The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-23-1989 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meetingPUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO C-1CO,OL, MEETING DATE P bj�hv PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 2. 3. 4. 5. .0/ 6. 7. L a. L 9. 0. 36 w' 2. 3. 22 5. 7. ;t Ltd % 9y 15 2 i 8. 9. 0. INIAL v OF ORONO NOtICEAM►fa ON pp()ppSEo m ASSESSME N T TO WHOM 1 � Not'(.a s eby trier We count,«+ n,M1 at 7 1 p T Morrie/ 0000V 19N *ICh tn0era Of tev GfY 127 (load SWM to peea upot ter p 2 Mal asMMmen1 'o' strMf be-0 "nproverM^t TAW f000rtfat9 p vp~ are to be aaess000 ►roperty 1dw,ticatfon Nv^tee'• I r 11? 23 43 Di42 17Ill 23uo006 tIll �OSL pa—fi "fe esaoaatrenl rd M M q9 y pupal. ,nepect'nn n trio City cwk,o fdfM9 The total arnw" of nu pro Dowd a1i//efenKal aWew aarM is $3 164 7e written aid OM obfecf'o^4 , bW eonMdMed M tM Zwn No wee,' WV to taaen as to ita a rAw of W aa*"~ WA_ a mWieo "nMtWn a0lect'O" r fro «ter ire Cwt, Prior to er tflooring or PrWeented to ter pros ov Officer at the raertl.li TM COUMN may' upon Ounn nat1W cvomw any u0fettan to ter .0or,evoud t tV � tO t1f,`a to M allecta0 P'e0Wft1' vrrnWrs y 't NA OW Is'ay are" an aWaMw"S" IO der tact cart p .-d 10 W—,,*m Sfai,dee Sec y10n 429 081 fait 0— -wfKe of fifer appeal upon ter mgfer Or c1W % Of tf1W orb .Ve— 10 Milli,flMf 040 as 'W CotVia aaMWarr'e'r and tralp Mae" M11Ce Wier ter oafrlt:f coal WWW ate ~ w`.Ce upon tAe W1W1'c" Clem fen d Under Monnesota Slalutas Sactlons A36 193 'c 436 196 Me caYtC" e1Wy n M V wa,rpplprvMadoi - tSpecie raSeVrel0tany tn�Orrla leed D,Owv owrw 1)y, a pWraor' 66 yeera o' 40 or Ofdar'01 rrnor^ d wo1Ad be %Wit w to ma►a the payrMta ARM" de'aramam Of ter $patty anommont tlw been Qreryted ar10 is termrnt ad 'Or arm p'.."d n MM W- as &"%Ounts coma door A111' Weefeed property rn o.rnn eatnp tiro te'O"erts Of I"a OW ,he adrw+ca adopted order ^ nler faWfrn dws d ire cO'f'tW of fire aseen ply, to ter coy c—'a ter prfaW "b" r .O Wucn deferral of pWAtem of tf"a opec ,swam on r"a propwly, city Do^ iP�.fY+�f TM ca►r and AO'**' Oct a t Hefi 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 all the require- ments constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed--/`-l)a- f which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for / successive weeks: It was first published Monday, the (Yf' day of L tL�— 1 y& and was thereafter printed and published every Monday, to and including Monday, the day of 19—' ,.. �:.�.� rr;s..,........,.- Authorized Agent KIP.R!ETTA A. STRAUS NOTPAY FU!:L!C-1" .N::SOTA CA.-.VZA C WNTY ? •t� S1' ►.•y Comm::tlon E it** Jan. 27, 1990 ; Subscribed and sworn to me on this _ 9 day of kAlc i Notary Public Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial ;sers for cr.,para- ble space 69 89 per inch (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above (natter $9 4.1J per 1r-ch (3) Rate act,.ally charpec for Above matter. S4 SD per In.:h Each additional successive weeft $3 24 per 'nth Affidavit of Publication -t eITY of Ofifo1110 NOTICE OF mt..MNo ON PIlloPosto SUPOtEMENTA. ASSIESSWNT To W►qM IT MAy Cow it RN Naca is hereby Owen tnal try Ceunry We meef of 7 10 p m On M-d@Y October 23 1 ties el ;he Caetca chw"ben 01 fha r W Orono 12 T5 Wown Ill ee gorrlh 10 paaa upon 0n0 Ow" -Wo IM a•••o«•w+l rw The loft—V wopwfta an to to aaft"I P40M tdentiflcahon N ailik e 17 117 23 43 0142 17 117-23 44 0006 1)' 11723 44 0007 The or000eed wrpplamantr aeaeGWW" ,pe 4 on Ire for Pwbk napr-0-on at the CA, c.aark a ()like The two' amafnt of the Pro posed wpol k" Onw aaaaarlWO V 93104 re MrNMn and Orr Oelactfona WO be conOfdOred « "" meatlnp too 00" idly be taken a to rho arhdun 01 an 11e8088011 l unim a aaprled *""On oelactron • fly 1allr, tt» cWk prior to "is� tlee/el0 or preeeltbd to me preetdlp llaerete The 0olanca mp Leon � 1ec M Do cdnarft enY 00tgn to tly Of 0 IatOOoeed Y1�YIOUe1 at On fa,alww "CIE win audl furow no. Ice to the @"soled property owners r N dv-a advrao,4 M ownaw m" appeal an aaeesw"W" t0 die 1r10 coil pveuenl to IIllinnewita siefutaa sec "On 4" 041 W Marvin nave of maUPC 1 aooer 30 fto +n tt ee C a ofCWh afto am the ;;«�rfu am 1" auoh notice with the OMICl can wfllrn Ian dWa ~ Wry" upon the Rwfa c+ar1, Under Mfnneeola Slelulee Section• 436 193 to 436 ' eb ow cow fit nrV in de 0latro'ron defer lrla ,rq,w, of MN apecw aupofanlar" aaalrfeteel for any hoflrelaad I �COMM r Wham 4 WOW hO he dWfp to me�a We Dayffrala When detwetfrent of the OPecw aeeaamant ha oea� pranced and is termrlat ad for " reason PF1 Wed in rho law as anww to con* w AnY eaeaeed mWerty wr the ounder sft anenre ad*~ rift WOW, , 30 days of the confematfon of we at1eOWWWO ep ptY to If* city craft for "preeaeed fOr111 for Such det«rr of pop kimm of "fire a" Y a awmanl on by proWty v Doran M Haw,. - City ct... P.-1M ~ in rho Lakw and PkX4W Oc1 e ,lee State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sv;orn, on oath says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound, Min- i esota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the require- ments constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided b%, Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and o►: ter applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Au) If a, _L1a_dt_X111kt which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for / successive weeks: It was first published Monday, the 'Yf' L day of f 92L/-- 19& and was thereafter printed and published every Monday, to and including Monday. the day of 19_; r ...r,..�:af.;.7aw:w.,.......,,., Authorized Agent MARIMA A. STRAUS y _ hJiA.iYFIU��LIC-1' .ti�SOTA 3 CAVE. -I COUNTY ; !: y Comm.:slon E: ;m Jan. 27, 11M ; Subscribed and sworn to me on this _ day of d 19 , By: Notary Public Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commeraal users for compara- ble space 19 80 per inch (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter $9 60 per t,tch (3) Rate actually charged for above matter $4 66 per Inch Each additional successive week $3 24 per inch _ . _: ►tee d�'a MOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAIIINO NOUea M PWoby pavan that It Orono City Cowu:a wte Intl a MAW twrnp n ft Cey Cowrca Chea bars 1275 Brown Road tebth On Monday Ntobor 23 1989 at 7 00 p m at aewd+ .Mae " city cowrca wait hW of, mords from th,r ptr0ac on an On -Sato 00 LF auor hGonse WOWA uon by ea WOW" Ca+Mry CIA 200 *000W now for a Ww two on Maw prWw!y known as The Bern n fta City of Orono Ae persona watrq to provde wntten andror rwal oonnarft OW appew at hhre tna M'rn Ian commarrq any be "Pill ed to tfa Orono aw Ottts P o am es crystal as Mn 5W23 Dated Sapltlnbr 27 ION M Omer of Me CRY c unca AV Dorothy M Naewr Gry Clef', Woghred in Tta Laaar and PW*w Oct o txte, 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 all the require- ments constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed 7L '' which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for successive weeks. It was first published Monday• the ts' day of 110 and was therea!ter printed and published every Monday, to and including Monday, the day of l� &ja•O•=�+++�++++�+N�-+�0�'� Authorized Agent ;k\ MARIETTA A. STRAW "'• It NOTARYPUCLIC-f' .':_:3TA ��• CARVcR CGU;JTY r `�� Aty Comm:_41on Es '.res Jan. 27. lv,0 � tiw ar�Myr � • •.. Subscribed and sworn to me on this C day of 19 By:i(Yle n1�4,/ cat 4-4-4 Notary Public Rate Information (I) Lowest classthed rate paid by commercial users for compara- ble space. 19 80 per inch (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for abovo matter S9 80per^,.ch (3) Rate actually charged lot above matter. S4 68 per1 Each additional successive week $3.24 per inch COINM MEETING OCT 231989 10489.2 TO: Mayor and City Council CITY OF OROF FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATE: October 18, 1989 SUBJECT: Woodhill County Club - Request for License Attachment: A. License Review - Woodhill Country Club Dated 9/22/89 (presented to Councilmembers individually under separate cover) B. City of Orono Letter Dated 8/16/89 C. Map/Aerial Photo of Area ISSUE - 1. Holding of public hearing in regard to licensing. 2. Determine if license issuance is appropriate and if so, under what conditions. INTRODUCTION - Woodhill County Club has a liquor license for the club House through the City of Wayzata. As you will note on the map the jurisdictional boundries for Wayzata were extended into Orono to accommodate the licensing of the Club back many years ago. They do however have an old barn area in Orono which was previously used as a stable. In recent years the structure has been converted with the main floor being used as a social gathering area. In order for the Country Club to serve liquor in that structure it would require a license from the City of Orono. The Club is initiating this because they have had requests for receptions and other social gatherings in this location with alcoholic beverages. Interested parties have often indicated that they could bring in the alcohol, however, from a liability standpoint the Country Club would like to be the dispenser of any alcoholic beverages that are served there and in doing so would need a license. The license would be in the same catagory as other country club licenses, however, the frequency of the use is expected to be substantially less. DISCUSSION - As noted in the investigation, there were no problems that were associated with the site in advance of the operation. In a check with the City of Wayzata regarding license of the Club House itself, there did not appear to be any problems. When the City had originally been contacted regarding the possibility, Attachment B outlined potential issues related to the licensing of this area. Woodhill Country Club - Request for License October 4, 1989 Page 2 of 3 The most significant issue is requesting a conditional use permit for the Country Club itself. Since the Country Club is older than the City, the land use has been accepted as a country club, however, under the City Code, the country club use is permitted with a conditional use permit in a residential zone. The club is located in the RR-lB residential zone. The liquor license does require that the licensee must be in conformance with the applicable sections of the zoning code. (While the Country Club did receive a conditional use permit and commercial site plan review a few years ago to do the improvement on the site, this did not encompass a conditional use permit for the overall usage of the Country Club.) It iE staff's opi:.ion that this would be appropriate and that this policy be followed in relationship for other licensr.�s where they are currently not in conformance with the zoning. (Staff will be reviewing the Wayzata Country Club status in this regard when its file has been returned from microfilming.) The term of this license would be from date of issuance to the 31st of December 1989 and would be subject to renewal beginning the lst of January 1990. Councilmembers are invited to view the site of the Barn location. Should you like a tour, please contact staff of the Country Club so they can allow you entrance into the Barn facility. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Hold the hearing and take testimony. 2. Determine if license is to be issued. 3. Outline any conditions of approval related to the license. a. Conditional use permit b. Conditional use permit application being submitted. c. Security for alcoholic beverages when not in use d. Requirement that an employee be on -site when ev:r alcoholic beverages are being served e. Consumption of beverages be restricted to the confines of the Barn and not to the recreational areas outside of it. f. Other conditions that may be outlined as appropriate 4. Table. 3. Deny. Woodhill Country Club - Request for License October 4, 1989 Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that this be approved subject to the following conditions: A) A conditional use permit must be submitted with approval gained prior to any renewal. B) Security for alcoholic beverages when not in use. C) Only an employee can dispense alcoholic beverages. D) Consumption limited to the inside of the physical structure of the barn. These are it addition to the —.her requirements in the ordinance including liability insurance, gambling prohibition, etc. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council c authorizes issuance subjet to the conditions identifiEd by staff. Ayes _, Nays CC., Mark Albrecht, Woodhill Country Club Chief Kilbo Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Cil YY wrw-how . -R i'oxl Of •irx Bo: 66 • CryaLl 'ie; ;r On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 16, 1989 Mr. Mark Albrecht Manager Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 Subject: Club Liquor License - "The Barn" Attachments: A. Orono Liquor Ordinances Chapter 4 - Liquor Dear Mr. Albrecht, Thank you very much for giving Jeanne Mabusth and myself the opportunity to tour the facility and discuss the objectives you are trying to achieve in obtaining a license for "The Barn". Presently you have a liquor license for the main club which is located in the City of Wayzata, however, have nothing to allow for liquor service at "The Barn". Enclosed please find a Club liquor -license application to commence the licensing procedure. While the Club would be responsible for all items governed by the ordinance the following may be of particular note in your application for a license. 1. Len th of License (Section 4.02 Subd. 4D) - The City's license year runs from 1 January to 31 December. As noted the license would be prorated for the balance of the period. 2. Resident Manager or Agent (Section 4.02 Subd 7) - All On sale licensees ace required to have an individual who does live in the City who may be contacted. 3. Impact on Other Licenses (Section 4.02 Subd 8) - As is true of liquor ordinances in many cities, a violation of provisions of one city's ordinance may have a negative impact on your ability to get a license in another community. 4. Delinquent Assessments (Secti(-, 4.04) - To the extent that are any outstanding delinquencies this would be a basis for license denial. BUILDING R ZONING - 473-7357 • ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473.7358 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 ASSESSING Mr. Mark Albrecht Woodhill Country Club August 16, 1989 Page 2 5. Licensed Premises Only (Section 4.07) - The premises where a co of whou-17-be allowed to be consumed should be specified in the license application. Given the nature of "The Barn" there may be the tendency for persons to venture outside the confines and alcohol consumption as such would be a violation if "The 3arn" itself were the licensed premises. 6. Tnsur_ance Certificate (Section 4.14) 7. Apo-uoriate Zoning (Section 4.16 Subd. 11) - Country Clubs - conditional use in the residential zone. A brief L_ w of our files does not indicate that the City has a conditional use permit for the Country Club to operate as such. This would'be separate and distinct from any conditional use permit that was obtained as part of the recent maintenance facilities construction. 8. Minors On Licensed Premises (Section 4.17) - Several provisions in t e ordinance address this issue. Minors are not allow to consume on the premises. As noted this includes any consumption even in the presence of parents. Minors are only permitted under the ordinance to consume non -intoxicating malt liquor in their parents household. 9. Gambling/Gaming (Section 4.31 Subd 4) - The nature of The Barn may be such that persons may desire to undertake various types of social "gambling". Unless such is permitted under City ordinance it would be a violation and perhaps have a detrimental effect on the license ability of "The Barn". 10. Hours of Sale (Section 4.16 Subd. 2 C) - The City recently amended the sections for on -sale and off - sale liquor as it related to `ours of sale. As we discussed at our meeting it wou_ be appropriate to have the City's Building Inspector review the building during the licensing process together with inspections and reviews by the Police Department. While there may be other conditions that will be attendant to such a licensing, the initial review would indicate a need for an additional condition on the license. This condition would be for the removal or secured storage of any liquor at "The Barn" as it is ent sis broken not (despite the fact thatuthere amaybe na security alarm easilyd could be intosystem.) 2 Mr. Mark Albrecht Woodhill Country club August 16, 1989 Page 3 Additionally it would be appropriate that application be made for the conditional use permit for the Country Club. It is anticipated that if the City were to receive a license application within the next two weeks that it could have a hearing on the license at its September 25, 1989, Council meeting. If granted at that meeting, provided that all conditions a-. _ met, it could become effective immediately upon approval of the Liquor Control Commissioner. �ncerely ' I Q a k E. B, hardson City Administrator cc: Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk Melvin Kilbo, Police Chief Jeanne A. Mabu-th, Building & Zoning Administrator 3 g1.DG' Arran+Ftlevre B�� I m I woo9kill cou.-,-6y $i4r- P) new co ur key s 14 !� Pftt'&04 COL Y}3 , ;. -Z-T- - .7- - W-r- IWAMMMW� 1018 8 9. 2 r TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator COUNCIL MEETING FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Dir• .t:lr OCT23 1989 DATE: October 18, 1909 MY OF SUBJECT: Supplemental Assessment for Shoreline Drive/Shadywo Road Attachments: A Proposed Resolution Adopting Assessments B. Proposed Assessment Roll ISSUE - Levying of supplemental assessments for the street light project on certain properties. DISCUSSION - After the street lighting project was complP+�ed and assessed for the Navarre area it was discovered that three parcels were assessed at the residentially used rate when they should have been assessed at the non-resid:rnti al ly used rate. Because the recalculation of the assessment `or these parcels results in an increase in the total amount r.-,sessed to each of them it is necessary to notify them, hold a public hearing, adopt a seperate assessment roll by resolution and certify the assessment to the County. The three properties have received proper notice and the total amount oroposed to be specially assessed is $3,164.76 to be collected over 10 years at 8%, the same as the original assessment. Grace Baptist Church 17-117-23 44 0006 17-117-23 44 0007 Lenox Glass 17-117-23 43 0142 TOTAL ALTERNATIVES 1. Table 2. Adopt as presented 8/28/89 Proposed Assessment Supplemental $ 955.50 374.40 253.50 $1,909.77 748.32 506.67 Total Assessment $2,865.27 1,122.72 760.17 $1,583.40 $3,164.76 $4,748.16 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the supplemental assessment for County Road 15 street lighting in the Navarre area be adopted as presented. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato, forwarded recommending adoption. Others charged the non - residentially used rate in the August 28th assessment included Good Shepard Lutheran, Calvary Memorial Church and FWBI. No appeals or inquiries were received. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _ , seconded by _ , to adopt Resolution # adopting the Supplemen,.al Street Lighting Improvement Assessments on County Road 15. Ayes _, Nays 2 1018t 9-r,,�aNr A A RESOLUTION ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTAL. STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT ON COUNTY ROAD 15 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed supplemental assessment for the street lighting improvement on Hennepin County Road 15. The following properties are proposed to he assessed: Property Identification Numbers: 17-117-23 43 0142 17-117-23 44 0006 17-117-23 44 0007 RON THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 10 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1991 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution until December 31, 1991. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3a. The owner, of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution (through November 22, 1989); 3b. he may at any time thereafter (after November 22, 1989) pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessment with interest accrued from October 23, 1989 to the date of payment; 3c. except that such payment must be made before November 15, 1993 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the next succeeding year. 4. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the council this 23rd day of October, 1989. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATT:;ST : Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk LEVY P.I.D. ADDN. CODE 11721 17-117-23 43 0142 42740 11721 17-117-23 44 0006 42420 11721 17-117-23 44 0007 42420 LOT BLOCK ADDITION FEEL' RATE AMOUNT 22 6 Navarre Heights Henn Cty 65.0 7.795 $ 506.67 5 3 Townsite of Lang9on Pk 245.0 7.795 1,909.77 19-20 3 Townsite of Langdon Pk 96.0 7.795 748.32 TOTAL ASSFSSlEWr $3,164.76 OCT ' 2 3440 Shoreline Drive s Navarre. MN 55391 (612) 471-0800 Orono City Council 10/9/89 1335 Brown Rd. Orono MN. 55391 C i ty Counc i 1 Members, I'm writing today about the three letters that I have received from the city about the assessment for the lighting on Co. Rd. 15. 1 have included a copy of all three letters. The last letter is about the hearing on the proposed supplemental assessment. That the time of the hearing I will be out of the country. I received the notice on the 6th, one and half o4orking days before leaving. Also the Hen. County offices are closed on the 9th the day I leave. I would like to ask the council for a continuance of the hearing for my property. I will be returning home on Oct. 26th. The property is 17-1 17-23 43 0142. Sincerely, l CITY of ORONO Pt. -t Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Sj _ 'Lake Minnetonka 17-117-23 43 0142 John C. Lenox 3440 Shoreline Dr Wayzata, MN 55391 NOTICE OF REDUCTION OF ASSESSMENT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Orono City Council finalized and adopted the assessment for street lighting improvement on County Road 15 at the August 28, 1989, Council meeting. The amount specially assessed against your particular lot, piece, or parcel of land was reduced to $ 253.50 _ This principal amount will be divided over I0 years in equal installments with interest at 8%. You may at anytime prior to certification,of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the entire assessment of such property with interest to the date of payment, to the City of Orono. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this assessment. You may at any time thereafter, pay to the City the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeedir; year. If you decide not to prepay the assessment before the da•.e given above the rate of interest that will apply is 8 percent pet year. The right to partially prepay the assessment is not available. BUILDING: A ZONING - 47 3.7 337 • ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473.7358 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473.7359 ASSESSING CITY of ORONO Post Office Bo: 66 • Crystal Bay, Minnesota SM23 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka 38 17-1 17-2 3 43 014 2 JOHN C LENOX 3440 SHORELINE CR WAYZATA MN 55391 NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby :given that.,the ,Council will -meet at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, August 28, 1989, at Ithe k.�o'uncil Chambers "0f Lhe City of Orono, 1275 Brown Road South, to pass upon the proposed assessment for street lighting improvement on County Road 15. The following is the area proposed to be assessed: The South 1/2 Section 17, Township 117, Range 23 and the North 1/2 Section 20, Township 117, Range 23 and in particular all property abutting County Road 15 (Shoreline -Drive) beginning at the western border of Orono then easterly to a distance 320 feet ease of County Road 15 (Shadywood Road) all. property abutting County Road 19 (Shadywood Road) 563 feet north of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) and 622 feet south of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) . The amount to be specially assessed against your particular lot, piece, or parcel of land is $ - 455_00 --: - You may at anytime prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the entire assessment of such property with interest to the date of payment, to the City of Orono. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this assessment. You mad at any time thereafter, pay to the City the entire -amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be mi,de before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If you decide not to prepay the assessment before the date given above the rate of interest that will apply is 8 percent per year. The right to partially prepay the assessment is not available. BUILDING a ZONING - 473.7337 • ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 ASSESSING The proposed assessment roll. is on file fur public inspection at the City Clerk's office. The total amount of the proposed assessment is $118,040.94. Written and oral objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing.. The council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property cwr.ers as it deems advisable. If an assessment is contested or there is an adjourned hearing, the following procedure will be follower?: 1. The city will present its case first by caili:.g witnesses who may testify by narrative or by examination, and by the introduction of exhibits. After each witness has testified, the contesting party will be allowed to ask questions. The procedure will be repeated with each witt.iess until neither aide has further questions. - — - -- 2. After the city has presented all its evidence, the objector may call witnesses or prespat such testimony as the objector desires. The same ornc-dure for questioning of the city's witnesses will oe followed with the objec.,.or's witnesses. 3. The objectcr may be represented by counsel. 4. Minnesota rules of evidence will not be strictly applied; however, they may be considered and argued to the council :.s to the weight of items of evidence or testimony presented to the council. = L : - • - 5. The entire proceedings will -'be tape-tecorded.:w, _ •'off:� Vj:.'1;:r �:) jx'., •• 6. At the close of presentati6n of,,evidence, -the objector may make a final presentation to ".-the council based on the evidence and the law. No new evidence may be presented at this point. An owner may appeal an as,-pssment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by -serving notice -of the appeal upon the mayor or clerk of the -city within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after service upon,the mayor„ or clerk. Under Minnesota Statutes,' Sections 435.193 to 435.195, the.. council may, in its discretion, defer, the payment of thi4 special... assessment for any homestead property owner by a person 65 years,,,, of age or older for whom it would be-a)hardship to m.,ke the ; payments. When deferement of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reason provided in that law, all amounts come due. Any assessed property owner meeting the requirements of this law and the ordinance adopted under pit may, within 30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the city clerk fr,r the prescribed form for such deferral of payment of this special assessment -on his property. /s/ Dorothy M. Hallin 2 -City Clerk - - - 92889.1 CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka 17-117-23 43 0142 John C. Lenox 3440 Shoreline Dr Wayzata, MN 55391 NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL AISSESSMENT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the Council will meet at 7: 10 p.m. on Monday, October 23, 1989, at the Council Chambers of the City of Orono, 1275 Brown Road South, to pass upon the proposed supplemental assessment for street lighting in;:_ _.°cement on County Road 15. The properties proposed to be assP ---' ire: Property Identification Number: 17-117-23 43 0142 17-117-23 44 0006 17-117-23 44 0007 The amount to be specially assessed against your particular lot, piece, or parcel of land is $ 506.67 This amount is in addition to the amount previously assessed on Auqust 28, 1989 of $ 253.56 . The previously assessed amount was calculated using e restential rate when in fact the non-residential'or commercial rate should have been used.--You-may at anytime prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the entire assessment of such property with interest to the date of payment, to the City of Orono. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this assessment. You may at any time thereafter, pay to the City the entire amount of the assessment .remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeeding year. If you decide not to prepay the assessment before the date given above the rate of interest that will appl. is 8 percent per year. The right to partially prepay the assessment is not available. The proposed assessment roll is on file for pubic inspection at the City Clerk's office. The total amount of the proposed supplemental assessment is $3,164.76. Written and ors BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 • ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473.7358 • PUBLIC WORK - 473.7359 ASSESSING, objections will be considered at the meeting. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of an assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. The council may upon such notice consider any objection to the amount of a proposed individual assessment at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. - ?f an assessment is contested or there is an adjourned hearing, the following procedure will be followed: 1. The city will present its case first by calling witnesses who may testify by narrative or by examination, and by the introduction of exhibits. lifter each witness has testiiicd, the contesting party will be allowed to ask questions. The procedure will be repeated with each witness until neither side has further questions. 2. After the city has presented all its evidence, the objector may call witnesses or present such testimony as the objector desires. The same procedure for questioning of the city's witnesses will be followed with the objector's ,witnesses. 3. The objector may be represented by counsel. 4. Minnesota rules of evidence will not be strictly applied; however, they may be considered and argued to the council as to the weight of items of evidence or testimony presented to the council. 5. The entire proceedings swill' be`tape-recorded.- 6. At the close of presentation of evidence. the objector may make a final presentation to the council based on the evidence and the law. No new evidence may be presented at this point. An owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota Statuces Section 429.,081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the mayor or clerk of the city within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice ith the district court within ten days after service upon the mayor or clerk. Under Minnesota Statues, Sections 435.193 to 435.195, the council may, in its discretion, . defer the payment of this special assessment for any homestead property owner by a person 65 years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. when deferement of the special assessment has been granted and is terminated for any reas.in provided in that law, all amounts come due. Any assessed property owner meeting the requirements of this law and the ordinance adopted under it may, within 30 days of the confirmation of the assessment, apply to the city clerk for the prescribed form for such deferral of payment of this spe:.ial assessment on his property. /s/ Dorothy M. Hallin City Clerk Cj COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OC T 2 3 1989 HELD SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 /� ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. CITY Of (Mono The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Mayor Callahan, Councilmembers Nettles, Goetten and Peterson, Mayor Grabek was absent. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & 'r,ning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, sistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Attorney Barrett, City Engineer Ceok and City Recorder Scheffler. APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR It was not necessary to appoint an acting mayor for this meeting as Councilmember Callahan, was present and acted in that capacity. PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLAN COUNTY ROAD 116/WILLOW DRIVE PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a summary of the history of this project and Orono's position regarding the construction of County Road 116 beyond the Medina border to Highway 12. Bernhardson said that he had received a letter from Mr. Jim Cox indicating his concerns regarding drainage. The purpose of this hearing is to focus on the proposed design, not whether the road actually will be constructed. He then introduced Mr. Steve Theis, Mr. Bruce Po1:nczyk and Mr. Jim Wold f..:m the Hennepin County Department of Transportation. Mr. Polaczyk, Design Engin r, Explained that the County was seeking apprcval from the City Council of this preliminary layout. If they do obtain approval, they :could then be authorized to go ahead with detailed plans and once those are completed they would come back before the Council and seek approval of those plans. Mr. Polaczyk said that it is the County's intention to complete that process sometime in the latter portion of this year and have a bid letting for the construction in March of 1990. Mr. Polaczyk noted that the portion of County Road 116 being ;;onstructed did not actually have a County road designation. In order for such a designation to be made, it will be necessary to obtain a resolution from the City Council approving the designation of 116 as a County Road and to then have the County Board pass a resolution adopting O:ono's resolution. Mr. Polaczyk then explained the design configuration of the proposed County Road 116 (hereinafter "the Road"). He said that the Road would extend from Highway 12 to Highway 55 following along Willow Road to County Road 24 where it curves slightly northeasterly and follows an existing Medina Road and then swings northerly and intersects with County Road 116 north of Highway 1 MINUTES OF TBR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 o i.., COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED 55. The. le4qgth of roadway to be constructed will be apKaximabely 5.1 miles and will be constructed in two sections. A tural section will be constructed from Highway 12 to County Road 6 and will have one northbrui,d and one scuthbound lane and 8' paved shoulders. The urban section will be constructed between County Road 6 to the Orono/Medina border and will have one 12' lane in cdch direction with 8' shoulders and a 6' berm. The purpose or the berm is to minimize the encroachment into the properties on the north side of County Road 6. The aligncrent is being shifted to the west to minimized property encroachment on the east side of the roadwa,: and to maximize the usage of the property on the other side. Mr. Polaczyk said that a,, daditional 14' of right-of-way on the west side of the road will be necessary to build the roadway and slopes. Mr. Polaczyk said that the traffic count for this segment of roadway was 1,400 car/day. MNDOT did a traffic analysis of this roadway and predicts that traffic will increase to 3,000 cars/day by the year 2010. Mr. Polaczyk also noted that the City of Medina approved the preliminary layout in May of. 1987. Polaczyk said that the road would be designed to accommodate a 45 mph speed limit. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $2,850,OUO.00 of which Orono will have no responsibility. The right-of-way costs within the City of Orono have been estimated to be $130,000.00 of which Orono would share 50% or $65,OOO.00. An environmental assessment worksheet will be prepared for this project srd will be submitted to the Cities of Orono and Medina as well as other public agencies. Acting Mayor Callahan asked Mr. Polaczyk what plans the County had for the intersection of County ,'toad 116 and Highway 12? Mr. Polaczyk replied that at t'iis time the plan did not include stoplights. He said that trite County would continue monitoring that situation and when stoplights were warranted, they would be installed-, Callahan asked if the the Count; had been monitoring that intersection in the last 3 years? Mr. Polaczyk replied that to the best of his knowledge, they have not. Callahan asked what the County plans for the intersection of County Road 11:, and County Road 6? Mr. Polaczyk said that stop signs would be used rather than stoplights and that traffic on County Road 116 would have the stop. Councilmembc- Nettles questioned what factors were used in compiling the estimate that there will be 3,000 cars/day using 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIT, MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1969 COUNTY 'LOAD 116 CONTINUED this sE ction of roadway 1;y the year 2010? Mr. Polaczyk believed that the figure was comprised of traffic coming off of Highway 12, south of Highway 12 and from the development of the area that will occur by 2010. Nettles wondered how much new traffic there would be as opposed to traffic coming from other roads to use the new road because its wider and faster? Mr. Polaczyk responded by saying that it would be a combination of both, but he could not provide a break down at this time. Nettles asked to be provided with that specific information. Nettles asked Bernhardson whether or not there would be any change in the design of County Road 116 if the City did the project rather than the County. Bernhardson replied that there would not be a change in design if the City did the project. He added that the only change in design that will occur over what now exists whether cir not Hennepin County does the project is an additional 4' of paved shoulder on each side. Nettles commented that the only variation then would be the cost to the City of Orono. Bernhardson affirmed that, saying that the project would cost Orono in excess of $350,000.0. to do in 1994, as opposed to $65,000.00 for right-of-way acquisition if done by the County. Nettles asked whether the wider shoulder would incorporate a bike path? Public Works Director Gerhardson answered that yes, the wider shoulders would incorporate a bike path. Councilmember Goetten expressed her concern for safety at the intersection of Willow Drive and Highway 12. She said that the proposed safety improvements for Highway 12 do not include a traffic light at that intersection. Goetten reported that there has bee,i a 48% increase in rear-,..d col,isions, and one fatality at that intersection. She said that no matter what is done there, the need for a traffic signal should be considered. Acting Mayor Callahan and Councilmembers Nettles and Peterson concurred. Mr. Polaczyk sa4d that the County can do an analysis of that intersection. He said that there are varying degrees of warrants and that not only volume is used to determine -a need for a stoplight. He said that' the number of accidents cp.n also warrant 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED the need for a stoplight and that the County would review that aspect. Bernhardson noted that as part of the Highway 12 safety improvement, channelization and turn lanes would be installed. He said that this should help to eliminate rear -end collisions. He informed the Council that the wiring for a semiphore would be done in conjunction with the safety improvements for Highway 12. Mr. Joe Theis, 1180 Willow Drive, said that he was concerned about the 14' of right-of-way that will be taken north of County Road 6 on the west side of the road. Mr. Polaczyk said that nothing would probably be taken on the south border of Mr. Theis's property and that 5' would be taken on the north. Mr. Theis then asked hcw the berm would affect runoff? Mr. Polaczyk replied that this was just a preliminary plan and that. Mr. Theis's drainage concern would be looked into by the hydraulic engineer on his staff. Mr. Theis asked whether left turn lanes would be installed where County Road 116 came south and intersected with Count;• Road 6. Mr. Polaczyk sail that a right tur,i Lane would be introduced at that intersection. Mr. .)bbir Sentell, 736 Dickey Lake Drive, asked Mr. Polaczyk to explain what was planned for the area of Willow between County Road 6 and Dickey Likp Drive South on the east side. Mr. Polaczyk said that the construction limit for the roadway would vary from 5' to 10' beyon3 what currently exists. Mr. Sentell said that he was trying to visualize how far the road would shift to the east and west. Mr. Polaczyk said that the new centerline of the new roadway will be shifted approximately 7' to the west. Mr. Polaczyk said that it would be necessary to have a 4.1 slope that would put the construction limit approximately 25' to 30' from the edge of the road. Mr Sentell commented that lot of tree removal would be nece_:sz. to accomplish such a proposal. Mr. Polaczyk said that tree removal may be necessary in the nort:iern part of that area. Mrs. Lois Mathewson, 900 Willow Drive North, asked Mr. n MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING CIF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED Iolaczyk whether it was true that 15 trees would be removed from her property? Mr. Polaczyk replied that from what he could see, there would be 4 trees removed. Mr. Polaczyk said that he could send a surveyor out to stake the area to which the road would extend. Mrs. Mathewson also explained that traffic was a problem in that area. Acting Mayor Callahan suggested to Mr. Polaczyk that a determination be made as to how many trees will need to be removed 3 that an attempt be made to minimize tree removal. olaczyk suggested that residents call and talk with hims, r Mr. Theis if they have any questions or concerns regarding this a.atter. Public Works Director Gerhardson suggested that persons call him with their questions or to make appointments to meet at their individual sites. Acting Mayor Callahan asked who set the speed limit for the road? Mr. Polaczyk replied that the speed limit is set by the Commissioner of Transportation who will conduct speed studies and set the speed limit. Ms. Rhonda Adams, 2095 Webber Hills, questioned why the County would proceed with this project when the plans for Highway 12 were st�ll so uncertain? She said that she did not understand the priority of this road. Acting Mayor Callahan explained that such a question pertained to the reason why the road was going in rather than to the design of the road. He said that it is up to the City of Medina and Hennepin County as to whether or not the road will be constructed una when. Mr. Cliff Otten, questioned whether the 1•1 foot right-of-way would continue along the west side of Willow as far as Highway 12? Mr. Polaczyk said that the 14' of right-of-way would continue along the west side from Trunk Highway 12 to County Road 6. He added that there would be additional. right-of-way tc.ken along the east side near Highway 12 in order to achieve better alignment of the Road with Highway 12. Mr. Greg Coward, 1950 Heritage Drive, said that the character and atmosphere of the Roa' area will change regardless of whether the Road is constructed by the County or by Orono. Acting Mayor Callahan concurred witr Mr. Coward. 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 Mr. Polaczyk commented that regardless of whether the Road is constructed, the volume of traffic on that road will increase. Callahan commented that construction of the road would cause traffic volumes to increase more quickly than it would otherwise. Mr. Coward compared the Road to County Road 15, which is a scenic highway and currently has much greater traffic volumes than what is predicted for the Road. He saic that the reason there is no upgrade of County Road 15 is because it is designated as a "scenic road". Mr. Coward questioned why the City of Orono could not make all of its highways "scenic"? He said that many times the County "over -designs" roads and does not offer a choice of road design to the community. Mr. Denni3 Battrum, 960 Willow Drive North, asked why the Road was being widened at all. Mr. Polaczyk said that Hennepin County had received approval from the City of Medina to construct the Road back in May, 1987. Mr. Polaczyk said that the Road would be constructed to the Medina/Orono border whether or not Orono approved. Mr. Otten saic that he believed there would be twice as many cars on the Road 20 years from now. He said that there 247 new, single-family homes built in the last 9 years in the City of Medina. Ms. Carol. Roland, 1.000 Willow Drive South, questioned whether the City had any plans for Willow Drive South of Highway 12? Acting Mayor Callahan said that the City would not allow the County to do any construction south of Highway 12 without specific approval from the City Council. Mr. Polaczyk said that the County had no plans to do anything beyond Highway 12. Councilmember Goetten said that she wanted to strongly state _n the recommendation for approval that the Council not allow any further development south of Highway 12 on Willow. Bernhardson said that the only exception to that would be the bridge over the railroad tracks that neads to be replaced. Bernhardson said that it weld be re -constructed at a wider span. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Councilmember Nettles asked what changes would be necessary in order to have bike paths incorporated in this proposal? City Administrator Bernhardson said that the wider shoulder would allow for bike path use, but would not allow for the 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED striping of a separate bike path. ',erhardson said that the shoulder would allow for joint use. Bernhardson noted that it would cost approximately $19,000.00 to construct a detached bike path. Acting Mayor Callahan said that it ppeared to him that there would be some budget constraints. Councilmember Goetten questioned whether money would be returned to the City if the right-of-way cost was less than estimated. Bernhardson said yes, the City's share of the cost would be less if the right-of-way costs were less than $130,000.00. Mr. Polaczyk rioted that the right-of-way cost could also increase, which in turn would increase the City's cost. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to table this matter until the next Council meeting and to .direct staff to draft a resolution including the cost to the City of Orono for the right-of-way. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. CGNSENT AGENDA* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. APPPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the September 11, 1989 Regular Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Mction passed. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Representative, Edward Cohen, was present and indicated that he had no comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the Public. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1306 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 3286 NORTH SHORE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT OF FILING DEADLINE RESOLPT IN #2700* I, s moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded ty Counc er Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2700 amending Resoiu 511. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 #1372 DONALD RF.MPF 1180 NORTH ARM DRIVE FINAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2701* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2701, approving the final plat for Donald Kempf. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. #141 SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT 3G20 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION TABLED TO OCTOBER 9, 1989* #1412 kA}Z.Y PETERSEN 384 MCCULl,EY ROAD A. ROAD NAME REQUEST B. F'fNAL SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2702* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the name "Wolverton Place" for the name of the interior plat road and to adopt Resolution #2702 approving the final subdivision for Mary Petersen. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Mction passed. #1434 GARY BARB 3034 CASCO POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2703 Mrs. Lori Barr was present for this matter. City Adminis,:. or Bernhardson provided a brief synopsis of this application. .nhardson mentioned that due to the presence of the guesthouse, _he City would have the right to charge Mr. Barr $225.00 for an additional sewer unit. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2703, approving the guest 'souse conditional Lse permit for Mr. Gary Barr. Councilmember Peterson asked Planning Commission Representative Cohen why he had voted to recommend denial of this application? Cohen said that he did not fee: there was an adequate hardship for this use. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1439 LAWRENCE LANG.9ANS 1366 REST POINT ROAD FINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2704* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve an after -the -fact conditional use permit and variance for Lawrence Langhans at 1366 Rest Point Road per Resolution #2704. Motion, Aye=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 #1440 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF THE LAF.ES 2445 SHADYWOOD ROAD COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW* Mr. Mark Winter, Senior Vice President, was present for this application. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application involved a commercial site plan review for the addition of another driving lane. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to approve the commercial site plan for the First National Bank of the Lakes. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1441 DON COPLEY 1185 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION Mr. Copley was present for this application. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council that Mr. Copley was seeking approval of an average lakeshore setback variance and a hardcover variance. The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the average lakeshore setback variance but also recommended that hardcover not exceed 25%. Mr. Copley explained to the Council and Acting Mayor Callahan the need to maintain the existing hardcover in the driveway for turn-ar-)und area. Mr. Copley also said that it woul:' he difficult to remove other existing hardcover due to terrac".nq that had been done long before he owned the property. Building and Zoning F.dministrator Mabusth confirmed that the driveway width is approximately 11' and said that the City staff would not recommend na:-rowing the width further. Councilmember Goetten stated that she had visited the site and agreed that the driveway should have enough area to turn around. She said that it would be dangerous to back onto County Road 51. Councilmember Goetten also reminded Mr. Copley that should it be necessary to remove the tree located in the 0-75' setback zone, a permit would be required. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this application to the next Council meeting to allow time for the applicant to work with City staff to reach a compromise for removing existing hardcover. Councilmember Peterson said that she had visited the site and favored the Planning Commission's recommendation and the resolution being presented this evening. Planning Commission Representative Cohen commented that the Planning Commission based its recommendation on Lhe need to be consistent and not set any precedent. Mr. John Bent, 1120 Tonkawa Road, said that the Copley's have done a tremendous job upgrading the property. He 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 ZONING FILE #1441-COPLEY CONTINUED said that the variance being requested is not that significant and felt it should be granted. Mrs. Copley said that it would be difficult to back down the driveway safely because of the steep hill. She said that there are quite a few joggers, walkers and children along the highway. Acting Mayor Callahan said that the Council concurred that there should be a turn around. Motion, Ayes=3, Peterson, Nay, Motion passed. #1442 LANDSCHUTE GROUP, INC. 375 LEAF STREET/3300 BAYSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL RESOLUTION #2705 AMENDED Mr. Jon Monson was present for the review of this application. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this matter had previously come before the Council and had been tabled pending a joint meeting with the applicant and the adjacent property owners. The neighbors had expressed concerns about the location of the driveway in conjunction with their property, and the culvert size. The City Engineer has recommended that a 24" culvert be installed. The applicant has relocated the driveway to be more in the center of the lot but it will need to curve to the west to avoid the septic sites. This configuration raised the concern of lights striking the adjacent house to the west. Assistant Planninq and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that the issue of screening has not yet been addressed by the applicant. Mr. Monson said that he had met with the neighbors and an agreement had been reached that should screening be needed, he will provide "softening" of the lights. He said that he could not promise to totally eliminate the shining of the lights, but he would try to diminish the impact to an acceptable level. Mr. Don Boylan, 3240 Bayside Road, said that he was concerned about the line of evergreen trees bordering his property being removed. Mr. Dale Nyhammer, 3280 Bayside Road, said that the proposal for the culvert and the relocation of the driveway adequately addressed his concerns. He too expressed concern about the preservation of trees along the north side of his property. Acting Mayor Callahan questioned Mr. Nyhammer as to whether he had spoken with the developer in that regard. Mr. Nyhammer said that he had just recently discussed this issue and that Mr. Monson seemed to agree to keep tree removal minimal. Mr. John. Wojcik, 3310 Bayside Road, said that he had no problem with the developer's proposal as long as his concern 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTE14BER 25, 1989 ZONING FILE #1442- LANDSCHUTE GROUP CONTINUED about the headlights is addressed. Councilmembei Goetten said that would prefer to see no other flag lots proposed because she did not feel it was proper planning. She added that she appreciated the efforts on behalf of Mr. Monson to work with the neighbors. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan., seconded by Ccuncilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution 02705 as amended to include language pertaining to protective screening being provided. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1445 GREGORY PETERSON 1355 ARBOR STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2706 AMENDED Mr. and Mrs. Peterson were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the purpose of this application was to obtain Council approval of a conditional use permit and variance to construct a swimming pool. The Planning Commission had recommended approval provided that the surrounding fence be less than 6'. Councilmember Goetten said that she had visited the Peterson's home and questioned whether the applicant intended to build additional decking onto the porch? Mr. Peterson said that they would like tn have some kind of a "tie-in" between the porch and the pool area. Mrs. Peterson said it would be something like stepping stones. Building and Zoning Administrator informed toe Petersons that a 10 foot separation was required between the pool and the porch and therefore a deck could not be added. Mabusth also advised the Petersons that they were close to the maximum allowance for lot coverage. Councilmember Peterson uuestioned whether there would be a way to put in the pool in the other way? Mrs. Peterson saij that there is an existing sewer line that runs through the property that prohibits them from placing the pool anywhere other than as proposed. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth indicated that she would like to have the resolution amenced to include the finding noting the location :f the sewer line in the rear yard as a hardship. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2706 as amended to include the location of the existing sewer line. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Mot qn passed. 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL FETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1:'it9 #1446 JACK YOST 1515 GREEN TREES ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE RESOLUTION *2707 Mr. Yost was present for this matter, as was Mr. Don Hess, Mr. Yost's representative. City Administrator Bernharc on informed the Council that this application involved a request to install retaining walls and do land alterations within 0-75' of the lakeshore. Bernhardson noted that the structure currently existing was constructed us;_ng a survey that has turned out to be incorrect. The corrected survey places a portion of the addition in the 0- 75' setback zone. Bernhardson said that the application being presented this evening pertained only to the retaining walls. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth elaborated on the problem with the surveys. Councilmember Goatten said that her only concern was the possible need for a handrail. Mabusth explained that the applicant was proposing to use planter boxes rather than handrails and that the City's building code would allow such a substi ution. Councilmember Nettles questioned whether the old storm cellar/foundation w;.uld be filled in? Mr. Yost said that the structure had been used as a storage facility/pump room for sprinkler system. Mr. Yost said that the room will be filled in as part of this project. It was moved by Ccuncilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #t2707, approving the Conditional Use Permit/Variance for the construction of retaining walls within 0-75' of the lakeshore. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1447 LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE 710 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2708 Mr. Grant Wenkstern, owner, was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the applicant was seeking approval of a conditional use permit to do grading and filling in excess of 100 cubic yard. It was moved by Councilmember Gotten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2708, approving the Conditional Use Permit for Lakeview Golf Course. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 #1450 WARD EDWARDS 2474 CARMAN STREET RENEWAL VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2709* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2709, approving the renewal variance application for an average lakeshore setback variance, lakeshore setback variance, and hardcover variance within the 0-75' setback area. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1451 GEORGE & THERESA BLOOM 1374 REST POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2710 Mr. and Mrs. Bloom were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council and Acting Mayor Callahan that the applicants were seeking approval of a street setback variance and a hardcover variance to construct a garage. Councilmember Goetten observed that there was a lot of hardcover on this property, but she felt that the applicants were entitled to a garage. She questioned whether it would be necessary to remove the large tree on the property. Mr. Bioom replied that the reason for the skyway and location of the garage was to preserve the trees. Mah-• ;th noted that hardcover was being reduced to 38.6% and depicted the areas of hardcover that the applicant intended to remove. Councilmember Peterson indicated that she was appreciative of the applicant working to maintain the level of hardcover on the property. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2710, approving the .treet setback and hardcover variance for Mr. and Mrs. George Bloom. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1454 BRADFORD W. REDDICR 2695 PHEASANT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2711 Mr. Reddick was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application involved a request for a side yard setback variance of .9' to construct an attached garage 22' wide. Councilmember Goetten said that it was her understanding that the existing garage would remain. She questioned the use 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 ZONING FILE #1454-REDDICR CONTINUED for that garage. Mr. Reddick said that it would be incorporated into the new garage and the area would be used for storage. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2711, apprcving the side yard setbac:. variance for Lhe construction of an attached garage. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1456 ROBERT AND JANET FIELD 2240 DEVIN LANE AFTER -THE -FACT VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2712 Mrs. Emfield was present for this matter, as was Mimi Ryerse, her Realtor. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief history of this after -the -fact application for a garage. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Acting Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution #2712, approving the after -the -fact stricture -to -structure setback variance for a detached garage. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. ENGINEER'S REPORT: WELL/HIGHWAY 12* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to award the bid to Key Well as the lowest responsible bidder. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT: Acting Mayor Callahan conveyed a massage from Mayor Grabek concerning the need for more requests for tickets to the Centennial Ea 1 1. Councilmember Nettles reported that the Lake Minnetonka Use Management Working P�Fer had an Issue #12, adopted 6/19/89, dealing with the dispersal of on -shore attractions to bays that h,-t,e l isser use (boats/acre). The issue is "whether LMCD policy snout avor dispersal of on -shore attactions to lesser used bays or whether such attractions should be concentrated to minimize their effect on other bays. At issue would he bars, restaurants, marinas, yacht clubs or homeowner's associations. In short, any operation requiring multiple dock license." Ne"tles' interpretation cf this is that the LMCD world disperse it from more used bays to less used bays, such as Smith Bay and Tanager Lake. Nettles said that the Public may be interested in knowiiiq that the T:.MC:D is considering such a policy. He suggested that Citv staff find out from the LMCD Representative what the status of the procedure is and where and how the Public can express its opinion. 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT CONTINUED City Administrator Bernhardson said that his understanding of the process is that the LMCD is putting everything on parer now and will schedule a meeting for the initial review of the papers with the 7,MCD and other local officials. He said that - there would then be a review and comment period following the meeting for a 2 to 3 months. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: HAZARDOUS BUILDING PROCEEDINGS 1949 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD RESOLUTION #2713 City Administrator Bernhardson said that the proposed hazardous building proceeding outlined the various structural failures and problems for both the house and garage. The house is currently rented, and the homeowner and Building Inspector wi 11 be meeting out on the site to see what corrections can be made if any. Bernhardson said that the City staff is recommending initiation of hazardous building proceedings and if there is a resolution of the problems prior to going to court, the proceedings will be held in abe,rance at that point. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt resolution #2713 initiating hazardous building proceedings for 1949 Fagerneos Point Road. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion pissed. 1990 BUDGET MEETING/BUDGET PRESENTATION* It was move3 by Councilmember Gcetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to accept the information in advance of its meeting at 5 p.m., Wednesday, September 27, 1989. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. 1990 MOUND FIRE CONTRACT* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to table action on this item pending discussion of selec,:ed items with the City of Mound. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. STUBB'S BAY - REVIEW OF ISSUES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to direct stuff to send a letter to the abutting property owners outlining the level of support needed in order for the Council and City to further consider this as a project. Mo*.ion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember. Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Highway 12 Feasibility; Facilities; Rest Point Road/Circle Boat House; Clean Up Day; and Cable TV Rates. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Mocion passed. 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION City Administrator Bernhardson noted that there will be 3 Councilmembers out of town for the October 9th Meeting. Bernhardson �, that there are 5 or 6 Planning Commission applications scheduled for review at that meeting and that the applicants were hoping to begin building yet this year. Alternative dates for the October 9 Meeting were discussed. Acting Mayor Callahan questioned whether having the Meeting, on October 21;3 would allow enough time to properly notify those involvad with the Plann: Commission applications. It was determined that the meeting would be cancelled entirely and that the items scheduled for tr-- October 9th Meeting would be rescheduled for October '13rd. CITY ATTORNEYS REPORT: City Attorney Barrett indicated that he had no report and requested an executive session. LICENSES= There were no licenses. BILLS* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilre,nber. Peterson, to approve payment of the All Funds Acccunts. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION - 9:20 P.M. City Administrator Bernhardson requested that the Council go into an executiv, session at 9:20 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 9:35 P.M_ it was moved by Councilmewber Nettles, seconded by Couri-ilmember Peterson, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:35 p.m. Motion, Ayes=4, Nays=O, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr. Acting Mayor 1 6; �OUNCII MEETING OCT 23 1989 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ORON 2O COUNCIL MEETING yll l OF ORONO HELD 1989 1 OR ONO 6:34 P.M. The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Mayor Callahan, Councilmembers Goetten, Nettles and Peterson; Mayor Grabek was absent. The following represented the City staff- City Administrator Bernhardson, Finance Director Kuehn, Bu, ding & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gernardson, Police Chief Kilbo and City Clerk Hallin. ASSESSMENT ROLL DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLINGS RESOLUTION #2714 It wag moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolut=nn #2714 providing for the collection of delinquent char :or 1989 sewer and water utility services, annual septic insf._.._-on and recycling program fees. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0, Mot ioi, passed. ASSESSMENT ROLL DELINQUENT GENF , IAL SERVICES RESOLUTION #27i�) It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Council. :,ember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2715 providing for the collection of delinquent Developers' Feas and Alarm Users' fees in the amount of $4,866.59 and to add 10.0% :n-.erest to the amounts due. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0, Motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. SET PUBLIC BEARING DATE 1990 BUDGET City ;administrator Bernhardson stated that the City had received notification that because of the special session of the Legislature currently in progress the State has recommended that t`- date of the public hearing not be set at this time. PRESENTATION AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED 1990 BUDGET City Administrator noted for Council the new pages III - a, VII and VII-a. After discussion regarding comparison of previous budget compared to present law and anticipated changes, upcoming major expenditures and additional funds not shown in the proposed budget Acting Mayor Callahan asked if there were any questions.on line items in the budget. Councilmember Goetten asked why there was a decrease in the LMCD budget from t'..e previous year. Finance Director Kuehn stated that $15,000 was added to the 1989 'MCD !:udget -or the Eurasian Milfoil problem. MINUTES OF SPECIAL ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 Councilmember Goetten asked if the proposed budget for the Assessing department was for an in-house assessor and part �~ time clerical staff. City Administrator stated at this point that was correct but that staff was currently working to contract for assessing services which would hopefully be less. City Administrator Bernhardson stated he would have prepared for the Council a copy of the various Fund balances projected through the end of 1990. Councilmember Goetten stated that she is aware of work tha: Inter Faith Outreacl, is doing the in area and noted that t:,ey would welcome funds. City Administrator stated the City wou'_d review any funding request sent by such organizations. Public Works Director Gerhardson stated that there would be an additional $2,900 placed in the 1990 Recycling Budget. After review and discussion of each department's proposed 1990 budget Acting Mayor Callahan asked if there were any other questions. ADJOURNMENT 9:04 P.M. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten to adjourn the Special Council Meeting_ at 9:04 p.m. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0, Motion pa:used. Edward J. Callahan Jr., Acting Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk U To: Mayor Grar,ol- & Orono Council Members COUNCIL MEETNIG City Administrator Bernhardson TT From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdA91JAN94 Date: October 19, 1989 CITY OF ORONO Subject: #1368 Thomas McNellis/John Prudden, 315/355 Woodhill Rd - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Request for Extension of Deadline Date for Filing List of Exhibits - Exhibit A - Propos,,d Deadline Extension Exhibit B - Resolution #2621 Resolution #2621 approving a lot line rearrangement subdivision for. McNellis and Prudden was adopted on April 24, 1989, pith the standard deadline filing date of October 24, 1989. The C ty Attorney and applicants are requesting extension of the October 24, 1989 deadline for filing to November 14, 1989 because Hennepin County just prior to the filing deadline has requested revisions of the legal descriptions. The revisions are expected to be completed next week but not before the current deadline. A resolution for such extension is attached for Council review. 'j P j City of ORW, o RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COU 'C!L NO. A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE DEADLINE DATE FOR FILING OF RESOLUTION #2621 FILE NO. 1368 WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2621 of the City Council was adopted on April ?4, 1983, and approval was conditioned on filing of the resolution with Hennepin County Registrar of Titles no later than October 24, 1989. The City Attorney and applicants have requested an extension of that deadline date to November 14, 1989 due to revisions of legal descriptions required by Hennepin County. NOW THEREFORE DE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Orono hereby extends the deadline date for filing of Resolution #2621 to November 14, 1989. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 23rd day of October, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) James R. Grabek, Mayor The foregoing instrument was ack•iowledged before me on this 23rd day of October, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said jasr.rument ,- executed on behalf of the City. Notar,, Puolic rf Commission Expires City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. .'S21 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR THOMAS E. MCNELLIS & JOHN PRUDDFM FILE NO. 1368 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application fc�r a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement by Thomas E. McNellis and : ohn Prudden (hereinafter "the applicants") of properties lagally described on the Certificate of Survey by Sathre Bergquist Inc., dated March 14, 1989 and attached to this resolution; and WHEREAS, the app-icarts have completed all requirements of the City for metes and bounds Class I subdivision of a lot line rearrangement including dedication to the City of drainage and utility easements along the appropriate lot lines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Concil of the City of Orono hereby approves the metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line. rearrangement for Thomas E. McNellis and John Prudden according to the legal descriptions show- on the Certificate of Survey by Sathre Bergquist Inc., dated March 14, 19@9 and attached to this resolution, subject to the following conditions: 1. Upon approval of this subdivision by the City- Council of Orono, the owner of Parcel X as described in the Certificate of Survey referenced above must apply to the City for legal combination fer tax purposes with Parcel W as described in that same survey. 2. Similarly, the owner of Parcel Z must apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel Y as described in the survey. 3. The aforesaid division as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin. County Recorder's office on or before October 24, 1989 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and the above noted easement document. Pane 1 of 2 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2621 The approval granted by this Resolution shall expired if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, this 24th day of April, 1989. AT T: Do othy Iq allin, City Clerk James R' Grab ,-MAy-0r-- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of April, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Publi n •,;i A:l :USII� - MIN`iiSOTA HFNNc�IN COL'T My tarr.l:atn •><Dlr�t 6.G•o3 My Commiss Page 2 of 2 / 1 ` f`I .•y Nf« I � y •J �� PARCEL\ X J L 1 - •1'/1 4 - - � m'1a aeru T6 s - PARCEL Z �a+al IJ r 1 Lw..► awnlfT Lr. Us.- •gym, r w-,.,ay ♦ •. w Imi- w ■iawt Ir•Y �. 7..a.� �..Nwr v lw.,.r DO ]O O ]O 100 ]Orr ILra�w■ Llaaaaa f,. IALI X •L[ •I f[[T IM• asi-M •aNw 'Am ■ art LL•, ✓ 1wfL �. ItLTl/!1! IJ• ataa ao ILw. fll- ✓ Lr fmLwi.• r 1► wl.�s. ww ✓ Loss. ]. ■I•• 1. WMLL � 1►�Isr...r..w��r ~�' 'L•wwf: liww �twy w�wY�LwIT I/w ✓ ►Y i..L ] M.1.IIJ'i fwL LLr-L� ✓ .► yL��. n-Lw. K W Inl ]: L■n�- wwl-.�LwIT N� IrA ] Ya 7. ■Iw! 1. L/L)s11LL ■ILa•, w..wll,f r tY. rwW.l LM,I 1bw■f. r� Ws. �L •++.M t. fNlr: 7•�.w.,f Y W -war•.. rmwT ✓ ►Y 1- a: t— ..ar...wlT Nww u. rw.ra.Lw�. Ilw r w,Y W a �LwI) Ir .+owlsIs- -or✓ W = 7 •L-La•l T].Y f.w w= Ml....Lw,f ✓ r w•.lwl aanwT ✓ M 4 7: .tiw -,. w �aLL�U 'Lrww' ■wn•tiLwITL �11•a ■.1 ✓W •aY 1., ]: mI— V: ] r W ps■,L III, ✓ w.aUY .lLososs.t ] I•a r,rww. It�a.aa,q IaLf w/wr. loll ILA T it to ✓ w ], uy I. Ia7a11LL �. ewL•r u Ir Ws. uwwlt. os+•arae• ► fN1r: w'L'r _. •.' ,1ww.L ...1a r... ...� Y's iwrL•wls 11w ✓ Y i..a a ra..wy .f t► aawrwoss. -.w... ✓ �Y I.r a: .�- ww.wy ■Iw• .► wwaMlT 1 iw ✓ iwY I.w 7..- r r.ww..+..• K �Y IK a: ur�� r►.�awU aJam uo wW.w.wy I Iw ✓ W 4 a L, W Iwa-,L. ✓Law +,+• Yw1 • III•]L _ T.w, 1. LW wan �. I■LI, film •f L♦•. L"L ✓ T,tlm..rr 11■t lalal •aw:llar m fNlr: I-L•away LN W as.-,I...aL moss.-r ✓ 1- ], aaa• 1, Yaa1LL ■1� .► rMrlT wL.m.m ✓ M a•LY ILL+ ✓ mY 4 a ■■�wwat, -T Ii.e fwa: .LA- rliw-L-Ty U . Im-L w 1► Lww.'a1T law K �Y IaM ],Ir3NIXT I— .+11wn.ry ✓ W �../-�.. urmr ✓ a,N w a: Ums ry-.yyy �1•• W aw.li.■MTif I.w ✓ W l� a L■ us L•Lr. ✓ IawLam�, tc-- ILaa a*r. rw•LI i r7 iii tlu, RD elan. ALIAMai .It 5c, CA LMC W SOL' sr am co mom ;JA ON /�.: 1 ,y... �: .N . --Y ;_ . . 4 P 41 PN Mw Ao i7l. I -ION XCEP 2. opo'ce"k-1 i.. Il 010.1 Per.". MI •WIT -1 6,? " .."lam ow --13407 sew- ;tv :st . . . . . soy 10 2 4ae.1R. T" ;man i(L r pq Im Na On the North Sbore of Lake. lillymetonka ON -SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT CITY INSPECTION REPORT OF POST OFFICE BOX 66 ,I ORONO 1335 S. Brown Rd. ilk Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473.7357 �t Lltr�fr_r 301v0 ICi>( ��-ree- L L OWNER ADDRESS PERMITNO.'S. 19125 DATES -14-L_(6 CONTRACTORS City Ordinance No. 210 requires that each on -site sewage treatment system in Orono be inspectet in a . yular bans. Th^ ^n-site sewage treatment system at the aaddress has been inspected and appears to fall into the cateoory checked below. (This is an existing system ❑ new construction) D1 Meets or exceeds current City standards in all respects relating to design, construction, and location. Appears to be operating properly. \T'1 2 Does not meet all current City standards for new construction (1978 Code, but in most respects appears to be designed, located, and constructed generally in accordance with previous codes. System appears to be functioning properly; no major upgradine, of the systt To is required at this time. ❑ 3 Does not me,:t current City standards in many respects relating to design, construction, or location. Appears to be operating adequately at this .ime. bt.t has a relatively high potential for future problems. No major upgrading at system is required at this time, 4 System mar or may not meet current City standards for design, construction or location, but is fading to properly treat and dispose of the current input, and is endangering a water supply, or is a source of pollution to surface or groundwaters. or is creating a safety hazard, or is otherwise creating a public nuisance. Please contact t.. City Inspector to discuss system repair/ replacement procedures. If drainfield replacement is necessary, soil testing will usually be required, and a design and site plan must be submitted for review. Your contractor must obtain a permit before work is started. SYSTEM CONDITION ( [0 Checked items may require your action) Tank inspection indicates: Pumpout not needed at this time. ❑ Solids accumulation in tan. , indicates they should be oumo- ad out this year to help prevent future problems. ❑ Solids accumulation in tanks is at a crit.cal le- ,I. Tanks should be pumped out as soon as possible. ❑ System is discharging to surface. Tanks must be pumped ,within 48 hours to eliminate surface discharge. Inspection risers musing—. Inspection risen (4" dia. pipe) must be installed in each tank at next pumpOut. ❑ Inspection pipe is located directly over tank baffle. (Does not give accurate measurement of solids accumulation.) If tanks have not been pumped out within the last three years, they should be pumped out ncw. Draifield inspection indicates. Dramfield is dry, no surfacing evident. �❑ Some evidence of surfacing, not critical yet. ❑ Dramfield is saturated and visibly discharging untreated effluent to the surface. This cond tion may require replace- ment or additions to drainfield. Contact the City Inspector immediately. Repairs must be completed within 90 days. ❑ Dramfield extent and condition unknown. SITE CHARACTERISTICS. Limiting Site Factors Potential for System Failure ❑ Slope (depends on soil types, water 0 Soil tat le_anc system condition) ❑ High water table �eOt-4—Low� ; ys tem u e, ❑ Lot size Medium - Lake, tZ!1AA0, or stream ❑ High ❑ Drainage ❑ System is causing visible Site Capabilities for Future Expansion ❑ Adequate Fair ❑ Poor ❑ Inadequate su face discharge. COMMENTS kt-Gt� z2, 19 v / —� Date of Inspection eptic System Ins Note: In the event that this inspection report is used to satisfy the requirements for i mortgage or other transfer of this report does not guarantee or certify that an existing system will continue to function properly, but is merely an prootrty, be advised that ooin on of the adequacy of the system under current conditions based on the available information. This report must be kept on the premises with syster.i location and pumping records. WHITE COPY ! Inspector's File GOLD COPY / Homeowner ON -SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT Cl Ty INSPECTION REPORT OF • • • OWNER 7rf-fin,/ %t/Vft ADDRESS On the North Shore of Lake. U in neto nk,7 POST OFFICE BOX 66 1335 S. Brown Rd. Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 3 lL G x �i l� t-G ! PERMITNO.'S. — 7z-W DATESg —' L� —IL CONTRACTORS City Ordinance No. 210 requires that each on -site sewage treatment system in Orono be inspected on a regular basis. The on -site sewage treatment system at the ab�o,vee address has been inspected and appears to fall into the category checked below. (This is b an existing system ❑ new construction) O1 Meets or exceeds current City standards in all respects relating to design, construction, and location. Appears to be operating properly. �l 2 Does not meet ill current City standards for new construction (1978 Code) but in most respects appears to be designed, —CJ located, and constructed generally in accordance with previous codes. System appears to be functioning properly: no major upgrading of the system is required at this time. ❑ 3 Does not meet current City standards in many respects relating to design, construction, or location. Appears to be operating adequately at this time, but has a relatively high potential for future problems. No major upgrading of system is required at this time. Q 4 System may or may not meet current City standards for design, construction or location, but is failing to properly treat and dispose of the current input, and is endangering a water supply, or is a source of pollution to surface or grot ndwaters, or is creating a safety hazard, or is otherwise creating a public nuisance. Please contact the rity Inspector to discuss system repair/ replacement procedures. If drainfield replacement is necessary, soil testing will usually be required, and a design and site plan mi-st be submitted for review. Your contractor must obtain a permit before work is started. SYSTEM CONDITION ( m Checked items may require your action) ispeetion indicates: — TJ Pumpout not needed at this time. ❑ Solids accumulation in tanks indicates they should be Pump- ed out this year to help prevent future problems. ❑ Solids accumulation in tanks is at a critical level. Tanks should be pumped out as soon as possible. ❑ System is discharging to surface. Tanks must be pumped within 48 hours to eliminate surface discharge. ❑ Inspection risen missing —tanks could not be inspected. Inspection risers (4" dia. pipe) must be installed in each tank at next pumpout. If tanks have not been pumped out within the last three years, they should be pumped out now. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Limiting Site Factors ❑ Slope Cl Soil ❑ High water table �---0 Lot size ❑ Lake, wetland, or stream ❑ Drainage COMMENTS ❑ Inspection pipe is located directly over tank baffle. (Does not give accurate measurement of solids accumulation.) If tanks have not been pumped otit within the last three years, they should be pumped out now. Drainfield inspection indicates: ❑ Drainfield is dry, no urfacing evident. ❑ Some evidence of surfacing, not crir.al yet. ❑ Drainfield is saturated and v-,ioly discharging untreated effluent to the surface. Th:, condition may require replace- ment or additions to drainfield. Contact the City Inspector immediatel•,. Repairs must be completed within 90 days. — Drainfield extent and condition unknown. Pf4>T 5 utljFr4CI N L- Vr:rr3L-rr v , R/Trcr4t. Foiential for System Failure (depends on soil types. water tabie. and systerr. condition) ❑ Low ---t❑ Medium ❑ High ❑ System is causing visible surface discharge. Site Capabilities for Future Expansion ❑ Adecluate -e Fair ❑ Poor ❑ Inadequate o Date of Inspection eptic System Inspector Note: In the event that this inspection report is used to satisfy the requirements for a mortgage or other transfer of property. C-' advised that this report does not guarantee or certify that an existing system will continue to function properly, but is merely an opinion of the adequacy of the System under current conditions based on the ai,ailable information. This report must be kept or the premises with system location and pumping records. WHITE COPY / Inspector's File GOLD COPY / Homeowner •1 .��rr . i LOCATION INSPECTION RECORD PUMPOUT RECORD SKETCH DATE COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS 7l-/1- HBO 4Tt�/CAT6T� Z , _ASr S.IICFA[luy ylLtTrF n..r NOT eT,r��ac.. Z 6-23 ' - 51t - j Include: 11 Well location 2) Distance from house to i _ septic ranks• diet. box• and drainfield C - CONFORMING S - SUBSTANDARD N - -MING 3) North arrow and road c s Preliminary Plat of Fox Bend - Septic System Testing August 22, 1989 Page 4 of 4 General Comments - Each proposed lot appears to have suitable primary and alternate drainfield sites. On some lots, the primary and alternate sites shown are the only possible sites available. On other lots, it is likely that additional testing could find a number of potential sites, allowing additional flexibility in house placement. In each case, drainfield sites have been designed to meet the minimum 20' setback from property lines, and 75' setbacks from designated wetlands. On the majority of lots, extreme caution must be taken during construction of improvements to the property. Road construction will take place within 50' of test-d drainfield sites on at least 6 of 17 lots, and on 2 lots the sites are relatively near the area proposed to be graded to provide a detention basin. I would recommend that each lot have drainfield sites protected by snow fence totally surrounding the drainfield sites at a distance 20' from the boundaries of each drainfield system. Additionally• when road construction plans arA submitted, I would like to revi aw them to determine where road cut would have a potential impact on drainfield sites. Summary - Out of 34 drainfiel% sites test d, 29 require mound systems and 5 would allow a tren -type system. Each lot has primary and alternate sites design -d. It would not be surprising if as many as 20% of the sites timately will have to be re -tested due to the buyer's preference for house sites near or conflicting with drainfields. Some lots are extremely limited for potential drainfield sites, others provide a degree of flexibility in house placement. Given the above facts, concerns, and cons`raints, I would recommend approval of the subdivision as proposed. Accompanying this memo is a topographic survey of the preliminary plat showing potential house locations ind locat:1_ons of both primary and alternate drainfield sites. Ss To: .lea - A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator From; m4 clael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & "o, . ,g 3ministrator Date: ,.,just 22, 1989 Subject: Preliminary Plat of Fox Bend - Septic Systen, Testing Septic system site evaluations for this 17-lot subdivision haWl�been submitted. Additionally, a topographical survey of the property containing a plot of the drainfield sit^5 has been submittedfn IA make the following comments regarding each proposed lot: Lot 1, Block 1. Primary and alternate sites have been located. Both tree sites require a mound system due to high seasonal water tables. Slopes range from 2%-6%. These two sites are about 50' from a proposed detention basin, but should not affect nor be affected by `hat basin. The sites -houid be totally fenced off with snow fencing before any road or detention basir construction takes place in the subdivi:ion. Lot 2, "lock 1. Primary and alternate sites have been 1��•- :nd both sites have soil and water table conditions to or a trench drainfield system. With the proposed h. at the south end of the lot, there shc.uld be nc prat_ .reserving these sites. Again, the drainfield area shoulc; fenced off to keep all traffic away during road and detention '-..sin construction. Lot 3, Block 1. Again, primary and alternate drainfield sites are suitable for trench systems. The two sites are ;_ the rear of the lot. W t-h the most likely house site near the front of the lot:, ?%ese sites appear to be very s,.... _,, le. Loc 4, Block 1. Primary and alternate drainfield sites axe located on the knob at the southwest corner of the property. Both sites require mound systems. with the house site suited for a walk -out to the northeast, a driveway would likely be centered on the lot east of the drainfielJ sites. Slopes are in the range of 3%, and not accurately reflected by the topographic map. It is critical to totally enclose these sites with snow fence prior to any road construction work, since the sites are very close to the road.- P.Lso, road grades and cuts should be reviewed --o verify :::.Lt i-DE roadwork will not cut into site A2. Lot 5, Block 1. Primary and alternate drainf_. '.d sites are located tc. the rear of the property on slopes of 0-28. Both sites require a mound system. W.i-:h the probable house I~ecat-i-on centrally located on the lot, these sites appear very suitable. s Preliminary :Jlat of Fox Bend - Septic System Testing August 2?, 1989 Page 2 of 4 Lot 6, Block 1. The drainfield sites are near the rear property line, and not likely to be affected by construction t- _,ffic. These sites are located arjut 70' back from the }.ravelled portion of Luce Line Trail, and should have no affect nor be affected by the trail. Slopes are virtually flat. Again, the likely house location would be in the center of the lot. Depending on final house location, additional sites might be located on this property. Lot 1, Block 2. Primary and alternate drainfield sites have bee.i located at the north end of the lot, adjacent to the proposed road connection to Leaf Street. These sites both require mound systems, and this is perhaps the most critical lot of this subdivision since drainfield sites are uphill from the proposed house location and surrounded on two sides by proposed road construction. These sites must be surrounded by snow fence to avoid any construction traffic:. The building envelope is large enough that a house can be constructed leaving approximately 50-60' or more setback from the drainfield sites. I would further recommend that no driveways or other grading- be constructed within 30' of the toe of the mound sites Again, the contour lines shown on the topographic survey -3t quite jive with elevations found in the field. Lot 2, Block 2. Primary and alternate drainfield sites are located at the southeast corner of the property near Fox Street. The house site would be located north of the pond area. The two drainfield sites tested must be preserved, since they are the only two available sites on the property, both requiring mounds. From a technical standpoint, location of drainfield systems as much as 300-350' away from the house should not cause any problems. Lot 3, Block 2. Both primary and alternate drainfield sites were located on the property. The primary site would be suitable for a trench -type system. The alternate site would require a mount:. Both sites are located in the wooded area of the lot. Lot 4, Block 2. Both prima-- and alternate drainfield sites have been located. Those sites are generally parallel with the proposed road and near the north lot line. These sites definitely need to be snow fenced totally in order to preserve them during road construction. Rl- Preliminary Plat of Fox Bend - Septic System Testing August 22, 1989 Page 3 of 4 Lot 5, Block 2. Primary and alternate sites are located about a third of the way back into the lot off the road, just above the woods. While additional sites probably could be located &n the woods, the sites le-!ve a relatively small building envelope near the road. Again, the sites need to be snow fenced to keep construction traffic off of them. Both sites require mounds. Lot 6, Block 2. Primary and alternate sites, both being mound systems, are located near the north end of the property near the road. Again, topographic contc-urs vary slightly from those shown on the survey. Slopes range from 3-6%. These sites force the house location to be more centrally located on the property. The sites need to be snow fenced to avoid traffic during road construction. Lot 7, Block 2. Both primary and alternate drainfield sites are located near the north end of this lot. Both sites reauire mound systems. The sites allow for great f':, 'I�ility in house location. Lot 1, Block 3. Primary and alternate drainfield sites, both being mound systems, have been locates' -n the property. House location would be relatively near tht .ci-de-sac. The primary site somewhat limits the potential -use locations. Lot 2, Block 3. Primary and alternate drainfield sites, both being mounds, are located near the westerly corner cf this property. These sites definitely need to be fenced off during road construction, since they are in a prime "short- cut" area. Lot 3, Block 3. Both primary and alternate sites are located at the extreme east end of the property, leaving great flexibility in house placement. These sites are not likely to be disturbed during construction of roadways. Lot 4, Block 3. The two drainfield .sites are centrally located on the property, having some significant effect on house placement. The site evaluator anticipated the existing house would be removed, with a newer house placed to the northeast corner of the lot. House placement will have to take into account the drainfield sites. Both sites require a mound. MAN Preliminary Plat of Fox Bend - Septic System Testing August 22, 1989 Page 4 of 4 General Comments - Each proposed lot appears to have suitable primary and alternate drainfield sites. Or. some lots, the primary and alternate sites shown are the only possible sites available. on other lots, it is likely that additional testing could find a number of potential sites, allowing additional flexibility in house placement. In each case, drainfield sites have been designed to meet the minimum 20' setback from property lines, and 75' setbacks from designated wetlands. On the majority of lots, extreme caution must be taken during construction of improveme..ts to the property. Road construction will take place within 50' of tested drainfield sites on at least 6 of 17 lots, and on 2 lots the sites are relatively near the area proposed to be gra d tc provide a detention basin. T would recommend that each lot have drainfield sites protected by snow fence totally surrounding the drainfield sites at a distance 20' from the boundaries of each drainfield system. Additionally, when road construction plans are submitted, I would like to review them to determine where road cut would have a potential impact on drainfield sites. Summary - Out of 34 drainfield sites tested, 29 require mound systems and 5 would allow a trench -type system. Each lot has primary and alternate sites designated. It would not be surprising if as many as 20% of the sites ultimately will Have to be re -tested Jue to the buyer's preference for house sites near or conflicting with drain.fields. Some lots are extremely limited for [)ctenti_al drai.field sites, others provide a degree of flexibility in house placement. Given the above facts, concerns, and constraints, I would recommend approval of the subdivision as proposed. Accompanying this memo is a topographic survey of the preliminary plat showing potential house locations and locations of both primary and alternate drainfield sites. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 19, 1989 ZONING FILE #1411-SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Planning Commissioner Cohen had a difficult time seeing how 18 lots would fit into this area. He wanted to see two accesses if there are more than 8 lots. Planning Commissioner Brown indicated that he did not like granting varii. ices for new subdivisions, in this case for the 200' lot width requirement. Planning Commissioner Johnson thought that the proposed access location was the best. He wanted the applicants to pay particular attention to drainage, grading, the road and wetlands when they core back foi preliminary plat approval. Acting Chairperson Bellows said that the cul-de-sac was inappropriate, and compared this subdivision with that of Mr. Rebers. She preferred to see a through road. She also expressed concern about the conflicting drainage information. She wanted to see soil test-Ing extend beyond just septic system concerns, to help define buildabilitv of ti,.e lot in general. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and tre public hearing was closed. it was moved by Acting Chairperson Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1412 MA.Y L. PETERSEN 384 MCCULLEY ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CLASS III PUBLIC HEARING 7:55 P.M. - 8:25 P.M. Ms. Mary L. Petersen was present for this matter, as was Mark Gronberg, the applicant's surveyor. The Affidavit of Pub ication and Certificate of Mailing were daily noted. Mr. Jerome O'Brien, 380 Turnham Road objected to the future road being proposed to access onto Turnham Road. Ms. Des 1 Peterson, 4385 Chippewa Lane was concerned about the City's dedication of an outlot which encroached her prope-ty. She questioned the City's legal authority to do that. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained to Ms. Peterson that it was the City's responsibility to plan and provide for future access to properties that may otherwise become landlocked. Ms. Peterson questioned whether the City was basing their authority on State Statutes that allow a city t:- dedicate a "reasonable portion" of private property that is needed as a result of a subdivision. Acting Chairperson Bellows reiterated Mabusth's explanation and added that the higher densities Orono experiences, the more need there is for through roads. Mabusth said that 33' was a recommendation from the City Engineer. Bellows recommended that Ms. Peterson meet with Zoning Administrator Mabusth to further 14INUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 19, 1989 ZONING FILE #1411-SOSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Chadwick quoted sections of Chapter 11 of the Zoning Code pertaining to lot width variances. Mr. Chadwick also objected to the proposed primary access being opposite Farview Lane access. He proposed moving the access eastward 150'. He did not agree with a cul-de-sac configuration due tc the need to allow emergency vehicle access. Mr. Chadwick further noted that Outlot B was located in a low area and questioned whether there would be need to fill in that area should a road be constructed. Zoning Administrator Mabusth replied that filling may be necessary but that specific low area was not a designated wetland. Mr. Gronberg advised that Outlot B had the highest elevations in the subdivision. Mr. Arnold Robbins-3211 Bayside Road expressed his safety concerns regarding the intersections at Fox Street and Bayside Road and Leaf Street. He suggested that a stop sign be placed at that intersection. He also wanted measures taken to presarve as much wildlife habitat as possible. Mr. David Maass-3175 Fox Street said that he was concerned about drainage. He referred to the pond located in the southwest corner of the subdivision. He said that a large part of the runoff from the property enters that pond and the overflow runs under Fox Street and into a holding well between his property and Mr. Dixon's. From there, runoff proceeds to a culvert that extends half down his driveway and empties into a ditch alongside his .._iveway. He said that the added density would increase the amount of lawn fertilizers draining directly into Maxwell Bay. He questioned whether the watershed engineer had reviewed this proposal arc; if so, what his recommendations were. Mr. George Dixon-3250 Fox Street indicated that he wished to see a strict interpretation of tht 200' width requirement upheld. He also wanted the City to take a conservation easement across the low areas. Mr. Jim Fullerton-3350 Fox Street Concurred with previous concerns indicated regardi-ng the need to nave more than one access point. Ms. Cherry Stubbs-2920 Fox Street echoed Mr. Fullerton and Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Greg Lawton-425 Old Crystal Bay Road said that the increased drainage would run through his property. He said that Outlot A heads toward a pond area. Mabusth confirmed that. Mr. Lawton said that would pose a problem for any future road. he also mentioned a discrepancy between the survey done of his property and the survey of this property, along the northeast corn-r. Ms. Shirley Laue_594 Par' -ane contradicted staff's observations regarding drainage coming from the wetlands just 2 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 19, 1988 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Chairperson Bellows; Planning Commissioners Johnson, Cohen, and Hanson. Planning Commissioner Brown arrived at 7:10 p.m. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Building Official Jacobs and City Recorder Scheffle-. Council Representative Edward Callahan also attended. #1411 SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT 3020 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CLASS III ')UBLIC HEARING 7-00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Marx Gronberg, surveyor, was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Jann Olsten-3090 Farview Lane explained that he was present in the capacity of a spokesperson for the Farview Homeowners Association. He said that the concerns of the homeowner's associati-.)n were similar to those of the City staff.. One of the three cot .erns is the ir.gress,'-yress and Outlot C being designated as t e primary access and the resulting increase in traffic. Mr. Olsten said that Outlot C would provide a shortcut to Old Crystal Bay Road via Farview Lane. The Homeowners Association suggested that the access be located across from the church on Leaf Street. Another issue would be the environmental impact and drainage due to portions of the land being wetlands. -'he last concern is the density of the development. Many of the proposed lots barely meet the 2-acre minimum. He said that there is quite a bit of low land and wetlands and that the dry conditions over the last summer may provide an inaccurate indication as to what is actually wetland. The Homeowner's Association wanted assurances that the der.: would not affect the sewer systems. Mr. Phil Byers-3083 Farview Lane had a sketch showing tie area that would be affe,ted by junoff from the highest elevation in the northern section cf the subdivision. Mr. Joe Chadwick-3060 Fox Street said that the low area si,awn to the north of his house =- only 1/3 to 1/2 half the size it should be. He said that if t area was not in this pre-,ent dry condition, it would not be pc . Bible to obtain a 2 acre parcel in that area.- Mr. Chadwick was also concerned about lots 4, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 not meeting the required 200' width. He questioned whether the applicant would be requesting variances for those lots. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the applicant would address that concern in hi:-7 presentation, but at this time, lot width variances were not being requested. Mr. 1 Members of the City of Orono Planning Commission Ms. Jeanne Mabusth August 31, 1989 Page Five We look forward to working with the City i�d the Developer to successfully resolve the remaining problems and issues regarding the Proposed Development. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. George Dixon Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Chadwick Mr. and Mrs. James Fullerton Mr. and Mrs. David Maass Mr. and Mrs. Philip Byers Mr. and Mrs. Jann Olsten Enclosure cc: Mr. Charles Kelly Ms. Maureen Bellows Mr. James Hanson Mr. Jeffrey J3hnson Mr. Edward Cohen Mr. Edward Brown ms. Sara Moos Thomas Pantalion, Esq. City of Orono 1335 Brown Road South P. J. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 473-7357 Members of the City of Orono Plannini Commission: Mr. Charl•.-' J. Kelly, Chairman 2720 Whitt Oak Circle Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Ms. Maureen Bellows 265 South Brown Road Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Mr. James F. Hanson 884 Dakota Avenue Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Mr. Jeffrey D. Johnson 3825 Cherry Avenue Mound, Minnesota 55364 Mr. Edward M. Cohen 519 North Ferndale Road Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Mr. Edward C. Brown, III 355 North Stubbs Bay Road LC g Lake, Minnesota 55356 As. Sara Moos 21610 Webber Hills Road Wayzata Minnesota 55391 Members of the City of Orono Planning Commission Ms. Jeanne Mabusth August 31, 1989 Page Four 1. It is not clear from the Developer's Revised Plat whether the lots bordering Leaf Street and Fox Street will have direct access to these streets. We would like the Developer to clarify that double access will not be permitted, dnd that no variances will be sought for double access. The lots should derive access exclusively from the proposed arterial roadway. 2. To insure that all state and federal laws are complied with, the City should require the Developer tc indicate wt-ether any of the ponds and low areas located on the Proposed Development come within the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the Army Corp of Engineers. 3. We note that Lake Minnetonka is 3 to 4 feet below its normal level. It is reasonable to assume that this has an effect on the water level of the ponds and low areas located on the Proposed Development. The City should ascertain that the Developer's Revised Plat takes account of the current. low water level. 4. .1 a Developer should, as required, provide the City with a SLJ,!3 Water Management Plan and a Soil Erosion Control Plan. Sir( - runoff to Lake Minnetonka flows through the property .:•f one of us, we wou:.d like to review these plans as soon as they are submitted to the Planning Commission. 5. On -site septic testing should be completed to the Planning Commission's satisfaction on each of the proposed lots. 6. The Developer should provide the City with a vegetation map, indicatir7 the location of existing shade trees and proposed buffer trees. The City should insist on the reasonable pre-ervation oi: all existing trees, and should require, in addition to landscape buffering, that new shade trees be planted in the cpen areas of the Propcsed Development. Members of the City of Orono Planning Commission Ms. Jeanne Mabusth August 31, 1989 Page Three terminates with a cul-de-sac. The City's subdivision regulations, however, state that the maximum cul-de-sac '.ength is 1000 feet. The Preferred Plan eliminates this problem by extending the access road to Leaf Street. We understand that the connection of the access road to Leaf Street is probably inevitable. Prudence suggests that it is better to extend the access road to Leaf Street now, rather than in the future, to eliminate the need for a 1400 foot cul-de-sac and an accompanying variance. In addition, extending the access road to Leaf Street allows for better police and fire protection. Please note that Outlot A, which to ou. knowledge does not seem to serve any purpose, is omitted from the Preferred Plan. 3. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Chadwick, owners of the property shown on the Developer's Revised Plat as the "Exception," desire to purchase, at a price to be negotiated, land adjoining their property to bring their property into compliance with the two -acre minimum. Their wish is in part driven by the age of their septic system, aad the desire to have additional land for its eventual relocation. We also call attention to a letter addressed to the Chadwicks from John M. Lanier, Sr_, dated June 14, 1989, in which Nit. Lanier stated that he recalled a conversation with Jeanne Mabusth during which Mrs. Mabusth inJA-cated tha`. the City would require Don Carlson (whc was considered to he a future developer) to bring the Exception into compliance with the subdivision regulations. The Preferred Plan accomplishes this and accommodates the Chadwick's corcerns. 4. The Preferred Plan provides for buff-. plantings at appropriate locations along Fox Street and Leaf Street. The buffer plantings are necessary to soften the Proposed Development insofar as the subject land contains very little mature vegetation in these places. In sum, we contend that the Fi" 7 3 Plan answers the problems that the Developer night have addre The Preferred Plan proposes a development that, to our knowledge, is free of variances, and deals with the issue of the Exception, without, we believe, imposing an economic hardship on the Developer. In addition to the above, we note that the Developer ld attend to the following before obtaining ;)reliminary plat approval. Members of the City of Orono Planning Commission Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Aug.•st 31, 1989 Page Two reduction is modest, we strongly believe that it will produce several benefits. First, by reducing the number of lots, the Preferred Plan proposes larger lots that aLe more in keeping with the rural character of Lhe surrr -ling neighborhood. The two acre requirement is a "m iniir- 4 ' restriction, rather thin a goal to be achieved. Tl.:! re .1 goal s..ould be to create a development that accords with the character and svmmetry of the neighborhood. The Pre rred Plaz, both w.th respect to lot sizes and the resulting configurations, more successfully blends the Proposed Development into '_h! surrounding community. The added attractiveness _ the lot: sizes and configurations favorably "fects not only the surrounding neighbors, but also the w, ketabilit,' of the lots. Indeed, it is arguable tt'ut the Preferred Plat enhances the overall value oc the Proposed Development. Second, eliminating two lots will result in a cencommitant decrease in hard cover. As a consequence, there will be less soil erosion and runoff. The land encompassed by the Proposed Development is particularly sensitive to soil erosion and runcff because of the number of ponds and low areas, and because the water from these ponds and low areas flows into Lake Minnetonka. In short, by eliminating two lots, the Preferred Plan does a better iob of comporting with the City's commitment tc minimizing storm eater runoff. Th: ased on our understanding of the subdivision i.egulat.to the following lota in Developer's Revised Plat still fail o meet the City's 200 foot minimum --width zequirement: Block 1, lots 1 and S; Block 2, lots 2, 3 and 7; and Block 3, lot 1. By reducir.q the numbe. of lots, we believe the Proferred Plan mf-cts or surpasses the City's 200 foot minimum -width requirement. Thus, to our knowledge, none of the lots in the Preferred Plan wil: require variances. Fourth, allowing an area the size of the Proposed Development, which consists of many acres of low areas and wetlanas, to contain up to 17 different sep'ic systems may strain the septic capacity of the subject _;a. Redu-!nq the number of lots eases this burden. 2. The Developer's Revised Plat pro•iides access to the Proposed Development via a 1400 foot road (Outlot C) that Members of the City of Planning Commission Ms. Jeanne i4abusth City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota August 31, 1989 Orono 55323 Re: Proposed Fox Bend Development (The "Proposed Development") in the City of Orono (the "City"), Prelir nary Plat Arplication No. 1411 Ladies and Gentlemen: As owner,- of property located near the Proposed Development, we are writing. in part, to express our disappointment with the revised Preliminary Plat for the Proposed Development submitted by Sussex Square Development (the "Developer"). The Planning Commission reviewed the initial Preliminary Ptat at a public hearing on June 19, 1989. A'-. that meeting, the Planning Commission withheld approval of the Proposed Development and instructed the Developer to revise the Prelimina-y Plat in response to the numerous concerns raised at the meeting. ime of the more prominent problems involving the Proposed Development dis:issed at the meeting include: (i) the excessive number of proposed lots; (ii) ti. poss_bility that many of the lots fail to meet the 200 foot minimum -width requirement; and (iii) concerns regarling soil erosion and runoff. Unfortunately, the reviser Preliminary Plat ithe "Developer's Revised Plat"), which is sc-eduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a special mee ing on September 6, 1989, still falls `ort of addressing the problems raised at the June 19, 1989 me,�.,.ig. In an effort_ to provide the Planning Commission with a plat that addresses the salient concerns of the surrounding landowners, that complies with the letter and spirit of the Citv's subdivision regulations, and that, we believe, continues to ser4t! the interests of the Developer, we have retained Robert Kost, a land planner with 9RV, Inc. mr. Kost is very famil-a:- with the City's subdivision ►e3ulations, and with other dovelo^.nLnt projects in the City. We believe that the enclosed plat (the "Preferred Plan"), desi-ned by L�;r. Kost, is super to the Developer's Revised Plat for the following reasons: 1. The Developer's Revise' Plat: comprises 17 lots. The Preferred Plan, by contrast, redurpi the number of lots for the Prcrosed Development from 17 Lu 1`. Although tLs 64 P As /fi L FI-I / MERCHANT, GOULD. SMITH, EDELL, WELTER A SCHMIDT rworKSSIONwL ♦SSOCIA*1000 Mr. John Lanier 3060 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 I am sending a copy of this letter to your real estate agent because she should be sure that any buyer is aware of the entire situation and of the fact that additional land to bring your pro- perty up to standard can be purchased. I.suggest that you, or your buyer, work with Orono and me to determine just how much land is needed to bring your property up to Orono standards. Very truly yours, Alan G. Carlson AGC:scb cc: Peggy Watson Merrill -Lynch Realty 315 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Mike Gaf f ron City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 JOMN O. OOULO PMILL I M. SMITN POIILT T. cOILL PAUL A. WC CtCIL C. ICNr10T JOMM I. SUMw IP1 AIAM O. CARLSON MICMtAL L. SCMWIOMAN IAPL O. PIILAMO CMAPIts C.0 LLA D OUO LAf J. W. LOANS OOUO LAf A. STPAWIP'OOt ALIt 0" L. UNDIPMILL O. RANDALL RING mass, ow MAN P. IPICOIPICMS M IC MAIL I. LASAT CU PTII I. NAMPI MICMAIL O. SCHUMANN MICNACL L• rAU JOMM W. Iu MCM J ONN A. CLI►►O wO MAP. J. DIPI[T Po JAMtT w. WtITPOM STIVIM W. LUNO\LPO WAPstick O. WOtSINIP OAVIO O. JONMSON ALAN W. AOWALCNTR MIC MAIL S. SMIPMILL TIN C TNT X.CONPAO DAt� %;L — M.00NALO JANICI L. UMIIL P. CAPL NOT Pouter r.. /PIIo OANUL J. RLUTM WtMOT r.COHALO LINOA M. MTPMI M APR O. SCMUMAN PANOALL A. NILLSOM JOMN P. furwtP IPIAN M. IATZLI OAVIO A. TILLtRSOM M ALLII A./IMUCAMI MERCHANT, GOULD, SMITH, EDELL, WELTER 6. SCHIHCDT ,;i�i�{ PMO /93510MAL ASSOCIATION I ,,i IL1,� OI►ICCS IN MI IEAPOLI1/1I PATENT, TRAOEMARK a! COPYRIGHT LAWYERS 3 ANo ST PAUL IBOO 0410WEST PLAZA BUILDING —� /PAwR O. MC*C.A.T (Ittt•-IA7) 801 NICOLLCT MALL RALPN I, MLPCMAMT (ISO)•ISI OI MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA U.S.A. 55402 -- TILIII :I0II7 M t O NP7 (W21 Sax-B3oo nLl:ontPl CCITT OT.oI.OI (fill JIlt-90II Mr. John Lanier 3060 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear John: June 8, 1988 Over a year ago you asked me to sell yogi some of my land that was contiguous to your home at 3060 Fox Street in Orono. You said that Orono considered your lot to be substandard sized and you would want more land to protect yourself in the event that I sub- divided my property. As you will recall, I told you that you did not need to buy from me yet since I did not intend to develop the land for a few years. Now, things have changed. You have your property for sale, and T_ am closer to developing. Accordingly, this is an appropriate time to pursue a. sale of a portion of my land to you. I am writing to offer to sell land to you, or to your buyer, at a reasonable price. I spoke to Mike Gaffron at the Orono City Office ad he con- firmed that Orono may want your home on a larger piece of land. He said that when I subdivided, Orono might require some accomo- dation that would put your home on a larger lot. I think you will agree that would be unfair for Orono to make me give land to your property for free when I develop my land (perhaps that is wny you offered to buy land), so I am writing at this time to �ffgr to sell land. To: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director. Building & Zoning Administrator From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, %v Date: June 29, 1989 Subject: Stop Sign at Intersection of Leaf Street & Bayside Road During the review of Application #1411 Sussex Square Development (former Alan Carlson - Senesac property) at 3020 Fox Street, neighbors in attendance advised of the near accidents that take place at the above referenced intersection. City staff was asked to determine the need for a stop sign at said intersection. Staff would appreciate your comments prior �o scheduling the application before the August 21st meeting of the Planning Commission. Please advise if you need additional information or have any questions concerning the above request. cc: Nina Wildman, Sussex Square Development Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Glenn Cook, City Engineer In }R*Vvpti" . Ao #v'#' '50ch� zelf .51bAiteft of /AM, andn preorclamw wA //m orpir, D/ ,/I#, AW04, Aft*lk' of 00*60t t /11;pnejo*, MarepilwAllict fo//VV,n lothe co.,7/vv of mo7coliv!and kT** o1'ffj%7#7- ejola, to W* rho #*it j C. f jochiad' t' rownjh,,v //Z Mange Ra., ftat WmpA71 !) on tn,j ihowl is or ca-r-al v1w1.mwAvP o f j aisl pA:,,*;!, in a and '', �': + Ir A -pot stAlAijAmceip, are, fflhovn in foot 11C. of f'w 110; 1 e K) 4s A. y Mot lbo wo AdWhisst 01040 0—lara WIS — -,Jc,,Amw,;v ~ Abwevoow ja~' OPW a evva~Ab A3vw O'kwow allsee Aw 000-8,48 of I"! w A' of card ofv~ro a, sorter =d =W'Pul/cot /a cavp+ Ov'm ij ",d'I"POtikV AVW rg7uW4 AUVW CATAWW 00 A* P&#vd(,in weewwa. we WIM 466 OF/001 an 144 JAISCIO and jWPIO Ob k# ""w" m;s Awmrowilr JuAmwilow &MOT. F Fit "j 20 21 22 qg Is, 9.1 23 , Q�k "'" bi� I A J3 IL J4 0.6 a 'JAI. A?A,,t wA r On COLVLV, AS$ j, mm.m. C*U.rv. m D. L"A-mw6.k_Tm id P.2 OF= *=. I !I i zs I I AL' &wAr vI. I go In a 22 3 2 kit VIA 33 n1#0 JOChIW -7/9 CAMP100- A OPPItrttl ,51bWei of fAM. dpW In vcv*,Wv,wq: w w,,* the orplol 0/ AOWO, 96W^* of 00*409� v#- ConAy.1li)aSsvAv. lbare,01WAW . , In* rOl/v,w,Aq ofooco-'awd /*PAW III the - cvn4p of lArnowph'and J6* alrynow• ejetc, to w4l rho POW j of .ye Chen -0, l&wvruhIo 1/7 A?onpv,?J; Ift*l,AoAl&l' tn's jAeot It or ca"vet virl"MCA84 ore jwf4wpA:Z!. and Zlrnop+" J Avdijbri .3 rAjq and ~t a# OijAwnces. a,* 0,64PI-I on fv#P 0^0164f*u-Mlj of tool' 4V 1� W, 4A . 04 1 1 -.,a I lit AA .0'rowwww', C"AmOils.- *1 14.nwown CO.W.04.. . he,,v*v C-O"40 fAeol "ApiAeof Me 4—Arl of M. Arwr dpirjce,~,- fAe jo,'"o. end tv vos-Y Ptv#.W ownwri of o,-W toad horror tol/cc, A. ce'"'Ov rv,^ notav ~omfwat. /Appo eawmW lh A AUoloolontAW jAvejO. wneljot~ Ob be kno-a &a A&w,row3p Jw&wsAoosw tlfv� AW4 /Illewwrowl, Ce•IV Orrrs of MIMI or 119ril U.S. hr -Iod a% am lew- Aw, op llswe Coww" Mwnu",L r 171 b YVL ..-yL•.?3vf•at k+lv�sn•ti' '+Lw.•:i� H w , v / �S .�. 5 J� Ce,7Z6 Jale G� om 6' • irir.rt . � 1 � � 1 (�7�!11{I�M�V'n'�1 f+hMirtap. tAWA-4,A�.�•t4•!N� '►J�ftL+srtl+i`.r1�r:x vV ?�. Qs..: !+'�tiq��'° �"'-9�=�ry��`yf?`�:�'r{�",_. �.� .. A ?-.. •� :i'"•- .r �r"::.�. f.i t• S, .i 7� .tr�1NloM.;.�. ems:.. ��!_; • -y -3- 5. We note that, as of the date of the public hearing, on -site septic testing has not been conducted on any of the proposed lots. 6. The City should exercise its authority to insist on the reasonable preservation of all existing shade trees, and to require new shade trees be planted in the open areas of the Proposed Project pursuant to Section 11.60 of the City's Subdivision Regulation. The Developer should provide the City with a vegetation map, indicating the location of existing and proposed trees. As concerned residents of the City, we welcome any development that enhances the value of the land and that promotes the integrity, stability and beauty of the community. Although the Proposed Project, as reflected by the Preliminary Plat, falls short of meeting these goals, we are confident that the Proposed Project can and will be developed in a manner that is agreeable to the developer, the City, and the surrounding property owners. We are eager to work with the Planning Commission, the City's staff and the developer to resolve the above concirns and problems. S' cerely George . ixon cc: Mr. Joseph Chadwick Mr. Charles Kelly Mr. James Fullerton Ms. Maureen Bellows Mr. David Maass Mr. James Hanson Mrs. Donald Wildman Mr. Jeffrey Johnson Jann Olsten, Esq. Mr. Edward Cohen Mr. Mark Gronberg Mr. Edward Brown Thomas PdW alion, Esq. Ms. Sara Moos -2- We understand that width variances are sometimes granted for lots located on cul-de-sacs. It may rtell be, for example, that because this willingness to grant variances is known that the cul-de-sac for Lots 11, 12 and 13 is proposed. A cul-de-sac is thus a way to increase the number of lots by "getting around" the width requirement. A quick look at the Preliminary Plat suggests it is unnecessary. Outlot C can be extended to Leaf Street, either through Outlot B or at some other point. Eliminating a cul-de-sac accords with the provisions of Section 11.32 of the City's Subdivision Regulation, which states that "[c]ul-de-sacs should be discouraged." 3. In connection with the overdevelopment of the Proposed Project, we are concerned about the probable increase in the rate of runoff, and the degradation of the quality of runoff, into Lake Minnetonka. The Planning Commission should require the implementation of procedures which will ensure that the rate and quality of flowage off the Proposed Project will be in compliance with all relevant rules and regulations promulgated by the Minnehana Creek Watershed District and the City. In part because runoff passes through the property of some of us, we would like to review the Storm Water Management Plan and Erosion Control Plan as soon as they are submitted to the Planning Commission for review. 4. The City should insist, either through conservation easements or by other means, that the Proposed Project p.•eserve all existing wetlands and low areas We oppose any flood plain alteration, wetland alteration or dredging which may be encompassed by the Proposed Project. We note that Lake Minnetonka is generally thought to be 3 to 4 feet below its normal level. It is reasonable to think that this has an effect on the water level of existing ponds, wetlands and low areas of the Proposed Project. It seems to us that the Preliminary Plat prepared by Messrs. Coffin b Gronberg, Inc. may not reflect these areas as they are under more normal conditions. The City should insist either through conservation easements or other means that all wetlands and low areas are preserved as they would be in "normal" or even "flood" condition. This should include strict setback requirements --from "normal" or preferably "flood" condition --for development of property adjacent to these areas. The initial Preliminary Plat does not show the required setback lines with respect to the wetlands and low areas. The Planning Commission should require all subsequent plots to do SO. Outlot A which bisects a low area should be relocated. L GEORGE H. DIXON chant, ■,a aid Ewer k FWW FM e.rt SVWA , W. June 27, 1989 Members of the City of Orono Planning Commission Ms. Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: Proposed Fox Bend Development in the City of Oron(, k"C,e "City"), Preliminary Plat Application No 1411 (the "Proposo,' 4ect") Ladies and Gentlemen: I ar writing to you as the owner of a home and property--3250 Fox Strer,t--located near the Proposed Project. I believe this letter also fairly states the views of Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Chadwick, 3060 Fox Street; Mr. & Mrs. James Fulier0n, 3350 Fox Street; and Mr. & Mrs. David Maass, 3175 Fox Street, although because I'm leaving town immediately I've been unable to show it to any of them before its mailing (though I've been in phone contact with some). Based on the public hearing before the Planning Commission Meeting held on June 19, 1989, on our review of the initial Preliminary Plat, and un advice from legal counsel, we note the following problems and concerns relating to the Proposed Project: 1. The Proposed Project contains an excessive number of lots. Giver the abundance of low and wet areas on the subjec;L lafid, the Proposed Project is simply incapable of accommodating the number of lots indicated on the Preliminary Plat. We urge the Planning Commission to require that the number of lots be substantially reduced before granting preliminary approval of the Proposed Project. 2. We note that Lots 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 13 and 18 fail to conform to the City's 200 feet width requirement. Because no undue hardship exists we propose that the City not grant variances to the width requirement for any of them. JUL 3 121 vwthWVlon AvwHA South, No. 617 Mkwwmkoo#s, Minnesota 5W1 0121339-2720 2 of 2 pages letter to Orono Planning Commission August 31, 1989 3. OVERDEVELOPMENT At the June Planning Meeting we objected to the development of wetlands and presented a plat showing the distribution of wetlands and existing drainage patterns in the proposed development. The revised Plat shows development of one less lot than originally proposed and concentrates currently dispersed drainage in a manner that will inevitably increase surface drainage out of the development in a manner that is undesirable for both adjacent property owners ?nd the general public who have an interest in the Maxwell Ba} and French Lake systems. RECOMMENDATION In an effort to remove our objections, we propose the following modification to the subject plat. We recommend the Development entry be outlot B and that there be a cul de sac on the high ground between Block 2, lot 7 and Block 3, lot 3. This will leave the d::ainaga pattern in tact with respect to Farview. This will ellminatc: E ve of the concentration of additional water volumes shc:`n by the drains and roads on the revised Plat. This will also eliminate the intersection witn Fox Street. It. this regard, let 4 of Block 3 is currently connected to Fox Stree-. with a driveway. There is no reason this should change. This modification will reduce the amount of roadway required on the development and reduce the surface drainage problems as v as development costs. Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations. Please contact me if additional discussion is desired. Very truly yours, n Farview Hom6 Owners A sociation SEP -IM August 31, 1989 Members of the City of Orono Planning Cc.,unission c/o Ms. Jeanne A. Ma4busth Zoning Administrator' City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 cTJBJECT: PROPOSED FOX BEND DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT NO. 1411 Ladies and Gentlemen: We have reviewed the subject plat which we understand to be the revision of the Flat proposed by Sussex Square Development at the Planning Meeting of last June. Farview Home Owners expressed several objections to that initial proposal. The revises plat fails to address some of those objections. Therefore we are sending you this letter to suggest. how the remaining objections may be removed. 1. ADDITIONAL SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE The revised Plat indicates the existing drainage from Block 2, lots 3,4,5,6 and 7 will either partly or entirely be concentrated into a drain flowing southeasterly out of lot 7, be commingled with the drainage flowing southwesterly from Block 3, lot 4, and then drained under Fox Street into the subsurface and surface drainag- flowing south through Farview into Maxwell Bay. T'-ds is unacceptable to Farview because the peak load now flowing through Farview is the maximum desirable volume and because in the spring and other flood periods, the existing iron -scum and pollutant content of this effluent is undesirable. This latter problem has been reported to the City of Orono and to the State Pollution agency more than once during the last ten years. Samples have already been collected by Orono. To adopt a development plan that will send more surface water with more pollutants through the existing Farview drainage system is not desireable. 2. ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC The revised Plat retains the original planned 4-way intersection at Fox and Farview. We are opposed to increasing the level of traffic through Farview. !V IPMEHAH]k !:311 1 V P.O. Box 387. Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Bard of Yrrp m Ames R. Spw W". Pra. • AkW L. Lafv W • JoM E ThWW Riclwd R. WIr • Robert D. Erickson • C. Woodrow Love • CWksw Lkl*Y n.+ln:i+tu •uu�.u.�i � r NIMN4 � a- 14'yi LAM NINKIDNIA Permit Application No. 89-144 August 30, 1989 Owner: Sussex Development 745 Springhill Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Location: City of Orono, Sec. 4CB Purpose: Storrrrater management plan for a 17-lo, single family residential sube iision called "Fox Bend." Dear Ms. Wildman: At the regularly scheduled August 17, 1989 meeting of the 3oard of Managers, which was continued on August 24, 1989, the subject nermit application was tabled pending receipt ot: 1. Grading and utility plan including details of the prup,r,ed sto-m sewer system with ripe sizes, lengths, and invert elevations. 2. Details of water quality treatment structures in conformance with District standards. 3. Revised site plan including locations of erosion control, erosion control installation detail and a restoration note. 4. Stage/sto,•age relationship for all stormwater storage depressions. 5. Summary of hydrologic calculations. These items should be received no later than September 11, 1989 to ensure your permit application will be in the agenda for the next meeting of the Board of Managers scheduled for September 21. 1989. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 473-4224. Very truly yours, JAMES M. MONTGOMERY_ CONSULTING ENGINEERS Engineers for- the District cc: Board pp L. Smith A61.1A1,4-1..Zec4 M._Gfonberg, Coffin L Gronberg tty of Orono Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E. bt T CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE #1411 P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/12/89 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Nina Wildman COPIES TO: Mark Gronberg Sussex Square Development 482 A Tamarack Avenue 735 Spring Hill Road Long Lake, MN 55356 Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Preliminary Subdivision ----------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 9/6/89 VOTE: 5 For 0 t.gainst Planning Cowaission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted in staff memo previously mailed to you. Planning Commission noted the following additions. Please review below: 1. Final approval by the Minnehaha Ci eek Watershed District of the drainage and grading plans for the subdivision. Staff shall seek an oral report from Ron Quanbeck of the MCWD prior to the meeting. 2. Applicant to provide copies of formal landscape plan. 3. Planning Commission members requested that roadway be realigned f rom the west access to provide a through road rather then the current plan that shows an intersection at right angles with stop signs. Revised plan is to show through road as one oultot with cul-de-sacs as separate outlots. These amendments to the preliminary plan need not be submitted for the Councils review which is tentatively scheduled for September 25, 1989. Please note the meeting begins at 7:OOp.m. The applicant is advised to contact John Gerhardson of the Public Works Department to review plans for entrance monuments/signage at entrance to subdivision. John Gerhardson returns tfrom vacation September 18, 1989. August 14, 1989 The Sussex Square Development subdivision application of the property located at 3020 Pox Street is scheduled for review by the Orono Planning Commission at their special meeting held cn Wednesday, September 5, 1989 at 8:00 p.m. All persons wiGhing to Be heard will appear at this--t-Tme. Written comments are solicited. Revised plans are available for review in the City Offices by appointment. Notices have been sent to all persons listed on the official )roperty owners list for all persons within 350' of the subject property. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building 6 Zoning Administrator TAM/ 1 s r— -- J=- L 1 �_l LC-5 W yKE S. Fo> ti. st$ tKL— 1 4.3 cs. ...mot MB -� l �. m l r'r VB-2 99.7 C. F. S. 71 3 c.F.s. 433.5 C.F.s: 20.6( FRL- a Gc . ti w B LrB i Ha i LrC ' Gc G� fir• �}��,�,� � �.f � -- ,� ..: � �. - Q• , - • .t ,� a iR �' '!a. • 1 0 m�, KkC :'� Ha `KkQ r • .� `KkC�sC CO3 k .� ? , XkB 0.6 Jr SwB Kk, ,..Ha •, rg. , Ak6 1 Vi. 't i ;�.{[1��s Kk� j , •fit �. •- KkD fly: • , ; ..• :_ ., f-�- i ,. KkC f(j .. r._w.,►. �, KkB a V �L) • -LsC2 '•Lra, LrB ► �:- L,rB F 9 L H "LrD, Gc` ' �� Gc Fla , Ha Rim :► H Lam, :. _. - bB' -, y. ,;-KkCrB -' He rC LrB Ld Ha �, F- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division NENNEPIN 320 Washington Ave. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 LFU Phone: (612) 935-3381 June 12, 1989 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: RE: Proposed Plat - Fox Bend by Sussex Square Development CSAH 84, Opposite the north junction of Farview Lane Section 4, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 1754 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: - For future improvements to CSAH 84 the developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way along both legs of CSAH 84 abutting this plat making the right of way 40 feet from the center of CSAH 84. - The location of the proposed street access to CSAH 84, directly opposite existing Farview Lane, is acceptable to Hennepin County. This access will require an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction. Contact our Maintenance Division for entrance permit forms. - All lots having frontage on proposed internal streets and CSAH 84 must take access via the internal street. No direct driveway access from this plat to CSAH 84 will be permitted by Hennepin County. - All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Maintenance Division for utility permit forms. - The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please oirect any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Sincerely, David W. Schmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning HENNEPIN COUNTY DWS/LOW:lw an equal opporhmMy employer rol JABonestroo Rosene y Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects August 30, 1989 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re: File No. 139 1411 Fox Bend Dear Jeanne, Otto G Bonntroo PE now W Rosene, PE Joseph C Ande+'sl. PE Braa" A Lemberg PE Ronan E turner. PF ,amen C Otson. PE G+ern R Coot PE tnoma•. E Noyes. PE Rober G SchunKht. PE Mann L Sorvara. PE We have reviewed the storm sewer design plan as submitted is acceptable and watershed reviews. Ketn A Conlon PE RK:nans W Foster PE Donau C Burgafm PE Deny A Bourdon PE Man A Hanson PE red K F eW PE %scraer T Rautmann PE Robert R PMt4ne. PE 0" O Los►ota. PE Thomas W Peterson. PE MchaN C LyrKn PE James R Marand. PE Kenn, to P Anderson PE Kr,M A BaCnmarvt PE Man R RoKt PE RobNt C Rt.sstk A I A Tnorras E Angus. PE Howard A Sanford PE Oahe+ J Edgenon PE Man A Sew PE Phaq J. Caswell. PE Man O Watwt PE Thnmas R Anderson A I A Gary F Rytander. PE Chalks A E�ckson Led M Pawetsuy Henan M Otsdn Susan M Ebenm CPA for the Fox Bend d—evelopment. The we would recommend approval subject to The storm sewer calculations indicate a decrease of 40 percent in the rate of runoff from the site after development. The only significant problem is the pond in lot 3, block 2 which has no outlet below the county road elevation. This will not be a problem unless two back to back 100 year storms are experienced. In the event this happened, the City or County would have to pump into Area. I or V. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li 29 2335 We.t Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 ;,�r;;l._ -^.�'i"k.td�3;�5�+ .jY? .t•i: �:; 7.^��:._5;s��t:'ir...� 'R} a• .. �� _ ,� � r RUN DATE 05/09/89 1 BATCH 009 38 05-117-23 44 0004 PROP ADDR 03250 FOX ST OWNER NAME GEORGE H DIXON TAXPAYER GEORGE H DIXON NAME/ADDR 121 WASHINGTON AVE S RM 617 HPLS HN 55401 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 05-117-23 44 0005 03400 FOX ST JAMES G FULLERTON III ET AL FULLERTON LUMBER CO P 0 BOX 30 HPLS M1 55440 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 28 TOTAL BATCH 009 00038 r-gq TA I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEI)GE AND BELIEF. ,n DATE 5 , iBY � n RUN DATE 05/09/89 BATCH 009 38 94-117-23 23 0004 PROP ADDR 00370 LEAF ST OWNER NAME L P STEWART A R M STEWART TAXPAYER LOGAN P A ROBYN M STEWART NAME/ADDR 370 LEAF ST S LONG LAKE MN 55356 3' -23 23 0007 PROP ADDR 6 'AF ST OWNER NA"E K. IERSON TAXPAYER KAi, RSON NAME/ADDR 398 LL. LONG LAKE AN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0022 PROP ADDR 03150 RIDGEWOOD CIR OWNER NAME J D BRINOLEY A P J BRINDLEY TAXPAYER JAMES A PATRICIA BRINDLEY NAME/ADDR 3150 RIDGEWOOD CIR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 24 0006 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME BARBARA K COFFIN TAXPAYER BARBARA K COFFIN NAME/ADDR 3025 WATERTOWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 31 0003 PROP ADDR 00505 OLD CRYSTAL NAY RD S OWNER NAME GERTRUDE HENTSCHEL TAXPAYER GERTRUDE B HENTSCHEL NAME/ADDR 505 SO OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 31 0009 PROP ADOR 02960 FOX ST OWNER NAME NINA W WILDMAN TAXPAYER NINA W WILDMAN NAME/ADDR 745 SPRING HILL RD ORONO NN 55391 HENJEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFIRMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 04-7.17-23 23 0005 00-3:�j LEAF ST L P STFWART A R M STEWART LOGAN P A ROBYN M STEWART 37(1 LEAF ST LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0009 003b0 LEAF ST H C FURCHNER JR ETAL HENRY FURCHNEr 360 LEAF ST LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0023 03100 RIDGEWOOD CIR FRANK J A PATRICIA K ROUTSON FRANK J ROUTSON 3100 RIDGEWOOD CIR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 31 0001 00425 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S N A P LAWTON OR WILLIAM G LAWTON 425 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD L(M LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 31 0004 00535 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S ROBERT S BR4NSON ETAL. ROBERT S BRANSON 535 S OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD LONG LAKE MI 55356 38 04-117-23 31 0011 02880 FOX ST LESTER E THO11PSON ET AL LESTER E THOMPSON 2880 FOX ST RT 1 BOX 325T LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 26 38 04-117-23 23 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED L P STEWART A R 11 STEWART LOGAN P A ROBYN M STEWART 370 LEAF ST ORONO MN 55356 38 04-117-23 23 0010 00400 LEAF ST E T A S A HILLMAN TIMOTHY HILLMAN 400 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0,*-117-23 23 0027 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HWASJ LAUE HERMAN W A SHIRLEY J LAUE 594 PARK LANE LONG LAKE MH 55356 38 04-111-23 31 0002 00435 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S C A E NOLAN CHARLES A ELIZABETH NOLAN 435 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 31 0008 02920 FOX ST CHERRY C STUBBS CHERRY C STUBBS 2920 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 32 0002 03060 FOX ST J CHADWICK A K L CHADWICK JOSEPH A KAREN CHADWICK 3060 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 7 m F IN RUN DATE 05/09/89 BATCH 009 38 04-117-23 32 0003 PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME NINA W WILDMAN TAXPAYER NINA W WILDMAN NAME/ADDR 745 SPRING HILL RD ORONO MN SS391 38 04-117-23 32 0006 PROP ADDR 03020 FOX ST OWNER NAME NINA W WILDMAN TAXPAYER NINA W WILDMAN NAME/ADDR 745 SPRING HILL RD ORONO MN 55391 ?Q 04-117-23 33 0010 PRO!` IDDR 03175 FOX ST OWNER NAME DAVID A MAASS TAXPAYER DAVID A MAASS NAME/AODR P 0 BOX 392 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 04-117-23 34 0011 PROP AOOR 03090 FARVIEH LA OWNER NAME J A R OLSTEN TAXPAYER JANN L OLSTEN NAHE/ADDR 1800 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE 900 2ND AVE SO MPLS HN 55402 38 05-117-23 14 0007 PROP ADDR 03200 BAYSIDE RD OWNER NAME R A T MINKEMA TAXPAYER ROBERT L A TERESA M MINKEMA NAME/ADDR 3200 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 41 0010 PROP ADDR 03211 BAYSIDE RD OWNER NAME A J ROBBINS A T L ROBBINS TAXPAYER ARNOLD J ROBBINS NAME/ADDR 3211 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 04-117-23 32 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NINA W WILDMAN NINA H WILDMAN 745 SPRIG HILL RD ORONO MN 55391 78 04-117-23 33 0003 03099 FARVIEW LA A E NENNINGSEN JR ET AL ARTHUR E HENNINGSEN JR 3099 FARVIEH LA LONG LAKE MN 55 38 04-117-23 33 0011 03125 FOX ST A G CARLSON A S J CARLSON ALAN CARLSON A SUSAN CARLSON 3125 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 34 0012 03080 FARVIEW LA J H PARKER A B C PARKER JOHN H A BONNIE C PARKER 3080 FARVIEH LA S LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 41 0014 00565 LEAF ST J A C MC COY JOHN L A CHARLENE M tK: COY 5525 HILLSIDE CIR EDINA MN 55435 38 05-117-23 41 0019 00465 LEAF ST H A G KORONKIEWICZ JR HALTER J KORONKIEHICZ 46E LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. P1435401 PAGE 27 38 04-117-23 32 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NINA W WILDMAN NINA H WILDMAN 745 SPRING HILL RD ORONO MN 55391 38 04-117-23 33 0004 03091 FARVIEH LA ' J A S DUDZIAK JOSEPH DUDZIAK 3091 FARVIEH LANE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 34 0007 02905 FOX ST MARK F ENGEBRETSON ET AL MARK A CAROL ENGEBRETSON A 2905 FOX ST LONG LAKE HN 55356 ?A 05-117-23 14 0006 03240 BAYSIDE RD 0 A B BOYLAN s DONALD K BOYLAN '. 3240 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 05-117-23 41 0017 M ;) 03225 BAYSIDE RD w ,, R B A V 0 SHELDON RONALD B SHELDON PO BOX 6t LONG LAKE HN 55356 i 38 05-117-23 41 0020 00525 LEAF ST JONATHAN CHAPEL JONATHAN CHAPEL A C. :H CF RELIGIOUS SCIENCE X� 525 LEAF LONG LAKE HN 55356 L MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FIR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. J. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the names o.i the above list with no return address (use address labels obtainrd with property owners list). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature Date -----------------•----------------------------•------------------------------ 1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is co lete. Zoning Official's Signature 0��,,, s G. ,� `221t Date S- /Z - 7 ---- -------------------------------------------- FEW Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $150.00 Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) 300.00 + 20.00/Lot _ Final Plat Review (Class III) 150.00* *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The applicant hareby agrees to prov-J.de all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Com:aission and Council necessary to proce..s this application and further aazees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Date Owner's Signature Date'J/�`�/O / Applicant must have ialsubmittals 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. -. -- Receipt# dj - Y i r � a CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION -------------------------------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address .�02 o /rGk j1_ r�ii y-117 -13 -32 -0a03, vooy, 0005,0 000 6 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) y-117-Z3-31-000 Please check one - Property X abstract or X torrens? eOflN Attach legal description to application. - - ---- APPLICANT Phone (home) Name fWlfFx fa".4.eF �E�/fG��'i't Fti,' Phone (work) _ 77 Address: 7'lS S�°,a�,y� H/[ t .P o.�D---C-ty-- u/i� ,'Z �! r� - - - ip-> f- ' -_ -------------------------- ----- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address: city: Zip: (attach list if more thar, one) ----------------------------------------------- EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels .S Development Size - <l Z 7 f Acres Dry Land F?' iPc�ef _•-=- - 2.75 * Acres Wet Land y�r I y r Acres Total, all parcels re. ,CowciJ Present Use (check) X Residential; tlo. of units Other (specify) Present Zoning District /Qf'-/ B _ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangnmer.t Only (no new building sites) Subdivision -or New .',:ilding Sites Number of Building Sites: _ G L.tisting Units ,,, 6' New Units / v Total Units Proposed Gross Density: / F Units per Acres Minimum Lot Size: O Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check) C Residential Other (specify) 3Pa1Rs% In�lasv3lar. "Energy conserving wood windows for your future." 1505 NORTH 48TH STREET LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 68504-0468 (402) 463-0202 -- LINCOLN SPEIRITR W, ssdaW3 IM A "Energy conserving wood windows for your future.MN -- r -- - - -- - - - - LZ qz 3505 NORTH 48TH STREET LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 68504-0468 402) 463-0202 - LINCOLN 1505 NOFMI 48TH STREET JNCOLN, NEBRASKA 68504-0468 463-0202 (AL.INCOLN lost iaiiiZie i "Energy conserving wood windows for your future." I qu M of Lo4 23, • r• 33 33 Q Co. Ro. No. 84 1 1 '•. So•+�h tint of Lod 2, � . Sid. Ne.2;0, AMA So.J*k t;na d( NE Y4 of SW %4 of 5ci— A-117-23 2L Y�z+�n9 to7'3'� 1 39 •c.rs S ♦o So�� pre ptffy l ink,. �. 1.24 acrt� M nod �nc.f✓d �r�g rood • M •. TV9V ,v t�-3t -his is a true and Flat of '"urvey for %. ul 1.. q^re rren in Lot 21, Auditor's SuW-!vis:ion Tio. 230 (in Southwest 1/4 of Senior Hennepin County, Finnesata FRoeost� FOAL U40 bot of W Li..' THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MICROFILMED 0 iOtt Ave. Sub. No. 210 {�1.24 aarae � > m .4 M'I, d SW Y4 o J o ? at .... — -. •.ice l+t.6j' 0 n Co. Ro. :.No. e4 S..1h Gr,a .� �•r 2e Ago So• MOW aad S.Jib lima o( NL Ye of SW Y4 3'1 toXa pa.', a.« = -19-71 L. ZL-cc) , S k.LOwk r'c�rt-Nt'W o�+-b 9�Z �,'L� A t !►O T rertif'`_P.t.(, o' SurvW : I hers lv rert.ify t}zt `.hir it a tr,..- and ' correct repr -2zents,tion or s curvPp of `" ?l7S/Std,V00 b ri,rindurf es of t':at cart of t'!e Saute ?07 •°^` ' C)'L of :At 21, Auditnr'a S bl vis,!cn ��", a'�7� Co:nt.y, Minn-snt3, � lying East o* the w^Gt 4_16 foot thr4rV% , % 1'.'• ir., ;'ion Of all mx4 sting bul l'llnzs i.I.'Areor. . F!1r purDns,!s of U : e•�..-... `, Wit+ i+'P9`. 71 nn o:' z&id ;.ot 2? is assu.•red to b- tho yest line a" ��s>: `.zlf o; ttc TZortheast quarter of tha Southu•ps:t 7uart•ir o`' r. 4, ^_ounnhin 117 Vorth, rinn,,e 21 West or the 5th ^rinnipsl Yzridl-r. It does not pur- port to show other inmrnverlenta or encroach-rentr. scale: 1" = 80' Date : V -:9-75 0 . Iran marknr Gordon :1 . 7c �'''i n. Ir.rn? Sur-onvnr .•ni :Tanner ✓�n,� :,r : � ,. V i rr_-sota RUN DATE 08/24/89 HENNEPIN COMITY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM REPORT NO. PI435401 ( BATCH 006 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 18 38 04-117-23 31 0006 PROP ADDR 00585 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S OHNER NAME PAUL H BERGGREN i HIFE TAXPAYER REV PAUL N BERGGREN NAME/ADDR 585 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 34 0004 PROP ADOR 02801 FOX ST OHNER NAME T A S AHLSTROM TAXPAYER THOMAS E AHLSTROM NAME/ADDR 2801 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 43 0011 PROP ADDR. 02760 FOX ST OMFk NAME MINNETONKA ALAl.7 GROUP I14C TAXPAYER MINNETONKA ALANU GROUP NAME/ADDR 2760 FOX ST HAYZATA MN 55391 38 04-117-23 31 0010 00565 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S BRENT B i CYNTHIA A JOHNSON BRENT B i CYNTHIA A JOHNSON 565 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 42 0006 02760 FOX ST MINNETONKA ALAND GROUP INC MINNETONKA ALAND GROUP 2760 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 006 00007 38 04-117-23 31 0011 02880 FOX ST LESTER E THOMPSON ET AL LESTER E THOMPSON 2880 FOX ST RT 1 BOX 325T LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 04-117-23 42 0023 00540 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S G FUNK 3 J ROGOSHESKE GEORGE FU18C/JURY ROGOSHESKE 540 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S LONG LAKE MN 55356 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORFATION AS IT APPEAfS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATIONP TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE `' LyI� BY /�!A• `� v' �. �� VW 7�: 33 I -„a A 42S 8 East JB0.8� - 05-) (3) ,.ot 22 ;1 y N Cb N � I O ti � Ni 0 M� 200 jai � I r N I � � JLot 23 I 2 3t 2 CC 0 � N• ^, 33 33 .`� C� A S T 39089 LC r 23 `/ RD No. 84 s a 45 d0 I - 49c 05 v 33 20'' M - 6 3 P6rt of Lot 35 93►0 (7) WEST p 3Z^,, f3407.. Is0 - 41. 1� 3 ' R cV 1 ^N In '•D _ 465 93 232 97 3 ^ nZI 2 n en qz�h Klon 3 . J L n i 23296 232.97 EAST-- Zia 25 227 Z5 jt- - -- _ c� a « F 7j T tom✓ (}t4 is re V d d� 7- J Ems-, I _ n�ue,�--RA7t �..,� Se, HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from st ict enforcement of zoning regulations: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property cond`tions 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 seL,arate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 3. 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 4nformation has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature _ Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURF. 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 true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. / Applicant's Signature / late OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Conuaission member and Council members for purposes of investiga- tion and verificatirequest. o f h s Owner's Signature 4-Date� , I ------------------------------------------------------- 7--- ----------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meecinq. 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. �ylG� Receipt - CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance;:d Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 no change from original applicat:90 After-the-Fact Fees (Double applicati-ee)`J ------------------------------------ _`— PROPERTY LOCATION r Site Address 5PS OCR �&L- Property Identification 1'.umber (P.I.D. ) -- Please check one - Property _ — abstract or torrens? Attach legal description �-) application if not included on required survey. --------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Phone (home) zl7S'- 8600 Name ` / J �,4tJL lti� �R q 2EA) Phone (work) Address :S8S OM 0,4 ,s�a Boo, & SO,— City: 1a,V Lac Zip : SS3Slo ----------------------- --- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_ Name QQi„e- 4s &66Lic.Q4J2" Phone (work) Address: City: zip: Date Property Acquired 01j,1 uSf (month/year) I (do) (do riot) also own the adjacent parcels of land. -------------- ------------------------------------------- PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property (}GLt/ A*- Eesidential Other (specify) --------------••--------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Co!.t A�Ccic n:..�,��, p� ►ctiw YtPu .. a+^+�a.wilf� 5 �� Describe request in detail: �1vc.0 AV Y,rL-� L w,ti`ftn•�4. 8 VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback Variances ( Front Other Side Hardcover Rear) Zoning File #1461 October 3, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Note that the neighboring residence to the north is more than 100' from the property line, with th•� detached garage on the neighboring property being more than 50' from the property line. Based on these setbacks, the proposed porch addition would not likely result in greater visual density in this neighborhood. Staff Recommendation - Staff would recommend approval, based on the hardships and findings noted above, also noting that the proposed addition continues the existing north line of the house and extends no closer to the lot line than the existing house. To: Planning Commission Chairman Kr1ley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: October 3, 1989 Snbject: #1461 Rev. Paul Berggren, 585 Old Crystal Bay Rd S - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-1B, Single family rural residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for side setback variance to construct attached enclosed porch 15' from the side lot line where a 30' side setback is normally required. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Letter of Request Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Property Owners List Exhibit E - Survey/Site Plan Exhibit F - Enlarged Survey Exhibit G - Building Plans Pertinent Facts - 1. Applicant requests a 15' side setback variance to construct a porch addition to the front side of the house, where a 30' side setback is normally required. 2. The proposed porch addition meets the required 50' front lot line setback from Old Crystal Bay Road. 3. Existing house is located such that any additions to the north half of the existing house would require a side setback variance, the existing house being only 14.4' from the north side lot line. This house was constructed in 1970 when the property was zoned R-1C, requiring 1 acre lot size and only a 10' side setback. Discussion - Please review the applicant's letter of request, noting h-s reasons for the variance request. The hardship is the location of the existing house nea, he side lot line. Planning Commission may wish to ask aF -.nt to discuss reasons why this addition could not be locate_ aewhere along the south half of the house.- Two probable reasons include topography and the internal layout of the house. _SePnt Sr w OF- N� DRAVCWA-, LnC. S G-fP._,D ON Ps, ZONING FILE NO. 1461 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION T .O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 10/17/89 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Rev. Paul Berggren COPIES TO: 585 South Old Crystal Bay Road Long Lakp, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 10/16/89 '.COTE: 7 For 0 Against Planning Co-Amission recommends the follow"Ing: Approval as submitted NOTES AND S?ECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, Octcber 23, 1989; meeting starts at 7!00 r m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and �.�proval by the Planning Commission. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this -ay of , 198 before me a Notary Public 4ithin and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the persons) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NO`.':-iRY PUBLIC LS: TJN EXPIRES STATE OF '•:INNESOTA ) ;ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 118 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, perscnai_y appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoingi.nstrument, and acknowledged that he (they) exec,_ited the s;.me as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Pane 4 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Adopted by the C?.ty Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of October, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallir Property Owner(s) Citv Clerk STATE OF MIANESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN i James R. Grabek, Mayor The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day October, 1989, by J es 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 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. C) The neighboring residence to the north is more than 100' from the property line, hence the proposed addition would not result in greater visual density in the neighborhood. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the _ealth, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of an enclosed porch addition located 15' from the side lot line where a 30' side yard setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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 dat:_� (October 23, 1990). 2. 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 oe punishable as a misdemeanor. 3. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and ass;c7ns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 2 of 4 Cate of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #1461 WHEREAS, Rev. Paul W. Berggren (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 585 Old Crystal Bay Road South within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: The south 307' of Lot 23, Auditors Subdivision #230, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying east of the west 436' thereof (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of an enclosed porch addition located 15' from the side lot line where a 30' side yard setback is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1461. 2. The propertl is located in the RR-1B Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16, 1989, and recommic,ided approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A) The existing house is located at its closest point 14.4' from the side lot line. The proposed porch addition continues the side line of the house extending no closer to the side lot line than the existing house. The house was constructed in 1970 when the property was zoned to require only a 10' side setback. B) The location of the septic system at the southwest corner of the house, the driveway location near the youth end of the house, and the location of the living room centered on the east end of the house, are additional hardships which make other conforming locations for this addition less feasible. Page 1 of 4 COUNCIL MEETING To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members OCT 231989 City Administrator Bernhardson ��ppnnYY((�� From: Michael P. Gaff ron, Asst Planning & Zoning ft"ratu f o Date: October 17, 1989 Subject: #1461 Rev. Paul Berggren, 585 Old Crystal Bay Rd S - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - RR-lB, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for side setback variance to construct attached enclosed porch 15' from the side lot line where a 30' side setback is normally required. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/17/89 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 10/3/89 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of October 3, 1989. Applicant is proposing to construct a porch addition towards the road at the northeast corner of the existing house. That house is 15' from the side lot line, and the proposed addition would also be 15' from the lot line. Planning Commission at their meeting of October 16, 1989 recommended approval on a vote of 7-0 finding that the side setback variance will have no significant effect on density on the neighborhood nor on the neighboring property, finding that the nearest residence on that side is more than 100' from the property line. Planning Commission also noted that the propo-..ed addition continues the existing north line of the house and extends no closer to the lot line than the existing housE. Applicant noted that the septic system location, the location of the driveway at the south end of the house, and the location of the living room window, all are factors that lead to the requested porch location. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resclstion for approval is attached for Council review. �iri�i da.w nocki f- i Mw (Yrrr�r� �a SAt�++e[.t ,11 flit.. �. � {...•d k.n.iir � 1 { i r JY' FIRST rLOOR .. /Llut 11,1 vivY HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEFT .SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLS ONE) 0-75' 75-?50' 250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE -------------------------- A. 'HOUSE -02 *' x Z4.3 _ /7 ' S; F. LENGTH WIDTH �;, 33. x 13 4z9 S.F. ZZ. 4- x Z4•7- = .54Z S. F. Z x 6- _ 43 S.F. x s• 3 _ _ �Z. 3 S. F. B. GARAGE Z4./ X Z!'.� = cb,$ S.F. _�— C. DRIVEWAY x = J800 S.F. wo x D,S = i�g s:F. D.. SIDEWALK -35 X �'S = p9Z'S S.F. 9 x = 4 S.F. s x S•4 = Z% S.F. E. 6ATIECK �szPg ¢ 6 Z� � /o _ x �4,3 .. r¢3 s.F. _ F.LANDSCAPE X _ _ S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN x S.F. BY PLASTIC SHEETI 41 = S•Z S.F. S{�c.7s X g.Z = SD.S S.F. �•6 Gf+t�i x �, ¢ = 46-¢ S.F. G. ------------- - T TAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - ¢Z O(a S.F. .� 0 TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - PROPoIFo = Z -f/. 3 x S' _ / "" 293 s'a - --/ �.7x3.y = le 19 6 k y= ty 6 x 3 = /8 A00 S.F. x 100 - - 76 /Ox 2�1. 3 = Zy3 86y 2y 313 AYU4 v4Av v HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE OMEYeD75-250' 250-500' c00-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE -------------------------- ,� I A. HOUSE x LENGTH WIDTH \ x = S.F. x = S.F. x = S.F. x = S.F. - 36 . B. 4ARA6 S.F. x C. DRIVEWAY x = S.-F. x S.F. D.. SIDEWALK '4' x So = Zcc S.F. f �6Pt ¢' x 5-= ZO S.F. x _ S.'F. E. gATIO/ ECK x = _ S.F. . _ 932. F. � r=E S, $ x S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY t x = S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING x = SIF. x = S.F. G. OTHER O.S� x �S = Z7. 9' S.F. ww� ------------ - 91% S.F. FA TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - 75oo S.P. E] B 7 00 x 100 . /Z. Z, 19 _. _... . 1/7 °U rl JIV11 annY ty, Mt npsytd SUr'r' f T PARNII � y3 /77 -7 /f1 intl•e�a Suwl �P,,,e /77.3-3 /ntosur<d - ' • rrd �nj r✓• I �l� / o . • i ��' •+t. 1 �S"i'y � v �e 9 r:crr 3 0 •Qcf•/n' � . � ;ram Gr. ` �: n \. '1'G�.'0 1 /0.7 w / - �� .,:�t3ti�•.': •:iTA�] 1 it 1 YA.tL �4 � �MJ � 1 � B. // (Jrl. ,S.j. ;�•'y :.=•jsw'• �Ri ;%.. - <.�..</r - 1 Z?•'/zc SY 1 W•U w'ti•: n: wi.. I % fD• vZ— � �, • /08.3 32 2l -10.3 5/r/g th \ 1 f Q n o ch PaseJ yat- o s 1 I e� 0 � � ,ell q3`� 3� '♦ 4all � 4 3 `{ I r.3 i/sC roc e j FeVnd /07.3 D _rUe a rp K d JvrAOrt to n9s a yM,., j C° P ec t r Ow °AO ARK" eAre any Other jaddl t enn prtd tf °n 0 feet mAr°V N�ents d0 a y -0 ,I /,/!n rVey O r enc o v es0,td.f the h,,, Certificate of Survey for James A. Mulvanny ' of Lots 9 & 10, Block 6, "MINNETONKA SUMMIT PARK" Hennepin County, Minnesota r I hereby c-:�rtify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 9 & 10, Block 6, "MINNETONKA SUMMIT PARK", Hennepin County, Minnesota, and of the location of any existing buildings, a proposed addition, and any other visible hardcover thereon. It does not parport to show any other improvements or encroachments. Scale 1 inch = 30 feet Date 8-23-89 0 Iron marker (set) • (found) COFFIN & GRO�NBERG, INC. Mark S. Grooberg Mn. Lic. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors and Planners Long lake, Minnesota t Y. RUN DATE 08/28/89 BATCH 001 38 06-117-23 41 0040 PROP ADDR 00525 PARK LA OP44ER NAME M i R SMITH TAXPAYER MICHAEL F SMITH NAIIE/ADDR 525 PARK LANE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0043 PROP ADDR 00543 PARK LA OWNER NAME J A TUCKER A K A TUCKER TAXPAYER JOHN A A KATHLEEN A TUCKER NAME/ADDR 543 PARK LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0046 PROP ADDR 00577 PARK LA OFRJEk NAME GORDON D FOSTER JR TAXPAYER GORDON D FOSTER JR NAME/ADDR 577 PARK LANE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0060 PROP ADDR 04100 ELM ST OWNER NAME PERRY C GOBEL TAXPAYER PERRY C GOBEL NAME/ADDR 4100 ELM ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0086 PROP ADDR 00584 PARK LA OFMIER NAME STATE LAND DEPT TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR STREET A DRAINAGE 5/23/86 SO 166503 HENIJEPIN COUtJ1Y PROPERTY INFORHAIION SYSTEM PROPERTY OFJNERS LIST 30 06-117-23 41 0041 00531 PARK LA ORIS C BEUCLER CRIS C BEUCLER 537 PARK LA LOtJG LAKE t1l 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0044 00559 PARK LA J A MULVANNY ETAL J A MULVAIINY 559 PARK LANE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0947 00583 PARK LA THOMAS C JETZER THOMAS C JETZER 583 PARK LANE LOtY3 LAKE MFJ 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0061 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGUED STATE LAND DEPT PERRY CLIFFORD GOBEL 4100 ELM ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0099 00550 PARK LA E Jt E BOSMA ED BOSMA 550 PARK LA LONG LAKE 11N 55356 REPORT NO. PI43:531 PAGE 1 38 06-11' ?1 41 OU42 001;77 ,ARK LA r C BEUCLER ORIS C DEUCLER 537 PARK LA S LOIJG LAKE 114 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0045 00567 PARK LA AUDREY OVERBY AUDQEY OVERBY 567 PARK LANE LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0048 00601 PARK LA STANLEY H RUDD ETAL STANLEY 11 RUDD 601 PARK LANE LONG LAME HN 55356 38 06-117-23 41 0065 00584 PARK LA STATE LAND DEPT CITY OF ORONO STREET A DRAINAGE 5/23/86 SO 16b503 TOT. TCH 001 00014 ' jP ADD. 2 TA CT T T/ �A `� 166.t5 30 ,�• ! (U► MYE OPED) 911 1 . y (+ , •. /, .' r.S �� _ �• � o o I t�� . � IS i •g 'a: t6�11 (Z� I Ole1 e-' . �� ••) ` , M o�i' ;, • 14 Z�looi2 �� r tf j `i5)t7 C41 3 14 3 J°1641 Li Iasi,z 5t(Y°)2 �IS) a 13 ;ay 6 Z_ (y 40 40d6 w I12 V Q J0 1 ' '� 1 iT, o $t y .; ��. S 6 I I 6 1 ' , 2'^w M(11) 7 911(O 7 \ ST 6 Sf f �• / .0 t •ll t)�1'/\� N L 4sj(140111.1 ) &.b/ 1 6 A, le V r14� 4 +►li. f� 16 Il M v 13 1 VIP ST w v .i.fl.r 11 )a•1 t2 .. .S , y/OW— P p► 6 41 3._ C ,. _ � eC,... 10 "%1 � 356 AI T 1NNK4Q „� T ti r i •. • ""Jim . ✓ � 9h � � ? )• �� i ��•V:fl�� tad. ...• � �tr '� Jo.�/ 6 d' 1,-P 0 3 HlS ,. O pip/ J < : b y ' / -Xt IE TA` ES �1, HARD. 3I P Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zcning regulations: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'a.SCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- REQUIRED SUENITTALS 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 n-mes on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey including haracover 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 requertad 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-r c4�� Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further aL,thorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga- tio% and verifica?nMeetinq. of this request. Ownez ' s Signature Date Applicant must hal submittal_ �' y offices 25 days before the Planning ^ommis�i Planr: ission Meetings are held on the third Mona,:v of each month. Appli. Est oe present at all scheduled review meeting: of the Planning Commission and Council. if an app'icant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to nave an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ,,,Receipt59 - CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 1 -44 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address J U� �%�/� L_ /� %�" E L- 0/1' G /- TAKE �. _�—:1 .� - Property Identification Number (P . I . D .) 7- ti y Please check one - Property abst::ac-far — torrens? Attach legal description to application it not included on required survey. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Phone (home)— 3 -D V Name L ti'IIlk /k Phone (work) Address: e `% p�R ,� L. rlfr� Ci y: 4 Ori C Zip: ,A* 5 35-6 OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home). _ Name Address: _ City. Phone (work) Zip: Date Property Acquirea (month/year) I (do; (do not) also ------------------------- PRESEWx USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Pr o-.rty — DESCRIPTION OF RE(?" aijacent parcels of land. -- --------------------------------------- L/�- residential Other (specify) ----------------------- -•- ------ .imated Construction Cost $ / 4'✓''� h� Describe rP ----------------- -------------------- w,UAI-7 S RBQUl-RW Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover zietbauk /ariances ( Other Front Side Rear) /D. Tot Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Irono F:.anning Commission Members City Adminis�.rator Bernhardson Front Michael F. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Dates September 14, 1989 Subjects 11459 James A, Mulvanny, 559 Park Lane - Variance - Public nearing Zon.i:),q District - LR-lB, Single family lakes:iore residential, 1 .cre, sewered Application - Request for average setback and hardcover variance to construct a room addition over existing de::k. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Composite Survey Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations SuLv;tted by Applicant's Surveyor Exhibit G - Basic Construction Plan Pertinent Facts - 1. Appli ant is proposing to move the west wall of the house out 8,, gen( ly covering the area of the existing deck and she `*.;ch, ) the house. This eldition will be located 1( m t . normal shoreline, with the proposed stairway ai tely 99' from th, shoreline. 2. The -P-oposed addition and stairway will encroach approximately 8' past the average lakeshore setback line. 3. Hardcover in the 0-75' setba zone currently consists of a concrete stairway, a gravel ,;athway, a Small 36 s.f. shed and two portions of retaining wall, amounting to 12.2%. Applicant has no plans to revise this hardcover. The gravel pathway and concrete steps are necessary to gain access to the lakeshore, which is 30' vertically lower han the ground elevation at the house. 4. In the 75-250' zone, exist__. '•ardcover is 34.76% which includes the house, detached age, and blacktop driveway areas, walks and retainii, ..11s. In the area of the proposed construction, th,:. _, will be a net hardcover reduction of 30 s.f. or 0.25%; 75-250' hardcover reduces fzom 34.76% to 34.51%. A significant portion of the hardcover is in blacktop driveway areas. Zoning File #1459 September 14, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Discussion - Due to elevations and distances to neighboring adjacent houses, the effect of this addition on lakeviews enjoyed by neighboring property owners is insignificant. Regarding the hardcover question, there is no substantial area of rock and plastic that could be removed to reduce hardcover. The existing retaining walls appear to be necessary. The only portions of hardcover that might be removed would be the 6'x8' shed near the street, and perhaps a portion of the pa-ed driveway at the southeast corner of the lot. Planning Commission may wish to have applicant consider whether portions of the driveway are not necessary. Staff Recommendation - A Planning Commission recommendation for approval could be based on the following findings: 1. The 8' average lakeshore setback er--^gchment h",r nn significant impact on lakeviews enjoyed by neiy:-;x:i•ing property owners. Furthermore, the proposed addition is located approximately 100' from the shoreline. 2. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone w-;.11 decrease by 30 s.f. as a result of this proposal. 1 Zoning File #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 3 of 9 Area 2 to our northwest requires the installation of a retention pond in the csrner. Storm sewers take run-off from the roadway along the shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 to the retention area. Area 3 in the mid -north portion of the property drains as staff originally thought predominately to the south and eventually to the large retention area on the east border. Major drainage easements will be retained by the City between the shared lot lines of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1. Note that applicant has also shown the required 26 foot setback from the edges of the wetlands defined at the 975 elevation. At the street intersections drainage is taken via a storm sewer with an outlet to the retention pond to the east. Drainage from Area 3 eventually dr.nins into the watershed along Old Crystal Bay Road and eventaully to French Lake over grassed swaled yards and »nderground drainage dipes. Area 4 drains to a retention area to the immediate north of the "exception" in the plat via an underground tile to Area 5, which eventua, ' y (!gains to Farview plat and eventually to Maxwell Bay. All retention ponds have baffels with controls on outlets review Exhibit X for details. Each retention pond has been defined at the flood elevation, rather than the normal high water mark. The applicant's engineer has also provided information on minimum basement elevations for Lots affected by the retention areas. The City will acquire conservation and flowage easements over all retention areas defined as drainage easements and in addition the City will ask for drainage easements over the drainage ways and storm sewers (located out of road right-of-ways) protecting integrity of the drainage system within the development. Grading/Erosion Control/Landscaping Typical sections of the road and the silt fence detail are provided in Exhibit X. Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 will be filled to raise the building sites. All other lots will remain undisturbed. The only alterations proposed on this property will be the installation of the roads and the filling of Lots 2 and 3. It should also be noted that the septic areas within those two lots should be staked before heavy equipment is allowed to enter site. The City Engineer has reviewed the grading plans and has conceptually approved them. I have also been advised by Mr. Gronberg that he will be able to demonstrate the minimal removal of trees as a result of these excavations. In addition he will provide a landscape plan that provides plantings along the roadway of Fox Street and Leaf Street. In relation to other properties that have been subdivided in the City, this property has minimal tree coverage. Planning Commission members may wish additional plantings within interior of property. If Planning Commissicn concurs, staff will work with the applicant to provide additional plantirgs along the interior plat road. Zoning File #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 2 of 9 Roads/Future Access The interior plat road has been designed as a through road. Outlot A will be developed connecting to Leaf Street. There shall be a stop sign at the intersection of Outlot C and Outlot B in order zo discourage speeders that may use this road as a bypass. If Planning Commission feels it more appropriate Outlot R can be redesignated as a continuation of Outlot C and the cul- de-sac be redesignated as Outlot B. This will discourage any critics of the plat from assuming the City would have to grant a length variance for the plat road. Outlot A has been repositioned to north exiting now to a dry area and away from the wetlands to the south and east. Future access to the south of the major wetland on the east side of the property was discouraged because it would be too close to the Fox Street roadway. The roads have all been platted at the required 50 foot width with 100 foot diamate. cul-de-sacs. Please review the road plans Exhibits Y. The road shall be designed per Urban Road profile 28 foot minimum paired width to the inside edges of the curbing. Curbs and gutters will be provided. The applicant will be responsible for selecting three road names one for the major thru road and two for the cul-de-sac roadways. Please refer to your earlier exhibits in your pa<:'_at for your June meeting that showed the ownership patterns of the properties to the east. Note also that the plat road has been moved 26 feet from the wetland along the east side of the property. Wetlands/Watershed There are five basic watersheds that make up the property. Refer to Exhibit W. Unfortunately we do not have a large size map for Planning Commission's review, but a larger scaled copy will be availalbe at your meeting. Mr. Gronberg will also be present to present the drainage plans for the plat and -answer any questions members may have. Watershed 1 as shown on your map in southwest corner of the property predominately drains to the west via an open drainage way through the Stei:Aow Addition and out to Stubbs Bay. A berm at the 967 elevation along the south side of the pond inhibits drainage up to 967 elevation overflow drains to the culvert in the southwest corner and then eventually to Maxwell Bay. Drainage from the roadway based on the design and grade at the curve of the road brings water to the southwest corner culvert also. I am told by property owner to the south that this drainage design creates erosion problems on his property. Staff has asked Mr. Gronberg if the use of that culvert could be discontinued and what the impact would be on the drainage to the west. Mark Gronberg said that filling would be necessary to provide the re-channe-lization of the collection area now to the northern culvert. The request was feasible and could be considered. Zoning File #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 4 of 9 Septic Gaffron's report confirms that all lots have been tested and have been found to have suitable areas for on -site sewage treatment systems, both primary and alternate sites. As with most of our rural subdivisions, the majority of lots will require mound septic systems. The septic report calls for snow fence staking of the following lots prior to road construction or land alteration creating detention ponds: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, Block 1, Lots 1, 4, 6, 7, Block 2, Lot 2, Block 3. Snow fencing must be installed 20 feet from the boundaries of each drainfield system. Staff has discussed the process of staking with the on -site septic evaluator and he has agreed to provide an employee to do the necessary staking if the applicant wishes him to do so. Drainage Report The City Engineer has reviewed the final drainage summarys submitted by applicant's engineer, review Exhibit T. The actual drainage summary is lengthy if any member cares to review it at the City offices, it is available for your review. Staff will have it at the meeting for further comment. Cook finds the report acceptable and recommends approval subject to the Watershed's final comments. I have talked with Ron Quanbeck who is responsible for the review of this application at the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Mr. Quanbeck has been unable to review the additional information submitted by applicant's engineer and will be unable to provide final review comments by your meeting as he will be on vacation. He reviewed some of the first concerns that the Watershed District had at the first review, it would appear in view of the drainage plan submitted by applicant that these may have already been addressed. It is my understanding that Glenn Cook has also been in contact with Mr. Quanbeck. Cook's only concern in the report is that the pond in Lot 3, Block 2 has no outlet below the County Road elevations. This condition would exist today in the •indeveloped state as this pond is an overflow from drainage that comes from the south side of Fox Street. In two back to back 100 year storms, with no defined outlet to the south and the higher elevations on the south side, the roadway would now flood. Cook advises that because thF--. City would now have public drainage easements over the retention areas that the roadway could be pumped into either the retention areas in Area 1 or Area 5. (review Exhibit W) The formal review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be finalized in the third week of September. The plat will not be scheduled for Council .action until staff has reviewed the final comments from the Watershed District. Zoning File #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 5 of 9 Additional Staff Coments General Issues Please review Exhibit R the Planning Commission minutes that note many of the concerns of the adjacent neighbor that attended the public hearing on June 19. Many of these issues have been addressed above by staff. In regard to the questions of wildlife habitats staff would suggest that the existing ponding areas will be protected and that the wetlands in Area 4 or the eastern wetland detention area in Area 3 can be altered with the appropriate permits from the City to encourage wildlife habitat. Staff has met out on the site with applicant's engineer and on - site evaluator and performed the necessary borings to confirm the soils type and profile of the specific wetlands on the property. As previously noted some of the wetland areas have been created by informal underground drainage the systems installed by the farmers who farmed the land. The wetland to the mid -north and the southwest are classified as protected wetland areas. All wetland areas will function as detention ponds. The City would prefer leaving the protected wetlands in their natural state. (Area I and Area III northern wetland) In regard to the question of lawn fertalizers from the proposed 17 lots being detrimental to the quality of run-off to the lake, staff has advised the applicants con3ultant to contact the U.S. Soils Office to questions the staff Limhologist for comment on the degree of pollution from residential lawns as compared to an agricultural farm field. Mr. Gronberg will provide that information at our meeting. Staff Consents Specific Issues Please review Exhibit M. Remember at your last meeting the Lawtons questioned the defined boundry line along the northeast side that runs approximately 143.82 feet along their west boundary. Gronberg notes the old Auditor's Subdivisions provided no surveying out in the field. It was a matter of merely creating a legal description to define a property's boundaries. Whenever we deal with properties created by Auditor's Subivisions we find major descrepencies in the boundry lines. We have advised the applicant's consultant that this issue must be resolved prior tc final plat approval. The City Attorney's office has confirmed that the preliminary approval does not have to be held up because of this issue. Mr. Gronberg and the developer will resolve this matter with the Lawtons prior to final plat approval. If Planning Commission members want more detail as to how this can be resolved staff will happy to rei:pond at the meeting. Zoning File #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 6 of 9 Please review Exhibit L, -he Dixon letter dated June 26, 1989 Items 1 through 6. Staff feels that Items 1 through 3 and 5 and 6 have been answered by either staff or the applicant's consultant. The issue raised in Item 4 deserves to be expanded on. Many of the neighbors have expressed the same concern "this has been a very dry period for the last few years and the lake level is down 3 to 4 inches and i the developer providing the appropriate drainage plan tLat ca., address drainage needs during wet years". Calculations provided in the drainage plan and in the drainage calculations submitted for the Watershed District and the City Engineer's office deal with established standards for areas at defined flood periods. Please note that the drainage plan where detention ponds are defined show not only the normal water elevation but a flood elevation. It is the responsibility of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City per its flood plain and wetlands ordinances to insure that increased run-off resulting from development will not impact the surrounding existing development with flooding during heaving rains. The guidelines for such drainage reports are standards established by Federal and State authorities and agencies. In this specific review the 100 year and 1 year phenomena forr+at was addressed. The proposed drainage plan will clearly function without a negative impact in wetter years. Please refer to Exhibit Q. A group of concerned neighbors have submitted a 15 lot plat drafted by BRW for consideration. Unfortunately, the City staff has no authority to review the proposal as the current owner of the property has not given staff permission. A representative or the neighbors may clearly present this proposal to the developer, but once again staff has no authority to address this proposal under the review of application #1411 Sussex Square Development. The neighbors are %elcome to contact the developer and if the developer wishes to z.dopt any of the elements of the plan, that is the developers option. Aj to the second issue, staff must once again remind members we are not dealing with an LR District, this is a rural residential subdivision and hardcover is not a consideration. I advised the neighbors that very often the larger lots receive more intense development. Staff does not understand the statement that claims this area is particularily sensitive to soil erosion and run-off because of the ponds and low areas. Erosion usually takes place where there are extreme variations in elevations. This is predominatly a moderate to flat area that is under consideration for development. The presence of ponds or ponding areas does not suggest erosion problems. I think the third issue has been addressed by staff and the applicant. Zoning File #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 7 of 9 As for the reference to Jeanne Mabusth advising Mr. Lanier that a future developer would have to bring the exception into compliance with the subdivision regulations is unfortunately incorrect, but wouldn't it be wonderful. I have been with the City for 11 years and since that time there have been two subdivisions where Outlots were created adjacent to substandard parcels (The Ski Tonka Subdivision and the Victoria Estates). Each was a lot created without subdivision approval by the City and the original seller was still the owner of the properties to be developed around that substandard parcel. The substandard parcels were not Lrought up to the area requirement for the zoning district rather the Outlots were created to prov.ii3 expansion area for future septic needs. At the time Lanier had his property for sale Alan Carlson was considering purchasing the Lanier property. Carlson was advised that if he acquired the substandard parcel that the lot lines would be erased and he would be responsible for bringing that substandard parcel up to current code compliance. It would appear per Exhibit P Mr. Lanier had been attempting to bring his property into two acre compliance since 1957. Review Exhibit 0 Mr. Carlson's letter of June 1988 is even more confusing where there is discussion that the City would require him to give land to Mr. Lanier because his property did not meet the current standard. This City had never required anyone to give land up with out being paid. In fact, at the time the City created the Outlots in the other two referenced subdivisions, these outiots were set aside for purchase at the time the areas were needed for future septic development. Clearly we have no authority in our ordinances to bring substandard parcels adjacent to development up to code, but we would certainly encourage it. In light of the revised plan there is adequate area in Lot 7 to allow for the creation of a separate outlot for future septic expansion but only if the developer would agree. Once again there are only two conditions that would provide the City with authority tc 'ema-j that a substandard parcel adjacent to development be )ugflt up to current code standards: created illegally and considered in v4.:.iat`ion of th-o subdivision regulations of the City. If developer purciiased substandard parcels adjacent 1 lands to be developed. As for Item 4 the aonlicant will provide plantings along Fox Street and Leaf Street and if the City wishes may provide addit.cnal planting3 along tc*.., road areas. Please review the property owners check off list 1 *,through 6 (Ehibit Q). Item I. Neither the City ner the County Jdit.iOT s 1 curb cut of f of Lea f S;_reet or Fox 1.9 provided via the interior., p. :': road. The r Yed that thq developer reassurre- this in the The developer should be asked to comment. will approve an Street when access land owners have pi vate covanents. Zoning File #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 8 of 9 Item 2. The wetlands within this property are not protected wetlands under the DNR. They are not subject to the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife and if major alterations of a wetland are propsed the Army Corps of Engineers would be asked to comment. Item 3. I believe this was previously addressed by staff. Item 4. These requests have already been addressed by the applicant. Item 5. Has been addressed by applicant. Item 6. Will be addressed by applicant. Prior to noting the Planning Commissici's options for action staff would request that if members hive questions or seek additional information to contact staff prior to the meeting, staff suggests that you make this request by Tuesday. Options of Action Denial. If denied Planning C -mmission may deny it on the basis that the proposal is in conflict with the intent of the subdivisior regulations of the City. Refer to Section 11.02 Subd. 2 for a listing of intent. Approval based on the following findings: 1. Applicant has submitted adequate septic testing to confirm that there is suitable area within each proposed lot to satify the of: -site sewage code of the City of Orono. 2. The proposed lot design and configuration -Cinds that each lot has satisfied the lot standards of the RR-lB Rural Residential zoning district requiring no variance with in the approval of this subdivision. Each lot can be developed as a residential unit without the reed of future variances. 3. The inly variance that has to be granted is the variance that would require each lot to achieve access via a public road. In the creation of the private road the Cii.y must grant a variance. Staff would suggest this is in complete conflict with the true intent of the code as the City discourages access onto public roadways and encouraye-i the development of private roads. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All access to the 17 lot must be via the interior plat road. 2. Prior to the installation of the road and new detention areas septic systems as noted above must be protected by installing snow fencing around the tested sites. Zoning File #1411 September 1, 1989 Page 9 of 9 3. Applicant to grant underlying road and utility easements over all road outlots to include future extension road, outlot A. 4. Applicant to grant conservation and flowage easement over 5 wetland areas. In addition aaplicant shall provide drainage easements over drainage ways and storm sewer lines (not located within road outlots and drainage and utility easements) adjacent to lot boundaries. 5. Applicant to execute covenents for the shared cost of maintenance and upkeep , f private road. Applicant ma, wish to take the customary fori., used by the City and incorporate in private covenants. In addition the City will expect private covenants to address maintenance and protection of drainage ways and retention areas by private property owners. Upon preliminary approval of the plat applicant is to draft appropriate covenants to be submitted to the City for review prior the the f ilinq of the final plat. 5. Prior to scheduling the application before the Council the following must take place: A. Final approval of the drainage plan by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. B. Applicant to provide copies of formal landscape plan. 7. The City encourages the applicant to create an Outlot to the east of the "exception" to serve as area for future septic expansion. 8. Prior to final plat approrx-1 t:ne applicant must resolve the boundary dispute at the northeast corner of the property. Applicant to advise the City as to the method used to resolve such dispute. TO: Planning Commission Chariman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator DATE: September 1, 1989 SUBJECT: #1411 Sussex Square Development, 3020 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public fearing - Re -notification Review of Amended Plat List of Exhibits Exhibit K - Re -notification Exhibit L - Dixon Letter 6/27/89 Exhibit M - Lawton Letter 6/28/89 Exhibit N - Planning Commission Action Notice Exhibit 0 - Alan Carlson Letter 6/8/88 Exhibit P - Lanier Letter 2/25/57 Exhibit Q - Letter From Adjacent Land Owners Exhibit R - Planning Commission Minutes 6/19/89 Exhibit S - Memo to Gerhardson Exhibit T - Cook Report 8/30/89 Exhibit U - Gaff.ron Report Plus Septic Map Exhibit V - 3060 Fox Street Septic Map and Inspection Reports Exhibit W - Drainage/Watersheds Exhibit X - Grading/Erosion Control/Engineering Plans For Road Exhibit Y - Revised Preliminary Plat Lot Configuration The revised plan consists of 17 two acre plus lots. Each iot now meats the required lot width at the rear of the 50 foot front yard setback line. Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 meet t" squired lot width adjacent to Fox Street. Lots have adequate _ontaye along Fox Street bitt the City will require access from the private road. No new curb cuts will be approved except those approved from interior access roads. Note Lot 1, Block 2 has adequate width along Leaf Street side and ` ,e private road extension to Leaf Street along the north lot 1 Lot 6, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 3 also meet the required lc Iths adjacent to the road outlo " (Outlot A). Each lot s, ifies the two acre dry contiguous standard for the rural zone. 7. The proposed configuration and ov_-ztll design of the lots within the plat finds that each lot satisfies the lot standards of the RR-lB zoning district requiring no variances with the granting of approval of this subdivision. Each lot can be developed as a residential unit without the need for future variances. 8. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District granted approval of the drainage and grading plans of the Fox Bend subdivision at their September 28, 1989 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the prelimins.ry plat of Fox Bed per plaL survey dated May 6, 1989, revised August 4, 1989 by Mark Gronberg, a licensed engineer and surveyor of Coffin and Cronbe;j'T Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. All access to the 17 lot plat must be via the interior plat road. No curb cuts to the proposed lots shall be approved off of the adjacent roadways. 2. Prior to road construction or land alterations for drainage purposes, the following septic sites must be staked with snow fencing: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, Block 1 Lots 1, 4, 6, 7, Block 2 Lot 2, Block 3 Snow fencing must be insta:.-ed 20' from the boundaries of each drainfield test site. 3. Subdivider to grant und—lyinv road an i utility easements over all road outlots. This would include future road Outlot A. 4. The subdivider :o grant Conservation & Flowage Easements over 5 wetland areas. Subdivider shall also grant drainage easements over drainageways and stcrm sewers not located within rights-nO-way of road outlots. -a ? of 5 5. The subdivider to execute private covenants for the shared cost of maintenance and upkeep of private road. The subdirider may wish to use the standard forms used by the City for inclusion in the private covenants. In addition, the City will expect private covenants to address maintenance and protection of drainageways and retention areas by private property, owners. Upon preliminary approval of the plat, subdivider is to Graft appropriate private covenants tj be submitted to the City prior to the City granting approval of the final plat. 5. The subdivider must resolve the boundary dispute at the northeast corner of the prol.)erty prior to final plat approval by the City. Subdivider shall advise the City as to the resolve of this matter. 6. The City encourages the subdivider to create an outlot to the east of 3060 Fox Street noted as the exception on the preliminary plat to serve as area for future septic expa.ision . 7. All `anal grading, drainage and road plans must be approved .ay the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer before construction cdn begin. The subdivider shall execute a developer's agreement that shall include all required improvements not completed by the filing of the final plat. The subdivider shall also provide a Letter of Credit to be written to the amount of 150% of the cost of all outstanding improvements to ensure their completion. The subdivider is hereb,r advised that building permits shall not be issued upon final plat approval until gravel road base has been approved by the City Engineer and required drainage ponds and controls have been installed and approved by the City Engineer. FILIAL PLAT SUBMITTALS The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regular,.y scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: A. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200'. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin 6 Gronberg, Inc. dated May 6, 1989, revised August 4, 1989. Page 3 of 5 b) Outlot C to be realigned to include extension at Leaf Street as a through road eliminating right angle intersection with stop sign for through road. Cul-de- sac roads to be redesignated as separate outlots. In addition, future road extension to be defined as a separate outlot. c) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines. Designate all wetland areas as drainage easements. This shall include drainage easements over all drainageways and storm sewers. d) Dedication of right-of-way for County Roads, Fox Street, and Leaf Street. B. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required: a) Title opinion addrespad to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b) The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. • c) Executed drainage Easements over all drainageways and sewer lines (see sample enclosed). d) Signed and executed Flowage & Conservation Easement over all designated wetlan-1 areas (see sample enclosed). e) Signed and executed Developer's Agreement and Letter of Credit to cover all required improvements not completed by final plat approval (see sample of Developer's Agreement enclosed). f) Signed and executed Road and Utilities Easements over all private road outlots and the future access outlots (see sample enclosed). g) Private covenants in a form for filing to include covenants setting forth ownership and share in the maintenance of the private road and drainaqe facilities (see sample covenants enclosed). Page 4 of 5 h) Completed "Application for Private Road Names". C. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $3,700.00 a) Park dedication fee per current schedule: 17 x $200.00 per lot = $3,400.00 b) Final plat fee = $150.00 c) Legal review and filing fees of $150.u0 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 23rd day of October, 1989. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of October, 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 5 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELI14INARY APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FOX BEND PLAT FILE NO. 1411 WHEREAS, Nina Wildman of Sussex Sqnare Development (hereinafter "the subdivider") on May 12, 1989 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of an 18 lot residential plat of property legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached, (hereinafter "the pro,. -.arty") and; WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Stat.,:es 462.358 at. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning commission held public hearings on June 19, 1989 and September 6, 1989 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their reguiar meeting held on October 9, 1989 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Sussex Square Development, noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within the RR-lB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2.0 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The subdivision as amended consists of 17 lots each meeting or exceeding the 2 acre minimum d_-y contiguous lot area requirement. 3. Each of the 17 lots meets the required lot width to the rear of the 50' front street setback line. 4. All of the 17 lots shall achieve access via a network of interior private roadways. 5. In his report dated August 30, 1989, Glenn Cook the City Engineer found the revised 17 lot plat to be acceptable and recommended approval subject to the watershed's review. 6. On August 22, 1989, Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator, confirmed that all 17 lots had been tested and found to have suitable areas for on -site development. Page 1 of 5 I Zoning File #1411 September 22, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Review of Current Application - Please review the attached staff memo dated September 1, 1989, Planning Commission minutes of June 19, 1989 and September 6, 1989 for background information on this review. The Planning Commission unanimously adopted the approval option set forth by staff in the September 1st staff memo. In addition, they advised staff that the preliminary subdivision must not be scheduled for Council's formal action until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District had approved the preliminary drainage and grading plans for the subdivision. The District granted preliminary approval at their September 28, 1989 meeting. In addition, the Planning Commission asked for formal landscape plans (review Exhibit X). In consideration of the tree -less terrair and the directives of Section 11.60, Subdivision 2 (A) & (3), Council may wish applicant to provide more tree plantings within the interior of the plat. If the developer is fearful that such young plantings would die withcilt care, the City may be able to request that the buyer and developer of each lot be responsible for planting a certain number of trees within the boulevard area of each lot. This may be set forth in the private covenants of the developer. Council may ask staff to work with the developer to refine land- scape plan. The final condition requested of the applicant was that the internal through road for the subdivision be realigned and redefined by having Outlot B as part of the through road Outlot C rather than the current plan that shows an intersection at right angles with proposed stop signs. Each of the cul-de-sac roadways would be defined as separate outlots. The developer may wish to comment on this. The enclosed preliminary resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission recommendation and can be amended if need be. As of this writing, the City staff has not been contacted regarding the entrance monuments or signage for the subdivision. Staff has drafted the enclosed approval resolution of the preliminary subdivision of Fox Bend for Council's review and action. If Council members have any questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to contact staff. rot �� i�ayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: Aptember 22, 1989 Subject: #1411 Sussex Square Development, 3020 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution Zoning District - RR-lB, rural residential requiring 2 acres dry contiguous land. Total acreage - 50+ acres Area includes approximately 5+ acres of wetland areas. Application - Class III Subdivision - Plat - 17 lots wit!, private road outlot and future road extension to east. Pertinent Ordinance - Chapter 11 - Class III Subdivision. Section 10.28 - RR-lB Zoning District Standards. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Cook's Report of 8/30/89 Exhibit E - Hennepin County Dept. of Public Works Report of 6/12/89 Exhibit F - Soils Report Exhibit G - Watersheds Map Exhibit H - Orono Wetlands Map Exhibit I - MCWD Letter of 8/30/89 Exhibit J - Planning Commission Action Notice of 9/12/E9 Exhibit K - Farview Homeowners' Assoc. Letter of 8/31,'89 Exhibit L - Dickson's Letter of 6/27/89 Exhibit M - Lawton's Letter + Attachments of 6/28/89 Exhibit N - Memo to Gerhardson of 6/29/89 Exhibit O - Carlson's Letter of 6/8/89 Exhibit P - Lanier's Letter of 2/25/57 Exhibit Q - Letter from Adjacent Landowners Exhibit R - Planning Commission Minutes of 6/19/89 Exhibit S - Gaffron's Septic Memo of 8/22/89 Exhibit T - Septic Map Exhibit U - 3060 Fox St - Septic Map & Inspection Reports Exhibit V - Farview Plat Exhibit W - Drainage/Watersheds Exhibit X - Grading/Erosion Ccntral/Landscaping Plans/Engineering Plans for Road Exhibit Y - Revised Preliminary Plat 'a Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Date: October 5, 1989 COUNCIL MEETI NG OCT23 1989 P27Admin�aiar ORONO Subject: #1411 Sussex Square Development, 3020 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision The review by Council of the preliminary subdivision application was delayed until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District had granted preliminary approval of the grading and drainage plans for the subdivision. The Watershed District granted approval at their meeting on September 28th. The application received a recommendation of approval at the September 6th teeting of the Planning Commission. A cancellation of the regular meeting of the Council on October 9th has created serious scheduling problems for the 0-iveloper in preparing for the installation of the road and drainage improvements prior to the oncoming freeze. Coupled with the unfortunate delays, I will not be present at your October 23rd meeting to present the application because of vacation leave. The enclosed packet has been prepared for your early review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact my office as I will be available through Thursday, October 12th. Please retain this packet of information and include with your packet for the October 23rd meeting. • • �, .r •►M. • • .. ,dams 4A. f • • *1 avol 1 , y_ Jqf,..: MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.N. The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commissioners Johnson, Cohen, Hanson and Moos. The following represented the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. Councilmember Goetten was also present. #1411 SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT 3020 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 P.M. TO 9:07 P.M. Ms. Nina Wildman was present for this public hearing, as was Mr. Mark Gronberg, her Surveyor/Engineer. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. It was also noted by Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth that persons shown on the property owners list were re -notified. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the applicant has presented a revised plan showing 17 lot; and a through road. Mabusth said that there is no longer 1 problem with lot width. Mabusth referenced Michael Gaffcon's memo regarding the availability of suitable septic sites on each lot. Mark Gronberg explained that the road would be . ocated 26' away from the wetlands. He said that the outlot had been relocated and though they were not in favor of having the outlot, they would conform to the City's policies. He said that there would now be a through street to Leaf Street and he was proposing to have a stop sign at that intersection. He noted that all of the lots would meet the required 200' front width. Gronberg showed approximately where the proposed houses would be located. IIe said that each lot would be a walkout lot with iihe exception of Lots 2 and 3. He Said that all dry areas shown are to the 100 year flood plain rather than to just the normal flood elevations. Gronberg showed the proposed grading limits for the roadway. He said that he was sticking very closely to the right-of-way with the exception of the area for Lots 2 and 3 where filling will be necessary and the upper corner where excavation for ponding areas will occur. He said that tree removal would be minimal and would occur mainly in the area of the cul-de-sac. He said that the applicant proposed to plant 10' to 15' spruce trees along the pond extending to the entrance on Leaf Street. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the applicant had sketch plans of the landscaping plan? Ms. Wildman replied that she did not have the plans at this time but was wo- zing with a landscape architect and would have a plan at a later time. 1 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER F, 1989 ZONING FILE #1411-SUSSEX SQUARE CONTINUED Mr. Gronberg showed four options being considered for entrance gates. Mr. Gronberg provided a detailed explanation of the drainage pattern fcr the property. He said that the detention pond had such a capacity that 100 year storm water runGff would only raise the level of the pond 1/4". He said that a raffle weir would be installed to improve water quality, Gronberg said that Area 2 was presently a problem because the 12" culvert running west under Leaf Street was plugged and because of it being so small, would overflow in a 100 year storm. He was proposing to dig out a much larger holding pond and take the storm water into that pond. He said that an attempt would be made to do the road grades in such a way thst drainage would remain the same, however, there will be small increases in each watershed area that will be dealt with individually. ;ronberu said that there had been concern expressed about over -development of this parcel. Ha compared the Plat of Farview with the Fox tend proposal. Mabusth questioned how many of the lots in ~.he Farview subdivision meet the 200' lot width standard? Gronberg replied that there were 6 lots that did not meet that standard. Mabusth asked Gronberg whether drainage was currently a concern in Area 6? Gronberg replied that drainage in Area 6 has always been a concern but added that problems were likely to occur in very rare instances and that this development will ha re no impact on Area 6. Gaffron questioned what the status would be of the pond being excavated in the northwest corner? Gronberg answered that the pond would remain dry inbetween storms. Chairman Kelley questioned who would maintain the various baffles and culverts. Gronberg said that usually the homeowner's agreement addresses such issues. Mabusth said that the City would take drainage easements over all of the drainage ways and detention/retention areas. If the Homeowners Association failed to make necessary repairs to the drainage system, the City would have the right to make the necessary reparis in emergency situations and assess costs against individual homeowners. Chairman Kelley opined that he was in favor of the through road with no right angle or stop sign. Kelley said that it would take less time to qo from Leaf Street directly to Fax Street. Kelley said that it would also be easier to maintain the through road if it was configured with no right angle. Gronberg said that they would be willing to forego the right angle if the City indicated that preference. Planning Commissioner Johnson concurred with Kelley. He said that the road would only be used by residents of the subdiv.4Sion and they would probably tend to cut the corner if E MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 ZONING FILE #1411-SOSSEX SQUARE CONTINUED there was a right angle. Ms. Wildman explained that she was proposing a stop sign for safety reasons. The Planning Commission addressed the issue of OutloL A and whether or not it should be included in the subdivision. Chairman Kelley asked Dr. Greg Lawton, the only resident with property abutting the proposed Outlot A. Dr. Lawton said that the Outlot would enter his property in the center of the western border of his property. He said that he would be the only person that would benefit from the Outlot as it would allow him to access his property from the west. Mabusth advised Dr. Lawton that in the event he chose to subdivide his property, the City may ask that he provide a connection from Outlot A to Old Crystal Bay Road. Chairman Kelley said that he did not believe that Outlot A was necessary. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that though the Outlot was not necessary, it should be included ?n the plans. He said that if it was later found to be unnecessary, it could be released. Dr. Lawton said that due to the topography in the area between Old Crystal Bay Road and the proposed Ou-.A of A, it would not be practical to develop a road through that area. Planning Commissioner Cohen said that there was a discrepancy regarding the proposed lots meplA ng the required 200' front width. Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth said that there is adequate frontage and proceeded to define lot width for each lct. Chairman Kelley said that he would like the applicant to submit a landscape plan for the Council and neighboring property owners to review. He also suggested that the applicant also submit a plan for entrance gates/monuments. Mr. Phil Byers, 3083 Farview Lane, said that he was concerned about runoff from Area 3 and 4 draining to Area 5 where it would concentrate from the water coming down the road from the south running through the existing pipe under Fox Street. He said that drainage Area 4 has a 100 year flood level of less than 2' above normal. He questioned whether replacing the existing pipe with a pipe of lesser diameter would have any affect on the rate water passed through. Chairman Kelley advised Mr. Byers of the City's policy that disallows the development of any property to increase the rate of runoff that currently flows from the property. Mr. Byers contended that Ms. Wildman's proposals would not 3 MINUTES OF TV!! PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 ZONING FILE #1411-SUSSEX SQUARE CONTINUED abide by that policy because the runoff from Areas 4 and 5 will be greater than it is today. Mark Gronberg responded that he was blocking off the 18" culvert id putting in a 12" which would restrict the flow into Farview. Gronberg also noted that a new baffle would be installed which would slow the drainage a bit. Gronberg also stated that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is reviewing this proposal. Mabusth noted that only drainage from Area 4 would drain to Area 5 and eventually to Area 6. Mr. George Dixon, 3250 Fox Street, said that after the Planning Commission Meeting in June, a group of neighbors that were concerned about this subdivision got together and hired BRW to draft an alternative plan. Mr. Dixon showed the Planning Commission that proposal. Ms. Ann Mass, 3175 Fox Street, was concerned about drainage and whether it would affect her property. Mr. Gronberg explained that in the case of the 100 year storm, the pond at the southwest corner would rise to the 966 elevation which would be less than the berm at 9671. If the culvert were to plug, then water would f low over at a 967' elevation. He said that the chance of that occuring is remote. Ms. Mass said that what Mr. Gronberg was saying did not accurately ref lect what is happening. She said that since she has lived on the property, the water has been up to the road. Gronberg replied that the culvert was half full of gravel and needed to be cleaned out. He said there was another culvert that was completly plugged. It would be the applicant's intention to clean out those culverts. Ms. Mass said that she was also concerned about the runoff carrying lawn fertilizers into Lake Minnetonka. Mr. Joseph Chadwick, expressed his concern about water backing up behind his house and affecting his septic system. Mr. Gronberg responded that the water level would only increase to the property line of the applicant's Froperty. Dr. Lawton said that th% perimeter birders had not yet been defined. Gronberg explained for the benefit of the Planning Commission that this was an "auditor's Subdivision" and there was a discrepancy in the legal descriptions being shown. Kelley suggested that the discrepancy be cleared up prior to final approval. Mr. David Mgss quescioned whether the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distric-. had approved this proposal? Mr. Gronberg replied that it was scheduled for their review on September 21st. Kelley recommended that ;property owners with drainage concerns attend that meeting. There were no further comments from the public regarding 4 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 ZONING PILE #1411-SUSSE% SQUARE CONTINUED this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Johnson, to recommend approval of this subdivision per stiLff's recommendations and conditions and that the through street be configured as initially proposed with no right angle or stop sign and that Outlot A be included. Cohen further recommended that the applicant submit copies of a formal landscape plan. Planning Commissioner Johnson recommended that the through road be p.:blic rather than private. Mabusth advised Johnson that the COL:icil would be obliged to act in favor c`_ a private: road to avoid setting a precedent. Planning Commissioner Cohen informed Johnson that he preferred not to amend his motion. Johnson stated that the only variance involved with this application is on the part of the City. Motion., Ayes=5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1441 DON COPLEY 1185 TO MWA ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. (CONTINUED) The applicant was present for this public hearing. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing :.,--re duly noted. Buildiig and Zoning Administrator Mabusth informed the Planning Commission that the applicant was seeking a hardcover variance within the 75-250' setback area and a slight average lakeshore setback variance. The applicant is proposing to construct a first level 3-season porch and a second level balcony. Mabusth asked Mr. Copley if he had received staff's memo indicating that staff's hardcover calculations varied from that of the applicant's. Mabusth said that the City calculated hardcover to be 32% as cpposed to 26.1% as shown by applicant's surveyor. Mabusth noted that the City's calculations included 24 s.f. of stairway. Mr. Copley stated that he did not receive the City's information and did not accept the City's calculations. He said that he did not understand how there could such a d.'.fference. Chairman Kelley suggested tabling this matter to allow Mr. Copley an opportunity to review the hardcover calculations with the City staff. Kelley questioned whether Mr. Copley's application could be reviewed at the September 18 Planning Commission meeting? There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application and continue the public hearing to the September 18, 1989 Planning Commission .) To: From: Date: C AdminithaVkJWEEng OCT 231989 Subject: #1441 Don Copley, 1185 Tonkawa Road - C17Y O�C Variances OF M If additional 72.5 s.f. of bituminous apron is also removed, hardcover would he = 5,756.5 s.f. or 25.2%. Variance = 49.8 s.f. or .002% 75-250' Setback Area = 22,827 s.f. Allowed Ilardc-)ver = 5,706.7 s.f. or 25% ExJ stiiiq Hard^over = 5,516 s.f. or 24.1% Applicant's Amended Proposal = 5,829 s.f. or 25.5% (involves removal of shed at 168 s.f.) 4'ariance = 122.3 s.f. or .005% Revi2 of Application - Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning October 10, 1989 At the September 25, 1989 meeting of the Council, the above referenced application was tabled providing applicant additional time to determine what existing improvements can be removed so that hardcover is retained at 25% with the proposed addition. Please review the enclosed survey. Note the shed is 168 square feet of hardcover. A small triangular portion of back -.out area of existing bituminous drive is at approximately 72.5 square feet. Staff discussed the removal of the paving with applicant after visiting +1— site for a second time. At the second visit, two cars were parked within the concrete paving area. It was impossible for staff to turn the City car around, staff used the bituminous apron to provide adequate maneuverable area. The shape of the conc,1-ete paved area and the surrounding steep vertical stone retaining walls, prevents a car from overlapping in making the turn -around maneuver. Cars are forced to move out into the flatter area and eventually to the bituminous apron. Unless major land alterations are proposed expanding or removing retaining walls, staff would suggest leaving the existing bituminous apron for secondary turn -around. If additional hardcover is to be removed, other hardcover improvement:; should be considered. Per the t.arc cover facts noted above the, applicant asks that Counr!il appro4p the proposed amended hardcover at 5,829 square feet :_t 25.5% E_ th only the removal of the shed at 168 s.f. Zoning File #1441 October 10, 1989 Page 2 of 2 If the Council denies applicant's request requiring that hardcover be maintained at exactly the allowed 25%, applicant must consider, the removal of an additional 122 square feet of existing hardcover improvements. The original resolution pres*rated for Council's action at the previous meeting may be adopted. Note that 72.5 s.f. of paved area can be removed from backup apron but would result in driving over grassed area. If applicant's hardcover variance within the 75-250' setback area is granted, staff will prepare an amended resolution for review and action at Council's meeting of November 13, 1989. CCrY RO f� �7.oNKAW4 R? 135 few � •r Do- � Ob ..Fy44M• �,. :I :r �S�IS •AS M I r City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 FILE #1441 '� WHEREAS, Donald W. Copley (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1185 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Tract B, Reg'.stered Land Survey #853, 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, Subdivision 1 to allow construction of an addition to the existing residence located 1-1h' in front of the average lakeshore setback line and a variance to Section 10.22, Pubdivision 2 seeking approval of a hardcover variance within the 75-250' setback area of 290.3 square feet or 1.2% over the existing hardcover at 5,516 square feet or 24.1%. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #11441. 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. The property consists of 28,405 square feet or .65 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 6 1989 and September 18, 1989, and recommended approval of the variance application as amended based upon the following findings: A) The encroachment of the average lakeshore setback is minimal at 1-1�' and will have no negative impact axi the lake views of the adjacent residences. B) There is no hardcover in the 0-75' setback area on the property. Page 1 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2717 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 FILE #1441 WHEREAS. Donald W. Copley (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1185 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") irt3 legally described as Tract B, Registered Land Survey #853, 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, Subdivision 1 to allow constructio_• of an addition to the existing residence located 1-1h' in front of the average lakeshore setback line and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 seeking approval of a hardcover variance within the 75-250' setback area of 290.3 square feet or 1.2% over the allowed hardcover of 5,707 square feet or 25%. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This applicat'on was reviewed as Zoning File #1441. 2. The property is located in the LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. The property consists of 28,405 square feet or .65 acres. 3. The Crono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 6 1989 and September 18, 1989, and recommended approval of the average setback variance application and recommended no hardcover be added over the 25% limit, based upon the following findings: A) The encroachment of the average lakeshore setback is minimal at 1-1h' and will i,ave no negative impact on the lake views of the adjacent rt-idences. B) There is no hardcover in the 0 5' setback area on the property. Page 1 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2717 C) The proposed total area or size of the residence structure is consistent with the size and area of surrounding residences on adjacent lots of similar size. 4. The City Council finds that a 168 s.f. shed on the property can be removed, but that additional existing bituminous driveway area should remain for safe use of the driveway, resulting in a hardcover variance to allow a total of 25.5% in the 75-250' zone. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 that would approve the average lakeshore setback variance of 1-1h' for the proposed addition and hereby denies the hardcover variance to allow 5,829 square feet or 25% hardcover within the 75-250' setback area, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall remove the 168 square foot shed within the 75-250' setback area. Such removal to be confirmed by the Building Inspector at the time of the footing inspection for the new addition. 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 (October 23, 1990). Page 2 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2717 ttion of or non-compliance with any of the terms and s of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understoid and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of October, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City C1er_ JamestR. Grabek, -Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of October, 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 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2717 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 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 & Orono Council Members C.�___ City Administrator Bernhardson CMNn From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning A trator�� 1989 Ii Date: October 19, 1989 /� Subject: #1452 Walter Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood RoaPITY Orr ORONO Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-lC, Single family lakeshore residential, acre, sewered Application - Request for room addition in 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes of 9/18/89 Exhibit C - Planning Commission Action Notice of 9/19/89 Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 9/13/89 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of September 13, 19R9. The applicants propose to construct a room addition within the 0- 75' setback zone. This additici continues the existing south and east walls of the house, and is over existing deck hardcover. Planning Commission reviewed this application at their September 18, 1989 meeting and recommended approval on a vote of 4-2, conditioned on removal of rock/plastic hardcover to the 0- 75' zone at the northeast corner of the house. Planning Commission noted the excessive percentages of pre-existing hardcover as the reason they are recommending a net decrease in hardcover rather than "no net increase". The area recommended for removal by Planning Commission is approximately 151xl5' in dimension (231 s.f. per applicant's hardcover calculations). The proposed addition is approximately 7'xl3.5' in dimension, and i s 58' from the shoreline at its closest point, but no closer to the lake than adjacent portions of the existing house. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. Requirement of a net decrease of hardcover when existing percentages are so excessive, would generally be consistent with past Council actions in similar situations. With the 231 square foot removal in the 0-75' zone, 0-75' hardcover reduces from 26.78% to 22.5%. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone remains at 58.04%. Additional removals in the 75-250' zone would be possible if Council so desires. A resolution reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation with 231 s.f. removal in the 0-75' zone, is attached for Council review. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO NUNICIYAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 & 2 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 FILE #1452 WHEREAS, Marilyn & Walter Pemberton (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1720 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 12 & 13, except that part of said Lot 12 lying northerly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 71.2' northerly measured at right angles from the southerly line of said Lot 13, Shadywood Road, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of a room addition to the existing residence, which addition is entirely located within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no structure or hardcover is n,rmalll allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV'.3D by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1452. 2. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18, 1989, and recommended conditional approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) Existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone is 26.78%. Existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 58.04%. These hardcover amounts are unusually excessive for the LR-lC district and any proposed structural additions on the property should be subject to a concurrent reduction in overall hardcover on the property. Page 1 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. B) There is an area of rock and plastic of approximately 231 square feet in the 0-75' zone (per applicants' hardcover calculation) that can easily be removed to compensate for the additional structure in the 0-75' zone. The additional structure is completely in the 0-75' zone but does not in and of itself increase hardcover on the property since it is over an existing hardcovered deck area. C) The proposed additi, � continues the existing east and south lines of the fuse, squaring off the house, and encroaches no close to the shoreline than existing portions of the house, which are 56' from the shoreline. The proposed additions do not encroach past the defined average lakeshore setback line. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comme,.ts by the applicants 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 applicants, Lut 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. CC*CLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 6 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of a room addition located entirely within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall be reduced from the existing 26.78% to a level of 22.5% by removal of at least 231 square feet of rock/plastic landscaped area, and this area shall revert to grass. gar?cover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone shall not increase above the existing 58.04% level. The site plan and hardcover calculation basis for this condition is attached as Exhibit A to this resolution. 2. The applicants are advised that no futur, .ardcover increases on the property will be approved, and any future proposal to increase hardcover on the property might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of pre-existing hardcover on the property, resulting in either a net decrease or no net increase in hardcover on the property. 3. Since the current proposal is for a 1 story addition► at this corner of the house, any future proposal to place a second story above that addition will require a new variance application. 4. 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 (October 23, 1990). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned 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 city of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a re jular meeting held on the 23rd day of October, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF KENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of October, 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 Paye 4 of 9 City of OR,ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of r 198_ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, persorall appeared known to me to r the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoj.iS instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMI -ON 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 ed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMIS:,ION EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ZONING FILE #1441-COPLEY CONTINUED Planning Commissioner Brown said that the existing hardcover was 24%. He would be willing to allow the applicant to increase to 25% which is the maximum allowed. 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 the average lakeshore setback variance of approximately 1.5' and that hardcover was to be retained at 2.5%. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1452 WALTER H. PEMBERTON 1720 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE PUBLI:: HEARING 8:10 P.M. TO 8:11 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Pemberton were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the Pemberton's proposal to convert an existing grade level deck into an addition to their dining room. Chairman Kelley asked whether the Pemberton's had received any input from their neighbor to the south? Mr. Pemberton said that he had spoken to his neighbors on both sides and they had no objection. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if there was existing hardcover that could be removed? There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown reminded Mr. Pemberton that during their recent visit he had indicated that he would be removing hardcover from the back of the house. Mr. Pemberton said that he would be willing to "punch holes" in the plastic that is presumed to be underlying the rockbed. Gaffron said that staff prefers to have the plastic removed, since hole punching is nearly impossible to verify. It vas moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Plannir, Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of this application provided that the plastic underlying the rockbed in the northeast corner of the property is removed. Motion, Ayes=4, Bellows and Kelley, Nay, due to their preference to see hardcover removed rather than converted into permanent structure. Motion passed. 6 CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE #1452 P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/19/89 ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- TO: Walter Pemberton COPIES TO: 3580 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance --------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 9/18/89 VOTE: 4 For 2 Against Planning Commission recok-- -,,Y:js the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Recommendation for approval conditioned on removal of rock/plastic hardcover area (approximately 220 s.f.) at northeast corner of house. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday October 9, 1989; meeting starts at 7:00p.:n. 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. FILE NO. 1452 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 NOTICB OF MEETING RESCHEDULING Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/27/89 ------------ ----------------------------------------------- TO: Walter Pemberton COPIES: 3580 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 NOTICE OF CANCELLED COUNCIL MEETING The regular City Council meeting originally scheduled for Monday, October 9, 1989 has been cancelled for lack of quorum due to conflicts in schedules of 3 of the 5 Councilmembers. All zoning application items previously scheduled for October 9th will be rescheduled for the October 23rd, 1989 meeting. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. In order to minimize the potential impact of this delay on your project, you may wish to submit your building permit application 10 days or more prior to the October 23rd meeting (if you have not already submitted it) for early plan review. Please contact City staff if you have any questions. To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: September 13, 1989 Subject: #1452 Walter Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lC, Single family lakeshore residential, acre, sewered Application - Request for room addition in 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Survey with Staff Notations Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G - Plan & Elevation View Pertinent Facts - 1. The applicants are proposing to contruct a room addition to expand their existing dining room area. The area of expansion is totally within the 0-75' setback zone, but would continue the existing south and east walls of the house (see Exhibit E). 2. The addition will be approximately 58' from the shoreline. The closest point on the existing house is 56' frow, the shoreline. There currently is a deck on the lakeshore a.•;de of the house that extends as close as 42' from the shoreline. Note that the proposed addition will not encroach past the average lakeshore setback line. 3. Although this addition will be over existing deck area and will not increase the hardcover percentage on the property, the existing hardcover on the property is excessive, being 26.78% in the 0-75' zone, and 58.04% in the 75-2501. There are significant areas of rock with plastic that could conceivably be removed in order to reduce hardcover in both the 0-75' and 75-250' zones. In the 0-75' zone, approximately 250 s.f. could be removed, a reduction to 22% in the 0-75'. In the 75-250' zone, 733 s.f. of plastic exists and could likely be removed, to decrease hardcover to 3,492 s.f. or 48%. Receipt - CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 '` ($50.00 per each additional variance) i -,2 Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 _ (no change from original application) After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) -- ----------------------------------------------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION ------ Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) 117 P73_- Please check one - Property"� abstr�`es ""'i torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Phone (home) Name /1 /5<=r�fr9�C�%�'✓ _Phone (work) 7�G-11.LS'/ Address: t?'-f IV or City: YA� Zip:_ �-ZrCy7/ --------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Address: Date Property Acquired City: Phone (work) Zip: (month/year) • I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. --------------------------------------------------------------------•------ PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property %S1r)1E1& % / Residenti tl Other (specify) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $_1 -440 Describe request in detail: A/dre ecrleerYf Ad" A/4-4 %" r r► /le a✓ dnt� a roc. VARIANCES REQUIRED - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - lip '.iT y 4f 'Y' � W.01. c•�.e/ Lot Area Lot Width Setback Variances ( Front Other Hardcover Side Rea:) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS A/0A415 — Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: 71.d,. /J/rva.o4il00.1Lg.d�{ta!'iw� lrcfitady - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 ,lames 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 t * 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 kno�-zledge . I Applicant's Signature LLate 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. p� Owner's Signature Date 6 p I& Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. _ i • 21 stall rF SH9RE---*. -DR .. L1i t: �• 11Sd 1 ) • �// , p s , 6 '+7 ., 104.6' 4 N •S �' '� 1 .:4 J � a MAP EGAT _ - y 9 �� • , ' �1) 3 I ; VW% .: .• III -c 700 .i — y, • .; o •• I . 30 - �r a Ar � �al� s is , • � �.* ►�i, - % , RUN DATE 08/16/89 BATCH 005 38 17-117-23 21 0002 PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME A A D FINKELSTEIN TAXPAYER ARTHUR A DOROTHY FINKELSTEIN NAME/ADDR 1740 SHADYNOOD ROAD WAYZATA MN SS391 38 17-117-23 21 0017 PROP ADDR 01690 SHADYWOOD RD OWNER NAME JACK F RHODE TAXPAYER JACK F RHODE NAME/ADDR 3155 NORTH SHORE DR t' WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 21 0020 PROP ADDR 01740 SHADYWOOD RD OWNER NAME A A D FINKELSTEIN TAXPAYER ARTHUR A DOROTHY FINKELSTEIN •• NAME/ADDR 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD WAYZATA HN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 17-117-23 21 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED A A D FINKELSTEIN ARTHUR A DOROTHY FINKELSTEIN 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 21 0018 01710 SHADYWOOD RD HARRY L MEYER JANE PETERSON PALM 1710 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 21 0021 01750 SHADYNOOD RD G A M SHANBECK GEO C SWANBECK 11021 ABBOTT LN MINNETONKA MN 55343 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 9 38 17-117-23 21 0005 01719 FAGERNESS POINT RD LAUREEN E DARLING LAUREEN E DARLING 1719 FAGERNESS POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 21 0019 01720 SHADYWOOD RD W A J KEENE WILLIAM H A JANICE M KEENE 1720 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 005 00008 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATEFySll 71 Z �C V• I• II 11 ill � 1 1 I 1 33' � I� IL 4 c L 5 Frff '� 12 y.2 7.0 7.8 t W } :-f5 ._ S/.1/1___ : i^ yJ y:.e kie• —�• r _ - i {: 9 y 6XIS-r7NG 1}O $re 33 rporo E . pDDN - errs. •Nc Deew- — Liz, _ �Paryt Ai�c ,(/�./e..ri Pcl. 9,.lot✓ fii.✓t wi �F M-1- OCK/P /5 �ter.ovtp o•75 S, •✓OW J� fi t /YY6 7•� � 1l.7Ir _CSAwt�' 114! s . t;ZZ.I% 71,-1Jo• ZIIo 7.Q t Y12s W.A fgo?D-e-° 7'x /3 <, IIARDCOVEk CALCULATION WORKS11EET Setback zone: (circle one) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Ecistin hardcover In zone Z0p• x %, o / - ♦Z % s.f. " a. House length width y96 s.f. x s.f. x s.f. x S.f. b. Ga:agc _ x s.f. c. Driveway x s.f. r. -• s.f. d. s}dewalk x ...f. x ...f. x J S.f. Patio/ /8 • , x Z / /Yf S.f. V e. . _ 3 2 7S _ 3.f. — k /6 ,IuF Tom— ✓ R. -s f. Landscape /.S 2 x /Y. Z 23 / S.f. areas t/ underlain /7 • / x • % ? 2 s.f. by plastic shcGting x S.f. x S.f. %. s x • f. Other x s.f. x s.f. STING 11ARDCOVER Ih 20NE / � / yY6 S. f . ( 1) " PEM B FR T O /►l Existing hardcover t Total Existing hardcover x 100 / Lot Area Within Zone s.f. x 100 Z4C. 78 1 J S yoG �.r. Additional hardcover to be added in zone: Item Lenath x Width 4 TOTAL s.f. o s.f. a 0x .f. CQ 11 �� Q o s.f. x s.f. r4�. TOTAL S.F. TO DE ADDED (2) Existing hardcover to be Removed, if any: Item Length 'x Width TOTAL s.f. x s.f. -y x s.f. x s.f. x s.f. TOTAL S.F. TO DE REMOVED (3) Final hardcover Proposal: (Line (1) +_Line (2) -Line (3)) + _ o s.f. (4) Existing To be Added To be Reirived Final Proposed hardcover t • 1 Line (4) x 100 s'f' X 100 t Lot n-Ck s•f• !�V IIARDCOVEI( CALCULATION WORKSIIEET SetbacL Zone: (circle one) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Fsistin hardcover in Zone a. House2/. -V x 21. 3 length width 7• 8 x 15*. / yS:I x X s.f. b. Garage 2 2. x 2/.3 a Sap ..f. • C. Driveway x 3 3 e t OS 6 s.t. ✓�/ 3 36 S � x _2_� d. Sidewalk 2• Z x s.f. 2 X 33 6 s.f. �3 x $ s.f. J 23 o. Patio/ y 9 X 2 �� s.f. Deck x o S.f. f. Landscape 4 7 x s.f. areas ,� PR,ep, NR . "At4 underlain _ x Z. 9 O s.f. by plastic shcetinlffWlxT- D'z'k`� HS Y3 7 a.f. X • l.IGyTiocE Qil'F +� newer ` x s.f. z - , IV___ s.f. X s.f. X S.f. I:G HARDCOVER Ih ZOI:E _ 2 Z $ S . f . (1 ) /'EMe f-K TON I Existing hardcover t o Total Existing hardcover x 100 Lot Area Within Zone V225a.r. x 100 .. S8.0 y t 7Z8O s.f. Additional Hardcover to be added in zone: Itcm Length x Width TOTAL s.f. x s.f. �'• .. , C X o s.f. \<� 0 _ If x o s.f. X I TOTAL S.F. TO DE ADDED (2) Existing 1)ardcov4L-r to be Removed,if any: Item Lcngth 'x tWiath TOTAL s.f. r`� F • X o X s.f. x o s.f. TOTAL S.F. TO DE REMOVED (3) Final Hardcover Proposal: (Line (1) +.Line (2) -Line (3)J + - ) o s.f. (4) Existing To be Added To be Removed Final Proposed Hardcover t o Linc (4) x 100 `'f. x 100 t . Lot ,.eta i.. 7.o�c . 3.f. 117 . .................. . . .. . . ......... ^_— —— '.. @ � S?IgGlIflfl 7Y s'83uDIS30 ' HSNOHAkVS =: K t'Tt.><tEli PIQIr,1 + I � I . j ,ill �1�002 Pt,gi.I E .I� ICI ' �E �'� i I 1 I ::�♦r £s /o To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members COUNCIL MEETING City Administrator Bernhardson OCT 23 1989 From: Michael P. Gaff ron, Asst Planning & Zoning Admim raae r Date: October 17, 1989 rr ORONO Subject: #1453 William Hibbs, 1905 Fagerness Point Road - Variance Zoning District - LR-lC, Single family lakeshore residential, acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to enclose existing canopy area. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice 9/19/89 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes 9/18/89 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 9/15/89 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of 9/15/89, and the Planning Commission minutes. The applicant is proposing to enclose an existing canopy area to make it a screened porch. This area is already hardcover, but is a change in the nature of hardcover where hardcover is already at 45.1% in the 75-250' zone. The Planning Commission considered this application at their September 16, 1989 meeting and recommended on a vote of 5-1 to deny the request. The basis for denial was that there is no existing garage on the site, and the current proposal was not comprehensive in nature. Planning Commission was concerned that the applicant or a future owner would likely at some later date request additional variances to construct a garage. Applicant noted that the logical place for a garage would be a tuck -under at the southeast of the house, accessing directly to Fagerness Point Road. Such a scheme has not been proposed by applicant at this time, but a brief look at the property would suggest that such a scheme could reduce bituminous paving on the property by 200-300 square feet or about 3%. Also note that a tuck -under garage exiting to the southeast would require a variance for garage door location being less than 30' from the right-of-way. The minority opinion at the Planning Commission level was that "hardcover is hardcover" and that the applicant is not increasing hardcover, is proposing to enclose to canopy that meets the required setbacks, and any future changes re�iuiring a garage would require another variance application and review by the Planning Commission: regardless of the current request. Zoning File #1453 October 18, 1989 Page 2 of 442 �iytaif Ae' cio sendation - In the memo of September 15, 1989, staff recommended approval of the request, but suggested that Planning Commission may wish to condition the approval on some degree of hardcover removal. The applicant was unable to suggest where existing hardcover could suitably be removed. Staff would still recommend approval, but, in deference to the Planning Commission recommendation, no resolution has been drafted. Council's options are as follows: 1. Approve as requested. 2. Approve conditioned on some degree of hardcover removal. 3. Deny. 4. Other. A resolution reflecting Council's final action will be drafted for your next meeting. CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE #1453 P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9_i7-aq --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: William Hibbs COPIES TO: 1905 Fagerness Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ----------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 9/18/89 VOTE: 5 For 1 Against Planning Commission recomends the following: Denial for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Recommendation for denial was based on the enclosure being additional permanent hardcover (vs bituminous driveway, which is "not as permanent") where hardcover is already excessive. Planning Commission also expressed a concern that his addition might further limit the possible conforming locations for a future garage. Minority opinion: "Hardcover is Hardcover". There is no increase in hardcover percent as a result if this request. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday October 9, 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 Record?r after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Please contact City Staff at 473-7357 if you wish to discuss the application. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ZONING FILE #1441-COPLEY CONTINTUED passed. #1453 WILLIAM HIBBS 1905 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:15 P.M. TO 8:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mr. Hibbs was requesting a hardcover variance to enclose an existing canopy area. Gaffron said that there would be no increase in hardcover resulting from the conversion of the canopy/bituminous area into a screen porch. Chairman Kelley told Mr. Hibbs that he was concerned about the fact that there was no existing garage. He said that more than likely there will be a future request for a garage. Mr. Hibbs replied that a tuck under garage would be most practical for this property. He said if a tuck under garage were constructed approximately 1,000 s.f. of bituminous could be removed. Planning Commissioner Cohen sa-d that he would prefer to see Mr. Hibbs make application for a gat.ige prior to proceeding with this application for the screen porch. Chairman Kelley said that he preferred not to change hardcover into structural hardcover. Mr. Hibbs said that the hardcover already exists. Planning Commissioner Bellows expanded on Chairman Kelley's concern about converting hardcover into structural hardcover. She said that in order for the porch to be constructed, footings would have to be poured which would make more permanent an already excessive hardcover condition. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hears ag was closed. It was moved b, Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner 3el lows, to recommend denial of application #1453 requesting a hardcover variance to enclose an existing canopy area. Motion, Ayes=!5, Hanson, Nay due to his belief that hardcover is hardcover. Motion passed. 7 To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: September 15, 1989 Subject: #1453 William (Bo) Hibbs, 1905 Fagerness Point Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lC, Single family lakeshore residential, acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to enclose existing canopy area. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Survey with Staff Revisions Exhibit F - Applicant's Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G - Staff Hardcover Review Exhibit H - Staff Letter to Applicant dated 8/8/89 Pertinent Facts - 1. This property is located at the intersection of Fagerness Point Road and Webb Street. As a corner lot abutting a street and a side street-, the normal required side street yard setback along Webb Street would be 15' per Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B). The applicant proposes to enclose an existing roof extension of the house, in the area of the driveway. This enclosure will be 18' from Webb Street, meeting the required side setback. 2. However, because this is a change in the nature of ixisting hardcover (similar to enclosing an open porch, for instance), the existing 45.1% hardcover requires that a hardcover variance be obtained in order for this applicant to enclose this canopy area. 3. In reviewing the existing hardcover, there are a few areas of landscape rock with plastic that could conceivably be removed to decrease the hardcover percentage. There also is a concrete sidewalk northeast of the house which could be eliminated. The bituminous to the immediate southwest of the proposed enclosure would also seem to be extraneous, but might also be necessary to maintain drainage away from the house at that uphill side. Obviously, the majority of this residence was constructed prior to the effective date of the hardcover ordinance in 1975. Zoning File #1453 September 15, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Discussion - This lot is obviously very small, and contains only a few areas of unnecessary hardcover that might be removed in order to reduce the high hardcover percentage. Planning Commission may wish to ask applicant whether such removals are feasible. Note that in staff's letter to applicant of August 8th, references are made to a 1980 zoning application for a garage. That was a detached garage with doors facing the street, which required the 30' setback for that structure. A variance was never granted and the structure was never built. However, Planning Commission may wish to consider the fact that this property does not currently contain a garage, and consider whether the proposed enclosure at this time will have an effect on future construction of a garage on this property, which would certainly require another variance application. Staff Reco=endation - Staff would recommend approval of the hardcover variance to enclose the canopy structure. Planning Commission may wish to condition the approval on some degree of hardcover removal, and may wish to discuss future garage considerations with the applicant. 53 Receipt - CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION �'' rf Initial Application Fee $150.00 4?� ($50.00 per each additional varianc Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) --- --------- ----------------------------------------------- - - PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address %!O � s Property Identification Number (P.I.D. )-- Please check one - Property -JK abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. --------------------------------------------------------l-'------------------ APPLICANT Phone (home) ry 21-9 7/ % Name (w k) I7=,7/^9 %/ Z Address: / 9v.S ��,r.!-v�� City: �PD,yp Zip: 7 --------------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Address: City: Phone (work) Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property �PS, Cie- Residential Other (specify) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- v --- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ / o a De$$cribe request in detail:_"^C4��S;, ��PeiiMg �� 4 A/,,e.M.tT- to flpec"k Q,eAd� VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot width Hardcover Setback Variances ( Front Side Rear) Other HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property c?nditions preventin comp i ce with Zoning Code Requirements:_�S�,.�� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ( ------------------ 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). 4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. .JF. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. •6V' 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 revj�-w of this application, and certifies that the ynformation supplied is e a orrect to the best of his/her knowledge. l Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry ont the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, an Council members for purposes of investiga- tion and verification of eques 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. RUN DATE 08/22/89 BATCH 001 38 17-117-23 23 0005 PRUP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME JAMES A-HELEN KREMER TAXPAYER JAME$_i HELEN KRAHW' NAME/ADDR 1837 FAGERNESS PT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 23 0009 1I' PROP ADDR 01913 FAGERNESS POINT RD ON! R NAME DAVID L SLAVIK A WIFE TAXPAYER DAVID L SLAVIK NAME/ADDR 1913 FAGERNESS PT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 23 0016 PROP ADDR 01926 FAGERNESS POINT RD OWNER NAME K A J DAHLEN TAXPAYER FRS MORTGAGE CORP NAME/ADDR 2610 UNIVERSITY AVE W ST PAUL HN 55114 38 17-117-23 23 0022 PROP ADDR 01890 CONCORDIA ST ONNER NAME ROGER COOK ETAL TAXPAYER CAROL COOK NAME/ADDR 1890 CONCOR')IA ST WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR S OWNER NAME TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH NAME/ADDR 001 00012 HEtlNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 17-117-23 23 0007 00038 ADDRESS LRUISSIGNED LLOYD H DRAPER LLOYD H DRAPER 6015 GIRARD AVE SO MPLS MN 55419 38 17-117-23 23 0010 O1921 FAGERNESS POINT RD D L PFTERSON A E M PETERSON DARRYL L PETERSON 1921 FAGERNESS POINT RD S WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 23 0020 01837--- FAGERNESS,POINT RD J 3 H KRAMER 'JAMES L KRAMER 1837 FAGERNESS PT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 23 0023 01850 CONCORDIA ST STEVEN D TOWLE ETAL STEPHEN D TONLE 5003 MIRADA OR TAMPA FLA 33624 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 38 17-117-23 23 0008 01905 FAGERNESS POINT RD WILLIAM A IIIBBS WILLIAM A IIIBBS 1584 FINCH LA ')UND MN 55364 38 17-117-23 23 0011 01929--_FAGERNESS POINT RD CLLOYD DRAPER - LLOYD H DRAPER 6'DIS-9IRARO AVE SO MPLS MN 55419 38 17-117-23 23 0021 01849 FAGERNESS POINT RD L 8 M FARPINEN LAURI M KARPINEN 1849 FAGERNESS POT,T RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 23 0031 01920 FAGERNESS POINT RD BRUCE d CAIIILLE CURTISS BRUCE d CAMILLE CURTISS 1920 FAGERNESS POINT RD WAYZATA FYI 55391 �CLRTIFICA r OF Sua. FOR: _ !CJQ-5-5 TE �tiCROFIL�,�ED N.W.Co/ner 1 9�.� • P— I Ve.nnnq . ` I 137.5 rLof 17 t B ;�c7 say d of .5 „c.1 0-14.9 q o V r y Q gAgo p V q n � V i • P M \t 09 v LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of Lot 17, Fagernes§, -d as follows: Commencing at the Northwest cor:tc iot 17; thence East on the North line of said LoS 17, distant 93.0 feet for a place of beginning: thence angle right 55 distant 147.4 feet intersecting a point on the Sc:►tt,casterly line of said Lot 17 distant 26.8 Feet Northeasterly from the Southeasterly corner'of said Lot 17, thence Northeasterly on the Southeasterly line of said LoL 17 distant 129.2 feet more or less to. the Northeast corner of said Lot 17, thence West on the North line of sAid of 17, distant 157.0 feet to t e place- beginning. �S� rzvt e-oF _ __. --- iXY. �N�4 C ; n3e3r C • 1p(- Pof Be' c• T r — �177.5 .V pC7 150, G d T � �` ems.• �� /8^y� x 934.9 i V aCI,e. 2 ooa *� �f934Z 0� v Q � . N C � �� i. DESCRIPTION I ,hat part of Lot 17, Fagernes4 described as follows: ..ommencing at the Northwest corner of Logy 17; thence East on the North line of said Lot 17, distant 93.0 feet for a place of beginning: thence angle right 550 distant 147.4 feet intersecting a po'.nt on the Southeasterly li,I- of said Lot 17 distant 26,8 feet Northea._ -erly from the Suur_i7easterly corner of said Lo:: 17, thence Northeasterly on t.'•�- Southeaste line ^f said Lot 17 di__tant 129.2 feet more or less to. the Norc:iea'L 1:orner of said Lot. 17, thence West on the North lii:e of SAid Lot 17, distant 157.0 feet to the place.of b�„4nning. 7 0 - S u ?vram! (Z SV I S 6'D d y STAFF TO S "w 4,N U, t f. I M I N 4TS " Prto ft : err:b G�'rQ/FCz.lCj W C f {„ f WA, N411r2 E�t1�-TroJLC(, gITo Uenotei iron monument 3 Proposed lowest floor v. o Denotes offset stake Proposed top of foundation elev. x 000.0 Denotes existing elev. BENCH MARK: HARDCOVER CALCULATION .,OR.KSHE SET3ACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' a-255 250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE ------------------------ A. HOUSC _C9 X _ eo _ S.F. LENGTF WIDTH ��- X �� _ D S.F. X _ S.F. ' X S.F. u n X = S.F. s B. GARAGE X S.F. _ q C. DRIVEWAY v X " Z -IIV&- e) S.F/91I ^ a X = _ S.F. D. SIDEWALK X _ S.F. X _? fG S.F. E. / _ X �eO S.F. ECK 1 T fic X _ ✓2 S.F. F.LANDSCAPE blo X C') S.F. AREAS UNi',ERLA IN BY �� X -3 S.F. PLA STIC SHEETING X S.' X= _ S.F. G. OTHER X _ S.F. ------------- TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - _ S.r. E TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN (.JNE - S.F. FBI �36! _: B,.i __X1o=_ 6 ; 6�p(jq. G #I"DcaveOL 44?:V/Pt--a - rgos Fa w-j lor 4n. -77 s E Dew or z 1210 3D roc_ moo STvpr 3 x y - l 1 w"-t, r 71A r%& . 13 x 19.3 = ZSl d g1rzi �X29 It 3 yX y2-/2 = 71- �-- __ +f SZ. x r2-12, - 312 ---- Po� ro x / y BEER MU �lICR0F1LQA�R Lam. N•>"I Co►ner &(. j p `/ R R T 911.5 rLof 17 93 Poi=T O{ Ue'�nn�Ilt� �S%OC! • E BE 71L.� ' "� � \ WLI Cam/ .[f' �7*(• ` 938.9 �9J1,3rd�rv,e' er5 swo Op ij'1 I o V �9341 oa � q t, ,� \ S t9 +' SJ 5 ��vi� LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of Lot 17, Fagernef�, lescribed as follows: Commencing at she Northwest cojLner of Lot 17; thence East on the North line of said LoS 17, distant 93.0 feet for a place of beginning: thence -angle righ- 55 distant 147.4 feet intersecting a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 17 distant 26.8 feet Northeasterly from the Southeasterly corner'of said Lot 17, thence Northeasterly on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 17 distant 129.2 feet more or less to. the Northeast corner of said Lot 17, thence West on the North line of said Lot 171 distant 157.0 feet to the place -of beginning. o Denotes iron monument Proposed lowest floor elev. o Denotes offset stake Proposed top of foundation elev. x 000.0 Denotes existing elev. BENCH MARK: CiTy of ORONO Post Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay. Minnesota 5M23 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore 8 of Lake 8 9 Minnetonka August Bo Hibbs 1905 Fagerness Point Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Proposed Enclosure of Overhang Dear Mr. Hibbs: On Friday, August 4, 1989, Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and I viewed your property to consider your proposal to enclose the existing overhang area adjacent to your driveway, near Webb Street. In reviewing the site plan of your property, it is apparent that your existing hardcover is approximately 40%, where only 25% is allowed. City policy is that, although the overhang certainly constitutes hardcover, the enclosure of she overhang is a change in the nature of that hardcover which requires variance approval. There is also some question as to whether Webb Street or Fagerness Point Road (or both) should be considered as your front yard given the location of your driveway. This would to some degree affect how much of a setback is required. I note from a 1980 variance request that the proposed detached garage (which shows up on the survey but which was never built) was supposed to meet a 30' setback from both streets. I have enclosed a copy of the variance application form for your use. Your completed application should be returned to this office with all submittals no later than noon on Fr. lay, August 25th in order to be schedult-- for a September 18th Planning Commission meeting, with the earliest feasible final Council action on October 9th. Please contact me if you have further questions. Sincerely, ` Michael P. Gafk on, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator MPG/tln Enclosure - Variance Application BUILDING h ZONING - 473-7357 • ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE - 473.7358 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 ASSESSING ck% nz* To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members OClA�3 �I/�/ Y ^ City Administrator Bernhardson `/%y 1989 0 From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrat �O Date: October 19, 1989 Subject: #1458 Blake Bichanich, 332 Westlake Street - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-lA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for side setback variance to construct second story addition. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Draft Resolution Exhibit B - Planning Commission N nutes of 9/18/89 Exhibit C - Planning Commission Action Notice of 9/19/89 Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 9/15/89 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of September 15, 1989. Briefly, the applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition over an existing residence which is 13' from the south side lot line where a 30' setback is required. Additionally, although applicant owns the lot and cabin adjacent to the other side, he is not able to combine the two properties due to their contract for deed status, hence a 22' side setback variance is required also from the north lot line. A number of issues are i•. 7ed by this proposed addition, as follows: 1. Status of non -plumbed cabin at 324 Westlake Street as a guest house. 2. Average lakeshore setback line det armination. 3. Increase in intensity of use from a 1 bedroom to a 2 bedroom use, without the ability to upgrade or replace existing substandard but functional septic system to a fully conforming status. At their September 18, 1989 meeting, Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the side setback variance, and address the above issues as follows: R �y l Zoning File #1458 October 19•, 1989 Page of 3 1. Planning Commission informed the applicant that it is the City's intent that the lots be ultimately combined and the guest house torn down, but Planning Commission specifically did not recommend that a condition of approval of the variances be combination of the lots, in deference to applicant's stated problems with having to refinance the two individual properties in order to combine them. Planning Commission relied on the fact that the cabin at 324 Westlake Street has no plumbing and is generally used for storage, although applicant indicated they may have to inhabit that structure on a temporary basis during construction of the second story addition. 2. Regarding determination of the average setback line, Planning Commission felt that the appropriate average setback line would be drawn between the adjacent residence to the south at 340 Westlake Street and the next house to the north at 3865 Bayside Road, iqnoring the location of the cabin at 324 Westlake Street. Based on this line determination, no average lak•shore setback variance 1.3 necessary. 3. 'the Planning Commission left the resolution of the septic system concerns to staff and the City Council. Please review the section entitled "septic system concerns" in the memo of September 15th. In summary, that discussion notes that the City has the right and responsibility to require expansion of an existing system when addition of bedrooms and plumbing fixtures changes the character or intensity of a use of a structure. Staff feels that the current cabin is 1 bedroom in nature and will be expanded to 2 bedrooms with the addition. The existing system is apparently very functional, with no seepage noted, but is also very substandard in design. Although no soil testing has occurred, the soil survey indicates soil types which normally would require a much larger drainfield and likely a mound system. It is unlikely that the existing system can be adled to or replaced in a fully conforming mannner based on the expected soil types. The issues remain: A) Should the house be allowed to double in iabitant. capacity with no septic system expansion? B) Should expansion of the system by increasing trench lengths be allowed regardless of actual soil types encountered on the basis that the existing system appears to be functioning relatively wall in the soils present? Zoning File #1458 October 19, 1989 Page 3 of 3 C) Should granting of the variances to expand the house rely on applicant provide a fully conforming septic system, which may be impossible? D) How does the possible installation of sewers in the near future affect Council's decision on this application? E) Does Council wish to consider conditioning approval on the applicant signing an appeal waiver of any future sewer assessments? Staff Recommendation - Until municipal sewer is installed in the Westlake Street area, the inevitable redevelopment of that neighborhood will be severely hindered by septic system constraints. The following would be some options the Council might consider: 1. Grant the variances for house expansion without any septic system upgrade. 2. Grant the variances but require extension of the existing system. 3. Conditionally grant the variances subject to applicant providing a fully conforming septic system for the two bedroom house. 4. Denial of the variances. Any of the three approval options could include one or both of the following conditions: A) Require that the lots be legally combined or at least be covered under a special lot combination resolution, which would place any future buyers of the cabin lot on notice that it is not considered buildable unless Aeld in common with the residence parcel. This condition would be critical if the existing drainfield trenches are lengthened, since they will cross the lot line onto the cabin lot. B) Applicant could be required to sign an appeal waiver for any future sewer assessments that would be forthcoming. Staff has drafted a resolution containing some gaps which need to be filled in per Council's final action on this request. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO NUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #1458 WHEREAS, Blake Bichanich (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the properties located at 324-332 Westlake Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 4 & 5, Block 1, Hillside Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a second story addition above the existing residence, located 13.0' from the south side lot line and approximately 8' from the north side lot line of Lot 5 where side setbacks of 30' are normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1— This application was reviewed as Zoning File #k1458. 2. The property is located in the LR-lA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed variance on a vote of 4-2 based upon the following findings: A) A,.._icant owns the adjacent Lot 4 to the north, hence tti.e effective side setback to the north lot line is approximately 581. The applicant has not combined the two properties because they are on separate contracts for deed. B) The proposed second story addition and extension of the existing house along the south line of existing south wall, will encroach no closer to the neighboring residence than the existing house, hence there is no significant impact on the neighboring property. Page 1 of 5 C) The most appropriate method for determining location of the average satback line is to use the residence to the north at 3865 Bayside Road as the northern terminus of that defined line, rather than the small cabin on applicant's Lot 4. Based on an average setback line defined between the houses at 3865 Bayside Road and 340 Westlake Street, thy% proposed additions do not require a variance for average setback. 4. 5. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 7. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply gent ally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, ,!,it is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship oz fficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the app]9^ant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of second scary addition and minor first story addition of the existing residence, such existing structure and additions being 13' from the south side lot line where a 30' s_de setback is normally required, and being 8' from the north side lot line where a 30' side setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 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 Coun.il approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 23, 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, sh 11 aatomatical ly terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, undersL�,od and hereby agrees tQ 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 : itle )f the property. IV Page 3 of 5 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, M'_nnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of October, 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 23rd day of October, 1989, by James R. Gr3' & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Oror. , a Minnesota municipal corporption and said instrument was exc-,uted on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires PzAge 4 of 5 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTHMBER 18, 1989 ZONING FILE #1456-EN. LD CONTINUED Mrs. Brad Childs, t.e rrospective buyers of the property. Assistant 2*1a.nning and Zoning Administrator Gaff. i, explained that this is an application requesting approval of .:n after -the -fact structure -to -structure setback variance for a detached garage. Gaffron said that approval of this variance should be conditioned upon inspection by the City to verify that appropriate fire walls exist in both garages. Mr. Childs expressed his support for the approval of the variance. There were no comments from the pu'-lic regarding this :natter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Cohen observed that the City had written a letter to the Emfields on -03(ie 17, 1986 and questioned whether anything further happened be-ond that date? Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth replied that the Emfield's building contractor was -upposed to meet with the City's Building Official, but did not follow through. Mrs. Emfield said that the contractor had indicated that he had followed through, but he had not. There wer.f, no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chak -man Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of the after-the—faC•c structure -to -structure setback variance for a detached garage, subjer-t to the City's inspection of tha fire wall and that t..e garage main detached. Motion, Aye: 6, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1458 BLAKE M. BICHANICH 332 WESTLAKE STREET VARIANCE PUBLIC HEA.F":.:r 8:50 P.M. TO 9:05 P.M. The A. *..davit of Publication anJ Certificate of *sailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Bichanich were present for this matter. Assist.. t Planning and Zoning Administrator Ga::fron pr _ded a b 'ef explanati,_,n of this application for a side setback variai.^e to construct a second story addition. GaF�ron also said that the existing drainf ie lc system is small and does n,; t meet the Curren- codes, but it seems to be working. Gaffron als7 explained t.`e septic concerns inlrolved with the pr000sed expansion ,)f t, is property (see MPG - -d:c of 9/15/89 ). Cha�*-man Kelley ask-�!d Mr. Bic` .,nich what the current use of the guest house i� and what he plans to do with the two lots? 10 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ZONING FILE #1458-BICERNICH CONTINUED Mr. Bichanich said that he intends to combine the two lots, but he needs to refinance in order to do that. In order to refinance, he has to make some improvements to the house. He said that once the lots are combined and sewer goes in, he would either incoporate the guest house into the principal residence or remove it. Chairman Kelley indicated that he too had a concern regarding the intensification of the use and the effect it will have on the septic system. Planning Commissioner Brown asked Gaffron if there was another drainfield site on the property? Gaffron replied that it was very likely that a conforming system could not be installed. He said that the soil type will probably call for a mound system, but there is not enough area with suitable slopes on the lot for a mound system. Chairman. Kelley questioned whether the combination of these two lots could be a condition of approval? Gaffron and Mabusth believed that such a condition could be part of the approval of the variance. Mr. Bichanich presented a letter that he had received from a neighbor supporting his application. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown indicated that he was concerned about the septic system. Gaffron said that the septic code is not part of the zoning code. He said that he would have to take this issue to Council for some direction. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of the side setback variance to construct a second story addition. Kelley informed the Bichaniches that it is really the intent of the City to have these lots combined and the guest house torn down. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1459 JAMW MULVANNY 559 Pi= LAM vARs�ces PUBLIC BEARING 9:10 P.M. TO 9:11 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Mulvanny were present for this matter. 11 CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE #1458 P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION +73-7357 Date of Notice: 9/19/89 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Blake Bichanich COPIES TO: 332 Westlake Street Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Vaziance ----------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 9/18/89 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Coa ission recommends the following: Approval as submitted AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission recommended approval of variances for side setbacks. Average setback variance is not. required based on the two adjacent lots owned in common being considered as a single building site. Planning Commission did not wish to condition approval on legal combination of the lots, but expressed the unanimous feelirg that the City's ultimate "goal" for this property should be removal of the structure at 324 Westlake and combination of Lots 4 and 5. Planning Commission left the resolution of the septic system upgrade issue to staff and City Council. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday October 9, 1989; meeting starts at 7:00p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission ninutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Please contact Mike Gaffron at 473-7357 if you wish to further discuss the septic system concerns. FILE NO. 1458 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF MEETING RESCMMULING Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/27/89 ----------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Blake Bichanich COPIES: 332 Westlake Street Long Lake, MN 55356 NOTICE OF CANCELLED COUNCIL MEETING The regular City Council meeting originally scheduled for Monday, October 9, 1989 has been cancelled for lack of quorum due to conflicts in schedules of 3 of the 5 Councilmembers. All zoning application items previously scheduled for October 9th will be rescheduled for the October 23rd, 1989 meeting. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. In order to minimize the potential impact of this delay on your project, you may wish to submit your building permit application 10 days or more prior to the October 23rd meeting (if you have not already submitted it) for early plan review. Please contact City staff if you have any questions. To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffrori, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: September 15, 1989 Subject: #1458 Blake Bichanich, 332 Westlake Street - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for side setback variance to construct second story addition. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Letter of Request Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Property Owners List Fxhibit E - Survey with Staff Notations Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G - Elevation Views & Floor Plans Exhibit H - Letter from Applicant's Structural Engineer Exhibit I - Topographical Survey Pertinent Facts 1. Applicant is the contract -for -deed owner of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Hillside Park, also known as 324 and 332 Westlake Street respectively. There is a cabin at 324 Westlake Street which contains no plumbing but does have electricity, and is currently used as a guest house for the principal residence structure at 332 Westlake Street, although the two lots are separate for tax purposes. Applicant notes that he would have to refinance the two properties in order to combine them for tax purposes. 2. Applicant is proposing to construct a second story on the h01:3e on Lot 5. Additionally, he would be constructing a Firch at the southwest corner of that structure in line with the existing walls of the house. 3. The existing house is 13' from the south side lot line where a 30' side setback is normally required. Additionally, the existing house is about 8' from the north lot line. If both properties are taken into account, the north side setback is about 58'. Zoning File #1458 September 15, 1989 Page 4 of 5 The ultimate question to ask is whether this house should be allowed to virtually double its livable space without requiring expansion of the drainfield system. The existing system is working under its current usage, but the proposed additions to the house probably will tend to make the house large enough for three or possibly four inhabitants. Chances are if soil testing was done, the existing system could not be expanded in a conforming manner using trenches, but would require a mound system. There is no feasible location on the property to construct a mound. Should further development of this property, including the currently proposed expansion, be held up until municipal sewers are provi'^d to this neighborhood? Council has made no determination as to if or when sewers will be provided. The applicant should be advised that these questions and this discussion would be occurring regardless of the need for the side setback variance, since expansion of a residence on a substandard, unsewered lot is subject to the on -site sewage treatment code provisions noted earlier. Staff Recossendation - Aside from the septic system issues, Planning Commission could recommend approval of the side setback variance based on additions being no closer to the side lot lines than the existing structure. Considering Lots 4 and 5 as a single building lot, no average setback variance is necessary. One condition of approval would logically be that the two lots be combined for tax purposes, thus negating the need for a north side setback variance but bringing up the issue of the second structure as a guest house vs. storage only. Finally, Planning Commission is requested to consider the septic system issue. If municipal sewer was available, the concerns about a aubstandard septic system would be eliminated. The fact that the existing substandard system is functioning correctly indicates that under current usage, no problems are occurring. If Planning Commiss on feels that the proposed additions will effectively increase the probable number of inhabitants of this residence, that creates a potential for septic system problems in the future that perhaps cannot be solved in a conforming manner until municipal sewer becomes available. One interim option could be lengthening of the existing drainfield onto Lot 4, troviding extra capacity but being in soils and water table conditions which will limit the useful life of the system. This would seem to be a reasonable option if City sewer is definitely expected to be provided in the relatively short-term future (5-10 years). Zoning File #1458 September 15, 1989 Page 5 of 5 A conservative interpretation of Section 12.30, Subdivision 4 (E) would require that the existing system be upgraded to be totally conforming to current codes. That is not possible on this lot, in staff's estimation based on knowledge of the area. A more liberal interpretation tempered with the thought that municipal sewer may be in the offing, would go so far as to allow the addition with or without extension of the existing trench drainfield, with the property owner being advised that major expansion over and above the two bedroom threshhold would not be approved until municipal sewer is provided. A%':Z - - = Cam~ P .-GI% NT-+.r� Zoning File i1458 September 15, 1989 Page 2 of 5 4. Hardcover on the property is as follows: 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Lot 5 Only 1.7% 20.91 20.6%* 20%* Lots 4 i 5 Combined 0.9% L5.4% 10.1% 10% * Includes entire width of driveway Based on the above, hardcover is not a factor in the current proposal. 5. Applicant also proposes an extension of the house 8' east of the existing wall. This would be located over the area of the pre-existing porch which applicant has torn off. Note that this addition would line up exactly with the neighboring house to the south. It would extend nearer the lake than the "guest house" on Lot 4, but would be behind the average lakeshore setback defined by the next lakeshore residence to the north at 3865 Bayside Road. The proposed lakeward addition would be approximately 150' back from the normal shoreline. 6. The site topography, location of wells on this property and the neighboring property, and the fact that this is a long, narrow lakeshore lot, all have a very limiting effect on the additional development of this property without municipal sewer. Discussion - If the applicant cannot combine these two properties, you should look at Lot 5 as a separate parcel for variance review. It would certainly be preferrable from a development standpoint if the applicant could combine the two parcels and develop towards the center of the property to maintain appropriate setbacks. For purposes of this staff review, the assumption is made that Lots 4 and 5 will ultimately be combined. No average lakeshore setback variance is required presuming that the adjacent residence to the north is 3865 Bayside Road. The average lakeshore setback line is drawn under this assumption. Applicant would not be encroaching nearer either north or south lot lines, but would be extending approximately 10-12' vertically above the existing roof. As of this writing, no comment from the neighbor to the south, who would be most affected by the addition, has been received. Zoning File #1458 September 15, 1989 Page 3 of 5 The assumption that the lots will be combined raises the issue of use of the cabin at 324 Westlake Street as a guest house. While that building contains no plumbing, it does have electricity and a "kitchenette" i.e. contains a stove. The stove could certainly be removed, making this a non -dwelling unit, with use merely as a storage building. Ultimately, applicant notes his intent would be to expand the house at 332 Westlake Street northward, ultimately removing the cabin at 324 Westlake Street. Septic Svstem Concerns Orono's On -site swage Treatment Ordinance in Section 12.30, Subdivision 4 (E) requi.- that permits for expansion of existing buildings served by septic systems, may not be issued until the septic system has been i,ispected and certified by the City as being in compliance with this section. It goes on to state that the City may require expansion of existing systems when the "addition of bedrooms and plumbing fixtures . . .changes the character or intensity of the established" use of a structure. In this case, applicant has noted that the previous property owners used the porch as a second bedroom, hence technically this might be conceived as a pre-existing two bedroom house. Note from applicant's building plans that his proposal is for ar+two bedroom home. Inspection of the existing system, in conjunction with a review of City records regarding that system, indicate that there are two 500 gallon tanks and approximately 250 square feet of trench drainfield in three drainfield lines on the lakeshore side of the house. The most downhill drainfield line is 79' from the normal shoreline, meeting the setback requirement. The existing system appears to be functioning adequately and no seepage or evidence of past seepage is visible. From a design standpoint, the existing drainfield system is quite substandard based on current codes. The soil survey indicates kilkenny soils at this site, which commonly would be expected to have a perc rate requiring 300 s.f. of drainfield per bedroom. The existing 250 s.f. drainfield would not technically be large enough to serve a two bedroom house unless the soil was a sand or sandy loam texture with a perc rate faster than 5 minutes per inch. In general, the existing system would be expected to be capable of serving two people, possibly three on a long term basis. This also disregards the fact that Kilkenney soils typically require use of a mound system due to seasonal saturation zones near the surface. That seasonal saturation tends to decrease the useful life of a trench -type drainfield. Receipt- -# U5 841A R cAkct, 1 150 , o c CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPL]CATs.I,. Initial Application Fee $15u.00 �^ ($50.00 each additional variance; :,� i• 14 1- 4' per Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 = ., (no change from original application) After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) ---------- ------------------------------------------------ PROPERTY LOCATION M' Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) 05-117-2-� Z3 001Z = - Please check one - Property �C_ abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on requiredsurvey. _---------_--------------_- ---------------------------------------------- -- APPLICANT Phone (home) -4 75- Z gZ Name ��-� M. �1�ttAN(c' Phone (work) Addresskt%€STLAtE S+, City: Lc *J4 LAY-E Zip: 55 3S1p -------------------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address: City: Zip: Date Property Acquired 1afRI L ( `egg (month/year) I(do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. 3Z4 6RSTL^rx. -------------------•-------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRT-PTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ? 710 00 Describe request in detail: �F ATrA6HED L-ETr E e- FLAUS ------------------------------------------------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback Variances ( _ Front Other X_ Side ---------------- Hardcover Rear) HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations:- SEE ATTACHED LrT-T-,E' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY C-NDITIONS Describe unusual property cc,.titions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: StrE f=, - fAe-4+ L£irw, ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. iiT�ical om U pp ion 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. 50. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. NOT 47,EQ14IR.FD 6. Plz-t 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. Addi i.,)n 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 oi� 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 be-t of his/her knowledge. P Applicant's Signature Date 9-,o,/ D j 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 oofthis /frequest. Owner's Signature �CJY /� 7 ADate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, dlease 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. Variance Remest Explanation cua, to the increased sideyard require Ents under- the newer ordinances I am requesting a variance for the sideyard setbacks in order co add to my e::istino I-,ome. My present lot is typical of many of the older lake lots in this area in that it is long and narrow (50' x 625). My existing home is situated nearly -x)' back: from the lake and the e.:i_tina =_ideyards are a little over feet on " a north side and 12'.7 'feet L-n the south side. I do not wish to c-henge setbacks as all of my additic.;n is vertical, b-it the nem crdin•inca requires =fir' sideyards which are impossible cn a �' lot. (he fcotpr2.nt of tl7e t-cLis? will re��ir. tt-�e same as I an simply adding some br_droc+ns aL-ove the e::istiny_ St--Ltctur-e for us and the r.EAj taby. t+le asku : your' approval to leave the existing sideyard setbacks as they presently e;:ist. which met the r-equ.ircnents at the time the hci=_e was built tut no longer meet the new sideyard requirements of .DY . For this we request a sideyard aetback: variance. Thant: ;.u_+ again fcr ::;ur help in this matter. 6&46� 186e4l;a� Blake Pichenich DB: Fcmi .'`,♦ ►•��,:.. ` .t1 d S, 124 , 'n 57 63 .41 t -NI} 9411,••--�'� _ 64 (e) j f 1, 45 36 2.7 , ,f , ' r .�tV JP 2 ---- (4) 2 4 (J;V °t s 11 z1 Z 3 i2 Y 510.04 6 11 (13) f 1 1 , 4 i9 f-_ :r�i� 8 Pork �_ - Gal .n .10 n zn ip 15 fi) 0 30 2W- 5 5 Res. RUN DATE 08/22/89 ' BATCH 016 38 05-117-23 23 0009 ty_ PROP ADOR 03895 BAYSIDE RD OWNER NAME C J MEZZENGA A E K MEZZENGA TAXPAYER CHRISTOPHER/EUGENIA MEZZENGA NAME/ADDR 3895 BAYSIDE ROAD i LONG LAKE MN 55356 �L. 38 05-117-23 23 0012 A, PROP ADDR 00332 WESTLAKE ST OMIER NAME F E LOWRY ETAL TAXPAYER SLAKE M BICHANICH NAME/ADDR 332 LAKE ST H ' LONG LAKE MN 55331 38 05-117-23 23 0015 PROP ADDR 00356 k[STLAKE ST OWNER NAME E C ANDERSON ETAL TAXPAYER EDWARD ANDERSON NAME/ADDR 356 WESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0022 PROP ADDR 00325 WESTLAKE ST OWNER NAME R A D OLSEN TAXPAYER RONALD G OLSEN NAME/ADDR 341 WEST LAKE ST LONG '"-,E MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0025 PROP ADDR 00349 WLSTLAKE ST OWNER NAME E T ANDERSON A M L RICKETT TAXPAYER EDNA T ANDERSON NAME/ADDR 349 H LAKE ST �+ LONG LAKE MN 55356 HEIYIEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 05-117-23 23 0010 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED D A K DIANIS DAVID DIANIS 17308 HAMPTON CT MINNETONKA MN 55345 38 05-117-23 23 0013 00340 WESTLAKE ST P W STENDERSON ET AL W/L EST PHYLLIS W STENDERSON 340 W LAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 u016 00364 WESTLAKE ST 14ALLACE N PAASCH W W PAASCH 364 NEST LAKE ST LONG LAKE MU 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0023 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R A D OLSEN RONALD G OLSEN 341 WEST LAKE S1 LONG LAKE MN 5531, TOTAL BATCH 016 00013 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 35 38 05-117-23 23 0011 00324 WESTLAKE ST C E MILLER ETAL BLAKE 11 BICHANICH 324 WESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MU 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0014 00348 WESTLAKE ST THOMAS JOHN COfAIELLY A WIFE BRODY ASSOCIATES INC 2233 N HAMLINE ROSEVILLE MN 55113 38 05-117-23 23 0021 00309 WESTLAKE ST G S PERL A B J PERL GREGG S A BETTE J PERL 309 W LAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 23 0024 00341 WESTLAKE ST ►� RONALD G A DEBBIE K OLSEN RONALD OLSEN 341 W LAKE ST tf LONG LAKE It! 55356 A .., - � raw a. vrV'SURVEY FOR: SLAKE BICHANICH L I -)-1- 1, ,I t-; ��/ .Its - HARDCOVE ; CALCULATION �fG�► �r.'C SE r'AC< ZONE: (C:?C-z ONE) O-i: ` 7 :;Oo I--c,--.� 6E ISTING HARCCOVER I;I ZONE -- ---------------------- -- ` A. HOUSE X = S.F. L_'1GTH WIDTH B. GARAGE c. DRIVEWAY X = S.F. f� •/ `.r3 r- , X S.F. X _.F. X S. D. W'tDEWAL X S.F. E. PATIO/ X ECY F.LANDSCAP: AREAS UNDERLAIN BY PLASTIC SHEETING .r. X _ .— S.F. x a �_� S.F. G. OTHER �J x 6 %. 4 , S. F. EX16TI144 ShED._.- TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - '� 5 S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - 7 S Z r S.F. x 1C0 0 1 18 HARECOVER CALCULATiG;l SET�ac< zO;iE: (C:mC'z VIE) G-r:' LISTING HARICCOVER !N ZONE / A. HOUSE x S.F. of 3Z4 LENGTH WIDT F6u6x 33Z _1-7 x 14-7L _ 1-09,34 s.;:. T.4 x Zg•Z S.F, •zZ• IZ. 14 x I = z74•0= S.F. CALt> pow S. Cp I x ZZ ' I = I g0, 0�4 S.F. F ;�cor 'pozg.,�- ( .c 1 09. 2 ✓ ol B. GARAGE x = S.F. C. DRIVEWAY x = S.F. 3� �� O � x - S.F. D. SIDEWALK ZS x 2. S.F. ✓ x — S.F. IZ.p x Z2• C) Z�o S.F. E. PATIO/ ECK x a S.F. F. LANDSCAPE x S.F. AREAS UNDERLAI;1 BY x = S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING x a S.F. x = S.F. G. OTHER %t}F� -,C' x in_ 3C) S. F. � _ � TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - S.F. Q a: B d b x 100 = ?Lctle • 32 �f� •� is HARDCOVER CALCULATION WOR SiME, SE-r„CK ZONE: (C:2C:-_ CME) 0-i�' 75-2-501 EXISTING HAR:CJVEF IN ZONE ----------------------- A. HOUSE x = S.F. LENGTH WIDTH X S.F. X = S.F. x = S.F. x B. GARAGE Z �' X C. DRIVEWAY X S.F. X S.F. D. S DEWALK x Z' - S F. x _ EiZ S. F. E. PATIO/ s. F. EECK X a S.F. F.LANDSCAPs X = S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X = S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X = S.F. G. OTHER X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 13-D 11,-7 S.F. j TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - ? Sr6At) S.F. Bi ,doo x 100 I Z• 0 LE • � HARLCOVE CALCULATION WOrRK.Si-ME, SE7.7 ACX ZONE: (C?RC_= ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-:iu' ExISTiNG HARDCOVER I3 ZONE A. HOUSE X S.F, LENGTH WIDTH X = S.F. X = I S.F. X = S. F. X = S.F. 3. GrIAG-c X = S.F. C. DRIVEWAY � X S.F. X S.F. D. SIDEWALK X X S.F. = . E. PATIO/ X S.F E:X X a S.F. F.LANDSCAP° X = S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X = S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X S.F. X a S.F. G. OTHER X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - S S.F. F • - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - S.F. L13� 1 t1 �C) : 51_..1, �,oQ X 100 - 10 .,A =:V§:7.TJMM:�W,jjo am%-Ivk 1.1%TA " V NOTE: 81D ,.DPITION 1 Ab A'n ki: PEG K\ r,. • ' ` -114 ` T r op. _ . . s y tit. ..�` '� �- ,.�w;�•. •v i• � ~ . / '�'•••:r • •� 6' cot T . .�-pig ., bNow mini mini Lo am"lud I Lmi —� --�.: ter_ �■ `` 1w •yea•• a� mi ® ,Mill® to � ,� .. .r•'•f �i •t •l ,� 7 •/. � +1 •. 7. 1 f•. •r•.i „y !:i c•'�• JT.1. r ram+ 1 ♦' .� '�• ' f J 7 Yfr 7 .y ��i�..`�•,•....Mr•I� I r + .F ;; j•'� .�1L 7.� j 1. '"� s *, • Ir �r • --- iX%rlxl „-c:l Ell + + 4' ~ _ .�j ��r}� rti 'h- � - .S' - i• +e t' -� • ' ' �I `-' � • •~ �t�"~ �'��• •t t.'�.,� - �,. .t ': �', _ .f `1 CAI A+Ks��ry•1'Nlr. R--C 1 ,. �.-:'t r :l .. , 1 f_.. ... �E� i� . 7. •• i ... •f! •• • •.< ! ,r O t-- O° NOTE: TO I_1VIN4 At AN EM,bTIN4 art. �uE - � ExI�TINC.+ gM 1m Z. - C!:--' a A '$x20 FT4 V/-A *4'S ON e50r7011-MILL 5" 'YD 'FLUE F74 xl I I'll I 18"SaFT4 w/Z"q� �' I �. WAY. - ON TOP 2-zxl0'b lko EXISTING LOWER LEVEL PLAN n MAIN rpimp. Zg-OJ/Z 3 3.2''`z X. ~•`'� ' vp WANG 10L 4-7 -13/4VA r Fl.l.!'Sff �• -Zxl ZSL? _ � - l ' � •,yam-y�:�Yy• •� p IN in A4 o Q : DININGin KrtCHEN ci �1 i ��'M .{may: ♦'�1z. .v�T b! ' I t� ^� ' * !�1p l �b tip. Si.•. n 1t.0. I� R.t� I R�-0. 1 .ftUv •� " i�� . � J• �`K.~ `�GJf�S.- t.TSi�J.''�'�K•+ 1.7� .i. L fz oo i . 7 ..fL.O• R•O. j R•OQ -7 i I I -X15TIN4 ROOF 1 FLIP d' u _ - -- j j -BEDROOM 401 f` BEDROOM. #2 . I I, cs nt % + tyflTE: FLAT GEIUN4 � 5TA1FL r1ALJ` W i .NI - �' 10-8 a� fa irl --�- :. IK 5-0 BA" b ROOF .:.N 0 14-1'/Z I'.5-II Zg•O'/rz �1 f fnf`�Prr1 n ra Irf 4 0%0%town ^\ 0 Denver, CO Duluth, MN Minneapolis, MN Rochester, MN Rapid City, SO Sioux Fails. SO G ilette. WY Shendan, WY Architecture • Engineer- • Interiors • Planning • Design Energy Consultation • - --fiction Management • Design,Build August 22, 1989 Mr.. Blake Bichanich 332 Westlake Street Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Bichanich Pasidence 332 Westlake Street Long Lake, Minnesota At your request, I have reviewed the plans of your proposed addition in the City of Orono specifying the beams, headers, etc. I also reviewed the adequacy of the existing foundation and foundation wall. The existing 1211 concrete block wall and footing are of adequate size and strength to support the additional load of your proposed addition. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, TSP/ADG a d ��Laa��r� son, P. E. Structur�d/Engineer nnescita Reg. No. 15847 �M Ln __t si CCmrtL_ :y A+irrrmav" Ac:.Or �^—pioyer 7101 Ohms Lane. Suite 480. Minneapolis. MN 5WS (612) 830-WM FAX f 1507 . ..... 07 Em. NIL dr\ cr 1� -04'. I I'- K-n I § 12.30 4. Site limitations including soil characteristics and lot size may require Alternative System design for the repair, alteration, extension or replacement of existing systems, or for the construction of new systems on lots of record as of the date of adoption of this Section. In such cases, the City shall have authority to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the proposal. 5. Subdivision proposals may include Alternative Systems for one or more proposed lots. In such cases, the City's review and recommendations shall be forwarded to the inning Commission and Council for inclusion in the review of the liminary plat. The Council may approve, conditionally approve disapprove of the proposal and may require that the proposed ...',division be redesigned to reduce or eliminate the use of Alternative Systems. 40 E. Building Permit Applications. No building permit shall be issued by the City for any new building which will be connected to a new on -site system until the site evaluation report and system design specifications as required by the Design Manual have been reviewed and approved by the City. No building permit or plumbing permit shall be issued by the City for any expansion or alteration of a building or use connected to an existing on -site system, until such system has been inspected and certified by the City as being in compliance with this Section. Whenever the addition of bedrooms or plumbing fixtures, or a change in the character or intensity of the established use is proposed, t'.,- City may require the review and/or replacement, repair, alteration or expansion of the existing system or any portion thereof. _ F. Subdivision Applications. No subdivision, lot division or replatting for the purpose of creating a new building site, which property includes the use of on -site systems, shall be approved by the City until a site evaluation report as required by the Design Manual has been reviewed and approved by the City, and ail existing systems have been inspected and certified by the City as being in compliance with this Section. 1. Wherever the site evaluation report indi- cates slopes in excess of 12%, or percolation rates slower than 60 minutes per inch, or ground water table less than five feet deep, or soil classifications requiring the use of Alternative Systems, the site evaluation report shall also include specific system design specifications as normally required for building permit applications. 2. grant to the City in of entry to allow for right of entry may be As part of any subdivision, the owner shall form approved by the City a perpetual right the future inspection of all systems, which filed in the chain of title for the property. ORONO CC 494 (4-1-84) du� City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL r.�•a A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 a 2 FILE #1459 WHEREAS, James A. Mulvanny (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 559 Park Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 9 and 10, Block 6, 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 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of a room addition which will result in hardcover on the property in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in the 75-250' zone, and which addition will encroach 8' past the defined 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 #1459. 2. The property is located in the LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 19, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A) The 8' average lakeshore setback encroachment has no significant impact on lakeviews enjoyed by neighboring property owners. Furthermore, the proposed addition is located approximately 100' from the shoreline. B) Hardcover in the 75-250' zone will decrease by 30 s.f., from 34.76% down to 34.51%, as a result of this proposal. The significant areas of hardcover on the property are generally necessary for functional use of the property. Page 1 of 4 COUNCIL Mdift To Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members OC City Administrator Bernhardson i 2 3 1989 From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdminisCITKOF ORONO Date: October 16, 1989 Subject: #1459 James A. Mulvanny, 559 Park Lane - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-lB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for average setback and hardcover variance to construct a room addition over existing deck. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Notices of Planning Commission Action & Rescheduling Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 9/14/89 Please review the memo and exhibits of September 14, 1989. Briefly, applicant is requesting an average setback and hardcover variance to construct a room addition on the lake side of his existing residence. That room addition will replace an existing deck on that end of the house. In the 75-250' zone, the proposal results in a slight decrease in hardcover from 34.76% to 34.51%. The average lakeshore setback encroachment is approximately 81. The Planning Commission at their September 19, 1989 meeting recommended approval, finding that the proposed addition results in a slight decrease in hardcover on the property and finding that the topography and location of neighboring residences is such that the average lakeshore setback encroachment will have no significant impact on lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission further recommended no additional hardcover removals be required, finding that the existing hardcovered areas were not excessive for functional use of the property. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission ?commendation. A resolution for approval is attLched. property must be City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ►rities granted by this resolution run with the not with the applicant, but are permissive only and exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 23, 1990). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the city of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of October, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(.. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of October, 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 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. �ity Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Counci 1 finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of a room addition on the lake side of the house, which addition will encroach 8' past the defined average Lake- shore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and which addition will result in hardcover in the 75-250' zone in the amount of 34.51% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall not exceed 34.51% per the survey/site plan and hardcover documentation attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. The applicant is placed on notice that any proposals for future hardcover on the property will not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of pre-existing hardcover resulting in no net increase of hardcover on the property. 2. The applicant is advised structure in the 0-75' setback conforming structure and subject governing such structures. Page 2 of 4 that the existing shed zone is considered a non - to the pertinent ordinances City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 198 before me a Notary Public within a:ic: for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 198, before me a Notary Public within anc, for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE #1459 P. 0. Boa 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/19/89 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: James A. Mulvanny COPIES TO: 559 Park Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- r;; TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ------------------------•--------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 9/18/89 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: No additional hardcover removals were required by Planning Commission. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday October 9, 1989; meeting starts at 7:00p.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. FILE NO. 1459 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF MEETING RESCHEDULING Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/27/89 ----------------------------------------------------------- TO: James A. Mulvanny COPIES: 559 Park Lane Lonv Lake, MN 55356 NOTICE OF CANCELLED COUNCIL MEETING The regular City Council meeting originally scheduled for Monday, October 9, 1989 has been cancelled for lack of quorum due to conflicts in schedules of 3 of the 5 Councilmembe.rs. +� All zoning application items previously scheduled for October 9th will be rescheduled for the October 23rd, 1989 meeting. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. In order to minimize the potential impact of this delay on your project, you may wish to submit your building permit application 10 days or more prior to the October 23rd meeting (if you have not already submitted it) for early plan review. Please contact City staff if you have any questions. COUNCIL MEETING To: Mayor Grabek & Oronc) Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson OCT 23 1989 From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdminisOlfrOF ORONO Date: October 17, 1989 Subject: #1462 Richard Schmidt, 3980 Watertown Road - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - RR-lA, Single family rural residential, 5 acre, unsewered Application - Request for front setback variance for proposed second story addition to the existing residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Planning Commission Action Notice 10/17/89 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits 10/3/89 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of October 3, 1989. Applicant is proposing to construct a second story to the existing house, which is only 35' from the front lot line where a 100' front yard setback is normally required in the 5 acre zone. The residence met the zoni..g standards in effect at the time the house was built in 1954. At their meeting of October 16, 1989, Planning Commission voted 7-0 tc recommend approval of the setback variance for the second story addition, conditioned on replacement of the septic system to accommodate the expansion from a 2 bedroom to a 3 bedroom use. The applicant has had soil testing done and is in the process of hiring a septic contractor. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the front setback variance per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached for Council review. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.27, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #1462 WHEREAS, Richard Schmidt (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3980 Watertown Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a second story addition to the existing residence which is located 35' from the front lot line where a front yard setback of 100' is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1462. 2. The property is located in the RR-lA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A) The existing residence was constructed in 1954 and met setback requirements in effect at that time. The property was rezoned from a 1 acre status to a 5 acre minimum lot size in 1975, requiring a 100' front yard setback for any new construction occuring after 1/l/75. B) The proposed second story addition will encroach no closer to the front lot line than the existing residence, which is 35' from the front lot line. Page 1 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. C) The proposed addition converts the existing two bedroom house into a three bedroom residence. Applicant proposes concurrent replacement of the existing septic system to accommodate the house expansion, hence the proposal meets the requirements of the on -site sewage treatment ordinance. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a second story addition to the existing residence, located 35' from the front lot line where a 10 0' front yard setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing septic system shall be replaced with a conforming septic system to accommodate the expansion to a ;three bedroom use. 2. :,uthorities 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 (October 23, 1990). Page 2 of 4 City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3. violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orr)no, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of October, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrum--t was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of October, 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 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 198 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally known to me to be appeared the peiOZn(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 198 , before me a Notary Public within and for said Countv, personally appeared known to me tcT tie the person(s) described in and who executed the f oregoing i:i: -iment, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Mac COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 ZONING FILE NO. 1462 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 10/17/89 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Richard Schmidt COPIES TO: 3980 Watertown Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ----------------------------------- ----------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 10/16/89 VOTE: 7 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Approval subject to concurrent rel. . zment of septic system to accommodate house expansion. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Mo,,<tay, October 23, 1989; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission mi -ites, they are available from the City Recor6er after review and ap, :oval by the Planning Commission. To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Octcber 3, 1989 Subject: #1462 Richard Schmidt, 3980 Watertown Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-lA, Single family rural residential, 5 acre, unsewered Application - Request for front setback variance to construct second story addition above existing house. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Septic Site Plan Exhibit F - Selected Plan & Elevation Views Pertinent Code Section - Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) - Required front yarl setback = 100' Existing front setiack = 35' Variance = 65' Pertinent Facts - 1. Applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition over his existing house, which is 35' from the front lot line where a 100' front yard setback is normally required. This existing residence was constructed in 1954. 2. The proposed second story addition will encroach no closer to the front lot line than the existing residence. 3. The proposed addition has the effect of converting this two bedroom house into a three bedroom residence. Applicant is planning to construct a new septic system based on the three bedroom status of the house. The existing system consists of one septic tank and a small amount of drainfield. -i:tl�l_-�_ Receipt - CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATIONi� Initial Application Fee $150.00'� ($50.00 per each additional variance '-'_"y7 Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) f{ '`o -' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --- . �LLff !L 1� . ♦ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3990 ')(.',;� Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3a ! ► 9' D 3 3a ocoa Please check one - Property X abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT INC, Phone (home) OC 1407 Name � �CNA? � �. S NR1��T V `(�. Phone (work) LP I Address: 3980 l..�C eJJwn �c� City: y�g4P_ 71 lain Zip: 5Qr7 -------------------------- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address: City: Zip: Date Property Acquired J(l,%E t -15 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ------------------------------------------------------ PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Q_ l A �( Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) _ ----------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $-/O 000 Describe request in detail: i40M OL381+ ern ailti� �i4f4 Pfbni VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances ( Front Side Rear) Other Zoning File #1462 October 3, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Discussion - This existing house is entirely within the required 130' setback in this RR-lA, 5 acre zone. The house was constructed it 1954, prior to any zoning in this area of the City. Since the 1975 rezoning from 1 acre minimum to 5 acre minimum, any additions to this house would require a setback variance. The hardship is in the pre-existing location of the house in relation to current code requirements. Note that many of the existing residences along Watertown Road in this area of the City would similarly not meet the RR-lA 100' front setback requirement. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the front setback variance based on the hardships and findings noted above, conditioned on replacement of the septic system to accommodate the expansion to a three bedroom use. HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical fdifficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: t.Xl S t1'n, <'_tCIAP_tUIf? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements: No N E ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- TUIRED SDBIKITTALS Complete%: Application Form Certifi:d 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). -"4�, Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. ,d. 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. r,,,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. Zcning 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. D"NRfto PP. 0 (7Arz.,-I. p Applicant's Signature ��,�i.Q __L � U�p Date ` 0 7, 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 'Lnct/v�, �� Date q- 6 _FT --------------- ---------------------------------------------- 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. -ov � &--2- Receipt - CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION t Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance )t J. ..�►.� -- Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) ---------------------------------- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3q9" RE) Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) 3� 11 9' ) 3 3 .� ocoa Please check one - Property X abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application if not incic.ded on required survey. -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT OQ.aqp" VA RK Epp M INC. Phone ( home ) 4 7 C 1407 Name vkA-il1) \12- Phone (work) L4 D 1 Address: 3�8� LJCL_kQyt3wn (R� City: S�1G�le 71 1a►n zip: S3S9 -------------------------------------- --------- ------------ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address: City: Zip: Date Property Acquired [C-15 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ------------------------- ---- ---- --------- -------- --------- ---------------- PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District R Q- 1 A �( Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) ------------ --------------------------------------------------------------- x DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $j0 Ooo Describe request in detail: �40Mn a& .')►. ;A) �p{y cronf 5�yGCk �G,ria�tee --r VARIANCES RBQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances (_ Front Side Rea.-:) Other - -OR (3) AV Ldlm 10 ,.o z 3 z i3Z C5- tx ijz 70 59 Pr S ON 3 416 4300 Z49V 0 , I . r° . z vp j RUN DATE LIV24/89 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM 1 PROPERTY O 4ERS LIST " BATCH 007 I8 31-118-23 14 0007 38 31-118-23 41 0001 PROP ADDR ii100 WATERTOWN RD 04040 WATERTOWN RD OWNER NAME F+•.ANK KOKESH ET AL DANIEL F KOKESH TAXPAYER FRANK KOKESH DAVIEL F KOKESH NAME/ADDR 4100 NATERTOIN RD 4040 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 23 0006 38 32-118-23 23 0008 PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 00460 ORCHARD PARK RD OWNER NAME STEPHEN D TONLE ROBERT J i LORRAINE E RODEN TAXPAYER STEPHEN D TONLE ROBERT J d LORRAINE E RODEN rr NAME/ADDR 5003 MIRADA OR 460 ORCHARD PARK RD TAMPA FL 33624 LONG LAKE MN 55356 ;`CahXS 32 0002 38 32-118-23 S2 0003 PROP ADDRWATERTOWN RD 03965 WATERTOWN RD OWNER NAMEPARK E3832-118-23 FARM INC DAVID N STUBBS ETAL TAXPAYERPARK FARM INC DAVID N STUBBS NAME/ADDRERTOWN RD 3965 WATERTOWN RD AIN MN 55359 MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0005 3850 WATERTOWN RD PROP ADDR OWNER NAME SM & C A HARR I S TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH 007 00009 STEVEN M HAPRIS NAME/ADDR 385 TURHAH RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 ,m I REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 13 38 31-118-23 41 0002 04025 WATERTOWN RD J S d P D RICE JEROHE STANLEY RICE 4025 WATERTOWN RD HAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0001 03940 WATERTOWN RD ROBERT TAYLOR ETAL ROBERT TAYLOR 3940 WATERTOWN ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0004 03955 HATERTO4N RD TERRY L KUTZ TERRY L KUTZ 3955 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 NENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERT TAXA ION TO jllE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. / DATE 7 t' W4 ca of Was% h1 r Or Plat of Survey for Stephan D. Towle in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32-118-23 North Line of SW S4 of Section 3z-//8-2.3 ••.•. 33 33 Ao— !3 10 V O; m N I o� I I I - CtiJ �Jwt Q<rn dun P �•.-euer7.� I i I i �••Gf/SL Ci/7Ylr►Vr 1 Certificate of Survey: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of that part of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 32, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the North- west corner of the Southwest quarter of the aforesaid Section, Township, and Range; thence East along the North line of said Southwest quarter a distance of 495 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of said Southwest quarter a distance of 439.31 feet; thence West parallel with said.North.line to said West line; thence North to the point of begin- ning, that portion of said premises lying South and Lbst of centerline of Minneapulis and Watertown Road, and the location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other improvements or eacroachmants. Scale: 1• = 100, Date 1 3-29-78 A : Iron marker TH i 1� cc)fy i � 7V Cog.r2Ec-T LCA LIE- Gor' )n A. Coffin Dreg. No. 6W4 Land Surveyor and Planner Long Lake, Minnesota �-1N4 -�►-1R� <7v�wC c cx t L-Tj,,t_ W - a to V �A ►+1� � L� -�1:►•� � � w • qv.G r(� x; �G tc. rOi of ROCK 91.q gar •,k i ` vl . • ti ♦o 6 �Icd c X$o;l 8. Tam is rof eF s•Rakrr srf rs B�,cF \ .r Note: T \ the C h.A Chec t \ FIJ If ALL 04&AVV x*vlPmsA'r OFF O! rNt TJtIArmcNT I P410A ANO APrg& CON3 re ve r/ON _nA OCS+I Co'; -- 11 if � - T-�| |-|-`� � D-- ------ ----- �--- ----- --- �� ^---�| | ! � 4a1 c;Tj Ic"-- c ,,v r 6,C k `L y : ' ,O ,. J ) c4 ft/ 1 1 Mf�RG To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members �T City Administrator Bernhardson //1�i7�OI C From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdminstnT '2 �1989 �ece ROM© Date: October 17, 1989 Subject. #1464 Charles E. Nadler, 2509 Kelly Avenue - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-lB Application - Request for hardcover and average setback variances to construct additions to existing residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/18/89 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 10/10/89 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of October 10, 1989. Applicants are proposing to construct additions to the existing residence, resulting in a slight increase in hardcover in the 75- 250' zone from 29.1E to 29.3%. In addition, an average lakeshore setback variance is required. At their meeting of October 16,1589, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the average setback variance and the slight increase in hardcover, finding that due to the location of neighboring residences and existing topography and screening in the area, the proposed additions will have no impact on lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. Furthermore, the Planning Commission acknowledged the applicants' attempts to remove all excessive hardcover in order to remain at approximately t'e 29% pre-existing hardcover level finding that the 43 square coot (0.2%) increase was reasonable since the removals of hardcover were taking place closer to the lake than the proposed additions. Staff Recomendation - Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is enclosed for Council review. City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS I i 2 FILE #1464 WHEREAS, Charles E. Nadler (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2509 Kelly Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tract B, Registered Land Survey #1428, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 to permit the construct{on of additions to the existing residence, which additions extend lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and which result in hardcover on the property of 29.3% in the 75- 250' lakeshore setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1464. 2. The property is located in the LR-1B Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon t..a following findings: A) The average lakeshore setback variance is necessary because the residence structure to the immediate north of this property is located approximatc__y 250' from the shoreline, with the frontage on an inlet channel but no existing views of the main lake. Further, the proposed additions will be no closer to the shoreline than the existing house. Aqe 1 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. The increase in hardcover from 29.1% to 29.3% in the 75-250' zone is justified by the fact that areas of hardcover on the lake side of the house will be removed in favor of additions on the street side of the house. Also, the low percentage of hardcover in the 0-75' zone (1.3%) and the relatively large area of the 0-75' zone, tend to minimize the impact of the slight hardcover increase. Also, applicant is concurrently removing excess unnecessary hardcover in the driveway and planter box areas in order to minimize the hardcover increase. 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 c.~.her 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 variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence, which additions encroach past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed and to allow an increase in hardcover from 29.1% to 29.3% in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover on the property in the 75-250' zone shall not exceed 29.3% (7,422 square feet) per the hardcover proposal attached as Exhibit A, and the si"_e plan attached as Exhibit B. The applicants are advised that future proposals to increase hardcover on the property will not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of pre-existing hardcover resulting in no net increase in hardcovi:-r on the property. Page 2 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. thorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 23, 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 terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of October, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Janes R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of October, 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 City of ORONO R2-SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 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 STATE Or MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 198 , `ore me a Notary Public within and for said County, personal. neared known to me tr. � the person(s) described in and who executed the roregoinginstLument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of .1 ZONING FILE NO. 1464 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 10/18/89 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Charles E. Nadler COPIES TO: 2509 Kelly Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ----------------------------------------------- I• ----------- DATE OF MEETING: 10/16/89 VOTE: 7 For 0 Against Planning Comaission reco=ends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Approval conditioned upon concurrent hardcover removals as proposed, yielding net 75-250' zone hardcover increase of 43 s.f., from 29.1% to 29.3%. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, October 23, 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. 5. To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: October 10, 1089 Subject: #1464 Charles E. Nadler, 2509 Kelly Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lB Application - Request for hardcover and average setback variances to construct additions to existing residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Hardship Statement Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Property Owners List Exhibit E - Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Exhibit F - Existing & Proposed Hardcover Calculations (verified by staff) Exhibit G - Existing Survey/Site Plan Exhibit H - Proposed Site Plan Exhibit I - Elevation Views Exhibit J - Analysis of Lot Shape vs. Hardcover Allowance Pertinent Facts - 1. Applicants are proposing an addition to the existing residence, which will result in the attachment of the existing detached garage while providing additional living space. The existing house and all proposed construction is in the 75-250' setback zone. 2. Because this proner,,y is generally located on a point, and due to the location of the residence to the north near Kelly Avenue, an average lakeshore setback variance is technically required. However, no encroachment of existing lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners will occur. 3. Note that the existing residence was constructed in 1977, replacing a previously existing cabin in the 0-75' zone. No documentation of average setback or hardcover reviews appear in the files. Detailed hardcover review was not a standard practice at that time. 4. The applicants c-i-inally approached staff with a proposal for as much as 33.2% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. After discussions with staff and at least 1 Plan; ing Commission member, applicants revised their proposal :o the current request as follows: Zoning File #1464 October 10, 1989 Page 2 of 3 Hardcover: Existing Allowed Proposed 0-75' 209 s.f. (1.3%) —�$ No Change 75-250' 7,379 s.f. (29.1%) 25% 7,422 s.f. (29.3%) 250-500' 1,397 s.f. (25.4%) 30% No Change (in 75-250' zone, 1% = 254 s.f.) The proposal for hardcover yields a 43 square foo; increase overall, which is a fraction of a percent. The hardcover proposal reflects removal of hardcover within planter areas, reduction in the area of sidewalks and steps, and elimination of the driveway backup area. The remaining 35'x40' driveway apron in front of the garage leaves adequate area for backing, hence this is a ve.iy functional proposal. Discussion - Please review the applicants' statement of hardship and the description of unusual property conditions. The pie shaped nature of the property in this case has no significant impact on the allowable hardcover in the 75-250' zone (see Exhibit J). This is because the Nadler lot averages approximately 133' in width, very similar to the 140' wide standard rectangular 1 acre lot. The significant impact is in the 250-500' zone, where the size of that zone decreases dramatically from the normal re^_�:--qular lot. In any case, the pie shape of Nadlers' 1 acre lot �_ --s not appear to reduce their allowable hardcover percentage significantly, hence that should not be used by the Planning Commission as a har-isnip finding. However, more significant is the fact that the property has almost no hardcover in the 0-75' zone, which reflects the removal of the pre--exis►', trig cabin in the 0-75' zone in 1977 when the new house was built. Appli^ants' point that the new additions are even further froai the shoreline than the existing house, is wes.l taken. Additionally, the fact that the 0-75' zone is relatively large might possibly be considered as a justification for a hardcover in the 75-250' zone, since there is more area into which run-off can be absorbed. The fact that the lagoon was dredged many years prior to construction of the existing residence suggests that the lagoon thclild not be a factor in review of this application. Zoning File #1464 October 10, 1989 Page 3 of 3 Staff Recommendation - Staff would-ecommend approval cf the average lakeshore setback varianc?, Lased cn the finding that no significant encroachments on e::isting lake •.iews enjoyed by neighborinj property owners will occur. A Planning Commission recommendation for approval of the hardcover variance to allow 29.31 hardcover in the 75-250' zone where 29.1% now exists, could be justified by the fact that areas of hardcover on the lake side of the house will be removed in favor of additions on the street side of the house. An additional supportive finding is the low percentage of C-75' hardcover and the relatively large area of the 0-75' zone. Approval of the hardcover variance on this basis would generally be consistent with past Planning Commission action in similar situations. Receipt- j�,-L , A CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.0#cl ($50.00 per each additional Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 CITY OF OkO,'VO (no change from original app.? cation) i3y JFIE OFFICE n After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) U. ---------------------------------------- ------------------ PROPERTY LOCATION 0 , Pite Address_ Cz Property Identification Number ( P . I . D . ) tZ Cc J Please check one - Property abstract or /--,Itorrens? Attach legal description to application if not=n--luded on required survey. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT Phone (home) Name E Phone (work) 1W S-1G Address: aSC9 V-q-� i �,,�2b� City: ©rho Zip: LS3 3 1 -------------- ----------- -=------------------------------- ------------------ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Address: City: Date Property Acquires: Phone (work) Zip: (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT liSE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Pre- Use of Property /- ►e- - 1 a �Residenti-a Other (specify) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $� O S oeo T Describe request in detail: o b,u, � ar�1.4 � � iw-� b �•secrti In .., 9' �avb`�'Q' ------------------------------------------------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances ( Front Side Rear) Other v 6 S,07 ( :1f �fYLv�i <•kraua0, Si rt� i••nc....� Ct'tS 4.-..,.,cam-_ t:1r'v o7f%,,. 4:tL:. S �j (`e_a.t.�"1-��.�,, ��I� - eL�-d !,4�t,- c&v W-S us 6..>F �� i { 's sQ i• � { , HARDSHIP + See_ ajjacl,ej Describe undue hardship or pract' al difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regu;.dtionXTlc tS J1�i o .1� �tn�a�1 _ �un.L�T��_L'_r� etc=-- DESCRIPTION OF IINTOSIIAL PROPERTY CONDITIONSho • 7h lr, u,Q funlo4 Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zonin Code Requirements :iv. d {��,��r"fefI I - "S L� A`' i„e QtG do i�c, 1alGe.' S:dti �r LL c - o�"T�►�s a r�(T Pt.-cd+p�Q` off- ow I SIIBMITTA�$ �: � lac. � -,A 4} � �i(� �t^Q 1. Completed Application Form �W ' e -' `S% 2. Certified Property Owners List of o within T50' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Departn. nt of Finance . '13 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 kuse address labels obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey includ.*_ng hardcover calculations .;.red. 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations' changes in existing grade are pruposed. 6. Plat Map i.btained with property cwners list). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a sepo_ list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additio-al items as may be req'i.ested by City staff. -------------•-------------------------------------------------------------- The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance applicatior 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 -I,c applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the :oning Administrator, agrees to pay all. fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, anc certifies t'lat the information supplied is true ar- correct to the best of h: • /ner knowledge. Applicant'. ignature L Date —' g OoNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application arid i•irther authorizes reasona.1e entry ontc the property by City staff, con: itants, agents, Commission inembers, and Council members for purposes of investiga- tion and verificat,* n of this request. Owner's Signature Late Applicant must have all submittals into the Cit- oLfices 25 days before tht! Planning Commission Meeting. Pla^^ing Commission. Meetings are he".J on the third Monday of each month. App - giants must be present at - 11 schedr1,ed review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. I: an applicai.z unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have L. authorized agent attend in your Fla-•: and to advise the Building & Zoning Office ^f chis change prior to the meeting. #1464 HARDSHIP - The stated intent of the hardcover ordinance is to filter rainfall runoff through grass. The or000sed addition is between the house and garage - further away from the lake than the existing house. Therefore, the runoff will still have to travel through significant distance through grass to reach the lake and should be adequately filtered. Simply stated the hardship is that the letter of the law inadvertently covers us but not it's spirit. DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS - the fact that the property is pie shaped with the large end of the oie on the lake side prevents anv part of a large percentge of our land (within. 75 ft. of lake) to be built on at all due to the hardcover ordinance. This leaves only a small percentage of our total land to be built on. Also, the lagoon was dredged on our property which reduced not just the amount of land we own, but also the amount subject to the 75 ft. no build increased. »�M¢�`Y�,.� -t•• �--'•- -'` .J' � •.:..Ly:i1.Wn•.. A,�••:-..+...f .-.v ••• i.� »fS �� !A i"•.J•��.• •, '�"TT .'.'�' � ��1�:. ' !K� V, ••�/ i ,_. us.:r.:r1w T` 4 , 5n"1: �• 1'17'i0"E•�_r. j If \.itQ�t ' pl .►':•�•f A'- !•M� � Am AMI -des 1 i It S T t ..—_ :',-_�_E h sa . O 1 f5 "I z j•+I rr� `{/� 15.(,J r; _.ti N` • .'y L,•5 .. 0 3 (01 v w /.' �/. l.. IfA.i! ei5 32 � t'� JW4 �` aJ .�` 12 br or t ` 1. rl • �s•. -- "``` .,•� Zj OtIT LOT j1j_ 1.1• r h ✓',� �j// LA 6 - N o ,r,' _ ♦•. `�4.r co ;sf; ,: +. Z-� •:� ` ({�4N80O� 0 .q Y 1 �1•, f 'tY' M d \ of •• • _ oC . F COVE • �• p t • .O.l � f �V� � z 1 i wQf�`•• S•o V 2Ail 0 ,1• r° r r' b / ice. o ON R. Shore line ai vtr I I % p 2 SO t ,•+stit�.: �.' =�� Aerial Photo . My..; s, (341 �• ;..� � • �/ 1. i�• Q... _ s P� .� \ J � 'I -•%' .ti`i•.• .� \ is y ��5.�,.�a ^a�.•.`i "-ix'ii'O'^•..•o +.' Imo• �'.� _ ^11�• Yti',f2�.a ',%•n R'. n a •s�l.I i •Vw n f s �� R i RUN DATE 09/20/89 BATCH 002 38 20-117-23 11 0022 PROP ADDR 02525 KELLY AVE OWNER NAME C E A M C TROYAK TAXPAYER CHARLES E TROYAK NAME/ADDR 2525 KELLEY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 20-117-23 12 0037 PROP ADDR 02509 KELLY AVE OWNER NAME C A C NADLER TAXPAYER CHARLES A CANDICE NADLER NAME/ADDR 2509 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MM SS331 38 20-117-23 12 0046 PROP ADDR 02505 KELLY AVE OWNER NAME PETER CHOW TAXPAYER MARY MANAGMENT NAME/ADDR PO 25S CHANHASSEN MN SS317 38 20-117-23 12 DOSS PROP ADDR 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME DARYLE L UPHOFF ET AL TAXPAYER nARYLE L UPHOFF NAME/ADDR 2497 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR Mfd 55331 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 20-117-23 11 n032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 1ST NATL BANK OF NAVARRE 1ST NATL BANK OF NAVARRE P 0 BOX 123 NAVARRE MN 55392 38 20-117-23 12 0038 02515 KELLY AVE J A J FOLIN JOHN E i JEAN C FOLIN 2515 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN SS331 38 20-117-23 12 0047 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NAVARRE COVE HOMEOWNERS ASSC NAVARRE COVE HOME HOINERS 2499 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TOTAL BATCH 002 00010 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 3 38 20-117-23 12 0028 02480 CARMAN ST RICHARD A EDWARDS RICHARD A EDHARD, 2480 CARIIAN ST HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0039 00038 ADDRESS JNASSIGNED ARNOLD C CALVERT ARNOLD C CALVERT 7404 HYDE PARK CIR MPLS HN 55435 38 20-117-23 12 0048 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF OR(XIO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY 11N 55323 #1.464 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 PROPE TAXATION, TO T BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE Y i #1464 Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the pro- posed neighbor's project or use requires City Council approval. 7 ::/GL� G . -4 t Property Owner Property Owner 91 S Dat Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. PROJECT: NADLER REMODELING & ADDITION ADDRESS: 2509 KELLY AVENUE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 COMMISSION NO. 320 --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXISTING HARDCOVER AREA (PRIOR TO REMODELING PROJECT) TOTAL AREA WITHIN 75' TO 250' ZONE 25,363 TOTAL S.F. ALLOWED BY CODE @ 25% 6,341 HARDCOVER AREAS TOTAL --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GARAGE 952 GARAGE OVERHANGS EXCEEDING 1'-6" 45 (not included in other roofs) 2. HOUSE 1,474 HOUSE OVERHANGS EXCEEDING 1'-6" 27 (not included in other roofs) 3. PORCH (SCREENED) 223 PORCH OVERHANGS EXCEEDING 1'-6" 27 4. WOOD DECKS 541 5. DRIVEWAY 2,509 6. SIDEWALKS/STEPS WOOD 675 CONCRETE 20 7. RETAINING WALLS Z1 8. PLANTING AREAS WITH PLASTIC OR FABRIC 865 (incli:iing timber edging) TOTAL S.F. HARDCOVER EXISTING IN 75' TO 250' ZONE 7,379 S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN 75' TO 250' ZONE 25,363 S.F. PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER ' 297 EXISTING S.F. HARDCOVER EXCEEDING ALLOWABLE 1,038 S.F. *ESTIMATED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE DUE TO PIE SHAPE & IRREGULAR CURVES zaaasaaaaaaaaaaaaaxaaaaaaz»=xa=aasaaaazaaxaaaaaaaaxa=x=xaa_a-aaazana EXISTING HARDCOVER AREA IN 0' TO 75' ZONE TOTAL S.F. ALLOWED BY CODE 0.00% HARDCOVER AREAS TOTAL --------------------------------------------------------------------- CONCRETE WALK 120 WOOD WALK 48 WOOD PLANTER (with plastic) 41 TOTAL EXISTING S.F. HARDCOVER IN 0' TO 75' ZONE 2 S.F. Z SO --Do' Zori F KC = 139'� s L. Dec;vF.,a7 — Zs, Y '/• �� .c� r�:.� PROJECT: NADLER REMODELING & ADDITION ADDRESS: 2509 KELLY AVENUE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 COMMISSION NO. 320 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PROPOSED HARDCOVER AREA (AFTER REMODELING PROJECT) TOTAL AREA WITHIN 75' TO 250' ZONE 25,363 TOTAL S.F. HARDCOVER ALLOWED BY CODE @ 25% 6,341 HARDCOVER AREAS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GARAGE 952 GARAGE OVERHANGS EXCEEDING 1'-6" 45 (not included in other s.f.'s) 2. EXISTING HOUSE 1,414 HOUSE OVERHANGS EXCEEDING 1'-6" 24 (not included in other s.f.'s) 3. ADDITION TO HOUSE 1,213 HOUSE OVERHANGS EXCEEDING 1'-6" 198 (not included in other s.f.'s) 4. PORCH (SCREENED) 223 PORCH OVERHANGS EXCEEDING 1'-6" 27 5. WOOD DECKS 541 6. DRIVEWAY (eliminate turnaround & backup) 2,244 7. SIDEWALKS/STEPS WOOD Y08 CONCRETE (remove 5 steps, redesign front walk) 165 8. RETAINING WALLS 64 9. PLANTING AREA WITH PLASTIC OR FABRIC (eliminate plastic) 0 TIMBER EDGING TO REMAIN 44 TOTAL PROPOSED S.F. HARDCOVER IN 75' TO 250' ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN 75' TO 250' ZONE PROPOSED S.F. HARDVCOVER EXCEEDS ALLOWABLE PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER PROPOSED S.F. IS MORE (LESS) THAN EXISTING *ESTIMATED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE DUE TO PIE SHAPE & IRREGULAk CURVES 7,422 S.F. 25,363 S.F. �$LS.F. 43 S.F. 1 7ieiwo.}.Mh ' O�CNIICONAM� . t wsr v� yYyµ_ p'.�Or�4f ■.own AM 44 :EAST,ELEVAT •1 EN I.�I JPElIOR�i AIM-" A ',i rl WIENS Own moll � 0MMR y C RIM Rt� � p Z17 soutM.-I*. I ...... ---- "Zi Ms' RF EO) 4_5 aaArM �.l Mi ..• • .' I'll .. •• �7�� i � f � MT04 \Y LAKE. MINNETONKA -- NO AEUP-0- - "i - GoNDI - PMIoNc cN -AMN p �( 4r ' T7 z.. AIM RN AAolAID `M1� '?Uqm a To i oP coNFiceU T4. vYlTta EC� a m v ®RES I� H l6 OUAyU�� ME To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson pC72 31989 From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Adm trattor Date: October i7, 1989 Or ONTp O" Subject: #1466 Dan Kokesh, 4040 Watertown Road - Variance - Resolution Zoning District - RR-lA, 5 acre, unsewered Application - Request for front and side setback variances to construct proposed screen porch and open deck additions. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/17/89 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 10/3/89 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of October 3, 1 19. Applicant is proposing to constrict a screen porch addition to the west end of the existing house and a deck to the rear. This is a triangular shaped lot and the house is located near the west corner, not meeting 100' front setback and 50' side setback requirements. At their October 16th meeting, Planning Commission recommended on a vote of 7-0 to approve the requested front and side setback variances for the proposed construction. Planning Commission conditioned their rec:onmendation for approval on the open deck portion of the construction remaining open unless a future variance is granted. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached for Council review. City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.27, SUBDIVISION 5 (F) FILE #1466 WHEREAS, Dan Rckesh (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 4040 Watertown Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a screen porch addition to be located 25.7' from the front lot line where a 100' front setback is normally required, and 46.8' from the side lot line where a 50' side lot line setback is normally required, and for construction of a proposed deck to be constructed 42' from the front lot line and 29' from the side lot line where 100' and 50' setbacks are normally required respectively. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1466. 2. The property is located in the RR-lA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16, 1989, a..d recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A) The entire existing residence is located less that the required 100' from the front lot line. This house was constructed before the 100' setback requirement was in effect. B) The proposed screen porch addition extends along the existing front line of the house, and is suitably screened from the roadway by existing topography and vegetation conditions. Page 1 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. C) Likewise, the proposed deck at the rear of the house is technically adjacent to a side lot line and requires a 50' side setback. The adjacent lot line abuts an open area of pasture and no neighboring property owners will be significantly effected by this encroachment. The proposed deck is expected to have a platform height 4' above grade with a 3' railing. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air ncz pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a screen porch located 25.7' from the front lot line and a deck locatee 42' from the front lot line where a 100' front setback is normally required, and such porch being 46.8' from the side lot ling and such deck being 29' from the side lot line, where a �J' setback is normally required for both structures, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed deck shall never be enclosed. Future enclosure of that deck would require an additional setback variance. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with ,:he 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 (October 23, 1990). Page 2 of 4 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of October, 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 23rd day of October, 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 City of ORONO F OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of F 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 Cu7mM15SION 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 ZONING FILE NO. 1466 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 10/17/89 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Dan Rokesh COPIES TO: 4040 Watertown Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance ----------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: 10/16/89 VOTE: 7 For 0 Against Planning Commission recends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Approval for proposed enclosed porch and open deck, with the condition that the deck may not be enclosed without further variance approval. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City council Monday, October 23, 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. To: Planning Commission Chairman Rel,, Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: October 3, 1989 Subject: #1466 Dan Rokesh, 4040 Watertown Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - RR-lA, 5 acre, unsewered Application - Request for front and side setback variances to construct proposed screen porch and open deck additions. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Letter of Request Exhibit C - Plat Map Exhibit D - Property Owners List Exhibit E - Survey Exhibit F - Selected Construction Plans Pertinent Code Section - Section 10.27, Subdivision 5 (B) - Required front yard setback - 1001. Required side yard setback - 50'. Pertinent Facts - 1. Applicant is in the process of upgrading his pre-existing residence on this 1.22 acre parcel (excluding roadways). During the remodeling, applicant tore off the existing 10'x16' porch. When applicant applied for a permit to rebuild that porch, making it approximately 141x16' in dimension, he was advised that it would require a front setback variance. In addition, applicant is proposing a deck with platform height 3-4' above grade level, also requiring a setback variance. 2. Front North Side Setback Setback (100' Req'd) (50' Req'd) Existing House 30' 41' Pre -Existing Porch 27' 47.5' Proposed Porch 25.7' 46.8' Proposed Deck (421) 29' ?oning File #1466 October 3, 1989 Page 2 of 3 3. The proposed screen porch addition continues the existing line of the house. The house is angled towards Watertown Road at this point. Existing vegetation on the property and the lower elevation of the road at this point would help to screen this addition from the roadway. Also, the proposed deck being 29' from the north side lot line, would not appear to be a significant encroachment towards that line. Note that this house was constructed years ago at the narrowest end of the property. Discussion - This is a request to replace a pre-existing screen porch in poor condition with a slightly larger screen porch, and construct a deck. The porch addition will be approximately 1.3' closer to the front lot line than the old porch, due to the angle of the house on the property. Likewise, the deck to be constructed 29' from the side lot line (since this is a corner lot, the lot line not abutting either road would be considered a side lot line) would not appear to have a significant impact on the property to the north which is used as horse pasture area. Note that the deck could not be located to the "rear" of the house, without a setback variance. Staff Recomendation - Staff would recommend approval. The Planning Commission could base a recommei.dation for approval on the shape of the lot, the location of the house on the lot, the fact that the proposed addition merely extend2 the existing front line of the house, and that both the proposed deck and proposed screen porch addition would be located such that existing vegetation and topography helps to screen them from the roadway. p i� -oq( Receipt - CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION 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 PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address #14 6 fee) ------------------- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) � Please check one - Property _ abstract or torrens? 1J5059 U� # D1 �N 1�0: � , Attach legal description to application if not included on C�'fiX �L RECEIPT-THMA' YOU required survey. 40 C001 M TO"'18 APPLICANT Phone (home) Name i 1 cNe\ K fI� �'S �-, Phone (work)---- �� ----Address ►(�71��7 r,lrnt`,��-t ►� �I!_JCitY--�'�-----�c._v1-ZiP-------`--- OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address: City: Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRP.SENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: I ------------------- ai----------------------:r------------------------------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances ( Front r2<, Side Rear) Other HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or -practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: N0d3e AAa ,Jeri GJr.�d: vdS[� --------------------------------------A------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual prQperty conditions preventing c mp-fiance with Zoning Code Requirements: ) I o4- 6La j i 9 5e 4- i n ----------------------------------------------------------------- REQUIRED SUB14ITTALS 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 i-'11 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 Signature v 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. Dan Kokesh 4040 Watertown Road Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 Septemucr 20, 1989 City of Orono Planning Commission C/O Mr. Michael '. Gaffron Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mr. Gaff ron and Planning Commission: Enclosed you will find a completed variance application. I hope also that you will take the time to read this letter explaining the need and the urgency that is associated with the variance. In August I made contracts with Willette Construction and Norse Exteriors to replace the windows, siding and porch of my home. When we undertook this project we assumed that we would not need a variance since we were just replacing the existing porch. Therefore the old porch was removed when we were preps, ing for the siding. The need for this variance presently has put a hold on the completion of this project, and, as it now stands, three sides of the home are redone while the fourth is covered with tar -paper. If we could get this variance at the October meeting the contractors would be able to lay the footings for the porch and complete the project yet this fall, the deck would follow next spring. I hope you better understand the urgency of this application. It would help in completing my obligations with the contractors and continuing to improve the aesthetics and value of this property. Sincerely, Dan Kokesh #1446 Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement nn or proposed use of the property located at yP�P also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in e.:ecuting this acknowledgement, I (we) ain (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the pro- posed neighbors project or use requires City Council approval. roper 9 zclr Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, pleoss submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. IV (3) 67 T31 - .--- . , I I [---I 41 -�r V (2) m RUN DATE 09/20/89 BATCH 006 38 31-118-23 14 0007 PROP ADDR 04100 WATERTOWN RD OWNER NAME FRANK KOKESH ET AL TAXPAYER FRANK KOKESH NAME/ADDR 4100 WATERTOWN RD i• MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 41 0003 ' PROP ADDR 04045 NATERTOPN RD %"A NAME EARL P.4 DORN LTAL TAXPAYER FzA:- N DORN NAME'AODR 4045 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 't 38 32-116-23 23 0008 PROP ADDR 00460 ORCHARD PARK RD OWNER NAME ROBERT J A LORRAINE E RODEN r TAXPAYER ROBERT J A LORRAINE E RODEN NAHE/ADDR 460 ORCHARD PARK RD LONG LAKE MN SS356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 01IIERS LIST 38 31-118-23 it 0001 04040 WATERTOWN RD DANIEL F V.OKESH OAVIEL F KOKESH 4040 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN 1W 55359 38 31-118-23 41 0004 0410r� WATERTOIIJ RD ELKEi� E BLOOM ETAL JOE A PAM SAWCHUK 4105 HATERTOIIN RD MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0002 03980 NATERTOIPI RD ORCHARD PARK FARM I14C ORCHARD PARK FARM INC 3980 NATERiONN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 10 38 31-118-23 41 0002 04025 WATERTOWN RD J S A P D RICE JER011E STANLEY RICE 4025 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN KI 55359 36 31-118-23 41 0005 04085 WATERTOWII RD E A E KOSTKA EARLIN A ELIZABETH KOSTKA 4U85 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0003 03965 WATERTOWN RD DAVID N STUDDS ETAL DAVID N STUBBS 3965 HATERTOYII RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 006 00009 #1446 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 DEPAR ENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOIiLEOGE AND .IELIEF. / DATfX D>• m •,•---f Rcp&Ac,eL. -M 1 14 = (9=0 _Sj (eer% 00(c V c k,' 6X6 94,Kl? :2x.% 2xc r - J I'-' Ire- D4."" z s I z AA— Y�j 14,1- I � 'A V ? REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DATE: October 4. 1989 PLACE: Orono, Minnesota r)OJECT:S. Sewer_Impr. Lift St. No. 10 6 No. 43 Repl. .cOJECT NO.: FILE NO.: 13940 CONTRACTOR: Albrecht Excavating, Inc. ADDRESS: 1408 W. County Road C Roseville, Minnesota 55113 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.: 3 SUMMARY: c. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Original Contract Amount Change Order - ADDITION $ Change Order - DEDUCTION $ Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Less Retainage 5 Z Sub -Total Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.: OWNER APPROVitL: By By Date: - �L3940 17 c OONot A!E FOR PERIOD: �/�� OOT 3 From:Sept. 1, 1989 T/�o:Oct. SPECIFIED CONTRACT CITY OF 0 COMPLETION DATE: RONO September 15, 1989 $ 181,640.65 $ 181,640.65 $ 102,416.53 $ 0.00 $ 102,416.53 $ 5,120.83 $ 97,295.70 $ 71,421.61 3 $ 25,874.09 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. By /�• ' -I oseph K. I'lletschko Approved By: By: - Excava' ng, Inc. Contracto_ PROJECTS. Sever Impr. Lift St. No. 10 anu No. 43 Replacement PLACE- Orono Minnesor.a •a . g6ktRACTOR: Albrecht Excavating, Inc. _ STATEMENT OF WORK Contract Item Unit PART I - LIFT STATION NO. 10 REPLACEMENT 8" PVC, 10'-12' deep in place L.F. 8" PVC, 12'-14' deep in place L.F. 8" PVC, 14'-16' deep in place L.F. 10' PVC, 10'-12' deep in place L.F. 10" PVC, 12'-14' deep in place L.F. 10" PVC, 14'-16' deep in place L.F. 10" PVC, 16'-18' deep in place L.F. 12" PVC, 12'-14' deep in place L.F. 12' PVC, 14'-16' deep in place L.F. 12' PVC, 14'-16' deep (SDR-26) in pl. L.F. 12" PVC, 16'-18' deep (SDR-26) in pl. L.F. 12" PVC, 18'-20' deep (SDR-26) in pl. L.F. 12" PVC, 20'-22' deep (SDR-26) in pl. L.F. 12" PVC, 22'-24' deep (SDR-26) in pl. L.F. Std. MH 8' deep, 4' dia., v/1647.B cstg. Each Manhole depth greater than 8' deep L.F. Cut manhole into existing 12' line Each Cut manhole into existing 8" line Each Reconstruct invert - Manhole 1420 Each 10" x 4" PVC service vye branch Each 12" x 4" PVC service vye branch Each I Page 1 PR13940 PAYMENT NO: 3- FILE NO: 13940 DATE: October 4, 1989 n Unit Est'd Quantity Amount Price Quantity To Date To Date $17.00 35 34 $578.00 17.00 100 100 1,700.00 19.00 50 48 912.00 20.00 120 142 2,840.00 23.00 70 61 1,403.00 24.00 70 172 4,128.00 25.00 100 22.00 320 341 7,502.00 24.00 180 161 3,864.00 26.00 80 72 1,872.00.E 31.00 80 2,325.00 __. 37.00 90 b. 2,997.00 45.00 150 133 5,985.00 47.00 140 170 7.990.00 800.00 8 8 6,400.00 50.00 65 63.8 3,190.00 400.00 1 1 400.00 400.00 2 2 800.00 700.00 1 1 700.00 68.00 6 6 408.00 78.00 14 13 1,014.00 PROJECf:S. Sewer Impr. Liit St. No. 10 and No. 43 Replacement PLACE: Orono, Minnesota CONTRACTOR: Albrecht Excavating, Inc. W STATEMENT OF WORK Contract Item Unit PART I - LIFT STATION NO. 10 REPLACEMENT CONT'D Connect existing service line Each 4" CISP service pipe in place L.F. 4" CISP service riser pipe in place L.F. Improved pipe foundation per 6" increment depth L.F. Mechanical trench compaction L.F. Remove Lift Station 10 L.S. Common excavation C.Y. Bituminous surfacing removal S.Y. 5 aggregate bare (10OZ crushed) Ton '--..loss 5 aggregate base shoulders (100Z crushed) ;,)n 2341 bituminous wearing surface Ton 2341 bituminous binder surface Ton AC-1 bituminous material for mixture Ton Bituminous material for tack coat Gals 2341 bitum. st. & driveway patching Ton Erosion control fence L.F. Clear and grub trees Each Sod with 3" topsoil S.Y. Seeding w/3" topsoil, mulch and fertilizer Ac. PAYMENT NO: 3 FILE NO: 13940 DATE:October 4. 1989 Unit Est'd Quantity Amount Price Quantity To Date To Date $160.00 20 19 $3,040.00 9.00 250 44 396.00 11.00 60 223 2,453.00 1.50 0.01 6,000.00 1.00 1.00 8.67 8.67 15.30 13.77 127.50 1.02 30.60 1.50 250.00 1.80 550.00 3,200 1,600 L S 1,900 3,000 2,400 250 275 470 45 300 50 100 5 2,500 0.3 2,613.5 3,920.25 1,590 15.90 1,084 1,084.00 3,000 3,000.00 2,060.97 17,868.61 651 8,964.27 35.8 4.564.50 100 102.00 /"AL PART I - LIFT STATION NO. 10 REPLACEMENT $102,416.53 TR13940 Page 2 PROJECT:S. Sewer Impr. Lift St. No. 10 and No. 43 Replacement PLACE: Orono, Minnesota CONTRACTOR: Albrecht Excavating, Inc. STATEMENT OF WORK Contract Item Unit PART II - LIFT STATION NO. 43 REPLACEMENT 10" PVC, 10'-12' deep in place L.F. 10" PVC, 14'-16' deep in place L.F. 10" PVC, 16'-18' deep in place L.F. Std. manhole 8' deep, 4' dia., v/1642B cstg. Each Manhole depth greater than 8' deep L.F. Erosion control fence L.F. Remove existing manhole Each Drop manhole section L.F. 10" x 4" PVC service wye branch Each 10" x 6" PVC service wye branch Each Cut into existing manhole Each Connect existing service line Each 4" CISP service pipe in place L.F. 6" CISP service pipe in place L.F. Improved pipe foundation per 6" increment depth L.F. Mechanical trench compaction L.F. Remove Lift Station 43 L.S. Common excavation C.Y. Class 5 aggregate base (100Z crushed) Ton Erosion control fence L.F. PR13940 Unit Price $20.00 20.00 23.00 800.00 50.00 1.50 200.00 175.00 68.00 79.00 650.00 160.00 9.00 13.00 PAYMENT NO: 3 FILE NO: 13940 DATE: October 4, 1989 Est'd Quantity Amount Quantity To Date To Date 800 75 50 3 15 250 6 3.8 15 1 1 15 150 10 1.50 1,300 0.01 1,075 6,000.00 L S 3.00 500 8.67 950 1.50 250 Page 3 PW,JECT,S. Sever Imyr. Lift St. No. 10 and No. 43 Replacement PAYMENT NO: 3 PLACES Orono, Minnesota FILE NO: 13940 CONTRACTOR: Albrecht Excavating, Inc. DATE: October 4. 1989 f� STATEMENT OF WORK Unit Est'd Quantity Amount Contract Item Unit Price Quantity To Date To Date PART II - LIFT STATION NO. 43 REPLACEMENT CONT'D Clear and grub trees Each $250.00 5 Sod v/3" topsoil S.Y. 1.80 3,500 Seeding v/3" topsoil, mulch and fertilizer Ac. 550.00 0.3 TOTAL PART II - LIFT STATION NO. 43 REPLACEMENT $0.00 TOTAL PART I - LIFT STATION NO. 10 REPLACEMENT $102,416.53 TOTAL PART II - LIFT STATION NO. 43 REPLACEMENT 0.00 `SfTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE $102,416.53 Page 4 0940 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS CITY: Orono, Minnesota PROJECT: Sanitary Sever Improvement Lift Station No. 10 6 No. 43 Repl. CITY PROJECT NO.: FILE NO.: 13940 CONTRACTOR: Albrecht Excavating, Inc. 1408 W. County Road C, Roseville, MN 55113 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT TOTAL AMOUNT OF C.O.'S REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $181,640.65 $0.00 $181,640.65 Date C.O. No. 1 2 3 4 5 Description Amount Total Change Orders Above PROJECT PAYMENT SUMMARY: $0.00 Payment Period Payment Value No. From To This Voucher Completed Retainage 1 7-28-89 8-9-89 $24.682.42 $25,981.49 $1,299.07 2 8-9-89 9-1-89 46,739.19 75,180.64 3,759.03 3 9-1-89 10-1-89 25,874.09 102,416.53 5,120.83 4 5 6 Total Payment to Date Retainage for Payment No. 3 Total Value Completed PR13940 - $97,795.70 5,120.83 $102,416.53 W-m )K To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members COUNCIL MEETING City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning QAIAU9 ator lute: October 19, 1989 CITY OF ORONO Subject: Lucia Morrison, 1540 Fox Street - Appeal of Administrative Decision - Re: Alternate Septic Site on Leased Property Su m4ary - Mrs. Morrison had applied for a subdivision of her property in the rural zone. After the application was made, it was determined that a suitable alternate drainfield site for the existing residence could not be located within the property boundaries. She withdrew that application. During further investigaticn by Mrs. Morrison's site evaluator, it was determined that a suitable site may exist just to the west of the existing garage, but on the neighboring property. In discussions with that neighboring property owner, the applicant determined that she would not be able to purchase that portion of property but might be able to acquire a long-term lease which would expire only when municipal sewer was provided to the property. This is designated on the attached sketch as Option B. Just this week, a second option appears to have become available. That would be purchase of a parcel of property from another adjacent owner, which parcel could be incorpora':�!d through a lot line rearrangement into the actual boundaries of proposed Lot 1 (Option A). Issue - The on -site sewage treatment code is worded such that primary and alternate drainfield sites must be within the property they are to serve. Mrs. Morrison early on was advised of that fact. She is requesting that Council consider allowing the alternate site for Lot 1 to be on a leased parcel within a different property but adjacent to her property (Option B). Discussion - Staff notes that to approve the lease option would be precedent setting. Staff can find no instances of a new subdivision where septic sites are on a different lot than the house being served. In fact, in the past the City has gone so far as to require a lot line rearrangement when major components of a septic system were found to be over a lot line. This occurred specifically on a property at 625 North Ferndale Road in 1981 where a lot line rearrangement was required at the time an adjacent vacant commonly owned parcel was sold off. Lticia'liortison, 1540 Fox Street October 19, 1989' Page 2 of 2 There are a number of existing residences in the City where sbptic 6ystetn components are on the opposite side of a driveway or private road easement but within the same lot as the house served by them. Nothing in the septic code appears to prohibit such a situation, hence Option A is viable from a septic standpoint. The concept of septic system components being on leased Froperty would result in the potential of any number of contrived lot line" subdivision requests. Furthermore, with multiple interests in a leased parcel, there would seem to be a potential for problems in controlling the use of the parcel, which could conceivably lead to inadvertent damage to the system. In a worst case scenario, a future owner of the parcel under lease might allow construction traffic to damage the site, making it useless for alternate drainfield. Such an occurrence is less likely if t; a pi operty is controlled and owned by the party who may ultimately need to make use of that site. Staff Recommendation - Staff would hessitate to recommend approval of the leased alternate drainfield site request. There are any number of problems associated with such a concept including security of the site, as well as the potential for "contrived" subdivisions. �( oCr i oyes ll October 9, 1989 MEMO TO: THE ORONO COUNCIL FROM: LUCIA T. MORISGN 1540 FOX STREET ORONO Since it appears that I do not have a satisfactory site for an alternate drainfield on my 5.96 acres, a simple two lot subdi- vision is not possible. There is, however, a site on my neigh- bors land, directly to the West, which Steve Schirmers says is suitable. I, therefore, request approval of a permanent easement for that purpose, according to the terms of the attached statement, so that I can proceed with subdivision. The MacMillan family agrees to grant a permanent easement to Lucia T. Morison, 1540 Fox St., only for the purpose of establishing an alternate drain field site for her property which lies directly to the east. The easement will in- volve approsimarely 135' x 75'. The easement will be permanent unless municipal sewer becomes available. In that event the easement will become null and void and the land will revert, unencumbered, to the MacMillan family. ..•1 .• ', �..il't.'•.` .« ,. .. i •. ..:�•�i'• i ' ,�i�.l•r.'• �.»:�i.'•!=':I ;'-�-'.�J:I�i'► 'y��•.i•'t^s ,••� • . . :. '. :•� �'Lll j,.. , (�DDO/1 i , . ' • a • { 1' + '� •• •: •.r .r • .• ^1' ..6.=':r ••.; n�tt•y} rh, i '�' 't{r'. •� A �^ i 16 ZAI 0200) 000 VA oPVON A . `• �t �,�,,� : M� v. ' r la• �s� Air, SePT7c $Ire roR for / rows%& wEtrrNcY rrJoe 4E�SE M�'r S Ttc rrrE L�R Al Sr .,' •` M / ��`R�� '9 ;... %'LAC µ mLA^4 Gf Lte f • ,• �. ;so- r tom, r• W :. 17 • _ f .•1•. iT•t-_ 1 . ... � ` Q�� DRIB 12900). ' �+ • 1 :t' - _�;�; �• r! :•::j �- i�S t asp:. • ►' 1 �t •S• i[.'\i{ �•r'' .. .. ,••' ^ 0 � It .�r �t, it�•'1(��f 'r. fl '� 'v�•1 ��.<'.r^. •• •','�:r� }. •l ��T.�:,�.�•:'; ij. �l•tir,'j«.'•i 1 CC7j� iii ••, l i:i .?,., 01 •i`^ ,� S'Yt,►.'t;/;r•.:'� d` :. 1. •,' � .. �' • �',1+7•.� "" •�•� ��`Sj:'�(• :d , 1��'�.rl j.. �' .:+.ji�• 1„1►rly�i�: i:t�'}�T�}n,j=' Yt �' , • t•• •_ '•t ••t V• A. C , / /• x" 1• ' _ "` •{ J If ,,., .1 �• y��' �:�' i ♦ t. •'•i...rl• • � �)'••� . t'�t .,,��. •!,. :�1• \ _. t. �' r�� •��:fRC• :J,� 1 •.,•"..' 1 'r :i.a;: 'i'`+,f •�it'',tr!1rYi•.h="♦+'.': .. !t �. r /►.. 4 u� 1 �'sl»t�i i.' �%'R.rr.- 3••'T'.4�. •,_,,:1 t,. 1 �•:.•.•.• r��AA /' � •tr+ .ice �• ,.� , �.��t.'_jj�j•y:« !t t•�. • '• is •1rt r•,•.1 t •1,'� .. CI+T��,� �`RC��•� �«. .. -. „'4i�i� ti �i .�� {ij �'� ��' li�i •t.L�tr`.J't.) ' � � •'.M ••�1•t`„ .. .. 1: 'i t:: - .. .a' '.1, 1• � 'nIt •4 �, .t'�'r ,Mi�� •1 �, �, i,>:}1{/•'i'�tjf 'r'Y• ,' �1��. �' '• •• Y _ ! Yam/' . f' L• . � '^ .~� ♦ •' � �I 'y '•f?t � '+ ! 1. h. T•�l.i :!i� �� • ��•,... ► T.•i • 1 • J i � ' , `YY��111 • � •i•. 2•j• 1'•; ' � ' � •+L• �_ � ►+' ' � •, 'i' 1�: t, l•It•r » � Dal lob 00 WW � '.` :i' ., ti' � .• 'I � .1• .. .'.i. .itlti � :; 1'�� h.�,�'Ja•v .fl y; fffrf ' • , .it ,.• •..�� '•'•r'r Jl' .rid �_�/ ' ' � �� ` , ` _ •' .:� r.. � ,_ ' • ^• t♦',=1 .f. �� • .. •.'� •� '1 �.••.�. �,•.�; `•..: ,., �., ... ..'+' �y�.'!�4, s.''i�i): -Sid \.. �,�q;p:vt Ll:.• `— ♦� , i }' 4 • vt• .. , n ' 1 1...' .•.T�.•Y! pA�•.'�j ,� SECTION 3 - SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS At the time of filing for preliminary plat approval, the developer shall ovide a site evaluation report confirming that each building site 4 has sufficient suitable soil for on -site sewage treatment. Submittals required: R� 1. Plot plan which shall be a copy of the preliminary plat drawing showing all existing structures, wells, and drainfield systems and all proposed `•,i'Iding sites, well locations, primary and alternate drainfield locations. 2. Site evaluation report which shall tabulate date from at least three (3) soil borings and six (6) percolation tests on each proposed d building site of less than 5 acres. i 3. Copy of the current compliance inspection report for each existing �n-site system within Lhe subdivision boundaries. 4. Where the site evaluation shows slopes in excess of 12%, percolation rates slower than 60 minutes per inch, ground wat.--- table less than 5 feet deep or soil classification requiring -inovativo system design, the site evaluation report shall also indicate -pecific system design specifications i- normally required for construction permit applications. r7r ] (N 4 - INNOVATIVE SYST IS plications for innovative system installation variances shall include all the data quired for standard system applications, plus any additional data necessary to tablish the acceptability of the proposal. Such data would normally include case stories oZ similar installations, manufacturer's literature, independent test cults and engineering reports. 161 0 • e .SECTION 2 - DRAINFIELD SITE CONDITIONS 1. STANDARD SYSTEMS. The City will review applications for standard on -site sewage treatment system designs provided each site meets the following minimum conditions necessary for proper functioning of such systems: a. Lot Size: The lot shall have an adequate area for all existing, and expected improvements in addition to areas of soil suitable for the installation of two on -site sewage treatment systems, known as the "primary drainfield site" to be used initially, and .the "alternate drainfield site" to be used should the primary site ever fail. In all cases, at least 10,000 square feet of suitable soil and slope shall be identified within each lot as dedicated for drainfield use. b. Soils: The following sc"I classification series shall in most cases be considered suitable for installation of standard systems: Anoka - AnB, AnC Hayden - HbB, HcC2 Braham - B+B, Bi-C Lester - LrB, LrC, LsC2 Burnsville - BuB, BuC, BxB, BxC C. Percolation Rate: The percolation rate must be faster than 60 minutes per inch and slower than 0.5 minutes per inch. d. Depth to Groundwater or Seasonally Saturated Horizons: For proper functioning of this system the minimum de,.th to groundwater or seasonally saturated conditiont.shall be more than 5r- e. Flooding Hazard: There must be no hazard of flooding in the area where these systems are installed. f. Slope: The land slope in the area proposed for the soil absorption field shall not be greater than 12%. I I !I �I 9' -10 To: From: Date: Subj ect: 1013 3CRTAUOCIL MEETING Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members /� Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato$,.), _ October 16, 1989 Hauser/Lauer/wayzata Country Club Subdivision Application 4 Attachment - A - Resolutions #2607 and #2658 B - Tom Barrett Letter Dated :0/3/89 C - Kathleen Martin Letter rated 10/3/89 D - Kathleen Martin Le�Ler Dated 10/4/89 E - Kathleen Martin Letter Dated 10/18/89 F - Final Plat Dated 30/28/89 G - Map of Area Issue - OCT 23 1989 CITY OF CRONO Determine if the City desires to delete its requirement for the easement rights for a potential street corridor as part of this subdivision. Introduct:.ori - As ycu may recall, this was originally to be a subdivision of a lot from the Country Club property which was to have access to the nor-h. After considerable discussion, the property to the east owned hy the Hausers was subdivided jointly with this one and a corridor serving all three of these lots was platted as a private driveway through the Hauser property. Additionally, outlots were created on the north of these properties to accomodate a potential future public street access. The City, as part of that, was to receive easements over that portion of the outlot over the two properties. Discussion - Working to achieve the City's goal of having clear rights to establish a public street if it choose over this property (for half of the street), the City Attorney felt because of all the concurrent easements some dating from 1956 that the easement to be given by the Country Club and the Hausers to the City would not achieve that. The issue is that if the City attempted to exercise its rights, they may run into litigation with the other easement holders over the property (some of whom were objecting to the subdivision in the first place). Even though the City would be receiving a non-exclusive easement, the easement rights of the other property owners might limit the City's ability to use its easement for str,-!et purposes. In order to resolve the issue, the following concepts were discussed: Hauser/Lauer/Wayzata Country Club Subdivision October 16, 1989 Page 2 of 4 1. Consent. The Cit; suggested that in order to clear up the -issue—, ,, that the Country Club gain the necessary consents from the property owners who are possessors of easements. Because of the number of property owners and financing arrangements, this may require getting upwards of 100 signatures and could not be done in a timely manner. In fact there is an issue of whether certain people would not object to giving the needed consent because of their opposition to the project. 2. Request for legal opinion of unencumbered rights. The City suggested that the attorney for the Country Club give an opinion that the City would be able to exercise its right free and clear of other easement rights and that the firm giving the opinion indemnify that opinion. The legal firm was rot willing to do this. 3. Larger easement. As the easements of the other property owners are the first 1611 of the 25' outlot, it was suggested that perhaps the City could get an additional 161, further south of the outlot so that it would have a total of 25' unencumbered easement and should the City be able to gain the first 1611 on the outlot, that it would cancel the other easement. This encroaches considerably into the golf course's tee and they did not feel that that would be appropriate. 4. Deeding of outlot to the City. One suggestion was to deed the outlot to the City which would alleviate the easement rights issue as the City would be fee owner of the property. This apparently M4a not a solution agreeable to the Country Club. 5. Delayed acquisition of fee title. As the City did not need the outlot at this time, one option is an agreement to give the City the outlot at the point in the future that the City would want a public street, if ever. Until then it could remain the ownership of the Country Club. If the street were to be constructed, the actual configuration of the street utilizing an easement would probably to the same as if the City acquired the outlot. The Country Club however has not indicated a willingness to give up the outlot as it encroached into part of their tee. The City has suggested that the Country Club could require a lead time and define where the edge of the street could be in relationship to their outlot boundary that in order to not severely impact thei.- tee or to give them sufficient lead times to alter that, two things they would not have with the easement. Hauser/Lauer/Wayzata Country Club Subdivision October 16, 1989 Page 3 of 4 6. Accept easement as it is. The City could accept the easement as presently offered realizing that if it ever wanted to exercise its rights, it may well have to "condemn" the rights of all the other easements owners across the outlot. This would be in addition to "condemning" the interest to the north if the City had not otherwise obtained an easement or outlot on the north in the interim. It should be noted that while the issue effects both the Hauser and Lauer/Country Club outlots, the subdividers had not appraised Mr. Hauser of the issue. He learned of it from City staff. Action/Alternatives - 1. Indicate which alternative is acceptable to the City. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action with the owner having to satisfy requirements established by the City Attorney. Recoi endation - Because of the number of problems associated with such private access (in this case it only further illustrates the problems of these private driveways that have more than 2-3 people on them), it is recommended that the City require an easement satisfactory to the City Attorney or an agreement for the future conveyance of the outlot when the City is ready for a public road be conditioned on appropriate notification (perhaps as much as 6 months to 1 year), and a road edge definition of distance from the outlot boundary. The Country Club will argue that the City should accept the limited title because it didn't feel that the issue was a significant one for the Council when the initial subdivision was passed. Secondly as you will note the issue of appropriate avenues for requiring the easement was mentioned by the City Attorney in Attachment B. (Originally Lauer's lot was going to access to the north and acces, through the Hauser property was an alternative.) The Country Club has indicated that the agreement and subdivision may fall apart it the City requires either a "clear" easement or deeding of the outlot. If it does and the parties were again to request it, they may have to access across the north of the property. If a combination could again be worked, the City may choose to require a private road at the 50' width instead of the current 20' corridor allowed. It should be remembered that the actual outlot and the easements in questions Hauser/Lauer/Wayzata Hauser/Lauer/Wayzata Country Club Subdivision October 16, 1989 Page 4 of 4 should have been required ba,A in 1977 when the subdivision to the west was subdivided fron the Country Club lot. While an outlot was provided for road purposes in the subdivision, it was not provided across the rest of the Country Club property. Proposed Motion - Moved by , , ec:onJeJ by , that the Council indicate that the property owrers can fulfill the subdivision requirements either by giving an opinion or consent that gives the City its full easement rights, or an agreement giving fee title of the outlot to the City when it deems it appropriate for a public road. This could be subject to lead time and configuration requirements agreeable to City staff. Ayes , nays cc: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator John Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer City Of ORON(r RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL m 2657 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A PLAT FOR WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB AT 200 WAYZATA BOULEVARD FILE NO. 1326 WHEREAS, Ronald D. Lauer on behalf of the Wayzata Country Club (hereinafter "the applicant") on August 11, 1988 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a two -lot residential plat of property legally described as follows: The west 930 feet of the south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter, Section 36, Township 118, Range 23, situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property") and; WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 19, 1988 ?nd October 17, 1988 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings held on June 12, 1989 and June 26, 1989 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Wayzata Country Club and Ronald Lauer, noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within the RR-lB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 14 acres, all of which is considered dry buildable land. 3. The -)roposed subdivision contains 2 lots, each exceeding the 2.0 acre minimum lot area requirement. Page 1 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2657 4. The single new lot proposed for construction of a single family residence is 2.8 acr--ss in total area, and is intended to gain access to Ferndale Road North via a 20' "f lag" corridor between Lots 1 and 2 of the Hauser proposed plat immediately to the east. The proposed building lot requires a variance for defined lot width, being 20' in defined width at Ferndale Road North wher3 a 200' defined width is normally required. 5. The remaining 11-acre let requires a variance to the requirement of frontage on a public roadway, this lot abutting and being served by a private easement roadway. The 11-acre lot is not intended by the applicant for development at this time, but is intended to remain in use as golf course area. 6. The proposed new lot shall share a single driveway entrance to Ferndale Road North with the existing residence on Lot 1 of the proposed Hauser subdivision. 7. It is intended that the existing privately owned easement roadway at the north end of the property will continue to be privately owned and maintained. The City will require that the applicants dedicate an outlot over the northerly 25' of the property for private road use, and that the standard road and utility easement over that portion of the private road be executed. 8. The applicants are hereby advised that future ubdivision of the property to create additional building --,,as a.ay result in the City requiring an upgrading of the private roadway to current private road_`andards. °. The proposed new 2.8 acre buildin site has been demonstrated to contain suitable sites for primary and alternate drainfields to serve the proposed single family residence. The remaining 11.2 acre parcel exceeds 5 acres in area and is not required to be tested for drainfield sites until it is further developed. 10. A single family residence can be constructed on the new 2.8 acre lot without the need for further variances. 11. The applicants have agreed with Leopold and Helen F-user, who are subdividing the property immediately adjacent to the east, to combine the two subdivisions for platting purposes into a single set of plat drawings. Page 2 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL all 2657 12. In order to reduce the impact of existing and future drainage from the property to the Chevy Chase area, applicant has agreed to install a storm sewer pipe to the rear of the Brooke Nelson property at 141 Chevy Chase Drive. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for Wayzata Country Club and Ronald Lauer at 200 Wayzata Boulevard per the survey by James R. Hill, Inc. dated May 21, 1988, and the revised survey drawing as amended by staff, attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1. The 11.2 acre parcel shall be designated on the plat drawings as a separate lot. The proposed 2.8 acre building site shall be shown on the plat drawings as a separate lot. A 25' wide outlot corridor along the northerly 25' of the property shall be designated on the plat drawings as a private road outlot. 2. The applicants shall grant the standard underlying road and utility easement for the private road outlot, to be filed with the plat. 3. The proposed building lot shall gain public road access to Ferndale Road North via a 20' corridor to be platted between the northerly and southerly lots of the Hauser subdivision. This lot will share a single driveway access point onto Ferndale Road North with the existing residence within the Hauser subdivision. 4. A variance will be granted for the 2.8 acre building lot for lot width, to allow a 20' defined lot width where 200' lot width is normally required. Also, a variance will be granted for the 11 acre parcel which does not front on a public roadway as required. 5. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the plat along lot lines, being 10' in width along perimeter lot lines and 5' in width along interior lot lines. 6. Payment of standard park fees of $200.00 for the 2.8 acre lot and $100.00 for the 11 acre lot. At such future time that the 11 acre lot is further subdivided, credit for the the previously paid park fee shall be granted per provisions of t`:e City of Orono ordinances. Page 3 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2657 7. Any proposed changes to the house footprint from the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit B will require a revised site grading plan approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall fence off the primary and alternate drainfield sites, in order to avoid damage to the drainfield sites by construction traffic. 9. Applicants shall construct a storm sewer pipe to the rear of the Brooke Nelson property at 141 Chevy Chase Drive per approval of the City Engineer, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed new residence on the 2.8 acre lot. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: A. RECORD PLA', drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=2001. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by James R. Hill, Inc., and survey by Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. as modified by staff, attached as Exhibit A hereto. b) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines. B. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required: a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b) The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c) Signed and executed Road and Utilit.4es Easement over the private road outlot. 1 Page 4 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2657 C. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $450.00. a) Park dedication fee per current schedule: 1 new residential lot at 2 acre density - $200.00 per lot. One new residential lot at 5+ acre density = $100.00 per lot. Total = $300.00. b) Legal review and filing fees of $150.00. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orcno, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this loth day of July, 1989. Jame R. Grabek, or ATTEST: by M allin, City Cler STATE OF MINNFcl".A } ss. COUNTY OF HEN14EPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of June, 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 Page 5 of 5 City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. NO. 2658 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A PLAT AT 4%5 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH FILE NO. 1407 WHEREAS, Leopold and Helen Hauser (hereinafter "the applicants") on April 21, 1989 filed a forral subdivision application with the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") for approval of a two -lot residential plat of property legally described as follows: That part of the south half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter, Section 36, Township 118, Range 23 West of the 5th principal meridian, lying east of the westerly 930' thereof, all in Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property") and; WHEREAS, after due published and ma?led notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 15, 1989 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were g:.ven the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on June 26, 1989 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Leopold and Helen Hauser, noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within the RR-1B Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres cf contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 5.5 dry buildable acres, exclusive of 33' of right-of-way for Ferndale Road North. 3. The proposed subdivision creates 1 new lot in excess of the required 2.0 acre minimum lot area. The existing residence is proposed to remain on a lot exceeding 3 acres in area. 4. Both proposed lots meet the minimum 200' fr ntage dale requirement for frontage on a public road, being Road North. Page 1 of 5 City of OR ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 5. A c;,;:ridor providing North to the proposed ne Country Club adjacent to shall be provided between NO. 2658 direct access from Ferndale Road w lot being created by the Wayzata the immediate west of the property, proposed Lots 1 and 2. 6. The existing private easement roadway serving the plat of Fairway View and other certain properties to the west of the Hauser property, shall be designated as a private road outlot on the plat drawings, being 25' in width and e north property line. It is extending the length of th intended that this private road outlot continue to be owned by the owner of proposed Lot 1, until such time that the ownership of such private road is transferred to the property owners or property owners association served by that private roadway. The property owner shall grant to the City the standard road and utility easement over the private road outlot (see Exhibit "A" attached). 7. The 20' corridor between Lots 1 and 2 that will provide: access to the Wayzata Country Club property to the west, shall be platted as part of the proposed Wayzata Country Club building lot. S. The proposed Lot 1 and the proposed Wayzata Country Club lot shall gain access to Ferndale Road Noz ':h via a shared driveway located at the existing drivewav location serving the existing house. Proposed Lot 2 shal ! be allowed a new separate driveway curb cut for access to Ferndale Road North. 9. A dedication. of 33' of right-of-way shall be shown on the plat drawings for the existing Ferndale Road North. 10. The proposed new lot has been demonstrated to contain suitable sites for primary and alternate drainfield to serve the proposed single family residence. Proposed Lot 1, with the existing house, has been demonstrated to contain a suitable alternate drainfield site. 11. A new single family residence can be constructed on Lot 2 without the need for further variances. Page 2 of 5 11 City of OR NO RESOI UTION OF "_; c _V COUNCIL NO. 26` 8 12. The City Engineer has reviewed the property and has determined that any increase in run-off to neighboring properties to the south caused by develonrpent of the property, will be mitigated by drainage imp)-., jLments being congtruc•_.ed as a result of the Wayzata Country Club suodivision to t1 .• immed:'ate west; and WHEREAS, t-.j e app'!icants have agreed with Wayzata Country Club to pla- he two subdivisions -*ointly. NOW, THERL;Fr)F:R HE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings n•:ted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for Leopold and Helen Hauser at 475 Ferndale Road North per the survey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. dated April 19, 1989, as revised by applicants and staff and the su-- by to Jamethe R. Hill, Inc. (copies attached as Exhibit A), aS conditions: 1. Lot 1 on;.uinin: L lie ex' sting re. ,ce shall share its existing priva,.e driveway entrance with the proposed Wayzata Count..- 7lub lot ': Ang acc^ssed by the 20' cot •_-. dor. shall be allowed to create a separate driveway curb ly to Ferndale Read North. 3, .ce s cr)rridor for the Wayzata Country Club -L.: shall l.je plat' , a:: a part of the `ry Club lot. 4. A 25' wide i• - to road outlot shall be dedicated on the plat along t.-rt_l property line, where an existing -i.c ate rc+ :d e> is serving properties to the west. A 3 and utility ear-7nent shall be granted to the .,pplicant over this road outlot. A. -of dedication of 33' shall be shown on the .- X'ezndale Road North. , ;tsnd."d drainage and utility easements sha 1 be shown the plat along lot i:,res, t::ing 10' wide alo�ig perimeter p.t.?err;' lines and 5' in width along interior lot lines. 7. Payment of standard P;:rk Fee of $200.00 for Lot 2. Payment c: plat and easement filing fee of $150.00. t..% Page 3 of 5 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2658 10. The private road outlot shall continue to be privately maintained and shall be privately owned by the owner of Lot 1 until such time that ownership is tr-nsferred to the property owner or association of property owners served by that private road. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: A. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200'. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Coffin and Gronberg, 1,- %, and James R. Hill, Inc., as revised by applicants and staff and attached as Exhibit A hereto. b) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side -f internal p:=operty lines. c) Dedication of 33' of right-of-way for Ferndale Road North B. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required: a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All .wners, mortgage holders or ethers with property interest ind*4-..:ted therein ^hall sign the plat and all other documents affected '�y such interest. b) The applicants mu•-t provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c) Simone,' and xecuted -oad and utility easement over the -.), ate road outlot. C. FEES IE PAID: Total Due $350.00. a) Pa.Lx dedication fee per (7urrent schedule: 1 new residential lot at 2 acr- ensity = $200." b) Legal review and filing fees of $150.00. Page 4 of 5 City of OR ONO Rf .,OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2658 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 10th day of July, 1989. Jam s R. Grabexr--Mayor ATTEST: orothy allin, City cierx STATE OFVINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HEN14EPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged befcre me on this loth day of July, 1�;89, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and raid instrument was executed on behalf of the City. i 1 Notary Publi LAURIE �'C;EiFLER HENNEPIN CO'.; -"Ty µy Cc n ni::•cn axpwro! 6.8-93 My Commissi 3_res Page 5 of 5 ;�• ,. 1= _ POPHAM, HAIY, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD. 33CO PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER WAYNE O POPHAM RAYMONO A -A:K RDOER W. SCHNOBRICH OENVER KAUFMAN ROBE RT A. MINIS. RO LFC A. WOROEN O MAPC WN17 E. CAD •RUCC D. WILLIS G It BERT JO-NSON GARY R. MACOM BCR ROBCRTS BUPK MUG- V PLUNKETT. "I IRE Cr RICK C. BROWN T.OMAS It. BERG JAMCS B. DR UCK JErrRCY S.-ALPI_PN BRUCE D. MALKERSON JAM E3 R. STEILEN JAMCS B. LOCK -ART ALLEN W. IINDCPAKCR CLIFFORD M OREENC O. WILLIAM KAUFMAN PAUL 4. TIET2 MICHAEL O. FREEMAN -OWARO SAM MYERS, III LARRY D. CSPCL JANIC S. MAYERON THOMAS J. BARRETT JAMCS A. PAYNE DAVID A, JONES LEE E. 5-CE•1 ALA IN FRECON LESLIE GILLET'C MI CNAEL T. NI LA4 THOMAS M. SIPK'N5 ROBERT C. MOI LANEN THOMAS F. NELSON THOMA3 J. RADIO DAVI'] L. HASHMALL KATHLEEN M MAPTIN JOHN C. CHILDS DOUGLAS P. SEATON 7H0MAS C. SANNER PICHARD A. KAPLAN BRUCE O. McP.ECTERS SCOTT C. PICHTCP PAUL J. LINSTROT`I SCOTT A. SM" BPIAN N. Jf $SON BRADLEY A JLLER DONALD M. LEWIS KENNETH ROSS' DAVID R. STRAND SCOTT X. GOLDSMITH GIRARD P. MIL_CR ELIZABETH A. THCMPSON KEITH J. NALLELn NO MARK S. PETERSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE 612 .333- a600 'CLECOPIER 33 612. 334-2713 32612.334 2781 31612. 334.2503 SUITE 2400 120E Sr VCNTECNTH STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE 303•893.1200 1 CLECOMICR 303 6603.2194 SUITE 300 SOUTH 1600 M STRLCT. N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 TELEP110NE 202.826.3300 TCLCCOPICR 202-828-5316 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (612) 334-2676 TIMOTHY W. KUCK ORUCE A PCTERSOI RUTH A. MIrKELSCN JANNA SE'JERANCC THOMAS C MICLCN MICHAEL O. CHPIST J MICHAEL SCHWA$ JCrFPCY P CAIRNS ELLEN L. MAAS LEWIS J. ROTMAN TODO M. JOHNSON LOUIS P SMITH BRUCE H. LITTLE MARK F PALMA RUSSELL S. PONESSA BRYAN L-CRAWFORD M ATTHEW E. DAMON JOMN W. PROVO JILL I. FRICDERS PAUL S. JONES WILLIAM D. HITTLER ELLrN SUE PARKER GREGOFTa.OROOKCR B RIAN W. OHM GPEOORY 0. SCOTT ROSANNE 0. 2AIDCNWC13CR CECILIA M. MICHEL ROBERT C. CASTLE T Z.PCSE 'A. HANKCL INCLUDING THE FORMER LAW FIRM OF HALPERN 6 ORUCK October 3, 198a Larry J. Berg, Esq. FREDRIKSON & BYRON 1100 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-3397 r-A OEE ROWE CARY P GENGEL.O JiMN M_BAKEP KAREN M. HANSEN SUCSAN PACE-SMAPIRO STCVCN M. PHILLIPS LINDA Z. FPIEONCR ANDREW Li. PARKER JOY M. WALDERA PATRICIA A. O'LCARY KARC- R. COLE OF COUNSKL FRED L- MORRISON JUOIT- YOUNGER ...�nca �. c..�rR•r,..ro Kmor•1 Re: City of Orono --Plat of Hal;ser/Lauer/WCC Addition Our File mo. 4 - 4 Dear Mr. Berg: The telecopied letter sent by Kathleen Martin to you and Mr. Mertz sets out our answer to the letter of Mr. Mertz which I am including for your reference. In today's conversation, the first time I have ever talked with you on this matter, you informed me that your client objected to the granting of the nonexclusive easement to the City of Orono. This is new ground. In the past, Mr. Mertz has specifically argued that the City ought to merely recognize the existing easement as nonexclusive --something we are not prepared to do, although we are prepared to a.:cept your opinions as to these matters as Ms. Martin's letter points o';t'thatMr. tMertz's letter asked the city to delete its requirer successors sign covenants to the conveyanc.: _= a public road for two reasons: first, because the easement "appears" to b,_ nonexclusive and second, because the trust of Samuel H. Bowman, Jr. granted to Mr. and Mrs. Hauser, Mr. Lauer and the 'gayzata Larry J. Berg, Esq. October 3, 1989 page 2 Country Club "the right to grant a roadway easement independent of any concerns regarding whether the 1956 easement was "exclusive" or "nonexclusive". In no conversation I have had with him ',as he objected to the easement requirement. Today, for the first time, I have been tcld that you consider the requirement of an easement an unconstitutional exaction as a condition of subdivision and that ycu need immediate release from this requirement or an expensive deal will fall through. As I told you in our conversation, the city attorney does not waive subdivision requirements imp^sed by action of the city council. If you or Mr. Mertz wish to have such a requirement removed, please immediately inform both me and Mr. Bernhardsin so that your subdivision requirements can be reheard by the city as soon as possible. Although you have told me t,,at you do not wish to meet with the city council on this matter, I cannot recommend another course of action to you more likely to provide relief from this requirement. I regret that you are unhappy over the course of this matter, and I hope that you will be able to find a solution satisfactory to your client. Please, as I requested, direct your inquiries, oral or written, to me with respect to this matter. I will consult with our real estate department in order to provide you with timely information. Sincerely, V—mas J. Barrett TJB:srp:891 enclosure cc: Craig A. Mertz, Esq. (w/enc. y Mark Bernhardson (w/enc.) � LAW C'-rICES VBURST. PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ ..0 •[. •.- . •+C—C-Ir .•cl(ss•o— •SSOC .- C-S ,,CC i IRST [,ANA PLACE WEST A T..o—swu*sT PA MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 CUPTIS A FCAnSC•. PA .,A -ES D LAaSC% PA 7..0.,.S r V%ZEQw007. PA CRAIG M NCA ROGER) EC�-C�S September 20, 1989 BY FAX Mr. Thomas J. Barrett Ponham, Haik, Schnobrich, Kaufman, Ltd. 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South 9th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55418 Re: :lat of Hauser/Lauer/IICC Addition Dear Mr. Barrett: -CLCA-CrC 16-21 32e .:ao r.■ ti�..ecla e a. »O .6C5 This off4.ce represents Ronald D. Lauer. I am writing to ask that the City of Oronc delete any requirement that the successors to Hennepin County Document No. 3028744 consent in writing to the creation of a public roadway easement over t'-.. northerly portions of the above-referencEd plat. The Wayzata Country Club is the owner of a 14.1 acre tract of land just off or Ferndale Road in the City of Orono. Some time ago the Country Club contracted to sell approximately 2.8 acres of that land to Ronald D. Lauer for purposes of constructing a house thereupon. In order to carry out that purchase agreement, Mr. Lauer filed a subdivision application with the City of Orono. On July 28, 1989, the Orono City Council adopted a resolution for preliminary approval of the plat. Paragraph 7 on gage 2 of the resolution requires that the north 25 feet of the property be dedicated as an outlot and that Mr. Lauer grant the City a road and utility easement over that outlot. Contemporaneous with Mr. Lauer's subdivision application, the City of Orono was also entertaining a subdivision request from Leo Hauser who owns the tract lying between the subject property and Ferndale Road. The City directed Mr. Lauer and htr. Hauser to combine their subdivisions into or,e plat. The proposed plat was prepared showing the north 25 feet of the plat as Outlots B and C. Easement_ deeds were prepared running from the Country Club and .from Mr. Lauer and from Mr. & Mrs. Hauser to the City of Orono for road and utility purposes. WURST, PEARSON, L.ARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ Mr. Thomas J. Barrett September 20, 1989 Page 2 Pursuant to the resolution for preliminary plat approval, your office was provided with a Title Insurance Company of Minnesota ALTA Commitment (Application No. H596450E-Supplemental U ). That Commitment shows Mr. Lauer as the proposed insured. Your office has called my attention to Hennepin County Document No. 3028744 (Book 203 of Deeds, Page 252). By that document, 13 various parties grant to one another, their heirs, their successors and assigns, an easement for road purposes over the north 16 1/2 feet of the subject premises. The Wayzata Country Club and the occurants of Fairway Vie-.: appear to be among the present beneficiaries of that easement agreement. Your office has advised me that the plat of Hauser/Lauer/WCC Addition will not be released unless the successors of all of the original parties to Document No. 3028744 (and their mortgagees) sign written consents to the conveyance of a public road and utility easement over Outlots B and C, Hauser/Lauer/WCC Addition. On behalf of Mr. Lauer, I ask that the city delete this requirement as unnecessary for two reasons. First, Ioc--iment No. 3028744, while it does not specifically utiliz• the word "exclusive" or the word "nonexclusive" appears t-) create a nonexclusive easement for road easement for road purposes. Each of the parties to that 1956 agreement was granted the right to convey road easement rights to subsequent owners. (A spot check of the conveyances of tracts in Fairway View, seems to indicate that the subsequent owners have referred to their easement rights over the subject premises as being a "nonexclusive" easement.) Second, while I did not have access to an abstract of title covering the subject premises, a review of the tract index indicates that Mr. Lauer, the Wayzata Country Club, and Mr. & Mrs. Hauser all ultimately derive their title interests from the Samuel h. Bowman, Jr., Trust Under Will (and the Northwestern National Bank, acting as trustee). That trust was one of the parties to the 1956 agreement. Thus, it would appear that Mr. Lauer, the Wayzata 2ountry Club, and Mr. & Mrs. Hauser would have a right to grant a roadway easement to the City of Orono independent of any concerns regarding whether the 1956 easement was "exclusive" or "nonexclusive". I conclude that the City would not be jeopardized by b- lack of consent forms signed by any successors to toe interests created by Document No. 3028744. To obtain these consent forms would place an onerous burden on both the Country Club and Mr. Lauer. A large amount of work would be involved in identifying those successors, identifying their mortgagees. Nei -her the Country Club nor Mr. Lauer nor Mr. S Mrs. Hauser ha,re any control over those parties and it is highly speculative whether the successors under that document could be even convinced to sign the forms. WURS T . PF ,RSON, LARSON. UNDERWOOD & M ERTZ Mr. Thomas J. Barrett September 20, 1989 Page 3 Will you authorize Mr. Lauer to proceed with the filing of the plat in the absence of any consent forms signed by the successors to the interests created by Document No. 3028744? Very truly yours, WURST, PEF.RSON, LARSON, JNDERWOOD & MERTZ Craig 14. Mer-cz CMM/lkg cc: Mr. Rorald D. Lauer 1 - .: .1 .. ;'+T; ri• .*- .' �*•�.. �y..wn.^ s. -. .. .. .. - .w.. - - .. • : tom.. . . - +f i.. WASH I NOTON, D. C. 20030 SUITC 300 SOUTH 1000 M ■TRECT, N. W. T eLCPHONC 404-096.6300 TfLiGO�ICR 20i•�2S-S]I• POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAurMAN, L 3300 PIPER JAFFRAT TOWER / MINNEAPOLIS, MINNCSOTA 35402 •/i/��%7 T CLeiNOht �� Y� b i2•�D] •+OJJ Tc�CCOpICR 1921 612-SS+•:: OI IJn t3.2 .33+•2503 INCLUDING THC FORMER LAW FIRM OF HALPERN 6 DRUCN Kathleen M. Martin OIR[CT DIAL NUMBER 334--2554 October 3, 1989 BY TELECOPY Craig M. Mertz, Esq. Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood & Mertz 1100 First Bank Place WeQ4 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: City of Orono Plat of Hauser/Laver/WCC Addition Our File No. 3643-047 Dear Mr. Mertz: c COLOAA00 80202 SUITC i*OO [ZOO SEVENTEEN?- STNCCT TELEPHONE 303-411911-I100 TCLCCOPICA 303-•o3•zla+ Tom Barrett received your letter of September 20, 1969 and asked me to look into the matter discussed therein. From a technical standpoint, please be advised that in addition to Hennepin County Document No. ?P''0'44, to which you refer in your letter, there are two additiona -uments concerning the easement in question. The first is Henr.E ..& County Document No. 3003391, a trustee's deed, the second is Document No. 3003392, a quit claim deed. The t•ustee's deed runs from Northwestern National Bank of Minnesota as trustee of an estate, to Summit Park Development Company, Inc. with a reservation of an easement in favor of the for.ner, while the quitclaim deed grants to Summit Park Development Company an easement over a portion of the property shown on the proposed plat as Outlot C. As counsel for the City of Orono, we were asked to review the proposed plat of the Hauser/Lauer/WCC Addition, upon examining the proposed plat and the documents referred �o above, our initial reaction was that, to ensure good title to an easement to be granted to the City over the north 16--1/2 feet of proposed Outlots B and C, it would be necessary to obtain the consenr of the beneficiaries of the existing easement which was created by the above -described documents, we subsequently reviewed this position with Minnesota Title Company and they agreed that the consents would be necessary. 200' 35tid S-IdW A 1 tiH WdHdOd WOd3 80 : r I 63, 6 i:)0 ...., .... ... . .... _. � - .-.�� ....NMY1�r�tw.•.M r+..TM�rr+.�4.. ��. - ��.va�l.�'w.-.Ip �.{.'�•w-+�w...-•+r�. .. _ a-�r•s .. Craig M. Mertz, Esq. October 3, 1989 Page 2 Upon receipt of your letter and upon further inquiry by Larry aerg of Fredrikson & Byron, who represents the Wayzata County Club, we understand that it will be difficult for eithat your client or Larry's to obtain the necessary consents. Nevertheless, as I an, sure you understand, our duty is to ensure that any interest granted to the City of Orono will be a valid one. In light of the difficulties you and Mr. Berg expect will be encountered if you are asked to obtain tiie requested consents, we have researched Minnesota case law on the issue. we had hoped to conclude that the lack of language of exclusivity in the grant of an easement necessarily meant that such an easement was nonexclusive. However, it appears that the case law is uncertain (see Thompson v. Germania Life Insurance Co., a copy of which is enclosed). This case in icates that in or er to conclude that an easement is non-exclusive, it is necessary to make a factual inquiry into the intent of the parties. From your letter, it appears that you have made the factual inquiries necessary to conclude that the easement in question is, in fact, a nonexclusive easemen�. we have neither made.these inquirie_ nor been authorized to do so. In light of the existing case law, the factual inquiries made by your office and the difficulty in obtaining the requested consents, 4e are prepared to suggest that the City accept the grant of an easement over proposed Outlots B anct .. provided that the City receive a formal legal opinion from your -aw firm and that of Fredrikson & Syron that such an easement is valid and enforceable notwithstanding the lack of the consents, and further provided that the City receive an indemnification agreement from your client and from the country club to defend and hold harmless the interests of the City in the proposed easement. The indemnification agreement would includ6 indeminfication for attorneys fees and costs of defense and would provide that in the event that the easement is ever deemed invalid, unenforceable or is otherwise rendered not :sable, your client and the country club would grant a new easement to the City in a location mutually acceptable to the parties. As to the easement in favor of the Minnesota Gas Company (which encumbers the same northerly 16.5 feet) created by Document Nos. 4337043 and 4337044, the property owners should either obtain Minnegasco's consent to the easement to be granted to the City or the opin+.on letter should opine that this easement, too, is non-exclusive. 600*39hd SIdW RICH WCHdOd WO83 80:dI 68. 6 IDO Craig M. Herb, Esc. October 3, 1989 Page # Our outline of the proposed resolution of the easemant consent issue, is just that -- an outline. If acceptable to your client, I would request that you and/or Larry prepare initial drafts of the opinion and indemnification agreement for our review. very t-rul ours, Kathleen M. Mar' -in Kt4M/jp/1ZMAP cc Mark Bernhardson (by telecopy) Thomas J. Barrett Larry K. Berg (by telecopy) rUPHAM, MAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD. 1700 PIPEn JAFFRAY TOWER WAYNE G POPHAM RAYNONO A. MAIK ROGER W SCHNOBRICH DENVER KAU-MAN ROBE PT A. MINIS. ROLFE A. WORD(. O. Mt^RC WNITEHCAO BRUCE O. WILLIS G ROBCPT JOH .SON GA MACOMBLR ROBCRT S. BURK .VON V PLUNKETT, III f ACOCRICR C. BROWN THOMAS K. BCRO JAMES B ORUCK JEFIREY S. HALPERN BRUCE O. MALKERSON JAMES R. SYCILEN JAMES B- LOCKNART 'kLLCN w..INO[RAKCR : LIIIORD M, (IRCCN( i. WILLIAM KAUFMAN 'AUL H Tit TZ 41CMAEL O. IRECMAN TOWARD SA MY(RS. III ARAM D. CS PCL IANIE S. M^YERON '.OMAS J. BARRETT IAM(S A. PAYNE DAVID A. JONES LEE E. SHEEHY ALAIN FR[CON LESLIE GILLETTE MICHACL T. NILAN THOMAS M SI PAINS ROBERT C, MOILAN[N THOMAS f. NELSON THOMAS J. RADIO DAVID L. HASHMALL A ATNLECN M, MARTIN *OHM C. CHILDS DOUO LAS P. SEATON THOMAS E. SANNCR A ICHARO A. KA PLAN BRUCC B. MCPHECTCRS SCOTT E. RICHTER PAUL J. LINSTROTM SCOT A. SI AT. BRIAN •/. JOHNSON BR^OLEY A.FULL[R DONALD M. LEWIS AENNCT•I ROSS- DAVID R. STRAND SCOTT K. GOLDSMITH GIR^RO P. MILLER CL 12A8 ETH A. THOMP50N KCITH J. HALLELANO MARK B. PETERSON MINNLAPOL15, MINNESOTA 5F. 402 ! TELEPHONE 48TOM—.myUCE W KUCK TERS / iil2 •333- IER BRUCE A. I C CL SON T CLCCO PIER RUTM A MICA CLSCN 1331 612- 334- 2713 TA`NNA 3CVCRAHCC_ .OMAS C. MICIENHAL 13i!' 4512. 334. 2701 M ICHACL D. CHRISTCV' 131 612 334 2503 J MICHAEL SCHWAR-T SUITE 2A00 •200 SCVCHTCENTM STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE 303-893.1200 TELCCOPICR 303-693.2194 SUITE 300 SOUTH 1800 M STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 200345 TELEPHONE 202-628•5300 TELCCOPICR 202•826-5310 OiREC:T DIAL NUMBER 334-2554 JCf/RC (LLEN L DE[ OW LCW15 q __- GARM P.,OCNGCL.13 T000 M. JOM NSOys JOH N,TII/BAKER LOUTB�p, SMITH J KA..N M. MANSCN BRUCC W. LITTLE Su[B PACE-SHAPiRO �BK r PALM^ '� M. CE,-S . "us a RYAN L. S PWF'ORO S. 0 EDNER BRYAN L.-CRAWfORO p CW D. PARKER M ATTHEW C. DAMON -�' , WALOCRA JOH•, W. PROVO PA RICIA A. O'LEARY PILL I. FRICDCRS \ II A,R EN R COLC PAUL S. JONES V WILLIAM D. HITTLrR ELLCN SUE PARKER GREGORY G. 13POOKER Or COUNSCL BRIAN W. OHM rAEO L. MORRISON GRCGOPY G. SCOTT JUDITH YOUNUER RO?ANNC G. ZAIDCNWEBCP CCCILIA " MICHEL ROBERT C. CASTLE TMEACSf M HAurr. INCLUDING THE FORMER LAW FIRM OF HALPERN & ORUCK October 4, 1989 Craig M. Mertz, Esa. WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & 14ERTZ 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 RE: City of Orono Plat of Hauser/Lauer/WCC Addition Our File No. 3643-047 Dear Mr. Mert:;: •+D��TitD iY Ga�,O..�• •.D �,.Ob.. VIA FACSIMILIE No. 3 8-262 We have received responses both from you and fr!-)m Larry Bera_ who represents the Wayzata Country Club as a result f the facsimile transmission of my letter dated October 3, 1989, outlining the City of Orono's position addressing your difficulty in obtaining consents from property owners with an it rest in a pre-existing easement. Tom Barrett and 1 have spent --onsiderable aMOL._. Of time discussing your reactions with City staff members and City Administrator MA-k Bernhardson. It is not our intent to obstruct the subdivision scess, although as counsel for the City. we must naturally addre e City's interests in this matter. The intent of this letter i address your concerns and find common ground between your client, the country club and the City. f.s counsel for the City, we wcl:ld like to rei~erate the sugg. -s contained in my letter of October 3, 1989, as the prefF solutions to the problem of obtaining consents from �. .y w.eel•� .r.. ,. ..a:•�, .�.��, .. a rr' 7»ti.T .h^r'. .'. ri:••:'!%^sDL•. ^1 •`Ti':- '�� Craig M. Mertz, Esc. Re: File No. 3643-047 Page 2 October 4, 1989 intp-ested property owners in the easement created in 1956. You indicated to Nancy Husnik of our office that you have consulted your client and would be prepared to submit a formal legal opinion that the existing easement is valid and enforceable, notwithstanding the lack of consents. However, you have also indicated that you would not be prepared t- have your client indemnify the interests of the City in the easement, and that since your client would not be in final ownership of either Outlots B or C, he would not be able to grant a nee:, easement at a different location. Mr. Berg has informed our office thGc his law firm would not allow him to deliver a legal opinion on the easement as requested in oui letter. In the alternative to the suggestions '_i.rted in my October 3 letter, we propose that Mr. Lauer, Wayzata Country Club and the Hausers gi,,nt the City of Orono a read easement over Out'_ots B and C and the Northerly 16.5 feet of Outlot A and Lot 1, E�lock 1, of th. proposed addition. In this way, allowance can be made for the 16.5 feet of the two outlots encumbered by the pre-existing easement, and the City's standard of a 25 foot wide access easement (in conformance with the preliminary plat approval for Wayzata Country Club, which was passed by the Orono City Council as Resolution No. 2657, on .;.i:y 10, 1989) can be accommodated. An adjustment may be made in the leg ' desc-iption of the easement to allow for some slight variation in footage which may oe affected by setback requirements for an existing structure. Should y and your client or Mr. Berg and his client fins that the above alternative is not acceptable. T suggest that tnis matter be brought up before the Orono City ._..ncil at its October 23, 1989 meeting. At that time, the locatinn or relocation of the outlots or easement placement can be c:iscussed. It is our e that there will be a timely resolution to the easement issue suerounding this subdivision. Tom Barrett and I will be unavailable this afternoon, so please contact us Thursday morning with your comments. We await your reply. Very truly yours, Kathleen M. Martin KM14/NEH/ZGMM-1100!12) ✓ cc: Mark Bernhar,'son, City Manager (Via alecouy) Larry K. perg (Via Tei•:.;,,py) Thomas J. Barrett, Eso_. Nancy Husnik WASH INOTON, D. C. i0030 SNIva 360 "UT" 1000 .. WT*99T, N. W. Ta6SP140146 i081'81261"09 •aLCOOP160 nes*620-8316 8Y TnWOPY POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOYRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD. »00 PIPER JAFFRAT TOWER IAINN[APOUS, MINNt3OTA p8402 Te�[Pwvwe ��s-»>-•�vo '"C ecoMCR I aa) 412-33'"717 IJal 0.4-234.2701 tall •la-7]4'-740] C INCLUDING TNL •ORM[R LAW FIRM OI HALPERN 8 CRYCK X&tbleen M. martin 0I1l6CT DIAL HUMOLR 334-2554 October 18, 1989 Larry J. Berg, Esq. Fredrikson i Byron 1100 International Center 900 second Avenue south Minneapolis, MN 55402-3397 lj;�Www— e5- ,goo •CVC/.TeewTli *TRiCT T«ePNONf. 20a-&g`8'18*o T C.619COPICO 20"03'8190 Re: Rauser/Lauer/WCC Addition to the City of Orono Our File Number 3643-047 Dear Larry: I appreciate your efforts these past few weeks to reach an acceptable resolution of the easement issue associated with the above -referenced plat. As you and I have discussed in the past, it is neither our intent nor that of the City's to obstruct the subdivision process. As counsel for the City, however, we must naturally address the City's interests in this matter. While I had hoped that the suggestions contained in my letter to Attorney Mertz of October 31 1989 would be an adequate solution to the problem of obtaining consents from property owners interested in the easement created in 1956, that proposal was unworkable given the difficulty of obtaining the legal opinion requested therein and the property owners' reluctance to defend the City's easement in the event of a future challenge. I further understand that the second proposal made by the City as an alternative to the suggestions identified in my October torne 3Mertz)letter are`alsooutlined unacceptable ttoOctober your clientletter to Att. Y Z00 ' 39dd SIdW AIUH WdHdOd W083 81:91 Ga. 81 1D0 Larry J. Berg, seq. October 18, 1989 page 2 in an effort to arrive at an acceptable solution, however,- you proposed that property owners simply convey fee title to outlots B and C (over which the proposed easements to the City were to lie), reserving toTthemselvhat es awasopriate easements for ingress and egress. with favorable reaction by City officials? although the City of the remained wary of potential liability current roadway lying within the boundaries of the new Outlots B and C. Thus, the City has formulated its most current proposal as follow4: 10, The property owners would initially convey a road and utility easement to the City, as originally contemplated, within Outlots B and C. 2. Contrary to the initial proposal, the City would not thoserpersonsswhowaresto benefitednbyhtheoeasementf created in 1956. 3. Contrary to the proposal of October 3, 1989, the City would not require the fee owners to defend the City's easement interests in the event those interests are challenged by the benefactors of the 1956 easement. 6. The fee owners (and/or their heirs, successors or assigns) would agree to convey at a future date, upon the written request of the City, fee title interest to Outlots B and C, free and clear of all encumbrances other than the existing 1956 easement. S. 6. The right of the City to obtain fee title to outlots B and C would b,t conditioned upon the commitment by the City to nn atreasonablelic perioddway over followingOtheotJ B and C withi request. Obviously, any grant of fee title to Outlots B and C in favor of the City would include a reservation of an easement in favor of the fee owners for ingress and egress until such time as the proposed public roadway is constructed. E00'39dd 'SIdW N1dH WdHd0d WOa3 61:91 68, 91 1D0 Larry J. Berg, Esq. October At 1989 page 3 i understand that the wayzata Country club has not yet accepted the City's current:proposal but that you will be discussing the proposal in greater detail with representatives of the Country Club prior to the October 231 1989 City Council meeting. t also gathered from our prior conversations that your client's placement of the easement issue on the agenda was intended only to preserve the fee owners' rights to address the issue directly with the members of the City Council in the event that the City staff and the fee owners are unable to resolve the issue prior to October 23, 1989. As always, i look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, i100,� Kathleen M. Martin KMM/1657ZMCR cc: Mark Bernhardson (by telecopy) Jean Maybust (by telecopy) Thomas J. Barrett, Esq. S"1dW AIdH WUHd0d W0dJ 6I:91 68, e1 100 k � N r J K Jr $4re91. -- .� OUT i? - uj ... Nwfh /w ✓Sieed�It d sfA✓N[A✓S.c.� ��ti o Ig � ( I ' Eesl%R✓l(�/f�pp/Y !f [:� ;-• Q NtK ✓Jft.St Ei�/,tefJfll Q -� �? ' ::. Lwiep.rNalriRrfp/,4t• ✓SEA �m9!'9!•E I � rl- lLie/-Ste. 0V } TSO r2 10 T II^ \ it X Ci 2 I I �4' f�.� IN.47-- •j - ♦ �• pi � II ii�vyy i UJ J n V ily KI • w,/Ammf5ca •• L:�eaavhtlr,Nif�//rr. NL/t ✓.SC. /Met/ eJ0 M ./ S••/� y .. '3 � I I /1�O Y7 I �/ I L ✓SEMe/NEAT ✓Sac. }L i � i i iy o [7rs.ro (� I . ^ evMnae+' szo OD I " ' y- C7• /fi m Ca wer.o/ SEor:. sS I to Al FE11,41;: �C 11 TAIkL T A CK yi} �• s ` s' Y NZJ Ir 960 Willow Drive North Long Lake @Mi 55356 10/19/89 Orono City Council re: Widening of Willow Drive Plans by Hennepin County or Orono to widen Willow Drive are akin to buying a new car when yor jet a flat tire. Orono should ask the following questions of Hennepir. County and its own staff and listen for satisfactory answers: 1. Why widen a road that is already capable of handling the proposed volume - stated as 3000 cars per day by 2010 ? How much confidence do we have in the 3000 per day figure in the first place ? Why build with a 20-year lead time (what's the rush) ? 2. If the impact on Orono is negative now in terms OF noise, air pollution and general depredation of our quality of life, what will it be like when the two 8-foot shoulders are coverted into traffic lanes ? 3. What will the real right-of-way costs be to Orono ? The $65 thousan3-7igure provided by Hennepin County won't begin to cover the property damage envisioned on Willow Drive plus legal costs, let alone settlement of lawsuits broughrby landowners along the route. If Orono counts on $65 thousand, it will be sorely disappointed. I believe a hard assessment of this boondoggle will suggest a vote to reject the plan and halt further planning by Orono itself. I urge you to show leadership in this matter. J�burs truly, Denis Battrum �_�_ To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members , From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratorA Date: October 6, 1989 Subject: County Road 116 Attachments - A - County Road 116 Memo dated 9/14/89 B - Traffic Model Projections dated 8/20/89 C - Proposed Resolution Issue - CONQ - 1vriwft oc rz3 1989 10� ON Presentation of information to Council regarding the following issues: A) Source for $65,000 for right-of-way acquisition B) Trip generations from traffic model study Introduction - At the Council's last meeting they held a public hearing regarding County Road 116 and after receiving public comments, indicated that there were two issues fcr which they would like further information before proceeding. These include the two items mentioned above. Discussion - As outlined in Attachment A, the City remains opposed to the installation of County Road 116 in the City of Medina, however, if it is to go ahead, the City will take advantage of the opportunity presented by that. As indicated originally, the City would be expending in addition to $310,000 if it were to upgrade it on its own in the year 1995. The projected right-of-way costs, if the County does the project, as noted last time was $65,000 for the City's share. This amount would be reduce:' by any dedication received as part of development of the parcels to the west since all additional right-of-way would come out of development to the west for anything south of Willow Drive. '"Ie funding source for all of this could be from Municipal Sue :9 funds the City receives (approximately $165,000 per year, is the same source that the City was looking to to fund a -ast a portion of its 1995 upgrade in this area. The projected traffic counts are based on social and economic use and growth and not on traffic being diverted from other parallel routes. More detailed information should be available at the Council meeting on the 23rd. County•Rdad 116 October 6, 1989 Page 2 of 2 In addition to the issues outlined in Attachment A and at the September 25th public hearing to be addressed in the final plan design, the City will be requesting the following: A) Signal Traffic Warrants - That the County undertake its best efforts to assist in meeting the warrants in advance of the Highway 12 safety project. As noted in the Highway 12 safety memo, this would inclide warrants based on any additional traffic generated by the installation of County Road 116, which might be completed as much as a year and a half in advance of letting of the Highway 12 safety bid (if it goes). There are other warrants that would be based on the anticipated use of the signal installed a third would be accident warrants based on current statistics. B) No Extension - Agreement that it is outlined regarding no further extension south of High% -ay 12 without Orono Council permission. C) Construction Limits - Staking of the construction limits in advance of the pre iminary deign to allow the persons on the east side the opportunity to see the impact of the construction). Alternatives - 1. Adopt a resolution in agreement as presented. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table. 4. Choose to take no action. Reco�endation - It is recommended that the resolution in agreement be adopted as presented. Proposed Motion - Moved by , seconded by , the Council adopt Resolution # outlining the conditions for approving the preliminary design of the County ]::oad 116 project in the City of Urono. Ayes , nays r rfiM /i 1WT- TO: Mayor Grabek Orono City Councilmembers FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: September 14, 1989 SUBJ: County Road 116 Attachment: A. Proposed Construction Plans B. County Road 116 Memo-4/5/89 C. Council Minute Excerpts County Road 116-4/10/89 D. Orono Letter to Hennepin County-4/13/89 E. Letter to Gale Harris-•9/14/89 F. James Cox's Letter -Received 2/15/89 G. Proposed Resolution H. Comparison of Construction Standards ISSUE - 1. Holding public hearing on the preliminary construction design proposal. 2. Determination as to whether the Council desires to approve the plan as presented and/or amend. INTRODUCTION - The City of Orono Council has continued in its opposition to the construction of County Road 116. However, at the April 10, 1989 Meeting, Council directed staff to work with the County regarding the segment in Orono if the portion in Medina is to be constructed. This was done as all of the problems associated with construction of County Road 116 would be there if it was constructed in Medina and not continuing it to at least County Road 6 may in fact worsen the situation. Additionally, the City had proposed an upgrade to the Road in approximately 1994, which would be similar both to Willow, south of the bridge and railroad tracks and also the County 116 segment that is being proposed. The Road was designated as a minor collector to be under Hennepin County's jurisdiction in the City's Comprehensive Plan. On July 26, 1989, the City staff held a public information meeting for abutting property owners to review the large scale plans in order to allow them the opportunity to express concerns and alternatives to the plans as preliminarily designed. DISCUSSION - At this point, there have been some suggested changes as noted below: A. Medina border to County Road 6 - In this area, the following changes to the proposed plans are suggested: The design for the section from County Road 6 north past the first two houses will be urban as opposed to rural. A B. County Road 6 to H1 hhwway 12 - Tho proposed changes to the p an in this area inclu�e: 1. All right-of-way taking will occur on the west side. 2. Work to resolve the drainage problem outlined in Attachment F. In addition to that, the City had noted in its April 13, 1989 letter that the City desired an agreement prohibiting the extension south of Highway 12 unless the Orono Council agreed. It would be appropriate that this be adopted as part of any resolution related to plan approval. If the project was done with city or City/MSA funds it would cost the City about $310,000. It is anticipated that the City's cost for County Road 116 will be approximately $65,00 A comparison of road widths is contained in attachment H. The actual travelled portion will be the same, but the shoulders will be paved at a width 4' more on each side than at present. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Hold a public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution which agrees to the plan with appropriate changes. 3. Amend the plan and adopt it for further changes. 4. Table for further discussion related to issues raised and unresolved at the public hearing. 5. Choose not to adopt the plan. 6. Withdraw from further consideration of the plan. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the plan be adopted with changes already proposed, together with those appropriate changes based on input of the public. PROPOSED MOTION - - Moved by seconded by . the Orono Council approves the plans as amended and incorporates that approval in Resolution i , which also incorporates the requirement for an agreement not to have County Road 116 extended south of Highway 12. Ayes_. Nays cc: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Mr. Bruce Polaczyk, Hennepin County Dept. of Transportation COMPARISON OP CONSTRUCTION STRANDARDS Willow Drive (Medina Border to Highway 12) - Minor Arterial (Orono Comprehensive Plan) Typical Section Travelled Shoulders Paved With Right -of -Way Portion Each Side Shoulders Rural Section Willow At Present Width of Highway 12 24' 4' 32' 66' City Standards Minimum 80' Minor Arterial 241* 8' 40' for Two Lane** Municipal State Aid Standards 24' Be 40' 80-100 County Proposal 24' 8' 40' 80' County Road 116 The proposal will "stripe" a fog line at the 24' Width Willow Drive South of Railroad Tracks 24' 9' 42' 66' (Collector) *Minimum Paved Width (Chapter. 11.33) **Orono Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 7-15) /4 458" 'D Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members { FTom: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Date: April 5, 1989 ' Subject: County Road 116 ATfAC09KNTS - A - County Road 116 Dated 2/15/89 B - Tad Jude Letter Dated 3/28/89 C - City of Medina Resolution Dated 3/7/89 ISSUE - what course of action the City desires to Determination as to ortion down to Highway 12 should undertake on willow Drive d from its tie north p N.edina. County const=uc.. County o INTRODUCTION - meeting adopted a resolution At the Councils February13, 1989 RoadheY5. As a follow -UP to in opposition to the construction of County that, the Council at its February 27th meeting undertook further do consideration of the matter es to what the City of Orono shosition onould the County Road 116 be constructed regardless of the City's p matter. Commissioner Tad Jude was present at the meeting at which several questions were posed to him. DISCUSSION - As noted in Attachment B, Commissioner Jude has indicated that it is his position that he will respect the desires regarding County Road 116 of each of the two cities within their respective e pe tivehe borders unty will.e. if the uct Citfzof Medina -ants County Road 116 cons County Road 55 to the Medina/Orono border: then if12, they would Orono wantsthe he County to Highw over thtake City chooseenotltoc eethey wouldado nothing). Commissioner Jude_ had indicated that he has also spoken to a group in opposition to County Road 116 of which go under the title "Friends of has indicated to those individuals that should they desire not ss _o eir hip" County Road 116 constructed in Medina, that they exerauadehthat ::position to such to the Medina City Council and if they p Council it would not be Duilt. L. Choose to take no action. gore". with construction to County Road 6. 7. Request the construction of County Road 116 al, the way to Highway 12. 1. Get an AcreemMnt that if it goes to Highway 12, the County will not undertake any projects south of Highway 12. County Road 116 April 5, 1989 Page 2 of 2 5. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that if the County does in fact go ahead and construct County Read 116, that the City request the County to Flace County Road 116 to Highway 12. This is in light of the fact that Orono will be faced with all the traffic concerns and the City will have to expend funds for the next several years to reconstruct the road ($310,000) Anyway, and that the City could reduce its costs should the signal light be put in on Highway 12. This conversion of willow Drive to a county roa4 to Highway 12 is in line with the City's Comprehensive Plan as noted in the February 15, 1989, This is recommended if the County would enter into an agreement with the City that it could not extend County Road 116 any further without a City initiated request. It is further recommended that the realignment be shifted to the west and that abutting property owners who develop the properties in a planned development arrangement be given credit for the additional right-of-way in determining the denr:ty on the property, provided that the right-of-way is granted free of charge to the County. It is additio ally recommended that the alignment at the intersection of Willow Dri a and County Road 6 be done so as to minimize the impact on the neighbors abutting Willow Drive at that juncture together with resolving the current drainage problem related to willow Drive. PROPOSED MOTION Moved by `, seconded by , that the Council allow continuous opposition to the construction of County Road 116, desires that if it is to be constructed in the City of Medina, that it be continued to Highway 12 with an alignment to be worked out between the City and the County. Ayes `, nays cc: Commissioner Tad Jude Pat Murphy, City of Medina COUNCIL MEE 7NG TO: Mayor and City Council `s- PRON: Mark E. aernharlson, Ci Administratoi -• •:. DATE: February 15, 1989 - SUBJEC,:: County Road 116 Attachments: A. County Road 116 Memo Dated 1/26/89 B. Traffic Count Map C. James Cox Letter Dated 2/l/89 Received 2/15/89 ISSUE - Determina -.ion as to what action the City of Orono would like to have take,: in relationship to County Road 116 should the County go ahead with this project. INTRODUCTION - The City has transmitted its oposition to the County Road 115 is Medina as noted in Attachment C. At the Council's January 23, 1989 meeting the Council in addition to directing staff to express its oposition tabled consideration of the items related to what Orono would like to have done should the County proceed with County Road 116. DISCUSSION - The summary of issues are noted in Attachment A and in addition are the following issues: Road Classification A review of teh comprehensive plan clas3ified Willow north of Righway 12 as a minor collector. As noted in the definition of that in the comprehensive plan it indicates that it is to be a minimum of 80 feet right-of-way and under the jurisdictional control of Hennepin County. Traffic Counts 1( 987) As for v e issue or traffic counts that were raised, the County had indicated that it would go from approximately 1,400-1,900 cars per day to approximately 2,900 cars per day. Most of this traffic would be c�-nsolidated from other north/south routes currently exiting in Medina and Orono. Even at 2,900, there are several streets in the community that presently exceed that including North Shore Drive (4,400), Shoreline (17,200), Shadywood (11,000 and 6,400), County Six (5,100). It should also be noted that currently Old Crystal Bay Road between Six and 12 carries 3,823 trips per day and North Brown carries 1,911 trips per day. Draina ee As noted in Attachment C Mr. Cox has raised a drainage issue that he feels should be addressed in any change. Drainage issues that are addressed in Mr. Cox's letter can be addressed at the time of development on the west side of Willow ! ,ear Countf Road 6 or it and when County Road 116 is scheduled to '-e extended to Bighway 12. 1 � of vehicles driven in the village on any private road. The Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the Village of North Oaks could regulate traffic on private roads in the Village by virtue of the power granted to it under the general welfare clause found in M.S.A 5 412.221, subd. 32. Even though the usurpation of regulation of private roads may be viewed as a taking, the Supreme Court of Minnesota never addressed this issue in the Borchert case. The second Minnesota case which indicates how the Minnesota courts would likely rule on this issue is Shinneman v. Arago Township, i88 N.W.2d 239 (Minn. 1980). The Court in sSinneman was interpreting M.S.A. § 160.06, subd. 1 which provides: When any road or portion of a road has been used and kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as a public highway by a road authority, it shall be deemed dedicated to the public to the width of actual use and be and remain, until lawfully vacated, a public highway, whether it has ever been established as a highway or not. M.S.A. 5 160.05, subd. 1. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that in the case in which a city took over a road by utilizing this statute, the award of damages was not warranted. Section 160.06, subd. 1 provides no method by which government can take property. The statute, rather provides a substitute for the common-law creation of highways by prescription or adverse use. Shinneman at 243. The City of Orono, if challenged on this point, would have to argue that private land owners should not be compensated for reasonable regulation of their properties.(1) It appears that --------------------------- fl) 'There are not any constitutional objections to imposing the cost of reconstruction as well as original construction upon abutting or adjacent property owners .... the grant of power to a municipal corporation to 'pave' its :streets and levy assess- ments against the benefitec property, unless restricted, is a contintlinl authority. The exercise of the power in paving a street does not exhaust, but the same streets may be subsequently repaved at the cost of the specially benefited property under this power.' McQuillan, Municipal Corporations S 38.16. -2- MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator City of Orono FROM: Thomas J. Barrett, City Attorney RE: City of Orono - LF 3643-091 Regulation of the Use of Private Property DATE: July 21, 1989 -------------------------------------- ISSUE If a private road is made public, does the City of Orono have the obligation to pay for the road as improved? CONCLUSION There are no Minnesota cases which specifically address this issue. The City of Orono probably will not be required to compensate the private owners if the road is opened to the general public because no taking of property has occurred. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS If a private road is made public, does the City of Orono have the obligation to pay for the road as improved? No Minnesota cases specifically address the issue of whether or not the city must compensate the owner of a private road if the city opens the road to use by the general public. It may be argued that no compensation is due to the owner of a private road since no taking has occurred. The City of Orono, by opening the private road to the general public, is only exercising its power to regulate all roads in its jurisdiction, and acting pursuant to the easement it has been granted. The courts in the State of Minnesota have not addressed this specific issue. There are two cases in Minnesota which provide a clue as to how the courts in the State of Minnesota would likely rule upon this issue. The first case is Borchert v. Villa a of North Oaks, 264 Minn. 32, 117 N.W.2d 396 19 2 . In Borchert, the village of North Oaks prescribed maximum speeds The City of Orono has already changed the definition of a private road contained in its municipal code. Section 6.01 of the Orono Municipal Code originally read, Subd. 2. "Private Road" means any street or roadway which has not been dedicate. :o public use or which is not maintained by public funds, but which is open to travel pursuant to an easement between persons or between persons and the City. Private roads are private property except as regu ated in this Chapter. City of Orono Municipal Code, S 6.01, subd. 2. On July 25, 1988, the Orono City Council amended the definition of the term "private road". The new definition is similar to the old definition in all respects, except that the underlined language in the above quoted passage has been deleted. The Orono City Council could again amend S 6.01, subd. 2 to include an addendum sentence which reads, "All private roads must be open to all people who own homes on that road and their invitees and to all people and their invitees who could reasonably be expe::ted tc use that road to get to their private residences." ZSRP718 -4- North Oaks, 264 Minn. 32, 117 N.W.2d 396 (1962). The court reasoned, This court has heretofore held that a municipal corporation has the power under [M.S.A. S 412.221, subd. 321 to regulate the use of private as well as public property.... [W)hatever the extent of police power over ordinary private roads which are not freely used by the public, that power must be held to extend to such private roads where they comprise the whole road system of a village .... '[The scope of the police power] covers a wide range of subjects, and, while it is especially occupied with whatever affects the peace, security, health, morals and general welfare of the community, it is not limited thereto, but extends to dealing with conditions which exist so as to bring out of them the greatest welfare of the people by promoting public convenience or general prosperity and to everything expedient for the preservation and comfort of the inhabitants of the corporation.... That which may at one time be regarded as not within such power, may, at another time, by reason of changed conditions, be recognized as a legitimate subject for the exercise of the power.' Id. at 400. (citing 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations, S 128). The road system in the village of North Oaks is somewhat analogous to the road system in the City of Orono. Both cities are unique in that many of the roads contained in the cities are private. The cities only differ in the respect that the underlying easement reverts back to the homeowners in North Oaks but reverts back to 'Che City in Orono. The City of Orono may rely on the reasoning in Borchert to amend its ordinances so that all private roads must be open to homeowners and their invitees who need to use the private roads to get to their property. The City of Orono can then protect the general welfare of the City of Orono's citizens by promoting order and convenience as is it is empowered to do under M.S.A. S 412.221, subd. 32. An opinion of the Attorney General, citing Borchert, held that a city council acting under M.S.A. S 417.221, subd. 32, was empowered to provide snow removal upon a privately -owned street open for use to the general public at the expense of the abutting homeowners. Op. Atty. Gen. 377a-11, Sept. 13, 1978. The Attorney General reached this conclusion by resolving the case "upon its own facts, with due regard for the public interest to be served by the city providing the service directly.-" Id. -3- The CMP provides that the purpose of the easements is r ansure legal access of the public to the properties served by t,ie Arivate road.' CMP 7-12. The Transportation Plan provides that, [t)he arrangement of streets shall provide for the continuation of streets between adjacent properties when such continuation is necessary for convenient movement of traffic, effe:.ive fire protection, fur efficient provision of utilities and where such continuation is in accordance with the City Compre hensive Municipal Plan. City of Orono Municipal Code, S 11.32, subd. (H)(1). Pursuant to the CMP and the Municipal Code, the easements may be utilized by the City to ensure legal access of properties served by the private road. In making its decision to exercise its easement rights, the City may decide that the opening of private roads for use by homeowners in new subdivisions is necessary for the convenient movement of traffic. B. The City of Orono may compel private owners to allow public passage on a private road by exercising its general welfare powers. The Minnesota State Legislature has provided specific powers for city councils. Among its enumerated powers, The Council shall have power to provide for the government and good order of the city, the suppression of vice and immorality, the prevention of crime, the protection of public and private property, the benefit of residents, trade and commerce, and the promotion of health, safety and order, convenience, and the general welfare by such ordinances not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of this state as it shall deem expedient. M.S.A. S 412.221, Subd. 32 (emphasis added). The welfare powers which are outlined in M.S.A. S 412.221 are to be interpreted broadly so as to sustain municipal activities reasonably related to the needs of the city. Sverkerson v. city of Minneapolis, 204 Minn. 388, 283 N.W. 555, 556 (1939). The Supreme Court of Minnesota has held that the general powers contained in M.S.A. S 412.221 are broad enough to allow a village to regulate traffic and to expend funds to enforce such regulations upon privately -owned roads. Borchert v. Village of -2- r• AUG MEMORANDUM f f I �,l T f uU TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator City of Orono FROM: Thomas J. Barrett, City Attorney RE: City of Orono - LF 3643-091 Regulation of the Use of Private Property DATE: July 21, 1989 ---------------------------------------------------- ISSUE May the City of Orono compel private owners to allow public passage on a private road without making the road public? CONCLUSION The City of Orono probably may compel private owners of a road to open the road for use by the general public under appropriate easements. Further, the City can likely compel such access under M.S.A. S 412.221, subd. 2 as it was interpreted by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Borchert v. Village of North Oaks, 254 Minn. 32, 117 N.W.2d 39—' 6 2 . DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS May the city of Orono compel private owners to allow public passage on a private road without making the road public? A. The City of Orono may compel private owners to allow public passage on a private road by asserting its rights to the platted easement. Under the terms of easements granted it, the City of Orono may be able to assert that it has a right to open the private roads to all homeowners who live on the private road or to all people who could be reasonably expected to use the roads. The exercising of the easement rights by the City of Orono is consistent with both the Comprehensive Management Plan (hereinafter 'CMP') and the Transportation Plan of the City. 8178� TO: Mayor and City Council Bernhardson, City e �i fff777 FROM: Mark E. Ber � Y Administrat DATE: August 21, 1989 SUBJECT: Public/Private Roads Attachment: A. Attorney's Opinion on Public/P:=ivate Roads Dated 7/21/89 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to the Council regarding the City's ability to take over private roads. a. By ordinance. b. By specific easement grant. 2. Presentation of information regarding City's ability to extend private roads to serve others without taking :iem over. 3. Presentation of information regarding th-:!City's ability to enforce on private roads. INTRODUCTION - As a result of a recent issue --egarding the City's r g t to mandate the extension of a private road the attorney developed Attachment A as a means to address the issue. DISCUSSION - As noted in the memos the City has the following abilities should it choose to undertake them in relationship to private roads. 1. Ability to take over private roads as public roads it desires either by; a.) statutory authority or b.) easement. 2. The City can extend a private road into another private property without making it public. 3. The City does have the authority to enforce all traffic laws on private roads. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Discuss as desired. 3. Table for further action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council accept the n ormat own .— PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by , that the Council accept the information on tTie public/privy-Eye roads. Ayes Nays _- 1 Extension of Private or Public Road October 16, 1989 Page 2 of 2 A) Amendment of the City's street ordinance as suggested in the attorney's opinion. B) Exercise of its road and utility easement to allow such passage without taking it over. In undertaking this route the City would not be involved in the cost for extending the road, removal of tae cul-de-sac or on -going maintenance. The issue of who maintains it in this situation, would be the Homeowners' Association of Wear Lane up to at least the cul-de-sac and the property owner to the north maintaining the balance. C) This would make it a public street at least to the cul- de-sac, clarify the City's interest and as noted in the City Attorney's opinion, this would not require the City to compensate the property owner or developer or abutting property owners in any manner for making it public. This however may set a precedent for other private roads in the City. As an alternative, the City may make it a public road that is privately maintained and assessed. 4. Table pending consideration of the plat. 5. Indicate that the City is not interested in any type of extension but its willingness to accept an alternate east/west corridor to serve this property on an on -going basis. Recomendation - It is recommended that the Council would prefer that the owner work with the Homeowners' Association to determine if it can be extended. Failing that it is recommended the City declare it a public street (north/south leg only) and that it be privately maintained with the Homeowners' Association maintaining up to the present cul-de-sac and the new subdivider from there to conclusion of his new cul-de-sac. The cost of the extension being borne by the subdivider plus potential cost of removing the existing cul-de-sac when deemed appropraite for removal. Proposed Motion Moved by , seconded by , that the Council direct the subdivider to work with the Homeowners' Association to determine if satisfactory arrangements can be made. As an alternative, the City would entertain at making it a public street at no cost to the City for either extension, construction, or on -going maintenance. Ayes , nays cc: John Gerhardson, Public Works Director Robert Will To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato 06 Date: October 16, 1989 Subject: Extension of Private or Public Road Attachment - A - Public/Private Roads Memo dated 8/21/89 B - Map of Area Issue - 101389.1HD coGft/I MEE o �hG �T 231989 ci*yofo eft In relation to an upcoming subdivision determine the level of Council interest to utilize City powers to extend a private road to serve a plat further north. Introduction - Attachment A was transmitted to Council at a time when a subdivision was being reviewed at the Planning Commission and expected to go to the Council. There was no discussion on the matter at the time. The person doing the subdividing has now acquired additional property from the original owner and will be submitting a modified subdivision to the November 20, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Access to this property can either be by an east/west corridor -driveway or a private road outlot to the south. Efforts have been made to 1 ir._' t curb cuts on Old Crystal Bay Road. Directing traffic down to Watertown Road via a street to the rear would be the preferable approach. Discussion - Currently Wear Lane to the south of this property is a cul- de-sac private road over which the City has a road and utility easement. Last year the subdivider approached the original developer of these lots and was 3uoted a price of $20,000 per lot for access over the private road. (Subsequent to that 3 of the 6 lots on the property have been sold to other parties. They may be more willing to agree to the extension in order to have more people share the cost of maintenance.) As noted in the attorney's opinion of Att--chment A, the City does have some alternatives to be exercised in relation to this extension if that is the direction it desires to go. Alternatives - 1. Direct the subdivider to work with the members of the Homeowners' Association to see if an extension is agreeable. 2. Allow a person to extend the private road onto their property from the existing cul-de-sac and allow passage over it through the following: MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 1989 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CONTINUED 30' setback for accessory structures was appropriate. .t Councilmember Callahan questioned why swimming pools would . be exempt when considering lot coverage. Gaffron said that the Planning Commission was concerned with the visual impact of structures covering area. Most pools are ground level and would not have any visual impact. Mayor Grabek noted, however, that most pools are surrounded by a fence. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve the Ordinance Amendment for Oversized Accessory Structures. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. ENGINEER'S REPORT ORDERING PLANS i SPECS - ii1= #3/HIGBWAY 12 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that it was necessary to do test drilling to determine which aquifer can be used. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to proceed with the water well testing. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. PAY REQUEST #1 - LIFT STATION 10/43 It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to approve payment #1 for Lift Station 10 and 43 projects. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays=0, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: L.M.C.D. MAYOR'S MEETING Mayor Grabek reported that the attending Mayors had indicated they would like more control over the LMCD Representatives, because they felt they were not kept adequately informed. The Mayors also felt that there were too many meetings and that it was difficult to have representation at each meeting. The Mayors also questioned their ability to recall their respective LMCD Representative if they were not performing in a satisfactory manner. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: COUNTY ROAD 51 PARKING RESOLUTION #2675 City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Staff has recommended extending the "No Parking" area 200' further east than initially proposed. Public Works Director Gerhardson said that the City was still trying to work with Hennepin County to widen the parking area on the south side of County Road 51. Mr. Thomas Anderson, 3550 North Shore Drive, said that he 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 14, 19E ZONING FILE #1424-WINDWARD !MARINE CONTINUED excellent, especially since harp:..:.--r was hAi ng reduc( original proposal. Goetten e?id indicate, howevAr, th the same concerns a :out safety and the crossing Df E_.�____ She asked to sep the plan amended to show an access to the ---- crosswalk. It %*as moved by Councilmember Goetten, sec:;:.ded D; Cn1inciloember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2674, approving the renewal variances and commercial site plan for Windward Marine. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1425 WARD FSRRHLL 3405 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCE/SUBDIVISION Mr. James MacKinnon, Attorney, was present on behalf of .he Ferrells. City Administrator Bernhard n provided a brief history of this application for a lot area riance and lot combination Mr. MacKinnon provided a brief history of the Ferrells' property and the City of Orono's change in zoning requirements. Mr. MacKinnon said that the City's ordinance disallowing buildability of single owner substandard adjacent lots was a form of discrimination with no basis. He said that he was requsting approval for one additional lot, rather than two lots. Mayor Grabek recollected that due to the history and location of the lot he had previously indicated that he would approve one additional lot. He questioned staff as to whether the resulting lot size would conform to the neighboring lot sizes? Gaffron confirmed that lots in that area ranged in size from 1 acre to 2 acres and that there were 3/4 acre lots on Cygnet Place. Councilmember Goetten said that she too had always indicated that she would be willing to approve one additional lot. Councilmembers Peterson and Callahan concurred. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to conceptually approve the lot area variance for Ward and Mary Ferrell with staff to draft a formal approval resolution. Motion, Ayess4, Nays-0, Motion passed. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ORDINANCE #72, SECOND SERIES Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron pointed out the specific areas of this Ordinance where the City may have problems. Gaffron said that the Ordinance may make it difficult, in certain cases, to maintain the setbacks from drainfield sites. Councilmember Goetten said that it was the original intent of this ordinance amendment process to carefully examine the type of accessory structures that people were putting on their lots. She believed that especially where small lots are concerned, a 3 ORDINANCE i , SBWXD SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMExDING THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE BY RBGULATIMG THE LOCATION, AREA, AND HEIGHT OF LA -GE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by repealing Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) and adding a new Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to read as follows: C. Area Restrictions. In all "R" districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: 1. Not more than one Oversized Accr *,ory Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any propperty. An "Oversized Accessory Structure" is defused as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following non -roofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area are not considered as "Oversize Accessory Structures", but are subject to the special setback restrictions of Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (D): - Tennis courts - Pools, when pool basin structure iexcluding non - encroachment -type patios) is greater than 1,000 s.f. - Paddocks or arenas 2. Oversized Accessory Structures are regulated by the following table: Max. mum Allowed Maximum Individual Total of All Accessory Accessory Structure Structure Footprint Areas Lot Area Footprint Area on " Property 0-1.99 acre 1,000 s.f. 2,000 s.f. 2.00-3.00 acre 1,200 s.f. 2,400 s.f. 3.01-3.50 acre 1,400 s.f. 2,800 s.f. 3.51-4.00 acre 1,600 s.f. 3,200 s.f. 4.01-4.50 acre 1,800 s.f. 3,600 s.f. 4.51-5.00 acre 2,000 s.f. 4,000 s.f. 5.01-6.00 acre 2,200 s.f. 4,400 s.f. 6.01-7.00 acre 2,400 s.f. 4,800 s.f. 7.01-8.00 acre 2,600 s.f. 5,200 s.f. 8.01-9.00 acre 2,800 s.f. 5,600 s.f. 9.01 acre or more 3,000 s.f. 6,000 s.f. 3. Any Oversize Accessory Structure shall be subject to the following conditions: Page 1 of 4 a) No such accessory structure shall r,c iocated within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal structureeon shall theproperty, located and no such accessory less than 30' from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. b) The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30' or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. c) Such structure: shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the City as follows: J. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. ii. If the property is subdivided, the oversize ,,tc;cessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area require- ment for the given size of accessory building. iii. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. SECTION 2. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is further amended by revising Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) as follows: B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in the "R" District shall exceed the height of the principal building, except barns or stables which shall be seb?eat to the appreval of the council- nor shall an accessory buildin exceed 30 feet in height. Page 2 of 4 SECTION 3. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is further amended by adding Section 10.03, Subdivisions 14 (C) & (D) as follows: C. Lot Coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures: 1. All roofed struct•• -es which extend more than 6' above grade level. 2. Tennis courts, E, . patios, decks and all similar "open" structures when po._':ially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than 6' above grade level. (If any portion of such structures extends more than 6' above grade level, the entire structure shall count toward lot coverage.) EXCEPTION. Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. D. Tennis courts, pools, and paddocks or arenas, when such accessory structures exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area, shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: Front - 30' minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property Side - 30' minimum and not within the required side yard area Rear - 30' minimum and not within the required rear yard area SECTION 4. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by adding Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (E) as follows: E. Setbacks. Accessory structures in excess of 750 square feet footprint area but not exceeding 1,000 square feet footprint area shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. SECTION 3. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by revising Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (E) as follows: Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "A-lA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: Page 3 of 4 E. Greenhouses. Commercial greenhouses provided all outside storage is fenced in such a manner so as to screen the stored material from view when observed from the public street or adjoining lot. Commercial greenhouse structures shall not be located in a required yard area, and are sub ect further to the general zoning code requirements pertaining to accessory structures. SECTIOA. 6. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by revising Section 10.03, Subdivision 12 as follows: Subd. 12. Crowding Principal Building. No accessory building or structure, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, alterered, or moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessory structure. SECTION 7. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption, and a short summary shall be published in the Laker and Pioneer newspapers. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this day of , 1989, by a vote of ayes and nays. orot y M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Page 4 of 4 Ordinance Amendment, Oversized Accessory Structures July 21, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Additionally, staff is suggesting that for the lot coveraca sections, a minimum allowance be granted for small lots, so that for instance, a typical 50' lot in Navarre would still have the ability to construct a detached garage in addition to the house. The proposed revision sets the allowance for any developed lot at 1,500 square feet, which would be 20% of the typical 50'xl50' lot. Of course, the 1,500 square foot threshold can be raised or lowered if Council is so inclined. 3. A new section has been added to revise and clarify the existing code section which requires an accessory building to be at least 10' away from a principal structure. Staff has consistently required that accessory buildings also be 10' from each other, but it was recently brought to staff Is attention that the code as it is written only requires the 10' setback from an accessory structure to a principal structure, and not between accessory structures. The proposed revision will make the code conform to what has been consistently enforced, and will provide the necessary safety and visual density controls staff feels are appropriate. We would not expect a significant number of new variances due to this section. It also will give us the ability to legitimately require that pool water surfaces will be at least 10' from any other structure, accessory building roofed area, or other nearby facility that could be used as a diving board. This is a concern because there was at least one case approximately 10 years ago where an Orono property owner had a pool less than 10' from the overhanging deck on the house and sustained serious injury when trying to dive off the second story deck into the pool. 4. Although not revised in the ordinance draft attached, staff would recommend that you consider revising the rear yard required setback for tennis courts, pools and paddocks to be merely 30' minimum and drop the requirement that such structures be outside the required rear yard area, since that would start to have a significant effect on restricting drainfield sites in the 2 acre and 5 acre zones. Staff Recommendation - with the changes noted at- -taff feels that the ordinance amendment: is workable and wou:- •mend adoption. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson 47V Pron: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Date: July 21, 1989 Subject: Ordinance Amendment, Oversized Accessory Structures List of Exhibits - Exhibit A - Proposed Ordinance with Minor Revisions Since Last Meeting Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits of 7/7/89 Discussion - This item was tabled at your July loth meeting for further review. As of this writing, I have received no further comments from Council members. A few minor changes have been proposed since your last meeting, as follows: 1. The language that def?nes pools as non -oversized accessory structures makes it more clear that grade -level, non -encroaching patios will not be considered as part of the structure. 2. For the 15% lot coverage requirements for small lots, structures to be included have been defined as follows: a) Any roofed or covered structure exceeding 6' in height above grade level. b) Any non -roofed structure Innis courts, pools, decks, etc.) of which any pa__ including fences or walls extends more than 6' above grade level. Since the intent of the lot coverage ordinance is to limit visual density on a property, it would seem appropriate that any improvement that exceeds 6' in height would reasonably be considered a visual impact and should be included in lot coverage. Since the maximum allowed fence is 6', yards that are fenced in with a 6' fence would not be counted as lot coverage, but a tennis court with 10'-12' fences would be included, as would a gazebo or other accessory building. Pools might or might not be included depending their height above grade and the type of fencing or walls existing. I If the Council desires to include pools in the regulations as accessory structures which count against "lot coverage by buildings" regardless of the fence height, an amendment of the accessory structure ordinance could be referred to the Planning Commission for initiation of the process. Under both the previous and present ordinance a pool of limited size can be constructed on any size property provided the required normal or oversized accessory structure setbacks are met. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Direct that an ordinance amendment by drafted. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that thi Council request staff to proceed with an ordinance amendment requlating pools as a buiiaing type accessory structure, but leaving tennis courts, paddoc s and arenas as excluded items when they have walls or fences no greater than six feet in height. Patios and decks would still be treated as structures requiring setbacks or non - encroachments, based on their height above grade. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council having accepted the infor—mation direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment for Planning Commission consideration for inclusion of pools in the calculation of percentage lot coverage by buildings for a given property. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Planning & Zoning Administrator 1 101989ftNCIj 4* OC T 231989 TO: Mayor and City Council � I Cln►Of 000 FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratory v I' DATE: October 19, 1989 SUBJECT: Oversized Accessory Structures Ordinance - Regulation of Pools Attachment: A. Oversized Accessory Structure Memo Dated 7/21/89 B. August 14, 1989 Minutes (Excerpt) ISSUE - Presentation to Council on background regarding the exc usion of pools in determining accessory structure allowances. INTRODUCTION - On September 25, 1989, Council discussed reconsideration of the issue of pools being included as accessory structures for the purpose of determining "percent of lot coverage by buildings", only when such pools have a fence that exceeds six feet in height. DISCUSSION - Prior to the introduction of the accessory structures ordinance, any pool under 1,000 square feet that met the applicable setbacks could be constructed in a yard without any variances. The oversized accessory structure ordinance recently adopted contains a number of specific regulations pertaining to pools as follows: A. Any pool of basin structure greater than 1,000 square feet must meet minimum setback requirement greater than the normal 10 foot setback. B. For all lots under 2 acres in area there is a 15% maximum limit on lot coverage by buildings, which include both principal and accessory structures. Any lot regardless of size would be allowed a minimum of 2,000 square feet of buildings. Pools and tennis courts with fences over six feet high would be considered as accessory structures for purposes of this calculation. As noted in Attachment A, the issue raised at the August 14, 1989 meeting involved whether the regulation of these accessory structures was one of visual density or mass, or if in fact it was on a different basis than being total structural foot print of a lot. As noted above the exceptions in the accessory structure ordinance- were for tennis courts, pools and patios and other open structures, including paddocks anri rireras, with fences no higher than six feet in height. These represent a diverse range of "structL;-o-". A swimming pool is the most substantial of the above items considered as a structure, as opposed to a paddock or arena which is not so much a structure as an area that 1 much as 201 below the normal because of the low lake level, which influences the water table, this however could change within a year to two.) 11. when is the next meeting? It is anticipated that the next meeting will be within the next 2 to 3 months. In the meantime we suggest to you, if you have questions about your particular lot that you speak to Michael Gaff ron as he has diagrammed each of the lots, and discuss not only set backs as diagrammed but also comments such as soil conditions and slopes. (Some owners indicated that they would like the meeting as soon a possible in order to get this underway.) 12. what Federal or State monies are available for this project? -'-,ere used to be monies available in the 160's and 170's but witn the change in the Federal program these monies are no longer available from the Federal level. The City looked at this for the Crystal Bay project and were not able to get any across-the-board grants. (We forgot to mention that the City was able to get funds individually for people through the C.D.B.G. program, but those are no longer available either.) Today we are not aware cf P.C.A. or Lake innetonka Conservation District mandating hookups in order to preserve the lake. To the extent that other people around the lake have paid for the cost of hooking up their own sewer it is probably not expected that the L.M.C.D. would do a general assessment to help pay for the small area tha is left. (Subsequent to the meeting Michael Gaffron has been in contact with P.C.A. to determine what, if any, grants might be available to help fund this ;,project. P.C.A. has funds available for septic system rehabilitation grants, but only fur cities whose overall Citywide average income is below the state median. State median is $17,161. Orono's average income is $30,736. (all 1980 data), hence PCA has indicated Orono would not qualify.) that individual properties were looking for additional hookups that would help decrease the overall unit charge but that property would then have to pay for more units. S. Will a new subdivision, such as the one being proposed east of Leaf Street, be included in the project? It has not been the policy of the City to include any areas that do not absolutely need sewer. This area is developing to a 2 acre standard and preliminary indications are that it will have adequate conditions for on -site septic systems on each building site. Even if the City were to allow sewering of this area, the topography of the area would require significant design parameters that would not result in a substantial reduction in unit lateral cost for the Stubbs Bay project. Inclusion of all those units in the project may reduce the trunk cost by about 20%. (100 units in Stubbs Bay 22, units in "Sussex") 9. Why is the property on oxford Road being left out? Again, this area was developed to the 2 acre standard and although it is lakeshore property which differentiates it from the property east of Leaf, it is not contemplated to be included as there should be adequate septic systems for this area. Based on general City policy we have not addressed this question to the Council but we will address both this and the question regarding the subdivision. The inclusion of the Oxford property would probably reduce the trunk cost by about 10%. (10 properties) 10. How soon could a project be undertaken? The projec-: progress is dependent on the level of interest of the neighborhood. If substantial interest is generated this fall and hearings could be held this winter, plans could be drawn this winter and construction begun in the spring. It is important to realize that the Council will probably not undertakf this project unless a substantial majority of the property owners are interested in undertaking this project to the point of agreeing to sign a waiver of appeal on this project. This is a neighborhood problem, and the neighborhood should get together to decide how they want to solve it. (It was mentioned that the current prices are as 4 5. 6. 7. Will there not be excess capacity in the line that someone else could use? The minimum diameter line that can be put in according to state requirements would be an 8 inch line? This obviously can serve more than the approximately 100 units in this area. Other areas could be hooked into this and utilize this capacity. Staff has discussed the possibility of having a portion of the cost of the excess capacity picked up by the City initially as a reserve charge, to eventually be funded by those who may -ise the pipe. To the extent that this is done, every $100,000 that the City would set aside as reserve charge would reduce the unit charge by approximately $1,000 per unit based on 100 units. It should be remembered however, that this area will be hooking into the line on Tonkawa Road (Co. Rd. 135) which has "reserve capacity" for this area and for future areas. (All the people along Tonkawa paid for their entire system and there is no anticipation that they would be rebated anything as a result of this improvement.) If you are on a large lot can you stay out of the sewer project? It has been the City's policy to include all properties which are abutting a line. This is done because you now have an option for sanitary disposal that'you previously did not have even if you choose not to exercise it. City policy has been that all properties abutting a line hook up in the study area and that they must hook up within 16 months and pay for the improvement. Will zoning be changed to help us afford the improvement? In 1975 this area was zoned from the previous 1 acre to 2 acre zone because there was not sewer in tze area. This was also done in other areas of the City that di' not have sewer, including the Crystal Bay area. That sewer was installed in 1985 and there has been no request by the residents nor any initiative by the City to rezone that area. (It should be noted that even if rezoned to 1 acre standards, the bulk of the lots in the Crystal Bay area would remain substandard.) Should a request for rezoning be considered, the City would have to amend its Comprehensive Plan. Also, to the extent 2. What are the costs of the project and what are anticipated to be the financing options. The costs are detailed on the sheet that was handed out, split out between about a $6,500 assessment charge and between $4,200 and $9,700 connection charge. It is anticipated that it would be a 15 to 20 year bond issue. If your total assessment plus connection charge was $10,000 over 15 years that would cost about $670 per year in interest together with an initial interest cost of about $800 which would be decrease over the 15 year period to a final year interest cost in the range of $60.00. Spread over _ years, the annual principal would go down but the amount of interest paid over that timeperiod would be increased. If your rate is $15,000 just multiply those numbers by 1.5 times the $10,000 number. 3. Are the larger lots subsidizing the smaller lots? To the extent that sewer is going to be installed adjacent to a large lot, a lot with a large frontage actually costs more to serve than a lot with a small frontage. To the extent that --ewer is needed the greater number of smaller lots actually, defray the cost for the larger lots. (This is balanced out by splitting the areas between the larger and smaller lots and having the lateral cost for the smaller lots, in this case, being less than for the larger lots.) 4. Aren't there other places, such as Cygnet Place, that in the future will need to haves -ier? The City staff has looked at Cygnet Place as far as sewering and what impact that has on this project. It is anticipated that that area will be looked at over the next 5 or 10 years. Whether the area needs sewer would be the subject of a Waste Management Study and will be dependent, not only, on lot size but also topography, soil conditions, water table etc. We looked at it as to how a sewer pipe will be run on an approximate basis. 8289.1 INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES STUBBS BAY INFORMATIONAL MEETING JULY 27, 1989 ORONO HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM At the informational meeting that was held on July 27, 1989, approximately 35 property owners were present together with Councilmember J. Diann Goetten and members from the staff including Michael Gaffron, Glenn Cook, John Gerhardson, Jea;Yne- Mabusth and Mark Bernhardson. Following an introduction by the City Administrator, Michael Gaffron gave an overview of the Waste Management Study, outlining each of the alternatives and the merits and pitfalls of each of those alternatives. This was followed by a presentation of the sewering option as far as layout and expense presented by Glenn Cook. Following this presentation general questions were taken. The following represents the significant questions that were raised and responses given to those. (As these are paraphrased they may encapsulate two or three questions that were asked together with their responses and are not necessarily in the order in which the questions were asked.) 1. Is there not a law that requires that the property owner be required to pay only the amount of benefit to the property? Minnesota special assessments are limited to the benefit (increase brought about by the improvement) to that property. The City is cognizant of this law and is structuring the amount of actual special assessment to be equal to or less than the expected benefit to the great range of properties. The balance of the cost will be covered by a connection charge. There is a possib:lity the connection charge can be financed by the City over the same term as the assessment which is expected to be 15 or 20 years. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Establish a date. 2. Respond to the questions. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council table further iscussion o the item until its September. , 1989 meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council table further discussion of the item until its September 25, 1989 meeting. Ayes _, Nays _ cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer 81789.11 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato P6 DATE: August 17, 1989 SUBJECT: Stubb's Bay Sewer Meeting Attachment: A. Stubb's Bay Sewer Meeting Questions and Answers ISSUE - 1. Presentation of information regarding the Stubb's Bay meeting held July 27, 1989. 2. Establishment of a date for the next Stubb's Bay meeting. INTR:�DOCTION - At the informational meeting held July 27, ;;,y, a number o questions were raised. Attachment A was pre,,:ared to summarize the questions and answers given at that meeting. In addition, a number o- redden ; of the area who were interested in furthering t:ie develoi ,ent of a sewer desire to have a meeting as soon a possible. DISCUSSION - It is hoped that a meeting regarding Stubb's Bay would again cp helJ In November and at that time the City would be able to respond to gt...esl.:ons that were not able to be addressed at the July 7tb mwe-tin:.. Significant questions to be responded to are: I. Will the City allowing any other areas to be included, such as: a. Oxford Road b. "Fox Bend" Development (Leaf/Ba,, ide) 2. Will the City absorb any reserve charge. 3. Will the properties in the designated area be allowed to change the zoning once sewer is available in order to help them defray the cost. Also, would additional buildable lots created through a rezoning be required to pay a full unit charge. (It should be noted that this was originally zoned R-IC, 1 acre lot size prior to the 1975 rezoning.) 4. What level of support (8) and waivers of assessment does the Council desire to be signed prior to undertaking this project. 1 TO: Mayor Grabek Orono City Councilmembers FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: September 14, 1989 SUBJ: Stubbs Bay Sewer Attachment: Stubbs Bay Sewer Memo-8/17/89 M �� COUNCIL EETip6 SEP 2 51989 CITY OF ORONO ISSUE - 1 . Presentation of information to Council related to primary issues raised at the Stubbs Bay Meeting held July 27, 1989. 2. Establish a date for the next Stubbs Bays meeting which would be with interested residents of the area and the Council. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's August 28, 1989 Council Meeting, Attachment A was presented outlining significant issues related to the Stubbs Bay sewer that had been raised at the July Meeting. DISCUSSION - Issue 1.- Outline of Major Issues A. Inclusion of other areas _ 1. Oxford Road - This area was developed at the 2-acre lakeshore standard in 1978. While sewer could be extended to this area an estimate for this +,-Pnsion has not been made. There are 11 properties in this :._,',. Lsion and presently there is only one septic system that has had intermittent problems. The Oxford Road area is in part lakeshore property and this may have special consideration as to whether or not it is included in the sewer project. 2. Sussex Development - This is presently being proposed for development. It is at a 2-acre density for a total of 17 residential lots. The topography of this area may make it expensive to sewer this area as it would need either a deep gravity line or a lift station line into the Stubbs Bay sewer to feed into the proposed Stubbs Bay system. 3. C net Place - This area contains 19 developed lots which are pre ominately 2/3 - 1 acre. It is an area the City may look at for an alternative waste management study in the next 5 years. Topography may make sewering this area expensive. Also there are another 6 lots in between the Stubbs Bay area and Cygnet that could also be looked at. In order to include any of these in the development, the City would need to make a request for MUSA line extension. (Although the Stubbs Bay area is currently not within the MUSA line, it was identified as an area that could be expanded in the cit. ,s,C.pmpretr9nsive Management Plan.) The impact of adding these units would be an effort to reduce the cost to the existing 82 residential developed lots and the approximate 10 additional potentially buildable vacant lots. The inclusion of Sussex would reduce the cost approximately 15% of the trunk costs or about 7-104 of the overall. Oxford would reduce the per unit trunk cost about 121 and about 6-8% of the total per unit cost. Cygnet Place would reduce the per unit trunk cost by 21% and the total by 10-121. If these were not included at this time, there is enough capacity in the line to allow for their connection in the future. This would probably be done as a combination of an assessment together with a connection charge into the main. B. City Funding of Any Reserve Charge - As noted in the first item, there will be additional capacity of approximately 250+ units in this line which will be constructed at the minimum size. These together could reduce the total cost by about 25%. As an alternative for each $100,000.00 in reserve capacity the City would take would result in about $1,000.00 per property reduction of those currently in the Stubbs P.dy area. (About an 8% reduction in the total cost which ranges from $11,-16,000). If the City chooses not to fund any portion of the sewer the City may face a forced reduction of special assessments resulting frrnn the appeals process. Obviously this could be limited by requiring a certain percentage of appeal waivers to be signed prior: to the project being undertaken. C. Potential Rezoning - This area was originally zoned 1 acre and prior to 1975 and when the new standards came in was placed at a 2-acre zoning. The issue is whether the City would consider rezoning the properties in the area to 1 acre (or less) if sewer did come in. The advantage to the property owner is in part to reduce the number of variances that they would need to obtai% permits to improve their property, together with allowing some property owners the ability to subdivide their property and to help finance the sewer project. It should be remembered, however, that additional units would have to pay an amount substantially similar in the currently projected figures so there may not be that much gained in subdivision. The related issue is the fact that the City -has not done any rezoning in the Crystal Bay area or any other 2 acre zone areas sewered since the 1975 rezoning. In the Crystal Bay area those served by sewers would remain substandard lots even under the 1-acre zoning and therefore there would be few if any lots that would be able to be surdivided. In the Stubbs Bay area there are approximately 9 2-plus acre properties that could subdivide into an additional 9 lots. This 2 would reduce the overall cost by 10%. D. Level of Support - The assumption on the Stubbs Bay project has been that the Council would require a certain level of support as expressed in waiver of assessment prior to undertaking the project. These waivers of assessment initially would express the "top end" over which any amount over that (apart from capitilized interest) would require that new waivers be signed. Due to the nature of the area, it is recommended that a certain percentage of the property owners in the current area sign waivers prior to taking further steps in the process. Not having a certain level of assessment waiver, prior to the date that the project is ordered, would place the City at risk for the special assessment portion being appealed. (The staff is recommending a special assessment level that would not be that much greater than the Crystal Bay area finally was assessed), but this does not insure that this would not be appealed or reduced.) Issue 2 - Next Stubbs Bay Meeting It would be appropriate that the meeting be held in November/December in order for construction to be done next year. In advance of that however, the City could communicate to the residents that they would have to circulate among themselves a petition and get a minimum percentage of persons interested in undertaking the project. The City could request that the assessment waivers be signed prior to the ordering of the project. Once the petition is submitted, the Council could have a special meeting to address the questions raised and take any additional questions from the neighbors. ALTERNATIVES - Issue 1 - 1. -.'aKe a position of the Council on each of the items. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action at this time. Issue 2 - 1. EstaLlish a meeting date. 2. Await establishing a date until after a petition is received. 3. Direct staff to send a letter regarding the level of support needed. - - - 7_ 3 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that staff send a letter to the affected property owners indicating the tentative meeting date in December, but that a petition signing an assessment waiver at the 60% level of property owners interested in the project must be received prior to a meeting being held. PROPOSED MOTION - Niove� by , seconded by , that Council direct staff to send a letter to the abutting property owners outlining the level of support needed in order for the Council and City to further consider this as a project. Ayes , Nays cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Planning & Zonining Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members r �989 Frost: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator r Date: October 6, 1989 Subject: Consideration of Issues - Stubbs Bay Sewering Date Attachments - A - Stubbs Bay Memo dated 9/14/89 Issue - 1. Discussion of issues tabled at the meeting of September 28, 1989. 2• Establishment of a meeting for Stubbs Bay with the residents. Introduction - As a follow-up to the City staff's July 27, 1989 meeting with residents from the Stubbs Bay area, Attachment A was prepared. Discussion - Attachment A outlines the primary issues for the Council to consider and have developed responses in advance of any meeting with the residences. The issues as noted in Attachment N includes: Issue #1: A. Inclusion of other areas 1. Oxford Road 2. Sussex 3. Cygnet B. City funding any reserve charge C. Potential rezoning D. Level of required support/interest by area Issue #2: E. Next meeting date 8t6bbs Bay Sewer October 6, 1989 Page 2 of 2 t; t to Alttives - 1. Issue #1 - Discussion of issue: a) Discuss and develop direction; b) Table for further consideration; c) Take no action. 2. Issue #2 - Establishment of date: a) Set a date; b) Table. Recommendation - It is recommended Lhat following discussion, the Council direct staff to develop policies/direction in relation to each of these and that once the policies have been developed, that a meeting be established with the neighbors and Council members to discuss these issues and nther potential issues related to potential sewering of the Srubbs Bay area. Proposed Motion - Moved L•y , seconded by , the Council, after discussing the issues, give staff direction for development of policy responses for each of these items with a letter gent to the affected owners regarding the level of support required pri�.':c to further consideration of the matter by the Council. Ayes , nays cc: Dept Heads Michael Gaf f ron B anu- r brat�n Cc (e Send Seasons Greetings this year with vibrant, colorful Holiday Banners. Banners are an economical and durable medium to capture pub- lic attention, creating visual excitement and pride within your community. Vaughn Display banners provide excellent results in decorating city walkways, downtown malls, shopping centers and commer- cial buildings. Banners create awareness for your holiday cele- brations, community events or local organizations. VAUGHN . COMMUNICATIONS, INC. SPRING PARK, MN CNRISTMAS 1989 The following Proposal is for 20 of the 37 poles to be decorated for the Christmas Season along County Road 15. This program should coordinate with the decor in the city of Mound. 10 Poles to be decorated with GWS-7NSP (located on page 3 in our catalog) with BPT-4RST pole wrap (located on page 2 center right in our catalog). GWS-7NSP $335.00 each BPT--1RST 15.00 each S350.00 x 10 poles = $3,500.00 Less 20% Discount (700.00) TOTAL: $2,800.00 10 poles to be decorated with 24" x 72" Doable Banner Sets (your choice of iesign) I suggest R-205 in Red and R-204 in Red. R-205 $ 60.00 1-204 69.00 )ouble Bracket system 110.00 3239.00 x 10 poles = $2,390.00 ,ess 20% Discount (478.00) ?ersonalization 75.00 TOTAL: $1,987.00 PROGRAM TOTAL: §,1,787.00 TERMS: 25% down at time of order Balance Niue: Net 30 FOB Minneapolis VAUGHN COMMUNICATIONS VAUGHN DISPLAY VAUGHN BROADCASTING GROUP GROUP GROUP 5050 Vast Seventy -Eighth Street • Minneopolis, Minnesota 55435 t612) 835-5'050 v i A 'IT -Alp yr It At ............ ........... "00, ✓Q UGHN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. S11 t `, ; PARK, MN ,,,A,, A b , MAS 1989 �7TiF�rfiXexl� 'lie following Proposal is for 37 poles to be decorated for the Christmas Cason along County Road 15. This program should coordinate with the decor in lip c i tv of Mound. 7 Poles to be decorated with CPI,-•16PR Rey( Windsor Lantern ( page 5 in catalog) ith BPT-6NSP pole wrap (page 5 irl catalog) with G-201 Green Banner. 131,-46PR $209.00 each PT-6NSP 15.00 each -201 69.00 Lngle Bracket 60.00 353.00 x 37 poles = S13,061.00 ess 20% Discount (2,612.20)_ PROGRAM TOTAL: $10,448.80 TERMS: 25% down at time of order Balance due: Net 30 FOB Minneapolis VAUGHN COMMUNICATIONS VAUGHN DISPLAY VAUGHN BROADCASTING GROUP GROUP GROUP 5050 West Seventy -Eighth Street • Minneapolis, Minnesota 56435 (6' 2) 835 5050 4r4(V1#V-111- 4 CITS' of N'IOUND MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 ,612)-72-tt55 September 13, 1989 Mayor Jim Grabek City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dea-r Mayor Grabek: The Mound Professional and Retail Council of the Westonka Chamber of Commerce requested that the City of Mound contact the cities of Spring Park and Orono to see if they would be willing to consider the purchase of Christmas decorations similar to those in the City of Mound along Shoreline Drive (County Road 15'. The City of Mound has been placing Christmas decorations on its streets for the last 5 to 6 years and believes that it beautifies the community and puts local residents in the Christmas spirit and encourages them to shop in their community for the Christmas season. Last year we had purchased with local businesses additional lighting for the improved County Road 15. Previously, lights had been placed on Counts Road 110 and on County Road 15 up to the post office at Belmont Lane. The City Council at its meeting of September 12th briefly discussed this and directed me to write you a letter suggesting that you consider purchasing decorations. If you are interested in doing so, you may contact me and I will put you in touch with the company that we purchased the decorations from so that we could get a similar pattern going amongst the three cities. Please consider this and advise me as soon as possible if you would like to pursue this idea. Sincerely, Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager cc: Mark Bernhardson, City Manager ES: Is An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the t. <.• #CO..;olor. national Origin. or handicapped sla!us in the adm,saton or access to. or treatment or emploom. n. its program, and activities Decorative Christmas Lighting - County Road 15 October 16, 1989 Page 3 of 3 Issue #3 - Installation, removal, storage & associated A) Private contractor. B) Request volunteers. C) City. D) Combination. Recommendation - It is recommended that the City agree to pay up to half of the initial costs with donations coming from private sources utilizing either the pole or the every other pole design as selected by the other .:wo communities. It is predicated on the installation and removal being done by private parties or volunteers at no expense to the City. The City will bear the cost of the additional electricity. Storage would be required to be done privately. Proposed Motion - Moved ny econded by , the Council their willingness to participate by funding up to one- half of the cost. Tne City additionally agrees to pay electrical costs provided that they are installated, removed and storP,4 privately. Ayes , :iays __ cc: John Gerhardson, Public Works Director Chic Remein, Westonka Chamber of Commerce Jecorativ.i Christmas Lighting - Cc,lrty Road 15 October L6, Page 2 of 3 issue #2 - Funding. The City has set aside no budge ed funds for an expenditure that would be ir, the range of $5,000-10,000. We also do not have an estimate of how long these decorations wr�t.ld last or be expected to be replaced nor -gnat the on -going maintenance, installation and removal, etc. :,osts would be. In addition, i _ should be -emenibered that the C i ty's pol icy in r.his area may n;1v,: an impact on any street_ lighting/Christrano ti,.corations on highway 12 as an extension of Christmas deco-,, .-A(ins in the City of Ling Lake. Issue #3 - Storage. Installation anu removal of such decorations would require the use of a high -ranger or adder truck. The City of Orono does not own either of these. Th., City uf. Mound does own a ladd- truck as part of its file department. The City of Lc :g La'.e install its decorations through the donation of a utilic.ti ranger from a private party. The Citv currently does n, sufficient area tc store such mater: ;c `ernate arranyci would need to be made su-h s z..ntir p-A,-, . Adc.itior,aL costs would relate to electrical its of t` 4., 'fighting. Alternatives - Is sue #1 - Level of i -- A) Agree to allow. B) D sire to not particip, C) Provi.= a' ternatives Accept a non -uniform design. D) L eNy e 1 F) , issue #2 - ",) City funding of initial and on -going costs. B) Funding from ether source. such as: Businesses Charitable t am`)ling (if utr-nitted) Other Combination financing ether part.'.e_ J C�UIY(�E' . 1HD To: Aayor Grabek & Orono Council Members ErIN� From: Mark E. BA-nhardson, City Administrato, 2�319Rq Date: October 26, 1989 I r1 OF r ' r,ubject: Decorative Chri_;tmac Lighting - County Road 15 ONO At achments - A - City of Mound Letter dated 9/13/89 B - Quotations - Decorative Lighting/Courtesy of Spring Park Issue - 1. Determine if the Council has interest in Christmas decoration on the street lights in the Navarre area a- a jc=nt project with Spring Park and Mound. 2. Determine, if allowed to be placed on the poles, what funding source would be appropr;-te. 3. Determine who would put up and take ]own, store, and pay for electrical and on -gong replacement cos"_-s. Introduction - Attachment A was sent to determine what lovel of interest the City had participating with the project. Attachment B indi--es qu ions that have been received by the City of Spr-k iecoral.e all of tY it poles with one type of de: i a., alternate to jecorate every oti,er one with a dif, design. u contrast, the City of Spring Park, which has 39 poles, theCit-yof Orono has 36 pole. in the area between County Road 19 and the Spring Park border. Discussion - Issue #1 - Level of interest, The proposal to have Christmas decoration- of uniform design has merit. A question remains as to ..ha :his does this do to pole appearance, particularly ring the off-season. (It shoul(: be noted that the decorations 1 -o-,�d do not include the cross over decorations shown in thtgram ) As you will note, part of the decorations are banr )n the back side. Such banner attachments could be used f.. alternative banners in the non - holiday season for other community or decorative purposes. October 20, 1989 Dear Orono Council Members: There are several aspects of County Road 116 which I believe the Orono Council needs to examine before preliminary approval is given to Hennepin County. Because the road will impact on many Orono residents, it's impurtant that you and the residents fully understand what you are being asked to approve. THE MAP Please insist that the County have a map that the Council and the audience can 5eg and interpret. SPEED LIMIT THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT WILL BE 45 M.P.H. UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS WOULD THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT BE INCREASED? In a meeting with County personnel, Medina residrnt� were told that the design speed would be 45 m.p.h. U,-• that the posted speed limit would later be increased vi:: a formula based on the speed that 85% of the traffic is actually traveling. This means thP.t the more the traffic is speeding, the higher the revised speed limit will be set. In fairness to the affected Orono property owners and because of the short distance, the Council should insist that the County agree in advance that the posted speed limit will ntver be any higher than 40 m.p.h. between Highway 12 and County Road 6. TRAFFIC COUNT THE COUNTY INDICATED AT THE SEPTEMBER 25 MEETING THAT THE TRAFFIC COUNT ON WILLOW DRIVE BETWEEN HIGHWAY 12 AND COUNTY ROAD 6 WAS 1400/DAY IN 19R7, AND THAT IT WILL INCREASE TO 3,000/DAY IN 2010. WHAT BILL THE TRAFFIC COUNT BE IN 1992, TWO YEARS AFTER THE ROAD IS COMPLETED? The County makes references to traffic counts far in the future in order to allay the immediate fears of the residents. The traffic count will in fact jump immediately upon completion in 1991. The rr... ncil and the residents need to know what those projection '.gures are for 1992. DO THE TRAFFIC COUNT PROJECTIONS FOR 1992 AND 2010 ASSUME THERE WILL BE A STOP LIGHT 1N PLACE AT HIGHWAY 12? This is very important. If the projection figures not include the assumption of affic light --but if there i in fact a stop light in place ien the traffic volume will be much higher than their projections. That needs to be clarified. Page Two BERM PLEASE ASK FOR A MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE BERM WHICH IS PLANNED NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 6. The County said on September 25 that there will be a "berm" in place north of County Road 6 "in order to protect the residents." What is a berm? The word, "berm," conjures in most people's minds a sight or sound barrier. If the bei.n is nothing more than a 6" curb, then "curb" is the word that should be used so that people are not misled. How can a berm which is only 6 ft. wide be built high enough to be a sight or sound barrier? SKETCH OF EACH BEFORE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL IS GIVEN, EACH PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED WITH A SKETCH OF HOW HIS/HER PROPERTY *.ILL BE AFFECTED. THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO HAVE COPIES OF THE SKETCHES ALSO. The total right of way will be 80 feet; however, considerable grading and destruction will take place in the "construction area" beyond the right of way, thus causinq extensive damac» to personal property. The need for a sketch for each property owner was very apparent at the September 25 meeting when Mrs. Mathewson of 900 North Willow stated county personnel had told her that she would lose five trees; when she any flier nephew checked it out on her property, they discovered she would be losing twelve trees. While the County will "restore" the construction area beyond the right of way, it's obvious they cannot restore 50-year old trees. Their idea of restoring is to scatter grass seed or lay sod, which then becomes the responsibility of the property owner to keep watering. The loss of trees and bushes, which provide sight and sound barriers, considerably decreases the market value of property along a busy road. The sketch for each property must indicate clearly 0— distance from the center of the present road to th distance point in the construction area. The pr,.!;,t road center provides a point of reference for the property owner. Such a sketch will allow the property owner and the Council to fully understand how each person's property will be affected. Blanket approvals (without sketches) are not fair to the property owners. Page Three PROXIMITY TO WHAT IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE OUTSIDE EDGE OF THE BLACKTOP TO HOUSES THE HILLSTROM'S HOUSE AT 1160 NORTH WILLOW (NORTHEAST CORNER OF WILLOW AND 6)? The Council needs to inquire exactly how close the road wil; come to this house. The road well be cgtremely close. The proximity of the road, plus the loss of several valuable trees, will significantly decrease the market value of this particular property. WHAT IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE OUTSIDE EDGE OF THE BLACKTOP TO THE HOUSE AT 1125 NORTH WILLOW (NORTHWEST CORNER OF WILLOW AND 6)? With the road being moved 14 feet to the west, this house will have the road considerably closer than otherwise would have been the case. The Councii needs to protect the interests of this new property owner by helping her under- stand the market value of her property will be adversely affected. DRAINAGE DRAINAGE BETWEEN HIGHWAY 12 AND COUNTY ROAD 6 At the September 25 meeting, Mr. Bernhardson said that he had been contacted by Mr. Cox of 1020 North Willow because Mr. Cox was concerned about drainage. Mr. Bernhardson did not explain, other than to say that Mr. Cox was concerned. The problem of drainage in this area needs to be discussed in some detail. The land on either side of Willow Drive between Highway 12 and County Road 6 has historically been an extremely wet area with poor drainage. The last five years have been comparatively dry, but when normal precipitation patterns return, this area will again experience drainage problems. In the spring during years of normal pw-cipitation and after heavy rains in the summer, the water literally ,tands wit', nowhere to drain. There are only two natural dips in the half -mile stretch. The water runoff from this stretch will probably be channeled into two areas. Where will the runoff from this half -mile stretch be directed? Into the Battrum's small duck pond at 960 Willow Drive? Into Dickey 'lake (if the water ca.. actually get there)? Page Four DRAINAGE BETWEEN COUNTY ROAD 6 AND THE RISE NEAR MF.nINA HDRN I NGS I DE The pond north of the house at 1125 North Willow (northwest corner of Wi "-:i and County Road 6) is a natural holding area for drainage from approximately 12 acres of surrounding land and is a wildlife breeding area. LU of the runoff from this 1000-foot stretch (from County Road 6 to Medina Miorningside) must be directed into that pond. A 1" rainfall would put 25,000 gallons of water into 'he pond from road runoff alone, not to mention the runoff from the surrounding 12 acres which also drain into the pond. A 3" rainfall will put an additional 75,000 gallons into the pond from the road. How much will the additional runoff raise the the water level and how close will the overflow come to the house on the property? Is the new property owner at 1125 North Willow aware that the pond may start invading her yard or a considerable portion of her property? COST TO ORONO INTANGIBLE COSTS On September 25, Mr. Bernhardson stated that Orono's only cost for this project would be half of the land acn,`,ition cost. There are intangible costs also,such as the c;,.,;rease in property values and the daily annoyance of heavy traffic, etc. Thcse costs cannot be discounted simply bece.use they are being absorbed by the affected property owners. Frankly, I was quite surprised that no one brought these points up of the last meeting; however, a person probably needs to be very familiar with t•le area in order to be aware of many of these. : truly believe they must be addressed before preliminary approval is given. AAA tL I* r Sincerely, Rosanne Eppel 1462 Willow Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Phone: 473-9757 City of ORONCr c? RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COV-h1 . NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF COUNTY ROAD 116 (WILLOW DRIVE) FROM HIGHWAY 12 TO MEDINA BORDER WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation existing under the laws of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono has been informed that Hennepin County will construct County Road 116 north of Orono in the City of Medina; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono remains opposed to the construction of County 116 South of Highway 55, it is in the best interest of the City of Orono that if constructed to the Medina border that it consider extending County Road 116 south to Highway 12. WHEREAS, residents abutting the proposed road improvement expressed concerns related to the construction and alignment. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono Council does hereby approve the preliminary design of County Road 116 from Highway 12 north to the Orono/Medina border subject to the County working with abutting property owners to address concerns identified at the July 25, 1989, public information meeting and the September 25, 1989, public hearing. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that final design approval is contingent upon the City of Orono and Hennepin County Commissioners entering into an agreement that there will be no extension of County Road 116 south of HiQ_hwa_v 12 without the consent of the City of Orono. Adopted by the Oronu City Council on this 23rd day of October, 1989. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk HENN CTY PUBLIC WORKS TEL No.612-9 6-0500 Oct 20,89 8:19 N0.002 P.05 d rN 11 TO rNSS oWr rquc riod w,oy 9or 4or tsrill grE HENN CTY PUBLIC WORKS TEL N0.612-936-0500 Oct 20.89 8:19 No.002 P•03 Juoert Lake n V � � �•�Es 0 �I HORSESHOE — TRAIL— . ,Itp Lake o ''r 1 3,: . :1 CKAMORE RD. .;� ....1�..........::::.... '•;; �i+�i,:..;:.':'�'i.V i�::'JJ.:�.'' +i:•Jvt........ : ►' ......................v. .. 1 � (.NIMEMfA a M1)�~• P ter tR55 •.( �i Porn, ;'T,h maa MEDINA':$ r '.r ' ake POP. 262s RD. WirlterhalterS,P�t .uLake Hamel ��'• PLYMC HAMEL we t ROCKFORD Turrl b' Lake S PROPOED C.S.A.H. 116 so i; Mv t chool 104 101 ,c H if Moon S 1 ep (• �,e* rQ ' �::: Lemke a M .,I., �'•�o Holy ►vame I: LV �� 55 �s Lake::� a r rhies na � seeLake Woisleld Snyder I I■i Lake Lake I.�......•................:l*''Moonety ; 'lice . ....... ., ;. Dic s + k ! /��. ` 1� !,� It �-•s� _ Las S On n Lak L. �YdiarB; 'C N.dley ��''` Lake II , NEB Burlin fon cOIDI l4loe ,� ��c GJeasons!' LONG AKE 17.POP +E Lake RD. ON v �rpx I' sT. f� es.s ; :�:4-'WAi AT�1`�.c' '; Pop. 3621 WAYZATA French _._ AXWELL Lake rang jer�.BAY N RT�i Lai a �r " I CRAYS ��'r "CRYST.4L• BAY - --- """"" I ARM- i� 2ViINNE'1'�N �. Aft —LAKE MINNETQNA ►M. Les r •+: o+ Lower III VA U E Pik• ....•.,.. + •'Navarr ` _ lip 101 ,tea' • :�`f; :::;yam d• LA' Transportation Analysis TA-M354 Prop. CSAH 116 from TH 12 to TH 55 '?�,�NKEsor4 PREPARED BY THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMEN F OF TRANSPORTATION TROGRAM MANAGEMENT DIVISION TRAFFIC FORECAST SECTION OF T5k 1 LV+�y•1 c HESoIq r Minnesota Department of Transportatior Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 tir Or Tik'N5 August 17, 1987 Phone 29 -0217 Bruce M. Polaczyk, P.E. Preliminary Design Engineer Hennepin County Department of Transportation 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minn sot& 55343-8468 Dear Mr. Polaczyk: Estimated 201, 2-way Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes for proposed CSAH 116 from TH 12 to TH 55 are attached. In addition, "current" (2986 and 1987) 2-way ADT's are presented for comparison. The projected volumes shown in this report are based on the 2010/F2000 computer traffic assignment and the "current" counts presented in this report. If I may be of further assistance to you please contact me. Sincerely, eorge M. Copress State Traffic Forecasi '( iineer An Eq�o, U��,�•runrn [mFi�rr� DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 177;*qwc'wr 3 FuruMuremm 320 Washington Ave. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 Phone: (612) 935-3381 FAX NO. (612)936-0900 FACSIMILE COVER LETTER IF ALL OF THE DESIGNATED PAGES WERE NOT RECEIVED AS INDICATED ON THIS COVER SHEET, PLEASE CALL ON EXTENSION THIS TRANSMITTAL CONSISTS OF PAGES INCLUSIVE OF THIS COVER LETTER. DATE: OGT Zo li sl TIME: 8 *- 20 A. h 0 T 0 : Tj a � _0A_ FROM: ��yL-(L c, LALZ�1� ✓Dc�w1 ' COMMENTS: A 4 �'qD•J A�, T Iu �-r 49"-r WagL bgTh%L -1.) LrL Lofr �o 4 ICNaJ HENNEPIN COUNTY on equol opponunft vrvi"v A RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF COUNTY ROAD 116 (WILLOW DRIVE, FROM HIGHWAY 12 TO MEDINA BORDER WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation existing ;:nder the laws of Mirr.esota; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono has been informed that Hennepin Cfjs,zty will construct County Road 116 north of Orono in the City of Medina; ind WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Orono to consider extending County Road 116 soutt; to Higt..iay 12. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the o-nro Council does hereby approve the preliminary design of County Road 116 from Highway 12 north to the Orono/Medina border. Adopted by the Orono C' `.y Council on. this 25th day of September, 1989 Acting t-iayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hall!^., City Clerm MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 10, 1989 COUNTY ROAD 116 CONTINUED would not be done. The issue Bernhardson was bringing forth for discussion is what Orono will do should the County Road 116 project proceed. It was Bernhardson's understanding that the project was going ahead. If Orono wishes to have any upgrade done within its City limits, they will need to notify the County soon. Mayor Grabek stated that he was still opposed to County Road 116 going ahead at all, but it appears as though it is. In light of that, he did not believe that the City should miss the opportunity to have that portion of the Road that lies in Orono upgraded with County funds. He did not want to burden the taxpayers with the cost of the inevitable upgrade of the Road. He felt it best to ask City Staff to keep the Council abreast of the progress and indicate when it may be appropriate to contact the County. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, that while remaining opposed to.the construction of County Road 116 south of Highway 55, the Council directs the Staff to work with the County to have it extended from the Orono/Medina border to Highway 12 if County Road 116 is to be constructed in Medina. There was a question from the public (Tom Haislet) as to whether the upgrade of County Road 116 would allow for a stop light to be put on Highway 12? Bernhardson replied that such a decision would have to come from MN DOT, not the County. Mayor Grabek asked about possible funding available to upgrade Willow Road south of Highway 12. Bernhardson stated that the City has not pushed for that. Councilmember Goetten concurred with Mr. Hais let in that a stop light was needed at the intersection of Willow and Highway 12. City Administrator Bernhardson explained.to Mayor Grabek that the City needed to indicate its position on upgrading the Road to Highway 12 as soon as possible. Councilmember Goetten did not believe that such a decision should be left up to City Administration. Councilmember Callahan asked for clarification regarding the proposed realignment to the west that would be necessary. He asked who would be responsible for condemning the land that would be needed. Bernhardson said that the County does the right-of-way acquisition, but the City would be responsible for some of the cost. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. COUNTY ROAD 15 BOULEVARD RESTORATION Public Works Director Gerhardson said that in his opinion, it would be in the best interest of the City to put concrete in the boulevard west of Blaine Avenue to the Orono/Spring Park border. Tas Council had previously agreed to put grass in that area. However, Gerhardson believed that grass would not be maintained and would become an eyejore. Councilmember Goetten said that she understood Gerhardson's reasons for wanting to put concrete in the boulevard, but thought that sod was more suited to Orono's rural character. 12 CITY OF MEDINA • %f L5 C""�S� �- o LJ '✓ �—, PESOLUTION NO. - AV i ^ SUPPORTING CO. RD. 116 IN THE CITIES OF ORONO AND�C/a ii�� hiMEAS, the extension of County Road 116 has been on the City of s C rehensive Plan for many years, and WHOF:,S, the construction of County Road 116 will greatly enhance the City of Medina's emergency response capabilities, and WHEREAS. the county's road standards are better than those of the City of Medina Is, thus providing for better traffic and recreation routes, and NTMEAS, the maintenance of some existing City of Medina roads vill be taken over by the county, and WHEREAS, the City of Medina is under 5,000 population and does not qualify for Minnesota State Aid Roads, and WHEREAS, the construction of County Road 116 will cost $2.9 million, which is more than the City of Medina can afford, and WFWEAS,the City of Orono as well as all cities of the City of Medina's size have more county roads than the City of K--,ina, and WHEREAS, with this resolution the City of Medina reaffirms its commit -rent to the construction of County Road 116, and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has placed the extension of County Road 116 on it's loom road construction plan, W(VREAS, County Road '.+o will end at the City of Orono border if the City of Orono does not permit it tc extend further south, and :NTWEAS, traffic will probably increase on the City of Orono streets, and at the intersection of Willow Drive and Highway 12, and :4FTERFAS, the City of Medina will support the City of Orono in obtaining a stop light it Willow Drive and Highway 12 if the City of Orono permits County Road 116 to extend �o Highway 12, and 'i'MMEAS, the e.-tensior, of Courty Road 116 is good for the City of Orono for the sauna :easons as it is for the city of Medina. now 70EFORE HE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Medina goes on record recommending hat the City of Orono allow County Road 116 to extend to U.S. Highway 12. '_optea `nv ►? -_�J..Icil of the City of Medina Clerk -Treasurer + this of �%i'�1 89. /%• -j#�� 1 I`1 COMMISSIONER I 348-d064 APR -� TOO, s.. rroa •'' - d 1 BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2400 GOVERNM[HT CINTIR MINNIAMU3, MINNI30TA 53"'T March 28, 1989 .;�. ^-<•.. _1^,�.;�;r-r�,,-. Hark Bernhardson City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mark: I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the status of Cqunty Road 116 on the phone with you. As.I mentioned to you, I will respect and support the official position of the cities through which County Road 116 is proposed to be bui:t. �'� '''�'Z•'�""``^'� •'�' It is important to me that county and city work hand in hand regarding transportation and other issues where our responsibilities meet. If the City of Medina continues to formally support County Road 116 on its proposed aliSm"nt and design, chat will also be my position concerning the City of Medina. I would expect to respect the position of the City of Orono in a similar fashion. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you on this or other issues of concern. Sincerely, V A CC=��C1 R_. 1 51 GC89 To: Orono City Ccunc11 e1 A ; ;,c<Jittc'�T 'We 117e at 1020 Y. Ni'-_cw Crive (east sic -a of a!_tow, south of Co. Ed. 6). There are two issues I wart �Q cover with the Crcno Council; first, ^reposed Co. Rd. 116, second, surface water rin-cf. f . In rerpard to Co. ?d. 116, there are four questions I would like to h3vs answered: 1. Concerninx the intersection of Co. Ed. 6 and Willow Drive -- there are numerous accidents there now, and if Co. Rd. 12.6 doubles or tricles the number of cars, accidents will 1--crease a_cr cxi=ately .,he same ?.me=t 'ghat do you ^12^ to do mike it safer -- a 4-way Stop? 2. Concerning the Intersection of F,..ry 12 and :pillow ?rive -- 1= the most: = and from 2:30 on in the afternoon it is nest to impossible to get on Hwy 12. If traffic doubles or triples, how are you going to ,,a=d:e this additional traffic without serious accidents? ^o you reall_e if a connection is made between Eamel and Lo: r Lcke ? tremendous amount of semis and cr3•rel trucks will use this road who presently do not use Willow "rive. Can you see semis t:;1=5 to cres.� Co. and get on Hwy 12? ':hey are using 101 and 19 now. �. How are you going to control traffic speed? Eight now we have pflople traveling 30-c$ miles per hour on Willow Drive. Second, regarding surface water Ale own the land on the southeast side of Willow Drive and Cc. Ed.6. This is a f1m117 far= that hac been in our faaily since 195c . �e ia-rerad a= on-goin_ :eater croblem erroding our land from the ?hillips development on Co. Ed. 6, and also from the recent rerouting in water dra—age on the west side of Willow between Co. Rd. 6 and Hwy 12. With Co. Dd. 116 being wilenea and new ditches coming in, the easiest way for them to sret rid of excess water is to run it across our property. - .;• .:-_ .:t R::_e :n.: -�-:e- a«:! wewant .c Saar =��,—te 3:A �—=i :: sc*re� .^.e water rr0b:e7 = the west r —:� :c wcrk __ :.`.:s w::` .'o Cer!,z:-_sw 'ar a :ea: - !,are ��: C!1'!:_7 .:ices r. Co 1020 N. '' Mow Drive _o:.r :.ake, t . 1_, 1980 :1h an C:? A��=��=u' is a grade-se:crated, `sigh _ac_-y, controlled access higQ_ancipa-qae3e=ialsvhave hnollocal laes nd use _s3, not within a community. - ort'_on of State ••-,ss. The only principal arterial sear Orono is that p .7hway 12 that becomes limited -access east of Orono's ealte.a boundar/ .th Wayzata. cesso 7TER.MOZATE ART�Q-'AL An ZhMir'de�atnedrtormoveial is a vehicles betweenccities •_-era_e y nign capacity highway q - growth centers and its Orono's situation, between the free-standinq q- -state cities vest of Orono into the metroeolitan area. Zn'ersections limited and controlled. Land use access is intended to be rope-`-ti Lo. ..or trsffie generators without direct access to re side..tial proPhrmany• �ite Highway 12 is an Intermediate Arterial through Orono alt::ouq. cess and intersection charac=erist-'cs are typical of a minor arterial - collector. „0.-SDZCT_ON: STATE DEpARTME':1T OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: MINIMUM 100 FOR Two LANE HIGHWAY ":�)R ARTERIAL A minor Arterial is a controlled access, moderate capacity _yet or highway designed to move vehicles within planning subregions and -weep adjacent subregions. The Lake Miscomauters aadnetonka Ring Rtruckoute itralf ics a on serial functioning to move, principally .m the wester Lake Minnetonka communities into the urbanized areas of • Twin Cities The minor arterial route channels traffic away from Minnetonka to State Highways 1: and 55, and in the near future. to :ireet intersection with Interstate 491 its Plymouth. Land use access intended towehblimited to major access.totrafindividualfic tresidencesors and local street . out -i r .;URISDZCTION: HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: MINIMUM 80 -2=T FOR TWO LANE HIGHWAY LEC_'OR A Collector street functions to collect traffic from local ..-ets and move it to neighborhood activity centers or to intersections `s sinor or intermediate arterials. Local land use access is permitted is be regulated as to location and number with direct access to to ,-*dad whenevi:ctorsrareioltencco,trolledreet awith ssignals is iorbwith Zlour-waytor other col o signs. Traffic usage is moderate. JURISDICTION: COUNTY OR CITY RIGHT -OF -MAY WIDTH: Go-66 FEET C,yp 7 -15 STAOU' AL i EDINA 1 RESOLUTION IN OPPCSITION TO COUNTY ROAD 116 BEING EXTr."MED FROM HIG WAZ 55 TO COUNTY ROAD SIX WHpREAS, the City of Medina has contemplated construction of a north/south route from Highway 55 to its southern border in the approximate center of the community, and WHEREAS, the City of Medina under 5,000 population does not qualify for Minnesota State Aid Roads, and WHEREAS, the County has agreed to fund construction of this road through its bonding funds for an estimated total of •t $2.9 million, and WHEREAS, the City of Orono having a Population o\•er 5,000 receives its own Municipal State Aid monies, and WHEREAS, although the County's standards for construction of 116 would be similar to a revision of willow done by the City, the City is concerned about the negative impact of increased traffic by construction of this route in Medina, and WHEREAS, substantial opposition to this road in Medina was made evident at the Orono Council's consideration of this -utter, and WHEREAS, substantial opposition in Orono was generated to this proposal, and WHEREAS, the City of Orono realizes that the c'.2unty has -he legal right to designate and/or construct any or all ?ortions ,f the road it chooses to in the City of Orono. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL7RD, that the City Council of � ie City of Orono goes on record indicating to tho County Board ,id the --ity of Medina its opposition to construction of County :6 from Highway 55 to County Road Six. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, '."%nesota at a regular meetin4 held February 13, 1989. L (( (�� James R. Grabek. Mayor -':MST: � , `J -otzy R. Ha in, City ClerX . . .. ...1 .- - -. . •,•, .. f. . . ..�. .. ..... , .I ... ., • .r ram. • •. . ... w. • ...r.r n K..I.. .ram. rrrrrrrrrrr I �•\ � ,�NNN�� , ' 1 1 � 1 �r "r"'��r''�' '•'•y � �!ff/lllllllllflilflfllfllijlllllifllllf�ll/ '� ,' _ - �: .i r. •ouu••• '•rrrr 7 ,,r►i •'' �.. �. Z rrrnrrur..rrrrl.ruurrruGr(y1Q,� r . •Ia�M' '\ ' r I I • (W"9'f AdylAI CIASSI/ICAUM • `.��. „��•� = ,.., , �. 1 Hoorn !II R Ar ARr � • r• � � `••� � i 1 r Kol t atK �'•'~ •..��r:.;Mt:• t f jj _ i NN left" »rc/fAL . rrr �rrN•,: r •.... ~ j�.J •_' t` 1j raruu COIIICta ..w�• .. rrrr �• •� ••4r4 rq ', 1 •� , .- .., S •rJrUrnr.rnpnra , i • -� SCIttiC 1'ARttr:1 � '• �; �- Cit"; Of Cicrro. Minnesotfi? : 9 . ! _cis �0 12 ':.•__i ow Ia. (7.toose not to participate. `4 15. voluntarily allow the County tM take over_ that section. 2. allow the County to reconst_-c-- i. Allow the Cjur:ty to under take a relig:�ent. 4. Allow reconst. sction of Willow Drive into alligezt 1. 5. Table. fl,MMMATZ ON - Issue - Zt is recommended =hat if the Council desires o exgreSsognosi:ion or suroc== to do so is the form of a resolution di:ectsd to the County Board. Issue 2. - If the project goes ahead the staff makes the this toy owing recommendations for t�e City Council to consider. is predicated deassumins anhat tbe effort ataffic tryingeto make the besnerated will t of at tze riedina boo: and it the situation. a. That the Council aT low the County to take over the entire stretch to Highway 12 b. Require the Countyto reeonst:uct i :' aloha an alignment that the City desires. C. That the County work with the City to minimizes the impact on the homes particularly north of County Read 6. d. Predicate it upon the County contributing to the area south of 12 should the bridge upgrade be undertaken. Seconded by , that t:Ie Council PROPOSE MOTZON -Moved by orlon the lines of the directs staff to work with the County 9 staffs recommendation. Ayes Nays _ Cou R^ad ' _ 6 - Ccc^ t•� 6 t- - +a•� :: - as �to V a:e_ce: toe C:.aac_'_-ces'.=es__o r3vest Zennezin Czunt_f tyke over t�is on a volunt....r basis. 2. Reconstruction - Determi^inq whether the Council desires to bave or approvs plans of =his segue.^.t i= the Count., takes it over. 3. alicnment - Deter3ine if the Council desires to have this segment constructed slightly to the .rest (up to to buffer existing residences on the east without a Substantial impact on the undeveloped portion to the west. 4. Rich`-o!-Wav - Cn'y tre costs entailed would be 1/2 o ` •iQst-o!-way costs. (S l?.000 - 2 4, 500) The r .gat-ol-wav costs between 6 and 12 could be oinizired b-r dedication o= RC4 for develoement. s. eike T=A.ls - As an option a one sided bike path could to ins`a .:e=' `z: about 51°,000 a! which the Cit.r would pay half. It should be additionally noted that should the County take over the entire leng ` `-om "e borde: to aigaday 12 the following gene=its accrue to the C'_`? of Orono. 1. sicna'_ica`ion at ailraw/12 - .chile this would not guarantee a signal at the point that vehicle warrants for cross ttaf=ic are met, the County would pick up a portion of t:se light which would otherwise be Orono's (SI0,000). 2. msA mileaee/?undinc - Should the County take over Willow Drive tte City Would be able to designate another portion of that road in the City if it chooses for MSA designation together with using its funding that it gets y. This is culary far other needs in the com=u ai,. econstructionimonies in light of the City saving Y for the future for Willow. 1L7'_"RNATr7ES - _ssue 1. Choose to support. Choose to oppose. Vioose to take no position- -moose to table. 2.A. Willow - Hedina to Six z. Choose not to participate. 'b. Allow County to voluntarilytake overseqmthe segment. Allow Construction of an up4= nt ruction. Specify alignment for that const : ;Mayor and City Courc:: mark E. 3e=::ha;dscn, city Ada:nist:a:ur DA=: January Ile 1989 SUBJECT: County Road I1.6 Attachments: A. County Road 116 memo Dated 1/4/49 B. Letter to Residents Dated 11:9189 ISSUE - 1. Determination of Cauncil's s.:p?ort or opposition regarding the proposed upgrade of 116 tc to expresse-d to the County Board. 2. I_` County 116 goes ahead, dete:misatior :s tc what actions the City would like the County to take in Orcao. T;J':':tCDQC1'ZCV - At the CounciI's .;anuary 9, 1989 Council meeting tie issue of Count• Road I15 was discussed by Council. At that meeting it was tabled until the Janua:v 23, 1989, meeting when individuals from the Count- would be present. DISCUSSION - Issue I. - As mentioned at khe last meeting the decision is one with the County Board and the City of Medina and afforts regarding that in the City of Orono should be dirtcted to either one of those two bodies or both. it currently is programmed for Spring 1990 construction. Issue 2. - The following represent issues the City has discussed with bye County to determine their position should the County choose to go ahead cn 116. A. willow Drive - tle., ina B..Itdor to Six - Related to this segment are two tssuel: I. if Council desires County to take over this section voluntary. (The County feels they have right to acquire without City concurrence.) 2. Once County has acquired jurisdiction the County, at its option, can either con-truct an improved segment to County Road 6 or stop at the border. 3. Construction layout - This would be construction Layout to minimize the impact to the majority of homes.• B. willow Drive - _Sir - The issues related to this are t..e�toZiowinq: I that t::e Council adoa :esolut.on for transmission to tct': the Cou.•�y 3ca_3 and tbetCtSe o! :Medina . .. ?RCPCS?.0 4CT:C!r - so led by , seconded b y t!:a _ t`:e C.^.�:nC I adopt Resolution iadicat:ig its oegosi::on to Count, Road 115. ayes :lays cc: ?at Kurphy, i-1569.: r V rO: Mayor and City Council L-.Wx: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratorr`� DATE: January 26, 1989 SUSJE=: County Rcad 116 Attachments: A. County Road 116 Dated 1/11/89 (Memo Only) B. County Road 116 Draft Resolution ISSUES - Betermination as to whether the Council wishes to adopt the attached drat resolution as its statement of o_e_eosition to County Road 116 proceeding south of Highway 55. INTRODUC:'IOt: - At the Council's last meeting they directed staff to indicate the Council's opposition to County Road 116 going forward together with tabling the balance of the issue related to the City's action should the road be constructed. DISCUSSION - In addition to the issues contained in Attachment A is the fact that an upgrade to standards similar to that the County would be using on Willow is contemplated in the City's Capital Budget tar abol+t 1995. The estimated cost of this reconstruction was approximately $300,000. Related to this was the potential need for further right-of-way to the wes: -_a protect homes on the east and that such be undertaken prior to any development in that area. (As potential acquisition of right-of-way may be required regardless of who reconstruct:, it, it may be appropriate that the City explore giving the property owners equivalent density credit for the right-of-way given up in exchange fn• no cost incurred in the right-of-way acquisition. :f the County were to do the road the only City cost would be half the right-of-way costs.) It m3_v be appropriate that this be dec.icated in any planned development or subdivision. Raised at the meeting was the issue of the future location of Highway 12 and its relocation to an upgraded Willow. Should Highway 12 stay with the current corridor 1'16 would continue to provide the feeder to the extent that it presently is proposed. To the extent that Highway 12 would go north of the current location, the Willow/116 would provide an access route to `bat northerly location. Should it go further south it would serve as part of the conduit for traffic to Highway 12. ALTrRNATT7= - Adoption of Resolution a. Adopt the resolution b. Amend and adoot u. Table ALTT-RNATMS 1. Choose to take no action. 2. Agree with full construction to County Road Six 3. Request the construction of 116 all the way to Highway 12. 4. Get an agreement that if it goes to 12 the County will not undertake any projects south of 12. 5. Table for further discussion. RrCOMMENDATION - It is rec-inmended that the City of Orono would be financia iy best off that if the County does go ahead and construct 116 in Medina by having the County take it over to Highway 12, but that the County execute an agreement that they make no effort to undertake any project for 116 south of Highway 12. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by , that the Council direct staff to minimize the impact of 116 should it be uncle=taken. Ayes _, Nays _- cc: Pat Murphy, Hennepin County Public Works 2 11587. 3 (47) TO: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator �'rk tit - MEEI�HG FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director o Cj23, DATE: October 18, 1989 C/7)f 989 OF oft SUBJECT: Appoint Auditor for Fiscal Year 1989 NO We have requested cost estimates from the audit firm of Pannell Kerr Forster for performing the 1939 fiscal year audits. They have submitted a total estimate of $14,750, excluding direct expenses and excluding any additional expenses incurred as a result of application to the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. This compares with an actual cost for the 1988 audits of $13,420 plus $690 for direct expenses and $2,980 for the certificate program. The 1989 FY cost estimates are: a. Annual audit for the City $12,900 b. Single audit covering federal programs 750 c. Minnesota legal compliance audit 1,100 TOTAL $14,750 We have budgeted $14,860 in 1990 for the 1989 audits, plus $3,680 for the Certificate of Achievement and direct costs. RECOMMENDATION - It is requested that Council approve the appointment of the audit firm of Pannell Kerr Forster, C.P.A.'s to perform the required audits of the 1989 fiscal year records. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrat z, forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to appoint the audit firm of Pannell Kerr Forster to perfcrm the required audits for the 1989 fiscal year at an estimated cost of $14,750 plus direct expenses. Ayes _, Nays — as5ociation of metro olitan municipalities i October 17, 1989 BULL OCT C/ 231989 TYOFO RONO AMR LEGISLATIVE POLICY ADOPTION MEETING SPOUSES, FRIENDS AND GUESTS ARE MOST WELCOME WHEN: Thursday Evening, November 2, 1989 KICK OFF: 5:45 P.M. RE: Minneapolis Metrodome Hilton 1330 Industrial Blvd. Minneapolis, Minnesota *DINNER COST: $20.00 Per Person 5:45 P.M. 6:30 P.M. 7:30 P.M. Cash Bar/Social Hour Deluxe Buffet Feast Business Meeting (featuring steamship round (Tax Policy concerns of beef, roast turkey and and AMM Policy dressing, five salads, Adoption) dessert and more) *DINNER RESERVATIONS TO CAROL WILLIAMS AT 227-4008 A MUST BY NOON ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1989. (Reservations not needed if you only plan to attend the business meeting portion of the event). TO HELP PROVIDE A MORE ACCURATE COUNT, PLEASE CHANNEL YOUR DINNER RESERVATIONS THROUGH YOUR CITY MANAGER/ADMINISTRATOR OFFICE. THANKS! Representative Dee Long, House Majority Leader and Tax Committee Chair, is expected to discuss property tax policy issues. DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This Bulletin has been mailed individually to member Mayors, Managers/Administrators, and Councilmembers. SEE MAP AND AGENDA ON BACK 1 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 2-27.4008 w 7.0 BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to order. 2. Introduction of Guests, Notables and Announcements. 3. Guest'Speaker: Rep. Dee Long. 4. Consideration and adoption of Legislative Policies (mailed previously) and priority setting input. 5. Preliminary report from AMM Mission and Membership Services Task Force - Kevin Frazell, Cottage Grove Administrator. 6. Staffing needs for 1990 Legislative Session and Beyond - Board lecommendation (Impending Outstate vs. Metro Property Tax Conflicts) . 7. Adjournment. MAP (NOT DT(AWN TO SCALE) N s 2 33 To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members \`,, From: Nark E. Lp:nhardson, City Administratorva Date: October 6, 1989 Subject: Highway 12 Safety Improvements Issue - 10 6 t'�i 11 C MFEnN6 OCT231989 ClTY OF 080 NO Presentation of information to Council regarding safety improvement progress following October 3rd, 1989 meeting with MnDot. Introduction - A meeting regarding the safety improvement was held at the MnDot offices in Golden Valley on October 3rd, 1989. Present on behalf of the City of Orono were John Gerhardson, Glenn Cook, and myself. Representing the City of Long Lake were Mayor Art Kunze and the City Attorney/City Administrator Arlo VanV egte. Discussion - The primary issues discussed were as follows: 1. Project Approval. The following are the issues presented by the cities regarding the approval of the project: A) Long Lake - The primary stated concern of Long Lake at this point is providing access to businesses whose west bound access would be limited by the median for the stop lights (Napa Auto Parts & Larry's Lounge). In response, MnDot had prepared 6 plans ranging in cost from $130,000 to $470,000 to place a frontage road to solve the problem. Two of these plans would place the entire project about 30 feet north of where the present road and improvement are located. This would have a significant impact on Orono properties on the north side of Highway 12. A secondary problem related to the frontage road development was the costs. MnDot would agree to pay for the actual construction of the road, but the City of Long Lake would need to bear the attendant costs. The City of Long Lake indicated that they did not have a sufficient budget to pay for any right-of-way and the alternative that they desire to have develop would require them to pay over $200,000 in estimated right- of-way acquisition costs for the alternative they Highway 12 Safety Improvements October 6, 1989 Page 2 of 5 thought was most desirable. B) Orono - The City indicated that generally the improvement was a step in the right direction, but that the issues still to be addressed were: i. U-Turn - While U-turns are generally permitted at all intersections with adequate sight distance unless they are prohibited in t.ie State, this U- turn should only be allowed once a signal is placed with a left turn arrow. ii. Access to Otten Property on a Temporary Basis - This is relates frontage road development and who pays for it. iii. Frontage Road Development - In the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment, frontage roads on the north side between Brown and Willow Drive and also Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road where indicated. In addition, the plan was for a frontage road between Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow Drive. In exchange for right-of-way and gaining controlled accesson Highway 12, the State would be willing to pay for the 32' wide street mat if the cities were willing to pick up the right-of-way, curb and gutter, and storm sewer costs. As noted in the capital budget, we had estimated approximately: Frontage Roads: Willow Dr/Brown Rd North - Old Crystal South - Old Crystal Year Anticipated Bay Rd/Willow Dr Bay Rd/Willow Dr (1995) $252,000 (1989) $262,000 (1989) $260,000 (Including portion in Long Lake) It has been estimated that the cost of the improvements that they are talking about would be MnDOT paying about 3/4's with the balance funded by a combination of MSA and special assessment costs (Long Lake did indicate its willingness to see the development of these frontage roads, particularly the one on the south and that it would "tie out to their Daniel Street extension. They did not indicate their ability to help pay Highway 12 Safety Improvements October 6, 1989 Page 3 of 5 for this in any manner at this point). 2) Signal - Despite considerable discussion regarding the signalprior to the meeting additional information was made available regarding signaling at this intersection. As noted before, the necessary channelization and turn lanes would be installed as part of this safety improvement together with the necessary conduit. To be part of the project the signal would still need to meet warrants before they take bids for the project in late 1991. This could be done in one of the following ways:" i. "Current" (from 1988, 1989 and 1990) statistics to meet the necessary 4 of 9 warrants. The City would be working with the County to help develop the necessary statistics to see if this can be achieved. ii. Projected warrants. The State will accept for warrant purposes a signal if it can be demonstrated that when the signal comes on-line, that the necessary warrants will be met. This may be done by the assistance of Hennepin County and/or MnDot and would be predicated on the following: a) elimination of certain accesses as part of the project, forcing people to use a signalized intersection; b) additional traffic flow from County Road 116; c) actual development in the vicinity prior to the letting of the bid, such as Otten's, Long Lake Industrial Park, etc. The downside of this is that if warrants cannot be met in conjunction with this project, the installation of the light may be put off for a long period of time. We have until late 1991 for bid letting to meet warrants. The normal process for signally an intersection is that once warrants are met, the request is placed on a list of which there are currently about 200. Because of capacity limitations, only about 10 of these signals are installed a year. The priority is determined by the severity of the warrants met. Highway 12 Safety Improvements October 6, 1989 Page 4 of 5 If, however, there is an intersection that currently meets warrants, and a project is being done, that intersection is removed from the list and it is done as part of the project, regardless of its priority. The issue is not a matter of funding as the State has sufficient funds to pay for it as part of the project. 3) Orono Project Costs - At this point, the actual costs of the safety improvement and signalization regarding right-of-way, etc. have not been calculated. It is anticipated this would come from MSA funds. 4.) Project Construction - It is presently anticipated that the project would be bid in late 1991 for anticipated construction in 1992. Alternatives 1. To accept the information. 2. Make any comments or ash any questions that are appropriate. 3. Direct frontage road feasibility study be undertaken by the City Engineer ($5,000 in total for all three.) 4. Table discussion. Recommendation - It is recommended that apart from community direction and feasibility study, it is appropriate that it be tabled awaiting resolution of issues in Long Lake on this project. If either Orono or Long Lake so not approve the plans, MnDot indicates that they will place them on the shelf until such time as both cities will authorize the plans to be undertaken. If the safety project is not undertaken, any signalization will require that the warrants be met and that it be placed on the priority list awaiting its "turn". None of the channelization lanes would be installed until that signal pL.,ject happens. The other important key for the signal is if the project does go ahead, best efforts have to be made in order for warrants to be demonstrated and become part of the project. Whether or not a positive response is received by MnDot from Long Lake, it is recommended that the City Engineer be directed to work with staff in developing the feasibility study and cost Highway 12 Safety Improvements October 6, 1989 Page 5 of 5 splits between MnDot and the cities for the frontage roads even if the project does not go ahead, the information will be needed regarding these roads. Once completed, discussions can begin witr the appropriate property owners and also the City of Long Lake. It should be noted that the frontage road projects would be ones that the City would be the project manager and that MnDot's share would be calculated as they would reimburse the City if the safety project went ahead. Staff will continue to work with the County and MnDot regarding warrants. Proposed Motion - Moved by , seconded by , the Council table further discussion on this awaiting word from Long Lake on the project but City staff and the City Engineer work together to develop the feasibility study and layouts to begin discussion with appropriate property owners for the frontage roads. Ayes nays cc: John Gerhardson, Public Works Director Arlo VandeVegte, City of Long Lake Mark Benson, MnDot 10689.4HD To: :Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato lJ Date: October 6, 1989 Subject: Navarre Re -Development :Meeting - Saturday, November 18, 1989, 9:00 a.m. - Noon - Freshwater Biological Institute Issue - Confirmation of November 18th, 1989 as date for Navarre meeting. Introduction - At the September 25, 1989 Council meeting there was a possibility the date selected for the Navarre meeting would conflict with LMCD Board's review of the various committee drafts for the Comprehensive Management Plan. They have postponed having their meeting on the 18th. Discussion - It is anticipated t'-iat the C? ty's redevelopment meeting would run from about 9:00 to norn. The rough agenda would be as follows: 9:00 a.m. Presentation to those interested in the inventory and suggested solutions 10:00 a.m. to Noon Discussion of alternatives and directions Recommendation - It is recommended that the Council accept the information regarding the Navarre meeting. Proposed Motion - Moved by , seconded by , the Council accept the information regarding the meeting. Ayes , nays cc: Planning Commission Members John Shardlow Ed Hasik Freshwater Biological Institute L)� To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Prom: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate 1-1/ Date: October 6, 1989 Subject: Building Inspections/Personnel Actions Issue, - 10689.5HD C011#0/1 oCT�Efr�NG 231989 /7Y Or OR H 1. )proval of a promotion to the position of Senior Buildin� .&nspector. 2. Employment of an individual for the position of Building Inspector. Introduction - In order to bring the organization to full strength following the resignation of Tom Jacobs, staff has sought resivnes for the position of Building Inspector. Discussion 1. Issue #1 - Promotion. Because of Lyle's background with the City and its characteristics, the staff is presenting for approval by for the Council the promotion of Lyle Oman to the position of Senior Building Inspector. Lyle has been with the City since 1985 and has had the necessary certifications, both Class I and Class II, and has been expanding his horizons, not only in the residential area but in others. 2. Issue #2 - Employment. Bruce Vang has accepted the position of building inspector and will start in that position as of Monday, October 23, 1989. Bruce's 4+ years fo inspection experience at Lakeville far exceeds the City's expectation of 2 years experience. Bruce will receive his Class II Certification Spring of 1990, although through field and plan review experience can perform commercial reviews and inspections. Alternatives - 1. Issue #1 - Promotion. a) approve b) table c) reject 2. Issue #2 - Employment of Building Inspector. a) approve _b ) table c) reject Building Inspections/Personnel Actions October 6, 198F Page 2 of 2 Reca■sendation - ,.NIP:t is recommended that the Council approve the promotion of Lyle Oman to the position of Senior Building Inspector. A development plan in this position will be prepared with Mr. Oman by his supervisor as will one for Mr. Vang. Mr. Oman's position is gecoftended to be at a Level 9, Step 2+ at a rate of $14.77 an ho'u*,]�°which is an increase from his present of $13.86 per hour ($28,828 annual), and that the employment of the building inspector be at Level 7, Step 2+. Both would be reviewed in 6 months ana are both subject to a one year probationary period. Proposed !lotion - Moved by , seconded by , the Council concur in the appointment. of Lyle Oman to the position of Senior Building Inspector a* L-avel 9, Step 2+, at a rate of $14.77 an hour ($30,720 annua. , and also that the Council approve the employment of Bruce Vang for the position of Building Inspector at $12.98 an hour ($27,O00 annual) with a review to be conducted of both at 6 months predicated on performance. Ayes , nays cc: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Tom Kuahn, Finance Director Charlotte Knutson, Deputy Treasurer Personnel Files 1 TO: FROM: DATE: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Thomas Kuehn, Finance Director-rvLAC October 19, 1989 101989.2 COUNCIL MEETING OCT 23 1989 CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: Performance Review of Assistant Finance Director ISSUE - Determination of salary adjustment. DISCUSSION - Assistant Finance Director Linda Walters was hired April 989 at Level 5, Step I of the Compensation Plan with eligibility to be increased to Level 5, Step II at her sixth month if reviews are above the expected performance levels. Linda and I are in Lhe process of formally completing the six month performance ravi ew and I can state without reservation that she has been a very refreshing "breath of fresh air" to the Finance Department and to this City. She has shown an ability to learn tasks quickly, is self motivated - looking for ways to help out this department and others. She has a very good wcrk attitude, is punctual and works very well with all the employees. I would recommend that her wage rate be adjusted from Level 5, Step I ($10.056/hr) to Level 5, Step II ($10.647/hr) effective October 2, 1989. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. B-, nhardson, City Administrate Forwarded recommending approval. This eligibility is in accordance with the authorization to employ (Attar.-ment A) PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by M, seconded by ,_, to adjust Assistant Finance Director Linda Walters' hourly wage rate from Level 5, Step I ($10.056) to Level 5, Step II ($10.647) effectil;e October 2, 1989. 1 32 789. TO: FROM: DATE: Mark.E, Bernhardson, City Administrator Tom Kuehn, Finance Director March 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Authorizat4li to Hire Assistant Finance Director After the review o.: t:&.. seven finalists was completed last Friday it was determined that the offer for employment would be made to Linda Walters. Ms. Walters college course work in accounting tsyether wi':h a varied work background in accounting including non-profit accounting and audit preparation, having worked for the Spring Hill Conference Center until their recent closing due to economic factors. I have spoken with her prior supervisor at Spring Sill and received a very favorable response. Ms. Walters has indicated an interest in an offer and could start on or about April 3, 1989. It is recommended to start her at the base rate of $10.005 per hour (Level 5 Step I) and that she be eligible for Step II at the six month review if her three and six month reviews are above the expected performance levels. TO: M.v;,r and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato Forwarded recommending approval. NO :� 10689.6AD To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato or6 Date: October 6, 1989 Subject: AMM Policy Statements Attachments - A - AMM 1989-90 Draft Policies B - Meeting Notice AMM dated 10/3/89 Issue - 1. Provide an opportunity for Council to comment on the proposed policy changes that are incorporated in the attached document. 2. Determine if any Council members desire to be in attendance at that meeting (November 2, 1989). Introduction - 1. Issue #1 Last year was a major policy review year for AMM. This year's policy reviews were principally the amendments of existing policies and additions of new policies that were felt to be appropriate. Should you desire to review the entire policy -- packet apart from the changes noted in the attachment, please feel free to contact me and I can give you a copy. 2. Issue #2 - Should anyone desire to attend the meeting, please feel free to contact me and we will make reservations for you. Alternatives - 1. Make any comments. 2. Accept as is. 3. Table for discussion. Recommendation - It is recommended that you accept it with any comments that you may have to be made to the policy meeting on November 2nd, 1989. Proposed Motion - Moved by , seconded by , the Council acknowledge receipt of the policies together with any comments they may have on the policies. Ayes , nays as ociati( � o` o` metropolitan municipalities October 3, 1989 Dear City Manager/Administrator: Enclosed .are copies of the proposed 1990 AMM Legislative policies. We have enclosed a copy for you and adaitional copies fo- your Mayor and each City Councilmember. WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD DISTRIBUTE THE COPIES TO YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. The membership meeting, to consider and adopt these policies, �E will be held the evening of Thursday, November 2, 1989• �-✓' More information will be forthcoming shortly as to the specific time and other details of this membership meeting. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter and please do not hesitate to call me should you have questions. Sincerely, L/Aow� Vern Peterson, Executive Director Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 9689.6 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administra�or'1` DATE: September 6, 1989 SUBJECT: Council/Planning Commission Meeting - Facilities 7:00 P.M. on September 14, 1989 Attachment: A. Facilites Memo Dated 8/2/89 ISSUE - 1. Reminder of the upcoming facilities meeting date. 2. Possible amendment of date. 3. Presentation of preliminary agenda for that meeting. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's August 11, 1989 meeting Council establissSeptember 14th as the date for the meeting. DISCUSSION - As had been indicated at the August 11, 1989 meeting Councilmember Callahan might have a commitment on that date. At the present time the commitment still exists and as such it would probably be best to postpone until a'.1 can be there. Alternative dates maybe selected from the budget date memo. The following represents the preliminary agenda for that meeting. 1. Recap of Planning Commission/Council tour of facilities. 2. Discussion of building quality to determine estimates. 3. Review lease purchase fi.__ncing. 4. Next steps in process. ALTERNATIVES 1. Leave as is. 2. Postpone 3. Select new date. 4. Postpone amendments to the agenda. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the date be postponed anTan a ternate be selected. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, the Council postpone the date and select an alternate date of Ayes , Nays cc: Planning Commission Members Carolyn Drude, Ehlers and Associates David Kroos, Boarman and Associates 8289.6 TO: Mayor and City Council k E. Bernhardson, City Administrato FROM: Mar E DATE: August 2, 1989 SUBJECT: Facilities Meeting ISSUE - Establishment of a date for a meeting. INTRODUCTION - Because of conflicts of numerous people August has become a very difficult month in which to schedule a meeting and therefore attempting to establish a meeting in September. Available dates in September include (Council meetings are 9/11 and 9/25 and Planning Commission 9/5 and 9/18). Thursday, September 14 Wednesday, September 20 Thursday, September 21 Wednesday, September 27 r ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt a date. 2. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the date of September 14, 989 be established for meeting with the Council on facilities. 601 GOOIHO To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members _ From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato A '(" CT 2 3 198g Date: October 6, 1989 CITY OF ORON4 Subject: City Facilities Joint Meeting Council/Planning Commission Date Attachment - A - City Facilities Memo dated 9/6/89 Issue - Establishment of a date for the next Council/Planning Commission joint meeting on facilities. Introduction - After review of several persons schedules, an agreeable date for holding the meeting would be Wednesday, November 8, 1989. This is a date that was checked with the Planning Commission at their October 16th meeting. The initial agenda is outlined in Attachment A. Alternatives - 1. Accept the date scheduling the meeting for November 8, 1989. 2. Select an alternate date. At this time, a clear alternate date would be Thursday, November 9, 1989. 3. Establish a time of: A) 7:30 p.m.; B) 6:00 for a supper meeting. Recommendation - It is recommended that November 8, 1989 be established with a box supper at 6:00 p.m. Proposed Motion - Moved by , seconded by , the Council aet November 8, 1989 as a date for the joint meeting of the Council/Planning Commission for consideration of the City facilities. Ayes , nays cc: Planning Commission Dept Heads Mike Gaffron Carolyn Drude Tom Barrett David Kroos r INTEROFFICE MEMO 4.wwvr-� DATE: October 6, 1989 TO: All Eligible Officers FROM: Chief Kiluo P.E: Supervisor Testing Frocess 1 am introducinq the elements of ttie supervisor selection process. the selection will be made fron, within the Depr.rtmznt. To be eligible for the process. the ufricer must [save three vears police experience. The further elements will be similar to the last process. Please give me Your input by October 2V, 1yf39. Weights Written Test A. 100 questions B. 3 Essay Duestions C. Reading Comprehension Test Peer Evaluation 10% Supervisor Evaluatioi. 15:: Oral Board (Composed of 5 persons) 4,11% Final Interview with Chief & City Administrator Pass/Fail Psychological E:cam AU A psychological exam on a f'at_s/Fail basis will be givers to the top two candidates after the Final Interview Pao& - 1 MARKET DEMAND Significant changes/events expected next five years affecting demand, and anticipated changes in our market and product. EXTERNAL - Highway 12 project may change traffic flow patterns significantly, may require change in department structure and size. - County Road 15 upgrade may change traffic flow around the lake area. - LMCD changes affect lakeshore public safety committment. - Increase in domestic/wild animal population in developed/developing areas. - Demand for more visible police service by both Orono residents and contract communities. - Increased use of the Luce Line Trail. - Construction of I-394 increases access to Orono from urban core areas. - Changes in local government finance arrangements. INTERNAL - Organization size and operation complexity will require an additional supervisor. (3rd Lt.) - Increased detail and case load will cause increased investigation manhours. - Career development needs of officers will have to be addressed both as patrol officers and advancement to and within supervisory ranks. This will cause an increased in training needs. CHANGES IN PRODUCTION External 1. 8e' HHZ trunking and computer aided dispatch may bring dispatching to a shared service concept. 2. New facilities development to meet needs for space consideration, for accreditation process, and holding facility or transport service for prisoners. 3. Capacity for police service must be measured. Internal 1. Review of personnel schedule for contract city obligations, as well as officer consideration. 2. Continue augmenting regular police service by use of community service officer/reserves, and increasing reserve force to 25 persons. MAJOR OBJECTIVES FOR 1990-1994 MARKETING 1. The Department must define what it does, then it must show how and why we do it, by increasing visibility by published articles, mailouts, and presence at public meetings. We will develope/use a better avenue to explain ourselves to the public. C. Define our role in the Criminal Justice System. 3. Sell the contract by meeting with city representatives weekly or monthly. PROMOTION 1. Conduct crime prevention meetings - promote neighborhood crime watch meetings. 2. Meet with civic groups. 3. Conduct tornado drills in nursing homes. FINANCIAL 1. Review of Budget process 2. Review court fine/court cost pr)cesses 3. Keep abreast of forfeiture process 4. Re-evaluate contract cost allocation 5. Proposal to Interested Cities when requested. CAPITAL 1. Vehicle Replacement Formula, programmed replacement of other hardware: radar, PBT, etc. 2. Space Consideration 3. Terminal Update, mobile digital terminals 4. Budget for Weather sirens for emergency preparedness. 5. Donation of Equipment 6. Emergency rental of equipment to be charged to police contract. OTHER 1. Crime Prevention Funding - uses of it 2. Forfeiture Funds SALES OR LEVEL OF SERVICE TO THE CITIES 1. Visibility or perception of visibility 2. Tell contract cities how many calls/citations are handled in their city. 3. Priority of tasks assigned by city to us. 4. Priority of tasks in contract cities as we see it. 5. Team approach by supervisors 6. Appearances at city offices and council meetings by officers. MEANS TO ACHIEVE STRATEGY DIRECTION OBJECTIVE DATE RESPONSIBLE PARTY 1. Continue pressure on teen On -going Supervisor/patrol drinking/cite juveniles & parents. 2. Continue drug enforcement on a continual basis. 3. Continue DWI erforcement at same levc1 388 4. Continue traffic enforcement as a positive deterrant. Monitor Hwy. 12 L.L. Monitor Cty. 15 0 & S.P. Radar enforcement as needed on requested local areas. patrol 5. Accelerate Crime Prevention Progam Schedule meeting this year 9/89 Chief 6. Installed Mobile Digital Terminals into C Ns'cr squad cars to improve communication 7 . Emergency Preparedness y, j4 CW 1e Install second Orono siren Budget for siren #i3 - 8/90 Update program plan INTERNAL SERVICE 1. SUPERVISION CHALLENGES Date Responsible Party Recommend third supervisor - 10/1/89-1/1/90 Chief Institute Follow -UP person - 6/15/89 Review Effectiveness of Followup person - 9/15/89 Training for Supervisors BCA Leadership Program - as scheduled Lt's Staff and Command School 10/89 Attitude Development Course 8/89 Continue Team Leader Program - 7/89 Chief Evaluation of Personnel - quarterly Lt's-Chief Operation D.A.R.E. in schools - 9/89 Cornick Canine Program - 8/89 Chief/Supervisor Quarterly Review to Council Lt's-Chief Upgrade Reserve Program Lt's-Schauss 2. Review/Revise Policy and Procedure Review with Department: Deadly force 2/90 Chief/Attorney High speed pursuit 9/89 Chief /Attorney 3. Structure In -Service Training Policy on recognition of officers 11/89 Lt's/Chief MID -RANGE OBJECTIVES - 1990 and Beyond 1. Facility - More office space for supervisor/follow-up More Conference Rooms. Consideration of Holding facility and "quiet room". 2. Accredition - The Commission on accrediation for law enforcement agencies is a national agency that accredited departments that maintain their rules, regulations, policies and procedures at the hate of the art. This Department would undertake this accreditation process when we have a facility that will meet criteria. 3. Career Development Program 4. Develop Public Information Officer Program 5. S N ".N. - Hazardous Material Recognition Program 6. of Personnel Scheduling 7. Master Patrolman Plan 8. Fitness/Wellness Program standards -F behavior in dealing with citizens. 5. Resolve individual and group conflict. 6. Refer those in need to community resources that have the capacity to provide needed assistance. RZPARTMENTAL SERVICE "PRODUCTS" Our objectives are tl a to the products and the services we dispense to the public. GENERAI. CUSTOMER NEED AREAS By perception of the level of safety PERSON On property On streets In public PROPERTY - Real Estate - Personal - On street ORGANIZATIONAL PRODUCTS TO MEET NEEDS "Preventative" patrol squad on foot Law Enforcement Major crime investigation Self initiated calls Minor- complain response Local call response Traffic-DWI's, Radar Information collection Counseling/dispute interferance Crime investigation/ prosecution Crime prevantion/seminars Drug investigation RESPONSES Emergency Medical Response Traffic Accidents Invest. Animal Control Dissemination of information Fire Department Assistance Referals to appropriate agencies Lockouts Alarms Lake Minnetonka related activities Officer Friendly D.A.R.E. Program Juvenile Alcohol & Drug Program PREVENTION AND/OR RECOVERY Emergency Preparedness FROM DEFICIT/EMERGENCY EVENT Disaster Preparedness Warning System design and maintenance DATE: JULY 5, 1989 TO: MARK BERNHARDSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: MEL KILBO, CHIEF OF POLICE SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT STRATEGY PLAN GENERAL GOALS The basic objectives of the Orono Police Department are innumerated below: 1. To aid individuals who are in danger of physical harm and to assist those who cannot care for themselves. 2. To identify criminal offenders and criminal activity and, Where appropriate, to apprehend offenders and participate in subsequent court proceedings. 3. To resolve conflict. 4. To protect constitutional guarantees and to pro, and preserve civil . ier. S. To facilitate the movement of people and vehicles. E. 'ro create and maintain a .feeling of security in the commur4ty. 7. To reduce the opportunity for the commission of some crimes. 9. To identify problems that are potentially serious law aDforcement or governmental problems. 9. To provide other services on an emergency or non- E'mo.►'gency basis. :.ERVICE QUALITY OBJECTIVES At, i measure of effectiveness in accomplishing the stated objectives, the Orono Police Department shall evaluate it's performance on the )axis of the ability to: 1. Safeguard freedom, preserve life and property, protect the constitutional rights of citizens and maintain respect for the rule of law by proper enforcement thereof, and preserve democratic government. 2. Develop a reputation for fairness, civility, and integrity that wins the respect of all citizens, including minority or disadvantaged groups. 3. Use the minimum amount of force reasonably necessary in responding to any given situation- 4. Conform to rules of law and administrative rules and procedures, particularly those which specify proper TO: Mayor and City Council 4/ /71h FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATE: July 5, 1989 SUBJECT: Police Department Strategy Plan Attachment: A. Draft Police Department Stratagy Plan dated July 5, 1989 ISSUE - Presentation to the Council of information regarding the 3partmental strategy plan developed by the Police Department as the directional document for the department for the next three to five years. INTRODUCTION - The Police Department has developed their initial delpar.tmental strategy plan that sets forth their goals and objectives, the "products" they provide, anticipated changes and how they intend to deal with those. This is a document that will be refined over the years to provide the basis as to the departmental direction. This is a document prepared by the Chief and reviewed by his management staff. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2. Ask any questions or provide any commentary. 3. Table. RECOMMEmIATION - It is recommended that the Council acknowledge receipt A the information and after giving any comments on its strategy plan, request the Police Department to annually submit its strategy plan's update for the following year's objectives in conjuncti- � -•i *h the budget process. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council accept the information from the Police Department regarding its departmental strategy plan. Ayes _, Nays _- cc: Mel Rilbo, Chief of Police David Peterson r To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members e From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate Date: October 18, 1989 Subject: Lieutenant Selection Process Cp0f0/1 c 10689.E "'Erke ��231989 Cl rY OF 0 R0H0 Attachments - A - Police Departmental Goals & Objectives Excerpt dtd 7/5/89 B - Chief Kilbo Memo dtd 10/6/89 Issue - Presentation of the process to be employed for the selection of the third lieutenant in at, in-house selection process. Introduction - Following the appointment of the second lieutenant in the police department, it was indicated that a third lieutenant process would be undertaken. In Attachment A, it was indicateda that this process would start in October for an anticipated conclusion and appointment by the first of the year. Discussion - The Attachment B has been prepared by the Chief and reviewed by the Lieutenants. (The pass/fail psychological examine will be just of the two finalists and not of all candidates.) Additionally, it has been posted for the review of the officers for their comments as was indicated would be done. In an effort to promote from within, this will be an in-house process to determine in the current staff who is capable of being promoted with a recommendation regarding the third lieutenant. Given the in-house nature of this program, it will not require additional officers. Each of the three lieutenants will be assigned to a shift by the Chief and the anticipated split between patrol -supervisor and administration will be about 60/40. This will differ by shift assigned. This will provide similar total "on-street/partol" time as found under the current two supervisor arrangement. While the elements are substantially similar to last time, the actual testing process and composition of each element will be altered in order to have no carry over from last time. The estimated cost is $800.00, for which there is budget available. ,tip•!,,•. I)AN'•� Lieutenant Selection Process October 6, 1989 P�age2of 2 The 1990 budget assumes a thrid supervisor being promoted from inside. There is minimal differance in budget being 2 Lieutenant/12 1/2 partol officers and 3 Lieutenants/11 1/2 partol officers. Alternatives - 1. Acknowledge the information. 2. Comment. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Council give any comments regarding the process that they may have to the Administrator. The process will be initiated with an anticipated recommendation to Council mid to late December, and given the fact that there is not a meeting on the 4th Monday of December, will be presented for appointment at the first meeting of January, 1990. Proposed Motion - Moved by , seconded by , the Council ackowledge the selection process information presented. Ayes , nays cc: Melvin Kilbo, Police Chief 1020,89.3 (COUNCIL INEE TlNC OCT 281989 TO: Mayor and City Council \ CITY /fC FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrata Or O,90NO DATE: October 20, 1989 SUBJECT: Navarre Redevelopment - Stage II Contract Will attempt to present information to Council Monday evening. If not, will request it be tabled to 11/13/89 Council meeting. 1 STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE DAHLGREN, SI-IARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. Staff Member Principal Senior Planner Planner Landscape Architect Urban Designer Market/Research Analyst Graphic Designer Draftsman Secretary Outside Consultants Supplies Mileage Expert Testimony Past Due Accounts Rate $80.00 to $120.00 $40.00 to $50.00 $40.00 to $50.00 $30.00 to $50.00 $25.00 to $50.00 $25.00 to $50.00 S25.00 to $40.00 $25.00 to $40.00 $25.00 to S35.00 Per Job Plus 15% Cost Plus 15% $0.30 Per Mile Two Times Hourly Rate (One-half Day Minimum) 1.5% Per Month Na%arre Redevelopment Plan Page 6 TERMINATION This contract may be terminated upon written notice by either party. In the event of termination, the CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT for the work completed on a time plus materials basis. CONDITIONS HEREIN AGREED TO: DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC.: Jon S ar tow, Vice President Date C,//. udl?l L/* '::� - —:D C. John U an, Vice President Date CITY OF OR O ar Bernh� s City Administrator ate Jame t R. Gra ek, Mayor Date Attachment: Standard Rate Schedule Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page S COST OF SERVICES The work will be performed on a time plus materials basis, with an estimate. We will undertake only that work which we feel is essential to complete the study and we will not undertake work which is not authorized by this AGREEMENT, without the prior consent of the City Council. Since the costs associated with Stage II will be dependent on decisions made by the City with respect to the findings of the previous Stage, a detailed estimate of those costs will be provided at the conclusion of Stage I. The estimated cost of our services for Stage I is summarized by phase below: STAGE I PHASE I: RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS Researc,., analysis, S base map preparation Time: 30 days PHASE II: FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVES Consultation, writing $ design, analysis Time: 30 days TOTAL SERVICES STAGE I $ Od U The work performed will be charged for on a time plus materials basis acconaing to the above costs. All work and meetings will be computed in accordance with the attached Standard Rate Schedule, which shall be paid as hereinafter pr oided. All costs incurred will be payable to the CONSULTAiTF upon receipt of an invoice showing the work completed and the cost of said work. To each invoice not paid within thirty (30) days shall be added a service charge of one and one-half percent (1.5 percent) per month for each month delinquent. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 2 STAGE II will be divided into three phases and will build on the findings of STAGE I. This stage is intended to be a more detailed study, identifying specific land uses, potential building scale and locations, and will result in a Redevelopment Master Plan. This stage will also outline specific implementation strategies including; comprehensive plan and zoning amendments, design standards, and development incentives such as Tax Increment Financing. The following work program is proposed for your consideration: STAGE I PHASE 1: RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 1. Conduct meetings with City Administrator, Consulting Engineer, and other staff to gather background data and current information, and to identify key issues involved in the planning study. 2. Secure information pertinent to the development of base maps, to include the following items: section maps, aerial photography, soils information, existing topographic information, vegetation, land use, zoning. This will also include locations of utilities and easements as may be available. 3. Prepare base maps of the study area at a scale of 1":100' for use in analysis and conceptual planning. 4. Inventory and analyze such developme -t factors as slopes, drainage, vegetation, and other environment, issues. S. Inventory and analyze such development factors as land use, circulation, traffic, parking, access points, and current tax base. PHASE II: SUMMATION OF FINDINGS / DEVELOPMENT OF GOALS & OBJECTIVES 1. Review findin-s fr^n: Phase I ,xith CITY staff. �2. Prepare a memorandum summarizing the research and analysis done as outlined above, and present the information, to a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop. 3 Based on input from City council and Planning Commission prepare a draft set of goals and objectives to guide the work to be conducted ;.i Stage H. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 3 STA< E II PHASE I: PLANNING _ _J. Develop preliminary concept plans and alternatives to illustrate potential future land uses, circulation, open space, major utilities, and potential building scale and location. t 3-5,,»J 2. Prepare a summary of the pertinent data and development statistics for the properties under consideration, including size and nature of development activity, existing and future land and building values, and fiscal implications. 3. Prepare a memorandum summarizing in vvritter and graphic form the alternative concepts and pertinent information described above, and present it to the City Council and Planning Com- mission. This memorandum will include traffic generation analysis reflecting the potential impact of proposed land use changes on surrounding streets. 4. Prepare exhibits and data suitable for public presentation of the the key issues and concepts involved, and prepare a presentation of these and other important information for the workshop with the City Council and Planning Commission. OJJ PHASE II: IMPLEMENTATION 1. Prepare amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, with findings as appropriate, which reflect the concepts adopted in the previous phase, for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council with the adopted results prepared for submission to the Metropolitan Council. 2. In consultation with City administrator, City Attorney, and other staff, prepare amendments to the ' . oning Ordinance to implement the concepts adopted in the previous phase, including app-ation of new Zoning Districts to the properties in the study area, changes to the Official Zoning Map, and enhanced performance standards to protect the integrity of existing surround- ing land uses and to guide future developments. 3. At the City's direction and working closely with the CITY Fiscal Consultant and CITY staff, the CONSULTANT will prepare ? preliminary Tax Increment Financing Feasibility Study. PHASE III: FINAL REPORT (Optional) 1. Edit, prepare and have hinted a final report documenting the research, analysis, goals, plans, implementation tools, a id promotion strategies outlined in all phases above. The report will be include two color printing of graphics, and high quality materials and design. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Man, Inc. Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PRESENTATIONS It is anticipated that five (5) presentations before the Planning Commission and City Council may be required in the pursuit of final approval of the plannigg study. It is also anticipated that at least two public hearings may be required. All additional meetings and revisions will be charged for on a time plus materials basis. PRODUCT TO BE PROVIDED The CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY with written and graphic materials in memorandum form as may be required during the review of this project. Board mounted, color rendered exhibits and slides will be prepared for purposes of public presentations. At the CITY'S option the CONSULTANT will publish a final report printed on high quality paper with two color graphics and bound in one volume. INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CITY The CITY shall be responsible for providing legal, engineering, surveying, and municipal fiscal con- sulting services as may he required. The CONSULTANT shall work in close liaison with these experts throughout the course of the project. None of these services will be requested without prior consent from the CITY. The CITY shall be responsible for providing updated information, including legal descriptions, aerial photos, section maps, fiscal data, topography (if available), and City infrastructure and utility informa- tion. COMPLETION TIME The work outlined above will begin immediately upon receipt of the executed contract and will be completed as expeditiously as possible with work for STAGE I being completed within 60 days of commencement, unless delayed by reason of unexpected emergencies, forces beyond the control of the parties, or by request of a Party acouiesced in w.iting by the other party. If so deiayed for more than ninety (180)days at the request of the CITY, the CONSULTANT reserves the right to renegotiate the contract to account for rising costs before resuming work. Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 5 COST OF SERVICES The work will be performed on a time plus materials basis, with an estimate. We will undertake only that work which we feel is essential to complete the study and we will not undertake work which is not authorized by this AGREEMENT, without the prior consent of the City Council. Since the costs associated with Stage II will be dependent on decisions made by the City with respect to the findings of the previous Stage, a detailed estimate of those costs will be provided at the conclusion of Stage I. The estimated cost of our services for Stage I is summar'-ed by phase below: STAGE I PHASE I: RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS Resenrch, analysis, $ base map preparation Time: 30 days PHASE II: FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVES Consultation, writing design, analysis Time: 30 days TOTAL SERVICES STAGE I $ 5 Cab 6 The work performed will be charged for orr a time plus materials basis according to costs. F11 work and meetings will be computed in accordance with the atta-hed Standard !dule, which shall be paid as hereinafter provided. All costs incurred will be payable to the CONSU7 TAiTT upon receipt of an invoice she lir. . completed and the cost of said work. To each invoice not paid within thirty (30) day, ,,all :d a service charge of one and one-half percent (1.5 percent) per month for each month delinqu,. .. Dahlgren, 5 irdlow, and Uban, Inc. JU- >- ,...� 'cT -.l-/ f I` CORRORATM CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612.339.3300 3 JUNE 1988 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono 1335 Brown Road South Orono, MN 55323 Attention: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL PLA. *NG SERVICES AGREEMENT entered into today by and between CITY OF ORONO, hereinafter sometirrles called CITY, and DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC., hereinafter sometimes called CONSUL- TANT, relating to the employment of the CONSULTANT as follows: OBJECTIVE OF SERVICES The objective of the CONSULTANT'S services will be to prepare a master plan to guide the redevelopment of the Navarre area in the City of Ororno. In close cooperation with the Planning Commission and City Council, the CONSULTANT will develop a plan with effectuating ordinances, documents, guidelines, and implementing strategies. The CONSULTANT will work in close liaison with CITY Ftaff, CITY confu!ta�L. '. affected k )�,e:t;' ;,•Hers throe .Fnut t:,. p .._ n -,rc rods any prcparC a report summarii;!-; the research and recommendations resulting frora the planning study. _-f SERVICES . e the above stated objectives, the CONSULTANT proposes to perform work in two stages. S IAQC I would be a pilot study consisting of two phases, designed to update City base information, analyze existing development factors, identify problems and opportunities and summarize preliminary land use recommendations for the study area. STAGE I will also establish goals and objectives for the completion of the redevelopment process. 101889.5 TO: 3yor and City Council FROM: . E. Bernhardson, City Administrato yy- DATE: October 18, 1989 SUBJECT: Navarre Redevelopment - Stage II Contract Attachment: A. Na'r_r-e Redevelopment/Consultant Agreement dated 6/12/88 B. Proposed Addendum Stage II ISSUE - Authorization to adopt the addendum as part cF the contract. INTRODUCTION - The initial estimate for the work for Stage I was appro%imatel y $15,000. Because of the protracted nature of the proceedings cn the matter together with the request for development of options to he] -) illustrate parts of Stage I, the work done by the consultant has begun to actually lapse into Part 1 Stage II. DISCUSo7 -t is requested that the Council authorizean addend, age II up to an amount not to exceed $5,000. This would L- total authorized to date up to $20,000. A total of $30,00.. s been budgeted between 1988 and 1989. After the meeting on November 18th an estimate for the balance will be prepared dependin< on the scope of work decided upon at or following that meeting. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the addendum. 2. Stoi c,:a contract at the proposal. 3. Table for further discussion. REC: `9MENDATION - It is recommended that the addendum be adopted as present e . This authorization is up to $5,000 for Stage it Phase 1 Step 1. PFji-OSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by . Orono Cite Cnt:nc; 1 authorizes amending t he agreement with Dahl jren, Sharu.Ljw any' Uh-�., regarding Navac-'e Redevelopment to include 'Iddition: $5,000 for beginning Stage II wor'c. Ayes , Nays cc: John Shardlow Ed Hasik Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator 1 .S ..:1'�'i' + n•.•}':'�i is .. li:: i[�T:: %$. //2 SE 17 3 N BURLINGTO _ - — •�� ' ' 4210 4240 • � Y :_. C �M a 5000 (5i y6S � � i �� •, �� _-------------- :��:f _------------------__-- _; �� •: . 3 for e I z79 -� �•� �, f C K It-- 1215- �1 trite •i. 1100 tl li 1 OKA 3400 1 1 i I rri I I �i 2 • d d� rrr . m .u� ...►— w v •V � .I 1 ram/ 1 .� t• � �:' t` � ' , ,fl , •MT(RtpRM RW-D _yu• WTERT(Mr Rp1.p • ' _____ � 't'TvtrlR —y• the Minnesota courts would construe the term "reasonable regulation" to include the assertion of a public easement even if this incidentally includes the enjoyment of improvements which were previously made at the expense of private owners. Most easements enforced by a city impinge upon the rights of property owners'. However, not all inconveniences are compensable, particularly where the existence of the easement puts the property owner on notice that the "private" improvements may one day become part of the "public" easement. ZSRP719 -3- n '87 STO - 1987 Short Tm Objective 188 STO - 1968 Short Terms Objective '89 S 0 - 1989 Start Term Objective GOAL SETPras CITY OF O1FKW AND MARK E. BEYe41ARDSON CITY ADFDHISPRATOR 1 MAY 1989 - 30 APRIL 1990 AREA OOAL AREA OBJECTIVE 1. 00F74 ITa* DEVELOPMENT A. Highway 12 1. Utilities Sewer - Part I Install Sewer - Part II Install Water System Install Main Well (6 months) Tower (9-12 months) Plans Specs - Order Award rinancing Negotiation on Utilities (Long Lake - Medina) 188 STO 2. Long Term Corridor Upgrade '89 S70 Feasibility Study MnDOT initiation or Group initiation Com:pl et ion 3. 1992 Safety Improvement Preliminary plan approval '88 STD B. Navarre Redevelopment Determine project scope/ 189 STO direction 187 STO C. County Road 15 Project completion Special assessments Beautification Plan Determine means to implement '87 SIO D. Community Transportation Update capital project Plan guidelines Bridge bonding program Continued analysis public/ private 1 Draft 5/19/89 Revised 6/30/89 7/31/89 9/05/89 9/29/89 DATE; STATUS 09/01/89 Bids Close 6/30/89 Project Ordered 7/24/89 Negotiating Asmnt Terms/Develop Agr7ait 07/01/90 09/01/89 Project Ordered 7/24/89 04/01/90 2/l/90 Need available water 9/11/89 Table Test Well to 9/25/89 9/25/89 Awarded Test Wells 07/01/90 09/89 11/89 8/14/89 Bond Resolution adopted 09/11/89 Bond Sale Awarded/AA1 Rating/6.578 10/04/89 Bond Closing 09/01/89 6/30/89-Awaitiryj Response from mNDot Central Office on Consultant 07/07/89 Delayed until at least 9/30/89 01/30/9n 10/90 10/01/89 Info meeting held 7/24/89. Awaiting Long Lake response to M t= To hold mtg with MnDOT 10/3/89 n8/01/83 6/01/89-field Joint Mtg 6/26/89 Discussed future direction 9/11/89 Changed to 11/18 07/01/89 Project completed 09,101/89 8/28/89 Asses^nent adopted 10/01/89 07/89 09/89 7/10/89 Adopted 08/81' 7/24/89 Memo Private/Public/Drivemy../Roads 8/28/89 Memo Re: City Attorney Private Roads 8989.6(65) CITY OF OR010 INVRSTNENT TRANSACTIONS - ELECTRONXC HIRE TRANSFERS SEPTEMBER 9 - OCTOBER 20 ? DATE TRANSFER FOR FROM TO AMOUNT 09/13/89 Proceeds from Matured Marquette 1st Bank Lakes $ 377,000.00 Commercial Paper 09/13/89 Proceeds from Matured Marquette 1st Bank Lakes 602,017.05 FNMA Repurchase Agreement 09/13/89 Purchase Commercial Paper 1st Bank Lakes Norwest Bank (949,804.56) 09/26/89 Proceeds from Matured FNMA Bear Stearns 1st Bank Lakes 312,750.00 Residentials 09/26/89 Interest on Fed. Home Loan Bear Stearns 1st Bank Lakes 4,400.00 Bonds 09/27/89 Purchase FNMA Repurchase 1st Bank Lakes Marquette (400,000.00) Agreement 09/28/89 Proceeds from Matured Fed. Bear Stearns 1st Bank Lakes 270,000.00 Home Loan Bank Discount Notes 09/29/89 Purchase Commercial Paper 1st Bank Lakes Norwest Bank (299,188.75) 10/02/89 Interest on Certificate of Deposit Dain Bosworth lst Bank Lakes 2,340.25 i0/03/89 Proceeds from Matured U.S. Bear Stearns 1st Bank Lakes 104,250.00 Treasury Notes - 10/02/89 Proceeds from Matured FNMA Marquette lst Bank bakes 400,480.56 Repurchase Agreement 10/02/89 Purchase Fed Farm Credit 1st Bank Lakes 1st Bank Mpls (300,000.00) Bank Bonds 10/04/89 Proceeds from 1989 Sewer -Water Dean Witter 1st Bank Lakes 2,290,397.49 Revenue Bonds Reynolds 10/04/89 Purchase GNMA Repurchase Agreement 1st Bank Lakes Norwest Bank (500,000.00) 10/04/89 Purchase Commercial Paper 1st Bank Lakes Norwest Bank (497,433.33) 10/04/89 Purchase Commercial Paper 1st Bank Lakes Marquette (1,289,863.16) 10/05/89 Proceeds from Matured Commercial No -west Bank 1st Bank Lakes 500,120.83 Paper 10/05/89 Purchase Bankers Acceptance 1st Bank Lakes Norwest Bank (483, 452. 78) 10/10/89 Proceeds from Matured Commercial Norwest Bank 1st Bank Lakes 300,000.00 Paper 10/10/89 Purchase Commercial Paper 1st Bank Lakes Norwest Bank (400,549.45) BEGINNING 1/l/89 CASH INVESTMENT BALANCE FUND BALANCE --------------------------------------- 1/1/89 RECEIPTS General 2,961,358 1,786,517 Parke 116,402 19,166 CDGB 0 0 Equip Outlay 263,161 18,853 Bldg Cap Outly 145,228 9,608 Mun St Aid Cons 3,519 190,000 Per Impr Rev 149,081 47,194 Imp Bond 66-76 609,720 64,472 Imp Bond 80 475,565 62,605 Imp Bond 82 195,025 13,301 Imp Bond 85 136,861 73,082 Water Op 113,523 81,i80 Sever Op 443,170 465,345 Golf Course Up 0 106,090 Pooled Inv CITY OF ORONO SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, DISBURSEMENTS AND BALANCES FOR TEE EIGHT MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 31, 1909 ENDING 8/31/89 TOTAL TOTAL CASH BUDGET (C) TRANSF INVEST HUDGET (C) I Or TRANS! INVEST BALANCE INVEST 1989 IN SOLD DISBUR 1989 BUDGET OUT PORCH 8/31/89 BALANCE 2,620,660 1,814,249 2,720,660 66.7 '.249,161 684,465 17,000 366 135,202 0 U 68,200 73,584 112,530 65.4% 208,430 129,500 1,905,000 8,509 2,051,327 0 190,000 3,519 534,161 39,448 690,988 82,800 172,917 173,190 99.81 501,275 96,600 121,704 121,740 100.02 416,466 15,650 68,113 68,36C 99.6% 14U,213 91,150 29,615 108,390 27.31 190,320 191,500 118,289 174,540 67.8% 77,014 463,220 323,625 361,240 89.61 584,890 92,190 83,879 101,850 (a) 82.41 22,211 Trust Fund --------------------------------------------------------- 5,514,024 (5,514,024) 348,657 9,422,340 348,657 TOTALS 5,514,07A 96,589 3,286,670 ------------------------------------ 3,868,470 2,439,161 9,422,340 3,202,955 3,942,500 9,455,670 (5,547,354) 5,547,354 ---------------------------------------------- 2,439,161 9,455,670 148,974 5,547,354 TOTAL LT 5,361,402 56,648 2,996,123 3,628,170 120,850 11,389,006 3,188,594 3,624,030 120,850 10,998,603 254,580 4,970,999 YEAR GENERAL FUND SUNKARY - 1989: -------------------------------------------------------- . ,F REVENUE BUDGET " 7 ".ST Taxes 585,221 1,212,030 48.31 Licenses i Pertits 95,328 90,000 105.91 Intergov. Revenue 298,634 420,540 71.01 Chge for Sery 488,174 633,990 78.21 Pines 71,810 95,500 75.[1 Int. on Invest. 157,151 165,000 95.21 Tran. Fr Other Funds 0 0 Other 24,534 13,600 180.41 TOTAL REVENUE 1,720,852 2,620,660 65.71 . (b) TOTAL 19B9 CASH i INVESTMENT TO 8/31/89 $5,696,328 NOTE la) Golf operating fund budget does not include amounts for purchases for resale or sales tax collected/remitted. The receipts budget projects gross profit - not total receipts. NOTE (b) General fund revenues recorded will not equal receipts collected due to receivables billed in other accounting periods and non -revenue receipts. NOTE (c) Budget amounts include schedules transfers, do not include fund balance uses or additions. JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNF JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER WEST HENNEPIN RECYCLING COMMISSION MOBILE DROPOFF TONNAGES 1989 LORETTO 1.81 1.58 1.67 1.75 1.26 MAPLE PLAIN 1.9 2.53 2.01 1.36 2.95 2.52 2.34 ORONO M.S. 1.6 1.05 .78 .89 1.3 .71 1.14 NAVARRE 1.71 1.16 1.2L 1.2 1.13 2.24 2.35 TOTAL MOBILE DROP OFF TONNAGE THROUGH JULY, 19R9 42.18 TONS WEST HENNEPIN RECYCLING COMMISSION RESIDENTIAL TONNAGE REPORT: JAN. - JULY, 1989 DROP OFF SITES MONTH GREENFIELD MEDINA INDEPENDENCE MOBTLE TONS TONS TONS T•NS JAN 1.1 4.82 7.02 FEB 1.29 2.48 4.74 MARCH 1.88 1.9 4.04 APRIL 3.95 1.91 5.02 MAY 4.3 7.05 JUNE 1.91 2.41 3.56 7.22 JULY 4.38 2.11 8.55 7.09 TOTALS 18.81 15.63 12.21 42.18 NEWSPAPER DROP OFF SITES SALEM LUTHERAN CHURCH (GREENFIELD) 5 TONS ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL 35.675 TONS TOTAL DROP OFF TONNAGE: JAN. - JULY, 1989 129.505 TONS CURBSIDE TONNAGE 1989 LONG LAKE LORETTO MAPLE PLAIN MEDINA ORONO JAN. 6.05 FEB. 7.03 1.3 7.06 11.71 32.07 MAR. 8.25 2.4 7.51 13.87 36.25 APR. 8.79 2.96 9.34 18.43 53.49 MAY 11.90 2.85 8.38 18.85 45.59 JUN. 10.64 2.47 8.92 20.12 45.55 JUL. 9.62 2.57 7.96 19.30 57.06 AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL CURBSIDE TONNAGE THROUGH JULY, 1989 498.29 TONS TOTAL RECYCLED TONNAGE. THROUGH JULY, 1989 627.795 TONS OVERALL RATE OF ABATEMENT 13.73% CURBSIDE REPORT: SEPTEMBER, 1989 city pick up tons houses partici- % pation abate. LONG LAKE first 6.58 312 46% second 5.61 261 39% 14.71. LORETTO first 1.13 67 47% second 1.26 57 40% 20.3% MAPLE PLAIN first 4.20 202 39% second 5.68 270 53% 17.6% MEDINA first 12.71 501 52% second 9.14 458 47% 22.7% ORONO first 32.15 1312 50% second 28.21 1201 46% 23% PERMANENT AND MOBILE SITES GREENFIELD 3.67 TONS abatement - 6.6% MEDINA -- INDEPENDENCE 3.69 TONS abatement - 4.1% ,GE 'LAIN 2.64 TONS 72 CURS -'ETTO 1.86 TONS 51 •::ARS 11RONO • 2.14 TONS 38 CARS NAVARRE 1.78 TONS 43 CARS TOTAL TONNAGE RECYCLED : 122.45 OVERALL ABATEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER: 18.74% To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: October 19, 1989 Subject: Recycling - Progress Report Attached for review is a six month report on the recycling program for the City of Orono and the cities in the West Hennepin Recycling Commission. Also included is the September tonnage and participation report. The City of Orono residents should be commended for their participation in the recycling program and encourage even more participation in the future to meet the future goals. Recommendation - To accept the report as presented and commend the Orono residents for participating in the recycling program. Proposed Motion - Moved by , seconded by , to accept the recycling report as presented and to commend the Orono residents for participating in the recycling program. Ayes , nays 101889.6 COUNCIL MEETING TO: Mayor and City Council ( OCT 23 1983 FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator CITY OF ORONO DATE: October 18, 1989 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information RECYCLING RESULTS - See attachments. TELEPHONE SYSTEM - REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - The City is currently transmitting the request for proposals for the telephone system to 'nterested private vendors. It is anticipated that proposals will be returned to the City by Nov-mber 27, 1989. L nTRRT1RSF.MENTS - AUGUST - See attachment. ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER - See attachment. GOAL SETTING STATUS - See attachment. I COUNCIL MEETING OCT 231989 CITY OF ORONO .%-'ITY of ORONO Post Office Box 669Crystal Bay, Minna^:a 5532: :cipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka October 20, 1989 Mayor Gordon Wetter City of Delano 320 Kelsey Stree- Delano, MN 5532 3 Dear Mayor Wetter, A representative of the Minnesota Department of Transportation contracted me today and indicated that Len Levine, Commissioner of Transportation, will be-o:,I,,'cting a public herring on transportation safety at the folAowing time and location: ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL 765 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD THURSbAY, OCTOBER 26, 198. 7:30 P.M. - 9:00 P.M This applies -. -:-t only to safety in State Highways but also on County Roads and City streets. Oral presentations are li.mited to 3 1/2 m nutes but all written materials submitted can be as long as you desire. I encourage you to attend, not only to support improve on Highway 12 but also other areas of transportation. Please contact me by noon, Wednesua•, October 25, 198 if you can attend and desire to testify. Sincerely, i,w6u Mark E. Bernhardson City Administrator CC: Mayor .-id City Cc unc i 1 Don _evens, MnDOT District 5 st11LDING A .7 ONING - 473.7357 AD.MINISUZATION h FIN tS E. 473-7358 • PCHLIi % ARKS 173= 359 ASSMING 2691 Caroline Ave. Wayzata, MN. 55391 October 6, 1989 Chief Of Police Mel Kilbo 445 Willow Drive Long Lake, MN.55323 Dear Mr. Kilbo: My husband had an attack of VenticularTachycbraia on Sunday night and we called 911. We were very pleased with the quick response. The men were very kind and efficient. I'm sorry that I do know all the men's names. I did get Dan and Chip's names. We appreciate all you did for us and will you please tell the men Thank You' again for us? OCkliP 143rw,� Qom -Fis wo" Sincerely yours, Harry and Thelma Pulverus 10489.3 T0: Mayor and City Council 1�1NCIL MEETING FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administcato �\ OCT 23 1989 DATE: October 4, 1989 sDEJE1990-2000 Capital Budget/Update CITY OF ORONO CT: Attachment: A. 1988-2000 Capital Budget Date 7/88 B. 1990-2000 Capital Budget and Update ISSUE - Presentation of the draft updating the capital budget for 1990-2000. INTRODUCTION - In 1988 the City's first capital budget guidelines were prepared in advance of the 1989 budgeting year. Certain projects for 1988 and 1989 listed in Attachment A have been undertaken. Attachment B representing an update including changes based on new information and the effect that those changes have. DISCUSSION - The Capital Budget as presented is a dynamic document. It is presented to assist as a decision framework in undertaking certain captial projects over the next several years. The purpose of the document is not to have the Council adopt it, and then say when it is time for project authorization "well you've authorized it we have to go ahead". The intent of the document as noted in last years presentation is to serve as a guideline presented in advance of the annual budget. Further consideration for these p,:ojects generally come at two occasions. A. Funding - The project funding is considered during the budget period. If accepted and deemed appropriate monies are budgeted for the following year for that project. B. Project Authorization - In addition to council authorization for and acceptance of plans and specifications. The ultimate is authorization of whether the project is undertaken or not. Significant changes since last year's Capital Guidelines have included: 1 1.SeweC and Water Trunks Highway 12 - These projects -came in at about 70-80% of the anticipated cost. 2. County Road llfi Willow - originally the City had anticipated spending in excess of $310,000 for this ' dpgiade in 1995. Should the County Road 116 be undertaken, the City will be spending only a fraction of that, $65,000 which can all come from MSA (Municipal State Aid) without any penalty reductions on its annual MSA amount. 3. Highway 12 Frontage Roads - As noted in the Highway 12 safety memo (which is also a part of this Council packet) the State may be willing to pay a substantial amount (about 75%) for the frontage roads on the north side of 12 between Brown and Old Crystal Bay and the one between Old Crystal Bay and willow on the south side in conjunction with the safety improvement in exchange for controlled access if the project goes ahead. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Amend and accept the capital budget for 1990-2000. 3. Table for further discussion in conjunction with the budget. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council table this for further discussion in the 1990 budget process. cc: All Department Heads 2 July 1988 CITY OF 08090 - CAPITAL BOWLS (1989-2000) TOTAL INITIAL FINAL TM PRQIB NOT PINABCINO PINACCINO IIN YEAR 1,131,26 NIXON PAY 6—OLC SPECIFIED -__ 6NSO • I6 I8-6 3-6 O OPt IPPI OPB OB CH NBA NYYIK 01/8A ynisz n 08-66Np1 OB Ol-OOW I O 1989 1rR.. ortation Count 1519-SP 535 ] needhill 48 68 ) (891 36.5/6.5 (89-98/15) S09AL 5)] 573 - 229 106 138 less TMNBPOR1 nOLvily/seay/tatlutt 13 15 byth(WL FO,Ocx) T 363 3N B (th rt ." Freet/0 1So 316 city City B.[ut/Oss[a0a SO 30 II MAJ,I t)l IW )J uAnoA see Bola Lift ttEttee #10196 3% Bq lT Extensions 670 B5 585 Nta Byrt BtvBB[ my_ 1300 13W TOTAL 1166 "M an lT B[t.e.Lwt 103E 323 815 301'AL _. - 1038 506 310 (lOn) CIST FACILITIES 3750 2750 2750 E750 1990 TILVEPoASAT3M ll./Bgtlwttivq 30 30 .illu/13/61gea1 IN IN Old my t)s STS Aae (Ild" laceeavt). a _.. tA For Waste M1[Mala IyT TT tOFAL _9f]_-_ 901 _ Ewrgaeal Pnpatedwaa at.. is It is (891 65.5 190-991 196.5 (90-96/NSA) 73 (90-99) 73 1913-94 M 1 50 (90-991NZA) 153.5 319.5 60 (ss-90) SOS (90-9t) 576 190-101 573s I= or 6A) 535 190-95) ]610 60 1183 190-051 853 190-051 1163 853 30 )5 is 160 237 SS (91-00/I51 IS 412 55 is Page 1 136.5-ns ftea a BS (N) 3]S(N) 156-_-310(N) 135.3-•eNo[ 715 (90-03) ,is ]s-(LL) 6W Sell" needled) 4" Ja1y 1988 CITY OF ORONO - GPITAL SUM" 11989-20001 TOTAL INITIAL FINAL SWISS, PAwz= COST FINANCING P.NUUW.M (IN TBRA LISTED UNLBBB PATNOR BCB o" BPBCIFJm) -- _______________________________ _ BIITOIPRISB B tS I8-2 B-B O UPS (PP) UPS OS CS NG RESERVE DP/SA OS-BBNB11 M-NATBB On-00LP I 0 1991 TRANSPORTATION Old Ccy.tal My/ ]. 36 TOTAL ]n ). 199] _—_TRANSPORTATION Pa. INS11a.Aron1 252 151 r.n/Tae9ar Said"- IN 55 75 N...rtown (8tabba- 665 613 42 wMally) ____ _________ TOTAL loll See 117 (ee./IO/T) 1-35)93 NSA MM1 YBr9.atY .",.dn... Sltan is 15 15 15 09J ` ____TPYnPORTAT]ON M. 9trwt 3115 ]Pl (01.-Ul9a0 ortb.ra) Orme O.Mra 50 s0 (Po. to nner.ltna .Ills. Sriap 575 175 400 IIa C..tP.O 257 PST (otn-.tllw) City Slr.ot. (SAM) 50 s0 riPA4 1115 US aSO (.OSI 900 IMA/10/7I Page 2 202 50 (93-02ACIA) (B[SE9. Bonds) 25 79 525 Ill (9]-02/IbA) 752 lU TS 106 76 (94-011 40 10 (94-011 is 600 206 Sl (94-01) (S.iage 50 (94-0]1 Made _18 6 IN duly I988 CIiY 0} OROXO - CAPITAL iWOR 11989-30001 Toy" INITIAL FINAL YEAR PROJECT My FINANCING FINANCING —�__ (I0 IRAN LIB}80 MASS PAYMENT BmB➢= SPECIFIED) �� — OTEAPEISE B IS IS-0 B-B O OP8 fPPI UPS OB G MA RCB8119E OP/BA 08-66Yp1 O8-YAT611 08YAL} 1 O 1994 .8POSTAngl a. Rd a 378 378 303 Is 195-061 F.r I./arm.n I00 too 95 75 Cores E.1d9. (Srid9. Some.) city streets (Mae) So so So (95-00 TOTAL 539 379 ISO 25 302 136 75 (-331 600 (M8A/IC/7) Crr9•nry ft"e.eee.. St.. 15 IS _____ 15 15 15 ------- 15 1995 TRANSPORTATION YllleY Ot/Rette.t 310 310 233 ]T (94-05) 113 t0 Cty 61 R" 12/No Peened" 352 353 1 63 189 196-05) (11r9YE-Y111ee) Ray 13 Traffic 3" 300 23.5 pe.ral - 210 alm.1 INreen•ntl seat./P.d. - 65 City street. IM1.e) 50 So 50 (96-05) long Oka - 33.5 TOTAL 911 563 350 33.5 3% 316 TTT 1-131 $So (NSA/10/1) l t ...... Page 3 CITY o1 OROXO - CAPITAL BUDGET I19B940001 my 198s TOTAL UITIAL FINAL Y6M "OJECT COST tINAmclm tr%AN[IvU (IN TZAR LISTBO UNLBSS PATXBXT scvrouLB spwlrI80) B 1. IS-B B-8 0 CPS (PPI UPS OS C8 NSA pB8OlV8 DP 8A US- EPTrRPRIss / SSN8p OS -RATER US -GOLF I O 1996 TRANSPORTATION seeaas Bay _. 553 SSo 5 (9a-131 City streets (MRO) So 50 TOTAL $05 $50 - 55 saer9Nney Prow".... Si ne - _ _ . is 15 13 i5 I99T ----TRANBPoHyATTOp. t9. (OCI-Nlllw) 303 30I City streets (MAC) 50 TOTIGL, 352 303 (-T1 300 (MA/30/7) YNrgs." t[aprada... Siren 15 15 SS 15 1998 1999 S el9 y e)9 15 15 242 242 15 15 Page 6 L c oaeHy B - Bond. IS - Internal Bourses - General Fund IS-E - Internal Sauces - Bntetp[ire Ponds B-B Bonds - Enterprire Funds 0 - Other OPS (PP) - Operations/General Fund (Principal Payment) OPS - op.rati... /General Fund US - User Charge - General CS - Connection Charge MSA - municip.1 State Aid OP/SA - Developer Payment/Special Assessment I - Investment Interest Onolto6 1/N8 c19y or OBOBO - G9[9u BBD06t 119e9-2000l MPVAW 10/89 TOTAL PBAB +Ap]BCf CW9 I939IAL rINABCIBO rI1111L PIBAYCINO ___---------------------------- (IN yBM LISTED MISS PAYMT 6CI OOLB SPBCIPI®) ' -- -- ------------ EfrYPAIBE B IB IS-E B-B O OP9 (PP) OPS O6 C9 nsA PCSBRVE DP/EA BB-SESER OS-YTEB OBbOV I O 19% SYN9l0S myma116 116 (SON) 65 65 SS Mllw/SeASIR 30 30 30 (Slid" of Y Ot heotol 317 SS 191-00/151 Eoe0fegl bsN ree96ele 3]] 373 - TOTAL 367 367 313 55 IIS 190b51 DENY Nor 13 MS.Oelano ® Pert I Trt 170 1l0 l d 1]0 191-93/S yrol Pert II Intet0Pt1130-510 510 1.1 :30-510 (91-00/10 yro) 3.1 Stnhho My 13" 13M SR 1M-10/80 yv) N35 (M 9r SA) Litt $notion SS 35 3S 35 --35 -- YOYAL "IS 19 19" '-- SAM Nor 13 6noOPlmt Port I Sant O5 65 1.1 PS 191-95/Sl tort II MR 330 330 1.1 330 (91-90/10) 3.) Pert III 5bwr 565 56S 1.1 565 (9190/10)-----_ -__- %SAL 960 960 960 NMrpury PwgrMMu .11. IS 15 IS CITY IMILITIY S]SO 3750 1103 (90-05) 953 (90-05) 1.) bnOM for In 1989; 3.) rinuclo9 may inclose OPentlwe fool., 9enerotee by ow o9erotlnne 1991 3'WSPORTATIOE 65.5 1%.5 Ibfotl forth rronno9e/13 363 363 WIIw I 65.9 1%.5 Ibbtl SOOth Front." 363 363 400 Olt Cryetel My 575 505 19 160 (Br369e (Mid" MPi..ti Olt Cgetel My/ 34 36 36 Seolwntln9 _ -_-- 1 IOfAL 559 558 165 393 l SENY 6 SAM 191.0000 Pion to Be BowloW in 19%1 --- AIAL Draftee 7/80 CITT Or Oeo1(O - CevITAL MwOBs (1989-I000) e.viae 10/89 TOTAL INITIAL }IWL r1aL m 11111 CINw O (IN T6M Wsm L»NYI'e N PATS DDLN 8P6CI}I®1 Te11N »QTe T NOT m Tnnxae a is :N-e e-a o Oe9 (e9) ors 09 ea NBA ensue ov/8A 06-ealml 09-MI.Trn oeboce x o d 1»] -_sVJM1 1TATlw BNy 1] 199I Safety Iar[.Oak Millw/12ni9Ne1 Mk Dak r.. IY111wnr9YN1 ]5] ]SI rw/sea"r Bridge IN 25 )S ear teta w- 663 623 62 Y9Ca111) Bq 12/b SrOvaw 252 252 (B[eee-Mlliwl ---- ---------- TOlaL 1269 1152 117 (N6A/lOn) . (93 IYN 6 ,6) Y.r9T.es vr.rareON... 91. is IS 15 15 1»3 SkkYMTATI06 rer Btrwt 383 383 I Bem-orwe Orakardl orwo orae.rd 50 50 .' Ile. a akanllal Ylllw a[Le9• 575 175 e00 1Ya[tO.a IS) ]5] IOCstY a.l, airy Bceaa (wwc) so so MAL 1315 065 650 909 (N IOnl 1»6 --s1AY6PoksATIOY 6[m Y a 379 379 Y. a[NNan[orN'• 100 IN Us Brfdw City Strwt• INI.C) 50 s0 SOlAL 570 376 150 (w3) e00 IXBA/lOnl YBr9eaas raw[•ae•.e 91. is 15 ]S 15 is IO2 50 (93-01/MAI Is 535 133 (93-03neA) 63 B35 183 306 )) (96-03) e0 10 (94-03) 1)5 100 106 51 19e-031 (Brie" 50 (91-03) Mona.) )1) )88 e00 301 76 (71-0e) )5 (Bridge awe.) 50 (95-0e1 303 126 )5 crafted T/BB CIST Or M000 - CAPITAL BVDMS (1999-1000) "dead 10/99 TOTAL INITIAL PIML yLt PaWCT COST r]90rC1a0 rlIIA9CIN0 (IN RUM USTID OILMe PAT]®1T 6C9 M 6PECIFI6D) — ZFEMPrler a Is 16-s r-r O an (rP) OPS M Cr MBA Raman DP/M M-SWER 05-M M M-00.:1 0 1995 TMMPQMTLM Will. De/atem.t 310 My Rd 116 meld delete need. (12 to Cty 6) Fry 11 Tttttle 300 1993 safety byr. my delete Read LT lmtalled v t4 pmpet rmaral - 910 a19sel (ft.t) state/red. - 45 City Streets (Mac) 90 SO 50 (96-05) Lm9 Lea. - 11.5 lgA4 660 SO s0 2" (NOW10/'1) 19M It(84- My 355 SSO S 5 439 111 197-061 etaatsm City et (ace) sD sD SD TOTAL as 550 55 _- 5 -619 161 dt� Pra attdmm 51. 15 15 15 15 15 15 1997 T l as S( (imp I e l) 501 )OP 2e1 60 M Yty Settee (ILLta) 90 50 TOML 392 301 let 110 300 (MM IOM rtpsOy rmpateMtu as. 1s 15 15 15 15 �1s 19M 1999 10689.1HD To: Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members,l1COUMCIn From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratlwkY�MEETING Date: October 12, 1989 V� ��T231989 Subject: Site Appraisal CITY OF 0R01Y0 Issue - Formal authorization to expend monies from the Building Fund to obtain an appraisal of value on Site C. Introduction - As an aid to ascertain a reasonable value for the property, it would be helpful to obtain th- value from a certified appraiser. The cost is $2,000.00. Alternatives - 1. Authorize budget expenditure. 2. Table. 3. Not authorize. Aecc ndation - It is recommended that the monies be authorized from the Building Fund. Proposed Notion - Moved by _, seconded by , the Orono Council authorizes, the expenditures of u• 0 62,000.00 for appraisal of value on Site C from the Buildi. 'und. Ayes _ nays cc: John Gerhardsor., Public Works Director Tom Kuehn, Firance Director lntero..,ce Memo • Dates October 9, 1989 Ton officer Bruce Anderson From: Chief Kilbo Re: Appreciation - Case file 89-5Z75 Mr. Gordon Buhrer, 2620 Fox Street, stopped in to thank You for your won: on his check case. roar work is appreciated. • Orono Police M.N. (ilee cn,eror Poke NEee 49./^epaVLet ^•mrgq 54.5111 lime `enq 911 7A. Boa fl 44S Willow Drive Crystal Bay, MN SS223 Lon` Lake, MN SS356 October 4, 1989 Officer Kurt Erickson Orono Police Department 445 Willow Drive Lonq Lake, ?IN 55356 Dear Kurt, I am writing to express my appreciation on your efforts as the Investigative Coordinator. You gave our project a very good start in that you brought to conclusion many cases, some cf which are listed below: Albertson fraud case Laurie Ann Facers swindle case ' John Cashmore CSC case John Latterell CSC case Wavzata Country Club theft Rick's uDer Value burrtlarv_ Car Prowl case- Orono H.S. Prudden burclary Guy Griffin theft O The'examole you set by vour work is something to be proud of. Thank you for ,your fine performance. Sincerely, / , / Melvin Kilbo Chief. of Police MK:Bb Sel,mg North lake Mmnefanke Cammurh1vs of OmM.. mpg Lake, Minnefonka Beach and Spring Perk AR9A ODAD ARP31 CBJE(.'c1VE DAa srA7® 1. mlMMI1Y DCVHLp!@R' Cmtlnuod E. Comty Road 116 Ptelimimry plan rsis 09/02/69 St public info mt9 for design rsis at 7/10 mtg Rsidmt rsis 7/26 P.e.d public info 9/25 - Tabled to 10/23 '87 Sm F. 9to[v Water Msmgsect 88 Sm Plan ' 09 Sm -88 Sm C. Comusity Dselcpsemt A.' admnce effective mnttols 10/01/89 09 Sm Di[ectim arm] Progress of mazi. B. Mork tarards service and rsults mist.] 'Mo Surprises' process 2. ENVIIQa@:IN. PRDDR.42CM A. Stubbs Bay Public informetimal meeting 00/15/89 Meeting held 7/27/89 Significant Isus M® Prmstei at 9/25 scg tiblsd W 30/23/89 Drtaalme assessoe t azs intent 11/01/69 Engage an appraise: W15/89 Cmslds finaneln9 aptims W30/09 Cuneldet dsel<ssst moratmis 13/30/89 Dom sale 12/30/89 If Appropti,t, - M [ e e pmjeet - Ptojst bid C3/90 - Commas project a/90 - Assn project 10/90 - Caaplete p[ojc 10/m '69 Sm S. Solid Waste Masgsst Bevis ¢qenirsi cellectla. 09/89 if needed Revis Pcogrs Petforamse 10/89 maid omtract E. curbside 10/89 Ic be bid !m 19% R.L. lrcstivs to impcse MIN Pattic mtim 2 Ales1 WRL AI®1 m9srive 2. � PIOJ8.1TQ1 Continued C. Metro Waste Rtplacemant Completion Projact Lift Station 30/Lift Station 41 Replecesst Bid crud P Iic informetiael meeting - Financing Impleaeat financing - Connection charges 3. Oapg21E ML 089Q69ffief A. 1990 C acil Gnat Setting C®rice Complete B. 1990 Budget Process Asssamemt Board of Revim Pteiiminary Budget guidelines CVital project, guidelines revis Alternate Dates 08/01 - 08/15 Preliminary slll levy aloptim Muth in Tamtim) 09/15 - 10/15 Hearing Budget adoption .0/25/89 Final levy adoption C. 19W Legislative Program Revdy D. Teas Bu_.ding Staff Council 10/01/89 Delayed] W at least 12/31/89 05/22/99 5/22/89 Bid amrded 06/89 6/22/89 Pra-onnet,etion Mg. held 02/89 7/18/89 Conatruction coam d Connection etergs ~d 0/14/89 9/20/89 Cmst mostly amplRd padLg 1 a r k 02/09 8/20/89 ptelimirory 19N Strategic Col satti g pose td 09/89 05/89 Bd of Revi. Mid 5/11/89 6 5/2e/89 06/89 Presented Initial Guideline 6/12/89 Pteseated Revised Guidelines 6/26/89 08/89 09/15/89 6/30/89 May require action by 8/1/59 7/24/89 Adopted prelidauy max. levy 8/14/89 Adopted *Final' pralimimry moms. 8/28/0 Special U Budget Hearing del dpe nding [mN olts of 10/15/89 Special Session 12/15/89 12/89 ,"9 AREA GOM ARPA oA7a eve DAB SIATUS 6. SERVICE UILIVON' A. Facilities Upgrade Determine if udectakin9 09/01/89 6/29/89 Bus tour of faoilitim - Morcial Meeting aft for Cute Site - Public information meatimW If Uadertakes Site acquisition, if esy Select architect Design Final plawoata Plara/spcifiratious pin sing Bid overdo .87 BSO B. Ng Page Financial Develop balance of Policy 12/89 Be B1O Policy C. Business Strategy plow Police 07/01/09 7/10/09 Presestad to C it Golf Course 09/01/89 7/10/89 Initial option to c cil Directed to asse idem to make profitable 0. service Review Engineering servicau 09/89 Legal servirae 10/89 B. Assessing service Replacsest 7/10/09 Council directed tcaieitiael arragesest pls explore contract aid/m sploymea: S/19/89 'Ads' subeittad a AIRA mV. ARYA 091fi'RVE MOLS SfX125 5. B@PR R6QIIQ5 A. CaR�enaatiam a. Eaploymmt 6. f91R10.TIRD E�lore p foreance imeitive 10/89 Program E,1.o e'Cefecela Benefits'/ 07/01/89 IM Se tiro 125 Plan Determine Sertim 89 rorylrmmta 10/01/89 Affirmative Attlm Program 07/01/89 adoption Anticipate delay in Re irmets far mtil after 1/90 9/28/89 Anticipate Cargreasioml rmeel of regui rmmt 6/89 Nn 1m er State regoirmet COUNCIL MEETING OCT231989 LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVACITY OF ORONO FOR MEETING OF October 23, 1989 Septic System Installer - Duane Ritter Excavating 7120 Vernon St, Rockford Gambling License - Lions Club Mound Northwest Tonka Sell pull tabs at: Navarre Laner 3435 Shoreline Drive .. Trapping Permit - Michael & Sally Bosanko 2090 Shoreline Drive Poa Once Box 66 SEPTIC Of ORONO cry" 'Y'�apeiO4 LICENSESYSTEM APPLICATION 1 BUILDING a ZONU4G - 413-7357 ASSESSNG of insurance, and-vidence of MPCA Certification or Home Sewage Treatment Workshop :'.endence must accompany this application. All applications arz bject to a ten (110) day approval period. 1. Business or trade name r/r9-We R�mp �XQ.I=!•f.� �?� 2. Business address 3. Busiresa phone i��%.5/r 5f Residence phone S in " 4. Name of applicgt or co any representative holding MV0, certification I 5. Type of certification held: // installer 7—Pumoh a Site evaluator System designer ii',p Is this a Provisional Certificate? _ Certificate NO.�—Z' 6. If no Certificate is held, provide evidence of attendance at one of the On -Site Sewage Treatment Workshops held immediate: prior to the current construction season. 7. Have you ever held a Septic System Installer license in Orono before?If3 Most recent year 175 8. Have you ever had a license revoked? )r_U When? Where? _ J. Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes_ No�_ ). Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes_ No " - SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: 1. $25.00 license application fee. _ 2. $2000.00 license and permit bond naming City of Orono asgcp y.1D_o obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accepted. 3. $10-50-100,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance. LXo S H-50 4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate or evidence of attendence at On -Site Sewage Treatment Workshop held immediately prior to current construction season. &W /y-3)-Cj/ LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE.SUBMITTED. List persona other than applicant who a e authorized by you to _ apply for permits under your license J�=q l�J��40n The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Orono, Minnesota, for.license to install and repair septic" systems, and/or pump out septic tanks,subject to the laws. of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinance P of the City of Orono. Date ZU-&- �% Applicants Signature Staff recommendation r Denial _ Date i0/7- f39' 1' Reason for denial: City Council Action Date Approved _ Denied Date license mailed Department of Revenue - Gaming Division For Owd Use Only Mail Station 3315 li Pan Aml: MN St. Paul, 55146.3315 (612) 297-53DO �� Cheek No. Date: GAMBLING LICENSE RENEWAL APPLIC LICENSE NUMBER: 1.11111.111 I EFF. DATE: 12II1 N I AMOUNT OF FEE: 1125.11 1. Applicant —Legal Name of 0rgan1O11m 2. Sheet Addrw LIARS CLUB All I1AlAKEST TOIKA Bel 201 3. Cloy, Slate, Zip e. County 5. Bushels Phone bend, AA SS361 ktangln 1 612 1 412-1122 S. Name of Chief Executive Officer 7. Business Phone Jolla [tells 1 612 1 412-1261 S. Name of Treasurer or Person Who Accounts for Revenues 9. Budesss Phone Stan Iltrttlevekl 1611 1 511-1661 10. Name of Gambling Manager 11. Bond Number 12. Bushels Phone Ervin Sttveaatn 5161615 612 1 111-SO14 13. Name of Eetesldhansol Where Gambling Will Take Place 14. County 15. No. of Adlve Miami Namrrt lust Navarre Itnulla 5$ 13. Lessor Name 17. Mon1My Rant: lavers lute 2J11 Is. II Bingo will be cmductes win this license, peen Goa ly days and limes of Bingo. Days Times I Dw. Times I DEVI! Times 19. Hill license ever been: ❑ Revoked Date: ❑ Suspended DMs: ❑ Denied Date: 20. Have Internal controls been submined previously? ❑ Yes O No (If'N.. anach copy) 21. Has current lease been Illes wilh the toad? ❑ Yes ❑ No (if'No: attach copy) 22. Has current sketch been filed with the toad? ❑ Year ❑ No (if'No: attach copy) GAMBLING SITE AUTHORIZATION By my signature below, local law enforcement officers or agents of the good we hereby authorized to enter upon the site. at any time, gambling is Ming conducted, to observe the gambling and to enforce the law for arty unautherizes grand or practice. BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION By my signature below, the Board is hereby aulhorizM to Inspect the bank records of the General Gambling Bank Account whenever necessary to lulall requirements of current gambling rules and law. OATH hereby declare that: 1. I ham read this application and all information submitted to the Board; 2. All information submitted is true, accurate and complete; 3. All Other required information has been fully disclosed. 4. 1 am the chief azecutive officer of the organization: 5. I mums full responsibility for the fair and lawn! operation of all activities to be conducted; S. 1 will femllladze myself with the laws of 1M Stale of Minnesota re$PWMg gambling and rules of the ward and agree, if licensed, to abide by those laws end rules, Including amendments thereto. 23. Official Legal Name of Organization tine ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTICE BY LOCAL GOVERNING BODY I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of nth application. By acknowledging hacept. I admd having been served win notice net has appautlon win M miewed by the Charitable Gambling Coned Solid and if approved by the Bond, will become, effective SO drys from they date of receipt (noted bebwl, unless a resdutbn 0 the local governing body is passed which specifically diwlpxa such soNlty and a copy of mat n soliton is received by de, Chmlable Gambling Control Board alpha 80 days of the Mknw noted (1ate. 24, City/Counry, Name (Local Governing Body) Township: It alto Is located within a tovmehip, Flew complete items 24 till, end 25: Signatureof Petition Receiving Appligl 26. Signature of Person Receiving Applicallon ' ilJ�' 'f DeRsesived (n4 data begins es dry ptdod) a Rao Data Tilla: `rite 1' `- I! r k,'fin• FrininAlL,f¢ ion to Local Governing Body: T"r4Np Name, CG-00022-0114rlhn White Copy—Boud Canny —Applicant Ptnk—LOW Gowning Body APPLICATION LIMITED LEGHOLD TRAP PER14IT DATE: 5v T 26 ,19jy Name Application Number:_ Address: 5110"1tle/1ue w"Ve f./ja. ya%�[)trcuo) �'11Nis?9i Location of Trapline:, �W SCiore vot ./(Ali/' S:✓r o-F �n�t�tr rca �FrS � RJy� Number of Traps: 4 _Ma[ntenance procedure for trapline: /Vagi ked 5 Period of time needed for permit: 0-�/I.•P- 4 77 71 �ltrccks%�„w,s�-avto-�iva�p; � Seasou.^HO�tzp) Pu�7rpose ( Include w,,rittten� statement ty/of -h/ardship) ,/ rI agree to furnish a certified property owners lint of property owners within 500 feet of trapping area. Property owners will be notified of application. I agree to abide by all applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws including ordinance 232. Fee paid: Date: 19_ Check Cash r Initials �i�re o ppScant .1 RECOMMENDED: Yes Q No �I OROW yYl t w OFFICE ��iL�i 131J10 Fubiic Safety Director E11RE�n�NAW XV RlS4scm Co01 R01 T03:-� 09/.S/3 APPROVED: Yes 0 No City Administrator Certified list of property owners within 500 feet of your trapline can be obtained from the Hennepin County Property & Description Office, A-603 County Government Center, downtown Minneapolis. — •yrrCebq.. e"•rMl,�y � 1�y1nl JrJ<1 Rp i l 2vQ- if 1� 7 I J i�. r •,�` zx�,o iURGNCrov R4 It .� Ll. <.• j u IN 54 Q•,f �i' I+r La rota` •®Iv �� a M' S+� �i LM Q H� x L. i0/15/89 PR: 31 CB PRREGOR EMP E NAME DPT BRAHAMSON, FREDERIC 93 NDERSON, BRUCE L 31 ERNHARUSON, MARK E 12 ERNHARDSON, MARK E 12 OBZIEN, SUE A 31 OSMA, JAMIE L 12 RAUN, ROBERT R 93 RINKHAUS, JOHN F 42 HESWICK, GARY B 31 44RISTIANSON. SALLY 31 ORNICK, JAMES L 31 ENNISON. TROY A 35 NGLISHIII, IRVING H 31 RICKSON, KURT R 31 FISCHENICH, DAN T 31 FRITILER, JOHN M 31 AFFRON, MICHAEL P 33 GERHAROSON. JOHN R 42 GREGORY, JAMES D 42 HALLIN, DOROTHY M 12 HANSEN, ST£VEN C 42 HANSING, CAROL J 31 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P 31 KILBO, MELVIN H 31 KNUTSON CHARLOTTE A 15 KUEHN , fHCiMAS M 15 KUYPER SCOTT E 31 MABUSTH, JEANNE A 33 MORAN, MARK F 31 MiORQWCIYNSKI, JAMES 31 NAAB. THERESA L 12 OAS, DANIEL 0 93 OBRIEN, RANDY L 92 OMAN, LYLE E 33 QUASI, WAYNE A 92 RATHBUN, BARRY J 92 SASS, JOHN J 42 SCHAUSS. CHARLES R 31 SCHEFFLER LAURIE K 12 SKREEN. DALE S 42 STEFFENHAOEN, RONALD 93 STEVENS, BETTY G 93 THOMTON, MARK R 31 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F 31 TQMCZYK, MARK W 31 WALSH, KFVIN L 35 WALTERS. LINDA G 15 YTD GROSS 272.7.5 33151 - 89 441a$.34 46283.94 11632.06 11406.58 1939.50 28649.25 30801.20 3876.36 32591.30 372.30 33037.85 29302.50 29102.40 31103.14 26590.07 35531,97 25364.52 23266.02 20679.31 10803.05 30604.79 38727,12 18811.15 36593.80 9033.85 31578.64 29926.57 35512,83 18339.23 1467.50 20796.20 22274.55 24614,46 21177.01 22421.54 25164.35 16202.43 21960.93 23297.96 3407.29 27645.U1 30032.33 29325.62 670.23 10810 13 CURRENT GROSS 78.75 1415.32 25G-i 2115.60 836.40 845.88 24.75 1309,00 1468.00 211.05 1317,15 51.00 1426.82 1453.68 1347.92 1507.39 1287.20 1693.37 1133.91 1108.90 1009.90 470.90 1420.43 1888.88 896.40 1798.96 584.96 1504.95 1337.28 1517.63 8$8.40 57.50 904.52 1108.80 1196.20 1033.17 973-60 1080,08 797,78 995.61 1110.32 76.13 1320,31 1315.44 1301.21 202.22 724.03 a 0 e 30/1S/BB PR. 31 - CB PR EGOR EMP • NAME OPT YTO CURRENT GROSS GROSS ; -YEAGER• DONALD C 93 1620.00 201.00lee - • 089 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 10-23-99 PAGE 1 ' CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO, INV. 8 P.O. 8 MESSAGE 90002 10/19/89 25.00 A-1 MINNETONKA RENT PROPANE 72-4220-549-91 25.00 ... ...-CKS 11006 10/19/89 6.52 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES O1-4210-039-12 96OD6 10/19/89 6.52 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-057-14 96006 10/19/89 6.52 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-069-15 BE 006 10/19/89 6.52 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES O1-4210-120-31 Same 30/11/to 6.52 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-174-33 96006 10/19/89 0.52 ACRO-MINNE SOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES O1-42LO-249-42 39.12 ... ...-CKS 96012 30/19/89 21:171.01 ALBRECHT EXCAVATING PYMT 3 LS 10/43 26-4531-433-81 25874.09 . " •- -CKS 96020 10/10/89 318.00 AMERICAN NAIL BANK BOND ISSUANCE FEE 43-4630-910-80 96020 10/10/82 393.50 AMER ICAN NAIL BANK BON. ISSUANCE FEE 46-4630-909-48 771.50 . u.0 .. •-CNS 96031 10/19/89 22.82 AT 6 T COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 22.82 ' u.. -•--CKS 96070 10/19/89 119.84 BOARMAN 6 ASSOCIATES SPACE STUDY 15-4306-650-00 119.94 . ..... ••'-CKS :960Id 10/19/89 50.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN END RETAIN AUG 01-4304-080-16 .16074 10/19/99 123.00 SONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENO S•AL COAT PROJ 01-4305-249-42 :96074 1O/19/89 017.08 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENO SEAL COAT PROJ 01-4305-249-42 :96074 10/19/89 1,659.00 BONESTRO0 ROSENE ASN OE VEL IMP FEE AUG 01-43OS-840-71 '91074 IOILO189 228.00 SONESTROO ROSENE ASN CRIS ST LT 24-4399-422-00 '96074 10/19/89 599.94 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENO LS 10/43 26-4305-433-81 :91074 10/19/89 4,204.47 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN STAKING/INSPECT AUG 26-4306-433-81 96074 10/10/89 87.75 BONESTRO0 ROSENE ASN ESMT ORONO PLAZA 26-4305-434-82 :96074 10/10/89 87.75 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ESMT ORONO PLAZA 26-4306-436-84 :96074 10/19/89 171.00 60NESTR00 ROSENE ASN ENO CONST AUG 73-4305-509-92 7,827.97 "'' •• -CKS 1910,1 10/19/89 117.20 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY FILM 01-4210-059-14 96041 10/19/80 224.98 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY FILM DEVELOP 01-4210-129-31 96081 10/19/89 20.40 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY FILM DEVELOP 01-4210-174-33 362.58 ""' '•'-CKS 0 1689 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER .. 19 PAGE 2 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. C P.O. 1 MESSAGE 288037 10/19/19 4.253.55 BURY & CARLSON INC FINE MIX AC 01-4233-249-42 {,253.55 ..... ••'-CKS 29609t 10/19/89 B#8.80 CARGILL SALT SALT 72-{23/-5{9-91 3 -8.80 298130 10/19/89 93.19 COLONIAL LIFE INS CO OCT INS 01-/152-126-31 296130 10/19/89 122.66 COLONIAL LIFE INS CO OCT INS 01-4152-129-31 206.15 uu. "'-CKS 2681{3 10/19/89 4.50 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP NOV INS 01-4152.039-12 2601/3 10/19/89 2.70 COMMERCIAL LIFE/D'.P NOV INS O1-4152-069-15 268143 10/19/89 2.70 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP NOV INS 01-/152-121-31 208143 La/19/89 3.60 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP NOV INS 01-/152-126-31 286143 10/19/89 9.90 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP NOV INS 01-/152-129-31 2961/: 10/19/89 3.60 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP NOV INS 01-/152-17/-33 296183 10/19/80 5.40 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP NOV INS 01-4152-2/9-/2 2261/3 10/12/80 1.03 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP NOV INS 72-3152-549-91 266143 10/19/89 1.62 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP NOV INS 73-4152-569-92 2961{3 10/19/89 .90 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP NOV INS 71-4152-590-93 36.00 . u.. ••'-CKS 268 LSO 10/19/89 38.80 CULLIGAN WATER SOFTNER 01-4343-090-17 200150 10/19/89 35./0 CULLIGAN WATER SOFTNER 7/-4343-590-33 72.20 ....• •••_CKS 298181 10/19/89 39.39 DAY TIMERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-/210-129-31 39.39 u... •••-CNS 268192 10/19/89 18,515.00 _HLERS 6 ASSOC INC BOND CONSULT 26-4300-439-91 18,515.00 uu. •••-CKS 268169 10/10/69 9.304.00 ROLF E ERICKSON MY ASSMT O1-4307-059-1/ 9.304.00 •uo •'•-CKS 298202 10/19/19 10.62 EMRICH BAKING CO ROLLS 71-/802-SOL-9/ 10.62 u... ••'-CKS ( f 1999 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 10-23-99 PAGE 3 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRi PTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 9 P.O. 9 MESSAGE 290212 10/19/82 20.40 EXPRESS MESSENGER POSTAGE 01-3500-000-00 20.40 u.' ...-CKS 99251 10/19/89 99251 10/12/89 364.50 354.50 GATEWAY SAFETY PROD FLARES 01-4232-129-31 GATEWAY SAFETY PROD FLARES 01-4232-175-34 722.00•••-CKS 12::2506 94250 10/19/89 3.15 GENUINE PARTS CO LUSE 01-4220-249-42 99259 10/19/89 99258 3.58 GENUINE PARTS CO PART 01-4231-220-61 10/19/89 98258 10/19/89 319.07 2.40 GENUINE PARTS CO GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS TACK RAG 01-4232-249-42 98258 10/10/89 11.88 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS 01-4343-099-17 72-4220-549-91 99258 10/19/89 912SO 10/19/89 .72- GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS 72-4232-549-91 10/19/89 7.82 .72 GENUINE PARTS CO GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS PARTS 72-4232-549-91 72-4232-549-91 2510/19/89 99258 30.15 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS 73-4234-559-92 10/19/89 27.94 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS 73-4342-589-92 405.59 •••-CKS 99275 10/19/89 99215 236.77 GROUP HEALTH INC NOV INS 01-4151-121-31 10/19/39 99275 10/19/39 93.35 902.23 GROUP HEALTH INC NOV INS 01-4151-120-31 99275 10/19/89 93.35 GROUP HEALTH INC GROUP HEALTH INC NOV INS NOV INS 01-4151-129-31 99275 10IL9189 191.00 GROUP HEALTH INC NOV INS 01-4151-174-33 74-I151-590-3 1.516.70 uu. •••-CKS 90280 10/10/29 53.32 HACH CHEMICAL CO TEST CHEMICALS 72-4234-549-91 53.32 �� •• -CKS p304 10/19/89 11.40 DEPT PROP TAXAT]':.9. VOTER REG 01-4321-040-13 11.40 99330 10/10/89 94.78 ICMA RETRMNT CORP IGMA 10/2-10/15 01-4140-039-12 04.78 ... ...-CKS 95370 10/10/89 83.30 3IM HATCH SALES CO PARTS 01-4232-249-42 53.36 .0 ...-CKS 99435 10119/19 20.72 LOGIS - SUITE 300 LABELS CENT C!-4210-020 11 L 926 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 10-23-89 PAGE t CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 9 P.O. 9 MESSAGE 99435 10/19/89 21.70 LOGIS - SUITE 300 PRINTER MAINT O1-4340-069-IS 98435 10/19/89 717.55 LOGIS - SUITE 300 APPL SUPPORT AUG 01-4352-069-15 98435 10/19/89 415.97 LOGIS - SUITE 200 APPL SUPPORT AUG O1-4352-129-31 98t35 10/1B/89 218.39 LOGIS - SUITE 300 APPL SUPPORT AUG O1-4352-174-33 43S 98S3S10/19/89 LOIL9/89 400.65 LOG IS - SUITE 30U DATA PROC AUG O1-4355-069-15 3S 98t 630.78 LOGIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC AUG 01-4355-129-31 98435 10/19/89 328.42 LOGIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC AUG 01-6355-174-33 98435 10/19/89 8.70 LOGIS - SUITE 300 PRINTER MAINT 72-4340-569-91 98435 30/19/89 1t6.10 LOGIS - SUITE 300 APPL SUPPORT AUG 72-4352-549-91 98435 10/19/39 21.57 LOGIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC AUG 72-4355-549.91 99t35 10/10/89 13.00 LOGIS - SUITE 300 PRINTER MAINT 73-4340-569-92 98t3S 10/19/89 292.62 LOGIS - SUITE 300 APPL SUPPORT AUG 73-4352-569-92 98435 10/19/8b 187.57 LOGIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC AUG 73-4355-569-92 3,t21.55 ` u' . -CKS 98t37 10/19/89 21.539.00 CITY OF LONG LAKE 3RD OTR FIRE O1-4315-130-32 98t37 10/19/89 2.534.40 CITY OF LONG LAKE 3RD OTR PD RENT O1-4332-129-31 24.173.40 • ••. ...-CKS 96439 10/19/89 31.07 LONG LK FORD TRACTOR HEATER PLUG O1-4232-249-42 31.07 ��• •••-CKS 98tt1 10/19/89 7.50 LONG LAKE TIRE SERV TIRE MOUNT 01-4342-209-42 7.50 ••' ----CKS 98ttS 10/19/89 31.20 LYMAN LUMBER LUMBER 01-4333-099-17 31.20 •.' ----CKS 98474 10/19/89 10773.86 METRO WASTE CONTROL PREPAID MCC NOV 73-1282-000-00 10:773.86 ••• '••-CKS 98t80 10/19/39 863.03 MIDWEST ASPHALT AC/",. 'INE C1-l233-2A9-42 863.03 ��• •••-CKS 98t80 10/1B/8B 66.11 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES O1-4324-099-17 99t90 10/19/89 277.90 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 72-4324-569-91 96490 10/10/89 3.56 MINNEGASCO UTILITIES 73-4324-569-92 347.57 eft• •••-CKS 98t95 10/19/39 7.00 MN BENEFIT ASSN NOV INS O1-l152-12V-31 89 CITY OF ORONO NECK NO. DATE p... M... 10/10/00 10/19/89 1o/19/ee 10/19 /89 10/19/89 10/19/89 10%19/89 30/19/89 10%19%99 10/19/89 10/19/89 10/19/89 10/19/89 10/19/89 10/19/89 10/10/89 10/19/89 10/19/89 10719/89 10/19/89 AMOUNT 7.00 - 139.41 139.41 . 9.07 9.07 • I58.21 16 . 45 3.68 43.39 9.15 45.93 $0.99 60 18.12 3.58 4.45 3.83 5.50 30.20 31.37 435.45 . 293.93 993.93 - 41.03 41.03 • 3.682.35 3.541.53 7.223. 88 151.70 151.70 5.00 �i CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION MOTOROLA INC INSTALL RADIO NAAB TERRI ELECTION MTO A 10-23-89 PAGE 5 ACCOUNT NO. INV. 8 P.O. 8 MESSAGE •••-CKS 01-4341-249-42 •••-CKS 01-4381-040-13 ...-CKS NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31 NAVA RR HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4210-174-33 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4231-290-61 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4232-249-42 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4233-249-42 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4342-099-17 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 01-4343-099-17 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 72-4231-549-91 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 72-4234-549-91 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 72-4342-549-91 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 73-4234-569-92 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 73-4332-569-92 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 73-4340-569-92 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 73-4344-569-92 NAVA NNE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES 74-4232-590-93 NSP OCT STREET LIGHT 01-4325-249-42 NSP UTILITIES 73-4324-569-92 PUBLIC EMPL BET ASSN PERA PP 10/15 01-2031-000.00 PUBLIC EMPL NET ASSN RFD EXCESS TOWN AID 01-3334-000-00 PERRYS DEEP ROCK ST REPAIR SOD 01-4341-129-31 PERRYS VENTURES INC CAR WASH 01-4341-249-42 i 6 1939 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 30-23-89 PAGE 6 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV, f P.O. 9 MESSAGE 5.00 •.... ••'_CKS 2966B7 10/19/89 6.89 SCHARBER 6 SONS TRACTOR PARTS 01-6232-249-42 6.89 ..... •• -CKS 296719 10/19/89 15.00 DIKIE PETRO-CHEM CYL DEMMURAGE 72-6234-549-91 15.00 uu•. '••-CKS 296731 10/19/89 d15.10 STAR WEST CHEVROLET REPAIR SOD 01-6341-129-31 d6S.10 ••••• •••-CKS 296774 10/19/89 4.74 THOMTON/MARK OIL O1-4361-129-31 4.74 .... ..._CKS 296815 226815 10/19/39 10/19/89 48.70 11.76 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 296115 101,9/89 27.41 US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE DATA PROC 01-4320-249-42 296t15 296815 10/19/OR 10/19/89 22.42 US WEST COMMUN DATA PROD 01-6355-069-15 72-4355-569-91 33.22 133.51 US WEST COMMUN DATA PROC 73-4355-589-92 ••• •••-CKS 296t17 10/19/89 32.08 VESSCO INC REPAIR KIT 72-4342-549-91 32.08 •••• •••-CKS 296 t33 10/19/89 d3.00 WARNING LITES OF MN FLASHER 01-4331-209-42 4S.00 .....• ..._CKS �290901 290901 10/19/89 10/19/BB 16.90 11d.10 INSTY PRINTS HOMESTEAD CARDS 01-d322-059-13 201.60 INSTY PRINTS ENVELOPE 01-4322-O59-10 296902 10/19/89 1,153.00 G S CASBINETS INC CABINET ACCT/DH 01-4333-099-17 1.153.00 29690] 296903 10/19/89 10/19/t9 1.250.00 1.250.00 HERMAN APPRAISAL HERMAN APPRAISAL APPRAISER 26-d306-dad-82 2,500.00 ORONO PLAZA 26-d306-636-82 90004 10/19/89 16.29 CITY OF LONG LAKE SEPT FLASHER 01-4325-249-42 u H 1022 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE 296904 10/19/89 296005 10/19/89 290900 10/19/80 208907 10/19/89 296908 10/19/89 AMOUNT 14.72 71.01 773.12 773.72 8.00 6.00 4.85 4.85 7.79 7.79 ' 57.873.88 119.94 240.94 51,889 .00 378.00 393.50 1,501.97 11,874.28 1,049.01 125,100.22 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION CITY OF LONG LAKE SEPT LIFT DON RATH CEMENT CO RAMP MN DEPT NATURAL RES SHIPPING FEE KAREN PEDERSON INTEREST REFD EDWARD T LEHMAN INTEREST REFD FUND 01 TOTAL GENERAL FUND FUND 15 TOTAL BUILDNG CAPITAL OUTLAY F FUND 24 TOTAL PERM IMPROVE REVOLVING F FUND 20 TOTAL 1989 SWR-WTR CONSTR FUND FUND 43 TOTAL 1980 IMP BOND D/S FUND FUND 48 TOTAL 1989 SWR-WTR REVENUE BON FUND 72 TOTAL WATER OPERATING FUND FUND 73 TOTAL SEWER OPERATING FUND FUND 74 TOTAL GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD TOTAL 10-23-89 PAGE 7 ACCOUNT NO. INV. 0 P.O. 0 MESSAGE 73-4344-589-92 74-4343-590-93 74-4231-500-93 24-3280-000-00 24-3280-000-00 '••-CKS :.�...�-..r..w. ram. r-lr •�•..r-•�.- � .a.•:..L ..�-. -.`.. _...�-... .. .� _ -.. ..� r. .. .- .� y � ��: �.. •• �y1 rr-y•.ti�w... .... . COUNCIL MEETING 10101,89 PR CB PRRE30R EMP k NAME 29 o G i 2 31989 CITY OF ORONO YTD CURRENT DPT GROSS GROSS ABRAHAMSON. FREDERIC 93 ANDERSON BRUCE L 31 BERNHARDSON. MARE; E 12 B06ZIEN. SUE A 31 BOSMA. JAMIE L 12 BRAUN, ROBERT R 93 $R7NKHAUS. TOHN F 42 CHESWICK, GARY B 31 CHRIS7IANSON, SALLY 31 CORNICK. JAMES L 31 ENGLISHIII, IRVING H 31 ERICKSON KURT R 31 FISCHENICH, DAN T 31 FRITZLER JOHN M 31 GAFFRON. MICHAEL P 33 GERHARDSON. JOHN R 42 GREGORY JAMES 42 HALLIN, DOROTHY M 12 HANSEN. STEVEN C 42 HANSING CAROL J 31 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P 31 KILBO, MELVIN H 31 KNUTSON CHARLOTTE A 15 KUEHN. THOMAS M 15 KUYPER. SCOTT E 31 MABUSTH JEANNE A 33 MILLS JR. WALTER H 93 MORAN. MARK F 31 MOROWCZYNSKI, ,TAMS 31 NAAB THERESA L 12 OAS. DANIEL 0 93 OBRIEN, RANDY L 92 OMAN. LYLE E 33 , i;UAST , WAYNE A 92 RATHBUH. BARRY J 92 SASS JOHN J 42 SCHAUSS, CHARLES R 31 SGHEFFLER. IAVRIE K 12 SKREEG. DALE S 42 STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD 93 STEVENS. BETTY G 93 THOMTON. MARK R 31 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F 31 TOMCZYX, MARK W 31 WALSH KEVIN L 35 WALTERS, LINDA G 15 YEAGER DONALD C 93 193 50 40 50 31737 57 1530 42 43918.14 2115 60 17746 46 $86 40 ' 10760.70 587 15 1914.75 27 00 27341.25 1308 00 29333 20 1466 DO 3665 31 192 95 4�a 31204 15 1567 16 31511.03 1610 81 27948.82 1364.16 R' 27754 48 13G7 92 ' '• ;•� 29597.75 1364 16 , 25302.87 1287.20 33838 60 1693.27 24230 61 1435 08 R2157 22 1108 8O i9669.41 1115.70 10412.15 480 32 ;.• 29184 36 1428 11 s 3683Z 24 1888 88 17724 75 885 40 34794 84 1798.96 8448 89 529 24 ~''• 30073 69 1504.95 `- 22BA 77 L16 38 }. 28589 29 1337 28 ' 33995 20 1415 33 17452 83 885 40 1410 00 117 50 19891 76 1032 16 21165 75 1108 80 23418 26 1112 01 20143.84 89E 40 21452 94 1108 DO 24076 27 1088 73 15404.67 797 77 20965.32 1138.81 22187 64 1110 32 3331 16 315.00 26324 7L 1307 32 28715 89 1469 72 27944 41 1364 16 46'' 01 231 12 10086 10 804 48 1359 00 261 00 -------------dry ae_.asasaasee 49.588 94 - 5rE caasi 10/31/89 PR: 30 CM PRREGOR EMP M NAME DPT CALLAHAN. EDWARO J 11 GOETTEH, J.DIANN 11 GRABS K , .TAMES 11 NETTLES. ALAN R 11 PETERSON BARBARA A 11 CIT PAYR YTD CURRENT GROSS GROSS F 2416.70 241 67 2416.70 241 67 3000.00 300.00 2416.70 241.67 2111 70 241.67 1 266+6&' 1999 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 10-09-89 PAGE I CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. t P.O. 1 MESSAGE 282002 10/09/89 25.00 A-1 MINNETONKA RENT PROPANE O1-4220.249.42 25.00 ...... ..•-CKS 282005 10/09YB9 104.76 ALL STAR PRO GOLF CO TEES 74-4802-591-94 104.76 212008 10/00/80 4.10 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-42LO-039-12 212006 10/00/89 23.85 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES O1-4210-039-12 282006 10/00/22 23.84 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-052-14 282006 10/09/89 4.10 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-OSO-14 212006 10/00/99 23.65 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210.059-15 282006 10/09/89 11.23 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUP -LIES 01-4210-069.15 282000 10/09/89 4.11 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31 212000 10/09/89 23.55 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31 212006 10/09/89 32.17 RCRO-MTNNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES O1-4210-174-3] 282009 l0/00/tp 23.85 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPI IES O1-4210-174-33 292006 23.65 ACR0-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-42LO-249.42 212000 IS/00/10 10/OB/10 4.71 pCRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-249-42 2C1.11 2t2010 10/09/89 17.17 AT&T INFO SYSTEM TELEPHONE 74.4320-590-93 17.17 2t2014 10/00/19 280.22 ALL STAR ELECTRIC MOVE CONTROL PANEL 73-4344-569-92 280.22 282030 10/09/89 19.43 AT & T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS 01-434n-079-12 282030 10/09/t9 19.47 AT & T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS 01-4340-OSO-14 212030 10/00/89 19.43 AT & T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS 01.4340.069-15 282030 10/00//0 32.50 AT & T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS 01-4340-129-31 212030 10/00/t0 19.43 pT d T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS 01-4340-174-33 282030 t0/00/09 10.93 AT & T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS 01-4340.249-42 L29.65 292031 ID/OB/t0 9.65 AT & T COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-039-12 2$2031 10/06/30 1.39 AT & T CC1 TELEPHONE 01-4320.009-IS 2 t2011 IO/O9/89 10.23 AT & T Comm TELEPHONE O1-4320-175-74 2 t2071 10/OB/80 10.75 AT & T CIX TELEPHONE 26-4320-433-00 32.00 • 212014 10,01,19 399.34 ANCHOR P APER COPY PAPER 01-1261-000-00 212034 10/09/89 44.37 ANCHOR PAPER COPY PAPER O1-1261-000.00 443.71 L90B CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 10-09-89 PAGE 2 CHECK N0. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. E P.0 I MESSAGE 211011 IO/OO119 11 .L3 APACHE PAPER CO C FOLDS 01-4231-099-17 282040 10/09/19 37.77 APACHE PAPER CO C FOLDS 01-4231-129-31 125.90 ...... ...-CKS 282042 10/09/89 24.50 ASPLUND COFFEE MEETING EXP 01-4382-120-11 202042 10/09111 B0.00 ASPLUND COFFEE MEETING EXP 01-4382-L29-31 212042 10/00/B9 24.50 ASPLUND COFFEE MEETING EXP 01-4382-04-33 L29.00 ...... ....CKS 212084 10/02/89 B.LO BLITZ ONE MR FOTO PHOTO REFISH OL-4210-129-31 8.10 261165 10101/19 120.00 BLACKONIAK 6 SONS TRASH HAUL 01-4343-099-17 2 8201S 10/00/So 125.00 BLACKONIAN 6 SONS TRASH HAUL 01-4343-290-61 245.00 - ...... •• K 2 /2074 10/09/89 100.00 BONESTROD ROSENE ASH ENO RETAINER JUL 01-4304-200-41 2B2074 10/09/a9 41.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASK END CONSUL .IUL 0I-4305-200-41 282074 10/09/IV 140.38 BONESTROO ROSENE ASK ENO CONSUL JUL 01-43OS-249-42 212074 10/09/B9 L84.50 SONEST ROO ROSENE ASK GERMAN DR REBILL 01-4305-249-42 2l2074 1.05 50 BONESTROO ROSENE ASH ENOUL JUL 10%0030 652.25 BONESTROO ROSENE ASH ENO STUBBS BAY SNR 2t-4305.408-00 282074 10/09/62 102.50 BONESTROO ROSENE ASH ENG MOODHILL AVE 24-4305-417.00 212074 10/09/2 94.63 BONESTROO ROSENE ASK ENO CRIS RECONSTR 24-4305-421-00 282014 10/09/Is 177 00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASK HC PROP LIST/MAPS 24-4306-408-00 212074 10/OB/89 2.658.54 BONESTROO ROSENE ASH ENO LS 10/43 26-4305-433-B1 2 tIOTA '0/09/89 5,201.23 BONESTROO ROSENE ASH ENO WHY12 MIRWEIL 26-4305-437-85 212074 10/09/t0 405.00 SOHESTR00 ROSENE ASH HC PROP LIST MAPS 26-4306-433-81 212074 10/09/89 841.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASH ASMNTS EASEMENTS 20-4306-439-87 11,85B.53 - ...... ...-CKS 232085 10/00/89 38.70 BUDGET PR INTINO BUS CARDS OI-4322-129-31 282085 10/09/89 33.85 BUDGET PAIN TI NO ENVELOPES 01-4322-129-3L 12.55 . •••••• •• -CKS 2IZOe) 10/09/80 0.403.80 BURY R CARLSON INC FINE MIX AC/MC 01-4233-249-42 6,403.80 ...... ....CKS 202111 L0109180 1B.B5 CHESMICK/GARY MEALS 01-4354-129-]I 282111 !0/09/89 1.25 CHESMICK/GARY PARKING 01-43B L-129-31 20.10 • ...... ....CKS i^ r 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE 262133 103 0%09%OR 202141 10/09/89 2121d2 10/09/89 2821d2 10/09/89 21115d 10/09/89 28215d 10/09/99 28215d 10/01/1, 10/09/89 282154 282L54 10/09/99 282199 10/09/89 282202 10/09/89 28220d 10/09/89 282,12 10/09/89 212218 10/09/89 282258 10/09/69 CHECK REGISTER 10-09-89 PAGE 3 AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV 9 P.O. N MESSAGE 10.00 CGMM-REV SALES TAX SAES TAX SEPT 01-3500-000-00 9d0.00 COW REV SALES TAX SALES TAX SEPT I4-2222-000-00 950 00 •••-CKS AA 50 CORCORAN PET CARE ANIMAL CARE SEPT 01-4360-185-35 dd 50 184 50 COPY SUP PR INC DEVELOPER 01-1261-000-00 181. 96 COPY DUP PR INC MAINT AGREEMT 01-d210-129-31 366 46 •••-CKS 11.90- CYS UNIFORMS CREDIT 01-4221-121-31 176 50 CYS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS 01-4221-129-31 11.90- CYS UNIFORMS CREDIT 01-d221-129-31 38 95 CYS UNIFORMS STRAW HAT 01-d221-129-31 17.85- CYS UNIFORMS CREDIT 01-4221-129-31 11 90 CYS UNIFORMS CREDIT 01-4221-129-31 183 30 •••-CKS 323. 00 ELMER 3 PETERSON CO PUMP LIFT STAT 73-4344-569-92 323.00 •••-CKS 12 36 EMRICH BAKING CO ROLLS 74-4802-591-94 12 36 •••-CKS 21 OB FNG REPRO SYSTEMS ENLARGE PRINT 01-3500-000-00 2L 08 •••-CKS 20 40 EXPRESS MESSENGER POSTAGE O1-4321-134-33 20 40 ^•-cns 2 25 FES CAP MARKETS GRP 3RD DIN CHARGES 9L-3810-000-00 2 25 •••-CKS 59 50 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD WATER 01-8231-099-17 59 50 •••-CKS 1909 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 10-09-89 PAGE 4 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV R P 0 1 MESSAGE 282287 10/09/89 896.00 GOLF CAR MIDWEST CART RENTAL 74-4331-590-93 896 00 •"-CKS 282272 10/09/89 231_. 61 G 4 K SERVICES UNIFORMS OI-4221-249-42 282272 10/O9/19 1146. 19 G C K SERVICES RUGS 01-4343-129-31 2822 72 10/09/09 43 32 G 8 K SERVCES UNIFORMS 22-4221-549-91 282272 10/09/89 43. 37- G 4 K SERVICES UNIFORMS 72-4221-549-91 2822 72 10101/1, 30.34 G 8 K SERVICESI UNFORMS T2-4221-549-91 212222 10/09/89 43 32 0 8 K SERVCIS UN FORMS T1-4221-569-92 232222 10/09/80 IS 35 G 8 K SERVICES UNIFORMS 74-4221-590-93 436 86 ...... ...-CKS 282309 10/09/89 1.218.22 HENN COUNTY TREAS AUG ROOM S BOARD 01-4358-080-I6 1.218 22 212330 10/09/89 94 78 1CMA RETRMNT CORP ICMA 9/19-ID/1 01-4140-039-12 94 79 ...... ...-CKS 212385 10/03/99 6.31 KEAVEHYS DRUG POLISH 01-4210-129-31 6 31 ...... ...-Cns 212388 10/09/89 8.00 KILSO-MELVIN LUNCH MTG 01-4356-129-]1 202388 10/09/89 39 92 KIL80-MELVIN MEETINGS 01-4356-129-31 41.92 ' 282395 10/09/89 51S.05 KOEHNENS STANDARD SO) REPAIRS 01-4341-129-31 Sty 05 '••-cns 282]97 10/09/89 68 65 KUEHN-THOMAS TRAVEL SEPT 01-4381-069-I5 282392 10/09/89 5.50 KUEHN-THOMA9 TRAVEL SEPT 01-4381-129-31 282392 10/09/89 8 24 KUEHN-THOMAS TRAVEL SEPT 01-4381-174-33 282392 10/09/89 10 99 KUEHN-THOMAS TRAVEL SEPT 73-4381-569-92 93 31 . ...... ...-CKS 282402 10/09/89 4.233.50 LAKEMTKA CONS DIST LMCD 01-4380-020-11 4.233 50 . ...... ...-Crcs T..' � •.S3A1 i Y 1982 CI'iY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 10-09-89 PAGE 5 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV. a P.O. 8 MESSAGE 111104 IO/09/89 51.03 THE LAKER ADS 01-4322-039-12 2e2404 10/O9/8, 63.19 THE LAKER ADS 01-4322-114-33282404 0/09/89 2 3 THE LAKER WANT AD 0-4322-24942 39.95 • .. -CKS 282423 10/09/89 178.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES MAP MEMBERSHIP 01-4380-020-11 178 00 ...... ...-CKS 282439 282439 10/09/89 9.20 LONG LK FORD TRACTOR OIL 01-4220-249-42 282439 10/09/99 9 10 LONG LK FORD TRACTOR OIL 11-4220-290-61 282439 10/09/89 10/09/89 29 35 93 00 LONG IN FORD TRACTOR CHAIN 01-4232-249-42 LONG LK FORD TRACTOR RENT BUCKET 01-4231-249-42 84 33 • ^-crcs 282441 10/09/89 11 J5 LONG LAKE TIRE SERV TIRE REPAIR 01-4341-249-42 11.is ...... ...-CKS 282462 10/09/89 683.04 MARTINS NAVARRE 66 SOD REPAIRS 01-4341-129-31 683 04 ...... ...-CKS 282462 282462 10/09/89 195. 10 MED CTR HEALTH CARE INS OCT 01-4151-039-12 282462 10/09/88 92.85 MED CTR HEALTH CARE INS OCT 01-4151-069-15 282462 10/09/89 10/09/89 92. 85 MED CTR HEALTH CARE INS OCT 01-4151-129-21 28248) 10/08/89 191. 288. 01 86 MED CTR HEALTH CARE INS OCT 01-4151-174-33 MED CTR HEAL4„ CARE INS OC1 01-4151-249-42 871 21 ...... ...-CKS 292469 10/09/89 1,320. 00 METRO W INSP SERV SEPT INSPEC 01-4306-174-33 1,320 00 � •••-cn5 2824P2 10/09/89 206.60 MPLS HEALTH DEPT LAB TESTS 01-4305-129-31 206 60 ...... ...-CKS 282485 282485 10/09/89 10/09/89 4.50 MPLS OXYGEN CO DEMURRAGE 01-4232-129-31 22 00 MPLS OXYGEN CO DEMURRAGE 01-4232-249-42 31 50 •••-crcs � r , 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK N0. DATE 282408 10/09/89 282500 10/09/89 _ 282505 10/09/89 282SOS 10/09/89 282505 10/09/89 282SOS 10/09/89 282305 10/00/89 - 282505 10/02/84 282505 10/09/t9 2825os 10/09/40 282535 10/09/82 2825]] 10/00/80 - 282545 10/09/89 2tz547 10/09/89 282582 282582 10/09/89 282582 10/00182 10/09/80 282592 10/09/80 282582 10/09/89 282582 10/09/89 282592 10/09/89 212562 10/00/80 282582 10/09/99 212502 10/W/BB 282582 10/09/89 AMOUNT 239.27 -30.27 245. 00 245.00 • 47,00 142 00 87 14 3<. 93 4 07 4 .07 28. 92 333.90 13358.25 13:356.25 200.00 20C 00 154.34 154,34 99 75 99.15 289.59 47. 87 294.97 257.85 13 20 8 .10 1.887 97 201.80 615 80 92.85 3.483 05 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION MN CELLULAR TILE MOBILE PHONE MINN COMM TELEPHONE MN MN FIRE 8 FIRE 8 SAFETY SAFETY FIRE EXTO MN MN FIRE 8 FIRE 8 SAFETY SAFETY FIRE EXTO MINT FIRE EXT0 MN MN FIRE A FIRE 8 SAFETY 14AINT FIRE MINT FIRE EXTO EXTO MN FIRE 8 SAFETY SAFETY MAINT FIRE EXTO MN FIRE 6 SAFETY MOINT FIFE MA I N 1 11AI EXTO EXTO CITY OF MOUND 4TH OTR FIRE MORAN MARK ADVANCE NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR REPAIR CAR NAIL COMPUTER SYSTEM 7/89-9/89 NSP NSP UTILITIES ISP UTILITIES ISP UTILITIES YSP UTILITIES ISP UTILITIES ISP UTILITIES ISP UTILITIES ISP UTILITIES ISP UTILITIES ISP UTILITIES UTILITIES 10-09-89 PAGE 8 ACCOUNT N0. INV. 0 P.0 8 MESSAGE O1-4320-129-31 '••-CKS O1-4320-129-31 --CKS 01-4232-099.17 01-4232-249-42 OI-4342-099-17 01-4342-249-72 O1-4342-290-fit 72-4342-549.91 73-4342-589-92 74-4342-590-92 •••-CKS O1.4317-132-32 O1-4391-129-31 -CKS 01-4341-249-42 •'•-CKS 01-4340-129-31 •'•-CKS O1-4324-099.17 01-4324-099-31 01-4324-129-31 01-4324-249-42 01-4324-290-61 -424-200-61 %-4324-540-91 73-44324:599 92 74 4324-590-93 L yNNE� L A 1 1. 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 30-09-99 PAGE 7 CHECK NO. DATE IMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. 8 P.O. 1 MESSAGE 292587 10/0q/89 3.739,40 PUBLIC EMPL NET ASSN PERA 9/19-10/1 01-2031-000-00 3.739.40 282598 10/09/89 9.00 PERA INS LIFE INSD 01-4152-128-31 9.00 ...... ...-CKS 212609 10/09/90 31. 00 PACE LABORATORIES TEST WATER 01-43GS-174-33 31.00 ...... ...-CKS 282e 28 10/09/89 1,203.25 POPHAM I' 'SSOC LEOOL RETAINER AUG O1-4301-080-16 212e2e 10/00/82 9,829.75 POPHAM h ASSOC PRGnECUTiONS AUG 01-4302-080-16 262828 10/09/89 236.50 POPHAM HA.K 4 ASSOC LEGAL 1106 AUG O1-4303-080-16 282628 10/09/89 300.20 POPHAM HAIK b ASSOC LEGAL 105LL AUG 01-4303-080-16 28262e l0/09/19 502.77 POPHAM HAIK b ASSOC LEGAL 91 AUG 01 4303-080-16 2 e 2628 10/00/89 38.40 POPHAM HAIK b ASSOC CRYSTAL SAY SWR 0 4303-O80-16 2e2628 10/00189 155.60 POPHAM HAIK b ASSOC LEGAL C014SULT AUG 01-4303-129-31 282e2e IO/09/89 111.50 POPHAM HAIK a ASSOC DE BRA DR REBILL 01-4303-249-42 28262e 30/09/ee 964,32 POPHAM HAIK b ASSOC LEGAL FANOV 81 01-4303-840-71 282621 10/09/19 2,513.00 POPHAM MAIN b ASSOC REBERS LEGAL AUG 01-4303-840-71 282628 10/09/80 831.00 POPHAM HAIK b ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT AUG OI-4303-840-71 212828 10/09/80 24,00 POPHAM HAIK b ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT AUG 24-4303-408-00 2 B2821 IO/09/89 101.55 POPHAM HAIK b ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT AUG 24-4399-454-00 212621 L0109/89 58.00 POPHAM HAIK b ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT AUG 24-4399-455-00 282526 lU/O9/69 50.80 POPHAM HAIK b ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT AUG 24-4399-456-00 282528 10/09/89 225.45 POPHAM HAIK b ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT AUG 24-4399-457-00 17,211. 09 . ...... ...-CKS 232631 10/09/89 1, 617.00 POLKA DOT RECYCLING SEPT RECY O1-4392-295-65 I .BI7 00 ...... ...-CKS 112111 10/09/12 179.00 PRAIRIE OFFSET LETTERHEAD 01-4322-039-12 282638 10/09/89 179. 00 PRAIRIE OFFSET LETTERHEAD 01-4322-174-33 358. 00 ` ...... ...-CKS 2826u 10/02/80 21. 87 PRUDENTIAL MY INS 01-4152-069-15 212847 IO/Op/ep 12.P^ PRUDENTIAL OCT INS 01-4152-121-31 292043 LO/09/89 51.B0 PRUDENTIAL OCT INS 01-4152-129-31 202643 10/09/89 7.00 PRUDENTIAL OCT INS O1-4152-V4-7� 202643 10/09/09 6,00 PRUDENTIAL OCT INS 01-4152-249-4. r 95.17 ` ...... •••-CKS r C 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 10-09-89 PAGE 8 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV. I P 0 8 MESSAGE 232662 10/00/89 99,00 REED CANDY & TOBACCO CIG 6 CANDY 74-4002-591-94 99,00 ...... ....CKS 282875 10/00/89 4.175. 51 ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE 01-1260-000-00 4.175.51 ...... ...-CKS 2826B8 LO/09/89 1.107 50 SENIOR COMMSERVICES 47H OTR 01-4385-LOO-21 1.107 50 ...... •• -CKs 282724 IO/09/89 2,028.37 ST TREA-ST ROD INSP 3RD OTR SURCHRG 01-2222-000-00 2.020 37 282740 10/O9/89 429.50 STRETCHERS AMMO & TARGETS 01-4241-129-31 429 50 ....•. r ...-CKS 282751 2827SI 10/09/88 10/00,89 A07. 70 SUNDIAL BLDG SERVICE SEPT JANITOR 01-4349-099-17 262 60 SUNDIAL BLDG SERVICE SEPT JANITOR 01-4349-129-31 690 30 282752 10/09/89 114 56 SUBURBAN TIRE INC TIRES TRACTOR 01-4232-249-42 L14 56 ...... ...-CKS 282152 282782 10/01/1, 10/09/88 4 10 TOMLZYK/MARK MEAL Ol-4158-129-]1 5 51 TOMCZYK/MARK MILEAGE Ol-4J81-129-31 9 67 r •• -CKS 2527BO 30/09/99 967.55 TAT STATE PUMP REPAIR STAT PUMP 73-4344-569-92 " 967 55 ...... ...-CKS 282790 10/09/89 26.88 tONYS PIZZA SERV SANDWICHS 74-4802-591-94 26,88 r' ...... ...-CKS .. oB 10/09/89 648 00 TWIN CITY TESTING SOIL TEST 10/43 26-4306-433-00 r 648.00 ...... ....CKS r 1. 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 30-09-89 PAGE 9 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. R P 0. t MESSAGE 282815 l0/091 9 SB.B9 US WEST COMMON TELEPHONE 04J]20-039-12 382615 282815 !0/091p9 SB.BB US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-059-14 212815 LO/09/89 l0/09/BB 29.49 58. 93 US WEST COMMUN TEIEPHONE 01-4]20-069-15 282C15 1 /09/89 125 83 US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 01-4320-129-31 2 t2815 212115 IO/09/B9 58.99 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-174-33 2 p2815 10/09/80 10/09/B9 63.10 58.99 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-175-34 2128 E5 10/09/89 8.85 US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 01-4320-249-42 72-4320-549-91 282815 282815 10/09/99 51.86 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 72-4320-549-91 282 t 15 10/09/89 1a/09/59 20.65 51.8E US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 73-4320-569-92 212115 A0/09/89 54.8E US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 74-4320-590-93 74-4320-590-93 262115 10/09/09 102.90 US WEST COMMUN ADVER 74-4323-590-93 810.18 282826 10/09/89 344. 40 WALDOR PUMP LIFT STAT PARTS 73-4,32-569-92 344 40 ...... ..._CKS 112854 282$54 10/09/89 255.00 WMI SERVICES OF MN PORTELET 01-4331-290-61 10/09/89 42.50 WMI SERVICES OF MN PORTELET 74-4331-590-93 297.50 212866 10/09/59 p10 00 WIDMER BROS REPAIR PIPE 73-4344-569-92 810. 00 ` ...... ..._CKS 2t2875 10/09/89 8.40 WRIGHT HLYM ELECTRIC UTILITIES 01-4324-249-42 8.40 28290E IO/09/89 67 .00 MN DEPT NAIL RESRCE 500 TREES 74-4231-590-93 67 00 ` 282902 10/09/89 64. 95 C K COMMINICATION TAPE 8 BROCHURES 01-4322-129-31 64 95 262903 10/09/89 31 50 MINNESOTA BOOKSTORE INTERVIEW MANUALS 01-4322-129-31 3L50 ` 2B2904 10/09/89 267.50 HIGHWAY 55 RENTAL TREE SPADE RENTAL 74-4331-590-93 257.50 282905 10/09/89 15.74 CUSTOM QUICK PRINT PRINT FA CARDS 01-4322-129-31 15 74 282906 10/09/09 17.2E LINEN CENTER BLIND 01-4343-129-31 l 1989 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 10-09-89 PAGE 10 CHECK N0. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV R P 0 R MESSAGE 1T.21 ' 282903 10/09/09 49.00 HENN CTY TREASURER CRIME ANALYSIS 0I-4240-129-31 49 00 282908 10/00%89 82 00 OAK PARK HGTS IND GLOVE POUCH 01-4392-123-34 82 00 ' 282909 282909 10/0911, 21109/89 9.12 9.12 KUYPER SCOTT MILEAGE 01-4381-129-31 KUYPER SCOTT MILEAGE 01-4391-129-31 18.28 ' 282910 10/09/89 1.503.31 ORONO COMMUNITY ED SUMMER REC PROGRAM 01-4352-290-61 1.503.31 282911 10/09/89 30. 00 STATE OF MINNESOTA PERMIT 01-4383-249-42 30. 00 282912 1D/09/89 ISO. 00 CHARLES LARSON RfD APPL 11400 01-3502-000-00 ISO 00 282913 30/09/92 98.50 ALAN LARSON RFD APPL 11E55 01-3502-000-00 96.50 282914 10/09/89 30.00 LONE WOLF INC COURT APPEARANCE 24-4399-460-00 30.00 282915 10/09/89 89. 25 HEDBERG AGGREGATES CEMENT BLOCK 01-4233-249-42 89 25 •••••• 69,782 60 FUND 01 TOTAL GENERAL FUND "'-CKS 1.558. 18 FUND 24 TOTAL PERM IMPROVE REVOLVING F 9,849,52 FUND 26 TOTAL 1989 SWR-WTR CONSTR FUND 1.783.09 FUND 22 TOTAL WATER OPERATING FUND 3.621.65 FUND 33 TOTAL SEWER OPERATING FUND 2.825.81 FUND 28 TOTAL GOLF COURSE OPERATING FO 89.418 85 TOTAL r Pa BASE POST ANDIOR DISTRIBUTE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON MINNESOTA RESOURCES INVITES YOU TO ATTEND A CONFERENCE FOCUSING ON THE FUTURE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST FUND NATURAL RESOURCE CONGRESS Saturday, October 28, 1989 10 A-14 - 5:39 PM State Office Buiiding • Adjacent to the Capitol St. Paul, NIN 1. Introduction Representative Fhyais Kahn - Opening Remarks Remarks on the trust fund by the co-authors of the legislation • Representative Willard Munger • Senator Roger Mce IL Panels - Nationally known experts in various resource areas will comment on current Minnesota resource issues The panels will not concurrently from 11 AM - 2 PM III. Following will be discussion between the commission members, conference participants and the Citizens Advisory Committee members regarding an outline of the Strategic Plan for the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund. The conference is free and parking is plentiful and free (for the most part) in the Capitol area. For planning purposes, if possible, please RSVP - 612.296-2406 Ca olote" n Me oberz: Rep'nemalive Phrllu Kelm. Chain Seoamn: Greg Dahl, llowd Rnotmn. Reprerznlalirea: 611. MWl rrnn.Daug CarWnHVirg'I JoChvon, IlemrKal.WillmdMwger. Jerome pae'ean, John Smna Clara Advisory Ci mmluee Member: Robed D. Chair. Al Brodie, C. Merle Ande'soa, Roth Filumu•in. Jouph Six'. Robert allies. JOEllea ttmr. Imm Ron. Jmh LoVoy. Gene Darnhrr. Dmbr Nelmn.Mmeia Kelln,Jaagaelrn Burk ZIMh LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON MINNESOTA RESOURCES 65 STATE OFFICE BUILDING ST. PAUL, MN 55155 LAKE MINN ETON KA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES S ENVIRONMENT CONMITIEE A G E N D A '-�- 7:30 a.m., Saturday, October 14, 1989 LMCD Office, Wayzata 1. Preliminary review, Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Minnetonka Boat Works, Orono, New Dock License and Special Density applications 2. Moratorium consideration for outlot development on Lake Minnetonka for purposes of providing Lake access and dockage for non -riparian properties 3. David Thomas residential development, Smithtown Bay, South Upper Lake, City of Victoria, requesting a five slip outlot dock and three residential docks on three parcels, totaling 385' shoreline, with appropriate easements and homeowners association to govern 4. Gayle's Marina dredging operation and commercial use of property in viola- tion of City of Orono 3-2 zoning, communication from the City of Orono 5. Shoreland Management rules facilitation among 14 member cities to develop uniform Lake Minnetonka Shoreland Regulations 6. Wayzata yacht Club progress on considerations relating to City of Wayzata's concern on the Yacht Club's annual license renewal 7. Additional business recommended by the committee ENVIRONMENT: 1. Preliminary report on weed harvesting program completed 9/29/89 2. Review of contract to engage maintenance service for weed harvesting equip- ment end -of -season storage 3. Preliminary forecast for 1990 weed harvesting program --the options being examined 4. Rob Merila performance report 5. Additional business recommended by the committee 10-6-89 LAKE MINN ETON KA CONSERVATION OIS"RIOT Date: 10-6-89 ( ' Gene Stromen Executive Director L.M.C.D. 473-7033 PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE Notice is given that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will hold a public hearing in the matter of investigating the need for regulating personal watercraft on Lake Minnetonka. The hearing will be held at the Minnetonka Co®unity Center, 14600 Minnetonka Blvd., City of Minnetonka at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, October 25, 1989. +7 Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Date, 10-6-89 Gene Strommen Executive Director L.M.C.D. 473-7033 PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE Notice is given that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will hold a public hearing in the matter of investigating the need for regulating personal watercraft on Lake Minnetonka. The hearing will be held at the Minnetonka Community Center, 14600 Minnetonka Blvd., City of Minnetonka at 7 p.m. on Wednesday, October 25, 1989. Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 0 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Sun 1 Sat 7 Sat 14 Sat 21 Sat 28 10-4-89 473-7033 EVENTS SCHEDULE October 1989 Don Shelby US invitational Bass Tournament W/MTHA Boat Works 7:00 am Boating Season Yacht club races: Lower Lake 10:00 am " " 10.00 am " 10: 00 am " 10:00 am rN LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PERSONAL WATERCRAFT STUDY MINUTES Action Report: Meeting of Tuesday, 9/19/89, 7:00 pm, Prudential-Bache. Wayzata Present: Committee Chair Bert Foster, Deephaven; Lake Use Chair Bob Pillsbury, LMCD Chair JoEllen Hurr; Water Structures Chair Dave Cochran, Water Patrol Sgt. Bill Chandler, Executive Dir. Gene Strommen; Guests Claude Beumer, Yamaha Motor Carp; John Greenberg, Kawasaki Motor Corp; Kris Webb, Wet :at and Personal Watercraft Industry Assn; Anita Twaroski. HN DHR, John Nord, Anoka -Ramsey Sport Ct; Mike Dapper, Water S-ooter Magazine; Charlie Jones, Minnetonka Boat Rental; De 6 Steve Wagner, Minnetonka Jet Ski; Dennis Gathers, Minnetonka Jet Ski; Dennis Keating, Minnetonka Boat Works; Doug Babcock, LMCD Board, Spring Park; INTRODUCTION. Chair Foster welcomed the industry representatives who had been provided advance 14CD material introducing an outline dealing with (A) The Problem; (B) Analysis of Alternative Solutions which included eight sub -topics. Foster reviewed the outline inviting comment from the guests and Board members in attendance. SAFETY. Sgt. Chandler, Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, rep rted the 1989 summer experience with personal watercraft (PWC) as involving one near fatality and two property damage accidents. Fifteen formal complaints were registered dealing primarilly with nice and careless operation. Industry representatives basically '.red a small minority of operators creating the majority of problems. While buyers are in the 35 year and older ag range, users -- likely children of the buyers -- tend to be much younger, i -.a 15 and up range. It was agreed a need for education as to proper use, proper operation in quiet waters is constant. Dealers take particular effort to introduce equipment and its proper use to buyers through literature and actual video tapes. Safety, courtesy of operation and respecting the rights of others are stressed. This is true in the case of rentals, members presented stated. It is also expected that users receiving equipment from owners do not get the same message, and thus the deviation from the advance information is lost down the line of users. Chandler further noted that tickets are issued to a high percentage of persons renting PWC. This likely can be attributed in part to lack of rules familiarity as a result of not taking time to know and understand them. The greater responsibility on businesses renting units taken to inform renters will assist in reducing this categ,ry of violation. ANALYSIS OF SOLUTIONS. .� It was the group's concennue that Sta^.s 1 and 2 are not reasonable options. �...� Doing something about noise level is definitely a priority. Discussion included: • Manufacturers are meeting required 82 dba noise level ratings, and are concerned about after -market modification kits which exceed these limits. Kawasaki has lowered its parts prices to discourage after -market use items• LMCD, Personal Water Craft Study, Ninuc<;, 9/19/89, P. 2 * In response to a question on comparable noise levels, it was noted every 3 decibels doubles sound output. * Placement of exhaust below the water line in current and future PWC ' models will resolve much of the noise problem. * The water box, which receives modification and increases dba levels, could be made to avoid modification. * If dba is lowered for PWC's, it was recommended this apply to all watercraft. LICENSING 6 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. * DNR requires an operators permit for all youth 13-17 years, which includes thorough safety training. * A FWC endorsement on the instruction and permit program was suggested. Move the noise away from -:the shore, by requiring PWC's to stay a suggested 1,000' away from shore, was concluded as too great a distance. Personal Watercraft Industry Assn. (PWIA) representative Kris Webb voiced objection to that distance. * Leaving the shorezone by the shortest route was thought to be reasonable. * Separate rules for PWC'a vs. power boats was a matter of concern as to speeds in certain restricted areas. It was preferred the same rules apply to all watercraft. Leaving no -wake areas such as channels was acted. * A separate set of "boating basics" for personal watercraft was thought to be acceptable. * Testing at a variety of distances from shore was recommended to arrive at a reasonable distance for PWC's to maintain away from shore. Water Patrol enforcement and impoundment. Q * Boating lava are already in place for impoundment when necessary. An offense must be very serious before impoundment is applied, such as a RWI with no other operator to return watercraft to home port. Passing rule at 150'. * Such a rule would appear to be applicable to all watercraft, and it further adds the enforcement difficulty. As Watercraft cutting in front of another is already a rule violation. Again enforcement is the challenge for prevention. * PWC's moving through areas in which swimmers are present is also a violation. Some non -designated swimming areas, such as the north side of Big Island, experience PWC's moving through swimmers. Correction in these areas may require formal designation of ouch areas. Traffic among swimmers in any circumstance merits controls.. CONCLUSIONS. All participants of this meeting were invited to take part in the decibel test, 10:00 an. Fri.., Sep. 29 at Spring Park, Sheriff's Water Patrol Station, was confirmed. Sgt. Bill Chandler will arrange testing equipment, buoy placement. Stock models and modified examples will be tested. Results will be summarized at the Water Patrol's direction and distributed. Foster complimented all in attendance, thanking them for their constructive input. AAA! a R. Strommen Executive Director a ' necwvuu ,__,6EP 291989 v Qo. Vermont's boating laws take effect this weekend By Mpise Hedbor Free:Press Correspondent Vermont's sweeping package of boating laws, backed by more money and n-w enforcement offi- cers;•went into effect Saturday just to time for one of the biggest boating weekends of the year. LC Michael Vinton, head of the StatB:Police Marine Division, said three:to four boats will be work- ing dpuble shifts on Lake Cham- plaid through the holiday period, and J9 other boats will be patrol- ling other waters in the state. Tfie.officers' emphasis will be on education, "telling people what the :new law is all about, not writing tickets," Vinton said. Sgt.:James Markiewicz, public infocrhation officer, said one of the igajor changes is the require- ment -that boats operate so as not to create a wake and, in any case, no faster than 5 mph whenever they: -are within 200 feet of a shoreline, an ochorage, a person in the:water, „r boats docked or at moorings. NZ�pne under__6 may. operate a personal ski craft, and all chil- dren,age*7 "-and under must wear a Coagt Cuard approved personal flotation device anytime a boat is moving, said Sgt. Bill Merritt, who heads:the state police marine divi- sion Tor the Burlington area. Excessively noisy boat engines, gen8rally "high performance boats:that exhaust above the wa- terliir0;" are now illegal, a- po- lice --boats wil' carrying equipment to ¢ vhether boats:meet the nea im-al- loweii noise !evel of is at 50 feet, Merritt said. other new laws ,y. .:No one under the a of 12 may; operate a boat powered_by more:than a six -horsepower en- gine,.; .;All vessels, except sail- boards, must carry at least one personal flotation device for each person aboard, with no exception for small boats used at summer camps. • Anyone under 16 must wear a floation device when using a sailboard. • All operators and passer, of personal ski craft, commowy called jet skis, must wear flota- tion devices. Jet skis may on15Fbe operated during daylight hours. • A water ski obsgr_ver must be at least 12 years old. Despite their stated emphasis on education, officers say they will be strictly enforcing a new law against boating while intoxi- cated. It provides that no ine under the influence of liquor or drugs may operate a vessel, and suspected violators are required to subm,t to blood or breath test- ing. Violators face loss of the right - to operate a boat for a year, plus a fine of $200 to $750 for first offense, and $250 to $1,000 for second offense. Similar penalties may be assessed for anyone who refuses to take a test. In addition, the owner or person responsible for a boat may not permit its operation by an intoxicated per- son. Merritt said a booklet outlining all of the provisions of Vermont's revised marine laws was printed last week and rs n`ow being distrib- uted to marinas, state police bar- racks and other locations around the state. Questions about the new laws can be answered at local state police barracks, said Mer- ritt. Vinton said state police and auxiliaries are scheduled to put in a total of 12,500 hoots on patrols this boating season, with about half that time allocated to Lake Champlain. 63' Proposed county jet ski'rules could divert::,them ,to .Sanibel .,'': . .ra Wool the In akbentirely ritems... Counlyb law would only I: t: rounty;yntrolled bry weleneM .,a cover Yninmrponled artae fignillardly limiting their on " abli lhegull Med,n. By lbegyael the .1 couldtskim Tewa , bel.nIunb ,tudboeing saidleawlmmenarebpeltn.het bammea unduar, (or let r.n acid. arej n: munisao approved: ttdrtywmnlnk rogmrlten biNaPee .... -a, oMdawge birds orappnMth life. -UM1, tMtwould use a/mwo. noihwwlldlnt e^ unamenorlon P-mmul wPe along Ne lee w+. i.i..•. Judah said the a against seat. CoThroorll roar. COUrit d I..Sl he , kt ebf b wenprnd along the TMmnlnbart heingmmkued^,:.Bomhrrat Flurldathat o m ammdmenl b lM f: •, ulkenstuatand ',deneimiW r a Pee being In water nktymdlr In veep «.1.' Idered In Mtrurn. Charlotte •' dl InMt • Ioh pal eb Ismuld ••"'al ' fromdraanlpklnu abblromdtlum of every rk" AMMingnn. .' Aamdinglo Bcounlyevery r'I•'.•_a-: from IslandInJaeulmtyfnm Bay '. . mmessuf GnMthe Banns Beach. m enabonlrur l" the ouldbed . thateatuemebal'Unumlm. . eM that mvi IW g r Sanly ibel would M vvnpt .Importagumenu"•' Sae Important ee lM cn b..I o^ M.1.l tilon from IN reguUllona, • from I alety lit a In IM debele. " pa safety ty 10 Ilwl ¢ale the my to follow -pretty Ma la Mve a •puny roan, suit h IN own new law. a nual t mane life,' ner'own "e mtyf efonad Info Jambe -+- . Jules raw. -Rune me saying ou - Ban neeep some Must of anron; said $mIM rrav Industry r an YUtthe tpan IUhingIMwlry Oty manager Gry Prim. r^ � arc legally. '.. limit(beor use of let;�'I' R k to Wururtaen l' IImitM la Uun (heir BBo free of lea gYll barh to live t three It from live, Peru •dnlgtwted a .sm, public r u I Banihl . 50"for Pen.• $o lu, no oft- Personal Iarea d t Madre, Tarpon Bay, and the Marine. . T pore Bay, toit need area for het atl lW have au b been Inshethem.firev M. City' CBy nhlrh m t ate Yl IM Itt. i it.. hIch limit. gad, howerm, law arYro hul ft In amhour omSoma U' emve. dri i Prohibiting Ndn from droving In the rdintm r may In Captive. tO om1togele,if Samoa bnrh blauah Maki ollm muct. mover es YueltogNM1erII IM. - Is therearero Ciicl Captive Civic Aatonallon Mf IN p-Mus onIgnored.tAll Inbuys, Paa on let n.' Way. waP IIY U. md1m 'rFNr position U aklY t pdy bid Banibel'a aemplbn ud Yvanbe pu is rmmlomed uttn Job m,'Wd und..h president ld asa outimt r old Iwmrpimm.11 love had Iohnleir vm�ldmultlnjet Lee County lWe every Operation on Menng1011.l4 rominglotiw UUM to crape every p of rM blme.• Jew-YF Of m-We mig Cur Co lorred,dmmis.-g twyludm_ "Sly said In um rerm. Inenughrbe mtM numbs-. to plxe ronlnk," a ins.*We wemmt. male. PriHe 'WetIld to Mrea better He 11 than id. of the dtl ('; he roe. •. hkenM + 1,wlWwtolhe When the aumy pared pl.l.. In ludah'a opinlon.IMl mean d en mdheirueoeronlengpnple to an m ire Prim walk therm dogs on. shes,throughout - hour pNowtwnlmmmted. ]w fee Only ritnibel. The Ward.. pet pope.... led to Ilw Populurve arity ety,'a nl Propo e' •w own Mena law. • "y The Proposed ortn ie wme s de 1 I.ft County erdnfledbYlM lam County A Only lw mu se. nrla deitrep mmmllln. wire delivery CommmU On IhoNlru(nart due by Sep. d6. he ' nty Commission will eGhtim.1 doembn On tM' propoul. Id Jk, e// LeiM 4,wwr J !¢MUTTS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NESTING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning Commi3sion met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; Planning Commissioners Cohen, Bellows, Hanson, Brown and Moos. The following represe,:red the City staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. Councilmember Goetten was also present. #1457 ALAN CARLSON 3140 NATERTMON ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this public hearing, as was Mr. Ga'!y -son, Mr. Jerry Sunde, his surveyor, and Mr. Steve Schirme septic consultant. Bvi and Zoning Administrator Mabustt provided a brief introdUCtl..a of the proposed subdivision. Chairman Kelley observed that the "flag lot" would not meet the required lot width. Mabusth said that a lot width variance would be required for that lot and that staff was presenting two options for accessing that lot. noug Merz, 3195 Watertown Road, asked in what direction water. i the wetland flowed? Mabusth explained that the Water came from the north from Clausson Lake and flows toward the south. Mabusth said that there 4 a large wetland that drains from the Eisinger property through a drainageway under the railroad tracks. The southern one-third of the property drains to the south and then exits at the southeast corner. Chairman Kelley noted that the applicant is proposing to install a retention pond to slow the movement of water leaving t`+e property. Mr. Sunde said that the Minnehaha Creek We :rshed Dist - will require the developer to not exceed Pre -develop discharge. Mr. Sunde explained the applicant'3 proposal cu control drainage. Ms. Carol Senn, owner of property to the west of Mr. Carlson, asked whether the pond would be located close to her property line. Mr. Carlson confirmed that it would be close to her property line. Mr. Sunde said that the pond could be located anywhere in MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NESTING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ZONING PILE \1/57-CARLSON CONTINUED that area as long as it is far enough north so that it catches the runr L. Mr. Herz asked whether due to the lower water levels now existing if the applicant's drainage plans would further slow the runoff from Claussen Creek? Mr. Sunde did not believe it would have any effect. Chairman Kelley asked how much flowage there was currently? Mr. Merz said that it was fairly dry. Mrs. Senn added that in the Spring there is heavy flow coming from Claussen Creek. Mr. Scott Goldsmith, 265 Old Crystal Bay Road, said that he had a flowage and conservation easement on his property that was required by toe City. Mr. Goldsmith said that water comes into his property from the north and runs west. Chairman Kelley asked how the slope of the lots would facilitate septic systems? Mr. Schirmr.rs said that all lots would require mound systems. He said he has found areas ava ble that are at 68 slope or less. Two lots appear to hav Lure expansion sites within areas at 78 slope. Along the p, ..,ter of the wetland, erosion has formed plateaus and will allow for septic systems being placed at the base of the slope. He said that all of the lots had been tested with the exception of Lot 8. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that there are some steep slope concerns for Lot 8 where the slopes are at 9%. He said that Lot 8 was questionable as a building site. Gaffron said that he is also concerned about the existence of only onn primary and one alternate site being available for the majority of lots. He said that during the course of constructing the road, lack of extreme care by the contractor could easily result in the destruction of one site or the other, thus losing the buildability of the lot entirely. Mr. Carlson said that he would t6 necessary measures to assure that those sites would be prutected. P1--aing Commissioner Bellows observed that it would be difficult to achieve access to the proposed attached garage on Lot 6, Block 1, and yet avoid t.ie septic areas. Gaffron replied that indF--i he had not yet recei, 4 a detailed report for each sir- it is difficult to date_ ine any specifi_ .separation disc „ithout that. Schirmers said that t,would be some room to slide the systems around on Lot f. He said that the slope would allow the mound to wrap around to t.:e west. Mr. Sunde said tha' the lot was open and would allow fc: flexibility in the 'location of the sept+, system. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PORTING SEPTEDUER 18, 1989 ZONING PI 19 #1457-CARISON CONTINUED Gaffron said that staff needs more time to review this aspect of the application once the detailed reports are submitted. Mr. Carlson asked that approval be given conditioned upon approval being given by staff. Mr. Al Engleman, 315 Old Crystal Bay Road, said that he waa opposed to the road outlot being proposed to the east. Chairman Kelley explained the policy of the City regarding the need to plan for future roads. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that the road being proposed does not have direct access to the lots. She also said that she questioned the buildability of two of the lots shown in the plat. She said that she would have difficulty giving preliminarx., approval of this subdivision without the septic report. Bellows also said that she cojects to the creation of a flag lot. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission how th:.., felt about the shared access being proposed for Lots 6 and 7 a .,g the south lot line. Bellows said that there are many beautiful trees to the south which will call for the road to be placed north of the property line. This in turn will push the house lots further north into the wetland. Mr. Carlson disagreed with Bellow's opinions regarding the proposed road. He said that he had gone to great lengths to find the optimum plan for the road and there were no other options. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he had reservations about approving a road that runs through the Orono designated wetlands. He said that he may be able to approve such a configuration, but did not like the concept of the additional road beyond the end of the cul-de-sac needed to access the lot. Hanson also said that he objected to the creation of the flag lot and would have difficulty approving the subdivision without having the opportunity to review the septic testing report. Chairman Kelley said that the lot configurations bothered him. He suggested that Mr. Carlson was trying to force too many lots into this development. He said tFat he did not object to the road running through the designated wetland. Kelley said that he objected to the sep informtaion being incomplete and the creation of • e fzaq log Mabusth i Schirmers which lots would be considered to have the most _ited location for septic sites? MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18. 1989 ZONING PILE j1457-CARLSON CONTINUED Mr. Schirmers pointed out specific lots on the diagram and stated that because of the severe slope and poor percolation rates some of the sites will be limited as to septic development. Chairman Kelley asked how the City protects the alternate sites from being destroyed for the purpose of constructing tennis courts and other accessory structures. Mabusth said that the City will have tr warn the future property owner, not only the developer of the need to protect those sites. Mabusth said that the City has not specifically done this in the past although those concerns were always addressed when accessory structure permits were requested. Mabusth said that a copy of the mapping of the septic sites approved with the preliminary subdivision would filed with a covenant or another appropriate document. The Planning Commission as a whole, with the exception of Planning Commissioner Cohen, did not object to the road be located in the designated wetland. In regard to configuration as a whole, Cohen indicated that he believed the plan was calling for more lots than the area can efficiently handle. Bellows said that the configuration as shown would not get her approval, due to the flag lot and pushing the parcel to its limit of development. Bro in said that he would vote favorably if it is demonstrated that the lots can handle two septic sites and if there are no variances required. He also conditioned that upon the septic being approved. Hanson said that he had trouble with the northwest configuration, the f:ag lot and that he felt the density was a bit too high. Moos opined that the development was too dense for the topography and that she too objected to the flag lot. Mr. Carlson asked the Planning Commission for direction and more specific information as to what they would like to see him do. Kelley said that he would like to see all lots meet the width standard, irrespective of configuration, including a direct access to the lot. Bellows summarized that the road through the wetlands is no problem, but it must provide direct access to the dry buildable portion of the lots. The Planning Pommission sucgested that Mr. Carlson may have to revise his pr-. ,.,..,al showing one less lot along the east side in order to meet •ne 200' front width. There were no further comments f-om the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ZONING FILE 11457-CARLSON CONTINUED Planning Commissioner Bellows, to table this application until such time that the septic report has been reviewed by the staff and Planning Commission. Planning Commissioner Brown questioned how the City would protect the draintile or drainage ditches running through this property? Mabusth replied that they would be protected with drainage easements. Kelley placed the applicant on notice that he should submit information pertaining to the location of the draintile before coming back before the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed. 41440 1ST NATIONAL BANK OF THE LADS 2445 SBADYWOOD ROAD COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:56 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Mark winter was present as a representative for the Bank. Building s Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief explanation of the application being presented. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the commercial site plan for application 41440, and the installation of an additional lane. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1441 DON COPLEY 1185 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:03 P.M. TO 8:09 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. ....pley was present for this matter. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that staff's hardcover calculations had been incorrect due because a portion of the 0-75' setback area was not included. Staff has calculated that there will a 1.2% increase in hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. Mabusth said there will be a 1' to 1.5' encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Copley whether he would be willing to remove existing hardcover in order to keep the percent of hardcover the same? Mr. Copley said that he would prefer not to remove any of the existing hardcover. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEHTING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ZONING PILE i1441-COPLET CONTINUED Planning Commissioner Brown said that the existing nardcover was 24%. He would be willing to allow the applicant to increase to 25% which is the maximum allowed. There were no comments from the public regarding its matter and the public hearing was closed. It was m,ived by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback variance of approximately 1.5' and that hardcover was to be retained at 2.5%. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays=O, Motion passed. 41452 HALTER B. PEMBERTON 1720 BRADYMOOD ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:10 P.M. TO 8:11 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. aLd Mrs. Pemberton were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the Pemberton's proposal to convert an existing grade level deck into an addition to their dining room. 0 Chairman Kelley asked whether the Pemberton's had received any input from their neighbor to the south? Mr. Pea:•crton said that he had spoken to his neighbors on both sides and they had no objection. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if there was existing hardcover that could be removed? There were no comments fron. the public regarding this matter and the public hearing we- closed. Planning Commissioner Brown reminded Mr. Pemberton that during their recent visit he had indicated that he would be removing hardcover from the back of the house. Mr. Pemberton said that he would be willing to "punch holes" in the plastic that is presumed to be underlying the rockbed. Gaffron said that staff pr,`ers to have the plastic removed, since hole punching is nearly impossible to verify. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of this application provided that the plastic underlying the rockbed in the northeast corner of the property is removed. Motion, Ayes�4, Bellows and Kelley, Nay, due to their preference to see hardcover removed rather than converted into permanent structure. Motion 6 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ZONING PILE 41441-COPLEY CONTINTUED passed. #1453 WILLIAM HIBBS 1905 PAGERNBSS POINT ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:15 P.X. TO 8:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mr. Hibbs as requesting a hardcover variance to enclose an existing canopy area. Gaffron said that there would be no increase in hardcover resulting from the conversion of the canopy/bituminous area into a screen porch. Chairman Kelley told Mr. Hibbs that he was concerned about the fact that there was no existing garage. He said that mare than likely there will be a future request for a garage. Mr. Hibbs replied that a tuck under garage would be most practical for this property. He said if a tuck under garage were constructed approximately 1,000 s.f. of bituminous could be removed. Planning Commissioner Cohen said that he would prefer to see Mr. Hibbs make application for a garage prior to proceeding with this application for the screen porch. Chairman Kelley said that he Dreferred not to change hardcover into structural hardcover. Mr. Hibbs said that the hardcover already exists. Planning Commissioner fellows expanded on Chairman Kelley's concern about converting hardcover into structural hardcover. Sne said that in order for the porch to be constructed, footings would have to be poured which would make more permanent an already excessive hardcover condition. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Comm'-nioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to rec send denial of application 41453 requesting a hardcover varia._e to enclose an existing canopy area. Motion, Ayes=5, Hanson, Nay due to his belief that hardcover is hardcover. Motion passed. 7 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 i1454 BRADFORD W. REDDICK 2695 PHEASANT ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:26 P.M. TO 8:27 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the basis for this application for an atta shed garage. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Reddick if there had been any opposition expressed by his neighbor to the south? Mr. Reddick said that he had spoken with the neighbor who indicated that he had no objections to this proposal. 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 the 0.9' side setback variance to ccnstruct an attached garage. Motion, Ayes=5, Bellows, Nay, due to lack of a sufficient hardship. Motion passed. 81455 ALLAN LARSON 3852 CHERRY AVENUE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:28 P.M. TO 8:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Allan Larson was present for this application. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant was tearing down an existing structure and will require a side setback variance in order to construct a new residence. The applicant owns two adjacent tax parcels. Gaffron said that there is a large oak tree centrally located on the property that the applicant wishes to preserve. The applicant submitted 5 options showing various locations of the house in relation to the tree. Gaffron noted that once the existing structure is removed, the City views the property as a new, buildable lot with the capability to meet all setback requirements without the need for variances. Chairman Kelley and Planning Commissioner Cohen concurred that there appears to be adequate area within the lot to meet setbacks if plans are redesigned. Mr. Larson disagreed, saying that there were many other 8 MINUTES OF THE PLANt1ING COMMISSION ARETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ZONING FILE 41455-7LLAN LARSON CONTINUED trees on the property in addition to the 30" oak tree. Mr. Larson also said that locating the house elsewhere may also create a problem with hardcover due to the need to make the driveway longer. He said that locating the house as proposed makes use of the more undesireable portions of the property. He said locating the house so that it extends onto Lot 10 would use portions of the property that would be best as lawn and tree area. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if there would be a need for any variance if the applicant chose Option A. Gaffron confirmed that no variance would be required. Mr. Dick Hanson, 3826 Cherry Place, said that he had reviewed Mr. Lar.son's plans and believes that the house would fit very nicely. Mr. Larson said that he preferred to use Option B as it would allow for the most clearance from the tree. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he too would view this as a "fresh start" and believed that Mr. Larson could develop a plan that would not require a variance. Mr. Larson again stated that if he constructed the home in such a way to require no variance, then hardcover would increase. Planning Commissioner Cohen pointed out that Option A did not require a variance. Mr. Larson :;aid that would only allow 3' between the house and the oak tree. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that in her opinion, Option B did not al low enough room between the house and the tree either. She said that in order to build the house, there would be a need to excavate much closer to the tree than 5'. 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 Brown, to recommend denial of the side setback variance to construct a new residence. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. 41456 ROBERT i JANET ENFIELD 2240 DEVIN LANE AFTER -TEE -FACT VARIANCE PUBLIC BEARING 8:45 P.M. TO 8:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were dulv noted. Mrs. Emfield was pre: ent for this matter, as were Mr. and i MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ZONING PILE i1356-EMPIELD CONTINUED Mrs. Brad Childs, the prospective buyers of the property. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this is an application requesting approval of an after -the -fact structure -to -structure setback variance for a detached garage. Gaffron said that approval of this variance should be conditioned upon inspection by the City to verify that appropriate fire walls exist in both garages. Mr. Childs expressed his support for the approval of the variance. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Cohen observed that the City had written a letter to the Emfields on June 17, 1986 and questioned whether anything further happened beyond that date? Building 3 Zoning Administrator Mabusth replied that the Emfield's building contractor was supposed to meet with the City's Building Official, but did not follow through. Mrs. Emfield said that the contractor had indicated that he had followed through, but he had not. 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 Cohen, to recommend approval of the after -the -fact structure -to -structure setback variance for a detached garage, subject to the City's inspection of the fire wall and that the garage remain detached. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed. #1458 BLARE M. BICPXMICE 332 WESTLAKE STREE': VARIANCE PUBLIC BEARING 8:50 P.M. TO 9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Bichani-h were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief explanation of this application for a side setback variance tn construct a second story addition. Gaffron also said that the existing drainfield System is small and does not meet the current codes, but it seems 'o be working. Gaffron also explained the septic concerns involved with the proposed expansion of this property (see MPG memo of 9/15/89). Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Bichanich what the current use of the guest house is and what h2 plans to do with the two lots? 10 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NBETIN '. 18, 1989 ZONING FILE 11458-BICHANICH CON7 .NUED Mr. Bichanich said that he intends tt a two lots, but he needs to refinance in ord.,r to , i order to refinance, he has to make some improvew. house. He said that once the lots are combined and se. _n, he would either incoporate the guest house into the pzi. ,.al residence or remove it. Chairman Kelley indicated that he too had it concern regarding the intensification of the use and the effect it will i,ave on the septic system. Planning Commissioner Brown asked Gaffron if there was another drainfield site on the property? Gaffron replied that it was very likely that a conforming system could not be installed. He said that the soil type will probably call for a mound system, but there is not enough area with suitable slopes on the lut for a mound system. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the combination of these two lots could be a condition of approval? Gaffron ana Mabusth believed that such a condition could be part o the approval of the variance. Mr. Bichanich presented a letter teat he had received from a neighbor supporting his application. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public, hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown indicated that he was concerned about the septic system. Gaffron said that the septic code is not part of the zoning code. He said that he would have to take this issue to Council for some direction. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of the sic!e setback variance to construct a second story addition. Kelley informed the Bichaniches that it is really the intent of the City to have these lots cu.nbined and the guest house torn down. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1459 JAMES MULVANNY 559 PARE LANE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 9:10 P.M. TO 9:11 P.M. The `ffidavit of Publication and Certifi,. *. i Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. N•11.vanny were present for this matter. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEP-EMBER 18, 1989 ZONING FILF i1459-MULVANNY CONTINUED AssiEant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the Mulvanny's were requesting an average setback and hardcover variance to construct a room addition over an existing deck. Gaffron questioned whether it would be possible for the applicants to remove any existing hardcover. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Mulvanny what hie hardship for the variance is? Mr. Mulvanny replied that their bedroom is 9' x 12' and the kitchen area is also qu,.re small. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Mulvanny whether he intended to put a deck on the front side of the house? Mr. Mulvanny replied that he had a deck for so long that he would prefer not to have one any longer. Kelley informed Mr. Mu -canny th if approval is given for this application that it would preolu anyone from adding a d-±ek anytime in the future. There were no comments from th, public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Corm, to re.�mmend approval of the average lakeshore setback. Planning Co�,_., •sioner P '.lows said that she was having a difficult time finding a hardship for the variance. Planning Commissioner Cohen said toat he considered living with less than adequate space to be a hardship. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked Mr. Mulvanny how many bedrooms the house has and what size they are. Mr. Mulvanny said that there were three bedrooms, two of which are 10' x 10' and one is 9' x 121. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1460 MARCO R. FRANKLIN DEVELOPMENT 1320 BALDUR PARK ROAD SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Marco Fran` was present for this application as was Mr. Ed Vogt. The planning Commission explained the City'_ position regarding access, water a sewer and the 75' setback zone. Chairman Kelley also noted that the applicant does no'. own all of the property. Mr. Franklin said that a purchase agreement had been entered into with Mr. David Mess f.r the property at the end of the point. Kelley ea,d that he would not approve r,ny hardcover variances for this very sensitive property. Kelley asked the applicants if they were familiar with the Ci . s hardcover 12 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 1989 ZONING FILE i1460-PRANELIH DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED ordinan-es? lr. Vogt said that he was familiar with the hardcover orAia.tces, but was hopeful that the City would view hardcover in this application as a whole. He said that their proposal would leava, 70% of the area untouched. Kelley said that the City would look at drover proposed for each area. Kelley also observed that c applicant's proposal called for more than 25% hardcover in toe 75-250' zone. Mabusth advised the applicant that the City's ordinances would not allow for the consideration of hardcover coverage on the parcel as a whole. Planning Commissioner Bellows noted that the applicant's proposal had not gi en adequate consideration to the 931.5' elevation. Mabusth said that accessing the property via a public roadway had not been ad,•essed, nor had ti:e extension of sewer to the proposed units. Mr. Franklin said that with the tax structure as it is, and the cost of the land, it would not be economically feasible to build anything less than 10 units. Mr. Franklin said that the area of Baldur Park upon which he wishes to build, is currently littered with trash and is a trouble spot for the Orono Police. He felt that his development proposal would be beneficial to the City in many ways. Chairman Kelley said that he did not believe that area could support 10 units. Planning Commissioner Hanson said t`at he too would have difficulty recommending approval of the proposal as it is being presented at V ... time. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Chairman Kelley, to approve the minutes of the September 6, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Planning Commission member, Sarah Moos, would represent the Planning Commission at the Cetober 9, 1989 City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT The September 18, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. 13 r. _- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT v�, 0^ moo,, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OU23PA AGENDA Regul`a�r Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 25, 1989 I U �. Minnetonka Community Center 14600 Minnetonka Blvd., Minnetonka 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Personal Watercraft Use on Lake Minnetonka 7:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING: LMCD Board of Directors 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Reading of Minutes: 9/27/89 Regular Meeting 4. Installation of Officers 5. Public Cosssents - from persons in attendance not on agenda 6. Reports A. Chair Cochran 1) Opening remarks and introduction to the 1989-90 program year 2) Committee chair appointments a) Water Structures and Environment Committee b) Lake Use Committee c) Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force d) Advisory Committee e) "Save the Lake" Fund Campaign 3) Review of combined November/December meeting schedule 4) Additional announcements 6. B. Financial Reports, Treasurer Lewman 1) Statement of Cash Transations, month ending 9/30/89 2) Quarterly financial statements 3) Audit of vouchers for payment 6. C. Standing Committees 1) EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Reese a) Resolution concerning the Board's re -commitment to a 1990 Eurasian Water Milfoil weed harvesting program b) Contract for weed harvesting equipment maintenance for Lance DeTrude c) Progress report by Contractor Rob Merila, first 30 day objectives, progress into second 30 day objections, and current program status 6. C. 2) ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Reese, Consultant Arndorfer a) Preparations for the 12/2/89 meeting concerning the Comprehensive Management Plans b) Progress on contract, subcommittee developments c) Budget amendment to contract for printed materials (over) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Board of Directors Meeting 2 Meeting October 25, 1989 6. C. 3) WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE, Chair Cochran TOO a) Approval of 10/14/89 minutes b) Environmental Assess:ner— Worksheet, Minnetonka Boat Works, Orono for Browns Bay/Tanag..: L,-Ke, recommending approval as presented, for distribution as required by Environmental Quality Board (copy submitted with 10/14 committee material; distribution list attached, site plan attached) 6. C. 3) c) David Thomas residential development, Smithtown Bay, City of Victoria, recommending approval of a five -slip multiple dock for outlot and three single -slip residential docks for a total of 8 BSU d) Shoreland Management Rules facilitation by LMCD as lead agency for MN DNR among the 14 member cities, recommending approval to so participate; motion to authorize preparations to engage an independent contractor to prepare technical shoreland information for member cities e) City of Wayzata inquiry for adding 15 slips to dock license inappropriately tabled, staff recommending tabling motion be rescinded and Wayzata's inquiry accepted for informational purposes until an actual application is received f) Deposit refunds for 1989 District Mooring Areas, recommending approval of $100 refunds to City of Deephaven, City of Excelsior, Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Minnetonka Yacht Club, and Wayzata Yacht Club 6. C. 4) LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Chair Pillsbury a) Approval of 10/16/89 minutes b) Review of informational items 1 through 5, no action required c) Special Event deposit refunds, recommending approval of $100 refunds for Don Shelby National Invitational Bass Tournament, and for Viking Bass Masters' Tournament 6. D. Executive Director's Report, Gene Strommen 1) Preparations for revision of position description in advance of performance evaluation 2) Administrative priorities 7. Unfinished Business A. Prosecution service review and report, Chair Cochran 8. Nev Business A. Designation of depositary for LMCD checking and savings, recommending The Bank Wayzata B. Resolution for designation of officers to sign on bank instruments per Treasurer Lewman C. Additional new business 9. Adjournment 10-20-89 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Reqular Heetinq, 7:.=C) p.m., September 27, 1989 Tonka Bay City Hall 1. fhe meeting was called to order by Chair HUrr at 7:.= p.m. Members present: JoEllen Hurr, Chair, Orono; Jan BJSWinkPl, Secretary, Minnetonka Beach; David Cochran, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathtvol, E:<celsior; Douglas BabcocE-, Spring Park, John Lewman, Treasurer, Minnetrista; John Malinka, Victoria; Tiiomas Martinson, Wayzata; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Thomas Reese, Vice Chair; Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Eugene Strommeri, E::ecutive Director; Consultant Rob Meri1a; Attorney Charles Lefevere, Sqt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol. Members absent: Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay. Reading of Minutes: Cochran moved, Martinson seconded, approval of the minutes of the August=, 1989 meeting. Motion carried, Rascop voting present. Correction of the minutes of July 22b, 1989, F'age 6, Paragraph 7, to indicate Pillsbury abstained from voting. Rascop moved, HUrr seconded, approval of the minutes of the special meeting of the Board held on September '.5, 1989. Motion carried, Lewman abstaininq. 4. Public Comments: Steven fallen, LMCD prosecuting attorney, addressed the Board regardinq the lawyer selection process. He e-3;:ed the Board to check with Sgt. Chandler and Lt. Peterson about the service he provides before the Board makes a decision. He said a change could be more costly to the LMCD with a firm not regularly handlinq Hennepin County cases because of the way he splits the time in court with other clients being represented the same day. He also felt there is a misunderstanding as to how much information the Board desires from the prosecutor. 5. Reports A. Chair- HUrr 1) HUrr and the E::ecutive Director met with Ron Harnack and John Stine, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regarding management plan funding and working agreement through MN DNR Shoreland Rules legislative implementation authority. The DNR is reconsidering a $51),4�:�V grant instead of the pledged for the management plan. On Harnaick's further advice LMCD will apply for the fullluV,Ur►U and use all resources to -Substantiate the claim. HUrr e•:pressed optimism about obtaining full funding. 1 LMCD Board of Directors - September 27, 1989 Hurr reported the I -IN DNR has invited the LMCD to serve as the lead agency in taking the initiative among the 14 Lake Minnetonka communities to d=velop a uniform set of Shoreland Regulations. The Exe--i.cive Director presented a report dated9/27/89 explaining the role of the LMCD in developing the regulations. Grathwol moved, Pillsbury seconded, to refer the MN DNR invitation to the Water Structures and Environment Committee for review and report in October. Motion carried unanimously. 2) Election recommendation for LMCD officers 1989-1990 The Board agreed to hold the election of officers for 1989-1990 at this meeting rather thati delaying to October. The item was added to the end of the agenda. 5. B. Financial Reports, Treasurer Lewman 1) Lewman submitted a cash flow statement as of 8/31/89, commenting it reflects a change from the previous statement which did not show transfers from the investment fund to checking balance. ) Lewman moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of bills payment totaling $166,094.47, check numbers 5632 through 5688. Motion carried unanimously. Lewman moved, Foster seccnded, to approve payment to United Marine International, Inc. of $60,526. for the fourth harvester upon satisfactory testing and modifications on the other harvesters. It is noted this reflects a late delivery penalty of $11,850. Motion carried, Pillsbury and Rascop voting nay. 5. C. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Cochran a) Cochran moved, Reese second�_d, approval of 9/9/89 minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. b) Rockvam Boat Yards Cochran moved, Pillsbury seconded, approval of a temporary low water variance to allow Rockvam Boat Yards to move six temporary "pontoon" slips from site #1 to site #2, noting when water levels permit the slips will revert to regular slips at site #1, the temporary slips to be discontinued. Motion carried unanimously. c) Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono) Order for approval, per committee recommendation, with the additional stipulation subject to Environmental Assessment Worksheet requirement as ordered by the Environmental Quality Board. E LMCD board of Directors - September 27, 1909 I The N��ard correS reviewed Envi ronrnental pondence of 9/19i09 Stating E",ecutive Director g the need Quality board Prepared. reported docr_�nenthe n for an EAW. A motion to for the The recommendations of approve EAW is being the CAW way- the Order sub withdrawn upon advice Ject to Cochran moved of Counsel. until the EAW is ' Pillsbury seconded completed. Motion ' tabling of carried unanimously. Order approval, d) Minnetonka Cochran Sort Works accept,,, rnaved, Reese seconded Wayzata) Order the Comrnittrre recommendation for sponsoring ' approval of the Order 9 an annual bass fishing that the re the list of amenities. requirement of believes g carried, tournament be el i mi nested from the variance Motion carried applicant adequate I i' e" tend.i n � ' f;ascop vat i n Y dcrnon� g t'ie dock S 9 nay as he e) �tratinU the required lr-'ri" (without School Minnetonka Y equired hardship) Order for AF,proval. Yacht Club/Lake Minnetonka approval of the Order Cochran moved Sailing the followin accepting the Committee+ G►"athwol seconded, instead of g change: c) to read recommendation for mKintaln sailing school f --..the right to Public which could instead or members of , general more students per �+ Shall she general yr'`�r • Motion train approximately i matel f and carried uo6nimously. Y 4riri or received a q) Deicing public dec in proposed Code Amendment h'aring review U installation of to the The board following changes _ r the Ordi nanr_e relating to 9-5 in Lake• Foster recommended Section i on C Subd. 1 the (a) E_ce the et Pq E?ro_vi ded i rr entire area of open water PACAProph, d.) of _ hei is op&gne Semi-oPayue fence or weaf..ened ice i sh�c�t subdivision i 9ht; which is at enclosed by least four feet in (b) The entire fence fence and the -1 Rnd the r_nt-rme half hoer en'trre area de-iced is area enclosed before sun,et to one-half not �ut}.q lighted from the (c) rf,e entire fenced area hour after one - warning sign i s not rn,.arF. scrnri se; 9 at least every fifty ed by reflectorized the fence. y feet (d) Change opaque to the perimeter of semi -opaque around 0"cussion centered e need to without overli on the light the entire area Foster moved of Ordinance ' Grathwol seconded Instal 1 at i ons No. 1 �''1, An ' to accept the first r on the Ordinance Relating to ending Subd. , deletin Lal:p; Relating Deicing not be J c 9 last sentence - ��F.er_manP,n Deicing Section b, ` last where t docf:: r., �'9+ Subdivisions till ci r,g equipment i s Permits is shall second 1 end 10, Subd. needed" and Section and third reading • 10 bein carried �_ •f + ��nd to ado g del eted; to waive the rnanimous,.. adopt the Ordinance. Motion 3 LHCD Unard of. Directors - September /, Faster moved, Babcocl seconded, direction to staff that for the 1989-90 licensing season the deadline date for application be moved forward from Uctobr?r 1 to November 1. Notion carried unan i rnousl y. It was noted this amendment now permits new permanent docks if deicing equipment is needed. h) Bean's Greenwood Marina application for 11C) slips plus 10 tie-On/service slips. The City of Greenwood has an agreement with Feaii's, signed in 1977, wherein he agreed to have no more than 1()() slips plus ltie-on/service slips. The E:cecutive Director reported Pean has moved the boats from the disputed area. HUrr moved, Grathwol seconded, to refer Eean's Greenwood Plarina application back to the Committee for complete information. Notion carried Unanimously. i) Smith's Bay Marina and Yacht Club recommendation to remove the 9 feet of dock that is beyond 2ric_► feet into the Lake, as determined from an April 1988 inspection in violation of the license. The Executive Director, along with information from Charles Nelony, Dock: Inspector, reported a discrepancy in the point o+ measurement, taken from the seawall which is 6' behind the 929.4 OliW mark:. A re -inspection verified the docl.: is 194', t`?. -1/C' and from the 929.4 UIJW point of measurement as referenced on the as -built survey, the average being less than 2(O'. Freese moved, Grathrol seconded, approval of the Smith's Bay Marina and Yacht Club license, disregarding the minimal distance error. Motion carried unanimously. Gerald Toberman, owner of the subject marina, said, in response to Chair Hurr's request, he will allocate a slip to the Sheriff's Water Patrol and allow them use of his ramp. Sgt. Chandler expressed appreciation. j) Pi 1 l sbi.try reported a Pli nnehaha Creel: Watershed District meeting on 9/28/89 could resolve the Libbs Lake dredging problem. k: > Grathwol qt iest i oned whether a series of docks Oil the Grernwood side of 1-1anor Road, on St. Al ban ' s Nay, are in conformation with LP1CD Ordinance. The E::ecutive Director reported the area consists of a series of 25 foot lots in Greenwood, some of whict are owned by each of the two land developers on the Shorewood side of Manor Road. The developer has met LHCD requirements by using combined dock: use areas, placing a three -slip and four -slip seasonal dock: on the lots. The developer also has a clreclginq permit to improve water access, - continued 4 LMCD board of Directors - September 27, 1989 the dredging not yet done. The City of Greenwood has enacted a moratorium on outlot dockage, but the developer installed the docks prior to the moraturium. Cochran assured the board the Committee will continue to study the situation. 5. C. ) EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Freese -a ) Reese introduced Rob Merila to the Board. Merila reported the harvesters are worl.-A ng on the entire lake and will finish this week:. They have harvested in excess of 600 acres of the amended 75(-) acre permit. A LIMI harvester manr_rfactr_rrer mechanic will accompany the fourth harvester and make necessary adjustments and modifications to the other three machines. LMCD will contract for a mechanic to winterise the eq uipmen t. Temporary storage has been obtained at a Hennepin County maintenance yard in Spring Park. Alternatives are being investigated for pussible indoor storage. Minnetonka boat Works has offered to assist in shrink: wrapping the machinery for outdoor storage if necessary. b) Hurr and Herila visited management at Lake Chataqua, Lakewood, New York: and observed their harvester operation. They learned a great deal about equipment maintenance and their annual operation. c) Freese submitted Change Orders #2 and 41Z to the contract with Atlas Marine. Chanqe Order02 sets forth the terms for use of a harvester provided by Atlas Marine to supplement UMI equipment. Chanqe Order #3 provides for rate changes for three - harvester -cutting rate as of 9/15/89. Rascop questioned Atlas' previous offer of a trucl.: until the 'rd harvester arrived, believing they stated a trucl: would be provided throughout the Atlas Harvester- use. The E::eCLltive Director stated this was amended to the time of the �.rd harvester's arrival. boswink:el moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of Change Order #2 and #' to the contract with Atlas Marine. Motion carried unanimously. d) Reese reported the request for Corps of Engineer (C/E) matching funds for 199C) has been completed and has been forwarded to Washington, D. C. for approval. The C/E will require a feasibility study, part of which has been done this summer. Without these matching funds it will be difficult to operate in 1990 at the same level as in 1989. Reese is looking forward to improve�ents in the 199u operation and at the same time is satisfied ►•lltti the accomplishments in 1989. Chair Hurr and the E:cecutive Director met with Hennepin County Pub Iic Worls Director Pat Murphy to provide a project supervisor, truck and cl •nosal site for the weeds. The County is e:cperimenting with rr lake weeds with leaves and grass clippings at a compost a LI•ICD Do,--ird of Directors - S(?pternbE-?r 27, 1989 Reese reported the Fresh Water Foundation has hired a research director who will head up the scientific research sub- committee on Eurasian water- Milfoil task: force.. The MN DNR conducted Sonar weed herbicide test studies in Carson's, Gr•ay's and Smith's Bays. There is also a report of an insect which eats milfoil. The search for alternate sources of Eurasian water Milfoil control or eradication is on -going. Grathwol recommended the Board publicly recognize the weed harvesting proqram as having been done in a positive manner. The Board concurred. HUrr added that a viqurous fund raising program will have to be carried on in the coming year to fund the operation. 5. C. '> LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Chair Pillsbury a) Pillsbury moved, Foscer seconded, approval of the 9/18/09 mi:iutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimousi,,. b) Personal Watercraft Foster reported on the meetinq with Personal Watercraft industry representatives hela 'n 9/19/89. The representatives present acknowledge they have similar problefns all over the country. Manufacturers have reduced the noise level to national 82.4 DBA standards, but major noise problems result from after -manufacture eg1.ripmen t and modifications added to the machines. The group present basically concurred with the LMCD analysts prepared by Foster,but feel the IOC)0' operatinq di tance from shore is tore far. On 9/29/89, at Water Patrol Headquarters in Spring Part- a noise test will be held at 5(?' , lr:��>' , 50CY , and lu(M)' distances. At least four manufacturers will bring equipment. Monitorinq equipment will be furnished by the Water Patrol and Pollution Control Agency. Other comments: Boswinl::el: Reduce the allowable decibel rate. Babcock: Would like to see a hard approach to prohibiting after -manufacture e(Juipment. HarrThe manufacturers appreciate the opportunity to be heard before action is tal::en. Rascop: Would like to see statistics on accidents, etc. Chandler reported they are surprisingly few on Lake Minnetonka. c and d) Charter boat registration proposed Code amendment. Pi11shi.iry moved, Foster seconded, to approve an amendment to the charter boat registration code which will change the application drre date from May 1 to March 1, and to prohibit charter boats from operatinq until Water F'atrol/DNR inspections have been passed avid all LMCD registration requirements are met. Motion carried unanimcx.isly. There was a discussion of identification of charter boats by some type of siynaele to identify their Usc1. There was no action. 1.9 LMCD Hoard of Directors - September 27, 1999 e) f:ascop moved, Pillsbury seconded, refunds of fees to the following special event permit holders: Mound City Days, 7uhrah Shrine Skippers, Lake Masters Swim Club, Antique & Classic Boat Parade, Wednesday Night Bass Tournaments and MN/WI Pro-A,m Bass lournaments, detail in list of approved vouchers. Motion r_arri(?d unanimously. Refund was declined on the Westorik.a Crappie l'ournament as a result of attorney fees and staff time resulting from tournament officials not securing a water patrol permit after several reminders. f) Water Patrol Report Sat. Chandler reported 57 DWIs issued. One full-time deputy has been transferred to other duties. He had no information on a replacement. The Board was invited to the Water Patrol Annual Di nner to be held the evening of 1 1 / 18/89 at the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club. 5. C. 4) ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chair Reese, Consultant Arndorfer. a) Arndorter presented a quarterly progress report explaining the restrictions to be used as density increases. A Ivey consideration is as the lake use acres per boat count goes down the restrictions on access will have to increase. A number of options on how to achieve this were presented. b) Arndorfer continues to develop the agenda for the management plan information meeting. He is look:inq for Advisory Committer, rnernbers to present the different topics. Local officials, county officials, regional agencies and state agencies as well as the LMCD board members have been invited. (The date has subsegr_rently been changed to Saturday, December Lafayette Club.) 5. C. 5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, Gene Strommen a) The E;:ecutive Director reported the Bookkeeper -Clerk: is leaving LMCD employment the third week in September. She voluntarily resigned due to non -compatibility with the District's bookkeeping requirements. Rascop moved, Reese seconded, to authorize the Executive Director to hire a replacement at per hour under the established job description. Motion carried unanimously. b) The E=;:ecutive Director reported he along with Reese will make presentations at a two-day State Lake Management Conference in Minneapolis. He will address how shoreland rnanaclement r_an wort in an urban l.al:e setting. Reese will speak: on the Eurasian water Miltoil program. 7 LHCD Board of [ii rectors - September '27, 1909 c ) The E,: cuti ve Director appeared on a Cable TV with four city managers and discussed Milfoil and the. Management Plan. d) Grathwol suggested a review of the e;secutive director's position and performance is likely due. A review of the Es:ecutive Director's view o� the position, past and future, would be valuable at this time. b. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Legal service selection in response to Selection Committee's recommendation of two finalists. Before the -tegal service selection, Lefevere clarified that despite rumors he is interested in r_ontini-l:"q as Counsel for the LMCD. He Would appreciate a dialoque about. the concerns the Board has with his service On his part tt,, a need for a clarification of who can tall:: to the _y, who gives direction and can the attorney initiate project.. Lefevere left the room at this time. Hurr responded the current operiinq of consideration for the Position of Counsel resUlt, from a desire to periodically open appointed positions for review. Another factor was Lefevere's change of firms. Once the Hoard derision was made to open the position in April, to requests for proposals, fifteen firms applied for the position. Applications were available for review by all the LMCD Board members. An appointed committee of the officers and Grathwol selected si.. firms for personal interview. Aqain all directors were invited to participate in the interviews by written notic.. Finally twv firms selected for Hoard consideration were Nest and Flanagan and Hoff and Allen. Grathwol moved, Hnswink:el 5r.corided, appointment of Robert Meller, Jr. of Hest and Flanagan a= Counsel to the LMCD. DISCUSSION: Grathwol discussed the selection process and indicated he believed the process was fairly handled. He felt the officers must have tzonfidenr_e in the legal counsel. Officers who have the worl:inq relationship with the attorney, indicated they have a lack: of confidence in Lefevere and are entitled to have counsel in which they have confidence. Reese specifically mentioned his dissatisfaction with the codification of the ordinances and preparation of the contracts for the weed harve-,tinq program. there was discussion of cost. L=prathwol responded that cost was not a factor in changinq attorneys as activity more than anythinq else controls cost.. Reese noted Best and Flanagan are willing to negoti•♦te a flat fee? retainer. Hurr noted Hest and FlanAu ari will bear the start up costs by doing some self -training on LMCD's operation. 9 LMCD Board of Directors - September 27, 1989 Several Board members commented for LeFevere as follows: (Lewman) - spo{:.e on behalf o-f the value of continu:ty; (Cochran) - e,%pressed his concerns about the selection process which resulted in three board members maE::e the recommendation, t•vo of whom he believed held biases,that an interview schedule, was set in which LeFevere interviewed, (as was tile me e case personally was not �with another firm's representative beinq substituted), Lefevere has not lost a Prevailed over a Corps of En civil case, he done what he was asked. 9ineer's case and believes he has (Slocum) - believes the Y interest could P:;lst as E+est and pFlanagan treprresentsof acthelCity onfictoof Wayzata. (Pillsbury) - suggested an o Responsibility Board of the Bar Assoclatio�rom the Professional Slocum) - srrggested the selection of the atturne after the election of officers. Y be made Plartinson moved, Rascop seconded, to table the selection of an attorney until after the election of officers. Motion carried unanimously. B- Election of Officers Hurr announced nominations from the floor for the office of Chair were Open, stating she would be I ►terested in serving one additional year, Particularly to assit.t funding needs. in L1.1CD's Slocum moved, Rascop seconded, to nominate Da, Cochran for the position of Chair. Reese moved, Boswink:el seconded,to nominate JoEllen Hurr for the position of Chair. Rascop moved, Lewman seconded, that nominations be closed. Motion carried unanimously, Hurr called fur a written ballot and appointed LeFevere and the recording secretary as tally cler-I.s. Lefevere announced tr.e f of 1 owi ng vote: David Cochran 9 votes JoEllen Hurr 4 votes Cochran was declared elected for a one year term effective With the October -25, 1999 Eoard of Directors' installation. Hurr called fo►- nominations for Vice Chair. Rascok, moved, Hurr seconded, to nominate kobert Slocum for the position of Vice Chair. Slocum declined the nomination. 9 LMCD Board of Directors - September 27, 1989 Pillsbury moved, Babcock seconded, to nominate Bert Foster for the position of Vice Chair. Boswinkel moved, Martinson seconded, to nominate Thomas Reese for the position of Vice Chair. Hurr moved, Babcock seconded, to nominate James Grathwol for Vice Chair. Grathwol declined the nomination. Pillsbury moved, Rascop seconded,that nominations be closed. Motion carried unanimously. Lefevere announced the following vote: Bert Foster 9 votes Thomas Reese 4 votes Foster was declared elected Vice Chair for a one year term effective with the October 25, 1989 Board of Directors' installation. Hurr declared nominations open for the office of Secretary. Pillsbury moved, Malinka seconded, to nominate Jan Boswinkel as Secretary. Rascop moved, Grathwol seconded, that nominations be closed and a unanimous ballot be cast for Jan Boswinkel as Secretary. Motion carried unanimously. Jan Boswinkel was declared elected to the office of Secretary for a one year term effective with the October 25, 1?89 Board of Directors' installation. Hurr declared nominations open for the office of Treasurer. Rascop moved, Pillsbury seconded,to nominate John Lewman as Treasurer. Boswinkel moved, Slocum seconded, that nominations be closed and a unanimous ballot be cast for John Lewman as Treasurer. Motion carried unanimously. John Lewman was declared elected as Treasurer for a one year term effective with the October 25, 1989 Board of Directors' installation. Grathwol expressed thanks, on behalf of the Board, to Reese and Hurr for their services. The Executive Dirrctor,on behalf of the staff, recognized Reese and Hurr have beer untiring in their service to the District. 10 LMCD Hoard of Direrfors - Sept-_.nber 27, 1989 D. Appointment of Attorney (continued) Rascop moved, Pillsbury seconded, that the LMCD retain Charles Lefevere of Holmes °< Graven as counsel. Motior carried, Hurr abstaininq. Rascop stated he would like to have the current prosecutor replaced. Lefevere said in fairness to present prosecutor that he be given an opportunity to respond to any allegations made against him. He further stated he has no problem working with anyone appointed. Cochran requested a further e:camination of the appointment. Mealinki asked for a report of prosecutions, out- come and cost vs. receipts. Dahcocl: moved, Lewman secondrd, to refer the appointment of a prosccut-or to the officers for a recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. 7. ew Business There was no other businesG to come before the Eoai , . B. Adjournment Martinson moved, Halink-a seconded,that the meetinq be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 11 p.m. 0 JoEllen Hurr, Chair J.in Hoswi nk:el , Secretary 11 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action report of: Water Structures and Environmenal Committee Meeting: Saturday, October 14, 1989 7:•=ci a.m. LMCD Office, Wayzata Members present: Harvin Bjorlin, TonF::a Pay; Jan Boswinkel, Minnetonka Peach; David Cochran, Greenwood; Pert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; DougI as Babcock, Spring "ark.; John Lewman, Minnetrista; Robert Pillsbury, Minne- tonka; Robert ':ascop, Shorewood; To omas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum; Woodland. Also present: ;=rank Mi>a, Consultant; Rob Merila, Consultant; Eugene Strorr.-..,�.-n, Executive Director. 1. Preliminary rt:�p::, Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Minnetonka Boat Works, Orono, New Dock License and Special Density Applications. The Committee received a proposed Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Minnetonka Boat Works Orono Brown's Bay and Tanager Lake new dock: license for review. The EAW was ordered by the Environmental Duality Board (EUB) because the expansion of si:; slips on Brcwn's Bay and 41 slips on Tanager Lake. The new dock: license and special density permit has been approved by the Committee, the LMCD Board, the City -of Orono and the Minnehaha Creel: Watershed District. Before the Order can be approved, the Ei-14 will proceed through the ECiP procedures, a matter of 'C) to 45 days. The EAW covers only the water surface area use and does not involve any on -land considerations. Grathwol moved, Bjorlin seconded, a recommendation to the Board that the EAW prepared for the Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono) expansion be approved. I•lotion carried unanimously. 4�. Moratorium consideration for outlot development on Lake Minnetonka for purposes of providing Lake access and dockage for non -riparian properties. To open discussion Grathwol moved, Cochran seconded approval of Interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting Lake Minnetonka, the Flanninq Process, and the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Public, and Restrictinq the Licensing, Construction and Maintenance of New Commercial and Multiple Docks and New Docks Making Common Use of Adjacent Dock Use Areas. Grathwol explained the Ordinance is proposed as a resu'.t of Advisory Committee cansideration of lake access and density. He suggested a three year moratorium to allow time for its inclu.;ion in the Management Plan. According to David Arndor'er, Conseil taut , becaLASe of the number of i nqui r i es and pos,si bl e •applications for new licensing, a critical dens-.}v coUid be reached before adoption of the Management Flan. 1 Re=pondinq to que,iLion from Reese, Grathwol said the moratorium can be Juc,tified was a temporary measure, and he believes i.t is constitutional and would not be considered a "taking" of riqht. Lewman stated it is obvious lake shore is going to be used and it is his concern is that a moratorium on multiple docks could result in a greater- density of 1 alre shore being subdivided to provide smaller lake frontage lots with ma;:imum dockage. Frank Mila stated the Management Flan says the District should provide for the boats reaching the Lake through public access points and restrict the boats reaching the Lake through private non -riparian sources. Babcock: suggested adding condominium dock-s to the Ordinance. Responding to a comment from Rascop, Grathwol said there is no intent to ma{:e the Lake density uniform over-all, bL%t it is desirable to prohibit additional development in the dense areas. There was a sugqestion that there could be a hold on additional development by allowing doci.-s only on property where there is a residence. Residences should have the 4 boats allowed reduced to , and the 1:50' general rule should be changed to 1:75'. Grathwol suggested a change in 1.06 to show Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has indicated that access with dedicated parking for an additional 7ri(i car/trailers will eventually be made available. Lewman moved, Foster seconded, to table the proposed Ordinance. Motion carried, Grathwol, Rascop, Cochran and Biorlin voting nay. The Committee indicated they would life to have further discussion. Foster suggesteci Cochran, Mi;:a and Arrdorfer bring it bact:: at the ne:: t meet i nq Cochran annouriced that as Chair-ele=t of the Board, he will propose, at the Board meeting in October, that Grathwol assume the Chair of the Water Structures and Environmental Committee and will refer this proposal to him to develop a sub -committee study on i t . David Thomas residential development, Smithtown Bay, South Upper Lake, City of Victoria,requesting a five slip outlot dock and three residential docks on three parcels, totaling 365' shoreline, with appropriate easements and homeowners association to govern. 2 the application has been approved by the City of Victoria Planninq Commission and returned to the City Council. Ed Hasek, represented the owners. There are three lots on the lak::e and five ofF share with a 40' ot_ttlot with pedestrian access only. Home Owners Associationi rules control the dockage of the three 1 ake lots to one s 1 i r) each and the out 1 of Will st_ipport five slips. This is accomplished by an 8' outlot easement along the shore of the three lots;. Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, a recommendation to the Board to approve a multi-docr; license for a five slip ot_ttlot dock and three residential docks for one boat each on three parcels, totaling 385' of shoreline, with the appropriate easements and Home Owner Association rules to be filed with LMCD. Motion carried unanimously. Rascop was e::ct_tst_d tirorn the meeting. 4. Wayzata Yacht Club progress an considerations relating to City of Wayzata's concern on the Yacht Club's annual license renewal. The E.:eci.ttive Director- detailed the City of Wayzata's concerns on the conduit of ths? 41ayzat8 Y�Acht Club license in a memo dated Foster responded that WA y ata Yacht Club has a registered torrens title to their property on file with Lr•1CD. He stated their lot line extends through the claimed by the City. The Yacht Club has put in a mat.:e-ready dock: to facilitate launching as well as marki.nq of the channel as a public amenity to accommodate the public's use of this access. Grathwol moved, Pillsbury seconded, to ask: the E>:ecutive Director to comr*tun i CCAte with the City of Wayzata regardi nq any objections they may have to the Wayzata Yacht Club's annual license by st_tbinitting them in writing, [lotion carried unanimously. Babcock, Slocum, Foster and Eoswinkel were excused from the tneetinq. 5. Gayle's Marina dredging operation and commercial use of property in violation of City of Orono B-2 zoning, communication from the City of Orono. The above i of orm_.it i on WAS submitted by the E;:ecut i ve Di roc -tor for information only purposes as the District does not have a prohibition on commercial use of non-commercial property. There was no action taken. Cochran indicated this could be discrtssed in the future as the subject has also come up with reference to charter boat berthinq at residential lots. 3 b. Shoreland Management rules facilitation among 14 member cities to develop uniform Lake Minnetonka Shoreland Regulations. The Committee reviewed a report submitted to the Ho, d at their 9/27/89 meeting detai 1 i nq the PIN I)NR invitation to t, ie LMCD to serve as the lead aclency in takinq the initiative amonq the 14 Lake Minnetonka cornr11u(1i1_ies to develop a Uniform set of Shoreland Regulations. Cochran commented that, while the MN DNR Shoreland Regulations may differ from the LMCD Management Flan regulations, the difference is not great. Freese spoke in favor of the opportunity and suggested retaining a professional planner for presentation. Reese moved, Pillsbury seconded, a recommendation to the Hoard that the 1_11CD accept the MN DNR invitation. Notion carried unani mousl Y. 7. Additional business recommended by the Committee A. The E;:ecuttive Director reported the City of Wayzata f:ls indicated they will ask for a special density permit F.nd new dock license for fifteen additional slips at the City marina. Grathwol moved, Djorlin seconded, that the request be tabled. Motion carried unanimnusly. B. Deposit Refunds Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, a recommendation to the Hoard that the followinq district mooring area deposits be refunded: City of Deephaven, City of Excelsior, Methodist Assembly GroUnds. Minnetonka Yacht Club and Wayzata Yacht Club. Motion ca~ri ed Uriani muusl y. ENVIRONMENT 1. Preliminary report on weed harvesting program completed 9/29/89 Reese reported Rob Mer-ila has accomplished a variety of activities during the harvesting season and currently is preparinq equipment for removal from the Lake. Merila reported the machines are out of the water being and prepared for wintr-7ri::ation. The new fourth machine was water tested and accepted. Machines 1, -- and .:7, have been updated by United Marine International for warranty ._ompliance to #4's Status. Reese reported the Atlas Marine Inc. contract has been completed. He also reported that while United Marine, Inc. retrofitinq the first three harvesters the speed of the harvesters is still not acceptable. The nmV)Ufacturer specified continued 4 1C) mph. Harvester ff hris been tested at 5-1/2' mph and the new #4 g i ves only 6-1 /2:1 mph. has been withheld from the l ast payment to UPti until the speed issue is satisfied. UPI President Classen has agreeo to enlarging the prope:iers to increase speed. the engines having ample reserve power. C. An agreement has been prepared to hire Lance Delude,as r an independent contractor, to do the maintenance for _O+ days at $-15.(7O per hour, pli.is a provision for up to per hour for an assistant. Freese moved, bjorlin seconded, a recommendation to the board of approval of the aqreement with Lance Detrude. Motion carried Unanimously. Preliminary forecast for 1990 weed harvesting program --the options being examined. The program is not complete and discussion was layed over. 4. Rob Merila performance report. The report on Fob Perila's performance was reported as satisfactory by the Eecutive Director in that he has met the first 'u day objectives set forth. Due to Committee attendance depletion at this time the balance of Her iIa's report will be submitted in writing. A budget for maintenance will also be prepared. 5. Addition:! bt..siness recommended by the committee. There was no other bust b. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 a.m. For the Committee: Euqene Strommen, E::ecutive Director David Cochran, Chair 5 LAKE M I NINE I U11KA CONSERVA f I ON D I S I I: l CT• Action Report of: Lake Use Committee Meeting: Honday,Or_tober 16, 1909 4::'•r=r P.M. LMCD Office, Wayzata Members present: Marvin Ujorlin, Tonka Clay; Jan Eoswinkel, Minnetonka Beach; David Cochran, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, E::celsior; Douglas Babcock, Spring Park, Thoman Martinson, Wayzata; Robert. Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Thomas Reese, Mound. H1c'o pt esent: t:,tgerre Strommen, E:cecLttive Director; Lt. Larry Peterson, Sheriff's Water Patrol. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pillsbury at 4:44i P.M. 1. Charter Boats A. Berthing in residential areas, continued from September review. There is nothinq in the charter boat licensing code which governs where thQ boats are to be berthed when not loadinq. The Committee di sctissed whether- the District should prohibit berthinq at residential property. The consensus was some control sholtld be considered, the main problem is the licensed charter boas which is also users as a personal boat by the owner. In some rases the residential property is owned by the corporate owner of the boat, an e::ample beinq Al 3< Alma's in Mound. There was considerable discussion on marking charter boats to identify them while aperatinq on the lake. There was no consensus on what is a reasonable means of marking charter boats For identification when in operation. Lt. Peterson said the Water Patrol Would appreciate better marking. Pillsbury appointed Babcocl, Foster and Eoswinl%el to serve as a st-rb-committee to identify the issues on berthi nq as well as how best to identify charter- bows as Such when under way. F. Stowage marking of F'FD's (life preservers),per DNR response The I -IN DNR reports that signage indicating the location of PFDs on a boat are Coast Guard regulations which Rio not apply to Lake Minnetonk,�. It was agreed this is something that could be added to the Lode. It was referred to the st_tb-committee appointed in 1A above. C. Application form review by Pillsbury, Babcock, Sgt. Chandler. The Committee referred a review of proposed changes in the r.pplication form to be used for charter boat registration to the above mentioned sub -committee. 1 Citizen Brodie Presentation. James br, mittee nnetonk:a Beach, addressed the Lom on a problem which ��.� .jeveloped in front of his property. Due- to the low water an unusual amount of silt is stirred ►_►p because of the traffic in the channel about silt yards out from his shore. This has resulted in ruining an excellent sandy bottom. His suggestion is movinq the channel. The Committee received a response from Denis Bail Engineering Technician,Hennepin County Public Works, statenq diverting the hundreds of boats that use this channel on peak days could congest the other channel on the north side of Arcola Reef posing a safety hazard. Bailey sees this as an unfortunate result of the low water elevation. Pillsbury will tali:; to Denis Bailey about the possibility of "Slow" buoys and make inquiry if there have been any studies on the effect of prnnellers under various rpm and silt. He will report back to the Committee. snAed on bottom 3. Personal Watercraft progress report and Preparations for the 10/25 Public Hearing. A Public Hearinq will be held in the matter of investigatinq the need for requlatin watercraft on LaVe Winnetor►ka• The hearinq will be held patsonal the Minnetonka Community Conter, 1400 Minnetonka hlvd., City of Mi nr►etoriF::a at 7 p. m, on Wednesday, October ';5, 1909. Foster has the video tape of the 9/29 noise test. He will have it for vi sari r►g prior to the hearing. He will 1 1 pr,=dare a fact sheet with thF decibel ratings and background infornation. It etas agreed the heari,ig will be for fact gathering info, mation, no discussion on the comments at the hearing. 4. Winter Rules: Deicing item now out-of-date It was agreed that because of so few people impacted by the deicing permit notation, and the large number of brochures on hand, no change will be made in the Lake Minnetonka Winter Rules until a new printinq is justified. 5• Water Patrol Report Lt. Peterson reported five speeding tickets were is51.ied the first day of the Don Shelby Bass Tournament but the tournament officials cooperated and the second day saw an improvement. Fifty-nine SWIs were issued so far this year. 6. Additional business A. Reese moved, Pabcock: seconded, to recommend to the Board refunds of liir_►.r►�i deposit, for the Don Shelby National Invitational Bass rot.irnament and Viking Bass Plasters Tournament. 2 I 7. Adjournment r, The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. For the Committee: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Robert Pillsbury, Chair 3 "4 l BEND TYPICAL SECTION N0, ,0 SCALE f+>A M Bwi m� CRA Wi,i 3" (T., 11/2" HN) 2341 Blluminwl c5uppro0e �—- Geclab�c Mol• w Com00c1e0 it �eeCec r . r •f.a .\... ,.".: ---- 7 1 1 ♦ `. 1 1� � __ � \ 1 1 ter.: x.: l 1 � +nA� `��\`�; SB +..---•..7 Milo" OUTLOT B 1 i I _ --- - F- i � 1 1 -��\ -- - _.. _. I _...._._ ...... �. . ELEV:973I • l-' /; _ VC: go' � Pvl•T✓AEV'9R.00 � I -._.____� .: . a I ELEV •91f'' VC � M•0. 14 I ELEV }961b I _ _PVllY90 �... v \ S 'cq�- ._........ __.... .._...._.. M•0.12 I .. ... - _ I _ ...-.... t. .._. _. I PVI fIB'W ELEC. �pPVI.11.25 PVII,19p0- ELEY•90BA0 1 ELEV. NO 00 ELEV!9B2 25 VC. N•..6F '.. - �I 1� I I ` I MfO.N VC.50' M•0..0 N•019 �I.Opf 0px �\ FOX BEND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 4-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA wCS - 3 sod @ I fth wIUO tw 14 Min IMI1R I DDIun N.GMO. 1929Emimft _ N m 'lot a .. .g, tot 33; AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 230, Hennepin County, MlnnesD[e. That Dar[ of Lot 11. RUDITON'S SUBOIV15i0M NUMBER 230. described as follows: [ommencing at the Northeast c Of Lot 32. In Auditor's 5 ubdlvlslon .a 230, xennepin Lounty. Mlnne sots: [Nence Res[ o the Nortn Ilne of Said Lot 32' 297 feet; 'Nence South to a point In the South line or sold Lot 32. 153 feel west of the Southwest corner of Lot 33 In Sald Audi. ,or 's Subalvls,on Mumber 230; thence East along said South line to the 5outhrest c r of said Lot 33: LNe nce Nor tN along the Nest Ilne of said Lot 33 to [he Northwest corner of s Id Lot 331 thence East slang the North line of said Lot 33 to the Northeast corner of Sall lot 13: thence North on the East line of sold Loto32 to the pal nt of beginning, Lot 25. Auditor's Subdivision Number 230 and that part a1 Let 32, Auditor's SUbdlvislon Number 230, xennepin County, Minnesota described es follows: Commend ng at a point on the North line of Lot 32, Auditor's Sabel vl Slon Number 230 Hennepin County, Mlnnesot• 297 feet We o1 the Northeast r IN tot; thence Ye. sold North line a distance of297feet: tnence South to a Dolnt In the South Ilne of said Lot 32. 150 feet West o1 the Southwest corner of Lot 33 In Said Auditdr's Subdly lslon Number 211 Hennepin Lounty Minnesota; thence East on sold South Ilne of sold Lot 72. 297 feet; thence North to the point of beglnaing. Lot 31; inn' Oart of lot 32, de scribal as follows: [ooen<Ing at a point on IM1a NO rth Ilne of sold Lot 72, 591 feet Yest of the Northeast corner thereof: thence Mast on Said North line t0 the Northwest corner of said Lot 32, thence South n the Hest Ilne of said Lot to the 5outhreTt corner of said Lot; thence 1.1, on the South Ilne of said Lot to a point In said South line 45D feet West of the 5outhrest rner of Lot 33,In said Rud itor'S Subd lv lsl on Mumber 230. Nlnnlpin County, M_ sots; then[! NO rt'f to the Dolnt Of beginning, eac lD'. the Soutn 251 feet cf the East 200 /eat thereof, the Sou to"" corner o/ Lot 32 Ill ng marked by judicial landmark, Auditor's Sobd L1*1"On Number 230, xennepin County. Minnesota, according [c the Dist thereof .rile o of record In the Office Of the register of Deeds In and for said County. I NereDy <ertl(y that thl5 Surrey was Ore Dared Dy me or under my dlred supervin on, ana lost I a a dolt licensed Civil Engineer end Land Surveyor under the lays of the State of Mlnneso ta. CUf FIN a GNONIERG. Inc. d5!±!LZ- Mart S. Gron Der�o. 12755 COFFIN 8k GRONBERGg INC. ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA '�1 o ove "1" qH A'Z�w o �"_ z . I ,- '� >�vQ � _ �� ; - � , kl d F!l� � _ _'�' 1 •�,•' � w f•��. _y _ .�� ! AWN ?2722E r" 1� ' _ I_f. -y 1 a, - +{- 'f A�_>•4 ' t f - t ^.�;; h bu tA f e _ i Wbodh U Cn1ry C/mob z- r 1{ 4e 1)as HILL J•.r•z• It--w000Hl fn7 r t, d t �:V 1 W4c�y1 aal � Ic Jr+•+r! lti.� � �j ba .LtA (/` \ py ,,illy tc.�t� : ;'1r..•r I a. `fs •.�- - - . - - i _ , • a - ts• r 41 41 7ja�+�etia .II A.- I �3.- 1�8 I dl•IooY .:.V .r x �'' v '4 " - ,I �. \z ~•� 4"'4J'j•i+ li z/ I S Q'p�1 +: VX ➢.z•r _wA�__ _.. .4�� 7-r--r•_ _ S i�q+ �: ��,% .�,• /NL',•Hg ch. F•A`_ rf�. GE AJy (Z• � e,�� _ •.. 't-- s '�"'�...3 ,I.a �?.'•t`', q`'�t 5 t a a' ill t '%aN` I - - y n I • av �' —� .T tL T ��. f t d 1 �4F/ r,^j �;. "'� Lv • rza r. . / ' - Z #�Iti ,.O.f + ''• t-�. �.5-+'ai{..�.r i z.a• _1JiaJ .•�/ - +t• - a .. }a• Jtj •• z; t �h'C�+o •��a�ewv aau n Fp C _L940S �,1atK �YT pt 7 i7T?__ COFFIN Eh GRONBERG, INC. ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS LONG Lt,iCE, MINNESOTA / rl L t• } DE TAIL Na rX � ��a 0 ! O __ �•1 Aft �w , 00•� EXISTING CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: DESCRIPTION: Tract I3 , Registered I hereby Land S urge �I fy that this survey was cl, y �� ARC' �yrHE Yor under the laws of the this 5th d St Jai \ day of September, 1989. ma \ S3 _ram 1�� c° / _ e�aJ • 010-.vU UU t 449.09 CO L Q t.. ocr i _ uPROPOSED t H/ 4 Y 1 �+ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: C DESCRIPTI()V: Tract B, Registered Lz a I hereby certify that this Land Surveyor under survey was done \ \ ~ y er the laws of the 5tat< Dated �,�' \ this 5th day of September 1989.