HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-2009 Council Work Session Packet Council Work Session
Tuesday,July 14, 2009, 6:15 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. Sewer Availability to Spring Hill Road and Fox Street Properties (6:15-6:25)
2. Moratorium on Duplex Conditional Use Permits—Ordinance (6:25-6:40)
3. Discussion of Narrows Dock Lots Situation ( 6:40-6:50)
4. Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Vacancy(6:50-6:55)
5. Update on Police Contracts for Contract Cities (6:55-7:00)
6. Complete Evaluation of City Administrator (7:00-8:00)
Previous Work Session Topics
June 22, 2009—Cancelled
June 8, 2009
o Police Contract Formulas
o Engineer's Report
- Myrtlewood Utility Improvements Project—Water Assessment & Bid Award
- Extension of Sewer& Water to 875 Wayzata Boulevard
o Sugar Woods—Water Connection Charge
o Xcel Energy
Orono City Council
Committee of the Whole
July 14, 2009, Following Council Meeting
Orono City Council Chambers
Present: Mayor Jim White, Council Members Cynthia Bremer, Doug Franchot, Lili McMillan and Jim
Murphy; City Administrator Bill Wells, Finance Director Ron Olson,Assistant City
Administrator for Long-Term Strategy Mike Gaffron and City Clerk Lin Vee
1. Sewer Availability to Spring Hill Road and Fox Street Properties
• These two properties are large lakeshore lots with past due deadlines to replace septic systems
due to lack of separation from the seasonal saturation zones. Both properties are also in the
M USA.
• Staff has met with the Met Council. Per Jim Utley, the Met Council plans to wait until the Comp
Plan Update is through the review process before further discussion regarding these two sewer
connections.
• McFarlin has also had communication with Utley regarding sewer connections for these two
properties.
• Staff is waiting for further information on Utley's response to McFarlin's questions as outlined in
the information distributed by Gaffron.
2. Moratorium on Duplex Conditional Use Permits—Ordinance
• The issue of duplex conditional use permits came about because staff saw a listing of lots for
sale in the Navarre area that were being marketed for duplex use.
• As staff reviewed the applicable code for these lots, it became evident that during the most
recent recodification that some of the default references were not carried over to all sections of
the code. These "housekeeping" errors could be resolved with an ordinance amendment by
holding a public hearing in August, with Council action in September. Duplex development has
been rare and a moratorium is probably not necessary.
3. Discussion of Narrows Dock Lots Situation
• These dock lots were created in the 50's to serve neighboring properties. Over the years, the
lots were sold to people outside the neighborhood.
• In 1985, the city issued conditional use permits to these properties as a way to regulate non-
resident docks.
• The issue of dock lots has been reviewed by staff and the attorney. Because of the history and
issuance of conditional use permits, it is virtually impossible to legislate these docks out of
existence.
• Some of the issues the neighbors are experiencing can be addressed by police enforcement.
Most issues cannot be addressed through the zoning code.
• Some problems noted are lighting, noise, people living on boats,tight area, and negative
social aspect for the neighborhood.
• Dock rentals are not allowed. A dock is the only structure on these 20' x 20' parcels.
• LMCD rules allow 2 boats per owner and the boats must be registered to the person who lives
on the property. If more than 3 or 4 boats are docked, the city will follow-up if a complaint is
received and the boats are not registered to the property owner.
• Council authorized Gaffron and Mattick to further research the situation. Minimal time should
be spent to document and state the city's position.
• If the city wishes to attempt to prevent future situations, code changes may be required to
clarify docks and boat slip rentals.
Page 1 of 2
Orono City Council
Committee of the Whole
July 14, 2009, Following Council Meeting
Orono City Council Chambers
4. Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Vacancy
• Per the LMCC joint powers agreement, a Council Member should be appointed as one of the
city's representatives to the LMCC.
• Council recommended that Council Member Franchot act as the Council representative. An
official appointment will be made at next Council meeting.
5. Update on Police Contracts for Contract Cities
• Spring Park will review the level of service they feel is necessary and number of officers that are
appropriate for their city. They will pass a resolution at their next council meeting documenting
their service level commitment for 2010.
6. Miscellaneous
• Paul Pesek sent a draft tree ordinance to Council Members McMillan and Franchot. The
proposed ordinance doesn't apply to existing lots, only development on new lots and new
construction.
o Staff noted a tree ordinance is difficult to enforce. Pieces of a tree ordinance already exist
within various sections of the code.
o Council directed staff to review the proposed ordinance and discuss how to proceed.
o Pesek believes Orono is one of the few cities without a tree ordinance. Staff will also
investigate how other cities are working with tree ordinances.
• Discussion of Casco Point Reconstruction Project Issues
• Water damage reported at one residence.
• Sewer line plugged at another address.
• One resident is just unhappy about the whole project.
• Long Lake Chamber of Commerce
• Copy of letter sent to Roxie Albers, President, congratulating the Chamber on its community
efforts was distributed.
• Stonebay Lofts(Zachman/condominium building)
• Gaffron distributed a memo regarding the Letter of Credit. The entire amount of$45,750
has been drawn and is in city accounts. 2 of 57 units have been sold.
7. Complete Evaluation of City Administrator
• Will be continued at a future work session.
Page 2 of 2
� FW: Orono CPU - Comments Page 1 of 7
-�-�,�,� `'� j 7-���� J�"77.�,T7�% � ��.::�v-��-
Mike Gaffron �\` a •"'� �;�'� {�,�-� • . -
� ___._,
_._.._
,---,.
From: Jim Murphy [jmurphy@goldengate.net]
�� °�. Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:58 AM
� To: Mike Gaffron
Subject: Re: Orono CPU - Comments
Mike;
Word for word what I would say! YAK!!
We'll save this & send it to Bob just before we meet with him.
Jim
----- a essage -----
From: Mike Gaffron
��� To: Jim Murphy �jmurphy�a golden atq e.net)
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:12 AM
Subject: RE: Orono CPU - Comments
Jim—here are my thoughts—
1. The Met Councii denial letter of July 10, 2008 made no connection between the Comp Plan update and
the denial of the sewer connection. However, when Bill Welis and I met with Jim Uttley and Phyllis
Hanson on October 14, they first suggested that I do a density calculation for just the existing lakeshore
MUSA lots to see if that would yield a density of 3 units per acre to justify at least allowing sewering of
lots that abut the lake. I suggested that would take some time to compile; they then suggested that we
complete our work on the Comp.Plan before they would address this further. (I later did that analysis—
even when discounting wetlands and the unbuildable 0-75' zones, we are nowhere near 3 units per acre
— more like 1.1 units per acre).
2. It has been my contention all along that there is no logical connection between the two. In my opinion
this is purely a situation in which Met Council staff have extended their authority far beyond the scope of
the policies established by Met Council in its October 13, 2004 "Guidelines for Evaluating Amendments
Proposing Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Expansion" ("the Guidelines") nor by the September
12, 2007 revisions to the Guidelines ("the Revisions"). The reasoning behind my position is stated in my
July 25, 2008 letter to Kyle Colvin. In their zeal to promote the Met Council's density policies, Uttley and
Hanson have applied a policy that under MC guidelines shouid not be applicable to a mere connection
request for a property already in the MUSA sine 1998 for which we are not requesting a comprehensive
plan amendment, which is not an expansion of the MUSA, which is not a land use change, and is not a
staging change. The remedy suggested by Uttley and Hanson was that we should provide for a density
offset to result in an average of 3.0 units per acre (i.e. for this single 7.5 acre property to connect we
should re-guide a 2.5 acre MUSA site elsewhere at a density of 12 units per acre). This may seem to be
a relatively painless exercise for one parcel, but when extended to all our unsewered properties already
in the MUSA since 1998-2000, it becomes absurd. From my perspective, this is purely a matter of
honoring prior commitments, and should not be related to the Comp Ptan update.
3. Both properties (3125 Fox and 1135 Spring Hill) are lakeshore lots that have septic systems that are past
the City's established deadline for being replaced due to lack of separation from the seasonal saturation
zones. Both properties have alternate sites and septic system replacement is an option, but not the
preferred option for takeshore properties. That is why we ptaced most of Orono's remaining lakeshore
properties into the MUSA in 1998 and 2000—so they could connect to the sewer.
- Mike
7/14/2009
FW: Orono CPU - Comments Page 2 of 7 '
Michael P.Gaffron
Assistant City Administrator/Long Term Strategy
City of Orono
(Street Address)2750 Kelley Parkway
(Mailing Address)P.O. Box 66,Crystal Bay , MN 55323
Phone: (952)249-4600
Fax: (952)249-4616
,— _ -- �
-'� From: Jim Murphy [mailto:jmurphy@goldengate.net]
� Sent: Sunday, June Z8, 2009 12:16 PM
To: Mike Gaffron
Subject: Fw: Orono CPU - Comments
As promised. I have my responses to his questions....what would yours be?
Jim
----- Oriqinal Message -----
''� From: McFarlin, o e�ItM--1i11�j
To: jmurphy@goldengate.net
��) Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 1:36 PM
Subject: FW: Orono CPU - Comments
Jim,
Here are the questions 1 posed to Jim Uttley.
-----Original Message-----
From: McFarlin, Robert [mailto:Robert.McFariin(a�metcstate.mn.us]
Sent: Sat 6/27/2009 1:33 PM
To: McFarlin, Robert(MIN -WSW)
Subject: FW: Orono CPU -Comments
�,.,� From: McFarlin, Robert ---"
� Sent: Friday,June 26,2009 2:33 PM
� � To: Uttley,Jim
Subject: RE: Orono CPU -Comments
Hi Jim,
I have not been contacted on this sewer issue in Orono, so the questions I pose here are just of my own curiosiry:
Is it normal procedure to address a request for a sewer hook up permit in the context of a comprehensive plan review, or is
this an approach in an attempt to spur timely comp plan action from the ciry?
7/14/2009
` FW: Orono CPU - Comments Page 3 of 7
What issues related to the sewer permit request overlap the comp plan review -in short,is there a logical connection
between the two?
By not immediately addressin�the sewer permit request,are we riskin�any environmental consequences, i.e. are we
dealing with inadequate septic systems at the current time?
Thanks.
Bob
�^ From: Uttley,Jim
� � Sent: Tuesday,June 23,2009 3:42 PM
To: 'Mike Gaffron'
Cc: Hanson, Phyllis; Colvin, Kyle; McFarlin,Robert; 'McFarlin, Robert(MIN - WSW)';Pickart, Bryce
Subject: FW: Orono CPU -Comments
Importance: High
Mike,
This is in response to your question regarding sewer permits for large lot properties such as 1135 Spring Hill Road& 3125
Fox Street, both of which-accordinQ to Hennepin County records -are 7.5 acres each. Befare responding to your question,
I wanted to touch-base with Council management on the matter.
The issue of whether to permit sewering of large lot properties in Orono, whether in or outside the MUSA,will be
addressed in the conteat of the Council's review of and action on Orono's comprehensive plan update.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Best regards,
Jim Uttley, Planning Analyst& Sector Representative
Metropolitan Council
390 Robert Street North
7/14/2009
FW: Orono CPU - Comments Page 4 of 7
Saint Paul MT�' S5101-1805
651-602-1361
Jim.uttley@metc.state.mn.us
�� From: Uttley,Jim
Sent: Thursday,June 18,2009 8:59 AM
� �To: 'Mike Gaffron'
Cc: Hanson, Phyllis
Subject: RE: Orono CPU -Comments
Mike,
I would subgest a couple of things with respect to the Update.
l. Contact everyone-except Metro Transit-on your distribution list and ask them to please try to get their comments to
you within the 30 days. Whi]e they have longer(legally), many should be able to do it more quickly and still meet the
letter of the law. Many cities have sent out self-address stamped envelopes and a check-off sheet with a signature line or a
pre-addressed post card to facilitate early responses. Please send us copies of responses received.
2. Go ahead and send your Update in to the Council (attention: Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator)on or before July 31.
We need only one hard-copy and one electronic copy on a disc(in PDF format). The submittals should include the
submittal form, copies of any comments&responses,a copy of the current zonine map&zoninb district details(densities,
lot sizes, land uses)and a copy of the city's 5-year CIP, SWMP(if ready)and other items noted in the MLPA and Planning
Handbook.
FYI-The vast majority of Updates, even those that we informally reviewed,have been found incomplete at the time of the
initial submittal.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Best reQards.
Jim Uttley,Planning Analyst& Sector Representative
Metropolitan Council
390 Robert Street North
Saint Paul MN 55101-1805
651-602-1361
7/14/2009
' FW: Orono CPU - Comments Page 5 of 7
Jim.uttley@metc state.mn.us
� From: Mike Gaffron [mailto:MGaffron(a�ci.orono.mn.us]
�Sent: Wednesday,June 17,2009 4:34 PM
��To: Uttley, Jim
Subject: RE: Orono CPU -Comments
Hi, Jim-
Unfortunately,we don't have a time machine and I can't turn the clock backwards. The Plan took longer to prepare for
review than anticipated.
I'll be happy to submit it to Met Council by July 3] if you wish -I assume you will then find it incomplete, as the 6-month
affected-jurisdiction review period and hearing process won't have been completed, but you will at least have it in hand to
start your review process, if you choose to do so. Let me l:now if that is your recommendation.
We are also in the process of completing the update of our Surface Water Mana�ement Plan which should be ready for its
60-day review to bebin in late July or early August.
Mike
Michael P. Gaffi-on
Assistant Ciry Administrator/Long Term Strategy
City of Orono
(Street Address)2750 Kelley Parkway
(Mailin�Address) P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay , MN 55323
Phone: (952)249-4600
Faa: (952)249-4616
�.��, From: Uttley,Jim [mailto:jim.uttlev�na,metc.state.mn.us]
''� �'�Sent: Wednesday,June 17,2009 3:�1 PM
� z�Io: Mike Gaffron
�
7/14i2009
FW: Orono CPli - Comments Page 6 of 7 '
Subject: RE: Orono CPU -Comments
Importance: High
Hi Mike,
The Council gave Orono an eatension to July 31,2009 for the submittal of its comp plan update to the Council at the Ciry's
request. If the Ciry is asking far comments through December 10,2009: how does the City plan to meet the extension
deadline? Pll chat with Phyllis about the other question and get back to you tomorrow or soon.
Jun
From: Mike Gaffron [mailto:MGaffron(cr�ci.orono.mn.us]
� Sent: Wednesday,June 17,2009 3:21 PM
` To: Uttley, Jim
Subject: RE: Orono CPU-Comments
Jim -
Duly noted. The Comp Plan in CD form was mailed out to adjacent jurisdictions and pertinent agencies on June 10,with a
request for comments b��December 10,2009 ar earlier if possible(see attached sample letter, comment form and recipient
list).
The draft plan is available far review on the Orono website at: http://www.ci.orono.mn.us/City%20Code/Comp%20Plan%
20203 0/Web%20Page%20Lavout%202.pdf
Now that the Plan is put to bed for the time being, we need to re-open the issue of connectin�existing MUSA properties to
the sewer. I note that we have not yet received a response to our request for an MPCA permit to connect an existing house
at 1135 Spring Hill Road. This property is in essentially the same category as the 312� Fox Street property we discussed
last fall - in the MUSA since 2001,not subdividing,not a comp plan amendment,not expanding the MUSA,not a land use
change,not a sta�ing change. No reasonable basis to include it in the densiry calculation or to deny it the abiliry to connect.
Let me know when we can meet to discuss this. Thanks!
Mike
7/14/2009 -
' FW: Orono CPU - Comments Page 7 of 7
Michael P. Gaffron
Assistant City Administrator/Long Term Strategy
City of Orono
(Street Address)2750 Kelley Parkway
(Mailing Address)P.O. Box 66, Crysta] Bay, MN 55323
Phone: (952)249-4600
Fax: (952)249-4616
� i From: Uttley, Jim [mailto:jim.uttiey(a�metcstate.mn.us]
� Sent: Tuesday,June 16,2009 9:42 AM
To: Mike Gaffron
Cc: Mahowald, Steve
Subject: Orono CPU -Comments
Importance: High
Mike,
Metro Transit staff notified me that they received a copy of the City's draft Update for review and comment. Metropolitan
Council divisions will review and comment on the Update when it is officially submitted to the Council for review. They
should not be considered as part of the adjacent community and special district 6 month review requirement. Any
questions, please contact me.
Best reQards.
Jim
7/14i2009
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor& City Council
Bill Wells, City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Asst. City Admin. - Long Term Strategy
Date: July 13, 2009
Subject: Code Revision Needed for Duplex Conditional Use Permits
- Maratorium Necessary????
Background
In each of Orono's Lakeshore Residential zoning districts (LR-lA, LR-1B, LR-1C and
LR-1 G 1) as well as in the R-1 A and R-1 B non-lakeshore zoning districts (but not in the
Rural Residential districts), duplex dwellings are allowed as a Conditional Use per the
following provisions:
"Duplex credit. One duplex may be located as a conditional use upon application,
provided that public sanitary sewerage service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a
commercial or industrial district, or within 250 feet of the B-3 district, and the duplex
is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial district."
The term Duplex is not defined in the Code, but it has generally been taken to mean a
single tax parcel with one building containing two dwelling units, owned by one person
who rents out one or both units. This is in contrast to a"twinhome" or"townhome"
situation, in which each half of the two-unit building is owned separately on separate
adjoining tax parcels.
The minimum required lot size for a duplex is the same size as for a single family home
within the respective zoning districts. When a property proposed for a duplex is also
within the Shoreland District, it is intended to also be subject to the Shoreland standards
of Section 78-1277, which currently reads as follows:
Sec. 78-1277. Minimum lot area/lot width standards. Minimum lot area and lot
width standards of the underlying zoning district shall apply, with the following
exceptions:
(1) No lot within 1,000 feet of a general development lake and approved for
duplex use per section 78-228(10) shall be less than 135 feet in width nor less
than 26,000 square feet in area, if riparian, nor less than 17,500 square feet in
area, if nonriparian.
(2) No lot within 300 feet of a tributary and approved for duplex use per section
78-228(10) shall be less than 150 feet in width when no sewer is available, nor
less than 115 feet in width when sewer is available.
Sec. 78-228(10) is the duplex provision of just the R-lA district. Section 78-1277 as
__ written only refers to the duplex provision of the R-lA district. I believe this is an error
stemming from the 2003 Municipal Code Recodification.
Duplex Provisions
July 13, 2009
Page 2
In the prior code, all zoning districts with the duplex provision referenced back to the R-
lA district conditional use standards (via the language "Any conditional use as regulated
in the R-lA District") rather than listing each one of the allowed uses in each district's
text; so that the R-lA provisions became the default provisions. During the
recodification, the reference to R-lA was dropped in each section in favor of listing all
conditional uses in each district, so the R-lA standards no longer were the default. As a
result, Section 78-1277 should have included references to each of the individual district
conditional use duplex provision sections rather than just 78-228(10).
How We Discovered this Problem
The situation that brought this code problem to light is a pair of small lots currently being
marketed in the Navarre area for duplex use. We saw the listing and wanted to confirm
that the lots could in fact be used for a duplex.
The lots are in the LR-1C District and in the Shoreland. They meet the location
provisions of the LR-1C District to qualify for a duplex credit, but not the area
requirement. The minimum lot size in LR-1C is '/� acre or 21,780 s.f. Sec. 78-72(B)(1)
requires prior Council approval to use these properties for building if they are less than
80% of the '/z acre requirement. The two lots total 14,774 s.f. or only 68% of'/2 acre;
they would require Council approval (a lot area variance) to build on them either
individually or as a combined lot, for a single family home or a duplex.
Next, we attempted to apply the current Shoreland code section 78-1277 regarding
duplex lot sizes. Because the lots aren't in the R-lA district to which the current
problematic wording of 78-1277 applies, the provisions of 78-1277 can't be applied. This
makes our Shoreland ordinance technically inconsistent with MnDNR Rules, although in
most cases we are likely to run across, the City regulations would be more restrictive than
those of the DNR.
It's an Easy Fix
The fix would appear as follows:
Sec. 78-1277. Minimum lot area/lot width standards. Minimum lot area and lot
width standards of the underlying zoning district shall apply, with the following
exceptions:
(1) No lot within 1,000 feet of a general development lake and approved for
duplex use per section 78-228(10), 78-253(10 , 7�10), 78-328(9), 78-
348(10), or 78-367(10) shall be less than 135 feet in width nor less than
26,000 square feet in area, if riparian, nor less than 17,500 square feet in area,
if nonriparian, but such lot shall also meet the minimum lot area and width
�� requirements of the res�ective underl�ng zonin� district.
Duplex Provisions
July 13, 2009
Page 3
(2) No lot within 300 feet of a tributary and approved for duplex use per section
78-228(10) 78-253(10), 78-303(10), 78-328(9 , 7�-3�10), or 78-367(10)
shall be less than 150 feet in width when no sewer is available, nor less than
115 feet in width when sewer is available, but such lot shall also meet the
minimum lot width requirements of the respective underl� zg oning district.
City Standards vs DNR Standards
The pertinent duplex provisions in Orono's code are related to the respective zoning
districts as follows:
78-228(10)R-lA District 1.0 acre (43,560 s� x 0.8 = 34,848 sf 140' width
78-253(10)R-1B District 0.5 acre (21,780 s� x 0.8 = 17,424 sf 100' width
78-303(10)LR-lA District 2.0 acre (87,120 s� x 0.8 = 69,696 sf 200' width
78-328(9) LR-1B District 1.0 acre (43,560 sfj x 0.8 = 34,848 sf 140' width
78-348(10)LR-1C District 0.5 acre (21,780 s� x 0.8 = 17,424 sf 100' width
78-367(10)LR-1C-1 District 0.5 acre (21,780 s� x 0.8 = 17,424 sf 100' width
DNR standards for duplex lots are different for duplexes than for single family lots, and
different between lake classifications, different between sewered and unsewered
property, and different between riparian and non-riparian lots. The pertinent elements
that would affect duplex-qualified lots in Orono:
Ri arian Non-Ri arian
(Sewered) Single family Duplex Single family Duplex
General 15,000 s.f. 26,000 s.£ 10,000 s.£ 17,500 s.f.
Development 75' 135' 75' 135'
Recreational 20,000 s.£ 35,000 s.£ 15,000 s.£ 26,000 s.f.
Development 75' 135' 75' 135'
Natural 40,000 s.£ 70,000 s.f. 20,000 s.f. 35,000 s.f.
Environment 125' 225' 125' 220'
Basis for Moratorium Request
The initial assumptions we made for suggesting that a moratorium be enacted were that
we have a variety of unfinished code revisions that are of higher priority at the moment.
However, further analysis today suggests that this may be a relatively easy fix. Moratoria
should not be enacted merely to delay development of one property. The incidence of
requests for duplex uses is rare (I can think of only one we've had in the past 10 years);
and the property in question (standards applicable are highlighted above in yellow) would
need a lot area variance from Orono's code regardless whether the Shoreland section
_ applied. These "housekeeping" errors that need to be resolved would require a public
hearing that can happen in August, with Council action by September. A moratorium
may be an unnecessary option.
� tl� i� . � ".�I}� "su '4'v.;. , . _� 't�"�;4 % . ,;,�,.
`,� � }.� i� " .ra'"� - :� -s�.�
"y . �. s , ;� "�'��u $ � r�
� �. , � o���,:�„ :� , �-�� ��
t". 3 � -�, �`�,t�-�' >`�r' ,4�
`'a f � r s �;,.
�` ' �v� ��; �. ,�
r n_ - �'
,��. ' `. .�y, f�.,
��� �I� ,��;,�! �r y�
.
r '�{
z'1w1A, ��"n^M ' . . _ a -
�
�
. , • , �� `r„ - ' rx,
�,�p''�� �� .. M .{ e ..g 9�` �� � �# *;3,' . � �:' .
s .
. ,
� � �� �� � �7� _
.
� .
.:� . .� . .. . �.
�, _ .r�� . „ ::�`. � � �1.
�t�� �� t9^. . '�t �. "9"�ta-�� 't�,..
i� �.. j," 9 '�. � �'�^� . „ p..
�-� �� f�,+► 1��
�'-"t. . " . 'F`� 'Tr'� �-'-�-"rf � � �'�.. '�
_ 2
- i s . .
._ .
� � �
.
, :. - _., s .:�'
. - t . � j,
� �. . , � �,� �
�.
'�4�r, lN'l<._.. ye.. �., �as9���'�� y� 9.J"^�ft y. . _
. � �, x +9. �� �T"",-
II�� pI I '^�
„� � ili�i�l� r .�. � , _ _ �' ,.�
. °r �� � . ' �Q�� �` �'�.�. � Sri'!
.s'11 �' "c, `. !"�`3,�� � �.
�'
- ,
,
�
»
+{ ~}. � ��'�i�������K� � � .�,a =,'.�"!'
� 1 s � t ♦
� � �.Ir y. � }'�'. _�j``'� � .� � ��.
� � ��\',�� � �� � _ �` .
, z� w
e
,. . ,. ., � _ .. '
� � ..,. � .4 � .
��- ��^ � . �� ?
, . r � �+3��� -. �� � �1�
x
�... '�a� ! ,. ��r � � � ��� �� x '�.�.; t ,a t�,,,�
`,;:y. .,�f, .�' �g. .
. c. (� a .' a� ��"' "'��'. � �w'�,
.w F;� $ .,z� �,',�,��� y '�B' , '�^"� � �g
,w' $ �„� J �
' 'f ; �� c,°ata �� Tk„p 'r ..�.� :»^ Y �.�'�.SI
�, . _ ! ,,,,;5 ..
'� .4"�.���.s.� .�s �r ,A�, _ .�,,�:a ' �'' .�•
, �- _
, q�, ,� � ,;� 4 .
x ., o _, , i.
. , . -�. . , : y �- ,-.. ._.,
.� „�
��_. ".�`..
�•
� �
,M,
a p a ➢� a eq= OD9� o soft
http://api.tiles.virtualearth.net/api/GetMap.ashx?b=h,mkt.en-us&z=18&c=44.9278270986664,-93.5959559308587&
Page 1 of 1
� , �E . ; ,� � _"� r. ,���/ '�, w'`
� A � e.}
�. �4
�',
� /,y��� , .1
4 y
i.� {, �,_� . 4 Y�..
�, � � .. � � � � j �P -
;
.. �� . . '\ 1` . i
R .' e�� • r ' . F ; S/�r /�
� � �, . qojw
,� k y ��' � 00�'40 �♦
•�m�. ��± ��� �+ A�
��`'" f � � �
�
�� .. �
. r'
f/� .
t �_;�� y� ti..
� t� � , � -�
, l
M � �� �
,
i • i
� y � :�
J
�. 4`$
�-3 m y�... y�,,� �
��
' � � �� �� ��� . � }� .
+,�: ih .
P
s �#f r , �
. y � �' �
7�+ �
� w�"
� � #
,� �
��f. . �� � ��.'. . ... • '`�, _. � � . . �
http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/output/HC_PROPERTY_MAP2_www87532638019805.jpg 7/14/2009
,�
\
_ . � . . . . � _ —
� � � a � �' � d �
� -� � � 0 _ , _
� � � � � � ,�� .
� `� N -� p �y�y�� . :,L`'�` �
r Z _
.
C1 � Q � `� � � I� \� \
.,�,_. .�� _��- -.n- _N_ ,� � - � �, ,
�" � T" �. � Sa -j � - -�'� ������� _ ` ��� t
s � --.. � —_ — ` - � � �--- �-
- - � ` � n a \�
� n A T � � ��4� o I �j� ` � � ° ��_
� O � ~ S � c � \ �' � ' •f'
O � Q � � � \ < � \ �i� � E
� -� �+ r �y� � �
� c� r
� � � 'r fi � , � ' /i� Z� z
y rt,
,,
z Ia a'` `` ��
� �a - �
, -�,� 1
J � J J � G oW o \ � i � \ � �a�.
_ o � J v� oo � . ,,,, , ' �.'�, .a
_ � � �1 W o- � --- -- — — __ ��" �o
� x� 1
20
z = $ � � � � �� + � �� � '' � �
�" � 'v� b � F -� a 1 i �cn ��c ' ' , � � � �-1 0
� �? -c � (� � t� G� I 1 �
� � �., �" � � �'C �, , - -- - - - _ - `_"_
� ,T l� � �1 � Q z� � � -�v =�Q . o ` 3i3 N I
�
� ,,, b p., I � � c � , � m S� v �
� � �' x� r — — — - _ — _-— I `� --
� � � � � -� Q o� � i �
N � N � � a's� �tX ( '�`bo �
� � - ° � � ; �
� �° � ��
- - _
� v � — -- — -- --' �
� + � c b
o � o�.� � I °3 o X
� z �� � c � .
_ ��w_ r. �' � �'
— -- _ o
�
� I � o?, 6 � ; , ;�� , _.I �` v :/
,( � ba� ; � i jr 6
�� ��\ — � _ __.__ C �_ � -- —� I
� _..-.� � I O � �� ; � ,��. i � ' � .
' c� �`, F � �s � "-* ' i �C7 c
1 � � � . _
� i '� � I
/ �\ 6C � I � E � � � ' � �
-.�c ` -- --- _ w,...,,_.,. _. ..�,_.
/ �\- .
� -',,, o \` - -
� � I
: / � � ��,�J , ; F
, ,
`,. �' ' �
, o
,� � �
�
r
. �� � Z
j % �i
'` ''�`.'a� / �
� ��_ J �,/
— _.� .. I
�,, �.�
,�,
I
_ �
�
_,_.. ___ �j �
_. _.__ _.�
, . ...._ __�_.....
-� __-- -_
�, - _—.._ -.- --- .
. _..._,_ _ —
_-;:�
. _ ��
,�
� � � �, ,�...
v� , � �
; w
�, , �;
_--__
o � � � i���� __=____�_c___`,\\
.� 1 �.
�
� �
� ,
� �
0'�� i
`��
V
�-�i,.'
\
• � O�,
/ O O �
: -_-_ � c I�� Qf o�oNa
� _
'''�r►+ : ,� MunicipalOffices
� ��. ;.,
� ' ` '`�,G, Street Address: htaifing Address:
�����-��'�g�O�`�% 2750 I(elfey Parkway P.O. Box 66
�-_� Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
Auausf 9. 2000
Jim Zimmerman
274� Shadvwood Road
Excelsior, MI�� ��331
Re: Narrows Dock Lot Issues
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
We are in receipt of your July 20 memo. The Cit�-'s position on the various issues surrounding th�
Narrows dock lots is as follo��s:
1. Re: Ownership/rental status of the boat "Chop Chop". It is our understanding that the
boat "Chop Chop", docked at Wittman's lot, was formerly owned solely by Vvittman. but
is currentl�� owned bv�'ittman and Bates jointly.Bates claims that he is the pnncipal o��ner
of the boat and that Wittman's share in the ownership is minimal. Our previous discussion
with a representative of Bates resulted in a proposal to re-title "Chop Chop" solely in
Vvittman's name to eliminate any question that Wittman is an owner oz this boat.
If such a re-titling did occur, the City would have no basis to consider this as a rental slip
situation. The fact that the primar�- user of tne boat is a co-owner not on the title, or is any
person not on the title, is a non-issue from the Cin�'s perspective, because the;,ode does not
prohibit a person from allowina others to use his boat (this would not be the case in the
situation�uhere a pure rental or charter crafr was beina operated as a business in a residential
zone).
The code sections that appl�-to slip rentai read as rollo��s:
�.?3 (Marina Business Licer.se):
Subd. L�: (Definitionl: "Business Use" means enga�ina in either a marina business
or the business or dociting, moorin� or storing boats. �
Subd. 1 C (Definitionl: "Business of Doc�;ing, Moorina or Storina Boats" rneans
rentin� or otherwise providin,space, includin�boat buo��s, fo:dockin�,moorin� or
storinQ one or more boats belon�ing to persons othe.than the owner or occupant of
the property, eacept v�Then licensed as a joint use.
Telephone(9�2) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616
���.ci.orono.mn.us
Jim Zimmerman
Au�ust 9, 2000
PaQe 2
Subd. '_': License Reauired. It is unla�Tful for any persons to enaage or participate in
business use without first havine obtained an annual Iicense therefor from the Cin�.
Subd. 6: Business lise Licenses Limited.to B-2 Zone. No business use shall be
Iicensed in any zoning district other than B-?, except when a business use is allowed
by ordinance in another zonin� district, such use conducted in said district shall not
be required to obtain a Iicense.
Per the above,a business use requires a Iicense and a business use license may only be issued
for a site in the B-2 zone, hence business use is not allowed in any residential zones.
However, the Bates/Vv ittman situation seems to be ever-chanainQ. We were advised last
Thursday b�� a representative of Bates that Bates has no intentyto re-titling the boat to
�Jittman. Bates claims to have been leasin� the land (and its attached dock space) from
Wittman for a rew vears. Bates� representative claims he has a right to use the dock space
because he is renting the land which includes the doc� space, and is technically the
`occupant' of the property�. The code allows a boat to be docked when it is owned b�� the
occupant of the propem�. The City Attorney has reviewed the term `occupancy' in this
context and has concluded that `occupancy' likel�% does not require actual Iiving on the
property, but merely requires an occupant to have the leased ri�hts to use the land.
Cin� staff will be followina this up b�� attemptina to obtain a copy of the lease. We are
advised by Bates' representative that "Chop Chop" will be moved to a different site next
year, hence the immediate issue ma�- be resolved in a few months. City staff will be
considerina possible code revisions prio� to the 2001 boating season to close this apparent
loophole.
Please be aware that until last week the Citv Attome� has had no direct involvement in this
specific matter. We l:now of no action by the City Attorne��to force the removal of"Chop
Chop" in ?1 days, in � da��s, or in anv number of davs. Start has r.ad a number of onaoin�
discussions with Bates' and V�Tittman's representatives aver the last month, and the issuance
of deadiines for action is a fluid process as inrormation is �ained.
2. Ginther/Ault Docl:.s.
.A. Potential CUP Withdraw�al.
Ginther and Ault have not vet wZthdrawn their CUP application. VJe are not
convinced that they uTill withdrau� it. They have the riQht to withdrav�� it ir they so
Jim Zimmennan
Au�ust 9. 2000
PaRe 3
choose. If the��withdra�-it, the Cit�� will have to decide what actions to take. The decision
on wnat action the City miaht talce is afiected b�� a number of factors, includina:
• The CUP application was not iorced u�on Ginther and Ault. They chose to
apply for a CUP at the request of Cirv staff; based on the same method of
re�ulation that the City chose to pursue in 198� for Narrows docks that were
owned by persons who did not live in the immediate area. As you l:nov��,the
Gintner/Ault dock lot was owned bv a neiahborhood resident as oi 198�,
hence no CUP was required at that time ior this site.
• In 198� the City apparently concluded that the narrows docks were leQally
non-conforming by virtue of beina in place and aenerally continually in use
since prior to 1-1-68 ��hen the "no accesson use without a principal use"
code was first adopted. The City thererore chose not to pursue removal of the
docks.
• The City apparently concluded that those docks owned b�� persons in the
immediate nei�hborhood could be considered as accessory to the nearby
principal residence, which met the intent or the ordinance (securit��,
primarily) if not the letter of the ordinance.
• The Cit}� in 198� chose to furthe;reaulate the docks owned by persons who
did not own a principal residence in the immediate neiRhborhood. Absent
ciear direction in the code, the Cin� chose tne issuance of a Conditional L1s�
Permit as an effective waS- of establishir_� suitable contro?s on the non-
resident docks. The CIJP estaolisned muumal standards for parkin� and
dock len�th, but not much more. The CUP apparently was voluntarily
accepted by the non-resident owners of dock lots as a reasonable method to
establish their continued ri�hts to use tne docks.
� Because the Ginther and Ault dock lot was owned by a nei�hborhood resident
ir. 198�. it was not subject to a CUP. Ii Ginther and .4ult choose not to
accPpt the CUP method oi establishina tnei� riahts, the City has Iimited
recourse via the CUP process, because the zonina code technicall5� does not
require a CUP for a dock.
• Cit�• stafi a�rees that expansion from one slip to two slips is an expansion oi
a non-conforminQ use.Howeve:,remo��in�the second Ault/Ginther dock slip
based on it bein�added after 1-1-68 is not necessarily as simple as providin,
an airphoto sho��ing onl}- one dock at some aiven date in 1971.
Jim Zimmerman
Au�ust 9. 2000
PaRe 4
. The findings made b��the City Council in the 198� CUP's support continued
use of the e�isting docks subject to a small number of conditions.
.At this time the Ci�� does not intend to pursue removal of the docks from anv of the
docl: lots. City staff believes that it wi11 be virtually impossible to le�islate these
docks out of e�istence, given their lona history of continued use. The issue of
whether the second dock on Ginther and Ault's lot is IeQally nonconformin� is
extremel��murky in our opinion. Th� factthat the Cit�-has allowed this property to
exist unhindered with two sligs for nearlv 30 vears makes it difficult for the Cin�to
make the case that this use shouldn't be allowed to continue as it has in the past.Had
the second dock appeared very recently,the Cit��would be in a much better position
to pursue its removal.
It is my understanding that the Mayor has had numerous discussions with you and
with various dock lot owners in an attempt to �ain for you and your nei�hbors a`first
riQht of refusal' for purchase of the non-resident dock lots as they come up for sale.
City staff fully supports the concept that dock lots should be owned by property
owners in the immediate neiahborhood. Citv staff will support your efforts to
estabiish covenants which will disailow the separate sale of dock lots from the
neiahborhood principal residence propem� to which they are accessory. Such a
covenant would provide you with more neiQhborhood control of the situation than
currently exists.
B. General ext�ansion of use at tne docks:
I. Vve do not consider the fla�pole as an intensification or extension of the
nonconforminQ use or a violation of anv past CUP conditions, and we will
take no action regarding the flagpole.
?. VJe do not consider the provision o�electricity at the docks as an eztension
or intensizication of a nonconforming use. even tnou�h electricin�allo��s the
docks to have certain amenities wnich ma��be offensive to the neiRhborhood
such as liRhting, etc.
�. We do not consider the addition of canopies over the individual docks as an
expansion of the nonconforminQ use.
4. We do not consider overniQht occupancy of boats stored at the docks as an
expansion of the nonconformina use. The City has not adopted any
ordinances prohibiting overniQht occupancy of boats.
3im Zimmerman
Au�ust 9. ?000
PaQe J
�. Based on staff ineasurements tius vear, none of th: docks subject to an
existing CUP have been extended past the len�ths allowed b�� the CUP.
Docl�in� of boats that are lonaer than tne docks is not specificall�� re�ulated
in the City code nor in the existin� CUP's.
C. Issues Citv V�%ill Address.
1. We believe that the Ci��can address IightinQ issues throu�h the ZoninQ Code.
The Cit��can require the shieldinQ or the source of Iiahtin�(the bulbs)so that
it is not visible from adjoining propenies. This is normally enforced by the
Zoning Department. You or the neiQhborhood will have to advise us of any
specific Iighting issues before we will take action. Generally, City staff
supports the idea of security Iightin� for these docks as a deterrent to theft
and vandalism, which can spill over into the neiahborhood.
?. Noise issues with the use of securin� alarms, loud music, etc. can be dealt
with via the noise ordinance which is enforced by the Police Department.
Faise alarms would be dealt w�ith in the normal manner bv the Police
Department. Cit�� staff supports the use of securit�� systems and alarms as a
deterrent to crime.
�. The�issue of the driveway hardcover wit'tun 7�' of the lake is a zoning matter
which the Zonin� Department is pursuin�. V�rnile the placement of a.avel
does not require a buildinQ permit, the location in which it was placed is not
leval aiven that it is considered �s hardcover when used as a parkin� area.
The Cit��has asked Ginther and Ault to remove the hardcover parkin� area.
Their response is that they wi11 request a variance for the parl;ina area
hardcover because the Cit�� has eliminated their street parl:inQ.
4. The Police Department has ad��ised that pari:in� on pri��ate propert�� is onl��
required to be 3' from a fire h��drant;the no�nal 10'parlcin�separation is not
enforceable on pri��ate prope����.
D. Other Issues.
1. I am advised by the LMCD that there ma�� be issues with certain Nano��c
docl:s in relation to the dock use areas aefined b�� e�tended lot lines. This is
a separate matter that would have to be addressed tnrouah the LMCD.
Jim Zimmerman
AuQust 9, ?000
PaQe 6
2. The City intends no additional action in relation to tne dock lot parking alon�
Count�� Road 19. The parlcin� ban remains in effect.
I hope that this letter provides you with a clear picture of the City`s position on this matter. Please
contact me at 9��'-249-4600 if you have any questions.
Sincerel��.
' �///�vi��� /f�/ •
/ �
Michael P. Gaffron
Senior PlarminQ Coordinator
cc: Richard Gay
Dick O�le
Ron Moorse
Grea Gappa
Paul VJeinberaer
Gary Cheswick
Thomas Barrett
Citv Council
Dock Rental Information Flver 4-98
Updated 5-04
�0,�. CITY OF ORONO
Building & Zoning Department
� ��� 0
a'` ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
a t�.:.���� a
�'„� �.� .;;, I ,�ti Excerpts Regarding
��,;,;���,��,G PROHIBITION OF BOAT SLIP RENTAL
ES�I��' IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Orono Municipal Code prohibits residential property owners from renting out boat slips at
their private docks. The provision of slippage for anyone other than the owners or occupants of
the property, regardless whether there is a 'rental fee' involved, is prohibited. Such activity is
considered to be the 'business of docking, mooring or storing boats' which is only allowed within
the B-2 Lakeshore Business District.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following Municipal Code sections apply:
Section 78-661: Definition: "Marina Business" means engaging in one or more of the permitted,
accessory or conditional uses allowed within the B-2 Lakeshore Business District.
Section 78-665: Within the "B-2" Lakeshore Business District, no land or structures shall be
used except for one or more of the following uses:
(1) Rental of in-water boat slips...
...(4) On-land storage of boats, winter and summer.
Sections 78-302/303/304; 78-327/328/329; 78-347/348/349: (LR-1A, LR-1B, LR-1C One Family
Lakeshore Residential Zoning Districts, list of permitted, conditional and accessory allowed uses).
None of these single family residential districts include 'rental of in-water boat slips' or 'on-land
storage of boats, winter and summer' as allowed uses. They do allow "private docks" as an
accessory use, 'subject to the City Code and other applicable reQulations. includinb boat storaQe
density requirements'. While 'private docks' is not defined in the zoninb code, the City has
contended and the court has upheld that a private dock is an accessory structure which by
definition is a use "exclusively used for purposes incidental to those of the principal use", i.e. for
the use of the owners or occupants of the property.
Section 94-36/37/38: Re: Joint Use of Lake Facilities. This Section requires annual licensing for
adjoining riparian property owners who wish to share a dock. It does not allow for business use of
private docks.
Continued -
Citv of Orono
PROHIBITION OF BOAT SLIP RENTAL IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES-Continued
Section 94-71 thru 94-101: Re: Marina Business Licensing
94-71: Definitions
"Business Use" means engaging in either a marina business or the business of docking,
mooring or storing boats.
"Marina Business" means engaging in one ar more of the permitted, accessory or
conditional uses allowed within the B-2 Zoning District.
"Business of Docking, Mooring or Storing Boats" means renting or otherwise providing
space, including boat buoys, for docking, mooring or storing one or more boats belonging to
persons other than the owner or occupant of the property, except when licensed as a joint use.
94-76: License Required. It is unlawful for any persons to engage or participate in business use
without first having obtained an annual license therefor from the City.
94-100: Business Use Licenses Limited to B-2 Zone. No business use shall be licensed in anv
zoning district other than B-2, except when a business use is allowed by ordinance in another
zoning district, such use conducted in�said district shall not be required to obtain a license.
If you have questions,please contact the Orono Building and Zoning Department(952)249-4600.
City of Orono-Municipal Offices
Street Address: Mailing Address:
2750 Kelley Parkway ��ww.ci.orono.mn.us P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55356
Telephone: (952)249-4600 . Fax(952)249-4616
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: WILLIAM WELLS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: LAKE MINNETONKA COMMiJNICATIONS COMMISSION VACANCY
DATE: JULY 6, 2009
The attached letter was received from the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
notifying the City that Bob Albertson has resigned as a Commissioner. Included with the letter
was a section of the joint powers agreement outlining the Commissioner requirements for each
member city.
Bob Albertson and Bill Wyatt were re-appointed as Orono representatives to the LMCC for 2009
at the January 12, 2009 Council meeting as part of the annual appointments resolution. There is
not a Council Member appointed as a representative to the LMCC.
Council may want to discuss options to fill the vacancy such as advertising in local newspapers,
submitting names of interested residents or appointing a Council Member.
. �
1 \
�
LAI<E MINNETONI(A COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
4071 SUNSET DRIVE ■ BOX 385 ■ SPRING PARI<, MN 55384-0385 ■ 952.471.7125 • FAX 952.471.9151 ■ ImccQlmcc-tv.org
�� ,,,.
��,;.; .:�
�;��-�w,�
���;
DEEPHAVEN ti� � �
`3 E.rq�r
�r�.
EXCELSIOR June 2�, 2009 c/��d�C?;�r
Or�{d
GREENWOOD
Bill We11S
INDEPENDENCE City Administrator
City of Orono
LONG LAKE p0 Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
LORETTO
Dear Bill:
MAPLE PLAIN
The LMCC was recently notified by the Orono Commissioner, Bob Albertson,that he
MEDINA will no longer be serving as a commissioner due to other business obligations. I have
enclosed for your review the joint powers agreement section outlining the
Commissioner requirements for each city.
MINNETONKA
BEACH
Please inform me of any new Commissioner Orono appoints to fill Bob's position.
MINNETRISTA
Thank you,
ORONO ;',�= T�
_ i , r�: /�.l !: � '7L'L=�
�, ., .. ..,,:, ,
ST.BONIFACIUS 'J
Sally Koenecke
Executive Director
SHOREWOOD Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
SPRING PARI<
TONI(A BAY
VICTORIA
WOODLAND
Tonka Bay, Woodland, Medina, St. Bonifacius, Long Lake, Victoria, Independence, Loretto and Maple
Plain, Minnesota.
Section 2. Any municipality desiring to become a member shall execute a copy of this
agreement and conform to all requirements herein.
Section 3. The initial members shall be those municipalities who become members on or
before September 1, 1982.
Section 4. Any other municipalities desiring to become members after September 1, 1982,
may be admitted by an affirmative vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the eligible votes of the Commission. The
Commission may, by resolution, impose conditions upon the admission of additional members.
V.
DIRECTORS
Section 1. QualitScationfAppointment. The City Council or each member sl;all be er:titled
to appoint two directors, at least one of whom shall be a member of that council and the other a qualified
voter residing within that city. The City Council of each member shall be entitled to appoint at least one
alternate director. When the council of a member appoints its first two d'uectors, it shall give notice of
their appointments to the City Administrator of the City of Tonka Bay. Notice of a successor director
shall be given to the Secretary of the Commission. That notice shall include the name and mailing
address of the appointee which shall be deemed to be the official name and address of that appointee for
the purpose of giving any notice required under this agreement.
Section 2. Term. Each director shall serve for a term of one year. All terms shall begin as
of the effective date of this agreement. A director shall serve at the pleasure of his or her city council, and
a director may be removed at any time by that city council.
Section 3. Votin�. Each director shall have one vote for each 1,000 dwelling units or
fraction thereof in the municipality represented by the director as recorded in the most recent records of
the Metropolitan Council; provided, however, that each director shall have at least one vote and no
director shall have more than four votes. Prior to December 31 of each year, the Secretary of the
Commission shall deternune the number of dwelling units in each member in accordance with this section
and certify the results to the Chair. There shall be no voting by proxy, but all votes must be cast in person
at Commission meetings by the director or his or her alternate. A director shall not be eligible to vote on
behalf of his or her city during the time that it is in default on any contribution or payment to the
Commission. During the existence of such default, the vote or votes of such member shall not be counted
for the purposes of this agreement.
Section 4. Compensation. Directors shall serve without compensation from the
Commission, but this shall not prevent a member from compensating its directors if compensation by that
member is otherwise authorized by law.
Section 5. Vacaneies. A vacancy in the office of director shall exist for any of the reasons
set forth in Minnesota Statues S351.02, or upon revocation of a director's appointment by a member duly
�
ORONO TREE ORDINANCE FOR DEVELOPERS
TREE PRESERVATION AND REFORESTATION
Application: This ordinance only applies to new building permits and
developments in Orono.
This ordinance does not apply to existing single family homes, multiple
family homes, comrriercial developments or other existing property that
does not require a building permit
Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
Applicant—An owner, occupant, or a representative of an owner or occupant of a
lot, parcel or tract of land for which an application has been filed for a subdivision,
Special Use Permit, or any activity requiring the issuance of grading, building utility or
demolition permits
Caliper Inches refers to the diameter of a tree, and is measured in inches at a point 4.5 feet
above the ground.
Impacted tree. Any tree impacted by construction activity such that the tree will likely
die (as deemed by a forestry specialist). Impacts can include but are not limited to
grading changes affecting a tree's root system, mechanical injuries to the trunks of trees,
compaction of soil, etc.
Replacement trees must be at least two (2) caliper inches for deciduous trees and at least
six (6) feet high for coniferous trees.
Significant trees. A healthy deciduous tree measuring six (6) caliper inches or greater, or
a healthy coniferous tree measuring four (4) caliper inches or greater.
Tree. Means a woody plant which at maturity is greater than thirteen (13) feet in height
and having a more or less definite crown.
Trees to be protected(planned) means the identified seventy (70) percent or more of
existing significant trees intended for protection.
Trees to be removed(planned) means the entire list of trees planned for removal within a
tree preservation plan or trees identified for removal in conjunction with a permitted
activity.
Trees to be removed(unplanned) means any tree that is impacted or removed that was
intended for preservation according to a tree preservation plan.
REMOVAL
A permit authorizing removal must be obtained from the city prior to the
removal of trees on any property that is tbe subject of as development petition prior
to the issuance of a permit. A Tree Survey is required for all new construction on a
property.
Protection from Development.
Developments affected by this article are required to protect all trees not needed to be
removed to allow the reasonable development of the parcel. At a minimum, seventy (70)
percent of the existing significant trees on the property shall be protected. If the number
of trees to be removed is greater than the allowed 30%, the list for removal shall be sorted
by caliper inch, with the smallest of the trees counting towards the allowed removal.
Required replacement shall be calculated using the largest of the trees proposed for
removal.
Inventory and Survey Required.
All properties affected by this article are required to submit a tree survey and
inventory for review and approval as part of the development process. All tree surveys
and inventories shall be prepared by a forestry specialist and including the following:
A. A page depicting the location of all existing significant trees on the property.
Each tree shall be labeled with a unique identification number.
B. A page depicting the 70%+ of significant trees proposed to be protected as part of
this development. Significant trees intended for removal shall be clearly
distinguishable from those intended for preservation. Proposed lot lines, building
pads, driveways, streets, easements, and any areas in which tree disruption is
expected shall be shown.
C. A page depicting all required plantings including:
(1) the required street trees for the development showing the general location
and number of required street tree plantings, and identify areas in which
existing trees can be used to meet the requirement. Note the final placement
of street trees shall be determined by the City.
(2) the locations and size of required replacement trees (if the development
intends to remove greater than 30% of the existing trees), and
(3) any required landscape plantings (if applicable).
D. A page depicting the final tree design of all lots showing the significant trees
intended for preservation and any required plantings.
E. A page showing a matrix listing the unique identification number for the
significant tree, the species or common name, the proposed lot& block on which
- the tree resides,the size in caliper inches, and an indicator as to whether the tree is
intended for removal or preservation. The matrix should be sorted by lot & block,
and conclude with a tabulation of the following:
(1) total number of significant trees on the site,
(2) total number of significant trees proposed for removal
(3) total number of significant trees proposed for preservation
(4) a calculation of the percentage proposed for removal
(5) if the percentage of removal is greater than 30%, the number of trees which
exceed the allowed 70% removal
F. If the percentage of removal is greater than 30% as calculated in (ES) above, a
second matrix shall be provided which sorts the significant trees by caliper inch
and identifies all trees for which replacement is required(in accordance with
section 23-418). This matrix should conclude with a tabulation of the following:
(1) Total number of caliper inches for which replacement is required
(2) Calculation of the required caliper inches to be replaced and shown as
required plantings within the tree preservation plan.
Replacement rate guidelines.
Planned and unplanned tree removal shall be subject to the following guidelines:
A. Trees planned for removal beyond the allowed thirty (30)percent shall be subject
to a required replacement as defined in this article. For every tree planned to be
lost beyond the allowed thirty (30) percent, a replacement tree shall be required at
a rate of one-half(1/2) caliper inch for every one (1) caliper inch of tree loss.
B. In the event a tree tagged for preservation is identified for removal in conjunction
with a permitted activity, the required replacement shall be one (1) caliper inch
for every one (1) caliper inch of tree loss.
C. In the event a tree identified for preservation is removed without autharization,
the required replacement shall be two (2) caliper inches for every one (1) caliper
inch of tree loss.
Reforestation guidelines.
In the event of development in an area where there are less than fifteen (15)
significant trees per acre, reforestation will occur to achieve this ratio. The planting of
required boulevard trees shall not count towards achieving this reforestation ratio. The
following criteria will be used to determine reforestation:
A. Proposed trees to be planted must be approved by the City;
B. No more than one-third (1/3) of the trees may be from any one (1) tree
species;
C. Not less than twenty (20) percent of the trees shall be conifers;
D. Trees shall be used that are appropriate to the soil conditions found on-site;
E. Reforestation trees shall be consistent with the definition for replacement trees
as found in this article.
Security for tree preservation, replacement, and reforestation.
To ensure tree preservation and reforestation efforts are successful, the following
shall be required:
A. Applicants subject to this article shall be required to provide the City with a
letter of credit, cash, or escrow, in favor of the city, in an amount of one
hundred and fifty (150)percent of the tree replacement/planting estimate.
B. All replacement, reforestation, and boulevard trees shall be planted during an
ideal planting season for a particular species—as defined in this article—
unless otherwise authorized by the City. The applicant shall submit a useable
inventory of trees planted during an applicable planting season.
C. All trees planted during a specified planting season shall be warranted through
two complete growing seasons. The City shall inspect the trees listed in the
applicant's inventory from the previous year to ensure their health.
As trees are declared healthy by the Ciry upon inspection, the applicant may request
reductions to the security amount provided adequate funds remain equal to 150% of the
cost to complete remaining work.
r
r
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor& City Council
Bill Wells, City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Asst. City Admin. - Long Term Strategy
Date: July 14, 2009
Subject: Stonebay Lofts Letter of Credit
At the recommendation of the City Attorney and City Engineer, the Letter of Credit (LOC) for
the Stonebay Lofts condominium building has been drawn in its entire amount of$45, 750.
The cash is now in the City accounts.
The reasons for this withdrawal are documented in the attached email. Additionally, the
developer is being sued by Mainstreet Bank whose loans to Zachman are in default, and staff
concluded that since the LOC was set to expire on July 15, we would be best served by having
the cash in hand rather than requesting another extension.
At this juncture I do not have any intent to start completing the work that remains to be done;
rather, I would propose for the time being that we meet with Zachman and suggest that he
arrange for completion of the work, and we will pay his bills from the proceeds. Note also that
the unpaid utility billings and unpaid pass-through engineering costs attributed to the Lofts are
approaching $15,000 (a portion of these engineering billings may be attributable to the
Stonebay project in general and not just the Lofts project). Soren has indicated there may be
justification to use LOC proceeds to pay those bills.
To our knowledge, only two of the 57 Lofts units have been sold to date.
Page 1 of 1
�' Mike Gaffron
From: Mike Gaffron
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:58 AM
To: Soren Mattick
Cc: Ron Olson; Bill Wells; Tom Kellogg
Subject: Stonebay Lofts LOC
Soren —
I have reviewed a variety of documents re: Stonebay Lofts which I can provide you copies today:
1) Original Mainstreet bank LOC dated July 15, 2005 in the amount of$230,213.00 with expiry date of July
15, 2007
2) MPG letter dated July 5, 2007 requesting extension of expiry date to July 15, 2008
3) Mainstreet Bank letter dated July 6, 2007 extending expiry to July 15, 2008
4) MPG letter dated November 14, 2007 authorizing reduction to $166,245.00
5) MPG letter dated July 3, 2008 authorizing reduction to $147,833.00
6) Mainstreet Bank letter dated July 8, 2008 indicating reduction t� $147,833.00 with expiry extended to
July 15, 2009
7) MPG letter dated December 12, 2008 authorizing reduction to $45,750.00
8) Developers Agreement
9) Engineer's Estimate and punch list of work remaining
I have the originals of the LOC documents to provide to you.
For unknown reasons, Mainstreet Bank did not provide a reduction document responding to the 11-14-07 or 12-
12-08 reduction authorizations. It is possible that they still list it as $147,833.00 but I doubt it.
Tom Kellogg has provided a punch list of work remaining associated with the Lofts, and an estimate of the costs
to complete same. That amount is $25,550. 150% of that amount is $38,325. AdditionaUy, the Finance
Department indicates that the Lofts is approximately 1 year in arrears on utility bills which now add up to
approximately $1,256. Also, there are unpaid engineering review and inspection invoices that have been charged
to the Lofts account to the tune o`$13,950.67 of which a portion, perhaps half, are attributable to the general
Stonebay project as Erosion Control inspections, the remainder actually being attributable to the Lofts. As I see it,
the work remaining and the unpaid bilis associated directly with the Lofts justify drawing the entire remaining LOC
amount of$45,750.
We should discuss what we can do with this money once it is in hand. I am not convince we want to contract for
work to be completed; I would rather hold it as escrow for Arne to complete the work, then we pay him or his
contractors as the work is completed. And, can we use it to cover his unpaid bills?
Let's discuss this, this afternoon. I am in a training session from 9 until 11 today, then have a department head
meeting from 11-12. See you at 1:00.
Mike
Michae! P. Gaffron
Assistant City Administrator/Long Term Strategy
City of Orono
(Street Address)2750 tielley Parkway
(Mailing Address) P.O. Box 66,Crystal Bay , MN 55323
Phone: (952)249-4600
Fax: (952)249-4616
7/14/2009
,
City of Orono
Stonebay Lofts
Plat No. 05-3081
Site Improvement Cost Estimate-Revised 7-6-09
Est. Unit Est.
Item Unit Quantity Price Cost
Mobilization LS 1 5,000 $5,000
Complete Site Restoration LS 1 8,000 8,000
Drainage Corrections to South of Building LS 1 5,000 5,000
Install Hydrant Flag EA 1 50 50
Clean Debris From Storm Sewer LS 1 500 500
Stripe Parking Lot LS 1 500 500
Silt Fence LF 500 3 1,500
Record Plans LS 1 5,000 5,000
Estimated Construction Cost $25,550
+50% Security Deposit $12,775
Tota/Security Deposit Required $38,325
Inspection Notice � Bonestroo .
Pro ect: Stoneba Lofts 2335 West Highway 36
) y � Intermediate Inspection ❑ Final Inspection(Punch List) St.Paul,MN 55113
Te1651-636-4600
Owner. City of Orono From: Jaretl T.Ward Fa�ss�-sss-i3��
Date: 6/22/09 www.bonestroo.com
To: Arne Zachman
- ZB Companies
Bonestroo Project No: 000139-09000-1
Re: inspection Notice Owner Project No: Plat#3081
The following items require the attention of the Contractor for completion or correction. This list may not be all-inclusive and the failure to include any items on this
list does not alter the responsibility of the Contractor to complete all Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.
Number Item Accepted
1 Remove antl Re lace all dama ed curb per field markin s JTW 1119108
2 Patch bituminous base course where settled per field markin s JTW 11/9/08
3 Remove and Re lace all dama etl concrete sitlewalk er field markin s JTW 11/9108
4 Install all li ht poles per plan JTW 5/12108
5 Complete Restoration alon west sitle and rear of buildin . NO
6 Install sto si n on E. side of buildin , directin traffic leavin under round arkin lot. JTW 11/9/08
7 Install cross walk si ns er plan (S. and E. of buildin JTW 11I9I08
8 Install h drant fla per cit standards on H drant west of parkin lot. NO
Submit revised grading plan for approval of the proposed storm water drainage on the south geing reviewed
9 side of the buildin , between the buildin antl the arkin area.
10 Install Erosion and Sediment Control on exposed soil southwest of the buildin � NO
11 , Clean out debris from storm sewer structures NO
� Being reviewed
12 Submit 2 full size co ies of record lans for a roval.
13 Complete pavement stripin NO
Signed by: Jared T. Ward Date: 6-22-09
Bonestroo:fC.S.]�Inspec�ion�J:�:Ice 6 22 09.aoc]fVLM 021307:�
1'aae 1 0�1