at the LMCD meeting on September 26, 1990. DISCUSSION - The changes incorporated in the draft to a degree address issues raised by the City of Orono and other cities during the review process. The following represent a summary of changes and i 'ues not addressed in that draft: Plan Review and Revision - The plan does make some minor revisions to a citation together with indicating that Metro Council's role is by virtue of the State Executive Council's request that they be involved. The plan despite encouragement by Orono does not contain specific sections although the comments do address part of them. The following could be addressed in the plan itself. ---- \S ,t\ Actual Role of Metro Council - Incorporation of page 2 and 3 of the comments to clarify the actual authority would be helpful in defining in the plan Metro Council's role. Threshold for Change - It does not stipulate at what point a change in the plan in future years would require any review and comment by any other agencies including Metro Council. Conflict Between Plan and LMCD Actions - The plan does not address how conflicts that may arise between the LMCD's actual actions and the proposed work plan will be resolved. This could be the source of legal confrontations and expenses in the future. (The analogy is that by State law for cities for zoning ordinance take pre-emenance over Comprehensive Plan.) Shore land Regulation - The plan does modify language indicating that it is not LMCD's intent to usurp any local authority. Cn page 46 of the current new draft they dedicate a new paragraph stating that they shall request to determine if the District may participate as an interested party and also indicate that they would ;:equest to be part of the Metro Council's review 'process. They do however later on in #3 indicate that 'LMCD shall develop agreements with local communities to review variance applications. While verbally stating that this was voluntary given that it would be through agreements the word "shall" gives the import that it is mandatory that an agreement be developed with such city. (In addition it should be remembered that the work for the shoreland regulations whether the City works through the LMCD or Department of Natural Resources directly that there may need to be, because of the change in local ordinances, for a possible review of the City's Comprehensive Plans by Metro Council. To date this issue has not been addressed as to whether this would be required and would be a consideration for the City in determining what it desires to do regarding shoreline regulations.) Access - While the language in a couple instances has Been modified with changes by changing the language to the thrust for assuring 700 parking slots "rather than" to establish a policy that recognizes the need. (It should be remembered that in the discussion of access the original draft also indicated that the 700 slots included both public and private ramped access.) Restriction by Use - The access control does address methods for categorization of use during peak usage under the density 6.0 - 6.5 by imposing restrictions between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. At other densities it has added stronger language about additional patrol hours which is in addition to language on page viii that state that unless 3,000 additional patrol hours are available by the 7.0 density, no further access growth will allowed. Revised draft still does not accomplish the following: Density Monitoring - The plan does not specify the methodology or the frequency for determining density as part of the body of the agreement or reference to another document that would contain it. Access Control Model - While the document does address both storage potential and actual access use they have not pulled the two together nor predict as part of their model potential growth from any particular access growth. (Attachment D is an attempt at that, to see if that is helpful.) It is interesting to note, based on the very rudimentary information that generally based on use during survey densities to storage counts are roughly: Public ramped access is 1-1 to 1-2 (350 or 700 slots) Marinas - 1 used for every 5 slips ' Lakeshore owners - 1 used for every 10 boats stored Assuming little or no growth in marinas/yacht clubs, municipal access or homeowners association, the growth potential is primarily from ramp access and single family homeowners. For homeowners it*s a growth either: a. ) further subdivisions b. ) more boats/limit (current about 2/lot) c. ) "increase" in the ration of storage to use from 10-1 to 8-1 etc. (The categories used were in the definitions section which were from a DNR study and the ratios reflect the use to the storage count.) Pub lie Safety - They modified language to indicating that they presently do not have their own police force, but may do so in the future. Additionally they referred to the communications problems as a technical issue. The problem with radio communications between the surrounding cities and the Water Patrol Is an issue of policy of the Sheriff's department rather than technology, although technology could possibly resolve it. Additionally they still do not address the enforcement ac the shoreline and this will continue to be a problem of cities being able to enforce infractions on the lake that are seen from the shoreline because the LMCD has not contracted with the cities. The contracting mechanism could strictly limit the amount of enforcement by city police departments but this plan does not allow for any of that. Management Structure - The modifications in this area are primarily in funding with an entire new paragraph on page 67 on future managment structure and funding together with selected additions starting on page 69 under the Objectives. The thrust is to put more of an emphasis on users rather than tax base for funding the programs . As for the structure of the Board, the addition of the 4 regional members is predicated on regional funding being instituted. (The four besides the current 14 are Metro Council, Hennepin County, Hennepin Parks and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.) ALTERNATIVES 1. Determine comments Council may want to make regarding this.% 2. Give aby preliminary direction. Table for further discussion. 'ke no action. jMMENDATION - In response to Orono auid other cities' comments jinges have been made in the plan. Orono's desire to have the plan rectify the current problems before they allow additional growth however have not been fully realized, although the addition of further increases in patrol hours at levels 5.0 and 6.0 attempts to get at this. The City's LMCD Representative will be available at the September 10, 1990 meeting to discuss this further. Issue ♦ 3 1991 Budget - It is recommended that the Council give My further Issues that they may have regarding the 1991 Budget to the LMCD Representative and any direction they would desire for a vote on that budget. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that Council having given comments table this until the September 24, 1990 Counr-^t meeting for any additional comments. Ayes __, Nays __. cc: JoEllen Hurr, LMCD Representative, 930 Partenwood Road Eugene R. Strommen, LMCD, 403 East Lake Street, Wayzata Gabriel Jabbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, Long Lake 55356 81490. TO; Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrato DATS: August 14, 1990 SUBJECT: LMCD Budget Attachment: A. Proposed Draft Letter to LMCD Regarding the Budget B. 1991 LMCD Budget Dated 7/27/90 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to Council of a draft letter outlining Council's objection to the projected increase. 2. Determination by Council as to whether they desire to transmit such. INTRODUCTION - The LMCD's 1991 Budget was included as part of the 1991 budget process packet for the July 23rd meeting and placed on the agenda for the August 13, 1990 meeting. At that meeting reservations regarding the increase primarily as it focuses on additional, personnel to carry out the LMCD's plan was questioned. Staff was directed, in conjunction with the Lake Use Committee, to draft a letter for Council's consideration at the August 27, 1990 meeting. DISncsSION - As noted on Attachment B the City, except through thTpersuation of its representative, has no direct veto of the LMCD's budget. (There is also a question of the timeing and a definitative response limit.) Concern relating to the budget is the 19% increase primarily which goes to expanding staff in order to carry out the proposed Comprehensive Management Plan. The City of Orono has proposed several changes to that draft and the outcome of that draft may indicate: A. What additional personnel are needed. B. Determination as to whether Council desires to support that plan. It has been staff's understanding, at this point, that Council does not object to continuing operations plus some monies for milfoil, but only tfeaincremental portion for assistance in implementing the new Comprehensive Plan. The alternative obviously may be that by not allowing LMCD to strengthen its staff role it may compromise their ability to affectively deal with other agencies who may also desire to have a role on the lake. In a discussion with JoEllen Hurt she indicated the addition was primarily for; a. ) Freeing the Executive Director to spend more efforts managir^ the milfoil program and thereby reduce the cost of contract supervisor. b. ) Allow the district to do more work in areas of current responsibility that they have not been able to adequately accomplish. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt draft letter for transmittal. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table pending review and revision of plan. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council amend the letter as they choose and transmit the letter as proposed. PROPOSED 'MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Council indicate its objections to the proposed LMCD budget by transmittal of its attached letter to its representative and LMCD. Ayes _, Nays /Irr/lM^r / - j Auguat 23/ 1990 Board of Diroctors Lako Minnetonka Conservation District 402 East Lake Street Waysata/ Minnesota 55391 ReI 1991 LMCD Budget Gentlemen and Ladies t The City Council of the City of Orono objects to the proposed 1991 LMCD budget and the increase in real property taxes envisioned in it* As a general proposition, an increase of the magnitude proposed, coming on top of substantial percentage increases in years immediately past, is unwarranted, particularly in view of the fact that the milfoil problem is not the cause f the increase. In particular, it appears that a substantial portion of this Increase is for additional staff (a) to permit the LMCD to assist the DNR in implementing DNR shoroland management regulation among the 14 communities; (b) to assist the LMCD in implementing its own shoreland regulation objectives such as reviewing land use applications covered by them and, presumablyi (c) to assist the LMCD in other programs related to lako use or changes in the governing structure or taxing authority of the District set forth in the proposed Comprehensive Management Plan Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distriot August 23, 1990 Page 2 Since the plan is still under rovision, it is possible that either the plan will be rejected by the 14 cities or modified so as to make additional personnel unnecessary. But, the City disagrees with the current proposed plan about most, i£ not all, of those goals; we object strongly to a budget increase designed in any way to assist the District to reach them. Finally, to the extent the budget reflects the receipt of moneys from the dhr to help with its own shoreline management objootives and th*i use of LMCD staff for that purpose, we believe activities by LMCD which tend to enhance the DNR control of the lake and its environs, and tend to make DNR money and District personnel devoted to DNR projects a factor in the functioning of the LMCD, are extremely undesirable. Once begun, they may well come to dominate LMCD affairs and cause a serious conflict of interest between LMCD government and its LMCD purposes. [Notes We do understand that the $45,000 item is presented as a "pass through" of moneys from the DNR to the Cities if they agree to certain procedures.] Wo request that consideration bo given to these comments and that budget incroaees, if any, be limited only to expected cost increases for current activities. And we will encourage our ropraaentative to vote against the present proposal. Sincerely, OITY OF ORONO Mayor 1643Y cr; r ^WtWa CIT «KI Rl( t ■ /!rmOf/^<sirr 2) cm COl NHL Roben D Guv old Mavor Roben P. Ambroie Richard C. Hannon F. Peter Herfurth Gregory D R>< Allan Onen City Manager SEP IT »* TO: RE: DATE: Mayors, City Council Members and Managers Lake Minnetonka Communities LMCD Plan September 14, 1990 Ladies and Gentlemen: The City of Wayzata has been monitoring and participating in a review of the LMCD Management Plan. Since release of the draft, we have been concerned about several areas, including: 1. The Shoreland Management Plan and the lack of adequate information and guidelines. 2. The proposed expansion of LMCD staff and the role the staff intends to play in Shoreland Management; and 3. The related increases Plan. in costs to implement the We are troubled by the lack of responsiveness on the part of the LMCD to the concerns expressed. The rush for plan adoption seems unwarranted. We are aware that other Lake Minnetonka communities have similar concerns. As a result, we are suggesting that you withhold support for the present draft of the Plan and not endorse its adoption at the September 26th LMCD Board meeting. Moreover, if there is a shared concern on the part of a majority of affected communities and the LMCD persists in its present course, the City of Wayzata is proposing to host a Page 2 September 14, 1990 City Officials meeting to further discuss this matter. Please contact the Wayzata City Manager, Mr. A1 Orsen, at 473-0234, if you share our concerns and would like to participate in a joint meeting. Robert D. Gisvold Mayor of Wayzata cc: Eugene Strommen Sailor Newspapers Wayzata News John Stine Tom Martinson ^ ;cmQii SEP 24 1990 ^iTY n? nsfjjifo To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardion Pj^ob: Jeanne A. Mabusth/ Buildinq & Zoning Administrator Date: September 21, 1990 Subiect: #998 Maureen Bellows, 265 Brown Road South Request to Amend Final Subdivision Approval “ Byfield Plat - Resolution The Council conceptually approved the applicanfs/developer's request for separate accesses to Lots 1 and 2 of the Byfield plat. The enclosed resolution has been drafted based on the approval recommendation of the Council tnat includes the special findings and conditions of that approval. A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION #1985 THAT GRANTED PINAL APPROVAL OP THE BYPIBLD PLAT PILE #998 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 1986 the City Council granted final plat approval of a two-lot subdivision application of Maureen S. Bellows (hereinafter the "subdivider") for a plat known as the Byfield r>iat; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered a request of the subdivider that would seek to amend a condition of plat approval that would require a shared driveway access for Lot 1 and Lot 2, Byf ‘Id and has asked for separate accesses at County Road 146; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered the written comments of the Hennepin County Department of Transportation and the written and oral comments of staff and noting the following findings: 1. The Byfield plat provided 509 lineal feet of frontage along County Road 146. Lota 1 and 2, Byfield satisfied the required lot width to the rear of the front yard setback area at 200'+ each. 2. The Byfield plat did not require ^ ariances to the standards of the RR-IB, rural residential zoning district. 3. There is already an existing driveway access approved by Hennepin County that serves Lot 2. 4. There is adequate sighting distance based on the 40 MPH allowed speed for County Road 146 to provide safe access to Lot 1. NOW, THBREPORB, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby aj-'^roves an amendment of Resolution #1985 that granted approval of the Byfield plat that would allow single/separate accesses to Lots 1 and 2, Byfield, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: Page 1 of 2 1. Ownr'r of Lot 2 shall obtain a land alteration permit for the purpose of upgrading the existing access to Lot 2 (265 Brown Road South). Upon application for the land alteration permit, owner shall provide a filing and grading plan to be approved by the City Engineer. Such access improvements to be completed by November 1, 1990. In addition, the owner is as’ ed to maintain all shrubs at a 3' height or less within an area located between the traveled road and the utility pol-js. 2. Future owner and developer of Lot 1 shall obtain an access permit from the Hennepin County Department of Transportation prior to application for a building permit for new residential construction. Adopted by the Orono City Council of the City of Orono on this 24th day of September, 1990. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. GrabeK, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of September, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 l 4 h To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Dernhardson 9 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator ^Stf- 2'1 September 20, 1990 #1334 Rebers' Construction - Sugarwoods Plat - Of (ij^ONO Reconsideration of Conditions of PRD Approval List of Exhibits « ^ Exhibit A - Memo to Planning Commission 9/12/90 Exhibit B - Original Packet Submitted for Council's Review 9/10/90 Meeting As directed, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff resolution that set forth a procedure for review of all building permits where houses were placed at front/str»-et setbacks and front street yard improvements consisted of more than the allowe 20' wide access drive. The resolution also provided for an abbreviated review procedure, as set forth on Page 3 of that same resolution. The abbreviated review would require staff approvals only if building contractor was willing to accept either one of the limited improvement proposals as illustrated on Pages 5, 6 and 7 of that same resolution. The Planning Commission, in a 6-1 vote, once again recommended that each individual request to ^:ter from the allowed 20' wide driveway within a front/street setback yard be reviewed by both Planning Commission and Council. The Planning Commission felt that to transfer the responsibility or authority to staff in the review of these matters may negate the true intent of the oriainal PRD approval. The majority opinion strongly recommends that you review each request individually. The minority opinion felt that the illustrations obviously reflect minimal impact based on a three car garage backout needs. It was suggested that the abbreviated procedure could be considered or employed a carrot or reward and thereby reduce potential for expanded "Vs, "T-s or loops with special requests. Options of Action - 1. To amend the staff resolution presented for Council actior^ by removing the section that allowed for an abbreviated review procedure and to require that all requests be reviewed under the procedure set forth on Pages 1 and 2 of the staff resolution. In response to the developer's concern for delay in the building permit review process. Council may consider an additional ■»mc*ndment of that resolution that would allow such requests to be dealt with solely by the Planning Commission, with right of appeal to the Council if a contractor disagreed with the Planning Commission s recommendation; or Zoning File #1334 September 20, 1990 Page 2 of 2 2. To adopt the staff. resolution as originally drafted by Orono Additional Comments - On September 15, 1990, staff met with both the Planning Commission Chair and Co-chair, the developer and Bob Kost to review specific allegations of violations of the original PRD approval. We met out at the site and reviewed the two building sites and one site proposed for new construction. The representatives of the Planning Commission were convinced that the developer was proceeding under the guidelines set forth by the Council. At the meeting. Bellows and Kelley reported to the full body of the Planning Commission and complemented Mr. Rebers in his attempt to preserve the trees throughout road construction, utility installations and building construction. Statf has no further comment on this matter. Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. MabustJi, Building & Zoning Administrator September 12, 1990 To: From: Date: Subject: # 133 4 Rebers Construction - Sugarwoods Plat - Reconsideration of Conditions of PRD Approval - Council Requests Further Review by Planning Commission At their September 10, 1990 meeting. Council requested that staff refer this item for further review by the Planning Commission. Council specifically wants Planning Commission members to provide a recommendation on the proposed staff resolution. The resolution establishes a procedure for reviewing individual requests of builders when proposed improvements within a front street yard exceed the allowed 20' wide driveway and also includes the means for an abbreviated staff review process if those improvements are limited to a simple driveway and back-out area rather than elaborate loops, Y's, or T's. Please review the enclosed Council packet that was originally prepared for the August 13, 1990 meeting of the Council. The applicant had requested tabling to provide additional time to review the staff material and was to be rescheduled the Cu'uncil's September 10th meeting. Your chairman, Charu.es Kelly, and the Council representative for the August 13th meeting, Maureen Bellows, were sent copies of the enclosed resolution and were asked to comment. They were asked specifically to comment on the engineering diagrams prepared by Jim Olson of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates (review Exhibits H, I and J). The three illustrations depict minimal impact on the front yard setback area and provide the necessary area for the backing out maneuver. Both Planning Commission members provided staff with their input prior to the meeting. Maureen attended the meeting as your regular representative and provided Council with additional input. The Council has now asked for a formal recommendation from the entire Planning Commission on the findings and procedures established by staff in the enclosed resolution (Exhibit J). Please note this memo has not included the earlier comments of Bellows and Kelly so that the full Planning Commission may discuss and consider this matter in an objective atmosphere. Staff would also note that there were specific allegations of violations of the conditions of the PRD involving the removal of trees within defined setback areas. Staff has asked the applicant's consultant. Bob Kost, to contact Maureen Bellows and Charles Kelly to meet with them on the site to discuss reported violations. Hopefully, this can be accomplished prior to the Council meeting of September 24, 1990. A To: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 9, 1990 Subject: #1334 Rebers' Construction - Sugarwoods Plat - Reconsideration of Conditions of PRD Approval P List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Staff Memo to Planning Commission Planning Commission Action Notice 5/31/90 Lot Area Map - Sugarwoods Topographic Map BRW Table of Building Pad Areas Resolution #2652 - CUP Approving PRD Planning Commission Minutes 5/21/90 Olson/Cook Memo Engineer's Driveway Illustrations Proposed Resolution Amending Resolution #2652 Review of Issues - At their April 23rd meeting of this year, Council directed staff to present to the Planning Commission the issue of allowing additional paving improvements outside the approved single access drive at a maximum width of 20' within the front street setback areas of the Sugarwoods plat. The issue arises whenever specific site conditions require placement of either the entire house or portions of a house at the 50' setback line. If houses are placed at the front setback line, portions of backout drive and turnaround improvements (backout aprons, loop drives, Ys or Ts) must encroach the setback area. In preparation for the Planning Commission's review, staff and applicant's consultants met to discuss the various site conditions that would necessitate the placement of the house at the front street setback line and to develop standards to limit these improvements within the setback area (i.e. size or area of improvement would ^e dependent upon area of front street setback yard, amount of lineal footage adjacent to roadway, limits on improvement based on 50' of distance from garage to street). Council members may wish to review the staff memo presented for the Planning Commission's review (Exhibit A). Zoning File #1334 August 9, 1990 Page 2 of 4 As for the specific site conditions that would create the need for placement of a house at the street setback line, the following have been developed and agreed upon by both staff and applicant's consultant: 1. Limiting site characteristics of building envelopes, such as shape and limited area. 2. Unique or mature trees within the building envelope and the desire of the future owner to preserve a unique specimen. 3. Topography. 4. Placement of house may be done so as to minimize impact on adjacent properties, specifically, the case of a corner lot where the rear of the house may be placed against the side yard of the adjacent property such as the case of Lot 2, Block 1 that Council reviewed earlier this year. Please review Exhibit G for background on the Planning Conm.^ssion discussions. The concensus of the Planning Commission was that each individual case should be reviewed individually. If special standards and a review process are created, this would encourage encroachment when not needed. Although the Planning Commission referred to the encroachment of the front street setback yard as a variance, it is technically not a variance and if we are to present these matters before the Planning Commission, a public hearing need not be scheduled. A special request can be set before the Planning Commission and immediately presented for Council's review at the next meeting so as to speed the review process. It should also be noted that the Planning Commission did not wish to deter the developer from working with staff to develop appropriate standards for such encroachments nor the criteria to determine when such encroachments are required. Staff would concur with the Planning Commission's findings that to develop tables on allowed hardcover encroachments of the front street setback area or other general tables for use would tend to encourage these encroachments of the protected area. Zoning File #1334 August 9, 1990 Page 3 of 4 Obviously, the procedure recommended by the Planning Commission is viewed as a major obstacle to the processing of building permits by the developer and the developer asks Council for special consideration. In an attempt to present a compromise position for Council's consideration, staff has asked the City Engineer to develop design criteria for driveways and backout aprons within the 50' front street setback yard designed to minimize impact on the setback area. Please review Exhibits H and I, the illustrations I-l through 1-4 depict drives and backout aprons for three car garages (Sugarwoods covenants requires 3 car garages). Note that the drives have been adopted to fit the two typical designs for three car garage openings. I-l represents a minimum turning movement required for a car parked in front of a garage stall to backup, turn and drive forward onto the street. 1-2 through 1-4 are interchangeable designs and may be reversed without affecting the layout. Note the engineer has also provided the amount of area needed for these improvements: 1-2 at 1,618.64 s.f.; 1-3 at 1,590.46 s.f.; and 1-4 at 1,508.21 s.f. It would be staff's recommendation that if a builder provides satisfactory evidence to the reviewing staff that specific site conditions necessitate house at setback line that either one of the design presented by the Engineer will be acceptable without further review by the Planning Commission or Council. If the builder wishes to provide other improvements outside those allowed within the approved illustrations, than they must appeal their position to the Planning Commission and Council. The builder would also be given a right of appeal if staff found that the specific site conditions did not warrant the placement of the house at the setback line. Staff sent this memo to both the Chairman and Co-Chairman of the Planning Commission. Staff will ask for their comments prior to the meeting. Co-chair Bellows will be the Planning Commission representative at your meeting and will be available for comment. j Zoning File #1334 August 9, 1990 Page 4 of 4 Options of Action - A) Adopt the procedure recommended by the Planning Commission requiring individual review of each request that does not meet the standards set forth in Resolution #2652. B) Provide for an abbreviated review process whereby the staff may approve additional encroachment of the front street setback area (outside of the allowed single drive at a 20' width) upon satisfaction that certain site conditions exist for a property. Such encroachments would be limited to those improvements set forth in the Engineer s illustrations. All other improvements (i.e. expanded backout aprons, loop roads, "T"s or "Y"s, etc.) of the front street setback yard shall be approved by both Planning Commission and Council. Staff RecoHimendation * To accept Option B and to adopt staff resolution. Exhibit J. /7 f*" To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardscn From: Jeanre A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: May 16, 1990 Subject: Sugarwoods Plat - Request to amend Resolution #2652 - Section that limits structural and nonstructura 1 improvements within Front Street setback area List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Staff Memo to Council Site Plan Approved with Building Permit for Lot 2, Block 2 Sugar Woods Plat Topography Map Attorney's Letter/Sample Turnarounds Staff Sketches-Turnaround, Backout Apron Table of Front Street Setback Areas for 25 Lots within Sugarwoods Resolution #2652 - Condition 1 P The applicant has created a no-grading zone woodlands protection area within the private open space outlets (namely Outlets A and B), and the setback areas defined within each building lot. Within those areas no future owner will be allowed to remove trees in excess of 2" in diameter at 4' above grade. ^ grading is a 1 lowed within the protected areas, however, each residentia1 lot may include one driveway up to 20* wide leading to the loop road. This driveway may be graded and trees of any size may be removed to build it. The Subdivider's Agreement should also define the protected areas such as the setback area of each lot and the private open space outlets. This spicific condition was an attempt to minimize the impact on the existing tree growth by limiting access drives to one at a maximum width of 20'. The question of interpretation of this section arose at the time of the issuance of the building permit for Lot 2, Block 2 to Steiner and Koppelman (Review Exhibit B). Based on the location of this house in relation to the Front Street setback area, portions of the backout apron and turnaround must encroach the front street setback area. Specific site conditions for this lot required that a corner of the house be placed at the 50' setback line. This will also be the case for other lots within the plat where the desire will be Sugarwoods Plat May 16, 1990 Page 2 of 4 to minimize the impact on trees , locate house on gentler elevations or take advantage of other natural topographic features. In reviewing this issue with the Public Works Director, he advised that with the recent amendment to Chapter 6 that provided standards for driveway approaches to both private and public roads. Properties are limited to one driveway approach and loop roads were to be discouraged. This ordinance was approved in 1988. Gerhardson notes that in reviewing reguests for loop roads since the passagae of that ordinance the following criteria have been used in such considerations : 1. Amount of frontage along the private or public road 2. Unique physical conditions within yard such as topography and placement of trees 3. Type of roadway to be accessed - M.S.A. classified, heavily trafficed public roadway, private road . Chief Kilbo has advised the City against allowing a property to be newly developed where only a backing out onto a roadway is permitted. He cautions that a driver is in violation of State law if the driver does not back out into the direction of the flow of traffic. At the April 23rd meeting of the Council, Council accepted the staff findings and further directed staff to work with the developer and contractors to develop standards or criteria for the "necessary" encroachment of nonstructura 1 improvements within front street setback area facilitating a backing out maneuver and access from and to the site. Please note these special standards are to be employed by both developer and the reviewing staff when clearly defined site conditions necessitate placement of the house near or adjacent to the front Ssreet setback line. In early discussions, staff attempted to control improvements within front street setback yards by placing limits on size, width and length (i.e., backout apron from garage limited to a depth of 20’? a turnaround backout apron limited to 15', loop drives limited to 12' widths, etc.). Refer to Exhibit A and F. Staff also noted that a loop road would not be allowed on lots that had less than 200 of frontage on Sugarwoods Drive. This would qualify 7 of the 25 lots for loop drives. In addition, if such lots are on curves and there are safety concerns that turnarounds would have to be provided within interior of lot. fv Sugarwoods Plat May 16, 1990 Page 3 of 4 As you may recall, development within this project is limited to no more than 80% of the defined building pad being covered with hardcover improvements. The normal lakeshore hardcover regulations do not apply. In review of the most recent application fo .* Lot 2, Block 2, the smallest of the building pads, it would appear that the 80% hardcover allowance is not a problem, that is if additional turnaround improvements were required for this site. There is an additional 3400 s.f. of additional hardcover available for the improvement of Lot 2. In no case can the total improvement of any of the pads within the Sugarwoods plat exceed the 80% allowance. Since the Council meeting of April 23rd, staff held a meeting with consultants, the developer and contractors within the Sugarwoods plat. It became apparent that the first attempt at a control on limiting such improvements to a specific size would not be functional nor realistic. The developer's engineer plans to develop various site plans for specific pads with various alternatives providing interior cul-de-sac turnarounds, turnaround aprons and loop road configurations. It was the consensus of this group that should the need arise that each pad be allowed a percentage of hardcover within the front street setback area to insure minimum encroachment. (Lots 100'-180' allowed 20%, Lots 181'-200' allowed 15%) Staff conceptually developed a table for hardcover allowances by grouping lots based on frontage widths (i.e. 90'-119' allowed 30%, 120'-139' allowed 25%, etc.) and soon realized that this would not be workable. It may be more appropriate to develop a table defining allowed hardcover for each of the 25 lots based on a specific amount of hardcover rather than on a blanket percentage. Review the table of Front Street Setback Areas for each lot. Review of Previous Considerations Staff's first attempt at presenting the issue to Council dealt with setting limitations on backout improvements (turnaround apron, interior cul-de-sac or loop road) and driveway widths within each front street setback area. Since tiie Council m eting, staff has met with agents of the developer and staff consultants. It was determined that possibly a hardcover limitation would be more appropriate as it was obvious you could not set limits on the sizing of turnaround improvements that would respond to each individual lot's final development needs. Sugarwoods Plat May 16, 1990 Page 4 of 4 Staff has explored the idea of limiting such improvements to a specific hardcover percentage based on frontage area of each lot but this method may not provide staff with adequate control. Staff has yet to receive site plans developed by developer's planner providing graphic examples of such improvements to determine if the hardc ‘er control would work. Council has asked for direction from the Planning Commission to determine if members have any comments concerning issues raised by staff and developer. Is hardcover control a valid method? Do Planning Commission members have other suggestions or ideas? In consideration of the extremes in area from the smallest lot frontage at 99' to the largest at 349', staff feels each individual lot should have a specific hardcover allowance if indeed hardcover is the agreed upon method of control. I have created a listing of front setback areas of each of the individual 25 lots in Sugarwoods for your consideration. Please let me know prior to the meeting if you would like other exhibits or information prepared to assist in our discussion. Planning Coimission Action To provide further direction to staff on the following issues to assist staff in preparing final amendment for Council's review and action: A. Define site conditions that would suggest need to locate home at front street setback line. Do you agree tree location, topography or other unique physical conditions are acceptable? B. Method(s) to control amount of encroachment 1. A minimum of 10-20' is needed to back out of garage 2. A minimum of 15' is needed for turnaround apron CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 5/31/90 TO:Sid Rebers 3525 Webster Avenue St. Louis Park, MN 55416 COPIES TO:Bob Kost BRW 700 South 3rd St Minneapolis, MN 55415 Stephen Pflaum Leonard, Street & Dienard 150 S 5th St, #2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Reconsideration of Specific Condition of Approval of PRD for Sugar Woods DATE OF MEETING:5/21/90 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to Council that each specific request to expand on the allowed 20' single drive through front street setback area must be reviewed individually by Planning Commission and Council. It was also noted that this would not be a formal variance review and public hearing notices would not be required. A request could be placed on the Planning Commission agenda and placed immediately on the next week's Council agenda. Planning Commission concurred with staff's comments that it was difficult to establish a table of hardcover limitations for each lot as it would appear that the City would be encouraging the encroachment of the front street setback area even when conditions on the site would not call for such encroachment. Per our recent conversation, I will reschedule the application before the Council at their July 9, 1990 meeting. If your consultants wish to provide additional information in response to the Planning Commission's recommendation, please see that they submit the additional information by the deadline of June 29, 1990. -HliH 7N i-1ri ■«rr UJ-;:a ''S /> /1 !^! i 8 1 3 ui ^ V IX'-W.- !/■"[ i i ^ 'f 'w "7 <!) f- ^ A'---n / '■ '■:/ p L Jr —\S V . .\ , \ ISli I TJTTTT^ ■'-4 V'^yv - ''JvJ/'’ II* 'I' "I* - ! ' III' ''. liin \ vtK 4-’“ V n'"-1 • -Ja !Tf7. IT^ J f ( I I . II ^ I U-r ' t#f AREA CALCULATIONS FOR DETERMINING HARDCOVER AT SUGARWOODS PRD, ORONO, MN LOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 SLOCK 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SQUARE FEETSQUARE FEET OF FRONT YARD OF BUILDING PAD SETBACKAREAAREA 14,900 14,24019,635 13,260 16,555 12,60514,710 6,95527,720 5,95012,407 8,735 12,510 8,007 10,650 15,06512,790 8,52011,700 7.87510,724 7.98010,245 15,250 8.910 11.130 9,130 11,773 11.240 11.190 23.130 18.830 13,570 13,005 11,825 9,980 12,445 14,205 8,080 7.796 7,836 15,475 8.118 5.242 5,851 8,108 7,780 8,405 8,610 9,337 Mde T3:0T 06. 97 d3S C^TY OF ORQNQ City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652__________ P A RESOLOTIOir GSAirrZlfG A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER ffOHlCIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20« SUBD. 3(H) - File No. 1334 ' Sidney Rebers and Barbara Rebers# husband and wife and Rebet. Construction Co. (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached copy from plat (hereinafter "property"), and WHEREAS, the Rebers Construction Co. has applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(H). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Findings 1. The application was reviewed as Zoning File 334 2. The property is located in the R-iA Zoning i>. .wt. Page 1 of 8 IT>«Ww *7'7'3 ChTV OF QRQNa city of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652 3. On September 19/ 1988 and October 17, 1988 the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a planned residential development will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that the applicant has proposed a planned residential development plan for development of the property based on one or more of the following findings noted by professional representatives of the applicant: A. The topographical and physical characteristics of the property suggest a need for special design considerations. Variations in topography range from 1,044 City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652 feet at its highest point to 994 feet at its lowest, resulting in over 50 feet of graae differential. B. On the site there are mature maple and other deciduous trees. There is a densely populated forest of maple trees in the west portion of the property and in the east portion of the property there are young to mature nursery stock of evergreen trees and other deciduous trees C. There is s need for an open space buffer along the lot lines of surrounding rural residential properties, especially to the north and west. Page 3 of 8 J CITY OF ORONa city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652 Conclusions, Order and Conditions ”aed upon the ebove findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(H) to permit the use of a planned residential development, subject to the following conditions: 1. All provisions of the subdivision regulations have been followed under the planned residential format as follows: A. Outlets define the commercial corridors not considered under this current subdivision plan. These are Outlets D, E and F in the final plat. B. The road serving the residential lots will be designated as a separate outlet, namely Outlot C in the final plat. The open space areas surrounding the residential lots will be Outlets A and B in the final plat. C. A separate outlot will define the portion of the future east/west road access located within the southern portion of the property (commercial corridor). This is Outlot D in the final plat. D. Each residential unit will be defined as a lot on the final plat survey (average lot size of each unit - 41,000 s.f.). These are Lots 1 through 6 of Block 1, Lots 1 through 6 of Block 2, Lots 1 through 5 of Block 3 and Lots 1 through 8 of Block 4. Page 4 of 8 City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652_________ B. The actual building pad defined by the required setbacks of each lot cannot be shown on the final plat, but are shown on the Preliminary Development Plan last revised January 24# 1989. F. The applicant has created a no-grading zone/woodlands protection area within the private open space outlets (namely Outlets A and B) and the setback areas defined within each building lot. Within those areas no future owner will be allowed to remove trees in excess of 2 inches in diameter at four feet above grade. No grading is allowev! within the protected areas. However# each residential lot may include one driveway up to 20 feet wide leading to t:h« loop road. This driveway may be graded and trees of any size may be removed to build it. The Subdivider’s Agreement should also define the protected areas such as the setback area of each lot and the private open space outlets. G. Each building pad (defined by the setbacks for each lot) is limited to 80% hardcover improvements as defined in the declaration covenants. Such improvements will include the access road through the portion of the property located within the front street setback area. H. In a preliminary report, the t'ity Engineer Glenn Cook has confirmed that there is adequate sewer capacity Page 5 of 8 CfTY OF OBONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L NO. 2652 _ _ _ _ ,er through Long Lake by the Joint Powers Agreement or by constructing a new interceptor along the Highv;ay 12 Corridor. I. Applicant hf.s submitted a Storm Water Management Plan to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and has received preliminary approval. The applicant will be required to install a detention pond within Outlet F. J. All lots shall be served by a private loop road with a single, divided ingress/egress access at Brown Road. No additional curb cuts will be approved for this property at this time. Curb cuts to serve outlets B and F will be considered when those outlets are developed. The City may petition for a curb cut to serve the City's lift station and the subdivider and its assigns agree not to contest such a petition. K. The recorded plat of Sugar woods conforms to all requirements of the Subdivision Code, Chanter 11. 2. Doth the private covenants and the Subdivider’s Agreement should include the restrictions set forth in paragraph l.F and l.G of this resolution. 3. Entrance monuments have been approved by the City staff. Any changes to monuments will require staff approval. 4. No changes shall be made in those provisions of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions Restrictions and Easements for Page 6 of 8 City of ORONO CITY OF ORONa RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __^52 Meyers Woods ro,uired by this C.U.P. unless the City Council a,rees to the amenuments by amending this Conditional Use Permit. 5. Violation of or noncompliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning Code, and the City shall have all enforcement procedures granted by law, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigred owner has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, hia heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording Of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this ■‘■0th day of . July , ^9^9____ ' ' ATTE City Cl Property (s) ZSRP528 Maycjr - - - - - - Spouse Page 7 of 3 CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2652 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) SS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of July, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M, Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. L SCHEFFLERj. NOr,\t> ;uuic — HcNtlc!-iN CC'JNrV My eommij;.c.-> 6.8-01 U' U\ t Notary Public An STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , ms before me a,Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _ the person(s) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. : •>:«.■■<N5 a CHER . .t^tN couNry Aprit 21, I>9u ^ -w . NOTARY PUBLIC j£^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ^ Y *T -C ^t^5, 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. . .. -iN C n 7 NOTARY PUBLIC Page 8 of 8 ORONO pi^nning commission meeting held may 21, 1990 favorably upon his request. •,j the survey would cost more than thMr. Amundson said that the surv y fencing would be possible to reduce Kellev asked Mr. Amundson if it wou the size of the kennel. Mr. Amundson replied "'^He 's'’a*id’'®fhjt ofhlrwisr^he 'd°og'woulTnot detect anyone trespassing on Kelley polled the '^°Kelley°" nd\°Jated® chat “l^e is regarding approval of '^^]lZson. Hanson,opposed to approving -he ,a. anc^^ more f:“°r:il/f/“sl>%erwere s^ubmitted. Johnson stated that >!r- “"“°''.e®ulfement and though it ^ri’^e^-ffnfnciarhrrdlhir^- - required of everyone -ha- applies for a variance. ^ Kellev asked .Mr. Amuncson v,he.ne. commission'to table this matter. -»n -ha- he would have a survey prepareo fo- Mr. Amundson sta-ea -na- . the Planning Commission -o - - - It was moved by Kelley , seconde^^hy M^VurC^y.^^^ «otion at this time, 9:50)sssssss™ “srsssji pront/street^setback *Mabusth reviewed the information contained in her memo dated Mav 16, 1990. la-e-Haf Kelley stated that he would ^^^2652?^ reviewed cannol" mLt the intent of Re olut. w,uld -I j^'^^oi^^ge ^^^^^o^-ent when not need .,. . Mabusth noted that it may be a hardship on a builde. - 17 - fe 'crORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 21, 1990 *1 CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED Lit for -.he Planning Commission to meet before obtaining- permit. f-vnat- and City staff have attempted Mr. Kost said would provide staff with tht. establish obDective a "’oroposal is^acceotable. He statedtt stinS" ».=».,« «, locLiL of trees and other factors unique to eacn lo.. Kelley believed that “I’Vy Vaid^Lat'in his Change t'Le "ruies of the game” at tnis point. with iL'^tlndS'estabLs'hel: 1:!“^LbdTvisIon \“pro^'a2 ' 1-ha*- -he Citv and the Developer have Mr. Kost said tha^ oarticularly in interpreted some of the do not regard to the cur for the driveway. Mr. Specif'^ that r.here be under lot, it is likely Kist said that Vl° ced at th^SO ■ setback line. If the that tne house wi.. P setback line, omy a 20 house IS placec at the fr Y , ^^1 not adequate.y driveway will be allowed. A 20 criv.wa, serve a three-car garage. those that situations, will take It will be that intoBellows reiterated tha-c in necessary to design a house consideration. ,, . Knst if ^'e would like to continue to v;ork Kiir.= «'“ =“• -•»*' Johnson questioned whether ®^locat the force the builder ^ additional driveway area. He ^L^LL-d \“h;\ La-L-LL: ifa^LeVative impact on the lot, than allowing a loop driveway. Bellows said that is the *^^deve\oper is ^seLtiLlly^askin^fL’^h variance from the original standards and thirLriances require Planning Commission review. It was the consensus Of the Planning^commi^^^^^^^^ be no amendment to ^ ^ comply with the standards set - 18 - DRAFT COPY DESIGN MEMORANDUM TO: Jeanne Mabusth, Planning and Zoning Administrator FROM: JCO/GRC SUBJECT: DriveMay Standards, Sugar Hills DATE: August 1, 1990 OBJECTIVE: Develope driveway standards for Sugar Hills that minimize both intrusion into setback areas and amoi^nt o-f hard surface cover. DESIGN CRITERIA: Driveway width at property line - 16 -feet Minimum setback from property line — 50 feet Garage size - 3 Car/3 stall Design vehicle - Passenger car (Group IV—Large DISCUSSION: Passenger car design data for this analysis was taken from the “ArchitecLural Graphics Standards, 7th Edition" by Ramsey/Sleeper, pages 48 through 52. Copies of these pages have been included with this draft for your information and review. Considering the type of development for which these are being developed. Group IV — Large Cars was selected as the design vehicle (see copy of page 48). The width of the driveway at the face of the garage is somewhat dependant on the garage and the type of door opening. There are three options available for garage doors - 1) wide single door for all three stalls; 2) a double door and a single door; and 3) three single doors. The large single door for all three stalls is not considered practical because of the large span for a header over the door and the difficulty of operating such a large door strv.cture. We have chosen to consider options 2) and 3). Sketches of the three options for garage doors are enclosed for your consideration. (See copy of page 50 for additional comments on garages). There is very little information available in the transportation manuals regarding turning templates for passenger cars because they generally do not govern the geometries of design for roadway facilities. Therefore, we have developed our own turning templates for a large passenger car (Group VI). This is shown on Figure No. Qne. Figure No. One represents the minimum turning movements required fc*" a car parked in front of a garage stall to back up, turn and drive forward onto the street. The edges of the driveway are one foot wider than the edge of the vehicle's path while making this maneuver. Please no the wide swing of the right-front corner of the vehicle while backing. Figure No. Two represents the driveway required for a three stall garage with individual doors, with a right hand turnina bay. The 16 foot section of the dr’/eway near the property line • be located at any position within the 34 foot section near the garage. is shown centered on the middle garage bay. The layout is also based on the assumption that the driver will not have to "jockey around" within the driveway area by making several back and forth movements to get his vehicle turned around. If this were permitted, the size of the driveway layout could be reduced. Figure No. Three indicates a different arrangement whereby the right hand parking stall would back to the left in the same but opposite manner as the left hand stall shown on the drawing. Figure No. Four is a variation on Figure No. Two. It is shown with the turning bay to the left. Please note that any of the arrangements shown can be reversed without affecting the layout. Please review the enclosed information and determine where we go from here. We uc ' prepare, if you wish, some additional drawings illustrating various alternatives to the l*>youts shown on the enclosed plates. The information presented is in draft form for your review. Upon completion of Staff review, we will complete the detail plates and resubmit. jr- / I I K:\139\139GEN\3CAR3 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RRSOI.OTION #2652, A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT APPROVING A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS SUGARWOODS WHEREAS, Resolution #2652 dated July 10, 1989 and approved by the City Council of the city of Orono (hereinafter "Council") granted to Rebere Construction Company a conditional use permit pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (H) for a Planned Residential Development )cnown as "Sugarwoods"? and WHEREAS, Condition #1(P) on page 5 of resolution 2652 reads as follows: "F. The applicant has created a "no grading" zone/wood 1ands protection area within the private open space outlets (namely Outlets A and B) and the setback areas defined within each building lot. Within those areas no future owner will be allowed to r€«ove trees in excess of 2" in diameter at 4* ab ve grade. No grading is allowed within the protected areas. However, each residential lot isay include one drivewajf ug to 20* wide^ l««dl.nc to the l.oo£ road. ZtlLl dr 1veway may oe gr sded and trees of any size may ^ resioved to build it The subdivider's agreement should also define the protected areas such as the setback area of each lot and the private open space outlots* (hereinafter "condition"): and WHBRRA8, the Council has found that the strict enforcesient of this condition is not practical iK)r workable when one or more of the following site conditions re<|uires placement of a I'ortion or the entire house at the front street setback linet Page I of 7 - The shape or limited area of a building envelope. - Unique or mature trees within a building envelope and the desire of an owner to preserve a unique specimen. - The topography of a building envelope. - Placement of uouse bc to minimize impact on adjacent properties. Specifically in cases of corner lots where the rear of the house may be placed adjacent to a side yard of an abutting property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Orono shall allow additional encroachment of a front street yard within the Sugarwoods plat upon satisraction that one or more of the above site conditions exist for a property and to direct the Orono staff to present the owner's or builder's written request before the Planning Commission at their cailiest upcoming meeting (third Monday of the month) for immediate review and action by the Council at the following Monday meeting (fourth Monday of the month). Such written requests shall include the following information: 1. Survey/site plan designating drive(s) and type of backout improvement ("Y"s, "T"s, loops, etc.). 2. Amount of hardcover wit’.in front setback area - these areas to be shown on site plan. 3. Topographic mapping of property if topography is site characteristic under consideration. 4. Location of mature, unique tree specimens. 5. Other unique physical characteristics of property that require special placement on site. Page 2 of 7 NOff, THKREPORB BE IT FURTLER RESOLVED, that the Council will allow the Orono staff to approve without further review and approval by the Planning Commission and Council additional encroachment of the front street setback area if such improvements are limited to either one of the illustrations included in this resolution as Pages 5, 6, and 1, and upon satisfaction by the staff that one or more of the above noted site conditions exist for the property. The design standards used in these illustrations are taken from the "Architectural Graphics Standards, 7th Edition" by Ramsey/Sleeper, pages 48 through 52 for Group IV - large cars. The design standards and specifications employed represent minimum turning movements required for a car parked in front of a garage stall to backup, turn and drive forward onto the street within the 50' front yard. The Crono staff is responsible for reviewing such requests and the review shall consist of a representative of the Public Works and Building and Zoning staffs. All written requirements must be submitted to the Zoning Department and shall include all pertinent information listed above. Owners/builders may appeal all decisions of the Orono staff to the Planning Commission and Council. Page 3 of 7 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, this 10th day of September, 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of September, 1990, by James R. Grabek 6 Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 6 City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 7 II II I ■,cJU ‘, !0' 8 0on««troa A-^dmrHk 4 AMOCtetM ■wgiwTi 4 Dote: Corrm n®. No. R kav ' t/.V ^ toN « iri^rMV ProB: Date: cn'iNc:!. r:£;T!:^G Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members . City Administrator Bernhardson 'iLr'2 ■! Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Ad|M|Lm^[^2|^Qj||Q September 18, 1990 Subject: #1470 Bill Knapp/Dan Parten, 4300 Baystde Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Planned Residentiaj. Development Zoning District - RR-IA, Rural residential, 5 acre Application ~ 3 Lot Planned Residential Development - Preliminary Plat Mote: Bill Knapp has purchased this property from Dan Parten and has taken over the subdivision application where Parten left off. A new proposal for a 3-lot PRD has been submitted . List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Preliminary Plat Drawing Exhibit B - Notice of Council Action 3/15/90 Exhibit C - Council Minutes 3/12/90 Exhibit D - Previous Memos, Minutes and Noti ^s Pertinent Facts - X.Total Property area: Area Lot 1 Block 1: Area Lot 1 Block 2: Area Lot 1 Block 3: Outlet A (open space): Outlet B (open space): Outlet C (private road): Outlet D (private driveway): 17.06 acres 3.3 acres 3.C acres 2.7 acres 1.6 acres > 4.5 acres + 1.2 acres > 0.8 acres > 2. 3. Each of the building lots exceeds 2 acres, and each has tested suitable primary and alternate drainfield sites. The shape of Lot 1, Block 1 is of necessity contrived in order to place the alternate drainfield site within that lot. The applicant proposes t^i construct a private road to City standards within Outlet C, with a loop rather than a full cul-de-sac. The intent of the loop is to save as many trees as possible on a cent for traffic puipos expanse of bituminou^ outlet (Outlet Di 1. turnaround, to serve 3 Staff has discussed with the applicant the possibilities for placing the cul-de-sac further east so that the McCloud property would abut the cul-de-sac rather than the driveway *li»nd, therefore being functional Ar not appearing to be a broad middle of a woods. A driveway .;*.> jsed to continue past the loop residences. Zoning File #1470 September 18, 1990 Page 2 outlet. While Outlet D has been widened at the southeast corner, the topography at that location is relatively steep (14-16% slopes) and would not allow development of a full cul-de-sac without major excavation and tree removal. With respect to the cul-de-sac location, two houses will use a single 800' long driveway for access, while the McCloud property will share as a third user of that driveway for the first 100', then split off directly east towards his property. It would seem that the topography of the site might be considered as sufficient justification to allow construction of the loop as proposed, allowing the driveway configuration proposed to serve 3 houses for a short distance. 4. The City Engineer has reviewed the plat and has recommended that a drainage easement be taken over the portion of Outlot B which separates Lots 1 and 2; and an additional drainage easement 30' in width over the drainage way running from south to north within Lot 1, Block 1. 5. Outlets A and B are intended as open space outlets, and the applicant intends to provide covenants for the ownership and use of those outlets by a homeowner's association. The homeowner's association will also be responsible for maintaining Outlets C and D. The road and driveway outlets were separately designated not only for the purpose of defining what is private road and what is private driveway, but to aid in drafting maintenance agreements for the various segments. 6. The existing 60' "Reiersgord easement" is intended to be released by Mr. McCloud. Discussion Because this application has seen sc ly revisions and variations, a brief chronology of action to .4 wO may be helpful to keep this current proposal in perspectiv-* n 1. 9/22/89 - Applicant proposed a 3 lot plat of the 17 acre property. 2. 10/16/89 - Planning Commission tabled the request; applicant advised to consider a PRD; 50' road outlot corridors need to be platted including access corridors to Reiersgord, Asao and Deters properties; Lot 1 to be revised so it contains the alternate drainfield site. .iiSS.lSK.TTli Zoning File #1470 SeptemberV 18, 1990 Page 3 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11/7/89 - Applicant proposed a 3 lot plat addressing concerns of outlets and Lot 1 septic contiguity, requested area variance for Lots 2 and 3 (4.3 and 4.4 acres respectiV'^ly) and requested that City waive requirement for paving of the private road. Parten also provided a 2 lot concept plan omitting the northerly parcel, and submitted a conceptual PRD p"* ' with reasons why he doesn't prefer the PRD. 11/20/89 - After much discussion between Planning Commission and Parten, including discussion about a 2 lot subdivision, application was tabled pending submission of a 2 lot plat of the southerly 12 acres, addressing the issue of site drainage and road easements vs. outlot creation. 1/9/90 - Applicant proposed a 2 lot plat of the entire 17 acres including a 40' "driveway" outlot from Bayside Road to the southeast property boundary, wi<-h a 20' driveway outlot to the northerly parcel. 1/16/90 - Planning Commission voted 5 to v ^ mmend apt:roval of 2 lot plat with 50' road out. .nd 20' driveway corridor; road upgrading to City standards required at the time Lot 1 is further subdivided when an abutting prope. :.y using the road outlot for access is developed. 1/22/90 - Pursuant to applican-: ’s 1/19/90 letter to Council regetding private road and driveway standards. CounciImember Cal .ahan suggested %h*t staff comprehensively review ttie road systems ‘t.e area of the Parten and McDowaai applications before they are brouoht to Council. 2/8 rr ?*- Resa.T f th.%t study recommend that a 50' Jed to the north property line for jcess to Watertown Road. .er much discussion. Council tabled ApE ci r.ut advised aoplicant of likelihood that requ.est a 50' outlot heading north along c, property »;oundary. 3/12/90 - After additional discussion. Council tabled the request until the applicant proposes a revised plan. Zoning File #1470 September 18, 1990 Page 4 No ac^ditional information was submitted by Parren. In Summer 1990, he sold the property to the current applicant, who has been working with staff to devise a PRD that addresses the issues of concern. The current applicant has acknowledged that a private road will have to be construccod in Outlet C all the way to the loop, issues previously of concern but not addressed with the proposal ii\ ;;lude: A. B. C. Easement access for the City to parcel. Nature Conservancy Continuation of Outlot D for future use by Asao and Deters properties. Continuation of Outlot D for fucure access across Lace Line Trail. Regarding Item A, if the City requests an easement for access to the nature conservancy porcel, that easement would logically be through the neck area of Lot 1, Block 1. The applicant could be requested to provide such an easement, which would have no significant effect on the subdivision. The intent of that easement would be merely for City maintenance of the nature conservancy parcel should the City acquire it, and would not be intended to provide a public access to that parcel. war Ou ass Asau ^egardi ccess to Asao and Deters, if an access corridor w, such corridor likely being within open space th^ City would not have to deal with the homeowner's 'n in the future shoild such an access become necessary. Deters have stated tSiey have no need for such an access. Regarding the access to the north, such a concept met with extreme resistance from property owners in the area, and if proposed along the east property line would have a significant effect on septic sites for Let 1, Block 3 if such a road was ever developed. Council might consider the option of making Outlot D 50' wide, and ending it at the south end of Lot 1, Block 3, with the idea that should a future connection to the north become necessary, there is adequate acreage in Outlot B and in the Reiersgord property to accomodate that. Staff RecomBendation Because Mr. Parten lar peared before the Council, this application for preliminary j^iat is brought forth again to the Council. The Planning Commission has not reviewed this specific proposal. Council's options are as follows: Zoning File #1470 September 18, 1990 Page 5 1. 2. 3. Refer this PRD proposal to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Direct applicant to make specific changes to proposed PRD and bring it back for further review. the Direct staff to prepare a preliminary plat approval resolution for your next meeting, incorporating whatever additonal conditions or requirements Council deems necessary. 4. Other. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. 1470 NOTICE OP COONCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 3/15/90 TO:Daniel Parten 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: March 12, 1990 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Table until applicant proposes a revised plan. If you desire certified copies of the official council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. i : MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 12, 1990 ZONING FILE 11452-PEMEERTON CONTINUED March 26, 1990 Council Meeting. #1470 DAN « RUTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Mr. Parten was present for the review of this application. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief explanation and history of this application. Bernhardson said that Mr. Parten is asking for a two-lot subdivision and a lot line rearrangement. Bernhardson noted that the Reiersgord property to the east may have in excess of 6 acres dry buildable land, rather than 4.6 acres originally estimated. Councilmember Callahan asked Mr. Parten if he had received the most recent information from the City staff. Mr. Parten replied t;7at he had received a mailing from the City. Mr. Parten said that staff is recommending that he proceed with a three-lot PRD, but he is not interested in developing three lots at this time. He said in light of the recent information regarding the size of the Reiersgord property, the north/south outlot could be placed wherever Council feels is best. Mr. Parten said that he is still unclear as to why staff is asking him to provide access to the northern properties. Parten said that he is also concerned about the City’s request to construct the north/south outlot at a 50' width. Parten asked for Council direction regarding these three issues. Mayor Grabek felt that it is not the Council's place to instruct an applicant on how to develop his property. Councilmember Nettles said that these three questions were discussed at the last Council Meeting. Councilmember Goetten agreed with Nettles and added that the Council has previously attempted to provide Mr. Parten with direction in achieving the best result. Goetten stated that in her opinion, proceeding with a PRD would be best, however, Mr. Parten does not wish to do that. Mr. Parten stated that the Planning Commission had provided direction which allowed him to develop the plan he is proposing. He said that Council is not looking at that plan, but is suggesting something that he does not wish to do at this time. Councilmember Goetten advised Mr. Parten that he does not have to develop all three lots at this time. The PRD will allow future development of the parcel without the need to go through the subdivision process again. - 9 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 12, 1990 ZONING FILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED Mayor Grabek asked for staff input. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that staff has recommended that this be developed as a three- lot PRD. Gaffron said that a two-lot standard subdivision with extensive, dedicated roadways will leave Mr. Parten with less than a 10 acre parcel. Gaffron said that due to the existing access easement to the Reiersgord property, staff views that road as serving three properties. Thus it is necessary to comply with the City's Code and provide outlets. Grabek asked whether staff has discussed this proposal wich Mr. Parten? Gaffron replied, "Yes, several times." Grabek asked whether this proposal was presented tc Parten at the February 26, 1990 Council Meeting? Mr. Gaffron replied, "I believe that it was." Grabek said that the next step in this process then would be to have Mr. Parten present his proposal to the Council. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Parten if he was ready to do that this evening? Mr. Parten replied, "I wanted to get Council's direction before another drawing is done." Grabek asked the Council if it is cheir consensus that Mr. Parten should proceed as staff has recommended? Council indicated that they agree with staff. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to table this application until the applicant notifies staff that he is ready to present his proposal. Motion, Ayes- 5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1468 GEORGE PILLSBURY 1300 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. and Mrs. Pillsbury were present for this matter City Administrator Bernhardson provided the Council with a bri'»f summary of this application. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, that this application be reconsidered and that Council approve the request for hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances, in addition to the conditional use permit. Councilmember Goetten asked whether there has been any - 10 - TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. DATE: March 1, 1990 SUBJECT: #1470 - Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision List of Exhibits A. Notice of Council Action 2/27/90 B. Memo and Exhibits of 2/22/90 Discussion This item was tabled at your February 26th meeting for further consideration of issues related to road outlots and access. Since that meeting, applicant has discussed his options with staff, and may be submitting a revised proposal for Council review. No revision has been submitted as of this writing. Some members of Council gave applicant general direction that they would prefer to see a bO' outlot in place of the previously proposed 20' driveway outlot. However, this direction did not appear to be unanimously held by all CounciImembers present. Staff continues to recommend that this property be divided via a Planned Residential Development. This would give applicant the greatest flexibility and highest possible use of his property under the current RR-IA zoning standards, while still addressing many of the City's concerns about access and further development in this neighborhood. Staff has not drafted a preliminary plat approval resolution pending a determination by the applicant and Council as to whether this will be a standard plat subdivision or a PRD, and dependent upon Council's conditions of approval. A preliminary plat approval resolution will be drafted as soon as approval parameters are defined. 0^12'H- c. t APPLICATION NO.1470 CITY OP ORONO ?.0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 2/27/90 TO:Daniel Parten 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OP MEETING: 2/26/90 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Tabled to March 12th meeting for further consideration of issues related to road outlets and access. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 1990 Mr. Bichanich when the contracts will be paid in full? Mr. Bichanich replied that one contract will be paid in April, the other in 5 years. Gaffron suggested placing that infoi^ation in the City's tickler file. Peterson asked whether Mr. Bichanich wo!ld Assessed foe two sewer units when available? Gaffron said that issue has not been addressed. Gaffron suggested t^at it be indicated that the lot with the principal structure would be Lsi^ned a unit, the other lot would not. He said that would be a tool to encourage that the lots be combined. He said, however, if someone attempts to build on the other lot, they should be charged for a sewer unit. CounciImerabet Nettles amended his motion to address chat issue in the resolution. Acting Mayor Callahan seconded. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1470 DAN & RUTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDE ROAD SUBDIVISION Mr. Par ten was present for this matter. city AdministraLor Bernhardson provided a brief history and explanation of this application. Bernhardson said that he had met with Mr. Parten today to discuss An issue that concerns Mr. Patten is the point at whicn tn "nrivate driveway" would be upgraded with hard surface. He and Mr parten^ dVscufLd the long tirn. goal being the possible future_ ne;<J fora north/south road. There could, perhaps be a delay of Spgraiing t^rprivate road until such time that a third lot we^re to^develop or a permanent public road to the south is completed. Mr. Partfn has indicated that he would like ti proceed with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Gaffron reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. Gaffron said that the north/south driveway access is being conLgured as shown because the Planning Commission did not want Lot 2 to be a flag lot. counci imember Goetten asked Gaf: whe^-^ the 50' road corridor referred to in his memo would b*= -ocatec Gaffron said that based on the discussion at the previous council meeting, the City may wish to have a corridor extending extended further north. Goetten asked whether Mr. Parten would .*'a''.'^ ad^fte land for three 5-acre lots if the 50' corridor is included in th. plat? r;,ffrnn reolied that if both the 50' outlets along the east boundary and I SO* outlet along the existing ^“''®^Yaable included it would have an impact on f-e amount of dry buildabi . land available. MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 1990 Bernhardson said that it is because of that possibility that the City is suggesting that Mr. Fatten proceed with a PRD. Mr. Fatten advised that he had not received staff's recent memo pertaining to the 50* corridor along the east property line. Acting Mayor Callahan suggested tabling this application to allow Mr. Fatten an opportunity to review the most recent information. Mr. Pa'-ten said that he would like the opportunity to address the Council. He pointed out that he is not creating a new lot, he is only proposing a lot line rearrangement. ^ He said that there is only one logical building site on the Reiersgord property to the east. He said that placing the corridor against the east lot line would crowd that building site. He said that moving the outlot over 41* would provide more room. Mr. Farten also said that the topography near the lot line is steep and there are many mature trees existing. Mr. Farten said that it is not his responsibility to provide access to people that already have satisfactory access. Bernhardson noted that the Planning Commission did not recommend that the City take any underlying utility and road easements for the 20’ porth/south outlot. Acting Mayor Callahan asked why the City is not asking for more of a dedication than 20* and why the normal easements are not being dedicated? Gaffron said that the Planning Commission recommended the.r. v. narrow outlot be used to serve Lot 2 because they wanted to avoid creating a flag lot and the need for a lot width variance. Acting Mayor Callahan indicated that it may be more favorable to grant a variance than to have to condemn land at a future date. CounciImember Nettles asked if there wouldn't be a need to upgrade the north/south access once three lots are developed? Bernhardson said that ownership of Lot 2 may change and there may not be land in Lot 1 to accommodate a road. Bernhardson said that currently Mr. Reiersgord has an easement across the south property line of Lot 1 to access his property, which brings a third lot into consideration. Bernhardson said that City is recommending that Mr. Farten proceed with a 3-lot PRD subdivision with a substantial access to the north. Jowevet, Mr. Farten has indicated that he would prefer to proceed as the Planning Commission recommended. Acting Mayor Callahan said that because underlying road easements may exist, does not mean that a 50* road will be immediately constructed. Proa: Date: Mayor Grabok & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning s Zoning Administrator February 22, 1990 Subject: #1470 Ruth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision List of Exhibit Exhibit A - Memo & Exhibits of 2/8/90 Discussion - This item was tabled at the applicants' request at Council's February 12th meeting. In light of the road discussions at the February 12th meeting, staff would add the following options to those indicated in the February 8th memo: 6. Direct applicant to revise his standa’-d plat proposal to include a 50* road corridor along only a portion length of the east property line for internal traffic circulation purposes, and not necessarily for the provision of future road connections to Watertown Road, 7. Council could request that applicant revise the proposal to a PRD in order that future concerns about ability to gain a future third lot are eliminated. *7^2_ MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP PBBRUARY 12, 1990 CONCEPTUAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTINUED Council to plan for the future of the entire City. She said that the Council would not do anything without properly notifying those that would be affected. Goetten said the Council appreciates the 5-acre zone and would like to keep it as is. However, the Council cannot prevent people from coming into the City, purchasing and subdividing property. The Council has to plan for that. Goetten said that she welcomed the comments being brought forth this evening. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Nettles, to table this matter and direct staff to notify all affected property owners if there is any further action on the transportation plan. Motion, Ayes-3, Nay-0, Motion passed. #1470 DAN & RUTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISTON It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to table application #1470, as requested by Mr. Parten. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1473 JACQUBLYNN KELLY ' 2056 SHADYWOOD ROAD AFTFR-THB-FACT VARIANCES Ms. Jacquelynn Kelly, Mr. James Klein, Mr. Stuart Bear, Attorney for the applicant and Mr. Dennis Johnson were present for the review of this application. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief explanation of this request for after-the-fact variances. Mayor Grabek asked the applicant why work had continued after the City had issued a stop work order? Mr. Johnson rc^'ied that due to winter coming, work continued so that the lumber would not be laying on the ground. CounciImember Goetten noted that the stop work order v-s issued in September, which she did not consider to be winter Mr. Johnson said that his client ha complied witn j recommendations of the Planning Commission. They have removed the portior.a Lhe deck tending into the 0-75' setback area. The neighbors on each sid Ms. Kelly have no objections to the deck as long as there is i ng built on top of it. Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Bear would be ^.jparing a document that would place future land owners on notice that nothing further could be done to the deck. Mr. Johnson noted that the portion of the deck that extends into . 'ga lakeshore setback is lower than the pre existing deck. Mr. Bear said that it is the intent of the applicants to bring the deck into conformance with the j.0' side setback. MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 1990 Mr. Parten said that it is disadvantageous to have the prospect of a city street running through th ’ heavily wooded area with the wetlands and Luce Line Trail. h.i said that the term "internal circulation" is an excessive terra to describe three houses on a driveway. Acting Mayor Callahan said that it is likely that at some point in the future, the 5-acre zone will be reduced to 2-acre or 1-acre. The City has to look ahead. Mr. Parten said that the future zoning of that property does not concern him and the issues involving access would be dealt with at the time the property is rezoned. Councilmember Goetten said that the City has just started to consider a transportation plan for that area. She asked whethe the City is sure that this is where a road should be placed? Callahan said that the City is not sure from an overall transportation plan that this is where a road should be placed. However, there are properties to the north of Mr. Parten*s property and Mr. Parten'j property itself may be further subdivided. Callahan said that due to the topography of the land, the location being proposed for the road is the best location. Bernhardson said that Mr. Parten initially proposed a 3-lot subdivision that had a 50* outlot coming up from the south proceeding along the south property .line toward the east and then proceeding north and west. Bernhardson said that he had talked with Mr. Parten regarding a variation of the ini ial proposal that would accomplish what Callahan had indicated he would like to achieve. Mr. Parten said that th'' uioperty owners to the north of his property had indicated the uhey did not want him to put a r'^vd in as he first proposed. He said that the Planning Corami»‘^;ion had recommended that he go back to the beginning and come up with another proposal. He said that now his proposal only involves a lot line rearrangement and he is creating any new lots. Councilmember Goetten informed Mr. Parten that proceeding with a PRD would allow him more options. Nettles observed that due to the proposed driveway being 41* into Mr. Parten's property, the property needed to upgrade the driveway to a public road would come entirely from Mr. Parten s property. Mr. Parten said that due to the fact he had not received the recent information from the staff, he would request that the Council table this matter. Acting Mayor Callahan informed Mr. Parten that wr.'n this matter is heard again that he will recommend that there be a 50* 11 MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 1990 outlet rather than 20* and that there be underlying easements. Councilraember Nettles agreed with Callahan. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Counciimember Goetten, to table this application to the March 12, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. 11486 SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT 3020 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION # , . . «Ms. Nina Wildman was present for this matter, as was Mr. Mark Gronberg, the Surveyor/Engineer for Ms. Wildman. Bernhardson reviewed the information involved with this application and noted that the Planning Commission had recommended denial. Mabusth briefly noted that there had be-n opposition to this proposal expressed by the adjacent property owners. Mr. Gronberg said that Lot 7, Block 2 is v^ry conducive to a tennis court because of the shape. He said that f.here has been much interest in tennis courts expressed by future lot owners. Gronberg said that more chan likely a tennis court will be constructed on that lot whether it is done by the developer of the individual that pur«-nases the lot. He said that there would be more control exercised if the developer constructed the court. Mr. Gronberg noted that the tennis court mee-s all of the required setbacks. He also said that there will be nothing to restrict the construction of tennis courts on other lots, but having this court available to the residents of the subdivision wo^lJ probably discourage individual courts. Acting Mayor Callahan asked what the use of Lo.r ? will be if not used for a tennis court? Ms. Wildman replied that it would available for buildina. It disturbed Counciimember Goetten that the subdivisior rad already been approved and this re^cest was being presented atter the fact. Goetten believed that it should be the responsibility of individual property owners to build their own tennis courts. She said that it is not in keeping with this area to have a tennis court located at the entrance of the subdivision. Goetten had attended the Planning Commission meeting when this was discussed many the neighbors were very opposed to this ^rppsal. Ms. Wildman said that the reason she was coming back with this request was because she had been approached by an inter -*sted party wishing to buy Lot 7 and install a tennis court. bhe thought that it may be best to put the tenis court in herself because it is at the entry tr *• subdivisiv. . She said that she To: Prom: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator February 8, 1990 #1470 P.uth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Poad - Preliminary Subdivision List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Memo & Applicants' Letter, 1/19/90 Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 1/17/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 1/10/90 Discussion - The applicant is proposing a lot line rearrangement between his 13 acre homestead property and an adjacent 4 acre parcel which he owns. The 4 acre parcel abuts the Luce Line and was the subject of a lot area variance request in 1988, which was tabled until the applicant could provide legal access. Mr. Parten purchased this property, and proposes to expand it to increase its area to the 5 acre minimum, and provide it legal access to Bayside Poad. The application as de'.cribed above has evolved from Mr. Parten's original request to concurrently also split the homestead parcel into 2 lots. Staff and the Planning Commission have taken the position that the original plan would have required construction of a standard private road, to serve 3 building sites within a subdivision. The applicant subsequently dropped that proposal, not wanting to bear the expense of constructing an extremely long private road. With the current proposal, there remains a concern as to the need and timing for private road development, due to the vacant 4-aere Peiersgord property directly to the east, which gains access via an easement through Parten's property. City Engineer Eecommendation - The City Engineer had recommended that a 50' road outlot extending to the northwesterly property boundary be dedicated to provide future access for 2 existing residenc 'S south of the Luce Line, which currently use Turnham Poad Glenn also recommended construction of the road now, and further recommended that a 50* drainage easement be dedicated over the ravine traversing the homestead parcel. He further recommended that the applicant agree to grant the City a future access easement to the nature conservancy property. Zoning File #1470 February 8, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Planning Comnission Recommendation - The Planning Commission reviewed this application or: 16, 1990 and voted 5-0 to recommend approval subject to the following: 1. 50' wide outlet from Bayside Road to the east lot line. 2. 20' wide outlet extending to the northerly parcel. 3. Drainage easement for ravine to be 15' wide. 4. Standard drainage and utility easements to be granted. 5. Standard road and utilities easement to be granted over the 50' outlot. 6. At the time that a third residence is developed on this or neighboring properties which uses the existing driveway for access, the shared driveway will have to be upgraded to City private road standards. 7. Applicant to provide a turn-around or back-up apron for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. 8. Park fee for Lot 2 to be collected with the building permit. 9. Protect drainfield sites. 10. No requirement for nature conservance property access easement. Northwest Orono Road System Review - At Council's January 22nd meeting. Council reviewed briefly a lett.^r from the applicant regarding road standards, and rouncil directed staff to do a review of road needs in that general area. Please refer to the road study document in your packet. That study generally suggests that it would be appropriate to plan for a future route to develop a connecting road between Watertown Road and Bayside Road, approximately midway between the Ring Route and Stubb's Bay Road. That study generally recommends that a 50' corridor be provided generally along the property line between the Parten and Reiersgord properties. Depending on whether the corridor is taken entirely from the Parten property or shared by Parten and Reiersgord, it would have a distinct effect on both those properties. r Zoning File #1470 February 8, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff Recomnendation - If the Council wishes to proceed with acquiring dedications for future roadway in this area, that certainly affects the applicants' proposed lot line rearrangement. Council's options are as follows: 1. Approve per the Planning Commission recommendation. 2. Direct applicants to work with staff to revise the proposal to create a 50' corridor along the entire length of the east property line for future road. 3. Refer the application back to Planning Commission for further consideration in light of road study recommendations. Note also that the City might wish to consider updating its Comprehensive Transportation Plan. 4. Table for other reasons. 5. Other. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mar!c E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: January 19, 1990 SUBJECT: Parten Letter Attached is a letter from Mr. Parten outlin'9 his concerns regarding public and private roads and his development. He has indicated "a desire to address the Council and it has been indicated he could do so during public comments. This letter has been prepared in advance of his appearance. His anolication was recommended for approval with the road by the Planning Commission at its 1/16/90 meeting and is expected will be presented to the Council for their consideration at its 2/12/90 meeting. r Daniel C. Partan 1013 Tonkava Hoad r.ong Lake, MM 33355 ^S(§iM[]Wfijif u/i \\ 'JfifllSSB)I January 19, 1990 Orono City Council Crystal Bay, Minnesota He: Private Road and Driveway Standards This past August my vifa and I purchased property on Bayside Hoad wirh the intention of building our personal residence and or selling one or two lots. We were especially attracted by the many mature trees on the site and the long graceful driveway that together g-ve a feeling of peacefulness and privacy. -oweve^", in working with staff we learned that current city standards ^^uld require that we build a 24 foot wide asphalt driveway into tnis ar®a to s=»’'ve just four sites. In addition, we learned that tne city's standards are in conflict with each other. (See attached copy of memo from Mike Gaffron to the Planning Commission.) While we have been able to mccify our plans to avoid the negative environmental consequences of constructing a 24 foot wide pave- road into this special area, we feel that a review of the city's requirements -or drivewavs and orivate roads in the rural areas would oe or bene.iw. ^e-haos factors other than nu.mber of residences served could be con sidered such as lot sice, length of driveway, and potential for additional future access, to develop standards tor width of roadway, materials of construction, and alternative surtace materials. The rural areas of the city are an attractive compliment to the more suburban sections of our community, but wide asphalt driveways do not add to the character of this unique area. Thank you for considering this request and for your service to our community. Daniel C. Parten cc: Planning and Zoning Administrator Frc3m: Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 11, 1990 Subject: Code/Comprehensive Plan Conflicts Needing Future Resolution A, Conflict Between Subdivision Code & Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan defines a "driveway" as an allowable type of access to serve a maximum of three residents, not subject to any public easement or access righc. It says that driveway width (i.e. the actual traveled width) will be regulated in cases of more than one user or wherts uhere is excessive driveway length. The Subdivision Code (not the Zoning code) provides private road design standards that state for 3 to 6 residential units, a right-of-way width of 50' is required, with a minimum paved width of 24'. The Subdivision Code requires an outlot for a private road serving 3 or more lots [Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C)J. Clearly, there is a conflict between these two documents. 3.Conflict Between Zoninc Code 5 Citv's Develooment Intent Both the Subdivision Code and Comprehensive Plan provide for and encourage the development of private roads in the rural area [Subdivision Code § 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C); Comprehensive Plan Section 7-12, Subp. 4 "Rural Transportations Policies). Yet the City has interpreted its Zoning Code as stating that, by extrapolating of definitions, all newly created lots must front on a public street, therefore new lots proposed to front on private roa*ds require a variance (see MPG memo of 3/6/86). The definitions for lot standards seem in dire need of revision. It is the City's clear intent that development with private roads is appropriate.To do so should not require variances. ZONING PILE NO. 1470 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 1/17/90 TO: Daniel Parten 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 1/16/90 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Pl2uining Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below MOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Outlot A shall be 50 feet in width and extend from Bayside Road to the east lot line. 2. The 20' corridor as shown on the proposal shall be platted as Outlot B. 3. The drainage easement traversing Lot 1 to be 15 * in width. 4. Granting of standard drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, i.e. 10' along perimeter lot lines, 5' either side of the interior lot line between Lots 1 and 2. 5. Applicants to grant a standard road and utilities easement over Outlot A subject to a private road covenant to be filed in the chain of title in Lots 1 and 2, providing for private ownership and maintenance of Outlot A. 6. The property owners are placed on notice that at some future date that Lot 1 s subdivided to create an additional lot, the City will require upgrading of Outlot A to private road standards. Furthermore, at such time that any other abutting properties are developed that will make a use of Outlot A for access, such development shall trigger the requirement that road be upgraded to City private road standards even if Lot 1 has not been split. 7. A turn-around or back-up apron shall be provided for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. If such access is provided by a loop driveway, the minimum center line radius of that driveway loop shall be 50', with a minimum 20' driving surface width. 8. Because this is a lot line rearrangement. Park Fee for Lot 2 need not be paid until such time that a residence is constructed on Lot 2. 9. Drainfield sites have been defined on each of Lots 1 and 2 and the property owners shall protect those sites from any use or disturbance which would render them unusable as sewage treatment sites. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE #1469-CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED passed. #1470 DAN & RUTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDB ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. TO 7:55 P.M. Mr. Parten was present for this application review. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron briefly reviewed the information pertaining to this application for a preliminary subdivision. Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that the applicant is now proposing a lot line rearrangement in lieu of a 3 lot subdivision. Mr. Parten said that he is trying to start over due to the frustration experienced in attempting to create the 3-lot subdivision. Mr. Parten felt that a lot of "neighborhood planning" was being included in this and reminded the Planning Commission that this is now a basic lot line rearrangement. Mr. Parten asked the Planning Commission for some guidelines as to what is required with a lot line rearrangement. Kelley explained to Mr. Parten that the objective of the lot line rearrangement is to to provide enough land to make Lot 2 buildable, and to achieve access, via an easement from Lot 1 to Lot 2. Brown asked whether access would be achieved by way of an outlet or easement? Kelley said that it could be done either way. Gaffron interjected that in order to be consistent with City Codes, it should be an outlet, since it vill ultimately serve 3 lots, the 3rd lot being the Reiersgord property which has an easement for access. Kelley asked whether it would be possible for Mr. Parten to grant an easement for Lot 2 without the approval of the City? Planning Commissioner Cohen referred Kelley's question to CounciImember Callahan. Callahan opined that to the best of his knowledge, because Mr. Parten owns both Lots 1 and 2, he could grant an easement to Lot 2 without City approval. Gaffron noted that the City's subdivison regulations technically require that the creation of an access easement must have City approval. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, said that after the last Planning Commission Meeting, Mr. Parten was going to drop his option on this property and he was going to pick it up. He MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED said that had he purchased the property from Mr. ;'arten, Mr. Parten could have granted him an easement to access that property without the City's involvement. Kelley noted that the Reiersgord property to the east has a 60' easement and that Outlot A is 40'. Gaffron said that the prelilminary plat drawings indicate the Reiersgord easement may be extinguished at some time in the future. Mr. Parten said that the future owners of the Reiersgord property would benefit from the vacation of the easement in that it will allow them enlarge their building site and build their residence in the location best suited to do so. Kelley asked Mr. Parten for his opinion regarding the width of the drainage easement, 15' versus 30'. Mr. Parten said that he preferred the 15' and felt that he "was getting the total weight of the municipal government" thrown on him. Parten said that this is just a lot line realignment, not a subdivision. Mr. Phil Asao expressed concern about the previous discussions regarding accessing his property and the Deter property. Ms. Asac said that he had given a letter from his attorney to the staff. He said that his attorney's opinion is that he has legal access all the way to Turnham Road. Kelley informed Mr. Asao that access and his property are no longer an issue with this subdivision. Mr. Parten asked whether the Planning Commission thought that the road configuration set up the possibility of a future exchange that will be mutually beneficial to both property owners? Kelley replied, "I think you're awfully nice to do this; you don't have to do this. Reiersgord should be here to shake your hand, he's got a lot that he may or may not be able to build on, just like Lot 2." Brown questioned if Mr. Reiersgord was under the 5 acre requirement and that was his benefit for partaking in a future lot line rearrangement? Gaffron said the question is, if there is a future equal trade, then Mr. Reiersgord does not gain anything, except a more useful area, but no more acreage. Gaffron said that Reiersgord's property is between 3 and 5 acres now. Mabusth replied that the lot line rearrangement would open up the obvious buiding site. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE 11470-PART-::N CONTINUED Brown asked what the pluses and minuses are of easement versus outlot. Gaffron replied that for a subdivision, the code requires that when you are serving 3 or more lots, there must be an outlot, not an easement. Gaffron said that the question here is whether we are serving 2 lots or more than 2. Gaffron said at some point it will be likely that there will be 3 or more. Gaffron questioned whether this is classified as a subdivision, or a lot line rearrangement? He said that because it is a plat, it fits the definition of a subdivision, but in reality, all it does is change the lot line between 2 properties. Brown said that an outlot should not be required. Gaffron said that the City would take underlying utility and road easements for an outlot. Gaffron said that another question to consider is whether the out lot/easement continuing to the north should be subject to a City easement or should it stay as a private driveway without an easement, or should it be a separate outlot? Kelley suggested taking that question one step further and asked what would happen if Mr. Parten subdivides Lot 1 into 2 lots. Kelley said Mr. Parten will have to submit an application for a subdivision and the outlot question will have to be raised at that time. Kelley said if Reiersgord comes in for a building permit to build a house, he will probably need a variance. Kelley said that due to the existing 60' easement, Reiersgord might get the area variance without anything else to do with the Parten property and have a sufficient access to that property. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission how they would feel about that. She said that issue of a private/public road is always raised by the Planning Commission. Mabusth advised the Planning Commission that there is no difference between easements for access purposes or outlots - the areas of each are excluded from the dry buildable area. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the lot line rearrangement with the modification that Outlot A be 50' in width to the eastern property line, and Outlot A (extending north) be at a width of 20'. Gaffron asked whether the Planning Commission wished to keep Outlot A a single outlot or split it into two. Brown asked what the advantage : r '"vjving two outlots would be. Gaffron said that from a legal description standpoint, if a homeowners' association is to take care of Outlot A, what does that mean? Kelley said that there should be two outlots and Outlot A should extend to east property line and the northern extension could remain a driveway, designated as Out?"t B. Kelley further recommended approval of a 15' drainage I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED easement through the middle of the lot. Brown asked if the 10.6 acres included the 60' easement? Gaffron presumed that the 10.6 acre figure was exclusive of the 40' and 20' road outlots and the 15' drainage easement. Gaffron said that there is still adea’*ate area for building since this is approximately 10 acres in a b-acre zone. Brown said that he is trying to preserve the possibility of having two 5 acre lots. Hanson commented that he was uncomfortable with a 15' easement for the drainageway and prefer to see 30'. He asked if 30' would have an impact on buildable area. Mr. Parten said that he would prefer to proceed with this as simply as possible. He would basically like a lot line rearrangement and access by an easement. He said that the plan shows a lot more than what is actually required. Parten also said that he heard the Planning Commission make the decision that the Reiersgord lot is buildable and it is being counted as a third lot. Parten said that all that should be taken into consideration are two buildable lots served by a road. Brown asked whether or not the buildability of the Reiersgord property is known. Mabusth replied that it has not been determined whether or not the Reiersgord property is buildable. Parten said that the less the Planning Commission does at this point, the better. He said they should just look at this at face value and forget about the outlot and buildability of Reiersgord property. Kelley said that if an error in planning is made, he would prefer to error on the side that provides for an outlot and easements to two properties. Kelley said that the probability is that Mr. Parten will trade land with the property to the east, and there will be third lot. Gaffron asked Kelley if he wished to include any of staff's recommendations in his motion? Parten requested that the Planning Commission consider removing the Outlot and just leave him the ability to serve Lot 2 with an easement. Kelley read the conditions of approval, 1-7, set forth in Gaffron's memo dated January 10, 1990. Kelley said that item #7 should not be included. Kelley said that he would amend his motion to include a 50' outlot from Bayside Road to the eastern property line and a 20' outlot, Outlot B, from the southern boundary of Outlot A to the northern location indicated on the Cohen seconded. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion carried. HOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION January 17, 1990 Page 2 of 2 1C. Planning Commission recommended against the requirement that a future easement to the Nature Conservancy be committed to. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, February 12, 1990; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Please contact staff to discuss what (if any) additional exhibits may be required for submittal prior to Council's preliminary plat review. /'/3-<?0 11190.2HD To: Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardscn From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: January 11, 1990 Subject: Code/Comprehensive Plan Conflicts Needing Future Resolution A. Conflict Between Subdivision Code & Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan defines a "driveway" as an allowable type of access to serve a maximum of three residents, not subject to any public easement or access right. It says that driveway width (i.e. the actual traveled width) will be regulated in cases of more than one user or where there is excessive driveway length. The Subdivision Code (not the Zoning code) provides private road design standards that state for 3 to 6 residential units, a right-of-way width of 50' is required, with a minimum paved width of 24*. The Subdivision Code requires an out lot for a private road serving 3 or more lots [Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C)l. Clearly, there is a conflict between these two documents. B.Conflict Between Zoning Code & City's Development Intenr Both the Subdivision Code and Comprehensive Plan provide for and encourage the development of private roads in the rural area [Subdivision Code § 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C); Comprehensive Plan Section 7-12, Subp. 4 "Rural Transportations Policies). Yet the City has interpreted its Zoning Code as stating that, by extrapolating of definitions, all newly created lots must front on a public street, therefore new lots proposed to front on private roads require a variance (see MPG memo of 3/6/86). The definitions for lot standards seem in dire need of revision. It is the City's clear intent that d'^velopment with private roads is appropriate,To do so should not inquire variances. From: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Eernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator ; i Date: January 10, 1990 Subject: #1470 Ruth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Proposal - Continuation of Public Hearing Application - Applicant has revised his request to merely a lot line rearrangement to bring the northerly 4.25 acre parcel into lot area conformance while providing access to Bayside Road via an outlot. The remaining 12 acre parcel is not proposed for division at this time. This wili ® plat rather than a metes and bounds rearrangement in order to create the outlot. Note that applicant now owns th 4.25 acre northerly parcel. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawings Exhibit B - Applicants' Letter of Request 1/9/90 Exhibit C - Planning Commission Action Notice 11/22/89 Exhibit D - Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/89 Exhibit E - Memo & Exhibits of 11/14/89 Exhibit F - Memo Re: Conflicts/Standards of Zoning/Subdivision Code vs. Comprehensive Plan Dlscur ^ion - I lease review the attached proposed preliminary plat. Briefly, the applicants are proposing a lot line rearrangement between the existing homestead parcel and the 4.25 acre parcel which abuts the Luce Line. That parcel will be increased to include 5 dry buildable acres, and will have approximately 600' of frontage on the 20' wide portion of the proposed driveway outlot. Additionally, applicant is proposing a 40' driveway outlot width extending from Bayside Road to the southeast corner of the 10 acre parcel. Please review applicants' letter of request. Staff finds merit in providing a long narrow portion of Lot 2 to provide for future additional useful "trade" acreage for the Reiersgord property in exchange for additional area to the northeast. While such an exchange may or may not occur, the future exchange concept makes sense in view of the topography of the Reiersgord parcel, and does not detract from the buildability of Lot 2. Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 2 of 6 Regarding lot width, the City has taken a recent direction to require that the narrow access portion of flag lots should be an outlot, so that the "front lot line" will be defined at the widened portion of the property rather than within the narrow corridor. This way, technically a variance for lot width is avoided. Based on this concept, considering a possible future trade. Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the 20* outlot portion be extended 100* north to abut the widening of proposed Lot 2. Access Issues - Three issues present themselves regarding access for this proposal: I. What should be the width of Outlot A? (Please review also Exhibit P.) Since we know that Reiersgord has a 60* easement over the 40* wide part of Outlot A, we know he is likely to use it for access if his lot ever is granted variances to build. Therefore, this portion of Outlot A will likely ultimately serve at least 3 residences, perhaps a 4th if Lot 1 is further divided. At a level of 4 houses, both Comprehensive Plan and subdivision code standards define the traveled access as a private road rather than a private driveway. Although in the past the City has allowed a few 3 lot developments to use 30* private road outlots (Parten on Tonkawa; Strong/Massopust on South Brown Road), most 3-plus lot developments have been required to provide a 50* outlot, per the subdivision code standard. Because Outlot A abuts the White property to the southeast, there is a potential that the White property would in the future be developed with access via Outlot A. While one could argue that such a development would merely require White to grant an additional 10* to the proposed 40* for Outlot A, the subdivision code Section 11.40, Subdivision 1 states that "stieet systems in new subdivisions shall be layed out so as to eliminate or avoid new perimeter half streets". This suggests that now is the appropriate time to obtain a total 50* wide outlot from the Parten property. It would seem to be an appropriate City policy that, where additional future development is likely to increase to 3 or more the number of houses being served by a private outlot/driveway, the City should require dedication of the standard 50* outlot per the standards of the subdivision code when it has the opportunity to do so. Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 3 of 6 If the Reiersgord property develops before a future subdivision of Lot 1, the City will not have the opportunity to expand the outlot to 50' width because Reiersgord will not own Lot 1. The only future opportunity to gain an additional 10' for Outlot A would be when Lot 1 is divided. The northerly 20' wide proposed outlot segment will serve only 1 lot now and perhaps 1 additional future lot. This segment of Outlot A could be considered as merely a private driveway, not necessarily subject to an underlying road and utility easement to the City. Staff would question whether the driveway can be constructed within the 20' corridor provided. If not. Lot 1 could grant a widened easement to Lot 2, or the outlot could be increased in width. Either way, the fire code standards would require that a 20' driving surface with emergency vehicle turn around be provided for this extremely long driveway length. II. What part of Outlot A should be paved now? What part should be paved at future development levels? If it is the City's intent to start requiring that private roads be upgraded i old existing subdivisions reach a certain level of development, that would be a positive change in policy, but with many ramifications for homeowners. Would the trigger level be based on the subdivision code standards? (i.e. 3-6 units requires 24' pavirg, "more than 7" requires 28' paving, 1, 2 or 7 being undefined.) Does the poor 3rd user who triggers it incur the wrath of the other 2, who will help pay for it? In the Parten proposal, is this a subdivision that should have a trigger at the 3 unit level, or at the 4 unit level, or at any specified level? Is it the intent of the subdivision code to apply road standards to this mere lot line rearrangement with access outlot creation? III. Should the City request a road and utility easement over all, a portion, or none of Outlot A? If Outlot A is created, the City should logically take a road and utilities easement over it, since it will ultimately serve 3 or more lots, to be consistent with subdivision code Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (D). Note that the recently approved ordinance which requires public accessability to private roads for which the City has underlying easements, would have to be available for White's future use if he so desired^ with no cost-sharing stipulations. Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 4 of 6 If Outlot A was to exclude the northerly 20' wide section, making that part Outlot B, the 20' strip might be considered a private driveway serving only 1, possibly 2, houses and serve as merely a private driveway without the strict requirement for underlying road and utility easement. The preliminary plat drawings show that the existing road easement serving Reiersgord's property is "to be released". While this would be a logical proposal, if the easement holder agrees to such a release, no information has been provided to suggest that that property owner is willing to release his 60' easement. Additional Discussion - As noted at your last meeting, the property owners to the north have stated that they do not feel an access to Bayside Road is necessary to serve their properties, and they believe they have legal access across the Luce Line to Turnham Road. The City has no obligation to provide access for these property owners, and the current applicant does not propose to provide them with access. A brief review of the White property to the south suggests that it might be feasible to subdivide that property with probably no more than 3 new 5-acre lots making use of Partens' Outlot A. Of course, there is no guarantee that White would want to develop using Partens' Outlot A. A short cul-de-sac might conceivably be developed to serve White's acreage with its own road system from Bayside Road. The applicants have provided a 15' wide drainage easement over the ravine in Lot 1, since blockage of that ravine could affect drainage of properties to the west. City Engineer's Recommendation - The City Engineer in reviewing this proposal has suggested that under the most comprehensive approach to development ir this area, the entire length of Outlot A should be 50' wide, it should be extended to serve the properties to the northwest, and should be totally upgraded to a paved standard either now or when the 3rd housing unit is built (which could be by further subdivi^-ion of Lot 1 or by construction on Reiersgord's property) or by construction on White's property. Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 5 of 6 The Engineer recommends a 50' wide drainage easement over the ravine due to its extreme breadth and depth. He states that a 30* easement would be the miminum width drainage easement that would be acceptable. Applicant shows a 15* easement based on discussions with staff prior to the Engineer's input. Remember that the area of the easement will not count as buildable lot area for this or any future division. Also recommended by the Engineer is a provision to give the City access to the Nature Conservancy parcel via a future easement right. Apparently the Nature Conservancy has approached the City to transfer its ownership to the City, with cove-'.ants for its preservation as open space. If this occurs, the City would like the abiltiy to acquire a future easement to gain access to the property. Variances Required - While the 40* outlet does not necessarily present itself as a variance to the zoning code, it c*^. es not strictly meet the intent of the City's subdivision standards due to the existence of the Rei*»rsgord property and easement. Lot 2 requires a variance for lack of frontage on a public road. Technically, staff would interpret that neither Lots 1 or 2 require a lot width variance, since they both have more than 300' of frontage on a private road or private driveway outlet. Staff Recommendation - All things considered, the current proposal has merit and solves a number of concerns in this neighborhood: 1. Increases the area of the northerly parcel to a conforming acreage and provides it access via an outlet to Bayside Road. 2. Provides a dedicated access corridor to the Reiersgord property to the east which, if some day granted variances. Could possibly be developed as a residential lot. The applicants' goal is to merely make the northerly parcel buildable by increasing its area and providing it with legal access to Bayside Road. However, in attempting to accomplish that single reasonable purpose, the City is forced to consider the impact of this minor development as it affects and is affected by potential development of neighboring properties. The City's long-term goals and the developer's short-term goals do not necessarily match, and the City could potentially place extreme financial burdens on the developer in attempting to accommodav*e all future area development concerns. Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 6 of Staff therefore is suggesting consideration ofthe followng "compromise" position; Based upon the above discussions, staff would recommend approval with the following revision: A. Outlet A from Bayside Road to the southeast corner of the 10 acre parcel, be expanded to a 50* outlet width. B. Revise drainage easement over the ravine to 30* width. Staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions; 1. Granting of standard drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, i.e. 10' along perimeter lot lines, 5' either side of the interior lot line between Lots 1 and 2. 2. Applicants to grant a standard road and utilities easement over Outlot A subject to a private road covenant to be filed in the chain of title in Lots 1 and 2, providing for private ownership and maintenance of Outlot A. 3. The property owners are placed on notice that at some future date that Lot 1 is subdivided to create an additional lot, the City will requix*e upgrading of Outlot A to private road standards. Furchermore, at such time that any other abutting properties are developed that will make a use of Outlot A for access, such development shall trigger the requirement that road be upgraded to City private road standards even if Lot 1 has not been split. 4. A turn-around or back-up apron shall be provided for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. If such access is provided by a loop driveway, the minimum center line radius of that driveway loop shall be 50', with a minimum 20' driving surface width. 5. Because this is a lot line rearrangement, Park Fee for Lot 2 need not be paid until such time that a residence is constructed on Lot 2. 6. Drainfield sites have been defined on each of Lots 1 and 2 and the property owners shall protect those sites from any use or disturbance which would render them unusable as sewage treatment sites. 7. Applicants are to grant City future right of entry to Nature Conservancy property via an easement at future City request. January 9,1989 To: Orono Planning Commission From: Ruth and Daniel Parten Re: Proposed Plat for Bayside Woods Per your suggestion we have prepared a two lot plat for your review. Based upon our discussions with city staff we have attempted to address the current and long term concerns of the city for the development of this area. Perhaps a few comments regarding the configuration of Lot 2 would be helpful in evaluating the proposed plat. The 20 foot wide driveway outlet follows the natural contour of the land in that area. By staying away from the east property line as shown the driveway avoids an area with steeper slope and many mature trees. The proposed location of the driveway minimizes the need for grading, filling and tree removal. In considering how to add area to Lot 2 in order to meet the 5 acre size requirement we visited the site several times and concluded that the most desireable solution would be to enlarge the lot toward the east, but we don't control that property. However, we do have land adjacent to the only building site on this neighboring parcel, and it seems reasonable that some future owner would be interes\.ed in an exchange of property that would be of advantage to both parties. Therefore, the driveway outlot is located away from the east property line, setting up the possibility of an exchange between these adjoining owners. The 40 foot wide driveway outlot covers the existing driveway and provides room for any necessary enlargement. At the suggestion of city staff we have shown a 15 foot wide drainage easement over the seasonal flowage area in the ravine. In preparing this proposal we have attempted to balance good development thinking with a desire to preserve the rural character and sense of privacy experienced in the woods. This proposal is intended to provide for the long term development of this area and we request that you recommend its approval to the Council. CITY OP ORONO ZONING PILE NO. 1470 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 11/22/89 TO: Daniel Parten 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 11/20/89 Vote: 4 For 0 Against Planning Cosamisslon recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES & SPECIAL CONDITIONS - Tabled pending submittal of revised preliminary 2-lot plat proposal, excluding northerly parcel. Planning Commission generally favored a proposal for a 50-foot outlot to the east lot line, and a 25'-30' outlet continuation to Lot 2 (see attached sketch), likely requiring merely a private driveway rather than paved road. This proposal should be submitted at least 10 days prior to the January 16th Planning Commission meeting. A copy of the site topography is being forwarded to the City Engineer for review of the need for drainage easements. Please contact City staff at 473-7357 if you wish to discuss your application further. App'.icant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commissionr Tuesday, January 16, 1990; meeting atarbs as 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE #1481-MCCOURTNEY CONTINUED relieve drainage going into the house? Mr. Wenkus replied thar ultimately it would be due to the fact that they were putting in a walkout. He said that he had not applied for the building permit and just assumed that dirt would be excavated away from the foundation and the swale would be used for drainage. He said that a reading with a transit indicated the need to cut an additional 6" to 12" nearer the house to enable drainage to occur. It was necessary to take that same additional cut near the lake. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the after-the-fact conditional use permit, the hardship being the need to relieve runoff concerns on the other side of the house. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the City should take a drainage easement across this property? Gaffron said that he could look into that aspect. Kelley amended his motion to include direction to staff to look into the dedication of a drainage easement and make a recommendation to the City Council, Hanson seconded. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1470 DAN & RUTH PARTEN 4300 BA7SIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:55 P.M. TO 9:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Parten were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history regarding this application for a 3-lot subdivision. Chairman Kelley questioned whether it would be possible to split Outlot A into two outlots. One portion would end in the northeast corner with a cul-de-sac and Outlot B would serve the two lots in the back. Because Outlot B would serve only two lots, it could remain a dirt road. Kelley said that the issue to him is serving the lots to the east as well. Mr. Parten asked Gaffron to show the Planning Commission the proposal for a 2-Lot subdivision. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked where the septic system is located for Lot 1? Gaffron indicated that the alternate site is still located in Outlot A and the 60' easement creates a configuration for Lot 1 so that it is not contiguous with Outlot A. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED Kelley observed that if Outlet A were put in with only a 50' easement. Outlet A and Lot 1 will be contiguous. Gaffron suggested creating a more narrow Outlet A. Hanson noted that such a configuation would create "the ultimate flag lot". Bell ws indicated that she did not approve of this configuration. Hanson indicated that the land would lend itself well to development with the adjacent property. Bellows suggested the property be developed as a 3-lot PRD with the houseF clustered. She said that what the Partens are proposing more closely resembles a conventional subdiviijion. Mabusth interjected that the Planning Commission's directive to have the septic systems included in the homestead pad with a PRD proposal made it very difficult. Bellows indicated that she would not object to the septic systems being located in a commons area. She said that the septic system location is an item that had to give in order to roc have this application be a typical subdivision. Ms. Parten explained that the PRD being proposed is the best that can be done due to the topography of the land. Bellows suggested that perhaps the City has reached a degree of development where a certain amount of acreage no longer guarantees a certain amount of lots. Ms. Parten said that she was frustrated because she could not understand how there could be 50 acres in an area that will not sustain 4 lots. Chairman Kelley asked Bellows for her opinion regarding the 2-lot subdivision proposal he suggested with the 2 outlets. Bellows replied that she was uncomfortable with the overall shape of the subdivision and the location of the alternate septic site for Lot 2. Planning Commissioner Brown observed that lot area variances would be required for two of the three lots being proposed. Mabusth suggest^^d that it would not be difficult to make unique findings that would still allow denial of other less unique applications seeking lot area variances for newly created lots. Mabusth said that the extension of the road and the inclusion of the Styles property placed restrictions on the develooment of the parcel. Mabusth said that an area variance MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING FILE #1470 PARTEN CONTINUED would not be necessary with the 2-lot subdivision. Mabusth noted that proceeding with the 2-lot subdivision would leave the issue of accessing the northern properties unresolved. Bellows indicated that she would prefer to see a PRD if there is to be a subdivision of this property. She said that the PRD should not resemble a conventional 3-lot subdivision and that it may be impossible to accomplish that. Kelley asked Bellows if she would accept a PRD that would have the 3 pads on Lot 1 and the septic systems on Lot 2? Bellows said yes she would accept that. Gaffron advised the Planning Commission that there is an existing drainageway running through the property over which it may be necessary for the City to take an easement. Gaffron said that the area for the drainageway would not have to be excluded from the total area if developed as a PRD. Ms. Parten said that she has tried very hard to meet the intentions and directions of the Planning Commission. She said that there are not any big flat areas for clustering homes, but rather there are three separate building areas. Bellows said that the Fartens may not be able to do all that they want to do with this property. Ms. Parten said that they would be willing to clean up some of the City's problems with access. She noted that when making this application she had felt confident that due to the fact there are 50 acres with the parcel and surrounding property that will yield no more than 4 lots, approval would not be this difficult. Ms. Parten said that it does not make sense that this parcel cannot be subdivided. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if a determination has been made as to whether easements exist for the northwest lots to cross the Luce Line? Mr. Asao said that he and the Dieters have an easement in the form of a right-of-way from the DNR. Planning Commissioner Brown suggested leaving the Styles* property undeveloped. Mr. Asao said that he had looked at the possibility of purchasing the Styles' property which would bring his property up to City standards. Kelley said that would be favorable not only to the City, but it would also require the Partens to put in only a private driveway to serve two houses. Kelley ask- for input from the Planning Commission as to the Partens proceeding with a 2-lot MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED subdivision of the 12 acres, subtracting out the acreage dedicated to the 60' easement that runs the whole south lot line. Kelley suggested putting in a 50' outlet that follows the southerly lot line all the way around to the east lot line. Gaffron observed that such a configuration would create two flag lots. Brown said that he would favor the 2-lot subdivision. Mabusth advised that the flag lot would require a width variance. Mabusth suggested putting a 25' outlet the extends up to Lot 1 on the east side. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Chairman Kelley to recommend approval of the preliminary 2-lot subdivision of 12+ acres, less Outlet A which will run 50' from the southerly boundary to the east lot line. Outlet B will run on the eastern boundary commencing at Outlet A to the south up to the lot line of Lot 1 at a width of 25'. It was suggested by the applicant's surveyor that the outlet will neej to be wider than 25' to contain a driveway. Kelley said that he did not want to create substandard lots. Mabusth suggested that it may be better to have the property owners work out the details. Kelley suggested tabling the application until further information is available regarding actual lot areas. Bellows said the issue of drainage easements had not yet been addressed. Kellev withdrew his mo-ion. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application pending transmittal of a plan addressing tlie issue of easement vs. outlot, site drainage and subdivision of the 12+ acres rather than 17+ acres. Mr. Parten asked for clarification of what drainage information they needed to submit? Gaffron explained that the City may require a 20' to 30' drainage easement be taken over the existing drainageway. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays-0, Motion passed . #1471 DARYLB UPHOPF 2699 KELLY AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:42 P.M. TO 9:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Uphoff was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief review of this application for a conditional use peimit to repair a sea wall. Mabusth said that the City Engineer had reviewed the application and found the proposal acceptable and recommended that the To: Planring Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: November 14, 1989 Subject: #1470 Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing Application - 3-lot Plat List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Memo from Applicants Exhibit B - Large Size Proposed Plat Drawings Exhibit C - Planning Commission Action Notice 10/20/89 Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 10/10/89 Discussion - The applicants have met with staff and have attempted to address Planning Commission's concerns with their revised proposal, a 3-lot plat. This proposal results in three lots of 4.3, 4.4, and 6.0 acres respectively. They would be served by a 50* private driveway outlot that connects to the Reiersgord property to the east and to the Asao property on the northwest. Each lot would meet the lot width standard as measured at the 50* setback from the road outlot. Lots 2 and 3 would require a lot area variance. The applicants request that they not be required to pave any portion of the road/driveway within the outlot. They propose to construct an 18* wide gravel driveway to the turn-around area (see Sheet 2 of the large scale site plan) and a 14' wide gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3. Alternatives - Please review the applicants' memo. They have considered two alternatives to the proposal. Their Exhibit A indicates a two lot plat excluding the northernmost parcel from the subdivision, wherein each lot would contain 5 acres, being served by a 50' private driveway outlot. Under this scheme, they would not be required to pave, and this would be considered as merely a shared driveway. Such a proposal does not resolve any of the concerns with surrounding properties and would likely make it harder in the future for those access problems to be resolved either by Uhe City or by the affected property owners. I —' I < y L. ‘ ' /lIC - c Zoning File #1470 November 14, 1989 Page 2 of 3 The second alternc.‘-ive is shown on applicant's Exhibit ^ as a PRD layout. The proposal appears somewhat contrived in order to place the alternate drainfield site for Lot 1, within Lot 1. Applicants feel that the PRD concept is not necessarily appropriate since the shared nature of the open space would tend to negate the privacy aspects of the low density development. Applicants further are concerned about the marketability of the PRD as it applies to this specific property. Certainly applicants are correct in that the property does not lend itself to clustering, as was the case in the Luce Line Ridge PRD development just to the west. However, with 3 lots on over 17 acres, as a PRD no lot area variance is necessary since the road outlot can be credited for meeting the density requirement. Issues - 1. Does the Planning Commission feel comfortable via the proposed standard plat in granting the necessary lot area variances for Lots 2 and 3, to be less than 5.0 acres in the 5 acre zone? If so, the proposed plat would seem to address the general issues outlined by the Planning Commission previously. If not, Planning Commission should consider the PRD alternative, in which the lot area request is no longer a variance. 2. Is the applicants' proposal for an 18' wide gravel road to the cul-de-sac, with an extended 14' gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3, acceptable :o the Planning Commissinn? If not, what additional standards would Planning Commission recommend? If Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval for lot area variances for the standard proposed three lot plat, there are number of unique findings that might be made that would set this application apart from other future applications requesting lot area variances in the 5 acre zone; 1. In order to provide future access to neighboring land locked parcels, the City is requiring an unusually lengthy outlot road that subtracts from the overall acreage. 2. Due to the extremely hilly topography and "stretched out" nature of the parcels encompassing the property, the length of roadway to serve only three parcels is necessarily of an excessive length. 3. The overall density for the three proposed lots is 5.6 acres per residence, meeting the intent of the 5 acre minimum lot size standard cf the RR-IA zoning district. Zoning File #1470 November 14, 1989 Page 3 of 3 If Planning Commission feels that these and other appropriate findings provide a substantial justification to grant the lot area variances requested, such that the precedent-setting aspect would be minimized, then a recommendation for approval of the proposed plat would be appropriate. On the other hand, if Planning Commission feels that granting the lot are? variance here will ultimately lead to pressure for lot area ariances on less unique properties in the 5 acre zone, then the PRD concept with three distinct building pads and commonly owned open space, could be considered. Staff would also note that if a recommendation for approval be forthcoming, the plat would be subject to the standard drainage and utility easements, a drainage easement over the major drainage ravine, park fees, private road easements and covenants, etc. f ''' I — r TO: Orono Planning Commission FROM: Dan and Ruth Parten RE: Bayside Woods Subdivision I. Proposal - Three Lot Subdivision We propose a 3 lot subdivision with road outlot# including r 18 foot wide gravel driveway to the turnaround, and a 14 fwot wide gravel driveway co Lots 2 and 3. Lot 1 is arranged to incorporate an alternate septic site as shown. Variance Request - Lot Area Proposed Lots 2 and 3 are 4.3 and 4.4 acres respectively, Lot 1 is 6.0 acres and the proposed road outlot is 2.3 acres. The overall density of this project is 5.6 acres per residence. The unique terrain of the property together with the creation of a 50 foot wide road outlot of 2.3 acres creates a hardship that we feel justifies the granting of a variance. Variance Reauest ^2 - Paving We recognize that at t could access up to si:, three landlocked parcels future date the driveway Outlot jperties and provide access to The additional cost of bituminous paving for the 1,250 foot long driveway to the turnaround is approximately $23,000. We feel that if paving is a requirement, those costs should be shared by all benefiting parties. Therefore a variance is being requested to waive, for the present time, paving of the driveway. II. Alternate - Two Lot Subdivision If a variance for paving is out of the question we propose a two lot subdivision, shown as "Exhibit A". The additional expense of paving the driveway and turnaround make a three lot plan economically impractical. This plan produces two 5 acre plus parcels with no variances required. ITT.I Page 2 - Bayside Woods Subdivision III. Alternate #2 - PRD Exhibit B is an attempt to create a PRD as requested by the Planning Commission. The intent of a PRD (as explained by staff) is to cluster home sites in one area of development and leave open space for the enjoyment of the residents, maintaining the overall density of the project at 5 acres or more per residence. The topographic features of the property, potential septic sites, and the natural building sites make clustering of homes unfeasible. The use of open space around building sites when the sites are separated as these are, would infringe on the privacy of the residences and therefore make the lots less marketable. i EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley and Planning Commissioners Johnson, Bellows, Cohen, Brown, Hanson and Moos. The following represented the City staff: Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Assistant City Engineer Olson, Lieutenant Cheswick, and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Peterson was also present. #1470 DAN £ ROTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Parten were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the information pertaining to this preliminary subdivision. He said that this property was very unique and linear in configuration with the Luce Line at the north end and Bayside Road at the south end. The applicant is proposing a 3- lot subdivision with each lot approximately 5 acres in size. Gaffron explained the various issues involved with this application including the fact that Lot 3 does not abut a public or private road. Another issue is the fact that an alternate drainfield site was not found within the proposed Lot 1. Mr. Parten said that he did not think that Outlot A fit well with the interior property, but would be better suited for the property to the west. Chairman Kelley questioned whether it wouldn't be more practical to have only two lots developed, rather than 3? Mr. Parten replied that his interpretation of the reason for the 5-acre zoning is to control density. He said that intention is being met both with his proposal and the development possibilities of the adjacent properties. Mr. Parten also said that the topography and ravine within the property limited the location of building sites. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the applicant had considered proceeding with a PRD? Mr. Parten said that he was somewhat uneasy to proceed in that manner. He questioned how the commons area would be maintained. Kelley cited the French Creek development as an example of a PRD and informed Mr. Parten that agreements are made as to the maintenance of the commons area. Kelley said that he had visited MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED the site and felt that the topography was such that in order to achieve 3 lots, the applicant should proceed with a PRD. Planning Commissioner Brown concurred with Kelley. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he too agreed that a PRD would be the best approach and added that it may be necessary to have only a 2-lot subdivision. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Gaffron to explain the existing 60' road easement. Gaffron explained that the easement was granted to the Reiersgoid property. Gaffron said that the way the Zoning Code reads the 60' easement would be excluded from the area devoted to the 5-acre calculation of acreage. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that this property presented an excellent opportunity for a PRD. She said that too many variances would be required in order to proceed in any other manner. Bellows indicated that she did not like the proposed location for the alternate drainfield site for Lot 1. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission how they would respond to a proposal locating the alternate drainfield site in Outlet A if a PRD was pursued. Bellows responded that she would prefer to see the alternate drainfield site located somewhere other than across an easement. She questioned whether it could exist in one of the other outlets? Mr. Parten questioned the size of the building envelope and how the size is determined? Chairman Kelley informed Mr. Parten that such a decision would be his to make. Mr. Parten asked for direction in this regard. Gaffron indicated that he would like to see the building envelope at a minimum of two acres. Johnson questioned the possibility of creating an access to serve adjacent properties as v;ell. Mary Petersen expressed her concern about the crossing of the Luce Line. She said that the DNR had indicated their preference to have no crossing of the Luce Line and should there be future development of the property in this area that Bayside Road be used for access rather than the Luce Line. Mrs. Parten asked what the requirements would be for the MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED road if they proceeded with a PRD? Planning Commissioners Cohen and Hanson indicated that they would like to see the road at a 50' width for the entire length. Kelly said that if the applicants proceeded with a PRD, he would like to see the road at a 50 foot width and that access be provided to the northeast corner. Mrs. public? Parten asked whether the road would be private or Kelley indicated that more than likely the road would be private and though the easement would be 50' in width, the road may only be constructed at a 14 or 15 foot width. Mary Petersen asked whether blacktopping of the road would be required? The Planning Commission replied that blacktopping would not be required due to the road having a "private" designation. Ms. Petersen questioned why it was necessary to blacktop the private road constructed within the Foxfyre Subdivision? Gaffron clarified that when a private road serves 3 or more residences, the City has consistently required the road to be paved. Mr. Parten asked if, for economical reasons, he could just divide the 2.5 and 10 acres he currently owns and not go ahead with the purchase of the northerly 4.25 acre parcel from Mrs. Styles. Planning Commissioner Hanson replied that it may be that with the easement, there would not be enough land to create 2 lots. Gaffron suggested that perhaps the Reiersgord easement could be reduced from 60' to 50'. Chairman Kelley pointed out that if Mr. Parten proceeds with a PRD for 3 lots, the lots would all be north of the Reiersgord easement. He said that there would not be enough contiguous land to create 3 lots and the applicant would require approval for non-contiguous acreage. Kelley questioned why the Planning Commission could not recommend approval of a 2-lot PRD with non contiguous acreage? Bellows noted that the 2-lot PRD would leave Mrs. Styles* parcel landlocked. Chairman Kelley questioned whether it was reasonable to expect Mr. Parten to be responsible for the land locked parcel that currently exists as such? MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED Planning Commissioner Hanson again questioned whether it would be possible to create 3 lots of satisfactory characteristics . Mrs. Parten suggested that due to the low density in this area overall, that perhaps the granting of a variance would not be unreasonahli^. Planning Commissioner Cohen indicated that he would be willing to consider variance approval provided that the applicant purchase Mrs. Styles 4.25 acres and include it in the subdivision. P.elley suggested that in addition to providing access to the 4.25 parcel, that access be given to the other existing land lockec parcels in the northeast corner. Ml. Parten questioned whether he would be required to have a paved ro;?d? Chairman Kelley suggested that the homeowners currently achieving access via the Luce Line that would benefit from the construction of the road pay a share of the cost. The question arose as to whether those residents actually had an easement from the DNR to cross the Luce Line. Planning Commissioner Cohen suggested that the applicant investigate that further and bring the information back at a later time. Chairman Kelley indicated that he would favor a 3-lot PRD with access to the 4.25 acre lot and the other 2 landlocked properties. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that the issues of concern are the location of the alternate drainfield site for lot 1, access to the remaining parcels and the question of whether a PRD is the best way to proceed. He said that he would be more likely to approve a lot size variance. Planning Commissioner Cohen concurred with Johnson. Planning Commissioner Bellows agreed with Kelley's preference. Planning Commissioner Brown concurred with Kelley and Bellows, and felt it was important to further investigate the easement for crossing of the Luce Line. Planning Commissioner Hanson agreed with Kelley as did Planning Commissioner Moos. Moos added that she too had concern about the location of the alternate drainfield site. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 16, 1989 ZONING PILE #1470-PARTEN CONTINUED Johnson raised the question of how the Zoning Code addressed the required contiguous land and the exclusion or inclusion of easements for lots containing 2 and 5 acre minimums. He noted that for 2 acre minimum, dry contiguous buildabJe area, easements and private drives are excluded. He asked whether that held true for 5 acre lots. Gaffron interpreted the Code to say that 5 acre lots must have a minimum of 2 acre, dry, contiguous, buildable land not located within any right-of-way, or other easements. He said that the Code does not specify whether the additional 3 acres are required to be contiguous. Chairman Kelley suggested that the Partens put together a PRD and a lot size variance application. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes=7, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1461 THE REVEREND PAUL W. BERGGREN 585 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH VARIANCE PUBLICS HEARING 7:42 P.M. TO 7:43 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Reverend Berggren was present for this application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that this application involved the need for a side setback variance to construct a porch. Chairman Kelley inquired as to whether the pine trees to the north of the house would remain. Reverend Berggren stated that he did not intend to remove the trees. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if there was ’ \ other location for the porch addition? Reverend Berggren said that putting the porch in another location would interfere with the bay window, the septic system or the driveway. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Reverend Berggren said that he had talked with his neighbor on the north side and he indicated that he had no objections to ZONING FILE NO. 1470 CITY OP ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal’'sly, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Daniel Parten COPIES TO: 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 10/16/89 Vote: 7 For 0 Against Planning Coonaission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES fc SPECIAL CONDITIONS - Applicant to submit revised proposal(s) for review. General comments by the Planning Commission: 1. Septic alternate site for Lot 1 (existing house) must be within Lot 1 if a standard plat is proposed. Some floxibxlity may be possible if a PRD is proposed. 2. Whether a standard plat or PRD is proposed. Planning Commission might consider granting lot area variances, given the overall 3 residence/17 acres density. 3. Planning Commission would prefer that access corridors be provided to the Reiersgord, Asao, and Deters properties, given the access concerns with those properties. 4. 50' outlot corridors would be appropriate throughout the subdivision; paved width of actual road/driyeway to be standard 24 if all houses are served, perhaps some flexibility on paving if less houses are served. 5. Applicant advised to propose both a PRD and a standard plat for consideration. App. icant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the November 20, 1989 meeting i November 10, 1989. In all cases, the application must be continued with the submittal of requested information within 120 days or the City will consider the application as formally withdrawn. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City fieworder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. / To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: October 10, 1989 Subject: #1470 Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IA, 5 acre, unsewered Application - 3-lot Class III subdivision to create two new 5 acre building lots in addition to existing residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List , ^ Exhibit D - Preliminary Plat Drawings (cv*-C Exhibit E - Letter from Neighboring Property Owner White Exhibit F - Sketches by Staff Including: 1. Neighboring Property Ownership 2. Acreage Layout 3. Scale Concept Plan Showing Building Sites 4. Existing & Proposed Driveway System 5. Staff Conceptual Sketch A Staff Conceptual Sketch B 7, Staff Conceptual Sketch C Exhibit G - Subdivision Code Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 Fertinent Facts - 1. Proposed lot areas are as follows: Proposed Lot 1 = 5.2 acres (existing house) Proposed Lot 2 = 5.0 acres Proposed Lot 3 * 5.0 acres Outlet A = 1.87 acres Total Acreage = 17.06 acres (per survey - does this figure include 33' of right-of-way for Watertown Road?) 2. Proposed Lot 1 would not abut a private or public outlot road, but is proposed to be served by an easement driveway, which conflicts with Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (c). Lot 1 contains the existing house and the existing primary drainfield. The site evaluation report on file indicates there are no suitable alternate drainfield sites within proposed Lot 1 and the only apparent alternate site is within Outlot A. The southerly 60' of Lot 1 contains an existing private "road" easement in favor of the Reiersgord property to the east. Applicant has .rot excluded this existing road easement from his calculation of lot area as required by the subdivision code. C-') I Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 2 of 5 3.Proposed Lot 2 is a "flag** lot which would have 60' of frontage on Bayside Road per the proposal. The flag portion of Lot 2 also is covered by the 60' existing road easeipent, which again was not excluded from the area calculation by the applicant's surveyor. Primary and alternate drainfield sites for Lot 2 would located along the northerly lot line of Lot 2. Lot 3 abuts the Luce ■ ■ Trail and was the subject of a prior variance applicat. n which was never completed. This subdivision proposal increases the area of that parcel to 5.0 acres (including the proposed road easement). One of the issues with that prior variance request was access across the Luce Line Trail, which the applicant could not obtain. The current proposal leaves Lot 3 with no frontage on a public or private outlet road, b«v< a.i ves it about 158' of frontage on a proposed 30' private vj easement. Outlet A was proposed for possible sale to the abutting property owner at 4360 Bayside Road. However, since septic testing indicates the only alternate site available for Lot 1 would be within the area of Outlet A this poses a problem. The proposal does not strictly meet the requirements of the septic code, which requires that drainfield sites be within the building lot which they serve. The proposed dividing line between Lots 1 and 2 generally follows a deep ravine. The proposed 30' easement road was located to fit the existing topography. The property contains steep slopes which significantly limit the potential roadway locations. A number of variances would be required in order to approve the plat as proposed? A) Lots 1 & 3 would require a variance for lack of frontage on a public roadway. B) Lots 1, 2 & 3 would require lot width variances. At the 100' setback from Bayside Road, Lot 2 is only 60' wide where 300' in lot width is normally required. Lots 1 & 3 do not front on a public roadway nor a private road outlot, hence they each technically require a 100% variance for defined lot width. C) Section 11.03.24, the definition of "minimum lot area", requires the exclusion of private or public access easeine"^.ts from the calculation of lot area. With this in mind, the actual defined areas of Lots 1 & 2 are each about 4.P acres, and that, of Lot 3 is 4.95 acres. Each lot would re .ire a lot area variance. Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 3 of 5 D) Variance to Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (c) to allow 3 lot development without a private road outlot. Discussion - In early discussions with staff, the applicant was advised that complete septic testing would be required for this 5 acre subdivision due to the slope concerns on the property. Additionally, it was suggested to applicant that a Planned Residential Development (PRD) be considered for this property due to its unique natural characteristics and unusual boundary configuration. As of a week before this writing, applicant had been requested by staff to provide a revised proposal showing outlot ropr;2ther than road easements to serve the subdivision. In your discussion of the issues noted previously, staff would suggest reviewing sketches FI through F7. Fl notes the neighborhood ownership pattern and the location of neighboring residences to the north. F2 notes the acreages of the three blocks of property within the subdivision. F3 is a reduced version of the applicant's concept plan for two new building sites. F4 indicates the existing and proposed driveway system. Especially note the extreme length of driveway that would serve Lots 2 and 3. From Bayside Road, the driveway serving Lot 3 would be about 2,100 feet (or four-tenths of a mile) in length. Sketch F5 is the first of three conceptual layouts provided by staff for discussion purposes. This ^ayout provides a 50' road outlot to the Reiersgoid boundary, and use' the applicants proposed 30' corridor for Lots 2 and 3. The ai ernate site for Lot 1 is within Lot 1, although the contiguity is merely through a 10' wide neck. With this configuration, there is still an apparent need for an outlot east of the 30' driveway corridor, and this outlot would need to become part of Lot 1 to make up the required 5 acres for Lot 1. This sk‘=^tc«' shows Lots 2 and 3 abutting the private road outlot and conlaining significant frontage on that outlot. The required 5'V side and 100' rear setbacks for the existing house would he maintained. Please note that staff is not recommending this configuration, it is only for discussion purposes. Exhibit F6 is staff conceptual sketch B, which shows a typical "block" subdivision configuration that igni’-es the topography concerns for road construction. Each lot would have the required frontage on a private road and meet the lot width requirements. Also, the Asao property would have frontage and required width on the private road. Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 4 of 5 However, the negative aspects outweigh the positives in this layout. The required 5 acre minimums are not met. The road could not feasibly be constructed within the outlet due to the steep slopes which would have to be cut or filled. The road wipes out the only feasible drainfield sites for Lot 2. The alternate site for Lot 1 is still on a separate outlet not attached to Lot 1. Again, conceptual Sketch B looks good on paper but does not accommodate the topography or physical characteristics of the property. Conceptual sketch C, Exhibit F7, suggests a planned residential development (PRD) giving each building site a 2+ acre building envelope, with the remaining subdivision acreage as an open space outlet. Outlets B & C would be private road outlets. Outlet C could conceivably be narrower than the standard 50* private road outlet, since it would serve only two lots. Staff Recommendation - Given the information provided by applicant, staff would recommend that the following issues be addressed for the applicant so that he can return with a revised proposal more in keeping with the subdivision requirements while still relating to the natural characteristics of the land: 1. Should this be a normal plat subdivision, or should it be a planned residential development? 2. Is there any justification to grant variances to allow development with easement roads rather than private road outlots? 3. If a private road outlot is required, should it continue to the Reiersgord property? Further, should a private road outlot be continued to the Asao and Det-j#,s properties to the north, so that the Luce Line driveway r’-fjft’.xng for those two properties might ultimately not be necessary? 4. Will Planning Commission require that the alternate site for Lot 1 be within the boundaries of Lot 1, if this is a plat? or, if this becomes a PRD, will Planning Commission allow the alternate site for Lot 1 to be within the open space outlot? 5. Presuming that whether this is a plat or a PRD, the Planning Commission will not waive the standard requirement that outlot roadways be excluded from lot area, if the remaining acreage after exclusion of roadways is less than 15.0 acres, will Planning Commission consider granting of lot area variances with the subdivision? Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 5 of 5 Additional Cooments - 1. Applicant is advised to contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for plat review. 2. Once a revised proposal has been received, further review of drainage and other site concerns will commence. St■77 tJ •'•irrr' --ifl «*» CITY OP ORONO - SOBE/VISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Tj.un &3^rs,'aL '&3J,rl3pl<=-i>'sl'n,:^S3^%ts!:ctm —^^— - - - - - - -' • '* OFFICE Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Sl-Hg-^S^S -OCOf^dSOVO.. ^ y 0&-,n- ^3 i ^ - ooo^ - f Please check one - Prooerty V abstract or _ _ torrens? W / / Uim/ UAttach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name 2in •’a. r 3< cr/) Phone (home) / 72^7$ Phone (work) 'V‘7/~73/^ Address; 0\^ on 4«?u'3 Lo^<=/ City;Lo^c^ L“3 kvL Zip; 53 ntmm (if ^iffi^re^nt. hhan applicant) Phone (home) N;,niA "S3\<J-tz.~Of^<:i// Cor'POrcm»rt ^ Phone (work) ^^/~73/-^ "TPc7/7/tf/ snd F<3/:7cr^ Address; /OjL^ /Zio; 3^3^ (attach list if more than one)C/ EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels d. Develooment Size / 7 Acres Dry Land no n<z.Acres Wet Land /'-I Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check)Residential: no. of units ' Other (soecifv) Present Zoninq District PROPOSAL Division - >r Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites /Number of Building Sites; Proposed Gross Density; Minimum Lot Size; Proposed Use; (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per 17Acres 5^Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 2. 3. 4. 5. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __Date 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete Zoning Official's Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FEES / Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) _ _^ Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) ^150.00 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 300.00 + — 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay al l^^dcfitional^^ees/‘'?fetab/lished by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Date Date •- Owner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ) I sift* 1/ C I y VCI capitalY OCT-B VCI capiul,inc. I!Q Long Lake, MN 55356 • (612)476-2637 October 3, 1989 JEANNE A. MABU3TH Building & Zoning Administrator CITY OF ORONO Orono Village Hall P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Residential Subdivision 4300 Bayside Road Dear Ms. Mabusth: In conjunction with the Parten application for a proposed three lot residential subdivision of a property located at 4300 Bayside Road, I submit the following information. If black lopping of the north-south access road from Highway 84 is being considered, the following information may be pertinent. 1) The blue quarter-section map which I have tends to indicate that that road is ^n part on our property. (Our property abuts that road on the east and north of Highway 84.) I visited briefly on this with Mr. Gronberg, and he indicated that he thought it appeared that way a]so. 2) When that access road was put in, it was raised above elevation so that drainage on the extreme southwest corner of our property was rest^icted so that there appears to be about a third of an acre which has now become inadequately drained and uncroppable, particularly in wet years. 3) If a culvert would properly drain that corner before the blacktopping, it obviously would make that partial acre more usable again. If a telephone or other visit on any of the above is appropriate, I will be most pleased to be available. Very truly yours. fobert P. White O.L.C Subd. 21. Subdivisions. Special Require.nents for Class II and III A. Iraproveraeiits. All public and/or private improvements required by the City to be completed by the subdivide c prior to Final Plat approval, snail be fully completer shall have had a certificate of satisfactory completion issue ' the City Engineer prior to endocsemert of the Final Plat by ■ ty. All public and/or private improv i.r.ents required by the City be completed by the subdivider aiter Final Plat approval shall be fully set forth in a subdivider's agr -ement to be executed prior to Final Subdivision approval. All local streets in subdivisions where sewer and water are not available shall be private unless otherwise approved by the City at preliminary subdivision approval. The City reserves the right to determine whether a road is to be public or private in all areas of the City. B. Public Koads. Publio streets and roads will be required to be platted, constructed and dedicated to the City when required by the Council consistent with tt-' recommendations of the Planning Commission and the City staff and the established City practices and design standards. Public roads shall be completed and issued a certificate of satisfactory completion by the City Engineer prior to Final Plat approval or, when specifically authorized by the Council, shall be subject to the conditions of a subdivider's agreement to be executed prior to Final Plat approval. C. Private Koads. When the Preliminary Plat has been approv ’eS on the basis of a private access road provid* the only access to three or more lots, the private road be identified on the Final Plat as a separate outlot. ite road shall be identified by name the r jad serves fc:,,. ore lots. Whenever a private road outlot is proposed, the su..^ /ider shall be required to provide for a permanent homeowner s association or road maintenaacw agreeir at acceptable to the City in order to insure ownership and maintenance of the road outlot. D. Road and Utilities Easements. The Counc..! may, upon recommendation of Planning Commission and/or City staff, require the subdivider to convey ' the City certain road and utilities easements permitting public .agress, egress access over private roads as a condition ot - ! iial Subdivision a^ptoval. ' Whenever a livate access road is H outl''*' '■hall ^e included on and conveyed the standard City form. «reas of the plat are to be set ility construction and use, said j;--1icated for public use on the plat. . /rt on record plat drawings as "drainage 3ved c authorized, the r- In a road and uti’ aside for publ' areas shall b^’ This shall in- .ilc. and utilities . .... t ^Wcenevec i road and utilities easement is required, the ea-i. i‘. nhall be fully executed prior ':o Final Plat approval using the x..ga;- descriptions of the Final Plat and shall thereafter be filed in the chain of title of the property concurrent with the filing of the Final Plat. OPONO CC 442 (4-1-84) s 11.03 L 21. "Improvements, Private" - Any improvement, required by this Chapter, which improvement the City or subdivider sh^ll construct ac subdivider's expense and for which the City will nov. assume any responsibility for its maintenance and operation and which shall not be dedicated to the City. 22. "Improvements, Public" - Any improvement, required by this Chapter, which improvement the City or subdivider shall construct at su^rUvider's expense and for which the City will ultimately assume the responsibility for its maintenance and opera tion upon issuance of the certificate of satisfactory completion. 23. "Lot" - A tract, plot or portion of a subdivision or other parcel of land intended as a unit for the purpose, whether immediate or future, or transfer of ownership or for building development. Every platted lot shall be a buildable lot or an outlot. «^^24. "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the minimum a^^fe required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water or areas at or below the flood plaiu elevation for a specific property. All rural lots must comply with the City's on-site septic system provisions of the City Code. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the Cit :-)de or half-acre, whichever is less, (exclusive of and ivate rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian ease- 3Ui V.je areas below the ordinary high water mark of any water wetlands or ’;:eas at or below the flood plain eleva- .r a specific property) and have legal access to the building »*xthout encroachment of a wetland or flood plain area. P' ? .s t: sii. 25. "Lot, Buildable" - A lot or combination of lots or outlots which meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code and this Chapter for the intended purpose. 26. "Lot, Outlot" - A lot which is intended only for public or private roadways, open space or other use, which use must be restricted by the appropriate easement and which use must be approved by the City at the time of final pl< i approval. The^ use of the outlot will thereaf’'»r be restricted by the appropriate restrictive covenant or oper -^ce easement. 27. "Lot, rner" - A lot situated intersection of two (2) *.eets, the interior angle intersection not exceeding 135 degrees. at the of such ORONO CC (4-1-84) __________:• r; ;- -r. .<; r/.//. l«r al t««l*a 14l*a > OMMtf ti a* a4 iaU I Caaaif laaa a 4lalaa«a •! •Maa a aitiaaaa a latllaa » - ^-i:Trilte wV^i># ii^ m&Mm r cnuNca To: Proa: Date: Subject: SEP 2-1199GMayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson CITY n? rsoNoMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator September 17, 1990 1552 Renee & Steven Poster, 1800 Shadywood Road - Variance - Adoption of Denial Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Action Notices of 8/14/90, 7/24/90 & 7/16/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 8/7/90 & 7/19/90 Discussion The applicants have revised their proposal to include no work in the 0-75' zone and no additional hardcover. Since the new proposal needs no variances, the adoption of the resolution for denial as conceptually directed by Council on a 3 to 0 vote on July 16th, would be appropriate. Staff Recosaendation Staff recommends adoption of the attached denial resolution. Proposed Motion: Moved by _______________________, 2nd by ___ _________________ to adopt the attached resolution denying vax-kances for hardcover and work in the 0-75' zone for Renee and Steven Foster at 1800 Shadywood Road. _____ Ayes _____ Nays gRONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________________ A RESOLDTION DENYING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22r SUBDIVISIONS 1*2 AND SECTION 10.55r SUBDIVISION 8 AND DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 PILE #1552 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statute 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Renee & Steven Foster (hereinafter "the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at -800 Shadywcod Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the City ) and legally described as follcws; Lot 21, Shadywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter ”the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10. , Subdivisions 1 & 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to allow construction of retaining walls and additional hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed, and for similar construction of walls and hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, and requesting a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to allow excavation n the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no excavation is normally allowed; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the recommendations of the staff and Planning Commission, and the comments and written statements of the applicants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the application as described above based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property; Page 1 of 4 Citv of OROINO errv^RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _______________ FINDINGS 1. This application was xeviewed as Zoning File #1552. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, and contains a lot area of 15,474 square feet or 0.36 acres. 3 The property was the subject of a lot width area variance in 1985. Conditions of that variance limited the property to 25% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. A site plan was submitted which met those conditions and the house vas constructed. The purchaser of the new McNaughton, requested additional hardcover to make the driveway functional. A further variance was granted to allow up to 35% hardcover via Resolution #1908 on January 13, 1986. 4. A review of the hardcover on June 1990 indicates that the existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 40.5%, in excess of that which was allowed by Resolution #1908. The applicants currently propose to increase hardcover from 40:5% up to 42.7% in the 75-250' zone where only 35% was allowed, and increase from approximately 0.3% to 2.3% in the 0-75' zone where no hardcover is normally allowed. 5. The dcclicants have not added any hardcover to the property since they purchased it from the previous owner. 6. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this variance request on June 18, 1990 and voted 6-0 to recommend denial based on the following findings; A. No adequate hardship was given to justify further increases in hardcover a:»ove that which was previously approved for the previous owner. B. No adequate hardship or justification was given for the proposed grading work in the protected 0-75' lake- shore setback zone. 7. In reviewing the site plan. Council finds that plans could be revised so that the proposed patio could feasioi> be constructed on the property without excavation or hardcover in the 0-75' protected lakeshore setback zone. Further, the Council finds that because the driveway was constructed in excess of the driveway hardcover previously approved, no additional hardcover is justified without re.moval of all excess portions of the driveway. Page 2 of 4 OF ORQNa City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8. The applicants have failed to demonstrate adequate hardships to justify granting of the variances, and have failed to meet the following basic tests for hardship: A. The property in question can be put to a reasonable use and is being used generally under the conditions allowed by the official controls as a single family residence. B. If granted, the variance will alter the essential character of the locality by creating additional hard cover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, in direct conflict with the intent of the code to prohibit all land alteration within that protected area. C. The code requirements applying to the proposed construction and land alteration are not peculiar to this property but apply generally to all other lakeshore properties in the LR-IC zoning district. D. The gr£.nting of the application is not essential for the preservation ane: enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants. E. The granting of the variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 9. The proposed excavation and retaining walls in the 0-75’ setback zone are not necessary to preserve the lakeshore bank, but are merely provided for the convenience of the property owner. 10. The land alterations within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone conflict generally with the principals and goals set forth in Orono's Community Management Plan for protection of lakeshore areas. Adopted by the Orono City Council of the City of Orono on this 24th day of September, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 3 of 4 QRQNa City of OROIN O RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ STAT^O^ilNNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of September, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 APPLIOiTIOH HO. 1552 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 8/14/90 TO: Renee 6 Steven Foster 1800 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATS OF NBBTIN6: August 13, 1990 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against COUHCIL ACTION - NOTION: Tabled at applicants request until staff verifies whether revised proposal requires a variance. Please submit revised proposal as soon as possible. CITT OF OROMO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 55323 APPLICATIOH NO. 1552 NOTICB OP COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 7/24/90 Renee & Steven Foster 1800 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance Conditional Use Permit DATE OP MEETING: July 23, 1990 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - NOTION: Tabled because applicants were not present. Council directed staff to notify applicants that the denial resolution will be adopted at the August 13th Council meeting whether or not applicants are present. Please contact City staff at 473-7357 if you have any questions, or if you wish to submit a revised application. 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. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 application no. 1552 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice; 7/16/90 COPIES:Renee & Steven Foster 1800 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: July 9, 1990 VOTE: 3 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - NOTION: Although applicants were not present. Council voted to direct staff t^ draft a resolutir i for denial, to be reviewed at the meeting of July 23, 1990. (Meeting -tarts at 7:00 p.m., at the Orono Council Chambers, 1275 Brown Road South). Applicant should be present if possible to answer any questions the Council may have. If you wish to submit additional information supporting your request, please contact staff at 473-7357. Since Council agreed in general with the Planning Commission recommendation, applicant may wish to consider a plan revision showing reductions to 35% hardcover, with no work in the 0-75' zone. ♦CONSENT AGENDA To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P, Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: August 1, 1990 Subject: #1552 Renee & Steven Foster, 1800 Shadywood Road - Variance - Request to Table I have contacted the applicants and we have discussed their options. They b^tve been working on a revised proposal which they believe will noc need any variances. At my suggestion, they are requesting that action on the denial resolution be temporarily withheld until staff can verify that the new proposal does not need a variance. (If it did need a variance, the adoption of a denial resolutic^i would mean that they would have to make an entirely new application.) Proposed Motion: Moved by seconded by_ _ _ . r to table action on Application #1552 until staff can verify whether the revised proposal requires a variance. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planring & Zoning Administrator Date: July 19, 1990 Subject: #1552 Renee & Steven Foster, 1800 Road - Variance - Denial Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Council Action 7/16/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 6/13/90 Per Council's direction at the regular meeting of July 9, 1990, attached is a resolution for denial of the requested hardcover, lakeshore setback and conditional use permit requests. The applicants have not provided any new information nor have they submitted a revised proposal. Applicants have been requested to attend the meeting to answer any questions Council might have. Absent any additional i’^formation, staff would recommend adoption of the denial resolution attached. MPG/tln A RESOLUTION DENTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 142 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 AMD DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE *1552 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the S*-ate of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statute 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Renee & Steven Foster (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1800 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally describee as follows; Lot 21, Shad -'^ood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 and Section 10.55, Subdi 'ii>ion 8 to allow construction of retaining walla and additional ’hardcover in the 0-75' la)ceshore setback zone where no structure or hc' 'cover is normally allowed, and for similar constructior! of .alls and hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 23% ..x. ver norma'ily allowed in that zone, and requesting a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to allow excavation in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no excavation is normally allowed; and WHFREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the recommendations of the staff and Planning Commission, and the comments and written statements of the applica’^ts. NOW, THEREFORIS. IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the application as described above based upon one or more of the following findingw of fac^i- concerning this property; 'ige 1 of 4 FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1552. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, and contains a lot area of 15,474 square feet or 0.36 acres. 3. The property was the subject of a lot width area variance in 1985. Conditions of that variance limited the property to 25% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. A site plan was submitted which met those conditions and the house was constructed. The purchaser of the new house, James McNaughton, requested additional hardcover to make the driveway functional. A further variance was granted to allow up to 35% hardcover via Resolution #1908 on January 13, 1986. 4. A review of the hardcover on June 1990 indicates that the existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 40.5%, in excess of that which was allowed by Resolution #1908. The applicants currently propose to increase hardcover from 40,5% up to 42.7% in the 75-250' zone where only 35% was allowed, and increase from approximately 0.3% to 2.3% in the 0-75' zone where no hardcover is normally allowed. 5. The applicants have not added any hardcover to the property since they purchased it from the previous owner. 6. Th<“ Orono Planning Commission reviewed this variance request on June 18, 1990 and voted 6-0 to recommend denial based on the following findings: A. No adequate hardship was given to justify further inczeases in hardcover above that which was previously approved for the previous owner. B. No adequate hardship or justification was given for the proposed grading work in the protected 0-75' lake- shore setback zone. 7. In reviewing the site plan. Council finds that plans could be revised so that the proposed patio could feasibly be constructed on the property without excavation or hardcover in the 0-75' protected lakeshore setback zone. Further, the Council finds that because the driveway was constructed in excess of the driveway hardcover previously approved, no additional hardcover is justified without removal of all excess portions of the driveway. Page 2 of 4 8. The applicants have failed to demonstrate adequate hardships to justify granting of the variances, and have failed to meet the following basic tests for hardship: A. The property in question can be put to a reasonable use and is being used generally under the conditions allowed by the official controls as a single family residence. B. If granted, the variance will alter the essential character of the locality by creating additional hard cover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, in direct conflict with the intent of the code to prohibit all land alteration within that protected area. C. The code requirements applying to the proposed construction and land alteration are not peculiar to this property but apply generally to all other lakeshore properties in the LR-IC zoning district. D. The granting of the application is not essential for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants. E. The granting of the variance will serve merely as a convenience to the applicants and is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 9. The proposed excavation and retaining walls in the 0-75' setback zone are not necessary to preserve the lakeshore bank, but are merely provided for the convenience of the property owner. 10. The land alterations within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone conflict generally with the principals and goals set forth in Orono's Community Management Plan for protection of lakeshore areas. Adopted by the Orono City Council of the City of Orono on this 23rd day of July, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ^ COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ' iSS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of July, 1990, by James R. Grabek 6 Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 I To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Michael P. Gaffro’^, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: July 2, 1990 Subject: #1552 Renee & Steven Foster, 1800 Shadywood Road - Variance Application - Request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variance for construction of a walkout/patio/hot tub area on lakeside of house. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice 6/21/90 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes 6/18/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 6/13/90 Discussion - Please review carefully the memo and exhibits of June 13, 1990. This lot was in common ownership with the property at 1810 Shadywood Road and was granted a lot area variance to construct a new house in 1985, conditioned on meeting all setback and hardcover requirements. The house was constructed, and the initial owners then requested and received a hardcover variance to widen the driveway to a more functional configuration. That variance allowed 35% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. The current applicants, having recently purchased the property, were surprised as was staff to find that currently existing hardcover is 40.5%. The previous owner apparently expanded the driveway in excess of what had been allowed. Planning Commission reviewed this application at their June 18th meeting, and on a 6-0 vote recommended denial of any additional hardcover, finding that, although the current applicants are not at fault, a previous hardcover allowance has not been adhered to and Planning Commission found no justification for granting additional hardcover. The improvements proposed include excavation partially within the 0-75' zone, to create a walkout and hot tub/patio area. The applicants propose that the excavation not "daylight" to a gravity runoff situatrioi., and they would provide a sump-type drainage system discharging in the 75-250' zone. In general, all of the improvements would be at or below grade, and would meet the average lakeshore setback. f f ;/ \ - Zoning File #1552 July 2, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Staff Recoamendation - If the applicants were to redesign the walkout/patio excavation and improvements to be totally outside the 0-75' zone, the issue of hardcover would still be a concern. Planning Commission did not wish to consider any new improvements, however, unless the applicants could revert the property back to its allowed hardcover of 35%. Council would appear to have the following options: 1. Conceptually approve, directing staff to draft a resolution for approval. 2. Approve conditioned on redesign outside the 0-75' zone and/or reduce hardcover to a specified level. 3. Conceptually deny, directing staff to draft a resolution for denial. 4. 5. Table . Other. .po5 CITY OP ORONO ZONING PILB #1552 P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: June 21, 1990 TO: Steven & Renee Foster 1800 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: June 18, 1990 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission reviewed the request for additional hardcover and grading work to create a walkout patio, and recommended denial based on the history of approved and unapproved hardcover increases on the property, and also noting no work should be allowed in the 0-75' zone. Planning Commission did not address the issue of resolving the current hardcover excesses. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council, Monday, July 9, 1990; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson /f From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: June 13, 1990 Subject: #1552 Renee & Steven Foster, 1800 Shadywood Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District ~ LR—IC, Single family xakeshore residential, h acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variance for construction of a walkout/patio/hot tub area on lakeside of house. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Application Letter of Request Plat Map Property Owners List Survey with Staff Notations Proposed Landscaping Plan Hardcover Review Resolution #1908 Pertinent Pacts - 1. Applicants are proposing to excavate for a proposed walkout door on the lakeside of their existing residence. In conjunction with that walkout excavation, they propose to construct a walled patio below grade, with ster^ leading back up to grade. A portion of the excavation is in the 0- 75' setback zone. 2. Applicants also propose to expand their existing entry step at the west side of the house. 3. Applicants' initial landscape plan a *“o indicated a stepping stone sidewalk along the right side of the house. This was dropped after applicants discussed the hardcover history of this property with staff. 4. This lot was granted a lot area and width variance in 1985. Conditions of that variance limited the property to 25% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. A house and site plan was submitted which met those conditions and the house was constructed. The purchaser of the new house, James McNaughton, requested additional hardcover to make the driveway functional. A further variance was granted to allow up to 35% hardcover. A review of the hardcover in June 1990 indicates that the existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 40.5%. It is apparent that McNaughton constructed driveways larger than was strictly allowed by Resolution #1908. Zoning File #1552 June 13, 1990 Page 2 of 2 5. Existing and proposed hardcover is as follows; 0-75'; 75-250'; Allowed 0 k (3421 Existing 2.0 40.5% (3950 sf) Proposed 2.3% (133 sf) 42.7% (4170 sf) Discussion - ^This property is another prime example of the expanding hardcover syndrome", in which the intentions of the City have not been fulfilled. Although the current applicants had nothing to do with the existing hardcover situation, creating additional hardcover on the property would seem to be questionable. The apparent reason why hardcover currently exceeds 35% is because the driveway was cor. -ucted significantly wider than i should have been. This woul^ • eiti a logical area in which hard cover removals might be consiaered. The existing deck is not the shape of that originally proposed, but approximates the approved sq^uare the existing deck meets both the 75' setback and the lakeshore setback, the proposed patio will extend approximately &’ lakeward from the 75' line. The proposed patio below grade, and applicants propose some sort of a system to handle any run-off into it. system will be needed. Applicants should seek competent advice on this matter. The City has denied many requests for excavation 75' zone to create walkouts in recent years. Does this proposed excavated patio area fall into the same category, 7-s the ^aet thlt irwiil not be fully excavated to allow a gravity run-off situation but be contained by a surrounding retaining wall, make this a unique case? Staff Recommendation - Please review the attached exhibits, and if possible view the site. If Planning Commission feels that the proposed hardcover increase it justified by a hardship or unique circumstances, then a recommendation for approval might be appropriate. Planning Commission may wish to of portions of the driveway to reduce the hardcover hack to a level more consistent with the approvals. Planning Commission may also wish to ask the applicants to revise their plans to avoid any grading work, construction, or retaining walls within the 0-75' zone. r 'I/VL t i -f\^ - ( ITY OP ORONO - VARXANCE APPLICATION 77nitial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) anewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) p^0r-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) DO ROPERTY LOCATION ite Address f^ory S M o c/I roperty Identification Number (P.I.D.) / > //^ — LlTi OF 13dm -z, ^ ■iCL’pr-jW;' rW 4179780 CiOi iiOl U4:^. i)5/2S/9- ttach legal description to application if not included on aquired survey. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dp7TraNT Phone (home) U'‘ - - -PPLICANT ^ _ ^ Name C ^ _ _ _ Phone (work) r. - i^/-/r^o_ Address: ^ i^Af)ni City: ‘_ _ WNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home).^- - - - - - - - - - - Name _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (work)- - - - - - - - - -- ...ddress: _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City:- - - - - - --- -2ip:- - - - - - -- Date Property Acquired _____________________________ (month/year) I (^) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels ________________ RESENT USB OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District ________________________________ Present Use of Property ------------------------------------------—----/Residentiaj^ Other (specify) ___________—rzzr BSCTipTioN~Op"^OTST Estimated Construction Cost Sjt*30±---- ARIANCBS REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area _ _ _ Lot Width X-. Hardcover Setback Variances (_ _ _ Front - - - Side - - - Rear) Other_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ Describe ur*'ue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; ‘Jnrr i ^ .i A DESCRIPTION OP UNDSC.’ PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; o>'z'v a—j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ DQOIRED SUBMITTALS . Completed Application Form . Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). ^ Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). . , j Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. » 3. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in” existing grade are proposed. ^ Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. ^ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. . Additional items as may be requested by City staff. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DCCTTMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11* X 17" OR SMAILER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. he Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. amember that vour variance application is not complete—iY—the—abo— nformation has not been included. artification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete, nitialed by Clerical Staff;_________________________________________________— PPLICANT'S SIGNATURE . ^ j he applicant hereby agrees to provide all equested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff ime not covered by original fee payment) and/or •.ncurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information applied is true and correct, to t^ehest of his/her knowledge. pplicant's Signature - - - - - - - Date X.C',, /'9K — ackowledges and agrees to this athorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City sraff, consultants^ gents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga ion and verification of this requ^ty, wner's Signature _ _ _ _ ipliclnt'must have all sub^"ttals into the City offices 25 ‘iaya before the •lanning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are °n the ;hird Monday of each month. Applicants must be ®,\‘*®a„t ireview meetings of the Planning CO'^mission and Council. If an applicant is rnable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an luthorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building s Zoning ;ffice of this change prior to the meeting. -MAPL ESiirS i 2“’ VI IM M Mh N a o at si ih § a S“-M a a K (o Jm 4. *352 ''S“ioa K M u >* a ^ M r>» < M o a a z a a N a a «• 2iS£|£ ^ 8332 -s “-“oa ,S**85 M o a a z 2..a assa is g a a Q O' « g a a a a aiii®^^!5 K 5 > z■-• a X X g z 222V4rl. 2222 p4 a ^ -j < a ^ K) o a N a > 25 S 2M fn _ 2 18 m > z X <si a < a rlSSul Z^ in mi a Z^ M rl S®§®5 :5-2S|o ^ -i a z2o 2a5i S^iia? ~i*5oSM > n a o NO no fl. X ** •• > Z fl. a Q a H 2 ^5 oS <0-0*- aw S ^ o a m >• a o g ‘I'SSSS, N *- *- V) *- -sESoia a a a > a o S a j a o a a iH X ISO gi|s o i! K (/ O V o « :5 2 S Li< <« K- S22EoSW LU M H a “ o aa a a g o a a o 2IQ 9 CL N Q O a OT ^ 3-‘5°§ g rl -'S3R* '"22>2;Ji5o < ^ a N o 2Sl;;S5^to a a 3 a o Z a < a 4 a NO CJ o a a a Q oo _ M a 4 ^ oo a a~ili o ^ “Sa a iiilij " *^5S N. M M a Hr "ss^gSN a a a > a r-* a a H» 4 a O U C9 iH X a o Na 4 a!i|l Q 4 a o§Xa4 cj a a o a ^ o S! - a aSgt*’X a 4 a > a■ ise a a a Q S uj a 4 _ a X 4 a M a H- 22^0^ 25®S5 O O a a Xaa asi.. aa Q §“ a a o ui o ^ ^8 S“SX a a g a a > a X g 7SSl;iS, a a X a o S i «-32 a 4 a CM > a o H> h> 2 5 a ^ a o 4 a a a 4 a a a a Xlisi l« L. I V rn m’ § C“I 0 a In rr- -f <j~c<) I I I ! I i 1 i ^PON HULLP tlltP$EPV IMC. Ibt JJ 5.:?.!««« iPt?4 T>€ city CF CROC 612-473-7157 005 ;■ HARDCOVER CALCULATION HORKSHEET S8TBACK ZONE: (cfRCLE ONF.) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. H ouse /' x LENGTH CU— width z/ m 75U < ■ W(hf z;.5". S77... X X ■ n, X , r. nmvFWAV X n.sr ■ /. '?4 KprS . 59V.A' n. SinewALK'^ X _/f) -. -230 , II PV). -2.2<^ E. Ja TIO/Z )ICX ^ ^ fv-.it X y&z 1 I•9TW /y ^z,o • .lANnsrAPF X « AREAS UNDERLAIN OV X m PLASTIC SHEETING X m m fi. Other x S.Pi S.F. S.F. T /v» 'i. '--$0 S.P< S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F Totau Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone S' i^np (T) X 100 .*^0_% ^77 V ^CKfOiM fAJArOlC. <•' I / p«Dfo5^ • * •EMC- • • • .. ••«•>;v ■i li o H...^-3 ' 1 / i •o.i city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1908 H A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #996 WHEREAS, James McNaughton (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1800 Shadywood Road within'the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 21, Shadywood (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the paving of a driveway and backup pad which will increase the 75-250' lakeshore hardcover to 36.4%, exceeding the 25% 75-250' hard cover normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #996. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on December 16, 1985, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A) This property was granted lot area and lot width variances per Resolution #1718-A on January 14, 1985. No other variances were granted at that time, and the condi tions of Resolution #1718-A specifically noted that all improvements must meet City requirements, and that the hard cover must not exceed 2,280 square feet (25%) in the 75-250' setback 7one. B) Upon approval of the building permit for construction of a residence on the property, staff noted the recalculation of lot area by the surveyor which would allow 2,444 square feet of hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone. C) The house was constructed, and gravel driveway was installed in excess of the hardcover limits by the builder. Excelsior Design, prior to applicant's purchase of the property. Page 1 of 4 1- ■; i City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1908 D) The applicant's claim that the "grass paver" mono-slabs proposed by the builder are not suitable for Minnesota's severe climatic extremes, and will suffer frost heave and plow disturbance, is a valid claim to the extent that failure of such a system would potentially cause damage to applicant's vehicles. In addition, the permeability of. the "grass pavers" has not been demonstrated under continuous usage conditions. E) Applicant has a valid hardship from a safety standpoint in requesting he be allowed to have a backup pad so he does not have to back out onto County Road 19. F) The requested 75-250' hardcover of 36.4% is not exceptional but is similar to many other properties along Shadywood Road. 4. The City Council has consiueiCd this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the appli cant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the paving of a driveway and backup pad which will increase the hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone to not more than 35%, where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. The driveway, backup pad, house, and other hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone shall not exceed 3,421 s.f. or 35%. Page 2 of 4 cu City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1908___________ 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (January 13, 1987). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of January, 1986. djJc^---- Halliiv7 City/Clerk M^y C. /Butler, Mayor im Adams^ Acting Mayoj Page 3 of 4 L FroB: Date: Subject: 3tF2 i ly.-O OF (jKufi'O Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator September 17, 1990 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson 1579 Garry & Marie Everson, 4755 North Shore Drive - After-the-Fact Variance Zoning District - LR-IB, Single fcimily lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for after-the-fact hardcover and average setback variances for decks constructed without a permit. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice 8/24/90 Exhibit B - Applicants Letter to Council 9/17/90 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 8/17/90 Discussion and the Please review the memo and exhibits of August 17, 1990^ the applicants letter of September 17, 1990. Briefly, applicants are requestiiig after-the-fact approval for a hardcover variance and average lakeshore setback variance for decks which were constructed without a -ermit in 1988. The August 17th memo details the history of tiiis application. Applicants have submitted a chronology from their point of view. The pre-existing decx on the property was 230 s.f. The currently existing deck is 502 s.f. Pre-existing 75-250' hardcover was 54.7% (5638 s.f.). Currently existing 75-250' hardcover is 57.3% (5910 s.f.). If the crushed rock without plastic is excluded per applicants letter, existing and current 75-250' hardcover is 4974 s.f. (48.2%) and 5246 s.f. (50.9%) respectively. Planning Conission Reconnendation The Planning Commission reviewed the application on August 20, 1990 and voted 4 to 1 to recommend denial for the following reasons: 1. No hardship was found to justify the excessive hardcover associated with the deck additions. 2. No reasonable justification presented for granting a side setback variance, noting that the deck as constructed is over the property line into the neighbor's property. Zoning File 1579 September 17, 1990 Page 2 Planning Commission did not consider the average lakeshore setback encroachment a significant issue beci-use no neighboring property owners views of the lake are diminished. Planning Commission recommended that the decks be cut back to the pre existing 18' X 13' dimension. The miniority Planning Commission opinion (Commissioner Rowlette) was that the required deck removals should not be as extensive as recommended by the majority. Note that applicants were scheduled for a court appearance regarding the violation tag, on September 19, 1990. No word on the results has been received as of this writing. Staff Reconendation Staff would concur with the Planning Commission recommendation. Because the Planning Commission recommendation is essentially for a full denial of the variance request, with restoration, staff has not drafted a resolution pending Council's conceptual action. Council has the following options: 1. Direct staff to draft a resolution for denial, for adoption at your next meeting. 2. Conceptually grant partial approval, directing staff to draft a resolution reflecting your action. 3. Conceptually approve the decks as constructed, directing staff to draft a resolution of approval. 4.Other. CITY OF ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Z0MIB6 FILE 11579 HOriCB OF PLAimiNG CONMISSIOH ACTIOB Date of Notice: 08/24/90 Garry 6 Marie Everson 4755 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: August 20, 1990 VOTE: 4 For 1 Against Planning Conaission recoss^nds the following: Denial for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission recommended denial based on finding no hardship to justify the excessive hardcover associated with the deck additions, and no reasonable justification for granting a side setback variance. Average lakeshore setback encroachment was not considered a significant issue in this case relative to any neighbor's views of the laka being diminished. Planning Commission recommended that the decks be cut back to the pre existing 18* X 13' dimension. The minority opi»^ion was that required deck removals should not be that drastic. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council on Monday, September 24, 1990; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Any additional information you wish to have reviewed by this City Council should be submitted to the attention of Mike Gaffron by September 14, 1990. September 17, 1990 Isep is TO: ORONO CITY COUNCIL RE: OBJECTION TO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 8/24/90 iSSO Dear Members of the Council: We wish to object to the Planning Commission Action 8/24/90 regarding removal of our deck. Enclosed is a Chronology of Events which the Planning Commission refused to read because we didn't submit it in advance of the meeting. Our hardcover calculations are misleading. The reason we have such a large driveway is because we must share it with our neighbors to allow them access to their house, and we should not be penalized for this. The 664 square feet area adjacent to the house entitled "crushed rock" should be excluded from hardcover calculation because it no longer has plastic underneath and grows weeds. The length of time taken to resolve this natter has not been entirely our fault as evidenced by the enclosed Chronology If we are required to reduce deck to original size, we will be required to move steps back to area against house under eve where they will be water and ice covered again, which is the reason why we moved them. The area where the deck extends over the lot line is a joint or common area with our neighbors where we put our garbage cans, and they have no objection to this. Garry & Marie Everson 4755 North Shore Drive Orono, Minnesota 55364 Enclosures: Chronology Certificate of Survey cc: Mike Gaffron CHROI^OLOGY OF EVENTS - DECK PERMIT Fall 88 10/21/88 10/28/88 10/31/83 11/3/88 11/18-/88 11/29/88 12/13/38 12/30/88 2/2/89 Fall 89 Feb 90 2/27/90 Started replacing boards on rotten deck. As it progressed, entire deck was done because all wood rotten Letter from City - They want permit by 10/31 Sent letter to City stating we only replaced the existing deck. Letter from City - permit required Called to ask if plans required. They will come out and do an inspection Note left by inspector - v/ant permit Permit application delivered to City (they claim they didn't get this) Letter from City - want permit Another copy of permit to City (they later claimed at’meeting 3/90 they never got second permit application but then found a copy dated 11/29/83*by us and marked date rec'd 12/30/33 Letter from City - they now want Certificate of Survey and Hardcover Calculation. Called neighbors who were doing survey next door and they said cost over $2,000 Ticket issued for failure to apply for permit. Went to Ridgedale Court 3 tim.es to try to take care of ticket and were told none on record, assumed matter dropped. Orono Police came to hom.e with arrest warrant for failure to pay ticket. Police officer determined the reason Ridgedale couldn't find the ticket was because City spelled name wrong. Iverson instead of Everson. Paid ticket rather than argue an” further and thought matter settled. Letter from Orono stating still want applicaticn (now claim they don't have) and giving deadline of March 6 (note 7 days after date letter typed which was received March 3). Called Lyle Oman and he agreed to meeting at City 3/16/90 3/16/90 3/16/90 4/12/90 4/12/90 4/18/90 Meeting with Lyle Oman and Jeanne Mabusth at City Hall. They will want Survey and said they never received permit application. They looked further and found permit application dated November 1988. We argued that we did not feel we should be required to bear the expense of^'survey but reluctantly agreed to have it done. Called All Metro Survey. They will do estimate on cost of survey. Called Gronseth in Long Lake who agreed to look at property and call me back Should take 2-3 weeks. Called All Metro. They needed further information of legal description, etc (provided) and will go ahead and do the survey in next couple of weeks. Called City Inspector Oman. He is on vacation until near end of month. Asked receptionist to pull our file and advise if there was any required compliance date. She couldn’t find the file. I advised that survey was underway and asked her to please note for their records and to have the person in charge during Mr. Oman's absence call me back that afternoon, since he was busy. No return phone call from City that afternoon or any subsequent time. Received a Complaint from Ridgedale Court for building without a permit with a Court date scheduled 5/8/90 niiWiJfel CER TIFICATE OF SURVEYfe i iii. pvf P<^M Rpci nc-\i/'tr H^RPCO v ^ER C^ILOJUTIONSJ (Ar(«t in fed) towe HAMcwet __________AIe A AKCA________^ o'-15' 10,035 ^^0 47. Covtra^e 15't50' JO, 303 5150 %Vo LEGAL DESCRIPTION ; The southeasterly One-half of Lot 7, and Lots 5 and 6, Block 6, BERGQUIST AND WICK- LUND'S PARK, according to Min recorded plat thereof, llenin?- pin County, Minnesota. GENERAL NOTES o Denotes iron monument Denotes cross chiseled in concrete *93^7 Denotes existing spot elevation |939| Denotes proposed spot elevotion 4--------- Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existirig features Proposed top of foundation elevation Proposed basement floor elevotion = Proposed garage floor elevation - BENCHMARK: ALL-METRO LAN D SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Ph; 475-1433 I htret), ctriify Ihol this turvey, plan or rtport wos praparad by ma or under my direct supervision ond Ihot 1 om 0 duly Ragislerad Land Surveyor under lha lovrt pf the Stole o( Minnesota. __7/jA^ DATF HEG NO.no:^ SCALE \" BOOK RAGE ts 33 FILE NO. ‘)0047 A i It L To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members Lty Administrator Bernhardson Kc Fron: Date: Subject: Ichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator August 17, 1990 #1579 Garry & Marie Everson, 4755 North Shore Drive - After-the-Fact Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for after-the-fact variance constructed without a permit. for decks List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Staff Memos of 5/18/90 from Gaffron and Oman Exhibit P - Construction Plans Exhibit G - Hardcover Calculations by Applicant's Surveyor Exhibit H - Copy of Assessor's Record RE: Pre-existing Deck Exhibit I - hir Photo Exhibit J - Documentation of City Action Regarding Deck Pertinent Facts - 1.In October 1988 the Inspections Department observed a new deck constructed at the applicant's residence and subsequently sent a letter notifying the property owner that a permit was required. Subsequent discussion with the property owner and a site inspection by the Building Inspector found that the deck was all new construction. The applicants submitted an incomplete building permit application on December 30, 1988, they were advised to provide the survey and hardcover calculations necessary to complete the application. With no response from the applicant, a citation was issued for working without a building permit on April 18, 1989. The applicant's did not respond to the citation, hence the City Attorney issued a formal complaint. The property owners again failed to appear, and in February 1990 paid a $74.00 fine without ever appearing in Court (see Oman memo of May 18, 1990). In February 1990, the City again sent letters to the defendant advising him that payment of the fine does not resolve the fc^roblem. Applicant's finally met with City staff in March 1990, and in May 1990 provided the survey which verifies that hardcover on the property is excessive, and the deck is over the lot line. Zoning File #1579 August 17, 1990 Page 2 Applicants proceeded with the necessary after-the-fact variance application, although they were advised that the City could not ultimately allow the continuing encroachment of the deck over the lot line, and that a hardcover variance request might not be successful. 2. Per the survey, the deck is approximately 2' over the lot line. City codes allow a platform type deck with no railing to extend to within 2' of a side lot line. A deck such as this with a railing must be setback 10' from the side lot line. 3. Hardcover on the property, as calculated by the applicants surveyor with one revision by staff and shown in detail on the survey.is as follows: Zone Zone Area 0-75*10,035 s.f. 75-250*10,309 s.f Existing Hardcover 430 s.f. (4%) 5910 s.f. (57.3%) Allowed Hardcover 0% 2577 s.f. (25%) 4. The assessor's record card indicates that an 18* x 13* deck previously existed adjacent to the garage and screen porch. That deck extended approximately 4' lakeward from the house, as compared to the new deck which extends about 10* lakeward from the house. Dimensions of the previously documented deck are 13* X 18*, or 230 s.f. The currently existing deck has dimensions 9| X 38* plus an extension toward the lake averaging 10* deep x 16' wide, for a total deck area of 502 s.f. 5. The average lakeshore setback line coincides with the lakeshore side of the house. The old deck encroached 4' past the average setback line. The new deck encroaches 10' past the average setback line. No neighboring property owners have views that are affected by this encroachment. 6. The applicants have constructed a 7' high fence along the street side of the length of the deck. Because this fence is ver 6 high based on the grade at the driveway, such a fence would need a building permit, unless it was dropped to a height of 6 *. Discussion The piers from the pre-existing 13' x 18' deck are still in place, hence we believe the assessor's records are correct. There is no question that the 13' x 18‘ deck was completely removed and the currently constructed deck is entirely new as of 1988. Zoning file #1579 August 17r 1990 Page 3 This lot is similar to the Wally Krahl property to the immediate west, in which the house is below the road and there is significant hardcover (rock and plastic) north of the house to help eliminate basement water problems while p* Tviding a ground cover where no grass would likely grow. As indicate*- above, staff noted one minor addition to hardcover which the surveyor did not note on his survey, i.e. 4' x 40* rock bed adjacent to the driveway. It appears that applicant has been digging a trench underneath the 3 season porch adjacent to the deck. If the intent is to replace the existing porch support posts with a concrete wall and footings, that also will require a building permit. Given the lengthy process through which staff has attempted to gain compliance on this property, the applicant has enjoyed at least two seasons of use of this deck system. However, with little existing hardcover area that can be reasonably removed to significantly reduce hardcover on the property, the added deck area is significant from a hardcover standpoint. Staff Reconmendation 1. Staff recommends that the 20' x 9' deck sectior Jthest from the house, which extends 2' into the next property, .. removed in its entirety, and this area revert back to non-hardcover. This will not only reduce hardcover by 180 s.f., but will eliminate the encroachment across the line and the encroachment into the 10* required side yard setback area. 2. Planning Commission should determine whether the remaining 10* x 16* and" 9* x 18* deck areas can remain, given the hardcover situation and the 10* encroachment past the average setback line. Removal of the 10' x 16' portion that extends lakeward of the 3. 4. 5. house, would leave a originally existed. deck about 4* x 18' smaller than what Planning Commission should determine if there are any other areas of hardcover on the property that can be eliminated to reduce the high percentage of hardcover in the 75-250* zone. For whatever deck is allowed to remain, applicant should be required to obtain an after-the-fact building permit and revise the deck as necessary to meet building code standards. Applicants paid only the standard $175 variance application fee. Does Planning Commission feel there is any justification to not require payment of the after-the-fact fee of an additional $175 which should have been collected at the time of application? 1 Ali- 'f •< I CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION jf » Initial Application Fee $175.00 m^im -j ($50.00 per each additional variant/ Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address hfnriW .^horp. 'i\rn)0., QrnnA , /Tl Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) CITY Of uROm FlRAHCE [fflCE ^ ^itlPT-THm you Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. S«JL- APPLICANT Name F^U^r^A/\.f Phone (home) _ _ Phone (work) Address: ^75'^ l\/. .^hr\r/> Dr/i'^ City; OmiO/^ Zip; OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:_Zip V Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Present Use of Property •^-/Vlfinil(-|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Other (specify) Residential DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ S^ > 00 Describe request in detail: ^ 1 - - - VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other _ _ _ _ Lot Width Front Hardcover / Side _ _ _ Rear) BARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; hfirr4/»nn g Qg i Afri Q# ■ Qpi i migj-rgolaifld cigr Kr^ngr - rgjQlQOia \ 0vl5s4-|p/^ ogr /? OBSCRIPTIOH OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ UIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center ^ 348-3271). Cjl Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by .* censed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. 5• WDTopographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes ^ in existing grade are proposed. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. /, As an addendum to this applicationr please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A NORKING COPY (11* X 17* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above infonsation has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date n '' 2-3 ONNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature __________ Date ? 3 i 6 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 advi e the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I M Mh o S 0 t sa *5 "atts, M ui M M ae z N K A Z ^ < a a uj 1 SgSf^®sisa| aisssi e a 8|..S :!MiaN H Ul UJ (/) Ul I a M M N|aa^ T ^•‘§5K a a S ®asfiiiK,2K (/)(/) lA S(D ^ Ul Ui N. Qo -< -1 z a a a M ui s O' t- > U1 O' ass5!S Xs(/) s h If is a ui gS Q UJ M X s g Ui a N ^ u. u. a lA M mil, 1 3zS* “siisiCO « Ui Ui Q •A O X X <r Z (u ° O Ui “I M V> ass I a Ui 0}A^ rv < aSz ‘‘aa §saa o lA = s§ d S-& 9. aa| T- §sl ^zSu < o a a X M M IM Ui a k- (A Ui a Ui X >• Ui a H Z u &Ui u. u> M a O O K O «« (/} <A M M M «0 M a u u a a aUi < a M a o Ui a o a ^ ^ a csi X < 4 Ui M X a a X lA (u K s 2 V) 2 a u. Ik « 2fs u. Ik a 3 a Ui Ui g •A a “» n ^ z UJ a |isi a “ssa w Ui a a (A a z Ui a <oO *A JA X a Ui X a (Vi H M a a Sipi, rL S!-S* *»“5ai K a a a 3 a a u S « Z o s a a a z Ui < -*a5i 0^x1gSs® o a < a a ipl i“- ic: f. ■. Prepared for: CE RTIFI CATE OF SURVEY EVERSON residence w % V - H^RPC0 v4ER «LaJUTlONSJ (Arc*t in feef) to»te MAiioawt TONE »«bA kUh_________' 0'*1^’ ^0,o^5 4^0 4% Cov«rn^e 1E-T50' J0,»03 3130 %•/• C»v«r*»e. LEGAL DESCRIPTION; The southeasterly One-half of l.ot 7, and Lots 5 and 6, mock 6, BERGOUIST AND WICK- LUND'S PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Henne pin County, Minnesota. 1(^0 ST9/C7 5-7.2 7l GENERAL NOTES o Denotes iron monument Denotes cross chiseled in concrete *939.7 Denotes existing spot elevation 19391 Denotes proposed spot elevotion 4--------- Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existing features Proposed top of foundation elevation = Proposed bosement floor elevation = Proposed goroge floor elevation = BENCHMARK-. ALL METRO LAND SURVEYORS 2340 Ooniels Street Long Loke, Minnesota 55356 Ph: 475-1433 1 htreby ctrtify that this lurvsy, plan oi rsport •rat prapartd by m« or under my direct tupervition and that 1 am a duly Registered Lend Surveyor under the la«rt_^ the State of Minneioto. __'JljAtiu DATE f/i/ro REG NO./70^5 SCALE ^ ^0* BOOK FACE FILE NCI. *)0047 A Toz Bryan Crawford, City Attorney Froa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Dates May 18, 1990 Subject: Zoning Review - Garry Everson Property 4755 North* Shore Drive Today I received a copy of the Certificate of Survey for the above referenced property, such survey being completed by All Metro Land Surveyors. I would make the following specific comments regarding information shown on that survey: 1. The survey verifies that the wood deck for which the applicant was cited, is not in the 0-75' protected lakeshore setback zone. 2. It is unclear from the survey whether the deck extends into the average lakeshore setback zone. No new construction is allowed to encroach toward the lake past a line drawn between the lake sides of existing residence structures on either adjacent property. (Reference Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B), attached.) 3. The wood deck has been constructed over the lot line and onto the neighboring Walter Krahl property to the west. Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C), the non encroachment section, notes that a grade level deck cannot extend closer than 2' from any lot line, and a deck structure that is above grade level so as to not meet the criteria for a grade level deck, would have to meet a 10' side setback in the LR-IB zoning district in which this property is located. 4. The final critical issue with this wood deck is that it increases the already excessive hardcover on the property. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, limits hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone to 25%. This property is currently at 56% in that zone, and the contruction of the wood deck certainly exacerbated the pre-existing hardcover excesses. To summarize, portions of the currently existing wood deck which were newly constructed in 1988, and which resulted in this action, do not conform to the Code because they are: A) Too close to the lot line (in fact over it); and B) Contributing to and increasing the pre-existing hardcover excesses on the property. Zoning Review - Garry Everson Property 4755 North Shore Drive May 18, 1990 Page 2 of 2 The property owner would appear to have 2 options: 1. Remove the decks which were added or totally replaced. City policy has been to allow repair of pre-existing decking, but total replacement of a non-conforming deck would not be allowed unless a variance is granted. 2. Applicant could make the appropriate after-the-fact application for a hardcover variance, with the knowledge that the City will expect portions of the deck encroaching on the required setbacks would have to be removed. There is no guarantee that a variance would be granted, and in a case where the hardcover on the property is so excessive, it is doubtful applicant would be granted approval to keep anything more than the original deck in that location. To: Froa: Date: Bryan Crawford, City Attorney Lyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector May 18, 1990 Subjects 4755 North Shore Drive - Deck Construction Without a ■ Permit 10/21/88 letter sent notifying owner of requirement of permit for deck deadline date of 10/31/88. Permit application enclosed. 10/28/88 owner returns letter with note on bottom "the work we did to our deck was simply repair and replacement of existing, rotting decking and we are not aware this type of maintenance work required a permit". 10/31/88 letter sent to owner saying yes a permit is required for this type of work. Deadline given 11/8/88. 11/8/88 phone call asking if plans are required, I said I would do a site inspection to determine. 11/18/88 site inspection found deck to be of all new construction. 7 days to get permit noted on inspection slip left on site. 12/13/88 letter stating legal action will be initiated if no permit by 12/19/88. 12/30/88 permit application received. 2/2/89 Zoning Department sends letter requiring a Certificate of Survey and hardcover calculations within 45 days. 4/18/89 no response from applicant - citation issued for working without building permit. 6/8/89 applicant does not respond - Court sends delinquent ticket notice. 9/26/89 applicant does not respond - Attorney issues formal complaint. 10/17/89 failed to appear. Bench warrant issued. 1/2/90 Building Inspector requests police to enforce warrant (verbal). 2/21/90 Building Inspector request police to enforce warrant (in memo). 1 4755 North Shore Drive - Deck Construction Without a Permit May 18, 1990 Page 2 of 2 2/26/90 Police attempt enforcement of warrant, wife of defendant states defendant is out of town. Officer aocepts $74.00 fine from wife and declares case closed. 2/27/90 Inspector sends letter to defendant stating payment of fine in no way makes his deck a legal structure, requires permit application and required submittals to be provided to City no later than 3/6/90. 3/7/90 submittals not received. Inspector requests City Attorney to take further action. 3/16/90 applicants come to office to discuss and were told a survey must be provided. 5/18/90 survey provided - see attached memo from Mike Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator. 'jr Jacv«< HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHE^^ : • j SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House 4 (^ArQ.qg.x (AHQ.Lhgr{^ length WIDTH '^vsO'f" ^ Garage . c. Drivewayon D. Sidewalk fr E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN flASTIc’ - SHEETING L^tgjk r\yy^ gAo^ip^ G. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone . I Q 3 ^ SiFi B -JLJL4.Q. S3Z X 100 Sin, dw-t,. o-P >sur u u.t . 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. laf I SO S.F. ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ S.F.B % 1 <r cr •< • 1 ^ ' .1 >! 0 1 f< 1 • ;- i v''] I> /^V ; ’K M K K X « °| •1 I ^ .X X » ’ ' s K'l I? !U : i m I I T 1\ M u! \V CITY OF ORONO Bryan Crawford Popham, Baik & Associates 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 Ninth Street South Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Garry Richard Everson, 4755 North Shore Drive Deck Construction Without Permit Dear Bryan: Thank you for your letter of March 5, 1990. We will proceed on formal complaint*basis on matters where there are issues to be resolved. But we feel it would be more cost effective to deal with minor violations through the citation process. If you have any further comments on this let us /mow. BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING Enclosed is a violation report on one of our citation process failures. Please proceed vrith the formal complaint process on this matter. If you need anym.ore information or if “ can assist you in any way, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely 0 Ly^e Oman, Senior Building Inspectc: Lr I In Enclosure cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building 6 Zoning Administrator ADMINI®^ •.■nON a nNANCE - 473-735* 473-0510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 cire OF OHawcr] CITYof ORONO Post Oflice Box 66*CrystaJ Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices I On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 27, 1990 Gary Richard Everson 4755 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re: Deck Construction without a Building Permit Dear Mr. Everson: It has come to my attention that you have paid a S74.00 fine on a citation issued to you for building without a permit. This ^etter is to inform you that payment of this fine in no way makes your deck a legal structure. You are srill required to obtain a building permit and comply with all ap? ic ble codes vou wish to keep the deck. An application wish _the required submittals must be provided to the City before -^90. If this deadline has not been met, the City will again issue citations and the prosecuting attorney will be instructec uO recuest the court to resolve the issues before fines_can be paic and the case is closed. If you have any questions, contact anyone in the Building and Zoning Department (473-735;. Sincerely, ryle Oman, Senior Building Inspector LO/tln Enclosure - Building Permit Application Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Adminis-.rator Bruce Vang, Building Inspector cc: BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A RNANCE - 473-7351 FAX-4734)510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 I • ‘ ■ • ■ ■•■■ .»■ r<‘#iV ■■> ■ V.:: '' ■ ■•^.'•rr' ■" m.w crrv OF XDRONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66 *01781x1 Bay, Minnesota 55323* Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka * February 2, 1989 ! Mr. Garry Everson 4755 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re: Deck Construction Without Permit Dear Mr. Everson, The Building and Zoning department is in receipt of application for an after the fact permit to construct new*decks to replace previously existing decks. A review of the application finds that the following information needed for review is missing: 1. Certificate of survey. The decks constructed are subject to hardcover and lakeshore setback requirements where compliance can only be verified through a certificate of survey. 2. Hardcover calculations. This deck construction is considered as hardcover, and a site inspection of your property indicated that the property very likely already exceeds the maximum allowable hard’cover of 25% in the 75-250*' zone. Please complete the hardcover calculation worksheet and submit that along with the survey. Yo’jr surveyor should locate all items of hardcover, including t deck, sidewalxs, driveway, etc. on the survey. In the event that your hardcover percentage with the newly constructed decks exceeds the allowable percentages, or in the event that any portion of the decks extend into the 0-75" lakeshore setback zone, you will have to apply for the appropriate variances. I am enclosing a variance for your use, 'should you need to apply. Review of your building permit application will not continue until the noted items are received. Failure to provide the required information within 45 days of the date of this letter will result in a referral of this matter to the City Attorney. BUILDING a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION k FINANCE - 473*7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Mr. Garry Everson February 2, 1989 Page 2 Please contact me at 473-7357 if you ha ’^e any questions. Sincerely,^ Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/dh Enclosure: Variance Application cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator Torn Jacobs, Building Inspector Lyle Oman, Field Inspector ! i Total Fee: $CITY OF ORONO - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Received: Date Approved:_ _ _ _ _ _~ Pemit#:Projecti: Building Permit Application Requirements: , 1. Building permit application - to be filled out completely and signed 2. 2 sets of construction plans to include the following: a) Floor plans; b) Footing and foundation plan; c) Elevations (of all sides); d) Wall sections and cross sections; e) Details - stairs and any special connections. 3. Certificate of survey with location of existing and proposed structures including hardcover calculations and grading and drainage pl£Uis as required- 4. Energy calculations - form provided. 5. Sectic rep :t and design if required. ABOVE INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN FULL BEFORE PLAN REVIEW WILL BE STARTED THE APPLICANT IS: (circle one) Co^E^br CONTRACTOR JOB SITE ADDRESS:^75:f ZIP; (work) NAME OF OWNER: D r ; / f-Z\ )0 J PHONE;(home) MAILING ADDRESS; A 'CITY: Orr,^ n />'» aJ ZIP: CONTRACTOR: Vj PHONE: MAILING ADDRESS:CITY:ZIP: ARCHITECT:PHONE: MAILING ADDRESS:CITY:ZIP; TYPE OF WORK: New_ _ Addition Demo Remodei/Alteration Accessory Structure_ _ Move_ Renovate X Land Alteration_ PROPOSED USE (describe in detail); D : O in ^ /tl X I ^S^L/T) O /v -g 0.r ' \-^ront Uija.HCDcJ-Z . STORIES: 1^arnN FEET OF EACH FI.OOR; /hOO _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- NO. OF BEDROOMS; GARAGE .STALLS; ATT.^ DET._ _ ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (exciu^&g^and) ; $ / I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the above is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with t e ordinances and codes of the City and with the State Building Code; understand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a permi , that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE- - --^ DATS; //-J). X.- - - (Please fillreverse side of this form) O' CITYOFORONO INSPECTION NOTICE PERMIT NO-----------— CALLED IN SCHEDULED COMPLETED DATE TTME tu)4-»4'V'^\CfO ADDRESS OWNER AJg> TELEPHONE NO.V7 Z - _CONTR. fc S! 5 Q £ •.j 2 FOOTINQ FRAMING INSULATION WALL 80. FINAL PROGRESS OEMOL FIRE PREV. COMMENTS: □ plumbing ri □ PLUMBING final □ MECHANICAL Q WATER HOOKUP a meter SET/TURN ON □ SEWER HOOKUP □ SEPTIC install a SEPTIC MAINT. O WELL TEST PUMP ZgJ^ITE INSPECTION ^ EXCAV7GRA0ING/FILLING LAKESHORE/WETLANOS LICENSING COMPLAINT FOLLOW-UP SEPTIC FINAL FIREPLACE/WOOD BURNER a□□□a□□ ^— n/=z.'<^. - i< 'to~r r cAi' ■cvt V^a=iiiC^5 o _ § O “ >. - Ou. _ Ujc:- S “5 - Ujc:^ — o U j -c: Uj Q 8 |<V( A1F~IjlJ> XnIL ujT-rH- "~7 3 WOBK SATrSFACTOSV; PPOCESD PHOTO TAKEN ^^^^SPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance. Owner/ContL^on sita^ Inspector.473-7357 White /ln«teCior’i Fite Cinary /Sira Notice city: OF QRawa CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66*CrysUl Bay. Minnesott 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka ' October 31, 1988 Gary Iverson 4755 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re: Deck Construction Without Permit Dear Mr. Iverson: On October 21, 1988 this office notified you that a permit was required for deck construction. You responded with a note saying it was a repair and replacement and you were not aware of the requirement for a building permit. This letter is to conform that a permit is required for a repair/replacement. New work or repairs must meet the minimum standards of the Uniform Building Code and the requirements of the Orono Zoning Code. You must apply for a building permit before November 8, 1988 or the City may issue citations. If you have any questions or if you hrve a problem meeting this deadline, please feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyl^ Oman, Field Inspector LO/tln cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Thomas J. Jacobs, Senior Building Inspector UlLDIWG a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTTIATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 Pijnrc WORKS - 4 73-7359 I CITY IvaRONtt CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minneaoto 55323• Municipal Offices I On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 21, 1988 Gary Everson 4755 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re: Deck Construct .-n Without Permit Dear Mr. Ever«?on: It has come to the attention of this office that you have recently constructed a deck at 4755 North Shore Drive without the required building permit. This letter is to notify you that a building permit is required for deck construction and that you "“st apply for a .. in —Rfl this deadline is not meet the City Siri'ssue"®at\ons' 'li you hatl any questions or if you have a prLlem meeting this deadline please feel free to contact me my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman, Field Inspector Enclosed: Permit Application not -this'tLjpc. m:^nt£mn<uL vjoodc rG.(^rad a permit. ^ Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building S Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Thomas J. Jacobs, Senior Building Inspector il\c» uoork. ^ Our dtcik uXl-S Ciir ^ roplac^pr\£/Yt- , roiVi BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING administration a FINANCE - 473-7358 U6U , PUBLIC WORKS -473-7359 91490.1 Mayor and City CouncilTO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public Facilities Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administra^^^ ^ September 14, 1990 2.1 igcQ OF OBQtio Attachment:A. Public Facilities - Zoning Memo Dated 8/8/90 B. Moratorium - Facilities for Non City of Orono Municipalities Dated 5/15/90 ISSUE - Determination of general language for consideration by Planning Commission regarding the following; Facilities of other governmental units Public utility facilities INTRODUCTION - At the Council's August 13, 1990 Council meeting Council tabled discussion regarding Attachment A. Initial focus of this plus the moratorium was facilities of other local governmental units, which led to further consideration of State and Federal facilities. Additionally there is reference to public utilities primarily as they relate to other governmental units. However, recent considerations for public service structures of public utilities. (These included the electrical company for a substation and Contel for a switching station on North Shore Drive West together with pending applications from Minnegasco for temporary "peak shaving" plant in an industrial zone and US West for a cellular phone antenna and switching building near Wayzata Boulevard in a residential district.) The basic recommendation for Attachment A was to limit the use of these types of facilities in residential zones to city owned facilities as permitted uses, conditional uses for schools in their own jurisdiction and other facilities whether governmental units such as Metro Waste that serve primarily a local need. Other facilities for other governmental units and public utilities that do not serve local Orono need would be requried to be located in compatible commercial or industrial zones as conditional uses. The types of issues related to both the local government and public utilities facilities are as follows; Governing organization of the facility Local Orono versus non local need Compatibility of use Size of structure Ownership pattern ALTERNATIVES - 1. Give conceptual direction for language to be developed for Planning Commission consideration. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action. 4. Await recommendations from staff and Planning Commission on this issue after public hearing for proposed zoning amendment. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that primarily Ordinance 10.20 which governs permitted and conditional uses in all the residential zones by reference together with applicable sections in commercial and industrial be amended as f Hows: Residential zones Permitted use Publicly owned parks and playgrounds Municipal buildings Conditional uses Schools and daycare over 14 pupils - (This would be limited to K to 12th year instruction and within the schools jurisdictional boundaries.) Schools that are not local K to 12 school districts are limited to a specific number of pupils and are not to be residential schools at which students live on campus. Publ^ service structures - Amended to limit this primarily for local use to residents of the City of Orono. Antennas - Indicate the provisions of Section 10.75 do not pre-empt this limitation. For all these conditional uses for unit of government not in its jurisdictional limits condition of the approval woul(5^ an arrangement for payment in lieu of taxes on the property Parks - Parks primarily for local usage generally have under a specific visits per year shall be permitted in residential zones. Commercial/Industrial - Conditional Use Permit - Non local facilities of other local governments or public utilities. All facilities that do not primarily serve non-local are permitted as conditional use permits in commercial or industrial zones for that type of facility use and building structure is compatible with that type of zone. Offices permitted where offices are permitted and light industrial buildings are permitted. Building materials are subject to standards set forth in the Highway 12 corridor and such facilities must establish a fee in lieu of taxes and an agreement for no annexation. If the use is subservient to a primary use a lease hold arrangement is acceptable if this constitutes another primary use an independent lot must be created for this function which meets all the zoning standards of the district. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconed by _, the Council after given direction to staff refers the matter to staff and Planning Commission for specific language development along the lines outlined. Ayes __, Nays __. To: From: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratoi^ August 8, 1990 Subject: Public Facilities - Zoning Attachment - , , A - Moratorium Non-City Facilities Memo dtd 5/15/90 ISSUE - 1. 2. 3. Determination of approach for regulation of facilities owned or used by other governmental units under Orono's land use ordinances. If allowed, what conditions would be attendant to such uses? Refer concepts to Planning Commission for their consideration. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's ^y 29, 1990 meeting, a moritorium ordinance was adopted to limit the construction of facilities by other local governmental units in the City's boundaries. The issue raises a more general issue of facilities of all governmental units in the City. DISCUSSION - The City .n its zoning code permits its municipal facilities, except utilities which require a conditional use permit, to be located in residential zones. ^ It additionally allows, by conditional use permit, school buildings to be located in those zones. The intent is to allow facilities to be located near where the "customer base" is. The location of the facilities of other governmental units, may serve either local or regional needs. To the extent that they serve regional needs, their locations close to the customer base could be more generally located. The issue of whether other governmental uivits should be located in the community raises the following issues: A) Tax exempt status. The development facilities removes those properties fr-:^' to the extent that they are primarily r places a burden tax exempt on the City i State need in a single community. lO governmental rolls and : ona1 needs, I regional or 6^5 Public Facilities - Zoning August 8, 1990 Page 2 of 4 Minneapolis and St. Paul are good examples of this with the University and State government complexes removing substantial portions of valuable property from the tax rolls. (Other cities may desire to locate facilities in this community because they do not either have enough land for such facilities or choose to use available land in their community for taxable purposes.) B) Annexation. To the extent that facilities of other cities are located in border areas near those cities, they may make them ripe for a petition for annexation. Whether they are ultimately successful or not, the City bears the expense if it chooses not to allow the land to be annexed This would additionally remove what would have been potentially taxable property not only from the City's tax base but also its jurisdiction. C) Non-local use. Generally these facilities serve regional purposes and their location in selected residential zones may not be appropriate. D) Control of use. Once such a facility is located, it may be difficult, particularly in a residential zone, to control growth of other uses of that site desired by that governmental unit. Currently apart from highways, roads and utility lines other governmental units have the following located in Orono: Long Lake - Discontinued Sewer Plant MWCC - 3 Pump Stations University - Fresh Water Biological Institute Hennepin County - Maintenance Garage - North Arm Landing - (Library Land on Highway 12) Park District - Baker Park - Noerenb' rg Park - Portions of Big Island In addition, the postal system does rant space from public/private owners. The following represent the various governmental units who might locate facilities in the Community with the second column listing potential uses. This list is not intended to be inclusive. Public Facilities - Zoning August 8, 19^0 Page 3 of 4 Jurisdiction Tyoe Federal State Regional (including regional operating agencies) County Ptirk District Ot-ier Cities Sniiools (outside jurisdiction) Vo-tech Schools (within jurisdiction) Type of U^es Service Branches Offices "Light Industry Type-uses" Parks - iriciudirg buildings and public access Schools Public Utilities Streets/Roads Tower Structures - including water Purup Stations/Lift Stations Airports Wells/Water Treatmeni Plants Recently a suburban city to our northeast has consiacred the placement of city wells in another community because of the difficulty of finding well sites within its own boundaries. In general, facilities of a city within their own jurisdiction zoning are allowed in all districts for the following reasons: A) The City Council, which ultimately is responsible for regulating land use, also decides locations and use of such facilities. B) These city services are local, anu services such as parks, are generally located close to the pevs-iis they se 've. ALTERNA'xxVES - Pol?.-’ . 1. Treat facilities of oth'»r governmental units tra same as Orono city facilities would be treated. »ry us2. Treat them in the same facilities but subject to co sanex,^ manner as schools. 3. Differentiate them fx- t. within their own municipa or them in a manner that woulr ' r Imilar l^-:; xse in the zon^n. utside V' where office > buildings where light industrial is ncc allowed). Orono City nits in the -wjnool facilities aour Varies. Treat * A.j* o a private owner of e (i.p. no ‘r..f:c‘S locav^d a" lowed/, o r.iixntenaiico- Public Facilities - Zoning August 0, 1990 Page 4 of 4 4. Limit all units of governnentr including the City, to the same categories as one wcild find for a private enterprise. 5. Split consideration as to allow zoning by whether the facility serves essentially a Iccul Orono purpose. A non- Orono/regional purpose would have greater limitations as to the districts that those would be allowed. ACTION - ....1. Discuss to determine desired Council direction. 2. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - The following represent recommendations: A) Clarify language by indicating that municipal facilities allowed in residential zones are only those for the City of Orono. B) Amend the conditional use permit for public utilities to allow those deemed aopropriate, primarily for locax use of the City of Orono, excluding structures/above ground structures not specifically serving Omno from residential districts. (It may be desirable to split consideration between governmentally owned utilities and privately owned utili ies such as telephones, electric and gas.) C) Specifically limit abo^^e ground structures such as office buildings tc businesi nes and uses similar to light Industrial uses bv g*' nmental units to industrial zones and only as ona. ises. D) Limit faciliti educational institutions, research institutions, etc. u.-ax: are apart from schools within their own judicial boundaries to the RR-lB-1 zone or in a business zone subject to a conditional use. E) Look at receiving a fee in lieu of taxe^-: as part of a conditional use for facilities that become tax exempt. As a related item, scheduling on on-site visit is currently being arranged and hopefully a date will be presented at the Council meeting. Proposed Motion - moved by ___, seconded by ___ after discussion give staff direction for develc language to be presented at the Planning Commissi public hearing. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. MEB/tln he Council <it of draft .-•eting for a DS ^ [F 51590.1 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratoV^^ May 15, 1990 ^OUHCIL MEETIHG !m 2 9 1S90 city of OHQffQ Sc'TECT: Moratorium - Facilities for Non City of Orono Municipalities Attachment: -A. Draft Ordinance No.Second Series B. Ordinance No. 10.20 - R-IA One Family Residential Zone C. Ordinance No. 10.40 D. City cf Wayzzza Leuter Dazad 5/'23/90 ISSUE - 1. Hold the public hearing. 2. Determine if the City desires to impose a moratorium as it relates to facilities of other units of governemnt other than those of the City of Orono and the school districts outside the jurisdictional boundaries, to determine what zoning category and regulations are appropriate to such use. If so, adopt Attachment A, effective _________. INTRODUCTION - In the past there has been one case of the location of selected facilities of another municipality being .ocated in the City of Orono. This has subsequently resulted an ictemoted annexation. As Counci'l may be aware there has been interest expressed in another parcel by another municipality. While they have indicated that such municipality may not need to have it 'annexed into their jurisdiction at this time, it obviously sets up a oossible basis for an annexation longterm. In addition there are other land use issues related to such considerations that need study. DISCUSSION - Minnesota Statutes 462.351 et. sa. gives the municipalities the aoility to adopt a moratorii . in order to allow it an opportunity to explore selected land use issues. The City can adopt a moratorium for up to 18 months and can subsequently exte-1 that moratorium subject to a public hearing for a period not to exceed an additional 12 months. As you will note in Attachment B the City does allow location of r.unicipal facilities as a permitted use in any of its residential zones together with its commercial zones. (As noted in Attachment C* they ,are only permitted in business zones where the :sage is considered an office usage.T It is our City Atto-rney's - 'ition ti •* that applies only to city of Orono facilities; the Lcipallty interested in the land indicates that there is a --art interpretation that indicate that it may be broader than at. (Staff asked for a legal citation of that but nas not ■’ received a response from that community.) A moratorium makes *.he issue moot.. The proposed moratorium would not apply to any facilities the /GiitV- i.tsVrf was contemplating but only those of local ■-governmental units, apart from the School District which is already addressed in the code as a conditional use permit. (Local government facilities currently located in the community are the Hennepin County Public Wgrks garage, Moerenberg and Baker Parks.) *• It is anticipated that the consideration of this should take no more than six to nine months and the Citv staff will provide to the Planning Commission alternatives regarding possible changes to our ordinance. Once 'acted on by the Planning Commission it would be presenred to the Council for a determination. If concluded earlier and policy adopted the Council could repeal the moratorium earlier. ALTSPNATI^/ES - Policy for consideration during the term of the moratorium - 1. Clarify in ordi.nance that 10.20 applies only to City of Or'no facilities. 2. Determine if the City desires to allow governmental facilities (apart from School Districts which are already a conditional use permit) as permitted or a conditional use permit and under what zoning categories they may be allowed. A. Any residential tone. 3. Selected residential zones. C. Coraraercial. D. Industrial. 3. Allow no other local governmental entities or category of governmental entities to construct such facilities in the City of Oronq. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - 1. Enact a moratorium effective immediately. 2. Direct staff to undertake the necessary consideration and study of such facilities. 3. Table for further discussion. • • 4. Take no action. ,n,^Tnw T- is recommended that the City adopt the KProMMEMDATION - I- is “c governmental facilities apart Hi^ssary moratorium district. The moratorium puts other from its o«n and is considering the moratorium ind^under«hit conditions the zoning code would permit such. w Sr, seconded by r that Council adopt proposed motion - »°"=^onWerferertabUihlng a moratorium on ordinance NO. 7 —: ®*!es apart from its own and the school I?;tV"c"'as set foJth in the "^mor a tori urn. Ayes Nays _. m ® II 5159 r'n TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato*^^^ DATS: May 15, 1990 SUBJECT: Moratorium - Facilities for Non City of Orono Municipalities Attachment: A. Draft Ordinance No., Second Series B. Ordinance No. 10.20 - R-lA One Family Residential Zone C. Ordinance No. 10.40 D. City of Wayzata Letter Dated 5/23/90 ISSUE - 1. Hold the public hearing. 2. Determine if the City desires to impose a moratorium as it relates to facilities of other units of governemnt other than those of the City of Orono and the school districts outside the jurisdictional boundaries, to determine what zoning category and regulations are appropriate to such use. 3. If so, adopt Attachment A, effective _ _ _ _ _. INTRODUCTION - In the past there has been one case of the location of selected facilities of another municipality being located in the City of Orono. This has subsequently resulted an attempted annexation. As Council may be aware there has been interest expressed in another parcel by another municipality. While they have indicated that such municipality may not need to have it annexed into their jurisdiction at this time, it obviously sets up a possible basis for an annexation longterm. In addition there are other land use issues related to such considerations that need study. DISCUSSION - Minnesota Statutes 462.351 et. sq. gives the municipalities the ability to adopt a moratorium in order to allow it an opportunity to explore selected land use issues. The City can adopt a moratorium for up to 18 months and can subsequently extend that moratorium subject to a public hearing for a period not to exr I an additional 12 months. As you will note in Attachment B the City does allow location of municipal facilities as a permitted use in any of its residential zones together with its commercial zones. (As noted in Attachment C they are only permitted in business zones where the usage is considered an office usage.) It is our City Attorney's position that that applies only to city of Orono facilities; the municipality interested in the land indicates that there is a Court interpretation that indicate that it may be broader than that. (Staff asked for a legal citation of that but has not received a response from that community.) A moratorium makes the issue moot. The proposed moratorium would not apply to any facilities Lhe City itself was contemplating but only those of local governmental units, apart from the School District which is already addressed in the code as a conditional use permit. (Local government facilities currently located in the community are the Hennepin County Public Works garage, Noerenberg and Baker Parks.) It is anticipated that the consideration of this should take no more than six to nine months and the City staff will provide to the Planning Commission alternatives regarding possible changes to our ordinance. Once acted on by the Planning Commission it would be presented to the Council for a determination. If concluded earlier and policy adopted the Council could repeal the moratorium earlier. ALTERNATIVES - Policy for consid** rat ion during the term of the moratorium - 1. Clarify in ordinance that 1.0.20 applies only to City of Orono facilities. 2. Determine if the City desires to allow governmental facilities (apart from School Districts which are already a conditional use permit) as permitted or a conditional use permit and under what zoning categories they may be allowed. A. Any residential zone. B. Selected residential zones. C. Commercial. D. Industrial. 3. Allow no other local governmental entities or category of governmental entities to construct such facilities in the City of Orono. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - 1. Enact a moratorium effective immediately. 2. Direct staff to undertake the necessary consideration and study of such facilities. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City adopt the necessary moratorium regarding the governmental facilities apart from its own and the school district. The moratorium puts other jurisdictions on notice that Orono is considering the moratorium and under what conditions the zoning code would permit such. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council adopt Ordinance NO. _ _, Second Series establishing a moratorium on governmental facilities apart from its own and the school district as set forth in the moratorium. Ayes _, Nays _. : lii M OROINANCE NO.SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE GRANTING OF BUILDING PERMITS, LAND SUBDIVISION/ZONING APPLICATIONS, CONDITIONAL OR SPECIAL USE PERMITS, VARIANCES OR EVERY OTHER AUTHORITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY FACILITIES OF A LOCAL GOVERNMENT APART FROM THE CITY OF ORONO'S FACILITIES OR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WITHIN THEIR OWN BOUNDRIES. The City of Orono ordains: The municipal Code of the City of Orono is amened by adding Ordinance No. ___, Second Series. Section 1. Statement of Policy. - The City Council finds the City is faced with potential for applicat ’ :>ns for development of local government facilities which raise the potential issue as to the most appropriate land use, compatibility with residential development together with the potential threat for annexation of property so developed into that of another jurisdiction. The City is in the process of re-evaluating its official controls in order to determine what appropriate place, if any, there is to permit such facilities within its jurisdictional boundries. The Council finds that amending any other official controls can not be done until a study is completed and a hearing held. During this interim period it is desirable that Council establish criteria for those who wish to develop property in order to bring about savings in public and private expenditures and provide public guides to the future City action. The City determines there is an urgency involved because of the need to control development during the interim period that the benefits of proper planning will not be lost, t preserve the status quo pending adoption of these measures so the. City will not be impared in its ability to effectuate the purposes and goals of these planning efforts. Since enactment of an ordinance will undoubtedly modify existing regulation concerning permitted land use and zoning performance standards, the granting of various zoning and permit applications during this interim period would be detrimental to the effectuation and contrary to the purpose of the zoning enabling act. The Council further finds that it would be unwise, improper and unjust to allow individual development to occur during this study period to avoid discrimination and unfair advantage to a few to the detriment of the entire City. Therefore, the Council and staff's authority to grant permits described herein shall not be exercised during the limited te m of this ordinance, except as provided in Section 6. Section 2. Restrictions on the Granting of Permits and Appl ications. No building permit for construction or total replacement, land subdivision applications, rezoning applications, conditional or special use permits, variances or other authority for development of any local government facilities witnin the City shall be granted for any purpose that would be inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance, including but not limited to any local government offices or other facility. Section 3. Exceptions. Exceptions or modifications of such facilities during the moratorium can grant variances on a case by case basis showing unique hardships on a 3/5 majority vote. Section 4. Area of Application. This ordinance shall apply to all land within the boundaries of the City. Section 5. Duration. This ordiance shall expire on ___________________________, 1990, without Council action or it may be repealed earlier if the Council determines that the requisite studies have been completd and adopted and that the appropriate evaluation and action, including any necessary revisions of the Zoning Code, have been finalized. The duration of this ordinance may be extended by adoption of a subsequent ordinance. Section 6. Variances. Council may grant a variance to this section if it finds after careful review of all the facts the proposal is not contrary to the intent of its Comprehensive Community Management Plan and that it is compatible with the zoning and official control amendments being considered by the City and that it does not adversely impact the health, safety or welfare of the citizens. Section 7. Separability. Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or part and if any section, provision or part thereof or action taken hereunder shall be held invalid, it shall not affect any other section, provision or part. Section 8. This Ordinance shall be published in the Laker and Pioneer newspapers and shall be effective immediately upon adoption. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1990, by a vote of _ _ _ _ ayes and _ _ _ nays. ATTEST;James R. Grabek, Mayor JTAO.H/UeVT s 10.20 SEC. 10.20. R-IA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose, The "R-IA" One Family Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a comoination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permit. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "R-lA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. One family de ached dwellings. 3. Public owned parks and playgrounds. C. Municipal buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R~1A" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for th following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Schools. Public schools and parochial or private schools which teach a curriculum similar to a public school provided no building shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R'' District and that a fence be erected fifteen feet or more from all street lot lines where the abutting use is for open play, and nursery schools providing fifty square feet of playground space per pupil, B. Churches. Churches including those related structures locate-, on the same site which are an integral part of the church proper, convents or homes for persons related to a religious function on the same site provided no building other than a residence shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. C. Clubs, Camps, etc. Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimming pools serving more than one family, scout camps, YMCA camps, YWCA camps, church camps, or private non profit parks, playgrounds and other similar uses. The principal structure for any of the above listed uses shall be 100 feet or more from any abutting lot in an ”R" District, and accessory structures shall be a minimum of fifty feet from any lot line. D. Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within fifty feet from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of ORONO CC 279 (4-1-84) s 10.20 service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare. E. Greenhouses. Commercial greenhouses provided all outside stOL-.ge is fenced in such a manner so as to screen the stored material from view when observed from the public street or adjoining lot. F. Recreation A-'-s. Private gun clubs, archery ranges, riding stables, ski slides, provided the area is fenced and no part of the principal use is less than 100 feet from any lot line. G. Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. H. Planned Residential Development. Limited to detached single ^amily dwellings only and subject to the i., ftations of Section 10.32. I. Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on a single lot as a conditional use upon application therefor provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, and the duplex is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial district. A duplex is defined as a two-family unit residential building. j. Apiaries. K. Animals. The keening of domestic animals for non-commercial purposes including horses for the use of the cccupants of the premises, provided that any accessory building used for housing such animals shall be located not less tnan 150 feet from the nearest lot line. A minmum of one ar - in aggregate, exclusive of one acre for the principal buildine must be available for each animal unit, except as hereinafter set forth. A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one addit^^nal acre mu'*'* be available for each additional horse. When tht horses are t stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes, the mi. i pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the icil. Such minimum pasture acreage shall not include low lying lands unusable for pasture or grazing. Any pet^cn keeping such animals must comply with the provisions of the Cit.' r’r.de. L. Farms (Crop), ovided that the area is ten or more acres.Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 280 (4-1-84) § 10.20 M. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure with antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto ‘-hat is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. Source: Ordinance No. 177 Effective Date: 6-5-75 Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "R-IA" One Family Residential District, no accessory structure or use of land shall be permitted except for one or more of the following uses: A. Garages. Private garages and parking space. B. Pools, etc. Private swimming pool, *nnis courts, and paddocks C. Home Occupations. Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements when engaged in only by persons reuiding in their dwelling, when there is no employed assistant, when that occupation is conducted within the principal structure only, when evidence of the occupation is not visible from the street, no signs other than those permitted in "R” Districts are oresent, no excessive stock in trade is stored on the premises, over"the counter retail sales are not involved, the entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the structure, and the use does not adversely affect the character of the uses permitted in the district in which it is located. A professional person may use his residence for consultation, emergency treatment *>r performance of religious rites but not for general practic® ^ his profession when such general practice will involve the need for more than three off-street parking spaces for the occupant and visitors. D. Signs. Signs as regulated in 'ne Zoning Chapter. ., ,. .,E. Temporary Structures. Buildings temporarily loc ted icx. ^.urposes of constructing on the premises for a pe»*' ^d not CO exceed time necessary for such constructing. F. Gardens, etc. Gardening and other horticultural uses including aviaries and decorative landscape features. G. Roadside Stand One roadside stand offering for sale only farm products produce on the premises provided that such stand does not exceed 200 square fe t in area and th<it it is located at least thirty feet back from the public right-of-way. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORor- > cc 281 (4-1-84) § 10.20 H. Antenna. Any antenna or combination of antenna riqidly attached to the principal or accessory structure provided that none of the foregoing exceeds the total height allowed in <^»ction 10.75. Source: Ordinance No. 177 Effective Date: 6-5-77 Subd. 5. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2 .ories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Sec- 10.75. be observed: B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1 acre 140 feet 35 feet 10 feet 30 feet 35 feet SEC. 10.21. R-IB ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The ”R-1B" One Family Residential District is intended to provide a dist-iict which will allow denser allot^e'd'by 1;7n^d\°t^on^l use^"plrmitshall have immediate access j highwavs and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the *'R-1B'* One ramily Residential District, no land or cf-uctures shall be used except for one more of th* following uses: District. A. Any P' riitted use as regulated in the "R-IA' Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R~iB” One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regi.lated in the "P-IA District exr..pt that a Planned Rei^idential P«velopment shall not limited to single family dwellings ly. Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any ’'R-lB" One Family Residential District, the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use: District. A. Any accessory use as r<'T'‘ ted in th. ’'R-lA ORONO CC 282 (4-1-84)•! S 10.40 SEC. 10.40. B-1 RETAIL SALES BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-1" Retail Sales Business is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. 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. Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-1" Retail Sales Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-1" Retail Sales Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Retail and Service Businesses. The following neighborhood retail sales and service businesses r .pplying commodities or performing a service primarily ror residents in the surrounding neighborhood: 1. Arts and school supplies store. 2. Banks and insu4.ance companies. 3. Barber and beauty shops. 4. Bicycle sales and repair. 5. Books, magazines, record shop. 6. Drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosmetics and other usual drug store merchandise. 7. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations including incidental pressing and repair. 8. Garden supplies, florist shop. 9. Gift or antique shops. 10. Hardware store, paint store. 11. Hobby shops, camera and photographic supply stores. repair stores. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Jewelry shops and repair. Laundromats. Locksmith. Music, radio, TV, appliance sales and furniture, carpet store. Newsstands. Office supply store, office machine store. Pet shop. Pipe and tobacco shops. Plumbing, electrical, heating, housewares. ORONO CC (4-1-84) supplies lots. > 10.40 Postal substation. Reax estate sales. Retail food of all varieties and home Sewing center and yardgoods. Sporting goods store. Tailor shops. Temporary sales such as Christmas tree 28. Travel bureau. 29. Variety store. 30. Wearing apparel store, shoe store. B. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered to be an office use. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within the "B-l" Retail Sales Business District no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Garages. For the servicing and repair of automobiles provided repair functions are totally enclosed in a building. B. Motor Fuel Stations. Subject to the provisions set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 18. C. Restaurants (Class I). Food is served to customer while seated at counter or table. Cafeteria - Food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumption. Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in Restaurants (Class I.) D. Restaurants (Class II). Fast Food, Convenience, Drive-in, and Liouor Store Restaurants. A restaurant where a majority of customers order ,^nd are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served, or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. E. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the "B" or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and such other conditions as found necessary by the Council. F. Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanka, lift stations and electric power substations. ORONO CC Ord. 67, 2nd Series 5/8/89 (4-1-84) s 10.40 G. Nurseries. Day nurseries provided not less than 50 square feet of outside play area per pupil is available and fenced. H. Offices. Professional office and offices of a general nature. Source; Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 I. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure, witn antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. Source: Ordinance No. 177 Effective Date: 6-5-75 Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-l" Retail Sales Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. D. Landscaping. Decorative landscape features. E. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal building. G. Public Telephone Booths. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 H. Antenna. Any antenna or combination of antenna rigidly attached to the principal or accessory structure provided that none of the foregoing exceeds the total height allowed in Source: Ordinance No. 177 Effective Date; 6-5-75 ORONO CC (4-1-84) S 10.40 Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. square feet. feet. feet. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet; side yard adjacent to ”R'' District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. F. Fencing. Wherever a *'B-1" Retail Sales Business District abuts an ”R" District, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick, or, (b) Natural stone, or, (c) Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or, (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above. (e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. ORONO CC (4-1-84) S 10.40 3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area alfected by the drainage. I. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. SEC. 10.41. B-2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The ”B-2 ’* Lakeshoce Commercial District was originally intended :o provide areas where limited comme; recrei opera*- tre' opt- businesses could be located to service boats used for •*1 purposes on Lake Minnetonka. However, many of the .* the lakeshore commercial businesses have stripped the vegetation from the shorelands and have expanded the 5 so that now the ”B-2'' Lakeshore Commercial Districts adversely affect the lake water quality and the real estate values of adjoining properties. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for additional reasonable regulations that^ require partial restoration of the shoreland vegetation, that will serve to avoid pollution of the lake water and to insure protection of adjacent residential properties which have previously suffered from the unregulated expansion of commercial activities. Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "8-2" Lakeshore Commercial District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the "B-2” Lakeshore Business District, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Repairs. Repair and servicing of boats. B. Storage. Winter storage of boats. ORONO CC 336 (4-1-84) 600 RICE STREET. WAYZATA. MINN. 553VI PHONE 473-0234 CITY COUNCIL Roben D. Gisvold Mayor Rob«n P. Ambrose Richard C. Hannon F. Ptter Herfunh Greiory D. Ryo Allan Oncn City Manager crrr of ORCNO ITaY 2 4 1990 May 23, 1990 Mayor James Grabek City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Jim: The City of Wayzata respectfully requests a visitor's presentation at the next Orono Council meeting on Tuesday, May 29th. The purpose of the presentation is to discuss and explore options in the best interests of both cities in regard to property recently acquired by the City of Wayzata for the possible location of a new public works facility and a park and ride facility. We understand Orono is considering an ordinance that would prohibit Wayzata building a facility in your City. We would like the opportunity to informally present and discuss our plans prior to any such action, as we feel both cities will benefit from what is proposed and we would like to share those plans with you to gain your input. James Grabe : Page 2 May 23, 1990 Your prompt consideration of our request will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, isvold Mayor RDG/js cc: Council Members Ed Callahan J. Diann Goetten Alan R. Nettles Barbara J. Peterson Mark Bernhardson Jmmr--v"^-c/ry OF w^FZ4z;4 WX) RICE STREET. WAYZATA. MINN. 55391 PHONE 473-0234 CITY COL.Nat Robsn D. Cisvold Mayor Robcn P. AmbroM Richard C. Harmon F. Peter Herfunh Gregory D. Rye Allan Orten City Manager To: Mayor and City Council of Orono From: The City of Wayzata Re: Visitor's Presentation May 29, 1990 Orono Council Mtg. Purpose: Review and discuss concept sketch plans and proposals of land use with respect to an 8+ acre site recently purchased by the City of Wayzata. Outline of points **o be covered 1. Options considered by City of Wayzata for location of a new Public Works facility. Location of the purchased site. Site considerations A. City boundaries B. Adjacent land uses C. Topography and vegetative cover D. Transportation related issues E. Soils and drainage issues F. Utilities (sewer, water, etc.) Possible park and ride facility on the remainder of the site. J TOs ,<DM: DATE: 91490.2 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrato^itV^ September 14, 1990 S£P2,] 1950 y ciF ojiQfjQ SUBJECT: Hardcover Variance Protection Attachment: A. Hardcover Variance Protection Memo Dated 8/9/90 ISSUE - At the Council’s August 13, 1990 Council meeting Attachment A was presented for Council consideration. Because of the number of items on the agenda it was requested that this be tabled. DISCUSSION - This item is being presented for your consideration for comments at this time, this input would be relevant to the City developing any changes in the shoreland regulations either in conjunction with LMCD or the Department of Natural Resources. ALTERNATIVES 1. Give staff general direction that the Council desires in the area of hardcover protection for natural incorporation with the shoreline regulations. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action. POLICY - Refer to alternatives in Attachment A starting on page 1. RECOMMENDATION - Recommendations are outlined on page 3 of Attachment A together with any revision of standards to be done in conjunction with the City's shoreland regulations in accordance with DNR and/or LMCD. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council direct staff to upgrade the language and take any comments regarding any standards changes for inclusion with the shoreland regulation modifications. Ayes _, Ne\ys _. f 72590.. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratorj DATE: August 9, 1990 SUBJECT; Hardcover Variance Protection Attachment:A. Standard Language for Hardcover Variances B. Mike Gaffron Memo Dated 8/9/90 ISSUE - At the Council ’s July 23, 1990 meeting CounciImember Callahan raised the issue regarding hardcover growth on selected properties. In particular he cited the Foster and Nelson applications in which new property owners found that when they wanted to do improvements to the property were substantially in excess of hardcover variances granted to a previous owner. While they may have been not granted any variances absence removals within the existing variance numbers, the excess hardcover, these unauthorized increases made it that much more difficult for them to deal with getting a variance. As noted above since 1985 the City has used the standardized language in Attachment A in inclusion in all hardcover variances. These have been filed with the chain of title (although the Hennepin County Recorder's Office has been reluctant to take these with registered property.) While listed, there is nothing that alerts a title examiner to the fact that this may be a problem for the purchaser. DISCUSSION - The City currently deals with hardcover on a property when the owner is looking to make some permanent structural improvements. These hardcover regulations have been in effect since the 70's. Over that period these have gone, although placed in ordinance, from being "a guideline"^ to being a significant standard to be dealt with. In that period of time the issue has gone from being a kind of "sye ball" look to a very refined objective measurement. An additional change has been definition of what has been considered hardcover with plastic/punch plastic and permeable fabric being the most "gray area". While hardcover over those r-umbers on any property does represent a violation of the zoning code the City has never taken the position of dealing with it on more than additions, remodelings or developments. The following represent alternatives to consider for dealing with hardcover. A. Co:'*''■•Shensive Hardcov^ In ventor:' - The City could exploit “ifktablishing a hardcover inventory for all properties do fall within the category. This would either necessj' each property within a 1,000 feet of the lakeshore lu ■'Ve a survey done or in manner similar to the septic program, have the City hire staff to go out and inventory hardcover on each property. The City then could inspect on a regular/occasional basis to determine if that property remains in conformance. Should the property not be in conformance, the City would then require the property owner to come into conformance with the established baseline.^ The problem with this approach would be that the City, once the baseline is established, would be in a position for the City determine on a case by case basis which ones would be allowed to be over the given percentages. Or it may in fact require the City to either grant variances to be above those or just to accept each one with a blanket acceptance statement as of a certain date. B. New Construction/Additions - If the Ci' y wanted to continue only dealing with properties when they are seeking to expand buildings that require permits (or on a complaint basis for other structures), the City could continue in the manner in which it does but do one of the following to insure that what was approved is in fact what is installed. These include: A. Requiring the property owner to have a surveyor reconfirm upon completion that the hardcover existing on completion date is in fact that what was approved. B. Have staff do the indepth measurements upon completion. (The City currently only does a cursory review which only yields if specific items are removed as indicated.) Such a proposal may require that the City for such variances have a type of "certificate of occupancy" for completion of the project. In addition the City could look to require security in order to ensure that if prior to a certificate of occupancy for this, that the hardcover is in line with the approval. This approach however, would not deal with improvements made after the "certi^cate of occupany" is granted, however, it may be Oiflicult for people given variances to have indiffinace bonds/letters of credit outstanding on the property. C. Revised Standar dized Language - As discussed above the current language does not necessarily place new property owners specifically on notice regarding problems. Revised standardized language together with inclusion of the survey in the recording could more specifically alert a title examiner and therefore a prespective buyer to the fact that effectively anything on the property that is not shown on the survey may in fact be considered hardcover. This may entail at property exchange time additional staff work to confirm what in fact is hardcover and what is not. An alternative to this would be reference to have them, at each property change, contact staff specifically for an inspection. (This would be even more staff intensive.) D. Revision of Standards for Hardcover - Instead of the current standards the City coul'9 look at revamping to a standard of no more than 25% overall on the property which would be in line with what LMCD and DNR regulations establish. In addition the City would restrict no hardcover within the 0-75'. The advantage to this is that persons can arrange things on the property and probably would affectively reduce the number of variances required, however, the net effect given no hardcover in the 0-75' may be not substantially different from the present. If we remain our own standard there may be times when the City's proposed LMCD's may be in conflict. E. Develop A Storm Water Run-Off Computer Model - An alternative way to handle the hardcover would be to establish specific run-off rates for specific rain fall rates based on topography, soil conditions, and the amount of impervious surface. While this type of modeling would be possible and would really get at the issue of hardcover run-off, it may make what is already a difficult exercise infinitely more complex as each property would need to do a topographic survey and have that computerized to the model. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Indicate any desired direction. 3. Take no action. 4. Table. RECOMMENDATION - Given the range of alternatives the following are recommended as the most fruitful approaches to address the problem without a substantial increase in City staff or expense. A. Explore upgraded standardized language and i^rciusion of survey with property filings. B. Require a reconfirming survey of hardcover as a condition to satisfy the variance with the possibility of security to ensure that such a reconfirmation is completed . C. Look at revising the standards during the process of bringing the City shoreline regulations into accordance with DNR/LMCD. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council direct staff as to the areas it desires to improve hardcover protection. Ayes _, Nays _. To: From: Date: # Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrate .^71 Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator August 8, 1990 Subject: Standard Hardcover Resolution Wording Please consider the following slightly revised hardcover boiler plate: 1. Hardcover in the zone is approved at a level of %. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram eneJosed with this resolution as Pages ___. The current property owner anl all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this prooerty that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All exis-ing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Please review and revise this as you feel appropriate, and then let's have Teri print up a new "standard format" resolution for variances and variances/CUP's that includes this boiler plate. To: Prom: Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator August 9, 1990 Subject; Hardcover Standards List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Survey of Hardcover Ordinances Exhibit B - Diagrams Relating Various Ordinances We have conducted a survey of the hardcover ordinances of all of the Lake Minnetonka cities, the cities abutting White Bear Lake, and certain other cities with significant lakes in the metro area. The findings were not surprising, but do indicate that Orono indeed has a unique hardcover ordinance. Of the 14 Lake Minnetonka cities, only 2 did not respond to our request. Of the 12 for which we have information, 5 have hardcover regulations. These 5 are Wayzata, Shorewood, Minnetonka Beach (all of which allow 30% of the total lot area to be hard surfaced)# Minnetonka (allows 30% of the 0-150 zone to be hard surfaced with a 50' setback from the lake) and Orono (with our incremental hardcover r. es). In the White Bear Lake area, the cities of Birchwood, Dellwood, and White Bear Lake all have a "30% of total lot area impervious surface limitation. This 30% limitation has also been adopted by Eden Prairie and Plymouth. A few of the other Lake Minnetonka cities have "lot C' 2rage by buildings" standards. Minnetrista is at 20% of the t area covered by structures. Greenwood allows 30% of lot are«. covered by structures. Woodland allows only 10% covered by structures. The Department of Natural Resources in their proposed Shoreland Regulations would limit impervious surfaces to ° the total lot area. The DNR informs me that many of the cities who previously adopted a 30% standard are opposing the idea or having it dropped to 25%. Having discussed our ordinance with many contractors who work throughout the Lake Minnetonka area, with the DNR Division of Waters personnel, and now having reviewed other cities ordinances, I am convinced that Orono's hardcover restrictions are by far the most restrictive in the area. In researching many of the documents which resulted in Orono's wholesale rezoning in 1975 (which included the adoption of our current hardcover regulation), I have been able to find no documentation that technically supports or proposes the specific percentages and incremental zones which Orono adopted. One can look at this as the City Council being farsighted and putting Orono in the forefront of lake protection. One can also look at it as being excessively restrictive, inconsistent with restrictions imposed or proposed by the DNR and surrounding municipalities, and leading to the need to grant excessive number of variances because an unusually high percentage of properties in the City do not or cannot conform to the standard. Hardcover Standards August 9, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A is a synopsis of the hardcover ordinances of 22 cities which surround or abut Lake Minnetonka, White Bear Lake, or other significant lakes in the metro area. Exhibits B are a series of diagrams showing the relationship between Orono's hardcover allowances on a given size/shape property, compared to the DNR standard and the standard adopted by some other cities. Maps 1 through 3 show the variability based on lot width. Maps 4 through 6 show the differences in allowed hardcover related to lot depth and lot shape. It is clear from comparing Maps 1 and 3 that most other lake communities allow almost twice as much hardcover as Orono, on typical rectangular lakeshore lots. Maps 4 through 6 indicate that as the proportion of lot area in the 0-75' zone increases, the differences between Orono's limits and those of most other lake communities are even more disproportionate. This also holds true for pie shaped lots. The point of this memo is to document the significant differences between Orono's code and virtually all other area municipalities' codes. In light of the fact that a high proportion of building permit requests in our lakeshore areas require hardcover variances, Orono's staff spend a disproportionate amount of time on hardcover issues, and there is no question that much private time and money is spent in planning for property improvements only to be held up or denied ultimately because of hardcover issues. In most cases, a home owner or contractor who has not previously dealt with Orono's hardcover codes would not "in their wildest dreams" think that they had a hardcover problem, based on their experiences in most other cities. The concept of hardcover zones, rather than just a percentage of the entire lot area, is most often the point at which homeowners and contractors throw up their arms in disbelief. That is also one of the reasons why staff has to spend significant amounts of time reviewing hardcover calculations - quite often they are not done correctly, due to the complexity of multiple zones. Lacking clear documentation that Orono's position is definitely correct and other cities are definitely wrong, I would hope that we could move towards taking some of the complexity out of our hardcover ordi .ance, and work toward a total lot area denominator concept while still not allowing hardcover in the 0- zone.(That raises another issue - our 75' setback vs. the DNR's 50' setback for Lake Minnetonka - but that is an issue for a future date.) i_IL- EXHIBIT A Status of Hardcover/Lot Coverage Ordinances (residential districts)(GD lakes) Lake Minnetonka; Tl Chanhassen - did not respond. 2. Deephaven - no regulations. 3. Excelsior - did not respond. 4. Greenwood - maximum 30% of lot area may be covered by - buildings. 5. Minnetonka - maximum 30% of 0-150' *in shoreland areas. 6. Minnetonka Beach - 30% of lot area - 75' setback. 7. Minnetrista - maximum 20% of lot area covered by structures. 8. Mound - pending. 9. Orono - 0% in 0-75*; 25% maximum within 75-250'; 30% maximum within 250-500'. 10. Shorewood - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland areas. 11. Spring Park - pending. 12. Tonka Bay - no regulations. 13. Wayzata - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland areas. 14. Woodland - maximum 10% lot coverage by buildings. 1. Birchwood - maximum 30% (not verified - sent us wrong code section). 2. Dellwood - maximum 30% impervious surface site area. 3. Mohtomedi - no (pending). 4. White Bear Lake - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland areas. Other *n- -Iden Prairie - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland areas. 2. Lino Lakes - no regulations. 3. North Oaks - did not respond. 4. Plymouth - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland areas. . i jDNR PROPOSED STANDARDS - maximum 25% of lot in shoreland areas. LMCD PROPOSED STANDARDS - maximum 25% of lot in shoreland areas. * 50' impervious surface setback from Ordinary High Water ■;n J < y Q- O u. o vn ^ /I t A cs 'a i5 'A] VI c^. n €0 cG F wo u VI U. CM ^ i« ^r. (I r- v^^ CV. V' I/’ c »''» 0 c-vl ^ •» 51 ^ »>■ o ‘wi - u ^ <& ~ <30 • N? k- (P A.to h o <. =. * c>* < - ^»a» ri o i<5 S ^ —V- <s- '< rfc<. -CA t' <L •) S/1 ^ £ o 5- <t :i ^0 5- <. U'.J« - C- o vA < J C4C < vt s “ VI -* ^ M- n. CL O rA C “ ® r N - "Sc2 i II K o u.o ^ V- ^ \5 v:» cvi -* —• li- u II ® or* vt \n & O •X •j 3 's *3 O-SZ vO. \ : ■ •- -iX-. <r JJoZ c- 0\,\ JLSi 1 V • » >S^ < ij t/7 0-oVi) n r_ SlT (0 3" cn I* ^ c> 0- Sio d \ 'v>^- I 91490.3 TO: FBOM: DJkTB: /- Mayo.' and City Council [ Mark *3. Bernhardson, City Admin is trato^^^^ September 14, 1990 SlF 2 i 1^^90 W)’K OF GROfiU SUBJSCT: Wetlands Protection Attachment: A. Wetlands Protection Memo Dated 8/8/90 ISSUE - Determine whether the Council desires to: A. Modify protection B. Impose a moratorium INTRODUCTION - At the Council's August 13, 1990 meeting Council raised the issue regarding wetlands protection as it relates primarily to the "Marsh at Lafayette" subdivision together with the issue generally. Attachment A was in response to that and outlines the necessary protections. The application is of concern, in part, because it is split between two communities and the area of wetlands that were to be filled were in Minnetonka Beach with the area in Orono to be a compensating removal. Subsequent to that the Corps of Engineers has directed (see Attachment B) that the subdivider would not be allowed to do any fill in this area. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Maintain current protection. 2. Revise protections. a. Increase protections b. Decrease protections ACTION ALTERNATIVES A. Direct changes be made regarding wetlands protection. B. Direct a moratorium be undertaken following a published public hearing. C. Table for further discussion. D. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council after having discusses this and raised any concerns not take any further action at this time as staff feels adequate protection exists for the wetlands and that further protection would not have only an impact in this local and not totally eliminate the development but also may have adverse impacts in other areas of the community given the substantial wetlands in the community. seconded byPROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _ _ _ accept the information regarding wetlands protection Nays _. that Council Ayes _, 72590 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: August 8, 1990 SUBJECT: Wetlands Protection Attachment:A. E. W. Blanch Application (Memo Only) B. City of Orono Letter Dated 8/'2/90 C. General Map Showing Wetlands ISSUE - 1. Review of City policies related tc wetlands and floodplains protection. 2. Determination as to whether the Council desires: A. To modify protection B. Impose a moratorium r ■ INTRODUCTION - At the Council meeting of July 23, 1990 the issue-'" of wetlands protection particularly as it related to the pending Blanch application on Old Beach Road was raised. Included in the application are questions regarding setback from wetlands together the proposal to fill in wetlands within the City of Minnetonka Beach and dredge out a compensating amount within the City of Orono. In addition, was the question of fill already deposited upon the property and also the developability related to the property. DISCUSSION - The City ’s Comprehensive Plan Ob~^ective - The primary thrust of the City's Comprehensive Plan related to improving the quality of Lake Minnetonka through the removal of sewage going into the lake together with not creating greater non-point pollution in the process. This non-point pollution particularily came about from storm water run off. The Comprehensive Plan addresses it through the large lot zoning in the rural area of the community together with the hardcover regulations and wetlands protection. The primary goal of wetlands protection was to allow these natural stormwater ponding areas to provide some cleansing effect to improve the water quality before it goes into Lake Minnetonka. Wetlands Generally - While wetlands have been more and more protected for natural habitats together with some improvement in water quality, not all experts are iu agreement that over the life cycle of a year or two that the wetlands naturally will have a net improvement in the water quality. Wetlands Purpose - The purpose of wetlands as noted is for: A. Storm water ponding B. Water quality improvement C. Wildlife habitat While cattails etc. do remove nutrients during the growing season, during the winter these die off and may in fact re deposit their nutrients in the wetlands which are flushed out in the spring thaws and dump more nutrients back into the lake. The second problem with wetlands are that over time they do silt up and have mature growth. (i.e. Willows etc.) Such was the case in a wetlands near the Gregory property at 1420 Shoreline Drive which the Council in 1985/65 allowed to be re-configured to restore it back to a less mature state. Wetlands Classification - Attachment C represents the various types of wetlancs that can be found in the community. The DNR classification system recognizes the difference in the type of wetlands and the purpose of those. It should be noted that the DNR does not protect certain classifications. Floodplain and Flood Fringe Protection - The City does regulate building and construction in these areas. Restrictions in these relate to the Federal flood insurance program. These regulations are similar to Federal regulations and were put in in order to allow City residents to participate. Jurisdictional Protections - Wetlands in various circumstances are concurrently protected or addressed by the following jurisdictions: City DNR (particular classifications) Corps of Engineers Environmental Protection Agency Minnehaha Watershed District Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (below 929.4) State Pollution Control Agency There has been a substantial shift in policy as to view of long existing regulations by the Corps of Engineers. This has come into play in the Carlson application as noted in Attachment T, which the City did approve for construction of a road with compensation in a wetlands that Is not DNR protected. This is an area that was tiled out 30 o* 40 years ago and has little, if any, of the type of vegetation normally found in wetlands. The Cor* s of Engineers recently indicated that they would not approve it since there was another route that could minimize the construction in the wetlands. The developer is currently reviewing his options in this matter. It is interesting to note, however, the Corps of Engineers within the past several months has given their tacit approval to a similar situation in Medina. Process - With all of these agencies it becomes a substantial coordinating process to determine whether such developments will go ahead. Currently the Corps of Engineers has directed that a City work on approving a subdivision before they will review it. This however, does place the applicant at considerable expense before their review by the Corps is undertaken. 21^ Beach Road/Blanch App1 ica t ion - This property which previously was owned by the Freshwater Biological Institute was sold to Mr. Blanch. There have been proposals submitted by FWBI in prior years which contemplated various types of multiple residential, duplex, single family development of this property. The property outside the designated wetlands has been available for development since its purchase. The fill that was placed on the property was the result of suction dredging done in Lafayette Bay (main lake) in 1978. It was an experiment by FWBI to see what could be done wit dredging spoils without having to cart them t of the area. CJtitrolled experiments were done to dete- the amount of nutrient run-off from this fill into the wet I . While fill such as this is not usable for spetic systems, it is with appropriate soil boarings a property that can be built on. It should be remembered the City did allow such suction dredging in North Arm in an application in 1987. Waade Add 1ication - This application was for construction of a road which bordered along some wetlands and floodplain areas. Orono Protection of Wetlands - The City protects its wetlands in the following ways: 26 Foot Setback for Structures - This is a primary control that not only keeps construction out of existing wetlands but also gives a reasonable setback. In addition the City does not allow any filling or grading without a variance and conditional use permit. ^2 h.9.1^ ~ This has been a popular term used regarding any wetlands alteration that the amount of storm water ponding area not be reduced by any work that has been done. Generally this is done by compensating either for surface or depth in another area of the property. ALTLANATIVES POLICY 1. Mainti. .. current protection. 2. Revise protections. A. Increase protection B. Decrease protection ACTIONS A. Direct changes be initiated regarding wetlands protection B. Direct that a moratorium be undertaken following a published public hearing C. Table for further discussion D. Take no action RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council accept the information and table further discussion to the September 10, 1990 meeting. In general it is felt that the City's current regulations give the City adequate authority to protect wetlands appropiately yet leaving a flexibility to allow for improvements in those situations. The problems related to these applications is that as long as they meet the development stantards set forth in the ordinance they would be allowed to get the development. In order to restrict development in these cases the City may need to set up extraordinary setbacks, which would severly limit not only these properties as far a developabi 1 ity but would have a substantial negative impact on the developabi1ity of substantially other properties within the City. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seco. after discussing this information tc 10, 1990 meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. by _, that the Council ,es this to the September TOs Mayor Grabek & Orono Council MembersPlanning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardscn Proa: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administi Dates July 12,1990 Subject: #1555 E.W. Blanch, Jr., 2501 Old Beach Road - Preliminary Subdivision Class III - Public Hearing Zoning Dietricts - B-4 & LR-IB Total Area * 31.26 acres Pertinent Ordinances - Chapter 11 Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A) - Minimum lot area requirements. The property may receive credit for portions of land located within wetlands and floodplain as property is sewered, but in no case can a dry buildable envelope be less than 1/2 acre of dry contiguous land. List of Exhibits Application Property Owners List Plat Map Staff Memo - Sketch Plan Review Planning Commission Action Notice Staff Sketch - Amended Sewer Plan Preliminary Plan Exhibit H - Gradi .g. Drainage and Utility Plan Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit The applicant has filed a preliminary plan for a 9 lot plat located within both the Cities of Minnetonka Beach and Orono - Lot 1, Block 2 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 within Minnetonka Beach and Lots 3 through 8 within the City of Orono. At the sketch plan review, the applicant was asked to define the purpose of Outlets B and C located within the City of Minnetonka Beach. The Zoning Administrator of Minnetonka Beach has advised that she had asked the applicant to eliminate the outlets as currently shown. Applicant should provide the City of Orono with some background on this matter. In general, the City staff has no major concerns with the preliminary plan submitted for our current review. The preliminary plan is reviewed in detailed below. Zoning File #1555 July 12, 1990 Page 2 of 5 LOT CONFIGURATION - All lots continue to meet the required lot width to the rear of the 35* front setback line. Lot 9 has been omitted, replaced by Lot 8. Lot 8 is defined along the existing B-4 zoning line. As a result, the applicant did not have to file a petition for rezoning with the preliminary plan. Lot 8 is to be donated to the Freshwater Foundation for future use of the institute. As already noted at the sketch plan review. Out lot A will also be in the control of' the foundation for future use by the Fresh Water Institute. During the -’-etch plan review, the applicant was advised that designat of the outlet as proposed needs a variance to the normal . ^ocedures of the City and that wetland areas were to be incorporated within the boundaries of the residential lots. Applicant had advised that the foundation wished to retain the wetlands area so that appropriate controls could be developed on the property as further restrictions on the institute’s use of the wetlands. This appeared to be acceptable to members of the Commission. Applicant was further asked to provide documentation concerning the specific controls to be placed upon the out lot. As of this writing, the City has not received the special covenants although applicant has contacted the administrator of the foundation who may have the covenants by our meeting date. ACCESS - Lots 3 through 7 shall achieve access via Old Beach Road. Lot 8 shall achieve access via the defined road systems within FWBI property. Access is not proposed directly onto Shadyvood Road for Lot 8 at this time. It is staff's understanding that Lot 8 shall serve for future dormitories for visiting students. In discussions with the City Engineer and the Public Works Director, staff has been advised that Old Beach Road, at least the portions within the City of Orono, have been scheduled for upgrading within this year. The road at an approximate 24' width is scheduled for leveling and 2" bituminous overlay. Applicant shal 1 be asked to make payme-nt for these improvements. It may be appropriate for the City of Minnetonka Beach to coordinate required improvements with the City of Orono. Staff will review this matter with the Zoning Administrator at a later date. The City will ask for 33' dedication of right-of-way for Old Beach Road as shown on the preliminary plan. Zoning File #1555 July 12, 1990 Page 3 of 5 SSWER & WATER UTILITIES - Already noted in the sketch plan review, there will be a sewer unit charge of $897.62 for each sewer unit based on the 1990 fee schedule. This fee is adjustt'^ each year based on an inflationary rate. There will be no water unit charges for the 6 lots within Orono. Minnetonka Beach shall be charged at the same sewer unit rate quoted for Orono. There will be a charge of $1,691.78 per water unit,for lots within the Minnetonka Beach area. There is an existing water main within Old Beach Road. The applicant proposes a 500' extension to the north to serve the northern lots within Minnetonka Beach. The City of Minnetonka Beach shall be responsible for portions of the water lines wi*hin the boundaries of their City. This may also be an issue to discuss at a future date with the administrator of Minneto’ka Beach. Please review Exhibit F, staff must ask that the proposed 8" sanitary sewer line be amended as shown on the staff sketch (Exhibit F). The City does not approve of public utility lines placed within the private boundaries of properties because of the difficulties of achieving access and creating an impact upon existing improvements within those lots. The City staff recommends that the sewer line be routed down Cld Beach Road and then along County Road 19 up to the lift station. The City will ask for a 25' wide drainage and utility easement along the street lot lines of Lots 6 and 7 up to the lift station in Lot 8. Applicant's surveyor should designate existing utility easement over lift station within Lot 8. DRAINAGE/GRADING PLAN - At the time of the sketch plan review. City staff had asked that the revised grading plans show locations where fill had previously been placed as part of the dredging project within the Lafayette Bay area in 1978. The filling involved Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 within the City of Orono. Note that the wetlands has been defined at the 931.5’ elevation. The major concern for this review is that the City of Orono is asked to approve excavations within the defined wetland area to offset filling of the flood plain/wetlands/lakeshore protected area of Lot 1, Block 2 within the City of Minnetonka Beach. Applicant failed to advise the City of this land alteration at the time of the sketch plan review. If the City had been advised of the proposed land alterations, a separate conditional use permit and variance application would have been required to be filed within the preliminary subdivision application. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 prohibits the filling of floodplains, wetlands and lakeshore protected areas within the City. If an applicant wishes to fill within these protected areas, a variance application is required and a statement of hardship must accompany that application. Zoning File #1555 July 12, 1990 Page 4 of 5 The applicant has been made aware of the need for a separate filing and has asked that the preliminary subdivision application be considered independently from the conditional use and variance application. The staff has discussed the proposed land alterations with the Zoning Administrator for Minnetonka Beach. She advises that the City of Minnetonka Beach currently has a moritorium on all proposed land alterations of flood plain and wetland areas within their city. The City of Minnetonka Beach cannot affectively act on the request to fill within Lot 1, Block 2 at this point. Applicant proposes placement of approximately 1,800 cubic yards of fill to be placed below the 931.5' elevation but above the 929.4' OHW of Lake Minnetonka. The excavations within the City of Orono are to compensate for the storm water storage volume lost within the Minnetonka Beach portion of the flood plain. The purpose of the filling appears to not provide greater arsa for the building envelope, but merely as an expansion of the y^^rd area. Isses for Planning Coauilssion's Consideration Regarding Land Alteration Issue: 1. Should the City of Orono permit excavations within flood plain/wetlands for filling projects that would be in complete violation of the codes of our City? 2. Should all compensating excavations be completed within the City of Minnetonka Beach? 3. Based on the configuration of the floodplain within the Minnetonka Beach area, compensating excavations may be severely limited? - Should filling be limited to the ability of Minnetonka Beach to locate suitable area within the floodplain boundaries of Minnetonka Beach? Planning Commission should advise applicant as to their position regarding a conditional use permit and variance that would ask for excavations within the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka for filling within a lakeshore protected area no matter what city the property is located. The applicant has failed to shew drainageways that enter the property along the east and southern boundaries. The drainage map should be updated to locate drainage paths and their impact upon the dry buildable envelopes if any. Zoning File #1555 July 12, 1990 Page 5 of 5 Options of Action - 1. Table application providing applicant additional time to file a conditional use permit and variance application with the City for the excavation of wetlands/floodplains within the City of Orono; or 2. Approval finding the 6 lot proposal meets all standards of the zoning code and subdivision regulations of the City. In addition, there is adequate sewer and water capacity within existing lines to serve the new development and that all lots achieve access via an approved public roadway. Approval is subject to the following conditions; a) Payment of a park dedication fee based on 8% of the fair market value to be determined by the City Assessor upon final approval of the preliminary plat by the Council of Orono. Payment to be made by applicant upon filing of the final plat. b) Granting of Flowage and Conservation Easement over the wetlands defined below the 931.5' elevation. Wetland to be defin J as drainage easements on the final plat. c) Applicant to dedicate and designate all drainageways on the plat as drainage easements at a minimum width of 15'. d) Applicant to be responsible for expansion of municipal sewer service and upgrading of Old Beach Road consisting of leveling and 2" bituminous overlay e) The City of Orono shall agree to the creation of Outlot A for the exclusive ownership of either the Fresh Water Institute or Foundation. Such usage to be limited by special covenants to be approved by the City. Such covenants shall not be in conflict with the ordinance of the City that protect wetland floodplain areas as set forth in Section 10.55 of the municipal code. f) Final plat to show a 25' wide drainage and utility easement along the street lot lines of Lots 6 and 7 through Lot 8 up to the utility easement over the City's lift station. Final plat should designate existing utility easement over lift station. g) Applicant to provide amended sanitary sewer extension plans for final approval by the City. h) Applicant is advised that the current sewer unit charge for new construction for the year of 1990 is $897.62. This will be adjusted each year based on the inflationary rate. 1 cire QF aRQNOl CITY< Post OfRcs Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minn On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 2, 1990 - Bill Rudnicki William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc. 1107 Hazeltine Blvd., Suite 480 Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Bill: In consideration of Ben Wopat's letter (Corps of Engineers) received by this office July 26, 1990, the City must ask for the following amendments of the preliminary plat application: 1. Per Item c of that letter, define 1 acre wetland within Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block 1. This wetland area is also designated within City’s wet lands maps. (See enclosure.) Applicant may wish to make soil borings to confirm actual limitri of Glenco soil as dry buildable envelope is severly impacted by the placement of the wetland within Lot 4. Note house pad must be located 26’ from the edge of newly defined wetland. If filling of this wetland is proposed, a separate conditional use permit will be required. 2. Per Item d, wetland within the Orono portion of the subdivision must be redefined at the 934' elevation. 3. Provide amended dry buildable area calculations for each of the six lots within the City of Orono based on the newly defined 934’ wetland elevation. In reviewing the sketch included with Mr. Wopat’s letter, it would appear Lot 8 will not meet the required 1/2 acre of dry contiguous land area. It may be beneficial to your client that we meet to discuss the scheduling of the application before the Planning Commission at their upcoming August 20th meeting. In reviewing the most recent information from the Corps of Engineers, we have newly definea major issues to be resolved. BtlLOlNG a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION a FINANCE - 471-7358 FAX-47M5I0 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Bill Rudnicki August 2, 1990 Page 2 Please contact my office at your earliest convenience so that we may schedule a meeting with both myself and the City engineer. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Adminstrator cc: Dennis E. Sandin, Landstar, Inc., 6100 Golden Valley Rd., Golden Valley, MN 55422 Jo Ellen Hurr, City of Minnetonka Beach, 2945 Westwood Rd., Wayzata, MN 55361 Glenn Cook, City Engineer Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator JAM/1sv W ; DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY sr a*i,i. aisrBic* rock's OP SNCiNceos '4JT u s POST 'PP'Oc I CUSTOM mouse 3t P*UU MiNNeSC** 4S'Ot '*/9 July 23. L990 I ( Ui «e^» TO •rrcNTiowop Cons cruccion-Ope radons Regulatory (9C-2549N-92/90-255CN-92) jilasaGv j-i' JUL 2 6 2^20 SUBJECT: The Marsh ac Lafayecce, Residendal DeveLopmenc. Sec. 20, T. 117 N. , R. 23 tf., Cities of Orono and Minnetonka Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota Bill Rudnicki Uilliam R. Engelhard: Associates, Inc. 1107 Hazeltine Boulevard, Suite 480 Chaska, Minnesota 55313 We have reviewed the intornation provided us about your project. The work is authorized by a nationwide Deparcmenc of the Army permit, provided the enclosed conditions and management practices are followed, and provided that you incorporate the changes discussed in your telephone conversations with Joe Yanta of our staff. These changes are summarized below. The enclosed map provided some approximate wetland locations, although the flags placed in the field should be considered a more definite wetland delineation than the appro:<imate lines on the map. a. Omit the wetland fill in Block 2, Lot 1. * Larzy Smith of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seir/ice (FwS) and Joe Yanta met Dennis Sandin of Landstar ac the sice. Mr. Yanta marked the wetland line in this lot (approximately at elevation 931.5-932). Any wetland fill in this lot would require an individual permit. As Mr. Yanta explained to both you and .Mr. Sandin, this proposed fill would be difficult to justify under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines because you already have a developable lot. The resource agencies chat review individual permits have often opposed such fills. The FWS has already informally indicated that it would object to this part of the project. b. Avoid wetland fill in Block 1. Lot 1, below the wetland line marked by Mr. Yanta. This line appears to be generally somewhat above the 932 elevation (see map), as shown on the. enclosed map. Some of the wetland line may lie slightly below 932 because portions of this lot have been filled with miscellaneous material and have been effectively converted to non-wetland areas under Federal criteria. If you are planning any fill that might fall below 932 inside the area marked as upland, however, you should check with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to ensure that you do not place any fill below the ordinary high water mark of State-protected Wetland 27-912W. Previous correspondence from the MDNR indicated chat they had not established an ordinary high water elevation for this wetland but that you were not planning to place any fill below 932 along it. A very short segment of fill for the driveway appears to lie below elevation 932, but this fill would be authorized by a nationwide Department of the Army permit, as long as it contains a culvert to maintain existing drainage. You should contact the MDNR directly to determine whether this driveway/ditch crossing requires a State permit. c. Avoid ocher wecland fill, except for the niininiu.Tj r.ecessary to fill in Block 1, Lot 4, in an essentially isolated pocket separate from the larger marsh. This pocket does not show on the National Wetland Inventory map but does appear on Che soil sui7/ey as an isolated area of Glencoe soil. The wetland pocket (shown on the attached map) is separated from the main marsh by a ridge of upland soil (shown on the county soil survey and verified by field inspection) with only an old, dry ditch connection to convey high water. This wetland pocket covers approximately an acre of grassy, c:/pe 2 wetland, with a wooded fringe. Your grading plan shows chat the house pad in Lot 4 may require a very small area of this wetlancf. Although the nationwide permit would allow up to an acre of fill or grading in this wetland, we suggest chat you minimize filling and ocher adverse disturbance there. (On this sice, only this small wetland qualifies for this nationwide permit. The ocher wetland require individual permits for residential or ocher fill and grading.) If you. or a suosequent landowner, wishes to excavate a wildlife pond in this area, we can make some specific suggestions. This wetland encroaches slightly into Lot 5. d. Keep ocher fill and grading around the main marsh above elevation 934. Mr. Yanca did not mark the entire wetland, but he did verify that the wetland generally seems to go above elevation 932 but not quite to elevation 934. Your grading plan does not show any fill or grading below this elevation, aside from the two areas discussed above that would be covered by nationwide permits and the area in Block 2. Lot 1. that we suggest you do not fill. Some of the area shown as old fill in the county soil sut-/ey (see attached map) still appears to be wetland, with saturated hydric soils and wetland vegetation. Perhaps these areas were low, wet spots partly filled with hydric soil chat has since subsided and taken on a more nacural wetland character. If you plan to fill or grade below 934 in these are is. we would require a delineation of the entire wetland. We could do this delineation ourselves, although it would be several weeks before we could schedule ir, or you could hire a qualified consultant to do the delineation and submit a report that would be subject to our review and approval. e. Clean excavation of the area shown in Block 1. Lots 5 and 8, would not require a Department of the Army permit if the excavated material is placed on an upland area and if no ocher fill or grading is involved in the excavation. (This excavation would probably receive only partial mitigation credit, if any. for wetland fill authorized under a Department of the Army permit because the excavated area appears to be all wetland. The excavation would only convert one wetland type to another, rather chan create or expand an existing wetland.) If these changes are acceptable and no other changes that might involve wetland fill are necessary, we do not require any further review of your proiecr or processing of your application. The nationwide permits for the fill describe in sections b and c are already in effect. If you wish to apply for a permit to place fill in Block 2, Lot 1. or in any ocher wetland areas adjacent to Wetland 27-912W, you must apply for an individual permit for the entire project. (Your current application covers only the proposed fill in Block 2, Lot 1.) This determination covers only the project referenced above. If the design, location, or purpose of the work changes, you should contact us to make sure Che work would not result in a violation of Federal law. Our telephone number is (612) 220-0375. f This verification will remain valid until the nationwide permit is modified, reissued, or revoked. All the nationwide permits are scheduled to be modified, reissued, or revoked before January 13, 1992. It is your responsibility to remain informed about changes to the nationwide permits. We will issue a public notice announces the changes when they occur. Furthermore, if you begin or are under contract to begin this project before the dace the nationwide permit is modified or revoked, you will have 12 months from Che date of Che modification or revocation to complete the project under the present terms and conditions of this nationwide permit. It is your responsibility to insure chat the work complies with the terms of this letter and the enclosures; IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN ALL REQUIRED STATE AiJD LOCAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS BEFORE YOU PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT. If you have any questions, please call Joe Yanta at (612) 220-0362. Enclosures Ben Wopat Chief, Regulatory Branch Construecion-Operations Division Determination: 330.5(a)(14) and (26) - Minor isolated/headwaters wetland fill of less than an acre. road crossing and r-^jvw^-r-tf "t • I r’n:-fvi.:X.r !:T'r’ l..f ri^ |:;..?;fr-T^7- ■ *;• •* - |: • wmm: ‘U^wiri ' r- : .•■A?'::-.:- ■■ /' fevV ’ 4 <-u%tex • 'i :!•. ’ sS-J-fT.x-4; .•■'■■>•. ' ' ':■'»>?»- '■•••:? 2'f' • '%'j .'' ■ *< ’• . • . U;t •iipi'«'«iis* m.^W:-y \ 4. '. :.r .-■1 .r ■ ( • r' ' >-r-- >- H" O C S ^ 2 c u c4 e o o ojO « ^ c*tl2^ w > m m u Q O >• M ^ w u Il=5J“'S -H > f) 41 • 2 • “ • » o It *tw 2 u o <M • • C • O M -bPS- .*'- •- • V. o •» -- 0.>H &M 0« >• u I " -C-o w c S » J 5 -§5J5;* 5«Xg2'’S .• u • e o ^rx2p: H Sudoja S s: > 3 e • £ o s I IsM ■2 ^ *• 9m u> g • 5 c 7*Qi ll C J 2 2 «i £ sS iU Z'a |!j s3 ;=. S« M *o§ S Mis • uA 9fti ren• w ^• o c 3-:! W -4 4>n-5 S i ^ U 2 2 st:»?-*3 j 2-Sri'S s V -• 4i u a -H 4# 4J gJsshH^32&r25 S-*o225 35 .-SSS• 4 • • « £ • 2.5’*'*“'’M u -4 >• • o e 4 %« u 4 -4 «« 4 4 >* S A« 0 3 22u35-5ir i^2«322la 4 > 0<-4 0«4ii3 , niMfiwaiwvaii 1» 91290.2c^ TOs Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator PROM: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director OATS: September 7, 1990 ——»(iivi SEP 2.) 1:^90 f ‘ITY Op Cf^OfiO SUBJECT: Pay !>equest #1 Allied Blacktop 1990 Seal Coat f Attached for review and approval is pay request #1 for sealcoating city streets. The wrk has been completed according to specifications. RECOMMENDATION - To approve Pay Request #1 to Allied Blacktop Company for sealcoating city streets for the amount of $35,359.95. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by to approve pay request #1 to Allied Blacktop Company for sealcoating city streets for an amount of $35,359.95. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administra Forwarded recommending approval. REQUEST .OR PAYMENT DATE:September 6, 1990 FOR PERIOD: 3. Change Order - DEDUCTION 4. Revised Contract Amount 5. Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Less Retalnage 5 I Sub-Total 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. PLACE:Orono, Minnesota From: Start To: Autt. 31. 1990 PROJECT:1990 Seal Coat Proiect SPECIFIED CONTRACT PROJECT NO.: FILE NO. :13955 COMPLETION DATE: CONTRACTOR:Allied Blacktop Company Aueust 31, 1990 ADDRESS:10503 89th Avenue North Maple Grove. MN 55369 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.:1 SUMMARY: 1. Original Contract Amount $37.221.00 2. Change Order - ADDITION $ Less Amount Paid Pre^'ously AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUl . r FOR PAYMENT NO.: 37,221.00 37,221.00 0.00 37.221.00 1.861.05 35j^359.95 0.00 35^359.95 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC OWNER APPROVAL: By_ _ _ _ _ _ By_ _ _ _ _ _ Date:Approved By; ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY Contractor By: 13955PR PROJECT:PLACfi:1990 Seal Coat ProjectOrono, Minnesota CONTRACTOR: Allied Blacktop Company PAYMENT NO.:. FILE NO.i 13955 DATE: September 6, 1990 STATEMENT OF WORK Unit Esfd Quantity Amount Contract Item Unit Price Quantity To Date To Date Bituminous material for seal coat Gal.$0.68 28,500 28,500 $19,380.00 FA-2 teal coat aggregate. Class C, chip seal in pi.Ton 12.52 1.425 1,425 17.841.00 TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE $37,221.00 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS CITY* Orono. Minnesota PROJECT: 1990 Seal Coat Project FILE NO.* 1395S CONTRACTOR* Allied Blacktop Company ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $37,221.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS $0.00 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $37,221.00 MTE NO. 1 2 3 CHANGE ORDER DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS - ADD $0.00 PROJECT PAYMENT SUMMARY* ■] ^ PAYMENT ' NO_^ 1 2 3 4 5 6 PERIOD FROM Start 8>31-90 PAYMENT THIS VOUCHER $35.359.95 VALUE COMPLETED $37,221.00 RETAINAGE $1,861.05 TOTAL PAYMENT TO DATE RETAINAGE FOR PAYMENT NO. TOTAL VALUE COMPLETED $35,359.95 1.861.05 $37,221.00 13955PR J Bonestroo ^US Rosene Anderlik & |\J| Associates Engineers A Architects August 31, 1990 Ono j 3tr earoa PE ftaoetr w taenf PE j(- "or C AnOffWi PE M»rvio i lorvM. PE •hcr-jiO £ ’u<nef PE . C Otion PE 3enr> (t Cook. PE ’■Nxnjl E MOyM »E B oom G ScfHjnent PE Sufcin M Etxw CP ^ KMn A Ooiaon PE jawi « VU>4oa PE RKnua W FoiW' PE AMOftP P Anoenon PE Oon#0 C BunjJWt PE M«« » BoPi PE ,«t<\ A SooAXjn PE B oom C B luw . a i a \Ant A H*rnon P£ Tfwnii E *.-.^1. PE >3 A 'MJ PE MowJiO A iarAsnJ PE ' lUutmann PE Otraet j EogMon PE aooM R ‘*¥PMe. PE vjfk A Sfro PE OiviO O LOBWJ PE POBP J Ctsum PE t>xxt<« tV jRH^n, f f Mjmntt PE ■• »u TNxtvii B Anoenon a i a Guv p Byunoef. PE M<M a JMJM. PE L pnimo Gr«\«< i*. PE f***^»ria.(; AtA n«MTRf^;AJCPI / O »y»CTM PE /,,,C«5r^.PE ' -caaiw^ Entluon - 1«J M "PfckMliy. Harun M Own I / StP2l!“5a Sfp ‘Try n? (:ku «o 1090 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Attn: Mr. John Gerhardson Ret Well Number 3 Pay Request Orono, Minnesota Our File No. 13949 Dear Mr. Gerhardson; Attached is Pay Request Number 5 for Orono Well Number Three. The pay request covers work completed through August 31, 1990. Please note that the test pumping hours of 166 is higher than originally estimated in the specifications. If you have any questions on the enclosed pay request, please call. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. the 100 hours Daryl L. Kirschenman DLK:dh Enel. dlk/70 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DATE!Auttust 31, 1990 PLACE!Orono, Mlnm sota PROJECT! Municipal Well No. 3 16' Production Well PROJECT NO.!_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FILE WO.! 13949 CONTRACTOR! Keys Well Drilling Company_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ADDRESS: 413 North Lexington Parkvay_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ St. Paul. MN 55104 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.!, FOR PERIOD! From! Aug. 1. 1990 To:Aug. 31. 1990 SPECIFIED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE! June 15. 1990 SUMMARY: 1. Original Contract Amount Change Order - ADDITION Change Order - DEDUCTION Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Less Retainage 5 I Sub-Total 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 975.00 Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.! 70.155.00 71.130.00 71.529.00 0.00 71.529.00 3,^576.45 67.952.55 49.484.55 18,468.00 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. By:_ _ _n OWNER APPROVAL: By_ _ _ _ _ By_ _ _ _ _ r Date!Approved PR13949 PROJECT! Municloal Well No. 3 16" Production Well PAYMENT NO.!5 PLACE: Orono. Minnesota FILE NO. !13949 CONTRACTOR! Kevs Well DrillinR Company DATE:August 31. 1990 STATEMENT OF WORK Unit Esfd Quantity Amount Contract Item Unit Price Quantity To Date uate BASE BID 11-16 INCH PRODUCTION WELL Item 1 Mobilization, transporting of materials & equipment Si setting up same for construction of 16* production well L.S.$6,000.00 L S 0.5 $3,000.00 Item 2 Drill open hole into top of Limestone to set 16* production well casing L.F.35.00 315 310 10.850.00 Item 3 Place 16* casing in open hole L.F.32.00 315 312 9,984.00 Item 4 Place neat cement grout in annulas around 16* production well casing C.Y.200.00 20 24 4,800.00 Item 5 Drill 16* open hole through the Limestone and Jordan L.F.25.00 160 190 4,750.00 Item 6 Dynamite for blasting incl. labor for shooting, caps ( wire Lbs.2.00 300 40 80.00 Item 7 Bail C.Y.40.00 400 340 13,600.00 Item 8 Furnish, install & remove air compression equipt. for air surging of the well L.S.1,000.00 L S 1 1,000.00 Item 9 Air surging of the well Hrs.100.00 40 50.5 5,050.00 Item 10 Furnish, install, 6 remove test pump for capacity test of well L.S.2,500.00 L S 1 2,500.00 PR13949 Page 1 PROJECT! Municipal Well No. 3 16" Production Well PLACE I_ _ _ _Orono, Minnesota_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CONTRACTORt Keys Well Drilling Company PAYMENT NO.s FILE NO.I_ DATE I 139A9 August 31. 1990 STATEMENT OF WORK Contract Item Unit Unit Est'd Quantity Amount Price Quantity To Date To Date Item 11 Teat pumping Hra. 90.00 100 Item 12 Televise completed well L.S. 950.00 L S Item 13 Sterilization of well upon completion, cleanup & veld cap on 16” cising L.S. 1,000.00 L S TOTAL BASE BID II - 16” PRODUCTION WELL 166 14,940.00 $70,534.00 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 Item 1 Provide silt fence along Hvy 12 L.S.$975.00 L S $975.00 TOTAL BASE BID II - 16” PRODUCTION WELL TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - ADD $70,554.00 975.00 TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE $71,529.00 Page 2 PR13949 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS CITYI Orono, Hinnesota PROJECT: Municipal Well Mo. 3-16" Production Well FILE NO.: 13949 CONTRACTOR: Keja Veil Drilling Company ORIOTMAt. CONTRACT AMOUNT $70,155.00 TOTAf._CIFANCK ORDKnn $975.00 REVTr.FD CONTRACT_AMOUNT $71,130.00 DATg NO. CHANGE ORDER DESCRIPTION 5-22-90 1 Provide silt fence for Hwy 12 AMOUNT $973.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS - ADD $975.00 PROJECT PAYMENT SUMMARY: PAYMENT PERIOD PAYMENT VALUE NO.FROM 12 THIS VOUCHER COMPLETED RETAINAGE 1 Start 3-30-90 $21,456.70 $13,850.00 $1,129.30 2 4-1-90 4-30-90 10,315.10 33,444.00 1,672.20 3 5-1-90 5-31-90 11,020.00 45,044.00 2,252.20 4 6-1-90 7-31-90 6,692.75 52,089.00 2,604.45 5 7-31-90 8-31-90 18,468.00 71,529.00 3,576.45 TOTAL PAYMENT TO DATE RETAINAGE FOR PAYMENT NO. TOTAL VALUE COMPLETED $67,952.55 3.576.45 $71,529.00 PR13949 91490.4 TOz Mayor and City Council FBOM: Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrato DATE: September 14, 1990 SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Proposed Sewer Project COIJHGI r;!£ET!?^G SEP 2119S0 CITY OF GRONO Attachment: A. Stubbs Bay Sewer Memo Dated 8/6/90 B. Response Maps ISSUE - 1. Present to Council information regarding the response to date of parties interested in having the project undertaken. 2. Determine a course of action at this stage in the project. INTRODUCTION - As of September 15, 1990, which was the *’unofficial" cut off point for returns (45 days after they were transmitted on July 31, 1990} the staff had received the following: Those desiring sewer - 12 Those objecting to the sewer - 31 No return received - 58 101 In addition to those in the main part of the project the following responses were received in optional areas: Oxford Road - 3 of 3 objecting South of Bayside - 4 of 6 objecting - 2 no response At this point it would appear that the 70% level of interest will not be achieved. Interested private parties have indicated a desire to campaign door to door given this lack of results. Attachment B illustrates those who expresred an interest both for and against. It is interesting to note that persons even on a holding tank have indicated they have no interest in a sewer project. ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Indicate interest in moving forward. 3. Direct no further work be done. 4. Table for further discussion. 5. Take no action. POLICY - 1. Develop language to eliminate any further developability of properties in the area that do not have adequate septic systems and alternates. 2. Impose a moratorium. 3. Direct the project be undertaken. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that those parties interesed work with staff to develop additional information to see if that would be persuasive to their neighbors for participation in the project. Additionally it is recommenced that Council table this until their October 22, 1990 Council meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by that Council direct staff to work with interested neighbors in providing information and direct that the item be tabled until the October 22, 1990 meeting. Ayes __, Nays __. y. Fron: JT/Xm^r a Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Tom Barrett, City Attorney Tom Kuehn, Finance Director John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director I Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: August 6, 1990 Subject: Stubbs Bay Letters Mailed out 7/31/90 Attached is a copy of the Stubbs Bay letters that were sent out. The letters directed all questions to City staff. However, this packet is provided so that Council can be aware of the information that was mailed out. cPA^<-r CITY OF ORONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66*Crysul Bay. Minnesota 55323* MunidpaJ OfHcas On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 30, 1990 Subject: Stubbs Bay Sewer - Optional Inclusion, Oxford Road/ Bayside South Areas Dear Stubbs Bay Area Property Owner: You may be aware the City has been studying the possibility of municipal sewer in the Stubbs Bay area. Yojr property could potentially abut a gravity service line and the City is writing this letter to determine if you have an interest in inclusion in the project. This inclusion would provide a longterm option for your sewage disposal, to the extent that if you have septic problems in tne future, connection to municipal sewer would eliminate a potential r rce of pollution to Lake Minnetonka. I.*: your area does not desire ■* elusion it would be excluded from the project. However, if you property abuts Bayside Road, there is a possibility that the City may b? approaching you ■; i f the project does go ahead) to request easements to allow construction on the south side of Bayside, i.i order to preset'^e mature trees or. the north side of Bayside Road. We have attached the letter that the City is sending to the other residents in Stubbs Bay who are in the project area. Please be aware that yours would be only an optional inclusion based on the m.ajority interest of your area. Your area would be split into two parts: 1.) those properties abutting the south side of Bayside Road; 2.) those not abutting Bayside but adjacent to and west of Oxford Road, which would require a separate lateral. A meeting with City staff to discuss your specific neighborhood's inclusion will be held on Monday, August 6, 1990, 8:00 p.m. at the Orono Council Chambers, 1275 Brown Road South. Should you have questions, ;■ Gaffron, John Gerhardson or mysej icer^y ‘jrel free to contact Mike Mar^ Bet:^ardsd'n City Administrator Enclosure BUILDING & ZONING - 473 7357 ASSESSING administration & HNANCE - 473-735* FA X -473-0510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 CITY ORONO 'Jf}US. SMrtrSM |\AJL.» 5'eArr-^^^CITY of ORONO Post onicc Box G6*CrysUl Bay. MinneooU 55323•Municipal Offioss On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 30, 1990 Subject: Stubbs Bay Sewer Project - Properties East of Leaf Street Dear Stubbs Bay Area Property Ov-cr: As you may be aware the City has been exploring the possible installation of a sewer system in the Stubbs Bay area. Some of you have been in attendance at those meetings and may be aware of a request that the City include properties east of Leaf Street in the project. City staff members have reviewed the properties east of Leaf Street regarding the feasibility of connection to the proposed municipal sewer. They have also revi:-wed the current status of existing septic systems and the possibility of alternative drainfield sites based on topography, lot sizes and soil_ types. As a result of this, staff made a recommendation to Council that your area be included in the project and this is to inform you of that inclusion. The criteria for inclusion are: * Under 2 acres * Limited ability for 2 alternate septic sites Attached you will find a letter that is being sent to the rest ci the property owners in the Stubbs Bay project area to determine the level of interest. A meeting with City staff to discuss your specific neighborhood’s inclusioc wi' I be held on Monday, August 6, 1990, 7:00 p.m. at the Orono Cour Chambers, 1275 Brown Road South. Should you have any quest about your inclusion or rhe project generally, please feel fte*. contact Mike Gaffron, John Gerhardson or myself. incerely 10.)^ Mark E. Be^sjihardson City Administrator MEB/dh Enclosure Bi;iLDINC* ZONING-473-7357 • ASSLSSING ADMINISTRATION & RNANCE - 473-735* FAX - 4734)510 PUBLIC WORKS - 47V7359 CITY OF ORONO CITYof org: 1 Post Office Bo» h* Crystal Bay, Minnesota 56323 • Municipal rfficv- On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 30, 1900 Re: Stubbs Bay Se^er Dear Stubbs Bay Area Property Ovner: As you are aware, the City has been explorina the possibility of constructing a municipal sewer li'. e in your area. Informational meetings on this topic were held in July 1989 and January 1990. Based on the le -el of interest shown by the residents at those meetings and at the direction of the City Council, this letter is intended to provide you an opportunity to indicate your level of interest in this project, as an individual property owner. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Enclosed you will find.a document entitled "Petition for Special Assessment and Agreement to Waive Spec.^.l Assessment Appeal." Enclosed with that peti.ion is an estimated dollar amount of the City improvement fo: year propelt , with an annual r.ange of costs based on that estimate. Note that the cost of the project has been broken down into a $6,500 "Base Sanitary Sewer Charge" for sewer plus a "Connection Charge" that varies depending on the actual costs of project for your specific area. Not listed on that document are the f 1 lowing additional charges for which each individual property wner would b responsible: 1. PRIVATE HOOKUP COSTS - private contractor to sewer line. his is the cost : ^ou of hiring a ct you* h use zo the municipal CONNECTION PERMITS cc 7 1s $30.D0, and : o connect! •'n. contractor, the permit ts of inspection of the ■J - T j Metro Wa-iite Control * t *ir ”Fhe SAC charge w.itr. i'.ach riew 2 S-■ ’' • AVAILABILITl v ' Cu ssTon requires pa conr. action. This charge currently is $600.00 (increases annually) and is due and payable before the connection permit is issued. b. A . -NG & ZONING - 47J-7357 *ESSING ADMINISTRATION & RNANCE - 473-7358 FAX-473J)5I0 PUBUC WORKS 473-7359 July 30, 1990 Stubbs Bay Area Property Owner Page 4 of 4 The City will make continued efforts to make the project more economically viable through design and address individual considerations to protect property as much as possible. Should you have questions pxw*se feel free to call Mike Gaffron, Juhn Gerhardson or myself. rtafk E. Betob^rdson' City Administrator MFR /dh Enclosures: □ Oxford/Bayside South Supplemental Letter □ East Leaf Street Supplemental Letter □ 2 Copies of Petition/Appeal Waiver With Exhibitj> A and B □ Response Questionnaire D Return Envelope CITY ORONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnasou 55323• Municipal OfBces On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 30r 1990 Re: Stubbs Bay Sewer Dear Stubbs Bay Area Property Owner: As you are aware, the City has been exploring the possibility of constructing a municipal sewer line in your area. Informational meetings on this topic were held in July 1989 and January 1990. Based on the level of interest shown by the residents at those meetings and at the direction of the City Council, this letter is intended to provide you an opportunity to indicate your level of interest in this project, as an individual property owner. ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Enclosed you will find a document entitled "Petition for Soecial Assessment and Agreement to Waive Special Assessment Appeal." Enclosed with that petition is an estimated dollar amount of the City improvement for your property, with an annual range of costs based on that estimate. Note tnat tne cost of the project has been broken down into a $6,500 "Base Sanitary Sewer Charge" for sewer plus a "Connection Charge” that varies depending on the actual costs of the project for your specific area. Not listed on that document are the following additional charges for which each individual property owner would be responsible: 1. PRIVATE HOOKUP COSTS - This is the cost to you o^ hiring a private contractor to connect your house to the municipal sewer line. 2. CONNECTION PERMITS - Issuea to your contractor, the permit costs $ j 0. D0, and covers the costs of inj.; jction of the connection. 3. SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGE (SAC) - The Metro Waste Control CommissTon requires payment of the SAC charge with each new connection. This charge currently is $600.00 (increases annually) and is due and payable before the connection permit is issued. BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE - 473-7358 FAX - 473-0510 PI BLIC WORKS - 473-7359 July 30, 1990 Stubbs Bay Area Property Owner Page 2 of 4 4.OPERATIONAL SEWER COSTS - Currently $51.15 per quarter. This charge is billed qua'rterly to every residence in Orono connected to the sewer system, to cover the operational and capital replacement costs of the system. This charge has not been increased for the last four years. The City has worked to develop the most cost effective sewer system possible. We are still open to considering the merits of alternative designs or layout based on individual homeowner or neighborhood suggestions. The actual cost of a sewer project to each property owner is a function of the overall construction and restoration costs, and the mechod of distriouting cost among the properties served. The City ‘*» rnsistent philosophy in virtually all past sewer projects has been that each project area should pay the entire cost of its own sewer system, with no contribution from the general tax base. Th«i present Council direction is that this area should also pay for itself. City ^taff have investigated the a ailability of oroject funding from Federal and State sources, and we believe we have exhausted all avenues with no success. However, if residents ar aware of specific sources we would be happy to pursue those leads. Note that temporary (and in some instances permanent) easements over private property may be required in certain areas. Easement acquisition costs have not been factored into the project costs, under the assumption that residents will grant the necessary easements at no cost. However, it follows that if the City has to pay for easements, the cost of the project will increase accordingly. PETITION/APPEAL WAIVER PROCESS If you are interested in having the sewer project go forward at the cost indicated, please sign the petition/appeal waiver document enclosed and return it as early as possible. If the project goes ahead, you will have the right to appeal only any amounts in excess of the "estimated combined special assessment (Item C on the project costs form). If the project costs more than that figure, you will be requested to pay the higher amount. However, if the project costs less than the estimate, your cost will be similarly reduced. The City Council will proceed to the next step, ordering plans, specifications, and bidding, if at least 70% of the property owners sign the waiver. The cost of the "plans and specifications" step is approximately $20,000-330,000. If there is not significant interest in the project going ahead, this step would likely not be undertaken. 1 r July 32, 1990 Stubbs Bay Area Property Owner Page 3 of 4 If you are not interested in the sewer system, it would be helpful, although not mandatory, if you would indicate on the return questionnaire that you are not interested. For those who sign the petition/appeal waiver, your $6,500 base sanitary sewer charge and your area-specific connection charge, will be financed over 15 years through the same mechanism as the basic assessment through the property tax system. For those who <’o not sign the petition/appeal waiver, the $6,500 base charge <^ill be assessed over the 15 year period, but the area-specific connection charge will be payable when you are required to hook to sewer (generally 16 months after gravity service abutting the property is available.) If the project is bid, the City will then hold a public hearing for the special assessment and oased on that hearing the Council will decide whether to adopt a special assessment. If the special assessment is adopted, the City will then wait the legally required 30 day appeal period. Based on the extent of appeals, the City Council will then determine whether it is appropriate to order tne project in. Note that the City could adopt a supplemental assessment should the project costs come in greater than the original assessment. SOME FINAL THOUGHTS A number of residents have indicated that they feel the installation costs of this project will not be reflected totally in the future sale price of their home. This is typical of many types of home improvements, such as room additions or remodeling. However, as one of the residents indicated at the January meeting, the City sewer makes your home much more marketable. Additionally, there are some properties, and perhaps yours is one of them, that would have to revert to a holding tank system if your septic sysrera fails. This would in the long run be more expensive than installation of city sewer. While the installation of city sewer represents a permanent solution to the problems experienced in the Stubbs Bay area, as is the case in other areas, your neighborhood is yoing to have to make the decision whether or not you want sewer. An assessment deferral program is available for senior citizens who qualify. Contact City staff if you wish additional information regarding deferral of the assessments. Also, all assessments may be prepaid without interest within 30 days of the date "f adoption of the assessment. Please return one signed and notarized copy of the petition/appeal waiver within 45 days, and keep the second copy for your records. If you wish, you may sign the form in front of a notary at the City Offices (hours Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30). July 30, 1990 Stubbs Bay Area Property Owner Page 4 of 4 The City will make continued efforts to make the project more economically viable through design and address individual considerations to protect property as much as possible. Should you have questions please feel free to call Mike Gaffron, John Gerhardson or myself. MEB/dh Enclosures: □ Oxford/Bayside South Supplemental Letter □ East Leaf Street Supplemental Letter □ 2 Copies of Petition/Appeal Waiver With Exhibits A and B □ Response Questionnaire □ Return Envelope PETITION FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND AGREEMENT TO WAIVE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL day of ___________r 1990» __________________f their successors ana assigr. 3 (hersinatter referred ^ to as "Owners") and the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal THIS AGRBEMBNTr made this between heirs, corporation, its employees, agents and assigns (hereinafter referred to as "City”). 1. OwnershiD. Owner(s) state(s) that he/she/they is/are the fae owner(s) oii'teal property located in the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, legally described by Number in the attached Exhibit A which is ”®'^® ® document (the "Property"). Owner(s) also state(s) that the following are liens and encumbrances against the property. 2. P'^tition. Owner(s) hereby petition(s) the City o. Orono to construct and install a sanitary sewer system (hereinafter referred to as "Improvement") within the Stuoos Bay^area according to City standards. Owner(s)^ understand (s) thau whe entire cost of the Improvement shall be assessed against the property. 3. Imorovement. The City, at its_ sole option, may =ahse^ durinq 1990-1991, me construction of a sanitary sewer in tne Stubbs Bay area, as referenced by a map attached hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part of this document. The general alignment and specifications for the sewer pipe appear in "Soecifications for Stubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer Improvements for the City of Orono, Minnesota," and as they may be amended by the City of Orono (the "Improvement"). 4. Assessment. At any time after the amount of the expense to be incurred for the Improvement, or one similar thereto, is determined by the City of Orono: a) The City may at the time it d' oms appropriate, assess, by special assessment plus connection charge as a special assessment against the Property a amount not to exceed the amount set forth in Exhibit A ("Estimated Combined Special Assessment"). b) The Estimated Combined Special Assessment may bear interest at the lawful rate and may be spread over a number of years as deemed necessary by the City. c) The Estimated Combined Special Assessment sha 11 becorae a lien against the property as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. PETITION FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND AGREEMENT TO WAIVE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL Page 2 of 4 d) Owner(s) waive(s) any right to appeal from the Estimated Combined Special Assessment, including but not limited to any procedural or substantive right pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429, or any other statutes, constitution, laws or judicial decisions of the State of Minnesota or United States. e) In the event the allocated cost for the Improvement exceeds the Estimated Combined Special Assessment, the City may adopt a larger special assessment or supplemental special assessment. The Owner(s) may appeal only the amount in excess of the Estimated Combined Special Assessment. f) If the City adopts a special assessment against the Property in excess of the Estimated Combined Special Assessment, the City shall provide notice to the Owner(s) of the proposed adopting of the excess assessment in accordance with the procedure set forth in Minnesota Statute, 429.061 and the Owner(s): i) may appeal only the amount in excess of the Estimated Combined Special Assessment; and ii) reserve(s) the right to appeal therefrom pursuant to the procedures set forth in Minnesota Statute, 429.081. g) Any appeal taken by the Owner(s) pursuant to paragraph f' hereof shall only be as to the amount of excess assessmenc and shall not include any appeal from the procedures followed by the City which might otherwise have been required under Minnesota Statutes, Chaoter 429. 5. Hook-Up To Sewer. Upon future hook-up to the sewer pipe, Owner(s) shall pay those additional costs which are related thereto, including but not limited to; Construction of pipe from the house to the sewer pipe, SAC charge, customary sewer connection permit fee, and unusual inspection fees. 6. Easements. The Estimated Combined Special Assessment is based on the assumption that property owners will grant any necessary easements to the City at no cost to the City. Owners(s) is/are advised that if any easements must be purchased by the City, the actual cost of the sewer project will increase accordingly. 7. Fi1ing. A copy of this Agreement may be filed in the Owner(s)' chain-of-titie and this agreement shall be considered as a covenant running with the Owner(s)' property. PETITION FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND AGREEMENT TO WAIVE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL Page 3 of 4 OWNERS; By_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Property Owner Property Owner ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this appeared _ day of , 1990, before me (marital status) who executed this document as their own free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) _ _ day ofOn this appeared , 1990, before me (marital status) who executed this document as their own free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC ?..PETITION FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND AGREEMENT TO WAIVE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ORCNO: By Its Mayor Its City Clw-rk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this appeared ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ) SS. ) day of 1990, before me and to me personally known as the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and that this Instrument was executed on behalf of said corporation. NOTARY PUBLIC STUBBS BAT SANITARY SBWER PROJECT -FINANCING OP PROJECT COSTS BAYSIDE SOUTH EXHIBIT A 1. PROPERTY IDENTIPICATICN NO. 1. SITE ADDRESS 3. OWNER'S NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS_ A. rSTIMATED BASE SANITARY SEWER CHARGE (TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED) B. ESTIMATED AREA-SPECIFIC CONNECTION CHARGE (DUE AND PAYABLE AT TIME OF CONNECTION UNLESS APPEAL WAIVER IS SIGNED) C. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OP OPTIONAL COMBINED CHARGE TO BE FINANCED BY THE CITY FOR PETITIONERS (A PLUS B) "ESTIMATED COMBINED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT" $6,500.00 $6,680.00 $13,180.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PAYMENT SCHEDULE (BASED ON 8 1/2 % ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE): YEAR 1 2 : 15 BASE CHARGE ONLY ASSESSMEVT PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL $433.33 $552.50 $985.83 $433.33 $515.67 $949.00 $433.33 $36.83 $470.16 COMBINED BASE CH;\RGE ASSESSMENT AND CONNECTION CHARGE FINANCING PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL $878.66 $878.66 $878.66 $1,120.30 $1,045.61 $74.69 $1,998.96 $1,924.27 $953.35 A STUBBS BAY SANITARY SEWER PROJECT -PINANCINO OF PROJECT COSTS STUBBS BAY NORTHEAST 1. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 2. SITE ADDRESS 3. OWNER'S NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS^ A. ESTIMATED BASE SANITARY SEWER CHARGE (TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED) B. ESTIMATED AREA-SPECIFIC CONNECTION CHARGE (DDE AND PAYABLE AT TIME OF CONNECTION UNLESS APPEAL WAIVER IS SIGNED) C. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF OPTIONAL COMBINED CHARGE TO BE FINANCED BY THE CITY FOR PETITIONERS (A PLUS B) "ESTIMATED COMBINE'' SPECIAL ASSESSMENT" $6,500.00 $5,230.00 $11,730.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAI PAYMENT SCHEDULE (BASED ON 8 1/2 % ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE): YEAR 1 2 : 15 BASE CHARGE ONLY ASSESSMENT Ptv. ..CIPAL INTEREST COMBINED BASE CHARGE ASSESSMENT AND CONNECTION CHARv '^ FINANCING TOTAL PRINCIPAL INTEP-EST TOTAL $433.33 $552.50 $985.83 $433.33 $515.67 $949.00 $433.33 $36.$-70.16 $782.00 $782.00 $782.00 ,997.05 $930.58 S66.47 $1,779.05 $1,712.58 $848.47 EXHIBIT A STUBBS BAY SANITARY SEWER PROJECT -FINANCING OF PROJECT COSTS STUBBS BAY NORTHWEST 1. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 2. SITE ;^DRESS 3. OWNER'S NAME AND MAILING ADL.uiSS_ A. ESTIMATED BASE SANITARY SEWER CHARGE (TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED)$6,500.00 B.ESTIMATED AREA-SPECIFIC CONNECTION CHARGE (DDE AND PAYABLE AT TIME OF CONNECTION U*ILESS APPEAL WAIVER IS SIGNED)$4,670.00 C. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF OPTIONAL COMBINED CHARGE TO BE FINANCED BY THE CITY FOR PETITIONERS (A PLUS B) 'ESTIMATED COMBINED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT"$11,170.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PAYMENT SCHEDULE (BASED ON 8 1/2 % ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE): BASE CHARGE ONLY ASSESSMENT COMBINED BASE CHARGE ASSESSMENT AND CONNECTION CHA.<GE FINANCING YEAR PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL 1 2 X 15 $433.33 $433.33 $552.50 $985.83 $515.67 $949.00 :.44.66 $744.66 $949.45 $1,694.11 $886.15 $1,630.81 $433.33 $36.83 $470.16 $744.66 $63.30 $807.96 r. EXHIBIT STUBBS BAY SANITARY SEWER PROJECT -FINANCING OF PROJECT COSTS BAYS IDE wiST 1. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 2. SITE ADDRESS 3 OWNER'S NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS B. C. *TI>u\TED BASE SANITARY SEWER CHARGE O BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED) ESTIMATED AREA-SPECIFIC CONNECTION CHARGE (DUE AND PAYABLE AT TIME OF CONNECTION UNLESS APPEAL WAIVER IS SIGNED) PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF OPTIONAL COMBINED CHARGE TO BE FINANCED BY THE CITY FOR PETITIONERS (A PLUS j) "ESTIMATED COMBINED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT" $6,500.00 $8,440.00 $14,940.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PAYMENT SCHEDULE (BASED ON 8 1/2 % ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE): BASE CHARGE ONT.Y COMBINED BASE CHAF.iE ASSESSMEN.. AND ASSESSMENT CONNECTION CHARGE FINANCING YEAR PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL = 1 $433.33 $552.5*1 $985.83 $?96.00 $1,269.90 $2,265.5 2 $433.33 $51i‘.6/ $949.00 $996.00 $1,185.24 $2,181.24 ' : i 15 $433.33 $36.83 $470.16 $996.00 $84.66 $1,080.66 EXHIBIT A STUBBS BAY SANITARY SEWER PROJECT -FINANCING OF PROJECT COSTS BEDERWOOD 1. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 2. SITE ADDRESS 3. OWNER'S NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS_ A. ESTIMATED BASE SANITARY SEWER CHARGE (TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED) B. ESTIMATED AREA-SPECIFIC CONNECTION CHARGE (DUE AND PAYABLE AT TIME OF CONNECTION UNLESS APPEAL WAIVER IS SIGNED) C. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF OPTIONAL COMBINED CHARGE TO BE FINANCED BY THE CIT*' FOR PETITIONERS (A PLUS B) "ESTIMATED COMBINED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT" $6,500.00 $10,530.00 $17,030.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PAYMENT SCHEDULE (BASED ON 8 1/2 % ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE): YEAR 1 2 : 15 BASE CHARGE ONLY ASSESSMENT PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL $433.33 $552.50 $985.83 $433.33 $515.67 $949.00 $433.33 $36.83 $470.16 COMBINED BASE CHARGE ASSESSMENT AND CONNECTION CHARGE FINANCING PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL $1,135.33 $1,447.55 $1,135.33 $1,351.05 $1,135.33 $2,582.88 $2,486.38 $96.50 $1,231.83 EXHIBIT A STUBBS BAY SANITARY SEWER PROJECT -FINANCING OF PROJECT COSTS i BAYSIDE NORTH 1. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 2. SITE ADDRESS 3. OWNER'S NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS^ A. ESTIMATED BASE SANITARY SEWER CHARGE (TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED) B. ESTIMATED AREA-SPECIFIC CONNECTION CHARGE (DUE AND PAYABLE AT TIME OF CONNECTION UNLESS APPEAL WAIVER IS SIGNED) C. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF OPTIONAL COMBINED CHARGE TO BE FINANCED BY THE CITY FOR PETITIONERS (A PLUS B) "ESTIMATED COMBINED SPECI’*.: ASSESSMENT" $6,500.00 $9,190.00 $15,690.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAL PAYMENT SCHEDULE (BASED ON 8 1/2 % ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE): YEAR 1 2 : 15 BASE CHARGE ONLY ASSESSMENT PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL $433.33 $552.50 $985.83 $433.33 $515.67 $949.00 $433.33 $36.83 $470.16 COMBINED BASE CHARGE ASSESSMENT AND CONNECTION CHARGE FINANCING PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL $1,046.00 $1,333.65 $2,379.65 $1,046.00 $1,244.74 $2,290.74 $1,046.00 $88.91 $1,134.91 EXHIBIT A STUBBS BAY SANITARY SEWER PROJECT -FINANCING OF PROJECT COSTS OXFORD 1. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. 2. SITE ADDRESS 3. OWNER'S NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS_ A. ESTIMATED BASE SANITARY SEWER CHARGE (TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED) B. ESTIMATED AREA-SPECIFIC CONNECTION CHARGE (DUE AND PAYABLE AT TIME OF CONNECTION UNLESS APPEAL WAIVER IS SIGNED) C. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF OPTIONAL COMBINED CHARGE TO BE FINANCED BY THE CITY FOR PETITIONERS (A PLUS B) "ESTIMATED COMBINED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT" $6,500.00 $9,690.00 $16,190.00 ESTIMATED ANNUAI. PAYMENT SCHEDULE (BASED ON 8 1/2 % ESTIMATED INTEREST RATE): YEAR 1 2 • 15 BASE CHARGE ONLY ASSESSMENT PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL $433.33 $552.50 $985.83 $433.33 $515.87 $949.00 $433.33 $36.83 $470.16 COMBINED BASE CHARGE ASSESSMENT AND CONNECTION CHARGE FINANCING PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL $1,079.33 $1,079.33 $1,079.33 $1,376.15 $1,284.41 $2,455.48 $2,363.74 $91.74 $1,171.07 Name: Address:PID: STDBBS BAY SEWER QOBSTIONAIRB Response worksheet - to be returned in envelope provided. Please check all boxes that apply: 1. □ 2. 3. □ 4. I have signed the petition/appeal waiver and have enclosed one copy of it with Exhibits A & B. (If project goes ahead, the base sanitary sewer charge and connection charge will be financed by the City over a 15 year period.) I do not wish to sign the petition/appeal waiver at this time because: □ Do not want sewer □ Sewer is too expensive/cannot afford □ Not willing to waive right to appeal □ Other: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Please send information regarding the Senior Citizen As nent ueferral Program. specific questions and would like a City staff n to contact me. My phone number is Return by September 15, 1990 to: City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ATTACHMENT "OE" OPTIONAL EXCLUSION FROM PROJECT - CRITERIA The City Council has directed that criteria be established for exclusion of properties from the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project on the basis of lot area, septic system condition, and future septic system replacement capabilities. Properties meeting the following criteria will, at the request of the property owner, be excluded from the project: 1. Dry Buildable lot area (excluding wetlands) must be 2.0 acres or greater. 2. The . Dperty will not abut a gravity trunk or lateral line which is needed to serve adjacent or nearby properties. 3. Existing system is functioning correctly, meets all current design and location standards, and one proven alternate drainfield site is located within the property. Or if existing system is substandard in design or location, two proven alternate drainfield sites must be located within the property. (Sit evaluations will be conducted by a consultant hired by the City, costs to be paid by the property owner). ' t 4. Property owner agrees to formally preserve the alternate drainfield site(s) for future use, by deed restrictions and actual practice. If you wish to apply for exclusion and believe your property can meet all of the criteria, please indicate that on your return mailer. I ^ ^ = A30 4? Y = I yVJD ... ..RGURE 2 •: «mXAJ1 t «UOC. K,ORONO. MINNESOTA 1 f.TVMS MT ? *. * • , :•; ■ — ..v.jrgMv«'«^<--Tr.r “ _ i?: s.-T'.T-:? — ••<3 I 4S0S BAV/Vr ..(D A)0 it y T ye^ (0 /Oo cespo^se^ 2f\ r~,. (14)(D) 1 0 rs iij;0 WiM ^<4iJ 3Ka> rwEH (PARTS. I a M) VITER (»RTS III. IV a lacR (ESS * : NUMBER IBBS BAY ms (ID (4) (BoysKJe Rood) *ounfy iRood No. 84 ^ ~f “o loiKj'i"-• - - <» I iBA'Jsit>e -.• . . .RGURE 2 : « . • «uoc.ORONO. MINNESOTA - «• ■Itlt sniiis lAT itjmrxmr itwiM iMPHovtMCMrs [7 *. • • . :• • - ir: :smrr >— :f •. “-i • • I BBS &A'/MB’ (tS) (D :rIvood IFT IV (W)(O) ©0 p 0 A)0 // y ? 4^ Ct.5po/^S^ 2!^ I^?7n i^4ia ^Ji; JBBS BAY sEm PART If oil 6 ■Q (Boyside Road) lounty [Rood No. 84 ^ I o Toifjj" STUBBS bay LAKE MINNETONKA A’ ’ A --0-— Cn*VITt SEWER (PARTS HI, IV A ^y{\9\ (21) PARCEL NUMBER I tr^o I house address 0 STUDY CODE NUMBER Co3*<t5«*oc. ■euNC. a *ssor'»'t5 "'C '«•* 0 ^ VJ V » u\ >v»® > « - 2: = 1 2 2 s Ul t ^ III w ►u > > U Vt o g 2 2 5i2£ u o a. 2 M » 3^5 V - i^,\f 1 x*V»’-. (I) l\ ll •• d s i 1 “ i !" I '“iismifm <»wy-«' I ■ nr KLnZKE>z ~ CjiST)<S3) ' (S>0' IJW dip » ^'•«. • I w M "B3T75" 1 v;. -' h;''.. ->i vf"' -—-r^'- V* —.. 91490.7 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator* DATS: September 18, 1990 SUBJECT: City Facilities /; craiiii f.'JhiijNa SE( 2.1 |]liy GF ORONO Attachment: A. ^:’acilities Report Dated 8/17/90 B. Proposed Newspaper Article ISSUE 1. Establish a process for determing whether the City desires to exercise it purchase option on the land on Highway 12. 2. Presentation of information for a public information meeting. INTRODUCTION - At Council's workshop session held on Thursday, August 23rd, at which they received Attachment A staff was directed to obtain a option a property on Highway 12. This option has now been obtained. DISCUSSION - The facilities group that was selected, based on nominations by the Council, recommended approval of the site on Highway 12. A Highway 12 site has also been the general consensus of the Planning Commission. The facilities committee in addition to recommending the site on Highway 12 recommended the land vac'ted by the City in the Crystal Bay area be converted to park land for the neighborhood. Options for deciding whether Coucil exercise the land are: 1. Direct staff to exercise the option. 2. Place on the regular agenda for public input prior to ext cising the option. If the City is to have a public input opportunity Attachment B would be an appropriate placement in the paper prior to such a meeting. This is labeled as a Mayor's Article given the format that has been used in the past for such transmissions indicating that it is from the City Council. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Direct the City exercise the option. 2. Place as an item on an agenda for such input. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that if the Council was to establish a date for a public input meeting it be set for the October 22, 1990 agenda a time for public input as part of the regular Council agenda and that Attachment B be submitted to the per as an information item prior to that. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that Council direct a public information meeting regarding exercising the option on the property. Ayes , Nays /:<----- — \ tr (- H 1 r ! C TL « r E S G Is E E RI m; tsT«ms't;N K/l7ym^eJU7-/lI' !»I6 1990 TO: Orono City Council Orono Citizen’s Advisory Committee RE: Orono Municipal Facilities Study FROM: Jack Boatman DATE. August 17.1990 Comm.#: 1124.02 On July 26th the Citizen’s Advisory Committee met to review site plans and building aspects of the municipal facilities study. At the previous meeting, the committee had requested a slide show of various city halls around the metro area to establish an understanding of the types of buildings, their materials, arrangements and appearances. They also requested site plan development on various sites in the area of Old Crystal Bay Road and tho school. The meeting reviewed the above issues and directed the architect to explore two new sites at the Intersection of Willow and Highway 6 at the southeast and southwest quadrants of the intersection. Those site plans are attached for council and committee review. Also included is an area map showing all of the sites currently being considered by the committee. Also included is a breakdown of the cost/quality items that were reviewed by the committee with their action. All of ilie items reviewed to date have progressed on the basis of 70% of those in attendance resulting in a concensus of the committee At each meeting we have had 70-80% of our committee In attefxJance. At the previous meeting, the committee stated their concensus for a city hall, police, public works joint site location as the preference and a location adjacent to the Orono School area 'Site Area 1 on attached site map). The attached enlarged map of Site Area l illustrates the 6 sites that site plans have been prepared and attached for your review. From the committees ’ work to date, their direction to date is as follows: 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW The committee reviewed sites 1 through 4 .is possible locations for the Municipal Center. Site 1 was felt to be the preference due to location, visibility, anticipated cost, and adjacency to the future Hennepin County Library. Ill North 2nd S I r e o t M i n n e .1 p o I i s ,\t 1 n n o s o t .» S i 4 1) I ti I 2 • 1 t •» . t 7 j Sites 2 and 3 on the school property were workable although current statements by the school site planner makes Site 2 directly across from the school potentially not available due to their requirements for that area to be used as a new elementary school. Site 3 was viewed by the committee to be somewhat less visible and too removed. The school site planner stated that this area of the school site was for secondary functions and the architect took that to mean that there was some room for discussion on the availability of this site. Site 4 is a part of a 50 acre track and with the frontage road access, cuts a portion of the area such that the city hall and the public works would be across the street from each other. The corner site proposed for the city hall would be at a higher cost premium in the $40,000 /• per acre. The site does not seam readily available since the owner wants to keep the track intact. From the geological maps there appears to be poor soil immediately adjacent to the public works area to the north. The committee directed the consultant to look at two more sites at Willow and Highway 6. BUILDING COST/QUALITY REVIEW The committee reviewed the same options as the council reviewed with all the respective materials and samples. The committee had questions on various items most of which were answered at the meeting. The discussion of floor materials brought up the issue of quarry tile versus terrazzo. There were some discussions about cost, maintenance and safety in regards to these hard surface lobby materials. The architect's concern is the slipperiness of terrazzo, and the its respective cost. Quarry tile is somewhat less expensive and can be installed with a texture to maintain a less slippery surface when wet. The cost comparisons from Grazzini Brothers for these two materials presented that quarry tile is approximately $5.50 per s.f., with terrazzo ranging from $5.5d up to $9.00/s.f. depending on the size of the installation. The small lobby areas for this project would be in the $9.00 range. The attached list of cost/quality items illustrates the committee ’s concensus. Specifically, the committee felt that the 18,000 s.f. projected building size should be the maximum building developed, and earlier design schemes should be revised to maintain this 18,000 s.f. limit. The committee rejected the use of interior brick proposing that the interiors be vinyl of a light and open feeling as opposed to dark and institutional. Several items were put on hold (i.e. basement, modular brick, lobby skylight, and elevator) until a site has been picked. The committee felt that the overall cost of the project could be reduced if the respective site would allow a first floor and lower level design with windows into the lower level. This could create some savings, but would require an elevator. All of the other items on the list were acted upon by the committee. The committee reviewed 16 different city hall projects as p'esented by the architect in the slide show that they prepared. Similar to the council's tour of facilities, the committees concern was to have a quality looking building but not one that was too expensive looking. General feelings were that the buildings should have varying height sloped roofs with brick and stone exterior wall finishes. At this point In the advisory committee process the City Council needs to review the site recommendations of the committee and explore the option possibilities such that preliminary design work can begin at a specific site location There was discussion about the existing city hall site for a new building with concern by the committee members about the positive or negative attitudes of the immediate residents to the current site. Input directly from the residents about how the land is to be used would be discussed in any public hearing that would normally be a part of the project as it would move ahead from this point. Preliminary discussions with respect to residents in the area would be helpful to get a general sense of where they are at. To date, the concensus of the committee is that the site should be in the general area of the school for reasons of accessibility, visibility, functional definition with other institutional structures, non-conflict with residential and potential availability of land. The joint meeting of council and committee is recommended to further pursue the Issues. The committee is interested In moving forward on a specific design, cost and site for their final recommendatic 's to the council. If in your review of this memo, there are any corrections that need to be made, please notify me at the next meeting on Wednesday. August 22,1990 at 7:30. ORONO CITY HALL/POLICE Advisory Committee Cost/Quality Review BOARMAN & ASSOCIATES. INC. DATE: APRIL 20, 1990 (COUNCIL REVIEW) AUGUST 10, 1990 (REVISED) BUILDING COST ITEMS COMMITTEE ACTION 1. 2. A. ST350.000 E. F. Saxon Brick, Asphalt Shingles, Rock Face Block 18,000 S.F. @$75/S.F. OPTIONAL ITEMS Mankatc Stone for Rock Face Block S31.320 Acceot Metal Roofino for Asohalt Shinoles S68.450 Acceot Interior Brick at Public Areas S41.435 Reiect Vinvl Wall Fabric for Painted Walls $6,850 Accent Divisible Council Area $24,580 Accept Burnished Block at Police Secured Ares $28,552 Acceot Basement Storaae Soace $173,000 Hold 4,325 S.F. @$40/S.F. Modular Brick for Saxon Brick $13,660 Hold Lobbv Ceilino Skvlioht $16,460 Hold Elevator $60,000 Hold ZONE 1 - SCHOOL AREA CITY HALL POLICE/PUBLIC WORKS ZONE 2 - CITY SEWER POND AREA CITY HALL/POLICE/PUBLIC WORKS ZONE 3 - EXISTING CITY HALL PUBLIC WORKS AREA CITY HALL/POLICE ONLY ZONE 4 - CITY OWNED LAND CITY HALL/POLICE ONLY City of Orono, Minnesota riiiir' •tin* nww iiMt,** *-^^0 Xs * = - ^S O s§ _ z o < * * < w . iS 2? i Oz 0 01o CO LU O -1 3:e o < LL -I <0 < Z CO O O H O- < CO O o a: o CL UJ H a orOh A i*»<vjV y 41089.4 MAYOR'S ARTICLE CITY FACILITY 1 Many of you have been aware for sometime of discussions to do something with our out of date and inadequate city facilities. For those of you who have recently visited our facilities you must marvel at the fact that your Orono staff are even able to perform their jobs, given the conditions within which they work. I do not think many of you and I certainly know myself would not allow my employees to work in these kinds of conditions on a longterm basis. Not only are our employees having to work in unproductive, cramped facilities, but we have a Public Works facility were people have to work under vehicles and work in puddles of water on cold unheated ground in wood sheds. Our Police Department has to use an eye bolt and handcuffs as a holding facility. These are just a few examples of the shambles to which we have allowed our facilities to degrade. Some people have suggested ‘■hat a bit of fixing up here and there could assist us, but 1 chink we have gotten to the point that the most cost effective solution is to start over again and do an entirely new facility. This would not be a five or ten year cure. At present the City has utilized an architectural firm to determine the amount of space requirements we have without being superfluous. We are looking at a total cost for a new City Hall, Police facility and Public Works facility for a total of just about $3.6 million. The financing of this would translate, as we estimate it now, into a 1 to 2% increase in your tax bill. In April we, as a Council, submitted 8 names apiece for a Citizen Advisory Task Force on facilities. From this group 18 persons were selected at random to give a good cross section of the community. They worked during May thru August meeting 4 times. They reveiwed issues of need, site, architectural design and cost. They presented to rs their preliminary report at a Council worksession held with them on August 23rd. Their recommendation, without descent, was for a site on Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road opposite the schools and that the current site in Crystal Bay be used for a park. Their reasons for this included: - Compatibality with surrounding land uses and did not intrude on peoples homes - Adjacent to schools and the future Hennepin County Library site - Sufficient size for future growth - Limited availability ct land in Orono of sufficient size - Visibility - Cost of land lower than other available sites The Committee was sensitive to a site that would not present problems for neighbors to any great extent through the 24 hour operation of the Police Department, the 8 hour traffic of the City Hall nor the type of activity which can be around the clock of the Public Works and their heavy equipment that would be found in the other locations. Subsequently the City has gained an option on the recommended parcel. It may not seem popular to do, but we think we have come up with the plan that is in the longterm in the best interest of the City providing adequate facilities from which to operate. These are not plush facilities by any means, unless you compare what we have with what we need. At this point we would like public input on the Facilities Committee's recommendation to acquire this property and make the current site into a usable park in Crystal Bay. If you have comments either submit your comments in writing or attend our Council meeting on October 22, 1990 at 7:00 P.M. On behalf of Barbara Peterson, J. Diann Goetten, Edward Callahan and Alan Nettles look forward to your support for a new facilities. James R. Grabek Mayor 91490.5 TO: Mayor and Cit’^ Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adminlstrat DATS: September 14, 1990 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Responses ;,;bT!ssi GtP 2 i 1930 «n7 n.- pkono ISSUE - Present to Council proposed changes in response to Metro Council's transportation and sewer chapters. INTRODUCTION - At the beginning the City had explored possible changes including those related to public and private streets and what changes, if any, might be to areas for possible sewering, such as Stubbs Bay that are currently not sewered. Transportation - Given the current highway corridor study it is recommended that the response to Metro Council indicate such and that once complete the City will develop any amendments that may be needed to its comprehensive plan. As you are well aware, the Highway 12 corridor study could have a substantial impact on the transportation facilities in the community and it would be prudent to await the outcome of the study of the corridor. That may have the most substantial change on the transportation in the community. Sewering - Apart from incorporating areas that have been sewered in the past that are currently not included in the comprehensive plans, and possible minor changes to the code in order to comply with the on-site treatment requirements, no other changes are recommended in response to sewer at this time. ACTION ALTERNATIVES - 1. Determine what changes should be brought forth for Planning Commission consideration. 2. Table. 3. Take no action. POLICY - 1. Undertake a minimal response including the comprehensive plan update to the MUSA line in the community based on areas already sewered. 2. Undertake substantial modifications in response to these plans. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that a minimal response through a minor comprehensive plan be processed through Planning Commission and Council for submission to Met Council. At this time the City does not have sufficient data to amend any of the data absent the census data that is still in a preliminary form. As such only minor recommendations for amending the forecasts are proposed as a commentary. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by __, Council recommends only minor amendments at this’ time. Ayes __, Nays __. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Prom: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Date: September 21, 1990 Subject: 1065 Linden Lane jii 2d 1990 K OfAttachments - A “ 1065 Linden ^ne Memo dtd 09/20/90 B - Resolution of Hazardous Building Proceedings (will be presented Monday) Issue - Determine direction City should take on the above listed property. Introduction - Based on new information, it would be appropriate that the City initiate the Hazardous Building Proceeding on the pool requiring either; A) permanent cover; B) f*lling; or C) removal. (It should be noted that this pool has sat without water in it, apart from the rainfall, for at least 2-3 years.) Proposed Motion: Moved by ___, seconded by ___, the Council to adopt Resolution #______ to commence hazardous building proceedings at 1065 Linden Lane regarding the pool, nays Ayes cc: David Prass Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator September 20, 1990 Su?/:#1476 David & Suzanne Prass, 1065 Linden Lane - Request by Retain Swimming Pool on Property without Principal Structure At the September 10th meeting. Council approved a temporary cover for the swimming pool based on the Presses agreeing to abide by a deadline schedule fcr obtaining a building permit and a certificate of occupancy for a new residence. In addition, the applicants were asked to perform regular inspections of the pool site to determine if interr.m safety precautions were maintained. On September 11th, staff received a call from David Prass advising that the pool could not be drained because the retention area was required to hold water to provide the necessary pressure beneath the base of the pool. If water was not retained in the basin, pressures of the underlying earth would collapse the pool. The City has never been advised of this at meetings nor do I note this information in previous written comments of Mr. Prass. I referred Mr. Prass to the City Engineer to review this new fact. The City Engineer contacted me and concurred that the type of pool on the property would require water being maintained in the retention area. Tom Barrett has been consulted on this matter and he advises that in light of this new information, that the matter be referred back to Council as the potential hazard and liabilities are increased now that water must be maintained within the pool. In consideration of this new information, the option to Council would be follows; 1. To reconsider the original resolution adopted by Council at their previous meeting, and to amend it to require a permanent pool covering (i.e. wooden deck or filling) to be installed no later than October 24, 1990. If a permanent pool cover is provided, would Council still require the filing of a building permit for residential construction by the same schedule of deadlines; or 2. Commence hazardous building action against the property for the immediate removal of the pool as it deemed a hazardous structure and to direct staff to prepare an appropriate resolution for Council action at their October 8, 1990 meeting. Staff should also be directed to prepare a resolution if needed to repeal the original action of the Council with Resolution #2865, adopted September 10, 1990; or 3. To allow the temporary pool cover as originally requested by the applicants with the knowledge of the in-^reased liability. City Attorney may wish to comment further. / September 19, 1990 Dear Ororno City Council Members; It was our understanding at the August 13, 1990, council meeting that the council was syrrpathetic to our wish to salvage the swimming pool so that we could rehabilitate it for use in 199^ when we put up a permanent houseing structure. We understood that we would be putting up a pool coverering that would be fastened down, have locks that would prevent any one but a member of our family from opening it, and that the proposed pool cover would still hold with the weight of an automobile on it. We understood that we would be leaving the appropriate amount of water in the pool which is necessary to maintain it. A swimming pool without water in it during the winter months will either heave out of the ground or collapse inward. We will have a letter ready for the council meeting from the swimming pool company t? t serviced our pool Our proposal is to purchase a safe and secure pool cover. We must leave the appropriate amount of water in the pool in order to keep it. We will inspect the pool and its cover on the first of every month and send you a letter regarding its maintenance. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Mr. and Mrs David Prass 1774 Fremont Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 cny OF oacNO JU[1E[10\^ SEP 2 4 iggo A RESOLOTION ORDERING ABATEMENT OP A HAZARD* S ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 1065 1.INDEN LANE, ORONO WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, David & Suzanne Prass, the fee owners of record, of property located at 1065 Linden Lane, Orono, Minnesota, herein referred to as "the property", and legally described as follows; Exhibit A, attached. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono, having duly considered the matter pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261, hereby finds that the above described property contains hazardous conditions which constitute a public nuisance and which makes this property haza^ s to the public health, safety and welfare based on the follov findings; 1. The pool structure is located on property that does not sustain a principal residence. The residence was removed on October 29, 1988. The current owners have not filed a building permit application for new residential construction since the former residence was removed. 2. In order to maintain structural integrity of the pool structure, water must be maintained in basin area. 3. The property is located in a residential neighborhood and poses a hazard for young children. 4. The pool is in a state of deterioration and dilapidation, and has not been regularly maintained for use thus it is a safety hazard pursuant to Minnesota State Building Code/Uniform Building Code, Section 203. 5. Orders to remove or repair the structure were issued by the Building Official on October 9, 1989. These orders have not been complied with. Page 1 of 3 NOff, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to the foregoing findings and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261 hereby orders the owners of the property to choose one of the following options in order to correct the hazardous condition: a) remove the pool and fill the excavation with clean fill; b) provide a permanent secured cover and keep water treated; or c) fill the pool with sand until such time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a principal structure. 2. If the repairs are not completed or unless an answer is filed within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, the City shall move the District Court for summary enforcement of this order. 3. If an answer is filed that contests the hazardous building action, the matter shall be tried and decided by the District Court. If the order is sustained by the Court, the Court shall fix a time after which the pool shall be destroyed or repaired us set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.20. 4. If the Court's Judgement is not complied with in the time prescribed, the City may make the ordered repairs, raze or remove the hazardous condition, or acquire the building and real estate on which the building or hazardous condition is located by eminent doman. The necessary costs of such repairs, razing or removal, including but not limited to attorney fees, witness fees and filing fees, shall be a lien against the real estate on which the hazardous condition exists and will be levied against the property as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.21 and 463.22. 5. That the City Council of the City of Orono hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor, City Clerk, City Attorney, and other officers and employees of the City to take such action, prepare, sign and serve such papers as are necessary to comply with this order and to assess the cost thereof against the real estate described above for collection along with taxes. Page 2 of 3 Adopted by the City Council of Minnesota, this ^4th day of September, 1990. APPROVED: the City of Orono, ATTEST:James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of September, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION; That part of Lots Ten (10), Eleven (11) and Twelve (12), "Linden Beach," described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot Ten (10); thence East along the South line of said lot, a distance of Elg ty-foiir (84) feet; thence Northwesterly along a line, which would intersect th? North line of Lot Twelve (12) at a point One Hundred Eighty-five (185) feet East of the Northwest corner of said Lot Twelve (12), to a point in said Northwesterly line, which is fifty-two (52) feet Southeasterly measured along said line from the North line of Lot Twelve (12); thence West parallel with the North line of Lot Twelye (12) to the West line of said Lot; thence Southeasterly along the Westerly line of Lots 12, 11 and 10 to the point of beginning, including one-hair (1/2) of Linden Lane, vacated, adjoining said lots; according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.ALSO Lots Six (6), Seven (7), Eight (8), and Nine (9), Linden Beach, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. 9l4yo.6 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^ DATE: September 14, 1990 SUBJECT: Fence Acquisition - Navarre Playground Str 2; i99o (liy Attachment: A. Fence Installation - Navarre Playground Memo Dated 8/30/90 ISSUE - Determine whether Council will authorize acquisition of purchase outlined in Attachment A. INTRODUCTION - At Council's September iu, 1990 meeting Council consideration of this item to September 24, 1990 meeting. This proposed acquisition had been presented to the Park Commission for review. According to John (who is on vacation) this item had been mentioned to the Park Commission. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by Council authorize acquisition of the fence for the Navarre Playground in an ^.mount not to exceed $800.00. Ayes , Nays To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: August 30, 1990 Subject: Fence Installation - Navarre Playground In the mid 1980*s during the development of the Navarre Playground, it was determined to fence two sides of the playground for safety reasons. Recently we have received complaints from the neighbors to the west of pedestrian traffic crossing their yard to enter and exit the playground. There is a pedestrian access but users of the park choose to enter the park from the neighbors yard. Recommendation To install fencing along the west boundary of the Navarre Playground at a cost of $800.00 and to pay for the fencing from the Park Dedication Fund. Proposed Motion:Moved 2nd to approve the installation of fencing along the west boundary of the Navarre Playgound at a cost of $800.00 and to pay for the fencing from the Park Dedication Fund. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. 91490.8 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: September 18, 1990 SUBJECT; Administrator's Information ^“>Tf U-- mom WELL #3 UPDATE - The contractor began work on Thursday, September 13th and is expected to be completed in 2-3 weeks. Progress to date is good. BICYCLE DISPOSITION - In the minutes for August 23, 1990 the word "destroy" was used in the minutes, this is not a correct reflection of the disposition. These are being sold to a person who engages in salvage and will attempt to salvage usable parts off them and probably recycle the balance of the metal. ASSESSING SERVICE - On September 17, 1990 the assessing records were transferred to Rolf Erickson and he began serving as the City's Assessor as of that date. CABLE TV - As noted in Attachment A the City has received a complaint regarding cable rates. Noted in that letter is the fact that there is some possibility of Congress deregulating part of the cable industry and in fact has passed the House of Representatives. It may be appropriate to decermine first what this action may mean together with determining whether the joint franchise group may desire to look at an alternate franchise provider. LORRAINE MCGOWAN - Lorraine, who was a 20 year employee of the City as Liquor Store Manager passed away on Tuesday, September 18, 1990. (See Appendix B) Her funeral is 11 a.m. on Friday, September 21, 1990 at Our Lady of the Lake Church in Mound. ^.VESTERN HENNEPIN COUNTY PIONEERS ASSOCIATION - See Attachment C. CITY < fi OF QRONO Post Offic* Box 66•Crystal Bay, Mini On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka September 13, 1990 Mr. Louis Oberhauser 2425 Dunwoody Avenue Wayzata, J-!N 55391 Dear Lou, Thank you very much for your commentary on the rate schedule for the Triax'cablesystem. As you may be aware the telecommunications deregulation bill of the mid 30's stripped local communities of much of the rate regulation authority. What you are seeing, is as you described, a monopoly of which there is no oversight. The City is in a franchise agreement with several other communities under the name of Lake Minnetonka Cable Communication Commission and have dealt with similar frustrations with the rate regulation. I have asked Jennifer Watts the Administrator to discuss this issue with you further. I should be noted that Congress is now considering a partial re-regulation in this area and this may provide some relief for these rather large rate increases. Thank you again for your comments MEB/dh cc: Jennifer Watts BUILDING Si ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINIsm\nON &. FINANCE -473-7358 FAX - 4734)510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 I '"1^0 Uti,' ich ‘/cj) fix/rUa Ui^ (IaUIj!’ sLvJJl U ^ 'U -f^ oJLi inJL^^ LaKe Mii|netoni oi^K^iy^ ."''•J 3'i‘SE-'' 5 uP O BOX 110 VVA3?rii f.«4.,a4i'}3 507 tl"/S575 CTY^- PAX f;gvg£q ■RIAK CABLEVISON SEP lOJP Jhf^ CiPrr-ljjL^^ Dear Subscriber: On October 1, 1990, new monthly cable TV service rates will take effect on several Triax Cablevision services. The new monthly rates are a result of channel additions and realignments, operating expenses, and programming costs. The existing basic cable TV service which you currently receive, will become known at "EXPANDED BASIC" cable TV service and consist of 39 channels of programming for $19-99 per month. This service includes the addition of the new satellite comedy channel—"HA!". A new "BASIC" cable TV service will be Introduced and consist of 19 channels of programming for $12.99 per month. HOME BOX OFFICE (HBO), currently at $9-95 will change to $10.93 per month. SHOWTIME (SHO), will remain the same at $9-93 per month. CINEMAX (MAX), currently at $9-95 will change to $6.93 per month. THE DISNEY CHANNEL (DIS), currently at $9-95 will change to $^.93 per month. Additional discounted movie packages will also become available as follows: HSO and CINEMAX at $13-90 per month, and HBO, CINEMAX, and THE DISNEY CHANNEL at $19-W per month. In order to offer the new economy "BASIC" cable TV str^^ice and the new channel, it will be necessary to change th*? existing channel line-up. Tune in cable channel 19 for current infor mation on these changes. The e.nclosed new channel line-up card will help you in locating your favorite channels and the new channel. Please keep it handy and in a safe place for future reference. If you are Interested in receiving the new "BASIC" service, please call one of our customer service representatives during normal business hours at 1-800-332-0243 to arrange for a Free Installation ($13.00 savings). This offer expires on October 13, 1990. We appreciate your continued patronage as a Triax Cablevision subscriber, and look forward to providing you with quality programming and improved services. Sincerely, The Staff at TRIAX CABLEVISION CIWL :dRONCK City of OROrVC RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2199 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Lorraine McGowan has been employed in the Orono City Liquor Store since October 19, 1966; and WHEREAS, Lorraine McGowan became the Liquor Store Manager on May 26, 19"5 and served as that .Manager until the City closed the facility on May 31, 1987; and WHEREAS, Lorraine demonstrated her best efforts to run a small, friendly neighborhood liquor store for the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, the hard work, diligence and friendliness of Lorraine paid off in the Orono Liquor Store having many longterm dedicated customers because of that excellent work; and WHEREAS, Lorraine McGowan demonstrated her abilities to make the operation profitable in an industry and size of market that has been in a downswing for a number of years; and WHEREAS, Lorraine's dedication to her job is demonstrated by the excellent work she did up to the store's ■'lose resulting in sales being up dramatically for the first five months of 1987. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Orono on behalf of its Council and staff would like to acknowledge its appreciation in this manner for the excellent work done by Lorraine McGowan for her many years of dedicated service. k.iL(5' Jam^ R. Grd4a^i«-r-Mey( AT DST:'1 . Hallin, City Clerk Adopted this 8th day of June, 1987. U14 ESTERN HENNEPIN COUNTY PIONEERS |kgS.................... P.O. Box 332 Long Lake. HH 55356 September 13, 1990 City of Orono Council and Staff P 0 Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Friends: I am no longer a member of the Western Hennepin Pioneers Museum Board of Directors,but I want to bring you up to date on the Orono History book sales. Following is a portion of the report given at the annual membership meeting of WHPA which shows that 926 books were sold as of August 18. Rooks are still being sold at a number of stores, shops and at the museum so you may want to call sometime in the future to get an updated report. T have enjoyed working with all of you on the Centennial project and the book sales. Sincerely, Donna Roehl THE ORONO CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION FUNDS (INCOME MID EXPENSES) WERE HA^JDLED THROUGH THE MUSEUM ACCOUNTS. FOLLOWING IS A REPORT RBGARDI.NG THAT EVENT: INCOME CONTRIBUTIONS AND DINNER FEES CENTENNIAL ORONO HISTORY BOOKS (714) MEDALLIONS TOTAL RECEIPTS $ 23,490.00 10,316.93 140.00 $ 33,946.95 EXPENSES BALL AND CENTENNIAL EVENTS HISTORY BOOK PUBLISHING AND MEDALLION TOTAL EXPENSE 10,912.9-7 21,210.00 $ 32.122.97 INCOME EXPENSE BAIJVMCE $33,946.95 32,122.97 $ 1,R23.98 THE BALANCE OF $1,823.98 WAS DEPOSITED INTO THE MUSEUM GENER.\L FUND AND WAS USED TO PAY FOR 7HE PLAQUES THAT MAY BE SEEN AT THE ORONO Cm’ HALL AiVD AT DEDERWOOD i^ARK. SINCE THIS ACCOUNT WAS CLOSED 4 MEDALLIONS AND 212 BOOKS HAVE BEEN SOLD FOR A TOTAL OF $ 3,256.76. NMICH Al-IOUNT IS SHOW! ON PAGE 1 OF THIS REPORT. 'DIE REMAINING BOOKS ARE THE PROPERTY OF -THE MUSEUM Al>n3 ALL PROCEEDS FROM THE S.ALE OF THESE BOOKS ARE DEPOSITED INTO THE MUSEUl-1 ACCOUNT. I i 5: LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OF September 24, 1990 SEF241990 Ciiy Qf omm No licenses. 09/16/90 PR. CB PRREGOR NAME ABRAHAMSON. FREDERIC ACKERMAN. ALBERT J ANDERSON. BRUCE L BERG. VERNICE J BERNHARDSON. MARK E BOBZIEN. SUE A BOSMA. JAMIE L BRINKHAUS. JOHN F BURDICK. AARON W CHESWICK. GARY B CHRISTIANSON, SALLY OURNICK. JAMES L DEMBOUSKI. JAY C DICKEY. NORMA JEAN DRUMMOND. PATRICIA EISINGER. RUTH D EKEBERG. ELIZABETH J ELLIOTT. VALERIA M ENGLISH III. IRVING ERICKSON. DOUGLAS J ERICKSON. KURT R FINKELSTEIN. DOROTHY FISCHENICH. DAN T FRITZLER. JOHN M GADBAW, ARLISS A GAFFRON. MICHAEL P GASCH. MARJORIE GERHARDSON, JOHN R GREGORY. JAMES D SHARON DOROTHY M STEVEN C CAROL J BRADLEY P MIRIAM "OREST J . RICKY D KILBO. MELVIN H KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A KUEHN. THOMAS M LINDSTROM. DAVID J MABUSTH. JEANNE A MADDEN. ROSE MORAN. MARK F MOROWCZYNSKI. NAAB. THERESA NELSON. DAVID OAS. DANIEL 0 OBRIEN. RANDY L OMAN. LYLE E PALMER. GREGORY A PEASLEY. CHRISTINE OUAST. WAYNE A RATHBUN. BARRY ' RAUSCHENDORFER ROSS. JOHN A SASS. JOHN J SIFORD. RUBY SKREEN. DALE STEFFENHAGEN STEVENS. BFTTY G THOMTON. MARK R TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE TOMCZYK. MARK W TURNHAM. KENNETIi VANG, BRUCE L VEE. LINDA S WALSH. KEVIN L WALTERS. LINDA G WECKMAN. STEPHEN J WHITE. TINA YEAGER, DONALD C YOGERST. LUCY V GUIMOND HALLIN. HANSEN. HANSING JOHNSON JOHNSON JOSTROh KARNITZ JAMES L D SEi 2i OF cmm DORO RONALD YTD CURRENT DPT GROSS GROSS 1 93 1439.27 209.00 13 90.75 90.75 31 32026.17 1516.10 13 85.00 85.00 12 43993.45 2221.36 31 17747.86 921.84 12 11523.44 595.00 42 27224.64 1464.31 93 352 50 202.50 31 28263 1468.00 31 4103.o8 205.84 31 30838.13 1575.98 31 11704.00 961.84 13 85.00 85.00 13 75.00 75.00 13 87.50 87.50 13 80.00 80.00 13 85.00 85.00 31 32667.53 1381.68 93 543.39 146.63 31 27773.24 1434.89 13 85.00 85.00 31 27576.77 1366.59 31 28021.90 1396.16 13 85 00 85.00 33 25409.97 1338.72 13 71.50 71.50 42 33421.49 1760 80 42 25303.40 1285.24 13 >$5 00 85.00 12 21887.13 1153.12 42 20853 57 1171.76 31 10191.59 55*^ 37 31 29207.64 140 iS 13 93.50 9 50 93 1831.15 223.25 31 5425.71 445.68 31 37285.84 1964.40 , 15 17485.70 921.83 15 35510 40 1870.89 93 460.75 19.00 33 31820 38 1676.47 13 90.00 90.00 31 259C3 81 1'37.28 31 33367 tS i.580.14 12 17747.85 1016.89 35 1G?0 00 178.50 93 14:7 ?7 170.63 92 19&30./6 1105.08 33 23010.16 1271.76 42 80Iv 34 1087.62 13 77.50 77.50 92 25288.79 1179.28 92 20601.64 1176.00 } 13 85.00 85.00 93 80.00 80.00 42 19958.81 1003.20 13 87.50 87.50 42 20581 99 1153.68 > 93 21915.99 1154.64 93 2073.50 200.75 31 27090.72 1381.68 ■ 31 29264.29 1485.31 31 27489.02 1408.48 13 99 00 99.00 33 19191.91 1095.51 12 8249.88 783.60 35 3830.89 165.25 15 17029.09 935.03 33 4306.00 640.00 13 85.00 85.00 93 1239.03 99.75 13 22 50 22 50 L 56.107.54 Ui O<(/>(/) m 6 a. (/)iCo (A U >y lA HT -H >4 CM CM CM -4-in O n rxn cn n at •H^H«H ut^at 1 1 1 at nnoa 1 1 1 in> 1 o> 1 • <DO> 1m O)—i III 0)0)0)0 0)0)at ookO o CD rg rgcg at in m m 0)^<D to CM CM at z •HI •p-i ••"<in ooo CM CM If) 1 1 1 m 1 <f4-«in 1 • 11o1o•H«H 1o (M If)O lO -H -4CM^to •4-4-4 2 ICO rgfM r)—«-^OCM cncno toin mm 3 r»rsj (MCM CM CM eo (Mon CM CM CM rn ^ —4 O »»«•«*«»<*<« III 1 1 1 1a f % t 1 1 •1 •H •.<-4-4 0»O')-4«H49 ‘ <O o OO o a i*>.OOO OOr^»t~OOr^ Z I CA o (A CA Ui (A •-H 1-4 Ui *-l UI _J 1-4 -I 1-4 a.o _l CL _i I-H z Q.a Q. Z UI O.o CL o 'v o CA O CO >A(A <A tAUJ UJ ae £X _i LU UI o LlJ —1 j:qc Ui <Ui U O (A <OO U O O < X )—u u.*-4 ►4 a:►4I-H- UI O z l-M-4 U O UJ UO.(A O Ui zz u.UI Ui u UJ O I-H oc oo O X CD OCAOL C/)(A(A o:a:Qe<<<0.0.0. o.Xz>o. (AVWAzz<e 888 ui o ac <CACACA»-(ACA 1-4 UJ UI ac XX CD OOO oc Ol o.OCIK CA 1-11-4 1-4 O oo ac bJ ocKoe Q z CL uu UI a UIUJUI Z <O ►4 L4 X o 1-4 Ui oc o ZZ 1-4 UI w UJUIUI>o oo h-X C’><»-u uu ac CL (ACA >-z CA -J-l-l O o >•><><OOO u u uu o o UI croc a: OOO ooo OOO zzz ►4-4 1-4 CACACA l-l-H-:s XXX occr oe ♦-k-t- <<<:x _l —1 —1 CL CL CL 1 <<«t a:UlUIUI XXXbJUlUJUJzzzo MI-4 1-4 z CL CL CL OOO ►4 ooozzz<ooo UiUlUl oc ococac OOO o ooo ««««« 4T oo OO OOO n n 00 in in oo cnr^co oo in nco in in rocMco r-r^ at 00 eo oo OCMCM coco CM CM -4CMO oo 00 00 mm OOOO oo oo oo 4f mm m oo -4 iOiO OOOO -4-4-Hm on «oo *H^CMOinr-oo^^CM CM om—• •H *H COOCMCO -4 ID -4 mm 0-4-4 •H«H -4in CD CM C*>•4 —4 ID CD CM o O oo o O O OOO ooo o O)at CD at at C75 CD 0)0 0 0)0)0 O) o 's.V.V,**x,*v, \ z O)at mat o>o>o>ooo 0)0 0 cr> o -4 -4 -4 —4 •H •H «-H*H^H ■pH*H*H cH oc UI **Vi o ►—at at at at O)o o>ooo ooo o<o o oo o o o ooo ooo o u O O >d t—z u z « -4 CM «4t4t m «r>««OOO)«CD CO CO «o « u « 4t 4f «mm m CO «00 «oo «OOO)«mmm €r-.« o UI « -4 —4 «—4 -4 «-4 C -H «•H «€CM CM CM CM « at X « r-f-«r-t4.«C4.««N.«€h- h-k «h-« at u • CO lO «10(0 «CO c CD CO «CD coco «CD CO CD «CO « •4 « CM CM «CM CM «CM CM «CM CM CM CM m CMCMrg «CM « ooo 0)0) on 0)0)0)ooo <0(0(0 rjfsirj UJ O< CL UJ O<tn(/) COscu CO u (/> u 00 x:u CO JCu (/) o oe» O a. >z -MCM -M «»—4 »-(0)00 at a> 1 fO ,mat a*-M <n o ^<o O)CM z inuo (f»m 1 •M 1 I—(D(D «*•CM CM z oo CO o 4» o coco CM eo CO o MJ 1oo 1 1 CM CO CM —4 <c-c*h*o CMincoc«jrM<-i-<ro«»o> I I I I I CO o>^ O) o> roo^'ir (D OO-HfNJin I I I I I -H —«—* CM CM CM CM fM CO CO ro ro CO till! •H "M oMCO OOOOf^ in lO —4 —4 00 coco CO 1 1 t 1 1 r«*a>mat m CO <D CM CM CM 4*o -4 -H —4 1 1 • •1 -M 0-4 CM CO oo CM4T «• in cn CM CO CO •»4T 4» 1 1 1 1 1 (O —4 -4 CM o oo o zo ec Oto UJ O Z UJ >>UJ ocoe z UJ Ul •-4 a: cnco tc to »-4 O a < OO _J ►4 (L oo X X Ul«o u ec ozacacKo:; UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ vtvsvunt/i OOOOOo.aaaou UJ 5 UJ O< UJ <a. UJoe o< oc<o<oc oc t— 0 1 *— «» oc UJ tcooz Ul> <<oo UJ UJ UJUIs— »— << »—►- coco ocae UIUI XX CL CL OOoo <o t-tz UJ Xo Xu<X CL Q U. u. t-i tc Ul X 00 zz UJ X CO CO to to 00 oaooozzzzz >-H >-<)-• h-t l-H |_l »_« 1-4 zzzzz »-H »-l l-l >-< t-( O o 1— z Ul OQ z tn ►4 »-KCk:*-4 t-4 _J »-<<O _J O OO CO 1-4 _J zz _J tn Q£DC <<<z o <►-1—z o X torn o u -1 u 1-4 _J com to < Ul z zz )i: 3 o UIUJ z I— CO ZZ o zcnL-XX H-UJ>-o UIUI to z UJ z OO o < L'.sc ^_J 41 «41 «« 4»ooo CM CM mm to omin C-f*.coco —4 —4 CO o) oo OO mm (0(0 uo coin o)COCO CM CM 4» 4» oooooo »fl Ol O) O O) O) 00 CM CM CM CM CM^ OO or)OOO o OO 0(0(0 coco m com •H ^4t04t m (0(0 «»4» eooo -4-4 —•«-4 r^r-mm -4—4 (O CO oo o o o OOOOO o o 0)0)O)C7>cn 0)0)0 0)0)cn o o 'V.'M V. z 0)0)O)at cn 0)0)0)0 0 cn o o -4 -4 -4 0£Ul 'M o 1—0)0)(7)er>cn 0)0 0)0 0)cn o <oo O o o OOOOO o o U.Q O >■Ot-- «Z o «00 OO «O V 4T «oo «r)rir)r>r)«cn «4-4 « o ««00 m 00 O «i/> IT) iT) mm m oo «o « o UJ «(NCM «CM «CJ «m «r)r>r)f')r)m n C r> O)X «r-^«l>~«r>*«c-«fMi.m c-II r-« <7>u «i£>i£>«to «to «to «(O (C CO o o €to €CO • «csirvi «CM «(\«CM «rjrgcMfMfsi «CM «• oo C7)0» aimoo irtm OC7>o o 1^ N. (0(0 (MCM UJ O ui Ca c/»< a. Ui X 0 •0» o 1 a. 01o • CO iCu CO o CO o CO u CO Xu to o >z M mH CMiO-JCOCM o CM CM r^*4«-4Csi *-t 1 a 1 o 1 -J-^COCO^ 1 1 1 1 1 o a>n "O'*HDO)0> at o>O) O) o ^ o>o o>CD o> till o> o> O) Ok6«at CM rxocMr^^o o>Ml CM O) CM ^ IDzOJ 1 m 1 1 00^*HCM o in CM CM o —< m in »-f CM in (M CM 00 CD CMzrolAimnaAti)eo O 00 O 00 OM CM CM CM3(M 00 cn CM oo CM r>CM 00 00 00 00ou•••1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1o•H •-< ^ ^m •M •-H -t-HfMOO<o o OOOOO r*.!>*o O o ootx.r^ oco CO UJa X UJ UJ 03 COCO 00 CO COzzzzz l-l t-t >-< 8B888 ooe <Xa. 00< UJo< q; 0£ Z3 X LUo 00 00 00 CO UJUJliJUJ l-« t-t )-l »-4 _J —I _J _J O UJ OC 3£ L> UI Xo o UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ h-(O ococacocoeuCO<<<<<<CJUCJUU k-oc UJ k-o.»-oc xxxxx o Ui O k-oc ►— k— k— H“ H"u <o uQC/k <_J _J ^ ^Xoc►H ><<<<<UJ o o.X zocoo<UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ k—z CO k- UI OOOOoli.z xxxxx CO HM <_J O OOOCJot-H <z <>-COC/kCOC/kzz>-■CO oc a: oc oc oc !X <k—UJ X <<<< UJ —1 >z k-k-k-k-k-OQ CO X O OOOO>Hi uuuuu O UJ UI UI UI UJazk-oc kM !S CO </»zzzzza:OC ooooo k-k-o _l zzzzo<<UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ Hi a.Ol k-ikHk-«H4 -i X X XXXXX X X X X X xxxx «««««««««« o tnm r •oooooo in in c»c»OO oo I Oi00(O^m 0)0)OOOO COCCIDOCOi*CO ro mm coco oo OOOO) in oo (OO eg CM C»<7><n(MO'4 mm C»9k CM CM (D(D k-kH fvjrsi^in CO CO mm OOOCMCMI^ —< -i —< ic ro o -i —4 kok* OO Okcn •M CM CM CM o ozo oeo u.O > H- UJ * t—< O ooooo CD 0> O O) 0> 0)0)00^ O O 0> 0> OOOOO o o> (D <0 (O (O <D O O O CO CD CMCMCMCsiCsJ O O CM 00 OOOO <7> C7) CD O) CO CO u)cr> CN (NJ (NJ (M UJa Ui < O CO < c/> a. UJ Z 0 « c» 1^ o CM I a. o>o «• (/> o CO u CO o CO u (n u z (M CMr>—I ro - •M-Hrsim m o IM o ►H n on-^tr 90)0)0)»») A o O CO 9 O)o (M o>o 0)90)00)0)0)0 f O)'it o 1 c» 1 o» 1 Ok 1 o6mCM 0)0) 9 9 IDO)CM o CM 9 9 oz I OO -H-^OfMCMinmin O A CM A in o A 1— t f-00'4>Hr)99CM CO • CM 1 1 1 CMz00 00 —trorofsjronr)in 00 n m 9 93nmr>fMIMIMIMniMCMIM cn CO O fO n 00o99999999INI99rou11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 u •H ^_4.i-4^>HCMr)9 —«CM<o OO OOOOOr>.r^i^o o o o O o oe O CO UJo z UJ K UJ UJ oe U. tc y- O z UlUioo<< UJUl -l-J t-t t-< ZZ CO (OCOCOCOCOCO UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 0.0.0.0.0.11. 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. O (/>(/) (/)(/)(/) uzouuuuu CO ►-< to to LO CO to CO zo.zzrzzz z CE< 1C CO Vi< UJa< <o. 1Coro o: COz o UI tc 1C o UI Xo u.o tc on oe OC UJUl com<<<< ZZ ■ t 111 I 1. I I. I ». I I. H. I I. I ococaeocoeoixec<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<< XZZXZZXZ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ ZZZZZZZZ o: oz UI K o. Z UI COzo *-4 -t <m oe 3 u* o. Q. <o. UJ Q£ 1C u 3 oe ac os UI o. < UJ X COz< CO>- X o. «««««««A « ro mm mmo c<.0)r)0)r»0)mm9 oo mm oo oo oo oo oo o 9 CM CM «or»iD mcMO)c*)f>~-^cMO)ro oo CM CM 00 oo oo 0)0)oo in (O ID ID 99 OO con in COO) fM CM OOCMO)-Jin9CMU5-H 9 CM oo r- CM -M 9 0)0) ID ID -H-l roo 3,9003,9000)0)241.241.mm 987.O oo O)0)0)o 'M.V.'mzO)0)0)o •4acUI O 1—O)0)0)<o oou.OO >d)-z>-i u 1C «m «(DIDu«m «9 9oUJ«m mm O)I «€1^ r- O)o 4f ID «ID ID ♦CM €CM CM oooooooo 010)00)0)0)0)01 oooooooo oooooooo oo 00 oo 00 00 oo 00 oo ^ ^ rr TT ^ ^ tOi/iminiriLntnin o o <o in m lOtOOIOICIOIDtO <M(M(M<Mrsirsif\nM O o o o 00 (O ID O O) (M (O lUo tel < O V* < C/» a. tej Z >z c>im—4-^-^r>rg —«CM -H-4nnnn«»cy>a> I I I I I I I I I o>o>«^(Do>^o)c»en I I I I I I I I I a> in z 3 Ooo< intnininminininm I I I I I I I I I <_4--4_<rsir) OOOOOOOr^rx. zo a:uvt teJ O cn a z tel ooco(/j(/)cnt/)oocooozzzzzzzzz u •0 ::: 888888888 >- i moooooooocooo(/)tnzzzzzzzzz oooouoooo v>t/nnt/)t/)t/u/i(/u/i Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.CLQ.Q. z 3i< ozo ooooooooo 0>0>0>0)0>0)0)0>0> cno)o>o>o>o>o)o>o> oocnoooo^oo) ooooooooo oz o sc o 8 O) I 0> o to sc o (Mcn CM 3(/> oto ««« OOOtCXMOOOOoo OO OJCM OOm — oomo^-^os •M -H a>o> •HCMeoorMO«tmro«00 oo oocMee«-4(D<o^mc*scM wroiM*^rooo-HCM<v OS OS CM CM o O) OSo to sc o oo oo oo 00 roco mm OSo OS OS o>oi *o V mm roro CMCsl CMPs) tel OteJ <Z o:<-< "C oci2 telZoo rx3UJUi3OIIt 1zISC3OO tel t-l QC oc Q (X o >-z 3 bJUl tel m CO Q.Q.>z CO ►H hJUJosc3 tel o 3 XX tel »-«o esc esc CSC oo ^ 1 oooomm mo)« —<«» «s CM CM OO OS OS O) OSoo to sc o CMCMCMCMCMC-KMfMCM iOQD^(OiO00(O(D(D <0(0U>(0<D<C<DiD<0 (MrM<MCsi(M{MfM<Mfs| r^r«. <o U> ri«M • r-H w I I ^oosos s^mm (to oo o o s( scor^ >-< M SOOoo sets ro ro ro 3toi— ^ O O teJ*|a|| *0Z O I I CSC SI s-t s4-lu s-x: U. Q- Q. X a. CSC U. UJUIS— tel <Ototpomo. 1 I CO to to (/S to t/s c/s CO to to to to •0>^4i<fo0*d• ( IZXIXI KM l-M H-) >-< l-« ZZZZZZCO t^ t^ to (/) to 333333 <<<<<< Q. ex ex (S. Ql O. I I m0(9Ooom e*sQOOomco -Cl iiAmmeMe<o -<< ^o«>Heo < >o*eoeo CM CO SCu OS CM CM ro fM«• to Ul ex (X 3 m m esc 6 tel esc OO OS OS CM(M OO oo fM r* ri) f>i CM <M forirt rococo ^ . M. rx. rx ^ h . f«.. fx rx> (O U I (a (O (O (O rj ^ til CM CM CM to sc(_) "H ro I • OS os os CM I I os OS roco OOzz s-n-l ZZ teltei OO 33<< teltei OU s-^s-i CSC esc teltei CO to oooo (Dm << s-» t-« OO zz 33 to to OOO (OCxfO CMr«x o oo O os CM« us OO OSCTS cs <rs oo toscu OS m Cx tel (X esc O X o OS OS o us(cs Cl M n Uio<a. oo» UI o<(/)(/> c/» o (A O ^ o er> O CM Oi m cn in L-«o»♦mn^^t»0)0>O)n 1 n I o>•cn1 cn t cn 1 cn 1 at 1 a» 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Oi t/y oi Oi o> Of a>o> 1 o»in a>O)in o «D r>jr^«co<9«<o CM CO o>CM CM CO z m OJ -H —1 fM o lo lo m iO CM *4 m -H t «-c 1 1 I—«r 1 r> • 1 1 1 1 1 > ooomomm CM O CM o O O CM z r»r^rjtsim CM mm r>CO CO (D o CO Cl o fO tv.pon n CO ro n CO CM ro CM CO oo CM CM CO CM o ♦♦<0 oo 1 fO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I —< —< —1 -• CM fSI CO 1 CM 1 -I 1 1 •H 1 •1 •H 1 1 <o OOOOi^O o o t>*o o o o ae OL Uiec ocuto UJ o to o UlUIUlUUiUOzzzozoo >-UI O ><oto ae z OOOacOaeoc ae o K UI •-4 xxxoLZao.UI ~J a a Ui o o.0.0.0. Q.m X o U)</)ozt-t UIUiUi<UI< <H-(A 3e t-4 to ►M ae 1 1 1 ^ _J K— h—d:<o o O Q u UI oe 1-UJUJUJ<UK<<_J Q.l-H o O u o O m l-H-i-Oi-OO o.U 00 o.to to O o UIz u UJ Xu 0£o oz UJ> CL ia. UI ►-<t-</) zzzzzzz iiiliiiuuuoooo C/> (/) to (O to to (/) IaJ 4^ CO (O to to to to to 3333=)3=> Oz ooe < OQ UI z m CM CM OO OmCM>4l»(MCMCO toco oo (710)OO ^ ’9 oo CO CD ro CM CM oo r^cotovoo^cMoo coco mm mm OO (0(0 CO ro -4 0)0)oo ocoOirv-rocMCim <0(0 (0(0 (no O)COCO o>o> oomm ^tocMCMmcMcnc*. CM cn n (MCM oo CM CM oo oo oo mm 0)0)o>o> c ozoo:O U- O o O) o O) o>o oooooooo> oy Oi o> ^ oy o> m 0) m o> m o> o> ooooooo mmmmmmm 00 oo 00 00 oo 00 oo o O) <Mo oo> o>o to (o m CO (o u3 <o <M CM CM IM tSJ (M tM n lUo HI < O M C V) (/>u </»u o on I CL ato m z 3 Ooo< ce LlI o UJ ac ■sco UJ Xo tcoaz Ul> O (M (MZ CM CM UJ oe zIo o CTl m PO •- r (L t-i UJ -I O Z UJo a: •MI t^f«- oo oo oo oo oooo oon n (M CM • < < Jo«» C l( J ( X ) <►-z O O z(-4 ►-*—z CL UJ ►H * ._joeuNJ<c»c >O <m 1 —atayito*-5 o z :sUimUlUlOoeoeCM CM*-<3 OO9T<Ul t-0*00 UJ CL z oe 9 ^Z U.o U. oooz Q£ZZl-l </)u.u.< z a: OOOuJ UZZCL *—* HH O Z*-<<UJ 03Q£Q'(/I u. I ujujik; oea.a.o -13000 <(/) u oe oeo: UJ TkUJUJU. UJ o> < UJ O 0-^3too •H to fM PO ^ 0(MP>^>r«> OOOOO -izzzzz < ooooo »- U.U.UU.U. O eooojeocM P«.OJ»-<«H CO C7)oocMn«» r*. (0(0P«U>^ ^ mcrtocMO O ro oo 05—«r- CM Ooc O u O <o 05 o> o > O*- z»-« O sc oo U O O UJ 05 O) X P. 05 o (O o 05 o 05 05 O O -« 05 05 m v3iCOliNO:!. r!EST!?« SEP 2-! 1990 CITY n? v' . CtTY ORONO CITY of ORONO Post OfTice Box 66*Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka September 18, 1990 To All Affected Property Owners; bubject: Application #1575, Judson Dayton, 1111 Tamarack Drive - Conditional Use Permit; Please refer to the enclosed letter from the applicant notifying the City of his intention to withdraw the formal conditional use permit application. Mr. Dayton will operate his pre-school/kindergarten under a State license for day care allowed at a maximum 14 student level (MN Statute Section 245A.14, Subd. 1 and MN Rules Parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445). Please note Section 245A.14, Subd. 1 has been enclosed for your consideration. As Mr. Dayton's letter advises, he will maintain the operation at a 14 student level with all required and appropriate licenses from State Agencies. If Mr. Da^ :on decides to increase the student enrollment above the allowed 14 students, he will be required to apply for a conditional use permit from the City of Orono. j/anne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/tln Enclosures cc; Mayor & City Council BUILDING Sl zoning - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION & KINANCE - 473-735* TAX - 473-0510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE USB COMMIITEE AGENDA 4:30 p.ra., Monday, September 17, 1990 Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road fnli r»iJ 6^. * 8 1990 1. LMCD/Water Patrol Special Deputy award for 1990, to be presented at LMCD annual dinner--dlscusslon of criteria and selection process 2. Report of 1990 Lake Use Study, boats stored and boats in use—for committee evaluation and comment 3. Code amendment: observers required, §3.10, Subd. 1, as tabled by the Board 4. Update Resolution 62 to change late fee requirement for open water fishing contests from 60 days to 90 days 5. Review of winter rules a. Buoy removal from the Lake (§2.12, Subd. 7) b. Delete reference to deicing prohibition for new installations c. Other 6. Deposit refunds a. MN/WI Pro-Am Baas Tournaments 5/27, 7/28 and 29, 8/25/90 b. Wednesday Night Bass Tournaments 6/13 through 8/22/90 7. Water Patrol report a. Authority to close a lake during the winter to motorized vehicles when a hazard exists (e.g., unusually warm weather) b. Personal watercraft operation and safety evaluation c. Charter boat operation evaluation d. Additional reports, information 8. Additional business recommended by the committee 9-11-90 TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY TH 101 - TH 25 MEETING NOTICE POLICY COMMITTEE Wednesday, September 26, 1990 Maple Plain City Hail 5:30 p.m. AGENDA I. Call to Order II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of August 22, 1990 Minutes IV. City/State Goals, Project Issues/Concems (Update) V. Discussion of Alternatives VI. Other Business VII. Comments from the Audience VIII. Next Meeting DC. Adjournment 01 ii Um^paitCaan-AGD BULLETINas^clation ofmetropolitanmunicipolitiee X a 1990 September 17, 1990 TO: Mayors and Managars/Adninistrators FROM: Vem Peterson, Executive Director RE: TAB Appointaents, Dues Increase approved, Annual Policy Adoption Meeting, etc. ^ 1. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD (TAB) NOMINATIONS: Ten positions on the TAB are reserved for city alerted officials and the AMM has the responsibility for officials. The terms are for two years and the A^ Board will be acting on this matter at the October 4th. Board Meeting. The TAB is a very important advisory body and provides advice to the Metropolitan Council, Regional Transportation Board and MNDOT. One of its most important functions is to annually determine the FAU project funding priorities. ?! the third Wednesday afternoon of each month in the Metropolitan Council Offices. RECOMMENDATIONS/VOLDNTEERS WANTED: The AMM Board is soliciting recommendations for ^ese noainatlons via this Bullatin. Whila a n^r of will be reappointed, there will be several new appointsenta and recomsendations are needed fros all «>* theArea. Recomendations should be in writing and subnitte - tte AMM Office to the attention of Vem Peterson, by no la -ban October 1, 1990e 2. AMM ANNUAL POLICY ADOPTION MEETING IS SET FOR THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 1ST. The annual Membership Meeting to adopt ^e program for 1991 is scheduled for Thursday evening November 1, 1990. The location has not been selected as a dinner meeting that will Xickoff about 5:30 P.M. with a social hour. Specific details will be provided later but we to get this meeting on your calendar now. The policy adoption -1- 1R.T Mni7Pr''.i?v nvonijo pnst 'it naul rninnosofn 55101 (612) 227-4008 tteetinc^ is probably the nost important meeting of each year and ve hope that all 68 member cities vill be represented on November 1st. The AMM policy committees have been meeting since July and will be malcing their recommendations shortly. 3. DDES INCREASE APPROVED AT SEPTEMBER 6TH. MEET.TSG: At the special membership meeting on September 6th. the resolution to approve the 1991 dues increase which will enable th9 Board to hire an additional staff person was passed by an overwhelming majority vote of the membership (87%). The i^pecific amount of increase for each city due to this approval has been previously communicated to the city manager or administrator. The AMM Board appreciates the membership support and strongly believes it will enable the AMM to expand its mission on behalf of member cities and make its voice at the Legisl?‘‘ur'', and Metropolitan Council even more effective. Together the AMM works! 4. AMM RECOMMENDS CHANGES TO METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S 1991 WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET: Continuing a 16 year tradition, the AMM has thoroughly analyzed and critiqued the Metropolitan Council's Proposed 1991 Budget and Work Program. The AMM comments and recommendations were presented at the September 10th. Public Hearing held by the Council for that purpose. A copy of the AMM criticpie has been included with the copy of this bulletin rent to the city Manager/Adtflnistrator. The Board wanted to make each city aware of our recommendations. This AMM critique was developed by the 22 member Metropolitan Agencies Committee under the direction of Chair Sharon Klumpp and approved unanmoaslY hy t\ ' Board on September 6th. The AMM critique is only five pa?e£ long and we h;<<^e you will take time to read it. The AMM is the only croanization that annually analyzes and critiques the Met C.^??ncil's Budget and Work Program, b. MISSISSIPPI RIVER COORDINATION: The Mississippi National Rxver and Recreation Are^. Cr ordinating Commission created by 1988 Fede^-nl Law sponsored b • Pap. Bruce Vento and Sen. Dave Durenbergc' ''d its first publ*. meeting September 14, 1990. During th are being established to gat^ w.\i~ lead to a comprehensive::; for completion by the end 'u,, coni:rol tne public and prw The effort involves a nuim -re federal involvement to son. iictivit.^' < On the positive designati^iu.4.. there will be ieci>. few study subgroups Che process that .ng plan targeted . 4 elements which may Mississippi River. .-'i aa Aq-r.vies and will lead to Ui ..ivesr -j^jd abuti.ng property 'iecause at the federa2 . gjiPnts available for various -2- typas of development. Local elected officials on the full commission include: Tom Di'nond, CouncilmeiiJsar, St. Paul William Nee, Mayor, Fridley William Saed, Mayor, Inver Grove Heights Dennis Schulstad, Cour.cilmember, Minneapolis Lu Stoffel, Mayor, Hastings I The eight subgroups to study and gatha. information are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Intergovernmental Coordination/Management Framework/NPS Role. Recreation and Open Space/Tourism/Surface Water Use. City Planning/Land Use Changes and Development Multiple Use Management/Resource Utilization Compatible Economic Development. Commercial Navigation. Natural Resources (Wetlands and Upland Habitat, Water Quality, Threatened and Endangered Sr -ties). Cultural Resources Management. Identity Visual Quality. Interpretation. AMM Staff testified at the meeting on September 14th. We suggested that the commission hold a meeting soon with all affected Municipalities abuting the river, as well as, notifying each about serving on the study subgroups. If you are interested contact one of the elected officials named above or: N'- r T £‘.t Phon\«: P .e, Superintendent Pa.^ Service 65456 X, Minnesota 55165 - 0456 (612) 290-4160 The federally mandated commission could have far reaching impact on the use of the Mississippi River and Development along the river within cities abuting the river. DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This bulletin has been mailed to Mayors and Managers/Administrators only. We would ask that it be distributed to city councilmembers as well Thank you. -3- MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON AUGUST 13, 1990 jm The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, August 13, 1990. 1 2 199Q Present: Dave McKown Lucie Taylor James Franklin Peg Swanson Thomas Mich William Fenholt Don Anderson and John Maresh arrived while the meeting was in progress. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the consent agenda was approved as follows: - approved the minutes of the July 9, 1990 annual meeting; - approved the appointment of Linda Wiard-Bauer as math/biology teacher at the high school for the 1990-91 school year; - approved the appointment of Julie Olson as a part-time physical education teacher at the high school for the 1990-91 school year; - approved the appointment of Susan Hofer as a teacher at Schumann Elementary School for the 1990-91 school year; - approved the appointment of Kathleen Hiniker as an English teacher at the middle school for the 1990-91 school year; - approved the appointment of Jerry Jones as full-time custodian at the high school; - approved the appointment of the following personnel for part-time posi tions at Orono Primary School: Julie Stieve, Jane Dwyer, Ruthmary Nowak, Patty Brindley, Theresa Ernhart; - approved the appointments of the following personnel for part-time posi tions at Schumann Elementary: Jan Marr, LaVonne Dorrel; - approved the Activity Fund Report for fourth quarter. 1990; - approved the Activity Fund Annual Report; - directed the Superintendent to approve teacher contracts from August 14, 1990 to September 10, 1990, in order to help assure a full component of qualified teachers for the 1990-91 school year; - approved the continued use of the Community Resource ’ool for 1990-91, costs to be shared by the Orono Education Fund and Orono Community Education; - approved the following new ECFE course offerings for fall: 1. 2. 3. Parent-only Workshop - Drug Education for Parents of Preschoolers One Evening session, “ /ember 13, 7 - 8:30 p.m. Guest Speaker - Nancy Del in, addressing the importance of parental self-esteem. October 15, 7 - 9 p.m. Field Trip - State Capitol Tour especially ror preschoolers. October 23, 9:00 a.m. - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 066706 through 066958 and building construction bills as covered by vouchers 1039 through 1054. Motion carried. Board members Anderson and Maresh absent. Or. Mich offered condolences to Dave McKown and his family on the death of his mother and shared a note of thanks received from the McKown family. Or. Mich reported that the Learner Outcome booklets for grades 1-4, which the Board received recently, are an effort to coordinate curriculum and provide information for parents in a booklet form; that the 1990-91 school calendar is ready for distribution and he expressed appreciation to Toni Bergland fo.- her work on the calendar; that a pictorial personnel directory will be available soon and he expressed appreciation to Sue Sjeklocha f.nd Toni BergUnd for their work in this area; that the annual summer staff picnic will be held on August 22 and the Board is invited to attend; that on August 24 there will be an orienta tion meeting for new teachers and the Board is invited to attend; that August 27 marks the beginning of preschool workshop week with Irma Kelley as the faculty speaker and Anne Krisnik will address the subject of sexual harassment; that on September 19 TIES will hold its annual open house; that he and Bill Fenholt had met earlier in the day with the site planner and he shared the preliminary plan with the Board, the final plan should be available in early September; that a program will be phased in at the high school, under the direction of Doug Erickso»». which will deal with issues of importance to young people and at a later Cite L‘«.ug Erickson will provide more specific details for the Board; that he wanted to share a revised set of colors for the new building and he expressed appreciation to Lucie Taylor for working with the architect this area; that he haa an article to share from the STAR TRIBUNE regarding the school funding lawsuit. Don Anderson .equ('‘ted clarification with respect to the level of student that will benefit from the Assurance of Mastery Program. Dr. Mich stated that stu dents who are behind grade level in communication and math will receive assistance through this program. The Board requested that a report/evaluation of the programs/services of the Community Resource Pool be provided to the Board for informational purposes. Dave McKown acknowleged the presence of Senator Gen Olson, Commissioner Tad Jude and Marw ’ohnson. Mayor of Independence. UPON MOTION by John Maresh, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education approved the District level goals for the 1990-91 school year as follows: * Oversee and facilitate the completion of the classroom/pool facility. (This goal includes the development/organization of a curricular program for the use of the swinging pool and an appropriate dedication program). * Implement the recommendations resulting from the 1989-90 Middle School Study. (The excellent work of last year requires that this be a top priority for the School District). * Develop and recommend an on-going public communications or public rela tions program for the School District. (In spite of many initiatives at public relations we do not now have a systematic plan). Dr. Mich provided an update on the construction progress and summer projects. He stated that construction is not quite a month behind but that the completion date remains scheduled for the end of December. Bill Fenholt stated that the roadway by Schumann Elementary will be completed prior to the beginning of school. Dr. Mich highlighted the summer projects that have been completed this sufmer, informing the Board that the tennis court project will be delayed to a later time. Dr. Mich expressed appreciation to the members of the custodial staff who have maintained the grounds this summer and also expressed appreciation to Bill Fenholt as he is the one who coordinates all the summer work projects. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education directed the Clerk to certify the 1990 tax levy on or before August 31, 1990. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education approved the Master Contract for food service personnel for 1990-92 as negotiated by the Board Negotiating Committee. Carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Don Anderson, the Board of Education approved the adoption of the D'Neilian Handwriting Curriculum for the elementary grades, effective during the 1990-91 school year in kindergarten and grade 1, with subsequent grades added on a yearly basis. Carried unanimously. The Board requested more information on the handwriting curriculum and a report will be provided at a later meeting. The Community Education Compliance meeting was held with Toni Bergland, Community Education Director, presenting an overview of the 1989-90 Community Education program. Also providing an overview of their areas of responsibility were Mitzi Overland, Early Childhood Family Education Coordinator; Jo Potter, School Age Child Care Coordinator; and Brian Bergstrom, Summer Recreation Program and Cable Programs. Advisory Council members were present and also par ticipated in the presentations. Appreciation was expressed to Toni Bergland and her staff for their work/efforts in developing/monitoring these impressive programs that provide an added dimen sion for the Orono School District community. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the meeting was adjourned. Approved: 'A Lucienne J. Taylor, ^erk ^ Dave McKown, Chairman 7^ HENNERN COMMUNITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Health Services Building - Level 3 525 Portland Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 : ; ij N • c SEP 1 9 1S90 DATE: September 17, 1990 TO Interested Individuals/Organizations FROM: Sue Zuidema, Director Community Health Department ^ SUBJECT: Notification of Development of the 1992-93 CHS Plan and Year 2000 Objectives The Community Health Boards of Hennepin County, Minneapolis, Bloomington, Edina and Richfield announce a joint planning process to complete a county-wide community needs assessment for the 1992-93 Community Health Services (CHS) Plan and to develop Year 2000 Health Objectives for Hennepin County. The planning process will utilize seven committees composed of community representatives (people from private, public, and non-profit sectors), CHS advisory committee members, and staff from the community health departments. The committees will identify priority health problems facing Hennepin County and will develop county-wide objectives for them. If you are Interested In serving on one of the committees, please complete and return the enclosed application by September 28, 1990. The committees correspond to the six Community Health Services categories identified in the Local Public Health Act and to a seventh category which focuses on health care system issues. Each committee will identify and rank problems related to its subject area, review and analyze current resources used to solve these issues, and develop conclusions and objectives for programs that address each priority problem. A brief description of the scope of each committee is provided below: • Disease Prevention and Control: Problems associated with the prevention and control of communicable and Infectious diseases (e.g. sexually transmitted diseases. HIV. tuberculosis, refugee health, immunization policies). • Emergency Medical Systems: Problems associated with the delivery of rapid and effective emergency medical care in a medical emergency. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equol opportunity employer • Environmental Health: Problems which are caused by environmental contaminants or conditions of housing, work and recreational environments. • Family Health: Problems which effect optimal health outcomes for families (e.g. lack of prenatal care, lack of adequate nutrition, chronic illness among children, unintentional Injuries, family violence, adolescent suicide). • Health Promotion: Problems associated with risk conditions or behaviors of individuals or communities which contribute to chronic disease and effect other areas of health status (e.g. tobacco use, lack of nutritional dieting, sedentary lifestyles). This committee will also identify problems associated with chemical use. • Home Health Care: Problems associated with one's inability to live iri .'’^pendentiy due to short-term acute or long-term chronic health problems. • Health Care System and Access Considerations: Problems associated with the health care system (e.g. lack of access to primary and preventive hoillh care among the uninsured and underinsured). Once again, if you are interested in serving on one of the committees identified above, please complete and return the enclosed application by September 28. You will be contacted bf October 19 regarding a committee assignment. Epch committee will meet approximately four times, beginning in October/November, 1990 and ending in May. 1991. If you have questions concerning this planning process or if you need more information concerning the scope of committee assignments, please contact Jim Mara (348-3969) or Monica Sausen (348-3906). Hennepin County Community Health Department. Name: Organization: Current Position: Phone: Mailing Address: HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMITTEE PLANNING PROCESS Committee(s)* of Interest: I am interested in serving on a committee because: Please complete and return this application by September 28, 1990 to: Hennepin County Community Health Department Attention: Jim Mara Health Services Building * Level 3 525 Portland Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 348-3969 *Each committee will have a limited number of participants. To increase your chances of serving on a committee, please list all committees that hold your interest. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, September 26, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall A901 Manltou Road (Countv Road 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Reading of Hinutcs: 8-22-90 Regular Meeting 4. Public Comments - from persons in attendance not on agenda SEP 2 4 1990 5. Reports A. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 9-8-90 b) Lake Virginia control structure recommendation to support restoration of an appropriate weir as determined by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to re-establish 929.8' OHW, with further recommendation for a study to determine long term solution. c) Amenity Study, recommending approval of Code §2.05, Suhd 4 amendment with changes per 9-8-90 minutes. d) North Shore Drive Marina stipulation amendment recommending removing requirement for fencing the east dock, substituting signs to be posted along the dock length restricting the east dock to short term loading and unloading of handicapped persons. e) City of Deephaven fee refund recommending $3,270 due to overpayment as a result of reduction of slips in new dock license. f) Additional business. 2) LAKE USE, Chair Plllsbury a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 9-17-90. b) Amendment to Code §3.10, Subd 1, recommending approval for exceptions to the observer rule while towing persons in the water. c) Resolution 62 setting fees, recommending change in late fee requirement for open water fishing contests to 90 days; removal of $25 administrative fee for deicing non-renewals. Code now allowing new deicing licenses; and change of Charter license fee from $50 to $100 and renewal deadline to March 1 from May 1. d) Buoy removal from lake at end of season, recommending amendment to Code §2.12, Subd 7, requiring buoy removal by December 15 or as Ice/weather conditions permit. e) Deposit refunds, recommending approval for MN/WI Pro-Am and for Wednesday Night B.ass Tournaments. (over) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LNCO Board Agenda September 26, 1990 Page 2 g) h) Hennepin County/LMCD Joint and Cooperative Agreement, recommending approval as recommended by the committee, with a minor adjustment recommended by the Sheriff since the committee meeting to Sec. I, C, as noted. Water Patrol report. Additional business. 5. B. 3) ENVIROHMENT, Chair Reese a) Draft of preliminary 1990 Operating Report, subject to further harvest data evaluation. b) Preliminary financial summary. 4) ADVISORY, Chair Rascop a) Long Term Management Program for Lake Minnetonka, consideration of final draft (August 1990) as submitted or amended. b) Communications from Cities of Wayzata and Orono. Treasurer, Lewman 1) Statement of Cash Transactions, month ending 8*31-90 2) Audit of vouchers for payment 5. C. Executive Director, Strommen 1) Office spac*» inquiry status 2) MN Lake Management Conference Oct 7-9, and candidacy for MN Lake Management Federation board 5. D. Chair, Cochran 6. Unfinished Business A. Dock License and Density Order for City of Deephaven " " •• " " ” Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono)B. C.City of Wayzata 7. New Business A. Election of off.cers B. Additional business recommended by the Board 8. Adjournment 9-21-90 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Board of Directors Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 22, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 1. Cali to Order The meeting was called to order Cochran at 7:30 p.m. by Cliair 2. Roll Call Members Present: Jan Boswinkel, Secretary, Minnetonka Beach; David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Vice Chair, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; John Lewman, Treasurer, Minnetrista; Thomas Martinson, Waysata; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff’s Water Patrol; Ron Battey, representing Char’es LeFevere, Counsel; Norm Paurus, Pro.iect Manager; Rachel 'hibault. Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent: Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; Marvin [jorlin. Tonka Bay; John Malinka, Victoria; Robert Pills^ury, Minnetonka. 3. Reading of Minutes Foster moved, Rascop seconded, to approve the minutes of the 7-25-9U meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Comments Tliere were no comments attendance not on the agenda. 5 Reports from persons in Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol a) Minutes Grathwol moved, Lewman seconder’, of the minutes of the 8-ll-9(.' meeting as submitted, cariied unanimously. approval Motion b) Park Hill and Park Island Apartments (Spring - Regarding Multiple Dock License Fee. Park) Thibault reported there are two boats docked at the sub.ject property, one owned by the licensee and one by h* s son. Currently the license is on a temporary non-renewal becau.3 of low water and therefore not eligible for dockage. T.'e licensee, Michael Gorra, asked for classification as priv.ato property under the 1 - 5U ’ rule. He will be advi.s*;^ d that he cannot have both a private dock classification and a multiple dock license. Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, to order the boats docked at Park Mill Park Island Apartment.s be removed witdiin thirty day.s . Mot, ion carrier? unan i mously . LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS Au^^uGt 22, 1990 c) Clay Cliffe Home Owner Association (Tonka Bay) Grabhwol moved, Rancop seconded, to approve the Clay Cliffo Home (Jwners Associatior; mulLipJe do«.*k license and to approve a temporary low water variance to extend to 100 feet with change in configuration to accommodate canopies. Motion carried unanimously. d) Dock License Renewals Grathwol moved, Rascop seconded, approval of the Eagle Bluff Association (Minnetrista) multiple dock license, without change. Motion carried unanimously. Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of the Windward Marine multiple dock license, without cha.'ige. Motion carried urjanimoinsly. Grathwol noted for the record that he lias represented Windward Marine in the past. e) Dock License Refund Policy Review License. Gratliwol moved, Rascop seconded, to re-affirm the operating policy of no refunds on multiple dock license application fees, as in the case of licensee Lyle Berman, Wayzata Bay, wherein he renewed and paid application fees, then used fewer than 5 slips. Motion carried unanimously. f) Code Amendment - Definition of Commercial Marina The Board reviewed the Committee report that the Excelsior Bay Gables Home Ov/ners As.sociation has purchased tlie commercial docks licensed t.c> the Ex^-elsior Bay Associate.s. The <locks are not being operated to meet the code definition of commercial docks. The Committee recommend the drafting of an ordinance to clarify the code definition of a commercial marina. Reese suggested caution in making a change which would affect the license issued to Chapman Place. Rascop noted that the current commerci“»l dock license held by the Excelsior Bay Associ. ces gives the i ession that the docks are available to the public. He said ti; change of ownership and operation by a home owner’s association falls under the conversion of use rule. It is liis opinion the docks should remain in the public domain. Grathwol moved, iioswin *i>conded, to authorize Courisel to draft an ordinance to clari. e code definition of a commercial marina, per the letter from >raey LeFevero dated July 2, 1990. Motion car*-ied unanimously. 2) ENVIRONMENT, Chait ‘tee =se Reese presented t ura.sian W.ate** Milfoil Harvest Report as of b-21 9U. To dat*. X.IUU acres ha -e been harve.sted and it i.s expected 1,.050 acres will be harves ed by the end oi the September 7 operating plan. l.MCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS Anpnst 22, 1990 There has been a turn over in harvesting personnel as some employees return to college, others taking new jobs Letters have been sent to Senators Boschwi* ^ :.iriH Duerenberger. Representatives Frenr.el, Sikorski and Oborstry* and Governor Perpich requesting assistance in getting the contribution from the Corps of Engineers. Governor Perpic,t<* has written to the Army Corps of Engineers asking them to expedite approval of the necessary Local Cooperative Agreement. Responding to a question from Eoswinkel, Reese said the local ,unding is about $12,000 short and unless the money comes in,the cutting will have to be cut back by a week. He has talked to the Lakeshore Homeowner’s Association and their response to what is being done was positive. The Executive Director reported he flew over the lake at about 200’ elevation in an ultra-light aircraft. He took picture.^ which give a concept of iiow invasive the weed has become. Boswinkel noted the publicity the fund raising program of the F’resh Water Foundation has received. Paurus responded their publicity will benefit the long-term control needs. The ultimate control of the weed will result from research. Research takes time and meanwhile cutting is the only means available to keep the lake usable. 3) LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Reese for Chair Pilisbury a) Minutes Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of the mi*" «tes of the 8-20-90 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. b) Deposit Refunds Reese moved, Rascop seconded, to approve deposit refunds for Lake Ma.'tters Swim Club, Mir nka Chaii mge 5-mile Swim and the Zuhrah Shrine Skippers Boc tarade, both having met conditions of tlieir permits. Motion carried unanimously. c) Water Ski (Towing Persons) Ordinance Amendment Reese moved, Fo.ster secondec.. to continue the 1. *■ Tig of the proposed ordinance amendment. Motion carried, Moi ,4.iison voting nay. 5. A. 4. ADVISORY, Chaijr Rascop Rascop reported tlie Advisory Committee resj:>otise to the Management Plan public comment from cities, a-.oncies and individual.s has been pri =d. City re.-rponses for each Board member’.s city were distr l.ited to the members along with the final Management Plan draft. Included was a cover letter from Rascop and a cover letter from Cochran ask.’ng the citie.s tor support of the plan. Martin.son suggested there also be a letter LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 2?^ 1990 from each representative to his city. Reese suggested identifying the changes made since the original copy was distributed. Arndorfer will give the Executive Director his annotated copy for use in the office, not inf, the volume of changes, many of them minor, would have involved delays in producing the final draft. Gratliwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, to approve distribution of the final draft under Cochran's signature. The Directors will also receive copies of all responses sent to all the cities, agencies and individuals. The Plan is also to be sent to all affected agencies. Motion carried unanimously. Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to require a lien iver from Barr Engineering before payment is made for their .vices. Motion carried unanimously. B. Chair Cochran report Cochran said he would appreciate Board members advising the office if they cannot make a meeting so it be known in advance if there will be a quorum present. C. Financial Report, Treasurer Lewman Iiewman submitted the statement of cash transactions for the month ending 7-31-90 and the second quarter financial summary and year-to-date budget progress. The reports were accepted and ordered filed. . , Lewman submitted a list of bills for approval, checks numbered 6303-6310 and 6321 - i404 in the amount of $69,862.08. Hurr questioned the payment to United Marine. Inc. in the amount of $4bU.20 when it is estimated UMI and Mie District iiave not ’^•eached agreement on an estimated $8,000 of v;atiari y work incurred bv (.he District. Reese explained the propc .ed payni' lit is for maintenance parts purchased from UMI. and yuld not bo tied to the warranty satisfaction. The preservation >f a .supplier working relationship is necessary. u*ii Lewman moved, Cochran seconded, payment of the biilr as omitted, copy atta hed. Motion carried, Hurr voting nay. Lewman reported he has taiked to the lonka Bay City Co.incil about the 1991 budget and a»» outstanding $1.0U« paynK*nt on the 1990 budget. The $1,008 payment was approved, but the 1991 budget held over while the city observes other city refiponses. The attitude was positive. 'ITie Executive f irector reported the tund < using li.st of the .Save the Lake and che milfoil list have been coinpared with the ’^st provided by Pro fessional P'und Raising Services 1 he result s 1,535 names for solic' .••• ion. Strominen rc,s tuiined Frank hixa for volunteering his tim« »preparing tlie new list. LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS D. Executive Director, Strommen August 22. 1990 Strommen reported a proposal has been received for office sp.'ico in Deephaverj bub it does not provide for conference space. The search will continue to find suitable space within the 1991 budget. Strommen submitted the shoreline boat count statistics from 1979 through 1990, the 1990 count conducted jointly by Thibault and Melony. Personal watercraft were included in the miscellaneous count for the first time. The Board »*eceived a memo from Strommen relating a Water Patrol commendation from Spring Park Mayor Jerry Rockvam. Strommen reported on his participation in the Hubbard County Coalition of Lake Associations Lake Management Workshop in Park Rapids, August 18, 1990. He observed a growing outstate interest in getting started on lake management plans. Strommen distributed copies of a Sailor newspaper interview with Cochran. E. Water Patrol Report, Sgt. Chandler Chandler commented on his report to the Lake Use Committee on the sinking of the Paradise Princess charter boat. He noted capacity will be given a priority consideration in making inspections and issuing licenses. The boat passengers were unevenly 'Hstributed causing the boat to rapidly take on water unnoticed by the crew. Chandler reported there have been three personal watercraft injuries with serious consequences. 6. Unfinished Business before the Board. There was no unfinished business to come 7. New Business Board. There was no new business to bring before the 8. Adjournment Rascop moved, Foster seconded, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 9 p.m. David Cochran. Chair Jan Boswinkel, Secretary Biters anil Associates.lnc. LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE NEWSLETTER OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS. MN • WAUKESHA. Wl • JAMESTOWN. NO VOLUME 35. NUMBER 3 FILE: Financial Spedalsls: EMers and Asaodalas. Ina Pteaae dsMbuto to govoming body mendwre 6.00% Bond Indexes August 1987 to August 1990 Other than the Near East, the federal budget is the greatest pollticat issue facing our country, interest rates will rise or ’all depending on how the President and Congress resolve this issue. Interest rates are down slightly from last quarter wHh the 30*year U.S. Treasuries yielolrg 8.63% and the BBI (20-year) tax-exempt yields at 7.26%. WHI interest rates go down? In theory. If the government borrows less interest rates should fail. This would require a deficit reduction agreement between the administration and congress. A current proposal is for a combined $64 bliHon in spending cuts and tax increases. Neither side has been specific. Best guess is that a compromise will be reached before October 1, the effective date of Qramm-Rudman. The Federal Reserve likely would ease interest rates to avoid a recession, but not too low since foreign dollars must be attracted to finance the continued U.S. deficit Tax-exempt interest rates overall are still very att'active for municipalities. 8/87 8/88 8/89 8/90 Our recent work with a new client reconfirmed our past position that negotiated Issues cost you more money. In December of 1309 this client negotiated a $1,900,000 general obligation bond Issue with an under.-.riter. Two days before this negotiated Issue. Ehlers and Associates took Bids on a competitively sold general obligation issue of the same size, term and credit, in the two days, there was no change in market conditions. Underwriters claim you can save money by not hiring a financial advisor. The underwriter, however, sets the discount and Interest rates. You decide if its a ‘good’ rate A comparison of the competitive and negotiated sale discount and interest costs for the $1,900,000 bond issue Is as follows: CompaWvt SaIcBMtBid R0I m SalaBKl unovnif iWr A t N«gotatwi SoM&d 1990 S.80%5.90%6.00% 1991 5.80 5.90 6.05 1992 5.95 5.95 6.10 1993 5.95 6.00 6.20 1994 6.00 6.05 6.30 1995 9.05 6.15 640 1996 6.10 6.20 6.50 1997 6.15 6.30 6.60 1998 5JtO 6.35 6.70 1999 6.25 6.40 6.75 Interest 1 $691,520 Discount! $15,200 $704,713 $18,810 $737,743 $38,000 TetsI Cos; | $706,720 $723,523 $775,743 n A.ldittorul C om to luufT ■ Intrmi C om Compotitivf S*lf Uivderwnlpf A » Undorwnt^r A » H p4I lliJ Compptitivf Saif NegoUatrtl S^le Bui Did * This community did not pay for a financial advisor, but the negotiated issue cost this client $69,022 or four times the cost of a financial advisor. Of special note is that the same underwriter of the negotiated sale bid a combination of discount and interest that is $52,220 lower on our competitive sale. We also discovered that the terms under which the bonds were issued were designed more to our client’s advantage in the competitive sale. In any financing, you want to get the lowest cost of money under the best possible terms. The use of an independent financial advisor with a competitive sale is the most cost effective approach. 2950 Nofwest Cenie' • 90 South Seventh Street • Minneapolis MN 5W02 4100 • 612-339-829t • FAX 612-339-08S4 eUDQEtEBEPAHATIQM MAYJHECWWE FJNANCINQ CAPIML ilPBQ qbequipme^^tneeps’ia.’.iq.u* You may have jusl completed next year ’s budaet. Many start out .'Som^^^ over a expenditures. As you fine tune the budget consider financing your capital projects or fqulpme'i’ ®''®^ ® period than one year. This makes sense for major expenditures that will not be repeated next year. Ehlers and Associates can help you look at financing options and impacts, equipment over a longer period than its useful life. Remember; Don't finance the projects or ROBEHTL EHLERS-ON TO NFWOHAUFNQESII Robert EWers decided to embark on a now challenge - the pursuit of a unique approach to the solid waste problom. Bob wilt be devoting his full energy to this new project. Bob started Ehlers and Associates 36 years ago, believing that financial advisors must be o* conflict of Interest and only represent your best interests. He buHt a company that is highly recognized and respected within the munldp^ Industry. The company pioneered custom computer software for client problems and is known for Its TOmplete official statements that fully disclose all financial information. In 1985 Bob sold the company to Its employees and since then has been working on special projects for the company. His hard work, dedication ar>d high standards were Instrumental in making Ehlers and Associates "leaders In public finance'. \^e all wish Bob the best on his new adventure. EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven F. Apf President ~ ^ i» ^ mnmmn lllflilssllll iilMlillilSI jiiiii< imm PfHiiiiiiiii fs»mi »si m «<nl«ilffl;;lfll9liliiijfl,.ffl3«,f it: ii 5IM5S?55S8SSS55S5SSSiE5HSJ£S5SSEI6SS;;5 S! |i^HIIMt»HllilHiHHilllllin!S|||iS n — pC— ft* -— mr« ;;3555: m liliiiiini! iiyiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiyy^iiiiyiHiiin! it 1 i>iil ffsil «1111 1 1 a a u 1 s 51 ■« a 1 1 .=.111 1 i 41« 1 IH ??!?? 5!?? nttt 0^ m, ^ m.???ssssss r. d d il ??!!5 5SS2SM « « f. « f.!5 ?:!mm ?5S!5!!i tmn aS m M t£ir Mi {iiii 1 ililili 11 1 1 II m 1 m iiyi 1 Milt im MiM• d d 1 MiMM ^ m d d d h i Md d iiilMl _• «• b b i £ itiiM Miiil I 1 !i!l,iml-lll e d e o o d d d o d ? ? 5 s S £ £ S £ i ill Ulms 3333 fill If 1Mi! -tmmil itzii iim lilii jjij « iinji llillil 3333333 11111!! ! Il i\u Hri i f -.i i i s ] I iinyiijyiills JiiP*'!! illn ? * il zi 11 ii llllili o o b o • , V *9 *»%»** ^ \* *9mnn SssisiS •4lliffIi5i5sij]lliyi 1 5 1 •lull ' Ifimyjyji 3 :.s3ij;'*y35333 I ;f?ni 5????? I lUlU liisii = 1 It HI Zf I f f I 4 H 3Z 4 < I <33 IiZI 2SS22222SSSSS 5SSH Sg gggggS25gE?» ^ ^ ^ ^ „• «: »: -• ►• ^ ^■ S gsg gsss S Sg385SSgSe§gg 3SHS U 8HSSgSSS«Sg§ « « «• «0 « i Hi SEH s « ^ ^ im « hlliiliilli (Mil a nHitiMEM? M H PM ! Ill llll 1 mi 1! ^nmmi ? mi mm i II 5 : a rll 1lllillll jllll Ij {III u\ 111 i M ^ii' i Esililjfsni islU fissp^l \l ..nil n iiji 1 " -•] iiIIIIkiI ill Irl 2 S2S 5hl-5iliil• ^ • s « s lllliniii iijll If llliiniiiilss<<<<si<8 ttita tt <<«S£SSSS££S ! M? llll I= ....S Si< ssss s !■r |jif I if IMiH ! is i i,,i ... =• fss.f: s I! iiiiiiiiiimiitiiiiii Hiimii! Si * i j r :: i-KJi i! lil i i z J •i.ii.iiiilf i.dt.s iii. i i II1 • I. . . > i ]i . }. . . i li 111 ii limit H9{l!5S9!2iiEEil|£ES! SiSE SESEEiS '««««•«•> «•«« «««««»••S 5 E5SS5HSS5EE5I55SSI? PM ? ? M Mf IM Mllllllllllllllllfll IIH llllllf !!!!!!!!?!!.!!?{!!**I I ifiiiiiiisiiiiiMiii iiiiiiiiiiiiimiH im i^iiu V _• _• ri >• _•_• V .• ^ _• ^ _• .! 111!!!! |l^ . Ii m1 liiliiiilili! iiiiii 3 3 2222S2S522252222l25^222S 2222222 I mimmuumm ► JJ ^ - r. « _• _• I i|. k I ii! * 1 Ir iilOP illI i ^ >JIfErilnli i]A ||jl5|UL,E £££S£S£SSSsi£S£S£S£S i!I 5UU\ iliil tin. ^ 5 •* iH)linmiillil}||l I si ■‘1 r ^"Wi cm COfNClL Robert D. Gisvold Ma>or Robert P. Ambrose Richard C. Harmon F. Peter Herfunh Gregors D. R>e Allan Orsen City Manager SEP I 7 CITY OF WAYZATA bOO RIC E STREET. WAVZATA. MINN. 55391 PHONE 473-0234 1990 MEMO TO: City Managers, Adminxstiators, Clerks The enclosed letter has been mailed directly to your Mayor Please forward copies to your Council Members. Thank you. 'm an auM IL Rob«n O. liitxold Mayor Robert P Ambroxe Richard C. Harmon F. Peter Her fun h Gregory D. Rye CITY OF WAYZATA h(H) KK t Sl Kl I r. MINN 5<?VI I’MONI 4-.V0:?4 Allan Or sen City Manager TO: Mayors, City Council Members and Managers Lake Minnetonka Communities RE: LMCD Plan DATE: September 14, 1990 Ladies and Gentlemen: The City of Wayzata has been monitoring and participating in a review of the LMCD Management Plan. Since release of the draft, we have been concerned about several areas, including^ 1. The Shoreland Management Plan and the lack of adequate information and guidelines. 2. The proposed expansic of LMCD staff and the role the staff intends to play in Shoreland Management; and 3. The related increases in costs to implement the Plan. We are troubled by the lack of responsiveness on the part of the LMCD to the concerns expressed. The rush for plan adoption seems unwarranted. We are aware that other Lake Minnetonka communities have similar concerns. As a result, we are suggesting that you withhold support for the present draft of the Plan and not endorse Its adoption at the September 26th LMCD Board meeting. Moreover, if there is a shared concern on the part of a majority of affected communities and the LMCD persists in its present course, the City of Wayzata is proposing to host a 'v.;--;;-:i| \/ ^M ♦8 ♦8 8 n 8 0>8 < - 2 U «K> CM «0 8 B Z N »K M CM «" 5 hi ^ ..~ £ Ml ^ <01 8 a 0>8 t^“2 2 U “ ^jjFtK-fi ♦2 2 1“^ 1 8 u ~♦ CM T m CM CM 2»S"SJjp r-CMCM 4 m ^ 52 CM O 1 ♦CM 8 ^f5 3J3 ------- Srr"8 ac 7 o>-8_k •f> 2 ^f e -1 ♦•* 2 8 ®'i N s ^-B «AL18b V't • ' t V s il f • -B 01 B ?n 2 1 1 s £2 M |Of =2 A f.=>r 2 1 =2 If- a “'ll 1 2 1 M C ^ V 3fliN3AV 3iNIV^a 1 '1 1 J ____-------------1-------— _ . ■mm f'x \ ... mwmrn » mm: 'i:- y-:'* i-v V...- V ■-: .-1^ '// LEGAL 0C8CMPTI0N Tlut Mft of tho Horttwoot Qiurtor of (Kt Nerthooat Quortor of toecton ». Teirnthl|» 117. ioac* 23. Host of th« 5th 7rlaclp«l HorldUn 4oMrlboi u foUoos: CooMKlng at tht Merthwoat eoroor of tho Nerthoait Ouarttr of OCCIOR hi thoiict toot aloot tho aertharly llaa of ttU faaC CO cha point of boflion 6 a dltCanca of 51* faaC to Cha point of boflnnlac of lai . j daacrlbod; thonca dafUetinf to tha right 117 dagraaa 30 otmitaa a dlatanca of 509 Coat to Cha cantarllna of County Ooad ho. 94; chanea daflacC late aloog aald cantarllna a dlatanca of 180.00 faaC: thonca daflaet laft 81 dagraaa 19 nlmitaa a dlatanc of 882.11 foot to a point on Cha north Una of aald Stetion 8 dlatanc 218.55 faaC tact of Cha point of hogtnnliqt; chanea oaoc along aald north Una a dlatanca of 218.55 foot to cha point of haglonlng. y^oT 1. "y I:block 'ifi .90 ' I ! ! i \ Souchaaac Ooartar of Sactlon : Quartar of tha Souttwaot Ouar 31. Townahlp 118, tango 21. thc south l^nc or thc scim OF see. a,TiH.«2S —- THC N9C cat or tit \/4 OF *C « — <46,84'' : / \' h S, % I ■ Wi I'.v ' , ■ ■ • ■'; -i , > , PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BAYSIDE WOODS scale «n feet OWNER-DEVELOPER BALKHAPP 13809 MDUSTMAL PARK BLVD. PLYMOUTK MN 55441 AREA LOT 1 BLOCK 1 3.3 AC AREA LOT 1 BLOCK 2 ao AC AREA LOT 1 BLOCK 3 Z7 AC TOTAL AREA a 17.( I haraby cartify that this survay oas praparod by ma or undar my supervision and titat I am a duly ragistered i SUtu' ,, _ J surveyor under Minnesota jtulas^ Section 328.03 to 326.18. ^ Registration No. Data f ZZ REV 9/7/90 hCM HtV e /15/90 J^A Rtv jmA Rtv 11/7/as JWA l'|“P Hansen Thorp JUj -1 Pellinen Olson Inc. DHM PAT 14'I 9 ZZ S9 1 ^ ' Conaultina Enginoor* 4 Land Survoyert 756S Olllco Ridgo Ctrelo Etton Pratrlo, MN SS344-3644 (ei 21129 0700 4 ^4 o B9 - 1 • ' ■0/ IS - mm :mm :i :'■ # '»• f ' ■■ 0 ‘ ■ i-^ ^ m ‘7* •:7; t V . 'i ■• ; #--r rr-^ ^ ^ ^/¥70 ''29' WIDE PRIVATE BITUMINOUS ROAO WTH eiTUMINOJS CURB SITE LOCATION iOO 200 300 SCALE IN FEET m tt BAYSiDE WOODS REV 9/7/90 MOM REV a /6/90 JWA ‘ \t 'll”? Hansen Thorp ^ -I Pellinen Olson Inc. 9 ' Coneultlng En9{ne«fs * Lend Surveyors 7M5 Office Rtdge Circle Eden Prelrte, MN 55344-3644 (612)629-0700 Shoot 2 of 2 Shoots tSs: :mm: 0 ** “i- v.i-;- .id ^^^«WAVS of Lot 21 ,• SHADY-WOOD Hennepin County, Minnesota tzo.oo' J*p •“>!."« V *1^ "J" V..____Ai L^l ''•X M 5 if \ ■2v 1 • * • # 0^<*w«y, I ji»iL_(i\nj, LjiH/J* MINiG IREDGING. TREE REMOVAL Or ’. any KJND o® ^ SHORELINEWITHl\^ FT OP ANY WETLAMns Vv 7J.80* oiSS \ 6^* •, '.:i 7&JsrrN& _ lot area « 15474 sf > |i‘i Ny -\k 59.43* 31.43 ’ /9.>5 ‘ 245.30* 5A3-rf'T5P=- 22 75* tD 250' area^ 9774 sf Ireby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of . the boundaries jot 21, SHADY-V/OOD, the location of all existing buildings, if any, thereon, and the proposed jtion of a proposed building. It does not purport to show any other improvement or encroach- Is.. : 1 inch » 2/=> 4^ feet COFFIN A GRONBERG, INC. yl mfi.«c.4v « r _ ■ v ’.v: • ‘ ’ ■■ ■' .* - V . \jMjAtJC.g.iiMW foA Ti^ e^ rm. '-» . . . . . • I njtfT* •’ at€tf '-«4mW'/* »*5» “ ■* "4 • • ;'•. ■’■•■ • ^ - --^ • .- it #:::| '' ^ ' ■■■; • WAY2ATA PUftLIC UTILITIES BL06. SKTTCff ® -..v ^ '::. . i-* -.i «■ Ki i-A...' *■■ r-. W§^ <.r wjf.:. • . r .■>-^^ •• ■ / *■ " -■:t& I -:r^&iII; ■f- \ v\ '-If*, . • KS^IfelWaiifes^iwwapi S: jZ-yfe... /-3 9/i^y/9o ^ ■ <# m- m ' • p. ,.,-■ » : ^ |p*f .a*. J V ‘ • ♦ • M- . r-*' 1:.SSSSSggf' '.1 v:.,** ,. V, .y:.:;;:::^W' la 0$-Mf mi WAREA F-!^ m EXMNMONAHEA OU> CRYSTAL BAY ROAD : ■• ‘ if ! , 222 NORTH SECOND STREET MNNEAROUS. IRNNESOTA 3S40I (B12)S3M7S2 ORONO MUMCPAL FACUTES SITE PLAN 1 PROPOSAL -IB ■■:'■■ -• [ryim ' ■ ; ■ / - ^ it ' >'::•••W. ■ i -4 O' mIBi ¥ V »-j’- ■ -;35*S mmrn ih- ■■ l;fc :iS» my,mmxm. fl. '» 'll ^4il pr ■ ■;V m «r, ■ m,-' 'IM ' €. { . ;.| ■:w m ,-■ ■ , ■ .■ '-‘i . ■ ‘ \ ■ ■ ' '■" 4 : :m /.S'/;- ^^//# '■ ■ r . ■ ■/:• 'V n ■liM-- ■ ■ r«i:Tt: t V- - .'-' .• . ■' ■ • " • h ' ■ •fc- m '■ - _ ‘ •: . '. ^. .M / *■ * \ V ^'' ' . / '*^-- >//#