Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-24-1989 Council PacketPUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO ffl^tlKlClU-I I K&Wh MEETING DATE ^ PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 1.3 /&> /cf n fR>Ahc (3c •'^/y 2.^ yj tf V '' 3.^ ^ r,r^/l £ SJ* ^^S'OO i^/( Au<^oV. yy^s 3Z1. P^:r\/CT3A t /(/ -vrU 7 5.''1^^s'^c)/' <„^^i Z2-. -.r i'ii.btu fr/jw)iw>7i! / / n n " 7^V p ,'^qr^'SVA«..0. 8. ^/9//•nr <\ ^<J f(j C^C. l*.-^ -'V-r C"0~^ 7? 9.C/inao T^orrr^- <i./f)fy’jijUcf^AiU ^bio 'X4jjiA/ujA/\ r!Pa 4n L /fL (kb k*'-/^?0 lk-‘ / '} b/^hL u>L>.^ xrfho.r,.,^ £ M^i’elh\Si A^7)<V cT f\c4 4hh<y4MC H 136 S A • ^ AiiFfU^/^?JO J///V, r'i 3f:ti Pe.^1 .yP-'n /?P} ii-)'5PKif ‘^/iiU. |?b /^fo //TT'/SX<i lUbO ^kjiluk^rP'(KJ bn . .8 .9.!I)/)-y ' iSt:V A'r^6*71 5/V\M(.i.r' fV^‘1 4*. 1310 ..AA,t ^ 7(?7(3) (j O/^J l <{ PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE PLEASE FILL OUT THE I'lFORI-lATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1989, 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 bo obtained upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT AGENDA* 2. Presentation - Resolution of Appreciation Hennepin County - Resolution of Appreciation Hardrives Inc. APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 3. Regular Meeting of April 10, 1989 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT - JoEllen Hurr Rep. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 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 resolution copies. 4. #990 Ward Ferrell, 3411 Watertown Road - Variances 5. #1261 Joe Rauschendorfer, 3895 Shoreline Drive - Variances 6. #1302 Crystal Bay Road - Conditional Use Permit - Variance - Resolution * 7. #1353 John Fiebelkorn, 2730 Shadywood Road - Resolution of Denial 8. #1368 Tom McNellis, 315-355 Woodhill Road - Subdivision - Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution * 9. #1376 Dale/Chris Palm, 1710 Shadywood Road - Resolution of Denial 10. #1393 Washington Scientific Inc., 2605 Wayzata Boulevard - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 11. #1380 George Partridge, 625 Spring Hill Road - Vacation • Resolution 12. #1390 US West Communication, 2845 Wear Circle - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 13. Dale Pfeilsticker, 1830 Lakeview Terrace - Home Occupation License 14. Planned Development Ordinance ENGINEER'S REPORT 15. Livingston Avenue Drainage - Feasibility Study 16. Highway 12 - Feasibility Study MAYOR'S REPORT 17. Planning Commission Appointraents/Chair - Vice Chair * 18. Planning Commission/Council Joint Meeting AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1989, 7:00 P.M. Beautification CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 19. Removal of Waterfowl 20. Westonka/County Road 15 21. Facility Site Analysis 22. Police Supervisory Structure 23. Septic License - Ingleside Engineering - Recommendation of Denial 24. Navarre Redevelopment 25. 1989 Police Settlement 26. 1989 Salary Adjustment Resolution * 27. Abandoned - Surplus Items for Auction * 28. Insurance Agent of Record Agreement ♦ 29. Fee Ordinc.ice Amendment - Double Fee ♦ 30. 1989 Golf Course Fees - Ordinance Amendment * 31. Resolution of Appreciation - County Road 15 ♦ 32. Administrator's Information County 15/Grand Opening - May 6, 1989 Highway 12 Task Force Recycling Results Solid Waste Management Property Tax Brochure CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 33. Ordinance Amendment 2.05 (Discussion) LICENSES (34*) BILLS (35*) ADJOURNMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, Aoril 26, 1989 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19) 7x00 pm PUBLIC HEARING: Minnetonka Boat Works (Wayzata) Var^'ance to permit new per­ manent dockage in the 100-200' dock-use-area 7:30 pm REGULAR MEETING, Bourd of Directors: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Reading of Minutes: approval of 3/29/89 meeting minutes 4. Public Connents - from persons in attendance not on agend.-i 3. Reports A. Chair Hurr 1) Swearing-in of new Board member Tom Martinson, City of Wayzata 2) Public hearing request for Minnetonka Yacht Club Special Density Permit and new dock license, 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 24, 1989 3) Additional Board Chair communications B. Treasurer/Finance 1) Financial condition through 3/31/89 2) Audit of vouchers for payment 3) Annual audit - authorization to engage DuWayne L. Schibilla & Associates C. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Cochran a) Approval of 4/8/89 minutes as mailed b) Special Density Permit and new dock license application, Minnetonka Boat Works, Orono, recommending approval to increase BSU from 41 to 47 on Brown's Bay, and from 25 to 67 on Tanager Lake c) Special Density Permit and new dock license, St. Alban's Bay Marina & Yacht Club, recomiaending approval per plan of 3/18/89 for 84 slips subject to four conditions per minutes of 4/8/89 d) St. Alban's Bay Marina A Yacht Club Environmental Assessment Work Sheet, recommending the EAW as not required because the applicant is not expanding its dock use area e) Multiple Dock Temporary Extension Permit requests, recommending ap­ proval for: * Forest Arms Country Club Addition Homeowners Association, Orono * Roger Wlkner, Wayzata * A1 & Alma's Supper Club, Mound (applicant subsequently expecting to require possibly 20' more) (over) LAKEMINNETONK LMCD Board Agenda w 5. C. 2) * Cedarhurat AaaoclatiotL. Deephaven. te 1\' tot APR 2 41989 April 26, 1989 i^rary swlnun.lng dock and mooring site increase from 3 to 5 buoys * Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Woodland, leconsideration of table action by committee based upon re-submission of mooring permit and dock plan » Boulder Bridge Farm, Inc., Shorewood, increasing from 6 to 8 the number of BSU being moved from the lagoon to the main Lake f) Deicing permit deposit refunds as detailed in vouchers-to-be-paid summary, recommending approval for payment ENVIRONMENT, EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Reese a) Contract service bid award, Eurasian Water Milfoil harvesting b) Financial summary, fund raising c) Task Force informational highlights LAKE USE, Chair Pillsbury a) Approval of minutes, meeting of 4/17/89 b) Temporary multiple dock extension, Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata, recommending approval for extension of 9 slips to 238' utilizing per­ manent piling construction due to deep and turbulent waters for a designated time of five years Water Patrol report - informational Minnehaha Creek Watershed District proposed dredging amendments and new Rule K requiring licensing of dredging contractors, recommending support for the dredging amendments, and new Rule E (dredging) Special Event Permit, new event, recommending approval of Don Shelby U.S. Invitational Bass Tournament, 9/29 to 10/1/89 Boat lift relocation during low water emergency, recommending Lakeward extension subject to Water Patrol criteria for buoys with reflective markings on all sides and not a hazard to navigation Liquor license renewals, recommending temporary license pending review of renewal applications by Hennepin County Sheriff and municipal law enforcement agencies c ) d) e) g) 6. 4) ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Reese, Consultant Arndorfer a) Subcommittee progress b) Maintenance of "deliverables" per critical path calendar c) Additional business 5) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT a) Administrative progress b) Priority meetings, exchanges Unfinished Business A. Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club/RDP Partners, Findings and Order 7. New Business 8. Adjournment 4-21-89 ■? MIHUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 10, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, CounciImembers Goetten, Nettles, and Callahan. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Police Chief Kilbo, City Engineer Cook, City Attorney Barrett, and City Recorder Scheffler. PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:02 P.M. YEAR XV C.D.B.G. The Affidavit of Publication and Notice of Public Hearing were duly noted. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that annually, the City is given a specific amount of money from Community Development Block Grant funds. The City must use these funds for select purposes and will use $14,476 for Highway 12 Corridor Study, $8,500 for rehabilitation of private property and $1,000 for Westonka Intervention. The purpose of this public hearing is to receive public input as to adjusting the amounts allocated to each of these categories. There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. There were no comment ■ on behalf of the Council. CONSENT AGENDA* CounciImember Nettles requested the removal of Consent Item #3; Councilmerober Goetten requested removal of items #23 and #30. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items #3, #23, and #30, which were removed and discussed in the order they appear on the agenda. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Representative, Ed Brown, was present, but had no comments at this time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* CounciImember Nettles requested a correction to page 5 of the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of March 27, 1989. The correction pertained to the setbacks in his motion for Zoning Application #1366, Loren Butterfield. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to approve the Minutes of the March 27, 1989 Regular Council Meeting as corrected. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 10, 1989 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public coininents, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT: #1374 PRBSHNATER POUNDATION 2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2611 Mr. Marty Jessen, President of the Freshwater Foundation, wa present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this was a request for a lot line rearrangement which was previously approved by the Orono City Council in 1975. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Council that the subdivision would divide the parcel so that the land containing the Freshwater Foundation buildings would be one parcel and the wetlands would become another. The wetlands parcel would be combined with wetlands to the north owned by Mr. E. W. Blanch. Mr. lessen clarified that all of the land surrounding the buildings was acquired by Mr. Blanch. Mr. Blanch has given back to the Foundation a right of refusal on a stipulated length of time. The subdivision would create a 5 acre parcel, cn which the Institute is situated, so that it may be conveyed to the University of Minnesota. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Councilmembr Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2611, approving the Registered Land Survey for the Freshwater Fo^'ndation, subject to the conditions set forth therein. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1376 DALE/CHRIS PALM 1710 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE Chris Palm was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that there was a long history involved with this application. It was originally considered in 1986 by the Council for an addition to the primary structure. At that time, variances were granted, but in order to maintain hardcover percentages, a detached garage was to be removed. The Palms had asked the Council to reconsider removal of the garage and the Council denied that request, but granted an extension of time in which to comply. The Palms have submitted a revised plan, removing alternate hardcover so that the detached garage may remain. However, the proposal does not decrease the hardcover to the required percentage. At their March 20, 1989 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised proposal and recommended denial . Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron MIKOTBS OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 10 ^ 1989 ZONING FILE #1376-PALM CONTINUED explained that the hardcover in the original application was approved to be 29% in the 75-250* zone and 17,5% in the 0-75* zone. Cu.-rently there is 44.4% in the 75-250* zone and 18.1% in the 0-75* zone. The Palms are proposing to remove the gravel driveway from in front of the attached garage and use that garage for storage only. This .fould leave hardcover ir the 75-250* zone at 32.2% and 18.1% in the 0-75* zone which is 1.5% over the approved hardcover for that are^. This difference is due to the hric underlying landscapir was existing but not included . A the original request. Tl. ^ricrease in hardcover in the 75- 2ii6* zone from 29% to 32% results from retaining the detached garage and apron and eliminating the gravel driveway. Ms. Palm addressed the Council and said that she had not fully understood what the original Resolution required them to do. She said that she had been encouraged by all but one neighbor to pursue this matter and felt she had a legitimate request. She said there was a real need for storage and a barrier to shield their house from County Road 19. She informed the Council that after they had signed the Resolution and obtained the building permit, they realized that the garage must be removed. She said that they had several bids from people to remove the garage, but they could find no other place to store rhe items in it. She added that initially the rock and fabric extended all the way around the house but went undetected because it was hidden under snow and vegetation. She said that she would not have pursued this matter had it not been for the encouragement she received from the City Staff. City Administrator Bernhardson clarified that staff did not encourage the Palms to pursue this matter, but did explain their options if they wished to retain the garage. He added that the staff had indicated to the Palms that their revised proposal probably would not receive Council approval. CounciImember Callahan asked Ms. Palm when she first discovered that the City was requesting the removal of the garage? Ms. Palm replied that it was discovered when they signed the Resolution in May, 1986. She said that once she realized that the City was serious about having the garage removed, they tried to comply. CounciImember Goetten asked what the hardcover percentages were prior to the Palm*s adding onto the house. Gaffron replied that there was 27.2% in the 75-250* zone and 17.5% in the 0-75* zone. Those percentages did not include any existing rock or fabric underlying. Once the addition was completed, the hardcover was supposed to be 17.5% in the 0-75* zone and 29% in the 75-250* zone. CounciImember Goetten told Ms. Palm that it was her understanding that the Palms were securing a 2-car attached garage with the intent that a non-conforming detached garage would be removed. Goetten felt that the Palms had drawn this MINUTBS OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL I'J, ?989 ZONING FILE #1376-PALM CONTINUED matter out as long as possible and had been able to achieve an additional 3 year's use out of the detached garage. Goetten said that the Council always tried to do their best to compromise with property owners seeking variances. She said that lakeshore property was a bit more difficult to deal with. Goetten said that removing the garage was part of the compromise and she could see no hardship for allowing the garage to remain. She said that the Resolution clearly stated what needed to be done. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to conceptually deny the variance for the detached garage and request staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for denial. CounciImember Goetten asked that a specific deadline be determined as to when the garage and remaining ^rdcover must be removed. It was agreed by the Council and staff that 90 days would be an appropriate time frame. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays=0, Motion passed. #31383 LILLIAN BONANDER 3200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2612 Lillian Bonander was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained, Mrs. Bonander was seeking an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in order to reconstruct a deck. Even though the deck will extend 7' beyond the average lakeshore setback line, it will not have any negative impact on adjacent property owners. Zoning Administrator Mabusth informed the Council that the new deck will meet the 10' side setback, the old deck did not. Mayor Grabek questioned whether there had been any concerns expressed by Mrs. Bonander's neighbors? Mabusth replied that che only communication received from neighbors was positive and encouraged the project to eliminate what had become an eyesore. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2612, approving the average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance requested by Mrs. Lillian Bonander. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1385 BIG ISLAND BOARD OF GOVERNORS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2613 Mr Larry Sharpe was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that this matter Involved a request for a continuation of a conditional use permit previously approved, with the addition of allowing 30 overnight camp sites. One issue of this current review is whether the latrine facilities within the South Hall Lavatory will be sufficient to handle 30 camp site users. The mdjor question MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 10, 1989 ZONING PILE #1385-BIG ISLAND CONTINUED for the present applicant involves the capacity of the current septic systems to serve the more intensified use. Mr. Sharpe had no questions concerning the application, but informed the Council that Alan Wisdorf was now the Chairman of the Board of Governors. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2613, approving the conditional use permit required for proposed overnight camping. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1386 CLIFFORD OTTEN OUTLOT A, RINGERSWOOD REZONING Mr. Clifford Otten was present for this matter, as was Mr. Robert LaFavor. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Mr. Otten was requesting the rezoning of Outlot A, Ringerswood. Mr. Otten's original application asked that his proposed garden center be zoned B-1. The property is located within the Highway 12 Corridor and the B-1 zoning was not recommended for the Highway 12 area. A B-6 zoning would be compatible with Highway 12 Corridor zoning, however, it does not list a garden center as a permitted use. The Planned Development Ordinance would be the most appropriate zoning for Mr. Otten's intended use. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of the B-1 rezoning and that Mr. Otten apply for rezoning under the Planned Development Ordinance. Bernhardson noted out the process for obtaining B-1 zoning would be more lengthy than that required for the Planned Development zoning. Mr. LaFavor showed the Council the plan intended for the garden center/landscape services operation. Mr. Otten said that if the Council felt that the garden center was an acceptable use for the Highway 12 Corridor, he would be agreeable to a PUD with a B-6 underlying. He said that he would have difficulty dealing with a mortgage company if the PUD had an underlying residential use. Mayor Grabek questioned whether there would be any problem that staff could foresee with Mr. Otten's zoning proposal? Bernhardson replied that the garden center would actually be a mixed use and should the B-6 zoning be used, it would allow for more intensified retail business in the future. The PUD would offer more control over any other use should Mr. Otten ever sell the garden center. Councilmember Goetten observed that the Planned Development Ordinance was scheduled for action at the next council meeting and questioned whether Mr. Otten could wait 2 more weeks. She concurred with Bernhardson about the need to control future uses MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 10, 1989 ZONING FILE #1386-OTTEH CONTINUED of Outlet A. Mayor Grabek asked Mr, Otten what his desired time frame was for this project. Mr. Otten replied that he would like to have the zoning completed so that all outside construction could be completed this year and he would be ready to move into the new location by Spring, 1990. Mayor Grabek asked him if he i:ad any objections to waiting for the Planned Development Ordinance. Bernhardson interjected that if the Planned Development Ordinance was approved within the next 2 weeks, Mr. Otten could then bring his proposal under the PUD before the Planning Commission and be underway shortly. Mayor Grabek expressed his concern over the light industrial use, i.e. trucks, backhoes» etc., that would be required for the landscaping aspect of the garden center. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that there would be conditions set forth as to the use and storage of such equipment. Mr. Otten brought forth the issue of the proposed accesses off of Highway 12 and Willow Drive. He said that the access off of Willow would only be temporary until such time that the proposed service road had a designated connector. An outlot would be designated specifically for the service road. He preferred that the access off of Highway 12 be permanent. CounciImember Goetten said that s’ e would not object to a temporary access off of Highway 12 provided that the Department of Transportation agreed. She believed that the proposed service road would be a more suitable permanent access when constructed. Mr. Otten stated that the DOT had indicated they would follov the wishes of the City. He pointed out the fact that the Highway 12 access would allow traffic to exit before the busy intersection at Willow Drive and Highway 12. Mr. Otten said that another exprv>ssed concern had to do viih a l^w area that was appearing on the various surveys or t’le property. Mr. Otten said that the low area did not exist any longer. Mabusth added that there would be further investigation into this, and that currently there is a conservation and flowage easement over that area. CounciImember Callahan opined that the configuration for the proposed service road in relation to Dickey Lake Drive, was poor planning. Mr. Otten stated that his original plan configured the proposed service road so that it joined Dickey Lake Drive. Mabusth stated that the residents of Dickey Lake Drive did not want their private road being used commercially and that this position appeared consistent with Planning Commission and Council members throughout the amendment process. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission and that the City move expeditiously to complete the process for putting the Planned Development Ordinance into use. Motion, MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 10, 1989 ZONING FILE #1386-OTTEN CONTINUED Ayes»4, Nays-C, Motion passed. #1387 MARGARET ROSSING 130 CYGNET PLACE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2614 Mrs. Rossing was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson briefly explained the history of this application. Application #1387 was for an after-the-fact rear setback variance for a deck. Staff had estimated that the pre-existing deck had been 14* from the rear lot line. However a building permit was never issued for that deck. The Planning Commission had recommended that Mrs. Rossing remove the portion of the existing deck that encroached beyond 14* into the rear setback. Mrs. Rossing expressed her belief that the old deck was built at the same time as the house. CounciImember Goetten said that she had visited Mrs. Rossing's property and that she could not foresee anybody building close to Mrs. Rossing's lot line. She disagreed with asking Mrs. Rossing to cut off 2*8** from her deck, especially since this was not lakeshore property. Planning Commission Representative Brown indicated that the Planning Commission did not want the new deck extending beyond the old deck. He said that they understood the location of the pre-existing deck to more of a definite figure, not an estimation. CounciImember Callahan reminded the Council that the reason the City was unaware of the location of t n» pre-existing deck was because the applicant cid not apply for a building permit. Callahan mentioned th fact that Mrs. Rossing was not being fined, in the form of ?. ouble fee, for building with no permit. In his opinion, it was bad policy to double fee contractors, but not residents when they are found to be working with no permit. CounciImember Goetten concurred. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that it was the policy of a previous Council not to double fee residents. Bernhardson suggested that the policy could be revised to include residents and if the City wished to waive the double fee, it could do so. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adopt Resolution #2614, approving the raar setback variance for the construction of a deck. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 10, 1989 #1353 JOHN PIEBELKORN 2730 SHADYWOOD ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE Mr. Fiebelkorn was present for this matter as was Mr. Anderson, the Fiebelkorn*s Landscape Architect. Tad City Administrator Bernhardson gave a brief synopsis of the Fiebelkorn application for after-the-fact variances for a pool and spa. The Fiebelkorns were now proposing to do a lot line rearrangement and were asking that the spa and equipment shed be allowed to remain. Mr. Fiebelkorn addressed the Council and informed them that the pool had been removed. He said that the paper work for the lot line rearrangement was pending on the approval from the Council to allow the equipment shed to remain. He pointed out that the lot line rearrangement would provide him with enough property to bring the equipment shed into compliance with the 10' side setback. He would be willing to remove 480 s.f. of hardcover from the driveway to try to offset the spa. He said that the driveway removal and lot line rearrangement would result in a net decrease in hardcover on the property. Mayor Grabek asked whether the concrete patio had existed prior to the pool installation. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that most of it existed prior to the project. Mr. Anderson interjected that the spa is currently in the ground, and there is no patio surrounding it at this time. The Fiebelkorns are requesting that a small patio be allowed to surround the spa for additional sitting room. Mayor Grabek recalled previous after-the-fact applications for similar structures located in the 0-75* zone which were not approved and had to be removed. CounciImember Callahan did not believe that the lot line rearrangement would lessen the impact on Lake Minnetonka. He was not in favor of allowing the spa to remain. Councilmember Nettles said that he had reviewed previous Council meeting minutes and that the Council had told Mr. Fiebelkorn that they would not be inclined to allow the spa to remain. Councilmember Goetten said that allowing the spa to remain would be precedent setting. The Council was strict about not allowing new construction to occur within the 0-75* setback zone. She said that she had not changed her position and would not approve the spa to remain. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to conceptually deny the request to allow the spa and equipment to remain in place and direct staff to draft the appropriate denial resolution to bring back to the next meeting. The equipment shed must be removed unless a subdivision MINUTES OF . dE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 10, 1989 ZONING PILE #1353-PIEBBLKORN CONTINUED application is submitted and approved within six months. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays=0, Motion passed. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE City Administrator Bernhardson explained that he was presenting a revision to the original draft that would limit the use of the Planned Development Ordinance strictly to the Highway 12 Corridor. Under the category of special requirements, limitations could be placed on a conventional zoning application that would require the applicant to meet all standards. There is also the need to get a clarification on the term "drive-thru" businesses. The main issue yet to be resolved i* how to address standards and reference existing zoning. Bernhardson said that he had been working with the City Attorney regarding this matter. It was his recommendation that the Planned Development Ordinance language reference each of the individual zones. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to give conceptual approval to the adoption of the Planned Development Ordinance, limiting it to the Highway 12 Corridor, and request that staff bring forth the language necessary to finalize the adoption. CounciImember Goetten expressed her concern regarding the "drive-thru" aspect of the B- 6 zoning, and questioned what "restaurant one" would refer to. She did not want to see a drive-in restaurant in that area. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays»0, Motion passed. ENGINEER'S REPORT None MAYOR'S REPORT: PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIBWS/APPOINTMENT Mr. Stephen Johnston and Mr. John B. Thiessc, candidates for the Planning Commission terms that expired March 31, 1989, were present and briefly addressed the Council. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to accept Stephen Johnston and John Thiesse as candidates and table this item until the April 24, 1989 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEKTTNG It was agreed that in addition to July 29th, there would be a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission on Thursday, May 4th. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to select 5/4/89 as the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council and that CounclImembers communicate desired topics to staff prior to the Council's April 24, 1989 meeting so that the agenda for the joint meeting can be adopted by Council. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays-0, Motion passed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 10, 1989 LAKE MINNETONKA MANAGEMENT PLAN-SUBCOMMITTEE SOLICITATION CounciImember Goetten expressed her interest in serving on the Lake Access committee. CounciImember Nettles wished to participate on the Lake Use committee. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImembt. Callahan, to appoint J. Diann Goetten and Alan Nettles to the LMCD Management Plan on the Lake Access and Lake Use Committees respectively. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays=0, Motion passed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: COUNTY ROAT 51 PARKING City Administrator remin'^ed the Council they had requested information pertaining to the recourse the DNR may undertake should parking along County Road 51 be eliminated. Bernhardson and David Singer had met with a DNR representative and were told that the DNR would not seek a remedy to the loss of parking immediately, but may do so 5 to 10 years from now. They would either look for additional parking elsewhere and/or an additional access. The current funding level the DNR has would not allow them to do much at this time. Bernhardson surmised that with political pressures from various sport/fishing groups the DNR may come up with funding. David Singer questioned the use of tax forfeited land. Bernhardson clarified that the DNR had been looking at low lying tax forfeited property in 1985. However, at that time, the park in Minnetrista became an issue and nothing further was done. Since that time, one of the parcels has been purchased and built upon. Mayor Grabek asked Chief Kilbo whether in his opinion, there was a safety problem along County Road 51. Chief Kilbo replied that there was indeed a safety hazard, mainly with children crossing the road. Bernhardson reported that he had received a phone call from Maybeth Christensen who expressed her concerns that removal of parking along the Road would create a parking shortage for residents and visitors. She was also concerned about any future actions that may be taken by the DNR to secure additional parking. CounciImember Goetten echoed the concerns of Mrs. Christensen, however, but she also wanted to try to rectify the safety concerns brought forth by Mr. Singer. She suggested that it may be best to address the safety issue using option B, widening the shoulder and p’lov.^'ding a double striped fog line, or option D. Bernhardson r.entioi.ed the fact that widening the shoulder may not be possible because it would increase hardcover in the lakeshore area. He added that a speed survey would be done once the MWCC sewer project was completed. Mayor Grabek asked how the Council could ignore the safety MINUTES OP THE ORORO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 10, 1989 COUNTY ROAD 51 CONTINUED hazard existing in this location, especially if a child should be struck by a car. David Singer informed the Council that he had been told that if Hennepin County deemed County Road 51 to be a safety problem, the DNR would not be concerned about losing the parking spaces; however, the County did not say that the Road was a safety problem. He was under the impression that the County Engineer did not want the responsibility of classifying County Road 51 as a safety hazard. Chief Kilbo interjected that he had never seen a County vehicle surveying the site to determine whether the Road was safe or not. Singer went on to say that Mr. Murphy told him that enforcement of no parking designations would fall withir local jurisdiction. CounciImember Goettsn recommended the removal of four parking spaces along the curve to improve sight lines and requested that the Police Department perform a speed survey in that area. Mayor Grabek asked if it would be difficult to enforce no parking in those four slots. Public Works Director Gerhardson said that it would be necessary to put "hash marks" and signage indicating that parking is not allowed. Mr. Singer did not feel that eliminating four parking slots would solve the safety problem. It was his belief that the shoulder needed to be widened if any parking was going to be allowed in that area. Counci Imember Callahan questioned why the City did not include that es an option? Bernhardson said it was due to the need to further encroach into the private lakeshore property; he had received communciation from residents opposing such a plan. CounciImember Callahan suggested that parking could be eliminated entirely until such time that the DNR requests more parking be made available. Mayor Grabek expressed his concern over those residents that would object to the elimination of parking. Callahan suggested taking a survey of the residents to find out how many would oppose no parking. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to request from the Engineers and Police Department an appropriate number of spots to be eliminated and justfication for eliminating those spots. That information is to be brought back to the April 24th Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays«0, Motion passed. COUNTY ROAD 116 City Administrator Bernhardson said that the last time this matter was before the Council, County Commissioner Jude was present. Since that time, he had sent a letter to Bernhardson saying that the County would respect the wishes of each community. Mr. Jude had also met with Medina citizens in opposition to County Road 116 and told them that if they could convince the Medina City Council to be opposed to the project it MINUTES OP THE ORONO COONCIL MEETING OP APRIL 10, 1989 COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED would not be done. The issue Bernhardson was bringing forth for discussion is what Orono will do should the County Road 116 project proceed. It was Bernhardson’s understanding that the project was going ahead. If Orono wishes to have any upgrade done within its City limits, they v/ill need to notify the County soon. Mayor Grabek stated that he was still opposed to County Road 116 going ahead at all, but it appears as though it is. In light of that, he did not believe that the City should miss the opportunity to have that portion of the Road that lies in Orono upgraded with County funds. He did not want to burden the taxpayers with the cost of the inevitable upgrade of the Road. He felt it best to ask City Staff to keep the Council abreast of the progress and indicate when it may be appropriate to contact the County. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, that while remaining opposed to.the construction of County Road 116 south of Highway 55, the Council directs the Staff to work with the County to have it extended from the Orono/Medina border to Highway 12 if County Road 116 is to be constructed in Medina. There was a question from the public (Tom Haislet) as to whether the upgrade of County Road 116 would allow for a stop light to be put on Highway 12? Bernhardson replied that such a decision would have to come from MN DOT, not the County. Mayor Grabek asked about possible funding available to upgrade Willow Road south of Highway 12. Bernhardson stated that the City has not pushed for that. CounciImember Goetten concurred with Mr. Haislet in that a stop light was needed at the intersection of Willow and Highway 12. City Administrator Bernhardson explained to Mayor Grabek that the City needed to indicate its position on upgrading the Road to Highway 12 as soon as possible. CounciImember Goetten did not believe that such a decision should be left up to City Administration. CounciImember Callahan asked for clarification regarding the proposed realignment to the west that would be necessary. He asked who would be responsible for condemning the land that would be needed. Bernhardson said that the County does the right-of-way acquisition, but the City would be responsible for some of the cost. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. COUNTY ROAD 15 BOULEVARD RESTORATION Public Works Director Gerhardson said that in his opinion, it would be in the best interest of the City to put concrete in the boulevard west of Blarcne Avenue to the Orono/Spring Park border. The Council had previously agreed to put grass in that area. However, Gerhardson believed that grass would not be maintained and would become an eyesore. CounclImember Go-tten said that she understood Gerhardson’s reasons for wanting to put concrete in the boulevard, but thought that sod was moi's suited to Orono's rural character. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 10, 1989 COUNTY ROAD 15 BOULEVARD CONTINUED It wa& moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettlesr to approve placing concrete in the boulevard area of County Road 15 from Blaine Avenue west to the Orono/Spring Park border. Motion, Ayes*3, Goetten Nay, Motion passed. FULLERTON PROPERTIES/CENTER ISLAND Mr. Joe Franks of Fullerton Properties was present for this matter. Public Works Director Gerhardson explained that item #4 should be corrected to read a 3' shoulder, not 8*. Mr. Franks requested a change in item #8 to allow the monument sign to be 14 square feet; and in item #9 to allow the sign to be 7 feet high. He is putting the monument 15' back from the public right-of-way. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to approve the installation of a center Island intersection and monument at the Painters Woods subdivision, 880 Town line Road, with staff reconimended guidelines, exc3pt it could be 7 feet high and 14 s.f. as long as it is 15* back from the right-of-way. Motion, Ayes=»4, Nays*0, Motion passed. POLICE DEPARTMENT - ANNUAL REPORT It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to acknowledge receipt of the Police Department's 1988 Corporate Report including the 1988 Financial result.^*. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays»0, Motion passed. POLICE EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION-MODULE CONSOLE City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the Police Department would like to install vehicle command modules in three of their squad cars. It would put the siren, radio and other equipment overhead rather than the equipment tree currently being used. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to authorize the acquisition of 3 "Vehicle Command Modules" for a total net cost of acquisition and installation of $2,010 over the $1,500 presently budgeted for change over of equipment on the 3 squad cars. Motion, Ayes**4, Nays»0, Motion passed. HENNEPIN PARKS - EMINENT DOMAIN BEARING It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to accept the information on the upcoming hearing on the Park and take no action at this time. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays*0, Motion passed. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT This item was presented for information only and there was no motion. KINDTKG OP THE OROHO COOHCII. MEBTIHG OF APRIL 10, 1989 SALARY ADJOSTMEHT OFFICER LARRY TOMCBBCK* , . i. „ It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to increase Officer Tomcheck's salary from $14.ip per hour to $15,692 per hour based on the 1988 labor contract, effective April 7, 1989. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays*0, Motion passed. REQUIRED AGENDA - ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CounciImember Goetten asked to whom the last paragraph pertained. Bernhardson said he could not specifically address that due to the ordinance being drafted and passed prior to his administration. It was his understanding that it would apply to staff. Council or the public apart from the public comments. Counci Imember Goetten said that she could not be in favor of something that would limit the scope of her responsibility to the Orono Community. She questioned who would be responsible for determining what matters were inappropriate. Mayor Grabek interpreted this paragraph as being a means to control an unpleasant situation. Goetten said that she understood that. Her concern involved who it was who deemed matters to be inappropriate, and who approves whether an item will be heard. CounciImember Callahan felt that the Roberts' Rules of Order governed the procedure for which the meeting was conducted and items were brought before the Council. Callahan asked City Attorney Barrett for his interpretation. Barrett believed that the paragraph in question was a way in which to govern the agenda for Council meetings. CounciImember Goetten stated that in her opinion this item should not have been a consent item and felt it was a bad ordinance amendment. Barrett pointed out that the language in question was not amended, but read exactly as written in 1984. Goetten replied that she took exception to the 1984 ordinance. Mayor Grabek expressed his belief that this paragraph provided a "safeguard" to prevent a topic, of which the Council has no prior information, from being discussed for an excessive amount of time. CounciImember Goetten reiterated her concerns as to whom she would bring forth for approval any matter she wished to uP at a meeting, yet not on the agenda. Counci Imember Callahan said that there was desireabi lity on the part of the public and Council to know the agenda in advance of the meeting. It seemed to him that it would be inappropriate, perhaps illegal, to act on matters that are brought up, but not on the agenda. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this item was placed on the consent agenda because only the middle ot ttie Ordinance was being changed. The change involved only updating the Ordinance to reflect the current order of Council agendas. KINDTBS OP THE OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 10, 1989 REQUIRED AGENDA CONTINUED Zoning Administrator Mabusth commented that the paragraph in question was more for the purpose of providing for the logical planning of an agenda to provide staff with adequate time to prepare for the meeting. Mayor Grabek directed CounciImember Callahan to review the meaning of the paragraph in question so that it would effectively protect the Council, but address the concerns expressed by CounciImember Goetten. CounciImember Goetten suggested assigning the project to City Attorney Barrett rather than to CounciImember Callahan. She said that she would like to see an appropriate time given to Mayor and Council for comments similar to the time given to public comments. City Attorney Barrett asked if elaborating on item #10 would be appropriate. Goetten stated that would be fine, but also wanted the last paragraph reworded. Counci Imember Callahan said that he would like to have some safeguard against having actions taken by the Council without prior notice. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to table this item to give Counci Imember Goetten an opportunity to work with City Attorney Barrett to arrive at language that will provide mutual satisfaction to CounciImember Goetten and the Council as a whole. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays=0, Motion passed. TEMPORARY SEASONAL EMPLOYEES - GOLF COURSE* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to employ the recommended persons as temporary counter helpers and greenskeeper helpers at the respective hourly rates, whose employment is not expected to continue for a period longer than six months. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays*0, Motion passed. C.D.B.G. RESOLUTION #2615* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayer Grabek, to adopt Resolution #2615 approving the designated projects and their respective amounts and to direct staff to submit an application to Hennepin County authorizing those projects. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays*0, Motion passed. REMOVAL OF WATER FOWL* It was moved by CcunciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to establish April 24, 1989, as a date for the public hearing on the removal of waterfowl and that the appropriate notice be published in the paper. Motion, Ayes*»4, Nays«0, Motion passed. SPRING CLEAN UP DAY* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to designate May 6 and May 13, 1989 as Orono Spring Clean-up Days. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays-0, Motion p?‘\f.ed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 10r 1989 TEMPORARY PART TIME EMPLOYMENT-OFFICER FRIENDLY* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabekr to authorize the employment of Mary Hensel Clark as a temporary part time police officer at a rate of $6.50/hour not to exceed a total of $500.00 effective April 11, 1989 and terminating no later than 6/23/89. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=0, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR*. INFORMATION CounciImember Goetten questioned whether Orono had its own program for the DARE/Officer Friendly program. Bernhardson replied that Orono would try to implement its own program if not in the Spring, in the Fall. It was moved by Councllmember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Highway 12 Task Force; DARE/Officer Friendly; Site Selection; County Road 15 Ribbon Cutting-May 6, 1989; Board of Review; Spring Manager's Conference; Navarre Redevelopment; Summary of Receipts/Disbursements-January/February; Electronic Funds Transfers-January/February/March; Grievance Policy; and Goal Setting Status. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays»0, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: There was no report from City Attorney Barrett. LICENSES* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to approve the following license: Commercial Kennel License; Residential Kennel License: D. Brian 6 Cathy L. Fulmer 3505 Wayzata Boulevard Wayne E. & Gayle Carrier 1376 North Arm Drive Jean Carlson 2344 Olive Avenue Julia Kimball Whitney 4470 Forest Lake Landing George W. Ronald 2480 Old Beach Road Motion, Ayes=*4, Nays*0, Motion passed. BILLS* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes<=4, Nays*0, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION - 10:10 P.M. Mayor Grabek requested that the Council go into an executive session at 10:10 p.m. HINUTBS OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 10, 1989 ADJOURNMENT 10:22 P.M. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 10:22 p.m. Motion, Ayes»3, Goetten, Nay, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P, Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: April 18, 1989 Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road - Variance - Continued Review 4 List of Exhibits Exhibit A ~ Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Discussion - Applicant's Most Recent Letter of Request 4/10/89 Surveys of Questioned "Similar" Properties Staff Memo of 10/21/88 Staff Memo & Exhibits of 10/19/88 Mr, Ferrell has sent a letter requesting final action on his application for lot area and width variances in order to construct new residences on each of two lots he owns adjacent to his existing homestead parcel. The two lots in question are 0.85 and 1.04 acres in area respfcw. “ively . In the past, the Planning Commission and City Council have indicated to Mr. Ferrell that two new houses on his 2.9 acre total acreage will not be acceptable. At least one member of a past Council suggested to Mr. Ferrell that one additional house, for a total density of approximately one house per 1.45 acres, might be acceptable. No final Council action has been taken on this application due to applicants many requests for tabling, on April 14, 1986, Council did direct staff to draft a resolution for denial of request for two additional houses, which has never been drafted but never acted upon. The applicant has mentioned five specific properties in his letter which he feels are relevant to his situation. In fact, staff has reviewed these five cases and would make the following brief comments about each: A) 900 Brown Road North - Total lot area * 2.03 acres; total contiguous lot area * 0.97 acres. This lot was created as part of the subdivision "Farm at Long Lake" in 1977 under the current two acre standards. The lot is split into three distinct parcels by steep gullies and creeks. B) 1925 West Farm Road - Total lot area *= 2.08 acres; contiguous lot area = 1.42 acres. This lot was also created in 1977 as part of the "Farm at Long Lake". The same creek noted above traverses a corner of this lot. Zoning File #990 April 18, 1989 Page 2 of 2 C) 1995 West Farm Road - Total lot area = 2.09 acres; contiguous lot area - 2.00 acres (just west of 1925 West Farm Road). The southeast corner of this lot is low but not considered as wetland. Of course, fill was needed for the mound septic system, as it is in all mound svp4;eins. Since these lots were developed under the current zoning standards and Tim Adams was the developer, they cannot be •ered as a common ownership situation in the classic sense, and i.* : ittle or no relevance to Mr. Ferrell's situation. D) 1565 Orono Oaks Drive - Total lot area « 2.91 acres: contiguous dry lot area ■ 1.925 acres. This lot was created in 19/8 as part of the subdivision "Orono Oaks". E) 725 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Total lot area « 2.00 acres; contiguous lot area not in drainage easement is 1.12 acres. This lot was created in 1976 as part of the plat of "Farview". Again, this lot has a drainageway running through it and drainage easements were granted on the property with the subdivision. In this case, drainage easements do not follow the actual drainage pattern and a large percentage of area covered by drainage easements is high and dry. The watershed feeding this lot is fairly small. In each of the cases noted above, the lots were created under the current zoning code and the current 2 acre minimum lot standard. The lots each contain at least 2 acres of land. The contiguous lot areas not separated by drainageways or drainage easements, range from .97 acres to 2.0 acres. It has been the City policy that lets created under the current zoning standards are considered as bui Idable lots as long as septic system concerns and required setbacks, etc. can be met. To briefly review the issues and facts that are pertinent to Mr. Ferrell's situatioii. staff would request that Council review the September 8, 1988 and October 19, 1989 staff memos. Staff RecoiBBendation - In his letter of August 8, 1988, the applicant suggests one course of action would be for the City to approve one of his vacanx lots for a building site and deny the other. It is staff's opinion that if the Council wishes to allow one new residence to be constructed on Mr. Ferrell's acreage, that the lot lines be rearranged so that the existing house and the new building site would each have 1.45 acres. The other two options to accomplish this new building site, i.e. putting 2 acres with the new house or leaving 2 acres with the old house, will result in at least one of the properties being 1 acre in size, leaving that property with a very limited area for future septic needs. Staff would encourage Council to take a final action to approve, partially approve, or deny the applicant's request for lot width and area variances to create two new building sites. This matter has been underway since April 1985. April 10, 1989 City o-f Orono ^©m\mk miom My name is Ward Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road, to re-fresh your memory I have been trying to build a retirement home since 1903. Because of delays not counted on it is dragging out. To save the Council more time I am writing this letter to bring things up todate and state part of my side. 1. I have lived in Orono since 1936, that is longer than most of you are old. 2. I have owned this property since 1940, Paid taKes on them as buildable lots until you changed ordinance. I even paid taxes as buildable land even after the change. 3. I built the present home in 1950 and 1959. At that time, all the land I owned was in one parcel. They didn't like the idea or two homes on one parcel of land. When Herb Ross (Mayor) called me to come and get a permit. He expressed the City's desire that I divide the land to avoid problems in the future. Herb Ross, George Hanson and I reached an agreement to divide the land as it now exist. All tti^u, this was never recorded at the City this is the truth. I did my part. 4. The City changes ordinance in zoning and lot size. Land owners are bound by existing lot lines. When people found a loop hole you changed the ordinance to block. People have owned lots with common lot lines and have put them in husband-wife and son's name to avoid ordiance COMMON OWNER- 6HIP - COMMON LINES 6ULL1N50N. Should I do the same? 5. Because of this I am penalized for owning more than 1 piece of land (Discrimination). 6. Two blocks from my home (Cygnet Place and Watertown Road) a permit was issued to Guild on 1 acre lot - this property has poorer drainage than mine. 7. At one point the ordinance of 2 Acres of dry buildable land was bought up. 1 mention three pieces of property, which I would appreciate you to go and see. a. * 900 Brown Road - Mike wrote that it had about .97 acre of land to build on. I think it's smaller than that. Survey would tell the different. b. * 1925 West Farm Read - Mika stated drainage easement on the west side. No mention that 1/.' of the so.fth end was low land. c. 1995 M»st Farm Road - This was not ment?on by Mike. To build a home they had to haul in -fill even -for the mound seu system. These three parcels were owned b'/ (Adams) -former council member, Common Ownership, Common Lines -for two. These were sold and permits issued. Mike stated individual ownership again. I-f all are treated the same only One Permit should have been issued and maybe the Brown Road Property (NC" 2 ACRES DRY). Here are two more! 1565 Orono Oak Drive - Corner lot where are the 2 acres o-f dry land? Most o-f it is swamp and st4r-L.Vng water. 725 County Road B4 Crystal - The only dry land is where house stand*, and a little nexu to the road, no way is this 2 acres. 8. To make things look bad the City brought up a tennis court and swimming pool, never once did I mention this, only you. Then deprive people o-f light-air-wind (this statement was taken from a former request for permit (Allen Andersen) ! thought everyone was treated as individual cases. Effect health? How? The homes are closer together across the street. 9. During this same time period, the Cit^ allowed land plots less than 2 acres in a 2 acre zone, less than 5 acres in a 5 acre zone. French Creek - Painter Creek - Landmark Road Stubbs Bay Area. Then Ribbers 1 acre NO SEWER - NO WATER Are you going to furnish this? 10. The last map of the City drew up placed 2 homes and 1 common road entry. What if 1 owner doesn't want a black top? What if he doesn't want to pay his share of up-keep, snow removal, etc.? This you, yourself wouldn't want, and I am sure I don't! Besides homes are build to fit land, you don't grade land to fit homes! I would like to take the Mayor and other people from the City and show what really takes places. Have Mike 6. put this on the agenda for the next Council Meeting and get this settled so I can g t on with life. Because of health reason, which is up and down, I cannot guarantee my presence. Looking forward to the results. Ward Ferrell P.b. I think it's very convenient for you people to rely on the state­ ment) You don't have to honor what other people say on behalf of the City. A way to get by anything. Mayor GrabeK & Orono Count 1 Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:October 21, 1988 Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road - Variance - Request to Table Mr. Ferrell called this morning and told me that he had just received word from his doctor on some tests, indicating that he will have to be hospitalized and will be laid up for the next 3 weeks. He requested that his application be tabled until he is back on his feet. We would anticipate that that would be some time in late November, perhaps even December or January. Please keep your packet with memo and exhibits for #990 that was delivered on October 20, 1988 since this is a bulky item and we would like to avoid copying it again. Proposed Motion - Moved by seconded by to table application #990 Ward Ferrell, 3411 Watertown Road until applicant notifies the City that he can be present for a specific Council meeting date. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. u From 2 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron. Asst Planning s Zoning Administrator Date2 October 19, 1988 19M ».r.i P.rr.ll, 3405 B.t.rto.n - V.tl.oc co„.«o=.‘. .1091. » ”•=•”« P”-' adjacent to his existing residence. E^hiM^f- staff Sketch Showing Planning Commission Recommendation s Staff Recommendation m/l/aa .4hil.it . - .l.»hl.9 Oo™i..io. hctltn “‘f Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes of 10/3/ Exhibit D - Memo S Fthibits of 9/26/88 Planning Commission 1 .lendation - commission for review upon This item was rt... ‘^d to th. J earlier application. The applicant's OcIoberBrd meeting, recommended on a vote of Planning Commission at their Octoc lot for this 2.90 acre 4-2 to approve a single by legally property, and further 0 85 acre parcel', creating a parcel combining the 1.04 acre parce house on a 1.01 acre parcel, of 1.89 acres in from a precedent standpoint, this would The Planning Commission felt variance of .11 acres or 5% rather “.r,".'..”*', “ t"r:.tl..=.. -itP . 4.594.1.10. .ppllctlo. .... -03'' create a new building site. Note that the Planning against for approval of a new Litial vote was a motion to into it, was the second mot on ,he 2 sites. That approve with the beinj^^ minutes that Cohen's vote motion failed on a vo • f^ct that he was not in favor of any of -aay on this _ it would appear that Planning Commission additional houses on the property, issue of how the remaining was not in total agreement regard-.ng the issue or property should be apportioned. Zoning File #990 October 19, 1988 Page 2 of 3 Discussion ~ has dellnstraLd“tirLfli?y applicant septic systems on the pLperty? Lt civen thi " """ alternate variance for a substandard nnc Precedent of granting any staff feels there"a« sign^can^^^^^^^^ co^on-ownership lot situation! of the issue. As noted L reasons supporting both sides situations within the City that could”*°^’ there will be some additional this common-ownership variance U. jequest the same consideration if not overwhelm" ng i^ numb " ^<3<3.itional situations are common-ownership situations’wlth"a 22 unsewered, variances to lot arerirorder ^ potential for requesting However, as staff has noted previously ^ 22"add"itl'^*^^l'''h"^^ building site. adverse precedent and settlno a ^ j ^ perceived as setting a more 1..1 • “ --■■"''•a- -.Id and the .xiating building aite ^ qivino''aLh°rar building alte “• -bu.T“Vui*n.““''rbV*ii'.°: Zoning File #990 October 19, 1988 Page 3 of 3 Staff Reconmendation - In the various aiemos and the exhibits presented to Planning Ccnunission and Council by s-.aff on this revised proposal and the previous "2 additional building sites" proposal dating back to 1985, staff has attempted to fairly present the history and factual basis for the City's common-ownership philosophy and ordinances. Based on that information, it is staff's opinion that approval of this proposal to allow a second residence on a commonly-owned parcel of 2.9 acres in a 2 acre zone, will set a precedent that, given the relatively non-unique circumstances of this application, could result in as many as 22 similar properties being requested for similar consideration. Twenty-two substandard lots being developed in a rural, unsewered area of approximately 1,100 developed, unsewered properties may or may not be significant in maintaining the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan, depending on the individual characteristics of each of those properties and the intensity of development of those properties in the future. Certainly, allowing infill development of existing substandard common-ownership unsewered lots will not enhance Orono's attempt to keep sewers out of the rural area. It is questionable whether such development will have a significant negative effect. However, approval of this application will likely result in additional similar requests. Council should consider what criteria the City will use in reviewing those requests as they occur. If Council agrees with Planning Commission that it is appropriate given the circumstances of this application that a second house should be constructed on the property, it is staff's recommendation that the property be equally divided into 1.45 acre parcels for the reesnns noted above. Staff feels that the degree of precedent set, i.e. granting each site a 27.5% variance, is less precedent-setting than granting a 5.5% variance for a vacant lot and granting a 49.5% variance for the lot with the house on it. A resolution reflecting Council's action on this variance will be drafted and presented for adoption at your next meeting. CphtStf^C \ZAtAfJT LoTS^ AUCU^ TVH A AC. fiMC€C AS A g*AluO/^<m SIT€ . ii:-u*f„V.'f •* /.OJ AC i •I c«*»ir«r •r &«c. it iit xj' A V-p.V^: Lor sy srAFf^ IF ONF /ueu> (ju»t,6/Ai<5. strs IS /\ffAcN^. I hereby certily Uui! Chb eurvey, ptan, or r«; wuJ prepared by ma or under ray dircci ii vtaion tbai 1 am a du!y Ucgisiered i Surrey or (ha krwa of the State of S rs tT n a V CcAi.e Vd ' - C ombos IT^ F/a<^ a\jtf>y A/ ‘W>»£1 ^',Ohl- ^•B5 AC 1 /. V^» At •» Aol AC t ■V ^••* ai c«»wr «T S( X•r 64c . u-ita xi' / </r A r ZONING PILE NO. 990 CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 10/10/88 TO:Ward Perrell 3405 Watertown Long Lake, MN Road 55356 COPIES TO: TYPE OP APPLICATION:Variance DATE OP MEETING:10/3/88 VOTE: 4 For 2 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject ro conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission recommended approval of one additional residence on the property, to be located on a lot to be created by legal combination of the two westerly parcels, for a total of 1.89 acres in area for the new building site. A motion to recommend approval subject to making two total lots of equal size (1.45 acres for new house, 1.45 acres for existing house) failed on a vote of 2 ayes and 3 nays with one abstention (due to lake arrival of Planning Commissioner Brown). Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, October 24, 1988? meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are avai.' ble from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning commission. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1988 #990 WARD FERRELL 3411 WATERTOWN ROAD REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 77URTHBR REVIEW '■•he applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that this matter had been before the Planning Commission back in 1986. Mr. Ferrell owns three separate parcels of property which are 1.04 acres, .85 acres and 1.01 acres with an existing house. His original request was to have a variance to the 2-acre standard so a house could be built on each of the two vacant lots. After their review of this matter in 1986, the Planning Commission indicated that they would not recommend approval of two houses on the other two parcels. The matter went on to the City Council but was tabled several times and never finalized. The applicant was now requesting to build on one of the two vacant one-acre lots. Chairman Kelley asked why there were no plans, only a letter indicating the applicant*s intent. Mr. Ferrell stated that he would like to build a house on one of the two lots and leave the other one vacant. Kelley stated that he would stand by his previous decision to allow two houses on the entire three acre parcel, with the middle lot being split and used between the other two lots. Mr. Ferrell stated that it would be very costly to rearrange the lot lines. Cohen stated that he was not in favor of the applicant building even one additional house. Moos concurred with Cohen in that she would like to see the 2-acre minimum upheld. Hanson asked applicant if there was any adjacent land he could acquire. The applicant replied that there was no acquirable land in any direction. Hanson said that he would consider joining the two lots for a total of 1.89 acres. However, there would need to be septic system contingencies placed upon the approval. Planning Commission member Hanson asked whether certain legal issues would come into play based upon the house being built back in 1958. Gaffron stated that there was no need for a legal opinion in that respect, the City Ordinances were very clear in dealing with Mr. Ferrell's situation. Johnson stated that he would be in favor of Kelley's suggestion to split the middle lot between the other two. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Johnson, to recommend that the 2.90 acreage be divided equally and two building lots be established with the existing house and one other lot. The variance would be for the lot area in the 2-acre zone. All yard setbacks and front yard setbacks would have to be met. Motion, Ayes=»2, Moos, Hanson and Cohen, Nay. Planning Commission member Hanson asked whether combining the MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1988 ZONING FILE 1990-FERRELL CONTINUED 1,04 and the .85 lots would meet the City's septic requirements. Gaffron stated that in a rural area a 2-acre minimum would be required. Howeverr from a septic point of view, each of the lots could meet the requirements for primary and alternate septic sites, but there would only be room to build a modest residence and none of the amenities (pools, tennis courts, etc.). It was moved by Planning Commission member Hanson, seconded by Moos, to recommend combining the^.1.04 and .85 acreage for a total of 1.89, and grant a variance to build on that lot. Kelley asked why Hanson favored that proposal rather than splitting a lot between the two lots. Hanson replied that he wanted to keep any new building sites as close to the 2-acre minimum as possible. Cohen reiterated his desire to uphold the 2-acre minimum standard. He did not want to open pandora's box. Hanson stated that were it not for the fact that applicant had no acquirable land, he would not be in favor of such a proposal either. Kelley added that there is also history to take into consideration. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the City has allowed variances for much less than 2 acre parcels in the past, but only in single, separate ownership situations. This case is unique in that the property in question is substandard and is owned by an adjacent property owner. City Ordinances prohibited a property owner under such conditions to sell off the property and obtain a building permit. Motion, Ayes*3, Johnson and Cohen Nay, Brown abstained. Zoning Administrator questioned Brown's abstention. Planning Commission member Brown stated his reason to be that he did not get the full benefit of the discussion due to a late arrival. Gaffron apprised Brown of the gist of the application and a recall vote was taken. Motion, Ayes=*4, Johnson and Cohen, Nay, Motion passed. #1310 HOWARD BISINGER 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD RENEWAL CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT SECOND REVIEW The applicant was present for this matter, as was Mr. John Gannon of Park Construction. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this matter involved the renewal of a conditional use permit for 100,000 cubic yards of fill to be obtained from the "394" project and placed on Mr. Eisinger's property. Mabusth stated that the City Engineer had addressed the issue of time involved with grading and seeding. The City Engineer had determined which months would be best for seeding. It will be staff's responsibility to call when the seeding and grading should take place. Mr. Gannon had also written a letter in response to the concerns involved with the amount of trucks and time it would take to haul 100,000 cubic yards of fill. MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present; Mayor Grabek, CounciImembers Goetten, Petersonr Callahan and Nettles. The following represented the City staff; City Administrator Bernhardson, Assistant Plan^iing and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Public Works Director Gerhardson, and City Recorder Scheffler. City Attorney Barrett was also present. CONSENT AGENDA* It was moved by CcunciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - ROBERT KOST Mr. Kost resigned from his position as Park Conimission Chairman in August of 1988. Mayor Grabek presented Mr. Kost with a plaque and expressed appreciation on behalf of the Ciry of Or:jno for his years of service and accomplishments as the Park Commission Chairman. Mr. Kost accepted the plaque and told the Mayor and Counci Imembers that it was his pleasure working with the City of Orono and he appreciated all the support he received from the City Council. APPPROVAL OP MINUTES* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the August 22, 1988 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Representative Cohen was not present for this Council Meeting. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #990 WARD FERRELL 3405 WATERTOWN RQAD> VARIANCE The ap was not present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that in February, 1986, the Planning Commission recommended denial of building two houses on applicant's three acres of land. They indicated that they may approve building one additional house. Mr. Ferrell's property is located within the RR-IB zoning area which requires a minimum two acre lot size for a building site. When this matter was brought before the Council, it was again denied, but was tabled before the resolution was drafted. These same events took place in May of 1987 after applicant requested to reopen this item. MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 ZONING PILE #990-FBRRBLL CONTINUED Mr. Ferrell is now requesting that this matter be reopened once more and has a revised plan for consideration. Applicant is seeking a variance on one of the two vacant lots. Bernhardson stated that there are some alternatives for this matter. One would be to combine the two westerly lots, which would create a parcel of approximately two acres, leaving the easterly portion with a little over one acre. Another option would be to do a lot line rearrangement so that the totaj. three-acre parcel would be split exactly in half. The concern of approving Mr. Ferrell's request to develop only one of the lots is that both lots are substandard and it would be difficult to approve building on one lot and deny the other similar lot. In light of applicant's revision to the original application, ..taff is recommending that this matter be referred back to the i-lanning Commission. It was moved by Mayor GrabeJc, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to refer #990, Ward Ferrell, back to the Planning Commission for review. CounciImember Goetten stated that she would hope this was the last time this matter was brought before the Council. She felt that the City Council had been very accommodating in trying to resolve this matter, but Mr. Ferrell had commented to the contrary. She suggested that should there be any additional costs involved with the review of this new proposal, Mr. Ferrell should be responsible. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1303 AIXAH REZABEK 1989 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION The applicants were not present for this matter. Prior to any discussion on this matter. Mayor Grabek removed himself from the Council, due to his personal association with the parties involved. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the Council had previously given conceptual direction to the City pertaining to the approval of relocating a fence. At the August 22nd Council Meeting, it was discovered that the Applicants were in the process of selling this property. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron had tried several times to contact applicants but had been informed that Rezabek's phone number had been changed. The Resolution, once drafted, will require the signature of the current resident at 1989 Fagerness Point Road. It was staff's recommendation that this matter be tabled for two weeks to ascertain who currently owns the property. CounciImember .itten inquired as to whether the current homeowners would be advised to attend the Council Meeting on September 26th. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that if From: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:September 26, 1980 Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road - Variance - Revised Proposal - Referral From Council Zoning District - RR-IB, Single Family, 2 Acre, Unsewered % Application - The applicant has revised his proposal, and is requesting a variance to build a new residence on one of his three one-acre parcels, rather than his previous request to build a house on each of the two vacant one-acre parcels. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Council Action Dated 9/21/88 Exhibit B - Memo « Exhibits of 9/8/88 Discussion - Please review carefully the memo and exhibits of September 8, 1988. That memo will give a background regarding the applicant's original request, a history of City codes in relation to this property, a history of action by the City to date on this request, and additional pertinent factors. Planning Commission is specifically requested to make a recommendation Council regarding two issues: 1. Does the Planning Commission still hold to the Planning Commission recommendation of February 18, 1986 to recommend approval of one additional house on the total three acre property, for a density of one house per 1.5 acres? 2. If so, which of the following configurations for the property is appropriate: A) Require a lot line rearrangement and combinations so that there are two 1.5 acre tax parcels. B) Grant buildability to one of the one acre parcels, deny the other one acre parcel and require that the new building site be a combination of the two vacant lots. Zoning File #990 September 27, 1988 Page 2 of 2 C) Same as above except attach the denied lot to the existing residence property. D) Same as above except leave the denied lot uncombined with either the approved acre or ^he existing house acre. Please refer to the survey/sketch attached as Exhibit N/E of 5/19/87, about 11 pages back in your par’—*:. This indicates that the parcel with the existing house is about 1.01 acre, the next vacant parcel to the west is about .85 acre, and the western most parcel is about 1.04 acre in area. The applicant has shown that technically there is room to provide for septic systems within the property, however, the sites would be quite limited in potential for development with more than just a simple single family residence. Staff is on record .s suggesting that constructing houses on each of the two vacant lors will not ultimately further Oroiio’s attempt to keep municipal sewers out of the rural area. Past Councils have given applicant at least some suggestion that two Ih acre parcels, i.e. allowing one additional building site on the entire three acre property, would be worthy of consideration. Staff Recommeiidation - Again, staff would ask that you review the packet of information provided. If Planning Commission feels that a variance to allow one additional building site on the three acre property is justified, staff would recommend that a lot line rearrangement and combination take place so that the existing residence and the new building site will each contain 1.5 acres of land. Should Planning Commission recommend such an approval, additional appropriate conditions include; A. Payment of standard Park Fee at the time the building permit is issued. B. Access location for the new buildable lot shall be subject to City approval. C. The applicant shall file an application for a lot line rearrangement, and this variance approval shall not take effect until such time as the lot line rearrangement has been completed. CITY OF OROHO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. #990 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTIQf# Date of Notice: 9-21-il3 TO: Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 9-12-88 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Council voted unanimously to refer this application to the £lannxng Commission for consideration of your revised proposal. This item is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, Octob€-r 3, 1988. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m., and it is expected this will be the first item reviewed that evening. Please contact Mike Gaffron or Jeanne Mabusth at 473-7357 if you or ■your representative cannot attend that meeting. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after re*"iew and approval by the City Council. From: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Date:September 8, 1988 Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road - Variance - Continued Review NOTE: Per the letter dated August 4, 1988, Mr. Ferrell has requested that the City re-open File #990, a lot area and width variance application. This was last reviewed by the City Council on May 26, 1987. Idat of Exhibits Exhibit A - Letter From Applicant Dated 8/4/88 Exhibit B - Staff Letter to Applicant Dated 8/9/88 Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Survey Staff Notations Exhibit E - Current Applicable Code Sectif^n Exhibit F - Planning Commission & Council Minutes Exhibit G - Various Pertinent Staff Memos & Exhibits Discussion - Mr. Ferrell originally requested to be able to build a house on each of the two approximately 1 acre lots he owns adjacent to his home, which also is on a 1 acre lot. This property all is in the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District, which requires a minimum 2 acre lot size for a building site. On February 18, 1986, the Planni '».g Commission voted 5-0 to recommend denial of 3 total residences on the applicant's 3 acres, but recommended approval of allowing 1 additional house on the 3 acres. That recommendation did not clarify whether a lot line rearrangement would be appropriate. Ferrell continued his 3-total-house request at Council level and on April 14, 1986 Council directed staff to draft a re'jolaticn of denial by a vote of 4-1. Although that resolution was drafted, ir w?s never formally adopted and was tabled at applicant's request. The item was opened ag^’in in May of 1987 at applicant's request, discussion ensued, and it was again tabled at applicant's request. L. Ji.t rr-. Zoning File #990 September 8, 1988 Page 2 of 6 Now, Ferrell is revising his request: he wants approval to build on 1 of the lots in exchange for accepting a denial of buildability of the other lot. My letter to Ferrell dated August 9, 1988, responds to his request, hence the application is again before the City Council. Brief Synopsis - Although I am including here much of the information that has been reviewed by past Councils, I will try to synopsize the facts and policies which affect this application, as briefly as possible: 1. Ferrell bought the house at 3425 Watertown Road with 4 total acres of land in 1948. 2. Orono's original Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1950, prior to division of Ferrell's property into separate parcels. As of 1950, the property was zoned for 1 acre minimum lot size. 3. In 1955, Orono's original Platting Code was adopted. 4. In 1958, Ferrell requested to build a second house on the property per Council minutes of 9/22/58. Ferrell was presumably told by Herb Ross, Mayor, that in order to build a second house it would require a subdivision, since the 1950 zoning ordinance allowed only 1 residence per lot. 5. In 1959, Ferrell presumably completed subdivision of the property into 4 lots of approximately 1 acre each. He built his current house on the easterly lot. He eventually sold the westerly lot with the house at 3425 Watertown Road. He kept the two vacant lots west of the new house. 6. On October 12, 1959, the City Council adopted Ordinance #22 which requires minimium lot area of 1 acre, minimum lot width r. *40 , which Ferrell's lots would meet or nearly meet. Ordinance #21 also allowed Council to approve building permits for substandard lots held in single, separate ownership, inferred that substandard "common ownership" lots would not be granted building permits, and established that the Council could allow variances to this section at Council's discretion. Zoning File #990 September 8, 1988 Page 3 of 6 7. A new zoning code was adopted in 1967. Ferrell's property still was zoned for 1 acre in area, 140* width, no substantial changes from the 1959 ordinance, but the new ordinance did state that substandard existing lots of record as of 9/14/67 under single, separate ownership could be granted building permits JLf the Council finds that they would not adversely affect public health or safety. The ordinance did not specifically discuss common ownership lots, but by omission inferred again that they would not be granted permits. 8. The 1974 zoning code, which became effective in January of 1975, rezoned a large rural section of the City from 1 acre to 2 acre minimum lot size, 200' minimum width. This included the Ferrell properties. This code set specific standards for use of substandard single, separata ownership lots of record in the 2 acre zone, i.e.: a) Must be at least 1 acre, 100' width. b) Must meet all septic requirements or be sewered. c) Meets all other applicable standards. But again the 1974 code specifically did not discuss common ownership lots. 9. The Alden Anderson common ownership lot buildability application at 1900 Shoreline Drive was denied by the City in 1981, based on a lack of the required 2 acre lot area, setting a precedent for denial of situations such as Ferrell's. 10. The 1984 zoning code, which currently is in effect, requires Council approval to separate (read "sell") adjacent, undeveloped, non- conforming, commonly owned lots if the resulting lots do not meet area or width standards. Clearly in the Ferrell case. Council approval is required in order to separate the conforming 2.9 acre group of parcels into substandard parcels. Zoning File #990 September 8, 1988 Page 4 of 6 Action to Date on this Application - To date, staff has provided Council with 8 memos (with associated exhibits) for this application. The item has been reviewed at 3 Planning Commission meetings and has been an §.genda item at 9 Council meetings, dating back to April 1985. During discussions at the April 14, 1986 Council meeting. Mayor Butler noted that she would be open to allowing 1 additional home, but not 2. It is unclear from the minutes whether other Counc^1 Members shared that sentiment. Mr. Ferrell, at that time, did not wish to revise his application. However, due to the continued tabllngs at the applicant's request, the Council never has formally adopted a resolution denying variances for each of the vacant 1 acre lots. It is staff's interpretation of Ferrell's current letter of request that he wishes to build on 1 of the vacant 1 acre lots without doing a lot line rearrangement. Pertinent Factors - 1. Ferrell has provided septic testing for each vacant lot which shows that, under strictly limited building proposals, a modest house with septic system and alternate site could conceivably be constructed on each lot. However, future additions or additional amenities that might be proposed for those lots would be severely restricted, and the City would still have to be concerned with the greater density of septic systems and residences in the area. 2. If the Council is of a mind to allow 1 additional house on the 3 acre property, staff would recommend an approximately even split of 1.5 acres + with each property. This would require a lot line rearrangement and subsequent combination. Staff would not be in favor of Ferrell's suggestion to approve 1 of the 1 acre lots and deny the other, because that leaves the door open for a future Council to create a more dense situation, «nd still would leave severe restrictions on the 1 acre lot to be built on. Zoning File #990 September 8r 1988 Page 5 of 6 3. Council is cautioned to be aware of the distinction between Ferrell's property and properties such as the Smieja lot on Cygnet Place^ which was recently approved for buiIdability. The Smieja lot had long been in single# separate ownershipr was not owned by an adjacent property owner, and theisefore acquired substantial property rights because it had few alternative uses available tc the property owner. In Ferrell's situation, Orono's codes have long held that properties owned adjacent to and in common with a homestead lot cannot be built on if they or the homestead lot are substandard. The codes have continually inferred that substandard properties owned in common with a homestead residence have a reasonable use as yard area by the homestead property owner and do not acquire building rights by virtue of having been previously divided off. Approval of the Ferrell's request would be precedent-setting in that many other 1 acre commonly-owned lots in the unsewered residential zone could request similar variances. Specifically, staff has identified 22 situations in the City where we could expect similar variances to be requested. Although 22 new houses on substandard lots out of 1,100 existing developed unsewered lots is a relatively small number, building on those 22 properties would not further Orono's goals to maintain a rural character and avoid installation of municipal sewers. Ferrell's current proposal to have 2 houses on 3 acres also would be precedent setting, for the same reasons, but would probably have less substantial impact at a 1.5 acre/house density than at the originally proposed 1.0 acre/house density. Staff RecGaimendation - If Council feels that allowing 1 additional house on the 3 acre property is appropriate, staff would recommend a referral of this application to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation regarding whether the property should remain in 3 parcels or whether a lot line rearrangement and combination should occur to leave just 2 total parcels. If this item is referred to the Planning Commission, although staff previously indicated to the applicant that it could go directly to the September 19th meeting, due to unforeseen application loads, staff would prefer that referral be to the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting. -5- Zoning File #990 September 8, 1988 Page 6 of 6 If the Council feels that there is no justification to allow any additionrl houses on Ferrell's property, staff would recommend that a resolution for denial be adopted. A resolution of denial has previously been drafted, but would be amended to also deny the revised request. H -2^ .4i(;^i^2^!Ss^^J9^-d^ aauise^ V ^ ^ V f i rti CITYofORONO Post OfTic® Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 9r 1988 Mr. Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road Long Laker MN 55356 RE: Request to reopen file #990 Dear Mr. Ferrell: On Monday, August 8, I received your letter requesting that file #990, your unresolved variance application, be reopened. This would appear to be feasible since your application was last reviewed and tabled by the Council on June 8, 1987, pending your request to again appear before Council. The next City Council meeting is August 22, 1988. However, I will be on vacation from August 19th to September 5th, hence the next Council meeting for which this item can be scheduled is Monday, September 12, 1988. I gather from your letter that the intent of your request is to be granted approval to build a house on one of the vacant lots as currently configured, with the assumption that variances for the second vacant lot would be denied. Absent a specific plan from you that shows where you would place a new house, it is my initial reaction that the Council will want to split your three acres evenly between the existing house and the new lot, leaving about 1.5 acres with each. If that is the Council's final determination, a lot line rearrangement would need to take place. In your letter you suggested that you have already paid the application fees and feel that no additional fees should be assessed. I presume that this is a reaction to your recent conversation with Jeanne Mabusth during which she noted additional fees might be charged. I would note for the record that Staff time for your application to date has oeen approximately 20 to 25 hours, not including time spent at Planning Commission and Council meetings. The $300.00 in application fees you have paid so far, only covers about half of BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7J57 ASSESSING administration a FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Mr, Ward Ferrell August 9, 1988 Page Two the Staff time expenditure to date. I will remind you that the application form which you signed indicates you agreed to pay whatever additional or unusual expenses are incurred for review of the application, and would note that the normal variance application staff review time is^in the range of 3 to 5 hours. It is l.'kely that staff will recommend to the Council that some additional fee (as yet undetermined) be assessed. There is a potential that the Council on September 12th, will refer your revised request back to the Planning Commission. ^ If this occurs, this item will be scheduled for the Planning Commission Meeting of September 19, presuming no additional information is required. Please contact me or Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth, at 473-7357 if you have additional questions. You will be receiving a meeting notification and a copy of the Council update memo on this application, prior to the September 12th meeting. Any additional information or letter of request you wish to submit to Council should be in this office no later than Tuesday, September 6, 1988. Sincerely, ^ a Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planningand Zoning Administrator MPG/ls cc: Jeanne Mabusth Mark Bernhardson 1-2. I525_ ZflO r-/<>'S7 /<r2? V ‘5'^ ;*'jj m I- •- ISf.7— — J7*.I9 / 1 ^ / iH.OO Cl } -'J 'iAW //7-^ r 'i' tariff L»: OfT- ISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 8^ 3V2.S J $■-/<» -S7 StrSS S 10.03 ) V I. Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the building. ^ Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 J. Apply to "Us-es" Only. The r . forming use provisions of the Zoning Chapter apply only •• to which land and buildings are put, and do not apply to . ..Lions where location or height of structures, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Where, however, such a situatexi-) ex is ted legally under the prior applicable law, the Council—will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting of a variance under Section 10.08. • ^ Subd. 6. Lot of Record. A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Council if required. Source: Municipal Code ^ - - - - -^ ^^Effective Date: 9-14-67 A lot of record existing upon n Existing Lots. "1 A. January 1, 1975 in an "R" District, which does not meet the requirem^bs^T^of—-the^Zoning^Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: '<1 3 Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 1. In "R" Districts of One Acre or Less and With Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record existing upon t’ 3 effective date of this Zoning Chapter in any "R" District of the City of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within eighty percent (80%) of the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. However, the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless ORONO CC (4-1-84) c_._- combined with one or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. Source: Municipal Code * Effective Date: 9-14-67 . I 2. In "R" Districts of Greater Than One Acre and Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: (a) It is at least one acre in size, and the average dth of the lot is at least 100 feet; (b) It is served by public sanitary sewer; (c) It otherwise meets the requirements of this Chapter or other applicable City Code provisions. ^ "R" Districts Not Served by Public Sanitary Sewer.'^A^lot'^f record in any "R" District in the City not served Ly public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter and shall not be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, private or platted road or road easement, which results in. any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning dis­ trict, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated.parcel of land across the road for purposes of qualifying undar the minimum acreage, open space, required yard, setback or sanitary or septic system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be credited or transferred between such parcels under any provisions of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually conform to .;;.; the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction of improvements thereon. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 separation^by the transfer or sale^)of non­ conforming, "undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the- Zoning Chapter. ' i Source: City Code , Effective Date: 4-1-84 C. The A ORONO CC 254 (4-1-84) t WA Vi/A Crystal Bay,I41nnesota.J Minute, of meeting held In the Village Hall on 3ept.22.I958.at 7:30 P.M. .. .CP naclav K Tumham.S.O.'.food,C.W.Blaxwell,Trustee,Present: H.R.Bo = . Mayor; Rosa.cinstable:O.S.Johnson. O'.A.HansTn,Assessor; A.G. 5Linson,r ox U^ute, of meetings held on Aug.25 and Sep.0.I958,were r.ad and approved. Attorney Louis B-B”°‘»«^'”^*!ftui?fon^on^Cou^t^'’Roa^^^ at thI*^te«Mtlon present regarding the partly sltua^n on Co^ty parallelsi£a5s?i“ss;s.sv=" .uuS... «<. up later for further consideration. Th. uuutluvmu. ut “•Relief Board was unanimously approved.nCiXOi - - -- - - - - - ^ U The yinne-ota Watershed District Act was further dlsoussed and ordered held OT foi^urther review and discussion.UW *»**«..— -- - ‘ 4. A The puhllo park situation In “^g^^^Jf^propertraeslred^lf'^thl^ .. iSo second to motion was made and the motion died. ' On recuest of Ward Ferrell for the erection of another^eslc*.^ ^^ request The budget fo‘; ?9^";;rs\CtTtTl02.000 for Village operation and the County Auditor will so be advised. will arrange to attend. Verified Accts.No.607 through g®fr^^he^slarsaaoebuck Co. SSicrAS"e? rt^iirSluVeTe^e^t^i Including memo.lnvolce. Meeting adjourned subject to call on October 13,1958. * O.S.Johnson,Clerk. Aoproved: (3. Orr •* / «< **' nr*.^ / / "u/:, ' v: tAM h_ MirUTES OF THE ORONO Px^WNIN #895 T.M. CROSBY Cv-'i'J^ISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1985 PAGE 3Bxti. V Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.PID 11-117-23 32 0004 and northern portion of rearranged PID 11-117-23 yi 0005 to be combined with Crosby homestead lot. 2.PID 11-1 17-23 32 0006 and soul PID il-117-23 32 0005 to be 1- purposes . •Portion of rearranged ^ combired for tax 3.All future construction on undeveloped lot that involves the alteration of flood plain fringe areas must be reviewed and approved by the DNR before a building permit can be issued by the City of Orono. 4.Tested septic site area on undeveloped lot . vst be staked and protected pricr to construction. Motion, Ayes l6). Nays (0). #903 WARD PERiJELL 3405 WATERTOWN ROAD REQUEST TO CONFIRM INTERPRETATION OF ZONING CODE PUB^IC HEARING 8:10-8:49 PM ard and Mary Ferrell were present. Chairman Callahan announced that now was the time and place for the public hearing to be held concerning Ward F'' I's application to confirm the staff's interpretat: :he zoning code. There was no one present fr public for this application. Assistant Zc>ning Administrator Gaffron noted the rt taiicate ot trailing a:.d the affidavit of publication. 1 Ferrell e.-plained th^t in 1948 they bought the property i .vat-'rtown Road. Ferrell stated that in 1958 they decided diviue the property to build a new home. Ferrell stated that he v/as informed by staff at time that he had to appear hef >. e ^ e Council. Fei stated that everyone agreed on ‘h- "juncil, except one person. Ferrell stated that thi s p o ar y was divided at the previous Mayor ' s (Herb Ross) request errell agreed and he met the zoning at that tire -1 dtec nat he could have had 5 lots but chose four ke bigger lots. Ferrell explained that the i-iig lots are all the same size. Ferrell stated that .ng has since changed. -..i.tj.'tgnt Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed with the P'.cjXintr.c? Commission that in 1967 this area was zoned 1 acre. Inffi''?' stated that f '-ov" 1967-.‘>97 5, Ferrell could have built cu those lots without vji lanoes. Gaffron noted that in 1975 :he area was rezoned to 2 acre. Gaffron explained that in a similar case on Shoreline Drive, the Council denied the applicant the variances giving the City a clear policy in the common owner'^hip issue within the rural areas of Orono. ' Gaffron reviewed with the Planning Commission the tax ^0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO riJVNNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1985 PAGE 4 J903 WARD FERRELL Rovegno noted that for 20 years it has been taxed as a separate buildable site and for the past 3 years it has not been taxed as a buildable site. Ward Ferrell stated that he has kept the property all these years thinking he could build on each pare 1 and he noted he would like to build his retirement home on one of the parcels . Ferrell noted he has owned the property since 1950 and is entitled to build. Planning Commission agreed with staff's interpretation of the zoning code that the property needs a variance. Chairman Callahan suggested that th planning Commission be polled as to their feeling on the application if it were an actual variance request. Kelley felt that Lots 7 and 8 should be combined into one lot, thereby only allowing two lots (the existing lot with the existing home and one other lot (7 & 8 combined)]. Mary Ferrell stated that the cede is not consistent and is contradictory in that the zoning has changed along with the code over the years. Sime felt that there is very little doubt that staff interpreted the zoning code correctly, but whether he agrees with the basic premise is another point. Sime felt that there are a bu: ile of rights that go with the land and should not be taken awav from people by changing th*:' rules or zoning while they still C'/n the land. Sime stated that the common ownership issue ceems to alter the rules for people. Most of the Planning Commission felt they could only approved two lots (the existing lot with the existing home and one other lot] conditioned upon Lots 7 and 8 being combined. Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Rovegxio moved, Sime seconded, to confirm staff's interpretation of the zoning code that these lots do need variances. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). Rovegno felt that a less intense use of the property would be more ^^asonable by combining Lot 7 and 8 and that way the appl- Cjints would only need a lot area variance and not a lot width variance. Zoning Administrator Mjbusth stated that this application was brought in under a request to confirm the interpretation of the zoning code in or< er to save the applicants money. Mabust*" noced that a completed application would require payraei- •'r area variances for each proposed and existing build?>ite in addition to septic testing for each unde -jd site and an alternate test site for existing house. Mabusth noted that staff concluded that in light of Council's recent amendment of the zoning code dealing with rural lots under common ownership and their decision on the Shoreline Drive property of Alden Anderson^ that this approach was the most inexpensive way to get an answer for the applicant. #905 DENNIS THOMPSON 250 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:50 - 8:51 PM Dennis Thompson was not present. Chairman Callahan announced that now was the time and place for a public hearing concerning Dennis Thompson's conditional use permit application. - Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. There was no one present in the audience for this application. Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that during construction on the Thompson home^ staff noted a second kitchen and a separate apartment area being constructed and felt that a conditional use permit should be applied for. Mabusth stated that Thompson has agreed that the guest apartment will never be rented out. KeJley moved, Sime seconded, to recouvnend approval of a coi.ditional use permit for the gue •; r.partment within the resideme located at 250 Old CryoLa.L Bay Road finding all standards of Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(G) to be statisfied subject to the condition that the separate apartment unit may never be rented. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). #907 JAMES BIGHAM 1545 LONG LAKE BLVD VA'^ANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:52 - 9:12 PM James Bigham was present. Chairman Callahan announced that now was the time and place for the public hearing concerning James Bigham's variance request. There was no one present from the audience for this application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to construct an addition to his home which will increase the hardcover in both 0-75' and 75-250* setback ^o^^es. Gaffron stated that the addition will increase the p^ * jntial water usage since t.iey plan to construct a bedroom. Gaffron noted that Bigham replaced his septic system in November of 1984, but that there are no alternate drainfield sites on the property and that if the new system fails at some point and it could not be repaired, a MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 13, 1985 PAGE 11 Cta^^ARD FERRELL 3405 WATERTOWN ROAD ' ZONING APPEALS Ward Ferrell was not present. Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the applicant has requested that the application be tabled until May 28, 1985. Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Frahm seconded, to table the Ferrell application until May 28, 1985. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). #905 DENNIS THOMPSON 250 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #1757 Dennis Thompson was not present. Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to adopt Resolution #1757, A Resolution Approving A Conditional Use Permit to allow a guest house apartment. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0). #907 JAMES BIGHAM 1545 LONG LAKE BLVD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #1758 James Bigham was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed with the Council the applicants proposal to construct an addition to his home. Gaffron noted that the applicant replaced his septic system in November, 1984. Gaffron stated ti.at no alternate drainfield site exists on the property and that if the new system fails a holding tank would have to be installed. Gaffron noted that with Bighams proposal a future 8 member family could move into the home and the current septic system might not be able to handle such an intense use. Gaffron noted that Bigham has not met some of the requirements in Resolution #1600 regarding drainage and retaining walls. vTames Bigham stated that the requirements could not be met because of the weather and the frozen ground. Bigham stated that he will fulfill the requirements as soon as possible. Councilmember Frahm stated that there is a drainage problem on the property already. Frahm expressed concern for adding on additional hardcover and noted that the septic system cannot handle any future family larger than Bighams. James Bigham explained that the drainage problem does not come from his lot and that the drainage problem is caused by L.r*e lots across the street. Bigham noted that his lot serves as a drainage spot for others runoff. Bigham addressed the septic issue by noting that he could replace his septic system if needed in the same location a: the septic system is currently located. Bigham noted if h.ic does not work, then holding tanks would be installed. Bigham noted that he doesn't mind holding tanks and stated that he fel\- the whole neig^jborhood eventually will be on holding tanks. /-// •i--: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE 4 exff-- e? Acting Mayor Frahm advised Asplund that after the patios are removed, that the ground should be sodded. Councilmember L. Adams noted that he has a problem approving anything in the 0-75' setback area. Councilmember L. Adams moved. Acting Mayor Frahm seconded, to adopt Resolution #1768, A Resolution denying vari«*'.res ‘ for the fence and patio concrete request with a deadline date for removal of patios'**for June 15, 1985, for 3424 Eastlake Street and July 23, 1985, for 3444 Eastlake Street and the request for deck platform and screened porch to be referred to the Planning Commission for their review. Motion, Ayes (2), Nays (1). Councilmember T. Adams voted nay. .♦ #897 CHUCK PETERSON 825 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION . . Chuck Peterson was present. Assistant Zoning Adminis­ trator Gaffron stated that the surveyor reconfirmed the dry buildabie area that Council requested at the last meeting. Gaffron confirmed that there is 2.0 acres of dry buildabie i-er lot in the area identified strictly as a seasonal drainageway. Councilmember T. Adams moved, Councilmember L. Adams seconded, to approve the preliminary subdivision application of Chuck Peterson. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). r#90VjJARD FERRELL ^48 r^ATERTOWN ROAD ZONING APPEAL Mr. and Mrs, Ward Ferrell were present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant was brought in under a zoning appeal in order to save the applicant some money. Gaffron explained that if the applicant hcid applied for a variance that the application would be more costly and with the Council's past precedents the Council would probably have denied the application. City Attorney Radio asked how much the full variance application would have cost. Radio noted that by allowing this applicant the appeals procedure the City is saving the applicant money, but by handling this . .tter the City is not treating this application as a variance and not using the same standards. Radio noted that the decision reached tonight does not presume that the same decision would be reached on a formal variance application. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the variance application would be $150, plus the applicant s expense for additional surveying work, plus the extra expense for septic testing for each lot. Gaffron estimated /-y '-f MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE 5 #903 FERRELL that the application could have cost the applicant $1,000 just to get denied. Gaffron noted that staff felt that the applicant could get some genera.^ direction from the City under the zoning appeals application process. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the Alden Anderson application is very similar to this Ferrell application. Gaffron explained that the applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels totaling 2.90 acres. Gaffron noted that the applicant wishes to obtain a building permit for the 1.04 acre lotT. Ward Ferrell stated that he has owned the land since 1948 and built the existing home in 1958. Ferre.U stated that he bought and has saved this land with the intent to build his retirement home. Ferrell stated that Herb Ross (former Orono Mayor) had requested him to.divide his property. Ferrell stated that as a favor to Ross and the City and to stop trouble in the future, he divided the property into four parcels. Ferrell stated that then the zoning changed in 1967 and at the time the hearing was held regarding this zoning change, he asked whether it would affect existing lots and he was told no by the City. Ferrell noted that he is willing a parcel of land for his daughter to build on. Ferrell stated that in 1980 the Stubbs Bay Marina was divided and the City allowed very small lots. Ferrell felt that he should receive the same treatment that Stubbs Bay Marina had received. Acting Mayor Frahm explained that the City agreed to smaller lots in the Stubbs Bay Marina because the City felt that it would be a less intense use on the property with residential units rather than the intense use of the commercial marina. Frahm stated that there were very extenuating circumstances with the Stubbs Bay Marina and shouldn't be used to compare with this application since the circumstances were significantly different. Ward Ferrell asked if the City was goi..; to honor what Herb Ross requested. Ferrell stated that Ross told him to contact George Hanson (former assessor for Orono) to see what the lot sizes should be when he was subdividing the property. Ferrell stated that Hanson told him 140' width for each lot. Acting Mayor asked staff what the typical lot size is in the neighborhood. Ward Ferrell stated that the average lot size is one acre and only one parcel is two acres. Councilmember T. Adams asked how many units the applicant is requesting out of a total of 2.9 acres. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron answered that the applicant is requesting a total of three building sites (one existing, one for the retirement home, one for his daughter ) . c-f Y MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE 6 #903 FERRELL Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that in 1967 the standards changed when the zoning code was revised effecting the applicant. Acting Mayor Frahm explained that it is hard for the City to honor a verbal opinion that was made in 1967. Frahm felt to be fair to the applicant that he would consider two building sites, but certainly not three building sites. Councilmember T. Adams stated that before deciding the Council should see all relevant background information. Councilmember L. Adams symphathized with this type of problem when the owner purchases property and keeps it with the intent in the future to build on the property only to have the zoning code standards change. Adams stated that he cannot see installing three septic-tank systems on three small lots since the septic tanks will be the permanent system installed there. Adams noted conceptually that he would consider two building sites only because of the problem that the applicant owned the property with the intent to build in the future only to have the zoning code standards change. Adams noted that if it weren't for that reason he would not even consider two building sites. Adams stated that when the septic systems are placed too close together on small lots such as these, there are potential problems with ground water contamination when these systems fail. Acting Mayor Frahm expressed his concern that if the City approved three lots that the City would create a density pocket similar to the Crystal Bay neighborhood in which the City would have to go back in the future to correct the problem by sewering the area. Ward Ferrell stated that his septic system is 28 years old and has never had a problem with leakage. Ferrell pointed out that he has paid taxes on the property za if they were buildable lots since 1948 and now he cannot use the property. Ferrell stated that up until two years ago they paid taxes on the two vacant lots as if there were separate building sites. Ferrell noted that two years ago the taxes were lowered from $11,000 to $5,500. Ferrell explained that he has already told his daughter that she can have the lot and he is not going back on his word. Ferrell asked if the City was going to honor what Herb Ross told him years ago. Acting Mayor Frahm stated, in his opinion, no. Mrs. Ferrell asked if the City was going to refund their taxes that they have paid for buildable lots all these y»ars. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that should a variance be applied for that in the review it should be considered what position the applicant would have been in if he had not subdivided the property. , ^ ^ 5 y MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE #903 FERRELL CounciImember L. Adams gave his opinion should the applicant apply for a variance, he would be willing to consider a total of two lots. CounciImember L. Adams moved, CounciImember T. Adams seconded, to affirm the staff's interpretation of the zoning code. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0). #908 & #924 JON SCHERVEN 2649 CASCO POINT RD (#908) VARIANCE - RESOLUTION (#924) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION Jon Scherven was present with his father A.W. Scherven. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the applicant proposes to build a two story addition over the existing concrete slab and deck oh the lake side of his parents home. Gaffron noted that the applicant proposes hardcover tradeoffs, and that the proposed deck does extend into the 75' setback zone. Gaffron stated that the conditional use permit is required because the applicant is requesting to use the basement as a guest apartment for his parents who are retiring. Gaffron noted that applicant does propose a kitchen in the basement but has agreed that the second dwelling unit would never be rented out. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission did approve the application subject to the following regarding the guest apartment use: 1) apartment for use of family members only; 2) apartment use may not be conveyed to a purchaser; 3 ) guest apartment may not be rented out and such to be confirmed by staff yearly; 4 ) use is subject to City review at end of four years. Acting Mayor Frahm asked if a separate entrance is proposed for the guest apartment use. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that the main entrance would be used, but that once inside the main entrance, a door leading to the basement and a door leading to the upstairs is proposed. Zoning Administrator Mabucth explained that the Council did recently approve the Beck conditional use permit which is similar to this application. Councilmember L. Adams felt that the lot is really too small to support another dwelling unit. Jon Scherven explained that his parents have tried to sell the home and have not been able to. Scherven stated that he has offered to buy the home, remodel it, and then they would be able to live in the basement. Scherven confirmed that he will agree to any stipulations the Council wishes to place on the guest apartment use. c/:. CV- .-T • -- ^ - i-: MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 18, 1985. PAGE 4 #988 MERTES continued w/' Tom Corson, 3241 Casco Circle, was present and stated that the lot in question was not consistent with the other lots in the area. He also stated that the existing garage on the lot should be removed whether the variance is granted or not. Mr. Corson felt that the original variance should not have been granted being this lot is only 54' in width. Jim Mertes stated that they felt they would not have a problem meeting the setbacks and hardcover requirements. Goetten stated that the entire Casco Point area is a high intense residential area. She noted that the lot size was consistent with the area although it would be one of che smallest lots. Tom Corson stated that they would be making a crowded situation even more crowded. He questioned the initial intent of the ordinance requiring a 100' lot width. Chairman Callahan stated that the lot was intended to provide a residence and the hardship is that there is no other adjacent property available. There were no more comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Goetten, to recommend renewal of the lot width and lot area variances noting that the Issues (1-7 ) and Findings (1-19), prepared by staff, were found to be sufficient. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 1. Kelley voted nay stating it would be overbuilt for lot size. #989 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPT. OP TRANSPORTATION HENDRICKSON ACCESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 11:40 -11:50 Hennepin County proposes dredging approximately a 20'xl26' wide corridor, removing 4.5' of lake botton along the edge of the Hendrickson boat ramp, and constructing a 126' long seawall along the sides of the inplace boat ramp. There were no persons present regarding this matter at this time. Planning Commissit 16th meeting. ble this matter until the December ( #990 WiRD FERRELL ^3411-3415 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:29 - 9:37 Applicant requests lot area/lot width variances to construct homes on two substandard vacant commonly-owned lots adjacent to the exisiting residence at 3405 Watertown Road. • 'S*7 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1986 extt. o, #842 ROBERT ZIMMERMAN continued Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that there is no known opposition from the neighbors and all have been re-notified. It was moved by McDonald, seconded by Goetten, to recommend approval of the 3.5% hardcover variance in the 75-250* zone, conditioned on the applicant removing 2 areas of gravel and the existing detached garage structure. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. #967 6 #968 JOHN B. IDSTROM 2580 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION/CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:53 - 9:07 John B. Idstrom and David M. Ostreim were present for this marter. Mr. Idstrom*s engineer, Mark Groaberg, was also present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the request for a two lot subdivision (there are no houses on the lot presently) creating a new building sites. He noted that both lots meet the 2 acre dry buildable minim ’jm and standards for septic systems. He also noted that there is a potential for a future 3rd lot which would also meet the 2 acre requirement. It was noted that applicant is requesting approval for the driveway to access onto Fox Street to serve both proposed building sites. Planning Commission discussed the proposed driveway which will cross the designated wetland in order to access the rear building site. It was noted that the Watershed District has approved this crossing. There were no comments from the public and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Taylor, to recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision and condi\:ional use permit subj%*t to staff's ^ recommendations. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays C U92SJMARO FERRELL 3405, 3411 fi3415 WATiUTOWN ROAD VARIANCE - SECOND REVIEW Ward Ferrell was present f?r this matter. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this application was reviewed approximately 6 months ago on an appeal basis giving the applicant a general idea regarding the City's policy regarding situations of three contiguous substandard lots in common ownership. 1^1 L •MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 18, 1985. PAGE 5 #990 FERRELL continued Chairman Callahan noted that the application was incomplete absent a survey of property containing the existing house and septic site information necessary for assurance of an alternate septic site if needed. Mr. & Mrs. Ward Ferrell were present for this matter. Mr. Ferrell stated that there should be no problem with an auxilliary system being the lot is 3/4 acre, therefore not necessary. Mr. Ferrell felt that a survey of the property with existing house was also not necessary. Chairman Callahan stated that this information was necessary and was requested from him last May and they would not act until this information was provided. Mr. Ferrell stated he had a survey dated 1958 and would submit it. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated he would look at the survey and determine if it would be adequate. There were no persons present regarding this matter at this time. It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to table this request pending a complete application. Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Chairman Callahan advised applicant that they would give him their general opinions regarding his request although submission of the survei and septic site information may make a difference. Goetten stated she was personnally opposed to three lots. Kelley, referring to his statement in the Planning Commission minutes dated 4/15/85, felt that Lots 7 & 8 should be combined into one lot to allow the existing home and one other lot. Taylor and McDonald agreed with Kelley's opinion. Rovegno and Callahan felt that two lots with dwellings would probably be reasonable with the proper septic site testing, three lots would be setting precedent. #991 WILIvIAM ULRICH 1535 BOHN'S POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:40 - 10:37 r ^Chairman Callahan explained the after-the-fact application for a conditional use permit and variance to do grading and filling within 75’ of lakeshore. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1986 #990 WARD FERRELL continued All the Planning Commission members basically concurred with their opinions stated at the November 18, 1985 Planning Commission meeting, that this property should be allowed a total of only 2 buildable lots. Mr. Ferrell stated that the City of Orono requested him to divide the property back in 1958 so there would not be future problems with buildi another home, and that this fact should be honored. He also noted that when the zoning changed from a 1 acre to a 2 acre zoning district, he was told that this would not affect existing lots. Assistant Zoning Administor Gaffron reviewed the history of zoning changes in that area from 1950 to 1984. He , noted that the proposed lots meet the criteria required of lots in single separate ownership based on the 1975 zoning code, but a density issue and setting a precedent are open, because these are substandard lots in common ownership. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Taylor, to recommend denial of the 3 lots because they do not meet applicable zoning code criteria. Motion, Ayes 2, Nays 3. Motion dies. Rovegno, McDonald, and Goetten voted nay. Rovegno stated that he felt this is a difficult decision because it seems that 3 lots would have met code requirements up until a few years ago. McDonald stated that because of the many years of ownership by applicant, it would be inappropriate to deny. Goetten concurred with McDonald in this matter and stated that 2 lots would be acceptable. It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Goetten, to recommend denial of 3 lots but could recommend approval of a total of 2 properly laid out building sites recognizes the efforts, time and reliance the applican has put in his 1958 application but still recommend denial of 3 lots. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. #999 EVAN MELINE 3598 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE - SECOND REVIEW Benn Belden, being half owner of the property, was present for this matter. He noted that Evan Meline was unable to be present because he is in Europe. This application was tabled from t^' Planning Commission meeting, so could firm-up plan o purchase addi- Hennepin County. 'ecember 16, 1985 the applicants .ial property from : J ^ MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 10, 1986^ #967 & #968 IDSTROM continued Assistant Zoning Administrator noted that the driveway has been reviewed by staff and finds no problem with the access location. He also noted the potential of a future third lot which would create problems for the applicant. Mayor Butler stated that the resolution should note the potential problems regarding future re-subdivision which would require the relocation of the access to properties off the private street. Mr. Idstrom stated^he was . .c concerned with a third lot at this time and would leal with that problem in the future if it arose. CounciImember Adams stated he found no problem with the proposed subdivision of two lots only but would if there were three. It was moved by CounciImember Adams, seconded by CounciImember Frahm, directing staff to draft a resolution with the appropriate variance relating to the frontage and specifying that this is approval of two lots noting the future problems of a third lot, to be presented before final approval at the Mp *ch 24, 1986 Council meeting. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. , /#990^JID FERRELL (U^0irr^4Il, 3415 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE Ward Ferrell was present for this matter along with his attornay, Leroy Haglund. City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request for a variances on two existing lots, which are in the 2 acre zone and are substandard under the current code. He stated that this was presented last May as a zoning appeal. He noted that applicant has had septic site testing done and has proposed acceptable primary and alternate sites. Mr. Haglund stated that applicant's drear.: was to build a house on one of these lots and was platted as such many years ag^^. He submitted a petition signed by the neighbors stating they have no objections to this proposal. He also submitted aerial pho ^.:s to show that the applicant's proposal would not be inconsistant with the area. /'/ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 10, 1986 #990 FERRELL continued Mayor Butler explained the problems that ^re involved in this application and that the reason this area was rezoned in 1974 to 2 acre lots was the problem with septic system overcrowding and failure on 1 acre lots. She noted that other similar applications have b:}*'-' denied for this same reason and Council would be settinj, a precedent by approving this. Mr. Haglund stated that this situation is unique and that properly installed septic systems do not fail. CounciImember Adams stated that problems are showing up with septic systems in 1 acre areas. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the history of the zoning code from 1950 to presc::t. He noted the similar request by Alden Anderson in 1981 which set a precedent for denial in these cases. Mr. Haglund stated there there is no proof of setting a precedent by approving this because the unique situation. Mr. Ferrell stated that the present zoning code would prevent subdivision requests of 2 acre parcels, but he has already subdivided his property, upon the request of the City. Mayor Butler stated that she felt t:ie entire Council should be present to make a decision on this application. Mr. Ferrell stated that the Council has a moral obligation to honor previous councils' actions. It was moved by Mayor Butler, seconded by CounciImember Adams, to table this application until the April 14, 1986 Council meeting for the presence of the entire Council. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. #1006 CHRIS & DALE PALM 1710 SHADYWOOn ROAD V/RIANCE RESOLUTION #1936 City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request for hardcover variance? to construct a home addition and attached garage. The proposed hardcovers increases are from 17.5% to 18.2% in the 0-75' zone; the proposal shows a decrease from 27.3% . 6.8% in the 75-250' zone, but on staff's recoirui'*ndaT ^ i -ot safety rea.^. ns, a back-up apron should be inoi-ded, so the propc*?ei hardcov^i.’ would be increased to 29.0%. n 7! /TMINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1986 1/#990 Ward ferrell 340^ATERTOWH ROAD .VSSIABCB - SECOHD Administrator Gerhardson explained the request for a lot width and lot area variance for two rural properties on Watertown Road noting this was previously reviewed-^by Council on March 10, 1986 which at that time was tabled because the entire Council was not present to review it. Ward Ferrell was present for this matter and stated his attorney unaware of this meeting and was unable to attend due to a previous appointment. Mayor Butler asked Mr. Ferrell if he wished to defer this matter until the next Council meeting in order for his attorney to be present. Mayor Butler informed him that if this application is denied, he must wait six months to reapply. Mr. Ferrell stated that he would like to proceed with his application and depending on the outcome will consult with his attorney. He noted that he still feels that he is entitled to build a house and sell one lot to help pay for his retirement home as long as he has owned the land since 1948. Ferrell stated he divided it because the Council asked him to in 1950, ana the Council accepted the four lots and that the present Council has a moral obligation to honor what that Council told him. Zoning Administrator Gaffron updated ® Grabek and Hammerel (who were absent at the March 10th meeting) that Mr. Ferrell was requesting permission for 3 homes on a total of 2.9 acres in a two-acre zone. The 3 lots are commonly owned by Mr. Ferrell and consist of 1.01 acres (upon which Mr. Ferrell's present home is located), 1-04 acres, and .85 acres respectively. He noted that applicant has submitted soil testing ai^ site plans to indicate that both septic systems and houses can be placed on each lot. He noted that the question is whether this would set a precedent by granting approval. Mr. Ferrell noted that the "28 similar case" parcels noted in staff's memo are less than two acres with the exception of one and that none of these parcels have been owned as long as he has owned his property. Mr. Ferrell stated that he had planned to build a retirement home on one lot and sell the other lot for payment for the house and retirement equity. He feels that tne financial hardship should be considered. ;• / J MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1986 #990 WARD FERRELL continued Mayor Butler stated that the Council has to consider the legalities involved with future requests if they were to approve his application, Councilmember Adams noted that even by allowing one home to be built would require a variance of the 2 acre minimum lot requirement. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that the zoning code has changed during the jime that Ferrell has owned the property, however the code did not specifically address "commonly owned" lots until 1984. City Attorney Blatz stated that it was the Council's duty to enforce the code as it stands today and that comments made by previous counciImembers are not legally binding. Councilmember Grabek noted that (per memo) within a 1/2 mile radius of the applicants property, there were 37 houses with less than 2 acres and 39 with 2 acres or more. He stated that part of the common ownership rationale was "how do these lots fit in the surrounding area"? He questioned if Ferrell's lots would support septic systems. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the lots would support septic systems under limited development i.e. no tennis court, pool, etc. Councilmember Grabek asked City Attorney Blatz the legal ramifications involved if this were approved. Attorney Blatz stated that there is a potential problem which the Council should reveiw. As far as granting a variance. Council must find an undue hardship to Mr. Ferrell. She noted that in 1981 a similar request was denied because applicant did not demonstrate a hardship, no sanitary sewer was available, and insufficient area and width. She stated that it is her opinion that if Council cannot differentiate Mr. Ferrell's property from others, that by granting the request in effect they would be changing the ordinance. Councilmember Grabek questioned whether there would be legal justification to approve this application without changing the ordinance based on 1) a house can be built on each lot safely with septic system 2) it is consistent with the neighborhood size lots 3) applicant has been a citizen of Orono since 1936. -/V MINUTES OP TEE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HETJ) APRIL 14 ^ 1986 .,90 Council must decide upon and that the undue hardship finding mu.^t be spelled out in the resolution to support the variance approval. CounciImembfer Grabek stated that it seemed to be the "just" thing tu do to grant this variance and he felt it would not be making that much of an exception for other cases that may come up. Mayor Butler stated that this was a dilemma due to the unique circumstances however, she felt realistically she would have to recommend denial because, in her view, it would completely change the zoning policy. She expressed her fear in having to plant another sewer system. CounciImember Frahm stated that he has problems with the "common ownership" issue and whether there is a difference between sewered areas vs. non-sewered areas. He noted that if this request were approved the ordinance should be changed and be more clearly defined. CounciImember Grabek stated that he felt the direction of the change made in 1974 was to be able to provide a reviewal on an individual basis. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that one way to differentiate between common ownership vs. separate ownership, in separate ownership the hardship would be not allowing them to use their property, whereas, in Mr. Ferrell's case he is able to live on his property and use it. She also noted that the only hardship in Mr. Ferrrell's case is financial which cannot be considered as a valid hardship. Mayor Butler noted that she would be open to allowing one additional home but not two. CounciImember Hammerel stated that this is a hard decision but he felt two houses in an area where there is not enough area for one house without a variance is an excess, especially in an unsewered zone. CounciImember Adams stated that he felt sympathetic in Mr. Ferrell's case but he felt 1 acre lots in an unsewered area is undesirable. Councilmember Grabek questioned whether there would be a problem because Mr. Ferrell's attorney was not notified. HXHUTES of the regular ORONO council meeting held APRIL 14, 1986 #990 WARD FERRELL continued Attorney Blatz stated that she felt Mr. Ferrell made a knowledgable waiver of attorney and was made aware that he could have delayed the matter in order to have his attorney present. CounciImember Gr'ibek questioned if approval of this request would significantly impact the non-sewered area. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that in his opinion, it would not have a significant impact in that particular area. Mayor Butler stated that taking into consideration that the request is for development of three residential units on 2.9 acres in a 2-acre zone; it was moved by Mayor Butler, seconded by Councilmember Adams, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial based on the following: At this point. Mayor Butler again stated that she felt it fair to inform Mr. Ferrell, that before an actual vote and decision is made, he has the option to request tabling of his application in order for his attorney to be present- Mr. Ferrell’s response was that he did not think it would make any difference because the Council has already made up their minds. 1) Extent of variances. 2) Known fallibility of septic systems on small lots. 3) Denial does not deprive owner ’s rights to reasonable use as residential property as it stands now. 4) No hardship to the land justifying request. 5) Zoning code demands 2 acres of dry buildable property per parcel wherein this parcel is 2.9 acres overall requesting 3 buildable lots. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 1. Councilmember Grabek voted nay. #1007 CAROL TRAPP* 4701 WEST BRANCH ROAD PRBLIMXNIART SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #1979 Carol Trapp was present for this matter. It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by Councilmember Hammerel, to adopt Resolution #1979 granting Preliminary approval for a plat at 4701 West Branch Road. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. ^xh\±L MINUTES OP THE REGULAR OROHO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 29, 1986 PUBLIC COMMENTS cont:dLnued for the sewer assessment that would not have to be p^id back. He stated that he had not applied for the grant when it was proposed because It was just delaying the assessment, it was still going to be paid. He felt that the residents should have been notified that there was monies available to pay the assessments and there was no pay back. He felt that more people would have applied for that program. Mayor Butler stated that the money from HOD would have to be used to pay off the assessments or the money would be lost. CounciImember Frs-im asked if there was any more money for the progr2un. City Administrator Bernhardson stated there was none. He stated that the City staff was unaware that there would be residents who would qualify for the grant but had not made application because of the pay back. There might be funds available from CDBG in February 1987. Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, 780 Tonkawa Road, stated that he has read and heard some remarks regarding the Council's actions that were not favorable. At this time he wished to let the Council know that there are residents who feel the Council is doing an excellent job and wished to thank the Council for their good work and encouraged them to continue. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: >^i99AflARD FERRELL* VSjfty WATERTOWN ROAD '••’ariahcb Motion by CounciImember Adams, seconded by CounciImember Hammerel to direct staff to write a resolution of denial, this resolution will be presented to the Council at their May 12, 1986 Council meeting. Ayes 5, Nays 0. #819 WILLIAM MILLS* 200 LEAF STREET FINAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #1984 Motion by CounciImember Adams, seconded by CounciImember Hammerel, to adopt Resolution #1984 approving a final subvidision for William Mills. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. #998 MAUREEN S. BELLOWS* 265 BROWN ROAD SOUTH FINAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #1985 Motion by Counciimember Adams, seconded by CounciImember Hammerel, *:o adopt Resolution #1985 approving a final subdivisioi for Maureen S. Bellows. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. P MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 12, 1986 ATTENDANCE 7:15 P.M, The Orono Council met on the above date with the following members present; CounciImembers Adams, Grabek, and Frahm. Mayor Butler arrived at 7:27. Councilmember Hammerel was absent, the following represented the City staff; City Administrator Bernhardson, Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Administrator; Gaffron, and City Recorder Peterson. Also present wer«: City Attorney Blatz and City Engineer Cook. CONSENT AGENDA* It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by Councilmember Grabek, to approve the Consent Agenda* as presented. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. APPROVAL OP MINUTES* . It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by Councilmember Grabek, to approve the Minutes of the April 28, 1986 Council meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments from the Park Commission at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENT.S Planning Commissioner McDonald was present and had no comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the Public at this time. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: (#990 ; ^*S405J?ATER' FERRELL* TOWN ROAD It was m'ved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by Councilmember Grabek, tc defer this matter until the May 27, 1986 Council Meeting as requested by the applicant. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0. #991 & #1018 WILLIAM J. ULRICH 1535 & 1595 BOHN'S POINT ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS William Ulrich was present for this matter along with his representatives: Attorney Thomas Humphrey Jr., Attorney Gregory Halbert, Project Coordinator .John Noble, Landscape Architect James Robin, and Surveyor Mark Gronberg. /«?/ / S-7W. ^ -37 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 27, 1986 ATTENDANCE 8:28 P.M, The Orono Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Butler, CounciImembers Grabek, Frahm, Adams, and Hammerel. The following rer’^''sented the City staff: City Administrator Be ardson. Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson, Buixaing and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Peterson. City Attorney Barrett was also present. CONSENT AGENDA* It was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Hammerel, to approve the Consent Agenda* as submitted. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Hammerel, to approve the Minutes of the regular May 12, 1986 Council Meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public at this time. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: /^990^ARD FERRELL WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE - DENIAL RESOLUTION Mr. Ferrell was present and requested that this matter be tabled because his attorney was unable to attend this meeting. It was moved by CounciImember Adams, seconded by CounciImember Grabek, to table this matter until the June 9th Council meeting. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. #991 AND #1018 WILLIAM J. ULRICH* 1535 AND 1595 BOHN'S POINT ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USB PERMITS Upon staff recommendation, it was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Hammerel, to table this matter until the June 9th Council meeting pending additional information. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. #999 BELDEN/MELINE 3598 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE - DENIAL RESOLUTION Due to the fact that the applicant's, Benn Belden and Evan Meline, were not present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron recommended that this matter be tabled for a month and he will notify applicants. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 9, 1986 ATTENDANCE 7:04 P.M. The Crono Council met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Mayor Adams, CounciImembers Grabek, Frahm, and Hammerel. Mayor Butler was absent due to illness. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Peterson. City Attorney Blatz was also present. CONSENT AGENDA* It was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by Councilmember Hammerel, to approve the Consent Agenda* as submitted. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* . ^ t.It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by Councilmember Hammerel, to approve the minutes of the May 27, 1986 Council Meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by Councilmember Hammerel, to approve the minutes of the 1986 Board of Review Meeting held on May 27, 1986 as submitted. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no c niments from the Park Commission at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission member J. Diann Goetten was present and had no comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public at this time. ZQW:^ ADMINISTFATOR'S REPORT: g99Q^ARD FERREL^^ 3405 WA(ffiRf()W^ i^AD VARIANCE DENIAL RESOLUTION . City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the three options in this application: 1. Adopt denial Resolution as drafted. 2. Table the matter indefinitely upon request by applciant. 3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to a 1-additional-building-site request. W MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 9, 1986 WARD FERRELL continued Ward Ferrell and his attorney, Jerry Rice, were present for this matter. Mr. Rice stated that he is familiar with the area in question because he lives in the area and also holds a contract for deed on property across the road from applciant*s. He stated that he has researched the matter and feels there is a substantial issue of equitable estoppel involved and that this is a special situation based on an old promise by a Mayor. He stated that Mr.>Ferrell is prepared to proceed with a legal suit if necessary. CounciImember Frahm asked applicant if he wanted the Council to act on the request for three lots, not considering any alternatives. Mr. Ferrell stated that was correct. Mr. Rice stated that they would be agreeable to Council tabling the request in order for Council to think about it. City Attorney Blatz wanted the record clarified regarding the apparent conversation between Mr. Ferrell and Planning Commission member VanNest, she noted that the record was researched and found no indication that word was given to Mr. Ferrell that he could plat his property accordingly and the code would not apply to him. She also noted that there is case law whereas the court ruled that regardless of indications made by a past council, the current council must uphold the ordinances. Mr. Rice clarified that he was referring to the word given by Mayor Ross when Mr. Ferrell platted his property. Acting Mayor Adams stated that he was always told that one council can not bind future councils. It was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Grabek, to approve the denial resolution as drafted to be adopted June 9, 1986. At this point, Mr. Ferrell and his attorney were given the opportunity to request tabling this matter to reconsider the request for 2 additional houses. Mr. Rice stated that he would like the matter tabled in order for him to consult with his client, Mr. Ferrell. City Attorney Blatz stated that she would recommend tabling the matter if the Council's intent is to allow applicant to modify his application for 1 additional house to be constructed on his property. #990 aNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 9, 1986 FERRELL contin'jed CounciImember Frahir withdrew his motion. It was moved by CounciImember Hammerel, seconded by Counci Imember Adams, to table this matter at this time. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. #991 £ #10^8 WILLIAM J. ULRICH 1535 & 15^ JOHN'S POINT ROAD AFTER-THB-. cT CONDITIONAL USB PERMITS.. RESOLUTION #2004 City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the conditional use permits and variances and the drafted resolution addressing the following items: berms are limited to 3- 1/2' with no fences on them, staff has devised standards for the drainfield and the plan will be approved in accordance with those standards, alteration of the lagoon, fill between the the two properties, and letter of credit and developers agreement has been secured. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution. He noted that Planning Commission will review the requests for a geothermal system and extension of seawall in lagoon at their June 16th meeting. Present representing applicant were: Attorney Gregory Halbert, Surveyor Mark Gronberg, and Engineer Don Brauer. Mr. Halbert stated that they have reviewed the proposed resolution and request amendment of Condition #3 being that the former residence on Lot 2 must be removed by July 1, 1986. He stated that they are currently using the house for storing materials, housing and sanitation facilities for the laborers, therefore requesting that they allow the house to remain until September 1, 1986 subject to keeping the property neat and orderly. Staff stated that they had no problem with that request. City Administrator Bernhardson noted that they have not received any more complaints regarding the construction hours. It was moved by Acting Mayor Adams, seconded by CounciImember Hammerel, to adopt Resolution #2004 approving the after-the-fact conditional use permits and variance amending the date on Condition #3 to September 1, 1986. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. 1^1 ^^^^^NmINUTES op the regular ORONO council meeting held may 26, 1987 #990 WARD FERRELL 3i05^TBRTOWH ROAD VARIANCES CONTINUATION OF REVIEW Present for this matter were Mr. & Mrs. Ward Ferrell. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Mr. Ferrell owned a parcel of land appoximately 4.19 acres, which was subdivided into 4 lots in the winter of 1958. Mr. Ferrell's request, which commenced in April of 1985, is that he be allowed to build on the 2 remaining vacant parcels of land. The application was subsequently brought to Council in April 1986, who directed staff to draft a denial resol''ton which was tabled twice. At the June 9, 1986 meeting Council moved to adopt the denial resolution, the applicant then asked that it be tabled. Subsequent to that he requested that It not be considered at the June 23rd, 1986 meeting. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that is where the application currently stands. The previous Council had indicated one of the courses of action was to allow Mr. Ferrell to amend his request from two additional building units to one. The second option was to pass the denial resolution which would prohibit Mr. Ferrell from bringing up the request for another six months. Mr. Ferrell stated that his tax statement reads one property at 1.22 acres and the other property at .97 acres which makes it over two acres for both lots together. He asked the Council what they consider to be a hardship. Mayor Grabek noted that when determining whether a hardship exists, the Council evaluates the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community and the applicant. Mr. Ferrell notes that the house proposed to be built on one lot is a 2,000 s.f. house with garage on 40,000 s.f. of land which will not affect the light. He also noted that Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that both lots were satisfactory for Peptic systems. He feels that the surrounding property values will not decrease and may in fact increase with a new residence on the vacant lot. Mr. Ferrell cited instances in which he believes building permits were issued on parcels with less than 2 acres of dry buildable land. -North Brown Road - Oberg residence - septic system was built "in the water". -Bill Mills residence (just south of Ferrell property). -North Brown Road - house built on 1/3 acre and the rest of the lot is all ditch. MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HET.D MAY 26, 1987 #990 WARD FERRELL CONT. Mr. Ferrell also noted that the assessed value for each property is at $5,000 and the average vacant lot in Orono is selling for $29,000, thus if the 2 vacant lots were combined and sold as one vacant lot at $29,000 it would be a financial loss to him. Mayor Grabek stated he would like time to look into the properties that applicant says are similar cases. Mrs. Ferrell stated-she felt that since the lots were already subdivided with past Council's approval, they should be able to be built on. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Sime, to table this matter until staff has had time investigate the mentioned lots by the applicant and bring back the application again at the June 8th, 1987 meeting. Motion; Ayes 5, Nays 0. #1112 S #1142 SMITH BAY MARINA & YACHT CLUB 1950, 1955, 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMMERICAL SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE Present for this matter were Woody Love, project planner, and Mr. Toberman, the owner. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this is a request which covers three parcels of land. The application for 1955 Shoreline Drive involves a reconfiguration of the current structure, construction of a new structure, layout of a parking lot which is recommended to be asphalt with filtering strips to lessen the concerns for run-off, removal of some of the current wood platforms from the parcel, and proposed the new building would be further setback from the lake than the current structure. In addition, the new structure would be 25* in height, 2 story with an open deck on top. Currently the property is zoned B-2, commercial marina district. The property at 1960 Shoreline Drive, currently Tonka Transmission property, is zoned residential which currently exists under a conditional use permit for a legal non-conforming use and structure. Proposed is a boat and accessory retail sales to be leased to a separate o^orator. Curb cut onto Shoreline Drive would be removed making the only access onto the property from Spates Avenue. The intent is to clean up the property plus put some additional parking on the property which does not currently exist. In part of the proposal brought to the City, the applicant has proposed to convert the 1950 Shoreline Drive property to a parking lot. Such a change would necessitate a zoning amendment as parking lots are not permitted or conditional use permits allowed in a residential district. On March 17, 1987, the Council reviewed a zoning amendment which would have allowed parking lots in residential districts. p3 2. 2. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUHCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 8, 1987 CONSENT AGENDA* ATTBHDAHCB 7:01 Council met on the above date with the following members present; Mayor Grabekr CounciImembers Sime, Goetten, and Peterson. CounciImember Callahan was absent. The following represented the City staff; City Administrator Bernhardsonr Public Wrrks Coordinator Gerhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Peterson. City Attorney Blatz and City Engineer Cook were also present. It was moved by CounciImember Sime, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda* subject to removal of; . ^ « Item #25 - Issuance of Firearms Permits Guidelines requested by Counci Imembers Peterson and Goetten. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. {APPROVAL OP MINUTES*It was moved by Councilmember Sime, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the May 26, 1987 Council meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTSThere were no Planning Commiss on comments. Planning Commission member Edward Brown arrived later in * le meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public at this time SONIHG ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: ^$9o)n ARD FERRELL UO? WATERTOWN RC.\D Council delayed this matter until the end of the meeting awaiting the presence of applicant or representative. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this matt e r u n t i 1 applicant or representative requested to be present. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. ]^i WTo: Planning Commission Members S-/9 -a7 From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: April 8, 1985 Subject: #903 Ward P. Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road - Interpretation of zoning code regarding the buidability of substandard commonly-owned lots in the RR-IB un­ sewered zoning district. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit F - Staff Sketch of Lot Areas Exhibit H - Staff Letter to Applicant 2/27/85 Exhibit I - Draft Resolution From Alden Anderson (Application #635) Exhibit J - Tax History The applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels in the RR-lB zoning district totaling 2.90 acres. The existing house, well, and septic system are contained within the two easterly parcels totaling 1*01 acres. The two westerly parcels are 1.04 and 0.85 acres respectively. The applicant wishes to obtain a building permit for the 1.04 acre lot. Mr. Ferrell became owner of all four pircels prior to the 1967 zoning code. The 1967 Code declared the land in question as Zone R-IC, 1 Acre Single Family Residential. That 1967 Code stated, regarding lots of record, as follows: 31.200. Existing Lots. A -.ot of record existing upon Sept. 14, 1967 (the effective :ate of the Zoning Code) under single separate ownershi/ in a "R" Residential District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgement of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety. Single separate ownerships includes joint owner­ ship by not more than two persons. The 1967 Code did not discuss common ownership properties nor did it differentiate between sewered and unsewered lots of record. Under this code, the applicant would likely have been allowed to build on the lot in question without a variance be ­ cause the lot met the standards of the 1 acre zoning district. The 1974 Zoning Code declared this land to be zoned RR-lB, 2 Acre Single Family Residential. As far as existing lots of record, it stated as follows. 31.201. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single separate ownership in an "R" District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: 31.203. In "R" districts of Greater Than One Acre. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Code as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: (1) it is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and (2) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental body; and (3) it otherwise meets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances. Under the 1974 Code, the Council at their option could have granted a lot area variance for a lot in single separate owner­ ship, but the Code again did not specifica? y discuss the stan­ dards for the separation of commonly ownec. lots. The general City policy, as evidenced by tHe’'''outcome'’of at least one typical zoning application in 1981 was that unsewered adjacent lots owned in common could not be considered buildable and could not be separated unless each resulting lot or combination of lots in­ cluded the required acreage in that zoning district. Upon recodification in 1984 the Zoning Code was amended to include the following Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C): C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conform- *'ing, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, ■n'i aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ‘ vs'-ri i ownership is'^equired if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Staff's interpretation of the current code is that the applicant would be prohibited from separating his four adjacent lots, since separation of either of the westerly lots from the main property would result in the creating of building sites less than two acres in area. staff has told the applicant on numerous occasions over recent years that it is unlikely the City would allow building oermits for his adjacent parcels. A similar application by Alden Anderson at 1900 Shoreline Drive resulted in Council voting 4-0 to deny separation of adjacent 1.4 acre and 1.8 acre commonly owned parcels from each other» based on 1) lack of demonstrated hardship; 2) no sanitary sewer available; 3) insufficient area; 4) insufficient width. I have included the draft resolution from this application, which should help to clarify the City’s past position on applications of this type (note that the Anderson resolution was never adopted because he withdrew his application after Council voted to have staff draft a denial resolution). I have included the tax history for 1974-1985 on the properties (see Exhibit J). It is noteworthy that the valuation of the parcel in question (P.I.D. 0007) was reduced starting in 1983, and the parcel was assessed increment^ 1 ly as compared to the parcel with the house; i.e. the adjacent parcels appear to be valued as part of the main lot, not as separate building sites. Because Mr. Ferrell insisted on bringing this application to you even though he was told of the slim chances for approval, staff accepted the application on an appeal/interpretation basis. Does the Planning Commission find any hardship or circumstance that would suggest the standards should not apply to this property? exMM To:Orono Council Members From: Michael ?• Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: April 30, 1985 Subject: #903 Ward P. Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road - Zoning Code Interpretation List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit ■uliilwFg Application Property Owners List Plat Map Survey Proposed Site Plan Staff Sketch of Lot Areas PiiUiiiiim Utmimu Ctit nmwki -■ r-2-S-SS ’ Exhibit H - Staff Letter to Applicant 2/27/85 Exhibit I - Draft Resolution From Alden Anderson (Application #635) Exhibit J - Tax History Exhibit K - Minutes From Planning Commission Meeting 4/15/85 Exhibit L - Staff Memo to Planning Commission 4/8/85 The applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels in the RR-lB zoning district totaling 2.90 acres. The existing house, well, and septic system are contained within the two easterly parcels totaling 1.01 acres. The two westerly parcels are 1.04 and 0.85 acres respectively. The applicant wishes to obtain a building permit for the 1.04 acre lot. In staff's preliminary review of this request by the appli­ cant, it was clear that the application was nearly indentical to the request of Alden Anderson on Shoreline Drive in 1981, which was effectively denied before it was withdrawn. Based on the Alden Anderson denial, staff felt Council would likely not grant a variance for the Ferrell application. Rather than force the applicant to spend extreme amounts cf money for the full variance application, soil testing, survey work, etc. only to be denied, staff felt obligated to advise the applicant to submit a zoning appeal application with $100.00 fee. Please review my memo to Planning Commission of 4/8/85 and the Planning Commission minutes, and the exhibits. Note that the informal consensus of the Planning Commission was that at most the applicant might be allowed one building site by combining Lots 7 and 8 for a total of 1.89 acres, leaving the existing house on 1.01 acres. Please advise the applicant whether or not you will consider granting a variance to the rural common ownership section of the code. To 2 Frc»n: Date: Planning Commission o c. Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator November 13, 1985 Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405-3411-3415 Watertown Road - Variances 5*'/^-8*7 Application - Lot area/lot width variances to construct homes on two substandard vacant commonly-owned lots adjacent to the existing residence at 3405 Watertown Road.^ List of Exhibit Exhibit A • Exhibit B • Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Applications For 2 Vacant Lots Plat Map Property Owners List Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan For Center Lot Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan For West Lot Planning Commission Minutes 4/15/85 Council Minutes 5/28/85 Notice to Applicant 5/31/85 Tax History Council Minutes 9/22/58 Pertinent Ordinances Dating to 1950 Code Sections Pertinent Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) (Current code) C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A) (3) A* Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 in an "R" District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgement of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: 3. In "R" Districts Not Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter and shall not be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval. Zoning File #990 November 13, 1985 Page 2 of 5 Per Subdivision 6, a "Lot of Record" is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the Registrar of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Council if requirr'. The applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels in the RR-IB zoning district totaling 2.90 acres. The existing house, well, and septic system are contained within the two easterly parcels totaling 1.01 acres. The two westerly parcels are 1.04 and 0.85 acres respectively. The applicant wishes to obtain building permits for each of the westerly parcels. The 1950 Zoning Code (adopted 7/10/50) established a number of zoning districts, including the "Stubbs Bay District" in which Ferrell's property was located. The "Stubbs Bay District" required minimum building lot size of one acre. This one-acre minimum was still in effect in 1958 when Ferrell requested to build a second residence on his property. It is very likely that Ferrell was told by the City at that time that in order to build another residence he would have to subdivide, because in general the Code allowed only one principal residence per building lot (see Council minutes 9/22/58). Note that at that time his request was referred to the Planning Commission - minutes have not been found for the Planning Commission meeting or any subsequent action. Although a platting code existed in Orono as of 1955, Ferrell apparently divided off 2 lots each of 140' width and approximately 1 acre in area, in or about 1959 without platting, and the parcels have apparently been separate for tax purposes since that time. The parcels including the road right-of-way would likely have been considered conforming or nearly conforming lots of record under the 1967 Zoning Code which designated the property as Zone R-IC, 1 acre and 140' width. Single Family Residential. That 1967 Code stated, re­ garding lots of record, as follows; 31.200. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon September 14, 1967 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under sing le separate ownership in a "R" Residential District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety. Single separate ownership includes joint \Dwnership by not more than two persons. The 1967 Code did not discuss common ownership properties nor did it differentiate between sewered and unsewered lots of record. However, by using the term "Single Separate Ownership", it implied that other types of ownership would be treated differently but did not define in what way. Under this code, the applicant would likely have been allowed to build on the 1.04 acre lot without a variance because the lot met the standards of the 1-acre zoning district. The 0.85 acre lot would likely have required Council approval, depending on whether the area in the road right-of-way was included in the lot area at that time. Zoning File #990 November 13, 1985 Page 3 of 5 The 1974 Zoning Code declared this land to be zoned RR-lB, 2 Acre Single Farily Residential. As far as existing lots of record, it stated as follows; 31.201. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under separate ownership in an "R” District, which does not meet the re­ quirements of the Zoning Code as "to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judg­ ment of the Coundil such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met; 31.203. In "R" districts of Greater Than One Acre. A lot of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Code as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds; (1) it is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and (2) it is either served by public sanitary sew'r or meets all the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental body; and (3) it otherwise mets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances. Under the 1974 Code, the Council at their option could have granted a lot area variance for a lot of single separate ownership, but the Code again did not specifically discuss the standards for the separation of commonly owned lots. The general City policy, as evidenced by the outcome of at least one typical zoning application in 1981 was that unsewered adjacent lots owned in common could not be considered buildable and could not be separated unless each resulting lot or combination of lots included the required acreage in that zoning district. Upon recjodification in 1984 the Zoning Code was amended to include the following Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C); C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-conforming, un­ developed lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided ty a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Zoning File #990 November 13, 1985 Page 4 of 5 Staff’s interpretation of the current code is that the applicant would be prohibited from separating his four adjacent lots, since separation of either of the westerly lots from the main property would result in the creating of building sites less than two acres in area. The applicant appeared before you in April 1985 on an appeal basis rather than a full variance application at staff's urging because a similar application had been turned down in recent years and staff wanted applicant to get general the Planning Commission and Council prior to spending large dollar amounts in developing plans, septic testing, surveys, application fees, etc. The Planning Commission and Council directive to the applicant was that it is unlikely they would aprove two new houses, and perhaps would allow one new house resulting in a 1.5 acre density on the total property. Applicant now appears before you requesting that both westerly parcels be declared buildable. He has provided surveys of both parcels, and has provided soil testing and septic system designs indicating that each lot < could in fact support a primary and alternate drainfield system (mounds at ^ ^ll sites) to serve 3-bedroom houses, given no future encroachments. TheT ^ applicant has not provided a survey of the property with the existing/u house, nor has he provided septic testing to prove that the property has anf ^ alternate site for a drainfield. These items were specifically requested in\ the "notice of Council action" sent to the applicant on 5/31/85. Applicant^ refuses to accept the fact that in order to grant variances to build on the two vacant lots, we also grant variances to the existing developed lot (see notice of 5/31/85). Two questions, then, need to be answered. 1. Does each lot, of and by itself, have the caoability to permanently support a house, septic system, well, and the other appropriate amenities in the rural zone? If so, 2. Is the Planning Commission and Council willing to set a precedent, i.e. do away with the common ownership limitation in the unsewered zone? The ramifications of Item 2 are significant. As many as 28 vacant lots in the rural unsewered zones are commonly owned with adjacent parcels and are 1/2 - 1 1/2 acres in area, and could expect to request the same benefit of buildability. Many more such lots have been legally combined, which presumably denies them any status unless re-subdivided. We saw during the appeal that the tax valuations on Ferrells adjacent parcels were lowered as of 1983, which gives the appearance that the separated lots were then gxven "accessory lot" value and not building site value, since the main lot land value increased markedly at the same time. Perhaps this was a result of the assessor realizing that the two westerly lots were not buildable without variances. It would appear that perhaps up until 1979 and perhaps as late as 1982, the extra lots were valued much the same as the main lot. Ferrell obviously felt he was paying taxes on these as separate building sites. Vf CC I In Zoning File #990 November 13, 1985 Page 5 of 5 A further criteria to consider is how do the lots in question fit into the neighborhood as far as lot size. Given a radius of 1/2 mile from Ferrell's property, 39 developed lots are 2 acres or more, 13 are 1.25 to 2 acres, 23 are .75-1.25 acres, and 11 are less than .75 acre. (These increments were picked so that the Ferrell lots could be categorized in one group.) (Note that the Stubbs Bay Study Area, where sewer is contemplated to serve Eastlake Street, Tonka Avenue, and Crestview Avenue, was excluded although it is within the 1/2 mile ra-dius. Those 38 or so houses are on lots averaging 1/2 acre or less.) It is clear to see that in Orono's two acre zone north and east of Stubbs Bay, the majority of existing lots are less than two acres. In general terms, the existing density and lot sizes are detrimental to our long-term program of development without City sewers. Additional houses on relatively small lots will not help that situation. Recall that the Alden Anderson application to allow a second building site on adjacent properties totaling 3.5 acres, was in effect turned down a few years ago. Are there nny circumstances or hardships in the Ferrell application that justify a recommendation of approval? t-v-’r'-.x To: Planning Commission Members r^^iq -g*7From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator "* ' Date: February 6, 1986 Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell 3405-3411-3415 Watertown Road - Variances - ,date to Memo of November 13, 1985 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Memo of 11/13/85 With Exhibits Exhibit B - Survey of Property With Existing House Exhibit C - Soils Report, Site Plan For Existing House Exhibit D - Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/85 Bxh, PcAfO Mr. Ferrell has now submitted the additional survey and soils report to show an alternate drainfield site for the existing house. Given no future encroachments, there is adequate area on the lot with the existing house to replace the septic system with a fully conforming system. Please review the memo of 11/13/85. As noted in that memo and considering the additional information submitted, it appears technically possible to place a house, garage, driveway, well, and primary and alternate septic systems on each of the lots. The possible house location would be somewhat limited by the drainfield sites. There would be potential conflicts if a situation occurred where an extremely large house, pool, tennis court, etc. were proposed. The properties lend themselves to relatively low levels of development. Finally, from a zoning code standpoint, even if only one new building site is granted, this is precedent setting. In the past. Council and Planning Commission have generally held the line in similar unsewered common ownership situations. Approval of 1 or 2 new building sites might have long-term impact on Orono's effectiveness in avoiding sewer. Weigh this against the applicant's real and preceived rights as a property owner and the history of zoning code changes over the years. Are there sufficient justifications to grant a variance? TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Orono City Council Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator March 3, 1986 #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405-3411-3415 Watertown Road - Variances 5 1 /mC*— - i? < List of Exhibits: A - Applications for variances on 2 vacant lots B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Notice to Applicant 2/20/86 E - Composite Site Plan F - Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan for existing house, east lot G - Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan for center lot H - Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan for west lot I - Staff memos 11/13/85, 2/6/86 J - Minutes: Planning Commission 4/15/85; Council 5/28/85; Planning Commission 11/18/85; Planning Commission 2/18/86 K - Tax History, 1974 - 1985 L - Council Minutes September 22, 1958 M - Pertinent Ordinances Dating to 1950 N - 1981 Draft Denial Resolution - Alden Anderson property, 1900 Shoreline Dr. (similar case) Council originally reviewed this application in May, 1985 as a zoning appeal, at which time Council gave applicant general direction that perhaps 1 additional building site would be considered, but that 2 additional building sites would not be looked upon favorably. Please review Exhibit D, the composite site plan for this 2.9 acre group of parcels. Applicant is requesting permission to build houses on each of the two vacant lots adjacent to his home. The lots are substandard in area and width based on the current 2-acre, 200 foot width standards. To briefly review the code standards that previously and currently affect this property; 1950 Zoning Ordinance - (Prior to division of this property into separate parcels) - Property zoned 1-acre min. lot size. 1955 - Original Platting Code 1958 - Ferrell builds house at 3405 Watertown Poad, requests to build a second house on property per minutes of 9/22/58. Ferrell presumabLy told by Herb Ross, Mayor, that in order to build a second house would require a subdivision, since 1950 zoning ordinance allowed only one residence per lot. 1959 - Ferrell presumably completed subdivision. 10/12/59 - Adoption of Ordinance #22 - a) required minimum lot area of 1 acre, min. lot width of 140', which Ferrell lots would meet or nearly meet. b) also allowed Council to approve building permits for substandard lots held in single separate ownership, inferred that substandard common- Zoning File #990 March 3, 1986 Page 2 ownership lots would not be granted building permits, and established that the Council could allow variances to this section at Council's discretion. 1967 Zoning Code - Property still zoned 1 acre, 140' width, no substantial changes from 1959 Ordinance #22, but did state that substandard existing lots of record as of 9/14/67 under single seoarate ownership could be granted building permits if the Council finds they would not adversely affect public health or safety. Did not specifically discuss common ownership lots, but by omission inferred again they would not be granted permits. 1974 Zoning Code - Property rezoned to 2-acre, 200' minimum width. This code set specific standards for use of substandard single separate ownership lots of record in the 2 acre zone i.e.: 1) must be at least 1 acre, 100' width 2) must meet all septic requirements or be sewered 3) meets all other applicable standards But again, the 1974 code specifically did not discuss common ownership lots. The Alden Anderson common ownership lot buildability application at 1900 Shoreline Drive was denied in 1981 based on lack of the required 2 acre lot area, setting a precedent for denial of situations such as Ferrell * s. 1984 Zoning Code - requires Council approval to separate (read "sell") adjacent undeveloped non-conforming commonly owned lots if the resulting lots do not meet area or width standards. Clearly in the Ferrell case. Council approval is required in order to separate the conforming 2.9 acre group of parcels into substandard parcels. Note that the 0.85 acre center lot, which would only be approximately 0.97 acre even if road right-of-way was included, would likely have required a variance under all previous zoning codes, and both vacant parcels would have required variances since the 1974 zoning code. Finally, please review the exhibits, especially the memo's of 11/13/85 and 2/6/86. Planning Commission reviewed this application on 2/18/86 and recommended denial of 2 additional building sites, but recommended approval of 1 additional site for a density of approximately 1.5 acres per building site (see exhibit D). Approval of even 1 new site will set a precedent in complete reversal of the Alden Anderson denial in 1981. Weigh this against the fact that applicant has shown that the 2 proposed building sites both can meet the septic code requirements if development of the property is minimal (no swimming pools, no ternis courts). Staff will draft a resolution for your next meeting reflecting Council's direction. S>u). K Tot From: Date: Subject: Council Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assitant Zoning Administrator March 14, 1986 Ward Ferrell - 3405 Watertown - Variance - ‘-^ditional Information Note: Please refer to your memo from the March 10 meeting. List of Exhibits A - 1974 Public Hearing Minutes - Rezoning B - Similarly situated properties - A-M (map) C - Sketches I. Re: Ferrell conunent that at time of retoninq, Ci^ stated th^ exlstina l5ts would still ^ buildable. (p • 2. ) • II. Documentation o^ Similar Cases Rural Zone^ A) 320 Woodhill Road - 2 parcels: w/house-3.5 acre; vacant-1.1 acre; vacant lot fronts on Edgewood Hills Road. B) 105 cygnet Place - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre, vacant-1.0 acre. C) 3865 Bayside Road - 2 parcels: w/house-0.7 acre; vacant-1.2 acre. D) 341 West Lake Street - 3 parcels: w/house-0.5 acre: vacant- 0.5 acre; vacant-0.5 acre. E) Lakeview Golf Course - 4 parcels: “es^“17 vacant-1.98 acres, vacant-1.98 acres, vacant-0.75 acreslonxy parcel with road frontage). F) 1080/1090 Heritage Lane - 3-plus parcels: w/house-7.0 acres (estate), vacant-1.0 acres, vacant-1.0 acres. G) 1425 Bayridge Road - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre, vacant-1.1 acre. H) 1900 Shoreline Drive - 2 parcels: w/house-1.4 acre, vacant- 1.7 acre. File #990 Page 2 of 2 I) 300 Sixth Ave. N.- 2-plus parcels: w/house-100 ac.+; vacant- 1.5 acre. J) 379 North Brown Road - 2 parcels; w/house-1.0 acre; vacant- 2.6 acres. K) 960 N. Willow Drive - 2 parcels; w/house-1.0 aero; vacant- 1.0 acre. L) 320 Turnham Road - 2 parcels: w/house-1.7 acres; vacant-1.1 acres. M) 200 Bederwood Road - 4 parcels: w/house-0.9 acre; vacant - 0. 6 acre; vacant • 1.1 acre; vacant - 1.0 acre. These 13 cases can be broken down into a number of categories; 1. Total acreage of commonly-owned parcels is great enoueli to yield conforming lots if lot lines are re-arranged: A,E,F,I. 2. Total acreage of commonly-owned parcels yields only enough area for a single substandard lot with existing house; C,D,L. 3. Total acreage of commonly-owned parcels yields enough area for a single conforming lot with houser but not enough additional area for a second conforming lot; BrGrHrJfKfM (these are very similar to Ferrell situation). III. To help Counci1 assess the impact of granting or denying the Ferrell variances» consider the following figures; - Number of existing developed lots in the unsewered residential zones; 1,050 approximately - Number of undeveloped, substandard sized lots, in single separate ownership in unsewered zones; 15 identified — Number of unsewered common ownership situations with a realistic potential for requesting variances to lot area in order to gain an additional building site: 22 identified (13 of these shown as A-M attached) - Within a 1/2 mile radius of the Ferrell properties (excluding the 3 Stubbs Bay Study Area streets Tonka Avenue, Crestview Avenue, Eastlake Street where sewer is contemplated) the existing developed lot sizes are: 2.0 acre or larger - 39 1.25 acre to 1.99 acre - 13 .75 acre to 1.24 acre - 23 Less than .75 acre - 11 £XH. r-l^-07 To: Orono Council Members Prom: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Dates May 21, 1986 Subjects #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Kic'esitown Road - Variances - Denial Resolut. ttached is a resolution for denial of the variances requested by rrell to construct 2 additional houses on his property. The Council's procedural options are as follows: 1. Adopt the denial resolution as drafted. In this case, Mr. Ferrell would have to wait 6 months before he could reapply for the variances, if he so wished, per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5. 2. Table the application indefinitely. This would be advisable only if the applicant requests a tabling based on additional substantial evidence he wishes to present. 3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to a 1- additional-building-site request, if he wishes, which some members of Council have indicated would be looked upon more favorably. In this case. Council could either cease action on the denial resolution, or adopt a revised denial resolution which denies the 2-additional lot request but finds that the revised request is a change of conditions which was recommended for approval by the Orono Planning Commission at their February 18, 1986 meeting, hence, the 6-month reapplication moratorium would be waived. Allowing such a revision of the application does not commit the Council to approving the 1- additional lot request. Staff would recommend that if applicant does wish to revise his request, the application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further review. Staff would suggest the following language be incorporated into the resolution as item #41 if y >u choose Option 1 above: 41. At the City Council meeting of 1986, the applicant was advised of the options to a) table if he has additional substantial evidence to submit; or b) to revise his application to request only 1-additional lot on the 2.9 acre parcel instead of 2-additional lots; or c) choose neither and waive any right to further review of this application by the City Council. The applicant chose to waive further Council review of the application. yt- 52- ‘ To:Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Date: May 29, 1987 Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road - Variances - Denial Resolution List of Exhibits Please refer to your information packet from the last meeting. Additional Exhibits: Exhibit A - Information/Surveys Submitted by Applicant at 5/26/87 Meeting 1) Swan Lake Plat - Mills New Subdivision 2) 900 North Brown Road 3) 1925 West Farm Road Exhibit B - Denial Resolution as Drafted With Exhibit "A" (Sketch of Properties in Question) Discussion - I. Cases/situations that applicant feels are similar. The applicant, at your May 26 meeting, suggested that there are many cases similar to his that the City has approved- In fact, because the prime differentiating factor is common ownership, none of the cases he brought up are similar: A) Swan Lake Addition - specifically William Mills* Jr. plat - this is a recent plat (1985-86) which divided Lot 7 into two lots each of which contains two dry buildable acres exclusive of the lake/pond area. This plat has absolutely no similarity to what Ferrell is requesting. Note that the City has granted variances for individual, pre-existing, separately owned substandard lots in the Swan Lake Addition. The key is separately owned . B) 900 North Brown Road - this lot was created as part of the plat "Farm at Long Lake" in 1978 under current zoning standards. The lot at 900 North Brown Road contains about 2.1 dry acres in total, but of which only 0.9 acres is outside of an extensive drainage easement on the property. This lot was in separate ownership, was created under current lot area codes and obviously was not considered as being a substandard lot when created, as long as any house proposed to be built on it could meet the City's septic concerns (primary and alternate site) and setbacks, which it does. (NOTE that at that time in 1978, the City did not exclude drainage easement area from the dry buildable. Now we do.) Zoning File #990 May 29, 1987 Page 2 of 4 C) 1925 West Farm Road - This is a single building lot containing 2.1 acres of which about 0.27 acre is contained within a drainage easement for a creek (the same creek that traverses 900 North Brown Road), leaving 1.83 acres dry buildable. The septic system is not as shown on the site plan submitted by Ferrell, but is a mound system located southeast of the house, set substantially back from and at a much higher elevation than the creek*. This case is not at all similar to Ferrell's. The fact is, the City has not issued a building permit or granted a lot area variance for any substandard, commonly owned lots in an unsewered zone since that 1974-75 rezoning. Mr. Ferrell's request, if approved, would set a precedent that would suggest at least 22 other substandard lots in unsewered zones could be requesting similar consideration. It is staff's opinion that allowing substandard, unsewered lots to be built on will not be advantageous to the City in its quest to keep sewer out of the rural areas. Ferrell's ownership and throughout the year5*. 1958 subdivision in relation to codes Please review the memos of March 3, 1986 and November 13, 1985 for a summary of how Ferrell's current situation came about and how changes in codes have affected his properties. The lots Ferrell created in 1958-59 appear to have met or nearly met the standards in effect at that time. On October 12, 1959, the Council adopted Ordinance #22 which allowed Council to grant variances for substandard lots in single separate ownership, inferring that commonly owned lots would not be automatically granted variances, and inferred that in the case of common-ownership lots, enforcement of that ordinance with respect to lots held in common ownership would not arbitrarily deprive the property owner of a valuable right. (See Exhibit Z-3 of la.' meeting's packet.) The 1967 Code said substantially the same thing, i.e. by stating that it would be appropriate to consider variances for substandard size separate ownership lots where health, safety and welfare concerns were satisfied, it inferred that such variance?* were not appropriate for sub­ standard common-ownership lots. The 1974 Code rezoned the property to 2-acre, 200' minimum width, and set up standards for the granting of variances for unsewered single separate ownership lots, i.e. 1 acre, 100' width, septic OK, meets all ether zoning standards; again implying (but not saying) that common- ownership lots could not be granted variances. In 1981, the City Council effectively denied a similar application for common-ownership unsewered substandard lot buildability, establishing City policy clearly. Zoning File #990 May 29, 1987 Page 3 of 4 The 1984 Code finally came out and stated that unsewered substandard common-ownership lots could not be separated from adjacent lots if the result was a substandard lot in either case. Staff believes that Parcel 2 has been unbuildable without variances since October 12, 1959, and in fact may have never been buildable because it never met the 1 acre requirement of- the 1950 Zoning Code. Staff also believes that each Zoning Code adopted since that time has supported and enhanced that position. Staff believes that Parcel 3 has been unbuildable without variances since 1/1/75, but was buildable without variances prior to 1/1/75. Each Zoning Code from Ordinance 22 adopted 10/12/59 up through the Zoning Code effective 1/1/75 implied that commonly owned substandard unsewered lots were not to be considered for variances. The current Code effective 4/1/84 states in unquestionable terms that a substandard undeveloped unsewered common-ownership lot may not be sold off separately if such a sale results in substandard individual lots. III. Regarding the extent of Ferrell's "loss” if he doesn't get two new building sites. Staff believes that since an ordinance passed on 10/12/59 made Parcel 2 undoubtedly not buildable due to it being less than 1 acre, he had the buildability right to only one additional building lot (Parcel 3) from 10/12/59 until 1/1/75, and from 1/1/75 to the present has buildability rights only to the existing developed building site. Ferrell would have had the right to sell the two vacant parcels (but not as buildable lots) to other parties prior to 4/1/84, but he didn't sell them, and as of 4/1/84 the Code says they are definitely not buildable without variances,and can't be sold off as separate lots without Council approval. And even if he had sold them prior to 4/1/84 and applied for variances, according to Alan Olson's letter of 10/26/84, there would be no basis, hardship, or justification for granting the variances to the area requirement. Any "loss" Ferrell sustains would logically be related to a taking of rights he has always had. Staff suggests that, unless he proves that the City formally granted a lot area variance for Parcel 2 when his subdivision occurred in 1958-59, Mr. Ferrell has never had the right to 2 additional lots, from 10/12/59 to 12/31/74 had the right only to one additional lot, and from 1/1/75 to the present has had the right to only the existing developed building site. Zoning File #990 May 29, 1987 Page 4 of 4 Staff has been able to locate no record that a variance was ever granted to Ferrell in 1959, and has no record that the City ever even reviewed his subdivision. The City adopted a platting code in 1955, tho wording of which indicates a plat was required for Ferrell's division, however, the Council minutes for 1958-59 and 1960 were reviewed and no mention of a plat or subdivision by Ferrell was recorded. Staff believes that the City likely never reviewed Ferrell's divisions or they might have recognized the substandard nature of Parcel 2, and if he had platted as the 1955 Code appears to require, he would not have been allowed to consider the road right-of-way as part of his lot areas. Staff Recommendation - Attached is a resolution for denial of the variances requested by Mr. Ferrell to construct 2 additional houses on his property. The Council's procedural options are as follows: 1. Adopt the denial resolution as drafted. In this case, Mr. Ferrell would have to wait 6 months before he could reapply for the variances, if he so wished, per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5. 2. Table the application indefini tely. Thi >Jld be advisable only if the applicant requests a tabling based on additional substantial evidence he wishes to present. This tabling did occur in June 1986 and applicant presented no new relevant evidence when the item was reheard in May 1987. 3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to a 1-additional- building-site request, if he wishes, which some members of Council have indicated would be looked upon more favorably. In this case. Council could either cease action on the denial resolution, or adopt a revised denial resolution which denies the 2-additional lot request bvt finds that the revised request is a change of conditions which was recommended for approval by the Orono Planning Commission at their February 18, 1986 meeting, hence, the 6-month reapplication moratorium would be waived. Allowing such a revision of the application does not commit the Council to approving the 1- additional lot request. Staff would recommend that if applicant does wish to revise his request, the application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further review. Staff would suggest the following language be incorporated into the resolution as finding #41 if you choose Option 1 above: 41. At the City Council meeting of June 8, 1987, the applicant was advised of the options to a) table if he has additional substantial evidence to submit; or b) to revise his application to request only 1- additional lot on the 2.9 acre parcel instead of 2-additional lots; or c) choose neither and waive any right to further review of this application by the City Council. The applicant chose to waive further Council review of the application. no rCTT. Cluij buildin;;- sriUtil »ff bei'ennes. contiL'riniC ,or m«jr.<iin»xl in »»iiid r.oning Ju- j, Thai soCJOfTtt^ih^ks. 4£tlU ... ______ '4 ‘'9 fOb*.i J7C Sper:::cftUy cncax-ci i” j vurts'ir:; coigns, hcidlnif auth public - dancts, or j siijns of nny kind sriUtg »ff I'n'enies. 'contnL'riniC ,or m«jr.<iin»xl in ».«.....q v.*-- , ^ ^ aicohol at th»« (iirw.ol tlic atlcp-i rrict except siipis bearing only the tion of reflol ilion and ordi- • n:imes of th.e reuidoiita of the dis-IPW5^^-^"^* • nance, and the eaaccnent ot this j ;rict. and the names of dweJlins; I reguJation »"d rcj'.^nctii^ . j therein, except street and road . . I names and traffic signs, and < I SecliosuL.-^___ ;^pp^ jjgns advenising for sale ANT) BE rr ^RTHER RE-1 rent, the premises on which they SOLVED A2H) CffDAD^m,.That j may be located, the fcilo’Ainf aref^a^ tfifitrlct ra, 3. No building or other atruc said Orono Townsliij^ he, find the tm-g shall be erected upon Section IV. zoning district 0^ U m Town Orono, pursuant ^ the laws cf the State cf Minne-ota, to-wit; san;»» is hereby r^gpaa^. at ojiand tviihm the above zoning dis trict except where the lajid upo which the building or other itriw burc is ti) be erected constitutes ••building lot" as hereinafter d .'Inod. A "building lot" is herd dedned to be land owned und cne- ownership which equals exceeds an area of one and on half acres, provided, howev* that where, at the time this res I'jrion and ordinance shall taJ ctfcct, the land has been pLatti into lets and a plat filed of re ord with the Register of Deeds < Hennepm County, and the Regi trar of Titles of Hennepm Cou: ty, and where the area of any sue platted lots is less than one as Orono piatzkl That part .cf S^tioris Two (2) and Three (3). Township One Hundred Seventeen (117), Basge Twenty-threa (350, Hennepin Cou.nty, Mlnnes-Tta, and of Sec­ tion Thiriy-f.ve (35), Township One Hundred Eigliteen (118). Range Twenty-three (23), Hen­ nepin Counv, .Jlinncsota, de­ scribed as follow All of Section Two (2)^ Town­ ship One Hundred Sovanteen (117), Range Tyenty-three (23). • • ^ ^ ♦ , ANTJ- BE IT further : RE- oi|| SOLVED AND ORDAINED s Tha; the (allowing area and district ic said Oreno Township ba, axul U k same is hereby desisnatecT gs - zoning district q^ the ..^owfi iox Orono, pursuant to the laws od the State of 3|^nesota. to-wit:>''5^ except the tri,Jlgular piece of’one-half acres in area, each sue land lying northeasterly of the! lot shall constitute one “buildin right cf wr.y of the main line of'lot"; and provided further, thi the Great Norlhem Railroad, ‘ ""here, at the time this rcsolutic and except the triangular piece and ordinance shall take effec of Land hiag aarthwesterly of the area of aijy unplatted sep^l the right of way of the Minae-lPiece of property under one ow4- ership is Less than one and \m< half ^es in area, each such sej CTHiu piece cf property shall cm stituto one "building lot" Oni one family dwelling with acce sory buildings customarily use in conjnnction with family dwei ings and ccnsMci ed a part of luc sota Western Railroad, (also kr.fjvrr -s « and All cf Section Three (3), Town­ ship One Hundred Seventeen (117), Range Twenty-three (23), lying East of County Road Num­ ber One Hundred Forty-six ^ ^ _ (146), and souUieasterly of the i^mily dwelling may be ereeU right of way of the Minnesota any one "building lot" Accef- V/C5lem Railroad, (also knov.-n .IS the.Luce line): and Tlior part of Section Thlrty-five sory building shall be deemed include such buildings as gue t cotuges, garages, boat houa >, pump or W'Jl heuaes,. chicle ar--------r- ,------ -- ----- --------------------•---------------- (35). Township One Hundred 1 houses, bams or other far.m bui« i Eighteen (llo). l ange Tv.-enty,-uigs. i three (23). contained in a trian- 4. Nothing herein shall be c( i- gle of land formed by the south-,^ stmed to prohibit an owner af easterly line of the right of way j land from cominumg on Uie h id of the Minnesota Western Rail­ road, (also known as the Luce j adopted owned by him. any trade or |a- dustry or profession which is in le of the adoption of this reso i- tion and ordinance, and the 1- actment of this regulation and e- strictioD. or from constructing i \y building or buildings for use in connection with such trade or 1- dustryjor profession which is In existence on the laod at the ti le of the adoption uf this rcsolut >n and ordinance, and the enactmi at of this regulation and restrieti 1;. nor shall anything herein cc i- tained'be construed to prohi it the usft of any land In the si d zoning district for agricultural I >r (arming purposes; uur shall as ihuia *R>avih comainod. be axi 1-^ ta prohibit the constric-] ,(ir op4rauot^.nt—■^1 * ro<)Cl» vaiso ADC7WH u iUQ amwc uusiry ur wuiui la line), and uhe southwesterly line | exLslence on (ha land at the ti of the right of way of the main • line of the Great Northern Rail­ road and the Soulh line of said Section Thirry-'.ive (35). BE rr FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDAINED. That the fol­ lowing rules, regulations and re- rlnctions with respect to uses of tlie lands and buildings within I the afurtmcnlloncd zoning dis- 1 tnet shall be nnd are hereby ed as follows, to-wit: 1. Said zonmg district is here­ by declared to be a private rcci- Jeutiai diiinct, and no building nr nlhci Unurture or improvj- •r.cnt ihall hcieuiter crec'cl..; |:.itorcd jj rcDt.:n-(J for lae or be r . . , T^- 1. Stubb'a Bay Distritf: That part of Sections one (31) and Thirty-two (32) Township One • Hundred Eigh­ teen (118), Range Twenty-three (23), Hennepin County,. 3CBEme- sota, and Sections^yive (5), Sir (8) and Eight (8), Towndiip One Hundred Seventeen (117), Range Twenty-three (23), Hennepin County, Llinnesota, described as foUq:vs: Conunenci;}! a|.a potn: “ where the line ot the town­ ship road rudping Murth and South on center section line of Section Five ifi). Township One Hundred Seventeen (117), Range Twenty-three '(23), Hannepia County, Minnesota, intersects the southerly side of the right of way of the Minnesota West­ ern Railroad (also-known as the Luce line); thence in a north­ westerly direction along the southerly line of said right of way of said Minnesota Western Railroad tn a point where said line intersects the West line of the East one-half (EV4) ot Sec­ tion Thirty-one (31), Township One Hundred Eighteen (U8). Range Twenty-throe (23); thence South along the North-South .center line of said Section Thir­ ty-one (31) and Section Six (8), Township One Hundred Seven­ teen (117), Range Twenty-three (23). to the center point of said Section Six (6). Township One Hundred Seventeen (117), Range Twenty-three (23); thence East along the North line of the Southeast Oie-quarter (SE%) of Section Six (6), Township.One Hundred Seventeen (117), Range Twenty-three (23), to the North­ west corner of the Northeast One-quarter of the Southeast One-quarter (NEV4, SB(4) of §ccticm Six (6), Township. One Hundred Seventeen (117),.RBige Twenty-three (23); thence SduUi along the West line of the. Northeast One-quarter of the’ Southeast One-quarter (WSVt, SEVi) of Section Six (0), Tbwn» ship One Hundxed Seventeett (117), Range Twenty-three (2ltf to a point when said line i^8tr- siKts the ahore line of' ^<pflh Araa. Lake Mh^petonkn:. Jtt^ .southerly iopl eastcly elrtpggn» said *hor4 »ine 'lb i;t*e eJ f.la't'Av*? !:•••• . • ............* ** . "*• .'haro o'Alarr*.-Il’J tw J s:. I? '•' *' ■■ •■ ■••..••a i:u»f •*:.■' •.•: rt .\ .7-*J.-^;! •-’ICO- a a ;'0-.-:v/. tr!;«/•%;• diior-: :-x\ :ui;;5 tny jn.ci .vnitj ):n;‘ off i.j Mulroad r.ul i oi •vav ‘o ib-.* :iT.i Ci Irltv. atUun of joiu -jcn-. r i;:ic of s.uit; railroad '•jjfjh: o£ vy ’.v:tn till- ■•vuthvi’rtailiriy line Alitor’.* S«ibdivision i\uiu- •j w w-eciea on any/j ----------- „„„ o, w.a.ggLi'naSIS'g Stubl'3 3ay to a poin* where til® I H to in-J jaict shore Ihus^interests the I *ari^ i>ui‘J-ng3 a* guest cot- West side of township road riS- i weii'^w' nin? North and Soiitt on 1 ^ n,? ciucken houses,, ■er section line of Section 5*?e ^thin^Slr buildings. v5), Township One Hciii-M - r^n^!* ** contained shaU be^ Seventeen (117), Ilange i permit or author-*hrc® mvfanWA^ 41. ^ STjy pcrsrn whatsoever to .N^^h iliJg s^dl^'of-^of «ii towQfhip road extended to^^v %niLir*!”i ®*' *'*'-^®*®*^ *“ -ho point orbeginnin?, i dSo enterproe con- and which said sonieg 1 ^ ■*• ^ot-hin? heroin contained shall be cor,su-ueil to prohibit an wadi be refeered to as the Stubb’s consirueu to prohibit an 32 IT FVJiTUSR RESOLVED I °^*^**’ within the said .VfD ORDAI!IEa..That the toi-1 district from continuing on sow rules, reguiations and restric-1. •*: owned by him, ani' trade, lur.s with respett to.uses of the) ;"d'wfr:-' or profession which is »nds and buildlaci.-within the!*” existence on said land at the v-r:» roiling distrtct'Vhall be and of the ndoption of thu reso- :*» hereby adopted aa foUowi,; and‘Jctiinancc, and the en- '•wi*: • ■ °^^mer.t of this regulation and re- 1 Said soning dirtrict Is heie-! I ' ocnstiuctinc anv ■ii^tlared :o U' a pri-/ai- r-si-'■ 'biuldfngs £or ute in .stial distiici, and no buildinr] “'‘‘cl- irad«.. in- »rot.her3tructiu*eor hnprovementt '“‘r’ P^n:e^sior• whirh js in J i»r.H hereafter be erected, alterodi”'' *‘Cr.ro and in upc-atton o.n sa.a .- repaired for use or be used L-. I \ adopt;.*:; I 'V cumcs.?s .-»?5ii*r •Kon rcsolution .md . • ««r *u -^outhecstcrlrl long the said southwesterly Rc of said subdivision, and ita lorthwesteriy extenrion to the *. titei section of said lice witlx the • * •rdinary low water mi-k of -Jke Minnetonka; thence run- Jng along .said shore line in a lortheasterly duxsetion, and then ..r. an easterly direction, and then in a southerly direction, and then 'in a northerly dircction-foUow- ing the line defined by the ordi­ nary low water mark of Lake .Minnetonka, to the point ol be­ ginning, which said eoning district • •Oiall be referred to as the Brock- ett’3 Point district ' , SS E. resolved ’ AND ORDAD-IED, That tlie fol­ lowing rules, reguiaiicas and re- .^Uictions with respect to uses of ithe iMds and buildings within he above zoning district shall be tnd ire hereby adcy.cd ns fcl- ow^, ?o-wit: A. Use Dir,lziets _______ __________ . . ....................d;s^i.-t 15 .hereby '.V purposes or.her than private*resolution and .ndincnvi •'■•aca mto use a:.icricts to be sidenMal purposes. • e»»acimcnt of this rtgula- i as "residential dis- i .Vo brnbea,-.. or =th„ rs 01 ani'.<ind .sha’I be erectc-d h- *he said zonin« •nuntaintd in said zoning dis-r'"” “aricultuial or fairn;.':.' du -- :t r.xcep; signs bec.-tng onlyfPO"«f .*:••• n-.-s of the residen‘.s of the^ and the names of dwell-' •.nerej.T. except •treet and' ^N’D i. lio building or other sirue r*; ii"'*di be erccied upon an> •vJ Within the said zoning cli*- • •• e.r^ept where* the land upon * :ch tile building or other y*rut - i-'* is to be erected ccnsriiutes building lot’* as hcrcir.arter de- Tbod. A “building lot" is here- deftneH to be laiia uiicfSr one wlUbii ' or BK r: fi:RTH!:?. r.z- .CJV.JUCU ana c.esignated ^ the ‘'commcreial diidrict" is >.ereb!' designated and established as the residential wistnet." 'fr...,; c*>'» on. '■J .■*; .ij'ea Of 'jiie tt.'W. pio- i. thiR •.vhere. at^ i.nie this resolution anc o; -' .•e shall taxc oflf*eci, *.n.; Uaic. • wen pLittnd into '.oto and .• .t :'le«l t’L .Mvoici with tile Rtg- r -Vf 0®^.s of Keanepin Coun- jflbi.iesoLa.. or ztit Hegi'trar . itics of fiennepiii County -oesoui, and Where Utc ar®a ''f luth pltttcd lot in icsn than in ...-.a. ra-'h ',c- ror.o. pu.-scant ,o tin* !a*cs of c .jJai ; cf Minnevuia, fo-wift <1 and TWO dectioa Ele-zen ’ Townstia One Hundred Se.vnt^ (1X7), Range Twenty- 1. BraekotTs Point District Hennepin Cour.iv. ri. . _ ! l*-mnesota, described as follows' n.t * of Sfctiont Tea (iO) t That part of Government Lo» ^aej One (1) descrioed aa follows* • ^na. d tseventeen (117), Range! Commencing at a point or ih® <=»• H . n . p ,’n »l:or, ,£ il.ld laS.’^Seh " ^ncir-0 136venteen (117), Range f Commencing at a point or ih® ■'I''.:;:-*.';*:” <=»• M »-•'•=■** p ■’> 'i**’*-® il.!d laS.’^Mch point.IP..., ..Iinrh.iQta, dcsoriJ/ea .ns« »*. determined as rollov/j Coni- chav.,: Corram-ncing at the * ’nencLntf at a point 0^^® Ji^on ...*vcn . 11), Towmahip j point .r- auiaat Se*.-en»x* '7oV I)ae nun*araa Cevanteen (117,V ’ fwt .nofij.westcny u ri'-V ;m tango Tweev-fhr-* iS'r. , ii^tango Twcc;:*-f)^ ,;;n* inior- , c'ttr me ordinary l(*\v vs,.itcr\ nark of t.ha '-Vest .«pore of !hnt lo.-tior ' " krour. Ibt" ------------,.s riinr an- JIIcs trom a line .S**aring .S„rtii bu::*.;.«;v. o doffre is. for-y-sicht nun-aio;. East (J7'42') f.-nm ,i r Of Laue 'Mino«onia ;: point • WV n*‘»rvi.*' r.'..t ; 2 ; ' ,1. •; t<138,3) feet from the NorthcMt c.'r*a?»* zi :;*u'.-r-ai-=n» L*-t O.**- '* ■ • •'r . v. •; 3708001 q-u-ss. eX!4 Ordinance No. 7 An OrdlBanee Kegulailag Plal- flat la the VUlaga of Oioaow Heaaopfta Covalr* Klnneinti The Village Council of the Vil* lage of Orono ordains: That the following regulations be, and the same are, hereby adopted and approved; and shall be known as and may be cited as **ViUage of Orono Subdivision Regulations.** In order to safeguard the best interests of the Village of Orono and to assiat a subdivider in har­ monizing his interests with those of the Village et large, this ordi­ nance is adopted in the hope that adherence to it will bring resulte bewagiml to all concerned. It is obvious that piecemeal planning of subdivisions Will bring a disastrous disconnected patchwork of pattern and poor dmalation of tralBe unless its design and arrangement are cor­ related to a Master Flan Study aiming at a unified scheme of community interests. It is, there­ fore, necessary for the Orono Village Cotmcil to make certain regulations and requirements which contribute to the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the community. In the long range analysis, the Plan­ ning Commission believes these regulations «*ill aid in raising property values for the subdivid­ er and will effect many economies in the platting and development of a logical subdivision. **Subdivision’* in this ordinance means the division of a parcel of land into two (2) or more lots or parcels fdr the purpose of trans­ fer of ownership or btiilding de­ velopment; prodded that a divi­ sion of for agricultural pur­ poses into lota or parcels of five (S) acres or more and not involv­ ing a new street or alley shall not be deemed a subdivision. The term includ^v re-subdivision and, when appropriate to the context, •hall relate to the process of sub­ dividing or the land subdivided. Division of any existing lot, par­ cel or plot of land shall be con­ sidered. within the purview of this ordinance. OElfaUJL lUCQUlREMEIfTS fltresta 1. In any areas where the Plan- wtwg Commission has adopted a part or whole of a Master Plan, the proposed subdivision shall conform in general principle to such Master Plan and if the sub­ division area covers a designated thoroughfare, such part of this main artery shall be part of his put '^^d shall be dedicated by the 8ub«IIvider. 2. In the design of^he subdi­ vision, provision shall be znade for the proper connections with existing streeU in adjoining sub­ divisions or for the proper exten ­ sion of proposed streets Into the adjoining property where such adjoining property has not been subdivided. In considering the extension of such streets, every attempt should be made to maln- Uin property values in adjoining subdivisions. (Adjoining develop­ ments of unequal character should not be united by connect­ ing streets unless it is deemed necessary in the public interest for street maintenance, safety and fire protection to do so.) 3. Street right-of-way widths *K«ii be designed in accordance with their character and use. The following widths are suggested as minimum right-of-way for var­ ious types of streets: Right-Of-Way a. Major arteries and parkways .................^>...100 feet b. Secondary and main thoroughfares ............... 80 feet c. Neighborhood residen­ tial streets--------------60 feet d. Minor residential streets 50 feet 4. It is desirable that all streets •HmII intersect as- nearly at right angles as seems practical, Uking other factors .into consideration. 5. Minimum center line radii of local minor streets shall be not less 100 feet; centerline radii of major and secondary thorough­ fares should be not less than 300 feet. 6. The location of all curved streets should be so arranged as to fit the natural topography as closely as possible and to make possible desirable land subdivi­ sions and safe vehicular traffic. 7. Terminal residential streets or ctils-de-sac should be platted not longer than SOO feet unless topographical conditions make a '..nger terminal street necessary. Such culs-de-sae should be avoid­ ed altogether where possible. 8. A turnaround at the eiffi of all terminal streets shall be pro­ vided of not leas than 100 feet in diameter at the property line. 9. Street names may be indi­ cated but shall not duplicate nor resemble too closely names of ex ­ isting streets in Orono or in the metropolitan area. Existing street names shall be used where the platted street is a logical exten ­ sion of that particular street. Allefys 1. In general, alleys shall not be permitted in a residential sub­ division. Service drives shall be provided on major thoroughfares. Where alleys are necessary and approved by the Council, they shall be not less than twenty (20) feet in width. Alleys will be re­ quired in (he rear of all lots to be used for business purposes. 2. Where two (2) alleys inter­ sect, a cut-off of not leas than ten (10) feet along such property line from the normal intersection of the property lines shall be pro­ vided. 3. Dead-end alleys shall be avoided where possible, but if unavoidable, shall be provided with adequate ttirn-around facil­ ities at the dead-end as deter­ mined by the Council Easements Where alleys are not provided at the rear of properties, there must be provided a public ease­ ment as a part of the plat The purpose of such easement is to provide possible location for util­ ity lines such as sewer, water and gas and for location of electric and phone lines. Such easement shall ht not less than five (5) feet on each side of the lot line, mak­ ing a total of ten (10) feet No garages nor structures shall be built upon this easement Ade­ quate easement provisions shall be made for area drainage and storm water carry off. Blocks Considerable latitude as to size of blocks is deemed desirable by the Council in order that the subdivision may be planned In blocks to suit the topography, the general character of the site and the type of development appro­ priate to the locality. With the increased use of the automobile. trend in residential subdivi ­ sions has been toward a longer length of block and a reduction of tha percentage of land devoted to streets. Under certain condi­ tions, blocks up to ’000 feet or 1200 feet in length may be ac- cepuble. Lots 1. Residential lots, as to size end area, shall be governed by and subject to the policy of the Village Council which is hereby declared to be that all lots con­ form in area to the existing lots in the general area of the pro­ posed subdivision and in no event shall be less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet in area, and minimum width of one hundred (100) feet at the build­ ing line, exclusive of any ease­ ment for driveway purposes (util­ ities easement excepted). 2. Depth and width of proper­ ties reserved or laid out for com­ mercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street service and parking facilities required by the type of use and development contemplat­ ed. 3. Each lot shall adjoin upon a public street and shall have a minimum width of thirty (30) feet at street line. Lots In regis­ tered land stweyr may adjoin upon private streets. Said streets nonetheless shall comply with provisions peruining to streets set forth in this ordinance. 4. Double frontage, and reverse fronUge lots, should be avoided except where essential to provide separation of residential develop­ ment from traffic arteries or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. A planting screen reservation of at least ten (10) feet, and across which there shall be no right of access, shall be provided along the line of lots abutting such a traffic artery or other disadvan ­ tageous uses. S. Side lot lines shall be sub- sUntial.'y at right angles or radial to street lines. Flood Areas Areas within the jurisdiction of the Village Council subject to Hood conditions as established by the Engineer of the Village of Orono will not be considered for subdivision purposes until ade­ quate drainage has been provid­ ed. Planting on PuhUe Property The planting of trees, type, spacing, etc., on public property shaU be subject to the regulations of the Village CourciL No plant­ ing, gateways, entrances and sim­ ilar improvements shall be made on public property except with permission and approval of the Village CotmeiL Public Ojgan Specea It is the declared general policy of the Village Council that in all new subdivisions not less than five per cent of the gross area of all property subdivided shall be dedicated for public use, oarh five per cent being in addition to the property dedicated for streets, alleys or other public ways. Tha Village Council may waive requirement if it feels that public property, other than roads, is not necessary in coimection with this subdivision. The area thus dedicated should be either usable area or area which can be put into usable shape by the subdrvider. The subdivider shall leave land so dedicated in a condition satisfac­ tory to the Village Council. The varying size of lots, the sire of the subdivision, etc., will have a direct bearing on the de­ sirability of and Uu necessity for such dedication as well as the size of the piece to be dedicated. It will be within the discretion of the Plaim .ig Commission to interpret these regulations in the light of the overall plan and pat­ tern of park development. In the interests of the Village as a whole, and, therefore, of benefit to the subdivision, the Village Council of Orono is de­ sirous of conserving certain areas of natural beauty and esUblish- ing in various areas die logical distribution of the following types of facilities: 1. Play lots, for preschool chil­ dren. 2. Children's playgrounds, for chiidren from five to fifteen years of age to use for active pUy. 3. Athletic field, as a specialized center for organized games and sports. ** 1. Parks, large and small, for their value in passive recrea­ tion and os a long range pro­ tection from congestion of de­ velopment A cooperative interest in this larger program is sought by the Village Council and it is expected the subdivider vrill aid in assist­ ing to make this achievement possible. PlaiUng Procedure The Council of the Village of Orono requires that all proposed subdivisions shall have the prior approval of the Planning Com­ mission before receiving Wm) ap­ proval by the CounciL It is, therefore, necessary that certain steps be taken end data assem­ bled that will enable the Plan­ ning Commission to study the proposed subdivision in the light of its relation to the Village plan for growth and development, and in the light of the general topog­ raphy and the character of the development To accomplish this ptirpose, the Planning Commission will wish to submit the preliminary plat to their Village Engineer and to their Consultant for their study in field and office and for their recommendations. This prelim­ inary plat for the consideration of the Plaiming Commission be filed with the Village Engineer or Planning Commission not less than five days in advance of a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to allow sufficient time for review, study and a recommendation pertaining to this plat, at the next regtilar meeting. Whenever possible, it is desir­ able that the preliminary plat be accompanied by a written sute- ment specifying the intentions ox the owner respecting the pro­ posed character of the develop­ ment, deed restrictions, drainage, parks and playgrounds and the intended date of beginning devel ­ opment. He should express his willingness to proceed to file a plat of record of his subdivision or such part thereof as he may wish to put upon the market and to install all monuments shown on the plst The Planning Commission, in its consideration of the prelim­ inary plat, will take into consid­ eration the requirements of the Community and the beat use of the land being subdivided. Par­ ticular attenUon will be given u> the arrangement, location and widths of streets, the general drainage situation, lot sires and arrangement, as well as any Mas ­ ter Plan requirements such as parks, school sites, boulevards, highways, etc Adequate street connections will be required to insure access and freedom of traf ­ fic circulation. The subdivider, after the ap ­ proval of the tentative plat by the Planning Commission and prior to the submission of a final plat, shall within six months after the date of approval, or such longer period as the Plan­ ning Cooimission may grant, cause the property to be surveyed in accordance with the approved tentative plat and any and all changes therein as approved by the Planning Commission. The survey shall be made In accord ­ ance with the standard practices and principles for land surveying and all monuments shall be sub­ ject to the insp^ion and ap­ proval of the Village and the County Authorities before ap ­ proval of the final plat Final plats must be submitt^ to the Village Engineer or Plan­ ning Commission not less than five days in advance of a regular meeting of the Planning Commis­ sion for its approval prior to sub­ mission to the Village CounciL The Council requires that all streets shall be graded and grav ­ elled as a part of the develop­ ment Such work shall be done under the supervision of the Vil­ lage Engineer and subject to spec­ ifications prepared by the Village Engineer and placed on file with the Village Clerk. Interior fitraets The subdivider shall grade and gravel streets at his own expense. In case this work is not complet­ ed for a logical reason when the final plat is presented, a perform­ ance bond with a Surety Com­ pany approved by the Village Council be furnished before final plat is accepted. Boundary Streets The subdivider may petition, prior to acceptance of the final plat, that the grading and gravel­ ling be done by the Village with full costs assessed against the benefitUd property over a period not to exceed ten years. PreUmlnary Plat Four prints of the preliminary plat of a proposed subdivision shall be submitted to the Orono Planning Commission drawn to a scale either one inch equals one hundred feet or one-half inch equals one hundred feet. The preliminary plat shall con­ tain the following information: 1. The proposed name or legal description of the subdivision. L Its location with reference to known existing thorough­ fares or section comers, etc. 3. The boundary, lines with di­ mensions of the tract to be subdivided. 4. A topographical map of the area (showing contours of the land in general not greater than one foot intervals). Map should indicate location and width of existing adjacent streets and utilities with es­ sential elevations and make note of bench mark used and its elevation. 5. Owner's name, Subdivider's name, and the Surveyor's name and certificate. (Sur­ vey shall be made by Regis ­ tered Land Surveyor.) 6. Scale, North point and date of. plat. 7. Preliminary street profiles showing present grade, pro­ posed grade (every 100 feet), complete with percent of grade and showing satisfac­ tory disposition of storm wa ­ ter. Two prints of profile- one to be returned to the subdivider when approved and acceptable. 8. All plats and profiles shall bear tlie standard State Board of Registration Certifi­ cate, properly executed. 9. Proposed building lines on all lota intended for residen­ tial use and in some cases re­ quired on lots intended for business use, and at least the setback required by the Building Ordinance and any applicable Zoning Ordinance. 10. Owner’s name of unplatted property, lots, blocks, and name of subdivision of plat­ ted property within ISO feet of the botmdary lines of pro­ posed subdivision. 11. Copy of the provisions of any protective covenants where­ by the subdivider proposes to regulate land use in the sub­ division. Final Plat Requirement The preliminary plat as out­ lined above is a prerequisite to the submission of the final plat. Approval of the preliminary plat Is tentative only. Approval of the final plat shall be obtained from the Village Council after first re­ ceiving approval from the Plan ­ ning Commission upon submis­ sion of same with the complete information outlined in the re­ quirements specified herewith. The final plat shall conform to the preliminary plat as approved, and, if desired by the subdivider, it may constitute only that por­ tion of the approved preliminary plat which he proposes to record and develop at the time, provid­ ed, however, that such portion conforms to all requirements of these regulations. The following data shall be shown on or submitted with the final plat: 1. Boundary survey. 2. Dimensions — all necessary. 3. Angles —at all boundary and block comers. 4. Purpose for which sites, other than residential lots, are ded­ icated or reserved. 5. Minimum building setback line when required by the Village Council. 6. Location and description of monuments. 7. Other dau: such other cer­ tificates, affidavits, endorse­ ments, or dedications as may be required by the Village Council for the enforcement of these regulations. 8. In lieu of the completion or installation of any or all of the above improvements, and before the final plan is ap­ proved and recorded, the Vil­ lage of Orono may accept a cash deposit or surety bond to secure to the Village tne actual cost of such improve­ ments as estimated the Village Engineer. 9. Streets and alleys (by angles and distances). 10. Above description should in­ clude all centerline curve data. 11. Street names. 12. Block lines and block num­ bers. 13. Lot lines and lot numbers. 14. Easements and their widths. 15. All necessary certificate re­ quired by law. 16. Name of subdivision, scale, date, north point and all oth- •r pertinent infonnetion gen­ erally required on plate. 17. Tb» form of approval shall be as follows: a. This plat was approved and accepted by the Village Cotm- cii of the Village of Orono, MlnnesotSt at a regular meet­ ing thereof held this------day ot____________A.D. 19__ , Mayfif __________________aerk b. TUs plat was approved by the Planning Commission of the Village of Orono at a reg­ ular meeting thereof held this ___day of----------19,^ Checked and ........day of__ approved this ___M), 19^ County ourveyor, Hennepin County, hiinnesota. Should any section, paragraph, clause or condition of this ordi­ nance be declared by the courts to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the ordi­ nance as a whole or any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. This ordinance shall be pub­ lished in the Minnetonka Herald published at Wayzata, Minnesota and shall be effective from and after such publication. Passed by the Village Cotmcil of the Village of Orono this 12th day of September, 1959. H. R. Rosa, Mayor. Attest: O. E. Johnson, clerk. 10 ^ •■" k k ORDINANCE NO. 22 An Ordinanc* to Prasarro tba PubUc Haalib ol iha CUixans of Orono by Ragulaling tha Mini* mum Siza of Haridantial Build­ ing Lola WHEREAS, the Village ol Or­ ono has no community sewage system and depends upon septic tank* and soil absorption sys­ tems lor the disposal ol waste; and WHEREAS, such disposal methods are apt to create a ser­ ious problem affecting the health ol the community where applied in residential areas serving more than one dwelling per acre; and WHEREAS, other communities have serious health problems by reason ol the enlargement ol res­ idential areas with substandard lot sizes served by septic tanks and absorption systems; and WHEREAS, the Planning Com­ mission ol the Village of Orono has recommended to the Council that regiilationa should be estab­ lished now to prevent the same sort ol serious health problem from arising in the Village ol Orono; NOW, THEREFORE, lor the sake ol the general welfare and health ol the residents ol the Village ol Orono, it is ordained as follows: ———j Section 1. After the effective / date ol this ordinance, no build­ ing permit shall be issued lor the erection ol a residence in any residential zone ol the Village, except upon a building lot con­ taining a minimum area of one acre, and having a minimum width ol 140 feet at the building line. Section 2. It is recognized that there are several built up resi­ dential areas in the Village which are substandard and overbuilt by the terms ol this ordinance. In such areas, building permits may be issued lor lots not meeting the minimum requirements estab­ lished by this ordinance, if the Village Council feels that such building will conform to the gen­ era characteristic ol the neigh- borhod and will not have an im­ mediate and specific adverse effect upon the public health. Section 3. It is recognized that the enforcement ol the minimum provisions required by this ordin­ ance with respect to lots held in single, separate ownership at the TlmVorthe passage oi this ordin­ ance might be an arbitrary depri­ vation of a valuable right from said owners. Therefore, where a lot which fails to meet the mini­ mum standards ol this ordinance is held in a single, separate own­ ership at the time of the pas­ sage of this ordinance, the Coun­ cil may issue a building permit, provided that there will be no immediate or specific adverse ef­ fect upon the public health. Section 4. This ordinance su­ percedes and repeals any provi­ sions in the platting ordinance or zoning ordinances ol the Village which are inconsistent herewith, except that provisions ol prior ordinances establishing higher standards than those prescribed by this ordinance are continued in effect Section 5. It is recognized that the establishment ol definite standards for all lots in the entire Village is Impossible, as there may be, in every case, reasons to relax the standards, or to en­ force stricter standards. The Coimcil reserves its discretion to increase or decrease the stand­ ards hereby set lor good cause, whenever the particular facts ol the situation convince the Coim- cil that the public welfare, and particularly the public health, re­ quire such modification. Section 6. This ordinance shall be published in the Minnetonka Herald at Wayzata, Minnesota, and shall be effective immediate­ ly upon such publication. Passed by the Village Council of the Vilage ol Orono this I2th day ol October, 1959, by a vote of 4 yeas and No nays. H. R. ROSS, Mayor Attest: O. E. JOHNSON. Clerk (10-15-59) // r/4 // . u. • • 'll VILLAGE OF OHONO HESIDETmAL AJID COP/IMERCIAL BUILDINGS OWHEH W/i !-?J> /=■&■/? /p A. jjddhess unnc-e P^-a'i^ raOMCMD. (P/f 3 me PURPOSE OF BUILDmC BUILDER ADDRESS PHONE NO. ey^» PERMIT NO.y-X 7 Sm.No.PorcolNo. ^rn: r ^PaTtrs !Q , >\~)t AdcUtion or Subdivision X. - . * *\ ■; -.i-r LAND DSSCaiTTICN SizoofLot Land Sq. Ft Elovotion BUILDING LOCATION Dia. From Road Dls. SldM Dla.Bock Drainage CONSTBUenON Framet,^Brick. Solid Stucco Brick Veneer Slone Cement Block FOOTINGS Depths Least Depth Width ’ Q- ^Below Grade * FOUNDATION Construction ^ L Size .y . .» BAflETJENT Ground Drainage J • ’i ”^oor Bearing Poets Size Spacing Beams Size Span CHIMNEYS Na Type Foundation rt • Height Above Roof . . y »/ Smoke Pipe—Distance From Joists FLOORS Sub Flooring F’ f Joists *'She ^ V Spacing / (j Bridging ^ ^ Bea»jigV.D-V / ru. .t t, - 7 ' STUDDINGS RAFTEHS CEILIING JOISTS Size V Size V- Y ^ Size Spodng f . j. *' Spacing ' > '' Spacing ' * ‘ Platee Span /' Longest Span ' Bracing i- >L '*■ *’■ V/.' . CUTS Boeement — Na / Sixe^ Stairway 'p 1st Floor — No. Size Stoirwoy INSULATION Ceiling ff : - ■ U Walla t«- S VENTILATION AND UGHT Percentage of Floor Area Vent /\ Percentoge of Light to Fl>or Area LINTELS Size 'T^y > Location Span S' '^4 WELL r/PE Construction ^ ' Z' C ^ Location ^ f SEPTIC TANKS Size 2- - ‘ ^ Distonce From Well / ^ Construction '• V . DRAINFIELD Depth Width Length .y Distance From WeU { X Distonce From Lot Linee/»'7^ PLUMBING FCmjRES Sinks /Shower ^ Laundry j Toilet Z. Both Tub /Lovotory 'j - I hereby agree that in cose permit is granted all work which shall be done and all materials which shall be used shall com* ply with the plans and specifications submitted ond with all the ordinances of the Villoge of Orono applicable thereta NOTES: ' A/6 k/ Ho c Signed. Receipt No_^ ^ ^'■ /, .1 /\-.r Bldg, Plumb. SewageTotol name:. THE SEWAGE SYSTEM INSTALLED BY /V' C z • ' A ADDRESS. vacant 1.07 acres TAX VALDATION UISTORY Ward Ferrellf 3405 Watertown Road vacant 0.85 acre with house 0.91 acre vacant 0.10 acre Exhibit J YEAR PID 0007 PID 0008 PID 0009 PID 0010 MKT VALUE TAX MKT VALUE TAX MKT VALUE* TAX**MKT VALUE TAX TOTAL TAX (Before Homestead Credit) 1985 5,000 198.60 5,000 198.60 25,000 2,064.62 200 7.94 2,469.76 1984 *5,000 205.54 5,000 205.54 25,000 2,121.22 200 8.22 2,540.52 1983 5,000 193.50 5,000 193.50 25,000 2,097.92 200 7.74 2,492.66 1982 10,400 384.30 6,600 243.88 14,100 1,628.12 220 8.12 2,264.42 1981 10,400 354.32 6,600 224,96 14,200 1,534.20 220 7.48 2,120.86 > 1980 9,200 283.98 5,800 212.98 13,960 1,596.70 200 5.82 2,099.48 (12,500)** * 1979 5,100 198.42 5,100 198.42 7,070 (5,900) 1,674.92 120 3.88 2,075.64 1978 4,600 183.90 4,600 183.90 6,240 (5,300) 1,688.56 110 3.96 2,060.32 1977 4,200 169.46 4,200 169.46 4,740 1,657.63 110 4.04 2,000.59 (4,235) 1976 3,500 151.78 3,500 151.78 ****1,460.46 90 3.92 1,767.94 1975 3,200 154.14 3,200 154.14 ****1,457.43 90 4.36 1,770.07 1974 3,200 141.38 3,200 141.38 ****1,341.98 90 4.00 1,626.74 *Market value of land portion only **Tax on land and structures ***Number in parentheses is Limited Value of land portion; Market Value number was calculated Using the formula; Limited value of land portion MKT VALUE “ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X MKT VALUE land and structures Limited value of land and structure ****Du]p£ng these years the tax records do not indicate the values of land and structures separately ■ •• -U.::'M ^ ■Ward Forroll Page 2 lyou are always welcome to call me or Jeanne Mabusth, the Zoning Administrator. Sincerely, Alan 'V, Olson City Planner ce; City Council Walter R. Benson Jeanne A. Mabv*sth : r.->- , ■ * -I V Cl I . S •.. r'- - - - - - - - y-/«?'S7 9epe««b«r 29, 1931 City of Orono Orooo, Minaosoco SS391 0CT-8iai ■' ■ i i.. Miy OF QRQMQ , . Qxf.fU^M»J( Pisfr'f’ In the tuaser of 1958, I went to fee George Hansen to get • building perait. At that tiae I was inforaed that 1 had to see the Council for approval. At the next meeting I approached the Council for approval. X explained that Z had about five (5) acres of land and I wanted to build at the east end of this land. Herb Boss, then Mayor, knew the property and aade a motion to approve the perait. A second motion was about to be ooda when Mr. Bugley questioned the legality of two homes on the same property. He said two houses on a lot of a sub*divi*> sion was not legal. I explained that there waan't any division of property and that the houses would be at least 400 feet apart. I already had a mortgage approval from Midwest Federal for an increase in the existing mortgage. The approval was tabled until legal advice could be obtained from the Village lawyer. Z waited about two months to hear the results that never came even when I asked what was going on. 1 called Herb Boas X work early one Saturday morning and informed him I couldn't wait longer because of winter coming and was going to start construction that day. About two weeks later Herb called and said to stop in and get a building perait. It was finally approved. At that time he expressed his wish that I would consider dividing the land to satisfy Council members and also a doubtful legal tangle. I said I would think it over. When I went to get the permit from George Hansen I inquir** ed about restrictions on lot sise if I divided the land. He informed me of no restrictions of lot size, but expressed his desire to have it at least 140 feet vide at the building site. Having 693 feet of land on the south would have given me 5 or 6 lots. I decided to divide the land and contacted Gordon Coffin for survey. Finding 5 or 6 lots not appealing to me, I settled for 4 lota. I - 150 feet, 2 - 140 feet, and the third I left 263 feot for myself. This was accepted by the Village and Herb thanked me for my cooperation with their request. P.:- - m." i '*r • i-. -. .• i. •“ / Cicy of Orono -2-Srpteaher Z*), 1981 Wh«n new sonio^ ecerted end aeectngs were hold for public reepoaee, Che queecion wee raised about existing lots (2 - 140 ft.). We were iaforaed that it would aot affect existing lota and had nothing to worry about. I decided to sell a lot and found a buyer. That party (I was inforood) went to the City Rail CO get inforaation on building restrictions and code and waa inforwed that a perait would not be issued under any circuaataocea because of the lot aixe (1.2S acres). I was told that it would be a waste of tioe even to approach the Planning Board for approval. This was told to^e over the phone by Jdaai at the City Rail. It seaaa atrange that after a request by one Council to divide land to aaciafy the village and Council oenbers. to have stateaenta aade that existing lota would nor. be affected by new zoning codeot that now a buyer of a lot is Cold iaposoible to build on this lot in Orono. 1 would like to soil this lot. The buyer wants Co live in Orono but discouraged by the flat NO by the City for permit without any exceptions. X would like this settled so land can be sold. I have paid taxes on this land since 1949 and expenses to keep it clean. This aoounts to quite a suo of money and time. Then to hear it can't be used is quite a blow. You people of the Planning Comaittee, Council oeabera and Chose who work for the City work for the improveoent of Che City of Orono. We have land (lots) already plotted but do not aeec new codes. People want to buy in Orono to live here. These lots should be approved for building. New people develop more jobs - improvement brings more revenue for the City. This in Cura helps the City improve service to Che community. Let's not hinder progrens, let's get new citizens in Orono - Co move forward let's improve and develop what we have. Respectfully Ycurs, [IW--m- f " • V - r* • k. . ..-f-r*:- A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) PILE NO. 990 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'-Statutes 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, Ward Ferrell (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of property located at 3405 Watertown Road within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: PARCEL 1 That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 50 rods West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 263 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to a point directly North of the point of beginning; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0009); and That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 50 rods West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence North 6 rods to the center of the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to the South line of said Section 32; the.ice West to the point of beginning; excluding the public road. (Also known as P.I.D. #32- 118-23 44 0010); and PARCEL 2 That part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 1088 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its intersection with a line drawn North through the point of beginning at right angles to the South line of sai Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of beginning. (/ilso known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0008); and Page 1 of 9 PARCEL 3 That part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32, Township IISN, Range 23W, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 1228 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its intersection with a line drawn North through the point of beginning at right angles to the South line of said Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0007); and" WHEREAS, for discussion purposes the property has been defined as 3 separate parcels as described above and per Exhibit A attached; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (3) to permit the construction of a principal residence structure on a lot containing approximately 1.04 acres or 52% of the required 2.0 acres in area and 140 feet or 70% of the required 200 feet of lot width (Parcel 3); and to further permit the construction of a principal residence structure on a lot containing approximately 0.85 acres or 42.5% of the required 2.0 acres in area and 140 feet or 70% of the required 200 feet of lot width (Parcel 2); and requesting Council approval per Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) to separate non-conforming, undeveloped, substandard, contiguous, unsewered lots of record under common ownership, which separation would result in individual building sites not satisfying the lot area and lot width standards of the Zoning Chapter of the Orono Muncipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission; comments of the neighboring property owners; and materials and comments made by the applicant and applicant's attorney. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot area and lot width variances and denies the request to separate the commonly owned lots for the property described above based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS 1. As of January 1, 1975, the property has been zoned RR-IB, Rural Residential Zoning District, requiring a minimum lot size of 2.0 acres in area and 200 feet minimum width. Based on the required performance standards for the RR-lB zoning district, the proposed use of the property for 2 new residential building sites in addition the one existing building site would require the following variances: Page 2 of 9 Parcel 1 (with existing house) a) Lot Area Required - Existing Variance » Parcel 2 (vacant) a) Lot Area Required » Existing « Variance - b) Lot Width Required * Existing * Variance = Parcel 3 (vacant) a) Lot Area Required =* Existing « Variance “ b) Lot Width Required * Existing * Variance ■ 0.99 acres or 49.5% 2^0 acres 0.85 acres or 42.5% 1.15 acres or 57.5% 200 feet 140 feet or 70% 60 feet or 30% 2.0 acres 1.04 acres or 52% 0.96 acres or 48% 200 feet 140 feet or 70% 60 feet or 30% requirements for the single existing residence on the property, acre in area and 140 feet minimum width. 4. Prior to September 14, 1967, the property was induced within the -Stubbs Bay zoning District", effective since July 10, 1950^ residential zone requiring a minimum building lot s area. 5. The applicant purchased the property in August 1948. 6. Prior to 1958, the property ""the ^stdenct !Ica\ed"ttapproximately 4.19 acres and contained only the reside 3425 Watertown Road. Page 3 of 9 7. On September 22, 1958, the City Council approved the request of Mr. Ferrell to construct a second residence on the undivided property. The request was granted subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Subsequently, Mr. Ferrell was issued a building permit to construct a new residence on October 13, 1958, which residence is now known as 3405 Watertown Road. 8. Sometime during 1958'“1959, Mr. Ferrell subdivided the property so that 3425 Watertown Road was contained within a separate 1.29 acre parcel, the ne'.: .louse at 3405 Watertown Road was located on a 1.01 acre parcel (Parcel 1 per attached Exhibit A), and 2 additional parc^els (Parcels 2 and 3 per Exhibit A) were created between 3405 and 3425 Watertown Road. 9. Mr. Ferrell has retained ownership of Parcels 1, 2 and 3 since their creation as a result of the 1958-59 subdivision. 10. On March 18, 1985, Mr. Ferrell requested City staff to accept a variance application for approval to construct a new home on Parcel 3. At staff's recommendation, Ferrell submitted the application as a zoning appeal in order to be granted a timely review and recommendation by the Planning Commission without submitting the complete survey and soil testing information required. 11. Pursuant to the zoning appeal application, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this matter. Application No. 903, on April 15, 1985. The Planning Commission confirmed that many variances were necessary in order to build on either of Parcels 2 or 3 and the Planning Commission gave the applicant the general direction that Planning Commission would likely only recommend approval of one new house, and only if Parcels 2 and 3 were combined. 12. The zoning appeal was reviewed by the City Council on May 28, 1985, and the Council affirmed staff's interpretation of the zoning code that many variances would be necessary in order to build on both vacant lots, and at that meeting certain individual Council member? stated they would likely consider one additional building site but not two. 13. On October 9, 1985, Mr. Ferrell submitted a formal application for variances to build new homes on Parcels 2 and 3. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter on November 18, 1985, and tabled the application pending submittal of additional required survey and soil testing information for the existing house on Parcel 1. 14. On February 18, 1986, the Planning Commission again reviewed the completed application. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of 2 new building sites but recommended approval of 1 new building site using the combined Parcels 2 and 3. Page 4 of 9 15. The City Council reviewed the application on March 10, 1986, tabling it until April 14, 1986 for final action. On April 14, 1986, the City Council directed staff to draft a resolution of denial based on the following findings: a) The extent of the variances requested is* excessive for the RR-IB zoning district. b) Given the history of septic system problems in the City of Orono and surrounding Lake Minnetonka, a density of 3 septic systems on 2.9 acres in a district wher^j 6 acres is required for ' 3 septic systems, is excessive. c) Because the property is currently used as conformiug residential building site, the applicant would not be deprived of a reasonable use of the property. d) Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient hardships to justify granting of the requested variances. At the April 14, 1986 Council meeting the applicant noted his attorney could not be present at the meeting. The applicant was asked if he wished to have the matter tabled until his attorney was present. Applicant waived his right to have his attorney present. 16. The applicant maintains that he divided the property in 1958-59 at the request of then Mayor Herb Ross. Because the zoning code adopted in 1950 allowed only one residence per building lot. Mayor Ross would have been legally bound to require that completed in order to allow the new hcuse which was permitted in 1958. 17. The applicant maintains that the property was divided in a manner such that new homes could be built on each of Parcels ^ an according to City codes at the time of division. In fact, ‘ does not and never did contain the 1 acre in area required under previous zoning of the property. 18. The applicant has provided soil testing, proposed septic system designs, and proposed site plans for each of Parcels 2 and 3 which indilate that technically, septic systems can ^ residence on each of Parcels 2 and 3, meeting the required sanitary setbacks. However, technical feasibility is not the only criteria considered by the City in reviewing variance applications, and in this case and other similar cases, the City has also ■natter of policy, the potential adverse effect of higher density housing on the quality of Lake Minnetonka and the potential adverse effect on the general health, safety, c,nd welfare. Page 5 of 9 19. The applicant maintains that when the zoning was proposed to be changed from R-IC (1 acre) to RR-IB (2 acre) in i974, he attended the public hearings and was told that his lots would still be buildable under the new zoning. This occurrence has not been documented by the applicant nor can it be verified by the City. Whether or not it occurred, the Zoning Code adopted by the City Council would be binding. Mr. Ferrell was notified in writing by the City in 1981, upon inquiry, that under the current code, no building permits for a new house would be issued, and that no basis existed for the granting of variances. 20. The 1967 Zoning Code,wL.\ch designated the property as R-IC, 1 acre, 140 foot width, stated as follows regarding existing lots of record; 31.200. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon September 14, 1967 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single separate ownership in a "R" Residential District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety. Single separate owner­ ship includes joint ownership by not more than two persons. The 1967 Code did not discuss common ownership properties nor did it differentiate between sewered and unsewered lots of record. However, by using the term "Single Separate Ownership", it implied that other types of ownership would be treated differently but did not define in what way. Under this code, the applicant would have been allowed to build on Parcel 3 without -i variance because the lot met the standards of the R-IC zoning district. Parcel 2 would have required a lot area variance in order to be legally buildable. 21. The Zoning Code adopted January 1, 1975, which declared the property to be zoned RR-IB, 2 Acre Single Family Residential, stated as follows regarding existing lots of record; 31.201. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single separate ownership in an "R" District, which does not meet the requirements of tlie Zoning Code as to area or width ^ utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: 31 203- In "R" districts of Greater Than One Acre. A lot of* record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Code as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds: Page 6 of 9 1) it is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and 2) t is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental body; and 3) it otherwise meets the requireme. other applicable ordinances. ' of this or Under this Code, the Council, at their option, granted a lot area variance for a lot of single separate ownership, again did not specifically discuss any standards for the separation of commonly owned lots. 22 City policy regarding the separation of unsewered, substandard, contiguous lots in common ownership was clearly defined bfan actloi of the" City Council in.l981, in «hich the separation of a developed 1.4 acre lot from the adjacent vacant 1.7 acre, 120.3 toot wide vacant lot in the LR-IA 2-acre, 200 foot “"®®''®^®^^*?er was denied. (Application No. 635, Council action to 26? 1981, basil on: a) lack of demonstrated ha^ship; b) no sanitary sewer available; c) insufficient area; d) insufficient width. 23 The 1984 Zoning Code amendments included the addition of Section 10 03 Subdivision 6 (C), which prohibited the "transfer or sale of noA-cinfo^ing, undeveloped lots^^not served aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided ® road or road easement and under same or common specifically approved by the City Council, or unless the resulting lots satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Code. No 5l^fo?manle standards for approval of such transfers appear in the code. 24 At least 13 properties or groups of properties in a situation ?e~nc"e the’^ VlB district from 1/1^5 rebuild on a |®bstandard ®®f/®oVonTin cLsistently denied pllmits for^lbstand^^^^^^ lots ownid in common with adjacent developed lots in the RR-IB district. Parre 7 of 9 26. The City Council has always required that when two or more unsewered lots are owned in commonr each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. 27. The granting of such a variance would require amending the many sections of the Comprehensive Plan that govern the rural development of the City. The City of Orono has been consistent in requiring a minimum of two acres for a buildable lot in the rural areas of the City where there is no sewer service. 28. In review of the factual findings noted above^ the City finds that to establish a precedent that would allow severely substandard lots to be developed to be in complete conflict with the established environmental standards for rural development within the City and to be detrimental to the public, health, safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader, environmental principals and goals setforth in its Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district when dealing with matters related to the public, health, safety and welfare. Issues involving the public health, safety and welfare are not only resolved in securing the obvious traffic and drainage concerns of surrounding property owners but the City also must provide its citizens with a designated and approved optimum level of density, open space and quality of life. 29. The granting of such a variance would require the rezoning of the property to an urban lot size in addition to requiring the extension of City services to the property to maintain a suitable level of fire protection. 30. Tue granting of such a variance would require the extension of City water and sewer to maintain the standards setforth in the Orono Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan for an urban sized lot. 31. In granting such a variance. Council would abandon a longstanding, consistent policy in consideration of the buildability of substandard lots under common ownership and thereby establish an adverse precedent. 32. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a taking of property or loss of substantial value because Parcels 2 and 3 have always had value and have been used as required area for the residence on Parcel 1. 33. The intent of the application is contrary to the letter and intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Page 8 of 9 34. The variances would have an adverse effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons outlined herein. 35. The amount of light and air in the neighborhood would be diminished by adding a structure on the substandard lot. 36. The values of surrounding properties will be adversely affected. 37. There are no special conditions applying to the land in question which are peculiar to the land or immediately adjoining property. 38. The granting of the application is net necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 39. The granting of the variances will serve mainly as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 40. In order to put everyone on notice that the above referenced substandard lots in common ownership must remain under common ownership to maintain the existing house as a conforming use. Council hereby directs the City staff to file such notice against the properties legally described herein. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held May 27, 1986. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mary C. Butler, Mayor Page 9 of 9 To: Frc»x Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: April 19, 1989 #1261 Joe & Sandy Rauschendorfer, 3895 Shoreline Drive - Variances Zoning District - LR-IC Application - Request for variances to allow attached garage addition, including side setback variance, replacement of foundation under entire house, and a hardcover variance. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applicants* Letter of Reque.-^t 4/17/89 Exhibit B - ll"xl7" Staff Sketch of Setback Considerations for Plan A & Plan B Exhibit C - Staff Review of Hardcover Proposal Under Plan A Exhibit D - Planning Conrn‘.ssion Action Notice 3/27/89 Exhibit E - Planning Commission Minutes 3/20/89 Exhibit P - Memo & Exhibits of 3/15/89 Discussion - Please review applicants' recent letter of request. That letter gives an accurate description of action on this application to date. Applicants revised their application to exclude the 4* extension lakeward from the existing house after Planning Commission recommended denial of that additional lakeshore setback variance. Applicants have also staked the proposed garage addition with the closest garage corner being 4.7* from the west side lot line rather than the 2* setback indicated on appl.icants* original sketch and exactly 10* from the neighboring residence structure. They have indicated a preferred option (called Plan A on the staff sketch), which leaves an angled west garage wall creating additional storage space, and which leaves a 7* setback from the street right-of-way. Under this scheme, the garage corner would still be about 25* from the curb line. Staff has reviewed the original hardcover calculations and has identified a minor discrepancy in the area calculation used by the applicant, in that there is actually a higher portion of the lot in the 75- 250* zone. Although this changes the original and proposed percentages, the current Plan A proposal will result in a 195 s.f. reduction in overall hardcover on the property, and significantly reduces the proportion of hardcover in the 0-75* zone. From a hardcover standpoint, staff views this application as a positive one. Zoning File #1261 April 19, 1989 Page 2 of 3 Planning Commission originally gave applicants direction that a 6* setback to the west lot line would be acceptable, since that would maintain the 10* required minim>-m setback to the neighbors* house. Subsequent measurements indicate that the neighbors* house is 5.3* from the lot line, hence a 4.7* setback is proposed by the applicants. The 4.7* setback increases to about 6* at the northwest corner of the garage under Plan A. This plan leaves a garage width of 22 to 24*, and a garage depth of 26*. Plan B keeps the west garage wall perpendicular to the rest of the house, and if the garage was built at a 26* depth, would leave a S' setback to the street lot line and an 8.9* setback to the side lot line at the northwest corner of the lot (see Exhibit B). Applicants no’^* f. that if Plan A is approved, they anticipate this will provide enough storage for lawn and garden equipment so that the storage shed could be removed, resulting in final 75-250* hardcover of about 60.7%. If the expanded garage space is not approved, they feel the storage shed must remain and this results in 66.4% of 75-250* hardcover. Summary of Vc^iances Req* PLAN A ited - -Replace house foundation: [existing setbacks to street (10*), E. side (3*), lake (58*)] -Add detached garage: Side setback 4.7* (10* req.) Street setback 7.0* (30* req.) (26* garage depth) -(Shed removed) -Hardcover ? 0-75* pre-exifttir../;. 2?.3% (1701 sf) 0-75* propoa..>> (1162 sf) 7r 250* pre-ex:.sring: 44.7% (961 sf) 75-250* proposed: 60.7% (1305 sf) Planning Commission Recemmendation - PLAN B -Replace house foundation (existing setbacks as at left) -Add detached garage: Side setback 4.7* (10* req.) Street setback 9.0* (30* req.) (11* if garage depth ■ 24*) -Shed setback: to house (less than iO*) to street (leas ’ ^n 10*) -Hardcover: 0-75* pre-exisr.liig: 37.3% ^1701 sf) 0-75* proposed: 25.5% (ll'c - rf) 75-250* pre-existing: 44.7% (S61 sf) 75-T50* proposed: 66.4% ii^.8 jf) At th*ir March 20th meeting. Planning Cr following 1. Allow no expansion cf house close*; c supersccu<*'^ure (i.^. denial of 4* additif * to have F*nce withdrawn this requent. led the .'j aian existing Applicants Zonin f File #1261 April*19, 1989 Page 3 of 3 2. Additions may not be closer than 10* to west lot line. 3. Hardcover may not exceed pre-existing square footages on the property. 4. Replacement of foundation under existing house should be allowed. 5. When garage addition is completed, the storage shed must be removed from the property. Th:»s recommendation was approved by a vote of 3-1. In his minority opinion. Planning Commissioner Brown felt that variances should be granted to allow a 2-stall garage on the property, noting th*-t the 10* side lot line setback would not accomplish this, also that prior Planning Commission conceptual direction was that & 6* sidor setback (10* from neighbors* house) would be OK. Piaff Recoonendation - Please review the applicants* letter of request and staff sketches. Exhibits B & C. If the applicants are held to a 10* garage setback from the side lot line, they will not be able to construct the 2-car garage which they feel is critical. Also, if Plan A is denied and Plan B is approved, the applicants are convinced that they will need to keep the storage shed in the street ^ard for storage (their other option being to leave one car out all the time so that half the garage can be used for storage). From a drainage and fire safety standp%-xnt, the proposed side setback variance for the garage is not a problem. From an aesthetic standpoint. Council must decide whether this addition will contribute significantly to the overall density in this neighborhood. Certainly, the lot size creates a hardship for the applicants. Finally, Council must determine whether this addition is appropriate in the context of this neighborhood and the houses to the immediate west along County Road T5, where those houses are on extremely small lots and in some cases act ^y extend into the County Road 15 right-of -.ay. Based on Council*s direction, t nevt meeting. .11 draft a resolution for your ssHEa XU pR 11869 Joe and Sandy Rauschendorfer 3895 Shorline Drive Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 ORONO CITY COUNCIL Ref: Variance Request #1261 On 3/20/89 our variance request was reviewed by the Orono Planning Commission. The variances discussed are as follows: 1) Replace foundation - a major portion of the foundation is within the 0-75* hard cover zone. 2) A west property line variance to allow for a double attached garage. 3) A lake-side variance to allow for a 4’ extension. This extension is within the 0-75* hard cover zone. Item 1 was recommended for approval. Items 2&3 were not recommended for approval. Upon further review we have determined that item 3 is not critical to our improvement plans and we wish to withdraw that request. Wc feel items 1&2 are critical to our improvement plans. With Item 1 being recommended for approval, I will now focus on our need for Item 2. The changes made to County Rd 15 have impacted this property in the following negative ways: 1) We are no longer allowed on-street parking. To facilitate our parking needs we were required to move a storage shed from the west side of the property. We now park our cars in the previous storage shed area. The storage shed is now less secure in that it is closer to the street and also due to increased pedestrian traffic due to the new sidewalk. Greater pedestrian traffic has increased our overall need for security. This would mostly include our cars and storage shed. greater Since the improvements to County Rd 15 one of our cars has been damaged with a broken rear window. Other considerations are: After our first review with the Planning Commission we were led to believe that if we altered our plans to remain 10 ’ from the adjoining building we could build the garage with a 4* variance. We made our our plans conform to this requirement. In our second review with the Planning Commission we were disallowed the variance even though we conformed with their request. It should be noted here that only 4 of the 7 members of the Planning Commission were present 2) We are attempting to make this property more conforming to building codes. We are requesting one new variance but we are ehminating a nonconforming foundation and we are upgrading the basement ceiling height to code. We are also attempting to provide better security for o person^ property. 3) In Minnesota we feel it is a necessity to have a garage to protect our cars in the winter months. A one-car garage has been approved but it does not meet our need to house two cars and to provide adequate storage. Your approval of Items 1&2 will eliminate two non-conforming structural problems ^ (the foundation and the basement ceiling height) and will also provide greater secunty tor this property. Joseph P Rauschendorfer Sandra L Rauschendorfer ^oa,u -7r- .ro-= 7^/ ,J^. =^'/» '/• ^ f>^ofosirt> *75'^ ro'Cfi/*'* ^ ' (. t-wic •. fiC^ irviAtC * 2. o _ lios ,.C.(fe0.1^w-^*-^ I'jor"* «»2.— 2^ »/VZ8 (^•'/ ■5( cwifcifjA-c'--’?' ; ,1,0. ^37.3X (4rd rMrwi£> «>r V-/J* 8®^ ^ pftflPoJCO (f»C%N» A'^ ' ‘)2‘Y j»/. &S*yT Access 7.ft*/'/'- 5-nrAS ^ = 6 (3>^^^* ' d»f• ^isc C2> sC. TbTft^ UoT oveflAct HMA>C€Nr«-*^ ^(0>t4noi t^ZtrtT- s.^‘ ^KCA 5-T^" , ,5 -TV’' fc»l j.- //I'Z L\H HTM. pl^jM^ ptAfO ^ * r*icnmct. A*: si*»ii* fcy 'Jt^rr ct>rr^^ V/^.A'? ((k*. A^iC. '^»|^t(tlo^>^^ r*J tne */» ll) /"'3>' ZONING FILE NO. 1261 CIT7 OP ORONO NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 3/27/89 TOs Joe & Sandy Rauschendorfer COPIES TOs 3895 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: 3/20/89 VOTE: 3 For 1 Against Planning Coaadesion reconwif nds the folloirlng: Conditions of motion (recommendation to Council): 1. Allow no expansion of house closer to the lake than existing superstructure (i.e. denial of 4* addition to south side). 2. Additions may not be closer than 10* to west lot line. 3. Hardcover may not exceed pre-existing square footages on the property. 4. Replacement of foundation under existing house should be allowed. 5. When garage addition is complete, storage shed must be removed from the property. Minority opinion: (Brown) felt that variances should be granted to allow a 2-stall garage on the property, noting that the 10* side lot line setback would not accomplish this, also that prior Planning Commission conceptual direction was that a 6* side setback (10* from neighbors house) would be OK. Applicant*s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday April 10, 1989; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Please contact City staff at 473-7357 if you wish to discuss your application. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 20, 1989 #1261 JOB RAUSCHBNDORFBR 3895 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCE CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 7:10 P.M. TO 7:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The Rauschendorfers were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that this application had been brought forward approximately a year ago. At that time, the Planning Commission requested additional information and provided the applicants with conceptual direction. The applicants were now providing more information with respect to their plans to add a 4* addition onto the lake side of the house and build an attached garage to the west. The applicants* proposal for the garage would only allow 6* between the applicants' and the neighboring residential structure. Chairman Kelley expressed his opinion of a 6* separation being inadequate, especially for fire safety standards. The applicants were confused about the 10* setback requirement from a lot line, not the neighboring structure. Kelley and Gaffron clarified this so that the applicants understood. Mr. Rauschendorfer said that using such standards would allow them 17-1/2* for the garage. In order to build a 20* garage, they would need to cut into the house 2-1/2*. The east and street sides of the house would remain the same. Applicants* proposal would reduce hardcover in the 0-75 and 75-250 setback areas. Chairman Kelley said that it was Orono's policy that whenever a foundation was replaced, the house should be moved to meet the specified setbacks. Kelley asked the applicants if they intended to place the new foundation exactly where the current footings were located. Mr. Rauschendorfer replied that three sides and half of the front would use the same current footings. The foundation does not extend under the screen porch. Planning Commissioner Johnson believed that the lot was too small to accomodate the applicants* proposal. Planning Commissioner Bellows concurred with Johnson, adding that the only improvement she could foresee would be a single stall garage. In her opinion, allowing the variances requested would make a "bad situation worse". Planning Commissioner Brown questioned the practicality of a long, narrow garage that would allow for two cars parked end to end. Gaffron replied that the garage would encroach too much toward County Road 15 or toward the lake. Chairman Kelley expressed his belief that the Rauscaandorfers were entitled to a garage. Planning Commissioner Brown proposed using a firewall if the variance for the garage were approved. MINOTBS OP THB PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 20, 1939 ZONING FILE 11261-RAUSCHENDORFER CONTINUED Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked the Rauschendorfers if it was necessary to replace the foundation. She suggested to the Planning Commission that if Rauschendorfers intended to proceed in that manner, they wculd need to get approval at this time. Mr. Rauschendorfer repl^^d that water damage had occurred to the east side of the foundation. Chairman Kelley stated that he could not approve any further encroachment toward the lake or anything less than a 10* setback from the west property line. He would approve a single stall garage as long as it met that setback. Mr. Rauschendorfer explained that a single car garage would interfere with parking and turn around capabilities. Kelley suggested placing the garage in the turn around area. Mrs. Rauschendorfer explained that there was a timber wall in that location. 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 Bellows, to recommend approval of a 6.23* east side setback variance; no west side setback variance; a 19.98* street setback variance; and a 17* lakeshore setback variance. The hardcover should not exceed existing amounts. If the foundation needs to be replaced within 75* of the lake, approval is recommended as long as proper erosion control is exercised and the foundation remains in the same location. Motion, Ayes*2, Nays-2. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval as depicted in Chairman Kelley*a motion, with the exception of allowing the attached garage to be approximately 6* from the west lot line 14* variance), providing that a firewall be installed in the rrarage. Kelley asked if the 4* variance would include an overhang. Mabusth stated that if the overhang was less than 1-1/2* it would not be considered an encroachment. She added that drainage would have to be directed away from the adjacent property. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to deny the request for the 8* west side setback variance and the 21* lakeshore setback variance. The remainder of Johnson*s motion reflected the motion made by Kelley with regard to the hardcover and foundation. Mabusth asked for clarific''^jon regarding the applicants* statement that a single stall g- 2 would not allow for parking and turn around. After some diu« <ion, it was determined that there should be room to park the au-itional car. The issue of removal of the temporary shed was discussed. Bellows stated that the shed must be removed. Johnson concurred that the shed be removed. Motion, Ayes«3, Brown, Nay because of his belief that a 2 car garage should be allowed if possible and that a previous representation had been made to the applicants that a 10* separation from the neighboring structure would be allowed. From: Date: Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator March 15, 1989 Subject: #1261 Joe & Sandy Rauschendorfer, 3895 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Xoning District - LR-lC, Single family, lakeshore residential, sewered, 1/2 acre Application - Request for variances to allow 4' addition of living space plus -d^ached garage addition, additional structural hardcover in 0- 75' zone, side setback variances. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Planning Commission Action Notice of 4/27/88 Planning Commission Minutes of 4/18/88 Proposed Elevation Views Existing Floor Plans Proposed Main Floor Plan (Approximate) Letter from Surveyor 8/15/88 Site Sketch Applicant 11/7/88 of 4/15/88 Staff Letter to Memo C Exhibits Pertinent Facts - 1. Variances required: A. Setbacks: Code Section East Side West Side Street Lake (to wall B. 10.25, 10.25, 10.25, 10.22, house) Subd Subd Subd Subd (B) (B) (B) Hardcover: Code Section 0-75' 10.22, Subd 2 75-250' 10.22, Subd 2 Existing 1701 s.f.l (37.3%) 961 s.f.\(58.9% iLi i»C ,*o/ ^ 1 _ Allowed Proposed^ T35.e V(^.6 0% 25% 1622 s.f. 956 s.f. NOTE: These percentages were calculated prior to moving steel shed into street yard. C. Variances to allow structure in 0-75' zone (Section 10.22, Subd 2, Section 10.55, Subd 8). Zoning File #1261 March 15, 1989 Page 2 of 3 2.Proposed improvements to property; A. 4' addition lakeward from wall of existing main floor. B. Replace entire foundation, raise houses approximately 3* to meet minimum low floor elevation requirement of 932.5* (existing basement floor is at 929.46'). New foundation will conform to proposed exterior walls of house. C. Basement access door on lake side will be removed, patio and sidewalk on lake side will be removed. (Will keep stairs at water's edge.) D. Storage shed will be removed when garage is constructed. Hardships are noted by applicants in Exhibit E-3 of memo of April 15, 1988 (attached). Applicants have provided conceptual house elevations, north and south views. Floor plans shown are approximate. Final architechural plans have not been provided and have not been required, per letter of November 7, 1988 from Jeanne Mabusth. Discussion - This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 19, 1988 and was tabled pending additional information from the applicants. Planning Commission gave the applicants conceptual direction as follows: 1. Proposed attached garage should keep 10' from neighboring house to the west. 3. 4. 2. 3. 4. 5. Hardcover on the property must not increase above existing. Basement floor elevation should raise to 932.5*. Provide a back-up apron if possible. Provide more detailed plans of the proposed additions. The applicants have provided elevation views from the street and from the lake of the proposed addition, but have not approached an architect regarding construction plans. Applicants hesitate to spend money foi detailed plans without knowing that variances will be granted for the project. Staff sent a letter to applicants in November of 1988 verifying that detailed working plans for the Improvements would not be required. Zoning File #1261 March 15, 1989 Page 2 of 3 Since the existing house has substandard setbacks on the north, east sides, it is virtually impossible to construct any significant additions to the house without requiring some setback variances. The proposal indicates slight decreases in hardcover in both the 0-75' and 75- 250 zones as a result of the proposal, in line with Planning Commission's conceptual direction. Presuming that the house remains in its existing location when a new foundation is constructed, the main Issues to be resolved are; A. Moving the south wall of the house 4' closer to the lake. B. Constructing an attached garage to be located 2' from the side lot line and approximately 6' from the neighboring residence structure. Staff Recommendation - Please review the discussion and staff recommendation outlined in the April 15, 1988 memo. This is an extremely limited property, and applicants are requesting variances that will create additional setback encroachments. Planning Commission must weigh the property owner**' rights and investment in the property vs. the Impact of the additional e *croachments requested. A ZOHIHG FILE NO. 1261 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION crystal’'Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date TO: Joe & Sandy Rauschendorfer COPIES TO: 3895 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 4/18/88 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against planning Comnission recomaends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Planning Commission verified that replacement of fence at a height no more than 6* above the final road erf^n will meet intent and letter of code, no variance necessary. (Fence to be within property boundaries.) 2. per our conversation of 4/22/88, replacement of planter boxes was already approved as part of Application #1245, Resolution #2376, by Hennepin County Dept, of Transporation. 3. Planning Commission tabled the remainder of the request in order for applicants to more clearly define their proposed additions. Planning Commission made the following comments as conceptual direction to the applicants; a) Proposed garage will have to be set back at least 10* from neighboring house to the west. ”"b) Hardcover on the property must not increase beyond the existing cf^Meet^\h^e 932.5 basement floor elevation minimum if foundation is to ba replaced. d) A backup apron is appropriate. e) No clear direction as to approval of lakeward house expansion, but th«y would like to see more detailed plans of the proposed add iti :;ns.» ADDlicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Planning Commission set no deadline date for further submittal; however, we would like to table for no longer than 12 months if possible. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning C ision minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review anu .iroval by the planning Commission. JOB RAnSCHBNDORFBR ^aSSSySHORBLlliB DRIVE ^ VlA^ANCB ^PUBLIC HEARING 8:12-8:30 ^ ^ The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gaffron explained that that applicants were encouraged by staff to submit a variance application since the upgrade of Cty. Rd. 15 will have a major effect on existing structures and fence on theii property. The applicants existing planter box will be removed as part of the Cty. Rd. 15 construction which will be replaced by the County, but only to the extent approved by the City of Or<"no. Part of the planter box and most of the fence are within the county road right of way. Applicant requests direction as to what restoration is allowable and how high a fence will be allowed. Additionally, applicant is proposing a phased upgrade, beginning in 1989, of the existing house including the reconstruction of foundation walls and construction of an addition on the lake side of the house and construction of an attached garage. Joe and Sandy Rauschendorfer were present for this matter and reviewed their future plans and stages to be done. Regarding the replacement of the fence^ applicant would like to constru'-*- a 6* high privacy fence. Chairman Kelley felt that because applicants do not intend to start work until 1989, Planning Commission should only address the planter box and fence issue a this time. Mr. Rav ichendorfer stated that they would like some conceptual direction from the Planning Commission regarding the extent they can use their property in order to decide if they want to remain living there. Chairman Kelley stated his major concern wch any property improvements would be staying within the existing or less hardcover amounts. Regarding the proposed garage. Planning Commission felt the 10' structure-to structure-setback was necessary ?or safet' asons. Mr. Ra».^chendorfer stated that in order to build an .dequate sized garage with turn around the required 10* structure-to-structure setback could not be maintained. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. £XH=o-:r MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 18, 1988 MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 18, 1988 #1261 RAOSCHENDORFER CONTINUED It was move- by C'lairman Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to table this application until June for additional information and further c-^nsideration. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. Regarding the planter box and fence. Planning Commission conceptually approved the plan per staff recommendations, noting that the fence at a maximum height of 6* above the road crown would not need variances. #1262 CURTIS - PORS 1412 BALDUR k ^ ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING P:34-8:40 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing noted. Hagfors was present for this matter. i iron explained the application involving major auditions to the existing house and replacement of the existing garage with a new double garage. The intent is to lift the existing house and move it into the 0-75* area temporarily (1-2 weeks) in order to put in a new foundation, then construct house and deck additions to the house and also construct a new detached garage. Variances requested are as follows: 75-250* hardcover - Allowed » 25% or 2572 s.f. Existing » 25.2% Proposed ■ 35.3% or 7294 s.f. Per staff*s memo, this hardcover variance request is consistent with recent hardcover approvals on the adjacent properties to eithe." ^ide. Side setback for house addition - Required » 10* F'<isting house « 9.6* Ti oposed addition extension ■ 9.6* Variance « 0.4* '^^rage street setback - Required ® 30* Existing ■ 12* Proposed new garage ■ 17* Variance ■» 13* Chairman Kelley noted that the major issue was the hardcover variance. There were no comments from the public regarding thxs matxer and the public hearing was closed. oVi, Im V. hi ■« 4 h o AiA i h’; '<-« - T V I IIIIIIU « *■ Cocf llI I V* 1 <0^ i I tr j ViiT t fW*f i« ' ( ?0 (f c H(uwi*»*ni^/ 2t' \ if I ( Croft'i /^ounr i ' I i jw**f ajoT *tr»' iCAtj^' Qfe'f I ! 1*1 £ f%) ^/O Fcoc<-efJtPosipt> 3fc 1 !</'r i! ni -^4 ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. S811 Ced«r Lakt Road. H<nneapoHs, MN 55416 August 15, 1988 Phone 541 OSOO z :<h!e: Joe Rauchendorfer 3895 Shoreline Drive Wayzta, Minnesota RE: Job No. 88470 Lowest Floor Elevation 3895 Shoreline Drive Dear Joe: At your request we have determined the elevation of the lowest floor in the dwelling at 3895 Shoreline Drive, Wayzata, Minnesota. We find it to be 2.04 feet below an elevation of 931.50. REFERENCE SYSTEM: The **elevation** of a point is simply the distance or height that point lies above mean sea level. The mean sea level in use in the United States is currently referred to as the North American Datum and agencies of the federal and lower governmental units have established a network of reference points of known elevation known as bench marks. The Hennepin County Highway Department furnished us with a mark or reference point of known elevation. This was the top of the fire hydrant on the South side of County Road Number 15 and 100 feet more or less west of the center line of Dunwoody Avenue (elevation - 941.936) The City of Orono Engineering Department informs us that the 100 year frequency of return flood at that address reaches an elevation of 931.50. This number is usually arrived at through the keeping of records at stream gauging stations and statistical analysis of these records over the years. The scope of the services which we contracted were those of determining the floor elevation and do not include calculating and verifying the flood level. While we have inquired of the city and used our best efforts to relay the information from their records to you, we make no representation that we have independently determined the flood level or that the government has correctly determined the flood level or even that we havS cotrectiy relayed that information. We encourage you to VSfify thitt number to your own satisfaction by communicating with eity engineering department or such other sources as may be available to you. «2STMUDc? : We used a rod, a vertical staff graduated in feet and hundredths of a foot, and an engineer's level, a telescope mounted on a tripod that is equipped with sensors that enable it to sight along a level line, to determine vertical distances which are added to the beginning elevation to determine the height of the telescope and then and subtracted to obtain the elevation of new points. We began at the hydrant 100 feet West of Dunwoody Avenue and used various temporary points of convenience to transfer elevation to the basement floor and then back to the hydrant 100 feet West of Dunwoody Avenue as a check on our observations and computations. RESULTS: We measured the basement floor to be at 929.46 feet above mean sea level. This elevation of 92i>.«*6 is 2.04 feet below the elevation of 931.50 as noted above. Sincerely, ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. Samuel G. Parker L.S. Vice President SANITARY SEWER BENCHMARK ELEVATION BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION or specification was prepared by me and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Profoo* slonal Engineer under the Laws of the State —\ 3B-CuVrotV f James H. Parfter, Minn. Reg. No. 0235 CITY OF ORONO CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66*Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• MunidiMtJ Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka November 1, 1988 Sandi Rauschendorfer 3895 Shoreline -Ive Wayzata, MN 5^: V Dear Mrs. Rauschendorfer: John Gerhardson and I completed the site inspection of your property on November 7, 1988 and confirmed that the improvement of County Road 15 has created a hazardous parking condition on your property. In consideration of the on-coming winter monthsr the additional area required for snow storage will create even greater hazardous conditions. We will approve the temporary re-location of the storage shed to the rear yard already defined by the timbers in place. The final resolve of the storage shed will be realized as soon as your variance application is completed by the City. As I discussed with you at our meeting in my office, I would recommend that you provide at a minimum, a sketch of the elevation of the lakeside of the house as this is the area of the structure to receive the major improvement. It was not the intention of the Planning Commission to ask for formal/working plans for the Improvement as you had clearly advised that you had no such intention of seeking professional assistance until the City had made a decision on the variance application. As the hand-out information states, applicants may provide "non-professional" sketches of proposed improvements. Please contact Michael Gaffron or myself if you seek additional information on scheduling the variance application before the Planning Commission for final action. Sincerely, Building 6 Zoning Administrator JAM/tln cc: John Gerhardson, Public Works Director Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator BUILDING a ZONING - 473-73S7 assessing AOMOMtSTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson EXl-ilEiT From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Palnning & Zoning Administrate* Date: April 15, 1988 #1261 Joe & Rauschendorfer, 3895 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Public Hearing Subject: Zoning District - LR-IC 1/2 acre sewered Application Variances for side yard, street and lakeshore setbacks and hardcover variances in the 0-75' and 75-250* setback areas to allow replacement of basement and foundation walls, and construction of additions to the existing residence including an attached 2 car garage. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Application PaIt Map Property Owners List Survey Applicant's Letters of Explanation & Request Applicants Hardcover Calculations Staff Sketch of Relative Fence Height Staff's Sketchs of Existing House & Proposed Additions Henn DOT Upgrade Plan Applicant was encouraged by staff to submit a variance application, since the upgrade of County Road 15 will have a major effect on existing structures and fence within this property. Their existing planter box will be removed as part of the construction of sidewalks, however, it is staffs understanding that the county will replace the planter box and fence as part of their restoration, but only to the extent approved by the City of Orono- Part of that planter box and most of the fence are within the county road right of way. Applicant requests direction as to what restoration is allowable, and how high a fence will be allowed. Additionally, applicant is bringing to you a proposal for a phased upgrade of the existing house including the reconstruction of foundation walls and construction of an addition on the lake side of the house, all within the first phase; and construction of an attached garage as the second phase. They would intend to start phase 1 in 1989. Pertinent Facts - Setbacks -Existing Required Proposed Variance East side 3.77'10*Same 6 .23* Lake side - house 58*75'53'22' Partial foundation 53*75'53'(expanded)22' steps 50*75'50'25' West side 22*10'2'-5'8' (house)(attached Garage) Street side 10.02'30'10.02'20' (to fdn)(to house) Mrdlovtrr'see notatlY£on 0-75> 1701 s.f. (37.3%) 0% 1622 s.f. (35.6%) if sidewalk to lake remains: 1922 s.f. (42.2%) 75-250* 961 s.f. (58.9%) 25% 956 s.f* (58.6%) 3. Pence and height relationships of the existing fence along the right of way are show in exhibit G. The existing fence is about 5'10« above the grade at the fence line planter box. T)je fence section is about a 4* high section. The top of the fence is about 4'6"’ higher then the crown of the road. ......♦rijot a fence 6' above the crown of the road or about 18 nigner then it now exists. Also note that Orono Code "’=“|,^^^’to“theUD to within 2' of a lot line, (but not over the lot line and into tne right of way) hence a variance would be required to replace the planters at their existing location. Discussion proposing a house addition that would extend the south wall of the houle Tbout Z.V closer to the lake than it already is. Rationale for this is that it is structure that woulo be partially above a already existing section of basement. Secondly, the applicant is proposing to construct an attached to the west^of the house. There is currently no garage, hence their reauest to construct one is not an unusual request. The configuration proposed by the applicants leaves approximately a 2* a 6* total setbaclc from the neighboring house, which is line As it is proposed in the applicants sketch, the doors of the garage would be approximately 12* from the right-of-way line and the actual traveled roadway. This configuration would allow only a minimal backup area and g^^^^ cars would likely have to back out onto the county roaS"*^ Howtver. ’that is already the case so that no new hazards would exist, but an existing one would be perpetuated. This is an extremely difficult application, in that improvements to the property are possible »any varra^ extremelyof those variances will tend to continue and even increase the e^xj:rem^ HAneo visua1 oerceotion of this area. Small lot size Is y critcal issue,*and is made even more critical by the to the major thoroughfare. Staff feels that Planning Commission and Council must determine what degree of improvement to this property '•a aPPtoP’^iate i light of the physical concerns of the property, weighted against the property owners rights and their investment in the property. indationStaff Re 1. Planter boxes and fence. The applicant certainly is oroximity of the house to the road, and a privacy fence of some height is ^nn^oSrlitV If the county has no problem with reconstruction of the plLt« toxes within their right-of-way, th»n staff that such planter boxes would be aesthetically pleasing V?!Lht of-wav line Would further recommend that the fence be located at the not within the right-of-way, and techncially be located on the applicants property- Furthermore, staff would recommend that lonstruc;ed no more thkt 12- above the grade of the top of the fence be no higher than 6* above the crown of the road at the site. Zoning File #1261 Page 3 2 Basement foundation reconstruction. Applicants apparently Pr°P°se ^o the’^property, staff would be requesting a much more detailed propose^d additions. We always try to create a more conforming situation when the opportunity presents itself. The basement extension in conjunction with the ffan entrwi^ rationale for extending the entire house to that south^^ly foundation wall. Planning Commission must decide where not that extension is appropriate for this property. b”', \T.£ “ S'h alterLtfve is^provided to Peking out directly onto the county road. Given the size of the this property City Council. CITY OF OROMO - VARIiMICB APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 - • ($50.00 per each additional Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original applicatT^T) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION ^nnr' Tn \ CITY OF DRIM) Site Address OCMi) ShnOpAi UP i __________ FINANCE OFFICE Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0(L'~ H SS CTY^^if H. ESO.CO Please check one - Property JC abstract or ------ torrens? to72m7oOlZ/fu:l Attach legal description to application if not included on 03/23/S required survey. iName ^ oXrA Address Shf>fpAi(\0. Phone (home) _____ Phone (workj lljTni. City! OrnnA v5G3 ^ OHNBR (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ __ Phone (home) Phone (work) \ddress: Date Property Acquired City:Zip: (month/year) I (do) cjg^no^) also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property ther (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $, VAKIAIICBS RBQOIHSD _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other _ _ __ Lot Width Front X Hardcover Side Rear) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty, result^ enforcement of zoning regulations: ng from strict DESCRIPTION OP UNOSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe Code )N OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY COND1TXUN& ibe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Requirements: . . ... . . ... . . . -r © REQUIRED SUBMITTALS <3X Completed Application Form . . . . . ^ i 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)m Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of^the ^ names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. S. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified jf this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yor... variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. _ _ _ __ Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ __ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date- - - - - - - - -- 7. all informationAPPLICANT'S SICniATURB The applicant hereby agrees to provide requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that “is true and corre^'t to the best of his/her required or fees and/or the information knowledge. supplied Applicant's Signature Date ONRERS 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 verificatiqn of, th^^ request, owner's Signature ^ ^ Date ^ Applicant must have all submittals into the'^City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held or the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scneduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building 4 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. - IJC —c-tii//i iiM m /Ov' tPWOtf ,3)^E : JiV"'. :•• * -,jj i 3 -(.f-t)iillj i 'U'‘>\ !•, ■ (,«\1 ; •# oTtvftte -<^‘' (<p , -<■' ^;vr< -- ;.‘> (^^) , . .•• ‘ ». ->■ ’■- i «^. •■* -« • -e Jt4. • , I*!- aU i>t ^ifVt-gyn acMiifiy \\ yT> \ \ V \ \ za- in- '% ■ /SPa... 1?^/^«f »»• t' •*■ • _• »■• '^--* -• ■ r-- -- *?X>y XV \ ! h^' ■ '■ nsTfe S'. 0. ^'665. >v* ^ * V-Vf p '% <•**» -. * \ • ••• 1,^ -j^ '-^-r >'4y^ RUN DATE ovia/as BATCH 005 17 17-117-21 13 0017 PROP AOOR 03900 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME ROY H STEVENS TAXPAYER ROY N STEVENS NAHE/AOOR 1900 SHORELINE DR 8PRXNB PARK NN 55309 30 20-117-21 22 0002 PROP AOOR 03935 SHORELINE OR OWNER NAME J A S BEDELL TAXPAYER JANES DAVID BEDELL NANE/AOOR 3935 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK NN 55309 30 20-117-23 22 0005 PROP AOOR 03915 SHORELINE DR OWNER NANE MABEL NORRDIN ETAL TAXPAYER MANUEL CONTRERAS NAME/AODR 1913 CLEMENT MCNDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55150 30 20-117-23 22 0000 PROP AOOR 02905 OUNWOOOY AVE OWNER NAME L A K OBERHAUSER TAXPAYER LOUIS A KATHLEEN OBERHAUSER NAME/AODR 2925 DUNUOOOY AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 30 17-117-23 33 0009 REPORT NO. PX935901 PAGE 10 UARREN A ORTENBLAO WARREN A ORTENBLAO 19332 21ST AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 55991 30 20-117-23 22 0003 03905 SHORELINE DR 6 M NORRDIN ETAL LAURA J SCHEIDEL 3905 SHORELINE DR CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 30 20-117-23 22 0006 03677 SHORELINE OR L B OBERHAUSER ETAL L B OBERHAUSER 2925 DUNUOOOY AVE UAYZATA MN 55391 30 20-117-23 22 0009 02925 DUNUOOOY AVE LOUIS B OBERHAUSER A WIFE LOUIS B OBERHAUSER 2925 DUNUOOOY AVE HAYZATA MN 55391 30 17-117-23 33 0005 03660 SHORELINE OR MELVIN J OLSON DAVID i DOUGLAS UMBEHOCKER 3660 SHORELINE DR UAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 22 0009 03695 SHORELINE DR R 0 JENSEN ETAL J A S RAUSCHENOORFER 3695 SHORELINE DR UAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 22 0007 03665 SHORELINE DR KATHERINE MC NAMARA LOUIS B OBERHAUSER 2925 DUNUOOOY AVE UAYZATA MN 55391 CD 0^1 TOTAL BATCH 005 00011 J J J J I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS d/MMiiMriT ocvvcn BENCHMARK ELEVATION BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION or spGClIlcatlon was prepareo oy ma anu mui i am a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Profoo- alonal Engineer under the Laws of the State f\ Minnesota f dames H. Parlier, Minn. Rag. No. 02^ ae- r o •n to X o X)n r Z Iin a X) <in Q,ir^_c^„Oro(oo 4ii rf 1 1 __^w.A\<ve._^r ^YvdoseA. _Cxte-4i3tve.J»n>^PC')eme\!L-Y)ftr6Jto^^ OM5tv£,c&*. 3os«8^'n Som^ra ^auetyerAo'c^r C pV> • __Dv«s_'kL!yV&_vrn -'oe-v <5 —rroie. A> _W -B L\xh\cVx_ay^o\T6 -•^V\e -ollocvie ^ro^ei^_^rop«drij )_3fO«-_J^'t tvi N"^ recesfiaru \o r«cm«sV 4VGeft:\cse<i-AmpJf'Ov>e-VneifA5 or\ Q Jfxxr^^ip Vyxsvs.___ ____________________ ____*3ViR, A'»m\r« •yVie. irnprcMefne-riib C>a _Vvi5_ _____.\S& -\o s^ee^-up_our ]m^rov«-v^9'itV_.p\QifS,_________ ____5:Rx^\xsa -^Q'fto\ra_c\'(\A i<ix\ancja\-ccrfi\AwtA»ois — -'\oca A'^ n _on - ^[(w AA^'re 5pr\^ _cr^. CjcjLur in J&^D.________ __________ _Sc a'Qtow M. -f kif it •'V ')ei "9 ■J _^ft(ASd^evvi)a ^3^ *1 S' SkoreXji^e J)r 2jW-a, (^. ^-2. P, _$m€e__/_____r__ DiCr oLft. 6^seAV2/jr_C(3rj:€€A< . ^fiBPLACc 6As»^ni<»iA4- U.WLC .uJh^re ____ . _EXTfr4D FdjOi^r oP 6vAlc0l^^^__^o_.^xTa^^SlON_U<^/e______ . SlOC EfHTft^/'tCC P3.U LA’K^stac fllonT................ JElW^OrMLib/-^ LrJCiarE -STor^€^5k«<^ jymWSlOe at^^dLofj C ^ED_.OucKja /0- ::___- .^e^ic .G-AAAeje - 5 iJ «„^q '__________ _____________ - STTZ^crjs.jDe^. ___Etefx 24_'_ .ZJk>/^'^<e . smeer. si o«... EdTtt/ lja /_^_________________ _• Er|Ter„-f#vr(A- „5«<U\ce_i)oo<^ J!LJ oM1A^_woulo u4 ^o.\e^uiv\isjm^- ^ro-t^t^AacC- _Afl<L.fv5flUj*U_dA«. STorAj*.__Curr^oT. .CAA. p/uLiCfA^ jJb«Aj45_£ttJb-M*^_ftrL- .ViJUTOO_fAff<Dx*.3-L.CM-S.)_______ ■^S»op>\\V\GrS Voc WoAsVivD I Cl) oiC-^ i -u:.--t- O .I ^^araa^ ©04. <? -2 j=_e.vxrce.\r>\ _Ao«-5> jop ^-I\y\o\uAe. ,0i aar^a^^e ~ _QK\r<3^e -\S(i_recLe^V^ Jror _lf)in._^^ ^ __l5^i^c!lBAm^a>-ve.menb_aViminak5-c>r^e€^-_pafilin£»^ _ -CLvxmcA^rVvrg at'acx Js_uA\l!^«jc\_by r«iden\s _on\j^ _ \joeuV^ Wvee Ta&\<kn\5 vda’vclaS Aov\b ^vxrra-'w „ -SpOice __CX\XVv u,\i q\e.o <q^r(iae \oDu,w Q^\so.^rov\<^ SWo^a s^ce __Ta^cxce AVe, JS,wtT eM sVoct^a ________ -^^)Q>&eTTtanA ~ilTr>^rfN\)^rr>e.nls. ..‘‘..VoaVe.r_!cu,tv-cS5_§rofft_cAu JK<i_BJrtXS_QCtu6t,^Jbc«B^ -Oarnaao.~W>g- \rr>orQ\)e.mdr>isAac^Vage -5'fcSu\Vv(^ AfvAfAerAc>r--oawQ^^v^3C!<?^vrcvpc0^ll Jt o_c^^_RAJB_sVi©JA -pretoarA _^uAar.«__pcobV6>oS.jC)oC- V'mprocje.rrva'T^ toou.Vi Atnpnxe. uM\i ruVVon .Qiveft A<jAer s_____________ -VV>use_EiAenam^ -?ec^on_c^AW bcsamarA _tVtV?jr^ -pO&A-AVve :^WWx&aAU(iCxfA;\(\vxas4bAl\vtaJA^x^S\C(\AVtva,J3a^dJlSJL^xt«»^^ ^sA.c^n5S«^ -5S cLe’ftA^^VA W«v • !??^€Ciuvr€rcV_\*lL\Aoc)r_\3£(0^^ sq^^.vs. JlSCisq|p5.,TAv'' _voovA^. AfN traose A^sa ioi6VVi _oP:6.^JD3yrn J«w «rchjLJro V! atvA J*5€, va50 uV\ _V>e 06n\3er\>«5 ^be- ProrA.^rc q vj £»o?d\p. W' •,V. Ujairr*^ 4 IJ J .»« 1 iT ) ^31 1 -^oco'f^ _\»3A\v ovi^ -AJfte_ei\eft\)voo—uoe-vjoou\^ V^ CkY J?oo<n j----------------^---------------------------—-------------------- ^/4- g-V JT- Svjze- „cSi3V\c _\c5^_____ v~..en‘vsX\^^ - ^«*ttc.We AociA\oa ^ _aA.^acJ^^sV_^>QlCQ'rtV_\a'^A J~ ^cxf^CJO^ c.r. Te^CNC^vonS___________________________ - V(3LfVl\<\^Vco't>\ews ^ AoicK 0^ (bcirVv<^ A\x^ Vo . no- rfvc>r^ c>rv jsKcwi^r ^arV\r^'___ _____ _____ _____ ^ i n 1-..-It.1.^^MioWSW mzsBes L\&_vCijva3i^ \u>e _______ - 0^___________________ ^^3iLK^.^Ur^ \ _K(iu^uicSU^Jsyii^^) 44- rr I >> j f ?rrI'. OAAf09«0T HAA<i.Co\i«4' 3(l^(a Wl4^.iU is' I Q-^S Q^nr?A) 6 I D-'TS" (Ano 1*^ < SiOs-uj A w^ -FrUMA r.toHr cF ^4o(^s« ^ VAS'X a.iTS' Sioe^j/iLlc i/u PfxnMT Houie- ^ws ro SiOe oP ^ • (ol K f (a _...... SjCw/k'CK Ijy ^ASe/viOv^ Sr^S a.5T8 >c *f' • Tai<»A<^ 7x >C C ‘/.TcTx */*r) ^McSdi. a,n )C a.(^7 $iOeu;ALlL Oa / SiO« OP W-HcJ aw.s'x <a.fc»7 £tA(i FO< S-rOTA^a ^ke<i W-IS'X iT pAcoT pAno 6ljotLs Fof PtoU«-r X ' LH srefy 3»3 |,U7 Fa.»»^r 6/tTJty u /a / ^Aie^vye^f srefis *kod ic*m.y 7.« xlV . . (,e.3> v.5-)x3 H ovaa ^ 6*^cu H*' uSrSioe (|fc-U ♦ t .3) F«o>«r f.3) ^Asr 03.V.3f6.f3fi*) 2i-;33j JA wu* u^CT Cut out- (iif ♦, j))(i .SS i 2,m) a3.r\ \ IvKAT Fa <^C .^>s? Pr /,. /07-/ / 10 10 (o / / / fer y /fe3^.__/. 37 ...fa lol .,./ ? V u 'Z ^9A3-r/MA.(r^ / ■jjr^ _*■ o MowiuIjL. ... - .. FQjD^T • ac.'fS' VJ. CAST J4., Vi'X 2^|3J VS. uissr K. 23.37 fb‘i.4? .. 123.3 ^ joa r cl4s «o«nty *=113.3 - ?S.>t » 587.*} 887.1-- a^. - SdiPr f-louie ssT "R>T»(_ l+d.«* £«0«< CeX<ST/W^) W/4A.W IS"' \jMe no I TOJPL, S<a Pt UJI-H\,M is' Line. east » 1!^' - _ __(Jcsr *. 7^' F.xojr* fv.i OiiTWCf («• 7S' L/«< -. fc7.3 .. 75” * ss.t Holds' ________7s-» c.1.3 fo»nr .............................. ^HSSi, 31.2 % CxuTfiuJ Couer IS' fo 2-5*^^ fys-z^6^JS77AJ ^ ^ FT jWse -^vr >^.o -. . - — ----- - »'.? 5Tneer5/oa ZSr\2^. . — - — -- 13112. X O 3(^5*. iTt - .....- ZS',UXH.3' 3 31. 3 2>_ -i z- .X.V rap^c. 5«oe tOAUK 5*t»P5 t«> sni^tfr 2l x CouruCjci <x.53 X SreQs CB^cU.) 3 X CJ.1» l) B/onw ujt^i 3>S ^ H 1*1 c Ti(v\6art .^’xtl TDT*C l4*»il* Coue/T R^oc A«rA-e^ “'‘■-••"/..‘•r!;, AfA^.T>CoU^rt2. T w.<v-iri€'^7=. /Aj ^ :;6»9 ToTPri- So. rooTAije -^.___________ SASr* 31.3& ____ 7^'W» X 31.36 3o|2,S7 uJ^sr* ^•‘?7 -....7^«tr(^jf_S’*77 Smee^* 76.6 G _____67.3 x 3136 2'6^*27 is'Ufie’(A.2 i7.3 X s'-‘n *ioinL t^"22:.St T.‘J» si yi i4 30 «sril SI! ^ J[SV^ 9t; /6JZ 31.3 % /f PfZiugwft^ /s/A.c^<..i>eO %iy/uii 5&.^ ^ #j. iJ 5 ii iOO J 1 “fropOS^O <4p.(V0 CoUe<" __uJi-Kai/^ 7^* 0-yS^ Pi^Po^erC:^ flouj< ^UAfctf/ar Csn) E?CTe#^$/OAi _3C?./^x^*7___I^3|S ....—---------JJ-^3 . ___ _____________- lAKfiSlOt 2o'4‘i3^loJ ------------ . . \^esr- IZM ........ SrriPtr- Z4i H+.3 »-2^ W7 i^occ^s-i5£ A y < U^it^Si (zo.l f ?C»- V 7^ ^ ^ • 3*) u;«s^ I _____^ 2.^.?9xZ?.U> . ^Pro/^S POtfoT 7*x Z-...................- l(tKZ^ ----------—............... ...SSJ__ ____ 3Z- ^OoisJt CPTVb/ Sxe^s___3.5* ----------------- 5l0e STB^S*»^ (m <2»WJ CpttONJ SiCa uJfrL\g^A*-.lAi^ IZO ^ Z S* JcoSo^EE, -roTT^ Sa?r, . .Hss^ li — ^loilXWMk. l^Z'Z^ S‘IJ)UAC0 /? Z w/a 3^U% # -1 rr A IS* ~ . ^7f-2XP fitofe>:<gfc>j i^ovjuSC ._ SAmv* AS CcuV«4^3V7- ^A/rsty WAy, Croyaj* c*/sv^j 7t 3 K ^—z.»__ fraU^CuS Si00, tO/K^57 +V7 iQis___ U»s&/5<:a ^ ’VtJie/rS .S"x6(...... . 3o. __ 'P^weyjB^ ! ',-Q \ S-0(a - .. qrot- ^r<i« . Tor*^ . Sa Fr./fc3i.___ SO(p/ly%7-^ -._3U2_%. HARBCOVER RTOULATIOHS AHD NORKSHSBT ORppM^ HAfiKOVER REBl Orono c_^ ity Council adopted an ordinance limiting €he pefSiStage of^lot area ths€^n be covered with impervious surfaces (•hardcover'*) such as roofsr driveways, sidewalks, etc, on properties located within 1,000 feet of a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the lake from highly urbanized areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the lake. The intent of Orono's ordinance is to ensure that rainfall run-off will be cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. B. HARDCOVER SETBACK ZONES - PERCENTAGE ALLOWED Z. 0-75*« in the area within 75* of the lakeshore. Ho Hardcover is allowed (0%). ..................—.........- _ II. 75-250*1 in the portion of the lot located between 75* and 250* from the lake, 251 of that portion of the lot may be hardcovered. III. 250-500*1 in the portion of the lot located between 250* and 500* feet from the lake 30% of that portion of the lot may be hardcovered. IV. 500-1,000*s in the portion of the lot located between 500* and 1,000* feet from the lake 35% of that portion of the lot mr.y be hardcovered. NOTE: These regulations apply even if you have a lot that does not abut the lake but is within a lakeshore zoning district. C. HOW TO DETERMINE LOT AREA WITHIN EACH SETBACK ZONE (To be used as denominator in all hardcover percentage calculations) I. 0-75* Zone Area ■ 75* x /Average width of lot in 0-75* zone\ \ measure parallel to shoreline / (Avg width) ft. -s.f. (1) Area of 0-75* zone II. 75-250* Zone Area ■■ (175*or avg lot depth in zone) x/Avg width of lot in 75-250* zone\ \ measure parallel to shoreline / ■ 175* X ft. - s.f. (2) (Avg width) Area of 75-250* zone III. 250-500* Zone Area - (250* or avg lot depth in zone) x/Avg width of lot in 250-500* zoneN \ measure parallel to shoreline / 250'uA-ft. -s.f. (3) (Avg width) IV. 500-1,000* Zone Area of 250-500* zone Area ■ (500* or avg lot depth in zone) x/Avg width of lot in 500-1000* zoneN \ measure parallel to shoreline / 500 (Avg width) ft. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _s.f. (4) Area of 500-1,000* -one D. HARDCOVER CALCOLATIOW 5DMMARY A.B.C.D.E. F. Lakeshore Setback Zone Lot Area Zn Zone Existing Hardcover In Zone Existing Hardcover Percentage (B/A)xl00 Final Proposed Hardcover In Zone Hardcover Allowed Percentage Hardcover (D/A)xl0P Percentage 0-75*sf noi sf .77.3 % ■ ?.<r. /^ % 0 % 75-250*sf S'/I of .? 1. ■? %sf M.JX. % 25 % 250-500*sf of %sf % 30 % 500-1000*NPr sf sf %sf % 35 % HARDCOVER LIMITATIONS HARDCOVER INCLUDES1 - Structures with roofs - Decks* even if slatted •> Sidewalks •> Driveways (paved or gravel) - Decorative landscaping areas underlain by plastic sheeting - Tops of retaining walls* rock walls - Any other surface that does not allow direct absorption of rainfall into the ground E. OTHER lAKESHORE REGULATIONS SBC, 10.22* RB6DLATI018 FOR -LR-lA-, -LR-lA-l-, -LH-lB-, •LR-ir- 5*0 -LR-lC-l- ORB FANZLT LAKB8BORB BB8IDBBTZAL DZ8TBICT. Within any "LR-IA"* LR-lA-1' -IB", "LR-IC"* or ■LR-lC-1" One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regu^ . ons shall applyi Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The set back from the shoreline for lakeshore lots shall be at least 75 feet and no building may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent and nearby lots. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Bard Cover Regulations. Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating* filling, hard cover* temporary or permanent structures. Within 75 to 250 foot of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hard cover. Within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hard cover. Within 500 to 1*000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hard cover. Subd. 3. Tree Removal Regulations. No trees'within 75 feet of the shoreline with the diameter of six (6) Inches or more shall be removed without first obtaining a permit from the Council. Con or (8*x8» TlMffi^ H'^3,0 ± h To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: April 20, 1989 Subject: #1302 City of Orono - Crystal Bay Road Repair - Conditional Use PermitAariance - Resolution General Review Comients and Planning Coomission Recomiendation - Additional Bzhibits Exhibit H - Cook's Report of 4/17/89 The Planning Commission has been dealing with this application since the required public hearing scheduled on July 18, 1988. Throughout this time, both staff and Planning Commission have attempted to develop a repair plan that would provide the least impact for the five involved property owners. Staff has not included the many memos and extra exhibits submitted for each of these reviews because they are no longer applicable. The most recent memo of April 11, 1989 provides adequate background for Council's consideration. Members are encouraged to contact either John Gerhardson or Jeanne Mabusth if you seek additional information. Glenn Cook will be present at the Council meeting. Brief Review of Application - The land use application itself involves the repair of minor portions of Crystal Bay Road damaged in the storm of July 1987. The Public Works Director has attempted to deal with the affected property owners for one year prior to the filing date of the required conditional use permit/variance application by the City. The land use application is required because the land alterations are in excess of 100 cubic yards and the roadbed is located within 75' of the lake. The road is not a platted dedicated road but has been acquired through prescriptive easement over approximately a 20' wide roadbed. Amended Option 2, discussed in the attached memo, involves only four of the original five property owners. The Schibilla property is no longer included in the amended plan. A small portion of the Anderson property will be included within the retaining wall intersecting the Schupp section of the repairs (approximately 35 lineal feet of retaining wall). The retaining wall involved within the Wolfe and Erger sections of the repair will be approximately 125 lineal feet. The wall sections will be placed just to the outside of the defined roadbed right-of-way. The 3' high guardrail will be placed just to the outside of the retaining wall. Please note the guardrail will only be installed along the portions of the property involved with the repairs. As a result, the majority of the Anderson property and the Schibilla property will not have the guardrails. Please review the attached staff memo for detail on the guardrail installation and the appropriate exhibits for the retaining wall (amended Option 2, Exhibit G, is the recommended plan). Zoning File #1302 April 20, 1989 Page 2 of 2 The four affected property owners have been advised to file a separate single comprehensive application to cover the restoration of the lakeshore yards once the road repair is completed. A representative of the group has filed a conditional use permit/variance application for the May 15, 1989 meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the City of Orono's application for the repair of portions of Crystal Bay Road damaged in the storm of July 1987. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission's approval recommendation. A RBSOLUnON GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03r SUBDIVISION 19 AND A VARIANCE PER SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1302 WHEREAS, the City of Orono (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the public road referred to as Crystal Bay Road located within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City"); and WHEREAS, the City of Orono has applied for a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to permit the installation of a retaining wall and certain land alterations in excess of 100 cubic yards and per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 has also applied for a lakeshore setback and hardcover variance for the above referenced work performed within 75* of the lake where no structure or land alterations are allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1302 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. On April 17, 1989, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval of the conditional use permit and variance application based on the following findings: A) The responsibility of the City of Orono to maintain the public health, safety and welfare will require that the roadbed be restored to safe public use level. B) The restoration of the roadbed will provide the necessary protection and stability of the public utilities located within the roadway. C) The restoration of the roadbed as proposed will prevent the further erosion of the public road and the lakeshore banks within the adjacent private properties. Page 1 of 3 D) The neighboring city of Minnetonka Beach has asked that the road be restored to continue providing a connection between the two cities. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditionSf lightr air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow installation of a retaining wall and certain land alterations within the lakeshore protected area in order to restore a public roadway known as Crystal Bay Road will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIOHS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 and a variance per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. The City shall provide the appropriate erosion controls throughout the entire project. 2. All work shall be subject to the design standards set forth in the engineering plans by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates Inc., referred to as amended. Option 2. 3. The City agrees to provide adeguate warning and a substitute access if it is deemed necessary to close the road during the period of repair. 4. The City to acquire temporary construction easements for restoration of roadbed. Page 2 of 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 24th day of Aprilr 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _19_ _ _ _, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 3 of 3 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: April 11, 1989 Subject: 11302 City of Orono - Crystal Bay Road Repair - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - 4th Review - 8:00 p.m. Special Review Time - Michael Lynch & John Gerhardson will be present to discuss the current proposal Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 - City of Orono seeks a conditional use permit to perform certain land alterations involving improvements of the roadbed exceeding 100 cubic yards of fill. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - The City will perform certain land alteration activities and place structures such as retaining walls within the lakeshore protected area. Required = 75* Proposed =» 10* approximately Variance « 65* or 86.6% List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Letter from Cook Dated 11/18/88 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes of 11/21/88 Exhibit C - Letter from Cook Dated 12/5/88 Exhibit D - Cable Guardrail Assembly Exhibit E - Letter from Mayor Bedell Dated 12/28/88 Exhibit F - Plan/Option 1 - Total Bury Exhibit G - Plan/Option 2 - Partial Bury Review of Application - At the November 21, 1988 Planning Commission meeting, the application was tabled providing additional time for residents to review the plans submitted by the Engineer for the November Planning Commission meeting. At the November 21st meeting, discussion arose regarding the need for guardrails because the existing grade to lakeside of the retaining wall would be greater than 30". The Planning Commission advised the residents to review and decide on the two options presented by the City Engineer and to make a final determination regarding the type of guardrails to be installed. Zoning File #1302 April 11/ 1989 Page 2 of 3 The zoning staff has been advised by both John Gerhardson and Glenn Cook that amended Option 2 appears to be the most acceptable for the four residents involved with the repair. Amended Option 2 involves the partial bury of retaining walls along the Erger and Wolfe properties. Schupp's property would have a total bury Erger and Wolfe have requested partial bury so that fill can be restored at grades that would allow re vegetation. The exposed walls per the plans (Exhibit G) show exposure of 5^ to 6*. The Planning Commission conceptually advised a maximum of 5*. Planning Commission should discuss this further with the two property owners. Amended Option 2 no longer includes retaining walls along the Schibilla property, allowing the property to remain as is. Guardrails will be installed in the approximate location as set forth in Exhibits F or G. Cook and Gerhardson have stated that the single cable style with minor alterations has been accepted. Special anchoring will be provided so as not to hinder access to the lakeshore properties. Mike Lynch will be available for comment on the specific assembly of the guardrails. It is staff's understanding that one property owner still has problems with the installation of guardrails. E, As an added note, the Planning Commission is as/^ed to review Exhibit a current letter from Mayor Bedell of Minnetonka Beach, once again reaffirming the City's desire to keep Crystal Bay Road open as a connecting loop road to both cities. It is not clear to the zoning staff whether all four involved property owners have agreed to the proposed amended plan. Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Erger appear to agree to the amended plan. We have yet to receive any clear direction from Schupps or Andersons. Mr. Anderson has advised that he wants to get the matter resolved, but it is not clear whether they approve of Option 2 as amended. In any case, the City is responsible for the repair of the road. Many of the questions raised by the most affected property owners will best be resolved at the Council level with the assistance of the City Attorney. Options of Action Available to the Planning Commission - 1. To approve the City of Orono's conditional use permit and variance application for the repair of the roadbed of Crystal Bay Road based on the plan defined as Option 2 as amended by the residents and City Engineer. Approval is based on the following findings: A) The responsibility of the City of Orono to maintain the public health, safety and welfare will require that the road bed be restored to safe public use level. B) The restoration of the roadbed will provide the necessary protection and stability of the public utilities located within the roadway. Zoning File #1302 April Hr 1989 Page 3 of 3 C) The restoration of the roadbed as proposed will prevent the further erosion of the public road and the lakeshore banks within the private property. Approval is subject to the following conditions: A) The City shall provide the appropriate erosion controls throughout the entire project. B) All work shall be performed within the public road easement of Crystal Bay Road. C) If the City finds it necessary to close off this section of the road during the repair, tiie City must provide adequate warning and substitute access if necessary. D) The City to acquire temporary construction easements for restoration of roadbed and permanent easements for maintenance of retaining walls. If land alterations are required to restore the four or five lakeshore properties that these improvements be combined under one conditional use permit. Owners are encouraged to work together to tie in specific improvements c /er property boundaries in order to ensure integrity of project and stability of banks. 2. Table pending further review by City and/or residents. 3. To deny, and if denied. Planning Commission should refer to necessary standards setforth in Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A)j Section 10.55, Subdivision 25 (A). The property owners should also rip rap the shore line along the entire length. This will help stabilize the shore line and prevent undercutting of the bank. The planting of shrubs and bushes should also be required under either option. There are four significant Items that should be determined prior to proceeding with the project design and construction: 1. Should an exposed vail along a portion of the area be allowed? 2. Should the wall be extended as requested by the property owners? 3. Vhat will be required for easements to allow for construction of the wall? A. How will the project be funded? If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cr>ok GRCtll Page 2. Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Otio a Bon«tioa PE. Ro(>en W. Rosene. PE. Joseph C. AndefUk, PE. BfMfoni A. Lemberg. PE. Ricturd E. Rjmef. PE. James C. Olson. PE. Glenn R. Cook. PE. Thomas E. Noyes. PE. Robert O. Sehonicht PE. Marvin L Sorvala. PE IMh A. Oordoa PE Rlehard W. Fosur. PE Donstd C flurgarOL PE. Jerry A. Bourdon. PE Mark A. Hanson. PE 1M K. Field. PE Michael T. Raucmarsa PE Robert R. PfeTferle. PE. OavM a losloca. PE Thomas W. Peterson. PE Michael C. lynch. PE James R. Maland. PE Kermeih P Andersoa PE. KeRh A. Bachmarvs. PE Mark R. RolTl PE Robert C Russek. AJ.A. Thomas E. Angus, PE Howard A SanfOrd. PE Oamel Jl Edgertoa PE. Mark A. SHc. PE PhNip X Caswell PE Mark a walks. PE Charles A Erickson Leo M. Pawelsky HarlanM. OHon Susan M. acrRn. CEA Noveaber 18, 1988 City of Ocono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attnt Ms. Jeanne Habusth Ret File No. 139 Crystal Bay Road Dear Jeanne, We have prepared a preliminary layout for the reconstruction work along Crys­ tal Bay Road. The plan reviews two options for repair of the failed lakeshore banks. Option One was proposed by the City as the minimoa amount of work necessary to restore the failed areas. Option Two ittas developed iFtei meeting with the property owners and discussing the repair work. Option One would provide for construction of a retaining wall with City forces. The backfilling of the lakeshore bank and rip rap work would be completed by the property owners. Option One would leave the lakeshore bank in a condition similar to that which existed prior to the storm. There would be no wall area exposed after completion of the construction. The lakeshore bank would be expensive to repair under this option as the slope would be very steep (2:1 or greater). The propety owners would need to use additional retaining walls or fabric layers to retain the bank. The surface would have to be covered with erosion control blankets to stabilize the bank. Option Two would again provide for a retaining wall constructed with City forces, retaining wall would be extended to protect areas along the shore that have not failed. The property owners are concerned about additional areas failing in the future. There is some surface cracking visible in these areas that indi-ate some type of subsurface movement. The vegetation (root growth) in these areas was adequate to hold the bank during the big storm. In addition to extending the wall some of the property owners have requested that portions of the wall remain exposed. This will require additional structural support to provide for the exposed wall. The City work under this option would be greater but the property owners cost would be less. The slot could be flattened out (3:1 max.) and restored by seedinj^ or sodding. Page 1, 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 J& MIHUTBS op the planning commission meeting NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE «1351~HARRISOH CONTINUED It was moved by Planning Commission member Brown, seconded by Planning Commission member Cohen, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes»6, * Motion passed. *1357 O. LARRT LEE VACATION OF PORTIONS OF GARDEN LANE AND HIGHVIEW LANE PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that Mr. Krautkremer was unable to attend the meeting. There were concerned parties present and Mabusth briefly explained the location of the alley. Mr. Kost was asked by the City to vacate the alley, because the City only wanted a 50*, rather than a 60* right-of-way. She further informed them that there would be a meeting, Tuesday, November 22, at 7:00 p.m. that would specifically deal with this subdivision. There would be no action taken at that meeting, it would be a question and answer session. It was moved by Planning Commission member Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to table this item. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays**0, Motion passed. #1358 TED FEIG 8 TIM JOHNSON 627/629 NORTH FERNDALE ROAD RENENAL OF SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. - 8:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailinrr were duly noted. The applicants were not present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this application involved a renewal and revision of the subdivision of a lot line rearrangement approved originally in 1987, but which was never filed . The parties revised the lot line so as to better conform with the existing driveway and backyard areas. There were no comments from the public regardirg this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commission rnemher Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes«6, Nay8»0, Motion passed. #1302 CITY OF ORONO CRYSTAL BAT ROAD CONDITION' USB PERMIT THIRD REVIEW City Engineer Cook indicated that following a meeting of the City and Crystal Bay Road residents, there were still areas of disagreement. He reported that there were two options for MINUTES ')? THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1302-CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED repairing the bank: Option 1 would involve replacing only damaged areas where the bank slid. This would be done by building a retaining wall and backfilling from the wall to the top of the road. The only way that sloping could be achieved would be to place fabric or other material to keep the soil from eroding away. The property owners would have to be involved with this option by taking responsibility for the repairs to the bank. The City would install posts and sheathing and backfill with sand. Minimal excavation of the road would be done, along with patching the edge of the road. Chairman Kelley asked why the City could not pay for the fill needed for the bank? Cook said that was another option, but the City may not wish to do so. Planning Commission member Bellows asked how much of the property in question was owned by the City? Public Works Director Gerhardson replied that the City's prescriptive easement would only be over the actual road and gravel ditch area. Cook added that there was additional language that stated the City owned the road to whatever point was necessary to maintain drainage. Option 2 would allow for a portion of retaining wall to be exposed and would be located approximately 3 feet into the private property lines. In the other areas, there would be bushes and other vegetation, so a wall would be installed as in option 1, but would only exist for the purpose of retaining the bank. However, there are cracks In the road which could al low water to seep in and cause the bank to shift. Chairman Kelley asked Engineer Cook as to which option would be best? Cook responded that either option would sufficiently remedy the problem. Kelley then asked which option the residents of Crystal Bay Road would prefer? Mr. Schibilla expressed the desire of the residents to proceed with option 2. Mr. Bill Wolfe stated that he had no problem with option 2, and commended Public Works Director Gerhardson and City Engineer Cook for their efforts. He added that the residents had just reviewed option 2 that evening. They wanted time to discuss and receive Inpr.t. from a landscape architect to achieve the most aesthetically pleasing effect as possible. Chairman Kelley inquired as to when the City would begin work. Gerhardson replied it would be in the Spring. Planning Commission member Bellows expressed her concern over the residents who chose not to replace the fill. Mr. Lee Erger explained that he owned the property where the most wall exposure would be; he would have difficulty attaining a 2:1 slope. He MIHOTBS OF THE PIANNIEG COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1302-CITT OF ORONO CONTINUED proposed to leave the wall exposed and plant vegetation on the other side to provide screening. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that there should not be any controversy with this ma,tter. The simple fact is that the City has a duty to repair a dangerous situation. She further stated that since the City did not own the property beyond the road and proposed retaining walls, and the City did not cause the problem but was attempting to correct it, that the property owners, individually, should be responsible for restoration of their property. Chairman Kelley Inquired as to whether there would be a 1:1 slope on Mr. Erger's property. City Engineer Cook confirmed that, and added that the only way to do that would be to put fabric or some type of wall. Kelley asked how much wall would be exposed if there was a 3:1 slope? Cook replied 5* to 6'. Kelley asked what supported the bank before it was washed away? Cook answered that natural vegetation held it. Planning Commission member Brown inquired about the workability of a 2:1 slope. Cook said that would work and would reduce the wall by a couple of feet. Ms. Connie Schibilla stated that despite the several meetings with City, she had nothing on paper indicating what exactly was being proposed. Chairman Kelley stated that he would have no problem recommending the 2:1 slope. Planning Commission member Cohen concurred. Bellows stated that easements necessary for construction of the wall was a technical issue that still needed to be addressed. She said that the Planning Commission should set a guideline as to how much wall can be exposed. The Planning Commission concurred that 5* maximum would be allowed. Mr. Erger then asked how much of a shoulder would be required from the road so that a guardrail would not be necessary. The residents concurred that they did not want a guardrail. Kelley asked what was needed to make the area safe? Cook said that there was no set guideline, but in a normal situation, a guardrail would be required. Anything over 30" would require a guardrail. Cohen explained to the residents the City's problem with liability should someone fall over the edge. Rich Anderson interjected that that was the controversey. Bellows said it was a matter of a guardrail or keeping the drop-off below 30”. She said that legally the City could install a guardrail into the pavement because of the drop-off currently being more than 30”. Cohen concurred. Mr. Erger suggested placing the posts 1* or 2* off of the shoulder so that they could prevent anything from going off of the edge. The Planning Commission as a whole agreed that would not meet the City's safety standards. Mr. Wolfe asked how the City could place a guardrail on MHIDTRS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING FILE #1302-CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED private property without due compensation? Chairman Kelley advised the residents that they would have to deal with the City Council and City Attorney on those issues. Mr. Schupp said that he did not see how the City could interfere with his access to the lake. Kelley reiterated his position that the Planning Commission could not resolve that issue. He added that as far as the City's health, safety and welfare was concerned, the Planning Commission would recommend installation of a guardrail. The issue of any compensation to the property owners would have to be addressed by the City. Mr. Schupp asked what the height requirement was for a guardrail. Kelley Informed him that any drop of 30" required a guardrail. Kelley reiterated his suggestion of taking the guardrail issue to the City Council, because the Planning Commission did not have the authority to resolve that issue. Planning Commission member Hanson Interjected that fo»* 18 months this public road has existed in an unsafe state. Kelley continued to say that the Planning Commission can only act on the City Ordinances. The residents were asking for a variance to the ordinance requiring a railing for a 5* drop. Kelley avowed himself to be a volunteer to his community and said that he could not consciously allow that kind of a drop-off without a guardrail. Mr. Erger said that he would not object to the "curb" going up if it was located at the very edge of the lot line, or even extending 3* or 4* if the City could determine how much slope would be involved. Kelley suggested that the City could protect Itself and take more private property and have more road on the other side. Mr. Wolfe reiterated his desire to consult with a landscape architect. Mr. Erger asked if the City would allow the bank to be 1:1? City Engineer Cook said that it could be 1:1, but that may be very costly. A better solution may be to keep the bank at 30" or less. Mr. Schupp asked if proceeding with option 1 would alleviate the need for a guardrail? City Engineer Cook said that may or may not be the case. Rich Anderson suggested putting the bank back as it was so that a guardrail would not be necessary. Kelley and Cohen explained that it would be the property owner's financial obligation if they proceeded in that manner. Rich Anderson wanted the City to finance the project. Kelley again suggested taking these various proposals to the City Council. Mr. Erger asked about having 2' of shoulder from the blacktop to the guardrail and screening the guardrail from the front with plantings. Bellows and Kelley pointed out the fact that snow plows may destroy the shrubs. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commission member Cohen, to table this matter. Kelley suggested that the property owners keep the City apprised of how they would like to proceed. Mr. Greg Long asked for a definition of guardrail. Kelley said that the City would provide the residents MIHDTES OF THE PLAHNIN6 COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 ZONING PILE #1302-CITT OF ORONO CONTINUED with that information. Once the residents have the guardrail information, it would be their responsibility to contact the City. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays*0, Motion passed. *1337 ROBERT PAIGE 3493 CRYSTAL PLACE VARIANCES SECOND REVIEff Mr. Paige was present for this second review. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history of this application. Mr. Paige had previously received direction from the Planning Commission to revise the location of the proposed garage. Mr. Paige was now planning on replacing the existing garage structure with a l«^rger garage and would require a 5* side yard setback variance. Gaffron explained that if the garage is moved back, as Mr. Paige agreed to do, then there would not be a need for a variance to the 30* street setback requirement for garage doors facing the street. Planning Commission member Hanson asked how Mr. Paige would access the proposed garage. Mr. Paige responded that he would access off of Navarre Avenue. Planning Commission member asked how far from Navarre Avenue the new garage would be located. Mr. Paige indicated that it would be 30*. It was moved by Planning Commission member Brown, seconded by Planning Commission member Brown, to recommend approval of this application, provided that the garage be located at least 30* from the west lot line and 5* from the south lot line. Mr. Paige inquired as to whether the 30* was from the foundation or roof? Gaffron clarified that it would be from the foundation and that the overhang could be a maximum of 1-1/2 feet. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1346 EIHAR BAGBBR6 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE VARIANCE Mr. Hagberg was present for this matter. As explained by Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, this matter was referred back to the Planning Commission from the City Council. The Council was concerned about the discovery of a sewer line that would be located 5* from the proposed storage garage. Public Works Director Gerhardson had indicated that the line would just be used for flushing dow^nstream systems so the 5* setback would be sufficient. Mr. Hagberg had provided a list of items that required storage. Gaffron suggested that the lack of storage and the need for storage might be construed as a hardship. Mr. Hagberg*s present garage is located in such a way that adding to it would not be practical due to the topography of his land. CITY OF ORONO cS CITYof ORONO Post Ofiice Box 66«Cry8Ul Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 5, 1988 Attached for your review is a copy of the guardrail design that is proposed for Crystal Bay Road. The single cable design meets minimum standards. The specification requires a anchor rod at each end post. Because of the openings for access to your lake access we will have to design a corner post without an anchor rod that will meet the requirments of the specification. Please be advised that we will try to minimize the appearance of the guardrail as much as possible with plantings, shrubberyr trees etc. If you have any ideas on how to minimize the appearance of the guardrail please let me know. I can be reached at 473-7357. John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director JRG/jlb BUILDING a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETONKA BEACH, MINNESOTA 55361 December 28, 1988 Jamee R. Grabek, Mayor City of Orono P.O. Book 66 Crystal Bay, MS 55323 RE: Morthviev/Crystal Bay Hoad Dear Kayor Qrabek: Allow me to restate the position of the City Council of Minnetonka Beach regarding the disposition of Morthriew Road as it proceeds west into Crystal Bay Road. It was the unanimous decision of our city council to request the city of Orono to keep this road open. There has been no discussion or consideration to change this decision. ll MINNETONKA BEACHMINIMETOIMKA BPAru beach , MINNESOTA 55361 October 12, 1988 Mr. Mark Berhardson Oity AdministratorCity of Orono Crystal Bay, mn 55323 Re: Crystal Bay Road Dear Mark: R^elosed please « Jeeting minutes concernlnS^ September 12 l9Sfi r^or trafflr* t*. our desire <-o 1988 Council remainrSen so ILf^^^cern L our cltv^^H access to their homi* ^^e affected residents wi 11 this road these residents dosino of the ac^equate due to restr?cLd . ^"‘^^eesed home owners _ , ___ striated access for fire protectLn? ® Premiums V Sincerely, , , lavor Briian Mayor bbv/bb end. " i THE CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: . ROLL CALL: I' . REGULAR C. siNCIL MEETING MINUTES: * •* ■ % BUDGET MEETING MINUTES: POLICE REPORT: CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CLOSING: The regular Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Brian Bedell at 7:05 PM. Mayor Brian Bedell, CounciImembers Abdo, Stebbins, Brodersen, Melamed and Bersie. A motion was made by Councilmember Abdo to approve the Regular Council Meeting Minutes of August 8, 1988. Seconded by Councilmember Brodersen. All approved. 4 ayes. A motion was made by Councilmember Abdo to approve the Budget Meeting Minutes of August 24, 1988. Seconded by Councilmember Brodersen. All approved. 4 ayes. Chief Kilbo ill. No report. Comments were heard from residents. The Council stated that the road should remain open. A letter will be forwarded to the City of Orono stating our position. All approved. RESOLUTION 14 SUPER CYCLE A motion was made by Councilmember Abdo to approve a one year contract with Super Cycle. Seconded by Councilmember Stebbins. CounciImembers Stebbins, aye; Abdo, aye; Melamed, aye; and Broderson, aye. CONTAINERS FOR PICK-UP: A motion was made by Councilmember Abdo to acquire 250 20- gallon recycleable containers, one to be supplied to each address, that will remain with the home if occupants move. Seconded by Councilmember Melamed. All approved. 4 ayes. NORTHWEST BALLET: The Council approved the request for the party at the Lafayette Club as long as it is not charitable gambling and complies with all State laws and ordinances. A letter will be sent to Steve Wood stating the City's intentions. TREASURER'S REPORT: Approved as submitted. DUFFY'S REPORT:1) 2) Seal coating & cleaning completed. Water plant - Duffy is asking for prices for sand blasting & repainting. Leaf pick-up will be established by next Council Meeting. WESTSUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER: RESOLUTION 15 FIRE PROTECTION PROPOSAL: Chief Kilbo requested the City of Minnetonka Beach to contribute to tha Center. A motion was made by Councilmember Stebbins to approved a $200.00 donation. Seconded by Councilmember Abdo. All approved. 4 ayes. A motion was made by Councilmember Melamed to approve the Mound Fire contract 4 budget proposal. Seconded by CounciImcuiber Abdo. Councilmembers Stebbins, aye; Melamed, aye; Abdo, aye; and Broderson, aye. m M Bones troo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Oao G BooeuroQ PE Rooen W fioiene. PE Joifpn C Andert*. PE A Lefnoef^ PE RcrwrU E Turner PE jvnn C Ohoo. PE CHerw 9 Cook. PE Thomji E Noy«. PE (tooen G knomcht PE Marvin L. SorvaU. PE Kfun A Goroon. PE ihcnan] w fom. PE Oonak) C BurgardL PE Jerry A Bounlon. PE Mark A Hanwn. PE Ted K E«td. PE M<Me< r RauOTvann PE Itooerr R PTeflerre. PE David O Loutxa. PE Thomat W fVter«xi. PE. M<naer C Lyr*cn. PE Jarm R ‘Aaiwt PE KenoeW P Andenon. PE Krtfi A Bacnmann PE Mark R RO»v PE Roberr C Ruisek. AIA Thortvii E Anguv PE Howard A Santord. PE Dan*r J Edgenon. PE Mark A kd PE PMO J Caiwefl. PE. Mark O VUM. PE. Thomaj R Anderwjn. AIA Gary f RyUnder. PE crvarm a Erxkjon Leo M Pawertky Hartan M OTuxi Susan M Eberka CPA H Engineers & Architects April 17. 1989 .w V. City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Attn: Jeanne Ma^usth Re: 13938 - Crystal Bay Road Dear Jeanne: The plan for reconstxruction of Crystal Bay Road has not changed significantly from our previous submittal. The property owners would like to proceed with option II that leaves approximatly three feet of the wall exposed as shown on the plan. The wall would be constructed in two sections. The westerly section would be approximatly 125 feet long and the easterly section would be approximatly 35 feet long. The westerly section would be partially exposed and the easterly section would be completely covered. The city would construct the wall and place the cable guard rail. The property owners would be responsible for reconstructing the bank and placement of rip rap along the shore line. The guard rail would begin at the curve on the east end and be extended west across the Schupp property. The guard rail would also be placed across the Wolfe and Erger property. If you have any questions please contact this office Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:df 2335 West Hfahwav 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55H3 • 612-636-4600 / To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: April 20, 1989 Subject: #1353 John & Nancy Fiebelkorn, 2730 Shadywood Road - After-the-Fact Variances - Denial Resolution Attached is a denial resolution per Council's action by a vote of 4-0 at the April 10, 1989 meeting. Please review the resolution to verify that the wording reflects your direction. Proposed Motion - Moved by seconded by to deny the after-the-fact variances for a pool and spa which constitute hardcover and structure in the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone for John L. and Nancy Fiebelkorn at 2730 Shadywood Road, per the attached resolution. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. A 1IESOLOTION DENYING APTER-THB-PACT VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22r SUBDIVISION 1 (A) & (B)» SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B), AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 PILE #1353 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Vuws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 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, John and Nancy Piebelkorn (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners o: the prope . xocated at 2730 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Tract C, Registered Land Survey #%20, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAL, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") for after-the-fact variances seeking approval of structures and hardcover within 75' of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A), Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and seeking approval of an after-the-fact variance to allow encroachment of an accessory structure nearer the lake than the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 1^,22, Subdivis 1 (B),'an6 seeking approv:\l tor a side yard setback variance for a pool maintenance equipment shed structure located less than 10* from a side lot ^ ne where a 10* side yard setback (a normally requi’.ed per Municipal uirg Code Section 10.24, S^bdivisicr. 5 (B); and WHEREAbi 'hr ^ity Coiincil has reviewed the application; t la recommer itions of the City staff and the Planning Commission; and the comments and written statements submitted by th*: applicants, applict/it^ a'^torney, and the ir;pplicants* consultants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Ci Minnesota herety denies the after-crie-fact applicat.^ based on one ur more of the following findings o.. property? Page 1 of 8 incl 1 ' ono, ove ^ this FINDINGS r. property is located in the LR-lD, single family lakeshore * -;it .ntial zoning district and consists of 18,510 s.f. or 0.42 acres. The district requires 43,560 s.f. or 1.0 acres in ?tea. 2. Pre-existing improvements to the property include a residence structure located approximately 78* from the shorrline, an attached deck and patio located 63* from the shoreline, and a portion^ of bituminous driveway as located approximately 58* from the shoreline. Pre-existing hardcover areas consisting of driveway. ^?tio and deck constituted 868 s.f. or 10.9% hardcover in the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover is norritally allowed. 3. The actual pool and spa construction encroach nearer the lake than the average setback line. The pool and adjacent patio proposed will encroach as near as 21* from the shoreline. The pool and spa originally proposed would, in conjunction with pre-existing hardcover not intended to be removed, constitute 28.4% hardcover in the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone where only 10.9% hardcover had previously existed and no hardcover is normally allowed. 4. Without having attempt;:;d to obtain the required building permit and without attempting to determine whether a building permit v;as needed, the applicants in the summer of 1988 proceeded to construct spa and swimming pool located entirely ’ 'thin the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone where no structures and no hardcover are normally allowed. This came to the attention of City staff on September 6, .1 988 at which time a site inspection was made and the construction was posted with a "Stop Work Order". By that time, the pool and spa construction was nearly complete. The property owners were advised that such construction was illegal. 5. On October 26- 1988, the applican^-'^ appli ^pplication #1353) to the City for aft.-/.-the-fact variance '’•arc er, average lakeshore setback encroachment, and lakesh bacf. for the pool *nd spa construction and a side setback var or the pool maintena nce and equipment structure. 6. In their letter of application, the applicants made the following statements of hardship and description of unusual property conditions: Page 2 of 8 A) "Hardship. The necessity for a side yard setback variance is attributable to a misunderstanding between applicants and their neighbor as >o the location of the existing property line. The setback from the shoreline is necessitated by the unusual configuration of applicants* lot and the placement thereon of applicants' home which makes all portions of their rear yard area within the 75’ shoreline setback area. Dredging of a portion of their property years ago has resulted in the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka having been artificially modified to create an inletr the result of which is to deprive a^ licants of the ability to maintain any structure whatsoever in .heir rear yard area. This situation also results in the need for a variance from the applicable hardcover requirement in as much as no hardcover whatsoever would otherwise be permitted in applicants* rear yard area." B) "Description of unusual property conditions. Applicants* lot is small and the house constructed thereon has been placed so as to render the entire rear yard area within the 0 hardcover area and the 75* "no structure" setback area. Applicants* rear yard area is a bluff dropping down a relatively sheer-face at the rear to the shores of an inlet dredged out to Lake Minnetonka. The surface of applicants* rear yard is not visible from Lake Minnetonka. The existence of a pool, or proposed decking surrounding a pool cannot be seen from Lake Minnetonka." 7. Application #1353 was reviewed by the Orono Planning Commission at a public hearing held during the regular Planning Commission meeting of November 21, 1988. The Planning Commission, after hearing comments by the applicants, their attorney, landscape architect, and engineer, voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the proposed after-the-fact Vw-riances, finding that no suitable hardship or reasonable justification was presented for granting the variances after-the-fact. 8. At their regular meeting of January 23, 1989, the Orono City Council reviewed the application for after-the-fact variances and the Planning Commission recommendation. Additionally, the City Council accepted comments from the applicants and their attorney as stated in the minutes of that meeting. The Council indicated that approval of the after-the-fact variances would be inconsistent with the City s past practices, and that they could not accept the presented hardships as valid. The Council tabled the application on a vote of 4-0 to allow applicants time to work with City staff regarding removal of the pod and spa. Page 3 of 8 9. At their regular meeting of April 10, x989, the City Council reviewed additional exhibits presented by the applicants, including a letter from the applicants acknowledging that they would remove the pool, but seeking approval to retain the spa and seeking approval to retain the pool equipment and maintenance structure subject to a lot line rearrangement to make that structure conforming to the required setbacks. The City Council reviewed the revised request and again determined that sufficient hardship had not been shown to justify the granting of additional hardcover in the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone. The Council further indicated that the pool and equipment maintenance structure would have to be removed unless a lot line rearrangement subdivision application was submitted. The Council voted 4-0 to direct staff to di:ait a resolution of denial for the pool and spa variances, and to incorporate in such resolution a deadline for submittal of a subdivision application if the equipment shed is to remain. 10. The Council additionally makes the following findings of fact concerning this variance denial: A) The property as it existed prior to the pool and spa construction already exceeded the hardcover limitations imposed by the 1975 zoning code, i.e. 10.9% hardcover In the 0-75* zone where no hardcover is normally allowed ana 70.0% hardcover in the 75-250* zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed. B) Removal of 52 s.f. or 0.5% hardcover in the 75-250* zone does not justify the originally proposed increase of 1,393 s.f. in the 0-75* zone, nor the 0-75* increase of 126 s.f. per the revised proposal. C) The normal shoreline elevation for Lake Minnetonka has been designated as 929.4* above mean sea level. The Orono zoning code requires that all setback distances from the shoreline are measured from the 929.4* contour. The pool as constructed does not meet the minimum 50* required setback for new structures as required by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for Lake Minnetonka, and does not meet the criteria for being less than 250 s.f. in area as is currently proposed by the DNR in their proposed Shoreland Standards. Page 4 of 8 D) The applicants* suggestion that past dredging of the lagoon adjacent to the property is a hardship because it has made the lot area smaller, is not valid. In fact, the dry buildable lot area has not changed substantially since 1970, as is verified by review of the 1970 air photo maps on exhibit at City Hall. The applicants* house was constructed in 1972, prior to the current lakeshore zoning standards which were adopted in 1975. However, the house itself essentially meets the current 75* lakeshore/10 side/35* street setbacks. Without a doubt, this property is very restricted by current zoning ordinances given the substandard size of this lot in a 1 acre zone. However, these restrictions are similar throughout the neighborhood and the community, and there is nothing unique or unusual about this particular situation. E) The applicants* statement of unusual property conditions indicates that the surface of applicants* rear yard is not visible from Lake Minnetonka, and that the existence of a pool or proposed decking surrounding the pool cannot be seen from Lake Minnetonka. The City finds that the lagoon that the property abuts is considered a part of Lake Minnetonka and that the applicants* pre-existing rear yard was very visible from the lagoon area under normal lake elevation conditions and that the pool, proposed decking, and proposed 2—3* high retaining wall 15— 20* from the normal shoreline of Lake Minnetonka will be very visible encroachments into the required lakeshore setback area. F) The granting of the required variances would be contrary to the provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) with which the applicants must first comply in order that variances be granted. The Council finds that: 1) The essential character of the neighborhood will be altered if the proposed variances are granted and the new hardcover and structures in the 0-75* zone are allowed to remain. 2) The property in question can indeed be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed^ by official controls. The property contains a single family residence and the lakeshore 0-75* zone has been and can continue to be used as yard area in support of that residence. 3) The plight of the applicants would appear to have been created totally by the applicants and not by circumstances unique to their property nor out of the applicants* control. Page 5 of 8 4) Granting of the proposed variances would appear to serve as a convenience to the applicants and the applicants have not demonstrated any reasonable hardship or practical difficulty. 5) The conditions and zoning code limitations imposed and existing on this property generally apply to all other land and structures in the zoning district in which this property is located. 6) The granting of this application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants. Denial of a swimming pool and spa in a location where such structures are not normally allowed is not considered by Council to be denial of a substantial property right. 7) The fact that the applicants have expended thousands of dollars in the construction of the structures in ^estions does not and cannot constitute a reasonable hardship to the property. 11. In review of the factual findings noted above, the Council finds that granting of the proposed after-the-fact pool and spa structure to remain would be in complete conflict the environmental standards for lakeshore development within the City and would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader environmental principals and goals set forth in its Community Management Plan and the intent specific zoning district when dealing with matters of the health, safety and welfare. Issues involving public health, safety and weilfare are not only resolved by securing the drainage concerns, but the City also feels obligated to Provide the citizens with a designated and optimum level of density, open space and quality of life. 12, Th,i applicants and/or their agents had every opportunity to verify with the City and its staff whether or not the pool and spa construction were allowed or whether such construction required a permit, prior to that construction. The intent and full purpose of the City's zoning code and Community Management Plan have .sen violated in a manner so severe that the City Council must act to deny this application. The City Council cannot approve the Illegal actions of a resident or his agents when similar actions would have been denied through the normal review process. Page 6 of 8 FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby orders the removal of the pool and spa and restoration of the property within 45 days of the date of this resolution. The applicants and the agents of the City shall be guided by the following directives in the process of restoration: 1. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be maintained in place during restoration until the disturbed earth is suitably revegetated. 2. The applicants shall work with the City staff and its consultants to restore original drainage and original grades to the site. 3. The pool equipment maintenance structure shall be removed within 6 months of the date of this resolution unless a lot line rearrangement subdivision to make the structure conforming to required setbacks is completed within that 6 month period. 4. Hardcover on the property shall not exceed the pre-existing hardcover square footage in the 0-75* lakeshore zone of 868 square feet. In the 75-250* setback zone, hardcover may not exceed the Pre­ existing 7,387 square feet (70%), except that if a lot line rearrangement subdivision is forthcoming, the additional 64 square foot pool equipment maintenance structure may be allowed. The property owners are advised that no additional hardcover will be approved for this property, and any future proposals to increase or change the nature of hardcover on the property will not be api^oved, but might be approved only in conjunction with removals of pre­ existing hardcover that result in no net increase in hardcover or a net decrease in hardcover on the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 24th day of April, 1989. ATTESTI Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 7 of 8 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) S8. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of April, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 8 of 8 Prom: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardcon Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator April 19, 1989 #1368 Thomas McNellis/John Prudden, 315/355 Woodhill Road - Metes & Bounds Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Final Approval - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Proposed Resolution Copy of Final Survey Planning Commission Action Notice 2/24/89 Planning Commission Minutes 2/21/89 As a part of a variance approval last fall, Mr. McNellis was to complete a lot line rearrangement with Mr. Prudden to the east, in order that the McNellis residence would meet the required 50* front setback. The applicant has completed all requirements for chat lot line rearrangement subdivision including granting of drainage and utility easements. The Planning Commission recommended approval at their February 21, 1989 meeting. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. Proposed Motion - Moved b^ _ _, seconded by _ _, to approve the metes & bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Thomas E. McNellis and John Prudden at 315 & 355 Woodhill Road. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR THOMAS E. MCNELLIS « JOHN PRUDDEN FILE NO. 1368 WHEREASr the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement by Thomas E, McNellis and John Prudden (hereinafter "the applicants") of properties legally described on the Certificate of Survey by Sathre Bergquist Inc., dated March 14, 1989 and attached to this resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicants have completed all requirements of the City for metes and bounds Class I subdivision of a lot line rearrangement including dedication to the City of drainage and utility easements along the appropriate lot lines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Concil of the City of Orono hereby approves the metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Thomas E. McNellis and John Prudden ac -^rding to the legal descriptions shown on the Certificate of Survey by Satlire Bergquist Inc., dated March 14, 1989 and attached to this resolution, subject to the following conditions; 1. Upon approval of this subdivision by the City Council of Orono, the owner of Parcel X as described in the Certificate of Survey referenced above must apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel W as described in that same survey. 2. Similarly, the owner of Parcel Z must apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel Y as described in the survey. 3. The aforesaid division as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder's office on or before October 24, 19P9 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and the above noted easement document. Page 1 of 2 The approval granted by this Resolution shall expired if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In that events it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, this 24th day of April, 1989. 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 April, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 2 of 2 i. i 1 !• CITT OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING PILE NO. 1368 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 2/24/89 Thomas McNeills 5201 Ridge Road Edina, MN 55436 COPIES TO:Sathre-Bergqulst, Inc, 106 South Broadway Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OP MEETING: 2/21/89 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning CossU-Ssion recosMends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Approval of your subdivision of a lot line rearrangement. Please review the enclosed memo that lists the conditions of that approval and the required submittals. PriMix Dates Thomas McNeills Sathre-Bergquiat, Inc, Michael P. Gaffron, As»t Planning & Zoning Administrator February 24, 1989 Soojects Approval of Metes & Pounds Subdivision, Application #1368 Your subdivision of a lot line rearrangement will be presented foi final approval by the City Council upon receipt of the following: 1. Provide a Certificate ot Survey per the survey dated 12/19/88 b: Sathre-r ;quist, Inc. The drawing must la'^el the parcels to Lf traded a. .aparate parcels (I would suggest ust arcel W and Parcel for consistency). Key those parcels to the descriptions at right or the survey. Also, pie/*-- • . line under City of Orono for date of approval. Tht signature st be signed by the property owners before submitta. for final . 2. Provide o. t jpy of survey at a scale of 1"»200' for City records 3. Both benefltting property owners must complete the appropriat. combination forms at the City offices upon final approval of th. subdivision. 4. Provide two signed copies of the standard form Drainage an* Utility Easement as depicted in Exhibit E of the staff memo o February 13, 1989 (attached). The only new description to be create* will be the 10* easement along the new McNeills northeast lot line, copy of the standard form Drain<»ge and Utility Easement is als attached. Ail final submittals must be submitted to this office 10 days befor the meeting at which Council will grant the final subdivision approval The Council meets on the second and fourth Monday of the month. Regula meetings arc rescheduled if they c.nfllct with ^ national holiday Upcoming Council meeting dates March 13th, March 27th, and April 10th. V'; % m 4 4# .’2 . *•,• ■ 'Hl ..." « jmfm. 4 ....' V \ ITU' V.. •«:■* . ■-•iii-"- ■ (vi V.; • i' : ..-O f :- •I'-**'-* ■ 'ik i?>A25^ . , 4. •> W T •':. . . ■;'. ^/ /^* ■M c.« ■ J-. >; \'5-4j *4 * TP '.i»r u^*e’. • MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 2i, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelleyr Planning Commissioners Bellows, Cohen, Hanson and Moos. Planning Commissioner Brown arrived at 7:05 p.m. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative J. Diann Goetten attended. fl368 THOMAS B. MCNELLIS 315 & 355 NOODHILL ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBJ LIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. - 7:02 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mr. McNellis was requesting approval of a lot line rearrangement that was required as a condition ol approval of a previous variance application. The lot line rearrangement will alleviate the need for a variance to the 50* front setback from the east lot line. There were no comments from the pub'^ic regarding this macter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Mr. Thomas McNellis. Motion Ayes*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1370 D. STRELOff/J. SISK 4330 & 4340 NORTH SHORE DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 P.M. - 7:18 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Jeff Sisk was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the lot line rearrangement was being proposed to allow the Sisk property a riparian lot classification. Mr. Sisk was advised by Staff that subdivisions, strictly for the purpose of riparian access, were unlikely, unless the property met the required lot width at the shoreline. Mr. Sisk filed the application based upon previous conditions of the property that would have implied previous riparian status. The DNR confirmed that dredging had occurred in the past, and that in 1964, a permit was issued to the owners of Lot 4 to fill 20*. The City of Orono, the Watershed District and To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froai Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Date: April 17, 1989 Subject: #1376 Chris & Dale Palm, 1710 Shadywood Road - Variance - Denial Resolution Per Council's directive of April 10, 1989, staff has drafted the attached resolution denying variances for the above referenced application. Proposed Motion - Moved by # __ denying variances SuFJT^ision 2 requested by Ayes , nays ___. ___, seconded by __ , to approve Resolution to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Chris and Dale Palm at 1710 Shadywood Road. A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1376 WHERE7kS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 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, Dale and Chris Palm (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the pj.operty located at 1710 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinatter "the City") and legally described as follows: That part of Lot 11 lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the North 14* of said lot; thence South 87 degrees, 27 minutes East to the shore of Crystal Bay, Lake Minnetonka; and that part of Lot 12 lying Northerly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 71.2 feet Northerly, measured at right angles from the Southerly line of Lot 13, all in Shadywood, an addition to the County of Hennepin, in the Township of Orono, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the office of Registrar of Deeds in and for said County of Hennepin, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow 32.2% hardcover in the 75-250* lakeshore setback zone where only 29% hardcover had previously been approved by the City Council on March 10, 1986 as set forth in City of Orono Resolution #1936; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the written reports by the City staff; the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission; and the written and oral comments of the applicants and other Interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies Dale and Chris Palm*s application for variances for the property described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: Page 1 of 4 FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1376. 2. The current request to retain the existing detached garage in its existing substandard location, which would necessitate retention or placement of hardcover in excess of the 29% hardcover in the 75-250' zone allowed per Orono Resolution #1936, was also the subject of previous application #1244, which was denied per Orono Resolution #2415, adopted April 25, 1988. The findings of fact appearing in Resolutions #1936 a»^d #2415 are incorporated herein by reference. 3. The applicants wish to retain the existing detached garage in its substandard location less than 2* from the side lot line, and 4,7* from the street lot line where 10' setbacks are normally required. Furthermore, the current request is for 32.2% hardcover in the 75-250* zone where only 29% was allowed in the original variance request per Resolution #1936. 4. The Council finds that the applicants can develop a suitable and safe driveway access to the property within the conditions of approval attached to the original variance granted per Resolution #1936. Furthermore, the Council finds that the applicants had every opportunity in applying for the original variance application in 1986 to design the attached addition to accommodate their reasonably anticipated storage needs or the property. 5. The Council finds that the hardships and practical difficulties claimed by the applicants were created ’olely by the applicants own doing, and are not a result of physical factors inherent with the property. 6. The Orono Planning Commission at their March 20, 1989 meeting voted 4-0 to deny the requested variance, based on the following findings: A) No reasonable hardship was shown. B) There is no justification for approval of the variance given the history of prior applications and the findings resulting from those applications. 7. The granting of the required variances would result in the following violations of Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) of the zoning code with which the applicants must '-.rst comply before the requested variances could be granted: Page 2 of 4 A) In review cf the factual findings noted above, the City finds that the essential character of the neighborhood will be altered if the proposed variances were granted and the hardcover and garage were allowed to remain. B) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds that the property in question can Indeed be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by official controls. The City has already approved substantial Increases in hardcover to allow the applicants to improve the property and applicants can continue to reasonably enjoy that property. C) In review of the factual findings noted above, the plight of the applicants would appear to have been created by the applicants and not by circumstances unique to their property. D) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City would find that the granting of the proposed variances world appear to serve as a convenience to the applicants and that the applicants have not demonstrated any acceptable hardship or practical difficulty. E) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds that to establish a precedent that would allow a property owner to make improvements to a property conditioned on that property owner complying with special directives, and then asking the City to reconsider its original decision after those improvements have been installed, to be completely unreasonable and in complete conflict with the established environmental standards for lakeshore development within the City and to be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader environmental principals and goals set forth in its Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district when dealing with matters related to the public health, safety and welfare. Issues Involving public health, safety and welfare are not only resolved in securing the obvious traffic and drainage concerns, but the City also feels obligated to provide its citizens with a designated and approved optimum level of density, open sp*\ce and quality of life. The applicants are hereby advised that all structural and non- structural hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of Orono Resolution #1936 must be completed by July 10, 1989. Applicants are further advised that the 15'xl5' apron approved in the original application can be relocated to provide greater maneuverability on the property but in no case shall the hardcover within the 75-250* setback area exceed 29%. Page 3 of 4 Adopted by the Orono City Council of the City of Orono on this 24th day of April, 1989. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 88. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of April, 1^ ', by James R. Grabek 6 Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the Cii f Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 4 of 4 /O To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members w . Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: April 12, 1989 Subject: #1393 Washington Scientific Inc., 2605 Wayzata Boulevard - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 - Conditional use permit required for placement of approximately 800 cubic yards of contaminated soils excavated from recent addition to structure and from soils excavated from the trench/pumping system constructed last fall to treat contaminated soils found on site. The first phase of treatment of contaminated soils was approved by the City on October 10, 1988. Resolutin #2510 has been enclosed for your review. The current application involves the treatment of soils that were stored above ground. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Resolution #2510 Exhibit E - Applicant's Consultant's Report - Delta Environmental Consultants Inc. - Pages 9 & 10 Exhibit F - Map of Existing Condition Exhibit G - Area of Thin Spread/Erosion Plan Review of Application - The second phase of the recovery program was postponed due to the on­ coming winter. The Air Quality Division of the MPCA had approved the thin spreading treatment for this speed *’c contaminate, organic solvent. The stockpiled contaminated soils wil a spread over approximately^ a 2 acre area as shown on Exhibit G. The soils will be placed over existing grassy ground surface in a single layer 3-6" thick. The report notes that the nearest building on the WSI property is within 200' and structures on adjacent properties are approximately 2,000' from the soil treatment area. The consultant finds that the low level of contaminate in the soils will present no potential impact to the nearby surface water run-off or to local air quality. This would pretty much confirm what the PCA had advised staff last fall. The applicant will have to provide the City with an updated PCA permit approving the proposed plan of treatment of thin rjoreading/air stripping. Zoning File #1393 April 12, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Cook advises that he would like a more detailed plan for the erosion control noting that the silt containment fencing is appropriate, but because of the proximity of the drainage ditch to the east that drains directly into the watershed of Long Lake via the railroad track that precautions may be necessary during the aeration phase. Soil samples will be collected and analized prior to the thin spreading and conducted monthly throughout the entire thin spreading process for approximately a period of 90 days. The aeration process consists of the exposure to air of the top surface followed with the monthly field disking. Upon satifisfaction that contaminates no longer remain in the soils, the area will be reseeded and returned to original state. Based on the March 1, 1989 report of Delta Environmental, the first phase of the recovery program appears to be most successful. Contaminated ground water appears to be channeled into the treatment area. Contaminate concentrations are low and if the trend continues, WSI may be allowed to discharge directly into the sanitary sewer system rather than through the monitoring ^eatment chambers. Staff will recommend approval of the conditional use permit for Washington Scientific Inc. to allow the second phase of the recovery program consisting of the thin spreading of approximately 800 cubic yards of contaminated soil over a two acre area on the property subject to the following conditions: 1. PCA pei-mit approving the thin spreading technique as proposed by Delta Environmental Consultants Inc. 2. Erosion control plan subject to the City Engineer's final review and amendment. The City Engineer to address any special precaution cr improvement necessary to prevent contamination of drainage into the Long Lake watershed. 3. The City of Orono to receive the results of the soil sampling performed during the period of air stripping/aeration. The Planning Commission may wish to add other conditions. Zoning File #1393 Additional Comuients and Planning Commission Recommendation - April 19, 1989 Additional Exhibits - Exhibit H - PCA Letter to WSI Exhibit I - Detailed Erosion Control Plan Staff raised the issue of consistency with this type of application regarding the need for the City to ask for a Developer*s Agreement and appropriate security to cover the final grading and seeding of the two acre site involved with the thin spreading phase. Staff has not noted^ this in the original memo to the Planning Commission, but advised that^ this be consistent with previous applications involving land alterations of this magnitude The Piiinning Commission, as with staff, both noted that they had no concern with Washington Scientific meeting their obligation as far as the final grading and seeding. Staff advised that it is not distinguish between a favorable and an unfavorable applicant and tnat tne City would be required to be consistent on this matter. Staff must recommend that they add the requirement for the execution of a Developer's Agreement with the accompaniment of the appropriate security. The Planning Commission unanimously adopted approval of the conditional use permit application of Washington Scientific. The enclose resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions^ of the start recommendation as noted above and as amended in the addendum information. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 PILE #1393 WHEREAS, Washington Scientific Inc. (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2605 Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described in Exhibit A, attached to this resolution (hereinafter "property ); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the ^i-y of Orono for a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code ^° 1 Subdivision 19, to permit thin spreading of approximately 800 cubic yards of soils contaminated with organic solvent, to be spread over approximately a 2 acre area within the property. Minnesota: HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1393. 2. The property is located in the Industrial Zoning District. 3. On April 17, 1989, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval based on the following findings: A) The remedial treatment plan as proposed by applicants' consultant will prevent further hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the public who reside in the Long Lalce Watershed. B) The aeration treatment for the organic solvent contaminate provided by the thin spread process will satisfy all pertinent standards of the MPCA. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, repor s y staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Page 1 of 4 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the thin spreading of 800 cubic yards of contaminated soils for the purpose of eliminating organic solvents will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLOSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to permit the thin spreading of approximately 800 cubic yards of contaminated soils placed 4 to 6" deep over a 2 acre area, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the City issuing a permit for the proposed land alteration, applicant must submit a PCA permit approving the thin spreading technique as proposed by Delta Enviromental Consultants Inc. 2. Erosion control plan shall be subject to the City Engineer's review and amendment both prior and during the thin spreading/aeration process. 3. The City of Orono is to receive results of the soil sampling performed during the 90 day period of air stripping/aeration. 4. Applicant to provide an executed developers agreement and appropriate security to assure final grading and seeding of the 2 acre disturbed area. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (April 24, 1990). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 2 of 4 7, The undersigned applicant has Lead, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of Washington Scientific Inc., their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. 1989. ATTEST: Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 24th day of April, Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of April, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 3 of 4 resolution no Exhibit A CITT OF OROMO - property location 2605 West Wayzata - - --— Site Address ------------------T 7113-0001 CITr w.*- T^.ntification Number (P-I-D.) _Ji3LiiLi_---------------------C.TICEproperty Identif icatx ^ ________ torrens|^.,,,., # : Please checlc -Jf%%^%^TTHtions only) Oi 20C.O0, '':r^ -------------------------------------------------- Phone («ork)__iZllHi ---------------- Name J^e ----------------------------------— Zip__J535^_ Address ^60LW£2l«2y55H^^ ----------:----------------------- __________________________ Phone (home)------------------- OWNER (if different than app phone 473-1271 ------------------------ Name Corporation---------------------------------------- Lake Zip, 5535j_ Address __2605JdestJiaH^-----------------,n,onth/year) , 1950 approx._ _ _ _ __ ■ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - rnNDITIOHAL USB PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 current Application Fee After-the-Fact Fee SIOO.OO a) Residential accessory Use - ■- - - ,150.00 b) institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 c) Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 d) Conm.ercial/Industrial use ^^52,...0 £. L..a «..»«» Grading and fi- ^ -- - -- Grading, seawall, retaining --— of lakeshore _ _ _ _PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER “’®^^‘^”o"oO Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consulta - - - - $250.00 Vacation ^ - - - - nso.oo Easement Vacation subdivision - - - -$ 50.00 Easement vacarioii —- -$250.00 Rezoning - - - - $100.00 Appeals - -- Other - see fee schedule . Present ose op property Present Zoning District Present Use of Property __ _ Residential DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST - - Describe request in detail: comply with 10-87-200 Project Status Report required submittals ---------_____ 1. Completed Application Form. this list from Hennepin County DeMrtment\f^^^^ obtainCenter 348-3271) ^ Department of Finance A-603 Government 7. Plat Map! applicable (see staff for requirements). --------a^pucatlon?®"*'® —•member that \ro!ir^appli|at/on°is*not application. Please__t_been included. la "°t complete if the above information h« Certification by Zoning °apa‘r;;:;;rt';:;7a'ni'u;rA;pii”;i;ri%";”;re" Officials Signature _ _ _ _ applicamt;s signatdm -- - - - - - - reques^teV°by \he®Voning^Administ/a\°^^^^ Information required or unusual expenses incurred in rev?el of this l!n:wledg°e!"""'°" c°rrac\“t!'The"Sts?^1""h?sAl! Applicant's signature^^y^,Q^lA>..ww^ 3/20/89 <>WNKRS SIGNATURE ( ) -------------------- .^*ho%7zVd\\?soU?e"°:^^^^ application and further agents, commission members! a!d consultants! investigation and verification of «fis requett. Purposes of Owner's signature -- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - --—-- - - - - - - - -Date planning Co^iasion Meetingr'^^Piinning^^mH before the third Monday of each mont)?. Applicants Meetings are held on the review meetings of the Plannino Cr»nm< ^ present at all scheduled unable to attend a schLu?ed LS t?» Council. If an applicant fs authorized agent attend in your diIcb^^ arrangements to have an Office of this change prior to the*^meeting.*^ advise .he Building s Zoning I RUN DATc OS/19/aS BATCH 006 PROP AOOR OW4ER HAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOUR PROP AOOR OUi^ER NAME TAXPAYEI^ rUHE/AOO PROP AOOR OUHER NAME TAXPAYER lUHE/AUOR IIEI4HEPIN COUHTY PROPERTY IHKORMATIOH SYSTEM PROPERTY OWHERS LIST 3S 33-118-23 11 0003 OROtiO PLAZA REIERSGORO LAU FIRM 49A5 HALIFAX AVE S SUITE 7 EOIIU m 55924 /38 33-118-23 13 0001 f 02605 HAYZATA BLVO I MASH SCIEIITIFIC irfl) \ MA5HIHGTOH SCIENTIFIC INC ^ C/0 B E KINNEY LONG LAKE M»< 55356 38 33-118-23 13 0009 HASH SCIENTIFIC INOUST ItC UASHINGION SCIEtrriFIC 1»<0 HUY 12 LONG LAKE m 55356 \ PROP ADDR 36 33-118-23 OUNER NAME VEDA INC TAXPAYER VEDA INC NAME/ADOR BOX 115 LONG LAKE MN PROP ADDR 38 33-118-23 OUI4ER INAIIE TAXPAYER V GN RY CO GN RY CO name/Aodr 55356 72 33-118-23 19 0005 00901 MILLOU DR CHURCH OF ST GEblCE CHURCH OF ST GEORGE LONG LAKE MN 55156 72 33-118-23 19 0018 PROP AOOR OUNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR LARTCH DEVELOPMENT CO LARTCH DEVELOPMENT CO 17630 BRECONUOOO RD 8'^3-llO-23 13 0010 HAYZATA MN UASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INO IN MASHIN6T0N SCIENTIFIC INO P 0 BOX 390 LONG LAKE MN 55356 ^ 33-118-23 13 0013 VEDA INC VEDA INC BOX 115 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 91 0019 GEORGE L OSGOOD ET AL GEORGE L OSGOOD 365 UILLOU DR N LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 33-118-23 19 0011 LARTCH DEVELOPMENT CO lARTCH DEVELOPMEriT CO 17630 BRECONWOOD RO MAYZATA MN 55391 72 33-118-23 19 0019 lARTCH DEVELOPMENT CO LARTCH DEVELOPMENT CO 17630 BRECONUOOO RD MAYZATA MN 553911 l^yi MAYZATA MN 5 #1393 REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE a 38 33-118-23 13 0002 02607 MAYZATA BLVD VEDA INC VEDA INC P 0 BOX 115 LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 33-118-23 13 0011 02765 MAYZATA BLVO VEDA INC ETAL VEDA INC BOX 115 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 13 0019 02705 HAYZATA BLVD VEDA INC VEDA INC BOX 115 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-116-23 92 0001 00320 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N R D MEYER A P M MEYER MICHAEL HILDELINK 65 GOLDEN VIEM OR LONG LAKE MN 55356 * . — 6 72 33-118-23 19 0015 ^ V LARTCH DEVELOPMENT CO LARTCH DEVELOPMENT CO 17630 BRECONUOOO RD HAYZATA hN 55391 72 33-116-23 19 0020 lARTCH DEVELOPMENT CO LARTCH DEVELOPMENT CO 17630 BREC HUOOO RO MAYZATA MN 55391 » I I RUN DATE 05/19/68 BAtCH 006 PROP ADDR 0W4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 72 33-118-23 19 0021 LARTCH DEVELOPMENT CO LARTCH DEVELOPMENT CO 17630 BRECONUOOO RD UAYZATA MN S5391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT HO. PI935901 PAGE 9 TOTAL BATCH 006 00019 Aa.V ,1 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AlO TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTT TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.I ,dateSI^^ ^ B? 3;::!:^ S|vtr(jU^ i ^ I • #1 ^ turit X O.**#104 At) iooo ^ n(P r/s </a crrvr OF QBona D City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2510 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10-03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE #1340 WHEREAS, Washington Scientific, Inc. (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2605 Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described in Exhibit A, attached to this resolution, (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant he s applied to the City of Orono for a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to permit the excavation of a trench 24' deep for the purpose of treating soils contaminated with organic solvents. Pumps shall be installed within the trench with two above-ground treatment chambers that will eventually drain discharge into the sanitary sewer system. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1340. 2. The property is located in the Industrial Zoning District. 3. On October 3, 1988, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval, based on the following findings: A) The applicant and its consultants have contacted all appropriate State agencies throughout the P.C.A. permit review. The City staff and its consultants can confirm that the applicant has complied with all conditions set forth by the P.C.A. and that the remedial plan of action meets all of the State’s standards. B) In order to prevent further hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare, it is important that the approved remedial action pl£m be instituted as soon as possible. C) The proposed plan of action will prevent further risk of contamination of the run-off er.tering Long Lake and throughout the major watershed. Page 1 of 4 axY" ORONa City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNClL NO. 2510_ _ _ 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 propose! use on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the excavation of the trench as part of the remedial treatment plan for the purpose of eliminating the presence of organic solvents within the property will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to permit the excavation of a trench as part of a remedial treatment plan for the purpose of treating organic solvents located within the property, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is hereby advised that the City must be notified immediately of any changes in the present condition of the hazardous substances on the property or of any new areas found to contain such hazardous substances. 2. The City is to review and approve the monitoring information on the discharge from the filtering devices before they enter the City sewer system. Applicant must apply for the appropriate permits from the City of Orono for meters that will monitor volume of discharge into sewer system. This phase of the operation shall also be monitored with the M.W.C.C. 3. Earthen dikes to be constructed as deemed necessary by the City as a protection against the failure of the system in order to prevent contamination from getting into Long Lake and the surr^HH^iifig major watershed. 4. Contaminated soils excavat'©tf from trench insta contained/st(7N9f4n©^9(YR) guidelines. ONOdO :?0 AliC. Lst be P.C.A. arvr ORaNOj City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MO. 2510 1988. ATTE 5. In granting approval of this conditional use permit, the City also reconfirms all conditions set forth by the M.W.C.C. in their approval letter to the applicant dated 9/28/88. 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terras and condi­ tions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned owner has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of Washington Scientific, Inc., its 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 10th day of October, "Dorothy M. ^^allin, City Clerk Property Owner(s) Jame^ R. Grabek, Mayor oSL. / / Page 3 of 4 City of ORONO crrr OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNClL NO. 2510 ________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) } ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this *~7 ^___day of !\JUJLr\/\.K-XljY , 198 before me a appeared . , ^ . _ . . ^ ______ - ,______ known to roe to be the person(s) ddscritted in and who ex^uted foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. r Notary Puolic within and for said county, personally__ to be the person(s) de/scritted in and who ex^uted the THIRE8A L NAAB NOTAfW mmJO - MINNESOTA NINNEFtN COUNTY zi MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _r 198_, 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 foregoinginstrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC ON TIDNnOD AlID 3HjOcElfflIttgSg&FEXPIRES- OMORQ ONOdO M A I CITY OF ORONO city of ORONO RESOLUTION NO2510 RESOLUTION OFTKt CITY COUNCIL Exhilf^ A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ;:pARCEL a : ‘ ■ .1.-, ' ‘ ‘ • HT-rTT-a ,;r;^ ■i-' • ' . ' -i4 r*Lots . 1 . through 12 inclusive. Block 1, :*;ORONO INDUSTRIAL“4PARK, •^according ~ to-i^the recorded plat thereof ,•• Hennepin - County, /Minnesota, including allvof vacated Lincoln Drive within said ORONO INDUSTRIAL PARK.- ^PARCEL B -*•: -'(from Book 3619 of Mtg. Pg. 456) 'r 1 -»- ■ Northeast 1/4 '.of 7 Sect ion -7.^All that part-of the South r.1/2 of the -33,- Township rllSf "* North ;Range 23, West rof .-the -5th -Principal "-Meridian,■^‘described as follows: -- Commencing';at ;a point von .'.the f South :line :of Vsaid Northeast :^l/4 2{at' its .-jpoint 'of .'intersection .. ?with the West .line of .the^East ^66 .rods thereof ,';=.said po.int7;be_ijng ^distant^is^^^S iEast^f Ithe -HlWest ^ine.Kof VSou ^.9^ !?.Northeastri/4;5thence North ralong the'West^line 'cf "the "said jEast ^66 I'rods .to' theVNorth Line"Vf^the South rl/2 lof £sai^‘ U thea^t^ 1/4,':^:^ ^being a’*point -on . said North “line distant31547T45£li:.^at ^£ast^f ^the^'*' 5West ."-line''~of .'said Northeast *^1/4 r'.ythehce ^West v'al ong _>said..tNorth ^ •Jlinei4 60.5 feet; ' thence “^South “^to ‘a -point^n:?!the .South jline^of ."^said ^Northeast fV4 460.5 eet if.West^of -;the Ippintiof ?begin^ Crpood wtter contamination is restricted to the area of the recovery trench (Appendix F). Contaminant li^COOCenirttions are the greatest in monitoring wells MW-2, MW-2D, and MW-4D. S O RECOMMENDATIONS 1*1 > and Treatment Wf recommend continuation of the existing recovery program already initiated at the site. The system is ; crcatiog a cone of influence sufficient to control the gradient within the contaminated zone and to draw the contaminated ground water toward the recovery well. ' ^'lafluenl contaminant concentrations are very low and if this trend continues we will propose direct discharge to the sanitary sewer system during the spring. Concentrations are well within the acceptable raage permitted by the MWCC. S.7 Soil Treatment and Monitoring ' As proposed in our RAP concerning the WSI facility, ail stockpiled contaminated soil will be thinspread across the designated area shown in Figure 12. The soil contamination is minimal ranging from below detection levels to 0.086 mg/1. The MPCA concurred with cur spreading treatment method proposed in the original RAP. 'Approximately 800 cubic yards of contaminated soil will be spread over the area shown in Figure 12. V The soil will be placed over the existing grassy surface in a single layer three to six inches thick. Silt edutainment fencing will be placed around the thinspread area to control runoff water. Given the very contaminant concentration of the soil, we foresee no potential impacts to nearby surface water from or to the local air quality (Appendix D). viTn® nearest building to the spread area is WSI facility which is approximately 200 feet north. Other in the area are situated more than 2,000 feet from the soil treatment area. irr- rn#n iTiTT "***^ * W^i^V*** Sck0(iflc Industries 1^ Uta. MiMCSOO Oita li& 1M7-20O Prior to thinspreadiog. wo composite soil samples will be collected and analyzed for EPA 601/602 putm ' niirty days after the spreading, three composite samples will be collected from the •S' ~ U,llmr ^ d analyzed for the same parameters. Sampling will proceed on a monthly basis throughout the summer. The soil will be aerated with a field disk on a monthly schedule. When H^ cootaminitioo is no longer detected, the area will be reseeded and returned to its original state. We •oticipaie complete volatization of contaminants within 90 days of thinspreading. Analytical reportsSsf''will be forwarded to the MPCA for review and comment. Ground Wafer Monitoring We recommend quarterly monitoring of wells MW-2. MW-2D. MW-4. MW-4D. and MW-12. Monitoring »tlb MW-1, MW-3. MW-7. MW-9. MW-10. MW-11. and the former plant supply welt will be sampled on a ■ emi-annual schedule. The welU will be sampled for EPA 601 parameters. Recovery system influent and •niuenl will be sampled on a monthly basis as required by the MWCC for discharge to the sanitary The results will be reported to the MPCA and the MWCC for review and comment. ■"n;;' ^.0 METHODS Water Levels "^liround water level measurements are obtained by using an electronic measuring device which when a probe is in contact with the ground water in the well. Measurements are obtained by Slfimiat the device into the well until it indicates that the water surface has been encountered and by k"'- the distance from the top of the inside riser pipe to the probe. All of the measurements are 110 the nearest 0.01 foot; however, the manufacturer’s reported accuracy for the instru nent is id Water Sampling ring wells were sampled from the suspected cleanesi lO th? most contaminated according to og protocols. All pertinent information was recorded on a sampling information form. ... .Vs:v ON ONOdp JO lIDNnOO AlID 3H1 dO N01imOS3a AliO ter OMO^IO JO Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Telephone (612) 296-6300 Mr. Joe Pallenich V^jhington Scientific Industries^ Inc* 2605 Vest Vayzata Boulevard P.O. Box 340 Long Lake, Minnesota 553S6 Dear Mr. Pallanaehi R£r Project Status Report dated March 1. 1989. subnltted in accordance vith the approved Remedial Action Plan dated September 1. for the Washington Scientific Industries Inc. facility located ini Long Lake. Minnesota The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff received the above r.f.rtnced docuo.nt pn Match 3, 1989. Th. proj.et sutu* r.port on your b.half by Dalta Environnantal Conaultutts, Inc. (Dalta). nl.r atatus raport datalla tha aetiona takan to data and thoaa propoaad for tha naar futura for tha raaadlation of contanlnatad ground vatat and aoll banaath your facility. Tha MPCA staff hava complatad tha ravlaw of tha projact status raport which apMara to ba satisfactory axcapt with raspact to tha soil contaalnatlon that rSLlns around tha tr«ich boundarlas. During a phona convarsatlon batwaan cJagua Blglow of ny staff and David Ronnal of Dalta, Mr. Ronnal 'J*' thaeontaalnatad soli ranalnlng around tha trench boundaries would be sampled, removed, and thin spread on site. Tha MPCA staff raquast that within 30 days of raealpt of this letter, you submit In writing an aaandnant U tha Ranadlal Action Plan dated September 1, 1988, describing In detail tha company's plans for ramadlatlon of tha eontamlnatad aoll that remains around tha trench boundaries. Regional Offices: Equal Opportunity Bmployar Duluth • Bralnerd • Detroit Lakes • Mars.hall • Rochester Printad on Racyded Paper :rr Tii ^ Nc. Je« Pallanseli Pact 2 !S.;s.'^v.r»r«ss? w.t:.s‘s S.'ss::: ?»»=.. 8ine«r \Jbtxvi Chi »£aa'** V“^**Haiardou* Vaata Saetlon Baswrdeua Vaata Divlalen wt. c»»u»... »■=•. «■ Mabufth, City of Orono ON lIDNnOD Ail3 3HJ. JO NOIimOS3U OMOHO JO Ai3 ^ » // Dates Subjects Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building ft Zoning Administrator February 15, 1989 #1380 George Partridge, 625 Spring Hill Road - Vacation of Road Right-of-Way - Public Hearing Pertinesit Ordinance - Section 10.12 - Vacation of Unused Dedicated Road Pight-of-Way. Review Exhibit E, applicant seeks the partial vacation of approximately 40* of the total 106* of right-of-way of Spring Hill Road. There is approximately 73* of right-of-way measured from the mid-point of the road to the west property line of the Partridge property. The City must determine if there is any public need or use for the unused portion of road right-of-way. List of Bzhlblts Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H Exhibit I Application - Plat Map - Property Owners List - Legal Notice - Attorney*s Letter - Attorney*s Sketch of Right-of-Way to be Vacated - Cook*s Letter - Cook*s Sketch - Wetlands Map Review of Application - As applicant*s attorney*s letter notes, the Partridges are in the process of preparing to sell their property and they wish to keep all options open for the sale of the property. The applicant seeks the vacation of the unused portions of the 73* of right-of-way for Spring Hill Road that abutts their property on the west side. Staff has reviewed the roadway area and asks that the drainageway be retained along the edge of the existing road bed. Review Exhibits G ft H, Cook recommends that the drainageway be maintained for at least 10* along the northern portions, and as the drainageway moves slightly eastward, to expand the drainage easement to the total 40* at the south edge. Staff would also ask that the entire drainageway be included within the drainage easement to the culvert at the north side of the drive. Staff has reviewed this request with aprllcant*s attorney and he has advised that he sees no problem with the request. The City plans no major upgrading or expansion of Spring Hill Road. The normal 66* of right-of-way for an Orono public roadway is adequate for any expansion or improvement in the future. Staff would recommend the approval of the vacation subject to the owners granting a drainage easement over the drainageway within the 40* of unused public road right-of-way. This would include the southeast portion of the drainageway located within the fee owner*s portion of the property. ndation - Zoning File #1380 April 19, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Additional Coaoents and Planning Conniasion Re Additional Exhibits - Exhibit J - Planning Commission Minutes of 2/1/89 Exhibit K - Staff Letter to Hennepin County Public Works Department Exhibit L - Cook's Letter of 4/17/89 Exhibit M - Revised Sketch of Drainage Easement Prior to scheduling the vacation application for formal action by the Council, it was necessary for staff to formally request the deeding of the unused portion of the roadway by Hennepin County to the City of Orono, Mr. Rottschaefer, attorney for the applicant, reports that the board acted on the conveyance of the right-of-way to the City at their board meeting of the week of April 17th. The City will file the vacation resolution as soon as we are in receipt of the deed from Hennepin County. The applicant and the City Engineer have once again reviewed the drainageway and have adjusted the extent of the drainageway at the north end limiting it to the entrance point of the culvert draining from the west under Spring Hill Road (review revised sketch. Exhibit M). Per Exhibit L, Cook's letter, he confirms that the legal descriptions for the vacation and the drainage easement drafted by Mr. Rottschaefer conform to the intent of the City. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposed vacation. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions set forth in the Planning Commission recommendation. A RBSOLOnOH VACATING AM nMnSBD PORTICMI OP SPRING HILL ROAD (FORMERLY COOMTY ROAD 6) SBCTION 25, TOimSHIP 118 NORTH, RAMGB 23 WEST CITY OP ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 1989, George H. Partridge filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of a portion of Spring Hill Road legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A, attached. WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on February 21, 1989 regarding said vacation and all Interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested vacation and the Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation as proposed, is in keeping with the public interest in consideration of the following findings: 1. The vacation does not affect the access or use of adjoining properties. 2. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the portion of the dedicated right-of-way to be vacated for road purposes. 3. The City has not and does not intend to maintain or install utilities within that portion of the dedicated right-of-way of Spring Hill Road. 4. The unimproved portion of the dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public purpose except for maintaining the public drainageway. HOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of George H. Partridge is hereby granted and that the portion of Spring Hill Road legally described above is hereby vacated. The granting of the petition is subject to the following conditions: Page 1 of 2 1. That Ufon vacation, applicant must combine vacated portion of the right-of-way of Spring Hill Road with their homestead property. 2. Applicant shall grant drainage easement over drainageway located within vacated portion of Spring Hill Road right-of-way and homestead property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held the 24th day of April, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OP MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OP HENNEPIN James R. Grabek, Mayor 88. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of April, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page.2 of 2 Resolution # Exhibit A All that right of way of Spring Hill Road (fonnerly County Road 6) in the SWi SWi and in the West 30 feet of Government Lot 5 (also known as the SEi SWi). both in Section 25, Township 118 N, Range 23 W, which lies Southeasterly of a line parallel with and distant 33 feet Southeasterly of the centerline of Spring Hill Road, as it now exists, which centerline is described as follows, to wit: Commencing at the most northerly corner of Lot 1, Block 1, North Stream, and assuming that the West line of said Lot 1 bears N00®50'20”E; thence N25*27'13"W along a radial line a distance of 33 feet to a point on the centerline of Spring Hill Road, which point is the point of curvature of the following described curve and which point is the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence along an 8® curve, concave to the southeast and with a central angle of 36®26‘, for a distance of 455.4 feet; thence along a tangent a distance of 202.9 feet; thence along a 10® curve, concave to the northwest, and running to a point on the South line of the SWi SWl jf said Section 25, and there terminating, CITY OF OROIR) * 6SHBRAL lASD USB APPLl PROPBBTT LOCATIOH Site Address _____625 Soring Hill Road, Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 25-118-23»33«0003 Please check one - Property abstract or (for Conditional Use Applications only) torrens7ciT} CF ORC^O Finance office Please attach legal description to application if not includ^'.^^Wi>^ on required survey. 01 Ctii 200.0!.' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------—tt—::3rn;v j^pj^CABT Phone (home)_ 473-8454- Name Mr. and Mrs. George H. Partridge___Phone (work)_ I JiJ .-.'At Address 625 Spring H111 Rd City Wayzata. MN zip 55391 L. OWMHR (if different than applicant) Marne Same_____________________ Phone (home) Phone Address City Date Property Acquired June 1947 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PEES - COMDITIOHAL USB PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Pee $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use $150.00 $150.00 $250.00 $200.00 b) c) d) f) Institutional (church, school, etc.) Duplex Credit/Bldg Commercial/Industrial Use Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and-filling - 101 cu. yd. or Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule I '- CrHER APFLICakTIOHS. . . .. . . . . “ ' ^ ^ ^^— --- -i_^$150.-00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant feesj-- - - •c . I- 7: '’.B X^* $250.00 Vacations $150.00 Easement Vacation - i * ’ 50.00 Eas'^ent Vacation With Subdivision ^ $250 700 ■-Rezoning _ _ $100.00 Appeals •- Other - see fee schedule : ■s''’■ZT’i'iir ■..7_ -.birj FRBSBBT USB OF PROFBRTT ) ! A Present Zoning District A ^ ^ Present Use of Property _ _ _ _t_^Residential Other (specify) DBSCRIFTIOH OP RBQOBST Describe request in detail; _Spy^ing Hi 11 Road adjacent to Applicants' property has 40 feet of extra right wav. The excess does not appear necessary for road purposes and Applicants reguest that it be vacated_ _ _ _ BBQOIBBD SUBMITTM.S 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Staunped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. Plat Map. 8. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SI6HAT0RB The applicant hereby agrees to provide all Information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her l!<- I Date knowledge. Applicant's signature OffHERS SIGNATOSB / The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff# consultants, agents, commission members, and Council mqjpbers for purposes of investigation and verification of this/Baguest. Owner •s signature // Applicant must have all submittals into tne 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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. r--"---li-.«»_J— 2tlO .T f RUN DATE 01/26/89 BATCH 001 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST SB 25-110-23 31 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SPRING HILL CONF CENTER SPRING HILL CONF CENTER ^ ATTN PAT 6RAZZINI P 0 BOX 280 NAYZATA m 55391 38 25-118-23 33 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGMEO SPRING HILL CONF CENTER SPRING HILL CONF CENTER AITN PAT GRAZZINI P 0 BOX 288 NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PAGE PI435401 1 30 25-118-23 33 0002 00725 SIXTH AVE N NOOD-RILL CONFERENCE CENTER SPRING HILL CONF CENTER ATTN PAT GRAZZINI P 0 BOX 288 NAYZATA MN 55391 38 25-118-23 33 0003 PROP ADDR 00625 SPRING HILL RD QMCR NAME GEO H PARTRIDGE ETAL TAXPAYER GEO H PARTRIDGE NAME/AOOR 625 SPRING HILL RD NAYZATA Itl 55391 38 25-118-23 36 0006 00591 NORTH STREAM RD B A C CARLSON ^ BRUCE M A CAROLINE C CARLSON 1611 22NO ST N MPLS m 55605 38 25-118-23 36 0005 00581 NORTH STREAM RD J A D ORTMAN JAMES 6 A DEBORAH ORTMAN 581 NORTH STREAM RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 25-118-23 36 0006 PROP ADDR 00561 NORTH STREAM RD (»tCR NAME G L HOFFMAN A S L HOFFMAN^ TAXPAYER OLA SUSAN HOFFMAN NAME/ADDR 561 NORTH STREAM RD NAYZATA m 55391 30 25-118-23 36 0008 00531 NORTH STREAM RD G L HOFFMAN A S L HOFFMAN G L A SUSAN HOFFMAN 561 NORTH STREAM RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 25-118-23 36 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED BRUCE N CARLSON ET AL BRUCE N A CAROLINE C CARLSON 1611 22N0 ST N MPLS MN 55605 38 25-118-23 36 0010 PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO IMCR NAME BRUCE N CARLSON ET AL TAXPAYER BRUCE H A CAROLINE C CARLSON NAME/ADDR 1611 22ND ST N MPLS MN 55605 38 36-118-23 22 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED F NINSTON A E C NINSTON FREDERICK NINSTON 765 SPRING HILL RD NAYZATA MN 55391 m m total BATCH 001 00011 #1380 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEttlEPIN COUNTY DRPARpiENT OF PROPERTY WXATIONf TO THE/BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF DAT CITY OP ORONO HOnCB The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 1275 South Brown Road on Tuesday, February 21, 1989, at 8:00 p.m., on the matter of George Partridge’s application #1380 for the vacation of unused portions of the right-of-way of Spring Hill Road that abuts the property located at 625 Spring Hill Road. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. The meeting starts at 7:00 PM. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available for review in the City offices by appointment. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Jeanne A. Mabust^ Building & Zoning Administrator To be published twice, the weeks of February 6, 1989 and February 13, 1989. WILLIAM F. ROTTSCHAEFER. JR. Attomty at L$w 6200 SHINOLB CRBEK PARKWAY. SUITS 41S MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA SS430 6I2/S«6*103a f !r.*N- January 19, 1988 Mr. Mark Bemhardson City Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 s : 1 JAN2 0 5'.9 ' ;ii! Re:Request for Vacation of Excess Right of Way for Spring Hill Road Dear Mr. Bemhardson: I recently have had several conversations with Mr. Mike Gaffron concerning For your assistance and convenience, I enclose photo copies of the ^^If section sheet showing the property and of aThe legal description of the property is that part of the ^o^^^^est 1/4 ot t e Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, Township 1^8, Range 23 lying the centerline of County Road No. 6, and the West 30 feet of that part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 25 lying the centerline of said County Road No. 6. The property25-118-23-33-0003 and the parcel contains 4.84 acres according to the records of the City Assessor. What we are requesting Is the total or partial vacation of a highway easement which encumbers an additional forty feet of the thp thirty-three feet (on each side of the centerline) normally encumbered by ^reetra^d rolds The easement was acquired In 1925 by Hennepin County for then existing County Road No. 6 (now Spring Hill Road); It encumbers all t portion of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25 lying within seventy-three feet of and Southeasterly of the centerline of County Joad No. P5tabl1shed April 27, 1925 by the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County”. Exactly why the additional forty feet was acquired ■It ■!<; clpar the road does not occupy It, but the fact of the matter Is that still eilsts and encumbers far more of the subject property than for road purposes. Because the easement Is described by reference to a 1925 centerline and because that centerline is actually somewhat to the West of the r.ntPrHne fas shown on the half section sheet and survey), the additional right of way does not actually affect as much of the subject proper y -2- as would appear from the half section sheet but the difference in encroachment is not great. Rather than focusing on the differences between the detailed road purposes. The Partridges have owned and lived on the property for over forty-one years and throughout that time Spring Hill Road has existed basically as it now exists. There has never been any public use of the additional right of way; to the contrary, the Partridges have used the property as if it was theirs, without restrictions, all the way up to the ditch which appears to delineate the limits of Spring Hill Road as used. Now that the road is no longer a County Highway the need for the additional right of way is even less apparent. Whatever right of way is not needed should, in all fairness, be released to the Partridges so that they can legally make the same use of as much of their property as would be the case for most similar properties. Indeed, I have verified with the City Assessor that the subject property has been treated for assessment purposes as comparable to other 4-5 acre parcels but the existence of the additional forty feet of road right of way in this case makes approximately .7 to .8 acres of the parcel unusable. This reduction makes the subject property anything but comparable to similar 4-5 acre parcels since there is no potential of creating two separate lots from the property. It was not . .til recently that the Partridges became aware of the impact on their property created by this additional right of way. They are considering selling their property and they requested my assistance and advice in that process, partly because of my background but equally because I am their nephew and I lived with them on the property for several years. My Initial investigation of the title to the property disclosed the easement and further investigation resulted in an understanding of the impact created by the additional forty feet of right of way. Specifically, the net buildable area of the entire parcel is slightly under 4.0 acres, while it would be substantially an excess of 4.0 acres if the extra right of way were partially or totally vacated. The Partridges are not going to subdivide the parcel, and we all hope that it is never subdivided, but the reality of the matter is that a prudent seller would take into consideration the subdivision potential when determining a sales price. A s'lmilarily prudent buyer would obviously do the same. I wish to emphasize that we are not requesting special City action solely to enhance the value of the Partridges' property at the expense of the City or others; rather, we feel the request is entirely appropriate in light of the physical characteristics of the property and the apparent lack of need to use the excess right of way for highway purposes. The Partridges have lived on the property for over forty-one years and may very well have been paying taxes on the ^ ® entire parcel was unencumbered except for the thirty-three feet normally affected by road right of way. In addition, the timing of this request might not be the best in light of the surrounding development and in light of their potential sale of the property, but I do not believe the result should be any different than if this request had been made years ago when County Read No. 6 was first relocated to -3- the North. The equities would seem to be the same then as now--if the right of way is not needed we can see no reason why the Partridges should not be able to make use of it since they own the underlying fee title. to Jtltlng this lotKr no« to applicable procedural requirements. At Mr. Gaffron s suggestion, we are obteining a^topographic survey of the property, including the Physical occupancy cf Spring Hill Road, and I feel this survey will clearly demonstrate that the of wav is wholly or partially unnecessary. The topographic survey will also allow your personnel to determine if it isproperty as wetland; such a designation would be entirely agreeable retum for^the release of the unnecessary road right of way. The 1^®’" is that it is necessary to transfer legal title to the easement County to the City of Orono and Hennepin County Pej;sonnel ^^4?nris^familiar^ so; all that is necessary is a request from the City. Mr. Gaffron is famniar with this and I will be glad to assist whichever City personnel would be making this request. I hoca I have provided Information sufficient to allow you to consider our request aSd we would be glad to provide any furthernlM5P feel free to call or write at your convenience. In the meantime, I would appreciate being provided with the necessary application forms and with information about the procedural requirements for this request. We will await your earliest convenient response. Yours very truly, William F. RottschaeTer Jr. WFRrcr cc: Mr. and Mrs. George H. Partridge ;r*.V. £ COUNTY HIWAY NO. 6 ;• ' ■v.' . \ / / / / / / '•/ f -, / / / / / / / OLD FENCE LINE /c / / V- / X r . / oa/ '•i'-^CULVERT - • : • •• - INTERSECTION OF PROPERTY LINE a ^ OF DRIVE-p 169 m Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineers ft Architects Ooo O. Boncstioa P E. toOen W Rowne. PE. Joteph C. AndcrUk. Bradford A. Lemberg, PE. (Hchjfd E. UMOer, PE. James C. Olson, PE. - enn ». Cook. PE. Thomas E. Noyes. PE. Moben G. SchuntefK. PE. Hjfv*n L SorvaU, PE. Keen A. Gordon. PE. Mchard W. Foster, PE. Donald C Burgardt P£ Jerry A. Bourdon. PE Marti A. Hanson. PE. 1M K. Flew. PE. Michael T. Rautmarm. PE. Robert K. PfefNrie, PE. Oavw 0. lostDOta. PE. Thorvid W Corson. PE. Mlchaer C Lynch, PE. James R. Maiandt PE. Kenneth P Arwerson. PE. KMh A. Bachmann, PE. Mark R. Rolft. PE. Robert C Russek. A.I.A Thomas E. Arsgus. PE. HcMiard A Sanford. P£. Oanict J EJgerton. PE. Mark A Seipi PE. PhUip J. CaiweU. PE. Ma.li Q U/kiHt. Pt Charles A Enckson Leo M. PaMeliJcy Harlan M. Oiton Susan M. Ebenin. CPA February 13. 1989 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Jeanne Mabusth Re: 139-1380 Partridge Dear Jeanne: We have reviewed the request by George Partridge to vacate the right of way along Spring Hill Road. We would recommend vacation of the right of way subject to a drainage easement being provided. The drainage easement should be 40 feet wide at the south end and taper back to 10 feet as shown on the enclosed plan. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:ci 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 i^mi Bi' . \mm is^ft'S'^Sf i ^?r;Biw f S^a^i^VS"r--;vi fetfifeom K® II iy i L#'’ .:'r PIK ^tmM K :..' !^^'«r^- -'f' 'mmm 5} /^ *• • »»is MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 1989 #1374 FRESHWATER FOUNDATION 2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to table this item until the March 20, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting, pending complete notification of abutting property owners. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays=0, Motion passed. fl380 GEORGE PARTRIDGE '625 SPRING HILL ROAD VACATION OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY »UB^C HEARING 8:00 P.M. - 8:02 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter, as was Mr. Bill Rottschaefer, the applicants' attorney. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this application involved a 40* right-of-way currently owned by Hennepin County. It is common practice that whenever County roads are vacated, that the right-of-way reverts back to the local jurisdiction. Mr. Rottschaefer reported that the County had indicated that they no longer had any interest in the property. The County required a request from the City of Orono to have the right-of- way transferred to the City. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend approval of this application for a vacation of road right-of-way. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1359 DAVID LINDSTROM 1315 WOODHILL AVENUE VARIANCES-REVIEW OF AMENDED SITE PLAN Mr. David Lindstrom was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth reminded the Planning Commission that they had approved a separation setback variance by a 4 to 3 vote at their last meeting. The applicant heeded the minority advice and has revised his original proposal. Only a front street setback variance will be required. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the front street setback variance for the purpose of constructing an addition. Motion, Ayes=»6, Nays=0, Motion passed. 1 CITY QF aRQNO CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, MinnesoU 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 24, 1989 Hennepin County Public Works Attn: David Swenson 320 Washington Avenue Hopkins, MN 55343 Dear Mr. Swenson: Per your direction during our phone conversation on February 3, 1989, the City of Orono hereby requests that Hennepin County quit claim deed 40' of unused right-of-way of Old County Road 6 as shown on the attached survey. Mr. & Mrs. George Partridge of 625 Spring Hill Road have petitioned the City to vacate portions of the unused roadway, specifically the 40* of the former County Road. William F. Rottschaefer, Mr. & Mrs. Partridge's attorney, and the City Engineer will provide the appropriate legal description for the quit claim deed within the next 10 days. Please contact my office if additional information is necessary for the City's request for the deeding of the right-of-way to the City of Orono. Sincerely ( 'Y—0. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building S Zoning Administrator JAM/tln , . cc: Mr. Rottschaefer, 6200 Shingle Creek Pkwy, St 415, Mpls 55430 Glenn Cook, City Engineer John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Mr. & Mrs. Georqe Partridqe, 625 Sorina Hill Rd, Wavzata 55391 BUILDING k ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING administration a finance - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 L Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Ono G Bonewoa PE Wbtn W Sbiene PE JDjron C Andwiik. PE Braatora a Lefrc^T^ PE P<na<a E Turntf PE Jamw C 0(xx> PE Oerm ft Cook. PE Thomas E Noypi PE Boom g icrttrauv. PE Mafvm L Sofvau PE KMh A Goflaon PE Picham Fovet P= Donald C Sunga'Ot. PE ;ffry A SounJon. PE Mark A Hanson PI Tfd PC Field PE M<haeP T Rautmann PE (tooen R Pfeflene. PE David O Unxoca PE Thomas W PVwsor PE M<haei C Lynch PE James R Maiana PE Ptpnneth P Andenon. PE PCesh A Bachmann PE Mar* R RoRl PE Rooeft C RusscK. A1 A Thomas E Angus PE HoiAaid A SarAxd. PE Dan«i j Edgenon. PE Mart A Sens PE Phiip j Caswe*. PE Mark o waiis PE Thomas H Anderson AIA Gary F Ryianoer PE CTianes A Encuson Leo M Paweisky Haiian M Oson Susan M Etiertn. CPA April 17, 1989 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attns Jeanne Mabusth Re: 139-1380 Partridge Spring Hill Road Dear Jeanne: We have reviewed the easement documents for the Partridge projects on Spring Hill Road* The easements provided are acceptable and ve would recommend approval. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cock GRC:df cc: William F. Rottschaefer 6200 Shingle Creek Parkway Suite 415 Minneapolis, MN 55430 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth Pr<»: Thomas J. Jacobs, Building & Fire Inspector Date: April 10, 1989 Subject: #1390 U.S. Direct, 2845 Wear Circle - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-IB Pertinent Ordinance ~ Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (E) Idst of Bxhibiti. Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Structure/Use Description Exhibit E - Site Plan Exhibit F - Affidavit of Publication Review of Application - The applicant seeks the use of part of Lot 3, Block 2, Rolling Meadows 2nd Addition to construct a lO'xlO' utility structure. The proposed location of the structure is 120' from the south lot line and -’O' from the east lot line. The structure will consist of heavy duty aluminum and protected by silence security system which sounds alarms at the local central office and not at the enclosure site. Staff Recoonendation - To recommend approval of the conditional use permit for U.S. Direct for the property at Lot 3, Block 2, Rolling Meadows 2nd Addition, based on the following findings; 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in the accord of the objectives of the zoning chapter and the purposes of the district. 2. That the proposed location of the structure (conditional use) and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or maternally injurious to properties or improvements in the vacinity. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. No signage will be allowed on the structure. 2. Landscaping and screening must be provided. 3. Easements by landowner be submitted to the City with any special maintenance agreements. Zoning File #1390 April 19, 1989 Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommendation - Additional Exhibits - Exhibit G - Jiasement Exhibit H - Landscape Plan The applicant asked to clarify that the proposed remote terminal is only 6* high and n as the staff memo suggested. The Planning Commission asked foi three additional plantings to further screen the structure from the travelers along Old Crystal Bay Road. Applicants concurred, advising that the placement would be dependant upon the ability to access the terminal through the doors that face out towards Old Crystal Bay Road. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the conditional use permit application for U.S. West Communications. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation . A RBSOLOTIOH G3»NTING A rOMDTIONAL USB PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10,20*, SUBDIVISION 3 (B) FILE #1390 WHEREAS^ Phillip A. Wear having an interest in the property located on 2845 Wear Circle has granted an easement to U.S. West Communications (hereinafter "the applicant") to install a utility structure within the property legally described as Lot 3, Block 2, Rolling Meadows 2nd r.ddition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, per Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (E), the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a Conditional Use Permit to permit a remote terminal enclosure 6'xlO' in dimension on the property. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1390. 2. The property is located in the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. On April 17, 1989, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval based on the -ollowing findings: A) The location of the utility structure on the residential property will not place undue restrictions on the building envelope. B) The installation of natural screening adjacent to the utility structure will lessen the visual impact upon the users of the adjacent public roadway and residential land owners within the immediate neighborhood. C) The proposed conditional use permit is in accord with the objectives of the zoning chapter and the purposes of this zoning district. Page 1 of 5 D) The proposed location of the structure and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will net be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vacinity. 4. The City Council has considered this application including t^ findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, report'^ staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed u on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the installation of the remote terminal enclosure as proposed would not be be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (E) to permit the installation of a remote terminal enclosure by U.S. Direct Communications, subject to the following conditions: 1. No signage shall be allowed within the utility easement area granted to the applicant. 2. The City will ask for three additional landscape plantings along the east side of the easement providing additional screening for the users of the public roadway. 3. Applicant to provide regular landscape maintenance of the aiea throughout the year. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercised within one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will excire on that date (April 24, 1990). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 2 of 5 6. The undersigned owner aid applicant have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. 1989. ATTEST: Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 24th day of April, Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) U.S. West Communications Representative STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of April, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 3 of 5 STATE OP MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. On this day of 198 before me a Notary Public within and for said county^ personally appeared __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 198 , before meOn this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a Notary Public witnin and for said County, personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(s)described in and who executed the foregoinginstrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 5 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USB APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address rS45 Wear Circle Property Identiiication Number (P-I.P,) #-13^ 0 .) 38-33-118-23-34 0007-0010 Please check one - Property abstract or to’'- -ns? (for Conditional Use Applications only)- T TY OF Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) 757-5055 _ ‘' I*"'' ' __^Phone (work) 566-1036£'>j~-~-’Od __ City Brooklyn Center zip 55430' Name ^eter L. Moline agent for US West Address ?940 Shingle Creek Porkway Phone (home) »173-‘1ft30 ^^3OWNER (if different than applicant) Name -Will 1am W. Ue*r Phil> A/)■ We fl ^ Phone ’‘SSsitm- Address P..q^x 245 City tiWTgztai^e ____ zip Date Property Acquit- i Platted October , 1988 (month/year) I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $100.00 a)Residential accessory Use $150.00 b)Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 c)Duplex Credit/Bldg X- $25C.OO d)Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 f)Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining vails within 75* of lakeshore PRD/tlD - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.CC CommHtcial Site Plan Review (+ consultant, tees) _ _ _ _ $250.00 ______ $150.00 5*’isuiaent Vacation ______^ $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _______ $250.00 Rezoning _ _ _ _‘3100.00 Appeals _ _ _ _ Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY P.'sent Zoning District ' RR IB Present Use of Property (Vacant)Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: Conditional Use Permit;Public Se ice Structure; N.W.Bell Telephone Co.requests pennTssion to instaTI and maintain du Service Area Thtercnange switching cabinet within Lot 3, Block l KoHong Hills 2nd Addition. ■ i-- REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners .jist of owners within 350* (you can obtain this"list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Ce tific^te of survey. To^.gi phic survey (existing and proposed couCours) if land alterations involve charges in elevation (grades). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). Plat Map. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this applicatic;:. Please ^•emember that your application is not ct^mplete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is complete. Zoning Officials Signature ____________________________ Date___________ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by tne Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in revie^tr of this apr llcation, and certifies that the information supplied is tru^ and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant‘s signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE Conmunications The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verifiction of this request. Owner's signature >Da* Applicant must have all submittals into the fices 25 days befort= the Planning Coirmission Meeting. Planning Commi Meetings are held o. the third Morday of each month. Applicants mus present at all scheduled raview meetings the Planning commission and council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zrrlng Office of this change prior to the meeting. c RUN DATE O1/10/S9 BATCH 007 58 04-117-23 12 0005 PROP AOOR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED fMIER NAME DICON TAXPAYER DICON NAME/ADDR 21350 EXCELSIOR BLVD EXCELSIOR m 55331 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONt^ERS LIST 38 04-117-23 21 0003 02845 NATERTOHN RO MICHAEL J FITZPATRICK ET AL MICHAEL/PATRICIA FITZPATRICK 2845 HATERTONN RO LONG LAKE m 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 28 38 04-117-25 21 0004 00085 OLD CRYSTAL BAY THEO J MEYER ETAL THEO J MEYER 85 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO LONG LAKE FM 55356 RO S 38 04-117-23 21 0005 PROP ADDR 00020 NEAR U 0»tlER NAME J A D MORTON TAXPAYER JAMES B A DCROTHY A MORTON NAME/ADDR 20 HEAR LA LONG LAKE FM 55356 38 04-117-23 21 0006 00050 NEAR LA 0 A J HILL DAVIO M A JEANETTE P HILL 50 HEAR LA LONG LAKE Ftl 55356 38 33-118-23 34 0002 00115 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N VERNICE LILLIAN HHITE VERNICE L HHITE 115 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 34 0004 PROP ADDR 0290D HATERTOFtF RD OHNER NAME D GUIMOND A S SCHNITZLER TAXPAYER DAVID 6 GUI MONO NAME/ADDR 2900 HATERTOFfF ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 43 0001 02760 HATERTOHN RO GRACE L ROSCH MRS GRACE ROSCH 2760 NATERTOHN RD LONG LAKE FtF 55356 38 33-118-23 43 0006 00160 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N H M HILL ARB HILL HARVEY M A ROSEMARY B HILL 8151 6RAN0V1EH RD CHANHASSEN FM 55317 PROP ADDR OHNER NAF1E TAXPAYER F4AF1E/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 007 00009 38 33-118-23 34 0007-0010 WEAR ENTERPRISES PARTNERSHIP WEAR ENTERPRISES PARTNERSHIP C/0 WILLIAfI W WEAR PO BOX 245 LONG LAKE MN 55356 P i oJ. o £0 ^ 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEFtFEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMEFff OF PROPERTY TAXATION, 10 THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AF4D BELIEF. ^ iPARTFIEFir •F./ / SOD COMWIUNtTY n ^ r\ r\ SERVICE CABINET^ X O b/ U nr nnrr nr'nnn'iM'■■ ■: 1 I ’ H i! I H;; !l pi lilljf'i! il'! •i I t i j |j|!!h! i-!M .rJ' '-H rwi AT&T’s new 80-Type Communjty Service Cabinet (80D), a rugged,|corro- sion-resistant and aesthetically pleasing remote terminal (RT) enclosure, has been designed to accommodate the next gen ­ eration technology. Constructed of heavy- duty aluminum, the 800 RT cabirjet can house up to eight SLC® Series 5 carrier systems within the same space as the previous generation SLC 96 carrier systems. Specifcaily designed for the Series 5. the DDM-1000 and the T-Carner Small Cross-Section Repeater Shelf, the 800 Cabinet is factory assembled and com­ pletely prewired. Other equipment includes four cooling fans and an ac power panel. Cable entrance holes are provided in the base of the cabinet. Telephone cables enter on one side while power csfcles enter on the other. An exterior outlet enables a portable generator to supply electricity during emergency power fail­ ures. How'ever, all of AT&T next genera ­ tion technology has built-in or optional battery back-up for a minimum eight hours of operation dunng a commercial power failure. The 80D Community Service Cabinet is protected by "silent" security systems which sound alarms at the local central office and not at the enclosure site. Also, the well-secured cabinet requires a spe ­ cial toe I and hex key to open its doors assuring maximum protection against unauthorized entry. AT&T has also designed the cabinet with trouble-free maintenance and aes ­ thetics in mind. It can be used in full pub ­ lic view as an attractive signboard at driveway entrances to apartment com­ plexes or industrial parks. AT&T provides its customers with guidelines for using the enclosure as a signboard. Maintenance and on-site personnel are reduced to a minimum due to the cabinet ’s raised open design which prevents accumulation of leaves or windblown debris. Its construc ­ tion is weather and fire resistant, and its heavy-duty construction resists vandalism. AT&T % of fhe SW */4 of Sec. 33,r 118, f?.23 r ^ /e>o‘ 25.00 fO S°c ^ <o 5;:f i - N83»\7*23‘^W^ HoriK lint IKc/ » Is.. 4is.wf«^ •c«. r JheSEV^fVSV^y^ \—225.00 8 o \ri z: o h- ^ o ^ s UJ S ■^3: u to o a X t w ^LiJ 3^ *i ^r <> ■“/'X 1 2^ /-y i3 ^s. W."*. > \f/-.Tf.?5 ‘'0vVR> Jl ROAC' j, s cc» 5*^ •» J oo <sl « •> o X* z M 00 ... t45.00 // N6?*I6*08’‘W R3.<.7 ID <o sO i i'.j o L*: < Cfi j di ?a «D bDi • O 2 tOr- m C\i QC S «»\*m o %t o to O.c o UJ tO o.<: ^ ^UVilifu or'^i cascmcnV x j“1Yf \ 387.01 ^V\*'4"\ 11N8ri7‘33"W \«. Ji:3? J3 VA^frlHrOWM r ___________________________________ ^Jr __ Th»33.oo s WATERTOWN ROAD R>,.,r-+20.01 NWIT23-W — a ✓'S.t. c^mer jf fk SW 'A / Sec.33,T.l\8, R.23 (H«n y R V/AT£r<T0'A'r.! s' KH'AD" ?<..»,t 118, R.23 t I’l 6^ .*.:J0. SUBD. MO.ZiO .< a^ J ct; ^ >T COONTRYOIL WAMCiR 2N i- '■) f'h *\J \^' ti: ,SQ( O'" ORONO • N04t9m !r “ Ocrt«# 8*nel«on of 7flO Took*- wRoadstks an area vananc* for a dalachad wtlaru^ satback vananca of 6' for iha ormop^ at^tura fo an adjaconi watlanda. A 28' sapa- Ti|»o^tback from a watland ia ra^lrad by or- o'*»»■^op^ locatad at 4127 Oak Straat aaaka ap- prwal of ranawal vanancaa for lot area «id lot Wknb ftO ttmt M ----- -----. d M««*>ck of iO O^ta Avmxia aaak approval of vi aftar- vartanca for a dack corvnJCna tA tnpp rmmr A# ___ raawanca can ba con- on tt)a proparty . . , VQ. No. 1398 Mirmatonka Boat Works at 1*449 ’ wwakna Ortva aaaka approval of a conrktiorul «t«*on drAnichjirp ’la ill^^ t*'“ * aty of Orono, ^ ‘ By: Planning Commiaaion ■' ~ Ja^ A. Maboath JBuilding 8 Zoomg ^dminia. iMof’**' •" TbaXiar and PtoAii?^ 3.^ Ni> •<*.? rtf- :e08 Wayxata BouSvWd^ . SSSiS M parmlt to aNow approximatafy 800 cubic N^contatnin atadaoiltobathlnapraadwt- a OMlgnatod arao on tba proparty. Tha coo* to ba thin^SS^ gnajada^ont^proparty Thacontami- 0 toi wiK be pieced aver exietln^ preuy 5ur* •5p** '■yo^ 3 to 8 Inchaa thick 1394 Jackaon L. Wllaon or 3059 Far- «-*» aaaka aoorpvai «f <m aftar-tha-fact Affidavit of Publication Slats of Minnesota. County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is 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 are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the require­ ments constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02. 331A.07. and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed. Lfffmhrn Lmin^. idrlum ! which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each /________successive weeks:week for. It was first published Monday, the day of yj IiIL 19&. and was thereafter printed and published every Monday, to and including Monday. the day of 19_; l MARIETTA A. STPiAUS | Authorized Agent 4 ^ fifOTARV rU-L!C - f.' •.:._S0TA ; i V ’lOy CAT.VER CC‘j:iTY : 5 Wy Cofnm:i:;cn E rt» J-i. 27,1C00 ;z Subscribed and sworn to me on this 2 __ day of. By: VVVCUi.^ 19^- tL_ Q Notary Public i APR-7I9S9 Rate Information (1) Lowest ctassifled rale paid by commercial users for compare* ble space: *9.60 per incb. (2) Maximum rale allowed by law lor above (3) Rale actually charged for above mailer: $4.88 per Each additional successive week; $3.24 per inch t rt i t M C .( .MSP-'-J 89-1 Typ«a pfcl. Prootea ivr ir ^n*a KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration, receipt xhereof Is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants'and conveys to Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, an Iowa Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee", its successors and assigns, a right-of-way and easement to excavate for, construct, operate, inspect, iiaintain, repair, alter, add to, or remove a communications system consisting of an above-ground cross-connect cabinet, buried cables and facilities related and appurtenant thereto; on, under and through part of the following described parcel or tract of land situated in the County of Henneoin______» State of Minnesota, to-wit: Lot 3. Block 2, Rolling Meadows 2nd Addition, Except for right of entry. Grantee's easement shall be confined to a 10 foot by 15 foot area described as the West 10 feet of the East 20 feet of the North 15 feet of the South 130 feet of said Lot 3, Block 2, Rolling Meadows 2nd Addition. .'*1* L ‘ -j together with the right of'access to Grantee upon the above premises for the purposes above set forth. .. The Grantee shall, after the installation of the above-described communications facility or after the exercise of any rights granted herein, restore the lands subject to this easement to as near their original condition as is reasonably possible. The Grantor, its successors or assigns, hereby convenants that no structure will be erected or permitted on said easement and that it will not change the ground ilevation thereof or perform any act which will interfere with or endanger said communications facility. Grantor covenants with Grantee, its successors and assigns, that Grantor is the owner of the above-described premises and has the right to sell and convey an easement in the manner and form aforesaid. This instrument and the covenants and agreements contained herein are binding upon the Gr-.itor, its pe-sonal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns. this easement as of the This instrument was drafted by Evergreen Land Services Company 6200 Shingle Creek Parkway , f415 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 WEAR ENTERPRISE*; PARTT<FR<;HTP Byj Title: (Partnership Acknowledgement) i..STATE OF COUNTY OF ) utThe foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this / ^ day of ________, 19 . by -Wmiam W.-ltorr ofthe partner Wear Enterprises Partnership on behalf of the partnership. General partnership. rjr PulNota nr Publ i( 7^^ Beth B-. wt;, THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Evergreen Land Services Company 6200 Shingle Creek Parkway, #415 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 t.o 10^0 Lot 3 Block 2 Rolling Meadows 2nd Addition o CO REVISIONS NO. I BY DATE ll uo ro 4J O ■Po p I/) ■o «TSoa: > (O CD iS«/» o •o o South Lot Line Lot 3 Block 2 EVERGREEN LAND US West Comnunications w.o. 1 fep-W 89-1 DRAWING NUMBER Community Service Cabinet DRAWN OT: PLM LSI SERVICES CO.Landscape Plan Orono WTE:4.13_89 SCALE.*! " = 10 • /3 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator dernhardson Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth From: Thomas J, Jacobs, Building & Fire Inspector Date: April 20, 1989 Subject: Dale R. Pfeilsticker, 1830 Lakeview Terrace - Home Occupation License Pertinent Ordinance - S 10.20, Subdivision 4 (C) Mr. Dale Pfeilsticker of 1830 Lakeview Terrace is asking the City for a home occupation license at the above subject property. The home occupation consist of a custom small engine machine shop. Which serves snowmobiles, motorcycles, outboard motors, cylinder sleeving, boring, custom performance, engine and crank shaft rebuilding. Dealing with dealers and mail order customers. This business also offers pickup and delivery service to local dealers. Mr. Pfeilsticker is confined to a wheel chair, thus working out of his home makes it much easier for him to operate his business. Mr. Pfeilsticker also employs James Sundean as a part-time assistant. Mr. Sundean does not reside at this address but does reside in the neighborhood. Mr. Pfeilsticker states that Mr. Sundean adds great value to the business and is extremely important. Mr. Sundean has worked for the operation for 15+ years, and is also a handicapped person. This one specific phase of the operation does not satisfy code standard "when there is no employed assistant". Mr. Pfeilsticker asks for special consideration on this matter. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the home occupation license based on the following findings: 1. The home operated business has been going on for 15 years and we have received no complaints in the immediate neighborhood. 2. That the applicant is handicapped and this home occupation allows him to operate his business. 3. A fire inspection was conducted on 4/18/89 and no violations were found. 4. That employee is from immediate neighborhood and is also handicapped. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommendation subject to the following; 1. No commercial signs be constructed or pern-'^t ’ted in the residential zone. 2. No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. Dale R. Pfeilsticker, 1830 Lakeview Terrace - Re; Home Occupation License April 20, 1989 Page 2 <. f 2 3. No over the counter retail sales will be allowed. 4. No exterior storage of snowmobiles, motorcycles, outboard motors, etc. 5. Mr. Sundean maintain part-time status of maximum of 30 hours. DATE TIME CITY OF ORONO INSPECTION NOTICE PERMIT NO.^________ ili § £ •j O CALLED IN SCHEDULED COMPLETED <4-IM7 ADDRESS /^:go i^K.^</t&J Teg^ OWNER________ TELEPHONE NO. .CONTR. footing FRAMING INSULATION WALL BD. FINAL PROGRESS OEMOL FIRE PREV. □ PLUMBING Rl □ PLUMBING final □ MECHANICAL □ WATER HOOKUP □ METER SET/TURN ON Q SEWER HOOKUP □ SEPTIC INSTALL □ SEPTIC MAINT □ WELL TEST PUMP SITE INSPECTION EXCAV/GRADING/FILLING lakfshoreavetlanos LICENSING COMPLAINT F': uLOW UP SEPTIC FINAL FIREPLACE/WOOD BURNER COMMENTS: _______ Ct Uj r, ptr- tt •wo 1 ^ct--------------- OLi ----------------^ Uj Ct y ------------------------- 5 /Cp ^--------------------------------—[—Uj 1:5a ____________________—-------------------------------Uj ------------------------------------ S ^TwOBK S/.TISFACTORY PROCEED = PHOTO TAKEN 8 - cot «?t«S::«ufII°Re,nspect ,onbepo »ecove »,no ^ ro«EcI S^JsAEE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS INSPECTOR WILL RETURN n STOP ORDER POSTED CALL INSPECTOR □ inspection REQUIRED CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS call for ♦he next in^Cwlion 24 hours in advance Owner 473-7357 CAoary /Site Notice J»cob3 JCITY OP ORONO Application Date; J_ _ _ _ _J_ P.O. Box 66, 1335 So Brown Rd Date License Approved:_ _ _ Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Date License Expires; APPLICATION FOR ANNUAL HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE NAME; ADDRESS: / - FEE - $30.00 PHONE; CITY: Type 0£ OUSineSB x:o ue a * . v w*-y^ •r ^ . ou License may be revoked if any violation occurs. City staff shall have five (5) h iness days in which to investigate and make a '^commendation pursv l to Orono M’J . ipal Code Section 5.02 £ 5.03. If a ^ite inspection is req> ired by City aff, the review time will be extended to ten (10) business days. The license application with staff ^«coiTOndation will b^ scheduled before the Conncil at the next regularly scheduled meeting held on the second and fourth Monday of each month. ORONO NUNIC C PURSUANT ‘ REGX7LATIONS ON HOME OCCUPATIONS jCON 10.20, SUBDIVISION 4 (C)::rr y yo^o jtices. J'rC: It is unlawful for any business operating as a home^iccupation to engage in operation without proper licenses. :'l Prohibited Home Occupation .- 1. 2. 3. r-* -rt rr V ' k • • W* V t W V All persons enga^red in the business must reside in the dwelling-. No commercial signs permitted other than signs permitted-in^th^ residential zone. j3/lC/S 4. 5. 6. No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises. Over the counter retail sales is not allowed. Entrance to the home occupation must be gained frc::^> within the structure. «**«***««*a**«i«« The indersigned hereby agrees to the conditions guoted above from the Orono Mr^:^icipal Code and any additional coudltlons the City may require. Signature of Apulicant;Date: FOR CITY USE ONLY: After revllw of application, staff recommends the following: _ _ _ Approval of License Denial of License Signature of Zoning Officiil:, Signature of Fire Inspector Date:, Late: LISTING OP BHPLOTBBSs NAMES NAME: ADDRESS: ✓^^i^/^TODRESS:, r-TTv. ziPt _ _ DATS OF BIRTH:,DATE OF BIRTH: ZIP: NAME: ADDRESS : S^ ^ NAME: ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: A> CITY:__-- - - DATE OP BIRTH: DATE OP BIRTHs^ SAME*_ _ _ _ _ _ ADDRESS: ADDRESS:- - - - CTTYi ZIP: CITY:_ _ _ _ _ _ DATE OP BIRTHt '_ _ _ _ _ DATE OP BIRTH:. ZIP: ZIP: ADDRESS:. CITY:ZIP: ADDRESS:. CITY: DATE OP BIRTH:,DATE OP BIRTH:, ZIP: March 4th, 1989 Dale R. Pfeilsticker 1830 Lakeview Terrace Long Lake, MN 55356 Thomas J. Jacobs City of Orono P.O.'Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr- Jacobs Since 1969 I have been operating a custom small engine machine shop. Our services include snowmobile, motorcycle, outboard motor, cylinder sleeving, boring, custom performance work, engine and crank shaft rebuilding. We have established our dealer and mail order customers by advertising in natit>nal magazines a.* d trade publi»v-* tions • We also offer pickup and delivery service- to local dealers. James Sundean who is employed >s a machinist, does not reside at this address. However, James value to the business is extremely important. Over the fifteen plus years he has been with us he has developed many of the special machining, tooling, and procedures we use. Furthermore, his experience and performance hav been a real plus in the building and dc-»ily operation of the business. Due to the fact that I am confined to a wheelchair, it would be extremely difficult to operate the business without someone of James ability. I would greatly appreciate your consideration in regards to this application for home occupation license. CITY of OROXO Post Office Box 66*Crystal Bay. Minnesota 56323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 28r 1989 Dale R. Pfeilsticker 1830 Lakeview Terrace Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: 1830 Lakeview Terrace, Proper License Dear Mr. Pfeilsticker: Orono - Home Occupation without On February 10, 1989, I conducted an inspection of your property at the above subject property which revealed that you were operating a retail sales operation and possibly the sale of snowmobiles. I am writing this letter to Inform you that pursuant to Section 10.20, Subdivision 4 (C) of the Orono Municipal Code, it is prohibited to do the following: 1. It is unlawful for any business operating as a home occupation to engage in an operation without a proper license. 2. All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling. 3. No commercial signs permitted other than signs permitted in the residential zone. 4. No excessive stock and trade may be stored on the premises. 5. Over-the-counter retail sales are not allowed. 6. Entrance to the home occupation must be gained within the structure. During the inspection I gave you an application for an annual home occupation license and explained to you that you must apply for this license and conform to the Orono Municipal Code. BUILDING a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING administration a finance - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Dale R. Pfeilsticker Re: Home Occupation without Proper License February 28, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Since this last meeting on February 10, 1989 the City has not heard from you, therefore your operation must cease on the property until proper approvals are received from the City. Failure to comply with this order shall result in citations being issued and the matter referred to the City Attorney for further legal action. If you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to contact myself or Jeanne Mabusth, Zoning Administrator. Sincerely Thomas J. Jacobs, Building 6 Fire Inspector TJJ/tln cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Police Department Lyle Oman, Field Inspector Bryan Crawford, City Attorney 41489.1 TO:Mayoi^City Council PROM:Mark E.Bernhardson, City Administrate: DATE:April 14,1989 snMBrT! Planned Develooment 0rdinai.ee A.Revised Drafts Section 10.46, 10.53 and 10.54 Attachmen Ordinance 10.40 Excerpt C.Sample Definitions for Restaurants (Class I) ISSUE - Adoption of the language for implementing Planned Development Ordinance,special requirements,and a B-6 Zone for the Highway 12 corridor development. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's last meeting they directed staff to finalize language regarding the Planned Development Ordinance incorporating the changes to date together with final language for referencing the standards of the other zoning districts that may be applicable. DISCUSSION - Attachment A, please find a copy of the updated draft of the ordinance with the changes underlined in that draft. In addition the issue of the meaning of Class I Restaurants was raised.The Orono code in Section 10.40 (B-1) defines it as: Food is served to customer and consumed by him while seated at a counter or table and the restaurant does not serve intoxicating liquor or provide live entertainment. Food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumption. As this language is not fully understandable, one of the alternatives may be more appropriate. Of the examples in Attachment C, Orono's current language is most closely related to Plymouth* s. ALTERNATIVES - 1.Adopt. 2.Amend and adopt. 3.Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt the language presented for utilization in the Highway 12 corridor, together with amending the definition of Restaurants (Class I) as follows: Restaurants (Class I) Traditional Restaurant - Food is served to the customer and consumed while seated at counter or table. Cafeteria - Food is selected by a customer while gcin^ through a line and taken to a table for consumption. Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in Restaurants (Class I). PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by adopt Ordinance No seconded by that the Council Second Series which adds Sections 10.52, 10.53 and 10.46 to Chapter 10 of its ordinances together with amending 10.40 definition of Restaurants (Class I). Ayes __, Nays cc: John Shardlow supplies. lots. § 10.40 21. Postal substation. 22. Real estate sales. 23. Retail food of all varieties and home 24. Sewing center and yardgoods. 25. Sporting goods store. 26. Tailor shops. 27. 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-1" 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 and consumed by him while seated at a counter or table and the restaurant does not serve intoxicating liquor or provide live entertainment. Food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumption. D. Restaurants (Class II). Fast Food, Convenience, Drive-in, and Liquor Store Restaurants. A restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter ill 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 O” 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. P«’ lie service structures, including, but not limited to, electr* transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange sta\. .ons, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. ORONO CC 5.555 ROSEVILLE ZONING CODE 5.555. Office Service Buildings. "Office Service Buildings" are buildings in which the principal use and overall appearance is that of a typical office building, but in which up to 50 percent of the total floor area may be devoted to a related service function such as wholesaling, retailing, fabrication, processing, and storage related thereto, and shall have a ceiling height restricted to fourteen (14) feet. Truck loading docks attached to such buildings shall be located in a courtyard area, fully enclosed by office service buildings, except for ingress and egress openings. 5.560. Parking Space. Automobile. A suitably surfaced and permanently maintained area, either within or c -side of a building, of sufficient size to store one automobile as specified in this ordinance. A general standard of three hundred (300) square feet per space shall be used for computing parking requirements. * 70. Rest Home (Nursing Home). A private home for the care of children, or the aged or infirmed, or a place of rest for those suffering bodily disorders. Such home does not contain equipment for surgical care or for the treatment of disease or injury, nor does it include maternity care or care of mental illness. 5.575. Restaurant. A restaurant is an establishment selling foods prepared for consumption of customers, and shall include the following sub- classifications: Traditional Restaurant: A traditional restaurant is a restaurant where a majority of the customers select their food while seated at a counter or table. Cafeteria Restaurant: A cafeteria restaurant is a restaurant where a majority of the customers select their food at a serving line, and consume the food at a table or counter. Fast Food Restaurant: A fast food restaurant is a restaurant where a majority of the customers order food and are served food at a counter and the food is thereafter taken to a table, counter , or off the premises for consumption. Drive-In Restaurant: A drive-in restaurant is a restaurant where a majority of the customers order and consume their food in an automobile parked on the premises. Section 14-123.100(21 MINNETONKA o=i. <iL ‘Z I. Vi l5. " Di‘* ^vc np rap or a -Oetative coverinO^to^.^'ntain^ proper slopes. . industrial structuresnatio. When co^ercial and ndustr are elevated on f’”’ J the structureout beyond the extenor walls ot ^ . or erosion by flood waters elevated industrial structures t^at a e t on fin may.be the State Building \%1 by "ordinance Jv. J, June i, 13^S, ...........,..,n.l»H31 Ho special slial' M l”'^o/ttie''touiKtai-ieE of theor F-2 District within 200 feet or F-1 District unless ’^^P^^eiaineering data, site plans application, shall submit eng ^9^ require and other plans and ntrof such development ofin order to dateline the effects bed, bank, channel, ^ copies of the applicationThe applicant shall submit four copies^ and the i''<'°'^'^’°"\.°"LnnPhaha Creek Watershed District.to the Secretary of the recomi^ndations The District shall file receipt of the informa- -.15: nSM .o.hoHa.o«». my. rsoo n-isj.wfs' imi m okK™™ n'"- ■'”* (1) flassifictloj.. UV™.!"' ,hi^^"fcC3»r,,ro%rr^^ y“r,“5uS'X'fiiK i' uses involved. t rifiss 1- A sitdown restaurant with on-(a) Restuarant Class L- sale liquor. 4. n;»c<; II- A sitdown restaurant without(b) Restaurant Class u. on-sale liquor. ii/5/84) (Sea. 14-123.101(1) (a) (b) amended ay Ora. ----------_ ?■November (c) Restaurant Class III: A cafeteria which is a sit-down restaurant. Food is selected by the patron while going through a serving line. The patron takes his food to a table where it is eaten. Multiple use utensils are used. There may be some take-out service but the food is not previously packaged. (d) Restaurant Class IV: A fast food or drive-in restaurant that does not permit eating outside on the premises. This restaurant specializes in foods prepared or nearly prepared in advance and which are sold directly to the patron at a counter and not served by a waiter. The food is often partially packaged before the order is taken. The food is essentially served packaged or served in single service materials (paper or plastic). The patron may have the option of eating inside the building or off the premises. (e) Restaurant Class V: A fast-food or drive-in restaurant that allows eating outside on the premises. This restaurant provides the services of a restaurant Class IV but also includes eating outside of the building jn the premises. (Sec, 14-123.(01(1) Added by Ord. 1258^ April 15, 1974) f) Restaurant Class Iw: A sit-down restaurant with on- sale wine but which does not serve any other form of intoxicating liquor and which serves food to its custof.iers while seated at tables. Personalized, printed menus are used, and the food is served on multiple-use utensils. There may be some take-out service, but the food is not previously packaged. (Sec. 14-123.101(f) added by Ord. 1506, May 4, 1981) Site Development Standards. All restaurants are subject to the following site development standards: (a) Site Layout. The site layout must be compatible with and not detrimental to other surrounding property in the general area and it must make adequate provision for: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) The needs of pedestrians, automobiles and bicycles, including proper circulation and parking. Use of existing topography and site vegetation in the location and orientation of structures and other facilities. Traffic conditions. Transitional features and decorative walls or live hedges for separation and screening purposes May, 1981 566.1 ST. PAULPrincipal use o, building. See ’main building- and 'main use.- duly authorized to fuVnhranVfTnTsh'ing^nhTpub^ commission Zs^rutro^ oVt:;r lSSr76“s^ Secs. 60.36S-60.37,. 60.393; fuetber amended: Ord. 16799. May 7S, 60.217. Q. 60.218. R. heights attributable to encroachments on the flood i" food disposable containers, and where the customer idual servings, or in non­ tables or counters located within a building. »' individual servings, and where the cu<tnm^ ^ ready to consume state, in beverages in an automobile'’" rked rponTh" pre"mTe? - preprepared.Vu*itk oMer?ind prck\*’gid ’fo*^^^^^ business is the selling of servings, for consumption on or off the premfses anTwb i" individual container in or on which the food is sold nan * i package, wrapping, or returnable and disposable nature. ^ substance of a non- three-bedroom units and including a "den*- showing one-, two- or extra room as a bedroom for the purpose if computing density*"* (Cod. 1936, as amended. Secs. 60.372-60.375; further amended: Ord. 16876, Jan. 28, ,982.) ^lA ^ '60.219. S. this code. measu«d "o'rjSe lot°ine'"b'',r*abo«’g™*^^^^ Sing!”"'"”" wasc diSDOSAl cvc*«uuu A..._______O .............8raac laces of the building. ®*TeTagt?.^7X\T«.l^^rmaed fo"se ’’pU ----------aj a willd. ^vsrrsr.;?.rrs-;:.T= p:- PLYMOUTH * Section 4. Subdivision B ^ r> • 1 A flood which is representative of large floods known to have oc- "*''°currenen7rall> "n Minnesota !nd reasonably characteristic of what can be expected^ to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 year re- currence interval. A nnint not Icss than one foot above the Regulatory Flood ^ith the regional flood plus any increases in helnrts fttrib^abir^ffncroachments on the flood plain. It is the ele- v^ton to which uses regulated by this Ordinance are required to be elevated or flood proofed. • , c r=.-iHiies - A state licensed residential facility which is regu- ■"^ tatef l7caterand operated In accordance with M.S.A. 2A5.782 - 245.90, and M.S.a’. 462.357(7-8); and all applicable codes and regulations. — T -- Food is served to a customer and Restaurants ^ Elated at a counter or table. Cafeteria - Food is selec­ ted by a custTier while going through a serving line and taken to a table for consumption. <ci„, ID - f...•” sj.ssrri, 4 «..«.%».»....id,........» T... 11™.. “If •" considered part of the roof. (Amended Ord. No. 84-24) “■“Lim LSi'l'uMinnesota, and not providing residential accommodations. ^'"^■'’'‘‘’“pen^tl Vom^^but^Uof all of^^hrpublic'sucV* a7"'77nom\national cemeteries, pnvaTsc\oo\Tclu\s"Vdges, recreation facilities, churches, etc. Senior (Elderly) Citizen Housing - Multiple old!'’srn- operated for exclusive occupancy by and special fea- lor Citizen housing shall include / health safety, and welfare tures associated with nee s or ’ ^ In’the construction of SEC. 10.53 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SUED. 1. AUTHORIZATION: Planned unit development authorization may allow: Subd. l.A Variety: Within a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of land uses, housing types and densities. Subd. l.B Sensitivity: Through the departure from the strict application of required setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes, minimum requirements, and other performance standards associated with conventional zoning, planned unit development can maximize the development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and dluable natural characteristics. Subd. l.C .-fficiency; The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in street lengths and other utility related expenses. Subd. l.D Density Transfer: The project density may be clustered, basing density on number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions. Subd. l.E District Integration: The combination of uses which are allowed in separate zoning districts such as: 1. Mixed residential allows both densities and unit types to be varied within the project. 2. Mixed residential with increased density acknowledging the greater sensitivity of PUD projects, regulation provides increased density on the property if a PUD is utilized. 3. Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within the project. Subd. l.F Applicability: Utilization of this zoning district is limited to the Highway 12 Corridor as set forth in the City of Orono^s Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2 adopted 23. 1988. SUBD. 2. ALLOWED USES: Used within the PUD may include only those uses designated on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allowed uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan. The PUD development plan shall identify all the proposed land uses and those uses shall become permitted uses with the acceptance of the (1) development plan. Any change in list of uses presented in the development plan will be considered an amendment to the PUD and will follow the procedures specified in Subd. 6. of this Title. SUED. 3. REQUIRED STANDARDS: For the purpose of administering this ordinance, the City shall. app4y_^Le standards contained in the conventional^ zoning district that is most similar to the proposed development._—In tlie event of mixed-use developments, the Zoning Administratp_r shall determine the appropriate underlying zoning standards, subject to the approval of the City Council . Furthermore, the City shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land use Plan to achieve a maximum coordination between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the conservation of woodlands and wetlands, the protection of health, safety and welfare of the community and residents of the PUD. To these ends, the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with respect to the topography of the area and existing natural features such as streams and large trees; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of internal streets and driveways; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of parking areas; and such other matters as the Council find to have a material bearing upon the stated standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. SUED. 4. COORDINATION WITH SUEDIVISION REGULATIONS: Subdivision review under the subdivision regulations shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of the PUD. The plans required under this Chapter shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision ordinance for the preliminary and final plat. SUED. 5. REVISIONS AND/OR CHANGES Subd. 5.A Minor changes in the location, placement and height of structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved and filed with the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 5.E Changes in uses, significant changes in the location, size, or height of structures, any rearrangement of lots, blocks and building tracts, changes in the (2) provision of common open spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development plan may be made only after a public hearing conducted by the Council. Any changes shall be recorded as amendments to the recorded copy of the final development plan. Subd. 5.C All of the provisions of this Title applicable to the original district within which the Planned Unit Development District is established shall apply to the PUD District except as otherwise provided in approval of the final plan. Subd. '^.D Review: If substantial development has net occurred within a leascnable time after approval of the PUD Zoning District, the City Council may inctrnnt the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district. It shall not be necessary for the City Council to find that the r .zoning was in ^rror. SUBD. 6.PHASING AND GUARANTEE OF PERFORMANCE Subd. 6.A The Planning Commission shall compare the actual development accomplished in the various PUD zones with the approved development schedule. Subd. 6.B Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and for good cause shown by the property owner, the Council may extend the limits of the development schedule. Subd. 6.C The construction and provision of all of the common open space and p^ublic and recreational facilities which are shown on the final development plan must proceed at the same rate as the construction of dwelling units, if any. The Development Review Committee shall review all of the building permits issued for the PUD and examine the construction which has taken place on the site. If they find that the rate of construction of dwelling units is greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public and recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, they shall forward this information to the Council for action. Subd. 6.D A performance bond or letter of credit shall be required to guarantee performance by the developer. The amount of this bond or letter of credit, and the specific elements of the development program that it is intended to guarantee, will be stipulated in the development agreement. (3) SUED. 7. CONTROL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING COMPLETION Subd. 7.A After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, the use of the land and the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures within the planned development shall be governed by the final development plan. Subd. 7.B After the certifif^ate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be made in the approved final development plan except upon application as provided below: 1. Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if they are consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this Section may increase the cube of ary building or structure by more than ten percent ilO%). 2. Any building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed tt -.y be reconstructed only in compliance with the fin. . development plan unless an amendment to the final development plan is approved under Section 10.53 Subd. 5. 3. Changes in the use of the common open space may be authorized by an amendment to the final development plan under Section 10,53 Subd 5. 4. Any other changes in the final development plan must be authorized by an amendment of the final development plan under Section 10.53 Subd. 5. SUBD. 8.PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING DEVELOPMENT A PLANNED UNIT Subd. 8.A Application Conference:Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Zoning Administrator. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this Title before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. (4) Subd. 8.B 1. General Concept Plan Purpose: The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: a) Overall maximum PUD density range. b) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. C; General location and extent of public and common open space. d) General location of residential and nonresidential land uses with approximate type and intensities of development. e) Staging and time schedule of development. f) Other special criteria for development. Schedule: a) Developer meets with the Zoning Administrator to discuss the proposed developments. b) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and preliminary plat, together with all supporting data. c) Within thirty po) days after verification by the Zoning Administrator that the required plan and supporting data is adequate, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing. d) The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing and written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the boundary of the property in question. (5) e) The City may request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. f) The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report a id recommendations from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed without the report. The Council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the entire Council. Development Stage: Following general concept approval, if given, the applicant shall submit the development stage application and final plat. The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with Section 10.53 Subd. 8(d) for zoning district changes. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the concept stage and development stages may proceed simultaneously. Applications: Ten (10) copies of the following exhibits, analysis and plans shall be submitted to the City: General Concept Stage: a) Preliminary plat and information required by subdivision Title. b) General Information: (1) The landowner's name and address and his interest in the subject property. (2) The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner. (3) The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor. (4) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject property to effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered property report, and such o'.her evidence as the City Attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the subject property. c)Present Status: (1) The address and legal description of the property. (2) The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within one thousand feet (1,000') of the property. (3) A map depicting the existing development of the property and all land within one thousand feet (1,000') thereof and indicating the location of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations on and within one hundred feet (100') of the property. (4) A written statement general describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. (5) Site Conditions: Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (1»* - 100'). (a) Contours; minimum two foot (2") intervals. (b) Location, type and extent of tree cover. (7) (7) (c) Slope analysis. (d) Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands and streams and flood plains within three hundred feet (300') of the property. (e) Significant rock outcroppings. (f) Existing drainage patterns. (g) Vistas and significant views. (h) Soil conditions as they affect development. All of the graphics should be the same scale as the final plan to allow easy cross reference. T1 use of overlays is recommended for clear reference. Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential and other land uses. A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area, which shall include at least the following: (a) Area devoted to residential uses. (b) Area ^ 'ted to residential use by buili type. (c) Area devoted to common open space. (d) Area devoted to public open space. (e) Approximate area devoted to streets. (f) Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street parking and loading spaces and related access. (g) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses. (h) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office use. (8) When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such state and overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. (9) When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. (10) Any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD. (11) Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and storm sewers. (12) The City may excuse an applicant from submitting any specific item of information or document required in this stage which it finds to be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal. (13) The City may rec^ire the submission of any additional information or documentation which it may find necessary or appropriate to full consideration of the proposed PUD. Development Stage: Development stage submissions should depict and outline the proposed implementations of the general concept stage for the PUD. Information from the general concept stage may be included for background and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The development stage submissions shall include but not be limited to: (1) A f’nal plat and information required by the City subdivision Title. (2) Ten (10) sets of preliminary plans drawn to a scale of not less than one inch equals one hundred feet (1”=100') (or scale requested by the Administrator containing at least the following information): (a) Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded in the county where the subject property is situated). (b) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant topographical or physical features of the property. (c) The location, size use and arrangement including height in stories and feet and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of proposed buildings, including mobile homes, and existing buildings which will remain, if any. (d) Location, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total (10) site coverage of all circulation elements. (e) Location, designation and total area of all common open space. (f) Location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicated for public open space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites and recreational facilities. (g) Proposed lots and blocks, if any and numbering system. (h) The location, use and size of structures and other land uses on adjacent properties. (i) Detailed sketches and provisions of proposed landscaping. (j) General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD. (k) Any other information that may have been required by the Planning Commission or Council in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan. An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final development plan approval is sought. A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units ^nd expected population. A tabulation indicating the gross square footage, if any, of commercial and industrial floor space by type of activity (e.g. drug store, dry cleaning, supermarket). Preliminary architectural "typical" plans indicating use, floor, plan, elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, including mobile homes. (11) (7) A detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical layout, design and purpose of all streets, easements, rights of way, utility lines and facilities, lots, block, public and common open space, general landscaping plan, structure, including mobile homes, and uses. (8) Preliroinw*ry grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topography and natural ite vegetation. The Plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved r- ^pt plan. (9) A prelimi.. ,y plat prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. (10) A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts. Department of Natural Resources, Soil Conservation Service, or any other agency with review authority clearly illustrating erosion control measures to be used during construction and as permanent measures. (12) 41489.1 N TOs FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council . Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^^J^ April 14, 1989 s Planned-Develooment Ordinance- - . A. Revised Drafts Section 10.46, 10.53 and 10.54 Attachment Ordinance 10.40 Excerpt " C. Sample Definitions for Restaurants (Class I) ISSUE - Adoption of the language for implementing Planned Development Ordinance, special requirements, and a B-6 Zone for the Highway 12 corridor development. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's last meeting they directed staff to finalize language regarding the Planned Development Ordinance incorporating the changes to date together with final language for referencing the standards of the other zoning districts that may be applicable. DISCUSSION - Attachment A, please find a copy of the updated draft of the ordinance with the changes underlined in that draft. In addition the issue of the meaning of Class I Restaurants was raised. The Orono code in Section 10.40 (B-1) defines it as: Food is served to customer and consumed by him while seated at a counter or table and the restaurant does not serve intoxicating liquor or provide live entertainment. Food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumption. As this language is not fully understandable, one of the alternatives may be more appropriate. Of the examples in Attachment C, Orono's current language is most closely related to Plymouth's. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt the language presented for utilization in the Highway 12 corridor, together with amending the definition of Restaurants (Class I) as follows: Restaurants (Class I) Traditional Restaurant - Food is served to the customer and consumed 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). PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __r that the Council adopt Ordinance No. » Second Series which adds Sections 10.52, 10.53 and 10.46 to Chapter 10 of its ordinances together with amending 10.40 definition of Restaurants (Class I). Ayes _, Nays __. cc: John Shardlow I § 10.40 supplies. lots. 21. Postal substation. 22. Real estate sales. 23. Retail food of all varieties and home 24. Sewing center and yardgoods. 25. Sporting goods store. 26. Tailor shops. 27. 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-1" 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 and consumed by him while seated at a counter or table and the restaurant does not serve intoxicating liquor or provide live entertainment. Food is selected by a customer while going through a line and take:: to a table for consumption. D. Restaurants (Class II). Fast Food, Convenience, Drive-in, and Liquor Store Restaurants. A restaurant where a majority of customers order and 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 tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. ORONO CC 5.555 ROSEVILLE ZONING CODE 5.555. Office Service Buildings♦ ••Office Service Buildings'* are buildings in which the principal use and overall appearance is that of a typical office building, but in which up to 50 percent of the total floor area may be devoted to a related service function such as wholesaling, retailing, fabrication, processing, and storage related thereto, and shall have a ceiling height restrictea to fourteen (14) feet. Truck loading docks attached to such buildings shall be located in a courtyard area, fully enclosed by office service buildings, except for ingress and egress openings. 5.560. Parking Space. Automobile. A suitably surfaced and permanently maintained area, either within or outside of a building, of sufficient size to store one automobile as specified in this ordinance. A general standard of three hundred (300) square feet per space shall be used for computing parking requirements. 70. Rest Home (Nursing Horned. A private home for the care of children, or the aged or infirmed, or a place of rest for those suffering bodily disorders. Such home does not contain equipment for surgical care o: for the treatment of disease or injury, nor does it include maternity care or care of mental illness. W 5.575. Restaurant. A restaurant is an establishment selling foods prepared for consumption of customers, and shall include the following sub­ classifications : (a) Traditional Restaurant; A traditional restaurant is a restaurant where a majority of the customers select their food while seated at a counter or table. Cafeteria Restaurant; A cafeteria restaurant is a restaurant where a majority of the customers select their food at a serving line, and consume the food at a table or counter. Fast Food Restaurant: A fast food restaurant is a restaurant where a majority of the customers order food and are served food at a counter and the food is thereafter taken to a t^t^le, counter , or off the premises for consumption. Drive-In Restaurant: A drive-in restaurant is a restaurant where a majority of the customers order and consume their food in an automobile parked on the premises. AracH ^ Section 14-123.100 (.2) MINNETONKA by r1p rap or a vegetative covenng^t^^n'|intain^ proper slopes. ^ industrial structures ratio. When f f,ii ^ed not extend are elevated on .nj gf the structureout beyond the exterior walls ot . r-vruK HE? ‘or erosion by flood waters. elevated industrial structures that are o ^ “.'“«««•' ;■ »s “rip'i’if”’ (Sec. «'223.W<? -4^^ ^ 19"4) 14-123.100(3) Watershedjistna ,0=). rpo.u No speci il P®'™^’^4hiJi\oo feerof^the*'boundaries of theor F-2 Oist'-Itt within 200 feet OT ^ F-1 District ^^®p!'^^J,Mneering data, site plansapplication, shall submit 9 jp^quire and other plans and of such development ofin order to detenaine the effects oyijc^^ bed, banc, channel, tloo^^y o P aoplication The applicant shall submit four copie^ and the infoi^tion. 0 P^ Q^gek Watershed District. ■z I. '('‘Vi. " Dt" ,s,«. »»>• *■ W-IMI- BslSismCEMSilla^^ -in-l-n five class (1) 14»- ICJ. XV a.. .11— --------------------------- fu.pmcttii!.. UVliU'’’ T.srcStir,'4;.a ‘.‘a”?t» ».«<•->- uses involved. S,4V c (a) (b) invQIvcu. o..T..arant C1ass_n A sitdown restaurant with on- sale liquor^sale I • - f Class Ir A sitdown restaurant withoutRestaurant Class a. on-sale liquor. 2625-84 ll/S/84) (Sec. 14-lZ2,101(lXa)(b) cmnded by OM. -------------- e:- November (c) Restaurant Class III: A cafeteria which is asit-down restaurant. Food is selected by the patron while going through a serving line. The patron takes his food to a table where it is eaten. Multiple use utensils are used. There may be some take-out service but the food is not previously packaged. (d) Restaurant Class IV; A fast food or drive-in restaurant that does not permit eating outside on the premises. This restaurant specializes in foods prepared or nearly prepared in advance and which are sold directly to the patron at a counter and not served by a waiter. The food is often partially packaged before the order is taken. The food is essentially served packaged or served in single service materials (paper or plastic). The patron may have the option of eating inside the building or off the premises. (e) Restaurant Class V: A fast-food or drive-in restaurant that allows eating outside on the premises. This restaurant provides the services of a restaurant Class IV but also includes eating outside of the building on the premises. (Sec, 14-123.(01(1) Added by Ord. 1258, April IS, 1974) f) Restaurant Class Iw: A sit-down restaurant with on- sale wine but which does not serve any other form of intoxicating liquor and which serves food to its customers while seated at tables. Personalized, printed menus are used, and the food is served on multiple-use utensils. There may be some take-out service, but the food is not previously packaged. (Sec. 14-123.101(f) added by Ord. 1506, May 4, 1981) Site Development Standards. All restaurants are subject to the fol1 owing site development standards: (a) Site Layout. The site layout must be compatible with and not detrimental to other surrounding property in the general area and it must make adequate provision for: (i) The needs of pedestrians, automobiles and bicycles, including proper circulation and parking. (ii) Use of existing topography and site vegetation in the location and orientation of structures and other facilities. (iii) Traffic conditions. (iv) Transitional features and decorative walls or live hedges for separation and screening purposes May, 196 t 566.1 ST. PAUL\ • * * Principal use or building. See "main building" and "main use." Public utility. A ^rson. firm, or corporation, municipal department, board or commission duly authorized to furnish and furnishing to the public, under federal, slate or ”a" pomul*“^ -™»“"ication, telegraph, l^itVrd^l-dS^dTam ^ Se„. 60.36g.b0.37l, 60.395; further amended: Ord. 16799, May 28, 60.217. Q. 60.218. R. Regulatory flood protectloi elevation. That elevation not less than one foot above the -di heVaMra'ttHhmiM t “•* "0^°“' f‘o°d plus any increases in flood^ heights attributable to encroachments on the flood plain. A business atablishment whose principal business is the selling of unpackaaed I *’'* ®"d *'>«'■« 'he customer consumes these foods while seated at'"“‘es or counters located within a building. v seaieo ai "*fo*rIir*fro,tn’'.J:l"' «“*>lishment whose principal business is the selling of ^ I beverages to the customer in a ready to consume state in coMaioer^^'^ consumption on or off the premises, and where the package, wrapping, or returilrtte and dr,;;^We‘Satu°rt^ “ * “°“- determining lot area requirements and density in a multiple- fn a«a A room shair* T”l “ " « ''»« «<> »«»>«re feetin area. A room shall not incluoe the area in kitchen, sanitary facilities, utility Three hedror" -.'*’ Presented showing one-, two^ or Mtra ’room Tr h'n *"'* * ”‘‘®" ' •<>brary or other extra room shall count suchextra room as a bedroom for the purpose of computing density. (Code 1956, as amended, Secs. 60.372-60.375, i urther amended: Ord. 16876, Jan. 28, 1982.) 60.219. S. <*«tancc required to obtain front, side, or rear yard open space provisions of this code, measured from the lot line to the above grade faces of the building. ^*Trw!i**^®*r^*^***f* system for the collection, treatment, and dispersion ofsewage, including, but not limited to, septic tank soil absorption systems. Shopping center, planned. An integrated grouping of commercial structures, under ownership or control of one person or joint tenants, on a parcel five acres or over in IP PLYMOUTH * Section 4, Subdivision B noo. - . fiooO rxp:«e<?Trotur Tn an average fregeency In the magnitude of the 100 year re- currence interval. .-1 noo A noint not less than one foot above the Regulatory Flood P‘'°''«':V°"asaocUted with the regional flood plus any Increases in water surface e^^.^^chments on the flood plain. It is the ele- varion''to®Ii^i%h‘u«‘s regulated by‘this Ordinance are required to be elevated or flood proofed. C.r. “Vi- .‘jrOT(7-«.^“n ■«' ,g.yn - ‘■V.r ‘cUrr. “ *Frr.at“ a table for consuniption. a. k BiA^nrltv of customers order and Restaurants (Class II) - Fast 'it to Stable or counter where it Is are served their food at a counter and take it to outside to eat in an «nsu^d. However, a signlf cant „ „ost customers consune automobile or off the ^ i building wall surface “"h*™ the mansard-llke treatment will be ...uviu u». - ,E; Vr“iV,Si’c‘iSi"t.r.sx rrruu ....u..- — SEC. 10.53 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SUED. 1. AUTHORIZATION; Planned unit development authorization may allow: Subd. l.A Variety; Within a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of land uses, housing types and densities. Subd. l.B Sensitivity: Through the departure from the strict application of required setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes, minimum requirements, and other performance standards associated with conventional zoning, planned unit development can maximize the development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics. Subd. l.C Efficiency; The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in street lengths and other utility related expenses. Subd. l.D Density Transfer: The project density may be clustered, basing density on number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions. Subd. l.E District Integration: The combination of uses which are allowed in separate zoning districts such as; 1. Mixed residential allows both densities and unit types to be varied within the project. 2. Mixed residential with increased density acknowledging the greater sensitivity of PUD projects, regulation provides increased density on the property if a PUD is utilized. 3. Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within the project. Subd. l.F Applicability; Utilization of this zoning district is limited to the Highway 12 Corridor as set forth in the City of Orono's Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2 adopted 23. 1988. SUBD. 2. ALLOWED USES: Used within the PUD may include only those uses designated on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allowed uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan. The PUD development plan shall identify all the proposed land uses and those uses shall become permitted uses with the acceptance of the development plan. Any change in list of uses presented in the development plan will be considered an amendment to the PUD and will follow the procedures specified in Subd. 6. of this Title. SUED. 3. REQUIRED STANDARDS: For the purpose of administering this ordinance, the City shall apply the standards contained in the conventional zoning district that is most similar to the proposed development. In the event of mixed-use developments, the Zoning Administrator shall determine the appropriate underlying zoning standards, subject to the approval of the City Council. Furthermore, the City shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land use Plan to achieve a maximum coordination between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the conservation of woodlands and wetlands, the protection of health, safety and welfare of the community and residents of the PUD. To these ends, the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with respect to the topography of the area and existing natural features such as streams and large tiees; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of internal streets and driveways; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of parking areas; and such other matters as the Council may find to have a material bearing upon the stated standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. SUBD. 4. COORDINATION WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: Subdivision review under the subdivision regulations shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of the PUD. The plans required under this Chapter shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision ordinance for the preliminary and final plat. SUBD. 5.REVISIONS AND/OR CHANGES Subd. 5. . Minor changes in the location, placen.jnt and height of structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved and filed with the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 5.B Changes in uses, significant changes in the location, size, or height of structures, any rearrangement of lots, blocks and building tracts, changes in the (2) provision of common open spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development plan may be made only after a public hearing conducted by the Council. Any changes shall be recorded as amendments to the recorded copy of tne final development plan. Subd. 5.C All of the provisions of this Title applicable CO the original district within which the Planned Unit Development District is established shall apply to the PUD District except as otherwise provided in approval of the final plan. Subd. 5.D Review: If substantial development has not occurred within a reasonable time after approval of the PUL Zoning District, the City Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district. It shall not be necessary for the City Council to find that the rezoning was in error. SUBD. 6.PHASING AND GUARANTEE OF PERFORMANCE Subd. 6.A The Planning Commission shall compare the actual development accomplished in the various PUD zones with the approved development schedule. Subd. 6.B Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and for good cause shown by the property owner, the Council may extend the limits of the development schedule. Subd. 6.C The construction and provision of all of the common open space and public and recreational facilities which are shown on the final development plan must proceed at the same rate as the construction of dwelling units, if any. The Development Review Committee shall review all of the building permits issued for the PUD and examine the construction which has taken place on the site. If they find that the rate of construction of dwelling units is greater than the rate at which common open spaces and public and recreational facilities have been constructed and provided, they shall forward this information to the Council for action. Subd. 6.D A performance bond or letter of credit shall be required to guarantee performance by the developer. The amount of this bond or letter of credit, and the specific elements of the development program that it is intended to guarantee, will be stipulated in the development agreement. (3) SUED. 7. CONTROL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOLLOWING COMPLETION Subd. 7,A After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, the use of the land and the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures within the planned development shall be governed by the final development plan. Subd. 7.B After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be made in the approved final development plan except upon application as provided below: 1. Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if they are consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this Section may increase the cube of any building or structure by more than ten percent (10%). 2. Any building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed may be reconstructed only in compliance w.\th the final development plan unless an amendment to the final development plan is approved under Section 10.53 Subd. 5. 3. Changes in the use of the common open space may be authorized by an amendment to the final development plan under Section 10.53 Subd 5. 4. Any other changes in the final development plan must be authorized by an amendment of the final development plan under Section 10.53 Subd. 5. SUBD. 8. PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Subd. 8.A Application Conference: Upon filing of an application for PUD, the applicant of the proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Zoning Administrator. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this Title before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. (4) Subd, 8.B General Concept Plan 1. Purpose: The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: a) Overall maximum PUD density range. b) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. c) General location and extent of public and common open space. d) General location of residential and nonresidential land uses with approximate type and intensities of development. e) Staging and time schedule of development. f) Other special criteria for development. 2. Schedule: a) Developer meets with the Zoning Administrator to discuss the proposed developments. b) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and preliminary plat, together with all supporting data. c) Within thirty (30) days after verification by the Zoning Administrator that the required plan and supporting data is adequate, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing. d) The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing and written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the boundary of the property in question. (5) 3. 4. e) The City may request additional information from the applicant concerning operational factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. f) The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt of the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission, If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed without the report. The Council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the entire Council. Development Stage: Following general concept approval, if given, the applicant shall submit the development stage application and final plat. The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with Section 10.53 Subd. 8(d) for zoning district changes. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the concept stage and development stages may proceed simultaneously. Applications: Ten (10) copies of the following exhibits, analysis and plans shall be submitted to the City: General Concept Stage: a) Preliminary plat and information required by subdivision Title. General Information: (1) The landowner's name and address and his interest in the subject property. (2) The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner. (3) The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have contributed to che development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor. (4) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject (6) property to effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered property report, and such other evidence as the City Attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the subject property. c)Present Status: (1) The address and legal description of the property. (2) The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within one thousand feet (1,000') of the property. (3) A map depicting the existing development of the property and all land within one thousand feet (1,000') thereof and indicat ng the location of existing streets, property lines, easements, water mains and storm and sanitary sewers, with invert elevations on and within one hundred feet (100') of the property. (4) A written statement general describing the proposed PUD and the market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. (5) Site Conditions: Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions at a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (1« = 100'). (a) Contours; minimum two foot (2'*) intervals. (b) Location, type and extent of tree cover. (7) (c) Slope analysis. (d) Location and extent of water bodies, wetlands and streams and flood plains within three hundred feet (300') of the property. (e) significant rock outcroppings. (f) Existing drainage patterns. (g) Vistas and significant views. (h) Soil conditions as they affect development. All of the graphics should . the same scale as the final plan to allow easy cross reference. The use of overlays is recommended for clear reference. Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential and other land uses. A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD aid tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the to" M project area, whic.i shall include t least the following: (a)Area devoted to residential uses. (b)A ea devoted to building type. residential u=ae by (c)Area devoted to space. common open (d)Area devoted to space. public open (e)Approximate area devoted to streets. (f) Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street parking and loading spaces and related access. (g) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses. (h) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office use. (8) When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stager or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such state and overall chronology of developmer-^ to be followed from stage to stage. (9) When vne proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. (10) Any restrictive covenant" that are to be recorded with respect to property included in the proposed PUD. (11) Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and storm sewers. (12) The City may excuse an applicant from submitting any specific item of information or document required in this stage which it finds to be unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal. (13) The City may require the submission of any additional information or documentation which it may find (9) necessary or appropriate to full consideration of the proposed PUD. Development Stage: Development stage submissions should depict and outline the proposed implementations of the general concept stage for the PUD. Information from the general concept stage may be included for background and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The development stage submissions shall include but not be limited to: (1) A final plat and information required by the City subdivision Title. (2) Ten (10) sets of preliminary plans drawn to a scale of rot less than one inch equals one hundred feet (1”=100') (or scale requested by the Administrator containing at least the following information): (a) Proposed name of the development (which shall not duplicate nor be similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded in the county where the subject property is situated). (b) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant topographical or physical features of the property. (c) The location, size use and arrangement including height in stories and feet and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of proposed buildiigs, including mobile homes, and existing buildings which will remain, if any. (d) Location, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total (10) (g) (h) (i) site coverage of all circulation elements. Location, designation and total area of all common open space. Location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicate ’ for public open space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites and recreational facilities. Proposed lots and blocks, if any and numbering system. The location, use and size of structures and other land uses oi adjacent properties. Detailed sketches and provisions of proposed landscaping. (j) General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD. (k) Any other information that may have been required by the Planning Commission or Council in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan. An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final development plan approval is sought. A tabulation indicating th; residential dwelling units population. of pected (5) A tabulation indicating the gross square footage, if any, of commercial and industrial floor space by type of activity (e.g. drug store, dry cleaning, supermarket). (6) Preliminary architectural "typical” plfins indicating use, floor, plan, elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, including mobile homes. (11) (7) A detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical layout, design and purpose of rll streets, easements, rights of way, utility lines and facilities, lots, block, public and common open space, general landscaping plan, structure, including mobile homes, and uses. (8) Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topography and natural site vegetation. The Plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan. (9) A preliminary plat prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. (10) A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts, Department of Natural Resources, Soil Conservation Service, or any other agency with review authority clearly illustrating erosion control measures to be used during construction and as permanent measures. (12) Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Ono G Bonefl/DQ PE Rotwn w Itoserv. pe Joiepn C Anoen*. PE Braa/om A Lentje»9 PE Ricrunj E Tumef PE J»Ti« C Ohon PE Gifno » Cook. PE TNxtvij E Noy«. PE StoOfrt G ScnoTKfit PE Mjrvm L SofvaU PE KMn A Coidon. PE RkMr) W R»ter. PE Oonjtd C BungM PE Jeffy A Booidon :'E Mark A Kanjoo PE T« K F'Cto. PE T Ruunvinn. PE (toom B PflrTtrie. PC Omi O Lottota. PE Thomji W fyterion PE Mcruei C Lynch PE James B MaUnd PC Kennem P Andenon. PE Keith A Bachmann P£ Mark B BoBl PE Bonen C Bussek. AiA Thomas E Angus. PE Howard A Sarkord. PE Oan«i j Edgenon. PE Mark A Se<s PE Ph«p J aswek PE Mark O VIAtki PE Thomas B Anderson. AIA Cary F Bytander. PE Chanes A Enckson leo M Pawetsky Harlan M Oson Susan M Eberui C PA /r Engineers & Architects April 20. 1989 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Navarre Heights Storm Sever Improvement Project No. 89>2 Our File No. 139A6 Gentlemen: O Transmitted herewith are 10 copies of the feasibility report for the Navarre Heights Storm Sever Improvement project. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Glenn R. Cook GRCici 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636^00 I r I I I a 8 8 a Report Navarre Heights Storm Sewer Improvements Project No. 89-2 Orono, Minnesota 1989 File No. 13946 m Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineers & Architects St. Paul, Minnesota 3 ] m Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineers & Architects Ono G B o*ip-jido Pt doben w k'jierr PE Mnepb c Amjpffck Pi B/Mfon] A PE fficnaiti £ Tbm« PE Jampi C Ohon PE Oenn ft Cook. PE Thomas E NcTyrv P£ BObrn G VhcTKht. PE Marvin L Sorvau. PE MUh A Gomon PE PKharrl W Foirrf PE DonaMC Buri>a<iS PE Jffry A Bourdon P«^ Mad A airtson PE Ird K PE Mchart T Rautmanr. # . RObrrt ft Pffflrrlr PE David O LoUoea PE Tfxxnas W ft.mnn PE Mvfl.vt r L»-r* '1 ('( Janm-, P M, MfVl PE Kcnrflh ' Andrrvy' PE Kr«h .* B.Khman<i f'E Mad K Rrjrfi. PE «nbm c Pic.T* » I A Thoniai E Anguv PE EVv^arrJ A Vunfod Pt Darnri l ><»Tr»tor 71 Mark A PE pna«i j C j'.wHi Pf M.wk D Wativ PE thnm.1'. <J Antlrrvm A r»a»v r PE Cr.jr<A\ A fiitkVMi IPOM P.M«-’J[y M.*fUn M Oion ‘artjn V Ebiirkn C PA April 18. 1989 Iy j ] nI Li Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Ret Navarre Heights Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 89-2 Our Pile No. 139A6 Dear Mayor and Council: Transmitted herewith is the feasibility report for the construction of storm sever in the Navarre Heights Subdivision west of County Road 19 and North of County Road 15. The report provides a detailed cost estimate of the work being considered and a plan of the area. Ve vould be pleased to meet with the City Council at your convenience to review the proposed project. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRCtci m! ,L I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Date: April 19. 1989 Reg. No.__ RPT139A6 2335 VUIest Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 0 n Q D a a a a a a a a a a a a a TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTFR OP TRANSMITTAL TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCUSSION PROJECT COSTS AND ASSESSMENTS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX - COST ESTIMATES FIGURE 1 - DRAINAGE AREA FIGURE 2 - LOCATl^X; PLAN - 2 - RPT13946 Page No, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Q Q Q nul Li ] i Mii DISCUSSION The City of Orono has requested this report to determine the feasibility of constructing a storm sever system in the Navarre Heights Area. There is currently a drainage problem for the property owners on lots 16 and 17, Block 3 of the Navarre Heights subdivision. The property owners desires to expand their home and cannot do so unless the drainage problem is solved. The storm water runoff between Navarre Avenue and Blaine Avenue on Livingston Avenue collects between Lots 16 and 17. The storm water then drains to the north west through back yards to Crystal Place. There is a culvert under Crystal Place that drains the water onto the railroad right of way. The drainage area is shown on figure 1 at the back of this report. There is a total of 8.8 acres in the drainage area. The proposed project would provide 15 and 18 inch storm sewer across the property to solve the drainage problem. The storm sewer location is shown as figure 2 at the back of this report. j 3 W iJ ] - 3 - RPT13946 D Q 0 D a D 0 a a n PROJECT COST The project cost and assessment rates for the storm sever improvement are outlined in this section with a detailed cost estimate provided in the appendix. The indicated prices are as projected for the 1989 construction season (ENR 4510). Project Cost Assessment Area Assessment Rate $ 30.250.o0 7.1 Acres $ 0.10/Sq.ft. The project costs are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property ovi.ers in the drainage area on a square foot basis. The estimated cost for a typical 135' by 50' lot in the area is $675.00. The estimates do not include costs for temporary or permanent easements necessary to construct the proposed storm sever system. 3 3 3 3 3 - 4 - RPT13946 ] 3 F L a a m a CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The project as reviewed herein is feasible as it relates to general engineering principals and construction procedures. Based on Information contained in this report, it is recoouoended that: 1. This report be adopted by the City of Orono as a guide for construction of the storm sewer improvements in the Navarre Heights Area. 2. The City conduct a legal and fiscal review of the project prior to a public hearing. 3. A public hearing be held to determine further action to be taken. The property owners in the drainage area that are proposed to be assessed should be notified for hearing purposes. 4. The following schedule be followed if the project is to proceed: Receive Preliminary Report Hold Public Hearing Order Plans and Specifications Approve Plans and Specifications Receive Bids Award Contract Start Construction Complete Construction April 24, 1989 May 22, 1989 May 22, 1989 June 26, 1989 July 28, 1989 August 14, 1989 August 28, 1989 October 13, 1989 n RPT13946 - 5 - D j “1 j J 1 3 3 3 300 170 7 1 Lin.ft. Lin.ft. Each Each LUMP SUH 2,000 Sq.yds 80 Sq.yds APPENDIX COST ESTIMATE NAVARRE HEIGHTS STORM SEVER IMPROVEMENT ORONO, MINNESOTA 15* RCP % $20.00/Lin.ft. 18" RCP 8 $25.00/Lin.ft. Catch basin | $800.00/Each 18" RCP apron § S*<no. 00/Each Tree removal % $500.00 Sod 8 $3.00/Sq.yds. Street replacement 8 $15.00/Sq.yds. 5Z Contingencies Total Constructio.i 152 Legal, Engmg., Admin. & Bond Interest 52 Bonding & Capitalize Interest Total Project Cost $ 6,000.00 4.250.00 5.600.00 300.00 500.00 6,000.00 1.200.00 $23,850.00 1.200.00 $25,050.00 3.750.00 $28,800.00 1.450.00 $30,250.00 3 RPT13946 - 6 - ] ] m J ] IL 1 NAVARRE HEIGHTS STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS DRAINAGE AREA ORONO, MINNESOTA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------j l/l|aanM(reo f4 AnOmrllk 4 |\J|AMoetalM .................... ' Dote: 4/20/89 ' Comin. 13946 Fig. No 1 ^ - ■ .................... ^-23“89 Orono City Council Crystal Bay, MN. Subject: ReneHal of Employment Contract for City Administrator Dear Mayor and CounciInerobers: Back in February I wrote to you and requested a review of the Orono Police Department. Due to what I perceive to be little interest on beSa.’.f of the City, the Mayor, and most of the Council, I wrote a letter to a local paper. Since then, I have received many telephone calls from other interested citizens. I have also had conversations with officl^ilB from neishboring cities concerned with Orono's administration and its effect on their cities. I am certain that the City Administrator is aware of my concei ns, but the only official response I received was a phone call from the police chief. He reviewed irrelevant issues, like speed postings on County Road IS, etc. It has been disappointing to roe that the City Administrator has not had enough interest to call me. Residents of Orono should be able to express valid concerns and should be able to expect the courtesy of a response. It appears one of two conditions exist: First, ihat the concerns are valid and Mr. Bernhardson would like to "sweep it under the rug". This would be extreniely irresponsible. Second, that he doesn’t know what is going on or is not interested in the concei'n» of the people for whom he should be working. I understand that the renewal of Mr. Bemharoson * s employment contract is under consideration. I request this contract not be renewed and a comprehensive study of the Orono Police and Orono City Administration be conducted. ! i ncere 1 y Dave T’eterson 2625 Fox Gt. Wsyzata, MM. 5S391 Copy to: Ron B/gnef:s, (editor of) The Sailor 41289.3 lb TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardsonf City Administratoi DATE: April 12, 1989 SUBJECT: Highway 12 Feasibility Studies Attachments: A. Trunk Highway 12 Sewer and Water Plan - Dated April 1989 B. City of Orono Capital Budget July/1988 ISSUE 1. Determination of directing the plans and sepcifications to be drawn for the following items; - Highway 12 sewer Part I - Highway Water system Highway 12 Sewer Part II will be brought forward once the alternatives are better refined. INTRODUCTION - One of the issues related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was provision of water and sewer for properties in that zone in order to complete the necessary rezoning. DISCUSSION - The Rebers* property currently is desiring diTefopraent and it would be appropriate at this time to undertake the necessary plans and specifications for these projects. In addition to the steps outlined later in this memo. There would need to be the attendent work to bond for the project and undertake the assessment prior to the October deadline if it s to be on the 1990 tax statements. Financing alternatives for the project are outlined on page 8-10. It is anticipated that it will be done with special assessment charges. The financing proposal will be finalized following meetings with the primary property owners. As there is a range of alternates and costs for the second part of the sewer, it is anticipated that the developers would "escrow" the money and that there would be a rebate of monies should the maximum cpst alternative not be undertaken. Whether the City proceeds independently with a water system or as an integrated system with Long Lake, the water main to s®jve the Otten and Rebers properties would need to be constructed. The Comprehensive Plan anticipated construction of a well even if integrated in the next few years. As more water users came on line, a larger water tower than Long Lake's probably would be needed to serve the entire system in the longer term. ALTERNATIVES - Issue 1. Directing Plans and Specs be Drawn 1. Direct Engineer to undertake. 2. Table consideration. 3. Choose not to undertake. The feasibility report recommended schedule is in error and should be revised as follows: Receive Preliminary Report and Order Plans and Specifications Approve Plans and Sepcifications Public Hearing and Award Bid April 24, 1989 May 22, 1989 June 12, 1989 June 26, 1989 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that plans and specifications be drawn and that these be brought back for approval at the May 22, 1989 Council meeting. At this time more definitive financing will be presented at which time a public hearing should be set in conjunction with consideration of bids for construction. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that the Council direct the Engineer to undertake the necessary plans and specifications for the Highway 12 sewer Part I and the water system. Ayes _, Nays _. Bonestroo RDsene Anderlik & Associates Engineers A Architects Ono G. Bonntroa PE Itaten W ltoi*ne. PE Joseph C. Afxieftac. PE Bradford A Lemoerg, PE Rtchard E Ibmer. PE. James C Otfon. PE Gienn «. Cooa. PE Thomas E. Noyes, PE Robert G. Schun«ht PE Marvin L. Sorvata. PE. Keith A. Gordon. PE. Richard 0/ Potter. PE. OonaM C. Burgardi. PE. Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. Mark A Hanson. PE. %d R. Ple>d. PE. Michael T Rautmann. PE BobeiT « Pfefferif. PE. David O. LoskoM. PE. Thomas W. PKerson. PC. Michacr C. Lynch. PC. James *. Maiand. PC. Kenneth P Anoerion, PE. Ke«h A Bachmann. PE. Mark R Hotti. PC. Robert C Pussek. A I.A. Thomas E Angus. PE. Howard A Sanford. PC. Charles A Erickson Leo M. Paweisky Harlan M. Ofion Susan M. Eberim Mark A^ Seip April 20. 1989 City of Orono 133S Brovn Road South Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55369 Re: Trunk Highway 12 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Our File No. 13939 Gentleoen: Transmitted herewith are ten (10) copies of our report for the Trunk Highway 12 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main extension for the City of Omon for your review. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. R0SE.NE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Glenn R. Cook. P.E. GRC:kf 013939R 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 I t I I I I I I I I I I I I B B Report Trunk Highway 12 Sanitary Sewer & Water Main Improvements Project No. 89-1 Orono, Minnesota 1989 File No. 13939 Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineers A Architects St. Paul, Minnesota B fl B B B Q Q B B B B a a a a B a REPORT ON TRUNK HIGHWAY 12 SANITARY SEVER AND WATER MAIN ORONO, MINNESOTA April. 1989 JAMES R. GRABEK J. DIANN GOETTEN BARBARA A. PETERSON EDVARD CALLAHAN ALLEN NETTLES MARK BERNHARDSON JOHN R. GERHARDSON TOM BARRETT MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER CITY ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CITY ATTORNEY BONESTRCO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 1 T1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Oro G BonpOToa PE ttoben W Rt»ene. PE Jowpti C Ametbk PE BratSbUJ A Lp»t<x^ PE HKhM) E Tum«. PE iam« C Olon PE Oftw R COU PE rhom« E Noyev PE Roben O Scfiun«M PE Marvm L SofvaU PE KMh A GoRlOfV PE Ricrvwd W Eosw. PE OorvM C Bugaidi P£ Jffty A Bounioo PE MatH A Hjmon PE 1M K Ecu. PE MKtwrt T R8utm»nrv PE Uncut R PW^rte PE DavKi O Lotkota PE ThonvM W Pftttw PE Mictiaet C Lynch. PE Jamrt R Maiand PE Kmnrth P AnOmon PE KMh A Bachmann PE Mark R RoRv PE Robert C Ruuek. AI A rnofTvw E Aiiqui PE Howard A Sanford PE Danirt J Edgertorv PE Mark A Sefi PE Phllp J Caiwe* PE Mark O VMRiv PE Thomat R Andenon. AIA Gary F Ryiarvjer PE Charter A Erickvxi LeoM Pawehky HarlanM Ohon Suia.r M Eberkn. C P A Engineers A Architects April 10, 1989 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono 1335 Bro%m Road South Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55369 Re I Trunk Highway 12 Sanitary Sever and Water Main Our File No. 13939 Dear Mayor and Council: Transmitted herewith is the report for the Trunk Highway 12 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main extension. This report ptuvides fit the extension of sanitary sever and water main to serve the Rebers SubJi'/ision and the proposed Otten Subdivision. This report also reviews the overall sanitary sewer system for the T.H. 12 Corridor Study Area. The report reviews the overall water system and provides options available to service the T.H. 12 Corridor Study area. We would be pleased to meet and discuss the contents of this report with the City Council and other interested parties at any mutually convenient time. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. GRCrkf I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Irofessional Engineer under the lavs of the State uf Minnesota. C > ^ . _____________ Glenn R. Cook, h.E. 013939R Date: April 10, 1989 Reg. No. 9451 I I 2335 \UtiX Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 a 0 a I a 3 3 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION DISCUSSION PROJECT COST AND FUNDING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE NO, 1. 2. 3. 5. 8. 11. 3 3 3 3 APPENDIX A - SANITARY SEVER COST ESTIMATES APPENDIX B - TRUNK SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATE APPENDIX C - WATER MAIN LATERAL COST ESTIMATE APPENDIX D - WELL, PUMPHOUSE & ELEVATED TOWER COST ESTIMATE FIGURE 1 - SANITARY SEWER FIGURE 2 - WATER MAIN 3 a - 2 - 013939R s a a a a a a a a a a a a nm nu D INTRODUCTION The City of Orono has ordered this report to determine the desirability of extending sanitary sever and water main to the Rebers Subdivision and the proposed Otten Subdivision. The extension of utilities to serve the area can be completed with or without the cooperation of Long Lake. The most cost effective system is the cooperative venture between cities. The proposed sever line extension will be coordinated with the property owners east and west of Willow Drive as easements will be required. The sewer alignment will be located as much as practical along future street alignments which will maximize the service to property along the route. The City of Orono has 116 units available in the Long Lake, Medina, Orono Interceptor. The Rebers Subdivision will use 25 units and the Otten Subdivision will use less than 10 units. The existing sever units were planned to be assigned to the property owners in the current service area along T.H. 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road. There has been no significant development in the area over the past several years. It is proposed to temporarily assign the existing unit to property currently developing. The sewer system would then be expanded at such a time as the currently available units are used. The property owners developing now would escrow into a trunk fund for future upgrading of the system. - 3 - 013939R B B B B B fl B B B B B B B fl a B B B B The water main is proposed to be looped from Willow Drive and T.H. 12. In the event Long Lake is not willing to provide water service, the City has two options. The City can begin a new water system or private wells can be developed in the Rebers and Otten Subdivision. - 4 - 013939R B B B B B B B B B B B S B B B B B B DISCUSSION This proposed project will consist of the construction of water main and sanitary sever to serve the Rebers and Otten Subdivision. The utilities will be extended along the alignment of future streets on the property. The sani­ tary sever line will be extended as a lateral line to provide service to the adjacent property. The water line will also be extended to provide lateral service. The proposed sanitary sever project would connect to the existing sanitary sever system at T.H. 12 vest of Villov Drive. The T.H. 12 Trunk Sanitary Sewer Report indicated that adequate capacity is not available for all future development proposed in the T.H. 12 Corridor Study. It is proposed that this project proceed; with the plan to expand the downstream system as demand requires. It will be necessary to provide adequate funding for the future system by developing a trunk sewer fund. The proposed sanitary sewer line would be extended north across T.H. 12 from the existing system to the location of a future street alignment. The sever line would be extended east along the street alignment to Willow Drive. The sever line would then be extended to the east line of the Otten property. The Rebens property would be served by a lift station to be constructed near T.H. 12 and Shaughnessy. The lift station would be pumped back to the gravity line through a six inch force main. The water main will be extended from the existing system provided approval can be obtained from the City of Long Lake. If the City of Long Lake - 5 - 013939R a 3 3 ri lJ Li 3 3 3 3 is not willing to allow additional connections, the City of Orono has two options for serving the area. The City of Orono can begin an independent water systea or the Rebers and Otten Subdivions can be served with private wells. The impleoentation of a City of Orono water system can begin with the construction of a well and pressure system. The City could also extend a line along Willow Drive to connect to the City of Medina sytem in Medina Morning- side. The construction of a water tower could take place as additional units are developed between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road. The first option choice would be to connect the water main to the Long Lake system. The water main connection would occur at two locations (T.H. 12 and Willow Drive, T.H. 12 and Shaughnessy) to provide a looped system. The water main would be extended north on Willow Drive to the proposed frontage road. Then east along the proposed frontage road to the Rebers property and then south to T.H. 12. The proposed water main would be 8 inch DIP with hydrants placed along the line for fire protection. The Rebers subdivision would connect to the main at two locations to provide a looped system within the subdivision. The second option would be to connect the water main to the Medina System at Medina Momingside. The main would be extended north along Willow Drive to Momingside Road in Medina. This proposed extension would require cooperation between the City of Medina and the City of Orono. 3 3 3 - 6 - 013939R 0 0 3 D n a a 0 a a a a a a a a a The Medina system consists of two drift wells (200 gpm and 100 gpm) and a pressure tank. There would not be adequate fire protection under this option and the City would have to plan to construct a water tower some time in the future. The City would still want an agreement with Long lake for fire protection until a new tower is constructed. The third option would be to construct a new well and pressure system (500 GPM) fy serve the Orono area. There would not be adequate fire protec­ tion under this option either and the City would have to plan for a future water tower. The agreement with Long lake for fire protection would also be necessary. This option would provide the City with the greatest independence. The water main for options two and three would connect to the Orono system near T.H. 12 and Willow Drive. The water main would extend north aloi . Willow Drive to the proposed frontage road. The water main would then be extended east to the Rebers subdivision. The water main would not be looped down to T.H. 12 to connect to the Long Lake system. The Rebers subdivision would connect to the system at two locations for looping purposes. We would propose to make a detailed study for the well and tower at such time as the City decides what option to follow. - 7 - 013939R Q I I a a a a a a n 0 Q PROJECT COSTAND FUNDING The project cost and funding alternatives are outlined in this section with a detailed cost es*-iv *■« provided in the appendix. The indicated project costs are as projected i-r tne 1989 construction season (ENR 4510). I, SANITARY SEWER A. Project Cost Pipe J & K (Lateral) Pipe J 6 K (Trunk) TOTAL $158,450.00 138,650.00 $297,100.00 Pipe B-2. C. D, C, Trunk (2)$518,150.00 * * Total Replacement > This would not be a part of the current project Partial replacement would be $160,750 less. B. Assessment Rates Lateral Sewer Rate 158,450 f 179 ■ $890.00/unit The lateral sewer is determined to benefit 179 units (69 - Rebers; 10 - Otten; 100 - others) Trunk 5 wer Rate Trunk Rate (1) - 138,600 t 329 $ 420.00/unit Trunk Rate (2) - 518,150 f 379 $1,370.00/unit There are two trunk rates - the first rate does not include Medina units and 150 other units (50 - Medina; 69 - Rebers; 10 - Otten; 250 - Others) - 8 - 013939R B B a B 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 C. Project Funding Units Lateral Rate Trunk Rate (1) Trunk Rate (2) Total Assessment Rebera 69 $ 890 420 1,370 $184,920 Ottens 10 $ 890 420 1,370 $26,800 Other 100 $ 890 420 __ ** $131,000 ** To be assessed when property is subdivided II. WATER MAIN A. Project Cost Option I - Long Lake Connection Water Main Lateral Option II - Medina Connection Water Main Lateral Water Main Trunk Elevated Tower (Future) Option III - Orono System Water Main Lateral Well & Pumphouse Elevated Tower (future) $101,400.00 $101,400.00 158.000.00 $260,300.00 $545,150.00 $101,400.00 329,650.00 $431,050.00 $545,150.00 - 9 013939R [] n D Q s Q 0 0 3 a Li 0 B. Assessaent Rates Option I Water Main Lateral $101,400 f 79 - $1,285.00/unit Option II Water Main Lateral 101.400 r 79 * - $1,285.00/unit Water Main Trunk 158,900 t 545 ♦ - $ 300.00/unit Elevated Tower (Future) 545.150 f 677 *♦ - $ 800.C0/unit Option III Water Main Lateral 101,400 f 79 Well I Pumphouse 329,650 * 545 Elev'ttled Tower (Future) 545,150 r 545 * - $1,285.00/unit « $ 600.00/unit - $1,000.00/unit * 545 units (69 - Rebers, 10 - Otten, 216 - Exist., 250 - 0th ** 677 units (69 - Rebers; 10 - Otten; 216 - Exist., 132 - Medi*. C. Project Funding Option 1 iJnits Lateral Rate Total Assessments Option II Rebers 69 1,285 $88,665 Ottens 10 1,285 $12,850 Units Rebers 69 Ottens 10 Others 250 Existins 216 Medina 132 Lateral Rate $161,285 $21,285 --—-- Water Main Trunk 300 300 300 300 — Elevated Tower 800 800 800 800 800 Total Assessment $164,565 $23,850 --—— Would end up with deficit financing of ($260,300 * 188,415 ■ $71,885) ■ ; - 10 - 013939R B I a a 3 a 3 3 3 1M 3 Rebers Ottens Others 69 10 466 $ 1,285 $ 1,285 — 600 600 600 1,000 1,000 1,000 $199,065 $28,850 Option III Units Lateral Rate Veil 6 Pximphouse Elevated Tower Total Assessment Would end up with deficit financing of (431,050 f 227,915) - $203,135 The proposed sanitary sewer extension (pipe J fc K) has been separated into a trunk rate and a lateral rate for funding purposes. The trunk cost includes the pipe overdepth, lift station and force main. The Medina units are not included in the Trunk Rate (1) as there is no benefit for this part of the project. The Trunk Rate (2) is proposed to be assessed to the Rebers & Ottens property at this time to provide cash flow for the current project. The proposed water main extension has also been separated into a trunk rate and a lateral rate. If Option 1 is followed the City would have to decide if they wanted to assess a trunk charge to Rebers and Ottens for future facilities. The trunk charge is proposed to be assessed to the Rebers and Ottens property at this time if options II or III are constructed. - U - 013939R u D 9 Q a [ 0 9 0 n nu nfan CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The project as reviewed herein is feasible as it relates to general engi> neering principals and construction procedures. Based on information con* tained in this report, it is reccmmended that) 1. This report be adopted by the City of Orono as a guide for con­ struction of the sanitary sewer system and water main system to serve the Rebers and Ottens Subdivions. 2. The City conduct a legal and fiscal review of the proposed proj­ ect prior to proceeding. 3. The City . v. n negotiations with the Citic? of Long Lake and Medina for reassignment of sewer units and expansion of the sewer system. 4. The City began negotiations with the cities of Long Lake and Medina to develop a cooperative water system agreement. 5. A public hearing be held to determine further action to be taken. The property owners in the Service Area should be notifed. 6. The following schedule be implemented for the project. Receive Preliminary Report Order Plans & Specifications Public Hearing Approve Plans & Specifications Bid Date Start Construction Complete Construction April 24, 1989 May 22, 1989 May 22, 1989 June 12, 1989 July 7, 1989 July 17, 1989 September 29, 1989 - 12 - 013939R a B B B B a B B B g 0 g 3 3 3 APPENDIX A SANITARY SEVER COST ESTIMATE 150 Lin.ft.8" PVC, 14’-16’ deep f $20.00/lin.ft.$3,000.00 150 Lin.ft. 8' PVC. 16'-18' deep % $22.00/lin.ft.3,300.00 1,950 Lin.ft.8" PVC. 18'-20* deep C $25.00/lin.ft.48,750.00 550 Lin.ft.8' PVC. 20'.22' deep | $30.00/lin.ft.16,500.00 150 Lin.ft.8- PVC, 22'-24' deep | $35.00/lin.ft.5,250.00 100 Lin.ft.Jack 8 PVC, C $200.00/lin.ft.20,000.00 1,050 Lin.ft.4* DIP force main f $12.00/lin.ft.12,600.00 14 Each Manholes 8 $l,000.00/ea.14,000.00 170 Lin.ft.MH depth greater than 8' | $100.00/lin.ft.17,000.00 14 Each 8' X 6” wye branches 8 $50.00/ea.700.00 40C Lin.ft.6" PVC service line 8 $10.00/lin.ft.4,000.00 3,350 Lin.ft.Class B-2 bedding 8 $3.00/lin.ft.10,050.00 3,350 Lin.ft.Trench compaction 8 $2.00/lin.ft.6,700.00 1 Each Lift Station 8 $50,000/ea.50,000.00 5 Ac.Seeding v/topsoil 8 $4,000.00/ac.20,000.00 100 S (j. y ds *Street restoration 8 $25.00/8q.yd.2,500.00 Subtotal $234,350.00 5Z Contingencies 11.700.00 Total Construction $246,050.00 4* 15Z Legal, Engineering, & Admin.36.900.00 $282,950.00 ■f 5Z Bonding & Capitalized Interest 14.150.00 Total Project Cost $297,100.00 - 13 - 013939R u Q 0 i Q D 2 2 I ij APPENDIX A (CONT’D) SANITARY SEVER LATERAL LINE COST ESTIMATE 2,950 Lin.ft.8* PVC, 14'-16' deep 8 $20.00/lin.ft.$59,000.00 14 Each Manholes 8 $l,000.00/ea.14,000.00 80 Lin.ft.MH depth greater than 8' 8 $100.00/Iin.ft.8,000.00 14 Each 8* X 6" .ye branches 8 $50.00/ea.700.00 400 Lin.ft.6" PVC service line 8 $10.00/lin.ft.4,000.00 3,350 Lin.ft.Class B-2 bedding 8 $3.00/lin.ft.10,050.00 3,350 Lin.ft.Trench compaction 8 $2.00/lin.ft.6,700.00 5 Ac.Seeding v/topsnll 8 $4,000.00/ac.20,000.00 100 Sq.yds.Street restoration 8 $25.00/sq.yd.2,500.00 Subtotal $124,950.00 52 Contingencies 6.250.00 Total Construction $131,200.00 4- 152 Legal, Engineering, & Admin.19.700.00 $150,900.00 4- 52 Bonding & Capitalized Interest 7.550.00 Total Project Cost $158,450.00 Sanitary Sever Trunk Cost - $297,100 * 158,450 - $138,650 - 14 - 013939R » 3 S 0 Q 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Q u APPENDIX B TRUNK SANITARY SEVER REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATE I. PARTIAL TRUNK LINE REPLACEMENT Pipe B2 Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E Total It. TOTAL TRUNK LINE REPLACEMENT Pipe B2 Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E Total ESTIMATED COST $127,700.00 43.350.00 97,000.00 89.350.00 $351,400.00 $127,700.00 43,350.00 201.500.00 145.600.00 $518,150.00 Number of Units Cost/Unit 518,150 f 379 - $1,370.00 - 15 - 013939R If Q Q Q 13 S D 0 0 u Q 3 3 3 3 3 APPENDIX C WATER MAIN LATERAL COST ESTIMATE CONNECT TO LONG LAKE SYSTEM 200 Lin.ft.6" DIP 1 $16.00/lin.ft.$3,200.00 2.400 Lin.ft.8* DIP % $18.00/lin.ft.43.200.00 6 Each 8- GV & box e $500.00/each 3,000.00 10 Each 6* GV & box 1 $400.00/each 4,000.00 8 Each Hydrant 8 $1.000.00/each 8,000.00 5.000 Lbs.Fittings I $1.00/lb.5,000.00 2.600 Lin.ft.Trench coopaction % $1.00/lln.£t.2,600.00 60 Lin.ft.Jack water main 8 $150.00/lln.ft.9,000.00 2 Each Cut Into existing 8" line 8 $1.000.00/each 2,000.00 Subtotal $80,000.00 5Z Contingencies 4.000.00 Total Construction $ 84,000.00 ^ 15Z Legal, Engineering. & Admin.12.600.00 $ 96.600.00 ■i* SZ Bonding & Capitalized Interest 4.800.00 Total Project Cost $101,400.00 - 16 - 013939R n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 C 3 3 3 APPENDIX C (CONT'Dl COST ESTIMATE WATER MAIN LATERAL CONNECT TO MEDINA MORNINGSIDE 200 Lin.ft.6' DIP % $16.00/lin.ft.$3,200.00 4,100 Lin.ft.8" DIP C $18.00/lin.ft.73,800.00 6 Each 8- GV fc box g $500.00/each 3,000.00 10 Each 6* GV 8 box % $400.00/each 4,000.00 5,000 Lbs.Fittings 1 $1.00/lb.5,000.00 3,300 Lin.ft.Trench compaction ^ $1.00/lin.ft.4,300.00 60 Lin.ft.Jack eater main | $150.00/lin.ft.9,000.00 2 Each Cut into existing 8* line f $1,000.00/each 2,000.00 5 Ac.Seed ¥/mulch & topsoil § $3.000.00/ac.15,000.00 200 Lin.ft.Street restoration § $30.00/lin.ft.6,000.00 Subtotal $125,300.00 5Z Contingencies 6.000.00 Total Construction $131,600.00 + 15Z Legal, Engineering, & Admin.19.750.00 $151,350.00 + 5Z Bonding & Capitalized Interest 7.500.00 Total Project Cost $158,900.00 013939R - 17 - 0 ii APPENDIX D (CONT*D) WELL, PUMPHOUSE & ELEVATED TOWER COST ESTIMATE I ] i 0 0 0 r! n im r 0 VELL & PUMPHOUSE Jordon Well Mt. Simon W< Test Drilling $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 Well Construction 110,000.00 200,000.00 Veil Puap 25,000.00 40,000.00 Pumphouse 100,000.00 100,000.00 Telemetry Control System 15.000.00 15.000.00 $260,000.00 $365,000.00 5Z Contingency 13,000.00 18.250.00 Total Construction $273,000.00 $383,250.00 5Z Legal, Admin., Eng.40.950.00 57.500.00 $313,950.00 $440,750.00 5Z Bonding k Cap. Interest 15.700.00 22.050.00 Total Project Cost $329,650.00 $462,800.00 ELEVATED TOWER Reservoir Construction (400,000 gal)$350,000.00 Foundation & Site Preparation 50,000.00 Controls 10,000.00 Connect to Existing Dlst. System 10,000.00 Cathodic Protectoln 10.000.00 5Z Contingency $430,000.00 21.500.00 Total Construction $451,500.00 ISZ Legal, Admin., Eng.67.700.00 5Z Bonding & Cap. Interest $519,200.00 25.950.00 Total Project Cost $545,150.00 013939R - 18 - o A RBSOLOTION ORDERING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR TRUNK HIGHWAY 12 SANITARY SEWER AND WATBRNAIN IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS# the City Engineer has prepared the preliminary plans for construction of municipal sanitary sewer and water lines in the Highway 12 area in Orono. NOW# THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono Council does hereby direct the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications and to advertise for bids for sanitary sewer and municipal water lines and appertainances for that area on Highway 12 from Brown Road North to Old Crystal Bay Road in the City of Orono . Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono# Minnesota at a regular meeting held April 24# 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin# City Clerk James R. GrabeJc# Mayor O 41189.4 /7 TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administratolj^ ^ April 11, 1989 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointments Attachments: A. Planning Commission Inter%’iews Memo Dated 4/3/89 ISSUE - 1. Appointment of individuals for the three terms that expired on March 31, 1989. 2. Appointment of a Chair and Vice Chair for the Planning Commission for April 1989 through March 1990. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's last meeting they interviewed two applicants for the position; Stephen Johnston and John Thiesse together with taking under consideration the appointments of Charles Kelley, Maureen Bellows and Sara Moos, who had expressed their continued interest in the positions. ALTERNATIVES - Issue 1. Planning Commission Appointments A. Appoint three individuals. B. Choose to table. C. Seek new applicants. Issue 2. Appointment of Chair and Vice Chair A. Select a Chair and Vice Chair. B. Table to the May 8, 1989 Council meeting. C. Take the Planning Commission's recommendation for Chair and Vice Chair. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that following appointment of three individuals that the appointments be made to the Chair and Vice Chair positions. Th(. Planning Commission recommended the continuance of Charles Kelley as Chair and Maureen Bellows as Vice Chair. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Orono City Council select _ , _ _ and _ for three year Planning Commission terms effectTve April 1, T5B9 together with appointing as Chair and _ as Vice Chair for one year terms. Ayes _, llays _. 32189.^ TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark E. Bernhradson, City Administrate DATE: April 3, 1989 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Interviews Attachments; A. Letters of Intent - Stephen Johnston - John Thiesse B. Proposed Questionaire C. Current Planning Commission Members D. Planning Commission Interview Memo Dated 3/22/89 E. Planning Commission Interview Memo Dated 4/15/88 ISSUE - Selection of individuals for the three terms that expire on March 31, 1989. INTRODUCTION - The Kelley, Planning Commission appointment terms of Maureen Bellows and Sara Moos expire March 31, to Charles - - -^, - - - - - - - 1989. All three have indicated their interest in continuing serve on the Commission. Attachment B outlines a proposed questionaire that could be used as a means for interviewing the candidates. In addition to those three a total of 2 individuals have expressed interest. The total list of individuals is as follows: Lake- Name Address Area shore Stephen M. Johnson 900 Norch Shore Dr. West Rural No John B. Thiesse 3845 Bayside Road Rural Yes ALTERNATIVES Issue 1. Interviews A. Conduct B. Continue and conclude the interviews the interviews for a later • meeting. Issue 2. Selection A. Make selection following completion. B. Table selection until April 24th meeting. C. Ask for further applications. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that following the interviews that the Council make a selection at the Council meeting. It should be noted that the Planning Commission supports the re­ appointment of the three existing members. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council selection _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ and _ _ _ _ _ _ _ for 3 year Planning Commission terms effective April 1, 1989. Ayes _, Nays 20 March, 1909 Mayor and City Council City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Planning Commission vacancy Ladies and Gentlemen: kn<^w. this city promotes and high . fact my wife holds a '>Z\t proLct°.nrprL^erve the wildlife aad habitat in this community. co"mmerclai and induetrial 'rpe^ona'i Although at times my ®Lt w“f, prope. 'anning and preservation desires, I haV workable compromises to these lltult'iont! ! ca^bring this skill to the Planning Commission. T >,=ne„e this skill makes me uniquely qualified to help resolve t^^^^"^"?ll”nc^^- -e H^%\«y^^rB%-p°:ss"^rL^%^ .ake regarding any questions you may have. Stephen M. Johnston 900 North Shore Drive West Mound, I innesota 55364 472 - 8007 (Evenings) 533 - 7595 (Days) STEPHEN M. JOHNSTON 900 North Shore Drive West Oiono, Minnesota ^5364 (612)472-8007 QUAUFICATIONS PROFILE Proven ability to perform effectively as a Civil Engineer in all areas of Municipal Engineering, in both the Public and Private sector. Skilled in working with government agencies and the general public. Possess good understanding of the workings and rcsponsibiliiies of various aspects of municipal government. Ability to work independently with little supervision. Able to delegate work effectively to others. Hold Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering. Excellent verbal and written communication skills. EXPERIENCE PROJECT ENGINEER (2/86 to present) Merila and Associates. Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Hired as Design Engineer to work primarily on Commercial Industrial and Multi-family Residential projects. Promoted to Project Engineer position designing Residential Developments. Position requires supervision of designers, draftsmen and inspectors. Entered below is a partial list of current and past projects; 1) Military Housing Site, Belle Fourche, SD - iiousing site for 60 families 2) Artograph Commercial Building. Plymouth, MN 3) Lemay Lake HiUs Townhomes, Eagan, MN - 48 Townhome sites 4) Bur Oak HiUs, Eagan. MN - 211 Residential Home sites 5) Lake Camelot Estates, Plymouth, MN - 196 Single-family Home sites - 320 Multi-family Home sites 6) Park Sq^jare Shopping Center, Brooklyn Park, MN Specific Responsibilities: Preparation of: - Concept Layouts for proposed develop inents - Preliminary Plat Documents - Environmental Assessment worksheets • preliminary a^d Final Cost Estimates - Government Agency Permit Applications (i.e., DNR, Watershed, Army Corps., HUD/FHA. etc.) Design - Site Grading Plans - Sanitary Sewer and Water - Storm Sewer and Detention Ponds - Streets, Parking Lots, Trails and Playground raciliues Have super/ised up to 12 technicians and design igincers concurrently Computer/CAD experience Management of projects during construction EXPERIENCE (Continued) CIVIL ENGINEER (6/81 to 2/86) City of Maple Grove, Maple Grove, Minnesota. Joined city staff as Engineering Aide to assist in projea inspection and drafting. Later returned as Engineering Administrative Technician and gained experience in additional areas, including: project bonding, casement document preparation, subdivision platting requirements and the preparation of developers’ agreements. Promoted to Qvil Engineer. Responsibilities included: - Preparing Assessment Roles upon project completion - Reviewing Site Plans to ensure they met with Qty Standards - Granting approval on Grading and Development Plans - Designing Street and Utility Projects and seeing them through to completion - Preparing and submitting special Reports on Long-range Capital Improvement Planning - Overseeing and scheduling work for four Engineering Technicians - Establishing Procedures to minimize design/construction problems - Preparing Traffic Studies EDUCATION BACHELOR OF CIVIL ENGII'lEERING (1984) University of Minnesou, Minneapolis. Emphasis on Transportation/Municipal Engineering. Completed 95% of course-work in 1982 and finished whi ’e working full-time as a Civil Engineer at the City of Maple Grove. Continuing Education includes: Inspection, Pavement Design and Storm Sewer DesigTL REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL OVIL ENGINEER - State of Minnesota ACTNITIES Sigma Chi Fraternity - Vice President, Social Chariman, Chapter Editor Inter-Fraternity Council - Representative Twin City Power Boat Association - Secretary/Treasurer Minnesota Student Assembly University Senate Institute of Technology Student Board Softball, Golf. Camping REFERENCES Available upon request ttfR24l989 March 24, 1989 Ms. Jean Meibusth Zoning Administrator CITY OF ORONO 1335 Brown Road Orono, Minnesota 55356 Dear Jean: I would like to express my interest in one of the positions on the planning commission. Enclosed please find my resume. I have lived in Orono for less than one year and I have no previous community service experience, but I think my professional background and knowledge would be an asset to the commission. Thank you for your consideration. John Thiesse JOHNS. THIESSE PERSONAL ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 3845 Bayside Road Orono, Minnesota (612) 475-4085 55356 EDUCATION EXPERIENCE 1983-PRESENT 1982-1983 1981 1972-1979 AFFILIATIONS: 1979-Present UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, MINNEAPOLIS Bachelor of Civil Engineering, 1983 STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. Suite 150 One Carlson Parkway North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Major projects include: The University of Minnesota East Bank Parking Facility and the Three Downtown Third Avenue Distributor Parking structures in Minneapolis. Other experience includes miscellaneous residential structural design and some state bridge design. Majority of experience is in post- tensioned concrete design using STAAD- III and POSTEN computer programs. ST. ANTHONY FALLS HYDRAULIC LABORATORY Minneapolis, Minnesota ENGINEER ASSISTANT: Assisted in the design and fabrication of hydraulic models used for design studies. VOGT HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING St. Louis Park, Minnesota INSTALLER: Summer employment installing commercial and residential heating and air conditioning duct work. WACHHOLZ MASONRY, INC. Waconia, Minnesota MASON: Journeyman mason in construction of light commercial and residential masonry structures. American Society of Civil Engineers W « '&»tW?S****- '.i'.?Vi PLAimxm: comnxssxoh inmniws rOSXTXOII QOBSTXOIIAXM 1. Sumary of adueatlon and axpar anea backgroundi 2* What Intataatad you about aarvlca on tha Planning Comlaaloni i TTAciH^neiOT 420tt.. Optional 3. Hava you had an opportunity toi a. ) Attand a Planning Comiaalon naatlng b. j Raviaw tha Coaerahanaiva Plan e.) Raviaa tha toning Coda 4. Ara you faaillar alth tha aaatlng achadula and Planning Ccauilaaion dutlas. n 1988 DIBBCTORT OP CITT OFFICIALS AHD EMPLOYE] NAMB 6 TITLE/*?ERM PlffTtninq Comnigaion Charles Kelley (Chairman) 3-31-o9 Rural Maureen Bellows (Vice-Chair) 3-31-89 At Large * Sara Moos 3-31-89 Rural Jim Hanson 3-31-91 At Large Edward M. Cohen 3-31-91 At Large Jeffrey Johnson 3-31-90 Urban ADDRESS 2720 White Oak Circle Long Lake, MN 55356 265 South Brown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 2160 Webber Hills Road Wayzata, MM 55391 884 Dakota Avenue Long Lake, MN 55356 519 M. Ferndale Road Wayzata, MN 55391 3825 Cherry Avenue Mound, MN 55364 Edward C. Brown III 3-31-90 355 N. Stubbs Bay Road Long Lake, MN 55356 32289.3 1) TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato)^^ DATS: March 22. 1989 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Interviews INTRODUCTION - Because of the difficulty in locating the names of past applicants the staff did not send out requests to previous applicants to determine their interest until the week of March 20, 1989. Because of this the interviews have been delayed from the March 27th meeting to the April 10, 1989 meeting. The staff will attempt to send out resumes on those interested individuals at least a week prior to that Council meeting. It should be noted that the notice for solicitation of other applications was placed in the Pioneer newspaper March 13th and the Wayzata Weekly News has not printed the news article. To date no new responses have been received in response to those and three oral affirmations from the Planning Commission members whose terms shall expire as of this March. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council accept the information from the staff and table the interviews until the April 10, 1989 meeting. Ayes .. Nays . STEPHEN M, JOHNSTON 900 North Shore Drive West Orono, Minnesota 55364 (612)472-8007 QUAUFICATIONS PROFILE Proven ability to perform effectively as a Civil Engineer in all areas of Municipal Engineering, in both the Public and Private sector. Skilled in working with government agencies and the general public. Possess good understanding of the workings and responsibilides of various aspects of municipal government. Ability to work independently with little supervision. Able to delegate work effectively to others. Hold Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering. Excellent verbal and wrinen communication skills. EXPERIENCE PROJECT ENGINEER (2/86 to present) Merila and Associates, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Hired as Design Engineer to work primarily on Commercial Industrial and Multi-family Residential projects. Promoted to Project Engineer position designing Residential Developments. Position requires supervision of designers, draftsmen and inspectors. Entered below is a partial list of current and past projects: 1) Military Housing Site, Belle Fourche, SD - Housing site for 60 families 2) Anograph Commercial Building, Plymouth, MN 3) Lemay Lake Hills Townhomes, Eagan, MN - 48 Townhomc sites 4) Bur Oak Hills, Eagan. MN - 211 Residential Home sites 5) Lake Camelot Estates, Plymouth, MN -196 Single-family Home sites - 320 Multi-family Home sites 6) Park Square Shopping Center, Brooklyn Park, MN Specific Responsibilities: Preparation of: - Concept Layouts for proposed developments - Preliminary Plat Documents - Environmental Assessment worksheets - Preliminary and Final Cost Estimates - Government Agency Permit Applications (i.e., DNR, Watershed, Army Corps., HUD/FHA, etc.) Design: - Site Grading Plans - Sanitary Sewer and Water - Storm Sewer and Detention Ponds - Streets, Parking Lots, Trails and Playground Facilities Have supervised up to 12 technicians and design engineers concurrently Computer/CAD experience Management of projects during construction mm w TT#<iM4\^Tjrr ^ 41S88.2 TOt Hayor and City Council Mark Barnhardaon, City Admlnlatrato MTBt April IS, 1988 BQIJKTi Planning Coamiaaion Xntarvlaws CGUnCiLr.'!t£TiNG APR 2 51988 CITYOFORONO Attachaantsi A. Lattara of Zntant B. C. 0. Sara Mooa Robart L. Mlnkaaa Staphan N, Johnaten Oala A. Chrlatanaan Laatar Rallay Curtla Quady Propoaad Quaationalra Currant Planning Comnlasion Maabara Ordlnanca 2.SI (aa aaandad by Ordinanea 31, Second Sarlea a) b) c) d) a). f). ZSSOE - It Conducting Intervlawa of Intarcated candldataa for tha vacancy on tha Planning Coanlaaion. 2. Salacting an individual to fill the vacancy created by tha realgnatlon of Paul '•aylor. ?•. Bavlaw of dealgnatlona to aea If paraona currently on tha Planning Coanlaaion need to have dealgnatlona changed In order to neat tha guidelines aetforth In Attachment D. V I5I??0?CTI05 - with the realgnatlon of Paul Taylor, who haa bean a rural repraaantatlva on the Planning Coanlaaion, the City staff was directed to advartlae In tha paper together with sanding letters to those who last year had Indicated an Interest In tha Planning Coanlaaion together with Park Conmlsalon nembars. Additionally as noted In Attachement 0 tha Council had adopted an ordlnanca for tha appointment of Planning Conmlsalon that related not only to "Rural* (2), "At Large" (2) and "Urban" (2) dealgnatlona but also to "Lake" residence (1). Currently the only "Urban" representative Is Jeff Johnson, OISCUSSIOM - Issue 1. - Attachment B la appended to provide a format for tha intarvlaw of each of tha candidates who have Indicated an Interest. Issue 2. - Selection - The Council, to' i only on following Interviews, will — - ---------------- — ..annlng Commlsa persons oral presentation hut also the needs as they ne^ to appbiht'an'Individual for Planning C^mlsai'on'baVed 'not the peri---------------’ -------------------- - " ■ * • /I 'r*-. r.] '.'5' • V- 1..-^ “I ■■ -I .. - 'U I .V a* **< . A*' '' VI • .. *» rS;.’.-^ ^ k 3 > v^ ^-jv- ^s-| i-V--•'./■ '-V'- • • . . '< r*lat* to th« guldtlinos for rcpresvn ••etort of Orono. Sara Nooa Sobart L Minkaaa Staphan H. Johnston Dala a. Chrlatanoan Laster Rally Curtla Quady 216« wabbar Rill 32ft Bays Ida Ros( 9tt North Shora i 27SB Casco Point 2135 Colin Drlva 1223 Broan Road 1 lasua 3. - Dasignation - Tachnically ^linninB COMrralilon'iii&tra ara lakashor that tha individual daairad ia froa an ' ■ay ehooaa tj ra«*daaignata ona of tha thi all of whoa ara in tha *Rural” araa to acl daaignatlon. salaetion of a "Rural* da Conoiasion with ita praaant eompoalt: "Rural* and 1 "urban*. ALTBRNATXVBS - Xaaua 1. Xntarvlaw - l7'~Con<!uct and concluda tha int 2. Contlnua tha intarvlaw for « Xaaua 2. Salaetion * ■“ Ar~Maia"i*aelaction following cc B. Tabla aalaction until tha May C. Tabla until anothar aaatlng 0. Ask for furthar applications xaaua 3^ A. Daslg'nitV currant «ambara salaetion tonight B. Tabla to dataralna if it will aalaction at a subaaquant aaa RECOMMENDATION - Xt is raconmandad that t £fiat~tha~^Vhcll tabla any aalaction untl an appointnant at althar this maatlng oi still hava r.n appointnant In placa by t) May 15th Planning Commlsalon maatlng. achadulad for tha 2nd will not need to Council dafar any radaalgnatlon until suci ■ada. PROPOSED MOTION - Mnvad by aacondad following tha intarvlaws table aalaction ( May 9* 1988 Council maatlng. Ayas _ » Na V- S-^' ■ X' 'Th' t ■' • ; T '*A 3 41189.6 O o rTO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E, Bernhardsonr City Administrat DATS: April 11, 1989 SUBJECT: Planning Commission/Council Joint Meeting Agenda Attachment: A. Joint Meeting Memo Dated 4/5/89 ISSUE 1. Selection of time for the joint meeting. 2. Approval of preliminary agenda. ALTERNATIVES Issue 1. Time A. 5:30 B. 7:00 C. Table Issue 2. Topics A. Adopt agenda as proposed. B. Amend and adopt. C. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council set the time for the May 4, 1989 meeting at 5:30 p.m. at which time food will served and that they also adopt Attachment B as the tentative agenda for that meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, the the Council set May 4, 1989 at 5: 3T“ p.m. as the joint Planning Commission/Council meeting in addition Council also adopts Attachment B as the tentative agenda for the joint meeting. Ayes __, Nays __. o 4589.2 /. TO: Mayor and City Council PBOM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATS: April 5, 1989 SUBJECT: Planning Commissicn/Council Joint Meeting Attachment: A. Planning Commission/Council Joint Meeting Memo Dated 4/5/89 ISSUE - 1. Selection of a date by Council for a joint meeting. 2. Direction as to desired agenda topics. INTRODUCTION - At the joint meeting of Febuary 6, 1989, Council indicated a desire for a future joint meeting. DISCUSSION - Issue 1. - Date Presently a joint meeting has been set for Saturday July 29, 1989. Earlier dates could include Monday, May 1, 1989 Wednesday, May 3, 1989 Thursday, May 4, 1989 Tuesday, May 9, 1989 Wednesday, May 10, 1989 Tuesday, May 23, 1989 Wednesday, May 24, 1989 Thursday, May 25, 1989 In Attachment A Jeanne Mabusth has outlined possible topics for discussion at each meeting. ALTERNATIVES Issue 1. - Date 1. Select a date to be confirmed with Planning Commission. 2. Delay date until appointments completed. 3. Utilize the July 29, 1989 meeting. 4. Table for further discussion. Issue 2. - Topics 1. Select desired topics. 2. Table for futher discussion. 3. Indicate desired topics individually to staff prior to the meeting. 4. Take no a^'tion. RECOMMENDATION - That Council select 5/4/89 as a date for the joint meeting if appointments made by 4/24 and that desired topics for the meeting be communicated prior to 4/24 Council meeting so that they can be finaled at that meeting. PROPOSED JION - Moved by seconded by _, that Council selects 5/4/89 as the joint meeting of Planning Commission and Council and that CounciImembers communicate desired topics to staff prior to the Council's April 24, 1989, meeting so that the agenda for the joint meeting can be finaled by Council. Ayes __, Nays __. r^TmaiAeir ATo: Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth# Building & Zoning Administrator Date: April r>, 1989 Subject: Planning Commission/Council Joint Meeting List of Exhibits - Exhibit A - Agenda of 2/6/89 Exhibit B - Bernhardson's Memo of 2/14/89 Exhibit C - May Calendar At the February 6th joint meeting. Council requested that a second meeting be scheduled prior to the joint meeting of Saturday, July 29, 1989. It was agreed that the second meeting be scheduled sometime in early to mid spring. The calendar month of May has been enclosed with the dates highlighted to denote no conflict with previous scheduled City meetings. Staff would suggest that 2 or 3 dates be selected by the Council as available options for consideration by the Plannino Commission at their meeting of April 17th. By April 18th staff should be able to confirm the second joint meeting for the Council. Agcmda for Kay Joint Meeting Certain members of the Council have noted that it may be more appropriate for the Council to select the items for discussion. The last "2 item" agenda drafted by staff apparently failed to attain the original goal of the joint meeting, which was to provide open, friendly, intelligent discussion regarding the roles of both the Council ?nd the Planning Commission. In review of the February 6th agenda. Exhibit A, staff would ask that the Marina licensing item be re-scheduled for discussion at the May meeting. You may wish to provide Council with a copy of your memo dated 2/14/89, Exhibit B, that reviewed many of the topics and issues raised at the February 6th meeting. It would certainly be a benefit for the Planning Commission if an update or status report can be given on the following issues: 1. County Road 116. 2. Future Highway 12 3. Progress of facilities evaluations. 4. Navarre redevelopment. 5. Extension of water/sewer within the Highway 12 corridor. 6. Annexation. Please advise how you wish to proceed with drafting the agenda for the joint meeting. CITY OP ORCHO JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION 7:00 P.M. Monday, February 6, 1989 City Council Chambers 1. Council/Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities (Memo enclosed) 2. Marina Licensing (Memo previously sent under separate cover) Attachments: A. ) Planning Commission Roles/ResponsibUitie? Memo Dated 1/31/89 B. ^ Marina Licensing Memo Dated 1/27/89 cc: Department Heads 21489.2 B lO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrato DATS: February 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Joint Council/Planning Commission of February 6, 1989 Attachment: A. Planning Commission Minutes ’^xcerpt 2/17/89 At the joint Council/Planning Commission of February 6, 1989, the Planning Commission members raised a number ot 'ssues that were of concern to them. B«low is an attempted summary of those issues with response to the major items. I. P 1 ann j,n£_Comm i s s ion Information - The Planning Commission outlined a number of issues related to information provided to them in advance of the Planning Commission. These included: a. Completeness of information b. Level of information (too much verbage) c. Recommendations d. Initial communication of upcoming applications e. Information sheets outlining the basics f. receiving the information only two to three day.;# in advance. These issues have been reviewed by the Building and Zoning staff and myself and commencing with this Planning Commission they will transmit a copy of the legal notices together with a sketch of each of the applications to he Planning Commission two weeks prior to that meeting. In addition the staff will continue* to try to get * bulk of the information to the PT “nning Commission me^* #»rs by ivery on Wednesday with the fol .‘W up delivery c ay. * review by the staff indicated everyone should h bulk of the information four to c ve days in advance of t* .ning Commission meeting. In a review of previous Planning v ision meetings there are only a few applications in the last year that have been delayed because of lack of information. For the most part those were items that were delayed as a result of changes the applicant desired during the review process and which staff attempted to accoronoc'ate in a timely manner. Comprehensi v e Plan #2 - Highway 12 - The Planning Commr^sion raised a number of issues related to this including: a. Dislike of the process b. Piecemeal report c. Complaints about the author d. Persons not listened to during the review -f.ss e. Feeling that issues that came up in tue Rebers application should have been resolved in the Comprehensive Plan process f. A feeling that the Planning Commission had been bypassed in the process g. The fact that the actual process for Rebers was a combination of existing ordinance authority, which was allowed in Rebers* case but for which no alternate provision is available for non-resident i a 1 development. (Left unaddressed may have been some issues related to the proposed amendment for planned developments which were not specifically addressed by any of the Planning Commission members, but may have been alluded to by them.) The Highway 12 process was commenced under a different Planning Commission and Council in 1985. It attempted to get input from the people present as to the process to be undertaken including the way the process was conducted. Once the initial work of the study was over the draft document was actually prepared by staff (not the consultant) for presentation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission reviewed that draft and did go through area by area as to what they wanted on each of the properties. There is no comment regarding the quality of the draft during the review in any of the minutes or in the recollection of staff. The review of the Planning Commission recommendations together with those of the Council and what was submitted to the Metro Council indicate only one change from the original Planning Commission recommendation. This change entailed the northeast quarter of the property between Willow/Old Crystal Bay and Highway 12 and County Road Six. The Planning Commission had recommended that it not be sewered and the Council based on additional information concerning the marginal soils, allowed that area to be included within the MUSA line, however, retaining it at a two acre density. Witn that one exception documented, the recommendations given by Planning Commission were identical to those eventually approved by the Metro Council and adopted by the City. It must be remembered that the planning document is a comprehensive Pla^^ amendment and as such is drafted to meet the requirements of the Metro Council based on issu-^s they desire to be addressed. In addition there were areas where definitive proposals were not included to provide greater flexibility ^05 the City and the developer to come in with a specific proposal u- the time of de^’elopment. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan .j not to eliminate all the issues related to a development but take into account the major issues for which the Metro Council is concerned. Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities ^he Planning Commission spokesperson indicated two spe ic areas of concern: a. No time to allow for planning. b. No authority to decide in the case of variances. The intent of the meeting was specifically to find ways to assist the Planning Commission to do longer range planning together with determining if there were appropriate ways that were agreeable to Council to expand the Planning Commission's authority. The apparent tenor of the meeting indicated that the Planning Commission did not interpret what was being proposed in this light, and felt it was being proposed as a means to take away the little responsibility that they have. IV. Rebers* Subdivision - A couple of issues mentioned in this area included the fact that the Planning Commission felt that the presentation at one meeting of the preliminary subdivision application was confusing as to whether John Shardlow was an advocate for the developer or the City. Additionally it was the feeling that the whole process on Rebers' was muddled by threat of annexation. Response - A revi^»w of the documents specifically shows that John Shardlow was representing the City at the skecch plan review and the first public hearing for rczoning and subdivision although he happened to sit next to the developer the night of the Planning Commission consideration of the initial rezoning subdivision because other chairs in the Council room were occupied. He introduced he application as would City staff. The issue was raised by Mr. Shardlow at the time that it happened and staff expected it to have been an issue of short term duration. As for the issue of annexation, the Planning Commission reviewed the initial Comprehensive Plan in February/March timeframe of 1987. The Council began their consideration through the March/April timeframe and during this period Long Lake indicated their desire to annex all the property on the north side of Highway 12. This was reiterated in a letter to the City of Long Lake of June *87, during the Council's review of the amendment process and prior to their final vote for submission to Metro Council. This was very visible as these letters were presented at the public meetings at which at least a couple of the Planning Commission members were present as representatives. V. Communications - In this area comments included: - The general comment that there was a breakdown in communication. "Us verses Them" A feeling of: A lack of understanding as to the Council's support of the rural character of Orono but more to the point "what is the Counci's planning philosophy for the city. Responses - Unforturiately, conimunications are in the eyes of the beholder and the intent of the meeting was to improve communications in a po«»^tive manner. To date the effect has been just the opposite. As for the issue of "Rural Character", it should be noted that a majority of the current residents in the community live in or around Lake Minnetonka on lots that are substantially below two acres. The "Rural Character" probably entails approximately 1/3 of the sites in Orono. The development of the "Rural Charater" was a function or the desire of the people who lived on Lake Minnetonka to protect the lake from non ­ point source pollution and came about as a result and not the primary goal of the Comprehensive Plan for the major area left undeveloped that remained to be developed. IV. Other Related Issues - Three other issues were raised which include: County Road 116 Future Highway 12 Executive sessions Response - The utilization of County Road Ilf as a minor arterial is outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan and has been on the City's MSA system since its development. Whether this is a minor arterial under Orono or County jurisdiction it is more appropriately an issue for the City Council than a planning issue for Planning Commission review as its status has already been determined. As for the future of Highway 12 it is anticipated that once a corridor selection process is undertaken. Planning Commissioners and Council together with other interested parties would be involved in that process to address particular land use concerns. It should be noted that the Planning Commission has not traditionally been involved in transportation planning issues. As far as the executive sessions are concerned their content is not apprporaitely discussed publicly but Planning Commission may not be aware that the scope the Council can utilize in conducting them is limited to the following issues: A. Land acquision discussions. B. Pending or current litigation. C. Labor relations contract discussions. The Council has been very diligent in limiting their use of executive sessions and ^oes not use or encourage excessive discussion for theie items. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator 1 * c- 52 V I 1 .1^1^ sS«K^ k ^ •*■ '«•« »Vlm..i_ _ __ —-- > ^mm NZHOTSS OF THB PLAimillG COMMISSION MEETING wgT^ PEBROARY #1108 NcGOWES CONTIMUED It was moved by Taylor, seconded by ChairnL reconunend approval per staff reconunendatio to a survey verifying the actual loci existing driveway to determine what raeasuri taken for proper placement on Lot A (staf location). Motion, Ayes 6, Nays 0. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, HO. 2 - COHTINOATZON OP PUBLIC BEARING Consultant Planner John Shardlow wav pres matter. Ml City Administrator Bernhardson explaini Comprehensive Plan document presented is the of the Highway 12 Corridor Study which September 1985. The document implements th the comprehensive plan and will be pres< Metropolitan Council with the appropriate ap order that the city may have the appropriai extension approved by the Metro Council t< various other reviews by Met Council of impacts on the regional oystems. This planning' document Will also be used as development takes place within the corridor. He reviewed the following final items for Planning Comraissinn to conceptually review and make their recommendations: A. North Brown Road Alternatives B. Area 4 ~ Sid Rebers Property C. Area E - Requirement to Extend Municipal Services Request from Cici (Busy Beaver Day Care Center) to connect the new facility to the the Long Lake Cltv Water fc Sewer System. ^ D. Engineer’s Report - Concerning existing capacity cf Long Lake water system and impact of proposed Orono use at 600 sewer unit level. E. Eisenger - Written request to withdraw request for sower for consideracion with the current Comprehensive Plan Amendment. P. Further discussion of Areas 1,2,J, and 5. City Engineer, was present and made the following comments: 1. Regarding the traffic plan. Long Lake is opposed to any option that closes North Brown Road. 2. Regarding a south frontage road from Willow Drive to Daniel St., there is concern about the traffic on Daniel Street. 3. Regarding the water issue - Long Lake will review requests to hook up to its water system with conalderacion of demand and if Long Lake can support the system. ■ NZSOTBS OF THB PLANNIIIG COMMISSION MESTIMG mnjy FEBRQARY 17, 1987 COMPRXBI9ISIVS PLAN AMENDMENT CONTINUED 4. Regarding Sanitary Sewer service problems, the 600 units is a concern noting that there may be additional capacity in the interceptor line. He noted that the City of Long Lake would like to be kept involved in this planning procedure. John Shardlow noted that when the Metropolitan Council reviews the MUSA line, a public hearing will be held for the communities involved by the Council. Rodger Sense of the State Bank of Long Lake requested that the City consider them in negotiations regarding the future of North Brown Road since this is an integral part of access to the bank as well as to downtown shopping area of Long Lake. Marshall Levin of Pope Associates Architects voiced concern regarding the number of sewer units allocated to Area 3. Chairman Kexley noted that the 500 sewer units has always been an issue of negotiation with Long Lake and Medina, in which Orono cannot simply take these units. Dave Willits, 1900 West Farm Road, commented that he is a new resident who moved to Orono because of the 2 acre rural area requirements and feels there are many residents who are willing to pay the price to live in rural Orono who are not in favor of the proposed changes. Referring to the Corridor Study map. Chairman Kelley noted that there are no changes proposed in Areas A-E in which he is in agreement with. He asked the other Planning Commission members their feelings regarding Areas A-£. Taylor stated he felt comfortable with them continuing in their present state subject to the minor modifications such as: Area A - the previously approved use other than residential. Area E Finding the Cici request for sewer and water reasonable. Chairman Kelley stated that he would be opposed to sewer requests in Area E, but due to the need for a sprinkler system In the day care center, he approves of the request for water. Hanson would incorporate Area E in the line. MUSA ..yt»-v. ^ ■ . *, ':£?■ > • >; or TH« r««i« cc«issio- -mi* am rBB«um 17,1987 ™ r. ‘uS: ^vtenslon•« vr ensiuii • <1 w.i/.K in currently residential property R»gardin9 “llf'oid Crystal Bay Road batwaan tha on the west sida °^.ta/ll Cnai^n Kallay fait asrailroad tracks and Highway 12. !lb%»l“d‘bVV.lt :s-lV;. 2-acra residential area with no MUSA line extension.nw^rs a.*.*— ------- propw*.uj --------- - e.110.3 't'lJ%Blnlon"'*bu3 Bo".*haI*c City Administrator a request to Wlllmar Chamber of =»7Va *ata to Will" and possibly axtand tha '^7.” MnOot ha. indicated that eventually to anythinrhappshing and there la ^nVrutd^n^°^^."i^aVl^•Vor7n VxtlnsiVn an the forsaaebla future.JtU&UA.«. VxUVsioVwVrVoiVat VVy Vo"VnVluVVrn1h*i.'"pVaVnin, Study.scuuy. Planning Commission recommendation:: no change, in Area 1 ;^oVl1Ve%Vrin^'at‘=tV"2e"t^:mVnVd VoVatU!'''^'* SOfUiu «« r-- — Planning Commission concurred with Chairman opinioaiopinxoal. Planning Comm 1 a»i°n r^nemmendatt|ar^.arv 1" Ijn^.td%'li"n.tVVhVexisting traffic hazards. I i { i I' \r XV^.^I • i.r* *4. ►••k' V residentia1. ;rs^ tamns of the pummimc commissiom eebtino held FBiwiuuty 17. 1,87 COMPRBHEBSIVB PIAM ?JIESDNEBT COBTIHUSD Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron felt- areas would not be aMe to «un««v/ that soma which Is one good reaVon toaystea, (Pianned Residential DistA.ct) *”* ** '*“* designated single fami1y residential J'th n “•tland tha eastern half noting that w O" probleas where a so,! ution aa^i clMterlnS’^ plan to address housinq^exelT.dV«» '“"Piaplications. °'*sing excluding any econoale «^\7wVs?r\?d';onn^Ul?n!''S:Vs•i^.7 7 *"5 connecting to the MUSA linee ” ^«vor of Area Planning Conalssion concurred with ChslrmMn x-i 1 1opinion regarding the connection. Chalraan Kelley-s ai77l7ntTn"os“ be" adjacent" Dickey llkt Drive! °" * ’ J^eVed'a’rea?"""'"" ““ ‘’-"Varies of the B-1 ares and Chairman Kelley stated that, given the fact th«t s".7tr 7y.?I„T h"e7el7 il^Jou^d "b^^e^eVed--" «wl!ed ‘VrVa'" ba*ck“l5“o“ H*e l^lt 7 ‘h.acre alnlaua lot sizes.' strongly sbout 2- IsiiS ho5llA h should not be the seleV 1^ rh? ' "* "®* necessarily oppos.d to ?a«on-hi-^ sroa and felt there has been” f«?r?Si „h *>y Pobors. Shi M0SA^i7e^7d^7t7ia?t’ed•S:“2-‘!.c'’re \"oU.“‘"“’ *“• Hannon concurred with Bellows. V ■ Y 5^' ^* t. Z' r ■' •*;• - • . "■ A ** .‘ i .‘ irr • " v'-v. 7^;.t 4 ♦3 •■•** *" *” nmimo cowussioH ««ti»c hbu. fembu,, n, i,„ tSmSTW Orm» ____________awwaraisivE wjui AMEroHarr cobtimjeo r.'. '■ ■•■ I.;'-’ until a ,p.clfic proposal is Sutoitted?* to Planning anou^l_d 0. residential ^-a"crrio^%*Vlt ‘,?Vni?l%-e^ lnportait’thVt’a‘trill*iiysten*’bt'^d*" Kelley felt It Between t-,e schools into I^„g take ottVt°^!^u::y\T"' _____ public hearing was*closeT.*"'* public and the recommend «Pprov/l V/comoreh By Cohan, to including ?he ^coLended '’**!’ „o. t stated. Kotlon, Ayes 6, Nays Q_^^^^®*tlons previously *1080 CITE OF OROBO REZoilTC^*** * ^**0 BAYSIDB ROAO COMTIMOATIOII OF POBUC BURIMC meeting the"loVmeVapplicant*' John^M"^'* that the original rezonino aoni^H ^cOowell, was advised “odifled to Include onl^v would have to be properties within 1,000 feet of th***K®^ various Minnetonka. The application of Lake Mr. McDowell {.he additional ti order to give and evaluate the effects o" hi® Po.itloJ Since that meeting Mr. McDowli / s * «*«velopiaent. interest in the current rezoniro released all by staff. Because of th*e benei^^araended rezone this property, provi^no .hi fto controls i.e. h..rd^;,ver etc reconune.nds pursuing the ^^ty of Orono staff areas involved. application. she reviewed the IV • ewer ln''thtt sres*.''* Th^re®i". '’•“"1*“ plan, for determine if sewer needed and Progress to would happen would be two year, from now. ““‘’“••e It - ■■^;V • j.-;'V-. Av* vl !^y:» . hl}y vvU^rhH* V 'SuiT/fl^,^ I., 4 L- - N<* - I.*--*.jy -j^ /W»J «r fi, I*:M ill I w T ^ ^"9LiA! 1989 •-'S'. I -‘v'/;* ..ly ‘v '• ’)':; V 1 •{;•' i;;57’-bV •V'>'K'l .;v:'V*.j ’'vrv' •’ ! •. *•••mm 3-' ^,rv. .•■ •■.■'' F 5 ijifc a, ,1 i i Ip s 6 ;• I i ’!'•r •■ .i-f ^v'. r,b‘ai ;: ..••-I-. !.i 11 i:iBill v£ S 20 aolf^^c 27 ' -^OOtBKiA.'Eb . ': w^hterimm fl.'.V' .. : ■' 1^1! :• m:-f.,! ' * • » V •. •■/ . V- ;« .V 41189.2 / Q TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: April 11, 1989 SUBJECT: Waterfowl Relocation Program Attachments: ISSUE A. Waterfowl Removal Memo Dated 4/6/89 B. New Release/Waterfowl Relocation Program Dated 4/11/89 1. Provision of opportunity for the public to express their opinion regarding the City's possible granting of permission to allow the relocation of Canadian Geese from the community to another habitat. 2. Determination as to whether the City Council would grant the authority to relocate the Canadian Geese. 3. Determination of what funding, if any, the City would undertake to assist in removal. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A there has been interest by one neighborhood to have Canadian Geese relocated from their area. As noted in Attachment B notification was placed in the paper to inform people that the City of Orono was considering the possibility of allowing the relocation of Canadian Geese from the community. DISCUSSION - As noted last time the requirements of permits from the Department of Natural Resources the Federal Migratory Waterfowl Agency require a public opportunity (although not a public hearing per se) to comment on the City's participation in the program prior to its making a determination as to whether it wants to participate or not. The program is a humanitarian way of capturing the geese and relocatJ ig them to areas generally further south in rural areas that desire to have the birds located there. The cost of the program is about $1,000 per year and the neighborhood on Pheasant Lawn has indicated their willingness to contribute the total for 1989. It is anticipated that this program would be on a year to year basi dep ^ ng on what contributions the neighborhoods put forward. The City has not budgeted any money for participation in the program and presently there is only one other area that would be a candidate at this point, however, tha^ does not mean that in the future there would be other areas. ALTERNATIVES Issue 1. - Public Informational Meeting 1. Solicite comments. 2. Contine to next meeting for additional comments. Issue 2. - Granting Permission 1. Grant permission for the program generally. 2. Grant permission for a specific location. 3. Choose not to grant permission. 4. Table. Issue 3j_ - Financing 1. C oose not to participate. 2. Contribute an amount. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City Council absence substantial j^blic opposition to the contrary grant permission for the relocation of the Canadian Geese by the University program and that the City also contribute up to $200.00 in 1989 for the program. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , ««econded by , that the Council having publicly notified and alj,o*.od the opportunity for comment does grant its permission for participation in the program and is willing to contribute up to $200.00 for the program during 1989. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Dr. James Cooper Carol Burgess, 2800 Pheasant Road . I, Tos Mayor Grabek 5 Orono Council Members Froa: Mark E. Bernhardson# City Administrate Dates Airil 6, 1989 Subject: Waterfowl Removal ATTACHMENTS - A - Burgess Letter Dated 4/6/89 ISSUE - Determination as to whether the City wants to initiate the process for possible removal of Canadian geese in the sel - neighborhoods by holding a public ^ting on the matter, INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A, the neighbors in the Pheasant Lawn area have become concerned about the goose population which over the last several years ha« • -om a single pair of geese up to a couple hundred this last fall. It i understanding that a public meeting on the matter, "publicali> . iced" has to be held in advance of any removal done. The University desires to have a pretty good idea by the first of May of how many waterfowl removals they would be doing this summer, during a June/July time frame when the geese are not able to fly. DISCUTSION - The requirement for a public discussioi held by the City is established by Federal Migratory Bird Agency and DNR prior to issuance of their permit. The issues at the meeting will be as follows: A) Whether the City would permit the removal of such waterfowl. B) What funding if any the City would undertake to assist in the removal. As noted on Attachment A, the usual goose concentration reducti-n program costs about $1,0^J a year which removes approximately 95% of tne geese at that time, with a 30% return rate in subsequent years. Normally it takes them only 4 years to effectively reduce the population to one that is no longer a concentration. In addition, they recommend every 2 years after that an ad#"itional removal program. At present ^here have only been 2 areas of notable ^ 'centration, this one on Pheasant Lawn together wxvh the one on Shadywooo Road (which the latter is more than just geese. It also includes substantial numb»%is of ducksK The neighbors on Pheasant Lawn have indicated their desire tv fund it, but as noted in Attachment A, are soliciting assistance from the City on the matter. It should be noted that several suburban citi-^s have participated in, if not totally funded, the program in their rajpe.'^tive communities. Waterfowl Removal April 5, ly89 Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES - 1. Schedule a public discussion for April 24, 1989. 2. Choose not to set the discussion. 3. Table until a later time realizing that it would probably mean no removal this year. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City establish the public discussion to allow the opportunity this year for possible removal of the geese. PROPOSED MOTION Moved by _ _, seconded by _ _, that the Council establish April 24, 1989 as a date for the public hearing on the removal of waterfowl and that the appropriate notice published in the paper. Ayes -• nays cc: Carol Burgess Dr. James Cooper Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator CityofOrono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay.MN 55323 APR-6BB Dear Mr. Bernhardson: In response to our recent telephone conversation regarding the Canada Goose problem In the Pheasant Lawn area, we would like to request that the City of Orono begin a program to limit the Canada Goose population in our neighborhood. The Canada Goose population is increasing in the entire Twin Cities area at a rate which Is causing great concern. For those of use wTio live on Lake Minnetonka, the Goose population has become unmanagable. I have lived at 2800 Pheasant Road since 1967. When I moved to my home, there were nc geese In the area. The geese started settling inthemld70's. Each year sees a larger and larger flock as they return, nest, and raise their young. Last summer, there were three to four new broods for each adult pair. The summer population is probably around 50 geese, and. during the fall migration, over 200 geese were on my lawn. This proliferation of geese causes mariy problems. It is Impossible to use lawns for recreation without hours of clean-up. My beach area was completely unusable. Many families In the area have very young children, and the growing goose population poses a particular health and safety factor for them. I fiave tried to discourage the geese by stringing lines and flags all around my shoreline, but this has not proven to be effective. I was advised by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to harass the geese with noise, chasing, etc. Again, there have been no long-term effects. Last year , I spoke to Rick Denneson, the Orono Community Service Officer . and had him come to my home to personally see the effects of the growing goose flak. Mr. Denneson, after walking through my yard, agreed that the geese had made my lawn Impossible to use. Goose droppings were so heavy that he had trouble finding a spot to step. Mr. Denneson then conlated state and local agencies regarding the problem and how we could deal with it. No Information or atlon was initiated last year. However, this past winter, Kevin Walsh, Orono’s present Community Service Officer , Informed me that he was still working on problem. Recently, Mr. Walsh forwarded a letter to me from James Caper of the University of Minnesota outlining a Canada Goose control program. A copy of Professor Cooper's letter is enclosed. The residents of the Pheasant Lawn area are in favor of using this plan to limit the goose popu­ lation in our neighborhood. V/e realize that there is a financial commitment. We would hope that the City of Orono will work with us to implement this program and will participate with funding assistance. Many communities in the Twin Cities metro area are already doing so. Professor Caper has provided Pheasant Lawn with a spot on his schedule for this year . If all prelim inary steps (see accompanying letter) can be ancluded by May 1,1989, we can have the first stage of removal this summer. Thank you for your help. Please feel free to call on me If I can be of any assistana. .■Ydur^ truly,^iuui,9uuiy, ^^rol Burass C/Carol Burgess 2800 Pheasant Road Excelsior,MN 55331 #^19-47I-Q^R7 KEVIN WALSH Community Sp>vice Officer Office: 473-7710 Ni|fhU:644.9511 Emergency* 911 446 Willow Drive Long Lake. Minnesota 55356 On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka TY OF MINNESOTA- Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, College of Natural Resources St. Paul Minnesota 624-1223 55108 3/15/89 Mr. Rick Denneson P.O. Box 86 Orono, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Denneson: Sometime ago you requested information on Canada Goose population control. Sorry for the tardy response. We are prepared to help with the implementation of a Canada goose control program. The steps needed to get a program underway in 1989 and the agencies involved are: 1. Determine proposed target goose population reduction levels via discussions with city residents, feedback from press coverage, etc. (City) 2. Hold a public hearing to explain program and obtain additional input on acceptable population levels and reduction procedures (City, University, Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture). 3. Ascertain goose population size and distribution (University). 4. Obtain state and federal permits (University). 5. Capture and ship birds (University with cooperation of DNR and U. S. Department of Agriculture). 6. Monitor populations to determine additional removal level (University). 7. Conduct additional removal as needed under contract. The services provided by me include design of the removal program, public hearing participation, answering technical questions on goose ecology and management, humane and professional removal of problem geese, coordination of permits and bird disposal via the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. Based on our experiences elsewhere, the cost will beSlOOO per goose concentration site per year. It is my understanding that you wish to control the summer population at Long Lake, thus the cost would be $1,000 per year. These funds cover salaries for a crew of 6 University students, transportation, and equipment maintenance costs, etc. Capture and removal is done during the flightless period, extending from the second week of June to the first week of July. Because we have only three weeks to do removal, crews and equipment needs must be plan in advance, therefore, steps 1 and 2 ’ihouid be completed by 1 May, 1989. Based on previous research, I recommend a 4-year adult and young removal program to reduced the flock, followed by removals at two-year intervals to maintain low numbers. An alternative control method would be hunting by licensed hunters during the special early Canada goose hunting season or during the regular season. I recommend you contact Jon Parker, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (445-9393) for details. Sincerely yours. '^^***\— James A. Cooper Associate Professor cc. Roger Johnson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Jon Parker, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Richard Wetzel, U. S. Department of Agriculture 41189. HBIVS RBI.BASB - CITY OF OROHO WATERFOWL RELOCATION PROGRAM At the Orono City Council's April 24, 1989, meeting Council will discuss whether it will grant permission for the University of Minnesota Waterfowl Relocation Program under Dr. James Cooper to undertake the relocation of Canadian Geese from selected areas in the community. Dated 4/11/89 ; O To* Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator ProBs John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Dates April 21, 1989 Subjects Westonka County Road 15 Landscaping Plan 42189.3RD With the cooperation of Mound and Spring Park, the City of Orono participated in the cost sharing to allow the Westonka Chamber of Commerce to have prepared a landscaping plan to be used as a master plan for businesses and residents should they decide to do some landscaping on their own. The Westonka Chamber contracted with Mr. James Rohbin, Robbin Landscaping of Excelsior, Minnesota, to prepare the plan. Mr. Robbin will be present at the Council meeting to present the finished product. 42089.1 / TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrat DATE: April 19, 1989 SUBJECT: Facility Site Analysis jp Attachment; A. G & E Consultants Inc. Report Dated 4/18/89 ISSUE - Presentation to Council of additional information regarding Site B (Sewer Plant) and C (Highway 12/Old Crystal Bay Road.) INTRODUCTION - At the Council's March 13, 1989 meeting Council directed that soil borings be undertaken for both sites B and C. DISCUSSION - Attachment A represents the results of those soil samples that indicate that the soils themselves do not present a problem but a high groundwater table in both areas could be a problem during construction which would need to be rectified. Clarification to the extent of groundwater is forthcoming. The consultant architect is preparing an estimate of the additional construction costs that would be entailed to make the suggested adjustments for construction. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Discuss and raise any related issues that you desire to have answered. 3. Direct that additional cost data be gathered including related land prices. 4. Table for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council after raising any questions they may have regarding this matter direct staff to seek any additional information to develop the site cost data including preliminary cost of land. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that the Council having raised any additional issues they have related to this accept the information and directing staff and the consultant to get the needed cost information including land for development of the economic cost data for each site, tabling the matter until the May 8, 1989 meeting. Ayes __, Nays __. I r ILs GME CONSULTANTS, INC. MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA ■ :■ • ..•I'-X-'i'.*: . . ----- - ___• . 'i '--y 4 * V»»-- v .r^TV.«3 —rt^ rv - •_* '!T“yr*-* •' ‘;:r* ■■; .,^ ~ ~ . ..• -Jr.-:-------- -------/.. .. v-^ -- _____________________,>.w; • r • - r 1 ^ rrrrr^7r:rr~-«^ f 1 I I * *^ • ^ ... ^ ^ ^ '. */^*^**'^' ** *' ' ■“ • *' -1*1^ "‘.I.- .' • . *' "* - . - v-n V SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIOH T' ' —^ ■?*' ■ORONO CITY HAIJi’/ POLICE BUIIJ)IHa - *" PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY r- -' ‘ ^ CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA 6ME PROJECT NO. 1959 ■ -------------—^i—■»r' ■ ««•■> . ™ u . r ^ - -r. ^ jj-■’i-•» -i*-v;'* _. •• :•.......... '.'r '- «..• ..J.'. V. . , —• , .:•■... ■ •■ v.T ; . .... . - ,-n ^ ^. .JL*i;U:...v. ‘ •■-■»:t r '- * r-.-..-'«-*-*»'4"3* JS i-w V-— 'j rrfrJl'•• •• *-^' «i * .i. .. » . l ' i ,*;;*.*» *.»••» -m «. t..4. I I I J *.'■ • • «..■ .• .. . . •«. . -wtataa •. -^.;.>«-<t , .nf —^':r.,- -• ■«• ; .-.;-.*r;'. •■; *•■/::.-•; v •-* —:: ..•7r•’..:. :.*r • Trr^ ■' - . - r* . • • • — .. -r • .. i -' 1 her«b7 ctTtltr th*t this pimn. •p*olfleitlon. or p»popt na pTmuM ” ■'W^Prt.loT.«nd that I u ■ duly Beflstarad Pro/" feaslonal Engineer under the Aw ^ i .. the State of Minnesota.:/ .1 : , KEHMpB J. LaFOro ^ copyright, 1989 - ONE Consultants, Xne. .. '.’r GME CONSULTANTS, INC.^ V - - CONSULTING ENGINEERS:; - 14000 2l5t Av& Na / Mimapois. MN 55447 / 612/559-1859 1 11 ...—_ j jGerhardsoh ““ :, :r:V "pujjllc Works Director r« city of Orono -fr p.Or Box 66 "r ■ .•/■i:rATS^.:VA.r- ^ ----... gme Project No.-19593 . ■ W •• » . . ,■ M- ■ -» ■ •* 7>J Crystal Bay, hi-riesota ^ 55323 , .■------------------------------------------.......................................................................................................... - --• . ■. :. RE: - Subsurface exploration for proposed City Hall/Poiice Building - -—and Public Works Facility * (PWF) in Orono, Minnesota. . “•-rrrrrr* Dear Mr. Gerhardson: TJtiT ■ • -*. ■ Following your verbal authorization to proceed in response to bur March ^ r*: ^ — i ........i.. . .. l. . • - - ■ ~ - i. 1 20, 1989, proposal, we have completed the subsurface exploration for- - this project. - Enclosed please find • the results'^of^ our' field ' exploration and the soil report we have prepared. TVo copies of this report have been sent to the above address, and one copy to Mr. David Kroos of Boarmem 6 Associates, Inc. INTRODUCTION ■ . ... •• — City Hall/Poliee Building j^tte proposed structure would be one story mason'y bearing wall and V steel frame construction. There would be a basement under this structure. The building footprint would be approximately 14,000 square feet. No specific building design or loads are available at the time of this report. However, we anticipate the perimeter foundation loads GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS WILLIAM C. KWASNY. RE. THOMAS R VENEMA. RE. KENNETH J. LaFCND. PE WILLIAM E 8L0EMENDAL RE 1 I I i ii I i I Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 would be less than 2,000 pounds per lineal foot and individual column loads would be less than 100 kips per column. Public Works Facility The public works facility is to be a single story slab-on-grade steel fr^e structure with pre-engineered metal building components and pre­ cast concrete wall panels. The building would be approximat-'’y 16,000 sq[uare feet and would be heated. Estimated perimeter foundation loads would be less than 1,200 pounds per lineal foot. Pavement Areas The City Hall/Police Building and PWF buildings are not attached. Driveways and parking areas are proposed between the structures. The City Hall/Police Building traffic would likely be numerous daily passes of relatively light cars and vans, while the public wor)cs facility would likely have numerous passes of heavily loaded trucks and road maintenance equipment. There would probedsly be no limit of the weight of the vehicles, nor t*ie time of year when they could drive on the proposed bituminous surface. Site Selection Two sites have been chosen for study in this subsurface exploration program. Site B (borings 5, 6, and 7) is at the existing Metro Sewer OMI eOMtUlTAim. INC Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 Pond Facility on County Road 84. Site C (borings 1 through 4) is at the southwest comer of the intersection of Minnesota Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road. The existing conditions at the selected sites are further described in the Field Exploration portion of this report. The purposes of this report are to describe the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in our subsurface exploration; to review and evaluate these conditions with respect to the proposed project; and to present reconmendations for feasible methods of foundation and earthwork design and construction. EXPLORATION Seven borings were drilled for this project as shown on two Soil Boring Location Diagrams. The number, locations, and depths of the borings were specified to us by Boarman & Associates, Inc. The borings were staked in the field by a Geotechnical Engineer from our office, based on site plans provided by Boarman & Associates, Inc. Ground surface elevations at each of the borings were determined by our drill crew referenced to NGVD datum provided by the Orono City Engineer (BRA). The benchmark used at Site B was a doxible spike in a power pole on the north side of the sewer pond entrance road at 100 feet east of County Road 84, taken as elevation 941.07. The benchmark at Site C is •described as the southeast comer of the rop of the step on the east side of the house at the southwest comer of Old crystal Bay Road and Highway 12, taken as elevation 1027.69. •HM COMMJLTAMTS. INC. J I I I 1 I 1 Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 The borings at Site C were drilled using a Mobile B-24 drill rig, mounted on our John Deere 450 bulldozer. The bulldozer was necessary for access through the soft soil conditions encountered in the plowed com field. The borings at Site B were drilled with the same B-24 drill rig in a truck mounted configuration. The borings at both sites were advanced using both hollow and solid stem augers. Soil samples were obtained by the split barrel method in accordance with ASTM: D 1586. The Standard Penetration Values (N-values, blows per foot) recorded in the sampli ig procedure are shown on the respective logs. The N-values are used as an indication of the in-place density of cohesionless soils, and to a more approximate degree, the consistency of cohesive or semi-cohesive soils. Recovered samples were preliminarily classified in the field by the drill c: ew, sealed in jars to reduce moisture loss, and returned to our laboratory for examination and classification by a Geoter:hnical Engineer. The drill crew observed the borings for groundwater levels during and after completion r.f the drilling. These water level readings are shown in the Icwer left corner of the respective boring logs. A discussion of the groundwater conditions as found in the borings is presented under the Site Conditions section of this report. The boreholes were backfilled with cuttings upon completion of the drilling. 1 •Ml CO»SUI.TA«T«. IMC Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM The laboratory testing program was initiated by a Geotechnical Engineer examining each of the saunples to determine the major and minor soil components, while also noting the color, degree of saturation, and any lenses or seams found in the szunples. The Engineer directed that the moisture content and unconfined compressive strength (by hand penetrometer test) be determined for selected samples. The results of these tests are shown on the respective logs. The Engineer visually/manually classified the samples on the basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The letter symbol in parentheses following the written description on the boring logs is the estimated group symbol based on this system. A chart describing the Unified System is included in the Appendix of this report. The Engineer grouped the soils by type into the strata shown on the boring logs. The stratification ’ines shown on the logs are approximate; insitu, the transition .-tween soil types may be gradual or abrupt in both the horizontal and vertical directions. We will retain the soil samples from this program for 30 days after the date of this report. If you wish to have the samples retained beyond this time, we ask that you please advise us; otherwise, the samples will be discarded. MM COMULTAMTt, IMC. i] i I i f 1 ] I I ] f I I f I I I I I Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 SITE CONDITIONS Topoaraphy/Surfaea yaatnray Sit# B Site B is at the existing Metro Sever Pond Facility on County Road 84. The portion of the existing facility selected for the City Hall/Police Building is presently the top of a hill surrounded by wetland to the west and east and the sewer pond to the north. The site is partially covered with mature oak trees, and includes several stockpiles of roadway gravel in the area of the proposed parking and drive. The portion of this site selected for the public works facility is also high ground immediately west of the central portion of the sever pond. The ground cover includes mature pine trees and tall grass. Both drives for the proposed PWF building (west bound and south bound) would traverse a low area. The south drive passes ad-*acent to open water at the location of boring 5. It is our understanding the building and tank for the existing sever pond facility would not be razed for the proposed construction. The ground surface elevation ranges from 935.8 (boring 5) at the drive area at the southwest property corner, to 947.5 at boring 6 (City Hall/Pollce Building), and 949.4 at boring 7 (Public Works Facility). The elevation of the open water vest of boring 5 is 934.6, and the sewer pond is at 932.4. «MI eOMMILTANTt, INC. I Mr. John Gerhardson Sita C April 18, 1989 Sit3 C is presently a plowed com field. It is relatively flat with the exception of a slightly depressed area at boring 2 which had open water ponded at the siirface. The ground surface elevations r£Uige from 1021.0 (boring 2) to 1026.2 (boring 1). The entire area is approximately 3 to 4 feet below both Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12. Soil Conditions The soil conditions found in the borings are briefly described below. Please refer to the individual boring logs for greater detail. Site B At boring 5, we encountered 6.5 feet of very soft to firm organic clay at the surface. The underlying soils included firm to stiff sandy clay and dense silty sand. At borings 6 and 7, we encountered stiff to very stiff clay and medium dense clayey sandy silt, below the surficial thin root mat. Site C In this area, the borings encountered clay soils blended with organic material by tilling at the surface. At borings 2 and 4, the upper 3 MM OOmULTMITt. INC I I I I I ■ I I ■ ■ ■ ■ Mr. John Gerhardson 8 April 18, 1989 and 4 feet, respectively, were more organic than the surface soils at the other borings. The surface soils at boring 3 were loose silty sand, and boring 1 encountered stiff sandy clay. Otherwise, the soils encountered at all 4 borings were predominantly firm to very stiff clay and loose silt. Groundwater Conditions With the exception of borings 6 and 7, each of the boreholes encountered groundwater while sampling, and some encountered free groundwater in the open borehole prior to backfilling. The groundwater conditions are further discussed below. Also, please refer to the respective boring logs for greater detail. BlteB At boring 5, groundwater was encountered at 6 feet while ("rilling. The borehole caved in to a depth of 5 feet after removal of the hollow stem augers. On April 9, 1989, the water in the borehole had risen to 1.5 feet below the ground surface. This corresponds to a groundwater elevation of 934.3. This roughly matches the open water in the area immediately adjacent to the boring (elevation 934.6). No groundwater was encountered during or after drilling at borings 6 and 7. OMI COMBULTAMTS. IMC. Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 Site C Each of the borings at this site encountered groundwater at 3 to 7 feet below the ground surface while drilling. Wi^ the exception of boring 3, the borings encountered free groundwater after drilling. At boring 3, the borehole had caved in to 3 feet below the ground surface after removal of the hollow stem augers. At boring 2, the groundwater level had risen to 2.2 feet. However, the borehole had caved in to 2.4 feet after removal of the hollow stem augers. The groundwater levels encountered while sampling across the site ranged from 1017.5 to 1021.2. In clay soils such as encountered at both Sites B and C, an extended period of time is commonly required for the groundwater table to reach equilibrium in the boreholes. Consequently, the groundwater table is likely well edaove that reported immediately after the completion of drilling and could be a higher elevation theui observed while sampling. Further, perched groundwater conditions, such as encountered at the surface immediately adjacent to boring 2 can be expected. Perched groundwater occurs when water infiltrating from the surface is impeded by relatively low permeability soils. We performed a subsurface exploration at a site immediately north of Site C on the north side of Highway 12 in 1984. At that location, the groundwater was encountered at elevations ranging 1020 to 1019. OMI COmULTAMT*. IM& ] Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 The groundwater table will vary in elevation seasonally and annually, depending on local amounts of precipitation, evaporation, siirface runoff, and infiltration. REVIEW AND REGQ]ATIOKS DiaeuaeleB Detailed information regarding the proposed elevation of buildings or pavement is not available at this time for either site. However, based on the elevation of the existing pavement, we can estimate the amount of earthwork required for the proposed construction. Site B At this location, we anticipate no fill would be required for either the City Hall/Police Building or the Public Wor3cs Facility. Some fill may be required depending on the proposed grade of the parking and drive areas. Soil correction at the site for the building areas would likely be limited to removal of the thin vegetative mat at the surface of the high ground. Please refer to the Foundation Design, and Floor Sleib Subgrade sections of the report (presented below, for details on our recommendations. eoM8ULTA«Ta. me. Hr. John Gerhardson g April 18, 1989 At this location, the building would likely be required to raise the grade above the present elevation of either Highway 12 or Old Crystal Bay Road. Based on the present elevations, this would require approximately 5 feet of fill. Prior to filling, we recommend soil correction with removal of the organic soils at the surface and replacement with compacted fill in the building areas. The structures should not be supported on the organic soils or on fill placed over the organic soils. This design would result in excessive building settlement. Based on the soil borings, we would anticipate soil correction to depths of up to 4 feet for removal of organic topsoil. Foundation Desiem (Sites B and C) Where encountered, we recommend that the topsoil and any underlying soft layers encountered, be excavated from under the proposed building areas. It is probable that the groundwater table would be encountered during excavation at Site C. All water should be pumped out before any fill is placed. The excavation should be laterally oversized at least 1 foot beyond the outside edge of footings for each foot of fill recpiired below footings. We recommend that the fill be non-organic soil, either cohesive soil with low plasticity, or granular soils. However, the first lift of fill below the water table should be medium to coarse sand with less than 8% p<issing the No. 200 sieve, due to wet ONM eOMSULTAUrrS, INC. )] I I 1 Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 conditions at the base of the excavation. The remaining fill could be more cohesive soils. The backfill should be placed at a moisture content within 2% above or below the optimum moisture content as determined by laboratory dry density (Standard Proctor). The fill should be placed in loose lifts about 6 to 8 inches thick, and mechanically compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density according to the Standard Proctor Test, ASTM: D 698. We recommend that all exterior footings be embedded at least 4 feet below final grade to provide protection from frost penetration. Where the area immediately adjacent to the perimeter of the buildings will be kept free of snow and ice during the winter months, we recommend that the perimeter footings be extended to 5 feet below grade to provide for additional protection from frost penetration. This commonly occurs at the entrance drives to the Public Works Facility and may also include portions of the City Hall/Police Building. Depending on site selection, we anticipate that footings at the recommended embedment depths would bear on soils ranging from select compacted backfill placed over a suitable non-organic subgrade, or on non-organic naturally-occurring clay and silt soils. Footings bearing on soils of the types described above, which are undisturbed and unfrozen at the time of construction, may be proportioned for a net allowable soil bearing pressure not to exceed 2,000 pounds per sq[uare foot. This refers to the pressure which may be transmitted to the bearing stratum in excess of the pressure from the surrounding depth OIM COMSULTAUTS. IM6. I I I -jz:: I I Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 of overburden. The factor of safety with respect to bearing for this design would exceed 3 _ _ 'irlrl •■•— V T -• . 14--.d, ‘ -r * y -'• ' .i.. - - - - We recommend that continuous footings have a minimum width of 20 inches and any isolated column footings have a minimum width of 36 inches, to avoid excessively narrow footings. Excessively narrow footings can greater.than estimated settlement due to localized shear failure of the soils. We estimate that settlements for this design would be on toe order of 3/4 inch to 1 inch, wito differential settlement on toe order of 1/2 inch. Floor siat> pubarade fflitea p r?) Depending on site selection, we anticipate toe floor slab subgrade to consist of select compacted fill or stiff naturally-occurring non- organic cohesive soils. These subgrade soils would be adequate to support toe floor loads for toe basement slab-on-grade construction. We recommend that any soils which are disturbed during construction operations be redensified in-place to at least 95% of toe maximum Standard Proctor dry density. We further recommend that toe final 6 inches of fill under toe floor slab be a properly graded clean granular "to reduce toe migration of moiatv^re upward towards toe base of toe slab. If the slab is to have a covering of any type (tile, carpeting, or wood), or if a surface treatment (sealer or paint) is to be used. OMI COmULTAMTI. IM& I Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 we recommend that a vapor barrier be placed over the snbgrade to further reduce the potential for moisture migration. Moisture migration to and through the concrete sleJ> can deunage coatings or coverings placed on the concrete floor. Me recommend that the floor sleds be designed and built in accordance with the recommendations of the Portland Cement Association and the American Concrete Institute. Floor slabs should have construction joints and control joints at appropriate spacings to reduce the potential for uncontrolled shrinkage cracking. We recommend that the floor slab base be wetted prior to placement of the concrete and the concrete be properly curing for at least 7 days after placement, using materials such as wet burlap and plastic. This type of curing helps to reduce uncontrolled shrinkage cracking as well as the potential for curling. Curling occurs when the top and bottom half of the slabs cure differently, particularly because of excessive moisture loss, either through the base of the slab or through the top of the slab. The floor slab should be cast independent of any interior columns or walls, to permit differential movement to occur without damage either to the walls or columns. Basement Design Me recommend that a perimeter drain system be installed around the outside of the foundation walls, at approximately bottom of footing elevation. The drain pipes should consist of slotted or perforated OMI eOMaULTAMTS. INC. Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 continuous plastic pipe, factory wrapped in a geofadsric to reduce the intrusion of fine grained soils. The backfill around and over the top of the drain pipe should be a free-draining granular material. We strongly recommend that the silty or sandy clay excavated on the site not be used as backfill around or eibove the drain pipe, since the soil would retard the flow of infiltrating water to the drain pipe. This could possibly lead to buildup of excessive hydrostatic pressure against the walls contributing to the potential for seepage through the walls. The material used as backfill should be a well-graded sand or sand and gravel mixture with less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve. We recommend that backfill around the outside of the wall be placed in loose lifts about 6 to 8 inches thick, compacted with small manual equipment to approximately 90% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density. Heavy vibratory compaction equipment should not be used immediately adjacent to or within about 10 feet of the foundation walls. This type of equipment can permanently impart excessive lateral stress against the walls which would not be accounted for by the Structural Engineer in the wall design. Soil compacted to the degree of density described above would have a moist unit weight of 110 to 120 pounds per cubic foot. Assuming that a partly mobilized active earth condition would develop, we recommend that the walls be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pounds per cubic foot. OMI eOMtULTMTrS. INC. Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 Appurtenant Structures We recommend that the subgrade under all exterior slabs, sidewalks, or garage aprons adjacent to the buildings be a non-frost susceptible soil to a depth of at least 4 feet. This would reduce the characteristic heave which occurs when cohesive or semi-cohesive soils freeze. The heave can damage the slabs and the structure, and jam door entries. The materials used as a non-frost susceptible soil should be medium to coarse sand with less than 3% passing the No. 200 sieve. Utility Trmnch Backfill Depending on site selection and routing of the utilities, it is possible that the alignment of the utility trenches may traverse low areas. »lherever possible, we suggest avoiding the low areas for the utility trenches. If the utility trenches must traverse the low area, we recommend soil correction below the utility in the same manner as described for the building areas. Backfill above the utility trenches should reflect the use of the area above the trench. That is, in structural areas and/or pavement areas, the fill should be placed and compacted consistent with the requirements of the surface conditions. The soils used as utility trench backfill will likely consist of naturally-occurring cohesive soils. We recommend that utility trench OMI eONIULTMIT*. INC Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 backfill material under the streets and/or structural elements be placed in loose lifts on the order of 6 to 10 inches thick. The backfill Bhr^; be compacted to at least 97% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry We recommend that the contractor not be permitted to place utility trench backfill in excessively thick lifts, or under conditions where the soil is more than about 2% to 4% above the optimum moisture content. Inadequate compaction or wet to saturated backfill materials could cause distress to the overlying pavement section. We recommend that all utility contractors be informed of the need for adequate compaction and suitable moisture content for utility trench backfill at a pre-construccion meeting. Pavement flubarade f Bituminous paved parking will be placed around the exterior of the structures, and drives to Old Crystal Bay Road are proposed for both sites. We anticipate that the subgrade conditions of the parking lot and driveways would range from cohesive soils to deposits of organic soils. The least risk pavement construction would be to remove all the organic soils from below the pavement area. This would involve removal of organic soils to depths of 4 to 6.5 feet based on the borings, and could be deeper in areas away from our borings. If this option is not QMI eOMSULTJUKT*. IMC 1 I I I I ] I I 1 Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 economical, an alternative method is available. The alternate is dependent on the selection of the route of the utility lines. If utilities must be installed under the pavement section, ve recommend subcutting the organic soils from below the utilities as described 2d3ove. Our specific recommendations for pavement design are presented below in two alternatives. Pavement Beetiena over Oroanl^ Boils Proposed finished grades for the pavement sections have not been provided for either site; however, based on the elevation of the existing roadways, it is possible that up to 5 feet of fill may be placed for the proposed pavement areas. For this option, we recommend that the surface vegetation be removed and that a geofabric be placed beneath granular fill on top of the existing soils. The geofabric would, serve as a separation layer, and also contribute some strength. Fill used for pavements should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density. Some settlement of the pavements can be expected if the organic soils are not completely removed. The pavements would likely settle, but with the placement of fill, the settlement should be relatively uniform. To reduce post-construction settlement, surcharging with additional fill can be performed. This surcharge should be at least 3 feet above design pavement elevation and would be removed at the time final grading. We recommend that the pavement areas be allowed to MM coMMiLTAirra. iwe. Hr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 consolidate for approximately 1 year before the bituminous section is placed. We further recommend that the pavement areas be designed so that surface runoff would not be gathered in storm sewers. Rather, we recommend using sheet drainage to swales, dutches, or storm sewers at the the paved area. In the case i.f alternative pavement suL^ J.gher than normal pavement maintenance may be anticipated, and a thicker than normal pavement should be placed. Following placement of the geofabric and granular fill, the pavement base course and bitiuninous should be placed considering the pavement base course and surfacing parzuneters described below. Pavement Over Organics For this option, the stripping of the unsuitable soils should extend laterally beyond the outside edge of the pavement section at least 1 foot for every foot of fill required below the pavement. Fill necessary to reach design grades consist of non-organic soils free of any foreign material and debris. Since it will likely be necessary to import fill, we recommend that the fill material be relatively clean granular material (less than 8% passing the No. 200 sieve) to ease placement and compaction, and to improve pavement performance. Such granular fill should be used below the water table in any case. Fill should be placed to design grade in loose lifts no greater than approximately 8 inches and should be mechanically compacted to at least 95% of the maximum Standard Proctor (100% in the top 3 feet). MM eOMMILTAMTt. I«C. 9 Hr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 Baa# Course and Surfacing Since the aubgrade will likely consist of both naturally-occurring cohesive soils and select compacted fill, we recommend using an R-value of 15 for the pavement thickness design. The naturally-occurring cohesive soils on site are frost susceptible and easily disturbed when wetted. The pavement subgrade would undergo a temporary reduction in shear strength during the Spring thaw. Consequently, since traffic loadings through the facility would not be restricted, provisions should be made in the design to carry the maximum allowable load on the pavement during the weakest conditions of the subgrade. For this reason, the use of a layer of geotextile fabric immediately below the aggregate base course should be considered when designing the pavement section. The fabric acts as a barrier between the subgrade and base course, preventing migration and contamination of the base aggregates. When a pavement section is maintained in this way, extended pavement life can be expected. Prior to the placement of geofabric and the aggregate base course, the exposed subgrade should be test rolled with large heavy equipment, such as a fully loaded dump truck. The test rolling operation would help locate loose, soft, or wet zones not suitable for support of the pavement. The test rolling operation should be observed by a Geotechnical Engineer. Where excessive pumping or rutting is observed during the test rolling, those areas should be corrected or improved. WMI COMSULT aMTB. INC Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1985 After the subgrade has been properly prepared, the aggregate base course should be placed and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum Modified Proctor dry density. We recommend that the base course consist of 100% crushed rock meeting Mn/DOT Class 5 specifications. COMfiTROCTION CON8IDERATI0N8 Based on the information from the borings, we anticipate that rapid inflow of groundwater may be encountered during excavation to depths on the order of as little as 3 to 4 feet below existing grade in some areas on both sites. Any water which would enter excavations from surface runoff, precipitation, or groundwater seepage, should be promptly pumped out. The water should not be allowed to stand ponded over the soils in which foundations are to be constructed, to avoid softening and disturbing the soils. If winter construction is contemplated, we recommend that special precautions be followed. If excavation starts after frost has penetrated the soil, ripping may be needed for whic ntractors charge extra. Only unfrozen backfill should be used, and contractors may charge extra for importing unfrozen soil or keeping backfill from freezing. Clay soils would be especially difficult to work under cold, wet, and/or freezing ccnditions. The sidewalls of all excavations for this project must be properly sloped or sheeted and braced in accordance with pertinent OSHA OMI eOMSULTAMTt. INC Hr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 regulations. We recommend that all contractors involved with below grade construction on the site review pertinent OSHA documents to determine the safe slopes that may be cut into the soils of the types found at this site, as well as to review pertinent OSHA regulations regarding construction noise. The responsibility to provide safe working conditions on the site for earthwork, as well as below ^ade construction, is solely that of the contractors. This responsibility is not borne in any manner by GME Consultants, Inc. RAL OUAL1PICATIOW8 This report has been prepared based on the soil and groundwater conditions found in our borings, and on the development data related to us by Boarman & Associates. This report is intended solely for this project at the specific location discussed. If there are any changes in size, scope, elevations, structural loads, use or nature of the facility from that outlined in the Introduction of this report, or if our understanding of the project is incomplete or incorrect, we ask that we be notified in order that we may review our recommendations to determine if they are applicable. 1 I I Variable soil conditions w:»re found in our borings, and it is probable that additional variations exist that would not become apparent until construction starts. We recommend that the City retain the services of a Geotechnical Engineer at the time of construction to observe and test earthwork operations. We welcome the opportunity to provide •Ml COMMaTMITt. INC. Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 observation and testing services for this project. The soil and groundwater conditions for this project were determined at seven locations, spread over two sites. These conditions are pertinent only at the boring locations and under the environment existing at the time of our subsurface exploration. Variations in the soil conditions were encountered and it is probable that additional variations exist that cannot be determined from our borings or our site reconnaissemce. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is presented in this report with respect to the soil and groundwater conditions on this site. Contractors preparing estimates and bids for this project should not rely solely on the information in this report. Rather, they should conduct their own subsurface o j.. ^ration as they deem necessary and as they are permitted. STANDARD OP CARE The subsurface conditions at this site were determined at 7 borings, a number considered normal for this type of project. The borings Indicate variations in the subsurface conditions, and additional variations undoubtedly exist in other portions of the site. The recommendations contained in this report are based on our interpretation of the subsurface conditions and represent our professional opinions. These opinions were arrived at in accordance with currently accepted engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty is implied or intended. •Ml CONSUI.TAMT«. INC Mr. John Gerhardson April 18, 1989 He appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you for this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further assistance to you, we ask that you please contact us. Sincerely, GME consultants, INC. Prepared by:William E. Bloemendal, P.E. ^ Project Engineer / Reviewed by: WEB:KJL:kdc Kenneth J. LaFond, P.E. Chief Geotechnical Engineer •IM eOMSULTMTS. INC APPEHDIZ ASFE Notes Regarding Geotechnical Engineering Reports Soil Boring Location Diagram General Notes Soil Boring Logs Unified Soil Classification Chart Special Notes Regarding Placement of Compacted Fill Soils 0MI COaitUiTAMTB. INC IMPORIW INFORMAnON ABOUTYOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsurface conditions than any other factor As troublesome as sub ­ surface problems can be. their frequency and extent have been lessened considerably in recent years, thanks to the Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE). When ASFE was founded in 1969. subsurface problems were frequently being resolved through lawsuits. In fact, the situation had grown to such alarming proportions that consulting geotechnical engineers had the worst profes ­ sional liability record of all design professionals By 1980. ASFE-mfm^ consulting soil and foundation engineers fuid the best professional liability record. This dramatic turn-about can be attributed direaly to client acceptance of problem-solving programs and materials developed by ASFE for its mem­ bers' application. This acceptance was gatned because clients perceived the ASFE approach to be in their own best interests Disputes benefit only those who earn their living from others' disagreements The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, cost-c^er- runs and other costly headaches that can occur during a construaion project. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIOUE SET OF PRojEcr-sPEanc factors A geotechnical engineenng report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of proiea-spedfic factors These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration, the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, and the level of additional risk which the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory program To help avoid costly prob ­ lems consult the geotechnical engineer to determine how any faaors which change subsequent to the date of his report may affea his recommendations Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, your geotechnical engineenng report should not be used • When the nature of the proposed struaure is changed, for example. If an office building will be ereaed instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger­ ated warehouse will be built instead of an unrdrig- erated one; • when the size or configuration of the proposed structure is altered. • when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified; • when there is a change of ownership, or • for application to an adjacent site. A geotechnical engineer cannot accept responsibility for problems which may develop if he is not consulted after factors considered in his reports development have changed MOST GEOTECHNICAL "RNDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are taken. Data derived through sampling and subsequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by the geotechnical engineer who then renders an opinion about overall sub ­ surface conditions, their likely reaction to proposed con ­ struction aaivity. and appropriate foundation design. Even under optimal circumstances aaual conditions may differ from those opined to exist, because no geotechnical en ­ gineer. no matter how qualified, and no subsurface explo ­ ration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time For example, the actual Inte.face between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than the report indicates, and actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predic­ tions. Not/iiny can be done to pryent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their impact For this reason, most experienced owners retain ther geotechnical consultant through the construction stage, to Identify variances, conduct additional tests which may be need^. and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly- changing natural forces. B^use a geotechnical engineer ­ ing report is based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be basal on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time Speak with the geotechnical consultant to learn if additional tests are advisable before construc ­ tion starts Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes or groundwater fiuauations may also affect subsurface conditions and. thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report The geotechnical engineer should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Costly problems can occur when other design profession ­ als develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a geotechnical engineering report. To Kelp avoid these prob ­ lems. the geotechnical engineer should be retained to work with other appropnate design professionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to review the adequacy of therr plans and specifications relative to geotechnical issues BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE ENGINEERING REPORT Final boring logs are developed by the geotechnical en ­ gineer based upon his interpretation of field logs (assem ­ bled by site perjonnel) and laboratory evaluation of field samples Only final boring logs customarily are included In geotechnical engineering reports. Tfuxbgs sfiouU wot under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process Although photo ­ graphic reproduaion eliminates this problem. It does nothing to minimize the possibility of contractors misin- terpretating the logs during bid preparation. When this occurs, delays, disputes and unanticipated costs are the all-too-frequent result To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpretation. give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering report Those who do not provide such access may proce^ under the mistaken impression thot rimply disclaiming responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contrartors helps prevent costly ccnstruaion problems and the adversarial attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBIUTY CLAUSES CLOSELY Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgement and opinion, it is far less exaa than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical ronsultants. Tb help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed model clauses for use in wntten transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to foist the geotechnical engineers liabilities onto someone else. Rather, they are definitive clauses which identify where the geotedmical engineer's responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your geotechnical engineering report, and you are encouraged to read them closely Your geotechnical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE RISK Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to discuss other techniques which can be employed to miti­ gate risk. In addition, the Association of Soil and Founda ­ tion Engineers has developed a variety of matenals which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for a complimentary copy of its publications directory. I I i [ I [ t I c I I D I i P Publisfudby ASSOCIATION OF SOI AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/565-2733 »P06fl6 SM GENERAL NOTES I I I ] 1 I 1 1 1 ] DRILLING ft SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SL ss ST PA OB AS JS VS Standard SS with Liner bplit Spoon - 1 3/8" I.O., 2" O.D.. unless otherwise noted Shelby Tube — 2“ OD., unless otherwise noted OS : HS : WS ; Osterberg Sampler - 3" Shelby Tube (Hollow Stem Auger Wash Sample;Power Auger FT :Fish Trail:Diamond Bit - NX: BX: AX RB :Rock Bit:Auger Sample BS :Bulk Sample:Jar Sample PM :ProBuremeter test • in situ:\'ane Shear "N" Penatration:Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch 00 split spoon, excer* where noted. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL : Water Lavei WCI : Wet Cave In OCI : Dry Cave In WS ; While Sampling WO : While Orilling BCR : Before Casing Removal ACR: After Casing Removal AB After Boring Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. In impervious soils, the accurate determination of ground water elevations is not possible in even several days observation, and additional evidence of ground water elevations must besought. gradation description & TERMINOLOGY: Coarse Grained or Granular Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a 4^200 sieve; they are described as; boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a 4^200 sieve; they are described as; clays or clayey silts if they are cohesive, and silts if they are non<ohesive. In addition to gradation, granular soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their strength or consistency, and their plast<city. Major Component Of Sample Size Range Descriptive Term(s) (Of Components Also Present in Sample) Percent of Dry Weight Boulders Over 8 in. (200mm)Trace 1-9 Cobbles 8 in. to 3 in. (200mm to 75mm) Little 10- 19 Gravel 3 in. to ^4 sieve (75mm to 2mm) Some 20-34 Sand 4 to 4^200 Sieve And 35-50 Silt Clay (2mm to .074mm) Passing ^200 sieve i0.074mm to 0.005mm) Smaller than C.005mm CONSISTENCY OP JQHESIVE SOILS:RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS: Unconfinrd Comp. Strength. Qu. tsf <055 0.25 - 0.49 0.50 - 059 1.00- 1.99 2 .00 - 3 .99 4.00 - 8.00 >8.00 Consistency Very Soft Soft Medium (Firm) Stiff Very Stiff Flard Very Hard N - Blows/ft. 0-3 4-9 10-29 :<0-4O 50-80 80+ Relative Density Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Extremely Dense •aaa oMeauLTMiTa. i«c LOG OF BORING 1 PROJECT orono City Hall/Police Building _ _ _& Public Worics Facility SITE Orono, Minnesota CLIENT City of Orono ARCHITECT-ENGINEER Boarman & Associates i DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL SURFACE ELEVATION,1026.2 b UNCONFINEO COMPRESSrVE STRENGTH TONS/FT -o- 1 2 3 4 5 § I WATER CONTENT % STANDARD PENETRATION |BLOWS/FOOT) -0. 10 20 30 40 50 Dark gray sandy CLAY - stiff - (CL) 2SS 10 9 o A • 3SS Gray sandy SILT - loose - moist (ML) 4SS Gray CLAY - firm - (CL) 5SS 6SS Gray sandy CLAY - stiff - (CL) Brown clayey fine SAND - medium dense - moist - (SC) 0 Gray OAY - stiff - (a) 0 0 2&i 35* End of boring at 20 feet Hollov stem auger used full depth Borehole badcfilled with cuttings WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS WL \/ 5 feet while drillina WL W 8.3 feet after auqer WL.rpmnrval Cave in to 14 feet after auger removal POPING stapteo 3-31-89 L2^ OMICONtULTaNT«,INe.| HOPING COMPI.FTEO rwfe • Cmprrwrtur 14000 2lat Amtw N o Mm—oof. MN SS447 one* (812) SS9-18S9 4-3-89 1 RIG B-24 DRILLER GHH 1 DRAWN WFB APPROVED KJL .1 JOB«1959 SHEET 1 Of 7 The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types; insitu the transition may be pradual. LOG OF BORING 3 PROJECT orono City Hall/Police Building & Public Works Facility_ _ _ _ CLIENT City of Orono SITE Orono/ Minnesota architect -engineer Boaman & Associates & DESCRIPTION OP MATERIAL SURFACE ELEVATION,1024.5 nUl (O a. uj V) CL UNCONRNEO COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT -o- 1 2 3 4 5 WATER CONTENT % STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) -0- 10 20 30 40 50 ISS 2SS Gray clayey silty fine SAND, trace fine gravel, slightly organic at surface - loose - moist - (SM) ® 1 ® 3SS 4SS rrr 5SS i ess Tnr Gray mottled sandy SILT - loose moist - (ML) ® I I ® Gray CLAY - stiff to very stiff (CL) ® it 3<W 35X 39K End of boring at 20 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cutttings W,L \/ 7 feeh vhilp drilling WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Groundwater not encountered above cave in to 3 feet after auger removal OME CONSULTANTS, INC. I a«£^l 14000 ?1K A mm No I MN 5S447 Offw (81S) 559-1839 BORING started BORING COMPLETED 4-3-89 RIG B-24 DRAWN WEB JOB*1959 DRILLER CTff? approved KJL RMFFT 3 of 7 The stratification lines represent approximate boundanes between soil types: insitu the transition may be gradual LOG OF BORING 4 PROJECT orono City Hall/Police Building _ _ _ _ _& Public Works Facility_ _ _ _ _ SITE Orono » Minnesota CLIENT City of Orono architect -engineer Boannan & Associates I description of material SURFACE ELEVATION.1024.1 iiUJ (/) CL UJV) or UNCONffNED COMI*RESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT -o- 1 2 3 4 5 WATER CONTENT % STANDARD OENETPATION fBLOWS/FOOT) -0. 10 20 30 40 SO ISS Dark gray organic sandy CLAY stiff - (OL) 2SS 4' Gray iron stiined CLAY - firm - (CL) 4SS 5SS Grayish brown sandy CLAY - stiff to very stiff - (CL) 6SS TTP-ISS End of boring at 20 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings ml. WL I WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS . Wh'!^^ Hr-llling R fpoh after auoer removal Cave in to 10 feet after removal. Qp= 1.8 « :4 ® I ®22 i mi mi ® OWE CONSULTAN1S, INC. U—n— • Efw»t»»iNrwJ 14000 21k N o MmMEXiM. MN SVE47 OHM (612) SSS^IBSa BORING STARTED BORING COMPLETED 4-*^-RQ RIO B-24_ DRAWN WEB jOBH 1959 DRIILER GHH APPROVED KCL CHrPT4 of 7 The stratification liras represent spproxi. late bourxJanes between soil types: insitu the transition may be gradual LOG OF BORING 5 PROJECT orono City Hall/Police Building & Public Wbrlcs Facility CLIENT City of Orono SITE Orono, Minnesota ARCHITECT-ENGINEER Boarmn & Associates DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL SURFACE ELEV/TION 935.8 pS. ui <0 QC UNCONfINED COMPnCSSIVE STBENQTM TONS/FT.* -o- 1 WATER CONTENT % STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) -0- 10 20 30 40 50 ISS 2SS 3SS 4SS 5SS "5^6SS 77TT Black organic CLAY, trace roots very soft to firm - (OL)\ ® / <0 fig Gray sandy CLAY - firm - (CL)®. Gray silty medium to coarse SAND dense - wet - (SM) Gray sandy CLAY - stiff - (CL) ® 36% End of boring at 20 feet Hollow Ftem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings ^ IV { WL wn water level observations feet while drilling 5 feet on 4-12-89 BORING STARTED OME CONSULTANTB, INC.BORING COMPLETED 4-4-89 I 14000 NaI 4^1 MN 95447 •" ■ '■ ^ OffM (612) 599-1B99 RIO B-24 drawn web JOB*1959 DRILLER GHH APPROVED KJL SHEET 5 Of 7 The stratification II* les represent approximate boundaries * between soil types: insl*u the tran^itionjTiayJ)e_gradual^ LOG OF BORING 6 PROJECT Orono City Hall/Police Building & Public Wnrlcs Facility_________ CLIENT City of Orono SITE Drono. Minnesota architect -engineer Boannan & Associates S DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL SURFACE ELEVATION.947.5 si OL tii(O cc UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STPENOTH TONS/FT -o- 1 2 3 4 5 WATER CONTENT % STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) -0- 10 20 30 40 50 2SS 3SS 18 16 4SS TTr 5SS Brown sandy CLAY, trace fine gravel below 2 feet - very stiff - (CL) 6SS (S / 0 I 0 \ I 0 0 / 28% 25% End of boring at 20 feet Solid stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS . w Groundwater not encountered W L. W L BORING started OME CONtfULTANTB, INC. ■4>4>89 BORING COMPLETED 4-4-89 i4an 21* Na MmwoM. MN 95447 ■ Otfc* 1612) 599-1899 RIG -B-24- DRAWN WFP JOBt_1959 DRILLER Tpu APPROVED tr.TT. 6 Of 7 The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual 2SS 3SS ASS m. 6SS TTP- Light brown clayey sandy SILT, gravel - medium dense - dry - (ML) Brown sandy CLAY, trace gravel - very stiff - (CL) 17 19 End of boring at 20 feet Hollow stem auger used full depth Borehole backfilled with cuttings 16% \ 2> WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIO WL.nrpundwater not encountered L5^ OME CONSULTANTS. INC. GMtKtvm • 14000 21« AitwM Na MmMOCM. MN 55447 ONm 1612) 5SB-1BS9 bw RPRING STARTED rpring completed 4-4-89 RIG nRILLER rMH, DRAWN WP!B-APPROyfOKJL ,pR» ^ Qsg_CmFFT-7 nf The stratification lines represent approximate boundanes between soil thu transition may be gradual _ UNIFIED soil. CL.A88IFICATION 8Y8TEM (ASTM: D 2437) __________________________ I I g 0 IIII JS 1 I 0 1 I I 1 1 •* II *8 II I I |tr .1 it MalKfrwMfraMli. fiiKturai, IHtto or no fiMi Poorly podod roNli. fronol- and miiriura. ttttlo or no finN I*Ilf **Iis H ili li m I Silty trawoli. mlxtuTM Ooyoy mixturoi I KVoii^rodod sandt, travally ■andi. littia or no fiMi SP Pooriy gradid landi. frowllv ■ndi. littia or no finaa I iil 5 Silty andi. aandoih miaturaa SC Oayoy aandi. aand<lay mia- turaa I s| ll “I 3 Inorpanic aU8 and aory fina aandk rook flour, ailty or day oy fina aondi or dayay aUn with alight plaatidty g I TJ SV1 rM Inorganic daya of low to ma* dium plaaiicitv. grawaily daya. aandy daya. ailty daya. loan daya Organic ailtt and organic ailty daya of low plaaiicity Inorganic ails, mioaewooa or diatomacaoua fina aandy or ailty aolla. daatic aiha Inorpnic daya of high plaa- ticity. fat daya Organic days of medium to high plaatidtv. organic aiha Peat and other highly organic aaila mi i II § mill 0«o .it Cm oTaXSao^"*^ Attottaorg Hmitt below **A” linoorPJ.lMBtfMnd AbOMO **A** Hnt wMi PJ. fallmr 4 «id 7 arabor^ dbdUia oaaaa raquMng mo qf dud aymbolaAttarbarg Hmld aboM **A** Una with PJ.graacar than 7 C„-—grww d» 0. Ce |,j^x£>ao Attarbarg llmitt below **A** HnoorP.l.laaBtlian4 Umia plotting In hatdwd lOfit with P4. bataaon 4 Attarbarg Hmitt aboaa “A" Una adth P.I.graotar than 7 requiring uaa of dud aym­ bola. I ~ For dawification of fmygrai “ aoila wid fina fraction of eoarw __grained aoila. — Attarbarg Limita plotting In* — hatchad area aro bordarfino dawi- — ficattorw raquiring uaa of dud __aymbolB. — Equation of A-dno: ~ ~ PI-0.73 ILL >20) -------- I” ] 10 7 4 0 A------1- » "jV>5 MK 40 so 00 Liquid UmH Ptaadrtty Chart w»tt< e fucimt 9f cgiyjynp tlU I21i —m m at tapirtaP llll fat aafpatl a( faaaPMlaaa. flaar altpa. Hvaaaati, ar aafta tliaataiaa aaaalP W cttiltP aal pf la aipaM*"*** aactvaiat allk ikt ptapai apalpaaat . IPa aacaaalai a«at Pa H*r*>*4 *a a<aM kla piacaaafaa. aaalpaaai. an< aattiiala la ika laaa al pialtcl, la aaalkai laaPlliaat. aa4 ika aiiaclaial raa»lia*r»ia af Ika aickiitci aa« aaalaaai. ■aika«a aa4 aalatlala aat« la aiaaai aaf aal ka api'licakla la alaitn litl kaak la art aacavailaaa aap aal ka aaliakla la aai aaca»atiaaa ai iarlat ktUaP* al piariailailaai aiapniai lilt aall aay laaalia aalllaf ar <i*laf lai ktaaar placaaaai aak raa^ariiaa. toa4lliaaa atr alia aary 4ailaa ika raaiaa al a praitrl ar la aillaraat aiaaa al Ika aila. Tkaar art4a aka«l4 ka aaaiaaaaa la ika piajrri araalayt aa4 aparlllcallaaa. licaakTIOa./■kCkfiu itkoa tS aiTTi tkkta II la cavaa la kaaa la aaraaala aaa raplaca aaaaiitkia aalla kalo« Ika aalar lakla lar alia carrarilaa. ka a faaaial lala al pia4aa| caaiitarilaa latkaikua, aa raraa»ra4 ikai ■ *i***ll**^kaclllll kalaa Ika aalar lakla aai ka kataiiiak, aalaaa ika aacaaaiiea la 4a--aiaia4. •aaaraaa praklaa* caa Aaralap akaa Ikia kiaca«ara la altaa»ta« aitkaai «aaalaiiai. • laakllliy al Ika apalpiaaai araialara aa« aall larkaiclaaa la akaaiaa Ikai all aaaatiakla aalla/aaiailala kaaa kaaa taaaaa< Itaa ika kaaa al kka aaaaaallaa. - laaklliiy la akaaraa aa« aaaaara Ikai piapar lalaral aaar* alliay la praai«a4. - laaklliiy la araaaai at tatraci alaaykiaa al aaaaaallaa ai4aaalla. akirk caa raaall la aaaallakla aaila liaar«4 aiikia laa aalan karkllll. • laakilaiy al Ika caaiiaclar la aka^aaialy aa4 aallaraly caakarl Ika kacllill. • kaaaikllliy al 4laiarkaaca al Ika aaliakla aalla ai Ika kaaa al Ika aararallaa. tka 4aaalarlii« aaika4a. aarMily ckaaaa al Ika caaiiaclar a apllaa. akaal4 lallaa ata4aal caaairartlaa (•ca>ali'M< la clay caa alira ka 4aaaiaia4 allk taay ^iia aa4 paapai laatkla yraaalai aall. aalla akeal4 ly ta ca ni»4 4aaatatla( aaylaaar fal»| Ikia IMkaiyaa aaal4 aal ka aypticaala lai aaciaailaa aaiaakiaa lala aaiaatkla tiai aaracially lai 4ayiaa iiyailicaally kalaa ika aalar taala. kaatirrlay aranalat ai MiMlIy ka kaaa allk aall faiait ar aalla. Niaa kaaalarlay la attkak, aa alraay Ikai Ika fiacakaraa ka kitcaaaak al aia-kl4 ai kia-caaaliatitaa aaaliaaa. Tka lackaiyaa ckaaaa ky Ika caaiiaclar ckaalk ka taalaaak ky Ika arckiiaci aa4 aaali caaclracllaa ilarici II akaalk aal ka lall aalll aacaaallaa It ankar aa> igpiiliipiifii lakllily.tSU Ika ■iirtM tMtkkCkt CfTTkwmok ■lalti aatlk^tk pra—It lla aaa rak«a al ptaklaaa akick aaal ka aaatcaMt Ika allaailaa aay ka aaaallcatak ky Ikk aaak lar kaaatatlay kitcaatak akaaa. Ika llll acak aaal . ------------------- Itaaia karlaa ar kaptfii »■ M«l aa Ika aall lyya. Ika tratillcatlaaa akaalkr arri^^ js-Uit ::ri-..:‘/.:-.rrr:::i'iiiinirian-r:;;r:ir -iri; i:; •4:;:::* .i!i.-Tk:!.r.::rr.;k .iMiriU;, teilkt fcaailay caaklllaac, aita aaal aal ka allaaak la aal (SI ka Iraiaa akaa ktllaarak la ika alia. II aliai caaaactlaa. tiaca Ikr akllliy la aatk laa Ika aall lyya. aaak llll kalat lypa akaalk ka latanaP Ikr aaa aa raapiciak llll. la lavsiiaai tkai riipiiiak llllat akaalk ka yyamitak la Tka aclaka air. I II kacaaaiar_ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ katalU aa ika lypt aak aaaaal al aatarUI lairaa, Mapaatk lar aaa ai Iraat pralacilaa. Tka aaak ,........................................ . taraaakaal cm acllaa aak aMliaa kalk kalara (ak altar caactcia It placak. naai pialacliaa la caayltlak. Pari Btta-a placak aa Itaiaa tail raa acpailcacc ak llll ka praiaclak Itaa Irtarlat tlltr It It placak. aakali a alia far praiacllay tat aall. Tka plaa aimik I >1 aatarlal lairaa, fclaaiala, aaita laaaa llll. tapaall, ““ laa Mil Icaaaiaa la aaaalaa III kacklliliap #M waiMitaaik mc WHTWt COtkOt s uu *• •' •pi**-. Tka aaak lac aalalaia caaital la tka raa la yaaa .*** fa'iaolaja af llaaa laciaaaaa. tkkkrallyaccattiaT claray aaak at Mciiatctaafrakralra call act allaa aack aallat Ikaa ika apilaaa. riacla« aak aliaapiiat la . ka kllticall. at act paatikla. l*ra |l aal aaila aay aal ka aaliakla aa llaai alak ar Mi*iiiriria77t*iiii ii^atnfiy i7r77h!7 aikr'irj«iaV"*ta«rji»rij caapatl avck aalla crapariak la ika apaclliak kaaaily, Ika apaclliak kaaali^ aay paaaarai aaatiakat k»t la paapiar aakti tMTlak latk. Ttiia caaaalikatloa ..iriL,:: :r:-*:i:ra;r.:*ii:::*cr:.:ri:nr::a*j ...... •til. r*anli II Prapai caattal al fill aall aaltlara la Ikt yaci akaalk atalaait tka aatk lei aall laroil, at aia aaa alia laalli>«. larpentikiliiy la t«tUala laa ka lacctMaak laal lala aailai a kaa. Sack •Ika lar a placak at . - — (layay nil.r placak aaraativaly key. Pack aaila caa aakaiaa ape* kaiay aaltak. area ll Ika apaclliak kaaally kak kaaa tikllll* al Ika aacaaalaa. tka kV"1l*llw'atca>alai*Vi'kil | ***I***M* *" *I*|1*'| ** *' anitlara caataai al ika n!l!'a«k'lkt'aaak‘*a!'aaiiiaa'ai ka akkiaatak la Ikt pca)aci tpacilicailaat. aacaaalar laa tail alta kia kryiay. tCaPTPWCTIBP eS CkPPkCTlk ton I**'*S* !**' ca-paclak. aak laalak, II aaal ka atlaialaak aak L airanaiaa. Tka tallaklllly al raaaaciak llll aall Ha ^ T***Ht kialaltkak II II la allaaak la liaaia, kacaaa caiatatak aalla aacaafiaak laaca aa la mIm.I"*’*“*** •* •••»•« •• alaa/plaeaaaai taknakal, ai kiaiacaak ky ctatira7ilaa0m%. Tka raayoaalkllliy lai pralacilaa tka aall. kal.ark |e tka cpac11 leallaet. Poila aacaaaailly rallart laacrarata llalk ceaail*c/aaal-colMii«a aalla. aall, at lac catcacllaf cay klaiarkaack. akaelk ka claailt •kick Mm aal aak aall allti aaapacilaa taatlay ka aal talk kaealty laala. Caparlally allk M-atpaarl>a akila Ika kaatiiy rtaalaa akayaait. Tka at pa«aaaMa la aaiila at lall aakai laa.. _________ laat lollak laa/liOT Ipacilicatlea }|||| iMklaltU kaa aal kaaa praiaclak aak tall apaia kaaa ka*ala^. •atartllaa akaa aaraallaak caa anticly takaca tka ka lakarak akaar tlrtatik caa caaaa laatiart. aak. Br airaatly racoaacak tkat all pattwal • • iMktalaty kalara pavlay la kaiaraiaa II aektrakaa ka Ika kakyraka u<sa U£i iSKSkff ys gnm fnewt Tkla lacai al caaaiiecllaa piataaia apacial ptaklM, Ma Ika tail lhaaa.la liaaia. Plaar alaka akaelk (SJ aa carl a*ar tail ^ - - aapaclally II laa alak aakyraka • a allawk H aakacaoaa a pailak at laaparaclly la»ar aaaar aiitaytk. la tack a aatlaaak at Iraica caMIllaa *.--V ?***•*_ ** Ikae a kellklay aay place Ike CMlraclIaa ackakela aak/ar cat jaM«ky. ka atianyly lacoMaak Ikai tkla aaiiai ka raaiMk la pafkik aak pta>caatii mt, !• retilifiti •#•••........... ..... •oil •! IM oroo«f •eioiwt* tO« •••• «r •ottOwofft emm out IM •« cltaily ______ • ••4 loviowti «|io tM •oHOftUt* CMttoc(«r •*• cioli lo ratlar. *a tliaaaly caceMki Ikai Ikt laapaaalklllly la lailak la ika arpllctkia trcilaa cl Ika apaclIlcaiiM. •■Of w 42089.2 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: April 19, 1989 SUBJECT: Police Supervisory Structure Attachment: A. Police Supervisory Structure Memo/Chief Kilbo/ Dated 4/20/89 ISSUE - Presentation of Chief Kilo's thoughts and issues on the proposed organizational structure of three Lieutenants together with the operational perimeters within which they operate. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Discuss requesting of additional information. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - As noted in Attachment A information is presented a^ th 1 s time to allow for further discussion of the issues related to the organizational structure. The issues of timing and selection process for implementation of this will be presented at a future Council meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council having discussed issues related to the orgarTlzational structure and expressing any thoughts they may have table the issue at this time. Ayes _, Nays _. April 20, 1989 A In preparation of a paper settin/? forth the criteria for a third supervisor for our department, I will explain certain i^eneral manaKoment concepts to c lari ly their meaninf<. Supervision ~ Supervision of officers en/?aK^d in carrying out their assigned tasks is essential - assistance and guidance must be provided to ensure successful performance. It is the duty of supervisors to see that the Job is done properly in accordance with the directions given. Span of Control - The ability of one man to direct, coordinate, and control imraediate subordinates. His span of Control has physical limits, because he can be in only one place at one time, he cannot work 24 hours a day. ITie optimum number suggest by traditional police studies is 6 employees. Chain of Command ~ The span of Control may be reduced by the use of additional levels of supervisory officers thus lengthening. The Chain of Command, the span of control necessarily divides at each level of authority in the chain, since at each level the power of command is delegated to subordinates. A rise in the number of immediate subordinates increases the difficulty of command. Division by time of day - The function units are divided into shifts or watches according to the time day when the members are to work as a unit. Alternate grouping of supervisors are attached Exhibit A Supervisor duties The supervisor's list of duties begin as a shift commander on a given shift, with fiO% of time spent in active supervision on the street, with 40% administrative duties as assigned by the Chief. They will back up the officers on serious calls, they will discipline officers with authority to suspend with pay til the next working day. The trend for the 90's is to flatten the organisational structure to give greater responsibility to the patrol officer to allow for the most decisions at the lowest possible level. The idea is to give them authority to make decisions and then hold them responsible. The patrol officer of today is better educated, better trained, and not as dedicated. A job description of a Lieutenant is attached - see Exhibit B. The need for supervision is a need for guidance, education and direction for the half of the department that has less than four years of service, the remainder of the depart.aicnts Bage - I no«(l is lor positive prosoru^e ol a supervisor at roJ I calls, on scenes o€ inci«lents, to counsel officers, to assist in (leterraininK plans of action in crime prevention, patrol, Koai settinK and evaluations. These supervisors will function primarily as watch commanders on these shifts, 7am - 3pm, 3pm - llpra, llpm - Yam with additional administrative duties as assifoied by the chief at regular staff meetings and will be assigned to each supervisor by his shift capabilities. Some of the activities will be in the area of planning, directing, coordinating reporting budgeting, and developing subordinates. A third supervisor need not require an additional position to make it work, although that would be the ideal. There is no money in budget this year for additional personnel, llie supervisor, without an addition position, would work a regular position in the schedule of the department. Seb schedule proposed Exhib t C. Application to the Orono Police Department In a small department Like Orono, the chief does at times act as a supervisor. In the proposed three supervisor plan, each supervisor/watch commander would be fjupervising a maximum of three offlcer.s per shift. The chief would be supervising three watch commanders, tnese number's of people to be supervised are well within optimum Span Control and do not call for more levels of supervisors to handle the number of employees. At first glance, a small department of 16 officers would not seem to need a lob of supervision until you note that in a police operation, three 8 hour shifts are covered 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. In the Orono Police operation with no vacation or sick leave, wo will typicaily have three officers on each shift, with our present shift one supervisor comes to work Monday morning at 10am to work until 6pm. He works Monday thru Friday The second supervisor comes to work Wednesday at 6pm and works until 2am, he works Wednesday thru Sunday night. Therefore, from 2am Sunday until 10am Monday morning there is no supervisor working as well as every night from 2am until lOara. (8 hrs. every tlay and every other weekend the department has no supervision.) llie schedule for supervisors and chief currently is illustrated in Exhibit D. One schedule for three supervisors, plus the chief, is illustrated in Exhibit E. Financing If the council chooses to put a bleutenant into the supervisor rotation, it should decide to replace him in the Page - 2 5«h«i(lul.e by a patrol officer. The actclLtlonal patrol offi<!er would <!ost about 15.SO,0()0 with benfefits, this expense would also be a factor to the contra^tlnK cities. If, however, the CounclJ chooses to f^ive the department a lieutenant’s position without replacing the position, the chief would put the Lieutenant’s into the regular rotation as stated in Exhibit C. The cost to the city would be the difference between patrol officer pay and starting Lieutenant’s or approximately $2-3000.00. The timing of the process will depend on the councils decision for funding. This proposal is presented for discussion purposes for any questions that may arise. I do not request any action at this time, but would rather ask that it be tabled. I am in the process of looking at selection process. Page - 3 PRESENt ORGANIZATION 9 *. .Lt, Lt, M T W T F S S ♦ * ★ ♦ ★ ♦ ★ ♦ ★ ★ » 5 - 2 Schedule A-Alternate "’ ■ORGANIZATION . - Lt. * Lt. M T W T F S S it H a it * * it it it it ^ it if if if 5-2 Schedule Alternate Cl) REORGANIZATION Lt. Lt. M T W T F S S •it H it it * it it it H it '5-2 Schedule Alternate X* REORGANIZATION Lt. Lt. Lt. M T W T F S S « * ★ « « ,*«*.**« '5-2 Schedule JOB DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT B Responsibility command^* activities of a shift; way assume Departmental Examples of Behaviorg fjUy Msime rasponiibiiity for direction of absence of the Police Chief ^ Department in procedures DepSi.tmental policies ind ^ jnay require the responslbiUtle. «l?h th^S .SuMtiei* ~ siu.;:'£s* - ^3 •• • HesponBibility R4-flints the Police Department to the general public, to Other governmental agencies and to other City departments Examples of Behaviors Advises the public of State Statutes, City ordinances and other legal guidelines Explains to the public Departmercal policies and procedures, and explains the actions tf subordinate personnel Pecieves end investigates complaints against subordinate personnel May attend meetings of City Councils or Council committees in four communities Assists and %rorks with other law enforcement and related agencies (State agencies. Sheriff's Department, other Police Departments, animal control ser^'^ce, etc.) Assists end %for)cs with other City employees end with the employees of three other communities Eeviews cases with persons associated with the case (complain* ents, attorneys, parents of juvenile defendants, etc.) May represent the Department to the'^ew^mv Rcgpon&ibility Directly perforins or assists in performing non-routine patrol and investigative functions Bxawplea of Behaviors Responds to calls for assistance, mnd assists patrol officers as the second officer at the scene of a *najor* jcall ^sists patrol officers in gathering information from victims ^ or potential victims of criminal activity f^siatFiand may supervise patrol officers in gathering and ^preserving evidence at a crime scene or at the scene of an accident vibisists patrol officers in the questioning and arrest of persons charged vith a crime or suspected of criminal act­ ivity May issue tickets, citations and warnings to persons violating State Statutes or City ordinances May serve warrants, subpoenas and other legal papers Deals with persons under severe emotional stress, and deals witl. situations involving extensive inter-personal conflict Responsibility Administers the activities of a shifti performs other Departmental administrative functions Examples of Behaviors CRlanSf uplaina and coordinates the %#ork assignments for a ^-AShift : ^vlevs the log sheets» case files and other %iritten reports ^ of subordinate personnel (to insure the proper reporting of ‘incidents and the maintenance of accurate and consistent ^records) Keeps informed as to what has occurred on preceding shifts» jind assistH^lai organising- subsequent shifts “ .. * ftecommendiTTli^ j^aluate and may implement new Departmental jprpgrams# 'policies^nd procedures flakes xecoamendations^egarding Departmental expenditures, and '*':*may perform budgetary research ' .:3Uy cbbrdinatiii the Department’s records management system, and . -the Department's data processing system J^^’j[ayel$l^jand,,implement new administrative forms, records and **,i,^bMadures-^ " Jtoy^jroordinate the.repair and maintenance of Departmental vahicles and equipment • % May coordinate the purchase of Departmental equipment, .materials and supplies, and may control their inventory 'May'*prepare the work schedules and related payroll information for patrol shifts, and may coordinate the training schedule for programs outside the Department May perform assigned functions in the recruitment and selection of Departmental personnel . Morks with and may direct the Department’s clerical staff D\TC ^3^t CT WEEK 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 (r) y-.^*5b4V, -Lti sn SP2 SP3 Normi OTOMO POLICE DEPAPimrr WASTER DEPUWMEWP SCHEDULE M3WTW H T W 1 1 'ylj 111 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 T F 1 1 2 2 3 SSMTMTF8S 11111 \jy^ mtwtpssmtmtpss 1 1 1 1 . y cL \i/ 1 1 1 1111111 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2)'3jy.t>'S 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 .4^ 4 4 4 • t 1. 1 7 .» 1 2 2 1 1 C) 2 2 2 O O 3 /lift*. 1. Z •! a .l i * I J 111 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 y 1 1 X 0 2 3 3 3 4 4 I I J 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 V 3 4 4 4 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Ci>vi> THIS PERIOD SJIIPT 1 CIIFIOLED Ft]R SHIFT 2 SCHEDULED FOR SHIFT 2(T-S)SCHEDUl£0 FOR SHIFT 3 SCHEDULED FOR SHIFT 4 SCHEDULED FOR 4-^4 4 4 A-/ I 1 I < I a. k .t t 1 I 5*1 3 11111 i } \ \ \ 2 2 2 2 1 9)1 a « S , 1111111 0«*57 ol 1 1 1 1 2 2 O O o O 2 2 2 2 2 2 ) ^ t; ol 1 I 1 i 22220>222 0>^33333 3jV.>3333333OU INDICATES SPRING PARK ASSIOMCNT PAYROLL PERIOD OOrtlElCES AT 8700 -1ST AND 3RD MOrCAYS CF TOE PERIOD CONCLUDES AT 0S59 -1ST AM) 3RD MONDAYS OF TME PERIOD FILL IN SHIFTS WILL BE PROVIDED FROM DESIGNATED ORONO OFFICERS 0 b -eUPED 11 ------------ 5*3.5.----"3-5 5-5 5 ---------- 5 5 5 -5'5"“ 5 5 5^Vs' ' -SUPtD 12 • ------- -‘6 T-6 6 6 6 6 6 -6 6 .. 6 6 6~6 -6 6 ,6 6 6 -6 CHIEF 77777 77777 77777 77777 SUPER II SCHEDULED FOR SUPER 12 SCHEDUUD FOR 3^^' r ') ) V. r r P c. s ,f 11%! . ! O 1 ! . • fO 1 1 i ! n 1 1 !I j fy !! : f 1 1 ; 1.••1 : 1 ■i i u.1 1 !r i 1 1 4 1 !*1 7 Lr. ! ’u'' 1 i 1 1 !i 1 <»1 :(1i_ _ _U_ _1 // »-!1 ' !1 /!1 i >1 1 ! 1 -i !- 1 ly 1 ^ i ^ r 1 !I 1 1 , t ; ! 1_ _ _ _:_ _ _ _ _^_ _ _ _ i i 1 I Chief BAM - 4:30PM Ltl 10AM - 6PM Lt2 6PM - 2AM "Total Hours in a wef»k Ififl. '.Total hours of suoervision. .90 maximum availahl#» rw/5 T.t-*i5- This does not al low for time, off for sick leave, vacations. -or training. There is a definite need for some overlap so tnat unity of command can be accomplished with Ch & Lt*s supervising three snirts. The Lt“s will rotate in some fashion around the shifts, so that each supervisor has a chance to observe each officer earning his tour of duty. ) 1 l''Ld 0 11 ) t< • t ; \f{ly i'/t \WiT ^7 £1^ d • K» ——1 <4- u • ____1 ______________ <?1 *! .?1 1 ’ J i 1 I H i 1 V 1 LT’:: L"*.• f -i ^t T " ""! V i i !I 1 1 II;!i1 1 ; u i 1 1 1 1 ✓ i !i ; ^_________ i i 1 1 r .) Chief SAM - 4;30PM LT 1 7AM-- 3PM LT 2 3PM - 11PM LT-3- 11PM /AW Total hours in a week 168. Total hours of supervision 120 hours. ^ „ The above hours do not allow for sicjc leave, vacation or training ) — r*- 04r-nmm nKMWsn m aotn - « u Sa C' ^ Tpj Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: April 20, 1989 Subject: Application for Septic System Installer's License - Ingleside Engineering - P^ronmiendation for Denial List of Exhibits Exhibit A - License Application Exhibit B - Municipal Code Sections 5.02, 5.03, 5.37, 12.03, 12.08 Exhibit C - Minutes of the City Council of the City of Independence Dated 8/23/88, 9/27/88, and 10/25/88 We are in receipt of a Septic System Installer's License Application from Ingleside Engineering and Construction Incorporated. In reviewing the license application per the requirements of Municipal Code Section 5.02, Subdivision 5, it was discovered that the applicant had made a false statement on the license form. In answer to the application question "Have you ever had a license revoked?" the applicant answered "no". It was brought to the attention of staff last fall by the Inspector from the City of Independence that Ingleside had their license revoked for working with­ out the required permits. In fact, staff has obtained minutes of Council meetings in the City of Independence and indeed the applicant was in attendance at meetings which resulted in revocation of their license. Those minutes indicate that the owner of Ingleside Engineering acknowledged that he knowingly was working without the required permits, in direct violation of City ordinances. The Independence Inspector also stated that Ingleside was doing work that did not meet minimum State standards. Orono Mimiclpal Code Section 5.02, Subdivision 4 states that it is unlawful for any applicant to intentionally make a false statement or omission on the application form. The code goes on to state that any false statement in such application, or any willful omission to state any information called for on such application form, shall, upon such discovery of such falsehood work an automatic refusal of license. It is unfathomable to staff that this applicant could in good conscience "forget" that his license had been revoked in an adjacent city exactly 5 months before the date of this application. Having a license revoked in staff's opinion would be a fairly traumatic and unforgettable experience to any contractor. (On the other hand, if this statement was merely an oversight, it is typical of the lack of professionalism exhibited by this contractor on a regular basis when applying for permits and not knowing the address or what type of work is to be done.) Application for Septic System Installer's License - Ingleside Engineering - Recommendation for Denial April 20, 1989 Page 2 of 2 The applicant's past record of compliance with code requirements has been minimal at best. Ingleside Engineering does both excavation work and well drilling. Staff can document at least two previous cases of well construction which did not conform to minimum State Codes, and which required excessive staff time and investigation to resolve. Regarding the construction of septic systems, Ingleside has constructed 20 septic systems in Orono since 1983. Their actual work on septic systems has been adequate to meet minimum requirements, and in the cases where irregularities were noted, they have been corrected. Staff can document a number of cases where the applicant has failed to call for required inspections or has called at the last minute without the required 24 hour notice. In general, the work of the applicant's firm has been barely adequate and requires excessive scrutiny by staff to ensure code compliance. Staff ReccMBendatlon - Based solely on the false statement within the application form and the literal requirements of Section 5.02, Subdivision 4, staff is obligated to recommend denial of the application for a 1989 Septic System Installer's License. The applicant would be allowed to apply for a license for the 1990 license year. Section 5.02, Subdivision 4 states that the license denial is automatic in a case such as this. Since there appears to b^i no strict requirement that the applicant be allowed to comment on the denial, it is up to Council's discretion if you wish to discuss this matter with the applicant before taking final action. If so, staff will notify the applicant of the date and time of your next meeting. A copy of this memo will be forwarded to the applicant. CITY of ORONO CITY OF ORONO FINANCE OFFICE 03/24/S9 500000 01 GEH 300000 01 GEN 200000 01 GEN 300000 01 GEH 200000 01 GEN 30.00 .50 30.00 .50 86.00 t RECEIPT-THhNK you ;930 COOl ROl T1M4 Post Office Box 66 Ciyetal Bay. Minneeou 55323 BUILDING Jt ZONING - 473*7357 ASSESSLNG SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS LICENSE APPLICATION All questions must be answered. License fee, bond, certificate of insurance, and evidence of MPCA Certification or Home Sewage Treatment Workshop attendence must accompany this application. All applications are subject to a ten (10) day approval period. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Business or trade name Business address ^ ^Xa iL. Business phone //a et • )T - -- Name of applicar^ or compare representative holding MPCA certification Residence phone i^0 9 3/1/ rest- - -- V Installer Pumper Certificate No. Type of certification held: _ _ _ _ _ _ Site evaluator _ _ _System designer Is this a Provisional Certificate? _ _ _ If no Certificate is held, provide evidence of attendance at one of the On-Site Sewage Treatment Workshops held immediately prior to the current construction season. Have you ever held a Septic System Installer license in Orono before? _ _ _ Most recent year /fit’7 Have you ever had a license revoked? p/g Where? _ _ _ Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes_ 10. Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes_ _ _ When? M N' No V SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: _SC 1. $25.00 license application fee. “T^2. $2000.00 license and permit bond naming City of Orono as ^ obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accepted, y 3. $10-50-100,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance. 4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate or evidence of attendence at On-Site Sewage Treatment Workshop held immediately prior to current construction season. LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED._ _ List persons other than applicant who are authorized by you to . apply for permits under your license _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Orono, Minnesota, for license to install and repair septic systems, and/or pump out septic tanks, subject to the laws . of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinances of the City of Orono. Date Applicants s icnature^^, _^ t- CITY USE ONLY Staff recommendation Reason for denial: _ City Council Action Date license mailed Approval Denial Date Date Approved Denied CHAPTER 5 OTHER BUSINESS REGUIATXON AMD LICENSING SECTION 5.01. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Chapter, the following words and terras shall have the raeanings stated: 1. "Applicant" means any person making an application for a license under this Chapter. 2. "Application" means a form with blanks or spaces thereon, to be filled in and completed by the applicant as his request for a license, furnished by the City and uniformly required as a prerequisite to the consideration of the issuance of a license for a business. 3. "Bond" means a corporate surety document in the form and with the provisions acceptable and specifically approved by the City Attorney. 4. "Business" means any activity, occupation, sale of goods or services, or transaction that is either licensed or regulated, or both licensed and regulated, by the terms and conditions of this Chapter. 5. "License" means a document issued by the City to an applicant permitting him to carry on and transact a business. 6. "Licensee** means an applicant who, pursuant to his application, holds a valid, current, unexpired and unrevoked license from the City for carrying on a business. 7. "License fee" means the money paid to the City pursuant to an application and prior to issuance of a license to transact and carry on a business. 8. "Sale", "Sell" and "Sold" mean all forms of barter and all manner or means of furnishing merchandise to persons. SBC. 5.02. APPLICATIONS. All applications shall be made as follows: Subd. 1. All applications shall be made at the office of the City Clerk upon forms that have been furnished by the City for such purposes. Subd. 2. All initial applications shall be accompanied by an investigation fee as set by the Council by ordinance. Subd. 3. All such applications must be subscribed, sworn to, and include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Applicant's name, age and citizenship. ORONO CC 98 (4-1-84) S 5.02 B. Applicant’s present address and length of time he has lived at that address. C. Applicant’s occupation and length of time so engaged. D. Applicant’s addresses and occupations for the three years last preceding the date of application. E. Names and addresses of applicant’s employers, if for the three years last preceding the date of application.any, F. Whether or not applicant has ever been of a f^'lonv/ gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor, including violatio of a municipll ordinance butSO, the date and place of conviction and the nature of the offense. G. Type of license and location of premises for which application is made. H. At least four character references if applicant has not resided 'in the City for two years last preceding the date of application. I. Such other information as the Council shall deem necessary considering the nature of the business for which license applicatxon is made. Subd 4. It is unlawful for any applicant to ^ ni-Anfclonallv * make a false st*'tement or omission upon any application fLm. Any false statement application form, shall, upon discovery ®*ghall''rend« automatic refusal of license, or ifanv license or permit issued pursuant thereto, void, ana or no efLct to protect the applicant from prosecution for violation of this Chapter, or any part hereof. ^ ei,K/4 s The Citv Clerk shall, upon receipt of each application"co%leted in acco'rdance herewith, forthwith the truth of statements made therein and the moral character ana bUliness reputation of each “«;^^e^'’c?^y^ler®k"^ completed. Subd. 6. Applications for renewal in such abbreviated form as the Council may by resolution adopt. ORONO CC S 5.03 SEC. 5.03. ACTION ON APPLICATION, TRANSFER, TERMINATION AND DOPLICATB LICENSE. Subd. 1. Granting. The Council may grant any application for the period of the remainder of the then current calendar year or for the entire ensuing license year. All applications, including proposed license periods, must be consistent with this Chapter. Subd. 2. Issuing. If an application is approved, the City Clerk shall forthwith issue a license pursuant thereto in the form prescribed by the Council upon proof of ownership, payment of the appropriate license fee, and approval of the bond or in::urance as to form and surety or carrier, if required. All licenses shall be on a calendar year basis unless otherwise specified herein as to particular businesses. Unless otherwise herein specified, license fees shall be pro-rated on th'. basis of l/12th for each calendar month or part thereof remaining in the then current license year. Provided, that for licenses where the fee is less than $100.00 a minimum license fee eaual to one-half of the annual license fee shall be charged. Licenses shall be valid only at one location and on the premises therein described. Subd. 3. Transfer. A license shall be transferable between persons upon consent of the Council and payment of the investigation fee. No license shall be transferable to a different location without prior consent of the Council and upon payment of the fee for a duplicate license. It is unlawful to make any transfer in violation of this Subdivision. Subd. 4. Termination. Licenses :>.iall terminate only by expiration or revocation. Subd. 5. Refusal and Revocation. The Council may, for any reasonable cause, refuse to grant any application, or revoke any license. No license shall be granted to a person of questionable moral character or business reputation. Before revocation of any license, the Council shalx give notice to the licensee and grant such licensee opportunity to be heard. Notice CO be given and the exact time of hearing shall be stated in the resolution calling for su^h hearing. Subd. 6. Duplicate License. Duplicates of all original licenses may be issued by the City Clerk, without action by the Council, upon licensee's affidavit that the original has been lost, and upon payment of a fee of $2.00 for issuance of the duplicate. All duplicate licenses shall be clearly marked DUPLICATE. SBC. 5.04. MCENSE All licenses provided for in this Chapter shall be issued onx^ upon payment in full of license fees fixed and determine, in accordance with City Code Section 1.05. ORONO CC 100 (4-1-84) S 5.05 SEC. 5.05. CARRYING OR POSTING. All solicitors shall at all times when so engaged, carry their license on their person. All other licensees shall post t. eir licenses in their place of business near the licensed activity. Provided, however, that in the case of machine or other device licensing, the City may provide a sticker for the current license year which shall be affixed to each machine or device requiring such sticker. All licensees shall display their licenses upon demand by any officer or citizen. SEC. 5.06. PENALTY FOR PROPERTY OWNER. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly permit any real property owned or controlled by him to be used, without a license, fc* any business ior which a license is required by this Chapter. SEC. 5.0: RESPONSIBILITY OP LICENSEE. The conduct of agents or employees ot a licensee, while engaged in performance of their duties for their principal or employer under such license, shall be deemed the conduct of the licensee. SBC. 5.06. provision of lav. of the necessity upon a license as justified. ^ITIONAL LICENSES. Notwithstanding any contrary, the Council may, upon a finding or^ place such conditions and restrictions n its discretion, may deem reasonable and SEC. 5.09. RENEWAL OF LICENSES. Applications for renewrl of an existing license shall be made at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of expiration of the license, and shall contain such information as Is required by the City. This time requirement may be waived by the Council for good and sufficient cause. SEC. 5.10. LICENSE DENIAL AND FIXING RATES - HEARING. Subd. 1. Pight to Deny. The Council reserves to itself che right to deny any application for a license to operate any business licensed or regulated under this Chapter where such business involves service to the public, rates cha'rged ror service, use of public streets or other public property by the applicant or the puolic, or the public health, safety and convenience. The Council may also consider the lo(^ ;^tion of such business in making such determination. Provided, however, ^-hat before making such determination, the Council shall hold a public hearing thereon pursuant to such notice to interested parties and the public as it may deem necessary or proper in action calling for such hearing. Subd. 2. Rat s. Where, under specific provisions of this Chapter, the Council has reserved to itself the right to fix or approve fees, rates or charges of a licensed or regulated business, such rates shall be uniform for each category or class of service, and no licensee or proprietor of a regulated business shall claim or demand payment in excess thereof. ORONO CC (^.^1-84) S 5.10 Sabd. 3. Hearing. Any applicant or licensee under this Chapter who challenges denial of a license or rates fixed or approved by the Council shall have a right to a hearing before the Council upon written request therefor. Notice of time, place and purpose of such hearing shall be given to such persons and by such means as the Council may determine in calling the hearing. SBC. 5.11. INSURAHCB RBQUIRBMBHTS. Whenever insurance is required by a Section of this Chapter, after approval by the Council, but before the license shall issue, the applicant shall file with the City Cleric a policy or certificate of public liability insurance showing (1) that the limits are at least as high as required, (2) that coverage is effective for at least the license term approved, and (3) that such insurance will not be cancelled or terminated without thirty days* written notice served upon the City Cleric. Cancellation or termination of such coverage shall be grounds for license revocation. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 5.12 through 5.1^, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 102 (4-1-84) ^/o -SI1< 5'tsrer^s SBC. 5.37.VcOBTRACTOR. S 5.37 Subd. 1. License Required. It is unlawful for any person to engage in the business of on-site system construction or pumping without a license therefor from the City. Subd. 2. Bond and Insurance. A. No license shall be issued until the applicant has filed with the City a bond in the penal sum of $2,000.00 on which the City is obligee, conditioned on performance of the work in a good and workmanlike mainer. B. No license shall issue until the applicant has filed with the City a policy or certificate of public liability insurance for coverage concurrent with the license term and with limits of at least $100,000.00 for injury to one person, $300,000.00 for injuries or death to more than one person from one accident, and $50,000.00 property damage. Subd. 3. License Fee. Licenses provided for in this Section shall be issued only upon payment in full of the license fee fixed and determined in accordance with City Code Section 1.05. Subd. 4. Approval by Council. Applicant shall satisfy the Council that the applicant is qualified by training and experience to engage in the business of constructing and pumping on-site systems in accordance with the requirements of the On-Site Sewage Treatment provisions of the City Code. Further, the appli­ cant shall have attended the "Home Sewage Treatment Workshop conducted by the University of Minnesota Agricultural Service for the current year, or he shall i the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Applicants /ailing to attend this workshop shall be subject to staff review of the application to determine their competence. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 5.38 and 5.39 reserved for future expansion.) O ORONO CC (4-1-84) CHAPTER 12 CONSTRUCTION LICENSING, PERMITS AND REGULATION SECTION 12.01. BUILDING CODE ADOPTED. Subd. 1. Adoption. The Minnesota State Building Code (SBC) established pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 16.83 through 16.869, is hereby adopted as the Building Code for the City and is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated as if completely set out herein. One copy of said Building Code shall be marked OFFICIAL COPY, and shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk and shall be open to inspection and use by the public, Subd. 2. Current Edition. The Building Code adopted herein shall mean the 1982 Edition of the State Building Code (SBC) as amended by rules published and adopted in the State Register dated February 21, 1983, including all other national coj^es as enumerated in the State Building Code, and also including the 1982 Uniform Building Code, Chapter 7-Covered Mall Buildings, Chapter 32-Reroofing, and Chapter 55-Membrane Structures (air-inflated structures); Minnesota Plumbing Code Appendix Chapters C and D; and the Minnesota Building Code SBC Appendix E, Optional Automatic Fire Suppression Systems, 2 MCAR 1.10020. SEC. 12.02. CONSTRUCTION PERMITS REQUIRED. It is unlawful for any person to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or demolish any building or ^ any part or portion thereof, including, but not limited to, the general construction, plumbing, water well, on-site ment system, wood stoves and fireplaces, ventilating, heating or air conditioning systems therein, or cause the same to be done, ^ without first obtaining a separate building or general permit for each such building, structure or separate component thereof from the City; the issuance of a permit for any single component shall > not imply authority for construction or inclusion of other 4 components. The application for a permit shall include such infer- mation as raay be required by the City which may vary between building components. The owner and/or occupant of 3"^ <j upon which any work has been done in violation of any Building Code a or zoning requirement shall be responsible for obtaining a permit, and/or for correcting, removing or abating such violation within thirty days after notice from the City that such violation exists. SBC. 12.03. CONTRACTOR LICENSING REQUIREMENTS. The permit for any construction work requiring a license under statute or the City Code shall be issued only to the licensee upon of - holding a current license and bonding and insurance as required oy • statute or the City Code. SBC. 12.04. PERMIT FEES. All permits provided for in this Chapter shall be issued only upon payment in full °f the permit fees fixed and determined in accordance with City Code, Section 1.05. ORONO CC 485 (4-1-84) s 12.06 Subd. 3. Permit and Fee. The moving permit shall state date or dates of moving, hours, routing, Permits shall be issued only for moving buildings by building movers licensed by the State of Minnesota. Fees to be charged shall be separate for each of the following: fee to covet use of streets and route “PP^oval, and (2) a fee equal to the anticipated amount requited to compensate j:ity municipal utility and public property (other thaii ®.\'®*JL*’ '*Pf^be or alterations occasioned by such movement. The latter shall be paid in advance. Subd. 4. Building Permit and Code Compliance. Befo^re any building is moved from one location to another within the City, Ir^rom a point of origin without the City to a ^«fination within the Citv. regardless of the route of movement, it shall be iMpected'and ! building permit shall have been issued for at least the work necessary to bring it into full compliance with the State Building Code. Subd. 5. Proof of Tax Payment. It is unlawful to move any building (including a manufactured home) if the P°I"t of or destination (or both) is within the City, and regardless of the route of movement, without having paid Ji®® personal property taxes and special assessments due thereon, and filing written proof of such payment with the City. SBC, 12.07. PERMIT TO OSB PUBLIC PROPERTY. It is unlawful for any person to improve or maintain improvements on-public p?op«ty for a private use without first therefor from the City. In all instances, the improvement shall be temporary and subject to the City's right to requite removal or restoratiL, or both, and upon the f/^ure of ‘^e permittee to take such action, the City may remove and restore and hold the permittee responsible for the cost thereof. SBC. 12.08. OHLAWFOL ACTS. It is unlawful for any person to: Subd. 1. Do any work without first obtaining a required permit from the City authorizing such work. Subd. 2. Do any work beyond or outside the scope of a permit issued by the City. Subd. 3. Do any work prior to obtaining a requited inspection and approval from the City including failure to request any required inspection. ORONO CC 487 (4-1-64) s 12.08 Subd. 4. Fail to comply with the terms or conditions of a permit issued by the City, including failure to comply with all building or zoning requirements. Subd. 5. Fail to comply with any correction orders lawfully issued by the City when any work done is found to be in violation of or non-compliance with permit requirements. Subd. 6. Fail to stop or suspend work on any project or portion thereof in accordance with a lawfully issued stop work order. Subd. 7. Fail to pay any permit fee, inspection fee or reinspection fee. Subd. 8. Fail to comply with the terms and conditions of any Building or Zoning Occupancy Certificate. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 (Sections 12.09 through 12.29, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) OBDUIANCE HO. 45 ^ SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12 OP ORDINANCE NO. 12 ADOPTED APRIL 11, 1984 AND ENTITLED *AH ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 12.09 CLEAN PILL" The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: Section 12.09 Clean Fill: Subdivision 1. Clean fill shall be all native soils as described in the Unified Soils Classification System. Organic, manmade and reprocessed materials, topsoil, and rocks larger than 0.25 cubic yards (2.9* dim.) shall not be considered clean fill. Subdivision 2. Land alterations involving filling and grading activites, whether requiring permits or not, shall be performed with clean fill only, as described in Subdivision 1. This ordinance becomes effective upon publication. Passed by the Council the 14th day of December, 1987. Jame^ R. GraK&irr^Mayor ORONO CC 488 (4-1-84) s 12.30 2. "Building" - Every building, structure or place intended for human habitation or use as a dwelling or agricultural, commercial, industrial or other establishment. 3. "City Sewer" - A sewage collection system terminating in a treatment plant or Metropolitan Waste Control Commission facilities, and not utilizing septic tanks or soil treatment and absorption areas. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 4. "Cesspool" - An underground pit into which raw sewage or other untreated waste is discharged and from which the liquid seeps into the surrounding soil. 5. "Construction" - Any action which in any way affects the physical components of any new or existing system, including construction, installation, extension, alteration or repair, not to include pumping. 6. "Contractor" - A person licensed under the provisions of the City Code to engage in the business of system construction and pumping. 7. "Design Manual" - The Orono On-Site Sewage Treatment System Design Manual, as amended. 8. "Disposal" - The evaporation or absorption of purified liquids after treatment of the raw sewage. 9. "Inspection Report" - The official report of the results of the inspection by the City, including any official orders to repair or replace non-conforming systems. 10. "Holding Tank" - A water tight tank for storage of sewage until the sewage can be transported to an off-site point o" treatment and disposal, includes portable toilets serviced by contract, as normally used for temporary service at construction or recreation sites. 11. "MPCA" - The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 12. "Owner" - Any person having legal or equitable title or sufficient proprietary interest in any building or land subject to the provisions of this Section. For purposes of notification, the owner shall be the occupant of the property or the person listed as taxpayer on the current tax rolls. 13. "Pollutants" - Bacterial or chemical impurities including pathogenic bacteria, infectious viruses, toxic chemicals, excess nutrients (nitrcgen and phosphorous) unpotable water, or septage. ORONO CC (4-1-84) i e Brc.ndenburg, adjacent property owners were ‘•.he May 24 meeting, he was told that if he didn’t move more Y i 500 cubic yards of material, he could proceed. He has moved much more. His original plan called for excavation of a pond 35’xlOO, approximately 4’ deep. Upon observation, the pond appears to. be approximately 10’ deep. A road has been built going to the back of his property and digging is taking place to the west of that road in what may be a wetland area. There appears to be approximately three to four acres that is open with no cover. The Brandenburgs are concerned with the noise from the excavation as well as the number of pieces of heavy equipment. Motion by Kuntz, second by Hamilton to start action against Mr. Martin to cease and desist on work that is being done on the property and to have him proceed with restoration and equipment storage; all ayes, motion declared carried. 9. ROBERT JAHNKE ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. and Mrs. Robert Jahnke were not present to discu.‘’s their conditional use permit request. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of this request as they have not appeared at the Commission meetings of July 19 or August 16, 1968 to present their request to move in a mobile home during construction of a home. Motion by Hamilton, second by Gabriel to deny this conditional use permit request; all ayes, motion declared carried. 10~LEQNARD NADASABY^-'BUILDING VIOLATION _ _ It "has come to :the^ity^s attentlon^that:jj.ebnards;Nada8j^y^^ Lake Sa^h Heights^riiiiJ^lDi01ji|16.^4j|^3j^00Q6targtai^ a rf all Ihg'^septic-system without‘Obtaining ^afpemlt^i';^ permit also was not,pulled«by^the >installer7-Inigleside^ Engineering. ------------------------------- JtM<^on *by..-Kuntz ,^ec^ond^by^Hamilton^o«,noti^y4sIiigleside'ft?iwriU ^nglHi^er iffg \tha^Siie i f M icehs e'^‘6'^operate subject to revocation and may be subject to revocation and to attend the September 27 ,'^1988 4 -r., . 1 n ------^^^4.4 ^--declared^arried ] ........................................................................... ■ I . ■ I I - I 11. MICHAEL MALACEK - VARIANCE Michael Malacek - 5760 Drake Drive, PID 26-118-24 41-0009, was present with a request for a 38* front yard setback in order to construct a deck/front porch. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their meeting of August 16, 1988 and recommended approval of a 42* front yard setback (variance of 43*) with the replacement deck/porch extending 6* from the front of the house, thus encroaching no further than the previous stoop. ir: fr-:-- gv- •li? P-fte* m- Wi- Motion by Gabriel, second by Hamilton to direct the city attorney and planner to investigate this further; all ayes, motion declared carried. n p-TNGLESIDE ENGINEERING -’'BRIAN VANBEUSEKO^^ (Minutes of 8/23/38) ' Brian VanBeusekom, owner of Ingleside Engineering, and Loren Kohnen, building inspector, were present to discuss Ingleside*s license to operate within the City. Loren.Kohnen related that originally Bob Koch, a septic designer, and he concluded that a mound system was needed at a property located on Lake Sarah Heights Dr. which was experiencing septic problems. It was determined that no appropriate site could be located. The iroperty owner would have no alternative other than Dumping the tanks on the existing system. Several weeks later, Loren Kohnen observed activity on this property. When investigating, it was determined that septic repair work was being done without a permit. Kohnen ordered work to stop, said he would be back later that day and the work that had started would be covered up. When he returned, all the equipment was gone and the trench was still open. VanBeusekom did come back at a later date and they took out all the exposed pipe 2uid repaired some wires and covered up the trench. Mr. VanBeusekom acknowledged that the review of the events as presented by K hnen was accurate. He admitted working without a permit and ssi.d that he didn’t anticipate the extent of the work that was needed to be done. He is of the opinion that the repair work that he did met State standards. He also proposed to the property owner installation of a gravelless experimental sy.stem which seems to work on small lots. He presented a basic overview of the operation of septic systems to the Council. It was explained that it was a violation of Ordinance <^90 to do work within the City on septic systems without a permit. The city attorney suggested that a transcript of the minutes be sent to the applicant in order for him to verify the accuracy of the proceedings and to enable him to submit more information. The council will reconsider that information at a later date and make a decision as to the license. Motion by Johnson, second by Gabriel to table this item until the October 25 meeting; Ingleside will have an opportunity at that time to submit more information; all ayes, motion declared carried. 11^ JOHN BAUMAN RESOLUTION (MINUTES 8-23-83) City Attorney presented a resolution as authorized by the Council at their meeting of August 23, 1988. J ih-: ¥ planning Commission held a public hearing on this request at October 18, 1983 and recommended approval with conditions as listed in those minutes. Motion by Hamilton, second by Young to deny a conditional use permit to live in a RV during the construction of a permanent dwelling as a recreational vehicle doesn’t meet occupancy standards, all ayes, motion declared carried _ _ _ _ .rian~Vanbeusekora, owner of Ingleside Engineering, was present to discuss Ingleside s license to operate within the City. 1988^”** detailed in the minutes of September 27, No addltio.ial information was presented by Mr. VanBeusekom. Fnain2erTn^“^''iT^’ Hamilton to revoke InglesideEngineering s license to operate within the City of Independence for the remainder of 1S88 based on information preLnted at th^ September 27 meeting; the job at 2995 Copeland Road that is currently being worked on by this company will he allowed to be completed; all ayes, motion declared carried to be 13. ADJOURM Hamilton, second by Gabriel to adjourn at 10:30 pm ■ all ayes, motion declared carried. ' P-”>-. Mary L . l^ntz. City Clerk P.'. k: i: ■ ,T".< P- I" f: M 42089.3 o TO: Mayor and City Council FHCM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATS: April 19, 1989 SUBJECT: N.'varre Redevelopment ISSUE - Establishment of a date for a joint Council and Planning Commission meeting to have the City's consultant/planner review current issues in the Navarre area and means to accomplish change together with discussion of possible idea.-=- for direction on the issue. INTRODUCTION - As you may recall the City contracted with John Shardlow's firm to undertake a review of the Navarre area as it related to land use, transportation, etc. DiyusSION - The staff again reviewed with Shardlow work to date and it has now reached the point that it is appropriate to sit down with Council and review the inventory of the land use and related issues in the area together with the range of options that could be undertaken for the area and the priority and direction of the study that the Council wants to take from this point forward. ALTERNATIVES 1. Establish a date. 2. Table. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION — It is recommended that a meeting be established with the Planning Commission on the matter for June 1, 1989. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council, subject to the availability of the Planning Commission members, establish June 1, 1989 at____p.m. for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and representatives of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Oban to discuss work to date in the Navarre Redevelopment Area. Ayes __, Nays __. 41489.4 TO* Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratol DATE: April 14, 1989 SUBJECT: 1989 Police Contract Attachment: A. Wage and Insurance Excerpts from 1988 Police Contract B. Proposed Contract Language for the 1989 Contract ISSUE - Adoption of proposed increases of a settlement for the 1989 contract on wages and insurance. INTRODUCTION - The 1989 contract provided for a reopener for wages and insurance and negotiations between the City and the bargaining unit have developed the terms found in Attachment B to be acceptable to both parties. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt. 2. Reject and submit to mediation/arbitration. 3. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the increase proposed is in line with the settlement for Police Union for 1989. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council agree to the terms of settlement outlined in Attachment B. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Chief Kilbo ARTICLE XVI ISJDRY ON DOTX \ \ Employees Injured during the performance of their duties for the EMPLOYER and thereby rendered unable to work for the EMPLOYER will be paid the difference between the employee ’s regular pay and Worker ’s Compensation insurance payments for a period not to exceed ninety (9fl) working days per injury, not charged to the employee's vacation, sick leave, or other accumulated leave, or other accumulated paid benefits, after a three (3) working day initial waiting period per injury. The three (3) day working day waiting period shall be charged to the employee ’s sick leave account less Worker ’s Compensation insurance. article XVII WAGES a.) The following wage schedule shall be In effect as of January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1988: Wages Per Month Per Hour Start 9 1,768 $ 10.20 . After six months 1,904 10.984 After 1st year 2,176 12.554 After 2nd ye?r 2,448 14.123 After 3rd year 2,720 15.692 'f 9 / b.) LOMGEVITY 3% additional to base rate After 4 years . . . . . . 5% additional to base rata After 8 years . . . . . . 71 additional to base rate After 12 years . . . . . . 91 additional to base rate After 16 years. . . . . .9* » ARTICLE X7III INSORAMCE EK^tlv. “• .....ty .1. <=17...., ... ... lit., 1...-...- “• ““ ° »» nf the group dental insurance plan the single coverage of the group selected. 41489.4A APPENDIX A ARTICLE A WAGES a.) The following wage schedule shall be in effect as of January Ir 1989 through December 31, 1989: Wages Start After six months After 1st year After 2nd year After 3rd year Per Month $ 1,830. 1,971. 2,252. 2,534. 2,815. Per Hour $10,558 11.371 12.992 14.619 16.240 ARTICLE B INSURANCE Effective calendar year 1989 the EMPLOYER will contribute One Hundred Ninety-One ($191.00) per month per employee toward health, life, long-term disability insurance and the cost of the single coverage of the group dental insurance plan selected. FOR THE CITY OF ORONO: FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC. U489.5 TO: J'.ayor and City Council RBOM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATS: April 14, 1989 SUBJECT: 1989 Salary Adjustment Attachment: A. 1989 Salary Resolution Dated 1/9/89 B. Proposed Revised 1989 Salary Resoltuion C. Proposed Compensation Plan 1989 Schedule ISSUE - Determination of adjustment to the salary schedule on an overall increase from 3% to 3 1/2% increase. ALTERNATIVES - 1• Adopt. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Attachment B be adopted as the revised salary resolution for 1989 together with the revision of Attachment ^ the 1989 pay plan for the compensation plan for all persons mplcyed on the date the revision is adopted . PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council adopt Attachment B as the revTsed 1989 Salary Resolution together with adopting of Attachment C as the revised 1989 Pay Plan Schedule for the Compensation Plan applicable to persons employ'id on the date of adoption of these revisions. Ayes __, Nays __. City of ORONC ^ CITY OF QRONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2564_________ A RESOLUnOH ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR CITY EMPLOYEES FOR 1989 BE IT RESOLVEDr by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, that initial salaries and wages for City employees be established as follows, effective January 1, 1989: NAME Mark Bernhardson Dorothy Hallin Melvin Kilbo Gary Cheswick John Gerhardson Jack Brinkhaus Thomas Kuehn Jeanne Mabusth Michael Gaffron Thomas Jacobs Ronald Steffenhagen Theresa Naab 'ue Bobzine ,ames Gregory Steve Bansen John Sass Dale Skreen Wayne Quast Barry Rathbun Randy O'Brien Charlotte Knutson Robin Mikelson Lyle Oman Carol Hansing Laurie Scheffler Jamie Bosma James Morrow Kevin Walsh POSITION City Administrator City Clerk Police Chief Police Lieutenant Public Works Director Street/Dtility Foreman Treas/Finance Director Zoning Administrator Asst. Zoning Administrator Building Inspector Golf Course Supt. Depty City Clerk/Admin Sec Police Secretary Street Dept. HEO Street Dept. LEO Street Dept. LEO Street Dept. LEO Utility Mechanic Utility Mechanic Utility Mechanic Depty Treas/Sr. Acct. Clerk Asst. Finance Director Field Inspector Asst. Police Secretary Recorder Copy & File Clerk I Police Officer, P.T. Community Service Officer 1988 SALARY 1989 SALARY $53,146.00 (5/1/89 Review) 27,851.00 $28,683.00 45,760.00 47,133.00 36,878.00 37,974.00 42,539.00 43,790.00 32,861.00 33,848.00 42,813.00 44,104.00 37,806.00 38,9-;o.00 31,554.00 32,500.00 31,554.00 32,500.00 27,892.00 28,729.00 10.71/Hr 11.03/Hr 10.71/Hr 11.03/Hr 13.355/Hr 13.49/H' A.) 11.990/Hr 12.11/Hr B.) 11.990/Hr 12.11/Hr B.) 11.990/Hr 12.11/Ht B.) 12.674/Hr 12.93/Hr C.) 10.28/Hr 10.593/Hr 10.08/Hr 10.300/Hr 10.7i/Hr 11.03/Hr 10.858/Hr 11.182/Hr 12.720 13.101/Hr 8.648/Hr 8.9C9/Hr 8.19/Hr 9.378/Hr 7.679/Hr 7.906/Hr 7.00/Ht 9.24/Hr 5.10/Ht 5.75/Hr Foot Notes: A.), B.) and C.) ^ ^ t. In addition a lump sum based on hours scheduled and worked will t»e paid quarterly (March 15, June 15, September 15 and December 15) A. ) $.27/Hour B. ) .24/Hour C. ) .13/Hour CITY OF ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2564_________ BB IT FURTHER RESOLVBDr that mileage for City use of private cars on City business be reimbursed at $.24 per mile. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held January 9, 1989. CITY OF ORONO City of OROINO 41989.5 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2627________ A RBSOLDTION AMEHDING RBSOLOTIOH #2564 ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR CITY EMPLOYEES POR 1989 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota that initial salaries and wages for City employees be established as follows, effective January 1, 1989 for persons employed on the date of this revision adoption: NAME Mark Bernhardson Dorothy Hallin Melvin Kilbo Gary Cheswick Mark Moran John Gerhardson Jack Brin;«haus Thomas Kuehn Jeanne Mabusth Michael Gaffron Thomas Jacobs Ronald Steffenhagen Theresa Naab Sue Bobzine James Gregory Steve Hansen John Sass Dale Skreen Wayne Quast Barry Rathbun Randy O'Brien Charlotte Knutson Linda Walters Lyle Oman Carol Bansing Laurie Scheffler Jamie Bosma Scott Kuyper Kevin Walsh POSITION City Administrator City Clerk Police Chief Police Lieutenant Police Lieutenant Public Works Director Street/Utility Foreman Treas/Finance Director Zoning Administrator Asst. Zoning Administrator Building Inspector Golf Course Supt. Depty City Clerk/Admin Sec Police Secretary Street Dept. HEO Street Dept. LEO Street Dept. LEO Street Dept. LEO Utility Mechanic Utility Mechanic Utility Mechanic Depty Treas/Sr. Acct. Clerk Asst. Finance Director Field Inspector Asst. Police Secretary Recorder Copy & Pile Clerk I Police Officer, P.T. Community Service Officer 1988 SALARY 1989 SALARY $53,14f jO (5/1/89 Review) 27,851.00 $28,829.00 45,760.00 47,361.00 36,878.00 38.168.00 34.769.00 D.) 42,539.00 44,028.00 32,861.00 34,008.00 42,813.00 44,310.00 37,806.00 39,129.00 31,554.00 32,658.00 31,554.00 32,658.00 27,892.00 28,868.00 10.71/Hr 11.08/Hr 10.71/Hr 11.08/Hr 13.355/Hr 13.56/Hr A.) 11.990/Hr 12.17/Hr B.) 11.990/nr 12.17/Hr B.) 11.990/Hr 12.17/Hr B.) 12.674/Hr 12.99/Hr C.) 10.28/Hr 10.647/Hr 10.00/Hr 10.350/Hr 10.71/Hr 11.08/Hr 10.056/Hr 12.720/Hr 13.167/Hr 8.648/Hr 8.947/Hr 8.19/Hr 9.418/Hr 7.679/Hr 7.946/Hr 9.285/Hr 5.10/Hr 5.7/8/Hr Foot Notes: A.), B.), C. and D.) In addition a lump sum based on hours scheduled and worked will be paid quarterly (March 15, June 15, September 15 and December 15) A.) $.27/Hour, B.) $.24/Hour, C.) $.13/Hour and D.) Effective date of appointment of Lieutenant BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that mileage for City use of private cars on City business be reimbursed at $.24 per mile. CITY OF ORONO COMPENSATION PLAN EXPECTBP PERFORMANCE LEVELS 1989 42089. rrA,Ci*M.cwr C. LEVEL STEP STEP STEP STEP I II III IV 1 7.880 8.343 8.807 9.27 2 8.339 8.829 9.320 9.81 3 8.874 9.396 9.918 10.44 4 9.418 9.972 10.526 11.08 5 10.056 10.647 11.239 11.83 6 10.973 11.565 12.208 12.85 7 11.781 12.474 13.167 13.86 8 12.682 13.428 14.174 14.92 9 13.677 14.481 15.286 16.09 10 14.960 15.840 16.720 17.60 11 17.128 18.135 19.143 20.15 12 20.120 21.303 22.487 23.67 13 23.843 25.245 26.648 28.05 ^ U O 7 . o CITT OF ORONO CC»fPENSATION PLAN EXPECTED PERFORMANCE LEVELS PART TIME REGULAR POSITIONS 1989 LEVEL STEP STEP STEP STEP I II III IV Clerical I (L2/SII) 2 7.505 7.946 8.388 8.829 Police Secy 4 8.005 8.476 8.947 9.418 (L4/SI) o '7 DATE:April 21, 1989 TO:Mayor Grabek, Orono i FROM:Melvin Kilbo, Chief < SUBJECT:Public Auction The Police Department requests May 6, 198S at iu:uu a.,u. o. .-...tins 66 Station in Navarre. The veLcles to be auctioned have been abandoned, seized o* unclaimed This auction will be to satisfy tow and storage charges, and will be conducted in accordance with Orono ordinance 2.61. Th<^ vehicles will be sold to the highest bidder with payment in ^sh or check with all sales final. A detailed list will follow. TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Mark Bernhardsoi Forwarded recommending approval and to sell at wise dispose or destroy listed property together with other City property not needed. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by_ _, seconded by—The Orono City Council approves the auction of abandoned, seized or unclaimed vehicles, to be held May 6, 1989. Ayes_ _.Nays_ _ _. 41989.4 TO: Mark E. Eernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Thomas M. Kuehn# Finance Director —% DATE: April 19, 1989 SUBJECT: Insurance Agent of Record The City of Orono Agent of Record Agreeement with Mr. Duweyne Carlson of the Apple Valley Agency needs to be updated and signed for policy year 1989. We were very satisfied with Mr. Carlson as he continued his high level of service to the City during 1988. The fee for service requested for 1989 is $6,500.00 compared to $5,500.00 in 1988 and is covered in the 1989 insurance The increase is passed on to the City only to the extent that it is not covered by commission as the agent ^ commissions earned through the policy For example the fee for service in 1988 was $5,500.00 but after applying the commissions the City's direct cost was |1'529.65. I have attached a copy of the Agr'"»ement for Agent of Record fo 1989. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^iw^ Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by —, to appoint Mr. Duweyne Carlson, Apple Valley Agency, Insurance Agent of Record for 1989 at a fee not to exceed $6,500.00 commissions earned through policy premiums paid by the City. Ayes __, Nays __. 2288.2 (50) CITY OP ORONO AGENT OP RECORD AGREEMENT D; »eyn P. Carlson of the Apple Valley Agency agrees to perform the following services for the City of Orono: 1. The negotiation and placement of all the required insurance; 2. Information on relevant changes in insurance markets, products and services; 3. Assistance in developing comprehensive insurance coverages; 4. Provide an insurance policy inventory and summary; 5. A complete accounting of commissions earned (direct only) on the account; 6. A cumulative five-year premium and loss record; 7. Prepare an allocation of premium by department as required by the City; 8. Loss exposure list and classification; up-dated annually; 9. Assist with all claims and losses; 10. Assistance in minimizing premiums; reviewing and auditing rating basis, formulas, etc. 11. Assistance in loss prevention engineering and loss control; 12. Willingness to keep an in-agency record of losses including reserves established; 13. Assist the City in Risk Management program. The fee for service for the Insurance Policy year 1989 will be $6,500.00 and will cover the following: 1. Conduct an Exposure survey and prepare specifications 2. Obtain quotes 3. Review policies, billings and claims The City agrees to pay $1,000.00 upon delivery of the policies, and the balance of $5,500.00, less commissions received, upon documented presentation. This agreeemnt is valid for the calendar year 1989. APPLE VALLEY AGENCY Date Duweyn Carlson CITY OF ORONO Date James Grabek, Mayor Date Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator 41489.3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: April 14, 1989 SUBJECT: Fee Ordinance Amendment Attachment: A. Fee Ordiance Amendment #62 Double Fees Dated March 23, 1989 ISSUE - Reconsideration of policy on double fees. INTRODUCTION" Adopted at the Council's March 27, 1989 meeting was incorporation of current policy as it relates to the double feeing of property owners who are required to get after-the-fact variances. At the Council's April 10, 1989 meeting the Council directed that this be reconsidered and it is being brought back for your reconsideration at this time. DISCUSSION - The Council has indicated that they did not feel that exceptions for double fees should be made for homeowners, as homewoners should be just as aware of the regulations as should contractors. Additionally there was a feeling that in selected cases homeowners "become the contractors themselves" hiring individuals to do the work for them. ALTERNATIVES - Issue #1 Policy A. Concur with informal policy as noted in Attachment A. B. Amend by treating all After-the-Facts in an identical manner. C. Amend to have waiver done by Council D. Take no action. E. Table Issue #2 Implementation A. Continue any policy on an informal basis. B. Formalize by incorporating the policy in the fee ordinance. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that upon reconsideration that the Council delete the amendment adopted at the March 27, 1989 meeting. , seconded by _, , Second Series PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _ repeal the Ordinance No. ___ policy of double fees for After-the-Fact variances. Nays __. that the Council relating to the Ayes , cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator ORDINANCE NUMBER 41089.1 , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINACE NO 62, SECOND SERIES ADOPTED JANUARY 9, 1989, AND ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1989 FEE SCHEDULE." The City Council of Orono ordains: Ordinance Number 62, Second Series adopted January 9, 1989, and entitled "An Ordinance Adopting the 1989 Fee Schedule" is amended to read: ZONING APPLICATIONS AFTER-THE-FACT APPLICATION INVESTIGATION FEES (Resolution 1306) (Applies to all application types including variances, conditional use permits, subdivision, zoning amendments, rip-rap permits, special improvement reviews, grading permits, moving permits, business licenses, kennel licenses, all building permits and all general permits.) Whenever any work, use or division of land for which a formal application is required has been commenced without first making such application and receiving City approval therefore, a special investigation of the circumstances shall be made during the application process. Because of the extra administrative costs involved in the special investigation, the minimum application fee for after-the-fact applications shall be twice the fee setforth in the basic fee schedule, whether or not the application is thereafter approved or denied. This additional fee may be waived by staff for residential property owners who have not involved a contractor in their work and do not have a previous history of work without a permit. Payment of an after- the-fact application fee shall not constitute approval or authorization of the work, use, or division of land, and shall not constitute a penalty or a waiver of the right of the City to institute civil or criminal legal actions against the applicant for commencing such work, use or division of land without the required prior approval of the City. After-the-fact Investigation Fee Amount: Equal to and in addition to the basic fee amount (total fee is twice the basic fee amount) Res. 1306 This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the Council this 23rd day of March, 1989. ATTEST:James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 32389.1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrato DATE: March 23, 1989 SUBJECT: After the Fact - Charging Policy Attachments; A. Double Fee Memo Dated 3/22/89 „ , _ » c B. 1989 Fee Ordinance #62, Second Series Page 4-5 ISSUF - 1. Determination by Council as to the^ policy they desire regarding residential property owners causing the need for after the fact variances. 2. Determination of means by which the policy, if any, should be incorporated. INTRODUCTION - As outlined in Attachment A, the City has had an informal policy regarding this issue which has had the tacit approval of past Councils. DISCUSSION - As this is informal, the Planning Commission was not aware and' desired a clarification. Attachment B would be a logical place to incorporate any Council policy. ALTERNATIVES Issue #1 Policy A. Concur with informal policy as noted in Attachment A. B. Amend by treating all After the Facts in an identical manner. C. Amend to have waiver done by Council. D. Take no action. E. Table Issue #2 Implementation A. Continue any policy on an informal basis. B. Formalize by incorporating the policy in the fee ordinance. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended the current continued and incorporated in the City's Fee Ordinance with the following language on page 5; This additional fee may be waived by staff for residential property owners who have not involved a contractor in their work and do not have a previous history of work without a permit. PROPOSED MOTION - ;^ved by seconded by _i_ _ that the Orono City Council arne^.d Ordinance Number 62 of the second series to incorporate the policy regarding double fee payment by residential property owners. Ayes , Nays /.-rrAc.w'^efJT A TO; Mark A. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM; Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator DATE; March 22, 1989 SUBJ; Use of Double Fee/Penalties for Orono Residents At the March meeting of the Planning Commission, Members questioned Staff for not charging a penalty fee on a land use application involving a resident who constructed a deck without a building permit. Staff advised that the City does not charge a double fee for building permits or land use applications in cases where the resident performed construction work without the benefit of a building permit. It should be noted however that a resident is charged a double fee if the records reveal that work has previously been done on the property either by or for the owner without permits. Staff has followed thii> practice believing that this was an accepted policy of the City. The former City Council had been supportive of the special penalty policy, but failed to affirm it by formal action of the Council. Staff would recommend that Council reconsider special penalty policies for residents. The following options of actions are available; 1. Disapprove of the special policy for residents and direct Staff to double fee all residents who file after-the-fact building permit or land use applications. 2. To approve a policy that would exclude residents from paying penalty fees for after-the-fact building permits or land use applications if that resident was found to have never been in violation of performing construction work without a building permit. Further, direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment of the fee schedule that would clarify and formalize this policy. cc; Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members 12888.2 J TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator^ DATE: December 8, 1988 SUBJECT: 1989 Fee Ordinance Attachments: ISSUE A. Proposed 1989 Fee Ordinance B. Proposed Summary Ordinance C. Building Fees Memo Dated 11/21/88 1. Adoption of fee ordinance for 1989 including selected changes. 2. Adoption of summary ordinance for publication. INTRODUCTION - Annually the Council adopts a fee ordir.A the coming year. The changes between 1988 and 1989 are the summary ordinance. for in DISCUSSION - Several of the changes reflect increases in areas which have remained constant for a number of years. The fees attempt to reflect the time and materials involved. The change in the building permit fee schedule, as discussed in Attachment C, is a significant change but brings Orono's fees in line with over 3/4's of the Cities surveyed. The increases for the contract cities will be reflected in their contract renewal. The ordinance becomes effective upon publication. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt Ordinance and Summ* js presented. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Leave the 1988 rates in force for 1989 by amending the current ordinance extending them to 1989. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt Attachment A as the fees for 1989 and Attachment B as the Summary for publication. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Orono City council adopt Ordinance No. _ _, Second Series as the 1989 Fee Schedule repealing Ordinance Numbers 44, 49 and 56 of the Second Series and adopt Attachment B as the Summan^ Ordinance for publication. Ayes _, Nays c^j- _ r n' - ^ /frrAQ.H-fw.CUT" H ZOMIHG APPHOTIOHS (CONT.I Application Type RIP-RAP Staff Review (normal rip-rap) Unusual Rip-Rap: a) New installation b) Repair existing APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION (of Administrative decision) INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND APPLICATIONS Minimum Project Valuation: $250,000.00 Applicw.tion Fee: Fee Applicable Code Section No Charge $100.00 + CUP review Staff permit * $100.00 $100.00 10.06, Subd 3(D) 0.1% of project valuation ($250.00 minimum) plus $5,000.00 deposit for legal/ administrative expenses SURCHARGE FOR STAFF EXPENSE IN EXCESS OF APPLICATION FEES Per Fee Schedule setforth below: Professional Time Clerical Time Legal/Engineering Consultants Mileage/Copies/Postage/Etc. Section 10.11 $ 25.00/hour $ 15.00/hour Actual Billed Cost Actual Cost AFTER-THE-FACT APPLICATION INVESTIGATION FEES (Resolution 1306) subdivision including variances, conditional use permits, amendments, rip-rap permits, special improvement r^evlews, permits, moving permits, business licenses, kennel licenses all building permits and all general permits.) licenses, all ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT.) Whenever any work, use or division of land for which a formal application is required has been commenced without first making such application and receiving City approval therefore, a special investigation of the circumstances shall be made during the application process. Because of the extra administrative costs involved in the special investigation, the minimum application fee for after- the-fact applications shall be twice the fee setforth in the basic fee schedule, whether or not the application is thereafter approved or denied. Payment of an after-the-fact application fee shall not constitute approval or authorization of the work, use, or division of land, and shall not constitute a penalty or a waiver of the right of the City to institute civil or criminal legal actions against the applicant for commencing such work, use or division of land without the required prior approval of the City. After-the-fact Investigation Fee Amount:Equal to and in addition to the basic fee amount (total fee is twice the basic fee amount) Res. 1306 32389.1 TO: Mayor and City Council FBOM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATS: March 23, 1989 SUBJECT: After the Fact - Charging Policy Attachments: A. Double Fee Memo Dated 3/22/89 _ , _ . -B. 1989 Fee Ordinance #62, Second Series Page 4-5 ISSUE - 1. Determination by Council as to the policy they desire regarding residential property owners causing the need for after the fact variances. 2. Determination of means by which the policy, if any, should be incorporated. INTRODUCTION - As outlined in Attachment A, the City has had an Tntormal policy regarding this issue which has had the tacit approval of past Councils. DISCUSSION - As this is informal, the Planning Commission was not aware and desired a clarification. Attachment B would be a logical place to incorporate any Council policy. ALTEr iTIVES Issue #1 Policy A. Concur with informal policy as noted in Attachment A. B. Amend by treating all After the Facts in an identical manner. C. Amend to have waiver done by Council. D. Take no action. E. Table Issue #2 Implementation A. Continue any policy on an informal basis. B. Formal *.ze by incorporating the policy in the fee ordinance. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended the current policy jae H^Inued and“Tncorporated in the City's Fee Ordinance with the following language on page 5;C This additional fee may be waived by staff for residential property owners who have not involved a contractor in their work and do not have a previous history of work without a permit. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by __,_ __. ^ . that the Orono City Council amend Ordinance Number 62 of the second series to incorporate the policy regarding double fee payment by residential property owners. Ayes __, Nays __. A G TO: Mark A. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator DATE: March 22, 1989 SUBJ: Dse of Double Pee/Penalties for Orono Residents At the March meeting of the Planning Commission, Members questioned Staff for not charging a penalty fee on a land use application involving a resident who constructed a deck without a building permit. Staff advised that the City does not charge a double fee for building permits or land use where the resident performed construction work without the benefit of a building permit. It should be noted however that a resident is charged I Luble fee if the has previously been done on the property either by or for the owner without permits. staff has followed this practice accepted policy of the City. The former City Counci 1 had been supportive of the special penalty policy, but failed to aff^.i™ it by formal action of the Council. Staff would recommend that Council reconsider special penalty policies for residents. The following options of actions are available: 1 Disapprove of the special policy for residents and direct Staff to double fee all residents who file after-the-fact building permit or land use applications. 2. To approve a policy that would exclude residents from paying penalty fees for after-the-fact building permits ^ Le applications if that resident was found to have violation of performing construction work without a building permit. Further, direct staff to prepare an of the fee schedule that would clarify and formalize this policy. cc: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members 12888.2 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratox^* \N DATE: December 8, 1988 SUBJECT: 1989 Fee Ordinance Attachments:A. Proposed 1989 Fee Ordinance B. Proposed Summary Ordinance C. Building Fees Memo Dated 11/21/88 ISSUE 1. Adoption of fee ordinance for 1939 includinc selected changes. 2. Adoption of summary ordinance for publication. INTRODUCTION - Annually the Council adopts a the coming year. The changes between 1988 and 1939 are noted the summary ordinance. DISCUSSION - Several of the changes reflect increases in which hav"e remained constant for a number of years. The fees attempt to reflect the time and materials involved. in the building permit fee schedule, as discussed in Attachment C, is a significant change but brings Orono s fees in line with over 3/4*s of the Cities surveyed. The increases for the contract cities will be reflected in their contract renewal. The ordinance becomes effective upon publication. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt Ordinance and Summary as presented. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Leave the 1988 rates in force for 1989 by amending the current ordinance extending them to 1989. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt Attachment A as the fees for 1989 and Attachment B as the Summary for publication. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by , City council adopt Ordinance No. _ _, Second Series as the 1989 Fee Schedule repealing Ordinance Numbers 44, ‘‘S ^ Second Series and adopt Attachment B as the Surnma^ Ordinance for publication. Ayes _, Nays _. O o ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT.) Application Type RIP-RAP Staff Review (normal rip-rap) Unusual Rip-Rap: a) New installation b) Repair existing APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION (of Administrative decision) INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND APPLICATIONS Minimum Project Valuation: $250,000.00 Application Fee: o O Fee Applicable Code Section No Charge $100.00 + CUP review Staff permit » $100.00 $100.00 10.06, Subd 3(D) 0.1% of project valuation ($250.00 minimum) plus $5,000.00 deposit for legal/ administrative expenses Section 10.11SURCHARGE FOR STAFF EXPENSE IN EXCESS OF APPLICATION FEES Per Fee Schedule setforth below: Professional Time $ 25.00/hour Clerical Time $ 15.00/hour Legal/Engineering Consultants Actual Billed Cost Mileage/Copies/Postage/Etc. Actual Cost AFTER-THE-FACT APPLICATION INVESTIGATION FEES (Resolution 1306) (Applies to all application types including variances, conditional use permits, subdivision, zoning amendments, rip-rap permits, special improvement reviews, grading permits, moving permits, business licenses, kennel licenses, all building permits and all general permits.) f ZONING APPLICATIONS (COHT.) Whenever any work^ use or division of land for which a formal application is required has been commenced without first making such application and receiving City approval therefore, a special investigation of the circumstances shall be made during the application process. Because of the extra administrative costa involved in the special investigation, the minimum application fee for after- the-fact applications shall be twice the fee setforth in the basic fee schedule, whether or not the application is thereafter approved or denied. Payment of an after-the-fact application fee shall not constitute approval or authorization of the work, use, or division of land, and shall not constitute a penalty or a waiver of the right of the City to institute civil or criminal legal actions against the applicant for commencing such work, use or division of land without the required prior approval of the City. After-the-fact Investigation Fee Amount:Equal to and in addition to the basic fee amount (total fee is twice the basic fee amount) Res. 1306 O 42189.IHD Toi Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: April 21, 1989 Subject: Golf Course Green Fees - Adjustment In January 1989, the annual fee schedule was approved by City Council. A mistake was made regarding the golf course green fees. I have drafted an ordinance aunendment with the correct amounts. ____, Second Series amending theRecommendation - To approve Ordinance #____ golf course green fees for 1989. Proposed Motior - Moved by _, seconded by _ _, to approve Ordinance #_ _ _ _ _, Second Series amending the golf course green fees for 1989. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Forwarded recommending approval. 42189.2 ORDIHANCE NUMBER 65 , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 62, SECOND SERIES ADOPTED JANUARY 9, 1989, AND ENTITLED "1989 FEE SCHEDULE, GOLF COURSE CHARGES". The City Council of Orono ordains: Ordinance Number 62, Second Series adopted January 9, 1989, and entitled "1989 Fee Schedule, Golf Course Charges" is amended to read: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES GOLF COURSE CHARGES - Effective date 1989 Seas 'n Fee Before 12 Noon Weekdays except Holidays 1st Round 2nd Round After 12 Noon Weekdays and Weekends 1st Round 2nd Round Senior Citizen League Play $ 5.25 3.25 $ 5.75 3.25 $ 3.755.25 $100.00Senior Citizen Season Ticket This ordinance becomes effective May 8, 1989. Passed by the council this 24th day of April, 1989. Published in the Laker and Pioneer Newspaper on the 8th day of May, 1989. o A RESOLOnOH OF APPRBCIATIOH STANLEY HEMPHILL WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota? and WHEREAS, the cities of Orono, Spring Park, Mound and Hen* in County agreed upon a design for the reconstruction of County Road 15 from Navarre to Mound? and WHEREAS, Hardrives Inc. was the lowest responding bidder for the project? and WHEREAS, Hardrives Inc. provided personnel to construct the project? and WHEREAS, Stanley Hemphill was very instrumental in constructing a very difficult project due to restrictions related to maintaining traffic —Inflow, construction within very narrow rights-of-way, and maintaining access ^^o businesses and residences? and WHEREAS, Stanley Hemphill and personnel from Hardrives Inc. performed their duties in an exemplary manner. HOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono Council does extend its appreciation to Stanley Hemphill and personnel from Hardrives Inc. and thanks them for a "job well done". Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held April 24, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor O / o A RBSOLUTIOM OF APPP^CIATION DAVID N. FBLTL WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the cities of Orono, Spring Park, Mound and Hennepin County agreed upon a design for the reconstruction of County Road 15 from Navarre to Mound; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County provided personnel to administer and supervise the reconstruction of County Road 15; and WHEREAS, David M. Feltl, Project Engineer was very instrumental in supervising a very difficult ’reject due to restrictions related to maintaining traffic flcv', coastr j.on within very narrow rights-of-way, and maintaining access co businesses and residences; and WHEREAS, David Feltl performed his duties in an exemplary manner. O THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono Council does extend its appreciation to David M. Feltl and thanks him *or a "job well done". Adopted by the City Council of the Citj regular meeting held April 24, 1989. ATTESTI Orono, Minnesota at a Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor O o! A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION DONALD L. HANNAN WHEREAS# the City of Orono is a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS# the cities of Orono, Spring Park, Mound and Hennepin County agreed upon a design for the reconstruction of County Road 15 from Navarre to Mound; and WHEREAS# Hennepin County provided personnel to administer and supervise the reconstruction of County Road 15; and WHEREAS# Donald L. Hannan, Project Supervisor were v-ry instrumental in supervising a very difficult project due to restrictions related to maintai''..*n;j traffic flow, construction within very narrow rights-of-way, and maintaining access to businesses and residences; and WHEREAS# Donald Hannan performed his duties in an exemplary manner. ^ NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono Council does extend its appreciation to Donald Hannan and thanks him for a "job well done • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held April 24, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor O 42089.4 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: April 19, 1989 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information COUNTY ROAD 15/GRAND OPENING ■ MAY 6, 1989 - Grand opening will be held in the parking lot at the Marina Shopping Center, Spring Park at 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, May 6, 1989. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call John Gerhardson. HIGHWAY 12 TASK FORCE - A meeting has been established for April 2/th at the Orono Middle School from 1:30 to 2:30 on Thursday, April 27, 1989. In attendance at the meeting in addition to Commissioner Levine will most probably be representatives from MnDOT District 5, together with representatives from the six communities on this sector of Highway 12. RECYCLING RESULTS TO DATE - The recycling for the first three months of operation has had a total average of 37.6% of the people participating together with about 13 1/2% (about 18 tons/pick-up) of the waste being recycled. The most recent pick­ up for which data is available (the first week of April) however, has indicated that the participation rate is 48% and the diversion is approximately 28 tons. The figure of participation rate represents the participation on each pick-up and it is very possible that some people are only doing the recycling once a month and if they alternate with other people the actual participation rate may in fact be higher. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT - As one of the goals and objectives was the review of City ’s solid waste management and whether the City should undertake more stringent regulations. The two areas for increased solid waste management would be; 1.) going to mandatory recycling and with persons who do not recycle being subject to a fine, in the manner loomington has undertaken, and 2.) that of organized collection. Organized collection is done by dividing the community into sectors and then contracting the collection of garbage with th': lowest responsible bidder in that sector. The organized v^oliection is currently not required to be done. There may be a legislative mandate promoted by the Counties to do that within tba next couple years however. The Counties want to control the waste stream and insure that all the waste that is being collected in the County goes to the incinerator. An issue related to this however that has been gaining both legal and legislative attention has been the issue of "just compensation". There apparently has been a law suit by the "losing" haulers against a communitv that went to organized collection from one where they only licensed haulers. The haulers are suing for "lost business A as they no longer will be collecting in the community under the theory of a governmental taking. Even though this was done through a bid process the contractors that were not awarded bids have been demanding "just compensation". A bill in the Legislature is attempting to deal with this and would require the Cities to pay compensation to the haulers who do not get the bid, but would also allow the City to tax an additional amount to pay the costs of that just compensation. This bill is being promoted by the waste haulers but has had strong opposition from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. At this time it is staff's recommendation that nothing further be done. This is in part because the current recycling program is achieving desired results together with the fact that the issue of going to an organized collection is currently subject to litigation and Legislative action. PROPERTY TAX BROCHURE - As noted in the Attachment the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities has put together a small brochure to answer some basic questions about the current property tax situation, specifically as it relates to Metro rates versus Greater Minnesota rates. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. association ofmetropoitanmunicipalities TO: A>tM City Managers FROM: Verr Peterson, Executive Director Roger Peterson, Director of Legislative Affairs Melanie Ault, Legislative Coordinator DATE: April 18, 1989 SUBJECT: PROPERTY TAX IMPACT BROCHURE Enclosed are the brochures produced by the ad hoc Property Tax Impact Committee, co-chaired by Larry Bakken and Jim Prosser. The brochure was designed to be a set of responses to some questions residents commonly ask about their property taxes. The brochures contain the same information as the article which we mailed out last week. You may want to use the brochures with your Board of Review, mail them to community organizations or display them at City Hall. If you choose to use cither the article or the brochures, we are interested in any response you get. If you would like additional brochures, please ask. 183 university avenue east, st. paul. minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 iiuomc tax icnciuk' w.is maicMtUcd within the tm tro aiva, yt*i wt- rc< t*ivi*<l onh K/; bai k in aid, a fating an 18^,' aid gaj). In 1987, this dispariiv iiK rcasrd about ‘JO'V, and 1988 is piojrc tt*d to he e\en more. Q V\7/y is sn much more mntwy ij;iiiug to out-stutr communities? A The loimula for aid to cities and school disiri( ts is lari;elv dependent upon propeil) \ alues. I he lower |)ropeil\ values in out-state tri^i^ers more aid to l iiies and s( hoof disirii ts th(‘ie. Q What can hr doth ’ tit correct this * ftrohlem? A The l(‘gislature must ri toj^ni/e the need to develop a more e(|uital)K ‘ lax system, ( 'all or write yom lej'isl.itors. association of metropo Itan munlcipa ities Association of Metropolitan Municipalities iSt l ni\eisii\ Avfiiur K.im St. Mimu'soi.i "\MtH ‘JL>7-I00K PROPERTY T4Y IMPACT MADE UNDERSTANDABLE p- ( V/Y, county, and school officials are increas ­ ingly cionerned about I e^islatii ’e changes in the jnofierty tax system. I'or many years local governments have relied ufion pro ­ perty tax to fund a si^rnificant portion of the seivices they provide for their consti ­ tuents. Recent changes in the tax anil aid programs provided tit litcal governments, are placing greater tax hurdens itu metro area lutmeitwuers. I 'Itimutely, these tax ­ payers must decide whether this trend is accefttahle itr mtt. ( ’ity, ntunty, ami sclntitl officials are (oncerned that if this trend citnttihus many taxpayers will he unable or unwilling tit pay these higher taxes. The fitUowiug questions and responses are pwviilnl tit ilescrilte the tax ililemma we jace. Metro Area Property Tax AVERAGE TAX ON THE AVERAGE VALUE HOUSE $1100} ^ I i $1000 I----------1- I S900f $800 $700 f I $600 f I $500 f $4001- $300^ [ $200 f $100f -1— ir j- Non Metro Area-} , Property Tax ^ 1985 1986 1987 FISCAL YEAR 1988 1989est. ^ ^ / fit' '.t'l^islahnr ha.\ nutilt'a uiunhn of (fid nj^t s (n>t’i tilt’ fuist fwtt \t'ais (tt tbf' stntf's firitfinty fax syslnn. I also uiidnstaiifl that llit' It’trislalim’ has tlmnirrd flit' ftniinila foi aid to si littols and t ito's. W fnit imjnnt irilf tfit’si’ iliaio^rs havt' on tlir avt iio’i lioiist’liold H A I ’lilommaicK, the (omhiiicd cKci i <>( all ilu- ( haninrs made l>\ ilu* LfiL;islaluif will iiu lease pmjx-m taxes lor most hoMU'owiu rs in du* meim- polilan area. Q // till state flat s not s/u nd oni * Ifhiil jnofh ’ity ta\ ilollai s tin n hint' fan tln sf fhanij;t's rntl n/> ittstinii ns iiioh ’ iiitniry ^ A l.o( .il ]L>o\emmenis j^ei niosi o| X^e iheii mone\ lioin propeilv taxes and slate .tid. St.tte aid is a paili.il ii'tnrn ol inone\ i^enei.iled llnons;li st.ite s.iles and iiKome l.ix. S.iles i.ixes weie initi.ilU .ippmu ’d to rediue Nh.iI propiaix taxes. Most (iiies .111(1 s( liools in the inetm aie.i .ire ie(ei\iiu; less. <n .it lu st. onl\ sliopth iiinie .lids ill.in tlie\ li.ne leieixed in |>.is| \e.its. I herelnre. in order to iii.iini.iin the s.mie level ol sen i( es .ind (‘dne .iiion. iIk niiisi i.iise pio|)en\ i.ixt's to in.ike ii|) lor the loss in si.ite .lid. ^ j ! f t iiif’ i^ft tins stifuiffit. i'.Vf'ii thoiiLili we will he more /no/ierty tfixes. wi will not netessarily reeewe fnofnntitnially more in seiviees hy tnirrity and SI In ltd ft 1st net? No. not il von live in the iiuiro .e .ire.i. J \ SfK are you saying tin it if my /nv^/>f7/v tfixes imietise ItV’i that my city anti st hot d will ind ret five lO^'i more in revenue tt> sfiend on seivites? A riial s rii;hi. ( iiies and si hools xiLe lie(|nenilv must iiu lease I.ixes to hal.ime the loss ol si.ue .lids. Q-/ hntnr I tun flaying more in income tax. anti the cost ttf irtnnls 1 am hiiyiiiii '' >>fh vn stiles tax rt'vennes mast also he int reasin^. If cities anti St holds are not receivinir this moni’y, where is it lioiini? A. Q inn metrofiolitan area ? How ninth of ms sales ami * income tax dollar stays within A.In lhS7. onlv loi' o| even doll.II st.ived uitliin the Metro area. .\ l.iii;er pei(eni.ii;e of St.lie aid is heinj^ sent to iKMi-inetro eoiniminities, vvhi( li leaves a smaller JH'K eiil.i!:;e within ih(‘ imiropoliian area. In l‘IS(i. Iil^7 ol St.lie sales and ^ s> TO: Mayor and City Council SUBJECT: Ordinance 2.05 - Required Agenda Attached is previous memo for Council's convenience. The City Attorney will be discussing this matter. 33189.8 TO: Mayor and City Council FBOM: Mark E, Bernhardsonr City Adrainistrato DATE: March 31, 1989 SUBJECT: Ordinance 2.05 - Required Agenda Attachment: A. Ordinance Number 2.05 B. Draft of Proposed Revision ISSUE - Bring existing procedure and present into conformance with each other. INTRODUCTION - A recent review of Section 2.05 indicates Uiat the existing Ordinance regarding format at the regular Council meetings is not within in the format that has been utilized for at least the last 9 to 10 years. ALTERNATIVES - A. Adopt Attachment B to conform with present procedure. B. Amend present procedure to conform with existing ordinance. C. Table for further discussion. D. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Ordinance Number 2.05 be amended to conform to current practice. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council adopt Ordinance Number , Second Series as an amendment to Section 2.05 regarding tHe required order on the agenda. Ayes _, Nays _. 3 /(rHVQiUA.cwr A S 2.05 SEC. 2.05. COUNCIL PROCEDURE AT REGULAR MEETINGS. The City Clerk shall prepare the following items: (1) an agenda for the forthcoming meeting; (2) a report from the City Administrator on administrative activities of the preceding month; (3) a compiled list of all claimants who have filed verified accounts claiming payment for goods or services rendered the City during the preced­ ing month, such list to be called the "Claim Report" and bearing headings -Claimant", "Purpose", and "Amount"; and, (4) a copy of all minutes to be considered. The City Clerk shall forthwith cause to be delivered or mailed to the Mayor and each Council member copies of all said documents. Roberts* Rules of Order (Newly Revised) shall govern all Council meetings as to procedural matters ^ot set forth in th^ City Code. The order of business at regular meetings shall be a?i follows: 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Det<=r!r.ination of Quorum. 4. Consent Agenda. Routine items approved on one motion in the absence of a request for discussion. 5. Approval of Minutes. (Actual reading shall be waived in the absence of demand for reading. 6. Reports From Boards and Commissions. 7. Meeting Opened in the Order Stated in the Agenda to Persons Requesting to Appear Before the Council. The presiding officer may advise any person appearing as to the amount of time allowed prior to his speaking, or later limit such time. Persons speaking shall give their name, address, and state their business. 8. Reports of Staff Members. 9. Reports of Mayor and Council Members. 10. Meeting Opened to the Public. The presiding officer shall limit the time allowed. Persons speaking shall give their name, address, and state their business. 11. Licenses and Permits. 12. Payment of Claims and Approval for Payment of Claims and Appropriations. 13. Adjournment. ORONO CC (4-1-84) S 2.05 Matters inappropriate for consideration at a meeting, or not in the order specified, shall not be considered except (1) with the unani­ mous consent of the members of the Council, or (2) scheduled public hearings or bid lettings at the time stated in the notice. All requests for placement on the agenda, including payments, must be filed seven days preceding the regular Council meeting at which it is to be considered. The position of City SBC. 2.06. CITY ADMINISTRATOP Subd. 1. Position Established. Administrator is hereby established. Subd. 2. Appointment and Removal. The City Adminis­ trator shall be appointed by the Council for an indefinite term. He shall not be removed except by affirmative action taken by the Council twice at two regular meetings held within sixty days. The action taken at the first 'uch meeting shall be an expression of intent to vote thereon at the second such regular meeting not to be held sooner than ten days thereafter. If, at any time after he has completed six months of continuous service, the Council takes such action, the City Administrator may within thirty days after written notice of removal, request a public hearing which the Council must grant and which must be started within thirty days after the request. Subd. 3. Qualifications. The City Administrator shall be selected solely on the basis of his executive and administrative qualifications with special reference both to his experience, formal education, as well as his knowledge of accepted practices pertaining to the duties of his office. Subd. 4. Duties. The City Administrator shall be the chief administrative officer of the City and he shall be respon­ sible to the Council for the proper administration of all affairs of the City and to that end shall have the power and shall be required to; A. Supervise the administration of all Departments, offices and divisions of the City except as otherwise provided by law and carry out any other responsibilities placed under his jurisdiction by this Chapter or by subsequent Council action. He shall interview and screen all prospective City employees as per­ mitted by law and may make recommendations to the Council before the Council makes any appointment; he may also make recommendations for terminating and suspending employees and may suspend any employee until the next Council meeting when the Council shall affirm, modify or rescind the suspension. B. Develop and issue all administrative rules, regulations and procedures necessary to insure the proper function­ ing of all departments and offices under his jurisdiction as permitted by law and Council approval. OROMO CC (4-1-84) 4 ORDINANCE NO.SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.05 OP ORDINANCE NUMBER 2 ADOPTED APRIL If 1984f AND ENTITLED "AH ORDINANCE RELATING TO COUNCIL PROCEDURES AT REGULAR MEETINGS.” The City Council or Orono ordains: Section 2.05 of Ordinance Number 2 adopted April If 1984, and entitled "An Ordinance Relating to Council Procedure at Regular Meetings" is amended to read; COUNCIL PROCEDURE AT REGULAR MEETINGS. The City Clerk shall prepare the following items: (1) an agenda for the forthcoming meeting; (2' a report from the City Administrator on administrativi activities of the preceding month; (3) a compiled list of all claimants who have filed verified accounts claiming payment of goods or services rendered the City during the prLeding month, such list to be called the "Claim^Report and bearing headings "Claimant", "Purpose", and Amount ; and, (4) a copy of all minutes to be considered. The City Clerk shall forthwith cause to be delivered or mailed to the Mayor and each Council member copies of all said documents. Roberts* Rules of Order (Newly Revised) shall govern all Council meetings as to procedural matters not set forth in the City Code. The order of business at regular meetings shall be as follows: 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Determination of Quorum. 4. Consent Agenda. Routine items approved on one motion in the absence of a request for discussion. 5. Approval of Minutes. (Actual reading shall be waived in the absence of demand for reading.) 6. Reports from Boards and Commissions. 7. Meeting Opened to the Public. The presiding officer shall limit the time allowed. Persons speaking shall give their name, address, and state their business. This shall be limited to items not already on the agenda. 8. Report by Zoning Administrator. 9. Report by City Engineer. 10. Reports of Mayor and Council Members. 11. Report by City Administrator. 12. Report by City Attorney. 13. Licenses and Permits. 14. Payment of Claims and Approval for Payment of Claims and Appropriations. 15. Adjournment. Matters inappropriate for consideration at a meeting, or not in the order specified, shall not be considered excp-‘ '1) with the unanimous consent of the members of the Council, ?;cheduled public hearings or bid lettings at the time sta * notice. All requests for placement on the agenda, inclu. payments, must be filed seven days preceding the regular Council meeting at which it is to be considered. Passed by the Council this 10th day of April, 1989. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OP April 24, 1989 Limited Trapping Pr-rmit - ‘I tr?rning at - Michael and Sally Bosanko 8407 Penn Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431. 2090 Shoreline Drive April 25 - May 6, 1999 Residential Kennel License -John M. Hollander 200 Hollander Road Ross B. Nathanson 2420 Countryside Drive Thomas Anderson 3550 North Shore Drive i?-: -r:— f,- - - - ' —- • _• - . - I. V—•-.-•••• .-.''W ■ ... r?TTT.'1;.- - . . ■ :i r*M zrurs' j . r r •• ■'.~ r — ■; ■ ■ • r .ju“ APPLICATION AhR - 3 I2d ■jl!!Ill:''-', limited leghold trap permit J/ > 19 Appllc^lon Number; _ Name: _ _ _ AddressS/(6 i/'c^li^cr OirC^ic. t \J(rs^^a&a (^Qirai^o^j if/_ _ _ _ Location of Traplinet/jf ^^orc o-f ^i/nrufler h^i 0^ /i3 y Number of Traps: ^ Maintenance procedure for trapline: 7^3^S U/'t'ff OH cJ-gi'/yf h3^is teller {A Period of time needed for permit :3 I y ^ j (yi\ flfirl! o(io:ce^ Purpose ( Include written statement of hardship) rynot^^r:^ (9^^ ^ 0( Au-^Mrto^. ^.hriL<ZA /C^ 0^ :i;:;" ::o: ^ci no: ,•. f I \ r 10. fOU / ^ \r •.')J/. ^1 agree to furnish a certified property owners list of property owners within 500 feet of trapping area. Property owners will be notified of application, I agree to abide by all applicable Federal, dtate# and- Local Laws Including ordinance 252, Sally H. Bounko 8407 Penn A»enue Souih Minneapolis. M.N 55431 bESS'm 'U<J ") /^-5*<g-<cAy Signature of Applicant Fee paid: Date: Check Cash Initials RECOMMENDED: Yea |><l No [ j/^'-lX^j^ ^cijS-o Public Safety tiirec-fcor ^fevu as-- iviftH. Certified list of property owners within 500 feet of your trr-^line can be obtained from the Hennepin County Property & Description ' Ire, A-60? County Government Center, downtown Minneapolis, ^ . Mailing Address (if different):^_________________ ________________—---------------------- Phones (home) y_______ (wor)c)------------------------------------- ^ XBSIDBSTIAL Kennel license Information: $.’0.50 - 1989 Licensing Pei.ica (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at onj tiir.3:__;5- - {..J/r Of^O^rO (over 6 months of age) n,V4,VfE OFFICE ^ iinsocoooPrincipal Breed; L At , Z/_ Purpose for more than 2 Dogs normally kept;inside _X _ker.neX structure C0HM2HC1M. Kennel License Informations $125.00 - 1950 Licensing Period (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:, ^exim^e :^'^boarding,' breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _—- - - -—- - After Hours Contact: (name),^_ _ _ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ (phone)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __ Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside ____^outside ___^both ‘^’folate any provision of any City w c .nan - -fehe premises '."i v.', - ....bi.' "■'i.s: the City Council as part of any keirnel^ licensQ > oval.V* • Applicant i* TSt V e For City Cs? Only KeHneT' tnij.'-S'r’ted by / k Reco;nmenus Approval Denial «Xl/'Z. V-. Mho April 5, 1989 o c> ^ / c3 o 5'g ^ i^O & C I »..r S t. Michael and Sally Bosanko, owners of the property at 2090 Shoreline Drive, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391, are re­ questing a limited leghold trapping permit to have a pro­ fessional trapper trap beaver which have moved in on their shoreline and are doing extensive damage to trees in the area. This would be accomplished before April 28th. If you have any objections or comments, please call me at 47 7710, or write to me a\ P.O. Box 86, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323, by 4:30 p.m. or April 13, 1989. Sincerely, Melvin Kill' Ch^ ^ of Pc i KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 19 Sf to December 31, 19 JZ, Owner:/s. /ifATIAAAJSOr^ Property A<^dreee= UMXO C o^^ ~D,^v^£ L.OA^C- ^/4-Alg /H (include city and zip) ^ bTsT Mailing Address (if different);^_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone; (home) V74-3-~7^i^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (work)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Information: $20.50 - 1989 Licensing Period (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one timet ^ (over 6 months of age) CITY CF CROnO Principal Breed: AlA 5 7" ( f'_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ^aw-v'i-OiV Purpose for more than 2 dogs: y A/7^_ _ _ _ _ Dogs normally kept: \/ inside kennel structure i£V :0.5i CrECX n 20.5C ■;f '00 COMMERCIAL Kennel License Information: $125.00 - 1989 LicensinViPeriodjij; (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities:_ _ _;_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, Normal Business Hours:____ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • • After Hours Contact: (name)^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (phone) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Dog runs/exercise areas are: _inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 Including any special imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approvalIf @ [| I; ff Applicant Date lU h" FEB I 3-3 For City Use Only .'^ennel inspected by n Date Recoiiw-^-nds Approval_^Denial KEHNKL LICSHS| APPLICATIOT Effective January 1, 19 to December 31, 19_£^ Owner; / . ^ ^ ---- property Address: B6SD ^ (include city and zip' Mailing Address (if different):. Phone : (home )(work ) ^_ RESIDBanAL Kennel License Infection: $20.50 - 1989 LicensingJ|H?d^|^ (payment must accompany application) _ . ijnsOOOOO ' Maximum No. of dogs to be Icept at one time:----^---- -Jj ’i.5; (over 6 months of age) r„rrv 20.SC Prlncxual Breed: Purposo for more than 2 dogs; Dogs normally Icept: _ _ _inside __)U^ennel structure • vM--* «s«CIAL Kennel License Information: $125.00 - 1989 Licensing Period (payment must accompany application) Name of Business; - - - --- - - - --- - - - --- - - -— Normal Business Hours:_ _ _ _ __— —-- - - - - - - - - - - -- After Hours Contact:(name) (phoneT Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside _ _^both Kennel License o- does not grant any authority to a kennel license is permissive -X ^ other law or regulation? the violate any provision to inspect the premises undersigend hereby grants ^ other reasonable time during the prior to license approval -to abide by the requirements .X • ' ■♦• . . M > i/ • ra-'ir. * I DataApplicant ___________ _____________________________________ * For City Use Only Kennel inspected by , Recommends Approval__J(^_ Denial. Date 04/16/89 PR: CB PRREGOR CITY OF ORONO PAYROLL REGISTER PACE ID: I 36« ■3 I ui M »Tisr \%4i *»r YTD NAME grtuCE L___ BCRNHARDSON, HARK E BCRNHARD80N. HARK E »0*ZICMr-8yE -A BOSHA, JAHIE L BRINKHAU8, JOHN F „CME«UXCK,~CARY B- — CHRISTIANSON, SALLY CORNICK. JANES L ENGLISHIXI, 18 18 -a» 18 48 -31- 31 31 IRVINS H 31 ERICKSON, KURT R 31 FISCHENICH, DAN T 31 -FRlTZLERr-JOHN-H-- - -31 6AFFR0N, NICHAEL P 33 GERHARDSON, JOHN R 48 SRE60»Y^3AMSV D 4«- HALLIN, DOROTHY H 18 HANSEN, STEVEN C 48 -HANSING, CAROL J- - -31 JACOBS, THONAS J 33 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P 31 -KILSO^-MELVIN^ H-------------31- KNUTSON, CHARLOTTE A 15 KUEHN. THONAS N 15 -KUYFCRr SCOTT E. - 3V NABOSTH, JEANNE A 33 NILL8JR. WALTER H 93 «0RAI4,-NARK-R —- -^ V- 6R0S8 -t 1818, 13 15308 56 17358.64 7079.50 4049.06 11508 34 _11463.80 1368 00 11589 10900. 10698 1 0455 1141 a. 9981 13449 - 9803. 8809 7118 3946.87 9981.88 11066.38 14476.00 7046.87 13545.74 -1543^08 11959.63 47.50 -4^V970.^18 70 79 75 59 .56 93 76 .58 68 53 CURRENT CROSS - 1379.9S 850.00 8044.08 888.40 450.63 1301.83 -1460.^56 198 00 1325.97 1365.77 1318 16 1308 44 1367.59 1850.08 1684.83 -^1 079.80 1103.81 968.81 -490.00 1850.08 1370 89 1818.80 808 41 1696.33 -5/e.88 1497 68 47.50 -1330.80 58 1 NOROWCZYN8KI, JANES 31 18885.86 1387.36 m :NAAB, THERESA L 18 7008 89 S88.40 M i 0A8> DANIEL-0 - - - - - -93-- 85.00 - 85.00 CBRIEN, RANDY L 98 7907.06 947.60 ONAN, LYLE E 33 8369.40 1048.081_OOAST^WAYNE A- - - --98-9887.97 -1189^56 8U RATHBUN, BARRY J 98 8801.86 847.44 41 SAS8, JOHN J 48 8938.19 968 80 SCHAUS8,—CHARLES R 3L SCHEFFLER, LAURIE K 1C SKREEN, DALE 8 48 STEFFENHAGENr-RONALO-93 STEVENS, BETTY C 93 THONTON, MARK R 31 -TOHCHECK.^-LAURENCE F 31- TOMC2YK, MARK U 31 WALSH, KEVIN L 35 WAUTERS, -LINDA G- -—15- -8778.10 5969.31 8580.77 8883.60 58.50 9776 80 10174.30- 10658.18 1886.09 —800.40 1181.07 750.84 998.80 1104.96 58.50 1308.45 _1886-33 1318.16 345.00 --800.40 —18S-S3 305.88 ^•8.68 169 01 181.96 88.50 95 31 146.95 806 98 161 89 886.17 177.15 848.04 37. V3 140.41 80.45 58 . U 188.35 805.49 820.76 93.68 161.81 78 76 139.53 16S.80 1 15 38 1 08 68 150.14 17.09 - 133.81 80.51 109.58 113.18 89.58 134.30 88.97 149.75 -4 68.85 188.84 45.45 -85.87 SIT FICA NEOI CARE PENSIOH CONTRIB DCF COMP DEDCTNS -52.49 116.76 43.44 75 58 50.48 110.40 713.95 153.51 66.87 33.84 97.77 - - - .35.30 ~ 18 03 58.07 116.84 - C01.59 100.00 35.09 116.97 818.50 3.00 194.85 8 98 38.18 63.75 75 63 71.40 81.18 73 86 98 73 93.88 186 49 8.7B 18.89 106.08 109.86 1 05 45 104 80 109.41 50.00 67.37 100.00 40.00 81 80 64.95 31 .55 - 89.07 131 35 37.50 15.09 60 87 38 17 80.84 70.31 75.81 98.65 37.44 71.36 89-08 59 79 73.49 46.88 43 44 59.39 6 S3 Si 74 38.80 43.80 45.74 35.83 54.87 33. 18 65 84 64.57 54.09 18. 16 34.10 81.05 88.85 78 76 36.80 93.88 66.87 187.39 118.48 66.87 71.16 79.71 89.34 63.64 78 7C 56.34 78.74 88.98 60.11 43.17 800.00 37.50 3T7.8a 850.00 1,831.98 511.80 186.86 904.46 877 09 157.74 1,004.66 980.86 798.55 946.66 981.88 684.38 1,118.10 -664.66 No -8.31 0.69 L9.30 1.83 16.86 0 76 :7.78 5.00 44.13 4 50 771.05 38.75 40 00 80.18 684.56 1 9.60 37.50 383.15 _ _ _ 50.00 100.00 747.48 109 67 89.18 951.40 145.08 50.00 48.49 U855.88 35 30 100 00 78 49 477.89 67.85 800.00 48.00 1,086.58 45. 83 416 J90_ _ _ _ 59.91 37 . SO 1,088.47 46.81 106.46 110.99 765-05 £01.30. 76.45 1,037.78 35.30 137.50 491.87 _ _83 77L. 37.90 689.01 41 .98 65 18 838 41 - 47 .58 - 50-00 B12-09 33.90 637.19 38.75 37.S0 666.47 89.69 __ _ ___-30.00 886.20 _ _ 30.01 8.00 536.48 38.75 187.50 480.68 44.80 36.35 8ES.CB - 51.74 104.80 389 65 653.61 98.11 583.30 -*94.38 105.45 83.98 945 86 876.39 -38.08 --01o41O.508.80- - - .■‘•I LU□1909 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER y - - -CHECK NO_ _DATE -AMOUNT--VENDQR- 114005 li- -t-i4aoc 1 4* i*o 114074 114074 114074 -114074 114074 04/19/09 -04/19/09 214.25 902^0- ALL STAR PRO GOLF CO -ALL STA2 PRO -GOLF CO ACRO-MINNESOTA- INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC a-M X NNESOTA-INC- ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ACRO-MINNESOTA INC ITEM DESCRIPTION PENCILS GOLF CLOVES. .. - OFFICE SUPLY- OFFICE SUPLY OFFICE SUPLY OFFICE-SUPLY- OFFICE SUPLY OFFICE SUPLY 04-24-09 PAGE 1 ACCOUNT NO. 1NV^_# -ILJI^# MESSAGE 74-4210-590-93 -74-4001-591-94 -01-4210-039-lE 01-4210-059-14 01-4210-069-15 -Oi--?42lO-12»-3l 01-4810-174-33 01-4210-249-48 •••-CK8 '1 IT tw 114014 04/19/09 123.31 123.31 m ALL STAR ELECTRIC REPLACE BLUBS 01-4233-249-42 *0] IJf Ml t4t10 <0 tl 114020 -------04/20/89 00 AMERICAN NATL PAYING ACPMT PP£AA—AATA—QAT—AO •••-CKS Ml 391 *^I IM ___*JI*L*J»* 65.00 m •-------— V-M— *y*-CKS tw JOt 31 sal **i tr 114031 04/19/09 3.90 1 9P m AT « T COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-175-34 33) 34) 39. •••-CK8 -__ 3» 3*1 4ej 31 U' «! 114054 04/19/09 192.30 192.38 * BARTON SAND/GRAVEL SAND 01-4233-849-42 Ml Ml . M "•I Ml »*! *•1 •••-CK8 Ml __U-4070 ___- 04/20/89—......1.155.05 BOARMAN A ASROCIATFS SPACE STUDY 15-4306-650-00J7i Ml 39 1 14C70 04/20/89 68.34 1,223.39« BOARMAN 6 ASSOCIATES SPACE STUDY 15-4399-650-00 491 90* 91: 91i"i4ll •••-CKS --- 931 94) 04/20/09 04/20/09 04/20/09 04/20/09- 04/20/89 _ _ _50.00 41.00 345.60 - -S70-00_ 1<204 62 2.211.22 • BONESTROQ RQSENE ASN BONESTROO ROSENE ASN BONESTROO ROSENE ASN BONESTROO ROSENE-ASN— BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG RETAINER FEB ENG CONSULT FEB ENG CONSULT FEB -ENC-CONSULT-FEB - ENG LS43 REPLACE 01-4304- 200-41 01-4305-200-41 01-4305-249-42 JO 1-4305-040-71- 73-4531-569-92 •**-CK8 -114081 —— -04/19/89 -71.91_ _ 71.91 • - - - -BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY_ _ _ _OFFICE 8UPLY--Ot-4210-129-31 «•! «ai i»- _aol all •.V- «<i Ml Ml •r- Ml m'i «4> r• M'114005 _S*4-CKS 04/19/09 69.30 BUDGET PRINTING OFFICE SUPLY 01-4210-129-31 •r 1989 CITY OF ORONO -XHECK war- DATE------AMOUNT- CHECK REGISTER VENDOR_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ITEM DESCRIPTION 04-24-89 PACE _ ACCOUNT^NO^- INV^ • -P^^I ^R-MESSAGE- 114085 04/19/89 1 M08E- - -04/4 9/S9 114085 04/19/89 114085 04/19/89 140SS- - -04>^19/S9- 18.89 320.35- 78.44 223.75 -24.4E- BUDCET PRINTING - BUDGET PR INTINC- BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING -BUDGETS-PRINT INC- OFFICE SUPLY WARNING TICKETS CRIME PREV EMPLOYEE REVIEW 4M-ARM - CARDS— 01-4210-129-31 01-4328-129-31— 01-4322-129-31 01-4322-129-31 -01-4328-129-31— 114150 -MAI 50 114154 44.44 S4- _*•***! 735.18 • ta —— 114124 04/19/69 352.50 -ICO CA ■ COCA COLA VENDING SOFT DRINKS 74-4608-591-94 ta .14 t«!• •i 14 444-CKS 17!• to •• 17 ;• 114128 04/19/89 14.60 14.60 4 CONCEPT MICROFILM OFFICE SUPLY 01-4210-039-12 11 at aa 14 r. te 444-CKS IB at IT ai t t .^8 *tA A4 y4 a yoa 4a Y4 f'm nuTAi 1 Tcc Tkis rn APRIL DIS INS _ 0f.41c;S.1B6-31 tt u<114130 04/19/89 94.96 143.67 • COLONIAL LIFE INS CO APRIL DIS INS 01-4158-189-31 ;4I .ao ai at la ta 444-CKS at >4 aa:•8 « .4 4 .4 A A4 y4 a yoa 60 00 /pnov niio PB liar .......DEVELOPER-SI-1264-000-00 ___ at 80.00 4 IT aa D4/19/89 04/19/89 04/19/89 04/19/S9 04/19/89 04/19/89 4/4 9/S9 04/19/89 04/19/89 04/19/S9 —9.00- 5.40 5.40 —7.20 16.00 7.20 -IS.SO- COMMERCIAL LIFE. INS- COMMERCIAL LIFE INS COMMERCIAL LIFE INS COMMERCIAL LIFE INS - COMMERCIAL LIFE INS COMMERCIAL LIFE INS COMMERCIAL-XIFE INS_ 2.16 3.24 —L.SO- 70.20 • COMMERCIAL LIFE INS COMMERCIAL LIFE INS OOMMERCIAU LIFE-INS- 04/1 9/89 -^/19/S9 35.30 —S.OO- 40.30 • CULLIGAN CULLIGAN- MAR/APRIl^ LIFE- MAR/AFRIL LIFE MAR/APRIL LIFE MAR/APRIL LIFE- MAR/APRIL LIFE MAR/APRIL LIFE MAR/APR lU LIFE MAR/APRIL LIFE MAR/APRIL LIFE MAR/APRIL LIFE MAINT BLOC MAINT. BLOG- 01-4158- 01-4152- 01-4152- .01-4158- 01-4152- 01-4152- _ 01-415^- 78-4158- 73-4152- .74-4152- 039-12. 069-15 •121-31 126-31- ■189-31 ■174-33 249-42 549-91 569-92 590-93 ♦ »*-CKS_ 01-4343-099-17 74-4343rr590-93- ***-CKS ____V 04/19/89 _04/.19/S9- 63.90 -94S.20- CYS UNIFORMS -SYS-UNIFORMS- UNIF0RM8 4JNIFORMS- 01-4221-121-31 01-4221^29^SL 1,053.10 • .♦**-CKS_ 114164 04/1 9/C9 26.25 DAY TIMERS OFFICE SUPLY 01-4210-189-31 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 04-84-89 PACE _CHECKWO^ DATE-AMOUNT--VENOOR--ITEM -DESCRIPTION-ACCOUNT- NO. -INV^ 8 P- 0_ i-MESSACE- ! «, Y*. •• -M48T8- 114278 -114^72- 114878 114878 -U4878- -94^4 9/89- 04/19/89 -04/^V9/89- 04/19/89 04/19/89 .04/42/29- -144^52- 118.58 • -CRAINCER-W U 4-TIME METER8- 878.85 -1 IVrl 2 48.87 84.88 45-4S 482.68 * e 4 -2-2 K SERVICES K-2ERVICES- 6 4 K SERVICES C 4 K SERVICES -2 4KSERVICES- CLOTHINC -MAINT-BLOG CLOTHING CLOTHING -XL0THIN6- - 73-4838-549-38- 01-4881-849-48 ai-4343-489-31- 78-4881-549-91 73-4881-569-98 J7A-4281-590=93- •••-( -CKS- -L»!«• IT ,!• It* ■ 114275 -414875- 114875 114875 -144875- 04/19/39 414/4 9/29- 04/19/89 04/19/89 41A442/29- 881.77 -93-35 878.83 93.35 -I9t..00. 1,471.70 • GROUP HEALTH INC -CROUP- HEALTR-INC- CROUP HEALTH INC GROUP HEALTH INC CROUP HEALTH-INC— HEALTH INS MAY -HEALTH- INS MAY- HEALTH INS MAY HEALTH INS MAY - -HEALTH-IN8-HAY- 01-4151-181-31 .01=4151=186-31- 01-4151-189-31 01-4151-174-33 -74-4151-590=93- 114884 04/19/89 47.50 -A4L60-«- HAPPY8 POTATO CHIP CHIPS 74-4808-591-94 j*114308 04/19/89 78.07 78.07 • HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT BOOKING FEE 01-4358-080-16 «**-CK8 •**-CK8 4.14330 _______04/80/29-.26-27- 86.87 « 3CHA-RETRMHTL '‘.ORP.ICMA_4/3 _TO_ 4/12 ______OL-4 140-039-18. _ ••♦-CKS------»» 114350 04/19/89 114388 04/19/89 35.00 -35—00 —4- INTL INST-MUNI CLK8 MUNIP Ci-ERK 01-4380-039-18 81 .38 81.38 • KILBO-MELVIN POLICE COMM MTC 01-4356-189-31 ■M •CKS M «o •o 114483 04/19/89 75.00 181.50 • XOPlES-2. POSTAGE. LEAGUE OP MN CITIES HANDBOOK MN CITIES -Ot-8 085=0 00=00l 01-4840-080-11 -CKS :: -CKS 444437.-04/19/29--14 ■ 99 .CITY-OF LONG-LAKE__________MARCH.J^LASH£R JU=4385-849-48. ufa 1989 CITY OF ORONO —CHCCK.-MO_DAI 114437 04/19/89 lUNX. 59.74 CHECK REGISTER - - -VENDOR- - - - - -- - - - ITEH DESCRIPTION CITY OF LONG LAKE LIFT STATION 04>84>89 PAGE S ACCOUNT--NO^NV.-i P.Q^ • MESSAGE____1 73-4344-569-92 •••-CKS 7 114439 04/19/89 328.95 LONG LK FORD TRACTOR CHAIN 8AU 74-4560-590-93 •328.95 • to 1 ••••-CKS lai 4 4 _ _ _5X^0.MARK VII. JllST _SEER 74-4815-591-94Tx 14 51.00 • It _ _ _«***««_ _ _**•—CKS!•> 114462 04/19/89 146.00 MARTINS NAVARRE 66 XRAY STORAGE 01-1234-000-00*•!11446a_ _ _ __0-4Z19Z89_ _ _ _ _ 395 AS MARTINS NAUARRF 66 MAIMT AUTO 01-4341-ia«(-31 It 114462 04/19/89 15.00 MARTINS NAVARRE 66 MAINT AUTO 01-4341-249-42MO aii 556.82 9 Uj 241_ _ _L14467_ _ _ 04yioyAQ 1 95 70 MED CTR-XIEALTH-CARE HOSP INS MAY 01-4151-039-12 •••-CK8 it 114467 04/19/89 97.85 MED CTR HEALTH CARE HOSP INS MAY 01-4151-069-15at11446704/19/89 97.85 MEP CTR HEALTH CARE HOSP INS MAY 01-4151-129-31a?- - -l-t4487- - -_ 04/IS/89_ _ _ _ _- - - - -135-78-- -ME -CT2-HEALTH -CARE .HOSP INa-MAY _0L-41SI-139-12 Mi Ml ‘mT mI 3 |M. i»T 'ia 114467 114467 _LL4467_ 114467 04/19/89 04/19/89 -Q4/19/J89L 195.70- 191.01 191 01 MLJ CTR HEALTH CARE MED CTR HEALTH CARE jied_j:tr_healih_care- 04/19/89 97.85 871.27 • MED CTR HEALTH CARE HOSP INS MAY HOSP INS MAY -H0SP-1N8 MAY HOSP INS MAY 01-4151-139-12 01-4151-174-33 .01 t4 151.-249-42 01-4151-249-42 X14474__a4Zta/fl9-1 a 77T .metrq_uasie_contrql .PREPAID.MUCC MAY.J73-1282-000-00 J7 99 99 4C 41 4a 4a 44 •••-CK8 48 44 4t 10.773.86 • -••Jt^CKA. 114485 04/19/89 29.40 -29-40 -9 MPLS OXYGEN CO OXYGEN 01-4234-249-42 •••-CKS t* 114490 04/19/89 504.75 504.75 HINNEGASCO HEAT 01-4324-099-17 -114509. 114509 114509 •••-CKS ” 04/19/89- 04/19/89 04/19/89 _9<U00— 150.00 300.00 540..00 .9. J1N-DEPT_PUB AAFETY MN DEPT PUS SAFETY MN DEPT PUB SAFETY J0PERAT10N..CHRG 1ST QTR CHRG TRAINING .01-2222-000-00 01-2222-000-00 01-4356-129-31 •••-CKS f* 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 04-84-89 PACE iU »*• .. -CHECK-NO^-OATE AMOUNT-VENOOR-JTEM 0E8CR1PT10M. ->-1 484 8 114562 444E74^ 114574 114574 114585 NAVARRE HAROUARt - NAVARRE HARDWARE NAVARRE HARDWARE -NAVARRE-HARDWARE- NAVARRE HARDWARE NAVARRE HARDWARE VARRE-NARDWARE- NAVARRE HARDWARE NAVARRE HARDWARE -8LDC^ 4-CO-^UPPLY- EQUIP PARTS * ACC EQUIP PARTS 4 ACC -HAINT-MISC EQUIP- HAINT HISC EQUIP EQUIP PARTS 4 ACC 4JT-RY8-HAI NT- - - - ACCOUNT- NO- f NV_ 8- P, 0^- 8 NESSACE-. 01-4831-189-31- HA I NT SUPPLY BLDG 4 CD SUPPLY 01-4838-849-48 01-4838-290-61 01-4348-099^17-- 01-4348-849-48 78-4838-549-91 -78-4834-549-91- 73- 4834-569-98 74- 4831-590-93 •••-CKS -04^8^89- 378.44 378.44 * 454.31- STREET LIGHTS APRIL 01-4385-849-42 •••-CK8 -NSP-UT-IL4TIES- 04/19/89 158.86 313.17 • NSP ELEC LIF*' STATION ^04-4384-849-48. 73-4384-569-9P •••-CK8 -04>^19/89- 04/19/89 04/19/89 4-60^.80- 849.00- 389.00 JJ0O-OO_« -0FP4CE-PR00 OF-MN- OFFICE PROD OF HN OFFICE PROD OF HN PC-TRAlNINft- RETURN PART SOFTWARE 01-4356-189-31- 14-4540-631-00 14-4540-631-00 Im itt ru ]a ■"i -J; •••-CK8 ‘*1 04/1 9/S9 56.44 56.44 * ORONO INDEP SCHOOL HT6 EXPENSE 01-4388-189-31 ••♦-CKS -%4 4697-_-^4/80/S9 -M37.83- 3.537.53 • PUBLIC EHPL RET- ASSN PERA 4/XT04/16 -_iU-203> -000-00- «»' .cy I”. «9 94' T»r 114600 04/19/89 114602 1813- 149.88 .449,48-A- PERFORHANCE FORHS PRINTER PAPER 114613 04/19/89 750.54 750.54 • PAPER CALHENSON 6 CO SNOW PLOW BLADE -04/1.9/89- 04/19/89 JS7-05___ 83.80 180.85 « _PERRya_IRUCK_REPAIR . PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR -HAINT_ HISC-JEQUIP- HAINT HISC EQUIP 01-4210-189-31 •••-CKS M 01-4833-849-48 •••-CK8 0 L-434 1-849-48- 01-4348-849-48 -izF 198V JZTY OF ORONO ■CHECK. NO ^ BATE- - .AMOUNT- CHECK REGISTER -UENOOR -ITEM DE3CR1BLTI0N- 04-£4-89 PAGE 7 _AC'‘'‘JNT_N0^1NV^ JIJ» .Q*-Ji-MEaSA6E- - a* *-0(8 114628 014628. 1146^8 114628 114628 114628 014628. 114628 114628 114628 114628 114638 114638 014638-- 04/20/89 -04/20/89- 04/20/89 04/20/89 04/20/89 04/20/89 -04/20/89 04/20/89 04/20/89 04/20/89 04/20/89 1,100.00 -9,345-81- 474.05 187.00 280.80 85.45 7 12. 7.12 170.38 .130,38- 04/« 7/89 04/19/89 _ _ _04/-19/89- 114658 04/19/89 170.38- 207.03 tg,Q17-S8 94.00 94.00 J551_0«_ 739.00 • POPHAM HAIK 6 ASSOC -P0PHAM_HA1K_8-A SSO C_ POPHAM HAZK 6 A&30C POPHAM HAIK 6 ASSOC »OPWaM HAIR-6 ASSOC- POPHAM HAIK « ASSOC POPHAM HAIK 6 ASSOC -HOPHAM^ HAlK.-8-A880(L- POPHAM HAIK 6 ASSOC POPHAM HAIK 6 ASSOC POPHAM-HAIK-^ -AS80C-- POPHAM HAIK 6 ASSOC POPHAM HAIK 6 ASSOC PRAIRIE OFFSET PRAIRIE OFFSET ■HRAlRlE-OFFSEt-. LEGAL RETAINTER FEB -LEGAl^PRPSECITMS-FEB- LCGAL CONSULT FEB LEGAL CONSULT FEB LECAL-C0N8ULT_FEB------- LEGAL CONSULT FEB LEGAL CONSULT FEB J_ECAL-CONSULT_FEB ------ LEGAL CONSULT FEB LEGAL CONSULT FE8 .LEGAL-CONSULT-FEB- - LEGAL CONSULT FEB LEGAL CONSULT FEB 4301-080-16 —0 1^4302^tQ80=16 1-4303-080-16 01-4303-129-31 _fl t^4303i=tl74-J3- 01-4303-840-71 24-4399-414-00 __24-4399-415-00- 24-4399-451-00 24-4399-4t. ^-00 _£4-4399^457=^U- 24-4399-457-11 24-4399-458-00 • 10 ENVELOPES • 10 ENVELOPES -SCORE-PADS_ _ _ 3.50 3 R C INDENTIFICATI0N8 ID CARD 01-4210-039-12 01-4210-174-33 74-4322-590=^93- 01-4221-129-31 •••-CK8 .V99-CKS .IT, .ttl -Wl IM til It' 1*1 j|*i •99-CKS 901 *'l ItJ »4l IS, 1T( «o) All 114660 114660 04/19/89 04/19/89 114662 .114875 04/19/89 -0. 19/88- 114696 04/19/89 114776 04. 96.00 30.00 ipft no 9 ORLIN REOEPENNING ORLIN REOEPENNING 233.50 233.50 • .4,488,00- REED CANDY 6 TOBACCO -ROLLINSOILCO MAINT BLDG 6 6D MAINT BLDG « GO CANDY 01-4343-129-31 74-4343-590-93 •••-CKS 74-4802-591* 94 -CASOLINE--Oi=4C6a-=ooa=oo— 4,166.00 • 1,107.50 X,407.58-«- SENIOR COMM SERVICES SR CITIZENS 01-4385-100-21 29.25 29.25 • THORPE DIST CO BEER 74-4815-591-94 •••-CK8 Jt«==CKS- ««*-CK8 »'i •li •i< •At ••I •T- •SI Mi r 1 ,i V 1989 CITY OF ORONO rucri# kin hatc . niiUT CHECK VENDOR REGISTER -ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO^ IHV- 04-24-09 ■ P-.O- • PAGE 8 MESSAGE_ _ _ _ •••>CK8 —-Vf::>* '4 I*' 114779 04/19/89 266.34 DAA m TRACY OIL CO HEATING FUEL 74-4324-590-93 k• ■ 7• -i ***-CK8 [• [10 \ 1 it'It r“114787 04/19/89 145.00 TURF SUPPLY CO AQUAZINE/UET AGENT 74-4343-590-93 If • « 'll*145.00 • ht I’* I'f 'J.____ •••-CK8 I7i 1 . 114 --------.U4eJS. I’" 114815 114815 .04y»8/88- 04/19/89 04/19/89 ■ 04/19^88 04/19/89 04/19/89 -„04/18y88- 10.16 40.92 __19-^0_ 20.72 51 .87 —14^7- -US8T COHmW- US WEST COMMUN US UE8T COMHUN ai&iJE&T-COHMUN- US UE8T COmUN US WEST connuN US UE8T-COHHUM- -TCLEPHONC^ TELEPHONE TELEPHONE -TELEPHONE. TELEPHONE TELEPHONE JTELEPHONE- '/89 24.86 293.13 U8 UE8T connuN TE1.EPHONE -01-4233-249-42- 01-4320-129-31 01-4320-129-31 „U.r4320-249t42_ 01-4355-069-1S 7'i-4320-549-91 -7E^43SS7 -549-9t- 73-4355-^69-92 IM »•! 4-14835— 114835 ***-CK8 • '1^89- ^/89 455^0-_UARN1NS4>IT£E-0E41N- 347.20 502.20 • WARNING LXTES OP HN -EQUIP RENTAL- EQUIP RENTAL 01--4331 -249^48- 0.-4331-249-42 -5' 4J4*» ;l_ 114841 •••-CK8 *’l 429.20----- 129.20 « UAT2ATA-AUIO- SERW_________PcOlL PARTi _01--4£32-£*.:V42- -04/48/89. 04/19/89 181.11 352.93 • -UATER_PRQDUCTS_CCL UATER PRODUCTS CO -EQUIP-PARTE HAINT mSC EQUIP -7^. .f232-549-91. 72-4342-549-91 •••-CK8 ” 4t, 4t ! ii^Acn nA/1Q/AQ OA UPAT PURLTAHINC CO BOOKS 6 PUB 01-4240-129-31 . ... . tt •• _ _ 29.00 • tT M!• I4« 114875 04/19/09 e.es A 9K * URIGHT HENN El.ECTRIC UTILITIES 01-4324-249-42 41 44 44 44 I**!to _ ^ ^ ^ !»«! • 5 44 i”l 114901 04/19/09 50.00 LONG LAKE C OF C HEMBERSHIP 01-43P'' P39-12 44 70 tf 114901 04/19/09 5 00 LONG LAKE C OF C nENBERSHIP 74-a;S«<^-590-93 7% 44 AA A A •*JI . ,74-I 114902 04/19/09 89.25 MPH INDUSTRIES INC HAINT EQUIP 01-4342 129-31 CEHUNIS FINANCIAL SYSTEM 04/e0/69 PACE t ,USEE 00 1989 CITY OF ORONO ■ ■M 4 • NUMBER OF REPORTS NUMBER OF UPDATES 19 UPDATE DESCRIPTIONS 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _a FINANCIAL REPORTS RC^rniii EH BUM paTF 000000 • 7 4 T • !•NUMBER OF RECORDS PAYROLL A REPORT DATE 000000 !■•.I*’ I* i::LEVEL 1 888 BENEFIT ACCRUAL IB *14 ,u.Ifrufi f 0 ACTIVITY BFPO»T 0 ACTIVITY REPORTS IB IB ^4 t»LEVEL 3 331 CHECK REGISTER 3 SCHEDULED RUN DATE 048069 !•’ ft. Iio ’• IT LEVEL 4 0 TRIAL BALANCE 0 REPORT DATE 048469 8J 1 EV<^* K 9C BAI RUEET A BB B4 1’*!FI 1 1 LEVEL ft 0 REVENUE STATEMENT 0 PAYROLL POSTING DATES 000000 c ,tr [>u LEVEL 7 0 OPERATING STATEMENT 0 000000 ■,m M *4'_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _LEUEJ_A_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _0 mincPT unBueuPETft R *• M.» B4 LEVEL 9 0 CLEAR-CURR^MONTH 0 000000 BB BB LEVEL 0 e CITY FILE OPTION 0 000000 ir BB PBn.TErr nrPABTMEMT y BB 40 *•!41 ”,”I TOTAL 1*848 CHART OF ACCOUNTS 4B 4B ‘“In' '*^r 4t jo" 44 49 !:V HO. CHECK RECONCILE 0 ■ YEAR JO-DATE. PERIOD_ _Oi BUDGET RECORDS CREATED •44 •y 144 pi 1989 CITY OF ORONO y* urA^ OK Wa.-D^TE nl' “i 117 HC84t9 -HC8A1^- HC8419 HC8419 -HC64+8- HC8419 HC8419 HCe419 HCS419 HC8419 -H0e4f9" HC84T9 „ HC:94I9 —'-----HC«4Y-9 “ HC8419 HC04SO HC84E1 HCS4ei -HG84fr4- HC84C1 HC8481 -HC84ei HC84&4 04/11/89 -04/* 1/89- 04/1 /89 04/11 '85 ■04/1 1/99- 04/11/.'9 04/11/t9 04/11 /8*. 04/11/89 04/11/89 -04/M/89 04/11/89 04/11/89 -04/11/89 04/11/89 04/11/69 04/11/89 04/11/89 04/11/89 04/11/89 04/11/89 -04/11/89 04/11/89 04/11/89 04/1-1/89- 04/11/89 04/11/89 04/1-11 04/11/89 04/11/89 04/11/89 CHECK REGISTER 8H0UNT--VENDOR-^ TE«-DESCR IPT lON- 03-31-89 PAGE - -ACCOUNT -NO— INV . -0 F . 0 ~ 4 NESSASE- 331 -e» 91 -9S- 18T BK LAKES 1ST BK LAKgS- FICA8/E0-3/5 01-4142-039-ie .37 11 .81 ei-;e? 100.IS 38.07 -40. go 439 3. 09 09 1ST BK LAKES 1ST BK LAKES -TST BK LAKES 1ST BK LAKES 1ST BK LAKES 18T BK LAKE8- BK LAKES BK LAKES FICAS/eO-3/5 FlCAE/10-3/5 ^9CAe/10«^5- 01-4142- 01-4142- 069-15 099-17 01-4142-1 11-31- FICAE/10-3/5 FICAE/10-3/5 -«CAg/10-3/5- 01-4142- 01-4142- 115-31 121-31 01-41 42-1 E6~3T -602.-96 18T 1ST -fST^ BK LAKE8- FXCA2/10-3/5 FICA2/10-3/5 -T^lCAe/20-3/9 01-4142- 01-4142- 174-33 185-35 34.66 89.28 1ST BK LAKES 1ST BK LAKES FXCA2/20-3/5 FXCA8/20-3/5 ------1-90 tS»----- ••5.63 2,213.65 * 98T LAKgq- 18T BK LAKES F^IOA2/eO-5/9" rXCA2/20-3/5 01-4142-290-61 72-4142-549-91 -95-4142-569-92 74-4142-590-93 25.00 25.00 * nOCSA 8ENXNAR 74-4356-590-93 99 2. - -1-44-; 7. 1,487. 17 71 PUB EMPL PET PUB ENPL RET 37 55 -PUB eWPL WET PUB ENPL RET PUB EfIPL RET PERAE/6-E/19 PERAE/6-2/19 PgRA«/0^/l9 01-4141-039-12 01-4141-059-14 -04—44-44—009-48- 56 424 ■04*^ 249, 271 . 81 36 -33- 07 98 PU8 2f1TL R29- PUB BflPL RET PUB enPL RET -PUB-ENPL-RET- PUB EfIPL RET PUB EfIPL RET B9: 10 50 94, -84-. 38 35 -48- -PUB - EfIPL WeT- PUB EfIPL RET PUB ENPL RET -PUB gWPL WCT- PERAE/6-B/19 PERA2/6-E/19 -PERA 2/0-B/4^ PERAE/6-E/19 PERAE/6-B/19 -P8RAE/-0-E/4 9- PERAE/6-E/1 9 PERA2/6-B/I 9 PERAE/O-E/4 9- PERAE/'6-E/'1 9 PERAE/6-B/1 9 -P8RA8/0-eAf9- 01-4141-099-lT 01-4141-111-31 -01—4 14 1-111-34- 01-4141-115-31 01-4141-1B1-31 ..04^4 44-4 EO<«31- 01-4141-1T4-33 01-4141-249-4B —04 —A4-44 —E90-04- TE-41 41-549-91 T3-4141-569-9E —74-«A 104—S80 3 - 3.6E0.71 * ei v i3- 11 .so IE. 00 -4 1 .-08 -8RONO-PETT Y-C ASH- ORONO PETTY CASH ORONO PETTT CASH OFF 5UPP -04-4240-494 ‘BS- -OWONO PKTTT CA8W- ORONO PETTT CASH ORONO PETTY CASH ORONO PETTY CAf ORONO PETTY CASH ORONO PETTT CASH -ORONO-P8TTT CABH POWER CORD COD POSTAGE 8H1PRXNC CNC- - 01-4E3B- 01-43E1- 1E9-31 1E9-31 -04—4384-4E9-3 4 CAR WASH PTAC MTC CMESWXCK - -HOHE/CAROgN ORAN - 01-4341- 01-4356- 1E9-31 1E9-31 -01-4386-174-33- MOHE/GARDEN TJ PARKING -parking- - - - - - 7.00 94.41 • 378.92 378.92 • 163.00 183.00 • 01-4356- 01-4381- -04-4381- 1T4-33 1E9-31 4-7A-33- ORONO PETTY CASH LXNENCNTR RADDISON ARR PARKING VINYL SHAD..3 01-4381-E49-4E 01-4343-099-17 CLERKS CONF 01-4356-039-12 MANUAL -HANUAL- HANUAL MANUAL - - -MANUAL- MANUAL MANUAL - - -MANUAL- MANUAL MANUAL - - - - -MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL -MANUAL- MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL -MANUAL- MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MMNUAL MANUAL M4NU4L MANUAL -MANUAL- MANUAL MANUAL -MANUAL- MANUAL MANUAL -MANUAL- MANUAL MANUAL -manual- manual MANUAL MANUAL •o “ei ‘•7 'M :t4 5 / 19M CITY or OOOHO -AMOgNT- CHECK RCftlSTCR VCMDOO----------------------------------------iTMM OOOCIUrTJOW^ 03-31^ACC t ACCOUH? iwvir- - ♦ «tr»AOo —-K HC04C0 ■»T 04/11/99 >4/11/09 B9.00 • COriri Bfv SALES TX SALES TAX FEB OAkeO^AX FEB 01-3500-000-00 -TB -e»eo~»»-» AANUAL MANUAL -__1 h -€♦«»- HC04B0 04/1 1/S9 50 00 -00-00 IAAR8 ANDERSON tICmER 01-4390-189*31 •••••• MC9430 HC9430 MC94»> 04/11/99 04/11/99 04/11/09 14 00 350 54 U; «S: HC9450 HC9430 -M9O450 04/11/99 04/11/99 04/11/09 HCO430 HC9430 ‘- -HC0400- 04/11/09 04/11/99 04/11/00 350.54 4.09 eri oe 19.00 31.04 1ST OK LAKES 1ST BK LAKES - -100 OK LA«gi - 1ST 9K LAKES 1ST OK LAKES 199 ON LAKES 1ST BK LAKES 1ST BK LAKES - -10T BK LAW50 HCO430 MC9430 -- -H9O450 „ MC9430 HCO430 HCO430 NCO430 HC9430 04/11/99 04/11/09 04/11/09- - - 04/11/99 04/11/99 04/11/99 04/11/09 04/11/99 E.T3 B4.3S - --«5-7«f- - 434.44 E.59 -400-r«9— EE.4E 1 IT.44 --145-E3- - 9T. 13 e,144.T3 • 1ST BK LAKES 1ST BK LAKES -W9-OK -LAKES^ 1ST BK LAKES 1ST BK LAKES ^«T OK LAK90 - nOCR MARCH FICA 3/0-3/19 FICA 3/0-3/10 F1CA3/0-3/19 FICA3/0-3/19 F I CA3/0-5/1^9 — FXCA3/0-3/1 9 FICA3/0-3/19 F0CA3 /O-3/4^0 — «*XCA3/0-3/19 rXCA3/0-3/1 9 MANUAL •**-CKS 01-414E-0E0-1 1 01-414B-030-1B . «t^14B-O30-1» 01-414B-039-1B 01-414E-059-14 41"414e-909~15- 01-414E-099-1T 01-414B-111-31 ..^1«.A143»^» 1B-31- 01-414E-1IT-31 01-414B-1B1-31 MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL - MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL —MANUAL- 1ST OK LAKES 1ST OK LAKES 1ST BK LKKEO 1ST BK LAKES F ICA3/0-3/4 9- FXCA3/6-3/1 9 FXCA3/0-3/1 9 F4CA3/0-3/4 0- FXCA3/0-3/19 KXCA3/0-3/1 9 F1CA3/0-3/19 rXCA3/0-3/1 9 01-414E-1T4-33 01-41 4B-1 OS-39 -OV 0^4 4S-4 «*-40 - 01-41 4B-B90-01 TB-414B -999-01 T3-4440-S00-0O TA-A14B-590-93 HC9431 MCS431 -MS0451- HCS431 HC8431 4-r “i 4S it H6S431 HC8431 HC0431 M9S431 04/11/89 04/11/80 1/89 04/11/99 04/11/99 04/11/99 04/11/09 04/11/99 94/11/99 EMFL RET EMFL RET 8MFL NE T- EMFL RET EMFL RET EWFL R8T- PCRA FEKA 6BT.60 B49 49 -FWB HC9431 HC0431 *HC9434- HC9431 HC9431 04/11/99 04/11/89 04/11/99 04/11/09 »• *» 341.B3 19. OB ioT.es 54. IB -57031.89- FUB FU9 FUB FUB EMFL RET EMFL RET ^1Ffc-R«T- EMFL RET EMFL RET BNFU-RCT- PEKA PERA .F«RA FERA FERA e/BO-3/5 E/EO-3/5 •/SO-3/8 E/eO-3/8 B/EO-3/5 «/*a-3/5 E/EO-3/5 E/BO-3/5 EMFL RET EMFj RET FERA E/EO-3/5 FERA B/E0-' /5 FERA B/BO-3/5 FERA B/BO-3/5 FERA B/BO-3/5 01-4141-039-18 01-4141-099-14 ^»l»4141-00O-18- - 01-4141-099-IT 01-4141-111-31 *4-45^31- 01-4141-1E1-31 01-4141-1B6-31 -04-44X4—1T4-33- - 01-4141-E49-4E 01-4141-290-61 rE»414X»E49-^94- - T3-4141-569-9B T4-4141-590-93 MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL- MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL. MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL- n MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL "•i««•»«• TO HCB43e 04/11/89 •* >«! 900 00 -900.00-K FOSTMASTER POSTAGE INVENTORY 01-1B6B-000-00 MANUAL HC6433 04/11/89 111.SB FUB EMFL RET FER* -,<6-3/19 01-4141-039-1B MANUAL 1909 CITY OF ORONO CHECK RCC18TCR 03-31-99 face AMOUNT -ETEM^DERCRIFTION- -Ae€OWNT“NO^ IHV ♦ F O ♦ HE»«A«e !>l HC0433 HCSA33 HC9433 04/11/99 94/tt/«9 04/11/89 04/11/89 '•T- e.31 ttt 88 10 89 1,431 18 1 (10 Vn l»i HC0433 MC8433 -NC0493 HCe933 NC8433 -He*433^ HC0433 HCS433 HCa4J3 84/11/89 84/11/89 ♦O/tr/8^ 04/11/89 04/11/89 1 .94 498.11 84e g9 ♦4/11/89 84/11/89 04/11/89 -84»nY/88- 845 85 ET1 98 —»0 .8» 88.48 81.05 - 54 99 FU» EMFL RET FU5 «HFtr 5ET------ FU8 ehfl fit FUt EHFL FET ■fW CHFL FgT FUt EHFC FCT Fi» EMFL FCT -FUt EMFt RET FUt CHFU FCT FU8 CMFL FCT -FUt CHFL-FET- - FCFA 3/8-3/19 REFFr 3i^-9/T9- - FCFA 3/8-3/19 FCFA 3/8-3/19 F«F4^ 3/8-5/1»- 01-4141-059-14 OT-4T4t-O89-01 01-4141-099-17 01-4141-111-31 MANUAL -MANUAL- ~n. FCFA 3/8-3/19 FCFA 3/8-3/19 FEFA 3/8-3/T9 FCFA 3/8-3/19 FCFA 3/8-3/19 FCFA 3/8-3/T9- 01-4141-1 IT-31 01-4141-181-31 MANUAL MANUAL manual- manual MANUAL ♦♦-8»4t-1E8-3»MANUAL- FUt CMFL FCT FUt CMFL FCT -FUt -EMFt -FCT FCFA 3/8-3/19 FCFA 3/8-3/19 -FtWA 5/8-5/19 01-4141-174-33 01-4141-C49-48 -81-4141-808-8+ TC-4141-549-91 73-4141-589-9C -94-4181 -590-05 MANUAL MANUAL manual MANUAL -MANUAL- 3,813 38 4 IWtOK 84/11/80-»■ 00 Y C«-AFF+L 8M18FO MT8 81-43*8-»«0-3V MANUAL 8.08 4 r» M FUND 01 TOTAL FUND 7B TOTAL -73 TtTAL FUM) 74 TOTAL OCNCFAL fund WATCF 0FCFATIN8 FUND OCUtF OF54ATIN8 FUMt^- - - 80LF C0UF8C 0FCFATIN8 FO 9*— . —. - a A mS o'-v; /9/^ \' . Tht regular aeeting o* the Lake Minnttonka Conservation Diilrict Mas called to order by Chair JoEllen Hurr at 7i35 P.M., Wednesday, March 29, 19B9, Tonka Bay City Nall. Present. Chair JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Vice Chair Toa Reese, Mound* Bert Foster, Dsephaven; Jaees Brathwol, Excelsior; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; John LeMaan, Minnetrista; Robert Rascop, Shoreaood; Robert Slocua, Woodland; Attorney Charles LeFevere; Executive Director Gene Stroaaen; Sgt. Wa. Chandler, Hater Patrol; David ArndorTer, Consultant. Absent: David Cochran, Greenwood; Jan Boswinkel, Secretary, Minnetonka Beach; Ron Kraeaer, Spring Park; Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; John Malinka, Victoria; Mark Hcstlund, Wayzata. APPROVAL OF MINUTESi It Has aoved by Reese, seconded by Foster, to approve the ainutes of February 22, 19B9 as aaended to shon Rascop and Slocua present. Motion carried unaniaously. It Mas aoved by Reese, seconded by GrathHol, to approve February 25, 19B9 as aailed. Motion carried uaniaously. It Mas aoved by BrathMol, seconded by Reese, to approve March 11, 19B9 included the adoption of Ordinance 101, as carried. Rascop abstaining as he not present. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Duane Markus, Hayrata, requested he be called upon at the tiae the Wayzata Yacht Club Teaporary Dock Extension and Mooring area peraits are discussed. Hilliaa Haaaoch and Fred Quirsfeld, Wayzata Yacht Club aeaOers asked to speak at the tiae the Wayzata Yacht Club Mooring perait is discussed. Chair Hurr acknoMedged their requests. the ainutes of the ainutes of sailed. Motion REPORTS: A. CHAIR HURR REPORT ..... 1. Chair Hurr reported Mark Westlund, Treasurer (Jayzatal has subaitted his resignation and noainations for Treasurer were opened. It Mas aoved by Hurr, seconded by Rascop, to noainate John Lewaan (Minnetrista) to the office of Treasurer. There being no further noainations, it was aoved by Pillsbury, seconded by BrathMol, that noainations be closed and John Lewaan was elected Treasurer by acclaaation . „ , . It Mas aoved by Hurr, seconded by Rascop, to adopt Resolution authorizing the signature of the Treasurer and one officer on all checks the absence of the Treasurer the signature of any two officers. Motion unaniaously. The Treasurer Mill revien all bills subaitted for payment. 2. Hurr stated Consultant Arndorfer Mill be authorized to travel to conferees' locations in lieu of the March conference, initially approving travel to Madison, Wisconsin and all other travel subject to in advance approval of the Chair. No, and in carried 3. Hurr rtporttd tht Annual Dinner Mill be held on April 19th at Lord Fletcheri. Invitationa have been lent to legiilatori, city officials,and perioni intereited in the activitiei of the District. She urqed Board eeobers to attend. Board seating Mill be arranged eixing Board oeaberi to give the oaxiotto exposure to the guests. Board eeobers are invited to purchase their tickets, $7, of the <25. going to "Save The Lake* proceeds. Tickets Mill be provided all Board eeobers upon reservation regardless of payeent. A guest is at the Board oceber's expense, shoe in reservation. It Mas also noted that coeplieentary tickets to select invitees are non>transferab1e. 4. The Public Hearing lor Ninneionka Boat Works (Orono) special density and neM dock license Mill be held on April 8, 1989 at 7:30 A. M. folloMed by the "Dock* Cooeiltee oeeting. A Public Hearing lor Minnetonka Boat Works (Hayzata) Special Density and neu Dock License Mill be held on April 17, 1989 at 4i30 P.H., foliOMed by the Lake Use Cooeittee oeeting. 5. Hurr reported Slroosen has a presentation oith the Long Lake Chaober of Coooerce; Hurr Mill be speaking to the Citizens' League about Lake Minnetonka environoental oatters, and Hurr and Stroooen Mill be panelists on a West Tonka Chaober ol Coooerce oeeting, April 20. All oeetings Mill be reported back to the Board. I. TREASURER/FINANCE 1. Stroooen suboitted a Fisneial Condition Report as ol February 28, 1989. Honey received lor the Eurasian Water Milfoil fund has been invested in short tero juobo certificates of deposit eaining 9X^ per day. It Mas ooved by Rascop, seconded by Grathool, to approve the Financial Condition Report as suboitted. Motion carried unanioously. 2. Stroooen suboitted bills for approval in the aeount ol <27,730.54 lor Board revieu and approval. It Mas ooved by Crathnol, seconded by Rascop, to approve the payoent ol the bills as presented. Motion carried unanioously. C. 8TANDIN6 COMMITTEES 1. WATER STRUCTURES AND ENVIRONMENT, Director GrathMol lor Alter discussion uith the City ol SreenMOod and Mr. St.Alban's Bay Marina variance application Mas layed over to the a. It Mas ooved by Rascop, seconded by Foster, to approve the of the March 18, 1989 oeeting as corrected to shoo that Slocuo attendance. Motion carried unanioously. b. Rosenbluo/Ulrich Public Hearing Report. It Mas ooved by Grathuol, seconded by Rascop, to approve the dock installation over oetlandi as recoooended by the Coooittee subject to installation oith hand tools, not allOMing heavy equipoent in the oetland area, to a length not to exceed 135'. Motion carried unanioously. c. Wayzata Yacht Club Teoporary Dock Extension. It mss o.ved by CrathMol, seconded by Rascop, to approve the teoporary dock extension requested by the Wayzata Yacht Club to 225 feet (200 feet present dock, 25 loot teoporary dock). It is a oinor adjustoent, consistent oith other peroits granted, subject to the conditions sane as other teoporary low Mater extensions. Duane Markus, Bushaway Road, stated he has no objection to this peroit but Mould like to Nork with the Board and Club to consider an alternative plan he has Mhich Mould elininate the buoy field and give an additional 24 slips uith sone Minor dredging. There being no other conoents, the vote on the notion Has unaninous. Chair Cochran Tobernan, the April oeeting. Minutes Mas in d. Mayxata Yicht Club Oiitrict Hoorinq Arta Teaporary E^taniion It Mai aovtd by GrathMol, lecondtd by Pillibury, to accapt the racoaaendation of tbo Coaaittoa to qrant tha Hayzata Yacht Club an axtantion froa 400' to 850 for thair diitrict aoorinq araa. Oiicufiiont Thair aoorinq araa is uniqua. Tha Iom uatar laval prohibits thair boats fittinq in tha prasant araa and tha axtansion Mill parait tha boats to ba aoorad Mith 1-1/2* uatar undar tha kaal. Bob Albracht, Hayzata Yacht Club aaabar, addrassad tha purposa of HYC as a banefit to tha uia of tha laka. Tno-thirds or thair aaabars Mill not ba abla to usa thair facilitias this yaar if daniad. Evan nith adoption of this proposal, 1/2 of tha aaabars Mill not ba abla to usa tha aarina this yaar. Allison Johnson, HYC aaaber, is a 4* draft boat ownar. Neabarship has rasultad in his activitias in araas involvinq tha laVa othar than sailinq. This bacoaas a lifa-styla Mhich ha adl losa if raquast daniad, along nith tha usa of a considerable invastaant. Duane Markus, BushsNay Road, spoke in opposition to tha parait. He stated that in 1987 tha HYC received a teaporary parait to aova froa 400* to 700* and in 1988 asked to aqain taaporarily nova froa 400* to 700' and Mara aovad back to 609' - non they are askinq for 850', includinq tha suinq. Buoys out 850' are a navigational hazard Mith no May to light than. This Mill have an adverse affect on his property value and Mill set a precedent. Ha suggested tha possibility of litigation as uall as possible conflict of interest by tuo Board aaabars. Ha suggested bringing tha dock out further, brought into tha discussion the City of Hayzata stipulations and suggested this Mill prevent uatar skiing in tha araa. Hurr responded to tha question of lighting that tha buoys aust aaat state standards for ref1actorization. She further stated that tuo out of fourteen aeabers on tha LMCD Board does not create a conflict of interest. Leon Tyler, HYC aeaber, expressed distress that one individual can Board and deny access to people uho do not live on tha lake. (nln), HYC aeaber, stated sailing is a life style and a lot. Ae.thetics is not a trade-off to denying the HYC Mill lake to be 22 the 22 buoys the racing are to threaten the Keith sacrificing aeabers. Bill Haaaoch, Treasurer, HYC, stated that if they do not get it Mill ba an aconoaic hardship and have a negative iapact on prograa. Larry Leistiko, HYC aeaber, pointed out that aore than 22 people involved considering tha people Mho crau tha boats and usa tha boats for up 60 races. Fred Ouirsfald, HYC aeaber, seconded tha iapact on a large nuaber of people. Responding to a question froa Reese, Albright stated he is confident 850 Mill be sufficient even if the lake goes doun further. Responding to a question froa Markus, Sgt. Chandler stated this area Hayzata Bay is the quietest, has a saall access, navigational probleas Mould ainiaal and he does not see a problea at this tiae. A letter froa the City of Hayzata dated March 20, 1989 to the Board out its six conditions for an LMCD dock raneMal of 1989. SrathHol stated Cu>nditions refer to the dock license rather than the aoorinq perait. Attorney LeFevere stated the Board looks at the concerns a city eight have but does not delegate authority to the City. The Certificate of Zoning Coapliance gives the Cities a 45 day opportanity to respond to the Board's actions. of be set the Grathitol addrtised tht qutstion of conflict of interest by stating it is a tatter to be treated seriouBly« he has been a aeaber of the HVC, has been in litigation for and against all of the cities represented on the Board except Mayzata, Hinnetonka and Woodland in thirty years of legal work. Rascop indicated opposition to the pereit because: 1) Me believes if this eooring pereit is approved the City of Wayzata eay deny the dock license.2) This Hill interfer with the operation of the raep. 3) The LMCD nouid be subject to criticise froe the Departeent of Natural Resources for letting one group take so euch Hater out of the public doeain. Responding to a question of Lenaan, it was stated that a private property onner, under ceruain circuestances, could go out as far as BOO* nith the approval of the Mater Patrol nhich considers 1-1/2’ beloH the bottoe of the boat reasonablOi if there is no navigational hazard. Hurr stated she nill support t e pereit because the neighbors still have their rights to 700’ of eater beteeen thee and the WYC, ee are all taxpayers and 22 boats is not a large enough nueber to deny. Reese said that considering 1/2 the eeebers cannot put their boats in, the NYC is sacrificing and he understands they eill not coee back again for a further extension if the eater level goes doen further. NOTION RESTATED: It eas eoved by Bratheol, seconded by Pillsbury, to approve the teeporary eooring area extension recoeaended by the Coeaittee for one year; under the sane conditions as long as the eater is beloe the 929.4* rule, this involving 22 boats eith a seing not to exceed 050’. Hurr, Reese, Foster, Bratheol, Pillsbury, Slocua voted aye. Rascop and Leeaan voted nay. Notion carried. e. City of Excelsior and Dennis Boats (Tonka Bay) Teaporary Dock Extension. It eas aoved by Bratheol, seconded by Pillsbury, to apprev** the teaporary dock extension for the City of Excelsior and Dennis Boats (Tonka Bay) as subaitted unaniaously. ABENDA CHANBE: The Board agreed to change the agenda aeobers of the public in the audience. 5. D. Special Coaaittees a. EURASIAN MATER NILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Reese The Board received a report of the bid opening for aquatic eead harvesting equipaent opened at 10:00 A. N. Mednesday, March 29, 1989, a coaplet^ copy of the report and bid suaaary attached hereto. A suaaary folloes: BIDDER Aquarius Sys»'.as, North Prairie, MI 1320,500. Aquatics Unliaited, Martinez, CA 456,875. Internatioml Science l> Technology 352,000. United Marine International, Waterloo, NY 379,200. Based on the factor of price, delivery date, parts and service as eell as the flexibility, as noted in the report, the Chair and Coaaittee Chair recoeeend aearding the bid to United Marine International. It eas eoved by Reese, seconded by Rascop, to aeard the contract for three prop driven and teo paddleeheel need harvesters to United Marine International, according to specifications and subject to reviee of the contract by the Board’s attorney. Notion carried, Pillsbury abstaining. . because it is consistent eith others granted. Motion carried order to accomodate b. Fund raiiinq status report. Stroaasn raporttd tht followinq funds rictivad to datoi Soall pltdges il30,825. Outstandinq soall plodqts 10,000. Pltdqtd froa Citits 65,000. Hajor Contributors 300,000. Outstanding Major Contributors 200,000 Mort funds will be needed for operation and it is iaportant to continue the fund drive and publicity. c. Status of bids for service contract. Reese reported bids will be opened on April 13 and all bidders are being notified of the type of eguipaent being purchased. d. Status report on legislation. Stroaaen reported response froa the Senate sub-coaaittcc that heard the bill to fund a Departaent of Natural Resources support package and to hire a person to do a state*wide assessaent of the weed problea in soae 500 lakes is aoving along favorably. Senator Olson has introduced an aaendaent for f ^ing for weed control for 1990-1991 with a potential of $300,000 to the LMCO dependent upon Corps of Engineer aatching funding. There is also proposed funding for the Freshwater Foundation for Eurasian Haterailfoil research. e. Project supervisor. Reese reported Hennepin County Departaent of Public Works has approved the contract to approve a project supervisor to work with the contractor. f. Hurr reported Hennepin County Parks will be announcing fheir cooperation in this project. C. Standing Coaaittees A. LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Director Foster for Chair Pillsbury a. Foster reviewed the ainutes of March 18, 1909 aoving their approval, the notion was seconded by Reese and carried unaniaously. b. It was aoved by Foster, seconded by Rascop, to ap^ e a Special Event Perait for the Hestonka M.D.A. Coaaittee to hold a crappie fishing contest on June 17, 19B9, per their application. Motion carried unaniaously. c. It was aoved by Foster, seconded by Rascop, to approve deposit refunds to Birchview Eleaentary ice fishing contest 2/12/B9 and Rollin B. Child, Inc. winter event 2/10/89. Motion carried unaniaously. d. It was aoved by Foster, seconded by Rascop, to approve the aaendaent to the perait for the Zuhrah Shrine Skippers Aquatennial Parade requiring they stay within a one foot wake on all areas of the lake, unless there are white caps on the lake, and aaintain a ainiaua wake in the slow speed zones as well as having their route approved by the Water Patrol. Motion carried unaniaously. Proposed Policy Stateaent re Regional Park. Hurr invited any interested aeober to join her in drafting a policy/stateaent toward the Hennepin Countv Park on Upper Lake Minnetonka for presention at the April aeeting. Lewaan expressed his interest. Lakeshore clean-up. It was aoved by Reese seconded by Rascop, to approve a Public Relation release, to be prepared by the Executive Director, encouraging lakeshore clean-ups. Motion carried unaniaously. It was aoved by Foster, seconded by Rascop, to authorize the Board Chair and Lake Use and Dock Coaaittee Chairs to select a Water Patrol Special Deputy froa aaong candidates provided by Sgt. Dill Chandler for recognition at the April 19 annual dinner. Motion carried unaniaously. by GrathMol, in th« aaount to of approvt 18,798. 0. Special Coeeittcei 2. Adviiory Coaaittte a. It Mas aovtd by Reese, seconded professional service billing froe David Arndorfer Motion carried unanieously. b. Arndorfer reported the Shoreland Protection draft has been by the sub-coaeittee and advisory coaeittee subject to soae revisions definitions and teras. He will aeet with the Departaent of Natural to discuss the draft and distribute to the cities and confer aith approved including Resources thee. c. Recreational use ainter aonitoring has had a good response of 60Z- 701. Rascop expressed the need to be aaare of Hennepin Parks' plans for control of eaters 300’ froa shore adjacent to the nea park. The District should be prepared to respond. Rascop also asked that the ainter aonitoring report shoa the actual question asked in the responses. d. Arndorfer suggested tao aeetings devoted to Public Safety aatters each year involve Police Chiefs, Hater Patrol, Sheriff’s Departaent and the Departaent of Natural Resources. Also tao aeetings aith Police Chiefs are recoaaended to cover special event activities. Arndorfer suggested this could be started noa as the chiefs aelcoae assistance. f. Arndorfer reported there aill be four sub‘‘COoai t tee aeetings in April and Hay and five in June, July and August. Directors aere provided an invitation to participate. E. Executive Director's Report 1. Recording Secretary a. Recoaaendation to engage Juliene Neidner as recording secretary aas presented Board jf Directors Public Hearings Hater Structures/Environaenl Lake Use Meetina Time Minutes Time Total 3.0 6.0 9.0 .5 1.0 1.5 3.0 6.0 9.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 24.0 The Executive Director aill continue to provide aeeting suaearies for the Advisory Coeaittee. Rascop expressed concern on hoa this aill iapact the annual budget. At an average eonthly cost of $3S0, the Executive Director projects the budget iapact to be noainal. The potential for funding froa "Favc The Lake" was suggested in that the current Eurasian Hater Milfoil weed control program and fund raising effort is the major staff demand increasing the administrative work load. This was not proposed as a funding source. It aas moved by Pillsbury, seconded by Foster, that Juliene Heidner, Deephaven, be engaged as an independent contractor to record and prepare minutes, as recommended, utilizing her own word processing equipment, at a 115 hourly rate. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Administrative Progress Consultant Frank Mixa is assisting in reviewing various dock license renewal applications to help maintain turn-around timeliness. Demand for staff support on the Eurasian Hater Milfoil weed control program are p-esently focused on equipment and contract service bids. Organization of the weed control administrative operation is next up for organization aith the assisting agencies to include Hennepin County Public Service and Hennepin Parks. 6 3. Priority Meeting and exchanges suMaary Mas circulated to the Board. 4. The ninnesota Departaent of Transportation is holding the first public hearing in preparation of the rcplaceaent of the Bray's Bay Bridge and re- alignoent of Highaay 101. This Mill be held at the Hinnetonka City Halli 7t00 P. Wednesday, April 5. The project is up for iapleaentation in 1991. 5. Legislative hearing of H.F.534, the Coaprehensive Waters Bill, ahich contains funding for the Hanageaent Plan study, is up for consideration by the House on Thursday, March 30. The Executive Director Mill represent LMCD's interests, the Departaent of Natural Resources and Ninnesota Water Resources Board being the aajor agencies uhich nill adainister the bill's p*‘ovisioni. It is a funding prograe with over 130,000,000 being requested. 6. Unfinished Business. Lake Use Coaaittee Minutes It Mas eoved by Rascop, seconded by Foster, to instruct the Board's Attorney to take nhatever steps are necessary to change the blood alcohol content froa .10 to .08 in in the BWI Ian if that change is aade by the legislature in the ONI Ian. Motion carried unaniaously. 7. Nee Business. There Mas no nea business. 8. Adjourneent. The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at lOsOS P. M. Subeitted byi Jan fiosMinkel, Secretary Approved byi JoEllen L. Hurr, Chair DATE; April 19, 1989 TO: Chief Kilbo FROM: Carol SUBJECT; Compliment to Officer Fischenich/attached case file At 0820 hours this date, Fred Patch (who was the complainant on the attached "barking dog" complaint, called to inquire who owned the dog, wanted to know if it was from Dexter Drive area. I advised him that the dog belonged way over on Woodhill Road and that the owner was cited for "dog at large" when he came to the. PD to pick up the dog. Patch was very pleased to hear this and said to be sure and compli­ ment the officer who responded. He arrived within 30 seconds, took the dog into custody and assured Mr. Patch that the dog would be confined at the PD until the owner could be notified. ORONO POUCE DEPARTMENT lg» ffv _______COMTWg >M«8€W *009 00»ff *OPOr ICC wm OOl I E I C , 1 I / III.......................I / i M I W I 0 , ; , 7 I , I I / itm 0*Tt ^POWTTO |W»Ot TMEW»OfWL_ IOC*TO»0«*INONM|IGI»*, El / lo. VI /■ 9 l~fTMl / o,.jl / I , , I sIII i/?^S' r tou^rv n>Tf ooMcrnoma INBN MNO SOUAOONtAOGC #(S8N| TM ASC (TASi TW( ANN rT«A|rman ftaiCD/^/C » in ST”I y' I 11 / I D I^ i O 1 c>2i / i O I'S^ 1 O 1 INM CMm/rr i/I 1 uoc un ■; . ■■.• 1/1 1 OFfCEN W»C»AICOOI SUSnCT S(A VCTM ¥C um «N vxx: uw ASST NEFOmNAATf ht AOMIN AOM T1 / I ,I/I .I I . i/Pi OFfEWOEN OFF OTHtA OTH cmwscQ mmviLOomjmr^ ^ ^ _ ADODESS \d d r i r\ ca . 1MC|LAS1.Fll«T MXXil »«OQMi P-Pxmm A-NM> A-Air*i 1- MFnjr M.Mt T-Opa AMnCSTG OTATCNG WAMN2 1/r /Li om KOOKS “WT— w "2««t?a». MM£ liu^T. flAST. MlOOLfl Aw sr ^1*1 TE Ktcmi NAME OAST. mst. MOOD ^|W| ^(H» WW 0T»€NNtWTltlCl«3C0 iMpnM G Ph* kwr*3>> G U n MCmmO todrtl^Q MUnn Nipon □ ^visi 1 Tap Z 0mm VMtfIpMG OmmfoJ KtCmQ ww p/o.i n't ra rvK C ^ ^ r\'t gk. ^ U^ei ^<t^r 4-/I u/r\ CL. I? />v CKC^rx. U/^xtx^ r UyK^rw ZT^ C><fr i\yn^^O 3C K^ar/O ’♦‘Inn . a A qw^/i ~tV\Q^ Jot €xpi"^JfJC^X? k$‘ CK.f\tQ tooK^ ki u( ^t-cxt-1 o r\^^ I r> ^ ^€^^(0K^Qrn 3^^ Uypflr(P/\i)l *. X ^ ^ O(mJ“0 /\a^t r . »'s rci s .. ; :? •. i. .i .• . i »f • r ••. ■ .*• •" • • ; COURT COPY • DO NOT WRITE ON REVERSE ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 mOiPtNOCNCE LONG LAKE MAPLE PLAIN MEDINA - MINNETONKA tEACH ORONO MS OLD CRYSTAL SAY ROAO LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA M3M OS. nOHAS t. Nld fQfniMTnissrr or sciooe^ (S12)47J-731J m v.A. rmoLT ASS'T. TO TBI SOrilZirrtNDtKT (§13)473-7)13 April 12. 1989 Officer English Orono Police Department 445 Willow Drive Long Like. Mft. 55356 Dear Officer English. Thank you for participating In our Sixth grade Law Unit, The goal was to inform the students about the Part> Law and the impact of drugs and drug use by students on the students lives. That you did excellently. A! Enclosed you will find letters from the students. The students mention your showing and explaining your police equipment to them, diagraming on the board blood alcohol content. Most importantly - the students really liked you. I would say your job was well done. Thanks! Herb Wolner enc. copy to Orono Police Chief 01. R.l. WIHTBR ■ZM SCHOOL PRZSCZPia (412I473-S472 C. MSYMS SHITS ASSOC, lies SCHOOL PRZHCZFAL (§12)473-S472 tt.Y. HBL80H HZDOLB SCHOOL PHZHCZPAL (412)473-7301 HRS. HAHVIL A. SOMQART tLBHBHTART SOlOOt PRZHCZFAL 1412)471-7317 _ _ _ _ROHALO I. OZLSKM MTHHKIDZATt SCHOOL PHZHCZFAL (412)473«7301 axY QROIMa CITYofORONO Post Otiiea Baa 66 • Cryalal Bay. Minnawta S&323 • Municipal OCBoaa On tht North Short of Lakt Minnetonka Q 3 April 14, 1989 Ken Nadole 804 Meadow View Drive Northfleld, MN 55057 Subject: Highway 12 Task Force A^eting/CommiS3loner Levine Thursday, April 27, 1989, 1:30 p.m. Orono Middle School - Teacher's Lounge/Lunch Room Dear Mr. Madole, Just a quick letter to let you know that the "Eastern End" Task Force is scheduled to meet with Commissioner Levine at the time and place listed above. As you may recall Commissioner Levine is interested in meeting with the group out on this end and it is expected given the Highway 12 priority and funding that topics of the discussion would include: A. Legislative fundi.ig picture. B. Funding for the planning and corridor selection process. C. Initiation of the process. D. What do we do from here? We look forward to your attendance at the meeting, please call me if you will not be able to attend. Attached please find a copy of the most recent Wlllmar Task Force minutes. ^4ncqreJ/ <rk' ET «Won City Administrator MEB/dh cc: Jim Mulroouey, MnDOT Dirk deVries, Metro Council Representative Willi6Lm Crawford, MnDot District 5 Pat Hughes,MnDOT District 5 BUILDING k ZONING - 473*7337 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION k FINANCE - 473*7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 n U ' I. II. III. MINUTES /'/ LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS;COMMISS EXCELSIOR STUDIO 5:00 P.M. TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1989 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Haggerty called the March 21, 1989 meeting to 5:05 p.Hi. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MQTIQ.M 99i 1; Anderson moved, seconded by Olds, to approve the February 21, 1989 minutes as written. Motion carried, 3 ayes, 1 abstain (Brancel). ROLL CALL Directors Present Barb Brancel Dennis Haggerty Jim Olds Tom Anderson Lesley Hughes-Seamans (Arrived 5:15) Tim Adams (Arrived 5:20) Others Present Ric Hanson - Triax Jennifer Watts - (Newly Hired Administrator) Shelly Quaas - Recorder REPORTS A. OFFICERS Chairman Haggerty informed the commission that Mary Smith (of Traix) recently passed away, a memorial was given to the Library; a thank you note was received. LMCCC has also received a thank you note from Regional Channel 6 for the Commission's contribution to Regional Channel 6. Haggerty informed the commission that he spoke with Holly Hansen in regards to training the new administrator, Hansen will consult for the sum of $15.00 per hour. MOTION 2.21.89.2: Anderson moved to ap|.«irove up to 8 hours § $15.00 per hour for consulting fees, motion was discussed. Brancel feels that it should be Hansen's obiligation to consult the new administrator free of charge. Olds informed Brancel that Hansen did not agree to consult tne new administrator before she resigned. Motion was then seconded by Brancel. Motion carried unanimously. Haggerty commended Debbie Kokesch (LMCCC's Secretary) for doing a good job in the office in the absence of an administrator. Haggerty also informed the Commission that some new equipment is needed in the studio, this will be reviewed when Jennifer Watts, the new administrator, starts. B. TREASURER MQTION 3.21.89.3: Olds moved, seconded by Brancel to approve the Just Claims as amended on appendix A. Motion was discussed. Olds commented that prior to Hansen's resignation, she was approved one week of paid vacation which had been accrued. Olds will bring this sum of money up in th. April Just Claims. Motion carried unanimously. LMCCC Minutes - March 21, Page 2 1989 B. TREASURERS REPORT ~ CONTINUE.P MOTION 3.21.89.4: Olds moved, seconded by Adams, to allow PayCheck to issue one week of pay to Hansen for her accrued vacation. Motion carried unanimously. C. TPIAX CABligVISI^ , . Ric Hanson reviewed the monthly ropor^ with the commission. Beginning Subscribers Connects 68 Corrections due to computer clean-up 76 Total Connections 144 IV. V. VI. Disconnects Net Gain Basic Penetration 67 77 46% Hanson is concerned with the basic penetration percentage and would like to see it go up to approximately 55%. Hanson reported that Triax has been receiving calls on the Midwest Sports negotiations, at this time Triax is waiting for the price to decrease; eventually Triax would like to put Midwest Sports on Basic. Midwest Sports would include an additional 24 Twins baseball games. Olds asked Hanson for an update on the Regional Channel 6 signal; Hanson informed the commission that Triax ordered new modulars and hope they will clear up the signal. Haggerty spoke with LMCCC's Attorney and informed Hanson that when Triax drops or adds a new program, LMCCC must be informed; the Commission then has 120 days to measure the mix, quality and level of service. In the future Hanson will inform the Commission in writing stating the progress of additions or deletions. Haggerty requested Hanson to submit a letter with the recent changes of WWOR being dropped from Basic and Bravo and American Movie Classic being added. QUESTIONAIRE A questionaire has been sent to the full commission regarding time schedules preferable to each commission member for meeting times and days for the LMCCC monthly meetings. The questionaire will be reviewed at the next full commission meeting. ELECTIONS Chair Haggerty has not been available to have a nominating committee meeting, if any commission member would like to lun for office they should contact Chair Haggerty. TECHNICAL AUDIT Haggerty informed the Commission that the Franchise requires the Commission to perform a technical audit every three years. Ric Hanson of Triax said he may be able to supply some of the information for the technical audit. Olds suggested the commission ask a qualified person to review the information from Triax and compare it with the last technical audit. LMCCC Minutes - March 21, 1989 Page 3 TECHNICAL AUDIT - CONTINUED Adams asked if a third party should be verifying the quality of the signal on Regional Channel 6. Haggerty feels it would be a good idea to have the signal verified. VII. ADJOLRNMENT MOTION 3.21.5: Adams moved, seconded by Hughes-Seamans, to adjourn the March 21, 1989 meeting at 5:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, SHELLY QUAAS i ! i i • ^CROSS I I f i WORDS? TRY MEDIATION I i iw s u; i 1 B f- R ;rMED B -------H►---- 1 A T 1 i N I ON E, j BEE I E N' I YOLUNTEEKS YHO HA YE GIYEN GENEKOUSLT OF THEIR TIME INCLUDE: Naomi Anderson Gilbert F. Bakeberg Robert Carlson Frank Commers Denis Diekhoff Bob Ehrenberg Linda EU Cheri Fischer TomFiutak Don Fraley Steve Kessler Shelley Kordell Suzanne Lang Connie Lano Jay Levenson Florence Lowe Timothy Moran James Nelson EUie Ogden Sandra OhlgtvQ John O'Loughlin JohnOu Richard Pouliot Les Puett Jim Ryan Charles Sanders Mary Rose Watson Cheri Fischer. Chair Timothy Moran Dr. JaiDM McDonough Chip Whitacre 19U BOARD MEMHERS Robert Carlson Earlyce J. Pestello Don Fraley Mary Rose Watson Gilbert F. Bakeberg Frank G. Commers Tolly Eizilos Charles M. Walerius ToUieFlippin m STAFF: Sue Nelson. Executive Director - Ginny Mezera. Case Developer CITIES IN SERYICE AREA ARE: Bloomington Deephaven Eden Prairie Edina Excelsior Golden Yalley Greenfield Greenwood Hopkins Independence Long Lake Loretto Maple Plain Medicine Lake Medina Minnetonka Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Mound New Hope Orono Plymouth Richfield Rockford St. Bonifacius St. Louis Park Shore wood Spring Park Tonka Bay Wayzata Woodland REFERRALS HAYE BEEN MADE BT Sailor Newspaper Golden Valley Newsletter Dispute Resolution Center-St. Paul North Hennepin Mediation Project Lawyers Referral Service Conciliation Court Minneapolis Housing Board Minnetonka City Offices Building Inspector s Office-Eden Prairie W.C.C.O Consumer Help Line Richfield City Offices Minneapolis/St. Piiul Magazine Hopkins Mainstreet Attorney General's Office Bloomington Human Rights Star Tribune Newspaper Police Departments School Personnel City Staff The above list reflects those agencies, organizations and departments which have most frequently referred cases. ITS FROM USERS OF THE SERTIQ "He were amized that our dispute vas settled in approximately O minutes after going back and forth with the parties involved for | months Everyone involved wes prompt, courteous and extremely helpful/* Tor my husband and me it was a chance to meet and understand the reason behind all the problems that vere arising in our neighborhood. Hearing the other side wes very helpful too. Our neighborhood is more relaxed and friendly as a result." This program seemed like an answer to my prayers. Because 1 can t seem to communicate with my daughter and son-in-law 1 needed a Mediator outside of the family" Tm so thankful for the wonderful prompt service and in a week the whole thing was resolved plus a letter of apology from the party f was mediating with, f sure will publicize your service. Thank you." "Ye were very satisfied with our mediation experience. Mediators were helpfUl. friendly, professional and understanding. Ye had to compromise on the resolution, but that was okay. Ye're very pleased that this service is available.*' 19S8EVALUATI0HS Of 69 evaluations returned. 61 rated the quality of service as excellent or good. ^ got the service they wanted: 37 said their needs were met: and 33 were satisfied with the amount of help they received. FIYAMCIAL SUPPQBT HAS BEEH PSOYIHEH BT: Hennepin County Bureau of Community Corrections* Lawyers Trust Account Board* Bush Foundation* City of St Louis Pu'k* City of Golden Valley* City of Plymouth* City of Minnetonka* City of Hopkins* City of Eden Prairie City of Richfield* City of Edina* City of Bloomington Ci^of Orono Golden Valley Rotary 0 ib Hopkins Jaycees* Hopkins R^berry Festival Prudential lirtners in Community Service GI. Capital Fleet Services * indicates multiple year funding FINANCIAL REPORT Income for 19SS was $40,927 and expenses were $40,939 P lym < HI K 01 8<8HI U Bs 1988 STATISTICS ABOUT YSMC West Suburban Mediation Center (WSMC) helps people in our service area tn resolve disputes through mediation Our trained volunteer mediators meet with the people involved to facilitate reaching an agreement acceptable to all parties. Mediation keeps control over and responsibility for resolving disputes with the people involved in the dispute. Mediation results in solutions that are more likely to work. YSMC mediates neighbor problems, juvenile offenses, tenant/landlord issues, business/consumer difficulties, residents/city official/staff disputes for groups or individuals. * # In addition to mediation. YSMC provides conciliation services, information and referral, education and training. Our services are free, voluntary confidential, quick and convenient. for information or presentations, please call 933-0005 YSMC wishes to thank the volunteers, funders and referral sources who have made its continued service possible! e I WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER 32 10th Avenue South Suite 211 Hopkins. Minnesota 55343 933-0005 _ _m 9970 Wayzata Boulevard Saint Louis Park, Minnesota 1982 - 1989 West Suburban Mediation Center Invites you to the 7th Anniversary Annual Meeting Thursday, April 20, 1989 7:00 - 8:15 P.M. HOLIDAY INN MINNEAPOLIS WEST Speaker: ROGER WILLIAMS Director, Minnesota Office of Dispute Resolution Refreshments (Hors d*oeuvres and Beverage ) Door Frizes ft’ >?• I ! I f •V' i: V 'iS‘ & 4 •A ^4 ^ -v. /03 r<rr«- s/^ii9Tuees To the City of Spring Park Mayor and Council, We the undersigned are totally opposed to Lord Fletcher's plans for major land clearing for the purpose of accommodating more customers. Reasons are as follows; 1) ‘ Proposed site plan which does not appear to accurately represent the existing parking lots. 2) Obliteration of the existing foliage and ecosystem which currently protects and buffers the residential neighborhood. 3) Dust and noise pollution which will occur from the proposed circular traffic pattern. 4) Expanded parking beyond seating capacity guidelines which is already satisfied. 2.0 SO 77 23l(W,- XOSy ^^rrz^/2} %0/C;; J ^ r:?4 1 /<>t'f To the City of Spring Park Mayor and Council, We the undersigned are totally opposed to Lord Fletcher's plans for dftcfr the purpose of accomno^at inj more custome?s'?*^easVh follows; 1) * Proposed site plan which does not appear to accurately represent the existing parking lots. 2) Obliteration of the existing foliage and ecosystem which currently protects and buffers the residential neighborhood. 3) Dust and noise pollution which will occur from the proposed circular traffic pattern. 4) Expanded parking beyond seating capacity guidelines which is already satisfied. f faxJL*/* 'McLfUL ~0ji Y%A)(jlAi 6. AiTTnS/^ /Li ^(rC^ /^■ 3(a)i^ l6t^ ^ T0 ID 3L ^L4 iT V - K-fj V- ^-fc - ? —/c ~ ' > the City of Spring Park Mayor nd Council, We the undersigned are totally opposed to Lord Fletcher’s plans for major land clearing for the purpose of accommodating more customers. Reasons are as follows; 1 )* Proposed site plan which does not appear to accurately represent the existing parking lots. 2) Obliteration of the existing foliage and ecosystem which currently protects and buffers the residential neighborhood. 3) Dust and noise pollution which will occur from the proposed circular traffic pattern. 4) Expanded parking beyond seating capacity guidelines which is already satisfied. /Sio ^<=o CO 7f.S" ^ I (yto , To the City of Spring Park Mayor and Council, We the undersigned are totally opposed to Lord Fletcher’s plans for for the purpose of accommodating more customers. Reasons are as follows; 1) * Proposed site plan which does not appear to accurately represent the e.xisting parking lots. 2) Obliteration of the existing foliage and ecosystem which currently protects and buffers the residential neighborhood. 3) Dust and noise pollution which will occur from the proposed circular traffic pattern. To the City of Spring Park Mayor and Council, We the undersigned are totally opposed to Lord Fletcher's plans for major land clearing for the purpose of accommodating more customers. Reasons are as follows; 1) * Proposed site plan which does not appear to accurately represent the existing parking lots. 2) Obliteration of the existing foliage and ecosystem which currently protects and buffers the residential neighborhood. 3) Dust and noise pollution which will occur from the proposed circular traffic pattern. 4) Expanded parking beyond seating capacity guidelines which is already satisfied. 0631 Togo MUSiS’q /D3 s/6A/f>rue£s To the City of Spring Park Mayor and Council, We the undersigned are totally opposed to Lord Fletcher's plans for major land clearing for the purpose of accommodating more customers. Reasons are as follows; 1) Proposed site plan which does not appear to accurately represent the existing parking lots. 2) Obliteration of the existing foliage and ecosystem which currently protects and buffers the residential neighborhood. 3) Dust and noise pollution which will occur from the proposed circular traffic pattern. • {I 4) Expanded parking beyond seating capacity guidelines which is already satisfied. a / /J 3 /// I */ I ft \ i ^ £^_S'P' § S' r>^ '* S)(3o ^CxM^ (Jcu^^ &JL^ T<^ orw n Ls^vt- Koe:O?.otoo, ^^vJ To the City of Spring Park Mayor and Council, We the undersigned are totally opposed to Lord Fletcher's plans for major land clearing for the purpose of accommodating more customers. Reasons are as follows; 1) Proposed site plan which does not appear to accurately represent the existing parking lots. 2) Obliteration of the existing foliage and ecosystem which currently protects and buffers the residential neighborhood. 3) Dust and noise pollution which will occur from the proposed circular traffic pattern. 4) Expanded parking beyond seating capacity guidelines which is already satisfied. M /d*. ,— 3'3*7?' 5oh56T To the City of Spring Park Mayor and Council, We the undersigned are totally opposed to Lord Fletcher's plans for major land clearing for the purpose of acccmmodating more customers. Reasons are as follows; 1) Proposed site plan which does not appear to accurately represent the existing parking lots. 2) Obliteration of the existing foliage and ecosystem which currently protects and buffers the residential neighborhood 3) Dust and noise pollution which will occur from the proposed circular traffic pattern. 4) Expanded parking beyond seating capacity guidelines which is already satisfied. ^ 3 ru— ■ , t ybV.-T-o <- tt, nv» V« “ »6j«•' /St*r £5»ewoo outs t>R, 2.,'ll At OOTAt /^ I ./I ♦• n«f-M «»x |«i<}S' iAiesrfSB«i^i«c> 2..09 *C7W*C ^CAt^ tuf C| . Ll \ '' i ...Lz.!__^•g^-U— ri‘:rE: 7zr flu> cittsrAu aA«f s. AC TOTAC , e.*"' <11 ?a&s=r • :• •' ■' 'j - lV»r IwrtTF»ein ■Z .08 4e. -romc IV^It^l. Z .I *- hsnajBS^ ^ gg^.:£«%irttArtOW 5 ^-zo-g'i 3^/05" tAJATB«UTXAJAJ r-: - V . :;t: •"■ . ■ ; - V . ■ rv;:,:m • • lliWf i?'-.::::: ■*: >•1^ ■•■' ' 1^ , ■', ;v. i' i: ' -«■ ■ -M rn&mmm: it' SCALE IN FEET ® HECDVERT WEU LDCATIDM 1 • PIEZOMETER LOCATION O rjWT SUPPLY WELL • SOIL SORING LOCATION [ GRASSY / SWAMP AREA 1 FIGURE 10 WATER TABLE CONTOUR MAP FEBRUARY 1, 1989 WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA Mojcer Ha 10-87-200 PRCMMD 9f DMR/PR ^Kh/^ Cnvironmcnffil ^///im Coniultant*, Ino.PROPERTY LINE a/9/89 reshemco 9f L«'”-. : ;S r -' ■ ' ■fe-fe'.; , ^:4 ■1 ^'' Slv.- I I I I 1 5/;:^ ^:;X'J%t .■ ■ '.^■ '■X ^4 -.^4; PROPCRTY LnC GRASSY / SVAHP AREA MW-9. RECG TRCATME PARKING LOT HYDRANT'1 r n MW-3 I HV -7, WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES BUILDING ^-CONTAMINATED SOIL COMPLETELY REMOVED legend. scale in feet 9 HONtTORING WELL LOCATION ® RECOVERY WELL LOCATION • PtEZOMETER LOCATION O PLANT SUPPLY WELL • son. BORING LOCATION AREA OF CONTAMINATED SOIL PROPERTY LINE m ■■■IP 4 * - Wx-* vV' . 1 ,-s.' mSLM mim yi ■m ,x i*- V i ' ■ ■: ': v-'-' ' p.-^m9 l':> |r THIN SPREAD AREA WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA niojccr NO. 10-87-aOO ntlMMD 0Y DMR/PR DaHa ^■nk Cnvlronmtnfoi Consultants. Inc. (MIC 2/9/89 R£VIO*b> 9r r :i' ■"/ ♦' ’liJM w "'i\: I F‘-'‘ . A ''m€kmm- M- ■ ■ m‘if '■... •" ,v,r ,r -■ - 'A \''*" " - ■■ ■