Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-08-1989 Council Packet
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO uaJCIL^MEETING DATEO PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAMl OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 1.l/i/yi *^n<=\x 2.kart^^qn^ oajt s,f I3-15 4.y'/cf -T,^yA>fr,^y Jl//f^1\•inM-/.0 C j 9s"---------^ 1 . y-----j----------------------7------f------------------ 6.(P 7.^\ »v 2^Qi U jrttAi'V^/li^i i 2.y«?o /J1 9.K^lfr /syj^r 10 .J)fi /e /4’r^v Sr 11.A. Gr.ifo£^{ l--lCi^Oe:>0 4 12.v4tU.<U>- ^(^Ccu !^9S- /-I f 14./}^a.rXac^tro ' PdLte Aif^./ -hir9 15.S,,1/<{L .ii^r <J/C/s/:ft ril'/KJ IR 16.?\M/\ IiIIa-UaU^^^^ §fke^ /^id <iJ.Up k. iC' r - - 18. 19. 20. AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MAY 8, 1989, 7:00 F.M. (*)Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtaJ^d Wfion._ request from the Recordei. ROLL CALL 1.CONSENT AGENDA* 2.Presentation of Award - Westonka Seniors AFPROFAL OF MINUTES * 3. Regular Meeting of April 24, 1989 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Alexander Vongries Representative 4.Park Survey Results PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jim Hanson Representative 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. 5.#990 Ward Ferrell, 3411 Watertown Road - Variances - Resoltuion of Denial 6.#1135 Robert Hanning, 4220 Sixth Avenue North - Request to Extend Conditional Use Permit 7.#1261 Joe and Sandy Rauschendorfer, 3895 Shoreline Drive - Variance - Resolution 8.#1367 Steven Harris, 3850 Watertown Road - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 9.#1375 David Price, 2914 Casco Point Road - Variance - Resolution 10.#1388 Charles Bertelson, 760 Tonkawa Road - Variance 11.#1389 James/Charlene Mardock, 880 Dakota Avenue - After the Fact Variance - Resolution 12. #1392 Kim Edwards, 2450 Woodhaven Drive - After the Fact Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 13.#1394 Jackson Wilson, 3059 Farview - After the Fact Variance 14.#1395 Thomas Williams, 4127 Oak Street - Variance - Resolution 15.#1396 Minnetonka Boat Works, 1449 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Variance 16.#1398 Steve Howells, 1448 Park Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution *17. Planned Development Ordinance Summary for Publication MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 18.City Administrator Evaluation and Contract 19.Development Committee Appointment AGENDA FOR COUNCIL NZBTING SET FOR MONDAY, MAY 8, 1989, 7:00 P.M. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 20.Facility Site Analysis Long Lake Fire - Equipment Acquisition Board of Review, May 11, 1989 Facsmile Machine 1972 Shadywood Road Lord Fletchers - Spring Park Meeting Police Supervisory Implementation Police Auction - Reschedule Date Temporary Employment - Orono Golf Course 28A,Request Authority to Hire C.S.O. - Part-Time 29.Pee Ordinance Amendment - Planned Development No Parking - Resolution Administrator's Information Highway 12 - Safety Improvement Highway 12 Task Force Summary of Receipts/Disbursements - March Lake Minnetonka - Lake Level/Graph LMCD Shoreland Regulations City Docks Recycling Electronic Deposit Additional Depository Kennel License Goal Setting Status 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 30. 31. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (32*) BILLS (33*) ADJOURNMENT 3 MINUTBS OF THE RB6UIAR ORONO COUHCIL MEBTIII6 HELD APRIL 24, 1989 ATTEHDAIKX 7:00 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present:Mayor Grabek, CounciImembers Goetten, Nettles, Peterson and Callahan.The following represented the City staff:City Administrator Bernharrson,Building ^Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Engineer Cook, City Attorney Barrett and City Recorder Scheffler. CGESENT AGENDA* CounciImember Goetten requested the removal of item #3 from the consent agenda. CounciImember Peterson requested the removal of item #34 and City Administrator Bernhardson requested that item #18 be removed. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of items #3, #18 and #34, which were removed and discussed in the order in which they appear on the agenda. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. PRESEHTATION RESOLUTIOII OF APPRECIATION - HENNEPIN COUN17 RESOLOTION OP APPRECIATION - HARDRIVES, INC. Mayor Grabek stated that Orono, in coordination, with its neighboring Cities, had successfully completed the upgrade of County Road 15, from Highway 19 to Mound. The City of Orono wished to take this opportunity to recognize those individuals that were instrumental in the completion of the project. Mayor Grabek presented a Resolution of Appreciation to Mr. Stanley Hemphill of Hardrives, Inc., and Mr. Donald Hannan and David Feltl, Hennepin County Project Supervisor and Project Engineer, respectively. Mayor Grabek thanked the gentlemen for their hard work and efforts in successfully completing this project. APPPROVAL OP MINUTES* CounciImember Goetten requested that a correction be made on page 9, to retlect her concern relative to fast food drive-ins, in general, along Highway 12, not any one in particular. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve the Minute of the April 10, 1989, Regular Council Meeting, as corrected. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays»0, Motion passed. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DrSTRICT REPORT: Representative JoEllen Hurr reported that weed harvesting would begin by June 15th. After taking bids to do the work, they now had harvesters, in addition to an engineer and supervisor provided by Hennepin County. Three cutters will be working at all times, perhaps five, it necessary. The weeds will be cut and MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 24, 1989 LNCD REPORT CONTINUED conveyed onto trucks that will haul them away to be dried and used as compost for farm fields. The DNR has limited the cutting to 500 of the 3000 acres to be cut. The LMCD will apply for a permit to cut beyond 500 acres. Mayor Grabek indicated to Ms. Hurr that he had received comments from Orono Citizens concerned about the cutting actually increasing the weed growth since it reproduces by cutting. Ms. Hurr said that cutting was the only method of controlling the weed available at this time. They are working with the Freshwater Foundation for a biological means to contol the weed. The DNR will not allow the weed to be pulled out of the Lake bottom by the root.She said t'lat the allowed chemicals are very limited and require a DNR permit to use.Grays Bay may be chemically treated due to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's concern that the weed may spread into the Creek.She said if cutting were not done, the Lake could not be used for recreational activities.Mayor Grabek suggested apprising the public of why the cutting is necessary. Ns. Hurr further reported that Mark Westland resigned and a new member has been selected and will be sworn in. There is a controversy over the Special Density Permit and new dock license for St. Alban's Bay Marina. The concern involves the LMCD'c granting of an additional 84 slips. The City of Greenwood is questioning the right of the City of Excelsior to lease the land to the Marina.Ms. Hurr indicated she felt it was an issue between Greenwood and Excelsior. The LMCD will approve a Special Density Permit for the Minnetonka Boat Works, approving an increase of boat storage unit from 41 to 47 on Brown's Bay and from 25 to 67 on Tanager Lake. This matter had already been reviewed by the Planning Commission and was scheduled for the May P. 1989 Council Meeting. Ms. Hurr stated that Minnetonka Boat Works was less dense than any other Marina on Lake Minnetonka. Mayor Grabek expressed his concern over the low lake level. Ms Hurr stated that currently the Lake is 3' below normal.She said that she had an opportunity to view a map showing the Lake levels as far back as 1820.In the 1940's the Lake was lower than it is now. Mr.Dick Gray had Informed Ms. Hurr of his prediction that the Lake will be 1' lower by the end of this season.She said the LMCD had received suggestions to divert the Crow River to bring Lake Minnetonka's water level up.However, Mr. Gray recollected that such a suggestion was made 50 years ago and the Lake level rose significantly on it own by the time permits to divert water were secured. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Representative,Charles Kelley was present, as was Edward Cohen.Kelley reported that the Planning MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 24, 1989 PLAHHING COMMISSION COMMENTS CONTINUED Conunission's review of the Minnetonka Boat Works application had resulted in a 3 to 3 vote. He said that it was a very sensitive issue. ^ '5ek inquired as to the major issue discussed by the Planning mission. Kelley replied that the safety along County Road 15 was the most important issue. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Penny Norlinq, 3800 Dickson Extension, addressed the Council regarding concerns about Lord Fletchers' parking lot expansion. She said that she had appeared before the Council before concerning the conversion of Lot 21 into a commercial lot. Lord Fletchers has stopped pursuing that proposal and it is no longer an issue. She said that they now want to put in another parking lot. In order to do that it would be necessary for all of the foliage along Sunset to be removed. In addition, all of foliage behind 7-Eleven would be removed. The new parking area would be located behind 7-Eleven and extend to the Orono border. Ms. Norling said that she had signed petitions and there were quite a few Orono residents concerned about this proposal. Ms. Norling said that the major concern was losing the foilage separating Lord Fletchers from the residential areas. She said there was also concern about the 932* elevations and the wetlands. Hard surface runoff was another issue to be addressed. She reported that Lord Fletchers had indicated at two separate Spring Park Council Meetings that they have the required amount of parking for their seating capacity. She questioned why Fletchers needed to have additional parking if they already had enough parking for their seating capacity. Ms. Norling said that Spring Park Council had informed her that sines she resided in Orono, this proposal should not concern her. Mayor Grabek asked how the Spring Park Council addressed those same concerns when expressed by Spring Park residents? Ms. Norling replied that the Spring Park residents' concerns are taken irto consideration, but it was her opinion that the Spring Park Council "was hand in hand with Lord Fletchers". Ms. Norling asked if there wasn't a way that Spring Park and Orono could work together to address the concerns of the residents living on the border. Mayor Grabek agreed that Orono should work with Spring Park on this matter. Mayor Grabek questioned whether the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District considered the wetlands by the Nor lings to actually be wetlands. City Administrator Bernhardson replied that up to the 932' elevation, they would not be considered wetlands. However, the question is whether there has been an accurate survey done. Mayor Grabek said that Orono could express its concerns about the proposal to Spring Park. He said that staff would need to meet with Spring Park and express Orono's concerns and determine what plans Spring Park had to address those concern He suggested indicating to Spring Park Orono's policies i MINUTES OF TBB ORONO COUNCIL iCSETING OP APRIL 24, 1989 PUBLIC COMMENTS CONTINUED dealing with tree removal and runoff. Mr. Ted Aaronholtz asked to h.^ve a representative present at the Orono/Spring Park meeting. Irabek said that Orono would not object to that, but Spring Pa.k must be asked for their input. Another resident expressed her concern over the fact that this matter was coming up for a vote o.\ May 1 , 1989. Mr. George Glassco said that they had been able to delay this matter for two meetings, and hoped they would be able to delay it again. CounciImember Goetten asked Mr. Glassco if the Spring Park Council had been receptive to his conct'rns. Mr. Glassco said "no, not really. Only a couple of members are on their side". Goetten said that she had talked with George Norling several times regarding this issue. She said she had been out to the property and could see that the parking lot was taking over the entire area. City Admininstrator Bernnardson commented that Lord Fletchers is trying to resolve the problem of parking that occurs in residential neighborhoods, as requested by the City of Spring Park. Fletchers is trying to concentrate parking into one area, rather than having it spread into the residential areas. Spring Park is proposing to post "no parking/tow away zone" signs on residential streets, providing the residents agree. The overall issue is how many customers Lord Fletchers has indoors and out, and they have been ti ig find a solution to address that concern. It was Bernhardson's understanding that the property in question had been zoned for commercial use. The issues of design, screening and surfacing remain yet undecided. It was decided that George Norling would be the representative to attend the joir/ meeting. Mr. James Urban, 1966 Shadywood Road, explained that he ished to complain about a neighbor, Mr. Lloyd Nehring, feeding the ducks. He said that he had testified before the City whei. this problem was previously brought forth. Mr. Urban said that the problem had worsened and that their property was covered with duck droppings. He said that Mr. Nehring is feeding the ducks by filling a junk station wagon with bread and corn. Mr. Urban said that the stinch is unbearable. Mr. Nehring now has 7 junk cars on his property. Mayor Grabek said that the matter would be reopened and investigated. Mr. Nehring was present and denied Mr. Urban’s allegations that he was continuing to feed the ducks. He invited the Council to visit his property to see what the situation was for themselves. Mayor Grabek said that staff would address this matter and MINUTES OF THE OROMO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 24, 1989 PUBLIC COMMENTS CONTINUED it would be discussed at an upcoming meeting. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Nehring if he still fed the ducks on a regular basis? Mr. Nehring said that he did not feed the ducks, but had bird feeders from which some ducks ate. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: «990 WARD FERRELL 3405 WATERTOWN ROAD /ARIANCES CounciImember Goetten noted that this application had been ongoing since 1985. She felt that the Council had bent over backwards to accommodate Mr. Ferrell's concerns. Goetten observed that Mr. Ferrell was again not in attendance at the Council meeting, and asked that this matter be closed. She said that she would be in favor of allowing Mr. Ferrell one additional buildable lot in addition to his principal residence, subject to appropriate septic and any other testing that may be required. It was moved by Counci1member Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to deny application #990, Ward Ferrell. Gaffron asked for clarification as to whether the denial pertained to the request for two additional lots. He noted that Mr. Ferrell had amended his request for one additional lot. Gaffron suggested that the motion to deny two lots should address Mr. Ferrell's request for one additional lot. If one additional lot is acceptable, it should be specified as to how the parcel is to be split. Mayor Grabek commented that he did not want to plan Mr. Ferrell's pr ^osal. It was up to Mr, Ferrell to come forth with a proposal. layor Grabek asked CounciImember Goetten if she would amend her motion to deny Mr. Ferrell's application, yet give him the opportunity to appear before the Council prior to resolution. Gaffron pointed out tn^t final denial would occur at the next meeting when the resolutior. was brought forward and that Counci Imember Goetten's motion • \ be for conceptual denial. CounciImember Goetten agreed to amend her motion. Mayor Grabek seconded. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=*0, Motion passed. #1261 JOE RAUSCHENDORFER 3895 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIANCES Mr. and Mrs. Rauschendorfer were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council that the Rauschendorfers were seeking approval of sideyard setback and hardcover variances in order to construct a garage and replace the existing foundation for the principal structure. This proposal was revised from the original application which included an addition onto the front of the principal structure. Counci Imember Gc?2tten asked whether there was room for a two-car garage and whether the shed could be removed to create a net reduction in hardcover. Gaffron stated that there would be 9' from the right-of-way if the two-rar garage was built without MIHDTBS of the OROMO COONCIL meeting of APRIL 24, 1989 Gaffron answered affimatively. Mayor Grabek noted the Planning Coiranission had recominended approval of a 1-1/2 stall garage. Goetten expressed her reference for a two-stall garage and removal of the shed. She ■ jld the Rauschendorfers were entitled to a garage large enough to store both vehicles. Grabek concurred. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to approve the side setback, street setback and LrLover variances to allow a two-car garage with the storage area, conditioned upon the removal of the shed and the provision of area to turn around. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. *1302 CRYSTAL BAT ROAD CONDITIONAL USB PBRMITAARIAHCE *^^^ty**Administrator Bernhardson noted that this application involved the installation of retaining walls for of property jamaged by the storm of July 1987. ^ , restore only the travelled portion of Crystal Bay “ guardrail will be placed along the areas where the retaining walls are installed. The residents, within the past few days, have submitted individual landscaping plans for restoring their private property. CounciImember Goetten questioned whether there would be any liability on behalf of Orono since tnere would not any guardrail along Schibilla's property? "he liability has not changed since the Schibilla s property is the same as it had always been. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CcunciImember Callahan, to approve the Conditional Use Permit/Variance for the crystal Bay Road Application #1302. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1353 JOHN FIBBELKORN 2730 SBADTWOOD ROAD 7.“““ .. . . . ..Counclli.ei.b8r Callahan, to deny the after-the-lect variances for a pool and spa which constitute hardcover and structure in the 0 75' lakeshore setback rone for John L. and Nancy Fiebelkorn t 2730 Shadywood Road, per Resolution #2620. Motion. Ayes=5, Nays»0, Motion passed. MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 1989 #1368 TON MCHELLIS 315-355 NOODHILL ROAD _ _ SUBDIVISION - LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT RESOLUTION 12621 Mr. McNeills was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief review of this matter. Mr. McNellis was now seeking approval of a lot line rearrangement which was required with the approval of a variance granted last Fall. The lot line rearrangement will provide the required 50' front setback for the McNellis residence. It was moved by Councilmember 'Jetties, seconded CounciImember Peterson, to adopt Resolution 1^2621, approving the metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1376 DALE/CHRIS PALM 1710 SHADYHOOD ROAD RESOLUTION OP DENIAL #2622* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt Resolution #2622 denying variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, requested by Chris and Dale Palm at 1710 Shadywood Road. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1393 WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC, INC. 2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2623 Mr. Joe Pallansch, a representative of Washington Scientific Industries, Inc., was present. City Administralc-r Bernhardson explained that Washington Scientific Industries was requesting approval of a conditional use permit to spread contaminated soils to allow air stripping to occur. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has approved the proposal as being environmentally sound. The soil contaminant is the same solvent used for dry cleaning. Once the solvent is exposed to air it will volatilize. The applicants will then grade and seed the area. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2623, approving the Conditional Use Permit for Washington Scientific Industries, Inc. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1380 GEORGE PARTRIDGE 625 SPRING HILL ROAD VACATION RESOLUTION #2624 Mr. and Mrs. Partridge were present for this matter, as was Mr. Rottschaefer, Attorney for the applicants. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council that the MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 1989 ZONING PILE 11380-PARTRIDGE CONTINUED Partidges were requesting a vacation of road right-of-way of a County road that was subsequently deeded to the City of Orono. The City does not anticipate any need for the right-of-way. CounciImember Callahan questioned whether the proper procedure regarding pub?ic hearing and notifications had been followed? Zoning Administrator Mabusth replied that legal notices are published for vacation applications per standards set forth in State statutes. It was moved by CounciImember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2624, approving the vacation of a right-of-way, subject to verification by the City Attorney that proper notification had been given. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1390 U.S. WEST COMMUNICATION 2845 WEAR CIRCLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2625 Mr. Dan Ressler, U.S. West Communications Network Facilities Engineer, was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application involved a request for a Conditional Use Permit co install and maintain a service area interchange switching cabinet. The structure will be 6' x iO' and screening will be provided to the rear. Mabusth interjected that the Planning Commission had requested that 3 additional shrubs be planted along the east side to shield the structure from Old Crystal Bay Road. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2525, approving the Conditional Use Permit for U.S. West Communication. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. DALE PPBILSTICKER 1830 LAKBVIBW TERRACE HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE Mr. Pfeilsticker was present for this matter. As City Administrator Bernhardson noted, Mr. Pfeilsticker was seeking approval cf a home occupation license. Mr. Pfeilsticker has been doing small engine repair in his home for 15 years. Councilmember Peterson questioned staff recommendation #4, pertaining to Mr. James Sundean. Mr. Pfeilsticker informed her that Mr. Sundean resided in Rockford. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Pfeilsticker about an observation at one time that there were many snowmobiles in his yard. Mr. Pfeilsticker replied that he and some friends h2d returned from a MINUTES OF THE OROMO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 24, 1989 HONE OCCUPATION LICENSB-PFEILSTICKBR CONTINUED snowmobiling trip and the snowmobiles were not there for repair. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to appro\e the home occupation license for Mr. Dale Pfei1 sticker. Mo^iion, Ayes = 5, Nays^O, Motion passed. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the Planned Development Ordinance was being presented for final approval together with the B-6 Commercial Zoning District and Special Requirements for Highway 12. A suggestion for defining Class I Restaurant has been provided due to the current definition being insufficient. The classification "drive-in" has been changed so that drive-ins as a conditional use in the commercial zone have to correspond with permitted uses. With regard to Special Requirements, if there are any variations from the conventional zoning, the Planned Unit Development would be used. The Planned Unit Development has been designed to address this by limiting it to Highway 12 Corridor and for only those uses listed in the Comprehensive Plan. The standards would be determined by referring to the most closely associated conventional zone. If the request is for a mixed use, the Zoning Administrator would determine the most applicable standards to be used, sub'^ect to approval by the City Council. Councilmember Goetten commended Bernhardson on a job well done. She asked for clarification for "a reasonable time" as mentioned on page 3, subd. 5.D Review. Bernhardson said that would be left up to the discretion of the City. He suggested specifying a time period within the individual developers agreements. She suggested the removal of the words "including mobile homes" from #4 Applications, paragraph D(2) Developr.ent Stage, subparagraph (c) (page 10). She also wanted to know who comprised the development review committee. Bernhardson said that the Council would appoint the committee. He said it could be designed any number of ways and would present more in this regard at an upcoming meeting. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to accept the Planned Development Ordinance, with those amendments requested by Councilmember Goetten. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays»0, Motion passed. ENGINEER'S REPORT: LIVINGSTON AVENUE DRAINAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY City Engineer Cook explained that this project involved the construction of storm sewers in the Navarre Heights area. He showed the area of the project and the properties that are involved in the drainage area. Cook said that runoff collected on Lots 17 and 18 and then drained down and ran across Lot 6 to the road and into the right-of-way. The proposal is to MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 1989 FEASIBILITY STUDY LIVINGSTON AVENUE CONTINUED construct a storm sewer in the lower area between Lots 17 and 18. The normal procedure would be to run the storm sewer along property lines, but due to existing trees, it would run diagonally across Lots 17, 18 and € to the railroad tracks and discharge into the railroad right-of-way. One of the problems this proposal presents is that it will require more right-of-way to be taken from certain property owners than others. The estimated cost of this project is $30,250.00 and there is approximately 7.1 acres of land in the drainage area, which results in a cost s.f. of $0.10. A typical lot in the drainage area would be assessed approximately $675.00 for the storm sewer. Those houses on two lots would pay over $1300.00. Cock commented that it is very common for those residents at the beginning and end of proposed storm sewer to object to their involvement and assessment. Karen Cuff was present and questioned how many houses would be involved in the project. Public Works Gerhardson said that he would provide that information within the week. Ms. Cuff questioned the period of time over which assessment payments could be made. Mayor Grabek suggested having the City Finance Director put together some preliminary figures for Ms. Cuff to present to her neighbors. CounciImember Goetten noted that money would be saved if the City did not have to pay for easements. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to accept the study and set May 22, 1989 as the date of the Public Hearing and instruct staff of assist with the financial information and number of houses affected. Motion, Ayes«5,Nays*0, Motion passed. HIGHNAY 12-FEASIBILITY STUDY RESOLUTION #2626 City Administrator Bernhardson staged that this pertained to water and sewer servio for the Highway 12 area. Sewer Part I is for an extension fro» the Reber's property over to the existing line, together wit a water main running along a similar location. The City ras determined the approximate costs of this project and will be working with the affected property owners regarding bids and specs. There will be a need to upgrade the capacity to the lift station. Currently there are three options being explored and will be more fully presented at a later date. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Counci Imember Nettles, to recommend that the necessary plans and specifications for the Highway 12 Sewer Part I and the water system be drawn and brought back before the Council at the May 22, 1989 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: MISCELLANEOUS Mayor Grabek provided Mr. Dave Peterson, 2625 Fox Street, with the opportunity to air his grievances concerning the Police MIMtJTBS OP THE OROHO COPNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 1989 MAYOR'S RBPORT-MISCBLLANEOrr Department and the City Adu\nistrator. Mr. Petersen distributed a letter to the Council setting forth his concerns, in addition to writing a letter to the editor. Mr. Peterson said that he has asked specific questions of the City and has not received a response. He said that he has received responses from other residents who believe and expect that the City will take care of them. Mr. Peterson said that he was asking for some evidence of that. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Peterson if firing the City Administrator and doing a comprehensive study on the Orono Police Department and Administration was his idea of the City taking care of him. Mr. Peterson said that he had asked for some feed back from the ^ity regarding the effectiveness of the Police Department. Mayor Grabek questioned Chief Kilbo as to whether he would be able to meet with Mr. Peterson to address his concerns. Chief Kilbo replied that he would meet with Mr. Peterson at Mr. Peterson's convenience. Mr. Peterson commented that it may not be appropriate to receive the information he is requesting from Chief Kilbo, but felt that was a good place to start. Mr. Peterson stated that he had not received any information regarding his request for the objectives of the Police Officers and Police Department. Mayor Grabek stated that such information pertained to policy and management style and unless Mr. Peterson was qualified in the area of Law Enforcement those policies would not be discussed. Mr. Peterson said th , he concurred that management style was not any of his business, however, he felt that he was entitled to an understanding of the objectives. Mr. Peterson stated that the reason for requesting this information was that it was his belief that writing tickets for traffic violations was the main objective of the Police Department. If there was no evidence that by doing so accidents were reduced, he felt that the Citizens of Orono were being penalized. He questioned whether the objective of writing traffic tickets was disproportioned compared to other Police Department objectives. M’lyor Grabek asked Mr. Peterson why he felt that City Administrator Bernhardson's contract should not be renewed. Mr. Peterson said that he felt he was being Ignored when he brought his concerns to Mr. Bernhardson. Mayor Grabek 'aid that it was his opinion that Mr. Bernhardson had a great d al of integrity and would not "sweep under the rug" a matter suen as this. Mayor Grabek told Mr. Peterson that it was inappropriate to make such an accusation, especially since he had only spoke to Chief Kilbo once. Mayor Grabek also disagreed with Mr. Peterson's assessment that Mr. Bernhardson may not be knowledgeable or have an interest in the activities going on around him. He said that making a public degradation of Mr. Bernhardson's working record was an injustice. Mr. Peterson said, in light of the Mayor's commendation and belief in Mr. Bernhardson's abilities, he would apologize for his comments. He said his comments stemmed from the frustration of being ignored. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 24, 1989 MAJOR'S REPORT-MISCELLANEOUS CONTINUED Mayor Grabek suggested that following his meeting with Chief Kilbo, and possibly City Administrator Bernhardson, he should attempt to correct the injustice against Mr. Bernhardson. If he felt that his concerns were adequately addressed, Grabek felt it would be appropriate to put a response in the paper as to what he learned about the Police Department and the City Administrator. Mr. Peterson said he would have no problem with doing so. PLAHNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS ^HAIR AND VICE CHAIR Mayor Grabek asked for any additional comments from the Council regarding the Planning Commission Appointments. There were no further comments. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to appoint Charles Kelley as Chairperson, Maureen Bellows as Vice Chairperson, and Sarah Moos, for three year terms. CounciImember Nettles stated that he was very impressed with Mr. Stephen Johnston and wished to include him. CounciImember Goetten concurred with Nettles, but stated that when there was another opening, she would hope he would come forth. Motion, Ayes=3, Mayor Grabek, Alan Nettles, Nay. Motion passed. PIANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL JOINT MEETING Mayor Grabek stated that there had been some concerns expressed regarding the agenda for the joint meeting. CounciImember Goetten stated that the City’s involvement regarding the land use aspect of marina applications and other issues now falling within the jurisdiction of the LMCD needed to be addressed. She asked to have that issue placed on the agenda for the joint meeting. Mayor Grabek suggested that the meeting begin at 6:00 and end at 8:00 and all involved persons concurred. Mayor Grabek agreed that the marina issue should be placed on the agenda. Planning Commission Representative Kelley interjected that he would like to see that topic ^iscussed. With respect to the other agenda items, Kelley suggested having guidelines set forth to provide objectives for each. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to accept the date and agenda discussed. Motion, Aycs»5, Nays*0, Motion passed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: REMOVAL OF WATERFOWL Ms. Carol Burgess was present as a representative of the residents of Pheasant Lawn. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the residents MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 1989 REMOVAL OF WATERFOWL CONTINUED of Pheasant Lawn were experiencing problems with an increasing Canadian Goose population. The residents wish to particpate in a relocation program that will cost $1,000.00 per year. Bernhardson said that the City had not budgeted for participation in the program, but may wish to make a small contribution. The City had to make public notice to comply with DNR permit process. Dr. James Cooper of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, was present and provided informatlon and a brief history concerning the Canadian Goose relocation program. Mayor Grabek questioned whether the increase in geese and, consequently goose droppings, would escalate to a health hazard if removal did not occur? Mr. Cooper said the possibility of a health hazard from geese is very remote. The problem is mainly aesthetic where property owners are concerned. CounciIroember Goetten questioned when the removal program began. Dr. Cooper responded by saying that the program began in 1982 in the Lake of the Isles area. Mayor Grabek said he welcomed the opportunity to be involved and suggested that the City be kept abreast of the effectiveness of the program. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to contribute $200.00 toward the $1,000.00 fee and continue to monitor the situation. Motion, Ay®s=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. WESTONKA/COUNTY ROAD 15 BEAUTIFICATION Mr. James Robin^ a landscape architect, was in attendance and presented his proposals for the Westonka/County Road 15 Beautification project. The first requirement necessary for the project’s success is that all three communities endorse and implement the proposal. The major objectives of the project is to improve the appearance of the road, repair the damage caused by the construction work, and "soften" the appearance of the area by taking advantage of the shoreline and other natural qualities. Plantings would also be used to soften the appearance. Reorganization and demarcation using tree islands of the off- street parking areas near the Seton Bridge and in Navarre would also increase the aesthetic quality of Shoreline Drive. Mayor Grabek confirmed that Mr. Robin had been commissioned by the Westonka Chamber of Commerce to put this plan together. He said that there would now be a drive to raise funding for the project. He asked Mr. Robin what the estimated cost of the project would be. Mr. Robin said that had not been determined. It was his understanding that much of the improvement would be done by individual property owners. CounciImember Callahan questioned whether the plantings would grow along the side of the road? He mentioned the earlier MmUTBS OF THS ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 24, 1989 WBSTOHKA/CODNTY ROAD 15 CONTINUED finding of the City that concrete would be more appropriate than p3antings because the plantings would not be maintained. Mr. Robin explained that the plantings depicted in his proposal would be located on private property, behind the sidewalk, and there it should not be a problem. The only exception would be the Navarre area. CounciImember Goetten asked Mr. Robin if there was a specific location where his proposal will be displayed for further viewing. Mr. Robin said that there would be a display at the Merril1-Lynch Office. Public Works Director Gerhardson said that he had a black and white copy of the plan. FACILITY SITE ANALYSIS City Administrator Bernhardson reported that the results of the soil boring tests had been receive;^. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImtmber Nettles, to accept the information and direct 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. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays*0, Motion passed. POLICE SUPERVISORY STRUCTURE CounciImember Peterson asked Chief Kilbo to clarify his statement regarding today's patrol officer. Kilbo explained that things had changed since he was a police officer i.e. overtime hours with no overtime pay. He said that there was nothing wrong with the way things were today, it was just different. He said the police department has dedicated people, but not in the same sense as 30 years ago. CounciImember Goetten asked for a clarification of the duties involved with the title "lieutenant". Chief Kilbo compared a lieutenant with a supervisor in that they have to guide, counsel, direct, and discipline. He is in need of three supervisors to supervise shifts around the clock. He said in other city police departments, the title "shift commander" may be used rather than lieutenant. A sergeant is a working supervisor out in the field; a lieutenant is a shift commander and runs the entire tour of duty. He said in the City of Orono the title "lieutenant" came about through a testing process. Kilbo said he is seeking three supervisors who will be shift commanders and run each tour of duty. CounciImember Peterson questioned which organizational chart provided the "lateral organization" discussed previously? Kilbo indicated that he preferred chart #2 which would provide him with a supervisor on every shift. Animal Control, the three Lieutenants and an Administrative Secretary would answer directly to Chief Kilbo. Each Lieutenant would have three officers to supervise. CounciImember Goetten questioned whether approving that organizational chart, wouldn't in fact be approving a third MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 24, 1989 POLICE SUPERVISORY STRUCTURE lieutenant position. CounciImember Peterson asked why Chief Kilbo had requested that this item be tabled. Kilbo replied that he wanted t''Council to have an adequate amount of time to review the material presented. in answer to Goetten ’s question, Kilbo replied that approving the organizational chart of his choice would in fact be approving a third lieutenant position. Mayor Grabek resurrected Counci Imember Peterson ’s earlier concern about the dedication of the police officers. He said it may cause problems, not only among the police officers, but among the Citizens of Orono as well, dedicated police officers. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahar, to approve Chief Kilbo's organizational chart and request for a third lieutenant. CounciImember Peterson questioned whether that would include only the additional salary for the lieutenant, or would it include the $50,000.00 salary for an additional police cfficer. CounciImember Goetten stated that she could not approve the expenditure of $50,000.00. Councilmerober Callahan asked Kilbo if it was in fact his intention to promote a police officer to lieutenant and then hire an additional police officer? Kilbo replied that would be the ideal situation. However, he said he was open to other suggestions and would be willing to bring back another proposal. CounciImember Callahan suggested that the motion be withdrawn. It was his understanding that he was seconding the establishment of a third lieutenant position, not the expenditure of $50,000.00. Mayor Grabek withdrew his motion, CounciImember Callahan withdrew his second. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to accept the concept of a three lieutenant (supervisory) position. He requested that the Chief bring back a proposal, alternatives and recommendations to achieve that- Motion, Ayes»5, Nays=0, Motion passed. SEPTIC LICBNSE-INGLESIDE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION OP DENIAL City Administrator Bernhardson stated this item was for a specific denial of a septic system installer's license. This is a request for an automatic denial because applicant falsified information on the application. Additionally, there has been questions concerning the quality of work performed by Ingleside. Due to the fact that Ingleside had not had an opportunity to respond to the City, Bernhardson said that the Council may wish to table this item. Mayor Grabek questioned whether the falsification of infomation had been verified? Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron replied that the Minutes of the City of Independence Council ing had been obtained. City Attorney B opportunity to ap, suggested that Ingleside be given an r before the Council and offer any MINUTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 24, 1989 explanations for the falsification. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to allow a representative from Ingleside Engineering the opportunity to be present at the May 0, 1989 Council Meeting and make any statements on their behalf regarding falsification of information. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. NAVARRE REDEVELOPMENT City Administrator Bernhardson requested an appropriate date for meeting with the Planning Commission and John Shardlow to review the work that has been done regarding Navarre Planning. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to place this item on the agenda for the upcoming joint meeting to determine a date for the Council and Planning Commission to meet with John Shardlow regarding Navarre Redevelopment. Motion, Ayes=5, Nay®0, Motion passed. 1989 POLICE SETTLEMENT It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to agree to the terms of settlemenc outlined in Attachment B. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays*0, Motion passed. 1989 SALARV ADJUSTMENT RESOLUTION #2627 Counci1member Goetten questioned why the City Administrator's employment contract had not come before them since it was due to expire April 30, 1989. Mayor Grabek said that he had put that off due to CounciImember Goetten's indication that she needed some questions answered. Goetten stated that she did not think her questions had anything to do with the City Administrator's Contract. Goetten questioned whether there would be any problem in having the City Administrator working after his contract expired? City Attorney Barrett stated that he had not seen the contract, but he assumed that the City Administrator would continue tc act in that capacity and that the contract negotiations would be pending and his benefits and salary would remain the same until the renewal. Grabek asked Barrett to review the contract and inform him prior to May 1st if any other action would be necessary. Grabek said that a copy of the contract could be given to all CounciImembers, along with a proposal of justification, so the matter can be discussed at the May 8, Council Meeting. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adopt Attachment B as the revised 1989 Salary Resolution #2627, together with adopting of Attachment C as the revised 1989 Pay Plan Sched-ile for the Compensation Plan applicable to persons employed on the date of adoption of these revisions. Motion, Ayes-3, Petersen, Goetten, Nay. CounciImember Peterson felt that since there were no objections regarc.ing the 3% increase that there was no need for the additional .5% increase. CounciImember Goetten was concerned about the precedent setting that may occur by giving an extra percent increase to one group and then having to give it to the MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 24, 1989 1989 SALARY RESOLUTION #2627 CONTINUED other. She felt a number of the employees* salaries were already in line with the comparable worth and that the additional ,5% was not necessary. CounciImember Peterson concurred. ABANDONED SURPLUS ITEMS FOR AUCTION* It was moved by CounciImember Goettenr seconded by CounciImember Callahanr to approve the auction of abandoned^ seized or unclaimed vehicles, to be held May 6, 1989. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays«0, Motion passed. INSURANCE AGENT OF RECORD AGREEMENT* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to appoint Mr. Duweyne Carlson, Apple Valley Agency, as Insurance Agent of Record for 1989 at a fee not to exceed $6,500.00 including commissions earned through policy premiums paid by the City. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. FEB ORDINANCE AMENDMENT-DOUBLE FEE* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, that the Council repeal the Ordinance No._ _, Second Series relating to the policy of double fees for After-the-Fact variances. Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. 1989 GOLF COURSE FEES ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 65, 2ND SERIES* It was moved by Counci1member Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to approve Ordinance #65, Second Series, amending the golf course green fees for 1989. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays»0, Motion passed. RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION - COUNTY ROAD 15 RESOLUTION #2616 RESOLUTION #2617 RESOLUTION #2618* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to adopt Resolutions of Appreciation #2617 end #2618 regarding County Road 15, Motion, Ayes=5, Nays*0, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR’S INFORMATION* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: County Road 15/Grand Opening-May 6, 1989; Highway 12 Task Force; Recycling Results; Solid Waste Management; and Property Tax Brochure. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2.05 #66, 2ND SERIES City Attorney Barrett reported that at the previous Council Meeting, CounciImember Goetten had raised a question regarding the wording of the last paragraph Ordinance Amendment 2.05. MINUTES OF THE OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 24, 1989 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2.05 CONTINUED He said that he had met with CounciImember Goetten and discussed her concerns. He said that the requirement of a unanimous consent to change an agenda was extraordinary, although he found that to be common among other cities as well. He said that the reasoning behind this requirement is for the benefit of the public attending the meeting. He also noted that this provision would be consistent with the method for calling emergency meetings. The issue of providing people with the opportunity to be heard would be addressed in item #9 which would allow for reports from the Mayor and Counci Imember of items not listed on the agenda. Barrett said that the Council may wish to consio=%r adopting the agenda with a 3/5th vote, however he could not address how that would tie into the requirement of the agenda being prepared 7 days in advance of the meeting. City Attorney Barrett summarized his findings by stating that the provision of setting the agenda prior to the meeting would provide a protection more fcr persons more likely to be in the minority, rather that the majority. It would prevent a group from arriving at a meeting and announcing a special agenda item that may be passed without the opportunity for any opposition to be raised. This protection is in keeping with the Roberts' Rules of Order. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adopt Ordinance 466, Second Series, as an amendment to Section 2.05 regarding the required order on the agenda. Motion, Ayes®5, Nays*0, Motion passed. LICENSES CounciImember Peterson asked for the reason why Mr. Thomas Anderson required a kennel license for one dog. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that he would have to investigate and respond at a later time. CounciImember Goetten asked whether the trapping permit was for live trapping. Chief Kilbo said it was for leghold. He further commented that for trapping a beaver, a live trap would not work. Goetten said that live trapping was much more humane and she could not vote for a leghold trapping permit. Bernhardson said that he would look into this matter further. Limited Trapping Permit: Trapping Location: Ml • & Sally Bosanko 8407 Penn Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431 2090 Shoreline Drive April 25-May 6, 1989 Residential Kennel: John M. Hollander 200 Hollander Road Ross B. Nathanson 2420 Countryside Drive MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP APRIL 24, 19B9 LICENSES CONTINUED Thomas Anderson 3550 North Shore Drive Notion, Ayes*4, Goettrn, Nay, Motion passed. BILLS* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Callahan, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays=0, Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT 9:40 P.M. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:40 p.m. Motion, Ayes®5, Nays*0, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor 1989 ORONO PARKS SURVEY 465 or 17.6% of households responded to the 2,639 questionnaires mailed in January 1989. The number of persons reported in those households was: Under Age 6 27 6-12 187 13-19 148 20-55 623 55 & Over 225 TOTAL 1,210 The questionnaire did not request information on persons under age 6, and it is unlikely that the 27 reported spontaneously include all children in this age group. Ages were omitted by a number of respondents, while others indicated ages only with an "X" or a check-mark. As a result, the numbers are under-reported. 179 of the households (38% of respondents) reported no park use whatsoever. The other 286 households reported park use during the previous year as follows: Park 1-2 Visits 3-30 Visits Over 30 Visits Casco Circle Park 13 17 14 Livingston Tower Park 3 *2 Navarre Playground 10 22 3 Roberta Lee Playground 11 14 5 Highwood Nature Trail 11 14 2 Bederwood Park 39 104 10 Hackberry Park 24 49 7 Crystal Bay Playground 15 15 9 Summit Park Beach 17 63 6 Lydiard Beach 8 17 6 Casco Beach 10 17 5 Sandy Beach 7 25 7 Some in the "over 30 visits" category reported daily visits or hundreds of visits. When a range of visits was reported (e.g. 20 to 30) the upper end of the range was included in the above table. Part 3 of the questionnaire asked respondents to provide their views cn the importance of various recreational facilities, "using the numbers 3, 2, 1" with 3 representing the level of greatest importance. Many responses included blank spaces or "0" - these along with "1" were interpreted as signifying a low level of interest. A "2" response was interpreted as indicating some interest, and a "3" was interpreted as a high level of interest. 1989 Orono Parks Survey Page 2 of 3 In general, those with a low level of interest in recreational facilities outnumbered the total of those indicating some or high interest - the exceptions were Nature/Wildlife Areas, Cross Country Bike/Hike, and Cross Country Ski Trail. While differences in interest level emerge by simply adding the "some interest" (2) responses and the "high interest" (3) responses, such figures do not take into account that "2" and "3" are not the same. A higher level Df interest is inherent in a "3" response so that it should carry more weight. Arbitrarily, a Weighted Score has been derived in which a "high interest" (3) response is given twice the weight of a "some interest" (2) response. The Weighted Score is achieved by doubling the number of "high interest" responses and adding the number of "some interest" responses. It should be noted that the simple addition of these responses (i.e. without weighting) does not materially alter the ranking of the recreational facilities. Indeed, the four top and the four bottom scores are in the same order. However, the Weighted Scores provide better separation of the numbers and a clearer impression of differences in levels of interest. The Weighted Scores of the 23 recreational facilities were as follows: Nature/Wildlife Areas 519 Cross Country Bike/Hike 465 Cross Country Ski Trail 421 Swimming Beaches 384 Golf Course 316 Tennis Courts 315 Ice Rinks - General 297 Picnic Areas 292 Swimming Pool 288 Sliding 259 Baseball/Softball 221 Pre-school Play Apparatus 214 Tobogganing Area 210 Play Appartus, Older 200 Fishing Piers 186 Volleyball/Badminton 157 Hockey rinks 135 Football/Soccer Fields 135 Basketball Courts 128 Snowmobile Trails 110 Horse Riding Trails 94 Horseshoe Courts 62 Motorized Bike Trails 32 1989 Orono Parks ^Ui.vey Page 3 of 3 i The highest level of interest was for NatureA^ildlife Areas, a category which may have had differing meanings. For some it could have *"‘"^nt nature trails with instructive signs, while for others, »rhaps most, it meant undeveloped areas left in their nat ate. To maintain perspective, a considerable majority of households expressed low interest in all recreational facilities. Also, lack of interest may be a reason for the failure of 82% of households in Orono to respond to the questionnaire. NUMBER OF RESPONSES RECREATIONAL FACILITY Interest Blank "0"or"l" Some Interest " 2 ” High Interestn 3 n Total of Weighted Responses Score Tennis Courts Baseball/Softball Ice Rinks-General Hockey Rinks Pre-school Play Apparatus Play Apparatus-Older Picnic Areas Basketball Courts Volleyball/Badminton Football/Soccer Swimming Beaches Swimming Pools Cross Country Ski Snowmobile Trails Nature/Wildlife Area X-Country Bike/Hike Fishing Piers Motorzied Bike Trail Horse Riding Trails Golf Course Horseshoe Courts Sliding & Other Toboganning Area 276 61 127 188 315 323 65 78 143 221 271 95 101 196 297 381 39 48 87 135 . 335 48 83 131 214 . 331 66 67 133 200 . 271 100 96 196 292. 370 60 34 94 128. 351 73 42 115 157 1 371 51 42 93 135 237 72 156 228 384 296 44 122 166 288 , 210 89 166 255 421. 398 24 43 67 110. 164 77 221 298 519 194 63 201 264 465 342 60 63 123 186 444 6 13 19 32 403 26 34 60 94 • 277 62 127 189 316 • 414 36 13 49 62 286 99 80 179 259 321 78 66 144 210 / 1989 ORONO PARK AND RECREATION RESIDENT SURVEY A. In order to carefullly plan for the recreation needs of all Orono citizens, we ask for the following personal inforination. Household Size/Age Ages 6-12 _ _13-19 20-55 55 and Over Street Address B. The following is alist of existing Park and Recreation sites in the City of Orono, please indicate the approximate number of times that members of your household have visited these facilities. Orono Parks Casco Circle Park - at the end of Casco Point Road Livingston Tower Park - Blaine & Livingston Navarre Playround - Lyric & Shadywood Road Roberta Lee Antonie Playground - Corral & Eagerness Point Road Highwood Nature Trails - across from Highwood Road on North Shore Drive Bederwood Park - Stubbs Bay Road adjacent to Luce Line Trail Hackberry Park - Willow Drive just north of Watertown Road Crystal Bay Playground - Directly behind the City Administration Bldg Summit Park Swimming Beach - on East Long Lake Road Lydiard Swimming Beach - on Carmens Bay off Kelly Ave. Casco Swimming Beach - between 2871 & 2879 Casco Point Road Sandy Beach Swimming Beach - on North Arm Bay off Maple Ave. Number of Yearly Visits C. Recreation Facility Importance Using the numbers 3,2,1, please indi'^ the level of importance to the members of your household lo . ae following facilities. (3 represents the level of greatest i portance) Tennis Courts Baseball/Softball Diamonds Ice Rinks - General Hockey Rinks Preschool Play Ap^ ^ratus Play Apparatus - Older Picnic Areas Basketball Courts ileyball/Badminton Courts hall/Soccer Fields g Beachs g Pools Cross Country Ski Trails Snowmobile Trails Nature/Wildlife Areas Cross Country Bike/Hike Trails Fishing Piers Motorized Bike Trails Horne Riding Trails GoV’ course He. Courts Sl.ji •; S Other iocv-jganing Area Other Park Suggestion Improvements Please indicate any changes, additions or improvements you or other household members would like to see in the Orono Parks. If you have any questions please call John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director at 473-7357. Please return within 2 weeks. NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES BUSINESS REPLY MAIL FIRST CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MINNESOTA POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY. MN 55323-9900 i.l.l..l.l...llml.lMll.l.l..i.i..li...ll....l..li ■/ l Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: May 2, 1989 Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell# 3405 Watertown Road - Variance -* Denial Resolution At your April 24th meeting# Council directed staff to draft a resolution denying variances for the above referenced property. The attached resolution denies variances on each of the vacant parcels. Please refer to Page 12 of 13. Two options have been presented for Council consideration. The first option denies variances to construct houses on each of Parcels 2 and 3 and further denies the separation of the three total parcels. This option also directs staff to file this resolution in the chain of title. Option 2 would deny variances for individual houses for each of Parcels 2 and 3# but would not deny a separation. Council could adopt Option 2 if you think there is a possibility that you would allow a single new residence to be constructed on either a combination of Parcels 2 and 3 or on some smaller parcel created by a lot line rearrangement and combination process. Under Option 2, we would waive the six month delay for filing of a new lot area variance application# and require that the appropriate application fees be paid. Option 2 would also require filing of this resolution in the chain of title. Option 1 generally indicates to the applicant that the City would not favorably consider any additional residence construction on this 2.9 acre property. Option 2# Oil the other hand# leaves the door open for applicant to request one additional building lot on the entire property. The applicant has been notified of the May 8th meeting and has been advised at Council's request that he be present as noted in the attached Notice of Council Action. Staff Recommendation - Staff would note that the 47 findings of fact appearing in this resolution have been written so they will not be in conflict with either Option 1 or Option 2. Staff would recommend adoption of either Option 1 or Option 2# at Council's discretion. A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE «990 WHEREAS, thfc 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 th- \ty of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the prote of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Ward Ferrell (hereindyt-er "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3405 Watertown Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") 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 sa^*^ South line to the public road; thence Southeasterly a ^ said road to a point directly North of the point of bt , ming; 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; thence West to the point of beginning; excluding the public road. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0010); and Page 1 of 13 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 said Southeast quarter; thence South to the point of beginning, (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0008); and PARCEL 3 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, 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 WHBRBAS, for discussion purposes, the property has been defined as 3 separate parcels as described above and per Exhibit A attached; and WHBRBAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) 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 Municipal Code; and WHBRBAS, 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. Page 2 of 13 HON, THBRBPORB BB IT RBSOLVBD that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby makes the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS 1. At the time the applicant purchased the property in August 1948r the property contained approximately 4.19 acresr undivided, and contained only the residence located at 3425 Watertown Road. At the time applicant purchased the property, no Township of Orono zoning district nor lot size standards are known to have been in effect. 2. On September 12, 1955, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 7, the platting rode, requiring that all lots to be created shall have a minimum lot width of 100* at the building line, 30* at the street line, and 15,000 square feet minimum area. 3. On March 11, 1957, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 10 establishing the "Resivual Zoning District" in which the applicant's property was located, allowing only private residential uses. 4. On February 10, 1958, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 15, to amend the platting code, requiring that building lots created by new subdivisions must be at least 25,000 square feet in area, and at least 120 feet in width at the building line. 5. 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. 6. Some time during 1958-1959, Mr. Ferrell subdivided the property so that 3425 Watertown Road was contained within a separate 1.29 acre parcel, the new house at 3405 Watertown Road was located on a 1.01 acre parcel (Parcel 1 per attached Exhibit A), and two additional parcels (Parcels 2 & 3 per Exhibit A) were created between 3405 ai.i 3425 Watertown Road. Page 3 of 13 7. On October 12, 1959, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 22 establishing a minimuio building lot size of 1 acre and minimum 140* width at the building line for all building lots. Ordinance No. 22 also allowed the Council, at their option, to grant variances for existing lots in single separate oioiership that do not meet these standards. 8. On September 14, 1967, the Council adopted the Orono Zoning Ordinance designating the R-lC zoning district in which the property is located, requiring a minimum of 1 acre in area and 140* minimum width. 9. On January 1, 1975, the current zoning ordinance came into effect, rezoning this property to RR-lB, Rural Residential zoning district, requiring a minimum lot size of 2.0 acres in area and 200* minimum width. 10. Mr. Ferrell has retained ownership of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 since their creation as a result of the 1958-1959 subdivision. 11. 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 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. 12. Pursuant to the zoning appeal application, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on that matter. Application #903, on April 15, 1985. The Planning Commission confirmed that many variances were necessary to build on either Parcel 2 or 3. The Planning Commission noted ^t the property consists of 4 separate tax parcels which . contiguous and which are owned in common by the applicant. The property in total contains approximately 2.90 acres and has a defined width in excess of 600* in both respects meeting the area and width requirements for the single existing residence on the property. The Planning Commission determined that the following variances were required in order to allow new residences to be constructed on either of Parcels 2 or 3: Parcel 1 (with existing house) a) Lot Area Required « 2.0 acres Existing « 1.01 acres or 50.5% Variance * 0.99 acres or 49.5% Page 4 of 13 Parcel 2 (vacant) a) Lot Area b) Lot Width Parcel 3 (vacant) a) Lot Area b) Lot Width Required - 2.0 acres Existing - 0.85 acres or 42.5% Variance ® 1.15 acres or 57.5% Required ■ 200 feet Existing * 159 feet or 79.5% Variance * 41 feet or 20.5% Required ■ 2.0 acres Existing » 1.04 acres or 52% Variance ■ 0.96 acres or 48% Required Existing Variance 200 feet 149 feet or 74.5% 51 feet or 25.5% 13. At the April 15, 1985 public hearing, the Planning Commission gave the applicant the gen«iral direction that the variances proposed were excessive and the Planning Commission would likely only recommend approval of one new house, and only if Parcels 2 and 3 were legally combined to create a 1.89 acre building lot. 14. 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 members stated they might consider one additiona.*. building site but not two. 15. 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. 16. On February 18, 1986, the Planning Commission again reviewed the now completed application. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of two new building sites but recommended approval of one new building site using the combined Parcels 2 and 3, if the applicant wished to revise his application accordingly. Page 5 of 13 17. The City Council reviewed the original application on March 10, 1986, tabling it until April 14, 1936 for final action. On April 14, 1986, the City Council directed staff to draft a resolution of denial of variances to allow houses on each of Lots 2 and 3 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 three septic systems on 2.9 acres in a district where 6 acres is required for three septic systems, is excessive. C) Because the property is currently used as a conforming 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 stated that was not necessary. 18. After tabling actions with no discussion at the Council meetings of May 12 and May 27, 1986, due to applicant's inability to be present, the Council again reviewed this matter at the June 9, 1986 meeting, with applicant and his attorney present. The applicant's attorney requested tabling, and the matter was tabled. 19. In May 1987, the applicant again requested the Council to review this matter. At the regular Orono Council meeting of May 26, 1987, the applicant was present. The Council reviewed the original request and was tabled to the June 8, 1987 meeting. 20. At the regular Orono Council meeting of June 8, 1987, tne applicant did not appear and the matter was tabled. Page 6 of 13 21. On August 4, 1988, applicant submitted a letter requesting a revision of his original application to allow construction of a new residence on only one of the parcels, and denying variances for the other parcel. This request was reviewed by the City Council at their regular meeting of September 12, 1988 and referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. 22. The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of October 3, 1988, recommended approval of one additional residence, conditioned on that residence being constructed on a legal combination of the two westerly parcels (Parcels 2 6 3) for a total of 1.89 acres in area for the new building site. 23. Due to health problems, applicant requested that this matter not be further reviewed by Council until he cc^d be present. On April 10, 1989, applicant requested that the item be placed on the Council agenda as soon as possible. The applicant was notified that the matter would be placed on the April 24, 1989 Council agenda. At that meeting, the applicant did not appear. The City Council voted 5-0 to direct staff to draft a resolution for denial of variances to build a new residence on either of Parcels 2 and 3. 24. The applicant maintains that he divided the property in 1958-59 at the request of then Mayor Herb Ross. The zoning code in effect at that time did not necessarily limit development to only one residence per building lot. Mayor Ross would not apparently have been legally bound to request that a division be completed in order to allow the new house which was permitted in 1958. 25. The applicant maintains that the property was divided in a manner such that new homes could be built on each of Parcels 2 and 3 according to City codes at the time of division. The exact date of filing of the division has not been established. If it was prior to October 12, 1959, both Psircels 2 and 3 would have been conforming lots under the code in effect at the time. Page 7 of 13 26. The applicant has provided soil testing, proposed septic system designs, and proposed site plans for each of Parcels 2 and 3 which indicate that technically, septic systems can be provided to serve a 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 ether similar cases, the City has also considered, as a matter 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, and welfare. 27. The applicant maintains that when the zoning was proposed to be changed from R-IC (1 acre) to RR-IB (2 acre) in 1974, 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. 28. The 1967 zoning code, which designated the property as R~1C, 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 require ments 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 ownership includes joint ownership by not more than two persons. Page 8 of 13 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 not be granted similar consid#^ration. Under this 1967 Code, the applicant would have been allowed to build on Parcel 3 without a 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. 29, 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 the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judge ment 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: i) it is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and ii) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental body; and iii) it otherwise meets the requirements of this or other applicable ordinances. Under this 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 disc ass any standards for the separation of commonly owned lots. Page 9 of 13 30. City policy regarding the separation of unsewerd, undeveloped, substandard, contiguous lots in common owner*- ship was clearly defined by an action of the City Council in 1981, in which the separation of a developed 1.4 acre lot from the adjacent vacant 1.7 acre, 120.3 foot wide vacant lot in the LR-IA, 2-acre, 200 foot width, unsewered zone was denied. (Application #635, Council action to conceptually deny on October 26, 1981, based on a) lack of demonstrated hardship; b) no sanitary sewer available; c) insufficient area; d) insufficient width.) 31. The 1984 Zoning Code amendments included the addition of Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C), which prohibited 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" unless specifically approved by the City Council, or unless the resulting lots satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoning Code. No performance standards for approval of such transfers appear in the code. 32. At least 13 properties or groups of properties in a situation similar to Ferrell's with a high potential for request of similar variances have been identified within the City of Orono. 33. Since January 1, 1975, when the 2 acre RR-lB zoning district became effective, no permits have been issued for new residences on commonly owned substandard lots in the RR- lB district. Of 153 new residence permits issued in the PR- IB district from 1/1/75 to 5/1/86, 145 permits were issued for conforming lots, 7 permits were issued for substandard lots of record in single separate ownership due to the inability of applicants to combine or acquire additional land to create conforming lots, and 1 permit was issued to demolish and rebuild on a substandard single separate ownership lot where a house was already existing. The Citj of Orono has consistently denied permits for substandard lots owned in common with adjacent developed lots in the RR- lB district. 34. The City Council has always required that when two or more unsewered lots are owned in common, 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 commmon must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. Page 10 of 13 35. The granting of the proposed variances 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 2 acres for creation of a buildable lot in the rural areas of the City where there is no sewer service. 36. In review sjf the factual findings noted above, the Council 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 set forth in its Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district when dealing with matters related to the public heath, 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. 37. The granting of the proposed variances 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. 38. The granting of the proposed variances would require the extension of City water and sewer to maintain the standards set forth in the Orono Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan for an urban sized lot. 39. In granting the proposed variances. Council would abandon a longstanding, consistent policy in consideration of the buildabllity of substandard lota under common owner-* ship and thereby establish an adverse precedent. 40. 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. 41. The intent of the application is contrary to the letter and intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. 42. Granting of th^ 'variances would have an adverse effect upon the health, and welfare of the community for the reasons outlined h«%r«i;i. lage 11 of 13 43. The amount of light and air in the neighborhood would be diminished by adding structures on each of the substandard lots. 44. The values of surrounding properties would be adversely affected by adding structures on each of the substandard lots. 45. There are no special conditions applying to the land in question which are peculiar to the land or immediately adjoining property. 46. The granting of the variances is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 47. The granting of the variances will serve mainly as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. HOW, THBRBFORB BB IT FORTHBR RBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot area and lot width variances for construction of a single family residence on Parcel 2; and similarly denies the requested lot area and width variances for construction of a single family residence on Parcel 3, based u^.on one or more of the above noted findings of fact concerning this property. BB IT FURTHBR RBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby additionally denies the request to separate these non-conforming, undeveloped, sub^-^andard, contiguous, unsewered lots of record under common ownership. BB IT FURTHBR RBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono, in order to put all parties on notice that the above referenced substandard lots in common ownership must remain under common ownership to maintain the existing house on a conforming lot size, hereby directs the City staff to file this resolution against the chain of title of the properties legally described herein. Page 12 of 13 43. The amount of light and air in the neighborhood w<> aid be diminished by adding structures on each of the substandard lots. 44. The values of surrounding properties would be adver lely affected by adding structures on each of the substandard lots. 45. There are no special conditions applying to the lard in question which are peculiar to the land or immedia.;ely adjoining property. 46. The granting of the variances is not necessary foi the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property :Ight of the applicant. 47. The granting of the variances will serve mainlyas a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessar/ to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. NOW, THBRBPORE BB IT PURTHBR RBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot area and lot width var?* ► s for construction of a single f..mily residence on Parce ; and similarly denies the requeste1 lot area and width vai jes for construction of a single f imily residence on Parcel 3, based upon one or more of the above noted findings of fact concerning this property. BB IT PURTHBR RBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono will waive the normally required six month lelay for resubmittal cf variances, per Section 10.08, Subdivis on 5, if the applicant wishes to make one of the following new variance application requests less than six months after the adopt..on of this resolution: 1. Variance request to approve one new building site of 1.89 acres to be created by combining the two westerly' lots (Parcels 2 and 3). 2. Variance request to approve one new building si^ e of 1.45 acres, subject to a lot line rearrangement and l^gal combination, to leave 1.45 acres with the exi ng hous*. If either of the above requests are forthcoming, they shall made in a new application, and the proper application fees shall accompany such application. BB IT PURTHBR RBSOLVBD, that the City Council ol the City of Orono directs City staff to file this resolution in the chain of title of Parcels 2 and 3, in order to place all parties on notice that the above ref renced parcels have been denied vaziances for construction of a single family residence on each individual parcel. Page 12 of 13 J Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held May 8th, x9».9. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instriunent was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of May, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M, 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 13 of 13 0 h Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proai: Jeanne A. Mabusthr Building & Zoning Administrator Date: May 5, 1989 Subject: #1135 Robert Hanning, 4220 Sixth Avenue North - Request for Extension of Completion Date from June 1, 1989 to September 30, a989 Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.09, Subdivision 8 List of Rsdiibits - Exhibit A - Current Request of Hannings Exhibit B - Resolution #2183 Exhibit C - Application #1135 Exhibit D - Council Minutes of 5/11/87 Exhibit E - Amend' \ Grading Plan In reviewing the above referenced ordinance section, staff would call your attention to the line that reads as follows: "A conditional use permit may be renewed for an additional period of one year provided that the request be filed prior to the expiration of one year from the date when the use permit is filed with the zoning administrator." The deadline for the jletion of the work was established as June 1, 1989. The actual filing date of this application was March 20, 1987. According to the directives of the ordinance, any request to extend this application probably should have been received before May 20, 1988. Unfortunately, the applicants cannot apply under this section of the code, and must apply as a special request to the Council for their three-month extension. In earlier discussions with Mrs. Hanning, she advised that they were unable to receive the amounts of fill originally promised by Park Construction. My response was that I did not feel that it would be appropriate for Council to extend this conditional use permit beyond the two years if they could not provide adequate proof that they reached a written/formal committment for additional fill. It should also be noted that at that time staff had not realized what the specific directives of the ordinances were. The berm as it exists today is approximately 4-5* above existing grade, approximately 1* above the crown of Sixth Avenue North. Remember the original berm was to be at an 11* height (refer to the attached amended sketch). The berm has only been constructed to the north side of the private driveway and has not been filled to the south side. #1135 Robert Hanning, 4220 Sixth Avenue North - Request for Extension of Conditional Use Permit May 5, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Mr. 6 Mrs. Hanning will be present to discuss any questions Council may have concerning their special request. Council should be aware that we have a $5,000.00 Letter of Credit covering the final excavation work and seeding if applicants fail to do so by the expiration date. The expiration date of the Letter of Credit is June 1, 1989. Options of Action Available to Conncil - 1. Denial and require that the immediate disturbed area be regraded and prepared for seeding. Such work to be completed by May 24, 1989 so that staff will have adequate time to complete the final inspections to determine if it is necessary to draw upon the Letter of Credit before the June 1st deadline. 2. Approval of the applicants' request as presented subject to the following conditions: A) Applicant provide an additional $100.00 to the City to cover the additional inspections by staff through the summer. The original $200.00 for Application #1135 has been expended with the many staff inspections. These inspections also included inspections with the consultant engineer and other problems pertaining to the quality of fill. B) E: tension of Letter of Credit to October 30, 1989 providing the City with an additional months time beyond the final work completion date established by applicant (September 30, 1989). Extension of Letter of Credit to be submitted prior to the next Council meeting of May 22, 19B9. 3. Table the application before final action requiring applicants to submit foral written confirmation that they will be in receipt of an adequate supply of fill within the following summer months. Upon review of the written committments or contracts. City to considering approving an extension subject to the same conditions noted above in Option 2. : n Tor nsi T^cxnne, ij firom •' Qot>€r't.. R^.l_ ii!7”/’'S n^erno !•&. .,: e•ScJf-^^;^s (on 0/7 '4Kq •t p e r rr> I i~.. 0O<z^ h I //> r*/m I ./InIJl ^ rc A. l^oiy-ti <a.t) e . hicLt^ ulZ locaJ:',,^^ S-^e J?i>+ ,ii o-nJi i- ^ V- Hi- ■"I II' \ -€/i^ ,C-nn € nol me’n'f-icnec^ c e^nnjo J-'ccdf-! ons n e eSitAj-e. ere fore cxppre c '<xdt<_ on ^ prooc-n.X^j^ •:S^p>H-erri jbe r '2? . a-^ .!i. ■l il- l!! Hi 1 CITY OF aRQNa City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2183__________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 PILE #1135 WHEREAS, Robert Hanning, Jr. (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 4220 Sixth Avenue North within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Winters Plentywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota "property"); and (hereinafter WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a Conditional Use Permit to permit placement of fill to create a berm for noise-barrier purposes to reduce the traffic noise to his residence from County Road 6 per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1135. 2. The property is located in the RR-IA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning Districts 3. On April 20, 1987, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application and voted 3-3 to recommend approval of the proposed berm subject to no fill within 26* of the wetland, a maximum berm height of 6* above the crown of County Road 6, and slopes no steeper than 2:1. 4. The City Council reviewed this application on May 11, 1987 and voted 3-2 to approve the proposed berm with a height averaging 11* above the crown of County Road 6 and side slopes no steeper than 2:1, finding that the Municipal Code gives the Council authority to regulate the placement of fill via the conditional use permit re^ 'irement, and finding that the 11* height of fill is necessary to preserve the applicant*s enjoyment of his property. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 1 of 4 CJTY OF OFIONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2183_ _ _ _ _ _ 6. The City Council finds that granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow fill to be placed to a height 11* above the ciown of County Road 6 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 Condit.lonal Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to permit placement of fill, subject to the following conditions: 1. Under the terms of this conditional use permit and per City Code, work must begin on the project within one year of the date of this approval, or this conditional use permit will expire. 2. Applicant shall provide a letter of credit as part of a developer’s agreement to be executed by applicant and the City prior to issuance of the grading and fill permit. 3. Applicant shall submit a revised final grading plan by applicant's surveyor or an engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 4. Applicant or applicant's contractor shall obtain a grading and fill permit prior to commencement of work on the site. 5. No filling or grading is allowed within 26' of the designated wetland. 6. The average berm height shall be crown of County Road 6. 7. Finish slopes of the berm shall be 2:1 or flatter. 8. Erosion protection measures to prevent erosion of berm and to keep sediments out of the wetland will be required during construction and until vegetation is established. 9. Because of the approximately 14,000 cubic yards of fill required, it is anticipated that his project may take an unusually long time to complete. Final grading, seeding, and mulching shall occur no later than June 1. 1989. Any portion of the project that reaches completion prior to that date shall be finish graded, seeded, and mulched immediately upon reaching final grade. Applicant shall be responsible for calling for inspections by City staff upon completion of each portion of the project. greater than 11* above the Page 2 of 4 City of OROJNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2183__________ 10. Applicant is advised to contact the MCWD and obtain any permit that may be required by that agency pric. to commencement of the project. 11. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and condi tions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning pode, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 12. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of May, 1987. Page 3 of 4 nr»-:• -1 Q i ^ "* N rH) a 'ClTi^F ORONO GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION ^Jioo. « PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address V^/9-Q C<^£An‘^U (o Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ i I 1^ ^ ,-X3 !^ O O i C" Please check one - Is the property abstract or torrens? (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) ^ I ^-5* Name .NT. Phone (work) H 7 fcp I 3 S'<3- __ Address <^AQri C n 6^ io__________ City O rn m a Zip 5~.5~3SfcL OWNER (if different than applicant) Name >KVl ^_ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone Address City Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land, FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS v/ $100.00 a)Residential accessory Use $150.00 b)Institutional (church, school. $150.00 c)Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 d)Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 f)Land Alteration Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Seawallf retaining walls within 75* of l2ikeshore PRD/PID -> see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS ^ at %$150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _ _ _ _ $250.00 Rezoning $200.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property _ _ _ Residential Other (specify)^ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST ^ r i / i • n Cv » Describe request in detail: uNr^tJtJLAl Lke. 4g> bujO-i^ p^-trvr\ Iq vjL »rr* rNr\*i C‘(iT) P- / ^r><p'^!£a . f r.ggj REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Cernter 348-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate of survey. 5. Construction plan, if applicable, 6. Plat Map. 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 SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application* and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant' s signature C^,/ P.( i> //?Date j aOHNERS SIGNATURE j 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 fcr_purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature I4-^ Applicant must have all submittals i^o the City officiSS '25*7Iays before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission eetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be ptesent at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council, and, if an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, to please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 11, 1987 #1135 HANNING CONTINUED It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Siroe# to apprc ve the cond :ion£ use permit for a maximum 6* high berm above the crown of the road (which is not to surpass the recommend height of an allowed fence) subject to: 1. Staff and Engineer to determine the slope ratio for proper maintenance. 2. Staff's recommended conditions. 3. Permit obtained by MCWD if necessary for the berm located near the wetland. Mrs. Hanning noted that there is a natural berm down the road from their home that is 8* above the crown of the road. CounciImember Sime stated that he would have concerns with allowing a berm over 6' high. Counci Imember Peterson did not feel a 6' high berm would accomplish the needed noise control. CounciImember Goetten felt this was a unique situation and agreed that a 6* high berm would not solve the problem, therefore, this was a reasonable request. Motion, Ayes 2, Nays 3. CounciImembers Peterson, Coetten, and Callahan voted nay. Motion fails. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to approve a maximum berm of 11* above the crown of the road at a 2:1 slope per staff's recommended conditions. Mayor Grabek stated that there is no documentation that an 11* high berm would accomplish the needed noise control and felt an 11* berm would look like an 11* fence. CounciImember Callahan stated he would be in favor of a 6* berm but would like an expert opinion to be assured that if an 11* berm were permitted it would solve the problem. City Engineer Cook noted that an Environmental Engineer could give an expert opinion on the noise control. . Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 2. Mayor Grabek and CounciImember Callahan voted nay. Motion passed. 0 f ^ MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 11, 1987 (§1135/ ROBERT HANNING JR. MUOr SIXTH AVENUE NORTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Robert and Julie Hanning were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request for a conditional use permit for fill along County Road 6 to create a berm for the purpose of noise control. Planning Commission recommended 3-3 to approve a maximum berm of 6* above the crown of the road with side slopes of 2:1 or flatter (two of the dissenting voters stated they would have no problem with the 11* high berm as proposed)• Mr. Hanning explained that this is not a privacy fence but a legitimate sound barrier in which he felt would je aesthetically compatible with the area. He further explained that the traffic on County Road 6 is very heavy and noisy especially in the morning and evening. He felt that the berm would eliminate approximately 2/3 of the noise. He noted that there are many comparable berms in Orono ranging to 15* in height that were constructed in the past few years. He did not feel that a 6* berm would eliminate the noise because his house is located up on a hill. Regarding the grade, he proposes a 2:1 grade on the house side and would like to reserve the right for a 1:1 grade on the road side. He also noted that none of the neighbors have voiced any objection to his proposal. CounciImember Goetten asked the City Engineer for this opinion regarding a berm for sound control and the recommended height and grade. City Engineer Cook stated that an earth berm would best eliminate the sound, aesthetically a lower berm height would be more pleasing, and he recommended a 3:1 grade in order to properly maintain. City Administrator Bernhardson noted that the berm in the recent Ulrich application was limited to 3-1/2* above the crown of the road in con juction to the maximum height a fence could be allowed in that area. Dick Basse1, owner of property to the north, was present and concurred that County Road 6 is very noisy. He does not oppose the plan nor does he feel it would be aesthetically unpleasing. Mr. Hanning was opposed to a 3:1 slope because an 11* high berm would be about 100* wide. /^rfh STATE BANK OF LONG LAKE 1964 W. WAY2ATA 0LVO. • P O. BOX P LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA 55356-0106 • 612/473-7347 September 25, 1987 Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 092587 For Account of: To Beneficiary: Robert C. Hanning, Jr. Julie Hanning 4220 County Road 6 Long Lake, MN 55356 City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono, MN Gentlemen: We hereby establish our irrevocable Letter of Credit in favor of you, your transf^^rree, nominee or assignee available by your draft(s) at sight us in the amount of $5,000.00 U.S. Dollars, accompanied by youi written certification that you have not been released from liability and that the proceeds of your draft(s) will be applied by you to satisfy any loss, cost, claim or expense which may be incurred by you, your transferree, nominee or assignee. We hereby engage with you that all drafts drawn under and in com pliance with the terms of this credit will be duly honored on presentation if drawn and negotiated as indicated above. This Letter of Credit will expire as of 3:00 p.m. June 1, 1989. Very truly yours. Michael J. Byrp^ Vice President MJB:ss /AFULlX SERVICE) . \^NK/« Continuous Banking snca 1905 FDli 7 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson PrcMB: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: April 21, 1989 Subject: #1261 Joe & Sandy Rauschendorfer, 3895 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Resolution Attached is a resolution for approval of the variances granted per Council action on a vote of 5-0 at Council's meeting of April 24, 1989. Proposed Motion - Moved by _, seconded by_, to approve Resolution #_ _ _ _ _ _ _ granting variances for Joe & Sandy Rauschendorfer at 3895 Shoreline Drive to construct a garage addition and replace toundation under the existing house. Ayes ____f nays____. A RBSOLOnON GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 ft 2, 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B), AND 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 PILE #1261 WHEREAS, Joe and Sandy Rauschendorfer (heieinafter "the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 3895 Shoreline Drive wi* n che City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, ‘ jbdivision 1 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to allow construction of a new foundation under the existing house and a new attached garage addition, both located less than 75* from the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka where a 75* setback is normally required, and a variance to Section 10,22, Subdivision 2 to allow hardcover in the 0-75* and 75-250* lakeshore zones in excess of the hardcover amounts normally allowed in those zones, and variances to Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow a side yard setir'cV of 4,6' to the west side lot line and 3* to the east side lot where 10* side lot line setbacks are normally required, and to allow a 7* street setback where a 30* street setback is normal] quired. NpW^ TBRR2F0RE, BE IT RESOLVED by the CliJ Council of Orono, K i .» FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zor File #1261. ", The property ia located in the " •' Lakeshore Residential Zoning District Ily 3, The Orono Planning Commission implication ou Mtarch 20, 1989, and recommended - taw hardcover variance subject to hardcover no i---extsting s quare footages of r arJeever on ti * ;y, reccr.nended approvfv : of the ** '^datJon replacem/ ttjwr the exiF.ting house, *^.id recomme;V'-.j3 t-.at the garage aau..wic;’> be ro closer than 10* to the west lot line. Page 1 of 3 4. The City Council makes the following additional findings of fact regarding the proposied application: A) Maintaining a 10* setback from the west lot line will not allow applicants to constrict the 2-car garage that is necessary for security ol the^i. vehicles, privacy, and s^rrage of lawn and property maintenance equipment current :y stored in a steel shed on the property. B) Approval of variances to allow a west side lot line setback of 4.6* will still maintain the required 10* setback from the neighboring residence necessary for fire safety and drainage purposes. C) The applicants have revised the application to exclude the .'riginally proposed 4’ expansion lakeward from the existing house. D) There is no additions'* property available for acquisition by the current ^..operty owners to relieve the existing substandard setbacks. Also, there is no feasible means by which the property owners can relocate the existing house within the property boundaries to meet the required setbacks from the str<^.et sides and lake, hence repositioning of the house normally required during foundation reconstruction is not feasible. E; A variance to a ie ^-^age corner to be as close as 7* to the st t line where a 30* Fetback is normally require^ justified by the n ed for adequate security of w . applicants* property and is supported by the fact that the location of the proposed garage doors wculd be at least 20* from the existing sidewalk and at least 27* from the existing cu"b line o** County Road 15, leaving adequate room for pa..Vxng of vehicles outside the garage without affecting pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the right-of-way. Furthermore, the proposed driveway width will allow enough room to maneuver applicants* vehicles in order to enter traffic moving forward. 5. The City Council has considered this applies 'on including the findings and recommendations of the Pi..ng Commission, reports by City staff, comments dhe applicants and the effect of the proposed varlancer. .i the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district? that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditionsr light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property? would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty? is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants? and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIOHS, ORDER MID CONDITIOHS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to allow construction of a new foundation under the existing house and a new attached garage addition, both located 58* from the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka wh' »*e a 75* setback is normally required, and a variance to Section -22, Subdivision 2 to allow hardcover in the 0-75* and 75-250* lakeshore zones in excess of the hardcover amounts normally required in those zones, and variances to Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow a side yard setback of 4.6* to the west side lot line and 3* to the east side lot line where 10* side lot line setbacks are normally required, and to allow a 7* street setback where a 30* street setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions ; 1. Hardcover on the property shall be limited to the following: 0-75* Zone: (Area of zone * 4,556 s.f.) House & Garage Basement Access Steps Sidewalk Misc. Timbers & Blocks 924 s.f. 109 s.f. 6 s.f* 65 s.f. 58 s.f. 1,162 s.f. (25.5%) Page 3 of 6 75-250* Zone; (Area of zone ■ 2,150 s.f.) House & Garage Driveway SidewaJk Retaining Walls 913 s.f. 303 s.f. 69 s.f. 20 s.f. 1,305 s.f. (60.7%) The existing sidewalk leading from the house to the lakeshore shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for the garage addition. The steel storage shed shall be removed from the property when the garage addition is complete. Final hardcover layout «shall be as shown in Exhibit B attached. 2. When the foundation for the existing house is replaced, the basement floor elevation shall be raised to elevation 932.5* or higher, to be above the flood plain level. 3. Applicants shall maintain suitable grades around the house so that no additional drainage is directed to the neighboring properties on either side. 4. The applicants are advised that any future additions resulting in additional hardcover on the property will not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover, resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the property. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 8, 1990). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 4 of 6 7, The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of May, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of May, 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 5 of 6 ^ 1 o// Ji, /"W exhibit a RESOLUTION NO Legal Description : Those parts of Lot 1 and 2, Block 8, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Lot 1 distant 236.10 feet West from the Northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of West along the North line of said Lot 1 a distance of 76.66 feet; thence South 16 degrees 44 minutes West a distance of 84 feet, more or less, to the shore line of Minnetonka; thence "South easterly along said shore line to a line bearing South 26 degree^? 4 6 minutes West from the point of beginning; thence North 26 degrees 46 minutes East to the point of beginning All In HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 7To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members ‘ , Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members / ^ City Administrator Bernhardson ^ Froa: Jeanne A, Mabusth^ Building & Zoning Administrator Date: April 11, 1989 Subject: #1367 Steven Harris, 3850 Watertown Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 — A conditional use permit is required for the alteration of land in excess of 100 cubic yards. Applicant proposes excavation of a pond 100* in diameter at a depth of 4*. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Applicant's Addendum Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Plat Map Exhibit E - Planning Commission Minutes of 2/21/89 Exhibit P - Lot Survey Exhibit G - Topographic Survey Review of Application - The applicant proposes the installation of a 100* diameter pond at a 4* depth located approximately 100* from the closest lot line. The the pond is not located within a designated wetland. The purpose of the pond is both decorative and functional. It is not planned for the encouragement of wildlife habitat as face of application would suggest. Applicant's addendum (Exhibit B) advises that the main purpose of the pond is to rid the adjacent soils of the high moisture content found in the low area of the field. Banks will be installed at a 3:1 slope to encourage the return of vegetation. Applicant proposes the fencing of the pond to prevent any by horses interference with the desired functioning of the pond. Zoning File #1367 April 11, 1189 Page 2 olf T. Staff has worked with the City Engineer to ensure there will be no negative impact on the sdiarent property nor to the subject property. Cook has confirmed that the pond installation will have no negative impact upon the drainage to the west and would only have a positive impact on the drainage in the area providing greater retention within the bowl area. Early in the review the neighboring property owner to the west noted concern that he would receive additional drainage, but Cook confirmed that there would only be greater retention on the Harris property. Staff has learned that one property owner is concerned because of the geese and ducks maintained on their property and that the pond on the Harris property will become an attractive nuisance. This is a mattf : that can best be resolved by neighbors. The City cannot deny an applicant's request based on concerns of this nature. The applicant has clearly satisfied the standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 and seeks no variances to the standards. If Planning Commission considers approval, staff would recommend that a condition of the approval be that the banks of the pond be Installed at 3:1 slopes and that vegetation be restored upon completion of the final land alteration. Zoning File #1367 Additional Coments and Planning Coinission Recxonendation - May 3, 1989 Neighbors of the Harris property (Mr. Taylor to the immediate west and Mr. & Mrs. Butterfield to the immediate south) appeared before the Planning Commission to voice their concern. Both Mr. Taylor and Mr. Butterfield advised that there were old farm drainage tiles installed within the field that eventually drained under Watertown Road through the Butterfield property then finally to the Luce Line. Unfortunately, no one was able to locate the placement of the existing underground tile system. The applicant has advised that if indeed in the process of installing the pond, the underground tile system is discovered, he would agree to incorporate the existing drainage system with the final design and functioning of the pond. Staff would suggest that if the underground tile system is discovered by Mr. Harris, that the City staff be called immediately to give appropriate direction. Based on the City Engineer's original comments that noted the minimal size of the watershed and that pond will increase retenr jn. Staff did not feel it was necessary to acquire a drainage easement over the pond area. The Planning Commission disagreed in consideration of the information from the neighbors concerning the underground tile system and recommended t' at a drainage easement be taken over the pond and that if underground tiles were discovered during construction, that the City Engineer make a recommendation regarding an appropriate drainage easement be taken from the pond to Watertown Road. Mr. Harris agreed to these conditions. Mrs. Butterfield also voiced concern with the fact that a pond would now be located 50' from their property line. Staff would note that the proposed pond location will be approximately 130'+ from the road right-of-way with an additional 66' of right- of-way providing 200'+ of separation before the Butterfield property line on the south side of Watertown Road. Please note your ordinances have no setback requirements for ponds. Remember the prime purpose of this pond is to provide a means to alleviate the moisture content within the soils of the low area of the Harris property. The secondary purpose is a decorative poiid. The pond will not be designed to attract wildlife. The applicant plans to fence off the pond even to his own horses. The Planning Commission adopted the approval recommendation subject to the applicant providing a drainage easement over the pond and depending upon the location of the underground tiles in relation Lo the location of the pond, that the appropriate drainage easement to the southern boundary be provided by applicant. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per t.e Planning Commission's approval recommendation. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDTIONAL USB PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE #1367 MHBRBAS, Steven M. Harris, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3850 Watertown Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Hillaway Farm, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a conditional us.; permit to permit the installation of a pond 100* in diameter and 4* deep. HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, .xnnesotat FINDINGS 1. Tills application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1367. 2. The property is located in the RR-lA Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 5 acres in area. The property consists of 10+ acres. 3. On April 17, 1989, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval based on the following findings: A) The City Engineer has confirmed that the installation of the pond will have no negative impact upon the drainage to the west nor to the south. B) The installation of the pond will have a positive impact on the drainage in the area providing greater retention wthin the limited watershed. C) The application as proposed will require no variances to the standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 19. Page 1 of 4 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds tnat granting a conditional use permit to allow the installrtion of the pond as proposed will not be be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that tiie 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, Subdiv sion 19 to permit the installation of a 100* diameter pond at a 4* depth as shown on the survey by Coffin and Gronberg Inc. dated March 17, 1989, subject to the following conditions: 1. Ban’s of the pond are to be Installed at a 3:1 slope to facilitate the regrowth of vegetation. 2. Vegetation be restored upon completion of the final land alterations. 3. Applicant to provide a drainage easement over the retention pond and upon the final recommendation of the City Engineer, hereby agrees to grant the City additional drainage easements over existing underground tiles that drains to the southern boundaries of the property. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by the installation of the pond within one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (May 8, 1990). Page 2 of 4 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned owner has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. May, 1989. ATTEST: Adopted by the Oiono City Council on this 8th day of 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 8th day of May, 1989, by James R. Grabek 6 Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 3 of 4 7 "3 i O ^ CITY OF OROHO - GENERAL JW>-DSB ,ipPLlCAT^O H f ^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address S lJuj t pd _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3<p-fl^—3c^ (3^$^ Please check one — Property X_ abstract or torrens? (for Conditional Use Applications only) Please attach legal description to appli^ation if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone (home) ^"\3" < Phone (work) '=14 \ Address CityfA^i^^- Zip ^-^36*4 OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone Address City Cate Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. zip' OF ORO^O OFFICE (month/year),,v^niyi.-'vyA u w w VV FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current F After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee jlLEElL^JJIE^ i. L-*v • '• $100.00 a) $1S0.00 b) $150.00 c) $250.00 d) y $200.JO f) CiiECE TL EtCEIPT'FH^irFK YOU ^121470 0001 FOl Ti: 01/02 Institutional (church, school, etc.) Duplex Credit/Bldg Commercial/Industrial Use Land Alteration ^ Mm_ _ _ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _ _ _ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more _ _ _ Grading, seawall, retaining wal)'* within 75* of lakeshore _ _ PRD/Pin - see fee schedule OTHER APPLI .TIONS _ _ _ _ $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Revi«.w (+ consultant fees) _ _ _ _ $250.00 V' ation _ _ _ _ $150.00 Easement Vacation _ _ _ _ $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _ _ _ _ $250.00 Rezoning _______ $100.00 Appeals -______ Other - see . e schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District. Present Use of Property _g 7L e _ _ _ Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTIOH OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Qnd Cdn m 4 r fdo *t'* di 4%cf Uf / jj it f ^ 4 o/rc*/» Q. // s j 5 sloaffd to c^7"^, REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. .7 . Certif j '** Property Owners List of owners w^ .lin 350* (you can obtain this 11 from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 34d-3271) 3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names or the above list with no return address. 4. Certificate * i.*vey. 5. Topograpt vey (existing and proposed contours) if land alteration *» changes in elevation (grades). €. Constructiu. , if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. Plat Map. 8. As an addendum uo 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 SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees tc provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this applicatio:i, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date \ 2,- OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackno»*^l< Iges and agrees to thi a application and further authorized reasonable c.*.try onto the prc.Hirty by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and veriJf^catiqiL-pf this request, Owner's signature reriJ^catioa^of this reque Date -'^1 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings ^'"e held on the third Monday of each month, ti^plicants must be present a- 1 scheduled review meetings of ♦he Plannini^ - Oismission and Council. If " at»plicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Buildincj & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. A. 1' «. V J**»/. • • <S» . *v . * • •- •• MAR-6B89 •VoOox- \s O'* ^ » 4sV A- V! k V T-V» Vs ^4 o v VovsV Ao No « ■« H. c.«. \» Ob-N-« <fi* v \ Vt***^*^ <r»i» V>\^<A-V. Vj^-^V “rV^«. ^V^««-Vv%a'CJH e'r^^Vvio^ As-^*^s ^r»vvo%*a% *<, \ ^ “Vo VV^-C- vi^A^-V«rv «V ^'me A ^e>a>r O^ \c9 VN,«yy*-r- ~ Awi v^c^Ve^ XV.-PX -r—cx-v»,^^v o-^o-V. ^ V • V ^ vaX “TO'dt»<5ivr^, ‘ • Vso^Ov^w^ ■^''^«- . -•. • :: .•k^v *• * - • ■ ■ •;',•* ^ .-•;<. w ■ ■ . VY , .,...• . • “■ ■' .5 ■ .... ; ■ ^ • b «Vw^s Vov^ii ’. ■.*••.'' ..' •*' ■ -V. C '.- •*' * * • * ' y ■ ■ ■ ■ *.•.•.;•’*. •• •• * ‘'. •*\i*.... H • .•.••*., . .., - • - . '• ■ *• ■ '. ■■ • —A* , ‘ * * *. ‘ . . -t? *V '*’ * ,* -*' ^ * «x:ir »*f4V»^Vv«»4 -Vo Awe. *bo Wo^-V- ov*y- Ao vV A -b* Aw^V C«^«o •Vs-'^ 5*V^ve. - ooe.>*V«S- 'C.^ •■ -V-Vi-3o«oO Vv • •: ] "T V-«- V o ^X-d >3 rC^r>*C ona ^V^V- r>r»c S-V '•"V cOO'V" / . * ’ • * . . *!> •i.'i^n-rr* ? •• ^ *8v • v,-.n •VJ»> V^T"***» >V^c.€! • V vA b mJN DATE 12/15/D8 BATCH 001 POOP AnOR CPtlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR SO SZ-110-23 ES 0006 OOOS8 ADDRESS UNASSX6NE0 STEPHEN D TOMLE STEPHEN D TOHLE 500S MIRADA DR TAMPA FL 3S62A HEMTEPIN COWITY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OltlERS LIST SO S2-110-2S 23 0008 00A60 ORCHARD PARK RD ROBERT J I LORRAINE E RODEN ROBERT J t LORRAINE E RODEN 460 ORCHARD PARK RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PX4SS401 PAGE 1 SO 32-118-2S 24 0004 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LISLE VICKERMAN JR ET AL ORCHARD PARK FARM INC 3960 WATERTOHN RO MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 PROP AODR OHNER NAfC TAXPAYER NATC/AOOR PROP AOOR OI<tCR NAME TAXPAYER MAME/AnOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR SO 32-110-23 SI OOOS 00S55 STUBBS BAY RO N E C t J N BR0»t4 EDWARD C t JUDY H BROMI S55 STUBBS BAY RO N LONG LAKE 55S56 SO 32-110-23 32 0004 OS955 NATERTOFM RO TERRY L KUTZ TERRY I KUTZ 3955 HATERTOItl RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55S59 SO 32-110-23 34 0010 03765 NATERT09M RO 6ERDA L KErtTEOY URRY L COOK 3765 HATERTCRtl RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0005 3850 WATERTOWN RD S M & C A HARRIS STEVEN M HARRIS 385 TURHAM RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 33 0004 3855 WATERTOWN RD CATHARINE A CRAM , CATHARINE A CRAM 3760 WATERTC’.’Ii RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-110-23 32 0001 03940 NATERTC»’N RO ROBERT TAYLOR ETAL ROBERT TAYLOR 3940 HATERTW9I ROAD MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 38 32-110-23 53 0001 03925 HATER!OWN RD LOREN BUTTERFIELD LOREN BUT1ERFIFI.D RT 2 BOX 43 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0002 03900 WATERTOWN RD ORCHARD PARI. FARM INC ORCHARD PARK FARM INC 3980 HATERTOW RD MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 30 32-118-23 33 0002 03705 WATERTOFM RO JAMES F BROOKS JAMES F BROOKS 3765 WATERTOWN ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 31 0005 3760 WATERTOWN RD CATHARINE A CRAM CATHARINE A CRAM 3760 WATERTOWN RD * MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEFtLEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST TOTAL ' -^CH 001 00010 CO ** OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEFlELIEF. ^ . DATE BY . MIOTTBS op the PLAMHIHG commission meeting FEBRUARY 21, 1989 ZONING PILE #1363-BERfeY CONTINDED asked that all of the elevations appear on the plans. Ayes»6, Nays-0, Motion passed. Motion, STEVE HARRIS 38! \TERTOWN ROAD v^COHi^*IOM^^OSB^raUiIy Kelley, seconded by Planning P?«i ”g°CoL\*sVior dieting? «^\eq!ested^ by “the' applicant'. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1369 CHARLES KICXHAFER 1040 TOflHLIHE ROAD VARIANCE , on » - duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth informed the commission that Mr. Kickhafer was requesting a front street setback variance in order to construct ?he to accessory improvements previously made to the rear of the property; placement of the garage to the rear of the house becomes impractical. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval granting the 30' front yard setback variance constructing a single story garage 24 ’x 24 . Mr. Kickhafer s hardship is that he has no garage and the house to the 5-acre zoning amendment. Bellows added tnat the topography ol the land was also a hardship. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1371 ROBERT 6 TERESA MINKEMA 3200 BATSIDE ROAD VARIANCES „ w PDBLIC^H^RMG^7.21oP.M^biication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Minkema was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the Minkemas were in need of front and side street s^back variances in order to construct an addition onto their existing residence. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: May A, 1989 Subject: #1375 David Price, 2914 Casco Point Road - Variance - Resolution Application - Request for hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances to construct addition to existing house. Zoning District - LR-IB, 1/2 acre, sewered List of Bnhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice 4/18/89 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes 4/17/89 Exhibit C - Proposed Resolution Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits 4/12/89 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of April 12, 1989. The applicant originally submitted a proposal to construct an addition to the existing house, resulting in a hardcover increase and a slight encroachment past the average lakeshore setback line. The Planning at their meeting finding that the 27.6% to 30% was revise his plan. 1989, applicant's Commission. Commission originally reviewed this application of February 21, 1989 and tabled the request, originally proposed hardcover increase from not appropriate. The applicant was asked to At the Planning Commission meeting of April 17, revised proposal was presented to the Planning The revised proposal results in a hardcover decrease from 27.6% to 27.3% in the 75-250* zone. Planning Commission found that the proposed 12* encroachment past the average lakeshore setback line is not significant given that other portions of the house already extend 18* past the average setback line and the only lake views that are diminished slightly aer views of a minor lagoon area which the affected property owner does not abut. Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the revised proposal, noting also that the affected neighbor has been notified but has not commented on the application. Staff Rer nimndation - Staff recommends approval per the proposed resolution, which requires that a portion of existing patio be removed to result in the slight overall hardcover decrease proposed. CIT7 OP OROHO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 20HI1IG FILE HO. 1375 HOTICE OP PLAKNIN6 COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 4/18/89 TO: David Price 2914 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: Cedarwood Builders Inc. 6500 Nicollet Ave S Richfield, MN 55423 type op application 1 Variance DATE OP MBBTIN6: 4/17/89 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Connission recossBends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Removal of portion of patio hardcover per revised proposal. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, May 8, 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. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING Fli^ #1367 HARRJS-CONTINnED or dry. Kelley asked Hr. Harris what he would do if the draintile were not disturbed and all the water ran out. Mr. Harris said that if the pond reached its maximum capacity, all of the water would r in out the draintile. If the pond dried out, that would not be a problem. Planning Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Harris if his main objective was to have a decorative pond or a dry area. Mr. Harris replied that achieving a dry area was his main priority. He questioned whether cleaning the draintile would allow it to function. Kelley said that would probably help, but no one knew where the draintile was located. Kelley said that in light of the knowledge of draintile existing, that the City would definitely want to request a drainage easement. Chairman Kelley said that the Planning Commission must address the issue of whetJier or not the current water flowage from this property will be disturbed when a pond is put in place. Johnson said that the applicant should be required to maintain the draintile if he encounters it while putting in the pond. Mrs. Betty Butterfield said that Mr. Harris's pond would come within 50' of their property line. She said that what would be an attractive addition for Mr. Harris but would be an unattractive nuisance for her. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of item #1367 for Conditional Use Permit to construct a pond subject to conservation and flowage over the pond. It is further recommended that if the applicant encounters the draintile, he should maintain the existing drainage that runs through it. Kelley suggested that the flowage and conservation easement be taken as far as the draintile runs on the applicants property if that can be determined. Johnson amended his motion to include that condition, Cohen seconded. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1375 DAVID PRICE 2914 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC BEARING 8:26 P.M. TO 8:30 P.M. !r. Price was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that the applicants were originally seeking an average lakeshore setback variance as well as a variance to slightly increase hardcover. The applicants have since revised their proposal so that the proposed addition would remain the same, but the patio area would be decreased. This would result in a decrease in hardcover in the 75'-250' zone to 27.34%. Another expressed MIHUTBS OF THE PLAMNIHG COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1375>PRICE CONTINUED concern of this application involved the sight lines and whether the neighboring property would lose a portion of existing lakeviews. There has been no communication to the City from that neighbor. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of application #1375 since the overall ffect is a benefit to the City with the overall decrease in hardcover. The encroachment on the average setback line does not have a significant impact on the neighboring property and that neighbor has not expressed any concern. The hardship for the variance is that there are no viable alternatives for the applicant. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1388 CHARLES BBRTELSON 760 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:32 P.M. TO 8:43 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that this application involved a request for an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 s.f. The applicant's residence is small and he does not have a garage. Mr. Bertelson is proposing to build a two-story garage with an upper level workshop that would be 960 s.f. per floor for a total of 1,920 s.f. The driveway would be revised. Chairman Kelley questioned what the dimensions of an average two-car garage would be. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that 24' X 36' would provide ample room for a three-car garage. Planning Commissioner Hanson questioned the applicant as to the need for such a large accessory structure. Mr. Bertelson replied that he would like to be able to store four cars and his boat. He would use the second story for working floor space for his woodworking business. Kelley inquired of the applicant as to the size of his house. Mr. Bertelson said it was 24' x 30' with a 12' slab. Kelley observed that, if approved, the accessory structure would be larger than the house. He said that in his opinion the applicant was entitled to 24'. a two-car garage Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Bertelson if he agreed with the staff's recommendation that the accessory structure not be allowed to have plumbing, or be used as a dwelling unit or to house a home occupation. Mr. Bertelson said A RBSOLDTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO NDNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 PILE #1375 & 2 WHEREAS, David Price (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2914 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tract K, Registered Land Survey No. 461, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property")? and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 to permit the construction of a two-story addition to the existing house, which construction results in hardcover in the 75-250* lakeshore setback zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone and which construction results in a 12* encroachment past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1375. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 21, 1989 and tabled the application for further revision by applicant. A revised application was subsequently submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 17, 1989, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the revised variance proposal, based upon the following findings: A) Existing hardcover on the property is 27.6%. The revised proposal eliminates a portion of existing patio hardcover in the 75-250* zone, resulting in a net decrease to 27.3% hardcover in that zone. Existing and proposed hardcover in the 0-75* zone is 2.1%. Page 1 of 5 B) The existing house encroaches 18* past the defined average lakeshore setback line. The proposed two-story addition only encroaches 12* past the average lakeshore setback line, and is located such that only minor views across applicant*s property toward a lagoon area of Lake Minnetonka will slightly be diminished. The Planning Commission finds that these views enjoyed by the neighboring :-roperty are not diminished and that neighboring property still has full view of the main body of the lake. Furthermore, the neighboring property owner has not expressed an objection to the proposed addition. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 to permit the construction of a two-story addition resulting in hardcover in the 75-250* zone of 27.34% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and allowing a 12* encroachment past the defined average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 1. Applicant shall remove the portion of existing patio as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto. Hardcover on the property in the 75-250* zone shall be limited as follows: (75-250* zone total area * 12,400 s.f.) Existing House Proposed Addition Attached Garage Driveway Sidewalk Remaining Patio 1,051 s.f. 499 s.f. 637 s.f. 931 s.f. 120 s.f. 152 s.f. 3,390 s.f. (27.34%) The applicant is advised that no future hardcover will be permitted on this property, however, any future proposal to increase hardcover on the property might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover, resulting in no net increase of hardcover on the property. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 8, 1990). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of 'is variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning coc-* shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 Adopt id by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of May, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of May, 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 Cl /. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: April 12, 1989 Subject: #1375 David Price, 2914 Casco Point Road - Variance - Second Review/Revised Request 7. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Revised Proposal Site Plan Revised Hardcover Calculations by Applicant Staff Verification of Revised Hardcover Calculations Planning Commission Minutes of 2/21/89 Notice of Planning Commission Action of 2/24/89 Memo S Exhibits of 2/15/89 Average Setback/Sightline Review Discussion - The applicant has submitted a revised proposal which will slight overall hardcover decrease in the 75-250* zone. This is acc<mplished by removing a significant portion of the patio that would still remain after the addition was constructed. The applicant notes that he has considered addition and finds no other reasonable options that significantly . the average setback encroachment. Staff has noted average setback encroachment would only affect the northerly n ^ , view of the lagoon entrance from his side windows. Staff has not received any comments from that neighbor. Because this house and the two adjacent houses f shoreline, the applicant's house is somewhat penalized by the straight line average setback determination method. Although staff is not suggestx g the straiaht line policy be changed, staff would note for the recora that the proposed addition is no closer to the lake than either neighboring house (see Exhibit G). Staff ReconBendckcion - The applicant has proposed a reduction in hardcover o^ ng This is a benefit to the property and to the City in general. Tne Fianni y Commission must decide whether the average setback line sSficant impact on the neighboring properties. A recommendation for approval should make positive findings supporting such an approval and should be conditioned on the proposed hardcover removals. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WO tSoWW 250Setback Xonei (circle one) 0-75* ^5-25^ Eiciatlnq Hardcover In Xone e. Houae 3X2 x ^ ■ jOS- ;w-;- V;. /V' . 3 lengtl)width PtZlOE Cfi=-Scic> fT RP- b. Garage 2^ x 2 c. Driveway / ^ ^ ^ (o37 J33J d. sidewalk x ‘^O ii^« S3e. Patio/ De^k r- -J, . t, Lanaacape _______'x /H areaa underlain by plastic sheeting f. Other 0 X X X X X \.ZO ^29 lift e.f. s.f. e.f. s.f. e.f. _ a.f. _ e.f. _ e.f. . e.f. _ e.f. _ e.f, _ e.f, _ e.f. _1 e.f. _ e.f. __ s.f. _ s.f. e.f. TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE - XH ^ ff ' g.f. (j) |sting Hardcover I 3^2] .-f- I Z^^oo s.f. Total Existing Hardcover x 100 Lot Area Within Zone X 100 - .27- Additional Hardcover to be added in zonal Item Length Width At tiokI Zu.S X Av/G). 13 X S TOTAL TOTAL S.F. TO BE ADDED Existing Hardcover to be Removed, if anyt Length x e.f. . a.f. . s.f. . . e.f. . (2) Item f^Tio ■ IM- width TT TOTAL S.f. TOTAL S.F. TO DB .lENOVED Final Hardcover Ptoposalt (Line (1) ♦ Line (2) -Lino (3)) - I . SSo 1ST" i ^ a.f.3ri 5^3)0 (3) Existing To be Added . I - 33^^.f. (4) To be Removed final Proposed Hardcover I » 33^ ^ OH 12,Hob ' ' Line (4) x 100 ■> Line (n s.f. a.f.X 100 ‘S'TArpp (CfeV/gw (3F /^4TjfSe^ iWArci-fcxroVjr'i-; ■7r-^rt3' > avx/ S-^, ore ___ __(^t5?T7oi^/j &n^^y33^20Zr_,7An H-C /Le>v-«ovtAOC=. 32-*& S.A c_ y/J PArXd Aio->- ««wt>g»g. _____________________________________________________________________ ..A3 /4-.C. U4_. _,_ ’2T^,\^yL ____ MINDTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 1989 1375 DAVE PRICE 2914 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:26 P.M. >7:40 P.M. Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Mr. Price was requesting an average setback variance and hardcover variance for the purpose of constructing an addition. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator stated that the addition would be behind an existing garage and partially over an existing patio. Hardcover in the 75-250* would increase from 27.6% to 30.0%. Chairman Kelley commented that the neighboring property to the west would not be visually impacted by the proposed addition. The property to the east would be somewhat impacted. Gaffron mentioned that the addition would interfere with their view of the neck of the lagoon. Mr. Price explained his hardship to be the need for more living space due to a growing family. Further, the existiiig kitchen area is located on the lower level of the house. Planning Commissioner Brown observed that a portion of the house already extended 18* beyond the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed addition would only extend 12* beyond the line. Kelley stated that the intent of the code regarding average lakeshore setbacks is to protect the views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners. Gaffron confirmed that the City had not received any communications from Mr. Price's neighbor to the east. Mr. Price stated that he had not discussed his proposal with that neighbor. Planning Commissioner Brown questioned the possibility of hardcover removal to compensate for the hardcover being added in the 75-250* zone. He suggested removal of the patio. Planning Commissioner Bellows expressed the difficulty involved with this application because the structure already extends beyond the average lakeshore setback and has 27.6% hardcover in the 75-250* zone. She believed that should approval be recommended, the reasons for doing so be very explicit. Planning Commissioner Hanson noted for the record that even though Mr. Price's home was lakeshore property, the addition would not pose a negative visual effect, which is the foundation of purpose of the average lakeshore setback requirement. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of application #1375, for an average lakeshore setback variance to construct an addition to the existing residence. Approval is conditioned' upon MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 1989 ZONING FILE #1375-PRICE CONTINUED hardcover being removed to maintain 27.6% within the 75-250* zone. Hanson based his recommendations upon the fact that Mr. Price's property does not face the main body of Lake Minnetonka. Motion, Ayes»2, Nays»4, Motion failed. Mr. Price asked that the matter be tabled to allow him an opportunity to revise his plan. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to table this matter. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1376 CHRIS PALM 1710 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to table this item until the March 20, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting, as requested by the applicant. Motion, Ayes~6, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1377 RICHARD ANDERSON 3980 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:05 P.M. - 8:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this application involved a request for side setback and hardcover variances for an addition to applicant's residence. The applicants are proposing a 9.1' side setback, where 10* is required and an increase in hardcover in the 75-250* zone from 24.5% to 29.5%. The Andersons* property does not abut the lakeshore, but is located within the 75-250* setback zone. Further, the applicant has obtained a building permit to convert the existing garage into a workshop. Gaffron suggested the future possibility of a garage being built to the rear of the house, which would cause another hardcover increase in the 75- 250* zone. However, the applicants have no such plans at this time. Chairman Kelley expressed concern over the inevitability of a garage being constructed behind the house- Mr. Anderson stated that there may be a possibility of trading land with Hennepin County. This would provide him with more land northwest of his house in exchange for front yard land he would give to the County. Planning Commissioner Brown questioned whether there would be any hardcover that could be removed to offset the additional hardcover being requested? Gaffron responded that the driveway would be the only removable hardcover but from a safety standpoint, it should remain intact. Chairman Kelley stated that it would be difficult to CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONIHG PILE NO. 1375 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 2/24/89 TO:David Price 2914 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO:Cedarwood Builders, Inc. 6500 Nicollet Avenue S Richfield, Mn 55423 TYPE OF APPLICATION Variance DATE OP MEETING: 2/21/89 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Coadsslon recoHmends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AMD SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant to consider alternatives that would reduce degree of additional encroachment past average setback line (relate to view lines of lagoon from neighboring residence). 2. Attempt to eliminate increase in hardcover in 75-250* zone by revising addition or removing existing hardcover. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information and a revised proposal. Deadline for the March 20, 1969 meeting is March 10, 1989 or April 7, 1969 for the April 17, 1989 meeting. In all cases, the application roust be continued with the submittal of requested information within 90 days or the City will consider the application as formally withdrawn. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and ar'oroval by the Planning Commission. la To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: February 15, 1989 Subject: #1375 David Price, 2914 Casco Point Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IC, single family, h acre, sewered Application - Request for average setback and hardcover variances t^ construct an addition to existing residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Including Hardcover Calculations Exhibit E - Staff Review of Hardcover Calculations Exhibit P - Plans Pertinent Facts - 1. Applicant is requesting the above noted variances in o^ - t^ consti.act a family room and amusement room addition to the existin* residence. 2. Existing hardcover in the 0-75* setback zone is 2.1% with no change: proposed. That hardcover consists of a 13x22* canvas-covered boa- enclosure. 3. Hardcover in the 75-250* zone existing is approximately 27.6%. I: reviewing the appllcant*s hardcover calculations, staff determiner that the eave widths were normal and excluded those square footage: from the hardcover calculation for the sake of consistency with th* past City practice. Based on staff*s calculation, the proposed 75* 250* hardcover will be 30.0%. Hardcover Summary: 0-75* 75-250* Existing 286 s.f. (2.1%) 3,421 s.f. (27.6%) Proposed 286 s.f. (2.1%) 3,718 s.f. (30.0%) 4. As will be noted from the survey, applicant is proposing a technica encroachment of 12* past the average lakeshore setback line defined Portions of the house already extend 18* past the average setbac: line. Note that this property is located at the entrance to a lagoon The addition is on the opposite side from the dwelling to th southwest, hence no existing views from that dwelling will b affected. The existing views from the dwelling to the north also ar not significantly affected because the view encroached upon is merel of the narrow lagoon entrance. Zoning File #1375 February 15, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Discussion - The applicant has included a hardship statement and a statement of unusual property conditions. Applicant notes that the -oposed location for the addition has the least impact on this property and neighboring properties because it minimizes the degree of average setback encroachment, minimizes the additional hardcover necessary, while it is the logical location for the addition to the existing living area. There would appear to be no excessive hardcover on the property that could be easily or appropriately removed in order to decrease the hardcover percentages. Staff could find no plastic under landscape areas around the house. The hardcover and average setback variances requested are typical of and consistent with other variances that have been granted for the Casco Point area. Options for Planning Commission Action - Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Recommend approval, making findings to support such approval based on hardships and unusual property conditions noted above. 2. Recommend denial, making findings which support a denial. 4. Other. 3. Table for further information. -* • H ^ 'CiT - /<T . Cy Vi .^r /vr* eik C . - •srrtHs: , pi c CZTZ OF OKOHO - VARIANCE APPLICATION 3-7^ Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application #1375 PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Cjh.^r^.n CK)itOT Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ___________________ Please check one - Property ^_ abstract or _ _ torrens?Lll'i OF OFC nO Attach legal description to application if not included on OFi-ilE required survey.01 OES^ 150. APPLICANT Phone (home) V - Name Rl Phone (work) ^ ~ Address; Cp.SC>3 KhCOULSlT/OUF'^Qityz Zip; ^ OWNER (if different than applicant) r Name PzSiJp* f _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) ^7 f Phone (work) ~ / / Address; ^2^ I C£P City; O I^C> k OCE> __Zip; I Date Property Acquired _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (month/year) I (do) not) also own the ^jacent parcels of land. PRESENT USB OF PROPERTY • - Present Zoning District Present Use of Property *S I kltO/ \ i A^y_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) Residential DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^--------V •^Desctibe request iii detail: AOT> iSfy. /Y^ ^ Bg-LfV/lO^ ^ ^ , - - - —. - ^ , VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area . .Lot Width : Setback Variances (_ _ _ Front. . Other _______________________' Hardcover Side •' Rear) ^ “** •• * ■ w'J > •CTJi V -J.-r - ^t*i* r CiTri a-J ~t- ^ i [«■ .• ! -“n hardship . ^ ^ ^ ^Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; A"fT^ _________ description op onusdal property conditions Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements; Czl_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). ^ ^ 3. 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). 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance ^Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ __ _ _ _3-- APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies ^^at the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Icnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date f / OWNERS SIGNATURE , , _ _ _The own^r hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification o^v thSX request. Owner's Signature )( Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. '2 . • b L ■ /C// o’ r-« ; ^ f COVE ■\\ : I kv T r^;. 95 W^)j'V i5r RUN DATE 01/25/69 BATCH 008 58 20-117-23 31 0029 PROP AODR 02912 CASCO POINT RO OHNER NANE H D BARRETT t D H BARRETT TAXPAYER MICHAEL D BARRE-T NAHE/ADDR 2912 CASCO P01»<^ tdr NAYZATA HN 4'*^ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0««4ERS LIST 38 20-117-23 31 0030 02918 CASCO POINT RD RAYMOND J FRANKENFIELD RAYMOND J FRANKENFIELD 2918 CASCO POINT ROAD NAVARRE rt4 55391 REPORT NO. PI935<^01 PACE 19 38 20-117-23 31 0031 0291^ CASCO POINT RD DAM PRICE DAVID H A MARY J PRICE 2919 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR (»fCR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR OI«€R NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 20-117-23 31 0032 02916 CASCO POINT RD ROBERT H PONELL JR ETAL ROBERT H POHELL JR 2916 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0092 03600 CASCO AVE RICHARD J HAEFELE A HIFE RICHAPO HAEFELE 3600 LASCO AVENUE NAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0033 02920 CASCO POINT RO JAMES H PAHL ET AL JAMES H PAHL 2920 CASCO PT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0093 03650 CASCO AVE HYMIE D BERMAN ETAL H D BERMAN 5610 LAUREL AVE S APT 213 GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55916 38 20-117-23 31 0091 03630 CASCO AVE P 6RAFFUN0ER A K 6RAFFUN0ER PETER A KERRY 6RAFFUNDER 3630 CASCO AV NAYZATA W 55391 38 20-117-23 92 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES N LUPIENT JAMES N LUPIENT 7100 NAYZATA BLVO MPLS MN 55926 TOTAL BATCH 008 00009 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HE^t^EPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPJRTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE ‘ARTMENT OF PR^RTY. TW<ATION, 1 4i^C2p6>l4|p PF 'iWti Q^S>\c^'^ (p? F>^lSnKJc:| -bUsit^ TM^ |<iT<:>l6tJ PiKiiNi^ A^EAS are — ^c?Ap--ri2^p iM TPE &ase :hekjt and i 3> c;^un^ pwSLiii u;irH LiTTue v^aj'ni.ATil^'xJ. ti4e nje O AP>P**Tic>f4 ujp>Liic> \’\zo'J\oe: a £>cziir^i4T^(Vfcuu~ V/IFH'TI LATEtP L-Iv 'injC^ ,ANP i-oi?UL-D AU^^ "Tt-le. E;<:i ST I-k J<"i plNIU^i AfSEA Be TB A F^EIAH-T-Ee A*^P t^EEl StrSPAAe ^ 4klUl3UAL c^^nP iT7^NS^, appiti ^nJ ^ "TME K4^^T A^N^/^NiPsiT AN CP l^EAS-f <^6>SrF ’U^T.Tll/'E u;,TU \^eBT- LiTUE toe EyriBKiPlM: I^UUP &B |2gwv/|Ni<^ A p^eric ’tsl <?^F Ey-ISTIU^I <JL=. P atio To EBauiizeDAPPiTift^i -4A'2P^'^^^ C , : 'y ^ ' o ■ / a i suruittj S961 'ZZ J^quj93sa'oi 9Z6 - SD[ jo uoijba3I3 ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. sail l.kt »Md Hinncapolts. HU SS416 Phone (8U) S4l OSOO BURV2Y rORi DAVID PRICE #1375 Bsuii ONE INCH EQUALS 30 FEET aORVEYEDt December 22, 1988 DRAFTED: December 28, 1988 REVISED: January 24, 1988 LEGAL DESCRIPTIOMi Tract K, Registered Lend Survey Number 461, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOURCEi uc h««e turveycd the above described property which the client cUuis to own or appears to own frm varlout povernnent records. We Mke no representation that the client does in fact own the property nor that a search of the records has been made to detensine the eitent and nature of hts holdinqs If there is any doubt concerning the accuracy of the lepal description, competent le^al counsel should be retained to perfom a title search and issue a title opinion for our use In preparinp the survey. BASEMENTSI We show only those easements which the client Informs us of or which we happen to becc other sources, the survey does not purport to show all casements and impro.mnents. aware of through STANDARD SYMBOLS AMD COMVEWTlOMis i •o" Denotes 1/2" 10 pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Niasber 10535 set. If "o" Is filled In. then denotes found iron somanent. f HARDCOVER CALCDLATIQNt 0-75 Zone 0 House & Garage (including eves) Driveway Concrete Patio 75-250 Zone 1,881 928 2504- Zone 0 That part of concrete walk not covered by eves 680 118 That part of proposed addition not included in the concrete patio above. 282 Boat Canopy Total Hardcover Area of Zone % Hardcover 286 286 13,900 2.1 % 3,889 12,400 31.4 % 0 0 120 0 t CERTIPICATTQ^I ieg"?st1r,dTa*r!dVr?.U"l^ri2^ l‘T«'o7TlTsute"Ifm^ota"' that I a. a Oily Samuel o. Parker, R.lTsT^No. 1053S / \ / / / STTa-pp J -.^,. r -7-^-'>'^‘ _*!«>&(«. e^<?" t*J/SiT7/ U^^r?4^ li*^ -------- - - Sv/rtye»Wtf< /ioc.^4= . . z-T.s-xss.^ . /os-l zl iV. •»> X ..2.__ , C'M_ . .......... ........... /-I V i/?' ^' ? • • A;y«|u*l ...... Hy so /^ + 2. *-3 __ ^V2-l ■■ 3Vi-' -ri2.^ycro -Zl^^ '/<» er-'iri'oc.------ /r«/ wp a -------(^C». 8 x./£..-^--t-(^&-t3-x-j^-«-i/ff-^ A: ----------------------------------i/^v---------------------------^ j----------------------------------------- . ___;____3'Y2-\ .r-..Z07_-<-Yt 9 ~-JZna>-----------— ------------- I’ll fl, 1/6XS » 20.p I *'■ ; -. . . . ■ .. . ■4«b ^ . . J ' : ?*TuT G» j ----------:—-—1-—..•_ •-. '■ isy/'in^SCm a- Z-2.X/?, ■= z-5>C»_t-5.^• i •' 5 J- t\, fer& ■=■ 2-../_ J/« . ' • i 5>i PCajo M ------------ .. ------ Ta ^ f*CC»2.r T^lJS^'^S. ee^p, F8UV, t/z*‘eMTCnr U»( 34j'ne UHIV* V6U1V SjiKS® /xis^tP. W- »• ; .. i ,i'T:.‘^ •.'■ ' -AHlLfeeHgJTig^'.. ;' ■ : ■■ .v^iv>5; '■ ■■}.- ..••-V. .. . ■■ ^ jJ»4Pp*aiiWfiaT 3-'Z^U2 * ? , ZyLlo Jo|^*ri . ]lp"oc>6P .V' - • • . fvJCX &M5.T ft-t VjeitL*. Jvj&tjUjE' W:.iSw A « U)•*«fc ' r''-' .* ^ *-" ;~tJrti/i?pps.rtYV! ^PaSH it fj .V .. . TO J*.ti. Cf^o<BS> ^Ejc:-'Tic::>h-J-:-- . 1 i-'o*..^r/... . msi 1 j'Fj V t TLf [J « ** RtoJ e+isf ^ •. ■ -c 's r SIbO. A^01TI<==t-J “[■ . xr=r ‘^-:?iS5r=V3Sr--^^^»K^ \ .\ * fi .E^TIKJS^ . C^A>^ZAC^S -;. ■' V H , •*v-,Tr -------r.4- ' •■ • - . -‘ •.-.-r • 4-•—••• r •.» . ^-^^E^cr^rihjc, ‘ If - : \ r. \ ‘ * . -“5 ^ * ♦. .- . r-”'- • • . r « • ' , ' * r '' r ?■ ! '- '. ---------_-__i_.__-^-„-v:jv...... . v; . • ■■- ■-■.;.r,-:r.- .T:•-• ■ -.^ ■-■-• ' - :. - ‘y’-yssb :;^ V ■d * T! CiZiM'fesO. jekC=i;>mc^Ki: /^Ai. -Vc h ■ •t’-.-.r •• . \ notes:DRAWN BV T? J DATE ll/'ZJl/t FUOcz^P- PL^kJ GEPARWOOD BUILPERS IK Rl^ST f=L/i>.Kr 1 •« •H'= 1-0 • / S6.6.-6>6»e.4 NOTES i KV-kT DRAWN BY P. 'PLAN NO OATE KW 21, f£>tri 2 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proms Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:April 26, 1989 Subject: #1388 Charles Bertelson, 760 Tonkawa Road - Variance Zoning District - LR-lB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre^ sewered Application - Request for accessory structure floor area variance to construct accessory building (workshop) with tuck-under garage, 960 s.f. on each of two levels. Lot Area - 0.54 acre List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/18/89 Exhibit B - Applicant's Alternate Plan if Variance is Denied Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 4/13/89 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of April 13, 1989. The applicant is proposing to construct a detached 3-car garage with storage and workshop space above it. The Planning Commission at their April 17th meeting voted 5- 1 to recommend denial of the request for the floor area variance. Planning Commission's first motion, to approve a 2-story 24'x24' garage, failed on a vote of 3-3. Planning Commissioner Hanson, in a minority opinion to the denial motion, felt that holding applicant to the 1,000 s.f. maximum would not allow for efficient, usable spaces given the topography and applicant's space needs. The applicant prefers to accommodate his space needs in a single structure. He feels that one 24'x40' 2-story structure will be less of an impact on the neighborhood than two side-by- side 20'x24' structures, which he would be allowed to construct under current codes. Staff has verified that the 2-structure option is indeed viable, in keeping with the required setbacks and hardcover for this property. Staff Recommendation - The following options and possible consequences should be considered by Council: 1. If a total floor area variance is completely denied, per the Planning Commission recommendation, applicant has stated he intends o construct the two side-by-side buildings. Zoning File #1388 Apr*’ 26, 1989 Page 2 of 2 2. The applicant has suggested that the smallest single building that would serve his needs would be 24'x36*, or 864 s*f, per floor# 1#728 s.f, total floor area. This would still result in a 728 s.f. floor area variance. If Council wishes to approve either the 1#920 s.f. structure or a 1,728 s.f. structure or is able to agree with applicant on some other square footage, staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: A) No plumbing will be allowed in the building. B) The building may never be used as a dwelling unit. C) The building may never be used to house a home occupation. Staff will draft a resolution for your next meeting based on Council's action on this application. Editorial commenti One of the issues Planning Commission is currently reviewing is whether there should be a limit on the number of accessory buildings on a property, and whether there should be a limit on the total combined square footage of accessory buildings on a property, based on lot size or zoning district. The current code sets neither of these limits. ZONING PILE NO,1388 CITY OP ORONC P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Oate of Notice: 4/18/89 TO:Charles Bertelson COPIES TO: 760 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 4/17/89 VOTE: 5 For 1 Against Planning Ccxmiission recooE'ends the following: Denial for reasons noted below NOTES AMD SPECIAL CONDITIOiiS: Planning Commission found r.o hardship or adequate justification to recommend approval of variance to allow accessory building in excess of 1,000 s.f. total floor area. Although Planning Commission indicated they sympathize with applicant's situation, the magnitude of the requested variance on this small lot (1/2 acre in *. acre zone) is excessive. Note that original motion to appro total) failed on a tie vote of 3-3. ^4*x24* 2-story garge (1,152 s.f Also note that, in a minority opinion. Planning Commissioner Jim Hanson felt that holding to a 1,000 s.f. maximum would not allow for efficient, usable spaces given the topography and applicant's space needs. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, May 8, 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. m • fk^Fe*^.£-eti> P^u/o ‘-Is" /^ftVbtApsi _) ^t^errC-H^^3 760 Ornnf^ IF |/A«Wf»OP- 1% 'D^&V'We-t. JJO <P--Z6 O O Prom: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Beznhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator April 13, 1989 #1388 Charles Bertelson, 760 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for accessory structure floor area variance to construct accessory building (workshop) with tuck-under garage, 960 s.f* on each of two levels. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application & Letter of Request Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exnibit D - Survey with Staff Notation, Existing Layout Exhibit E - Survey with Applicant's Proposed Layout Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G - Applicant's Perspective Sketch (view from northeast) *ertinent Code Sections - Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) - Limits accessory buildings to 1,000 s.f. total floor area. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) - Allows detached garage within 10' of street lot line when doors face away from street and a turn-around is provided on the site. Pertinent Pacts - 1. 2. 3. The proposed garage/workshop structure is 24'x40' or 960 s.f. per floor, 1,920 s.f. total. Applicant's existing house consists of a basement and one story. The house is quite small, and is near but not in the 0-75' setback zone. Staff would anticipate a request for additions to the residence at some future date, although applicant has no plans for additions at this time. Applicant is a hobbyist wood worker and has not indicated any desire to use the proposed workshop area for home occupation purposes. (Remember that home occupations must take place in the principal residence and not in an accessory building.) Zoning File #1388 April 13, 1989 Page 2 of 2 4. The City Engineer was asked to review the site, given the sewer easements and draintile located under the proposed garage. That draintile is relatively small and was privately installed some time in the past. The Engineer notes that the tile could easily be removed and overland drainage accomplished along the northerly lot line.^ Both applicant and the City Engineer agreed that a future re-location of the driveway to the northwest corner of the lot near the sewer system electrical panel would create a much safer access, due to road elevations to the immediate south of the property. Discussion - The only hardship claimed by applicant is his lack of useable space in the existing house. Planning Commission has, in the past, considered a number of various ordinance revisions regarding oversized accessory buildings but no changes have been adopted yet. The question remaining to be answered is whether there exists a legitimate hardship for an oversize accessory structure. In thir case, the applicant's requested workshop and garage space could probably be accomplished in an attached structure of some sort. Another alternative would be to construct two separate buildings, a garage of just under 1,000 s.f., and a similar sized workshop building. Applicant should address his reasons why neither of these options is proposed. Staff Recoi idation - Planning Commission is advised to make a determination whether appropriate hardships exist to justify the oversized accessory structure variance. Planning Commission should also consider any appropriate conditions if approval is recommended. The following conditions would be recommended: 1. No plumbing will be allowed in the building. 2. The building may never be used as a dwelling unit. 3. The building can never be used to house a home occupation. cm OF OROHO -> VARIAHCB APBL^TION Wfj£ initial Application Fee $ ($50.00 per each additi [enewal Variance Fee $75.dTy (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ihm w. i' FROPBRTT LOCATIOH Site Address 7^^ 7^]^^ V-,(i U'W T»;: Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3^ OCoy Please check one - Property V abstract or _ _ torrens? :iz,i Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICAHT Phone (home) 4^7/ Name Ckgr/as Phone (work)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Addreea; '7^/7 City; _ _ _ _ Zips ^ri m (if different than applicant) N2une Phone (home) ^18^ Phone (work)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address: f7<y/ 7 City: _ _ _ _Zip: fT Date Property Acquired _ _ _(month/year) I (do) <^liog^lso own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USB OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property .Residential Other (specify) DBSCRIPTZOH OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: X y» i .t—^ Estimated Construction Cost $ /^ 2: -fv, Al/JJ a -? VARIAECBS REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front ___ Hardcover Side _ _ _ Rear) >"Other /fee* ^ HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulation! DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ iwis^^ven^n^compliance with Zoning [UIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-32^1). 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. Topographic survey (existing and proposeci 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 of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff.8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included.:-<3)Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete Zoning Official's Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all Information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge• Applicant's Signature Date <//3/^ OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga** tion and verification of this recsiest. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all ^(toittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Conunission 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 i% unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have ar. authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Buxlding & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. © • «■ * ; •.• ‘.••‘;--r‘“ f • . • *. * * * • *? ...: . • . v.; ...... . . •• ' .. ' 'Jr >/: »'... j*......1 • '/. •; . ..;. . -.. • •. ^ • * .. • • • • • . • •; .;u •.•■’ • ■... :.Ci;4 9 C<J^M /ty/ S^et /yjy /7^ JS 4^ /1^/ucAS;^^JC ^pace <sf^c/ >?-7 y S/^«ce / #1388 » t., ,.. -,-. I ■ .--. i'T- •■ ".•''* Zr wt .c;--*'>..•-•• I ^.• :.v-“;' . i. V-• •••' « * *^ ‘ . .■*•, ■■•-*■ ...- l'** y ; ,-Ci:iT-*.. v»'.'.■' . •- . .,•. ••.••■ * - i * - ^ ;..c; ii:>5 i i--iV5v„--J:v:.vr..'y, •■ .'.':*'*r \.:yr ■ .(I... u *<n . m- ARNr%/ rONK/ife Wi.,, P't'-C-i-' Av.' - • ■■'■ -U ; ■ .%-; ■. • a •: •■ ... *• .‘., ;*--^r ■ * ;vi: RUN DATE BATCH 002 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 05-117-23 33 0003 00755 TOTKANA RO J A L ROGERS JOHN E A LOIS A ROGERS 755 TONKANA RO LONG LAKE m 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORh«.*ON SYSTEM PROPERTY OWERS LIST 38 05-117-23 36 0005 00766 TONKAHA RO FRANCES L LARSON FRANCES L LARSON 766 TOTA(AHA RO LONG LAKE HN 55356 REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 6 38 05-117-23 36 0006 00750 TONKAHA RO HENRY E BENSON ETAL HENRY E BENSON 750 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE 55356 38 05-117-23 36 0007 PROP ADOR 00760 TQMCAHA RO 0»tlER NAME ARTHUR J BERTELSON ET AL TAXPAYER ARTHUR J A BETTY M BERTELSON NAHE/AOOR 12817 BURHELL DR MINNETONKA MN 55363 38 05-117-23 36 0008 00770 TONKAHA RO MAUREEN LOUISE LAJOY MAUREEN LOUISE LAJOY 770 TOMCAHA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 36 0009 00776 TONKAHA RO AN^4 C FISHER A»#4 C FISHER 776 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE HN 55356 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 05-117-23 36 0010 00780 TONKAHA RO GABRIEL E JABBOUR GABRIEL E JABBOUR 780 TONCAHA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0001 00801 TOTKAWA RO J E A L B MOORE JOHN E A LOURDES B MOORE 801 TONKANA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 002 00008 ^ 1388 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE/RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPER!^TAXATylN, TQ JHE B/ST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE -Ji3h ! , V. • • •' ■ • i Certificate of Cu:v.-> fer Arthur J. Eert-rl^yr. of t*t 13, P^rUn't ?olrt^B«r Cvrw^ . .. . ” *• t v;ir i • * ? :r;-- t . • ti of a r.:rv- . t::-; he. .::jorIen rV L-t I'-, *• Vt T.‘:= L‘vision ”, ioc^t\Q*t »U oxl-tior tui;i:r '.- . ii 4^#ri «rt fUrfBtrf: T» sUotJ or «r»- Scale: 1” = 4C Date : 11-11-Sl o : IrcR c2rK2r Orrjrr ?. f'! f’:i If/' '' »urvo/'.r ;'l-.:.r*.r Lon .. /. . Mr-'-r-vi #1388 i Scale :•;.*••li-u-it ^,.yfi. /so »7 © JJ HARDCOVER CALCULATION jfflgjft SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) I Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House ^ ^ LENGTH B. Garage . c. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING 6. Other TJL WIDTH ^ V "7.00 X _______ X___UL X ______ X X_______ X 7 X _______ X____L • 120 S.P. S.F, S.F( S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _______ S.F. S.F. ________ S.F. S.F. ’ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. \yj)i “Total Hardcover in Zone - Total Property Area in Zone m 4(TI x lOO - .F. 0 • F. lU HARDCOVH CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Harocovei? in Zone — A. H ouse .X - T2 0 ••LENGTH X WIDTH X ■ • ‘X SB • X - — m Garage ?v X .VO - <=1^0 f J c. D riveway .<?X ’2.00 - / caC> X 0.. Sidewalk X - X - « X f 1 E. Patio / D eck ' - X ■ . « F.Landscape ’ r _ X /s"- • areas UNDERLAIN BY X • « PLASTIC SHEETING X ■ «- ‘ X • » 55. '■ •— * _________ G. Other X - S. ^ .. T Total H ardcover in Zone * • ••• s.i S.F. . S.F. . s.fV S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Total Property Area in Zone ■r.~. : I i.F. m \T] •ffTl/.ry/g X 100 - v-i:;.; CPt/ei^ c/et/c*^/aY4p>^3 tA^ij/ S^y LaJ*^ \ /i^uJ O J^/IM ) ~ /rx/:i n ' ‘1) iJ/(/€ - ^to fJO'^trl /\ur^kip!ce ^iCtveuj^ F^^aaJ ^ I. Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & .Associates Engineers & Architects Otto G Sonesroa PE Room W ftotene. PE Jojepti C Andfft*. PE BtMfcJO A Lentjefg. PE Picnaw E Tuinet. PE Jjm« C 0(JOn PE Glenn R Cooti. PE Thomas E Noytrv PE Roben G Schuntnt PE Maiwi L ioraa. PE Keith A Gofdon PE RKhM W Foster. PE Donald C Btxgaiot. PE Jerry A Booioon PE Mark A Hanson PE TeJ K FfM. PE Michael T Ravxmana PE RDOCri « PteflWe. PE Oavid O Loskota. PE Thomas W Peterson. PE M<haei C Lynch. PE James R .Maiand. PE Kenneth P Andersorx PE kWh A Bachmann PE Mark R RORI PE Itooen C Russet AiA Trsomas E Angut PE HOMWd A San«o« PE Dan«l 1 Edgerron. PE Mark A Sevi PE i»h*p J Caswea. PE Mark O VLWhs. PE Thorrras R AndersoaAlA Gary F Rysanoer PE Charles A Er<kson Leo M Pa<A«iSky Hanan -M C^ton Susan M EDerirt. CPA o April 13. 1989 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, HN 55323 Attn* Mr. Mike Gaffron Re* File No. 139-1388 Charles Bertelson Dear Mike. We have reviewed the proposed garage construction at 760 Tonkawa Road. The garare will be constructed over a drain tile that provides drainage for County Road #135. We would recommend that a swale be constni.i:ted to the north into an existing drainagev over the sewer easement. The elimination of the tile will increase the drainage down the swale. We Tould expect additional maintenance requirements along the swale as a result of the tile removal. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, Bo»»-cxroO. E ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. C> . Cook GRC*;.! 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 53113 • 612-636-4600 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: May 1989 Subject: #1389 Mr. & Mrs. James Mardock, 880 Dakota Avenue - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-lA, Single family, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for after-the-fact variance to rebuild upper level deck within required rear yard setback area. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/18/89 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes 4/17/89 Exhibit C - Proposed Resolution Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits 4/10/89 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of April 10, 1989. Briefly, the applicants replaced the pre-existing deck attached to the rear of their house, not aware that a permit was required. The new deck is in approximately the same location as the old one, and is approximately the same size as the old one. The deck is 27' from the rear lot line where a 50* setback is required. Due to the site layout and nature of the neighboring properties, none of the neighboring properties will be affected by this deck. Planning Commission, at their April 17th meeting, recommended 6-0 to approve the after-the-fact variance. II Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE NO. 1389 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 4/18/89 TO:Mr. & Mrs. James Mardock 880 Dakota Avenue Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: OF APPLICATION: VarianceTYPE DATE OF MEETING: 4/17/89 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Conmission recomends the following: Approval as submitted NOTES AMD SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission recommended approval, finding that this deck replaces a previous deck in the same location and will have no significant effect OTy neighboring properties. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, May 8, 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. MINUTBS OF THE PIANMIH6 COMMISSION MBBTING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING PILE #1388-BERTBLSON CONTINnED that he had no intention to do any of those things. Planning Commissioner Brown told Mr. Bertelson that he would have no objections to a three-car garage, as long as it was one story. Mr. Bertelson explained that the garage would tuck into the hillside. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he would approve a two story garage that was 24* x 36 Kelley interjected that Mr. Bertelson could build a 24* x 24* and put a car or boat on the second level and still have 1/2 of that level for his woodworking. Planning Commissioner Cohen said that in his opinion, the structure was too lai.ge and would set a precedent if approved. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked if there would not be a problem with the garage interfering with the catch basin and storm sewer? Gaffron explained that the City Engineer had taken a look at the situation, and felt there would be no problem with rerouting the drainage. 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 Moos, to recommend approval of only a 24* x 24* 2- story structure. Brown indicated that he would allow the applicant the ability to build the structure up to the 1,000 s.f. standard. Kelley pointed out that 24* x 24* would allow the .applicant more than 1,000 s.f. Motion, Ayes»3, Johnson, Hanson, Cohen, Nay. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend denial of the accessory structure in excess of 1,000 s.f. Hanson stated th^^ allowing only 1,000 s.f. would result in poor utilization floor space. He said Mr. Bertelson had a unique situation because the topography necessitates a 2-story walkout situation for the structure and the need to store 3 vehicles is easiest all on the same floor. Johnson stated that by allowing the 24* x 40* structure, the applicant would be very limited should he decide to add on to his house in the future. Motion, Ayes»5, Hanson, V4 #1389 JAMBS ft CHARLENE MARDOCX 880 DAKOTA AVENUE AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. TO 8:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were liXy noted. Mr. and Mrs. Mardock were present for this application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this application involved an after-the-fact request for a rear setback variance for a deck. The new deck is MIHDTBS OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING PILE #1389-MARDOCX CONTINUED located in approximately the same location as the pre-existing deck. Planning Commissioner Hanson stated that the Mardocks were neighbors of his. He said that at the time he purchased his lot, in 1976, the Mardock home was existing and did have a deck at that time. He confirmed that that deck was located as Gaffron had estimated. He further stated that due to the peculiarity of the lot and the location of the wetland, the deck provided the Mardocks with usable space without affecting neighboring properties. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend approval of the after- the-fact setback variance for a deck. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1390 U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS 2845 WEAR CIRCLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 7:55 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Dan Ressler, Network Facilities Engineer for U.S. West Communications, was present for this matter. Chairman Kelley asked why screening had to occur behind the utility structure rather than in front. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that was due to the need to access the structure to maintain it. Mr. Ressler added that as long as the structure could be accessed from the road, he could screen up to a 4* width. Kelley asked about a barrier to prevent cars from running into the structure? Mr. Ressler said that the pylons would be an eyesore and their proposal calls for a ditch to be placed in front of the structure. Kelley inquired as to the size of the arborvitae being planted and suggested that they be as high as the structure. Mr. Ressler indicated that they would be willing to comply with the City's wishes. Kelley recommended planting 3 additional trees and making them 3* high. 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 Johnson, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for U.S. West Communications and that 3' high arborvitae be planted. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays*0, Motion passed. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE #1389 WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. James Mardock (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 880 Dakota Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 4, Johnston's Rearrangement of Albee's Long Lake Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property")? and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for an afer-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a second story deck located 27.3* from the rear lot line where a 50* rear setback is normally required for such a structure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1389. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Swingle Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 17, 1989, and recommended approval of the after- the-fact variance based upon the following findings: A) The deck replaces a previous deck which was in poor condition. B) The new deck is located in approximately the same location as the old deck, and is no closer to the rear lot line than the old deck. C) Due to the site layout and topography, in addition to a low area directly to the rear of the property, no neighboring properties will be slgnfleantly affected by this deck. Page 1 of 4 4* The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the after-the-fact variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community* The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not mert.ly serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS ^ Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants an after-the-fact variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a deck located 27.3* from the rear lot line where s 50* rear lot line setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants shall obtain an after-the-fact building permit and shall pay the required after-the-fact investigation fee in addition to the normal building permit 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 8, 1990). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically tr nate any authority herein, and shall be punishable ^ a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicants have rec'd, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 2 of 4 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of May, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) 8S. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of May, 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 Froa: Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator April 10, 1989 Subject: #1389 Mr. & Mrs. James Mardock, 880 Dakota Avenue - After-the-Fact Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IA, Single family, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for after-the-fact variance to rebuild upper level deck within required rear yard setback area. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - S irvey Exhibit E - Letter to Applicants Dated 2/1/89 Exhibit F - Letter to Applicants Dated 12/20/88 Exhibit G - Deck Building Plan Exhibit H - Old Assessor's Record Card Variance Required - Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B); Rear Setback Required 50’ Pre-Existing 27' + Proposed 27.3' Variance 22.7' (45.4%) Pertinent Facts - 1. The applicants replaced an existing second story deck above the walk out level in fall 1988. This deck is in approximately the same location as a pre-existing deck which was in poor condition. Upon discovering the new deck. Building Inspector Lyle Oman informed the applicants that a building permit was required and review of the building permit applicatiuxi ultimately showed the need for a variance. 2. The existing house, and presumably tle old deck, were constructed in 1972, when thi^ pioperty was zoned R-lA, single family, 2 acre minimum lot size with the same 50' front and rear and 30' side setbacks currently in effect. Staff has been able to find no documentation that a variance was granted to build on the lot, however a .^ailding permit was issued and the house was built in 1972. Note that the subdivision had been filed in 1948, prior to adoption of any specific zoning requirements. The existing lot size is approximately 0.5 acre. Zoning File #1389 April 10, 1989 Page 2 of 2 3. The deck is located 27.3* from the rear lot line, and just 50* from the front lot line at the cul-de-sac. The property to the immediate east (or rear) of the property is low and likely not buildable. This is not a designated wetland. The properties to either side are developed with single family residences, neither of which would be significantly impacted by the deck in question. 4. The property is in the 500-1,000* lakeshore setback zone. Existing hardcover including the deck is about 17.6% where 35% would be allowed. No hardcover variance is necessary. 5. The new deck is about 12'x20* (240 s.f.) plus stairway. The old deck dimensions have not been verified, but the City Assessor*s records indicate an odd-shaped deck about 10'xl6*-plus. From the shape of the old deck, it is likely the new deck is no closer to the rear lot line than the old deck. Discussion - As we have seen in many similar situations in recent years, decks constructed prior to the ready availability of treated lumber are falling into disrepair and being replaced, often without permits. The Mardocks have been very cooperative in making the appropriate after-the-fact application upon being notified that a permit was necessary. The proposed deck would appear to have no effect on neighboring propertiois, and replaces a deck that previously existed in the same location. Staff has received no comments from neighboring property owners. Note that Planning Commissioner Jim Hanson is the abutting neighbor to the south. Staff Recofluiendation - Based on the above noted facts, plus the concerns associated with a pre-existing patio door that would walk out into space if some sozt of deck is not provided. Planning Commission could recommend approval based on the finding that the deck merely replaces a pre-existing deck. CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original applicati After-the-Fact Fees. (Double applica Receipt- PROPKBTY LOCATIOH Site Address 0 #4a 9 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please check one - Property X abstract or _ _ torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on CITr OF CFO^O required survey. ^Ivn,-.rr OFFICE APPLICANT Name -J fV\a rAf)(i^ Phone (home) I C* _ _ Phone (work) Address; ^ ^0 £bJCo^Q City; V- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name SO <m-e_ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City;Zip; Date Property Acquired ^(month/year) I (do) (C^q noQ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District L(L^ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Y Present Use of Property |p. Iaj_ _ _ _ _Residential Other (specify) DESGRTt>noH OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost %JjJl£jQ_ Describe revest in detail; miYov /^^cK ChuiH) 0 hacJ^ nf)USi^ /•>>'• j v7i/>m -fvQ\f^ ojJpfTi^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setbac>v Variances ( /y/A Lot Width Front _ _ Hardcover Side )( Rear) Other HART'"HIP rV>i»VH if .•%v;4 Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; ^ 'X \^i ^ ]ocot-^& /pss 'i^Q.\ £j<5' “^r^tvy back^ iiAP • DBSCRIPTIOH OP UNUSUAL PROPBRT7 C0NDII10NS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS IT. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Pi:rance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return ariidress (u^*3 address labels obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 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 othei* persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 3. 5. 8 The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature ____________________ Date______________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the ‘Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the Information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Jf^owledge. Applicant's Signature IL OWNERS SIG21ATURR The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application . ci further authorizas reasonable entry onto t}«,e property by Cifcy staff, consu-tanta, agents. Commission members, and Courcil members for purposes investiga tion and verification of this request Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commissiot. Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present t ' all scheduled review meetings of the Plannii? " Commission and Counci’ . If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled” yt ting, please make .* _angements ho have an .Authorized agent attend in yo: * place and to advise the Building 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. / /r^ n \- oJ^ RUN DATE 03/1S/89 BATCH 002 30 26-118-23 33 0001 PROP ADDR 01686 LONO LAKE BLVO 0»tCR NAME J N GARDNER A A L GARDNER TAXPAYER ANITA L GARDNER NAME/ADDR 1686 LONO LAKE BLVO LONG LAKE m S5356 HEtMEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 38 26-118-23 33 0017 00920 DAKOTA AVE LECH GENE GAHRON I NIFE LECH A NANCY GAHRON 920 DAKOTA AVE LONO LAKE M4 55356 REPORT NO. P1635601 PAGE 6 38 26-118-23 33 0018 00900 DAKOTA AVE P L JOHNSTON ETAL THOMAS MAKOUSKY 900 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0019 PROP AOOR OOBBO DAKOTA AVE OMCR NAME J S MARDOCK ACS HARDOCK TAXPAYER J S HARDOCK ACS HARDOCK NAHE/ADDR 880 DAKOTA AVE LONO LAKE HN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0020 00886 DAKOTA AVE JAMES F HAf^SON A HIFE JAMES F A LESLIE ANN HaNSON 886 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE m 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0021 0088B DAKOTA AVE D A C HOODHARD DAVID A CYNTHIA HOODHARD 888 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR 0»«CR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 26-11B-2S 33 0022 00900 DAKOTA AVE S R KNUTSON A J A KNUTSON SCOTT R A JULIE A KNUTSON 90B DAKOTA AVE N LONO LAKE M4 55356 TOTAL BATCH 002 00009 38 26-118-23 33 0023 00910 DAKOTA AVE T A K STEINKE THOMAS A A KARI A STEINKE 910 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0029 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HILLIAH R A BARBARA A PEARCE HILLIAM A BARBARA PEARCE PO BOX 9300 MPLS m 55660 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPEJJTY TAXATION, TO T«f BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. C CO CO c Certificate of Survey for Char Mardock of Lot 4, Johnston's Rearrangement I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the east line of Lot 4, Johnston's Rearrange ment of Albee's Long Lake Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and -fhe location of any existing buildings and an existing deck In relation to the East line of said lot. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. Scale Date 0 1" = 40' 3-2-89 Iron marker COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Gronberg LicMark Engineers. Long Lake, >erg Lic.-^No. 1 2755 Land Surveyors and Planner Minnesota CITY OF ORONO CITY of ORONO Post Offics Box G6*Crystal Bay, MinnesoU 55323• Municipal Officss On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 1, 1989 James Mardock 880 Dakota Avenue Long Lake# NN 55356 Re: After-the-Fact Deck Permit Application Dear Mr. Mardock: The Building & Zoning Department is in receipt of your application for an after-the-fact permit to allow replacement of the deck at the rear of your house. Your deck is considered as a second story deck, rather than a grade level deck, and therefore is required to meet the principal structure setbacks from all property lines. For the LR-IA, 2-acre minimum lot size zoning district in which your house is located, the front and rear setbacks are 50' and the side setbacks are 30*. In reviewing our files, we were able to locate surveys of neighboring properties and sketched in your lot in the approximate location. On that sketch, we have shown the required setbacks, which leaves only a small area in which you could legally construct additions or decks. We are not able to verify your house location on the property without a survey however, and must require that as a minimum, you provide a certificate of survey showing the actual location of the deck construction in relation to the lot lines. Although your surveyor may be able to show this merely by depicting the rear of the house, it is likely that he will have to do a full survey of the property. In the event that your survey verifies that the deck encroaches on one of the required setback areas, you will have to file a variance application with the City. I am attaching a copy of that application form for your use. Please contact me as soon as your survey is completed. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth at 473-7357. Sincerely Michael P. Gaffr;—, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/tln Enclosure - Sketch & Variance Application cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Lyle Oman, Field Inspector BUILDING & ZONING - 473*7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 j A I CITY I I 1■ ORONCj CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 20^ 1988 James Mardock 880 Dakota Avenue Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Deck construction without a building permit at 880 Dakota Avenue Dear Mr. Mardock: It has come to the attention of this office that you have recently constructed a deck at the above referenced property. This letter is to notify you '^hat a building permit is required for the construction of deckt'. Enclosed is a building permit application. Please fill it out and return it to the City with the required items before January 3» 1989. If this deadline is not met, the City may issue citations. If you have any questions or if you have a problem meeting this deadline, please feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman, Field Inspector LO/tln cc: Thomas J. Jacobs, Building & Fire Inspector Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator BUILDING a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A RNANCE - 473*7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 •i« ...... I i . O CA t --j - - - ^ ."‘T* ■;:•■ . Jf c, ^— Pec-k n- "iI'h- /'m i$roK/rtA ijfyf. V ,.PT'o^ \/l-e(^. / / ’■•::.V'rv • ’^J^OsT' /*^ ^/^ouk I }rl^r ------------- ■, •fl* ..............^rv.r^, *. »■ Cji. • •‘-:- ^u$ e. ^ •*. -f0 .' i 5’£T /.•r /<. '" ■ '‘';7'W?Sg^^ „. o/rti'o jJifs.jM' MRCft - RMQ Q ^ —^ - '. ao/t TVMl IK IK I IK 2 t/L«S>' •^^' Vv/ CLAM 1 2 2 4^17 ■ "^.ry. V AGE__________________________________ ‘ '».^^ ‘ INSFECTiON DATE ^ f* ^ v.- . . . ATfRAISAL DATE f ^Q ^ \ SALE DATE______________ • 1 ■ t 1 ■ M -i -vV‘ ' '4^ : ix ■ ■ / ^ '' r ■ -V? 1 \ ■ m' ■ IMPROVEMENTS . r.-' / -. dimensions - SAStc 3Lx »- - - jj'► a «•'••*»* 'x-^. ij>- TOTAL • EORCMES - SALCOWflf K OTHER Sy^M^ ’ J2js Is£^i^l **■ X ^ • 7 4. XIlJLL* \L ion livy i 9 9 ri QMi Jjl 7r * '> TOTALS 9(‘?VC. Tos Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froas Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Dates May 4, 1989 Subjects #1392 Kim Edwards, 2450 Woodhaven Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Zoning District - RR-IB Application - After-the-fact conditional use permit for fill and grading of yard. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Discussion - Planning Commission Action Notice 4/18/89 Planning Commission Minutes 4/17/89 Letter from Applicant & Estimate of Tree Expenses Proposed Resolution Memo & Exhibits 4/12/89 Please review the memo and exhibits of April 12, 1989. The applicant has, over the last few years, brought in fill to raise the elevation of his front and easterly side yard area. The City Engineer reviewed the site and felt that the grading and fill has not caused any problems to neighboring properties, nor to the general run-off patterns in the area. He did recommei d removal of the fill that has been placed over the lot line onto the neighboring property to the east, that slopes be graded back at a 4:1 slope, and that no additional fill be brought into the site. Glenn noted that any more fill to the north of the existing fill would start to cause a potential backup of a swale running from west to east behind the house. The applicant notes that he has brought in all the fill that he intends to bring in, and plans to finish grade it and landscape it as soon as possible. Planning Commission reviewed this application at their April 17th meeting and recommended approval on a vote of 5-1, subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove all fill that has been placed on neighboring property. 2. Finish grade the entire area (all slopes to be 4:1 or flatter). 3. Place erosion controls until revegetation is established. 4. Seed or sod Immediately after final grading. Zoning File #1392 May A, 1989 Page 2 of 2 5. No additional fill may be brought onto the property without a future conditional use permit. 6. Applicant to plant at least 20 6* high pine trees on the site within one year of approval date. Planning Commission Chairman Kelley voted against the recommendation, on the basis that he felt that the requirement for the tree planting was not warranted. Applicant has submitted a letter and estimate from Otten Brothers for the tree requirement recommended by the Planning Commission. The $6,000+ expenditure required within one year would in staff's opinion be an unusual burden to place on an applicant, and staff would question whether such an extensive tree planting requirement is legitimately related to the after- the-fact grading permit. Staff Recomnendation - Staff recommends that Council grant after-the-fact conditional use permit approval for the grading and fill, per conditions 1-5 noted above. Council may wish to consider revising the tree planting requirement after discussing this matter with the applicant. Per Council's recent directive for all after-the-fact permits, the after-the-fact investigation fee, in addition to the normal land alteration permit fee, shall be collected when the land alteration grading permit is issued (permit fee $100.00, after-the-fact investigation fee $100.00). A resolution has been drafted for Council review. The resolution reflects the Planning Commission recommendation regarding the trees. That specific condition can be revised ir Council so directs. CITY OF ORONO ^•O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONXIIG FILE HO. 1392 HOTICE OF PLAHHIHG COMMISSIOH ACTIOH 473-7357 Date of Notice: 4/18/89 TO:Rim Edwards 2450 Woodhaven Drive COPIES TO: Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING:4/17/89 VOTE: 5 For 1 Against Planning CoBBd.8sion recOTmends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below HOTBS AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Remove all fill that has been placed on neighboring property. Finish grade entire area (all bank slopes to be 4:1 or flatter). Place erosion controls until revegetation is established. Seed or sod immediately after final grading. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. No additional fill may be brought into the property without a future Conditional Use Permit. Additional condition recommended by Planning Commission: Applicant to plant at least twenty 6* high pine trees on the site within one year of approval date. Minority opinion (Kelley) did not feel requirement for tree planting was warranted. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, May 8, 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. MIHDTBS OF THE PLAMNING COIflllSSIOR MBBTIMG APRIL 17, 1989 #1391 TERRY SADLER 1396 BALDOR PARK ROAD COHDITIOHAL USE PBRMITAARIAHCE PUBLICE HEARIRG 8:51 P.N. TO 8:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this item until the applicant could appear before the Planning Commission. Motion Ayes“6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1392 KIM EDWARDS 2450 HOODHAVBH DRIVE AFTER-THE-FACT COHDITIOHAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HBARIH6 8:53 P.M. TO 9:00 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were V^^^ly noted. Mr. Edwards was present for this application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mr. Edwards was seeking an after-the-fact conditional use permit for grading and filling. The filling has occurred over the years and some of it was required by the City to protect footings. In one area there has been a^r much as 5* of fill brought in and the area is now fairly level and a bit higher than the road. The City Engineer has looked at the project and feels that the existing fill poses no problem. However, there should be no more filling northward due to possible impact of an existing drainageway crossing from west to east behind the house. Chairman Kelley suggested that the remaining piles of dirt be removed. Mr. Edwards stated that some of the piles were boulders. He wished to put in a retaining wall along the driveway and fill in approximately 3* and plant shrubs. Kelley asked Mr. Edwards how much of the fill he actually brought in. Gaffron indicated that Mr. Edwards was responsible for all of the fill to the east side of the house. Mr. Edwards said that he was informed by the City that rhe septic system was built in a relatively low area and needed fill around it to keep runoff water away from it. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of this application, subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer. As a further condition, it is recommended that the applicant plant twenty 6* pine trees in the filled areas within one year. It is further recommended that no more fill be allowed without application and approval of another Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Calhoon, a neighbor to the east of Mr. Edwards, said that he would prefer to not see any fill extend onto his property. He mHDT^ OP THE PIANNIH6 COIOaSSION MEBTIliG APRIL 17, 1989 Z0NIB6 PILE il392-EDHARDS COHTINUED would like his property brought back to the original grade. Gaffron pointed out that staff recommendation addressed this issue. Kelley asked what the slopr* on the east property line would be. Gaffron replied that 4:1 xt being recommended. Kelley asked about water flowage. Gaffron said that the expectation is that runoff would not change. Motion, Ayes*5, Kelley, Nay due to disagreement with the requiring that applicant put in twenty 6* pine trees. #1393 NASHINGTOH SCIEMTIFIC INDUSTRIES 2605 NATZATA BOULEVARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:47 P.N. TO 9:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Joe Pallansch, a Representative from Washington Scientific Industries, was present for this matter, as was Mr. David Ronnei from Delta Environmental Consultants. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this portion of this application had been tabled because this phase of the application required warmer temperatures. The applicant will be "thin spreading" approximately 800 cubic yards of contaminated soils over 2 acre area. The process will take 90 days to complete. Mr. Pallansch has provided staff with erosion control plans and the MPCA had sent a letter providing the applicant with directions as to how to fulfill the remainder of the application. Mr. Ronnei reported that the MPCA had requested that additional soil be excavated along the trench walls and be thin spread with the other soil. Chairman Kelley inquired as to who would make the determination that the soil was uncontaminated? Mr. Ronnei said that he would submit soil samples to the MPCA and they would provide them with a final closure of the area. Kelley asked if the site was adequately posted with signs warning the public of the contaminated soil? Mr. Ronnei said that a silt containment fence would be placed around the area. He informed Kelley that the solvent in the soil posed no problems to the public, in a contact, sense. It was only a threat in large concentrations in drinking water. He said they would be willing to post signs if necessary. The concentrations in the soil are very low. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that there was an additional condition of approval. She said that the City would ask for a Developers Agreement and the posting of some form of security to assure that the final grading and seeding will occur at the right time. Mabusth said that even though the City was certain the Washington Scientific would follow through, it would be inconsistent with policy to forego that requirement. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. To; Mike GaffronAsst. Planning & Zoning Administrator From: Kim Edwards 2450 Wcodhaven Long Lake Date: April 27th 1989 Subjoct: Response to Planning Commission Meeting of April 17th In regards to the reccomcndatlons of my property; Upon approval from the council, I havo intent of removing the fill that extends on to the neighboring property as re quested and adjussting to the desired grade. Howevei, the request for twenty 6ft. tall trees within a years time, I find to be an unrealistic and unnecessary request. Vy intent Is to plant trees, however, tho expense of the size and time limit is impossible for me to meet. Enclosed you will find a bid for the trees requested in the amount of S6,o34.90 from a local nursery. I have no means financially to adhere to the request and ask that the size and time frame bo dropped from the roccowmendation to the council. Sincerely, Kim Edwards ' --r^***: -r -'••••--s* • . ■ *v ■“* ......................... • ^ , .. ............................ .................. ... *•“ i !...... ‘ ,.■•••• ' • . L.. ‘...y,. .:v’ *'V-- ■ - •' • \ ^ • ■' ..... ^ . .- , . V-; '.V. V -V • ••' • - '.^i “ ■ ; . *'V*:v"^f* • •■• ■■ : ■ t >. .•. -«S53aS?B" k'. a M Ma.r4n^ I -XVM. ^^Phwir473-5423 :f^p^ ____ -f cusTOMBirs oMoan no. > .■ • :r;r::'3rrK?s:^r:^ PNONB ^**.V T • 1 '' T.^ OATI I^z_^irr6.-r.-icnrx . SOU) BY r ->CA8H - C.OJ).^.CHAm^ONACCL--s.«n .•-• -»tjr • , • '*— ..T" MDStBCrOJiT^ OUT^ .._7. _ - • 1 ■' • V *. •: ‘. :• r.. .. '*.’-.^ :.vv —..... .... - •••.. .>.V” -■ ^ . ' • <^*'' •• ■ • ■•• ••... ■} • ■ • . - • • . . ;-•■ '. •« .’ • * • * •. - . • :’ . ••. -' - ■.. - ;• • .*»»--••. -■, . , ..■ >^v ■ ■. •y-r*.^;.-T, . • • '• ............... • ; : ■ ^ r-i • *•’ •; ■; . ' ■•' * ,' -*'*,*» *N . ■ • . ■ • • .*•* ,». ..... ._ ■ .■'. i-raji. .' r-.^zz HTiSsW^? Sl lA C, (^ i~ ••-f- '-.IT. S^=v^.gJjg.;^=:?rV£:^ •'rc-rr3tW fg|p|g|^yja£5^^ :<Swaf3t^ • • Ji- i^;:i totaT? 5T^*v «• ■» » •. .... Ti^ r.'KT^Lii' smMm I !.• »; ,, .V* .‘ V . ' ^!. 'v*.- v- y":V-.-v^*‘*-. « • • • •* . . • • .4.*.|.j ^ I•. . . . ,.•_. .•:•.• ■. - .,* • . 'I . mod . . ... -.amoun.,,. • «T« ••• «-« ^ A RBSOLOnON 6RANTI116 AH APTKR-THB-FACT COHDITIOHAL USB PERMIT PBR MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVIST'iN 19 PILE #1392 WHEREAS, Kim Edwards (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2450 Woodhaven Drive located within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2, BlocJc 1, Levering's Woodhaven, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for an after-the-fact conditional use permit to permit placement of fill and grading in excess of 100 cubic yards per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1392. 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 and recommended approval, based on the following findings: A) The fill and grading that has ta)cen place will have no significant impact on the neighboring properties and will not change the rates or amounts of run-off. B) The property was previously relatively low. The average 4* depth of fill is not out of character with the neighborhood. C) No additional fill is proposed. D) Applicant has agreed to finish grading per the City Engineer's recommendation, and intends to landscape the filled area. Page 1 of 4 E) The amount of filling that has occurred is approximately 4,500 to 5,000 cubic yards. F) The fill that has been placed appears to be acceptable clean fill. 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 affect of the proposed use on the health, safety# and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting this after-the-fact conditional use permit to allow placement of fill and site grading will not be be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND C'niDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants an after-the-fact conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to permit the placement and grading of fill, subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove all fill that has been placed on neighboring property. 2. Finish grade entire area (all bank slopes to be 4:1 or flatter). 3. Place erosion controls until revegetation is established. 4. Seed or sod immediately after final grading. 5. No additional fill may be brought onto the property without an additional conditional use permit. 6. Applicant shall pay the standard after-the-fact investigation fee when the grading permit is issued. The permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of finish grading. 7. Applicant to plant at least 20 6* high pine trees on the site within one year of approval date. 8. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a permit within one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (May 8, 1990). 9. 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. 10. The undersigned owner has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. May, 1989. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 19.. Proa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: April 12, 1989 Subject: #1392 Kim Edwards, 2450 Woodhaven Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Sonlng District - RR-IB Application - Request for conditional use permit to cover lot grading in excess of 100 cubic yards. (Fill has occurred over last 9 years.) List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Sho’.;ing Current Grades East of House Survey Submitted With Building Permit in 1980 Staff Calculation of Pill Amount Site Plan Compilation Showing Origin “ontours Letters S Documentation of Past Fill : -rading Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, 20 & 21 Pertinent Code Section - Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19, 20 & 21 (copies attached) deal with filling and grading. Generally, fill not necessary for protection of footings or directly related to house construction and exceeding an amount of 100 cubic yards, requires a conditional use permit. Pertinent Facts - 1. Amoun^ of fill brought in to date is approximately 4,500-5,000 cubic yards. Applicant has continually graded the new fill as it is delivered to the site, hence the filling has not been a general neighborhood eyesore. 2. The applicant is the second or third owner of the property, and has been attempting in the last few years to finish the house itaelf in order to obtain the final Certificace of Occupancy. This house was started in 1981 and the original builder apparently ran out of money, hence when the current property owner purchased it, it was still unfinished. 3. When the original building permit was issued, it was apparent that fill was needed around the foundation and mound system area, as well as the front yard, in order to protect the house from drainage problems. However, the fill generally to the east of the driveway has not been considered by staff as necessary to protect the house, therefore a conditional use permit is required. Zoning File #1392 April 12r 1989 Page 2 of 2 4. City Engineer Glenn Cook has reviewed the site, and although his written comments have not been received as of this writing, he generally indicated the fill in place is not a problem. The fill extends approximately 5-10 feet into the neighboring property to the east. That property owner has had conversations with the applicant regarding the fill, and also contacted staff regarding this application. The neighboring property owner says he has no concerns about the fill as long as it has no significant impact on his property. Given that the drainage always flowed towards his property, and the rate and amount of drainage is not expected to increase, we would not expect any detrimental effect. Glenn suggested that the slopes at the east lot line and the north end of the fill be tapered at a slope of 4:1 or flatter, and that no additional fill be placed on the property since extension of the fill northward would start to affect the drainageway crossing from west to east behind applicant’s house. The applicant has stated intends to bring in no additional fill, only to "finish grade that which is in place, and seed or sod it. He also intends to place trees on the filled area. Staff RecoHBendation - Given that the grading and filling that has occurred appears to have little impact on rates or amounts of run-off to the neighboring properties, staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: Finish grade per pending recommendations of the City Engineer, which may include: A) reduction of final bank slopes; B) placement of erosion control measures until re-vegetation is complete; C) seeding or sodding immediately after the final grading; D) grading may be required to include removal of fill that over the property line to the east. 2. Applicant will be allowed to bring no i^ditional fill onto the property unless a future conditional use permTETis granted. 3- — -- - - - - - -- - - - -/ 5"-/ r-ie ■ -V.-■ J J.,; i . ■ .:. 1 CITY OP OROMO - GENERAL LAND USE APPH||^£rO PROPERTY LOCATION //^ _ __ _ _ Site Address - - - - Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) v3 3//^A'lOC^OS^- - - Please check one - Property _ _ _ _ abstract or _ _ _ _ _ torrens? (for Conditional Use Applications only) CF ORO^O FI^Ar^CE OFFICE X Uw»v<.vv\/v\/ Please attach legal description to application if not included qi ^£,v Ti-;/’- Neune _ Address on required survey. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT Phone (home) Name _______________^Phone (worlO I- Address Q<AZ? CO£T^jU>^___________ City OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)__- - - - - - --- - - - Phone _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City _ _ _ _ _ __ Zip_ _ _ _ _ Date Property Acquired __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ (month/year) I (do) (do not) 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 Residential accessory Use Institutional (church, school, etc.) Duplex Credit/Bldg Commercial/Industrial Use Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain V' Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more^^ ' ' Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 of lakeshore _ _ _ _ PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLl Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $250.00 Rezcning _ _ _ _ $100.00 Appeals _ _ _ _ Other - see fee schedule After-the-Fact Fee $100.00 a) $150.00 b) $150.00 c) $250.00 d) $200.00 f) PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property _ _ _ Residential Other (specify DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: m REQUIRED SUBMITTRLS 1. Completed Application Form. . , . ^ j .yS. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you can obtain ^ this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government 3. jjDCLl <-n na^h nf the names mi th e above iis^~wiT:mio return addrp ss. Certificate of survey. 5. i/Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. plam if appH ralvH--tg5e staff fdr-requicemeiitg ). 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. 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 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _" Th^ap^ican^^ereby agrees to provide all information requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees ana/°r unusual expenses incurred in review of this "’^^i^iVs/herthe information supplied is tru^and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. \_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Applicant’s signature —-- - - - - - - Date - --- - - - - - - - - ThT^ntr*^T^y acknowledges and agrees to this authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verifl^cati* of this request. Owner’s signature ^_ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _ _ _IT Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to atteri 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. O 2 2-639.82 (C.S. 76 ''‘264/SO/Tes .... —-------------LOWG LAtfP RtM DATE OS/14/89 BATCH 006 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 21 38 33-118-23 41 0003 38 33-118-23 41 0004 38 33-118-23 41 0005 PROP AOOR 00225 NILLOH DR N 02400 HOOOHAVEN DR 02450 HOOOHAVEN DR OFMER NAME J A L DILLMAN F H JR A 8 R CALHOON K A EOHARDS A B K HALTER TAXPAYER JAMES D DILLMAN FRANCIS JR A DONNIE CALHOON KIM EDNARDS A BONNIE HALTER NAHE/AODR 225 NILLOH DR NO 2400 NOODHAVEN DR 2450 NOODHAVEN LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 41 0006 38 33-118-23 41 0007 38 33-118-23 41 0008 PROP ADDR 02500 NOODHAVEN DR 02550 NOODHAVEN DR 02565 NOODHAVEN DR OHNER NAME KEENAN 6 RICHARDSON ET AL R LEE RIDDLE ETAL NAM BASHORE TAXPAYER KEENAN RICHARDSON A R LEE RIDDLE NEAL K A MARY D BASHORE NAME/AOOR JEAN LEDELL RICHARDSON 2550 NOODHAVEN DR 2565 NOODHAVEN DRIVE 2500 NOODHAVEN OR LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 41 0010 38 33-118-23 41 0011 38 33-118-23 41 0012 PROP ADDR 02445 NOODHAVEN DR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 00365 NILLOH DR N OHNER NAME JAP HARRIS NOODHAVEN HOtlEOHNERS ASSN GEORGE L OSGOOD ETAL 'I TAXPAYER JOHN T A PATRICIA L HARRIS NOODHAVEN H0HE0Ft4ERS ASSN GEORGE L OSGOOD NAME/ADOR 2445 NOODHAVEN DR C/0 LEE RIDDLE TREASURER 365 NILLON DR N LONG LAKE MN 55356 2550 NOODHAVEN DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 ,* LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 41 0013 38 33-118-23 41 0014 38 33-113-23 41 0015 PROP ADDR 00345 NILLON OR N 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNkD 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 1;Olt«R NAME GEORGE L OSGOOD ET AL GLENN A SANDRA GRONBERG G M A S L GRONBERG TAXPAYER LARRY 0 OS&.XW GLEhM M GRONBERG GLENN M A SANDRA L GROTBERG NAME/ADOR 365 NILLOH OR N 325 HILLOH DR N 325 N HILLOH OR LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55366 38 33-118-23 41 0016 38 33-118-23 41 0017 PROP AOOR 02525 NOODHAVEN DR 02485 HOOOHAVEN DR OHNER NAME C J O'COtMOR A L S O'CONNOR MARK N NOLF TAXPAYER CHRISTOPHER J O'CONNOR MARK H NOLF TOTAL BATCH 006 00014 NAHE/AODR AND LYNETTE S O'CONNOR 2485 NOODHAVEN OR 2525 NOODHAVEN LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE m 55356 •51* Lj W ra MS IH3I >r rcrs,: JKSllF}ij|F]l =»lot*: If •cc-^.;av‘?r. •»nr.s.:ir. Vir.r.osvii 4 •!««**•t/ . imtf iH » A -»-r r ’.#r “ry *r-;“ •.-.iJ !►* • trr;^ me v *c'r ti* L -n •* i 3*;r".’^v ?r Tr«» rv"ir jarL-**« •^r **io'*:v It i v.*i loratior e:‘ c.:iLeir.rrs, 1;' tr.;', *'«fr»r.r,, ‘ir.u -.ivi rr'-'^oec Icf’atirr. ef a 3rreos<?c b*iil-.:lrr, Ir.proverMr.tc '>r *?ncrcTicr.=or.*-5 . It 3Ct*s r:»* eurrxjr*. *,r- dfirw etr.^fr ScaUt X** = ICO* Oita t 1*^1 o t Iron airkor Gordon a. Coffin* Rtir.Mro, 6C64 land Survo'^or and Plannor l^ntr Uka, Mlanaaota ..i i >• i •i j •j t * V* • I^XfSO ^ t’-» pttf • Vto^6o #139 / v»f^v/S /■ .Z7JL>_M ^jro__!L 3-2A::t>o 33»,doo l±P^./XO_____i», fl»o LlSij!i/MP_ i,__ju,^ i»o____ yoo ^ /QO OOP _yo_AijiA_ r__^ # y ?o____ -/ a (j7oo —c =-»a ipoo-erP r -•------- ■ ;- s- \ cnv OF aRQNO CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka March 2, 1989 KIjd Edwards 2450 Woodhaven Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Filling & Final Inspection Dear Mr. Edwards: It has come to the attention of this department that you have placed a large amount of fill on your property without a permit from the City. This letter is to notify you that a permit is required for filling. City staff can issue permits for fill up to 100 cubic v^irds; more than that requires a conditional use permit. It is apparent tnere is more than 100 cubic yards already placed on your property, fore a conditional use permit is required. In reviewing your file I also noted that a final inspection was conducted on December 23, 1986 and a list of corrections was written. We h^ive no record of these corrections being completed. Therefore we must require that emother inspection be conducted to verify that the corrections have been completed. The permit for filling must be applied for by March 10, 1989 (application enclosed). Final inspection must be completed before March 20, 1989 (correction list enclosed). If these deadlines are not meet the City may ’ ue citations. If you have any questions or if you have a problem ir Ing these deadlines, please feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman, Field Inspector LO/tln Enclosure - Conditional Use Permit Correction List Application cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Thomas J. Jacobs, Building & Fire Inspector BUILDING a ZONING - 473*7357 • ADMINISTRATION 4 FINANCE - 473*7358 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473*7359 ASSESSING Lp*^si CITY of ORONO PoMl Ofncc Box 66*CrysuiI Buy. Minncsola 5532.1 • Municipal Office** On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka May 16, 1983 Homeovmer 2450 Woodhaven Drive Long Lake, Mn. 55356 Dear Sir: In talking with Bill Levering today about his plans to build on the lot immediately west of you, I noted that the existing surface drainage appears to be inundating your mound drainfield system. This situation is detrimental to the proper functioning-of the mound, and must be changed before the system is approved for use. In addition, a final inspection must be made on the pump and alarm system for the mound. Please contact me or City Building Official Tom Jacobs immediately to discuss the resolution of the grading problem. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Septic System Inspector MPG/msw cc: Tom Jacobs, Building Official BUILDINC a ZOM\<; - 47J-7357 • AS5'I;SSI\C ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 5^ - ' -f;V.''^?'i ClTYof ORONO ,,^ „„„ ,W. «.C.»-.I B.,. M.-~-« «n- Oa the Sorth Shore of Loht Minnetonka February 19» 1982 ■n; ; Kevin Maynard Sussel company 1850 Como Avenue St. Paulf MN 55108 Ra. 2450 Vtoodh«v.n Driv. - Drainage Mar Mr. Maynard: r.faranca to a drainaga S‘”.2.S55iS Sy‘S|°.&S“pS:J«” ■« 5““ .. ...-If there any question, on this matter P Sincerelyr Thomas J. BuiK-ing Official “• SkU".ISU™ vi;~i “■Dave Olenchak - Susse Luke Torrell - Lee *. zoninq AdministratorJeanne A. AdministratorUAifcer R. Benson, City AuS p. Olson, City Planner ■riLWN<* a /tiNniti ttytist • ,iwimjikaiio>.»m>asci HJLK'»OKKS i'J-’JS** fPI mmmsM ........ — V—------- --’ viTV, • A ■ _____----------------------------------------I •*;• ■•■ ■ •> ■.' •«.*>: . .■■•••• I '*■' A 1 . f ., -______________ • i... ; . ■• 1 ___»----------------- ■ s ;,vf '- •■•!’» '■ . ;. -rV . I .. • .. T< > .»•.. ^ V. «• t* • •■ 5^ *•» • • . ..*. / ... ■.... V •t'r7r.!?r%;Sv I.I If r — # ^ •***.*♦• " ?1 '■:* . .: :-:*rY^n .. .------------------------- ? - ■ “ • ■■ •■.. WE^ \ ^ ■ -..•.......... - ;V\ ■ wi.- •• -i-*' •''■'.fifKK.Kr ■' ■■>'' - • .... ,■ • J ' ■■■;/■ l - . ijK . /- ------------------- -y' ■ .’s*^r---:-~-'K3pS:?q • .*,»• -.S ••; If • I . . ____ 1 •«. / m Jr :-mi SI L'VVi^ fej^-■mm-mm •v^c4yi(S,’»’a •/^. .-,» . . » :’-■ X2 qTYOPORONO Inspection notice PERMIT NO.______ ADDRESS Lc]^»X) Pijji OR ?; CALLID.IM •CHtOULIO - eOMPLITIO ^ OATI asFi I >/ lA. OWNER ELEPHONE NO. CONTR.. ,'• vr.i, '>?’;■•; -'■ ^>: v;.-V='.,.--: /■. ■ »*'^^* •» • p f V*';Sr» * V • ‘l.trf-' V > >v .- ‘ hi Wifh POOTINO PflAMINO □ INSULATION C 5 WALLSa S} a SINAL □ MOONtSS S □ OIMOL 2 □ SINimtV. I COMMENTS; □ SLUM8IN0RI a MCCHANICAL a WATIN H00RU8 g MtnNtrrmifiNON O SIWIN HOOKUA □ Sirric INSTALL. □ 8ESTICMAINT. 0 WILL TIfT SUMS * f‘ v;V:f'::.«|!:''t * V) -fX a SITE INSSECTION a IXCAVJORAOINO/EILLINO O LAKISHONimfTLANOS O LICINtINO □ OOMELAINT B EOLLOW-UE g SIETIC FINAL pH 4/-;, .. ^2-yv> . 34d£ov.2^E > f p Ccor O DCOF NX SATISEACTONY: EROCICO □ ENOTO TAKEN ^CORRECnWRK a EROCEEO u . □ CORRECT WORK. CALL EOR REINSEECTION BEFORE COVIRINO 9 condition within hours , inseector will return .□ STOE order EOSTEO. CALL IN8EECTOR. □ INSEECTION REOUIREO. CAL'. TO ARRANGE ACCESS. call for ths naxt inspsction 24 hours in advincB. Ownar/C-intr. on |R b _______/^ / J Whitt CeEv/ln«Mctor'i Flit // ^473-7357 OoW COEV/SIW Notict .• V * T* ‘ n d S 10.03 eight square feet in area may be located in the front yard during the period when products are for sale. Off-street parking roust be provided for. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 19. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the limits of the City; to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Subd. 20. Permit. An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing made by a registered surveyor or other competent person showing the location of the proposed excavation or storage and shall state the amount of material which is to be removed, excavated or stored, filled or graded, and such other information as the Council may require from time to time. Applications shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall be accompanied by a deposit to be determined by the City, which will be used to offset the cost of processing the application. Any unused portion_jjill be refunded to the applicant. (Subd. 2jP Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended^o govern the normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of the building permit, providing that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Any unusual earth filling or removal or grading shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance with this Chapter. Subd. 22. Rip-rap Defined. Rock placed at water level of lakeshore to prevent erosion of shoreline by water action. Subd. 23. Permit Required. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the normal and customary rip-rap of lakeshore property. It is unlawful for any person to rip-rap lakeshore property withi-' the limits of the City without a permit issued by the City Engineer. Any unusual rip-rap shall be ORONO CC 258 (4-1-84) Section 5. Ordinance Section 10.03, Subdivision 21 is hereby repealed and the following language substituted in its place: Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not Intended to govern the normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building, nor to any movement under 100 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of the building permit, providing that a plan showing property drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Any unusual earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance with this Chapter. The Building Inspector shall adhere to the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterations: 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if amy amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site. 2. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footings protection. 3. Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within five feet of adjacent ...residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. 0^ ^2-S S*-^ SECTION 2. Orono City Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 is hereby repealed and the following language substituted in its place: Section 10.03, Subdivision 19. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the limits of the City; to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. A^i the abo ve referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject”to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutues or ordinances of other _____govemmental bodies. ®«) ^^47 Z.-2-'2-~93 m Bonestroo Rosene Anderlfk & Associates Ono G Bonesfoa PE Room W (toifne PE Jo«ph C Andetuk. PE Bndota A LenoeiQ. PE fficnaw E Tumet PE Umn C O»»o. PE Glenn R Coo*. PE Tnon«J E Noy«u PE Booeft G Scnunicnt PE L Sonuta. PE Engineers & Architects April 13, 1989 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Attn: Mr. Mike Gaffron Re: File No. 139-1392 Kim Edwards Ke«i A OoiOon. PE Ifttfum W Po«w PE Donald C Bur^anX. PE Jefty A BouRJon. PE Mark A Hanion. PE Ted K F«td. PE Micnaei T Ratxmann. PE Boeen R Pdefflene. PE David O Lowxa. PE Thomai W Rftmon. PE M<nae< C Lyntn PE Jamei R Maiana PE Kennem P Aryjervxi PE iCeitfi A Bacnmann PE iMaf* R RoRi PE Booed C Ruiie*. AIA Thomai E Angui PE Hoiwa« A Santofd. PE Oan«( j Edgenon. PE Mar* A $e« PE Phiap Ji Caiwv*. PE. Mart D VliWii PE Thomat R Andenon. AIA Ga«y F Ryiandef. PE Chadei A Enekion Leo M Pawettty Hanan M OHon Suian M Ebertn. CPA Dear Mike, Ve have reviewed the Kim Edvards property at 2450 Woodhaven Drive. The owner has placed fill along the east side of his property to improve the yard area. The fill material placed to this point in time will not adversely effect the site dradlnage. Ve would be concerned however that additional filling could result in drainage restrictions for adjacent property to the west. The fill has also encroached on the neighbor to the east. Ve would recommend that no additional filling be allowed unless a grading plan is provided to the City. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li End. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55TT3 • 612-636-4600 s-*:*‘ oru6. t I CO#VTO*<Ai ly. {APrteox) f‘ exur/w^ V \ \ comtzna ^s iVi \ To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Fro*: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: April 10, 1989 Subjects #1394 Jackson Wilson, 3059 Farview Lane - After-the-Fact Variance - Public Hearing / List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit C D E F G - Application - Applicant's Addendum - Property Owners List - Plat Map - Building Permits for 3059 Farview Lane - Original Survey - Current Survey Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - Addition to principal residence constructed 4 months after original permit issued for new residence does not meet required 26' setback to adjacent wetlands. The substandard wetlands was discovered based on new information from current survey. Representatives of the new owner of the property have asked that the substandard setback be reaffirmed and approved by the City of Orono. Variance setback is as follows: Required = 26' Existing « 20' Variance « 6' or 23% At Council's meeting of March 13, 1989, Council approved an amendment of the original drainage easement line that defined the wetlands area within Lot 6 of the Farview plat (review Exhibit G). Note the gerrymandered line as it surrounds the indoor squash court addition of the existing residence. Review Exhibit F, the original survey noted only the existing wetlands at the 930 elevation and not the actual straight line of the surveyor's measurement for the drainage easement within Lot 6, Farview. The indoor squash court addition was issued approximately 4 months after the building permit for the existing residence. The residence was at yet not completed. In reviewing the files, staff has no record of an updated survey nor of an inspection notice confirming a site inspection that would have been a routine procedure back in 1979 to confirm the required setback. As applicant's addendum notes (Exhibit B), the issuance of a building permit by the City for new construction would strongly suggest that all zoning and building standards had been satisfied at that time. Applicant advises that the denial of this variance would create an unmarketable proper'‘y and would be economically unfeasible to correct. Staff has made an inspection of the area and confirms the 20' setback to the 930' elevation. Planning Commission members will observe the 930' elevation has been staked by the property owner. Staff will recommend approval of the after-the-fact variance to the Council, and in addition will strongly recommend that the fee paid for this application be refunded to the new owner and applicant. Zoning File #1394 May 3, 1989 Additional Cofments and Planning Coamission Recomnendation - The Planning Commission unanimously approved the after-the- fact setback variance from the designated wetland of 6* per the findings set forth in the staff memo. The Planning Commission also recommended that the applicant, Dennis Evans, be refunded the $150.00 fee for the variance application. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the approval recommendation of the Planning Commission. If Council also approves the refund of the fee, staff will initiate the refund process within the City. A RSSOLOTIOH GRANTIliG AN APTBR-THB-FACT VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISIONS 8 FILE #1394 WHEREAS, Dennis E. Evans (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 3059 Farview Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Lot 6, Dloc)c 1, Farview, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subdivisions 8 to permit a racket ball addition to the principal structure located 20* from a designated wetlands instead of meeting the required 26* setback. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1394. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. The property consists of 2+ contiguous acres in area. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 17, 1989, and recommended approval of the after- the-fact variance based upon the following findings: A) The issuance of Permit #4082 by the City of Orono for the racket ball addition on September 10, 1979 confirms that owner at that time had complied with all requirements and zoning standards of the City. B) The building was put up in good faith and reliance upon City approval. C) The denial of this variance years after completion of construction would create an unmarketable property and would be economically unfeasible to correct. Page 1 of 4 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning CoraiMlon, reports by City staff, conunents by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that oranting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necesj-ry 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 th« Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. COMCLDSIOHS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants an after-the-fact variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subdivisions 8 to permit a racket ball addition to the principal structure to remain, 20* from the adj«.cent, designated wetland, instead of meeting the required 26* setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 2. The undersigned have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 2 of 4 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of May, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Jackson L. Wilson, Owner Judith E. Wilson, Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of May, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M, Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City o Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 3 of 4 ZONING PILE NO. 1394 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 4/27/89 Jackson L. Wilson 3059 Farview Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO: Dennis E. Evans 1201 Yale Place, Apt. 2305 Minneapolis, MN 55403 TYPE OF APPLICATION: After-the-Pact Variance DATE OF MEETING: 4/17/89 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning CosBid.s8ion reconiends the following: Approval as submitted. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council May 8, 1989; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Wilson, please be advised that applications are listed on agendas in numerical order. The numbers for applications are assigned at the time of the filing of the application. The City has found tliis practice to be fair and reasonable. I will most certainly address your concerns to the City Administrator and if he deems it appropriate, we will place your specific application under consent agenda. Staff will once again recommend the refund of the fees to the applicant who appears to be Dennis Evans. If payment was nor made by Mr. Evans, please advise the zoning office. CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION #1394 IT r ^ Keceipc- Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) wr FISAKCE OFFICE X JwV ta v l/i.-vi.' PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3059 Farview Lane. Orono. MN v* '* Q t Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) n4-i i Please check one - Property x abstract or _ _ torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Lot 6, Block 1, Farview APPLICANT Name Phone (home) Dennis E. Evans Phone (work) 370-4806 Address; 1201 Yale Place #2305 City; Minneapolis Zip; r^403 OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) 173-9377_ _ _ _ Name Jackson L. V7ilson and Judith E. Phone (work) 334-4530 Wilson Address; 3059 Farview Lane City; Orono_ _ _ _ _ _Zip; Date Property Acquired March 1989 (month/year) I (cdcik (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $_ Describe request in detail; See attached_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Areti Lot Width Front _ _ Hardcover Side V Rear)Setback Variances (_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other variance from 26 foot setback from HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; See attached_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements;^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). ^ ^ 3. 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). 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official’s Signature^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and cejtifies that the information supp lied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge . Applicant's Signature^^Date OWNERS SIGNATURE , ^ xr 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 verific^on of tMs re^st.^ 3/vli7 Owner's Signature)^y]fypy7-i#^^. _ _ _ _ _ __ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized r*g.rt attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. f f ¥ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Building Permit was issued by the City of Orono for present structure. After construction was completed and upon sale of home it was discovered that the structure is approximately 20 feet from the wetlands. A variance in the wetland setback allowing the existing structure is requested. HARDSHIP: The building was put up in good faith and reliance upon City approval as to all prerequisites as evidenced by a building permit being issued. The denial of this variance would create an unmarketable property and would be economically unfeasible to correct. RUN DATE 03/20/89 BATCH 004 PROP ADOR OMIER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 04-117-23 33 0005 03083 FARVIEH LA PHILIP C BYERS A WIFE PHILIP C BYERS 3083 FARVIEH LA LONG LAKE HN 55354 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY GHTJERS LIST 38 04-117-23 33 0006 03075 FARVIEH LA P A A L J TAYLOR PAUL A A LUCIE^«JE J TAYLOR 3075 FARVIEH LANE LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 6 38 04-117-23 33 0007 03067 FARVIEH LA PHILLIP A DABILL PHILLIP A DABILL 3067 FARVIEH LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 04-117-23 33 0008 PROP ADOR 03059 FARVIEH LA OWNER NAME J E A J L WILSON JR TAXPAYER JUDITH A JACKSON L WILSON JR NAME/AODR 3059 FARVIEH LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 33 0009 03051 FARVIEH LA 6 D WILLIAMS A F B C WILLIAMS C D WILLIAMS A F B WILLIAMS 3051 7ARVIEW LANE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 33 0010 03175 FOX ST DAVID A MAASS DAVID A MAASS P 0 BOX 392 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 33 0011 PROP AODR 03125 FOX ST OFMER NAME A 6 CARLSON A S J CARLSON TAXPAYER ALAN CARLSON A SUSAN CARLSON NAME/AODR 3125 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 33 0012 00038 ADDRESS LAIASSIGNED A G CARLSON A S J CARLSON ALAN CARLSON A SUSAN CARLSON 3125 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 34 0008 02943 FARVIEH LA M N NICOLL A M K NICOLL MATTHEW N NICOLL 2943 FARVIEH LA LONG LAKE HN 55356 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 04-117-23 34 0009 02935 FARVIEH LA SHIRLEY J BILLI6MEIER SHIRLEY BILLIGHEIER 2935 FARVIEH LANE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 34 0012 03080 FARVIEH LA J H PARKER ABC PARKER JOHN H A BONNIE C PARKER 3080 FARVIEH LA S LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 34 0013 03070 FARVIEH LA DAB SILUS DAVID A BARBARA SILUS 3070 FARVIEH LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER rUHE/AOOR 38 04-117-23 34 0014 03060 FARVIEH LA MARY JAYNE EVANS MARY JAYNE EVANS 3060 FARVIEH LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 09-117-23 21 0001 00825 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO S CLARA C LYMAN CLARA C LYMAN 825 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH U04 00014 ^1394 RUN DATE 03/20/89 BATCH 004 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OI<t4ERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 7 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATc AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPTN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO/THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE BY ~T R»- -------—il’4iJO 4* . :3«:i :Z7 > ,. 1 (u) I H h) >2 f o®> Am 4:\'__ / //»« .* w i. - , . -.U * . V w.ui • \ •INIW F?!T7TT7Tc¥l m aE-i Hia ,--4/ '.."•’T.rTT^ r . . _.J.. .. .,.J! £0 QUmfO INBICTION WILL •! 8US- JfCT TO PENALTY. INIPICTION HOUNE 473.7M7 CALL! • 13 A.M. INSP. 1.4 P.M. CALL I • 4 P.M. IMP. NEXTOAV CNAOINOAPILLINQ. I^ELECTNICAL from Suu ---------- ...r wi^ I mo DOCUMENT. TH flIQNEO PUNTHER AOREES TO 00 ALL WfORKE IN El PLIANCE W^M ALL CITY OP ORONO OROINANCCS< OP minneed ^euiloii ^ code requirements . ■ •**/ •-•>• CITYof ORONO Building Permit AND APPLICATfON FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ZONING DISTRICT FIRE ZONE VAR. DATE COND. USE DATE LOT AREA WIDTH DEPTH PROPOSED SETBACKS FRONT R.SIOE REAR I^IDE LAKE WETLANDS ACCESS NEW EXISTING AGENCY APPROV. DATE CITY COUNTY STATE PR. EASEMENT . 473-7357 SITE AQPHESS PiG^9 R.R jJIPm.7 PERMtT N9 4082 ^ DATE Issupn EXPI RES__________________ LEGAL OESCRIPTION: PROP. 10. LOT______________BLOCK SUBDIVISION. I^AVI-D kIXt. ARCHITECT/ENGINEER — Must Certify Multi*y«niily^ofTuntreiN'lHndu«triiii'GBratra CERT. NO. (Firm)(Addrtu)iPhomT BUILDER 'pAi/t rs (Firm)(Addreiil (PhOTM) TYPE OF WORK Ntw RQsJ g*T* l^LL CoO'Hc Rtmodtl Rtnovitt CONST. TYFE BLOG. SIZE L RESIOENTIAl DWELL. UNITS CAR. stalls ATT. DET. NON-RESIO. OCC. CLASS. STORIES REMARKS: STORIES B BORMS/ELR EST. CONST. VALUATION iiaoo SEPTIC APP. DATE DOCK PROPOSED USE llD'* permit ST/ FEE Plan review PENALTY PARK FEE iSACCHARG PERMIT FEE3 A «gSiaife!»sgjS aLJ -C»yA.^ -Rf.. L- e.^.^.r.Vgn ^______I______»:ng;-.p . lyr*' INSPECTION REQUIRED . FOOTING bcTer* povr . FRAMING rewgti.tn . INSULATION . WALLBOARO BMer* T«ir« . FINALbafom arrMptney WORK BBVONO OR WITHOUT A RB- OUIRSO INSFtCTION WILL BS SUB> JICTTOFBNALTV. INSPECTION HOURS 473.73S7 CALLS • 13 AJM. INSP. 1 • 4 P.M. CALL I • 4 P.M. INSP. NEXT OAV WORK REQUIRING SEPARATE PERMITS >i. PLU»)8ING . MECHANICAL WELL_______ SEPTIC____________ SEWER____________ WATER - - GRADING A FILUNG. electrical ham Suw COPY: WHITE-FILE GRSBN-FINANCf ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY REQUESTS PERMISSION TO MAKS the real IMPROVEMENTS SPECIFIED. AND DECLARES UNDER PENALTY OF LAW ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPT ANCE OF ALL INFORMATION. CONOfTIONB ANO REQUIRE MENTS REPRESENTED ON THIS DOCUMENT. THE UNDER SIGNED FURTHER AGREES TO DO ALL WORKS IN STRICT COM- ' PLIANCE WITH ALL CITY OF OAONO ORDINANCES ANO STATE | OP MINNESOTA BUILDING COOS REQUIREMENTS. | dk«A.^ *€f4T iO |E#iC« ( SlfMiwra ^ y*/0-7^ i -4l— 1 I • I iit.\o IOr I Klivii .VlSs|S|ls|k O U.V ue./ w Sul U»tc. t^t^TT //,'•///'■'«■’ In ' III‘Uliy y^-'y ■ I #*? -U\ri. ' / Y •• <•* _ • ,f :v- ,.v'f .J Tot Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Fron: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Dates April 10r 1989 Subject: #1395 Thomas R. Williams, Jr., 4127 Oak Street - Renewal Variance - Public Hearing - Consent Agenda Zoning District - LR-IB Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) - Lot Area Variances Required « 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre Proposed » 24,400 s.f. or .56 acres (additional 6,500 s.f. within Lot 1, Blk 4 divided by unimproved platted right-of-way of Ridge Place) Variance = 19,160 s.f. or 43% Lot Width Variance: Required * 140' Width at Rear Street Setback = 75* Variance « 65' or 46% Adjacent to Shoreline * 95* Variance ■*45* or 32% List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Packet for Application #1243 Exhibit E - Resolution 2387 that Approved Application #1248 As with all renewal applications, if there is no change from the previous approved lication, nor have there been any additions or amendment* "he zoning sections that are pertinent to the review, the aj. ^ ' is placed on a consent agenda. If any member wishes to v' the application for discussion, please advise the chaitcj^^a at the time the consent agenda is announced for action. The variance application involves lot area and lot width variances for an undeveloped property. Staff recommends approval subject to the findings and conditions set forth in Resolutxon #2387 (Exhibit E). Zoning File #1395 May 3, 1989 Additional CooBients and Planning Coanission Recoomiendation - As is customary, the renewal application was placed on the consent agenda for the Planning Commission meeting of April 17th. Unfortunately, an affected neighbor, Ken Holland, was not aware of the Intent of the consent agenda and waited until the end of the meeting, at which time the neighbor voiced concern with the fact that the City approves variances, such as lot area and lot width variances, without a definite plan of development to review. The position of the neighbor was that at the time of the building permit application, there is no chance for redress by an affected property owner. The neighbor was advised to voice this concern to the Council at the May 8th meeting. Since that meeting, I have had discussions with Mr. Holland regarding residential construction on the vacant property. Mr. Roland felt that because of the steep topographies leading from the driveway, that his property would be inundated with run-off if there was heavy rainfall. This was understandable as the elevation of the driveway is at a 9-12% slope as it leads south to the Holland property. Staff has advised Mr. Roland that Council would be advised of his concern and that the resolution would be drafted such that a condition of approval would require that the City Engineer review the drainage and grading plan with the building permit. The renewal application will not be placed on Council's consent agenda to allow the property owner the opportunity to address Council. The applicant, Mr. Williams, has been made aware of Mr. Holland's concerns. The approval resolution has been drafted to include as a condition, the City Engineer's review of the grading and drainage plan with the building permit application to ensure that drainage does not leave the property at a greater velocity than it does in its undeveloped state and to provide a retention area if deemed necessary by the Engineer. A RESOLUTION GRANT VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING COD SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISIONS b iB) FILS #1395 WHEREAS, Thomas R. Williams, Jr. (hereinafter "the applicant”) is the owner of the property located at 4127 Oak Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 5, and Lot 1, Block 4, Minnetonka Summit Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property")? and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivisions 5 (B) to confirm the buildability of the property consisting of 24,400 s.f. or .56 acres in area instead of the required 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre, requiring an area variance of 19,160 s.f. or 43% and measuring 75' in width at the rear of the street yard .setback line instead of 140' requiring a 60' or 46% variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1395. 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 17, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) The property received approval from t..i> Jity in 1969, 1979, and 1988 for the same area and lot width variances. There have been no additions or 2unendments of the zoning code that would alter the findings of the earlier reviews. B) The property has been assessed one sewer unit and a sewer stub has been provided to the property. C> The development of this site is consistent with recent lot area and lot width variances granted to lots within the Immediate c-rrounding neighborhood. Page 1 of 5 D) 6^500 square feet of additio*. is provided In Lot 1, Block if Minnetonka Sumira ^ «rk, although it cannot be credited against thw a.'^a requirements because the lot is divided by an unimproved right-of- way pletted as Ridge Place. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. Th«» City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peer! Ur to it and do not ap^ / generally to other property in tms zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor ;ose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring prepertyj 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 Cit^ COaCLOSIONS, OKDER MD S Biased upon one or more of the fi js noted above, the Orono Ci Council hereby grants variances per the Municipal Zoning Cc Jc section 0.24, Subdivisions 5 (B) tc confirm the buiIdabiiiry of the property that requires an area variance of 43% and ' t width variance of 46%, subject to the following condition^; 1. Lots 1 and , Block 5, Minnetonka Summit Park, must b* legally cosibj <^*ior to the la# of a building permit for new conat >. ion. 2. If accessor, ' uctures are proposed for Lot 1, Block 4, innetc’*^* Sumtn Park, at some time in the future, the *pply for a special lot combination to seek ..a principal residence on combined Lota 1 and 2. to the site shall remain '^ia the private drive within the public dedicated right-of-way. Such tw continue to be maintained by the property owners iei ved the driveway. It is the future property owner's I^^ponsiriiity to sl.at« in upkeep and maintenance of th^it drlvewa '. Page 2 of 5 4. All grading and drainage plans submitted with a building permit application shall be reviewed by the City Encfineer. It shall be the City Engineer's responsibility to ensure that no drainage/run-off leaves the site at a greater velocity than it does from the undeveloped site and that the future owner/developer will be responsible for submitting all necessary hydraulic information to assist the Engineer in making his recommendation. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 8, 1990). 6. Violation of or non-compliance w.'*''^h any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall r /nstitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Cicy Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of May, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property OwnerTsT Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of May, 1989, by James R. Grabek 6 Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 6 City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 4 of 5 ilS.oo ^ CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION £:fl 395Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional va Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 7 (, /^e' S^i^LTr'f. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CC ^Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)^^ -5^7—-y/--?- - - - -cm y Pjease check one - Property V abstract or _ _ torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home )i:5C2C0000 Name yk?. Phone (work) '.'A U"i/V I’w-tvv r^rr^ T/• / Address: /?T^/ Yl..j l.'f-^ 9 City:,/Z /'//l~ECEpTzli^l^^SU ZijS: -■C;j OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home )vw.- .. f/’u- Name ^-------Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (dono^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USB OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Use of Property _ _ _ _\ f ^ 7^_ _ _ _ Residential — •• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) f/j4(/^0 DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $__________ De^ribe reque^ in detail; /r C/?v:^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ’><. Lot Width ' Setback Variances (_ _ _ Front ^ Other _ _ Hardcover Side Rear) HARDSHIP Describe undae hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations ; j, j7- aV - ^ ^ /f ^ Je*' / I Ax '//^'r- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP CNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual prc^erty conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements_ _ _ _ __Code 3e^— C ^ / L C. t /f /=~.{ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 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. 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 of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tfiie>^nd correct to the best of his/her Icnowledge. Applicant's Signature-:^2^^^-'»Date /^ OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUM DATE 02/06/ett BATCH 001 PROP ADDR 014 lER NAME TAXPAYER MAtlE/ADDR 38 06<117>23 13 0003 VEDA IIIC VEDA IMC PO DOX 115 LONG LAKE MM 55356 HEfSlEPIH COUNTY PROPERTY IHFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OIIIIERS LIST 30 06-117-23 61 0025 U LEHIS A K TRETTEL IIH I LEDIS 3620 HOODS HILL RD NASHVILLE TN *i>215 REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 1 38 06-117-23 61 0026 H LEIII3 A K TRETTEL m I LEillS 3620 HOODS HILL RD NASHVILLE TN 37215 PROP ADDR OtaiER NAME TAXPAYER lUHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OlftlER NAME TAXPAYER NAIIE/ADOR PROP ADDR OiaiER NAME TAXPAYER NAIIE/ADOR PROP ADDR ONMER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OUNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 30 06-117-23 61 0027 H X LEHIS A K L TRETTEL HM I LEHIS 3620 HOODS HILL RD NASHVILLE Til 37215 30 06-117-23 61 0030 C N HOMMEYER A A U HOMMEYER CHARLES A Alll HOMMEYER 6125 OAK ST LOilG UKE 101 55356 30 06-117-23 61 0033 THOMAS R HILLIAMS JR ETAL THOM.^S R HILLIAMS 625 TONKANA RD LONG LAKE l»l 55356 30 06-117-23 61 0036 06119 OAK ST K B ROLLANO A K S RODEN KEiatETH ROLLAMO/KAREN RODEN AU9 OAK ST OROIIO Itl 55356 TOTAL BATCH 001 00015 38 06-117-23 61 0028 H LEHIS A K TRETTEL m I LEHIS 3620 HOODS HILL RD NASHVILLE TN 37215 30 06-117-23 61 0031 C A A HOMMEYER CHARLES A AIOI HOtUlEYER 6125 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 30 06-117-23 61 0036 THOMAS R HILLIAMS JR ETAL THOMAS R HILLIAMS 625 TOi: lA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 30 06-117-23 61 0000 00625 TONKAHA RD THOMAS R HILLIAMS JR ETAL THOMAS R HILLIAMS JR 625 TONKAHA LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 14 0020 405 TONKAWA RD K & C DEDOLPH III KARL & CHRISTINE DEDOLPH 405 TONKAWA RD ORONO MN 55356 30 06-117-23 61 0029 STATE LAin DEPT THOMAS R HILLIAMS JR 625 TONI'AHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 61 0032 K B ROLLAND IKS RODEN ^ KEIIMETH B ROLLANO A K RODEN 6119 OAK ST ORONO rOI 55356 "'"‘tvli -' r' ? 30 06-117-23 61 0035 06125 OAK ST CHARLES H HOMMEYER ET AL CHARLES H HOMMEYER 6125 OAK ST LONG LAKE IBI 55356 38 06-117-23 62 0006 DAVID L ANDERSON ETAL DAVID L ANDERSON 6105 BAYSIOE RD MAPLi PLAIN MN 55359 ^ JO or . M M JPk. MES THIRD] •i /?*ri f »% i. i6(ii):t • '»(!*/' y) 2 ■ 14 ‘ ■ V ' 13 if,z II ' .•^3l|IO ,si^ ^ ■ 6-t To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: March 10, 1988 Subject: #1248 Thomas R. Williams, Jr., "4127" Oak Street - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lB Pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) Lot Area Required « 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre Proposed = 24,400 s.f. .56 acres (additional 6,500 s.f. withir Lot 1, Block 4, divided by unimproved platted right-of-wai of Ridge Place) Variance « 19,160 s.f. or 43% Lot Width Requlxed * 140* Adjacent Road * 75* Variance =65* or 46% Adjacent to Shoreline = 95* Variance =45* or 2% List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Council Minutes of 7/28/69 Council Minutes of 7/10/79 Original Survey Submitted With Application No. 480 Updated Survey Submitted With Current Application Map/S rvey of Variance Applications Issued to Adjacent Properties Map of Unimproved Right-of-way of Oak Street Hardcover Analysis Review of Application - The current application has been filed by the sole and legal owner of the property. The application involves a lot area and lot width variance and does not propose a formal building plan or profile. As in the 1969 and 1979 reviews, this is merely a variance review to allow the sale of the lot as a buildable lot. The approval should specifically provide the limitations for a future developer of the site. Staff is aware that this is a problem for members of the Commission where we are not dealing with a final plan of development and are merely asked to deal with the physical character of the site. The City has approved in the past lot area and lot width variances without formal building plans and has continued to do so even within the past few months. Review Exhibit G, the building envelope has been described on the updated survey noting the average lakeshore setback lines, side setback and street setback for the principal structure. It should be noted that a building envelope is also shown on the accessory lot divided by Ridge Place. The average lakeshore setback line will be staked prior to Planning Commission inspection of the site. Zoning File #1248 March 10, 1988 Page 2 of 3 If a future developer plans to construct an accessory structure on Lot 1, Block 4, the owner would have to execute a special lot combination to allow for the credit of the principal structure on Lots 1 and 2. Exhibit J designates the various lakeshore setback zones and the allowed hardcover amounts within each one of those zones. Development of this lot would appear quite consistent with adjacent property at 4125 Oak Street, variance review approved by the City 4/11/83. Also review Exhibit H, the proposal appears consistent with recently approved building sites in the immediate Summit Park neighborhood. Access to the property is via the umlmproved platted section of right- of-way of Oak Street. Three existing residences are served by the roadway now maintained by residents (review Exhibit I). The current application would now add an additional unit for a total of four. In a recent review. Planning Commission members stated that they could not continue on with this review until the final improvement of Oak Street was resolved. It is the City's position that there will be no improvement or upgrading of Oak Street until the City receives a petition from all four property owners asking for that upgrading. The City will not initiate a public improvement project unless all involved property owners also seek the improvement. I have been contacted by at least two of those property owners who contend that they do not want anything changed within the area. For the official record, the applicant does not own the property to the north. The property to the north remains in the ownership of the former Mrs. Williams. Applicamt has no control over the parcel to the north. Staff Recommendation - To approve the lot area and lot width variances renewal for Thomas R. Williams based on the following findings: application 1. The property received approval by the City in 1969 and 1979 for the same variances. There have been no addition or amendments of the Zoning Code that would alter the findings of the 1979 review. 2. The property has been assessed on^ sewer unit and a sewer stub has been provided for the property. 3. The development of this site is consistent with recent lot area and lot width variances granted to lots within the immediate surrounding neighborhood. 4. 6,500 s.f. of additional area is provided in Lot 1, Block 4, Minnetonka Summit Park, although cannot be credited because it is divided by the umimproved right-of-way.. Zoning File #1248 March 10, 1988 Page 3 of 3 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Lots 1 combined prioj Block 5, Minnetonka Summit Park must be ssr.ance of a building permit. legally 2. If accessory structures are proposed for Lot 1# Block 4, Minnetonka Summit Park at some time in the future, the owner must apply for a special lot combination to seek credit of the principal structure on combined Lots 1 and 2. 3. Future owner is placed on notice that no variances will be granted for the residential development of this property based on this current review finding no difficulties with tne physical development of this property. 4. Access to the site shall remain via the private drive located within a public dedicated right-of-way to continue to be maintained by the property owners served by such driveway and it is the future owner's responsibility to share in the upkeep and maintenance of that driveway. Zoning File #1248 March 23, 1988 Additional Cooments ~ March 23, 1988 Staff reviewed the proposed building envelope of the subject property locating the average setback line. Planning Conunission members noted that they located the staked building envelope at the site. Members once again questioned the use of the private driveway now to be served with a total of 4 residences. Staff advised that the City had no intention of upgrading the public road way unless all benefitting property owners petitioned for the improvement. Mr. Hommeyer, an affected neighbor, was in attendance at the meeting and advised that he completely supported no change from the current private driveway. Hommeyer asked for confirmation that current driveway be allowed to remain and the private maintance to continue. The minority opinion of one based disappoval of the application on the City's position to not address the issue of the road way and the lack of a comprehensive policy that would deal with such road uses in public dedicated rights of way. The majority opinion approved the staff recommendation. The approving resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission recommendation. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCmWLIC^TIONIf ^ ^ Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) mxXYXn OCATIOH **VU7 * XXXX Oak street, OronoSite Address tm OF QRM HHAHCE OFFICE 1350200000 01 CEH 75. i 06-117-23-41-0029, n 75, ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 06-117-23-41-0033. YOU Please checlc one - Property X abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. »062440 cool ROl Tit 02/2. APPLICANT Name THOMAS R. WILLIAMS, JR. Phone (home) 473-2631 Phone (work) 473-1536 Address: 1831 Yuina Lane North City: Plymouth, Mn. Zip: 55447 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name SAME ________ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year; I (do) (do not) also own the adjac'nt parcels of land. PRESENT USB OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property vacant Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: variance requested for minimum bulldable lot size VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot ^idth Front _ _ Hardcover Side _ Rear) HARDSHIP Describe undae hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations; cannot be sold as buildable lot_ _ _ _ _ _ without variance for lot size DESCRIPTION OP UNOSOAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning *•'- Code Requirements: none other than size REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. VCompleted Application Form ^^ertified Property Owners List of ov/ners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return addrr?ss (use address labels obtained with property owners list). Certificate of «’irvey including hardcover calculations as required. 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 of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above Information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature ________ ;_____________________ Date_________________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signatuf Date OWNERS SIGNATURE ^ The owner hereby ackowledges and ^..^rees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry..onto th^a property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise ♦•he Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUII DATE 02/oe/oa BATCH 001 HEiaiEPIll COUNTY PROPERTY IlironilATIOM SYSTEM PROPERTY OllNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIAT^AOl PAGE t PROP AODR OlHER MANE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 06-117-23 13 0003 VEDA INC VEDA INC ro OOX 115 LONG LAKE MM 55356 30 06-117-23 A1 0025 N LEHIS t K TRETTEL NN I LENIS 3620 HOODS MILL RO NASHVILLE TN 37215 38 06-117-23 A1 0026 W LENIS & K TRETTEL MN I LENIS 3620 HOODS HILL RD NASHVILLE TN 37215 PROP AODR ^ OJINER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR OtniER NAME 4/taxpayer NAIIE/ADOP 38 06-117-23 41 0027 M I LENIS A K L TRETTEL HM I LENIS 3620 HOODS HILL RD SIASHVILLE TN 37215 30 06 M7-23 41 0030 C M HutirlEYER A A H HOtOlEYER CHARLES A Alfll HOMIIEYER 4125 OAK ST LUNG LAKE IRI 55356 JO 06-117-23 41 0028 H LENIS A K TRETTEL HN I LEWIS 3620 HOODS HILL RO NASHVILLE TN 37215 38 06-117-23 41 0031 C A A HOtniEYER CHARLES A A(0I HOMMEYER 4125 OAK ST LOMG LAKE TUI 55356 38 06-117-23 41 3029 STATE LAND DEPT THOMAS R WILLIAMS JR 425 TOMKAWA RO LOMG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0032 K B ROLLAiro A K *; RODEN KEiniETH B ROLUND t i; ROOEH 4119 OAK ST ORONO TUI 55356 .’v. PROP AODR OIKER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 06-117-23 41 0033 THOMAS R UILLIAMS JR ETAL THOMAS R WILLIAMS 425 TONKANA RD LONG LAKE tOI 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0036 04119 OAK ST K B ROLLAND A K S RODEN KEIUIETH ROLLANO/KAREN RODEN 4119 OAK ST OROMO 111 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0034 THOMAS R WILLIAMS JR ETAL THOMAS R WILLIAMS 425 TONKANA RO LOMG LAKE TUI 5D356 38 06-117-23 41 0000 00425 TONKANA RD THOMAS R WILLIAMS JR ETAL THOMAS R WILLIAMS JR 425 TONKANA I.OMG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0035 04125 OAK ST CHARLES N HOtOlEYER ET AL CHARLES W IIOIB1EYER 4125 OAK ST LOMG LAKE til 5535. 38 06-117-23 42 0004 DAVID L ANDERSON ETAL AVID L ANDERSON 4185 DAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 \l I ' PROP *nDR OVUIER AME TAXPAYER tlMlE/AODR 38 06-117-23 14 0020 405 TONKAWA RD TOTAL BATCH 001 00015 \/ & C DEDOLPH III KARL & CHRISTINE DELOLPH 405 TONKAWA RD ORONO MN 55356 MKIUT23 0? A REGULAR MEETIflG HELD JULY 28, 1969 Papo 2 J ■‘•'0.. I SoarJ.oa inovod, Frans^l seconded, that the • rcr^ueot of the Ton!cn West Development Corp-'.ny for a buildinp permit for an office bui^dinp at 2175 Shadyxfood Road, be approved. Motion, Ayes (4) - Mays (0). Sanrles moved, Franael seconded, that the rcTJOst of Everett Geycn, dba G. 6#5. C.Tjinots, 3593 Shoreline Drive, for a v'lrinnce to e::pand the cabinet shop onto lot 23, be approved. Motion, Ayes (4) • r;ay3 (0). S'2'’.r?.o3 moved, Stubbs seconded, that the TCT'oot cJ Evoro-t Gayon, !ba G. ^ S. Cjjiuots, to use Lots 11 5 12 at 3599 Lyric Avvnr.0 as a parltinp lot, be approved, t:etion. Ayes (4) - Hays (0), ?r''nr3l moved, Sonrlos seconded, that the ro^uoot of John Gunarsrud, 405 Par!c Lano, r.onbino Lots 18 2, Block 5, Ttinnotonica Gurmit Pot!: for a buildin<* lot, vitli the provioacn that Municipal scr/cr bo hooked up T/hon provided, bo approved. Motion, . A/OS (4) - Mays (0). Cmrlos coved, Pranzel seconded, that the ro'^uest of RoQor Mattson, 1074 Locs Linda Av c.ne, for \ front sotbr.o!: variance from 33* to 33’, a;iu a side cewbric!: fro..i 10* to 3*, be approved, TTotion, Ayes (4) • Mays (0), BUILDIMG PERMIT 2475 Shadyvood Road VARIAI1C2 3396 Shoreline Drive PARtailG LOT 3599 Lyric Avenue co:r3i:ii\r:c:i 465 Park Lnne VARlAMCa 1074 Lona Linda Avenue rrentel raved, Stubbs seconded, that the rennest of the Shell Oil Company., for a buil'li^T permit to construct a storapo shod ot 2420 Shady.food Road, be approved. Motion, Ayes (4) - Hays (f). DUILOIIIG PERMIT 2420 Shadyoood Road Searlos moved, Franzol scconJod, that Ordinanco Mo.lOG, An Ordinance To Amend Chapter 00 Of The Municipal Code Of Oreno To Uonulatc The Uso Of Firearms, bo adopted. Motion, Ayes (4) - Mays (0), ORDiriAMCE NO. 106 Franzol moved, Gearies seconded, th.at Ordinance Mo.107, An Ordinance To Provide For Penalties For Violation 0? The rtiinicipal Cr.'e Of Or r.vo. b- - * M., (!) - . f'• ) or.DiriAnns mo.to? ICSUZJin VJSSSZUG C7 5T-2 C.\ZZ:o QZ’nziL, JUL7 10, 1971 Barr covad. Mayor 7an ITao:; oacsr.Cad, to an-orova tlia variaaca raguost o2 Theaaa lUlliana, 425 ?azi!:r.:;c Cord, par tho Planning Crraiasion rocoa- nmclaticnj of Jnna 11, 1379, tjhlcii arai cosblned Irtn C!T?::3*^'2d aa a baiUlng alta by rooaeil on July 23, 1333; lota calntainod ao aft^arato pircolo; 5cnr-2'^ra lot and oobjoct prcoarty ora di^ldad by srnir.j b='jr*.dnry lino* L2-1A to the north and IJl-13 fto fthi oo'ithi lota sorvod by sotior. Motion, Ayea C3) llQyfj (0) • Pr»»a j^.VAnir^:c3 455 Pnrjt Lane 9400 Thoe 'fillioma :-'r -r-jr.lo rttvod, nrrr oooonOod, to ooprova tho of Chiiriia Coaltloy, 2135 Shadjrrood Xtoad, ilri:: -i -/r.rlrno'j of 5’7" aiOa yard and 27*5" front for tl:a piirpoao of constri.ctlng a .1^’ : o'lbjoot to no ochar variancoa Ci- mtod. notion, Ayoa (3) - Maya (©)• vn3ir::2-j 2166 Shad7'.70cd Ajid 3403 Chariot Coihloy ■-.'V i?-*n root rTnd, Barr cooonded, to table the Tnf'.h/3to:rnrt, 1110 20:013 Point Hoad, ir "lotil ir.oro infomatlon ia availablo. **L::ion, ‘733 (3) - iJaya <0) • pnoD2/:r.:TnMi/3rr7i\f.'f Er.3or.-int tlottor 1110 Cohao Point Pv'’ Vrja ITaot narad, Burr nocandad, to table tha ! 2-7 7raa r.aoolntion until tin no::t r ntir.-j oi tin rcgmat of Jlr. Loula D. -' rrpr, r.fnmay for Jasaa flcCloary. Motion, {“) - tlayo (0). GTJ323 DI\7 3TUD7 iV'“ Boot r.oaad. Burr saeondad, to table tha ‘ro Toy I^-rina licanoa until tha na::t regular Common caotluy. notion, Ayoo (3) - Uaya CO). 07VD3D QA7 inUXlVi L2CE:J23 !!'*• cor.jlaa, .ottoraoy for Mr, Larry Ilorli of B'jrtli aior-3 Drivo Marina, x;a3 procont to diacuna •; 1 .197^) r.-riiia licor.aa. Dinoooaicn oanca -aad r: .o;:jntct;.-a cf a ar.vvay aln:;!;; ? praaaiit o.ljyacicn. Iir. Caujlaa prcaiaaJ to aand to tha City a tTTittan oirmary of tha legal and factual a^tv7.ant3 to oupport hia nrgurant for ravialon of ordinary high uatar narl:, Mayor Van Boat sizryl, IJaacangala aacinfad, to table tlia Berth GI:ore Drivo Marina licanaa until a full Council lo praaent. Motion, Ayeo C3) Mayo C0>« BonTii rncp.3 onxvs MAimiA L1C2M3S nonTii CBonn Dnxvs IIARXHA LXCCMSB Mayor Van Boat movad, Uaoaongalo ooconded, to table tlie Gay lea Marina licanaa until a full Council ia praaent* Motion, Ayea (3) - Maya (0) * GAYLES tiARIMA LXCBMGB »•« 7 7"' ^ cCw coy C.irtlflr-jto of for EiorAs ft. wnili.ra, Jr. of liOta 1 and ?, Ploci; [>, yj.r.nf»tr nka Uurmlt Turk Hsnnarin Count.., Flnnooota 1 uao'«Ho* vv i S H W ' ^.44^Utfiy TV \V • ^ ——-»>-»4ift I hor'ily certify t*iat ti.ls l:« .a tni»» «nd ror?*or» ra*Tor.^’r.til!o!t cf i oi:r/oy of tho ^-01ma•^^lrn of uoto I nnU 2, Dlork it, Wr.notonU i'uvMt rnrk. It Jooc nol purrort to r*:c*w lrcrovo;r.2rt:i or or.ci-curPnontc. Cralo: I" - 50* foto : /.-l>-.72 o I Tren *^orlrtsr Gordon U, roirifi ii-'p., /•Ivlr U. ;:uhd«r l-.o; . Gir.cl ;;urv.»/(\rr 'ind lion;, unko, ;'l:.iiv;> *,ri SKE-rcH FOR THOMAS R. WILLIAMS, JR. OF LOTS 14?, BLOCK 5, AND LOT 1, BLOCK 4 MINNETONKA SUMMIT PARK I lENNFP IN COUNTY , MINNESOTA H- If tr r-''* ^ J A DATE : • - JU rovisod to show adjoining lu-us.*s 2-19-88 COFFIN 4 GRONBERG, INC. ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS & PLANNERS f.ONG LAKE. MINNESOTA s'.. MH s M) — W aCND ■....................................................................(§) ...............i pM ........ —*------------------tt-Iw -f i ...... V/R7 ""^frTS^zzr- *V|i»IN.f ‘f.X$..t,f ^ 7-/*--7f «^/a.c 0*4L -syv-i^ __ t*<- uu« 2X,gzs^^ .St4^ — "7 Vn/ ^'tMSt Jhr*i^ i*/j 9*4^ t) < A<ui* 4-iT>7a. VIS’ 514^ •»■ . <»/ ^ tf^irW //-a7-tt ; ffp ^ I J ;li, *<36^ . Cl Afr-' /o) 11 \\,0 i JUN 2 JMa I es ^tes thiro T'O. ^ .6 *: \ ? » 5/« t*,$’.0^e •I rHi ■t t•ACt VRACT :~l 5•• C TRACT rlt«'i««/ I ^^1 (}>^i .•i<» * •("I ftVr^ r*fw;c ^ ^ M • : “ ro(i)s~ . NiV hBEIIK mmism c ■Jip I I ^!2 I V [jll)» i*iL * £v -%SV ro c>j Of nT H \n u lij 10 . -V . • I •' .1 : SKETCH FOR •^OMASR. WILLIAMS, JR. V ^ i i OF LOTS 2, BLOCK 5, AND LOT 1, BLOCK 4 MINNETONKA SUMMIT PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ^ i i* #tt s 24 »r> M ; 1 " — j\j ' DATE : I2-2J-8/ rovi pod to show adjoining hc>usop 2-19-B8 COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS & PLANNERS LONG I.AKE. MINNESOTA CITY ^ OF 1 ORONQ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2387 A RESOLUTIOII GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #1248 WHEREAS, Thomas R. Williams (hereinafter "the applicant") is the ?hereinif ^ Street within the City of Oronr(hereinaf er City ) and legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 5, anc the^e\nafVer•thV prope7ty°"; WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for renewa confCode Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) t< orVse acres °r P'°Pf'^'=y Consisting of 24,400 square feeor 0.56 acres in area instead of the required 43,560 square feet or 7 5^f4et^in^Lid^fch^«h^*i-1f of 19,160 square feet or 43% and measurincwidth at the rear of the street yard setback line instead o 140 feet requiring a 60 foot or 46% variance. Minnesota:HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono m FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1248. in the LR-lB Lakeshore Residential Zonin*2. The property is located District. lie fo?!otiVv"’aHa'nces°"bated”upo A) The property received approval from the City in 1969 and 197 width variances. There h.is been n additions or amendments of the zoning code that would alter th- findings of the 1979 review. B) The property has been assessed one sewer unit and a sewe stub has been provided for the property. C) The development of this site is consistent with recent lo area and lot width variances granted to lots within the immediate surrounding neighborhood. Page 1 of 4 CITYX’ OP ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2387 V* D) 6500 square feet of additional area is provided in Lot 1 Block 4 , Minnetonka Summit Park, although cannot be credite against the area requirements because the lot is divided by tl unimproved right-of-way of Ridge Place. 4. The City Council has considered this application including th findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports t City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the propose variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on th; property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to othe properties in this zoning district; that granting the variances woui not adversely affect traffic conditions, liaht, air nor pose a fir hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merel serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary t alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to prc serve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be : keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code ar Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLOSIOHS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono Cit Council hereby grants variances per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.2 Subdivision 5 (B) to confirm the buildability of the property that require an area variance of 43% and a lot width variance of 46%, subject to t! following conditions: 1. Lot 1 and 2, Block 5 must be legally combined prior to t\ issuance of a building permit for new construction. 2. If accessory structures are proposed for Lot 1, Block Minnetonka Summit Park, at some time in the future, the owner mur apply for a special lot combination to seek credit of the principa residence on combined Lots 1 and 2. 3. Access to the site shall remain via the private drive locate within 'the public dedicated right-of-way and to continue to t maintained by the property owners served by such driveway. It is tl future property owner's responsibility to share in the upkeep ar maintenance of that driveway. Page 2 of 4 ^ CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2387 -• I _ r .-A... m\ ,. i r;^ f • . 1988. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be excercised by an application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval or this variance approval will expire on that date (March 28, 1989). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall ccastitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of March, :c • •\ £4 CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2387_ _ _ _ _ > r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 8S. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) day of /yicLtj 198jfOn this />i_ _ _ _ —j — > - >- /_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-— - _ — before me a Notary Public within and for 'said county, personally appeared (Z jOilCT/'- . v5/'^*r/g- —_—j— 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. isPamela L mATARY public • MINNESOTA ^ ^— — ARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 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 Page 4 of 4 •To: • Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froa: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Data: May 4, 1989 Subject: #1396 Minnetonka Boat Works, 1449 Shoreline Drive - Variances/Conditional Use Permit - Commerical Site Plan Review Additional CouBents and Planning ConiBission irnrciBBiimliil Inn - Additional Exhibits Exhibit Q - Alternate Parking Plan (submitted in preliminary sketch stages by applicant) Exhibit R - LMCD Hearing Notice & Notification List Exhibit S - LMCD/Staff Memo April 8th Meeting Exhibit T - Minutes of LMCD Hearing Exhibit U - Table Comparing Boat Densities with Acreage 6 Shoreline Exhibit V - MCWD Report/Approval Exhibit W - Accident Report - Orono Police Exhibit X - Windward Marine Site Plan Please review the attached staff memo by T. Jacobs dated April 14, 1989 that covers the preliminary review of the application through the Planning Commission review. In addition, review the Planning Commission minutes of April 17, 1989 for background discussion on the major issues. The application involves the need to expand the parking area (36 new stalls) of the marina to support the increase of 48 slips (6 on Browns Bay and 42 on Tanager Lake). Please review the LMCD review (Exhibits R, S & T). Staff has received word that the Minnetonka Boat Works* application was tabled at the LMCD Board meeting to resolve the aunenities portion of the application (i.e. fishing pier, etc.). Please note che various public amenities discussed in there which involve only the Wayzata Boat Works facility - the Orono facility cannot meet parking needs. The six member Planning Commission was unable to effect a majority vote for a formal recommendation. The denial position based their recommendation on the safety factor concerned that the City would assume additional liabilities by allowing a major increase in boat density on the west side where parking would be provided on the east side. The denial position did not feel a cross-walk would be effective. The members who denied the applicarion would also not approve an expansion of hardcover within the 0-75* setback area. Zoning File #1396 May 4, 1989 Page 2 of 6 The Planning Commission members that supported a recommendation for approval opined that the cross-walk would address the safety concerns but felt that the cross-walk would not be effective unless flashing lights were provided. The practice and pattern of drivers using County Road 15, driving usually above the allowed speeds, would require "mega" warnings. Mere signage did not seem to answer that need. Members also concurred that this is not a residential property but a commercial B-2 property similar to all the other commercial marinas with hardcover from parking areas located within the 0- 75* setback area noting the marina next door. In approving the 3-year comprehensive plan for Windward Marine, the City approved new hardcover for parking expansion within the 0-75* setback area (review Exhibit X). In that review a cross-walk was required. It should be noted that it was staff's assumption that the County had failed to approve a cross-walk for the Windward Marine area. In recent discussions with the County, they advised that they had approved it but were awaiting the City to install the cross-w^^ Ik. A single cross-walk shall be installed within the area of the shared lot line of Windward Marine and Minnetonka Boat Works providing safe trespass for clients of the marinas. Please review Exhibit Q, the al ernate parking plan presented by the applicant in the early stages of the review. The City Engineer and staff did meet out on the site a. i confirm that approximately 14 parking stalls could be located on the west side, not requiring excavation within the 75* setback area, but would require major excavation of the existing bank adjacent to the roadway and the removal of many trees. Staff advised the applicant against presenting this as an alternative plan because of the impact upon the neighbors to the sout!i who reside within the residential Tanager Lake area. Staff has received a complaint from a resident who resides on the Tanager Lake side complaining of the impact of the dock structures on the users of the lake. Reviewing the LMCD notices and reports, similar complaints were noted at the meeting and the docks were to be re-aligned to open up the channel area (review Exhibit R - bearing notice and notification list). It is staff's understanding that certain members of the Tanager Lake community may appear at your meeting. Please note the hearing notices were sent to all residents. It is also staff's understanding that JoEllen Hurr will be present to respond to any questions residents may have concerning the dock arrangement. & Zoning File #1396 May 4, 1989 Page 3 of 6 After the Planning Commission meeting, staff met with the applicant in order to review the major concerns noted at the meeting. The following items were to be resolved by either staff or applicant prior to the Council meeting or by applicant in their presentation before the Council: 1. Feasibility of an underpass beneath Tanager Lake Bridge. Both staff and applicant agree that the clearance under the portion that would be available for an underpass would be inadequate. Wayne Matsumoto, Hennepin County Department of Transportation, also advises of the question of security by sending people within an area where there is little visibility and the potential for mishap. 2. Feasibility of an overhead ramp. Both the Building Inspector and Wayne Matsumoto confirm that there is not adequate land area or land base to meet the handicapped standards for an overhead ramo. Mr. Matsumoto really discouraged the use of an overhead ramp in this area. 3. Installation of cross-walk. Mr. Matsumoto had confirmed that they had met with John Gerhardson and located an appropriate cross-walk to serve both marinas. He concurred that Hennepin County would provide appropriate signage placed to the north and south of the cross-walk areas on County Road 15, to alert the public. In consideration of the Planning Commission's approval recommendation, the safety factor and use of a cross-walk would demand flashing lights to alert the "unconditioned" public users of the roadway. Mr. Matsumoto claims flashing lights are a difficulty and something they try to stay away from but clearly yelicw flashing lights would be easier to come by than the red flashing lights. Mr. Matsumoto has promised to submit a letter for the Council's review, which hopefully will arrive by the meeting date. The letter will review the County's concerns regarding the request for a cross-walk with flashing lights. 4. Reduction in speed. The present speed limit is 40 miles per hour, except for sections within the curved areas. Mr. Matsumoto advised that a speed study must be requested by the City and that it will take a few months and that nothing could be guaranteed as he was not aware of any personal injury or property damage accidents created by the cross over use of both marinas in the area. Zoning File #1396 May 4r 1989 Page 4 of 6 Pleaje review Exhibit the record of accident reports reported by the Orono Police within the area of Windward Marine and Minnetonka Boat Works from 1985 through the present. Five accidents were reported within the marina areas. None involved the cross-over activities of clients of the marina nor of the clients cars ingressing oi egressing the marina parking areas. The majority of the accidents involved loss of control of car because of high speeds, bad weather conditions, and driving under the influence of achohol. Staff would also ask that you review Exhibit Ur the comparison table drafted by staff reviewing the status of all Orono marinas in relation to boat density per total acreage and lineal footage of shoreline. The LMCD representative will be able to comment on the comparison of other marinas on the lake with the Minnetonka Boat Works* current proposal. In the original memo presented for the Planning Commission's review, it was noted that a variance approval was required to remove trees within 75* of the lake. Per Ordinance No. 24, Second Series passed by the Council on July 1986, tree removal within the lakeshore protected area was to be governed by the issuance of permits by the City staff. Staff was to assure that appropriate trees would be replanted at least equal to the same number that would be removed. The applicant i supportive of the cross-walk and if a flashing light is deemed necessary, they would support the flashing light. In recent conversations with the applicant, there was discussion as to installing a loading dock on the east side to minimize the need for clients and guests to cross over the highway. Applicant's dock plan should be amended to designate loading dock for client's use. Options of Actions Available to Council - 1. Denial based on the following findings: A) Increase in hardcover within the 0-75* setback area. B) Major increase in slips on west side requiring intensity of cross-over use. Applicant has not sufficiently addressed this concern. C) Over-head ramp and under-head raunp is not feasible and cross-walk does not address safety concern or possible liability of the City because of the Intense use of the county road. Zoning File #1396 May 4, 1989 Page 5 of 6 2. Approval based on the following findings: A) The current pattern of docks on the west side with parking only on the east, has existed for this marina for over 30 years without mishap. B) Based on County and City records there have been no personal injury or property damage resulting from the cross-over use of the clients of either Windward or Minnetonka Boat Works. C) Drainare/run-off will be improved by providing re direction of surface run-off into retention pond for treatment rather than draining directly into the lake. As for conditions of approval, the appropriate conditions set forth in Jacobs* memo of April 14, 1989 would be included in an approval resolution, be as follows: Other conditions should A) The cross-walk to be installed by the City at the expense of Windward Marine and Minnetonka Boat Works within shared property line areas of both marinas. B) Appropriate signage to be provided by the County with flashing yellow lights if County approves. City staff to work with County regarding appropriate speed limits for area if adjustment is deemed necessary. C) Loading dock to be provided within east dock area and to be designated on site plan. Such use to commence this boating season. D) Paving of parking area. At a minimum, the County requests that the access area to the parking area be paved. In the MCWD report. Exhibit V, there is no notation of approval of a gravelled parking area. It is staff's understanding that the MCWD intends to approve gravelled parking areas because of greater permeability of the surface. It has been the City's practice to encourage paving where treatment facilities are provided, lessening the silting problem. The City granted Windward Marine special consideration because of the storage of large boats and potential for continuous damage to paving. The Smith Bay Marina has been required to pave their parking area, again because of the treatment facility. E) Amend the landscape plan to provide replacement trees. The current landscape plan shows no replacement trees. Zoning File #1396 May A, 1989 Page 6 of 6 Coancil Action ~ Provide staff with conceptual direction so that an appropriate resolution can be drafted for action at your May 22, 1989 meeting. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Thomas J. Jacobs, Building & Fire Inspector Date: April 14, 1989 Subject: #1396 Minnetonka Beat Works, 1449 Shoreline Drive - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Commerical Site Plan Review Zoning District - B-2, Lakeshore business district. List of Bzhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Exhibit L - Exhibit M - Exhibit N - Exhibit 0 - Exhibit P - Application for Commerical Site Plan Review Application for Variances Property Owners List Plat Map Affidavit of Publication/Public Hearing LMCD Public Hearing Notice Existing Site Plan/Survey Hardcover Calculation Worksheet - Existing Conditions Proposed Site Plan/Drainage/Landscape Hardcover Calculation Worksheet - Proposed Letter to Glenn Cook from Jeanne Mabusth City Engineer’s Report Hydraulic Calculations for Retention Pond Building Permit Application Building Plans for Dock Letter for Minnetonka Boat Works to City Pertinent Code Sections Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 & Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - Conditional Use Permit & Variance Section 10.41 - B-2 Lakeshore business district. Section 10.41, Subdivision 2 - Application. 7 (A) 1 - Lakeshore landscaping. 7 (A) 3 - Front yard landscaping. 10 (A) - Lakeshore setback regulations. 10 (D) - Lakeshore hardcover regulations. 10 (E) - Tree removal regulations. ^ ^ ^ w——- — r — —- - --- - - - - -- - - Section 10.41, Subdivision Section 10.41, Subdivision Section 10.41, Subdivision Section 10.41, Subdivision Section 10.41, Subdivision Review of the Application - The applicant is proposing to create 26 additional parking spaces c the property to provide parking for 48 new dock slips which are to be addt this year. The property has been used for boat slips/boat storage in tl cast. There is no proposed change to the existing use, which is permittt in the B~2 business district. The applicant is requesting the following; 1. S 10.03, Subdivision 19 & S 10.55, Subdivision 8 - Conditional U£ permit and variance required for land alterations and additions hardcover within lakeshore protected area. 2. § 10.41, Subdivision 7 (A) 1 & 3 - Variance. Zoning File #1396 April 14, 1989 Page 3 of 6 0-75 * Hardcoveri Maximum Allowed « 0% Area - 165,330 s.f. Existing Hardcover ■ Proposed Hardcover * 23,390 s.f. or 14.1% 25,609 s.f. or 15.48% 75-250* Hardcover: Maximum Allowed - 25% Area « 37,536 s.f. Existing Hardcover - 6,230 s.f. or 16.6% Proposed Hardcover ■ 0 s.f. or 0% The proposal also shows that a retention pond is proposed at the end of the parking lot to accept all drainage. The retention pond has been reviewed by the City Engineer (Exhibit L) and he recommends the following: A) The parking lot grading plan should be modified to provide a minimum 1% grade. B) The area between the parking lot and the lake should be a minimum of 6" higher than the parking lot. C) Pre-cast concrete bumper curbs should be required around the parking lot. D) Parking lot should be paved to minimize the run-off of silt into the ponding area. The City Engineer further states that the proposed drainage plan and ponding area is generally adequate and that the storm drainage detail provided to collect the surface drainage may be a problem of plugging up thus part of the parking lot would be allowed to drain directly into the lake. This concern could be addressed by modifying the parking lot grades as stated above to provide greater protection. 7. Lakeshore setback. The lakeshore setback requirement is 75*. Applicant is requesting to provide the required parking spaces/parking lot 10* from the lakeshore. This is consistent with the existing parking lot which is also 10* from the lakeshore. 8. Tree removal within 75* of the lake. Applicant is requesting to remove approximately 6 trees due to the location of the parking lot. Applicant has positioned the proposed parking lot to save as many trees as possible. Staff Re dation - Staff recommends approval of the following: 1. S 10.41, Subdivision 4 (A) - Conditional use permit. Zoning File #1396 April 14, 1989 Page 4 of 6 2. S 10.41, Subdivision 7 (A) 1 & 3 - Variance. 3. S 10.41, Subdivision 10 (D) - Lakeshore hardcover regulations - variance. 4. S 10.41, Subdivision 10 (E) - Tree removal regulations - var. ::e. Based on the following findings: 1. The proposal has taken into consideration and improved the drainage on the lot. 2. The proposal has taken into consideration existing trees and tried to save as many as possible. 3. Due to terrain, location of proposal is only area acceptable. 4. That the proposal under which it would be operated and maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or maternally injurious to properties or improvements in the vacinity. 5. The proposal is in accord with the objects of the zoning chapter and the purpose of the district in which the site is located and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. CoBBercial Site Plan Review - Zoning District - B-2, lakeshore business district. Parking - Municipal Code requires that this type of use to provide parking as follows: 6 parking spaces shall be provided per each 10 boat slips. Applicant is proposing 68 spaces which meets the Municipal Code requirements. Applicant is showing the parking area as gravel surface. After reviewing this with the City Engineer, because of run-off and drainage, staff is requesting that all parking lots be covered with asphalt (see Exhibit L). Access — The City Engineer has revlev^d this project and had no comments on the access. After speaking with Hennepin County Department of Transportation, they requested that the access to the property be paved but had no problem with the access location (they also requested that the parking lot be paved). I have spoken with Hennepin County about a crosswalk in this area. A Mr. Wayne Matsumoto is in charge of this type of project and has not been able to contact me at this time. Zoning File #1396 April 14, 1989 Page 5 of 6 Drainage - The City Engineer has reviewed the storm water run-off from the site and the proposal. The applicant is proposing a retention pond at the south end of the parking lot. The City Engineer's comments are as follows: 1. The parking lot grading plans should be modified to provide a minimum 1% grade. 2. The area between the parking lot and the lake should be a minimum of 6" higher than the parking lot. 3. The pre-cast concrete bumper curbs should be required around the parking lot. 4. The parking lot should be paved to minimize the run-off of silt into the ponding area. 5. The proposed drainage plan and ponding area is generally adequate. He also states that with the above corrections, it would provide some protection from the proposed drainage system plugging up. Screening - Screening will be required around the dumpster. Signage - No new signage is proposed. On existing survey, underground fuel storage tank is shown. Applicant must remove underground storage tank or verify that it already has been removed . Dock Access - West side - Access to dock must be maintained every 300' maximum. Fire Extinguishers - Having a 20-B:C rating shall be provided as follows: 1 on each float and 1 on the pier or warf 25* at the head of the gangway to float, pursuant to Uniform Fire Code Section 79.911 E. Electrical Equipment - All electrical equipment installed and used must be in accordance with the National Electrical Code as it applies to wet, damp or hazardous locations. Zoning File #1396 April 14, 1989 Page 6 of 6 All portions of floats exeeding 250* in distance for fire department access shall be provided with an approved wet standpipe system installed in conformity with applicable standards set forth in OBC 382. A) Hose stations shall be spaced as to provide protection to any poJ^tion of the floats or the floating vessels. B) Hoses shall be mounted on a reel or rack and enclosed within an approved cabinet. Hose stations shall be labeled "Fire Hose, Emergency Use Only". All equipment shall meet the approval of the fire inspector. Landscaping - Applicant has shown on Exhibit I, the areas which will be kept as green areas. They are not proposing to add any additional trees. Staff has no problem with the proposal due to the location of the existing landscaping. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the commercial site plan based on the following findings: 1. The proposed structure and operation is not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or maternally injurious to the properties or improvements in the vaclnlty. 2. Applicant is providing better control of drainage on his property with the addition of the retention pond. Approval is subject to the following conditions: !• Applicant must maintain green areas shown on proposed plan. 2. Signage remain the same. 3. Soil erosion control be provided and maintained throughout the entire project until permanent erosion control is in effect. 4. Screening must be provided around dumpster. 5. Pr V. asphalt paving in parking area. 6. Provide asphalt paving at access. 7. That parking area be constructed with City Engineer's recommendations. i'-y . 1 m R CITY OF OROHO - GENERAL LAND USB_J, PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 1449 ShoreLLnjr Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 11-117-23 22 0000 1396 Please check one - Property ______ abstract or (for Conditional Use Applications only) torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) Name Mi-nnetonka Boat IVorks Phone (work)(6l2) 473-7305 Address East Grove Lane City IVayzata Zip 55391 OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Genmar Industries, Inc.Phone (612) 473-7305 Address East Grove Lane City Wavzata Zio 55391 Date Prooertv Acouired 8-65 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact :^ee - Double Current Application Fee $100.00 a)Residential accessory Use $150.00 b)Institutional (church, school, < $150.00 c)Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 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 walls within 75 of lakeshore _ _ _ _ PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS , ^ ^ v .X $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees; $250.00 Vacation $150.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $250.00 Rezoning _ _ _ _ $100.00 Appeals _ _ _ _ Other - see fee schedule EXHIBIT present use of property Present Zoning District Orono Present Use of Property Other l specrr y ; ( I iviai~i na DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Add 42 additional slips to Tanager Bav and 6 additional slips to Brovwns Bav _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) 3. Stamped, 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 hjry 7. Plat Map. ;‘r -rrr-r 8. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate'of^'' any other persons you wish notified of this application. . The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application.-, PL^ase-^^^ remember that your application is not complete if the above infbrmaticu has not been included. rdl} -——————- - --—-——- --- --- - - - - - - - - -—- -iv'-’Z Certification by Zoning Department that Land Use Application is" complete. '‘.'.I’. Zoning Officials Signature . Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. ^ ^ ) / / ? Applicant's signature ------Date 3 '____ OWNERS SIGNATURE / ^ ^ uThe 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 v^Mcatiomofthi/ requ^t. Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Buildi.*g & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. . ReceiDt- *iyib whilst ieo !» cm OF ORONO -‘NSlffwJc&TiLPPLICATION - - Initial Application Fee (^50._oj) ($50.00 per each additionalvariance)// Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 ## " V M (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATIOH Site Address 1449 Shoreline Drive_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 11 -117-23--22-0008 Please check one - Property _ _ abstract or _ _ _ torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on CITY J'.'vi; required survey. Ti'TCz APPLICANT Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _. , r - - L.* ’ w w * Name wtnnetonka Boat Works Phone (work) ^73-7305 Address E. Grove Lane_ _ _ _ _ City t ***^ayzata_ _ _ _ _ ZipV'^39~1 v . ^ . OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - Name Genmar Industries, inc._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (work) 339-7600_ _ _ _ _ _ Address; 1Q0 S. 5th St., Suite 2400city; !'^1»-nneapoUs zip; 55402 Date Property Acquired August 1985_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (month/year) I (do)^do not^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USB OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Q^o^Q_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Present Use of Property __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Residential _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) Marina_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 85,000 appro Describe request in Qetail;Add /;2 additional slips to Tanager Bay and 6 additional slips to Browns bay ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ _ Lot Area _ _ _ Lot Width ^ Hardcover Setback Variances ( ^ Front _ _ _ Side ^ Rear) Other Roadway Crossing - grading and tree removal within 75’ of the Lai HAROSmB K ^ 'A undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict iT^hforcement of zoninq requlations:ipr ■ Jy W > DESCRIPTION OF UNOSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. 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). 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this a. olication, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's Signature 7 Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification-of this request. Owner's Signature tior^-of tnis request. Date ^'23J3_ Applicant must have a^l submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please malce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE OS/07/89 BATCH BOB HErtCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATXQN 8YSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE 9 PROP ADOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 58 11-117-E5 tt 0004 01440 SHORELINE DR JAMES P RIVERS ETAL JAMES P RIVERS 1444 SHORELINE OR NAYZATA MN 55591 50 11-117-25 22 0005 01442 SHORELINE OR JAMES P RIVERS ETAL JAMES P RIVERS 1444 SHORELINE DR NAYZATA MN 55591 58 11-117-25 22 0004 01444 SHORELINE DR J P t M A RIVERS JAMES P • MARY A RIVERS 1444 SHORELINE DR HAV:UTA m 55591 58 11-117-25 22 0007 PROP ADDR 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED (»tCR NAME J P • M A RIVERS TAXPAYER JAMES P A MARY A RIVERS NAME/AODR 1444 SHORELINE OR NAYZATA m 55591 58 11-117-25 22 0008 01449 SHORELINE DR GENMAR INDUSTRIES INC MINNETONKA BOAT HORK P 0 BOX 549 NAYZATA MN 55591 58 11-117-25 22 0010 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J P • M A RIVERS JAMES P t MARY A RIVERS 1444 SHORELINE DR NAYZATA HN 55591 PROP ADOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 11-117-25 22 0011 01452 SHORELINE OR LAUREN E BORN ET AL LAUREN E BORN 1452 SHORELINE OR NAYZATA MN 55591 58 11-117-25 25 0002 01475 SHORELINE OR ROBERT P SCHMITT A NIFE ROBERT P SCHMITT 1475 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55591 58 11-117-25 22 0012 01420 SHORELINE OR DAB HALPER DAVID N HAIPER 1420 SHORELINE DR NAYZATA m 55591 58 11-117-25 25 0011 01485 GREEN TREES RD RAC THOMAS RALPH THOMAS A ASSOCIATES 4851 5TH AVE E SUITE 100 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251 58 11-117-25 25 0001 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GEhflAR INDUSTRIES INC MINNETONKA BOAT NORK P 0 BOX 549 NAYZATA MN 55591 58 11-117-25 25 0012 01495 GREF- "REES RU J A NALKER k i5 NALKER JAMES A A SHARON S NALKER 1495 GREEN TREES RD NAYZATA m 55591 OQ E X ADOR OKCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 11-117-25 25 0017 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIONED CAS PLATOU J D SURBER 4152 NO YUCCA RD PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85255 TOTAL BATCH 005 00015 #1396 RUN DATE OS/07/09 M^N OOS HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OltCRS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE 10 r #1396 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTM^ OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF HY KN0HLED6E AND BELIEF. DATE ,£ar OF OflONO • NO« is April 17. 1989 to *^F^|^***A» an aru variance for a datachao • «»JWatnictu« (Baraga an^ im^Ti'ni**"*** )'“*”■ ,sss.=m^ ~.HiysEr«r5SJi;’S ili5-iJS!»,*2rr'±=^ - •— ' ».rj‘v • ^t^aattacfcvanancaofefort^nn«>^fl. 0" ttw proparty . A* approval of a condttional aatbacfc area for tha • ***• c*"*™**^ pariUng area ra- . Tanca cona«arad an accaaaoiy Btnjctura Pa- : sr'^'^srs.^jsris' By; Ptannino ConMnljiai^ • i ?• Wo. 1394 0^2«an L Wli5?3 SS Far In Tha l^ and Plonaaf 'April 3/ VIM Lana aaaka «»n«H«.^a«^r4S ?’ : - /-•-.t ‘.t--T ,-.• I'/i.'i.iw -ji'. _ ^ Jjjnna A. Maboaih.JB«^ « ZoninB AdmH^ EXHIBIT"' Affidavit of Publication state 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 ail 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.UMi Lntiinri}. (l(^rJ.UiA<lJ Oi'clitnlimLn which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, Ciid was printed and published once each week for_____ ^______^successive weeks: It was fir me day <vt .ed Monday. /M A. and was thereafter pointed and published every Monday, to and Including Monday. the day of 19—; r^-Agem \ »I notary rucuo i-.:;csota J i ^ Ipy CA."V2.R ■: : j: JTY : t Wy Comfr;i;!cn t rca Ji.1,27.1030 ;■> My Comrr:c:!cn t rca Jzn. 27,1030 ; t Subscribed and sworn to me on this , i */ day of—^jp^idL-^=------- >4 19^. By; Vk x±ilet^ Q - Notary Public Rate information (1) Lowest ciessifisd rale paid by conunercial users for compara ble space: *9.80 per inch. ... (2) Maximian rate allowed by law for above matter: $9.80 P*'J'*®*’- (3) Rale actually charged lor above mailer: $4.86 per m;m. Each additional auccasalve week: S3 24 per inch LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT The Laker/Pioneer Wayzata Sailor, Excelsior Sailor, Minnetonka Sailor, Westonka Sailor Wayzata Weekly News/South Shore Weekly News PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS DENSITY AND NEW DOCK LICENSE IF from: Eugene R. Stroramen Executive Director 473-7033 date: March 23, 1989_ _ _ KglDWl MAR271969 Notice is hereby given that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) will hold a public hearing at the LMCD office, 402 E. Lake St. (depot building), Wayzata, at 7:30 a.m. Saturday, April 8, 1989 in the matter of Special Density Permit and new dock license applications by the Minnetonka Boat Works, Inc. for an increase in Boat Storage Units (BSU) at its Orono location, 1449 Snoreline Dr. The Increase requested is from 41 to 47 BSU on Browns Bay, and from 25 to 67 BSU on Tanager Lake, meeting the 1:10 foot rule under the LMCD Code. Eua^e R. Strommen, Executive Director Lal^ Minnetonka Conservation District #1396 msJsJe.Tr>/^iCA k-oA-v Loo,c:.ic C i^on . o f^AciL/TV HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET / %n/OCy coa / J / t7j)/v/ S SETBACK ZONE: (cIRCLE ONE) 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' i 1 EXHiBrr"r=2=£.Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House S'O length B. Garage E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape areas UNDERLAIN ?UST.C - SHEETING 6. Other C. DRIV£MAYy/>ku X ______________ X 0. SlDEWAtnC X X X - X - X WIDTH S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^IMOO S.F. __________ S.F. - S.F. , S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ____________ S.F. ___________ S.F. 23 3o<^ S CO CO Ct) .F. ^Total Hardcover in Zone - _ Total Property Area in Zone - 11:0^.31^ j.f. |b 3.3 301 ^[Tl H.S'330 X 100 » )H-1_% , A \ ^ A C o.-Vt CK-onjO f^~«AM_'T'V' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET Co‘^ Jr r?o S, SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' {^75^25^ 250-500' 500-1000 Existing Hardcover in Zone A. H ouse So LENGTH B. Garage c. Driveway^/pai^^ X D. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS underlain BY •. . plastic sheeting 6. Other ?o.X WIDTH Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 6 SJo _ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.h. \\ CO Q _ _ _A 67:2.30 4 B X 100 30 S.F. A S.F. [T ,''.oA-T OiLo/OO )-i_ , r"/ W1.R3GV15 CiLGUTiQN WCRKSHErr At--^A>vr£- ( -/UV jS^ SET3ACX ZCNS: (ciscu ONE) (fQ-]^ 75-250 ' 250-500' 5G0-10G0' E'C sting Harzccveh is Zone A. KOUSc exmmwJ . L£NGTH B. Garage C. DRIVEHAYy^e±2^.£l±JL_ X D. SlDSWALiyiCOclL’^ E. Patio / Deck - X F.Landscape ARE.AS UNDERLAIN 3Y .. . PLASTIC SHEETING 6. Other Jo. 2.iroo s.F. WIDTH Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone JZ3Joc^ . S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. ■t4 0^ S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S F. S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. CO rH s.F. A I -1 B 330 X 100 IL.<" 33o s.F. B 1*^' r-oA-r F^c.i\.iTi (W-RDCOVE?. ULCULATION WORKSHEZT /^cre:L.\/A-rs: i -a£ViS.£a Sc—Ac:< ziNc: (c:scL* one ) 0-75' 25G-5G0' 5GG-10Q0' Existing HAaocsvEE in Zone A . House 3o X ,?c3. 1 *S.F. LENGTH WIDTH X .a S.F. X .a S.F. X ,S.F. - X _S.F. 3.Garage _ X _a S.F. C.Driveway /pa^t^i^c._ X _a S'X30 S.F,/ - X a S.F. 0.Sidewalk .- X a S.F. - X a S.F. . X a S.F. E.Jatio/Deck . X S.F. F.Landscape . X m S.F. AR E.4S UNDERLAIN 3Y . X a S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X S.F. X S.F. 6. Other X Jt S.F. G>X3Q s .f.Total Kardcoveh in Zone - _ Total PscPEsr^ A rea in Zone - s.f, ^ ^ril—X IGO » Kc-G> '% 1 CITY OF ORQNa r 96 4JCi4'¥6f ORONO Pott Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Munidp^ Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka March 31r 1989 Mr. Glenn Cook Bonestroor Rosene Anderlik 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 RE; Land Use Applications for April 17, 1989 PC Meeting Dear Glenn: I have enclosed various exhibits for land use applications reviewed by the Planning Commission at their April 17, meeting. I will need your responses no later than Tuesday, April 11th. I have the following preliminary comments on these applications for your review; 1. Application #1367-Steven Harris, 3850 Watertown Road. Applicant has finally submitted a survey locating pond and elevations. Neighbor to west claims impact by pond. Your comments should be directed to overall effect of pond o*' properties and subject properties. If you need additional information, please let me know. 2. Application #1293-Washington Scientific Industry, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard. Use the Delta Environmental Consultant s report dated March 1, 1989, sent to you under separate cover, as it relates to the thin spreading of approximately 800 cubic yards of contaminated soil within the designated area. If you are unable to locate the subject report, I will send you the additional information. 3. Application #1396-Minnetonka Boat Works, 1449 Shoreline Drive. Mr. Jacobs proposes an increase in boat slips of 48, 6 on Brown's Bay and 42 on the Tanager Lake side. Two alternative parking plans have been proposed. Alternate plan'^one“ involves parking expansion on the east side. Parking area encroaches the 75* setback plans have been enclosed for the retention pond with treatment facility. Alternate plan'’\wo proposes additional parking on the west side involving major alteration of a steep treed bank area, requiring and necessitating the removal of many ^^®®® provide a buffer to Green Trees estate homes from the commercial marinas to the north. BUILDING a ZONING - 47 3-7357 assessing administration a finance - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Mr, Glenn Cook March 31, 1989 Page Two There are pros and cons for both plans. If the parking improvements are just to the east, how do we solve the issue of crossing over the County Road? We have been advised by Jim Rivers that crosswalks are not encouraged in that area by rhe County, We may have to look at an overhead ramp of some sort. Please let me know as soon as possible if you need additional information from Sathre/Bergquist. 4. Application #1397-Art Center of Minnesota. The Art Center is proposing a lot line rearrangement to divide off the Old Hill School property for single family residential use. The City has required certain setbacks for the principal structure on the Art Center property. The subdivision will create an impact on the existing improvements serving the Art Center, i.e. parking, traffic flow. Note that the application also includes a commercial site plan review for the Art Center. Your comments should be directed toward the commercial site plan portion of the review dealing with parking, traffic flow, etc. The City does plan to return application 1302, Crystal Bay Road, Conditional Use Permit/Variance application to the Planning Commission for final action. We have scheduled it for a specific time slot at 8:00 p.m. It is most important that you are present at this meeting. Please submit any final comments that you may have on the final plans to be presented for Council's final action. Once again, if you need any additional information, please contact my office. As I previously mentioned, we will need your review comments by April 11, 1989. Sincerely, Jeahhe A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Admin. JAM/ls Enclosures cc: Mr. Thomas Jacobs Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects April 12. 1989 O ro G Bonestrea PE (kowt W Ooiene. PE Jotepn C AixJcn*. PE Bndfota A Letnoefg. PE p<na«d E TUnef P£ C OHon PE G^ » Coo*. PE Thomas E Noyes. PE tooeft G Schuntcfw. PE Marvm L SorvaU. PE KMh A Go*ooo PE «<ha«> W Foswf. PE OonakJ C Bui^aidL PE Je»ry A 8ou«Jon PE Milk A Hanson PE ltd K Field. PE Michael r Raucmarm PE RDOert « Pitfflene. FE Oavnd O Loskoca. PE Thomas W Petefson pe Mchaei C Lynch P£ James > Maiand PE Kennetn P Anoenon. PE KMh A Bachmann PE Mac* R Rott PE PoOeft C SuSSCK AI A Thomas E Angus. PE Howam A Santocd PE Oamei J Edgerton PE Mac* A Se<i PE Phi*o J Caswell PE Mam O U4lbi PE Thomas R Anaenon. AIA Gify F RyUnaer PE Cl anes A Encwon Leo M Panse-iky Hartan M Oison Susan M EOenm. CPA City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re: File No. 139-1396 Minnetonka Boat Works Dear Jeanne. We have reviewed the plan submitted for the Minnetonka Boat Works at 1449 Shoreline Drive. The project would provide for expansion of the parking area and control of the site runoff. The parking lot grading plan should be modified to provide a minimum one percent grade. The area between the parking lot and the lake should be a minimum of six inches higher than the parking lot. Precast concrete bumper curbs should be required around the parking lot. We would also recommend that the parking lot be paved to minimize the runoff of silt into the ponding area. The proposed drainage plan and ponding area is generally adequate. The storm drainage detail provided to collect the surface drainage may be a problem. I feel that the proposed drainage system would plug up. The concern would be that once the system plugged up that part of the parking lot would be allowed to drain directly to the lake. This concern could be addressed by modifying the parking lot grades to provide greater protection. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li #1 ^ Q i. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636^600 4,>i sijeosiKfl scfli ycsKS qrcno -acility Qrono, Xinnesorta ll-flor-33 5310 - 6 SISTiNB SITE - EAST CF C.H. 15 - TOTALLY UNCEVELCPED Total Area lAe): 1.3 Acres Brass Area : 1.8 Acres Marcsurface Area j 0 Acres Ccefficiern of Runoff <Ce): 0.20 exhibit ^ ARCP^JSED SITE - INCaffiES EXISTINS PARKINS t PROPOSED Total Area (Ap): Orass Area j Harcsurface Area * Cc«ff:c:errt of Runoff iCa): Critical Tiae of Concentration : Rainfall Intensities i 1.8 Acres 0.7 Acres 0.S Acres 0.53 12 Minutes 1 YRlIl) 2.9 In/Hr Existing RunofflOe) * CexIxAe 1.04 CF3 Proaoseb Runoff(Qo) « CcxIxAa 2.76 CrS Runoff increase(Ri) * Qd - Qe 1.71 CfS Required Storage « Rixl2Minxb0 1232 Site Pend Storace Reouireo » 3228 C? Allcutaole Runoff rrca Site : 2.74 CrS 5 YRCS) 4.5 In/Hr 1.62 CrS 4.23 CrS 2.66 CFS 1912 CF 10 YR{I10) 5.2 In/Hr 1.87 CFS 4.94 CFS 3. 07 CFS 2209 CF See Ponding Area Calculation Sheet Includes Pond Outlet ♦ Direct Runoff 100 YR(I100) 7.6 In/Hr 2.74 CFS 7.22 CFS 4.48 CFS 5228 CF AREA NOT DRAININ8 TO PGlu) Total Area <Aoa)i Grass Area i Hardsurface Area : Coefficient of Runoff (Cp); Critical Tice of Conceritration : Rainfall Intensities ; ?rot»sed RunoffICoa) * CtnIxAoa Alldtable Pond Outlet » Qe - Qoa 0.8 Acres 0.8 Acres 0 Acres 0.20 12 Minutes 1 YSai) 2.9 In/Hr 0.46 CFS 0.58 CFS 5 YR(I5) 4.5 In/Hr 3.72 CFS 0.9 C.^ 10 YR(I10) 5.2 In/Hr 0.83 CFS 1.04 CrS Maxiaua Pend Cutlet During 100 YR Store AREA DRAINING TO PC18) 1.5 CFS Size Pond Accorcinaly Total Area (A): Srass Area : iwosurface Area i Coefficient of Runoff (C)» Critical Tine of Concentration i Rainfall Intensities t 1 Acres 8.3 Acres 0.7 Acres 0.62 12 Minutes I YR(il) 2.9 In/Hr 100 YR<I100) 7.6 in/Hr 1.22 CFS 1.52 CFS Prooosed Runoff 9 * CxIxA 1.80 CFS 5 YR(I5) 10 YR(I10) 4.5 in/Hr 3.2 in/Hr 2.73 CFS 3.22 C** The orcoosed parking area runoff ejll be directed to the concina bas;n overland or tnrouen store crain. The subeerged outlet to the aasin will arovice for SHtming of oils arc floataaie ceons. 100 YR(I100) 7.6 In/Hr .assxusn'ss ss 4.71 CFS the :1!NNETDf6;fl XAT WiiiXS - uRCM) PChO!N8 AREA Arta(ac) ■ 1 C « ^65 tediticnal inf1cm : 9.3 34/11/63 91:43 PM Outlsi (cfs) s Max Storaoe Hec. sax. Bievation stcra duration Icf) : 1 hr 3 hr 6 hr 12 V 24 hr 48 hr 5 19 15 29 £5 39 35 49 45 59 55 69 65 79 75 69 65 39 35 190 I9S 119 115 129 159 169 369 729 1449 2869 1199 13.59 8.29 6.69 5.90 5.59 4.89 4.39 4.99 3.69 3.49 3.23 3.99 2.85 2.79 2.69 2.59 2.49 2.39 2.29 2.19 2.99 1.55 1.39 1.85 1.55 1.35 9.81 9.44 9.25 9.13 1.5 2,513 330.5 6.3 5.3 4.4 3.3 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.9 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.9 9.3 9.5 9.3 9.2 9.1 a 3 3 3 3 i 3 9 9a 3 3 9a 9a 3aaaa 9 9 9 9 9 9 9a 9 V in 0 out V out Storace RmuirM ac-f( 2243 1.5 459 1,536 0.94 3,138 1.5 399 2,258 9.05 3,378 1.5 1.359 2,628 9.36 4,692 1.5 1,899 2,892 9.06 5,163 1.5 2,259 2,318 9.07 5,616 1.5 2,799 2,316 0.07 5,379 1.5 3,159 2,729 9.96 6,249 1.5 3,699 2,640 9.06 6,313 1.5 4,959 2,268 9.96 6,639 1.5 4,599 2,153 9.05 6,864 1.5 4,359 1,314 9.04 7,929 1.5 5,499 1,6''3 9.04 7,225 1.5 5,659 1,375 9,93 7,371 1.5 6,399 1,971 9.92 7,695 1.5 6,750 655 9.92 7,899 1.5 7,299 690 9.91 7,55b 1.5 7,659 306 0.01 8,973 1.5 8.199 <27)0.00 6,151 1.5 6,559 (353)-9.01 8,139 1.5 3,998 (819)-9.02 8,139 1.5 3,459 (1,269)-9.93 8,366 1.5 3,309 (1,535)-9.04 8,522 1.5 19,359 (1,823)-9.94 8,658 1.5 19,899 (2,142)•9.053,963 1.5 13,590 (4,433)-9.193,477 1.5 16,290 (6,723)-9.15 11,372 1.5 32,490 (21,928)-9.48 12,5S 1.5 64,899 (52,445)-1.2914,049 1.5 123,699 <115,569)-2.65 14,692 1.5 253,209 (244,538)-5.62 PONDING STuRflGE AVAILABLE Contour 323.4 333 332 333 Souare reet 2139 2499 3499 4999 CuajuiativB St or age (C.*) 9 1353 7153 19853 CITY OF ORONO - BOI.LDING PERMIT APPLICATION 1^96 Date Received:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Approved:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Permit#:_ _ _ _ Project#:^ i\i::4uj.reinents: Building permit application - to be filled out completely 2 sets of construction plams to include the following: a) Floor plans? Footing and foundation plan; Elevations (of all sides)? tAniOH Wall sections and cross sections? Details - stairs and any special connections b) c) d) e) letely ai^slgned ■JhL 3. Certificate of survey with rlocation of existing and proposed structures including hardcover calculations and grading euid drainage plans as required. 4. Energy calculations - form provided. 5. Septic report and design if required. ABOVE INFORMATION MOST BE SUBMITTED IN FULL BEFORE PLAN REVIEW WILL BE STARTED THE APPLICANT IS: (circle one) OWNER or CONTRACTOR JOB SITE ADDRESS; 1449 Shoreline Drive_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ZIP:5539l (work) 473-730.^ NAME OF OWNER: Minnetonka Boat IVorks, DLv. Cenmar 1 nd . PHONE: (home) Box ^ MAILING ADDRESS: 294 East Grove Lanp.549 CITY: iVnvrnfn________ ZIP: 55391 CONTRACTOR: IVnf-ian Fr~t=>f> Dorks PHONE:474-6846 MAILING ADDRESS:, ARCHITECT: _ _ CITY:ZIP: PHONE: MAILING ADDRESS:CITY:ZIP: TYPE OF WORK: New_ _ Addition X Accessory Structure_ _ Move,^ Demo_ _ Remodel/Alteration_ _ Renovate_ _ Land Alteration^. PROPOSED USB (describe in detail): Rental of boat slips STORIES:SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR:, NO. OF BEDROOMS:GARAGE STALLS: ATT.DET. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTIOM VALUATION (excluding land): $ ___________________________ I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the Information above is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City and with the State BuJIdlng Code? that I understand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a permit? and that the work will be in accordance with the approved plan.'_* / / APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:DATE: 50/ (Please fi:^l out the reverse side of this form) CTF^'- uaRawa- CITY of OROJfO Post Office Box 66-CrystaJ Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka DATZi_£HJV^iC:ZLAgVIS-QRr In accordance with M.S. 15.165, "Rights of subjects of data", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidentla'l information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be sh^*-od with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may beer, e public. 5. You have certain rights under ^ data on yourself. 15.165 to review private 6. Your full name, and date of birth are required to process this application or permit. 4^s /5.HrCV. l-rlf/,'7] First Peni- Middle Last Address ......._ ' l' y]r}___-5$33./..... City /state Zip '-iT^ Phone I understand my rights as stated above. Signature BUILDING 4 ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION 4 FINANCE - 473-7338 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7339 A/UNNE1DNKA BOAT WORKS exhibit Minnetonka Boat Works Division of Qenmar* Industries. Inc 294 ifast Grove Lana. RQ Box 549. Wayrttta. Minnesota 55391 • 612/473-7305 March 24, 1989 ATTN: Mr. Mike Gaffron CITY OF ORONO PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 #1396 ^ RE: Application for building permit Hike, Per our phone conversation, please find enclosed an Application for a Building Permit, a Commercial Site Plan Review and a Variance Jir plication. These applications pertain to the additional slips we wish to install in Browns Bay and Tanagers Bay at 1449 Shoreline Drive, Orono. Included with the applications, you will fino the following information that was requested. BUILDING PERMIT:1 - Construction plans for docks 1 - Certified Survey - original COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW & VARIANCE APPLICATION: 2 - Certified Owners Property Lists (within 350’) 2 - Plat maps 20 - Legal Size Envelopes Addressed (owners within 350’, no return address and stamped) 2 - Certificate of Surveys - original Topographic Surveys - current and proposed #1396 In our conversation, Jeanne and yourself had questions and concerns. One Item mentioned was additional signage. At this time we do not see a need for this. The lighting for the new slips and parking would be of similar design and style currently being used. The garbage dumpster will be screened In a suitable location. To answer to the question regarding more on site land storage - we do not see a need for additional winter storage allotment. ■ ■ V;- If Byron or myself can answer any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Beth Whittaker Manager of Administration BW/ps Enclosures LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT To: The Laker/Pioneer Wayzata Sailor, Excelsior Sailor, Minnetonka Sailor, Westonka Sailor Wayzata Weekly News/South Shore Weekly News from: Eugene R. Stronsnen Executive Director 473-7033 date: March 23, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS DENSITY AND NEW DOCK LICENSE Notice is hereby given that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) will hold a public hearing at the LMCD office, 402 E. Lake St. (depot building), Wayzata, at 7:30 a.m. Saturday, April 8, 1989 in the matter of Special Density Permit and new dock license applications by the Minnetonka Boat Works, Inc. for a»i increase in Boat Storage Units (BSU) at its Orono location, 1449 Shoreline Dr. The increase requested is from 41 to 47 BSU on Browns Bay, and from 25 to 67 BSU on Tanager Lake, meeting the 1:10 foot rule under the LMCD Code. 7—' ^ Eug^e R. Stronmenrtxecutive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District .cy owners list for Tanager Lake 10-117-23 11 0001 Suad H. Azhari 1745 Fox Street Wayzata, MN 55391 10-117-23 11 0002 Mcleod Cnty Reg Rail Auth Dakota Rail Inc c/o Thomas Lovett 1400 First Bank Place W Minneapolis, MN 55402 10-117-23 14 0001/0007 Irwin Jacobs 1700 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 10- 117-23 14 0008/9/10 Rodney Burwell 7901 Xerxes Ave. S Suite 201 Minneapolis, MN 55431 11- 117-23 22 0015 David W. Helper 1420 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 11-117-23 22 0014 Luaren Born 1432 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 11-LJ7-23 22 0005/6/7 > . James'^&^ar^Rivers 144 4 Shor^^iiie Drive Way^.t^' MN §5391 11-117-23 22 0008/23 0001 Genmar Industries Inc. Minnetonka Boat Works P.O. Box 549 Wayzata, MN 55391 11-117-23 23 0011 Ralph Thomas & Assoc. 6831 5th Ave. E Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 11-117-23 23 0012 James & Sharon Walker 1495 Green Trees Road Wayzata, MN 55391 11-117-23 23 0013 Jack Yost 1515 Green Trees Road Wayzata, MN 55391 02- 117-23 33 0010 Alfred & Ingrid Harrison 6941 Beach Road Eden Praire, MN 55344 03- 117-23 44 0001 Sally Hanser 1685 Fox Street Wayzata, MN 55391 03-117t23 Suad Az 1745 F Wayzata, OIL t S 0 RECEIVED MAR 311989 L.M.C.D. LAKE N^!NN£TCNKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 5 Action Resort t Fublic Hearing; Hinnetonka Boat Works, Inc. (Crono) Special Density Fenil '.and Hea Dock License Saturday April 6, 1969 7:30 A. t1. LHCD OMice Wayzata Thoaas Reese (Hound) announced he is joining the Mater Structures and Environaent Coaeittee and aas aelcoaed. Present; David Cochran, Chair, Breennood; JoEllen Wurr; Orono; Bert Foster, Deephaven; Jaaes GrathHol, Excelsior; John Leaaan, Minnetrista; Robert Piilsburyj Minnetonka; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Thoaas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocua, Woodland. Also present; Charles Lefevre, Counsel; Bene Stroaaen, Executive Director. PUBLIC HEARING LMCD Chair JoEllen Hurr convened a Public Hearing at 7:30 A. M. on April B, 19B9 to consider the application o( Minnetonka Boat Works, Inc., Orono Tor a Special Density Ferait and new dock license to increase its Boat Storage Units (BSU) Troa BSU to 47 BSU on Brown's Bay and Troa 25 BSU to 61 BSU on Tanager Lake, aore than aeeting the 1:10 rule under the LMCD rule at 1:30. Byron Heiaark and Beth Whittaker were present to represent the subcitted the Tollowing Public and Environaental aaenities: applicant and 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. B. Public Pishing Pier Liaited nuaber of Parking Spaces for the Fishing Pier One (1) Auto Look-Out, to overlook the Lake Provide waste containers and disposal of the waste for Fishing Pier Provide Public Restrooa Facilities Provide one (1) slip for the Water Patrol to use for eaergency pur poses. Satisfy drainage requireaents of the aunicipality Satisfy green screening and vegetation cover per the City of Orono s Ordinance. Jaaes Walker, property owne'’ southwest of the subject property on Tanager Lake, expressed concern about additional traffic on Tanager Lake, problees with excessive speed by boats passing through the narrow channe’, high level of water skiing, safety and related accident potentials. Walker asked for assurance that there would be no fishing boat rentals. The last dock near the channel entrance creates a hazard. Mrs. Walker stated her biggest concern is tripling the nuaber of slips. D15CUEEI0N 1. The Public fishing pier location has not been determined. 2. There would possibly be 10 parking spaces reserved for those fishing. 3, The Auto Look-Out would have tiae-liaited parking 4, Heiaark expressed willingness to change the position of the end slip at the channel entranc' to allow safe separation from the charnel. The dochs a"e floatin; docks individual slips. It appears the City oi Drone would object to reecvaj the hill which could provide additicnal parking <or the apclicart. Signage <or a Wishing pier and over-look would be needed. FINDINBS 1. Adjacent neighbor, Jaaes Kalker, Tanager Lake, sees added boat traffic a concern, raising issues of aesthetics and safety - density on snail lake; speed through channel frequently uncontrol1ed; water skiing is heavy, on weekends especially; last pair of slips are too close to channel. 2. Anenities offered per April 7, 1989 subnittal, copy attached. 3. Applicant believes present dock use is under-utilization of property. Distance of docks fro* channel to allow safe navigation is a consideration 5. Shoreline footage of Brown's Bay is accented by the narrow "finger" exten sion, to be calculated to show effect on over-all density. 6. Fencing of area is pres?ntly not under consideration, in spite of heavy un invited public fishing and unauthorized parking in asrina lot. 7. Signage aust be included to assist the public in identifying th.« aaenities being offered. 6. Fishing pier aay require a variance. All interested parties having been heard, the Public Hearinc was closed at 8:00 A. K. RZCOMMZKDATION At the 4-8-89 concittce meeting, it was moved by Hurr, seconded by Foster, to recommend to the Board that the Special Density Permit and new dock license application of Minnetonka Boat Works, Orono, be approved, the applicant to work with staff on the use of the last two slips at the channel, signage for the proposed fishing pier and over-look, review need for variance for the fishing pier along with determining its location, and soliciting Water Patrol comments on the application. . . .The Committee accepted a friendly amendment to the motion which would allow comments from the public up to the time of the Beard meeting. Motion carried as amended, Rascop voting nay. Action Ptoe»-t o^t Kster Structures end Envjronter.t Cciejttee Heetiffgt Satu-'dey, April B, 196'?, LHCD OHice, Present; David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood, JoEllen Hurr, C-cnc, Bert Foster, Deephaven; Jaees Grathwol , Excelsior; John Lewpan, r.net-: ?t a; Robert Pillibury, Minnetonka; Jan Bosninel, Minnetonka Beach; Robert naicop, Shcre*»ood; Thceas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocue, Woodland, Also p^'esent; Charles Lefevre, Counsel; Bene Stroieen, Executive Director. Absent; Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; Ron Kraeier, Spring Park; City of Wayzata. Chair Cochran convened the regular aeeting of the Water Structures and Environaent Coeaittec at 8:00 A. M. 1. Minnetonka Boat Works. !nc. (Drone) Review of Public Hearing Findings and consideration of the Special Density Pereit and new dock license application. The Executive Director reviewed the findings as detailed in the Public Hearing report. MOTION It was eoved by Hurr, seconded by Foster, to recoaeend to the Board that the Special Density Perait and new dock license application of Minnetonka Boat Works, Orono, be approved, the applicant to work with staff on the use of the last two slips at the channel, signage for the proposed fishing pier and over look, review need for variance for the fishing pier along with detereining its location, and soliciting Water Fatrcl ccaaents on the application. Rascop expressed concern about the speed with which this is being handled. Hur'‘ explained the applicant subeitted its eaterial and fees March 2, but due to staff eisunder standings the Public Hearing did not get scheduled preceding the March Board netting. The Coeiittee accepted a friendly aaendeent to the notion which would allow contents fron the public up to the tiee of the Board neeting. Motion carried as anended, Rascep voting nay. 2. ALBAN’S BAY MARINA AND YACHT CLUB It was noved by Brathwol, seconded by Cochran, to anend the agenda to allow parties interested in the subject iten tine to srrive as they were given a tine of 8:30 A. M. Motion carried unaninously. 3. SMITH’S BAY MARINA AND YACHT CLUB Dock Mooring Area request for teaporary low water extension. A fo'nal application has not been received and the applicant is not yet prepaf-ed to subiit a plan. The applicant has indicated willmgr.tss to provide a slip for IVIIIMIMEHAHA CHEEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, WayzaU, MinnesoU 55391 MOM > ■OMMW CamiN 0. Andrt. fttL • Atbofl L. Lehnun • Jolm E. Thomas JamrtaSpmley • MchwdRMIIar • Robert 0. Erldison • C. Woodrow Love im MiNHcroMiik Permit Application No. 89-75 April 24, 1989 Owner: Kinnetonka Boatworks 294 E. Grove Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 Location: City of Orono, Sec. IIBA, Browns Bay, Lake Minnetonka Purpose: Stormwater Management Plan for a parking lot expansion. Dear Sir/Madam: At the regularly scheduled April 20, 1989 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was reviewed. Action was taken allowing the District staff to issue your permit only after receipt and staff approval of the following: 1. Review and apporval by the City of Orono. • Please be advised that the project is not authorized until the above has been submitted to me and you have been notified of permit issuance from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 473-4224. Very truly yours, JMM/HICKOK, CONSULTING ENGINEERS Engineers for the District Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E. cc: Board U^^ith 6-Cfty of Orono CITT OF OROHO - MARIWA BOAT-DWIT DBWSITIBS - 1989 i Current Boat Units Shoreline (b.u.) Length Acreage Boat Units Per Acre (low I is least dense) Shoreline Length Per Boat Unit (high # is least dense) 1. Mtka Boat Works*** With Breakwater Without Breakwater* 70 b.u. 70 b.u. 3480* 2250* 3.24 3.11 ac. ac. 21.6 22.5 49.7* 32.1* 2* North Shore Drive Marina With Inlet Without Inlet* 160 b.u.** 160 b.u.** 660* 360* 3.23 3.23 ac. ac. 32.8 32.8 6.2* 3.4* 3« Maxwell Bay Marina 76 b.u.440*2.12 ac.35.8 5.8* 4. Gayle*s Marina 143 b.u.825*2.02 ac.70.8 5.8* 5« Windward Marina 118 b.u.605*1.20 ac.98.3 5.1* 6. Smith Bay Marina 79 b.u.305*0.80 ac.98.8 3.9* TOTALS 592 b.u. KCSaeeBBBKBI 6315* *4785* BBBBSrBBBBESBBases 12.61 ac. Avg. 2.1 ac. 46.9 b.u./ac. Avg. 10.7* b.u./ac. Avg. * Per proposed LMCD rules for measuring shore length ** Includes 20 dry-stack boat units *** Proposed boat unit - Minnetonka Boat Works with breakwater - 3480* - 30*5" per boat unit without breakwater - 2250* - IS*7" per boat unit *8,1* b.u./ac. Avg. fI 04/27/89 cry IS ALClDfiNIS IN ORIINO O f ■ 't •t t ; '.C *0 'C u* i - l; f: ux:ai lUH Cl r 15 St LIY 15 St CTV 15 It CIV 15 CTY IS CIY 15 CTV 15 CIV 15 CIV IS CIV 15 crv 15 CIV 15 crv IS CTY 15 crv IS CIV 15 cry 15 CTV 15 Sr CIY IS St crv 15 ft crv IS St CTY 15 St crv CTY CIV CTV crv crv CIY CIV crv CTV crv CTY CTV crv cry cry CIV CIV crv CIV ClY C;IV cry cry t:i V CIV CIV 1.1 Y r:ry r.i V crv crv cry KELLY AO HN ART LLNIER NAVArrrrE av NAVARfTE AV NAVARRE AV NAVARRE AV NAVARRE AV NAV^IRRE AV NAVARRE LDt NURIM OLD DEACM m.D REACH miAll ORCJNO rJRCHARO URIJNU (IRCMARI) URUNU ORCHARI) t«^JI«J Uf«:ilARil ORUNCl ORCHARD ORUNO IJRCIIARII QfHiNa nircHAKu URUNU nra:tiARii URUNU uiycru^yD URUNO CJRCIIftRD Rl> 15 Si ORONO 15 Sr URUNU IS Si ORONO IS It URUirU 15 li URUNU URUNU ORONO spArcs SPATES SPATES URCIK^ID ORCIYYTP URCMARU MRCHfVyil ur«:iiARO ItRCIIARU WrCHARD 15 IS IS 15 15 IS 15 IS 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 151 151 Si CTV 19 151 S' CIV 19 151 «> LOtIA L INUA 19 CIV 15 19 St CIV 19 Sr CIV 19 Si civ 19 It CIV 19 St CIV RO RU RD RO RO Rl> RU 1R10OE 1 IE J TANA6ER rANAUER BRIDGE TANAGER CAKE DRI014E TANAUER LAIcE UR 1 DOE WINOMARO IIARHIE NIMJOHIl.1 HUOliHlLL MOOUHILL NUOOHILL WUOUHII I. WOODHILL crv 19 RUSSELL Rl) RD 15 lb 15 15 15 ACIIVI1y ID OfllE REPURI 1 IMF 9EI PD-HV RAM IM U52HU9 0736 PU-M\^ R mN 14 OftUlUH 1455 PD-MV RAN IH I 1 50115 1020 PI 1IV-man lii V/02Sb 1555 PD“MV RAN or U712RA 1202 PD -HV RiM Ul 1 /5IB7 C>830 PI MV-HAN III HII9B0 1426 Pl> MV RAN IH «'I?3UG 1912 "D-MV RAN III 091 in;2224 Rl) HV IRYT III OM4HV 1 /5o ' ID-MV RAN IM O206U9 0126 PD-ilV RAH IM-040;h ;tsw . PD'HV RAN Ul 0727«b 1709 '• RD HV IRYI IH lOOlBA 1/12 PI HIV RAN IM 1119B6 2030 . RD-HV RAN Ul 1 13O0<»030«> ' PD-rn/ RAN HE 092487 0303 PI-IIV-R aN IM 101587 1039 , PD-MV RAN III I224U7 0655 ' « PI HVHIAN IH 090IHH 0/40 PO-MV RAN OF 120288 0810 , ' PO Mv< RfVN IW-072085 0425 ' 1 PD-MV RAN Of 112585 U730 ' PI-IP RAM IM 05018;1344 . PD-N'r RIYI IM 052587 1600 " ROHIV RAN IM Ob2H8/1 758 PI-HV -RMN HE 090487 IlOO , M5.R r i<1M- UAH 091487 0130 *' , P1“MV-RW| UF 090188 0702 PO-HV RAN IM-1213H<>0123 , . PD-MV RAN UF 12I&B6 2125 ‘! - r 0-MV RAN or 080288 1007 ro-wv RAH HP OS.22U8 lets ,* rii-HV RAN HF 113085 •rH^V'0200 PD-MV RAN UF 122885 ‘- yuft 2249 PI-MV-RAN UF 072787 7134 . PD-MV RAN UP 020888 1435" ! PI HV-RAII HP *»«2R8S 1620 PD HV RAN IM 040<*86 05.38 . 1 r i)-HV RAN IM Hfi7h88 1610" PO-HV RAN UP 072008 1250 PI mv-ran hi 110285 2315 { PD-HV RAN IM^013189 1930"* i IT>~HV RAN in 022687 1 712 PO-MV RAN HP 040786 1512 . PI-llV-RAN IM 09UH87 0046 • PO-HV RAN IM 060987 2220 PO-HV RAI4 LM-070587 1349 . PO-HV RAN UF 091988 1202* PI) HV RAI4 IM ItHMIHb A804 II.MI f RHP OMH 120085 2235 ■■ PI 1IV RAH HF 010986 <*537* FI-MV-RAN ir 040386 1119 POHIV RfMI IM OW23H6 172 5 . Pl-HV NAN IM 1220H6 1818* 4 ''i/" WLhyo\A.r B)(Hifi-iT~ D (2^5^ ^.M-noAj AJo. -S^ lO^NCa 'l^yo^xT p^ t2jeu>L .^ZV^Z. SO - i, to ^ S 8?a / ^i^aKag 1 t I /;XS-^mx •—i—Tz:t^1 ■1rissf,f4?:11i:11 ^ / .....1''"";.:'- -■^—,IttiliB asEf^ iPilil kiier LlUt «et'tt«3C ’- 53 «iw« fi«b/ (T HENNEHN DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC WORKS Operations Division 320 Washington Ave. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 Phone:(612)935-3381 /r May 3, 1989 Ms Jeanne Mabusth 1335 South Brown Road P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 o o Re: Crossing of County Road 15 at the Minnetonka Boat Works Ms Mabusth: As a recap to our meeting of Thursday, April 27th, regarding pedestrian crossing of County Road 15 In the vicinity of the Minnetonka Boat Works, we offer the following comments: 0 We hove no problem with signing a marked crosswalk If the City paints the crosswalk. 0 A pedestrian bridge appears to be out of the question when the costs could be In the vicinity of $200,000. 0 The County discourages the use of a flashing yellow light which Is currently used only In high accident locations. We are not aware of an accident problem In this area. We fear the proliferation of flashers reduces the effectiveness of the ones In existence. Red flashers require the motorist to stop, when flashing, and the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices requires a standard traffic signal If the crossing is activated. In Mound, the flasners were paid for and are maintained by the City. 0 We also discussed the possibility of crossing under the Tanager Lake Bridge. Although we did not look under the bridge to see If a walkway could be added, security may be a concern. I hope these comments address the questions raised, questions, please call. If you have any Wayne A. Matsumoto Traffic Operations Engineer HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Mr 3, 1989 Subject: #1398 Karen & Steven Howells, 1448 Park Drive - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Zoning District - LR-IB Appllcatl ~ Request for fence height variance and conditional use permit for accessory structure (overheight fence) on a through lot. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4/18/89 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes 4/17/89 Exhibit C - Proposed Resolution Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 4/13/89 Discussion “ Please review the memo and exhibits of April 13, 1989. Briefly, the applicants live on a lot that is surrounded on all sides by roadways. They wish to fence in their "rear" yard to provide a safe place for their young children to play, and to decrease the traffic noise from County Road 19. Applicants propose a 6' high fence along County Road 19, and 4* high fence leading back to the house and existing storage building on the property (see site plan). At their meeting of April 17th, Planning Commission reviewed the request and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval of the fence as proposed, finding that this is a unique lot given the surrounding roadways, and the proximity to roadways is sufficient hardship to justify the fence height variances. Planning Commission generally agreed that the 6* and 4' fence heights were appropriate for safety purposes, and would have no effect on traffic visibility at the intersections nearby, as noted by the City Engineer. ‘IStaff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval, per the Planning Commission approval, per the attached resolution. ZONING FILE NO. 1398 CIW OF NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal*Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice; 4/18/89 TO; Mr. & Mrs. Steven Howells COPIES TO; 1448 Park Drive Mound, MN 513364 TYPE OP APPLICATIONS Variance/Conditional Use Permit ’ DATE OF MEETING: 4/17/89 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Comnlsslon recomends the following: Approval as submitted NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: - Fence along County Road 19: 6* maximum height, - Fence along sides and between house and cabin: 4* inaximum height, - No reconimendation regarding fence setback from County Road 19 lot ..ine (presume OK as proposed). Planning Commission felt generally that this is a unique lot and the proximity to roadways is sufficient hardship to justify the variances. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, May 8, 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, MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSK)** METT^PRIL 17, 1989 #1398 STEVEN HOWELLS 1448 PARK DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT/VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:10 P.M. TO 10:15 P.M. Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were thrlTynoted. The Howells were present for this matter Assistant Planning and Zoninj Administrator Gaffron explained that the property in quescicn is- a through lot, having roadways located in the front and rear. An accessory structure on a through lot requires a conditional use permit. The applicants are proposing to construct a 6' wood fence along County Road 19 and 4* green chain link as the fence heads back into the property toward the house. The codes will allow a 6* fence along a county road or a major thoroughfare abutting a lakeshore lot but not an inland lot such as t-his. Gaffron said th"* main reason for the Howells requesting the fence is to protect their children from the road traffic witrout the need for constant supervision. Planning Commissioner C;.hen asked the cppl * cants if they would have a problem making the fence a consistent neight all the way around. Mrs. Howell said that would be no pr blem, but they would prefer a consistent 6*. Hanson asked if th jy were seek^^g noise reduction? Mr. Howell replied on the side .>_^uxag County Road 19, noise was a problem. Chairman Kelley a»uggested that the fence be 6* along County Road 19 and 3-1/2* for the remainder Mrs. Howell replied that their 19 month old daughter could easi get over a 3-1/2* fence. It was moved by Planning Cemn-issiot'er Cohen, seconded bj Planning Commissioner Hanson, to ecciranend approval of a 6* fence around the property given the location if the property in relation to County Road 19. Th« applicant said that he would prefer to ha e the fence 6* hxc . .eng County Road 19 and 4* high around the remaining area. plarmin^. Commissioner Cohen revised his motion to reflect the c.<:u 1 icants* preference, Hanson seconded- Motion^ Ayes«6, Nays**0, Motion ed. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT-CONFIRM DATE OP SPECIA * .^ixiRTItlG It was agreed that May 1, 1989 wo . la be dated for the Special Meeting to discr the Ordinance Aict ment. JOINT PLANNING COMMIST THURSDAY, MAT 4, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION ii lCxi 20, 1989 MINUTES* It was mo vet :jy p,ii f:*lley, seconded by Planning Commissi oner Johr?^ n to . the flannlng Cemmission Minutes Of'' March 20, I.t -••Xi.rc. Mef on, Ayes»5, W.*«ys»0, Motion Its .41 . Sd , 1 o A nKSOLDTION GRANTIIIG A VARIANCE TO MONICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION .15 AND granting a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 10 ^TLE #1398 .nr.- Steven Howells (hereinafter "the ulfve'tithln located at 1448 Park described as follows^ "City") and legally Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property") and Citv of the applicants have made application to the ffno K ° fconstruction of a fence in excess of the per Munlcil.V’l^^'foallowed within a required street yard, ?K^ Zcning Code Section 10.30, Subdivision 15 (C), (D), requiring a conditional use permit for an accessory structure on a through lot located in a residential district per M licipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 10. Orono, HinnesoJf“®^°"®' the City Council of findings 1. This app*S"-ation was reviewed as Zoning File #1398 2. Lr ^-°pej^ty is surrounded on ail sides by roadways, the souti»«rj.y boundary abutting County Road 19. ^n ADril’'°17 Co^isolon reviewed this application ' 1989, and :o commended approval of the esproval of the proposed fence ligand allow a 6* high fence along County Road fL 1 ■ interior of th. lot, based onthe following findings: all is unique in that it is surrounded onall sides by travelled r< ways. Page 1 B) The need for adequate security for the applicants' young children Is obvious given the speed and volume of traffic on County Road 19 directly adjacent to the street yard which functions as applicants' rear yard. C) The proposed 6' high fence along County Road 19 is reasonable given the applicants' dual purpose to reduce traffic noise while providing a barrier that may not be scaled by young children. Likewise, the 4' high fence at the interior of the lot is appropriate to provide adequate security given the proximity to roadways. D) The 6' high fences take on the character of • accessory structures on a through lot and require that a conditional use permit be granted. 4. The City Council has considered this applicatior including the findings and recommendations of the Plannii.g Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on t le health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow this fence accessory structure in the rear street yard of this through lot will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of th« ^jublic, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 and a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 10 to allow the construction of a 6* high fence along County Road 19 and a 4* high fence at the interior of the property per Exhibit B attached, subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence shall be placed within the applicants' boundaries per Exhibit B. The height of the fence shall not exceed those heights noted above, nor shall the fence extend nearer any intersection than as shown in Exhibit B. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions cf this resolution will expire on that date (May 8, 1990). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and con. itions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of tne zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 May, 1989. ATTEST: Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Jeunes R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day o.; May, 1989, by James R. Grabek 6 Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 4 of 5 From: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek s Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator April 13, 1989 #1398 Karen & Steven Howells, 1448 Park Drive - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District ~ LR-lB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for 6* high fence alon- street lot line of through lot. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Showing Proposed Fence Location Pertinent Code Sections - Section 10.03, Subdivision 10 - A conditional use permit is required for all accessory buildings on through lots in residential districts. Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 - Non-encroachments. For a through lot such as this, a fence exceeding 3^’ in height that does not meet the required principal structure setbacks takes on the status of an accessory structure for setback purposes. The variance can be looked at two ways, both as a fence height variance and a variance to allow an accessory structure in a required yard area. Pertinent Pacts - 1. 2. 3. The applicants' property is surrounded on all sides by roadwa^ . This property was granted lot area variances in 1984 to allow construction of a single family residence. There is an accessory building on the property that is used for storage. The applicants propose to construct a 6' wood fence as shown on the survey, along County Road 19. They would then reduce the height to 4' and the material to a green chain link construction, as the fence heads back into the property towards the house. The intent is to provide a safe enclosure in which their children can play without constant supervision. Applicants have noted that traffic on both County Road 19 and the "Lafayette Avenue" portio.. of Park Drive is typically travelling at relatively high speeds and they fear for the safety of their young children. i 's Zoning File #1398 April 13, 1989 Page 2 of 2 4, City Engineer Glenn Cook has reviewed the site for conflicts with site distance from the two affected intersections and has indicated the fence will have absolutely no detrimental impact on traffic visibility. The issue then becomes a matter of aesthetics. Discussion - The current fence ordinance would allow a 6' high fence along properties abutting a county road at the rear and Lake Minnetonka in front. Such properties exist directly across County Road 19 from the subject property, and in fact one can see a 5' high privacy fence directly across County Road 19 from the applicants. The current code does not allow a non- lakeshore property to have the 6' high fence along the County Road right- of-way. In some respects, the rationale for this code section is unclear to staff. What is different about lakshore properties that justifies this code provision? There are obviously properties with small lots and houses very close to major roadways, both with and without lakeshore, that would obviously need some protection, however, allowance for a 6* high fence on all lakeshore lots abutting major roads appears incongruous. Aside from these provisions of the code, the question boils down to whether the applicants' child safety concerns justify the higher fence, weighed against the Planning Commission's often-noted concerns about "walling in" our major roadways. Certainly, the applicants property does not contain a normal back yard situation where a 6' fence would normally be allowed. Requiring the fence to meet the 35' principal structure setback (as shown by the surveyor's dashed line as a triangle surrounding the house) leaves little area to enclose without variances. Also note that where the 6' high fence angles along County Road 19 towards Park Drive, existing vegetation should help screen the fence. Staff RecomBendation - This property is unique in its relationship to surrounding roadways and clearly, in staff's opinion, exhibits a hardship situation. With the "rear yard" abutting a heavily traveled county road, some sort of buffer is deflnately appropriate, both from the standpoint of safety for children as well as a buffer from road noise, fumes, etc. Staff would recommend approval of a fence height variance for the applicants. Planning Commission may wish to question the applicants' need for the variable 6'/4' fences and perhaps consider a uniform fence material and height for the whole property, which may be visually more attractive. Furthermore, Planning Commission may wish to ask applicants to move the fence far enough away from the County Road 19 right-of-way line so that vegetation tc screen the fence can be placed within the property lines. Does Planning Commission wish to place some standards on the type or amount of vegetation if it is required? L-! ' /i- •*^-v CITY OF ORONO - G PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ;J7: rsiQt/ ^ v{/^ _ J£V if-;. rioperty Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ 7//%^.5^- r^-.r r:;a.,y Please check one - Property abstract or _ _ _ _ _ torrens"?-^’^' (for Conditional Use Applications only)L'J.' Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Name ^ Address h^e. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date Property Acquired Phone (home) _ _ _ _ _Phone (work) ~ _ _ _ _ City _ _ _ Zip Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _______ _ City_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Zip^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee he-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $100.00 a) Residential accessory Use (V After-•the-Fact Fee v/$100.00 a) $150.00 b) $150.00 c) $250.00 d) $200.00 f) 4)siInstitutional (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 more *_ _ _ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 of lakeshore _ _ _ _ PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS _ _ _ _ $150.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _ _ _ _ $250.00 Vacation _ _ _ _ $150.00 Easement Vacation _ _ _ _ $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _ _ _ _ $250.00 Rezoning _ _ _ _ $100.00 Appeals _ _ _ _ Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Othef^^pecify)?i) DESCRIPTION OF REQDEST Describe request in detail; UIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* vyou 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. Certificate of survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if l^'.nd alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requir^ents).S#<^€Tt:^'^ Plat Map. -TH-rS c^trH i,oC,/VT70rO 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 SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. J Applicant's signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this applies, a.o.** and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, aaents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and ver i^caj^on o^;^his r^nest. i/Owner's signature _ _ _ _ _ Date 3 _ _ _ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. fAEANDEnED ) RUN DATE 03/20/89 BATCH 001 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 07-117-23 41 01400 PARK OR TONI F ANDERSEN TONI F ANDERSEN 1400 PARK DR HOUND HN 55364 0074 HEWEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 07-117-23 42 0013 01422 PARK OR 0 J ANDRYS A T L PEDERSEN 0 J ANDRYS t T L PEDERSEN 1422 PARK DRIVE H0U4D HN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 38 07-117-23 42 0014 01442 PARK DR G L SCHULTZ ETAL GEORGE L SCHULTZ 1442 PARK OR MOUr40 HN 55364 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 07-117-23 42 0015 01462 PARK OR LORENZ H KUTZ ETAL LORENZ H KUTZ 1462 PARK OR HOUND 55364 i8 07-117-23 42 0016 01405 PARK OR F I K SHEARER FREDERICK J SHEARER 1405 PARK DRIVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0017 01415 PARK DR RONALD DERTAGNOLI ETAL RONALD H BERTAGNOLI 1415 PARK DRIVE MOUt40 HN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0018 PROP AODR 01415 PARK DR ONNER NAME RONALD BERTAGNOLI ETAL TAXPAYER R(YL*.LD H BERTAGNOLI NAME/AODR I4i5 PARK DR MOUND m 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0019 01423 PARK OR R T HONELLS ROBERT T HONELLS 1423 PARK DR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0020 01435 PARK DR M J KELLEN A L C KELLEN HICHAEL J KELLEN 1435 PARK DRIVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0021 PROP ADOR 01447 PARK DR ONNER NAME L D SOLBERG A H H SOLBERO TAXPAYER LARRY 0 A MARY M SOLDCRO NAHE/ADDR 1447 PARK DR MOJND MN 55364 38 0 -117-23 42 0022 01453 PARK OR JOHN S LUOirKSTOfJ JOHN S LUDINGT0I4 1453 PARK OR MOUND Hf< 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0023 04300 NORTH SHORE DR THEODORE 0 METZ A WIFE THEODORE A MARY J HETZ 4300 NORTH SHORE DRIVE MOUND MN 5536* 38 07-117-23 42 0024 PROP ADDR 04330 NORTH SHORE DR ONNER NAME DAM STRELON TAXPAYER DOUGLAS A MARLENE STRELON NAHE/ADDR 4330 NO SHORE DR MOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED F J HARDIN III ETAL FRANKLIN J HARDIN 1496 PARK DR RT 1 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0002 04198 NORTH SHORE DR J A J NEHR JAMES A A JEANNE M NEHR 4198 NORTH SHORE OR MOUr40 HN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0003 PROP ADOR 01530 ORCHARD BEACH PL OMtER NAME L A DONNAY TAXPAYER L A D0»t4AY NAHE/ADDR 15304 HItMETONKA INO RD MINNETONKA tfi 55345 38 07-117-23 43 0006 04215 NORTH SHORE OR F J DOCHERTY A D E DOCHERTY FRANCIS J DOCHERTY 4215 NORTH SHORE DRIVE HOU(40 HN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0013 01496 PARK DR FRANKLIN J HARDIN III FRANKLIN J HARDIN 1496 PARK OR RT 1 MOUND MN 55364 #1 39B RUN DATE 03/20/89 BATCH 001 38 07-117-23 43 0014 PROP ADDR 04240 NORTH SHORE OR 0»t4ER NAME SANDRA J SHANSON TAXPAYER SANDRA SHANSON NAME/ADDR 4240 NORTH SHORE DRIVE HOUND MN 55364 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 07-117-23 43 0015 04210 NORTH SHORE DR HM F KALEY t H R NELSON HM F KALEY A H R NELSON 4210 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55364 REPORT NC PAG. •1435401 2 38 07-117-23 43 0016 04200 NORTH SHORE OR D T RYAN A M J A RYAN DANIEL A MARY JO RYAN 4200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0019 PROP ADDR 04365 NORTH SHORE OR OMJER NAME HALTER R BENSON TAXPAYER HALTER R BENSON NAHE/AODR BOX 167 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 43 0020 04345 NORTH SHORE DR HALTER R A LORRAINE BENSON HALTER R BENSON a140 HILLOH dr S PO BOX 167 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 43 0024 01535 ORCHARD BEACH PL NANCY F DELTON NAr4CY F DELTON 1535 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE M0UT4D MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0025 PROP ADDR 01555 ORCHARD BEACH PL OFtCR NAME PATRICIA H HYSOCKY TAXPAYER PATRICIA H HYSOCKY NAME/ADDR 1555 ORCHARD PARK PL MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0026 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HAP PFEFFER HERBER Pfr'^fcR 2850 TANAGER LANE EXCELSIOR Mr« 55331 38 07-117'23 4< 0027 01448 PARK OR STEPHEN J HOWELIO STEPHEN J HOWELLS 1448 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0028 PROP ADDR 04315 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME RAH WILLIAMS TAXPAYER RICHARD J WILLIAMS NAME/ADDR 4315 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 001 00028 38 07-117-23 42 0039 4340 NORTH SHORE DR J A SICK J A SICK 15600 D 26TH AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DAT!; ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENT4EPIN COlWTY OEPARTtjENT, OF PROPE OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEFJELIEF. / / BEST C %Tiae^oH 86ST if i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & I I associates Engineers & Architects '■'TO G Bon«ooo PE kjom W PE Joirpn C Anoer' k. PE B..rfc»d A Lefnbcrgt PE Pthaio E Tumef PE JjmM C Oson PE Glem R Cook. PE Thonvii £ Noyrv PE Pwt G Scfwcnt PE Marv*i L Sofvau. PE KMft A Go/oon P£ (hcrwa ’.V fourt PE Dorjkj C ewgan*. PE. Jerry A BoiPOon PE kAtrk A l-Unvjf> PE Teo IC F*W PE M<r«ei T Rjiitmann. PE Poeen » Pfrftef*. P£ David O Louaa. PE Thorruj W PE Mcnaer C Lyrxn PE PhF<j j Caswef. PE April 13, 1989 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Mr. Mike Gaffron Re: File No. 139-1398 Steven Howell Dear Mike, tfe have reviewed the proposed fencing on the Steven Kowell property at 1448 Park Drive. The property owner would like to construct a six foot high privacy fence. Construction of the fence would not appear to create anv significant sight problems for the vehicular traffic. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:XX Enel. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul Minnesota 5f»111 • 612-636-4600 k 1. i/^-a IT 75 -« v*-* r\ * !I •• \A \1 t", \ ■Q 2 \ \/ / ■ -\j ^ ~n Uo -r: ^ ^ n* t'-i • / / /.' ^ -lo'rx / A'/-*r s P4 ■; /iA iS W^^ / •/ ' ^ A \\ -I' '.f\r, •5*r 1^k t'\ r «-4 \ %■ \ -co> n 7T \ \ / I? ®/ «'M \ , i'‘i- r TT:-.'5r;.- .2L .. ^ yt L^i'-. -■ mIs 42689.1 /7 TO: y.^yor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: April 26, 1989 SUBJECT: Planned Development Ordinance - Publication Summary Attachments:A. Proposed Summary of Publication for Planned/ Development/Special Requiremer ts/Class I Restaurant Definition B. Excerpt from League of Minnesota Cities - Summary Ordinances ISSUE - Determine if the Council desires to have published the entire text of the below listed ordinances or a summary of the following ordinances: Planning Development B-6 Commercial Special Requirement/Highway 12 Restaurant Class I Definition Section 10.40 INTRODUCTION - At the Council's April 24, 1989, Council meeting they adopted the ordinance changes proposed for the above listed items. DISCUSSION - The State law allows for the publication of summary ordinances particularly in cases where they become very expensive to publish as noted in Attachment B an excerpt from the League of Minnesota Cities Handbook. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Choose to publish the ordinance changes in their entirety. 2. Adopt Attachment A as the summary for publication. 3. Amend the summary and adopt. 4. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Attachment A be adopted as the summary for publication which indicates that there has been a change in these ordinances and that a copy is available upon request. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council adopt Attachment A as a summary ordinance for publication for the recent changes for the zoning code. Ayes _, Nays _. /frm-a'twewr A ORDINANCE NUMBER , SECOND SERIES SUMH201T APPRO^rED The Council hereby determines that the text of the summary of this ordinance marked "Official Summary of Ordinance Number , Second Series," and a copy of which is attached here to, ”cTear ly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determines that publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. ORDINANCS NO.SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE REGULATIONS WITH THE ADDITION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) The following is the official summary of Ordinance No- , Second Series approved by the City Council of the City of Orono on April 24, 1989: The City of Orono Land Use Regulations are amended to include: Section 10.40 Definition only Section 10.45 B-6 Highway Commercial District Section 10.52 Special Requirements Highway 12 Corridor Section 10.53 Planned Unit Development (PUD) A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the City Clerk during regular office hours. This ordinance becomes effective the week of May 15, 1989. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 8th day of May, 1989, by a vote of _ _ ayes and _ _ nays. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Elected Officials, City Councils, and Advisory Bodies al<r> look to their own charter provisions for or dinance enactment. The title. Every ordinance should have a title which describes its contents briefly, but adequate ly. The phrases: "repealing ordinances inconsistent herewith" and "providing penalties for the violation thereof* should be omitted from the title. The nomber. Each ordinance should have an identifying number as a part of its title. The enacting clause. All ordinances, after a suitable title, should b' gin substantially in this form: T*he City Council cf_______ordains." The body of the ordinance. The text of the or dinance itself should be in clear and brief terms. If definitions are helpful, they should be in a single beginning section. The sections should be short to make subsequent amendments easier and cheaper. All sections and subsections should have a number and an identifying one word or short title. The penalty section. This section is for enforce ment purposes. Cities may impose maximum penalties of a $700 fine, or 90 days in jail, or both. However, the petty misdemeanor law limits this authority by setting a fine limit of $100 for certain traffic offenses. ^ The dty should use proper wording in the penalty clause. The closing section. Thi.i should read: "Passed by the (Name of City) Council this_______day of ,19 .If the council wants an effec- tive date later than the diite of publication, this section should state the effective date. Maps. If the ordinance refers to maps and they are an integral part of the ordinance, the or dinance must include them. Because the publication of maps is expensive, some cities omit all reference to the map in the ordinance, and rely instead upon word descriptions. The city then prepares a separate, unofficial map. Deliberation. The council should discuss the or dinance according to the council’s rules before passing it, even though failing abide by these rules probably would not invalidate an ordinance if it meets statutory requirements. The statutes do not specify that an irdinance must have a certain number of reading, nor do they re quire the council to consider it a. more than one meeting. Unless the council has rules to the con trary, it may pass an ordinance at the meeting at which it is introduced. Passage. Except where the statutes require a larger majority, ordinances in statutory cities must get a majority of votes of the whole council to pass. This means, in effect, that at least three council members must vote in favor of an or dinance. Both the clerk in standard plan cities, and the mayor have the power to vote on or dinances. The mayor has no veto power. Attestation. After the council passes ordinances, the m:«yor and the clerk must sign them. Although the law docs not require it, the clerk should also atfix the city seal. If either official refuses to sign the ordinance, a court order can require them to do so. If there is a question of legality, the court will rule on that issue before issuing an order. Effective date. Unless they specify otherwise, ordinances automatically become effective on the day following their publication in the official newspaper. Ordinance book. Each statutory city must main tain an ordinance book containing copies of all or dinances. This book is a public record and is evidence in court. The book may be bound or looseleaf and the record may be in ink, typewriter, or carbon. The clerk may use printed copies of the ordinance, clipped from the newspaper. The printer’s affidavit should be attached to each or dinance in the book. The city should have a numbering system ade quate for indexing its ordinances. In most small cities where the number of ordinances is not great, chronological order is satisfactory. When the nuna- ber of ordinances is large or when the city is recodifying its ordinances, a more complicated sys tem of decimal numbers might be advisable. Publication of Ordinances The following publication requirements apply to statutory cities. To be valid, the city must publish at least a sum mary of the ordinance in the official newspaper of the city. To qualify as an official newspaper, the newspaper must be a legal newspaper under state statute and the council must have designated it as such. Cities usually publish ordinances Page 112 Handbook for Minnesota Cities 1988 Supplement Chapter 6 separately, but if the city publishes them in full as a part of the minutes, the publication meets all statutory requirements. If a statutory city council determines that publication of the title and a summary of an or dinance would clearly inform the public of the in tent and effect of the ordinance, it may, by four-fifths vote of its members, direct publication of only the title of the ordinance and a summary. The publication must include a notice that a printed copy of the ordinance is available for in- spect’on during regular office hours at the office of the city clerk and at any other location which the coun<^ designates . The city must post a copy of the entire text of the ordinance in the com munity library if there is one, or if not, in any other public location the council designates . Before publishing the title and summary, the council must approve the text of the summary and determine that it clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The published summary must be in a body-type no smaller than brevier or 8-point type. The clerk must attach and file proof of publica tion with the ordinance in the ordinance book within 20 days of the publication date. Proof of publication is an affidavit of publication which the newspaper must furnish when it sends its bill for the printing cost. The absense of an affidavit of publication does not invalidate an ordinance. The affidavit facilitates proof of publication should anyone challenge that fact in a law suit. Errors in the publication of an ordinance may or may not affect the validity of the ordinance. If the error is so minor that the meaning is plain from the context, then the error has n'~ effect upon the ordinance's validity. Where the crior is more sub stantial, however, the ordinance provision in which the error occurs is ineffective and void. In home rule cities, the charter can control the publication requirements for ordinances. Adoption by Reference Statutory and charter cities can avoid publica tion requirements when adopting certain compli cated regulatory codes in ordinance form by using the process "adoption by reference." In effect, this means that dtics can adopt certain regulations by passing and publishins an ordinance which iden tifies them by name. The city must meet two requirements when using this procedure. The council must mark at least one copy of the code as adopted as the offi cial copy and file it in the clerk’s office for public use and examination. And, the city must pass an ordinance incorporat ing the code, regulation, ordinance, or statute it has adopted and publish it in the regular manner. Cities may adopt the following by reference: 1. Minnesota statutes; 2. State department administrative rules or regulations affecting the city; 3. The state building code and the uniform fire code; and ding 18f 4. Codes (or parts of codes) prepared for general distribution in printed form as a standard or model by. a. any governmental agency b. any trade association c. any professional association .in the subject of building construction (limited to the State Building Code); plumbing; electrical wiring; flam mable liquids; sanitary provisions; public he^th, safety, or welfare; and compilations or regulations or stan dards prepared by regional and county planning agencies on the sub ject of planning, zoning, subdivision regulation, and housing regulation. Codes, statutes, rules, regulations, and or dinances the council adopts by reference remain effective in their original form until the council changes or repeals tnem. Any changes an issuing agency makes subsequent to the city’s adoption of the code do not take effect automatically. The city, when adopting the code by reference, caanot stio- ulate that any future revisions are automatic. One exception is that future changes in the build ing code automatically become part of the city's building code. If the city wishes to incorporate Handbook for Minnesota Cities Page 113 TO: FROH: DATS: 5889.1 J. Diann Goetten, Councilmember Barbara Peterson, Councilmember Edward Callahan, Councilmember Alan Nettles, Councilmember Jame.^ abek. Mayor May 8, 1989 SUBJECT: City Administrator Evaluation and Contract Attachment: Annual City Administrator Evaluation Memo Dated 2/15/89 The City Administrator's annual review this year consists of the following: - Cotmcil evaluation of performance - Determination if we are going to extend the contract - Any changes in the terras of the contract - Patting of goals and objectives for the next year Since I have not received anyone's evaluation sheet back I have asked to have it sent to you again. I would like to have you fill this out and have a copy sent to me. I have discussed with Mark areas he would like to have changed in the contract which include: A. ) Length of notification of resignation from 60 to either 30 or 45 days notice. Now that the initial 4 years are over (Section II, Para B.) B. ) Continue the severance on discharge at 3 months (same as the 4th year.) (Section III.) I would suggest the following other changes: A. ) Extension of the contract for 1 year. B. ) Amendment of the current salary. (Section IV.) I have asked a salary survey be prepared updating past information on other positions which will be provided in advance of the next meeting. Please feel free to contact me at your convenience. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E, Bernhardson, City Administrato DATS: February 15r 1989 SUBJECT: Annual City Administrator's Evaluation COUNCIL MEETING Fc3 27 CITY OF or:-:] Attachment:A. Evaluation Form B. Potential Areas for Goals Setting ISSUE - Initiation of process to: 1. The annual Administrator evaluation. 2. Determine further goals for the Administrator for the ensuing year INTRODUCTION - Annually in advance of the Administrator's anniversary^with the City, Council and the Administrator have undertaken a process to establish goals for the upcoming year, together with review of tha past year's performance and goal setting. DISCUSSION - Information i:3 presented to allow for^ the Council review and discussion of this item during March and April. The process this past year aT * '*wed for individual discussions of performance by CounciImemi-^-rs with the Administrator if they desired together with their ideas for goal setting and that this be put together prior to the anniversary with evaluations being provided to the Mayor. In addition Councilmembers are invited to discuss the evaluation with the Department Heads. (The Department Heads are requested by the Administrator to individually evaluate him with responses back to him for further discussion.) ALTERNATIVES - Policy Action a. Use the same format. b. Revise format or evaluation or process a. Adopt as presented b. Amend and adopt. c. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the process be undertaken as presented for 1989 and that: a. Administrator meet individually with Councilraembers to desire to meet to discuss past years goal setting, evaluation, and ideas for 1989-90, b. That CounciImembers undertake their evaluations with inclusion of discussion with Department Heads if they desire w'ch Councilmembers discussing their evaluation with the Mayor. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by adopt the above outline process for Administrator review. Ayes __, Nays __. that the Council the 1 988-89 City cc: Department Heads POTENTIAL AREAS FOR v^AL SETTING (IN ADDITION TO ONES /.LREADY LISTED AND NOT COMPLETED) !• Community Development Highway 12 Sewer/Water Service County 15 Beautification Planning and Implementation Highway 12 Corridor Selection Commencement 2. Environmental Protection Replacement of Lift Stations #10 and #43 Recycling Program - Performance and Funding 3. Organizational Development 1990 Goal Setting 1990 Budget Process 1990 Legislative Program 4. Service Delivery Facilities - Next Steps Service Provision Engineering Services Legal Services Police Services Fire Services Animal Patrol Services Emergency Prepardness ......**••*•'tvalJUiUUl May 1900 - April 1909 HOT CUGEHVH) Oiame OptionalTPEnronwcs aiAiwciSRisrics *>• RBsponalveness bo Council Establishing afptopclate goals *>• Pecfotmaros to achieve 3. C»HJNm RfMTlONSiiips »• Itespois iveness to public *• ««W12ATI^ U7u,BRg,,Ip organization b. Developing subordinates Decision making b. Otlier public entitles ®* '®SK peatromAMCB ®. Oowwll meeting presentatla>/dellvery b. Mmlnlstratlon of organization c. Eaboc contract negotlatlo:,a ; »*• 1.) Policy developinent and cecoraoendatlon 7. OniEHS (Pleaw Xl.t ^ .fptcpcial,) OMBmucr A* Any conroenta or thoughts as tn ,ii he organization or MrinlatratoJ^^ ™SiSrliS?. =« '‘ther Imlnlatrntor "‘ther the organization or H telatea to an, oE the .ohJectLe- anasurea please list t,„ „»l.r/letter. 42689.2 TO: Mayor and City Council WC/ff FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratoi^lt^ DATS: April 26, 1989 SUBJECT: Development Committee Appointments Attachments; A. Planned Development Ordinance Excerpts Section 5A, 6C and 7B ISSUE - Determination of composition and appointment to the DeTHopment Committee as outlined in the Planned Development Ordinance . INTRODUCTION - In the ordinance regarding Planned that was adopted, there are provisions that assign certain tasks in a Planned Unit Development to a Development Committee. DISCUSSION - The proposed Development Committee would address minor amiTTdments (Section 5A and 7B) and act on those together with reviewing all building permits, construction and construction rate (Section 6C). If an issue became it would no longer be considered a minor amendment and it would therefore be brought before the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Since the range of considerations is fairly minor it is suggested that the committee be entirely a staff committee and the appointments be done by title rather than name. These appointments will be included in the annual resolution done in conjunction with the annual appointments. It is recommended that the following individuals be appointed to that committee; Building and Zoning Administrator City Engineer Public Works Director ALTERNATIVES - 1. Appoint. 2. Alter composition and appoint. 3. Choose not to appoint at this time. 4. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the individuals^listed above be approved as the Development Committee under the Planned Development Ordinance. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by_, seconded by_, that the individuals; the Public Works Director^ City Engineer and Building and Zoning Administrator compose the Development Committee and that these be placed on the annual resolution of appointment at the beginning of the year. Ayes __, Nays __. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer • 1*5 s"^ of uses presentsci in development plan. considered an amendment totte development plan will be cons^^^^^ specified in Sutd. the PUD and will follow o.^e t- of this Title.6. SOBD. 3. REQOpSD STANDARDS:^F°r^^e^DU^dse^of^^^ administeripa ,°f^^the'^con^ntionai zonino standards otocosed _develooment. .that most, similat to « or ^oninq.JVdmini5trator “ent of l»i^?d-use.develOoments.^^^^^^i„^_,cni^^ coordinauioii 'between ^ | of woodlands and surrounding ^ health, safety and welfare of wetlands, the the PUD. To these ends, the community J consider the location of ^ g the City tar.'cing areas and other features buildings, i^oior-aohy of the area and existingwith respect to the topography o natural features ®^‘®®“ <,£ the proposed lfy°>^t of efficiency, adequacy ®f®g*. the adequacy ana location internal streets an * location and screening of green areas; tne matters as the Council ni y parLng areas; bearing uoon the stated standards .. bf ca^terouf ^U11 meously -^^t^%^^n"be°submitted The plans ref^ired ^ the requirements of the in a form which wi: /®^^®^^g“teliminary and final plat, subdivision ordinai; a for me t revisions and /or changesSUED- 5. *- - subd. 5.A Minor changes in t^^l°«tion,^placem^^^ circumstances not for zoning Administrator. approved and fliea wxui subd. S.B Changes in uses, si^Ui^t -angf^^JnS-nt of!ots?'blocks Ind building tracts, changes m the (2) the final development plan. . ^ r an of the provisions of this Title applicable final plan. O V,.^ K n Review If substantial development has not ^ofc^rrl'witStrrreaLnable time^after aPProval^of the PUD Zoning council may instruct the Planning Agreement, “e^oning to the original zoning d?^r!lt?" Tt sCaU not be necessary for the City Council to find that the rezoning was in error. SUED. 6. PHASING AND GUARANTEE OF PERFORMANCE Subd. 6.A The Planning ^®D^^onesactual development accomplished ^he vario with the approved development schedule. subd 6 B upon recommendation of the Planning Co^ission !nd for good Luse shown by the property owner, the Souncn marextend the limits of the development schedule. ..c Th.“3 ticuitiK the building permits issued to cite If they linfth!t^?he“rite ofconsSuItton of dwelling’units^is greater than the ”^];°itierhave'’been^constructed ^afd^rroviLSt'trer^ail^ro^frrihL information to the Council for action. subd. 6.D A performance ^ond or letter^of be required to guarantee per and the specific amount of this bond or let- that it is intended toelements of the development program that lu is guarantee, will be stipulated in the development agreement. 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 with 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. 5289.1 <> V TO: Mayor and City Council \\Uc\ FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrati^ DATS: May 2, 1989 SUBJECT: Facility Site Analysis - Preliminary Attachment:A. Revised Site Plan Site C B. Economic Data Comparison Sites A, B and C C. Building Quali*y Cost Ranges Balance of attachment to be available Monday night ISSUE 1 Presentation to Council information regarding preliminary economic site analysis data for the three sites based on a revised Site C plan. 2. Presentation of information on building costs using low - average quality construction. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's last meeting the soil boring information ~from the consultant was presented to Council. Subsequently David Kroos of Boarman and Associates has been developing an alternate site plan for Site C based on that data and the economis data on all three sites. Additionally he^has presented in Attachment C the range of costs from low to average quality and location of recently constructed facilities and their square footage costs if you would like to visit them. DISCUSSION - Based on the soil borings of the sites, initial economic data analysis for each of the sites is presented as shown in Attachment B. The economic data considerations does not yet include sale of the the property in Crystal Bay and possible sale of a portion of property in Site B if the City is to use Site C nor the cost of the Site C. land. The City has approached the owner of Site C to estimated value and the owner had indicated they would like the City to make an offer. Based on the needed soils correction it reduces the value and it would be appropriate that this matter be discussed. The preliminary data does show trade-offs for drilling of and pressure equipment to support sprinkler systems as opposed to installation of city water at Site C together with phase costs as use of A and B would require constuction of Public Works prior to vacation the Crystal Bay building. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Discuss the information. 2. Visit sites. 3. Discuss land negotiation stratigies in Executive Session. 4. Table for further discussion. 5. Request additional information. 6. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council hold an exec'ut 1 ve sFision to discuss means of determinining an approximate price on Site C and turther encourage people to visit some of the facilities to get a sense of the quality of construction. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council hold an executive meeting regarding approaching the owner of Site C on the cost of the site. Ayes _r Nays _. cc; David Kroos, Boarman and Associates X o 3 X S ^ "5 SITE C SCALE; ONE INCH = 100 FEET 42689.3 TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrator|)6^^ April 26, 1989 SUBJECT: Equipment Acquisition - Long Lake Fire Attachment: ISSUE A. Joint Fire Department/Council (Long Lake) Liason Committee Minutes Dated 4/5/89 1. Determine whether the City would desire to contribute to Long Lake Fire's acquisition of a boat. 2. If so, determine means by which Council would like to accomplish that. 3. Determination of amount, if any, to be contributed. INTRODUCTION - During the fall of 1988 the Long Lake Fire Department, which serves approximately half of the City of Orono acquired a new boat in order to provide fire services, emergency medical services and water rescue services to boats, the islands with their structures and residents and others using the lake. This service area includes che Long Lake (the vast majority of which is in Orono) and substantial amounts of Lake Minnetonka including Big Island. The acquisition of the boat, which was not a budgeted item at the time proposed, was done through a combination of solicitation of money for donations, contributions from business and utilization of general fund monies from their Relief Association. DISCUSSION - A representative of the Fire Department has approached the City to determine if the City of Orono would be interested in contributing to make up the $900 that the Fire Department had taken from their General Relief Fund for this purpose. The City of Orono contributes approximately 73% of their funds to the Fire Department funds with Medina contributing 7% and the City of Long Lake contributing 20%. The City of Orono contracts on a formula that is established by the City of Long Lake and had they approved this as a budgeted item the City would be paying their 73% of it. The primary places for utilization of this vehicle would be within the Orono jurisdiction, considering water surface of Long Lake and Lake Minnetonka in their jurisdiction. In addition they are seeking to acquire equipment to outfit the boat. These include a portable pump ($950), boat accessories ($269.55) and safety equipment ($1,422.00) for a total of about $2,650. The total for the short fall is about $3,650. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Budget a contribution now out of the current *89 reserve. 2. Choose not to budget but to include in the *90 budget process. 3. Split the contribution/payment between two budget years. 4. Choose to take no action. 5. Table for further discussion. 6. Determine the amount. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City of Orono donate through its budget up to $900 to the City of Long Lake for the specific reimbursement of the acquisition to the Long Lake Fire Department Relief Association and the $1,600 acquisition of the necessary boating equipment. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council agree to contribute $900 to the City of Long Lake for the reimbursement of the Relief Association the acquisition of the boat and $1,600 for the acquisition of the necessary equipment. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Thomas Kuehn, Finance Director Chief Kilbo City of Long Lake JOINT FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNCIL LIASON COMI^IHEE MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1989 Members Present: David Sawyer, Arlo Vande Vegte, Richard Perry, Michael Brown 1. LLFD says that funds are necessary for the new rescue boat. The boat itself cost $5,850. Of that cost fund raising paid all but $900.00. The last $900.00 was financed by the Relief Ass'n which is seeking reimburse ment. Also, LLFD needs to purchase accessories ($269.65) and safety equipment ($1,422.00). LLFD would also like to purchase a flotation pump which is high powered and easy to operate at a cost of $950.00. This brings the total re quest as to the boat to $3,541.00. 2. LLFD would like to purchase a positive pressure fan capable of moving 30.000 cu. ft. of air per minute. This is a gasoline operated 2-cycle engine powered fan. They want the 2-cycle unit because it can be used at any angle , (no worry about oil draining out of crankcase). The purpose of the fan is to blow smoke out of a burning home due to its power. This will increase fire fighting efficiency and safety.. LLFD now has 4 electric fans which move 5.000 cu. ft. of air per minute. 3. LLFD also would like to purchase another flotation water rescue suit ("Gumby suit") at a cost of $300, They now have one and feel they need two in order to allow teamwork in the water on rescue missions. 4. The larger of the two tank trucks needs two new front tires at a cost of $260 each. 5. They would like to order 30 new blue and gold baseball-style warm up jackets for new members and future members. Cost $65,00 each for a total of $1,950.00. 6. There was discussion about ordering a new pumper truck. It is anticipated that the total cost of the unit they are interested in will be around $175,000.00, Through the major equipment fund they should have abount $150,000 saved by the time the truck is delivered. Thus, consideration as to the source of the last $25,000 should be given. The unit they like has an enclosed cab large enough to carry 10 firefighters. They said that OSHA regulations require that new trucks disallow the carrying of firefighters on the outside of the truck. Sawyer and Vande Vegte suggested that future redevelopment of the downtown could result in a structure taller than present equipment can service. Perhaps more study should be conducted as to the potential need for a ladder truck before the new unit is ordered. 5289.3a 7 TO: Mayor and City Council PROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: May 2, 1989 SUBJECT: B.;^rd of Review - May 11, 1989 - 7:00 P.M/ Attachments:A. Mayor's Article - Board of Review B. Chamber of Commerce Tax Brochure C. Residential Sales - 1989 Assessment D. AMM Property Tax Impact Brochure ISSUE - 1. Communciation of information to Council in advance of the Board of Review. 2. Selection of a date for reconvening the Board after the initial date. INTRODUCTION - In advance of the Board of Review the Assessor annually prepares a sampling of sales for use during the Board of Review. DISCUSSION - While the Board of Review is scheduled for 7:00 P.M. the initial 15^20 minutes will be the slide/tape presentation. Attached please find a copy of the ’ ayor's Article. There was a request by the Mayor to have this placed in the paper in advance of the Board of Review meeting. Also included are copies of two informational handouts that will be available for the public the night of May 11, 1989 to attempt to differentiate the increase people are seeing in taxes from the actual valuation process. To date the Assessors have received 300 calls and based on the previous years experience as to the number of individuals who come to the Board of Review in relation to the calls, it is anticipated that 40 - 50 people will come to the meeting and that the Council will probably review a total of 50 - 60 properties. Additionally the City has traditionally had to reconvene the Board of Review following the initial meeting. Due to the size of this year's Board being at or above last year's a reconvene may take 1 1/2 - 2 hours. It is recommended a separate date be established, as we did last year, instead of just before a regular Council meeting. ALTERNATIVES - Issue #2 Date for Reconvening 1. Table to Board of Review 5/11 meeting. 2. Establish 7:00 P.M. of May 24, 1989 as the time and date for reconvening. 3. Select an alternate time and date. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, May 24, 1989 be set for a reconvening of the Board of Review subject to the workload presented the night of May 11th. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to establish Wednesday, May 24, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. as the reconvened Board of Review meeting date subject to the workload presented the night of May 11, 1989. Ayes __, Nays __. Rolf Erickson David Wilde N&70R'S ARTICLE In the past few days, we as property owners in Orono have received valuation notices which list the estimated market value for your property as of January 2, 1989. These notices are to inform us of the market values placed upon our properties for tax purposes for 1990. In the past few months you also received your 1989 tax statement. If you noticed a substantial increase over your 1988 taxes it is do primarily to the 1988 Legislature's "Property Tax Reform" this shifted State dollars to local school districts from the Metro area to the outstate areas. This substantially raised property taxes in the Metro area, particularily the western suburbs even though the taxing units did not substantially increase their spending. The appraisal function for the City of Orono is provided by Rolf Erickson, Dave Wilde and Rita Guderian who provide assessing services under contract to the City of Orono. These three individuals have the responsibility of placing values on al*> properties and are mandated to physically review at least 1/4 of the properties in the community each year. The purpose of the 1990 valuation notice is to let people know the value the assessor's have placed on their property in advance of the City of Orono's local Board of Review. This year the Board of Review will be held on Thrusday, May 11th, starting at 7:00 P.M. in the Orono City Council Chambers. The Board of Review is held to allow property owners who feel that •'iheir valuation notice does not appropriately reflect the value of their property to appeal the amount to the local Board of Review. I_t ^ recommended that before you do come to the Board of Review, you should contact either Rolf, Dave or Rita who will be happy to answer any questions you may have and allow a review of property in advance of the Board of Review meeting. The real estate market in Orono continues to be very strong. Such market increases may be reflected on your valuation notices. Once the valuation has been set by the local Assessor and reviewed by the local Board of Review, and once any subsequent appeals made by the property tax payer are considered, the market value of the property is then converted to the tax capacity. The tax capacity values in the community are then ” ■*ed together to form the community's tax base. Then the total dollars needed, not only by the City, but also the School ict. County and other special districts, are divided by this tax base to determine the rate for each jurisdiction. While it is the responsibility of the City Council to review the valuations which do have an impact on each property owner's share of the total tax dollars, the City share of the tax dollar represents only about 11% of the property taxes you pay with approximately 50% going to the School District, 30% to the County and the balance to other special districts. If you are upset about your 1989 property tax bill, contact the Legislature. The local Legislators have worked hard to hold down property tax increases but they are not in the majority. Sincerely, James R. Grabak, Mayor Why are -^ese greater Minnesota residents smiling? O Because increases in your property taxes helped lower theirs. Duluth Property Taxes Some Building, Some Ini Home Fsyms F^1989 $20,000 $295.72 $240.52 $40,000 $591.44 $481.04 $50,000 $907.18 $601.30 $60,000 $1,228.62 $843.62 $100,000 $3,119.42 $2,017.06 Souroe Ouhith Gty Assessir ;ome. Similar Services OHIO Propc ity Taxa Paid MASSACHUSETTS ftoperty Ta«3 Paid S97.600 PerFoo* S.6I ILLINOIS Property Taxq Paid SI24.800 ^tFo« S.78. ARIZONA Property Tuea Paid S67^ Per Foot S.42 COLORADO Property Taxes Paid S31S00 Per Foot $.33 MINNESOTA Property Taxes Paid $ITT.600 Ptr Foot Sl.ll Assumptions: $20,000,000 Crou Revenue 220 Employees 160iXX} Square feet of manufactunni space Source: Minnesou Chapter of ihe National Association of Inousmal and OfOce Paries January II. 19X8 Fact: Over the past several years, the TWin Gties metropolis area and its suburbs have been hit wi^ disproportionately higgler aixi hitter property taxes, and have leceSi relatively 'ess and less state support in retura 1 . lines ofaD Minnesota property ta>m- In 1989 wiD iiKiease by S246J nillir w v ^ this 12467 million, taxpayers living m metro and suburban areas wtfl pay $22U nfxillion of that iTKiease, or about 89 peirent Percentage of irxsease being paid by greater Minnesota residents: 11% Total itKrease of Minnesota property taxes: $2467 million 2. Greater Minnesota will only pay 11 percent of the $2467 million tax increase, h addition, greater Mhii«ea)ta will receive more than half rfthe state s aids and ''redits. Sc 'vhile the metro area is she n- c i burJen of the taxirxaease.homeownei i ^fties such as Ouhith will see au ViQi i- decrea se in their property t i* .41& 3. A home in the suburbs having three times the value of a comparable norwrietro home, pays more than four times the taxes arid receives no more services than the nor>* metro home. 4. A Bemidji resident pays one-third less property taxes than a Shoreview resident with a comparable home and the same income. But Bemidji will receive almost two times the amount in state aids for city spending for pobce. fire, parks and streets. 1^ dty of B^dji will be able to spend $88.17 per capita in pob'ce protectioa while Shoreview will only spend $20.82. 5. Conirneraal/bndustrial properties in \finnesota represent 15 percent of total property values but pay 33 percent of total property taxes. Mlnriesota 1^ one cf* the highest axiro erda l/industrial property tax burdens in the country WiKit is Being Done to Correct This? Twenty metro area diambers of commerce representing more than one million pet^sle in 60 comrrninities and 8000 busiriesses, Im joined together as the Metro Property Ifoc Coalition. The coalition believes: 1. Minnesoduis with comparable homes, comparable incomes and receiving oompsh rabie services should pay comparable taxes. 2. State government must reduce spending to a rate consistent wifo personal income a^ at the same time cut taxes. 3. Gxnmeiua l/Iixlustrial property should pay taxes based on their actual maHcet value, not on inflatrd value. Tax increases should be siiraiar to increases in residential property aryl not exceed inflation. Call for Action The coalition is addng legidaton in the 1989 session to stop the discriminatDfy practice of using state aid formulas to iiioe^ property tax burdem on metro co mmunities while ^lifting more and more property tax ndief to other parts of Mirmesota. But they need your help. Contact your legislatofs and let them know how you feel about the annual increases in your property taxes. Call 296-2146 to get the name and address of your legisbtors and call or write today 5589.1 TOs Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE: May 5, 1989 SUBJECT: Purchase of Facsmile At our weekly staff meetings I was asked to evaluate facsmile equipment for use within the Administrative office building. I have been in contact with over seven vendors, with each vendor providing a listing of equipment/units that appear to fit our estimated level of use (beginning 2-4 separate transmittals a day). I have selected the Murata 1600 Series finding the price reasonable in consideration of the original selling price of $1,595.00. Other vendors have offered this unit anywhere from $1,195 to $1,295. Mobile Cellular Unlimited Inc. of Edina has offered us a purchase price of $899.99. Fax with the telephone will allow immediate transfer of physical material with the ability for immediate comment. This need not only serve our needs with consultants such as our Engineer, Attorney or Planner but very often with our dealings with other cities, agencies that serve the City, other governmental agencies, and our Assessor. I am not here to sell Fax machines but from what I have been lead to understand from other agencies or applicants the Fax has become as important a part of the business operation or an organization as the copier, computer, the telephone - standard equipment for operating, not necessarily just for larger offices. How often have we heard "can we fax it to you?" It may be appropriate for Council's benefit to provide background as to the City's needs for a facsmile. As I remember in our staff discussions they were as follows: 1. Delays in waiting for items sent via the mail often items needed for the Council or Planning Commission packets special material having to be presented right at the meeting. 2. Need to use messenger service for immediate review and response with delivery costs ranging from $12 to $20 average use two to three times a week. 3. Unique setup of our operation with consultants in off site offices; consultants have a major input with "inhouse" matters. The complete costs for installing the above described facsmile would be as follows; Purchase price of Murata 1600 $ 899.00 (90 day warranty) One year maintenance contract Two year maintenance contract (6-8 hour replacement with temporary unit to use at site if unit can not be repaired on site) Installation of direct telephone plus inside connection $ 195.00 $ 370.00 to Fax Install line to building US West Wiring inside building connection to Fax AT&T US West ($59.00 1st 1/2 hour, $16.00 each 15 minutes) Mobile Cellular Unlimited, Inc. US West monthly charge for phone line $ 34.00 135.00+ 90.00+ 50.00 50.00 Staff would recommend that we go with Mobile Cellular Unlimited, Inc. installation package and at least the one year maintenance contract. Tom Kuehn would be best to decide the most economical procedure for dealing with maintenance contract. $899.00 $ 34.00 $ 50.00 $195.00 $1,178.00 Unit price US West installation' of line Installation with! ilding Maintenance contra^. optional) TOTAL PRICE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark r!. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarded recommending approval. This is the best price Jeanne was able to find for this basically featured machine. Funding would be from budget reserve. seconded by to approve thePROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _. - - - - . — . , , -, purchase of a Marata 166 Fax machine from Mobile Cellular Unlimited, Inc. for a purchase and installation cost not to exceed $1,178.00 additionally the funding will be from the budget reserve. Ayes __, Nays __. .?■ Where overnight delivei7 of docu ments was once revolutionary, now facsimile delivers documents in sec onds. Fbr the cost of a phone call. Murata - a pioneer in fax - offers the right machine at the right price, back^ by our exclusive Full-Circle Sei /ice Program ’." Which includes a full 90-day warranty for parts and labor A toll-free number for on-line diagnosis. And on-site service from GE Computer Service with 1,000 technicians nationwide. •‘I ’ll ....... Aside from full-featured fax we also offer an optional convenient carrying case for each machine, as well as replacement paper. Type: High-speed, portable desktop transceiver Compatibility: CCITT Group 3 and 2 Applicable Iblephone line: Public Switched Iblephone Network (I’S'FN) or cqui”alent Modem: 9600 bps with automatic fall back to 7200, 48(X) and 2400 bp; per CCIIT V29 and V27ter Resolution: Fine 20311 x 196V Ipi Norm 203H x 98V Ipi G2 20311 X 98V Ipi Original Document Size: Width 3 94’-10.l" 100mm-256mm length 3.15' 15.8" 80mm-400mm Effective Scanning Width: 10" (254mm) Effective Printing Width: 8.5 ” (216mm) Scanning Method: Solid State CCD Recording Paper Size: 8.6' x 98' (216mm X 30m) Power Requirement: 115V ± 10%, 60/60 Hz Di..^en8ions: 11.89" x 8.46" x 3.35" 302 (W) X 216(U) X 85 (H)mm Weight: 9.2 !ha. (4.2 kg) nl A1UI1AIA FM, PHONE & COPIE' M1600 •fl/MURA1A I .* 1078 MR ’Vf: •»: I- s'- •iV i I •ii:’ I' »•» ■•Jr i: k ' 1 Worldwide compatibility - with , viroially any fax anywhere 2 Ultra high-speed transmission - exclusive method transmits in seconds 3 One-touch operation - single button sends documents 4 Speed dialing - stores 14 one-touch and 16 speed-dial , 5 Automatic or manual answer- ! ing-automatic when unattended, I manual to share fax and phone ! 6 Programmable answer fiinc- ! tion - set time for automatic answer at night — manual by day, fax and phone share same line 7 Answer delc^ - you can answer voice calls before fax responds 8 Auto re-dial - redials busy number five times 9 Fine transmission mode - for i detailed documents i 10 Status and instructional display - confinns entered information 11 Polling feature - retrieve docu ments from remote units 12 Confirmation report - confines documents are received 13 Transmit terminal identifier- prints your name, phone number, date and time on transmissions a- •fill Activity journal - summarizes transactions Full-featured phone - touch-tone, rotary service, speed dialing, hold button, automatic re-dial, on-hook dialing and mon itor for incoming calls Copier - photocopies at no extra o c< 'iiummi ^ ^ ’ - -1 -----1 —-----il:----- V ■ ■? . t I.-,-. Si- 10 8 n _9 12 14------ -_iM,1800 MDRATA'S "FULL CIRCLE" SERVICE PROGRAM In-warranty service: If the product fails within 90 days of purchase, Murata will supply on-site service to the defective unit at no charge to the consumer. This service will cover both parts and labor and will be supplied by General Electric Computer Service technicians. Out of warranty service: Murata Business Systems will offer 1 year and 2 year maintenance agreements through the retailer which will cover parts and labor for the specified time period indicated in the warranty agreement. NO OTHER MANUFACTURER HAS THIS TOTAL SUPPORT PROGRAM FOR THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT ENTITIES IN OUR BUSINESS- -THE RETAILER AND THE CONSUMER. . -r .41,'k i NATIONWIDE CUSTOMER SUPPORT AND SERVICE I Backed by Murata Regional Diagnostic Centers . Experienced Customer Support Engineers . Advanced Diagnostic Equipment Combined with a Service Partnership of Murata Certified and Trained Dealers 2ind General Electric Computer Services . 1200 field technicians . 1300 support personnel I . 395 service locations .. ENSURE RESPONSIVENESS VJI-1600 / Canon FaxPhone 10 Canon FaxPhone 20 Sharp UX160 Toshiba 30100 Teshiba 3300 LIST PRICE $1599 $1995 $1995 $2299 $1795 $2095 COMPAnSILlTY 63 Tcs - 18 sec Yes - 17 sec Yes - 17 tec Yes - 18 sec Yes - 15 sec Yes - 15 sec 62 Tts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yet NOOCM SPEED 9600 bps 9600 bps 9600 bps 9600 bps 9600 bps 9600 bps NMDSn Tcs Yes Yts Yts Yes Tts SPIED DIALER FAX MMERS 30 22 26 87 so 30 •Out-touch 14 16 16 12 10 10 •Codtd 16 6 10 75 40 20 DEUTED FIWCTIOH ■o No No Yes No Yts POLLING .STD Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yet •Stcurt Yes Yts Yes •No No Yts ACTIVm JOURNAL Tts Yes Yes Yes Yts Yts CONFIRMATION RPTS •Tranynlt Tts Yts Yes No Yes Yes .Rectiv«Yes No No No No No AUTO DOCUMENT FEED Sintle*5 5 10 Single 5 REC. PAPER LENGTH 98*98.4*98.4*98*98.4*98.4* CUTTER Manuel Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual REDUCTION Yes No No No No No LAST NUMftER RADIAL Yts Yts Yts Yes Yes Yts MONITOR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yts Yes OTHER nine can be licid open for 6 or 12 see to odd aort •AutOMtlC Ansuer Tint •RtcelYt OeiR) •Selectable Ring Nwber •Discontinued •8 levels of grayscale *'• ■ % t 'f ‘'‘}c\ ’» V “ •,•;FEATURES OF CONSUMER SERIES :.: -v' • . . , I .••• . •• • •.-tr -' •* ■ *'■'■■. « ■> . * ••. V * >- ■• ••• ■•■ri' u: ;.:i- ■V?.!- ".i-r;-'.'. • . • v<*’ I- • • ;• ;•. ■ V r •» .. .r.-r ••.■. SCANNER' SIZE . ' " ;v.:'B4 '-'-yB4 "^ ’■'A-B4*: ^ PRINTER SIZE A4 A4 A4 MODEM (BPS) ''9600 •9600 9600 ‘ COMPATIBILITY - ' 'G3/G2~'■' V G3/G2 ' •G3/G2 • TX' SPEED/PAGE IsEC)' '■ ■*'18 20 yyAA-TlAtA COMPRE5SI6n • . METHOD - MH .. MSE,vSMSE^V>: MHftrv".* - MSE,' SMSE ; . •;-:i^j ■ ■ • 'v.-, MH .ftft .ft .ft;?' POLLING ■ '■■•- •YES' V :. - . •(YES y • 'NO BUILT-IN HANDSET ■•■ ■■ • -• ■ '-y ■ YES -V YES ■’ft" YES', 'v'ft'ft?- MONITOR ■ v'-.^ 'YES'ft ^ - 'YES. RCR (PRINT OUT) 'YES - -YES ‘rn'smmi: TCR DISPLAY (DISPLAY) • -V. YES • ■ v:-;: 'YES . " • * ^YES ACTIVITY JOURNAL YES ■ ‘ •YES • V *' •YES •■■*•■• PASSWORD (4 DIGITS) ’ 'NO ft"--.. y YES ) . DISPLAY ' - • 4 OTCIT 7 SEGMENT-LED . --------- ri6 X 2 16'x AUTO-DIALER •NO 3'0.'(14-H6') " ■30 (14+16) • ^ COC; FEEDER (PAGE) ' r *• 1 ■■■■■•■"■1 ^ :.v " • ■*.•■* 4i;.I ‘ft*J ' V' REC PAPER 30ni '•30m.30m- "■••>■ ni ■ / ■22 CHARS 22 CHARS 22 CHARS ERROR MESSAGE •YES ■ ■■YES '"'.ft- '■YES- i .’ •r; *■•. V . 'i:>' ’.y i.*' i.- 'f-y* •• ‘v.-rji .-•- '•■.*•• . .* . • • •' - •• V •’■. '■ .■ ■ ■ »'• ' • . '• WDITIONAL F^Esi „C;; • OPERATOR SELEOTABLE‘ SIX OR TWELVE SECOND DELAY AFTER TRANSMITTING ;l'' . •.% •• • y. • OPERATOR SELECTS NUMBER OF RINGS (TWO OR SIX) BEFORE AUTO ANSWER ;v, •^ OPERATOR selects ;PRIt^Y'tMNSHISSION MOOE^- . - ’ 'i':. S ' * ; AUTO/MANUAL ANSWER-PROGRAMmIaBLE ’ " ' ' .'*• • . . . ■ •■', •*•,'***» * • OPERATOR SELECTS 0. -15 SECOND DELAY .TO ACCOMODATE VOICE OR FACSIMILE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -■■ ■ ■••'V: ■ -.v, ■ * ,M-1600 AND:H-1550 FEATURES'ONLf'■• • '■"■ ■'• * ^ •■*• Yr'v ■ r . . ' .■■ . ..................... • ' ' ■•■ •• -• ,:•;. - GG:keh/157 •-' .■ -v V.-V.* -Tt: V*. -•i--».•••.•«: . -i*'.-. •■■ . ■ ■■ •* ■ M--: ■■ 'r:-:;!’•vV ’ ■Vf 5289.2 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate^ DATS: May 2, 1989 SUBJECT: 1972 Shadywood Road O ISSUE - Presentation to Council regarding further Information on the problems at the above listed address. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's last meeting Mr. James ® neighbor of“1972 Shadywood Road, presented his concerns regarding the property and the feeding of the ducks. DISCUSSION - Staff in Building and Zoning has reviewed the Issues of the cars and will be addressing that with Mr. Nehrlng through the normal enforcement procedures. In addition the Animal Control Officer has been working in attempting to get the neighbors to indicate when the problems do occur with the ducks. The City has not been able to cite at this point any actual feeding by Mr. Nehring, but Mr. Urban has indicated his continued cooperation in determining this matter. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the Information regarding the information on 1972 Shadywood Road as to status of vehicles and feeding of waterfowl. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council accept the information regarding 1972 Shadywood Road. Ayes _r Nays _. 42789.2 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: April 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Lord Fletchers - Spring Park Meeting Attachments: A. Aerial Photo - County 51/19 B. Lord Fletchers Letter Seating Capacity Dated 4/26/89 C. Lord Fletchers Parking Plan Dated 4/10/89 ISSUE - Presentation to Council of information regarding the City Administrator's meeting with the City of Spring Park and subsequent Spring Park Council action. INTRODUCTION - Under the public comments section of the Council's Apr i 1 2 4 , 1 989 Council meeting they directed the City Administrator to meet with representatives from the City of Spring Park to relay the concerns and issues and learn more about the background of the development of parking lots for Lord Fletchers. DISCUSSION - On Thursday, April 27, 1989, I met with Mayor Jerry Rockvam and City Administrator Pat Osmonson and discussed the following issues: Zoning - The property under consideration is currently used for parking. The expansion is proposed within the boundaries of the existing commercial property. This land has been zoned as commercial for a considerable period of time. Spring Park does permit parking lots to exist in the commercial zone and the proposed parking meets all the appropriate setbacks under Spring Park's code. Capacity/Parking - The driving force has been a concern regarding the amount of business done at Lord Fletchers and the needed parking for that. A substantial problem was created last summer by the fact that the Mai Tai in Excelsior was c] 'ed for business and many of the people that had frequen d that facility were now frequenting Fletchers in addition to their regular customers. This resulted in parking problems in the residential areas of Spring Park. Spring Park had approached Fletchers to resolve the problem. Fletchers has been attempting to develop parking in proximity of their business to avoid the parking on the streets. (Last summer Fletchers did work with Advance Machine to provide remote parking and a shuttle service for patrons on busy days.) Fletchers had purchased a residentially zoned property from which they cleared a house and graded it out. While permitted to remove the hoase and grade the site, their use of it as a parking lot was not permitted by the City of Spring Park.^ As such they undertook an alternative plan utilizing currently zoned commercial property that Fletchers owned. The City of Spring Park has been working closely with their contract Building Inspector and contract Police Chief to develop standards to limit capacity both inside and outside as noted in Attachment D. Existing Parking - The original sketch by the Engineer of exisHng parking was not fully accurate but as you will note on Attachment C that has been corrected to show the areas currently being used or having been used for parking. The 932 ft. mark closely conforms with topographical information the City of Orono has and is an item governed by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District through their regulation. Surfacing - The proposed surfacing on the property is allowed to be either asphalt or gravel under Spring Park's code and at MWCC's direction on the application, to be gravel to limit the amount of hardcover run-off into the wetlands. Screening - The City of Spring Park has requested that the neighbors meet with the owners of Lord Flectchers to determine what type of appropriate screening may aid in the area. The owner of Fletchers s indicated their willingness to develop appropriate screening on the site but has only recently (within the last few days) been able to get neighbors to discuss the issue with them. The City of Spring Park has been working to try to correct the problem on their own initiative prior to receiving petitions requesting such. Unfortunately the solution of consolidation close to the site has not been acceptable to certain neighbors. The desired solution of some neighbors is to leave parking as it is and try to control the numbers of people using Fletchers through that means. That will probably not result in a satisfactory solution with parking continued in other areas. The more appropriate control is through regulating the facility capacity. In addition the City of Spring Park has been attempting to take other measures regarding parking which include: A. Posting No Parking/Tow Away Zones in all residential areas where agreed to by the residents. B. City Park Parking/Closing at 10:00 P.M. to limit the use of that by Fletchers patrons. C. Hiring an off duty Police Officer for certain events to patrol along Sunset Drive and minimize disturbances by passing patrons. D. Utilization of the remote parking at Advance Machine to only Fletchers employees to avoid the issue of patrons walking along Sunset Drive instead of waiting for the shuttle and causing problems enroute. I had contact with Mr. Norling as to his interest in attendance and he indicated he did not desire to attend my meeting with Spring Park. Spring Park Counci l Meeting, May 1, 1989 - The owner of the property. Bill Naegele, agreed to provTde the screening desired by the neighbors. It will be done by George Norling who is a landscaper. Additionally on busy weekends the parking lots on both sides will have controlled entrance and exit points with attendants in charge. This having been resolved to the satisfaction of the neighbors, the Council approved the expansion. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City Council accept the information regarding Lord Fletchers and commend Spring Park for working through and taking the initiative on a difficult situation. PROPOSED MOTIO:; - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council accept the information regarding the meeting with Spring Park on Lord Fletchers. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: City of Spring Park jf" i /-rTWL4-««.eTjr A affiSi ’.>j^^°-rg m^m m ^hr^-<|». s \ ^ ■„t;f A:'^^g5g3l^ ^iPl f»,. vPart of U»tZ,B f|;To»w^^ f gdor .PwK.-: .->: Vm.^Gg ' Wt vB-mci ■ vr.-5 tV,-rJ^'• m :5^Er fpp I' wm \ * fJ9oa U3ini^^^ ■.-;^i i'-.’-^iFreocr.^ ^.t\-----di-"^«A-'/-.' «.--r ?Hd-»., Fletchers ^Trr\ ^ OF THE LAK LORD FLETCHER'S 04/26/89 SEATING L.F. Main 100 L.F. Pub 34 L.F. Harbor 70 L.F. Deck 68* Beanery 130 Granddaddy's 109 Wharf 340* Inside Seating 443 Outside Seating*408 TOTAL 851 Parking Main Lots South Lots Total Boat Slips 165 122 287 70 (Proposed + 98) P.O. Box 446 Spring Park, Minnesota 55384 (612) 471-8513 Tomt fttes objects Mayor Rockvam & Spring Park Council Members City Administrator Osmonson Thomas J. Jacobs, Building 6 Fire Inspector April 26, 1989 Lord Fletchers Per your request, I have reviewed the plana submitted by Lord letchers for occupant loads within the structure. I have also met on the Ite with representatives from Lord Fletchers and determined the square dotage of the exterior deck/patio area. The occupant loads and square ootages are as followst 1. Upper Floor Level/Public Area: Habor Room - Square Foot - 1,054 Occupant Load * 70 Saloon - Square Foot ■ 506 s.f. Occupant Load - 34 Main Dining Room - Square Foot - 833 s.f. Occupant Load » 56 Main Dining Room - Window Area - Square Foot - 676.8 s.f. Occupant Load » 45 Deck Area - Square Foot * 1,332 s.f. Occupant - 89 Total Square Footage of Public Area Total Occupant Load « 294 2. Upper Floor Level/Non-Public Area: Storage Room - Square Feet ■ 210 Occupant Load ■ 1 Mechanical Room - Square Feet ■ 304 Occupant Load » 1 Serving Area - Square Feet - 320 Occupant Load « 3 4,401.8 s.f. Lord Fletchers April 26, 1989 Page 2 of 3 Bar/Service Area - Square Feet * 100 Occupant Load * 1 Kitchen - Square Feet * 745.75 Occupant Load ■ 4 Food Storage Area - Square Feet ■ 234 Occupant Load * 1 Dishwashing Area - Square Feet «= 240 Occupant Load * 2 Office - >quare Feet * 80.5 Occupant Load * 1 Mechanical Room - Square Feet -130 Occupant Load * 1 Storage Area - Square Feet « 178.5 Occupant Load » 1 Total Square Footage of Non-Public Area Total Occupant Load * 16 3• Lower Level/Public Area; Grandaddys - Square Feet « 1,638 Occupant Load * 109 Lobby - Square Feet *‘320 Occupant Load * 46 Jose's - Square Feet * 2,563 Occupant Load * 168 Total Square Footage of Public Area * 4,521 Total Occupant Load - 323 2,542.75 s.f. Lcrd Fletchers April 26, 1989 Page 3 of 3 4. Lower Level/Non-Public Area; Storage Area - Square Feet * 182 Occupant Load » 1 KitchenA^aitress Station - Square Feet * 893 Occupant Load * 4 Storage Area - Square Feet * 572 Occupant Load * 2 Hamburger Stand - Square Fo'Ot ■ 300 Occupant Load * 2 Total Square Footage of Non-Public Area Total Occupant Jx>ad » 9 4. Deck Area; 1,947 Square Feet 11,010 Occupant Load ® 734 (division factor 15 s.f. per occupant) Total Occupant Load for Structure Upper Level Floor Plan; Occupant Load « 310 Lower Level Floor Plan; Occupant Load * 323 Ground Level Deck; Occupant Load ■ 734 (15 s.f. per occupant factor) TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD FOR BUILDING 6 GRADB-LBVBL DBCK « 1,367 As stated before, the occrpant load factor for the grade level deck/patio between the structure and the lake is not addressed by the SMrte Building Code nor the Fire Code, therefore determination of the square footage per occupant must be made by the City Council. Staff recommends the use of 15 square feet per occupant in this area. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. 'A'n-AQ.UrVlGTiJV Cl LORO FLETCHERS riramia a«NKwa t« Mopotto PAMiiMo so S55?* t® tsiSTmo SARRma so ir •OTAl oT -ROROSCaSAORWO " qparki rq plan PROJECT SUMMARY EXISTING PARKINO 132 PROPOSED PARKING 93 PROPOSED HANDICAPED PARKING 9 lllOTMQ f ARRINO St MOSOSfD OARRMO 41 TOTAL T4 TOTAL 220 • • ^*1 © RORTN SlTVnON _______ d "rz-r. K<i l«» fW ----- LORD FLETCHERS ORRINO RARR . IMNNISOTA z < oz )Zcc < CL c?& G DATE: May 5, 1989 TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Police Supervisory Implementation I am requesting a delay in preparation of supervisor selection notes. While I am gathering data for this memo, there are other priorities that have surfaced. We are also completing first quarter employee evaluations which will add to data that the Department will use in the memo. Our newest Lt., Hark Moran, is still in transition and is deserv ing of time to settle into his supervisory role. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Aoministrato Forwarded recommending tabling of the matter at this time, PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to table this matter at this time. Ayes _, Nays _. 1NTKKOFK3CK MKMO DATE: May 2. 1H89 TO: Mark Demhardson, Clt.y Admi ni st.rat.ni FROM: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police RE: Public Auction As a result of inclement weather an(i the inadequate number of posters advertisjn« the auction havin/r been posi.ed, t.he auction scheduled for 4/29/B9 was cancelled. 1 request permission to reschedule this public auction, according to Orono ordinance 2-61 at 1285 Brown Road South in Orono on Saturday, June 10, 1989 at 10:00 am to sell 24 bicycles, 8 coolers, and many other items and other city propert.y no longer needed. Detailed list to follow. TO: Mayor and Council^ k FROM: Mark Bemhardson^ ■# Forwarded, recommending approval for disposal of unclaimed, confiscated and obsolete property auction. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _ _, seconded t>y_ _. The Orono City Council approves the disposal of unclaimed, confiscated and obsolete property at auction to be held Saturday, June 10, 1989. Ayes _ _, Nays _ _. 5389.IHD Toj Mark E. B^rnhardsoiir City Administrator Froa: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: May 3, 1989 Subject: Temporary Employment - Orono Golf Course Recently Council approved employment of five temporary employees as counter helpers and greenkeeper helpers at the Orono Golf Course. In order to fill all schedules, it is necessary to employ two additional persons. The following are the names of one new applicant and one person previously employed at the Golf Course: Name Steve BoyIan Robert Braun Title Counter Helper Counter Helper Rate Per Hour Effective Date $4.75 4.50 5/9/89 5/2/89 Reconendation - To employ the above persons as temporary counter helpers at the respective hourly rates, where employment is not expected to continue for a period longer than six consecutive months. Proposed Notion - Moved by _ _, seconded by _ _, to employ the above persons as temporary counter helpers at the respective hourly rates, where employment is not expected to continue for a period longer than six months. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. DATE: May 4, 1989 TO; Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM; Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police SUBJECT; Request Authority to Hire C.S.O. - Part-time I request permission to hire Troy Allen Denneson, 19 years old, from Maple Plain, as a back-up C.S.O. for 1989. Troy has been a member of the Orono Police Reserve since July 1988. This is a budgeted position. I would pay $5.10 per hour with no benefits, not to exceed $425.00 per month. TO; Mayor and Council FROM; Mark Bernhardsor^y^'cl:^ Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. seconded by that the O PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by ._ _ Orono Council authorize the hiring of Mr. Troy Denneson as a part-time C.S.O. at $5.10 hourly, commencing immediately, with the annual salary not to exceed $425.00 per month. All expenditures are to be within amounts budgeted for animal control for 1909. Aves_ _, Nays_ _. O' ] To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Prom: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: May 4, 1989 Subject: Ordinance Amendment - Fee Schedule Implementation of PUD Ordinance Amendment The attached amendment of the fee schedule is required to implement the PUD Ordinance. Note that the conditional use permit section now omits all reference to PRDs and PIDs. The zoning amendment section has been expanded to include PUD rezoning for residential and commercial/industrial zoning. The PUD residential rezoning fee will remain at a normal rezoning fee of $250.00. The original fee for a conditional use permit for a PID ($150.00 per acre - $350 .00 minimum) has been restated under the rezoning section. Note a commercial PUD rezoning will be at the same fee as an industrial. Please schedule before the Council for action at their May 8th meeting. To: From: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrat^jj^l Forwarded recommending approval. Any additional staff and City consultant expenses due the fee amount will be billed to the applicant in accordance with the section noted on page 4 of the Fee Ordinance. ORDIHAHCB « , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 62, SECOND SERIES ADOPTED JANUARY 9, 1989, AND ENTITLED ■1989 FEE SCHEDULE, ZONING APPLICATIONS The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Ordinance No. 62, Second Series adopted January 9, 1989, and entitled "1989 Fee Schedule, Zoning Applications'* is amended to read: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (one charge per project) Residential Accessory Use (animals, etc.) $100.00 Institutional Use (school, church, etc.) 150.00 Duplex Credit (per building) 150.00 Commercial/Industrial Use 250.00 10.09, Subd 3 H Land Alteration: 200.00 + permit Grading, filling, etc. (over 100 cubic yards) Sea walls, retaining walls within 0-75* la)ceshore Renewal Conditional Use Permit (no change from original application) Conditional Use Permit with Var;ince After-the-Fact Fees ZONING AMENDMENTS INCLUDING REZONING P.U.D. Rezoning Residential Commercial/Industrial 1/2 current fee 50.00 for each variance Double Application Fee Res. #1306 $250.00 § 10.11 10.53 250.00 150.00 per acre (minimum 350.00) This ordinance becomes effective May 22, 1989. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 8th day of May, 1989, by a vote of _ _ayes and _ _ _ nays. ADOPTED BY: ATTEST:Jaunes R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 1989 Laker and Pioneer Newspaper on the 22nd day of May, I 20HIHG APPLICATIONS (CONT.) Application Type Fee Applicable- Code Section RIP-RAP Staff Review (normal clp-rap) Unusual Rlp-Rapx a) New Installation b) Repair existing No Charge \ $100.00 + CUP review . Staff permit ** $100.00| APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION (of Administrative decision) $100.00 *10.06, ^ubd 3(0) INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND APPLICATIONS Minimum Project Valuation: $250,000.00 Appll'^’^tlon Fee: f 0.1% of project valuation ($250.00 minimum) plus". $5,000.00 deposit for ).egal/ administrative expenses V SURCHARGE FOR STAFF EXPENSE IN EXCESS OF APPLICATION FEES > Y Per Fee Schedule setforth below: Professional Time $ 25.00/hour \ Clerical Time $ 15.00/hour I Legal/Engineering Consultants Actual Billed Cost V Mlleage/Copies/Postage/Etc. Actual Cost Sectlon'^lQ. 11 Ii • •• 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.) .V o o 5489.IHDTo: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Prom: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: May 4, 1989 Subject: No Parking - East Long Lake Road Recently the City expanded the parking area at Summit Park Swimming Beach to accommodate twenty vehicles. The expansion of the parking lot was performed to keep the parking within the park and not on East Long Lake Roadr which is a very narrow residential street. As part of ths construction of the parking lot, it was determined that on-street parking should be eliminated. Therefore, I have prepared a resolution for review and approval. Recosoiendation - To approve Resolution #______ authorizing the placement of "No Parking" signs on East Long Lake Raod beginning at the intersection at Old Long Lake Road to a point 800' north. Proposed Motion - Moved by _ _, seconded by _ _ Resolution #_____ authorizing the placement of "No Parking to approve signs on East Long Lake Road beginning at the intersection at Old Long Lake Road to a point 800' north. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Prom: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. A RBSOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PLACEHENT OP *NO PARKING" SIGNS ON EAST LONG LAKE ROAD WHEREAS, East Long Lake Road Is a very residential street? and WHEREAS, the street is not wide enough to accommodate on-street parking; and WHEREAS, activity at Summit Park Swimming Beach has encouraged on-street parking on East Long Lake Road; and situation. WHEREAS, the on-street parking has caused an unsafe ATTEST;James R. Grabek, Mayer Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk mm NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby authorize the placement of "No Parking" signs on East Long Lake Road beginning at the intersection of Old Long Lake Road to a point 800* north. May, 1989. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of o 5289.3 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: May 2, 1989 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information HIGHWAY 12 > FETY IMPROVEMENT - A public hearing was held by MnDOT regarding improvement on Highway 12 on Tuesday, April 25, 1989. The primary issues of concern were the alignment of Brown Road together with the desire on the part of Long Lake to have funds spent for safety improvements on the east end of town. MnDOT will be working further on the plans and will be bringing back preliminary plans to each of the respective councils to have further input by them within the next 2-3 months. HIGI^AY 12 TASK FORCE - On April 27, 1989 Commissioner Leonard Levine of the Minnesota Department of Transportation together with Mr. William Crawford the Chief Engineer District 5, Mr. James Mulrooney of Mr. Levine's office met with representatives from the Highway 12 Task Force. The group spent about an hour with the Commissioner discussing the general transportation funding picture on both the State and national level together with having Mr. Crawford address specifics regarding Highway 12's priority status, length of process, etc. Currently MnDOT District 5 has requested a feasibility study ($200,000) to the Department of Transportation's Central Office for the funding of a consultant to identify potential corridors. It is anticipated that a response will be given by the Central Office by the first of July. If this is approved it is anticipated that the feasibility will take about one year and that would be followed by the actual corridor selection study. Commissioner Levine expressed again his longstanding interest in tha need for an improvement on Highway 12. Following the meeting all atcendees took a bus tour of the corridor from the school west to Delano. SUMMARY OF DISBURSEMENTS - MARCH - Please see Attachment. LAKE MINNETONKA - LAKE LEVEL/GRAPH - As Jo Ellen Hurr had indicated the Attached graph was developed by the Freshwater Biological Institute to show the changes in the lake levels historically from 1930. LMCD SHORELAND REGULATIONS - The City has contacted the LMCD to determine the status ot the Shoreland Regulations. When the draft regulations are ready they will be transmitted to the Council. CITY DOCKS - Annually the City installs four swimming beach docks and tour neighborhood boat launch/fishing pier docks. Due to the low water level docks will not be installed at: Lydiard swimming beach. Casco swimming beach. Carmans Bay boa* ■<n^’;>/fishing pier, Loina Linda boat launch/fishing pier and Stubbs Bay boat launch/fishing pier. We wil^l^ be installing docks at: Sandy Beach swimming beach, SummTt Park swimming beach and Park Lane boat launch/fishing pier. We will be monitoring the lake level and if it appears the level is returning to a normal level we will install the docks. RECYCLING - Many of you have probably seen the fact that Super Cycle, one of the people who had bid for the Orono contract, is anticipating going bankrupt within the next 30 days because of their inability to dispose of the glut of newspaper. As you may recall the City uses Polka Dot from Buffalo as its recycler and the City does not have any word at this time as to problems with continuing with this contract. It is our understanding that Poka Dot is continuing to be able to get rid of its recycled newspaperj but is not able to sell any of it. Stuff will be staying abreast of this situation as it develops. As a side note the City is exploring the use of recycled paper for copying and other uses that do not require a fine quality paper. ELECTRONIC DEPOSITS - See Attachment. ADDITIONAL DEPOSITORY - See Attachment. KENNEL LICENSE - At the last meeting the Council raised the issue of a license being issued for one dog. The reason is under the ordinance the license is required as the person has a dor run that is in the 10 foot setback and desires to leave it in the setback even if their is only one dog. Should you have an interest in changing this, please let me know. GOAL SETTING - See Attachment. CITY OP URONO SUMMARY or RECEIPTS, DISBURSEMENTS AVTi BALANCES KOK TllK THREE MONTES ENDED MARCH 31, 1989 BEGINNING 1/1/89 ENDING 3/31/89 POND INVESTMENT BAIAMCE CASH BALANCE 1/1/89 RECEIPTS TOTAL BUDGET (C) 1989 General 2,961,358 411,330 2,620,660 Parks 116,402 3,663 17,000 CDCB 0 0 Equip Outlay 263,161 8,453 68,700 Bldg Cap Outly 145,228 4,344 129,500 Nun St Aid Cons 3,519 0 Per iBpr Rev 149,081 33,944 Zsq> Bond 66>76 609,720 17,185 82,800 lap Bond 80 475,565 14,180 96,600 2ap Bond 82 195,025 6,122 15,^*0 lap Bond 85 136,861 8,570 9’ Nater Op 113,523 35,998 191,500 Sewer Op 443,170 142,732 463,220 Golf Course Op 0 60 92,190 Pooled Znv Trust Fund 5,514,024 (5,514,024)162,184 TOTALS 5,514,024 98,589 848,765 3,868,4‘>0 TOTAL LT 5,361,402 56,648 680,381 3,628,170 GENERAL POND SUMMARY - 19891 % OF REVENUE BUDGET BUDGET Taxes 0 1,378,3 j 0 0.0% Licenses ( Pemlts 45,013 90,000 50.0% Intergov. Revenue 31 ,1,48 254,240 12.4% <3)gs for Serv 309,827 623,990 49.7% Pines 16,210 95,500 17.0% Int. on Invest.79,449 165,000 48.2% Tran. Pr Other Ponds 0 0 Other 19,46i 13,600 143.2% TOTAL REVENUE 501,628 19.1 • (b) ntANSP IN INVEST SOLO DISBUR TOTAL BUDGET (C) 1989 % or BUDGET r«>.,Nsr OUT INVEST PORCH CASH BALANCE 3/31/89 INVEST BALANCE 732,617 366 0 11,387 ,;,600 0 4,488 163,742 99,718 59,993 752 35,780 127,72:* 2>:,843 3,428,578 162,184 2,720,660 112,530 173,190 121,740 68,360 108,390 1?4,540 361,240 101,850 26.91 10.1% 94.5% 31.9% 117.P% 0.7% 20.51 35.4% 24.4% 2,640,071 119,699 0 260,227 146,972 3.5?9 178,537 463,163 390,027 U1,154 144,679 113,741 458,177 (24,783) 2, ^9-;,565 (4,983,011) 4,983,011 0 3,428,578 1,426,195 3,942,500 2,697,565 52,172 4,983,011 0 3,473,427 1,260,238 3,624,030 2,862,862 87,356 4,750,837 TOTAL 1989 CASH % INVESTMENT TO 3/31/89 85,035,183 NOTE im) Golf operating fund budget does rot include ar cunts for pui'cliaaea for resale or aalea tax collectud/reailtted. The receipts budget projects gross profit - not t<'‘-al receipts. NOTE (b) General fund revenues rt *111 not eq’.e race p*- collected due to receivables iillled In other • iMtlng perlod<i and non-revenoa recelpta. NOTE (c) Budget anuaunts Incl tJe ~w*hed* balano< u?as or additions. transfers, do not include fund High and Low Water Levels of Lake Minnetonka from 1820 (All Readings Corrected to 1929 >^atum Base) r«« F^xhuvlrr ImmUttian l.’JM tllM •MM •»N •21M •12 M •2«M •MM •2«M •2JM •22 M •21 M ••^MtMialia CnM. ‘■atantaUiaiMOxr* MralbkcaMMI* MbMMMlM CtMk . K« r*c*>4 •< 4mi onL HM M MMMhaha CiMfc •Ml OMI at 212 •? laa« rapOcM "Siai»<a- 4&m The Freshwater Foundation is a nonpiolit organization dedicated to keeping our water resources usable lor human consumption. Industry and recreaticn. Tow ard this end. the Foundation supports sdenUtic research into the probtems confronting our treshwater resources —the lakes, streams, ponds and wetlands that grace ttie earth's sudsce and the groundwaters beneath it The Freshwater Foundation buitt the Gray . water Biologicat tnstitute on the shores Miimelonka and presented it to the Universih .v' r>4innttsota In 1976. The Foundation ct RECEMPSUbule to the support of the Institute which is one of the finest research facilities of it; world. \PR 41989 l-M.CD. *1 G/»r» B#r -mh W MmmmM* Ctm* vIUi ImIUMm mmSUM c««tt at S2a »• lM4 (IS2S daliMil l•pu«•4 ’-MM'' tHalSig mm tkitctmf at onri Say aiilM arSli «a«l al •2« M laal (aptocae "NaonaT SMI. An extensive program of public awareness and education is conducted by the Freshwater Foundation through publications, conferences and niembership services. The Foundation helps pe-'plr* ••nderstand water issues and thel' environmental, political, social and economic impacts. .•.etonka has been of interest and concern to the Freshwater Foundation, and much of the of the Institute was centered specifically on the lake. In spile of our df^sire lor a "quick ^ drastic action U' ‘awer or raise water levels Is unwise. Mistorically, Lake Minnetonka has had .ies of high and low water levels. Low water levels may cause sume problems; so do high ones, and we can't expect immediate changes. As can be seen from the graph, the lime frame lor change is yeara Our Uunking and planning must also be in those terms 4589.1(62) CITY OP OROHO INVESTMENT TRANSACTIONS - ELECTRONIC APRIL 1 - MAY 1 WIRE TRANSFERS DATE TRANSFER FOR FROM TO AMOUNT 04/04/89 Interest due un FNMA Residential Bear Stearns 1st Bank Lakes $ 12,679.16 04/12/89 Comnercial Paper Matured Marquette 1st Bank Lakes 510,000.00 04/12/89 PurchaSbJ Commercial Paper 1st Bank Lakes Norwest Bank (400,488.26) 04/17/89 Interest due on tv*<^ Cert, of Deposit Da in Bosworth 1st Bank Lakes 8,300.00 04/19/89 Interest due on Cert, of Deposit Bear Stearns 1st Bank Lakes 8,111.11 04/25/89 Interest due on FHLB Marquette 1st Bank Lakes 7,700.00 04/26/89 Commercial Paper Matured Norwest Bank 1st Bank Lakes 402,000.00 04/26/89 Purchased Commercial Paper 1st Bank Lakes Norwest Bank (401,472.38) 04/26/89 Purchased Discounted Cert, of Deposits 1st Bank Lakes 1st Bank Mpls (293,680.65) 05/01/89 Commercial Paper Matured Norwest Bank 1st Ban'.: Lakes 402,000.00 05/01/89 Purchased Fed. Farm Credit Bank Bonds 1st Bank Lakes Paine Webber (200,000.00) 05/01/89 Purchased Fed Farm Credit 1st Bank Lakes 1st Bank Mpls (200,000.00) Bank Bonds 548S.3 TOs Mark E, Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Tom Kuehn# Finance Director DATE: April 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Request Approval to Designate Additional (Depository) Dealer For Investments I request approval to designate Paine Webber, Inc. as an additional vendor for investment puposes effective this date. By adding this vendor we will be more easily able to adhere to the investment policy guidelines relating to amounts placed with a specific bank or dealer. Upon your concurrence I will undertake purchase of $200,000 Federal Farm Credit Bank bonds to be settled May 1 and maturing August 1 with an estimated coupon rate of 9.70% TO: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Request for additional investment dealer approved. GOAL SKimC cm CF OHONO *87 STO - 1987 Council Strategic Planning Short Tern Objective *88 STO - 1988 Short Ten Objective •89 SIO - 1989 Short Tem Objective AHQi GOM. MSSK NUK B. BBRaUSBOR cm MMmisniKioB 1 wcr 1988 - 30 APRIL 1989 CaJHCTIVKS DATES DRAFT 4/20/88 5/01/88 5/31/88 6/30/88 7/29/88 8/30/88 9/15/88 Revised foe *89 Goal Setting 9/30/88 10/31/88 11/30/88 12/28/88 1/31/89 2/28/89 3/31/89 4/30/89 S130\B 1. OOMJNm DEVELQPMNT •87 OTO Highway 12 A. OooK>rehenslve Plan Anendnent 12 (5/87) Receive back from Met Council 5/15/88 Extension to 5A5 granted to Metro Council following 4/8/88 neeting ret Urban land demands 5/12/88 approved by Metro Council Metro Council Final plan approval Zoning Amendments - Draft - Planning Comnission consideration - Council consideration 6A5/88 Pinal Council approval 5/23/88 6/15/88 7/1/88 8/10/88 Contracted with Shardlow 5/23/88 Draft from Shardlow to Council to PC - 6/27/88 7/6/88 work session on draft 8/1/88 to be 2nd work session scheduled 8/17/88 Public Hearing - P.C. reoonnendation to Council. Anticipate Council 10/10 10/10/88reviewed by Council - Anticipate 11/28 tabled - Tb present again 1/9 1/9/89 Council requested individual discussions (Held 1/16 - 1/31) 2/27/89 Council again considers - to 4/10 mtg 4/10/69 Directed final draft 4/24/89 Adooted ASEA GOAL AREA CBJBCnVES DA3E5 sixub 1. cxmmm DBraxpmrt cont. ■88 STO *89 STO B. Corridor Selection Study tlB90tiations on utilities (Long Lake-Medina) Ad Hoc Task Force Oonplete Phase 1 lOA/88 Proposed 1991 Inproventent Navarre Redevelopment •88 STO •89 STO Bngage oonsultants - Planning - Legal Initiate Goal/Objective Setting process Oonplete Master Plan Study Determine Strategy to Inclement Consider HRA formation Solicite ideas/proposals Conraenoe if Decide to do TO be determined 10/1/88 7/89 8/89 6/15/88 9/1/88 Received Itr from Medina re: more sevier/negotiations 6/24/88 Responded with letter 7/21/88 to Medina Ad Hoc Task Force - 1st meeting 5A9/88 5/19/88 meeting held 7/18/88 meeting held 8/10/88 meeting held - Reps to contact n«3ot 9/19/88 meeting held - ‘^’Dot Dist. 5 present Re: maxiimiB upgrade in current corridor 10/17 Highway 12 meeting of Mayors - prep for meeting with Transportation Cemissioner 11/16/88 Meeting with MhOOT Oomissioner held Anticipate 1/89 meeting with Oemmissioner/ Task Force in vicinity - Currently attanpting to set date. 1/9/89 Unofficial Dist 5 ranks Highway 12 as 12 new construction priority 2/9/89 MiDOT conversation indicated plan not final - will contact us when ready 3/30/89 Response to additional inquiry. Will attempt to get groi^ meeting in April/early May possibly 4/27 4/27/89 Meeting held with Levine Word on consultant funding for feasibility study 7/1/89 Receipt of initial response to 1/3/89 Council 1/9/69 Council directs response - Staff to meet with MaDOT. 1/24/89 Meeting with MnDQT/Long Lake Public information mtg MnDOT set 4/25/89 4/25/89 Meeting held 3/25/88 requested quotation from J. Shardlow regarding cost to do master plan development for area. 7/11/88 proposal adopted 10/88 Dase/^kground work being done 12/22/88 Planner/Staff held mtg - Anticipate Council presentation 4-5/89 4/14/89 Planner staff review work Joint meeting to be set at 5/4 Joint meeting 2/88 Request Attorney outline process required to establish 3/1/88 recpf’Hjd outlines for establishment of HRA. Staff reviewing for conment GQKL MSA OBJECTIVES DATES STKTOS 1. CGMOHm DcvELGmair cont. •87 STO County 15 Developnent *88 STO '89 810 Determine desired 5/30/88 local aoocxqpanying inproveaents Financing pl^i 5/30/88 Ooaplete construction 12/1/88 Special assessment hearing 7/89 Issue of lighting to 2/22/>8 Council meeting 2/22/88 Council considers lighting 5/23/88 Council approves lighting COTceptual approval 12/14/87 Financial revision propos^ 2/22/88 3/28/88 tabled to 5/23/88 5/23/88 approved financing To oonraenoe 4/15/38 All curb & gutter paving a lights oonpleted. Spring '89 balance of sidewalks and restoration 4/10/89 Approved oesent in all Boulevards 4/24/89 Review Cty 15 BeaMtification project Delay to project oonpletivn *87 STO Oonnunity Transportation Plan *88 STO Refine capital improvement 7/1/88 program prior to 89 budget Determine bridge replacement 8/1/88 program 3/11/88 meeting reviewed revised draft Prc^xssal Included in revised draft capital budget. Request for funding needs to be developed/subnitted. Anticipate bridge bonding request to 5/89 Council meeting •89 STD Continued analysis Publlc/Private 8/89 Evaluate Cty 116 7/1/88 3/17/88 received request from Medina 4/25/88 Council electa not to support Resolution 11/28/88 - Cty/Medina revised 116 to stop at Cty 6 rather than 12. Cty willing to go balance. 1/9/89 - 1/23/89 Council considers options 1/23/89 Council to indicate (^position to County Board. Tabled issue of City action if Ooimty goes ahead to 2/27/89 meeting 2/27/89 discussed issue and again tabled To Council for further discussion 4/10/89. 4/10/89 Council still opposed but directed extoision to Hwy 12 if constructed in Medina 4/14/89 Letter sent to County. GOAL ASBA 1. ooMONm Dcvm»Brr cont. *87 910 Stoca Itater Management Plan *88 910 *89 910 OBJECTIVES DUES SDOOB Ooan IX V - Direction and progress *88 SIO *89 9T0 2. DIVIlOiOlIM. PROEBCTION *87 SIO Stubbs Bay *88 910 •89 STO Review advisory/Policy bodies 7/88 role/Repsonsibilities Review & revise as necessary 11/88 staff/advisory/policy body process for development review <1 execution working towards service ft results oriented "No Surprises* process Enhance effective control on 12/88 narlnas CoR|>lete needs assessment 2/88 Project feasibility-oonmence 5/88 Review Revised Feasibility 10/88 Determine assessnent area interest Financing options Determine 8/88 10/88 12/88 4/11/88 pres'^ted to Council, lb be reviewed by Planning Comnission Anticipate 7/11/88 discussion with Councll/PC reps. Tabled to 8/8/88 meeting Resctiecaled for 11/P 89 Annual sdiedule vx> include 2 dates 2/6/89 (Mon. evening) and 7/29/89 (Sat. morning) Attempting to set Joint Meeting 5/1/89. 1/9/89 Council directs Marina Coinnittee establishment for 1989. 1/23/89 Council tables to 2/6/89 Joint mtg. 2/6/89 Not discussed. Joint Mtg 5/4 to discuss*Mtka Boat Works anticipated 5/8. Anticipate needs assesanent completion 2/88 2/22/88 Information presented Stbmltted request for feasibility ipdate cost Feasibility study approved 6/13/8B Anticipate to 11/28 meeting - Changed to 2/27/89. 1/20/89 Staff reviews significant issues with Attorney. 3/28/89 received Attorney review. 8/8/88 meeting - Council received Consider development moraborium 2/89 AREA GOAL AFEA OBJECTIVES niES STATUS 2. DIVIIOfDflAL PROTECTION cont. Solid Haste ManagoKnt •89 SIO If Appropriate - Initiate project - Project bid *■ Ooemenoe project - Assess project - Oonplete project 3/89 4/09 10/89 10/89 Assess recycling efforts to goal 6/88 Assess other avenues to meet goals 6/88 including local oonfx>sting Curbside Recycling 10/80 Review regulations regarding solid waste Review organized collection if needed 3/89 9/89 City in conjunction with Vtest Hennepin met '87 goal - 88 Goal met. City curbside recycling currently exceeding 1989 goal of 10%. Currently exploring costs of selected curbside pick up - 8/17/80 staff has tour with potential contractors Presented to Council 10/10 10/24/80 Council directs initiation 12/12/88 contractor selected - Aiticipate start prior to 2/89. 1/28/89 Containers distributed 2/1/B9 Program ooninences 4/89 Staff reviewed but feels organized collections or mandatory recycling not presently appropriate. COL AREA OBJIC nV ES DUES S'lKIUS 3. GRANIZATIGNAL DEVELGPME2rT 1989 Council Goal Setting Connenoe 7/88 8/11/88 meeting held - '89 revisions Complete 9/88 Approved 9/12/88 1989 Budget Process Assessaient Board of Review 4/88 4/27/88 initial meeting held. Anticipate conclusion on 5/9/88 5/19/88 Board concluded Capital budget Adoption 8/88 Budget Adoption 9/26/88 7/11/88 1989 Budget message/ Guidelines to Council Budget meeting set for 9/20/88 Budget adoption/mill rate to 10/10/38 10/10/88 Mill rate adopted 10/24/88 Budget adopted 1989 Legislative Program Conplete 11/88 10/88 Received AMI policies At 11/28 meeting tabled to 12/12 12/12/88 Adopted Team P 'Iding Staff 11/88 Council - Consider Formats 2/89 Undertake if deeired 3/89 4. SE3^nCE DELIVEH3f *87 STO Facilities Study •88 STD Phase II (>«pletian 6/88 laplement any reoonmendations 7/88 Tb Planning Comnissian for review 5/18/88 Site criteria to Council 9/26/88 Criteria/3rd site adopted 10/10/88 Anticipated to 2/13/69 meeting Draft analysis received 2/27/89 with follow up 3/8/89 informal meeting 3/8/89 meeting held. Soil borings directed on sites B and C. 3/20/89 Planning Gonnission reviews sites and ocxments 4/24/89 Soils study report to Council. Cowcil directed development of economic costs on each site. 4/26/89 Financing Issues reviewed with Financial Consultant. Anticipate questionaire tc neighborhood 5/89. Anticipate preliminary costs 5/89. AIA GOAL OBJaLTlVES M3E5 sums 4. SER^CE DGLIVEBY oant. *87 STO Lang Range Financial Policy •89 STO Draft policy to Council 7/88 5. BDMMI RESOURCES Golf Course Aninal Control Oon^pensation Council adoption Development of business strategy Evaluate program 8/88 */87 8/88 Explore Performance Incentive as addendum to compensation plan 8/88 6. MftRKETINS Oomunlty Ini..matioo/ Newsletter Mayor's Articles Evaluation of system Ongoing 8/88 2/22/88 Initial draft capital budget discussed 10/10/88 Initial investment guidelines presented, lb 11/14 for final review. Adopted investment guideline 12/12/88 1/31/89 City receives (SOU certlfirabe for 1987 Financial Report Extended service to Long Lake/forlng Park/Minnetonka Beach-1988 Renewed'all 3 for 1989 Formal plan to 2/88 Formal plan 2uid adjustments presented 2/22/88 3/25/88 plan adopted 4/12/88 comp worth report submitted to State Submitted 1989 plan to 17./12/88 1/9/89 Adopted *89 program Mayors*3 Article format to continue to 8/88 for next evaluation 8/22/88 Submitted review to Council 8/22/88 Council directs continuance of system « LIST or LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OP May 8, 1989 Residential Kennel License: Josh and Pam Uran 2705 Watertown Road Garbage and Refuse Collectors: Woodlake Sanitary Services, Inc 4000 Hamel Road Westonka Sanitation P.O. Box 94 • Navarre R & W Sanitation, Inc and R & W Poll-Off Service, Inc 5525 :ounty Road 50 Carver Redepenning Services 2076 County Road 90 Maple Plain License Denial: Septic License for Ingleside Engineering 4] i.-rr-jT — - . - -i' Owner: KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January If 19 ■ to December 31 f 19_2l^ - -------- property 'X7QS l^]^V^Vin ^cl • Umc\U\K;^ S 5^^^ (include city and zip) ^ Mailing Address (if different) Phone : (acme) ^ ^(work ) __._££1£LI-33-23. residential Kennel License Information: $20.50 - 1989 Licensing Period (paymen. must accompany application) ^ Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:^ (over 6 months of age) principal Breed. 7 C-^f SK/[XlM^ j Purpose for more than 2 docs; Ql>.Cc<^d 5H Dogs normally kept:inside kennel structure .J.ISCCOOO 01 OEii kV * •2 Kennel License Information: 5125.00 - 1989 Licensi%Jperiod (payment must accompany application) cir^E Name of Business:_______________________________________________ v'-.- 1‘ fexMple :*'^boarding," breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours _____________—— -----------------------—------------- After Hours Contact: (name) (phoneT Dog runs/exercise areas aret ______inside -------^outside both A icAnnAi license is permissive only and does not grant any . of®MSSicSrrcod4 ttapter 5.36 lnclud4ng any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. A~\i-& Applicant Date Recomniends Approval Di, _ Denial^___ Date ■ ■ J rv.'=r;f*i CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 License Year . Q ^ ^ O Date Received _ Fee Paid Initials TZ k\ GARBAGE & REPOSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE ATPLICATION undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and ewith makes application for ^licence to do so. Business/Fir- The herewith Address Bcf (Street) 'City) is Phone Humber H' /T~/ 7C 7- (State) (Zip Code) Applicant N^e Address :' s/ Name 'rtr€(City) TTC: :reet)^7? _ _ _ _ Individual _ _ _ .ides to be used in Orono Partnership ? _ _ _ (State) (Zip Code) CK •^.V-'^yC wi‘ "aw'*- ,r ,■ C’i ii*;:^£C/4' tl - PhonM Chec: Number of Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): ;:'£:r7' Year Hfqr. Gr°tt‘wt. Rear*Axle wt._ Size/Yar^ Licen|^:.^ii<ber AJJjlv hj'f Ad:.m ■mi A4" General ‘area of City served I V* » V. )-QU --'0, & 7.?^/3 <Lu.ifj999 ,/ dates Approximate number of customers in °tono 5^ Locution of dumping ares I. IN ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TG 1 v; COMPLETE, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I am the-ew..*r^ VpVr7t7r%7the"nfS^%\on\s^llr«.^t “^^^ taxes r^tju5>ed/by law. The above infonn^tion is worre.* . UApplicant ^ ~ ___ irniu.c.j.uii xa ww*. review^of^application, ^^aff^^eco^ends: . ‘ ^Sr<^ ^Ocih'^ ■■ .'fry^ ----- ----------S-, -Xi----- signature off City O.i^iivHal Date CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 License Tear _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Received _ _ _ _ Fee Paid 'X, Initials -rT garbage & REFUSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. Business/Fin Address WESTONKA SANITATION._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ p, 0. BOX 94. Navarre. Mo. 55392 (Street) Business Phone Number (City) 472-1379 (State) (Zip Code) m Applicant's Name Address (Street) Phone Number _ _ _ _ John J. Zuccarg_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . 3146 Island View DRive. Mound. Mn. 5536^ (City) 472-2043 Check One;Individual Partnership Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono __ _ _ _ _ Description of Vehicles (attached list if more); Loaded - - _ ^^ Year Mfgr. Gross Wt. (Statel (Zip Co^)- iJii7vv0v'^ 01 75. OCCorporation 75.0.: YOU ’^137190 cool ROl loy-- V5/01. /±2l ____ /^'7^ /a xo>i Gener-l area of City served Schedule of Collection charges/ dates i^uoue u Rear Axle Wt.Size/Yards License Number -/ fCK^96" 1 r<<rA'IS '7 -fpf/90 7i^6>Xl3 / Approximate number of customers in Orono Location of dumping area ^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ IN ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE, YOU MUST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: S30.00 flat rate fee, plus $15/truclc, and a 530.00 f' i am the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fees and taxes required by law. The above information is correct. dih± DateAj»plicartr FOR CITY USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends: Approval _ _ _ _ _ Denial _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) tT2^ Signature of City Official Date *. •»..; CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bav, MN 55323 473-7357 License Year ( Date Received Fee Paid fTl> Initials garbage & REFUSE COIiLECTOR'S The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated bu ; herewith makes application for a license to do i ciAR?2 IIS89tss in the Cit;li^ Orono and Business/Firm R & W Saniatatlon. Inc, and R & W R^l-Off Service,!. Address 5S2S rountv Road 50 carver MN 5531.5_ (Street) 448-7333 Business Phone Humber_ _ _ _ __ (City)(State) (Zip Code) Applicant's Name Russell Lelstlko_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address 5525 Countv Ro .d 50 Carver MN 55315 (Street) Phone Humber 448-7833 (City)(State) (Zip Code) rr •*■/ijA-i; Check ne;Individual Partnership Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono Description of Vehicles (attached li^ more): Loaded Loaded Size/Yards License Number ^’*i»**' f'T'C ’ w • • - Corpoi,^rbn‘‘'‘- Oi ^ 7; r-. r^litil'iO CCOi ,y01 Year Mfqr . MAck uross wt. Keai^ Axxe w w. ^/.Ooo • 1 <1000 tm ' !•<1000 3fr^o General area of City served Schedule of Collection charges/ dates 8ppri_pirk, iLjL _ _ _and charges vary - - - - - - - Agfa Approximate number of customers in Orono Location of dumping area WnnHl^k-p 3anit .-^rv Hampi _nr hm ii sv1 11 a^Liindf IH ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETEr YOU HOST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: Surety bond in the amount of $1,000. Proof of insurance in $100,000-$300,000-$50,000, and 10-day cancellation clause. f®®. f®. $30.00 flat rate fee, plus $15/truck, and a $30.00 transfer fee I am the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fees and taxes required by law. The above information is correct. - - - - - - - --- - - - DateApplicant FOICCITY USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends: Approval Denial _ _ _ _ __ Other (specify) Signature of City Official Date CITY OF OROKO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 5532 473-7357 rs^I License Year Date Received GARBA'S1 AFR26!W , j -BjBjjB-eofJsaOR’S LICENSE APPLICATION The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. Li~ lS" 9_Busineas/Fina /? /? D H P E ^ R K {.^ **^ ■ 4dre.. (Zip-Co^ B^isiness Phone Humber H 1 ^ ^---------- Applicant's Name O A ^ ^ !z D ^ ^ ^ Address 1 O 1 Ci r*- o /A (Street) Phone Number ^ 7 -^—^‘“TTrTTrT’r*^”""'^^ C!ode ) Check One:jX"* Individual (City) (State) (Zip Code) Partnership _ _ _ __ Corporation /Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono -- - - Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): • y:',;::;cE i^FFICE ^ ^ ,S£5u bJSSol. M 111! HMD ^o^QOQ. 1,1,0 o ,,_ —lA— I ^ _____ _____ _________ ______________ ___________ _____ c'^al area of City servedPJ\, MAd/<s 7^ A Pj 4- Toia>a/ Schedule of Collection charges/ dates - - - -^ ^ ^ C—- - - - --- - - - - - ^ /J. on P !IA AloAtTAF._ _^ V - - - - --- - - - - - Approximate number of customers in Orono - - - - -/ ^ ^- - -; Location of dumping area U/.7 O ^ ° ^ TOO HOST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWINGS Proof of insurance in the amount of throVnVr”IndTpTra"to~r of the above business and I have paid all license fees Ind tLes required'^ by law. The above informatxon it correct. ^ / ■ /D P ■ y/ Hi V/ }(' f _ ADDXlCant \ ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Applicant -sss/sssw’ ^rv-'-u Signature cji City Official Date Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: May 5, 1989 Subject: Application for Septic System Installer's License - Ingleside Engineering - Recommendation for Denial List Of Exhibits Exhibit A - Letter to Applicant of 4/25/89 Exhibit B - Staff Memo and Exhibits of 4/20/89 Per Council's directive on this matter at the April 24th meeting, the attached letter was mailed to the applicant notifying him of the recommendation for denial and the Council's direction that applicant be allowed to appear to discuss the matter. As of May 5, 1989, the applicant has not contacted staff to discuss this matter. CITY OF QRONQ CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka April 25, 1989 Ingleside Engineering & Construction Inc. Attn: Brian Van Beusekom 4920 Highway 55 Loretto, MN 55357 Re: 1989 Septic System Installer's License Dear Mr. Van Beusekom: The City of Orono is in receipt of your application for a septic system installer's license for the 1989 license year. Investigation of that application revealed that an apparently false statement was made on that form. Question #8 asks whether your firm has ever had a license revoked. You indicated "no" on the application form. The City is in receipt of minutes of three meetings of the City of Independence City Council which indicate your license to operate within the City of Independence was revoked on October 25, 1988 for working without a permit. Orono Municipal Code Section 5.02, Subdivision 4 states that any false statement in a license application shall, upon such discovery of such falsehood work an automatic refusal of license. On April 24, 1989, the City Council briefly discussed the staff recommendation for denial of the license based sole^ on this apparently false statement, and tabled final action on your license application in order that you be informed of the date and time of the next Council meeting at which you will be given the opportunity to explain why this apparently false statement was made. Your license application will be reviewed by the City Council at their regular meeting of May 8, 1989. That meeting will be held in the Orono Council Chambers at 1275 Brown Road South. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. BUILDIN* k ZONING - 47 3-7337 ASSE SING administration a finance - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Ingleside Engineering & Construction Inc. Re: 1989 Septic System Installer's License April 25, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Please contact me at 473-7357 if you wish to discuss this matter further. A copy of the staff recommendation and attachments has been enclosed for your review. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffroi Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/tln Enclosure - Memo & Exhibits of 4/20/89 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Thomas Barrett, City Attorney TO: Date: Subject: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning S Zoning Administrator April 20, 1989 Application for Septic System Irstaller*s License - Ingleside Engineering “ Recommendation 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. .J^hose minutes indicate that the owner of Ingleside Engineering acknowledged it 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 Municipal 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 revoked in staff's opinion would be a fairly traumatic and unforgetta e experience to any contractor. (On the other hand, if this statement was merely an oversight, it is typical of the lack of professionalism exhib^ed by this contractor on a regular basis when applying for permits and^ot knowing the address or what type of work is to be done.) t)o-nr^7 at 1^ ^ 5 _0 Application for Septic System Installer's License - Ingleside Engineering - Recommendation for Denial April 20, 1989 Page 2 of 2 The applicant's past re ord 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 Recommendation - 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 1939 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 be 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 Bo* ®6 Cryrtml Bay, Minnesota 55323 SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLER- LICENSE APPLICATION building k ZONING - -»73-7357 assessing .V. _________ ■ I T 1j I»nno. fee, tjonfi ^ 1. 2. 3. Business or trade name Business address _Jf f '0 •jij Tii /}Y------ - ' /, , n a ^ I Residence phone Duiiinn-t ^ ' f ^ •'7- -■'. ............... Lve ho — ^ yf3Name of appUcanJ or comp^ certification ^ Pumper IFThis a Provisionar^rtificate. ------- ^Ls a Provisional Certiticar - - - :!n' OF GRCH0_ rTunyCt OFFICE hold a Saotic system Installer license in ?^:^o"bef*oref Sos?-recent year ^2- 03/24/139 Have you ever had a license revoked? ^ When? Where? !000 II GEH 3000 31 GEN QOOO 01 GEN 0000 01 GEN lOOOO 01 GEN 30.00 30.00 i -X- -?<- 5 1. S25.00 license bond naming City of Orono as 2. 52000.00 ISnd will’not be accepted. 3. $10-lo-ioO,000 ^^£i“te’'lr°evideMe"of'attendence f/S„!|i=tri“agrTrei^“^^^^^ held immediately prior tfcurrenl construction season. .50 86.00 LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED. List persons other than applicant who are authorized by you to apply permits under your licen- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :£IPT-THANK YOU 3 cool ROl ily ror permits uai«o.i. j-----— —---------------- r^^-v of The undersigned ^^ge*to^install and repair septic - Orono, Minnesota, for li . tanks subject to the laws, systems, and/or pump out_septic^tanks CITY USE ONLY irSrstttf SI &-ta*:Sr?h:^dinances of the City of Applicants Slgnature^^^ , ' Staff recommendation Approval Denial ^ ^ Mm ^ « 1 m Da.teReason for denial: , City Council Action Date license mailed CHAPTER 5 OTHER BaSINESS REGULATION AND LICENSING SECTION 5.01. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Chapter, the following words and terras shall have the raeanings stated: 1. "Applicant" raeans any person raaking an application for a license under this Chapter. 2. "Application" raeans 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" raeans 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 ana 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 al . 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) m 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 any, for the three years last preceding the date of application. F. Whether or not applicant has ever been convicted of a felony, gross misdemeanor, or misdemeanor, ^of a municipll ordinance but excluding traffic violations, and if so, 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 data of application. I. Such other information as the Council shall deem necessary considering the nature of the business for which license application is made. subd 4 It is unlawful for any applicant to intentionally * make a false statement or omission upon any application fLm. Any false statement willful omission to state any information application form, shall, upon discovery , ”°ende?tStomatic refusal of license, or if issued, sh..l render anv license or permit issued pursuant thereto, ,°'r efLct to protect the applicant from prosecution for violation of this Chapter, or any part hereof. Subd 5 The City Clerk shall, upon receipt application wrapleted in accordance ‘>®''®''ith, for^ ' character and the truth of statements made therein and the rac^ ch^aracret ana business reputation of each applicant for 1/=®"®® f.ftf Clerk m completed.' Subd. 6. Applications for renewal ii<=s"®®® in such abbreviated form as tha Council may by resolution adopt. ORONO CC (4-1-84) § 5.03 SEC. 5.03. ACTION ON APPLICATION, TRANSFER, TERMINATION AND ODPLICATB 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 insurance 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 the 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 equal 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 maks any transfer in violation of this Subdivision. Subd. 4. Termination. Licenses shall 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 shall give notice to the licensee and grant such licensee opportunity to be heard. Notice to be given and the exact time of hearing shall be stated in the resolution calling for such 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. SEC. 5.04. LICENSE PEES. A13. licenses provided for in this Chapter shall be issued only upon payment in full of license fees fixed and determined in accordance witn City Code Section 1.05. ORONO CC 100 (4-1-84) 12^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 their 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 ye* which shall be affixed to each machine or device requiring such sticker. All licensees shill 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, for any business for which a license is required by this Chapter. SEC. 5.07. RESPONSIBILITY OP LICENSEE. The conduct of agents or employees of 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. SEC. 5.08. CONDITIONAL LICENSES. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Council may, upon a finding of the necessity therefor, place such conditions and restrictions upon a license as it, in its discretion, may deem reasonable and justified. SEC. 5.09. RENEWAL OF LICENSES. Applications for renewal 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. Right to Deny. The Council reserves to itself the right to deny any application for a license to operate any business licensed or regulated under this Chapter where such business involves se.‘ ice to the public, rates charged for service, use of public stree^': or other public property by the applicant or the public, or th^s public health, safety and convenience. The Council may alro consider the location of such business in making such determination. Provided, however, that before making such determination, the Council shall ijld 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. Rates. 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 proprieto:* of a regulated business shall claim or demand payment in excess thereof. ORONO CC 101 (4-1-84) Subd. 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. SEC. 5.11. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. 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 5.19, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) w ORONO CC 102 (4-1-84) © SEC, 5.37.^CONTRACTOR. § 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 lie nse 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 manner. 3. No license shall issue until the applicant has filed with the City a policy or certificate of public liability insurance for cover"5‘.ge 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 pr Tisions of the City Code. Further, the appli cant shall have at .ended the "Home Sewage Treatment Workshop" conducted by the University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service for the current year, or he shall have been certified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Applicants failing 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.) m 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 codes 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 ^npendix 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 structure, or any part or portion thereof, including, but not limited to, the general construction, plumbing, water well, on-site sewage treat 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 components. The application for a permit shall include such infor mation as may be required by the City which may vary between building components. The owner and/or occupant of any property, ^ upon which any work has been done in violation of any Building Code/ 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. SEC. 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 proof of holding a current license and bonding and insurance as required by statute or the City Code. SEC. 12.04. PERMIT FEES. All permits provided for in this Chapter shall be issued only upon payment in full of the permit fees fixed and determined in accordance with City Code, Section 1.05. V cc ORONO CC 485 (4-1-84) o S 12.06 address of the proposed mover. Such application shall also state any municipal utility, street, and public property repairs or alterations that will be required by reason of such movement. Subd. 3. Permit and Fee. The moving permit shall state date or dates of moving, hours, routing, movement and parking. Permits shall be issued only for moving buildi. gs by building movers licensed by the State of Minnesota. Fees to be charged shall be separate for each of the following; (1) a moving permit fee to cover use of streets and route approval, and (2) a fee equal to the anticipated amount required to compensate the City for any municipal utility and public property (other than streets) repairs or alterations occasioned by such movement. The latter shall be paid in advance. Subd. 4. Building Permit and Code Compliance. Before any building is moved from one location to another within^ the City, or from a point of origin without the City to a destination within the City, regardless of the route of movement, it shall be inspected and a 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 point of origin or destination (or both) is within the City, and regardless of the route of movement, without having paid in full all real and personal property taxes and special assessments due thereon, and filing written proof of such payment with the City. SKC. 12.07. PERMIT TO USE PUBLIC PROPERTY. It is unlawful for any person to improve or maintain improvements on-public.,, property for a private use without first obtaining 'a permit therefor from the City. In all instances, the improvement shall'be ' temporary and subject to the City's right to require removal or restoration, or both, and upon the failure of the permittee to take such action, the City may remove and restore and hold the permittee responsible for the cost thereof. SBC. 12.08. UHLAWPUL 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 required inspection and approval from the City including failure to request any required inspection. ORONO CC 487 (4-1-84) 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. reinspection fee. Fail to pay any permit fee, inspection fee or Subd. 8. Fail to comply with the term'* 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.) ORDINANCE NO.SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12 OF ORDINANCE NO. 12 ADOPTED APRIL 11, 1984 AND ENTITLED ■AN 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. Jam¥:^ R. GrabekT^Ma 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 .ito 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 or 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 of 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 (nitrogen and phosphorous) unpotable water, or septage. ORONO CC 491 (4-1-84) Brandenburg, adjacent property owners were ■ 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 no cover. The Brandenburgs are concerned with the noise from : 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 property and to have him proceed with restoration and equipme storage; all ayes, motion declared carried. 9 ROBERT JAHNKE - CONDITIONAL USE PEHMIT \°L^^irrnrCoSi%n U recommended denial of this request as they have ”°5s8^to“orMent the Commission meetings of July 19 or August 16, 1988 to present their request to move in a mobile home during construction of home. Motion by Hamilton, second by Gabriel to deny this conditional use permit request; all ayes, motion declared carried. in-^T.EONARB'^NADAgADY"=-'^BaiLDING-?l^RMTT-VIOLATI0H It'] “ LakeLake -^aran a -failing'-'septio -s'ystem-without •also was not .pulled .:by^theilnstaT.ler,—Ingi^side^Engineering. , ■■ ■ ".......................................... I ^Motton “by-iCuntz ,^secohd^by,^amilton;^to.qjiptl^yjiuigiesiaaj!r3c^ '.- - - - 11. MICHAEt. MALACEK - VARIANCE Michael Malacek - 5760 Drake Drive, PID ? ”®?„ present with a request for a 38‘ front yard setback in order to construct a deck/front porch. further than the previous stoop. § o » 3 • ,V ’ ■■•r.v" ‘ ■•W . !U \ • v f. ■ • '.•» r.-~- •^- # tpCfV it f tAfeii.- K r^hriel second b/ Hamilton to direct the city attorney planLr to investigate this further: all ayes, motion declared carried. _ _ _ (Hinutes'of Tngleside Engineering, and Loren license to operate within the City. Koh... ;.;•;?<■ isr.5;d*.rrK4;«r'’ and =°"=J“^®'^sarah HeigSs Dr. which was experiencing septiclocated on Lake Sarah tieign appropriate site could be rlllT' TL^propIrro'er'w^uld havl no alternative other than 'p°u^fi^lthe'’?anL^n the existing system. several wee^ Srs"d:?er^fned^fharsfpttc to stop, said he would be returned, all the had started would °°^?g®trench was still open. VanBeusekom equipment was gone ^^®and they took out all the exposed ^PeTnd "rrp"aifed%^:r^irerard covered up the trench. Mr. VanBeusekom acknowledged that the ^^^®”^^„orking^ithout a presented by Kohn. was ®^tictpat^ thi e.xtent of the work permit and said i^of the opinion that the repair that was needed to tie done. “® , , u also proposed to the vark that he did met State ffravelless experimental system property owner He presented a basic overviewwhich seems to work on small lots. He presen of the operation of septic systems to the touncii. .. . . .. th« i..... "v work within Ttranscript of the minutes be sent toattorney suggested that a transcrip accuracy of the the applicant ♦(, aubmit^more information. The cordf Sf!l“recoL!dfr that information at a later date and make a decision as "to the license. Motion br Johnson, °“itl“hn5e ^^opportunity nt thnt SS-S i^bSfS; SfSiSoS^iu .Itlon d.cl.r.d carried. 11. JOHN BAdMAH . aSOfiHTlON ~u^]j^ilth--< by the Th; City Attorney presented a Council at their meeting of August 23. 198B. 1! !! I I II yo J Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request at their meeting of October 18, 1988 and recommended approval with conditions as listed in those minutes. Motion by Hamilton, second by Young to deny a conditional use oermit 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. *B^5i^aiiBeiiselcoV/~owner^ of Ingleside Engineering, was present to discuss Ingleside’s license to operate within the City. Findings of fact are detailed in the minutes of Septerabtr 27, 1988. No additional information was presented by Mr. VanBeusekom. Motion by Gabriel, second by Hamilton to revoke Ingleside Engineering's license to operate within the City of Independence for the remainder of 1988 based on information presented at the September 27 meeting: the job at 2995 Copeland Eoad that is currently being worked on by this company will be allowed to be ' completed; all ayes, motion declared carried. 13. ADJOURN ^ ^ on Motion by Hamilton, second by Gabriel to adjourn at 10.30 p.m., all ayes, motion declared carried. Mary L ntz, City Cle^ 'll n rr •r. LjJa 04/30/89 PR: CB PRREGOR *’ Ii; V. i-1 I ; 2 ;v;• '5 ' ? ‘ ■ > ' :■;? 2 3 4 s e 7 If 9 10 11 <2 13 14 IB 1« 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 2B 26 27 2U J'J JO n J2 J3 14 J6 J/ 30 JH 40 41 42 •13 44 45 46 47 4B 49 •jO 51 62 53 »4 66 NAME 1 .ANDERSON*., BRUCE U___ BERNHARDSON, MARK E BOBZIEN, SUE A .^BQSMA>_JAMIE„I ________ BRINKHAUS, JOHN F CHESUICK, GARY B CHRISTIANSON* SALLY . CORNICK, JAMES L ENGLISHIIX, IRVING H -ERICKSQN*. KURT- R_ _ _ FISCHENICH, DAN T FR1T2LER, JOHN M . saffron j__MlCHAEL P GERHAR080N, JOHN R GREGORY, JAMES D HALHN*_OOROTHY M_ _ HANSEN, STEVEN C HANSING, CAROL J JACOBS,^THOMAS J JOHNSON, BRADLEY P KZLBO, MELVIN H KNUTSON,_ CHARLOTTE A KUEHN, THOMAS M KUYPER, SCOTT E MABUSTH, JEANNE A MILLSJR, WALTER H MORAN, MARK F MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES NAAB, THERESA L OAS, DANIEL O OBRIEN,. RANDY L OMAN, LYLE 6 QUAST, WAYNE A RATHBUN, BARRY J_ _ _ SASS, JOHN J SCHAUSS, CHARLES R SCHEFFLER, LAURIE K SKREEN, DALE S STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD STEVENS,-BETTY G THOMTON, MARK R TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F T0MC2YK, MARK W WALSH, KEVIN L WALTERS, LINDA G YTD CURRENT >PT GROSS GROSS ■ * *. 31 13970.^61_8152.08 IS 19396.7S 80AA.08 31 7996.06 916.56 IS ....AS7S^96 523.90 4S 16655.1A 1352.80 '* '# 31 13185.60 1522.00 SI-_ _15SA.S1_192,81 •*, . SI 13506.61 1976.91 *. 31 1S909.3A 8008.55 31-1 S6S5^^6A 1932.89 31 16393.88 1938.29 31 13171.53 1758.97 33 „11863.68 1301.69 4S 15811.53 1761.77 AS 10935.07 1131.55 C • 16 _996Q.A8 1150.80 AS 6189.63 1011.30 •, ‘ 31 AA16.58 A71.65 33 _11863,56 1301.68 31 1S905.66 i639.88 31 16363.60 1887.60 15 7963.67 916.AO . . . 15 15309.36 1763.6A * • 31 SI 07.70 56A.68 V. 33 13519.19 1559.56 .* 93 S83!65 175^75 ;• 31 13603.AO 1633.85 31 .1A66A.5A .1998,68 IB 7916.A9 916.80 93 SA5.00 160.00 9B 69S6.31 _1019.85 33 9A68.36 i098.96 9S 10307.33 1079.36 .96 9656 ,36 .1050.50 AS 99A6.61 101A.A8 31 10185.88 1A13.18 IS 6760.71 791.AO AS 9593.56 1018.79 93 997A.IS 1150.58 93 286.13 §33.63 31 11A18.38 1636.18 i’ 31 11860.58 1666.88 »■ 31 18392.93 173A.75 35 2839.01 A18.98 t 15 1608.88 806.A8 ■ »' ■ 55,995.76 »< V •• * t ; \! .‘i ■ LU r' : \ ■i 1 .i t to 11 12 T3 14 19 le 17 ta r® 20 21 22 29 24 29 29 27 28 2® 30 31 32 33 34 39 38 37 38 30 40 41 42 43 44 49 48 47 48 90 91 92 93 94 99 98 97 05/31/09 PR: CM PRRECOR NAME DPT _YTD_ _CURRENT- CROSS GROSS CALLAHAN, EDUARD J 11 ia08.35 641.67 COETTEN, J.DIANN 11 1E0S.35 E41.6T GRABEK, JAMES 11 1500.00 300.00 -NETTLES, J»LAN-R- .-IJ_ _ _L2JML^35_ _ _MJU-fil. PETERSON, BARBARA A 11 1E08.35 E41.67 1,866.68 : ^' . • . f... ^ ■' S'- ^ T "p' ‘•i’’ ■* . ‘ \ i' ' : * ' V \ ' .iT > ■ . ■, «■■■ 1909 CITY OF ORONO ■ CHECK MO ,. DATE leeoos 05/04/69 CHECK RE6ISTER 05-00-09 FACE 1 ■^^nOUNT.-VENDOR 1TP»f pppCPIPTIOM 46.88 40.08 ALL STAR PRO GOLF CO GOLF EQUIP -ACCOUNT-Ha.. IHV— 74-4801-591-94 11.33 154.69 • ACRO-flINNESOTA INC ACRO^INNESOTA INC- ACR0-f1ZNNE60TA INC ACR0-niNNE80TA INC ACRO-mNNE0OTA-ll ACR0-f1INNE80TA INC OFFICE SUPPLY -OFFICE-SUPPLY- OFFICE SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLY -OFF! CC-SUPP4.Y- OFFICE SUPPLY 01-4810-039-18 -04-,4810^059-14- 01-4810-069-15 01-4810-189-31 4M^«4e 10-094*35- 01-4810-849-48 ■1 la ■4 800 1 0 -05/04.^80--49^8--AT09--04^4380*495*34- 17.35 * •••-CK8 -FTT-oca JW ty188030 ■4800 30 180030 188030 1 88030 180030 05/04/89 05 /04 /09- 05/04/89 05/04/09 05/04/89 05/04/09 19.43 4 9.4 3 AT -AT- 6 T 4-9- INFO SYSTEM 19.43 38.50 19 .4 3 AT 6 T INFO SYSTEM AT 6 T INFO SYSTEM AT 4 T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESSING DATA PROCESSING DATA PROCESSING DATA PROCESSINC- 01-4340-039-18 1--=4340*059*44- 01-4340-069-15 01-4340-189-31 —^•^^40 —1 T^—Tfa 19.43 189.65 • AT 4 T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESSING 01-4340-849-48 186031 05/04/69 1.11 1.11 • AT 4 T COMM TELEPHONE 01-4380-039-18 •••-CK8 >4 n M i------<80030 ----- 1 186036 t ------05/04/89 ---------- 05/04/69 ----------------75.80 --------- 83.56 96.56 4 ------ANOERSOH-BRUCE---------------- ANDERSON-BRUCE -IHS-REFUND------------------- TRAINGING CLASS ____Oi-41 Si*L89*3J________ 01-4356-189-31 44 >40 140 140 37 ^•i 11 ♦••-CK0 <40 '00 M 1------180048 ______05/44/09 ______9 95 *eei iiain rnrcE'P rnpcp rii tpqs A1 7^**i*i 0t «0 40 41 8.95 ••00 <04 41 ;___******a**-rir« 100 4J{07 44l **1 186064 05/04/69 30.69 BLITZ ONE HR FOTO OFFICE SUPPLY 01-4810-189-31 <00 _________30.69 *60 41 141 47 40 •••-CK0 44 •00 464 1 186070 05/04/69 £39.69 BOARMAN A ASSOCIATES SPACE STUDY 15-4306-650-00 at 186070 05/04/69 60.95 BOARMAN A ASSOCIATES SPACE STUDY 15-4399-650-00 07 300 04 -40•1 L*'*4*-CKS a* r?o rrt. T»] -!186074 05/04/89 117.75 BONESTROO R08ENE A8N INTERCEPTOR #1856 01-4305-800-41 T.! ‘74*186074 05/04/69 8,500.00 BONESTROO R08ENE A8N LS10 FEASABIU 73-4305-569-98 ira, 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 05-08-89 PAGE I".i*o' '“i 1!* 143. 128190 -lasaoa -188203 128803 188203 188806 -188818 188240 188267 -^ta8868- 188884 188304 05/04/89 ■OB/04/89 -05/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 -05/04/89- 05/04/89 05/04/89 -05/04/88. 05/04/89 05/04/89 5.45 5.45 * EARL U DAY 6 60NS MI8C SUPPLY 74-4342-590-93 12.72 • -75-00- .60 84.80 4 00.40 • 75.00 75.00 • J-0-20- 10.80 * 85.70 -85.70-*- 896.00 896.00 * -95- 00 95.00 • 13.00 43-00-*. 14.25 14.85 • -EHR XCH-BAKINO-CO- fp T IMS BFPUMn ERICKSON/KURT ERICKSON/KURT INS REFUND TRAINING CLASS ENGLISH IRVING INS REFUND PVPPCCC MCQe^k^ppf^POSTACt FRITZLER J HARK INS REFUND GOLF CAR HIDUEST LEASE GOVT TRAINING SERV--CLASS HAPPY8 POTATO CHIP CHIPS 74^4802*591^94- fll-Al-IPQ-Tt 01-4158-129-31 01-4356-129-31 01-4151-186-31 0 1 -4^P 1 - I 01-4158-189-31 74-4331-590-93 -0Lr-4356-l89rJL 74-4808-591-94 DEPT PROP TAXATION POSTAGE 01-4381-040-13 1 a ----»»»»»*------ ----------MnUUBW---------------------------------------------VtMOOK----------------------------------LTEH-DESCRIPXION________ACCOUNT^NO— INV_•-R-D i-MESSACE_____t! • a 4 a •188188 05/04/89 81.89 .81 .86-*___ E A 6UEEN 6ANDUICH8 74-4808-591-94 —-----------------------------------ti ft • a la IT 1 •7 • I*•••-CK8 >a 110 It •••-CK8 ••*-CK8 •••-CK8 •••-CK8 •••-CK8 -R».»--CK3 •••-CK8 "•l Its' i- p- r*.',r 1989 CITY OF ORONO -CHgCK MO. DATg- - -»»*»»»■ 188308 188309 05/04/89 05/04/89 AMOUMT- 30.78 -30.7 8 ■* 3.079.85 -3t 0 7 8 8S CHECK REGISTER VENDOR SHERIFF OPT HENN COUNTY TREA8 --X-TEH-DESCP.IPTII PARTS ROOM 8 BOARD 05-08-89 PACE 4 -ACCOUNT-NO—ItilV—A MFRaACg 01-4348-189-31 01-4358-080-16 CK8 • • >!«• 188330 ■438 337 .. C5/04/89 -OS/04/89 86.87 86.87 • -13-98- 13.98 * ICMA RETRMNT CORP XC«A 4-17 TO 4/30 JTAPE- 01-4140-039-18 -0X^48.10=^039-12- •••-CK8 •**-CKS 05/04/89 51.95 -S1-..9S • INTERSTATE BATTERY BATTERY 01-4341-849-48 .^*-CKS 188363 188378 188378 188378 188400 01 '04/89 -06/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 -06/04/89- 49.68 49.68 * JACOBS/TOn -6.38-J0NN9 AUTO BOPPLY. 5.88- 5.88 .S.,88 » JOHNS AUTO SUPPLY JOHNS AUTO SUPPLY 50.46 50.46 * KUSTOH ELECTRONICS -3634--THE-LAKE8- HILEAGE -N086- HOSE HOSE INS REFUND HILEACE-APRIU MILEAGE APRIL MILEAGE APRIL RADAR ANTENNA SEUER BIO 01-4381-174-33 -01^4838-^849 ^3 8 01-4838-849-38 01-4838-849-48 01-4158-186-31 -01^4381=069=16- 01-4381-174-33 73-4381-569-98 01-4550-189-31 _0 1=3790-000=00- •♦•-CK8 •••-CHS •••-CK8 •••-CK8 ***-CK8 •••-CKS 13* 3*1 401 411 43) r'’ 4M •o< j;i I33I '•41 Vsi V.' ;«o' •ii •31 ,«■ •41 “•*1 Ml >?l ••I 70) j;i ■ ,74. 7*1 -IF ‘ ir \ 1969 CITY OF ORONO .CHECK tHO.. DATE- - 188404 188404 ■1 ^84 11 05/04/89 -8S/04/89- 05/04/89 -05/«4/«8- CHECK REGISTER 05-08-89 FACE jmOUNT-uPMnon -XTErt DESCRIP-IION-ACCOUKT-WO—8-R-O.- R-tlESSACE 19.44 -4«0^9- THE LAKER —THS-4.AKCR- 31 .59 806.56 • THE LAKER PUBLISHING PUBLISHING- PUBLISHING -3aG,-BG--LANDSCAPg-4^-TW>-HIBC^EOUIB- 389.80 • 01-4388-039-18 -01^^4388-174.^3- 73-4388-569-98 J74.P483 1 «5B0^SX •••-CKB i,o iia) |14< )1«, i 188437 05/04/89 48.00 CITY OF LONG LAKE -LAKS- UATER UATER 5.449.50 • 01-8884-000-00 -78-£884..^OO0-r aO- »**~CKS D laoj 188439 188441 188441 OS/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 I’j 188460 05/04/89 80.34 ■ao,-34 • LONG LK FORD TRACTOR 6 EDGES 46.00 88.00 -48.00 • LONG LAKE TIRE LONG LAKE TIRE MOUNT TIRES MOUNT « BAL 68.50 68.50 • MARK VI1 DZ8T BEER 01-4838-890-61 01-4341-849-48 01-4348-890-61 74-4815-591-94 •••-CK8 •••-CK8 ;S9 IM 05/04/89 05/04/89 .05/04/89 05/04/89 -40.35 -MlDUESI-ASeHALT.-ROCK. 40.35 • 86.96 .AA4-04- MINNEGASCO -fUNNEGASCO- UTILITIES -UULITJES- 35.36 M1NNE6ASC0 UTILITIES 506.36 • 7 HN PCMFPTT -lEE-INSL 7.00 • -0Jjr4833-£49--48_ 01-4384-189-31 _78=-4384 -54 9-9LL 73-4384-569-98 ftlPQ-Tt 116.55 11A gg • MN CELLULAR TELE MOBILE PHONES 01-4380-189-31 •••-CK8 ” .»A-CKS. •••-CK8 .47. .4* •••-CK8 ^ |44 "I 4PP-CKS ------ Z\ t»M-^1 1989 CITY OF ORONO -CHgCK -Ma, OATg ieS58 0 -8 5/94/89- CHECK REGISTER -AHOUMT--V/CNOOA--ITEM OE8CR1FTK 05-08-89 FACE ----ACCOUK'IL.m^Ny.^-8-F^O>-8- MESSAGE 5T:88 ----- 87.00 • -mNN-COHH---7O£FH0««--8f-43a0->ta9 -3»- __••■-CK8- 1E8509 05/04/89 3.00 -3^8 8 MN DEFT FUB SAFETY FILM RENTAL 01-4241-129-31 •••-CK8 3 128522 448525- 128525 4485 32 1285J4 448'.r34- 128534 128534 128537 448 545 428S45 05/04/89 -05/04/8 9 05/04/89 ■8 5/04/8 9 OS/04/89 ■8 5/04/8 9 05/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 8 5/04/89- -05/04/89 - 7.20 7.20 * MTX DI3T CO 2 DU8HIN68 74-4232-590-93 ♦•♦-CKS -84-^aO- 82.24 143.44 • MINN UC FUND UC STILES L=4t54=029=3L 01-4154-290-61 •••-CK8 -MQR0yC3YNSKI/JAME8--------------INS REFUND______^8lrr4t5L=t12t-31 269.05 429 .95 MOTOROLA INC -MOTOROLA INC flAINT ACRELHT 41A1NT ACREEHI- .*«Ar-4K8- 172.96 249.83 -4-, 921,79 * MOTOROLA INC MOTOROLA INC MAINT AGREEHT MAINT A6REENT t -.74-33 -84. •4i-42_ T2-4392 b4V-9l 73-4342-519-48 •••-CKS 37.50 37.50 • MORAN MARK INS REFUND 01-4151-129-31 -216.00 -NAUARSE-401 216.00 • -Ll-^48- 01-4341-249-42- -NAA8-TERI--CLA88 1 1 68 • 01-^4356*174^^ •♦•-CK8 iL !«-• !r It: i:: •••-CK8 1^ |»s I!! wot 51 128562 05/04/89 205.00 NSP SPRING PARK 01-1234-000-00 1“—128562 --------—05/0i/69 IITTI TTTff®sa ui 128562 05/04/99 166 33 NSP UTLITIES —"V »9 ■ ■■■.................................................... 01-4324-129-31 J 126562 05/04/89 84.16 NSP UTILITIES 01-4324-249-48 F—128562 -------05/04/89________MO ftg N9*»IITI TTTCQ A 1 —9%t 128562 05/04/89 13.20 NSP UTLITIES 01-4384-890-61 73 f 4 99 128562 05/04/89 6.60 NSP UTILITIES 01-4384-290-61 78— .uI 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK MO .--DATS- - - 188568 -4«854d- 188568 188B97 188598 05/04/89 -85/84/89- 05/04/89 ^5/84>«8- OS/04/88 CHECK REGISTER AMOUHT--- VENDOR..UEa DESCRIPTION- 05-08-89 PACE ACCOUNT NO. TMV 8 P-Q— i-MESSACE 587.06 -404r-13- NSP -N88- 60.88 1,657.53 • NSP UTILITIES -WTLiTlES— UTILITIES 73- 4384-569-98 _78-4384-«89o98 74- 4384-590-93 9i80 4Uj»LTC-Elff>L RET-ASSN- 9.00 • 4.388.-00--PERA- INS PIR E INS- -J*ERA 4-47-^10-4-30 U^4i58M88«8t- -8031 t^OOOtiOS. 4,388.00 • 4«*-CKS »■—'CKS !■ -isj *•1 188681 188881 188681 188681 -4888E4- 188681 188681 -188881. 188681 188681 -488884- 188681 188631 188638 488838- 05/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 08/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89- 05/04/89 05/04/89 -05/04/89 05/04/89 ■0E/04/S9 05/04/89 05/04/89 647 -497. 00 80- PHYSICIANS HEALTH -gHYSlCIAN8 HEALTAl. HAY JIAY. IND IMD 01-3878-000-00 01-4151-079-12- 388 .00 175.10 ■a90.-to- PHY8ICIAN8 HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH -PMY81CXANS HEALTH HAY XNO HAY INS -8AY-1NO- 01-4151-069-15 01-4151-181-31 01-4151-486^^ 983.80 306.00 -764,.00. PHYSICIANS HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH -PHYSICIANS HEALTH HAY IND HAY IND HAY-1N8- 01-4151-1E9-31 01-4151-174-33 ■ 0lT4151-84Sr4ZL 136.00 807.00- 807.00 4,389.40 • 4,44-7.08 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH -HEALTH- - PHYSICIANS HEALTH POLKA DOT RECYCLING HAY INS MAY INS HAY-INS- 78-4151-549-91 73-4151-569-91 J73^4XSJ^549=9L MAY INS 73-4151-569-98 RECYCLINC -01-4392^895-65. 1,617.00 • PRAIRIE OFFSET PRAIRIE-OFFSET- BUS CARDS BUS CARDS- 01-4388-039-18 01-r4388-=1.74-33- _fc*.4=£KS- at aa aa I •••-CK8 ^ ::i ‘M 186643 18S643- 188643 188643 488643 188643 05/04/89 -0B>fO4/S8 05/04/89 05/04/89 -05/04/89. 05/04/89 81 .87 -3.08 PRUDENTIAL -PRUOENTZALr- LIFE INS MAY -LZFE-4N8 HAY- 14.00 57.12 .3-38 PRUDENTIAL PRUDENTIAL ppypiTMTT Al LIFE INS MAY LIFE INS MAY t TFP TMa MAY 01-4158-069-15 -81^4158^.181^34- 01-4158-186-31 01-4152-189-31 ft! -.A I gg>-1 74-n 6.00 105.89 • PRUDENTIAL LIFE INS MAY 01-4158-849-48 ,a» -Ml -A. J - -****«*_ BPFD CAMPY 4 TOBACCO -CICARET.TE8 -78.-4802=59.1^4. 14.30 * •••-CKS .aaa=CK8- 1989 CITY OF ORONO - CHgCK <40, OATg- - AMOUNT- CHECK REGISTER VENDOR -----------------------------ITEM OES tlPTION- faesoE- 1S869S -95/84/89- 05/04/89 -788 r^S PARI8-8-80N8 INC--FERTILIZER 05-08-89 PAGE 8 ACCOUNT-NO^ONV_ »_P-,X)—8- MESSAGE------ 74-4Z43-E90-93- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 786.75 • 189.00 -488:98-^ SCHAUS8 CHARLES INS REFUND 01-4152-186-31 .^a-^CKS- •♦•-CK8 128703 05/04/89 739.42 739.42 • SPAULDING GOLF BALLS 74-4809-591-94 •i to III 4E87A0- 128740 06/04/88- 05/04/89 32.95 83.60 a STREICHERS -OFFICE-SUPPLY — SEAT ORGANIZER -0.U42J 0^i£9JL 01-4232-185-35 •••-CK8 428764- 128751 -06/04/88- 05/04/89 288.60 690.30 * SUNDIAL BLDG SERVICE JANITOR SERV 1^4349=099^7- 01-4349-129-31 ♦••-CK8 428764 -*a*aa*- 128774 -OS/04/89- 05/04/89 4JS0-t yp a9_ hEMBERSMIPL -01-43fl0.=039=l£- 350.00 * 75.00 --"v 08-a- THOMTON/MARK INS REFUND 01-4151-181-31 ***-CK8 _a«L«=CIUL ) M aaaaaa •••-CK8 40 41 4S 128rae 05/04/89 75.00 75.00 a T0MC2YK/MARK INS REFUND 01-4151-189-31 O 44 40 186763 05/04/09 75.00 75.00 a TOMCHECK LARRY INS REFUND 01-4151-129-31 40 47 aaa-CKS 40 - -128792_ __ _OS/04/89_^ ■ .00 TL'IN riTTFS prrTw au MA7MT 01-4140-0^4-1P40 00 01 128798 128792 - -188798_ _ 05/04/09 05/04/09 O5/Q4/09_ _ _ _ _ L .00 369.00 sea nn TWIN CITIES DICTN 0V twin cities DICTN SV tutij riTlCB ntrTki eu MAI NT TRANSCRIBER .iffmonaa 01-4340-174-33 14-4540-686-00 1 A—^c^n—a^p—nn 00 03 666.00 a 04 _ __ _ _ _ _aaa-rve 90 94 r 128796 05/04/89 301.60 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS 01-4821-189-31 I 1 -=4 1989 CITY OF OHONO -CHKCK MO. DATS- - CHECK FECI8TER -AHOUHT.-VENOOA-4.TEH-DE8CRIPT10H.■ACCOUNT NO—INV. 05-08-89 PACE ■f.O..-t HESSACE 301.60 • SI ^ sz ss>***-CK8 S4t 188848 05/04/89 884.97 WAYZATA-CITY OF TAXES TRUCK 78-4560-549-91Z\188848 05/04/89 487.46 71? * UAYZATA-CITY OF TAXES TRUCK 73-4560-569-98 JT zm Mi •••-CK8 ■taaots 128815 1E8815 -128816 188815 188815 188815 188815 188815 -1^8881^ 188815 188881 -05/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 06/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 05/04/89 -86/04/88- 05/04/89 05/04/89 48.81 U8 UE&T COHHUN TELEPHONE--oi^4:^ar--fl39=a8- 48.81 84.10 -488--06 U8 WEST connuN US WEST COHHUN -Ur-U68T^C0HWUN TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 48.81 61 .56 ■ 48..81. 7.83 16.87 -4-1^6/91- 108.90 649.46 • US WEST COHHUN US WEST COHHUN US WEST COHHUN US WEST COHHUN -U8-U68T-CQMHUN US WEST COHHUN TELEPHONE TELEPHOi'iE -TELEPHONE- 01-4380-059-14 01-4380-069-15 LL*4380i-^i89-<IU 01-4380-174-33 01-4380-175-34 n t -.,^1 TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELSPHONE- AOV 7L-4380-549-91 73- 4380-569-98 _74«4380«590-93- 74- 4383-590-93 11 u “ 188819 188819 188819 05/04/89 05/04/89 54.89 54.89 H9 -1C 137.84 VIKING INDUST CENTER VIKING INDUST CENTER -VlKlNG-lNDUaT-CENTER- —HANORII^ HANDRIL HANORIL _HANORU_ J78--^4838.^49^L 78-4838-549-98 78-4838-549-98 8.80 VILLAGE CHEVROLET SHAFT 01-4838-849-48 •••-CK8 ***-CK8 •a: '*4 |r. K!>< 188853 ^-------188991 ^-------188808- •9) 9*’" »» ' 488904 05/04/89 .*45/94/89- ■05/04/89 05/04/89 786.00 786.00 « U HENNEPIN RECYCLING RECYLINC FEE 01-4348-849-48 -94.00 -ANCHOR 8CIENTIFIC--ROTO-FLOATS -73-^4344-549=98- 94.00 « -184^0-JU-4810^189-31 184.90 • 84.80 • 40-00- -PART-ROLLER nnwMA 9AMCFI Hnpr - -01-4838-849-48 _ _gi^4360riaS-3S. 10.00 * .^■rAi-uao—-POLAR-4 MA7DA- •••-CK8 ■ts .87 i-Sic: <•7 MINUTES OF THE Pn\MNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 #1302 CITY OF ORONO/CRTSTAL BAY ROAD CONDITIONAL USB PBRNIT/VARIANCB>FINAL RBVIBN PUBLIC HBARING 8:00 P.M. TO 8:10 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Public Works Director Gerhardson said that he and the City Engineer had communicated with all of the property owners involved. It was his understanding that an agreement had been reached as to how repair of the road and restoration of the bank will occur. Mr. Tim Schupp pointed out that his preference was for option one, rather than option two. Mr. Schupp also questioned whether there would be a need to come back before the Planning Commission. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained to Mr. Schupp that it would be necessary for the affected property owners to file one at.:lication for a conditional use permit and variance to repair and restore their shoreline. Mabusth suggested that the application go directly to the City Council for approval as soon as possible. She asked if the residents could provide a plan to show what is proposed. Mr. Schupp indicated that he intended to proceed as the City Engineer had recommended. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked City Engineer Representative Olson if it would be necessary for Mr. Schupp to plant grass or plantings to hold the bank at the proposed slope. Olson replied that most likely plantings would be necessary. Mr. Lee Erger asked about the agreed amount of retaining wall that will remain exposed. Mabusth recollected that 5* had been proposed. Mabusth said that specific direction would be sought from the City Council. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of application #1302, per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1396 MINNBTOHKA BOAT WORKS 1449 SBORBLINB DRIVB CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT/VARIANCB PUBLIC HBARING 9:00 P.M. TO 9:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Building Official Jacobs explained that the applicant was seeking a conditional use permit, several variances and a commercial site plan re^»^iew for the addition of 48 boat slips. The variances the applicant seeks are for separation of a parking area by a public roadway; parking in a landscaping area; hardcover; and tree removal. MIHUTBS OF THE PLAHNIIIG COMMISSIOH MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING PILE #1396-MIMNETONKA BOAT WORKS Chairman Kelley noted that the City of Orono has no jurisdiction with regard to the number of slips granted to the marina. Jacobs stated that the LMCD made that determination. Kelley asked Ms. Hurr if the additional 26 slips had been approved. She replied that the request would go the April Board Meeting, but the Committee had recommended approval. The density allowed without a special permit is one boat for every 50* of lakeshore frontage. Minnetonka Boat Works is requesting one boat for every 30* of frontage. Kelley asked Ms. Hurr if the LMCD took into consideration the safety of the public crossing a road. Ms. Hurr stated that the parking was a concern, but other land use issues did not fall within their jurisdiction. She said it was felt that one entrance to the parking area was better than providing parking on both sides of the road. Jacobs interjected that installation of a cross walk is being considered. Kelley suggested that an aerial footbridge may be needed to effectively handle the potential safety hazard. He said that he would feel terrible if someone got killed crossing County Road 15 and he had not done everything possille to insure the health, safety and welfare of the Citizens of Orono. Planning Commissioners Cohen and Hanson concurred. Ms. Hurr said that only 1/3 of the boats were used on a given weekend day, so there would not be hundreds of people crossing the road. It was ner belief that the owners of the property intended to fence in that area which would alleviate the people that fish along the road. Mr. Arlyn Lomen, Vice-President of Genmar Industries, said that he too was concerned about safety. In his opinion, there was more traffic generated from fishermen parking and walking along County Road 15 than from boaters. If that area were fenced, he believed it would eliminate the number of vehicles and people from that area. Mr. Rollin Lacy, sai»ui that he agreed with Chairman Kelley*s views regarding safety. He said that that was one of the most congested areas along County Road 15. He was not sure that fencing off the area to fishermen would alleviate the problem. He further stated that he was surprised to read the Staff*s recommendation to approve the variances requested, especially the hardcover variances within 0-75* of the lakeshore. He said that private citizens do not even apply for such variances in light of the Clty*s policy to deny them. Another Orono resident asked to have the term "cross walk" defined. Jacobs said that the street would be striped and signs would be put up. He did not know if there would be lights or just signs. Cohen said that unless patrolled, cross walks are ignored by most drivers. Planning Commissioner Brown suggested that the fencing be done in such a way so as to funnel people directly to the cross walk. Chairman Kelley moved on to the issue of blacktopping the faHUTBS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7s00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commission members Johnson, Cohen, Hanson and Moos. Planning Commission member Brown arrived at 7:15 p.m. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Public Works Director Gerhardson, City Engineer Representative Olson and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Alan Nettles attended and CounciImember Goetten was also present. CONSENT AGENDA It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to approve the consent agenda. Motion, Ayes«5, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1397 THE ART CENTER OF MINNESOTA 2180 & 2240 NORTH SHORE DRIVE CLASS I SUBDIVISION - LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Ms. Mary Smith was present as a representative for the Art Center. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Art Center was seeking a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement as part of the sale of the Old Hill School. Lot 5 will be doubled in 3ize from 13,760 s.f. to 27,600 s.f. Staff is recommending that a 10* setback be maintained from the tennis court to the new division line rather than 1* as being proposed. The Art Center will lose 22 parking stw.lls as a result of the subdivision, which will leave them with 50. The City Engineer has indicated that he would be comfortable with 60 parking stalls and staff is recommending that 10 additional stalls within the southwest parking area be provided now and will reserve the right to request more if needed. Chairman Kelley expressed his concern of continued use of the parking area to the rear of the Old Hill School. It was his belief that parking in that area would continue and cause trespassing upon the property which would then be used as a single family residence. Ms. Smith indicated that there was a possible option of allowing the lease of the tennis court in exchange for available parking in the rear of the Old Hill School. Kelley informed Ms. Smith that the City would not allow commercial parking on residential property. Planning Commissioners Moos and Johnson concurred that the tennis court be 10' from the side lot line. Planning Commissioners Hanson and Cohen questioned whether the tennis court should be removed. Ms. Smith stated that it would be a MIHDTBS OP THE PLANMIHG COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1397~THE ART CENT OF MINNESOTA financial hardship for the Art Center to remote the tennis court, Kelley said that the financial aspect of an application cannot be considered. Hanson said that consideration should be given as to whether it would be practical to do a lot line rearrangement around a dilapidated tennis court. 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 Moos, to recommend approval of application #1397 as follows: 1. Approve the lot line rearrangement. 2, The standard side yard setback of 10* for an accessory structure must be met. 3. Approve a principal structure. 2.8* side yard setback variance for a 4. Screening for parking on the north side of the property should be in the form of a physical impediment so as to move the traffic flow up to the north. 5. The parking areas located within required yard areas must be removed and the issue of the existing lamp post must be reviewed as to placement and light direction. 6. The future owner of the Old Hill Schocl property should be put on notice that no new structural expansion shall be approved to the west side of the structure because of the substandard setback. 7. Prior to the issuance of the certif’ ate of occupancy, the school structure roust be connected to the municipal sewer system. 8. There should be a dedication of a 33* right-of-way along North Shore Drive from the Art Center. The hardship for approval is the location of the tennis court in relation to the Old Hill School. Chairman Kelley amended his motion to include a recommendation that the City Council address the issue of extinguishing the restrictive covenant filed against chain of title for the Art Center, Planning Commissioner Johnson seconded the amendment. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays*0, Motion passed. HINUTBS OF THB PIANNIMG CONMISSIOH MEBTIN6 APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1396-NINNETONKA BOAT WORKS parking lot. Mr. Lomen said that was not part of their original proposal, however that did not mean that they wouldn't be agreeable to it. He commented that there have been no problems with the existing gravel. If the City required them to blacktop the parking lot, they would consider doing it, but preferred not to. The next issue discussed was hardcover. Hardcover in the 0- 75* zone would increase by 1.38% to 15.48%. Jacobs said that most of that would occur in the extension. Hardcover in the 75- 250'zone will remain the same. With regard to parking, Jacobs stated that Minnetonka Boat Works met the requirements for the number of parking stalls. They are now proposing to add 26 parking stalls in light of the additional boat slips. All 26 stalls will be added in the 0-75* zone. Building Official Jacobs reported that the City Engineer recommended that a retention pond be constructed at the end of the parking lot to catch runoff and filter the water before it enters the Lake. He recommended that parkir j lot grading plan be modified to provide a minimum 1% grade; the area between the parking lot and the Lake should be a minimum of 6" higher than the parking lot; pre-cast concrete bumper curbs should be required around the parking lot and it should be paved to minimize the run-off of silt into the ponding area. Building Official Jacobs noted that the applicant is requesting that the lakeshore setback fer the new parking area be 10*, which is the setback of the existing parking lot. Jacobs said that parking lot was designed in such a way to minimize tree removal. However, 6 trees, possibly less, will need to be removed within 75' of the lake. Building Official Jacobs explained that the requirement for landscaping is 10', however, the existing parking lot has only 5* of landscaping. Applicant is requesting that the new parking area be allowed to have only 5' of landscaping area. Planning Commissioner Hanson questioned how allowing a 5' variance would affect t'le size of the parking lot. Jacobs replied that if 10' were required, it would push the parking area closer to the lake and would interfere with the proposed berm. Planning Commissioner Cohen questioned the City Engineer's recommendation for a modified grade for the parking area and storm drainage. Jacobs said that storm drainage would only be a problem if the applicant did not follow the City Engineer's recommendations. Hanson asked why paving was necessary. Jacobs replied that the City ordinances require paving, unless a variance is requested. Also, the City Engineer felt that paving was necessary to maintain the drainage areas and prevent silt from running into the Lake. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1396>M1NHBT0MKA BOAT WORKS Mr. Lacy stated that it would be laughable for a private property owner in Orono to request permission to cut down 6 live trees within 75* of the lake. Planning Commissioner Hanson expressed h.^.s reservations about the installation of the cross-walk, /acobs confirmed that the County intended to install the cross-wa .k whether the Marina project was or was not approved. The cross-walk would be a joint project for both Windward Marina and Minnetonka Boat Works and would be positioned between the two properties. Cohen said that he was skeptical that fencing and funnelling people to the cross walk would work. Hanson asked the Applicant for his opinions as to the installation of a cross-walk. Mr. Lomen said that he had no strong feelings about the cross-walk, however an aerial bridge would become a major expenditure and would probably deem the project non-feasible. There were further no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend denial of application #1396, based upon the finding that the proposal is detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Motion, Ayes*3, Johnson, Hanson, Brown, Nay. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of the commercial site plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover within the 0-75* shall increase 1.38%, 75-250* zone hardcover shall remain the seune. 2. No more than 6 trees shall be removed within 75* of the lakeshore area. 3. Applicant shall follow the recommendations of the City Engineer. 4. Approval of the 5* variance from the right-of-way on the east side of the road. 5. In addition, a specific design shall be proposed for keeping the drainage system open. 6. Screening around dumpsters shall be in the form of plantings approved by Staff. 7. A County/City approved cross-walk with no less than a push-button activated "walk" signal. 8. Signage shall remain the same. 9. All other staff recommendations, including those MINDTBS OP THE PLMINIMG COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING PILE #1396-NINNBTONKA BOAT WORKS pertaining to dock access, fire extinguishers, electrical equipment, floats, hoses and hose stations, be required. Motion, Ayes®3, Kelley, Moos and Cohen, Nay. #1326 NAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 200 NAYZATA BOULEVARD CLASS II PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 7:17 P.M. TO 7:53 P.M. Mr. John Downey, General Manager of Wayzata Country Club, was present for this matter, as was Mr. Ronald Lauer. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron reported that he had received information verifying that Wayzata Country Club does have the right to cross the properties to the east to access North Ferndale Road. The Country Club also verified by letter that they are a party to the application. A revised conceptual site plan was also provided showing the house location. Also, a general grading plan was submitted and the ri'-v Engineer, after reviewing tlie plan, has indicated that an -tional swale will be necessary. Gaffron reminded the ' .di>ning Commission and public that the house plan was only v:o.ceptual, not actual. Once the final house footprint is determined, it would be necessary to have the City Engineer review it before a building permit could be issued. Chairman Kelley asked why Mr. Lauer was not required to provide a final house plar. at this time, given the sensitivity of the drainage issue. Gaffto;. - ^^led that such a provision was not required with a subdivisici application. Kelley asked how the pubic will remain informed of the revisions proposed by the developer? Gaffron stated that once the subdivision is approved, the public would not be notified of site plan/grading plan revisions that meet code requirements. Kelley asked how the City would protect the residents who may be impacted by this development? Gaffron stated that they wo ’ d have to relv upon the conditions set forth in the resolution approval and filed with the chain of title that specif leal Ij .ates that the City Engineer must approve the final plan. Gat. 'on stated that the Applicant ’s Engineer is in the process of designing a retention area to take the water not only from Mr. Lauer’s house, but also from other areas of the Golf Course. Kelley commented that such a plan had not been presented to the Planning Commission. Gaffron said that staff had recently observed the drainage pattern and found it to be different than the existing topography would dictate. Based on staff’s observations, the City Engineer has revised his recommendation and so informed the Applicant ’s Engineer. Kelley said that it was very important that the Planning Commission and public have the opportunity to see what is being proposed. Planning Commissioner Cohen expressed his concern over the easement the Golf Course has to access North Ferndale Road. Gaffron said that there is a 16-1/2 ’ easement on either side of the Country Club’s north property line that is granted to the MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING FILE «1326-WATZATA COUNTRY CLUB CONTINUED various property owners for current and future owners and development of the propeities in that area. The City is asking that a 2?' ^ ; ate read outlot be provided with this application as part of the final plat. Mr. Hauser asked if he would be requi’-cd to provide property for a toad outlot? Zoning Administrator Mabusth answered that when Mr. Hauser came to the City requestinc a subdivision, the City would ask him to provide an easement. The outlot would remain under the ownership of the property owner and the City would only take the underlying road and utility easer^ents. Mr. A1 Greig had pictures showing the drainage pattern through his property and his neighbors' properties from the Golf Course. Mr. Greig expressed his concern of increased runoff due to the development of the property Mr. Lauer is purchasing. He believed that once the brush and ground cover is removed that there will be nothing to soak up the water. He said he was against having a retention pond put in behind his property because it could overflow and create a channel of water that would run through his property. Mr. Greig recollected that a^ the time the Golf Course was being developed, a hole was dig behind his property that was approximately 30 feet wide and 4 to 5 feet deep. He said that hole is now filled in with silt and other materials tiiat have been deposited as a result of runoff. Chairman Kelley explained that Wayzata Country Club has the right to subdivide. He said ♦nat the Planning Commission is trying to protect the property owners by not allowing any magnification of the existing runoff problems. He said that legally they could not prevent the subdivision from occurring, they could only protect the neighbors downstream. Mr. Leo Hauser asked what the City intended to do to indemnify the property owners against any damage that may occur as a result of this subdivision and rievelopment. He said he wanted to see it in writing from the City. Assistant Planning and Zoning Adininlstrato: Gaffion statel that the City Staf. concurs with the Crey Engineer's recommendation that approval be based on the submittal of a plan that will show the runoff will be held back and dispersed at a slower pace. Gaffron stated that there are variances being requested with this subdivision application. A variance will be required for the property having no direct tronnage on a public road. Additionally, the lot is flag shap;.*»' and does not meet the required 200* width. Gaffron suggestt;d tha* the variances may provide the Planning Commission with control over other related aspects. Chairman Kelley questioned the hardshio for the 140* lot width variance. Gaffron said that the location of the existing green and tee would be a hardship. MIHUTES OF THE PIAHNIHG COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING FILE ll326>ffATZATA COUNTRY CLUB Mr. Downey said that the Country Club has been trying to comply with the requests from the City. He asked that the City's request for an additional 8* easement for the outlet be addressed. Kelley ar'^ J him how he would address the concerns expressed by Mr. Greig, Mr. Hauser and Mr. Simmons. Mr. Downey said that it was his understanding that Mr. Lauer Intended to leave most of the property in a natural state. Mr. Downey said that once the subdivision is approved, the drainage problem would become Mr. Lauer's responsibility. Planning Commissioner Johnson interjected that it was his understanding that the Golf Course would participate in the construction of the retention pond. Mr. Simmons said that he did not understand how the subdivision could be approved without the City reviewing the actual house plans. Kelley concurred with Mr. Simmons adding that since this was such a sensitive area, it would be important to have more information as to the feasibility of what is being proposed. He said the fact that the City Engineer has revised his plan twice makes him even mere leary. Planning Commissioner Cohen said that he had understood that Mr. Lauer was building a "spec" house, and did not Intend to live on the property. Cohen further expressed his concern over the construction destroying the private road which serves his property. He was also concerned about the access being located so close to the Golf Course. Mr. Lauer indicated that at this time he had not rndvi^e a final decision as to whether he would live on the property or sell it. Mr. Brooke Nelson said that he had seen previous subdivisions approved and conditions changed after-the-fact that Impacted surrounding properties. He wanted something more definite presented to him before this subdivision was approved. Kelley asked Gaffron what specific requirements should be requested from the applicant prior to proceeding with development of this property. Gaffron said that City Staff would like to see the retention basin design reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Gaffron said that the remainder of this application could be presented to the Council, unless the Planning Commission preferred to have the matter come back beft e them again. Kelley asked if the actual ."rading plan for the proposed house would be provided. Mr. Lauer said that he had a 100' x 40' square in which the house determined. is to be built so the gracing plan can be Kelley said that since the footprint and size of the house will be known, the runoff can be determined. He would like to see specific plans for grading and the retention pond on not only Mr. Lauer's property, but the Wayzata Country Club property as well. Kelley said that the City would take a flowage and conservation easement across the pond. Kelley said that by taking the easement, the City can go in and remedy any problems with the pond and assess the costs involved back to the property MINOTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING PILE 11326-WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB owner. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to table this item until the appropriate grading plans are submitted along with the plans for the retention pond. Planning Commissioner Johnson indicated that since this matter had come before the Planning Commission three times, he did not wish to see it again. He felt that the Wayzata Country Club should participate in this matter. Motion, Ayes=5, Johnson, Nay, Motion passed. #1367 STEVEN HARRIS 3850 WATERTOWN ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:10 P.M. TO 8:25 P.M. Mr. Harris was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that Mr. Harris was seeking a Conditional Use Permit to install a pond 100* in diameter and 4* deep. The pond could be classified as a decorative pond with a secondary purpose of providing drainage of moisture content of soils surrounding the pond area. Mr. Harris proposes putting a fence around the pond to prevent his horses from interfering with the function of the pond. He intends to immediately seed the banks. Th** pond will not change the existing drainage, but rather will provide greater retention. Chairman Kelley inquired as to where the spoils would be placed? Mabusth was not certain, but the applicant indicated that he intended to keep them on his property. Chairman Kelley asked if it would be necessary for the City to take a drainage and flowage easement for the pond? Mabusth stated that the pond was such a local retention area that such an easement may not be necessary. Kelley said that should the property ever be subdivided, the City may wish to have the easement. He also suggested that the City be consistent with its easement policy. Planning Commissioner Johnson questioned the City's possible maintenance liability that may result from taking a drainage easement. Mr. Robert Taylor informed the Planning Commission that in the best of his knowledge, there was an underlying draintile in the area of Mr. Harris' proposed pond. He questioned whether a pond was the proper approach to a drainage problem and expressed concern over the area reverting into a swamp *-hat would back up onto his property. Mr. Loren Butterfield interjected that the draintile ran under his property all the way to the Luce Line. Mr. Harris noted that if the draintile was there and functioning the grass in that area would not be consistently wet MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING PILE #1367 HARRIS-CONTINUED or dry. Kelley asked Mr. Harris what he would do if the draintile were not disturbed and all the water ran out. Mr. Harris said that if the pond reached its maximum capacity, all of the water would run out the draintile. If the pond dried out, that would not be a problem. Planning Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Harris if his main objective v?as to have a decorative pond or a dry area. Mr. Harris replied that achieving a dry area was his main priority. He questioned whether cleaning the draintile would allow it to function. Kelley said that would probably help, but no one knew where the draintile was located. Kelley said that in light of the knowledge of draintile existing, that the City would definitely want to request a drainage easement. Chairman Kelley said that the Planning Commission must address the issue of whether or not the current water flowage from this property will be disturbed when a pond is put in place. Johnson said that the applicant should be required to maintain the draintile if he encounters it while putting in the pond. Mrs. Betty Butterfield said that Mr. Harris's pond would come within 50' of their property line. She said that what would be an attractive addition for Mr. Harris but would be an unattractive nuisance for her. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of item #1367 for Conditional Use Permit to construct a pond subject to conservacion and flowage over the pond. It is further recommended that if the applicant encounters the draintile, he should maintain the existing drainage that runs through it. Kelley suggested that the flowage and conservation easement b«> taken as far as the draintile runs on the applicants property if that can be determined. Johnson amended his motion to include that condition, Cohen seconded. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1375 DAVID PRICE 2914 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC LEARING 8:26 P.M. TO 8:30 P.M. Mr. Price was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that the applicants were originally seeking an average lakeshore setback variance as well as a variance to slightly increase hardcover. The applicants have since revised their proposal so that the proposed addition would remain the same, but the patio area would be decreased. This would result in a decrease in hardcover in the 75'-250' zone to 27.34%. Another expressed MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING FILE #1375-PRICE CONTINUED concern of this application involved the sight lines and whether the neighboring property would lose a portion of existing lakeviews. There has been no communication to the City from that neighbor. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of application #1375 since the overall effect is a benefit to the City with the overall decrease in hardcover. The encroachment on the average setback line does not have a significant impact on the neighboring property and that neighbor has not expressed any concern. The hardship for the variance is that there are no viable alternatives for the applicant. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1388 CHARLES BBRTELSON 760 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:32 P.M. TO 8:43 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 said that this application involved a request for an accessory structure in excess of 1,000 s.f. The applicant ’s residence is small and ho does not have a garage. Mr. Bertelson is proposing to build a two-story garage with an upper level workshop that would be 960 s.f. per floor for a total of 1,920 s.f. The driveway would be revised. Chairman Kelley questioned what the dimensions of an average two-car garage would be. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that 24* X 36* would provide ample room for a three-car garage. Planning Commissioner Hanson questioned the applicant as to the need for such a large accessory structure. Mr. Bertelson replied that he would like to be able to store four cars and his boat. He would use the second story for working floor space for his woodworking business. Kelley inquired of the applicant as to the size of his house. Mr. Bertelson said it was 24* x 30* with a 12* slab. Kelley observed that, if approved, the accessory structure would be larger than the house. He said that in his opinion the applicant was entitled to a two-car garage, 24* x 24*. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Bertelson if he agreed with the staff’s recommendation that the accessory structure not be allowed to have plumbing, or be used as a dwelling unit or to house a home occupation. Mr. Bertelson said MINUTBS OP THB PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING PILE #1388-BBRTELSON CONTINUED that he had no intention to do any of those things. Planning Commissioner Brown told Mr. Bertelson that he would have no objections to a three-car garage, as long as it was one story. Mr. Bertelson explained that the garage would tuck into the hillside. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he would approve a two story garage that was 24* x 36*. Kelley interjected that Mr. Bertelson could build a 24* x 24* and put a car or boat on the second level and still have 1/2 of that level for his woodworking. Planning Commissioner Cohen said that, in his opinion, the structure was too large and would set a precedent if approved. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked if there would not be a problem with the garage interfering with the catch basin 2nd storm sewer? Gaffron explained that the City Engineer had taxen a look at the situation, and felt there would be no problem with rerouting the drainage. 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 Moos, to recommend approval of only a 24* x 24* 2- story structure. Brown indicated that he would allow the applicant the ability to build the structure up to the 1,000 s.f. standard. Kelley pointed out that 24* x 24* would allow the applicant more than 1,000 s.f. Motion, Ayes=3, Johnson, Hanson, Cohen, Nay. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend denial of the accessory structure in excess of 1,000 s.f. Hanson stated that allowing only 1,000 s.f. would result in poor utilization of floor space. He said Mr. Bertelson had a unique situation because the topography necessitates a 2-story walkout situation for the structure and the need to store 3 vehicles is easiest all on the same floor. Johnson stated that by allowing the 24* x 40* structure, the applicant world be very limited should he decide to add on to his house in the future. Motion, Ayes = 5, Hanson, Nay. #1389 JAMES & CHARLENE MARDOCK 880 DAKOTA AVENUE APTBR-THB-PACT- VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. TO 8:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Mardock were present for this application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this application involved an after-the-fact request for a rear setback variance for a deck. The new deck is MINDTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17 r 1989 ZONING PILE 11389-MARDOCK CONTINUED located in approximately the same location as the pre-existing deck. Planning Commissioner Hanson stated that the Mardocks were neighbors of his. He said that at the time he purchased his lot, in 1976, the Mardock home was existing and did have a deck at that time. He confirmed that that deck was located as Gaffron had estimated. He further stated that due to the peculiarity of the lot and the location of the wetland, the deck provided the Mardocks with usable space without affecting neighboring properties. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend approval of the after- the-fact setback variance for a deck. Motion, Ayes*6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1390 U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS 2845 WEAR CIRCLE CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 7:55 P.M. TO 8:03 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Dan Ressler, Network Facilities Engineer for U.S. West Communications, was present for this matter. Chairman Kelley asked why screening had to occur behind the utility structure rather than in front. Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that was due to the need to access the structure to maintain it. Mr. Ressler added that as long as the structure could be accessed from the road, he could screen up to a 4* width. Kelley asked about a barrier to prevent cars from running into the structure? Mr. Ressler said that the pylons would be an eyesore and their proposal calls for a ditch to be placed in front of the structure. Kelley inquired as to the size of the arborvita being planted and suggested that they be as high as the structure. Mr. Ressler indicated that they would be willing to comply with the City's wishes. Kelley recommended planting 3 additional trees and making them 3* high. 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 Johnson, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for U.S. West Communications and that 3' high arbor vitae be planted. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays*»0, Motion passed. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 #1391 TERRY SADLER 1396 BALDUR PARK ROAD CONDITIONAL USB PERMITAARIANCE PUBLICE HEARING 8:51 P.M. TO 3:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this item until the applicant could appear before the Planning Commission. Motion Ayes=6, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1392 KIM EDWARDS 2450 WOODHAVEN DRIVE AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8:53 P.M. TO 9:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Edwards was present for this application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mr. Edwards was seeking an after-the-fact conditional use permit for grading and filling. The filling has occurred over the years and some of it was required by the City to protect footings. In one area there has been as much as 5* of fill brought in and the area is now fairly level and a bit higher than the road. The City Engineer has looked at the project and feels that the existing fill poses no problem. However, there should be no more filling northward due to possible impact cf an existing drainageway crossing from west to east behind the house. Chairman Kelley suggested that the remaining piles of dirt be removed. Mr. Edwards stated that some of the piles were boulders. He wished to put in a retaining wall along the driveway and fill in approximately 3* and plant shrubs. Kelley asked Mr. Edwards how much of the fill he actually brought in. Gaffron indicated that Mr. Edwards was responsible for all of the fill to the ear.t side of the house. Mr. Edwards said that he was informed by the City that the septic system was built in a reljcively low area and needed fill around it to keep runoff water away from it. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of this application, subject to the recommendations of the Ci*-y Engineer. As a further condition, it is recommended that the applicant plant twenty 6' pine trees in the filled areas within one year. It is further recommended that no more fill be allowed without application and approval of another Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Calhoon, a neighbor to the east of Mr. Edwards, said that he would prefer to not see any fill extend onto his property. He MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING PILE il392~EDHARDS CONTINUED would like his property brought back to the original grade. Gaffron pointed out that staff recommendation addressed this issue. Kelley asked what the slope on the east property line would be. Gaffron replied that 4:1 is being recommended. Kelley asked about water flowage. Gaffron said that the expectation is that runoff would not change. Motion, Ayes«5, Kelley, Nay due to disagreement with the requiring that applicant put in twenty 6' pine trees. #1393 WASHINGTON SCIENTIFIC INDUSTRIES r305 WAYZATA BOULEVARD CONDITIONAL ^SE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 9:47 P.M. TO 9:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Joe Pallansch, a Representative from Washington Scientific Industries, was present for this matter, as was Mr. David Ronnel from Delta Environmental Consultants. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that this portion of this application had been tabled because this phase of the application required warmer temperatures. The applicant will be "thin spreading" approximately 800 cubic yards of contaminated soils over ? acre area. The >cess will take 90 days to complete. Mr. Pallansch has providea staff with erosion control plans and the MPCA had sent a letter providing the applicant with directions as to how to fulfill the remainder of the application. Mr. Ronnei reported that the MPCA had requested that additional soil be excavated along the trench walls and be thin spread with the other soil. Chairman Kelley inquired as to who would make the determination that the soil was uncontaminated? Mr. Ronnei said that he would submit soil samples to the MPCA and they would provide them with a final closure of the area. Kelley asked if the site was adequately posted with signs warning the public of the contaminated soil? Mr. Ronnei said that a silt containment fence would be placed around the area. He informed Kelley that the solvent in the soil posed no problems to the public, in a coj.tact, sense. It was only a threat in large concentrations in drinking water. He said they would be willing to post signs if necessary. The concentrations in the soil are very low. Zoning Administrator M.busth stated that there was an additional condition of approval. She said that the City would ask for a Developers Agreement and the posting of some form of security to assure that the final grading and seeding will occur at the right time. Mabusth said that even though the City was certain the Washington Scientific would follow through, it would be inconsistent with policy to forego that requirement. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. MINDTBS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 ZONING PILE #1393-WSI CONTINUED It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Washington Scientific Industries to allow the second phase of their recovery program, subject to Staff's recommendations and that the applicant post a bond of $2,500.00. Motion, Ayes<=6, Nays^O, Motion passed. #139^. JACKSON L. WILSON 305:^ FARVIEW LANE AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:55 P.M. TO 10:01 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that when the building permit for the applicant's residence was issued, the survey did not show the drainage easement. A current survey, completed after the construction of an addition, indicated that the addition encroached the drainage easement. In order to clear any title problems, the City vacated that portion and deeded it back to the owners. This has provided a gerrymandered easement line. The actual wetlands are located at the 930' elevation. Staff has confirmed that the house is actually 20' from the 930* elevation. A 6* after-the-fact variance is required. Mabusth noted that the City issued the building permit and added that she had difficulty collecting an application fee for a case such as this. She recommended that the application fee be refunded to the applicant. Mr. Wilson suggested that applications such as his be placed at the top of the agenda rather than the end. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend approval of the after- the-fact variance for application #1394, and that the application fee be refunded to the applicant. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1395 THOMAS WILLIAMS 4127 OAK STRE;ST RENEWAL VARIAK'CE* It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johison, to recommend approval of this application, subject to the findings and conditions set forth in Resolution #2387. Motion, Ayes=*5, Nays*»0, Motion passed. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 #1398 STEVEN HOWELLS 1448 PARK DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITAARIAMCE PUBLIC HEARING 10:10 P.M. TO 10:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The Howells were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the property in question is a through lot, having roadways located in the front and rear. An accessory structure on a through lot requires a conditional use permit. The applicants are proposing to construct a 6* wood fence along County Road 19 and 4* green chain link as the fence heads back into the property toward the house. The codes will allow a 6* fence along a county road or a major thoroughfare abutting a lakeshore lot but not an inland lot such as this. Gaffron said the main reason for the Howells requesting the fence js to protect their children from the road traffic without the need for constant supervision. Planning Commissioner Cohen asked the applicants if they would have a problem making the fence a consistent height all the way around. Mrs. Howell said that would be no problem, but they would prefer a consistent 6'. Hanson asked if they were seeking noise reduction? Mr. Howell replied on the side abutting County Road 19, noise was a problem. Chairman Kelley suggested that the fence be 6* along County Road 19 and 3-1/2' for the remainder. Mrs. Howell replied that their 19 month old daughter could easily get over a 3-1/2* fence. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of a 6' fence around the property given the location of the property in relation to County Road 19. The applicant said that he would prefer to have the fence 6' high along County Road 19 and 4* high around the remaining area. Planning Commissioner Cohen revised his motion to reflect the applicants* preference, Hanson seconded. Motion, Ayes«6, Nays«0, Motion passed. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT-CONFIRM DATE OF SPECIAL MEETING It was agreed that May 1, 1989 would be dated for the Special Meeting to discuss the Ordinance Amendment. JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1989 TOPICS FOR AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MARCH 20, 1989 MINUTES* It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of the March 20, 1989 Meeting. Motion, Ayes*=5, Nays»u, -lotion passed. MINUTBS OP THE PLAHNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 17, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Planning Commissioner, James Hanson would represent the Planning Commission at the May 8, 1989 City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The April 17, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRIC,f^ [f ^ 473-7033 L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE May 1^^89 .r ■ ■W 3;s60 Wednesday 5-10-89 Advisory Committee 7:00 p.ra., Tonka Bay Village Hall Thursday 5-11-89 Lake Access Subcommittee of Advisory Committee 7:00 p.m., Tonka Bay Village Hall Saturday 5-13-89 Water Structures & Environment Committee 7:30 a.m., LMCD Office, Wayzata Monday 5-15-89 Lake Use Committee ^f:30 p.m., LMCD Office, Wayzata Thursday 5-18-89 Lake use Subcommictee of Advisory Committee 7:00 p.m.. Tonka Bay Village Hall Friday 5-19-89 Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 a.m.. Freshwater Foundation, Navarre Wednesday 5-24-89 Public Hearing: Lake Minnetonka Sailing School/Minne* tonka Yacht Club New Dock License 7:00 p.m.. Tonka Bay Village Hall Regular Meeting, Board of Directors 7:3o p.m.. Tonka Bay Village Hall To be announced On-Shore Facilities Subcommittee of Advisory Committee To be announced Upland Environmental Protection Subcommittee of Advisory Committee 4-28-89 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April 21, 1989 Mayors, Council Members, City Managers, and Recycling Coordinators In Suburban Hennepin Co Randy Johnson \ Plastic Recycling There has been a great deal of recent publicity about the Minneapolis ordinance that purportedly bans plastic food packaging. Some suburban cities are considering similar ordinances. I believe that for both environmental and economic reasons, a better approach is to Eecycle plastic. D.J.lko newsprint, there Is a strong and growing local demand for recycled plastic that Is separated by resin. That is why I introduced a resolution at the April 18th County Board meeting to require cities in Hennepin County to collect plastic (in addition to aluminum, glass and newsprint) in order to remain eligible for the county's recycling cost reimbursement program. At my request, the resolution was referred to the April 28 meeting of the Public Service Committee and to our Recycling Task Force. I expect the County Board to enact this significant change to our recycling program early next year, to be effective only after our Materials Recovery Facility is operating end densificatlon equipment for collection trucks is available. Council Member Steve Cramer, who authored the Minneapolis ordinance announced that he supports my proposal although he may still want to ban some packaging. Enclosed for your information are copies of a news release, questions and answers about plastic recycling, and some information that has been printed in newspapers. REJ:sls Enclosures JjKJ'iDY JC'HNSON COMMIS.IONE* Board of Hennepin County COiMmissioners 2400 Gover :4ment C enter Minneapolis . Minnesota 5^467 PHONE 012-34a-3O«« TDD 34a-770a NEWS RELEASE •TIECYCLE plastic - DON’T THROW IT AWAY Al^D DON'T BAN IT" Next year at this time Hennepin County residents will be recycling plastic, and all the talk of a so-called plastic ban will be a distant memory predicted by Hennepin County Commissioner Randy Johnson. At Tuesday’s Hennepin County Board meeting Cumissiouei Randy Johnson will introduce a major amendment to p.ie countysource separation ordinance and recycling reimbursement plan. It w:"*"* 'j^uire cities to collect plastic as part of their curbside recyrj.lng programs in order to remain eligible for the county's gen>irous 50Z to 80Z cost reimbursement. One result of adding plastic to the three materials already belr collected (gJass, newspaper and aluminum) will be, in effect, to supercede the Minneapolis ordinance that purportedly bans some food and beverage plastic packaging. That ordinance exempts from its ban any material that is collected in a recycling program. "The fact is that plastic is much too valuable to throw away — and it is al&o much too valuable to ban. ?lastl(*. “^inn and ought to be recycled," said Johnson. "For example, to an end user, aluailnum 1& warth about $.200 per ton, glass is worth about $50 per ♦"*n, and newsprint is - or was - worth abov $20 per ton. Meacw^ ^roperly separated and j^round plastic -an be sold locally for ^200 t' $600 per ton. But local companies have to buy it from recyclers re. iitiea aundreds of miles away because we are not collecting it yet in our own r«cv. n' programs," explained Johnson. Johnson said ne chose to Introduce the jr. to tne collected recycle at this time for .lai at adding plastic ^ ral reasons . "First, the couc to operate a "Materl. prepare recyclable^ users. ’ssulng a Request fot proposals that will separate and - and sell them to the appropriate (over) Recycle Plastic April 17, 1989 Page 2 "Second, just a few weeks ago the State Pollution Control Agency took two major steps forward to encourage recycling plastic rather than banning it. The PCA proposed regulations to adopt a plastic coding system developed by the plastic industry to help recyclers identify the different plastic resins. In addition, the PCA awarded a $40,000 grant to a private company to explore the feasibilxty of building a plastic resin recovery facility in Hinnesot4X. "Ihe third reason to begin to recycle plastic is illustrated by the tons of newspaper we now see piling up every day in Twin Citie« recycling programs. "It proves the overriding importance of making sure there is a real tiarket for what we collect. Nothing is recycled until somebody, i^^uehow, somewhere, actually takes the material aoi re-uses it," Johnson said. "Unfortunately, the past focus of Twin Cities recycling programs has been almost entirely on increasing the supply of materials that residents separate out for collection. Now we know those "supply side garbologlsts" were wrong. We must focus our recycling efforts on materials like plastic for which there is a strong and growing market, and we must work at creating new markets for materials such as newsprint." After discussion at the Tuesday board meeting, Johnson said he will ask that this change in policy be reviewed by the county's recycling task force. Ue said that the amendment adding pJastic to the list of recyclables should take effect only after the county's Materials Recovery Facility is operating early next year, and only after the county board has determined that, if necessary, a portable "on board*' compactor is commercially available for local recycling collection ::rucks. all 47 in Hennepin County decide to continue to participate ty'r /cling cost reimbursement program, Johnson said n Cc.:uty will have the rost extensive plastic recycling che nation next year. ’ ^ pointed cat that any city could jut of the county's reimuursement plan and continue down the pa^ uf banning plastic, but for Minneapolis that would mean tunilng down nearly $2 million next year. in • th" pro. stil We are giving the cities the ^ i-.oortunlty - and a v^ry strong financial incentive - to recycle piestic and I hope they respond positively FL\NDY JOHNSON COMMtS3IONE» 'W Board of Hennepin County Commissioners 2400 G overnment Center Minneapolis . Minnesota 554S7 PHONE ei2-34«-30«A TDD 34«-770a QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT COMMISSIONER RANDY JOHNSON'S PLASTIC RECYCLING INITIATIVE Queatlon: Wliat exactly Is Randy proposing to do in order to recycle plastic? Answer; Under state law and municipal ordinances, cities are primarily responsible for deciding how to collect recyclable material within their boundaries. Hennepin County has overall authority for managing solid waste. Ttie county's funding assistance policy reimburses a city for up to 80Z of Its recycling costs If the program meets the county's guidelines. Randy's proposal would add plastic to the three materials (aluminum, glass and newsprint) that a city recycling program already must collect to remain eligible for reimbursement. Question; How does the plastic recycling proposal affect the highly publicized Minneapolis ordinance that might ban some plastic packaging next year? Answer; The Minneapolis ordinance exempts from the ban any material that Is being collected In.a recycling program. Thus, If Minneapolis wants to remain eligible for county reimbursement. It will collect plastic Instead of banning It. Of course, the city could choose to turn down the county's reimbursement and proceed to ban plastic Instead of recycling It. (The city's 1988 reimbursement was $1,421,144 and the amounts for other cities are attached.) Question; Won't this "recycle plastic Instead of banning it’ against the city on recycling? plan pit the county Answer: Not at all. Minneapolis councllmembers who authored the ban have acknowledged that their real goal Is to Increase recycling. Now they will have the opportunity - and financial Incentive - to do so. Councilmember Steve Cramer, author of the Minneapolis ordinance, supports the plan to collect plastic, although he still may want to ban some packaging. Queatlon: What la the source of money for the county's recycling relmbursemert plan? Answer: None of It comes from property taxes! To date, funds have come from Interest earnings from bond proceeds. In June, the fundlrj '’111 come from a surcharge on non-recycled waste sent to landfills and the jte-to-energy plants. (over) Plastic Recycling Initiative Page 2 Question: Are plastics really recyclable? Definitely yesAnswer:_ _ _ _ . _ Of the five basic types of resins used In most consumer plastic packaging, four of them are In strong demand by local plastic companies who can reduce costs and maintain quality by mixing the recycled resins with virgin resins In manufacturing their products. Question: What are the most readily recyclable plastics? Answer: Hlgh-denslty polyethylene (H.D.P.E.) Is the most widely used plastic resin. It Is used for rigid containers such as milk jugs and household product containers. Polyethylene terephthalate (P.E.T.) la used In rigid containers, often for soft drinks. It can be recycled Into many diverse applications such as soft drink base cups, strapping, paint brushes, geotextiles, carpets, shower stalls, and boat hulls. Polystyrene (PS) Is used v^st often as a foam for cups, trays and fast food containers. In Its solid form, PS Is used for cutlery. Recycled PS Is In demand for use as an energy-saving Insulation board. Polypropylene (PP) has many applications. Including snack food packaging, and It Is often Interchanged with polyethylene or polystyrene. Questlot-; How will plastics be recycled? Answer: Hennepin County will be contracting with a private company to srate a Materials Recovery Facility that will separate collected recyclables Including plastics and sell the materials to the appropriate end-user. Most plastics can be separated by resin through hand sorting, or by using established mechanical or chemical technologies, and then washed and ground Into chips for shipment. Plastic packaging that contains unidentified or mixed resins can be co-mlngled and used for relatively "low-tech" applications such as landscape timbers, car stops, road sign markers, etc. Question: A Star Tribune editorial claimed that the plastics covered by the Minneapolis ordinance should be banned because they cause problems In landfills and harmful emissions In municipal Incinerators. Is the editorial accurate? Answer: No, the Star Tribune Is wrong. Although plastic burled In a landfill does not decompose for hundreds of years, the fact Is that hardly anything under the top few feet In a landfill decomposes. In fact, the stability of plastic In a landfill means that It contributes neither to leachate nor methane production. Plastic Recycling Initiative Page 3 As for incineration, over 90Z of the plastic in the waste stream, and virtually all of the food packaging, contains carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Under federal law, plastic food packaging cannot contain heavy metals. Even incineration of polyvinylchlorides (PVC) does not yield dloxins/furans when properly combusted. Question; How much of our garbage is plastic? Answer; According to a recent Environmental Protection Agency study, plastics make up only IX of the waste stream by weight. However, plastics may constitute nearly 30Z of the waste stream by volume. Question; What are the disadvantages of a broad plastic packaging ban? Answer; For many applications, consumers prefer plastic packaging. Families with children understand that plastic bottles and jars do not break into sharp fragments. Others prefer the lighter weight or mlcrowaveability. Also, many plastic containers, such as butter or margarine tubs and ice cream buckets, are re-used indefinitely for many common household purposes. Question; Will anybody pay for the plastic that is collected in a recycling program, or will we have a glut like we now have with separated newspapers? Answer; The local market for recycled plastic separated by resin is strong and growing. For comparison, end users of the three materials now collected for recycling in Hennepin County pay approximately the following amounts; aluminum $1200 per ton; glass $50 per ton; newsprint $20 per ton (but there is an excess of supply and the price throughout the nation is dropping quickly). Recycled plastic separated by resin can be sold for the equivalent of $200 to $600 per ton. Question; What are the practical problems in recycling plastic? Answer; The advantages of plastic packaging - its durability and capacity to enclose a large volume of product with very light weight - can raise difficulties in collection. In short, a recycling collection truck can fill up very quickly with plastic containers that weigh very little, and end-users of recycled plastic pay for resins based on weight. However, the new "on-board" portable compactors should be commercially available near the end of the year, and some preliminary plastic collecti n programs have indicated that asking residents simply to "stamp" on most plastic containers achieves sufficient densification. (over) Plastic Recycling Initiative Page 4 Oueation; Why did the county wait until now to make public this information about the value and recyclability of plastic? Answer: In fact, the county's plan to accept plastic at its Materials Recovery Facility has been discussed publicly for the past year. Commissioner Johnson also provided this information at public hearings before both the Minneapolis and St. Paul city councils before they voted on their plastic "ban.” Question: When would Randy's proposal to Include plastics as a recyclable material for collection take effect? Answer: This new recycling initiative requires an amendment of the county's funding assistance policy and perhaps even the county's source separation ordinance. Moreover, Randy has asked that the new policy be reviewed by the county's Recycling Task Force, composed of public officials and concerned citizens. In all likelihood, plastic will begin to be accepted for collection shortly after the Materials Recovery Facility opens early next year. Revised 4/21/89 MUI'IICIPAL REIMBURSEMENT AND FUNDING PERCENTAGE FXDR 1988 •% COUNTY 1 TOTAL 1 CITIES FUNDING 1 REIMBURSEMENT BLOa'iINGTOI'J 50 1 $18,243 BROOKXY1>: PARK 70 1 $19,786 CHAMFLIK 80 i $51,562 CORCOKAIv 60 1 $12,097 CRYSTAL 70 1 $25,160 D^.YTOI':50 1 $5,956 DEEPHAVE\’80 1 $7,898 EDIN^.60 1 $26,183 EXCELSIOR 60 1 $7,905 GOLDEN VALLEY 70 1 $51,312 GREENWOOD 50 1 $811 HOPKINS 60 1 $26,776 MINNEAPOLIS 70 1 $1,421,144 MINNETONKA 70 1 $32,912 MINNETRISTA 60 1 $2,603 MOUND 70 1 $21,245 NEW HOPE 50 1 $11,567 PLYMOUTH 80 1 $122,126 RICHFIELD 70 1 $80,383 ROBBINSDALE 80 1 $163,195 ROCKFORD 60 1 $351 SHOREWOOD 70 ; $8,546 SPRING PARK 50 I $3,047 ST. BONIFACIUS 60 1 $423 ST. LOUIS PARK 80 1 $208,075 TONKA BAY 80 1 $17,452 WAYZATA 80 1 $32,408 WHRC (A)60 1 $12,675 WOODLAND 80 1 $3,545 TOTALS $2,395,387 | (A) WHRC - West Hennepin Recycling Commission which includes Greenfield, Independence, Long Lake, Loretto, Maple Plain, Medina and Orono. A. *WiJ* Sllc^lcUr JHork Simcs unnrH t /tu MTm.'* iuT« wuataisai lui mi ovnt k Mrrook.4-21-89 Not All Plastic Blights the Emironment To the Editor: As a commissitmtr of Hennepin County, which has the responsibility and legal authority to manage solid waste in Minnesota, I was amused to read of the supposed ban on plastic food packaging passed by Minneapolis, where about one^hird of our county residents uve (news story. April 1). Several years ago I proposed, and our county board supported a much more comprehensive statewide ban on plastic food packaging. We thought we were enlightened environmentalists. Further study taught us that not only was such a ban uiuiecessary. but also that it would reduce use of a. product that offers greater potential for recycling than almost anything else in the waste stream. Plastic food packaging (with few exceptions) does not contain heavy metals or other toxic components that can caise problems in incinerators. Also, pU.s- tic does not pose serious leachmg problems in landfills. Apparently. Minneapolis council members learned the same thing. Some refer to their ordinance as a ban, but it really sets up a commis sion to study which plastics, if any, should be banned. It also exempts polyethylene terepthalate and high- density polyethylene — most of the plastic and container packaging — if they are collected for recycling. Our county pays up to 80 percent of recycling costs for each of our 47 cities if they meet our guidelines. The money is raised not from a tax, but by a surcharge on nonrecycled waste. Despite the hoopla about a sup posed ban on plast*'- ''yxl packaging, 1 am confident we will move quickly 5 ward recycling. Instead of banning;' most plasUc RANDY Johnson Minneapolis. April 7.1989 StarlHbune N t N kPAPtM Of ThC twin CiTllt 4/18/89 Proposal would have Hennepin County pay cities to recycle plastics Hennepin County should add plastics :o the list of garbage it pays cities to *^cle. County ■Commissioner Randy Johnson said Monday. . He said he'll ask the County Board to authorize that change afier cities get a chance to discuss it He said plastics recycling should begin once the county's proposed recycling center is operating early next year. Recycling plastics is better than banning them. Johnson said, referring to a recently passed Minneapolis ordinance that will prohibit some types of food packaging. But Minneapolis Council Member Steve Cramer, who engineered the packaging ordinance, said that although he supports Johnson ’s proposal, some packaging that can’t be reused needs to be banned. The county already pays cities-up to 80 percent of certain recycling costs, depending on what share of garbage is recovered. The county made $2.4 million in payments foi paper, glass and can recycling last year. Among the most easily recycled plastics are those used in milk and pop bottles, Johnson said. A study for the Metropolitan Council last August found that 6.8 percent of the garbage picked uo in Washington and Ramsey counties consisted of plastics, S l Louis Park collected 40,0(X) pounds of milk and pop bottle-type plastics last year. Recycling ' coordinator Wally Wysopal said he r Randy Johnson expects that financing such collection would result in much greater cost for rhe county. Johnson said he was confident that recycling plastics would not result in the same sort of market glut that has reached crisis proportions for newspnnt. He said there is an extraordinarily strong marke; for recycled plastics locally. KM RUDY PERPICH GOVERNOR April 19, 1989 State of Ml\ive80ta O ffice of the Govm\OR ST. PAUL 55155 The Honorable James Grabek Mayor City of Orono City Hall Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mayor Grabek: Enclosed are two articles from a California journal that I believe should be read by all of our state and local policy-makers. It describ'^s the groundswell of support and the urgent need for enhancea, aggressive recycling and waste reduction programs. As a part of our efforts to make recycling a major element of all waste management strategies in Minnesota, we must be sensitive to the need for markets for recycled materials. Without markets, any effort to expand recycling will be frustrated. So, I am urging all state and local elected officials to review the existing procurement practices in your offices and schools. It is time to act now to convert to recycled office paper, to purchase items that can be re-used, and to seek ways to substitute virgin-based products for recycled products. Our schools and government offices should be ’’models'* to encourage all employees and students to participate in source separation of recyclable materials and above all, to reduce waste so that disposal is averted. I have presented the 1989 Legislature with a comprehensive package to bring Minnesota to the forefront in our efforts to recycle and reduce waste and litter. The recommendations came as a result of The Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) which included private industry, state and local officials as well as those representing recyling and environmental interests. It is time to enact environmentally progressive laws that will set the solid waste policies for our state. Your participation in the conversion of our citizenry trom a "throw-away" to a reduction-recycling oriented society is essential. Government and our schools should set an example and lead the “^y. Sincerely, RUDY PERPICH Governor AN .QUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 'V '• t ^ ^ 4 '/4kS - - V- *y V v;-^: ’/ % I ^ ',4S- Kar»«m'i m«Mag«: out of boskott and Into rocyeling contort Pigs, paper and politics Recycling waste seems simple, but there are problems galore in implementing a reprocessing program. Even a successful program won't end the need for landfills or waste-to-energy plants. / used to say that asking people to separate their garbage was hazardous to an elected official's health.^ «— Joy Picus. Los Angeles city counci Iwonian By JOHN RUNNETTE Ti wasn't that long ago when pigs re- Xcyclcd part of Los Angeles' gar bage. The San Gabriel Valley was farm country then. The year was 1947 The population of the councy was just over 4 million people. (It is double that today.) John Runnette is a free-lance writer in Los Angeles. Almost everyone lived in single family homes then. And utilizing pigs' natural appetite for garbage to produce pork, ham and bacon made sense in an area still conscious of its rural heritage. Forty years ago. most Southern Cal ifornians still burned their trash in backyard incinerators, then set out the ashes for weekly collection, along with the empty bottles and cans. Another container held kitchen scraps or slop. (These were thr days before garbai^e disposals.) City crews picked up every thing. The bottles and cans went to scrap glass and metals dealers, the kitchen scraps to the pig farmers of the San Gabriel Valley. But then the pigs suddenly got sick, and tainted kitchen scraps proved fo 'le the cause. Cities stopped colle': . v' food garbage about the same time that pig farms began being divided up for new home developments. Other habits changed too. once war time reasons for residential recycling faded with victory. Failing scrap prices removed the last economic in centive. Smoke and foul-smelling air nut an end to backyard incinerators. That set the stage for Sam Yorty’s pop ular campaign promise of the early 1960s: He promised to free Los An geles housewi' tfs from the burden of separating their garbage. Yorty’s election did not singlehand- ediy initiate the age of landfilIs — like all cities. Los Angeles already had a few small dumps. But the Yoriy vic tory gave impetus to a dependence on landfills, and new habits helped too. The growing waste stream now began to contain a lot of new packaging materials. As larger landfills came on line in the '60s, recycling began tc seem like an old-fashioned habit. City trucks carried everything away to new dumps like Mission Canyon and Calabasas in tween recycling and its first phase: re covery. Collecting and recovering materials from some point in the solid waste stream is only the beginning; re cycling comes when basic manufactur ers use recovered materials to produce glass, aluminum, tin or paper. In Los Angeles and several other cities throughout California, citizens appear to be ahead of the elected offi cials in support for recycling, and elected officials are ahead of their bur- eaucrac.^es. The grassroots aspect of Am i . Ml N««d»d; a market for more recyeted paper the Santa .Monica Mountains. Scholl in Glendale. Spadra in .Aimona. In 1971 the giant facility i* Puente Hills opened up. Then the old -.cx.-pig problem popped up in modern form. From the huge landfills, methane gases and leachates began percolating into the ground, seeping down and out into water supplies. As public health con cerns grew, more citizens began ques tioning what was really happening inside those mountains of glHjage. Several smaller California cities — Modesto. Downey, Davis and Berke ley among them — gradually resumed recycling programs in the “70s, while Los Angeles flirted with and ulti mately rejected exp . sive wa^te-to-en- ergy technology. Tt-jy recycling is a thoroughly ^habilitated, **progres- sive” idea, even in the City of the Angels. "^^ct even in its new popularity, re- X cycling is little understood. A basic distinction must be made be- the issue has pushed it onto the polit ical agenda in many cities — it may be a point for debate in the L.A. mayor alty race this year. The sense of urgency varies widely, however. Some cities seem indifferent while others are almost militantly aroused. One rule of thumb seems to work: The closer a community is to an existing or proposed landfill, th« higher the interest. As John Waddell oi Refuse Ne^s has said, “We won't sec a solution until there's garbage on the streets." Consider what happened in the San Fernando Valley when Sunshine Can yon landfill began operating. Located half in the city of Los Angeles and half (mo^'l; u»''.'tveloped) in the county, thi^ .Mdnil currently accepts a little more than one-third of L.A.’s solid waste stream. BFI Inc., which oper- atesjhe facility, has petitioned the county for expansion which, if ap proved, would make Sunshine one of (he biggest landfills in the United States. “Living next to a landfill." says .Mary Edwards of the North Valley Co alition. "has made believers and re- cyclers out of us." The Coalition has been in the forefront of the battle to limit the life and growth of Sunshine. So have L.A. City Councilman Hal Bernson. whose district includes part of the landfill, and Citizens for a Better Environment, which earlier fought L.A.’s plan to build three waste-to-er,- ergy plants. Another ally has been .Assembly woman Marian LaFollcttc (R-North- ridge), who rcprescnls the north San Fernando Valley. LaFolIctte authored AB 2818, which makes cities and counties commit to recycling before expanding landfills or opening ..cw dumps. Edwards says the North Valley Co alition “did not feel it was ethically correct to take a ‘not-in-my-back- yard “’ attitude. In some other areas, local efforts reflect similarly positive reactions to the growing problems of waste disposal: Granada Hills Junior Cf amber of Commerce launched a residential re cycling program eve.i before any city efforts began. The chamber provides monthly curbs'de pickup of news paper. glass, plastics and aluminum In the Lake View Terrace area of the San Fernando Valley, near the city- owned Lopez Canyon Landfill, the same type c neighborhood curbside program began last N^ay. Cooperati:ig with a private recycier, the Lake View Terrace Improvement .Association pro motes participation with the motto. “Everything you put on the recycling truck stays out of the landfill.” The group's profits have been spent on library books and local mprovements. But profits are slim, in part because of the falling price of used newsprint. Association spokeswoman Phyllis Hines says that as long as there's any market for recycled goods, "things are ckay. But we'd love to have a paper mill close by that used our paper. We’d I ke to see legislation passed that all city offices had to use recycled paper." Hines’ volunteers are reluctant to join the city ’s pilot curbside recycling program. “Our program isn’t costing tie city a cent.” she says. “There was no startup cost. Our privriie recycler even paid for the door hangers to tell the community about the program. . . V/hy would we want to pay money to recycle? We’re making money now and 28 GOLDEN STATE f?EPORT recycling cracked Walnut - L fho ramnaian to The Dossibilitv of a nearby waste-to-energy inca key motivator in the campaign to The possibility of a nearby waste-to^nergy incin- fHisli (The latter also was the proposed in the City of Industry. r . . n ___ ■*nerflv olant.) worked out the cost of curbside collection '.Mayor Harvey Holden is now the and charged all residents an additioi^l recycling fee of the San Gabriel Valley Associa- of less than $1 a month. That will be rebated, bays a leader in the recycling program, program administrator Sean ling composting, waste-to-energy from the sales of collected recyclables corne in. ich we didn't start out taking seri- Ex-Mayor Holden believes the exoerts who say tha d did which was ra.f haul. waste-to-energy plants must come e^ .mtually, as a part - learned that we are not a Japan, of managing the waste stream. . . ^ „ n doing it in some cities, for 100 He's convinced that there’s a lot of misunderstanding ed what everyone probably already about recycling. "People hear 50 osting is a great idea — a ne‘:essary that's half of the problem so^ed. But residential re- I_____ __Kilt wp rvrlina is onlv 10 oercent of our (total) solution . . . ..-.at impatient with the pace of re- "We have tons of trash right now, with no real place tre of the things which distresses me logo. . . u. tnat all of the recycling information "If we do-, i »el the ball moving right now, then we ne state, from the L.A. County San- have a problem," he says. "For a politician "ow, you Nobody needs to study it — all they have to forget this political suicide and put he issue e guts to implement it." on the ballot."_____________ _______________ ''I'v The city gets politics and red edroom comma 's. residents have state ’s first man- cycling programs >litical opposition. has whaf may be -ecycling program ;s cursidc pickup, (for apattments), ay-back centers. : toxic curbside toy recycling. ny recycling pro- I three questions: How much can be rccnt of the popu- ;d? three general cat- csidential. one- :nd institutional. one-third industrial. Most political discussions of recycling focus on the residential segment because it is the easiest and most dramatic place to begin. Separating bottles from cans is a daily reminder to citizens that some thing is being done about the waste problem, but since residential waste is only one-thirJ of most waste streams, residential programs can create the impression that greater amounts are being diverted from landfills than ac tually are. Most private haulers feel they must offer some form of recycling as part of the collection service they seek to sell their city-clients. Yet no matter how committed the hauler and how enthu siastic the community, the content of garbage defines what impact recycling can achieve. Among “garbologists. " one gener ally agreed-upon statistic s that 20 percent of residential wastes are '‘read ily recyclable.” Another 30 percent from single-family nomes is "yard waste." Together, those elemems form the 50 percent which is considered a realistic recycling target for residential garbage. > Yet such figures hide as much as they reveal. How much of the "readily re cyclable ’* cans, glass and newspaper are already being diverted through paper drives and the new California “bottle bill?" How much of yard wastes arc actually compostible (grass clippings, leaves, etc.) and how much arc solid wood? Another problem is the amount of miscellaneous paper than cannot be re cycled readily. Junk mail is but one ex ample; food packaging is another Cities like Palo Alto have begun edu cation campaigns on so-called sourc' reduction, urging citizens to buy fre vegetables instead of frozen to c-. down on packaging wastes. How many people will actually re- cycl -ehold wastes ’’L.A.’s County Sani "iistricts surveyed 600 res- »te ! a landfill/ a the sky icals who demand trou- lisposal also make land- ecisions. And they tend w landfills anv-A>hcre 1 remote space in Cali- icking waste tong dis- ‘un up garbage b'Hs violating the citi vaste disposal si. IS easy. cheap but not easy. /mu. time, few households communities have gone cycling. These expert- ►wn that people will system can be made I, curbside recycling is ce tonnage to landfills >2. mcisco, more than 25 y being recycled, ict. in addition to San lunities of Fremont. )nCity willgo to curb- 1989. s should be models for ban recycling. But for ulated areas, we will ethods that match the teristics of those com at will not be easy. lent’s encouragement has so far been lim- the so-called bottle i successfully in the )y Assemblyman Burt le results to date have id of bottle recycling i. Perhaps incen- ei bottle — does not onvenience. 8 •'^gislaiive session, •c'-ng were optimistic ^ipred in the end. We d 'ccycling measures upport. All. however. by Assemblymembers Dorn Cortese. would oe? to draft waste rc- t'.e end of 1992, with “.g .'5 percent. f Sen. Alfred Alquist. wed a 10 percent tax id corporations for the cled materials. iiv I cm: IMMM • Lurfm Cm 4 ifmmm OMH»/tow »IUnow/ HOfjr CoMf Kmm • Atr Otulljr • ■- rv- i >. / AMambtywomon Easii a! work In Soeromonto AB 3746. a bill I carried, would have required state agencies, the Cal ifornia Sute University system and the state Legislature to buy more recycled products. All three measures would have cre ated new opportunity in the private sector. The new markets they envi sioned would have diverted tonnage from landfills, would have added value at several stages and (the bottom line) would have converted a public nuis ance into economic growth. We had been led to believe that Gov. George Oeukmejian likes that ap proach. hut his vetoes clarified a point: it is no. — markets he wants to stim- I ?.e, just old markets. The governor ’s thinking evidently comes down to this: WtstcmRcgfaia pxaiMiino U»|lMd(.CAIOBn P)MM:OU)5«-iM4 MldwMt Rtflon If W. S11 FrM«c» 1Um4 kaUBoi 1(D UtraM.a.tOUfn^a\3i7juxxK Ea«maR*fion KirlM PUn 1 HimM Ontvr EdiM«.N10M17 PkoM C201) Z2S-IM0 Old ways are the best ways, and new approaches are bad. Unfortunately, the old ways have been failed approaches in California. The Legislature has had belter luck on health and environmental protec tion aro .nd landfills, which can amount to uncontrolled subterranean factories of toxic contaminanu if not properly monitored and maintained. Moisture leaches poison out of bur ied garbage, and in some instances the toxins have migrated into the water supply. The deca> »rocess also gener ates irrtnane. a poisonous and explo sive gto. So in 1985. the Legislature passed a measure to require air and water test ing at all solid wast^ landfills. That measure has not been well imple mented. however. Local officials and landfill operators claim they can't bear the cost. It is, indeed, costly to manage a solid waste landfill in a competent way. And to make sure there is no mis- un^rstanding about that, 1 carried A B 2448 in 1987. Among other things, the law make" owners financially respon sible for their landfills up to 30 years after they close. The bill also sets up a so-called garbage superfund to ensure that there is a means to clean up un foreseen problems. This is the mr . c'mprehensive solid waste managi-.- ;.i law in the history of California. It’s likely to succeed where others have not because waste ' Ills. “There are three ;ad the world in recy- ry Peterson of Ecolo- igeles recycling and npany. “Japan. Ger- trma.” 1. according to A1 rden State Paper of Po- producer of new paper at the paper mills are “No paper company dthout a market.” he aw the city of Los An- luce more used news- d be consumed by all mills, he says, would be for govern- e the market for recy- ,st as it has stimulated ;r products, according Peterson. “We don ’t /ernment interference. Why can't the gover- reak for building more ; use old newspapers?” .ictables developed by ion Districts of L.A. x). it appears that re time but not eliminate V landfills. The citf of y announced a goal of tictpation from more )mcs by 1993. {that goal Will be dif ecause Southern Cali- jsed to che.ip. easy ifills Jonn WaddeH of 'S. ■"*'•0 have a ba.i:-"n with prices as !•»»* as at Puente Hills. In the Itates. they arc pushing 3 a ton. " fficult will be changing “The Japanese are so ng that they’ve closed iputer paper." says Pe- •ecycle all of it — they more, and there’s no !d computer paper in ir habit changes will be Vns — landfill and contamination, toxic 3ke from incineration, r quality from tr<icking ; farther fro" . uan ms. the thankless task oters a double whammy 'hey must change their must also pay more for :e. ■ re oeonoT industry representatives, local offi> dais and citizens' groups all helped out in good faith to make the measure workable. Tn the 1989-90 legislative session, Xwe’Il go at it again. The first item on the solid waste agenda, it seems to me. should be discussions with local government over the landfill siting pro cess. That V 1 be controversial. I am a former city councilmember and a strong backer of the "local con trol" principle. A few years ago. I fought a measure that would have per mitted state government to override localities that rejected siting applica tions for controversial operations like chemical plants. But we have to clarify openly the tradeoffs and then choose consciously. Cheap waste disposal implies nearby landfills. Remote landfills imply very significant cost increases. It will not be fair play for city officials to profess "shock" later if they deliberately se lect the high-priced option. This is not a decision we can post pone. Ten years from now, five years from now. even two /*ars from now will be too late. We should decide in this session, or get ready for Califor nia’s version of the famous New York garbage barge that had no place to go. Decisions like this are complicated these days by a new ar.J nasty public affairs acronym — Ni.MBY. It stands for "not in my backyard." and it refers to the growing tendency to resist the siting of facilities that could conceiv ably cause problems, even though all agree the facilities are essential: sewer plants, jails, mental hospital^ and land fills, to name a few. But there is another acronym that should inform this debate: TWABAL. It means "tnere will alwfys be a landfill." That is a disagreeable assertion to those who hope the need for landfills soon will fail drastically. T^se folks expect that environmemdl .'niits will fuTce us. under the whip of necessity, to re-learn the lost art of efficient consumption. That would be wonderful, but noth ing of the kind is in sight. Even if we could reduce the flow of ww.:; to land fills. :s his yea'*5 vetoed legislatior. att-^ . to dv »,(?ite g»'^wth tnd the cc-Siinued use of non-recyclable prod ucts means these materials will have to be disposed of somewhere. Cutting the absolute quantity of waste to extremely low levels probably means Draconian cuts in both produc tion and consumption — something only the tiniest sliver of public opinion would cor 'enance. So. TW aBAL is probably true: There will always be landfill. The only question is how fir awa^ ind, therefore, how costly. second solid waste item on the .new Cession's agenda should be a policy encouraging localities to de velop household hazardous-waste col lection programs. Products like paint, insecticides and motor oil are discarded by the ton in the trash every day. Most people don’t even know that these dangerous sub stances should be disposed of sepa rately. Even if they do know, there is usually no ready channel for proper disposal. The garbage superfund created by AB 2448 earmarks 20 -percent of the VC' V At Woodward-Clyde Consultants we'-'^e been helping private industry, including the wood treating industry, develop effective solutions to waste management proble .or mere than 35 years. Our services include: • Site Investigations • Groundwater Investigation and Cleanup • Underground Tank xManagement • Waste Minimization • In-Situ Remediation • Environmental Audits • Regulatory Compliance • Health Risk Assessment • Expert Testimony • Remedial Design and Construction • Environmental Permitting Here when you need us. FOi more information, plea.^e contavi Jim Sartor V/oodward-Ciyde Consultants S'.U 12th Street. Suite 100. Oakiend. CA 946CT- 4014 (4'. 5) 893-arOO SI00 million fund for Household haz ardous waste programs. The next step is the development of local implemen tation plans. Third, the Legislature must find ways to promote more recycling, and we can do that by stimulating the growth of markets for recycled goods. To gain the governor’s support this time, we probably need a fresh way to illustrate the economics of the situa tion. 1 suggest we develop a new mar ket model of waste disposal that quantifies not only the out-of-pocket costs of recycling, but also the costs we avoid when recycling reduces the need for so much waste disposal. The federal government did this son of "avoided costs " analysis during the oil embargo. It based energy strategies not only on the costs of developing al ternative sources, but also on the costs we could escape by not imponing for- ei>;n crude. Applied to the waste quests . it serms reasonable that there is a poten tial benefit to the sute if. by recycling, we can avoid some of the costs and risks that come w!th ‘andfilling. I think such a mowc! will quite likely demonstrate that tl c tradeoff is this: Pay me now or pa> *ne later, with a big carrying charge ucked on if it's later. Finally, we need to re-think the role of the California ^v^ste Management Board, which is c-»ni nually mired in turf wars with cthe' ^tate agencies. As a consequence, too little that is con structive gets done. f^rhaps we should consider estab lishing a select committee to oversee the clarification of waste management roles in California, and by that process define the concrete urgets each is to achieve. The solid waste issue is partly a tech nical problem for professionals to solve But it IS driven by a number of non-technical truths we cannot avoid confronting: ✓ California generates 38 million tons of garbage a year, and we’re run ning out of places to put it. ^ Buried garbage turns to poison. There is >io longer any doubt about that. ^ Unless we act. the poison will get into the water and into the air. and eventually into our bodies. So this is not a hard problem to un derstand. But ther. are many eco nomic and political interests involved with waste disposal. Most are valid. And yet that means some part of ev^ry proposal offends one or more ime;- ested parties. City officials want waste disposal that's cheap and easy but not nearby — a patently inconsistent set of objectives. The disposal industry wants to cut its legal exposure by surrounding land fills with buffer zones. But it doesn't want to buy the land. Environmc'italisis oppose burning and landfilling, and they support re cycling. But today only 10 percent of our trash is recycled, and nobody wants to wade around in the other 90 percent until recycling can handle more. Recyclers want to see the market be fore they invest heavily But potential buyers of recycled goods are reluctant to sign contracts with what they view as bootstrap operations. It reminds me in some ways of UC biologist Garrett Hardin's classic mon ograph. "The Tragedy of the Com mons." It's about the peril that always attends a community's use of a com mon asset — in Hardin's paper, a com mons for the grazing of cows. The critical point is this: Each in dividual impact on the commons is so small that community members feel right about defending the principle of unfettered access. But each little im pact inexorably nudges the commons a trifle closer to catastrophic collapse. Professor Hardin's prescription was an elegantly simple statement of de mocracy in action: “Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon ” Apt>lied to the waste issue, it sug gests ail won't be perfectly happy with the solution. It w il be a system of compromises. But mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon at least buys time — each of us giving up a bit because each of us throws away a lot. ■ On the fast track A s waste-to-energy projects go, the new Stanislaus x^County Resource Recovery Facility 20 miles southwest of Modesto is something of a California miracle. Plans for the plant, which started trial runs at the end of 1988, were initieted only about three years ago. Given California's strict environmental controls, most ^aste-management specialists estimate that it can take five years just to get a proposal through the permit process. Bui when local officials get full steam behind a proj ect, it can move rapidly, as was the case of this venture involving Stanislaus County, the city of Modesto, Og den Martin Systems Inc., the California Pollution Con trol Financing Authority, the state Department of Health Services, the stale Energy Commission, the state Solid Waste Management Board aTid the state Air Resources Board. The $120 million project is designed to process 800 tons of waste a day and will serve more than 400,000 residents of Stanislaus County, relieving pressure on two landfills that will reach capacity in 1991 and 2004. Electricity from the plant will be sold to Pacific Gas & Electric Co. The facility i: California ’s third waste-lo-energy plant and Ogden-Mariin's first in the state. The New jersey- based firm designed, built and helped finance the plant. It will own and operate the facility until 2014. o ^J>»HESQ;V Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 MINNkk>lA im May 2, 1989 Mr. Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mr. Bernhardson: Thank you for arranging the excellent meeting last week at the Orono Middle School. I very much appreciate the opportunity to hear directly from local constituents regarding Trunk Highway 12. It was especially valuable to travel down the TH 12 corridor through Medina and Maple Plain to Delano. I noted in particular the safety concerns you had at the TH 12 and County Road 17 intersection and the extent of "no passing" zones along the highway. Of course, I am very well aware of the need for capacity increase on TH 12. The problems revolve around expediting the process to remedy the situations you addressed. Because of right of way acquisition, funoing matters, and environmental questions, appropriate resolution of these matters will not be swift. Please extend my personal thanks to all those who attended last Thursday's meeting. I have asked Bill Crawford to move with haste on attempting to advance the process on your behalf. While I cannot promise to correct the TH 12 situation forthwith, I can guarantee that it will remain a top priority of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Sinc^ly, Commissioner PN k MAt - 4 !939 I Jll^ An Equai Oppuriuniiy Employer •i OF I ■ pRONO ■ CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66*Cry8tal Bay, Minneaota 55323 * Municipal Offireo On the North Shore of Luke Minnetonka May 2, 1989 Commissioner Leonard Levine Transportation Building St. Paul, MN 35155 Dear Commmissloner, On behalf of the people along Highway 12, I would like to extend our heartfelt thanks for the meeting and tour that you held with us on Thursday, April 27, 1989. We appreciate your insights on the funding issue and look forward to a positive response regarding the feasibility study request that MnDOT District 5 recently submitted. I am sure all of us will be working with our Representatives and Senators to encourage additional funding for transportation. We would especially thank Mr. William Crawford and Mr. Jim Mulrooney for their key roles In making this meeting a success, together with arranging the bus for the tour. Thank you again, and I look forward to continued work with you and many able people of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Li nee rely Mai\k E. Be>nfiardson City Administrator pUueP’- - -— MED/dh Mayor and City Council William Crawford James Mulrooney Highway 12 Task Force/East Representation Ken Madc’e BUILDING a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING administration a finance - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Mean Park Cenlro 230 East 5th Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/292-0789 ApffI 20.1989 To: City Managers. City Admin’rtrators or City Clerks Light Rail Transit (LRT) has generated a good deal of discussion over the last several years in the Twin Cities area. L^siators. local government officials, neighborhood groups and citizen organizations have all been involved with examining the possibility of the development of a light rail system in major transportation corridors in the Seven-County Metropolitan Area. The Regional Transit Board (RTB) recently completed a public opinion research poll that showed support for LRT among our citizens, but also indicated that many people are not very familiar with what LRT is all about. The RTB has begun an LRT public information program based on the poll results to heighten people's knowledge aixl understanding of LRT. Enclosed you will find eight copies of a general brochure on LRT that the ^.TB produced with advice and assistance from county regional rail authorities and others. We request that you please give one brochure to each member of your dty council and other dty staff members. Adcfitional copies of this brochure are available. Please contact the RTB at 292-8789. i feel confident that this brochure and several other public information projects on LRT will help our citizens better understand LRT and its potential use as a public service device. Sincerely, Elliott Perovich Chairman EP:MK Att. An Equal Opportunity Employer lift. p / San Diego TroUey Bay bont/E Station. . r ■ ■ On Tht Vn*^' «bfk>n*/Oty■ ® rnhotcm f; ■45*1 PJ !?■ mam LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT TO There are many mlseoneeptlons al)oi Riiil Transit. Unlit Rail Transit is not like the New York orWashinnton. D.C. subways, nor Is it like the heaw rail rapid transit sCstem (Sf Siin Kraneiseos Hay Area Rapid Iransit — "BART " All olThes*- systems r»*quire sophist! eated and time ionsuminn eiinlneeriiin work and eostly eonstruetlon ol above nround. ' - ..^Ifcas.^ M 1022 f^round Icwl, or underground c.\elusivc righ^'^^. of-ways for use by .bird rail powered rapid transit cars. Not so witi. LRT. In today s setting, LRT most often operates on preferential right-of-ways on city streets or highways where It Is physically separated Pi’P ■Si from traffic, except at cross str^o^, . . runs on abandoned railroad corridors, as Wcu.-« J^ause LRT Is powered by overhead electrical ™^ij|^iloes not present an elwtricai barrier to inn^^^icJes or to pedestrians crossing TaJ the tracks^LS. ^ LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BENEFITS SUMMARY Improved mobility for transit dependents Moves more people efficiently Improves suburb-to suburb bus service by new role of bus as "feeder" to LRT Excellent quality of ride Reduced auto and bus congestion Runs on pollution free electricity Runs quietly Less public subsidy per passenger for sv’stem operations All weather reliability Reduced travel time b» tween destinations Tool for directing and stimulating private development Costs less than equivalent Increases in highway c.if-acity LRT is cost effec tive High farebox recoveiy ratio REGION>4L T1MNSIT BCMRD Mears Park Centre 230 E. 5th Street. Ste. 700 St. Paul. MN 55101 Phone: (612)292 8789 FOR MORE INFORM^M IOiS: As liu- nictropuiltan areas transit plaimin)i< ag»*ncy. the Regional Transit Hoard (KTHI is available to pro vide more information about Uglit Rail Transit. Re cpiests for information may lx- dirct ted tiy plione or letter to: ite^ionaJ I'ransft ffoard Publie Inlormation Office Mears I'ark Centre 2:«) E .5th Street. Ste. 700 St. Pail!. MN 55101 I*hone; (012) 292 8789 OR CONTACT: llemupiii CotiMiv Kei>lon.ii Kaliroad Aiidiorliy A 2;W)7 C»o\rmmrni C enter MlnneatJolis. M\ .'i.A-lH? 027;i Plione: .MH 4077 Kaiiis<‘V ( (Uinly Rec>lonu] Kallroati Anlhortly Kcwm 3iCi ( ourtiimise 15 W Kelloiyj nivd SI Paul. MN .55102 Phone: 29H 4145 Washlnttlon C minty Rec>ional K^illroad Aulhorlly l*nl)lu Works Departmeni I IO(SO Myeron Road North Sllllwaler. MN 5.50K2 9573 Phone 4.39 ti0.5H Anok.i C'oiinly Rei<lonal Railroad Auihorily Adnitnisirailon 0(1 li e Anoka C'ounly ( oiirthouse 325 K. Main Stre«‘l Anoka. MN .5.5;«)3 Phone 421 4700 (K.xl. 11711 Sioll C'ounly Regional Rallmad Aulhorlly C ounly lllijliwav Depamnenl (iCK) Country 'frail East •Jordan. MN .5.5;J52 Phone- 937 6346 Caret r County Regional Railroad Aiiihorlly C ouiuv Mlithvvay Departineni OCK) haisi 4lh Sin-el Chaska. MN 5.53IH Plume 448 3435 Dakota Cotiniy Rei<ional R.illroad Aulhorlly 7;«K)W 147th Sum- .507 Apple Valiev . MN 55124 Phone 4;il 1158 Cfjver photo provided by Mn/DOT. CalMary Transit photo provided by BRW. Inc. Other photos provided by George Isaacs. \ COST EFFECTIVE TRANSIT Yes. LRT will cost money, but the alterna tives to LRT are also ver>- costly. The cost of building an LRT system which will meet the region s needs ranges from S12 to S25 mil lion per mile of track. Including all costs for light rail v-ehlcles. stations, tracks, electiifl cation, and maintenance facilities. Alternatively, building additional freeways is even more e.xpensive. The cost of just 9.8 miles of Interstate 394 Is S390 million, or 841 million per mile. LRT can also move people for less than the operatingc'ostofexpanding our bus system. LRT systems require less public operating subsidies because* riders pay a higher per centage of the cost of operating the system even though LRT rider fares are comparably priced to that for bus transportation. The primary reason for these operating cost ad vantages is that LRT is less labor intensive. illl ■t 816 San Jose Transit Mall. California. BALANCING REGIONAL TRANSIT LRT Is not a panacea for all our transporta tion needs. Indeed, the automobile will re main the vehicle of choice for most of us. Nor will LRT eliminate buses from our streets. On the contrar>’. the bus will remain the primar>- transit vehicle within our metro politan area. LRT will complement, not replace, the exist Ingbus system. Buses will continue toserve many of our transit needs as they do now. and will alsoser\e an important function as a "feeder system" to the LRT line. The re structuring of the existing bus routes will provide moresuburb to suburbserxiceand neighborhood circulation designed to meet our changing transit senice nt*c*ds. Because the bus system will serve this new role as a "feeder" connection to LKT. the timeliness of the entire bus schedule will lx* improved. Construction of LRT will also help create a balance of transit options within our re gion's transportation system, all of w'hlch will be necessary if we are to successfully meet our transit needs entering the 21st centur>’. Serving the region s transit dependents is particularly important because their mo bility is often solely subject to the accessi bility and reliability of our public transit system. Here. too. LRT will offer people with special transit nt*eds a new versatility and Increased freedom of movement. LRT corridors identified by Metropolitan Council Policy Plan. A TOOL FOR DEVELOPMENT LRTolTers the potential for increased com mercial retail and residential development. In other cities. LRT has successfully been used to complement existing or planned developments, or to restructure new dewl- opment activity. For example, in San Diego the placement of an LRT system has been credited with stimulating over 8200 million in new development, including shopping centers, office complexes, and other faclli ties. Comparable development activities associated with construction of an LRT sys tem have been realized in Portland. Kdmon- ton. Buffalo and other U.S. and Canadian cities. •; i II- San Diego Trolley. Chula Vista Station, California. ‘Twm ■KNfni aSjoao Aa papfAOid "22 ■3«I ‘AMa ^ papfAOJd tnoqd Jisa«JJU^I*J ■XOa/“W ^ papiAOid <n<M|d ja«oD 8SII tet’ ;auoqd WISSNW • <3I|«A Jlddv O M t L N LIN t f ir Ki ■/ Newton Highlands. Massachusetts. WHYLRT? LRT offers many advantages to our region. It is powered by electricity and is. therefore, clean and energy efTicient. LRT also runs quietly. In fact, it is as quiet as modem automobiles. None of our current transit modes can match LRT for reliability and punctuality. Because LRT is an all-weather system, it is more reliable than cars or buses in our four season weather. Most importantly, if public transit is to be successful, it must attract rldership. In many metropolitan areas throughout the United States. LRT has proven that it can attract thousands of people who would not trade their cars for any form of public tran sit currently available. II . 9- . ALLEVIATING TRAFFIC CONGESTION The metropolitan freew'ay traffic Jam is a daily frustration lor many of us. And it s going to get w'orse. The Metnipoli tan Coun cil predicts that between the years I960 and 2010. there will be a 63% increase In travel within the metropolitan area, which means a corresponding increase in traffic congestion unless something is done. Building more freeways, or widening exist ing highways will not meet all of our transportation needs. We are running out of available land, clean air and funding. We must move more people on our exist ing highways and streets. LRT does this in an economical, practical and environ mentally sound manner. For example, a 20-lane freeway can handle 17.000 motor vehicles per hour at peak capacity. With each vehicle having an average occupancy of 1.2 people, this 10- lane freeway has an hourly capacity of 2 1.400 people. In contrast, a light rail sys tem has the capacity to move up to 20.000 people per hour on a narrow strip of land. T £ A St*-m. < Calgary Transit. Calgary. A] MINUTES Of THE MEETING Of THE SCHOOL BOARD Of ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON MARCH 13, 1989 The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, March 13, 1989. Present: Don Anderson Kitty Crosby Jim franklin John Maresh Lucie Taylor Thomas Mich William fenholt Absent: Dave McKown UPON MOTION by Jim franklin, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the consent agenda was approved as follows: - approved the minutes of the february 27, 1989 regular meeting; - approved the following variances: Brian Crane, grade 11, to attend Orono Schools; Sherri Young, grade 5, to complete the 1988-89 school year at Richfield Schools; Christopher Burns, grade 10, to attend Orono Schools for the remainder of the 1988-89 school year; Dewl Wharton, grade 6, to complete the 1988-89 school year at Orono; Emily Daily, grade 6, to attend Orono Schools for the 1989-90 school year; - approved the following spring Convnunity Education classes: Applmi«orks Oardmning Radon Tosting Smptic Tanks/SoMor Systems T*ai Chi Lhih - Exorcism SS Driver Refresher Course Cartooning Baskets Photo Albums - approved the following spring ECFE class offerings: 1. Single Parent Families with Preschoolers (Parent/Child) "Get-togther" Class April 10, 6:00 • 8:00 p.m. - dinner included 2. Parent Only Workshop - “Fast Food-Not Junk Food* (1 evening session) Special Events- Guest Speaker: Dr. Alton Greenfield, Reading Specialist. MN Dept, of Ed. “Kindergarten Readiness Begins at Birth: Readiness Through Reading" “Dad and Me* Activity Nights (2 sessions offered - evenings) Caterpillar Hunt at Wolsfield Hoods (P/C nature hike) Super Saturday “beach Party" with 'Bob the Beachcomber and His Friends' 4. Field Trips- Humane Society preschool presentation and tour Children's Museum at Bandana Square - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 062252 through 062346 and 061444 through 061529; - accepted the resignation of Jane Zambreno, high school foreign language teacher (half-time positon), effective at the end of the 1988-89 school year. Dr. Mich stated that filings for Board elections are open from March 7-21 and that Dr. John Maresh has filed for re-election; that successful conferences were held last week for K-8 students and that he salutes the in termed i ate/middle school for trying different schedules; that he wanted tham to be aware of a bill going to the legislature which would propose mandatory joining of ECSU, that all revenues from the State would go to ECSU and then budgeting and finance would be handled through them as well as personnel/contract negotiations and that Board members should remember this if speaking with area representatives - Metro ECSU has gone on record as being in opposition of this bill; ‘hat the principal application deadline is March 15 and that to date there are 46 applications from a variety of states; that a staff development day will be held on April 14; that the special Board meeting on March 21 will begin at 8:30 p.m.; that in April he will present an administrative proposal for a school day schedule based on the Task Force guidelines and after this presentation a public hearing will be held; that in May a workshop will need to be held to review the instructional goals of the district. Dr. Mich provided a referendum update for the Board. He stated that a variety of groups have heard presentations, that many telephone contacts have been made and that there has been an active group of citizens working under the direction of Mrs. Jacky Anderson and Mrs. Peg Swanson and that their work Is greatly appreciated. Dr. Mich provided the Board with staffing information for the 1989-90 school year and stated that the termination resolutions before them tonight relate to a long term substitute and probationary part-time teachers. He stated that these terminations are necessary because uf the return of an employee from leave and the planning needs of the district. The resolutions follow: Member Klttv Croahv idoptlon: Introduced the following resolution and moved Its RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE TERMINATION AND NON-RENENAL OF THE TEACHING CONTRACT OF Tamara J. Bjorkedal A PROBATIONARY TEACHER WHEREAS, Tamara J. Bjorkedal School Distna No. 278. Is a probationary teacher In Independent BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of Independent School District No. 278, that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 125.12, subdidivision 3, that the teaching contract of Tamara J. Bjorkedal . a probationary teacher in Independent School district No. 278, Is hereby terminated at the close of the current 1988-89 school year and Is not renewed for the 1989-90 school year. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that written notice be sent to said teacher regarding termination and non-renewal of his/her contract as provided by Taw, and that said notice shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF TERMINATION Ms. Tamara J. Bjorkedal Rte. Box 188 Buffalo, MN 55313 Dear Ms. Bjorkedal You are hereby notified that at a regular meeting of the School Board of Independent School District no. 278 held on March 13 1989, a resolu tion was adopted by a majority roll call vote to terminate your contract effec tive at the end of the current school year and not to renew your contract for th<f 1989-90 school year. Said action of the board is taken pursuant to K.S. 125.12. Subd. 3. You may officially request that the school board give Its reasons for the non renewal of your teaching contract. However, such request must be received within ten days after the receipt of this notice. For your Information, however, this action is taken because of the discon tinuance of your position; namely, because of the uncertairty of staffing needs and/or financial resources. Yours very truly, SCHOOL BOARD OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 " ' P.t ' The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Lucie Taylor _______and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted In favor thereof: Crosby, Maresh, Taylor, Franklin, Anderson and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Kitty Crotby Introduced the following resolution end inoved ItsMember_ adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE TERMINATION AND NON-RENEWAL OF THE TEACHING CONTRACT OF Kathleen A. Hiniker A PROBATIONARY TEACHER WHEREAS, Kathleen A. Hiniker is a probationary teacher in Independent School District No. BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of Independent School District No. 278, that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 125.12, subdidivision 3, that the teaching contract of Kathleen A. Hiniker , a probationary teacher in Independent School District No. 27S, Is hereby terminated at the close of the current 1988-89 school year and is not renewed for the 1989-90 school year. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that written notice be sent to said teacher regarding termination and non-renewal of his/her contract as provided by law, and that said notice shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF TERMINATION Ms. Kathleen A. Hiniker 310 Oeerwood Lane N. I^lymouth. Hn 55441 Dear Ms. Hiniker You are hereby notified that at a regular meeting of t^e School Board of Independent School District No. 278 held on March U . 1989, a resolu tion was adopted by a majority roll call vote to terminate your contract effec tive at the end of the current school year and not to renew your contract for the 1989-90 school year. Said action of the board is taken pursuant to M.S. 125.12. Subd. 3. You may officially request that the school board give its reasons for the non renewal of your teaching contract. However, such request must be received within ten days after the receipt of this notice. For your information, however, this action is taken because of the discon tinuance of your position; namely, because of the uncertainty of staffing needs and/or financial resources. Yours very truly, SCHOOL BOARD OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Lucie Taylor _______and Upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Crosby, Maresh, Taylor, Franklin, Anderson and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Kitty Croabv introduced the following resolution and moved ItsMember_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE TERMINATION AND NON-RENEWAL OF THE TEACHING CONTRACT OF Kristen Peterson A PROBATIONARY TEACHER Kristen Peterson School District No. 278. Is a probationary teacher In Independent BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of Independent School District No. 278, that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 125.12, subdidivision 3, that the teaching contract of Kristen Peterson . « probationary teacher in Independent School District No. 278, is hereby terminated at the close of the current 19^-89 school year and is not renewed for the 1989-90 school year. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that written notice be sent to said teacher regarding termination and non-renewal of his/her contract as provided by law, and that said notice shall be In substantially the following form: NOTICE OF TERMINATION Ms. Kristen Peterson 1305 North Olive Lane. Plymouth. Hn 55447 72TF Dear Ms. Peterson You are hereby notified that at a regular meeting of the School Board of Independent School District no. 278 held on March 13 . 1989, a resolu tion was adopted by a majority roll call vote to terminate your contract effec tive at the end of the current school year and not to renew your contract for the 1989-90 school year. Said action of the board Is taken pursuant to M.S. 125.12. Subd. 3. You may officially request that the school board give its reasons for the non renewal of your teaching contract. However, such request must be received within ten days after the receipt f this notice. For your Information, however, t s action Is taken because of the discon tinuance of your position; name';,, because of the uncertainty of staffing needs and/or financial resources. Yours very truly. SCHOOL BOARD OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 Board The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Lucie Taylor_ _ _ _ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; Crosby, Maresh, Taylor, Franklin, Anderson and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Introduced the following resolution and Moved ItsMember Kitty Croiby_____ Adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE TERMINATION AND NON-RENEWAL OF THE TEACHING CONTRACT OF Debby A. Thompson A PROBATIONARY TEACHER WHEREAS, Debby A. Thompson School District No. 278. Is a probationary teacher in Independent BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of Independent School District No. 278, that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 125.12, subdldivlslon 3, that the teaching contract of Debby A. Thompson . a probationary teacher In Independent School District ho. 278, Is hereby terminated at the close of the current 1988-89 school year and Is not renewed for V 1989-90 school year. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that written notice be sent to said teacher regarding termination and non-renewal of his/her contract as provided by law, and that said notice shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF TERMINATION Ms. Debby A. Thompson 1819 Hay St..Apt. #8 Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Ms. Thompson You are hereby notified that at a regular meeting of the School Board of Independent School District no. 278 held on______March 13 , 1989, a resolu tion was adopted by a majority roll call vote to terminate your contract effec tive at the end of the current school year and not to renew your contract for the 1989-90 school year. Said action of the board is taken pursuant to M.S. 125.12. Subd. 3. You may officially request that the school uoard give Its reasons for the non renewal of ycur teaching contract. However, such request must be received within ten days after the receipt of this notice. For your information, however, this action is taken because of the discon tinuance of your position; namely, because of the uncertainty of staffing needs and/or financial resources. Yours very truly, SCHOOL BOARD OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 A The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Lucie Taylor _ _ _ _ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Crosby, Maresh, Taylor, Franklin, Anderson and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Nenber _ ,adoption: Kitty Crosby_ _ _introductd the following resolution and moved Its RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE TERMINATION AND NON-RENEWAL OF THE TEACHING CONTRACT OF Shannon S. Wiseman A PROBATIONARY TEACHER WHEREAS, Shannon S. Wiseman School District No. C76. is a probationary teacher In Independent BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of Independent School District No. 278, that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 12S.12, subdidivislon 3, that the teaching contract of ^annon S. Wiseman a probationary teacher In Independent School blstrict No. 276, is hereby terminated at the close of the current 1988-89 school year and is not renewed for the 1989-90 school year. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that written notice be sent to said teacher regarding termination and non-renewal of his/her contract as provided by law, and that said notice shall be In substantially the following form: NOTICE OF TERMINATION Ms. Shannon S. Wiseman 21^42 Morningside Road_ _ _ _ _ _inqi long Lake. B n SSSSS Dear Ms. Wiseman You are hereby notified that at a regular meeting of the School Board of Independent School District no. 278 held on March 13 1989, a resolu tion was adopted by a majority roll call vote to terminate your contract effec tive at the end of the current school year and not to renew your contract for the 1989-90 school year. Said action of the board Is taken pursuant to M.S. 125.12. Subd. 3. You may officially request that the school board give its reasons .or the non renewal of your teaching contract. However, such request must be received within ten days after the receipt of this notice. For your information, however, this action Is taken because of the discon tinuance of your position; namely, because of the uncertainty of staffing needs and/or financial resources. Yours very truly, SCHOOL BOARD OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 279 Oerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolatlon was duly seconded by Lucie Taylor _ _ _ _ and upon vote being taken thereon, the followli voted In favor thereof: Crosby, Naresh, Taylor, Franklin, Anderson and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member _ idoptlon: Kitty Crosby Introduced the following resolution end moved Us RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE TERMINATION AND NON-RENEWAL OF THE SUBSTITUTE TEACHING CONTRACT OF Rachel Raz_ _ _ _ A LONG TERM SUBSTITUTE TEACHER WHEREAS, Rachel Raz is a long term substitute teacher in Independent School District Ho. 27d. BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of Independent School District No. 278, that the teaching contract of Rachel Raz a long term substitute teacher in Independent School District No. Z/8, is hereby terminated at the close of the current 1988-89 school year and is not renewed for the 1989-90 school year. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that written notice be sent to said teacher regarding termination and non-renewal of his/her contract and that said notice shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF TERMINATION Ns. Rachel Raz 2517 Humboldt Ave. So., #101 Minneapolis. MN 55405 Dear Ms. Raz You are hereby notified that at a regular meeting of the School Board of Independent School District No. 278 held on March 13 , 1989, a resolu tion was adopted by a majority roll call vote to terminate your contract effec tive at the end of the current school year and not to renew your contract for the 1989-90 school year. This action is taken because of the return of the person for whom you are substituting and/or decrease in enrollment. Yours very truly, SCHOOL BOARD OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded member John Maresh and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:Crosby, Maresh, Taylor, Franklin, Anderson and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Or. Mich informed the Board that the District-Wide Assessment Committee devoted a considerable anount of time/effort over a two year period to looking at the testing program of the school district and that the report they submitted Is In the process of being studled/reviewed on an administrative level In order to determine Implications of the report and that a recommendation will be presented to the Board at a later date. Karen Orcutt provided background information on the development/study of the committee. She reviewed the mission statement developed by the committee, the recommendations of the committee for now and for the future. Bill Fenholt provided the Board with information on the process/procedures that are followed in the development of the budget and that this process ultimately culminates In levying activity in the fall. He stated that he regards the budget as the financial blueprint of the district which aids In financial fore casting for the future, signals problems In advance and guides the Board In decision making. UPON MOTION by John Maresh, seconded by Jim Franklin, the meeting was adjou.ned. Katherine P. Crosby, Clerk Approved: Don Anderson, Vice Chairman MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON MARCH 21, 1989 A special meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No, 278 was held on Tuesday, March 21, 1989 at 8:30 p.m. Present:Dave McKown Don Anderson Kitty Crosby James Franklin John Maresh Lucie Taylor Thomas Mich William Fenholt Dr. Mich reported that applications nave closed for the principal position at the high school with a total of 56 applicants; that the North Central Visitation took place on March 14, 15 and 16 with quite positive comments about the school district; that the Maple Lions Club has donated 3 glucometers which are instru ments that measure blood sugar levels for diabetes and he expressed appreciation for the donation; that Mike Wyatt has qualified to participate at the state level In the National Geography Bee to be held on April 7, 1989; that the dates for the staff development program on Cooperative Learning are April 7, 8 and May 5, 6; that he wanted to express appreciation to Marge Gasch and Evy Zacher for their work on the election, to Bill Fenholt for his help/advice and to Jacky Anderson and Peg Swanson and all of the members of the Concerned Parents for Orono Better Education for all their work/efforts for the election and the students of Orono. Don Anderson expressed appreciation to Dr. Mich for his work/efforts for the election and stated that because of his presentations, people became more knowledgeable and votes were changed. BE IT RESOLVED, upon motion by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Lucie Taylor, that the Board of Education recognizes the good work of the Concerned Parents for Orono Better Education, and be It resolved that letters of appreciation be sent to each member of that organization, and be It further resolved that mementos of appreciation be presented to the organization leadership, Mrs. Jacky Anderson and Mrs. Peg Swanson. The meeting was recessed at 8:45 p.m. to await the election returns. The meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by John Maresh, be It resolved by the School Board of Independent School District No. 278, as follows: 1. It Is hereby found, determined and declared that the special election of the voters of this district held on March 21. 19 89, was In all respects *^^y and legally called and held. 2. 3. 4. As specified of K579 in the attached Abstract and Return of Votes Cast, a total voters Df the district voted at said election on the following question: “SHALL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 (ORONO) BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE ITS FULLY REGISTERED GENERAL OBLIGATION BONOS IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,675,000 TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION AND BETTERMENT OF SCHOOL FACILITIES?" of which 1,184 voted in favor, 395 voted against the same, and there were no completely blank or defective ballots relating to the question. Said proposition, having received the approval of at least a majority of such votes, is hereby declared to have carried. The school district clerk is hereby directed to certify the results of the election to the county auditor of each county in which the school district is located in whole or in part. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 (ORONO) STATE OF MINNESTOA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ABSTRACT AND RETURN OF VOTES CAST SPECIAL ELECTION MARCH 21, 1989 **************************************************************^**************** A. Total number of persons registered at 7:00 o'clock _a^.m. prior to opening of polls: B. Total number of persons registering on election day: 7,788 ******************************************************************************* C. Total number of signed voter receipts, voter certif icates or signatures on the registration file: D. Total number of accepted regular, military and overseas absentee ballots: E. Total number of persons voting in the special election (add: C Plus 0 equals E) 1.508 1.579 **♦*★*★*♦★*★★★***************★*****★*******♦**★*♦*♦♦ F. Total number of completely blank ballots: _ _ _0_ _ _ G. Total number of completely defective 'Hots: _ _ _0_ _ _ ******************************************************************************* H. Total number of spoiled ballots: _ _ _o_ _ _ I. Total number of unused ballots returned to the clerk:1.460 SUMMARY OF ELECTION TOTALS “Shall Independent School District No. 278 (Orono) be authorized to Issue Its fully registered General Obligation Bonds In the principal amount not to exceed $2,675,000 to finance the acquisition and betterment of school facilities?" YES NO BLANK BALLOTS SPOILED BALLOTS TOTAL BALLOTS 1,184 395 1.579 Member Kitty Crosby introduced the following resolution and moved Its adoption: Approvtd by tht Orono Board of Education - Harch 21, 1989 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLIC SALE OP $2,735,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BUILDING BONDS, SERIES 1989A BE IT RESOLVED by th« School Board of Indepondont School District Number 278 (Orono), Minnesota, as followss 1. Finding; Amount and Purpose. It is hereby found, determined and declared that this District should issue $2,735,000 Ganaral Obligation School Building Bonds, Series 1989A (the •Bonds") to defray the expense of the acquisition and betterment of school facilities within the District. 2. Meeting. This School Board shall meet at the time and place specified in the form of Notice of Bond Sale attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of opening and considering sealed bids for, and awarding the sale of, the Bonds. 3. Notice of Bond Sale. The District Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, place and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper of the District and in Northwestern Financial Review not less than ten (10) days in advance of the date of sale, as provided by law, which notice shall be in substantially the form set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. Official Terms of Offering. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the sale thereof are fully set forth in the "Official Terms of Offering" attached hereto as Exhibit B and hereby made a part hereof. 5. Official Statement. The District Clerk and Treasurer and other officers or employees of the District are hereby authorized to participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bon Andaraon and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Crosby, Marcoh, Taylor, Franklin, Anderson, McKoira and the following voted against the same: Rons Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of Independent School District Number 278 (Orono), Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original minutes of a meeting of the School Board duly called and held on the date therein indicated, which are on file and of record in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to said District’s $2,735,000 General Obligation School Building Bonds, Series 1989A. ^ day of 1=^ WITNESS my hand as s»-*h Clerk this . 1989. EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF BOND SALE $2,735,000 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 278 (ORONO), MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BUILDING BONDS, SERIES 1989A Sealed bids for these Bonds will be opened on April 24, 1989, at 7:00 o’clock P.M., Central Time, at the District office at 685 Old Crystal Bay Road, in Long Lake, Minnesota. Consideration of the bids for award of the sale of the Bonds will immediately follow the opening of the bids. The Bonds will be dated May 1, 1989, as the date of original issue. Interest will be payable on February 1, 1990, and semiannually thereafter. The Bonds will be general obligations of the Issuer for which its unlimited taxing powers will be pledged. The Bonds will mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 1992 $75,000 2002 $145,000 1993 80,000 2003 155,000 1994 85,000 2004 165,000 1995 90,000 2005 175,000 1996 95,000 2006 190,000 1997 100,000 2007 200,000 1998 110,000 2008 215,000 1999 115,000 2009 230,000 2000 125,000 2010 250,000 2001 135,000 All Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2000, are subject to prior payment on February 1, 1999, and any interest payment date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. Sealed bids for not less than $2,695,000 and accrued interest on the principal sum of $2,735,000 will be accepted. An approving legal opinion will be furnished by Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota. The proceeds will be used to finance the acquisition and betterment of school facilities. Bidders should be aware that the Official Terms of Offering to be published in the Official Statement for the bonds may contain additional bidding terms and information relative to " * bonds. In the event of a variance between statements in Notice of Bond Sale and said Official Terms of Offering, i^wTovisions of the latter shall be those to be complied Wai. • Dated: March 21, 1989 BY ORDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD /s/ Katherine Crosby_ _ _ _ _ Clerk Additional information may be obtained from: SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED 855 East Seventh Place Suite 100 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2143 Telephone No.: (612) 223-3000 EXHIBIT B OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING $2,735,000 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 278 ORONO, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBUQATION SCHOOL BUILDING BONDS, SERIES 1989A Seated bids for the Bonds will be opened by the School Board on Monday, April 24.1989, at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, at the District office, 685 Old Crystal Bay Road, Long Lake. Minnesota. Consideration for award of the Bonds will immediately follow the opening of bids. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated May 1, 1989, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 an«. August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 1990. Interest will be computed upon the basis of a 360^ay year of twelve SO^ay months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be issued in the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof as requested by the Purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest Principal will be payable at the main corporate officp of the Registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the Registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at his address as it appears on the books of the Registrar as of the 15th day of the calendar month next preceding the interest payment The Bonds will mature February 1 in the amounts and years as follows: $75,000 1992 $100,000 1997 $145,000 2002 $200,000 2007 $80,000 1993 $110,000 1998 $155,000 2003 $215,000 2008 $85,000 1994 $115,000 1999 $165,000 2004 $230,000 2009 $90,000 1995 $125,000 2000 $175,000 2005 $250,000 2010 $95,000 1996 $135,000 2001 $190,000 2006 OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The District may elect on February 1, 1999, and on any interest payment date thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2000. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment If redemption is in part, those Bonds remaining unpaid which have the latest maturity date will be prepaid first. If only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment the specific Bonds to be prepaid will be chosen by lot by the Registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the District for which the District will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. The proceeds will be used for the acquisition and construction of school facilities. TYPE OF BID A sealed bid for not less than $2,695,000 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds shall be filed with the undersigned prior to the time set for the opening of bids. Also prior to the time set for bid opening, a certified or cashier's check in the amount of $27,350, payable to the order of the District, shall have been filed with the undersigned or SPRINGSTED Incorporated, the District's Financial Advisor. No bid will be considered for which said check has not been filed. The check of the Purcfiaser will be retained by the District as liquidated damages in the event the Purchaser fails to comply with the accepted bid. The District will deposit the check of the Purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement No bid shall be withdrawn after the time set for opening bids unless the meeting of the District scheduled for consideration o! the bids is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without aw9rd of the Bonds having been made. Rates offered by Bidders shall be in integral multiples of ;^100 or 1/8 of 1%. No rate specified for a maturity shall exceed the rate spe^ied for any subsequent maturity. Bonds of the sane maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. The Bonds will be awarded to the Bidder offering the lowest dollar interest cost to be determined by the deduction of the premium, it any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par. to the total dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their final scheduled maturity. The District's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The District will reserve the right to: (0 waive non-substantive Informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, 00 reject ail bids without cause, and. OiO r«i*ct any bid which tfie District determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. REGISTRAR The District will name the Registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The District will pay for the services of the Registrar. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the Purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the Purc’iaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the Pur^aser at a place mutually satisfactory to the District and the Purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the Purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, including a no-iitigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made In federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the District, or Ks designee, not later than 1:00 P.M., Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the District, or its agents, the Purchaser shall be liable to the District for any loss suffered by the District by reason of the Purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENTT Und«rwrit«rt may obtain a copy of th# Official Statamant by raquast to tha Districfa Financial Advisor prior to tha bid opaning. Tha Purchasar will ba providad with 50 copies of tha Official Statamant Datad March 21,1989 BY ORDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD /$/ Katharina Crosby Clark Discussion ensued regarding the process that will be followed In the development of the plans and Board input in this area, proceeding with construction, and the projected completion date. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education cancelled the April 10, 1989 Board meeting. Or. Mich reminded the Board that within the past year the Board has opened the primary school, purchased land across the street and has received the "go ahead" on a building program and he wanted to express appreciation to each of them for their support/efforts for the School District. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Don Anderson, the meeting was adjourned. Katherine P. Crosby, Clerk Approved: David McKown, Chairman HINUTES OF m SPECIAL MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON APRIL 11, 1969 A special meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Tuesday, April 11, 1989 at 7:00 a.m. Present: Dave McKown Kitty Crosby John Maresh Lucie Taylor Thomas Mich William Fenholt Absent:Don Anderson James Franklin UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by John Maresh, the Board meeting on April 24, 1989 will begin at 8:00 p.m. This time change is being made in order to allow interested Board members to attend a rally at the Capitol on financing that begins at 6:30 p.m. Dave McKown stated that a study/evaluation of the work load in the District Office had been done a number of years ago and that he feels this should be done periodically in order to provide the Board with information as to adequate staffing, distribution of work load, etc. Hp requested that the Board consider this as an area to be revisited in the futur'j. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the consent agenda was approved as follows: - approved the following variances: Erik Young, grade 9, to complete the 1988-89 school year at Orono; Stacy Olson, grade 12, to attend Wayzata School District. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education approved the participation of the Orono School District with other school districts for the purpose of intervening in the equity lawsuit. Dr. Mich provided information for the Board on the background of the lawsuit which has been filed against the State regarding inequitable funding in Minnesota. By passing the above motion, the Orono Board of Education will par ticipate with other school districts, on the side of the State, indicating that funding is now equitable and that individual communities should continue to have the right to raise their own taxes, with the approval of its community members, for the purpose of Improving education in their community. Member Kitty Crosby introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ELECTION OF SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AND CALLING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL ELECTION BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of Independent School District No. 278 ((Orono), as follows: 1. It Is necessary for the school district to hold Its general election for the purpose of electing (j^) school board members for terms of three years each. The following Individuals have filed affidavits of candidacy for said election during the period established for filing such affidavits: James Franklin John Maresh 2. The general election Is hereby called and directed to be held on Tuesday, the 16th day of May, 1989, between the hours of 7:00 o'clock a.m. and 6:00 o'clock p.m. 3. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 205A.11, the combined school district voting precincts and polling places within those precincts established and designated by school board resolution dated February 13, 1989 fo«^ school elections not held on the day of a statewide election, are hereby designated for said general election. 4. The clerk is hereby authorize- directed to cause notice of said election to be posted at the administrative offices of the school district and at each polling place at least ten days before the date of the said election. The clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause a sample ballot to be posted at the administrative offices of the school district at least four days before the date of s’^d election and to cause a sample ballot to be posted in each polling p.ice on election day. The sample ballot shall not be printed on the same color paper as the official ballot. Ine clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of said general election to be published In the official newspaper of the district, for two consecutive weeks with the last publication being at least one week before the date of said election. The notice of election so posted and published shall state the offices to be filled set forth in the form of ballot below, and shall include information concerning each established precinct and polling place. 5. The clerk Is authorized and directed to secure buff colored ballot boxes for the deposit of ballots at each polling place and to acquire and distribute such election materials as may be necessary for the proper conduct of this election. 6. The clerk is further authorized and directed to cause buff colored printed ballots to be prepared for use at said election in substantially the following form: OFFICIAL BALLOT GENERAL ELECTION ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA NAY 16. 1989 SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER VOTE FOR TMO Put an (X) in the square opposite the name of each candidate wish to vote for. ORMES FRANKLIN JOHN MARESH (NOTE: On the back of each ballot shall be printed the words "Official Ballot", the date of the election and lines for the Initials of two judges. The printing shall be so placed as to be visible when the ballot Is properly folded for deposit. Example attached.) OFFICIAL BALLOT MAY 16, 1989 (Each ballot to be Initialed by two judges) 7. The name of each candidate for office at this election shall be rotated with the names of the other candidates for the same office so that the name of each candidate appears substantially an equal number of times at the top» at the bottom and at each Intermediate place In the group of candidates for that office. 8. The clerk Is hereby authorized and directed to prepare Instructions to the printer for layout of the ballot and for providing the ballots In groups of 50. 8efore a contract Is awarded for printing ballots, the printer shall furnish. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes. Section 2040.04. a sufficient bond In an amount not less than 11.000 conditioned on printing the ballots In conformity with Minnesota elec tion law and the instructions delivered. If the cost of the ballots exceeds $1,000. the clerk shall set the amount of the bond in an amount no greater than the value of the purchase. 9. The following individuals, each of whom is qualified to serve as an election judge, are hereby appointed as Judges of election, to act as such at the respective polling places and for the respective precincts listed below: Precinct Polling Place 1 Schumann Elementary School Election Judges Ken Turnham - Head Election Judge Deanne Preston________________ Lois Johnson_________________ Elaine Goldsmith Orono Primary School Alice McPherson » Head Election Judge Judith Davies_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Carol Strassburg _ _ _ ALTERNATES: Ruth Eisinger. Sharon Mechavich. Bernice Breithbarth The election judges shall act as clerks of election, count the ballots cast and submit them to the school board for canvass in the manner provided for other school district elections. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution us duly seconded by member j„hn Harcsh and, after full discussion thereof and upon a yoU being taken tiiei^on, the #oUo«<1ng voted In favor thereof: Kitty Crosby, John Maresh, Lucie Taylor, Dave McKown and the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. UPON MOTION by John Maresh, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education approved the appointment of Mrs. Marge Gasch and Mrs. Cvy Zacher to assist the clerk in preparing for and running the May 16, 1989 School Board election. UPON MOTION by John Maresh, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the meeting was adjourned. Katherine P. Crosby, Clerk Approved: David McKown, Chairman H NEWSLETTER ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 INDE PENDENCE LONG LAKE - MAPLE PLAIN MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH ORONO 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA 55356 473-7313 ORONO SCHOOL BOARD David McKown, Chairman 479-1692 Don Anderson. Vice Chairman 479-1810 Lucie Taylor. Treasurer 473-1189 Kitty Crosby. Clerk 478-6037 Jim Franklin. Director 479-2130 John Maresh. Director 475-3197 MAY. 1989 ISSUE NO. 9 Ad mi} / i St rati ve pjotes The famous quip of Will Rogers that we are not safe while Congress is in session applies equally, if not more so, to the the Minnesota legislature. However, my motive in making the statement differs from Will Rogers. I am not intending to be witty. In fact, there is nothing funny about the educational funding bills concocted in both houses of the legislature. As of this writing, both the house and the senate are writing laws which would put a cap on excess levy referenda sought by individual school districts. At first blush that sounds pretty good, i.e.., a way to control increases in property taxes. It is the second view, longer and slower, that gives pause for thought Let's examine what has and is happening. • Much concern has been registered over what is being called equity in school funding. The argument has it that the student should not be penalized by low school funding because he lives in a particular area of the state. In part this was addressed by the 1987 legislature in writing a funding bill which provided larger increases for most of the non-suburban school districts. It has also become a nuitter of litigation by means of a lawsuit against the stats asserting that the state is required to provide equity in school funding across the state. • Suburban school districts have challenged the basis for the lawsuit. It is easy to confuse equity and equality and nwny of us fear that is just what is happening. Equity does not necessarily mean equal funding. Many suburban school districts have contended that the cost of operating schools, the cost of doing business, is higher in the metropolitan area than in greater Minnesota. In 1988 the legislative auditor was commissioned to study the cost of living across Minnesota, and it was indeed found that metropolitan costs exceed those in greater Minneso'ia by about 11%. conL on page 2 National Honor Society Induction and Awards Evening The National Honor Society induction ceremonies will be held on Tliesday, May 16 at 8:00 p.m. in the Orono High School auditorium. Eight juniors and fourteen seniors will be inducted into the National Honor Society with a candle lighting and pinning ceremony. Juniors and seniors are eligible to be considered for membership if they have a cumulative grade point average of "B" or better. Further consideration is based on ratings of each student's scholarship, leadership, character, and service during their time in high school. Membership is the highest honor that Orono High School can bestow upon those students who have exhibited exemplary academic and personal qualities. In addition to the induction ceremonies, a part of the evening will be devoted to the awarding of local and school district scholarships to graduating seniors. This is open to the public - come and honor these outstanding students. Fine Arts Festival Thursday, May 11,7:00 pm Orono High School The Art, Choral and Instrumental music departments will present their annual program. The art department will display their work on the Mezzanine and the music department will begin their concert at 7:30 in the Auditorium. Free to the public Administrative Notes cont • Virtually all suburban school districts have managed increased cost by excess levy referendum. In these districts, the case must be made to the local community and the local community determines whether or not to vote for the tax increases. • The need for excess levy referenda has increased dramatically during the past few years because of the inadequate funding provided by the state. In fact, I know of no school district that has sought excess referenda dollars to enhance their school programs. They do so to save existing programs and to maintain the level of quality education expected by their respective communities. • Now the legislature is determining to curtail the ability of school districts to seek referenda dollars beyond a predetermined cap. Such a cap might be more acceptable if the state met its obligation for adequate school funding. However, diat is unlikely. Governor Perpich's budget calls for an actual increase for the Orono schools of 12% in its operating budget for 1989-1990 and 0% for 1990-1991. During the past two years the actual operating fund increases for the Orono schools have been 1.6% ai^ 2.0% respectively. • It seen\s that the legislature *.v ’ll move toward their own definition of equity by capping excess levy referenda. Pay no mind to the fact that they intend to withdraw some 10% of the state's contnbution to educational funding by switching it to the local property tax; the legislature is saying that local communities may not choose to support their public schools beyond predetermined state levels. When this law passes, and it appears to oe sailing along, the Orono school community be unable to raise local tax dollars for its schools because we currently exceed the cap along with some twenty one other suburban districts. • The Orono School District is not now intending to conduct an additional referendum. Our community has well supported the needs of the District. However, 1 can't predict the needs we may face two, five or eight years from now. The current legislation simply prohibits the commuidty from making referendum decisions in the future. • Two major probletits attach to the legislated referendum cap. First, it removes local decision making, local control suffers. Secorui, it confuses equity with equal dollars and sets a path for egalitarian equality. For several years we have heard the phrase T>rain power state." The legislature now dons the surgical rruisk and with the school funding instrument prepares to perform a lobotomy. All of this may sound strong. It should. My responsibility is to covet and protect a quality school district today aivl for the future. The quick funding fixes of the legislature may well have serious negative coiu^uences. Dr. Thomas B. Mich Superintendent Jill Behrendt arni Erika Lundquist North Shore G3rmnasts Advance Jill Behrendt, an Orono sophomore and Erika Lundquist, a Blake 6th grader, qualifi^ to compete in the advanced Optional USGF Region IV meet. Jill qualified with an all- aroutKi score of 3435 at the Miimesota State Meet where she placed 2nd all-around, 1st on floor, as well as, 5th on bars and beam. Erika qualified with an all-around score of 33.70 which gave her 14th place all-around. Spring Gymnastics/Aerobic Session Beginning North S*'ore Aerobics will begin the spring session of Gymruistics/Aerobic classes on Monday, April 24. There are still times available for the many different classes being offered. Qasses will run through June, topped off by the annual Spring Show. NSGA opened the doors to their brand new facility in September of 1988. The building which was designed especially for NSGA includes many features such as an in- ground trampoline, bar/vault and tumbling in-ground .lam pits, a separate preschool/aerobic area, a parent waiting room with a new viewing window arul a student locker room. NSGA is a non-profit organization directed by parents. Classes are offered week day moriungs, afteriKwns, evenings arul Saturdays. Programs offered iiKlude: a parent-child gym class for 18 months to 3 years of age. Preschool Motor Learning classes for the 3 - 5 year olds and Progressive Gymnastics Gasses for boys and girls ranging in age from 5-18 years. NSGA has a strong USGF team program for the competitive athlete and an Aerobic Conditioning program for teer\s and adults. For more information, call the NSGA office at 473-5514. GOOD WILL RECYCLING DAY Sahirday, May 20 9:00 am - 4:00 pm ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL PARKING LOT All donations are tax deductible - tax receipts available •Acceptable Donations* (must be in good-usable condition) • Qothing • Small (working) appliances • T.V.’s • Stereos • Games/toys • Small furniture • Housewares • Mattresses/box springs (not soiled or ripped) • Leather • Sporting goods • Bikes • •Un-acceptable Donations* (please do not bring) • Tires • Used carpeting • Soiled or tom mattresses or box springs * Large or non working f pliances • Furniture needing repair • Paint • Storm doors, windows or screens • Bring recydables (cans, bottles, newspaper) - The mobile recycling unit will be there all day CASH for aluminum cans!! Sponsored by West Hennepin Recycling Commission with 80% funding by Hennepin County Continuing Education The Orono Continuing Education Conunittee will be holding its final meeting of this school year on May 3 at 3:20 pm in the Middle Sdux)l Room 110. Qock hour forms and license renewal forms should be turned in to Evy Zacher in the district office or to a member of the conunittee by noon of that day for processing. Marvel Bongart Continuing Ed. Secretary Apply Now For Summer Jobs Summer Youth Employment Program applications will be available in April through the Minnesota Job Service and through vour local school system. The program is designed to provide gainful employment for Minnesota youths for up to 12 we^. All Minnesota youths ages 14-21 may apply. Pay is $385 per hour, and youths are employed 20 to 40 hours each wedc. Jobs will start June 12th or later. There are group and scattered worksites, induding parks, recreation areas, public schools and dty offices. Jobs range from public worlu to filirig and desk work. Suburban Hennepin County residents who meet age requirements should contact their school counsding office or Lynn Miller at the Job Service, 6121 Baker Road, Suite 111, Minnetonka, phone 341-7163. Other summer jobs in all pay ranges are al» available for those 16 years or older by contacting the Job Service in p)erson. State Instrumental Solo Ensemble Contest at Orono On Monday, May 8, from 230 pm to 9KX) pm, the Orono High School Instrumental Music Department will host the Region 6AA State-Regional Solo Ensemble Instrumental Contest. Six professional woodwind, brass and string judges will listen to approximately 225 entrants. The public is invited to attend th^ performances. There is no charge. Band Registration The annual registration of new band members will be hdd on Thursday, May 18, from 330 to 630 pm in the Middle School Band Room. Any student from the present fourth grade class through high school is digible to register. If you already have a bs^ instrument, bring the instrument and your ^Id to the Middle School. For your convenience, there will be an instru.nental display in the band room where you may wish to rent or purchase an instnunent As in past years, there will be a fee charged for baiKl students. For further information, please contact Glen Johnson or Henry Huidce at 473-7301, or Frank Schulz at 473-5472. Note: Parents who will be new to the band program are encouraged to attend the May 12 Jazz program and demonstration, in the H5. Auditorium at 930 am. All State Gymnasts Named at Orono High School The Minnesota State High School Coaches Association for Girls Sports, Inc. has named four Orono students All- State Gymnasts. They are: Senior Sarah Levering - Floor & Beam Junior Erin King - Floor Junior Gretchen Craven - Bars Freshman Sarah Brown - Floor The gymnasts are named in specific events as indicated by a quaHfying score. The qualifying score must be an average based upon five competitions. Two of the competitions must be from a tournament of four or more teams. Congratulations to these four outstanding girls! High School Team and Individuals Named "All-American** Gymnasts The National High School Gymnastics Coaches Association recently named the Orono High School gymnastics team as an All-American Tfeam. Scores of certain caliber must be met several times during the season for the team to qualify. Orono gymnasts, Sarah Levering, Rachel Fulkerson, Erin King, Gretchen Craven, Jodie Heyerdahl, Sarah Brown, and Chiara Wood were members of the All-American Team at Orono. Manager Kim King and coaches Connie Priesz and Bob Komma were also awarded certificates as part of the All- American Team. Athletic trainer Kelly Flynn and Athletic Director Wayne Smith were honored with certificates also. Individual All-American honors went to three Orono gymnasts. Sarah Levering was named All-American in floor exercise and the balance beam. Gretchen Craven earned All-American status on the uneven parallel bars and Sarah Brown has been awarded All-American honors in floor exercise and vaulting. Orono is indeed proud of the success of the high school gymnastic team! Guidance At A Glance Ibst Dates for June SAT June 3 Registration Deadline - April 28 Late RegistraHon [deadline - May 10 ACT June iO Registration Deadline - May 12 Late Registration Deadline - May 30 Preliminary Scholastic ApHtudeTest (PSAT) The PSAT is available to all juniors and will be given in October 1989. It is an opportunity to experience taking a coll^ entrance exam and also is the qualifying test for National Merit Scholarships. There will be a sign up period during the month of May at the high school. Sophomores considering a four year college are encouraged to sign up in the guidance office. Summer Adventure Club Starts June 12 Summer Adventure Qub is an action-packed urogram for youth entering kindergarten through sixth grad 2. Children are grouped with boys and girls their own age and have trained, caring staff as Counselors. Sara Mariner, Program Director, says "The YMCA has a reputation for quality programs and Summer Adventure Qub of 1989 wiU be no different" The YMCA philosophy is to facilitate the development of the whole child through many creative and innovative experiences. Says Mariner, 'Summer Adventure Qub is an extent day care option for working parents." The program is available by individual wedcs or in a ten-week package plan. Summer Adventure Qub hours are 7:00 am to 6.-00 pm. While children are arriving, the day begins with a choice of activities including gym games, arts and crafts, books, puzzles, and board games. The morning tinne is planned for small ^up activities. Children wUl hike to the library, go on field trips, and create special projects at the YMCA. One day a week, each child's srnaJl group will go out to Baker Park for a day filled with outdoor adventure, including swimming hiking and ruture activities. Afternoons include gym games, sports, outside time, and movies. Free swim will be offered four days a week. The late afternoon, while parents are arriving will offer a choice of activities similar to the morning. For further information, please pick up a brochure at foe Ridgedale YMCA or caU the YMCA at 544-7708. Incoming Kindergarten Parents Meeting On Tbesday evening May 9 at 7:00 pm in the Orono Primary School gymnasium Dr. Alton Greenfield from foe State Department of Education will be ^:>eaking to parents of children eligible for kindergarten. Dr. Greenfield will highlight aspects of reading to children that promote school readiness. This is a meeting for parents only . You and your child will be invited to come to the kindergarten room together next fall. A packet of forms has been sent to the parents of each prospective kindergartner we have on our list If you have a chad eligible for kindergarten or know of someone new in foe neighborhood who has a child eligible, please call the Schumann Elementary office (473-7317). Marvel Bongart Elementary Principal Summer Jobs Applications are rv)w avafiable in the guidance office for summer job opportunities through the Suburban Hennepin County Summer Jobs Program. This program is federally and state fimded and is op)en to youth ages 14-21. We also have applications for work at county parks and a variety of other summer work posted on foe job board. 1989-90 ORONO SCHOOL CALENDAR AUGUST BiON TUE WED IHUR FHI 12 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 14 16 16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25^ ES EQ j SEPTEMBER MON ’ITJE WED IHUR FRIB O 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 NOVEMBER MON TOE WED THUR Fia 12 3 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 0 0 27 28 29 30 DECEMBER MON TOE WED TOUR FRI 1 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 220 0® ® 0 ' FEBRUARY ' MARCH BON TOE WED IHUR FRZ MON TOE WED TOUR FRI 1 2 1 2 6 6 7 8 9 6 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 12 13 14 15 16 0 20 21 22 23 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 ® @ ® ^ maV JUNE MON TOE WED IHUR En MON TOE WED TOUR FRI 12 3 4 1 7 8 9 10 11 4 5 6 U 16 16 17 18 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 25 18 19 20 21 22 0 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 OCTOBER TOE WED TOUR FRI 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 © 0 ^ 24 30 31 25 26 27 JANUARY MON TUE WED IHUR na O e €> O O8 9 10 11 12 16 16 17 18 1 22 23 24 26 26 APRIL MONTUE WED TOUR FRI 2 3 4 6 6 9 10 11 1? ^ 16 17 18 1‘ 23 24 25 2c 30 ■TEACHER WORKSHOPS mSERVICE/CURRICULM •SCHOOL NOT IN SESSION OPENING AND CLOSING DAYS 4 END OF SEMESTER/ NO CLASSES DATE ACTI\1TY 1A9 Semester ends-Teacher Wkshp 9/29-9/1 All Teacher Workshop 2/19 Presidents* Birthday 9/4 Labor Day 3/7,8&9*Co'uf. SJB. - IJS. - hUS. *61 CLASSES BEGIN 3/26-30 Spring Break 10A9-20 MEA/MFT 4/13 Teacher Wkshp 1 10/23 Teacher Workshop 5/28 Memorial Day U/20^1&22*Conf. Days 6/7 Last Day of Classes 11/23-24 Thanksgiving Break 6/8 Teacher Workday 12/25-1/5 Winter Break * Detailed conference schedules available 1/8 Classes Resume at individual school offices. Activity Calendar District Activitigs 5/3 Continuing Ed. M^. Rm. 110 MS.....................3:20 5/8 Board Meeting, MS Vocal Music Room.............7.<X) Teacher Day USA 5/16 School Board Election Board Meeting, MS Vocal Music Room.............930 5/29 HS Marching Band, Maple Plain, Long Lake Elgmgntaiy Arrivities 5/2 Primary June B.D. Party 5/9 Schumann June B.D. Party Grade 1 to Minnesota 2;oo Kindergarten Parents Lftg. at Orono Primary .. 7KX) 5/16 Primary Mity I .D. Party Grade 1 to Elcise Butler Wildflower Garden 5/18 Grade 7 to Children's Theatre 5/23 Schumaim May B.D. Party Change of Date: Elenr. Play Day will be 6/2 not 5/25 as printed in the Orono School Calendar Intgrmgdiatg/Mlddle Schonl Activiries 5/2 IS Reward Day 5/4 IS/MS Band Concert, Aud................................730 5/5 IS/MS Band Assembly 5/18 IS/MS Band Registration, MS...........................3:00 5/31 MS CAPS Day High School Activirigs 5/1 Band Contest 6AA Softball at St. Bernard's..................................... 4KX) Baseball at St. Anthony.....................................4:00 Girls Golf Tournament......................................4H30 5/2 Teimis at Mahtomedi.........................................4:00 Boys Golf - Minnehaha - here............................4:00 5/3 Softball at St. Agnes...........................................4KX) Baseball - Farmington - here..............................4:00 5/4 Termis at St. Agnes.............................................4:00 TVack Relays at Farmington...............................4.<X) Girls Golf at St. Bernards..................................4:00 5/5 Boys Golf at Brack..............................................4KX) BaWball - Mound - Here...................................4:15 5/6 IVack - Spartan Invitational - here 5/8 State Irrsmimental Solo k Eruemble - here........3.-00 Softball - Miimehaha - here...............................4KX) Boys Golf - Blake - here....................................4:00 Baseball at St. Bernard's...................................4.-00 Girls Golf - Breck - here.... ............................4:00 5/10 SoftbaU............................................................4KX) Boys Golf at Farmington...................................4:00 Baseball at St. Agnes..........................................4:00 5/11 Fine Arts F ival, Aud.......................................7:00 TVack - St /mthony - here..................................4:00 5/12 Junior Senior Prom Softball...............................................................4KX) Boys Golf - Mahtomedi - here...........................4KX) cont next column 5/15 Tennis - Conference at Farmington (15 & 16)... 4.-00 Softball..............................................................-4:00 Baseball - Centennial - here...............................4:00 Girls <3olf - Tourney...........................................4K)0 5/16 National Honor Society & Awards, Aud.............8KX) TVack - Cor\fererK» at Brooklyn Center..............3:00 Boys (3olf - Conference 5/17 Baseball - Minnehaha - here..............................4K)0 .-ball - Mound - here......................... ........4K)0 5/18 Tenius conference at Brooklyn Center...............4.-(X) 3/19 Baseball at Brooklyn Center...............................4.00 5/72 Scftball6AA (22,24) 5/23 Senior Athletic Awards.................. ..................730 5/25 IVacAot Mound..................................................4.-00 5/30 Girls <3olf6AA 5/31 Boys Golf 6AA H.S.Jazz Ensemble - Stage Band to Perform for Fourth Grade The High School Jazz Ensemble and Stage Band will perform for the fourth graders from 930 to 10:00 am on Friday, May 12. Individual students will also demonstrate their instruments for the audience. Parents of fourth graders are invited to attend this program, which will be held in the Audit .hi. Band to March on Memorial Pay On Monday, May 29, the Orono High School Band will again marcVi at Long Lake and Mayle Plain at their annual Memorial Day Parades. A program will be presented at both locations. B NEWSLETTER AOMINItTRATION OgPICK •« OU> CKTSTAL lAV MMO NOITTK tOMO UKf. MINNUOTAS93M <«n.fral>t 0*9. U S KJStACf PAID long Ufc«. Mm. rtlMlNO 12 City of Orono P.Q. Box 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323 7—. jfigfef,??!! •I aj ^*" /•'^^y' ‘^. * ^ Senior Center HOME OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. SV. ■ / J., > ,,.r.-r..* -.y •'t*»«‘-i»’*r V ' •/» *!*•'' .i-•••;:•. ' .......................................--.. .^ WELLMAN SPORTS MARKETING, INC. 3070 Ranchview Lane Nonh • Plymouth. Minnesota 55447 (612) 559-0832 April 27. 1989 Chief Melvin Kilbo Chief of Police Orono Police Department P.O. Box 86 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Chief: I am glad to hear that things went well at your end, on our annual Crappie Contest. Except for a little rain and wind, it turned out to be a pretty good day for us. The best news is that the winning fish were caught in Lake Minnetonka. I have enclosed a $100 check made out to the Orono Police Reserves. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sincerely, Guy M. Wtllman Wellman Sports Marketing, Inc. GW/kh MINNESOm SAFETY COUNQL The Safety NtSiHinv April 25, 1989 M. Kilbo, Chief of PDlice City of Orono P 0 Box 86 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Kilbo: • Congratulations! Your canmunity has been selected to receive the Meritorious Achieveroent Award in Traffic Safety. The awards conmittee cenmends you on your high level of achievement. Presentation of your award will be immediately proceeding the Governor's Safety Awards Banquet at the 1989 Minnesota Safety Conference, beginning at 7:00 p.m. on June 6 at the Hadisson South Hotel in Blocmington. The form bo advise us of the person who will accept your award and to make banquet reservations is enclosed. Your award recipient need only pay for meal function tickets; the recipient's conference registration will be ocmplimentary. We've also enclosed a copy of our conference program and send a warm invi tation to other members of your organization bo attend the excellent safe ty and health programs which will be presented. We encourage you to visit the largest display of safety and health products and services in Minneso ta. Your early return of the enclosed reservation form will help us make ef fective arrangements for an impressive ceremony. We'll look forward to hearing from you by May 17. Sincerely, MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL, INC. JL. Cciol A. Bufton President CAE/ntl enclosures 474 Concordia Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 5510.3 (612) 291-9150 Chartered by the National Safety Coumil-Organized June /, 192S XHaaak mmgi .1 Jill ■ - c>i-r'> •••:• ‘ %^ /' ^.rV'-S: ••,.•••=■ •.; ^oMCm «7r-aro* g-f^/ if 4uJ0'^f^- ^s-aro^Cft^'» ^ '■• twyr (zl-r xi^|» 9 iS t>-Wf«4 r 3oi i t^-Mrlc (% ^ )./8^ , ^ I, ;«r^ .^iAt«..6rxvo^ —Hi/—^ I ior >5. 7S- 3^' * B CfOri/• I. ■■:’= l-i■:~7'v•'^'i^:•r-• . ^sSffs S k ^: i ' 4h AiUJOff^OSb, ■- ‘ I D'lS' * Silver ^«v 7>5^/V»70^ ®s^> •5tV^i . ^ a : i, s^. (?i*T* 5*^ » jviisc v«i«e«;» ,?. ^(A'ory^’ liT^. f O^tT's LOT" : 0<U(m OUtflUtt HfUbOMCa-* '=> 9»r»«70f *2c>fe2^ s*‘ Fiw^ '- s /^SOt. /'*«. ^.6/^ 331S' SifoMMMr . . .;• • Iw vf ». U- HTM -.0«' 1 H-fcAbcB-e!*..* rienrvcb tf«MCM« AS nairtu t'f ATfitiett^ns ^ KrurF ^rrttrt V./*-ft7 ^ (ft*. mT& «'j4M(t/e»«JT e*i *>T« 5^’'’':; '■■' ■■*' ■■ '•W li ®1' |v.5, . m ;‘‘:!^:-o'':t-'^'■■■ w '/■ ,f^\Sy-r . : '3mi ■i.m • 'W‘ • v,«;^i:-*. : ■ ■■;'a^v ■sr '• *’■'<i^^ '' 1 ' .... f'-'-. ^fcs;. '-n 'liKi* ^0 m e"KP»»««*PISs ? :- i'V S! :"-l: i i; :< *• f- .».*■•••' r..' ..s.- : . ^.V'--'.- -'■' \ ■. - •■ ‘ ^srr:: ■r.rkc’r.-;- : iii® ilROi^S^lli ------.. --------------— '*W«taaiV—■? • •*^ • ^—r/*^^T5?trrfpr- :-sft*a*?.- *• •^-^®,.|M■^v*.-• ji^..feSiei. V~i> • ■- ■-‘-^1^'' MMMD OOn AM PMMOM UIVOtIT PUM ________ MJMNATIt ■ OKAIMNOPLAN MIMTONICA KMTWOnKS --------------------- ■ -.-■■ ■^v tr P%.;.iT fSt;'... .iff ■ S'-J -*'S I mr‘" '^■-