HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meetingAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1988, 7:0/ P.M.
(*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by
one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda.
Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the
Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained
upon request from the Recorder.
ROLL CALL
1. CONSENT AGENDA*
2. Resolution of Appreciation - Robert Kost vp 12 1g,n
APPROVAL OF MINUTESCITY
3. Regular Meeting of August 22, 1988 F OR
PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person)
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Edward Cohen Representative
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
4. #990 Ward Ferrell, 3411 Watertown Road - Variance
5. #1303 Allan Rezabek, 1989 Fagerness Pt Rd - Variance - Resolution
6. #1311 John Purdy, 1975 Fagerness Pt Rd - Variance
7. #1313 Richard Eller, 2655 Shadywood Rd - Variance - Resolution
8. #1314 Gerald Rowlette, 3775 Bayside Rd - Variance - Resolution
9. #1315 Countryside Manor Assoc., Willow Dr & Countryside Dr -
Variance - Resolution
10. #1316 Gary Barr, 3034 Casco Point Rd - Variance
11. #1320 Dr. & Mrs. Brandenburg, 719 Minnetonka Highlands Lane -
Variance - Resolution
12. #1284 Douglas Kirchner, 1520 Bohns Point Road - Request to Amend
Hardcover Allowance
ENGINEER'S REPORT
* 13. Willow Drive and Highway 12 Flasher
14. Pay Request #1 - Hardrives, Inc.
MAYOR'S REPORT
15. Resolution of Condolence - Brad VanNest
16. Lake Minnetonka Regional Park
17. Orono/Long Lake Discussions/September __, 1988
CITY ADMINIST•RATOR'S REPORT
18. Bohn'y Point Feasibility Report
19. 1989 Goal Setting
20. Animal Permit Ordinance Amendment - Fee Schedule Ordinance Amendment
21. 1989 Budget Meeting - September 20, 1988 - 7:00 P.M.
22. Orono/Minnetonka Beach Interceptor Construction
23. Water Conservation Regulations
24. Temporary Transfer Station - Hennepin County
25. Hazardous Buildings - Set Public Hearing Date
26. L.M.C.D. Representative
*27. Resolution of Appreciation - Robert Kost, Park Commission Chairman
*28, Additional Election Judges and 1988 Election judges Salary -
Resolutions
*29. Temporary Employment - Golf Course
*30. Resolution of Appreciation - Long Lake Chamber & St. George Catholic
Church
*31. Salary Review - Jares Morrow, Part Time Patrol Officer
*31A. 1989 Cable T.V. Budget
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1988, 7:88 P.M.
*32. Administrator's Information
3508 Ivy Place
County Road 15 Progress
LMCD Executive Director
891 Tonkawa Road
Goals and Objectives
CITY ATTORNEY' S REPORT
LICENSRS (33*)
BILLS (34*)
ADJOURNMENT
MEETING
V t;P 1219�.8
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING ' °i r��,h�igry�
HELD AUGUST 22, 1988 " ORONO
ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M.
The Council met on the above date with the following members
present: Mayo) Grabek, Councilmembers Goetten, Peterson,
Callahan and Nettles. The following represented the City staff:
City Administrator Bernhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator
Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Police Chief Kilbo,
City Recorder Scheffler. Assistant City Attorney Whitney was
also present.
CONSENT AGENDA*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda excepting
items #16, #19 and #22, as requested by Councilmember Callahan.
Motion, Ayes-5, Nays=O, Motion passed.
COlQ]INDATION - ORONO POLICE RESERVES
Mayor Grabek presented the Orono Police Reserve Officers
with Certificates of. Appreciation. He stated that these officers
volunteered their time and energy to serve on the Reserve Force
of the Orono Police Department. In 1987 the Reserve Force
volunteered a total of 3,096 hours, and as of August 22, 1988,
they had already given 1,592 hours of volunteer service. The
Reserves partake in the apprehension of criminals and
investigation of crimes that occur within the City cf Orono.
Special recognition was given to Peter Achey, who has served 15
years as an Orono Police Reserve Officer. Corporal Randy O'Brien
assisted a little girl who was stung by a bee and bit by a dog
during the Corn Days celebration in Long Lake. He was given
special recognition through the reading of a letter of
appreciation that had been written by the parents of the little
girl. Officer C.J. Gonsier was congratulated for being voted
Reserve Officer of the Year by his fellow officers.
APPPROVAL OF MINUTES*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the August 8,
1988 Council Meeting, Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passes.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT
Representative JoEllen Hurr was unable to attend the
meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from the public.
MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 1988
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT-
#1265 MINNETONKA ALANO
2760 FOX S"RBET
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION #2486
The applicant was present for this matter.
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that applicant was
requesting a Conditional Use Permit for an occupancy at 2760 Fox
Street. The old church at this location had been used by the
Minnetonka Alano Group for a number of years and they would like
to expand the present parking facility. However, their use of
the church had never been formally recognized and they were
advised by the City that it would be necessary to obtain a
conditional use permit as well as approval of a setback variance.
In reviewing this application, it also became apparent that the
applicant needed to replace the existing septic system. The City
Zoning staff recommended that a holding tank be used in place of
the present system.
There were no further comments or questions on the part of
the Council or the applicant.
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Callahan, to approve the conditional use
permit/variance, per staff recommendation. Motion, Ayes=5,
Nays=0, Motion passed.
#1291 ALFRED IVERSON
2835 CASCO POINT ROAD
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION #2487
The applicant was present for this matter.
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the hardcover
variance requested in this matter had previously been approved at
38.4%. The approval included a provision allowing applicants to
bring the matter back before Counci'l if the hardcover percentage
was not acceptable. After further review, it was calculated that
the hardcover required for the turnaround was 39.4%. Applicants
are requesting approval for hvrd:•over at this revised percentage.
Councilmember Goetten inq,.ired as to the reason for the
additional 1%. Mrs. Iverson stated that they now have a
turnaround that is more functional. Councilmember Goetten asked
Zoning Administrator Mabusth if it was more beneficial, from a
safety standpoint, to relocate the turnaround. Mabusth stated
that there was definitely a need for the turnaround, but she had
not requested input from the City Engineer as to the specific
design. Goetten asked about a final, updated survey. Mabusth
replied that the City will ask for the survey at the time
Iverson's apply for the building permit.
MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 1988
ZONING FILE #1291-IVERSON CONTINUED
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Goetten, to amend the present Resolution #2475 to indicate 39.4%
hardcover was approved, provided that applicant offset any future
increase in hardcover by removal of the same percentage.
Approval is also contingent upon applicant providing a revised
survey to show the 1% hardcover increase. Motion, Ayes=5,
Nays=0, Motion passed.
#1296 MERRITT J. PBTERSON/RICR STODOLA
1895 SHADYWOOD ROAD
VARIANCE -DENIAL
RESOLUTION
The applicants, in addition to Mr. Ewald Gustafson and Mr.
and Mrs. Tillotson were present for this matter.
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this matter
had been considered and conceptually denied at the July 11, 1988
Council Meeting. This application involved the maintenance of a
dock on a substandard lot. An issue had been raised as to
whether the granting of an accessory use variance when there was
no primary use constituted a use variance. The City Attorney
researched this issue and concluded that it is not a use variance
which the City would not be allowed to grant, however a variance
would be needed to allow dockage, be it a seawall or a
regular dock. Subsequent to the last meeting, a letter was sent
to Mr. Gustafson, one of the owners who sold the property to Mr.
Peterson and Mr. Stodola. There are still issues which need to
be addressed, one of them being an easement granted to Mr.
Tillotson across part of the parcel. Other items of concern are
that sometime in the past there was a 32' x 32' corner of the
property that was sold to Mr. Tillotson, as well as questions
regarding instructions to potential buyers as to the possible
riparian rights on the lot.
City Administrator Bernhardson noted that the present
Resolution for Denial only addressed the buildability of the lot.
Due to the fact that the proponents have not shown a hardship for
using the property for boat dockage, that language would need to
be added should the Council choose to deny the accessory use.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the applicant had
conversed with Mr. Gustafson and that they would request tabling
this matter until they had further opportunity to meet with all
concerned parties. After sLch meeting, the applicants would
appear again before the Council to present their proposal.
It was moved by Mayor. Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Peterson, to taole this matter. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays=0, Motion
passed.
MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL lsEETING AUGUST 22, 1988
#1303 ALLAN RBZABRK
1989 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD
VARIANCE
The applicants were present for this matter, as was
applicants' neighbor, Mr. Fisher.
Prior to any discussion on this matter, Mayor Grabek removed
himself from the Council, due to his personal association with
the parties involved.
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the applicants
were seeking a lakeshore setback variance for the purpose of
relocating a fence due to a judicial determination of a shared
lot line. It was determined that the Rezabek's fence encroached
upon the Fisher property approximately 6" to 11. Mr. Rezabek
attempted to move the fence within the boundary line of his
property and was informed that to do so would require a variance
due to the proposed fence location being within the 0'-75' zone
of Lake Minnetonka.
Acting Mayor Callahan asked Mr. Rezabek for his comments.
Mr. Rezabek reiterated the facts, as stated by Berrhardson. He
added that reinstallation of ti,is fence would not include the
addition of any new structure. He pointed out that the Planning
Commission had failed to cite a specific reason for recommending
denial of this matter. The hardship in this case was the. legal
action that redefined the shared lot line. He thanked the
Councilmembers for their atttention to this matter.
Mr. Fisher stated that the legal action did not ascertain
who actually owned the fence in question. Affidavits dating as
far back as 1962-1972 indicated that the fence was not present on
the property at that time. Mr. Fisher believed that the people
from whom he purchased his house built the fence. There has been
an ongoing dispute as to who owned the fence. He sent a letter
to the City setting forth his position on restoring the fence on
Rezabek's property. In summarizing his opinion, he stated that
the fence is aesthetically displeasing and creates a safety
hazard.
Callahan asked Mr. Fisher if the fence was present at the
time his driveway was installed. Mr. Fisher stated that at the
time the driveway was being installed, the fence was removed.
After the judicial markers had been placed in April, the driveway
was designed on the premise that there would be no fence.
Callahan stated that he did not recall Mr. Fisher's request to
have the fence torn down at the time he appI i for variances for
his driveway. Goetten added that there was ich indication on
the survey. Zoning Administrator Mab: h recalled that
subsequent to Mr. Fisher filing all paperwoi for his variance,
she stopped two men from reinstalling the fence on Mr. Rezabek's
behalf. Later that day, she was called back because Mr. Fisher
was taking down the fence. At that time, Mr. Fisher's driveway
MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL !MEETING AUGUST 22, 1988
ZONING FILE #1303-REZABEK CONTINUED
was already there. Mr. Rezabek stated that contrary to what Mr.
Fisher had said about Affidavits supporting ownership of the
fence, there is identical fencing on the northern side of his
property. However, it was not the duty of the Council to decide
who owned the fence.
Mr. Fisher stated that it was his understanding that the
Rezabek's had sold their house. He failed to understand what the
continued interest and value of reinstalling the fence was under
those circumstances. Mr. Rezabek stated that Mr. Fisher's
information was incorrect. His home was being sold contingent
upon he and his wife obtaining approval to purchase another home.
As of the time of the Council Meeting, they had not received word
to that effect.
Councilmember Putersor. asked Mabusth what would happen
rhould the fence deteriorate while it is being moved. Mabusth
stated that the applicants could not build a new fence, they can
only relocate the old one. Any Resolution written would need to
include language indicating that City approval would be required
prior to installing a new fence. Peterson asked what constituted
a new fence. Mabusth stated it would depend upon how the
structure was classified. Under the definitions in the zoning
code, the fence would not be classified as an accessory
structure. A 6' fence in a side lakeshore yard is allowed. City
Administrator Bernhardson suggested that a specific percentage of
replacement be indicated, if approved, as to what would be
considered a new fence or merely repairs to the existing fence.
Councilmember Goetten asked whether having new owners of the
property apply for a variance to make repairs to the fence would
then classify the fence as a new fence? If so, would the Council
be compelled to vote favorably in light of approving the
reinstallation of the fence? Callahan stated that in his
opinion, the only concern was whether to approve the application
for a variance to reinstall the existing fence. Peterson asked
for c:arification with respect to applicant's hardship. Zoninq
Administrator Mabusth stated that circumstances beyond the
Rezabeks' control, a newly defined lot line, created the
r -essity to move the fence. Councilmember Nettles stated that
re did not understand why applicant required Council approval to
move the fence 6" to 11. It was always located within the 0'-75'
zone and the Rezabek were merely conforming to a judicially
determined boundary. Councilmember Callahan stated that there
are existing "rules" that mandate City approval of any changes
made within 75' of the lakeshore.
Councilmember Callahan stated that he was sympathetic with
Mr. Nettles' point of view. Reinstalling the fence on Rezabeks'
property will not offev . -lie City of Orono in any way. He
complimented Mr. Fisher on the aesthetic quality of his property,
and said that the fence should not detract from that. He did not
I
MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 1988
ZONING FILE #1303-REZABEK CONTINUED
believe that approval of the variance would set a precedent.
It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by
Councilmember Nettles, to direct the City to draft a Resolution
approving the lakeshore setback variance. Councilmember Goetten
asked that language be added requiring approval for any
replacement of or repair to the fence. Callahan agreed to add
that stipulation to his motion. Nettles stated that he did not
think it was a good idea to include language that would
discourage the upkeep of property. Zoning Administrator Mabusth
suggested adding language that would encourage natural screening.
It would enlighten any future property owner as to the underlying
principles of the City. Goetten agreed, adding that the natural
environment was an attraction for persons moving to Orono.
Nettles stated that he would like to see the Resolution when
drafted, but he would second the amendments as suggested.
Councilmember Peterson stated that approval of the variance would
be setting a precedent and she would vote no. She would prefer
to see natural screening. Motion, Ayes=3, Peterson Nay. Motion
passed.
# 131. 4 GERALD ROMLETTE
3775 BAYSIDE ROAD
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION
Applicants were not present and had previously asked that
this matter be tabled.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Goetten, to table #1314 Gerald Rowlette. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O,
Motion passed.
#1315 COUNTRYSIDE MANOR HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION
WILLOW DRIVE AND COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION
The applicants were not present for this matter.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Callahan, to table #1315 Countryside Manor Homeowner's
Association. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays-0, Motion passed.
#1317 DUANE i NANCY GLEW
1135 BROWN ROAD SOUTH
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION #2488
Applicants were present for this matter.
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the applicants
were seeking a side setback variance and a street setback
6
MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 1988
ZONING FILE #1317-GLEN CONTINUED
variance to construct a detached garage. It was determined that
the present entrance and turnaround on the property were in the
best location possible.
It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by
Councilmember Goetten, to approve Resolution #2488. Motion,
Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed.
MAYOR'S REPORT:
UUM MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
SEVERANCE PAY
Mayor Grabek mentioned that he ::ad sent a letter to the area
Mayors regarding the LMCD Benefits, severance pay in particular,
to be paid to Mr. Mixa. He had received a response from the
Mayor of Spring Park, who indicated that he would attend the
upcoming meeting.
CITY A,DMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
1988-1999 ASSESSOR'S CONTRACT
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this item was
the proposed contract for the Assessor for the remainder of 1988
through July 31, 1989.
It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Mayor
Grabek, to approve contracting with Rolf Erickson for the
contracting period from August 1, 1988 to July 31, 1989. Motion,
Ayes-5, Nays=0, Motion passed.
REPLACEMENT OF COPY MACHINE
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that the
photocopier in the :ity offices was in dire need of replacement.
It was determined to be more economical to purchase than to
lease. A floor model copier would replace the previous table -top
copier and would be far more efficient. Mayor Grabek questioned
the dollar amount of expenditures that required approval.
Bernhardson replied that any purchase over $5,000.00 required
Council approval.
Councilmember Peterson asked if the two-sided copying
feature would allow for a paper reduction in the Council packets.
City Administrator Bernhardson answered affirmatively.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Peterson, to amend the 1988 Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund
expenditure budget by $10,000.00 and to award the copy machine
purchase to Copy Duplicating Products, Inc. for the Savin 7500 at
the quoted price of $9,997.00, plus a maintenance contract and to
charge back the purchase price to the various City departments on
a use basis over a 60 mc%nth period. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays-0,
Motion passed.
7
MINUTES OF REGULKR ORONO COUNCIL METING AUGUST 22, 1988
SEALCOAT BID AWARD 1988
City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the City was
recommending acceptance of the bid from Allied Blacktop in the
amount of $18,470.80 for the seal coating contract.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Goetten, to accept the bid from Allied Blacktop. Motion, Ayesm5,
Nays=0, Motion passed.
UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this had been
discussed at a previous meeting. He wanted to address the
concerns the Council had regarding the language of the proposed
ordinance. The Councilmembers received a copy of an Edina
Ordinance, which could be used as a guideline. He also presented
information regarding the proposed DA 2E program which will
educate 5th and 6th grade children ab;uc drugs and alcohol.
Police Chief Kilbo was pres 1nt and discussed his concerns
about underage consumption. He at-, !.ed that he had rerPived a
number of contacts from citizens-:on�,erned about juvenile
drinking. In 1987 the Police Department began working with the
City Attorney to initiate a method o-,. dealing with underage
drinking. The major obstacle was proof. They could not easil-
access property where underage drinking was reported to be taking
place. They also had difficulty in that they could only
prosecute those who were dr.: n.king, not those who were allowing
and condoning drinking to take place on their property. Three of
Orono's Police Officers talked to children at the school and the
Police Department began ticketing minors for underagr
consumption. The County Judges have increased the amount of the
fines to show that they are taking a serious stand on prohibiting
underage drinking.
Recently, the Police Department had received four calf
concerning underage drinking on a boat on Lake Minnetonka.
Police Officers waited for the boat to dock and issued citations
to 25 juveniles for underage consumption. They had been told by
the water Patrol that parties such as that go on frequently, but
that was the first time they had actually caught the offenders.
The Orono Police will be giving more attention in this regard.
They have also begun sending letters to the parents of children
whose cars were observed in the location of a teenage drinking
party. They received a letter from a parent thanking the Police
Department for bringing such an incident to their attention.
Councilmember Goetten stated that she approved of the Edina
Ordinance, tut felt that it was not clear in specifying age
guidelines. Councilmember Callandn stated that the Edina
Ordinance was an improvement over the initial Ordinance proposed
by the City of Orono. However, he questioned whether the
Ordinance previously passed was doing an adequate job and if
8
MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 1988
UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION CONTINUED
perhaps was sufficient for handling this problem.
City Administrator Bernhardson suggested continuing with the
education through the schools and ticketing offending minors. A
determination could be made after a period of time as to whether
those methods are curtailing underage consumption.
Chief Kilbo stated that the County Judges are helping
considerably with the increased fine schedule for offenders.
Councilmember Goetten stated that she was pleased to see that the
Police Department was cracking down on drinking while boating.
Mayor Grabek asked if the Police Department had been talking to
the schools about their increased efforts of enforcing the
underage drinking laws. Chief Kilbo stated that they began
talking with school children since May of this year and will
return again this Fall.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Peterson, to table this hatter at the present time. However, the
City will continue to monitor and discuss underage consumption in
upcoming Council Meetings. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion
passed.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT -ANIMAL CONTROL
ORDINANCE 57, 2ND SERIES
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that when this
ordinance was recodified it stated that only a leashed dog was
allowed outside of a structure. This has not been the City's
enforcement policy. The City would like to modify the Ordinance
so that a dog may be under verbal command, in a fenced area, or
in a vehicle without the requirement of a leash. The Ordinance
reiterates the durable leash, and now includes under voice
command within 10 feet of the accompanying person.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Nettles to adopt Ordinance 57, 2nd Series, per staff
recommendation. Councilmember Callahan asked how this Ordinance
would be enforced. Chief Kilbo replied that the Police
Department would be notified of a violation on a comr,laint basis.
Councilmember Peterson inquired about specifying t:ie length of
the leash and what actually constituted "under voice command".
Callahan asked why the Ordinance was being revised to include the
phrase "under voice command". City Administrator Bernhardson
stated that. the original Ordinance specified 10' as the maximum
leash length. Effective voice command would be a dog that
responded when called by its accompanying person. Also, the dog
must be within 10' of the accompanying person. Motion, Ayes-4,
Callahan Nay, Motion passed.
MONTHLY ARTICLES REVIEW
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this item was
to determine if the City should continue publishing a monthly
9
MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, '988
MONTHLY ARTICLES REVIEW CONTINUED
article in the local newspaper or make a formal newsletter that
would be sent on a quarterly basis.
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Nettles, to continue publishing, an article in the
local papers on a monthly basis. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion
passed.
AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE DEPOSITORIES*
Councilmember Callahan aF cd who was authori.td to designate
depositories. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the
Treasurer/Finance Director would be the designator of
depositories. Callahan asked who checked on the decision the
Finance Director made. Bernhardson replied that the Finance
Director does the purchasing of all of the City Investments. The
depositories are designated by the City Council at the beginning
of each year, with exception of any new depositories that are
used fo• Certificates of Deposit purchased after January 1st each
year. Mayor Grabek stated that there should be a policy setting
forth guidelines for designating a depository.
It was suggested by City Administrator Bernhardson that the
Council table this matter until next meeting so they could review
the guideline portion of the proposed Resolution.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Peterson, to table this item for further review by the City
Council. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed.
RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION-ORONO POLICE RESERVES
RESOLUTION #2485*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2485, Commendation
to Police Reserve Officer Peter Achey. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O,
Motion passed.
1988 FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - 56, 2ND SERIES*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to approve the proposed amendment to the
1988 Fee Schedule Ordinance pertaining to fireworks. Motion,
Ayes=5, Nays-0, Motion passed.
SALARY ADJUSTMENT
LYLE OMAN*
Councilmember Callahan asked for a synopsis of Mr. Oman.
City Administrator Bernhardson stated that Lyle started working
for the City in 1g83/1984 and had previously been a roofing
contractor. He was injured in an accident and came to the City
on a retraining program. He had previous training in building
inspection. He started working part-time in public works and
building inspections and over the years has become a full-time
10
MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 1988
SALARY ADJUSTMENT -ON" CONTINUED
building inspector. He received his level one certificate
approximately 2 years ago.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Nettles, to approve the increase in step level for Lyle Oman from
$12.051 per hour to $12.72 per hour effective September 1, 1988.
Motion, Ayes=S, Nays=O, Motion passed.
TEMPORARY tUNDING OF STREET LIGHTING
RESOLUTION #2489*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Callahan, to adopt Resolution $2489, approving the
transfer, as a loan, of $113,540.94 from the General Fund to the
P.I.R. Fund for payment of the Count, Road 15 street light
project costs, and dedicating future assessments levied against
be::efitted properties to -ei.mburse the General Fund for the loan
including all attendent nterest. Motion, Ayes=4, Councilmember
Peterson Nay, Motion passed.
RESIG'NATIO! PARK COMMISSION CHAIR
ROBERT ROST*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, secon(:d by
Councilmember Peterson, to accept the resignation of Park
Commission Chairman, Robert Kost, and to direct staff to prepare
a resolution of appreciation to be presented at a later date.
Motion, Ayes=5, Nays-O, Motion passed.
ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION:*
Councilmember Callahan inquired about the hardcover
ca.tculayi.or He wanted to know if the City had a policy stating
that the City's hardcover calculations were binding. Zoning
Administrator Mabusth stated that in cases where a surveyor has
determined hardcover calculations that vary from the City's, the
City's are used. However, there are very few incidents where a
surveyor's calculations are incorrect. The only time there are
any problems are when the resident calculates hardcover.
Councilmember Callahan also inquired about the status o'. the
water meter for 3508 Ivy Place. He suggested that in light of no
response from the resident, that the City should start collecting
the bill. Public Works Director Gerhardson stated he had heard
from the resident August 22, and the meter would be changed
August 23.
It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's
Information regarding: 3536 Lyric Avenue; 1535 Bohns Point;
Highway 12 Ad Hoc Task Force; Livingston Tower Park Sculpture;
Hardcover Calculations; Administrator's Vacation; ?508 Ivy Place;
Board of Review; Water Conservation Regulations and County 15
Progress. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed.
11
MINUTES OF RRGOLAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 22, 1988
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
No report.
LICBNB
I ras moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Counci_ mber Peterson, to approve the following licenses:
One Day Liquor License: Smith College Club cf MN
Art Center of Minnesota
September 9, 1988
Septic System Installer: Roto-Rooter Sewer Service Co.
14530 27th Avenue North
Residential Kennel License: John E. Baker
4680 West Branch Road
Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed
BILLS*
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to approve payment of the All Funds
Accounts. Motion, Ayes Nays-0, Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT 8:35 p.m.
It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by
Councilmember Nettles, to adjourn the regular Council meeting at
8:35 p.m. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=O, Motion passed.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor
12
NNG
u
„yP 121�:�8
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson'
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
Date: September 8, 1988
Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road -
Variance - Continued Review
NOTE: Per the letter dated August 4, 1988, Mr. Ferrell has requested that
the City re -open File #990, a lot area and width variance application.
This was last reviewed by the City Council on May 26, 1987.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Letter From Applicant Dated 8/4/88
Exhibit B - Staff Letter to Applicant Dated 8/9/88
Exhibit C - Plat Map
Exhibit D - Survey With Staff Notations
Exhibit E - Current Applicable Code Section
Exhibit F - Planning Commission & Council Minutes
Exhibit G - Various Pertinent Staff Memos & Exhibits
(�12AFr- P-ES LLkTIcN A-r E7v- OF PAckET)
Discussion -
Mr. Ferrell originally requested to be able to build a house on each
of the two approximately 1 acre lots he owns adjacent to his home, which
also is on a 1 acre lot. This property all is in the RR-ZB Rural
Residential Zoning District, which requires a minimum 2 acre lot size for a
building site.
On February 18, 1986, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend
denial of 3 total residences on the applicant's 3 acres, but recommended
approval of allowing i additional house on the S acres. That
recommendation did not clarify whether a lot line rearrangement would be
appropriate.
Ferrell continued his 3-total-house request at the Council level and
on April 14, 1986 Council directed staff to draft a resolution of denial by
a vote of 4--1. Although that resolution was drafted, it was never formally
adopted and was tabled at applicant's request. The item was opened again
in May of 1987 at applicant's request, discussion ensued, and it was again
tabled at applicant's request.
Zoning File #990
September 8, 1988
Page 2 of 6
Now, Ferrell is revising his request: he wants approval to build on
1 of the lots in exchange for accepting a denial of buildability of the
other lot. My letter to Ferrell dated August 9, 1988, responds to his
request, hence the application is again before the City Council.
Brief Synopsis -
Although I am including here much of the information that has been
reviewed by past Councils, I will try to synopsize the facts and policies
which affect this application, as briefly as possible:
1. Ferrell bought the house at 3425 Watertown Road with 4 total acres
of land in 1948.
2. Orono's original Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1950, prior to
division of Ferrell's property into separate parcels. As of 1950, the
property was zoned for 1 acre minimum lot size.
3. In 1955, Orono's original Platting Code was adopted.
4. In 1958, Ferrell requested to build a second house on the property
per Council minute3 of 9/22/58. Ferrel]. was presumably told by Herb
Ross, Mayor, that in order to build a second house it would require a
subdivision, since the 1950 zoning ordinance allowed only 1 residence
per lot.
5. In 1459, Ferrell presumably completed subdivision of the property
into 4 lots of approximately 1 acre each. He built his current house
on the easterly lot. He eventually sold the westerly lot with the
house at 3425 Watertown Road. He kept the two vacant lots west of the
new house.
6. On October 12, 1959, the City Council adopted Ordinance #22 which
requires minimium lot area of 1 acre, minimum lot width of 1401, which
Ferrell's lots would meet or 7 early meet. Ordinance #22 also allowed
Council to approve building permits for substandard lots held in
single,_seFarate_ownershiFs inferred that substandard "common
--- - -----------
ownership" lots would not be granted building permits, and established
that the Council could allow variances to this section at Council's
discretion.
Zoning File #990
September 8, 1988
Page 3 of 6
7. A new zoning code was adopted in 1967. Ferrell's property still
was zoned for 1 acre in area, 140' width, no substantial changes from
the 1959 ordinance, but the new ordinance did state that substandard
existing lots of record as of 9/14/67 under single, separate ownership
could be granted building permits if the Council finds that they would
not adversely affect public health or safety. The ordinance did not
specifically discuss common ownership lots, but by omission inferred
again that they would not be granted permits.
8. The 1974 zoning code, which became effective in January of 1975,
rezoned a large rural section of the City from 1 acre to 2 acre
minimum lot size, 200' minimum width. This included the Ferrell
properties. This code set specific standards for use of substandard
single, separate ownership lots of record in the 2 acre zone, i.e.:
a) Must be at least 1 acre, 100' width.
b) Must meet all septic requirements or be sewered.
c) Meets all other applicable standards.
But again the 1974 code specifical'•; .,.d not discuss common ownership
lots.
9. The Alden Anderson common ownership lot buildability application
at 1900 Shoreline Drive was denied by the City in 1981, based on a
lack of the required 2 acre lot area, setting a precedent for denial
of situations such as Ferrell's.
10. The 1984 zoning code, which currently is in effect, requires
Council approval to separate (read "sell") adjacent, undeveloped, non-
conforming, commonly owned lots if the resulting lots do not meet area
or width standards. Clearly in the Ferrell case, Council approval is
required in order to separate the conforming 2.9 acre group of parcels
into substandard parcels.
Zoning File #990
September 8, 1988
Page 4 of 6
Action to Date on this Application --
To date, staff has provided Council with 8 memos (with associated
exhibits) for this application. The item has been reviewed at 3 Planning
Commission meetings and has been an agenda item at 9 Council meetings,
dating back to April 1985. During discussions at the April 14, 1986
Council meeting, Mayor Butler noted that she would be open to allowing 1
additional home, but not 2. It is unclear from the minutes whether other
Council Members snared that sentiment. Mr. Ferrell, at that time, did not
wish to revise his application. However, due to the continued tablings at
the applicant's request, the Council never has formally adopted a
resolution denying variances for each of the vacant 1 acre lots.
It is staff's interpretation of Farrell's current letter of request
that he wishes to build on 1 of the vacant 1 acre lots without doing a lot
line rearrangement.
Pertinent Factors -
1. Ferrell has provided septic testing for each vacant lot which
shows that, under strictly limited building proposals, a modest house
with septic system and alternate site could conceivably be constructed
on each lot. However, future additions or additional amenities that
might be proposed for those lots would be severely restricted, and the
City would still have to be concerned with the greater density of
septic systems and residences in the area.
2. If the Council is of a mind to allow 1 additional house on the 3
acre property, staff would recommend an approximately even split of
1.5 acres + with each property. This we ld require a lot line
rearrangement and subsequent combination. Staff would not be in favor
of Ferre l l's suggestion to approve 1 of the 1 acre lots and deny the
other, because that leaves the door open for a future Council to
create a more dense situation, and still. would leave severe
restrictions on the 1 acre lot to be built on.
Zoning File #990
September 8, 1988
Page 5 of 6
3. Council is cautioned to be aware of the distinction between
Ferrell's property and properties such as the Smieja lot on Cygnet
Place, which was recently approved for buildability. The Smieja lot
had long been in single, separate ownership, was not owned by an
adjacent property owner, and therefore acquired ^ubstantial property
rights because it Lad few alternative uses avail_ le to the property
owner. In Ferrell's situation, Orono's codes have long held that
properties owned adjacent to and in common with a homestead lot cannot
be built on if they or the homestead lot are substandard. The codes
have continually inferred that substandard properties owned in common
with a homestead residence have a reasonable use as yard area by the
homestead property owner and do not acquire building rights by virtue
of having been previously divided off.
Approval of the Ferrell's request would be precedent -setting in that
many other 1 acre commonly -owned lots in the unsewered residential zone
could request similar variances. Specifically, staff has identified 22
situations in the City where we could expect similar variances to be
requested. Although 22 new houses on substandard lots out of 1,100
existing developed unsewered lots is a relatively small number, building on
those 22 properties would not further Orono's goals to maintain a rural
character and avoid installation of municipal sewers.
Ferrell's current proposal to have 2 houses on 3 acres also would be
precedent setting, for the same reasons, but would probably have less
substantial impact at a 1.5 acre/house density than at the originally
proposed 1.0 acre/house density.
Staff Recommendation
If Council feels that allowing 1 additional house on the 3 acre
property is appropriate, staff would recommend a referral of this
application to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation
regarding whether the property should remain in 3 parcels or whether a lot
line rearrangement and combination should occur to leave just 2 total
parcels. If this item is referred to the Planning Commission, although
staff previously indicated to the applicant that it could go directly to
the Septemberl9th meeting, due to unforeseen application loads, staff would
prefer that referral be to the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting.
Zoning File #990
September 8, 1988
Page 6 of 6
If the Council feels that there is no justification to allow any
additional houses on Ferrell's property, staff would recommend that a
resolution for denial be adopted. A resolution of denial has previously
been drafted, but would be amended to also deny the revised request.
F; -0 ZIM m Ll-rfe- =0 A7
CITY of ORONO
Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5,5323•Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
August 9, 1988
Mr. Ward Ferrell
3405 Watertown Road
Long Lake, MN 55356
RE: Request to reopen file #990
Dear Mr. Ferrell:
On Monday, August 8, I received your letter requesting that file
#990, your unresolved variance application, be reopened. This
would appear to be feasible since your application was last
reviewed and tabled by the Council on June 8, 1987, pending your
request to again appear before Council.
The next City Council meeting is August 22, 1988. However, I
will be on vacation from August 19th to September 5th, hence the
next Council meeting for which this item can be scheduled is
Monday, September 12, 1988.
I gather from your latter that the intent of your request is to
be granted appr,.)val to build a house on one of the vacant lots as
currently configured, with the assumption that variances for the
second vacant lot would be denied. Absent a specific plan from
you that shows where you would place a new house, it is my
initial reaction that the Council will want to split your three
acres evenly between the eyisting house and the new lot, leaving
about 1.5 acres with each. If that is the Counci l's final
determination, a lot line rearrangement would need to take place.
In your letter you suggested that you have already paid the
application fees and feel that no additional fees should be
assessed. I presume that this is a reaction to your recent
conversation with Jeanne Mabusth during which she noted that
additional fees might be charged. I would note for the record
that Staff time for your application to date has been
approximately 20 to 25 hours, not including time spent at
Planning Commission and Council meetings. The $300.00 in
application fees you have paid so far, only covers about half of
BUILDING A ZONING - 47 34 33 7 • ADMINISTRATION • FINANCE - 473.7358 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359
ASSESSING
Mr. Ward Ferrell
August 9, 1988
Page Two
the Staff time expenditure to date. I will remind you that the
application form which you signed indicates you agreed to pay
whatever additional or unusual expenses are incurred for review
of the application, and would note that the normal variance
application staff review time is in the range of 3 to 5 hours.
It is likely that staff will recommend to the Council that some
additional fee (as yet undetermined) be assessed.
There is a potential that the Council on September 12th, will
refer your revised request back to the Planning Commission. If
this occurs, this item will be scheduled for the Planning
Commission Meeting of September 19, presuming no additional
information is required.
Please contact me or Zoning Administrator, Jeanne Mabusth, at
473-7357 if you have additional questions. You will be receiving
a meeting notification and a copy of the Council update memo on
this application, prior to the September 12th meeting. Any
additional information or letter of request you wish to submit to
Council should be in this office no later than Tuesday, September
6, 1988.
Sin//c``erely, -A '
/"
=74-
Michael P. Gaffron
Assistant Planningand
Zoning Administrator
MPG/ls
cc: Jeanne Mabusth
Mark Bernhardson
I .
1525
W
v��•J�'lt'� O
fli
.o 1 ��
N
N r (it) 1;
d: ILA ,�6 2 Vy , �•�II
�1 �(r
I
111--
IS11
1
•- ISI
� 1 '. `'� � .ins I •.. (�w0 •r•�
N ?JOO
V
% 300
0
s i4 -a,2
/ In
ISTERED LAND SURVEY N0.8
341
y Z 6 L (i Wi
pwoPo�o nwnhwi,._yL+Er
• GMM�+t��
1 _
IFieilS, !y u1w.n6M �I x - -.
doe — i I` • � � , /.I � ��
y \
O
Jil
x
.+
N Cs
S 10.03
I. Alterations may be made to a building containing
lawful non -conforming residential units when they will improve the
livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of
dwelling units or bulk of the building.
Source: I)rdinance No. 172
Effective Date: 1-1-75
J. Apply to "Uses" Only. The non -conforming use
provisions of the Zoning Chapter apply only to the use to which
land and buildings are put, and do not apply to situations where
location or height of structures, lot size or other factors not
involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with
the requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Where, however, such a
situltelff-)existed legally under the prior applicable law, the
COunciP will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will
generally look with favor on granting of a variance under Section
10.08.
Subd. 6. Lot of Record. A lot of record is any lot for
which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the
office of the Register of Deeds or the RFjistrar of Titles for
Hennepin County, Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after
approval by the Council if required.
Source: Municipal Code .�
-� Effective Date: 9-14-67
A. Existing Lots. lot of record existing upon
January 1975 in an "R" District, which does not meet the
requireme ts.-of the -Zoning Chapter as to area or width may be
utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided
that in the judgment or the Council such use does not adversely
affect public health or safety and the followinq requirements are
met:
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 4-1-84
1. In "R" Districts of One Acre or Less and
With Public Sanitar;Sewer. A lot of record existing upon the
effective date of this Zoning Chapter in any "R" District of the
City of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by
public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of
this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only; may be utilized for
single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval
if the area measurements and width of that lot are within eighty
percent (80%) of the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. However,
the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless
ORONO CC 253 (4-1-84)
combined with one or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as
to create a lot meeting the requirements of this Zoning Chapter.
Source: Municipal Code
Effective Date: 9-14-67
2. In "R" Districts of Greater Than One Acre
and Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lct of record in any "R"
District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not meet the
requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may
be utiliz;U for single family detached dwelling purposes if the
Council i Is: (a) It is at least one acre in size, and the
average wiarh of the lot is d* least 100 feet; (b) It is served by
public sanitary sewer; (c) It 3therwise meets the requirements of
this Chapter or other applicable City Code provisions.
3. In "R" Districts Not Served by Public
Sanitary Sewer.---A-lot of record in any "R" District in the City
not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width
requirements of the Zoning Chapter and shall. not be utilized for
single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 4-1-84
B. Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited. No
lot or parcel of land which is divided by a public, private or
platted road or road easement, which results in any segment thereof
y. being less than the minimum acreage required fur that zoning dis
trict, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of
land across the r jad for purposes of qualifying under the minimum
acreage, open space, required yard, setback or sanitary or septic
system requirements, nor shall building or density credits be
credited or transferred between s-ich parcels under any provisions
of this Chapter. Each separate parcel must individually conform to
the provisions of this Chapter in connection with construction of
improvements thereon.
Source: Municipal Code
Effective Date: 9-14-67
C. The separation by the transfer or saleJof non-
conforming, undeveloped lots not serves] by public sanitary sewer,
aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or
private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is
not permitted without Council approval. Council approval is not
required if the separation of such lots results in individ 1
building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of the
Zoning Chapter.
Source: City Code
Effective Date: 4-1-84
ORONO CC 54 (4-1-34;
V Vl VA VI/V { /
Crystal Bay,Minnesota.
Minutes of meeting held in the Village Hall on 3ept.22,I958,at 7:30 P.M.
Presont: H.R.Ross,Mayor; R.C.Bagley,K.Turnham E.O.17ood,C.T.'.Aaxwell,Trustees
G.A.Hans-n,Assessor; A.G.Stinson,Foreman;Creraid Rcss.Consta:ble;J.E.Johnson.
Minutes of meetings held on Aug.25 and 5ep.8,I958,were r'ad and approved.
Attorney Louis B.Breehet,representing the Hub Barber Shop at Navarre was
present regarding the parking sit. --Lion on County Road I9 at the intersection
of County Road I5,asking for continuance of angle parking versus parallel
Darking.Council dc31ded to look into the situation further and bring up
later for further consideration.
The continuance of the present contract with the Suburban gennepin County
Relief Board was unanimously approved.
The Minnesota Watershed District Act was further discussed and ordered held
up for further review and discussion.
The public park situation in our Village was reviewed and Turnham suggested
that an offer be made to the owners of property desired,if this cou,l� be ,
ac^•omplished legally,on a basis $5000.00 per annum until cleared: r . .,.••
Clerk will consult legal adhorities and report result at next meet n��o'
MaxRell moved that the present trailer restriction be waived in the case of
Mrs.Sigafoos,allowing her to use trailer in its present location.
No second to motion was made and the motion died.
On request of Ward Ferrell for the erection of another residence on his
property on County Road 45,Bagley moved,seconded by TurnhamIthat his request
be granted subj px however. to the _review and approval of our Planning Com.
The budget for I959 was set at $ ICq,000 for Village operation and The
County Auditor will so be advised.
A notice of meeting of the Orono District Dev.Corporation,on Sep 25th,at
The Orono Htgh School was brought up and representatives of our Council
will arrange to attend.
Verified Accts.No.607 through No.669 were reviewed and aDDroved with the
exception of one involving the purchase of tools from the Searaftsoebuck Co.
on which further details will be requested including memo.invoice.
Meeting adjourned subject to call on October I3,I958.
I
O.E.Johnson,Clerk.
ADproved:
�' '`+�--.`.-, i! ;` �+ 1 iI I�- •-P a.I •--� � .�� �`i: Cr+ �'1r.� �1 ��-/ �� 11 ;.<..,
MI1'UTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1985 PAG 3
#895 T.M. CROSBY a"Q V
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. PID 11-117-23 32 0004 and northern portion of rearranged
PID 11-117-23 32 0005 to be combined with Crosby
homestead lot.
2. PID 11-117-23 32 0006 and southern portion of rearranged
PID 11-117-23 32 0005 to be legally combined for tax
purposes.
3. All future construction on undeveloped lot that involves
the alteration of flood plain fringe areas must be
reviewed and approved by the DNR before a buiIdina permit
can be issued by the City of Orono.
4. Tested septic site area on undeveloped lot must be staked
and protected prior to construction.
Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0).
#903 WARD FERRELL
3405 WATERTOWN ROAD
REQUEST TO CONFIRM
INTERPRETATION OF
ZONING CODE
PUBLIC HEARING
8:10-8:49 PM and and Mary Ferrell were present. Chairman Callahan
announced that now was the time and place for the public
hegring to be held concerning Ward Ferrell's application to
confirm the staff's interpretation of the zoning code.
There was no one present from the public for this
application.
A:,.istant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the
certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication.
Ward Ferrell explained that in 1948 they bought the property
on Watertown Road. Ferrell stated that in 1958 they decided
to divide the property to build a new home. Ferrell stated
that he was informed by staff at that time that he had to
appear before the Council. Ferrell stated that everyone
agreed on the Council, except one person. Ferrell stated
that this property was divided at the previous Mayor's ( Herb
Ross) request. Ferrell agreed and he met the zoning at that
time and noted that he could have had 5 lots but chose four
lots to make bigger lots. Ferrell explained that the
surrounding lots are all the same size. Ferrell stated that
the zoning has since changed.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed wi-=h the
Planning Commission that in 1967 this area was zoned 1 acre.
Gaffron stated that from 1967-1975, Ferrell co-ild have built
on those lots without variances. Gaffron noted t:)at in 1975
the area was rezoned to 2 acre. Gaffron explained that in a
similar case on Shoreline Drive, the Council denied the „nJ
applicant the variances giving the City a clear policy in the
common ownership issue within the rural areas of Orono.
Gaffron reviewed with the Planning Commission the tax
hi ctnry of thrn nrnnntv
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1985 PAGE 4
#903 WARD FERRELL Rovegno noted that for 20 years it has been taxed As c. s-carate
buildable site and for the past 3 years it has not been L�%xed
as a buildable site.
Ward Ferrell stated that he has kept the property all these
years thinking he could build on each parcel and he noted he
would like to build his retirement home on one of the parcels.
Ferrell noted he has owned the property since 1950 and is
entitled to build.
Planning Commission agreed with staff's interpretation of
the zoning code that the property needs a variance.
Chairman Callahan suggested that the Planning Commission be
polled as to their feeling on the application if it were an
actual variance request.
Kelley felt that Lots 7 and 8 should be combined into one lot,
thereby only allowing two lots (the e.:isting lot with the
existing home and one other lot (7 & 8 combined )I.
Mary Ferrell stated that the ccde is not consistent and is
contradictory in that the zoninS. has changed along with the
code over the years.
Sime felt that there is very little doubt that staff
interpreted the zoning code correctly, but whether he agrees
wit:i the basic premise is another point. Sime felt that
there are a bundle of rights that go with the land and should
riot be taken away from people by changing the rules or zoning
while they still own the land. Sime stated that the common
ownership issue seems to alter the rules for people.
Most of the Planning Commission felt they -:ould only approved
two lots (the existing lot with the existing home and one
other lot] conditioned upon Lots , and 8 being combined.
Chairman Callahar closed the public ? ring at 8:49 p.m.
Rovegno moved, Sime seconded, to confirm staff 's
interpretation of the zoning code that these lots do Need
variances. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0).
Rovegno felt that a less intense use of the property would be
more reasonable by combining Lot 7 and 8 and that way the
applicants would only n-ed a lot area variance and not a lot
width variance.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this application
was brought in under a request to confirm the interpretation
of the zoning code in order to save the applicants money.
Mabusth noted that a completed application would require
payment foi area variances for each proposed and existing
building site in addition to septic testing for each
undeveloped site aed an alternate test site for existing o'
v
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING HELD APRIL 15, 1985 PAGE 5
house. Mabusth noted that staff concluded that in light of
Council's recent amendment of the zoning code dealing with
rural lots under common ownership and their decision on the
Shoreline Drive property of Alden Anderson, that this
approach was the most inexpensive way to get an answer for the
applicant.
#905 DENNIS THOMPSON
250 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PUBLIC HEARING
8:50 - 8:51 PM Dennis Thompson was not present. Chairman Callahan announced
that now was the time and place for a public hearing
concerning Dennis Thompson's conditional use permit
application. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the
certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication.
There was no one present in the audience for this
application. Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing
at 8:51 p.m.
f907 JAMES BIGHAM
1545 LONG LAKE BLVD
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING
8:52-9:12PM
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that during
construction on the Thompson home, staff noted a second
kitchen and a separate apartment area being constructed and
felt that a conditional use permit should be applied for.
Mabusth stated that Thompson has agreed that the g•.:est
apartment will never be rented out.
Kelley moved, Sime seconded, to recommend apprcval of a
co,.ditional use permit for the guest apartment within the
residence located at 250 Old Crystal Bay Road finding all
standards of Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(G) to be
statisfied subject to the condition that the separate
apartment unit may never be rented. Motion, Ayes ( 6) , Nays
(0).
James Bigham was present. Chairman Callahan announced that
now was the time and place for the public hearing concerning
James Bigham's variance request. There was no one present
from the audience for this application. Assistant Zoning
Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and
the affidavit of publication.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the
applicant is requesting a variance to construct an addition
to his home which will increase the hardcover in both 0-75'
and 75-250'setback zones. Gaf f ron stated that the addition
will increase the potential water usage since they plan to
construct a bedroom. Gaffron noted that Bigham replaced his
septic system in November of 1984, but that there are no
alternate drainfield sites on the property and that if the
new system fails at some point and it could not be repaired, a.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY �13, 1985 PAGE 11
(=ARD FE.RRELL
3405 WATERTOWN ROAD S-
ZONING APPEALS Ward Ferrell was not present. Building & Zoning
Administrator Mabusth noted that the applicant has rec.uested
that the application be tabled until May 28, 1985.
Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Frar!m seconded, tc table
the Ferrell application until May 28, 1985. Motion, Ayes
(5), Nays (0).
#905 DENNIS THOMPSON
250 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION #1757 Dennis
Thompson was not present.
Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember L.Adams seconded,
to adopt Resolution #1757, A Resolution Approving A
Conditional Use Permit to allow a guest house apartment.
Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (0).
#907 JAMES BIGHAM
1545 LONG LAKE BLVD
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION #1758 James Bigham was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator
Gaffron reviewed with the Council the applicants proposal to
construct an addition to his home. Gaffron noted that the
applicant replaced his septi,: system in November, 1984.
Gaffron stated that no alternate drainfield site exists on
the property and that if the new system fails a holding tank
would have to be installed. Gaffron noted that with Bighams
proposal a future 8 member family could move into the home and
the current septic system might not be able to handle such an
intense use. Gaffron noted that Bigham has not met some of
the requirements in Resolution #1600 regarding drainage and
retaining walls.
James Bigham stated that the requirements could not be met
because of the weather and the frozen ground. Bigham stated
that he will fulfill the requirements as soon as possible.
Councilmember Frahm stated that there is a drainage problem
on the property already. Frahm expressed concern for adding
on additional hardcover and noted that the septic system
cannot handle any future family larger than Bighams.
James Bigham explained that the drainage problem does not
come from his lot and that the drainage problem is caused by
the lots across the street. Bigham noted that his lot serves
as a drainage spot for others runoff . Bigham addressed the
septic issue by noting that he could replace his septic
system if needed in the same location as the septic system is
currently located. Bigham noted if that does not work, then
holding tanks would be installed. Bigham noted that he
doesn't mind holding tanks and stated that he felt the whole
neighborhood eventually will be on holding tanks.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE 4
• s
57q - a 7
Acting Mayor Frahm advised Asplund that after the patios are
removed, that the ground should be sodded.
Councilmember L. Adams noted that he has a problem approving
anything in the 0-75' setback area.
Councilmember L. Adams moved, Acting Mayor Frahm seconded,
to adopt Resolution #1768, A Resolution denying variances
for the fence and patio concrete request with a deadline date
for removal of patios for June 15, 1985, for 3424 Eastlake
Street and July 23, 1985, for 3444 Eastlake Street and the
request for deck platform and screened porch to be referre,1
to the Planning Commission for their review. Motion, Ayes
(2), Nays (1).
Councilmember T. Adams voted nay..
#897 CHUCK PETERSON
825 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD
PRELIMINARY SUBDIV:ISION
Chuck Peterson was present. Assistant Zoning Adminis-
trator Gaffron stated that the surveyor reconfirmed the dry
buildable area that Council requested at the last meeting.
Gaffron confirmed that there is 2.0 acres of dry buildable
per lot in the area identified strictly as a seasonal
drainageway.
Councilmember T. Adams moved, Councilmember L. Adams
seconded, to approve the preliminary subdivision
application of Chuck Peterson. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0).
#903 ARD FERRELL
WATERTOWN ROAD
ZONING APPEAL Mr. and Mrs. Ward Ferrell were present. Assistant Zoning
Administrator Gaffron explained that the applicant was
brought in under a zoning appeal in order to save the
applicant some money. Gaffron explained that if the
applicant had applied for a variance that the application
would be more costly and with the Council's past ; icedents
the Council would probably have denied the appl_,. tion.
City Attorney Radio asked how much the full variance
application would have _ Wit. Radio noted that by allowing
this applicant the appeals procedure the City is saving the
applicant money, but by handling this matter the City is not
treating this application as a variance and not using the
same standards. Radio noted that the decision reached
tonight does not presume that the same decision would be
reached on a formal variance application.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the
variance application would be $150, plus the applicant's
expense for additional surveying work, plus the extra
expense for septic testing for each lot. Gaffron estimated
/, / L�
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE 5
#903 FERRELL that the application could have cost the applicant $1,000
just to get denied. Gaffron noted that staff felt that the
applicant could get some general direction from the City
under the zoning appeals application process.
Assistant mooning Administrator Gaffron explained that the
Alden Anderson application is very similar to this Ferrell
application. Gaffron explained that the applicant owns
four adjacent tax parcels totaling 2.90 acres. Gaffron
noted that tre applicant wishes to obtain a building permit
for the 1.04 acre lot.
Ward Ferrell stated that he has owned the land since 1948 and
built the existing home in 1958. Ferrell stated that he
bought and has saved this land with the intent to build his
retirement home. Ferrell stated that Herb Ross (former
Orono Mayor) had requested him to -divide his property.
Ferrell stated that as a favor to Ross and the City and to stop
trouble in the future, he divided the property into four
parcels. Ferrell stated that then the zoning changed in
1967 and at the time the hearjng was held regarding this
zoning change, he asked whether it would affect existing lots
and he was told no by the City. Ferrell noted that he is
willing a parcel of land for his daughter to build on.
Ferrell stated that in 1980 the Stubbs Bay Marina was divided
and the City allowed very small lots. Ferrell felt that he
should receive the same treatment that Stubbs Bay Marina had
received.
Acting Mayor Frahm explained that the City agreed to sm,-ller
lots in the Stubbs Bay Marina because the City felt that it
would be a less intense use on the property with residential
units rather than the intense use of the commercial marina.
Frahm stated that there were very extenuating circumstances
with the Stubbs Bay Marina and shouldn't be used to compare
with this application since the circumstances were
significantly different.
Ward Ferrell asked if the City was going to honor what Herb
Ross requested. Ferrell stated that Ross told him to
contact George Hanson ( former assessor for Orono) to see what
the lot sizes should be when he was subdividing the property.
Ferrell stated that Hanson told him 140' width for each lot.
Acting Mayor asked staff what the typical lot size isin the
neighborhood.
Ward Ferrell stated that the average lot size is one acre and
only one parcel is two acres.
Councilmember T. Adams asked how many units the applicant is
requesting out of a total of 2.9 acres.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron answered that the
applicant is requesting a total of three building sites (one
existing, one for the retirement home, one for his daughter) .
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE 6
#903 FERRELL Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that in 1967 the
standards changed when the zoning code was revi sed effecting
the applicant.
Acting Mayor Frahm explained that it is hard for the City to
honor a verbal opinion that was made in 1967. Frahm felt to
be fair tc the applicant that he would consider two building
sites, but certainly not three building sites.
Councilmember T. Adams stated that before deciding the
Council should see all relevant background information.
Councilmember L. Adams symphathized with this type of
problem when the owner purchases property and keeps it with
the intent in the future to build on the property only to have
the zoning code standards change. Adams stated that he
cannot see installing_ three septic -tank systems on three
small lots since the septic tanks will Le the permanent
system installed there. Adams noted conceptually that he
would consider two building sites only because of the problem
that the applicant owned the property with the intent to
build in the future only to have the zoning code standards
change. Adams noted that if it weren't for that reason he
would not even consider two building sites. Adams stated
that when the septic systems are placed too close together on
small lots such as these, there are potential problems with
ground water contamination when these systems fail.
Acting Mayor Frahm expressed his concern that if the City
approved three lots that the City would create a density
poc':et similar to the Crystal Bo f neighborhood in which the
C:.ty would have to go back i.n the future to correct the problem
by sewering the area.
Ward Ferrell stated that his septic system is 28 years old and
has never had a problem with leakage. Ferrell pointed out
that he has paid taxes on the property as if they were
buildable lots since 1948 and now he cannot use the property.
Ferrell stated that up until two years ago they paid taxes on
the two vacant lots as if there were separate building sites.
Ferrell noted that two years ago the taxes were lowered from
$11,000 to $5,500. Ferrell explained that he has already
told his daughter that she can have the lot and he is not going
back on his word. Ferrell asked if the City was going to
honor what Herb Ross told rim years ago.
Acting Mayor Frahm stated, in his opinion, no.
Mrs. Ferrell asked if the City was going to refand their taxes
that they have paid for buildable lots all these years.
City Administrator Bernhardson stated that should a variance
be applied for that in the review it should be consiCered what
Dosition the applicant would have been in if }.e had not
Subdivides the property.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 28, 1985. PAGE 7
#903 FERRELL Councilmember L. Adams gave his opinion should the applicant
apply for a variance, he would be willing to consider a total
of two lots.
Councilmember L. Adams moved, Councilmember T. Adams
seconded, to of f irm the staf f ' s interpretation of the zoning
code. Motion, Ayes (3), Nays (0).
#908 h #924 JON SCHERVEN
2649 CASCO POINT RD
(#908) VARIANCE - RESOLUTION
(#924) CCNDITIONAL USE
PERMIT - RESOLUTION
Jon Scherven was present with his father A.W. Scherven.
Assistant Zoning administrator Gaffron stated that the
applicant proposes to build a two story addition over the
existing concrete slab and deck on the lake side of his
parents home. Gaffron noted that the applicant proposes
hardcover tradeof f s, and that the proposed deck does extend
into the 75' setback zone. Gaffron stated that the
conditional use permit is required because the applicant is
requesting to use the basement as a guest apartment for his
parents who are retiring. Gaffron noted that applicant does
propose a kitchen in the basement but has agreed that the
second dwelling unit would never be rented out. Gaffron
noted the Planning Commission did approve the application
subject to the following regarding the guest apartment use:
1) apartment for use of family members only; 2 ) apartment use
may not be conveyed to a purchaser; 3 ) guest apartment may not
be rented out and such to be confirmed by staff yearly; 4 ) use
is subject to City review at end of four years.
Acting Mayor Frahm asked if a separate entrance is proposed
for the guest apartment use.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that the main
entrance would be used, but that once inside the main
entrance, a door leading to the basement and a door leading to
the upstairs is proposed.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the Council did
recently approve the Beck conditional use permit which is
similar to this application.
Councilmember L. Adams felt that the lot is really too small
to support anotht dwelling unit.
Jon Scherven explained that his parents have tried to sell
the home and have not been able to. Scherven stated that he
has offered to buy the home, remodel it, and then they would be
able to live in the basement. Scherven confirmed that he
will agree to any stipulations the Council wishes to place on
the guest apartment use.
3•s
MINUTZS OF THE PLAIMING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVE14BER 18, 1985. PAGE 4
EX IQ
#988 MERTES continued S
Tom Corson, 3241 Casco Circle, was present and stated that
the lot in question was not consistent with the other lots in
the area. He also stated that the existing garage on the lot
should be removed whether the variance is granted or not. Mr.
Corson felt that the original variance should not have been
granted being this lot is only 54' in width.
Jim Mertes stated that they felt they would not have a problem
meeting the setbacks and hardcover requirements.
Goetten stated that the entire Casco Point area is a high
intense residential area. She noted that the lot size was
consistent with the area although it would be one of the
smallest lots.
Tom Corson stated that they would be making a crovded
situation even more crowded. He questioned the initial
intent of the ordinance requiring a 100' lot width.
Chairman Callahan stated that the l,:-,t was intended to provide
a residence and the hardship is that there is no other
adjacent property available.
There were no more comments from the public and the public
hearing was closed.
It was move3 by Rovegno, seconded by Goetten, to recommend
renewal of the lot width and lot area variances noting that
the Issues (1-7) and Findings (1-19) , prepared by staff, were
found to be sufficient. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 1. Kelley voted
nay stating it would be overbuilt for lot size.
#989 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
HEN'DRICKSON ACCESS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PUBLIC HEARING 11:40 -11:50
Hennepin County proposes dredging approximately a 20'xl26'
wide corridor, removing 4.5' of lake botton along the edge c'
the Hendrickson boat ramp, and constructing a 125' lone
seawall along the sides of the inplace boat ramp.
There were no persons present regarding this matter at this
time.
Planning Commission table this matter until the December
16th meeting.
#990 WARD FERRELL
3411-3415 WATERTOWN ROAD
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING 9:29 - 9:37
Applicant requests lot area/lot width variances to construct
homes on two substandard vacant commonly -owned lots adjacent
to the exisiting residence at 3405 Watertown Road.
/ fz
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 18, 1985. PAGE 5
#990 FERRELL continued
Chairman Callahan noted that the application was incompletE
absent a survey of property containing the existing house anc
septic site information necessary for assurance of ar
alterrate septic site if needed.
Mr. & Mrs. Ward Ferrell were present for this matter. Mr.
Ferrell stated that there should be no problem with ar,
auxilliary system being the lot is 3/4 acre, therefore not
necessary. Mr. Ferrell felt that a survey of the propert}
with existing house was also not necessary.
Chairman Callahan stated that this information was necessar}
and was requested from him last May and they would not act
until this information was pro% d.
Mr. Ferrell statt 3 he had a survey dated 1958 and would submit
it. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated he wosl�
look at the survey and determine if it would be adequate.
There were no persons present regarding ..his matter at thi,
time.
It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by Kelley, tc
table this request pending a complete application. Motion,
Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Chairman Callahan advised applicant that they would give hirr
their general opinions regarding his request althougY:
submission of the survey and septic site information may make
a difference.
Goetten stated she was personnally opposed to three lots.
Kelley,referring to his statement in the Planninc
Commission minutes dated 4/15/85, felt `rat Lots 7 & 8 should
be combined into one lot to allow the existing home and one
other lot.
Taylor and McDonald agreed with Kelley's opinion.
Rovegno and Callahan felt that two lots with dwellings would
probably be reasonable with the proper septic site testing,
three lots would be setting precedent.
#991 WILLIAM ULRICH
1535 BOHN'S POINT ROAD
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PUBLIC HEARING 9:40 - 10:37
Chairman Callahan explained the afl_er-the-fact application
for a conditional use permit and -,ariar.ce to do grading and
filling within 75' of lakeshore.
6x4 4 cj"q ,a'7 J - H
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1986
#842 ROBERT ZIMMERMAN continued
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that there
is no known opposition from the neighbors and a l l have
been re -notified.
It was moved by McDonald, seconded by Goetten, to
recommend approval of the 3.5% hardcover variance in the
75-250' zone, conditioned on the applicant removing 2
areas of gravel and the existing detached garage
structure. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0.
#961 i #968 JOHN B. IDSTROM
2580 FOX STREET
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
C",NTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:53 - 9:07
John B. Idstrom and David M. Ost.reim were present for
this matter. Mr. Idstrom's engineer, Mark Gronberg, was
also present.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the
request for a two lot subdivision (there are no houses
-)r -Ie lot presently) creating a new building sites. He
noted that both lots meet the 2 acre dry buildable
minimum and standards for septic systems. He also noted
that there is a potential for a future 3rd lot which
would also meet the 2 acre requirement. It was noted
that applicant is requesting approval for the driveway
to access onto Fox Street to serve both proposed
building sites.
Planning Commission discussed the proposed driveway
which will cross the designated wetland in order to
access the rear building site. It was noted that the
Watershed District has approved this crossing.
There were no comments from the public and the public
hearing was closed.
It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Taylor, to
recommend approval of the preliminary subdivision and
conditional use permit suhi-ct to staff's
recommendations. Motion, Ayes 5, N. 0.
ARD FERRELL
3 3411 43415 WATERTOWN ROAD
VARIANCE - SECOND REVIEW
Ward Ferrell was present for this matter.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explai^ea that
this application was rev4.ewed approximately 6 mcnths ago
on an appeal basis giving the applicant a general idea
regarding the City's policy regarding siaations of
three contiguous substandard lots in common ownership.
5
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1986
#990 WARD FERRELL continued
All the Planning Commission members basically concurred
with their opinions stated at the November 18, .985
Planning Commission meeting, that this property should
be allowed a total of only 2 buildable lots.
Mr. Ferrell stated that the City of Orono requested him
to divide the property back in 1958 so there would not
be future problems with building another home, and that
this fact should be honored. He also noted that when the
zoning changed from a 1 acre to a 2 acre zoning
district, he was told that this would not affect
existing lots.
Assistant Zoning Administor Gaffron reviewed the history
of zoning changes in that area from 1950 to 1984. He
noted that the proposed lots meet the criteria required
of lot.3 in single separate ownership based on the 1975
zoning code, but a density issue and setting a precedent
are open, because these are substandard lots in common
ownership.
It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Taylor, to
recommend denial of the 3 lots because they do not meet
applicable zoning code criteria. Motion, Ayes 2, Nays
3. Motion dies. Rovegno, McDonald, and Goetten voted
nay. Rovegno stated that he felt this is a difficult
decision because it seems that 3 lots would have met
code requirements up until a few years ago. McDonald
stated that because of the many years of ownership by
applicant, it would be inappropriate to deny. Goetten
concurred with McDonald in this matter and stated that 3
lots would be acceptable.
It was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Goetten, to
recommend denial of 3 lets but could recommend approval
of a total of 2 properly laid out building sites and
recognizes the efforts, time and reliance the appl_cant
has put in his 1958 application but still recommend
denial of 3 lots. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0.
#999 EVAN MELINE
3598 NORTH SHORE DRIVE
VARIANCE - SECOND REVIEW
Benn Belden, being half owner of the property, was
present for this matter. He noted that Evan Meline was
unable to be present because he is in Europe.
This application was
Planning Commission
could firm -up plans to
Hennepin County.
6
tabled from the December 16, 1985
meeting, so that the applicants
purchase additional property from
Ic If"
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 10, 1986
#967 & #968 IDSTROM continued
Assistant Zoning Administrator noted that the driveway
has been reviewed by staff and finds no problem with the
access location. He also noted the potential of a
future third lot which would create problems for the
applicant.
Mayor Butler stated that the resolution should note the
potential problems regarding future re -subdivision which
would require the relocation of the access to properties
off the private street.
Mr. Idstrom stated he was not concerned with a third lot
at this time and would deal with that problem in the
future if it arose.
Councilmember Adams stated he found no problem with the
proposed subdivision of two lots only but would if there
were three.
It was moved by Councilmember Adams, seconded by
Councilmember Frahm, directing staff to draft a
resolution with the appropriate variance relating to the
frontage and specifying that this is approval of two
lots noting the future problems of a third lot, to be
presented before final approval at the March 24, 1986
Council meeting. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 3.
#990 FERRELL
3411, 3415 WATERTOWN
VARIANCE
ROAD
Ward Ferrell was present for this matter along with his
attorney, Leroy Haglund.
City Administrator Bernhardson explainE3 the request fc.-
a variances on two existing lots, which are in the
acre zone and are substandard under the current code.
He stated that ~his was presented last May as a zoning
appeal. He noted that applicant has had septic site
testing done and has proposed acceptable primary and
alternate sites.
Mr. Haglund stated that applicant's dream was to build a
house oa one of these lots and was platted as such ine.ny
years ago. He submitted a petition signed by the
neighbors stating they have no objections to this
proposal. He also submitted aerial photos to show that
the applicant's proposal would not be inconsistant with
the area.
3
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MARCH 10, 1986
#990 FERRELL continued
Mayor Butler explained the problems that are involved in
this application and that the reason this area was
rezoned in 1974 to 2 acre lots was the problem with
septic system overcrowding and failure on 1 acre lots.
She noted that other similar applications have been
denied for this same reason and Council would be setting
a precedent by approving this.
Mr. Haglund stated that this situation is un.;que and
that properly installed septic systems do not fail.
Councilmember Adams stated that problems are showing up
with septic systems in 1 acre areas.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron reviewed the
history of the zoning code from 1950 to present. He
noted the similar request by Alden Anderson in 1981
which set a precedent for denial in these cases.
Mr. Haglund stated there there is no proof of setting a
precedent by approving this because of the unique
situation.
Mr. Ferrell stated that the present zoning code would
prevent subdi%ision requests of 2 acre parcels, but he
has already subdivided his property, upon the request of
the City.
Mayor Butler stated that she felt the entire Council
should be present to make a decision on this
application.
Mr. Ferrell stated that the Council has a moral
obligation to honor previous councils' actions.
It was moved by "ayor Butler, seconded by Councilmember
Adams, to table this application until the April 14,
1986 Council meeting for the presence of the entire
Council. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0.
#1006 CHRIS i DALE PALM
1710 SHADYNOOD ROAD
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION #1936
City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request for
hardcover variances to construct a home addition and
attached garage. The proposed hardcovers increases are
from 17.5% to 18.2% in the 0-75' zone; the proposal
shows a decrease from 27.3% to 26.8% in the 75-250'
zone, but on staff's recommendation for safety reasons,
a back-up apron should be included, so the proposed
hardcover would be increased to 29.0%.
4
NOTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1986
#990 ARD FERRELL
�3 4 0 ATERTOWN ROAD
IANCE - SECOND REVIEW
Acting City Administrator Gerhardson explained the
request for a lot width and lot area variance for two
rural properties on Watertown Road noting this was
previously reviewed by Council on March 10, 1986 which
at that time was tabled because the entire Council was
not present to review it.
Ward Ferrell was present for this matter and stated his
attorney unaware of this meeting and was unable to
attend due to a previous appointment.
Mayor Butler asked Mr. Ferrell if he wished to defer
this matter until the next Council meeting in order for
his attorney to be present. Mayor Butler informed him
that if this application is denied, he must wait six
months to reapply.
Mr. Ferrell stated that he would like to proceed with
his application and depending on the outcome will
consult with his attorney. He noted that he still
feels that he is entitled to build a house and sell one
lot to help pay for his retirement home as long as he
has owned the land since 1948. Ferrell stated he
divided it because the Council asked him to in 1958, and
the Council accepted the four lots and that the present
Council has a moral obligation to honor what that
Council told him.
Zoning Administrator Gaffr.on updated Councilmembers
Grabek and Hammerel (who were absent at the March loth
,neeLing) that Mr. Ferrell was requesting permission for
3 homes on a total of 2.9 acres in a two -acre zone. The
3 lots are common:.y owned by Mr. Ferrell and consist of
1.01 acres (upon which Mr. Ferrell's present home is
located), 1.04 acres, and .85 acres respectively. I1P
noted that applicant has submitted soil testing and sit
plans to indicate that both septic systems and houses
can be placed on each lot. He noted that the question
is whether this would set a precedent by granting
approval.
Mr. Ferrell noted that the "28 similar case" parcels
noted in staff's memo are less than two acres with the
exception of one and that none of these parcels have
been owned as long as he has owned iris property. Mr.
Ferrell stated that he had planned to build a retirement
home on one lot and sell the other lot for payment for
the house and retirement equity. He feels t;;at the
financial hardship should be considered.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1986
#990 WARD FERRELL continued
Mayor Butler stated that the Council has to consider the
legalities involved with future requests if they were to
approve his application.
Councilmember Adams noted that even by allowing one home
to be built would require a variance of the 2 acre
minimum lot requirement.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that the
zoning code has changed during the time that Ferrell has
owned the property, however the code did not
specifically address "commonly owned" lots until 1984.
City Attorney Blatz stated that it was the Council's
duty to enforce the code as it stands today and that
comments made by previous councilmembers are not legally
binding.
Councilmember Grabek noted that (per memo) within a 1/2
mile radius of the applicants property, there were 37
houses with less than 2 acres and 39 with 2 acres or
more. He stated that part of the common ownership
rationale was "how do these lots fit in the surrounding
area"? He questioned if Ferrell's lots would support
septic systems.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the
lots would support septic systems under limited
development i.e. no tennis court, pool, etc.
Councilmember Grabek asked City Attorney Blatz the legal
ramifications invoiced if this were approved.
Attorney Blatz stated that there is a potential problem
which the Council saould reveiw. As far as granting a
variance, Council must find an undue hardship to Mr.
Ferr« 11. She noted that in 1981 a similar request was
denied because applicant did not demonstrate a hardship,
no sar.itary sewer was available, and insufficient area
and width. She stated that it is her opinion that if
Council cannot differentiate Mr. Ferrell's prnn- -*y from
others, that by granting the request in effect they
would be chancing the ordinance.
Councilmember Grabek questioned whether there would be
legal justification to approve this application without
changing the ordinance bus,�d in 1) a house can be built
on each lot safely wit' septic system 2) it is
consistent with the neighb<_rhood size lots 3) applicant
has been a citizen of Or,no since 1.936.
r
n
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1986
#990 WARD FERRELL continued
Attorney Blatz seated that it is a policy decision
Council must decide upon and that the undue hardship
finding must be spelled out in the resolution to support
the variance approval.
Councilmember Grabek stated that it seemed to be the
"just" thing to do to grant this variance and he felt it
would not be making that much of an exception for other
cases that may come up.
Mayor Butler stated that this was a dilemma due to the
unique circumstances however, she felt realistically she
would have to recommend denial because, in her view, it
would completely change the zoning policy. She
expressed her fear in having to plant another sewer
system.
Councilmember Frahm stated that he has problems with the
"common ownership" issue and whether there is a
difference between sewered areas vs. non-sewered areas.
He noted that if this request were approved the
ordinance should be changed and be more clearly defined.
Councilmember Grabek stated that he felt the direction
of the change made in 1974 was to be able to provide a
reviewal on an individual basis.
Planning Commission member Bellows stated that one way
to differentiate between common ownership vs. separate
ownership, in separate ownership the hardship would be
not allowing them to use their property, whereas, in Mr.
Ferrell's case he is able to live on his property and
use it. She also noted that the only hardship in Mr.
Ferrrell's case is financial which cannot be considered
as a valid hardship.
Mayor Butler noted that she would be open to allowing
one additional home but not two.
Councilmember Hammerel stated that this is a hard
decision but he felt two houses in an area where there
is not enough area for one house without a variance is
an excess, especially in an unsewered zone.
Councilmember Adams stated that he felt sympathetic in
Mr. Ferrell's case but he felt 1 acre lots in an
unsewered area is undesirable.
Councilmember Grabek questioned whether there would be a
problem because Mr. Ferrell's attorney was not notified.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL !MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1986
#990 WARD FERRELL continued
Attorney Blatz stated that she felt Mr. Ferrell made a
knowledgable waiver of attorney and was made aware that
he could have delayed the matter in order to have his
attorney present.
Councilmember Grabek questioned if approval of this
request would significantly impact the nor.-sewered area.
Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that in
his opinion, it would not have a significant impact in
that particular area.
Mayor Butler stated that taking into consideration that
the request is for development of three residential
units on 2.9 acres in a 2-acre zone; it was moved by
Mayor Butler, seconded by Councilmember Adams, to direct
staff to prepare a resolution of denial based on the
following:
At this point, Mayor Butler again stated that she felt
it fair to inform Mr. Ferrell, that before an actual
vote and decision is made, he has the option to request
tabling of his application in order for his attorney to
be present.
Mr. Ferrell's response was that he did not think it
would make any difference because the Council has
already made up their minds.
1) Extent of variances.
2) Known fallibility of septic systems on small
lots.
3) Denial does not deprive owner's rights to
reasonable use as residential property as it stands
now.
4) No hardship to the land justifying request.
5) Zoning code demands 2 acres of dry buildable
property per parcel wherein this parcel is 2.9 acres
overall requesting 3 buildable lots.
Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 1. Councilmember Grabek voted nay.
#1007 CAROL TRAPP*
4701 WEST BRANCH ROAD
PRBLI!lINIARY SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION #1979
Carol Trapp was present for this matter.
It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by
Councilmember Hammerel, to adopt Resolution #1979
granting Preliminary approval for a plat at 4701 West
Branch Road. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0.
7 V/Ll
4
S-19-®i
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING PEED APRIL 28, 1986
PUBLIC COMMENTS continued)
for the sewer assessment that would not have to be paid
back. He stated that he had not applied for the grant
when it was pr.iposed because it was just delaying the
assessment, it was still going to be paid. He felt that
the residents should have been notified that there was
monies available to pay the assessments and there was no
pay back. He felt that more people would have applied
for that program. Mayor Butler stated that the money
from HUD would have to be used to pay off the
assessments or the money would be lost. Councilmember
Frahm asked if there was any more money for the program.
City Administrator Bernhardson stated there was none.
He stated that the City staff was unaware that there
would be residents who would qualify for the grant but
had not made application because of the pay back. There
might be funds available from CDBG in February 1987.
Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, 780 Tonkawa Road, stated that he
has read and heard some remarks regarding the Council's
actions that were not favorable. At this time he wished
to let the Council know that there are residents who
feel the Council is doing an excellent job and wished to
thank the Council for their good work and encouraged
them to continue.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
d
WARD FERRELL*
3WATEBTTOWN ROAD
ANCE
Motion by Councilmember Adams, seconded by Councilmember
Hammerer to direct staff to write a resolution of
denial, -=his resolution will be presented to the Council
at their May 12, 1986 Council meeting. Ayes 5, Nays 0.
#819 WILLI" MILLS*
200 LEAF STREET
FINAL SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION #1984
Motion by Councilmember Adams, seconded by Councilmember
Hammerel., to adopt Resolution #1984 approving a final
subvidision for William Mills. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0.
#998 MAUREEN S. BELLOWS*
265 BROWN ROAD SOUTH
FINAL SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTION #1985
Motion by Councilmember Adams, seconded by Councilmember
Hammere]_, to adopt Resolution #.1985 approving a final
subdivision for Maureen S. Bellows. Motion, Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
2 -�
f
ArVL,l:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 12, 1986
ATTENDANCE 7:15 P.M.
Ths Orono Council met on the above date with the
following members present: Councilmembers Adams, Grabek,
and Frahm. Mayor Butler arrived at 7:27. Councilmember
Hammerel was absent. the following represented the City
staff: City Administrator Bernhardson, Public Works
Coordinator Gerhardson, Building & Zoning Administrator
Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and
City Recorder Peterson. Also present were City Attorney
Blatz and City Engineer Cook.
CONSENT AGENDA*
It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by
Councilmember Grabek, to approve the Consent Agenda* as
presented. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES* .
It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by
Councilmember Grabek, to approve the Minutes of the
April 28, 1986 Council meeting as submitted. Motion,
Ayes 3, Nays 0.
PARR COMMISSION COMMENTS
There were no comments from the Park Commission at this
time.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Planning Commissioner McDonald was present and had no
comments at this time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from the Public at this time.
ZONING` ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
#990 MAAD FERRELL*
aTERTOWN ROAD
It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by
Councilmember Grabek, to defer this matter until the May
27, 1986 Council Meeting as requested by the applicant.
Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 0.
#991 & #1018 WILLIAM J. ULRICH
1535 & 1595 BOHN'S POINT ROAD
AFTER -THE -FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
William Ulrich was present for this matter along with
his representatives: Attorney Thomas Humphrey Jr.,
Attorney Gregory Halbert, Project Coordinator John
Noble, Landscape Architect James Robin, and Surveyor
Mark Gronberg.
C;?w I b
.5-Ia -9-7
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 27, 1986
ATTENDANCE 8:28 P.M.
The Orono Council met on the above date with the
following members present: Mayor Butler, Councilmembers
Grabek, Frahm, Adams, and Hammerel. The following
represented the City staff: City Administrator
Bernhardson, Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson,
Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant
Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder
Peterson. City Attorney Barrett was also present.
CONSENT AGENDA*
It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by
Councilmember Hammerel, to approve the Consent Agenda*
as submitted. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES*
It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by
Councilmember IIammere 1, to approve the Minutes of the
regular May 12, 1986 Council Meeting as submitted.
Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from the public at this time.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
#990 ARD FERiELL
WA%RTOWN ROAD
VARIANCE - DENIAL RESOLUTION
Mr. Ferrell was present and requested that this matter
be tabled because his attorney was unable to attend this
meeting.
It was moved by Councilmember Adams, seconded by
Councilmember Grabek, to table this matter until the
June 9th Council meeting. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0.
#991 AND #1018 WILLIAM J. ULRICH*
1535 AND 1595 BOHN'S POINT ROAD
AFTER -THE -FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Upon staff recommendation, it was moved by Councilmember
Frahm, seconded by Councilmember Hammerel, to table this
matter until the June 9th Council meeting pending
additional information. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0.
#999 BELDEN/MELINE
3598 NORTH SHORE DRIVE
VARIANCE - DENIAL RESOLUTION
Due to the fact that the applicant's, Benn Belden and
Evan Meline, were not present, Assistant Zoning
Administrator Gaff ron recommended that this matter be
tabled for a month and he will notify applicants.
:79-07
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 9, 1986
ATTENDANCE 7:04 P.M.
The Orono Council met on the above date with the
following members present: Acting Mayor Adams,
Councilmembers Grabek, Frahm, and Hammerul. Mayor
Butler was absent due to illness. The following
represented the City staff- City Administrator
Bernhardson, Public Works Coordinator Gerhardson,
Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant
Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder
Peterson. City Attorney Blatz was also present.
CONSENT AGENDA*
It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by
Councilmember Hammer.el, to approve the Consent Agenda*
as submitted. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES*
It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by
Councilmember Hammere 1, to approve the minutes of the
May 27, 1986 Council Meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes
4, Nays 0.
It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by
Councilmember Hammere 1, to approve the minutes of the
1986 Board of Review Meeting held on May 27, 1986 as
submitted. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS
There were no comments from the Park Commission at this
time.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Planning Commission member J. Diann Goetten was present
and had no comments at this time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from the public at this time.
ZONING AD TRATOR'S REPORT:
AIZZ (wIARD F
3405 ROAD
VARIANCE
DENIAL RESOLUTION
City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the three
options in this application:
1. Adopt denial Resolution as drafted.
2. Table the matter indefinitely upor request by
appliiant.
3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to
a 1-additional-building-site request.
1 / .' 3
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 9, 1986
#990 WAIF FERRELL continued
ward Ferrell and his attorney, Jerry Rice, were present
for this matter. Mr. Rice stated that he is familiar
with the area in question because he lives in the area
and also holds a contract for deed on property across
the road from applciant's. He stated that he has
researched the matter and feels there is a substantial
issue of equitable estoppel involved and that this is a
special situation bases° on an old promise by a Mayor.
He stated that Mr. Ferrell is prepared to proceed with a
legal suit if --nary.
Councilmember .a asked applicant if he wanted the
Council to act on the request for three lor.s, not
considering any alternatives.
Mr. Ferrell stated that was correct. Mr. Rice stated
that they would be agreeable to Council tabling the
request in order for Council to think about it.
City Attorney Blatz wanted the record clarified
regarding the apparent conversation between Mr. Ferrell
and Planning Commission member VanNest, she noted that
the record was researched and found no indication that
word was given to Mr. Ferrell that he could plat- his
property accordingly and the code would not apply to
him. She also noted that there is case law wh, :eas the
court ruled that regardless of indications made by a
past council, the current council must upho2. the
ordinances.
Mr. Rice clarified that he was referring t., the word
given by Mayor Ross when Mr. Ferrell platted his
property.
Acting Mayor Adams stated that he was always told that
one council can not bind future councils.
It was moved by Councilmember Frahm, secor-1-1 t
Councilmember Grabek, to approve the denial re! on
as drafted to be adopted June 9, 1986.
At this point, Mr. Ferrell and his attorney were
the opportunity to request tabling this mat e
reconsider the request for 2 additional houses.
Mr. Rice stated that he would like the matter tabled in
order for him to copsult with his client, Mr. Ferrell.
City ALu.,kncy Blatz stated that she would recommend
tabling the matter if tht- Council's intent is to allow
applicant to modify his ,-)plication for 1 additional
house to be constructed t-,: his property.
2 % c
INOTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL !MEETING HELD JUNE 9, 1986
#990 jii FERRELL continued
Councilmember Frahm withdrew his motion.
It was moved by Counci l:;tember riammere 1. , seconded by
Councilmember Adams, to table this matter at this time.
Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0.
#991 i #1018 WILLIAM J. ULRICH
'535 i 1595 BOHN'S POINT ROAD
_ x'TB1t-THB-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
RESOLUTION 12004
City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the conditional
use permits and variances and the drafted resolution
addressing the following items: berms are limited to 3-
1/2' with no fences on them, staff has devised standards
for the drainiield and the plan will be approved in
accordance with those standards, alteration of the
lagoon, fill between the the two properties, and letter
of credit and developers agreement has been secured.
Staff recommends adoption of the resolution. He noted
that Plarning Commission will review the requests for
a geothermal system and extension of seawall in lagoon
at their June 16th meeting.
Present representing applicant were: Attorney Gregory
Halbert, Surveyor Mark Gronberg, and Engineer Don
Brauer. Mr. Halnert stated that they have reviewed the
proposed resolution and request amendment of Condition
#3 being that the former residence on Lot 2 must be
removed by July 1, 1986. He stated tha they -re
currently using the house for storing materi ls, housing
and sanitation facilities for the laborer therefore
requesting that they allow the house to remain until
September 1, 1986 subject to keeping the property neat
and orderly.
Staff stated that they had no problem with tnat request.
City Administrator Bernhardson noted that they have not
received any more complaints regarding the construction
hours.
It was moved by Acting Mayor Adams, seconded by
Councilmember Hammerel, to adopt Resolution #2004
approvinq-".er-thP-fact conditional use permits and
variance ig the date on Condition #3 to September
1, 1986. Ayes 4, Nays 0.
1 / ,'
ETOWN
TES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 26, 1987
#990WFERRELL
ROAD
VT iANCES
CONTINUATION OF REVIEW
Present for this matter were Mr. & Mrs. Ward Ferrell.
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that Mr.
Ferrell owned a parcel of land appoximately 4.19 acres.
which was subdivided into 4 lots in the winter of 1958.
Mr. Ferrell's request, whirr commenced in April of i985,
is that he be allowed to build on the 2 remaining
vacant parcels of land. The application was
subsequently brought to Council in April 1986, who
directed staff to draft a denial resolution which was
tabled twice. At the June .), 1986 meeting Council moved
to adopt the de ial resolution, the applicant then asked
that it be tabled. Subsequent to that he requested *hat
it not be considered at the June 23rd, 1986 meeting.
City Administrator Bernhardson stated that is where the
application currently stands. The previous Council had
indicated one of the courses of action was to allcw Mr.
Ferrell to amend his request from two alditional
building units to one. The second option was to pass
the denial resolution which would prohibit Mr. Ferrell
from bringing up the request for another six months.
Mr. Ferrell stated that his tax statement reads one
property at 1.22 acres and the other property at .97
acres which makes it over two acres for both lots
together. He asked the Council what they consider to be
a hardship.
Mayor Grabek noted that when det ning whether a
hardship exists, the Council evaluat_ the effect of the
proposed variance on the health, safety and we'.fare of
the community and the applicant.
Mr. Ferrell notes that the house propgsed to be built on
one lut is a 2,000 s.f. house with garage on 40,000 s.f.
of land which will not affect the light. He also noted
that Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated
that both lots were s, 4sfactory for septic systems. He
feels that the surr ding property values will not
decrease and may in _.:.:t increase with a new residence
on the vacant lot.
Mr. Ferrell cited instances in which he believes
building permits were issued on parcels with less than 2
acres of dry buildable land.
-North Brown Road - Oberg residence - septic system
was built "in the water".
-Bill Mills residence (just south of Ferrell
property).
-North Brown Road - house bui It or, 1l3 ac. - and the
rest of the lot is all ditch.
MINUTES OF THE RBGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEXTING HELD MAY 26, 1987
#990 WAPC FERrtELL CONT.
Mr. Ferree . also r.orerl that the asjessed value for each
property is at $5,000 and the average vacant lot in
Orono i.s selling ioi: $29,000, thus if the 2 vacant lots
were combine, and ' d as one vacant lot at $29,000 it
would be a fir.:vnci. _oss to him.
Mayor Grabek stated he would like time to look into the
properties that applicant says are similar cases.
Mrs. Ferrell stated she folt that since the lots were
already subdivide(: with past Cot ?'s approval, they
should be abl` to be built on.
It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember
Sime, to tab this matter until staff has has time
investigate the mentioned lots by the applicant and
bring back the application again at the June 8th, 1987
meeting. Motion: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
#1112 i #1142 SMITH BAY MARINA i "ACHT CLUB
1950, 1955, 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CONIrIT .. (...tL S I TB PLAN REV I BW
VARIUI.CB
Present for thi Y,atter were Woody Love, project
planner, and Mr. To: _rman, the owner.
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this is a
request which covers three parcels of land. The
application for 1955 Shoreline D e involves a
reconfiguration of the current str_a' construction
of a new structure, layout of a p lot which is
recommc ided `.o cue F ....ialt with fi_ inq strips to
lessen t, :oncerns for ru.i-off, removal of some of the
current w..,: i platforr.s from the parcel, and proposed Lhe
new buildwould be further- setback from the lake than
the curre ructure. In addition, the new structure
would bra n heiqht, 2 story with an open deck
top. CL.rr�__iy ; -)roperty is zc^p,i B-2, commercial
maiinz. district. property at . .. Shoreline Drive,
currently Tonk insmission property, is zoned
►-eside -'.al which rently exists urider a conditional
use F L.), sal non -conforming use and structure.
:ror _ and accessory retail sales to be
lea :ate operator. Curb cut onto Shore_'
Cr_ emoved makinv the only access onto L
pT A,rpr_uc. T''� intent is to clean up
put some additional parki: q on the
prey .i':1 ch .hies not r.4t'F'k:at 1 1 %xist. In p.. t of the
proposal tcJught to the City, the applicant has proposed
to convert the 1950 Shoreline Drive property to a
parking lot. Such a change would necessitate a zoning
amendmer as parking lots are not permitted or
conditional use perni.ts allowed in a residential
district. On March 1"?, 1987, the Counr t reviewed a
zoning amendment which would have allcwe, parking lots
in residential districts.
3 2 o--F Z
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 8, 1987
ATTENDANCE 7:01 P.M.
The Orono Council met on the above date with the
following members present: Mayor Grabek, Councilmemoers
Sime, Gnetten; and Peterson. Councilmember Callahan was
absent. The following represented the City staff: City
Administrator Bernhardson, Public Works Coordinator
Gerhardson, Buildinq S Zoning Administrator Mabusth,
Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and
City Recorder Peterson. City Attorney Blatz and City
Engineer Cook were also present.
CONSENT AGENDA*
It was moved by Councilmember Sime, seconded by
Counc:-Irrember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda*
subjec` to removal of:
Item #25 -- Issuance of Firearms Permits Guidelines
rer3uested by Councilmembers Pe*erson and Goetten.
Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES*
It was moved by Councilmember Sime, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the
May 26, 1987 Council meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes
4, Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
There were no Planning Con ission comments. Planning
Commission member Edward Brown arrived later in the
meeting.
PURLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from the public at this time.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
( 990 ARD FE RELL
�L90 KATRRTOWN ROAD
VARIANCE
CG-nci1 de1aved this matter until the end of the meeting
awaiting th ; presence of applicant or representative.
It was moved by Mayor GYabek, seconded by Councilmember
Goetten, to table this matter until
applicant or raprese::tative requested to be present.
Motion, Ayes Nays 0.
ic
To: Planning Commission Members
S-19-s7
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoninq Administrator
Date: April 8, 1985
Subject: #903 Ward P. Ferrel]., 3405 Watertown Road -
Interpretation of zoning code regarding the buidability
of substandard commonly -owned lots in the RR-lB un-
sewered zoning district.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Application
Exhibit. B - Property Owners List
Exhibit C - Plat Map
Exhibit D - Survey
Exhibit E - Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit F - Staff Sketch of Lot Areas
Exhibit H - Staff Letter to Applicant 2/27/85
Exhibit I - Draft Resolution From Alder. Anderson
(Application. #635 )
Exhibit J - Tax History
The applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels in the RR-lB
zoning district totaling 2.90 acres. The existing h se, well,
and septic system are contained within the two easterly parcels
totaling 1.01 acres. The two westerly parcels ar- 1.04 and 0.85
acres respectively. The applicant wishes to (_;.'taln a building
permit for the 1.04 acre lot.
Mr. Ferrell became owner of all four parcels prior to the
1967 zoning code. The 1967 Code declared the land in question as
Zone R-lC, 1 Acre Single Family Residential. That 1967 Code
stated, regarding lots of recor3, as follows:
31.200. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon Sept.
14, 1967 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under
single separate ownership in a "R" Residential District,
which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code as
to area or width may be utilized for a single family
detached dwelling purpos provided chat in the judgement cf
the C )uncil such use does not ;.dversely affect public health
or safety. Single separate ownerships includes joint owner-
ship by not more than two person -
The 1967 Code did not discuss common ownership properties
nor did it d; fferentiate between sewered and unsewereC lots of
record. Under this code, the applicant would likely have 'been
allowed :o build on the lot in quo Lion without a var.Lance be-
causf, ~he lot met the standards of e 1 acre zoning district.
The 1974 Zoning Code declared this land to be zoned RR-lB, 2
:re Single Family Residential. As far as existing lots of
cord, it stated as follows:
31.201. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon
January 1, 1975 (the effective date of the Zoning Code)
under sign 1§! separate ownelrship in an "R" District, which
does now meet t�uirements of the Zoning Code as to area
or width may be utilized for a single family detached
dwelling purpose provided that in the judgment of the
Council such use does not adversely affect public health or
safety and the following requirements are met:
31.203. In •R• districts of Greater Than One Acre. A lot
of record in any "R" District in the City in excess of one
acre, which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning
Code as to area or width only, may be utilized for single
family detached dwelling purposes if the Council finds:
(1) it is at least one acre in size, and the average
width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and
(2) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or
meets all the septic system requirements of the City or
other governmental body; and
(3) it otherwise meets the requirements of this or
other app3icable ordinances.
Under the 1974 Code, the Council at their option could have
granted a lot area variance for a lot in single separate owner-
ship, but the Code again did not specifically discuss the stan-
dards for the separation of commonly owned lots. The general
City policy, as evidenced by the out co.;ie of at least one typical
zoning app?.icati.on in 1981 was that unse+aered adjacent lots owned
in common could riot be considered buildable and could not be
separated unless each resulting lot or combination of lots in-
cluded the required acreage in that zoning district.
Upon recodification in 1984 the Zoning Code was amended to
include the following Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C):
L
�\ C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non -conform-
ing, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer,
V. aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public
Lam, rivate r ad or road easement and under same or common
Vi ownership is equired if the separation of such .,:ts results
v in individual building sites that satisfy the ._,.-ea and width
++ ,� requirements of the Zoning Chapter.
U
Staff's interpretation of the current cote is that the
applicant would be prohibited from separatinq his four adjacent
lots, since separation of either of the westerly lots from the
main property would result in the creating of building sites less
than two acres in area.
2
Staff has told the applicant on numerous occasions over
recent years that it is unlikely the City would allow building
permits for his adjacent parcels. A similar application by Alden
Anderson at 1900 Shoreline Drive resulted in Council voting 4-0
to deny separation of adjacent 1.4 acre and 1.8 acre commonly
owned parcels from each other, based on 1) lack of demonstrated
hardship; 2) no sanitary sewer available; 3) insufficient area;
4) insufficient width. I have included the draft resolution from
this application, which should help to clarify the City's past
position on applications of this type (note that the Anderson
resolution was never adopted because he withdrew his application
after Council voted to have staff draft a denial resolution).
I have included the tax history for 1974-1985 on the
properties (see Exhibit J). It is noteworthy that the valuation
of the parcel in question (P.I.D. 0007) was reduced starting in
1983, and the parcel was assessed i icrementally as compared to
the parcel with the house; i.e. the adjacent parcels appear to be
valued as part of the main lot, not as separate building sites.
Because Mr. Ferrell insisted on bringing this application to
,you even though he was told of the slim chances for approval,
staff accepted the application on an appeal/interpretation basis.
Does the Planning Commission find any hardship or circumstance
that would suggest the standards should not apply to this
property?
3
•
-- 8 7
To: Orono Council Members
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Date: April 30, 1985
Subject: #903 Ward P. Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road -
Zoning Code Interpretation
List of Exhibits j3
S 28-`35 RC;ru==
Exhibit A - Application App`1,,�'r �puG.L No'f
Exhibit B - Property Owners List
Exhibit C - Plat Map g
Exhibit D - Survey
Exhibit E - Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit F - Staff Sketch of Lot Areas
Exhibit H - Staff Letter. to Applicant 2/27/85
Exhibit I - Draft Resolution From Alden Anderson
(Application #635)
Exhibit J - Tax History
.xhibit K - Minutes From Planning Commission Meeting 4/15/85
Exhibit L - Staff Memo to Planning (7ommission 4/8/85
The applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels in the RR-lB
zoning district totaling 2.90 acres. The existing house, well,
and septic system are contained within the iwo easterly parcels
totaling 1.01 acres. The two westerly parce..s are 1.04 and 0.85
acres respectively. The applicant wishes to obtain a building
permit for the 1.04 acre lot.
In staff's preliminary review of this request by the appli-
cant, it was clear that the application was nearly i;�.,entical to
the request of Alden Anderson on Shoreline Drive in 1981, which
was effectively denied before it was withdrawn. Ba 3ed on the
Alden Anderson denial, staff felt Council would likely not
grant a variance for the Ferrell application. Rather than force
the applicant to spend extreme amounts of money for the full
variance application, soil testing, survey work, etc. only to be
denied, staff felt obligated to advise the applicant to submit a
zoning appeal application with $100.00 fee
Please review my memo to Planning Commissior: of 4/8/85 and
the Planning Commission minutes, and the exhibits. Note that the
informal consensus of the Planning Commission was that at most
the applicant might be allowed one building site by combining
Lots 7 and 8 for a total of 1.89 acres, leaving the existing
house on 1.01 acres.
Please advise the applicant whether or not you will consider
granting a variance to the rural common ownership section of the
code.
To:
From:
Date:
C
Planning Commission
Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant
November 13, 1985
r-.
Zoning Administrator
own
Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405-3-411-3415 Watertown Road
Variances
Application - Lot area/lot width variances to construct homes on two
substandard vacant commonly -owned lots adjacent to the existing
residence at 3405 Watertown Road.
List of Exhibit
Exhibit A - Applications For 2 Vacant Lots
Exhibit B - Plat Map
Exhibit C - Property Owners List
Exhibit D - Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan For Center Lot
Exhibit E - Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan For West Lot
Exhibit F - Planning Commission Minutes 4/15/85
Exhibit G - Council Minutes 5/28/85
Exhibit H - Notice to Applicant 5/31/85
Exhibit I - Tax History
Exhibit J - Council Minutes 9/22/58
Exhibit K - Pertinent Ordinances Dating to 1950
Code Sections Pertinent
Sectio,► 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) (Current code)
C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non-con`orming,
undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, al ic:ned in a
contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private rc d or road
easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without
Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation
of such io•--s results in individual building sites that satisfy the
area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter.
Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A) (3)
A. Existing Lots. A lot c.f record existing upon January 1, 1975 in
an "R" District, which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning
Chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single family
detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judgement of the
Council such use does not adversely affect public health or sa"ety and
the following requirements are met:
3. In "R" Districts Not Served by Public Sanitary Sewer. A lot of
rep-ord in any "R" District in the Ci zy not served by public sanitar}
sewer must meet the area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter
and shall not be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes
without Council approval.
Zoning File #990
November 13, 1985
Page 2 of 5
Per Subdivision 6, a "Lot of Record" is any lot for which a deed
or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the
Registrar of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles for Hennepin County,
Minnesota, prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the Councii
if required.
The applicant owns four adjacent tax parcels in the RR-lB zoning
district totaling 2.90 acres. The existing house, well, and septic system
are contained within the two easterly parcels totaling 1.01 acres. The two
westerly parcels are 1.04 and 0.85 acres respectively. The applicant
wishes to obtain building permits for each of the westerly parcels.
The 1950 Zoning Code (adopted 7/10/50) established a number of zoning
districts, including the "Stubbs Bay District" in which Ferrell's property
was located. The "Stubbs Bay District" required minimum building lot size
of one acre. This one -acre minimum was still in effect in 1958 when
Ferrell requested to build a second residence on his property. It is very
likely that Ferrell was told by the City at that time that in order to
build another residence he would have to subdivide, because in general the
Code allowed only one principal residence per building lot (see Council
minutes 9/22/58). Note that 3t that time his request was referred to the
Planning Commission - minutes have not been found for the Planning
Commission meeting or any subsequent action. Although a platting code
existed in Orono as of 1955, Ferrell apparently divided off 2 lots each of
140' width and approximately 1 acre in area, in or about 1959 without
platting, and the parcels have apparently been separate for tax purposes
since that time. The parcels including the road right-of-way would likely
have been considered conforming or nearly conforming lots of record under
them 1967 Zoning Code which designated the property as Zone R-lC, 1 acre
and 140' width, Single Family Residential. That. 1967 Code stated, re-
garding lots of record, as follows:
31.200. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon September 14,
1967 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single separate
ownership in a "R" Residential District, which does not meet the
requirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized
for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the
judgment of the Council such use does not adversely affect public
health or safety. Single separate ownership includes joint ownership
by not more than two persons.
The 1967 Code did not 3iscuss common ownership properties nor did it
differentiate between sewe-ed and unsewered lots of record. However, by
using the term "Single Separate Ownership", it implied that otter types of
)wnership would be treated differently but did not define in what way.
Under this code, the applicant would likely have been allowed to build on
the 1,04 acre lot without a variance b2c--ause the lot met the standards of
the 1-acre zoning district. The 0.85 acre lot would likely have required
Council approval, depending on whether the area in the road right-of-way
was included in the lot area at that t-me.
Zoning File #990
November 13, 1985
Page 3 of 5
The 1974 Zoning Code declared this land to be zoned RR-lB, 2 Acre
Single Family Residential. As far as existing lots of record, it stated as
follows:
31.201. 2aisting Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975
(the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single
separate ownership in an "R" District, which does not meet the re-
quirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be utilized for
a single family detached dwelling purpose provided that in the judg-
ment of the Coundil such use does not adversely affect public health
or safety and the following requirements are met:
31.203. In "R" districts of Greater Than One Acre. A lot of record
in any "R" District in the City in excess of one acre, which does not
meet the requirements of this Zoning Code as to area or width only,
may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the
Council finds:
(1) it is at least one acre in size, and the average width of
ti-a lot is at least 100 feet; and
(2) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or meets all
the septic system requirements of the City or other governmental
body; and
(3) it otherwise mets the requirements of this or other
applicable ordinances.
Under the 1974 Code, the Council at their option could have granted a
lot area variance for a lot of single separate ownership, but the Code
again did not specifically discuss the standards for the separation of
commonly owned lots. The general City policy, as evidenced by the outcome
of at least one typical zoning application in 1981 was that unsewered
adjacent lets owned in common could not be c, iQ red buildable and could
not be separated unless each resulting lot of ..,mb.'nation of lots included
the required acreage in that zoning district,
Upon recodification in 1984 the Zoning Code was amended to include the
following Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C):
C. The separation by the transfer or sale of non -conforming, un-
developed lots not served by public s-nitary sewer, aligner in a
contiguous arrangement, undivided by - rablic or private road or road
easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without
Council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation
of such lots results in individual Building sites that satisfy the
area and width requirements of the Zoning Chapter.
zoning File #990
November 13, 1985
Page 4 of 5
Staff's interpretation of the current code is that the applicant would
be prohibited from separating his four adjacent lots, since separation of
either of the westerly lots from the main property would result in the
creating of building sites less than two acres in area. The applicant
appeared before you in April 1985 on an appeal basis rather than a full
variance application at staff's urging because a similar application had
been turned down in recent years and staff wanted applicant to get general
direction from the Planning Commission and Council prior to spending large
dollar amounts in developing plans, septic testing, surveys, application
fees, etc. The Planning Commission and Council directive to the applicant
was that it is unlikely they would aprove two new houses, and perhaps wo-iid
allow one new house resulting in a 1.5 acre density on the total property.
Applicant now appears before you requAsting t.,at both westerly parcelc
be declared buildable. He has provided surveys of both parcels, and hay
provided soil testing and septic system designs indicating that each .Lot
could in fact support a primary and alternate drainfield system (mounds at
all sites) to serve 3-bedroom houses, given no future encroachments. Theme
applicant has not provided a survey of the property with the existing
house, nor has he provided septic testing to prove that the property has en�
alternate site for a drainfield. These items were specifically requested in \\,
the "notice of Council action" sent to the applicant on 5/31/85. Applicant
refuses to accept the fact that in order to grant variances to build on the
two vacant lots, we also grant variances to the existing devel3ped lot (see
notice of 5/31/851.
Two questions, then, need to be answered.
1. Does each lot, of and by itself, have *fie capability to
permanently support a house, septic system, wz_ " and the other
appropriate amenities in the rural zone? If so,
2. Is the Planning Commission and Council willing to set a precedent,
i.e. do away with the common ownership limitation in the unsewered
zone?
The ramifications of Item 2 are significant. As %,any ap 28 vacant
lots in the rural unsewered zones are commonly owned wits adi:.cent parcels
ar.d are 1,/2 , 1 1/2 acres in area, and could expect to request. The same
benefit of buildability. Many more such lots have been legally combined,
which presumably denies them any status unless re -subdivided.
We saw during the appeal that the tax valuations on Ferreils adjacent
parcels were lowered ds of 1983, which gives the appearance that the
separated lots were then given "accosso ry lot" value and not Lui_lding site
value, since the main lot land value increase,? markedly at the same time.
Perhaps this was a result of the assessor realizing that the two westerly
lots were not buildable without variances. 1t would appear that perhaps up
until 1979 and perhaps as late as 1982, the extra lots were valued much the
same as the main lot. Ferre-1 oLviously felt he was paying taxes on these 1;
separate building sites.
Zoning File #990
November 13, 1985
Page 5 of 5
A furthRr criteria to consider i.s how do the lots in question fit int
the neighborhood as far as lot size. Given a radius of 1/2 mile frog..
Ferrell's property, 39 developed lots are 2 acres or ii,.nre, 13 are 1.25 to 2
acres, 23 are .75-1.25 acres, and 11 are less than .75 acre. (These
increments were picked so that the Terrell lots could be categorized in one
group.) (Note that the Stubbs Bay Study Area, where sewer is contemplated
to serve Eastlake Street, Tonka Avenue, and Crestview Avenue, was excluaed
although it is within the 1/2 mile radius. Those 38 or so houses are on
lots averaging 1/2 acre or less.) It is clear to see that in Orono's two
acre zone north and east of Stubbs Bay, the majority of existing lots are
less than two acres. In general terms, the existing density and lot sizes
are detrimental to our long-term program of development without City
sewers. Additional houses on relatively small lots will not help that
situation.
Recall that the Alden Anderson application to allow a second building
site on adjacent properties totaling 3.5 acres, was in effect turned down a
few years ago.
Are there any circumstances rr hardships in the Ferrell application
that justify a recommendation of approval?
To:
Planning
Commission
Members
EX#.
P
From:
Michael
P. Gaffron,
Assistant
Zoning Administrator
d_
A-1q-9 7
Date: February 6, 1986
Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell 3405-3411-3415 Wate-town Road -
Variances - Update to Memo of November 13, 1985
List ct Exhibits
Exhibit A - Memo of 11/13/85 With Exhibits
Exhibit B - Survey of Property With Existing House
Exhibit C - Soils Report, Site Plan For Existing House
Exhibit D - Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/85
EXK. E- Corv.ODoaArF s#T+F AcAAu
Mr. Ferrell has now submitted the additional survey and
soils report to show an alternate drain`ield site for the
existing house. Given no future encroachments, there is adequate
area on the lot with the existing house to replace the septic
system with a fully conforming system.
Please review the memo of 11/13/85. As noted in that memo
and considering the additional information submitted, it appears
technically possible to place a house, garage, driveway, well,
and primary and alternate septic systems on each of the lots.
The possible house location would be somewhat- limited by the
drainfield sites. There would be potential conflicts if a
situation occurred where an extremely large house, pool, tennis
court, etc. were proposed. The properties lend themselves to
relatively low levels of development.
Finally, from a zoning code standpoint, even if only one new
building site is granted, this is precedent se'.ing. In the
past, Cot ,cil and Planning Commission have generally held the
line in similar unsewered common ownership :situations. Approval
of 1 or 2 new building sites might have long-term impact on
Oronn's effectiveness in avci.ding se% weigh this Linst the
applicant's real and preceived rights as a pruperty o. . and the
history of zoning code changes over the years. -le there
sufficient justifications to grant a variance?
TO: Orono City Council Members 6:)04, Al
FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning 'Aministrator
DATE: March 3, 1986
SUBJ: #990 Ward Ferrell, 3405-3411-3415 Watertown Road - Variances
List of Exhibits:
A - Applications for variances on 2 vacant lots J ,
B - Plat Map -
C - Property Owners List
D - Notice to Applicant 2/20/86
E - Composite Site Plan
F - Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan for exis-:-g house, east lot
G - Survey, Soils Repo: t, Site Plan for cei.te r lot
H - Survey, Soils Report, Site Plan for west lot
I - Staff memos 11/1?/85, 2/6/86
J - Minutes: Planning Commission 4/15/85; Council 5/28/85;
Planning Commission 12/18/85; Planning Commission 2/18/86
K - Tax History, 1974 - 1985
L - Council Minutes September 22, 1958
M - Pertinent Ordinances Dating to 1950
N - 1981 Draft Denial Resolution - Alden Anderson property, 1900
Shoreline Dr. (similar case)
Council originally reviewed this application in May, 19z'5 as a zoning
appeal, at which time Council gave applicant general directi:n that perhaps
1 additional. building site would be considered, but that 2 additional
building sites would not be looked upon favorably. Please review Exhibit
D, the composite site plan for this 2.9 acre group of parcels. Applicant
is requesting permission to build houses on each of the two vacant lot-4
ad-acent to his home. The lots are substandard in area and width based on
the current 2-acre, 200 foot width standards.
.'o briefly review the code standards that previous y and currently affect
this property:
1950 Zoning Ordinance - (Pri-i to division of this property into
separate parcels) - Property zoned 1-acre min. lot sizf
1955 - Original Platting Code
1958 - Ferrell builds house at :;a05 Watertown Road, requests to build
a second house on property pc- minutes of 9/22/58, Ferrell presumably
told by Herb Ross, r4ayor, that in order to build a second houses woulc:
require a subdivisi.un, since 1950 zoning ordinance al lowed oniy mane
residence per lot.
19ry - Ferrell F, —umably completed subdivision. 10/12/59 - Adoption
of Ordinance #22 -- a) requ� -d �,inimum lot area of I acre, mir. lot
width of 140', which Ferrell 1 )ts would meet or nearly meet. b) also
allowed Council to approve building permits for: suhs'..andarri lots held
in single separate ownership, inferred that s_.standa-d commcn-
Zoning File ##990
March 3, 1986
Page 2
ownership lots would not be granted building permits, and established
that the Council coul I allow variances to this section at Council's
discretion.
1967 Zoning Code - Property still zoned 1 acre, 140' width, no
substantial changes from 1959 Ordinance #k22, but did s'.-dte that
substandard existing lots of record as of 9/14/67 under single
separate ownership could be granted building permits i f the Counc 1
finds they would not adversely affect public health or safety. Did
not specifically discu3s common ownership lots, but by omission
inferred again they would not be granted permits.
1974 Zoning Code - Property rezoned to 2-acre, 200` minimum width.
This code set specific standards for use of substandard single
separate ownership lots of record in the 2 acre zone i.e.:
1) must be at lease 1 acre, 100' widt�i
2) must meet Ell septic requirements or he sewered
3) meets all other applicable standards
But again, the 1974 code specif i r— 1 ly did not discuss common o�.;ner. ship
lots.
The Alden Anderson common ownership lot buildability application at
1900 Shoreline Drive waL denied in 1981 based on lack of the required
2 acre lot area, setting a precedent fut denial of situations such as
Ferrell's.
1984 Zoning Code - requires Council approval --u separate (read "sell")
adjacent undev Sloped non-confoi .'ng commonly cwi ed lots if the
resulting lots do not meet area or width standards. Clearly in the
Ferrell case, Council approve s required in order to ser..arate the
conforming 2.9 acro group of pa 1s into substandard parcels.
Note that the 0.85 acre center L , which would only be approximately 0.97
acro ven if read right-ot-way was included, would likely have required a
var. =,nce under "L l previous zoning codes, and b-th vacant parcels would
have required ariances since the 1974 zoning ccc-3.
F'i. ally, please review the exhibits, especially the mo's of 11/13 ind
2, :/8G. Planning Cc-nmission reviewed this applics _io.. c;i 2/18/6 _ nd
recomrnerd-d denim of 2 additiona 1 our lding sites, but recommended approval
of 1 L� anal s*.te for a density of appr( -°mately 1.5 acres per building
site :gee erihibit D).
Ap};rova1 of even 1 new site will. set a precedent in comp 1, t, reversal of
the Alden Anderson denial in ? 9b!. Weigh this against r_.ie tact th-.t
appl. -, .t has shown that the proposed building si' -s uoth can mi-e, th-
septic code requirements if _vel )pnient of the property is minimal no
swimming pools, no t,2nnis courts).
Staff will draf'- a resc.ut.ion .`oi your n^Yt meeting ref it-ting Courcil's
direction.
Exa . K
Gomm&
To: Council Members
From: Michael P. Gaffron, A3sitant Zoning Administrator
Date: March 14, 1986
Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell - 3405 Watertown - Variance -
Additional Information
Rote: Please refer to your memo from the March 10 meeting.
List of Exhibits
A - 1974 Public Hearing Minutes - Rezoning
B - Similarly situated properties - A-M (map)
C - Sketches
I. Re: Ferrell comment that at time of rezoning, City Fated that existing
Tots would still be buildable
The attached copy of the 1974 rezoninq public hearing minutes contains
the only reference I could find regard3.c the status of existing lots
(p.2.).
II. Documentation of Similar Cases in the -ral Zone.
I have again reviewed the "28 similar cases" referred to in the
previous memo, in which substandard lots of record are commonly owned but
separate for tax purposes. Actually, this second review uncovered a total
of at least 30 such situations, cf which I will document here the dozen or
so which have a high potential for a future variance request:
A) 320 Woodhill Road - 2 parcels: w/house-3.5 acre; vacant-1.1
acre; vacant lot fronts on Edgewood Hills Road.
B ) 105 Cygnet Place - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre; vacant-1.0
acre.
C) 3865 Bayside Road - 2 parcels: w/house-0.7 acre; vacant-1.2
acre.
D) 341 West Lake Street - 3 parcels: w/house-0.5 acre: vacant-
0.5 acre; vacant-0.5 acre.
E) Lakeview Golf Course - 4 parcels: Golf Course-125 acres;
vacant-1.98 acres; vacant-1.98 acres; vacant-0.75 acres(only
parcel with road frontage).
F) 1080/1090 Heritage Lane - 3-plus parcels: w/house-7.0
acres(estate); vacant-1.0 acres; vacant-1.0 acres.
G) 1425 Bayridge Road - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre; vacant-1.1
acre.
Hi 1900 Shoreline Drive - 2 parcels: w/house-1.4 acre; vacant-
1.7 acre.
File #990
Page 2 of 2
I) 300 Sixth Ave. N.- 2-plus parcels: w/house-100 ac.+; vacant-
1.5 acre.
J) 879 North Blown Road - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre; vacant-
2.6 acres.
K) 960 N. Willow Drive - 2 parcels: w/house-1.0 acre; vacant-
1.0 acre.
L) 320 Turnham Road - 2 parcels: w/house-1.7 acres; vacant-1.1
acres.
M) 200 Bederwood Road - 4 parcels: w/house-0.9 acre; vacant -
0.6 acre; vacant - 1.1 acre; vacant - 1.0 acre.
These 13 cases can be broken down into a number of categories:
1. Total acreage of commonly -owned parcels is great enough to
yield conforming lots if lot lines are re -arranged: A,E,F,I.
2. Total acreage of commonly -owned parcels yields only enough
area for a single substandard lot with existing house: C,D,L.
3. Total acreage of commonly -owned parcels yields enough area
for a single conforming lot with house, but not enough additional
area for a second conforming lot: B,G,H,J,K,M (these are very
similar to Ferrell situation).
III. To help Council assess the impact of granting or denying the Ferrell
variances, consider the following figures:
- Number of existing developed lots in the unsewered residential
zones: 1,050 approximately
- Number of undeveloped, substandard sized lots, in single
separate ownership in unsewered zones: 15 identified
- Number of unsewered common ownership situations with a
---- e----------
realistic potential for requsting variances to lot area in order
to gain an additional building site: 22 identified (13 of these
shown as A-M attached)
- Within a 1/2 mile radius of the Ferrell properties (excluding
the 3 Stubbs Bay Study Area streets Tonka Avenue, Crestview
Avenue, Eastlake Street where sewer is contemplated) the existing
developed lot sizes are:
2.0 acre or larger - 39
1.25 acre to 1.99 acre - 13
.75 acre to 1.24 acre - 23
Less than .75 acre - 11
EX14. E
S-19-07
To: Orono Council Members
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Date: May 21, 1986
Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road -
Variances - Denial Resolution
Attached is a resolution for denial of the variances requested by
Mr. Ferrell to construct 2 additional houses on his property.
The Council's procedural options are as follows:
1. Adopt the denial resolution as drafted. In this case, Mr.
Ferrell would have to wait 6 months before he could reapply for
the variances, if he so wished, per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5.
2. Table the application indefinitely. This would be advisable
only if the applicant requests a tabling based on additional
substantial evidence he wishes to present.
3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to a 1-
additional-building-site request, if he wishes, which some
members of. Council have indicated would be looked upon more
favorably. In this case, Council could either cease action on
the denial resolution, or adopt a revised denial resolution which
denies the 2-additional lot request but finds that the revised
request is a change of conditions which was recommended for
approval by the Orono Planning Commission at their February 18,
1986 meeting, hence, the 6-month reapplication moratorium would
be waived. Allowing such a revision of the application does not
commit the Council to approving the 1- additional lot request.
Staff would recommend that if applicant does wish to revise his
request, the application be referred back to the Planning
Commission for further review.
Staff would suggest the following language be incorperated into
the resolution as item #41 if you choose Option 1 above:
-JuNtr
41. At the City Council meeting of1986, the applicant
was advised of the options to a) table if he has additional
substantial evidence to submit; or b) to revise his application
to request only 1-additional lot on the 2.9 acre parcel instead
of 2-additional lots; -r c) choose neither and waive any right
to further review of t.iis application by the City Council. The
applicant chose to waive further Council review of the
application.
l� w
—r,A /&PPLt c4^J Qa�tAe`:.
Lo .� N (.� - `1- 5 ('' '�' z. 1 - �'
To: Mayor Grabek
Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Date: May 29, 1987
Subject: #990 Ward Ferrell 3405 Watertown Road -
Variances - Denial Resolution
List of Exhibits
Please refer to your information packet from the last meeting.
Additional Exhibits:
Exhibit A - Information/Surveys Submitted by Applicant at
5/26/87 Meeting
1) Swan Lake Plat - Mills New Subdivision
2) 900 North Brown Road
3) 1925 West Farm Road
Exhibit B - Denial Resolution as Drafted With Exhibit "A"
(Sketch of Properties in Question)
Discussion -
I. Cases/situations that applicant feels are similar.
The applicant, at your May 26 meeting, suggested that there are many
cases similar to his that the City has approved. In fact, because the
pr'.me differentiating factor is common ownership, none of the cases he
brought up are similar:
A) Swan Lake Addition - specifically William Mills' Jr. plat - this
is a recent plat (1985-86) which divided Lot 7 into two lots each ')f
which contains two dry buildable acres exclusive of the lake/pond
area. This plat has absolutely no similarity to what Ferrell is
requesting. Note that the City has granted variances for
individual, pre-existing, separately owned substandard lots in the
Swan Lake Addition. The key is separately owned.
B) 900 North Brown Road - this lot was created as part of the plat
"Farm at Long Lake" in 1978 under current zoning standards. The lot
at 900 North Brown Road contains about 2.1 dry acres in total, but of
which only 0.9 acres is outside of an extensive drainage easement on
the property. This lot was in separate ownership, was created under
current lot area codes and obviously was not considered as being a
substandard lot when created, as long as any house proposed to be
guilt on it could meet the City's septic concerns (primary and
alternate site) and setbacks, which it does.
(NOTE that at that time in 1978, the City did not exclude drainage
easement area from the dry buildable. Now we do.)
Zoning File #990
May 29, 1987
Page 2 of 4
C) 1925 West Farm Road - This is a single building lot containing 2.1
acres of which about 0.27 acre is contained within a drainage easement
for a creek (the same creek that traverses 900 North Brown Road),
leaving 1..83 acres dry buildable. The septic system is not as shown
on the site plan submitted by Ferrell, but is a mound system located
southeast of the house, set substantially back from and at a much
higher elevation than the creek. This case is not at all similar to
Ferrell's.
The fact is, the City has not issued a building permit or granted a
lot area variance for any substandard, commonly owned lots in an unsewered
zone since that 1974-75 rezoning. Mr. Ferrell's request, if approved,
would set a precedent that would suggest at least 22 other substandard lots
in unsewered zones could be requesting similar consideration.
It is staff's opinion that allowing substandard, unsewered lots to be
built on will not be advantageous to the City in its quest to keep sewer
out of the rural areas.
II. Ferrell's ownership and 1958 subdivision in relation to codes
throughout the years.
Please review the memos of March 3, 1986 and Noveml-er 13, 1985 for a
summary of how Ferrell's current situation came about and how changes in
codes have affected his properties.
The lots Ferrell created in 1958-59 appear to have met or nearly met
the standards in effect at that time. On October 12, 1959, the Council
adopted Ordinance #22 which allowed Council to grant variances for
substandard lots in single separate ownership, inferring that commonly
owned lots would not be automatically granted variances, and inferred that
in the case of common -ownership lots, enforcement of that ordinance with
respect to lots held in common ownership would not arbitrarily deprive the
property owner of a valuable right. (See Exhibit Z-3 of last meeting's
packet.)
The 1967 Code said substantially the s��me thing, i.e. by stating that
it would be appropriate to consider variances for substandard size
separate ownership lots where health, safety and welfare concerns were
satisfied, it inferred that such variances were not appropriate for sub-
standard common -ownership lots.
The 1974 Ccde rezoned the property to 2-acre, 200' minimum width, and
set up standards for the granting of variances for unsewered
single separate ownership lots, i.e. 1 acre, 100' width, septic OK, meets
all other zoning standards; again implying (but not saying) that common -
ownership lots could not be granted variances.
In 1961, the City Council effectively denied a similar application for
common -ownership unsewered substandard lot buildability, establishinu k-.ity
policy clearly.
Zoning File #990
May 29, 1987
Page 3 of 4
The 1984 Code finally came out and stated that unsewered substandard
common -ownership lots could not be separated from adjacent lots if the
result was a substandard lot in either case.
Staff believes that Parcel 2 has been unbuildable without variances
since October 12, 1959, and in fact may have never been buildable because
it never met the 1 acre requirement of the 1950 Zoning Code.
Staff also believes that each Zoning Code adopted since that time has
supported and enhanced that position.
Staff believes that Parcel 3 has been unbuildable without variances
since l/l/75, but was buildable without variances prior to l/l/75.
Each Zoning Code from Ordinance 22 adopted 10/12/59 up through the
Zoning Code effective l/l/75 implied that commonly owned substandard
unsewered lots were not to be considered for variances. The current Code
effective 4/l/84 states in unquestionable terms that a substandard
undeveloped unsewered common -ownership lot may not be sold off separately
if such a sale results in substandard individual lots.
III. Regarding the extent of Ferrell's 'loss' if he doesn't get two new
building sites.
Staff believes that since an ordinance passed on 10/12/59 made Parcel
2 undoubtedly not buildable due to it being less than 1 acre, he had the
buildability right to only one additional building lot (Parcel 3) from
10/12/59 until 1/l/75, and from l/l/75 to the present has buildability
rights only to the existing developed building site.
Ferrell would have had the right to sell the two vacant parcels (but
not as buildable lots) to other parties prior to 4/l/84, but he didn't sell
them, and as of 4/l/84 the Code says they are definitely not buildable
without variances,and can't be sold off as separate lots without Council
approval. And even if he had sold them prior to 4/l/84 and applied for
variances, according to Alan Olson's letter of 10/26/84, there would be no
basis, hardship, or justification for granting the variances to the area
requirement. Any "loss" Ferrell sustains would logically be related to a
taking of rights he has always had. Staff suggests that, unless he proves
that the City formally granted a lot area variance for Parcel 2 when his
subdivision occurred in 1958-549, Mr. Ferrell has never had the right to 2
additional lots, from 10/12/59 to 12/31/74 has the right only to one
additional lot, and from 1/1/75 to the present has had the right to only
the existing developed building site.
Zoning File #990
May 29, 1987
Page 4 of 4
Staff has been able to locate no record that a variance was ever
granted to Ferrell in 1959, and has no record that the City ever even
reviewed his subdivision. The City adopted a platting code in 1955, the
wording of whir-. indicates a plat was required for Ferrell's division,
however, the Ccurccil minutes for 1958-59 and 1960 were reviewed and no
mention of a plat or subdivision by Ferrell was recorded. Staff believes
that the City likely never reviewed Ferrell's divisions or they might have
recognized the substandard nature of Parcel 2, and if he had platted as the
1955 Code appears to require, he would not have been allowed to consider
the road right-of-way as part of his lot areas.
Staff Recoa ndation -
Attached is a resolution for denial of the varian^es requested by Mr.
Ferrell to construct 2 additional houses on his property.
The Council's procedural options are as follows:
1. Adopt the denial resolution as drafted. In th'.s case, Mr. Ferrell
would have to wait 6 months before he could reapply for the variances,
if he so wished, per Section 10.08, Subdivision 5.
2. Table the application indefinitely. This would be advisable on_y
if the applicant requests a tabling based on additional substantial
evidence he wishes to present. This tabling did occur in June 1986
and applicant presented no new relevant evidence when the item was
reheard in May 1987.
3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to a 1-additional-
building•-sit.e request, if he wishes, which some members of Council
have indicated would be looked upon more favorably. In this case,
Council could either cease action on the denial resolution, or adopt a
revised denial resolution which denies the 2-additional lot request
but finds that the revised request is a change of conditions which was
recommended for approval by the Orono Planning Commission at their
February 18, 1986 meeting, hence, the 6-month reapplication moratorium
would be waived. Allowing such a revision of the application does not
commit the Council to approving the 1-- additional lot request. Staff
would recommend that if applicant dues wish to revise his request, the
application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further
review.
Staff would suggest the following language be incorporated into the
resolution as finding #41 if you choose Option 1 above:
41. At the City Council meeting of June 8, 1987, t -iplicant was
advised of the options to a) table if he has additio ubstantial
evidence to submit; or b) to revise his application tc, -Yuest only 1-
additional lot on the 2_0 acre parrwl instead of 2-additi_•nai lots; or
c) choose neither and waive any right to further review of this
application by the City :.ouncil. The applicant chose to waive further
Council review of the application.
Ub•:i U:e apec:::cnily Gilgit("Li IZ'VirtiQi I +''•,' ,1' n. ' 't10 ciub bulldlnn
Sridlr.TC such purlic danu:R, or j0ms of nny kind : t �iZ �•
sedin �'t !'ever conf;timr. ,! +�•
H alb i(, or m;iirt„ined in ua:d coning Jig- -That sniti�`
:alcohol at the dicta-01 the a(iOp- i r,-ict except signs bearing only the the rr•►ey
tiun ,f this renal Ilion and ordi- ; mines of the residents of the dis- -
nancv, and the V!U tment of this T t-ict, Lrd the names of dwelling,
fm2ul4tion and rerjrjetto;&, i therein. except street and ro �tion IV.
Seeliosi 13L 1 names and trallic signs, and, ex
AND BE IT FURTHER RE
gg ;''ert signs advertising for sale o
Ati'b BE 1T �URTFIER 4E- gent, the premises on which they
SOLVED AND ORDAINED, Tt:,
the iollowin
SOLVED AND OWDALNE13, That may be located.
area and district .:
said Orono Township be, and th
theilc.lo•x:aR t +iiftd district m 3• No building or other strut
. s.:id Orono TownGiip' be, sad the + cure
&ure is hereW desi&atated as .
setae! be erected upon an
sii-n.- is h^rcoy si�iated as a land within the
1 zoning district of the .mown c
} above zoning di
district a, 2a .own ofl�ct except where the lan'1 upo
!Orono, pursuant to Litt lairs ad tic
State of xinnesota, to -wit: '+:4
I Orono, pursuant . the laws of which the building or other :tru
'
J,, , State cf A7inr%L.Ota, to -wit: �tuire is to) be erected constitutes
1. Stubb's Bay District
1 �. Orono Dialrkt "building lot" as hereinafter d
Tliat part of Sections Thirt.•
l
! Th t part Sections Two (±)
fined. A "building lot" is he
dcened to be land owned and
I one (31) and Thirty-two (3i:
,of
i and Three (3). Township One
Hundred Seventeen (117). flange
one ownership which equals
exceeds an area of one and o -
To' mlup One -Hundred Elgh
teen (118), Range Twenty-thre.
I
! Twe ty-three (39). lie a n e p i n
f
half acres. provided, howev
►
(23), Hennepin County.Mlinae
p-
I sofa, and Scxtions_F1w (b), SL
County, yltnnesgta, and of Sec-
'hat where• at the tuune this re
(6) and Eight (8), Township On.
tiun Thirty-Gre (35). Township
ution and ordinance shall t
Hundred S•!vrmteen (IIi), Ran%
I Ore Hundred •Eighteen (118).
effect, the land has been plat
Twenty-three (:3), Scnnepi:
( an);e Twenty-three (U), Hen-
into lots and a plat filed of re
C,tuit-, 1 irnesota, described a
nepin County, _;dinnesota, de-
! seabed as follows:
Ord with the Register of Deeds
Hennepin County, and the Re
io:io•y ; Cctwert(g at a poach
! All of Section Two 12), Tcwts-
trar of Titles of Hennepin Coo.
where the N/gst line of the tom
;cup road rtie ing :forth
One Htmdred Seventeen
ty, and where the area of any
an,
South on center section lute c
I G171, Range T-Yetity-th ce (23), � p l„ tted lots is less than one
Sect -on I'lve CS), Township On,
,T
except the tri.-Agular niece o. one -halt acres in area, each s {
t Iuented Seventeen (11n. ?ianq-
land lying northeasterly of the Ilot shall constitute one "boil I
light of wry nf the maln line of lot"; and provided further, th
Twenty-three '(23), Ramie
i
the j the Great Northers Heikoad,'where, at the time this resoluti
County, ct
County, Minnesota, intersect -
T rr:d excer t the triangltlar piece and ordinance shall take eff.
the southerly tide of the righ
.
of land 1)"ng notthtTaesterly of 'he area of ally unplattajd seews, ll
of way of the Minnesota West -
ern Railroad (also known as tht
the ri •L•t of wa of the A'lime- piece of property unde one o
}
Luce line); thence in a no:th-
iota Western Railrouif, (also COO is less than one and
• *. ►salt acres is area. each such se
kr.•:�.'- a ,ls/! trC;�liag�; i
westerly eiir'ection along th._
�itd �aratu piece of property shrill c i
southerly lint, of said right o:
i1 of Section Three (3). ': own. ',tit;lta one "building tut,"
way of said tiinaesota Western
*hip One Hundred Serente.:a
ono family dwelling with acre
Railroad: to a pmnt where saic
'117). Range Twenty-three (23).
sory buildings customarily
line intersecs t •ie west I:ne o:
10119 )last of County Road Num-
in conitinctlnn with family d
the East One-half (Eli) of Sec-
ber One Hundred Forty-six
ings and cOnsitic:ed a part of
Lion Thirty-one (31), Township
(146). and southeasterly of the
Ltamely dwelling may be erec
One Hundred Eighteen (118),
right of xay of the Minnesota 'pit any one "building lot." 1
Range Twenty-three (23); thence
:h..:tern Railroad. (also known i sory buuildiap snail be lee lied
South along the North -Soot:
is ihe.Luce line): tnclude ";:h buildings as gu
center line of said SecHtm Thu-
and icotteges. garage,. ),oat ho
b-one (31) and Section Six (6),
Tacf part of Section Thirty-five !Pumv or w'•.11 hecae% chic
Township One Hundred Seven-
(35). Township One Hundred houseo. barns or other firm bui - i
teen (il?), Range Twenty-three
(23). to the center �
point o. sy
0.16). T l in?;s
•j
'Township
thro-ern
contRanained i may,
i tl7re► 23), contained is a triatn- 1 4. Nothing aerein shall be c -
Section Six (6). One
Hundred Seventeen (117), lunge
j gle of lanL forested by the south-,4 strued to prohibit art owner ;
e-isterly line of the right of ways r land from cuntintiing on the l
Twenty-three (23); thence East
of the Minnesota Western Rail- '
owned by him, any trade or - �
along the North line of the
Southeast One -quarter (SEvi) ni
rood, ;also known as the Luce'
dustr-v or profession which :
S.� t:on Six (6). Tnwnsbd On
P
lin., ), and the southwoeterl • line
}
the right of wav of the main 1
exi.,tence on the land lire ': a
of the adoption of this tea
Hundred Seventeen (II7), iiiDg"
Iof
Nile of the Great Nurthern Rail, I
fine
tiun and ordinance, the
Twenty-three , i, the North -
rond and the South line of "aid
and
actment of this regtilativa and -
a
wr_st coiner of the Northeast
of
Section "zany-!ive (3S).
ibuAldift
,
strictioao. �r!rom conbtrt:cting y
One -quarter of the- Southeast
One -quarter (NZY4, SiZs4) of
BE IT FURTHER R SOLVED ,
or buildings for use n ;
3rction Six (6), Township One
AND ORDAINED, That the fo!-
lowintl
connection with s
such trade orHundred
dtirtty, o- easlon is n I
Seventeen t 11 7, Rangy
Twenty-three
rules, regulations and re-'
1
n t
ex ttcnc.t on the isad at fire !
atwhichht
(23): thence Smtii
rtr coons with rcr*pest to tars of
i'; e
e
of The adoption of this resolut
along the West line of the
1
the ands and btuidings within
a �+rdlnan� e, end the enactor t i
Northeast One-,uarter of the
th. stun nvntioncd zoning dis-
trot shall h^ rind are hereby
of this regu. Lon and restneti =
Southeast One -quarter (Nay.
S>t'i) of Section Six (5), Town-
a60pted as follow'k. to -wit:
Rained
nor s!. •• :'hinq herein c
-be cnii.trucd to prohi t
ship One Hundnd Seventwn
, 1. Said zoning district is here-
by declared :o he a pric•ate rrr:-
the ii$ of an lard in the �
i
Twenty-three 01;), Range �'
to a pooh where said line utaw-
)cubs) district, .i•td no tm&iding I
tuninx disti^ct ., -- agticultural r
(sr
>.'cts L'ie shore line of Matti
ning �'t1q,r srs; our +hail
. •tr ut'1Ct t9TiietUPe n: iltlproYl•- I'Ai-i li"il.la ^'xtt7taiYi je _
:1:a► Lake ���pea7siiia
e.aa .`.:ier►te: '-W ^rec•r.l..,-.Lrterf •o voo►lat the roassct '
-�
.,,ota4erijr awl "Uwly e
+t'le
aa••rc3 rep-.:rrd for - Mat it tr T►tc;n of ooiratwaTl.d-a �•••
sad •hdt't'+17t u!f jj�sAiah
0
i:11P 1j: re,,
A ... lAl U,.k. t ice . u a ;,o*.4ihv.,eq tor:: -
"Lea ur vtv unp1-ttt:-.: :,n ;flwir, in- as A ct,ntt.j ;;r.- of;
chore u.0 Ala:.-, (Al 9.1V to n J-.%to p-t-rt! ,: ;)I Opet-ty one
Point •-vhtire `-a td ':1 ' rc hri:.- Li. ^-""�MP le iela than on, -.-.-re Hilruid ng.l. t r.f ,vay'to the'
n se- Iurl side 01 Lrit Cf irlte--Suction of Jaid t:cn-,
ts the we, n `RCII such separate p,ecb r 1;'Ic of said railroad right of
'Aannel Maxwell "Vily 4 ,
10 - - - I I y 'Xitil tLe southwesterly line
:fair and Slubl.s 3-ay, Like Min. "buff. i. j_. of
iictonk_.-; t1imte n Only one tar1ruly i Auditor's Subdivision i;Wu.
buildings
0 0'
Is 0
n con_.
h 1 family
o o my
d n
.c,
'2207 1
7A
U'
terly ,:rag W; icceftsory bilildlag3: r Three Hundred pUty.,tX
�son
8!OL.1 'he weslerly side of said iJst0Mari!Y used ia conjunction'
"a'r .1 We -6). liennepin County, Mi,,ne-
channel to a Point where it in- with f&,yrIly dwellings and con- to. extended d W
r of
tersects the short !ire of Stubbs 3idered a part of such family ence running
dwelling
y e outhfesterIv,
Bay. Lake Minnetorka; thence dwelLng may tt erected on an nag the said southweiterly
m erected
"
westerly, northerly and easterly one bull ;n,, lot." -A
n
_e. �.'_'U_ I -cessory ne of said subdivision, and its
al('n2g the west shore line of said tw--ecelned to -in. or-thwesterly extension to the
Stub',13 Bay to a point wriere tbe'vviic, rl
I t)Wid-.ngs 1.i guest cot• tersf-eticti of said line w'th the
said shore ;ine intersects the
0 U-ages. boat ;louses, purrp rdinary low water mar'. of
West side of township road run- r well h0tl-"aS, chicken houses., ke Ylirnetonk-a; thence I ring North and South on cen- s barns and other farm buildings. , ing along said shore line in a
'er section line of SeLtiSli Five Nothing herein contained :!hW be ortheasterly direction, and then
(5), Township One llundredgcnnsideied to permit or author- r. an easterly direction, and then
Seventeen (117), Range Twenty- i-,ze any persrn whats"ver to in a southerly direction. and then
tizee (23) extended; thence; utilize .f. such accessory ouildings, in a northerly direction -follow-
0 . ..
.Vcrth along the Wort S! 'rie ofior nny of them, in oi- related to ing the line de&ied by the orcli-
-&-'A towitehip road cx,,en(1Vd t0lanv commercial enterprise car. nary low water :T-,ark of L�ke
eginning, I Jutted upon the premises. "4ianetorks. to the r�ciat Gf be -
the point'or'll i i
an-:i which said zoning dis*rict 1
ish" be reUirred to as the Stubb's 4. Nothing herein contain:
!Bay district. ishall be construed to prohibit a,, and which said toning district
BE 1-r ANTI= KESULVED I owner of land within the saill .,ha!l be referred to as the Brack -
AND ORDAr_MLD,.That the fol-I zoning district from continuing or. LAC:; Point district. '
low r.;Ies, reguiations and restric- Lht land owned by him. any t.-ado. EE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
Iiin, with respect to ..;es of theiindustry or Profession which iz kND _)RDAJ:iEL%, That the fol-
:;en,is and buildflnIa - with,. the',n ex,stence on sold land at the
I- Jvrinr rules, reguL-A:icas and ro--
Iibr-.-- 7oidniz difticeshall be and time of the adoption of this reso- -tr;ctiors Nvith. respf-�.t to vies of
a. '-erebv adopted as follows,: lution and artUnance, and the en- the hind.3 and buildings witi-jil,
I' ii,.tmerit of this reitul.Ation and re-
? �-: ion. or from eonsti ucting' he abG` zoning district sha-E be
SAA zoring, diztrkt s bete-j an,.,, nd hereby Rdc;;,.t!d as fc-
;! .;,Iina or buildings !or u!.-� n
ieclar'-d -1 private T'!Si-! tion
vial -�tial djsu;-a% and no buildin . trade. iD.
,jrott-.erst.uct,.reoi-i.,nprovemen4lL4'1-�-,-v or prolession which is it A. Use Distwies
and in ope-ation or pa;fj
shall hereafter be erected, altel Cut I
w -eWrcd for use mr be — '-,: ! .. 1 -it the Urne of the ado- Said zoning il!soriot is
a n Liam '. I of this resolutinn and vided irta Use d:strfets to be
purposes other than privzlesigna.ed : at -A :he dhactractit of this rtgula- as Usti
dis-
-Miden*ial Purposes. ';ori and restriction; nor shall ct' ar'4 "COMMercial district."
Y. ILF No billboards or ether aj_jar',Ltng herein contained he con- L All that pnrtIon of said zon-
- t -ing sivis• display!: or nth to Prohibit the L",C of ar-- district other than that ht:re-
.3 of dZY kind shall be erected i.n-i' if, the said zor r! g
"n-untaintd in %id Toning dis. rf)" itfricultulal or farm'.114 p-.:: after •-e=3bed and designated.
(xceP. signs beef ing nlylpose r s the "commere!M1 &ftrirt- is
n:, n--s of the residents of the ..ereb,- '7121ifuted Cid established
c-. ai-.d the names: of dwell- as the 'residential diArct.-
'7;q there-n. exr,p: 1--eet and' ;ND BE IT FURTHER RE 2. The f6Uo,----in4 described
-Uad manes an'; tratfic j!gns, and! t ILVED AND OHDAINED. Thv pe-lion of said zcti!nd aiistrict Ili
W.-Pt sirrs advertising for sale; e f6iowing area and c.strict in 'hereby designated and establisled
'r rnnf, the prem,s,L ern Which,i,d ():0-") TuwrlshiP be, -nd :he. as a "f-ornmercial district-.
!uca-d. nil-, oi lcreby dousigrr.urd o.; is Parts of Government noT, One
!: 0., 'Arict .4 the Tc;vn if (1) said TWO (2), -3ectiQn Ze•ten
No bw'.ding or ,tner str..Ic_� ron.i. pL.:73liant ;o tjlt. :cars of (l]?. Tuwashin :)n� Mund:.ed
AU - JrRli to er,c ed i;xm dry ;
-111 -within the said zoning -.11 c S121: .-f Minnewt,. io-tvit, Scient" p (117% . pange wenty_
I- BrIciteWS Point D'strict tXr- 933). Hornopin county,
"-z%,Pt where the faro up4,r, Minnesota. described &-1 1011,
101 the building .)r other btruL - .1ws:
-jr,- is to be erected ecilstitates! he Pa.'s of 'F-icLirmt Tcn (10) That Part of Government Ut
bu'ldinit lot" as hereinafter 'it, ; nd Ell. -In (11), Townstup Out One (1) described am follows:
:rnb�%L. A "b"ding Jitll is k, -nd"d Seventeen (117), Range Commencing at a point on hp
za� 1.111-r"..'-0,14-e (:3). 11 't I a '! p la sl;ore !f Ilud LAx,? which point.
dtfire'Tte be 555 .,t (Mr o,� �,
I'lie two ms%Autic"I 4na Ui
-V shall Lane oftect, -ne L.J)'.
ft-n platted into lots jaU i
M-ccAu --ith rite Rig.
.O,s of lfean,,,712 C3un.
Titset a h4m
WAWI.&. UW V zMe aro tat
V18"'tod lot it :.,Aw tr
"Ifity. Min?'@ota. deicril,ao .as
is determined ar follovri,
CU4%.4' COrr-Ifirneing at the
"neAcing at a pwvt oil :he !-w
O-Alt wtw-'-* the MOM line of 4
An.rif eat iaki, M;nnP*,1nk,, .41often
ct-tion
point __ 0)
flundrad .;evpnfter 117"
feet nor"I.We6w,Y 'A vie*l*
.
an& Twer.--thr-- t2j,, inter.
glqs Crum & Lim Lm. &nnt
r r*tr 'A#! oidiiiary lq,w v-.tter"d�t*••s.
fert]r.,Igh%
narK of the t7oat Cpqry of that
mi-nitc.. Za..t (,;71'41') L.IM
f-tior of Law
-(%it- which is z;rMt?, TcI qv
Rruw_'- fk.tv, 1•0.r_r I
;rn*.i '1011 ra.. rIz:-- *!urir@n
A.Sa westevir A,,Akd Llw
T AL 7- J i = apct .;Vwftnk!r
A4*1 tOW Of earlS-TU64 Eleven
0W from tp-e `&WUMIW
.'7(l8001
Ordinanco No. 7
An oran"M X"Watliag plat-
!w in as Village of Orono
Ressioe*in C&Ab", lOmesota.
The Village Council of the Vil-
lage of Orono ordains:
That the following regulations
be, and the same are, hereby
adopted and approved; and shall
be known as and may be cited as
"Village of Orono Subdivision
Reguls a."
In order to safeguard the best
interests of the Village of Orono
and to assist a subdivider in har-
monizing his interests with those
of the Village at large, this ordi-
nance is adopted in the hope that
sdbwvoce to it will bring results
beneficial to all concerned.
It is obvious fist piecemeal
1. tanning of subdivisions will
,:ring a disastrous disconnected
.4tchwork of pattern and poor
< :.:ulation d traffic unless its
aesign and arrangement are cor-
related to a Master Plan Study
aiming at a unified scheme of
community interests. It is, there-
fore, necessary for the Orono
Village Council to make certain
regulations a n d requirements
which contribute to the health,
safety, convenience and general
welfare of the community. In
the long range analysis, the Plan-
ning Commission believes these
regulations will aid in raising
property values for the subdivic+-
er and will effect many economies
in the platting and development
of a logical subdivision.
"Subdivision" in this ordinance
means the division of a parcel of
land into two (2) or more lots or
parcels for the purpose of trans-
fer of ownership or building de-
velopment; provided that a divi-
sion of land for agricultural pur-
poese Into lots at parcels of five
(3) acres or more and not involv-
ing a new street or alley shall
not be deemed a subdivision. The
term includes re-rubdivision and,
when appropriate to the context,
shall relate to the process of sub-
dividing or the land subdivided.
Division of any existing lot, par-
cel or plot of land &hall be con-
sidered within the purview of
the ordinance.
GENERAL 1r1ZOUIREliENfTS
fitreeas
1. In any areas where the Plan-
orl� ti� L Pt,i777N G cv D is
ning Commission has adopted a
part cur whole of a Master Plan,
the proposed subdivision shall
conform in general principle to
such Master Plan and if the sub-
division area covers a designated
thoroughfare, such part of this
main artery shall be part of his
Plat and shall be dedicated by
the subdivider.
2. !n the design of the subdi-
vision, provision shall be made
for the proper connections with
axisting streets in adjoining sub-
divisions or for the proper exten-
sion of proposed streets into the
adjoining property where such
adjoining property has not been
subdivided. In considering the
extension of such streets, every
attempt should be made to main-
tain property values in adjoining
subdivisions. (Adjoining develop-
ments of unequal character
should not be united by connect-
ing streets unless it is deemed
necessary in the public interest
for street maintenance, safety
and fire protection to do so.)
3. Street right-of-way widths
shall be designed in accordance
with their character and use. The
following widths are suggested as
minimum right-of-way for var-
ious types of streets:
Right -of -Way
a. Major arteries and
parkways ........................100 feet
b. Secondary and main
thoroughfares ................ 80 feet
c. Neighborhood residen-
tial streets ...................... 60 feet
d. Minor residential
streets .............................. 50 feet
4. It is desirable that all streets
shall intersect as nearly at right
angles as seems practical, taking
other factors into consideration.
5. Minimum center line radii
of local minor streets shall be not
less than 100 feet; centerline radii
of major and secondary thorough-
fares should be rot less than 300
feet.
6. The location of all curved
streets should be so arranged as
to .At the natural topography as
closely as possible and to make
possible desirable land subdivi-
sions and safe vehicular traffic.
7. Terminal residential streets
or cull de -sac should be platted
not longer than 500 feet ur!ess
topographical conditions make a
OX14 0
longer terminal street necessary.
Such cull -de -sac should be avoid-
ed altogether where possible.
8. A turnaround at the erld of
all terninal streets shall be pro-
vided of not less than 100 feet
in diameter at the property line.
9. Street names may be indi-
cated but shall not duplicate nor
resemble too closely names of ex-
isting streets in Orono or in the
metropolitan area. Existing street
names shall be used where the
platted street is a logical exten-
sion of that particular street.
AU*p
1. In general, alleys shall not
be pe- ,itted in a residential sub-
division. Service drives shall be
provided on major thoroughfares.
Where alleys are necessary and
approved by the Council, they
shall be not less than twenty (20)
feet in width. Alleys will be re-
quired in the rear of all lots to
be used for business purposes.
2. Where two (2) alleys inter-
sect, a cut-off of not leas than
ten (10) feet along such property
line from the normal intersection
of the property lines shall be pro-
vided.
3. Dead-end aL'eys shall be
avoided where possible, but if
unavoidable, shall be provided
with adequate turn -around facil-
ities at the dead-end as deter-
mined by the Council.
Easements
Where allays are not provided
at the rear of properties, there
must be provided a public ease-
ment as a part of the plat. The
purpose of such easement is to
provide possible location for util-
ity lines such as sewer, water and
gas and for location of electric
and phone lines. Such easement
shall be not less than five (5) feet
on each side of the lot line, mak-
ing a total of ten (10) feet. No
garages .,or structures shall be
built upon this easement. Ade-
quate easement provisions shall
be rzade for area drainage and
storm water carry off.
Blocks
Considerable latitude as to size
of blocks is deemed desirable by
the Council in order that the
subdivision may be ;Manned in
blocks to suit the topography, the
general character of the site and
the type of development appro-
priate to the locality. With the
increased use of the automobile.
the trend in residential subdivi-
sions has b-en toward a longer
lr. ngth u1 ulock and ■ reduction
Of the percentage of land devoted
to streets. Under certain cond4-
tions, blocks up to 1000 feet or
1200 feet in length may be ac-
ceptable.
Lots
I. Residential lots, as to size
and area, shall be governed by
and subject to the policy of the
Village Council which is hereby
declared to be that all lots con-
form in area to the existing lots
in the general area of the pro-
posEd subdivision and in no
event shall be less than fifteen
thousand (15,000) square feet in
area, and minimum width of one
hundred (100) feet at the build-
ing line, exclusive of any ease-
ment for driveway purposes (util-
ities easement excepte(!).
2. Depth and width of proper-
ties reserved or laid out for com.
mercial and industrial purposes
shall be adequate to provide for
the off-street service and parking
!acilities required by the tvpe of
use and development contemplat-
ed.
3. Each lot shall adjoin upon
a public street and shall have a
minimum width of thirty (.10)
feet at street line. Lots In regis-
tered land surveys may ad)oi-i
upon private streets. Said streets
nonetheless shall comply with
Provisions pertaining to streets
set forth in this ordinance.
4. Double frontage, and reverse
frontage lots, should be avoided
except where essential to provide
separation of residential develop-
ment from traffic arteries or to
overcome specific disadvantages
of topography and orientation. A
Planting screer reservation of at
least ten (10) feet, and across
which there shall be no right of
access, shall be provided along
the line of lots abutting such a
traffic artery or other disadvan-
tageous uses.
5. Side lot lines shall be sub-
stantially at right angles or rad;ai
to street lines.
rlood Areas
Areas within the Jurisdiction of
the Village Council subject to
flood conditions as established by
the Engineer cf the Village of
Orono will not be considered for
subdivision purposes until ade-
quate drainage has been provid-
ed
Planting on Public Property
The planting of trees, type,
spacing, etc., on public property
shall be subject to the regulations
of the Village Council. No plant-
ing, gateways, entrances and sim-
ilar improvements shall be made
on public property except with
Permission and approval of the
Village Council.
Public Open Spaces
It is the declared general polic
of the Village Council that in a,
new subdivisions not less tha,
five per cent of the gross area e
all property subdivided shall b
dedicated for public use, eacl
five per cent being in addition t,
the property dedicated for streets
alleys or other public ways. Thi
Village Council may waive tbu:
requirement if it feels that public
property, other than roads, is ._oi
necessary in connection with thi
subdivision.
The area thus dedicated should
be either usable area or are
which can be put into usable
shape by the subdivider. T2i
subdivider shall leave land so
dedicated in a condition satisfac-
tory to the Village Counc 1.
The varying size of lots, the
size of the subdivision, etc., will
have a direct bearing on the de-
sirability of and the necenity for
such dedication as well or the
size of the piece to be dedicated.
It will be within the discretion
of the Planning Commission to
interpret these regulations in the
light of the overall plan and pat-
tern of park development.
In the interests of the Village
as a whole, and therefore, of
benefit to the sui.division, the
Village Council of Orono is de-
sirous of conserving certain areas
of natural beauty and establish-
ing in various areas the logical
distribution of the following types
Of facilities:
I. Play lots, for preschool chil-
dren.
2 Children's playgrounds, for
chcldren from five to fifteen
years of age to use for active
play.
3. Athletic held, as a specialized
center for organized games
and sports. b
4. Parks, large and small, for
their value in passive recrea.
tion and as a long range pro-
tection from congestion of de-
elopment.
A cooperative interest in this
larger program is sought by the
Village Council and it is expected
the subdivider will aid in assist-
ing to make this achievement
possible.
Platting Procedure
The Council of the Village of
Orono requires that all proposed
subdivisions shall have the prior
approval of the Planning Com-
mission before receiving final ap-
proval by the Council. :t is,
therefore, necessary that certain
steps be taken and data assem-
bled that will enable the Plan-
ning Commission to study the
proposed subdivision in the light
of its relation to the Village plan
for growth and development, and
in the light of the general topog-
raphy and the character of the
development.
s To accomplish this purpose, the
Planning Commission will wish
to submit the preliminary plat to
a their Village Engineer and to
their Consultant for their study
e in field and office and for their
recommendations. This prelim-
inary plat for the consideration
of the Planning Commission shall
be filed with the Village =rigineer
or Planning Commission not less
than five days in advance of a
regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to allow sufficient
time for review, study and a
recommendation pertaining to
this plat, at the next regular
meeting.
Whenever possible, it is desir
able that the preliminary plat be
accompanied by a written state-
ment specifying the intentions of
the owner respecting the pro-
posed character of the develop-
ment, deed restrictions, drainage,
Parks and playgrounds and the
intended date of beginning devel-
opment. He should express his
willingness to proceed to file a
Plat of record of his subdivwon
or such part thereof as he may
wish to put upon the market and
to install all monuments shown
un the plat.
The Planning Commission in
its consideration of the prelim-
inary plat, will take into consid
erat.on the requirements of the
Community and the !lest use of
the land being subdivided par
ticular attention will he g.ven to
the arrangement- location and
widths of streeta, the genera,
drainage situation, lot sires anti
arrangement, as well as any mas-
ter Plan requirements such as
parks, school sites, boulevards,
highways, etc. Adequate street
connections will be required to
insure access and freedom of traf-
fic circulation.
The subdivider, after the ap-
proval of the tentative plat by
the Planting Commission and
prior to the submission of a fnnal
Plat, shall within six rnonths
after Lie date of approval, or
such longer period as the Plan-
ning Commission may grant,
cause the property to be surveyed
in accordance with the approved
tentative plat and any and all
changes therein u approved by
the Planning Commission. The
survey shall be made in accord-
ance with the standard practices
and principles for land surveying
and all monuments shall be sub-
ject to the inspection and ap-
proval of the Village and the
County Authorities before ap-
proval of the Anal plat.
Final plats must be submit;40
to the Village Engineer or Plan-
ning Commission not less than
five days in advance of a regular
meeting of the Planning Commis-
sion for its approval prior to sub-
mission to the Village Council.
The Council requires that all
streets shall be graded and grav-
elled as a part of the develop-
ment. Such work shall be dons
under the supervision of the Vil-
lage Engineer and subject to spec-
ifications prepared by the Village
Engineer xnd placed on file with
the Village Clerk.
Wa7fo: streets
The subdivider shall grade and
gravel streets at his own expet,se.
In case this work is not complet-
ed for a logical reason when the
final plat is present -d, a perform
ance bond with a jurety Com-
pany approves' by the Village
Council shall be furnished before
final plat is accepted.
Boundary Street
The subdivider may petition,
prior to acceptance of the final
plat, that the Krading and gravel-
ling be done by the Village with
full costs amersed against the
benefitted property over a period
not to exceed ten yeasz
Prolleatswy >Plat
Four prints of the preliminary
plat of a proposed subdivision
shall be submitted to the Orono
Planning Commission drawn to
scale either one inch equals on
hundred feet or one-half inch
i
or pertinent information gen-
erally :squired on plats.
17. MW form of approval shall
be as follows:
a. ThLs plat was approved and
accepted by the Village Coun-
cil of the Village of Orono.
Minnesota, at a regular meet-
ing thereof bold this.......... day
al. .......A. D. 10..-.
..» _......» ...................Mayor
..... .._............ »..._..Clark
b. Thk plat was approved by
the 1PlaaainCommission of
the Village of Orono at a reg-
ular meeting thereof heW this
........day Of................A.D. 19.»»
c. Checked and approved this
........day of................A.D. 19...»
County Survtym, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Should any sectioL, paragraph.
clause or condition of thus ordi-
nance be declared by the courts
to be invalid, the same Oall not
affect the validity of the ordi-
nance as a whole or any pert
thereof other than the pert s7
declared to be invalid.
This ordinance shall be pub-
lished in the Minnetonka herald
published at Wayzata. Minnesota
and shall be effective from and
after such publication.
Passed by the Village Council
of the Village of Orono this 12th
day of September, 1955.
A. R. Ross.
Mayor.
Attest: O. L Johnson clerk.
% 9 ,
ORDINANCE NO. 22
borhod and will not have an im-
An Ordinance to Preserve the
mediate and specific adverse
effect upon the public health
Public Health of the Cilisens of
Orono by Regulating the Muu-
-
Section 3. It is recognized that
c.uni Size of Residential Build-
the enforcement of the minimum
Lots
provisions
provisions required by this ordin-
ance with respect to lots held in
WHEREAS, the Village of Or-
single, separate ownership at the
'Lurie of i'iie
ono has no community sewage
paassa'g-e' ofTiis" ordin-
Z
system and depends upon septic
ance might be an arbitrary depri-
tarJu and soil absorption sys-
vation of a valuable right from
said owners. Therefore,
1 �'
terns for the aisposal of waste;
where a
lot
C L
and
which fails to meet the mini-
W H E R E A S , such disposal
mum standards of this ordinance
�Q
methods are apt to create a ser-
is held in a single, separate own-
ious problem affecting the health
ershi rt the time of the
P pas -
of the community where applied
sage of this ordinance, the Coun-
in residential areas serving more
cil may issue a building permit,
than one dwelling per acre; and
provided that "ere will be no
!YHI;R,L.'-,S, other communities
immediate or ., —fle adverse ef-
a
i
have serious health problems by
feet upon the public health.
reason of the enlargement of res-
Section 4. This ordinance su-
idential areas with substandard
ct sizes served by septic tanks
percedes and repeals any provi-
sions in the platting ordinance or
and absorption systems; and
zoning ordinances of the Village (' r
WHEREAS, the Plannirg Cow_
which are inconsistent herewith,
except that
missicn of the Villa&•.: of Orono
provisions o* prior
ordinances establishing higher
has recommended to the Council
(�
that regulations should be estab-
standards than those prescribed
lished now to prevent the same
by this ordinance are continued
sort of serious health problem
in effect.
from arising in the Village of
Section s It is recegnized that
Orono;
the establishment of definite
NOW, THEREFORE, for the
standards for all lots in the entire
sake of the general welfare and
Village is impossible, as there
health of the residents of the
may be, in avery case, reasuns to
Village of Orono, it is ordained
relax the standards, or to en -
as follows:
force stricter standards. The
�_.
Section 1. After thf affective /
Council reserves its discretion to
date of this ordinance :o build-
increase or decrease the stand-
ing permit shall be .ssued for
ards hereby s-t for goon c2use,
the erection of a residence in any
whenever the particular facts of
residential zone of the Village,
the situation convince the Coun-
except upon s building lot con-
cil that the public welfare, and
taining a minimum area of one
particularly the public health, re -
acre, and having a minimum
quire such modification.
width of 140 feet at the building
Section 6. This ordinance shall
line.
be published in the Minaetonka
Section 2. It is recognized that
Herald at Wayzata. Minnesota,
there are several built up resi-
end sh.,ll be effective immediate-
dential areas in the Village which
ly upon such publicatiom
are substandard and overbuilt by
Passed by the Village Council
the terms of this ordinance. In
of the Vilage of Orono this lgth
such areas, building permits may
day of October. 1959, by a vote
be issued for lots not meeting the
cf 4 yeas and No nay&
minimum requirements estab-
H. R. ROSS, Mayor
lished by this ordinance, if the
Village C: uncil feels that such
Attest:
building will conform to the gen-
O. E. JOHNSON, Cleric
era characteristics of the neigh-
(10-15-59)
.It
VILLAGE OF ORONO
R_rSMEIMAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
PURPOSE OF BUILDING �X • ��
A/ - - BUILDER _ / q
%or A/P %cI /( t I,L_
ADDRESS pJ /} n 4- E /o L A' ,v
PHONE No. G k 3 9 0 9
Sec. No. Parcel No.
LAND DEXROT
Size of Lot
' Land Sq. Ft.
Elevation
CONSTRUCTION
Frame c,�
Stucco
Stine
BUILDING; LOCATION
Dts. From Road
Din. Sides
Din. Back
Drainage
Brick. Solid
Brick Veneer
Cement Block
Depth ,
Least Depth
Width
Below Grade
FOUNDATION
Conatryction L �.: -
Size u
DA.iENM
Ground Drainage >
Floor
Beating Poet
Size Spacing
Bps
Size Span
CHROMYS
No.
Type P"
Foundation
Height Above Roof
Smoke Pipe — Distance
From Joists `.
FLOORS
Sub Flooring r
job
Size
Spacing / j
bridging S'
r
Bea• mq VD b i' f.
/! t r4� , .; 'i f r !- - _r
STUDDWGS RAFTERS
CEILIING JOISTS
Size ' - X " /
Size - 7 a Size 1
Spacing
Spacing Spacing
Plates /_
Span Longest Span
Bracing `
EKITS
Basement — No.
six"? `, ` Stairway
lot Floor — No.
Size Stairway
MULATION
Coding C' - =
♦ /J
Walls
ADDR-3S
PHONE NO. PERMIT NO.
Adc:ilion or Subdivision
VENTILATION AND LIGHT —
Percentage of Floor Area Vent.
Percentage of Liqht to F1,Mr Area
LINTELS
Size Y J SpanLocation
WELL TYPE
Construction
_
-
Location /_
/ 7-
SEPTIC TANKS
Size f -
Distance From WO
%-
Con^tructfon v
DRAINt1ELD
Depth
Distance From Well
Width
Distance From Lot Line@/ 4
i
Length
PLMTBING FD(TURF3
Sinks /
Shower /
Laundry J
Toilet 2-
Bath Tub j
Lavatory '
I hereby agree that in case permit is granted all work which
shall be done and all materials which shall be used shall com-
ply with the plans and specific-tions submitted and with all the
ordinances of the Village of Orono applicable thereto.
NOTES:
Receipt No._ -(,—
Bldg. Plumb. Sriy Sewage l,:k —•l Total Sj.�L�
THE SEWAGE SYSTEM INSTALLED BY
NAME_
ADDRESS_._ ----- - - -- - ----- --
Exhibit J
TAX VALUATION HISTORY
Ward Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road
vacant
vacant with house vacant
1.07 acres
0.85 acre 0.91 acre 0.10 acre
YEAR
PID
0007
PID
0008
PID
0009
PID
0010
MKT VALUE TAX
MKT VALUE TAX
MKT VALUE* TAX**
MKT VALUE TAX
TOTAL TAX
(Before Homestead Credit)
1985
5,000
198.60
5.000
198.60
25,000
2,064.62
200
7.94
2,469.76
1984
5,000
205.54
5,000
205.54
25,300
2,121.22
200
8.22
2,540.52
1983
---------------------------------------------------------------
5,000
193.50
5,000
193.50
25,000
2,097.92
200
7.74
2,492.66
1982
10,400
384.30
6,600
243.88
14,100
------------------------------------------------
1,628.12
220
8.12
2,264.42
1981
10,400
354.32
6,600
224.86
14,200
1,534.20
220
7.48
2,120.86
1980
9,200
283.98
5,000
212.98
13,960
1,596.70
200
5.82
2,099.48
----------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12,500)***
1979
5,100
198.42
5,100
198.42
7,070
1,674.92
120
3.88
2,075.64
(5,900)
1978
4,600
163.90
4,600
183.90
6,240
1,688.56
110
3.96
2,060.32
(5,300)
1977
4,200
169.46
4,200
169.46
4,740
1,657.63
110
4.04
2,000.59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4,235)
1976
3,500
151.78
3,500
151.78
++**
1,460.46
90
3.92
1,767.94
1975
3,200
154.14
3,200
154.14
***+
1,457.43
90
4.36
1,770.07
1974
3,200
141.38
3,200
141.38
**+•
1,341.98
90
4.00
1,628.74
*Market value of land portion only
**Tax on land and structures
***Number in parentheses is Limited Value of land portion; Market Value number was calculated
Using the formula: Limited value of land portion
MKT VALUE ------------------------------------ x MKT VALUE land and structures
Limited value of land and structure
""During these years the tax records do not indicate the values of land and structures separately
r-I t-87
CITY of ORONO
1',•%111((pr N.., Mi.('rvm1..1 II.dv. %Iinnrrul..,1:.f;:IaMunto pal ll(fitra
(1n the : t,r1h Sheer ;j Lakr .Nrnnrh,llka
October 26, 1981
Ward Ferrell
3405 Watertown Road
Long Lake, - V 55356
Dear Mr. Ferrell:
I have received your recent letter to the City concerning the lots
you own on Watertown Road. First, let me apologize for not having
time to answer your questions sooner.
As I understand the problem, you own three separate tax parcels,
or lots, on Watertown Road. Your home is on the eastern parcel
with the next two parcels being the open yard area west of your
hope. You now wish to sell one or both of the other parcels for
another building site.
We measure the parcel with your home as about .86 acre in area,
the next parcel as .82 acre, and the western parcel as 1.04 acre,
all exclusive of road right of way. This totals 2.72 acres.
The zoning in you- area since 1975 has required at least 2.0 acres
of land for each house. This is because there is no City sewer
available and each house must maintain its own septic system.
Your three parcels together now comprise one conforming lot.
If any of the parcels were to be sold off, none would meet the
minimum lot area including the one with your home.
Because these lots would be less than the minimum area required,
the City would not issue permits for any new house, whether you
own the lots or if you sold one. There would be no basis for the
City to grant a variance to the zoning area requirements.
The only option would be a general area -wide rezoning. I must
tell you that sucii a prospect is very, very unlikely.
I know this is not the answer you were looking for. Things do
change as the years pass. If you wish to discuss it further,
' a A0411%111INAII()%a4737))8 a PtatK %-IIMKS 4'I'1.°
% S'A BSI " •
C
11
I
.ii. ,yt� APB
gaptember 29. 1961
City of Orono
Orono. Minnesota 55391
X
Nor
S'-/9-87
OCT - s c981 f
I; v OF ORONO
to the summer of 1958, I vent to see GeocZe Hansen to get
a building permit. At that time. I was informed that I had to
e the Council for approval. At the neat meeting I approached
Ne Council for approval. I explained that I had about five
(5) acres of land and I wanted to build at the east end of this
lend. Verb Rose, then Mayor, knew the property and made a
motion to approve the permit. A second motion was about to be
made when Mr. Dugley questioned the legality of two homes on
the some property. He said two houses on a lot of a sun -divi-
sion was not legal. I explained that there wasn't any division
of property and that the houses would be at least 400 feet
apart. I already had a mortgage approval from Midwest Tederal
for an increase in the existing mortgage. The approval was
tabled until legal advice could be obtained from the Village
lawyer.
I waited about two months to hear tie t-.hilts that never
came even when I asked what was going on .� •:Atlled Herb Ross
at work early one Saturday morning and i%ofr:%m.+-•! his I couldn't
wait longer because of winter coming and -av going to start
construction that day.
About two weeks later Herb called and said to stop in and
get a building permit. It was finally approved. At that time
he expressed his wish that I would consider dividing the land
to satisfy Council members and algo a doubtful legal tangle. I
said I would think it over.
When I vent to get the permit from George Hansen I inquir-
ed about restrictions on lot size if I divided the land. He
informed me of no restrictions of lot size, but expressed his
desire to have it at least 140 feet wide at the building site.
Having 693 feet of 'land on the south would have given me 5 or 6
lots. I decided to divide the lard and contacted Gordon Coffin
for survey Finding 5 or 6 lots not appealing to me, I settled
fcr 4 lots. 1 - 150 feet, 2 - 140 feet, and the third I left
263 fe^t for myself. This was accepted by the village and Herb
thanked me for my cooperation with their request.
City of Orono -2- September 29, 1981
When new zoning started and meetings were held for public
response, the question was raised about existing lots (2 -
140 ft.). We were informed that it would not affect existing
lots and had nothing to worry about. I decided to sell a lot
and found a buyer. That party (I was informed) vent to the
City Mall to get information on building restrictions and code
and was informed that a permit would not be issued under any
circumstances because of the lot size (1.25 acres). I was told
that it would be a waste of time even to epprosch the Planning
Board for approval. This was told to as over the phone by JMAJ
at the City Mall.
It s**ss strange that after a request by one Council to
divide land to satisfy the '►illoge and Council members, to have
statements sad* that existing lots would not be affected by new
soning codes, that now a buyer of a vot is told impossible to
build on this lot in Orono.
I would like to sell this lot. The buyer wants to live in
Orono but discouraged by the flat NO by the City for permit
without any exceptions.
I would like this settled so land can be sold. I have
paid taxes on this land since 1949 and expenses to keep it
clean. This amounts to quite a sum of money and time. Then to
hear it can't be used is quite a blow.
You people of the Planning Committee, Council members and
those who work for the City work for the improvement of the
City of Orono. We have land (lots) already plotted but do not
meet new codes. People want to buy in Orono to live here.
These lots should be approved for building. New people develop
more jobs - improvement brings mere revenue for the City. This
in turn helrs the City improve service to the community.
Let's not hinder progre:im, let's get new citizens in Orono
- to move forward let's improve and develop what we have.
Respectfully Ycurs,
i�>kAFT-
A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B)
FILE NO. 990
WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. s- and 462 et.
seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has acc,.ted zoning
regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and
general welfare; and
WHEREAS, Ward Ferrell (hereinafter "the applicant") is the
owner of property located at 3405 Watertown Road within the City of
Orono and legally described as follows:
PARCEL 1 That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township
118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Commencing at a point on
the South line of said Southeast quarter, 50 rods West of the
Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South line 263
feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to the
public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to a point
directly North of the point of beginning; thence South to the
point of beginning. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0009);
and
That part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township 118N,
Range 23W, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the
South line of said Southeast quarter, 50 rods West of the
Southeast corner thereof; thence North 6 rods to the center of
the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to the
South line of said Section 32; thence West to the point of
beginning; excluding the public road. (Also known as P.I.D. #32-
118-23 44 0010); and
PARCEL 2 That part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32,
Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Beginning at a
point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 1088 feet West
of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South
line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to
the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its
intersection with a line drawn North through the point of
beginning at right angles to the South line of said Southeast
quarter; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as
P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0008); and
Page 1 of 9
PARCEL 3 That part of the Southeast quarter of Section 32,
Township 118N, Range 23W, described as follows: Beginning at a
point on the South line of said Southeast quarter, 1228 feet West
of the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along said South
line 140 feet; thence North at right angles to said South line to
the public road; thence Southeasterly along said road to its
intersection with a line drawn North through the point of
beginning at right angles to the South line of said Southeast
quarter; thence South to the point of beginning. (Also known as
P.I.D. #32-118-23 44 0007); and
WHEREAS, for discussion purposes the property has been
defined as 3 separate parcels as described above and per Exhibit A
attached; and
WHEREAS, the applicant .,as applied to the City for variances
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit
the construction of a principal residence structure on a lot
containing approximately 1.04 acres or 52% of the required 2.0 acres
in area and 140 feet or 70% of the required 200 feet of lot width
(Parcel 3); and to further permit the construction of a principal
residence structure on a lot containing approximately 0.85 acres or
42.5% of the required 2.0 acres in area and 140 feet or 70% of the
required 200 feet of lot width (Parcel 2); and requesting Council
approval per Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (C) to separate
non -conforming, undeveloped, substandard, contiguous, unsewered lots
of record under common ownership, which separation would result in
individual building sites not satisfying the lot area and lot width
standards of the Zoning Chapter of the Orono Munc;ipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the
recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission; comments of the
neighboring property owners; and materials and comments made by the
applicant and applicant's attorney.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Orono hereby denies the requested lot area and lot width
variances and denies the request to separate the commonly owned lots
for the property described above based upon one or more of the
following findings of fact concerning this property:
FINDINGS
1. As of January 1, 1975, the property has been zoned RR-lB, Rural
Residential Zoning District, requiring a minimum lot size of 2.0 acres
in area and 200 feet minimum width. Based on the required performance
standards for the RR-lB zoning district, the proposed use of the
property for 2 new residential building sites in addition the one
existing building site would require the following variances:
Page 2 of 9
Parcel 1 (with existing house)
a) Lot Area Required = 2.0 acres
Existing = 1.01 acres or 50.5%
Variance = 0.99 acres or 49.5%
Parcel 2 (vacant)
a) Lot Area Required = 2.0 acres
Existing = 0.85 acres or 42.5%
Variance = 1.15 acres or 57.5%
b) Lot Width Required = 200 feet
Existing = 140 feet or 70%
Variance = 60 feet or 30%
Parcel 3 (vacant)
a) Lot Area Required = 2.0 acres
Existing = 1.04 acres or 52%
Variance = 0.96 acres or 48%
b) Lot Width Required = 200 feet
Existing = 140 feet or 70%
Variance = 60 feet or 30%
2. The property consists of 4 separate tax parcels which are
contiguous and which are owned in common by the applicant. The
property in total contains approximately 2.9C acres and has a width in
excess of 500 feet, Loth respects meeting the area and width
requirements for the single existing residence on the property.
3. Prior to Januaxy 1, 1975, the property was zoned R-lC, effective
since September 14, 1967, a residential zone requiring a minimum of 1
acre i1 area and 140 feet minimum width.
4. Prior t( :eptember 14, 1967, the property was included within the
"Stubbs Bay zoning District", effective since July 10, 1950, a
residential zone requiring a minimum building lot size of 1 acre in
area.
5. The applicant purchased the property in August 1948.
6. Prior to 1958, the property was undivided and contained
approximately 4.19 acres and contained only th,, residence located at
3425 Watertown Road.
Page 3 of 9
7. On September 22, 1958, the City Council approved the request of
Mr. Ferrell to construct a second residence on the undivided property.
The request was granted subject to approval of the Planning
Commission. Subsequently, Mr. Ferrell was issued a building permit to
construct a new residence on October 13, 1958, which residence is now
known as 3405 Watertown Road.
B. Sometime during 1958-1959, Mr. Ferrell subdivided the property so
that 3425 Watertown Road was contained within a separate 1.29 acre
parcel, the new house at 3405 Watertown Road was located on a 1.01
acre parcel (Parcel 1 per attached Exhibit A), and 2 additional
parcels (Parcels 2 and 3 per Exhibit A) were created between 3405 and
3425 Watertown Road.
9. Mr. Ferrell has retained ownership of Parcels 1, 2 and 3 si.nce
their creation as a result of the 1958-59 subdivision.
10. On March 18, 1985, Mr. Ferrell requested City staff to accept a
variance application for approval to construct a new home on Parcel 3.
At staff's recommendation, Ferrell submitted the application as a
zoning appeal in order to be granted a timely review and
recommendation by the Planning Commission without submitting the
complete survey and soil testing information required.
11. Pursuant to the zoning appeal application, the Planning
Commission held a Public Hearing on this matter, Application No. 903,
on April 15, 1985. The Planning Commission confirmed that many
variances were necessary in order to build on either of Parcels 2 or 3
and the Planning Commission gave the applicant the general direction
that Planning Commission would likely only recommend approval of one
new house, and only if Parcels 2 and 3 were combined.
12. The zoning appeal was reviewed by the City Council on May 28,
1985, and the Council affirmed staff's interpretation of the zoning
code that many variances would be necessary in order to build on both
vacant lots, and at that meeting certain individual Council members
stated they would likely consider one additional building site but not
two.
13. On October 9, 1985, Mr. Ferrell submitted a formal application
for variances to build new homes on Parcels 2 and 3. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the matter .:)n Ncvember 18, 1985,
and tabled the application pending submittal of additional required
survey and soil testing information for the existing house on Parcel
1.
14. On February 18, 1986, the Planning Commission_ again reviewed the
completed application. Tre Planning Commission unanimously
recommended denial of 2 new building sites but recommended approval of
1 new building site using the combined Parcels 2 and 3.
Page 4 of 0
15. The City Council reviewed the application on March 10, 1986,
tabling it until April 14, 1986 fc: final action. On April 14, 1986,
the City Council directed staff to draft a resolution of denial based
on the following findings:
a) The extent of the variances requested is excessive for the
RR-lB zoning district.
b) Given the history of septic system problems in the City of
Orono and surrounding Lake Minnetonka, a density of 3 septic
systems on 2.9 acres in a district where 6 acres is required for
3 septic systems, is excessive.
c) Because the property is currently used as conforming
residential building site, the applicant would not be deprived of
a reasonable use of the property.
d) Applicant has not demonstrated sufficient hardships to
justify granting of the requested variances.
At the April 14, 1986 Council meeting the applicant noted his attorney
could not be present at the meeting. The applicant was asked if he
wished to have the matter tabled until his attorney was present.
Applicant waived his right to have his attorney present.
16. The applicant maintains that he divided the property in 1958-59
at the request of then Mayor Herb Ross. Because the zoning code
adopted in 1950 allowed only one residence per building lot, Mayor
Ross would have been legally bound to require that a division be
completed in order to allow the new house which was permitted in 1958.
17. The applicant maintains that the property was divided in a manner
such that new homes could be built on each of Parcels 2 and 3
according to City codes at the time of division. In fact, Parcel '2
does not and never did contain the 1 acre in area required under
previous zoning of the property.
18. The applicant has provided soil testing, proposed septic system
designs, and proposed site plans for each of Parcels 2 and 3 which
indicate that technically, septic systems can be provided to serve a
residence on each of Parcels 2 and 3, meeting the required sanitary
setbacks. However, technical feasibility is not the only criteria
considered by the City in reviewing variance applications, and in this
case and other similar cases, the City has also con-idered, as a
matter of policy, the potential adverse effect of higher density
housing on the quality of Lake Minnetonka and the potential adverse
effect on the general health, safety, and welfare.
Page 5 of 9
19. The applicant maintains that when the zoning was proposed to be
changed from R-lC (1 acre) to RR-lB ( 2 acre) in L974, he attended the
public hearings and was told that his lots would still be buildable
under the new zoning. This occurrence has not been documented by the
applicant nor can it be verified by the City. Whether or not it
occurred, the Zoning Code adopted by the City Council would be
binding. Mr. Ferrell was notified in writing by the City in 1981,
upon inquiry, that under the current code, no building permits for a
new house would be issued, and tnat no basis existed for the granting
of variances.
20. The 1967 Zoning Code,which designated the property as R-lC, 1
acre, 140 foot width, stated as follows regarding existing lots of
record:
31.200. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon September
14, 1967 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single
separate ownership in a "R" Residential District, which does not
meet the requirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may
be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose
provided that in the judgment of the Council such use does not
adversely affect public health or safety. Single separate owner-
ship includes joint ownership by not more than two persons.
The 1967 Code di3 not discuss common ownership properties nor did it
differentiate between sewered and unsewered lots of record. However,
by using the term "Single Separate Ownership", it implied that other
types of ownership would be treated differently but did not define in
what way. Under this code, the appl.`.cant would have been allowed to
build on Parcel 3 without a variance because the lot met the standards
of the R-lC zoning district. Parcel 2 would have required a lot area
variance in order to be legally buildable.
21. The Zoning Code adopted January 1, 1975, which declared the
property to be zoned RR-lB, 2 Acre Single Family Residential, stated
as follows regarding existing lots of record:
31.201. Existing Lots. A lot of record existing upon January 1,
1975 (the effective date of the Zoning Code) under single
separate ownership in an "R" District, which does not meet the
requirements of the Zoning Code as to area or width may be
utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose provided
that in the judgment of the Council such use does not adversely
affect public health or safety and the following requirements are
met:
31.203. In "R" districts of Greater Than One Acre. A lot
of record in any "R" D4 -trict in the City in excess of one
acre, which does n(,' Pet the requirements of this Zoning
Code as to area ..idth only, may be utilized for single
family det=.ched dwelling pur;-)cses if the Council finds:
Page 6 of 9
IR
1) it Is at least one acre in size, and the average
width of the lot is at least 100 feet; and
2) it is either served by public sanitary sewer or
meets all the septic system requirements of the City or
other governmental body; and
3) it otherwise meets the requirements of this or
other applicable ordinances.
Under this Code, the Council, at their option, could have granted a
lot area variance for a lot of single separate ownership, but the Code
again did not specifically discuss any standards for the separation of
commonly owned lots.
22. City policy regarding the separation of unsewered, undeveloped
substandard, contiguous lots in common ownership was clearly defined
by an action of the City Council in 1981, in which the separation of a
developed 1.4 acre lot from the adjacent vacant 1.7 acre, 120.3 foot
wide vacant lot in the LR-IA 2-acre, 200 foot width, unsewered zone
was denied. (Application No. 635, Council action to deny on October
26, 1981, based on: a) lack of demonstrated hardship; b) no
sanitary sewer available; c) .nsufficient area; d) insufficient
width.
23. The 1984 Zoning Code amendments included the addition of Section
10.03, Subdivision 6 (C), which prohibited the "transfer or sale of
non -conforming, undeveloped lots not served by pudic sanitary sewer,
aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private
road or road easement and under same or commcn ownership" unless
specifically approved by the City Council, or unless the resulting
lots satisfy the area and width requirements of the Zoninq Code. No
performance standards for approval of such transfers appear in the
code.
24. At least 13 properties or groups of properties in a situation
similar to Ferrells with a high potential for request of similar
variances have been identified within the City of Oronc.
25. Since January 1, 1975, when the 2 acre RR-1B zoning district
became effective, no permits have been issued for ^ew residences on
commonly owned substandard lots in the RR-1B district. Of 153 new
residence permits issued in the RR-lB district from 1/1/75 to 5/l/86,
145 permits have been issued for conforming lots, 7 permits have been
issued for substandard lots of record in single separate ownership due
to the inability of applicants to combine or acquire additional land
to create conforming lots, and 1 permit was issued to demolish and
rebuild on a substandard single separate ownership lot where a house
was already existing. The City of Orono has consistently denied
permits for substandard lots owned in common with adjacent developed
lots in the RR-iB district.
Page 7 of 9
26. The City Council has always required that when two or more
unsewered lots are owned in common, each lot must individually meet or
exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can
be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common
must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the
requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon.
27. The granting of such a variance would require amending the many
sections of the Comprehensive Plan that govern the rural development
of the City. The City of Orono has been consistent in requiring a
niinimum of two acres for a buildable lot in the rural areas of the
City where there is no sewer service.
28. In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds
that to establish a precedent that would allow severely substandard
lots to be developed to be in complete conflict with the established
environmental standards for rural development within the City and to
be detrimental to the public, health, safety and welfare. The City
also looks to the broader, environmental principals and goals setforth
in its Community Management Plan and the intent of th.- specific zoning
district when dealing with matters related to the public, health,
safety and welfare. Issues involving the public health, safety and
welfare are not only resolved in securing the obvi.ous traffic and
drainage concerns of surrounding property owners but tt< City also
must provide its citizens with a designated and approved opt.i.mum level
of density, open space and quality of life.
29. The granting of such a variance would require the rezoning of the
property to an urban lot size in addition to requiring the extension
of City services to the property to maintain a suitable lc,.vt of fire
protection.
30. The granting of such a variance would require the extension of
City water and sewer to maintain the standards setforth in the Orono
Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan for an urban sized lot.
31. In granting such a variance, Council would abandon a
longstanding, consistent policy in consideration of the buildability
of substandard lots under common ownership and thereby _stabli.sh an
adverse precedent.
32. Denial of the subject variances would not constitute a taking of
property or loss of substantial value because Parcels 2 and 3 have
always had value and have been used as required area fcr the residence
on Parcel 1.
33. The intent of the application is contrary to the letter and
Orono Comprehensive Plan.
Page 8 of
34. The variances would have an adverse effect upon the health,
safety and welfare of the community for the reasons outlined herein.
35. The amour* of light and air in the neighborhood would be
diminished by _ng a structure on the substandFrd lot.
36. The values of surrounding properties will be adversely affected.
37. There are no special conditions applying to the land in question
which are peculiar to the land or irlmediat�.-ly adjoining property.
38. The granting of the application is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant.
39. The granting of the variances will serve mainly as a convenience
to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable
hardship or difficulty.
40. In order to put everyone on notice that the above referenced
substan3ard lots in common ownership must remain under common
ownership to maintain the existing house as a conforming use, Council
hereby directs the City staff to file such notice against the
properties legally ueszribed herein.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota,
at a regular meeting he. . *.ay 27, 1986.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Mary C. Butler, Mav,r
Page 9 of 9
L � H
gv.J�
G�Y�
Xdip
g.e
_fell
z
Ex ti lair
o
12Esc�ur�oN No.
N
1•
•s
x
Pµ
V
y..awitla�-
' 7 Z 1 �yOdOf�a
�f •� C �\ y •. I r"" � t�
�� t^'•\�\\ o � � i I c�eoaMd
•• • �� ��(ti i�'1 a I w
� x
\` /
/�� '�9,�, t �s�9 • I oaaoaoaa I, I i
TOO
CV—
♦, y I �J1N�3-�htl I -"I �', I �
• ` - - - � - - - _ s�wy� o�� oaoid
iy
G� J � tr�oaofy �— _ _ � I -�►sv y►tl tl I V
3 /I I 1 7i •t L-
00".7W0'k1 'a'i` HwV�i
YU 1219,19
A RESOLUTION GRANTING r'+' � OF 'C RUNu
A VARIANCE TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B)
FILE #1303
WHEREAS, Allan & Shirley Rezabek (hereinafter "the applicants")
are the owners of the property located at 1989 Fagerness Point Road within
the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows:
Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) to permit the
installation of a privacy fence at approximately 6' in height that was
found to be located 6 to 9 inches within the boundaries of the property to
the south upon a recent Court Order Determining Boundaries and subsequent
filing with the Registrar of Titles, to be placed 10' from the west
shoreline, and 35' from the east shoreline i* 'id of 75' as required by
the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1303.
2. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore
Residential Zoning ' 'strict requiring 21,780 s.f. or .5 acres in area.
The property consis.. of approximately 20,291 s.f. or .46 acres.
3. On January 21, 1988, a petition of an Order Determining Boundaries
with the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District re -defined the
boundaries of the property.
4. The privacy fence, that was assumed located within the defined
boundaries of the property, was now found to be located within 6 to 9
inches within the newly defined boundary of the property to the south.
5. The existing fence adjacent to the south property line is located
10' from the west shoreline and 35' from the east shoreline.
6. In order to re -install the privacy fence within the newly defined
;.orders of the property, the above referenced ordinance would require
that the applicants apply for lakeshore setback variances in order to
install the existing fence.
Page 1 of 4
7. The same type of privacy fencing is installed along the north side
line of the property.
8. The plight of the applicants is due to circumstances unique to
their property and has not been created by the applicants.
9. The approval of this variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality, as the existing fence has existed within
the approximate location or over 20 years.
10. The granting of this variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants.
11. The granting of this variance will not in any way impair the
health or safety of the general public or in any other respect be
contrary to the intent of the zoning code.
12. The granting of this variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship. The unique findings and special conditions
applicable to this fence structure are unique to this property and
such conditions are not common in the overall community.
14. The City Council has considered this application including the
findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by
City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed
variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
15. 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demon-
strable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono
City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section
10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) to permit the installation of an existing fence
within the newly defined southern boundary of the property, approving
lakeshore setback variances of 65' or 87% from the west shoreline and 40'
or 53% Zrom the east shoreline, subject to the following conditions:
Page 2 of 4
1. The applicants and/or future owners of the property are placed on
notice that the re -installation of new fence sections or the
structural repair/replacement of parts of the existing fence will
require the approval of the City. The City prefers and will strongly
encourage the placement of the deteriorating fence sections with
nature plantings for future screening purposes.
2. Authorities granted with 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 (September
12, 1988).
3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and
conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the
zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted
herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
4. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree
to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their
heirs, Puccessors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this
resoluf n in the chain of title of the property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of September,
1988.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor
Property Owner(s)
Page 3 of 4
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 be the
person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing strument,
and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his
(their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
rage 4 of 4
Resolution No.
EXHIBIT A
That part of Lot 1, Fogernesa including accretions thereto and that part of Let ?fir rwrfirea IneleAing secretions lhe►ete
•11 described as convencine at the most Southerly corner of Lot 21 ►agerness; tlw oce Southeasterly 50 feet sleei5 the extension Of the
Southwesterly line el said Lot 2; thence deflecting to tha right 15 der
ree• b6 minutes a distance of 71.66 feet to the aetmal pint of
►eginnlnCl sold last described line hereinafter to be referred to as lira "A"1 thence deflecting to the left 90 degrees to the sbere
of Lake Cinnotenksl thence !tortherly along said shore to Its Intersection --ith the Southeasterly estenslen of the Southwesterly line
of said Let 2; thence northwesterly along sold extension and along said Southwesterly line to a pint thereon distant 65 feet Earth -
westerly from the mat Loutherly corner of sAIA Lot 21 thence Westerly defleetlnr to the left it degrees to the there of 10.e Mlreretentaa
t!.ence f outherly alone sold shore to Its Intersection with a line drawn Westerly at a right onele to said line "A" frod the actual pint
of tosinr.ing; thence East to the actual point of ber.Innine.
fub,leet to an a%sement for ingress and egress for the benefit of the owner of that part of Lots 1 and 26 which adjoin abe" lent
on the south over that portion of above land described as (allows. -
That part of Lot 1 including srcretlona thereto, Fagernese described as commencing at the swot Southerly corner of Let !,
Fegerness; thence Southeasterly along the extenslon of the Southeaaterly line of sold Lot 2, a distance of 50 feet to the actma:
point of bet;Inr.in5; thence Southerly deflectlnr to the right 65 degrees 46 minutes, a distance of T7.66 feet; thence tatterlj► ai
an angle of 90 degrees to the chore of Lake Mlnnetonkal thence fiorlherly alone said shore to Its Intersection with the Sootb-
easterly extension of the "^uthwesterly line of said Lot 2; thence northwesterly to the actual point of beginning. Also
.,ubject to the governmental and sovereign rights of the State of Minnesota In that part of said land lying between the ordinary
high vatcr nark and the ordinary low water mark of said Lake Minnetonka. Also
Together with an eesemrnt for Ingress' and egress across the following described tract of land; That part of Under the Linden
Avenue vaceted lncludirW accretions thereto described an beginning at the most Easterly corner of Let 2, Fsgerness; thenea Southerly
to a point In the extension of the Southwesterly line of self Let 2, distant 50 feet Southeasterly from the most Southerly corner of
said Lot 21 thence Southeasterly alone sold extension a distance of 15 feet; ti,ence Northerly to a point In the Southeasterly extension
of the llortheseterly line of said Lnt 2 distant 15 feel Southeasterly from the point of beginning; thence Northwesterly to said pint
of beginning as shown In deed Dec. No. 772606, Files of liegletrar of title$.
vLl� 1� 19�:8
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson Ciff OF OROW
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
Date: September 8, 1988
Subject: #1311 John & Susan Purdy, 1975 Fagerness Point Road -
Variance
Application - Renewal and revisions of variances granted in 1985 to
construct additions to residence. Variances required: lakeshore
setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Applicants' Letter of Request Submitted 9/8/88
Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/18/88
Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes of 8/15/88
Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 8/11/88
Discussion -
Please review the memo and exhibits of August 11, 1988. The
applicants are proposing to construct an addition on the lakeshore side of
their home which will reduce their west lakeshore setback to 51' where the
existing house is already only 55' from the shoreline. This proposal also
involves an increase in hardcover in both the 0-75 and 75-250' setback
zones. Further, the proposed addition will encroach approximately 10'
additionally past the average lakeshore setback line.
The Planning Commission, at their August meeting, recommended 6-0 to
deny the application due to the potential of setting a precedent by
allowing construction closer to the lakeshore than the existing house, when
the exiscing house already has a substandard setback. Please review the
Planning Commission Action Notice dated 8/18/88.
The applicants have provided a memo stating their position. This memo
presents their claimed hardships and rationale for granting a variance.
Staff would note for the record that based on the staff memo of August 11,
1988, staff has not "approved" this application nor recommended approval,
as the applicants state in their memo. Staff has recommended some proposed
conditions to the Planning Commission if the Planning Commission recommends
approval.
Zoning File #1311
September 8, 1988
Page 2 of 2
The applicants are suggesting that with removal of the 52 s.f. storage
building and the fenced kennel area southwest of the house, that the
proposed addition will increase the hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone by
only 83 s.f. Per Exhibits D & G of the staff memo of August llth,
presuming that areas of permeable fabric under rock are considered as non -
hardcover, staff would view the 0-75' hardcover increase as 153 s.f. Then,
removal of the 52 s.f. storage shed would leave a net 0-75' hardcover
increase of 101 s.f. In the scheme of things, the 18 s.f. difference
between their calculation and staff calculation amounts to about 0.2%.
Staff Recommendation -
The Planning Commission recommendation of denial was due mainly to tr
fact that in contemporary times the City has held fast to the concept that
no house additions should decrease already substa.-idard lakeshore setbacks,
and has been consistent with that policy in this very neighborhood. The
Planning Commission felt that approving the Purdy's request would set a
precedent that weakens the City's position in dealing with substandard
lakeshore setbacks. However, the tenor of the Planning Commission
discussions was that given the applicants' stated hardships, the additional
hardcover proposed does not place a significant burden on the property, and
that the average setback encroachment has little impact on neighbors' views
of the lake.
Staff recommends that Council Members view this property and review
the memos and exhibits provided. Staff concurs with the Planning
Commission recommendation.
A resolution reflecting Council's final action on this matter will be
drafted for formal adoption at your next meeting.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
��G %LS
SEP - 8 M
Mayor James Grabek
Members of the Orono City Council
Susan and John Purdy
1975 Fagerness Point Road
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE LAKE SHORE SETBACK GUIDELINES TO
CONSTRUCT A THRLEE-SEASON PORCH AND BATHROOM ADDITION
Summary of Actior. To Date:
• Approved by the City Staff with conditional actions recommended.
• Denied by the Planning Commission due to "desire that no additional structural
encroachment should be allowed closer to the lake shore than the existing
house". (Notice of Planning Commission Action Date 8/18/88.)
Position of Applicants:
We feel that a variance is warranted. The property is unique .nd the configuration
of the house and it's position on the lot create hardships that necessitate
construction of the addition as proposed.
• Hardships
- Location of the house on the lot -- The house was built in the early 1900's
in the logical position for any structure but weil within what was to become
the 0-7 5' setback zone.
- Orientation and topography of the lot --The slope of the lot is eastward
with the house oriented westward toward the lake views. Expansion of the
house in any other direction would require significant excavation and would
not maximize the view of the lake. Also, the western side of the house has
substantial natural vegetation that affords both shading and privacy.
- Internal configuration of the !souse -- Given the external design and
internal arrangements of the rooms and utilities, expansion in anv other
direction thin the one proposed would be costly and disruptive.
• Proposal
- If a setback variance is granted, we would remove two permanent
structures that are closer to the lake than the proposed addition: l ) A
storage shed, and; 2 A fenced kennel that is being used for storage, both
of which were standing when we purchased the house in 1973.
• Rationale for Granting a Variance
- The proposed addition is the only reasonable and affordable design to
accomplish our purposes.
The elimination of the two structures would enhance the neighbors' view of
the lake and the lake users' view of the property.
* The proposed addition would not be visible to the two adjacent
neighbors.
* Because of the natural vegetation, the proposed addition would not be
clearly visible from the lake.
* The only structures on the property clearly visible from the lake are the
storage house and the fenced kennel.
The proposed addition would also require the elimination of a spaced
wooden deck and a small concrete slab that represent hard cover within 75'
of the lake. Thus, the addition would increase the hardcover in the 0-75'
zone by only 83 sq. ft.
The proposed addition is consistent with our five year plan .and represents
significantly less hardcover than the proposed addition in that 5-year plan
submitted with our variance application in 1985.
- Adjacent home has a free-standing structure which serves as a three season
porch which is closer to the lake than the proposed addition. The structure
was built before 1975. It represents the easternmost structure on the lot
and should be used in determining the average setback of adjacent
residences.
ZONING FIII NO.1311
CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 8-18-88
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: John & Susan Purdy COPIES TO:
1975 Fagerness Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance
-----------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 8-15-88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against
Planning Commission recosm�ends the following:
Denial for reasons noted below
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Denial recommendation was based on Planning Commission's desire that
no additional structural encroachment should be allowed closer to the
lakeshore than the existing house. It appeared that while the hardships of
lot size, existing house location and the limited building envelope might
have been persuasive as far as hardcover percentages were concerned, (in
conjunction with the potential for removal of small buildings on the
property), Planning Commission was unanimous in not wanting to set a
precedent with the requested additional lakeshore setback variance.
Applicant i next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
City Council September 12, 1988; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. Any
additional information you wish to present for City Council
review should be in this office by 9-2-88.
If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission
minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1321 CONTINUED
access to all new residential development. Johnson said that the
School District could vacate the road if they do not need to use
it when the four parcls are acquired by the School District.
.Kelley stated that he would like to see a topographical map
of the area, along with other planning criteria. Moos asked if
it would not be most beneficial to the owners to have the parcel
platted in case the School District did not follow through with
the purchase of the entire parcel. Kelley asked whether the
applicant wanted the Planning Commission to vote on the
information as presented and forward it to the City Council.
Applicant stated that he wanted them to vote and send the matter
to the City Council.
There were no .:omments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Bellows. seconded by Cohen, to recommend
denial of the request for a ariance on the grounds that the
request does not meet the required standards. The Planning
Commission recommended that the parcel in question be properly
subdivided to ensure that future planning needs of the City are
met regardless of the disposition of the property. Motion,
Ayes-5, Johnson=hay. Johnson suggested that the Commission
approve this matter conditioned upon restrictive covenants as to
transference of`the remining..,parcels B, C, and D.
#1311 JOHN i SUSAN PURDY \
1975 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD
VARIANCES f
(.....,.PUBLIC HEARING 8:05 P.M. - 8:20 P.N.
J)kffidavit-of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
Mr. and Mrs. Purdy were present for this matter.
Gaffron explained that the applicants were seeking variances
for the purpose of adding a screen porch to their home on the
lakeshore side. The Purdys were granted a variance back in 1985
to put an addition on the street side of their home. Applicants
are in need of a hardcover variance as well as a variance to
encroach in the average lakeshore sat:ack and lakeshore setback.
The Purdys had a 5 year plan at on- toint that has since been
revised. The existing hardcover calculation in the 0-75' zone is
15.4% and does not include the permeable fabric underneath the
rockbeds. Applicants are requesting an increase in hardcover t-)
17.31. In the 75-250' zone, the requested increase in hardcover
is 19.9% from 19.11.
Kelley asked the applicants if they would like to present
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1311 CONTINUED
their matter. Mr. Purdy stated that they had revised their
proposal from what they had submitted in 1985. He did not think
that the addition would interfere with drainage because runoff
flowed east from the addition. The addition would not be visible
to any of their neighbors, and would not interfere with any of
the neighbor's view of the lake. Due to the internal
configuration of their home, the addition, as proposed, is
necessary. Their house is 80 years old and there is no other
logical location for the addition. Mr. Purdy felt that the
addition would not be detrimental to the lake, nor to the
neighborhood. Mrs. Purdy added that the screen potn would be
virtually invisible from the lake, and would aesthetically
improve the house. She stated that they needed the added
bathroom because they have a teenager. Mr. Purdy stated that the
average lakeshore setback is skewed somewhat because the house to
the south of them is built on the road. This made their pr^pertl
inconsistent with any of the neighboring properties.
Bellows asked applicants if they had considered building the
addition along the side of the house where the kitchen and family
room were located. Mr. Purdy said that they had considered the
plan, but there is a large zounter area in the kitchen that would
limit access to the porch and bathroom. The only other possible
access would be through the family room, but that would limit the
light in the kitchen and not be as aesth-�tically pleasing.
Bellows stated that she did not see a hardship in this matter.
Mr. Purdy said that the proposed plan would allow access to the
bathroom from the living room and dining room and access to the
porch would be through an existing doer. This would not be
possible if they built the addition on the kitchen side of the
house. Mrs. Purdy added that the proposed plan would allow them
to view the lake from their porch, which is a rightful be.. :fit of
living on Lake Minnetonka. Kelley asked if applicants would then
request to add a deck to their proposed porch. Mr. Purdy stated
that they had no future plans to add a deck to their 3-season
porch.
Bellows stated that she did not like the fact that
applicants were back before the Planning Commission with a more
ambitious plan than the one they proposed in 1985. Mr. Purdy
stated that the plan they now proposed was less ambitious. Their
requests in 1985 included an extension to the garage and house.
Kelley asked applicants why they could not turn their deck into a
3-season porch. Mr. Purdy stated that such a plan would not give
them the required space they need. Mrs. Purdy added that they
really need the bathroom. They currently have only jne bath and
a half and have no bath on the main level.
Brown asked applicants how this plan varied from the
original plan submitted in 1985. Mr. Purdy stated that the
original plan had all of the additions on the south aide. Mrs.
Purdy stated that after they had added the family room, the}
MINVTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1311 CONTINUED
discovered there was a greater need for the 3-season porch and
bathroom, rather than enhancing the master bedroom.
Bellows stated that the Planning Commission members have a
real problem dealing with the concept of a 3-season porch. They
look at them as being an addition to the house. Mrs. Purdy
stated that they agreed with that. Cohen added that the bathroom
on' confirms that. Bellows stated that it was more difficult to
approve that than a screened porch. Mrs. Purdy asked why.
Bellows replied that the 3-season porch was adding to the floor
structure and mass of the house, and they are asking to do the
addition in an area where they should not be building at -all.
She added that if the applicants were requesting approval of a
screened porch, the Planning Commission would have an easier time
with the deliberations season porch is in fact an addition to
the house.
Kelley .inquired as to the original sizr.; of the house when it
was purchased by the Puruys. Mrs. Purdy stated that the only
addition to the house in 15 years was the addition to the front.
Cohen stated that he empathizeu with •pplicants' situation, but
he felt that there was no demonstrate rdshi2 and was afraid of
setting a precedent. Mr. Purdy stat, that in their proposed 5
year plan they intended to add two larger, very permanent
strurtuies to the house than what they were now seeking. What
they are requesting should carry them through the next 6 years
until their children are grown. Mrs. Purdy added that when they
were before the Planning Commission in 1985, they were given the
reverse precedent -setting argument and were told it did not
matter what had Previously been done, each case was looked upon
individually. GaftLcrn interpreted Cohen's comments to mean that
if the Purdys were allowed to build further lakeward from the
existing house, that would be unusual for Fagerness Point Road.
All other additions done in that area over the last 10 to 15
years have been done behind the lii.e of the existing Ouse.
Bellows stated that the'. was the problem, especially since there
were other alternatives. Mr. Purdy stated that if hardcover near
the lake was a concern they had a storage structure and a kennel
area, now classified as hardcover, that they would be willing to
remove.
There were no further public comments and the public hearing
was closed.
It was moved by Brown, seconded by Kelley, to recommend
denial of the variances for #1311, based upon settiry a precedent
for encroaching into the Lakeshore setback area. Kelley added
that he felt there were other alternatives. Bellows stated that
she could not find a hardship in this matter. Applicant added
teat the hardship is that the house is 80 years old and they have
exceeded its capacity. There is no other plan that would allow
them as much useful space as the plan they now proposed. Gaffron
9
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MERTIMG.HRLD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING PILE4131.1 CONTINUED
asked applicants if they would prefer tabling this matter so they
could present a revised plan at a later meeting? Applicants
wanted the Planning Commission to vote on the matter as currently
proposed. Motion,'Ayes-6, Nays=O, Motion passed.
#1312 WILLIAM J. LAUER
3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING 8:25 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
Applicant was present for this matter.'
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the applicant was
seeking approval for a hardcover variance for an addition that
will not encroach in the average lakeshore setback or 75'
Lakeshore setback areas. The variance would allow a 1.89%
hardcover increase in the 75-250' setback area. The project will
not require major excavation or land alterations.
Bellows asked for readable plans. Mabusth stated that the
sketch showing the proposa was staff's sketch. An updated
survey showing the driveway was not submitted with the
application. Bellows admonished the Zoning Department for
accepting incomplete plans. Applicant stated that he was not
aware that the City required any further information. Mabusth
noted for both applicant and Commission members that the land use
application clearly states that a survey is required. Kelley
suggested revising the variance application. He wanted to change
item #4 under "Required Submittals" to include the language
"current and proposed".
Mr. Lauer stated that he had reviewed the staff's drawings
and felt that they were correct. Mabusth stated that the
applicant showed 245 s.f. more hardcover than staff's
calculations. Johnson asked if the 1.89% hardcover increase was
based upon staff's calculations? ' Mabusth stated that the
percentage was based upon applicant's calculations, staff's
percentage was less.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend
approval of #1312, per staff's recommendations and option B
regarding conditions of approval. Cohen asked Mabusth what
pei centage of hardcover needed to be removed from the 21-� 0-500'
zone. Mabusth stated that applicant could remove 1.89% hardcover
by removing accessory structures in the 250-500' zone. Mabusth
asked applicant if he was familiar with the language preceded
with an asteri►c that stated that the hardcover variance was
10
TO: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley
Planning Commission Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
FROM: Michael Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator
DATE: August 11, 1988
SUBJ: #1311 John & Susan Purdy; 1975 Fagerness Point Road
Variance - Public Hearing
APPLICATION: Renewal and revisions of variances granted in 1985,
to construct additions to residence.
VARIANCES REQUIRED: Lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback,
and hardcover.
ZONING DISTRICT: LR-lC, singe family, 1/2 acre, sewered
LIST OF EXHIBITS
A - Application and hardcover position paper
B - Plat Map
C - Property Owners List
D - Updated Survey with Hardcover Calculations
E - Average Lakeshore Setback Diagram
N - Proposed Addition Plans
G - Net Hardcover Revision Plan at Addition Location
H - Previous Variance Approval Resolution #1814
I - Previous Hardcover Review, 1985
PERTINENT FACTS:
1. In 1985, the Cour^il approved variances for hardcover in the 0'-
75' and 75'-250' zones and granted approval for additions which partially
encroached into the 0'-75' and average lakeshore setback zones. Because of
the applicants' phased plan of additions, the variance allowing certain of
the additions has expired. Also, the i )plicants have slightly revised
their proposal to include a room addition that will be approximately 51'
from the west lakeshore, whereas the closest point of the existing house is
approximately 55' from the shoreline.
2. The applicants have removed plastic from virtually all of the pre-
existing rockbeds, and have replaced it with a permeable fabric. A site
inspection by Staff directly after a downpour indicated that the permeable
fabric definitely allows rainwater to pass through and into the ground.
Current hardcover percentages, excluding tt rockheds with fabric under
them, are as follows:
0' - 75': 15.4% (1213 sq. ft.)
75' -250': 19.1% (1689 sq. ft.) 3 -
Zoning File #1311
August 11, 1988
Paage 2 of 3
If the Council continues to treat such rockbeds/permeable fabric as
hardcover, the percentages are as follows:
0' - 75': 21.6% (1708 sq. ft.) ---'
75' -250': 28.2% (2493 sq. ft.)
3. The proposed addition encroaches approximately 10' additional
distance past the average lakeshore setback line. However, due to
topography and site layout, no lake views enjoyed by either adjacent
property owner will be decreased due to the proposed addition.
4. The applicants have given no written justification or hardship for
their request to expand the house toward the lake. Staff would anticipate
that floor layout of the house, topography generally sloping eastward, and
substantial natural screening along the west lakeshore, might all be
suggested by the applicants as justification f,)r the request.
5. The current proposal would require a revision to the 0'-75'
hardcover maximum previously approved for this property, since the existing
house, proposed addition and lakeshore deck and stairs in total comprise a
larger square footage of permanent structural hardcover than was previously
approved for the 0'-75' zone. Again, the justification that was previously
used, and which may still be valid, is that the bulk of the rainfall that
hits the existing house and proposed addition generally flows or can be
directed to flow eastward through the front yard area.
DISCUSSION:
As of this writing, applicants were out of town and could not be
r4ached for discussion of the project. The previous hardcover variance
review of this property was quite rigorous, and the applicants have
included a letter from that previous application which states their
position regarding hardcover.
To date, the applicants have complied with the letter and intent of
the 1985 variance approval. City Staff continue to support the concept
that landscape beds underlain by permeable, geotechnical fabric certainly
will meet the intent of the hardcover ordinance if properly used and
maintained. The applicant is advised that the current City Council has
taken a conservative position on the use of permeable fabric under
landscape areas, and generally continues to treat such areas as hardcover,
because it is virtually impossible for City Staff to enforce the
maintenance of those areas as non -hardcover.
Working under the assumption that the applicants' landscape areas with
fabric are not hardcover, the current proposal results in an increase in
hardcover in the 0'-75' zone over what was previously approved.
Notwithstanding the hardcover issue, the proposal does ask for additional
encroachment near the lake on the west side, within the 0'-75' zone. The
City has generally encouraged property owners in similar situations to
Zoning File #1311
August 11, 1988
Page 3 of 3
construct new additions either outside the 0'-75' zone or no closer to the
lake than the existing house. There is no question that this property has
unique circumstances compared to most other lakeshore in Orono, but is
certainly typical of other Fagerness Point properties that have lake on
both ends of the lot. Looking at the other variances granted for
properties "up and down the line" from Purdy's, the addition of above -grade
structure closer to the west lakeshore than the existing house has no
precedent ssfnce adoption of the 75' setback in 1975. Certainly, a file
search would likely reveal a few such approvals in other areas of the City
since 1975, but it would be unusual in this immediate neighborhood.
STAFF RNCONMSNDATION
From the standpoint of hardcover and runoff, it would seem that the
proposed additions can be constructed such that roof drainage can be
directed eastward, and with the use of permeable fabric rather than plastic
under decorative rockbeds, rainfall infiltration can be maximized, hence
this addition can be completed in a manner that will meet the hardcover
intent of Resolution #1814, if not the actual percentages previously
approved.
From the standpoint of view encroachment due to additional above -grade
structure in the average lakeshore setback zone, the proposed addition will
have an insignificant effect on views currently enjoyed by neighbors. From
the standpoint that this addition will create additional above -grade
structure closer to the west lakeshore than the existing house, this would
be an unprecedented approval in the immediate neighborhood. Planning
Commission must determine whether a reasonable hardship exists and whether
the lakeshore setback variance is justified. If the Planning Commission
recommends approvai, Staff would suggest conditioning that approval on
limiting the height of the structure to just the single story proposed at
this time, and that all roof drainage be directed to the east side of the
property.
Planning Commission may also wish to consider structural trade-offs of
the various sheds on the property, not only west of the house, but at the
Lakeshore east of Fagerness Point Road, which according to plat maps, is
still "no-man's-land".
---, ,� ; ��•J `� %mot � . 'T"^ �� c �. c �
LiILI-
o �-
^ �..:.
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $150.00
($50.00 per each additional va e)
Renewal Variance Fee $75.00
(no change from original application)
After -the -Fact Fees (Double application
---------------------------------------
fee)
-------------------
PROPERTY LOCATION L'Z i , O ONO
Site Address— ae4,eLL, ri.A.441,�„ C�'
il
Property Identification dumber (P.I.D. ) � rc:; '``, `V
J l✓ L J 1 I 't ✓
Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? 01 0J' 1 01
?,lL f r f AA
Attach legal descrip;:ior•. to application if not included on -
required survey.`,l" '✓"L
1_ I+IL1rk 1t,fY. VV
------------------------- ---- /, f AA
Phone home 4% Y��_?u,{ r . "'U
APPLICANT (home) I - �', i . l-'A f
nni t,VVA II 1 '
Name ��w -jam (516k Phone (work)
- �- Y
Address: �.c ��'Ciry: -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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRRSEPT USE OF PROPERTY
Present Zoning District
Present Use of Property Residential
_ Other (specify)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ --3:� Cb-D
Describe request in detail: SG
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VARIANCES RRQUIRED
Lot Area Lot Width V Hardcover ? Cfr� 4L,-)
Setback Variances ( Front Side ear)
Other
.:� .. .$
6�1 ,,ToLs
yor Mary C. Butler and Members of the Orono City Council
Re: City Hardcover Definitions
We have been asked by the City toning Administrator to write this note
concerning the definition of what constitutes hardcover for the purpose of
issuing building permits. We feel strongly that the current definition is, in
many reYpects, inconsistent with the presumed intent of the ordinance. We are
distressed that the vagueness of the current definition of hardcover has caused a
major inconvenience for us and will add significantly to the cost of securing a
building permit. We would sincerely hope that the Council will take this
opportunity to examine and clarify the present definition of hardcover so that it
can be applied fairly and uniformly to other residents of our area who are
seeking to improve their homes.
We believe that the purpose of the hardcover restrictions is, and should
continue to be, to: (1) prevent excessive run-off into the Lake and thereby
protect the quality of this recreational resource; and (2) to control
overbuilding in the City and protect its aesthetic qualities. To accomplish the
first part of this purpose► the operative definition of hardcover should be:
Any artificial surface that causes rainwater to
run-off that surface into the Lake► or tributaries
of the Lake, rather than to be absorbed into the
soil and filtered or to be retained and evaporated.
If you accept this definition of hardccver, then there are certain
landscaping features which should n o t c o n s t i t u t e hardcover:
o Spaced► porous wood decking which has an absorbent,
porous natural surface beneath it► i.e. no plastic
sheathing.
o Landscaping rocks with either no plastic beneath or
with plastic that forms a basin in which the rain-
water is captured and evaporated.
o Stairs and retaining walls on steep slopes i Greater
than a 33 degree incline directly to the Lake 1 that
do not increase the amount of run-off which would
normally reach the Lake.
HARDSHIP
Describe undue hardship or practical difficul y resulting from strict
enforcement of zoning regulations: 025j4i o4� ULt, L d->-, Z
--------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance
Code Requirements: d�o5� �Jtit 6 �`�'►�-� �'� (�
with Zoning
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
1. Completed Application Form
2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 15W (you must obtain
this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center
348-3271).
3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the
names on the above list with no return address (use address labels
obtained with property owners list).
4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required.
5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes
in existing grade are proposed.
6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners 'list).
7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of
any other persons you wish notified of this application.
8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please
remember that your variance application is not complete if the above
information has not been included.
-----------------------•----------------------------------------------------
Certification by Zoning Department tha=ariance Application is complete.
Zoning Official's Signature LDate
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 reque
st.
owner's Signature �� Date 7-tf -W
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 Rust 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.
We also feel that the drainage patterns 04 a lot should be taken into
consideration in determining the amount of eligible square footage upon which the
hardcover limits are defined. For example► if the "ridge line" or highest points
of a lot are within the 75-400t line► eligible square footage should be
calculated from the "ridge line" to the 250-400t line.
In order to avoid future misunderstandings► it would be wise for the
Council to clarify the policy regarding the "trading off" of existing for new
hardcover.
We wholeheartedly support the intent of the hardcover ordinances for the
City of Orono in protecting the quality of our Cake and our City. As citizens► we
have worked hard for both of those goals. We would hope that the council will
take this opportunity to clarify the ordinances in order to make them both
effective and fair and consistent in their application.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
~ r '
40
15� 17 a13
ld
'J7
1-0
Ab.
C� n
offN a''
esS vk
T oos
o 4 dd.�
Shed �o,� •QM. .v�-�iz
Ywood
RO. e"
ALVER R. FREEMAN
LCOUNTY SURVEYOR
h,ENNEPIN COUNTY,MINN
Rill GATE 07/15/86
BATCH 002
36 16-10-23 14 0004
PROP ADOR 01985 FAGERNESS POINT RD
OWNER NAME A I OPHEIM A M V OPHEIM
TAXPAYER ALAN I OPHEIM
NAME/ADOR 198S FAGERNESS POINT RD
WAYZATA MH 55391
36 18-117-Z3 14 0007
PROP ADOR 01971 FAGERNESS POINT RD
OWNER NAME T A P MORTENSt1N
TAXPAYER THOMAS MORTEW:ON
HAME/ADDR 1971 FAGERNESS PT RD
WAYZATA MH S5391
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
38 18-117-23 14 0005
01981 FAGERNESS POINT RD
CHARLES M CHRISTIANSEN ET AL
CHARLES A EDITH CHRISTIANSEN
1981 FAGERNESS POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
36 18-117-23 14 0008
01973 FAGERNESS POINT RD
A R BACKSTROM ETAL
A R BACKSTROM
1973 FAGERNESS PT RD
WA"ZATA MH SS391
REPORT NO. PI43%01
PAGE 4
38 18-117-23 14 0006
01975 FAGERNESS POINT RD
JOHN K PURDY ETAL
JOHN K PURDY
1975 FAGERNESS PT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
TOTAL BATCH 002 00005
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 BCST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
DATE1-IR -FSss By
C`40, !�
.EC«- q STa-�2S Ails S'
52 =�•
Iron 4,
_pr,
West Amon.
L.k. M.nw.ten
�a \
/ ov gyp►- FA�B�I c
b.t� 3&I C-
1 Z13 On (709 s t• o�
to
/ V.
eft
, '4,fO�
�Qe 4.
'�. t
•
-T s
7e�-k�•3 /St = =� �i
iY.ws.� ce�s.t / /�•/A`w��.��T`\ [ , Q •
•r. •.r �� .�..•.Sv_— �
/ �J p r
Xi..ri jtoo �y N S:ro !l1 f' ' /l / �j�dlr 1 �, oT �vesL A--
1jOck ;.•+�r � L,ak• A/1•nwato-tu
� C�kh,s � Z�
Foeo Po 5 e7o�
t, Iz potAllu"Or
*1 09
Ze Ul
4b
77
***4b
so 5
CLrl
U. 4
46
16'
jz-
xs
.............
IL
10
.# 'P.- "s. j, -
Ul,--5r e4,6-P,#r1OA1
I;il)le,D �/ 1114)IV lll�'
1107- "I-109D
�iPG'PvSEp ,q oD>�ion/
/9�S �i9Gf.E'NE�'3 �T �B•qD
7 iZ -BB
S�v Trr E.L E✓�9T/off✓
c/, -2 7-9--?
C-�coPosEv �vvil. oiv
svvr� f�Ev�; %o.v
�vieof/�torv�E
ZYO'*,45P.IALT SN TO,NArCN
EYtsrl v4 ovea J/y 7 /6 .3yfi+tiiNG
f L S '• ROOF fE.tT —. _
2xV HDR
NA�v6`R S
�2
[iA/OR iitigQ,ER.
/jaIlM/NYM
'�" ✓G�Pao.�E �DAR.
3 D r%7
RfMOIi' .3TvfC0 TrY/S
see s�r'rA/c r� p
MW
!ipG fga/Ae ALA.
Mdk/NTiNG
3,v TIG y"upoo SuBFlOore
GLMEjvTFJ I NA/�c O
9yi �.G.wS
' c(o SILL A, W/S[q LFR
,r A (p' oK
NEW ia*qk It
r
✓O/ST NiVvCf+t
CRAUJ,- SPACC
At S ACYWOOD
Po►. V oYl1C
SC-12"co►�c 9::
�—
ROwig COWC pyh�
— _ --- --
KEBAk, /N
-
FCO-rl V&j
---
GAP5TING HOUSE
cSRo(iNo �CE�<
ASP/vAcT GVATE,P-
P�PoaF
tPO.�-Y FILMt
r- SX, /N'S w i
G
7'b"
X /r
B.QFl�,r//YTS aLl?
�(B'L�At P.ci9G�.
Xifl?6dA� TcE
L/Y EveeY T/Yle,
Lvu eye ---
�ko.�osEo
_lg/7S /ri9GE,eN�SS _PT.__/eDAD
III
11
3(,' o -
-�--- i o' -- 16 '
THEE
\ 2-zxy rYsy
-U0
ALL_ckNo
moiv :ZAr 44455-
^ At Pow ME
J
_ ExisTiN6 Dooms
, „ I
lD ID
Nam- NAAbc tJeR--TO
te- *bD )S
qoO -lro - t = 2Z3 4.
?D s�. 1✓� iS-1 �n
-Y?k
( I
gg C
OGK- W
sir T
5E.T"
1 y
�� I41
:�
0 &o� .14
5030516
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY NO. 1814
OF
ORONO TRANSFER EN 7 E2ED
DEPT Of iR^f k., r 1.1t S PUBIIG 9EfAl10:
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SEP 10 7985
A VARIANCE TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE ME"MPN OOUNn MINN.
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 i 2
AND SECTION 10.25, IVISION 6 (B)
PILE 1993
WHEREAS, John & Susan Purdy (hereinafter "the applicant")
are owners of the property located at 1975 Fagerness Point Road within
the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as
follows:
Lot 5, Fagerness, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter
"property*); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances
to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1 t 2 and 10.25,
Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of additions to the
existing house and garage which will increase hardcover in the 75-250'
lakeshore setback z.)ne so that the total amount of hardcover on the
lot would exceed the amount of hardcover allowed by the Municipal
Zoning Code; and which additions will increase the amount of structure
in the 0-75' setback zone where no structure is allowed; and which
additions will encroach into the average lakeshore setback zone where
no encroachment is allowed; and which garage addition will be located
8.5 feet from the side property line where a 10 foot setback is
normally required.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning % le 0943.
Z. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakcshnre
Residential Zoning District.
3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on
July 15, 1985, and recommended approval of the proposed variances
based upon the following findings:
A) The hardships to the property are the slopes and con-
figuration or the lot, the location of the existing struc-
tures, and the fact that there is lakeshore on two sides of
the property.
Pnge 1 of 6
j
i
x
3
3
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY NO. 1814
OF
R e
g) The property contains certain items of hardcoverwhich
may be changed so that they become non -hardcover,
nor effect on the applicant's current use of
relatively mi
the property.
The variances, if approved, with certain concurrent
C) will be approximately equivalent to
removals of hardcover ro erty to the
variances recently granted to the adjacent p P
north.
garage is non -conforming in that it is located
4. The existing g ht-of-way. The existing topography of
partially upon the road rig this garage to a con -
the lot creates
a hardsh..p in relocating
forming
5. The proposed addition feet he Southew of the urehin the ouse 10 75 set -
approximately 96 squareuare feet is new (not pre-existing)
back zone, of which 72 sq
hardcover. This encroachment ho senline, and due to topography
zone but continues an existing
houses, the en-
and the relative locations of the adjacent
cioachment will have no effect on the lake views of the adjacent
property owne-s.
majorityof the proposed
6. From the standpoint of drainage# the wom t have substantial
new hardcover is located more additional runoff from the Lakeshore, and
most of the resulting the lakeshore.
yard area for absorption before reaching
setback
7. The total existing hardcover i the
hnq ardcover in the 75n 250'
1921 s.,f. or 24.3%. The total exist After all proposed additions
setback zone is 1499 s.f. or 16.9%• with final 0-75'
and concurrent removal rall
of hardcover,the
t27ynsLf increase in l 0-7
hardcover on the property
or 13.9t ^nd final 75-250' hardcover o
hardcover of 1095 s.f.
2568 a.f. or 29.0%.
8. The City Council has considered this applicationhoa planning
the f.ndings and recommends is by thetapplicant and toe efre off tct
reports by City staff, safety and
of the proposed variance on the health,
community.
page 2 of 6
City of ORONO
CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF
NO. 1814
ORONO
9. The "ity 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 neighuoring property: would
not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is
necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the appli-
cant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
ODNCLOSZONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, rub- j
division 1 i 2 and 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction
of additions to the existing house and garage which will increase
hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone so that the total t
amount of hardcover on the lot would exceed the amount of hardcover
allowed by the Municipal Zoning Code; and which additions will in-
crease the amount of structure in the 0-75' setback zone where no
structure is allowed; and which additions will encroach into the
average lakeshore setback zone where no encroachment :s allowed; and
which garage addition will be located 8.5 feet from the side property
line where a 10 foot setback is normally required, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Variances are granted so that the maximum allowable hardcover
on this property shall be 3663 square feet total, based on the
additions and removals of hardcover as described below:
b) East side of house - additional hardcover
1Ox24' addition; net +146 s.:.
Deck with hot tub, east side; net - +117 s.f.
ep minus existing walk; net - +14 s.f.
b) uth side of house - additional hardcover
'x42.5' addition; net - +575 s.f.
c) riarage addition
- 12'x24.1' addition: net - +289 s.f.
Total new hardcover addition
before concurrent removals - +114, s.f.
d) Concurrent removals of existing hardcover
- Remove patio Flock and any plastic c- other nardcover from
)-ennel area - -213 s.f.
Page 3 of 6
city of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 1914
ve plastic from under rock from trampoline area - -360 s.f.
.,_..._ve plastic from under 10'xl6' deck, (staff to confirm
deck spacing and ground conditions) - - 160 s.f.
Remove plastic from under NW and NE house rock edging
- 165 s.f.
Total concurrent removal of existing hardcover - -898 s.f.
Total net increase in hardcover after additions and removals
- 1141-898 - 243 s.f.
3420 s.f. existing +243 s.f. additional - 1663 s.f.
of which 1095 s.f. is in the 0-75' setback zone and 2568 s.f. is
in the 75-250' setback zone. The removals of hardcover shall be
staged in such a manner so that when each portion of the entire
project is constructed the appropriate equivalent amount of hard-
cover shall be removed concurrently, so that the total hardcover
at any given time never exceeds 3663 square feet.
2. A variance is granted to allow the non -conforming garage
structure to continue, with an addition to the rear of the garage
being 8.5 feet from the side lot line rather than the 10' nor-
mally required.
3. A variance is granted for the addditional encroachment into
the average lakeshore setback and additional structure in the 0-
75' zone for the addition south of the house.
4. The applicant is place on notice that no other variances are
granted with this application, and that future requests for
additional hardcover variances above and beyond that granted at
this time may not be approved.
5 Authorities granted by this variance run with the property
n.t 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 (July 22, 1986). The applicant it placed on notice
that if one or more of the 3 specificilly allowed projects are
not commenced within the 1 year variance approval period, a
renewal variance must be applied for. The granting of the
variances under the current application does not grant any vested
rights to the property owner after the expiration date, and a
future City Council is not legally bound to grant the same
variances in the case of a renewal variance.
6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and
conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the
zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted
heroin, and shall be punishable as A misdemeanor.
rnqe 4 of 6
U I T V
OF
ORONO
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 1814
7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and :hereby
agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself,
his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording
of this resolution in the chain of title of the property.
^.A - I
:`'••' II ted by the Orono City Council on this 22th day of July,
19d' r„� .
DWothy.Al-all, n, City Clerk Mary C. Bu ,mayor
Props y Owns
Pei tif, 5 0f 6
Page 1 ':
{
Hardcover Calculations - 1975 Faqerness point Road
NOTE: All numbers refer to calculations and measurements within the -actual
lot boundaries. ____ -----------------
All Values *Asterisked are approximate and calculated by staff
Total Area = •16,750 sf
Total Area (0-75') _ •7,900 sf
• 850 sf
------------
Total Area �75-250') _---------------
------',
Total Area Draining West _ 2,710 sf
Total Area Draining-------Vj�
----------------
----------- -
----
-- Traditional Hardcover Calculation Method �� a
A) Existino Hardcover 0-75'
Lakeshore decks and stairs 100 + 154 + oo + 58 + �.18 sf
_ /
Shed 52 sf ✓ �
Kennel Pad '
Rock over Elastic (trampoline areal 160 st ✓
Rear Deck
c'nncrete Slab = 17 sf
!louse •566
a�• avorage� 3.2' width =
Py4 tT1 L t"o-e �.
Rock edv,inq around hau � :•
(exclu(jinq Johnson's encronc•hments) Total n
1,971
_ 2
4.3w1
7,900
g) Existing Hardcover 75-250'
j + 19SS *w:.t770�
( Houser
—Rock Edging Around House 227
Front Step and walk+STM/=
F.> _ T� _ •441 sf s2
Garage !
'De CV_ "'�T IVB - �,4 sf(excluding Johnson's encroachments) Total
i 8,850 g0WtjlAA l-1CS
1 C) proposed Additional 75-250' Hardcover
= 146 sf uP '
Addition minus existing rock and walk - 117 sf
'Deck with hot tub minus existing rock Y 14 sf
Step minus existing walk -------
Total Not Proposed Additional mardcover 2
13
- `+
210 2 3 ` (03 . /
= 1,499 + 277 =C20
Final Proposed Hardcover Percentage--_.1� (-•r._
8.850___
D) 5-Year Plan Additions _ 105 = 575 Of
House Addition less existing rock bed 42.5 x 16
t5,'`3' in 75-21, ) a 289 Of
S --- \
Garage addition 12 x 24.1 (ail 75' - 0 864 sf - /7-0:1 '- s'
-2-501
Final 5-Year Proposed Hardcover
dc792 =752PS68 29_0��
Percentage 1,4.9---------- -----
------6.850 S.850 .i
Year Proposed Hardcover
Final S- -
----------------
�.cit.e VIP .
No Pf P, _' _�------------------------- break as a boundary
-C ------- Hardcover Calculation based on drainage
A) Existing Hardcover Draining West
52 sf
Shed = 418 Of
Lakeshore Decks 6 Stairs ------
Hardcover = 470 Of
Total West-Draininq =i17.3t�
47C
West -Draining Ha rd,Iver Percentage ------
g)-Existing Hardcover Draining
East------710-- ----
213 Of
Kennel Pad 360 Of
Rock over Plastic (trampoline area) 1,197 Of
House 160 Of
Deck 17 Of
Slab 380 Of
Rock Around House 172 of
Sidewalk Stoop •20 Of
Stairs �•:41_Of
Garage ---
Total (excluding Johnson's encroachments)
2,950 Of
2,950
Total East -Draining Hardcover Percentage
I21.Ot,
14,040
Proposed Net Additional East Draining
Hardcover - 277 2fn50 277 r23.0•
sed Total East -Draining Hardcover Percentage -----------
Propo 14,040
On
Plc0
fPos L-4�:)
MONO
qft
V�
�i la•
A tx- (notis
'4k
�
•
--M* r" Mon �,.-:: "
s
In M ?
4§40
wa
•`r
N � ► .fir'/ � 1 '.
o
—
µ —�
r
w
q
6*0
iL
it
10
a
�
O �,
r
r)U is1I. WETING
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members vLP 1219�'8
City Administrator Bernhardson
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Adminiitratok,.�'
Date: September 9, 1988
Subject: #1313 Richard Eller, 2655 Shadywood Road -
Variance - Resolution
Application - Hardcover and structure variances in 0-75' setback zone.
Zoning District. - LR-lB, 1-acre, sewered
at of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution
Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes of 8/15/88
Pvhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 8/11/88
D ton -
.ie applicant is proposing to remove an existing second story deck and
portions of the patio that are bel 'a it, and replace with a screened porch
at the first floor level 1-hind the garage with a secor,,4 story deck above
it, plus a 4' walkway huggi..j the lakeside of the house.
All but a small portion of the existing house is in the 0-75'
lakeshore setback zone. This property ab,_- a lagoon inlet From Lake
Minnetonka. The existing upper level deck appears to be about: 27' from the
lagoon, as is the concrete grade level p- below it. Applicant proposes
to remove portions of the concrete patio well as the deck above it, in
exchange for the proposed sc.rE:en porch a<,di.tion near the house. The net
result will be a removal of hardcover and st, ucture nearest the lake and
rep.iacemc with hardcover and structure adjacent to the house and further
from the ._ake.
Existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone is 29.64, r, -er in thF. 7�
250' zor is only 5.6%. There is no apparent unnecessary .rdcover on th,
propert which could be easily removed to reduce below this ex-iting 29.6%
in the 0-75' zone, u.,Iess a great-r 'ror*ion cF tte concrete patio is
.removed.
(-Please review the memo and exhit its of Auc< .st 11, 1Q88.
Panning Commission, at their August 15, 1988 -retina, rtrmmmended
approval 5-0 vote, sut,ject tc a condition that ther(z he no increase
in hardcover .n the 0-75' zone aL• ,e the existing 29.68.. The property
owner agrees that this con.iition can be easily met by removing Uori ,r ins of
the existing concrete pati-) ir, square F--otage amounts equivalent t Lhw
currently permeable a,eas that will bE,.•a,ne hard(--vered.
Staff Recom wendation -
Staff rec--mmends approval per the Plant,.ng Commission recommeriat=-)n
A resclut.on fk_, approval. is attache% for Council review.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
VARIANCES TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 i 2 AND
SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8
F1LB #1313
WHEREAS, Richard Eller (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner
of the property located at 2655 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono
(hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows:
That part of Lots 22 and 23, Pheasant Lawn, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying North of a line running from a point in the
Southeasterly line of Lot 22, Distant 27 feet Southwesterly from the
Northeast corner thereof t^ a point in the Northwesterly line of Lot
23, Distant 30 feet Northeasterly from the Southwest corner `hereof of
Lots 22 and 23, (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to t.e City for variances to
Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions & 2 and Section 10.55,
Subdivision 8 to p=:rmit the construction of an losed porch and deck
additions which will constitute additional struct_.; and hardcover in the
0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no structure or ' ardcover is normally
allowed.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1313.
2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore
Residential Zoning District.
3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August
15, 1988 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon
the following findings:
A) There is an existing patio with deck directly above it,
located 27' from the shoreline. The second story deck is
proposed to be removed, and the portion of the concrete grade -
level patio nearest the lake will also be removed.
Page 1 of 5
B) Hardcover in the 0-75' zone on the property is 2,691 s.f. or
about 29.6%. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is about 1,507 s.f.
or 5.6%. On an overall lot basis, this property would be allowed
a total of 6,750 s.f. of hardcover. It contains a total of 4,198
s.f. of hardcover, approximately 2; 3's of which is in the 0-75'
setback zone.
C) Aesthetically, the proposed screened porch which will be
relatively near the existing house and garage as compared to the
existing second story .:tsck, will appear less obtrusive in the
landscape than the existing configuration.
D) There would appear to be no unnecessary hardcover available
that could easily be removed to provide a significant decrease of
hardcover on the property.
E) Removal of hardcover near the lake in exchange for an
equivalent amound of hardcover further from the lake, even though
both removals and additions occur within the 0-75' zone, in this
case are considered as a positive improvement to the property and
to the environment since a greater buffer area between the hard-
cover and the lakeshore is obtained.
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 cone?itions existing on this
property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other
property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would
not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire
hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve
as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a
substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the 3oning 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 s 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the
construction of an enclosed porch and deck additions which will constitute
additional structure and hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone
where no such structure or hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the
Following conditions:
Page 2 of 5
1. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone on this property ahall be allowed only
as follows:
House
Front Step
Driveway
New Screened Porch
& Upper -Level Deck
Grade -Level Deck/Patio
TOTAL
1,577
s.f.
66
s.f.
193
s.f.
487
s.f.
368
s.f.
2,691
s.f. (29.6%)
The proposed new construction constitutes 200 s.f. of additional
hardcover where no hardcover now exists, hence the property owner
shall remove a section of the existing concrete patio in an amount of
200 s.f. along the side of that patio nearest the lakeshore.
2. The 200 s.f. patio hardcover removal shall be completed prior to
footing inspection for the proposed new construction.
3. The applicant is advised that no future hardcover will be approved
for this property, but that any future proposal to add hardcover on
the property might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent
removals of existing hardcover, resulting in no net increase in hard-
cover.
4. Authorities granted with 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 (September
12, 1989).
5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and
conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the
zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted
herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
6. The undersigned applicant have read, understood and hereby agrees
tt) the term£ of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs,
su..cessors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this
resolution in the chr.in of title of the property.
Page 3 of 3
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of September,
1988.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin,, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor
Property Owner s
Page 4 of 5
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMIKISSION MEETING HELP AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE f1312 CONTINUED
needed even though applicant was maintaining the same amount of
hardcover. This was because applicant was proposing new
construction in the 75-250' setback area and the setback area
already exceeded the allowed 251 of hardcover. Kelley placed
applicant on notice that there could be no additional hardcover
in the 75-250' zone other than what had been approved_ Motion,
Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed.
i1313 RICHARD SI.LzR
2655 SHADYW*D ROAD
VARIANC31
PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. - 8:45 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
Applicant was present for this matter.
Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained
that the applicant was requesting some changes to his existing
patio area. Currently there is a second story deck over a grade -
level concrete patio. Applicant's proposal involves removal of
the entire second story deck and construction of a 4' wide
walkway at the upper level along the lakeside of the house that
would connect to a new deck above a new screen porch. He would
also construct a grade -level wood deck over the existing concrete
patio. Kelley asked if there would actually be a reduction in
hardcover? Gaffron stated depending upon the Planning
Commission's decision, there could be a small decrease or a net
trade-off in the total amount of hardcover.
Bellows asked if applicant was proposing a screen porch or a
3-season porch Applicant asked for a clarification as to what
differentiated one from the other. Bellows stated that a screen
porch would not be closed in with storm windows, it would remain
open. Applicant stated that he would be building a 3-season
porch. Gaffron explained that the difference between the Purdy
and Eller applications was that the Purdy application called for
a new addition encroaching toward the lake. The Ellers are
proposing to reduce the existing upper level deck and build a
porch directly underneath it.
Bellows stated that what applicant is proposing is an
aesthetic improvement. Kelley concurred with this and asked
whether the net increase in hardcover in the 0-75' was in fact
128 s.f. Gaffron stated that was correct. Applicant said that
he would not increase the hardcover if that was the request of
the Planning Commission. Kelley stated that he would like
applicant to decrease the hardcover percentage.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
11
1
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING PILE #1313 CONTINUED
-Bellows -.stated that she would like to see an overall
decrease in hardcover because applicant is adding a structure.
She said she would hold fast to her definition of a porch with
storms being an.additiona 1 structure. Kelley stated that based
upon staff's calculations, hardcover totalled -09.6%. Johnson
asked whether applicant was only going to remove 3' from the
concrete patio. He suggested removing more than that. Applicant
stated that would be acceptable. Gaffron stated that if you just
look at trade -offs -in round numbers, they are close. Kelley
suggested using 27% in the 0-75'. Gaffron stated that in the 0-
75' zone 18 would equal approximately 91 s.f. which would be 10'
by 101. Gaffron asked if the recommendation was a 32 s.f.
reduction overall? Bellows stated that the odd shape of the
proposed deck was making it difficult to translate the
percentage.
It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend
approval of the variance providing that the hardcover in the 0-
75' zone did not exceed 29.6%. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays-0, Motion
passed.
#1314 GERALD ROWLEIRB
3775 BAYSIDE ROAD
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. - 8:52 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
The applicants were present for this matter.
Gaffron explained that the Rowlettes were proposing to
construct a sunroom on the north side of the existing house. The
sunroom would be located so it would fill an indentation along
the outside north wall of the house. The applicants were granted
variance approval in 197E for the addition of a garage, rooms and
deck which extended partially into the 0-75' zone. The approval
was conditioned upon removal of a 20'x 20' concrete patio and
replacing it with redwood. This has not beer. done. Applicants
are currently seeking a street setback variance where the
standard for this 2-ecre zone is 501.
Kelley stated that he had no problem with the sunroom,
however he did not like the fact that applicants had not complied
with the removal of the patio, per the 1976 variance approval.
He stated that based upon that., he should vote to deny approval
of this request. He asked the applicants if there was a specific
reason why they had not removed the patio. Mr. Rowlette stated
that since 1976 they have removed other hardcover structures that
would equal removal of the 20' x 20' patio. He stated that he
did not remove the patio because they get an ice build up in that
location and ice cannot be chipped off of a redwood deck without
rLininq the deck. Kelley asked applicant for his opinion as to
<<
To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley
Orono Planning Commission Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
Date: August 11, 1988
Subject% #1313 Richard Eller, 2655 Shadywood Road -
variance - Public Hearing
Application - Hardcover at::? structure variances in 0-75' setback zone.
Zoning District - LR-lB, 1-acre, sewered
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A -
Exhibit B -
Exhibit C -
Exhibit D -
Exhibit E -
Exhibit F -
Exhibit G -
Exhibit H -
Exhibit I -
Application
Plat Map
Property Owners List
Survey
Proposed Deck Plans
Survey With Staff Notations
Plan View With Staff Notations
Staff Hardcover Review
Applicant's Hardcover Review
Pertinent Facts -
1. Applicant is proposing
remove what appears to
patio parallel to the
grade -level deck over
wide wdlkway at the uppe
leads to a new deck ab
existing garage area.
to remove the Existing upper level deck, and
be approximately 3' of the existing concrete
lakeshore. He then intends to construct a
the remaining ccncrete patio, construct a 4'
r level along the lakeside of the house, which
3ve a new screen porch below it, behind the
2. The ar^hitect's conceptual sketch of the proposed screen porch, deck
and existing patio, does not match the configuration shown on the
survey provided. However, based on staffs site inspection, it was
determined that the architect's drawing was probably more accurate
than the survey, hence the architect's sketch was used for
ca'culating the hardcover changes.
.isting 0-75' hardcover is 2,691 s.f. or about 29.6%. Hardcover in
ie 75-250' zone is about 1,507 s.f or 5.6%. On an overall lot basis,
this property would be allowed a total of 6,750 s.f. of hardcover. It
contains a total of 4,198 s.f. of hardcover, approximately 2/3rds of
which is in the 0-75' setback zone.
Based on staff's calculations, there is a net increase of hardcover
in the 0-75' zone of approximately 128 s.f., increasing the 0-75' from
29.6% to 31.0%.
3. Based on the above percentages and total square footages, couplet'•vith
the fact that applicant -dill be removing hardcover nearer the in
exchanged for hardcover further back, this application could be d
at as a positive change for the property. There does not appear be
Zoning File #1313
August 11, 1988
Page 2 of 2
excessive unnecessary hardcover on the property, hence the requested
128 s.f. increase may not be significant. on the other hand it would
seem feasible to reduce the size of the proposed lower deck
sufficiently, and remove even more of the existing concrete patio, so
that there is no net increase in hardcover.
4. From an aesthetic standpoint, the proposed screen porch, deck above
it, and grade -level platform deck in place of the existing second
story deck will likely appear less obtrusive in the landscape, and the
bulk of the house structure may appear more distant from the lake,
Din+^ussion
Given the conflict between the architect's sketch and the survey
regarding the configuration and square footage of the existing
concrete patio, and given that as of this writting staff has not
verified which configuration is correct, it would be appropriate as a
condition of any Planning Commission recommendation, that prior to any
Council action, the existing patio and deck area be verified.
The hardships for the proposed request would appear to be the fact
that the existing house is located only about 45' from the lagoon, and
the existing upper level deck only 27' from the lagoon. Virtually any
changes to the existing patio and deck area would require variances.
Staff Recos ndation -
Staff would recommend approval of the hardcover and structural setback
variances to allow the proposed additions and revisions of the existing
decks, subject to whatever reduction in the grade level platform deck size
and patio removal is required to result in no net increase in hardcover in
the 0-7 5' setback zone. N m / ,`: c X?4k,-4 _,=7
a
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE CAT ON 13
Initial Application Fee $ .00
($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 Rn
Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) ZS Z\ -Z3 00-Z3
Please check one - Property abstract or torrens?
attach legal description to application if not included on
required survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANT Phone ( home ) L-X \ -N %k z57
Name � ►� Hp.0.� �C.`.`.ECL Phone (work) a\33 BOG
—T
Address: 265b 5.4s a►Awmo Rfl City: 534,atin Zip: S's 53
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)
Name
Address:
City:
Date Property ,4zquired
Phone (work)
Zip:
(month/year)
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
------------------------------------------'----------------------------------
PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY
Present Zoning District R-— (
Present Use of Property Residential
Other (specify)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ \15, vp
Describe request in detail: S CwV L ffvr�_
----------------------------------------------------- --------------------
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area Lot Width l Hardcover
Setback Variances ( Front Side Rear)
Other �•"--t/4tf�-
HARDSHIP
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict
enforcement -of zoning regulations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning
Code Requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-SQUIRED SUBMITTALS
Completed Application Form
Certified Property Owners List of owners within 2.50' (you must obtain
'this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center
348-3271).
3. Stamper' legal sized envelopes--(#101 pre -addressed to each of the
names c.: .he 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
informaticn has not been included.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cer.tification 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 rue and correct to the best of his/her
know' Ige. /1
Applicant's Signat a te`' Date T1 ZI I
OWNERS SIGNATURE
The owner hereby ackowledq s and agrees to this application and further
authorizes reasonab. onto the property by City staff, consultants,
agents, Commissi9 members, end Council members for purposes of investiga-
tion and verifi.46ation of this regp0t.
owner's Signatur �,� /�� _
Date Z 1 2t ��
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the
Planning Commission Meet
in 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 attenl a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an
authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building 6 Zoning
Cffice of this change prior to the meeting.
Vol, t4 v
6IKA
vk W,
S Fs-
V';C-ov-,N V-4WL C:
\-,dak.GLo (N-0vtik- SIE
vk"v TV-Ncvv-c) N,% I
PART Of '�\'
'•r' + � � J `f q�: ri �• , `�' - 6i'r � •.\\ yr
25
23
-�'^ -r.s a.a C ::: F► ��,° _ r� •, \A t _ A,c.;,� ''_. ` 'may ��.
Sam,. ' v ,�- ago ' ' •r —�� t' T` ti -
tis :..
OU
. •f� _ _ t -
? � rT} • �y 3 • •"R� �,. 23 _ 1 li Cam• I, � � t-..
. � 1 ---III tom_ �� �\ � � _ . , i 1• r • � 1fl Y L _
'is
M � �\,�� �' .;`` �,•`"oo. 7.?wJK•, s�r}�4,L�•'. ; r
log
.ili-r'--- �) �" - � - - � , t' r - tt� , � I , u . `� �� `'1' � (!)- � ' . r �, •ice s : �, :�
19
Is
N •. i, - } � ��-' ii' fit, � '
/ 1
RUN DATE 07/14/88
BATCH 00l
38 21-117-23 22 0006
PROP AM 02534 OLD 15EAC4 RO
OWNER NAPE SCOTT S POWELL
TAXPAYER SCOTT S POWELL
NAME/ADOR ZS30 OLD BEACH RD
WAYZATA MH SS391
38 21-117-23 23 0009
PRCP ADOR 02673 PHEASANT RD
OWNER NAME DALLAS C MESSER ETAL
TAXPAYER DALLAS C MESSER
NAME/ADOR 2673 PHEASANT RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
38 21-ll7-23 23 0022
PROP ADDR u2660 PHEASANT RD
OWNER NAME L R JERPBAK A L M JERPBAK
TAXPAYER LLOYD JERPBAK/LINDA JERPBAK
NAME/ADDR 2660 PHEASANT RD
EXCELSIOR MH 55331
30 21-117-23 24 0046
PROP ADOR 62680 SHADYWOOD RD
OWNER HAMS VERNON E TUKUA ETAL
TAXPAYER VERNON E TLO(U:,
HAMU, ADM 1680 SHADYWOOD RD
EXCELSIOR 11lN S5331
PRO► AMR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER TOTAL SAIZH 001 00012
NAME/ADDS
HENNEPIN C3UNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
38 21-117-23 23 ODDS
02655 PHEASANT RD
F T FORRER JR A D C FORRER
J T FORRER A D C FORRER
26SS PHEASANT RD
EXCELSIOR MH 55331
38 21-117-23 23 0020
02680 PHEASANT RD
R P DOLLIFF JR ETAL
ROGER P DOLLIFF JR
2680 PHEASANT RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
38 21-117-23 23 0023
02655 SHADYWOOO RD
0 R A P A ELLER
RICHARD A PATRICE ELLER
2655 SHADY WOW ROAD
EXCELSIOR MN S5331
38 21-117-23 24 0052
02670 MAPLERICGE LA
P A A LITTLE IV
PHILIP IV A AMANDA S LITTLE
2670 MAPLE RIDGE LA
EXCELSIOR MN SS331
REPORT :40. PI435401
?R.6E 1
38 21-117-23 23 0008
TOM OF ORONO
TOWN OF ORONO
38 21-117-23 23 0021
02670 PHEASANT RD
r
RAYMOND E JOHNSON
�N
RAYMOID E JOHNSON
2670 PHEASANT RDy
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
38 21-117-23 23 0050
02685 SHADYWOOO RD
R N BROWN A M H BROWN
RICHARD W A MARION H BROWN
2685 SHRDYWOOO RD S
cl
EXCELSIOR MH 55331
38 21-117-23 24 0053
02675 SHADYWOOD RD
R A N MARTIN
ROLLA- M A NANCY A M:U'TIN
267S SHADYWOOD RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
2 Cf' M
\ Mon. s CC' PINE
j � �4 : KY�I►3F� �
wa' �i•' - - -
N zt.o9
cfj N
RQ. N
rj J wiiT 00,
IF •
g o Zb
r ;
` Diu/n'r,•
2c -tine p-
:,� wild
W.
I W. -
f L
r Y
t LAKE
NETONKA
Now
P.C. 8-/Y-88 tv
40
lzcoocWgr ASA41ACfj
C_ C C-=44
As 13
-ro leoacr /Ov
OVMAW_ 04ok"OvO2
GOV &a-- e4Vl rw CC o n, '7' p'
e -, Ace kr- = :� 2--�, eoo--c� s -4.
kloAsc-
' W A 1..,c.. S r3 ;K I Or
CoNC PON'�p 7-k/NCa Q0
/ SO`� s.
I
/ 7
4,a�
N o c 0 _ P.C.o PoS +cam
p Ra Pltf-"
Ilow
I
P D-A L L'ov a c
� � -�- � Z� D •7� P�oPes +�
!'Jr
1
e / y
;�'*-AFf r1i��covc� �vi� - 2`sT SN�`I woop
AAOA _ �N�xtif�t�B�kyl )-►�3x89�iJ
9o9to sk.
IN5"fd `
SL9
c z9 1s77 s.
2Sr�5/t
c 'Lc��
/ fx7
r /0
raAwr srrP q.S �-7
pRlVnc�A�f Tkt�
�a /off 1q�
2 z x a/a.
st.
�
I?Xl7IZ
c. lyr
lryl%
P, 18-7
ls3 s�.
G r7
� yZ
3 r z�z
4 3
�Coto r2wj
�T7�f`ANCr S*-v*•� ;
; �O
2 J�•
'2,l.A I -' `jory` s
Za1. C. %. ex,sr7tiC.
em . G'
-TvrAL, ALLIT,awt-
N.�. ,..�►rsa.E
Po 44"C*Vvi% 0IJ'I S a 2= r
AIP<tsn- "WOWA Lc 'm r
72 ST.
titoT 1NcrLpot f or 128
14.
2Gi9 f • I L b • 2811 `i01(6
= 31,0'�• AC4,06 b
OTC'
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSI'v" '
Setback Zones (circle one 0-750 \ 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000,
Existing Bardcover in tone
a.
House
x
length
width
ss
s.f.
s
s.f.
x
s.f.
x
s.f.
b.
Garage
!
S-n ' s.f.
c.
Driveway
x
• Y i n a.f.
x
a.f.
d.
Sidewalk
s
s.f.
x
a.f.
x
a.f.
Deter
! 4'�..^ T
� • � 7 `'
��
s.f.
t.
Landscape
s
• s.f.
areas
w:derlain
x
. s.f.
by plastic
sheeting
— x
. s.f.
!
• a.t.
f..Other
!
• " s.f.
x ...�_
• s . f .
TOTAL EXISTING XAMMYM IM 410M • — s.t. (1)
.
Existing Hardcover t • Total Existing Hardcover x 100 ,
Lot Area Within Zone
• s.f. x 100 t
S.f.
Additional Hardcover to be added in :one:
Item Length x Width • TOTAL s.f.
x 3 % s.
_ x s . f.--
x s.E
x s.f.
TOTAL S.F. TO BE ADDED Ste_ (2
Existing Hardcover to be Removed, if anys
Item Length x Width TOTAL s.f.�
r << x s.f.
,i�t.r
x _ s.f.
x s.f.
TOTAL S.P. TO BE REMOVED S0A (3)
Final Hardcover Proposal: 1
(Line (1) Line (2) -Line (3)) • �(
I i � W� + *-14 ? I— - - a349. (4)
Existing To be Added To be Removed Final
Proposed Hardcover t -
C
Line (4). sc 100 - a • f • x 100 _Zt
Line (1) ••f• �v
TO: Mayor Grabek
Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson 'F"1•a. -i
FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
DATE: September 6, 1988
SUBJECT: #1314 Gerald & Candice Rowlette, 3775 Bayside Road -
Variance - Resolution - Addendum to Memo of August 17, 1988
PLEASE REVIEW 7'BE MEMO AND THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF AUGUST 17, 1988
Since my August 17th memo, Mr. Rowlette has advised staff that the
concrete patio is actually in three 7'x20' sections parallelling the house.
He is proposing to remove the most southerly 7x20' section ..d leave the 2
remaining sections (about 14x20') in place.
On 9-6-88 I visIted the property and verified the sectioning of the
patio, is trhee sections 19.5' in length and 6', 7'6" and 716" respectively
in width, and also noted that part of the deck is over the patio. this
resulted in my recalculation of existing hardcover (attached). Existing
hardcover on the property is 3966 s.f., about 2/5 of which is in the 0-75'
setback zone. Allowable hardcover on the property (25% of 75-250' zone
area) is 4850 s.f. Removal of the 146 s.f. patio section as proposed by
applicant will result in about 3820 s.f. total hardcover. An approximation
of percentages would then be:
.4 x 3820 = 1528 s.f./28,125 s.f. = 5.4% in 0-75'
.6 x 3820 = 2292 s.f./19,400 s.f. = 11.8% in 75-250
To clarify his reasons for wanting to keep the nor,, -y sections, I
have asked Mr. Rowlette to provide a letter stating his position
(attached).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
While staff originally recommended removal of the entire 20'x20'
patio, discussions at the Planning Commission level resulted in a Planning
Commission recommendation to allow half of, the patio to remain. This was
based on the applicant's existing problems with roof runoff leaving an ice
build-up in front of the basement access door, which results in the need to
chip ice from the concrete every winter. The applicant contends that it is
easier to chip ice from concrete then a wooden deck. He also suggests that
due to the approximately 3' roof overhang over that concrete, that the
single 6' wide patio section along the house would not be sufficient.
The attached resolution reflects a removal of the southerly 10'x20'
half of the patio. Conditions 1 and 2 and finding 3 (d) can be revised as
the Councils sees fit, to accommodate whatever portions of patio the
Council wishes to have removed.
novelette & associates, inCa p.o. box13 fng a e, mn 5:•I&k&
�n \ *vc- &
w
I
ZONING FILE #1314
Rowlette, 3775 Bayside Road
Revised Existing Hardcover Calculation, 9/6/88:
House
28.3' x 42.3' =
1,197
12' x 26' =
312
Garage
24' x 23' =
552
Driveway
23' x 24' -
552
Patio
19.5' x 21' =
409
Deck
10' x 30.5' =
305
6' x 15.5' =
93
4' x 4' =
16
Less Area
of Deck over Patio
8.5' x 30' =
(-85)
Front Walk
& Rock/Plastic
8' x 30' =
240
Front Rock/Plastic/Overhang
3' x 25' =
75
Rock West
of House
10' x 30' =
300
3,966 s.f.
If Slab "C" is removed,
result is 3,966 - 146 = 3,820 s.f.
If Slab "C" & "B" are removed,
result is 3,966 - 146 - 146 - 3,674 s.f.
Hardcover allowed on property is(25% of 75-250' zone) = 4,850 s.f.
(either way, total hardcover is less than allowable,
although about half of it is in 0-751)
ftvaS6
10
oo
L'PQooR-
, 0 . 76LA 7e-A
� cTUA2 e-tl,Nt a nii Ft r P OF
'Drct<, PArr►o) Parr 6 -j o r,.ms
TO: Mayor Grabek,
Council Members,
City Administrator Bernhardson
FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator
DATE: August 17, 1988
SUBJ: #1314 Gerald & Candace Rowlette, 3775 Bayside Road -
Variance - Resolution
Application: Street setback variance to construct 4.5' x 12' sunroom
addition.
Zoning LR-lA, 2 acre - unsewered.
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution
Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action Dated 8-17-88
Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of August 8, 1988
Discussion
Please review the memo and exhibits of August 8, 1988. Applicants are
requesting a street setback variance to allow construction of a glass -
enclosed sunroom within an existing indentation of their house , which is
19' from the street right-of-way where a 50' setback is normally required.
This sunroom will extend no further towards the street than the existing
house that surrounds it.
A variance was granted to the Rowlettes in 1976 to add the currently
existing garage and roo.i addition. One of the conditions of that 1976
approval was removal of the 20' x 20' concrete patio on the lakeside of the
house. That patio was never removed. Planning Commission as part of their
recommendation for approval is recommending that the southerly 10' x 20'
section of that patio be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for
the sunroom. The applicant's have agreed that this is acceptable to them.
they wish to keep the northerly 10' x 20' section due to winter ice
problems with their "per 4 k access door.
JoweT pv++o
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of a street setback variance to allow a
sunroom to be constructed 19' from the street right-of-way and a hardcover
variance for Gerald & Candace Rowlette, 3775 Bayside Road, conditioned upon
removal of the southerly 10' x 20' portion of concrete patio on the
lakeside on the house, prior to issuance of a building permit for the
sunroom. A resolution is attached for Council review.
- IL i
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
A VARIANCE TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) AND
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2
FILE #1314
WHEREAS, Gerald & Candace Rowlette (hereinafter "the applicants")
are the owners of the property located at 3775 Bayside Road within the City
of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows:
Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance
to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the
construction of a sunroom addition to the existing residence, to be located
19' from the street lot line where a 50' street yard setback is normally
required, and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow
additional structural hardcover on the property where a significant portion
of existing hardcover is in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no
hardcover is normally allowed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT T:.SOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDIIfGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1314.
2. The property is located in the LR-lA Single Family Lakeshore
Residential Zoning District.
3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August
15, 1988 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon
the following findings:
A) The proposed sunroom will extend no closer to the street than
the wing walls and roof line of the existing house, but will
merely fill in an existing indentation in the house.
B ) The area where the sunroom will be constructed is all
hardcovered by decorative rock bed with plastic sheeting
underneath.
C) The proposed sunroom addition will not have any significant
effect on the character of the neighborhood nor will it encroach
upon any neighboring views of the lake.
Page 1 of 4
D) The applicants were granted a variance in 1976 to construct
major additions to the house, which were approved at that time
conditioned upon removal of a 201x20' concrete patio on the
lakeshore side of the house. That patio has never been removed.
The applicants' hardship in needing that patio or a portion of it
relates to ice build-up and winter access to the house in
conjunction with his existing wooden deck. The existing concrete
slab is in two separate units, and the southerly 101x20' portion
can easily be removed without causing damage to the remaining
portion. This will result in a 200 s.f. reduction in hardcover
in the 0-75' zone.
E) Although the total hardcover on the property is less square
footage than would be allowed within the 75-250' zone, the fact
that a significant portion of that hardcover is in the 0-75' zone
is ample justification for reduction of 0-75' hardcover,
especially in this case where that hardcover was previously
required to be removed.
4. The City Council has considered this application including the
findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by
City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the 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 %ariance 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
cca venience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demon-
strable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial
property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the
City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono
City Council hereby grants a variance per Municipal Zoning Code Section
10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) -:o permit the construction of a sunroom addition
located 19' from the street lot line where a 50' street yard setback is
normally required, and grants a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to
allow additional structural hardcover on the property when a significant
portion of the existing hardcover is in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone,
subiect to the following conditions:
Page 2 of 4
1. The applicants shall remove the southerly 101x0' portion of the
concrete patio in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, and no building
permit for the sunroom shall be issued until the concrete patio
section has been removed.
2. Hardcover on t'.e property is allowed as follows (in 0-75' and 75-
250' zones):
Existing
House =
1,509
s.f.
Existing
Attached Garage
552
s.f_
Existing
Driveway =
552
s.f.
North 1/2
of Existing Patio =
200
s.f.
Existing
Deck =
457
s.f.
Existing
Walkways & Rock Beds Underlain by Plastic
= 615
s.f.
Sun Room
Addition = (over existing hardcover)
---
------------
TOTAL 3,885 s.f.
(per Exhibit B, attached)
The applicants are advised that the maximum allowable hardcover on the
property is 4,850 s.f., and that no additional hardcover will be
allowed in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone.
3. Authorities granted with 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 (August
22, 1989).
4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and
conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the
zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted
herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
5. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree
to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their
heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this
resolution in the chain of title of the property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of August,
1988.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk .James R. Grabek, Mayor
Property Owner(s)
Page 3 of 4
vq;e
�/ Certificate or Survey:
I hereby certify that tlds is a tr�- and correct
re 1j.a sentrition Of r, survey of ti-o bouml%rl.-s of
!Ats 5. 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24,
Ottoville on Lake Finnetonka,
If V4- &r KAC&Ki' that mart c," a-Aud Lots 1,, 1�, 19, 20, 21, azvl 22 hint
t mthtirl- of n 11-te Amur. nerullel with rind 30 feet kortheasturly,
S
ren-nured at r1rht i4n!-1r.:- , fror a Una herpirwi :ter rP-A;-,-rv.-1 to F.r
"wine R". said "Uno 10 bdin, deeerltwad a-, Col;r%;s: Cc-zi,nrInl7 "t the
4orthwest co-mr of the SmitEenbt quarter of the Vorthwe:A (.uar ---r of
Mon 5, To-.mshln 117 !!crth, itirwe 23 'A!st of tte Nth Irinciwl Muridlar; thence
,k-iith nlorf- Ue :lest line of s:Ac! 3outht..qst quarter of the 1yorthw-3ct (mart,-:r a
dl-;trince of 234 feet; 'I.e.-nne de.-'lecting right 48 degrees n dietanm of 9J0 feet to
the mint of bal-inninf, of vhii "Line 2"; th -nee deflacting loft 83 degrees to t!:0 south-
erly ertnn:;ion of the Fast line of said !,00t 15, and anid "Line B" there ending;
(8) IIIAt -ert of '..eke 11iow t 'venue and Lake Street as dedicatod cn the ;31-,.t of (Atoville on Lftke :!Innetonicl, described as
1r-1iO..;B-. Cormencinf- at thA tort!--e-ast rni-m-r of the c-.iartzr cf section 5, Tcwn!:hi) 117 North, iwnc,-o 23 'Jest of
tte r,t. lrrir.ci-sal Eeriditn; tAem-a 6cutll nlonr the &-ist lin#.; of said Vcrtliwcz;t nii3rter a diEtance of 14n0.28 feet; thence
derle-ting left r'4 degrees 30 minutor a dirtanee of IZ3.--2 fe-it to the ocint cf berimin!- of a line hereinafter referred to
es `-Inc A'!; twenco deflectlr,- rit:bt IL1(1 nlon. -;.0d "iArn b" n or loo feet; thence ftlonF F1 t!]n;-r.U11L
curve to the left raving sk ridlm of 5CE0 feat ane. rentra L angle of 22 del7rv-Fs 30 minutes a distarme of 196.35 f-et : thence
6exterlY tanrorA to said nerve a distance of 802.: feet; thence :.IonC a ILmngertial curve to the left having a radius of
30C feet tr-.j cent.r-.1 anrle of 45 depres!s it di-slUture of 235.i,2 feet; th-mee :ionti;westerly Lant,*-rt to laci-said curve to a
point on the V,,!.:t line of th.-i ::outh-,!!-t rut-irtor of 3nid fiort!-is-lit --unrter of zi-�ction 5, and said "Line L11 there ending,
said *nninj- pcin ueInr thl, --aint of hir:r1ra.inf. of Uia -,)rr-erty licir.,- tieccrito.d,- th--ree Northeaster];., alonf. Sa j_ ":.ins A"
to its Inter"ction with the Kcrtherlv oxtereinn of LN, w%sterly lin= of T,.ereEn Street in smid. pint of CttovilL: on iAke
Vinnot,Wca; thcnce 3outherly mlonF saki Lorttierlv extension tA., the &u*h,:r1 • line of scAd Ln'-e View Avenue; thence Scuth-
westariy along said Sout: orly line cf Lnke'craw Alrenvio to the lin,- of s!tl ka Street; thence South a'c.nj! said Fast
line of Lek, Street to its Interourticn with a line drnwn parallel with arki 30 feet northeasterly, measured at right angl-3s,
f'mr a line t.urr-inriftor re!'?rrnd to -to "-ine B", said %in, 3 t" lw.int.- d'aseriutid ns follows:
Cr4jKm!-irg' at the: rortt%mrt e, mur cf 9--IJ Southeast -amrbtr or tie 1.%,rt:awest quarter; thune.-a L,cuth alc.ng the lA-,.st line
or Enid Southeast quarter of thn 1;ortin,.vet Gijarter a dizt:ncp of ;31. fefst; Wmre iof'lcctinf- right 48 degrees a • istavee
or .fC feet to the }w-.Int of lad; -inning of snid ":.ine B"; ti--nc,t dnr1e,-Mn,- left, 8.3 deemeb to said East line Of Lake
Strw6t, and 3#ki,i "Lin-i 2" there ninding,
tl,enre Northwo5toRrly jilonj- ' )qro%llpl lin-t to its interseetior: wit-h cnid Lest lim- el' 'Jo Southeast qxuirter of the North-
west quarter; thence north alon#, ::aid %Jtjt lino to the point of beginning, !UCt:.n that port of cmic abc-e--descrii.,ed property
1;-inp !Icrtherl-,, of a line 33 feet Southurly of, monsured at right angles to and parallel with, said *Line A";
(r) ?hat :part of the Northeast jut.rter of the Zouthwast quarter of tF.o Northwest quarter of 5action 5, Townshio 117 North,
haw 21 to. -sat of the 5th Prinelfxil. Meriilan, Irinf, :;out.heasterly of n line hereinafter referred to as "Line A" and Ncrth-
eastairl; of % line hereinafter referred to as "Um 5", ami. "Urm All anil "Line R" being described as fellows:
Cow-enrine at U-s northeast ecrner of said Uorthomst quarter or tits Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence
.;Cuttl alone the Fast 11no of said Wortheest quarter of the Southwest qxmirtor of the Northwest t1tairterA distan" of 234 feet
to tie point of heginnirr c4' seld "i.ina A"; thence deflortine rlj:-;. 48 degrees a distance of 90 feet U a point, and said
4A.Ine A" t:,are ending, seiA point tvinK the point of beginning of said *Line B"; thence deflecting left 83 degrees to said
Last lire, and said "Lino H" t.-iero eneinf,
UC&q toat port thereof ly-int, tioulnuesterly of tA lies drawn narmUel with and 30 feet Northeasterly, measured at right
.%#W-loar fr-tr sairl 'Line P", eutj-)ct toanexisting easement Mali pur,ivsea,
14L��
28.3 x tiz .3
= 1/97 s
izXzc.
312
x2`l
= 552
Z-D
= ?1>O
�Zx3L
= y32.
N
to
/-nr ,,' WALK 8�3v = Z�fO '.
J N C.4 . S N A AZOO^
OC
L ICIr of
-M7-AL 3�Ss ={
bbiBi T' a
xes,
DE
•
z.
t e�
�! .• r-.
L•.• ,•••••••• •�
� S •
jaw000p-
'•.
ZONING FILE NO. 1314
CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay; MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 8-1-1-88
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Gerald & Candace Rowlette COPIES TO:
3775 Bayside Road
Long Lake, MN 55356
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance
------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 8-15-88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Approval subject to conditions noted below.
ROTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Approval of setback variance for glass -enclosed sunroom is
conditioned upon removal of south half of 20'x20' concrete slab, resulting
in a 200 s.f. reduction in hardcover in the 0-75' zone, prior to issuance
of building permit for the sunroom.
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
City Ciuncil August 22, 1988; meeting starts at 7:00p.m.
If yi 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 Kelley
Orono Planning Commission Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
Date: August 8, 1988
Subject: #1314 Gerald & Candace Rowlette, 3775 Bayside Road -
Variance - Public Hearing
Application - Street setback variance to construct 4.5' x 12' sunroom
addition.
Zoning District - LR-lA, 2-acre, unsewezed
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Application
Exhibit B - Plat Map
Exhibit C - Property Owners List.
Exhibit D - Survey With Staff Notations
Exhibit E - Plans & Elevations Showing Proposed Location of Sunroom
Exhibit F - Documentation From 1976 Variance Approval
Pertinent Facts -
1. Street Setback:
Required = 50'
Existing = 21' (at addition location)
At Addition Site:
Proposed = 19'
Variance = 31' or 6Z YO
2. The proposed sunroom "fills i. an existing indentation in the north
wall of the house.
3. Hardcover:
Total Existing 'iardcover = 4,085 s.f.
Totai Hardcover Allowed on Property = 4,850 s.f.
(25% of 75-250' zone)
Proposed Changes: No Change Proposed - Sunroom is over existing
rock and plastic.
4. Note that the 1976 variance approval to add garage, rooms, and deck
partially in the 0-75' zone was conditioned upon removal of 20'x20'
concrete patio. That patio has never been removed.
.- //�7L � E 1V !'�. � tic r .�. L'��% L L� • "a y. ". � '� •''�'�
_ �•_ ,t Ar.'T ?�= �_*_ =rY.�; �.. 7-v � `oc�_ '�"�" �:.i GAT ���
Zoning File #1314
August 8, 1988
Page 2 of 2
Discussion -
•
The westerly portion of this house was originally constructed in 1969.
In 1976, the Rowlettes requested and were granted variances to allow
construction of room additions, an attached garage, and a new deck. The
original house was constructed partially in the 0-75' zone prior to the 75'
setback requirement adopted in 1975. In exchange fcr variance approval to
allow the room, garage, and deck additions in 1976, the applicants were
required to remove a 201x20' concrete patio located about 40' from the
shoreline. This patio has never been removed.
Because the existing house is constructed with "wing -wall" extensions
about 2' out from the house, with overhangs, the proposed sunroom will not
appear to extend any closer to the road than the existing house, as can be
seen from the plans submitted. There would not appear to be any
significant impacts on the character of the neighborhood, and no light, air
or open space is encroached upon. The hardship would be the location of
the existing house and the narrow nature of the lot which allows virtually
no usable building envelope without variances.
Staff. Recommendation -
Based on the information noted above, staff would recommend approval
of the proposed sunroom addition, subject to removal of the 20'x20'
concrete patio on the lake side of the house, such patio to be removed
prior to issuance of a building permit for the sunroom.
-FELT
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATI
Initial Application Fee $150.00 t3 14
($50.00 per each additio`- nab Variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 CITJF Mru(
(no change from original application) ncrr;r
After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee) j"�V�v -)l
----------------------------------------------------------- t`J r V1
iL
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address 3775 Bayside Road
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 05-117-23-240111
Please check one - Property X abstract or torrens?
Attach legal description to application if not included on
required survey.
-------•---------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANT Phone (home) 475-1100
Name GErald & Candace E. Rowlette Phone (work) 475-1100 - Mr.
476-1714 - Mrs
Address: 3775 Bayside Road City: Long Lake Zip: 55356
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OWNER (if different than arrlicant) Phone (home)_
Name Phone (work)
Address:
Date Property Acquired
City:
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
Residentia
other (specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 3000.00
Describe request in detail: Addition of Small Greenhnijse
------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover
Setback Variances (X, Front Side 3r)
Other
HARDSHIP
Describe undue hardship .or practical difficulty resulting from strict
enforcement of zoning regulations: Due to the new rnad dirant1vy a;�ra5
from our home all headlights will he shining riirartly into the Kitrhan„
----------------------------------------------------- 7---------------------
DSSCR p4fofi r8# n WW§BAD' o �i6P�iW to*Di i'rIbft f o r o u r p r i v a c y. - -
Describe unusual property conditions preventing ,.ompliance'.with`_Zoning
Code Requirements: We are not going any closer to the rnad than tha
existing house - ►re are merely filling in a mace_ When tha aYictinq
------h----------�LS
-i-1t---------------------------------------------------------
RHQUIRgeS IhTrAit met the requirements for setback at that time.
1. Completed Application -Form - - - — -- — — --
2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain
le this list -from -Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center
348-3271). 1.
3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each of the
names on the above list with no return address (use address labels
obtained with property owners list).
4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required.
5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes
in existing grade are proposed.
6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list).
7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of
any other persons you wish notified of this application.
8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicant -and Property Owner must sign this application. Please
remember that your variance application is not complete if the above
information has not been included.--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete.
Zoning Official's Signature
Date
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or
requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or
unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that
the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her
knowledge.
Applicant's Signature Date '% 1'1 $ %
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 I `L
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the
Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Meetings are held on the
third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled
review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is
unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an
authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning
Office of this change prior to the meeting,
2
8894416 W 1.49. OjW
Lj W s%
52
/501
193541W
A(854416 W. Ao V 1�3!4
/501 A
0
_j
_46
58
tin
j
Al bk
4,40
1%
0.
6 2
63
64 (0)
117
%
J
I
yc
1) 2
Sh Z2
24
q:
4
(141
lw
'7
ru88s
f 1960 Alloetel Pok
RUN DATE 07/19/88
BATCH 007
38 05-117-23 21 ODDS
PROP ADOR 03780 BAYSIDE RD
OWNER NAME HAZEL AW ERSON
TAXPAYER HAZEL ANDERSON
NAME/ADDR 3780 BAYSIDE RD
LONG LAKE MN 55356
38 OS-117-23 23 0030
PROP ADOR
OWNER NAME ANDREW E MINER ET AL
TAXPAYER LANDMARK CONSTRUCTION INC
NAME/ADOR PO BOX 248
LONG LAKE MH 55356
38 05-117-23 24 0064
PROP ADOR
OWNER NAME JOHN BURGER ET AL
TAXPAYER JOHN BURGER
NAME/ADDR 3750 BAYSIDE RD
LONG LAKE MN 55356
38 05-117-23 24 0102
PROP ADOR
OWNER NAME S A C GARDINER
TAXPAYER STEVE GARDINER
NAME/ADDR 3770 BAYSIDE RD
LONNG LAKE MH 55356
38 05-117-23 24 0111
PROP ADOR 03775 BAYSIDE RD
OYOiER NAME G R A CE ROWI ETTE
TAXPAYER GERALD L ROWLETTE
NAME/ADUR 3775 BAYSIDE RD
LONG LAKE MN 55356
38 05-117-23 24 0116
PROP ADOR
OWNER NAME STATE LAW DEPT
TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONNO
NAME/ADOR CONVEYED
2/8/82 ST DEED 161148
HLANEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
38 05-117-23 21 0015
03750 BAYSIDE RD
JOHN BURGER ETAL
JOHN BURGER
3750 BAYSIDE RD
LONG LAKE MN 55356
38 35-117-23 24 0082
DANIEL P CAHILL
MRS DANIEL CAHILL
224 H STH ST
DELAVAN WI 53115
38 OS-117-23 24 0100
S A C GARDINER
STEVE GARDINER
3770 BAYSIDE RD
LONG LAKE MN 55356
38 OS-117-23 24 0103
S A C GARDINER
STEVE GARDINER
3770 BAYSIDE RD
LONG LAKE MH 55356
36 05-117-23 24 0112
STATE LAND DEPT
STATE LAND DEPT
TOTAL BATCH 007 00016
REPORT NO. PI435401
PAGE 15
38 05-117-23 23 0003
03820 BAYSIDE RD
ANDREW E MINER ET AL
LANDMARK CONNSTRUCTI&I INC
PO BOX 248
LONG LAKE MN 55356
38 05-117-23 24 0083
JOHN BURGER ET AL
JOHN BURGER
3750 BAYSIDE RD
LONG LAKE MN 55356
38 05-117-23 24 0101
03770 BAYSIDE RN1
S A C GARDINER
STEVE GARDINER
3770 BAYSIDE RD
LONG LAKE MN 5535(
38 05-117-23 24 0105
PARK METRO INV FUND INC
FRED PRICE
K L ENTERPRISES
1611 PARK AVE S
MPLS MN 55404
38 05-117-23 24 O11S
STATE LAND DEPT
CITY OF ORONO
PARK
4/13/79 ST DEED 156753
J
N00,450 Zs.3xyi•3 119..E ;'M -7s -2S-O'
N S . 6" p"P. ! S Ll a sa
is AR- 24 X 23 SS 2 / S . ACOV-%
1 5S2 %N� N. C . onl PReI�, �D}17sw�S /N p-'7S,
D 4 'j,'1 K 2� . L) _ PARto �2our2s� 3
f prno 20 x t v = HpO ro sE
beC.K I �S = q3
r�
•aN 3 )e 2S = aro R O A� NO - _ R—�c- _ a
—i2;v �P'J. ot IOYSO t cou
-' N7Y <s.
1/0
L inI A wl
267,
l
7-4'r s.; ;. - . it r S • ,;.i is 1L. - `�
' .�.� .... LAB • � � �'
.. ................
'%p
4r• '`
f,r,µ� S M„�,�TaVkA O
P� o
.� ,: �.� �s� �' •ter l-; .�� aa7,o �,,,�.,., o---
f.Tff
^
`
�~
/
�
`
w
. �
�
` ^
_-..... .......
-'
0
�,'' jji �+t,!'1' �lit�lt,�•.. r.;- � --�,.'�-_'i. >••-. La_.. _ t 1,+��s. y„'k's-`�i � '� -�
_-- I' f+f:i•tt ' � 1 I ; fi. � T►•�r�+:Gi ��r�h�?d_G,•�k.
� � i � � ; ' , ! + � � � � � � tlae►z.orTT-L E t-T W o��p �• '
TR9'I PLL FM NltL Ft'
Rmo
I
EST E_ LEVgTfov 0ri !
F�rt:r� C�1sj>r=6
b
TO: M. R. Benson �
FROM: H. F. *i hhich ,
DATE: March 2S, 1976
SUB.JECr: Richard Rowlette - 377S Bayside Road
Variance - Lakeshore and Street Setback
Mr. Rrwlette recently purchased the old Betz property at 377S Bayside
Road. This is the property with which previous problems of right -of
wary encroachment was just resolved in 197S thru a rearrangement of Lake
Street.
The location of the existing dwelling dxs not conform to the street
setbaci: requirement of SO ft. and hardcover and lakeshore setback require-
ment of 7: ft. Mr. Rowlette is now requesting variances from this sct-
back requirement for an addition -o this existing structure. The prnpesed
36' x 28' addition consists of a dining room, second eating space and a
two car garage. The setbacks of the proposed addition would be 66 ft.
from the lakeshore and 20 ft. from the street property line.
Therefore. the variances requested would be 9 ft. from the lakeshore set-
back requirement and 30 ft. from the street setback requirement and variance
from the 7S ft lakeshore hardcover setback of 378 sq. ft. for the existing
construction and 4n0 sq. ft. for the proposed addition for a total of 778
sq. ft. of hardcover.
The existing structure includes a 20' x 20' concrete patio deck facing
the lakeshore. Mr. Rowlette has agreed to remove this 40n sq. ft. of hard-
cover and replace same with a larger open redwood deck if the setback variances
are approved.
The maxamin area of this proposed addition extending into the 7S ft. Lake-
shore setback would not exceed 200 sq. ft. This would result in a net de-
crease of hardcover of 200 sq. ft.
PWNTNr, CrWSSi(lN !TTP C - April 5, 1976
The Commission recommended to the Council approval of the lakeshore and street
setback request conditional unon removal of the 2n, x 2n' concrete deck being
replaced by a non -pervious tvrw deck because the City would gain a 2nn sq. ft.
decrease in hardcover.
aMCIL METING - April 12, 1976
,he Council concurred with the Planning Commission - Approved
0110NO COUI4CIL MEETING HELD APRIL 12, 1976 Page 4
Paurus moved, Ifassengale seconded, that the VARIANCE
variance request of Richard Rowlette, 3775 Bay- 3775 Dayside Road
side Road, be approved as per the Planning (Continued)
Commission minutes of April 5, 1976, subject
to a correct deed being filed by Mr. Betz.
!lotion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0).
Paurus moved, Butler seconded, that Resolution RESOLUTION IG72
0672, A Resolution Approving The Registered Land RLS 4
Survey No. , be adopted, subject to the payment 3080 Florth Shore Drive
of the Park Dedication Fee in the amount of
;2,000. Ilotion, Ayes (4) - *lays (0) .
;lassengale moved, Butler seconded, that Resolution RESOLUTION 0673
0673, A Resolution Approving The Ulmer Estates Ulmer Estates Plat
Plat, be adopted, subject to the payment of the 70 & 190 Willow Drive N.
Park Dedication Fee in the amount of $800.
iiotion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0).
Henry fiuhich, Building & Zoninq Administrator, STREET VACATION
informed the City Council that llr. 6 Mrs. Esco Hill Street
are submitting a request to vacate a portion of 300 Crestview Avenue
Hill Street as his existing well, side entry
enclosure and garage are located on the right-of-
way.
A similar proposal Was denied by the Planning
Commission and Council on February 12, 1973.
We informed the applicant's counsel of this but
he requested we proceed with the proposal as
submitted.
The existing garage is in need of repair and
probably coull be removed or moved. The entry
enclosure could be removed and the well could
be moved.
I would recoenend against this vacation as it
would result in landlocking the property to the
east.
A public hearing should be scheduled.
Planning Commission fleeting - 'larch 1, 1976
"he Planning Commission scheduled a public hearing
:o be held on Nonday, April 5, 1976 at 700 P.ff.
Planning Commission heating - April 5, 1976
Jerry Snyder, attorney representing the applicant,
anr:iared at the public hearing and requested
Uat the Commission review the survey prepared
for the -scos. It showed the garage and a portion
of tho existing house, including the well, (Continued)
ORO1;0 COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 12, 1976
Massengale roved, PaurUs seconded, to approve
the conditional use Permit
1960 Lakeview Terrace, subject tothe5, 197G
Planning Commission Minutes of April
and receipt of open space easement on Lot 2,
Block 1, Long Lake Country Club Addition.
,lotion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0).
Henry 1which, Building : Zoning Administrator,
stated that Richard Rowlette recently purchased
the old Betz prop+rty at 3775 Bayside Road.
This is the proper,* with which previous
problems of right-,,f-way encroachment was just
resolved in 1975 through a rearrangement of
Lake Street.
The location of the existing dwelling does not
conform to the street setback requirement of
50 ft. and hardcover and lakeshore setba^�
requirement of 75 ft. fir. Rowlette is n
requesting variances from this setback
requirement for an addition to thya existing
structure. The proposed 36' X 28' addition
conEd sts of a dining room, second eating soace
and a two car garage. The setbacks of the
proposed addition would be r6 ft. from the
lakeshore and 20 ft. frotr _:ie street property
line.
Therefore, the variances requested would be
9 ft. from the lakeshore setback requirement
and 30 ft. from the street setback requirement
and variance from the 75 ft. lakeshore hardcover
setback of 378 sq. ft. for the proposed
addition for a total of 778 sq. ft. of hardcover.
The existing structure includes a 2P' X 20' concrete
patio c�_,ck facing the lakeshore. t•ir. Rowlette
has agreed to remove this 400 sq. ft. cf
hardcover and replace same with a larger open
redwood deck if the se* -back variances are approved.
..Ie maximum area of this proposed addition
extendinq into the 75 ft. lakeshore setback
weild not exceed 200 sq. ft. This would result
iii a net decease of hardcover of 200 sq. ft.
Planning Commission fleeting - April 5, 1976
page 3
CONDITIONAL USU PERMIT
1960 Lakeview Terrace
(Continued)
VARIANCE
3775 Bayside Road
The Commission recommended to the Council approval
of the lakeshore and street setback request
conditioned upon removal of the 20' X 20'
concrete deck being replaced by a non -pervious
type deck because the City would gain a 200 sq. (Continued)
ft. decrease in hardcover.
Lk
2 a'3 CITY Uf 0"40 PEv.TT A1'?LICATI'T,
_ UN CSC C) ly _ Ac'NLLCATI� �' I:11•":c
Ic. Date 0-7t
Fang / t' • Z c
MX-F.AL 1737,
l�tx ?io. Date lisp.
ittUrJ3 ?
Y'e_1
*tar
_ I
za,rG DL*t.
X-el
Jdt isZYCC �
:aid. Uz;e
L rt CLeb ,
"fair R1:1'IC'" r"?tt:+T�
'' .f •76. O r.A alb
_�tL� ,� Ste•
M V
PeT".; : "'
Co
Plata RAvi -+ F-e
'iPatr �1.:Tt`taroe
uA
P;CZCT ADMI SS --
Lot SIOC ---sear
Owner (STL,- W L- 2,,...,(1��.�1
add.�esg 2,7 1 � �ci U� d
M) del
Addms a
P!►one r i 1 _ & 1
PRL\CTPAL Si MU rt<M 7YPE
Bsmt: Fln Afro Win P.res
"xin F1r: 'Ridth 12 Depth 2 G Area!- 4.J'ju
2nd Flr: Width to Depth IL -Area 120 - Cgoo
A.=SSG`RY M. —C'ItM TYPE w V, tj&vmS4
Width. Li Depth 24 Area ssz — Fftq
Est Crmpletion dateOK
_
Est. Gmtrv_ti n Value - 000 � t
A A�
►.ot Width". Depth AreA
Lakeshore: Y'ts No
!+vetl ands : Y-s NO
Pruvc, Set'aack5 r-mt -- %ar
Side Lake
2 OOF1ES PIAZ D'ZA 4 Ir F4=-, A CErMFICAM W-
SLMS' OF 'II E LQr, .kU 71-M I V M i 1M. FEE.
The undersig:ed hereby mattes aali:.atim for a r:i.d-
ing pemit for the work desc:it,e:i, Agree-S to do &.]*
.
work ki strict accordance with the ordLumes �i :.1te
City of Orrno and rulings j: tye State IuUding Coup
Division, and declares that al:. racf.s And reprvsen-
tations statod herelm area true and ctmeet.
S igna may
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
Date: September 1, 1988
Subject: #1315 Countryside Manor Homeowners' Association,
Intersection of Willow Drive and Countryside Drive -
Variances
Per the attached Council action notice, the applicant has
been advised of the need to address signage if signage is planned
at the time of the installation of the monuments. Note that
Section 10.61, Subdivision 2 (A)(2), limits each sign to six
square feet. If signage is proposed, and it exceeds the allowed
six square feet, the enclosed resolution must be amended to
address the need for the variance.
APPLICATION NO. 1315
CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 8/29/88
---•------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Countryside Manor Homeowners' Association
Phillip Miller
2435 Countryside Dr
_Long Lake, MN 55356
------------•---------------------------------------------------------------
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 8/22/88 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against
COUNCIL ACTION - NOTION:
To table all action on your application until either you or an
authorized representative could be present before the Council. The
application will be re -scheduled before the Council at the Sept-eilber 12th
meeting. Please advise if the Association will have an authorized
representative present.
The question of signage has been raised. Your elevations fail to show
signage identifying the Countryside neighborhood in the area of the
monuments. I have enclosed Section 10.61, Subdivision 2 (A)(2) for your
review. If the Association proposes signage, you would be limited to a
sign at each monument that could not exceed an area of 6 square feet.
Please be prepared to discuss signage at the Council meeting and bring any
appropriate Flans reflecting the proposed signage if indeed it is planned.
I will be out of the office from September 6th through the 16th. If
you have any questions concerning the request for additional information
regarding signage, please contact Mark Bernhardson (473-7358).
5 10.61
Subd. 2. Signs in "R" Districts. Within "R" Districts,
the following signs are permitted:
A. Nameplates.
1. One nameplate sign for each dwelling and
such sign shall not exceed two squaze feet in area per surface, and
no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two surfaces.
2. One nameplate sign for each dwelling group
of six or more units, and such sign shall not exceed six square
feet in area per surface and no sign shall be so constructed as to
have more than two surfaces.
3. one nameplate sign for each permitted use
or use by conditional permit other than residential and such sign
shall not exceed twelve square feet in area per surface.
B. Illumination. Symbols, statues, sculptures and
integrated architectural features on non-residential buildings may
be illuminated by flood lights provided the direct source of light
is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential
district.
C. Setbacks, Etc. Any sign over one-half square
foot shall be set back at least five feet from any property line.
No sign shall exceei eight feet in height above the average grade
level. Signs may be illuminated but such lighting shall be
diffused or indirect.
Subd. 3. Signs in "B" and "I" Districts. Within the "B"
and "I" Districts nameplate signs and business signs are permitted
subject to the following regulations:
Source: Municipal Code
Effective Date: 9-14-67
A. "B-1", "B-2" and "B-4": Size. Within the "B-1",
"B-2" and "B-4" Districts, the aggregate square footage of sign
spice per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square fool- for each
front foot of building, plus c e square foot for each tront foot of
lot not occupied by a building j individual sign shall exceed
fifty square feet.
Source: Ordinance No. 172
Effective Date: 1-1-75
B. "B-3": Size. Within the "B-3" District, the
aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the
sum of four square feet per front foot of building, plus one square
foot per frort foot of property not occupied by a building. No
individual sign surface shall exceed 100 square fe•,t.
C. "I": Size. Within any "I" District, the
aggreqate square footage of sign space per lot shall not axceed the
ORONO CC 381 43-1-84`
TO: Mayor Grabek
Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
:.�,: •no- ,•
E y� OF Ok
FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
DATE: September 8, 1988
SUBJECT: #1316 Gary Barr, 3034 Casco Point Road - Variance
APPLICATION: Request for variances to hardcover, structure to structure
setback, and accessory structure floor area.
ZONING DISTRICT: LR-IC, 1/2 acre - Sewered
LIST OF EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Memo of August 8, 1988
Exhibit B - Planning Commission A,,tion Notice of 8-18-88
Exhibit C - Planning Commissioi. Minutes 8-15--88
Exhibit D - Letter From Neighbor Ian Booth Dated 8-15-88
NOTE: Applicant is an airline pilot and his schedule would not allow him
to be present at the Planning Commission meeting. He was represented by
contractor Clint Gables of ABA, Inc.
DISCUSSION:
Please review the memo and exhibits of August 8, 1988. The applicant
wishes to construct a detached storage garage with workshop space above,
the proposed garage being approximatley 1,000 s.f. footprint area with
additional square footage above it. The property already contains a 3-
stall detached garage with an unauthorized dwelling unit in the loft above
it. Applicant's initial proposal was to use a common wall for the two
detached garages, in order to conserve trees on the property. This would
create an extremely large accessory structure.
The applicant subsequently provided two optional plans to the Planning
Commissioa, showing how moving the garage further sough or east on the
property would result in the need to remove additional trees, which
applicant wishes to save. However, he does not wish to reduce the square
footage of the proposed structure, since he wishes to provide space for his
car collection on his own property. Currently his collection is stored in
neighborhood garages in which he rents space.
The Planning Commission recommendEd 6 to 0 to deny the requested
variances, finding no acceptable hardship :o justify the excess floor area,
finding that the hardship of tree loss can be resolved by making the
structure smaller, and finding that a second structure with potential space
for an additional dwelling unit above it would be inappropraite when the
current detached garage already contains an unauthorized dwelling unit.
On September 6, 1988, the applicant's agent contacted staff and
proposed to submit a revised proposal showing a new garage location. As of
this writing, that information has not been submitted to staff.
STAFF RECONNENDATION :
Absent any revised information from the applicant, staff would concur
with the Planning Commission recommendation. In the memo to the Planning
Commission, staff suggested that if Planning Commission wished to approve
some proposal for the site, the following criteria would be appropriate:
1.
No increase
above the
existing 29.9% hardcover (75-2501).
2.
Maintain 10'
required
rear lot -line setback.
3.
Maintain 10'
required
setback from the house and existing detached
garage unless a
hardship
is shown.
4.
Reduce size
to meet 1,J00
s.f. maximum floor area requirement.
5.
Applicant should
be
urged to revise his proposal to reduce the
impact of the structure on the property.
If the applicant or his agent brings a revised proposal to the Council
meeting, Council has the option to review that proposal and take what ever
action may be approporiate, or Council may wish to refer that proposal to
the Planning Commission. If referral to the Planning Commission does
occur, it would be reviewed at the October 3rd meeting. If no further
proposal is forthcoming and Council takes action on the current proposal, a
resolution reflecting that action will be presented to Council at your next
meeting.
ZONING FILE NO. 1316
CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 8/18/88
-------------------------------------------------------•--------------------
TO: Gary Barr COPIES TO: Clint Gables
3034 Casco Point Road ABA, Inc.
Wayzata, MN 55391 3600 Shoreline Dr
Wayzata, MN 55391
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance
------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 8/15/88 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against
Planning Co=ission recoa ends the following:
Denial for reasons noted below
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested setback,
hardcover and excessive floor area variances. Denial was based on the
following:
- No acceptable hardship was shown to justify the excess floor area.
- The only hardship presented for justifying the structure -to -
structure setback variance is potential loss of trees, but this can be
remedied by making the proposed garage smaller.
- No way to justify a second potential structure with space for an
additional dwelling unit when current garage contains an unauthorized
dwelling unit.
Given the above findings and recommendation, this item can be
scheduled for Council review and action on Monday, September 12. However,
if you wish to revise your request to alleviate some of the Planning
Commission concerns, please contact Mike Gaffron or Jeanne Mabusth at 473-
7357.
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
City Council Monday, September 12, 1988;
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.
/14INO'1'BS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1316 CONTINUED
Kelley inquired as to the number of cars currently being
store in the garage that were owned by Mr. Barr's brother-in-law.
Mr. Gables replied that the brother-in-law did not park in t$e
garage.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to recommend
denial of application #1316. Cohen stated that he concurred with
Kelley's recommendation for denial. Mr. Barr was not even listed
as a resident of Minnesota on the property list. The list showed
that Mr. Barr owned three lots and his address was shown as being
in Florida. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed.
#1317 DUANE AND NANCY GLEW
1135 BROWN ROAD SOUTH
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING 9:10 P.M. - 9:15 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication an3 Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
The applicants were present for this matter.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the Glews were
seeking a side setback and a street setback variance for
construction of a 2-car detached garage. The proposed structure
protrudes 34' in front of the principal structure. Mabusth stated
that the County Inspector advised staff that they would approve
the use of the turn around as long as there is no additional
encroachment into the road right-of-way. The turn -around would
work if a cut is made in the bank at the southeast corner of the
garage. The majority of the trees would be untouched. The Glews
are to notify the adjacent property owner to the south ten days
prior to excavation. Drainag(! will not be changed since the
garage will be raised approximately 1 1/2' higher to direct
drainage toward the county drainage ditch along the roadway. The
existing drainage to the rear of. the garage wi 11 be taken care of
by an existing catch basin. The hardships would be the severe
limitations of the site and the unusual pie -shape of the lot.
Cohen stated that he would have no problem approving this
matter but he wanted to see the plans for the proposed garage.
Mabusth explained that the Commission members were each given a
specification sheet which states the type of construction, and
the maximum height. The garage is being constructed by Gorco and
they do not provide elevations.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
it was moved by Bellows, seconded by Moos, to recommend
W.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1316 CONTINUED -
Clint -Gables of American Builders & Associates, was present
on behalf of applicant.
Gaffron explained that -made reference to a letter he had
received from Mr. Ian Booth, a neighbor of Mr. Barr's, opposing
the garage addition. Kelley read the letter, which spelled out
the reasons of opposition, aloud. Mr. Booth's reasons included
the fact t,_3t Mr. Barr already had a 3-car garage, Mr. Barr has a
renter in 'the existing garage, and Orono has ordinances
pertaining to the subdivision of property for the purpose of
renting living space to individuals.
Gaffron explained what Mr. Barr was seeking in his
ai plication. There is an existing house and 3-car garage that
has a loft -type unit above it. Mr. Barr received approval in the
late 1970's to install two plumbing fixtures in that loft when it
was built. Mr. Barr would now like to construct a second garage
for the purpose of storing old classic cars. His proposal is to
construct a 341_. x 28' garage directly behind the existing garage
which would require a 3' setback. He would like to rebuild the
back wall of the existing garage so it would also be a wall for
the new garage. He would like to put a shop area above the new
garage. A setback variance would be required for attaching an
oversized structure to an existing structure that exceeds 1,000
s.f. The second option would be to locate the existing garage and
the proposed garage adjacent with one another with a 10'
separation or an 8' separation. This plan however may result in
the loss of some mature trees.
Staff had recommended some alternatives. One would be to
reduce the size of the proposed garage which would allow it to be
built in two different locations that would save the trees.
Kelley stated that this proposal was awfully ambitious. He asked
Mr. Gables to present his information. Mr. Gables addressed the
issue of hardship. Mr. Barr colle':ts classic cars that are
expensive and need to be housed. He also needs livinca space for
a caretaker of the cars since he is a pilot and is frequently
away from home. It was Mr. Gable's understanding that Mr. Barr's
brother-in-law inhabits the upper level of the existing garage
for the purpose of security. The second hardship would be that
Mr. Barr will be married shortly which will result in the
addition of two more automobiles requiring storage. Mr. Gables
expressed what, in his opinion, were the hardships in this
matter. One would be the runoff, two would be the depreciation
to the land due to the destruction of the trees. Mr. Gables
stated that plan A would cause the least amount of damage to the
environment and would be _h= most aesthetically pleasing. Plan A
would effectively deal with the natural runoff of the land. Tt
would also Z ovide the greatest reduction in hardcover. Plan B
and C would require more excavating and the removal of several
mature trees. They would also not deal with runoff as well as
Plan A.
15
To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley
Orono Planning Commission Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
Ifrom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
Date: August 8, 1988
Subject: #k1316 Gary Barr, 3034 Casco Point Road -
Variance - Public Hearing
Application - Request fop variances to hardcover, structure -to -structure
setback, and accessory structure floor area.
Zuning District - LR-lC
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Application
Exhibit B - Plat Map
Exhibit C - Property Owners List
Exhibit D - Survey
Exhibit E - Staff Letter Dated 7/11/88
Exhibit F - Plans of Proposed Building
Exhibit G - Revised Proposal With 3 Alternatives & Staff Notations
Exhibit H - Staff Hardcover Review
Exhibit I - Staff Suggested Alternatives
Pertinent Facts
1. Hardcover: Based on staff calculations, existing hardcover on the
property is virtually all within the 75-250' zone and is 29.9%.
Applicant proposes to remove a backyard area of wood chips underlayed
by plastic, for a reduction of 825 s.f. or 3.1%. The other area of
hardcover that applicant proposed to remove is not hardcover in
staff's opinion, since the only rock in this area is a little bit that
has washed down from the steep gravel driveway (area west of garage,
between garage and driveway). With Option A, which applicant prefers,
the final hardcover is 27.5%. With Option B, final hardcover is
29.4%. With Option C, final hardcover is 29.8%. Staff does not
understand why Options B & C leave the pavement between the two
garageE in place. Applicant should address this.
2. Setbacks, Structure -to -Structure: Applicant is proposing to construct
a second garage that is uphill from but shares the same foundation
wall with the existing garage structure. This would result in the
structures being considered as attached, creating an accessory
structure of approximately 1,700 s.f. footprint area and total usable
floor space of about 2,700 s.f.
Applicant's Option B would be to move the proposed garage 10' east and
setback 8' from the existing garage. He would prefer not to do Option
B because he claems he will loose 4 trees and will not be able to
reduce the hardcover as much as with Option A. Option C is to move
the garage 12' east from Option A and maintain a 10' setback to the
existing garage and to the lot line. He cleims he will loose 7 or 8
trees with this scheme.
Zoning File #1316
August 8, 1988
Page 2 of 3
Staff would recommend that the garage dimensions be reduced to save
the trees rather than grant variances for structure to structure
setback. An alternative would be to relocate the garage entirely.
3. Accessory Structure Size. As noted above, if the old and the new
garages share a wall, they will be considered attached and will yield
approximately 2,700 s.f. of usable floor area, an excess of 1,700 s.f.
over the 1,000 s.f. allowed, for a variance of 170%. Note that the
existing 3 car garage, with what appears to be a dwelling space above
it, comprises about 1,156 s.f. and already is oversized. The new
garage, if detached, would comprise about 1,561 s.f., an excess of 56%
for that new building. As of this writing, applicant has not provided
substantial information regarding the need for all of this space, but
has merely applied for a 990 s.f. "storage garage".
Discussion -
There is no question that this property has some severe site
constraints which limit the realistic totential for development of
additional accessory buildings. The property already contains a detached 3
car garage with a loft and what appears to be living space above it, this
structure being in excess of the 1,000 s.f. floor area allowed. That
garage was allcwed to be built in 1976, based on code interpretations at
that time which apparently considered only the footprint.
Staff received a phone call from one of the neighboring property
owners who was notified of this variance application, and that neighbor was
concerned that the property is already overused, by virtue or the fact
that there is a separate apartment over the garage and perhaps a third
dwelling unit in the basement. As of this writing, staff has not been able
to verify whether these excess dwelling units exiFt, however there is a gas
line going to the garage and a room air co:iditi.oner in one of the upper
windows, and we know that two plumbing fixtures were constructed in the
garage when it was built, hence there is high likelyhood that this could be
used as a dwelling unit.
Staff Recommendation -
Lacking any substantial discussion by the applicant as to the need for
this oversized garage with storage space above it, and given the limited
aree in which to construct the building, staff :could strongly suggest that
the applicant consider reducing the size of the structure in order to meet
the required 10' setback and still allow the trees to remain.
Alternatively, it would seem that a garage could be developed to the west
of the existing garage, which would eliminate the need for the gravel
driveway and pavement behind the existing garage. Staff could not
recommend approval of applicant's Option A, since this ultimately creates
an extremely large accessory structure on a residential property with no
real hardship being shown. Option A would also require verification by a
structural engineer that the existing foundation to be shared would support
the added structure. Notwithstanding the excess size of the structure
Options B & C may not have as great an effect on existing trees as the
applicant expects, and trees could be saved by reducing the size of the
structure to a degree.
Zoning File #1316
August 8, 1988
Page 3 of 3
Staff would recommend the following course of action to the Planning
Commission:
1. Regardless of what structure is ultimately approved, hardcover
should not increase above the existing 29.9% as shown in the staff
hardcover review.
2. Maintain the 10' required setback from the r--- lot line.
3. Maintain the 10' required setback from t. ..se and existing
detached garage, unless a reasonable hardship is mown to allow that
setback to decrease.
4. Unless a substantial hardship can be shown, applicant should cut
down the total floor area of the structure to meet the required 1,000
s.f. maximum floor area standard.
5. Staff would strongly recommend that alternative sites within the
property be considered for construction of this garage to minimize its
impact on the property; for instance, placing the additional. garage
west of the existing garage, to minimiz3 the need for steep driveway
and its added hardcover (see Exhibit I).
Finally, I would note tliat the property owner has not signed the
application and should do so at his earliest convenience.
2._ )
1
#/dib
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $150.00
($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 3o3y' Q�+Sco /�oi�11<Rva� w�yt,►�A�n�ti t-d39/ GITr OF U(s'M
iliYnl� v%-i^ir,at
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)
37 r,i ;ray
Yo CUM` ` T7 1 S:'i
" 9 lvv.vv
Please check one - r,operty _� abstract or` torrens? L, A`%,,r111
VV
Attach legal description to application if not included on TiJ �1n r;,:--i rN T1::v
required survey. V ;! ', c
-----------------------------------------------------------------_-----------
APPLICANT 01bw f 004%S Phone (home)
Fo R ;
Name !41S,4 Z NC . �oR Q.�K�� &Ae s Phone (work)
Address: ?6co City: WAY ?14 JA Zip: 4--613?1
------------- ------------------------------------ I ---------------------------
OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone ( home) 4/ 7 -/ f �e7
Name 6+11.A. Phone (work)
Address: a o y e,.s co �o,;,�f �d. City: w wy sue•[.. Zip: jS37i
--T
Date Property Acquired 1ri4x-,tom( v,," /17f (month/year)
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY
Present Zoning District
Present L ,e of Property Residential
Other (specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF REQJBST Estimated Construction Cost $ 9 Tv o
Describe request in detail: _
----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------
VARIANCES RE& --UW
Lot Area Lot Width giver
Setback Variances ( Front Side Rear)
Other
,4 Ss LACK MiN N he ''n6CS s os 1
d'dr/C ,Ncai.ur Ole ,,,,r
(4 ) ^.0 /_S.S'JL'`.cR,+t[D NC 7_� TN:Rrf �lOi%
HARDSHIP
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty' resulting from strict
enforcement of zoning regulations:
DESCRIPTION OF UNUSL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe unusua property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning
Code Requirements:
--------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
RRQUIRED 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)> WWI"
�3 Stamped; egal sized envelopes (#10) pre -addressed to each or. 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.
Plat Map (obtained with property owners list).
7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of
any other per )ns you wish notified rf this.application.
8. Additional it..,ns as may be requested by City staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this alp lication. Please
remember that your variance application is not complete if the above
information has not been included.
--------------------------------------------------------•-------------------
Certificaticn 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
requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/, --
unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that
the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her
knowledge.
Applicant's Signature Date _ /-.La-m
OWNERS SIGNATURE
The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this applicat ' -n and further
authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City sta consultants,
agents, Cormission members, and Council members for purpose 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
taird 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 a Zoning
Offices of this change prier to the meeting
140
I r L `� . /j/� � •SSY.
•� ,,r a� . e _/j/� `�`•. / \ ,9�-.� `�,ws� ��\ tot
J CZ `' a ��� i� ��./ f/ ��� •yt �. 1 ,.o �r
17
'105
''' � ia,•e I /� . i' � pry 175 17 � r�
104
178
t1, s� t.� P AiL 179�
too
ial
IV
j4'V ..((•y� j.1 L �� \ '� V V 0, ��o `s r ' /��� 183
t• �. ,i -. +r: �.'. - .S�,df rr.r /�,
n,. � - +,. � . •ti • �� I _ � Gt e e 7
qJ _ w•1}• y � y•�r Je4 V`V�- � ! ,, 11 �1�
a=., � +:`_ ��� '✓ �• �: Ise ,� � `� l Cg, i
-
_ 167'�
1{" " �. 13
156
•,br` i„�,i • s .a s � •
•' 1 -C �55 160
.57
,' 1ti17GG
Oro
151 Sol
Jr A
All
JJA
. �-ENV .� �' . • =' :
. I SPA . • •2•.. ,R��'t • Q V ••
IM
05
..10
Y44
I •. 3r «, y
4a .4 f3 �: �I 'e ss s. ae 35 s
RUN - 7!22/88
BATC" 00 _
38 20 A7-23 42 0004
PROP ADOR
OWNER NAME S L K KLINT
TAXPAYF' C.OUGLAS 0 LINT
NAME; 154S IVY PLACE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 42 0G32
PROP ADM 03509 IVY PL
OWNER NAME MARLENE DICK / PERSONAL REP
TAXPAYER THOMAS 0 COX
NAME/ADDR 3509 IVY PLACE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 43 u
PROP ADOR 03038 CASCO POINT
OWNER NAME I P BOOTH A WIFE
TAXPAYER IAN = BOc'ITH
NAME/ADOR 3038 CASCO PT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 43 0039
PROP ADOR 03034 CASCO rCINT RD
OWNER NAME CARY A BARR
TAXPAYER GARY A BARR
14i,' ' 'AODR 1617 S E 0TH ST
FT :.AUCEG:. t E FL 33316
38 20-1!7-2= 43 0043
PROP ADOR 03277 CASCO CIR
0i41E.4 NAME LEE GEINERT -TAL
TAXPAYER I.EE GEI"
NAME/ADOR 327' JCO LANE
W:'cATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 43 0048
PROP ADOR 03305 CASCO CIR
OWNER NAMF ECKARD MUENCK & WIFE
TAXPAYER ECKARD MUENCK
NAME/POOR 3305 CASCO CIRCLE
WAYZATA MN 55391
HENNEPIN CO111(TY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
38 20-117-23 42 0028
03535 IVY PL
T BERNIER t B CLAY-oER14IER
THOMAS J BERNIER
3886 PINE BLUFF CT
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344
38 20-117-23 43 0001
03030 :,.SCO POINT RD
L R MIGG.NS & S H RANSOM
LARRY R MIGGINS
3030 CASCO PT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-111-23 43 0037
STATE LAND DEPT
I 0 A VIRGINIA A CAPLES
BOX 314
OSSEO MN SS369
38 20-117-23 43 0040
03034 CASCO POINT RD
GARY A BARR
GAPY A BARk
1637 S E 13TH ST
FT LAUDERDALE FL 33316
38 20-117-23 43 0044
03,37 CASCO CIR
DANA A HALMRAST
DANA A HALMRAST
3e87 CASCO CIRCLE
WAYZATA MN 55391
TOTAL BATCH 001 00016
REPORT NO. PT435401
PAGE
38 20-117-23 42 0029
03525 IVY PL
S R THOMPSON i J M THOMPSON
STEVEN R A JANICE M THOMPSON
3525 IV. PL
WAYZATA MN i5391
38 20-117-23 43 0035
03040 CASCO P03NT RD
J H MOGAN ETAL
JOHN 1 SISAN MOGA..
4632 EMERSON AVE S
MPLS MN 55409
38 20-117.23 43 0038
GARY A BARR
GARY A BARR
1637 S E 13TH ST
FT L.JOEROALE FL 33316
3E 20-117-23 43 0042
G3z77 CASCO CIR
LEE GEINERT ETAL
LEE GEINERT
3277 CASCO LANE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 43 0045
03297 CASCO CIR
0 N1 M OAS
DANIEL 0 N1 MADONNA J OAS
3297 CASCO CIRCLE
WAYZATA Ml( 55391
,or Gary A. uarr
of Lot 3, Block 1, CASCO COVE
Hennepin County, Minnesota
0
0.70' .0 0
4. 1, 70* ys. 5 T'zIf F
'r. 'jw.
.
. . . . ............ ..........
Sc 1 30'
D a tP 5-4-88
0 Irun marker
; �,,
t
_X
kj�
r
A,
14
00,
I hereby certify that this
is d true and correct roprt-
sentation of a survey of the
boundaries of Lot 3. Block 1, CASCO
COVE.,',, I the location of any existing
hardcc,er the,pon. 1. does not purport to
6 l,ow any ot-w improvements or encroach-
CCAFIN & GkONBERG INC
Engineers. Land Sc. veyors and P, j,iners
long Lake, Minnesota
July 11, 1988
American Builders &
3600 Shoreline Drive
Wayzata, MN 55391
&IX1 , e7
do
CITY of ORONO
Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Offices
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
Associates, Inc.
Re: Proposed Storage Garage, 3034 Casco Point Road
The Building & Zoning Department is in receipt of your application for a
building permit, which was received by this office on July 7, 1988. A
review of the application finds that the following variances Pre required
in order for this garage to be built:
1. Maximum floor area allowed = 1,000 s.f. The proposed garage
includes usable floor space on two floors. Any second story space
with headroom in excess of 5' is considered as floor area. Your
second floor contains approximately 554 s.f. of usable space for a
total of 1,536 s.f., exceedinq the 1,000 g.f. maximum.
2. Orono zor-ng codes require a minimum of 10' setback between the
structures. Your proposal shows only a 3' setback.
3. Per your Pigineer's calculations, existing hardcover in the 75-
250' zone is 35.5% where only 25a is allowed. Although you are
proposing to remove ground cover in exchange for structural hardcover
to reduce this to 33.5%, unless you can reduce to 25%, staff does not
have the authority *-o approve such an exchange without City Council
approval.
I would further note that the proposed plans are incomplete, since they do
not include dctails and sections for the walls, nor do they include a truss
certification. Also, a second set of plans would be needed for review.
Please contact the Building & Zoning Department at 473-7357 if you wish to
pursue the necessary variances in order to construct this structure.
Sincerely,
Michael P. Gaffron
Asst. Zoning Administrator
cc Gary A. Barr
3034 Casco Point Road
Wayzata, MN 55391
MNWIMNL I ZONING - 473-7357 • aHNAN('F 473-735H • rl'NLIC WORKS - 4'3-?359
ASSESSING
F- t
_77
I x ;
NNI,
SAKIIQ, TOMArtl 01�",b
3Ix 3C GAKAC a '1a., ,.:'„z . . .
OPEN SPACE No Pe -sr sUPPCRT3
trill) l••IIr •�I .I. v
Inl Ira) : n Ital
Irf 1 ul 1, 11I IN f I , I Vt 11 I IIVf
11191rM111 11 1 mill) v , f111111nt'd .1
YI
Mii1%t.V t.
00 if
,s ar*i too .rL/• 7,9_b'yll a1.1 I, I, to v f
`�Y' 1/ \ atw'rv/. ],Hr rLA.--0-'---� � e•. o � o I -
If
ll �'
1` 1
\ It
Q-41
I � rl•5� 1 r
{ �jl �'.f{. 1 '�y./ r•�.,r• •I�Ia. '; �r 1•rl l•...•� i
f1 I ., l 1 11•' i ,•I , • 1
I• - rnl dl 1n11 nl 1 ,,, n1. rd
ri 1 I�•nnrl.n ir•. .d I••1 I'Irw 1
I f .Yrl IIIr I-.,11, •o •�1 ally '
`� •"' II.11111 rryrl 11Y••
i1
- •.� 1 N. •b,w .nlv nl b••1 1l,ya n.rin nl• nr r,
,Yr•111 •.
I •II 1111 It I.11II N'i 1 •. i1V
��, • I1,•Illlr •..1 � I Ilpl .,. r •r alp)
, r•IYI l ll •` I11111Y' ••. 1
em. G-Z.
p.Zx REOvoirWN of HAF.04!OV R I,U'J_U sl•li
°NO TREES LO!;I WITH r1.A►I A''
i
I '
AIL
u'
10 r`Fc�cRv►o ;
II
MINIM0.) ►,Akr `Vf F
Z
11 Ipt I , tr
PLAN 13
RtI)-*I'vM Of Il mK ore,or r
TP, C V s I
lit
9
1 !'.Ail ..+►� � •�
k".G-
/,Jr'1w At0ve t•IJ os 110kono"o10 c 14% 1
i
a. t
It bofc�
,t•
,l
All I r
1
16;W. /`>-
HA4-c coveo- e-cv►ew) 303 c/ G♦s Pr eb .
a ems' 7 *-F ; A.I.0 s = 8 G00 s
-/Jo /swsTyuL 14&4b evtw-
- No AAe.& e-ovrv4L PR4POsPlt�
7S-:so �.a.G C�»�...o.c 21f.t s�. Pwr� Zso•roo'a,"`
A.cxA-= 2lLS" r 2y� 1'a0 ! 2`�I.LS s t
&/Sr►HG
FA&ttWeR—
pb�le
?`. Z x NK
N.S3 , I Sou
/0, s x /Y,Y
J H7
3Y./ x 119
7Y7
3`.2
l Y!' Z Sfl
lsk7
lar
�sNc UJO,--%.t
L X 3.0
ZI
Hxg
72. ,y)
axe,
by
3 x8
zy
D�
ILxl2
lq2.
vj,"V, C*Ips ovoc
�1S
7
tL,".rof, *AI»HGA.4Lr28rt�y+l3rK/L�
6 x
a
J!•rxn.r
zo !
c
IYNZI
2W
D
drsf
200
E
301� 2. S
61 S
�
Z9�2o/Z �
2i0
y0
2Y/ L
k
Z Lo/2.
ZoO
L
► yx V /z
l q,l
M.
�4 r17
Y4a
S'/r oor/4-
3 a
dto
2 Kk �..+lt:+trf- 11SNio
7r
-3 X3 O
9 Q
2 K zo
4.0
2YG
"3
21
7t71.-1c�(a(1p:-� 29.9 ��• 1
i ,+ ` +r
r
IF It K.•.ovv% ;
-7171 - a2S • 7ly` Sr. .
T"M) vjllM C*foN 14) Kw~e• 79'o a;. ft.►ucso��
Kw*-ov e i s J.x G eo v e ( / .C.pt:. / 600 .1 » . 610
7/y` -7so_ %ii l = 27.r
.N►
,sIN'f}1 W iTiti.wT i:o•rev,JIN C. i+,C . L'.+rwMr^` vTwp
L F nrvc = Oftp Arter-4t FiG .`
(F-R rW✓ I.-T pv.edo,r �� �'�G��,CN -r?4E J& WCZS)
-7s. s11 +./000 = 7812-
t
Aeo rw+rt • = 21. y
rc,w C
4000V
qp
S _
L
j �• 1s tk c.IN
'I
do
PNAen
IL
ti *0♦a ..a� t• 1
1 . 3Y-I
n L
o
n tr►��sT of ���
ut:(:K a..r♦.: him+ / •' — 6AAA60F
/•J •f /
N Yt•y 'oS' t I'j.x a ! oc*r ot"4
..' f '\ '�T. .. y-K/ i(� ',av 1�nV 9s,j': �t/��ppy�.< .. f• ..h. 510R.:- L eye. 11MJ /f. tl
log
IAN P. BOOTH -, 3038 CASCO POIN ROAD
WAYZATA,1 MIN.NESOTA 5391
. �- tom, �2�CJL � p` � �.� p .' A•
fiv
N
71
KID ol
4,
r
tv tS I� cAeS 'e
o' S�L ke
� t c 0 +\S _tt;a S. O f t\CA'n.tQ_ •
i1 - a V kcr.Q i���
CP+P44 N
/�' inINN/.�, e� r 1'� i• r J uw.Cr oJhK
— -- - -- --- --- _ Co / .: �a.a a ��. f �►a. �'r ;� d r :►� _ Ca�tra�r _ B�re� . iQ i.� it��t as�w�.v� — ---
__.. LV /Jr/f _ f7�1. _ cs IC t G0 At OW W*')ti •AAJ
- --. PALe /P.asof _ V*A*14. f+ Ms c t w / *-AL e.Ao sr do -fa tc
.(AWC) A oases _.+ A., cc -,Oor4 A/*aA _AA&4,P *ISa 10"-o _
X a ewe f pit a:� a�A ve r�.,et �e .r, s tTt--.,¢// ec�d�s •fitrd
yrlrv/e %vo
D
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
Date: September 7, 1988
Subject: #1320 Dr. & Mrs. Robert Brandenburg, 1719 Minnetonka Highland La
- Variance - Resolution
Application - Request for hardcover variances to reconstruct screen porch
and existing deck on lake side of house. This work is ill in the 75-
250' zone.
Zoning District - LR-lB, sewered
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution
Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits of 8/12/88
Exhibit C - Planning Commission Action Notice of 8/17/88
Discussion -
Please review the memo and exhibits of August 12, 1988. The
applicants wish to replace an existing second story deck and enclosed porch
with a deck and porch similar in size and location. There would be only
minor revisions to the shape of the deck and porch. Their proposal also
includes rebuilding the stairway along the east side of the house and
continuing the retaining wall at the southwest corner of the house.
Existing hardcover on the property is approximately 31.8% in the 75-
250' zone. The proposed construction will result in no increase in 75-250'
hardcover. (The architect will revise the plan as necessary to reduce the
staff calculated 16 s.f. increase noted in the August 12th memo.)
Technically, this application also requires an average lakeshore
setback variance. However, neither neighboring property will have any
actual views encroached by the proposed construction.
At their August 15th meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 for
approval of the proposal as requested, subject to no increase in hardcover
above the existing 31.8%. One Planning Commissioner abstained due to a
professional relationship with the applicants' architect.
Staff Recos endation -
Staff would recommend approval per the Planning Commission
recommendation, per the attached proposed resolution.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
VARIANCES TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 i 2
FILE #1320
WHEREAS, Dr. & Mrs. Robert Brandenburg (hereinafter "the
applicants") are the owners of the property located at 719 Minnetonka
Highland Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally
described as follows:
Lot 7, Block 2, Minnetonka Highlands Estates, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance
to Municipal. Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit the
construction of a deck and screen porch which will constitute an
encroachment into the required average lakeshore setback zone where no
encroachment is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.22,
Subdivision 2 to allow hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone in excess of
the 25% hardcover normally allowed.
Minnesota:
NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1320.
2. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore
Residential Zoning District.
3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August
15, 1988 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon
the following findings:
A) The proposed construction replaces an existing deck and
screen porch which were constructed when the house was built in
the 1970's. The existing deck was not constructed of treated
materials, and is in poor condition, hence the replacement of the
deck is partially for safety purposes.
B) The proposed deck and screen porch are similar in size and
character to the existing deck and porch, and will encroach no
further into the %verage lakeshore setback than the existing
structures. No !xisting lake views enjoyed by neighboring
property owners will be encroached on by this construction. All
work is in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone.
Page 1 of 4
C) Existing hardcover on the property is 31.8% in the 75-250'
zone. Included in the proposal is reconstruction of the sidewalk
and stair system to the east side of the house, and continuation
of a retaining wall at the southwest side of the house. The
patio underneath the deck will also be revised. All of the above
revision to the property can be completed so that there is no
hardcover increase on the property above the existing 31.8%
Hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zo.-:a is 2.1%, with no
change proposed.
D) There is no significant unnecessary hardcover existing on the
property that could be removed to significantly decrease the 75-
250' hardcover.
4. The City Council has considered this application including the
findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by
City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the 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, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a
substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan
of the City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono
City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section
10.22, Subdivision 1 & 2 to permit the construction of a deck, enclosed
porch, walkway and step system, and patio, which result in hardcover in the
75-250' lakeshore setback zone of 31.8% where only 25% hardcover is
normally allowed, and which enclosed porch and deck constitute an
encroachment into the average lakeshore setback zone where no encroachment
is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions:
1. Hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone is limited to the
existing 2.1% hardcover. Applicants are advised -hat the existing
shed in the 0-75' zone is a non -conforming strnctu _e and subject to
the ordinances pertaining to such structures.
Page 2 of 4
2. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall not exceed 31.8% (6,952 s.f.)
as follows:
House
1,560
s.f.
Garage
960
s.f.
Porch
198
s.f.
Deck & Patio Area
800
s.f.
Driveway
2,835
s.f.
Sidewalks
395
s.f.
Other Landscape Areas
204
s.f.
6,952 s.f. (31.8%)
The applicants are advised that no future hardcover will be approved
for this lot, but any future proposal to increase hardcover on the
property might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent
removals of existing hardcover, which result in no net increase of
hardcover on the property.
3. Authorities granted with 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 (September
12, 1989).
4. Violaticn of or non-compliance with any of the terms and
conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the
zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted
herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
5. The undersigned applicants have read, understcod and hereby agree
to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their
heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this
resolution in the chain of title of the property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of September,
1988.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor
Property Owner(s)�
Page 3 of 4
/3.
TO: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley
Orono Planning Commission Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
DATE: August 12, 1988
SUBJECT: #1320 Dr. and Mrs. Robert Brandenburg, 719 Minnetonka
Highland Lane - Variance - Public Hearing
Zoning District: LR--lB
Application: Request for hardcover variances to reconstruct
screen porch and existing deck on lakeside of house. This work
is all in the 75-250' zone.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Application
Exhibit B - Plat Map
Exhibit C - Property Owners List
Exhibit D - Neighbor Acknowledgement Form
Exhibit E - Applicant's Hardcover Calculations Annotated
by Staff
Exhibit F - Survey, Site Plan, and Existing and Proposed
Plans
Pertinent Facts
1. Applicant requests hardcover variance to remove and rebuild
the existing deck and screen porch. The existing deck was
constructed in the 1970's and apparently was not treated wood,
hence is in poor condition.
2. in conjunction with deck and screen porch replacement,
applicants are proposing minor revisions to their landscaping,
the majority of which new work will be in the same location as
existing stairways and planter beds.
3. Hardcover. The house and all of the proposed corstruction and
landscape revisions are located in the 75-250' zone. Existing
75-250' hardcover is approximately 31.8% per Exhi:)it E-4. The
applicant's landscaper has calculated approximately a 16 square
foot increase in hardcover or 0.1 increase as a result of the
revisions. It would appear to staff that the landscape areas
underlaid by plastic account for a very small percentage of the
existing hardcover on the property, and that plastic is probably
necessary for foundation protection in most of the areas it
exists, hence little can be gained by removal of plastic.
The lakeshore bank in the 0-75' zone contains a serie of
1
retaining walls and you will note that the house sits quite high
above the lake. The amount of hardcover associated with those
retaining walls, stairways, walkways and storage she, amounts to
only 400 square feet or 2.1% hardcover.
4. This property is bounded on the east by Camp Teko and no camp
buildings are visible from applicant's house. The proposed
revision L[ screen porch will encroach no further into the
existing vii%- line than the current structure, which generally is
screened so as to not be visible from the neighboring property to
the northwest. While technically a variance to average lakeshore
setback is probably required here, the proposal does not increase
the existing technical encroachment on that average setback.
5. There is a municipal sewer easement located approximately 10
feet from the proposed screen porch location. The revised screen
porch will have no effect on that sewer line nor will it encroach
the easement.
Discussion
This project is for the most part a replacemen+- of existing
structure in kind, with very minor revisions from t'ie existing
layout.
Staff would
ask the Planning
Commission to take note of
the
landscaping changes proposed on the east and west ends of
the
house per Exhibits
F-3 and
F-4. Exhibit F-5 shows
the
relationship
netween existing
and proposed construction.
In
Exhibit F-6,
note that the proposed balcony deck already exists
and is merely
a replacement of
that deck.
Staff Reca endation
Staff would recommend approval of hardcover variance to allow
31.9% hardcover in the 75-250' zone, and would recommend approval
of the necessary average lakeshore setback variance, finding no
additional encroachment on any existing views enjoyed by
neighboring property owners.
2
�3aa
CIT2 OF ORONO - VARIANCB APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $150.00 i
($50.00 per each additional varia.
Renewal Variance Fee $75.00
( no change from original application) ""'"`� . r rA,rrr Cc� Trc
111,iA;I L / I 1rr
After -the -Fact Fees ( Double application fee) :?rv�;;t:t?00
---•--------------------------------------------------- ---- 01 ag :`<7. v'
PRAPaRTY Ln(`AvynN +.: �.; +ntlnru►
Site Address 719 Minnetonka Highland Lane
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) IA nfi-117--23 44 nnll
Please check one - Property abstract or x torrens?
1 �JVtvVVVV
uu fC'
r rc
i LIl11t/� L 1N1.LJ
i../i1r.N}• 1 rl�.' . VV
CAW A1 -f '
ICL 4LJIl T�ru�iii JVV
"4 VLUvv VVA I V1 I •1
Attach legal description to application if not included on
V
required survey.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANT Ar`eka Phone (home)
Name Robert R. Wallace
Phone (work) 938-9000
Address: 5P00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baker
Road
City: Minnetnnka Zip: 55345
O RR (if different
than
applicant)
Phone (home) 475-9918
Name Dr. & Mrs. Robert Brandenburg phone (work)
Address: 719 Mtka Highland Lane City: Orono Zips55356
Date Property Acquired jyInfa 1. 1988 (month/year)
I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels o! land.
-------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESBNT USN OF PROPERTY
Present Zoning District r.R-1R
�- 11
Present Use of Property ,Residential J
Other (specify)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUES': Estimated Construction Cost $40,000
Describe request in detail: Remove existing deck & screen porch and
re-huild a new deck and three -season porch
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VARIANCES RBQUIRED
Lot. Area
Setback Variances (
Other
Lot Width
Front
Side
Hardcover
Rear)
BARDSBIP
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from stri
�- enforcement of zoning regulations: The condition of the existing
structure is in a state of disrepair -and the location and circulation pattern
of the existing house prevents the proposed work to be re -located.
DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROrERTY CONDITIONS
Describe unusual pro,-.)erty conditions preventing compliance with Zoning
Code Requirements: Irregular shape of lot makes Hardcover oezcentage
requirement difficult to be achieved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UIRED SUBMITTALS
1 Completed Application Form
Certified Property Owners LJ-Rt of owners within 150' (you must obtain
this list from Hannepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center
348-3271).
n Stamped, legal sized envelopes (A10) 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.
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.
8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applican' and Property Owner must sign this application. Please
remember that your variance application is not complete if the above
information has not been included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certif_cation by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete.
Zoning Official's Signature Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLIC"T'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 '(�Jxt, Date -7 - _ 2
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 verificatio off is request 1
Owner's Signature i— Date
------------------------------------ --- --------
Applicant must have all submitta to the City offices 25 days before the
Planning Commission Meeting. Pla ng 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 anent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning
Office of this change prior to the meeting.
ff
' t-
IjTr
W
��
oS
40
r. 7 f
manta; � ^�^�
�
, o � �
M,, �_ • •I/
Impolm
RUM DATE 07/19/AM
BATCH 004
36 OS-117-93 13 0002
PROP ADM
OWNLR NAME TEMPLE I3RAEL OF MINHEAPCLIS
TAXPAYER TEMPLE ISRAEL OF MINNEAPIOLIS
NAME/ADDR t324 EMERSON AVL SO
MPLS MN S540S
38 06-117-d 3 44 0010
PROP ADOR 00709 MINNETONKA HGLD LA
'1WHER NAME GLEN T NEDDERMEYER ETAL
TAXPAYER GLEN T NEDDERMEYER
HAME.'ADOR 709 MINNETONVA HIGHLAND LA
L *46 LAKE MH SS356
NENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
38 06-117-23 44 0004
00680 MINNETONCA HGLD LA
T BRADLEY HAYS/PATRICIA HAYS
T BRADLEY l PATRICIA HAYS
680 MINNETONCA HIGHLAND LA
LONG WAKE MN 55356
38 06-117-23 44 0011
00719 MINNETONKA HGLD LA
ROBERT BRANDENBURG JR ET AL
ROBERT I MARYANN BRANDENBURG
719 MINIETONKA HGLD LA
LONG LAKE MN SS356
REPORT NO. PI435401
PAGE 8
38 06-117-23 44 0009
00699 MINNETONKA HGLD LA
L i A GADBAW
LAWRENCE W GADBAW
699 MINNETONKA HIGHLAND LANE
LONG LAKE MH 55356
TOTAL BATCH 004 O0005
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HENNE•PIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST
Of MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. �-1 L.7
DATE �4BY LA���`'�
.3
Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgment
Form
Camp Teko 645 Tonkawa Road
Z (we) Glen T. Nederme er of 709 Mtka Highland Lane
pr nt name s [print address
have reviewed the plans, for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the
property located at 719 Mtka Highland Lane 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) air (are) aware of
the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use
requires Council approval.
Pr Y i►f,�y►'�1(,Oc
Property Owner
q12J A0
Date
Date
If tiou have any information that may assist the City in the review of
this Land Use Appli.catic-_. -lease submit your comments to the Building
Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date.
D. HARDCOVER CALCULATION SUMMITRY
- �
-�
t
�
� •. ,
A.
B.
C.
D.
Existing
Final
Lakeshore
Exiw ing
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
Allowed
Setback
Lot Area
Hardcover
Percentage
Hardcover
Percentage
Hardcover
Lone
-----------
In Zone
--- ------
In Zone
----------
(B/A)x100
---- -------
In Zone
---- .---- .,...
(D/A)xl00
---..-------
Percentage
---- --...,.------
0-75'
18,750 of
400 of
2,13 1
400 of
2.13
/
0 1
75-250'
21,875 of
6,750 sf
30.86 t
6,766 of
30.93
1
25 1
250-500'
of
sf
1
of
1
30 1
500-1000,
of
of
y
of
/
35 1
HARDCOVER LIMITATIONS
r `' 0r9-y
f`�
r
�o — tS•o�ty
ROA U
E. OTHER LAKESHORE REGULATIONS
HARDCOVER INCLUDES!
- Structuraa with roofs
- Decks, even if slatted
- Sidewalks
- Drive-way3 (paved or gravel)
-- Decorative landscaping areas underlain by
plastic sheeting
- Tops of retaining walls, rock walls
- Any other surface that does nct: allow direct
absorption of rainfall into the ground
SEC. 10.22, REGULATIONS FOR 'LR-IA',-LR-lA-1-, 'LR-le', 'LR-IC" AND 'LR-IC-1. OWE
FAMILY LARFSBORE RESIDRUTIAL DISTRICT. withir any 'LR-IA', LR-lA-10, 'LR-19', 'LR-IC', or
'LR-IC-I' One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regulations shall apply*
Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The set back from the shoreline for
lakeshore lots shall be at least 75 feet and no building may be located closer to the
shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence
buildings on adjacent and nearby lots.
Subd. 2. Lakeshore Hard Cover Regulations. Within 75 feet of shoreline there
shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures.
Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall he no greater than 250 hard cover.
Within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline there shal l be no greater then 301 hard
cover. within 500 to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 351
hard cover.
Subd. 3. Tree Removal Regulations. No trees within 7S feet of the shoreline
with the diameter of six (6) Inches or more shall be reeoved without first obtaihing
a permit from the Council.
v1f.Ari s Amm Rl'he 'r I 2
77
u Y r
A. HARDCOVER ORDINANCE - In 1975, the Orono City COunQil. adopted an ordinance limiting
the percentage of lot area that can be covered with impervious surfaces ('hardcover')
such as roofs, driveways, sidewalks, etc. on properties located within 1,000 feet of
a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the lake
from highly urbanised areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the
lake. The intent of Orono's ordinance is to ensure that rainfall run --off will be
cleansed by filtering through grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the
lake.
'. HARDCCVER SETBACK EONE3 - PERCENTAGE ALLOWED
I. 0-7591 in the area within 75' of the lakeshore, No Hardcover is allowed
!Of).
Ii. 75--25011 in the portion of the lot located between 75' and 250' from the
lake, 250 of that portion of the lot may be hardcovered.
III. 250--500': in the portion of the lot located between 2130' and 500' feet
from the lake 30% of that portion of the lot may be hardc Bred.
YV. 500-1,000's in the portion of the tot located between 500' and 1,000' feet
from the lake 350 of that portion of the lot may be hardcovered.
NOT's These regulations apply even if you have a lot that does not abut the lake but is
within a lakeshore zoning district.
C. HOW TO DETERMINE LOT AREA WITHIN EACH SETBACK ZONE (To be used as denominator in all
hardcover percentage calculations)
I. 0-75' Zone
Area - 75' x (Average width of lot in 0-75' zone,
measure parallel to shoreline J
75' x 2;n ft. - 18,750 s.f. (1)
(Avg width) Area of 0-75' zone,
11. 75-250' Zone
Area - (1751or avg lot Aept` i'i zone) x(Avg width of lot in 75--250' tons\
\ measure parallel to shoreline J
175' x 125 ft. 21,875 s.f. (2)
(Avg width) Area of 75-250' sons
III. 250-500' Zone
Area • (250' or avg lot depth in sane) x(Avg width of lot in 250-Svc' tone
measure parallel to shoreline r
250, x ft. _ _ _ _ s.f. (3)
(Avq width) Area of 250-500' tone
IV. 500-1,000' lone
Area ft (500' or avq lot depth in sons) x/Avq width of lot in 500-1000' acne,
t measure parallel to shoreline t
SUO' x _ft. s.f. (4)
(Avg width_) Area of 500-1,000' tone
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORK
Setback Zone: (circle one) 0-75'
Existing Hardcover in Zone
. •. House _ x
length width
I - s.f.
x - s.f.
i x - s.f.
x - s.f.
Garage
Driveway
x
Sidewalk 50 x 4 - 200 s.f.
Timber
Steps 20 x 4 80 a.f.
x - 2.1. Patio/ x - sit.
Deck
f. Landscape x - s.f.
areas
underlain x - _ _ s.f.
by plastic
sheeting x - s.f.
f. Other s - s.f.
Storage 10 x 5 - 50 s.f.
Shed
Retaining) ,0 7(1 s.f
J Wal.s —
_ ) TOTAL ,Cx1STING HARDCOVL'R IN ZONE - 400 s.f. (1)
Existing Hardcover • - Total Existing Hardcover x 100
Lot Area Within Zone
400 s.f. x loo - 2.13 t
18,750 s.f.
Additional Hardcover to be added in zone:
Item Length x 11. - TOTAL s.f.
x - s.f.
x - s.f.
x - s.f.
TOTAL S.P. TO BE ADDED 0 (2)
Existing Hardcover to be Removed, if any:
Item Length x Width - TOTAL s.f.
x
x - s.f.
TOTAL S.P. TO BE REMOVED 0 (3)
Final Hardcover Proposal:
[Line (1) ♦ Line (2) -Line (3)J -
( 400 . 0 _ 0 400 s.f. (4)
Existing To be Added To be Removed Final
Proposed Hardcover I - Same as existing
Line (4) x 100 - - S'f' x 100
Line (1) s.f.
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
Setback Yon*: (circle one) 75-250,
Er-.stinq Hardcover in Zone /
a. House 60 x 26 - 1,560 s.f. ✓
length width
Screen 12 x 14 - 168 s.f.
* Porch
_ - s.f.
X. -
s.f.
x -
s.f.
b. Garage 40
x 24 _
960
s.f.
✓
c. Driveway 135
x 11
1,485
s.f.
✓
V
45 x 30 -
1,350 s.f.
J
d. Sidewalk 16
x 8
128
s.f.
✓/
9
x 9
81
s.f.
Existing Hardcover I - Total Existing Hardcover x I00
(c,9 S l Lot Area Within zone
650• s.f. x lOG
21,875 s.f.
Additional Hardcover to be added in zone:
Item Lenaath x Width - TOTAL _ s.f.
(NtT) 3-season porch 10 x 3 - 30 _ B.f.
(NI-T) Ueck 4 x 50 - 200 s.f.
_.
50 x 5
250�
s.f.
4`�• e. Patio/ 35 x 10 - 350
s.f.
Deck
) n x �_
- �5n
s.f.
✓ %
f. Landscape 8 x 8
04
�—
s.f.
areas
underlain 13 x 8
- ? 04
s.f.
by plastic
sheeting " AV!x
�)( .4 V
i
x
�
r
x
-
s.f.
x - s.f.
x
T!'TXi, EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE - — s.f. 11)
x - s.f.
TOTAL S.F. TO BE ADDED 230 _ (2)
Existina Hardcover tn h,. vas,,,., -A 4 f .....
Item Length x Width - TOTAL s.f.
Conc. pati(. 10 x 15 - 150
Ft. entry stoop 8 x 8 64 s.f.
x - s.f.
x - s.f.
TOTAL S.F. TO BE REMOVED 214 (3)
Final Hardcover Proposal:
[ Line (1) + Line (2) -Line (3) 1 - / ' q (3
6 9 s 1 - Cv 1
[ 50 230 _ 214 - -6-, *66 . f (a )
Existing To be Added To be Removed Final
Proposed Hardcover
t,61 (�T)
Line (4) x 100 - - 'U-7fr6-3•f-
Line (1) :?so- .
ZONING FILE NO. 1320
CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 8-17-88
------------------------------------------------------------------•---------
TO: Dr. & Mrs. Robert BrandenburgCOPIES TO: Robert Wallace
719 Minnetonka Highland Lane Arteka
Long Lake, MN 55356 5800 Baker Road
Minnetonka, MN 55345
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance
----------•-----------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 8-15-88 VOTE: 5- For 0-Against 1-Abstain
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Approval subject to conditions noted below
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Approval subject to no increase in hardcover above the existing
percentage.
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:
City Council September 12, 1988; 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.
or
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members- -
City Administrator Bernhardson I;Y OF &jtn
Fros: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator
Date: August 31, 1988
Subject: #1284 Douglas Kirchner, 1520 Bohns Point Road -
Request to Amend Agreed Upon Hardcover Removals
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Kirchner's Letter Dated 8/24/88
Exhibit B - Sketch of Hardcover Already Removed
Exhibit C - Survey of Original Hardcover Approved for Removal
Exhibit D - Resolution Approving Variance
Review of Hardcover Facts
0-75' Setback Area - 7,500 s.f.
Existing Hardcover = 466 s.f. or 6.2%
Original Proposal:
Hardcover to be Removed = 199 s.f. or 2.65%
(altered shed 41 s.f., barbecue area 158 s.f.)
Proposed Hardcover = 267 s.f. or 3.56%
Amended Proposal:
Hardcover to be Removed = 96 s.f. or 1.28%
Total Proposed Hardcover 370 s.f. or 4.9%
75-250' Setback Area = 17,1)00 s.f.
Hardcover Prior to Construction = 4,529 or 25.9%
Hardcover With New Construction = 5,126 or 29.3%
Original Proposal:
Hardcover to be Removed = 489 s.f. or 2.79%
Total Hardcover Proposed = 4,637 s.f. or 26.4%
Amended Proposal:
Hardcover to be Removed = 560 s.f. or 3.25%
(153 3.f. of paving removed in lakeshore yard +
498 - 72 s.f. of remaining paved area around the house)
Total Proposed Hardcover = 4,556 s.f. or 26.03%
Area Within the 250-500' Setback Area Remains as Follows:
Existing - 4,200 s.f. or 38.5%
Proposed - 3,820 s.f. or 35%
Total Reduction of 3.5%
Total Reduction of Hardcover Within the 0-250' Setback Area:
Remember Planning Commission requested a total of 3.4% her_ween r-he 0-
250' setback area.
Zoning File #1284
August 31, 1988
Page 2 of 2
Original Proposal: Applicant proposed 0-75' setback area reduction of
2.65%; 75-250' setback area reduction of 2.79% for a total reduction
of 5.4%.
Amended Proposal: 0-75' setback area reduction of 1.3%; 75-250'
setback area reduction of 3.2%; for a total reduction of 4.57%.
Total reduction within the 0-500' setback area equals 8.07%.
Review of Current Request
Please review applicant's letter of August 24, 1988 that notes that
applicant's sons incorrectly removed approximately 249 s.f. of paving
within the lakeshore yard that was not scheduled for removal. In exchange,
the applicant asks that he be allowed to maintain the existing shed and
barbecue area and a portion of the paved drive. Although applicant's
letter would suggest a 1 or 2 s.f. difference, the ordinances of the City
would require that we relate to the removals according to their location
within the specific setback zones. The above hardcover facts more clearly
reflect that relationship. Within the 0-75' setback area, hardcover
proposal was at 3.56% and the amended proposal is 4.9% (existing was 6.2%).
Within the 75-250' setback area, total hardcover was proposed originally at
26.4%. The amended proposal is approximately 26.03%. Total removal of
hardcover between the 0-250' setback area now proposed at 4.5%, this would
still meet the Planning Commission directive at 3.4% recommended level
reduction of hardcover within the 0-250' setback area.
Options of Action Available to Council -
1. To require that applicant meet the originally proposed 5.47% reduction
of existing hardcover within the 0-250' setback area.
2. To approve the request to amend the hardcover removal at 4.57% to
allow the paved area within the 75-250' setback area at 72 s.f. and to
allow the barbecue area and shed within the 0-79' setback area to
remain.
z
KIRCHNER CORPORATION
DIAMOND IMPORTERS . JEWELRY MANUFACTURERS
MERCHANDISERS • BROKERS • SINCE 1902
KAYN0.AR
August 24, 1988
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
RE: Resolution of the City Council #2461
Dear City Council:
-t;z' �fp;nl
I recently asked two of my sons to remove the sidewalk around our house
per our agreement. While my wife and I were on vacation, they not only
accomplished this, but they also removed the concrete walkway leading from
the deck to the lake front. This walkway is approximately 261 square feet.
As a result, I'm asking that I be able to leave approximately 63 feet of
driveway along the west side of the house, the 158 square feet at the barbecue,
and also leave the existing shed by the lake. From my estimate it brings
me within one square foot of the agreed amount. Thank you for your consid-
eration.
Yours very truly,
D. E. chner
DEK:dkg
Enclosure
490' WAYZATA SOULEVARO • V#NNEAPQI'S VINNESC1rA S5426
19121 5" 1,440 . TOLL FREE ORDERING MN 19001 742 ,)bA4 . YATIONAL 4001 324-543'
►J
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
AFTER -THE -PACT
VARIANCES TO
!MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B)
AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2
FILE #1284
WHEREAS, Douglas Kirchner (hereinafter "the applicant") is the
owner of the property located at 1520 Bohns Point Road within the City of
Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows:
That part of government Lot 1, section 9-117-23 described as follows:
commencing at a point on the west line of said section 9 400 feet
north from the southwest corner of said section; thence north along
said west line of said section 100 feet; thence east parallel to the
south line of said section to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence
southerly along said shoreline 105.62 feet; thence west on a line
parallel with the south line of s -id section 9 to the point of
beginning. (Hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for After -the -Fact
variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) and
Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 that would allow a lakeside deck constructed
without the required building permit to remain that would extend 26, in
front of an average lakeshore setback line and would require approval of a
hardcover variance within the 75-250' setback area of 597 s.f. or 3.4%.
Minnesota -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 01284.
2. The property is located in the LR-lB, Lakeshore Residential Zoning
District requiring a minimum of 1 acre in area. The property consists
of 35,900 s.f. or .82 acres in area.
3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 6,
1988 and recommended afproval of the After -the -Fact variances as
amended based upon the following findings:
A) The higher elevations of the property on the north side tend
to lessen the impact of the grade level deck on the property to
the north.
Page 1 of 4
B) The plantings along the shared lot line on the north side
tend to lessen the impact of the structure by providing natural
screening.
C) The viewing windows for the residence to the south of the
property are angled away from the structure facing to the south
and as a result, the deck structure provides no visual impact for
the residence.
D) Both effected property owners have submitted letters
approving the subject structure.
E) The west half of the property that contains the majority of
hardcover drains away from the lake and towards Bohns Point Road.
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 demon-
strable 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 Comprc-hensive Plan of the
City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono
City Council hereby grants After -the -Fact variances to Municipal Zoning
Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to
allow the existing lakeshore det:k to remain as constructed without any
alterations, subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant mr,at remove specific areas of existing hardcover as set
forth in the sui �y by Mark S. Gronbera dated 6/22/97, revised date
6/15/88 setting forth the following removals:
A. 0-75' setback area 199 i.f. or 2.63% to be removed,
resulting in a total hardcover of 267 s.f. or 3.56%.
B. 75-250' setback area 489 s.f. or 2.79% to be removed,
resulting in a total hardcover of 4,637 s.f. or 26.4%.
Page 2 of 4
C. 250-500' setback area total removal of 380 s.f. or 3.5%
resulting in a total hardcover of. 3,820 s.f. or 35%. The removal
of the hardcover to be completed by September 1, 1988.
2. Applicant is placed on notice that the City will not approve of
any further additions to this deck structure that would result in
additional hardcover.
3. The existing structure must be inspected by the Orono inspections
department to determine if said structure conforms to all required
standards of the Uniform Building Code.
4. Authorities granted with this variance run with the property not
with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by
obtaining the required building permit by September 1, 1988. The
building permit shall include the existing deck and alteration of
pump -house shed in lakeshore yard. A penalty fee will be included in
the cost of the building permit.
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 applicant have read, understood and hereby agrees
to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs,
successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this
resolution in the chain of title of the property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of June, 1988.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Halli.n, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan Jr., Acting Mayor
Property Owner(s)
Page 3 of 4
To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director
Date: September 2, 1988
Subject: MnDot Flasher Lite Maintenance Agreement Willow Drive &
Highway 12
Attached for review and approval is an agreement for
maintenance of the proposed flasher lite at Willow Drive &
Highway 12. The agreement is necessary to establish maintenance
of the flasher lite once it is installed. Because the
intersection of Highway 12 and Willow Drive is in Orono and Long
Lake, the cities share of the maintenance will be shared 50/50.
Long Lake has by Council action agreed to reimburse Orono
for 50% of Orono's share of the maintenance costs. Estimate of
the maintenance costs at this time is $350.00 per year total.
Recommendation to approve the maintenance agreement with MnDot
for the maintenance of a flasher lite at Highway 12 at Willow
Drive and to bill Long Lake for 50% of those costs.
Proposed !lotion: Moved by , seconded by , to approve the
maintenance agreement with ?InDot for the maintenance agreement of
flasher lite at Highway 12 & Willow Drive and to bill Long Lake
for 50% of those costs. Ayes , nays
To: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Member
From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate
Forwarded recommending approval. This will be submitted
upon receipt of the appropriate resolution from Long Lake.
Bones t roo
y Rosene
Anderiik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
August 29 .988
City of Orono
Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Attn: Mr. John Gerhardson
Otto G. Bonestroo. PE
Keith A. Gordon, PE
Thomas W Peterson, PE
Charles A Erickson
Robert W. Rosen. PE
Richard W. Foster. PE
Michael C Lynch, PE
Leo M. Pawetsky
Joseph C Anderlik, PE.
Donald C. Burgarot. PE.
James R. Maland PE
Harlan M Olson
Bradrord A Lemberg, PE.
Jerry A. Bourdon. PE.
Kenneth P Anderson, PE
Susan M Eberttn
Richard E. Turner, PE.
Mark A. Hanson, PE.
Keith A Bachmann. PE
Mark A Serb
James C. Olson. PE.
Ted K. Field, PE.
Mark R Roil;. PE
Glenn R. Cook, PE.
Michael T Rautmann, PE.
Robert C Russek, A I A
Thomas E. Noyes, PE.
Robert R. PteHerle. PE.
Thomas E. Angus, PE
Robert G. SchunKht. PE
Dasrnd O. Loskota. PE
Howard A Sanford, PE
Marvin L Sorvala, PE
Re: File No. 13901
T.H. 12 6 Willow Drive
Hazard Identification Beacon
Dear John,
A1;6 01988
Enclosed please find three copies of the agreement between Mn/DOT and the City
of Orono for the flashing beacon at T.H. 12 and Willow Drive.
The agreement requires that the City provide maintenance of the beacon and pay
for power costs. The agreement should be approved by the Council, signed and
_&14--th- ee copies returned to Mn/DOT.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
Yours very truly,
BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDEP_LIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Glenn R. Cook
GRC:li
Encl.
24
233S West Highway 36 9 St. Paul, Minnesota S5113 9 612-b36-4600
MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION BEACON
AGREEMENT NO. 65149M
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE CITY OF ORONO
TO
Provide Maintenance and Electrical Energy for the Hazard
Identification Beacons with Street Lights at Trunk Highway No. 12
(Wayzata Boulevard) at Willow Drive in Orono, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
S.P. 2713-58
F.P. HES 010-2(85)
Prepared by Traffic Engineering
ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AMOUNT ENCUMBERED
None None
Otherwise Covered
J
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the
State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter
referred to as the "State," and the City of Orono, hereinafter
referred to as the "City," WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the State has determined that there is
justification and it is in the public's best interest to install
hazard identification beacons with street lights on Trunk Highway
No. 12 (Wayzata Boulevard) at Willow Drive; and
WHEREAS, the City and State will share in the
maintenance and operation of the hazard identification beacons
with street lights as hereinafter set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The State shall prepare the necessary plan,
specifications and proposal and shall perform the engineering and
inspection required to complete the items of work hereinafter set
forth.
2. The State shall install or cause the installation
of the hazard identification beacons with street lights on Trunk
Highway No. 12 (Wayzata Boulevard) at Willow Drive in accordance
with the plan and specifications for State Project No. 2713--58
and Federal Project No. HF.S 010-2(8;) all at its own cost and
expense.
3. The Cit:- shall provide an adequate electrical
power supply to the service pad or pole, and upon completion of
said hazard identification beacons with street lights
65149M
- 1 -
installation shall provide necessary electrical power for its
operation at the cost and expense of the City.
4. Upon completion of the work contemplated in
Paragraph 2 hereof, it shall be the City's responsibility, at its
cost and expense, to: (1) maintain the luminaries; (2) relamp
the hazard identificat, beacons and street lights; and
(3) clean and paint tLe hazard identificatio beacons. It shall
be the State's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to
perform all other hazard identification beacon and street light
maintenance.
5. Any and all persons engaged in the aforesaid worK
to be performed by the State shall not be considered employees of
the City and any and all claims that may or might arise under the
Worker's Compensation Act of this State on behalf of said
employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any
third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part
of said employees while so engaged on any of the work
contemplated herein shall nc: be the obligation and
responsibility of the City. Tie State shall not be responsible
under the Worker's Compensation Act for any employees of *ne
City.
65149M
ec �.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CITY OF ORONO
By
Mayor
(City Seal)
By
City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
District Engineer
Operations Division
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
By
Assistant Commissioner
Dated
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION:
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
Special Assistant Attorney
General - State of Minnesota
By
Dated
65149M
_i_
nt cni TYIT' Tr)M
BE IS RESOLVED that the City of Orono enter into an
agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of
Transportation for the following purposes, to wit:
To provide certain mainteriance and electrical energy
for the hazard identification beacons with street
lights on Trunk ;iigway No. 12 (Wayzata Boulevard) at
Willow Drive in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth and contained in Agreement
No. 65149M, a copy or which was before the Council.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be
and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby
assume for and on behalf of the City al' of the contractual.
obligations contained therein.
CERTIFICATION
State of Minnesota
County of Hennepin
City of Orono
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a
true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by
the Council of the City of Orono at a duly authorized meeting
thereof held on the day of , 1988, as
shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession.
City Clerk
(Seal)
9288.411D
To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director
Date: September 2, 1988
Suhi-,�ct: Pay Request #1, Woodhill Avenue Street Improvement 88-1
Attached for approval is Pay Request #1 for the Woodhill
Avenue Project.
The amount requested is for clearing, grubbing, common
excavation, stabilization fabric, and base matcerial.
The work has been satisfactorily completed.
RECOMMENDATION: To approve Pay Request A1, Woodhill Avenue
Street Project, to Hardrives, Inc. for am amount of $13,569.00.
PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , to approve Pay
Request #1, Woodhill Avenue Street Project, to F:ardrives, Inc.
for an amount of $13,569.00. Ayes , nays
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato
v�
Forwarded recommending approval.
REQUEST rOR PAYMENT
DATE: August 30, 1988 FOR PERIOD:
PLACE: Orono, Miunesota From: Aug. 1, 1988 Tc: Aug. 30, 1988
PROJECT: Woodhill Ave. St. Impr. SPECIFIED CONTRACT
PROJECT NO.: 88-1 FILE NO.: 13934 COMPLETION DATE:
CONTRACTOR: Hardrives, Inc. August 12, 1988
ADDRESS: 1200 Hemlock Lane N.
Maple Grove, MN 55369
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.: 1
SUMMARY:
1.
Original Contract Amount
$ 36,991.50
2.
Change Order - ADDITION
$
3.
Change Order - DEDUCTION
$
4.
Revised Contract Amount
S 36,991.50
5.
Value Completed to Date
$ 14,284.00
6.
Material on Hand
$ 0.00
7.
Amount Earned
$ 14,284.00
8.
Less Retainage _:
$ 714.20
9.
Sub -Total
$ 13,569.80
10.
Less Amount Paid Previously
$ 0.00
11.
AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR
PAYMENT NO.:
1 $ 13,569.80
Approved
By: BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIR &
•
ASSOCIATES, INC.
. By'
OWNER APPROVAL:
By
By
Date:
PR13934
Approved By: Hardrives, Inc.
Contractor
By:
Project: Woodhill Avenue Street Improvements
Proi. No. 88-1 Orono, Minnesota
Contrac,:or: Hardrives, Inc.
Contract Item
STATEMENT OF WORK
Unit
Unit Price
Payment No: 1
File No: 13934
Date: August 30, 1988
Est'd Quantity Amount
Quantity To Date To Date
Clear and grub trees
Each
$100.00
50
40
$4,000.00
Common excavation
C.Y.
5.00
300
200
1,000.00
Stabilization fabric
S.'i.
1.25
1,350
1,200
1,500.00
Common borrow (C.V.)
C.Y.
4.00
500
300
1,200.00
Class 5, .100i crushed aggregate base
Ton
6.90
1,600
800
5,520.00
2331 bituminous base course
Ton
13.00
250
2341 bituminous wear course
Ton
13.00
250
Bituminous material for mixture
Ton
150.00
30
Bituminous material for tack coat
Gal.
1.00
200
Bituminous material for driveways
Ton
35.00
20
Sod with topsoil
S.Y.
1.80
500
Seeding with mulch in place
Ac.
800.00
0.5
Topsoil borrow (C.V.)
C.Y.
6.00
250
18" CM pipe culvert (16 gauge)
L.F.
18.00
48
48
864.00
181 CM pipe culvert aprons
Each
100.00
2
200.00
TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE
$14,284.00
PR13934
• PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS
CITY: Orono, Minnesota
PROJECT: Woodhili Ave. St. Impr.
CITY PROJECT NO.: 88-1
FILE NO.: 13934
CONTRACTOR: Hardrives, Inc.
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
$36,991.50
Date
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
TOTAL AMOUNT OF C.O.'S
Description
Total Change Orders Above .....
PROJECT PAYMENT SUMMARY:
Payment Period Payment
# From To This Voucher
1. 8-1-88 8-30-88 $13,569.80
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Total Payment to Date $13,569.80
Retainage for Payment No. / 1 _ 714.20
Equals Total Value Completed $14,284.00
PR13934
REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT
Value
Completed
$14,284.00
Amount
Retainage
$714.20
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL-
NO.
Pt
�r 12 l9�'.3
A RESOLUTION COMUMORATING
WILLIAM 'BRAD' VAN NEST
/�
WHEREAS, The City of Orono is a municipal corporation existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, William "Brad" Van Nest was a resident of the City of
Orono; and
WHEREAS, Brad was a Planning Commission Member from February 28,
1972 until November 22, 1976, and served as Planning Commission Chairman
and Vice -Chairman; and
WHEREAS, Brad served the community as Mayor from November 1976
through December 1982; and
WHEREAS, during his 11 years as Planning Commission Member and
Mayor, Brad played a principal role in the creation and adoption of Orono's
Comprehensive Plan, which continues to guide the development philosophy of
the community; and
WHEREAS, Brad was instrumental in enhancing and perpetuating the
quality of life for the residents of Orono, through :zis signficant efforts
to preserve the quality and character of Lake Minnetonka; and
WHEREAS, Brad Van Nest represented the highest form of leadership
through his long term selfless devotion to his community and protection of
its natural assets; and
WHEREAS, Brad passed away on August 24, 1988.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono Council, the Orono
residents, and Orono staff extends their condolences to the family of
William "Brad" Van Nest and their heartfelt thanks for all his
contributions to the City of Orono.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at a regular
Council meeting on the 12th day of September, 1988.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor
r) b
feliE ING
TO: Mayor and City Council
.. �►� 1219�9
FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City ;.dministrato�
sae.,... .
DATE: August 29, 1988 OF Ni
SUBJECT: Lake Minnetonka Regional Park
Attachements: A. 1988 Legislation - Hennepin Parks
B. Excerpt Minnesota Constitution Article 12
C. Minnesota Statutes 398.09
D. Feasibility Study Lake Minnetonka (Undated)
E. Draft to Alternate Attorney
ISSUE
1. Refinement of the issues related to the suit.
2. Updatingcommunication of the alternate attorney as it
relates to the City's standing as a potential party to the
Minnetrista lawsuit.
3. Delineation of further avenues of action.
I_NT_R_OD_UCTION - At the CounciI's August 8, 1988 Council meeting
they discussed the issue of the Lake Minnetonka Regional. Park and
direction to be undertaken. As Popham Haik was the primary
attorney but does have a conflict of interest, the matter is
being referred to the City's Alternate Attorney, William Soth at
the Dorsey firm. In a subsequent phone conve-sation, subsequent
to the August 8th meeting, Councilmember Callahan and myself
discussed the issue of standing and he requested that we ask the
alternate for a preliminary determination as to the City's
standing, which is the reason for Attachment F.
In addition, since the last meeting Councilmember Goetten has
raised the issue of lawsuit support through the Association of
Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) and this was discussed at their
August 25, 1988 Metropolitan Affairs policy group meeting. This
group held it of significant enough interest to be referred to
the appropriate Policy Committee of the League of Minnesota
Cities.
nTCr T1CCTnM
1. Refinement of the Issue. The issues related to the lawsuit
have generaE-I'y-Teen 'iaentif ied as to two constitutional issues
relating to; a.) special legislation and b.) "garbage bills".
A third relating to eminent domain is cne that is more a pol icy
issue for the State.
S_Pecial Le(jislation - As noted in Attachment B the
Constitution o Minnesota prohibits any special
1
legislation that applies to a local government to go
into effect without it being adopted by the local unit
of government that it affects. This is the principal
issue that Councilmember Goetten has presented to AM M.
As you will note in the attached legislation that was
passed, the legislation itself is much broader than
acquisition of park land in Minnetrista. The issue then
becomes, if the language on its face is general enough
to avoid the constitional problem, whether the specific
intent that the Legislature is trying to achieve makes
it a constitional violation.
This general language not only would allow the
possiblility to argue the constitional provision but
also allow =he right to condemn any land for "Lake
Minnetonka Regional Park" that was identified in the
Master Plan (Attachment D). As you will note this
includes the "Big Island Veterans Camp" which is
arguably "identified" in that document.
"Garbage" Bill - This applies to the constitional
provision that says each bill passed by the legislature
is to have a subject clearly delineated in its title and
that all issues within the bill are to generally apply
thereto. The Legislature is "notorious" for passing
bills that have many unrelated subjects and the passage
of this legislation was one of those.
Eminent Domain - This is not a constitional issue as
such, but the State prior to this legislation had
granted parks the ability to exercise eminent domain
procedures when they had the concurrence of the
municipality. It is speculated that Hennepin Parks
would not have been able to muster the legislative
support to amend this specific provision and that is the
reason for the provision that they were granted. The
State has granted a broad eminent domain policy to all
municipalities with more specific ones to various State
and County Agencies including the Park Reserve District.
on the one hand it may be difficult for a municipality
who has very broad eminent domain powers to argue
against the exercise even of limited eminent domain
powers by another political subdivision, however, it can
be argued that municipalities are the local accountable
governmental entity in the metro area, and are the ones
in charge of the comprehensive land use planning and
therefore the other agencies should be very specifically
limited in their powers. (It should be noted that
Hennepin Parks could possibly acquire the park without
special legislatior in conunction with mother
political entity, who would have the power to ex-rcise
condemnation authority for parks, such as a city. They
together could acquire the park without special
legislation.)
2
2. Alternate Attorney - t.s noted in the attached draft letter
that is being sent to the Attorney it has been requested that Ira
take a short period time to give a preliminary reading on the
City's standing in this issue. Please refer to the letter as an
outline of the issues submitted to the attorney in relation to
the City's standing.
3. Direc'-ion for Responses as to How the City Proceeds - A
potential strategy for -undertaking a response to this matter can
be as follows:
1. When deemed appropriate become a party to the
lawsuit at a very minimal cost to insure the suit is not
settled without the City's concurrence.
2. If Minnetrista wants to settle the suit, require
that any settlement also include a resolution of the
constitional questions related to the bill together with
insuring that the condemnation authority will not be
exercised in Orono.
3. If the City chooses not to be a direct participant
in the lawsuit they can, should the lawsuit be settled,
undertake a suit of their own if appropriate "standing"
is available.
4. Should the suit go to District Court prepare the
necessary amircus curiae brief to be possibly suomitted
as further evidence in addition to the resolutions, but
that the real thrust of it would be at the appellate
court level.
ALTERNATIVL'S
1. Re uirement of Issue
a. Accept
b. Expand
c. Refine
2. Alternate Attorney
a. Acknowledge information
b. Request additional information oe transmitted to the
Attorney
3. Direction for Proceeding
a._Table
b. Discuss direction
RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that:
1. Council accept the refinement of the issues.
2. That the Council give the Administrator any further
comments they have to the draft letter to the Attorney.
3
3. That thr. Council table further discusJion on this
matter until its September 26, 1988 meeting.
PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _ , that the l.juncil
accept the information tLV the Administrator regarding the
issues on the lawsuit together with issue d:.scussions with the
Attorney and directs that the i,:em be tabled until the September
26, 1988 meeting. Ayes __, Na;o __
4-rrr_ "et/r /•t
STATE DEPARTMENTS APPROPRIATIONS BILL
24 Sec. 25. (REGIONAL PARK ACQUISITION.]
25 Subdivision 1. (LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS.) The legislature
26 finds that there is a need for a regional park on Lake
27 Minnetonka to serve the recreation open space needs of the
28 citizens of the entire metropolitan area and that it is in the
29 public interest to authorize acquisition of land for such a park
30 in accordance with the master plan approved by the metropolitan
31 council.
32 Subd. 2. (ACQUISITION.] Notwithstanding any contrary
33 provision of law, the suburban Hennepin regional park district
34 may acquire real property for a Lake Minnetonka regional park by
35 purchase, gift, or eminent domain purs.iart to Minnesota
36 Statutes, chapter 117, without local consent or approval by any
37 affected municipality or other local governmental unit.
38 Subd. 3. (METROPOLITAN COUNCIL APPROVAL.) Before any
39 acquisition of real property by eminent domain pursuant to
40 subdivision 1, the metropolitan council must find, fo1:^-Wing
41 public hearing, that:
42
(1)
acquisition
of the
propercl
is
in the public
interest
43
(2)
negotiations
for acquisition
of
the cr�)oertl
have ^mot
44 'eijlted in acqu:s,-:on of land by purchase_
1 (3) the proposed acquisition is consistent with the
2 approved master plan maintained by the metropolitan council; and
3 (4) the district is able to carry out the plan and operate
4 the regional park.
5 The findings required by this subdivision may have been made
6 before or may be made on cr after the effective date of this act.
7 Subd. 4. (SMALL HOMESTEAD LIFE ESTATE.) The park district
8 may not acquire the fee title to a homestead of less than 20
9 acres by eminent domain without the written consent nf the
10 owner, but the district may acquire ill title to the property
11 except for a life estate in the person or persons residing on
12 the homestead.
13 Subd. 5. (EXPIRATION.) Authority to acquire real property
14 through eminent domain as provided in subdivisions 2 and 3
15 expires on December 31, 1989, except that an acquisition
16 approved by the metropolitan council before January 1, 1990, may
17 continue.
18 Subd. 6. (APPLICATION.) This section applies in the
19 counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, HennEpin, Ramsey. Scott, and
20 Washington.
8 Sec. 84. (EFFECTIVE DATE.)
9 This article is effective the aay following final
10 enactment, except that the fee increases provided in section 55
11 are effective May 1, 1988; section 26 is effective October 1,
12 1988; and section 56 is effective January 1, 1989. Section 47
13 is effective July 1, 1989.
14 Sections 40 to 42 are effective January 1, 1989, and apply
15 to amounts checked off on income tax returns filed on and after
16 that date.
4'-r'q0111PtVJr- J
ARTICLE X11
SPECIAL LEGiSLATION; LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Section 1. Prohibition of special legisiation; particular subjects. In all cases when
a general law can be made applicable, a special law shall not be enacted except as
provided in section 2. Whether a general law could have been made applicable in any
case shall be judicially determined without regard to any legislative assertion on that
subject. The legislature shall pass no local or special law authorizing the laying out.
opening, altering, vacating or maintaining of roads, highways, streets or alleys: remit-
ting fines, penalties or forfeitures; changing the names of persons, places. lakes or rivers;
authorizing the adoption or legitimation of children, changing the law of descent or
succession: conferring rights on minors; declaring any named person of age giving
effect to informal or invalid wills or deeds, or affecting the estates of minors or persons
under disability; granting divorces; exempting property from taxati< n or regulating th-
rate of interest on money; creating private corporations, or amending, renewing, or
extending the charters thereof; granting to any private corporatim, association, or
individual any special of ^x_usi�; privilege, immunity or franchise whatever or
authorizing public taxation for a private purpose. The iniobitions of local or special
laws in this sec-i, i shall not prevent the passage of general laws on any of the subjects
enumerated.
Sec. 2. SpeciLl laws; local government. Every law whim upon its effective date
applies to a single local government unit of to a group of such units in a single county
or a number of contiguous counties is a special law ar -hsll name the unit or, in the
latter case, the counties to which it applies. The Ic re may er.act special laws
relating to local government units, but a special laA .,ess otherwise provided by
general law, shall become effective only after its approval by the affected unit expressed
through the voters or the governing body and by such majority as the legislature may
direct. Any special law may be modified or superseded by a later home rule charter or
amendment applicable to the same local government unit, but this does not prevent the
adoption of subsequent laws on the same subject. The legislature may repeal any
existing special or local law, but shall not amend, extend or r todify any of the same
except as provided in this section.
Sec. 3. Local government; legislation affecting. The legislature -nay provide by
law fcr the=rcation, organization, administration, consolidation, division and dissolu-
tion of local government units and their functions, for the change of boundaries thereof,
for their elective and appointive officers including qualifications ''or office and for the
transfer of county seats. A county boundary may not be changed or county scat
transferred until approved in each county affected by a majority of the voters voting
on the question.
Sec. 4. Home rule chart+;. Any local government unit when authorized by law
may adopt a home rule charter for its government. A charter shall become effective
if approved by such majority of the voters of the local government unit as the legislature
prescribes by general law. If a charter provides for the consolidation or separation of
a city and a county, in whole or in part, it shall not be effective without approval of the
voters both in the city and in the remainder of the county by the majority required by
law.
Sec. 5. Charter commissions. The legislature shall provide i y law for charter
commissions. Notwithstanding any ether constitutionai limitations the legislature may
require that commission members be freeholder. provide for their appointment by
judges of the district court, and permit anv member to hold any other el-_ct, a or
appointive office other than judicial. Home rule charter amendments maybe proposed
by a charter commission or by a petition of five percent of the voters of the local
go,6ernment unit as determined by law and shall not become effective until approved
by the voters by the majority required by caw Amendments may be proVvsed and
adopted in any other manner provided by law A local government unit may repeal
its home rule charter and adopt a statutory form of government or a new charier upon
the tame majority vote is is required by law for the adoption of a k harter in the 6m,
instance
an" PARK DtSTULK-M 79y
tl
394.09 SPECIFIC POWERS. E,
Park district boards in addition to the foregoing general powers shall have these
specific powers: t3f
(a) The power to regulate by ordinance the use of .he waters of any lake lying
wholly within a park estaulrshed under this chapter and the use of any lake shore
which its within a park established under this chapter and the waterfront immediately,
abutting such lake store for not to exceed 300 feet therefrom, by all personal
including persons boating, swimming, fishing, skating or otherwise, in, upon or
about said lake, lake wore and abutting waterfront, subject to regulation by the state
of bt.anesota t
(b) The power to acquire lands either within or without the park district for
conversion into forest reserves and for the cunscrvatnon of the natural resources of
the sure, including streams, lakes, submerged lands and swamplands, and to these
ends may create parks, parkways, forest reservations and other reservations and
afforest, develop, improve, protect and promote the use of the same in such manner
as is conducive to the general welfare. These lands may be acquired by the board,
on behalf of the district, by gift _ devise, by purchase or by condcmnstion. In
furtherance of the use and enjoyment of the lands controlled by it, the board ma:
accept donations of money or other property, or may act as trustee of land, money
Or other property anti use and administer the same as stipulated by the donor, or as
provided in the trust agreement The terms of each such donation or trust shall first
be appr.,ved by the district coup before acceptance by the board. If the park
district includes all or part of more than one court district, approval shall be by the
dis:nct court of the court district having the largest area within the park district. In
case of condemratton the proceedings are to be instituted in the name of the district
and conducted in the manner provided in chapter 430 and acts now in effect and
hereafter adopted amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto Either the fee or
any lesser interest may be acquired as the board deems advisable. All awards not
set aside as therein provided shall be a charge upon the distn,-t (or which its credit
shall be pledged The duties specified to be performed in said sections t,, the city
council, the city clerk and the city engineer, respectively, shall be performed by the
commis%toners, the secretary and the superintendent of the district. Appeals to the
dastnct court shall be taken to the district court of the county in which the land lies
The notices required to be published shall be published in every case in a newspaper
of general circulation published in the county or counties wherein the land bees. All
reports and papers required by said sections to be filed with the city clerk shall be
filed with the secretary of .he district Unless a lesser estate be designated, sk
absiiluic estate in fee simple. unqualified in ary way whatsoever, shall vest in the
district in every case of taking by the exercise of the power -if eminent domain, soa
,w h estate %hail not be limited or qualified in any way by construction. Nouh4
herein contained shall :-iuthonze the boarJ to m
I Acquire real estate by purchase or conder..utwn which is located within
i boondanes of an incorporated sia ory city or city unless the governing body
f %u. h snatutory city or city shall have consented thereto by resolution duly aJor'
.i
>r ..I
2 Acquire real estate by condcmnatioo which is located outside the
disin,t unless the board of county commissioners of the county it.. which s
pr.,periy is ImAird has consented thereto by resolution duly adopted.
(c) The power. d the board finds that any lands which at has acquired arc
nae-Ary for the purposes for which acquired, to dispose of such lands upon
terms As are _dv.%able, including the power to transfer such lands tc other
corpuratnuns Where lands which were acquired by condemnation lest than 20
before at: to be sold to private parties, the former owners, or their heirs. t
7%9 PARK DIS77a1CrS 3".00
or assigns, shall be notified in writing of the board's intent to dispose of the
properties and shall be given 20 days to purchase the property taken from them at
such price as the "card shall deem fair compensation to the district for such
property. The board may lease any of its lands or permit their use for purposes
consistent with the purposes for which the lands were acquired upon such terms as
are adnsable. No such lands shall be sold without the approval of the district court
of the county in which the lands are situated.
(d) The power to fix, alter, charge and collect fees, tolls and charges for the use
of facilities of the park district, for services rendered by, or for any commodities
furnished by, or for licenses issued by, the board pursuant to ordinances authorized
hereunder. All fines collected for any violation of a board's ordinance shall be paid
into the treasury of such park district board.
(e) The power to borrow, make and issue negotiable bonds, notes and other
evidences of indebtedness, subject to the provisions of sections 398.16 and 398.17,
and to pledge its full faith, credit and taxing power to the payment thereof, and/or
to secure the paymen: of such obligations or any part thereof by mortgage, hen,
pledge, dead of trust Otherwise, on all or any of its property, contracts, franchises or
revenues and to make such agrccinents with the purchasers or holders of such notes,
bonds or other evidences of indebtedness or with others in connection with the same,
whether issued or to be issued.
(f) The power to cooperate with or borrow from any governmental organization,
sure or federal, or from any agency of the state or federal government for any
purpose within the scope of the authority of this corporation.
(g) The power to cooperate with any public or munici,-al corporation, with the
counties and with any private or public organization engaged in conservation,
recreational activities, protection of the public health and suety, prevention of water
Inllution, sanitation, and/or mosquito abatement for any constructive purpose, and
tLe power, upon request, to assume control of all or a portion of any existing parks
or park lands owned by any county government or municipal corporation in the
Park dis.rict; such control shall be assumed only at the request of and by agreement
nrith the public authority in control of such parks or park lands. Thereupon such
Parks or park lands may be developed, improved, protected and operated as . park
e in cue of Lands otherwise acquired by the board. Such acquisition or assumption
atcontrol or operation of a municipal park system by a park district shall in no way
bnPair the authority and power of such municipality to levy and collect taxes for
lark. playground and recreational purposes, all or part of such tax funds to be
(rartsferred to the park district for such uses as may be agreed upon between the
riatrlct and the municipality.
t' (h) The power to designate employees as police officers within the parks under
junsdicton and control of the board, and employees so designated may exercise
a0 the powers of polio lhcets within the park lands under the jurisdiction and
�trol of the board. Sotore exercising these powers, each such employee shall tak-:
oath and give a bond to the state in such sum as the board prescribes for the
Proper
Performance of his duties in such respect. The board may contract with
palities or with the county or counticr for the policing of park properties.
LThe power, upon a four fifths vote of the board, to enter into an agreement
section 471.59 with any political subdivision, governmental unit, or agency,
b-11:6,11ling an elected park and recreation board in a city of the first class, to expend
Vmoney, including bond proceeds, in its possession for any metropolitan
Parts Purposes, including transf:mng money in its possession as a grant to
i
olitical subdivisions, governmental units, or agencies, including an elected
drecreation board in a city of the first class.
�:: 935 c 806 s 9; 1957 c 160 s 1; 1973 c 123 art J s � 1984 c 650 air 2
4y-rr�a,u-r
FEASIBILITY REPORT FOf. A
REGIONAL PARK ON LAKE MINNETONKA
AND
ACQUISITION MASTER PLAN
Hennepin Parks has been asked to participate in the planning for regional park
facilities on Lake Minnetonka, particularly as they relate to increased public
access in Zone 5 of Lake Minnetonka (see attached map from Lake Minnetonka
Task Force Report) as designated by the Lake Minnetonka Task Force Report of
1983. The Lake Minnetonka Task Force, appointed by the Metropolitan Council
in 1985, in its recommendations concerning intergovernmental coordination,
Item c, Page 11, recommended that:
"A principal recommendation is that a regional recreation open space
implementing agency, most logically the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park
District (SHRPD), should prepare a master plan and acquire, develop and
operate a regional recreation open space entity on the lake. The facility
should be consistent with applicable plans and should incorporate existing
regional properties, other new parcels in the lake and on the lakeshore
which may be necessary for its function as a significant regional
recreation facility. The facility should provide the following regional
functions, among others: staging areas for ferry or other access to
islands in the regional park, shoreline access and docks for fishing,
areas for viewing the iake and shoreline, parking and sanitary Facilities,
and boat rentals.
ApproDriate launch facilities for small craft and fishing boats should be
included, especially in zones 3 and 5. The plan shculd be prepared by the
implementing agency, reviewed by LMCD and DNR and approved by the
Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission and Metropolitan Council. In
the event that SHRPD is unable or unwilling to implement the proposed new
regional facility, LMCD should be requested to carry out the task as a
regional implementing agency. In the latter event, modification of LMCD's
legislative authority may be required."
EXISTING HENNEPIN PARKS PROPERTY ON LAKE MINNETONKA
Among the reasons for Hennepin Parks being askea to participate in this
process is the Park District's existing presence on Lake Minnetonka. The
District owns four parcels on Lake Minnetonka, including Noerenberg Memorial
County Park, Wawatasso Island, Wild Goose Chase Island and a portion of Big
Island. (An inventory and summary of these properties follows.) Hennepin
Parks desires to acquire the Big Island Veterans Camp (58 acres), which is
currently owned by the Big Island Veterans Camp Board of Governors, who are
analyzing the possibility of reconstructing the camp for veterans' use.
Acquisition of the camp for park purposes is supported by the City of Orono
and is included in the Park District's acqui,ition plan. The Minnesota State
Legislature, in 1983, designated all publicly owned land on Big Island as a
Regional Park.
-2-
1. Noerenberg Memorial County Park
A. Current Ownership - 73.83 acres
B. Existing Facilities
Floral Display Gardens
-Maintenance Facilities
-Lakeside Gazebo
C. This park was a gift to Hennepin Parks in 1972 from Mrs. Laura
Hoppe. The will making the gift directed that use is to be
limited to a formal display garden and nature sanctuary. The par',
cannot be used for general recreational development such as
picnicking, camping, fishing or boat launching.
D. Future Facilities
A Citizen's Committee helped develop a plan for development of the
park. This plan was submitted to the City of Orono and received
the unanimous approval of the City Council. Facilities to be
built include a visitor center, memorial arbor, parking and garden
features.
2• W—awatasoI l An (Lake Minnetonka Task Force Zone 5.)
A. Current ownership - 34.45 acres
(represents total size of island)
B. A deed restriction states that "Wawatossa Island shall continue in
perpetuity to be a natural wildlife and wilderness area which
shall be used for temporary outing and overnight camping purposes,
in a manner consistent wtih the preservation of said island in a
natural condition."
C. Possible Facilities and/or Activities
Tent camping
Hiking trails
Restrooms (vault type)
• Water
• Trash Collection
3. Wild Goose Chase Islan (Lake Minnetonka Task Force Zone 4.)
A. Current ownership - 2.50 acres
(represents total size of island)
B. Existing Facilities
Restrooms (vault type)
Trash collection
4. Bia Island (Lake Minnetonka Task Force Zone 3)
A. Current ownership - 63.45 acres
B. Acquisition consideration - 77.31 acres
(Big Island Veterans Camp - 58.0 acres
and miscellaneous parcels - 19.31 acres)
C. Existing Facility - Arthur Allen Wildlife Sanctuary
D. Possible Future Facilities and/or Activities
-3-
Boat dock/slips
Shore fishing docks
Picnicking
Swi mmi ng
Hiking/nature trails
Contact station (information
and interpretation)
Overnight group camping
Maintenance/storage building
Resident caretaker residence
Water
Restroom
Trash collection
E. Consideration should be given for winter use
Access to the islands, particularly Big Island, by non -boaters is needed. A
staging area where those who don't own boats may park their cars and utilize a
shuttle boat needs to be identified. Consideration for such a staging area
would include:
A. Acquisition consideration - 3.0 acres minimum
B. In lieu of land acquisition and capital facility development by
Hennepin Parks, consider contracting with a private source, i.e.,
private marina, etc.
C. Consideration should be given to the boat shuttle; i.e., private
source or Hennepin Parks owned and operated.
D. Possible Facilities
-Entry control •Restroom
-Parking (200-250 cars) -Boat dock
•Water -Trash collection
Hennepin Parks will be identifying alternatives for a staging area(s) in the
east portion of Lake Minnetonka. This analysis will include identification of
potential sites to acquire and/or lease of parking space. The investigation
of contracting with a private charter boat(s) for shuttle service to Big
Island, as well as self -operation of a shuttle service by Hennepin Parks, will
be pursued.
Over the last several months, Hennepin Parks has been conducting a planning
process for a regional park entity on Lake Minnetonka. A series of eight
public meetings was held. A tour of the area was arranged and various issues
related to this effort have been analyzed.
Following is a Master Plan for park acquisition that addresses the eight
points required by the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission Policy
Plan.
^^'icies adopted by the Metropolitan Council set forth certain standards and
Guidelines for the acquisition of •egional parks. They state that a regional
park should be 200 to 500 acres, in a natural setting, contiguous to water
bodies or water courses.
In analyzing the potential for a regional park cn Lake Minnetonka, the
opportunity exists to acquire 292 acres of land on Smithtown and Halsted's
Bay. This land is owned by three individuals, all of whom have indicated a
wil:ingness to discuss the sale for park purposes. The attached map indicates
this property and its relationship to Carver P,.rk Reserve, located across
Highway 7 from the property.
-4-
Two parcels, lying east of existing County Road 44 and totaling 72 acres front
on Smithtown Bay. Lake frontage for the two parcels totals 1,100 lineal
feet. The third parcel, lying west of existing County Road 44, north of
Highway 7, fronts on Halsted's Bay. Frontage on Halsted's Bay totals 1,400
lineal feet. This parcel also includes approximately one mile of frontage on
State Highway 7.
Hennepin County DOT proposes to realign County Road 44 through the site (see
the attached map). This realignment equals approximately .8 miles and will
allow for a better, safer intersection with Highway 7 and improved access into
the proposed regional park.
The proposed 292-acre acquisition includes land which is generally rolling,
wooded, and has a number of low wetland areas throughout the site. The lake
bottom on the Smithtown Bay side is generally silty, sandy conditions with a
depth of 5f feet, 150 feet from the shore. The shore itself is somewhat rocky
with variable slopes. The take bottom on the Halsted's Bay side is generally
sandy clay with some weed growth and a depth of 6± feet, 150 feet from the
shore. The shoreline is generally sandy, then becoming rocky with steep
slopes 400 feet from the east boundary.
These three parcels together with a fourth, which was considered for
acquisition and 1s identified as a desirable future acquisition to the park,
are the last remaining large tracts of open land on Lake Minnetonka that have
the potential to meet the standards for a regional park. Sale and development
is somewhat imiinent. In fact, during the process of analyzing this site for
park purposes, one of the properties was sold from Hagen -Mason to Mr. Ed
Pauls. In addition, Mr. Gagne has indicated that he desires to sell his
property for development. If this land is developed for residential use, the
opportunity for a major regional park on Lake Minnetonka is lost.
Acquisition Cost_
Appraisals have not yet been made on the property, thus the final acquisition
cost is unknown. The preliminary estimate places the acquisition cost from $7
to $8 million.
2. STEWARDSHIP
As the Park District ecquires this property, normal stewardship practices will
be put into effect. These include shade tree disease control, weed control,
boundary signing and security.
3. NEEDS ANALYSIS
The need for the proposed regio:,zl park facility on Lake Minnetonka has been
Identified in the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Policy Plan. The
following three comments are excerpts from different documents prepared by the
Metropolitan Parks and Open Spate Commission to identify and then prioritize
regional outdoor recreation needs.
The following summarized the need identified by the Metropolitan Parks and
Open Space Commission:
a) Recreation Open Space Development Cuide/Policy Plan - Recreation
Facility Analysis; February, 1981; Pub. No. 11-81-0054
-5-
This is the most comprehensive study available anJ is intended to
"develop facilities based on their ability to provide the variety of
recreation facilities needed by the Region's population, now and in
the year 2000". The result of the Facility Analysis identified the
"top 20 potential sites" for future development accounting for present
facility use. user characteristics, facility inventories, population
characteristics, travel distances, site capabilities, general
participation and preferences. Two of the top three sites identified
are on Lake Minnetonka.
b) Service Area Needs Analysis - Lake Minnetonka Regional Park; circa 1982
This study identified the expected facilities for a regional park on
Lake Minnetonka, the characteristics of the anticipated use and the
affect of other surrounding regional facilities. A park of about 250
acres: a picnic area of 20 acres, 1,000 feet of beach, 600,000 summer
occasions, peak day 6,100 people; 100 car -trailer parking spaces
(consistent with Cooperative Water Access Task Force standards),
20,000 boats launched/summer, 250 launched peak weekend day; 2 miles
of bike/hike trails to support the other facilities, rather than an
attraction, would generate 60,000 occasions per summer season, 700 on
an average weekend.
c) Leisure in the Twin C'ties Area Survey; Activity Interest and
Constraints; 1983
In the preceding study, most of the major facilities currently being
discussed for a regional park on Lake Minnetonka are addressed with
the exceptions of cross-country skiing, camping, and a historic
center. From this general population survey, leisure time activities
were identified along with the public's interest and the perceived
barriers to participation. Of the fifty-eight activities identified,
visiting historic sites and museums ranked llth with 71% of
respondents interested, camping ranked 21st with 60% interested, and
cross-country skiing 32nd with 38% interested.
For each activity nearly 50% of those interested identified some
barrier or constraint to their participating as often as they would
like. "Lack of time" was identified most often as the barrier to
participation.
While need may be difficult to identify for a historic center in a Lake
Minnetonka regional park, this indicates that it would be a desired support
amenity and would add to the overall interest of the park if conveniently
located with regards to other facilities in the park.
A preliminary review of available information indicates that there is a strong
need for a regional park on Lake Minnetonka. The indications are that the
facility would be heavily used by the public "due to the regional visibility
cf the lake and the social attractiveness of the Lake Minnetonka area", as
well as fulfilling unmet regional demand.
-6-
4. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
Detailed planning for recreational development has not yet occurred for this
regional park. However, the following facilities can and will be accommodated
within the 292 acre initial acquisition. If the 90 additional -cres of
acquisition is accomplished in the future, facilities can be expanded to
accommodate anticipated increases in use. Facilities planned include:
1. Boat Access
2. Fishing
3. Picnicking
4. Swimming
5. Cross Country Skiing,
6. Historical Center and
7. Camping
Biking and Hiking and other trail uses
Interpretation
The above list is indicated in priority order based on analysis of need and
the opportunity to satisfy need on this site. Camping would be limited to
Wawatasso Island using the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park as a point to access
the lake and island with canoes for both family and group camping. Camping
will also occur at Lake Auburn Campground within Carver Park Reserve which
will be carefully integrated with this site. Camping is not proposed within
the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park site itself.
Trails for hiking, biking, and cross-country skiing will be connected between
Carver Park Reserve and Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. Initially, these will
be on grade crossings at State Highway 7. Ultimately, a grade separated
crossing is highly desirable and likely essential.
Maintenance services for Lake Minnetonka Regional Park will come from Carver
Park Reserve. As a result, maintenance facilities are not proposed within the
Lake Minnetonka Regional park site. The Gagne horse barn may be utilized as a
storage area for seasonal maintenance operations. Expansion and upgrading of
the existing Carver Park maintenance facility will be necessary to handle the
increased use.
The Gagne house is proposed to be used as a historical center for
interpretation for the history of Lake Minnetonka. Minor modifications to the
building will be required. This is proposed to be done in a later phase.
Access to the park is proposed to come off the realigned County Road 44. One
point of access will be utilized for both portions of the park. A grade
separated crossing of the new County Road 44 is proposed so that one
connection for vehicles and trail activities between the east and west
portions of the park can be accommodated.
Boat access is proposed to both bays, with an allocation of 60-70 boats to
Smithtown Bay and 30-40 to Halsted's Bay. The provision of 100 car -trailer
parking spaces on -site will satisfy fully the standards set forth in the Lake
Minnetonka Task Force Report of 1983 for boat access in Zone 5 of Lake
Minnetonka (see attached map indicating Lake zones). The remaining 30
car -trailer parking spaces identified for Zone 5 will occur at the existing
Williams Street access site on the northwest portion of Halsted's Bay. (See
attached Existing Public Access Sites and Commercial Marinas Map from the Lake
Minnetonka Task Force Report)
:t is estimated that the initial cost of first phase park development will be
S2 million. This will include roads, parking, picnic area facilities, boat
-7-
access, sanitary facilities, etc. Additional costs associated with phase one
will include $500,000 for grading, base work and construction of a grade
separated crossing on the realigned County Road 44. Hennepin Parks will
negotiate with Hennepin County DOT to then pave and finish the road allowing
for old County Road 44 to be abandoned.
Additional costs associated with the development of the park will include
approximately $350,000 to integrate the relationship between Carver Park
Reserve and Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. These costs would include trail
extensions, expansion and updating of the maintenance facility and expansion/
enhancement of the Lake Auburn Campground in Carver Park Reserve.
Finally, a grade separated crossing of Highway 7 is important to the
integration between Carver Park Reserve and Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. It
is estimated that this crossing would cost approximately $250,000.
At this time cost estimates and phasing are very preliminary. Design
development is needed to develop more complete cost estimates. Phasing could
be accomplished in the following general categories:
I. Development Phase One: Basic Park Development (including the
realignment of County Road 44) - $2.5 million.
2. Phase Two: Integration of Lake Minnetonka Regional Park and Carer
Park Reserve - $60C,000.
The major issue confronting the establishment of a regional park on Lake
Minnetonka is the position of the City of Minnetrista. The City has indicated
support for a regional park; however, they have indicated that that support is
for a 50-acre site which would provide for parking 60 car -trailers. Fifty
acres is insufficient for a regional park on Lake Minnetonka. It is not
consistent with the standards and guidelines of the Metropolitan Parks and
Open Space System Policy Plan, nor does it provide sufficient land to
accommodate the extent of park use anticipated, or meet the demands in the
area. Similarly, the 60 car -trailer parking spaces does not fully satisfy the
need for public access in Zone 5 of Lake Minnetonka.
One of the issues addressed through the planning process is: What can be done
to address Minnetrista's concerns relative to its comprehensive plan snd loss
of anticipated future tax base. Several suggestions have been advanced,
including the following:
1. The Metropolitan Council should designatc- land to be substituted
within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area Line for future development
within Minnetrista to repla,-e land taken for a regional park.
2. Tax equivalency payments will be made in accordance with the 1974
Metropolitan Parks Act.
3. County Road 44 could be realigned now. This is a major concern in
Minnetrista's comprehensive plan traffic system. The park will speed
the realignment of County Road 44 from what is currently planned by
Hennepin County DOT.
111*19
4. Establishment of a regional park will resolve the issue of public
access to Zone 5 of Lake Minnetonka. As a result the Minnesota DNR
has indicated that they will abandon their access site on Kings Point
Road and in turn should make it available to Hinnetrista for local
park purposes.
5. A total of $124,000 of outstanding special assessments exist against
the three properties being considered for immediate acquisition.
These assessments are for utility systems installed by the City of
Minnetrista. In some cases the assessments have been deferred
completely because the property is an agricultural preserve, or other
holding zoning which makes it exempt from assessments. All special
assessments could be paid at the time of purchase.
There is a need to realign Lotus Drive directly to Highway 7 on the west side
of the park property rather than bisecting the property in the current
east -west alignment to County Road 44. In early discussion regarding the
proposed park, the Blanch property was being proposed for immediate
acquisition eliminating the need for this road, except to serve the homes
along Lake Minnetonka west of the Pauls' property. Under the current
proposal, acquisition of the Blanch property is designated as a desirable
future acquisition. However, traffic on Lotus Driv3 must be eliminated in
order to achieve the desire to have one access point to the park so that it
can be carefully managed, particularly related to the number of boats
launching through the park. Realignment of this road should be accomplished
at the time of initial park development, and access to the Blanch property
should be proposed from County Road 44.
During the course of the eight public meetings regarding this issue, the one
item most often mentioned was the need for some kind of regulations governing
the use of the surface of Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District is established specifically to address this concern among other
matters relative to the Lake. Hennepin Parks cannot take steps to govern the
use of the Lake except within 300 feet of the adjoining park property.
Hennepin Parks would propose to manage the 300 feet as necessary to accomplish
the recreational use as anticipated (i.e., beacn, shore fishing, etc.).
LMCD has indicated that they will seek funding for a major study to determine
appropriate regulations for the use of the Lake. Hennepin Parks supports the
concept of this study. Hennepin Parks can take no steps to otherwise address
this issue.
Another issue for consideration is the potential location of a satellite
station for the Sheriff's Hater Patrol within the Regional Park. Hennepin
Parks feels this would be compatible with the park concept and will pursue it
further with the Sheriff's department.
A final major issue regarding regional park facilities on Lake Minnetonka
still unresolved is the Big Island Veterans Camp. Hennepin Parks has
communicated with the Board of Governors regarding its interest in acquiring
the camp for park use. To date, the Board of Governors is unwilling to °ell.
Discussions are continuing. Potential sites for the staging area have been
identified antl --re under review, pending negotiations with the Board of
Governors.
-9-
PUBLIC SERV
Utility services are available to the site and will be utilized in park
development.
Existing road systems (State Highway 7 and the realigned County Road 44)
provide excellent access to the park from major roads
No other issues exist regarding public services to this site.
7. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Lake Minnetonka Regional Park would be operated under the Park Districts'
ordinances and policies covering such facilities.
The Park District charges a fee for parking within its parks and part,
reserves. No fee is charged if an individual enters the park other than by
motor vehicle. Non -motor vehicle access to Lake Minnetonka Regional Park will
include: pedestrian/bike access off County Road 44 and Highway 7; and the
connection to Carver Park Reserve south of Highway 7.
As discussed earlier, motor vehicle access to the park is proposed to come off
County Road 44 at one park entrance. This will allow for better park
management and regulation, especially with regard to the number of boats
launched through the park.
No estimate as to cost for future operation has been made at this point. A
maintenance impact cost projection will be completed at the time park
development is proposed.
8. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Citizen participation has been an important part in the formation of this
plan. As mentioned in the background information, a series of eight public
information meetings was held throughout suburban Hennepin County seeking
input as to the possibility of a regional park on the Lake. Six of the
meetings were open to the general public and advertised extensively in local
papers. Two were for homeowners' associations in the immediate area. Two
questions were posed at the meetings:
1. Is a regional park needed/desired?
2. If so. what facilities should be included?
A copy of the summary analysis was sent to all who attended these meetings.
The Hennepin Parks Board of Commissioners has discussed this matter at several
meetings. All elected municipal officials from suburban Hennepin County were
invited to a briefing on January 22, 1987. Those attending, as well as mayors
not attending, received notice of the Board meetings on February 5 and 19 at
which this report was discussed.
Letters were mailed to each mayor in suburban Hennepin County outlining the
process the District was following, inviting their participation and
subsequently reporting back to them. In addit'on, all those who attended the
publik meetings received copjes of the preliminary assessment of the Hennepil
Parks Board .r Commissioners regarding the proposed park.
so
The LMCD was involved heavily in discussions in the need for and proposal for
a park. A copy of the feasibility report will be forwarded to LMCD, DNR and
others for their review.
A number of meetings and discussions were held with the City of Minnetrista
regarding the District's efforts. To date, there's a difference of opinion as
to the scale of a regional park. Discussions regarding resolving this
difference is ongoing.
REPORT SUBMITTAL — THE DECISrnN MAKING PROCESS
The Hennepin Parks Board of Commissioners adopted this Feasibility Report and
Recommended Acquisition Master Plan on February 19, 1987. The report has been
submitted to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and Minnesota ONR, as
stipulated by the 1985 Task Force. The report has been forwarded to the
Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission for
their review and action. The Metropolitan Council will formulate a
recommendation for submittal to the 1987 State Legislature.
M
1979
SHE R 8 V�R Y E
t �
t N LN 1
$ A
N l
L
wR t c H r i ,�—• - _
••••� i�AK n■"No" —wuw war6 MON■a a nw 1 1
Yap •�
mean" —ALL
...4 g ` R A; M 9 `E ytee
CAAM
--• ,.
•401111 ujr IM Il 7
wvLAW LIME
1 .. �pbA .— a■Ir Myna . �`.
IL
`, cu.a• r �r D A I t J T
i . J no AL Lrano._ 1 y '
r
.,✓
�� __
LAKE ZONES
• pa
. • • • • • • • • •
.... Analysis Zone Boundary
N
Ul
N
cr
N
N
n
1
cn
BLANCH
90 ACRES
I Of SIRAaLE
FUTURE
♦C IANSI T iON I
PAULS
67 ACAE S
7L
s `
*. GAGNE
ACWS
MUS
+f
St�tE t*G~V No 7
c��w� Kxwwwr �
CARVER '' sr
ONE
PARK RESERVE _—���--
Y FiESfRVE - --
M
0
Now
0
EMSTINC PUBLIC .ACCESS SITES
AND COMMERCIAL MARINAS
NOERENS
M MAMISIMM ff
TASSO ISLAND
1W -y
■ Pub9c Access Sites �
OPublic Access Sites that
should be improved
Public Access Sites with
most oia-site parking
■ Commercial Marinas
I
Commercial Marinas wi!h
fee launching facilities
CITY
,sc Office Box 66—Crystal Bay, M
On the North S% )re of Lake Minnetonka
September 9, 1988
William Soth
Dorsey & Whitney
2200 1st Bank Place East
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: Lake Minnetonka Regional Park
Attachments
Minnesota Se.3ion Laws, Lake Minnetonka Park Acquisition
Minnesota Statutes 398.39, 1984
Minnesota Statutes 645.03 through 645.024
Constitution of the State of Minnesota, Article 4, Section 17 and
Article 12, Sections 1 thresgh 3
Compla*:t, City .,f Minnetrista etal vs Regional Perks etal(under separar
Regional Park - Feasibility Study/Master Plan cover)
City of Orono Comprehensive Plan Excerpt dated 6/80
Dear P'r. Soth:
The City of Orono is presently contemplating whethe- it should become
a party to a suit involvii `he City of Minnetr'.sta and the abutting land
own,:-s under an a -it main threat by the Hennepin Regicnal Parks
5y3tem. The City at using the opham, Hai.k Law Firm, its primary
attorney, as they h, a conflict in that they represented Hennepin Parks
in the past.
6UU DING ! ZONING - 473-7337 • ADMINISTRArON t FINANCE - 473-7359 • PUBLIC WORKS - 473.7339
ASSESSING
William Soth, Dorsey & Whitney
September 9, 1988
Page 2 of 4
BACKGROUND
As you may be aware, Hennepin Parks had legislation adopted as part of
the State's appropriations bill that gave it unlimited domain power during
1988 and 1985 tc undertake condemnation of selected properties i-dentified
on Lake Minnetonka Regional Park's plan. The City of Minnetrista
or.igi.nal'y felt a park at 50 acres, then one at 125 and upwards at 220
would be an amenable solution for them. The Hennepin Parks, however, has
constantly maintained that they want a minimum of 292 acres for their park.
During the legislatilre hearings on the matter, the main bill, for which
this was initially authored, did not come out of committee on the Sc-late
side, but was amended on one of the last days of the session to an
appropriation bill. Subsequent to that, the City of Minnetrista and the
land owners have joined in a lawsuit against Hennepin Parks charging, as we
see it, two major constitutional issues:
1, Violation of the provision as it relates to sp cial legislation.
2. Violation of the "garbage" provision.
The land owners are currently represented by Tim Thorton of u:iggs and
Morgan Law Firm.
ISSUE TO BE ADDRESSED
At this time, the City is contemplating whether to accept a
"invitation" from the City of Minnetrista to join as a party to the lawsuit
and contribute to the legal coats of such a suit. As an alternative
stratagy, the City could look to perhaps doing an amicus curiae in
conjuction with other municipalities that are inl_erested in such an action.
One of the main considerations as to the City' participation in to
the lawsuit would be wht:ther the City would have standing in the matter.
William Soth, Dorsey & Whitney
September 9, 1988
Page 3 of 4
As you will note, the legislation as drafted is much more general than
acqusition of park land in Minnetrista for Lake Minnetonka Regional Parks.
In addition, you will note that the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park
Feasibility Study does indicate that there is possible "acquisition" of the
Big Island Veteran's Camp, which does abut the land they currently own on
Big Island, with the entire island being in the City of Orono's
jurisdiction. The Board of Governors has indicated that they are not
interested. The question at issue in part is that the intent of the
legislation was for acqusition in Minnetrista, however, given the
legislation being as broad as it was, together with the fact that the
Regional Park Feasibility Study does include land outside of Minnetrista,
does this:
A) Give them more of an argument that it is general rather than
special legislation.
B) Place property in Orono at risk under this condemnation authority.
The requz?st at this point is a review by you or your designee to
determine whp-ther the issue is a significant issue of standing in related
to the City becoming party to the lawsuit. If *here is a significant
question as it relates to standing, the Council will then review its other
options.
The City could undertake one of three strategies at this point, even
if it does have standing for a lawsuit:
1. Become a party to this suit, and proceed as a party until it is
either settled or adjudicated. By being a party, the City could have
a say in the terms of settlement.
2. If not a party to the lawsuit, the City could await settlement or
judication and if they did not like the settlement, they could
undertake a separate lawsuit if ther- -as appropriate standing _o be a
party to the first.
3. If i%- chocses to not undertake it, at the mint, and the matter
is adjudicated and appealed, the City could then in conjunction with
others submit amicus curiae.
William Soth, Dorsey & Whitney
September 9, 1988
Page 4 of 4
Your response to this matter, in the ;next two to three weeks, would be
appreciated.
Sincereiy,
r� n
Cu �� Zllt-Q,`���y�ct/�C�
L.)
Mark E. Bernhardson,
City Administrator
MEB/tln
cc7 Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
9688.1HD
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat
Date: September 6, 1988
Subject. Orono/Long Lake Discussion
ISSUE •- Establishment of an alternate date for such a discussion.
INTRODUCTION - Subsequent to the Council's August 8th, 1988 meeting, it was
indicated that two of the Cou•.icil Members would not be able to attend t:iat
meecing.
DISCUSSION - It was additionally suggested, following the interviews of
8/29 by the facilitator, that two representatives from each of the cities
(Mayor & Administrator) sit down with her to define issue; and the agenda
prior to the joint councils meeting.
RECOMMENDATION - It is anticipated that this meeting will be set to be held
in the next two we.ekE:. Following that, a date for the joint meeting will
be set.
PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , to establish, after an
initial discussion meeting between the mayor and Administrator from Orono
with representatives of Long Lake and the facilitator, a date for the joint
meeting with the facilitator. Ayes __, nays
Sancti Sunkp-r
527717 minnatc'33 T8rraos
Minnetonka, MinmRs.-;ta 5534_�
Mr. Hernn,ir-.1son, city Administ:-atcw
Urnno
P.O.
,rys-,ai I'lay, mN 5.1131,113
rNe-ar -"Y' A d m I �- I .; t I r 11 a t " z" 1*1 a I - -J 'F : ) I , :
SEo j 21988
II�J�
r111 7 attar i4-.:31'1-St
wask -in
-"f thm
n., r. i I inn, DaughtarE of ' rv! AtTR; 1 0.;1
:a 17AWC1.3 gn innua I to AS R tilli A.Adfii-s
:v r-.Jppor`.._.
14MO il 1 i C^ 1. is tl;'. r i -,;j .3s t -V w i
plan ^r I �tr I l r. it c i r
"'s 'a aalr.J i wn1c...1 i'la' '.* b-:1 'JSL:W I.-- t"anis f�lr s
1-:" 1 .-1 ina t " c) 1-1 . ;' ia S i g n.-iti p rc, 4 1 r- a?. I C', i I it n 11L 1 1. d '1- 3 tU '- -41t 'A to t h m.
_"Crqss above.
WP WOU I I -i L SO -1 ;- r- 41 C: Ill t A ;- Fice i v i. nq a -.) f the %, i t*,*/ t"a t p r f r) r
thl s oc and an', , cnrtu- crn:3t,, t:j tinil tja'sk a'7 t*'v] t' as ar.'publ 1cl ty
OL.'r �' z. -.1" , !.t - tt-i.,,. .:t Or.,.*n.'.).
)-iLl-VI, '•.,jr*_ l ~ 'AIA AMW-1 "q#RVc-, I Ij .'n
uorst.:. WAP.k- i •- r.in
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING THE WEER OF
SEPTEMBER 17 THROUGH 23, 198E AS
CONSTITUTION WEER
r
WHEREAS, it is the privilege and duty of the American
people to commemorate the two hundred first anniversary of the
drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America with
appropriate ceremonies and activities; and
WHEREAS, Public Law No. 915 guarantees the issuance of a
proclamation by the President of the United States of America,
designating September 17 through 23 of each year as Constitution
Week.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mayor and Council of
the City of Orono do hereby proclaim the week of September 17
through 23, 1988 as
CONSTITOTIOM WEEK
and urge all cit:izend to study the Constitution, to express
gratitude for the privilege of American citizenship in our
Republic functioning under the superb body of laws - the
Constitution of the United States of America.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono,
Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 12th day of September,
1988.
Jades R.—Grabek, Mayor
ATTL
Dorothy M. Ha lin, Ci y C erc
le
9288-,1RD., l�t7
Tp nn
To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator -
From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director
Date: August 31, 1988
_ g
Subject: Bohn's Point Feasibility
On August 8, 1988, the Orono Council approved a fe.sibility study for
the upgrading of Bohn's Point Road. As you will recall, the petition
presented earlier by the residents requested a 22' wide road. The Council
felt that because the City has a standard of 24' wide, that the feasibility
study should be performed to determine the feasibility of a 24' road.
So that there would not be any misunderstanding later, I felt it
necessary for City Engineer Glenn Cook and myself to meet with Mr. Winslow
at the site. After walking the entire road and taking measurements, it was
Glenn Cook's and my opinion that it is indeed feasible to widen the road
to 241. Mr. Winslow stated that he and the rest of Bohn's Point Road
residents would be very much opposed to a 24' road, and that they will not
agree to pay 75% of the cost of the feasibility.
Mr. Winslow then requested that the matter be brought back to the
Council to allow him an opportunity to request a feasibility study for a
22' wide road maximum (see attached).
OPTIONS:
1. Proceed with a feasibility for a 24' road at City expense.
2. Proceed with a feasibility for a 22' road as per the residents
request, 75-25 split.
3. Rescind the order for the feasibility study.
I would certainly agree that to repair and widen Bohn's Point Road to
22' would reduce maintenance costs. However, the f remains that we do
have a 24' standard and we have been consistent with ,.fiat standard.
RECOMMENDATION: To proceed with the feasibility study for Bohn's Point
Road with the study showing the feasibility of a 24' wide road and that the
residents pay 75% of the costs of the study and the City pay 25%.
PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , to proceed with the
feasibility study for Bohn's Point Road with +-'- study showing the
feasibility of a 24' wide road and that the resiaents pay 75% of the cost
of the study and the C1.ty pay 25%. Ayes , nays
Bohn's Point Feasibility
August 31, 1988
Page 2 of 2
To: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members�,1
s! .Pro: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato��" _
ATTACKNE"S
A. Bohn's Point Memo Dated 6/22/88
B. Bohn's Point Memo Dated 6/7/88
C. Bohn's Point Memo Dated 8/3/88
Forwarded recommending approval at 241. It is the opinion
of the City Engineer that widening from the current 16-20 feet
width to 24' would not have a significantly greater impact on
trees over the 22' width. The cost of study would be similar.
The Council could later choose to reduce it to 22' prior to
ordering this project if it appeared to have significant
detrimental impact. (In the alternative, the Council could
direct the study at 22' and later make the decision to order the
project in 3t 24' with no significant cost increase of the
study.)
Clark J. Winslow
1595 Bohn's Point Road rnrWayzata, Minnesota 55391(612) 471-7140
August 30, 1988Mr. John GerhardsonCity of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Re: Feasibility Study of Widening Bohn's Point Road to 24 feet
Dear John:
There ::re many reasons that
widening Bohn's Point Road to 24' is infeasible
and
impractical. I set these
',r.h for you in
this letter so that the City of Orono
and
the residents of
Bohn's
Point Road can
avoid the unnecessary expense and
time
of conducting a
feasibility study ,f this
matter at 24'. The maximum width
that
should be studied
by the
City for Bohn's
Point Road is 22'.
It would be physically possible, of course, to widen the road to 24'. However,
doing so would:
1. seriously jeopardize many mature trees, both cutting their roots and
exposing their branches to traffic and snow plows;
2. position the edge of the road dangerously close to electric poles;
3. significantly change the character of the peninsula; and,
4. be unnecessary because the peninsula, as a dead end with only 18
houses, is not subject to commercial or heavy residential traffic.
Because of these factors, the residents on Bohn's Point Road would oppose and
refuse to pay for repaving to wider than 22'. Therefore, the project would not
go forward, the City would continue to incur substantial maintenance costs
rather than enjoying a significant improvement at the residents' expense, and
the road will remain unsafe.
There would be several advantages of wide, ::�; :he road to 22':
1. the residents of Bohn's Point Rc.,.: will support the project;
2. the City would therefore enjoy an improved road at the residents'
expense, and necessary resealing, repairing and maintenance expenses
would be mate-ially reduced;
3. The safety of the road would be improved from its current condition.
I appreciate your consideration, oi these factors and wish you would bring
them to the attention of the Council, with a proposal that we do the feasibility
study at a width of 22'. In light of these unique circumstances, and the
character of Bohn's Point. I believe an exception to the recently adopted 24'
standard is justified.
Sincerely,
.�--
Clark 1. Winslow
Arr�+eN�l�r �-
C
1"0: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator JUG
DATE: June 22, 1988
SUBJECT: Bohn's Po--^t - Request for Feasibility Study
Attachment: A. Bohn's Point Request for Feasibility Study Dated 6/7/88
ISSUES -
1.Request for reconsideration of the issue of a feasibility on Bohn'
Point Road, a public street.
2. Reconsideration of the issue of feasibility on Bohn's Point Circle.
INTRCOUCTION - During discussions with one of the Courcilmembers I felt i
appropriate to bring back the issue of the feasibility request for th
upgrading/widening and curbing of Bohns Point Road feasibility study.
DISCUSSION -
1. Bohn's Pein.: Road - The publicly owned portion of road of which 54% c
the people have requested an upgrade as noted in Attachment B. Desire t
have the road widened and the issue of curbing explored. The cost for tha
feasibility study would be $2,000.00. The cost of this feasibility study
should the project go ahead, would be incorporated into tiie project cos
and be assessed against the property owners.
2. Bohn's Point Circle - This privately owned but publicly maintained roe
has been requested to be increased from 16' to 201, and that the City woul
take this portion over. There would be no change in the cost of th
feasibility study if t .? circle was included in the study.
ALTERNATIVES -
Issu 1. Bohn's Fcint Road
A. Agree to reconsider
B. Choose to undertake
C. Table
D. Choose not to undertake
Issue 2. Bohn's Point Circle
A. Feasibility Stud,
1. Reconsider
2. Choose to under e
7. Table
4. Choose not to undertake
S. Public Take Over
1. Consider the take-over
2. indicate the City has no desire in the take-ove--
3. Table for further consideration on the
public/pi i-atl� -oad matter
Bohn'z Point -- Request for Feasibility Study
Jur 22, 1988
Page 2 of 2
RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council order the feasibility
study provided the residents are willing to pay half the cost of the
feasibility study on Bohn's Point Road. It is add,iti- lly recommended
that the City not undertake the feasibility study of Point Circle at
this point.
PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council direct the
City Engineer to undertake the necessary feasIbility study for BoWs Point
Road upgrade and curbing together with the expanded width but that the City
not at this time undertake a feasibility study for Bohn's Point Circle
deferring any action until the City makes determinations as it relates tc
public and private roads. Ayes _, Naya __
cc: Judson Dayton, 1655 Bohn's Point Road, Wayzata
RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY riF PETITION
AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT
41 BR IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF Orono, Minnesota:
1. A certain petition requesting the improvement of
Bohi. Point Road and Bohns Point Circle, filed with the council
on June 13, 19e8, is hereby declared to be signed by the e.;,uized
percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This
decla-- is made in conformity to Minnesota Statutes, Sention
429. t
The petition is herehy referre3 to Glenn Cook, City
Engineer, and he is instructed to report to the council with all
convenient speed advising the council n a preliminary way as to
whether the proposed improvemen- is feasible and as to whether it
should best be made as proposed :,r in connection with some v..ner
improvement, and the estimated cost of the improl-pment as
recommende6.
Adopted by the Council this llth dxy of Juiy, 1983.
James R. Grabek, Mayor
ATTEST:
Oorotry M. Hai' ity Clerk
t / Msmger er' corporatk
,�,../ & Jd00 Pipe► Jeffrey fowl
Minrompool, MWWWO to
r .►. LO�4 .
d carr J. wwv.low
Senior vice PresWent
(612) 332.1 S4a
PETITION
1c �41�t T i'
AMM=Capital
i
[D, representing
more
than
35clo of the
owners of
.
R d
in th
C't
of Orono
do
property locates on tsonn s Point oa , e y ,
hereby request that the City of Orono perform a feasibility study to
determine the feasibility and cost of widening Bohn's Point Road to
22 feet, the circle at the end thereof to 20 feet, and repaving the
same with a bituminous overlay. We further request that the study
examine the feasibility and costs of various curb installations,
particularly a tar curb.
N a n4e
Address
Date
Na4ne
Address
Date
Dame
Address
Date
1'1 Z. S 1(�)p`nyi S P+. 0 .
Address
h-4 - FK
Date
Name
Address
6-J,�Y-�-�
Date
Name _
Address
- � ozif
Da ie '
D�
.M - 7
A
Name
5 -1 ,
Address
Date
� fL
Name
Address
Date
Name
/ EL� A04�S P
Address
6-n�--R
--
Date
Name G'
Address
Date
Name
l(000 �o
Address
Date
f
Name
Address
Date
Name
Address
Date
Name
Address
Date
Or
' ICI /NIVk- / �i •� • • 1 ++.. fir, .\ *.� .i t�.:4•. �'\% j,'�
:i%LQA'iYEL L BAY \ C!'2 +'tio �,��; \ �• ; `'�1ti .
fir.. I ! .. }t r• f • , •� J• ;►\ \
63
Ito
Imo.. .... � � iA w: I� � �•
11r f
;. �• '�••-:=ter= ,�z?° ±� � � '� t �d (a
}n,s` •M'(^ •.,�s' J�/yam ram (a `
00
.ti i-
1 ID
�►
4 N s3 �► K E
4.
IV
• •. 99
—Moll "0"
too
�ar ..
�-
• w
6788.5
TO Mayor and City Council
)p
FROM: Nark Bernhardson, City Administrator
DATE: June 7, 1988
SUBJECT: Bohns Point - Request for Feasibility study
) k jewo (6 v r 13
Attachments: A. Petition from Bohns Point Neighbors Received
6/7/88
B. Map of Area/Designating Signee's Property
C. Proposed Resolution Ordering Preparation of
Report
ISSUE -
1. Determine if the Council desires to undertake a feasibility
study based on the attached petition.
2. Determine what interest the Council has, if any, on the
pubic takeover of Bohns Point Circle, which is currently
privately owned but publically maintained.
INTRODUCTION - The City is in receipt of Attachment A, petition
regarding an upgrade to Bohns Point Road. Part of the
improvement would be to expand the current width of 20 feet to an
expanded width of 22 feet. As noted the Circle is presently
privately owned but publically maintained with the City having
easements for sewer and water around the circle.
DISCUSSION -
1. Feasibility - As indicated by the City Engineer it is
estimated that the feasibility study for widening the project and
the necessary overlay will cost, about 51,000 together with an
additional $1,000 to do the soil borings. The number of owners
abutting is 21 representing 51% of the street frontage.
2. Public Takeover - Should the Cicy choose to do any public
work on the Circle portion of the road the City would by
necessity have to take it over.
ALTERNATIVES
Issue 1. Feasibility
A.�Undertake
B. Amend the scope and undertake
C. Table
D Choose not to undertake
Issue 2. Public Takeover
A. Consider the takeover
B. Indicate the City has no desire in the takeover
C. Table
RECOMMENDATION _ - It is recommended that the City undertake the
study of th_e total project, both the public and private portion
in order to determine the cost of the projecL and get better
information to both the City and the residents as to the cost of
the upgrade. It is recommended that the City defer its decision
regarding the takeover of the private portion until such time as
the costs are known regarding that. It is additionally
recommended that the City enter into an agreement that the
abutting residents to pay foi half the costs of the feasibility
study should the City decide not to go ahead the entire project.
PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council
direct the City Engineer to undertake the necessary feasibility
study for Bohns Point Road and Circle regarding an upgrade to
bitur+inous overlay and curbing together with expanded width.
Ayes Nays
cc: Judson Dayton, 1655 Bohns Point Road
` a � M/NNE-
' TONAeA
i (MAX;�YE'L G BAe)
b,
it /
1 S
A t
I AY
CRT TA � a *
S
•� "'F mot. Mf r
•` • Y„� 1 'A A •• ss `1
A
i.i rt 1 1
•~ R r
F
6988.1
RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION
AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF Orono, Minnesota:
1. A certain petition requesting the improvement of
nuumb roint Road and Bohns Point Circle, filed with the council
on June 13, 1988, is hereby declared to be signed by the required
percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This
declaration is made in conformity to Minnesota Statutes, Section
429.035.
2. The petition is hereby referred to Glenn Cook, City
Engineer, and he is instructed to report to the council with all
convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to
whether the proposed improvement is fedsible and as to whether it
should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other
improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as
recommended.
Adopted by the council this 13th day of June, 1988.
Edward J. Callahan, Acting Mayor
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk
4 I-Fpyqw, a
To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director
?ate: August 3, 1988
Subject: Bohns Point Feasibility Study
At the July 11, 1988 Council meeting the Council tabled the
Bohns Point Road Feasibility study.
Since that time I have had discussions with Mr. Clark
Winslow 1595 Bohns Point Road regarding the cost of the study.
Mr. Winslow has stated that the residents will agree to
paying f -)r 2/3rds of the cost of the study as compared to 1/2 of
the cost previously.
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator,
Forwarded recommending approval.
PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, the the Council
direct the City Engineer to undertake the necessary feasibility
study for Bohn's Point Road iipgrade and curbing together with
the expanded width but that the City not at this time undertake
a feasibility study for Bohn's Point Cirrle deferring any action
until the City makes determinations as it relates to public and
private roads. Ayes Nays
4DDCt4D uwk 'TO
zoNwce ACoe*JbA
TO: Mayor Grabek
Orono Council Members C,
.T' z
City Administrator Bernhardson ��°��5,
FROM: Michael P. r--:`fron, r L1, o,,
Assistant Planning & Zoning Administratorry
�'_�
DATE: September 8, 1988
SOBJ: #1275 Douglas Johnson, 1399 Park Drive
Interpretation of Council Intent Re: House Location
List of Exhibits -
A -Resolution 42463
B-Staff Memos
C-Planning Commission and Council Mintues
D-Survey
E-Inspector's Sketch of Remaining Foundation Wall Location
F-Photos of Site 9/8/88
Discussion -
On Thursday, September 8, 1988, Inspector, Lyle Oman advised
me that at the footing inspection that was called for this
morning at 1399 Park Drive, he found that the entire
superstructure of the house had been removed and that the only
remaining foundation wall was the east wall and short portions of
the north and south walls. The plans the Building Inspector had
approved showed that the existing rouse and foundation would
substantially remain in place, the foundation would be "beefed
up" where necessary, and the additions would go on around that
existing structure.
Since the superstructure of the house has been removed, and
since only a fraction of the pre-existing foundation remains,
with the contractor's intent to pour all new footings except for
the remaining east foundation wall, staff immediately halted
construction on this project, pending a further review of files
to determine whether that small portion of remaining foundation
meets the intent of the Council in the variance approval
Resolution. Recall that this remaining foundation wall is less
than 2' from the side lot Line The well pit is probably over the
lot line.
Please review the site plan, the memos and exhibits
attached, the Minutes of the Planning Commission and Council
Meetings, and wording of the Resolution that was approved. It is
staff's opinion that starting new construction from the portion
of the foundation wall that is remaining would not meet the
Council's variance intent, and that the house must be moved to
meet the setbacks.
Staff is requesting that Council confirm whether or not
construction us;nq the remaining foundation wall may continue.
Mr. Johnson feels that he has r:et the letter and inte..t of the
City requirements and was quite upset that things were being
Zoning File #1275
Douglas Johnson-1399 Park Drive
Page 2 of 2
questioned at this point in time. He feels he has been extremely
cooperative w-.th the City on this project from the beginning.
Mr. Johnson will be appearing at Monday night's meeting, as an
addendum to your zoning agenda. Although this situation has come
to light at the last minute, staff felt it wa3 appropriate to
bring it directly to Council for review, rather than delay the
property owner an additional two weeks.
PLEASE VISIT THE PROPERTY IF POSSIBLE, PRIOR TO THE !MEETING,
SO YOU CAN SEE FIRST HAND THE PORTIONS OF FOUNDATION WALL
REMAINING.
City of 0RONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO 2463
A RESOLUTION GRANTINC
A VARIANCE TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 & 2
10.55, SUBDIVISION 8,
AM 10.24, SUBDIVISI0N S (A) & (B)
FILE i1275
WHEREAS, Douglas Johnson (hereinafter "the applicant") .s the
owner of the property located at 1399 Park Drive 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 Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1 & 2; 10.55, Subdivision
8; and 10.24, Subdivision 5 (A) & (B) for approval of the following
variances:
A) hardcover in the 0-75' zone of 4.9% where no hardcover is normally
allowed.
B) Defined buylding height of 31' where a 30' maximum building i
normally required.
C) Encroachment nearer the lakeshore than the defined avera--
lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed.
D) Structure located in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no
structure is normally allowed.
E) Construction of additional stories above a portion of existing
house which is located 1.8' from the side lot line where a 10, side
setback is normally required.
NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 11275.
2. The proper'y is located in the LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore
Residential Zoning District.
3. The Oror.o Planning Commission reviewed this application on June b,
1988, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the
following findings:
Page 1 of 5
City of OR,ONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2463
A) The existing and proposed hardcover percentages in the 75-
250' and 250-500' lakeshore setback zones are within the
allowable 25% and 30% respective limits. In conjunction with
additions to the house, applicant proposes to reconstruct decks
which will be located within the 0-75' 'Lakeshore setback zone due
to the location of the existing north wall of the house being
nearly coincident with the 75' setback line. The applicant has
removed a non -conforming shed structure previously located in the
0-75' zone as part of his upgrade of the property. The new deck
and steps total 274 s.f. or 4.9% hardcover, where originally 6.9%
hardcover existed. This net hardcover decrease in conjunction
with the conforming hardcover percentages in the zones further
from the lake put this proposal in a positive light.
B) The 1' variance requested to building hightwill
the proposes
or no significant effect on the visual appearance
house, and the house will not be visually obtrusive because of
its relationship to its existing topography.
C) The proposed additions to the existing house technically
require a variance for encroachment past the averac;e Lakeshore
setback line. However, although the neighboring houses are
setback much further from the lake than the proposed
construe*ion, those neighboring houses are also much i,igher in
elevation, hence their existing views of the lake will not be
significantly encroached upon by the proposed construction.
Additiona i ly, the property from the east is well screened f rc
the proposed construction by existing vegetation.
D) The applicant is proposing to construct additional structure
above a portion of the existing house which encroaches with
1.8' of the side lit line. Lateral additions to the exists.
structure will be located to meet the 10' side setbac
requirement of the LR--lB district. The applicant can construe-
proper overhangs to the upward addition so that there will be n(
encroachment into the neighboring property. There is adequate
setback from other structures on the neighboring property so that
fire access to this side of the house is not a problem.
E) The applicant will continue to use the existing detache-::
garage which is located near the road and significantly higher ir
elevation than the existing house.
page 2 of 5
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2463
4. The City Council has cons-idered this application including the
findings and recommendationsf the Planning Commission, reports b�
City staff, comments by the ar 1icant and the eft ect of the proposee
variance on the heal*.h, safety and welfare of the community.
5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on thiE
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 hazarc
or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as
convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demon-
strable hardship or difficulty; is necessary co preserve a substantia-2
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 Oronc
City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal zoning Code Section!
10.22, Subdivision 1 & 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 1G.24, Subdivision
(A) Z (B) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence
which will result in 4.9% hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone
where no hardcover is normally allowed, a 311 defined building height where
only a 30' maximum building height is normally allowed, encroachment o:
structure past the defined average lakeshore setback line where nc
encroachment is normally allowed, encroachment of deck structure to within
67' of the shoreline ani portion of the house 74' from the shoreline wherE
a 75' setback for all structures is normally required, and continuation
upward of a substandard 1.8' side setback where a 10' side setback is
normally required, subject to the following conditions:
1. Hardcover in the 0-75' zones is limited to the following:
New Deck 6 Stairway 264 s.f.
Portion of House 10 s.f.
TOTAL 274 s,f. (4.9i)
Applicant is advisod of the 25% and 30• hardcover limitations in th,
75-250' and 250-500' lakesnore setback zones respectively. N-
additional hardcover will be allowed in the 0-75' lakeshore setbac
son*.
2. The overhang on the proposed upward additions from the ex_st.n
house shall be no greater than 1.5' laterally from the house and sha'
not encroach into the neighboring property.
Page 3 of 5
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2463
3. Applicant is further advised that, although applicant's engineer
has verified that the existing foundation is adequate with wino:
upgrading to support the proposed construction, if for some reason th-
existing foundation is ultimately removed and must be replaced, th.
applicant shall move the proposed stricture so that it will meet th,
10' side setback and 75' lakeshore setback requirements.
4. Authorities granted with this resolution run with the property nc-
with the applicant, but re permissive only and must be exercised 1),
application for a builaing permit within one year of the :ate c
Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (July 11
1989).
5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms an
conditions of this resolution shall constitute r violation of th
zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority grante,
herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agree.
to the terms of this resolution aid on behalf of himself, his heirs
successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of thi
resolution 4n the chain cf title of the property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this llth day of July, 1988
ATTEST:
y M.--uallin, City Cler
� J
property Owner
Jame R. Giabe or
,,, LiO 0- ! y
page 4 of 5
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2463
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this ��G+= day of f- L.41� + , 198
before me Notary Public within and fo said county, personally
c OS e h n a� known to me to be
appeared
the person(s) -Aescz-ibeCj in and who executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as
his (their) free act and deed.
[07TmERESA LM NNF 9
�NFrr PUSIN COUNTY NOTARY PUBLIC
mr aprry�lYlon 0KD�rvra 9, 92
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this �qTN day ofAU(-'(jq-T' 198a , before me
a Notary Pu lic ithin nd for said County, personally appeared
7iliC� known to me to be the
foregoinginstrument,
person(s) described in and who executed the
And acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his
(their) free act and deed.
N�TAAY PUBLIC
LAUZIE S. SCH-11LER
FiE1�lEi'N CO;lNTy
MY COMMI SION EXPIRES
Page 5 of 5
EMIBI? A
Resolution No. 2463
Legal Description:
Lot 16, Block 6, Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; including that portion of vacated Forest
Boulevard lying between the Northwesterly extensions across
it of the Northeasterly line of said Lot 16 and the straight
portion of the Southwesterly line of said Lot 16; and
including the adjacent 1/2 of vacated Forest Avenue.
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
Date: July 7, 1988
Subject: #1275 Douglas Johnson, 1399 Park Drive -
Variances - Resolution
Zoning District - LR-lB, single family, 2-acres, unsewered.
Application - Variances for 0-75' hardcover_, 0-75' structure, average
lakeshore setback, side setback, building height, to allow
construction of major additions and decks to existing structure.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution
Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 6/8/88
Exhibit C - Letter From Applicant's Structural Engineer
Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 6/3/88
Discussion
Please review the memo and exhibits of June 3, 1988. Applicant is
proposing to construct major additions to his existing residence, which
abuts the 75' lakeshore setback line. He is proposing a structure that
includes a basement and two stories, with a deck and steps totaling 274
s.f. or 4.9% hardcover in the 0-75' zone.
As you will find by review of the 6/3/88 memo, applicant has removed
some pre-existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone, hence ultimately the new
decks still result in a 28 decrease from the 0-75' hardcover.
Additionally, you will note that the existing house is only 1.8' from
the side property line, and applicant is going up from this structure, but
not expanding laterally within the 10' required side setback area. The
applicant has teen advised that he can only have 1.5' overhangs on the side
of the house, so that overhangs will not encroach over the property line.
The structure is by definition 31' high where only 30' is allowed. In
reviewing this application, Planning Commission felt that given the
topography, a 1' height variance in this case would not be a problem.
Regarding the average lakeshore setback, this house will sit much
lower than the houses on either side even though they are set back much
further on the property. Both neighbors have been notified and applicant
has discussed his project with them and the City has received no negative
comments from the neighbors. it is unlikely that any significant views
enjoyed by neighboring owners will be decreased, both because of the
topographic variation and due to existing vegetation which acts to screen
the Etructure from the east.
Zoning File #1275
July 7, 1988
Page 2 of 2
The Planning Commission expressed great concern in that if the
foundation of the existing house ended up being totally replaced, that
applicant would be required to move the house to meet the 10' side setback
and so that decks would meet the 75' setback. To this end, Planning
Commission made its variance approval recommendation contingent on the
applicant providing a certified structural review of the foundation
verifing that it can be reused. Applicant has provided such documentation
to show that the existing foundation can be re -used if it is "beefed up" by
pouring an inner sleeve along the outside bearing wall. The Building
Inspector has reviewed this proposal and has indicated that it is
acceptable.
Just to cover the bases, staff will still recommend the inclusion of
the clause within the resolution that states that the house must be
relocated to meet all required setbacks if the foundation ends up being
replaced for some reason.
Given that applicant has removed a non -conforming shed from the 0-75'
zone and proposes to remove additional hardcover in the 0-75' zone,
approval of the sightly larger deck square footage in the 0-75' zone would
appear to not be inconsistent with past Council practices, especially given
the location of the existing house.
Staff Reco= ndation -
Staff recommends approval per the Plai :ommission recommendation,
per the attached resolution.
ZONING FILE NO. 1275
CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 6-8-88
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: Douglas Johnson COPIES TO:
1399 Park Drive
Mound, MN 55364
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances
-----------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF MEETING: 6-6-88 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Approval subject to condition3 noted below
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Planning Commission recommended approval of the following variances:
1. 4.9% hardcover (274 s.f.) in 0-75' zone where 0% is normally
allowed.
2. 31' defined building height where 30' maximum building height
is normally required.
3. Average lakeshore setback encroachment variance.
4. Allow structure to be located partially in 0-75' lakeshore
setback zone.
5. Allow continuation of 1.8'-2.3' side setback (NOTE: maximum
allowed overhang is 1.5' along east wall of house along lot
l ine l ! Reduce from 2' proposed ! ! )
6. Items 4 and 5 are subject to retraction if it is determined
that the foundation must be replaced. If the foundation must be
replaced, the house must be relocated to meet all required
setbacks.
NOTE: The Building Inspections Department has preliminarily reviewed
your plans, which indicate an existing 8" brick foundation. Your
designer has correctly noted that the 8" foundation as -is will not
support the additions, but he has apparently decl zed to determine the
pilaster requirements. You must have a structural engineer certify
the foundation and proposed basement support walls and beams and
determine what changes must be made to support the structure. Again,
note that if the foundation must be replaced, you will be required to
,ve the house. This certification must be completed prior to this
plication being scheduled for Council action.
Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of
additional information. Deadline for the June 27th meeting is June 20,
1988 or July 5th for the July 11 meeting.
If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please
contact the Building and Zoning Department (473-7357).
If you desire certified copies of the official PlNnninq Commission
minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
Off. 4 Res. 224 8398
HOME ENGINEERING & EVALUATION SERVICES
CHE'STER J. ZIMNIEWICZ, P.E.
CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGR. 0 MINN. • 4872 • WISC. - 1767)
758 CHIPPEWA AVE.
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55107
June 29, 1988
Mr. Doug Johnson
1399 Park Drive
Mound, MN 55364
Re: House that you will be building in Orono, MN
Dear Mr. Johnson:
� � II
,JUL T IM
In response to your request, I have reviewed the plans for the house you
propose to build 4n Orono, Minnesota.
In a City of Orono Planning Colr.nission Action letter dated 6-8-88, it requests
you to engage a structural engineer to analyze and certify what action should be
taken by you concerning the "existing and proposed foundation and basement support
wails and beams and determine what changes must be made to support the structure."
Discussion and Inspection
The existing foundation and footings for the existing house consist of a
slab -on -grade concrete slab with thickened 12" x 24" footings around the periphery
of the building and probably the existing center bearing wall. While this type
of design would probably not meet the present day code, it does, however, appear
that there has not been any structural inadequacy. It is my opinion then that
these walls and footings have stood the test of time and do not appear to have
any structural problems. They, therefore, could be reused and reinforced as
hereafter recommended.
Recommendations
1) Remove the top course of block on the outside existing and inside
bearing walls.
2) On the inside wall, place a #5 vertical rebar every 16".
3) On the outside bearing wall, break a hole in the existing block at 16" o.c.
in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
THE FOREAGOING REPORT IS FURNISHED AT YOUR REQUEST IN STRICT CONFIDENCE BY US AS YOUR AGENT AND EMPLOYEE FOR YOL
XCLUSIVF USE AS N AID IN DETERMINING THE PHYSICAL CCNDITION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISES. T HIS REPORT 18 INTENDED TO COPE WARN YOU THAT A
ETHOUGH SUCH ►REMNSESONLY SUCH PORTIOS OFANO/OR EQUI►MENTTHE PREMISES ANDMAY THEREIN AS
BETHE OPMENT NI GOOD CO DITION w WHEN EXAMINED EHE CONDITION MAMAY BE EXAMIND VISUALLY, AND YIC ANGE THEREA% E
FURTHERMORE, THIS REPORT IS, NOT TO SE USED AS A BASIS FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF SUCH PREMISES OR WHETHER SAME IS OR
NOT TO BE PURCHASED THIS REPORT IF NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A GVARANTY OR WAHRANTV OF THE PREMISES OR EOUiPMENT THERE
OR OF THEIR FITNESS FOR USE.
HOME ANIn BUILDING INSPECTION FOR THE OWNER AND BUYER
Mr. Doug Johnson
Page 2
June 29, 1988
4) On the outside bearing wail, erect a concrete form on the inside at
least 4 inches from the inside of the outside wall.
5) On the outside and inside bearing walls, pour at least a 6" to 8"
cap (minimum) on top of the wall. A greater height could be built
if desired.
6) Reinforce the 4" added wall with #4 rebars 12" on center in both a
horizontal and vertical direction.
7) Place 244 rebars (cont...uous) at the top in the cap and 244 rebars
(continuous) at the bottom of the concrete cap regardless of the
height of the cap.
8) Pour the caps and added 4" wall with 3,000 PSI concrete. Also, fill
all voids in the existing walls. Liberally vibrate the concrete.
This vibration will assure that all voids will be filled and will
result in a very strong and adequate structure.
If you have any questions, or if I can be of further service, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Chester, , mniewicz, P.E.
CJZ:ch
Enclosure
TO: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley
Planning Commission Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator
DATE: June 3, 1988
SUBJECT: #1275 Douglas Johnson , 1399 Park Drive -
-- Variance - Public Hearing
ZONING DISTRICT: LR-lB Single Family, 2 acres, unsewered.
APPLICATION: Variances for 0-75' hardcover, 0-75' structure, average
Lakeshore setback, side setback, building height, to allow
construction of major additions and decks to existing residence
structure.
LIST OF EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Application
Exhibit B - Plat Map
Exhibit C - Property Owners List
Exhibit D - Applicant's Memo of Request
Exhibit E - Old Survey
Exhibit F - Coffin & Gronberg Survey
Exhibit G - Redline Drawing of Survey (Plot Plan)
Exhibit H - Photo From Lake
Exhibit I - Various Elevation. Views
Exhibit J - Floor Plan (3 Levels)
Exhibit K - Hardcover Calculations by Applicant
Exhibit L - Hardcover Review by Staff
PERTINENT FACTS
1. Both existing and proposed hardcover percentages in the 75-250'
and 250-500' zones are within the allowable limits. The applicant
proposes o reconstruct decks in conjunction with additions to the
house. Th,-se decks and a small sliver of the addition will be located
within the 0-75' zone. The new deck and steps total 274 s.f. or 4.9%
hardcover, where originally 6.9% hardcover existed.
2. Applicant proposes to construct a third level with vaulted ceiling
above the existing 2 levels of the house. Please review the elevation
views shown as Exhibits I. Staff has calculated that the foundation
is 63.4% covered, hence the lower level is by definition considered
basement, and the height of the structure is measured from the ground
elevation on the high side, up to the peak of the roof. In this case
we use the peak elevation because the hightest peak contains open
living space and windows along the lakeshore end. Therefore, are
technically measured, the proposed house has a defined height of 31',
requiring a 1' variance to the 3C' height limitation.
3. In relation to the effect of the height of this structure on the
neighboring properties, note that this house already sets very lcw
into the hillside, at a distance below the neighboring properties to
the east and west. In addition existing vegetation screening between
this house and the house to the east would tend to limit the existing
views enjoyed by that neighboring property owner. In staffs opinion,
construction of the proposed residence will have only a minor impact
on any views enjoyed by the neighboring property owner to the east.
The residence to the west also sits near the road at the top of hill,
and is also screened to a degree. Since the proposed construction
will take place on the east side of applicants property, the impact of
the new construction on views enjoyed by the neighbor to the west will
also be minimal.
4. Note that the existing house is located only 1.8' from the east
side lot line. Applicant is proposing to build upward from this
substandard setback and therefore requires a side setbcak variance.
The additions that will not be over the existing house a l l meet the
required 10' side setback. There is a minor 1' encroachment of the
northwest corner of the house into the 75' setback from the lake.
5. Applicant plans to continue tc use the existing garage, which is
located uphill near the road level, and would keep the existing
sidewalk. He 'is planning to remove the portable metal shed shown on
the survey (Exhibit G). However, it is unclear whether he will remove
the concrete slab.
DISCUSSION
Please review applicants memo and the exhibits presented. it would be
helpful for Planning Commission members to view this site if possible, to
get an idea of how the proposed structure will fit into the neighborhood
without causing view problems or being obtrusive. Althrough the peak
height of the structure viewed from the lakeside will be 40', and appear to
be 3 1/2 full stories, the house will still set far below the neighboring
houses as viewed from the lake.
Staff feels applicant has already made improvements to the property by
removing the shed that was in the 0-75' zone. The proposed decks in the 0-
75' zone are there only because of the location of the existing house.
1 Applicant should be advised that, although he has stated for the
record that he intends to use the existing house and foundation, it is the
City's policy that if the foundation nust be replaced and that house lifted
.� up, that the entire existing house and new additions must be moved
laterally to meet the required side setback and lakeshore setbacks.
Planning Commission may wish to consider whether the proposed roof
lines can be revised downwards 1' so that they meet the 30' height
limitation.
STAFF RSCOMENDATION
Although the project is quit ambitious and will change the character
of the existing house dramatically, staff recommends approval on the basis
that the proposal will not have significant effects on the character of the
neighborhood nor will it significantly encroach nn views enjoyed by
neighboring property owners. The excess hardcover in the 0-75' is
justified by the applicants recent removal of a shed that was located on
lakeshore, and his intent to remove stepping stones to the lake that now
ex1 at .
To summarize, staff recommends approval of the following variances:
1. 4.9% hardcover in 0-75' zone.
2. Side setback of 1.8' where 10.0' is required,
3. Average lakeshore setback encroachment variance.
4. Structure height variance of l' to allow 31' define height where
a maximum height of 30' is normally required.
5. Variance for structure in the 0-75' setback zone.
Applicant should be advised that if he needs to replace the foundation
under the existing house and has to lift that house to do it, that the City
will require that the house be moved sideways and southward so that the new
house and decks will meet the required setback. Applicant is also advised
that it will be appropriate to consider (in conjunction with his neighbor
to the east) a lot line rearrangement that would place applicants house at
least 10' from the side lot line.
#1
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATI
InitiA�lication Feel $150.00 J
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Ren &-dance Fee $75.00
(no change from original application)
After -the -Fact Fees (Double application fee)
-------------------------------------------------------------
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address /3 S 9 M1 V,4_. , 0k0,,-J0,
Property Identification Number (P.I.D. ) 07- 117-7.3- V2- 00/2-
4.
Please check one - Property abstract or y torrens?
Attach legal description to application if not included on
required survey.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPLICANT Phone ( home) q72- - % 2 3 5
rrry n L-11cAU10
Name ocr r¢ C-df7�S0� Phone (work) g37- „�-,rc
Address: /3City: oeo-00 Zip��
nn 1n
---------•-------•-------------------------•-----.-------------.-.------Mr-YAM i.-HIV//. VV
OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) CN1i R A L�C�.VV
Name Phone ( work) #077780 C00,11 �l01 T10
r1 .'1 1,
V�•:-�i�
Address: City: _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 Resid tia)
Other (specify)
-------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $LET 000
Describe request in detail: VAR/, -A/C i:S `"Ta /M P_/Q 0%
VARIANCES REQUIRED
o -�
Lot Area Lot Width X Har cover
Setback Variances ( Front_ Side Rear)
Other
HARDSHIP
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict
enforcement of zoning regulations: S5;E 4?7-,4C//6/) CET7 _,e-
---------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
DRSCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning
Code Requirements: S 1;_, 42=9A/ Ell
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIRED SUBMITTALS
( Completed -Application Form '-_. --
Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain
this list -from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center
348-3271).'
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).
7.1 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
APPLICA,IV S SIGNATURE -- _
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required -or
requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or
unusuaj expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that
the information supplied -is true and correct to the best of his/her
knowledge.
Applican-'s Signature Date �- Z Z-
OWNERS SIGNATURE
The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees Lo this application and further
authorizes reasonable entry, onto the proper~y by City staff, consultants,
agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga-
tion and verification of this request.
Owner's Signatur44y_t!5,�/ 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 6 Zoning
Office of this change prior to the meeting
(f I
Zoe.
' � 4
SUMMIT
NDE LE z t(
000.
lk
ao9 `a 750rf `\ , w
fA
JAI,, ^
y� ,�✓. raj ,_K r3o
� r► . � 1 � + 1S .o
14
��1�i 1• ma's ¢
a jr r"1
,
ir
now, 95
SAGA -- MILL PARK CA
94
00 • / "►
to
It
CWJ
�. / �• •3 64
- j � f ty>S` n •
ca
♦ �• t,,
11
" DA'E 04/22/8A
"TCH 005
M 07-117-23 41 0074
P,VP
400 PARK OR
OIJER
I T ANDER5EN
TAXPATEo
ONI F AMERSEN
NAM,, ADOR
1406 PARK OR
MOUND MN 55344
39 07-117-23 42 0013
POW ADDR 01422 PARK OR
OWNER +.Ar1E 0 J ANDRYS A T L PEDERSEN
TAXPAYER 0 J ANDRYS A T L PEDERSEN
NAME.ADOR 1422 PARK DRIVE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 42 0018
PROP ADOR 01415 PARK OR
OWNER NAME RONALD BERTAGNOtI ETAL
TAXPAYER RONALD W BERTAGNOLI
NAIOF/ADOR 1415 PARK OR
MOUND MN 55364
HENW PIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
38 07-117-23 41 0079
01375 PARK DR
RICHARD M HATCH A WIFE
RICHARD M HATCH
1375 PARK OR
MOUND MH 55364
38 07-117-23 42 0016
01405 PARK DR
F A K SHEARER
FREDERICK J SHEARER
1405 PARK DRIVE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 42 0038
01379 PARK OR
C H FAIRBANK JR ET AL TRUST:ES
C H FAIRBANK JR/P R FAIRBA14K
1380 PARK OR 5 W
MOUND MN 55364
REPORT NO. PI435401
PAGE 5
38 07-117-23 42 0012
01399 PARK DR
JOAN Y BLOOM
DOUGLAS C A TRICIA A JOHNSON
1399 PARK DRIVE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 42 0017
01415 PARK OR
RONALD BERTAGNOLI ETAL
RONALD W BERTAGNOLI
1415 PARK DRIVE
MOUND MN 55364
TOTAL BATCH 00c 00008
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
9EPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OLPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. / l
DATE G� BY U �� _
To: Planning Commission Members of Orono
From: Douglas Johnson, 1399 Park Drive
Date: April 22, 1989
Subject: #1275, Variance to modify existing on Forest Lake bay.
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A: Application on file
Exhibit B: Egan, Field & Nowak Survey
Exhibit C: Coffin & Gronberg Survey
Exhibit D: Red Lined Drawing of Survey
Exhibit E: Picture of home from lake
The intention of this letter is to describe our hardships
involved with the variances required to modify our home on the
property located at 1399 Park Drive, Orono.
The variances required involve the usage of the 0-75'
set -hack zone, and the side set -back issue due to increased
height and size of home.
Tho prasent location of ouc home at 1399 Park Drive has
hardcover in the 0-75' zone. It is our intention co use less
square feet in this zone than used in previous years. It is our
intention to modify this hardcover to fit the new design and
modified home plan provided. Please note that we are not
planning to build any closer to the lake or to our neighbors'
property line in question.
To clarify these two issues, I would like to refer to two
different surveys and the representation of the previous owner
and hardcover involved on the property.
To start, some misrepresentation had been described during
our purchase of the home. This description is the reason for our
variance needs. To clarify this misrepresentation is to refer to
property line between lot 15-16 of block 6, Saga Hill Revised,
Hennepin County. This line as described by our new survey does
not show a few items of importance. Here is a list of items not
noted on survey:
1. Portion of vacated Forest Blvd.
2. Storage Building at lakeside
3. Sidewalk from walk -out to lakeshore
4. Fireplace and garden, south side of home
5. Elevation changes - see Red Lined Survey
Please note the survey by Egan, Field and Nowak that we used
to buy the property states a plus or minus five foot tolerance to
a space on the south side of hom-. As described by the previous
owner, the storage shed at the lakeshore and the garden around
the south side of the house were included ; le the boundary of
the property lines. Not to confuse the re isue, but I would
like to state that there was a large sum u_ ,,irbige piled behind
this lakeshore building that was inherited by my.solf, and then to
find that this property was lakeshore commons titled Forest Blvd.
This portion of Forest Blvd was vacated on March 28, 1988 per
article #1251. The portion of Forest Blvd. which was vacated
March 28, 1988 was not represented on the survey properly per our
discussion with previous owner and the hardcover usage when the
property was purchased. This would be obvious when looking at
the site and pictures documenting structures location, as well as
the maintenance perf •med on the property for over the last ten
years. You will als find trees lining both sides of the
property which make side views of our home fairly unnoticed, even
with the modified house plan. Another factor involved wi�h this
is that there is a steep elevation change between properties.
Also, the shed next to lot 17 will be removed and area will be
cleaned up.
Please note the unusual property conditions and elevation
change with respect to propos-A addition. The addition to the
home in size would still leave entry of the home far below street
level where our detached garage is located. I have no intentions
to change any drainage at all, which is represented ey our bridge
deck front entry from existing front sidewalk. The combination
of these factors would make changing this plan very difficult and
impractical. Therefore, I ask to modify my home as described in
it's present location.
Thank You,
SURVEYORS
2825 Herrlet !rQF Minneapolis,Avenue c�t��'� Minnesota
•� N
MORTGAGE LOAN SIIRVEY
n
(1 )Owe,1
; • G .
• 1 i r
pnarri.7 ions
L: t 1 � � 91o�k f � J9r11 ui 11 •''•. ' _ (
V
:lusty In th. County of H.nnm-pin and State of N.innesote
�r ✓
thin No. 40V,3
se.s i el V- 301
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey
of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all
buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if.any, from or on
said land. 'This survey is made only In connection with a mortgage loan now
being placed on the property and no liability is assumed except to the holder
Cf such mortgage or any other interest acquired by the reason of such
�'csge. It is understood and agreed no monuments have been placed for the
purpose of establishing lot lines or boundary corners.
Dated this and day of .tutu 1965. EGAN, FIELD a NCWAK
r; «r4kr;�rf anc�t Mr I'^1 :^ by�Y!
i
E X I- 61 T 5
N..� 1►.aa4lOt.D 2IS Wks a-ST*AAt.0
�/ DID
uucas►/eta !(ate /e.a,erkta ,tse s� sr. nay BEING
[tnlevt0 Ar ►eesa/-r riatt. Ra.iwev�„p
10 J,s7
s
r�l�" L C�•l
' O a V
YJW
rp ��%. O'�tXlst.vti .h•��'1
C T eat C`
rc.v
O at,"e �`. 1 lrltthwca
W.
` o
taavAre„I is r,ra a.. aer yaa
it c • \`
\ wO&L-
�EAe�� Iri .e..E `1 'n'` �• \� Iw7►as•t��-cY
__ �_ � /' ,o NL.tdNt•P,►t c:JIJT'��1"IIN::6�•--.•
OG vAcAT W r -• a-
�� -�t �VLIIIIE_
Ncar+
Ka
INl/at-e[TI+►1 �'� t./tltN•,.cy'• \ .-:�►� FL./ti.E
IUT I-MUZ K-•I$,?
.1.1
I G\
hIL
~'♦ bay.... `i�.f L,.i .•�: i��. -4%. ►' Y? �•�• 1 '! . '
00
'rely � � ��, M}r .�• .�^. _ �. �K .
11v 'A ILI! J1
'd a
If x1d
d
Iii-ji ILI I
I
OVA7AWr.VX -OPW` VAOIN
45
VA
c;N'j ELE VXTION
t I 'T i CON T "T Fie —
•t� �G� C tL-L- f�iri�lal.I
19
N� ELE vl�T ICN —
r- K1
1 !4 1 C)
@) nCr- F L oo ot-
— - - - ---- -- — — - -- Fl,rL ti.E
- - . � f •YY�MI��MNM�
uuinemuuout
ww���meinra F r �i��.f �T R �j11
Ai..1IM�lR!11t.
O
9'
IE w faow� CAT S
� MC�►J 1-
PAT
? fv
o .
r I
-
Pli I
0
will
Pir mg c Ocr -r) V F Jr&o n /til L A)CIE 5 1 D
ww.
1W /
o.
- I I
CF1 n: v''T1r t4q.L
4. i
�e
• I _ / Ii
Ut I vE: is
ot-�
C ^
f.^vLL :"C �L-2rg^NLc, I I •wµ !
;.J ti`
i �.�N
---
_ I � ? l
v
Fir ilmE 1 11 N FW9F1
1 i I gAJ�14 n L ( !"'1{S''�ttCn Ir3r^, %"fl.z'
r
2�O71=stow-1C
I
i
_— I I FJT ;rF�LISE
NO
rile E R 1',4 r
�� I I ?�,b GW' I �► 1 I
Fd?11eE
LI F T le
*A'T1oN r w_
I I
i
aLA_ F-c- o Tv fa. ft
ov
1,
to
'.10 1-0 It
L— --- Ro 1-0 0 IV 1
WOOD
__, �'� nal\� � � I I �Itrl-
Vf
W/
..dm;.L"OLIO ILI
1114 11'01 (vim r-J)
PT< '5:CKJ- LA r
>
sxc,
"'PEI �Wo
tC-A1,4T
ell
LA PlpeY2--
L4 O'L
PPLit- FL cur-
E-1
— -_ - - soon-
0
•
�A1ciJn Cwr-
r►0 tr7 `'1'`�`=—" Et7aE of
3�2ri1�►oa.. b�• nc:r.+VC ��c ,I�NCowl
14
o y �,,�►ZI� (1r-. 911JWW
of W
CP Crop
ILZ' UGsT � Dtx� �• ; � �� ¢xnT�� uv,►an
f WSH H�f2 �
2$ I 1w Loll,I oil
UN
Na '"
v� K?TweN � • i�t
t
50
.
zP11ovE
iru
Joisr�,h,"e.c"e.c . 2
2 -
,�� 7l •L pi' �u} , II -
ZVI
o.c —
L*N f
L -I�, -MMAW
�aa -- --
a o II
�' •. �"' °°° DLO. 1e
• I.
Ii1t,R � .. NiCTAL.EX1�.Ti1JG�
r
rtEr
14►
r
D. HARDCOVER CALCULATION SUMMARY
A. B. C. D. E. F.
Existing Final
Lakeshore Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Allowed
Setback Lot Area Hardcover Percentage Hardcover Percentage Hardcover
Zone In Zone In Zone (B/A)X100 In Zone (D/A)x100 Percentage
0-75, 5�g75 of 2 7Vi of z • _2-7Y of 0 s
75-250' �3%SO sf 2-/00 of % 5. 3 S 29(00 of 25 •
250-500, 275-of 3o of /3y of S 1 30
500-1000, 0 of _ C7 of � • i O of O • 35 t
%RDCOVER LIMITATIONS HARDCOVER INCLUDES:
Structures with roofs
CCPe
"�� L�"- Decks, even if slatted
OC`p•� - Sidewalks
Driveways (paved or gravel)
Decorative landscaping areas underlein by
plastic sheeting
Tops of retaining walls, rock walls
' __ Zyt• - Any other surface that does not allow direct
absorption of rainfall into the ground
woo .---- •��
c�
ROAD
E. OTHER LAKESHORF REGULATIONS
SEC. 10.22, REGULATIONS FOR 'LR-lA', 'LR-IA-l', 'LR-18', 'LR-IC* AND 'LR-1C-I* ONN
FAMILY LAKESHORE RRSIDENTIAL DISTRICT. within any "LR-lA", LR-lA-10, 'LR-lB", "LR-1C', or
'LR-1C-1" One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regulations shall apply:
Subd, 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The set back from the shoreline for
lakeshore lots shall be at least 75 feet and no building may be located closer to the
shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence
buildings on adjacent and nearby lots.
Subd. 2. Lakeshore Hard Cover Regulations. within 75 test of shoreline there
shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures.
Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% herd cover.
within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30• hard
cover. Within 500 to 1,000 facet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35•
hard cover.
Subd. 3. Tree Rem^val Regulations. No trees within 75 feet of the shoreline
..:th the diameter of six (b) inches or more shall be removed without first obtaining
a permit from the Counci'.
HARDCOVER RHGDLATIONS AND WORKSHRET
A. HARDCOVER ORDINANI.'E - In 1975, the Orono City Council adopted an ordinance limiting
the percentage of lot area that can be covered with impervious surfaces ("hardcover*)
such as roofs, driveways, s_dewalks, etc. on properties located within 1,000 feet of
a lake. Studies have shown that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the laka
from highly urbanized areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the
lake. The intent of Orono's ordinance is to ensure that rainfall run-off will be
cleansed by filtering tc,rough grassed or vegetated yard areas before entering the
lake.
B. HARDCO'•'ZR SETBACK ZONES - PERCENTAGE ALLOWED
I. 0-75's in the area within 75' of the lakeshore, No Hardcover is allowed
(01).
II. 75-250':' in the portion of the lot located between 75' and 250' from the
lake, 250 of that portion of the lot may be hardcovered.
III. 250-500': in the port'_on of the lot located between 250' and 500' feet
from the lake 301N of that portion of the lot may '>9 hardcovered.
IV. 500-1,0001: in the portion of the lot located between 500' and 1,000' feet
from the lake 350 of that porticn f the lest may be hardcovered.
'OTE: These regulations apply even if you have a chat does not abut the lake but is
within a lakeshore zoning district.
C. HOW TO DETERMINE LOT AREA WITHIN EACH SETBACK ZONE (To be used as denominator in all
hardcover percentage calculations)
I. 0-75' Zone
Area - 75' x (Average width o 0-75' zone\
measure p llel to sho line J
,1-- �
5.
s
75x �S ft. 4875 s. . (1) N
(Avg width) Area of 0-75' e
II. 75-250' Zone
Area - (175'or avg lot d,,-th in zone% x(Avq width of lot in 75-250' zone\
measure pazellel to shoreline )
175' x _ 78 ft. - / 3 So s.f. (2)
(Avg width) Area of 75-250' zone
III. 250-500' Zone
Area - (250' or avg lot depth in zone) x(Avg width of lot in 250-500' zone)
measure parallel to shoreline f
250' x 3 S ft. - Y 7 S s.f. (3)
(Avg width) Area of 250-500' zone
IV. 500-1,000' Zone
Area - (500' or avg lot depth in zone) x( 'Avg width of lot in 500-1000' zone)
� measure parallel to shoreline f
50(1' x O ft. - C) s.f. (4)
(Avg width) Area of 500-1,000' zone
.. ,ems --'a �,�✓�,,� O -'?S � �'�' � -
1
57—/N C�
C"m �Ljr
97 ML As
&0 N Lot*) T-0 CrO,
7-67-4-L t::P(/1rrN
/4 1 9 �/o 4�:X,15 r7/,j Co
ivy
z� Su vex OF 040 Ks er �No►o- A-L) = /
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988
ATTENDANCE 7:05 F.N.
The Council met on the above date with the following members
present: Mayor Grabek, Councilmembers Goetten► Peterson, and
Callahan. The following represented the City staff: City
Administrator Bernhardson, Public Works Director Gerhardson,
Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning &
Zoning Administrator Gaffron, City Clerk Hallin and City Recorder
Schef£ler. City Attorney Barrett and City Engineer Cook were also
present.
CONSENT AGENDA*
It was moved by Councilmembar Callahan and seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda subject to
the revision of the following item:
$2 - Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of June 27, .1968.
Councilmember Goetten req•.,ested that the minutes be corrected to
reflect that she had more comment regarding Request of ordinance
Amendment - Solicitor's Ordinance (page 12 of June 27, 1988
Minutes). Rather than merely commenting that the situation was
unfortunate, she further commented that she "felt that the Council
needs to be looking at the County Road 15 area as a tota: picture
including this specific area". There were no objections to this
correction, Callahan moved to adopt the Minutes as corrected,
Peterson seconded, all in favor, motion passed.
PLANNING 70MMISSION COMMENTS
Planning Commissioner Cohen was present and had no comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from the public.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: !�
#1025 ED HENRICH
4115 HIGHWOOD ROAD
VARIANCE
CONCEPTUAL RESOLUTION
It was requested by the Applicants that this matter be tabled.
until the July 25, 1988 Counr7i 1 Meeting. i
#1275 DOUGLAS JOHNSON
1399 PARR DRIVE
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION 12463
Mr.and Mrs. Johnson were present for this matter.
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this was a request(
for sel►eral variances for a substantial reconstruction of thei
house on the property. it does require a hardcover variance in
the 0-75, although the hardcover is actually beinq reduced fromi
6.5• to 4.5% in the 0-75. A new deck is proposed to replace in
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1988
existing desk. It requires an average lakeshore Setback, an
existing sideyard setback, which it's not going to further
encroach, and one foot building height variance.
Mayor Grabek questioned the walk -out feasibility and was advised
that the walkout grading aleady existed. Bernhardson added that
the house itself generally sits out of the 0-75, it's the decks
that are in the 0-75. There were no comments on behalf of th»_
Applicants. Councilmember Goetten had some questions for thc-
Applicants, but had met with them at a time prior to the meeting
and had nothing further to ask. It was moved by Councilmember
Goetten and seconded by Councilmember Peterson to adopt Resolution
#2463 approving variances. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays 0. Douglas
Johnson, per staff recommendation, Peterson seconded, all in
favor, motion passed.
#1278 RON TIMM
4496 NORTH SHORE DRIVE
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION #2464
The Applicant, Ron Timm, was present for this meeting.
City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this is a request
.for a variance to average lakeshore setback, plus a hardcover
variance for construction of a deck. The hardcover variance
request includes a proposal to reduce the existing from about 44%
down to about 35% in total; the Planning Commission recommended
approval.
Mayor Grabek inquired as to whether applicant had any comments or
questions regarding the recommendations of the Planning
Commission. Applicant stated that he had plans to reduce the
hardcover to less than the Commission recommended. Councilmember
Goetten commended Applicant on doing that, stating it usually is
the other way around. It was moved by Councilmember Peterson,
seconded by Councilmember Goetcen to adopt Resolution #2464
approving variances. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0.
#1281 DENNIS MEYER
4731 NORTH SHORE DRIVE
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION #2465*
It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember
Peterson to adopt Resolution #2465 approving the variances.
Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0.
0
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 6, 1988
#1275 DOUGLAS JOHNSON
1399 PARK DRIVE
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING 8s26-8t34
The,Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing
were noted.
Douglas Johnson was present for this matter.
Gaffron explained the request for variances for 0-75'
hardcover, 0-75' structure, average lakeshore setback,
and building height, to allow construction of major
additions and decks to existing residence structure. He
clarified the existing and proposed hardcover
calculations.
In response to Kelley's question regarding replacing the
foundation, Mr. Johnson stated he intends to replace
only a portion of the foundation at this stage. He
also stated that the neighbors have no objections to his
plans and that he does not plan any steps or walkway to
the lake.
There were no comments from the public regarding this
matter and the public hearing was closed.
Kelley felt that if it is found that an entire new
foundation is needed, the house should be moved to meet
the 0-75' and side setbacks.
Bellows felt the proposed improvements wou18 ultimately
required replacing the existing house.
Mr. Johnson stated if he has to replace the entire
foundation and/or tear down the entire house, he will
move the house to conform with the setbacks, but it is
his desire to save as much of the existing house as
possible He noted the location of the house and
prop,,sea additions are due to the natural drainage
ravine.
It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Moos, to recommend
approval per staff recommendation subject to the
existing foundation being reviewed by a structural
engineer and it the foundation needs to be replaced, the
structure will be moved to conform with the lakeshore
and side setbacks. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0.
5
i
,I
A� N�
� dtwo
_ poem P.
0 o w
� r _
_
1
Iq'
T
�
owl
1
fir-
' �•
�: • r � i � ..
{
A
I
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
City Administrator Bernhardson
From: Thomas J. Jacobs, Building Official
Date: September 12, 1988
Subject: 1399 Park Drive
On September 12 1988, I conducted an inspection with Mike Gaffron to
verify compliance with the Orono Municipal Code and Resolution #2463.
During this inspection the following was found:
1. House was completely removed except for the north foundation wall.
a small section of the west foundation wall, and a small section of
the east foundation wall.
2. The section of east foundation wall is bowing in the middle and
consists of 8" concrete block.
3. There are no footings underneath the foundation that exists.
After reviewing the site, the information submitted by Home
Engineering & Evaluation Services/Chester J. Zimniewicz, structural and
civil engineer, and the plans submitted for a building permit, I have found
the following:
1. First floor plan shows that existing wood structure should have
remained.
2. In the structural engineer's report, the engineer assumes: that the
existing house consisted of a slab on grade concrete with thickened
12"x24" footings around the periphery of the building and probably the
existing center bearing wall. During the inspection, we found that
there were no footings at all under the 8" concrete block.
Recommendations from the structural engineer:
A) Remove the top course of block on the outside existing and inside
bearing walls.
B) On the inside wall, place a *1o. 5 vertical re -bar every 16".
C) On the outside bpar.ing wall, break a hole in the existing block at
16" on center in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
1399 Park Drive
September 12, 1988
Page 2 of 2
D) On the outside bearing wall, erect a concrete form on the inside
at least 4" from the inside of the outside wall.
E) On the outside and inside bearing walls, pour at least a 6-8" cap
on top of the wall. The greater height could be built if desired.
F) Re-inforced 4" added wall with No. 4 re -bars, 12" on center, in
both the horizontal and vertical directions.
G) Place (2) No. 4 re -bars continuous at the top in the cap, and (2)
No. 4 re -bars continuous at the bottom of the concrete cap, regardless
of the height of the cap.
H) Pour the caps and added 4" wall 1h 3,000 PSI concrete, also fill
all voids in the existing walls, liberally vibrate the concrete (this
vibration will make sure the all voids will be filled and result in a
very strong and adequate structure).
After inspecting the contruction that has already been done on the
site, they in no way intended on doing this as what was trying to be
created by the enginee►- is to add a 4" thickness to the wall which would
allow this wall to be 12" thick, as required per Code (see Exhibit A).
Also shown on the nuildin3 plans, submitted to the Building Department for
permit, the wood structure above the ,existing foundation was to remain. At
this time, all of the we od structure has been removed from the building.
During the inspection, I have found the the 8" concrete wall does not have
a footing underneath as assumed by the structural engineer. This section
of the foundation remaining would have to be removed at this time.
Therefore, reading Resolution. #2463, Conclusions, Order and Conditions, "3.
It the Building Department's recommendation that the applicant move the
proposed structure so that it wili meet the 10' side setback and 75'
lakeshore setback requirements."
Z.:"q RF-s&¢ k-r
-Top Y iE60+. or cip
O
'P, s r �.. , ,,� !e + o g _ ,•ram,
Brr�► �-- N C. ll. C-O v-AL
n
'at.
—
L4oNNER�DN To �ciSTi�v
v�.li►.L�-1
Ex 15,
+c.
r
J
4-
EXHIBIT
x c�
I ,
�� s�.PP°rt sTtzU:.,vr�
I
I . i C• o n C.r CA C- Te
�. K �>T ors vNA�.►.
I
4 kE 'Lz, vt- `r, O.C.
I ,.Orr .' Ytt-T
Off. 4 Res. 224.8398
HOME ENGINEERING & EVALUATION SERVICES
CHESTER J. ZIMN!EWICZ, P.E.
CIVIL 4 STRUCTURAL ENGR. • MINN. .4632 • WISC. - 17677
758 C141PPEWA AVE.
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA SS 107
June 29, 1988
Mr. Doug Johnson
1399 Park Drive
Mound, MN 55364
Re: douse that you will be building in Orono, MN
Dear Mr. Johnson:
In response to your request, I have reviewed.the plans for the house you
propose to build in Orono, Minnesota.
In a City of Orono Planning Commission Action letter dated 6-8 88, it requests
you to engage a structural engineer to analyze and certify what action should be
taken by you concerning the "existing and proposed foundation and basement support
walls and beams and determine what changes must be made lto,support the structure."
Discussion and Inspection
The existing foundation and footings for the existing house consist of a
slab —on —grade concrete slab with thickened 12" x 24",;'footings'around the periphery
of the building and probably the existing center bearing wall. While this type
of design would probably not meet the present day code, it -does, however, appear
that there has not been any structural inadequacy. It is my opinion then that
these walls and footings have stood the test of time•and do not appear to have
any structural problems. They, therefore, could be reused and reinforced as
hereafter recommenced.
Recommendations
1) Remove the top course of block on the outside existing and inside
bearing wall.
2) On the inside wall, place a #5 vertical rebar every 16".
3) On the outside bearing wall, break a hole in the existing block at 16" o.c.
in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
THE POREGOING RE►ORT IS FURNISHED AT YOUR REOUEST IN S7 RICT CONFIDENCE BY US AS YOUR AGENT AND EMPLOYEE POR YO
aXCLVSIVF USE AS AN AID IN DETERMINING THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE SUBJECT PREMISES. THIS REPORT IS INTENDED TO COV
ONLY SVCH PORTIONS OF THE PREMISES AND THE EQUIPMENT THEREIN AS MAY BE EXAMINED VISUALLY; AND WE WARN YOU THAT ,
THOUGH SUCH PREMISES AND/OR EOUI►MENT MAY BE IN GOOD CONDITION WHEN EXAMINED, THE CONDITION MAY CHANGE THEREAFTF
FURTHERMORE. THIS REPORT IS,NOT TO Of USED AS A SASI$ FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF SUCH PREMISES OR WHETHER SAME IS OF
NOT TO BE .'URC*4A$ID THIS REPORT IS NOT TO of CONSTRUED AS A GUARANTY OR WARRANTY OF THE PREMISES OR EQUIPMENT THERR
OR OF THUR FITNESS FOR USE,
HOME AND BUILDING INSPECTION FOR 7HI OWNER AND BUYER
i
Mr. Doug Johnson
Page 2
Jure 29, 1988
4) On the outside bearing wall, erect a concrete form on the inside at
least 4 inches from the inside of the outside wall.
5) On the outside and inside bearing walls, pour at least a 6" to 8"
cap (minimum) on top of the wall. A greater height could be built
if desired.
6) Reinforce the 4" added wall with #4 rebars 12" on center in both a
horizontal and vertical direction.
7) Place 244 rebars (continuous) at the top in the cap and 244 rebars
(continuous) at the bottom of the concrete cap regardless of the
height of the cap.
8) Pour the caps and added 4" wall with 3,000 PSI concrete. Also, fill
all voids in the existing walls. Liberally vibrate the concrete.
This vibration will assure that all voids will be filled and will
result in a very strong and adequate structure.
If you have any questions, or if : can be of further service, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
CJZ:ch
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Chester mniewicz, P.E.
City of OR,ONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2463
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
A VARIANCE TO
MUNICIPAL ZONIv- ^ODE
SECTIONS 10.22, SUP' `,N 1 i 2
10.55, SUBDIVx_ ,
AND 10.24, SUBDIVISION tA) i (B)
FILE #1275
WHEREAS, Douglas Johnson (hereinafter "the applicant") is the
owner of the property located at 1399 Park Drive 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 Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1 6 2; 10.55, Subdivision
8; and 10.24, Subdivision 5 (A) & (B) for approval of the following
variances:
.,) Hardcover in the 0-75' zone of 4.9% where no hardcover is normal y
allowed.
B) Defined building height of 31' where a 30' maximum building is
normally required.
C) Encroachment nearer the lakeshore than the defined average
lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed.
D) Structure located in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no
structure is normally allowed.
E) Construction of additional stories above a portion of existinv
house which is located 1.8' from the side lot line where a 10' Bid
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 #1275.
2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore
Residential Zon4.ng District.
3. The Orono Planning Commission aviewed this application on June 6,
1980, and recon=onded approval of the proposed variance baued upon the
fo/lowing findings:
Page 1 of 5
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2463
A) The existing and proposed hardcover percentages in the 75-
250' and 250-500' lakeshore setback zones are within t.ie
allowable 25% and 30% respective limits. In conjunction with
additions to the house, applicant proposes to reconstruct decks
which will be located within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone due
to the location of the existing north wall of the house being
nearly coincident with the 75' setback line. The applicant has
removed a non -conforming shed structure previously located in the
0-75' zone as part of his upgrade of the property. The new deck
and steps total 274 s.f. or 4.9% hardcover, where originally 6.9%
hardcover existed. This net hardcover decrease in conjunction
with the conforming hardcover percentages in the zones further
from the lake put this proposal in a positive light.
B) The l' variance requested to building height will have little
or no significant effect on the visual appearance cf the proposed
house, and the house will not be visually obtrusive because of
its relationship to its existing topography.
C) The proposed additions to the existing house technically
require a variance for encroachment past the average lakeshore
setback line. However, althougn the neighboring house are
setback much further from the lake than the pro sPd
construction, those neighboring houses are also much higt:_,7 in
elevation, hence their existing %iews of the lake will not be
significantly encroached upon by the proposed construction.
Additionally, the property from the east is well screened from
the proposed construction by existing vegetation.
D) The applicant is proposing to construct additional structure
above a portion of the existing house which encroaches within
1.8' of the side lot line. Lateral additions to the existing
structure will be located to meet the 10' side setback
requirement of the LP-lB district. The applicant can construct
proper overhangs to the upward addition so that there will be no
encroachment into the nei --Ing property. There is adequate
setback from other str.ucL the neighboring property so that
fire access to this side house is not a problem.
E) The applicant will continue to use the existing detached
garage which iG located near the road and significantly higher in
elevation than the existing house.
r le 2 of 5
City Of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2463
4. The City Council has considered this application including the
findings and recommendations of the Planning Com..ission, reports by
City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed
variance on the health, safety and welfare o' the ,ommunity.
5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this
property are peculiar to is and do not apply generally to cther
property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not
adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazarc
or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demon-
strable 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 Oronc
City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code SectionF
10.22, Subdivision 1 & 2; 10.55, Subdivision S; and 10.2,' Subdivision
(A) 6 (B) to permit the construction of additions to the a ing residenc-
which will result in 4.9% hardcover in the 0-75' lakesh setback zone
where no hardcover is normally allowed, a 31' defined building height where
onlf a 30' maximum building height is normally allowed, encroachment pf
structure past the defined average lakeshore setback line where nc
encroachment is normally allowed, encroachment of deck structure to withir
67' of the shoreline and part2lon of the house 74' from the shoreline where
a 75' setback for all structures is normally required, and continuatior
upward of a substandard 1.8' side setback where a 10' aside setback it
normally .required, subject to the following conditions:
1. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is li. ad to the followings
New Deck 6 Stairway 264 s.f.
Portion of House 10 s.f.
TOTAL 274 s.f. (4.9%)
Applicant is advised of the 25% and 30 % hardcover limitations in the
75-250' and 250-500' lakeshoze setback zones respectively. NC
additional hardcover will be allowed in the 0-75' l akeshore setbac?
zone.
2. The overhang on the proposed
house &hall be no greater than 1.5'
not encroach into the neighboring
upward additions from the existino
laterally from the house and shalt
property.
Page 3 of 5
City of (JHONO
RE5OLUTIOP 0;- THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
.:463
3. Applicant is further advised that, although applica.,t's engineer
nas verified that the existing foundation is aderv-te with minor
upgrading to support the proposed construction, 'or some reason the
existing foundation is ultimately removed and m, oe replaced, the
app' icant shall move the propfw cd structur - so t,. a.. _t will meet the
10' side setback and 75' lakashore setback requirements.
4. Authorities granted with this resolution run with the property not
with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised b;
apnlicaticn for c building ne7mit: within one year of the date of
Council approval, or this vrtiance will expire on that dpsr (July 11.
1989).
Violation of or non-cnmr i11 ce with any of the terms ane
.oaditions of this resolution • `ia 1 a constitute a violation of the
zoning code, shall autoL.<Licai1y terminate any authority grantee
herein, and shall be punishable d.. a misdemeanor.
6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agzse:
to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs
successors and assigns, hereby aqrees to the r- ording of this
resolution in the chain of title of the property.
Adopted by .he Orono City -our : on this llt. .y of July, 1988
ATT STi
Val
�,
'�,tVyv M n, tyClerk
raper y owner
Page 4 of 5
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Nr� 2463
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
sq.
COUNTY OF 1;ENNEP-'4 )
On this
before me'
appeared
o���=
day of 4LA S +
F.:lic within and foe said
� 06 nsc,,
, 1990
co• sty, personally
nown to me to be
Nctary
i CrucI0�s
the persons) ..descr;�P(d) its and who executed the foregoing
inst-+ament, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as
h 1 is 1 I ';eir) free act and deed.
Fg%
7HERESA L NAAS
HENNEP N COUN7`i TA
m,unluwn expires 9-8-92
STATE OF MINNESOTA
�l
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COM.M SSION EXPIRES
)ss.
COUNTY Or HENNI ' )
On thiL. 7/.� day of 198�, before me
ni a Notlip. ithin nu for said County, personally appeared
`S� _�.,t(I known to me to be the
persons describ#:d in and %.ho executed the foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged that hF (they) •xecuted t-ho same as his
(their) free act and deed.
PUBLIC
LAURIE K. SCHEFFLER
r j
1/01.121 fVII.0 � M:tYNSOI'
WNWFIN MOO
/.lr CCTTI::.OP •.pip+ .4•93
MY
Page 5 -)F '-
EXHIBIT A
Resolution No. 2463
Le ial Description:
Lot 16, Block 6, Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; including that portion of vacated Forest
Boulevard lying between the Northwesterly extensions across
it of the Northeasterly line of said Lot 16 and the straig..t
portion of the Southwesterly line of said Lot 16; and
including the adjacent 1/2 of vacated Forest Avenue.
;U_
AS
,.aid
Mtl.
"y1I 1. )•
Ir
a
� � � y _� �..�yi[� j'4Y �_E�-• i_%. ��r..+���c�► a �',}' i d _ -,�. -' --- - •-�-r=-: -- �'- —_. _�. _ - �_ ^—�—_ - - .y-.�e�_���
- Vi�oc
I �� pi47"+ , f..`yz ,,,, . O ^� c �: �: a.� -=,� .;�•. _ ,.. _i .E�u�-r�t� ►datt,i.s _ _
sir �•'� - ti. �..• . .. -t -a. Z. -:s•`. Ti
•. �.. `L-�_��`= a; VC`�7+� n .►%fir •' t: 'agstdi. �i/�j-'('`y( .-,u• :,!
nR1c�� -4� � '7• ' �+- �.a-_ i':� r r ••� -' .1r. ��-�c�iaLQ� 7r-►- S!
�I'1�5 +� : .}y cF �`•-i: 7 t .` ,
- �i t .s�:� i,x�.: ����T.f. .`•i 51C ,7. J�� _ - _ s ` •I�- ,�..rr��_ �Q l"1
Y125" - c'X'`•:f3�:�•�,.rv�"c`R'rCiJ�'tR9Ry''11�$ embeaMu� _ - F ; _< i
ut.l�. r . r... '•-'GJI/E O•� .r. G ;iiti3' `w.> _ . r.. k4� �•�y�lOp�'ot tutu( , _ . - - - - - _ a •, Q _
:-roZ►ic� •` -- t -�.� �] 2 Q' �.}"�-..�j-'9-PT��_�.WGOd_ .. , _ - � _ _. °
• � � _ _ �-ram ...-c ^A �_.�� � -(-i -__
' F �. ` .'"t+, ;i � i .Y'�•' �� S`� Fyn., t��r,�,-. � _- � ,_Y ` �'. , _
•s_Y. xit�LirrL.TtL
SRI
��.�1 J ♦ 4 :. J n►: F rtl _- ��
lRO'4�� d— 1{►4`w•^,`.� } �f�j . �-", y ?rf t. ;iE :I
i �L-�tp`•�ppEr:1N�' -► _ � ��''.�' ��j¢O/•ltx�•�, 7"�'1��^� 1.� I.4 . . � E. __ - - _ _-
Yjs
•iN r►. HE ■ r :<. rra� Y. 1 . i fi 'r ~ t:f- .� `� + _ � _
—_"� ! /�..•�.` 1{'. ` • JY M-/� Y•r�> r. Y �— — •6J' .� �[vV _ • 7 a iro,
'1� '-wcff.��•;�-�`'►z• h�. �_' t� -1 - • , . _ _ - :_ '\ � _ - -
�'-�7^ • .O` - - f':.-�':�i'
.L'-
�1$.a-Y +� 2Tr rt �, �,u .� Ya J��� }h • ., ,e •�'�_, . '' B _ . _ - __
WJJYDO
Tr
AL
i �-. t-s ! � j�+• � �'�f-r�nrvr - ,�ih�Y�er-ram ,7•:+i+.rv.; • _........ • •_ ^ ' � � I
9688.2HD
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members
From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
Date: September 6, 1988
Subject: 1989 Goal Setting
ATTACHMENT A - Proposed Amendments for 1989 Goal SO' n
ISSUE - Review of changes discussed at the meeting on August 10,
1988, together with potential adoption of the goals an:
objectives for 1989.
INTRODUCTION - At `he meeting of August loth, I indicated I would
bring back the suggested revisions for Goal Setting for 1989.
DISCUSSION - I have noted the changes proposed for the mission
statement, etc. together with the short term objectives to be
undertaken for the balance of 1988 and into 1989.
RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Counc.l adopt the
attached material that is representing its Goal Settir.g for 1989.
PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , to adopt the
attached material that is representing the Council's Goal Setting
for 1989. Ayes , nays
9688.2HD
Adopted 11/10/86
Revised 10/9/87
Revised 8/30/88
CITY OF ORONO
1988 STRATEGIC: FLAN FOR 1989
MISSION STATEMENT - CITY OF ORONO
OUR MISSION is to provide appropriate services to persons within the
community of Orono together with contract communities utilizing available
resources in an effective manner accomplished through:
- A continuous pro--ess of objective analysis of past, current, and
future trends considering the specific- events and unique physical
surroundings ".hat shape the mode and structure of the urganizacion;
- A positive, forward -looking management of personnel and other
resources in a business -like, customer oriented delivery of services;
- A select, well -trained, expert group of customer oriented employees
individually motivated and informed as to their responsibilities
together with the organization's overall purpose and direction for
delivering a quality product;
- The aggressive utilization and maintenance of al 1 organiz.= cional
resources;
- The contracting of services both in and out, together with the
sharing of services and facilities, to achieve the appropriate
effectiveness of service.
CITY OF ORONO
EXTERNAL ANA17ZIS
- Increased private businesses
delivery of traditional public
services
- Selected demands for service
increases including mandates
from external agencies such
as solid waste management,
comparable worth, truth in
taxation and a restricted
financial -climate
- Increase communication
and information links
- Increased duplication of
authority in selected areas
- Increased development pressure
due to transportation link
upgrade and saturated second
ring deve.Lopmerit:
- Fluctuating State and growing
metropolitan economies
- Pressure for jurisdiction
_ncrease by multiplicity of
agencies (County, LMCD,
etro Council, etc.)
- Increasing development/
re -development pressure on
lakeshore property
Adopted 11/10/86
Revised 10/9/87
Revised 8/30/88
INTERNAL ANALYSIS
- Expertise in Contracting
business both in and out
with other entitites both
public and pr'_vate
- Strong history and
orientation of responsiveness
to local citizenry/cunsumers
- Need to explore and develop
altered delivery systems
•- Strong environmental
commitment
- Need to strengthen
continuity of staff
through training, and on -going
incormation managemerr
system
- Naed to strengthen the
organi.zaticnal image botFi
inside and outside the
organizataion
Adopted 11/10/86
Revised 10/9/87
Revised 8/30/88
CITY OF ORONO
KEY STRATEGIC ISSUES
1. Ensure appropriate continuity and development of organizational
members.
2. Determination of community development direction and process for the
next five years.
3. Appropriate utilization of contracting entities together with further_
exploration of improved sharing of service_
4. Provide for the effective marketing and delivery of services.
5. Ensure appropriate communications and information provision together
with imorov�•u community identity.
6, Development of an appropriate financial policy.
7. Determine direction following completion of City facilities ,analysis
program.
8. Achievement of goals for solid caste management throuimproved
recyc ing efforts.
Adopted 11/10/86
Revised 10/9/87
Revised 8/30/88
CITY OF OPONO
1987 STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR 1988
KEY ISSUE OBJECTIFIES
1. Continuity and Staff Development
- Maintain High Level of Continuity
- Department Head Teamwork
- Selective Hiring/Targeting/Flexibility
- High Level of Staff Competency
- In -House Training
- Targeting Development
- Overlap/Continuity
- Policy Body
- Staff
- Management Information System
2. Community Development Direction and Process
- How Should We Develop?
- Change Around Us
- Storm Wate. Management
- Commercial vs. Residential
- Navarre
- Highway 12
- Land Use
- Potential Corridor for Upgrade
- Re -zoning
- Process and Control
3. Utilization of Contracting Fntities
Provider
PoTT
Building/Zoning
Utility
- Public Works
Backup
Recipient
Fire
(Police/Mutual Aid)
Attorney
Engineering
Planning
Inspection
Private Ccnsultant
Assessing
LOGIS
Potential
Administration
Assessing
Garage
Street Maintenance
Solid waste/RecYcl g
Contractual Service Provision Review
- Financial
- Legal
- Service Capacity
- Administration
- Market
4. Market/Delivery
High Level/Service - Realistic/Palatable Cost
Market -
- Other Communities
- Within the Community
- Means to warket
- Alternative Delivery System
•-• Targeting
5. Co.amunication and Information
- Effective Delivery/Identity
- Type of Information
- Required (State/Local)
- Desired
- Madia
- Cable
- Newspaper
- Newsletter
- Brochure (Parks, et-,.`
- Market
Available
Access
- Information and Referral
- Image
- Means for Current Information
9688.2HD
Draft 8/30/88
CITY OF ORONO
1988 Strategic Planning for 1989
1. Continue woL% with Ad Hoc Task Force regarding improvements,
both short and long term, to Highway 12 Corridor. If deemed
approi.riate, undertake joint and/or encou_age MNDOT Corridor
Selection Study. Ongoing
2. Navarre Re -Development:
* Final County 15 Progress 12/88
* Complete Master Plan Study 7/89
* Determine Strategy to Implement 9/89
* Determine Need for. Separate Authority and/or. Tax 1/89
Increment District
3. City Facilities:
* Complete Phase II 10/88
* Determine Direction for Further Study 11/88
4. Stubb's Bad+_
* Review Revised Feasibility Study 10/88
* Determine Financing Arrangements if Undertaken 12/88
* Explore Development Moritorium 2/89
* If Appropriate, Initiat: Project 5/69
5 Storm Water Management P7.an:
* Ascertain Available Mapping 8/89
* Develop RFP for Study 10/89
6. Community Development Direction and Process:
* Conclude Advisory Council Roles Review 11/88
* Review ar,' Revise (see Prior 3/89
* Enhance Effective Control of Marinas 12/88
7. Community Transportation
*
_Plan:
Further Discuss Public/Privet gt.reet
Issue
8/89
*
County Rcad 116
As Needed
*
Highway 12 (see ##1)
8. Improvement
in Solid Waste Management:
*
Determine Additional ues/Efforts
to Meet Goals
10/88
Curb -side Recycling
*
Review/Adopt, if Desir(.,u, *^pguiatioas
Regarding Solid
3/89
Waste Management
*
Review Issue of Organized Collection
if Appropriate
9/39
9. Complete
Financial Stratagy Plan
11/88
9788.4
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mirk E. Bernhardson, City Administrato
DATE: September 7, 1988
SUBJV-'T: Animal Permit - Ord;nance Amendment
Attachments: A. Animal Control Regulation Memo Dated 5/3/88
(Memo Only)
B. Proposed Ordinance Amendment
C. Draft Permit Form
D. Proposer: Fee Ordinance Amendment
E. Orono Crdinance 9.13
ISSUE -
1. Determination by the Council whether they desire to amend t:,e
current ordinance to establish the basic requirements for u
permit currently required by the ordnance.
2. Establishment of a fee for nspe.tions "or such permits.
INTRODTJCTION - This past
May the issue of -he City requiring
animal permits was
raised
by one
of ti:e resi(;ents when the City
was attempting to
have his
dogs
licensed. :Je pointed o!it that
the ^ity required
animal
permits
on horses and other types of
farm animals, but
the City
had no
permit process in place.
DISCUSSION - After a review of the ordinance by staff and
Jeve-1 opment of a permit system Attachment B was developed
outlines the issues that the staff would like to hake addressed
by ordinance in order to impi-ment this pemit system.
1. Defining which are required to be licensed.
2. Addressing the issue of those who automatically
received a permit b.aed on their established usage level
prior to 1984.
3. Indicate th no permits will be issued without
inspection.
4. Indicate wh,) i:= requited tt: review rermit pti, c
permit issuance.
5. Indication that the permit shall be a 14. .timum
cype and number and not by individual anime.i.
6. Cross-reference to z )ring c-apter regardinc vacic,us
animals.
7. Length of time for permit.
1
in addition Attachment D oatlines the fee for inspections for
these types of permits. A follow up inspection would only be
conducted upon failure to meet the appropriate zr iter is on the
initial inspection or upon a follow-up inspection where on a
complaint basis violations were found.
ALTERNATTVES
1. Adopt as presented
2. Amend and adopt
Delete requirement for the permitting the animals apart from
Table for further consideration
RECOMMENDATION It is recommen,'ed that the Council discuss with
stall initial concerns they may have and that this matter be
tabled until September 2t 1988 Council meeting.
PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded b,, , that the Courr^il
following discussion table this matter u.i'._rT the September 26,
1988 Council meeting. Ayes ,, Nays
cc: I i Kilbo, Police Chief
N
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator
DATE: May 3, 1988
SUBJECT: Animal Control Regulations
Attachment A. Orono Police Report iBB-80236i
B. City of Orono Ordinances 9.12 and 9.13
C. ordinance i157 (repealed)
D. Ordinance l239 (repealed)
E. John Hollander Letter Dated 4/29/88
ISSUE
1. Review of the ty's dog licensing ordinance and its
applicability.
2. Review of the C. y's kennel licensing ordinance and its
applicability.
3. Review of the City's farm animal regulation and its
applicability.
INTRODUCTION - On Thursday, April 28th C.S.O. Dennison was called
to 288 Hollander Road by the resident regarding live trapping of
a raccoon. When C.S.O. Dennison arrived the owner was not home,
but in his search for the owner he noted several violations on
the property and issued warning tags for the fact that the three
dogs on the property are not currently licensed and that there
was no kennel license in existence together with the fact that
there was substantial feces that evidently had not been cleaned
up for several days. He did remove the raccoon that had been
trapped for release near the Orono schools. (Mr. Hollander
claims he drowned it.)
The owner has said that he had never licensed the dogs nor been
cegnired to have a kennel for the dogs and that there was a
gentlemen's agreement with the City regarding this. The City i_
unaware of that and even if the City instituted its licensing
arrangements for these substantially after the owner had his
practice in existance since 1956 and did not require a license,
it is staffs position a license is still required. While in
the land use area the provision of grandfathering is subject to a '
conditional use permit does have some presedence, as a legal non-
conforming use, a licensing statute generally has Immediate
applicablity to all persons who fall under the category. Mr.
Hollander indicates Mr. Dick Benson, former City Administrator
and Emerson Dressel, former Orono Police Sgt. indicated he did
not need them.
Mr. Hollander additionally has a problem in being able tc
H
determine when his dogs had their most recent rabies shots, as
the veterinarian to whom he had last had then, is currently in a
dispute with Mr. Hollander regarding unpaid fees on some other
animals and will not release information. The concern by Mr.
Hollander is that if rabies shots are given in less than a year's
period, there is some danger to the animals. The City has made
attempts to get in contact with the veternarian, but to no avail
at this point. At this point Mr. Hollander is alleging that his
neighbors are also gi ilty of the regulation under which he was
given a tag. His claim was that the C. ,.(,. would not take action
on that. Lt. Cheswick did investigate the matter as it relates
to the other neighbors but found no basis for a violation.
Mr. Hollander is also inquiring as to the City's permitting
process reguarding farm animals under Subd 7 of Section 9.13.
While this was adopted as part of the recodification in 1984, no
system was ever developed. The requirement does not make a
distinction for animal keeping by urban or rural however the
zoning code requires 1 acre per animal unit (1 horse, 1
cow/steer, 3 sheep, S8 fowl) plus 1 acre for the prinicipal
structure (2 acres if horses are involved.) Such a process would
not be a license ouch as a dog license of the animal but a permit
to the resident regarding keeping of animals. (Prior to 1984
there was provision for a Village Livestock Commission relating
to permits for horses but no requirement for such permits. It
was eliminated by the recodification.)
ALTERNATIVES
Issue 1. Dog Licensing
a. Amend the ordinance to allow for grandfathering.
b. Require a licensing of all dogs establishing a date
by which the licensing has to be accomplished.
c. Table
d. Amend the ordinance to delete the licensing
requirement.
e. Amend the ordinance as :t relates to the 24 hour
feces requirement removal. (9.12 Subd 11/6)
Issue 2. Kennel Licensing
a. Amend the ordinance to allow for grandfathering.
b. Require a licensing of all dogs establishing a date
by which the licensing has to be accomplished.
C. Table
d. Amend the ordinance to delete the licensing
requirement.
Issue 3. Farm Animal Regulation
a. Amend the ordinance not to require permits.
b. Direct staff to develop a permit system.
C. Table for further discussion.
d. Amend ordinance to require permits only in the urban
section of the community provided all zoning amendments
are met.
RECOMMENDATION
Issue 1. It is recommended that the Council require that all the
dogs be licensed and that such be done by May 31, 1988.
Issue 2. Kennel Licensing - Let Mr. Hollander apply for a
residential kennel license and that such be cimpleted no later
than May 39, 1988.
Issue 3. Farm Aninal Regulation - The City establish a permit
system for farm animals.
PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by , that the Council
direct Mr. Hollander to apply for and receive a dog license no
later than May 31, 1988 together with a residential kennel
license and that staff be directed to develop a permit system for
farm animals. Ayes , Nays
cc! John Hollander
3
9788.1 //jj
Fji'1'AC4i/1lE1JT"
ORDINANCE NO. , SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9.13 SUBDIVISION 7 ADOPTED
APRIL 1, 1984, AND ENTITLED 'ANIMALS AND FOUL - KEEPING,
TRANSPORTING, TREATMENT, NOOSING'
The City Council of Orono ordains:
Ordinance No. 9.13 Subdivision 7 adopted April 1, 1984,
and entitled "Animals and Fowl - Keeping, Transporting,
Treatment, Housing' is amended to read:
Subd. 7. Permit Required. It is unlawful for any
person to keep a farm animal in any portion Of the City without a
permit therefore from the City. All residents with animals, as
defined by Ordinance in Section 9.13, Subdivision 1 B, C and D,
before April 1, 1984 will be allowed to continue keeping animals
at that same level but a permit is required in all cases.
Inspection will be made to insure compliance with this ordinance
and all other applicable ordinances including but not limited to
Section 18.83 Subdivision 3 (K).
All residents who acquire animals, as defined by
Ordinance in Section 9.13, Subdivision 1 B, C and D, shall apply
for a permit, be inspected by zoning officials, reviewed by the
Police Chief and be issued a permit if all ordinance criteria is
met. Ther permit shall list the maximum type and number of
animals to be permitted on the property. A permit is good for
years unless a shorter period is specified in this
ordCnance.
A subsequent return inspection for ordinance compliance
shall require payment of an additional permit fee.
The permit fee shall be established in the City's
current Fee Schedule.
This ordinance becomes effective after its passage and
publication.
Passed by the Council this 12th day of September, 1988.
ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor
DoratBy M. HeT7In,-2.`Ity C�Ier
Publish in the Laker and Pioneer newspapers the week of
1
DATE:
TYPE OF ANIMAL:
Animal/Farm Animal
ANIMAL OWNER'S NAME:
ADDRESS:
PRONE:
FCE: 925.00
ANIMAL PERMIT APPLICATION nn^^
11�C��r
Dangerous Animal (1 Year Permit)
$100,009 Certificate of Insurance or
$190,000 Surety Bond Attached
(Section 9.13 Subd 9(G)
(DANGEROUS ANIMALS ONLY)
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE:
NUMBER AND TYPE OF EACH ANIMAL TO BE KEPT ON PREMISES/PROPERTY:
SIZE OF PROPERTY:
•fffllfffffflffRRffRff111ff}fff if}RRR1RfRfffllff Rf RR!}f RfR}!!fill! 111fffff•
POLICE CHIEF'S REVIEN:
CONDINTB:
APPROVED
DENIED
SIgnatuta Data
9788.2 ^
�}TTAC`f{{IitTiTr
ORDINANCE NO. , SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 44, SECOND SERIES ADOPTED
DECEMBER 14, 1987 AND ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1988
FEE SCHEDULE.'
The City Council of Orono ordains:
Ordnance No. 44, Second Series adopte4 December 14,
1987, and entitled "An Ordinance Adopting the 1988 Fee Schedulp"
is amended to read:
LICENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES
Fee_ Applicable
Code Section
ANIMAL PERMIT $25.00 9.13
Each subsequent re —inspection
$25.00 each
This ordinance becomes effective from a -id after is
passage and publication.
Passed by the Council this 12th day of September, 1988.
James R. GrabekT Mayor
ATTEST:
Doro-tfiy M. XaIIIn Cfty-CTecr-
Publish in the Laker and Pioneer newspapers the week of
mcpr E
less than five regular business days. A "regular business day" is
cne during which the Pound is open for business to the public for
at least !our hours between 5:00 o'clock A.M. and 7:00 o'clock P.M.
Impoundment records shall be preserved for a minimum of six months
and shall show (" the description of the animal by specie, breed,
sex, approximate age, and other distinguishing traits; (2) the
location at which the animal was seized; (3) the date of seizure;
(4) the name and address of the person from whom any animal three
months of age or over was received; and, (5) the name and address
of the person to whom any animal three months of age or over was
transferred. If unclaimed. such animal shall be humanely destroyed
and the carcass disposed of, unless it is requested by a licensed
educational or scientific institution under authority of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 35.71. Provided, however, that if a tag affixed
to the animal, or a statement by the animal's owner after seizure
specifies that the animal should not be used for research, such
animal shall not be made available to any such institution but may
be destroyed after the expiration of the five-day period.
Subd. 11. Other Unlawful Acts. It is unlawful for the
owner of any dog to (1) fall to have the license tag, issued by the
City firmly attached to a collar worn at all times by the licensed
dog, or (2) own or keep a dog which is dangerous (any such dog
which has caused injury to persons or property shall be deemed
"dangerous"), or (3) interfere with any police officer, or other
City employee, in the performance of his duty to enforce this
Section, or (4) fail to keep his dog from barking, howling or
whining, or from emitting loud or unusual noise, or (5) fail to
prevent his dog from defecating in or upon public property or the
premises of another, or (6) perm't solid waste of a dog to
accumulate on his premises for more than twenty-four hours.
Subd. 12. Immobilization of Dogs. For the purpose of
enforcement of this Section any peace officer, dog catcher or other
person assisting a peace officer or dog catcher may use a so-called
tranquilizer gun or other instrument for the purpose of
immobilizing and catching a dog.
Sub^. 13. warning of Vicious Dogs. The owner of any dog
known to be of vicious habits shall place in plain view of the
entrance to his premises a sign no smaller than 12 inches by 14
. ....w e" -hi,h shalt read: "Beware of Vicious Dog".
SEC. 9.13. ANIMALS AND FOWL - KEEPING, TRANSPORTING,
TREATMENT, HOUSING.
Subd. 1. Definition: s used in this Section, the
following definitions shall apply
A. "Owner" - Any pe,aon who owns, harbors, feeds,
boards, keeps, or otherwise possesses an animal, and who is the
head of the household of the rEsidence, or the owner or manager in
ORONO CC 208 (4-1-94)
S 9.13
charge of the establishment or premises at which an animal remains,
or to which It returns.
a. "Farm Animals" - Cattle, horses, mules, sheep,
goats, swine, ponies, dicks, geese, turkeys, chicker.s, guinea hens
and honey bees.
C. "Animals" - Includes farm animals and all other
animals, reptiles and feathered birds or fowl except dogs, domestic
cats, gerbils, hamsters and caged household birds.
D. "Dangerous Animals" - Any wild mammal, reptile
or fowl which is not naturally tame or gentle but is of a wild
nature or disposition and which, because of its size, vicious
nature or other characteristics would constitute a danger to human
life or property if it is not kept or maintained in a safe manner
or in secure quarters. The term "dangerous animal" also means and
includes any domestic mammal, reptile or fowl which because of its
size or vicious propensity or other characterictic, would
constitute a danger to human life or property if it is not kept or
maintained in a safe manner or in secure quarters.
Subd. 2. Keeping. It is unlawful for any person tl keep
or harbor any animal, not in transit, except (1) farm animals kept
in accordance with the Zoning Chapter, or, (2) animals kept as part
of a show licensed under the City Code, or, (3) animals used in a
parade for which a permit has been issued, or, (4) animals kept in
a laboratory for scientific or experimental purposes, or, (5)
animals kept in an animal hospital or clinic for treatment by a
licensed veterinarian.
Subd. 3. Animals in Transit. It is unlawful for any
person to transport animals unless they are (1) confined within a
vehicle, cage or other means of conveyance, or, (2) farm animals
being transported in a portion of the City zoned for rural
purposes, or, (3) restrained by means of bridles, halters, ropes or
other means of individual restraint.
Subd. 4. Treatment. It is unlawful for any person to
treat an animal in a cruel or inhumane manner.
Subd. 5. Rousing. It is unlawful for any person to keep
any animal in any structure infested by rodents, vermin, flies or
insects.
Subd. 6. Trespasses. It is unlawful for any person to
herd, drive or ride any animal over and upon any grass, turf,
boulevard, City park, cemetery, garden or lot without specific
permission therefr from the owner.
Subd. 7. Permit Required. It is unlawful for any person
to keep a farm animal in any portion of the City without a permit
therefor from the City.
OROf4O CC 209 ;4-1-84)
S 9.13
Subd. 8. Impoundment. Any animal found running at large
shall be impounded in accordance with Subdivision 10 of Section
9.12. All fees or expenses incurred for capturing and impounding
shall be paid before release of any animal.
Subd. 9. Special Permit Required. It is unlawful for
any person to keep or maintain any dangerous animal without a
special permit therefor from the City. No such permit shall be
issued for a period exceeding one year and such permit shall
specify the conditions under which such animal shall be kept.. The
Chief of Police shall issue a special permit for the purpose of
keeping or maintaining a dangerous animal if it is found that:
A. The animal is at all times kept or maintained in
a safe manner and confined securely so that the keeping of such
animal will not constitute the danger to human life or property of
others.
B. Adequate safeguards are made to prevent
unauthorized access to such animals by members of the public.
C. The health or well-being of the animal is not in
any way endangered by the manner of keeping or confinement.
D. The keeping of such animal does not constitute a
nuisance and will not harm the surrounding neighborhood or disturb
the peace and quiet of the surrounding neighborhood.
E. The keening of such animal will not create or
cause offensive odors or constitute a danger to public health.
F. The quarters in which such animal is kept or
confined are adequately lighted, ventilated and are so constructed
that they may be kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
G. The applicant for such special permit proves his
ability to respond in damages to and including the amount of
$100,000.00 for bodily injury to or death of any person or persons
or for the damage to property owned by any other persons which may
result in the ownership, keeping or maintenance of such animal.
Proof of liability to respond in damages may be given by filing
with the Chief of Police a certificate of insurance stating that
the applicant is, at the time of his application, and will be
during the period of such special permit, insured against liability
to respond in such damages, or by posting with the City a surety
bond, approved by the City Attorney, in the amount of $100,000.00
conditioned upon the payment of such damages during the period of
such special permit. Such certificate of insurance or bond shall
provide that no cancellation of the insurance or bond will be made
unless ten days written notice is first given to the City.
Subd. 10. Investigation Required. The Chief of Police
in investigating any applicant for a special permit under this
Section or any enforcement of this Section, is authorised to
consult with and seek the advice of the Society for the Prevention
ORONO CC 210 (1-1-84)
5 9.13
of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society, any representative of
the Animal Control Center of the County if there be one, or any
other individual, agency, organization or society which may be able
to provide information and advice concerning the keeping of
dangerous animals.
Subd. 11. Permit Fee. Upon compliance with all
provisions of this Section, a special permit shall be issued for i
annual fee adopted by the Council by ordinance, provided that su:.i
permit shall not be issued for the keeping of more than two
dangerous animals at any single location.
Subd. 12. Exception. The provisions of this Section
shall not apply to the keeping of dangerous animals in the
following cases:
A. The keeping of such animal for exhibition to the
public by a traveling circus, carnival or other exhibit or show
holding a permit issued by the Commissioner of Natural Resources
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 97.6111.
S. The keeping of such animals in a licensed
veterinary hospital for treatment.
C. Dangerous or poisonous reptiles may be
maintained by a bona fide educational of medical institution for
the purpose of instruction or study, provided such reptiles are
securely confined and are properly cared for in a manner
satisfactory to the Chief of Police.
Subd. 13. Regulation of Horses.
A. The term 'horse- as used in this Section means
any breed of horse, pony, mule or ass.
R. It is unlawful for any person to ride or to
drive a horse after the hour of sunset and before the hour of
sunrise along or crossing any public way without appropriate
lighting or reflectorized clothing.
C. It is unlawful for any person to ride or drive a
horse in any public park, beach, golf course or other public
property, except within the right-of-way of public streets and
highways, and in areas duly designated as a trailway or hitching
area.
D. The City Administrator shall designate and sign-
post those areas in public lands, parks and beaches where horses
■ay be ridden and driven.
drawn vehicle
provisions of
vehicle, except
application.
E. Every person riding a horse or driving a horse -
upon a public street shall be subject to those
the City Code applicable to the driver of a motor
those provisions which by their nature can have no
ORONO cc 211 ca-l-W
$ 9.13
F. It is unlawful for any person to interfere with
any horse being ridden, driven or kept in a lawful manner.
Subd. 14. Feeding of Waterfowl. It is unlawful for any
person to feed or provide feed for any non -domestic ducks, geese or
other waterfowl in a manner that results in the accumulation of a
sufficient number of waterfowl so that the excrement of the
waterfowl accumulates in such a way as to cause a danr sr to the
health, safety and welfare of the public, or in such a way as to
induce the waterfowl to alter their natural migratory pattern, or
in such a way as to cause the waterfowl to congregate for extended
periods of time on any neighboring or nearby property o: water.
SEC. 9.14. CURFEW.
Subd. 1. Curfew - Minors Under the Age of Fifteen. it
is unlawful for any minor person under the age of fifteen years to
be or loiter upon the streets or public placr: between the hours of
10:00 o'clock P.M. and 5:00 o'clock A.M. of the followins day.
Subd. 2. Curfew - Minors Between the Age of Fifteen and
Eighteen. It is unlawful for any minor person over the age of
fourteen years but under the age of eighteen years to be or loiter
upon the streets or public places between the hours of 12:00
o'clock midnight and 5:00 o'clock A.M. of the following day.
Subd. 3. Curfew - Parents and Guardians. It is unlawful
for any parent, guardian, or other person having the legal care or
custody of any minor person to allow or permit such minor person to
be or loiter upon the streets or public places in violation of this
Section unless such minor is accompanied by a persop f lawful age
having such minor person in charge.
Subd. 4. Curfew - Places of Amusement, Entertainment or
Refreshment. It is unlawful for any person operating, or in charge
of, any place of amusement, entertainment or refreshment, or other
place of business, to allow or permit any minor person to he or
loiter in such place in violation of this Section unless such minor
is accompanied by a person of lawful age having such minor person
in charge. This Subdivision shall not be construed to permit the
presence, at any time, of any person under age In any place where
his presence is otherwise prohibited by law.
Subd. 5. Exceptions. Such curfew shall not apply to any
students under the age of eighteen years who are lawfully
attending, going to or returning from school, church or community
sponsored athletic, musical or social activities or events.
Sources City Code
Effective Dates 4-1-84
(Sections 9.15 through 9.19, inclusive, reserved for future
expansion.)
ORONO CC 212 (4-1-84)
9688.3HD
To: Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members
From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
Date: September 6, 1988
Subject: 1989 Budget Meeting
Just a reminder to set September 20, 1988 at 7:00 P.M. as a
date for the initial budget review meeting by the Council. It is
anticipated that the budget will be transmitted to you by
September 12, 1988.
y E, 121928
Ti OF OWN
Tot Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director
Date: August 30, 1988
Subjects Orono/M.W.C.C. Interceptor Project 85-67
83180 AND
L'Airo,11 ps;E [{ppffy�pp IIs4
.LIB i%�saa
CITY of nrt �Ho
On Auaust 4, 198d, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
received and opened bids for the Orono/M.W.C.C. Interceptor
Project 85-67. The bid has been awarded to Renko, Inc. in the
amount of $2,215,839.15. That amount is approximately 18 over
the engineer's estimate. Construction will begin on or about
September 12, 1988. Additional information will be presented
after the first precon meeting.
To: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members
Front Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
Attachments -
A. Orono Interceptor Tabulatin
B. Project Bulletin/M.W.C.C.
As noted, the project is going ahead. This is in large cart
due to efforts by JOEllen Hurr in getting the necessary 1989
budget approval for this project.
PROPCSSD MOTION: Moved by _, seconded by that the Orono
City Council accept the information regarding the interceptor and
extend its thanks to Joe,llen Hurr for her work on this matter.
Ayes _, nays
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 4 T4iC`dFN4-km "
Mears Park Centre
230 E. Sth Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101
222-8423
BID SUMMARY -- _ -
ORONO INTERCEPTOR IMPROVEMENTS
MWCC Project Number 85-67
Bid Opening Time: 10:00 a.m., August 4, 1988
Bid Place: Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Central Office
Bid Sec. '10%)
r....�..w�n. V.. u., AAA aiA A—n
Kenko, Inc.
1694 91st Avenue, N.E.
Blaine, MN 55434
X
1
$2,215,839.35
J. P. Norex
P. O. Box 476
Chanhassen, MN 55317
X
1
$2,3b0,160.70
Barbarossa i Sons, Inc.
P. O. Bo;. 367
Osseo, MN 55369
X
1
$2,394,344.00
Lametti i Sons, Inc.
16028 Forest Blvd., N.
Hugo, MN 5503e
X
1
$2,397,726.00
S. M. Hentges i Sons, Inc.
P. O. Box 212
62,415,898.50-
Shakopee, MN 55379
X
1
$2,368,3t8.58
Austin P. Keller Const.
481 Front Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55117
X
1
$2,516,145.00
Richard Knutson, Inc.
12585 Rhode Island S.
Savage, MN 55378
X
1
$2,667,296.29
• Correction in multiplication and addition of bid form.
MWCC PROJECT BULLETIN
A Publication From The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
9Tl
Orono Interceptor Sewer Improvements Project -- Summer 1988 222-5164
Sewer project expected to begin construction after Labor Day
Conslmrnon crews
wiB break ground
after Labor Day for
the $2.4-million Orono In-
tercepior Sewer Improve-
ments Project. which win
double the sewer capacity
for Orono and Muuletanka
Beach and prevent the
overflow of untreated
sewage into Lake Min -
Minas.
Phase I coymmunon in
include a segment of Old
Crystal Bay Road (Hen-
nepin County Road ga). as
well = Nosh Share Dnve
(Hennepin County Road
511. During Phase 1 con-
strutioa. North Shom
Dore between Bohm
Point Road and Baldur
Park is expect., Ib he
closed for several months.
Phase 11 cut
:alroclum.
wheduled for one year
hesitating m 196 riwdl in -
t
MAXWELL
FRENCH
Isl
NORTH
BAY
LAKE
ARM
4d
a
slopewuKar.
4�
k
r
A
19
a
—twnTr »1{e
aaoe[
we
rCKF /'MIN o
y7�
t
(r¢ssuE nRl ��
Sf'�EZ
m 6
cads
N
ro NT
/N
CRYSTAL
BAY
D
MINNETONKA 10 i
e`
+
BEACH
NAVARRE 19
LAFAYETTE
15
BAY
LI{.r aliwML
clink Shadywood Road, The S2.4
between Nosh Share Construm
Dow and Nonhvww to begin 1n
Ru
ss. =well = a .seg-
ment of Crynxf Bay Road
Shadywood Road. hetween NoNorthShofe
Dnve and Fagerress Prom Rost. is ea-
Merd to lieclosed for sevenI weeks
Phase
during 11.
The protect, built by the Metrapotinnml Wane Cannot Ctmuslmt IMWCCI.
orm.Nes replacing two hh oat..
onuctures wNLb house
mse <qu )mto
pump wtuewan pin mmvf three.mkh.
urinal bin,asu.n. .fed 1 rink,hu,kh., 1tks
A or. ." pipe
ta
million Orono Interceptor Sewer Improvements Project will be built In two stages.
n at stage t Is expected to begin In mid -September of this year. Stage 2 Is sehesuNd
lets spring 1969.
Tlfe Orono Imermplar tunes want
water to MWCC's Blue lake Wasfewaler
Tmalment Plain in Shakopee. Onimep-
for sewer pipes carry the sewage of two
on mo. a emnmumties to MWCC's plains
for 1Ramlenf.l
Much of the protect will be built using
an open-cvl construction method, wlele
marches are dug m lay sewer pipe
During muln etio. baffle lorom,noie,
anti road closures are r,twoed ahmg ile
wesum aril northern shore of Crystal
Bay of lake Mi atelonka. Detours will
be coordinated with the city of [hone.
As cmuwcbon u completed. affected
are= win be featured, said Kum Eckhardt.
project manager
A deep gnnry sewer will v- Nmll in the
middle of County Road 1. helwem
dohns Pmm Road and Tensaw. Rold.
and m thr addle of Covnly Road 19 oral
See Orono Protect on rerene aide
Project scheduled around boating season
Aher meeting with representatives
of the marinas around Lake Min-
rretonka. the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission postponed the star
of work on the Oroon Interceptor Sewer
Improvements Project untB Sept, 12, the
Monday after labor Day. Originally, the
work was scheduled to begin in June.
"We tried to schedule it so that con-
nnaction work will not affect boaters:"
Orono Project from front side
5E between County Road 51 and Faget-
nesn Pavm Road. In order to save the
tree and avoid disrupting utility cables
and ppa on either side of the mad, con-
struction crews will close the coins tonal.
way
Each road will be closed to these areas
during construction, u
necessitating detors
for several weeks Temporary access will
be provided for residents of the un-
mediate sees and trenches will be back -
filled at the end of the workmg day.
The mads will be passable m other
pours. however, Eckhardt sad. Road
workers will Rag the areas during
dayume hours Trenches will be back -
filled and markets and waning lights
placed at crwrwmoum areas during even -
me, and wreltends
Rods aHeoind by m structron will be
hullo resm ed m a Immmurnaas surface
Rennred roads will he .cal <omed m
said Kim Eckhardt, project manager
Because project consimiction will con-
strict access at MuweB Bay Marine,
workers will build a temporary driveway
so marine operators can haul the large
boats from the water and take them to dry
dock.
"The contractor may do some early
preparation, but actual construction will
rim begin until Sept. 12,' said Eckhardt.
cover any seams.
The existing sewer system will remain
to operation while the new system is
under construction. Special provisions
will be made while camecong the two
systems.
The MWCC was established by the
Minnesota Lcpslamre m 1969 to effi-
nently collect and trot the wmewra of
the Twin Cities metropolitan area while
preserving and proectmg the envimo-
ment.
The MWCC serves 105 communities
More than 500 codes cf mtercepmr sewer
pipes carry 275 million gallon of was.
rewarrr, to 12 MWCU treatment plans
each day
For more mfomtaorn all Dtarc War: -
net. MWCC commands omamzer, al
222-516n.
Plans for the Orono Inter-
ceptor Improvements
Project were changed to
preserve this fence - near-
ly 100 years old - and lo-
cated in Noerenberg
Memorial County Park.
Pipes on boggy soil
protected by piling
Aher construction begins in nud-
September, pilings pounded 40 fed
two the ground will protect the
sewer pipes on the Orono Ineroepor,
Sewer Improvements Project from M.
ding and breaking in the boggy soil in the
narrow strip of land between North Amr
and Crystal Bay on Lake Minnetonka.
The pilings will cover a ddg-foot sm ch
between Bohm Point Road and Tonkawa
Road.
Tlx pilings, made of timber treated with
perservauses. will support the horizontal
21-inch sewer pipes, which are made of
reinforced concrete. Pilings will be
driven for every eight fat of sewer pip.
According to Kim Eckhardt, project
manager. construction crews will proud
pilings into the ground along a wretch of
25 to 50 fat pen day, depending on the
weather.
Pik dnven as, tentatively expected to
be to operation berween 7 a.m. and ti p in
week days and 10 amto a p.m
weekends
The road will he closed while the
pilings we pounded min the ground. Eck -
hands said. mall. about three maths
Through traffic will be dtvened to the
north wide tie mad is closed! . swav fun
wort than Has tepw Count crews we
dnmg on Cianry Road Is m Navarre.
Eckhardt added
DEPA I'MENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
822 South Third Suet, Suite 300
Ln
Minneapolis, Minnesota l
Phone (612) 348-6846 AU6 29 1 I�
To Hennepin County Municipalities and
Solid Waste Collectors
and Disposal Facilities
Subject: PROPOSED SOLID WASTE DESIGNATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
Hennepin County will hold a public hearing September 22, 1988 regarding
the proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 12 - Solid Waste Designation
Ordinance for Hennepin County. Enclosed is a copy of the official Notice
of the Public Hearing.
Most of the ordinance amendments have to do with charges in transfer
stations sites and the use of interim transfer stations.
The Solid Waste Designation Ordinance is the County Ordinance that
requires all solid waste collected in the County to be delivered to
locations specified by the County. The Ordinance was adopted on
September 10, 1985 with the provision it will be effective upon sixty
days notice by the County Board. The plan was to put the Ordinance into
effect when the mass burn plant (HERC) in downtown Minneapolis is built
and operating and the NSP refuse derived fuel plant in Elk River is built
and operating and when transfer stations are able to receive the solid
waste from haulers and transfer it to these processing plants. The HERC
facility and the NSP facility will be ready to accept solid waste in June
1989.
The County estimates the Designation Ordinance will be put into effect in
June 1989. Though some solid waste in the downtown area may go directly
to the mass bum plant, moat will go to transfer stations.
When the Designation Ordinance was first passed in 1985, transfer
stations were planned for Bloomington, Hopkins, Brooklyn Park and at the
Minneapolis South transfer station site. Since then, a transfer station
for west and southwest Hennepin Canty that was to be located in Hopkins,
has been changed to a site in Plymouth, and the Brooklyn Park Transfer
station site has been changed to another area of Brooklyn Park. Specific
access routes to the Bloomington transfer station are also listed in the
proposed amendments. Furthermore, the difficulties in siting the
transfer stations have caused some delays in transfer station design and
construction, such that not all stations will be operating when the allies
burn plant and the Elk River RDF plant are in full_ operation. As a
result, Hennepin plans to use a network of interim transfer stations
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal oppa1unav employer
T,o Hennepin County Municipalities and Solid Waste Collectors
and Disposal Facilities
Page 2
while the four permanent ones (Minneapolis South, Bloomington, Plymouth
and Brooklyn Park) are being constructed. The Designation Ordinance has
to be amended to indicate these interim transfer stations, as well as
changes in the permanent transfer station sites.
The attached public notice lists the tempocary (or interim) transfer
station sites (or designation points) and the permanent transfer station
sites. Also attached are two maps showing the interim and permanent
transfer station locations (or designation points).
The County credit policy for transfer stations is also being amended
somewhat. Under the proposed amendments, the hauler will be billed
approximately three days after the month the hauler incurs tipping fee
charges. Payment is then due at the end of the same month. If payment
is not received, a past due notice will be sent on the 15th of the next
month. If payment is not received a: the end of the next month, the
hauler will be converted to a cash -only basis for tipping fees.
The rest of the Ordinance amendments are minor. The Ordinance does
include a provision for County licensing of all waste haulers collecting
solid waste in Hennepin County. Licensing is included so the County can
enforce its Designation Ordinance. The license will require an
application fee and proof of liability and property damage insurance with
liability limits of $100,000/$300,000 and property damage of $100,000.
Please contact Dave Winter at 348-4491 if you have questions or need more
information.
PAO'?AMEND (winter)
Enclosure
(Official Notice)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 12
SOLID WASTE DESIGNATION ORDINANCE FOR HE10WIN COUNTY
Notice is hereby given that the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners will
hold a public hearing in the County Board Room, 24th Floor, Hennepin County
Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, on
Thursday, September 22, 1968, at 10:00 a.m.
The purpose of the public hearing is to seek testimony regarding amendments
to ordinance Number 12, Solid Waste Designation Ordinance for Hennepin County.
The amendments relate to designating temporary and permanent designation points
where waste collected by waste haulers in Hennepin County must be delivered and
other matters.
The following locations are proposed for temporary designation points:
- Minneapolis North Transfer Station
- Minneapolis South Transfer Station (old transfer station)
- Osseo Transfer Station
- Hennepin County truck station, Bloomington
- Hennepin County truck station, Corcoran
- Hennepin County Public Forks facility, Hopkins
- Hennepin County truck station, Orono
- Hennepin County truck station, Osseo
- County -owned land at the northwest corner of Co. Rd. 109 arrd Zachary
Lane, Maple Grove
- County -owned land at the northeast corner of Co. Ad. 201 and Co. Rd. 19,
Medina
- Reuter Recycling, Inc., Eden Prairie
- NSP-Elk River RDF Facility, Elk River
The following a�_ proposed as permanent designation points:
- Minneapolis South Transfer Station (new transfer station)
- Bloomington Transfer Station
- Brooklyn Park Transfer Station
- Plymouth Transfer Station
- HERC Facility
The proposed ordinance amendments are on file with the Clerk of the County
Board and with the Public Works Department, Environment and Energy aivislon, at 822
South Third Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415. Phone (612) 348-4491.
Anyone wishing to offer testimony, either in written or oral form, should do so
ai the public hearing or by letter directed to the County Board of Commissioners, by
September 22, 1988.
By order of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
August 5, 1988
Pile:
NOTICE (winter)
-crmcnrrn 1Td1i5TFF STdZT3nS
Hennepin County
.\, Minnesota
\S/ wwr D
D
s
_\ n re 1
`~ 4� ������• ter
a
aa:
Permanent Transfer Stations
M nneapo s Transfer Station (new transfer station)
S. - Bloomington Transfer Station
C. - Brooklyn Park Transfer Station
o. - Plymouth Transfer Station
E. - wMC facility
Interim Transfer Stations _.
Hennepin Count
( i MInnesols
NIN
E - j • 7 .,
I Chew.. rho tan �.
AW
OMnM4 �
L.
� ulryn
I
t
• c
— .-. •+ r
K r...Rr.1.
G �l,r
F _
Interim Transfer Stations - -,
- ximeAipolis NoRl Transfer Station
!. - Mimeapolis South Transfer station (old transfer station)
C + - Osseo Transfer Station
Hennepin County truck station, Bloomington
Hennepin Canty truck station, Corcoran
FF - Hennepin County Public forks facility, Hopkins
6, - Hennepin County truck station, Orono
N. - Hemnepin County took station, Osseo
1. - County -awned land at the northwest corner of Co. Rd. 109 and Zachary
One, Maple Grove
J. - County-ewrrd land at the northeast turner of Co. Rd. 201 am Co. Rd. 19,
Medins
K. - Reuter Recycling, Inc., Eden Prairie
L. - NSP-Elk Ri�ar RDF Facility, Elk Ri.er
d3
9688.3HD i�yp
To: Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members �.l�il MEETING
Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrates
�? 12 i928
Date: September 6, 1988 7�
Subject: Water Conservation Regulations
ATTACHMENT -
A - Resolution Adopting Water Conservation Regulations Dated 7/25/88
B - Proposed Resolution
ISSUE - Deterination as to whether the Council desires to modify the
current existing odd/even restrictions for watering.
INTRODUCTION - Since the regulations where adopted in the latter part of
July, the City has been under an educational effort to have people
undertake an odd/even regulations. In addition, the City, on a complaint
bass, has undertaken enforcement action since the middle of August. To
the beat of my knowledge, there has been nothing other than requests that
people comply with and no warnings or citations needing to be issued.
Since the regulations were adopted, the rainfall had a marked increase,
although this has not been reflected in such items as the lake level of
Lake Minnetonka.
DISCUSSION - with the fall season and cooler temperatures and less
evaporation together with less demand by growing plants for water, together
with the rains since the regulations were adopted, the need for the
odd/even regulations at this time are limited.
ALTERNATIVES -
1. Eiminate the odd/even regulations at this time.
2. Set a date in the future when it should be eliminated.
3. Continue the regulations.
4. Table the matter for a future meeting.
RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt Attachment B as a
resolution withdrawing the odd/even regulations, effective the middle of
September, but that they automatically are re -imposed April 15, 1999.
PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , to adopt Resolution
removing the restrictions of the odd/even regulations, effective September
15, 1988, but reimposing them April 15, 1989. Ayes _, nays _
City of ORON4CITY
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCII
OF NO. 2479
e-e
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MANDATORY
ODD/EVEN WATERING BAN OUTDOORS
REGARDLESS OF SOURCE OF SUPPLY THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY
WHEREAS, the City of Orono has a significant ongoing
concern regarding its water resources; and
WHEREAS, the City of Orono has reflected that concern in
its adoption of Ordinance 53, of the Second Series as an
amendment to the code .Section 3.10; and
WHEREAS, the precipitation for 1988 is significantly
below normal as was 1987; and
WHEREAS, recent rains have helped alleviate some of the
concern, however, there is still a substantial concern for the
longterm situation.
NOW, THEREFORE HE IT RESOLVED, that in accordance with
ordinance 53, Second Series the Orono City Council adopts a
mandatory odd/even watering ban outdoors regardless of source of
supply including lake or wells throughout the community to be in
effect until further notice. The exception to this ban is use of
water for seeded and sodded lawns as outlined in Ordinance 53,
Second Series, Section 5 and is effective upon the Ordinance
publication.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 25th day of
July, 1988.
Jam s R. Grabek, Mayor
hT ST: ` 1
0 .thy Ha lrn, Crty C erk
City of ORONC
CI TY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF NO,
A RESOLUTION
REMOVING THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE ODD/EVEN REGULATIONS
RFFECTIVE SEPTElBER 15, 1988,
BUT RE -IMPOSING THEN
APRIL 15, 1989
WHEREAS, the City of Orono adopted Ordinance 53, Second Series,
to regulate the outdoor use of water, regardless of source; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 1988, the Council adopted Resolution 2479,
implementing an odd/even water regulation in the community regardless of
source of water; and
WHEREAS, the City did such because of significant dry
conditions; and
WHEREAS, subsequent_ to those restrictions being put into effect,
substantial rains were seen in the area, and with the end of summer, the
demand for water is markedly decreased; and
WHEREAS, the City still maintains a concern for its on -going
water resources.
NOW, THEREFORE 8E IT RESOLVED that the City of Orono appeals its
odd/even outdoor water usage regulations, effective September 15, 1989; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the City re -imposes these regulations
on April 15, 1989.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of September,
1988.
ATTEST:
Dorothy-M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor
co �
To: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator 9288.2M.9 �,t�'1,C,tpE1�dG
From: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director .:E2 1219�8
Date: September 1, 1988 � ,
Subject: Propceed Solid Waste Transfer Station Hennepin County
Truck Station - Orono
On August 29, 1988, the City of Orono received a notice from Hennepin
County explaining designations of Solid Waste Transfer Stations, permanent
and temporary (see attached).
The notice stated that the Hennepin County Truck Station, 3880
Shoreline Drive, Orono, was designated as a temporary transfer station.
On August 31, 1988, I talked to Vern Genzlinger, Associate County
Administrator. Vern explained that the notice was very broad and did not
explain the program clearly.
On September 1, 1988, I received a call from Dave Winter regarding the
temporary site program. Mr. Winter stated that Hennepin County listed an
inventory of all County properties that may possibly be used for temporary
sites. If a temporary site is confirmed it will be a "Weight Station" and
not a transfer station. I explained the procedures they would have to
follow to use the Orono site and he stated that if there are too many
problems they probably would not use the Orono site.
To: Mayor Grabek and Orono Council Members
trom: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
Attachment - A. Hennepin County Letter Dated 8/26/86
This is presented an information only at this time. The City is
transmitting a letter indicting the limitations and procedures related to
use of this site which is abutting significant wetlands in relation to use
for solid waste (garbage) purposes and will probably attend the September
22nd hearing if deemed necessary.
PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by seconded by_, that the Orono City Council
accept the information regarding the temporary transfer status designation
requestig staff to keep Council informed on the issue. Ayes _, nays
9888.3 10S
TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator 12
19E8
FROM: Tom Kuehn, Finance Director pf�t
DATE: September 90 1988
SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing Date for Hazardous Building
Assessments
Attachment: A. Public Hearing Notice
The City has finalized costs incurred for two properties under
the hazardous buildings proceedings. The City Attorney has
obtained Court hearing dates and presented th,costs to the Court
for approval and has obtained an Order and udgement and Decree
from the Court. The City must now set a public hearing date to
consider adoption of the proposed special assessment rolls for
the affected properties.
The properties and costs approved for assessment are:
1929 Fagerness Point Road $4,848.60
3969 Sixth Avenue North $1,550.80
The assessments are to be collected in one year at an interest
rate of 8%, as provided in Minnesota State Statute. I have
attached a copy of the public hearing notice for your
information.
TOs Mayor and City Council \`
FROM: Mark E. Beinhardson, City Administratoa
Forwarded recommending approval.
PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _ , seconded by to set a put l is
hearing for October la, 1988 at 7:88 P.M. at the Council Chambers
to consider the special assessment roll for the 1988 hazardous
buildings. Ayes _, Nays
;�68.2
CITY OF ORONO
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
The City Council will hold a Public Hearing in the
Council Chambers at 1275 Brown Road South on Monday, October 10,
1988 at 7:00 P.M. on the proposed assessment in the total amount
of $6,399.40 for hazardous building removal on two properties
legally described as follows:
1. 1929 Fagerness Point Road - Lot 19, Fagerness -
P.I.D. 17-117-23 23 0011
2. 3960 Sixth Avenue North - Part of the Southwest 1/4
of Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 118, North
Range 23 and part of Section 32, Township 118, North
Range 23 - P.I.D. 32-118-23 22 0001
The proposed assessment roll is on file with the City
Clerk at the Administrative Offices, 1335 Brown Road South.
Written or oral objections will be considered. No appeal may be ,
taken as to the amount of any assessment unless a signed, written
objection is filed with the City Clerk prior to the hearing or
presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. An appeal to
the District Court may be made by serving notice upon the Mayor
or City Clerk within 30 days after adoption of the assessment and
filing such notice with the District Court within ten days after
service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. The City has adopted a
special assessment deferment ordinance based on the applicant
meeting age, ownership, occupancy, and income guidelines.
By Order of the City Council
/a/ Dorothy M. Hallin
City Clerk
9888.1
TO. Mayor and City Council
Div
FROM Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate '
DATE: September 8. 1988
SUEJECT: L.M.C.D. Representation - ^
Attachment: A. L.M.C.D. Letter Dated 9ZIZ88
ISSUE
1. Determination as to the process for appointment of an L.M.C.D.
representative.
2. Determination of person to be appointed.
INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A that was received today.
geptember-S, 1988, the term for JoEllen Hurt expires the end of
this month. Normally the City of Orono has done the appointment
at the first of the year rather than in conjunction with L.M.C.D.
cycle.
DISCUSSION - JoEllen Hurr has served in the position for at least
EF-* pant si. years as the City's L.M.C.D. representative. The
representatives on the Board are appointed by their Council.
While some are Councllmembers, several are not. JoEllen has
indicated her willingness to continue in the position and she
should be in line for appointment to the Chair of the L.M.C.D.
for the balance of 1988 and into 1989.
It should be noted that the L.M.C.D. meetings are held several
times a month and are done without compensation. JoEllen's track
record in attendance has been excellent, together with the fact
that she has well representated Orono on key issues to the City
together with her monthly reporting and discussions with the
Councllmembers. This type of dedication and service to the
community with little recognition is often difficult to get,
especially considering the quality of representation that Orono
has been given.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Appoint JoEllen Hurr
2. Solicit names
1. Table until September 26th
RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that JoEllen Hurt be re-
appointed to ch-e position of L.M.C.D. representative for the City
of Orono because of her able representation in the past together
with fact that she is eligible for a key leadership position on
the Board which a new appointee would not be.
PROPOSE' MOTION - Moved
by
seconded by
_ , that the Council
appoint JoEllen Hurr as
its
_,
representative
to the L.M.C.D. Ayes
_, Nays _
m M
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSE "T
r02 EAS' U!F STREET WAV2AU, MINNESOfA 55J9I TELEPHONE 612q): )Da]
rim eVOlwe n, a9,0YYEM, EXECUTIVE C lCtO^
TO, The Honorable James Craybek, Mayor
Mark Bernhardson, Orono Administrator
aer teases
....e., ^••°°. o"•'1— FROM: LMCD Board Chairman Robert RaScop
e ....m
...ss.n IxE.. V. cn..1n.n
,.a"ws,•s,, at,w.n SUBJI Appointment of Director to the LMCD Board
.s....s DATE: September 1, 1988
m...x, XX ..n
e s.
i.I. a.......
Ml,w.l.r.J N.e.
o..+c.cn..n The term of your appointed LMCD Director expires September
AEeX 0 70, 1958. Thee three-year terms provide your City direct
m.. ^o"O'"'n input oa the proceedings of the LMCD Board.
eq,np .w,Y
J.nnµ win.n
Than state statute governing the LMCD Board of Directors re-
X°..quires the Director's election by the City's governing body,
newly, your City Council. We invite you to prepare for
Mm .oY
T ^•••• this aelection process during September. Your notification
^m.ble ^u,..n of our office by a copy of the City Council minutes or other
"'00 IX,X official communication is requested promptly upon the Council's
action.
You will be interested to know that the LMCD Board will be
electing new officers at its September 28 meeting.
Your Director is your voice on ell LMCD Board proceedings
and programs. Regular reports to the Council from your repre-
sentative are encouraged and •xpeeted. Likewise, the COwnCil'a
concerns and interest are expected to be conveyed to the
LMCD goard.
Your Director, JOBllen Hurt, attended meetings as noted below)
No. Attended No. of Meet zings
Board of Director• 72 78
Dock/gnvironeent Commit Cew TB 66
Lake Use Ccame ittes 12 JI
Meeting attendance is not intended am a sole cifteria of
your Director's effectiveness. The infc reatlon exchange
between Your City and the t2CD Board is a setter of signifi-
eaacm in your Director's effectiveness.
The first meeting of the 1968-1989 Joard will be 7 70 p.m..
Wednesday, October 26, at the Tonka gay City gall.
Thank yow for your thoughtful attention to this important
selec•ion.
an. IRS. Jin
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
473-7033
E V E N T S S C H E D U L E
September 1988
Lower Lake
Upper Lake
Thu
1
Consolidated races:
10 a.m.,
2 p.m.
Fri
2
10 a.m.
Sat
3
10 a.m.,
10,30 a.m. 2:00
p.m.
Sun
4
"
10 a.m.,
1:30 p.m. 10:30
a.m.
Mon
5
"
10 a.m.
10,30
a.m.
Sat
10
Shorewood Yacht Club
race:
10 a.m.
Sun
11
Consolidated races:
1:30
p.m.
Sun
18
Redman, Operation Base,
5:30
a.m., Hendrickson's
Access
Consolidated -races:
9:30
1:30
a.m., 11:30 a.m.,
p.m.
Sun
25
"
10 a.m.
BOATING SEASON
All Dunsheath parasailing, Lafayette Bay
Sat 10,17,24 Consol. races, 30 a.m., 2:00 p.m. Noon
Sun 11,18,25 „ 10.30 a.m.
9-1-88
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO ROBERT ROST, PARE COMMISSION CHAIR
WHRRSAS, The City of Orono is a municipal corporation
existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Robert Rost was a member and chair of the
Orono Park Commission from 1985 to 1988; and
WHEREAS, Robert Rost was also instrumental in
developing long range planning for the park and recreation system
in the City; and
WHEREAS, Robert Rost was also instrumental in
developing and establishing a conceptual "bike -hike" trail plan;
and
WHEREAS, during the time on the Park Commission, Robert
Rost, was instrumental in the acquisition and placement of a
sculpture at the Livingston Tower Park; and
WHEREAS, Robert Rost resigned from the Park Commission
in August of 1988.
NOW, THBREPORB BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono Council
does hereby recognize and appreciate the service to the community
of Robert Rost.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at a
regular Council meeting on the 12th day of September, 1988.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor
83088.1 . I
TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
FROM: Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk
DATE: August 30, 1988
SUBJECT: Additional Election Judges - Primary Election and
Establishing 1988 Election Judges Salaries
Attachments: A. Appointment of Election Judges Memo
Dated 8/2/88
B. Precinct Assignment - Primary Election
C. Proposed Resolutiom Appointing Additional
1988 Election Judges
D. Proposed Resolution Adopting 1988 Election
Judge Salaries
As noted in Attachment A any additional election judges recruited
after August 8, 1988, would be presented to the Council by an
additional resolution.
With the addition of the four persons listed on Attachment C
precinct assignments for the primary election have boen made (see
Attachment B).
Training sessions have been set for the judges on Thursday,
September 1st at 2:00 p.m. and Wednesday, September 7th at 7:00
p.m. During these training sessions, in addition to 'hands on'
use of the new voting equipment, an election judge training tape
will be used. This tape was made through the combined efforts of
Hennepin County and several municipalities. Please feel free to
attend either of these sessions. on September 7th at 7:00 p.m.
the public testing will be held prior to the training session.
This public fearing is open to representatives of all political
parties, candidates, the press and the public.
Additionally the judge's salary for 1988 has been budgeted at
$5.50 per hour for the head judge in each precinct and $5.00 per
hour for the regaining election judges. Attachement D is a
proposed resolution establishing these salaries. Their 1986
salary was $4.59 per hour and $4.00 per hour respectively.
PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , the Council adopts
Resolution t Appointing Additional Election Judges for the
Primary Elect on to be Held September 13, 1988 and the General
Election to be Held November 8, 1988 and Resolution 4__
Establishing 1988 Election Judge Salaries. Ayes _, Nays _
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark Bernhacdaon, City Administrato 01
Forwarded recommending approval. Increases for judges are within
amounts budgeted for 1988.
H_r_rAP- teVT- A
TO: Mark Bernhardeon, City Administrator
FROM: Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk
DATE: August 2, 1988
SUBJECT: Appointment of Election Judges for:
Primary Election - September 13, 1988 and
General Election - November 8, 1988
Attachment A: Proposed Resolution Appointing 1988 Election
Judges
State Statute 284B.21 Subd. 2 states that the City must appoint
election judges for the upcoming primary and general electionb 25
days prior to the election. I have prepared a resolution,
Attachment A, listing the names r.i qualified persons who have
indicated their willingness to serve as election judges at the
primary election, September 13, 1988, and the general election,
November 8, 1988.
It is requested that the proposed resolution be adopted at the
August 8, 1988 Council meeting.
At the current time 23 judges have indicated their intent to work
during the primary election. The City will be using the new
Optech III voting system for the first time at the primary
election, therefore I feel it appropriate to have six judges at
each precinct. A general news article has been placed in the
local newspaper and on the government channel of cable TV
requesting persons who are interested in being election judges
contact the City. In addition to having enough judges at each
precinct, the law states political party balance must be
maintained at the precincts. In the case of an odd number of
election judges one more than half the number of a major
political party may serve.
If more persons indicate their ability to serve another
Resolution will be brought before -he to Council.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator
Forwarded recommending approval.
PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by the Council adopts
Resolution 1 Appointing Elect on Judges Eor the Primary
Election to Si Held September 13, 1988 and the General Election
to be Held November 8, 1988. Ayes _, Nays.
41T ,� GJ-, r1 xr
PRIMARY ELECTION
- SEPTEMBER 13, 1988
PRECINCT 1
PRECINCT 2 *
*Al Ackermann
*LouAnn Powell
Jan Johnson
Miriam Johnson
Barbara Garcia
Eileen Nicholls
Cherry Stubbs
Mary Butler
Barbara Olson
Wilbur Andersen
Kenneth Turnham
Dorothy Rauschendrrfer
Dee Lauer
PRECINCT 3
*Marjorie Gasch
Ruth Koffman
Norma Dickey
Barbara Ericson
Vernlce Berg
Betty Ekeberg
PRECINCT 4
*Connie Carruthers
Rose Madden
Marlene Deschler
Christine Peasley
Ruth Eisinger
Lillian Stubbs
ALTERNATES - Eleanor Ferril
Phyllis Andersen
*NOTE
Precinct 2 has seven judges assigned, the Freshwater Biological
Institute has requested that a judge be present at the front desk
from 7:00 a.m. until their staff reports for work (about 8:09
a.m.) and again from 5:00 p.m. until all the voters have :eft the
building. In addition they would like to have the name of the
responsible person. This judge will have to be a Democrats, in
order that party balance be maintained at this precinct.
83088.2
An--mekmerx C-
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES FOR
THE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 AND
THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 8, 1988
BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant c. Minnesota Election Laws
284B.21 Subd. 2 the following persons are ,'iitionally appointed
as election judges for the Primary Election 'o be held September
13, 1988 and the General Election to be heiJ November 8, 1988.
Norma Dickey Barbara Ericson
Cherry Stubbs Lillian Stubus
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a
regular meeting held September 12, 1988.
James R Grabek, Mayor
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallln, Ci— ty Clerk
83088.E
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
1988 ELECTION JUDGE'S SALARIES
ACvr 7
BE IT RESOLVED, that the 1988 Election Judges salaries
be established at:
Head Judge Each Precinct $5.50 per hoer
Election Judge $5.00 per hour
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono,
Minnesota at a regular meeting held September 12, 1988.
James R. Grabek Mayor
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. HaZ�rn,— City CiecM
"1
83088.IBD
To: Mar% E. Bernhardson, City Administrator
Frost: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director
Date: August 30, 1988
Subject: Temporary Emplov ent Orono Golf Course
Due to an injury to Mr. Don Ons, the current greenskeeper
helper, he will be unable to assist with maintenance at the golf
course this fall.
We have received an employement application from Brett
Marquardt to work week -ends through the fall and until season
end.
RECOMMENDATION: To employ Brett Marquardt as a temporary
greenskeeper helper at a rate of $4.25 per Your effective
September 3, 1988.
PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by _, seconded by _, to employ Brett
Marquardt as temporary greenskeeper helper at a rate of $4.25 per
hour effective September 3, 1988. Ayes _, nays
TO: Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members
FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adiinistratv
Forwarded recommending approval. The individual was hired tempo,arily
prior to the Council meeting in order to carry out the maintenance
operations given the injury of Mr. Oas.
9688.3HD
To: Mayor Grabek B Orono Cuti.cil Members
From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministraW�'\, i..
Datc. September 6, 1988
:.object: Resolution of Appreciation - Long Lake Chambez/St. George
Catholic Church - Corn Days
ATTACHMENT -
A - Proposed Resolutior.
ISSUE - Adoption of a resolution thanking the Long lake Chamber of Commerce
and St. Georqe Catholic Church for their sponsoring the Corn Days.
INTRODUCTION - At the Council's August 22, 1988 meeting, they requested
that staff prepare a resolution for adoption thanking the Lor,q Lake Chamber
of Commerce and St. George Catholic "hurch for their sponsorship. The
proposed resolution is attached.
PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by _, to adopt Resolution
thanking the Long Lake Chamber of Commerce and St. George Catholic Church
for the excellent work they did in sponsoring Corn Days on August 12, 13,
and 14, 1988. Ayes _, nays
City of ORION A�Aa A
CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI
OF NO. —
A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
TO THE LONG LAKE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AND ST. GEORGE CATUOLIC CHURCH
WHEREAS St. George Catholic Church has held an annual picnic as
part of Long Lake Corn Days for many years; and
WHEREAS, the Long Lake Chamber of Commerce has since 1973 been
the prime force behind the Lcng Lake Corn Days parade; and
WHEREAS, many of a members of the Long Lake Chamber spent
tireless hours organizing an event that continues to get better each year;
and
WHEREAS, Long Lake Corn Days provides enjoyment and
entertainment, not only for the citizens of Long Lake, but also the
surrounding communities including Orono, Maple Plain, Medina and further
west.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council commend
the Long Lake Chamber of Commerce and St. George Catholic Church for all
their excellent efforts in putting together Corn Days on behalf of the
Orono residents an4 would like to thank them for ose efforts.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of September,
1988.
ATTEST:
Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor
,J
INTEROFFICE MEMO
DATE: July 29, 1988
TO: Chief Kilbo
FROM: Lt. Cheswick
RE: Wage Increase for Officer James Morrow
Mel, I am requesting that you consider Jim Morrow for a wage
increase. Is currently is making $6.50 an hour and recently It
has become racessary that he pay into PERA, thereby lessening
his take home pay.
m
I checked with Chief Christiansen, Wayzata PD, and he i ormed me
that they pay their part-time officers $7 per hour when t are
on their own. Jim has worked for the Department since January
15, 1988 and began pulling regular shifts as of February�,lst He
presently works between 11 and 16 days in a 28 day schedule period
and to my knowledge, has not received a raise since day of employment.
Officer Morrow's work has been more than satisfactory, his contact with
the public, handling of calls assigned details, reports and rapport
with fellow offi.ers has been exemplary. During Jim's employment,
he has made himself available to work on a moments notice, his
eagerness to learn and common sense approach suggests he indeed is
an asset to the Department.
In conclusion, I feel that if we wish to retain a person of Jim's
capabilities and potential, a salary increase would show our
satisfaction in his work and interest in keeping him.
Tor Mayor and city council.
rum Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato
ISSUE - Determination of salary increase for Mr. James Morrow.
DISCUSSION - Currently Mr. Morrow is working the equivalent of 1/2 to 3/4's time and
u a temporary receives no other benefits apart frm health insurance availability.
An officer starting full time would receive $i0.45 as a starting salary and $11.25 at
the 6 months mark.
RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that he be increased to $7.00 per hour to be
iclive 7u �-1, 1988.
PROPOSED M('RION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Council approves a salary
increase for part time Officer James Morrow from $6.59 per hour to $7.99 per hour
effective July 1, 1988. Ayes _, Nays _.
TO: Mayor and City Council 9988.4
FROM: Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato
DATE: September 9, 1988
SUBJECT: 1989 Cable TV Budget L
Attachement: A. LMCC 1989 Budget Letter Dated 8/17/88 r
B. Proposed Resolution Adopting 1989 LMCCC Budget
ISSUE - Adoption by the City of Orono of the 1989 LMCCC Budget as
required by the Joint Powers Agreement.
INTRODUCTION - As a member of the Lake Minnetonka Cable
Commun %at -Ions Commission Joint Powers Agreeement the City of
Orono together with the other member cities adopt by resolution
the budget for the Commission for the following year. As noted
such adoption must be done within 30 days of receipt of the
request.
The LMCCC does provide for the 14 member communities
a.) the joint regulation/monitoring/negotiation of the
franchise agreement between the communities and Dowden
Systems (although this regulation has been somewhat
lessened as noted in recent months by the 1985 Federal
Communications Commission Act)
b.) local access programing to the communities through
the access studios in Excelsior and the Orono Schools.
DISCUSSION - Proposed 1989 budget represents a 20% increase from
t7ie $60,675 in 1988 to $72,890 in 1989. Primary increases:
A.) Cable Administrator's salary $3,000
B.) Salaries for access employees 5,000
C.) New office space 5,600
The space is to add more office and production space to their
current limited quarters. While this represents a substantial
increase the income is project i to cover all of this increase
coming from the 5% franchise fee on Triax Cablevision gross
sales.
RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt the
attache3 reeolution as:
A. The Commission's budget does not have a direct
financial impact on the City, as the City could not use
the franchise fees for any other purpose apart from
cable nor does the budget include any contributions from
the cities for running the operation.
B. The Cable Commission Board members of which Orono
has two Commissioners and an alternate are in the best
position to evaluate the budgeting for this
organization.
PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by - , seconded by , that the Council
adopt Resolution giving its approval to the 1989 Lake
Minnetonka Cable Comeunication Commission budget. Ayes _ Nays
Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications C HTTAQHMCNT A
a430AK STREET -EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 a (6121 <74563a -
M E M O R A N D U M
p(JG � 8 L�88
u
TO: City Administrators and City Clerks/Lake Minnetonka
Communications Comm isslon
FROM: Holly Hansen, Administrator
DATE: August 17, 1988
RE: Commission Budget 1989
Please find enclosed a copy of the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications
Commission Budget for 1989• The Commission approved the budget at Its
meeting of August 16, 1988. This budget is sent to you In cccordance with the
provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement for the Commission in Article IX,
Section 3,
The Joint Powers Agreement provides for a review and approval of the
Commission budget by the member cities. The budget shall become effective only
if approved by a majority of the members within thirty (30) days after your
receipt. If the budget is not timely approved by a majority of the members,
the Commission must adopt a revised budget and submit it to each member for
review and approval.
Consequently, the Commission recommends that your city council review and
approve the enclosed budget within thirty days of your receipt of this letter.
I have enclosed a sample Resolution which can be used for this purpose.
Upon your city's approval of the budget, please forward to me a copy of the
budget with the executed Resolutlon at the above address. Please note the time
limitation within which the city should approve the budget. If the thirty day
period presents a problem for your city, please contact me.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact me.
Enclosures
RESOLUTION NO.
City of
County of
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1989 BUDGET FOR THE LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Commission was issued a Regular Certificate of Confirmation
by the Minnesota Cable Commission Board relative to the Cable Communications
Franchise:
WHEREAS, the City of ( City) is an existing
member of the Commission:
WHEREAS, said joint and cooperative effort is authorized by Minnesota
Statutes Section 238.08, Subd. 5;
WHEREAS, the existing joint powers agreement provides that the member cities
of Commission shall review and approve the Commission budget;
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the 1989 budget of the Commission and believes
it to be proper;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the City Council of the City of
approved the 1989 budget of the Lake Minnetonka
Cable Communications Commission.
The above listed resolution was moved by Council Member
and duly seconded by Council Member
The following Council Members voted in the affirmative:
The following Council Members voted in ti,_ negative:
The above resolution was duly adopted
LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
PROPOSED BUDGET 1989
INCOME 1988 1989
Trlax Cablesystems (formerly Dowden) $58,000 $70,000
Interest
2,675 2,800
$T0,675 $7i,800
OPERATING EXPENSES
Cable Administrator
$25,000
8,000
$28,000
13,000
Access Employees
1,00
1,200
Secretarial Services
3,800
4,800
Payroll Taxes
600
500
Employee Mileage
1,000
1,100
Medical Insurance
2,000
2,000
Legal Fees
4,200
3,500
Insurance and Bonds
2,000
2,000
Financial Audit - LMCCC
1,700
Financial Review - Dowden*
4,500
4,500
Conferences and Schorr is
1,500
1,500
Office Supplies
650
1,000
Dues and Subscriptions
625
800
Telephone
400
600
Postage
Y00
200
Miscellaneous
Soo
New Office Space
Rent
2,850
Furniture 6 Fixtures
1,000
Phone System
1,150
Air conditioner
600
OPERATING BUDGET
TOTALS
$57,175
$70,300
SPECIAL F,ND APPROPRIATIONS
500 1,500
Technical Audit 1,1,000
*Financial Rev law - Tr(ax 2,000
Studio Equipment FUND TOTALS $ 3,500 $ 2,500
BUDGET TOTALS $60,675 S72,800
9988.`.
CITY OF ORONO
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1989 BUDGET FOR THE
LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City of Orono ("City") is an existing
member of the Commission;
WHEREAS, said joint and cooperative effort is authorized
by Minnesota Statutes Section 238.08, Subd. 5;
WHEREAS, the existing joint powers agreement provides
that the member cities of Commission shall review and approve the
Commission budget;
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the 1989 budget of the
Commission and beli_-ves it to be proper;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the City Council of
the City of Orono approves the 1989 budget of the Lake Minnetonka
Cable Communications Commission.
The above listed resolution was moved by
and duly seconded by
The following Council Members voted in the affirmative:
The following Council Members voted in the negative:
The above resolution was duly adopted September 12,
1988
James R. Grabek, Mayor
ATTEST:
ooroEFy K-RiTIT5-17TEj ?!TeFG------
9788.3
r
TO: Mayor and City Council
yp 19t9
tEOM: Mark E. Bernhard eon, City Adminietratoi�
DATE: September 7, 1988 1 �'
SUWRCT: Administrator's Information
3588 IVY PLACE - As noted in the attached letter, the City has
ieceived a Fesponse back -from the manufacturer which has
indicated that they feel there is no problem with the meter and
therefore the City will be going ahead to collect the bill on the
property.
COUNTY ROAD 15 PROGRESS - The permanent semaphores have been
insta a an are n operation. The change -over went very smooth
with no need for a temporary 4-way stop.
Utility relocation has been difficult and is the most time
consuming part of the project. However, that part of the project
1s nearing completion and will allow the completion of the
installation of curb and gutter throughout the project.
Sidewalks were placed September 2nd in front of the businesses on
the north side of County Road 15 in Navarre.
Construction at the Seaton Bridge continues and the abutments are
complete with bridge decking proposed to start next week.
LMCD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - At the LMCD meeting on August 24, 1988,
the Board voted to grant Mr. Mixa a severance package of unused
vacation and sick leave which totaled approximately $9,290.00.
This is a direct result of work by JoEllen Hurt together with a
letter transmitted by Mayor Grabek to all the Mayors around the
Lake.
881 TONKAWA ROAD - Upon reviewing properties for the August 26,
I988 CouncT-i meeting, two of the Councilmembers had noted
substantial excavation on the property. A review of the file the
next day indicated that this has been a permitted activity for a
tennis court and that all the dirt will remain on site of the
tennis court. The court is being constructed at least 258 feet
back from the shoreline.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES - See attachment.
w wm ent a Flow Conbot eMalon
ao "llMem.t 21 cory dan
1996 Uni a ity lane
Bala. III,"$ W532
13121652O 26
September 1, 1988
Orono Public Works Dept.
Orono Village Ball
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Attn: Mr. John Gerhardson
Q
Rockwell
Internatlonal
CERTIFICATION
Subject: Rockwell 5/8e x 3/4" S.R. Meter with l000 Pulse Generator
#22867615
Totalizer Reading: 111,220 Gallons
Date of Meter Mfg.: 1974
Dear Mr. Gerhardson,
The subject meter was tested as received several times, and the
averages are as follows:
1 4 GPM 2 GPM 10 GPM
94.5% 100.5% 100.0%
The meter had the proper wire connected between the generator and
remote and was successfully operated for 10 pulses (10,000 gallons).
The conclusion is that this meter functions properly and is within
A.W.W.A. Standards.
The meter is being returned to the Public Works Department.
Yours truly,
i
D/nald F. Wardynsk
Regional Sales Man ger
DrW/kja
cc: J. M. Gawloski
J. Selvog - WPC
qv
ma. sarrnc
CITRIF D.op
MO
AC e. 8IDBY1Pp&H
cm AQDRSDYi'1lY
1 m lm - m AAIQ. lm
'81 e[D - 1987 Caaell Sbratagic Planing
Sbort ftm Cbiactly.
'88 55f1 - 1988 Short M Objaetive
AIM liN. A®e (.l]SIg985
1. CV99NIw OEWLAt¢TIf
Nigh., 13
.87 sm A. Cupretenalve Plan Acenciment 92
(5/871
Receive back from Met Co roil
Plral plon approval
fining M onto
Draft
- Planning Comiaaim
crosideratim
- Cauril maideration
Negotiation¢ m utllitlm
(Long Laka 6ali.)
'8. SIO B. Corridor Selection S[ody M N Teak Perm
Caplete Nam t
LnkFr a/l./.B
5/1/88
/31/88
6/1./88
//88
8/36ID/88
5/15/88 6staulm to V15 granted to Matto
Conaril folloning 4/8/88 aeetim ter
Urban lard d .
5/12/88 approved by Matto Council
Metro Cwcil
6/1S/m Final Codicil approval 5/M/m
6/15/08
/1/BB
8/15/88 Con[rected vitb S ardlor 5/23/88
Draft from f ardlon to Couch to
IC - 6/I7/88
7/6/a8 utrk roue ion on daft
&vl/88 to ba 2M A. 1, rm1. actndoled
8/17/88 Public gearing - P.C. recoaaendatiae
to Cmecil. Anticipate V—wil 9/16 o: 18/18
Received It, ft. Mails ter ¢ore
aer[/nsgatiatiom 6/2A/M ReepW
vith letter 7/21/89 to Malion
10/l/m M So, Teak Force - lat aeeti g 5/19/ 88
'S///�199g/888888 aeetirnrqgg b�aelidd
B/A.%88 otAI isld -eels to contact amc
Re: wive upgrade in current Corridor
nn2e rlv® COMES BE11m
1—QIMYf}Y [6•IOQIeWfI' cat.
..acre pmdwelopa�t
•a sfo
eya c mesultants
2/25/88 tegaated Wotatiue
- Planning ib Os,
detaalned
Eros, J. Shardlam regarding Cost to
- Legal
do ester plan davelCpent im
arse.
Initiate Cioal/Objattive
18/l/a
7/11/88 Prtpoeal W.Pted
Setting process
•es, son
Consider IBA foesetim
6/15/88
2/88 Paguesc attottsy Mlles
Solicite ideas/prrpoeala
process retafted to establish
Comme. if Decide to do
9/l/a
1/1/a received Mli. fw
wtabllshsaant at WA. Staff
rwiwing for consent
' 07 SIO CO uty 15 Ba\82ntetnt
-as m
aw.ia desired
5/39/88
Issue of lighting to 2/22/88
lvs �ying
Causal eating
ycwaents
2R2/88 Council ccosidete lighting
5/21/88 Cmncil aWrwea lighting
!lancing Plan
5/la/88
Conceptual aWrwal 12/14/87
Financial twiaim Xcposed 2/22/88
3/28/a tabled to 51nISS
5/23/89 apprwef financing
Special ..assent hearing
1/w
Complete cautrmtim
12/l/a
To cMence 4/15/88
8/10/88 tvsttMion on schedule
'ag Sr0 Cavity 5ta sportetim Plan
Sella capital iaprweemt
l/l/M
VU/N seetlmg rwlwei rwiwd draft
•a 9to
pragrat prior to 89 budget
Becermlue bridge replacant
8/l/a
Proposal Included In revised draft
Program
aPitel budget. nequevt for funding
aeie m te dwelcpttl/auditted.
Continued analysis Public/Private Ogoing
Valuate Cty 116
7/l/88
3/17/88 received tet8tevt flue Medina
4/25/88 C u it Osots M to supPac
Maolt ion
'el Bm stet mt. msngsat Plan
'a Sto
J
1—C4MYRS RV6fM@lf caK.
Coaa M - Direction end pogreas
Be m
2. eellOaBMf. PSpdICTIM
'81 Son Stubbs Bay
88 9m
Solid ft.. N�t
Miw adviaay/Policy bodlea
rola/Mpauibilitiea
Mien 6 revise as receaeaty
staff./advleay/pallcy body
porno fa development review
6 execution waking toustds
servla 6 results oriented Rb
Sutprieea• pat..
E!oMoce effective aecrol on
Yti.
7/80 8/Il/88 ptarnttl to Gooch. 'lb W
reviewed by PleonLg Caissim
9/88 Antic' -pate 7/11/88 discussion with
CaucilAC rep.
Tabled to B/8/88 ,eating
Reeeheduled for 10/m
8/88
Complete reeds aysesseeent 2/m
Project fsesibility-commence 5/88
Detereim asseasemt area
8/m
interest
Financing optima
le/88
Co eider development a cataim
10/88
If r rate
- Ions ate poject
101'88
- Ptuject bid
10/m
- C. pojct
12/88
- aseess Project
8/89
- Complete projct
10/89
Aaaeaa rcyclla effats to 9ml
5/88
Asaese atbe avenues to rat goals 6/88
including local ooynting
Miaw Mulatione reganlia 9/m
solid waste
Caplae mgmited collection 6/88
Anticipate reed. asaeauarc
copletlon 2/m
2/22/88 Iacreetim presented
Submitted request for feasibility
update cost
Feasibility atudy a{prceed 6/13/88
Anticipate to 9/26/88 meeting
8/8/88 seating - Caacil received
City in cmjuctim wiM Neat Nevepin
at '87 gal
Currently oploriM costs of selected
=Wide pick up - 8/17/88 staff We taut
with potential cmttectac
ARM latl. ARER m,STlV6
1. �MTIG 6.YEIpF!@?
1989 C.il Goal Setti, Conace
Caplere
1989 Budget Prooesa
Mxaevenr Board of Rviea
Capital Eod2et McLion
Budget Mgtim
19" Le9isletlw Pragaa Craplete
W. euildim Staff
Catmil - Cmsider Forears
Iadertake if desired
t. StFVICF oC[.1tVM
.87 m Facilities Study
BB Sla
'87 SIa 1. aa,e Fire w Polity
Golf Course
Mieal Comtrol
at8 saga,
7/88 8/11/88 oeeti, Beld - •89 rav/aloa
to 9/12/88 etetim
9/88
0/88 4/27/88 initial Ming tpld. Mticipste
mcluaim on 5/9/M
5/19/88 Board tpcl ded
8/88
9/26/88 7/11/88 1989' et aessage/
Guidelines ' nil
&dget aeet for 9/20/88
l2/%
11/88
2/89
3/89
1b Plannim Ca issim for review 5/18/1,
IMase II Cotpletim 6/88 Site criteria to Covail 9/26/88
twlaaent any rtcraaendatim 7/88
Draft polity to Ceumil
1/88
2/22/88 Initial draft capital fidget
di.sed
Council adoptim
8/88
Devel�t of Cusimss
7/87
strategy
V.I.t prmrm
8/88
Exterded servitt to IQ4
Lake/Spring Par"Jn atmka BeacM19M
r
r o� �` daa�rlvs
01d>0 seam
c
s. sou s®oncs
cupaneetim
r
pplree vertata�ce
e/ee [atrl tan to 2/m
Inrmti. m adde .
tonal plm and ediuedrca
to oo m tiro plan
preemted 2/22/89
3/n/BB plm adtpttl
4/12/BB ccq enth repot
r itted to sun
6. MYW. M
eenit, lof.tiwt/ 1Yyar•e Ar[.alec
ONWM
+ Iettar
evalmtiwm of ryeta
a/BB xgaa'a Article fatwet to wnCnae
to B/M I6 n t wumtim
9/22/W s itted cevlee to caacil
9/2Z/BB caoncil ditecta emtfn. of
ry tee
LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL
FOR MEETING OF September 12, 1988
Residential Kennel License: Julia Kimball Whitney
4470 Forest Lake Landing
G. James Spinier
940 North Arm Drive
Septic System Installers: American Sewer and Water .
108 Lakeview Circle
B.:ffalo, MN
K's Mechanical and Excavation
20880 Nowthen Blvd.
Elk River, MN
Dave Perkins Co.
15775 Juniper Ridge Dr
Anoka, MN
Annual Firearms Permit: Park Gun Club
3660 Sixth Avenue Nc
Trap Shooting ,
KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION tc .-.' dr
Effective 'larch 1, 198x to February yX, 1982 - �h;E Jr,:Jr
Owner e4 iLq K_,m {'1%fi0 (�.(.; �-r -
Property Address: 14q-,�C Cr.e= . .
(include city and zip)
Mai -ling Address (if different):
Phone: (home) 1 �- D- - t. 2EB (work ),q 144' SS 14 :7-
RESIDEN'fLAL Retinal License Information: 625.00,„
;payment must accompany application)
Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:
(over 6 months of age)
Principal Breed: :5 ....y1 lnqdL-,Ph�
Purpose for more than 2 dogs:
Dogs normally kept: _inside kennel structure
COMMERCIAL Kennel License Information: $150/year
(payment must accompany application)
Name of Business: _ L '•°`
Business Activities: ��'( •-
(example: boarding, breed ng, veterinary �a* eta 1;-atc.I
Normal Bus -noes Hours: .� 71„
After Hours Conta-t: (name)
(phone?
Doq runs/exercise : are: _inside __outside _both
The undersigned hereby makes ication to • ` - Drono City Council for a
Kennel License as specified u;. ' form; the u..aersigned acknowledges that
a kennel license 's oermissi, ily and does not grant any authority to
violate any oiovl eii er-- rt,t, Ordinance or other law or regulation; tie
undersigend .,er City permisr.sion to inspect the premises
prior to licenr .nd at any other reasonable time during the
license duratl ,dersigned agrees to abide by the r,-�::.zcments
of Municipal .as ,.;. 4.36 including any special conditions used by
t t;ti, S" y couwu." . • . of my kennel license approval.
phlicant Date
;" ^sepOnly
erne. iniectad by L _/ � t -_ Date �
or - '
Recommend■ Approval_ A Denial-
KENNBL LICENSN APPLICATION
// E£fertive March 1, 19/8f -Ttfo- February ^f5 , 198
' Owner: lrJ JN dNe So'„ 2 ( ,-Tu-cA 44, SP G✓
Iroperty Address: 11�J �O.,w, �•m ,L/r;Jf_ } MOL, Sri
(include city and..x p ,.,. .._....:.
Nailing Address (if different):`'
Phone: (home) i17d -1731-.... .. (work,). :. c
NiBIDNNTIAL Kennel License Information: $2� 5_00/year.
(payment must accompany.:application)
Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one ti, e:�N4n+� n�
(ov-r 6 mon`ha of Cage) - (
Principal Breed:_ Spr' age✓5
74'
Purpose for more than 2 dogs: ; n i-: rqIL I
_�
Dogs normally kept:. _inside f� kennel skructure 111.
;�C, `;,,-_
COMMERCIAL Kennel Licence Information: $!50/year ' J:w t
_(pa"nt must accompany application)
Name -of Business•
Business Activities:
(exampli: boarding, breetl'_^�. veterinary care, retail, etc
Normal Business Hours:
'Alter H, a Contact: (name)--"'- -
(phone)
.-ins/exercise areas are: inside _outside _both
The undersignsl hereby makes application to the Orono city Council for a
Kennel License as specifi-d on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that
a kennel License is peru.;ssive oily and does not grant any authority to
violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the
undersigend hereby grants the City permisesion to inspect the prey :es
prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the
license duration; and the undersigned agreesto abide by the reS.irements
of Municipal Code Chapto--36 including any special conditions imposed by
the City Council as part of iy kennel license approval.
App cunt Date
____________________________N
Cor cityUse Onl /'� /'� CIC.
Kennel nspecte by kU Ie ��,i�r- D; a_ 7-1 �77
Recoaoends Approval Denial-.--
CITY of ORONO
Cm:el B.Y. MoanwB arm SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS
LICENSE APPLICATION
BUILDING a ZONING - 473-7357
ASSESSING
All questions must De answerea. „ace..uc ae, F
of insurance, and evidence of MPCA Certification or Home Sewage
Treatment Workshop attendence must accompany this application..
All applications are subject tA�} a tan (10) day approval period.
1. Business or trade name �,�T-"M/�'"eR.AA 5w.rri L'V�1%e9
Il/
2. Business address fC^ (, 4,e,, L�• ��f�^o "
3. Business phone Residence phone <.9.f7e'
4. Name of applicantmpany representative holding MPCA
certification S co 71- Ohs I✓
S. Type of certification held: _Installer _ Pumper --
Site evaluator System designer
Is this a Provisiona—Certificate? _ Certificate No.L
0 1--pem
6. If no Certificate is held, provide evidence of attendance a
one of the On -Site Sewage Treatment Workshops held immediat
prior to the current construction season.
7. Have you ever held a Septic System Insta.-er license in
Orono before? po Most recent year _,__
8. Have you ever had a license revoked! YI-C)when?
Where? _
0. Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes No
SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: •F' � 1 w',,�. ay.�wv+ 9 9 9
1. $25.00 license application fee.
2. $2000.00 license and permit bond naming City of Orono as
obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accepted.
ie 3. $10-50-100,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance.
4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate or evidence of attendance
at On -Site Sewage Treatment Workshop held immediately
prior to current construction season.
LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED.
List persons other than applicant who are authorized by you to
apply for permits under your license
The undersigned hereby makes application to the CSty of
Orono, Minnesota, for '.cense to install and r septic
systems, and/or pump , septic tanks, subj t the laws
of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinanc thr -ity of
Orono. X �/
Date Appl' nature ` „//
Staff recommendation' Approva - Denial _ Date9 L -�
CITY Reason for denial: \
,USE City Council Action De Approve _ Denied
ONLY Date license mailed
CITYof ORONO GY"'I By'
a-1O"M SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS
LICENSE APPLICATION
BUMPING a ZONING - 4737357
ASSESSING
All questions must be answered. License fee, bond, certificate
of insurance, and evidence of MPCA Certification or Home Sewage
Treatment Workshop attendence must accompany this application. _
All applications are subject to a ten (10) day approval period.
i
1. Business or trade name c `i Fx C A
2. Business address ;&OSS no /vs W//�'�N 1s _ .....-1 ��
3. Business phone 753 3a44, Residence phone SS3 /73 %
4. Name of applicant or company representative holding MPCA
5. Type of certification held: Installer r Pumper
Site evaluator System designer Is this a Provisional Certificate? _ Certificate NO. %/ V
6. If no Certificate is held, provide evidence of attendance at
one of the On -Site Sewage Treatment Workshops held immmediatel3
prior to the current construction season. ri „AICE Orr, ,
wi'
7. Have you ever held a Septic System Inst�aller lice[re0 inl n -�•IX
Orono before?']/l4 Most recent year i_;..YA�ItiOV�
8. Have you ever had a license revoked?_ When? _ =GO 4^0: RC: ill_
Where? / --
9. Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes!/ No
SUBMITTALS REQUIRED:
1. $25.00 license application fee.
_ 2. $2000.00 license and permit bond naming City of Orono as
obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accepted.
3. $10-50-100,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance.
4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate or evidence of attendence
at On -Site Sewage Treatment Workshop held immediately
prior to current construction season.
LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED.
List persons other than applicant who are autho..ized by you to
apply for permits under your license _
The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of
Orono, Minnesota, for license to install and repair septic
systems, and/or pump out septic tanks, subject to the laws
of the State of Minnesota and the Ordiof tale City of
Orono
Date '�I.9-/ys — Applicants Signature 'fin
Staff recommendation Approve Deniai Date In- - i
CITY Reason for denial:
USE City Council Action Date `oproved Denied
ONLY Date license mailed
CITY OF ORONO
FINANCE OFFICE
08/30/88
01 GEN 25,00
PECK TL 25.00
RECEIPT -THANK YOU
)NO Cr'".1 Bq, BlimrM. B6lii
BUILDING A ZONING-1774aa1
ASSESSING
SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS
LICENSE APPLICATION
Ons must De anawerea. Licamc .ca, u .., ---------
ce, and evidence of MPCA Certification or Home Sewage
Workshop attendance must accompany this application.
ations are subject to a ten 10) day approval period.
/ate^
Iss or trade nameE Ji F
ass address
ass phone yQ2=A2104 Residence phone y2z "97tj%
06890 C001 RO1 T13:28 of applicant, r comp!y repr sgntative holding MPCA
fication vC 'Y �. C
of certification held: Installer _ Pumper
Site evaluator System designer
Ia tthis a Provisiona=rtificate? _ CertificateNo.
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 Inst ller license in
Orono before? Most recent year
/"
8. Have you ever had a license revoked? � When?
Where?
0. Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes v No__�y 9F err
l!fl VFW
sUBBjITTALS REQUIRED: 0 010
25.00
- - ✓/
125.00 licence application fee. "� TL
`�'"00
$2000.00 license and permit bond naming City of Orono as
obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be acr�tpS�— nAVA
�;
YCU
3. $10-50-100,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance.,
Ta:'
4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate or evidence oMA'mtii'Zjfi'"
at On -Site Sewage Treatment workshop held immediately 0811i6l%8
prior to current construction season.
LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED.
List persons other than applicant who are authorized by you to
apply for permits under your license
The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of
Orono, Minnesota, for license to install and repair septic
systems, and/or pump out septic tanks, subiset to the laws
of the State of Minnesota and the Ordi es f She City p
Orono. AA
Date zr"1 /r4, A Applicants Signatu
Staff recommendation Appzova Denial _ Date
:ITY Reason for denial:
ISE City Council Action Date Approve _ Denie
)NLY pate license mailed
INTEROFFICE MEMO
DATE: August 31, 1988
TO: Dorothy Hallin
FROM: Chief Kilbo
RE: Park Gun Club
Regarding the attached application for the Park Sportsman's Club
to renew their annual firearm use permit, I do recommend issuance
of this permit. .
We have had one complaint regarding the amount of shooting at the
Club, however, this person was told they were within their limits
of the permit.
When you receive a copy of their shooting schedule for this next
year, I would appreciate it if you would pass a copy of this schedule
on to the police department also.
4886.1(34)
APPLICATION FOR FIREARM USE
CITY OF ORONO
DATE: August 16, 1988
APPLICANTS NAME: Ruby E Geschwind
APPLICANTS ADDRESS: 4939 Vera Grua, Crystal, Minn. 55429
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: Park Sportsman's Club
PROPERTY OWNER'S ADDRESS: 3660 - 6th Ave. No. L=R Lake, Mt. 55356
DECRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Gun Club
LITYu or
TYPE OF PERMIT: $25.00 ANNUAL I $10.00 OCCASIONAL OFFICE
(Club Only) (15 to 120 daY5 01 .1E425.00
DATE STARTING: Sept, 1,1988 DATE ENDING: August 31, 1089..._ -R �w `� 00
PURPOSE: _ Trap Shootin 8 /9 s d +�%;:9+IJ CC01 f(01 TC'4:a..
RESTRICTIONS:
I agree that this permit doesn't allow the hunting of game birds
or game animals in the City of Orono unless specifics ly stated
in this permit and agree to abide by all applicable federal,
state and local laws. I
4,1 ,- Z"2:�
Sign re o applicant
Fee Paid: u
Date: RECOMMENDED: YES NO
Check:
Cash: Public Safety Director
Initials:
APPROVED: YES
City Administrator
RE14ARKS:
2
CITY OF ""ONO
Ph
•
•
'+
•
I'
�+
�.I
BERNHARUSU
SOBITEN
BUSHA
BUY LAN
BRLNKHAUS
CARL3UN
CME3"LCK
CORNICK
OLNNEyON
EnGLI-M
ERICKSON
ERICKSON
ME 12 Si70 tl.28
JA 31 14854,81
JL 12 8347_50
SD2fitl.28
JF 49 25480.36
MD 35 031,50
GB 31 240119,49
JL 31 92013*40
RJ 35 2720,ub
In 31 dI9Tl—.]i
UJ 93 1081,52
KR 31 22974,12
2044.0} B �t '.-' '.•.iq
961022
353.23 ,- j ;- -,
280,50
1485olO
45,90
1416000
1371,32
0.00
1400,10
0000
1310.50
FARH
VS
33
2369,70
480.50
�+
FISCHLNICh
UT
31
20142.90
1235,02
la
Fk f T71.F.H
JM
31
23232.19
1273.52
�•�
A PUN
HP
33
19985,U6
1213,bO
•^
GLRHARO50M
JR
42
27794.32
1030,U0
GREGONY
JO
42
1'431.27
1088.43
�a
HALLLW
UM
t2
17490*01
103o,00
'•
HANSEN
aC
42
17164,95
962,64
!
a•I
HANSING
CJ
31
3040.70
505.91
�•�
JACUBS
TJ
33
IVY85,05
t213,00
y
117
a•;
JOHNSON
dP
31
21003937
1284,33
9
K L00
MM
31
290bb,J9
I760.00
1 �'•
KIRNVCZUK
N
31
S49o26
13[, 13
a
KNOT SuN
LA
1a
12324,12
085,44
S
KUFnN
TM
15
27505.33
1*40,04
ae
LINUB TRUM
uJ
93
i2js14
_
82.00
321
MABUSTH
JA
33
24u93,57
1416*24
METER
HA
65
260 to
40460
MIXLLSON
RA
15
14705,22
466.64
it
MILLS JR
NH
93
1725,75
207.00
�•�
MORAN
MF
31
24627.07
te17,e8
nl
MOR{TR�'�TPJ$
j
31 2i4� ,46
14� 36,58 —
s
MORROW
J7
31
6102,65
530,94
s�
NAAb
TL
12
IOS62911
913.03
SAS
UO
93
961.69
_
0,00
O0R1EN
RL
92
2300,00
400,00
RU33
STEVENS
pM 93 O,00 0000
MA 92 19249,14 1181*65
OJ 92 2T13,92 029,40
JA 93 Ot4.25 74025
JJ 42 I7265,90 959,20
cCii 1666. a 110J,
LK 12 1039.13 bt4,23
US 42 17300.19 959,20
n�9'3 LT2�5: d�6
OG 93 252-3.00 237.50
3
CITY Of ONONO P A
1 v-T-D . - - , -
a
OMTON
NO
31
I3006,02
ID91.00
UMI:HECK
WT04l
LF
it
IBtl7U.39
t153.U0
MW
31
21019.76
It09.20
I.AI
AM
KL
05
01110.90
2D9.00
COUNT GRAND 47.357.3t
�•i TOTAL FICA TAX GN030 : 25r399,6A EMPLUYERS
R'
iL� A a GROUP HEALTH
knj
9 a PHYSICIAN'S HEALTH PLAN
--
[lei
ml
all
..
-
a
D
s MEDjC AL CENIEN PLAN
y
E
= PNUUENTjAL
�sal
v.I
P
= CUOND. HEALTH CARE
G
e M1NNE4UTA HMO
m
m
M
a TMANS-AHEnICA %;C.
ul
T
= BANKERS LIFE
u
3
v MUTUAL SExVICES
u
a
K
2 MUTUAL Uf IN0HA
)P
L a% GMrLuacc a saw &
M o AETNA
N z N1rULLET EITEL
0 a LEA6UE OF CITIES
e SHARE
7 • MEALTH CANE MAINT ACCT.
am
`as —_—
i.n
)O
117
CIfY OF OORDDNO
P A '
y�
�_..
f•
Y_T_D
_('
EMPL-NO NFh�-�
v WRIJI
VINOUSER�'FL7
ANDERSON
BL
71
84522.49
1435.89
SERNMARDSO
ME
12
35752.36
E044.08
I�
SOBZIEN
SA
31
15715.61
856.80
BOSMA
JL
12
$861.99
514.49
Ie
BOYLAN
8O
93
7066.11
700.
1�
BRINKNAUS
JF
42
26870.67
1390.31
CARLSON
MB
35
663.00
25.50
+oi
CHESWICK
GB
31
915507.49
1410.00
+"
CORNICK
JL
31
23289.21
1275.81
DENNESON
RJ
35
2603.93
77.67
ENGLISH 11
IN
31
23461.37
TATf-.S1
+•
ERICKSON
DJ
93
1241.65
160.13
+�
ERICKSON
KR
31
24247.64
1273.5E
,i•
FARR
PS
33
2821
00
451.50
+•
FISCHENICH
OT
31
21355.78
1212.06
:a
FRITZLER
JM
31
24S50.E8
1318.09
Ito
GAFFRON
MP
33
2119
19-11744
w
GERHAROSON
JR
48
E9430.40
1636.08
+'
GREGORY
JO
4E
E0499.67
1048.40
22
MALLIN
OR
I2
16525.91
1039.00
a
HANSEN
SC
4C
16126.16
959.E1
HANSING
CJ
31
85fi1.E6
$14.56
:a
JAC008
TJ
33
811?8.65
'20
JOHN30N
BP
31
22904.10
1300.73
27
KILBO
MH
It
31626.19
1760.00
Z•
KIRNYCZUK
M
31
5626.39
132.1
'
KNUTSON
CA
15
13095.25
771.13
• 30'
KUEHN
TM
15
2915t.97
1646
64
it
L S M
e23.14
0.00
22
MABUSTH
JA
33
25511.81
1•r:C
24
122
MARQUARDT
BJ
33
31.88
31,88
>•'
MEYER
MA
35
283.05
22.95
'w'
MIKEL30H
RA
15
15573.67
868.63
136,
MILLS JR
WN
93
1876.50
150.75
37
MORAN
4.2i�72-E37
�3a'
MOROYCZYNS
J
31
24922.33
141!4.$7
211
MORROW
IS
31
6619.60
SIG,
T5
�•�'
NAAS
TL
I2
I I234.9
B
OAS
DO
93
961.89
0.00
�•2'
OBRIEN
RL
92
3070.00
770.00
A7�Z317Ti7794
.
PALMER
PB
31
505.00
0.00
•2�
PETERSON
RW
93
0.00
0.00
Iwi
OUAST
WA
92
20497.53
12146:39
•+I
RATHBUN
$J
92
3551.74
637,82
awl
ROSS
JA
93
729.00
111.75
••
SA§$-TJ7E-Tf225Tb�-
:w.
SCHAUB$
CO
31
17007.39
968.44
STE►FENNAG R$ 93 19$97.49 1072 00
CITY OF ORONO
P A Y
IF388-iRP7ACG
10.00
TOMCHECK LF 31 20043.66 1173.47
•I TOMCZYK MW 31 23032.9E 1113.16
47
PAID J0052
TOTAL FICA TAX GROSS • •5.389 5B EMPLOYERS F:
A 0 GROUP HEALTH
ly�_ C = BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD
D = MEDICAL CENTER PLAN
z3.
�3e F 0 COORD. WEALTH CARE
ss
3• G • MINNESOTA WHO
Im
w'
I
•
BANKERS LIFE
in
J
•
MUTUAL SERVICES
-R0
37
UTUAL OF OMAHA
IMi
3^
L
o
EMPLOYEE'S BENEFIT
M
m
AETNA
•
0
a
LEAGUE OF CITIES
Iw
METROPOLITAN HEALTH PLAN
w
�•' Z • HEALTH CARE NAINT ACCT.
rat-
31MISSING HOSP CODE FOR SOME EMPL'S
i' _—
CITY OF RONO
P A
p
(2
I SAME
Y-T-D
• -
EMPL-N '-'
,!
DIV
DROSS
DROSS EXP/ALL
LLAHAN
c„L.1_1_
2175,23
A01 67
41
ETTEN
J
11
2175.03
241.67
IABEN
iff
J
11
2700.00
300.00
TTLES
AN
it
103.34
241.67
TERSON
SA
11
E175.03
241.6T
PAID 00005
A • GROUP HEALTH
1°
B
PHYSICIAN°O HEALTH PLAN
iaa
n�
C
•
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD _
u�
"
0
a
MEDICAL CENTER PLAN
14
•-
E
•
PRUDENTIAL
°
F
m
COORD.—FLEA.LTH CARE
�°l
G
m
MINNESOTA HMO
x,
�^
N
•
TRANS-AMERICA OCC.
u
»
I
•
BANNERS LIFE
N,
�•
J
•
MUTUAL SERVICES
3°
37
N
•
MUTUAL OF OMAHA
u°
39
L
•
EMPLOYEl B BENEFIT _
w
•'
M
•
AETNA
u
•
NICOLLET EITEL
O
m
LEAGUE OF 'll
••
P
•
METROPOLITAN WEALTH PLAN
0
•
DNARE
Z
•
HEALTH CARE_11AINT ACCT.
��
MISSING HOOP CODE FOR SOME EMPL/S
1%SG CITY W NON CNCN a[fISTSS 01-1E-N rAtl 1
GR CR N. OAT[ _AMOMOT VENYN ITEM DESCRIPTION "COMMIT N. IN. 0 P.O. a WEVN! I
• 4116008 H/13/N 50.06 A-1 RIRNTWA ff11T [QUIP RENTAL T]-1A1-aN-1!
01 A6
N•-CRS
• NOON
al"waa
".H-
AMR MlN MTA
INC
OFFICE SIPPL
11-•tt0-N1-33
• NOON
OT/ta/N
n.lT
ANO-11INNSOTA
INC
OFFICE SWPL
01-4E10-111-A
• SNII&-
SS/N/N
13.10
AMO-RIM NOT.
INC
MR. NOWFL
- -1 10-639 "
^ "SON
09/06/04
" 11
ACRO-RINNSOTA
INC
OFFICE SUPPL
01-4El O-061-1■
• 421,11,6I6
-rimwwfr---Hn/7gr--
09/04/N
11 07
ACRO-MINEVOTA
INC
OFIC[ 8UPPL
01-I910-149-31
• NCNO
Of/SS/N
ELT.._
A.I1
ACR>MINNNOTA
IN
WILE VWFL
31-NtF 49-N
• MONO
M/N/N
1811.13
ASSO-MINESOTA
INC
CLAM. MLATNi
01-IEiE-ITI-J]
•
IN.\S
vO
....CMS
-
Win
O1/N/N
T
n
AT&T IWO SYSTEM
TSL. •MOIM
TG-I329-511-11
•
W010
fi/00/N
■.ST
AT&T IWO SYSTEM
TR"PNON[
T3-1303-961-9S
•-CA0
&••011
M/IwN
A-N
ALL STN ELECTRIC
ft" MINT
01MA]-HT-IT
WP•
u•-CEO
-
ilRlf—
ia13O/E� _
ta.Il
•
NISSO
n/N/N
11.Q
AT & T INFO SYSTEM
DATA PROCESSIONS
01-4340-031-10
^
Aii7EN]tE]A-
TfTIM
- -
I
'N&SSO
0tIN1 N
11.1E
AT & T N" SYSTEM
DATA PROCESSING
01-4349-961-13
p.034
91/0f/0118
23.99
AT i T INFO SYNT[M
DATA PROCESSINS
61-1310-129-31
NGf f
• /441-416— -----TT:zT—�1rc-T-tNra
nGTEM—an-nmeEN
- - -
.06634
09%N/N
1f.03
AT A T '•0 SYSTEM
Y
DATA PROCESSING
01-4310-011-10
g
Wfl' 61/[[/N 3.63 AT 6 T COMM TELEPHONE 01-132E-031- [
• WNI HAVN a." AT 1 T CON TELEPHONE 61-1328•IRf-YI
11.95
....CRf
tl6N0
0f/6NN
tl.Ef
AIACN IAP[0 CO
OLUS MAINT SWIL
It-1!]t-0ff-'T
• pN10
H/N/N
A.30
AIACN MP[R CO
SLN MAl Ni tWPI
H-Ia31-1H-31
•. tli6ii
/
—AF4CN"1APIA
-
4-4..T'-3O Y.
111.60
ic'i•Is-
___
�OI_CR�_.
gONN
N/OMEN
110.06
AWLWN CWFa[
MEETING UP _
61-4AN-020-11
ION CITIF M OROM
CHECK R[01tT[R
99-1E-N RROS N
men N. ..f[ S1INIRT
, NOW N/GNN
-SOON ._-A7N7/T
VERNR fTER 0[tK1RTIM SCCOMT M. INV. S R.O. S maN
310.110 JNLVM CMR[[ METING E)R
• ENN11 N/SN/N N.O NNEIER\fY[ • CLOTNIN.
• shCN!
Nao.
NMt1 01/09. JR 74 tt NLSCRS RMTNRSRNT MRIK SVH .[S 01-0210-ttf-31
.w-CRf
T.TG
CMR N RYKItNFITi
1)T.T! .
n
alp_
SIHGJN
lICl011LN
NNOER KOLA
01-130FIT.�]]
)G.11 i
_C01K[PT
.-CNS
NSi31
G1/08. G.
WT AS
CMN.HIJL KN RNT
]NITMIfL SERVICE
01-4ul-NYI7
NNE:
If/0G/N
SN.GS
Ow.te Il o KN NN1
JNNITNIRL SERVtK
GI-IJOYItf-]t
....CNS
..u..
NN1M
NlV/N
14.29
C-IS.NIROERt
CLOTNIM
01-N111-ItY)1
14.
+
8114111
99~410
19.24
RL1IN GMtTT SUPPLY
CLOTHING
TE- iRI-l0Yf1
eI
'f/N/M
M.H
QVIN SSRSTf GERRLT
CLOTHING_
T)-N[IdN-fE
-
S IT .
_--
_ Ou:SS'N
SL Is
Flat" NNIN CO
CONCKJ:MS
7I-16N-l/1-90
IV.N .
+ CXS
T7NJN—
tl.N 0
low C I' . aI SRONO
CHECK NO SATE AHOWIT
CHECK REGISTER 09-12-88 PACE 5
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV. 0 P.O. 0 MESSAGE
• tf6S44
69/6a/04
847.41L
BUSINESS RECRDS CORP
OFFICE SUPPL
01-4210-040-13
•
S47.It •
• •.NN
'� 854 "4
09-00"86
S34 Of
GENERAL REPAIR SV
REPLACE CAT VALV 73-4234-S69-92
�896"4
09/08/64
600 00
GENERAL REPAIR 8V
IMPELLER RINGS
T3-4Z34-569-9Z
,•
1,134 00 •
• Ste'
H/ia/N
896 00
DWE3T-�EPf?IiT-
- - -
`•
096.00 •
•
s
+ Sf6t1t
itlia/p
E8].sit
i 6 K SERVICES
CLOTHING
01-4l11-E49-41t
--- - -
• tl6tT!
61/96/aa
Tf.R6-- -
_ i 6 K SERVICES
ELDG PAINT
O1-4343-fZ9-3f
•• "Geye
91/6a/N
117. ST
6 6 K SERVICES
CLOTHING
TZ-4ZZ1-549-91
1i L86iT!
01/661/M
3B.39
i 6 K SERVICES
CLOTHING
T3-4ZZ1-569-91
•• 986eT[
—tt-TTi
-K SERVICES
CLOTHING
T4-4ZZT-S90-93
�
- -
n
•.•-CKS �•,
a
a
xe
A
-
a
m
x
a.;
+4
a
-e
•i•=ZKS Ji
w
u.
u:
u
.s:
- 6i•-CKS 49.
x
e,
ex
y
H
A
•T
on
•••-CKS "
••1
u
M
•s
• u
e• 1 Ti-TTw_m VTCW_- -----01-4358--080-16 - ---- »
°• 8.044.43 •
n
.• 74.
Saw suss 39,057.14 WiWN CO TREASURER CRIB/NAVARRE t4-4512-421-00
i
to" CITY OF ORONO
CHECK REGISTER 09-12-66 PACE
4
CWCK N0 SATE
•
• S363N 0+:os/ee
• as6300 01,08/08
•
i
• ••ff••
tt/taisa
AMOUNT VENDOR
31,057.14 •
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 0 P.O. 0 MESSAGE
44.10 HENN CTY SHERIFF OPT EQUIP PART! 0 1-483E-12i-31
EE4.as NENN CTY SHERIFF OPT JULY SERVICE 01-43SS-060-16
eba.ss •
06.a7 ICRA RETRRNT CORP i MA 6/6 TO 6/el 01=1t/0-039=f2
•••-cica ,��
256330
e1/0a/ N
a6.67
ICNA R[TRMNT
CORP
ICMA a/EE TO 9/4
01-4140-v39-lE
'"
,s
+
173.74 •
to,
A
• •flit•
*so-CKS u
• eatlai
1N 00 --
ILLIq a tool
GROUNDS MAIN S P-L—
N/0a/N
10e.00 •
as
•
• �s�ii
a•.
=CRS ��
+ 104311
H/ea/N
33.T3
KUEHN-THORAS
TRVL MILEAGE AUG
01-4341-069-13
ar
+• Most?
H/ea/N
T.es
N
KUEM-TMOMAS
__
TRVL MILEAGE AUG
01-4361-174=7�
s
•• 806311
e1/ea/aa
T.05
KUEMN-TMOMA3
TRVL MILEAGE AUG
73-436'-569-7E
•
47.03 •
+n
sm
s
Nifty
sy
•••-CKS
+ Es64e[
01/tS/N
as
3.11s.e0
LAKERTKA CONS
GIST
R[MaERSNIpf
@1- 340-020-11-
an
a.11s.e0 •
+"
>«
10
—
.,.
+• E16431
01/04/M
T7.00
LOSS$ - SUITE
300
MNT PIMS EQUIP
01-4340-174-33
» e1643S -
e1%ea/N
49E.91
Last$ - SUITE
300
LOCI! ADMIN JULY
01=4-332-669-115a•1
C16431
01/064,06
197.17
LOefa - SUITE
399
LOGIS ADMIN JULY
01-43SE-1E1-31
'•'
`r
• te643!
09/0e/N
E46.4T
LOSIS - SUITE
300
LOGIS ADMIN JULY
01-435E-1T4-33
t16439
�I----WUIT"Wf�
coUR-tCR-`DP--JULY.
01-4333-761-
•�
ES643S
01/ea/N
iN .31
LOGIS - QUITE
399
DATA PROC JULY
01-4355-069-13
sO
E16430
01/Oa/aa
a17.Ta
LO61S - SUITE
300
DATA FROG JULY
Oi-43SS-lEl-31
vas
_
ee0431
_
01/0a/N
301 .36
LOet$ - SuITf
700
OAT- A-PROC JULY
01-433 --TY-4-33am
• 0166438
01/04/N
96.91
LOSIS - SUITE
300
LOCI! ADMIN JULY
TE-435E-541-91
"
ss
'+ 066421
01/ea/N
96.44
Lost$ - SUITE
300
DATA PROC JULY
TE-4355-541-11
_
•, lii4�i
_
— ii7iiiii--14T.
gig
396
MIN -JULY
T3-43SE=3fl-7E
�=
» 890436
01/04/e4
1139.T3
Lost$ - SUITE
300
DATA PROC JULY
T3-4355-569-9E
as
»
7 r 1 / 7 . 37 •
so,
•
•••-CKS "
e,
-- M477-
--- 7i71i7ii`
t.-W"g CITY OF LOOS LARW-- JUFL-59F WWWTD 1-4372-1:9-7T—
•�"
•• 690431
e1/ea/N
T1.31 CITY OF LONE LAKE HARRINGTON LS T3-4344-569-TE
~
sr
•
&,IEO.t! .000000
...
••0-CKS '
1 75 - _zGX9-LA9r-TIRr T=44ra4s=,P ------
-
•
11 T S •
_;
IV" CITY OF 0D0000
CHECK REGISTER 09-12-88 PAGE S
CHECK N0, DATE AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 0 P.O. 0 MESSAGE
•a4•••
a1
1196467
09/09/00
I56.00
RED CTR HEALTH
CARE
MOSP INS SEPT
01-4151-039-1t
•)
t5646T
09/09/00
76.40
MtN CTR HEALTH
CARE
HCSP INS SETT
01-4151-061-15
71
8436467-
09.*W
-----Wn CTR HEALTH
tARL----103F-TN33E
1-4151=Tf6-3
it
•
ES4467
09/00/ N
169.11
-
RED CTR HEALTH
CARE
M03F INS SEPT
01-4131-1RT-31
101
ES646T
H/00/N
176.01
REO CTR HEALTH
CARE
MOSP INS SEPT
01-4151-174-33
s06167
09/00/N
3S[.011
RED CTR MEALTM
CARE
MOSP INS SEPT
01-4151-t49-42
11.11
131
1,006.74
•
14,
s
Ir
•
q6471
09/00/0t
14,6" .11
METRO WASTE CONTROL
SEPT SERVICE
-
73-1[D8-000-00
'•'
•
14,#Ss.11
4
21
a,
•
••••••
•••-CKS
221
33`
3.:
900499
09/08/ N
0.99
MINNEGASCO
UTILITIES
01-4324-IE9-31
as,
m
si006190
09/041/tN
III.GE
MINNEGASCO
UTILITIES
T[-43[4-SIl-l1
S71
fl0190
Os/OD/N
[
76
MINNlGAIICO
VTILITI[3
— _50 —
=r
w
j•
189.
ST
•
3ID
311
cxw
33
8116495 H/00/N
.a
3r
7 00 MN D[N[FIT ASSN LIFE INS 01-41S2-ttb-31 J5,
7 00 • — — - — --- - - ----- 3m
37l
3•
I#NM H/O6I/N 22 2! MN CELLULAR TELE TELEPHONE
t2.t1 •
• 04WN
•
97iiTpMINN COMM
17.60 •
•
lDbDOf 09/OD/M 94.60 MN FIRE 6 SAFETY
i6603t
09/00iee
t06s3s
09/08/::
156539
09/06/64
"6030
09/oeiee
OSGSIS
-if/00/00
ts6sls
09/00/M
ts6s3s
09/Ov"
54.00
CITY
OF
MOUND
36.00
CITY
OF
MOUND
T
OF
MOUND
10.99
CITY
OF
MOUND
90.00
CITY
OF
MOUND
99
iMOUND
36.00
CITY
OF
MOUND
I8.00
CITY
OF
MOUND
01-4320-tits-31
MAINT MISC EQUIP 01-4342-129-31
•••-CKS •3w
a:.
u,
43: •••-CKS �•
.n
.a,
30,
3,
---�.#-=cxs 03:
34
3a,
3♦,
MI
-- -- -- -.
_._
eel
MARASSMNT
SEMINAR
01-4356-039-12
•,I
•_'
HARASSMNT
SEMINAR
01-4356-069-15
�
-- 7iARASSMNT
SEMINAR
01-43S6-Tt9=
�e,
HARASSMNT
SEMINAR
01-4356-1T4-33
••I
MARASSMNT
SEMINAR
01-4356-249-4E
07
MARASSMNT-SEMINAR
-
- 72-4356-549-91
MARASSMNT
SEMINAR
73-43S6-S69-9L'
7Oi
MARASSMNT
SEMINAR
74-4356-590-93
71'
n1
'3:
7.:
•••-CKS ?'
t
_
19" CITY
OF ORONO
CHECK REGISTER
01-12-64 PAGE 0
CHECK NO
DATE
ANOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
0 P.O. 0 MESSAGE
4040
91/0�/q
_ $0.04
NAVARRE HARDWARE
BLOC MAINT SUPPL
01-4l31-l10-01
• 214040
99/00/04
38.51
NAVARRE HARDWARE
EQUIP PARTS
01-4E39-181-31
+
• 804644
01/fi/N
i1.T7
NAVARRE HARDWARE
EQUIP PARTS
01-4Z3[-1i1-31
°
• i0404t
01/00/00
41.19
NAVARRE HARDWARE
EQUIP PARTS
01-4CM-174-33
4s14i
09/06/69
NAVARR! HAl1DliAilE
—t7i1�TP RT3--
---3Tiis - -
+
• a6040
09/00/44
19.i0
NAVARRE HARDWARE
EQUIP PARTS
01-4832-Z41-4t
°
RfK/i
01/f0/00
.09
NAVARRE HARDWARE
EQUI.- PARTS
01-423i-[41-4!
1
�•
•a Mat44
91/90/09
79.3E
NAVARRE HARDWARE
MAINT SLOGS
01-4343-011-IT
13
• i116549
09/94/98
9.11
NAVARRE HARDWARE
EQUIP PARTS
72-4Z3E-S41-11
'•
a lSOS46
09/08/56
1.44
NAVARRE HARDWARE
EQUIP PARTS
TZ-4Z3Z-541-11
� t30S4!
-- 01/-06/99
AVARRL� HARDWARE
EOUTP-PART
=4Z3Z=S6f !
—
1:
• 1156S46
09/96/99
0.69
NAVARRE HARDWARE
EQUIP PARTS
73-4E31-561-1Z
°
!��040 _
01/00✓N
4.32
NAVARRE HARDWARE
UTIL SYS MINT
73-4834-561-1Z
—
• 0140144
01/fi/M
38.44
NAVARRE HARDWARE
MAINT LINTS
904040
91/SB/N
37.14
NAVARRE HARDWARE
EQUIP PARTS
74-4Z3Z-S10-13
='
• ESGS44
01/60/49
114.39
NAVARRE HARDWARE
EQUIP PARTS
T4-4Z3Z-S10-13
a
a• ••••••
•••- CKS
a:,
as
a
[Sasole
61/00/00
13i.1i
NSP
UTILITIES
01-43Z4-091-17
�0
+� [SaSOE
01/90l00
3f0.03
NSP
UTILITIES
- -
01-43Z41E131
r_ :
3
+ [SaSaL
_
01/fi�M
NSP
__ __
UTILITIES
____
01-13Z4-17S-34—
--
•• [S636p
f1/06/"
913.116
NSP
UTILITIES
01-43Z4-E41-41!
3"
s+ ases6c
NS►
UTILITIES
01-43Z4-Z10-61
a• i16S68 --
_01_/00/06
f1/fi/00----u--1
_10.06_
, 1i9. i7
Nap ----- --
UTILITIES
• INGS68
91/90/60
0fl.Tf
Nor
UTILITIES
73-43Z4-36l-1!
'�
99690[
f1/f0/60
146.si
Nor
UTILITIES
T4-43Z4-310-13
u.
r
•••-GKS
204697
01/96/00
9.40
PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN
LIFE INS
01-410i-181-31
1. f0 •
�e
n
000000
-
•••-CKS
•a
5c
21
+-W4600
fi/00/N
-4-90
t•ANNELL KERB R7J�EI�
-RtT6TT�i�E
- - -
- -
—°sM
45,90
M
�•
>e
Y
+ if0017
01/04/60
130.47
►ERRYS_TRUCK_REPAIR
MAINT AUTO
01-4341-1i1-31
00
[S6613 --
f1/06/90
9.99
P[RRYS TRUCK REPAIR -
-MAINT EQUIP
-4 >!=i -
•'
— ES6613
91/00/f0
59.61
FERRYS TRUCK REPAIR
MAINT AUTO
78-4341-549-91
u
w
906613
11/00/M
74.94
►ERRY$ TRUCK REPAIR
MAINT AUTO
T3-4341-S61-19
e•
M
a
n
N
.a
d ii00[1
09/44/84
974.51
PHYSICIANS HEALTH
HOSP INS SEPT
01-387Z-000-00
•• [306[,
01/06/60
464.09
►HYSICIAPS HEALTH
MOSP INS SEPT
01-4151-031-1!
.Z
tf00[t
H/i6/oaf'
��<r
PHYSICIANS HEALTH - ---
- HOSP-INS SEPT
--01-415T=967�3
—
9S66I1
01/00/00
869.00
PHY3ICIAN4 HEALTH
HOSP INS SEPT
01-4151-126-31
�6
it" CITY OF 00000
CHECK REGISTER
09-12-88 PAGE
7
CHECK N . BATE AMOUNT
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT N0. INV. 0 P.O. 0 MESSAGE
Ef00x1
N/0tlN
1,111.tS
PHYSICIANS
HEALTH
HOSP
INS
SEPT
01-41S1-129-31
xl0ti/
09/N/N
860.53_-
PHYSICIANS
MEALTM
MOSP
INS
SEPT
01-4151-174-33
lf00x1
01/tt/N
_ _
606.95
PMTSICIAMS
HEALTH
MOSP
INS
SEPT
01-4111-E4-9-- W
1 s xfelx/
0!/it/M
43.64
IMTSICIANS
HEALTH
MOSP
INS
SEPT
72-4151-549-91
M6681
t9/0f/N
129.46
PHYSICIANS
HEALTH
HOSP
INS
SEPT
73-4131-169-9E
+o+
•
000-CKS
;sI
• !!N!•
--- _
_—
+a
•s
EsOOET
09/0t/ N
t.TO
PITNET (OYES
POSTAGE
01-43E1-039-1E
19+
tS
Es4687
09/04/ N
4.76
PITNET BOYES
POSTAGE
01-4321-059-14
'a--Z�---��/
gTNl1�IIi11ZC$- -
POSTAGE -
—01=43ET=06l=T�—
t�
Essex?
09/0t/N
4.70
PITNEY b DES
POSTAGE
01-43E1-1T4-33
+a
•• Es00x7
09/ew"
4.79
PITNEY ROUES
- —
POSTAGE
- -
01-43E1-E41-40
m.
43.50 •
zt
u:
***-cgs
23;
. •....•
i
asEfttN
09/0t/N
109.99
PRAIRIE OFFSET
VOTER RECEIPTS
01-43EC-040-13
261
zT
••
—
109.90 •
sn
ar
***-cgs
as
L
u-isn
i�j0i7Et-MULLION
-T4=4T!xO=SIO=lam-
39
im
a+
UAL G9Ear-CASOL7NC
�.
4N.B0 •
am
sa NNN--------------
-.
••i=CfCB-
3m
3•
Es00t7
09/0t/tt
lf.l0
tT PAUL BOOK
OFFICE SUPPL
01-4810-174-33
.a,
r
ES669s
09/08/98
,« • a ---
- ifii�i�a
06794
09/00/04
•
a
Ef0T7t
09/tt/tf
e1
't -�--
-tl70iTff
.
ES0T9E
o9�oe/et
.a4
2E6 S0 SEARS ROEBUCK UP ACCESSORIEB 01-4160-1El-31 "t
47!
2Z6 SO • +s!
see-CKS '
a"
oo—�TRETZ`fiElEi - . iNSUFFL-(tAT=TEl=3T
a,+
276.00 • Sa.
So'
to
xf . 3f
xf . 3f •
BUSH RATE AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP END HALF
74ORPE DIST CO BEER PURCHASE
3T.96 TUIN CITIES DICTN SV OFFICE SUPPLIES
39.00 TWIN CITIES DICTN SV OFFICE SUPPLIES
Nt
01-4380-039-19
n+
♦••-CKS
s.,
aa+
74-481 S-S91-94 N'
N•
OT-4E10-039-T2 -
01-4210-174-33
-s
tOM CITY OF 0RO11O
CHECK REGISTER
01-12-88 PACE 0
CW CK RO
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
0 P.O. 0 MESSAGE
Is-
78.00 •
•
_
-- — --- -
so*-CKS
a
a
•
MY"
09/00/00
183 30
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
CLOTHING
01-4221-126-31
,
-�
—
�!/08/88
126 64_
- - - m_ --- -- --
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
H NC
01-4221=121-31
•
0"71O
09/09/88
100.00
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
EQUIP
01-423E-185-35
401.9S •
•
rr•-CKS
:e
TELEPHONE
=031=1t ---
$� 14
t / 0/ •
4 4
US YE3? CELLULA c
•
LS6814
99/90/60
49.94
US WEST CELLULAR INC
TELEPHONE
01-4320-059-14
tS6814
09/00/00
84.97
US WEST CELLULAR INC
TELEPHONE
01-43E0-061-15
•
t568 4
09/08/60
/O1.6S
US WEST CELLULAR INC
TELEPHONE
01-4380-1t9-31
='
u
t366'4
09/08/08
49.94
US WEST CELLULAR INC
TELEPHONE
O1-43t0-1T4-33
•
tS68 •
09/06/98
63.31
US WEST CELLULAR INC
TELEPHONE
01-4380-175-34
_
a.,
ts6s14
osier 0
49-.94 U3-YLF3
L l7CAR—iN�TELEPHO1f
�1�=Col=ism--
`'
+•
tS6814
09/00/00
!.!!
US WEST CELLULAR INC
TELEPHONE
Tt-43E0-S41-91
SS6614
Ol/fOlOO
14.96
US WEST CELLULAR INC
TELEPHONE
73-43t0-569-9E
_
zw
ii
ts66,4
09/00/ N
E10. 44
US YEST CELLULAR INC
TELEPHONE
74-43E0-570-9
z•
,a
as
704.70 •
31
3z
r_
r
Ni•rr•
---
-- - --- -- - -
- -
a•
95OO41
y/0O/N
71.10
WATER PRODUCTS CO
MAINT WATER MAIN
72-4345-541-91
sa•
m
3-
T1.10 •
�s
•
•r•-CKa
«,
>.
y6OTS
0!/fO/0O
O.40
WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC
UTILITIES
01-4324-249-42
`2,
m
8 40 •
�"
•rr-CK3
'•'
•
•rrrrr
•T'
.r,
Of-4356-121-71
- - ---
;�
ao
r
I1.00 •
a,
r
DEEIF-�I�K�
�f=438�=i6s75
_
ez,
a�
s.
Sl1t!
0!/00/00
10.00
DONNA OANGELMOfF
..
10.00 •
sa.
a•.
•
ai
FOUCT41m FRINTINS
PlITNT-ENVIECOPES-
r-q4v-1 3as
•p
UNIVERSAL MEDICAL
EQUIP PARTS
- -
•
•:.
tl67f�
0!/00/00
29.00
89.00 •
sa
s.
r
-
- -
�ifL�
TREE REMOVAL - ---
- --
"'
-
..
1Es.00 •
•�
•e
lf6t•6 _
•//OO/Oi
4,ft0.00
PLYMOUTH ROOFING
CLUBHOUSE R001�—
_
- - -
•°
.a
4,lt0.00 •
::
w
�f1=4S4� -
=
-XTUAL3
75.00 •
"S
it" CITY
OF CRONO
CHECK REGISTER
01-1E-88 MACE !
CHECK 00.
OATS _
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. IRV. 0 P.O. 0 MESSAGE
•
ISO
01/00/44
ES.EE
ELK RIVER CONCRETE
UTIL SY$ MAINT
73-4E34-SOS-1E
3
a'
ES,EE •
s
•
E30/91
09/04/04
iS.ES
ADMINISTRATIVE MRCS
BOOKS
91-4E40-174-33
1 •
•
•
06910
01/041"
30.00
ALDERS JEWELRY
PLAGUE
01-4310-177-34
ai
•
30.00 •
u�
'■
950111
01/06/64
40.00-
TRIMLINE INC
EQUIP PARTS
01-4E3E-1E9-31
1°
+s
•
R50111
99/06/60
400.90
TRIMLINE INC
EQUIP PARTS
01-4E3E-1E1-31
•'
_•_
_ 460.00 •
m
254l1a
09/08/88
6.09
PERMATOF
SEAT COVER
01-4341-185-35
•
asollf
09/00/EE
TE.00
PERMATOP
SEAT COVER
01-4341-1SS-37
as
ao
447
�u
++
E10113
01/00/N
3,EET.00
METRO WASTE CONTROL
AUGUST SAC
01-EEl0-000-00
a
p
3,Et1T.00 •
sn
s
+•
RS01/4
09/00/64
Sl.C.1
ELMER PETERSON
MAINT BLDG
74-4343-590-93
as
95.66•
3A
i
30
•sa-CKS
Fast
••
E9,089.14
FUND 01 TOTAL
GENERAL FUN
ar
3916S7.14
FUN: E4 TOTAL
IM►ROV! REVOLVING
F
]•
m'
S0.00
FUND 44 TOTAL
Mm
1lSE IPF BONG D/S FUNO
]•`
.a
•'a,
Nov. IFT
0 TZ TOTAL
-uATff Dp"IRATTNC-70ND
+�
17,91E.31
FUND T3 TOTAL
SEWER OPERATING FUND
•b
'••
T1147.03
FUND T4 TOTAL
GOLF COURSE OPERATING FO
w
15,E64.49
TOTAL471
rt
••
t•Y
.•1
a0:
•'
u1
.,
K
aat
•u
pt
pl
p'
•
EMI
pi
• �
p,
M
•N
�
AI
M
'31
M
I��
• f ,b ar a: '
o�
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M.
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the
following members present: Chairman Kelley, Johnson, Bellows,
Moos; Cohen arrived at 7:05 p.m and Brown arrived at 7:20 p.m.
The following represented the City staff: Building s Zoning
Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator
Gaffron, and City Recorder 5cheffler. Council Representative
Goetten attended and Councilmember Callahan was also present.
#1309 GERALD NELSON
1629 BOHN'S POINT ROAD
AFTER -THE -FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M. TO 7:20 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
The applicants were present for this matter.
Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that
applicants were seeking an after--the-fact application for
approval of hardcover and excavation within the 75' setback area
and the flood plain. This matter had been reviewed back in 1985
by the Planning Commission and City Council. Krutzig Builders
was issued a building permit and advised that hardcover within
she 75-250' setback area exceeded the 4,*725 s.f. allowed in that
area. Krutzig filed a variance appl is ition which was denied.
However, because of various engineering designs submitted with
that application, the builder did receive approval to build a 900
s.f. deck in the lakeshore yard, which was not considered
hardcover.
The Resolution stated that certain drainage changes had to
be made which involved the installation of swales along both
sides of the property. The Swale on the south lot line had to be
one foot lower in elevation than the east property owners'
driveway elevation. Mabusth stated that the City had never
approved the drainage on the property. There have been no
problems with the swa le on tie north side of the property, but
there has been trouble with drainage on the south side of the
property. Upon inspection of the property, Mabusth noted that
the south swale does not conform to the specifications set out by
the City Engineer.
Applicants have installed an excavated pond in the lakeshore
yard, with a plastic underlines. There are boulders outlining
the pond which have filter fabric underneath them. There is also
fill that has been placed within the flood plain of Lake
Minnetonka.
There was some discussion on behalf of applicants and the
Commission members regarding who was responsibile for the
existing drainage: problem. It was determined that Lyman Lumber
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1309 CONTINUED
should be the responsible party. The applicants were not aware
of the drainage problem and were told that everything had been
handled. Kelley asked applicants if they were familiar with
Orono's ordinances pertaining to land within 75 feet of the
lakeshore. Applicant stated that they discovered the ordinances
when the project was nearly complete. The applicants' landscaper
was present and stated he had worked within the City of Orono
before, but did not realize that it was necessary to obtain a
grading permit to install a pond. The landscaper stated that he
did not change the grade in the flood plain. Mabusth indicated
that there were changes in the glade when fill was placed on the
south side of the pond.
Kelley recommended tabling the application so the applicants
could work with the City Engineer to correct the problem.
Applicant stated that there is something wrong with government
when people can purchase a piece of property with no indication
that it is located within a flood plain. They had no idea there
would be restrictions pertaining to 75' within the lakeshore.
Bellows stated that she felt the applicants' agents involved with
the purchase of the property were not thorough. Applicant stated
that they were aware there was a swale and a runoff problem, but
they did not know that they required City approval to correct the
problem in the manner they chose. Applicant stated that they
lost two 20' pine trees due to root rot. Last summer they had
significant dead grass and mosquito larva. They felt that the
best way to deal with the unsightliness and runoff was to install
the pond. `this solution is working. He stated that he wished he
had known that Lyman Lumber was supposed to correct the problem,
it would have saved them significant money. There are currently
two other pine trees that are threatened. They were informed by
various landscapers that something had to be done immediately to
channel water away from them or they would lose them also.
Applicant stated that he had brought some of the filter
fabric that underlies the boulders with him. He cffered to
demonstrate for the Commission members how it allowed water to
run through. He could not understand how the use of such fabric
would not be acceptable to the City. He stated that this fabric
was a new product. There were no comments on behalf of the
Commission and applicant stated that he would not take the time
to demonstrate.
Applicants' neighbor to the south, Douglas Lohmar, stated
that he wanted to correct the misunderstanding on behalf of the
Planning Commission. A certificate of occupancy was given to the
a person renting 1629 Bohn's Point Road, prior to Nelsons
purchasing the home. Mr. Lohmar complained about the drainage
and the certificate of occupancy was voided. The City Engineer
came out and agreed that water was not draining off of the
Lohmar's driveway. A 1' trench and a large area of the front
yard were dug to alleviate the problem. A11 of the drainage
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION METING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1309 CONTINUED
water collected in those areas, however, it still did not solve
the problem. Iu his opinion, the fill that was brought in along
the edge of the water to the stone wall was the reason for the
problem. Mr. Lohmar is a civil engineer and he took transit
readings of the level of fill and determined that there is 9" of
fill at one point in front of the rock wall. When the house was
built, all of the excavation was piled up in front where the
house now sits and the whole front area was built up with 4' of
dirt. Later it was discovered that the dirt had to be removed,
but in doing so, 0-9" of dirt was left behind. Mr. Lohmar is
only concerned with drainage. He felt that what the Nelsons
have done is the best possible solution to the problem and has
improved the site 100%. Mabusth noted a certificate of occupancy
could never have been issued to the property because of several
building code violations and the drainage problem along the south
lot line. A certificate of occupancy was issued only after Lyman
Lumber, actual owner of the property at the time of iss,lnce,
executed an attested disclaimer assuming all respcnsibility for
the corrective drainage work.
Kelley reiterate(- his desire to table the matter until more
research could be done to solve the problem. He would like a
report from the City Engineer stating the best possible solution
to the drainage problem. Mabusth asked for specific direction
regarding the five points set forth in the August 11, 1988 memo.
Kelley addressed each of these five issues. Bellows stated that
there was a need for a demonstrated hardship pertaining to the
pond. One major issue to be addressed by the City Engineer is how
much impact restoration of the yard to its original state will
have on the entire area. Applicant presented pictures showing
the elevation of the berm on the adjacent property which is 3 or
4 times higher than his and asked why that was acceptable.
Bellows explained that the difference is due to the Nelsons' berm
lying within the flood plain. The issue is alteration of land
within the flood plain.
The issue of the vegetation was discussed. Mr. Nelson
stated that he has no access to re►.love the other 20' pines should
they also die. Bellows sugtested that should the Nelsons plant
vegetation in the flood area, they choose vegetation that can
withstand excessive water.
There were no corunents from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows to table #1309.
Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed.
#1310 HOWARD F. EISINGER
3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
RENEWAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PUBLIC HEARING 7:25 P.M. - 7:42 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
The applicant was present for this matter.
Kelley stated that he was not in favor of recommending
approval of this matter. He was concerned with the increased
traffic on Highway 12 due to the trucks hauling the fill to Mr.
Eisinger's property, especially during school .tours. If
approved, he would like time restrictions placed on the hauling
to correspond with peak school traffic. Kelley's other concern
was the dirt left behind by these trucks. Cohen inquired as to
the length of tiine the hauling would take. Kelley stated that it
seemed as though Mr. Eisinger had already had a significant
amount of time to complete this project. Mabusth explained t'lat
the permit was issued in June, 1987 and expired in June, 1988.
Mr. Eisinger had appeared before the City Council to get an
extension of the permit until October, but then discovered that
he would need to renew the permit because the October deadline
would not be sufficient. Brown asked what had caused the delay
in the project. Mabusth explained that Mr. Eisinger had
difficulty in obtaining the fill. Bellows asked whether Mr.
Eisinger had a guarantee that he would be supplied with the
quantity of fill he had requested. She wanted to see the
establishment of guidelines for staff on limitations that
deposited soil can remain in an undisturbed state. Mabusth
state,i that a ,.__ermination would have to be made as to how long
it would take to haul 100,000 cubic yards of fill.
Kelley suggested tabling the matter until more information
could be provided. Johnson disagreed, Mating that this matter
had been before the City for nearly two years. He would like to
see it resolved so the work can begin. The benefits of having
the dumpsite capped -off and the drainage directed awa, from it
have ,already been shown. Johnson stated that the watershed
Distri,:t would be issuing a grading permit and would specify some
guidelines as to erosion control and seeding. Mabusth stated
that her real concern involved the issue of how long the f i 1 1
could remain ungraded and unseeded.
Kelley asked if they could delay making a recommendation for
another month. Mabusth asked Mr. Eisinger for his opinion on
this. Mr. Eisinqer stated that he would like to see this mat*er
resolved as soon as possible. Mabusth stated that staff and the
Planninq Commission need to know the length of time the fill can
remain unneeded and how steady the supply of fill will be. Cohen
asked when applicant anticipated beginning this pro)e+ct. Mr.
Eisinger stated that he anticipated startinq in Octobet.
Kelley stated that the Police Department should be notified
that 4,000 tandem trucks would be haulinq fill prior to the
4
MINUTES OF THE PLANNIN, COMMISSION KEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1310 CONTINUED
project beginning. Mr. Eisinger stated that he did not think
traffic would be s problem. Kelley stated that there should be
additional signage on Highway 12, and/or perhaps an additional
passing lane installed.
There were no comments from the public regarding, this matter
and the public hearing was cloy .
It was moved by-elley, seconded by Cohen, to table #1310.
Motion, Ayes=5, Johnson=Nay. Motion passed.
#1321 TOM HAISLET
950 OLD f7RYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH
CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
PUBLIC HEAPING 7:45 F.M. - 8:00 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
Applicant was present for this matter.
Applicant explained that the School District could nct do
anything further with regard to purchasing the parcel as a whole.
In order for the School District to acquire this property, it was
necessary to oreax Ln
acquired one lot at a
Lot A this year and
contract expired.
adct,inistrative split"
subdivided in light of
Kelley asked why app
Mabusth explained that
kind of a lease or con,
through a division, pe
noted the School Dis
investment, which woul(
as a whole, but rather
quickly should the Scho
darcel 1nLo lour lOL5 wnlcn uuulu uC
:ime. It is their intention to purchase
)urchase the remaining Lots before the
Other municipalities have done "an
which means the parcel is not really
it eventually being purchased as a whole.
.leant did not proceed :n this manner.
the School District could not create any
ract to transfer land unless it was done
Orono subdivision regulations. Haislet
:rict could not enter into a longterm
be required if the parcel was purchased
must be able to liquidate the property
D1 District require any additional funds.
Cohen asked applicant what would happen should the School
District not purchase the property. Bellows stated that she
would be leary to grant the School District this type of a
subdivision, when they had recently failed to follow through on a
similar matter. Mr. Haislet said that the School District would
be in default of the contract as stated if they should fail to
fully comply. Cohn asked whether the purchase agreement
pertained to the entire parcel. Mr. Haislet said that the
purchase agreement required that the first lot be sold to the
Schuol District, and the remaining Lots be leased at a set price
and acquired at i time when the School District had the funding
available. Cohen wanted to see the purchase agreement.
Applicant stated that the purchase agreement is being negotiated
between the attorneys for the sel 1ers 9.nd the School District.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FIIZ #1321 CONTINUED
Mr. Haislet asked what language the Planning Commission would
like to see in the purchase agreement.
Cohen inquired as to who currently owned the property. Mrs.
Albin Theis introduced herself as being one of the sellers. She
confirmed that the information about the purchase agreement was
correct and that the two parties were trying to reach a
compromise on a few issues, but for the most part, the parties
were in agreement. She felt confident that the School District
did intend to purchase the entire parcel. Bellows stated that
this whole procedure could be eliminated 'f the School District
would agree to do a subdivision of the entire parcel. This would
allow the City to have somA control over the property should the
School District not purcha Lots B, C and D. Mabusth clarified
that they would need to provide the City with a plat that would
show a dedicated road. Mr. Haislet stated that the Lots were set
up so they have a frontage road. He added that the Scho,.-)I'.
District's ultimate goal is to purchase Lots C and D. 'Ihe
agreement is being set up so the School District must purchase A
and B before they can purchase C and D. Cohen stated that he
could not presuppose that the parcel would be used strictly for
school use, because the next school board may decide that they do
not want to purcnase the land. He stated that school districts
in general are usually under financial constraints and it would
not be unlikely that this land acquisition may be deemed
unnecessary at some future date. Cohen reiterated that he would
vote no until ',e had reviewed the purchase agreement.
Bellows inquired as to why there was a problem 3oinq a plat.
Mr. Haislet stated t:.at time was the major reason. Mabusth said
that it would requkre two more months of review time for approval
of a plat. .Johnson inquired as to whether or not a restriction
could be included in the agreement that would limit to whom the
property could be transferred should the School District not
purchase the entire parcel. Cohen asked Commission members to
envision the worst scenario; the School District purchased Lot A,
but then decided that they have no funding to purchase P, C and
D. Mr. Haislet stated that it would not be in the best interest
of the School District to do that hecause they are signing an
obligation for a ten year lease fcr those three parcels and will
pay interest on them right up to the end of the agreement. Cohen
asked how much they would be p3yinq. Haislet stated $35,OO,7.0J
per year for leasing the three Lots.
Orono's policy states that if there are more than two lots,
there must be an interior road and an access has to be achieved
through a single curb cut. Johnson asked whether the P_anninq
Commission or the City would see any land uQe application that
the School District put forward. Applicant asked what he would
need to do to gist approval of thR subdivision as currently
proposed. Mabusth stated that he would need to ow an interior
road that would provide an east/wear conneC__%)n and provide
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1321 CONTINUED
access to a'' new residential development. Johnson said that the
School Dis •t could vacate the road if they do not need to use
it when the ur parcls are acquired by the School District.
Kelley stated that he would like to see a topographical map
of the area, along with other planning criteria. Moos asked if
it would not be most beneficial to the owners to have the parcel
platted in case the School District did not follow through with
the purchase of the entire parcel. Kelley asked whether the
applicant wanted the rlanning Commission to vote on the
information as presented and forward it to the City Council.
Applicant stated that he wanted them to vote and send the matter
to the City Council.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was c�osed.
7t was moved by Bellows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend
denial of the request for a variance on the grounds that the
request does not meet the required standards. The Planning
Commission recommended that the parcel in question be properly
subdivided to ensure that future planning needs of the City are
met regardless of the disposition of the property. Motion,
Ayes=5, Johnson=Nay. Johnson suggested that the Commission
approve this matter conditioned upon restrictive cover�.nts as to
transferance of the remining parcels B, C, and D.
#1311 JOHN i SUSAN PURDY
1975 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING 8:05 P.M. - 8:20 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
Mr. and Mrs. Purdy were present for this matter.
Gaffron explained that the applicants were seeking variances
for the purpose of adding a screen porch to their home on the
lakeshore side. The Purdys were granted a variance back in 1985
to put an addition on the street side of their ho-ne. Applicants
are in need of a hardcover variance as well as a variance to
encroach in the average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback.
The Purdys had a 5 year plan at one point that has since been
revised. The existing hardcover calculation in the 0-75' zone is
15.4• and does not include the permeable fabric underneath the
rockbeds. Applicants are requestinz an increase in hardcover to
17.31. Ir. the 75-250' zone, the requested increa_ ® in hardcover
is 19.9% from 19.1%.
Kelley a€ked the applicants if they would like to present
7
!MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 14EETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1311 CONTINUED
their matter. Mr. Purdy stated that they had revised their
proposal from what they had submitted in 1985. He did not think
that: the addition would interfere with drainage because runoff
flowed east from the addition. The addition would not be visible
to any of their neighbors, and would not interfere with any of
the neighbor's view of the lake. Due to the internal
configuration of their home, the addition, as proposed, is
necessary. Their house is 80 years old and there is no other
logical location for the addition. Mr. Purdy felt that the
addition would not be detrimental to the lake, nor to the
neighborhood. Mrs. Purdy added that the screen porch would be
virtually invisible from -he lake, and would aesthetically
improve the house. She stated that they needed the added
bathroom because they have a teenager. Mr. Purdy stated that the
average lakeshore setback is skewed somewhat because the house to
the south of them is built on the road. This made their property
inconsistent with any of the neighboring properties.
Bellows asked applicants if they had considered building the
addition along the side of the house where the kitchen and family
room were located. Mr. Purdy said that they had considered the
plan, but there is a large counter area in the kitchen that would
limit access to the porch and bathroom
access would be through the family room
light in the kitchen and not be as
Bellows stated that she did not see
Mr. Purdy said that the proposed plan
bathroom from the living room and din
porch would be through an existing
possible if they built the addition
house. Mrs. Purdy added that the propo
to view the lake from their porch, whi
living on Lake Minnetonka. Kelley aske
-equest to add a deck to their propose
that they had no future plans to add
porch.
The only other possible
, but that would limit the
aesthetically pleasing.
a hardship in this matter.
would allow access to the
ing room and access to the
door. This would not be
on the kitchen side of the
sed plan would allow them
ch is a rightful benefit of
d if applicants would then
d porch. Mr. Purdy stated
a deck to their 3-season
Bellows stated that she did not like the fact that
applicants were back before the Planning Commission with a more
ambitious plan than the one they proposed in 1985. Mr. Purdy
stated that the plan they now proposed was less ambitious. Their
requests in 1385 included an extension to the garage and house.
Kelley asked applicants why they could not turn their deck into a
3-season porch. Mr. Purdy stated that such a plan would not give
them the required space they neea. Mrs. Purdy added that they
really need the bathroom. They currently have only one bath and
a half and have no bath on the main level.
Brown asked applicants how this plan varied from the
original plan submitted in 1985. Mr. Purdy stated that the
original plan had all of the additions on the south side. Mrs.
Purdy stated that after they had added the family room, they
14INUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1311 CONTINUED
discovered there was a greater need for the 3-season porch and
bathroom, rather than enhancing the master bedroom.
Bellows stated that the Planning Commission members have a
real problem dealing with the concept of a 3-season poach. They
look at them as being an addition to the house. Mrs. Purdy
stated that they agreed with th-.t. Cohen added that the bathroom
only confirms that. Bellows stated that it was more difficult to
approve that than a screened porch. Mrs. Purdy asked why.
Bellows replied that the 3-season porch was adding to the floor
structure and mass of the house, and they are asking to do the
addition in an area where they should not be building at -all.
She added that if the applicants were requesting approval of a
screened porch, the Planning Commission would have an easier time
with the deliberation; a 3-season porch is in fact an addition to
the house.
Kelley inquired as to the original size of the house when it
was purchased by the Purdys. Mrs. Purdy stated that the only
addition to the house in 15 years was the addition to the front.
Cohen stated that he empathized with applicants' situation, but
he felt that there was no demonstrated hardship and was afraid of
setting a precedent. Mr. Purdy stated ':hat in their proposed 5
year plan they intended to add two larger, very permanent
structures to the house than what they were now seeking. What
they are requesting should carry them through the next 6 years
until their children are grown. Mrs. Purdy added that when they
were before the Planning Commission in 1985, they were given the
reverse precedent -setting argument and were told it did not
matter what had previously been done, each case was looked upon
individually. Gaffron interpreted Cohen's comments to mean that
if the Purdys were allowed to build further lakeward from the
existing house, that would be unusual for Fagerness Point Road.
All other additions done in that area over the last 10 to 15
years have teen done behind the line of the existing house.
Bellows stated that that was the problem, especially since there
were other alternatives. Mr. Purdy stated that if hardcover near
the lake was a concern they had a storage structure and a kennel
area, now classified as hardcover, that they would be willing to
remove.
There were no further public commencs and the public hearing
was closed.
It was moved by Brown, seconded by Kelley, to recommend
denial of the variances for #1311, based upon setting a precedent
for encroaching into the lakeshore setback area. Kelley added
that he felt there were other alternatives. Bellows stated that
she could not find a hardship in this matter. Applicant added
that the hardship is that the house is 80 years old and they have
exceeded its capacity. There is no other plan that would allow
them as much useful space as the plan they now proposed. Gaffron
4
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1311 CONTINUED
asked applicants if they would prefer tabling this matter so they
could present a revised plan at a later meeting? Applicants
wanted the Planning Commission to vote on the matter as currently
proposed. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed.
#1312 WILLI" J. LAUER
3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING 8:25 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing weie
noted.
Applicant was present for this matter.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the applicant was
seeking approval for a hardcover variance for an addition that
will not encroach in the average lakeshore setback or 75'
lakeshore setback areas. The variance would allow a 1.89%
hardcover increase in the 75-250' setback area. The project will
not require major excavation or land alterations.
Bellows asked for readable plans. Mabusth stated that the
sketch showing the proposal was staff's sketch. An updated
survey showing the driveway was not submitted with the
application. Bellows admonished th 7- ling Department for
accepting incomplete plans. Applica.,i - .ted that he was not
aware that the City required any f.urth,:-. formation. Mabusth
noted for both applicant and Commission rr---jers that the land use
application clearly states that a survey is required. Kelley
suggested revising the variance application. He wanted to change
item #4 under "Required Submittals" to include the language
"current and proposed".
Mr. Lauer stated that he had reviewed the staff's drawings
and felt that they were correct. Mabusth stated that the
applicant showed 245 s.f. more hardcover than staff's
calculations. Johnson asked if the 1.89% hardcover increase was
based upon staff's calculations? Mabusth stated that the
percentage was based upon applicant's calculations, staff's
percentage was less.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend
approval of #1312, per staff's recommendations and option B
regarding conditions of approval. Cohen asked Mabusth what
percentage of hardcover needed to be removed from the 250-500,
zone. Mabusth stated that applicant could remove 1.89% hardcover
by removing accessory structures in the 250-500' zone. Mabusth
asked applicant if he was familiar with the language preceded
V with an asterik that stated that the hardcover variance was
10
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1312 CONTINUED
needed even though applicant was maintaining the same amount of
hardcover. This was because applicant was proposing new
construction in the 75-250' setback area and the setback area
already exceeded the allowed 25% of hardcover. Kelley placed
applicant on notice that there could be no additional hardcover
in the 75-250' zone other than what had been approved. Motion,
Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed.
#1313 RICHARD ELLER
2655 SHADYWOOD ROAD
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. - 8:45 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
Applicant was present for this matter.
Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained
that the applicant was requesting some changes to his existing
patio area. Currently there is a second story deck over a grade -
level concrete patio. Applicant's proposal involves removal of
the entire second story deck and construction of a 4' wide
walkway at the upper level along the lakeside of the house that
would connect to a new deck above a new screen porch. He would
also construct a grade -level wood deck over the existing concrete
patio. Kelley askeil if there would actually be a reduction in
hardcover? Gaffron stated depending upon the Planning
Commission's decision, there could be a small decrease or a net
trade-off in the total amount of hardcover.
Bellows asked if applicant was proposing a screen porch or a
3-season porch. Applicant asked for a clarification as to what
differentiated one from the other. Bellows stated that a screen
porch would not be closed in with storm windows, it would remain
open. Applicant stated that he would be building a 3-season
porch. Gaffron explained that the difference bet% !en the Purdy
and Eller applica':ions was that the Purdy application called for
a new addition encroaching toward the lake. The Ellers are
proposing to reduce the existing upper. level deck and build a
porch directly underneath it.
Bellows stated that what applicant is proposing is an
hetic improvement. Kelley concurred with this and asked
w ther the net increase in hardcover in the 0-75' was in fact
128 s.f. Gaffron stated that was correct. Applicant said that
he would not increase the hardcover if that was the request of
the Planning Commission. Kelley stated that he would like
applicant to decrease the hardcover percentage.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
r and the public hearing was closed.
11
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING C014lISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1313 CONTINUED
Bellows stated that she would like to see an overall
decrease in hardcover because applicant is adding a structure.
She said she would hold fast to her definition of a porch with
storms being an additional structure. Kelley stated that based
upon staff's calculations, hardcover totalled 29.6%. Johnson
asked whether applicant was only going to removE " from the
concrete patio. He suggested removing more than tha_. Applicant
stated that would be acceptable. Gaffron stated that if you just
look at trade-offs in round numbers, they are close. Kelley
suggested using 27% in the 0-75'. Gaffron stated that in the 0-
75' zone 1% would equal approximately 91 s.f. which would be 10'
by 101. Gaffron asked if the recommendation was a 32 s.f.
reduction overall? Bellows stated that the odd shape of the
proposed deck was making it difficult to translate the
percentage.
It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend
approval of the variance providing that the hardcover in the 0-
75' zone did not Exceed 29.6%. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion
passed.
#1314 GERALD ROWLETTE
3775 BAYSIDE ROAD
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING 8:45 P.M. - 8:52 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publicatio:_ and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
The applicants were present for this matter.
Gaffron explained that the Rowlettes were proposing to
construct a sunroom on the north side of the existing house. The
sunroom would be located so it would fill an indentation along
the outside north wall of the house. The applicants were granted
variance approval in 1976 for the addition of a garage, rooms and
deck which extended partially into the 0-75' zone. The approval
was conditioned upon removal of a 20'x 20' concrete patio and
replacing it with redwood. This has not been done. Applicants
are currently seeking a street setback variance where the
standard for this 2-acre zone is 50'.
Kelley stated that he had no problem with the sunroom,
however he did not like the fact that applicants had not complied
with the removal of the patio, per the 1976 variance approval.
He stated that based upon that, he should vote to deny approval
of this request. He asked the applicants if there was a specific
reason why they had not removed the patio. Mr. Rowlette stated
that since 1976 they have removed other hardcover structures that
would equal removal of the 20' x 20' patio. He stated that he
did not remove the patio because they get an ice build up in that
location and ice cannot be chipped off of a redwood deck without
ruining the deck. Kelley asked applicant for his opinion as to
12
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CCM41 SSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1314 CONTINUED
removing the concrete patio at this time. Applicant stated that
he would still have the same problem with the ice.
Mr. Rowlette stated that the only reason they are in need of
this addtion is due to a new road being built directly across
from their kitchen. The addition will act as a screen from
headlights shining in their house from this new driveway.
Bellows stated that she had a problem with the appropriateness of
using the greenhouse addition as a screen for incoming light.
Applicant stated that the addition would be made of a dark
plexiglass material. Applicant stated that he had a problem
understanding why there should be any concern. They were not
asking to add to the hardcover and asked why he needed approval
to perform this addition. Be « ows stated that the existing house
was so far outside of the boundaries. They had already put one
addition on and now they were requesting another addition. Mrs.
Rowlette stated that the addition was merely a rounded glass
window that extends 4 1/2' from the house. It is being added to
fill an existing space on the outside wall of the house. She
asked what more the Planning Commission would need to see. Brown
asked applicants whether they need the entire concrete patio to
take care of the ice build-up problem? Mr. Rowlette stated that
the patio was in two pieces and he could remove one part of it.
Kelley stated that understood the problem of trying to chip
ice from a wood surface. If applicants would be willing to
remove the portion of patio, he would approve the addition.
Bellows reiterated her concern about using a window to screen
light. Kelley asked applicant how a plexiglass window would
prevent headlights from shining in their kitchen window? Mrs.
Rowlette stated that the window would be a reflective, darkened
glass. Mr. Rowlette added that they would install trees and
bushes inside the greenhouse which would add to the screening
affect.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Brown, to recommend
approval of the addition of the 4 1/2' sunroom, subject to the
condition that the patio on the south side of the house be
removed up to the felt line, which is equal the location of the
deck and runs parallel to the house.. The patio must be removed
before the permit for the sunroom is issued. Moti-on, Ayes=6,
Nays=0, Motion passed.
i1315 COUNTRYSIDE MANOR HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
INTERSECTION OF WILLOW DRIVE AND COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING 8:53 P.M. - 8:57 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mai 1 inq were
n, ,, ed .
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1315 CONTINUED
The applicants were present for th-_s matter.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this was request
for a setback and height variance for a monument that exceeds the
allowed 3 1/2' height.
Mr, Phil Miller stated that he was comfortable with the
findings and recommendations of the City regarding their
proposal. They are proposing to "dress up" the intersection of
Willow and Countryside. The Homeowner's Association has never
been satisfied with the appearance of that area. The variance
would allow them to erect curved brick walls on each side of the
intersection and light fixtures on top_ of each end post. The end
posts will exceed 3 1/2'. He was hopeful that staff would
confirm that the monuments were clearly outside of the 30'
triangle and should create no visibility problems. He understood
that if the road is maintained by the City in the future, there
would be City snow plows on the road and a hold harmless
agreement would need to be drafted.
Kelley assumed that the City had initially approved
Countryside Road and the issue of the island was not brought up
at that time. Mabusth disagreed, stating that correspondence in
the file would show that the City would not guarantee that the
island could remain should the City take over the Road.
Countryside Road is currently classified as a public dedicated
roadway and once it connects with Old Crystal Bay Road, it will
be maintained by the City.
Mr. Miller stated that he understood that the City of Orono
and each of the homeowners had extensive communications with the
original developer. The City and the Homeowner's Association
have similar feelings as to the Community in that regard. They
want to go forward and make the area as attractive as possible.
Their prop. -al should meet all of the required safety standards
and they anted the Planning Commission to act as staff
recommended.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend
apprival of the required variances, per staff recommendations and
requirements. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed.
#1316 GARY BARR
3034 CASCO POINT ROAD
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING 8:58 P.M. - 9:10 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
not-ed.
14
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1316 CONTINUED
Clint Gables of American Builders & Associates, was present
on behalf of applicant.
Gaffron explained that made reference to a letter he had
received from Mr. Ian Booth, a neighbor of Mr. Barr's, opposing
the garage addition. Kelley read the letter, which spelled out
the reasons of opposition, aloud. Mr. Booth's reasons included
the fact that Mr. Barr already had a 3-car garage, Mr. Barr has a
renter in the existing garage, and Orono has ordinances
pertaining to the subdivision of property for the purpose of
renting living space to individuals.
Gaffron explained what Mr. Barr was seeking in his
application. There is an existing house and 3-car garage that
has a loft -type unit above it. Mr. Barr received approval in the
late 1970's to install two plumbing fixtures in that loft when it
was built. Mr. Barr would now like to construct a second garage
for the purpose of storing old classic cars. His proposal is to
construct a 34' x 28' garage directly behind the existing garage
which would require a 3' setback. He would like to rebuild the
back wall of the existing garage so it would also be a wall for
the new garage. He would like to put a shop area above the new
garage. A setback variance would be required for attaching an
oversized structure to an existing structure that exceeds 1,000
s.f. The second option would be to locate the existing garage and
the proposed garage adjacent with one another with a 10'
separation or an 8' separation. This plan however may result in
the loss of some mature trees.
Staff had recommended some alternatives. One would be to
reduce the size of the proposed garage which would allow it to be
built in two different locations that would save the trees.
Kelley stated that this proposal was awfully ambitious. He asked
Mr. Gables to present his information. Mr. Gables addressed the
issue of hardship. Mr. Barr collects classic cars that are
expensive and need to be housed. He also needs living space for
a caretaker of the cars since he is a pilot and is frequently
away from home. It was Mr. Gable's understanding that Mr. Barr's
brother-in-law inhabits the upper level of the existing garage
for the purpose of security. The second hardship would be that
Mr. Barr will be married shortly which will result in the
addition of two more automobiles requiring storage. Mr. Gables
expressed what, in his opinion, were the hardships in this
matter. One would be the -unoff, two would be the depreciation
to the land due to the destruction of the trees. Mr. Gables
stated that plan A would cause the least amount of damage to the
environment and would be the most aesthetically pleasing. Plan A
would effectively deal with the natural runoff of the land. It.
would also provide the greatest reduction in hardcover. Plan B
and C would require more excavating and the removal of several
mature trees. They would also not deal with runoff as well as
Plan A.
15
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1316 CONTINUED
Kelley inquired as to the number of cars currently being
store in the garage that were owned by Mr. Barr's brother-in-law.
Mr. Gables replied that the brother-in-law did not park in the
garage.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to recommend
denial of application #1316. Cohen stated that he concurred with
Kelley's recommendation for denial. Mr. Barr was not even listed
as a resident of Minnesota on the property list. The list showed
that Mr. Barr owned three lots and his address was shown as being
in Florida. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed.
#1317 DUANE AND NANCY GLEW
1135 BROWN ROAD SOUTH
VARIANCES
PUBLIC HEARING 9:10 P.M. - 9t15 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
The applicants were present for t:iis matter.
Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the Glews were
seeking a side setback and a street setback variance for
construction of a 2-car detached garage. The proposed structure
protr-des 34' in front of the principal structure. Mabusth stated
that the County Inspector advised staff that they would approve
the use of the turn around as long as there is no additional
encroachment into the road right-of-way. The turn -around would
work if a cut is made in the bank at the southeast corner of the
garage. The majority of the trees would be untouched. The Glews
are to notify the adjacent property owner to the south ten days
prior to excavation. Drainage will not be changed since the
garage will be raised approximately 1 112' higher to direct
drainage toward the county drainage ditch along the roadway. The
existing drainage to the rear of the garage will be taken cane of
by an existing catch basin. The hardships would be the severe
limitations of the site and the unusual pie -shape of the lot.
Cohen stated that he would have no problem approving this
matter but he wanted to see the plans for the proposed gare i.
Mabusth explained that the Commission members were each given a
specification sheet which states the type of construction, and
the maximum height. The garage is being constructed by Gorco and
they do not provide elevations.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Moos, to recommend
16
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1317 CONTINUED
approval of application #1317, per staff recommendations,
findings and conditions. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed.
#1318 SUAD H. AZAHARI
1745 FOR STREET
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
The applicants were not present for this matter.
It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to table #1318
until the next Planning Commission meeting so that applicant can
be present.
#1319 KAREN FULLER
4055 ELM STREET
RENEWAL VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
The applicants were not present for this matter.
It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Johnson, to table #1319
until the next Planning Commission meeting so that applicant can
be present.
#1320 DR_ AND MRS. ROBERT BRANDENBURG
719 MINNETONKA HIGHLANDS LANE
VARIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING 9:17 P.M. TO 9:22 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were
noted.
The applicants were present for this matter.
Gaffron explained that the applicants were seeking approval
of hardcover variances to reconstruct a screen porch and existing
deck on the lakeside of their home. The existing deck was
constructed approximately 10 years ago with untreated wood and is
in poor condition. They would like to replace the structures in
the same location but with a different configuration. There
would be a revision to the existing walkway. The replacement
structures will encroach no further into the view line and will
be invisible from the neighboring property to the northwest.
There is virtually no increase in hardcover in the 75-250' zone.
There were no comments from the public regarding this matter
and the public hearing was closed.
17
MINUTES OF THE PLANNIUG COMMISuION I7:ETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
ZONING FILE #1320 CONTINUED
Bellows stated that she was conce-ned about the ct that
applicant was actually building a 3-season porch, rather than a
screened -in porch, as indicated in the application. Gaffron
stated that there had never been any distinction made between a
screened porch and a 3-season porch prior to this meeting. If
the Planning Commission intended to continue to separately
classify the porches, he wanted to know the criteria for each
classification. Bellows stated that the 3-season porch changed
the type of hardcover, especially in cases going from a deck to a
porch. Gaffron stated that in the past they have treated screen
porches that had a roof exactly the same as 3-season porches
with regard to hardcover.
It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend
approval of #1320, provided the hardcover percentage remain the
same in the 75-250' zone. Due to professional association with
applicant's agent, Jghnson abstained from the vote. Motion,
Ayes=S, Nays=O, Motion passed.
#1322 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
SID REBERS
715 BROWN ROAD NORTH
REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND SUBDIVISIONS
Applicant was present for this matter. Mr. Peter Jarvis
introduced himself as the spokesman presenti-.g this matter on
behalf of Mr. Rebers. Mr. Robert Kost and Mr. Steven Pf 1 aurr_ were
also present, as was Mr. John Shardlow, who represented the . ty
Staff. Mr. Jarvis explained that the Rebels proposal was
strictly for review and preliminary feedback. He was hopeful
that the matter could'be scheduled for a Public Hearing for
rezoning and preliminary plat by September 19th. the proposa'.
originated back in May, 1987 and the presentation would include
the t. story of the plan so the Planning Commission could see how
the plan developed to its current state. He wanted the
Commission to focus only on the northerly portion of the
which will be devoted to single family lots.
Mr. Jarvis showed the location of the parcel. There is
currently a large stand of mature maple trees on the property.
On the easterly boundary, there are ;emi-mature pine trees that
Mr. Rebers planted 16 years ago. The soil on the property is
predominately clay and loamy soils. The site slopes 60' back to
the northwest and about 50' to the northeast and 60' to the
southeast. The present zoning is RR-1B, with B-1, commercial
zoning, all along the frontage. Steep slopes are a relative
measure for the property. They are going to lay a roadway system
that would require no grading, except the minimum amount beyond
the edge of the street. There are access limitations along the
easterly boundary due to the high point on Brown Road. There are
locations that would be very inappropriate due to sight distance.
18
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
REBERS SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL CONTINUED
Access could take place off of Brown Road or Pine Ridge Road,
which is dedicated and paved right to the westerly property line.
There i3 no public right-of-way on the north, but considerable
access opportunity along Wayzata Boulevard where there is
currently 3 curb cuts to the commercial area and one that
services the farm house. Brown Road would be the major access
opportunity to the site, back to Wayzata Boulevard and County
Road 6.
A single family, detached sub -division, clustered around one
cul de sac, with a design character unlike anything else in Orono
is what Mr. Jarvis is currently suggesting. They are propos: ng
cul de sacs with large islands, allowing the vegetation to remakr,
undisturbed. There would be a large buffer area around the
perimeter of the project to guarantee inperpetuity that there
will be no disturbance within a minimum of 50' cf their
residence, which is over and above and anaddit an to any setback
standards that would be self-imposed or required in terms of
Orono's standard setbacks as part of the zoning. They have
discussed and concluded that they wanted to put in a Class 2,
grass or wood chip, path that would link every single lot. It
would be a jogging or walking trail. They would also like to put
in a road system that would range from 24'to 26' wide with trees
as close to the back of the curb as possible to maintain the
environment.
In looking at design alternatives for the Single family
detached, they were very concerned about the frontage. It was
recommended that they abandon any commercial or retail
development, due to the degree of slope along Wayzata Boulevard
and the character of the land adjacent to it. As an alternative,
thef would nestle a small multi-fsmi ly structure in the woods.
He showed the proposed 44-unit, two story structure. There would
be an underground parking facility that could also accommodate
guest parking and rental storage for boats to avoid any outside
storage. There would be a requirement for sanitary sewer and
water availability would be necessary regardless of whether the
land was utilized as commercial/retail or a multi -family
structure.
The site plan showed two outlines for proposals for sanitary
sewer. One showed the code setbacks for the requested rezoning,
which at this time is 35' in front, 35' in back, 10' on the two
sides. They purposely wanted to be more limiting than that and
stay with the larger 50' in the front, 50' in the back and 30' on
either side. They wanted to investigate the impact of doing a
traditional non-sewered, residential 2-acre lot development. He
showed a typical 2-acre lot. without sewer with the same setback
standards. The bottom line is that ot, 25 lots with City sewer
the entire area of disturbance is approximately 175,000 s.f.
W However, 15 lots with septic systems and the same average house
size and driveway lergt.h, would create an additionrl 63,000 s.f.
1 `►
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
REBERS SUBDIVISION PR01OSAL CONTINUED
of 'and disturbed.
the r&ftson why this proposal was nut presented earlier was
due to tbi; fact that they were waiting for the Highway 12
Corridor Study to be completed. However, in light of the fact
that Mr. Rebers hoped to be building by winter, they have brought
forth the proposal. dealing with only the northern portion of the
parcel. Then when the zoning is completed along Highway 12, and
there is a final resolution on both water and sanitary sewer,
then they would request that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the proposad concept, rezoning and preliminary plat
to the City Council conditioned upon a sanitary sewer system that
would either be built and paid for by Sid Rebers as part of an
extension through Orono, or purchased in terms of a capacity
trade-off froin Long Lake. The project is not conditioned upon
water; they would prefer city water, but it is not a requirement..
Cohen inquired as to the size of the lots. Mr. Jarvis
replied that each lot would be approximately 1 1/4 acres and
would sell for $90,000.90 to $150,000.00 each. The houses wi 1 i
retail from $300,000.00 to $800,000.00.
Kelley stated that he had been waiting for the calculations
showing the difference between sand usage of city sewer vs. mound
systems. He pointed out that the land use for the mound system
did not include a secondary mound system should the first one
fail. Pine Ridge was his other concern.
Bellows stated that she was expecting a different
presentation i:i terms of the degree of restrictions placed upon
each building pad. She felt that unless there were specific
covenants, future owners could cut down the trees. She is in
favor of the developm^nt as it is being proposed, but is afraid
that it will not remain as proposed unless restrictions are
placed on each lot. She is also concerned with the right-of-way
problem for the road. She has consistently felt that Orono has
too many dead-end roads. She stated that she could not appr.
the proposed development unless there is a loop road.
Mr. Steve Pf laum addressed the concerns that Planning
Commission member Bellows had with regard to establishing
covenants for the protection of the existing trees. He stated
that there would be development agreements. They would contract
between the developer and the City of Orono. Th,_ se agreements
would contain the requirements that would impose the protective
covenants on the entire site. The covenants would require, at a
minimum, maintenance of not only the perimeter trees but
everything beyond the building pad. More discussion is needed in
this regard.
Bellows asked whether Mr. hebers would be the only developer
allowed to build i., the area. Mr. Pf laum stated that the
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
RRBRRS SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL CONTINUED
potential homeowner would need to get their house plans approved
by an architectural control committee. 'This would assure that
all houses, whether built by Mr. Rebers or another developer, met
certain standards required for building in that development.
Kelley asked whether the homeowner's association would be
the enforcing body of the covenants, and what the penalties would
be for the homeowner who violated any of the covenants. Mr.
Pflaum stated that the immediate homeowner was the most concerned
party. They would notify the adjacent homeowner or builder of
any potential violation. The homeowner has the right of
injunctive relief, which would interfere with building and
financing. The second level of enforcement would be the City of
Orono, which would have separate, legal authority to enforce the
provisions set forth there in the contract entered into with the
developer. Mr. Kelley asked about a specific situation where an
adjacent neighbor would have no objections to a homeowner adding
a tennis court outside the building pad. Mr. Pflaum replied that
the City should not issue a permit for the tennis court because
it would violate the provisions of the contract. Kelley asked
about the individual who would cut down a tree within the
protective easement location. Mr. Pflaum stated that the
individual would be in violation of the covenants and would be
breaking the contract with the homeowner's association and the
City. Generally the red flag would come from a neighbor who
would report the incident. The City could then order the
violator to cease and desist. Coheir asked if it would be
possible to mark the trees that are not to be removed. Pflaum
answered affirmatively. Mr. Jarvis stated that in lieu of
marking each tree, a snow fence or taping would be done to mark
the protective area.
Kelley stated that there were some big issues involved with
this project. He wanted to get the Planning Commission's
feedback on the following key issues:
Continuation of Pine Ridge Lane: Johnson thought the plan worked
very nicely. Ringer's Woods is basically the same, except for
the extension of Pine Ridge Lane. He thought the plan would not
require through traffic. Bellow was not absolutely positive ,:hat
Pine Ridge would need to to the connecting road. Kelley would be
satisfied if they could find something that would work with the
33 acres or the total 45 without connection to Pine Ridge, he
would not object to deadending Pine Ridge, and having the
association to the west vacated and divided up amongst the
property owners to the west. Cohen disagreed with Kelley and was
concerned ebout entering or exiting the location should the only
access be blocked due to an accident or other reason. Brown was
not in favor of connecting Pine Ridge, but liked the aspect of
keeping the parcel separate. Moos felt that the connection was
not necessary, but wanted to have a loop. In summary, the
Planning Commission felt that connection with Pine Ridge w-,uld
21
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 15, 1988
REBERS SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL CONTINUED
not be necessary.
Sewer: Kelley stated that they would need to show how many trees
would be saved using city water to justify hookup with the
Orono/Long Lake interceptor. Gaffron stated that due to the
excessive slopes in the area, there would be problems if mound
systems were used. Johnsor inquired as to what the status of the
sewer is at this time. Mr. John Shardlow referenced a letter
from City Engineer, Glenn Cook, wherein it was stated that there
were two options for sewer hookup. One would be hooking up
through Long Lake (Joint Powers Agreement) or by constructing a
new interceptor line along Trunk Highway 12. More detailed
information would be available once the feasibility study comes
back for a public hearing. He sai' that at this time, it would
be safe to assume that the Rebers subdivision could be served by
sanitary sewer. Whatever action is taken, s)- 3 be subject to
the types of conditions mentioned under t pecial Minimum
Requirements for rezoning along the Highway 12 _,rrilor. Bellows
and Kelley felt that sanitary sewer was the way to gc.
Bellows stated that she had a concern involving the access
point off of Brown Road. Bob Kost stated that after they had
submitted the original plan he and several City staff persons
inspected the site and determined that the access should be
relocated 50 feet south.
Kelley stated th another major concern had been the
east/west service roa— The current recommendation fur the
subdivision is to move the B-1 zone parallel to the top of the
north zone of the Little Oak Development. This would almost
prohibit an east/west frontage road along Highway 12. Mr. Jarvis
stated that they were not changing the zoning in that area at al 1
right now. Kelley asked how many feet there were from the back
or north side of Little Oak Store to the proposed PUD. Mr.
Jarvis indicated it was 50' to the PUD and 125' to the lot.
Kelley asked if the 50' would allow for a frontage road to be
installed between a lot line and a building. Mabusth stated that
50' would meet road outlot width requirements. Kelley wanted
feedback from the P'.anning Commission as to whether they felt it
necessary to allo•i for the frontage road to go in behind the
Little Oak Store. Johnson agreed that would be the best
location, rather than in front. Bellows stated that she agreed
with that also. Kelley stated that behind Little Oak Store would
be the best. Cohen agreed, as did Brown.
Mr. Shardlow stated that they have been working with
-ommunities on the issue of how to cortrol a subdivision to
maximize trey preservation. The Rebers subdivision is the best
approach to this. He strongly suppirts the idea of keeping the
size of the roadway to a minimum. He said that the issue of
trees inside the building envelope nr in an area with a drainage
problem will need to be addressed.
22
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos to approve the
minutes of the July 18, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting.
Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=O, Motion passed.
PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE
Ed Cohen was appointed to attend the September 12, 1988
Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT 10:35 P.M.
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M.
W
IJ ER
A(1G 2 91988
Posl 11 76b't'
"louttnq eQueet V�
G - �EQVEgT
Ro�'tIN i,� 11l
AppaOVE
and 11
FORWARD
RETURN
Q KEEp OR poCARD
Q REVIE`N WITH ME
Ftot^
pets
THE LINCOLN CLUB
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA
D
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Single Family Homes, Development Costs
II. Site Utilities, Cost Analysis
III. Property Tax Revenue Comparisons
IV. Population Impact Analysis
V. Property Management, Lincoln Property Company Policies and Practices
VI. Demographics, Representative Resident Profiles
VII. Market Demand, Residential Housing
VIII. Traffic Analysis
I
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
An alternative to multifamily housing on the site is single family housing. According to the
report prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants for the Planning Commission meeting of
August 1, 1988, a maximum of 30 single family homes could be developed on the site given the
characteristics of the property. The approximate cost to developing these sites, exclusive of land
cost, is as follows:
ITEM DESCRIPTION
TOTAL COST
Waterline Extension:
$577,400
Water and Sewer Tap Fees:
$42,000
Lift Station Remodeling:
$40,000
Citywide Water System Improvements:
$59,250
Extraordinary Earth Work:
$435,600
Normal Lot Development Costs:
$450,"
(interior streets, utility extensions,
berming, entrance, street lights, etc.)
TOTAL SITE DEVELOPMENT COSTS: $1,604,250
Site Development Costs per Lot: $53,475
Note: the land price is not included in the site development costs. Even if the land were given
away for free, single family lots would not oe financially feasible on this site given these
exceptionally high land development costs.
SITE UTILITIES
COST ANALYSIS
Development of the Wayzata County Club site will require substantial improvements to the
public utility infrastructure. The City's water system falls short even at current levels of
development. Low water pressure makes fire protection minimal for the homes north and east of
tl-e site as well as for the Wayzata Country Club and inhibits development south of new
Highway 12.
Develpment of the waterline extension into this western area will alleviate the preceding
conditions. These improvements will benefit the community in the immediate years and into
the next century.
A cost breakdown of the improvements is as follows:
Lincoln Club Improvements
Wayzata Blvd. Extension/Improvement 242,000
Western Loop Extension/Improvement 378,000
Lift Station 40,000
TOTAL $660,000
Normal 'Tap Feed
Water
147,500
Sewer
103,250
MWCC
162,250 -
TOTAL
$413,000
Cily-widesystem Improvements
Well #5 and treatment plant 742,000
500,000 gallon elevated storage tank 660,000
Raising level of existing tank 200.QQQ
TOTAL $1,602,000
Lincoln Property Company is currently in the process of working with the City of Wayzata to
determine relative responsibilities for the costs as well as the most effective means of providing
for these infrastructure improvements. A number of different options appear to be available at
this time.
PROPERTY TAX REVENUES
COMPARISON BETWEEN SINGLE AND MULTIFAMILY USES
The subject property currently generates low tax revenues due to its unimproved raw land status.
Developing the property as mutlifamily residences will create substantial tax revenues. Based
upon a market comparison, the taxes for this parcel, if developed as 295 apartment units, should
approximate $516,250 or $1750 per unit. The all( cation of these tax dollars would be as
follows:
TAX REVENUES
School District #284
$262,307
Hennepin County
144,757
City of Wayzata
71,088
County Votec School
6,815
Watershed District #3
413
Miscellaneous Uses
30,870
TOTAL REVENUES: $516,250
If the site were developed for 30 single family homes, the property tax revenues would be much
lower. The median home value in Wayzata in 1986 was $158,000. Increasing this figure at 5%
per year to account for probable appreciation, the indicated median home value for 1988 is
$174,i87. Based on the current Wayzata mill levy, the indicated propery ta:( per unit is $5,507
or $165,221. The incremental increase for the Lincoln Club project versus a single family home
development with 30 lots is $351,029 per year. This indicated difference in property taxes is
dramatic.
a
POPULATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROJECTED GROWTH RESULTING FROM THE LINCOLN CLUB
The incremental population increase to the City of Wayzata from the Lincoln Club project is a
significant percentage. We feel, however, the populadun increase should be considered as it
affects the general area. The City of Wayzata should be considered as part of -,tie Lake
Minnetonka area rather than as an isolated entity. The population within a four mile radius of
Wayzata Boulevard and Ferndale Road is estimated to be 52,252 people. The addition of 583
people will increase the population within the radiu by only 1.1%, a nominal increase. The
analysis is presented on the following page.
DEMAND ON CITY SERVICES
The Lincoln Club should place a relatively low burden on City services. Lincoln apartment
communities typically have relatively few residents with children. The Lincoln Club in Buffalo
Grove, Illinois has only 2 children less than 18 years of age and 6 children between 18 and 20
years of age. Similarly, the Lincoln Club community in Wayzata will have few children. Given
this exceptionally small number of children, the projected tax revenue to School District #284 of
approximately $262,000 should prove very beneficial to the school district.
The units will feature security controlled entrances and the complex will provide security
service as needed. As a result, the burden on the Police department should be less than a typical
single or multiple family dwelling unit.
Due to up-to-date fire suppression equipment and upgraded water supply lines, the Lincoln Club
should be one of the safest structures with respect to fire protection within the City. The
improved water supply will also improve fire protection to neighboring residents.
E
POPULATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
1970 CENSUS
1980 CENSUS
1988 ESTIMATE
THE LVtiCOI,N CLUB:
CITY OF
WAYZATA
3,700
3,621
3,670
ESTIMATED POPULATION
ADDITION
% OF 1980 CENSUS
% OF 1988 ESTIMATES
5832
16.1%
15.9%
4.0 MILE1
RADIUS
31,285
39,165
52,252
5832
1.5 %
I Four mile radius demographics generated by National Decision Systems; San Francisco,
California using a nationwide, U.S. Census based demographic database.
2 Population estimated by Northwest Associated Consultants using 1986 household size
figures generated for the Wayzata Chamber of Commerce. Lincoln Property Company
estimates the population for the development to be in the range of 450 to 556 people.
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Lincoln Property Company is a leader in the field of property management, currently managing
over 65,000 apartment units throughout the country. Over the past twelve years. Lincoln has
committed a substantial amount of resources to developing its property management capabilities,
including the creation of our own training schools and management manuals for the continued
development of our personnel. This commitment enables the Lincoln managed property to be
successful year after year as well as appreciate in value.
The organizational structure of the property management arm of Lincoln Property Company
enables resident managers to tap into a wide variety of resources that enable them to maintain
Lincoln's high quality standards.
Resident managers report directly to District Managers who hold immediate responsibility for
management performance at each property supervised. A District Manager's area of
responsibility normally consists of 1200 to 1500 units. They are responsible for on site personnel
performance, occupancy rates, maintenance, purchasing programs and other functions. Because
of their wide responsibilities, the District Managers evaluate, directly advise and supervise
_ resident managers, leasing consultants and maintenance personnel.
The District Managers report to the Vice Presidents of Property Management, who are
responsible for all Lincoln Property Company managed property. The Vice President's staff
usually consists of District Managers, Marketing Directors, Sales Directors and a Maintenance
Superintendent v '-,) coordinate with Lincoln's other specialists whom the Vice President can call
upon as specific ,_.;eds arise.
Lincoln Property Company's management team is organized to provide effective marketing,
maintenance and administrative services to every apartment. Our marketing techniques are
designed to bring in qualified prospective residents. A highly trained leasing consultants
converts these prospects to stable long term residents.
Each prospective resident is required to pass stringent character, credit and apartment
requirement checks before he can become a Lincoln Tenter. Once they are a part of a Lincoln
Community, in house promotions ensure that the renter continues to live there creating a stable
residential environment.
Professional apartment management does not just happen. It is created with a deliberate planned
program of established policy and carried out through clearly defined, disciplined procedures.
Lincoln Property Company provides each apartment with a professional maintenance program.
Proper maintenance standards are established and enforced for the buildings as well as the
surrounding grounds. With our experiencr, and depth of personnel we can provide continuous
routine maintenance service and special emergency assistance.
Lincoln Property Company enjoys a nationwide reputation as an exemplary development and
property management company. Our well organized management team and proven property
management program has earned us that reputation. Our commitment to excellence insures that
Lincoln Property Company keeps that reputation.
DEMOGRAPHIC'S
REPRESENTATIVE RESIDENT PROFILES
The chart and graph on the following two pages profile the residents of the Lincoln Club in
Buffalo Gr ive, Illinois. This project is representative of Lincoln Propertv Company projects,
particularly projects in the northern part of the United States.
The statistics highlight the fact that our developments have few children and th,-. residents have
relatively high incomes.
i
DEMOGRAPHIC FACT SHEET
THE LINCOLN CLUB
Buffalo Grove, Illinois
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTS: 457
AGE:
Children: Only 2 under 18
Only 6 from 18 to 29
Adults: 36% are 25 to largest group
MARITAL STATUS:
Married: 33%
Single: 67%
HOUSEHOLD INCOME:
Average: $25,349 (includes all residents)
Greater than $39,137: 50%
Greater than $56,000: 35%
OCCUPATIONS:
Total Percent of Residents in
Professionai, Managerial, and
Sale Related Occupations: R 3�"
El
RESIDENTS BY OCCUPATION
SALES
CLERICAL
klNGR, FROPRIETOR
PROF, SEMI -PROF, TECH
MARKET DEMAND
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
The demand for rental apartments is very strong in the Wayzata area. According to the
Minnesota Real Estate Journal, the apartment vacancy rate for the City of Wayzata was 1.66% as
of July 11, 1988. This vacancy rate does not include Wayzata Villa which was converted to
condominiums but does offer units for rent. According to the complex manage;, 3 of the 140
condominiums (2.1%) at this complex are currently vacant. Stabilized occupancy for a
residential rental complex normally includes a vacancy rate of 5%. The vacancy rate of Wayzata
is markedly less than this rate. The last rental multifamily project in Wayzata was completed 10
years ago; however, this project is available only to senior citizens.
The Maxfield Research Group conducted a market study and feasibility analysis for the Country
Club site. Some of the study's conclusions are as follows:
• "Because of the dearth of new housing, and in particular, multifamily housing in
the last decade, we feei that pent-up demand exists for contemporary multii-tmily
housing to serve Wayzata residents, and .`tat this new housing could also attract
a
people from outside the community."
"The market for new apartments has been very strong in the area, while the
condominium market has faired worse, mainly due to the image of condominiums as
a poor investment."
39 • "Market interviews and our review of product in the area indicates that the subjcc_
site, though desirable because of the golf course and Country Club, would not be
considered appropriate for single family housin nor for housing priced at the top of
the Wayzata market."
These conclusions, together with our own market research, indicate that the property is capable
of sustaining are upper market apartment project. Such a project should move to satisfy pentup
market demand and will provide a product which is not available in the Wayzata marketplace
today.
LINCOLN CLUB TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
by Short Elliott Hendrickson
Letter Dated: Topic:
July 29, 1988 Traffic generation figures for the
deveiopment.
August 8, 1988 Impact of rush hour traffic generation on
Wayzata Boulevard.
August 8, 1988 Feasibility of installing a traffic signal at
the intersection of Wayzata Bou:--yard and
new Highway 12.
August 10, 1988 Feasibility of adding an eastbound
acceleration lane at the intersection of
Wayzata Boulevard and new :-iighway 12.
rALii4.i /EJ
IAW
AiAW
SS1
ENGINEERS•ARCNITEC7S•PLANNERS 222EAST LITTLECANADAROAD, STFAU1-MINNESOTA55117 6124d4.0272
July 29, 1988 RE: Lincoln Development
Wayzata Country Club
Wayzata, Minnesota
SEH File No. 86088
Mr. Drew Jones
Lincoln Property Company
1550 Lincoln Center
333 South 7th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Dear Mr. Jones:
We have reviewed the information you sent relative to the
proposed Lincoln Club Development near the Wayzata Country Club.
We have also reviewed our files to obtain other traffic
information near the proposed development.
Your information indicated that the proposed development would
consist of 295 G.4elling units. These include 14 studio units,
178 one bedroom units, and 103 two bedroom units. Based on that
i.nformatinn and the locatir?P of the development, we anticipate
that approximately 1,525-ehicle trips per day will be generated.
This includes all inbound and outbound trips.
In the morning rush hour, we anticipate approximately 135 vehicle
trips; 115 outbound and 20 inbound. In the PM rush hour, we
an"iciNaLed 45 outbound trips and 105 inbound trips for a total
of 150 trips.
so pRT ELUCTT ST PAUL, CI..FPEAA FALLS.
NENORICKSON oNC ;.#,NNESOTA W,SCC-vS N
Mr. Drew Jones
July 29, 1988
SEH File No: 88088
Page 2
We anticipate that 95 percent of the traffic will be oriented to
the east towards Wayzata or to connections to the metropolitan
area road system. In the morning rush hour, virtually all 115
outbound trips will be right turns onto Wayzata Boulevard. Your
site plan indicates a single access point to Wayzata Boulevard
west of Old Long Lake Road. The right turn volume, at average
of two vehicles per minute, should create little impact and have
little delay. Some of this traffic will turn and utilize
Ferndale Road and some will have destinations in downtown Wayyzata
or along Wayzata Boulevard. About 75 percent will utilize
Wayzata Boulevard anci the ccnne ct i= to .Ct
should be negligible. ,mom
In the evening rush hour, we anticipate approximately 105 inbound
trips to the development. While some traffic will come from
Ferndale Boulevard or the downtown Wayzata area, most will come
from the metropolitan roadway system. We anticipate that
approximately half will utilize Highway 12 to the existing
intersection with old Wayzata Boulevard, making a right turn to
proceed back eastbound to the entrance to the development. This
trip will prove significantly faster than to exit at any other
location and travel along Wayzata Boulevard from Highway 101.
The outbound traffic, estimated at 45 vehicles. will consist of
mostly of right turns. Again, we anticipate no Impact on the
road system as a result of the additional traffic volumes.
If you need any additional information or any of our
33
calculations, please feel free to call our office.
30
Sincerely,
32
39
Glen Van wormer, manager
TranFportation Engineering
:0
Department
GVW/me
30
ENGINEERSARCHITECTS ■ PLANNERS 272 EAST L177�E CANAOA ROAD, Sr FAUN MINNESOrA 55117 612 434-0272
August 8, 1988 RE: Lincoln Development
Wayzata Country Club
Wayzata, Minnesota
SEH File No. 88088
Mr. Drew Jones
Lincoln Property Company
1550 Lincoln Center
333 South 7th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Dear Mr. Jones:
In our letter of July 29, 1988, we indicated we anticipated
approximately 115 outbound trips from the proposed development in
the morning rush hour. We also indicated that we anticipated 95
percent of the traffic would be oriented towards the east and
V would make a right turn out of the driveway. Two questions have
apparently arisen: What is the impact of this additional traffic
on Wayzata Boulevard near the Highway 101 and Highway 12
interchange area and what percent of the traffic might make a
left turn to go west to the intersection with Highway 12 rather
than travel through the urban Wayzata area?
During the morning
rush hour, there are few gaps in traffic
on
Highway 12 coming
out of Long Lake. Therefore, the delay
in
making a left turn
to enter Highway 12 can be lengthy
and
certainly variable.
We anticipate that a few motorists would
be
For
willing to put up
with the lengthy and variable wait.
analysis purposes,
we assumed there would be no left turns
and
that five percent of the generated traffic from the development
would be oriented to the west. Any left turns would decrease
the
potential volume of
traffic on Wayzata Boulevard to the east.
jo yprtr EtUOrr
NENOR CKSON INC
�i
El
Mr. Drew Jones
August 8, 1988
Page #2
The second concern was the impact of the development traffic
along Wayzata Boulevard to the east. We had assumed
approximately 95 percent of the traffic generated by the
de-relopment would make a right turn in the morning rush hour.
'thus, approximately 110 vehicles would be eastbound from the
development across the Highway 12 bridge. We ariticinate that at
Ferndale Road, approximately 10 to 15 vehicles woulu turn right
oriented towards the downtown area. Up to five vehicles may also
turn left for access to County Road 6. The volume on Wayzata
Boulevard eastbound would then be approximately 95 vehicles.
We anticipate that approximately 10 to 15 vehicles would turn
north on Highway 101.. We also anticipate that approximately 5
vehicles would turn south on either Broadway, Superior, or
Central. Thus, the thru movement eastbound at the west Highway
101 intersection would be approximately 80 vehicles. With a 90
second average traffic signal system in the rush hour, there
would be less than 2 vehicles per signal cycle passing through
the intersection. Since the backup f1oin the traffic signal
clears on virtually e-ery cycle, the impact of the additional
traffic will scarcely be noticeable.
At the east intersection of Highway 101 and the Highway 12
'31 interchange, we anticipate that approximately 5 cars will turn
left onto Gleason Road and approximately 10 cars will turn right
1 onto Highway 101. This leaves a volume of approximately 60 cars
eastbound thru the it+tersection. This volume of approximately 1
car per minute will have negligible impact on the intersection.
The impact of development traffic on Wayzata Boulevard should be
scarcely noticeable. For the area west of Ferndale Drive, there
is significant capacity available to easily absorb the additional
traffic. In the vicinity of Highway 101 intersections, the
volumes generated by the development will be relatively small
compared to existing volumes. In neither case there should there
be any negative impact on +he system.
Evening rush hour traffic will be more oriented to the Highway 12
intersection west of the development. By making a right turn, it
should have little impact on vehicle flow or traffic capacity.
Similarly, traffic volumes coming thru Wayzata will be verl, small
compared to existing volumes and sho•_jld be absorbed with little
problem.
Nq
El
El
Mr. Drew Jones
August 8, 1988
Pr,ge #3
We hope that this additional information is helpful in the
analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed development. If
you need any additional information, please feel free to call our
office.
Sincerely,
Glen Van Wormer, Manager
Transportation Engineering
Department
GVW/me
ENGINEERS ■ ARCHITECTS ■ PLANNERS
August 8, 1988
EI
222 EAST LITTL E CANADA ROAD, Sr FAW, MINIIE507A .55117 612 484.0272
RE: Lincoln Development
Wayzata Country Club
Wayzata, Minnesota
SEH File No. 88088
Mr. Drew Jones
Lincoln Property Company
1550 Lincoln Center
333 South 7th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
�3
Dear Mr. Jones:
We have discussed the potential installation of a
traffic
signal
at the intersection of Wayzata Boulevard and new Highway
12 west
of the proposed Lincoln Development. We have
expressed our
feeling that such a signal would be unjustified
based
on the
volume of traffic entering the intersection
from
Wayzata
Boulevard.
Installation of a traffic signal is generally based upon traffic
volumes. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
-� has several traffic signal warrants which indicate the volullies
which are required on both the main street and the cross street.
Some of the specific warrants include 1) heavy traffic on both
roadways, �') very heavy traffic on the main roadway, 3) peak hour
traffic, or 4) peak four hour traffic. There are also warrants
based on pedestrian movements, traffic flow in a progressive
signal system and consolidation of access points. in reviewing
the numbers, we did not anticipatE that :.he intersection would
colr,e close to meeting warrants in any but the A.M. peak hour.
The normal procedure for requesting a traffic signal is to have
the municipality in which the intersection lies submit a request
to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). The
Department will then either initiate or request the necessary
studies be mado to indicate the volume of traffic present at the
intersection. Mn/DOT will then r view the data and determine
whether or not a traffic signal is justified.
940#r ELUCr
HENOR'CrSCh
C!-:F vEAAFAL4
a WISCc•VSIN
FU
K-j
Mr. Drew Jones
Auglist 8, 1988
P#2
If Mn/DOT feels that a Signal is justified, they may either
include it in their capital improvement program or permit the
municipality, at its expense, to install the traffic signal.
Mn/DOT has cooperative agreements with municipalities but does
not enter into agreements with private developers for this type
yam'
of work. Thus, Mn/DOT and the City would negotiate an agreement
for installation of the traffic signal and the City would in turn
have to negotiate a developers agreement. Mn/DOT would also
require a maintenance agreement with the municipality which would
provide for municipal responsibility for cleaning, painting,
relamping, and power costs. The intersection appears to lie on
the border of Wayzata and Oreno. If this is the case, an
agreement with both municipalities must be negotiated.
`t� Your phone conversation also requested information on the
potential for operating a signal during only a short period of
time and flashing it during the rest of the day. Stildies of
several intersections which have operated that way have indicated
a significantly higher accident rate than those where traffic
signals were kept in operation. Apparently, drivers fail to
h react to the normal operation when seeing the signals flashing
much of the time. Thus Mn/DOT, and many other agencies, do not
install traffic signals unless they are in operation during the
entire day. Even flashing traffic signals during late night and
early morning hours is a debatable situation with some agencies
having accident records to prove higher accident rates with
flashing signals.
We have not discus,3ed the potential installation with Mn/DOT.
However, we are aware of a number of similar intersections along
high speed expressways where Mn/DOT has expressed a significant
reluctance to ever consider installation of a traffic signal. We
therefore feel that the possibility of signal installation at
this location, especially when based partially on forecasted
traffic volumes, is extremely slim.
If you need any additional information on this, please feel free
to call our office.
GVW/me
Sincerely,
Glen Van Wormer, Manager
Transportation Enginee-ing
Department
0
AMEW'Ai5ef I
ENCINEERS /ARCHITECTS ■PLANNERS ?22 EASrLIIILE CANADA ROAQ Sr PAUL, MINNESOrA 55117 612 4810272
August 10, 1988
Mr. Drew Jones
Lincoln Property Company E.C.W., Inc.
1550 Lincoln Centre
333 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RE: WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB
PROPOSED MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
POTENTIAL US-12/WAYZATA BLVD IMPROVEMENTS
SEH File Number 88088
Dear Mr. Jones:
This letter is a follow-up on our phone discussions yesterday regard-
ing the potential for a number of improvements to the intersection at
Trunk Highway 12 and Wayzata Boulevard. I'm sure that you are
deducing from discussions with Glen Van Wormer and myself that this is
a difficult location to improve. The fact that existing and future
anticipated traffic demands are not high makes it even more difficult
to justify any type of mitigation efforts.
We do agree that access during the morning and evening peak hours will
be a problem for Wayzata Boulevard traffic regardless of its volume.
Traffic in the morning on Trunk Highway 12 will tend to be a constant
stream eastbound within the single lane provided immediately west of
the intersection. Considerable delays will be incurred for vehicles
desiring to enter onto Trunk Highway 12 since a sufficient number of
gaps in the traffic will not be available. This delay will most
likely tend to divert traffic easterly on Wayzata Boulevard which
coincides with our original traffic distribution assumptions.
There are a number of operational characteristics currently in place
which constrain the type of improvements which are possible. Trunk
Highway 12 transitions from a 4-1ane divided freeway to a rural 2-lane
highway in a quarter mile segment of road which includes this inter-
section. Speeds are changing from 55 mph to 45 mph, tapers are intro-
duced to drop 2 lanes in the transition, the transition is o.c•irring
' on a clirve, and there are some other distractions to a driver in this
area due to increased access and all the signage guiding them through
the section. For these reasons, we believe that Mn/DOT would be very
reluctant to add any complexities to traffic control in this area.
1
SW_*T FLOUT Sr CAUL, a ' A
r.fNOps k" INC MINNfSOrA r
The problem, with justifying a signal installation were previously
discussed by Glen. Even if the signal was warranted, considerable
care would be required to alert westbound Trunk highway 12 drivers to
its presence since they would not normally expect a signalized inter-
section to appear on a limited access freeway. The high approach
speeds reduce the reaction time available for a driver to respond to a
traffic signal and any queue of waiting vehicles.
Other potential improvements are also limited. The suggestion of
adding an eastbound acceleration lane in the median to accommodate
entering traffic from Wayzata Boulevar' --uld introduce more confusion
to the area since this would be an ur •ituation of merging slower
moving traffic from an inside lane. installations of this type
do exist in the metropolitan area, but ti,ey were designed a number of
years ago and the experiences with them have not been favorable. We
doubt that such a d?sign would be approved by Mn/DOT today.
Other options such as relocation of the intersection, grade separa-
tion, etc. would be very costly and would not be warranted by the
traffic volumes anticipated.
We would like to reiterate that we do not anticipate the traffic added
by your proposed development to create any noticeable impact on the
operations of Wayzata Boulevard. This may not be the general percep-
tion, however the trips generated by your site arQ a very small
proportion of the overall existing traffic.
We hope this additional informat_o„ will assist you in addressing the
potential for upgrading the intersection of Trunk Highway 12 and
Wayzata Boulevard. If you have any questions or need any additional
information, please call either myself o�: Glen Van Wormer.
RH B/ r qb
CC: Glen Van Wormer
sincerely,
Robert H. Byers, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
2
r I ,o�_
C'
J'
l04-�
04
�p4 1p "0
EN,
�V
_a^v Aije(] u+
any alepula:1
ro
r;
r
3 10
�vw
- �. t^ . � .. v��•' � f• �• • �•� _ ''�Li•r Lam—
j�
i ,•ram.' . ,.rp w• _ � S
Lift
ovi
.w
i��• j ~, ,
-.1 •fi t . r; ?! ' � � � ' . ra
•.r ♦ �.
`v 11NfoMi GEs
--
-JL
17
a � 4P N,.. i • , � � • �-.fir ,�
�
.c*/. N, "o",^n`, Co ,^./.^ ~~_ ...........
a
46P
(11
Is
1.1 NC. is 1. % P It 01' F. R I
Now
Ehlers and Associe�es, Inc.
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE NEWSLETTER
-MONTHLY0PUBLICATION
OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS AND WAUKFSHA • 501 Maiquelle .Avenue • Minneapolis, MA 55402 1255 • 612 339 8291
VOLUME 33, NUMBER 4
F I LE: Financial Specialists: Ehlers and Associates, Inc.
Please distribute to governing body members
SEPTEMBER, 1988
BOND MARKET
While the BBl at 1.69% (20 year q.o. bonds) may seem high. it is much lower than the 13.44% of six
and a half years ago. An encouraging aspect is that the MOB spread (prices of Municipal bonds Over
taxable Treasury Bonds) has turned a point and a half positive.
A recent Credit Markets article attributes better tax-exempt prices to reduced supplies following the
1986 Tay Law ;hanges, which is a point we made in the attached May 23 essay. Another writer
claimed that we shouldn't "trash" the tax -exempts by suggesting that they be lim:tf.d to public
projects. R.', the MOB spread confirms the benefit of reduced supply. Now, if Treasury and Congress
could remove the uncertainties and corn; llexitles as to what is or is not tax -exempt ...?
TAXING OF MUNICIPAL BOND INTERES
The South Carolina case, which said that Congress could tax the interest on state (and local) bonds,
clears the way for future taxes on municipal interest. The Court made its decision acknowledging
that the burden of such taxes actually falls on state and local borrowers and taxpayers. It said
(paraphrasing): "Nevermind the added cost to the states and localities. We've already said that the
federal government can tax other state and local contracts such as leases of state land to private
persons, equipment purchases, and state employees' incomes, even though the burden falls on the
contracting state and local governments. We acknowledge that federal taxation will increase interest
rates by 35%".
We now have a clear judicial recognition that the income tax is passed on to loc&l governments and to
the cost of the services they provide. If true for state and local governments, then it must also be
true for private producers of goods and services. The case thus provides a guide to a more intelligent
policy which recognizes that t )e income tax is embedded in the cost and prices of all goods and
services, - - - which the consumer pays.
13L.IND POUFS
Blind pools of tax exempt bond issues are not a cheap way to finance local improvements.
Comparisons show that most local governments do better be -rowing on their own. If you're
interested we'll be happy to send our analysis.
Blind pools invite ►ocalities to submit wish lists of possible projects tc lock in present "favorable"
interest rates with the promise that, if the local government can find lower cost financing, it need
not borrow from the pool. The pool may not force you to borrow from it, but the IRS is apt to say
that once a project is financed tax-exempt, a community cannot finance it again tax exempt. Thus,
cheaper tax exempt financing may not even be available. Th,. is not addressed in blind pool
proposi t iol ls.
Blind pool financing of projects that may never be financed is not something that state and local
governments should foster since it doubles up the supply of tax-exempt bonds and raises interest
rates for real projects.
What makes blind pool financing "fear )le" is the fact that the proceeds are invested in Guaranteed
Investment Contracts (GIC) which makes the bonds rated "Aaa", a rating not likely to be retained if
localities actually do draw down the proceeds for actual projects.
MINNEEOTA SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Minnesota School Districts are faced with a number of new election regulations including provisions
that limit the setting of fall special electron dates. An unusual number of districts will be voting
October 18.
The new law prescribes that special elections be held not less than 20 days before or 30 days after the
Primary and General Elections. This limits the dates available for districts who wish to vote bonds
(or levy referendun.) and certify a levy prior to October 25 to the following choices: September 13
(primary), October 14, October 1 / or Octot r 19, which is on Tuesday, a traditional voting date.
A special election on the November 8 general election date may allow time to certify the levy if the
District is successful in requesting a 15-day extension beyond the October 25 deadline. But if the
District misses the levy deadline for a bond election, it will be important to consider capitalizing
perhaps one year's interest in the bond issue.
A new Minnesota school facilities levy which is "equalized" can be attractive in that the State may
participate. The purpose is to provide monies for building repair and maintenance, for example,
without competing with educational equipment b,idgets. This lrjy may also 'De substituted for all or a
part of a debt service levy. We will be happy tc explain how the formula works for your district.
EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Robert L. Ehlers
F ounde.r
(�
Carolyn Druue
Director -Vice President
0
S U M M A R Y O F A R E A B 0 N 0 S A L E S
Brand
Met
Buyer
•p„_.,,
OL - THAW 00 lads
Ammrnt
Maturity
Rate
Inds
Lst�
Wtonmrr CASES, S.'D
06106wOR G 0 Ant-pet,m warrants
L1,30op
1989
58L
7 6'S
nA
Oaaalossa
06/06/0 G 0 toprovament Bolds
1,5101
1990-2001
6 991
7 8n
A
Cedes Map,ds C4 S/O
Oi/13/0 G.0 Anticipatory warrants
5.00011
1989
5. Wl,
I lei
wR
MrsNlltann './0
041y1♦ G 0 Mticipalory warrants
3,®5M
1989
S an
t
rA
flortf Scott Came, 5/0
06/'3/M G.0 Ant Icipatary Wrrants
1,29SP
1989
S 9n
7 )81
w
u16anYolr
06/14M G 0 bprouewt gads
SISM
vm-190
6 an
I J8L
A.
MMt Wirer
OV 1A/0 G 0 Mends
loop
1"0-2004
7 60%
7 /86
MR
wtr l m
06,14M G 0 i pro.waent Bonds
S. Mop
1940-2005
7. 2Bt
7 181
Boa
,;edar %W'ds
wIS/SS G 0 Rods
S.SOOPI
1991-`v99
6 an
/ m
Ara
01tM4m 00• S/C
OVISM G 0 Anticipatory warns,,
2,OSop
1909
5. 99%
/ 73L
w
tams ca n S:0
Ovmm 6 0 Ansic,patory warrants
3. IMP
19M
6 001
7 731
MR
e./p,o
06128m G.0 Bonds
)Sop
1990-7006
7 32t
F 13L
MI
On bins Cam College
06/2110 G 0 Antic.patury Wrrants
3, Mop
1989
5 86t
7 731
MR
:.ou. city car VO
06/21M G 0 Ant-wtory warrants
S.Wm
190
5 91%
1. 13L
up
momnt Pleasant
OL/22m G 0 1lpro"mw t Bads
2. SOop
1989-2003
6.91%
1. 13%
A
111nant 01«sant
06/22/0111 Sorer Muene Bones
I,25011
t9B94003
1 2A
7. 131
A
*-at,-
06/71/0 G 0 Cxinor.t. Purpose Bonds
1,06SM
1990-1999
6.Sn
1. 13t
At
Oa-me-t Caen ;10
06/2a/1S a 0 Anticipatory Wrrants
5.0"
19"
5 St
/.In
wa
State of son
07111/88 Litt l ity Sy tows he,rerne Bonds
16,OO101
1990-2013
7. 331,
1 1%
AT
:Sort
0711210 GO Impovwaent Bonds
2001
19W-2004
/ 2n
7. m
M
wayne County
0111210 G 0 Bonds
20"
1990-19"
9 Set
7.1%
not
Decorah
01/M/W G 0 Corporate Nap.- Bonds
9BSM
1990-2003
1 13L
7 In
A
Indiana, Camm, ,/0
01/2S/M G 0 Loan Motes
60511
1989-1994
B.an
7. In
M
n, wwrou
Argyle
O6/OB/BB GO Refund, ng Bands
Atop 1989-2007
7 831.
7 8n
MR
Mnrthf,eld
06/06.'M College Facility Mvnn,e Bads
13,40014
19W 2018
1 981
7 en
AI
Strap Lakes
06ro7/u G C t,br.ry Bonds
1, TOM
1990-2001
7 ass
7 8n
A
' 11.9w
06/01/88 Loan Ant,clpat- Motes
345M
19M
5.811
7 8n
MR
OV I pop G 0 Bads
1. 945M
Iwi-my
1 S81
7 M
Boa
I- .rw 1e,y,ts
OL/13; 88 G 0 loprov-t Bows
2,Orio1
19914005
1.04t
1 7ML
A
Barnes., Ina
OV 13/M G 0 lop, -low ant wfunding bonds
800M
1989-2012
7.an
1 19L
Np
Suu of M, nnwsot.
06/14/8111 G 0 various Purpose Bonds
200,00op
190-2007
6.64t
7 18t
Aa/AA.
Snerb- county
06/14/9r G D Courthmw Bulld,ng Bonds
5PSP
19W-1993
6 09%
T. PBt
A
Staples
06/14/0 G 0 lapovnent bands
1, 19SM
1990-20D4
7. 281
1 m
MR
A)bort., 1 to
06/20/'1101 6.0 Improvement bads
19W
1990-20W
7.23E
1.73%
Mt
Albrt.ille
06/20/18 6.0 Serer L ♦.vr Revenue Sands
21014
1939-2000
1.32%
7./31
MR
1611m, Imar Tuns6-p
06/20/0 G.O. Amon: gal Bu,lding Bonds
BOOR
1990-2003
7.27%
1.731
goal
NNse Bear Township
06/20/IO G 0 Drp�t Bads
53SP
1990-2004
7.2K
1.13E
WI
rn to Ion Tmrnn%b,p
06120/0 G 0 Temporary Improvement Bonds
',r 5P
9`1
2K
7. m
Baal
Rkstinp
06120/10 G 0 taprovoment Bonds
655M
199E .m
. GR
1.13E
A
Gmo, ion
061201a G 0 T-61. I" Inc-, Bond-.
)DON
1991-1991
9.34E
/. 73L
A
6no4k,w
OV20/op G 0 Iapnnrelent Bonds
99op
1990-2004
7. 161
1.13L
A
lmarwnPrn
OL220/BB 6 0 Ref-l'.9 Bonds
1,600
1909-2008
7, SA
1. 73L
Ba
u 5t ►r,
O6/2WW G 0 IAWo axxnt Bads
1.S M
IM-2006
7.1a
I. 13L
A
■,than County
O /21/8B t 0. Ilefumd•nq Improvement Bonds
2,4350
1989-2005
7 %%
7.13%
a"
11m.&AA n0-Boots
M121/op G ;, bpro�t Bads
2,525N
190-Boos
6. A
7. IN
AT
._ „'
1.'2-W v �.. C._. Par mars Purpose bands
S, SOop
I9Bl-2W7
I. S4%
1. 735
Aa/A1,
Oetd Springs
W27108 Go kwwowt Bands
atop
19W-200a
/.34L
7. In
Im
told whrinp
n/27/11111 G 0 Imp mommint Bonds
6501
1990-19"
6.m
1. in
W
I S.0 04n (Matd'nsan)
W27/90 G 0 School Iulld,ng Buono:
a.WA
1991-2005
7.2K
1.11%
A
I�
Bud-
Not
Myer
Alunicmp.11lr
Gate Hof bonds
haant Mori tv
Nate
India
Nat Ind
Dodge Caitar
06/28/88 G.O. Iproroomtnt Bonds
135M 1990-1997
6,M
7. In
cal
St. Anthony
06/28/88 G.O. Revwwe alter System Bands
a7%m 1993
6 SOB
1. )n
A
Ml ington
O 129.'88 G.O. Serge Treatment Bads
1, 15J1 1991
6. 381.
1')n
Bee
Oslo
06/29/88 G.O. Refund, n9 Bonds
1,mm )999--m
a.7A
1.1n
MR
Startutt
OL, 30/BB G.O- Aefunding Bads
4" 1989-2006
7.61%
7.17%
MR
Andover
07/05/88 G'1 Temporary :eprovgnint Bolds
S.D" 1"1
6.4A
7.14%
B.ai
Spring Grove
07/05/88 G.O. Lqv- rot Bonds
685M 1990-B4ob
7.296
1.I4%
Sae
I S.O. 8819 CVUWM)
C"OS/BB G.O. Aid Antic. Carts. of Inlhnt
600M 1989
6.06%
1. 14t
MP
Blue Earth
OVOSM G.O. Tea Increment Bads
700N 1"241008
7.6M
1.74t
Boa
I.S.D. 8141
07/06/98 G.O. Aid Antic. Carts. of Indent.
1, 130H 1999
6.05E
1.74t
MR
(►ayresvi l le)
I S.D a130
07/06/88 G.O. Loan Anticipation Bads
3. AOSR 19W
6. 161,
1.14t
NP
(Moldingfor,:)
I.S.O. 06"
07/07/88 G.O. School Bldg. Bads
3,S5014 1992-2008
1. lab
7.74t
A
(Northfield)
Osseo
07/11/88 6.0. Lprwelent Bonds
555M 1991-2009
I'm
1.15%
Boa
north Branch
01/11/0 6-0. Tea ln�re1lnt Bonds
21504 1990-VU
7.35%
1. 75%
Bee
terth Branch
O7/11/88 G.0 Ieprcmiment gods
IBop 1990- M
7.m
/.755
Bee
S'. Francis
07/11/88 G.O. Aid Antic. Certificates Indent. 3, ABOM 1989
6.36%
7.75%
wP
St. pater
07/11/88 Electric Uti ity Revenue Bards
1501 1990-19;7
6.921
1. 15%
M.
St. Peter
01/11/0 G.O. gwicipol Building Bads
90Op 1991-2007
7. 36L
1.15%
A
St Peter
07/11/88 G.O. hater bvonlnM Bonds
1,675M 1991-2=
7.an
7.75t
A
Cartridge
01/11/88 G.O. BDndt B arts. of IMOPbt.
S60M 1990-1990
6.1n
1.15%
Boa"
Cantor idge
07/I1/M G.O. Gant Anticipation Bads
1,63011 1990
6.31%
7.75%
MR
Buffalo
07/12/98 Taxable G.O. Tan Incr'igorst Bads
305A 1990-1999
9. 46%
1.)5t
Saa'
Buffalo
0111210 G.O. Bands
1.24M 1"0-2004
7 16%
1. lit
Sul
I.S.D. NM (Red Ming)
0711210 G.O. School Building Nomok
3." 1990-2004
7 03L
1.75%
A.
I.S.O. aAat (Mar foldbn)
Ol/12/8B G.O. Aid Antic. Crrts. Indent.
300N 190
6. 40L
1. 151
MR
I.S.O. JIM (Aahtaeedi)
01/l8/88 G.O. School Building Bands
1, IasM 1912-M
7.1A
1.77%
A"/AAA
I.S.O. #Ad
olne/B8 G.O. School Bun ?ding bonds
3.690 191111
7.SK
I.In
Boa
(Thief River Falls)
1p's./St. P. Petro
01/18111111 G.O. Revenue Bonds
51. Isom 1991-01s
7.8M
7. in
Aaa/AM
Airport Commission
lartch,nsm
07/19/80 G.O. blpro t Bads
1,92011 1990-19"
6.11%
7. In
A
I.S.D. B99 (Esko)
07/19/8B G.O. Aid Anticipation Carts.
665" im
6.2e6
1.In
NP
Crow Ming County
07/19/0 G.O. Disposal System Bads
1.Io0A 19904009
1.SOL
1.I7%
A
Cron Ming County
07/19/88 G.O. Grant Anticipation, Buds
1. m1 1"-
6. 19L
1. In
A
I.S.D. 1492 (Austin)
0112O1013 G..O. Aid Antic. Carts. Of Indent.
5.000 1999
6. US
1.17%
w
Duluth
01/2OM G.O. Bonds
2,B25A 1989-M!
7.2M
i.ln
A
- Ilrr
01/2O,88 Taxable G.O. Tea Increment goods
365M 1991-1998
9.39E
1.7n
A
_tori.
01/21/98 G.O. Improvement gads
IS" 1991-2005
1. 49L
7,1n
Batt
.rnesrille
01/25M Telapl- Revenge Bands
6001 19111-tm
1.WL
1.In
NA
1.5.0 8712
07/25M G.O. Aid Antic Farts of indent.
1,2701 110
CM
7. In
MR
(Mountain lydn/guhl)
I S. 0. N99
07/26/88 G.0 School Bun Id, ng Bonds
590M 1990-19M
6.99E
I.in
a-
(LMDy/Ostrander)
I.S.O. 0140
37/26/88 G.0 Aid Antic Carts. of Indent.
"m 1909
6.I2%
l.in
MR
(Taylors Falls)
I S 0 a900
01177tAR G 0 I.rh-I N..ildiny Rrvds
1,O5011 1"1-2002
1 )9L
1 in
Aa.,'1
(LaCrestant)
I.S.O. ^2
07/27/86 G.O. Aid Anticipatim ertifiutes
9/511 1989
6.34
1.77%
MR
(Ortanwille)
►aynesville
01/27/88 G.O. alter Revenue Bads
8W 1990-2009
1.66t
7 7n
Boa
I.S.D. 670111
07/2O/BB G.O. School 9,1ding Bonds
1,OOOP1 1990-20D5
7 101
in
Boa
Goer -Soudan)
i
.Sarah. ibla Iron M rba
.».� ..•,
tLerww
lrsmr.eld
5�1ar Law sw Nst
Lrr..P
e.e. ra' -'y S/o
.eysP to
one, .yta.gC
,/'turns-^ Map,ds
•a'9P"sa one, t.ry L st
lawamM� , e
a.um1 a
,arV.r
am 01c6�hLm
r mtr3�.7r
L a+. La rile
Iammtlaa
C~lmod
30mamM, I I,
aratn+ LA" SOW V
smm,tary Dist
mm,b' Ia Sro
Bad
mat BMy.-
IImemnt PatMrlts P%A 1149• Aat,N
:P/o6/® G 0 (nods
4,8750 1986-2006
' 53%
7 83
A
OL/07/11 G 0 son Dist Pry-ssory totes
3150
1991-1997
; m
7 67%
MA
06/07/66 G 0 y,..,ng Pao: «+',2y Bonds
1,3"
1991 -2000
8 22%
7 87L
A
o6/07/r G 0 Prtfnssory bt.s
3,0"
IW 1997
6 76L
' 87L
ARAt
ob/O9/w (nod Ant,c,pat,Pn rotas
1,00OP
,993
1 3m
7 87%
MP
%/OWN alter a sa m, system wtgap,
'Bonds
1,2850
1989-2006
8 06%
7 97%
MP
6 venue
a!/097 G ') 'otes
2,000M
IM-20M
7 an
1 BR
A16AC
0W IVII1 G.O Corporate Purpose goods
I AMM
1989-2007
7.34
7 i8L
MR
W i4m G.0 ►ransso-y Motes
a,"Sol
1990-1996
6 SR
7. m
AIBAC
W 14M G 0 ►ror,sory Motes
2,)"
1989-1998
6-69L
1. 78L
A
06/15/w SW,al AssesaWt 8 Buds
1,43SP
M-19%
7.31L
1.78L
ma
%/" G 1) ►rant story Motes
72571
1989-1996
7. in
1. m
MP
A/2an ,IAter systam Mortgage Pe,renMe Buda
45SP
19W 20CA
7.51%
1. m
MP
06.127/11 GO Prati story rotes
SOON
1989-1993
6 :R
1. 77%
A
06/27/8D Later a same. L7t,l;ty oev.nue Bonds
!.6"m
1990-20%
7.91L
1.7R
au I
OV2:M G.0 Promissory gates
32M
1"1-1997
6 67%
/.71L
A
%/" Bad Ant, c,pat;on Notts
1,60M
1993
6.\tL
7. 17%
MP
07/OS/i G 0 promissory notes
I,OSM
1996-1997
6 ?a
1. 7aL
07/p;/be Elamrly honing lortgW Pas bonds
/00P
1991 ZO13
8 66%
1.741
M6
,7/11/yr G 0 corpor.ta Purpose bonds
6, 1lop
1989-1998
6 56L
1.75%
A
07 11/= G 0 iap�t hods
2.9"
199o-200e
7 61%
1. MS
•
07; 1u88 GO School Building 'a• Bads 2,600P 1991 ,'•008 7 49% 7 15%
carp 001:< Will
(a, 14,00 First Pprt"g, Pe,renLm Bones
0ryto,
06/27to Aer,eding uprourmnt bonds
G..Ito,
ON27/H1 Go M;gtwy Bonds
Groton
o6/27/0 A,N,.d;,sS Upr-~t bond-
Last .-o. S/0 a
06/26/OB Lim;ted 7.• School building bads
b, 7vtt,
a7/05/M MwA;ng Lpro.ernt bonds, O
6, srca
C'/06/! G.d 3u4prnt r',Md,ng
B1,•artt
01/Osm beud,ng Lpr ga nt. .x-0
s 2SOP
19tl9-2000
6 /OL
7. 767E
M6/AM
3"
1989-200(1
7 ,2L
1. 17L
■
VW
1989-2003
7 1%
7.17%
A
190
1999-2003
7 039
7. 11L
A
2. 250P
1990-2003
7 47%
7.rn
s..
2.9150
1990-2003
6.68L
1. YAL
As
600P
1989-1996
E AL
1. M
A6
3SSP
1990-1998
6 MA
7. ML
AS
7701 COUNTY ROAD 1,10 W ■ MINNETRISTA, MINNESOTA 55364 ■ 446-166C
August 17, 1988
Mark Bernhardson
City Administrator
City of Orono
Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Mark:
Please express the appreciation of the Minnetrista City Council
to Orono's Council for their support in the legal challenge of
the Laws of Minnesota 1988 Chapter 686, Section 2 as evidenced
by your Resolution 2471 adopted on July 11, 1988.
Thank you for sending a copy of the resolution fir our files.
Sincerely.
Charlotte Pi`erson
Administrator/Clerk
CP:slq
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
7:00 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A G E N D A
Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 24, 1988
Tonka Bay Village Hall
4901 Idanitou Road, Tonka Bay
F
Public Hearing - Deicing Code Review §2.09 2 31 �I
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Comments - items f:om persons in attendance not on agenda
4. Reading of Minutes, approval, June 22, 1988
5. Communications
A. DNR Permanent Rules for Water Aeration Permits - excludes deicing
B. DNR proposed revision to MINNESOTA'S SHORELAND MANAGEMENT RULES
6. Reports
A. Special Board assignments: Pone
B. Treasurer
(1) Budget Report, quarter ending 6-30-88
(2) Financial Condition for month ending 7-31-88
C. Standing Committees
(1) WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT
(a) Seton Place dock plan
(b) City of Wayzata municipal dock plan
(c) Wayzata Yacht Club District Mooring Area amendment
(d) Code Amendment foe Temporary no-t, Ext-nsion to include District
Mooring Area extensions
(e) Takhar residential development re,lir_iple dock plan
(f) uNR dredging permits in questi:•n - Libbs Lake south end
(g) Fee Schedule Cimmi^_tee re -appointment and authorization to
review fee claisif'cations, legal fee applicability, and appli-
cant interim billings; and to recommend appropriate adjustments
(h) Code amendment for frontage measurement for new dock construction,
recommending point-to-point measurement, with a public hearing
to review plan, set implemen` .1
(i) Code amendment for common use of adjacent dock -use -area for
single family residences
(j) Deposit/Application Fee Refund recommendations
1) Water Club West, fee refund of $1,000 less charges of $28.83
publicity, $16.00 legal, and $150.00 administrative; and
deposit refund of $100
2) Minnetonka Power Squadron fee reduction, refund of $500
3) Noelting dock license ref:ui.. of $225, less $50.00 adminis-
trative, in favor of City of Wayzata as new dock applicant
4) Fred Badiyan, Greenwood, permanent dock deposit, $100
5) Eric Pauljon, Orono, permanent dock deposit, $100
6) DMA deposit refunds of $100: Cite of Deephaven, City of
Excelsior. Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Minnetonka Yacht
Club, and Wayzata Yacht Club
(more)
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Agenda, August 24, 1988, Page 2
6. C. Standing Committees (cont)
(2) LAKE USE
(a) License applications
1) Al & Alma`s - Irer. & Wine; minors' incident
2) Executive Charters - Liquor, transfer to Executive Charters
(b) Certificate of Registration -applications, Watercraft for Hire:
1) Seanote
2) Half Note
3) Music Man III
4) JRT's Custom Cruises
(c) Jennings Bay/West Arm Quiet Waters request
(d) Code Amendments
1) Enforcement by Special Deputies
2) Sale of Strong Beer at establishments licensed to sell beer
and wine
(e) Inspection reports, deposit refunds
1) Minnetonka Bass Club
2) Shrine Skippers
3) Lake Masters Swim Club
4) Americana Fireworks Display
(f) City of Deephaven resolution prohibiting launching of personal
watercraft from city property in Quiet Waters area
(g) Wa'!r Patrol Report (informational)
(h) Lake Use Study, 1988 and ten-year summary (informational)
(i) Special Event Permits - New
1) Viking Bassmasters of Minnesota, Oct. 2
D. Special Committee
(1) Advisory Committee - proposed ameniment to Arndorfei associates
contract re documentation for paym;:nt
E. Executive Director'3 priority exchanges, progress
7. Unfinished Business
A. Personnel report, Executive Director retirement
B. idditional unfinished business recommended by the Directors
8. New Business
A. Pr-,c.ations for selection of new officers
B. Proposal for rescheduling "Dock" and Jake Use Committee meetings
C. Additional new business recommended by the Directors
9. AudiL of vouchers for paymert (per separate list)
10. Adjournment
8-19-8a
Administrative Notes
The return of the Maplr. Plain School to school district use is a
complicated story. It began with a serious overcrowding
proble,n on the central campus and tesulted in eminent domain
litigation this summer. It included study of the enrollment and
educational program needs faced by the school district and our
unsuccessful efforts to negotiate a resolution prior to gong to
court.
What is less complicated, however, is the educational benefit this
facility will have for our students. Let me offer a few examples.
Adequate classroom space will be available for all grade levels.
This means that elementary level music and art rooms will not be
connected to regular classrooms. It means that space is available
for special education and parenting programs. It means that we
can res find to increasing class size. In the past 4 was not
possible to add a section when class size rose because another
classroom was not available. For the same reason computer
laboratories were not part of the elementary progamt,. 1�01puter
laboratories; will now be installed at both the Mapi,; Blain site
and Schumann Elementary School.
Additionally the kindergarten program will no longer be housed
in the Intermediate :Middle School building - a situation which
had developed because of crowding. These classrooms will now
be available for the expanding errs ,:lment and program needs of
the Intermediate/Middle School.
In determining how best to use the Maple Plain site, every
possible situation was researched and considered. The final
nalysas made it clear that the District was best served by
;reaung a primary school (grades K and one) on the Maple Plain
site. The school will be named the Orono Primary School. It
will be under the able direction of Mrs. Dar Whiumn, long time
elementary teacher with the Orono Schools.
B} hc)ustng ail kindergarten ;r ,' first grade students (excluding
first graders ahem:ml: the ungrauzd program i at a single s4tooi,
we will be able l).reate an alilwoprute enstronment for our
soungeu uudenu and mare easily Io..us our rexwrces on their
needs and expatutons !► is a great oprxvrtunitv anti the faculty I
ORONO SCHOOL BJARD
David McKown, Chairman
479-1692
Don Anderson, Vice Chairman
479-1810
Lucie Taylor, Treasurer
473-1189
Kitty Crosby, Clerk
478-6037
Jim Franklin, Director
47�o .:1?'
John Maresh, Director
47' -3197
�)--I'AUG26Z
and administration is excited about the potential that exists for
the Orono Primary School.
Alor ; with the decision to create the Orono Primary School, it
was also necessary to announce changes in the school day
schedule for 1988-89. These changes were necessary because
the existing bus schedule no longer worked for many elementary
students, creating a long wait for bus transportation at the end of
the day. The changes -,.ere also necessitated by the need to
service the Orono Primary School and to improve the elementary
school day.
The elementary school day was the same length as the high
school day because of the busing schedule. In responding to a 6
1/2 hour day, elementary teachers went without sufficient
preparation time, lunch time was lengthened and recesses added
because the day was too long for our ycungest learners. The
revised schedule (6 hou- day) will contain the same amount of
instructional time, provide adequate preparation time for
teachers, and be more sensitive to the wherewithal of young
children.
All of this has .tot been without frustration or problems. For
some of us substantial change is uncomfortable and alters the
structure we have depended upon. Specific cha.i.es can even
cause distress as families balance home and school schedules,
worry over the welfare of their children, and face the pressure of
change. The stress and difficulties these changes may cause to
individual families is indeed regrettable. Our pledge is that we
will monitor and supervise the "glitches" and difficulties which
plague change and the opening of school.
The frustrations are all the more regrettable because the approval
for these changes by the board of education was a departure from
the Districts modus c►nerandL Typically there are opportunities
fnr parental input, for open hearings, for a consultative approach
to decision making. The return of the Maple Plain site to the
school district was integr. ; 'te schedule changes. The
litigation and circumstances surrounding that return did not
permit open discussion pr ,r to July 21, 1988. Faced with the
Herculean task of opening a new school and implementing a
school and bus schedule in a little more than one month did not
permit the fund of parental involvement we all would have liked.
Cont. on laage h
1 1 l t JIM ORRIM5111forMoRtm
First Fall College Entrance Test Dates:
ACT- October 22, 1988 Registration Deadline: 9/23/88
SAT: November S. 1988 Registration Deadline: 9/30/88
Next Test Dates:
ACT. December 10, 1988 Registration Deadline: 9/11/88
SAT: December 3, 1988 Registration Deadline: 10/28/88
SAT & ACT Test Preparation
Orono High School students who plan to take the Scholastic
Aptitude Test have several opportunities to prepare for the test
using resouro available at the High School. Test dates and
applicatiice, Am2le
=W available, There are
preparation manuals available for use by students. In addition,
the high school has software for their micro -computers that help
students prepare for taking the SAT and include numerous
sample tests. The guidance office also can act as a clearing
house to inform students about resources outside of our school
district that might help in preparing for college entrance
c..aminations. There are a number of non-profit z s well as profit
making organizations that provide resources of this nature.
Freshman and New Student Orientation
All new students and incoming ninth graders are invited to an
orientation session to be held in the high school auditorium
Thursday, September 1, 1988 at 1:00 pm. All new students to
the high school will be introduced to faculty and administration
and will be given information that will help get 'ate school year
off to a positive start. This will include information about
classes, how the mod schedule works, discipline policies,
location of rooms and offices in the high school, and how to read
your fall schedule of classes.
Senior Parent Ninht
Parents of senior students are invited to an informational
meeting on Monday, September 26 at 6:30 pm in the high
schrool auditorium. The topics cov—ed will include general
information you wi!1 need in preparing to send your son or
daughter off to college or other post secondary institutions.
Ia:-rrnation regarding school selection, various deadlines,
re �)urce information, entr—.,e testing, and financial aid will be
discussed. This meeting will be held the same evening as our
traditional back to school night. We will be ending in time for
you to go directly to your students first hour elms at 7:15 pm.
Senior CulleLe Visits
Seniors should be aware that a pre -visit form needs to be
obtained from the Guidance Office and filled out QrjjU to making
a college visit during school hours. Failure to complete this
form will result in an unexcused absence.
000000000000000000000000
If anome s interested it, enrolling a student to the Delta Dental
Plan. piei.e contact any %c himl office for an enrollment corm.
110
An organizational meeting will be held on Thursday, August 18
at'1 p.m. to the High School Gym to assign lockers, explain team
toles and hand out conditioning week schedules. Conditioning
week is mwidatory for all players wi'`•out exception. You should
be able to go a minimum of 5 miles', -.tore this week begins.
Conditioning week starts at 6:30 a.m. Monday, August 22nd.
You must be on the field and ready at this time so come earlier.
The school will be open by 6:00 a.m.. There will be 2 sessions a
day. The evening session will begin at 4:30 pm. You must have
your own soccer ball (size 5), your own shin guards (with foam
and hard plastic front) and a pair of soccer shoes and, of course,
clothes for all types of weather.
Any questions, please feel free to call Lowell Seashore at 938-
6123 daytime or 479-2859 evenings.
000000000000000*00000000
Per Citizen's Committee
The State of Minnesota it '976 passed legislation entittPd,
"Planning, Evaluating, Reporting." PER is a process for
curriculum evaluation and planning for continued improvement
of the educational program for all public school children.
This is an invitation to community members who would like to
serve on this committee. Its respLnsibiliLies are Lo review the
process used in Orono, review the results of the questionnaires,
and to provide advice therefrom. if you are inw - ^d in serving
on this committee for two years (two to three mec_ags per year).
please call Ron Gilbert at 473-7301.
-ee;A
Transl2ortation Reimbursement for
lion -Public School Students
Parents of non-public students who reside to the School District
may make application for reimbursement of within District
tra,tsi orauon costs. The Orono District Office administers the
progt zm and all payments are matte directly to the school
attended. The non-public school uses the funds either to defray
bus transportation :osts or reimburse parents for car expense.
All applications are made through the non-public school on
forms provided by the District Office.
Any family having students attending a non -pint tip school for the
first time this year or addiuonul students to he uansported,
should notify their school officials.
✓�
The following schedule of lunch prices has been approved by the
School Board for the 1988-89 school year.
Grades 1-3 ...... ... ... 10lunch tickets $10.00/single $1.05
Grades 4-8 . ........... .5 lunch tickets $5.50/single $1.15
Grades 9-12 ............. 10lunch tickets $11.50/single $1.25
Adults ................. 10 lunch tickets S17.50/single $1.75
Milk, Chocolate & White ........................... $.20
Malts............................ .............. $.25
Reduced price ticket (all grades) - $.40
Kindergarten - milk and/or juice & snack - S17.50 or $8.75
semester.
At Orono Primary and Scl, umann Flementary all students are
served cafeteria style. At the Middle School, the popular "mini"
naiad bar will be continued as a supplement so that students may
substitute fresl, ,egetables for the vegetable offered with the
basic lunch. Cl. eese, croutons and salad dressing will be
available. The soup and sandwich menu will be continued at the
Middle School as a second choice. The High School will 13C
continue to offer the same three choices - basic lunch, salad bar
and malt/hamuurger/french fries.
A special invita'ion is extended to senior citizens to participate
in the lunch program at any time. If there are to be more than
six in a group, a reservation should be made in advance. Please
call either Gertie Corpe, Food Service Director (473-7313, Ext.
210) or the head cook at the school you wish to visit.
1988-89 Free or Reduced Price Meals
The Orono School District has announced its Policy for Free and
Reduced Price Meals for children unable to pay the full price of
meals ser ed under the National School Lunch Program. The
followin, household size and income criteria will be used for
dete"ining eligibility:
FREE MEALS
Household size
Yearly Monthly
Weekly
1
$ 7,501 S 626
$145
2
10,049 838
194
3
12,597 1,050
243
4
15,145 1,263
292
1;
17,693 1,4175
341
20,24', 1,687
390
22,789 1,900
439
t
25,337 2,112
488
-or each additional household mer•her, add:
+2,548 +213
+49
REDUCED PRICED MEALS
Household size
Yearly Month'-
Weekly
1
$10,675 $ 8%
S206
2
14,301 1.192
276
3
17,927 1,494
345
4
21,551 1,797
41.5
5
25,179 2.099
485
6
28,805 2,401
554
7
32,431 2.703
624
b
36,057 3,005
694
ror arh additional hourr.hold member, add:
+3,626 +3103
+70
Chikiren from ^
uehoids who.,e , at of below the
levels ju)wn are
eligible for free or redL-thl price meals.
K
Application forms are being sent to all homes with a letter to
parents or guardians and an income scale. To apply for free or
reduced price .meals, households should fill out the fort and
return it to tht school. '.dditional copies of the application forr.i
are available at the lancipals office in each school. Households
should answer ,- . appli,;ahle questions on the form.
ApplicationF .oust contain one of the following sets of
information afore they ca.. ;e processed by the school:
(1) N.-irne, :A hoc-(, and grade for each child applying,the AFDC
case number "or each child and the signature of an adult
household memtk,: arm ghat are required to complete the
application;
(2) Name, school, am. ride for each child plus the ACTIVE
food stamp case nE•mN , for the household and signature of an
adult household menf. will also complete the application;
(3) Without AFDC or food stamp case numbers, applicants may
supply name, social security numbers For household members 21
years of age or older (or the word "NONE" for any adult
household member who does not have a social security number),
amount, and source of income phis the signature of an adult
household member.
The 'iformation provided by the household is confidential and
will be used only for the purpose of determine. . eNgibility and
verifying date. Application may be verified by the school or
other officials at any time during the school year.
If children are approved for free. or redua.d a meal benefits,
the household must immediately report any inc. rases in
household income over $50 per month ($600 per year) and
decre 'ses in household size to the school. If a food stamp cage
number or AFDC number is listed, the Thous hold must tell the
school when food stamps or AFDC payments are not longer
received
Households may apply for benefits at any time during the school
year. If a household is nor, rrently eligible but has a decrease
in household income, an increase in household size or if a
household member become unemployed, the household should
fill out an application at that time.
In certain cases foster children are eligib,, . )r free or reduced
price meal berefits-egardle-s of the household's income. If a
household has foster children living with them and they wish to
k., for free or reduced price meals, the household should
cuinact the school for more information.
Under the provisions of the policy, Lynda Meador will revic-
applications and detorrrunc c!itjihility. Parents or guardians
dissatisfied with the n;iing of the official may wish to discuss
0,! decision with that official on an informal basin. The
.household also has the right to a fair hearing. This can be done
by calling or writing the following c fficial: Mr. William
Fer hiAt, G85 Old Crystal Bay Road, Long Lake, MN 55356
o 12, '73-73' 3. Each school and the District Office have a copy
of the complete pt,licy, which may h . z-viewed by an interested
pay.
In the operation of oti..1,ild feOing programs no child will lie
d:scnimnatrd against on the bw- of race, color, natanal cng.in,
.W,e, sex, or t.andicap ii any mert,b: r o, a household bel.cme
tt:at have oven disCnnunated against, the should waste
rimediately to the Secrctar\ of %gnculture, Washington D.C.
20250
School Supplies - Orono Primary Sr Schumann Elementary 1988-89
The teachers have compiled a list of supplies by j- ade level which he hope will guide you in purchasing
supplies you wish to furnish for your child's school year.
PLEASE PUT NAMES ON ALL ITEMS
Kindergarten
S . hool bag with name
Box of tissues
Crayons - 8 or :6 count
Grade 1
1 piece of oil cloth (18"x24")
1 large box of tissues
Tennis shoes for gym use
Paint shirt - an old shirt with sleeves cut short
name across shoulder
tio. 2 pencils
tons
,vered plastic container - pint size
)ft pencil erasers
1 - b oz. bottle of white glue
School box - cigar box size - plastic if possib►.
3 pocket folders (NO Trapper)
1 old T shin with name in large letters on front
& back (for gvm & music teacher to learn.
names)
Magic markers WATER SOLUBLE ONLY -
optional
2 old socks (to use as an eraser)
1 glue stick
Scissor
2 stic. ::.to I -ling clay
I scotca tape
1 box 42" paper fasteners
I spiral notebook - wide rulev
1 ha.' of kniting worsted yar , - any color
1 box of water colors
rade 2
Crayon _ c(%L:ra
10 No. 2 pencils
Soft eraser
box of tissues
School ' ,,,: sturdy one please
Tennis shoe or gym use
3 folders with pockets
I -4 oz. bottle of white glue
2 red felt tip pens
Old T shirt with name in large letters on front
and back
Marking pens WATER SOLUBLE ONLY
Sctsgurs - pc. ted
I old clean white sock
l spiral notebook - wide rr.;ied
4
Grade 3
10 No. 2 pencils
1 red pencil, I blue & 1 black pen
Soft erasers
ring wide -lined paper
I small box tissues
6 pocket folders
Tennis shoes for gym use
Paint shirt with name written across back
shoulder
Plastic zipper pocket or school b -Y
1 - 4 oz. bottle of wtiite glue
Crayons - 24 count
3sors - pointed
1 spiral notebook for Journal Writing
Colored pencils - optional
Magic markers WATER SOLUBLE ONLY -
optional
Old T-shirt with name in large letters on front
& back (for g ) m e- music, teacher to learn,
names)
i .gr! +^d
.)cket folders to carry papers
U No. 2 pencils
I large box of tissues for classroom use
1 - 4 oz. bottle of white glue
Erasers
Paint shirt with , +me across back shoulder
n marker
Tennis shoes for ;ym .
Crayons
Markers WA'"ER SOLUBLE ONLY
Wide-li. -,ci .piral notebook - Gr. 1 after
Wirter Break
2 wide -lined spiral notebooks -
3 wide-litied spiral notebooks - Or 3
1 red felt tip r
Scissors - pointed
2 old socks - Gr. I &. I
Old T-shirt with name in large letters, - `rant
& hark (for gym & music teacher to ,..-m
namt
I three s0-!e( < ,-Rebook - Q. �.
Memorial Blood Center to be in Orono Community on
Wednesday, September 28, 1988
The Memorial Blood Center of Minneapolis will be in the Orono Community on Wednesday, September 29,
1988. It will be held at the Schumann Elementary Cafetorium 2:30 to 7:00 pm. All members who have not
donated for three years are asked to donate and anyone wishing to g: ve or join the donor club are welcome.
You are eligible to donate if you are 17 years of age and may continue to donate to your 73rd birthday. Before
you donate you will be asked about your health and medical history by a trained interviewer. Your temperature,
blood pressure, pulse and hemoglobin wili be determined. The purpose of this examination is twofold:
1. To be sure you are not likely to be harmed by giving blood.
2. To be sure your blood is unlikely to harm the patient who receives it.
If you think that there is any risk that your blood could cause harm to a recipient because of AIDS or any
disease carried by blood, such as hepatitis, malaria or syphilis, please voluntarily defer yourself from donating
blood. All information you provide will be confidential.
If you need more information about donating or becoming a member please call JoAnn Ree, 473-5472 Ext..
227. Should you have a specific question regarding your health, call your doctor or the Memorial Blood Center
at 871-3300.
If you wish to update your enrollment, discontinue or become a new member please fill out the slip below and
send to JoAnn Ree, Orono High School, 795 Old Crystal Bay Road., Long Lake, MN 55356
Name Address Phone
I wish to become a member of the Orono Community Blood Donor Club
—which entitles my farnily to transfusion coverage.
—I wish to continue to be a member, what is my status'
_ I wish to have my name removed from the Orono Community Donor Cut.
_ Member list dependents (If unmarried, you may list parents.)
5
Junior Class Magazine Sales Drive
Kids' Clothing and Etc. Sale
The Orono High School Junior class will have their annual
magazine sales dr ve to help support the Junior -Senior Prom
from Septembe, 21 to October 3. This is the only fund-raising
activity by the Juniors who receive 40% of their sales as profit.
Subscriptions to almost every magazine published and many
records are available and prices are the same as are available
thmugh other sources. "Special offer" coupons from other
suppliers will be honored as well. This means a large percentage
of the regular subscription price is kept in the community. If you
are not approached by a Junior during t_`ie drive, you may call the
high school office and leave a message. Thank you for your
support.
Barbara Jacoby, Head Sponsor, Junior Class
000000000000000000000000
f he libraries at Schumann Elementary and Orono Primary
School at Maple Plain are again in need of volunteers. The only
requirement for being a volunteer is willingness.
Volunteer duties include carding books, filing book cards,
shelving books, assisting students with library projects (book or
audiovisual), helping students with Bookmate (sharing)
activiies. Training will be provided during the first week of
school.
Each volunteer is asked to devote one morning (8:00 - 11:30) or
one afternortn (1 t:30-2:30) each week to the project. Some
volunteers elect to share a position, alternating every other weeV,
and we will be happy to hear from those interested. If you can
help, please call Evelyn Haas 471-9878, or Maxine Dunlap 471-
7661, or leave a message with ,he Schumann Elementary office
at 473-7317.
Parents of preschool age children who would be willing to share
a morning or afternoon volunteer shift and exchange child care
on volunteer days can call Maxine or Evelyn for help regarding
this option.
We encourage and welcome senior citizen participauon!
0000000000000000%10000000
Administration Notes Cont.
As a result of this situa::on, the announced changes may well
have surprised parents and appeared autocratic. Only because of
the circumstances of the litigation and the pressure of time was
the departure from the usual consultative approach tolerated.
As the oppressing heat of this summer continues, which began
during the final weeks of the last school year, the thought of fall
and the start of school is all the more inviting. The sta. • of a
new school year is always an exciting time for students and
teachers alike. 1t is a starting ume, a beginning, a time for new
experiences. It is a ume of plans, promises, and goals. May this
sch<wl year be a sausfying and growth -filled time for all of our
mudents.
6
The Early Childhood and Family Education department is
sponsoring a sale of ised infant through teen sized clothing,
maternity clothing, toys, and baby equipment on Saturday
September 17 from 9:00 am to 2:00 pm at Schumann
Elementary School. All clothing will be arranged by size to
facilitate easy shopping. Interested sellers can pay a S2
registration fee and pick up tags at Schumann Elementary on
Tuesday, August 30 and Wednesday August 31 from 10:00 ,un
to noon and on Thursday Sept. 1 apd Friday Sept- 2 from 1:00 -
3:00 pm. Sellers will be required to work a 2 hour shift during
the sale. Times may be scheduled when you pick up your tags.
A 15% commission on all sales will be used to purchase
equipment for the Early Childhood and Family Education
department. For further information, or if you would like to
donate items to the sale, please contact Mitzi Overland at
Schumann Elementary 473-7317.
000900000000000000000000
All parents and interested parties are urged to attend the Orono
Baseball/Softball Association meeting on September 15 at 7.30
pm in the Orono Middle School Cafeteria.
11 3hr
r Q NORTH SHORE
GYMNASTICS
` ASSOCIATION
C� y A �`\C-3
NOW UNDER CONS M C nON
* NEW LARGE GVKVASILN,
In Grand Trarrmotm
42 Foot Bar Rama
Vaiilt and Twi*q Pm
Pact %=4 Roan
t Rogrs�e Roam (Q Bas and Geb Presrfnd tt.. � Sdnd
t Aeum Unk"rg br Tees ,rd A"
t Reihw lasses B?grra9 at IN Nads
t LSCF and USAIGC '.a Vww Teens
FAIL ASSES BELLY Sff7E%Q ® ;7M
Cd14; >.319r t 471d4Q7 t 476t552
an jai Bkd
in Lams idea
No to Sak%a .4t SnWi
9/21 H.S. Cunera Art Pictures
District .activities
8/8 Board Meeting - M.S. Vocal Music Room.. . 7:00 pm
8/29 All Teacher Workshop
9/6 Classes Begin
9/12 Board Mccung - M.S. Vocal Music Room ... 7:00 pm
9/26 Board Mccung - M.S. Vocal Music Room ... 7:00 prr.
9/28 Orono Bloodmobile -Schumann Elem.. ... 2:30 pm
Flementary Activities
8/30
Elem/IS PTA Bd. Mtg. S.E. Library ........
7:15 pm
9/2
Kindergarten Visitation Day
9/8
Elem. Parent A.C. Intensive Phonics Prog.
S.E. Caf tcria...................7:00
pm
9/15
Elem. "Know Your School" Night .........
7:00 pm
Elem. New Parents Meeting ..............
8:30 pm
9/20
Elem. September Birthday Party
9/22
Girl Scout Recruitment Night
9/28
Elem. Camera Art Pictures
JntertnediateAliddle School Activities
8/30 Elein./IS PTA Bd. Mig. S.E. Library ........ 7' 15 pm
9/13 I.S. Open House ........................ 7 15 lain
9/20 I.S./M.S. Camera Art Pictures
9/22 Girl Scout Recruitment Night
High School Activities
9/1
Football - New Ulm - H..................7:30
pm
Boys Soccer at Mahtomedi ...............4:00
pm
Girls Soccer at St. Louis Park
Girls Tennis at DeLaSalle ................
4:00 pm
9/3
Boys Soccer - Minnetonka - H ............
4:00 pm
9/6
Boys Soccer - Minnehaha - H .............
7:00 pm
Girls Soccer at Mound ...................4:00
pm
Girls Tennis - Centennial - H .............
4:00 pni
9/8
Volleyball at Farmington .................7:30
pin
Boys Soccer at Breck ...................
4:00 pm
Girls Soccer - Blake - H.................
4:00 pm
Girls Tennis - Farmington - H .............4:00
pm
9/9
Football at Mahtomedi ..................
4:00 pm
9/10
Girls Tennis at Breck Inv .................
9:00 am
9/12
Volleyball at Mound ....................
7:30 pm
Girls Soccer - Minnetonka - H.............5:00
pm
Girls Tennis at Mahtonedi ...............
4:(X) pm
9/13
Volleyball - Waconia - H ................7:30
pm
Boys Soccer at Blake ...................
4:0O pm
Girls Soccer at Breck....................4:00
pm
9/14
Girls Tennis - Minnehaha ................
4:00 pm
9/15
Volleycvill - Centennial - H ...............7:30
pin
Girls Soccer - St. Paul Academy - H........
5:00 pin
9/16
Football at Centennial ..................
7:30 pm
Girls Tennis - Blake - H .................
4:00 pm
9/17
Boys Soccer - Mahtomedi - H.............7:00
pm
Girls Tennis - Orono Inv. - H..............9:00
am
9/19
Girls Soccer at Viwation ................
5:00 pm
Guls Tennis at St. Agnes .................
4:00 pm
9/20
Volleybull at Brock .....................
7:30 pm
Boys Soccer - Apple Valley - H .... .....
7:00 pm
Girls Soccer at M;ihtomedi . .............4:00
,,m
9/21
GuIs Tennis - Breck - H .......... .....
4 (0) pin
7
Jr. Class Magazine Sales Kick tiff
9/22
Volleyball - St. Anthony - H ................7:30
pm
Boys Soccer at St. Agnes ... ...........
.4:00 pm
Girls Soccer at Nlinnehaha ....
.. 4:00 pm
9/23
Football - DeLaSalle - H ...................7:30
pm
Girls Tennis at Brooklyn Center .............4:00
pm
9/24
Boys Soccer - Chaska - H ..................7:00
pm
Girls Soccer - Wayzata - H. ...............11:00
am
Girls Tennis at Edina Metro ...............
9:00 am
9/26
H.S. Senior Parents Mtg. - Aud..............6:30
pm
H.S. Back to School Night ....... .........
7:15 pm
Girls Soccer - St. Cloud - H ................
5:00 pm
9/27
Volleyball - Blake - H .....................7:30
pm
Girls Tennis Conference Tournament
9/28
H.S. College Fair
Girls Tennis Conference Tournament
9/29
H.S. Collegz Fair
Volleyball at Mahtomedi ...................7:30
pm
Boys Soccer at Mound .....................7:00
pm
Girls Soccer - Breck - H ...................
4:15 pm
9/30
Football at Brooklyn Center . ...............7:30
pm
Girls Soccer - Mound - H ..................
4:00 pm
0000000000000000000000000
(gun Safety Training Class
A Gun Safety Training Class will begin in early August sponsored
by the Long Lake Chamber of Commerce. Clvscs will be held at
the Orono Shopping Center. Contact Bill Wear or Keith Stjles for
further information.
0000000000000000000000000
Orono Youth Hockey Registr�tion�
The Orono Youth Hockey Association will take registrations from
6:00 - 8:00 pm Thursday, September 22, in the cafeteria of the
Oror-o High School. There will also be a used hockey equipment
sale.
The Orono Hockey Program offers six levels of hockey
instruction to boys and girls ranging in age from preschoolers to
teens. The Instruction Mite level, designed for the novice skater.
gives 4 to 8 years olds the opportunity ,o !cam how to skate while
learning basic hockey skills. The Mite level concentrates on
hockey skills and games for 6 to 8 year olds. rnumcuonal Mites
is a prerequisite. Other levels include: Squirts 119-10 years); Pee
Wee (11-12 years); Bantam (13-14 years); Midget (15-16 years).
For more information on the Orono Hockey Program call
473-8710. m
Board Action Review
• Directed that a letter be sent to Woods Academy
rejecting their proposal dated May 4, 1988
• Directed the Superintendent and Counsel to set out
terms of a counterproposal to be presented to the
Orono Board of Education for approval at its
regularly scheduled meeting on May 9, 1988.
Regular Meeting - May 9. 1988
• Approved a resolution authorizing a counter-offer
to Woods Academy, Inc., for the Maple Plain
Elementary School site.
• Approved the appointment of Mrs. Marjorie Gasch
to serve a two year term on the Intermediate
District #278 Board of Educa ion as the
representative from the Orono Schools.
Regular Meeting - May 17. 1988
• Approved a resolution determining the necessity
for and authorizing the acquisition of certain
property by proceedings in eminent domain.
• Authorized administra:ion to take bids on the
replacement of the roof on the East, 1961 Addition
to the middle school.
• Approved the School Board election returns.
Elected for three-year terms: Dave McKown and
Lucie Tavlor.
Regular Meeting - .lune 13. 1988
• Directed) the Board Chairman and administration to
accept low bids on sumnier work including
carpeting, roof replacement and track resurfacing
prior to the July board meeting.
• Called for bids on milk and relaied dairy products
for the 1988-89 school year.
IT Approved the seniors for graduation as presented
by the Orono High School administration.
• Placed seasonal employees on leave of absence
during the 1988 summer months.
• Approved variance requests for: Barb,Irt
Batykefer, Amy Jo Moleter, Aaron Anderson,
Ginger Anderson, Jennifer Hetchle:, Linnea Sivets,
Allison Muller, Raymond Davidson Megan
McDowell.
• Authorized the Chairman and Clerk to execute an
agreement to purchase and lease 50.89 acres of
property at 950 Old Crystal Bay Road (Theis
Property) as outlined in the PurchascALease
Agreement dated June 7, 1988 on file in the
District Office.
• Approved Letters of Intent to proceed with
investigative and corrective action at three
underground oil storage tank sites as outlipW in the
%lay 26 directive from the Minnesota Pollution 8
Control Agency.
• Approved the negotiated agreement with the District
principals for the 1988-90 period.
• Approved the contract agreement with the Director
of Special Education for the 1988- 90 period.
• Approved the contractual agreement with the
Assistant to the Superintendent for the 1988-90
period.
• Approved the contractual agreement with the
Superintendent for the 1988-90 period.
NEWSLETTL-Fl
•OMINISTIUTON OfIKe
..
.s.:
w+ OLD CRYSTAL Y♦ ROAD NORTH
VAID
LONG UNKE. MINNESOT• $5354
r 1 ty of Orono
t, . 0 . Box bb
Crystal Bav MN 55323
A(!G 2 9 1988 I
RETA►L-SUPPOW
1-0-
SUPER VALU STORES, INC.
MAILING ADDRESS.
P O. BOX 1451 • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554!0
August 24, 1988
The Honorable Mayor
Jim Grabek
City of Orono
PO Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Jim:
This letter is written to express appreciation to two members of your staff,
Ms. leanne A. Mabusth and Mr. John Gerhardson.
Through the various request processes with your city they were extremely
helpful. Our questions were answered on a timely basis and they were very
informat.vP and direct on what our requirements were. Mutually, we were able
to create an excellent cooperative working relationship which led to the
resolution of our issues at Rick's Super Valu in a most timely manner.
You are very fortunate to have professional members on your staff like Jeanne
and John.
Sincerely,
LylarV. Fuller
Assistant Store Development Manaqer
be
pCXApMlON 101 iff PERSON A'4NIJE SUUTH • r4(jPKjN5 tisi4lov"ON[ 412' 03243M
- 1 WHRC
WEST HENNEPIN RECYCLING COMMISSION
Green field-1,.jependence-Long Lake -Loretto -
Maple -lain-Medina-Minnetonka Beach -Oro,-.^
WHFpc CAN 1 9ECYCLE?
MON-FRI - 8:00 AM TO 4:30 PM - MEDINA CITY HALT. - COUNTRY ROAD
24 - EAST OF WILLOW DRIVE
MON-FRI - 9:00 AM TO 2:00 PM - GREE14FIELD CITY HALL - 6930 TOWN
HALL DRIVE
1 st SAT OF MONTH - 9:00 AM TO NOON - LORETTO FIRE STATION -
COUNTY ROAD 19
2nd SAT OF MONTH - 9:00 AM TO NOON - MAPLE PLAIN FOOL CENTER
HIGHWAY #E12
3rd SAT OF MONTH - 9:00 AM TO NOUN - ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL
HIGHWAY #E12 & OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD
4TH SAT OF MONTH - 9:00 AM TO NOON - NAVARRE - RICK'S SUPER
VALUE - CTY #f19 AND CTY #t15
SUN 10:00 AM - 2:00 PM - HAMEL LIONS FLEA MARKET - MEDINA
ENTERTAINMENT CENTER - HIGHWAY 55 - MAY 1 TO OCT. 30
OIL RECYCLING - BUSINESS HOURS ONLY
LONG LAKE - KOEHNEN'S STANDARD HWY 12 & SO. BROWN PD. - 473-
9987
MEDINA - MAYER'S MOBILE - HWY 55 & CTY 116 - 478-6041
SPECIAL PROJECTS - GOODWILL RECYCLE DAY
MAY21, 1988-900AMT0400PM
OCTOBER 15, 1988 9 00 AM TO 4 00 PM
ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL - HWY # 12 & OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROA(',
COMPOST SITES - CONTACT:
• HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY - 3486846
• YOUR CITY HALL
•, CAROLYN SMITH WHRC Coordinator - 473-4643
=unded by Henan Gounty and WHRC
771
P*anted on 'p0% recycied paper
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
CITY OF ORONO
MEETING DATE 9h)&
PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
NAME OR NUMBER
NAME (please print' ADDRESS ?RESENT t'C:; (from agenda)
2.AA-v-,f`
J
�'��'S c r
4.
fa�.
'S '— :, ►`'l
a.
t c
2L•�
0.
1.
2.
3.
4.
s,
t
IN
1