HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-30-1979 Council Minutes � •
r
CIT� OF ORONO
Regular rZeeting of the Orono Council, 7: 00 P.r4.
Octoher 30, 1979
The Orono Council met on the above date with
the f_ollowing members present: P4a��or Van Nest,
Councilmembers Butler, Hurr, rsassengale, and
Paurus, Also present: City Administrator
Benson, City Planner Olson, City Attornev
i�alkerson, and Citl Engineer Cook.
Butler moved, Fiurr seconded, to anprove the COPISENT AGENDA*
Consent Agenda* , subject to removing items
2, 30, and 31, with all staff data and supportive
inforriation to be included in the PZinutes in
the sequence they occur. Motion, A��es (5) -
Nays (0) .
Butler rtoved, Paurus seconded, to annrove the MI?1UTES
Piinutes of the Regular meeting of October 16 ,
1979 , as amended. P'Iotion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the BEDER�a00D PARI�*
letter sent to CaPtain Lanc�hoff, EngineerinR Baseball Field
Battalion, concerning the baseball field at Letter
Bederwood Park, dated October 25, 1979. �sotion,
Aves (5) - Pdays (0) .
Council.riemY�er Paurus reviewed his letter concerninq L.PSCD REPORT
an interpretation of Lr4CD Section 3. OZ , fror� Charles
LeFevere dated October 8, 1979 , Faith an opinion .
of how the LP1CD determines the point of the shore- ' �
line from which the "authorized dock use area"
is measured. .
ido corunents from the Planning Cor,unission. PLANNING COMN�ISSION
Alan Olson, City Planner, cor.tntented that documents CO^�PREHENSIVE PLAN-
should be submitted within one week for the ING REPOR"'
Comprehensive Planning report.
Pir. George Rovegno, Jr. , 2010 Shoreline Drive, PUBLIC COP�II�SENTS
commented that I3ennepin County #15 appears to be
difficult to drive in the evening in the Bracketts
Point curve area because of_ the reflections fr�m
seeded hanks and dark newly laic� blacktop.
RE�ULAR P1E�TING OF THF ORUNO _COiJNCIL, OCTOB�R 30, 1979 Paqe 2
Butler moved, Hurr seconcied, to adont Resolution RESOLUmZON #1036*
#1086, A Resolution Approvinc� The Plat Of Pdorthgate Northgate Two
Two. tiotion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record IIUILDIN� PLAN
the builciing plan review of the First ilational 2465 Shadywood Roac
Bank of Navarre, 2465 Shad_ywood Road, dated �k491
October 25, 1979 , which states : Navarre Bank
After the last meetinc�, T met with r4r. Po�e and
resolved all of the detail questions concerning
the building plan, parking, site nlans and sub-
division per my letter to hirm of October lII , 1979.
We have received revised site plans and recommend
approval of the building olans received at the
last meeting, and the site plan ;�5 attachec� to
this rtemo. This will allo�a construction to proceed.
The subdivision application has been received and
will be considered at a public information meeting
to be held by the Planning Comriission on November ?.6,
1979. The division line corresponds to the zoning
boundary.
�9e have attached a resolution to be adopted if ��ou
wish to call a new nublic hearin� to consider
raising the ariount of the revenue bonds. If
ado�ted on October 30, 1979 , the notice will he
published twice as re�uired and the hearing can
then be held on November 27, 1979.
Council :�Ieeting - October 30 , 1979 ,
P4ayor Van Nest moved, Butler seconded, to aPnrove
the bui,lding plan review as �er October 13 , 1979 ,
nZan ;#5' and variance frorl l� ' sethack. a� ;�er
Octo3�er 18, 1979 Planner' s letter, sub�ect to:
1. Staff comments and recommendations
2. Planning Cor.unission and Planner' s review
3. Continuance of subdivision requirements
4. Eastern 10' maintenance easement and Citv
agreement
5. Letter of intent from owner on joint �rive�aay
6. All activities to be confined within 25� ' B-4
District
7. Subdivision finalization at 250 ' zoninc� line
8. Flowage and conservation easement covering
all areas within 94� contour
Piotion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
(Continued)
RFGULAR P4EETING O� TI�� ORONO COUNCIL, OCmOBER 30 , 1979 Page 3
i�ayor Van Nest moued, Butler seconded, to ado�t RESOLUTION #1087
Resolution #1087, A Resolution Relating mo A 7n�u�trial Bonds
Project Under The r4unicipal Industrial Develop- Navarre Bank
ment Act And Callin� For A Public Hearing. T4otion,
Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record VACATION - LAKE
the request of Charles Carl, 3685 North Shore ACCESS
Drive, for a lake access vacation c�ated 3685 North Shore Dr.
October 23, 1979 , which states: #498
Charles Carl
Pir. Carl has asked the City to consider vacatinq
a portion of a lakeshore access easement o.f 33' .
The access is used basicallv in the winter months
by snowmobilers and fishermen seekinq lake access
to their fish houses.
The anplicant asks that the portion that is unused
and which he maintains be vacated. "_'he propert_y
o�aner on the southern edge of the access, Dr. Sullwold,
approves of the vacation. There were no comments
fror.i the audience except for Dr. Sullwold' s apnroval
at the public hearing.
Unfortunately, the enclosed survey was not seen b_y
the PlanniMg Commission when they made their recom-
r.tendation on September 10 , 1979. The�� were under
the impression that 40' remained o.f a 55' easement.
Staff (Public Works Director and Zoning �dministrat�r)
made a second ins�ection of the access in order to
confirm the 18 ' pro�osed easement designated on
survey. �Ve measured 31' ; the difference in findinc�s
is caused by the erosion of the lake along the lake- ,
side of the access. �
��Te reviewed all this with the Planning Cormmission at
their October 15 , 1979 meeting and the�j hold to
their original recommendation as follows:
Planning Commission recommended approval of the vacation
rec�uest as it does not affect �uhlic access to the
laY.e and served the good of the public by puttinq
the property back on the tax roles, contingent on the
applicant submitting a description of_ the entire
easement.
Council Pieeting - October 30 , 1979
11r. Charles R. Carl was present to discuss his application.
Bruce 14alkerson, City Attorney: The City of_ Orono should
not �iacate any lake access which was determined by a
recent Supreme Court decision.
(Continued)
;
REGULAR PIEETING OF iHE ORONO COUNCIL, OCTOAER 30, 1979 Page 4
tiassengale moved,- Iiurr seconded, to deny the application VACAmION
of Charles Carl, 3685 North Shore Drive, to vacate 3685 North Shore Dr
the lake access based upon the Supreme Court decision (Continued)
and there are no finding of facts to determine that
it would be a henefit to the puhlic to vacate. Staf_f was
instructed to review the area for needed maintenance
and to define area and uses of the area. Piotion,
Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record CONDITIONAL USE
the rec�uest of the Development �roup, Inc. , for PERN4IT, etc.
a conditional use nernlit, variance and building plan 3701 Shoreline Dr.
review at 3701 Shoreline Drive, dated October 26 , #507
1�79 , which states: Development Group
These comments are in response to P1r. Oberhauser' s
letter of October 25, 1979 , which was written af_ter
a r.leeting between him, Jeanne P4abusth, and rivself
earlier that day. (Oberhauser letter - PaRes 5 - 8)
Note 1, Page 2 - Zoninc�: Prior to 1974 , all
cor.unercial zoning ended in Lot 7, east of this
property. In 1974 , this lot was rezoned from
residential to B-1 cor_unercial. The official map
shows the boundary in a curved line roughly following
the wetlands. mhe legal descriptions show a corridor
100 ' X 200 ' as r_�►arked on your Exhibit 6.
Pdote 2 , Page 2 - A site inspection today confirr.ied
the �9estwood Survey of August l5, 1979 : There is
standing water well over the sewer line and verv
close to, if not on, the 935 contour. The flood
level was determined bv Barr Enc�ineerinc� for HUD ,
through a detailed stud__y area. • ,
The 26 ' setback should apply to the edge of the marsh
�s has been our ordinance. In my discussion �aith
Psr. Oberhauser, I was told that the sewer line
was on "dry ground" but this is obviously not the case.
I do not think the ordinance requires a 26 ' setback
from the top of the Flood Plain (in this case 935)
if this is dry ground at that point. I do think
that we should r�quire the 26 ' setback (or a variance
thereto) from the actual edge of the wetlands. As
o_f my inspection toda_y, I believe that these two
points coincide very closely.
I agree with Mr. Oberhauser' s corunents on Paqe 3
regarding construction o_f flat, no flow blockage
ir,inrovements in a norr,ial "f lood plain" . The
difference is that this flood plain is also a rmarsh
� and hence does also have assur.iulative capacitv when
not actually flooded.
(Continued, Page 9)
' , Page 5
�°"'%" 11
� GRATHWOL & OBERHAUSER �y ��
���
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
1421 E. WAYZATA BOULEVARD - SUITE 210
NEILLJ.GRATHWOL WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 (612) 475-2401
Ifl05-1fl74 n r
JAMES N.GRATHWOL D � '�n L � � �
LOU15 B.OBERHAUSER October 25, 1979 �� v D
ROBERT K.RANDALL
JOANNETHATCHERSWANSON (�
JOHN W.HENDRICKSON,JR. �T iG6 1,979
CAROL MASDEN FORNANDER
CITY OF ORONO
Planning � Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
1335 Brown Road South
Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323
Re: William D. McQueen and Jon R. Nelson - Application for Development
Our File No. 491-8
Dear Sir: �
Please be advised that I represent William D. McQueen and Jon Nelson with
reference to their development application.
The property in question has been owned by Mr. McQueen for approximately twenty
years. At the time Mr. McQueen purchased the property it was in one parcel. At
the time of his purchase he contacted the City of Orono and was advised that the
property was zoned commercial and that he could build his offices and electri-
cal warehouse facility on this property if he desired. Since Mr. McQueen did
not have enough money at the time to purchase the property in its entirety, the
property was split into two parcels with the small square parcel being deeded to
Mr. McQueen and the other parcel being purchased under a Contract for Deed. The
division line that vas used was selected because the southerly line of sa,id
descri,ption was the break between the co�ercial and residential zoning line.
Mr. McQueen decided to locate his business elsewhere and therefore did not build
on the property. In 1963 or 1964, the city put in a public improvement project
for sewer in the Navarre area and the line was designed to dissect the property.
In negotiations with the City of Orono it was agreed that the sewer line would
be relocated to an area which was adjacent to the edge of the wetlands which was
part of his property and the sewer line was relocated and installed 175 feet to
the south of the north edge of Mr. McQueen's property. Mr. McQueen received .
some compansation from the City of Orono for the taking of his property which
compensation was based upon a co�ercial value of the property which the city
acknowledged as being its zoning classification at that time.
In 1971 Mr. McQueen was again subject to assessments for a municipal water
improvement project. At that time his property was assessed based upon a com-
mercial classification which was consistent vith the understanding of Mr.
McQueen and the City of Orono staff and engineering department.
Paqe 6
Planning � Zoning Administer
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
October 25, 1979
Page two
In approximately 1974 or 1975, consideration was given to a change of the zoning
classifications of the property and Mr. McQueen went to a meeting and at the
� meeting it was agreed that in this area a 200 foot commercial zone adjacent to
� County Road 15, would remain and that no charge in B-1 classification would be
made. Mr. McQuee�t�sere ore assumed hat a 200 foot strip of property adjacent
to County Road 15,�wired�y�im, would be zoned B-1.
Sometime earlier this year, Mr. McQueen in conjunction with Jon Nelson presented
a plan for an office building to be constructed on this property. The exact
nature of this improvement will be explained at the council meeting on Tuesday,
October 30, 1979. At the time that Mr. McQueen made his presentation he was
informed that a B-1 zoning classification on a strip of land 200 feet wide and
adjacent to County Road 15 had been changed in 1974. Although the Planning
Commission felt that the proposed development was attractive and probably a good
use of the property, it made some suggestions with reference to a zoning line, a
re-zoning from B-1 to B-4, a restriction by reason of the existence of a flood
plain and a restriction by reason of the existence of a wetland.
After discussion of these items with the Planning Commission, and having the
proposal denied, Mr. McQueen contacted my office. I have discussed this matter
with Mr. McQueen and I would like to make the following suggestions:
With regard to a change from the B-1 to the B-4 zone, Mr. McQueen has no objec-
tions to this zoning change provided that the description of the B-4 zone is
such that it includes a strip of land adjacent to County Road 15 which is 200
feet wide or at least goes to a line 10 feet south and parallel to the, existing
sewer line and includes all of his frontage of County Road 15 as he originally
assumed was the case.
It is my understanding that with such a zoning classification, the structure
that is being suggested can be constructed without the necessity of any varian-
ces from the zoning ordinance.
Mr. McQueen was confused regarding the application of a set-back requirement of
26 feet from the flood plain line which was established at approximately the
935.1 foot level. I am not exactly sure how you arrived at the flood plain con-
� tour line but an inspection of the premises would indicate that the elevation of
the road on the easterly side of the wetland is such th at it would probably be
impossible to pond a sufficient amount of water in the marshland ,to reacb the
935.1 foot contour line.
The eatablishment of a flood plain line at 935.1 feet does not place any of the
contemplated structures within the flood plain and as such, the location of this
line is immaterial to the propoaed buildings with the exception of the require-
ment that any development on the land outside of the flood plain be set back 26
feet from the flood plains which cause a problem with other parking lots.
Page 7
Planning S Zoning Administrator
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
October 25, 1979
Page Three
It is also my understanding that the purpose of a flood plain designation is to
restrict the construction of occupied buildings within the flood plain so as to
lessen the risk of property damage. The soil compositions of property within a
flood plain may be clay or otherwise and have little, if any, water retension
value and therefore, the same reasoning applicable to wetland may not apply to a
f lood plain.
Since this is the case, the purpose of the restriction in a flood plain is to
require a developer of property to either fill the land that the structure is
going to be place on, to an elevation above the flood plain designation or to
use a type of construction so that the first floor of occupancy is at a
designated level above the flood plain elevation. The requirement that a struc-
ture and/or parking lot be set back from a flood plain contour line, has no
logic when compared with the purpose that the flood plain was established for.
An owner of property within a flood plain area should be able to construct a
house on a parcel of land which has an elevation above the flood plain, placing
his driveway in and out on an elevation which is within the flood plain and even
build a tennis court or similar non-occupied structure within the flood plain.
To prohibit these types of structures from being built within an area deaignated
as flood plain but not designated as a wetland, would appear to be an
unwarranted interference in the rights of a property owner without any off-
setting public benefit.
I feel that the protection that you are looking for, with reference to the pre-
servation of the wetlands, is adequately covered by preserving the wetlands and
restricting the construction within 26 feet of an area designated as a wetland.
The developers are agreeable in granting to the City of Orono, an open space
easement and/or conservation easement over the area designated as wetlands and
are agreeable in consenting to a prohibition of any construction activities
within 26 feet of this designated line.
They are also agreeable to an easement which would prohibit them from
constructing any structure designed for occupancy by humans within the area
designated as a flood plain unless the structure so constructed was designed so
that the occupied areas were above the designated elevation applicable to the
flood plain in question.
The developer would not want to put himself in a position that at a future date
he could not construct a tennis court behind the office building for use by the
occupsnts of the office building or aomeother similar type improvement. ltie
Page 8
Planning � Zoning Administrator
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
October 25, 1979 •
Page Four
developers are in complete accord with the City's desires to protect the
wetlands and retain the same as a natural drainage system for the City of Orono,
but he cannot underatand how the application of the flood plain ordinances at
this time achieves the desired results.
In summary the developer is agreeable to the following:
1 . A rezoning of his property to a strip of approximately 200 feet
wide adjacent to County Road 15 from B-1 to B-4.
2. An open space i.e. , conservation easement covering the portion of
his property which is designated as wetlands;
3. Being afforded relief from the application of the flood plain
ordinance to the extent that it prohibits the construction of
any improvements between a line 26 feet outside of the area
designated as wetlands and a line 26 feet outside of the area
designated as a flood plain.
Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter.
�y
Sincerely, �
/
`�:" - " � ' •
_ �C .
� _ �
�----
LOUIS B. OBERHAUSER
LBO/e jw
REGULAR N4EETIIIG OF TH� OROP10 COUPJCIL, OCi'OBr� 30, 1979 Page 9
I agree with P4r. �Oberhauser' s surunary iter.is on Paqe 4 , COPdDITIONAL USF.
as f_ollo��s: 3701 Shoreline Dr.
(Continued)
l. The zone should be changed to B-�4. ^here is no
logical reason to include the sewer line in this
zone (the owner would have access to the sewer
regardless of zone) . The actual zone boundar��
should include all commercial functions including
parking, and perhaps should go to the west line
of Lot 6. The depth would not need to be ?_00 '
as this is obviously flood �lain and wetlands.
A reasonable straight line cor,►promise shoul� be
determined through the rezoning process.
2 . The conservation and flowaqe easement should be
over all designated flood plain, i .e, over all
land below 935. If some of this land is not
wetlands, sorme of the normal conservation" prohibitions
could be amended as lc.sng as the flowage easement is
assured.
3. I agree with the concept of ?tem 3, although I
think the facts make anv difference between
��etlands and flood plain rather moot, or insignifi-
cant at hest. This does not r.lean that I could not
find hardships to justify sor.me variance to the 26 '
rule such as the suggested narking lot retaininc� wall.
Council Pieetinc� - October 30 , 1979
P4r. Oberhauser, Bill P4cnueen, and John Nelson were present.
Plr, t7cQueen reviewed a survey of the propertv in c�uestion
cor,imenting that he purchased the nropert�� in 1966 and 1967 ,
and that this propert_y was assessed as commercial propert�� ' .
for sewer and water.
P4avor Van Nest commented that the B-� change was completed
in 1974 to include this commercial prox�ert�� after dis-
covering ommissions in the 1967 legal descriPtions.
John Pdelson discussed concept of the Proposal commentinq
that the proposed building would he rental, not condominiu*�s
and that we want to develop an of_fice buildinc� of a .
residential looking type of structure owned and operated
only as an office building.
Pir. Oberhauser reviewed the history of the land and the
plans for development cor�mentinc� that the wetlands will
not be constructed on and a conservation easement will
be provided. .
biayor Van Nest stated that wetlands have to he defined.
�9etlands arE not cor_unercial property.
(Continued)
REGULAR PSEETIPI� OF THE ORONO COUPICIL, OC"'OBFTt 30, 197.9 Page 10
Councilmember Paurus: 1 c�o not f_avor clear cutting CONDITIONAL USE
the property. We have dense residential homes in 3701 Shoreline Dr.
the area. (Continued)
Piayor Van Pdest: There are many questions to be
researched by staff and the applicant:
1�. Rezone to B-4 office and professional?
2. Allow encroachment to 26 ' setback for:
a) buildinc�?
b) parking lot?
�aetlands have to be defined before zoning line is
established. The legal definition of the zoning,
as it exists today, has to be researched.
Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record
the request of Paul A. Scherber for a subdivision Si7BDIVISIOPd
at 1420 Bohns Point Road, dated October 26 , 1979 , 1420 Bohns Point Road
�•�hich states: �508
Paul A. Scherber
The applicant proposes dividing 2 . 7 acres into
two lots. The property consists of a main house,
guest house and carriage house (garage) . Al1
existing buildings meet the necessary setbacks
except for one shed that must be rer.toved bv final
approval. Neighbor' s house to the south runs 5 '
over the property line. �xisting curb cuts will
reriain. The access easement of 25 ' runninc� along
the northern lot line was discussed by the neighbors. '
They wanted to be assured that the plat will not
interfere with this easement. The apnlicant will ,
furnish proof of the 25' easement in the recorded ' .
title. Lot 2 will have riparian rights only.
Planning Commission moved to approve the preliminary
subdivision application of Paul A. Scherber, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Park dedication fee of $400 for the newlv created
resident3al lot (Lot 1) .
2. Lot 2 (southern lot) is to have riparian rights.
3. Existing curb cuts to remain - applicant wishes
to retain loop d�sveway - Lot 1 to deed access
easement in favor of Lot 2.
4. Shed on lot line must be removed upon final approval.
5. Applicant furnish proof of_ 25 ' access easement as
part of recorded title.
(Continued)
R�GULAR P4EETING OF THE OROrdO COUNCIL, OC"'OII�R 30, 1979 Page 11
Alan Olson' s memo- dated October 26 , 197� , states: SUBDIVISIOPI
1420 Bohns Point Road
The Planner' s review adds the following comrients: (Continued)
l. The park fee should not be charc�ed as there is
an existing dwelling on both lots.
2. Each lot has separate, actually existinc� access.
Any mutual easement for reciprocal use should
be a private matter of no concern to the City.
3. Pir. Lauer' s concern for the easement across the
north part of the �roperty is natural. The
easement is developed as a gravel drive and
though poorly maintained, is a secondarv access
to the Lauer property. I would suqgest rec7uiring
this easement to be platted as an outlot so the
access will be visible on the plat and will be
less likely to be encroached upon in the future.
The City could ic�nore the easerlent and assume
that it will carry through with validity, but
the outlot method will assure the intent of the
easement in providing access to the otherwise
, land-locked Lauer lot.
4. The encroaching shed is of minimal value and
easily moved and/or removed.
5. The most serious' c�uestion was apparently not
discussed by the Planning Commission. The
neighboring house at 1480 Bohns Point Road is
shown as encroaching on this propert_y. �ae have
a survey on file showing a 50 ' setback for the
original construction in 1962, plus other nermits ,
for a 24 ' X 24 ' addition and conversions without ' .
surveys, but nothing to indicate such an encroach-
ment.
The Scherber' s surveyor should recheck and confirm
or clearup any encroachment.
If there is encroachment, I suqgest that at least
10' of side yard be platted and sold to the
nei�hbor to resolve this probleri. Such a sale
would not adversely affect this x�roper_tv.
6. Bohns Point Road should be platted and dedicated
33' from centerline.
Council Meeting - October 30 , 1979
David Carlson, representing P�Ir. Scherber, was nresent.
(Continued)
RTGULAR PiEETING OF TIiF ORONO COUNCIL, OCTOBER 30, 1979 Page 12
Tiavor Van PJest moved, Butler seconded, to a�Pr_ove SUBDIVISIOrI
the request of Paul A. Scherber for a nrelirtinary 1420 Bohns Point Road
subdivision at 1420 Bohns Point Road, subject to (Continued)
the City Plar�rier' s report of October 26 , 1979 ,
stipulating that no easements nor riParian ric�hts
are being granted and identification of owner bf
easements to the north. Psotion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Alan Olson, Cit_y Planner, entered into the record CONDITIONAL USF PEFZMIT
the request of Kirk S. Bonan, 951 Spring Hill Roaci, 951 Spring Hill Road
for a conditional use permit, dated October 24 , #512
1979 , which states: Kirk S. Boman
t4r. Boman seeks a conditional use permit for the
construction of a 53 ' high radio .antenna for hobby
use. '�'he operation in no way irivolves a commercial
use. The rec�uired setback of 58' frorl all proPerty
lines has been met according to the survey. "'he
proposed 58' antenna will consist of five 10 '
sections with a separate 8 ' tower section. The
structure will rectuire no additional supports
except for the recommended c�u_ying speci�ications
diagrammed in circled figure on Sheet 10.
The applicant stated that he requires a 58' high
antenna to meet the desired transmitting and
receiving.
P�Sr. Boman was asked to supply the following:
1. Copies of all current FCC licenses issued to
the operator (s) and the base station specifying
type of use, power output authorized, etc.
2. A list of e�uipment in use specifying manufacturer, '
function, power, etc.
3. A certified engineering drawing attestinc� to the
antennas' structural design.
Planning Commission reluctantl_y approved this application.
They advise Council that it is difficult to denv such
applications when there are no ob-jections from
neighbors and variances for setback on antenna height
are not required.
Please review the Planning Corunission r:minutes of
September 24 , 1979 and October 15, 1979 f_or back-
ground discussion and recommendation.
It should be noted that the house, and the proposed
antenna location, is on a substantial rise and that
the tower will, there£ore, be visible over the top
of the trees and across Long Lake.
(Continued)
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, OCTOBER 30, 1979 Page 13
Council P�eeting - .October 30, 1979 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
951 Spring Hill Road
Butler moved, Paurus seconded, to approve the request (Continued)
of Kirk S. BoMan, 951 Spring Hill Road, for a con-
ditional use permit subject to:
1. PJon-commercial purposes
2. Yearly review
3. No vested pro�erty rights
Motion, Ayes (4) - Na_ys (1) . Councilr�ember Hurr Nay.
Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
the request of a conditional use permit of Slane 2160 ��a��zata Boulevard
McKelvey Compnay, Inc. , at 2160 j�Tayzata Boulevarci, �513
dated October 24, 1979 , which states: Slane rZcKel�-ey Compan��
The applicants, Frances J. Slane and Janet McKelvey,
rec�uest .a conditional use permit to operate a
restaruant (C1ass II) within Bill taear' s Mini-Mart
at 2160 ti�Jayzata �oulevard. The restaurant will
serve •hot and co.ld .sandwiches , soups, salads, and
desserts. This type of kitchen operation will
involve only the use of a microwave oven. The
applicants plan to request a 3. 2 beer license from
the City when granted the permit. The proposed
hours of operation will be from 11: 00 A. ri. to
1: 00 A. M.
The building inspector has reviewed the site �lan
applying the standards of the building code in
relation to the existing physical plant and the
proPosed restaurant operation. In summarizing ,
the report, the U.B.C. will require two exists for � ,
the restaurant, not one as noted on the proposed plan.
Site Plan Review:
l. Restaurant area - 2 ,.100 sq. ft. total
2. Seating capacity: Table seating - 62
Booth seating - 24
Counter seating - 9
95 ;
Seating Ratio (per U.B.C. ) : 15 sq, ft. per person �
Total public area - l,419 sc�, ft.
ProPosed seating: 95
Allowed seating: 95
3. Parking capacity: Ratio - 1 stall per 30 sq. ft.
public floor area
80/1,419 = 18 stalls
Planning Commission. did not feel the required �arking
area for restautant be designated �.aith a shopping
center format.
Total parking area for mini-mart = 105 - notential 110
(Continued)
RE�ULAR �lE�TING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, OCTOBFR 30 , 1979 Page 14
4. Signs proposed: The sign will be located on CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
the outside of the building, 16" block print. 2160 Wayzata Boulevard
��e have not been told the exact size, applicant (Continued)
has not selected a name as yet.
Please review the Planning Commission minutes of
September 24, 1979 and October 15, 1979 for back-
ground discu�sion and recommendation.
This conditional use permit application for a
restaurant should be reviewed on its own merits �
and is completely separate froM consideration of_
any f_uture beer license application.
Council Meeting - October 30 , 1979
Frances J. Slane and Janet r4cKelvev were present.
Psayor Van P1est moved, Butler seconded, to approve
the conditional use permit for Frances ,T. Slane
and Janet *ZcKelvey for a restaurant at 2160 ��aayzata
Boulevard subject to:
l. Two exits
2. Long Lake approval of proposed usage and sewer
connection.
isotion, Ayes (5) - P1ays (0) .
Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record VAT2IANCE
the variance request of Kenneth G. Hartwell, 2659 2659 Casco Point Road
Casco Point Road, dated October 23, 1979 , which states: #519
Kennet� �. Hartwell
The application involves the construction of a • .
3 ' X 22. 4' addition to the existing Rarage recruiring
a 6. 6 ' side yard variance setback. The location
of a mature tree on the south side of the garage
prevents an extension to the south. Staf_f will
rec�uire a fire wall for the north side of the
addition because of the neighbor' s garage located
2. 7 ' from the north lot line. Please review the
Planning Commission riinutes of October 15, 1979
for recommendation and background discussion.
Council Pseeting - October 30, 1979
Butler moved, tiassengale seconded, to approve the
variance request of I:enneth r, Hartwell, 2659 Casco
Point Road, subject to a firewall being constructed .
on the north side of addition. HardshiP: location
of inature tree prevents addition to the south.
l4otion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
REGULAR Pi�ETING Or �HE ORONO COiJPdCIL, OCTOBER 30 , 1979 Page 15
Alan Olson, City �lanner, entered ;nto the recorc3 VARIANCE
the rec�u�st for a variance of �rady Sieff, 1080 1080 [+Tildhurst Trail
��lildhurst Trail, dated October 23, 1979 , which #520
states: Grady Sieff
tsr. Sieff rec�uests approval of a front yard variance
setback of 25' for the construction of a 14 ' X 28 '
detached garage and storage building. mhe applicant
has flagged the property stakes and the location of
the proposed garage for your inspection. The new
structure will be placed 2 ' to 3 ' below existing
grade. The location in relation to �Jildhurst
Trail will not create vision or safet�� �roblems.
The existing shed �aill be removed, and there is no
hardcover concern.
The hardship claimed by the applicant is the location
of the house and paved driveway in relation to
�•7ildhurst Trail. Please review the Planning Commission
r_Zinutes of October 15, 1979 f_or recommendation and
background discussion.
Between the original survey, the owner' s sketch
and site inspections, it is deterrmined that the
proposed garage will be at least 10 ' from the street
right of way at the closest point, and the doors
will open away fror.l the street.
Council P�eeting - October 30 , 1979
Butler moved, Piassengale seconded, to apt�rove the
variance request of Grady Sieff, 108Q tdildhurst
'�"rail, per the Zoning Administrator' s memo of •
October 23, 1979. Iiardship: location of house ,
and paved driveway in relationshin to Wildhurst Trail. ' ,
2Zotion, Ayes (5) - Pdays (0) .
Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record
VARIANCE
the variance rec�uest of ?�Iestwood Enterprises, Inc. , 65 Stubbs Bay Road Nort2�
65 Stubbs IIay Road North, dated October 23, 1979 , #521
which states- ��estwood Enterprises
Planning Commission moved to recommend approval of
the Westwood Enterprises' application for a front
yard setback variance of 50' for a detached c�arac�e,
22 ' Y 20' . Please revie�v the Planning Commission
minutes of October 15, 1979 for the recommendation
and background discussion. The application involves
a 2. 6 acre lot subject to the five acre minimum
zoning requirements. The septic inspector has
a�proved the proposed location as it does not
interfere with future septic expansion. The
Planning Commission did not approve of the circular
drive as presented on site plan but recommends use
of existing curb cut shared by home to the south.
(Continued)
REGULAR PdEETIPIG OI' "_'HE ORONO COUPdCIL, OCTOBER 30, 1979 Page 16
Council P4eeting t Octoher 30, 1979 VARIANCE
65 Stubhs Bay Road Nort
tiayor Van Nest moved, Butler seconded, to aPnrove (Continued)
the variance rec�uest of i9estwood Enterprises, Inc. ,
65 Stubbs Bay Road North, per the 7,on;ng Administratcs�' s
mer.io of October 23, 1979. P4otion, Aves (5) - Navs (0) .
Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record STUBBS BAY S'I'UDY AREA
the following concerning the Stubbs Bay Studv Area
dated October 22, 1979 , cahich states:
Attached are the last pages of the draft resolution
as requested, showing the Council summar�� of con-
c�us��ns and, rno�e i_r.ln�rtant, the r�uncil directive
for actions.
tiany changes are necessary in the draft; I expect
it would be in these areas.
Also attached is the last corresp�ndence caith .Tim
P'IcCleary.
Note that Ordinance P1o. 224 extended the Studv Area
moratorium to December 31, 1979.
Alan Olson' s letter to James i�ZcCleary dated
October 22, 1979 - PaRe 17
Letter from Leland J. Frankman, attorney for James
PZcCleary dated October 30, 1979 received at 4: 15 P.*4.
October 30, 1979 - Pages 18 - ?.1
Council bieeting - October 30, 1979 ,
P4ayor Van ilest moved, Massengale seconded, to table
until the next Council meeting the Stubbs Bay Study
Area item, rRotion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
� ' Telephone 473-7357
.,
� ,�. Page 17
.�r( �� ,
�`� ;�. � C ITY of ORONO
:� � Yost Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipal Officea
S . �
• ��<� On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
• - • • '
October 22, 1979
Mr. James McCleary
4240 Reiland Lane
Shoreview,
Minnesota 55112
Re: Stubbs Bay Study Area
Dear Mr. McCleary: ,
As you will recall, the City invested a great deal of time this spring
in a major study of the entire Stubbs Bay Area. The result of that
study was a comprehensive fact-finding resolution of which you have
received a draft copy. The City Council has never adopted that resolution
as they were awaiting any comments you may have had.
It has now been two months since the last correspondence from your
attorney. We have not yet received any new information from you nor any
information regarding your plans.
This letter is to advise you that the City Council has directed that
the Study Area Resolution be placed on the agenda for the October 30, 1979
Council meeting. I expect the draft to be discussed and adopted at that
time. ' .
Your 1979 Mar.ina License will not be on the agenda as we have not
received your comments, but the general study area resolution will be
discussed if you are interested.
Sinc r , '
C�
an P. Olson
illage Flanner
APO:kh
cc: Mr. Leland Frankman
Mr. Louis Oberhauser
^ . " Page 18
LELAND J. FRANKMAN O � � [ �� �
ATTORNEY AT LAW D
1709 GAR6ILL SUILDIN6
MINNEAPOl13. MINNESOTA 55402 OCT �7O L71a
't { n r
AREA GOD[ 61 2-375-1600 y� �� P� ���
/
CITJG OF, ORONO
October 30, 1979
Mr. Alan P. Olson, Village Planner
City of Orono
Box 66
Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Stubbs Bay
Dear Mr. Olson:
I have received a copy of your letter to my client, Mr. James
McCleary, bearing date October 22 , 1979 , in which you indicate
that a resolution concerning my client' s property will be
taken up at the Orono council meeting on October 30 , 1979 .
You indicate this Study Area Resolution will probably be
adopted at the meeting.
As you know, my client has spent considerable time and money
in an effort to upgrade the Stubbs Bay Marina and that he
has been intending to submit to you a plan for an aesthetically
pleasing and practical marina operation. As I have indicated
to you, we have a plan prepared by Brauer & Associates , Inc. ,
and that we are in the process of obtaining an appraisal by
an appraiser having an M.A. I, designation in an effort to
demonstrate that the highest and best use of the property is
for a marina and that a rezoning by the City would cause a
very great f inancial damage to the property. I am now • .
informed by our appraiser that the best use for the property
is indeed marina use and that a rezoning would be very damaging.
He indicates that his appraisal will be ready in time for your
next meeting on November 13.
At this time, we urge the City Council to take the following
action at its October 30 meeting:
l. To issue the 1979 marina license to James McCleary.
2. To postpone the consideration of the Study Area
Resolution until the November 13, 1979 meeting.
3. To favorably receive the 1980 license application
for the marina as submitted by James McClear.y.
4. We have submitted with this letter a 2-sheet
plan prepared by Brauer & Associates, Inc. , for
the proposed Stubbs Bay Marina. We ask that the .
.�.
Page 19
Mr. Alan P. Olson
October 30 , 1979
Page Two
Council at least give appraval to the concept
at the October 30 meeting if it cannot give
final approval to the plan as submitted. The
plan was given careful consideration by the
planner and Mr. McCleary, and it complies with
all of the rules and regulations of the City of
Orono, as well as the other governmental bodies
that have jurisdiction over the area.
We believe that the Study Area Resolution as submitted to us in
an earlier communication is really a punitive measure directed
- expressly at the Stubbs Bay Marina. Further, we believe that it �
is an attempt to deprive Mr. McCleary of his right to operate a
business which has been operating in the bay for many, many years
and that it is contrary to law. In the event that the resolution
is considered at the October 30 meeting and not laid over as we
request, we then urge that the Council reject the resolution for
the reasons aforestated.
We hope to have our appraisal shortly and we would be interested
in discussing the entire matter with you and your counsel prior
to the November 13 meeting if that is possible. At any rate, at
this time we ask that Mr. Malkerson enter this letter and the
exhibits into the record at the meeting on October 30 and that
it is considered as our response to the resolution that is
placed on the agenda. Further, we ask that you consider this
letter as an application for the approval of a plan fo'r an
improved Stubbs Bay Marina.
i
Very truly yours ,
� ;_, r,,�' � ' � �,:
�. l' '.�- � �, , � -
r
Leland J. Frankman
%.
LJF:kh
Encls.
cc: James McCleary
Bruce D. Malkerson
� Page 20
� ' .
-- ,� ' -
� ,ri� �
:
� T
� � O
� ' .��I N
� .. ;.
—' " 1 `:�� !O
1 0
, , �
-, :)t �
. �� -�
/ � � .
-- -� � -
�
d
� -
.� .
' �i �%
�� .i �
0
_ �
, _ a
�
. ; + „ �
� d
�,.
x
� =-= / �
� �
---+� � -=�-
- ={r�
._u,-- — -
_ � _ a •
o � �
�
, �
D �
D
- 1 -
1
�
. 1 ._
� U � �n
F,
r o
. i •• � m
� �, _ .�_.� --_� to
� �-,� �
; �'1' �.:
, �
� -- - - -- --
r --
�
(' " � ' '_' - _ .__'_
( .'_ ' '._' _ _ _"- _' l") �--ILJ
,- - �--- � � �
►- - , - ------ -- -- �
rn m �'�
• ---------- — - - o v
-- — o �
--- ---— I — �
O ��
�
� , �,
Page 21
.
� �� �, H
� t
.9� �'O I � � ��I \ w.�♦ � .
.J/ ___ i /V �� C
f { r`\ �, �
♦ •
♦
� t � �, •. r,�
: C ;�\Y ��� ,.,�,
» l°� `` J
I .-C+ ---
a a � g t .
r � � � F� , .� ,
.�
.
� _. � G Y 9 `, s � ��� . ....' � .
I • � —� tl Y. � �� ' '
y �r—' —� s \�
8 Y I L ' �
� I ' ' —� �� � + , � i. I
i g� T— --� , i
,a_'_ _� � �� Y� _ " � .
I v - C --- �,
` � � i �
=' = 3 � (� y Y
_. T—��� .� ti . __. i.
; � r_�� -: t S'``,'� I G � .,f`,1: ��
�. �--� �. � �;�c�.:,� � �
! � . 4 `, . . _ �:: .. =
�' .:,=,:. � _ _� —��;;:h <
� � �','���;� J -1 . . �v:_..;r 1.,' �� '
L ' '/�!. I ' .fM- . . � � ��' . 1- . "<�,`��` 1
. _ '11 . ____:� ,. . �4-i._._� •;;►;::�.;�:
- - r - �• . _ ' �., .,-:.�
. :.�,.. �,,; ,;r' ���� � � �- _r.���:: .
a u': ���►1m� . ' • (!-^. _. :I � .•, i�, . ; � •: � �fi ��..��' �
f._��.,:� o . a� . ,..f ' �-,_'".,� i I
o'''��: � n�` � �� � ► ,
. ��•� �.Il Y iY•�';:'- �.\ �� . �:1.�. �,J3 �--1.'��- ' .
.�� �.+ �t..l�:.
.' ` ��' .�� :.-�r"-e-����.'.�• _�`,i ��';,tr^_ '
--- ' '{��.t`' . .= . 1 or , ,:� t;F`a "�.
_`_'"'� - � ��� '1 L�-,'.�
•�� �� _�^I � ��� . /N�i`( ���_ ,� . � '
\
`.�i, —�� V.. 1 i. •'��_"_t'�� *`�� ��� / .
�� ��� � � ' � �,`�f����� �� •
`f 1 O ' � �♦ ��
;, �^� --j _ d , -,�'�}. /v� a
�� =; �a ��, ;:%� a`�7, c
_ �:1� —f --- W �. �. -:;�, '/L ,
' r�.;'� �� - • j' •- � ' ���� ,i..,`
� . �N .� l� }' � -\.'�. � . � ����:- .t�Y� y%� . .
�!' ; -���. ' , �i'.�.:�1 .}•'�i' •-/ � ' .
•p.���� 'rT"_�.�'_:.1•,..�., '.,.� . r�'
� dj �� �-:�y'��t.> �' \�� . %
s"_��1•,� '��, �~'� - - , .
-� �g .r 1�:�/ �i ,
� •a,� � . �
.��:' o s'ti�.,,2�+;a"t , •
-• � �fA - 3: � - �?��� �� . ..
.b �: � i^. , �•i ./"
'\:����h !l.��r�.�„��J . -
,�'.'•�s.��',,c,,,/yrr �. '���.- � _ _.. . . . . .
. . ... . . `Y: _'�� X _�./.O� _
(\�,��~ J / � � .
(�\ . 'k.1,�1�' - /� .
' - �i .� l.
/
' " . ' ' _" \:_ .._"_. Y,�� .. . . . `
��� /i �
L� ..��.. � f�' i ^ . �� .°:
� � N
�� (ti"' ,�/ o' y 7c
I re� y o y �
v
.,-� _-i d
—� . . , y/ . ._ � . D � �
1 I , i/ d p n � , •
� /
�M
n�� . . . . . . - --- -�—� A'- -- - � . . _� � .
I: NI � �
�! o � �
ri1 . -- . _. ._ ---- ---- - - - - ._ „ m � .
•� o
.o � �
. • o
• z
- o � ,
0
_ � . ..�_ . .— --- - - - -
STUBBS BAY MARINA , ,.-""—~-- __�;.�-.'��,'.� _.--:` brauer 8 �sso� es.in�
� • ___� _-- _-. — �'�..• ...�.-.�..�.�� GI�IV��YII�C�OlA1[�M•. �L.4R.I1�
___ ___1. . ....�.. . _ _ . __ _
....��.«.�"' '_'" '__I..��_•__�.�._.M'_ - �
12�GULAR MEETING OF TFiE . OROrdO COUNCIL, OCTOBER 30, 1979 Page 22
Alan Olson, City Planner, presented the City Council FENCE ORDINANCE
with a mer.mo concerning the proposed zoning amendments
for fences, dated October 24 , 1979 , which states:
�Ve have scheduled a public hearing at the November 26 ,
1979 Planning Commission meeting to review these
proposed ordinance amendments prior to Council action.
The Council could adopt the ordinance as early as
Novermbe r 2 7, 19 7 9.
The ordinance draft contains the proposeci language
in final forri. Section 1 includes all those existing
code sections which are being revised. Compare the
proposal with the existing languaqe of those sections
as shown on the attachrients. Section 2 adds new
definitions to the Code. Section 3 adds entirelv
new provisions to the Code for clarification of the
intent of these changes.
The changes and additions are intended to clarify
the difference hetween f_ences and walls, to specify
standards for their location and character, and to
change the intent of the screening sections from
"fences" to natural r,laterials. All sections per-
taining to fences, walls or screening have been
included in this corlprehensive revision.
De�ailed Explanation of Changes and Additions
Section 1 �
31. 433 Non-encroachment Section - "Front Yard" title
clarifies where this applies. Fences and
walls are referenced to detailed section.
"Decks" added for clarification. Thi�-ty ,
inch maximum height is from building code - ' .
above 30 inches, a 36" high guardrail is
rec�uired making a more permanent structure
which does visually encroach (i.e. a deck
over a walkout) .
31. 434 Clarifies inclusion of 31. 433 iterns. References
detailed fence and wall section anc� detailed
parking sections.
31. 500 Reduces obstruction height from 3' to 2 '
account 3' does obstruct view frorl lower
cars and on grades. Includes walls and
berris changed to apply in all districts, not
just residential, to private as well as
public roads and to driveway curb cuts.
35. 047 "Fencing" changed to "Screening" and referenced
35. 282 to the standard screening section. 35. 282
35. 357 includes setback standards and a reference to
35. 446 31. 500 (Traffic Visibility) because here the
� screening is also required in the front yard.
(Continued)
REGULAR MEETING OF THE OROP10 COUNCIL, OCTOBER 30, 1979 Page 23
37. 090 Changed rec�uired screening to applv in FENCE ORDINAPdCE
all Districts, not just residential. (Continued)
Clarified setback language in (a) & (b} .
Added screening around trash containers (c)
consistent with 37. 120 & 37. 130.
37.100 Changed screening intent from "fencing" to
natural earth berms and planting, using
this as a standard definition and/or require-
ment wherever screening is rec�uired. Allows
walls as an alternate to the natural screen-
ing but only purs�ant to detailed requirements
of ne� Section 38. 950.
38. 501 Changed from fencing to screening ��vith
38.551 clarification on which lot line is which.
Section 2
30. 040 Added definitions to clarif_y usage and the
new fencing/screeninc� provisions.
Section 3
34. 049 Adds fences and walls as residential
accessory structures purs�ant to 38. 950.
36. 052 Adds screening provisions to the "I" District
not currently required. Screens residential
properties consistent with the "B" District
provisions. Adds screening of_ open storage
areas from all public (not private)
streets even if B or other I Uses are along
the street.
38. 950 et. sec�. The new performance standard
sections detailing f_ence and
wall provisions - should be self-
explanatory.
38. 953 ADD "No provision of this Ordinance shall
be construeci as restrictinc� or prohibiting
installation of any handrail or c7uardrail
as required by the Building Code since
such requirements can be met within the
allowable provisions of Sections 38.957 (a)
and 38. 958 (a) . "
38. 957 (e) ADD
"Exception: Retaininq walls attached
to and erected as a part of any build-
ing ma_y exceed 24 inches in heic�ht with-
out a conditional use permit, provided
that all portions of the wall in excess
of 24 inches high shall rmeet all setbacks
reRuired for such buildings. "
(Continued)
REGULAR r7EETING OF THE ORONO COUP7CIL, OCmOBFR 30 , 1979 Page ?_4
38. 958 (d) TNCLUDE retaininc� walls: first line to FrPdCE ORDINAPdCE
read: "Decorative walls and/or retaininc7 (Continued)
walls . . . . . "
38. 958 ADD "f. Fences or �aalls erected in coripliance
with this Section shall be in addition
to any natural screening rec�uired bv
other Sections of the Zoninc� Code excePt
when specifically approved pursuant to
Section 38. 959. "
38. 959 ADD "Exception: Screening of trash or gar�age
containers as required by Section 37. 090 (c)
may be b_y decorative wall not less than 4 '
high and not more than 6 ' high v�ithout a
conditional use permit, provided the wall
is attached to the principal structure
and meets all required sethacks therefore,
or is located so as to meet all required
setbacks for accessor�� buildings in that
District. "
Council Tieetinc� - October 30 , 1979
Hurr moved, Butler seconded, to table the pronosed
fence ordinance until the next Council rmeeting.
isotion, Ayes (5) - Na��s (0) .
Alan Olson, Citv Planner, presented the Cit� Council SUBDIVISIOPI ORDINANCE
with a draft of the proposed Subdivision Ordinance
for their review.
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the letter SmATE BUILDINC� CODE*
to Mr. Peter Erickson, Office of Hearin� �xaminers, LETTER
regarding the State Building Code Amendment
Fiearings, from Alan Olson, City Pianner, dated
October 24, 1979. Piotion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Letter Pages 25 - 27
t4ayor Van Nest rnoved, Butler seconded, to adopt RESOLUTIOPd #1088
Resolution #1088, A Resolution Approvinc� '"he plat Johnston' s French Lake
Of Johnston' s F'rench Lake, subject to addinc� that
the City Council directed staff to insert lanc�uaqe
into the resolution that all setbacks shall be met.
rsotion, Ayes (5) - P1ays (o) .
Telephone 473-7357
�age 25
}�'�'�� �; �
. �_ , CITY of OROl`TO
- �
' `` � Yost Uffice Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323•Municipa] Offices
_c;
, • , � On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
• - • • .
October 24 , 1979
Mr. Peter Erickson
Office of Hearing Examiners
Room 300
1745 University Avenue
Saint Paul,
Minnesota 55104
Re: State Building Code Amendment Hearings
Held October 9 & 10 , 1979
Dear Mr. Erickson:
As Building Official for the City of Orono, I wish to express my
personal and professional opinions, and the official position of
the City, regarding the proposed amendments to the State Building
Code.
The City and I have no objection to, and recommend approval of
Sections I, II, IV, V, VI, VII , and VIII as proposed by the State
Building Code Division, with the modifications suggested by the
North Star Chapter of the International Conference of Building
Officials. ' •
The City and I withhold judgment on Section IX as proposed by
parties other than the Building Code Division, but we generally
concur with the recommendations of the Division and the North
Star Chapter on these items.
The City and I wish to be on record as concurring with the position
of the North Star Chapter regarding the proposed amendments in
Section III, Accessibility and Usability of Buildings by Physically
Handicapped Persons. These amendments should be withheld for further
study or, if adopted, should be further changed or clarified in
many, many instances.
We heartily concur that buildings must be accessible and usable by
all persons, and that special considerations need be given to persons
afflicted with physical handicaps . We take exception to the mranner
and detail to which this concept is being subverted.
. Page .26
October 24 , 1979
Mr. Peter Erickson
Office of Hearing Examiners
Page 2
Many of the proposed amendments contradict national standards or are
only nominal changes from existing requirements . Many of the proposals
are lauditory goals which should be encouraged by proper incentives,
but which become unreasonable, excessive burdens on all property owners
and taxpayers if 'made mandatory. -
The building code is and should remain a minimum code for the
protection of public health and safety. Inclusion of many of these
amendments would change the intent of the code into a required design
manual without provision for attainment of equal results through
alternative methods of design. Too many of the amendments have
become "specification" requirements rather than "performance standards" .
The City and I strongly oppose this type of change.
I do not intend to belabor comments on individual sections as this
has been adequately done by the North Star Chapter. We support their
findings in all cases. However, we do wish to make the following
specific comments:
1. The existing regulations have not been given a fair trial
to determine areas needing change. Clarification of existing
requirements is reasonable; superseding existing unproven
requirements is not.
2 . Conflicts with national provisions have not been adequately �
explained or justified. '
3. Provision of handicapped facilities should accommodate all
persons but some provisions specifically exclude one or more
classes of citizen, including the temporarily handicapped (1.18813)
and or actually endanger persons not handicapped in certain ways
(1. 15503) .
4 . Section 1. 15505 is an impossible goal without halting all
construction or remodeling of small businesses and/or causing
wholesale non-enforcement. There must be reasonable exceptions
to ramp accessible areas. Remember - not all handicaps prevent
climbing stairs!
5. If standards are to be created, they must be uniform without
placing the building official in the precarious position of
arbitrating between an owner and an activist.
Page 27
October 24, 1979
Mr. Peter Erickson
Office of Hearing Examiners
Page 3
In conclusion, the City and I approve of the accessibility concept
and would approve of studied and justified clarifications to existing
requirements. We oppose the amendments as written finding them
inconsistent, overly restrictive and unenforceable. We recommend �
restudy of Section III.
� Sincerely,
r/ P. Olson
• Bu lding Official & City Planner ,
Reviewed by: Walter R. Benson, City Administrator
William B. Van Nest, Mayor
cc: City Council
Ms. Jan Gasterlund, Secretary - North Star Chapter
REGULAR tiEETIN� OF THF OROi10 COUNCIL, OCmOBLR 30, 1979 Paqe 28
�lenn Cook, Cit�� �nc�ineer, presented the follo�ving RIN� ROUTE CONSTRUCTION*
letter to the City Council regarding the rinq LETTER
route road that was mailed to Buffalo Biturlinous
October 23, 1979 :
"I�ennepin County has given permission to install the
culvert crossing of County Road 6 at station 2+50
provided the work is completed ��ith the following
conditions:
1. Construction to be completed bet�aeen 9 : 00 A.P4.
and 3: 00 P.P4.
2. One lane of traffic must be maintained at all
times.
3. Signing in accordance with Psanual on Uniform
Traffic Devices.
4. IIituminous surfacing be replaced during the
same day.
The schedule is for the work to be cor*►pleted on
Thursdav, October 25th. If there are an_y changes
from this schedule, please contact this of_fice
imriediately such that v�e can notif_�� the County.
��le have enclosed a diagram indicating the signing
required. If you have any questions, please
contact this office. "
End of letter -
Council P4eeting - October 30, 1979
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the letter
to Buffalo Bituminous from Glenn Cook dated
October 23, 1979. Piotion, Ayes (5) - tJa��s (0) . • ,
Glenn Cook, City Engineer, reviewed the ring RIN� ROUTE CONSTRUCTION
route construction progress commenting that the
contractor was not adhering to the contracted
schedule and it �aas his concern that the paving
might not be completed according to the completion
date.
P4ayor Van Nest requested City Administrator Dick
Benson and Glenn Cook to inform the contractor
that the project was held up by the contractor �
leaving the project for three and one-half weeks
this sumi-ier when weather was ideal and that the
City Council exPects the project to be comnleted
on schedule.
R�GULAR P4EETING OF '.T•_'HE ORONO COUPICIL, OC"'OBER 30 , 1979 Page 29
Glenn Cook, City .Engineer, reviewed the Orono ORONO ORCHARD ROAD
Orchard Road construction progress commenting CONSTRUCTION
that the construction �aas being completed accord-
ing to the Metropolitan Waste Control Corunission
cor-unitments.
Dick Benson, City Administrator, nre�ente� the CRYSTAL BAY POST O�'FICE
�'ity Council with the following letter .from
R. �V. Van Sickle, United States Postal Service,
dated October 16 , 1979, which states:
"The lease on the Crystal Bay, P4innesota, postal
quarters, which you own, will expire on November 30 ,
1980.
We have been advised that the present quarters
will be adequate at least another 5 vears and have
therefore been rec�uested to negoti�.te a new five-
year lease with you as lessors.
Please advise at your earliest convenience when a
meeting could be set up to discuss this matter. "
End of letter
Council P�eeting - October 30, 1979
Dick Benson, Cit�� Administrator, stated that with
City Council concurrence, he will notify the Real
Estate Division of the Postal Departr_ment that the
City of Orono, in its long-range planning, has
determined that the building housing the post
office will be needed for City housing rec�uirements ,
and that the City will not be planning on leasing � .
the building to other agencies in the f_uture.
Dick Benson also commented that he spoke to Mr. R. W.
Van Sickle, with the Real Estate Divss3on of the
Postal Department. Mr. Van Sickle commented that
the Postal Department would like to lease the huild-
ing for another five years.
PZayor Van Nest moved, Massengale seconded, to
approve Dick Benson' s recommendation which states
that the post office will be needed for City
housing req_uirements and that the City �aill not
be planning on leasing the buildin_q to other
agencies in the future. Motion, Aves (5) - Nays (0) .
REGULAR P�EE�IPJr OF TI�E ORONO COUNCIL, OCTOBER 30, 1979 Page 30
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to anProve the SALARY INCREASE*
salary increase for Karen Pederson, Lictuor Store, Karen Pederson
to $4 . 76 per hour, effective October 29 , 1979 .
PSotion, Ayes (5) - Pdays (0) .
Butler moved, Hurr seconc�ed, to approve the SALARY INCREASE*
salary increase for Patricia Higus, Liquor Patricia Higus
Store, to $4. 76 ner hour, effective October 29 ,
1979. Plotion, Ayes (5) - Navs (0) .
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to adopt Resolution RESOLUTION #1089*
�1089 , A Resolution Approving Final 911 Plan. 911 Final Plan
Aiotion, Ayes (5) - Pdays (0) .
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to approve a joint JOINT MEETING*
meeting with the City Council and Park Cortnission Park Cor!mmission/Council
on rdovertber l, 1979 at 7: 30 P.ti, tsotion,
Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the date CAIIVASS BOARD MEETIN�*
of idovemY�er 7, 1979 for the Canvass Board PZeet- Novertber 7, 1979
ing. 24otion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to appr_ove the c3ate JOIPI'T' r4EET�NG*
for a joint meeting with the P�ledina Council on P3edina/Orono
'Y'hursday, Pdovember 8, 1979 at 7: 30 P.M, in the
P4edina Council Chambers to discuss the sewer
agreement. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Alan Olson, City Planner, informed the CitV [aATER A�REEMENT*
Council that a water agreement �aas supposed to Orono/riinnetonka Beach
have been run around and completed by the sub-
divider a year ago, but it never happened.
'^he work is complete and the water is about to be
turned on.
I recommend approval of this agreement by Orono
at the Council P4eeting of October 30, 1979. It
will then be on the i4innetonka Beach aRenda for
their Novenber 12 , 1979 meetin_q.
Council Pieeting - October 30, 1979
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the
�aater agreement between Orono and *'Iinnetonka
Beach. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
REGULAR MEETING OF THF OROPdO COUNCIL, OCmOBER 3�, 1979 Page 31
Butler Moved, Hurr seconded, to apnrove an WALTFR' S PORT*
extension to June l, 1980 for completion of Extension Date
all work at �aalter' s Port at the re�uest of
�Villiam Reese, 2703 ��Ialter' s Port Lane.
Tiotion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Dick Benson, City Administrator, presented the PUBLIC HFARING DATE
Citl Council with a memo from John rerhardson, CDB�
Public Works Coordinator, concerning the CDB�
public hearing for vear VI, dated October 26 ,
1979 , which states:
In 1978, the City of Orono approved a three-
year program for allocation of funds from the
Cor.imunity Development Block Grant Proqrar.i.
The 1979 monies, approximately 559, 000 was
allocated to Housing Rehabilitation.
The 1980 and 1981 monies were allocated to the
proposed North Shore Housing Project.
One of the requirements of F�UD is to conduct
a public hearing for each prograt*i year to allow
citizen innut and also to allow the Cit�� Council
to confirmythe existing plan or recommend a change
in the plan should other priorities develop.
Therefore, I recomriend rdovember 27 , 1979 at 7: 00 P.M.
as the public hearing date for Year VI of the
Comriunity Development Block rrant Proqram.
Council i2eeting - October 30, 1979 ,
Piassengale moved, Butler seconded, to a�prove the
date of November 27, 1979 at 7: 00 P.P'I, for the
public hearing for Year VI of the Community
Development Block rrant Progrart. Psotion,
Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Dick Benson, City Administrator, nresented the REFUrdD
City Council with a r.memo from .7eanne P4abusth, Jurgen Stielow
Zoning Administrator, dated October 18 , 1979 ,
which states:
Jurgen Stielow will not represent the Lee Primus
family with the subdivision of the Ski Tonka
property. He has forr►allv withdrawn his sketch
plan application and requests a refund of the
$50 fee. (Continued)
R�GULAFt P4EETING OF THE ORONO COUNCTL, OCTOBER 30, 1979 nage 32
Psassengale moved,. Butler seconded, to approve the REFUPID
re�uest for a refund of Jurgen Stielow for 4680 Jurgen Stielow
Bayside Road in the ar►ount of �50. Piotion, (Continued)
Ayes (5) - NaXs (0) .
Dick Benson, Cit_y Administrator, presented the SPRIN� HILL CENTER*
City Council with the following letter from
Charles A. l�ialkerson, Business P'[anac�er of_ the
SPring Hill Center, dated October 24 , 1979:
"This letter is to acknowledge our discussion on
September 27, 1979 pertaininc� to the vol.untary
payr,ient by Spring Iiill Center to the Cit�� of Orono
for Police and Fire protection services rendered
iri 1980. ��Thile Spring Hill Center is a tax-exempt
organization (501 (c) (3) and does not nay taxes
for such services per se, we believe that it is
r,tutually advantageous for us to compensate Orono
to some extent for these services.
As we discussed, our payment to the City of Orono
for 1980 will be 51, 884 , payable in one sum at
the beginning of the year. mo arrive at that
ac�reed upon figure, �ae determined that Orono' s
portion of the unlevied taxes would be approximately
$6, 000. Of that ar►ount, normally 31. 40 , or $1, 884
would be budgeted for police and fire services.
Therefore, for 1980, Spring Hill Center will pay
that amount in consideration of these services.
;�e at Spring Hill Center are extremelv �leased
with the good relationships maintained between
the City of Orono and ourselves. Your continued ,
interest and support is greatly apnreciated. " � .
End of letter
Council Meeting - October 30, 1979
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the letter
from Charles A. Pialkerson, Business Pianager of
S�ring Hill Center dated October ?_4, 1979 . 14otion,
Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Dick Benson, City Administrator, �resented the CITIZEN ADVISORY
City Council with a letter from Larry Blackstad, COr�4ITmEE
Office of Planning & Development, concerning
Urban Hennepin County/Planning Area Citizen
Advisory Committee P•lembership, dated October 23,
1979, which states:
(Continued)
REGULAR PIEETTNG OF THE ORONO COUPdCIL, OCTOBER 30 , 1979 Page 33
"The Urban County has been notified by Ms. Peggy CITIZEPI ADVISORY
��latson, Orono' s a�pointee to the Planning Area S COru1ITT�E
Citizen Advisory Committee of her decision to (Continued)
resign from the Committee. It is requested that
the City of Orono appoint a rePlacement representa-
tive to serve on the Advisory Comriittee as soon as
possible. It may be appropriate to consider a
new Committee appointment at the tir.ie of Orono' s
public hearing on the year VI Community Developr�ent
Application. "
Council Meeting - October 30, 1979
P-layor Van Nest rioved, Butler seconded, to a�point APPOINTr4ENT
Howard P[eagher, 3980 Dahl Road, to the Planning Howard rieagher
Area #5 Citizen Advisory Committee. Psotion,
Ayes (5) - Nays (0) .
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the LICENS�S*
f ollowing licenses: Motion, Ayes (5) - Na��s (0) .
Boutin Plumbing - Plumber
PJational Installers - Plumber & Septic Systerl
Installation
G. H. Fullerton - F:ennel License
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, that the All Funds BILLS*
Accounts 4394 through 4447, 11522 through 11534 ,
8155 through 8197 , 10773 through 10775 and Liquor
Store Accounts 13308 through 13339 , be paid.
rsotion, Ayes (5) - Nays (o) .
Butler moved, Hurr seconded, that the r_meetinc� be ADJOURNP-4ENT
adjourned at 11: 00 P.PZ. Motion, Ayes (5) -
Nays (0) .
��,� .� ��. �,
�9illiam B. yan Nest, �'Iayor
Attest: %�� ' ����'� �� � � �
Laalter R. Benson, City Administrator