Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-26-2005 Council Packet
Public Attendance Meeting Date l^|-COUNCIL □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please filloutthe information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER / Mil o5->oqf /«igii {■tginot h^ cyflaHO /'^*-utr '1.. 8. l"30 f//<~. (DfC^A^y ll 9G f f. ^ Lca/m 9.//L, ^\tk\ 10.ixilc^ C[iA )aaoL/i^'su rkM ^^cvccr— 11.^(kirf L-£L4 ^ ^<Vi 12.Pq m Qyr A€j l0(^S Ln Orono 13.!^(S lif.H'fiyi. i?)/r 14.tof)^ f^adbAMy n ^ H i «' i( IS.Shct^h'^^ Pr^ Orc /ty^ J Public A ttendance Meeting Date □ Council □ Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other Please nttouTTHE information reqifesteo BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please prist)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from ageoda) NAME OR NUMBER 1 •_______________________________________ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.. t. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.. 14. 15. RAMaWi iWllWiWiiAA AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26,2005,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Astensk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCIL MEETING SEP 26i!ouo CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend CITY OF ORONO APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 2. Regular Council Meeting of September 12,2005 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Charles Krogness, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Roland Jurgens, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 3. #05*3080 Interspace West, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West - PUD/Development Plan Approval- Documents and Resolution • 4. #05-3095 Minn^nka Portable Dredging on behalf of Gregg Steinhafel, 2265 North Shore Drive Conditiorutl Use Permit - Resolution 5. #05-3109 Navarre Congregation of Jehovah ’s Witnesses, 3655 Togo Road - Variance/Revised Sigruge Plan - Resolution • 6. #05-3129 Ascent Investments, Inc. on behalf of Douglas Klint, 1345 Rest Point Lane - Variance - Resolutitm 7. #05-3136 Troy Broitzman, 1860 Shoreline Drive - Variance * 8. #05-3145 ICOLandscapeLLConbehalfofRobettandVickyNelson,679MinnetonkaHighlands Lane - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution ♦ 9. #05-3150 Tim Powers on behalf of Kevin Grell, 1945 Fagemess Point Road - Variance - Resolution 10. #05-3154 Oty of Orono Rural Oasis Study - Amendments to Comprehensive Plan and Municipal MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 11. Accept (flotations - 755 Dickey Lake Drive Sewer Extension 12. Authorize Advatisement for Bids - North Farm Drairuige Inqnovements ^ mtSLki. AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26,2005,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 13. Revised Resolution Authorizing the City to Submit Information to the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and to Enter Into a Grant Agreement for the Purchase of the Big Island Veterans Camp Property - Resolution CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 14. LICENSES Kennel License * 15. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2005 09/26 - Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 09/26 • Orono HRA Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 09/27 • Council Woric Session, Tuesday, S:4S p m. 10/03 10/05 10/07 10/08 10/10 10/11 10/14 10/15 10/17 10/21 10/22 10/24 10/25 10/28 10/29 10/30 - Paric Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m. (Council Liaison - Mayor Peterson) ■ Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. ■ Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. - Leaf and Grass Diq)osal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. ■ Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. • Council Work Session, Tuesday, 5:45 p.m. Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Leaf and Grass Diqwsal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Council Liaison - Lili McMillan) Leaf and Grass Disposal, Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Leaf and Grass Diqwsal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Coimcil Work Session, Tuesday, 5:45 p.m. Leaf and Grass Di^x>sal, Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Leaf and Grass Dis|x>sal, Saturday, 9:00 a.m. > 3:00 p.m. Dajdight Saving Time ends .•V - •• . u* . : V .••• .*mmmmmm . ■ -. ■ .. .. .. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Moaday, September 12,2005 7:00 a’deck p.m. COUNCIL MEETING SH> ROLL CITY OF ORONO The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson: Council Members Lili McMillan. Jim Murphy and Jim White; City Anomey Thomas Barrett; Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffiron, Planners Janice Gundlach and Melanie Curtis, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jaclde Young. Council Member Bob Sansevere was absent. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA 1.APPROVE/AMEND Items 6,7,9,11, and 12C were added to the Consent Agenda. Marphy moved, While seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGULAR COUNOL MEETING OF AUGUST 22,2005 Mnrphy moved. White seconded, to approve the minntes of the Angnst 22,2005 regniar Oly Council meeting aa snbmiltcd. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Irene SSber, Representative Silber stated the Park Commission is researching die possibility of creating a fenced-in dog park within the City of Orono and is loddng at what other cities are doing m this regard. McMillan inquired whedier the Park Commission reviewed the Rural Oasis study. Silber stated they did receive the study but did not have an opportunity to fully discuss it McMillan commented she would like to see the Rural Oasis study incorporated somehow into the City’s park system, and suggested the Park Commission look rt options for preserving the rural character of the community. Silber stated the Park Commission also discussed a new development located off of Willow Drive and are recommending some land be dedicated for a future trail in this area. Peterson reported that someone manicured the hedges at Crystal Bay Park and that it looks very nice. PAGEl •, i k- • 1 A MINITTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. (FARK COMMISSION COMMENTS, Conttnued) Den Chillstrom, Long Lake Planning Conunission and Park Board, indicated they would like to get together with (Bono’s Park Commission in the near future to discuss trails. Murphy recommended the responsibilities associated with a dog park be well defined in order to insure that the park is properly maintained. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - David Rahn, Representative Rahn stated he had nothing to report but would remain for questions. PUBUC COl I :nts None ZONING Al I IwISTRATOR’S REPORT 3. M5-3141 JEFFREY AND ETHEL GUSTAFSON, 4203 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE > RESOLUTION NO. 5376 Jeffrey Oustafton, Applicant, was present. Gtffron stated the applicant is requesting a lot width variance for a property that has 90 feet at the shoreline and 117 feet at the 7S>foot setback where 140 feet is normally required. In addition, the applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit for 770 cubic yar<k of fill in order to construct a new single-family residoicc on the property. The property is located within the one-acre district and consists for l.OS The Planning Commission voted S-1-1 to recommend approval of the application, with the dissenting Conmussioner feeling that the amount of grading/fill being proposed was unreasonable. Gaffron noted since the review by the Planning Commission, the applicant has added an additional 2S0 square feet of structure. Gaffion noted structural coverage and hardcover are not issues on this property. Gaffron stated Staff and the City Engineer have discussed the amount of fill necessary in the area of the new garage and driveway apron. Gaffron indicated the plans show a finished slope along the east side of the driveway that drains directly east toward the existing shared loop dnveway. This loop will disappear according to the Applicant’s plans and the applicant is now proposing a drainage swale to be directed toward the lake rath^ than the neighboring property. Gaffron noted those calculations have not been provided to Staff to insure that the neighboring property will not receive any runoff. Gaffron recommended the application he approved contingent upon approval by the City Engineer or tabled. White inquired what the time frame is for construction of the new residence. Gustafson stated they would like to demolish the existing house October 1" and build a model home for the Luxury Home Tour. Gustafson requested approval of the application subject to approval by the City Engineer. PAGE 2 f BfelU MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday* Scptenbcr 12,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. (3. H95-3141 JEFFREY AND ETHEL GUSTAFSON, 4203 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CoMiHued) White stated he is not opposed to this application hut that he would like it to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Gustafson stated they do have a good working relationship with the City and that they do hire professional sUfTto do their surveying and grading work. Murphy indicated he <tlso is willing to approve it subject to approval by the City Engineer. Mnrphy moved, WhUo seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5376, a Rcsohitlon granting a lot area variance aiid conditional nse permit for Jeffrey and Ethel Gnstafion, 4203 North Shore Drive, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer of the grading and drainage plan. VOTE: Ayes4,NaysO. 4. #05-3143 DAN HESSBURG OF HESSBURG DEVELOPMENT, INC^ 774 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5377 Dan Hessburg, Applicant, was present. Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting a lot area variance to permit construction of a new residence on an existing lot .36 acres in area where 1.0 acres is normally required; a lot width variance to permit construction of a new residence on an existing lot 74 feet in width at the shoreline and 61 feet in width at the 75 foot setback where 140 feet is normally required; a hardcover variance to permit 29.8 percent hardcover widiin the 75’-2S0’ zone where 25 percent is normally allowed and 27.2 percent currently exists; and a hardcover variance to permit 39.4 percent hardcover within the 250*500’ zone where 30 percent is normally allowed and 66.8 percent currently exists. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing residence and construct a new home within the required setbacks. The Plaraiing Commission did review this application at their August meeting and recommeiKled approval of die lot area and lot width variances but recommended that the hardcover within the 75’>250’ zone be reduced to 27.2 percent. In addition, the Plaiming Commission recommended that the 8* by 8 ’ turnaround apron be put back into the 75’-250* zone. Gundlach noted the City’s code technically requires the turnaround since this property abuts a county road. Gundlach stated die applicant did submit a revised grading plan, which meets the majority of the City Engineer ’s comments. Gundlach noted there is a small issue regarding the grading of the turnaround apron to avoid runoff onto the neighboring property. Hessburg stated the drainage was based on the existing grade and that he is willing to woric with the City Engineer to resolve any drainage issues that may still remain. Murphy suted he would like it noted that the 27.2 percent hardcover appears appropriate for this lot under the circumstances. I. sr:PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,200S 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4. m-3143 DANHESSBVRG OF HESSBURG DEVELOPMENT, INC, 774 TONKA WA ROAD, ConUMUti) McMIUai moved, White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5377, a Resolution grantinf lot area, lot width and hardcover variances for Dan Hcssbnrg of Hessbnrg Devdopment, Inc., 774 Tonkawa Road, snbjcct to review and approval of the grading and drainage plan by the City Engineer. ThcK were no public comments regarding this application. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 5. APPEAL -1535 BOHN’S POINT ROAD - GATE HEIGHT AND SIGNAGE INTERPRETATION David Sonka, Bever Landscaping, was present. City Attorney Barrett indicated he has spoken with Staff regarding this appeal. Barrett stated wth respect to the gate height, there is some anibiguity in the City ordinances and Staff is unclear whether it should be treated as a fence or not. Barrett stated the City Council should determine the policy on gate height, which would enable Staff to interpret die ordinance. Barrett stated the second issue before the Council relates to the signage interpretation and that in his opinion the ordinance does not allow estate names and it does not need to be heard on tonight’s appeal. Murphy expressed a concern that a city policy be decided tonight as part of this appeal. Barrett stated the City Council does have the right to table die application in order to further review what the city’s policy on diis issue should be. Murphy suited it is difficult to make a decision on one application that would affect other property owners in the City. White concurred with Murphy that it is difficult to make a decision tonight on an item that would affect a number of other residents. White noted other cities have allowed estate names on gates and over gates. Brad Roehl, Long Lake Fire Chief, indicated he does have a concern with the width of the gate and the direction that the gate faces the road. Roehl indicated there are some properties in the community that have gates that make it difficult for emergency vehicles to access the property. White inquired whether Suff is able to determine how the gate is oriented to the road. Gundlach indicated the location of the gate is not depicted on the survey submitted to the City. Gundlach suted the monument m-dinance requires a five-foot setback and that the gate complies with that requirement. White inquired what happens if the gate is locked and the fire department needs to access the property. P.%GE4 (■ MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Moadajr, September 12,2005 7:00 o’clock pjn. (S. APPEAL -1535 BOHN’S POINT ROAD - GA TE HEIGHT AND SIGNAGE INTERPRETATION Cornttnuei) Roehl stated that also is an issue and that some properties are putting lock boxes next to the gate to allow for acceu by the police and fire departments. SonlcB stated it is his understanding the device is a sound activated device and would automatically open for a police, ambulance or fire siren. Peterson inquired whether the Council would need to make a decision tonight. Gaffiron indicated this is part of a building permit application and that he is not sure whether the 60 days would apply in tfiis instance. Peterson stated since this is a policy decision, she is reluctant to make a final decision tonight. Barrett recommended the City act within the 60 days and that a request could be made to extend the 60-day deadline if necessary. Gaffron stated to his understanding this application would need to be decided by the middle of October. Sonka stated the property owner has experienced some vandalism on the lot and that the gate is intended to be a security measure. Peterson inquired whether die property owner would be amenable to extending the time limit. Sonka indicated he would need to discuss it with die property owners. Murphy noted this decision would have city-wide implications and should be discussed in greater depth. Marphy moved. While seconded, to toMe action on the appeal by Bever Landscaping on behalf of Adam and Kalby LaFavro, 1535 Bohn’s Point Road, to aiiow for additional dlscnssion and research onthlaiasne. VOTE: Aycs4,NaysO. MA YOR/CXHJNCIL REPORT The Mayor/Council report follows Ite.ii No. 12. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *6. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2 - NAVARRE WATER TOWER REHABILITATION Mnrphy aaovod, White seconded, to approve Rcqnest for Payment No. 2 for the Navarre Water Tower Rehabilitation Projoct to Classic Protective Coadags, Mcnomonie, Wlscoasla, in the amonat ofS61>59.75. VOTE: Aycs4,Naysd. PAGES MINITTES OF TEE ORONO aTY COUNOL MEETING Moaday, Scptcnbcr 12,200S 7:00 o ’docfc pjm. *7. REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT - BIRCH LANE STORM SEWER PROJECT Marpby moved. White eecoaded, to approve Reqaest for Flaal Payateat, Birch Laae Storm Sewer Project to Midwest Asphalt, lac^ Mlaaetoaha, Mlaaesota, la the aiaoaat of S7,813.68. VOTE: Ayes4,NaysO. Morphy omved. White socoaded, to improve Chaage Order No. 1, Birch Laae Storm Sewer Project to Midwest Asphalt, loc., Miaoetooka, Miaocsota, la the aomoat of $958.61. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENT, CONTINUED Anne Latterelle, 3S0S Livingston Avenue, Navarre, stated the Orono Police Department received a baildng dog complaint on flieir dog on August 22"^. Latterelle indicated the Orono Police had posted the notice on their front door but that they usually access their house through the garage door. Latterelle d they did not become aware of the notice until late Friday afternoon. Latterelle stated on September 2*^, they were informed the police seized their dog due to poor living conditions. Latterelle indicated they were told they needed to respond to the notice within 24 hour<(. Latterelle slated the notice does not state that they have 24 hours to respond. Latterelle indicated they do feed the dog every morning and every evening but that they are now facing charges on cruelty to animals. White inquired what type of dog this is. Latterelle stated ic is a purebred German Short-Hair. Latterelle indicated their dog is currently under the care of a veterinarian and that the dog has experienced weight gains and weight losses during the entire time they have had the dog. Latterelle indicated the police department informed them that this item would be on the agenda toni^t. Barrett stated Sergeant Erickson did diKuss this matter with him and he has been informed that the dog has been moved to toe Humane Society. Barrett stated according to sute statute, the dog owner has the ri^t to appeal the action taken by the police department. Latterelle indicated they have raised the dog siiKe he was a pup and that it has caused great emotional distress to her children. Latterelle slated the dog does have a weight issue and a liver issue, which is being watched by their veterinarian. Peterson inquired whether the veterinarian records have been provided to the police department. Latterelle stated toe police department only recently contacted the veterinarian. Latterelle indicated the Humane Society informed them that their dog was <m a ten-day hold and would be released today but that they still have not gotten the dog back. White inquired whetoer a license is required to keep toe dog. Barrett stated the dog wu not seized for failure to obtain a license. Barrett noted this is the second notice given to toe owners that the dog did not have food and water. PAGE 6 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. (PUBLIC COMMENT, CONTINUED) Murphy stated the City Council unftHlunately is dealing in the abstract on this matter and reconunended that the police department be notified that Laiterelle appeared before the City Council tonight. Murphy stated in his view it is reasonable for the police deparhnent to be in contact with the veterinarian and that the owners should be notified prior to any action being taken. Peterson requested the police department address this situation by the end of the week and that the family be informed what decision has been reached. Murphy stated he does not want to see this matter end with the dog being put down. Barrett stated the dog cannot be put down until the appropriate legal process has been gone through. Murphy suggested the mayor and city attorney be notified prior to any action being taken. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Item No. S follows tho Mayor/Cooocil Report. *9. SELECTION OF DATES FOR TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARINGS Morphy oMvad, White seconded, to set the Troth In Taxation Initial Hearing for 5:30 p.m., Monday, December 5,2005, and the continnatlon or subseqnent hearing for 7:00 p.m., Monday, December 12,2005, with both hearings to be held in the Connell Chambers. VOTE: Ayes4,NaysO. Item No. 10 follows Item No.l2, Licenses. *11. DISPOSAL OF EXCESS PROPERTY Morphy moved. White seconded, to approve the sale of 22 long gnns to Bill’s Gonshop. VOTE: Aym4,NaysO. Morphy moved, WhUe seconded, to approve the sale of listed handgnns that are marked as “S«U to BUI’S Gonshop. VOTE: Ayes4,NaysO. Morphy moved. White seconded, to approve the destruction of the gone Usted as ’^Destroy” through witness and docnnmntation. VOTE: Ayes4,NaysO. Mnrphy nwved, White seconded, to rotain thoee gnns marked as **Keep ” as property of the Qty of Orono and seenred In the police property and evidence room. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 7 I t f I '-T MINUTES OF THE ORONO crrv council meeting Moadtor, September 12,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. 12. LICENSES SPECIAL EVENT 1. AppHcMt: Loag Lake Fire DcpertmcBt Relief Association Event: Steak Fry wltk Live Mask Locallen: Long Lake Fire Station, 340 Willow Drive North Date: Satarday, Septenriwr 17,2005 Hbm: 5:00 p.m. - Mldai^ Brad Roehl, Long Lake Fire Chief, addressed the City Council regarding the upcoming Long Lake steak fry. Roehl indicated they are in compliance with all dte requirements listed on the permit and that food and liquor will be served, followed by live music at 8:30 p.m. Roehl stated the event will be contained within the fire station and that wristbands will be issued for anyone who wishes to purchase beer. Roehl noted this is the first time this type of event is being held in the City. Roehl stated no parking would be allowed on Willow and that volunteers would be standing by to handle any emergencies that may arise. Murphy inquired whether parking would be allowed on Glendale. Roehl suted he would be agreeable to posting no parking signs on that street as well. Murphy stated he would like to see the two cities work together on future community events, and suggested that the main parties coordinating the community events get together in the off season and diacuu how these events could be handled better. Don Chillstrom, Long Lake Planning Commission, explained the sale of beer helps to make these events profitable. Roehl inquired whether the city approves the two off duty police officers or whether he needs to ask the police cUef. Moorse stated it is his imderstanding that once the City approves the permit, the necessary officers would be assigned to work the event. Chillstrom noted this application was submitted approximately six weeks ago but approval by the City Council was delayed bMause the police department did not review it promptly. Roehl concurred that a meeting should be held to discuss future community events and how they should be handled. Moorse stated the City processed the Uquor license applicatitm as quickly as possible since it needed to go to the state for approval as well, which meant that this license application could not be heard until tonight. Chillstrom noted they did receive *he liquor license a couple of weeks ago. Chillstrom stated he does intend to speak with the police department a lot sooner in the future on these types of community events. FACE S MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MoBilsyt Scpicoibcr 12« 2005 7:00 o’clock p.n. (SPECIAL EVENT, ConEmiuA) Mnrpky novcd, Pctcnon sccoidcd, to approve the special eveat license for the Long Lake Fire Department Relief Assodatton. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. RESIDENTIAL KENNEL UCENSE 1. Thom Clapp 475 Femdale Read North 2. Khn Hanson 2408 Cnsco Point Rond White noted the applicant on Casco Point Road lists four animals. White expressed a concern that one of the animals is a pit bull. Silber commented dtat a Springer Spaniel is the most dangerous breed of dog. Murphy stated to his understanding a pit bull is statistically not any more dangerous than any other dog. White stated a bite by a pit bull is capable of breaking a human bone. White noted all four of these dogs are large ninMla and diat die application indicates the dogs will be housed indoors all day long. McMillan stated she also has a concern with four large dogs being housed all day indoors. Murphy requested Staff get clarification on how the dogs will be housed and managed. While memd. Mnrphy secoidctL to table the kcuel Ucense for Kim HaMon« 2408 Casco Point Doady and to approve the kcaacl Ucense for Thom Clapp* 475 Femdale Road North. VOTE: Ayes4*Nays8. TEl *4. RARY ONE-DAY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE MaePhaU Center for Mnsk MInnelenka Center for the Arts, 2240 North Shore Drive Thnrsday* September 29* 2005 Mnrphy nwved* White seconded, to approve the temporary one-day on-salc Uqnor Ucense for the MnePhaU Center for Mnsk. VOTE: Ayes4*NaysO. aTY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT* CONTINUED 10. PARK COI K. I k'Vi Cl N APPOINTMENT Peterson noted the City did have four outstanding applicants but they unfortunately can only appoint one person to the Park Commission at this time. Mnrphy meved, Petersen secended. to appoint Uarie Esaa to lUI the anexpired term on the Parks, Open Space and TraUs Comndssien, whkh term expires on December 31,2006. VOTE: Ayes4*NaysO. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Moaday, September 12,2005 7:00 o’clock pjn. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Murphy noted the train is now running on the new track and that the former Old Crystal Bay bridge has now been removed. Murphy stated it appears likely that the two bridges will be operational prior to winter. White the City hold a public forum to inform its residents how the City is prepared to handle a crisis in this area, such as a natural disaster. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT, CONTINUED «. ADOPT PRELIMINARY 2006 TAX LEVY AND BUDGET - RESOLUTION NO. 5378 and 5379 Moorse iccotnniended the City Council approve the proposed preliminary 2006 tax levy and budget. Moorse sUted the City is able to reduce, but cannot increase, the preliminary tax levy prior to adoption of the final tax levy in December. However, the City can amend the budget by increasing or decreasing it prior to the adoption of the final budget in December. Moorse stated die proposed 2006 budget reflects an effort to begin to re-establish sufficient funding levels for both short-term and long-term capital needs, after recent State Aid cuts and levy limits caused the reduction in the level of capital funding. The key short-term needs relate to necessary major maintenance items and improvemento to the city facilities, as well as equipment replacement and technology upgrade needs. The major long-term capital need is street rehabilitetion. The budget reflecte a measured funding plan that manages the impact of the tax levy on property owners. Moorse stated it appears, based on recent information, the City’s tax capacity has increased fi-om an anticipated 10 percent to 16.5 percent. Moorse sUted as a result of the increased tax capacity, the City’s 2006 City tax rate would be decreased from 16.2 percent to 15.27 percent. Murphy stated in his opinion it is important to keep a good balaiKe between maintaining the City’s infrastructure and the City’s tax rate. Murphy inquired whether the City’s portion of the debt service costs for the veteran’s park on Big Island is included in this budget. Moorse indicated it is. Patarsaa nMvad, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5378, a Resolution Adoptiug the Proposed 2885 Tax Levy Collectible In 2006. VOTE: Ayes4,NaysO. Peterson moved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLUHON NO. 5379, a Resointion to Adopt the Proposed 2806 General Fund Budget. VOTE: Ayes4,NaysO. Mayor Peterson thanked City Steff for tiieir fine work on preparing the City’s preliminary tax levy and budget. 1 PAGE 16 1 -fc;' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Moaday, September 12,2005 7:00 o*clock p.m. CITY ATTORNEY’S RETORT None *13. BILLS Marphy moved. White seeoaded, to approve paymeat of the All Foods accoait. VOTE: Ayes4,Nays0. ADiOURNMENT WhUe asovod, Tetersoo seeoaded, to adjoara the Orooo City Coaacll meeting of September 12, V'W.,atS:51p.ak VOTE: Ayes4,NaysO. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ‘mm ■■■ ^ ■■■■ . ► mm&m k ip ;•• : 4-^mm- 3150 '■>c:B A 3080 3136 3095 o <? I c AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2005, 7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KEl.LEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESO l A (^) Asterisk items arc considered to be routine items to be enacted u|>on by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on die agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items aic available in tlic Public Packet - located on die counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF A1.LEGIANCE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Council Meeting of September 12,2005 COUNCIL MEETING SLP OTY OF ORONO PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Charles Krogness, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Roland Jurgens, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Mlnutc.s Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 3. 1105-3080 Interspace West, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West - PUD/Dcvclopnient Plan Approval- Documents and Resolution * 4. #05-3095 Minnetonka Portable Dredging on behalf of Gregg Steiiihafel, 2265 Nordi Shore Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 5. #05-3109 Navarre Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, 3655 Togo Road - Variancc/Rcviscd Signage Plan • Resolution • 6. #05-3129 Ascent Investments, Inc. on behalf of Douglas Klint. 1345 Rest Point Lane • Variance - Resolution 7. #05-3136 Troy Broitzman, 1860 Shoreline Drive - Variance • 8. #05-3145 ICO Landscape LLC on behalf of Robert and Vicky Nelson, 679 Minnetonka Higlilands Lane - Conditional Use Pennit - Resolution * 9. #05-3150 Tim Powers on behalf cf Kevin Grcll, 1945 Fagemess Point Road - Variance - Resolution 10. #05-3154 City of Oroir.' Rural Oa?is Study - Amendments to Comprehensive Plan a>.u Municipal Code MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 11. Accept Quotations - 755 Dickey Lake Drive Sewer Extension 12. Authorize Advertisement for Bids - North Farm Drainage Improvements CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 13. Revised Resolution Autliorizing the City to Submit Infoimation to the Department of Employment am Economic Development (DEED) and to Enter Into a Grant Agreement for Uic Purciiasc of die Big Islam Veterans Camp Property - Resolution CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORl 14. LICENSES Kennel License • 15. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENl'S 2005 09/26 - Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p in. 09/26 - Orono HRA Meeting. Monday, 7:00 pJii. 09/27 - Council Work Swion, Tuesday, 5:45 p.m. Dale Applicatioa Received: 4<44iS Date Applicatioa CoaeUered as Complete: 4-7-OS 60-Day Review Period Expires: 6-6-05 (approval granted 4-25-05) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING SEP 262005 OTYOFORONO Department Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ Tide: City Planner Date: September 23,2005 Item No.: 3* Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Descripl ilOS-3080, Interspace-West, Inc., 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West Adoption: Final Plat Resolution & PUD/Development Contract Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: B - 6, Highway Commercial District PUD, Planned Unit Development 2.637 acres (114,868 s.f.) 191 feet List of Exhibits A - General Development Plan & Final Plat Approval Resolution B - PUD No. 2C Agreement A Development Contract C - City Letter of 5-24-05 D - Copy of Title Opinion E - Reviwd Association Documents F - Ingress A Egress Easement to Outlot D, Sugarwoods G - Easement for Construction A Maintenance of Retaining Walls H - Fiiudized Building Floor Plans A Elevations I - Site Improvements Cost Estimate (LOC amount) J - Email ^mments fix>m MnDOT A MCWD RE: Stormwater System Apptkathm Summary: The applicant is requesting the following in order to construct 10 units of office condos on 10 lots and one conunon lot to be known as Amber Woods Office Centre: 1. B - 6 PUD General Development Plan af^nroval, 2. Final Plat approval in order to create 10 unit lots and one comnmn lot, 3. Commercial Site Plan approval in order to obtain a building permit, and lastly 4. Easement Vacations in conjunction with dedication of new easements. The applicants have proposed development of 10 units of office condos on approximately 2.6 acres located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West. The proposed condos will be 2-story walkouts containing approximately 34,186 s.f. of gross square footage. Each duplex style building will contain a walk-out level, a main floor level and a second story mezzanine. This is the final review stage of the PUD process and includes a final plat, a conunercial site plan review and easement vacations. r Since Council approval at the April 25,2005 meeting the applicants had been determining whether or not they would revise their grading plan to incorporate a westerly entrance in anticipation of the Highway 12 turn-back to Hennepin County. The ^plicants have since decided that functionally and fuuuicially the access could not be revised and would like to proceed with their original plan approved at the April 25** Council meeting. At the April 25, 2005 meeting the Council recommended approval of the inoject and directed staff to draft a Resolution and PUD No. 2C agreement The applicants have also been woridng to satisfy MnDOT and MCWD stormwater management requirements. The qjplicants have submitted the majority of the items listed in the City letter, attached as Exhibit C to this memo, and the following items will be required prior to filing of the plat with Hennepin County: 1) Mituiehaha Creek Watershed District Permit 2) Signed PUD No. 2C Agreement/Development Contract and signed mylars 3) Qricinal copy of title opinion 4) Fees in the amount of $18,079.00 a. Final plat fee - $280.00 b. Legal review ft filing fee >= $250.00 ■ ^ c. Stormwater ft Drainage Trunk fee = $17,549.00 d. Additional engineering ft legal fees billed at actual cost as they are incurred. 5) Letter of Credit in the amount of $822,848.63. The qtplicants ^uld also be aware that prior to any land alteration/building permit issuances an additio^ engineer review of plans would be requir^ to ensure remaining engineering comments have been incorporated into the reviaed plans. Staff RecoBMicndatieB Adopt the attached Resolution documenting the approval of the General Development Plan and Final Plat and q)ptove the PUD No. 2C Agreement, which includes the Develoimient Contract for installation of public improvements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approve the documents attached as &dubits A and B fiMr2060 Wayzata Boulevard. ! • # A RESOLUTION GRANTING GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2C FOR INTERSPACE-WEST, INC. AND APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE AND VACATING EXISTING DRAINAGE A UTILITY EASEMENTS FILE #05-3080 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter **City Council”) has adopted subdivision and land development regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application by Interspace-West, Inc., a domestic corporation (hereinafter the **Applicant”) for subdivision and development by the Planned Unit Development process of property located at 2060 West Wayzata Boulevard and legally described as follows: Lot!, Block 1, Orono Amber, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the **Property ”); and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2005 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5296 granting General Concept Fian a^iroval, and on April 25,2005 the City Council recommended approval of the General Development Plan for Planned Unit Development No. 2C, which qtproval include the following elements: 1.Subdivision platting of Lot 1, Block 1, Orono Ambar to create ten (10) lots and one (1) common lot to be known as AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE; 2. Commercial site plan approval and conditions for proposed development of office condominiums. 3. Vacation of existing easements. WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to execute Planned Unit Development No. 2C Agreement providing for the installation of certain improvements as a condition of site plan approval for the construction of office condominiums on the Property, and which agreement A ...3^ r. . ■- > s ,* i' ■ ‘ documents the general and detailed conditions for use and development of the Property and replaces previously approved PUD Agreement No 2A; and WHEREAS* the Applicant has agreed to execute a 24’ wide ingress and egress easement through the Property to allow for connection of a future frontage road to Outlot D, Sugarwoods at the northwestern comer of the site; and WHEREAS* the Applicant was given the opportunity to re-grade the Property as part of the General Development Plan to accommodate a hill service access to the southwest at the time the City received information about the ability for such an access as part of the Highway 12 Turn-Back Conunittee, however the Applicant choose not to pursue this option, which may limit future access opportunities for this site; and WHEREAS* the Applicant has completed or has agreed to complete all other requirements of the platting regulations of the City including: 1. Completion of all platting requirements of Concept Plan Approval Resolution No. 5296. 2.Dedication on the plat of a Drainage and Utility Easement over entire Lot 11 (otherwise known as the common lot). 3.Submittal of Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) permit approving the grading and stormwater management facilities plan for development of the Property as proposed per the **Removals & Erosion Control Plan”, sheet C1 -2, the “Overall Grading & Drainage Plan”, sheet C3-1, the individual building grading and drainage plans per sheets C3-2 through C3-6, the “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan”, shwt C3-7, and per the “Proposed Drainage Map”, sheet C3-8. 4.Payment to the City of the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee for the development of the Property in the amount of $17,549.24 based on a Trunk Fee of $6,655 per acre and gross acreage of Property at 114,868 s.f. or 2.637 acres including portions subject to trail and sidewalk easements. 5.Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat documents, agreements, easements and covenants in the amount of $280.00 plus incurred review and filing costs. 6.Payment of the final plat review fee in the amount of $250.00 plus incurred legal and engineering charges. . f f ik. 7.Provision to the City of a title opinion for the Property and certifled copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the Property. WHEREAS, City staff and consultants iiave reviewed the plans for this PUD and subdivision ^iplication and hereby specify approval of each attached plan and identify them as part of the official record for Planned Unit Development No. 2C: 1.Final Plat 2. Existing Conditions sheet Cl-I 3.Removals A Erosion Control Plan sheet Cl-2 Existing Drainage Map sheet Cl-3 5.Site Plan sheet C2-1 6. Overall Grading A Drainage Plan sheet C3-1 7. Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. #1 Lots 1-2 sheet C3-2 S. Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. #2 Lots 3-4 sheet C3-3 9. Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. #3 Lots S-6 sheet C3-4 10. Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. #4 Lots 7-8 sheet C3-S 1 1 . Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. #5 Lots 9-10 sheet C3-6 12. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan sheet C3-7 13. Proposed Drainage Map sheet C3-8 14. Utility Plan sheet C4-1 • ▼raw*. 15.lil sheet C8-1 16. DetaU sheet C8-2 L . . • ■ v»- • i r t 17. Landscape Plan sheet LI-I 1 8. Lighting Plan sheet L2> 1 19. Lower Level Floor Plan sheet A-1 20. Main Level Floor Plan sheet A-2 21. Upper Level Floor Plan sheet A-3 22. Front Elevation sheet A-4 23. Walk-Out Elevation sheet A-S 24. Side Elevation sheet A-6 25. Side Elevation sheet A-7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the findings of Resolution No. 5296, the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby approve the plat of AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE, Hennepin County, Minnesota and grants General Development Plan Approval for Planned Unit Development No. 2C, subject to the following conditions: 1.General Development Plan Aj^roval including Preliminary and Final Plat approval and Conunercial Site Plan approval is granted subject on conditions established within Resolution No. 5296 and subject to the conditions established within the Developer’s Agreement No. 2C and other pertinent documents. 2.Final building design plans for the buildings shall be subject to City Council review and approval prior to issuance of permits for said buildings should there be discrepancies between those attached to this Resolution and those submitted for building permit. Building permits and land alteration permits will not be issued any sooner than 24 hours following filing of the plat with Hennepin County. 3.The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Office on or before (March 26,2006) together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the agreements, easements, and covenants pertinent thereto. r • FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby declares that the easements dedicated over the Property in accordance with development of Lot 2, Block 1, Orono Ambar, Hennepin County, Minnesota, shall be vacated upon filing of this Resolution and Developer’s Agreement No. 2C with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Office. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 26'*' day of September, 2005. k ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STAIE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknovdedged befcne me on this___day of 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of________, 2005 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was execut^ <m behalf of the City. Notary Public i IRi 'A ►i i' .:Tt-v^vv\ '■—y / V\ \ 1'-^ /--------------------- - '»}‘X \ \ -.I ^-^: • .•/.•.\ I ►» <//ii'iVr^- v-i- v--^-::r-’-4-; J \\ y r • 'N't'.. \ -V- . --------------V 1^* V ' '*'>■* 'f ■''" ^i|1^ VlO"* / ••'•. Viil \ r^' i (TS-Ujr wrA) • f’'\ W j.J L*s,•s A •Vr' e.r%‘*,'j, —i—S#j -IliC / ^ y>\M ) 1H4:7// H-4^! H 11 4 \ «y*•)i~- -A L 977«M4ifl** « *•! • t t \ • I % — -V •i^iTr - / /t 'Z Ya f »■/•«% ^ ft*1% J4- *5- •*< “*'»» Ai" IX ft 1. , I I f . t a « • i*«aM 7'f77 ‘7-r-~r'--_^-' ^ nT—J ' “■" ■"" / /; ^ r iE t « •cftu « mt « One Can Assocum AMMt WOODS ofnaaNTn Milt CM ; r r ^ I ( f/U’k.-'y / \m "srs^HvA \ I V 4 ■ajj. Y V\ / sn.c.'4k # / ■kxwav.. \ M -*> V®( I;. /»4'-') ///I' 'a.*'V-’**:i!!r.-—^ # - // V L.^___I ■=j)i tSe^' 'vf 'v N. t . \ uauL m rm •xxivr:is,xx^ OwCall Assocum AMtfRMOOO$orfciaNTn iOlMW 04111 Cl-3 • ■■ ■ V ; ■'. _;u- , ’. : •, : ■ -.'■ • -■ -. '.: .-. : '■ , -. •■’ . :‘ '-- .’ . '■' * ^ ; ■' .’ ■ ■ . ^ jjf * ‘' r ■ •-/, *: ■-•-•if? .t .'t V V ' . ..' '■ .-■■■- ■ ’ -; ’ yyr irmeuuMm f. M •MOMMM t.i««C MM IQfWri^tM«C MM Sun One Call WiNMi AMtOtWCXX)Somawm fOtoWi IWMM ^3 supuiii (Mill C2-1 My..,mstLi,v%. ■ ;V j ■f.r s«' A -' - c M-:- \: h< ‘ifc- •:. ■■■ , ■.. V ' >. ■■' ■ -'viai ♦.. ' —V-^wjA\ \ ‘'rt-—,,,! > .... 7 Mbc-- Be —«- anm M ■" « m» m ^ • 9UU m nn a^- *sau*%ruA ‘cvK< « e.. «L«« ^SmmtTTm'imSmmVS mSZ Sm S b^BST ■ ••*<{«SS«S£i • «• m.mrn t •■* Mi ••■•««• aiM OntCall AMm«K)00$ornaoNTa <9to«i l^g (MMUOMOPC* CMUMAGIM 04111 C3-1 I fii I mif ':- . ■=. ■- -:> " . ;- ^ ■ .-i X • -. •X -■.4 m .tiSSf::■ [h;^ >■ A" .<f* -\-Kr --.V ► V V ^ WV*-'. V,’- fM^- ••'... *^. ••.-•■, >•.*/• •• ‘'. . , a . -r • »: ^ :-U; V •:••; - T*^;m . .V \ <,.' .-•V.I ; ''.. ..iV I ; ■ ' •'.• i.v:v • i% 1 ^%\ '%\r V*. 1 1 \\% \ \j V \\ % .. - t" ■ u.ii, 3 He f« « ■cux » for • ^ •H Stale One Call A ssociahs AMMSM0005 OmCEONTU lOlBlIli patMiMi auoMCft OlMMafUNiu)cmoni4 04111 C3-2 ' hMl iMtiiiiy eiira^^af lAae .Mk. ■>.,v.*’.; 7: ■• ■• / ,7/ :-, A.''. ';: '■*• ..- .. .itV ^ • •. I ,■ >:=•<..• V ‘.V. : vW'f ‘i* :-v. ■■■^ , ■ ;v- : . - .Vs, m- ' tit:' V ‘.V. ... • V- , '' ."' •■ ••A'v ,v :"‘ f V: • ■. ■• ; ; l>-. .^.‘, • , * ■ . ■•/ ■ •'l . • • ; - M ■!■■ -■ '.•■'•. . ;•• : /.v I • •• •• ,' •..•. ..•. •*. . ., *:-V. •• 5 I . ' vv t' *f’i/*'' .••V r ; ->r. . , •V * '- f ■ ■-f-;,.- :v.. nrw i. ziL. 9L ••• « MM -Ml •••••• SMtOncCall ASSOCIATfS AMHI WOODS OHdONTOl ItoM OMMCIfLW KOCfllOISM Milt C3-3 rVvb<M4-«.lk«>iMhAlMk r: m t . ;• -r .^;-.^\y He u m « e. « k ^o^^ OntCaU Associates AMtCK MOODS OffdOKTH «to«i Tt^ bB ii^ OMMaPUN ftOCMlOISM Mill C3-5 noiiii I I nf >r*t >‘-irr . • ■ -t! ■ - .4:* . • :’ W r; l- '; fUtiXVS^ SopRS^ttOntoil Associatis AMmviOOOSomaoNToi ■et»w 3E OMMC*0MAapi>M«oc.tsion«>io o«ni C3^ 7 "W-WTT- ' I -------A-JwJ V V \ \ V...........r—.. •t V ^ ■"...........'■■ / ' • ----;;4»«^m. i, / y' P^pw‘" mm, ' ':Msl. _____ . t ‘r-.-* Ui. niiiyffinwii rmw. «< ■■ «■■« w( alSlZSi-*/4v': tflaMSIlW VM«H< '.rsanezi iT'mmrnkmt mmrnmmmmm yg^immm%SSBm0mmmm0mmmmmmmm» mm^rn » « % ur • w »R UMSJXznrurJMT*^’^ tmmmmtmrnmKmm 'r&«LT9v<u«m • • mmmm9i • «■■■» ■■•■■Ml Gfflr^On>Call MMteiVKX)OSomaoNTtt miLi« POuimoNwvmQN PUN Milt C3-7 • ••.V ■-. •■'•.* t? ■ •■’-'V ■. • • -■ ■ V •_ kv,. • ^ 3^-^r *5*' •eMt « ft9 *aabvuT.«i^ I2§ I c M ™ S a # M srsi -• •>« ^«k« t^'SmSmmmZm!* OfwCall Associatis AMKi MOODSomacmm POteiti ■MMilUii uit/nrnAN oini C4-1 wM •V • •.* a V-’' • v'- ’ •i¥-3kii . ty ‘ -' = '^ff^. -r ::>• •' f • r NOCK CONSmuCnON CNTRANCC OfTMl M« 1 —Iff M:.!nwrsLS2:'a.'»-••••-• IM ■» » ' *0 —» M*M| •« •* ••»«• •rn*mm ' I* •*■•• M •«»•••• «•• I. M 'TJisa’ff.ss- • gs^rtss.■■ rM> MV* v*v MMItM • r«T4v*«iTt8T-- • suvr^’nsrurt.*^’ 0 ^ mmii liiiiiT gtfi wm •. • aaHa?^’ ^.aastts ir/ir; ITHII ftM ftitt )ttkVl WTfliArtTttl BITUMIWOUS PAVING SCCTIQN • • w«P— 4#^ 4|T * awm * — ftfTisnjMAim. IS?3E»r ■aiarflsrasffiT*- r-TTT >«aMv«i ifcT rag AMtCt MOODS orrooNTu iimmm ■^1 . ••i«avi M-.*-. I-.. 3^^ (XTAAMH 04III C8-1 =H- V".-' . ■•••V r gtfa=j;Wts!fag ^aa egagy ;.”^:.--. iwfliMr* infntVK i«r*—• BlW«f 5 f ‘ *■->' -,■« ^ \« /I \ ‘•a'*u?i:. <“')I'w rxrww' r /i • nuflp i:.74, i' W8Ha**»- I •s^kkudo T rKWLAUi IIAssociates '• AMtUMOOOSomaciNTi!i mi.m mm im k:. S- >• =. "tr /-“t ^ OfTMl»€n 04MI C8-2 •XSrSXSTST' Lisa £3S53SSmsSRr ^SSSSSSSP^^m^ssasss3sssB •wmil gSgfSST^BM^ LWKasrss: ^ gp^irwwBum^ tnnm ^?SI|jp38SB»^^p SOOftSCEO: gffTagrs n« cm 9 oaONO lAKi uw«c»D#i «qUH¥»rT ON A PWONTAa 9 T»€ 9id)MOOMivuCT«Ncafr tmipun U« A T01M. 9 1% 9 l«J Mau9l IMUM uMoiCAii mocm S. LANOSCAfC CMCUIATIONS: I - CTSHgSa^a: lANDSCAfC KAN: agg»«agsypp ta gaiaiiU WMgaCT LM<OKVIOrMUk LAMOSCAfCNOTEScI [ICTlhlP-lair-- llH ■fniHEB" tMIfc-. ICT «.’: .#1 1 GMKALNOTtS: AMeOt WOODS offdONn* lANOKVinAN 04111 LM One Call AMHIWOOOS OffOONTa 1 A- i=Dt^ _-.iiiT|r-'^ uomenm Mill L2-1 CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINESOTA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2C AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE LOTS 1-11, BLOCK 1, AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE DEVELOPER: SUGARWOODS OFnCE CENTER, LLC. OWNER: SUGARWOODS OFHCE CENTER, LLC. THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 2C AGREEMENT AND PUD/DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (collectively the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this____day of___________, 2005 by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter die “City”) and Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC., a limited liability company (hereinafter the “Dewloper ” and the “Owner”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer has made application to the City Council for tq>proval of a Planned Unit Development rezoning application (PUD) including subdivision to create ten (10) lots and one (1) common lot on one block to be known as AMBER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE, conunetcial site plan review, and easement vacations for the purpose of developing approximately 34,186 s.f. of office condominiums; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2005 the City Council granted Concept Plan approval for development of the proposed office condominiums per Resolution No. 5296, on the conditions that the Develqier fulfill the obligations of the approved Concept Plan Resolution and enter into this Agreement to provide for conformance with the City’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordiiumces and to provide for the installation and maintenance of improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of the actual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1.Property Dcscriptioa. This Agreement shall apply only to the following described property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota: Lots 1-11, Block 1, AMBER W( (hereinafter the “Property ”) OFFICE CENTRE 2.Zoning. The Property is zoned as a Planned Unit Development under the Orono planned unit development ordinance with underlying B-6 zoning for the office component. Page 1 of9 Developer Initial, City Cleric Initial. h 3. 5. Permitted Uses. Withic Lots I-11 approximately 34,186 s.f. of office condominiums consisting of S duplex style walk-out buildings are permitted with surface parking at the main level as depicted in the site plan and preliminary building plans and elevations. The permitted use of the office condominium buildings is general office uses which may include business and professional offices of a general nature, and may include a clinic for human care on an outpatient basis only. Retail uses accessory to the office use may be allowed with the limitation that within any building, retail uses shall not exceed 5% of the gross floor area of that building. Other uses shall not be allowed except by amendment of this PUD Agreement No accessory structures are permitted within Lots 1 - 10. Within Lot 11 the only accessory structures allowed shall include: a) Trash enclosuies, constructed of materials comparable to and compatible with those of the building to be constructed within Lots 1- 10; and b) Monument identification signs per the approved plans. No other accessory structures are permitted except by amendment of this Agreement. Site Access. Primary access for internal circulation for the Property from Highway 12 shall be via a right-in/right-out driveway access directly to Highway 12 shared with the Orono Senior Housing development, Plaimed Unit Development No. 2 (PUD No. 2), to the direct east. Surface parking and drive aisles will be provided along the southern and western ends of the Prop^ at the main floor level of the buildings. A secondary access to Highway 12 is provided via access easements to be granted through the surface parking lot within the Orono Senior Housing site to the east (Lot 2, Block 1, Orono Am^), which were required with approval of PUD No. 2, allowing for a coruiection to Brown Road South and ultimately a future stoplight at Brown Road South and existing Highway 12. Such easements will be granted by the City of Orono Housing A Redevelopment Authority, which owns said Lot 2, Orono Ambar. Thirdly, the Property is designed to allow for a future vehicular connection at the northwestern comer of the Property for a future fiontage road to Outlot D, Sugarwoods. The Developer shall grant ingress and egress easements as part of the final plat to allow fi>r a vdiicular connection should the fiontage road, via Outlot D, ever be developed. A drainage and utility easement will be dedicated over entire Lot 11 as part of the final plat. Development Plans. The Property shall be developed in accordance with final plans (the “Plans’^ udiich shall first be certified by the City Planning Director as being in conformity with the {q>i»oved plans described below and with the provisions of this Agreement The Plans dull not be attached to this Agreement The Plans are: A. B. Final Plat Existing Conditions sheet Cl-1 : / V-'.: »■Developer Initial. Nfe2oT9 City Clerk Initial. wii C. Removals & Erosion Control Plan sheet C1 -2 D. E. F. 0. H. 1. J. K. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. W. X. Existing Drainage Map sheet Cl-3 Site Plan sheet C2-1 Overall Grading & Drainage Plan sheet C3-1 Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. #1 Lots 1-2 sheet C3-2 Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. #2 Lots 3-4 sheet C3-3 Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. #3 Lots 5-6 sheet C3-4 Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. #4 Lots 7-8 sheet C3-S Grading A Drainage Plan Bldg. #5 Lots 9-10 sheet C3-6 L. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan sheet C3-7 Proposed Drainage Map sheet C3-8 Utility Plan sheet C4-1 Detail sheet C8-1 Detail sheet C8-2 Landscape Plan sheet Ll-1 Lighting Plan sheet L2-1 Lower Level Floor Plan sheet A-1 Main Level Floor Plan sheet A-2 Upper Level Floor Plan sheet A-3 Front Elevation sheet A-4 Walk-Out Elevation sheet A-5 Side Elevation sheet A-6 ht»3of9 Developer Initial, City Clerk Initial, tmm-iiWiii ktfAi.i-n < . -ww.i 6. Y. Side Elevation sheet A-7 Z. Monument Signage The Plans are subject to any additional requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and subject to any additional requirements and conditions specified by the City Engineer upon review of the Plans. Construction of the buildings shall be in conformance with the building codes and regulations adopted by the City. Any substantial changes to the gross square footage, fooqmnt/wall/roof dimensions or defined building height shall require a prior amendment to tlris Agreement improvenents: In accordance with the policies and ordinances of the City, the following described public or private improvements (hereinafter collectively called the "Improvements**) shall be constructed, installed and maintained by the Developer according to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement: A.Site grading, roadways and driveways, curb and guttCT, parking lots, sidewalks, retaining walls and all necessary erosion control measures per the Overall Grading and Drairuige Plan and the individual building grading and drainage plans (hereinafter called "site grading improvements"); B.Construction of sanitary sewer and water coruiections, and construction of storm sewer lines and facilities as required (hereinafter called "stormwater improvements**) per the Utility Plan referenced herein. C.Underground lutural gas, electric, cable and telephone service to be arranged by the Developer with the utility companies involved (hereiruifter called the "other utility improvements"); D. Landscaping and site rev^etation improvements per the approved Landscape Plan lefimiKed herein (hereinafter call^ "landscaping improvements**). E. TrafiSc control signage subject to approval by the City Engineer and Public Services Director. F. Any additional improvements listed within the Site ImfHovements Cost Estimate attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Estimate**). 7. CeMtniction of ImprovcHcnts £fil It Date - Construction of Improvements shall begin no later than r-’Developer Initial. City Clerk Initial -------tiJM 8, B. C. D. E. F. O. H. Completion Date - All Improvements shall be completed no later than (2 years from commencement date). The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. Contractors - The Developer shall select, retain and supervise the contractor's) responsible for construction of the Improvements. The City roserves the right to require satisfactory proof of successful experience and adequate financial status of each such contractor. Where required by City ordinance, the contractor shall first obtain a license from the City. Pre-Construction Conference - Prior to the start of any construction, the Developer and the developer’s contractor shall meet with the responsible City officials to review construction plans and schedules. Permits - Prior to the start of any construction, the developer’s contractor shall apply for and receive all necessary permits for the Improvements from the City and/or government agencies having juri xliction. Site grading shall not commence until a land alteration permit has been issued. Developer is advised that an erosion control permit must be obtr'ned from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as well as the required NPDES construction site permit, before commencing any grading activity on the site. Construction - The construction, installation and materials shall be in accordance with the Plans approved by the City. Inspection - The City, through its staff and/or consultants, shall inspect the installation of the Improvements to ensure compliance with the Plans. The cost of such inspections will be paid by the Developer anticipated to be about $5,000.00 to $10,000.00, but if there are major problems it could be as high as $20,000.00 per City Engineer consultant Insurance - The Developer will cause each person who constructs and installs any portion of the Improvements to maintain complete insurance coverage including Workmen ’s Compensation, Liability and Property Damage (with coverages consistent >vith industry standards). Pcrfomance Security. For the purposes of assuring to the City that the Improvements will be completed according to the terms of this Agreement, and that the Developer will pay or will cause to have paid all claims for work done and materials and su|^Iies furnished, the Developer or its general contractor will deposit with the City prior to issuance of site grading and building permits an irrevocable letter of credit (LOC) from a local (Twin Cities area) financial institution in a form satisfactory to the City, providing Developer Initial_____ PageSorO City Clerk Initial. 9. 10. that the City is able to draw upon such letter of credit in its sole discretion to complete the Improvements if the Developer fails to satisfactorily complete the work prior to the completion date specified in Section seven (7) above. Further, if the required improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the LC)C, the City may also draw on the LOC. If the security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. The amount of the LOC shall be 150% of the estimated improvement costs. The estimated improvement cost is $548,565.75; therefore, the LOC amount shall be $822,848.63. As substantial elements of the Improvements are completed and approved by the City Engineer, tne City will authorize reduction of the LOC in an amount equal to 150% of the cost estimate for that phase of the improvements deemed complete, but in no case shall the LOC be reduced to a point less thw 10% of the original amount until all Improvements are complete and accepted by the City. The LOC shall expire no sooner than one year after the completion date specified in Section seven (7) above, to allow for at least one freeze-thaw cycle for parking lot settlement. Security to ensure survival of landscaping vegetation shall be retained for eighteen (18) months after planting. Fees and Expenses. The Developer agrees to pay all City fees required per the current City Fee Sch^ule and further agrees to completely reimburse the City for all the variable additional expenses it incurs in regard to the review and approval of the Improvements including, but not limited to, direct City payroll and overhead, costs, and fees paid to consultants and other professionals, which are not covered by City application fees. These fees and expenses are estimate at $2,000.00 - $3,500.00. NotiM Required notices to the Develqier and the Owner shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, the Owner, their employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer and the Owner by registered mail at the following addresses: Notice to Developer Sugarwoods OfiBce Center, LLC. Philip Carlson P.O. Box 184 Wayzata, MN 55391 Notice to Owner Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC Philip Carlson P.O. Box 184 Wayzata, MN 55391 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: Orono City Offices, 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323, Telephone 952-249-4600. 11. Addithmal Conditioiis A. Turning radiuses of fire apparatus access roads on the Property shall be designed subject to approval of the City Engineer and Orono Fire Marshal. Paf*6of9 Developer Initial, City Cleric Initial, 12. B. Fire lanes will be marked with the appropriate street signage and yellow curbing. Orono Fire Marshal will determine fire lanes upon review of the Plans and final access routes and at that point determine exact placement of signs and yellow curbing. C. The walk-out elevations of the buildings shall be as set out in Document C3-1 of the construction documents dated A|Nil 4,2005. D. Storm sewer facilities which lie outside of public right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained by the Developer until the end of the period of Developer control of the association at which time they will be maintained by the Amber Wo^s Office Centre Association. E. All sanitary sewer and water connection lines within the Property shall be owned and maintained and maintained by the Developer until the end of the period of Developer control of the association at which time they will be maintained by the Amber Wo^s Office Centre Association. F. No site work or construction shall commence until the Developer has paid the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee as established in Concept Plan Resolution 5296. The MCES Sewer Availability Charges (SAC) are the responsibility of the Developer and shall be paid to the City at the time of building permit issuance for transfer to MCES. 0. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Minnesota Department of Health, MCES, Waterehed District, Minnesota DNR, MPCA, and MnDOT. H. The Developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. Ilie Developer will comply with the City Engineer's direction as ftr as abandonment or relocation of the drain tile. I. The Developer shall provide the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval for all material imported or exported from the Property. If the material is to be imported or exported to/from another site in Orono, it should be noted that those other parcels will be required to obtain a land alteration permit, and potentially a conditional use permit from the City. J. The Developer shall obtain a temporary construction easement or other use agreement from die owner of the property directly west at 2120 Wayzata Boulevard for construction of the necessary retaining walls. General Conditions. The general conditions of diis Agreement, approved by the City Council on September 26,2005, are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. PfegcToTf Developer Initial, City Clerk Initial IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City, the Developer, and the Owner have caused this agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. CITY OF ORONO By: (Mayor) By: (City Clerk) DEVELOPER - Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC. By: i >*-■ Its: OWNER - Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC. Its: Reviewed for Administration: Date:By: ■K-” 'iC (Planning Director) By: This instniment was draficd by: CityofOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box d6 Crystal Bay. MN SS3S6 (City Administrator) .r* ^ e ^Piitaorf Developer Initial. City Cleric Initial. I J STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 2005 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of ^ 2005, by Philip Carlson, Chief Manager, Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC., a Limited Liability Corporation, on behalf of Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of ., 2005, by Philip Carlson, Chief Manager, Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC., a Limited Liability Corporation, on behalf of Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC. Notary Public Develoner Initial City Clerk Initial, M Jfcj I I ipi^ u fl i t c. fo ow y^fei ClTYoT ORONO Municiptl Ofikcc *•!' StiMtMirfU: 2750 KeHey Paikway Orono. MN 55356 MaWiig MIrau; P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 May 24.2005 Philip A Gina Carison Intenpace-West, Inc. P.O. Box 184 Wayzata, MN 55391 HAND DELIVERED RE: General Development Pbn - Outatanding Submittal Requirements Dear Mr. & Mrs. Carlson: The City Council approved a General Concept Plan Resolution at their regularly scheduled meeting of March 28,2005. A draft copy of Aat resolution was mailed to you as part of that Council packet llut resolution laid out the conditions under which your General Development Plan application would be approved. Your General Development Plan application was then submitted and approved at the April 25, 2005 City Council meeting, liiat approval was contingent on an additional staff recommendation, noted within the Council packet mailed to you prior to the meeting. Based on the conditions within the Concept Plan appro. ,.! Resolution and the staff recommendation of your General Development Plan approval, the following items must be submitted prior to Council final ^qiroval of a Planned Unit Development and Developer ’s Agreement, and Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat and vacating the existing utility easement: A. Appearing Within the Concept Plan Approval Resolution 1. Document showing d^ication of ingress and egress casements to allow for connection of a future frontage road to Outlot D, Sugarwoods. pg. 5) 2. Submittal of a signage plan in accordance with the 190 s.f allowance provided under Section 78-1468 and also the Zoning Code Amendment approved on May 8, 2004 regarding monument signs. (#10, pg. 6) 3. Submittal of evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval of the stormwater management plan. (#14, pg. 7) 4. Association Documents incorporating language regarding a review committee to review/approve uses as they are introduced into the development. (#16, pg. 7) B. Staff Recommendation of the General Development Plan Approval (only items not mentioned above) 1. Incorporation into the Landscape Plan of the City’s landscape consultant comments (last five sentences of #2 of the letter attached and dated April 18, 2005) and IkkpiMM (952) 2494600 • Fas (952) 2494614 t 4 .4; incorporation into the engineering drawings the minor engineering matters discussed within the same letter. 2. A revised set of building elevations illustrating like building materials and colors on all fa9ades. C. Final Submittals I. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (I) copy reduced to a I” 200’ scale. Drawing to include: A. Lx)t lines platted per preliminary plat survey/drawing approved on March 28, 200S. B. Dedication of ’’drainage and utility easements ” over Lot 11 (the common lot). C. Naming of the plat. 2. Legal documents required: A. Title opinion addressed to the City or a title insurance policy in favor of the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. C. Signed PUD/Developers Agreement (draft will be forwarded to you within the next few days) and a Letter of Credit in the amount of $822,848.63. 3. Plat approval fees to be paid: Total due: $18,079.00 A. Final plat fee $280.00, B. Legal review & filing fees for subdivision and associated documents: $250.00, C. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee: $17,549.00, and D. Additional engineering and legal fees will be billed at actual cost as they are incurred. The documents necessary for final approval, PUD & Developer ’s Agreement and Resolution, will not be approved by the City Council until the items listed above have been submitted and accepted by City staff. The fees will be required prior to filing of the plat and before any building permits or site work permits will be issued. I’ve attached all necessary documents regarding the issues noted above for your review. Please contact me or Planning Director Mike Gaffron if you have further questions. Sincereiy, City ofOrono Janice Gundlach City Planner cc. Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Dan Larson, Loucks Associates , f.. <■; v' X‘. ' -»-♦< v*'> •/if*I- Direct Dial: 349-S6S4 IK:KH September 13,2005 CityofOrono C/o Mr. Thomas Barrett, City Attorney Hoishaw and Culbertson LLP 222 South Ninth, Suite 3100 Minneapolis, MN SS402 PREMISES Lot I, Block 1, ORONO AMBAR, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Dear City of Or We have examined the title to the above described premises as of August 16,2005 at 7:00 a.m., baaed on the Hennepin County Recorder’s Records oniy. From such examination, we conclude tfiat said premises were owned in fee simple Ity Linrob Associates, LLC, a Minnesota limit^ liability company. Sudi ownership is subject to the following: 1. Rights, if any, of the parties in possession other than said owaos. 2.Mechanic's lien rights, if any, for recent improvements upon said premises or property connected therewith. 3.Special assessments, if any, which may be levied upon said premises. A qjecial assessment search must be provided before closing. Public zoning, building or oivir regulations. ital laws, or building ordinances and f V m S. Facts which would he shown by a survey of said premises. Taxes due and payable in the year 200S are half paid and half unpaid. 2004 and prior years are paid in full. Taxes due and payable in the year 2005 are $18,559.02 for parcel number 34-118-23-21-0035. 7.Utility and drainage easements as shown on the recorded plats of Orono Ambar and Sugar Woods. 8.Terms and conditions of that certain Development Agreement dated December 3, 2001 and recorded December 4,2001 as County Recorder Doc. No. 34/36800 (no forfeiture provisions). Combination Mortgage and Fixture Financing Statement from Linrob Associates, LLC, to First National Bank of Elk River dated October 14,2003 and recorded December 22,2003 as County Recorder Doc. No. 3897565 and amended by nuxlification agreements recorded as County Recorder Doc. Nos. 4008908, 4059495 and 4108080 to secure the original principal amount of $527,788.00. Note: Oral Name searches were acquired against the fee owner and predeces<iors in title Northern Title Insurance Co. and show clear.It Very truly yours. MVP c/c Jams Marinus W. Van Putten, Jr. V ■ .1 .■y'-i y: *■ , • •••• 'fim - m COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY No. 1504 Planned Community AMRER WOODS OFFICE CENTRE DECLARATION THIS DECLARATION is made as of this___day of September, 2005, by Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, (herein "Declarant") pursuant to the provisions of the Minnesota Common Interest Ownership Act, Minnesota Statutes Sections SISB.I-IOI through SlSB.4-118 (the "Act"), as amended. REOTALS Declarant is the owner of certain real estate located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lots 1 through 11, Block 1, Amber Woods Office Centre, Hennepin County, Minnesota, all of which real estate constitutes and is herein to referred to as the "'Real Estate” Declarant intends to develop the Real Estate as separate building parcels suitable for office and other uses permitted by City Code in a campus setting with certain shared common amenities and with uniform standards of appearance and maintenance. Declarant has caused Amber Woods Office Centre Association (the “Association") to be formed as a Minnesota nonprofit corporation to serve as the statutory association of Unit owners for Amber Woods Office Centre. Declarant wishes to e:ihiblish the Real Estate as a planned Community under the Act. n ■ t t ; 1 [5 I M NOW THEREFORE, Declarant declares that the Real Estate is and shall be divided, held, transferred, conveyed, sold, leased, occupied and developed subject to the Act and to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, charges and liens set forth in this Declaration, which shall run with the Real Estate and be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the Real Estate, their heirs, successors and assigns, and which shall inure to the benefit of each Unit owner, and the heirs, successors and assigns of each Unit owner. Note to Readers Many provisions of the Act which govern this common interest Community ("CIC”), and of the Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 317A under which the Association is formed, are not repeated in this Declaration. This DMiaration should be read in conjunction with both statutes. 1.00 DEFINITIONS 1.01 Words defined in the Act shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Act The following are supplemental defmitions. "Appropriate Use Conunittee" or "AUC" shall mean and refer to that permanent committee of the Association created for the purpose of establishing and enforcing standards limiting the uses of the Real Estate to those that are compatible with the history and character of the Real Estate and its surrounding neighborhood. B. "Association" shall mean Amber Woods OfHce Centre Association, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. C. “Atrium” shall refer to the Limited Common Element wedge-plan structure, one of which is located between two OfBce Structures. D. "Board of Directors" or "Board" shall mean the board of directors of the Association. E. “City” shall mean the City of Orono, Minnesota. F. “Common Area” shall mean Lot 11, Block 1, Amber Woods Office Centre, Hennepin County, Minnesota. G. “Common Elements” are defined in Section 8.01 below mm "Common Expenses" shall mean expenditures made or liabilities incurred by or on behalf of the Association, including those made or incurred with respect to easement rights over adjoining property which benefit the owners, together with any allocations to reserves. rd ■ttiiidVr’iMiiiiiaflrfk'i' afrii kAAiLjv 1 1. I.**Cominon Improvements'* shall mean those roads, curbs, parking areas, utilities, lighting, directional signage, and walkways constructed or maintained upon the Common Area for the common benefit or owners and occupants of Units, and the invitees ot such owners and occupants. J.“Exterior Landscaping" shall mean all exterior grass, shrubs, trees, flowers and other plantings maintained within the Real Estate. “Limited Common Elements” are defined in Section 8.02 below. L. “Office Structure" shall mean the building erected within a Unit. M. “Unit" shall mean any of Lots 1 to 10, inclusive. Block 1, Amber Woods Office Centre, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2.00 IDENTITY OF REAL ESTATE AND CIC 2.01 This Declaration establishes Common Interest Community No. 1504, Hennepin County, Minnesota, under the name Amber Woods Office Centre. It is a planned community (and not a condominium or cooperative), and is not subject to a master association. The Real Estate included within this CIC is legally described on the first page hereof. 3.00 CIC PLAT 3.01 The plat of Amber Woods Office Centre, recorded with the Registrar of Titles for Hennq>in County, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 508, constitutes the CIC Plat for this CIC. 4.00 OWNERS ASSOCIATION 4.01 Amber Woods Office Centre Association has been incorporated as a Minnesota nonprofit corporation under Minnesota Statutes, Chiqiter 31 7A to act as the association of owners of Units required by section 515B.3-101 of the Act. 5.00 UNITS AND UNIT IDENTIFIERS 5.01 This CIC consists of ten (1 0) Units, namely. Lots I to 1 0, inclusive. Block I, Amber Woods Office Centre, Hennepin County, Minnesota and one Common Area lot. Lot 11, Block 1. The Unit identifier of each Unit shall be the lot and block numbers and the subdivision name of the CIC Plat. I"-' , J1 6.00 BOUNDARIES 6.01 The Unit boundaries shall be the boundary lines of the platted lots as designated on the CIC Plat. The Units have no upper or lower boundaries. 7.00 USE OF UNITS 7.01 All Units are restricted to non-residential use. 8.00 COMMON ELEMENTS AND LIMITED COMMON ELEMENTS 8.01 Common Elements. The Common Elements include the Common Area and those parts of the Real Estate designated as Conunon Elements in the Act, the Association's and the owners' easement rights set forth below, and the Common Improvements. The Common Elements shall be subject to qipurtenant easements for services, public and private utilities, access, use and enjoyment in favor of each Unit and its owners and occupants; subject to (i) the rights of owners and occupants in Limited Common Elements appurtenant to their Units and (ii) the right of the Association to establish reasonable Rules and Regulations governing the use of the Real Estate. The maintenance, repair, replacement, control, management and operation of the Commem Elements shall be the exclusive responsibility of the Association. Conunon Expenses for the maintenance, repair, replacement, management and operation of the Common Elements shall be assessed and collected from the owners in accordance with this Declaration. 8.02 Limited Common Elements. The Limited Common Elements are those parts of the Common Elements reserved for the exclusive use of the owners and occupants of the Units to which they are allocated, and the rights to the use and enjoyment thereof are automatically conveyed with the conveyance of such Units. The Limited Common Elements allocated to tiie Units include each Atrium adjacent and allocated to two Units, and the water, sewer, natural gas, electrical, telephone, data and other utility pipes, wires, conduits and fixtures located in the Common Area but serving fewer than all of the Units. 9.00 ALLOCATION OF VO^ ING POWER AND COMMON EXPENSES 9.01 Conunon Expenses. Each of the Units is hereby allocated an equal share of the Conunon Expenses of the Association. However, certain expenses may be assessed on a different basis, or against one Unit or fewer than all Units, under the following circumstances: A.Any common expense associated with the maintenance, repair, or replacement of a Limited Common Element undertaken by the Association shall be assessed exclusively against the Unit or Units to which that Limited Common Element is assigned, and if it is assigned to more than one Unit, on the basis of (i) equality, (ii) square footage of the area being maintained, repaired or replac^, or (iii) the actual cost incurred with respect to each Unit. •.iuAlifel --- B. C. F. O. I. J. K. Any common expense or portion thereof benefiting fewer than all of the Units may be assessed exclusively against the Unit or Units benefited, and if more than one Unit is benefited, on the basis of (i) equality, (ii) square footage of the area being maintained, repaired or replaced, or (Hi) the actual cost incurred with respect to each Unit. The costs of insurance may be assessed in proportion to value, risk or coverage, and the costs of utilities may be assessed in proportion to usage. Reasonable attorneys fees and other costs incurred by the Association in connection with (i) the collection of assessments and (ii) the enforcement of the Declaration, Bylaws, the Act, or the Rules and Regulations, against an owner or occupant or their guests, may be assessed against the owner's Unit. Fees, charges, late charges, fines and interest may be assessed as provided in Section SlSB.3-116(a) of the Act. Assessments levied under Section 51 SB.3-11 6 of MCIOA to pay a judgment against the Association may be levied only against the Units existing at the time the judgment was entered, in proportion to their common expense liabilities. If any damage to rhe Common Elements or another Unit is caused by the act or omission of any owner or occupant, or their invitees, the Association may assess the costs of repairing the damage exclusively against the owner's Unit to the extent not covered by insurance. If any installment of an assessment becomes more than 30 days past due, then the Association may, upon 10 days written notice of the owner, declare the entire amount of tlie assessment immediately due and payable in full. Expenses relating to the maintenance, repair, replacement or operation of all or any part or component of a common element or limited common element may be assessed against Units on the basis of use, which may either be measured or reasonably estimatci. If common expense liabilities are reallocated for any purpose authorized by the Act, Conunon Expense assessments and any installment thereof not yet due shall be recalculated in accordance with the reallocated common expense liabilities. Assessments described in Subsections 9.01.A-I shall not be considered special assessments as described in Section 10.03. if. n 9.02 Voting. Each of the Units is allocated one vote in the Association. 9.03 Reasonable Estimates. Whenever an expense that is allocable to Units to which a Limited Common Element is assigned under Section 9.01 .A, to certain benefited Units under Section 9.01.B, or to certain Units on the basis of use of utilities under Section 9.01.C, is not separately metered or cannot otherwise be precisely measured, the Association may make a reasonable estimate thereof, and based on such estimate, may adopt for convenience a simple flat fee per each such Unit. 9.04 equality. Formula. The allocation of interests specified in Section 9.01 above is based on 10.00 ASSESSMENTS 10.01 General Provisions. Sections I SB.3-US of the Act specifies how assessments are assessed and collected. Section S1SB.3-1 16 specifies how the lien for assessments is created and enforced, and to which interests it is either superior or subordinate. 10.02 Annual Assessments. Annual Assessments shall be established and levied by the Board. Each annual assessment shall cover all of the anticipated Common Expenses of the Association for that year. Annual assessments may provide, among other things, for contributions to a separate reserve f\md sufficient to cover the periodic cost of maintenance, repair and replacement of the Common Improvements and those parts of the Units for which the Association is responsible, in accordance with the Association’s reserve plan. The plan may assume that a portion of the future costs will be funded by future special assessments. 10.03 Special Assessments. In addition to the annual assessments authorized above, the Association may levy, in any assessment year, a special assessment payable over one or several assessment years for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any unforeseen or unbudgeted common expense, including without limitation the unexpected construction, reconstruction, repair or replacement of a capital improvement and including fixtures and personal property related thereto, provided that any such assessment shall have the assent of not less than a majority of the Units. 10.04 Maintenance Assessments. In addition to annual and special assessments, the Association, by the vote of a majority of the Units, may levy in any assessment year a maintenance assessment for the purpose of defraying in whole or in part the cost of curing a violation of a covenant or failure to perform a condition contained in this Declaration after notice as provided in Sections 13.01 and 22.07 below. The assessment shall be a personal obligation of the owner and a lien against the Unit with the same priority and enforceability as any lien for annual or S| jcial assessments. 1 0.0^ Commencement of Initial ^nnual Assessments. The annual assessments provided for here! ^ ihall commence as to all Units not later than one month after the first conveyance of a Unit to an owner other than Declarant. The first annual assessment shall be adjusted according to the number of months remaining in the calendar year. 10.06 Commencement of Annual Assessments. By November 30 of each year the Board shall fix the amount of annual assessments against each Unit for the following fiscal year and shall send written notice thereof to each owner. The due date for payment of annual assessments shall be as set by the Board. At the time the Board fixes the amount of annual assessments it shall adopt a budget for the following fiscal year and cause a copy of such budget in reasonable detail to be furnished to each owner. 10.07 Lien Priority: Foreclosure . A lien under this Section is prior to all other liens and encumbrances on a Unit except (i) liens and encumbrances recorded before the Declaration, (ii) any first mortgage on the Unit, and (iii) liens for real estate taxes and other governmental assessments or charges against the Unit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a first mortgage on a Unit is foreclosed, the first mortgage was recorded on or after June 1,1994, and no owner redeems during the owner's period of redemption provided by Chapters 580, 581, and 582, then the holder of the sheriffs certificate of sale from the foreclosure of the first mortgage shall take title to the Unit subject to unpaid assessments for Common Expenses levied pursuant to Section 515B.3-115(a), (e)( 1) to (3), (0> and (i) of the Act which became due, without acceleration, during the six months immediately preceding the first day following the end of the owner's period of redemption. 10.08 Voluntary Conveyances: Statement of Assessments. In a voluntary conveyance of a Unit the buyer shall not be personally liable for any unpaid assessments and other charges made by the Association against the seller or the seller’s Unit prior to the time of conveyance to the buyer, unless expressly assumed by the buyer. However, the lien of such assessments shall remain against the Unit until satisfied. Any seller or buyer shall be entitled to a statement, in recordable form, from the Association setting forth the amount of the unpaid assessments against the Unit, including all assessments payable in the Association's current fiscal year, which statement shall be binding on the Association, seller and buyer. 10.09 Alternative Assessment Program. The Declarant hereby establishes an alternative assessment program of the type described in Section 515B.3-115(aX 1) of the Act. Specifically, if a conunon expense assessment has been levied, any Unit owned by Declarant for initial sale shall be assessed at the rate of 25% of the assessment levied on other Units of the same type until a certificate of occupancy has been issued with respect to such Unit by the municipality in which the Unit is located. Thereafter, such Unit will be assessed at the full rate. This reduced assessment shall apply to each Unit owned by Declarant at the time that the Unit is created, and shall continue as to each such Unit until the issuance of the certificate of occupancy as previously described. In any event, this alternate assessment program shall end on the fifth anniversary of the recording of this Declaration. There are no assurances that this alternative assessment program will have no effect on the level of services for items set forth in the Association's budget. r 3 i I 1 1 .00 EASEMENTS 11.01 Easement for Maintenance. Repair. Replacement and Reconstruction. Each Unit shall be subject to the rights of the Association to a non-exclusive easement on and over the Units to the extent necessary to fulfill the Association's obligations under this Declaration or the Act, including without limitation, to maintain the Common Elements, the Exterior Landscaping, the Common Improvements, the Atriums and the Office Structures. 11.02 Declarant's Easements. Declarant shall be the beneficiary of the casements for construction and sales activity described below. 11.03 Right of Enjoyment over the Common Area. Every owner and lawful occupant of a Unit, and the invitees of any such, shall have the non-exclusive ri^t to use and enjoy the Common Area for ingress and egress, pailcing, utility access, and enjoyment of open spaces, subject to reasoiuble rules and regulations adopted from time to time by the Board. Nothing herein shall be construed as a grant of easement rights to the public. 11.04 Recorded Easements. The Real Estate shall be subject to such other easements as may be recorded against it or shown on the CIC Plat. 1 1.05 Permanent Easements. All easements described in this Declaration are permanent easements, running with the land, and are appurtenant. They shall at all times inure to the benefit of and be binding on the owner and the mortgagee, from time to time, of any Unit, and their respective heirs, successors, personal representatives or assigns. Subject to the restrictions set forth herein, an owner may delegate the right of enjoyment of an easement to tenants. 11.06 Continuation and Scope of Easements. Notwithstanding anything in this Declaration to the contrary, in no event shall an owner or occupant be denied reasonable access to its Unit or the right to utility services thereto. The easements set forth in this Article 11 .00 shall supplement and not limit any easements described elsewhere in this Declaration or otherwise recorded, and shall include reasonable access to the Common Elements through the Units as reasonably necessary for purposes of maintenance, repair, replacement and reconstruction. 12.00 ASSOCIATION MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY 12.01 Common Elements: Exterior Landscaping: Snow Plowing. In order to preserve the iiiniform and high standard of function and appearance of the Real Estate, the Association shall have the exclusive responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the Common Elements (including the Common Improvements), the exterior surfoces of the Atriums and Office Structures, and the Exterior Landscaping, which responsibility shall include, but not be limited to, the resurfacing and striping of paved areas; maintenance, repair, painting and replacement of lighting fixtures, directional signage; planting, removing, mowing, trimming, replanting, raking and fertilizing of grass, shrubs, trees and other plantings; the maintenance and repair of exterior surfaces of all buildings on the Real Estate, including, without limitation, the painting and staining of same as often as necessary, the 8 Vi \ I, 1\ replacement of (rim and caulking, the maintenance and repair of roofs, gutters, downspouts and overhangs, the maintenance and repair of exterior windows and doors, and the painting and decorating of the exterior surface of exterior doors and exterior window sashes. The Association shall not responsible for washing windows. In addition, the Association shall be responsible for snowplowing all driveways, parking areas and paved walkways throughout the Real Estate. In the event that the need for maintenance or repair is caused through the willful or negligent act or omission of an owner or the owner’s tenants or invitees, the cost of such maintenance or repair shall be added to and become a part of the assessment to which such Unit is subject. 12.02 Services. The Association may obtain and pay for the services of any persons or entities, to manage its affairs, or any part thereof, to the extent it deems advisable, as well as such other personnel as the Association shall determine to be necessary or desirable for the proper operation of the Real Estate, whether such personnel are furnished or employed directly by the Association or by any person or entity with whom or which it contracts. The Association may obtain and pay for legal and accounting services necessary or desirable in connection with the operation of the Real Estate or the enforcement of this Declaration. The Association may arrange with others to fiimish trash collection and other conunon services to each Unit. 12.03 Personal Property and Real Estate for Common Use. The Association may acquire and hold for the use and benefit of all of the owners tangible and intangible personal property and real estate and may dispose of the same by sale or otherwise. Such beneGcial interest shall not be transferable except with the transfer of title to a Unit, provided that an owner may delegate its right of enjoyment of such property to tenants of its Unit. A transfer of title to a Unit shall transfer to the transferee ownership of the transferor's beneGcial interest in such property in accordance with the purpose for v^ch it is intended, without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful rights of other owners. The transfer of title to a Unit under foreclosure shall entitle the purchaser to the beneGcial interest in such property associated with the foreclosed Unit. 12.04 Utilities. The Association shall maintain, replace and repair only those sewer and water lines and other utilities which (i) serve only the Common Area or (ii) are not maintained by the City or a utility company. 13.00 OWNERS' MAINTENANCE 13.01 Upkeep and Maintenance . Except only as such work is provided by the Association, all maintenance, repair and replacement of all OfGce Structures, Atriums and other Gxtures located with a Unit shall be the sole obligatiun and expense of the owner thereof (or in the case of a shared Atrium, the adjoining owners), who shall maintain the same in a reasonably clean, neat, attractive and safe extenor condition and in accordance with the architecture standards established by this Declaration, failing which the Association, on thirty (30) days ’ prior written notice, may (but is not required to) enter the Unit and perform some or all of the neglected work at the expense of such owner. Otis 14.00 INSURANCE 14.01 Association’s Policies. The Association shall maintain casualty insurance coverage and general liability coverage on the Common Elements and Common Improvements. The Association may also carry any other insurance it reasonably considers appropriate. All such insurance premiums shall be a common expense. The Association may enter into binding agreements with one or more holders, insurers or guarantors of mortgages obligating the Association to keep specifled coverages in effect for specified periods and to notify a holder, insurer or guarantor of any changes to coverage. The Association shall adjust losses under any such policies and shall use casualty insurance proceeds to rebuild Common Improvements to original standards or to a functional equivalent, unless otherwise directed by vote of a majority of the Units. 14.02 Owners' Individual Policies. Each owner should carry insurance for its own benefit insuring its property, provided that ail such policies shall contain waivers of subrogation and further provided that the liability of the carriers issuing insurance obtained by the Association shall not be affected or diminished by reason of any such additional insurance carried by any owner, that is, owner’s policies shall be ’ without contribution" against Association policies. 15.00 ARCHITECTURAL RESTRICTIONS 15.01 Review of Building Plans . No improvement shall be erected, placed, or altered on any Unit until the building or ether improvement plans, specifications (including front elevation and/or architects rendering) and a plot plan showing the locations of such improvements on the particular Unit have been submitted to and approved in writing by tlie Architectural Control Committee as to conformity and harmony of external design with existing structure^ in the develo|»nent, and as to location of the improvements on uie Unit, giving due regard to the anticipated use thereof as same may affect adjoining structures, uses and operations, and as to location of the improvements with respect to topography, grade, and finished ground elevation. The Architectural Control Committee and Declarant shall not he liable to anyone in damages so submitting plans for approval, or to any owner by reason of mistake in judgment, negligence, or nonfeasance of itself, its agents, or employee, arising out of or in such plans. Likewise, anyone so submitting plans to the Architectural Control Committee for approval, by submitting of such plans, and any party becoming an owner, agrees that it will not bring any action or suit to recover for any such damages against the Architectural Control Committee or Declarant. In the event the Architectural Control Committee fails to approve or disapprove such plans and specifications in writing within thirty days after they have been submitted to the Architectural Control Committee, the plans and specifications will be deemed accepted by the Architectural Control Committee. If an improvement is begun in violation of the terms and conditions hereof, or without written approval as required, and no suit to enjoin the erection, establishment, or alteration of such improvement has been commenced prior to the completion thereof, this covenant shall be deemed to be fulfilled and in compliance. The Board, on request, will issue a certificate as to the state of compliance or noncompliance of a particular Unit, and any such certificate will be binding as to third parties. Any deviation from said plans and specifications as approved which in the judgment of the said Committee is a substantial change or a detriment to the appearance of the structure or of the surrounding area shall be corrected to conform to the plans and specifications as submitted. 15.02 Standards for Certain Exterior Improvements . The Architectural Control Committee shall maintain and enforce specifications for the design, materials, colors, appearance and quality of all exterior directional signage, lighting fixtures, retaining walls, edging materials used around plantings, paving materials, outdoor seating and tables, awnings, umbrellas and i.ii other exterior fixtures and furniture furnished by an owner or tenant and used on the exterior of a Unit, matching those which the Association acquires and maintains as Common Improvements. The Architectural Control Conunittee may revise and add to these standards from time to time, but may not require replacement solely to achieve a different appearance, except with the consent of the vote of seven of the ten Units. 15.03 Standards for Plantings. The Architectural Control Committee shall maintain and enforce specifications for the species, color, placement and size of all plantings within the Real Estate. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it may disapprove disharmonious Hower beds and other plantings. 15.04 Declarant's Rights. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prohibit Declarant ficm making changes to the plans, specifications, and appearance of buildings constructed form time to time on vacant Units, but all buildings shall be consistent in terms of quality and harmonious in general appearance with previously constructed buildings. During the period of Declarant control, the decisions of the Architectural Control Committee must have the written approval of the Declarant. 15.05 Composition of Committee . The Architectural Control Committee shall be the Board of Directors of the Association, or a committee of three or more persons so designated by the Board. 15.06 SigQS. All advertising signs and devices shall have prior written approval of the Ardiitectural Control Committee and shall conform to the following: The total advertising i^quare footage shall not exceed the area permitted by the ordinances of the City. No single surfiKe of a sign shall exceed 600 square feet. Signs shall only identify the owners oi tenants of a building and may not advertise products or s«vices not related to the building. No signs shall be painted directly on a building. No signs shall contain a rotating light beam or a flashing light system. No signs shall be located on the roof of a building. >1 16.00 GENERAL RESTRICTIONS 16.0 1 Prohibition of Damage and Certain Activities. No damage to, or waste of, the exterior of the Real Estate and buildings shall be committed by any owner or any invitee of any owner, and each owner shall indemnify and hold the Association and the other owners harmless against ail loss resulting from any such damage or waste caused to the Association or other owners by such owner or the owner's invitees. No noxious, destructive or offensive activity shall be allowed on any Units or any part thereof, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an unreasonable nuisance to any other owner or to any other person at any time lawfully on the ReaJ Estate. No hazardous substances shall be generated, stored or used on the Real Estate other than reasonable quantities of usual cleaning and office supplies. 16.02 Animals. Any cat or dog brought upon the Real Estate must be kept under the direct control of the pet owner or another person able to control the pet. The person in charge of the pet must clean up after it. The Board may adopt more specific rules and penalties not inconsistent with the foregoing. 16.03 Prohibited Structures. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed, or maintained upon the property, except accessory to and during construction of permanent buildings. 16.04 General Storage. Storage of all materials, products, either in process of construction or in completed form, equipment, HVAC equipment, or other necessary tools or articles outside of any building shall be in an area designated for such purpose and enclosed by a fence or other ^)propriate enclosure which shall screen such storage from public view. Plans for such storage arrangements must be approved by the Architectural Control Committee in writing. The storage or collection of rubbish of any character whatsoever, any material that emits foul or obnoxious odors, and the harboring of the source of any noise or activity which disturbs the peace, comfort or serenity of lawful occupants is prohibited. Usual (rash and garbage shall be regularly collected and may be kept outside only if in sanitary containers which are so screened. 16.05 Parking. No truck or automobile parking shall be permitted on driveway easements. No boats, snowmobiles, trailers, camping vehicles, buses, camper tops, "all-terrain vehicles", tractor/trailers, trucks in excess of9,000 pounds gross weight, or unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall at any time b stored on the Real Estate outside of a building wihi..dt the express written approval of the Board, which may be withheld without stated reason. 16.06 Additional Units. A Unit owned by the E)eclarant nui> be subdivided or converted into two or more Units, Limited Common Elements, Common Elements, or a combination of Units, Limited Common Elements or Common Elements under the authority of Section 515B.2-112 of the Act In such case, the common expense liability and Common Element interest formerly allocated to the Unit so subdivided or converted will be reallocated to the resulting new Units in proportion to relative land area, and the voting power of the entire Association shall be reallocated based on the 4 ♦ ^ i relative rentable floor ar<M of each building. An Owner of a Unit may also submit the Unit as a condominium under the Act. dividing the Unit into units and conunon elements. 16.07 No Time Shares. Time shares, as defined in the Act, are not permitted in this CIC. 16.08 Rules and Regulations . The Board shall have the exclusive authority to adopt from time to time such other rules and regulations governing the administration of the affairs of the Association, the use, maintenance and enjoyment of the Real Estate, and the conduct of persons using the Real Estate, as the Board in its reasonable discretion deems desirable (v necessary to implement the intent of this Declaration. New or amended rules and regulations shall be effective only after reasonable notice thereof has been given to the owners. 17.00 FIRST MORTGAGEES 17.01 Ai^reements with Mortgage Holders . The Board may enter into binding agreements with holders and guarantors of mortgages secured by interests in a Unit, obligating the Association to give specified notice or other rights to such holders and guarantors. 18.00 SPECIAL DECLARANT RIGHTS 18.01 Special Declarant Rights. Declarant hereby reserves the following rights (referred to in MClOA as Special Declarant Rights) for its benefit: i m A. B. C. the right to create Units by this Declaration; the right to construct and complete improvements; the right to maintain sales office, management office, signs advertising tlie CIC, and models, provided that no more than one combined sales and management office will be maintained at any one time; D.the right to use easements through the Common Elements for the purpose of making improvements within the CIC; and E.the right to appoint or remove any officer or director of the Association during the period of declarant control, which shall expire on the earliest of the following events: 1. surrender of the right of control by the Declarant; 2.60 days after the conveyance of 75% of the Units to Owners other than Derlsrant; and f*-*' , . ritiirtriTi 3. three years from the Hrst conveyance of a Unit to an Owner other than Declarant. 19.00 AMENDMENTS 19.01 D«oclarant's Joinder . In addition to the other requirements for amendment of this Declaration and the Bylaws contained herein, so long as Declarant owns a Unit, the written joinder and consent of ‘he Declarant shall be required for any amendment of either the Declaration or Bylaws. This right may be waived in whole or part at any time by recording a written waiver executed and acknowledged by Declarant. 20.00 COMPLIANCE AND REMEDIES 20.01 Compliance . Each owner and occupant and any other person owning or acquiring any interest in the Real Estate, shall be governed by and comply with the provisions of the Act, this Declaration and Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations, the decisions of the Association, and such amendments thereto as may be made from time to time. A failure to comply shall entitle the Association to the relief set forth in this Section, in addition to the rights and remedies authorized elsewhere by the Declaration, Bylaws or the Act 20.02 Entitlement to Relief. The Association may commence legal action to recover sums due, for damages, for injunctive relief or to foreclose a lien owned by it, or any combination thereof, or an action for any other relief authorized by the Declaration or Bylaws or available at law or in equity. Legal relief may be sought by the Association against any owner, or by an owner against the Association or another owner, to enforce compliance with the Declaration or Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations, the Act or the decisions of the Association. However, no owner may withhold any assessments payable to the Association, or take (or omit) other action in violation of the Declaration or Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations or the Act, as a measure to enforce such owner's position, or for any other reason. 20.03 Right to Cure. In the event that any owner violates any covenant or fails to perform any condition contained in this Declaration, the Association may perform the act, remove the defect or correct the violation upon thirty (30) days written notice to the owner. If the Association so acts on behalf of an owner, the Association may levy an assessment against the owner ’s Unit for the cost of the performance or correction as a Maintenance Assessment as provided in Section 10.04. 20.04 Sanctions and Remedies. In addition to any other remedies or sanctions, expressed or implied, administrative or legal, the Association shall have the right, but not the obligation, to implement any one or more of the following actions against owners and occupants and/or their guests, who violate the provisions of the Declaration or Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations or the Act; A.Commence legal action for damages or equitable relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. B. Impose late charges of up to 15% of each late payment of an assessment or installment thereof. C. In the event of default of more than 30 days in the payment of any assessment or installment thereof, all remaining installments of assessments assessed against the Unit owned by the defaulting owner may be accelerated and shall then be payable in full if all delinquent assessments, together with all costs of collection and late charges, are not paid in full prior to the effective date of the acceleration. Reasonable advance written notice of the effective date of the acceleration shall be given to the defaulting owner. D. Impose reasonable fines, penalties or charges for each violation of the Act, the Declaration or Bylaws, or the Rules and Regulations of the Association. E. Restore any portions of the Common Elements or Limited Common Elements damaged or altered, or allowed to be damaged or altered, by any owner or occupant or their invitees in violation of the Declaration or Bylaws, and to assess the cost of such restoration against the responsible owners and their Units. F. Foreclose any lien arising under the provisions of the Declaration or Bylaws Of under law. in the manner provided for the foreclosure of mortgages by action or under a power of sale in Minnesota. 20.05 t.ien for Charges. Penalties. Etc. Any assessments, charges, fines, penalties, or interest imposed under this Article shall be a lien against the Unit of the owner against whom the same are imposed and the personal obligation of such owner in the same maimer and with the same priority «nd effect as assessments under Article 10.00. The lien shall attach as of the date of imposition of the remedy. All remedies shall be cumulative, and the exercise of, or failure to exercise, any remedy shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to pursue any others. 20.06 Coats of Proceedings and Attomevs Fees. With respect to any collection measures, or any measures or action, legal, administrative, or otherwise, which the Association takes to enforce the provisions of the Act, Declaration, Bylaws or Rules and Regulations, wdiether or not finally determined by a court or arbitrator, the Association may assess the violator and its Unit with any expenses incurred in connection with such enforcement, including without limitation fines or charges previously imposed by the Association, reasonable attorneys, fees, aixl interest (at the highest rate allowed by law) on the delinquent amounts owed to the Association. 20.07 I .lability for Owners' and Occupants' Acta. An owner shall be liable for the expense of any maintenance, repairor replacement of the Property rendered necessary by such owner's acts or omissions, or by that of teiumts or invitees in the owner's Unit, to the extent that such expense is not cov«ed by the proceeds of insurance carried by the Association or such owner or tenant However, any insurance deductible amount and/or increase in insurance rates, resulting from the owner's acts or omissions may be assessed against the owner responsible for the condition and against its Unit. 20.08 Enforcement bv Owners. The provisions of this Section shall not limit or impair the independent rights of other owners to enforce the provisions of the Declaration, Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations, and the Act as provided therein. 21.00 APPROPRIATE USE STANDARDS 21.01 Establishment of AUC: Standards. An Appropriate Use Committee (the “AUC") is hereby established as a permanent committee of the Board, to oversee, review and regulate all proposed new uses of Units. The AUC shall review each new or proposed use of a Unit and disallow any that are not compatible with the history and character of the Real Estate, the other Units and the surrounding neighborhood. In reviewing a proposed new use, the AUC may consider, among other factors: (a) objective impacts such as density and timing of traffic, likely emissions of sound or odor, and vehicle weights; (b) increased insurance risks and premiums; (c) probable electronic interference; (d) uses likely to attract demonstrations or protests; (e) uses that regularly solicit the public to tent sales, flea markets or the like; and (f) uses that are offensive to community standards. The AUC may adopt standards for the Real Estate that help to elucidate those principles. Such standards may be more stringent than standards prescribed in applicable building, zoning, or other governmental laws, codes, or regulations. 21.02 Appropriate Use Committee: Composition. The AUC shall initially consist of a minimum of three (3) natural persons, who need not be Owners. Until the expiration of the period of Declarant control, the committee members shall be appointed by Declarant and shall hold oflice at the pleasure of Declarant. Thereafter, Declarant shall have the right to appoint the majority of the members of the AUC so long as Declarant has the unexpired right to subject Additional Property to the Declaration or owns a Unit, and those member of the Board who are not appointed by Declarant shall have the right to appoint the remainder of the members of the AUC. Upon the expiration of the period of Declarant control, the Board shall (i) determine how many persons shall serve on the AUC (which shall be no fewer than three (3) nor more than seven (7) natural persons), (ii) appoint the members of the AUC (subject to Declarant’s right to appoint the majority of members specified in the preceding sentence), (iii) set reasonable terms of office for the members of the AUC, and (iv) determine which member of the AUC shall serve as its chair. Following the expiration of Declarant's right to appoint the majority of the members of the AUC, a majority shall be Owners. A majority of the AUC shall constitute a quorum to transact business at any meeting, and the action of a majority of those present shall constitute the action of the AUC. 2I.01< Application and AoDroval Required. No new Owner or tenant of a Unit shall take possession, nor shall an Owner or tenant in possession materially change the use of the Unit, until a description of such in such reasonable detail and with such explanatory and supporting material as the AUC shall reasonable request, shall have been submitted in writing to and approved in writing by the AUC. The AUC may charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs associated with its review. A copy of each such applications shall be simultaneously sent to the planning and zoning administrator of the City. If the information submitted to the AUC is, in 16 (he AUC's sole opinion, incomplete or insufficient in any manner, the AUC may require the submission of additional information. 21.04 Notice of Decision. The AUC shall approve or disapprove the application and notify the applicant in writing within forty-five (45) days following the receipt of the application and all relat^ information. The notice shall set forth the approval or denial of the application, or any qualifications or conditions of approval. If the AUC disapproves the application, it shall state the grounds upon which the disapproval is based. Any applicant may appeal the decision of the AUC to the Board within thirty (30) days of the AUC's decision. The Board shall make its determination and notify the ap|/licant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal. The determination of the Board shall be final and binding upon the applicant; provided, that no use shall be allowed to remain which violates any of the covenants, conditions or restrictions contained in this Declaration, or which violates any governmental law, zoning or building ordinance, or regulation. 21.05 Certificate of Compliance. The AUC will on request issue a certificate that a particular use has been approved. 21.06 Inspection and Remedies. The AUC, and any agent or member of the AUC, has the right of entry and inspection upon any Unit for the purpose of determining whether there is compliance v«rith the applicable use standards. If any person fails to comply with the requirements of the Declaration or the standards promulgated by the AUC, the violator shall pay all costs in connection with the resolution or correction of the violation, including without limitation any fees of attorneys or other professionals, incurred by the Association. 22.00 MISCELLANEOUS 22.01 Association Acts through Board. The power and authority of the Association as provided in the qiplicable Statutes, the Declaration, Bylaws, and Rules and Regulations shall be vested in a Board of Directors elected by the owners in accordance with the Bylaws of the Association. The Association shall act through the Board of Directors and the officers elected by the Board; accordingly, all references in the Declaration and Bylaws to action by the Association shall mean the Board of Directors acting for the Association, unless action by the vote of the owners, members or mortgagees is expressly required by the Declaration, Bylaws, or the Act. 22.02 Notices. Any notice required to be sent to any owner or the Association under the provisions of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been received sent when mailed, postage prepaid, to the last known address of such member a|^)earing on the records of the Association at the time of such mailing or to the address of the Association, excqrt that a notice changing die address of a member shall be effective on receipt by the Association. In the case of multiple owners of a Unit, notice to any one of such owners shall be deemed notice to all. 22.03 Captions. The headings in this Declaration are intended for convenience only and shall not be given any substantive effect. 1 22.04 Construction . In the event of an apparent conflict between this Declaration and the Bylaws, the provisions of this Declaration shall govern. The use of pronouns such as “it”, “its”, "his", "he" and "him" are for literary purposes and mean whenever applicable the plural male and female forms. 22.05 Not Subject to Ordinance. This CIC is not a conversion of existing buildings to a CIC within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes Section S1 SB. 1 -1 06(c), and is therefore not subject to any ordinance of the type authorized or permitted by said statute. 22.06 Declarant's Rights and Obligations. The Declarant shall enjoy the same rights and shall be deemed to have assumed the same duties with respect to its unsold Units in the CIC as any other owner, except as modified or extended by the alternate assessment program and the special declarant rights described in this Declaration. 22.07 Right to Cure. In the event that any owner violates any covenant or fails to perform any condition contained in this declaration, the Association may perform the act, remove the defect or correct the violation upon thirty (30) days written notice to the owner. If the Association so acts on behalf of an owner, the Association may levy an assessment against the owner's Unit for the cost of the performance or correction as a Mainteiumce Assessment as provided in Section 10.04. 22.04 Public Agency Easements. The City is hereby declared to have the right and easement to enter the Common Elements for public safety purposes. 22.09 Clean and Neat Appearance of Grounds . The City is not responsible for any mowing, landscape maintenance or cleaning of the Common Elements. The Association is obligated by this Declaration to maintain the same at all times in a clean and neat condition at its expense. 22.10 City May Assess for Curative Work . Ifthe Association fails to perform any of the maintenance referred to in Section 22.09 above, or to keep the access and utilities reasonably open and functioning, the City may enter the Real Estate a^ perform curative work (but is under absolutely no obligation to do so), in which case the City may assess the Units within this CIC for the cost thereof. 22.11 Unresolved Disputes. In the event of an unresolved dispute between the Unit owners, or a ^lit decision by the Association or Directors, and such di^te shall not be resolved within thirty (30) days, then the matter shall be submitted to binding and final arbitration under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 572, by application to Hennepin County District Court, udiich shall appoint a neutral arbitrator. Such arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association. : - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has caused this Declaration to be executed as of the day and year recited on the first page hereof. SUOARWOODS OFnCE CENTER, LLC By: Philip L. Carlson, Chief Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )S8. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this___day of 200S by Philip L. Carlson, the Chief Manager of Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC, a Mi limited liability company, on behalf of the company. >ta THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY: N.WaherOraffr Bast A Flanagan LLP 225 South Sixth Street, SuHa 4000 Minneapolis, Minnesota SS4(KMd90 (612)339^7121 Notary Public i I*'’ S' ► ir « Mk.’ : *^>v f EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Easement Agreement is made effective as of ,, 2005, by and between the Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (Grantor), and the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation (Grantee). RECITALS A. Grantor is the fee owner of real property located in the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Grantor’s Property"). B. Grantee desires to obtain a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress purposes for a future frontage road (the "Road Easement”) over the part of the Grantor’s Property legally described in Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Road Easement Area"). AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the payment by Grantee to Grantor of $1.00, and for other valuable consideration including the agreements herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee, its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress purposes over the Road Easement Area. 2. Use of Road Easement. The Grantee may use the Road Easement for future frontage road purposes in connection with access to and from Grantor’s Property. 3. Construction of Road and Utility Easement. Grantee, at its sole cost and expense, shall construct the road according to the plans aixl specifications submitted to Grantor, receipt and qiproval of which is hereby acknowledged. 4. Grantee’s Obligations of Maintenance and Repair. Grantee agrees, at its sole expense, to keep, maintain and repair the road easement area in a clean and safe condition, free of all debris, parking and improvements; S. Use IndenMiitv . Grantee will defend, indemnify and hold Grantor harmless fix>m and against all actions, causes of action, claims, costs, damages, expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert and other fees and expenses), fines, judgments, liens, penalties, obligations, and suits arising out of, relating to or resulting from Grantee’s and Grantee’s employees, agents, representatives, licensees, and invitees, and their successors and assigns use of the roMl easement, except for the negligence or misconduct of Grantor, its employees, board members, agents, representatives, licensees, and invitees, and their successors and assigns. 6. Construction Indemnity. Grantee will defend, indemnify and hold Grantor harmless fixim and against all actions, causes of action, claims, costs, damages, expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert and other fees and expenses), fines, judgments, liens, penalties, obligations, and suits arising from the construction of the road and utility easement by Grantee, its employees, agents, rejMVsentatives, licensees, and invitees, and their successors and assigns. 7. Access bv Grantor. Grantor, and its officers, agents, employees, contractors, licensees and invitees, may use the driveway utility easement Area at any time and for any purpose, so long as such use does not interfere with the use of the road easement by Grantee and its agents, employees, contractors, licensees, and invitees. 8. Miscellaneous Provisions. This Agreement and the attached exhibits embody the entire agreement between the parties. This Agreement cannot be amended, altered or modified and no provisions can be waived, except by a written instrument executed by the parties. The headings and c^itioos of the paragra|rtis and sut^Mtfagnq)hs of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not constitute a part of this Agreement or a limitation on the scope of any paragraph or subparagraph. Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable under any i^licable law or rule, such provision will be ineffective only to the extent of such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability without invalidating the remainder of this Agreement. This Agreement sludl be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Miimesota. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same document 3a.'M.^ ‘-.fit, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto caused this Agreement to be executed effective the day and year written below. GRANTEE: CITY OF ORONO GRANTOR: Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC. Its Mayor Its By By Its City Manager Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of .2005. by and tlie and . resnectiyely, of the Sugarwoods Office Center. LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company on behalf of the company. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ) )ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j 2005, by and day of , the Mayor and the City Manager, req>ectively, of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation Notary Public ■:7.V : )■ js.< ExmeiT A Grantor** Property I m:.Hj#:k. V ^ > ■ '. ■.-<, ■ V# :■ ^^ . ■’ v; V...=..:VV.,=V-^ ••• • .•••• ••••.! •••■ •••..• • ■:••: ::. : • -.V -; . V' .■;.■■ ■ •■'■ • . - :!.- :SS*« -H . 1-: • • .-'• - • 'U «/. f f EXHIBIT B Road EascmcBt Area i; : *■ : : ft . • i‘.- ;. '-b .* jft. > 'V^v , t* . .. * I ‘ • • - • ‘V> i . ■ ' -M.''.- ...■ V.v\‘«‘ . W- -.nr' -.vj.'i-U' ■.. .•■ ■:• »• ••. . 1 V■•'.•.V.•.■••, .’ ■ I ■ •„ ;•>• •;• v^ V. ■ '•■ •■ • l**!..' •! I '■•I V ‘ .• ' . V. ■ I ■ . ■■; ',. ',1 'v. V . • ' ■'. . ••■ * . -jl,. • •■'■.•. ■■ ^r-. • . -.; . mmmm H. ,7r. a:*« - •-• 7. - -.7=-"■.' i i7*''i. ^, ■■'r..-L'': -Z- ‘:7l '-' i 'r ^ ^ 7>7- ;7 ‘- :ry v7.:7y| .V7' "- • ■ -V7'^-a' *. ‘ 77* f I' •1 .^7 !il -.■IS!mMM -•♦; •• ■ ■X-. - *11 - -ri S;i:;^’f IV J.';V. ' . -y >. * # ; ^ _ V’- * ^. ■ ^'■"V.... V--v'va'vv • c: ‘> ■■ , L ■X,r*'< • ^ .' ' V '-"k ^^^.:iT^'r ^.i "•f, - ■- r - V‘ ‘ • r'-^^ V:T - ' ■- •'Ai- m- € ‘ '■ .-'m ' • ■ .■■•■;>' ■T-ri V'' ■ V ' ■*' x«>*iaiv rray^afa AimnAi9^mJL AMBER WOODS WOODS OfFia a^frRE OiiRSAiC -----------M. MC«ANOeQKiBmmEASMOiri Mttl 1 OFl Rue 29 05 04:36p djo 952-249-1119 P- / & GRANT OP A PERMANENT RETAINING WALL EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undenigned, Hilloway Shopping Center, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability otmipany, vendees and William W. Wear and Mable J . Wear, husband and wife, fee ownen C*Giantor**, whe^ one or more), as contract vendee and owners, respectively, of the property legally described or. Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, located in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "ProperiyO, for and in consideration of One Dollar and other good and viduable considentioo. the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged do hereby convey unto the Sugarwoods Ofliw Center, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Qrantec**, whether one or more)., a non<xdusive permanent easement for construction and maintenance of a retaining wall, over that portion of the Property described on attached Exhibit B (the "Easement Area”). Orantee shall be responsible for and shall pay fer construction of the retaining wall located on the Easement Area. Grantor and Orantee diall share die coat of maintaining and repairing the retaining wall equally unless maintenance is required because of the negligence of one of the parties. In such event, the negUgent party shall be reqionsible for the cost of repair.. The parties agree that the Easemem Area shall always be maintained in good condition and repair consistent with applicable governmental standard and other commercially reasonable standards and at all tiroes comply widi i^tplicable regulations, ordinances and codes. The Parties will take such actions as are reasonably necessary to ensure duit the structure or integrity of the retaining wall located within the Easement Area will be maintained. If Grantor or Orantee, their heirs, devisees, successors or assigns, foil to maintain or repair the retaining wall within the Easement Area, or foils to pay its share of the cost of nuumenance and or repair, any non-defaulting owner may give the defeulting owner or owners a seven-day written notice of such fidlures. If the defeulting party foils to cure the dcfoult during the notice period, the non-defoulting party shall have the right to enter the Easement Area and perfemn the maintenance or repair. The defaulting psrty shall reimburse the non-defoulting party for the reasonable cost of said midmenanocor rqiair within seven days of receipt of an invoice. Failure to make such payment shall give the non-defoulting ovmcr the right to enforce such payment at low. Grantee agrees that it sliall, at its sole expense, repair any damage done to the Property as a result of the Grantee's use of the Basement Area and hold Grantor harmless from any find all claims arising ftom Grantee’s use of foe Easement Aaee. « IN TESTlh^N Y WHEREOF foe Grantors and Grantee have executed this agrecmoif this ^ day of r .2005. SUGARWOODS OFHCE CENTER, LLC HBLLOWAY SHOPPING CENTER, LLC nue 89 05 04:36p djo 958-849-1110 p.e m By:. Its: WiUtam W. Wear uJa^aaj Mable i. Wear STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF }ss. j 2005 byThe foregoing instnimeot was acknovtdedged before me this__day of____ ____________________the__________________of Sugarwoods Office Center, LLC. a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Grantee. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUhTTYOF MNESOTA ^ ss. JJ^ foregoing uistniment wu acknowled^ before me this day of^M«tf7~T200S by AcAr s the ■_______of Hilloway Shopping Center, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Grantor. UNOA K.MAM i IblMMa^aaAMI STATE OF MINNESOTA COUN'I Y OF f("V n W/*/ J ^ *** The foregoing instrument was wsDowledged before me thisJb dav r rTTODS by ~ ^ and wife. Grantor. Ik . EihlMtA Parcel 1: The West 200 feet of that part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 118, Range 23 described a oonunencing at the Nofdiwest comer of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter; dienoe due Soudi (assumed bearing) along the West line of said East Half of the Nmthwest (Quarter a distance of 1311.29 feet; thence South 87 d^rees 41 minutes East, 545.78 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes West, 200 feel; thence North 2 degrees 19 mlnules East, 188.93 feet; thence North 87 degrees 41 minutes West, 200 feet; dience South 2 degrees 19 minutes West, 334.96 feet to the Northerly right of way line of State Highway No. 12: feenoeSoudi 69 degrees 41 minutes East along said Northeriy right of^^ line 45.94 feet; thence Easterly 364.3 feet along said Northerly right of way line being a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 1587.28 feet to an inleraecrion wife a line bearing Soudi 2 degrees 19 minutes West fifom the point of banning; dience Norfe 2 degrees 19 mimites East 232.24 feet to actual point of begiiming. The boundary tines dieteof are marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Totiois Case No. 17100; Parcel 2; That part of fee East Half of the Notfewest (Quarter of Sectirm 34, Township 118, Range 23 described as oonuneneing at the Northwest comer of said East Half of the Northwest (Quarter; thence due South (assumed bearing) along the West line of said East Half of die Northwest (Juarter a diatanoe of 1311.29 feet; dHoee South 87 degrees41 minutes East, 545.78 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence Norfe 87 degrees 41 minutes West, 200 feet; thence Norfe 2 d^rees 19 mimites East, 188.93 feet; thence Norfe 87 degrees, 41 mimries West, 200 feet; thence South 2 d^rees 19 minutes West, 33)4.96 feet to the Northeriyriihtofwqr line ofState Highway No. 12; thence South 69 degrees 41 ndnulae East dong said Northerly right of way line 45.94 feet; thence Easterly 364.3 feet along said Nordwrly right of wqr line bdng a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 1587.28 feet to an intersection wife a line beariiv South 2 d^rees 19 minutes West fiom die actual point rrf^beghmmg; thence Norfe 2 degrees 19 mimites East, 232.24 feet to actual poiid ofbegi except dm West 200 feet thereof. The boundary lines thereof are nuuked by Judicial Lai 17100; narks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. ra ■ m. •. V 'V. f. L Exhibit B Eascamt Area Legal Description for a Construction and Maintenance Easement of a Retaining Wall over that part of Property Registered by Certificate of Title Number 530734 (August 26.200S) An MMmnKbrooMtroction and imintenmce purposes ofi retaining will over, under, and across the east 10.00 ftetor (he soelh 91.93 fiMt of the north I9S.93 feetofthefbllowingdescilbedprofMrty: The West 200 Ihet of ll«t port of the East Half of the Northwest Qunrter of Section 34, Township 118, Range 23 ilMliritied it rnp—wchtg NafthwMtcomafofiaidEaatHalfofthe Northwest Quarter, thence due South (atsomed bearing) along the West line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 1311.29 feet; thenee South 87 degrees 41 minutes East, S4S.78 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence North 87 d^rees 4 1 minulSB West, 200 feel; thence North 2 degrees 19 minutes East, 188.93 fiMt; thence North 87 degrees 4 1 mhuiles West, 200 fb^ thence South 2 degrees 19 minutes West, 334.96 feet to the Northerly right of way line of State Highway No l2;thcnceSouth69d^rees4l minutes East along said Northerly right ofway line 45.94 feet; thence Easterly 364J feet along said Northerly rigM ofway line being a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 1387.28 fbet to an intersection with a line bearing South 2 degrees 19 minutes West fitmi the actual point of beginning; thence North 2 degrees 19 minutes East 23224 feet to actual point ofbeginning. The boundary linM thereof are marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17100 Legal Description for a Construction and Maintenance Easement of a Retaining Wall over that part of Property Registered by Certificate of Title Number 530735 An saismsntibr construction and maintsiianoc purpoass c fa retaining wail over, under, and across thenordi I0.00ftctof the fallowing described property: That port of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, Towndiip 118, Range 23 described as conunaneiag at dw Northweat comer of said Bast Half of the Northwest Quart^, thence due SouJi (assumed bsnring) ahMi the West line of said East Half of the Northweat Quarter a diatance of 131129 fbe*: dwAoe South 87 degrees 41 mhuiles East, 345.78 fbet to the actual point ofbegtnning; thence North 87 degrees 4 1 minutes West, 200 feat; thence North 2 degrees 19mhiulesEast, 188.93 feet; thence North 87 d^rees 4 i minutes West, 200 feet; thence South 2 riegrees 19 minutes West, 334.96 feet to the Northerly right of way line of SUNc Highway No 12; thence South 69 degrees 4 1 minutes East along said Northerly right ofway line 43.94 feet; thence Easterly 364.3 Act along said Northerly right of way line being a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 1387.28 fbet to an Imaraectlon with a line bearing South 2 degrees 19 mimiles West torn the actual point of begiiming; thence Noifti 2dapooa 19 minutes East23224 fbet lo actual point ofboginning. except the west200 feet thereof. Hw boundary Unas thereofare marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case Na 17100; An saaamaciiftrrcowaliuctiow and maimannnceofa retaining wall over, under, and across the east 10.00 fbet of the north 110.00 ibet of the fbihrwing described property: That part of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 118, Range 23 described as oonuusneing at the Northweat comer of said East Half of the Northweat Quarter, thence due South (assumed baoring) along the Weal line of said East Half of the Northwest Quarter a dbiance of 131129 Ibet; dwoce South 87 degrees4I minutes But, S45.7lfbet to the actuil point oftMginning; thence North 87 degireas 41 minutes West, 200 ihet; thence North 2 degrees 19 minutes East, 188.93 feet; thence North 17 degrees 41 minutes West, 200 feet; thence South 2 ifepees 19 minutes West, 334.96 feet to the Northerly right of way iine ofState Highway No 12; thence South 69 degrees 41 minutes East along said Northerly right ofway iine 45.94 feet; thence Easterly 364.3 feet along said Northerly right of uuy line being a tangential curve to the M having a radius of 1587.28 feet to an intersection with a line bearing South 2 degrees 19 minutes West ftom the actual point ofbeginning; thence North 2 degrees 19 rnfamies Eatt 23224 feet to actual point ofbegfaining, except the west 200 feet thereof. The boundary Ifawathereofaremaricad by Judicial Landmarta set punuant to Torrens Case No. 17100; fe.’ J' ‘•'m WMhri'b::-/. .':.■ ;• . •/jv:j»as5*i2te ••''A/;:. ' " ■« i; ■<: .>■• Vi‘if' f. '^m ^ nTm^ 1^1 ia' rjt ^ ♦ L^yP- FLQQHPLAW mE ^iiSst 6 a. -< si S v?\ z^5 A-3 , ijiLa^ M li I m : ■;■••- . _■• ■ .‘•V; .y^\’vyyi;^i^y, y'y'.:y^-i.' .'.=• ^ ■ ■ - •• . ■ •-.T;’/- v^/ lb. , ••'r- y yy -- ^-iy:. - ■.■■■>*. ,■ . . ' :V .y ■y'-V’-,.-vWvv-::y y;:: ;i: :- r y y y-yir -'- ?;• - y-yy\ ‘ ,y~.X , V • •• %■ /• •-» -r ‘ii-. Af7 cm-gtf atvAum CM Cvi ii* isi Siu. § ei < i ^5 A-5 — _i>', ■ ■.• V .-. ijr ‘ •1 yyki^ . - y V. A bv 2.' mi .1 ,:;ff ^'■ ft^r^r 4 ■ih'" •'V. jU l.m -:.v ,/v:-;/v-:--;ViS^;'v:-'./-.. .v'^ ;^v ■ "'• 'V, ^'■•f . ;.‘^ C■V:• • ... v.if^y v;f • i v- A • *■ t -‘ : V-.:.'ii " <A j ' V , i>A v\.•> >•'* <li Q o n.. U 0gg^jp^i ■ ■ J ‘ 'b»H M '\ \Tk; \tn ** VfN* ^ 5 ^11 c> b. iV. ^ 1 A-6 M i^._, r "-—Jk l^gyjLj^TlQM m • F«P«lTrV> ^III <i'n CM I'll ill a. sioi i^ i 3*^ A-7 ------''"- 1/1 Bonestroo M:M Rosene Anderllc& |\|^ Associates Engineers 4 ArcMtccti 2335 VMest Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 Office: 651-636-4600 • Fax: 65I-636-I3II www.txNiestroo.com X I April 22.200S Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator CityofOrono Poet Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Amber Woods Office Center FUeNo. 139-05-000 Plat No. 05-3080 Dear Mike, We have prepared a cost estimate for the proposed site improvements at the Amber Woods Office Center. The total estimated cost for the site improvements is $548,565.75 as shown on the attached spread sheet. The qiplicant should provide a financial guarantee in the form of a letter of credit for 150% of this amount or $822,848.63 prior to beginiiing work on the site. The financial guarantee can be reviewed and reduced periodically as work is completed and accepted but shall at no time be less than $25,000 until all woric is completed and accepted. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK A ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Attacl cc: GregOappa,CityofOrono 'iJl iiltf’S- St faut St CloiKl, ffochener. MN ■ Milwsufcee. Wl • Chicago, it ' ’'•I— • liiiiilinnaminErsni 4/18/2005 Ambor Woods OfRco Contor Plat 05-3080 Cost Estimate for Financial Guarantee SanWin/ 8ewr Imofoviwnto Unite i MoMfacalion Traffic Control ConnecI to Existing 8* Saniteiy Sewer 6* PVC Sanitary Sewer OulaidaDrop 8*X6rWye 4 ‘Diameter Sanitary Sewer Mantwie 4* Dtameter Sanitary Sewer Mantwie Overdepth Improved Pipe Foundation LS LS EA LF EA EA EA LF LF 1 1 5,000.00 1 $ 1,000.00 1 $ 2,500.00 355 $ 25.00 1 $ 2,500.00 5 1 100.00 S $ 2,000.00 10 $ 1M.00 400 $ 1.00 $5,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00 $8,875.00 $2,500.00 $500.00 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 $400.00 Estimalad Conatruction Coat Water Main Imprevemanle Unite Qty I/Unit $31,775.00 Total Connect to Existkig Water Main EA 2 $ 2,500.00 $5,000.00 8* Water Main LF 725 $ 15.00 $10,875.00 6 ” Water Main LF 15 $ 13.00 $195.00 8*FMIinos EA 12 $ 250.00 $3,000.00 Hydrant EA 3 $ 1,800.00 $5,400.00 8* Ov and Box EA 2 $ 800.00 $1,600.00 8* Ov and Box EA 3 $ 650.00 $1,950.00 Estimatad Conatruction Cost Servicee tmoeovemenla . .Unite Qty IrUntt $28,020.00 Total 8" PVC, Sorvioe Pipe LF 35.5 if 12.00 $4,260.00 1.5 inch copper aervioo LF .305 $ 16.00 $4,880.00 1.6 inch oorp EA 5 $ 150.00 $750.00 1.5 inch curb sloD EA 5 $ 175.00 $875.00 storm 8«w«r Units $/Unit Connect to Existing Structure 15* Storm Sewer Catch Basin Estknaled Construction Cost Gradbig RataWngWal Fenoa Subgrade Praparalion Units SAJnH Aggregate Base. Class 5100% Crushed- 8* (CV) Concrete Curb and Guttar B618 Bbuminous Baae Couraa • 2* BNuminoua Wear Course. • 11/2” BNuminous Material For Tack Coat Concrete Sidawalk StripinB Singage Temp Eroaion Control EiHimIwI Constfuction Cost Total for Financial Ouarairteo •>; Total EA 1 $1.500.00 $1,500.00 LF 1.183 $ 24.00 $28,392.00 EA 14 $1.300.00 $18,200.00 $46,092.00 Total LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 SF 6.100 $20.00 $122,000.00 LF 610 $20.00 $16,200.00 SY 4.100 $1.00 $4,100.00 CY 2.100 $22.00 $46,200.00 LF 1.750 $10.00 $17,500.00 TN 490 $45.00 $22,050.00 TN 370 $47.00 $17,390.00 GAL 200 $2.00 $400.00 SF 7.715 $3.25 $25,073.75 LS 1 $3.500.00 $3,500.00 LS 1 $500.00 $500.00 LS 1 $45.000.0L $45,000.00 LS 1 $$10,000.00 $429,913.75 Sanitary Sewer $31,775.00 Water Main $28,020.00 Servioaa $10,765.00 Storm Sawer $1J,092.00 ParMno Lot / Gradbro / Landscapina $429,913.75 Total Eatbnale Conatnidion Coat $548,565.75 80%$274,282.88 $822,848.83 O' Janie* Gundlach From: Sont: To: Suliiact: Mike Gaffron Wednesday, September 21,2035 1:31 PM Janice Gundlach FW: Amber Woods Preliminary Acceptance » FYI... Michael P. Gaffron Planning Director City of Orono P. 0. Box 6€ Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (phone)952-249-4600 (fax) 952-249-4616 - - -Original Message- - - From: gina [mailto:interspace6qwest.net ] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 12:54 PM To: Mike Gaffron Cc: Philip Carlson; Dan Larson Subject: FW: Amber Woods Preliminary Acceptance ——Original Message—— From: Martin Korthank (mailto:marty.korthank6dot.state.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, Septesiber 21, 2005 11:32 AM To: lnterspace6qwest.net Subject: Amber Moods Preliminary Acceptance Mn/DOT Water Resources Engineering has visited the site in Long Lake, Amber Woods, and after preliminary discussions with Loucks and Associates, has confidence the permit will be approved. Mn/DOT feels the general parameters of the drainage design are reasonable and will work with the designers to approve the drainage permit and move the project forward. If you have further questions please feel free to contact me. Martin Korthank Project Manager - ESS Mn/DOT Water Resources Engineering 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 (651) 634-2077 FAX (651) 634-2411 wmmm .V- / = Amber Woods Ottice Center - MCWD project #05174 Page 1 of2 Janice Oundiach Prom: Mike Oaffron Sent: Thursday. September 22.2005 5:20 PM To: Janice Gundlacti Subject: FW; Amber Woods Office Center • MCWD project #05174 FYI Mkhaei P. OafRon Planning Director City ofOroHO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 33323 (phone)932-249-4600 (fax)932-24M6l6 Original Message- Prom: Renae dark [mailto:rdarkOmlnnehahacreek.org ] Sant: Thursday, September 22,2005 4:10 PM To: Dan R. Larson' Cc Mike Gaffron SuhfiCk: RE: Amber Woods Office Center - MCWD project #05174 Dan, We have reviewed the information submitted for the Amber woods Office Center project at 2060 Wbyzata Blvd. aixl have the foifowing comments: Ruie B: Erosion Control • Provide biorolls in swale on East property line a Provide bioroils between building sites • Provide temporary stabilization using erosion conffol blanket for entire rear yard drainage system • Provide inlet protection on plan and a detail for all CB’s for pre and post paving and rear yard inlets • Submit copy of SWPPP • Provide an overall temporary and permanent stabilization plan Rule N: Stormwater Management • Reduce existing conditions for the site to meadow in good condition (CN « 58) • Document that existing pipe off site is adequately sized to accept discharge from the site • To frjifill the BMP requirements of Rule N the District wiH consider infiltration from the gravel subbase for the Stormtech as a BMP and recommend parking lot sweeping twice per year Overall the District has no objections to the use of the Stormtech system; however the application for this project is incomplete at this time. wnnm Amber Woods Ottice Center - MCWD project #05174 Page 2 of2 Renae Clark. MCWD 1.A fY Hi -m •Original Message- Ftwn: Dan R. Larson [mailtD:dlarson9louci(smdagan.a)m] •anb Tuesday. September 20.2005 4:26 PM To: rdart(Ominnehahacreel(.org Ce: interspaoeOqMestnet MJocb Amber Wbods Office Center - MCWD project #05174 Renae, I hope you received the stormwater management plan this morning. Piease note during your review of the storm design that we will be installing the StormTech chamber system In five different locations to restrict nmoff. You can find the locations on the utility sheet located at the end of the report I have a request The diy planner will not recommend final appro^ml of this project until the watershed at iSMt appcovM the design oonoept end the StormTech product Is it possible to get a written prelinninafy approval of this design either on paper or a reply to this email. Maybe you can state that the project storm design has preliminary approval and appears to meet runoff rate req'Jrements and that minor adjustments to the design may be needed. Let me know if that la poesibie and whether or not a reply to this request can be sent by this Friday noon, I IlflNIM Da0 Lacson, P.B, Qvil Bogineet 7200 Hemlock Leoe Suite 300 Kfinneqic^ MN 55369 Diiect PhoM: (763) 496^1732 Company Phone: (763)424-5505 Pax: (763) 424-5822 e-iDHk diaaon /T/i™’:**f: . * . • • I I.. r. H>* t : ■ ^ I-.: : %r: • , V ; .. -V t' ***■ v» fc<*S ^ 903/200S • t Date AppIkatiM Received: 2/23/OS Date Appiteatioa CoatMered as Compleic: 2/23/05 60-Day Review Period Eipirce: (DELAYED DUE TO WETLAND MORATORIUM) 60-Day Period Coamcaccd: August 23,2005 (Moratorium Expiratioa) 60-Day Review period Expires: October 22,2005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETMC SEP 262005 OTYOFORONO Date: September 22,2005 Item No.: q Departmeat Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director dmiaistrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item DcKription: #0S*309S - Gregg Steinhafel, 2265 North Shore Drive * Conditional Use Permit to Install Permanent Dock within a Wetland • Public Hearing ApplicatioB Summary: In February 2005 applicant requested a CUP to allow construction of a permanent piling dock in the bed of Lake Minnetonka. This requires a Conditional Use Permit under the Flood Plain Ordinance. Because the dock will be extending through a lake perimeter wetland, review was suspended in March because of the wetland moratorium. Under the new wetland ordinance adopted August 22 and effective as of September 3, 2005, docks not exceeding 8 ’ in width providing **reasonable access to the lakeshore ” are a permitted wetland use, not requiring special approvals. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning (Commission Action 9-22-05 C - Mrax) and Exhibits of 9-16-05 PlaiRfaig Commission Recommeudation: Planning Commission reviewed this item on September 19, chose to add it to the consent agenda, and on a vote of 7-0 recommended approval per the staff recommendation. Staff Recommeadatiofl: Staff rectmunends approval subiect to the conditions as noted in the attached resolution. COUNaL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. Jj^ 'J -I ii—;: i i' V / A* ■»'.'», A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 78-1116(aK8) FILE NO. #05-3095 WHEREAS, Oregg W. Stelnhafel and Denise E. Steinhafel, husband and wife (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2265 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") legally described as follows: EXHIBrr A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has ai^Ued for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1116(aX8) to permit construction of a permanent dock to be located within a wetland at the perimeter and within the basin of Lake Minnetonka adjacent to the property; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 19,2005, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak tlwreon. Miimesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS P m 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #05-3095. 2. The property is located in the LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential zoning district 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 19,2005 and recommended approval for a conditional use permit for construction of a permanent dock by a vote of 7-0, based on the following findings: Page 1 of 5 rnrT’- 4. a)Permanent docks are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the floodway and flood fnnge of Lake Minnetonka per the provisions of Orono Municipal Code SecUon 78-11 16(aK8). Docks which provide reasonable access to the lakeshore and do not exceed 8 ’ in width are a permitted use within wetlands per the provisions of Municipal Code Section 78-1606(aX4). The property abuts the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and the proposed dock will be constructed within a lake perimeter wetland and will provide reasonable access to the lake for the applicants’ stated intent of nature enjoyment, fishing, etc. The dock is not specifically intended for boat storage. The proposed permanent dock will be 100 ’ in length extending lakewatd from the shoreline, being 8 ’ in width and having a ’’T” section at the lakeward end of dimension 8* x 24 ’. The proposed dock location is within a small inlet connecting to Crystal Bay of Lake Minnetonka where wave and ice action will be minimal, hence the stability of the dock will be at minimal risk, and will not require winter de icing to maintain its integrity. The proposed permanent dock by virtue of its location in Lake Minnetonka is under the jurisdiction of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and is subject to the LMCD permitting process. The proposed permanent dock will be located to meet LMCD setback, location and length standards and is not anticipated to result in conflicts witli adjoining docks nor pose any navigation hazards. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district, and that granting of the conditioi^ use permit would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of S f i I: * J- ♦ r 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations by the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1116(aX8) to permit construction of a permanent dock to be located within Lake Minnetonka adjacent to the property, subject to the following conditions: 1.The dock shall be constructed per the location and design as indicated on the approved site plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2.The dock shall be allowed as long as it continues to be permitted by the LMCD and DNR and is in conformity with the rules and regulations of those agencies. 3.Future replacement or alteration of the dock will require a new conditional use permit fiom the City of Orono. The dock shall be constructed in accordance with any pertinent requirements of the City of Orono ordinances regarding wetlands. 5.The property owner is advised to obtain the appropriate permits from the LMCD in the event that winter de-icing of the dock area is proposal. 6.Authorities granted by this conditional use permit run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a City of Orono one-time dock permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (September 26,2006). 7.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of S 1 The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26"' day of Sq)tember, 2005. •( f STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this___day of 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN day ofThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ 2005 by Linda S. Vee, City Cleric of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said mstrument was executed on bdudf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of5 i; J • i : vrt., STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instnunent was acknovidedged before me this by Oregg W. Steinhafel, husband of Denise E. Steinhafel. day of ,2005 I STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public This instiument was acknowledged before me this____day of_____2005 by Denise E. Steinhafel, wife of Oregg W. Steinhafel. Ik..Notary Public i-: * Ij^ip Li:- J B CITY OF ORONO 2750 KeUcy Parkway P.O. Boi 66 Crystal Bay, MN 5S323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: t^05-309S NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 22,2005 TO: Tom Niccum Minnetonka Portable Dredging 500 West Lake Street Excelsior. MN 55331 COPIES: Greg Steinhafel 1150 Old Crystal Bay Rd. S. Wayzata, MN 55391 John Winston Winston Law Office 3912 IDS Center 80 South Eight Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 TYPE OF APPLICATION: CUP for Permanent Dock through Wetland DATE OF MEETING: September 19,2005 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval per staff recommendation VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST AppUcanf s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: CHy Council - Monday, September 26,2005; meeting begins ay 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Oaffron at 612-249-4600. % a Date Application Received: 2/23/05 Date Application Considered as Complete: 2/23/05 60-Day Review Period Bipircs: (DELAYED DUE TO WETLAND MORATORIUM) 60-Day Period Commenced: August 23,2005 (Moratorium Eipiration) 60-Day Review period Expires: October 22,2005 TO:Chair Rahn and Orono Planning Conunission Ron Moorse, City Administrator PROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mike Gaf&on, Planning Director September 16,2005 4S5> #05-3095 - Oregg Steinhafei, 2265 North Shore Drive - Conditional Use Permit to Install Permanent Dock within a Wetland - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre Lot Area: 29 acres Application Sumnuuy: In February 2005 applicant requested a CUP to allow construction of a permanent piling dock in the bed of Lake Miimetonka. lliis requires a (Conditional Use Permit under the Flood Plain Ordirumce. Because the dock will be extending through a lake perimeter wetland, review was suspended in March because of the wetland moratorium. Under the new wetland ordinance adopted August 22 and efiective as of September 3,2005, docks not exceeding 8* in width providing “reasoiuible access to the lakeshore" are a permitted wetland use, not requiring speciri approvals. Slt^Raeommandatkm: Staff recommends approval of a CUP for the proposed 8’ wide permanent dock. List of Exhibits A - Proposed Dock Location Survey / Layout B - Application C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - LMCD Permit Application F-Airphoto 0 - Pertinent Sections of Wetland Ordinance H - Corre^ndence 1 • MCWD, NWI Wedand Maps < V. ■ ? . iL #05-3095 September 16,2005 Pige2 Pertinent Code Sections Section 78-1116(a)(8): Floodway District Conditional Uses: “...8. All permanent boat docks or other similar structures.** Sections 78-1117 and 78-1135 Conditional Use Standards and Review Procedures Wetland Ordinance Section 78-1606(a)(4): Wetland Overlay District Permitted Uses: "...4. Docks which provide reasonable access to the lakeshore and do not exceed 8* in width” Wetland Ordinance Section 78-1601(c): Wetland Overlay District Buffer Requirements Summary of Request Minnetonka Portable Dredging, Inc. on behalf of applicant property owner Gregg Steinhafel, has submitted an application for a conditional use permit, per Code Section 78-1116 to permit construction of a permanent dock for the property at 2265 North Shore Drive. The dock is proposed to be located in the “lagoon” area south of the property. This lagoon is a small, shallow inlet bay connected to Crystal Bay, and is ringed by wetland vegetation. The proposed dock is 100* long, 8* wide, and would have a 8* x 20* “T” section at the end. The current proposal appears to end the dock at the point where it reaches open water, ^lie intent of this dock is not for boat storage but for nature eiyoyment. fishing, etc. Permanent docks (i.e. those docks with pemument pilings vriiich caimot be removed without heavy equipment) sometimes result in requests by property owners for winter de-icing, to avoid ice damage. De-icing is typically accomplished by a bubblm* system that keeps the water moving and therefore it does not frerae. TIm Lake Minnetonka Conservation District issues de-icing licenses, and has standards which must be followed in terms of protection of adjacent properties fiom the impacts of de-icing. The proposed dock will be located in a very protected area, and the potential for ice damage ^rpears relatively minimal. Because it is mostly within a wetland, staff would recommend against any future request for de-icing around this dock. Staff is advised by LMCD’s inspector that they will be issuing an LMCD permit for this permanent dock, and have no specific issues with it The dock will meet all LMCD-required setbacks. The DNR is notified of floodplain CUP applications, and is given the opportunity to comment. No comments fiom the DNR have been received for this application. Potential DNR concerns would be whether the work is in a sensitive habitat or spawning area, and whether the permanent dock might afifoct navigation or winter vehicular traffic on the lake. Neither of these issues are apparent with this application. J » (W5-3095 September 16,2005 Page 3 Orono’s concurrent jurisdiction over permanent docks is primarily via the City s floodplain regulations, which provide no significant standards pertinent to the approval of permanent docks. Both permanent and seasonal docks fall under the zoning category of accessory structures, and one cannot have a permarrent or seasonal dock without a principal residence structure. The property does contain a principal residence. There are no specific Building Code construction standards for docks. The City will require that a building permit issued to document the existence and construction of the permanent dock. Wetland Dock Standards The newly-adopted Wetland Ordinance allows as a permitted use within a wetland, docks op to 8* in width for **reasoiud}le access to the lake**, with the intent that lakeshore properties with lake perimeter wetlands should be allowed a dock to open water for boating and other lake recreation uses. This dock would appear to meet that intent. Staff notes that this is a secondary dock for the property, with a primary seasonal dock located an the main part of Crystal Bay. Because the dock will be constructed either by barge or during the winter under ice conditions, negative impacts to the wetland fiom the construction process are expected to be minimal. Wetland Buffer Requirement Section 78-160I(cXl) of the draft Wetland Ordinance indicates that wetland buffers will be required when a wetland is altered. Staff is reviewing with the MCWD staff as as to whether the construction of a permanent dock in a wetland would be considered as a wetland alteration triggering a buffer requirement undo: MCWD rules. If so, in this case the impact would be that a buffer would have to be established and maintained on q>plicants property abutting the wetland. Since the land area around the wetland is primarily undisturbed woo^, creation of a buffer would involve merely the establishment of a covenant that requires maintenance of the buffer end prohibits mowing, fertilizing, manicuring or vegehdion removal. Removal of buckthorn, if it exists within the buffer area, would potentially be a maintenance requirement Buffer width, if it is determined that one should be required, would likely be 35* per MCWD rules based on wetland basin size, but would most likely have to expand to SO’ per Orono ordinance based on lake perimeter wetlands generally being in the highest “Preserve** management classification. Since this lake perimeter wetland is not shown on MCWD wetland inventory or management classification maps, there is a potential that MCWD will conclude feat no buffer is necessary. Staff will attempt to reach a conclusion regarding the buffer requirement prior to the public hearing. bines for Consideration 1.Does Planning Commistion have any concerns regarding the construction of this permanent dock? MS-309S September 1(^2005 P*fe4 Staff Recommciidatioii L Staff finds no specific issues with the CUP for construction of this permanent dock in the Floodplain as proposed. Subject to determination prior to Council action as to whether a buffer easement/covenant will be required, staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: I.The dock shall be allowed as long as it continues to be permitted by the LMCD and DNR and is in conformity with the rules and regulations of those agencies. Future replacement or alteration of the dock will require a new conditional use permit Dock construction is subject to all pertinent requirements of the Wetland Ordinance. PJTl- mmm VK I : V .< 1 J Application# Date Receive d UTJb Amount Paid Uo6t^ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address________ZzLS"Sfurg. 2>n'y^ Type of Application to be Filed OsrjnetifnfdaeJc. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.).l.d.)i0~lt7^23 -33- OOO^'T APPLICANT Name ShJnhAiei Lii.-Phone fhomel u/z.- Jfa2.^3/o^ Phone(work)________________ Address //AT) n/^nyetaf Bay _____City Oh>M_____Zip .353^/ OWNER rif difierentthan applicant) Name mJPAt j, AJ/a/jjjw Phone (home) Phone (w^) Address Date Property Acquired one (work) City (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - X $600.00 Residential Accessory Use ciocfL. $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ^00.00 Guest House/Ouest Apartments $600.00 Duplex CredK/Bldg $600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $600.00 Land Alteration -t- Permit ___Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ___Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change frore original application) Aller-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$600.00 Vacation _____$600.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____^00.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals ______Other - see Fee Schedule T 1 1 j 2. 3. KCMUIKCU dUDiyil I IMUO 1. Completed Application Form. Describe request In detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels map may be obtained from Hennepin County. Department of Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South 6 Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for4. 5. 6. 7. survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 8. 9.- . List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in "the property. • This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Constnjction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ^ aa a aaA# t __ A A _ _ I- 4As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS AND 1 COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been Included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete, initials of Clerical Staff:____________________________^Date ---------------- V aP p LiCANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the Information supplied Is true and comectjo tha best of his/her knowledge. ^^licant's signatim Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner ’s signature Date Applicant must have all submittals Into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at aii scheduled review mee^s of the Planning Commission and Courtdi. If an applicant Is unable b attend a scheduM meeting, piease make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prtor b the meeting. u I v*.-; • .-v-" ••*• tl,eote£' Tyoi» 1^- 1 Pm K t'.l •**!■*• am «l •■•Vt m +-#j-Ham muwm^ mimn teom Siftf ^i's Si ■ . • W‘T4 ‘A;( +..; /v' i ; i;t- . iZ^ •;^ ., ji- iKr..;^vv pv.. 5;^v> '■-..■•. .■.'iV*. >,•■..' t -V ' fl i*|M| HPBIp l*’V'i' ‘'' i ■■• V'f*''»; ‘•\V“.’'^jS;- •-* >■ \N“» . ^sm SlsfSfellpgf m m'rs i'A'Vj fl •-*-/* L’.-/ V jf- ' "-^ ■ 5 Idu:J. ^>s ■; •*. ii mi Wi r^ tfV i9>n lf>117-04S • ilKlI I' ' ’ ; - *:'• 5*. ‘ ‘ • '.0 L^' ^:2/25ma I • ^"wSJSS«DR I 2CSN0MHRJ01EMI 55391 NAME/A] ^W^ADDK 1310 nSNritmm^.^ '^» • ll’ J J.I h^^audr nioraBNcfeaufflcw WAYZATAMN 55391 nn» ” 1011723320017 OV^SLb ®*^*SST5iS:ow HAMRADDR laUFMNCMCREBICClR WAYZATAMN 55391 5S!^isP^«°^''®»NAMH TZHNEYmowarasiU T^AYBR UNHEYmoraioiESLLF NAMW aOOR OOCUWBteB wi mtVBOAn CNIZDRJOO WAYZATAMN 55391 nuvAi 31 1511723220001 wILS^J^JSSbtai.XAXPAYBR WALURMIUNOTlun MAMBMnm ^MrAmoMuiaunoo STLOUSrAJUCMN 35415 i^f Q /O <r\r %J ^ .' '■ I ■'' ■■■ ‘17' V ^ ^ ■ ■ -1. • •':■.. ■: OW^NAMB CUWCJWlNSUJWErAL SHARON&CUWClSStow namwaddr «03FRENCHcaiBaccui WAYZATAMN 55391 31 1011723320010 SS^^SL nit "®«»CRBBR1>R TAvS^ ®^^®^TAYEHftKARBNTAYEH JWA.ER ®AVDATAYEH*KARENTAYBH NAMB aDDR 1370 FRENCH creek dr ^ WAYZATAMN 55391 PROP Ann» *°“^320008 MU "cU'SS WAYZATAMN 55391 “jraJSlUraffl,SZvT PROP Anna ‘“"’23320016 O^SI^rSL "^chcreekdrOWNERNAME MARY ANN OUZY taxpayer MARY ANN OUZY name/addr 1360 french creek dr WAYZATAMN 55391 X oSavT^ 2^JWINSLOWBrAL taxpayer SHARfW ft CLARK WINSLOW kamwaddr 1203 french creek or WAYZATAMN S5391 31 1011723330005 =rsssSK5S. NAMWADDR 2240 north shore drive WAYZATAMN 35391 ARTS ?«^shorbdr °*®0®W/DBNBBB8TBJNHAPEL l«AMB/AnOR IISOOLDCRYSTALBAYRO ORONOMN 35391 PROP Anna 38.1011723330006 I^^DR 2M5 NORTH SHORE DR axpaybr orboo w/denbe e steinhafel HAMB/AODR 1150OU)CRYSTAL^[yJS^ ORONOMN 35391 •an. “ “11W323000I 3090 SHOREUNBDR *WMB DOUdUSPHEADETAL taxpayer OOU(HASMHfiAD KAMKADDR 161622ND8TW MWEMN 53403 ^■“■■“.^^iTSr/VKs ’ . ., , .--t r^iJMftpgWa^.- }■ 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 Phone (952) 745-0789 LMCD Receipt« In acconiance with Sec.2.06 oflhe LMCD Code, the following application for a pennanent Dock Liccnxc altall be completed in all reapecta and aubmitled to the DiaCrict office. No peraon may locate, fonstnict, inalall or maintain a new pennanent dock on the lake without fint aecuring a licenac providing that no such license shall be required of docks requiring a licenae under aee 2.03 of the LMCD Code. A new licenae is required whenever the size, type, location, or eonfiguration of foe dock is chapgpd. No new license is required for rqiair or leplacemort of a previously permitted dock where such repair or replacement don not alter foe size, type, location, or configuration oflhe dock. BacatueAbfiirmistabeaiipiadfphaMeusebfaekMtorfype. The person campleting this form is die aathorized agent or property owner (circle one). Applicant MihnehAk§ Pa/fitt)k Address; ______ aty. State, Zip: &tefsitir hJi\f Phone: ^74^- _________Fax: Property^Owner (if different from applicant): Address //5^ Of4 C/'lfsM Rd City, State, Z^: DfWt kA/U Phone:__fZ-fdZ-* 3J Fax: Documents listed below are required; and must acconqiany diis application: □Locator Miqi GScaled drawing of docks on abutting properties □County Plat Mi^i □Proposed focility site plan □Certified Land Survey, Legal Description □Existing fitcility site plan Abitnct of gtgmifiemU roquatod doto^ could result in a processing dalap. 1. Type offtcility DO private () commercial () multiple dwelling ( ) odic (explain) 2. Intent^ uae of dock frcility_____dnA 3. Abuttingproperty owners at dlalakeshore: North or West tJ.^h srif Dk Ordna AlMSi South or Bast \fJ/ilkor' Msher^ hir t)ram MfJ wmAmUtiUtm Other affected parties________________________________________ I of 2 1 p©EDI5(E JAN. 3'8 2005 —' c i i 5. All setbacks for the dock use area have been observed (i/f yes ( )no. -H> 6. AII required permits, licenses and approvals have been obtained from the city in which the permanent dock is located, and from the DNR: ( ) yes f) no ' Explain:.______________________ Application Pee........................................ j 50.00 , . ji After-flic-firot application fee.....................$150.00 ■ iii.. Total Fee enclosed...................................j_____ infowtion provided herein and the attachments hereto are trae and correct; I TOj^d flurt my liom laaued may be revoked by the District for violation of the LMCD -SJaSTl^S?^ e-giaecriBB. taspecHom aJSmSkTirr^^ taoirred by (be DMrk( ta excess ef (he amoiwt of (he P^ttmg officers and agents of the District to enter the premises being whether or not flie Code of the District is I agree to anbi^ a^certified, as-built survey upon con^letion of the docks. -------------------------------------------------------- tSi # Retura HOs appllcatioii, attaduncBis and flee (o: Lake Mbuetonka CoaservatfoB IMstrf ct 18338 Minutonka Blvd. H Deepkaven, MN 55391-3232 ‘ ' ^ * Fak: (952) 745-9085 . J 2af2 v> ii)li@l!DI!7E JAN i t 2005 ’ 1. . .‘V J.-’ * ■ ' bL<si;. < S' ii^jii.Is:. (c) This ordinance applies to, and wetland buffer areas must be created or existing buffer areas must be maintained around, a protected wetland located partially within, wholly within, or directly adjacent to the property in the foliowmg situations: (1) When the wetland is required to be replaced or restored, or when the wetland is being altered; 4 • . When new development occurs. For purposes of this subsection, new development means: ' / . - '• j i Any subdivision that creates a new lot that has no principal structure on it; b.construction of a principal structure on an existing vacant parcel of land; When redevelopment occurs that has the potential to adversely impact a wetland. For purposes of this subsection redevelopment means the removal of the principal structure to the extent of more than SO percent of its market value and volume and reconstruction on the same property. This requirement does not apply if construction is the result of less than 75 percent of the building being damaged by an invohmtary force, such as fire, wind, or vandalism; (4) When any construction or land alteration activity that does not fall within the meaning of 'redevelopmort* has the potential to adversely impact a wetland. For pruposes of this section, **the potential to adversely impact a wetland ” exists when all of the following three conditions exist: the portion of the property disturbed by construction or land alteration activity drains to the wetland; and b.the amount of grading exceeds 50 cubic yards or tlie construction activity involves the disturbance of more than 5,000 square feet of area; and c.the redevelopment activity results in a net increase in the square footage of impervious surfaces that drain to the wetland, or results in foe relocation of impervious surfoces closer to foe wetland, or results in changes to drainage patterns (slopes, meander patterns, etc) that the City Engineo* determines will increase foe velocity or rate of runoff to foe wetland. r ' -- Page 2 of 22 Or-1 i iid83fc Ir; CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #05-3095 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 22,2005 TO: Tom Niccum Minnetonka Poprtable Dredging 500 West Lake Street Bxcelsior, MN 55331 COPIES: Greg Steinhafel 1150 Old Ciystal Bay Rd. S. Wayzata,MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: CUP for Permanent Dock through Wetland DATE OF MEETING: July 18.2005 Planniag Commission recommended as follows: Tabled because wetland moratorium is still in efGsct and final outcome of proposed wetland ordinance is still pending. Planning Commission indicated that if the standard for dock width through a wetland is 4 * in the final ordinance language, they are not likely to recommend q>proval of a variance to allow a 6’ or 8* width... VOTB (to table): 7 FOR 0 AGAINST ^)pUcant'8 next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - scheduling Is Indefinite, pending flnaHaation of wetland ordinance. (Note: Public hearing on proposed wetland ordinance is scheduled for August 15,2005) If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available fiom the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffion at 6i2-249-4600. t' ...... ; • • ■11!Uk. •. .* • WINSTON LAW OFFICE August 12, 2005 Orono City Council and Orono Planning Commission do Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Orono City Hail 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ^£C£/VE£) ^^6 1 2 2005 c/ry OF ORONO RE: Draft Wetlands Protection Ordinance and Application No. 05-3095 (Gregg Steinhafel Application for Conditional Use Permit to Install a Permanent Dock Structure at 2265 North Shore Drive. Orono, Minnesota) Ladies and Gentlemen: ( On February 23 of this year, Gregg Steinhafel. the owner of the property at 2265 North Shore Drive (the "Property"), filed an application for a conditional use permit to allow him to install a permanent dock type structure extending a short distance over a wetland area, from one side of the Property. The Property consists of approximately 45 acres, and includes hundreds offset of lakeshore on Lake Minnetonka. The Properly is unique by reason of its size, extensive lakeshore, privacy and low density development. The Steinhafel application for a CUP has been tabled pending the City’s adoption of a wetlands protection ordinance. Because the provisions of that ordinance will have a direct bearing on the Steinhafel CUP application, we address first those provisions of the draft ordinance which may affect the application. As no replacement, restoration or alteration of the wetlands on the Property will occur, and as there will be no activity whicn "has the potential to adversely impact a wetland," as that phrase is defined in Section 78-1601 of the draft ordinance, we can turn to Sections 78-1606 (permitted uses) and 78-1607 (conditional uses), for a discussion of the applicability of the ordinance to the proposed dock type structure. Section 78-1606(a)(4) of the draft ordinance provides that "docks which provide reasonable access to.the (akestiore and do not exceed 4’ in width" are a permitted use. [The same four foot width limitation is set forth in Section 78-1606(b)(3).] The following Section 78-1607 provides that other "private and public recreational uses," which include (presumably, without limitation) "golf courses, impervious trails, picnic grounds and boat rarhps" are conditional uses. If one assumes the City’s adoption of the 4-foot wide dock limitation as the limit of a permitted use. the Steinhafel application would continue as an application for a conditional use under Section 78-1607, to allow a "private recreational use," which In this "?.se would be the use of a private fishing and 3912 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Mirneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: 612.341.9800 Facsimfle: 612.332.1215 Email: Mrinlaw@qwest.net ttnnnSfc August 12, 2005 Page 2 wildlife observation structure, as described In the Steinhafel application documents. Under these circumstances, the draft ordinance poses no impediment to the Steinhafel application, but what if the City were to interpret the draft ordinance to impose an absolute 4-foot width limitation on any dock type structure, as either a permitted or conditional use, no matter what Orono property might be Involved? If that were to be the case, a very real Issue Is presented by the Steinhafel application, which is: Should the 4-foot wide "boardwalk/dock/other reasonable access" limitation apply to evenr property In the City of Orono, no matter what the size of . the property, no matter what the lakeshore, no matter what the nature and extent of the subject wetland and without regard to handicap accessibility concerns? Accordingly, If Sections 78-1606 and 78-1607, as presently drafted, are construed to prohibit all structures wider than 4 feet, we submit that the answer to the above stated Issue is that different circumstances should allow different restrictions, and thus Section 78-1606 and/or Section 78-1607 should be revised. The 4-foot width limitation (a "one size fits all" proposition) should not be imposed arbitrarily on every property In Orono. Different widths could be stated for different sized properties as a permitted use. Alternatively, while a 4-foot wide limitation could be stated as the optimum in Section 78-1606, as a permitted use, discretion should be granted to the City under Section 78- 1607 to grant wider dock/walkway widths, when circumstances merit the same, as a conditional use. Accordingly, if the draft ordinance is interpreted to impose an absolute 4-foot ma^mum width, under both 1606 and 1607, we propose that 1606 of the draft ordinance be amended to permit greater widths as a permitted use, when acreage and wetland/lakeshore frontage warrant the same. Altematively, we propose that 1607 of the draft ordinance be amended to allow the potential for wider structures on a conditional use basis. Each of these alternatives would remove the arbitrariness of the "one size fits all" 4-foot dock width limitation. The foregoing addresses the draft ordinance in general, but what about the unique situation presented by the Steinhafel application, and why is a wider structure proposed by the applicant? The Steinhafel family wishes to provide reasonable handicap accessibility to the lake and to the wetland area through which the structure will pass. A structure 6 feet in width along its length, with an 8-foot width at its terminus, will allow reasonably safe and secure access to persons with special accessibility needs. A person in a wheelchair or walking with the assistance of a walker will be better able to maneuver, as will other persons using the structure contemporaneously. Then, too, with the Property here Involved, there is the scale of the recreational use structure in relationship to the 45-acre size of the subject property. It is not as though the applicant is trying to squeeze an oversized structure into an undersized lot. The scale of the structure is appropriate to the size of the acreage and length of the lakeshore here involved. 1 f August 12,2005 Page 3 And no one can seriously argue, when one considers the size of the Property, that adding an extra 2 feet along the 92 foot leg of the structure (184 sq. ft.), or adding 4 feet to the 20 foot long platform portion of the structure (80 sq. ft.) adds any material impact to the wetland area over which the structure is proposed to pass. The total additional area, 264 square feet, is just not that significant. Finally, to address any concern that approval of the pending application would set any sort of precedent, we submit that the Property and this structure are unique. There will be no precedent, if the CUP requested by Mr. Steinhafel is granted. No other property owner can claim that his/her property presents the same circumstances as the Property. Another owner simply cannot in good faith make the argument that his 2, 5 or 10 acre parcel is the same as the 45 acre parcel which is the Property. Further, the size and configuration of the Property allow unique privacy. The structure proposed will not intrude on neighboring properties. This bundle of unique features sets the Property apart. Any approval grant^ by the City with respect to this unique Property will itself be unique, and not a precedent binding the City as to other properties. In conclusion, if deemed necessary by the City in order to avoid a reading of the draft ordinance that would impose an absolute 4-foot maximum width on any dock structure, anywhere in Orono, we request an appropriate amendment to the draft Wetland Protection Ordinance, either (1) to allow greater widths for larger properties on a permitted use basis, or (2) to allow greater widths for any property on a conditional use basis. With either amendment, a reading of the draft ordinance that would impose an arbitrary 4-foot limit on ail properties everywhere is avoided. As to the Steinhafel CUP application itself, Mr. Steinhafel requests the approval of his pending application for the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a permanent recreational use structure on his property, either under the City's ordinances as presently set forth, or under Section 78-1607(a)(1), if the draft ordinance is adopted. Should the draft ordinance be amended to allow greater widths than 4 feet as either a permitted or conditional use, then we would proceed under the applicable provision. However we proceed, the proposed recreational use structure will allow greater safety and security all users, but especially for the handicapped or disabled user; is appropriate to the size of the overall acreage and lakeshore involved; will have no materially greater impact on the wetland that a narrower structure would have; and will not set a precedent with respect to other properties on Lake Minnetonka. Respectfuily submitted. V y JohnBT Winston JBW/krm J r - WINSTON LAW OFFICE Orono City Counc;! c/o Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Orono City Hall 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 August 18, 2005 recede ® ^U6 1 * CITY OF ORONO RE: Draft Wetlands Protection Ordinance and Application No. 05-3095 (Gregg Steinhafel Application for Conditional Use Permit to Install a Permanent Dock Structure at 2265 North Shore Drive, Orono, Minnesota) Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members: We appeared before the Orono Planning Commission on August 15 to express the concerns of our client Gregg Steinhafel with regard to the above-referenced wetlands protection ordinance, and its effect on Mr. Steinhofel's CUP application. We had earlier submitted our August 12 letter to the Planning Commission, and set forth in that letter a full statement of our concern. In response to our comments and letter, the Planning Commission recommended the amendment of Section 78-1607 to allow, as a conditional use, docks wider than four feet, but not wider than docks which might be allowed by the ONR or Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. We believe that the amendment adequately addresses our concerns, and that Mr. Steinhafel's CUP application can proceeo, if the City Council adopts the same amendment. We request that it do so. Unfortunately, we will be out of town Monday and Tuesday, August 22 and 23. As this matter is scheduled to be considered by the City Council on August 22, we will not be able to appear before the Council to address this matter. Accordingly, please let this letter and our earlier letter of August 12 speak for us. We ask for the approval of the amendment made by the Planning Commission, so that the Steinhafel CUP application can proceed. Thank you for this opportunity to address the Council. Respectfully submitted, i JBW/krm 3912 IDS Center, 8o South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: 61a.341.9800 Facsimile: 612.332.1215 Email: winlaw0qwestnet SU-- ^ fi 'L:-«<, V; ' '■^rt 'Wt I Hrir.w ^!iSM M •ii ?i' • •« » 4'— • ••#< . • » - •■•,•, > <^ *..M .« . «k(«\ «. •!••- ••r*«*« • •»% •tr<»>»<*« •<*«• ••^ •».^. • • \-m^v . '•<* *w V • ^ * ^* •••-A • *• » rt alTM ••*• • •• •»•# '■ V •;.•• ioT.T' ^Vy;: • •'v'. ■' > ItA « ••• 0 Wt«t-» * «*•iiiMi imif. m im WM , »« A'*4 .•*«*.* *• • • Ir-! •■«_(*. • *•■ ‘ «#r^ §4^-^ fiW*«l4 . V. •»• » • «.• . . • «l ■ • '«^%■#»•••. (M.-* «t*» «<i'><•»^^•.« ■»t€i». .mmmmrnimm^mmmmmmmammmmmmmm^m » M«%Mk » »«»4 ■w-l *.»•• • ••«•.• ««M A • « • I B023S MM • r %% p 4 ,-*l4 w«»'«WNp* It M0* ai «■•»«•< • « >••• a —•• .* • ■■«.>•.• * « • ^4aalL*.4*«& \( >««•.«•• W va*^ rs>. W« »#w.. •/•.taaji J* -^i. a - ■ »Tirf*a *^^•.-. .*^ .-• V:‘i • • r^ -'K i/ /'vV.? [»/. . ':^'y' .^4 2,*' \ ^ :i;AV T> 7i^*r 4/ •r /, 'aS^r‘Mil A\Xi Ml ^11*1,! V?■»fef C'^fiv ^*.- ..V .V^/- t»»< u »«r.*.i *4«»» ^ — •; * •• ^ •K'v- 1*. *.* ■i-i r*7-, ‘Tr; ‘ ^ A^ A > ^^H . «iSSilWi i;■^P peMtid' * w-Z FEUCr.>.* H :» •i MSA ) ^ay ::-,i At./. . PEUt Pfac^NrcMC. PEMF «J6G ii: ue/i f^MF PEMC. .peM(i^ ;.^. ^ PEMF PEMC LIU6H > • PEMp. KAfcr* •v — “**1 ^•' LIU6H- ^, • i •• •PEMF .1* • •PU6G X^'. ' -^U6F. PEMC-^O ?.J ffl.>:. v > C ‘‘/s : l^PEMt 4. . ’1 o «jL • *' ^ .pew^ HB'li « "S. •UU6G- « \iPEMF • » <• • J SohftH LIU6H //.^ K > I V • * /\gUB6^ M^ck C« -ji.i'f Jf •:«'H //fViJVMP y4P^MC-d- . . . - •Ji»s=s=====*7^ :! >/'• • '-VU-ach ’ ^ ^\ *.:- ■■ \ r. 'y) P35IC. [,nfny<ttt*’h t u rV"^ Jij ;. • •> *~n K' ji ^ PU6G |MunMi*i||tun PFDIC V./EMC wM%tk ^iffl/pF PC»»6^•V. PEMG RJOF-P^i* ITif?i PFOIC L2U6G . • . .M..*rs^' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING SEP 262005 Date: SeplefiB3lr^?950!P Item No Department Approval: Name: Janice Gundlachy^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: <105-3109, Mike Ingemausen on behalf of Navarre Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 3655 Togo Road - Revised Sign Plan - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/i acre minimum) 1.36 acres (59,383 s.f.) 163.42 feet (100’ required) P.ist of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Applicant’s Narrative C - Proposed Wall Sign D - Previously Approved Monument Sign A/^ieothn Summary: Applicant requests to amend the previously approved conditional use permit to allow construction of a wall sign in place of the originally approved monument sign. The revised wall sign will be approximately 3’ in height and 8’ in width for a total of 24 square feet. The monument style sign previously approved allowed for a 4’ by 8’ monument, totally 32 sqiuuefeet. Planning Commission Recommendation Staff considered thi.s proposed sign amendment to be minor in nature whereby not requiring an additional review and public hearing before the Plaiuiing Commission. Because a sign was part of the original review, where a public hearing was conducted, and the proposed revisions are considered to have even lesser impacts on the neighborhood, staff felt a new application was not necessary and the existing resolution couid be amended. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the attached Resolution, as the proposed revised sign is smaller than the previously approved sign, and placement of the sign on the building versus a monument poses even lesser impacts on the neighborhood. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution amending previously approved Resolution #5331 wil’ ^ a signage for 3655 Togo Road. H.: mm r ' i • A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION #5331 REGARDING A SIGN VARIANCE PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1467 (1) (Q FILE NO. 05-3109 WHEREAS, Navarre Congregation of Jehovah ’s Witness, a religious institution (hereinafter “the applicant”) is the owner of the property located at 3655 Togo Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: That part of Lot 7, Block 10, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Lot 7 a distance of 136.45 feet North of the Southeast comer thereof; thence West at right angles to said East line a distance of 128.00 feet; thence South at right angles a distance of 13.55 feet; thence West at right angles a distance of 136.00 feet more or less to the West line of said Lot 7; thence North along the West line thereof to the Northwest comer thereof; thence East along the North line thereof to the Northeast comer thereof; thence South along the East line thereof to the point of beginning, EXCEPT road. Also EXCEPT the West 100.00 feet said described property. (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a revision to Resolution #5331 regarding a sign variance in order to permit a wall sign measuring 8’ x 3*, or 24 s.f. where only 12 s.f. is normally permitted and an 8’ x 4 ’, or 32 s.f. monument style sign was previously approved within Resolution #5331. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File 05-3109. Page 1 of 5 2. The property is located in the LR - IC, Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of one-half (/s) acre and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed the original application at a public hearing held on May 16, 2005 and recommended approval of the 32 s.f. monument style sign. The City Council reviewed the proposed revision on September 26, 2005, and recommended approval of the revised sign plan based on the following findings: a. The previously approved monument style sign was 32 s.f. in area or 8 ’ X 4’ in dimension where the revised sign is 24 s.f. in area or 8* x 3* in dimension, constituting a reduction of 8 s.f. b. A wail sign vdll have less of an impact on the surrounding neighborhood than the previously approved monument style sign. c. The graphic content of the sign is identical to that of the previously approved monument sign. d. Thw revised wall sign proposed will have a greater setback from the public right-of-way than the previously approved monument sJyle sign. 4.The City Council has considered diis application including the findings and reconunendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the sign variance as revised on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to It and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance as revised would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a Hre hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of5 1 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above flndings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a revision to Resolution #5331 regarding a sign variance in order to permit a wall sign measuring 8’ x 3*. or 24 s.f. where only 12 s.f. is normally permitted and an 8* x 4', or 32 s.f. monument style sign was previously approved within Resolution #5331. subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the revised sign plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the sign plan w^ch are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. All other findings and conditions of Resolution #5331 remain unchanged and valid. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the ai^licant, but are permissive only and must 1/e exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the sign variance as revised will expire on that date (September 26,2005). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, luid shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the aj^licant and the applicant’s heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. -A a': >.v. '• Pa^3of5 ’i r Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 26"* day of September, 2005. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of ^ 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowle^iged before me on this _ day of , 2005 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 a ! .i ;,.V ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instnunent was acknowledged before me this__day of ,2005 of the Navarre Congregation of :' f :• A.. 1 • I •• •. •••.# pnrTSUGe, Thinks fi)T getting beck to me on thit sign. The i^^iite temzzo sign come in five pieces, one word per piece. It his blidc lettering ind the ictuil size is ouch less dun the proposed 32 scpiare feet. We went to put the top of the sign with the top of die windows or maybe c»ie brick lower. Thi following is a facsimile (sonry I had it in apdf and a autocad formats so they couldn't meige, so I cut and taped close to sc^e.) Thanks, Mike Ingemansen President of Navarre Congregadoa of JW's fac. f »i niumii oorah*i^ 1 <r-V ^ >/ tmk>1 A Vfcga>'• *?v^3iSm. 5:^r.7k«V^{^>;'/-.- * ^n" '*;» / 6- - O- 90N B r THOC B1H SAMC LCnCBNO ON iOTN 900 1C KINGDOM HALL Jehovah’s Witnesses §to I V F001M AND fOUNDATIQN WHL - M* OCCP SIGN DETAIL HO SCALE SI6IX ^PPVCP IN JtSM.0T»#lt5^l “AWfrEP 0 »1 H i«lo& *»■> r*" mMm ■ D»fe Applkftiofi Received: 6-22>0S Date ApplicatioB Coaiidcred as Complete: 7>I2*05 60-Day Review Period Expires: 9>f(MKi extended to 11-9-OS COUNCIL MEETING SEP 262005 CITYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: September 23,2005 Item No. Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ Title: City Planner Ag.nda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-3129, Ascent Investments, Inc. on behalf of Douglas Klint 1345 Rest Point Lane - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR- IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 arce min.) 0.44 acres (18,994 s.f.) 54* @ shoreline; 76* @ 75* setback (140* required) List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation & Council Directives of 8-22-05 B - Revised Survey C - Revised Elevation Views D - Revised Floor Plans E - City Engineer Conunents RE: Revised Grading Plan F - 60-Day Extension Letter dated 9-2-05 G - Council Minutes of 8-22-05 Meeting H - Notice of Council Action dated 8-23-05 ApplicaHeii Summary: Applicant requests the following variances in order to construct a new residence on an existing lot: 1. Lot area variance to permit construction of a new residence on an existing lot 0.44 acres in area when 1.0 acres is normally required. 2. Lot width variance to permit ..onstruction of a new residence on an existing lot 54* in width at the shoreline and 76* in width at the 75* setback when 140* is normally required. (The eq^icant has "ince revised his plan to eliminate the side street setback variance as recommended fy sU^, the Planning Commission and City Council) Ptomifaig CommissiM Recom memladoR The Planning Conunission voted 6-1 at their July 18,2005 meeting to ^tprove the lot area and width variances but to deny the side street setback variance baaed on the lot containing adequate buildable area within the required setbacks. rornidl Dimtion of 8-22-05 On August 22,2005 Council directed staff to draft a resolution for approval of the lot area and lot width variances but denial of the side street setback variance, to be adopted following receipt of a revised plan meeting the required side street setback and City Engineer approval of a grading and drainage plan. Staff Recommendation Approval of the revised plan per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution granting lot area and lot width variances for 1345 Rest Point lone. EMM - \ k m^^'M A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNiaPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-330 (B) FILE NO. 05-3129 ■■ 0^ M WHEREAS, Ascent Investments, Inc., an Oregon Corporation (hereinafter **016 applicant ”) is the owner of tne property located at 134S Rest Point Lane within the City of Orono (hminafter the “City ”) and legally described as follows: Lots 75 and 76, TONKAVIEW GARDENS, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 (b) to allow construction of a new residence on an existing lot 0.44 acres in area where 1.0 acres is normally required, 54' in width at the shoreline and 76' in width at the 75’ setback when 140’ is normally required, and lastly a side street setback variance to permit a side street setback of 23' when 35’ is normally required, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on 7-18-05 reviewed the application and reconunended approval of the lot area and lot width variance and denial of the side street setback variance, and WHEREAS, the City Council on 9-12-05 approved the lot area and lot width variances but denied the requested side street setback variance and instructed the applicant to submit a revised plan that would meet the required side street setback of 35'. Orono, Minn NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of FINDINGS This application urns reviewed as Zoning File 05-3129. fc- : -v: Page I of 5 T; 4.>2 2. The property is located in the LR - IB Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 1.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 140 ’ at the shoreline and 73 ’ lake setback. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on July 18, 2005 and recommended approval of the lot area and lot width variances but denial of the side street setback variance based on the following findings: a. The lot is an existing lot of record that was platted prior to adoption of the current zoning requirements governing minimum area and widths of the LR - IB zoning district. b. The existing house has existed on the substandard area and width lot since prior to 1955. c. Adequate buildable area exists within the required setbacks for construction of a new residence. d. A new residence could be built meeting all other requirements of die Zoning Ordinance with respect to hardcover, structural coverage, and building height. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not Aversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to pres^e a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the ^irit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of S CONCLUSIONS* ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upor one or more of the above flndings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 (b) to allow construction of a new residence on an existing lot 0.44 acres in area where 1.0 acre is normally required and where the lot contains 54’ in width at the shoreline and 76 ’ in width at the 75’ setback when 140’ is normally required; and hereby denies a side street setback variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and aimotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any ameiKlments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Plaiuiing Commission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover levels within all zones must the requirements of Section 78-1288 and requests for hardcover variances will not be looked upon favorably by the Planning Conunission or City Council. 3. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surftces. 4. Required removals of structure and hardcover, including all existing building and retaining walls, including the lakeshore boathouse, shall be completed prior to the first inspection for the new residence. S. Authorities panted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive orily and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (September 26,2006). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on bdialf of the qrplicant and the applicant ’s heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 I life'i. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 26"' d"'' of September, 2005. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Ownet(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of __• 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of j 2005 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corpmation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public U • * ‘'a- ftige4of5 4 J 3^ ■• '•?••'" "■. ■ ••.•••• . \/.fiS :LS STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Douglas E. Kline, president of Ascent Investment, Inc. day of >r ' V'v= ■ • •■• ;■ ■■■■' ':= '■S,y',;v " -r.- - ^ . •v;:^ » :v • . ! :. ' '•• •• ■: .••;■■•. .. ^ • .V. 7 •; 7 • V^7.;vtr ■ V\:;v7; yy^-A-,7- .,- • 7 . r vlo..:; .-.;^ ,v7- .7 - :-,r7-i:7V7;;77:.i^V:i7\^:;y •••./■ ti»'. I ■■■■•:•.■ y;V ^■ 7 - 7: Wrm-'- :’.; ;. v;;-. .. ■ %■ ■i; ....7. 7<-. ■ .n rV y V ■•: • ^ -■ .7.. . .*•.*•...* •• \' r X; ;:'737 .^15^ ,2005 :57~T-'T- r- mu '7; '■ ■.: . V. -y ■■.■■.. P mm»:m ^•f Q I" .7.SIK I- • mm h CERTFICATE SURVEY FOR DOUG KLINT LOTS 75 & 76. TONKAVCW GARDENS HENNEPIN COUNTY. M«€SOTA / LAKE MINNETONKA JINNINGS BAY m W Mm mtf 91 Wm ASaOOIATKSt IMO., OOMSiltTlNa OHMNUlia. xjkHO auavavcNia. ^7- ■ i 5v MiP-PoihT l^iitiMT &AO.E flU)M TOT OT Vi.fkDwi £^.7 *.■^'5 rVAr^ v. \ , M .1 : v\ ./ ,i i'I/ -r Ha;; 4^ r >«4 i^:M r r r' .* :^;"v ■ . .u,M - - 'll* • i \ J ?- I ^ t t f ■• *■' K ■ MRP': ■•I:-rCrS . ^ •. I’t ■r ‘ .■ I ', ■ r i(' k'. ■> K-lli :r . 4 ^l' C5?^ ■t -I. 4^ j 4» * '. .,m ;‘^::v:>::;’;^a ^ : :Vv r ., :w. ... •Vv’^.- ". :•• ■ •••.- .. .'♦•■•• ■• :' .;'• '•;. PSli • w N- *v> i Wy I mm: ■' .?- ‘ ;. v;, = ,.• -' ’■ .V •■■.:XK'>-VV^ ~~.y- :-'5 ' ■ •*.- v/V;;-v i'-/ r - i m ^uua iataa 0unaaiKuu Kuaane nri0c.0&.Ais oaioaoiaiA P* A 2335 Vklest Hlghwi^ 36 - St Paul, MN 5Slt3 Office: 651-636-4600 • Pajc; 651-636-1311 wwwixNiestroo.com • I, • •- • ■; . Ingintcrf & ArcMtMtt Se|rtMiiber2U 2005 M ••.*• Ms. Janice Gitndlach Planner CiQfofOrono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 • •• t• \ * u e • I* 1345 Rest Point Lane File 000139-05 Plat No. 05-3129 Dear Janice: V We have reviewed the revised sui^ you fluted on 9-2(M)S for the proposed improv Rest Point Lane. The site improvements include the construction of a new ho grading. We have the following commenU with regards to engineeting miUters: a a • M -■ ' ir» entstol345 associated • 'Dm proposed swale shown north of the home is still shown at about a 15% grade and will have a high potential for erosion. We tecanamend that this swale be immediately vegetated with sod that is adeqi^ly staked to protect against erosion wl^ the root system gets est^lished. If the grading is done past die growing season other temporary emaione ontr^lf such as fiber blanket or muldi should be inq>lemented until sod is available in the qxing. • All other erosion control measures should be installed, inspected and mmtoved by the cityprior to any work on site. If you hav« aiqr questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONBSTROO, ROSENE, ANl V » , « • . t » . ' • I •% • .* • tUK & ASSOCIATES. INC.S ! •• * • i • I • * « TomKelli^ Cc: Greg Oappa, City of Orono • s a e \ I • a • %•*. •• • • .* St. Psoi St Ocua, aoctwster. MN ■ Mllwauke*. Wl •. Chicago. IL k . •* u • • \ • .................................................. //fo o\\ GlTYof ORONO MUBid|Ml Offices Itfift Aiiftst: 2750 Kelley Mmt Orom, MN 55356 MaWsi Idifsn; P.O. Bn 66 Crystel Bey, MN 55323-0066 Sq>teinber 2,2005 Ascent Investments, Inc. Douglas Klint 29685 N 77* Place Scottsdale, AZ 85262 RE: ExteaskM of 60>Day Review Period Dear Mr. Klint; State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days fiom the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by the City witti notification to the applicant. Your plication was received on June 22, 2005, however was deemed complete on July 7, 2005 (at which date your 60 days begins). Therefore, the 60>day review period would end September 10,2005. Because the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after this 60-day period ends, the 60^y rtvUtvptHotlis h«r^0xtemdtd tut additional 60dayt to November 9,2005. In order to be placed on the Sq)tember 12,2005 City Council agenda a plan meeting the Planning Commission and City Council recommendations must be provided for City Engineer review. It is City policy that general lot area and lot width variances will not be granted on lakeahore lots without first {q>proval of a grading plan by the City Engineer. Should a plan not be provided prior to the end of the additional 60 day review period, staff would be forced to bring a resolution denying the requested lot area and lot width variances to the Council for adoption. Should you have any further questions I can be reached at 952-249-4623. Thank you. Sincerely, City ofOixnw Janice Gundlach City Planner 10- V.. lWiptiaf(Wl)2»6 4W • Pbx (fS2) 24M614 . I t mm Vil 111 ^0 t-Vf • L ^ > MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 22,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. ‘3039 WETLAND ORDINANCE, Continue^ In additiono^Rron noted that the MCWD made the allowance that a \j^mr is not necessary for a man made ston^ater pond, though staff would recommend a setl McMillan stated thnl^e was concerned about the impacts ofdp^)rdinance on existing homeowners who woiN^ow be out of compliance with remira to buflers or setbacks. With this in mind, she encouraged fInUNlity from staff and Council ^Ihose that will be affected, as these existing homeowners may okfaced with difficulties. Gafiron staled that a buffer flexiM^ section re||llrding drainage and directing water flow is necessary and will provide a sense oKMnsitivpt^or existing homeowners and offer flexibility. White nwvcd, McMUliw accondcd, toil^ ORDINANCE NOJ8, Third Series, a Wetland Protection Ordinance with the dod^idn^hanges as noted on P. 10, section 78-1606, and acknowledgenieat of flexihilityttr existiagWaieowncrs. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Attorney Barrett suggestedjirat Council direct staA|g publish a summary with additional precursory details. White moved, wHh additiooi Ir Peterson seconded, to direct stal mrsors. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. inblish an Ordinance summary >104 DAVID AND RENEE MACK, 1978 SHAD^ROAD -VARIANCE Whil^iioved, Sansevere seconded, approving the revised plaas as p snlmiittal of a revised snrvey and site grading and drainage plan for tl rrt 1978 Shmlywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. I, subject to »City Engineer for the 7. MS-3129 ASCENT INVESTMENTS, INC ON BEHALF OF 134S REST POINT LANE - VARIANCE >UGLAS KLINT, Gundlach explained that the applicant was requesting lot area, lot width, and side street setback variances to permit construction of a new residence on an existing lot The Planning Commission voted to approve the lot area and lot width variances, but deny the side street setback variance based on the lot containing adequate buildable area within the required sellMcks. Gundlach indicated that staffs recommendation was concurrent with the Planning Commission recommendation, as no inherent hardship to the property exists to warrant a side street setback variance for a new home that could be reconfigured to not require variances beyond lot area and lot width. Klint pointed out that he wished to move the driveway and plant trees improving the appearance along the side lot line of Rest Point Lane that had been altered by the ROW. He ^ated that he did not wish to construct a long narrow home on the property, but instead to build a standard width home and clean up the excessive debris on the property. PAGE 3 of 9 ■ I .= (I • i 4 ■h" MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 22,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. (7. ms-3129 ASCENT INVESTMENTS, INC. ON BEHALF OF DOUGLAS KUNT, Continued) Sansevere asked whether Klint’s hardship supported the variance request in staffs mind. He noted that Council's greatest responsibility is consistency. Gundlach and Gaflion indicated that th^ felt the home could be built within the setbacks and were not compelled by the applicant's hardship, since no one knows how the ROW public access may need to be used in the ftiture. White stated that, while he sympathized with the applicant ’s wishes for his design and desire to clean-up the property. Council was in an awkward position. Klint pointed out that hardships are unique to every property and in his view, moving the home closer to the less busy road and away from the high traffic road seemed like a logical hardship to improve the property. He encourag^ the Council to consider what was in the best interest of the community, to clean up this parcel and restore the fire lane side yard to its natural state or remodel the existing noncompliant residence. McMillan maintained that, oftentimes, homeowners on either side of fire lanes encroach more and more, while it is the City’s responsibility to preserve and retain these ROW’S. White stated that he felt hard pressed to overturn staffs recommendation, since there is adequate buildable space on the property. Though sympathetic to the applicant ’s position. Mayor Peterson stated that she concurred with White. Kiint stated that the fear of setting a precedent in the future should not blind the Council from making a reasonable decision adopting a good plan for this application. He maintained that while the Council had a fiduciary responsibility to its constituents, staff does not the same level of responsibility to the public and makes recommendations based by the booK. McMillan asked the applicant whether he wished to table to redesign or move forward with a vote. Klint stated that he could not imagine how he could make the home work for him if he were forced to redesign to fit the buildable area, as he had attempteii several designs already to no avail. He indicated that he would likely give up and do something else with the p'operty. Attorney Barrett pointed out that if the applicant were denied his application, he could not reapply for 6 months. Klint asked to proceed. Saaa tvera moved. Mayor Peianoa secoulcd, to direct staff to direct a resolatlcn approving a lot area and lot width varlaace bat deaylag the side street setback varlaacc for property located at 1345 Raat Polat Laae, oace tbe appUcaat bas submitted a revlaed ptoa ladadlag a gnMUag aad dra ia a ge pbw far City Eaglaecr review and approval. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays •. •te PAGE 4 of 9 1 m i p: CITY OF ORONO 27S0 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Cryital Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #05-3129 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: August 23.2005 TO:Ascent Investments, be. Douglas Klint 29685 N 77* Place Scottsdale, AZ 85262 COPIES:Blake Bichanich Blake & Associates 332 West Lake Street Orono, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Lot Area/Width, Side Street Setback Variances DATE OF MEETING: August 22,2005 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST Motkm: To direct stafif to draft a resolution for adoption at the next Council meeting approving the lot area and lot width variances and to deny the side street setback variance. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is for: City Coancil - Monday, September 12,2005: Meeting Starts at 7pm If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. Vr'-** i -1: ;. p i ■y ■; ■ s;- : -fl- V. -• V Ay t- . * V • • • 1 Date AppIkatioB Rtceivcd: 06-22-05 Date Applkatloa ConiMered at Complete: 07-01-05 60-Day Review Period Eipirei: 09-01-05 60-Day Eiteaeion: 11-01-05 COUNCIL MEETING SEP 262005 CHYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNaL ACTION Date: September 21,2005 _ Item No. ' DepartBCBt Approval: Naaic: Melanie Curtis Adninistrator Approval:Agenda Section: TMe: City Planner Item Descriptioa: #05-3136-- Troy Broitzman -1860 Shoreline Drive - Variance & CUP Zonteg District: Lot Area: Ut Width: LR-1 At One Family Lakeshorc Residential, 2-acres/200* 1.9 acre (83,222 s.f.) 133’ List of Exhibits: Exhibit A - Survey and Building Plans Exhibit B- PC Action Notice dated 09-21-05 Exhibit C- PC Memos ft Exhibits of08-09-05& 09-14-05 Exhibit D - PC Minutes - (Final August and Draft September) Exhibit E - Neighbor Comments * Pending if not attached f. Exhibit F - Cross-Sections - illustrating cuts/fiils Application Snmmaiy: The qiplieant’s initial request was for lot width and average lakeshore setback variances in order to construct a new home on the property. A conditional use permit was also requested due to the approximate 7,295 cubic yards of grading proposed. At the direction of the Plaiming Commission and in order to meet the City Engineer’s requirements the applicant revised his proposal for review at the September Plaiming Commission meeting. The revision has resulted in a lot width variance and a conditional use permit for approximately 5,400 cubic yards of fill to be exported from the site partially to facilitate walk-outs on the front and the back of the home. PhuiRfaig CommiasioB Recommeadation On September 19, Planning Commission voted 3-4 on a motion to recommend approval of the lot width variance and the conditional use permit - this motion failed. A second motion to approve the lot width variance and to deny the conditional use permit was made, the vote result was 4 -3. This motion passed. 1.^ J at i * Pliuilng Staff ItecoBinieiidatioB Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot width variance subject to the City Engineer’s ^iproval of the proposed grading plan. The applicant is proposing to export approximately 5,400 cubic yards of fill from the site. 5,400 cubic yards of fill is the equivalent of approximately 500-550 truck loads of material to be hauled off of the site. Staff fisels that the site grading may be too extreme, creating a contrived walk-out which will be out of character with the neighboriiood and will have a negative impact on neighboring properties. However, there is a considerable amount of fill to be removed merely for the construction of the home absent a walk-out scheme. Although Tom Kellogg recommended a temporary construction easement for the construction of the 6’+ retaining wall, staff would suggest that this retaining wall 5* from the property line creates an unnecessary imposition on the neighbors, not only visually, but merely in order to construct the wall. The City has received conunents from neighboring property owners; those comments are attached as Exhibit E. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the grading plan appropriate for the neighboriiood? 2. Should the retaining wall along the driveway in the area of the 90’ x 45 ’ parking apron be moved to meet a greater setback to allow for no ne^ to impose on the neighboring property, to allow for better screening opportunities, and to reduce the potential impacts associated with a garage rqiron that could hold nearly 20 cars....? COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct Shtf to draft a resolution reflecting Council’s decision for adoption at your next meeting. I ■I -•M ♦ .V /^•.v / /, • /• - • . * • ^I \ ^ ^ ! s t ! n g ^ » 9 I / i n g ^ ^ « I I I n g O. \ ^CjpOSED Su- -*o«<**‘^'* «<‘’'35?^ >>> V. >y>ry VSi / ’f’ ’/ ‘C**54* • '^'X\r^ tgWjgV®' Y • *V I I taf^ -.tMi. , oposgi^f^^?S? £**2^ w / / / / I I / iCB^ / C0»»'kCS*^ /^ \ '■ / ; : ./ \ >C •> / • </ . I • y" / / /' . A| ^0SS X i / ■■e ss % 3±t±l±S I ~ I ^ ^ W * I * 1 ^*r* I ^ r^-iirii ^;i4-| ^T^’l *T T.T*T!>^VT-7T^r*l r I 1^ I r^r I I j>*T T*‘i T I I ^ r* I * T I rnSSiS^S5i52S^5£5ESS'*—»—* r^.r I ^ LrT i r i i t^t t^t i i i i i i n I i i I i X i r i I ’ i ' i ‘-rvy Lii! i:yxx|-T ^ 11 ! rrr c lx t- rj~^ rXi^,g5& T rSS: 2, iri , . Lil T_, i^^-*x*xp rx^*T7i r^—I ' I I '-T -S-x'-T^ rS-j L-r -I >r r^^rx^T*f* i V*tOt' i i-* r*x* i VxS-^^ r^-r^rh- S-^_L,r < J—lI>1_X-L_jJ-j_ L-J 1-j SJ—1 L I i T I I I I I ! ^‘ 1 i “*i ‘t* I ‘ r-TTill T-x~r^ 1 'T* r I -i-n^r*TC*T"*x*-f-*T* i rH *-i-* i * i S ' i > ■r'-r'-r*T“ S-^ Tn ~l~ t_p l^*"l ' I T"X*X*‘T I 1 f i I [ I Troy R Broftzman Reel dance 952-406-1404 I860 Shoreline Dr UJayzata, MN 55391-9111 Rear Elevation Scale 3/IS" • I' Laics Elsvation Seals 3/lS" ■ I ' r,./.\- .diiik. ^■'li i* ik-’TV ■■r':.y^^ ::*‘>v“ ■v:;v;.;;-.ti-w, ' ■ ■ •\;.- l;^#ki ■?:>^?|| -- mi ^ • ,■: .• .-f •.•-■-■«•/■ • v-h ::- •• :■■ .\ i : -w. ■ ?: ■ r'->: fe. 4‘- r />V.. f- . ./.i- 11 • j* .. • . . §• •i \ ____f f# >«■ ■1 , • k«yr or OilfiMa iwg^ 1 3* Bmvtior RM I 3*-^* RM I 3'V LM 3 3* LM lO* Jmito I 3* LM PJntni 4 3‘LM a 3'RM 6c«i« r • iO* n«lfi moor 3,44iX^ tq ft Tolil tq fooiq90 1^^033.3 T0UI CendtllOMd dp«e« n.a32.9 aq fl '. V.. ;r :-':v,: ;^v-!= \-',c ■; ■ : ••:•'•: • -V' =,:■.• .'.raH mm ‘V •■.!••;.'•. ■'.;•• - f'. V.• •> '#J • IMVKWnK i:. U-t> IHwv* “ V' ■ ,--•;<! CITY OP ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway POB0X66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323 9S2.249.< ZONING FILE 05-3136 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 21,2005 TO: Troy Broitzman 1860 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN SS391 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Variance & CUP DATE OF MEETING: September 19,2005 PlaMfaig Commission recommended as follows: • Motion to q)prove the lot width variance and ^^rove the conditional use permit for grading. Vote: 3-4, Motion Failed. Opposing: Commissioners Fritzler, Kempf, Leslie, and /urgens. • Motion to approve lot width variance and deny the conditional use permit for site grading resulting in a front and back walk-out. Vote: 4-3, Motion Passed. Opposing: Commissioners Bremer, Rahn and Winkey. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Co—ett - September 26» 2005 - Meeting starts at 7:00 pm If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from die City Recorder after review and tqiproval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Curtis at 9S2.249.4627. i^KttlhVO FILE #05-3136 9 August 2005 Page 1 of 3 Date Application Received: 06-22-05 Date Application ConiMered as Complete: 07-01-05 60-Day Review Period Eiplrm: 09-01-05 60-Day Eitension: 11-01-05 To;Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Melanie Curtis, City Planner September 14,2005 L' Snbjcct: 05-3136, Troy Broitzman, 1860 Shoreline Drive, • Lot Width Variance and Conditional Use Permit for grading o Public Hearing ZonlRg Dlitrict: LR-IA, One Family L4ikcsbore Residential, 2-acres/200* Lot Area: 1.9 acre (83,222 s.f.) Lot Width: 133* Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a lot width variance in order to construct a new home on the property. A conditional use permit is also required due to the grading proposed to create walk-outs on the front and the back of the home._______ 5lqyKecommendalioH: Planning Staff reconunends approval of the lot width variance. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Plans dated September 13'*' Exhibit B - Engineer Comment Letters dated August 23"* and September S"* Exhibit C - Proposed Floor Plans and Building Elevations Exhibit D - PC Action Notice dated 8-16-05 Exhibit E- PC Report of08-09-05 Background This qiplication was before ***0 Planning Commission at the August 15^ meeting. At that time die ^iplication was tabled and the af^licant was directed to work with the City Engineer to achieve a grading and drainage plan which was acceptable to the City. The applicant has submitted a revised plan for review based on the City Engineer ’s comments. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/WMth: LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87.120 s.f. (2 acres)200' Actual 83,222 s.r. (1.91 acre)133’ J FlLEi05-3136 9 August 2005 Pago 2 of 3 Setbicki: LR-IA Required Proposed Rear 50 ’90 ’ Northeast Side 30 ’31.r Southwest Side 30 ’31.6’ Lakeshore 75’350 ’+ Average Lakeshore The new home will be setback Mne. ocated behind the average lakeshore StrycturaLCovciiicc: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 83,222 s.f. (1.9 acre)Allowed: 12,483 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 6,282 s.f. (7.5 %) Hardcover Calculationii Hardcover Zone Total Area ia Zone Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 527 s.f.0s.f (0%) 60 s.f. (11.4%) 75 - 250 23,141 s.f.5,785 s.f. (25%) 2,903 s.f. (12.6%) 250 - 500 32,654 t.f.9,796 s.f. (30%) 8,716 s.f. (26.7%) 500 - 1000 26,211 s.f.9,173 s.f. (35%) 9,153 s.f. (34.9%) * After excision of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Grading Plan/Enginccc Commcnli City Engineer, Tom Kellogg has reviewed the plan dated September i3"* as well as the preceding plans. The q)plicant has not changed the plans with respect to the walk-outs; rather, the applicant ’s engineer has reworked the site grading in an attempt to satisfy Tom Kellogg's comments. The iqiplicant's revised plan has met all of Kellogg ’s requirements The q)plicant has indicated that the engineered plans for the retaining walls exceeding 4 ’ in height will be submitted with the building permit application per Kellogg ’s recommendation. Additionally, the applicant has indicated to staff that the adjacent propoly owners support the application and are willing to allow a temporary construction easement in order for the applicant to construct the retaining walls some of which are S’ from the property line. The adjacent property owners have not contacted the City regarding this application, so we have no verification of their acceptance.1 J FILE #05-3136 9 August 2005 Page 3 of 3 Inuet for DlMUttion 1. The City Engineer has had the opportunity to comment on various revisions of the site plan (Exhibit B); please discuss the City Engineer’s comments regarding the initial proposal. Are any of the comments applicable to the current version of the plan? 2. Due to the high traffic on County Road IS should the applicant be encouraged to abandon the driveway access off of CR IS and construct a new access from Heritage where he has propos^ guest parking? 3. The proposed 500* driveway is S* from the south lot line leaving no place for visual screening of the I4S* length of the house. What are the visual impacts to the property to the south? 4. Deq)ite the fact that the engineering concerns appear to be resolved, does the Planning Commission feel that the grading proposed is unnatural and specifically contrived to create a walk-out basement on both the front end rear sides of the home? Would basement look-out level windows be more appropriate for the site? 5. Does the Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this qq>lication? Staff RecoBMCMlation Planning StidT recommends approval of the lot width vuiance subject to the City Engineer’s approval of the proposed grading plan. The applicant is proposing to export approximately S,400 cubic yards of fill from the site. 5,400 cubic yards of fill is tire equivalent of approximately 500-SS0 truck loads of material to be hauled off of the site. If the Planning Commission feels that the grading as proposed is appropriate for the site and the adjacent neighborhood and the site is suitable for a home widi a walk-out basement on the front and rear, then the conditional use permit should be granted. However, should the Plaiming Commission find that the site grading is too extreme, creating a contrived walk-out that will be out of character with the neighborhood and will have a negative imf^act on neighboring properties, then the proposed plan should be denied. Should the Planning Commission find that the grading plan is suitable and recommends approval; staff reconmrends that the retaining wall engineered plans be submitted prior to tte issuairee of a building permit and the temporary construction easements be submitted piior to Council review. d ADVANCE SUMVEriNG A ENGINEERING CO. gariMTmiNi*.lte.lM tMHMklMMMt HHII1|«M.WM tai(m»4H<lf? m —wrw* nor BROnZMAN If iifii mil 'niiM,i H^ipaiVil^F Wifi^Milf M av ‘4-:-AUA or tor j • njTf iQTr. AUAortOTSA-Miiarr. NKT cur Mucu micuruvbna^M) \ • 0 ^ • t > n g 0 •• I I I m g ° I I I m g *•/ 0 I t m g sSrS*^ ^„gM^ SS?j^ssjssSr!" i mm V ^ . . 1 v»- SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) I 0-75*|75-250*250-500 500-1000 ■afTflTTMg! HftHI A. Kouae CR IN ZONE Mdtli X X X B. Gar«g« C. Driveway X X D. SidmaDc X X B« Patio/Dack X X P. Landacap# Ondarlain By Plaatic X X X G* Othar TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 47 + B X 100 - PROPOSED itaanfvxnR m tcm A* Houaa ■MtX B. Garaga C. Drivaway 0. Slctowalk B. Patio/Mck r. Landacap* Ond*rlaln By Plaatic 6. Othar Tonu. HMUxxnmi in tout TOTJIL PROPERTY JUIBR IN BONB ____ m ♦ B 8 100 - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 47 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 47 S.F. A 528 S.F. B 8.9 % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 80 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 60 S.F. A 828 S.F. B 11.4 % 1 I Setback zone: (circle one)0-75*1 75-250* I 250-500*500-1000 EXISTING HAR A. House R IH ZONE umu iiidtii E X X B. Gaxxge C. Drivmxy X X De Sidmxllc X X Pxtio/Dxck X X F. LandxcapN Dndxrlain By FlMtic X X X 6. Otter TOTRL HMOOOFER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 198$ ♦ B 23183 X 100 -* PROPOSED HAR A. HOttXB EJOLiOlfi «i4tH Be ORrxgx C. DrivNway D. SidXNAik B. Pstio/Oeck PV fe LxndscapN Onterlxin By Plxxtlc G. Othsr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 2821 * B 23183 X 100 - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 1986 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 1988 S.F. A 23153 S.F. B 8.6 I S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2903 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2821 S.F. A M183 S.F. B 12.8 I I \ SETBACK ZCIIB: (CIRCLE ONE)0-75'75-250* r*"25?!500n EXISTING MARDOQggR TM EOtlK A. HOttStt Uuftli X X X B. Garagx C. Drivaway X X D. Sidmalk X X E. Patio/Dack X X r. Landacapa_ Ondarlain^ By Plastic X X X 6. Othsr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 6342 ♦ B 32669 X 100 » PROPOSED HARDOQVgR IM XQMR A. House bMftk ■iStll *iP' B. Carag* C. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck r. Landecape WMk. cutb. Iwdwe. let Wei Onderlain By Plaatle Q. Otlwr TOTAL NAAOOOVBR IN ICNE TOTAL PAOPBATY AREA IN EOHE BS23 ♦ B mm « 100 ir) LmJi 500-1000 2043 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3964 S.F. S.F. 212 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 103 S.F. ___ S.F. S.F. 6342 S.F. A 32669 S.F. B 19.4 % 3057 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 4313 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 1346 S.F. S.F. 607 S.F. ____ S.F. S.F. 9323 S.F. A MeB9 S.F. B 26.S % *- --------------.1 .il4l —r A J SETBIUnC EOlIB: (CIRCLE ONE)0-75 75-250•250-500* EXISTING HARDCOVER IM Zmig A. House LMifth vidUi X X X B« Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X Vs. Patio/Oeck X X F. Landscape Onderlain By Plastic G. Other X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN BONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE __ _ _ _m + B 2B229 X 100 pnopoeen A. House iR III tOME m«tk ^ u= a. Garage Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape ^ Underlain^ By Plastic G* Other total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A J1G7 T B X 100 - ^^00^1000^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 248 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 240 S.F. A 26229 S.F. B O.B % 3225 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 4546 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 1333 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TO 1:1: i 3J.» % 1 — ---^ U t Bonestrco Sm Rosene vv Andertik& |\|| Associates Engineers t Architects 2335 \West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 Office; 651-636-4600 • Fax; 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.coni received August 23.200S AUG 2 5 2005 CITY OF ORONO Ml. Melinie Curtis Planner CityofOrono Post Oflioe Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re:1860 Shoreline Drive Pile No. 000139-05000-0 Plat No. 05-3136 Dear Melanie: August 17,2005 for the proposed improvements to 1860 Shoreline Drive. ^ pro^ grading plan raises some concerns, particularly on the lake side of the home. It appears thatstoim ^ IS toing rouM along the northeast side of the home towards a proposed low area at the southeast comer or ^ horn. At that point the water is directed through a notch in a retaining wall and then directed withimterty a^ a patio in front of the home. Once the storm water gets past the southwest corr.er of the rather sho uld be direct to vegetated swales that convey storm water away from the home. It appears that the propoi^ walkout design does not work and a full basement or lookout design is better suited for this lot * ?! P?P®^ ™««‘n*n8 exceed 4-feet in height All retaining walls over 4-feet in height and all concrete^uung walls require a separate engineered design and detail submittal for review and approval It ^ away from the lot line will require©••wnentt from the neighbor to construct * SSSStT*^ "S*** «P to the lot lines and will require easements from the neighbors to * ‘*“'8" <«veway section thH^ a^w^ ** contain water on the subject properly and prevent dischar^ onto the property to If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BONBSTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK A ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kell Cc: Or^Oappa,CityofOiono St Paul. St Cloud, Rocheiter, MN • Milwaukee, Wl • Chicago. IL AHkmmhm A€tt9n/9^m Oppgrtyrnty mng twyloyit 1/1 Bonestroo sj! Rosene Anderlik& |\|| Associates Engineers ft ArcMtects 2335 WIest Highway 36 ■ St Paul. MN 55113 Office; 651-636-4600 • Fax; 651-636-1311 wwwJ)onestroo.coiT) '»ECE/V eo ' * ?005 C/Ty OF OROIVO .= i September 8,2005 Ms. Melanie Curtis Planner CityofOrono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: 1860 Shoreline Drive FUe No. 000139-05000-0 Plat No. 05-3136 Dear Melanie: We have reviewed the revised site plans dated August 30,2005 for the proposed improvements to 1860 Shoreline Drive. The site improvements include the removal of an existing home and the construction of a new home and driveway. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The revised plans address the issue with regards to containing storm water on the proposed parking area shown south and west of the home. It ^ipears that the proposed retaining walls adjacent to this parking area will be 0.5-feet above the parking area and will serve as a curb to contain the storm water on site. • Please see our comment letter dated 8-23-05 as the other issues noted in that letter have not been addressed in this plan. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Cc: Otqg Oi|)pe, City of On St. Paul. St Cloud, Rochester. MN • Milwaukee. Wl • Chicago. IL AWIftMiw Opurtmiwy twptoiwf eiiipliwt 0»wa 1 » 1 1 ! I ! I I I I I 1 T I -O-rl L_1 j L_J L_J L ! ' I T^ r*T^ I *"] * 1 ’! I I j|^~r]^i * ^T* ' ■' ■ *-1-* ■ *T^. f-* ■ S-*. -r* f I I I T *ir~j r r i_^r^ t i t i _T t _ r ^ P i i r i i l -I . j , 1-r* ■If! III I sera ‘r* I ’ t *T’“ I I 1. I f f I 1^'3T^T" i i i i i I I T^liiti~i~i _~r_ T 1 ~ i _^I .1 f _ j * * t f^T!lrxxrcr„XZt.^3:^TT7l , t-rXPC.t : r 1 II I . T I ‘ . ^1^1I ' Vj ! r ; ! I » : L!'*T I II 1 I I T T&5idj±r I r I I* r m, 1 ,JU-L I * I *T ”1 ‘ I ’ 1 ! ' 1 *■ 1^1 r 1 ' ! * I ' I'^Sfcj *1 r r*"T I ^ 1 J i _I i_" ] rjzj tr-rTr; I ■~r^ P~Pt~rr'1=!~7Ti~r^rr^ I I I 1 III I I '. I T 1 1 I « t rr, 1 , r. l I I r ss rVr xprp: T*T ijcSSS:1 7 rL3 I±r?2S^£i1 I rcTcr: jxJxzcJxinzriit L J" : I rT-P?P*fg i •* P~r‘~r*-r' r pr^rT*T^ i -T ^ ^ I y i^r-h^P|r^ V V .%s ixi \ Troy R Broltzman Rsafdence 952-48£>-T404 I&60 dhorelfne Dr UJayzata, MN &&39I-9TT1 Raa* Elavailon Scdia 3/16" • I' ri m. Laka Eiavatfon Seals 3/16" > I ' .V f ^ w • 't ■ i* **j * ■ " •/'. .**' V ■ .i:'■.;;' *>"V'W <•' J.:: /.V 'T.':' '.VJ, f . - . . i • :r.-'--''^:rv 7' ■•;/>:■-V, Utai4 El«v’«t0n hcMm I* • lO •V ■ ^ r % * • t^*]|P3lF • ,V : ^ ■MmsMKK I i’ ■K =;>>: • •: •.•.•••.• •• • -V. ■■■T.: •: " ;V: > •'••t /• :■.\-/9¥.^-•:Jr;v:•>-• ■. • VV= •:'v/4C,:.,.V. V V ^....;i - - •.;•• •. ■■• ^ .^ ■ - - •. •'. :<• ■■■ ‘" \ \ ■. .■ ■ 13 -.- if ■1 Hk, ‘r :. f V- i»t.- . ‘ ■ ■ ,• ^' ’ . ■,' '*;■ >,^-t • ’■ •' '• ";V4 :i 'o, '■•■ ../: -■ V*. :•.-••? V ».,. •*•... . • f I j'S ' 'SKier'^-w 4 j V. .^> - S'" - ,■ ..• ;,. i - .. .. 6cji« r • tO^ ■ ": ■'-. /-v: f.r .*■b..■-1‘h: -■ ■ ; f. t • CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kdlcy Parkway POB0X66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4000 ZONING FILE 05-3136 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: August 16,2005 TO: Troy Broitznum COPIES: 1860 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF REQUEST:Variance A CUP DATE OF MEETING:August 15,2005 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Table the q)plication to allow for the City Engineer to review the plans. VOTE:7 FOR AGAINST Please submit two copies of each of your revised plans (grading calculations and survey) to Melanie Curtis by September 1, 2005 in order to remain on the September 19' Planning Commission agenda and to assure a complete review by the City Engineer. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - September 19,2005 - Meeting starts at 6:00 pm 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the q>plicant. Your application was received on July 1, 2005 and the 60-day review period would end on September 1, 2005. However, because your qyplication was tabled by the Planning Commis.sion to the SeptembCT 19,2005 meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends. Thereon, the 60-tlay review period is hereby extended an additionat 60 days to Novendter /, 2005. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Curtis at 952.249.4627. FILEWS-3136 9 August 2005 Page 1 of 6 Date plication Received: 06-22-05 Date Application Contidcred as Complete: 07-01-05 60-Day Review Period Expires: 09-01-05 To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Melanie Curtis, City Planner August 9,2005 Subject: 05-3136, Troy Broitzman, 1860 Shoreline Drive, o Average Lakeshore Setback Variance and Conditional Use Permit for grading • Public Hearing Zontug Dbtrict: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR-IA, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acres/200* 1.9 acre (83,222 s.f.) 133’ Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot width and average lakeshore setback variances in order to construct a new home on the property. A conditional use permit is also required due to the approximate 7,295 cubic yards of grading proposed. Stqff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot width and average lakeshore setback variances. Staff has unresolved issues with the grading plan as of this writing, for further discussion. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-72. Lots of record. (b) A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, in an R district, which does not meet the requirements of this cluster as to area or width may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purpose, provided that in the judgment of the council or administrative q>proval by the planning director, such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements arc met: (2) In R districts of greater than one acre and served by public sanitary sewer. A lot of record in ...ny R district in the city in excess of one acre which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width only may be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes by administrative approval if the planning director finds that the following conditions are met: a. It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least lOOfeti; b. It is served by public sanitary sewer; and c. It otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter or other iqjplicable Code provisions. \ . i. dObiUKSllLi i -A.r 1 f FILE #05-3136 9 August 2005 Page 2 of 6 See. 78-305. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height, No structure or building in the LR-1A district shall exceed 2 1/2 stories and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Lot Area (acre)Lot Width (feet) Front Yard (feet)Side Yard (feel) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) Rear Yard (feet) 2 200 50 30 50 50 p: l|!f' See. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows; (6) Average lakeshore setback No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes. Further, the average l^eshore setback shall apply only to ch.ssiried lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. See. 78>967. Exception. (a) The requirements of section 78-966 are not intended to govern the following land alteration activities: (1) Normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building. (2) Any earth movement under SOO cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. (3) Grading, filling or excavating of ten cubic yards or less within the shore setback zone of all lakes enumerated in article IX of this chapter. (b) Such grading and earth movement shall be subject to approval by the building inspector at the time of issuance of a building permit, provided that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Where such earth movement is not being performed in conjunction with a building permit, a separate land alteration permit shall be required. Any unusual land alterations, including earth filling, removal or grading, proposed by a builder shall be subject to a conditional use permit as provided for in diis chapter. The following land alterations snail be considered as unusual land alterations: (2) Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 500 cubic ya-ds, except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footing protection, the intent being that structures shall not be artificially raised above the preexisting surrounding topography. (3) Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within five feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditch« FILE #05-3136 0 August 2005 Pago 3 of 6 See. 7S-1286. Topographic alterations/grading and filling. (d)(2) For movement of more than 500 cubic yards of matenal within the shoreland overlay district, conditional use permit approval by the city council is required in addition to the required land alteration permit. ListofEihibits Exhibit A • Application Exhibit B - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C • Existing 8c. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D - Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F - Original Submitted Survey Exhibit G - City Engineer Comments based on Original Proposed Survey Exhibit H • Conunents from Hennepin County Exhibit I - Applicant's Response to Engineer 8t Hennepin County Memos Exhibit J - Aerial Photo Exhibit K- Site Photos Exhibit L • Wetland Delineation Report Exhibit M- Property Ownen List .Exhibit N - Plat Mi^ Background The applicant has q>plied for a lot width variance in order to construct a new home on the prop^'. Due to the location of the home on the lot to the west an average lakeshore setback variance is also being requested for the proposed location of die new home. Additionally, based on the type and amount of grading proposed a conditional use permit review is required. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width: LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87.120 s.r. (2acf«»)200 ’ Actual 83,222 s.f. (1.91 acre)133’ Setbacks; LR-IA Required Proposed Rear 50 ’105 ’ Northeast Side 30 ’31.r Southwest Side 30 ’JI.6’ Lakeshore 75 ’350 ’+ Avett^ Lakeshore A portion of the propoeed home will be located 17’ into the average lakeshore setback area. f Stnichiral Coverage: FILE #05-31 y 9 August 200 ‘j Page4 9 6 i Total Lot Area Total Structural Coveraec 83,222 s.f. (1.9 acre)Allowed: 12,483 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 6,282 s.f. (7.5 %) Hardcover Calculatioiii: Hardcover ZoBc 0-75 75-250 250-500 500-1 Total Area ia Zone 527 8.f. 23,141 s.f. 32,654 s.f. 26,211 s.f. Allowed Hardcover 0s.f (0%) 5,785 s.f. (25%) 9,796 s.f. (30%) 9,173 s.f. (35%) Esistiag Hardcover 47 s.f.* (8.9%) 1,988 s.f.* (8.6%) 6442 s.f.* (19.4%) 248 s.f.* (1.0%) Proposed Hardcover 60 s.r. (11.4%) 2,903 s.f. (12.6%) 8,7I6s.f. (26.7%) 9,153 s.f. (34.9%) Alter exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lot Width and Lot Area Required lot area and lot width for the LR-IA District are 2 acres and 200’, and an existing sewered lot of record at least 1 acre in area and 100’ in width is allowed to be residentially developed. In this case, the lot meets the required minimum standards of Section 78-72(bX2). The lot’s width is defmed as 133’ and area is 1.91 acres. Average Lakeshorc Setback Variance The home to the west is located on a flag lot causing an unnatural average lakeshore setback line. The portion of the home within the average lakeshore setback area is 17 ’ deep and is an approxinuite 170 s.f. triangle plus decks and patio area. The encroachment does not appear to have a negative affect on the property to the west, rather is an improvement to the current home location. Additionally, there is a hill on the neighbor’s property which may or may not block lake views in the direction of the applicant’s home. Engineer Comments City Engineer, Tom Kellogg has not had an opportunity to review or conunent on the applicant’s revised plans. Baw^ on comments received regarding the originally suinnitted plans the engineer recommended revisions including side yard swales in order to contain the storm water on the property, revisions to the proposed retaining walls regarding setbacks and an engineered design, and a relocation of the existing driveway to access Heritage Drive rather than County Road 15. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. FILE #05-3136 0 August 2005 Psg«5oT6 Hardship Analysis /if coHSklerbig appIkatloHS for vorionce, the Planning ConmIsMion shall consider the effect of the propose variance upon the health, sttfety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger effire, risk to die public safety, and the effect on values of property In die surrounding area. The Planning Conunbsbm shall consider recommending approval for variances fitm die Ideral provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of clraimstanca unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intait of the Orone Zoning Code. Stair finds that the location of the adjacent home to the west creates an unusual average lakeshore setback line. The applicant has proposed to construct the new home completely behind the site of the existing home to better the average lakeshore setback situation. With respect to Dave Zetterstrom’s (Hennepin County) conunents on the originally submitted plan regarding the County Road IS access, the Planning Commission should discuss the merit of relocating the driveway so the property only has access off of Heritage Drive. With the revised plans the applicant has proposed to develop guest paridng off of Heritage Drive and keep the existing driveway off of County Road IS. Staff feels that only one access to the property is appropriate and the applicant caiuiot have both guest parking off of Heritage Drive and a driveway off of County Road IS (see Exhibit H). Issues for Discussion 1. The City Engineer commented on an initial site plan (Exhibit F), please discuss !h; City Engineer ’s comments regarding the initial proposal, are any of the comments applicable to the current version of the plan? 2. Due to the high traffic on County Road IS should the iq)plicant be encouraged to abandon the driveway access off of CR IS and construct a new access from Heritage where he has propos^ guest parking? 3. Is the guest paridng appropriate in its proposed location off of Heritage or should the applicant be required to ^ xommodate necessary guest parking within the existing driveway and turnaround? 4. The imposed SOO’ driveway is S’ from the south lot line leaving no place for visual screening of the 14S ’ length of the house. What are the visual impacts to the property to the south? 5. Does the Planning Commission feel that the grading proposed is uniuitural and specifically contrived to create a walk-out basement on both the fix>nt and rear sides of the home? Would basement look-out level windows be more appropriate for the site? 6. Does the Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with tins application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends iq)proval of the lot width and average lakeshore setback variances subject to the City E^neer’s approval of the proposed jading plan for a look out basement. FILE #05-3136 OAugjSt 2005 Page 6 of 6 The Planning Commission should give the applicant direction regarding the appropriateness of the site grading. !f the Planning Commission feels that the site is suitable for a home with a walk<out basement on both the front and rear then the qrplicant should be directed to work with the City Engineer to achieve an acceptable grading plan. Should the Planning Commission find that the grading plan is creating a contrived walk-out that will be out of character with the neighborhood, or have negative impact on neighboring properties, then the applicant should be directed to redesign and provide a revised plan for review. The qiplicant has responded to the comments provided by Tom Kellogg, City Engineer and David Zetterstrom, Hennepin County Entrance Permit Coordinator with a revised plan. If the Planning Commission feels comfortable that these comments are addressed by the recent revised plan or can be addressed prior to final review by the City Council, tte application may be moved forward. If the Planning Commission wants to review the City Engineer ’s comments on the revised plan then the ^iplication should be tabled to the Scomber 19'*' Planning Commission meeting. wm A- \A- V- ;':7V; t vm: .-t-A y ‘ .y--f ■m JSsSmX'M............. City of Orono Variance Appiication StnetAddmss: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 5S3S6 Main; 052-249-4600 fox; 052-249-4616 MaBIng Addnas: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 553234)066 Application # Date Received Amount Paid Staff: Fee; S600 Renewel; $300 After-the-tact; $1,200 Double'~ae M i I This application form must be completed In full. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the applicatien. IncompMe appIleatkMW nvlll not be placed on Planning Commisaion Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: y A O Property identificatiohlliumber (PIN)1 |0 - U~t - 1X'?s - M ^ Q ^ (Attach legal description to application If notincluded on the survey.) Date Property Aoquled (roonth/year): In - OS □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of propeiy: ACResidential □ Other______________________ Zoning District: / f- « yy ________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complele leoal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name: ________ Phone (home): MftPwCt Address: --------------_________________________ Phone (work)y £>g>w,.g^ _______City: Fax: P7n6.-z.V2_- Zip: OWNER INFOf|MATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) uA 1^_____________________________________Phone (homeT.^ r\ i/r\ L— Address: __________ Email: Phone (work): ______City: Fax: Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ /. Sr. ih,.. Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): ft k '/O ^ f»r' m REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for you' application to be processed. □ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. □ Completed Application Form □ Completed Hardship Documentation Form □ Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South O"* Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 □ Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5’ x 11* or 11” X17” for reproduction. □ Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). □ Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5* x 11” or 11" X17* for reproduction. □ Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x11 ”orH ”xi 7”). □ Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT ’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional foes (staff time not covered in the original foe payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recogniaea that he/she is solely raaponaible for aubmittino a eomplele application being aware foat upon failure to do so, the staff has ru> aNematlve but to rs|ect it until it is compiete or to recommend the request for denlai of the request rggati^i ess of its p^ntlM msi Date: U " 3 Date: Applicant's Signature; Applicant's Signature: OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT; The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to thl^ application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification ot thiwiequest. Owner's Signature Owner's Signature rf.irtncation or thieteqi Date: Date: L -2-i-os: Applicant must have all submittals into the/City offices 25 days before the Plannir^ Commission Meeting. Planning Commission X^tings are normally held on the third Monday ot each month. Appllcania must be present at all scheduled review meetinga of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. / f m i is> -'1 # .1.1 r' ■ft A*/' DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with M.8.13.04, Subd. 2, "Rights of subje'^ts of data”, we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to fomish oerfoin private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The Information you fomish will be used to determine your qualification for the pennK or Noense requested. 2. You may refosu to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or Hoense. 3. The information may be shared with other local, sfote or federal agencies to the extent naoessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requites Council action to approve, some information may become publie. 5. You have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourseif. 0. Your foil name is required to process this application or permit. i First Address Middle Last City State Zip Phone ^313 a --------i. 0(fti0Tr& Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM Thia form ia a raquirad aubrnWal for ALL varlanca applicationa. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minrtesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires tiiat a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variar>ce will affect the surroundhg community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance ia JuatNIed. The information the City receives Is what is used in detemiinlng a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.* 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.* The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of foe locality.* “TVv n€kp4 Kqkl*.- -4^ "Economic considerations alone ahail not constitute an undue hardship if leasonaM c e for foe property exists undar the terms of the Zoning Chapter.”laaonabJe i i? m Page 2 of 3 / 8. 10. 11. *Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth shattered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when In hamiony with this Chapter.* The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affocted person's land is located.* The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-tamily dwelling as a hvo-fomily dwelling.* The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or Imm^iatMy adjoining property.* I CX^\ 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.* The granting of the appNcation is necessary for the preservation and erijoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant* JkM The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort morals, or In any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning —AcrV__________________________ •/ i J * 0' J; \ . •» • i I T ( Page 3 of3 12. The granting of such variance wili not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.'' . rvnj r&. Ltfc ^ Slckjd Hardship Statement Should you tael the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardshipi practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): • K ■ -V. ■» .I;. . m-ymm ■: . D i m <i I la gbf i<rA mi It ■-! Ifiifi I ADVANCE SUEVErmO A ENGINEERING CO. »Mlll^r.lli.ltl MtaMmi^MNSIMS HMI(IID04.VfM PM(tn}4M41IT ^ /' / TROY RROHTMAN JMJ.W AmIi toiM IflttflRHMk lUmvMON Ml MMMpb Otai%. Mta IJHIfhTWHimSiptwSanta If MiM li M htp«;I. ftM*«italM|^Mi*nin«riMinMMtar*tMMlipilM|riia Ha s vyjss V iH^ssas^'ssr^^ 'v.. fca^assasdS&ag^^ \^ {y^bgiSSiMjw^Kpn|KSJSs^Sfts^s V ^ N SS nil ia mm m^m "*** aa Umrnmaki WUMjaHw ■iM MNBiiMwailiaMiiitlaartM MlwitriniiiaiSg iHir ^ iM 1 f . Vp AftEA or LOT ) • lim fQJT. ARIA or LOT 3A • Ml tQ^. Orm. Ato. 0404tf . i r pg:li •ir^- wmem Lake Elevatfon jj, W Ci 1:i <r^ 4* 2 9 9 9 b s • I 4 Linn■ ■ • • . ?‘. .: . ■ • ■ ■'-■ ■="-■■■■ .: ■■ ;', 1=^ -••ivY‘-*?.V -. * • X% • - ^ -'. .r' -.- " ■ teil % «i M. r^ Tr .. ■"‘•I'h J^>K ■'T; ■ • • . • W • ' <; , . W------------------ ^ .^. -Ir AimA a i. . -T I i rsMu^i W ’WT y .y. - ». •V>-..^ y"1 •>: V.'-':' v^ •• V-.y » f ; 'f^ ' ■ \:. i 'ImIIH .SiGasgeuas^,• ■5-r; *.'■^ y:y,.v C. ■ = ■• . • •i '- . j r 7 *'.*^- f ■ ••;. •>;.-V-v--s’-,.••%•:.•: :■' S' -C<X'i'--';'V;<''7-i'^y s dVI^jL UUU* ■\ H>SM SJ-. l/STIKftI & X X X DrfvxwBjr X X a suiwiik E PMo^Dtck R X X X X X X X ss. SS. S?. 5S. ■47 sj. ______SJ. SJ. SJ. SJf. s^. 9J. SJ. SJF. TOTAL RAIOOOVBl or 20MB total timnY AXIA IN ZONE ^ X 100 sj: _42—SLF. A ySH&F. B23_» &r. i. 0mm C OriwMqr X X X % « 8S. SJ, / •SJ. X X _ SJ-. X X LF. SJ. X X SJ. S.F. X X X SLF. SLF. total KAXDOOmiNZONE &r. TOT^ nonxix AUA or zone xiogi - A B L-H ^ i!T zmr SJ*. X X X B. Gwwt C Drtytn^X X a SMfwtik X X E. FktkiDeck X X p.X X X O. OtiMr total lURDGOVBlt IN ZONB TOT^ nOPIKTYAlIA MZONB ♦ ® -Z^vl^xiooxps^ ‘ ‘ *J • * * ♦» total HAIDOOm Of 20HB jyTOIY AMAIIf zom ♦ ■2L3^Ui^xioo ^€VlSf=l> I _ SJ^. -SS. _ SJ. SJ^. UBS.&r. &F. S£. SJ. SJ. S^. &F. &F. &F. __&F. % % .SLF. .SJF. / /-• «LP. -_________SJ. s^. 3^. -S.F. SJ. &?. S^. Jfl aj. SJ^. A U. B J 75-S50' EXgrrVfi g.4HDCOVTtt TX rniCT- A. Houst ^150-*00j| 50^ 500-iC*)0' X X X B. Ciiift C Drfvtwqr X X D. SkhwtOc X X E Pttiaa)eck X X p. UbcMiix Bp Ptartc X X X O. OdMT p*TOTAL HAXOOOVni IN ZONE [AL.Ffioreimr aiba in zone * * X 100 TOTAL FEOPI A. ffcon JEUQBK X X X B. Oiraft C OthvMgr X X O. SUmnJk X X B. Pkdo^D«k X X r. ^ By a odur X X X TOTAL KAJtDCOVlR IN BONE TOTAL ntOraaY AJtEA Of ZONE 0X4---- ♦ Br X 100 - 0e^ibt> 2.0 4^^ s--. SJf. £.?. SS. \^9>A sj. SJ. sj. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. A S.F. % % EF. .SJ, SJ. ' / / EF. i43ia SJ. - SJ. SJ. SJ. JUi£4_s.F. _________S.P. SJ. SJ. SJ. - F i7/£^ j SJ. A SJ. B fi. M»w% K^u\K^uA um>j \h7S rs-MO* MS Hardcqvtr rv roNg A. Hcust 2f0-f00* ^ fOO-iOOO*^ 36 Lfiagrh WSddi S -iJm • X X X B. Gcrift C DriviHfqr X X C. Sldxwilk X X E P^dc^Mc X X F. UaMak Bynmk X X X O. Other total KAItOOOVnUN ZONE ^ TOTAL PROPBETY AMA Of ZONE ___♦ 8 J2L£Lfttt-* 100 yn>nit»n iTii|pi A. HMw KH*k4 o;JBLEQBl X X X C tkbnrnf diiMt Riclfr X X O. SfdtmtJk X X E fmlofOerk X X r r «• «■ Undsfifei X X S--. s^. SJ. S.F. s^. SJ. SJf. SJ. SJ. SJF. SJ". SJ. SJ. SJF. 1.0 SLF. A SJ, B % T.feX'l.l ■fe<.0»5.r. «SXXS • . •-,% % % S.F. .S.F. SJ>• # / SJ. SJ. ^S3 S.F. _______S.F. S.F. 3.?. SJ. Q. OdMr R^. W(fcU TOTAL HAXD00VB8 IN TOTAL PRQPCKTY AUA IN SJ SJF. A X too •SJ. B k-^d: 1 :■*••>.■ -'V i<^.I. , M li^Y/.C ,r.'itym ' ^\‘- rA H- • t, • ■ ADVANCE SVMVEnNG A ENGiNBEEING CO. H<HM|« lMlH«>.MklM MkaiAkMNlIM HHMD «l«.m4 ta(MH4H4MT iawiPt nor EEOUZMAN l«(UIBTSnnnfnniuioiviiiCMtii ■ M^aH tuwaiiica p Njrros^Ai^ (pgl6(MAi- ptAW jyjniiiiifiiB .......Ah^ ga5tggSggl£‘353355SL m «y':. iMAl ■§«*. : AJIiA or LOT J • luu IQ JT AMA or uxr JA • iw IQ rr ,M,oi QAf.Ohr. Atai 0404tt ym IN >Uv- urn Bonescroo ffjg Rosenc Anderiik& Associates Engineers & Architects 2335 UAest Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 Ofhee: 651-636-4600 • Fax: www.bonestroo.com 0CrtT|>lf6» JUL I 5 2005 CITY OF ORONO July I2.200S Ms. Melanie Curtis Planner CityofOrono Poet Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323 Re:1860 Shoreline Drive FilaNo.000l39-0S00(M) Plat No. OS-31 36 Dear Melanie: We have reviewed the site plans dated June 19,200S for the proposed improvements to 1860 Shoreline Drive. The site improvements iiKlude the removal of an existing home and the construction of a new home and driveway. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: The plans call for keeping the existing driveway connection to C.R. IS and adding a driveway to Heritage Drive. The site should have only one driveway access with the preferred location at Heritage. Drive. The proposed home construction will require a substantial amount of fill being brought to the site. The associated grading plan will route water onto the adjacent properties, this is not acceptable. A revised grading plan should be submitted that shows side yard swales that contain storm water on the subject property. The revised plan should include an earthworks calculation to quantify the amount of fill proposed to be imported to the site. The proposed retaining walls along the driveway to Heritage Drive approach 10-feet in height in some locations. Retaining walls that exceed 4-feet in height require a separate engineered design sribrnittal for review and approval. In addition, the proposed retaining wall along the southwest side of the driveway is shown 3.5- feet from the lot line. This wall must be moved to provide at least a S-foot set back between the face of the wall and the lot line. The proposed driveway between the home and Heritage Drive is shown at a 12% grade. Itie driveway should be redesigned with a maximum grade of 10%. A revised grading plan should be submitted that shows existing contours extending at least SO-feet beyond all property lines. The applicant should verify if any wetlands exist on the site. The proposed grading plan shows spot elevations of947 adjacent to the front of the home and a proposed 948 contour 35-feet lake ward from the front of the home. It appears the proposed grading will direct water towards the home and should be revised. If you love any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK A ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: OregOappa,CityofOrono St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN • Milwaukee, Wl • Chicago. IL Afyinwilwt ActiwVMua* OppArtiiii*t|r ffiikplayvr iiwptfe ytt Ownm4 I • l«Mia • WMtaAW M« HI I* *1 »m tkiimpln County Tramportation Dopartmont »• • • t •mm •• • a ••MO leoOPnIrltCMwi IM«dlM,MN SS340-S421 H” 763-74S-7S00.PhoM 76^4704000, Fax 76S47S4090,TDO www.coJwnncpln.maut Ml, Melinia Cuitii, Plurner CiQrofOnmo 2750 Kelley Pufcwoy P.O. Box 66 QyitdB^.MN 55323 July 14,2005 Re: Broitzmaii Site A ccom , CSAH 15, ShotaUne Diive Mi.Cni6i: TIiaidalbrOietiiiidyinqaifyr^BPdingOiispioposeL Ai we discussed, Hennepin County pnedoo is deoiel of Gon^ Rood eooess when ettemate eeeesi, such is 6 ohy street, is ivaiUble. NQnimking eooeu on County Minor Arterisls such ss Shorelins Drive reduces: .^oiiig vehicle ooBfttotillwnbynisiiitshdnf motorists'ssltaly and roadwsyefBciency. Safety is also enhanced when motwists entar or esdt die road at known, controlled interieetions such u Heritage Drive, where a weedwand lane alreedy exists. Finally, County State Aid HigliwBy (CSAH) 15 (Shoreline Drive) is an unusually busy roadway carrying in exoess of20,000 vdiioles per day, so satety and efficteney take on added importince. nwretere^ HnniqTin County strongly includes the Shoreline Drive driveway. iragre the City not approve die Broitaroan plan that Again, diankslbr die submittal and please call meat 763-745«7643 widi fintber questions or ritgc 1 ui 1 toe^iTX Ntolanto Curtis From: Troy R. BroKzman [tbrDitzmanOnnctisl.com] Sant: Thursday, July 14,20051 0;2S AM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Update Melanie Bullet point: 1 I am removing the proposal for the addition on the new driveway onto Heritage drive and just going to use the existing driveway. My engineer is going to work up the amount of fill required with the revised grading plans. He said that he could have them by the end on next week. The retaining wall engineering will be completed by my engineer and submitted to your engineer for approval before the council meeting on August 8^^. 4 5 The new driveway is being eliminated so this is not an Issue. The survey crew will be out on Tuesday to do the updated topography and will be ready by weeks end. The wet land guy will be here Saturday to check for any existing wet lands. The height of the basement floor Is 949.5 as noted in the middle of the house plans with the rest of the floor elevations. The 947 on the loke side of the house is a typo and will be updated to 949.5 on the revised survey the end of next week. Please let me know if you hove any other questions. Thanks Troy t-kM" /• ..'H i'il3ftkt«i.J Exhibit J .-»«•—^r' y.Cv-\- '■ ' .*^.’^ '• ^‘; :vr \-.';. *• , . >J *'-**•■• . ^•1 !► nK "%mr^ •‘'■'''’Bffi ». > 4~^. .Vf >.' ■ ' -«T^ 'a .5^- ,;'«■ •i^'^ iV'v a:..,*'' ■ T,r..-vA >♦ ^ .y. v< • « . • ^ «■•-';* .. v;. 1860 Shoreline Drive Overview Map \ ** 1. > t. •-kj ^Wr^Y\ • '; ;■'- % «V 'm ' f' > i rv ^ * t '\ * i}i uLiihiir W-. *■> '.'v ■■ ^•■*“' 7- •^^'* ‘I - ‘ • 1-M.-•-•_-^'T-^'^-'^ '^ •• 5^'/ i:-^r^\. .» il-V '.il^ WV«-w' V ■ .-r:?ssr* U ’ . ' J V C, #“^ '\^ ■“ tl^' ^>. * -1 />rN.-^T>:« Tsi.. 4T ‘5 -■ * < 'r- • . ^ . ‘ » - *-*z f' '*-**?,' -I. - • * • , . nil—^ J-* • «■ . ,* »» » .• •!^;^:. 08/09/20.05:. '■ I* fcv- 'V • -^'J ^ ♦ ^ - A' r r « • ibMl^1 '•.: - J- ^ *|r-; '! ^>,V *«at^ Si M.Mm » :‘V ^ • ^ S- ^ jfeKy b -^'T \i-^^'^ yK^yr^' - - \ r Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. 0- ■ j *i. fe.. ^1. Ecological Solationi to EnvlroDmeotal Challenges Lakes • Sbeamt • Riparian • Wetlands • Wstenheds PO Box 270430 Minneiqx)Ijs.MN 55427 lUqjhone: (612)799-3238 www.aquaticeco8olutioiis.com 1860 Shoreline Drive Orono Site Orono, Minnesota ■4 for Broitzman JLLC 0 * h Wetland Dciineatioii Report 4^ July 18,2005 Nunibcr: 050S4TB * U ** * ■1 . ^ • •• • S 1860 Shoreline Drive Orono Site Orono, Nfinnesota for Broitzman LLC prepared by Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. Number: 05054TB The 1860 Shoreline Drive Orono Site is in the NW% of the SE14 of Section 10, Township T. 117 N., Range R. 23 W., Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The parcel is located adjacent to and north of Shoreline Drive (County Road 1S), a short distance west of Heri^ge Lane (between North Shore Drive and Brackets Point Road). The parcel extends northward to I^tage Drive. Adjacent land usage includes residential homes. This parcel was a residential lot along Lake Minnetonka. The area examined was the portion of the parcel northwest of Shoreline Drive. The purpose of this project was to examine the site for wetland conditions and delineate them. The Results secticn describes the wetland conditions observed on the site. The wetland delineation was performed on July 16,2005 by Robert J.F. Meiila, trofessional Wetland Scientist. Methodology In Minnesota, wetlands are under two jurisdictions: State and Federal. The State jurisdiction guidelines were set by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (WCA). This State jurisdiction is administered by the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) with technical guidance provided by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). The Federal jurisdiction is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE or Corps). Starting in 1996, both jurisdictions agreed to use the Cor^ of Engineers Wetland DeUneatian Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) along with supplemental guidance by the Corps. This manual is conunonly referred to as the 1987 Manual. The wetland delineation method used on this she was the Plant Communhy Assessment Procedure ofthe Routine Onsite Determinstion Method. The Routine On^ Determination Copyright O 2005, Aquatic EcoSohitioos, Inc. gutojfeu/SWiStou toBHobmmm td ChaUrntju Page 1 of4 . . i 1860 Shoreline Drive Orono Site Number 05054TB Forms (located in the back of the report) detail the three technical criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) as described in the 1987 Manual. The wetland edge(s) were delineated where one, two, or all three of these technical criteria drop out. In order to expedite regulatory review, some wetland edges were delineated such that the hydrology criterion was not met below the delineated edge. At some time in the future, the landowner nwy choose to have the hydrology criterion below the delineated edges examined more closely in order to ‘*tighten up” a wetland edge that was staked high. This detailed hydrologic study was not part of this wetland delineation. At least one sample point transect perpendicularly crosses each delineated edge. These transects consist of one sample point above the edge, one sample point below the edge, and there may be one along the edge. A Routine Onsite Determination Form (data form) was completed for each of the sample point locations. The data forms describe the plant community, soils information, and hydrologic indicators at each sample point. Sample points are labeled as follows: SP2-T1-LOW 2H>asin or edge number l«the first transect for this edge (the second would be “2”) LOW"the sample point below the edge CTJP” is above the edge) (additional points on a transect w^d be “LOW2,” "UP2,” and so on) • Plant spedes on the data fimns were listed by common names, scientific names, stratum, percent cover for that stratum, and the species hydrohytic indicator status. The delineated wetland edges were staked with sequentially numbered four-foot wooden lath and orange or pink “Wetland Boundaiy” flagging. The numbed side typically faces toward the upland side of the edge. Striped fiagging may be tied to vegetation if the lath is tough to see. Blue and white stiq)ed flagging was tied on the lath which mark the transect sample points. The numbers on lath placed at the edge or below typically face toward upland, while sample points on the upland side of the edge generally Ace toward the delineated edge. Copyri^ O 2005, Aquatic EooSolutioas, Inc. BcaleghtlStMmt a> Aiifi aiiwwninf ChaUanfu Page2 of4 IMO Shoreline Drive Orono Site Number 0S0S4TB Results One wetland edge was delineated on the parcel; the specific location of the edge can be obtained fix)ni the survey company who located H. According to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Water Inventoiy (PWI) of Hennepin County (Sheet 1 of 4X no Protected Waters were mapped on the portion of the parcel that was examined (northwest of Shoreline Drive). The National Wetlands Inventoiy (NWl) (Excelsior, MN) identifies a PEMC polygon west of the northwestern comer of the parcel. The Soil Survey of Hennepin County (page 51) identifies the soils on the parcel. The data forms desoibe the soil information along the edge. Soils mapped on the parcel include: LrB Lester loam Ma Marsh SaE Salida coarse sandy loam BdgcPw Basin 1 was a Type 2 ^*EM1B) wetland in the northeastern comer of the parcel. Reed canary grass was the dominant plant species. It is possible that a driveway immediately west of the property may be impounding water within Basin 1; a close examiiution to determine the presence or condition of a culvert was not nude during the site examinatitm. The adjacent upland was dominated by Cleaver’s bedstraw, ground ivy, Pennsylvania sedge, and white snakeroot ground cover; tartarian honeysuckle and common bucl^om shrubs; and box elder trees. r f Copyrii^ O 2005, Aquatic BooS as, be.Page 3 of4 1860 Shoreline Drive Orono Site Number 050S4TB CottcliisioD This wetland examination, delineation, and report of the 1860 Shordine Drive Orono Site was performed in accordance with the generally accepted methodology of the 1987 Manual at the time of the services rendered. No warranty, express or implied, is made. unavoidable Impacts are planned for this project, permits or exemptions from State (WCA, DNR, Watershed District), Federal (Corps), and/or other applicable entities need to be granted before the impacts occur. i (i i i The wetland delineation report was prepared by Robert J.F. Merila, Professional Wetland Sciendst # 1030. a Robert J.F. Merila, PWS #1030 Profusianal Wetland Scientist Associate Fisheries Scientist ■ Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. i'" ■ Copyright O 2003, Aquatic EooSohitiofii, Ihe. M€OIOI^€mOCImaOniWAM¥UWtmmatmKJmiUn§l§i Date Pibb4 of4 Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. Ecological Solutioni to EovIronncDtal Challenges lakes • Streams * Riparian * Wetlands • Watersheds DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wotiands Delinoation Manual) 2116 Marquis Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Telephonfc'Fax: (612) 545-0912 ProjoeVSHe: Applicant/Owner Investigalor 1^»^^ 0«/o LLC. ?; Do Normal Circumstanoas exist on tfie site? Is the sKe slgnMcently (fisturtted (Atypical Situation}? Is the area a potential Problerri Area (explain on twcii)? Yes Yes___ Yes No No No Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID:Of Dominant Plant Soedes (SdentHic Name)Common Name stratum % Cover indicator 1.3 ^ z ^ ^ -fb / ^ v/<#H Vo 3,f-1 30 ,4.e , B •8.F t PC 6. »•e >7.-r ■:a. .....--------------------------------------------- -• i B. •10.. • 1 ' 11.••• 1i • • •• Percent of Dominant Spades that are OBL, FACW or FAC (exdutRng FAC-).C-So • Remarks: • • , . •• •• • ► r . rs f e Recorded Data (Dascriba In Remarks):Wetland Hydrology Indkators: Stream, Laka, or TUa Gauga Aerfal Photographs Primary bnScators: Inundated Secondary lndicators(2 or mote required!): Oxidized Root Channeis (Upper ^T) 1 09tar Saturatad In Upper 12*Water-Stained Leaves *)<> No Recorded Data Avalable __ WaterMarks Local Survey Data OrM Lines FAC-Neutral Test ; FiaMOhsarvatlona:' Sadhnant Deposits Other (Explain In Remarks) •Drainage PaSems in Wstlands • Depth to Surtooa WMsr On.)• « Depth to Free Water In PK: (h.)•• Depth to Saturated Sol: On.) Remarks: • < . . _ _ - . 4 • ffA ^C«£. 9 9 1■ x.7n<t- 1 ■ n.Rsr. ______ L,---- ( SOILS Community ID:l-(u?p MapUnKNMw (SorlM and PhoM):€T ■ ^ ✓“S C-Dfalna» Taxonomy (Subgroup): Inage Ciau: Field Observations _ Confirm Mapped Type? Profile Otsoi n: Oepd» (inc^)Horizon Matrix Color (MunseU Moist) Mottle Colors (Muntell Moist) Mottle Abundsnce/Contrast Texture. Coocretloos. Slnjcture, etc. I -z- i±2_lf^=V> / g ye^ Hydrie 8el Indtoeiers: Histoeol HMe Epipedon SuNIdteOdor Aquie filoMure Regbrw Reducing CondRione Oleyed or Lo«s<Chroma Colors Cor>cretions . High Organic Contem in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Sols Lisi Listed on National Hydric Sols List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION ■Hydrophytic Vsgeteion Preeent?Yae No X • Weland Hydrotogy Present?Yas No Y • a Hydric Soli Present?Yas No V Is tfitoSampRng Point Within a Wetland? Yes • No Remarks: • » • • v--- Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. Ecological Solutioof to EaviroDineDtal Cballcngei Lakes • Streams * Riparian • Wetlands * Watersheds DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wotlands Dolinoation Manual) 2116 Marquis Road Golden Valley. MN SS427 Telephdne/Fax: (612) 545^12 * PrpiociASito; Applicant/Ownen Investigator Do Normal CirctaTKtances exist on the sHe? Yes No Is the site slgnWcanlly distufbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes __ la the area a potential Problem Area (explain on back)? Yea __ No No St Dale: County: Slate: Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: - VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species (SdentHIc Name) ' Common Name Stratum % Cover Indicator • ^ /-I A T ^ ^ f'finCJJJf • % • ----------------------------------------------------- a a , ^ • fi. . • a « t • a »7- * * a • iB. a a *10. -------------— ^ — 11. ' • 12. ^ • Pereent of Dominant Spades that are OBL, FACWor FAC (exdudtog FAC-).O Remarks: a a • a •• « a • a HYOROLOOY Raoordod Data (Deacrtw in Remarks): Stream. Laka. or Tide Gauge Other No No Reoordad Data Avalabie FWd Observaions; Depth to Surface Water Depth to Free WMw In Pit Depth to Saturalotf Sol: (In.) r^On.) Welland Hydrology Indicatori: Primary Indicators: Inundatod 2f=Saturatod in Upper 12* ^ WWer Marks _ Drift Lines _Sadknent Deposits Drtonage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary lndicslori(2 or more reqirired): ___Oxkfizad Root Channels (Upper 12*) ___Water-Stained Leaves ___Local Survey Data ___FAC-Neutral Test V___Other (Explain in Renarks) Remarks: 4 « KA ^ ^ m 1 ■ 0-5% <. SOILS Community ID:__/ Map UnK Naira (Sariaa and PhaM): Taxonomy (Subgroup): Drainaga CiaM: Field Obswvations Conlimi Mapped Type? ProMa Deacfiplion: Depth (inchea)Horizon Matrix Color (MunteW Moist) Mottle Colore (Munsell Moist) • Mottle Abundance/Contrast Texture, Conaetions. ' Slfuctura, etc. VK/y Hydrie Sol Indteajtoro: HMoeol Histie Epipadon Jo SuNUeOder ___ Aquie Moletura Regime __Reducing CondRions Cloyed or Low-Chroma Colors Concretion e ' . High Organie Content in Suffeoe Layer kr Sandy Sols Organic StreaUng In Sandy Sols Ustad on Local Hydric Sola List Ltftttf on NoHonil Hydrfc SoHt List Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: a ♦ «• a • * ■•I 1 a 1 * ■ WETLANO DETERMINATION . a • • a • tlydropliyfc Vsgalalen Praaitd? Wattand Hydrology Prasarri? njfonc oOH r”iHOfiir J3J• • ^ • Is this Sampling Point Within a wetland? Yes X) No Remaika: • « a • a • « • • - • • « a a • « a • ? i ’ r. i — t £ . , -t !^a m .uoeHro««f«f >.Lmk$ r'^s - • • ••• ' ‘■.‘••'►V4 • • ■/• • .^V•• ^ tN National Wctiand Inventory US Fish aid WOdlifc Service (r-2,000* Scale) 1860 Shoreline Drive Orono Site Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. d' i f . [■ r ; i. r A m m iSKySatMl -'I jp-.^ WM - «•'. fi \ -.o : .. • . > , ,v ■ • ............. ■/.:-*•: i, !^.Til i L tN Soil Survey of Hennepin County Natural Resources ConservatioB Service (NRCS) (r-y«Mile Sode) 1860 ShoreUne Drive Orono Site Aquatic EcoSoIntions, Inc. * •5 I ■ t ■jt_ , WATCH tM .| I ] Fiwlw KiW I^1 Ygfmn■ -1- i ^.A* LZLLQiD M^TB . N # i/r.?,'¥.»v^tyj:/''t»A7;/n m ’Hm n' tN Protected Waters Inventory of Hennepin County Miuiesota Department of Natural Resources ( r-l MUe Scale) IMO Shoreline Drive Orono Site Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. ., 'tPTjJ^ i ‘—. ■Trnn^a i n i i ■ iiiMifWiteinnaWn INORTH V' k ■ V ^ , . -; . . V Y'V- U*^ »'**• t M ^ A ^ «. • A • - ** ^ * ^ i ■i ‘. V - •;. w'- * f-‘'V '.''v.-' <?{•«■• * A « • '■'' V- ->• 'v H • ; y , V -*.-'•> y*\ ^ >•■•' -J- ^., < ^4 "‘Xv il;;.. •% ■. V .4 '-li •'' s:.:, w :N, O#. / , . •■ t' ' '“AX •;B|f. Approximate Edge Location US Geological Survey tN I860 Sbordioe Drive Orono SSte Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. ___ ______-II r III irirtUiiafillfifilrirrfiiiitnlM 1 ■fii RUN DATE: 603/2005 H£NNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE: I 31 I011723I300I3 PROPADDR I90S HERITAOEDR OWNBRNAME DAVIDFSCOTr TAXPAYER DAVIDFSCOTr NAME/AOOR 1905 HERITAGE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 31 1011723130016 PROPADDR 1105 HERITAGELA OWNER NAME POXHILLASSN TAXPAYER POXHILLASSN NAME/ADDR NANCY BJERKE 1035 HERTTAOELA WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723420002 PROP ADDR 1830 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME KYLE FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHO* TAXPA YER KYLE FAMUY LTD PARTNERSHIP NAME/ADDR 1140 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 1011723420003 PROPADDR 1910 HERITAOEDR OWNERNAME S ECHARRIERRJLCHARRIER TAXPAYER STEPHEN RJENNICHARRIER NAME/ADDR 1910 HERITAOEDR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723420004 PROP ADDR 1860 SHOREUNB DR OWNERNAME PAULINEM BOUCHARD TAXPAYER PAULINE M BOUCHARD NAME/ADDR I860 SHORELINE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723420006 PROPADDR 1980 HERITAGE DR OWNERNAME L V DAYTON JR A B J DAYTON TAXPAYER L V DAYTON JR R B J DAYTON NAME/ADDR 1980 HERITAGE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723420018 PROPADDR 1900 SHOREUNEDR OWNBRNAME M A NELSON R J A NELSON TAXPAYER MORRIS A/JACQUEUNE A NELSON 1900SHOREUNDDR WAYZATAMN 55391 NAME/ADDR 38 1011723420019 PROPADDR 1950 HERITAOEDR OWNERNAME W GREGORY COWARD JR TAXPAYER W GREGORY COWARD JR NAME/ADDR 1950 HERITAGE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 ICERTHY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATICR4 Of ITVORHAHON AS IT APPEARS THIS DAT CM’THE HEFMEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICffi DEPARTM OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. ( N THE RECORDS R*^3136 h 1 - - . 06m ilBlffiBIliriii III 1 J ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS* ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we), C.Warrtfy' of l^\0 [print name(8)][print address] DR. have review^ the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the proM 5NViM»<Jfv\# Blaise referred to as Land Use AppUcation No. rty located at I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (am awm of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Cound aswoval. '7/ ProperVbwner Date Property Owner Date m1'(we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed imiprovement or proposed use of the property located at l^Cyg) DtZ. also referred to as Land Use Apirilcation I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Coundi approval. If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application. pleMe submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. r J H<Mine|)in ir •‘fv'Vr!-' III - Hoiiri^Dih CountvnwiuwH”' wuiuy ...,. •v>:»:^ /■v^ ;/ ■■ .' a‘i •-.iM i^pjqm Services Department ‘ V • ’^f .• »** V • •• 'm. - ';• -t ‘ ' ‘ ' •‘-•• •,; '. * V • ■ ••.<■•?;■. V. : r.^ ;■ *»- ;.irrJ»'-^' > ' > >1, -C'^' ■;: Pmmilnfcmm . ' **_“?".•«-1 ’ i *. • • HeuM:illMikW 1M0 : ;' •ihMt'NiiM^'emNiiLiiwM ' ni»f$hct»lifgtKymemanmHrtpm$n lt»eemptltdonctlnfofnmtlon l^rn^ltpiiiOtif.OomfrmiamBmitmMhorttmmrtcItmwouicm. ^ L li* ^ _ . - te # _• ewifriT p MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Aagost IS, 2005 6:00 o*dock p.m. 4. IW5-3136 TROY BROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCE, 6:56 P.M. - 7:24 P.M. Troy Broitzman, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lot width variance in order to construct a new home on the property. The avera^ lakeshore settMck variance is no longer being requested with the revised plans. A conditional use permit is also required due to the approximate 7,295 cubic yards of grading proposed. Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot width variance subject to approval of the grading plan 1^ the CHy Engineer. *1^ Planning Commission should give the applicant direction regarding appropriateness of the site grading. If the Planning Commission feels that the site is suitable for a home with a walkout baament on both the front and rear, then the applicant should be directed to work with the City Engineer to achieve an acceptable grading plan. Should the Planning Commission find that the grading plan is creating a contrived walk-out that will be out of character with the neighborhood or have a negative impact on neighboring properties, then the applicant should be directed to redesign and provide a revised plan for review. Curtis stated the applicant has responded to the comments provided by the City Engineer and the Hennepin County Entrance Permit Coordinator with a revised plan. If the Planning Commission would like to review the City Engineer’s comments on the revised plan, then the ^iplication should be tabled to the September meeting. Rahn inquired whether Staff has received any comments ftom the City Engineer regarding the current plan that is now before the Planning Commission. Curtis stated they have not. Broitzman stated they have revised their plans in an effort to address the issues dealing with hardcover and the average lakeshore setback. Broitzman stated the current house has a walkout basement and a walkout garage. Broitzman indicated the new proposed house is 1 .5 foot lower than the basement of the existing house. There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn inquired whedier the applicant collects cars. Broitzman stated he is constructing the residence himself and that in his opinion the additional garage space may add to the value of the house in the future. Rahn stated the Piwning Commission typically likes to review the comments of the City Engineer and that it is difficult to review plans without having the City Engineer’s comments in front of them. Rahn indicated he has a concern with the letter submitted by Hennepin County MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Augutt 15,2005 6:00 o ’clock p.m. regarding the access. Rahn inquired what rationale there is for having the proposed access come offof Highway 15. Broitzman stated the other two roads are cul-de-sacs and that he would still need to access Highway IS eventually. Broitzman stated he did eliminate the second driveway in the back in the revised plans. Bremer noted she routinely drives along Highway 15 and that it is difficult to access that road from the driveway. Bremer indicated she would prefer the access offof Heritage due to safely reasons. Jurgens stated from an aesthetic standpoint it would be better to have the access offof Heritage and that the view of the lake would not be obstructed by asphalt if the driveway were relocated. Broitzman stated he proposed the driveway in the rear in addition to the Shoreline Drive access. Juigens stated he is unable to support two accesses. Berg inquired whether the county is recommending that the access onto Highway 15 be eliminated. Rahn stated they are recommending that access onto Highway 15 be eliminated. Berg indicated she has a concern with the access on Highway 15 given the amount of traffic on that roadway and recommended that access be offof Heritage. Broitzman stated the other issue with the rear driveway was the steepness of the lot R^ stated he would like to see the comments of the City Engineer, noting that the City Engineer did comment on the steepness of the lot and that the access might be better if it is located offof Highway 15. Bremer pointed out the existing driveway does exit off of Highway 15. Gaffron pointed out there is a 17-foot difRerence over approximately 120 feet, which is more than a 10 percent slope, and would require a tuck-under garage and other revisions if the driveway is located in the rear. Rahn inquired how the Planning Commission feels about the proposed grading. Jur^ns stated he would like to see less grading on this lot. Curtis stated the numbers have been revised with the new plan. Kenipf st^ the safety issues are better with a rear driveway and that the aesthetics of the lot would be improved with the removal of the driveway in the front as vrell as requiring less ! •MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday* Aogast IS, 2005 6:00 o ’clock p.m. maintenance. Kempf indicated the lot is situated such that a tuck-under garage could be accommodated quite well. Kempf noted there are a number of nice homes in this area and that the appearance of the proposed residence on the lakeside is like a box with a number of simple windows. Kempf encouraged the applicant to consider revising his plans. Jurgens stated in his view part of the reason for the amount of dirt being moved is the design of the house. Jurgens stated if one level of the walkout is eliminated, that would reduce the amount of dirt that would need to be removed. Broitzman stated he purchased the lot because the current house is a walkout Jurgens indicated he has a concern with the large amount of dirt that the applicant is proposing to remove. Broitzman stated the entire hill in front of the house is from when the house originally built Broitzman noted he had to redo his plans in a hurry due to the fact that he only recently learned of the city’s height restriction. Broitzman indicated he is flexible with the amount of fill to be removed. Rahn inquired whether the current plan is the plan that the applicant would like to proceed forward with. Broitzman indicated he could have the engineering redone prior to the Council meeting. Jurgens stated in his view this application needs to be tabled in order to allow the applicant time to make the changes that the applicant has suggested as well as have the plans reviewed by the City Engineer. Broitznuui stated he would like to begin construction in the near ftiture prior to winter. Rahn stated the Planning Commission is only able to review the plan that is before them and that he would like to have the comments from the City Engineer prior to action on this application by the Planning Commission. Fritzler stated he is also in agreement that this application should be tabled. Bremer commented the nwin issue is the lunount of grading, which needs to be reviewed by the pty Engineer. Bremer stated it appears that die lot width variance would be granted. Bremer indicated she is in favor of the access onto Highway 15 ifthe applicant would like to retain that, but that she would like to see the two parking spots removed. Berg inquired whether there are chimneys on either end of the house. Broitzman stated they are. J ’T . /. ks ■ ^ m "•i •' r?M MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Augaat 15» 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. Berg commented in her view the home appears to be an apartment house. Berg inquired how many people would be living in the house. Broitzman stated he would be residing there with his girlfriend but that he comes from a large fkmily who would be visiting from time to time. Leslie stated if the number of garage stalls were reduced, the amount of grading could also possibly be reduced. Broitzman indicated he is not witling to eliminate the walkout. Jurgens stated a portion of the walkout could be retained and that it is not necessary to have a walkout the entire width of the house. Jurgeiv slated in his opinion the house could be redesigned to reduce some of the grading. Jargeaa moved to table AppIkatloB 605-3136, Troy Broitzman, 1860 Shordinc Drive, to allow tlma for the CUy EaglBaar to comment OB the gradii^ pfaiB. Oafifron stated the length of the house and the garage could possibly be reduced and that it appears that the narrow width of the lot seems to be driving the design of the house. Bremer noted foe applicam does not need a setback variance. Kampf seconded the motloB. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Jurgsns noted Mn/DOT has estimated the amount of traffic on Highway IS at approximately 20,000 can a day. .a’.r ’ HR- 'rimirr V vm f ’ i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. 5. 005-3136 TROY BROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:33 P.M. - 8:47 PJH. Troy Broitzman, Applicant, was present .-I.'4' '' Curtis noted this application was discussed at the Augurt 15* meeting. At that time the application was tabled and the applicant was directed to work with the City Engineer to achieve a grade and drainage plan that was acceptable to the City. The applicant has submitted a revised plan for review based on the City Engineer ’s comments. The applicant is requesting a lot width variance in order to construct a new home 'V. on the property as well as a conditional use permit due to the grading proposed to create vralk-outs on the front and the back of the home. Curtis stated the applicant has not changed^the plans i^pect to the walkouts but has reworked the site grading in an attempt to satisfy t^City Engineer ’s comments. The applicant has indicated that the engineered plans for the retaining trails'exceeding four feet in height will be submitted with the building .i' ’ • ' ■ permit application per the City Biginew ’s recommendation. In addition, the applicant has indicated to Staff that tte wQiKient property owners support the application and are willing to allow a temporary consmMkm easenrient in order for the applicant to construct the retaining walls, some of which are y. * ' ^ iIpMlCid ^e feet from the propi^nfy liite ^Ianii'ini^foi£rStaff recommends approval of the lot width variance. The appli^ ii ^bposing to exj^ approximately 5,400 cubic yards of fill from the site, which is the equivalent of api^^hnatety iOO to 550 truckloads of material to be hauled off of the site. Curtis stated die existing home on &0. lot does have a walkout design and another walkout home could potentially be 'W constructed on the lot. Staff feels, however, that the current plan could be the result of forcing two walkouts and contrived site grading on the property inconsistent with the immediate neighboitood. If the Planning Commission feels that the grading as proposed is appropriate for the site and the adjacent neighborhood and the site is suitable for a home with a walkout basement on the front and rear, then the MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. conditional use permit should be granted. However, should the Planning Commission find that the site grading is too extreme, creating a contrived walkout that will be out of character with the neighborhood and will have a negative impact on neighboring properties, the proposed plan should be denied. If the Planning Commission finds that the grading plan is suitable and recommends approval. Staff would recommend that the retaining wall engineered plans be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit and the temporary construction easements be submitted prior to Council review. Rahn inquired whether the elevations have changed since the last meeting. Curtis stated the elevations did not change. I’-*’ Broitzman indicated the elevations did change to make it appear to be a lookout. Broitzman indicated he included a retaining wall across the front of the house/flroiteman stated the drainage has been worked out to comply with the City Engineer's recortimendatidn^. jtV; ""WRahn inquired how far the retaining wall is fiom the lake view. > Broitzman stated the deck aiidyraU are 14 feet away. Broitzman indicated he did calculate the difference . in capacity for a lookoutversus a walkout and tiut the difference amounts to 174 yards. ^^^***? elevatioo ie difle^t from the last proposal. Rahn stated whenever fill is being imported X* ^expt^, the comments of the City Engineer need to be relied upon by the Planning Commission. BroitznUUltated the amount of fill being proposed has been reduced by approximately 1,900 square yards. Rahn inquired whether thrieaipbraiy easements have been worked out Broitzman stated one naigjiiter was present earlier tonight who is in support of the proposal, and that the other neighbor is also in agreement with it Broitzman indicated he does have a letter from both neighbors indicating their support and that he will be hiring an attorney to work on the paperwork for the easements. Rahn opened the public haring. MINITTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moadiy, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. There were no comments relating to this application. Jurgens stated in his view this is an immense amount of dirt being hauled into this property for one house. which just does not make sense. i' • Fritzler stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Jurgeni and tfmt typically most people try to match ^ ‘ - ! the contour of the property when they construct a residence and hot move massive amounts of dirt to create a walkout. Fritzler stated he does not see anything in this application to ju.^’iy that amount of fill to be moved and that he is opposed to the proposal. Winkey stated he is fine with the application given the changes made by me applicant. Broitzman stated the difference between a w^kout and a lookout is 174 yards, which is minimal. / . n-- ■!Broitzman stated the lot is approximately tiivo adres in si», and suggested that the amount of fill be taken • ^ . 4 - into consideration with the size of the lot Bremer stated she does like the changes the applicant has made and that in her view the residence is set /- back fir enough from the rodd hot to have a major visual impact Bremer indicated she does not have an issue with it iince the neighbors are fine widi the proposal. Bremer stated she would prefer access to this/ * 'e,. »i*.pfoperty be off of Heritige. IMhh inquired whether the beseni^elevation was lowered. ''••V A he is not remov^mg any dirt in that area. Jurgens'in^tuibd if the area off die garage is eliminated, how much fill would be required. Jurgens stated ‘h: .. j /•in his opinion the epplicaiif is hot working with the natural features of the land and that he does not understand the rationale^ the amount of fill being moved. Jurgens stated there is a reason why the City has a SOO cubic 3mrd limit on the amount of fill that can be hauled onto a site and that this application goes way beyond that and that he does not see a mson why the conditional use permit should be granted. Rahn stated the revised plan is an improvement over what was previously submitted. J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. Bremer moved, Wlnkcy leconded, to recommend approval of Application M5-3136, Troy Broitiman, 1860 Shoreline Drive, grantiag of a lot width variance and a conditional nee permit to allow grading in exccn of500 cable yards, enbject to the retaining whil being engineered prior to the application appearing before the City ConncIL VOTE: Ayt$ 3, Nays 4; Opposed Jurgens, Leslie, Fritaler. Kempt MOTION FAILED. '&■ • Jaigens moved, Leslie seconded, on AppUcation #05^136, Troy Broltzmaa, I860 ShoieUne Drive, to recommend approval of a lot width variance in order to construct a new home on the property, but to recommend denial of a conditional use pen^ to allow for grading in cxcesr of500 cubic yards la order to ermte walkouts on the flroit ud r^ of the home. V'! iv>'’■yV . .1- : » . w mi :L GREGORY COWARD September 23,2005 Orono City Council 2750 Kelley Paricway Orono. MN 55356 Subject: 1860 Shoreline Drive To Members of the Council: We have lived at 1950 Heritage Drive since 1976. Over the years we have added improvements to our home and land. These improvements have included the planting of trees to enhance the green space and sense of privacy that attracted us in the first place to Orono and in p^icular to the Fox Hill neighboriuxxl. Many of these land improvements were done as joint projects with our immediate neighbors. Over the years a majority of all of our neighbors have also made similar improvements, making such improvements the rule rather than the exception. And as you l^w, the Fox Hill Association maintains considerable green space as well as a large pond. The Council is now being asked to approve the development of 1860 Shoreline Drive. Our property and this one share approxinuitely 680 feet of common boundary, running from the lakeshore to Heritage Drive. We can not support the proposed plan and we urge the Council to deny both the requested lot width variance and the CUP. 1. Size of project, size of land: The 1860 property, at 1.9 acres before deduction for a wetlands area in the NW comer, starts out as substandard in size. The proposed building, with driveway, parking area, two or more patios, etc., represents by any calculation a huge development, certainly ranking it as one of the largest in the City if it were to be approved. It seems entirely inappropriate to put this project on this land, and especially inappropriate to make a series of accommodations in order to make it fit. 2. Lot width: At 133 feet, this land requires a variance. Shouldn’t that mean an even greater sensitivity to the width and size of the proposed project? Shouldn’t there be an even stronger duty to ensure that a particular development does not violate either the letter or the overall intent of setback rules and regulations? ► Regarding our own property, as Staff points out in two reports to the Planning Commission, “The proposed 500’ driveway is 5’ from the south line leaving no place for visual screening of the 145’ length of the house.” In other words, there can be no effective screening on the 1860 property to protect 1950. 1950 Heritage Drive • Weyata, MN 55391 (952) 4764M39 • Bus: (612) 384-8990 wgc@bitsbeam.net > This of course has the effect of shifting 100% of the burden of any screening on to 1950. In other words, in granting a variance, the Council would convert one kind of hardship imposed on 1860 into another kind imposed on 1950. > But can 1950 be shielded? In addition to width, the proposed project maximizes, at 30 ’, height as well. How do you shield that? There does not appear to be shielding at any price. Even worse, the grade where the 30 ’ measurement is made is 4 or 5 feet above the highest grade of our home at 1950, rendering the actual height from our perspective to be 34 or 35’. Unfortunately, the 8, mature, 40’(?) foot pine trees, on the property line, precisely where a visual shield would have been effective to shield us ^m the proposed project’s height, have now been cut down. 3. CUP: There is no other way to put it - this proposal calls for the removal of ode hellava-lot>of land. Some of this is to acconunodate the sheer size of the proposed building, and some of it to accommodate drainage problems created by all the other changes to the land. The bottom line is this: there is simply no way that Ac removal of 500 or more truck loads of earth will not significantly change Ae topography of this lakeshore property, Ae land contours that flow across Ae contiguous adjacent properties, and Ae vary ’look ’ of this lakeshore land area, proper water drainage notwithstanding. > Staff posed the question: Is this grading unnatural and contrived? Of course it is. 4. Nature of Ac proposal: In addition to scale, the proposed building and changes to the land are simply not in keeping wiA our greater neighboAood. Cantilevered cement slab terraces, over-scaled everything, clear cutting all or nearly all of Ae trees on Ac property, none of Aese things are compatible. The whole concept and look to the project is commercial. Note that, m siqiport of this comment, at one time the proposal included a remote parking lot to be constructed on Heritage Drive. People can have different opinions on Aese matters. However, who can argue that this proposal will enhance the value of any property in the neighboAood? On the contrary, who can argue that it won ’t negatively and significantly harm value? Surely this is ultimately Ae fundamental reason we have zoning, master plans, planning commissions, and city councils. It is a question that the Council can and should consider. Are there objective questions that can be asked and answered on these matters? We believe there are: 1. Do neighbors want or not want Ais project to be approved? 2. Do neighbors believe or not believe that the project will be a good addition to Ae neighborhood - and enhance the value of their properties? n 3. Do real estate experts believe that value of neighboring properties will be improved or not improved by the proposed project? 4. Do real estate experts believe that the proposed project would be competitive property on the Lake - the ultinutfe test of whether the concept, scale, look, construction, choice of materials, landscaping atxl price is compatible with the neighborixxxl and Orono? (Note: the total investment required for this proposal must be north of $3,850,00: Purchase price $940,000, $50,000 teardown, 19,0(X s.fx$150/it). We ^preciate the Council ’s active consideration of these issues. t’’ t September 22,2005 Orono City Council City of Orono 2750 Kelley Paricway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Proposed Development 1860 Shoreline Drive Developer: T. R. Broitzman Dear Council Members: We are residents of Orono in and immediately adjacent to a neighborhood known as Fox Hill (Heritage Lane, Heritage Drive, and properties south of the subject property on Shoreline Drive). We are writing to express our concern that this development, if approved, will negatively impact our property values, the diaracter of our immediate neighborhood, and the general character and “look” of Lake Minnetonka shoreline property on Smith's Bay. We understand that, as proposed, this development requires approval of (1) a lot width variance to acconunodate an actual width of 133’ vs. the normally required 200’ and (2) a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) to accommodate the excavation and removal of approximately 5,400 cubic y^ (500-550 truck loads) of land from the site. We also understand that at their September 19 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4/3 to approve the lot width variance but deny the CUP. The Council is now being asked to approve the proposed development. The prt^sed development is for a three story, 19,000 s.f. building with 5,000 s.f. of paridng area, 11,800 s.f. of driveway, and more than 233 ft of retaining wall. Over 19 large pines extending from the lake and along the south property line have already been removed. We understand that bids are out to remove an additional 40 trees, essentially leaving few if any trees on the property. While no doubt various individual nei^bors, especially those inunediately adjacent to the proposed development, will have additional concerns, our consensus concern is as follows: li^rtiaiia ^11 i I I Taken as a whole, this development is out of character with our neighborhood as well as the expected look and feel of the Lake Minnetonka lakeshore. Consider: Thw is a veiy large development, maximized to the lullest extent in height and width, on an undersized lot (1.9 acres). It requires extensive excavation, the remedial reHX>ntouring of the existing natural land flow, the removal of all or nearly all of the trees on the property, and the construction of extensive retaining walls. The end result will be a building and surrounds which in design, materials, and construction technique are commercial in nature and appearance. For the Planning Commission’s meeting on September 19, Orono staff recommended that the “...proposed pla n should be denied... lifl the Commiqsinn findlsl that the site arading is too ex treme, creatine a contrived walk-nut that will feff 9f SbwiOter with the neighborhood and will have a negative impact on the neighborhood properties.. We Mieve that under any definition the proposed building, excavation and grading are extrein^ contrived, and out of character with the neighborhood and we urge that the Council deny both the variance and the CUP. Our position is not to deny the right to build on a buildable lot, but rather that new construction and changes to tiie land there on should reflect the character of the neighboriiood, enhan ce rather than diminish property values, and generally conform to the overall objectives and values envisioned for development in Orooo’s. /for Pr iJimL i,. [I ■ i1 Taken as a whole, this development is out of character with our neighborhood as well as the expected look and feel of the Lake Minnetonka lakeshore. Ci^ider: This is a very large development, maximized to the fullest extent in height and width, on an undersized lot (1.9 acres). It requires extensive excavation, the remedial re-contouring of the existing natural land flow, the removal of all or **** property, and the construction of extensive retaining w^. The end result will be a building and surrounds which in design, materials, and construction technique are commercial in nature and appearance. For the Plannmg Commission's meeting on September 19, Orono staff ^ j««ProPOSed plan should be denied...fifl the CommlMion jMfflSI that the site a^iny is too extreme, creating a contrived wall^.nut that ufiji 9f Chanctcr with tiie neighborhood and will have a neaative imnact nn th*. neighborhood properties.. ^ We teUeve that under any definition the proposed building, excavation and grading are extreme, contrived, and out of character with the neighborhood and we urge that the Council deny both the variance and the CUP. Our position is not to deny the right to build on a buildable lot, but rather that new construction and changes to the land there on should reflect the character of the neighborhood, enhance rather than diminish property values, and generally w^m to the overall objectives and values envisioned for development in jincerelv // /iMtScAj Taken as a whole, this development is out of character with our neighborhood as well as the expected look and feel of the Lake Minnetonka lakeshore. Consider: This is a very large development, maximized to the fullest extent in height and width, on an undersized lot (1.9 acres). It requires extensive excavation, the remedial re-contouring of the existing natural land flow, the removal of all or nearly all of the trees on the property, and the construction of extensive retaining walls. The end result will be a building and surrounds which in design, materi als , and construction technique are conunercial in nature and appearance. For the Planning Commission’s meeting on September 19, Orono staff recommended that the “...proposed plan should be denied...fifl the Conunission findlsl tha t the site grading is too extreme, creating a contrived walk-out that will be out of character with the neiidiborhood and will have a negative impact on the neighboriiood properties.. .**. We believe that under any definition the proposed building, excavation and gradmg are extreme, contrived, and out of character with the neighborhood and we urge that the Council deny both the variance and the CUP. Our position is not to deny the right to build on a buildable lot, but rather that new construction and changes to the land there on should reflect the character of the neighborhood, enhance rather than diminish prq>erty values, and generally conform to the overall objectives and values envisioned for development in Orono’s. Sincerely, -S tarn* H rr* "cnr //^ (Jj'hj'.taaf. Aci- t>Jr:---------- * r r ( I I t-A /k n . III I ------- ^uss^yisi^ ' ki Ho yo Uo (io /yo 153 r<& <"it tS Nit nsuno C4!x><^s.-6^crioto /^ - A^ .« ■ “iir . • 'V;? "t. r ^ *■ ^ fe ' 5. >Jf-.It, r-fc. 1 • r 4-’'-tit '■ '..-It* ..^.; ;■' ■ r M 1 f r '•r-V -f '> ' i - ki' F-'/f r* ^ *^=1^ >i : •'■ ' S ■•>‘#;.-• '’J- ■- / t' tt0T. W*t*- _____^S^tS^LFif*!*'____ L _ _ I -4 I r I I I r f* wo -Jo ^ <|0 T I I I |»tf |IO IJ.0 1)6 /yo /^ CJO -<|de> ‘Jto -4r» *' ^yo 1*0 Nst \iun\o d^toss • secrr<?A3 6 - ft' -;■ «. • # ■rf-r ■■» ' •’■ 0 s • N: . •^:V ) L' n i'. ^Wl '»• - i^^• - nyo • <to - iv» - 15* r ' c >,v»|il- -J l< ,•*'..X. •■ ,x' V x'V i~ -<^•0 -I-?® -1*0 -iro -1V0 f r %o “T“ ^0 "I “"f }> kf> 10 “1--------1--------r- ^ HO 1*0 nr llo n-----1-----r- n» I Jo lyo n-----1------r- fj^ /4P 17^ 1------r to rfo roo Nit-hUdlcy ',2.0 fit <J1 C-ti^iS-cecno/^ C-CJ '■/V',. - ■.■■Jri • ■^v ■••.-' ' ' ■. ,*’ , . ■ •« k ‘' \ .:■' ■ I ■■ ■"'' ‘J ■ :' '■ ■"*■■ ■ hr- t..- ; ■ ,. •■■ ^. ■ -■ • ,-y j - ^ V *,5. ». -■;• .' :•■ / ■ ' '.-H ... • ■:-■ •■ ' 1,:•• •. .i '■■'5 ; . ■■ ■ . . Miik.i <i i ir^aif^^iiii ^■ Kfti«afni m iMTiark----- --^aa r/, ■ •=:■ ••;■ •. .r- ■ ■’-■■ •■ ■ ■ ■ r V ..'i-'■ ■ v;-;. r. . •■ ... ■;■ . r.; r '•f'; iii..SsU^i-A fTIHnE, JM.IM L '^ .:\ - Jq • -o •Vw I ! ■'/ .■.. ' I*:A : P . i. Ip^ ^ Of^ b-b^ :* ■ '\:t ...•: *. - ■• yj ■% ■■ ■‘•'icr;; V, -.',1 Taken as a whole, this development is out of character with our neighborhood as well as the expected look and feel of the Lake Minnetonka lakeshore. Consider: This is a very large development, maximized to the fullest extent in height and width, on an undersized lot (1.9 acres). It requires extensive excavation, the remedial re-contouring of the existing natural land flow, the removal of all or nearly all of the trees on the property, and the construction of extensive retaining walls. The end result will be a building and surrounds which in design, materials, and construction technique are commercial in nature and appearance. For the Planning Commission’s meeting on September 19, Orono staff recommended that the . .proposed plan should be denied...fifl the Commission findfsl that the site arading is too extreme, creatine a contrived walk-out that will be out of charact er with the neighborhood and will have a negative impact on the neighborhood properties...”. We believe that under any definition the proposed building, excavation and grading are extreme, contrived, and out of character with the neighborhood and we urge that the Council deny both the variance and the CUP. Our position is not to deny the right to build on a buildable lot, but rather that new construction and changes to the land there on should reflect the character of the neighborhood, enhance rather than diminish property values, and gerierally conform to the overall objectives and values envisioned for development in Orono. Sincerely, m \/t\ Taken as a whole, this development is out of character with our neighborhood as well as the ejq>ected look and feel of the Lake Minnetonka lakeshore. Consider: This is a very large development, maximized to the fullest extent in height and width, on an undersized lot (1.9 acres). It requires extensive excavation, the remedial re-contouring of the existing natural land flow, the removal of all or nearly all of the trees on the property, and the construction of extensive retaining walls. The end result will be a building and surrounds which in design, materials, and construction technique are commercial in nature and appearance. For the Planning Commission’s meeting on September 19, Orono staff recommended flat the . .proposed plan should be denied.. fifl the r‘ommi««inn fipdfal that the site gi^mg is too extreme, creating a contrived walk-nut tt^at wj){ he put qf character with die neighborhood and will have a neijuitive impact on the neighborhood nronerties as We Mieve that under any definition the proposed building, excavation and grading are extreme, contrived, and out of character with the neighborhood and we urge that the Council deny both the variance and the CUP. Our position is not to deny the right to build on a buildable lot, but rather that new construction and changes to the land there on should reflect the character of the neighborhood, enhance rather than diminish property values, and generally conform to the overall objectives and values envisioned for development in Orono’s. Sincerely, * > / ^(^0 c- CiaJ hMrn \ Page 1 of 1 Mtlani* Curtis From: Morris Nelson (nelsonQnavegare.com] Sent: Friday, September 23,200511:04 PM To: lltt McMillan*; 'Barbara Peterson*; 'Bob Sansevere*; *Jim White* Cc: Melanie Curtis 8ub)eet: 05-3136 Broitzman, 1860 ShoreUne Drive CouncH Members, You are being asked to consider a variance and CUP to remove 5000 cubic yards of earth to facilitate building this stnjclure. The attached letter addresses my concerns about the project as defined. I apoloaize that I am unable to attend the council meeting to express my vievw in person. I will be out of the country. If you have any questions, please doni hesitate to contact me. Email will be best, or leave a message on my mobile number Mr. Murphy via. letter. Sincerely, Morris Nelson 1900 Shoreline Drive alS^^tlWlTT^: ^6lV392.2122 / M: 612.968.1598 / CN +86 131 2883 3411 natoon^navegare.com MSN mormeM^man.com M^mtgarwStona www.naveoaTe8tone.CQm US-China Business Connections www.t»gbqi9lflq mm No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by A VO Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Duabase: 267.11.5/110 - Release Date: 9/22/2005 1. • • • mm, 0 m .■ZT-rs*'- --c r Morris & Jackie Nelson 1900 Shoreline Drivj Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 September 23,2005 City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway, PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: 05-3136 Broitanan, I860 Shoreline Drive Members of the Council: My family and I have lived at 1900 Shoreline Drive for nearly 20 years. Orono is a very nice place to live. We have made many improvements to our home throughout the years. We have been improving a 101 year old house that could easily have been a “tear-down", We have improved the property by adding well over 100 trees and doing everything possible to save the mature ones from the forces of nature. We are very proud to live here. You are being asked to consider a Conditional Use Permit and variance for a structure so far out of character of the community by someone who plans to live in it for no more than two years, try to sell it, move on and do this all over again someplace else. I urge you to deny the variance and Conditional Use Permit. The current design, if built will cause undue hardship and have negative impact on our property as well as the City of Orono in general. The proposed CUP allows for over 5,000 cubic yards land to be removed to accommodate this development. Mr. Broitzman told me 1,600 yards were going to be removed. Still an excessive amount. More importantly, what other story did he tell me? When 1 try to visualize what 5,000 cubic-yard hole looks like, the name Crater Lake pups into my mind. My wife and I were devastated to sec beautiful trees - many of which were 40-60 years and older cut down to accommodate this proposed hole. I see that the clear-cutting has begun in the back yard as well. The design calls for nearly a dozen patio doors facing the lake and our property, with a deck extending 6 feet from the third floor and e.xtending 14 feet from the second floor. The structure may be designed within height limits by code for a residence, but once 5,000 cubic yards of land is removed it will be nearly 50 feet tall. Trees just don’t grow fut enough to hide this kind of eyesore. We would see a big box with flippers out our window. iJ Would you be happy with something like this next door to you? I don ’t think we are being unreasonable. There are many house designs in our community that I would love built in place of this structure. I will be out of the country on the date of the council meeting. I apologize I cannot express my concerns in person to the council. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, k ■ - --.jV / MiM !^. r,# Tw r r."' . I = .. WV/Ol ,-7 r- . ;•• . v: I1 i Message Page 1 of 1 Melanie Curtis From: charriorf^arrierOwortdnetattnet] Sant: Sunday, Saptember 25,2005 5:10 PM To: Melania Curtis 8ub|act: 1S60 Shoreline Drive Dear Ms. Curtis: We are submitting this email to be added to the neighborhood objection regarding the proposed development of the property at 1860 Shoreline Drive in Orono. We would liKe to express the. we fully comprehend that Mr. Broltzman, developer of 1860 Shoreline Drive, has the right to create a viable and reasonable property for sale, within Orono regulations. With the proposed variances, sheer scale and commercial style of the development, however, we now believe it to be neither viable or reasonable for the existing neighbortK>od per the specific plans brought to our attention by members of the neighborhood. The details of this proposed development and variances have been outlined in the missives previously su'jmitted to you by the neighborhood. Our interests are personal, as we purchased our (adjacent) property at 1910 Heritage Drive three years ago as a long-term residence and investment as well as a more private location to raise our children. Prior to this summer, we were mostly unable to see the cars along the extremely busy Shoreline Drive. The cutting of all old-growth trees in the front of the 1860 property has exposed us on the south side considerably already. We are now concerned that with the proposed razing of oven more trees in the back of the lot and the gargantuan building proposed on less than a two-acre lot, privacy will be diminished substantially. Even any additional tree cover planted along the border separating our properties would be unable to grow sufficiently In the dark shadow of a what would essentially be a wall next to our house and a length of our driveway. Again, we do not deny the right of Mr. Broitzman to develop 1860 Shoreline Drive but we do object to what appears to be a serious "over-developmenr of the property. Most Sincerely, Stephen and Jenni Charrier ijchofrtefOwondnet.otinet GREGORY COWARD September 23,2005 1. SMinuteft 2. Conditiomil Use Permit - whole community issue > Discussion by reference • Significant amount of land to be removed • Permanent alternation to land formation & appearance of Lakeshore on Smith's Bay • Solutions to drainage problems (e.g., concrete swales) created by extensive new hardcover and excavation further transform land - urban look • Question posed by Planning Department (8/9/05): is the site grading too extreme...iumatmrml omd contrived,..ont of ckorocter with the ne^kborhood - will it kove a negative Impact on neigkboring propertiesT i.i 3. Lot-Width Variance - impact on adjacent properties > Large scale development on substandard lot: • Sixe -1.9 acres • Width - 133* vs. 200* (50% of actual short of standard) • Building at least 6 Jx current structure in sq.ll. perhaps 14x volume. . Similar increases in othi«»' rdcover . Building b three, tail . ^ high. Add 4-5* from Coward persp< - Height is maximiz^ . roperty - using highest current landt 1930 HcriOUe Drive • WayzUt. V.N 55391 (952)476-0439 • But: (612) 384-8990 wgc@bitsireain.Mi No shielding available to adjacent properties: - Coward : over 145* of common boundary where hardcover (parking lot & drive) is 5* from property line. Critical, mature pines already removed. Even if land available, no replacement is possible in lifetime. • Charrier : while 31* of set back is available for natural screening along 145* building, daylong, deep shade will prevent growth of all plant materials capable of screening. 4. Average Set-back • Proposed parking lot and retaining wall, 5* from Coward property line, creates a paved expanse higher than an average person *s height. • Remaining large tree screening at back and Charrier side to be removed. Extra duty/sensitivity to impact on adjacent properties - spirit & intent of set-back rules > Coward home forces a set-back which maximizes visual and noise impact on both Charriers & Cowards. > As a practical matter, land contours prevent Cowards from seeing any of the lake otherwise visible. Even existing home is behind Coward line-of-sight to Lake. 1 jaccnt properties: immon boundary ng lot & drive) is 5* kal, mature pines if land available, no in lifetime. (t back u available for 145* building, I prevent growth of all of screening. taming wall, 5* from es a paved expanse Mi*s height. ing at back and ct on adjacent set-back rules Exhibit > • - - ' X * - I- 7 ■ 4. Tkh. ^ #4 /> C- M VA 7 /> ■■ V.'-' * /i tt KE; ■.■y- •■ \ iir-^V ^ i4'K' -'-i kh maximizes visual IA Cowards. I prevent Cowards le visible. Even e-of-sight to Lake. ' V I860 Shoreline Drive : 'V J jgrojegjM^^ N < Overview Map !-■-■ r.. :s V W:t'.- '^M ’Tir'“ . :jl|i| • f ?5rjs S£i«. »•> ndiSPl^ cf IkC^ ^ ?sr*<>.s^ «**•' r/T p*0^ Date Applkatioa Received: 7-2tM)S Date Applkaikm CoaeMered at Co>apleie: 9*7-05 60-Day Review Period fcipires: 11-6-05 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MSTINO SEP 262m GnYOFORONO Dale: September 21,2005 Item No. Dcparlmeot Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ TMc: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: 05-3145, ICO Landscape, LLC on behalf of Robert & Vicky Nelson, 679 Minnetonka Highlands Lane, Conditional Use Permit/Hardcover Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre min.) 1.00 acres (43,631 s.f.) 154’ @ shoreline; 151’ @ 75’ setback List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Reconunendation B-PC Action Notice dated 9-21-05 C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 9-15-05 AppUcMUon Summary: Applicant requests the following in order to replace existing timber retaining walls with keystone within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka: 1. Conditional use permit to allow land alterations consisting of retaining wall replacement within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. 2. Hardcover variance for the 0-75 ’ zone to permit 7.7% hardcover where 0% is normally allowed and 14.5% currently exists. PlaRRfaii CommissioR Recommeadation The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to approve the requested conditional use permit and hardcover variance subject to the hardcover removals proposed and the City Engineer recommendations noted in his letter dated September 12,2005. Stall Rccommcndathm Approval per the .'''^ached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the atoKhed Resolution granting a conditional use permit and hardcover variance for 679 Minnetonka Highlands Lane. H Lot 4, Block 2, Minnetonka Highlands EsUttes, Hennepin County, Minnesota *^^1111111^ (hereinafter the “property**); and A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INCLUDING A HARDCOVER VARIANCE PER MUNICIPAL 'ZONING CODE SECTIONS 7S-966 (A) (3) AND 78-1288 (A) FILE NO. 05-3145 WHEREAS, Robert P. Nelson and Vicky A. Nelson, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants**) are the owners of the property located at 679 Miimetonka Highlands Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City**) and legally described as follows: WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit including a 0-7S* hardcover variance per Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-966 (A) and 78-1288 (A) to allow replacement of existing timber retaining walls with keystone walls, all within 75* of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, constituting 7.7% hardcover vdiere 0% is normally allowed and 14.5% currently exists. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: nNDlNGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File 05-3145. The property is located in the LR - IB Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 1.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 140’ at the shoreline and at the 75* lake setback. The Planning Conunission reviewed ftiis application at a public bearing held on September 19,2005 and recommend^ approval of the conditional use pomit and hardcover variance based on the following findings: Page I of 5 1 4. 5. a The existing walls were approved as part of an after-the-fact conditional use permit review in 1983. b. The existing timber walls are deteriorating and in need of repair. c. All existing unnecessary walls within 75’ of the lake are being eliminated as part of this replacement plan. d. The existing deck, associated staircase, and fire-pit partly within the 0- 75* zone and 75’-250* zone are being removed. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit and variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the conditional use permit and variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ^ning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit including a 0-75’ hardcover variance per Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-966 (A) and 78-1288 (A) to allow replacement of existing timber retaining walls with keystone walls, all within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, constituting 7.7% hardcom where 0% is normally allowed and 14.5% currently exists, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of5 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning ^mmission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone shall not increase above the level of 838 s.f. or 7.7% as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of all existing/approved hardcover on the property shall require City approval, and increases in ha^cover will not likely be approved without concurrent r^uction in existing hardcover. 3. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover siufaces. 4. City Engineer recommendations regarding erosion and sediment control measures, contained in the Planning repon as Exhibit F, must be followed at all times during the course of construction. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the conditional use permit and variance will expire on that date (September 26, 2006). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned iq)plicant8 have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants* heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of5 ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of ^ 200S by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. m ■ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of __2005 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota muiucipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page4of5 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of, by Robert P. Nelson, husband of Vicky A. Nelson. .2005 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Vicky A. Nelson, wife of Robert P. Nelson. day of ^2005 Notary Public ir'Z ;'■•V-< ViV-- •“ . ^ . t*K - .-i ; “--.Jr;; leSofS oL. 11- & mm --------------*-l i?i •■r iiiL I M '"•/■"'X. ^-'i' - lUHTIWi fUri- ivn CALCULATIOra (dtt ftlwIiHoBi tir tfw 7S'-2M* ii btttd oa dM 1913 tpprovii is no hviiooifw ^aim to dM ■nradoMlid ^ City stiff) iUricovcr Zmc TolilAftttaZMC Alowcd Hardcover CliiliQg Hardcover frepoMd Hardcover 0-75 l(U75t.e OLf (OH) 1,591.5 If* (14.5H) t3li.C (7.7H) 75 - 250 24.150 f.r. • 6JI3s.f;1,952 tX* Eliminrton of Liki Side Deck--370 s.f. (25H)(3dH)1,612 ef (35H) 250-500 -7.906 s.f.2J7l.ls.r. (30H) •410 s.f* (7.7H)NoChn^e •AdnrcinlMrinniiftyifi^iiliMifrtinid litKhcint tMdi J CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE: 05-3145 27S0 Kelley Pirkway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Cryitil Boy, MN 55323 (W2) ................................ NOTICE; September 21,2005 TO; ICO Landscape, LLC COPIES; Robert & Vicky Nelson Attn: JD 679 Minnetonka Highlands Lane 1211026*” Avenue N Long Lake, MN 55356 Plymouth, MN 55441 ................... DATE OF MEETING; September 19,2005 naoataig Comnissioi recommeaded as follows; To approve the request in accordance with the staff recommendation and the recommendations of the City Engineer letto’ dated Sq>tember 12, 2005, previously mailed to you. VOTE; 7 FOD 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is coefinned as: .........5??-?*""** ” Monday, September 26,2005; meetlig starts at 7;00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, Ihcy ■re available fiom the City Recordo* after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. p’ L •■v^t Vc- j . m3:' Vt*: i N05-3US September 19,2009 Page 1 of 4 Date AppIkatioR Received: 7>2(M)5 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9-7-05 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 11-6-05 To: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Oundlach, City Planner^ Date: September IS, 2005 Snbjcct: 05-3145, ICO Landscaping on behalf of Robert & Vicky Nelson, 679 Minnetonka Highlands Lane - Conditional Use Permit for 0-75’ Retaining Wails - Public Hearing Zoniag District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1B, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre min.) 1.00 acres (43,631 s.f.) 154’ @ shoreline; 151’ @ 75’ setback An>tleatk>m Summary: Applicant requests the following in order to replace existing timber retaining walls with keystone within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka: 1. Conditional use permit to allow land alterations consisting of retaining wall replacement within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. 2. Hardcover variance for the 0-75’ zone to permit 7.7% hardcover where 0% is _____normally allowed and 14.5% currently exists.__________________________ St^ff RecommendatioH: Staff recommends approval per the City Engineer recommendations noted in the letter dated September 12,2005 and attached to this report as Exhibit D, aiKl also in accordance with the hardcover removals the applicant has proposed. ______________________________________________________ PertincBt ZoRiag OrdfauiBcc Sectioiis Sec. 78-966. Prohibition, (a) It is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by the council: (3) Build, alter or repair any seawall or retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property. List of Exhibito Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Survey Exhibit C - Proposed Replacement Plan Exhibit D - ProfX)sed Re-vegetation Plan Exhibit E - Hardcover Calculation Worksheet: 0-75’ Zone Exhibit F - City Engineer Comments Exhibit O - Photographs Exhibit H - Aerial Photograph of Property Exhibit I - Property Owner’s List Exhibit J-Plat Map i- V #05-3145 Scptcmbtr 19,2005 f>|c 2 of 4 Background Starting in 1981 a previous owner installed a number of retaining walls without first obtaining a conditional use permit This previous owner was required to go through the after-the>fact permit process and ultimately obtained approval for the retaining walls constructed within 75* of the lake in 1983. The current owner has now expressed the need to replace a number of these walls as they are beginning to deteriorate. Staff, the City Engineer, landscaper, and owner have met on site and in the office to discuss to scope of work and determine what is an appropriate plan for replacement of these existing vralls. Conditional Use Permit Analysis The applicant has proposed to replace a number of timber retaining walls within the 0-75* zone with modular block walls on property located at 679 Minnetonka Highlands Lane. Replacement of any retaining wall(s) within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka requires a conditional use permit review. The replacement plan consists of the following (also illustrated in Exhibits C and D): • Rq>laceiiient of the walls nmning parallel to the staircase on the north side of the lalm yard. • Removal of the bottom tier of retaining wall (most lakeward) on the north side of the lake yard • Replacement of the walls running parallel to the staircase on the south side of the lake yard. • Removal of the large deck and staircase and seed/fiber-blanket that area. • Replace tlie lowest retaining wall tier (most lakeward) on the south side of the lake yard. • Remove the two sections of retaining wall making up the second tier on the south side of the lake yard and regrade a 3:1 slope down to the most lakeward tier. • All hosta and daylilies will be replanted upon completion of the woric • Removal of two crab apple trees on the north side of the lake yard due to their severe leaning. • Plant three additional crab apple trees on the south side of the lake yard where the slope is being re-grading to 3:1 and the second tier retaining wall is being eliminated. Zoning Ordinance Section 78-1250 of the 2^ning Ordinance establishes evaluation criteria by which all conditional uses within Shoreland areas shall be reviewed against. Those criteria consist of the following: (1) Evaluation criteria. A thorough evaluation of the water body and the topographic, vegetation and soils conditions on the site must be marfe to ensure; a. The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public wate^ both during and after construction; The City Engineer has provided erosion control methods, which the applicant will have to meet in cofyunction with (gtpraval of the i '! ^l M5-3I4S September 19,2005 Pa«e3or4 project, that will prevent erosion and pollution to the lake. b. The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited; The hostas and daylilies currently existing provide screening of the walls as viewed from the lake. The applicant has proposed replanted these plants following completion of the work, which will provide screening of the walls as viewedfrom the lake. c. The site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; and This property is served with public sanitary sewer and contains an existing well. The work proposed will not impact the water supply or sewage treatment. d. The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. Not applicable. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and also met with the applicants on tite and in the office to discuss the propos^ plan. His comments are contained in Exhibit E which state acceptance of the proposal as illustrated in the plans, but is requiring additional erosion control measures taken. Hardcover Calculations (the calculations for the 75*-2S0 ’ is based on the 1983 approval as no hardcover changes to the site have occurred and the 2S0*-S00* zone calculations • I, il Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 10,875 s.f.0 s.f (0%) 1,598.5 s.f* (14.5%) 838 s.f. (7.7%) 75 - 250 24,850 s.f.6,213 s.f. (25%) 8,952 s.f.* (36%) Elimination of Lake Side Deck = -270 s.f. 8,682 s.f. (35%) 250 - 500 -7,906 s.f.2,371.8 s.f. (30%) -610 s.f.* (7.7%)No Change * After exclusion of ftibric or plastic-lined landscape beds As a point of reference, when the hardcover from the 0-75 ’ zone is transferred back to the 75*-2S0 ’ zone, and the percentage is based only on the area of the 7S’-250 ’ zone, the hardcover percentage proposed is 38% with existing at 42.5%. The property is under its allowable hardcover limit in the 250*-500*, placing the total hardcover on the property at 31% (including the 0-75 ’ hardcover but not the 0-75 ’ land area). 1 f k ! ^ W5-3I4S Scpttabcr 19,2005 Page 4 of4 Hardcover Variance Because the top of all retaining walls constitute hardcover, any request for retaining walls within the 0-75* zone requite approval of a hardcover variance. The property received iq>proval of the existing wails in 1983 with this proposal including replacement and elimination of various walls. The proposal includes a reaction of 760.5 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75* zone consisting of elimination of three sections of walls and elimination of a large deck and fire-pit. The applicant is requesting that 7.7% hardcover be permitted where 0% is normally allowed and 14.50% currently exists. It should be noted that replacement of retaining walls outside the 0-75* zone is permitted without a permit (or hardcover review) if the walls are less than 4* in height. Hardship AmIvsIs I* cmMeHng affik&thmftr vaHtmee, Hit Ptaimhig CoamHatha aktU conaUer Hie effect ef the pregeteH mrhmee mpem the heahh, attfety eml we^mre of the eommmahy, extatiag oaH eatkIpateH ttaffk eataHHoaa, U^ht aaH air. Hanger efjlre,riak to Hie pabHcapfety, aaHthe^ectoa vataeaef properly la the aarraaaHlag area. The Plaaalag Coaaaiaalea ahall coaaUer recoaimeaHlag approval far varlaaeaaftam the IMerat pravUoaa of Hie Zoning CoHe la laataneea where their ttrkt ettfhreemeat waalH eaaae aaHae harHahIp hecaaae of drcamataacea aalgae to Hie laHMHaal property aaHer eonaUeraHea, aaH ahaU reeoaaaeaH approval only when It la HemonatrateH that each aeHoaa wlHhela heaping with the a^rh aaH hilait of the Oroao Zoning CoHe. Staff finds that based on the 1983 approval of the walls and the City Engineer qiproval of the replacement plan, the requested conditional use permit should be approved subject to the City Engineer recommendation regarding erosion control. The lake yards topography provides a suitable hardship to allow for the hardcover resulting from the retaining walls. Also, the applicant*s plan attempts to eliminate all unnecessary hardcover within the 0- 75’ zone. Lastly, a review of the proposal against the evaluation criteria listed above and from Section 78-1250 (1) indicates no negative impacts will result with the proposed plan. luMS for CoosIdcnitioB 1. Has die applicant eliminated all unnecessary hardcover within the 0-75* zone? 2. Is adequate screening of the walls being provided? 3. Are thm any other issues or concerns with this ^plication? Staff RccoBMiMidatioa Staff leciMnmetids approval per the City Engineer recommendations noted in the letter dal^ September 12,2(X>5 and attached to this report as Exhibit D, and also in accordance with the hardcover removals the applicant has proposed. r .4 ♦ I id.. CITY OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application# 03 ~ Date Received V//^/<9 ^ Amount Paid ihOO- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ( Type of Application to be Fi edType of Application to be Filed Ci?rht Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Name JCo Li C . Phone (home) Addres s n< Phone(work) C..i City PLO/naati Zip / OWNEI^(if different than applicant) Name "" eit (IT oinerem tnan api Phone (home)________ ______ Phone (work)__ Addres sCTg itirM ffZ6/^^/ftt/g>Citv Date Property Acquired _______________________Zip. I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $600.00 Residential Accessory Use $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $600.00 Land Alteration + Permit ____Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more X Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore T’RD/PID - see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$600.00 Vacation ____$600.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____ $600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) .... $600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals _____ Other - see Fee Schedule #31 s.4^i % REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. •3. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. ^ Certified Property Owners List of owners within(350' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of FinanceL_Gpyernment Center, A-603 300 South 6*^ Street, Minneapolis, telephone o12-348-5910p 7. •Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for ^'survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations Involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. 9. X Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ____As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS AND 1 COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17 “ OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of ail documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been Included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date _____ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pa^dditional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expensesincurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information sudslied is true dnd correct to the best of his/her knowledj Applicant's signature Date /^Ol0 OVyfNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby.adKnowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature ^Date l/itlo .5 Applicaiit must have all submittals Into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I ^5“ 1)/>I ; X City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.*) Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Maying Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 For Office Use Onlv: City Planner i Main; 952-249-4600 Fax: 952-249-4616 Meeting OateTTime; JxJa. tULBrUOdj PC Date; What is Uta purpose of a pra~appUcation meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: . Site Address: 4>79 ahJi tU/JL. Property identification Number (PIN): . Zoning District: lA lh Size of Property: f, Q <» DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: □ Res. Access. Use □ Institutional □ Guest House/Guest Apt □ Duplex Credit/Bldg □ Comm / Indust Use □ PRD / PID {TLand deration , □ Comm Site Plan Review _________________^ 75' of Uke^_______□ Other: ^ MUA updAitJ OTHER INFORMATION «*<*«*- V-' - ’-Sr'* v«:'^ •'*;:■ - ''' ' 1 (SlATtS mmmu akoukram »nmt0mm mm • l«S m fi A tm •> tnm» !• i*a • tt»^ i« R A»«a t0 mtrnrnf R Sl«t «a R Ara* •» ay«i| R AM ia R t«m ammt • un m R Arat 1^ i«t R «»)«♦• iRR (lAi Ul 4^ BM 1 btalAR WI—PR CRuMr. Mmamou TfOl 7JHD AVC Ma WMVN RAAK. MN 9»42t JSrpMl 5f0*30flr*. Imi 9o-»22 ICO LANDSCAPE Vvv- X tnooA/tMAifr «r 160 ’ I,.*' I J\ ' i.4^X •K S50?'S5’17-w/317.55 **V I- i / S / # Wf»vy/- ,,/ //-•-• ' ^ / // / •""*■ /’ll! \ “ '' : P^PIA^ mSTA ,\ ' I I Ha HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' )tVICTINn HARnCOVRR IN ZONE A. House _____________ LenfO) B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk 9m E. Patio/Deck pjr. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ __ _ _ _ _ A _____________ PROPOSED HAR] A. House _ YiRIW«a« Lcfiflh B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patlo/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 0. Other _____ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ X X X X X X X X X X X X B B % % % X X X X X X X X X 75-250’250-500^500-1000’ WidOi + B < < xIOO xlOO Width xIOO - I OH lA I 2-6.51 ^7 i^.<o /0*ql M Wtt 1.1 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A / OR 7 ^ S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % E ji il^ Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk& |\J| Associates Engineers 4 Architects 2335 \We$t Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 Office: 651-636-4600 • Fax: 65I-636-I3II www.boneslroo.coni September 12,2005 Ms. Janice Gundlach Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323 Re: 679 Minnetonka Highlands Lane File No. 000139-05000-0 Plat No. 05-3145 Dear Janice: We have reviewed the sketches provided for the proposed retaining wall improvements at 679 Minnetonka Midlands Lane. The proposed improvements include removal of a series of deteriorating timber retaining walls and replacement of some of these walls with modular block walls. We previously met on site and at city hall with the applicant and his landscape contractor and the sketches provided agree with what we previously discussed and agreed to. The sketches conectly show the complete removal of what we deemed unnecessary walls. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • Erosion and sediment controls must be installed, inspected and approved by the city prior to any woric on site. This would include the installation of two rows of heavy duty silt fence along the length of the shoreline. Steel t-posts should be used to support these rows of silt fence. • The erosion and sediment controls should remain in place until all work is completed and vegetation has been established. • Slopes steeper than 3:1 should be seeded and covered with fiber blanket If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg w Cc: GregO^)pa,CityofOr St. Paul* St. Cloud* Rochester. MN • Milwaukee. • Chicago. It AfflnMMlwt ActisM^t^yal Opptrtiiwity Imployr an# Emplaya* 0«rn«a F i i * ;i^i»i lavfv ^ :i. ■•1 %■ -c"'rwW. ik .*y^V « 'a ■' V . - . ' I \- •A<" ‘-*.*h. • ' X* • ill' r = * ♦ ^ fT»"^:S!»S!-- *Ilf nm Wis f. f ' V *. > •«'.5*- . 4 rT?,T^f'mI ' » , . ? r . V 2^<f ’ ^™T?t li’^ r >;. ' o /> V- «- -• •, •“ V* v^.'Ar • >" L ' V %:? V'"i .-v'f •>^ ;-; U t^' 1% K i-;? ^ m V m^'.Ait>-v^s'. v*t»i of 1?^ s loK Jl^xi i^v.\ww> i-r,‘<* '. . ''41* ■ mi >V';i o‘ /'/ * ar*«> •i < 4?^, k ^ '•’ '?W ^ l**' %' 4#» • i ■^^3ga , *3 ’•: w . . . N ‘ * >k- —^lAr^ ! \ «<* f - SOUTH \ I m'*''tv r ;lr’'V n '■A7 A >1 r*^ - -■ ^i-'- . If rTfUPEjiL^- r^Qs^rlSe8r^'^ •:A . • •! ‘ y V ^ w >1^. vt, . > l>& V'i '7 • •V **M ^ r’--\X • V*^— X , *i* ^ «s ■:V;\;:l$^i ,* > ' •• !, • I %iJi - ^ X\\v • V . * U. \ \•X.! •% "K ^V A -■ "xtv ->.-e: .=e;xm '■--i *• \ ;i -'■ ' J. t V • ' ‘ ■ '*Wl ?V-^ " v<*.< » AK V' i -/• ^ A. * pp *>^ '•i. ■■•• »•■ »’v .::i>;^'. \ ... .. .^k' wm m§; mm m N tf'.^'V . •^. -■ ^^iV'%:: • 'I »* ^ -!«;S(.'J *>ir< .w .%^\ >.•''^' »'f.. ' {ifc.; -’ \A. “It' LK V f J •>> y^ - *v ■ -^,7 V : "■'W ■W' > 2 V, '»«?• 'X ■X \ '•' 14^ t *->- *- V* -<‘ % Sa 9^ ~4. !^-•sr; ^■V ' *■ ‘\ . I 4* . ‘ • ' V*.' i'' • # ii? V •a ''*» ■■■•’. r /- •" - — ' "' w v^ ■• ■ jF?:•? / * '.• • 4. -«A5x" '1 •* V: ; f*’ - „’»'1.» »‘‘v t» ^k Uc'A • '• "- a v5 %-s*^ mZ^>iiiiis!--^ ■ X A ■ 'O O'* !WClf>X'Nh *^vt' ■" ai£'i^- » .' %> A.'A)’ V • /♦'U N J J ^ "•-v’? ■t* ' <.* ^»r'» ^ > * mmm-»V ir • ^ A - •. T:mx^- v^\ :• a <|L ‘ *'»*vN v^ . •■ >-is \ 'yj- •li V ✓ ,«^ :V'^, ■; r* )T^n ¥ s‘ w v«* V. i ;•-• * ;*“ .>sn:^:»tv-;vv r* .■ « •4-^.1 :! ^ V »4 4 . • 4 >“ - * ri •« » 1.Vx C F." ;^r -vVJi-o;■■?/•■>>.•Vi'^ - ,ff;A .V • •» .;w :■ rf -^*uf. il«S»*p!•>-v:.>;. ^. *^* “*: t «^ •• • • I ^. r-'l m ^W U A :. t- • • 4 ♦■AA >y If, •V X . vV •J. •: ■ -: *r '1\^‘ - ^ •• • •' '*♦•*<iV _• V: -^>’ . ••:/•v:vXi. . *••*• *#• *v :>: •I'i. f ;m;.pnf/•• ,; ■ '•. J..-' '* A\ .■ •:>• . ' ‘S-U-'r?^ Wi fmm ■'' f «Jf ' V- ■■ 3..^ fi. ■••>'/. f -*,♦ -4 -> J is«a jjtr^ l*/; ♦ V RUN DATE :7/2I/200S HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 31 0311723330019 PROPADOR 643 TONKAWARO DWNSRNAME TEMPLE ISRAEL OF MINNEAPOLIS TATCPAYBR TEMPLE ISRAEL OP MINNEAPOLIS NAME/AODR 2324 EMERSON AVE S MPLSMN SS40S 3S 0611723440003 PROP AODR 630 MINNETONKA HOLD LA OWNERNAME 3 LBERO*S R BERG TAXPAYER JOHN L BERO A SHARON R BERO NAME/ADDR 630 MINNETONKA HIGHLAND LN LONQLAKEMN 33336 38 0611723440004 PROP ADDR 680 MINNETONKA HOLD LA OWNERNAME C E FLEMING JR A L P FLEMING TAXPAYER CHARLES A LINDA FLEMING JR NAME/ADOR 680 MINNETONKA HIGHLAND LA LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 0611723440003 PROPAODR 649 MINNETONKA HOLD LA OWNERNAME S VSWANTEKAPOSWANTEK TAXPAYER STEPHEN A PATRICIA SWANTEK NAME/AODR 649 MINNETONKA HOLD LA tX)NOLAKEMN 33336 38 0611723440006 PROPAODR 659 MINNETONKAHGLOLA OWNERNAME RHAKLSPBETER TAXPAYER RICHARD H SPEETER NAME/AODR 639 MINNETONKA HOLD LA LONGLAKEMN 33336 38 0611723440007 PROPAODR 669 MINNETONKA HOLD LA OWNERNAME R A HUMPHREY A C R HUMPHREY TAXPAYER ROBERT HUMPHREY NAME/AODR 669 MINNETONKA HIGHLAND LA LONGLAKEMN 33336 3S 0611723440001 PROPAODR 679 MINNETONKA HOLD LA OWNERNAME RAVNELSON TAXPAYER ROBERT P A VICXY A NELSON NAME/AODR 679 MBINETONKA HUHLAND LA LONQLAKEMN 33336 38 0611723440009 PROP AODR 699 MINNETONKA HOLD LA OWNERNAME LAAGAOBAW TAXPAYER LAWRENCE WOAOBAW NAME/AODR 699 MINNETONKA HIGHLAND LANE LONGLAKEMN 33336 38 0611723440010 PROPAODR 709 MINNETONKA HOLD LA OWNERNAME GLENTNEOOERMEYERETAL TAXPAYER GLEN T NEOOERMEYER NAME/ADIMt 709 MINNETONKA HIGHLAND LA LONGLAKEMN 33336 38 0611723440011 PROPAODR 719 MBINETONKAHOLDLA OWNERNAME RCSUNDBERORLM SUNOBERO TAJCPAYER RICHARD CR USA MSUNDBERO NAME/AODR 719 MINNETONKA HOLD LA LONGLAKEMN 33336 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REFREf STATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON T OFTHE HENP iN COUNTY TAXPAYER SEimc^ DEPARTM^ TO XH&B OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. date //w/^ by RECORDS VA Hi'nnc[)in ■. A;.; >•■ ■ ■ • I ^ . • JIf - Hennepin County ‘.\ /■ . . - .3 V Taxpayer Services Department :?,VA ■ J „„ ,,,. , ;KiI^ is 06117234 Nimi MINNITONm *v * •-•i ■■ Thi9f$iHd§9$a^ r$oonMm§p, ^ MtfdflitHMl CNyo Cour^^, iTfK^S^ k Date AppUcation Received: 8-17-05 Date Appllcatioii Considered as Complete: 9-9-05 60-Day Review Period Espires: 11-8-05 COUNCIL MEETING SEP 2 6 2005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO Date: September 21,2005 Itcn No. Department Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach!^ Title: City Planner Adminfotrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Detcrii >n: #05-3150, T i' uwers on behalf of Kevin Grell, 1945 Fagemess Point Road. Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1C, One Family Lakeshcre Residential District ('A acre min.) 0.52 acres (22,564 s.f) 152* @ shoreline; 152’ @ 75* setback List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice dated 9-21-05 C - PC Memo atKl Exhibits of 9-15-05 Af^katioH Summary: Applicant requests the following variance in order to replace a deck on the west side of the home with a smaller deck: 1. Rear yard setback variance to permit a rear yard setback of 13.6* where 30* is normally required and 13.6* currently exists. 2. Hardcover variance to permit 26.3% hardcover within the 75*-250* zone where 25% is normally allowed, 31.7% currently exists, and 28.6% was permitted by variance in 1997. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Conunission voted 7-0 to approve the request as submitted with the stipulation that the shed located in the northwestern comer of the site be removed in conjunction with construction of the proposed deck, and that no stair access be permitted off the rear yard in an effort to prevent a further encroachment. Staff Recommendation Aniroval per the attached Resolution. COUNaL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution granting a rear yard setback and hardcover variance for 1945 Fagemess Point Road. USX.--—----------- T\I ^ * ’ Ti \ \ M A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNiaPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-350 (B) AND 78-1288 (B) FILE NO. 05-3150 WHEREAS, Kevin J. Grell, a single person (hereinafter applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1945 Fagemess Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, FAGERNESS GREEN, including the accretions to said Lot 2 lying between the southerly line of UNDER THE LINDEN AVENUE as shown on the plat of EAGERNESS and the shoreline of Lake Miimetonka and between the southerly extensions of the Easterly and Westerly line of said Lot 2 to said shoreline according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a rear yard setback variance and 75*-250* zone hardcover variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350 (B) and 78-1288 (B) to allow construction of a 14’ x 38* deck 13.6* from the rear property line where 30* is nomudly allowed and 13.6* currently exists and a hardcover variance to permit 26.3% hardcover within the 75*-250* zone where 25% is normally allowed, 31.7% currently exists, and 28.6% was previously approved by a 1997 variance resolution. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS This i^)plication was reviewed as Zoning File 05-3150. The property is located in the LR - 1C Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 'A acre and a minimum lot width of 100* at the shoreline and 75* setback. Page 1 ofS m. V 3. 5. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on September 19, 2005 and recommended approval of the variances based on the following findings: a. The existing home maintains a 13.6’ rear yard setback and the proposed deck would not be located any closer than the existing home. b. The deck will be accessed by an existing door that requires a landing and which already encroaches on the required 30 ’ rear yard setback. c. The findings and conditions of variance resolution #3888 approved in 1997 remain in place and valid, >^ich approved 28.6% hardcover within the 7S ’-2S0 ’ zone. d. City records indicate the deck was permitted and conforming in June of 1981. e. A reduction of 396 s.f. of hardcover within the 7S ’-250’ is proposed which reduces the hardcover beyond the 28.6% approved level in 1997. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staffs comments by the applicant and the public, and tlie effect of the proposed variances on the he^th, safety and welfere of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not iqiply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not Aversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. r Page2ofS m I ^ I \l CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a rear yard setback variance and 7S*-250* zone hardcover variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78>3S0 (B) and 78*1288 (B) to allow construction of a 14* X 38* deck 13.6* from the rear property line where 30* is normally allowed and 13.6’ currently exists and a hardcover variance to permit 26.3% hardcover within the 7S*-2S0* zone where 25% is normally allowed, 31.7% currently exists, and 28.6% was previously approved by a 1997 variance resolution, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover in the 75*250* zone shall be limited to 4,534 s.f. or 26.3% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. ^iplicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the rudure of existing/qiproved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover. 3. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landsoqie beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non*hardcover surfiices. 4. The shed located in the northwest comer of the property must be removed prior to a footing inspection on the proposed deck. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council ai^roval, or the variances will expire on that date (September 26,2006). 6. Violation of or n(m*compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this X. —' ition shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically nate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page3of5 I i A • 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant’s heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the [xoperty. Ad(^)ted by the Orono City Council on the 26"* day of September, 2005. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Ownet(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this_ day of j 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The forcing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of _^ 2005 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN imw This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Kevin J. Orell, a single person. day of Notary Public ^2005 • •;.-. '. ■ IL' : :.■'■■■! i’nni -UMlri fiiifrrui 'Af-r» I I r\ ••//V SflBD it> 6e / ^t/MOVED J N 69°I5 ’30* E ilj ABrI -r / 150.44 ------------, »' Ui r V/>>"^.0 V 81.7 ♦/9</ LINE ^ ^_ R=687.28 .:S^gSPOINT ROAD -------gp* the UM OEN AVENUEl ^ 2'47 A*/2«oo'A7. c-„,=(2®00’42"R*727.28 'fSs ... CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: 05-3150 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION SATEOFNOnCE: September21,2005 TO:Tim Powers 17036 Gray's Bay Blvd Minnetonka, MN SS391 COPIES:Kevin Grell 25233 Eureka Wyoming, MN 55092 TYR OF APHJCATION: Rear Yard Setback & 75'-250* Hardcover Variances DATE OF MEETING: September 19,2005 PlaialBg ConiBisaioa reeoancMicd as follows: To approve a rear yard setbadc of 13.6’ where 30* is normally required and a hardcover variance for 26.3% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed, subject to removal of the shed in the northwest comer of the property. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled ineeting is confirmed as: CHy Council - Monday, September 26,2005; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Plaiming Commission or Council minutes, fiiey are available ftom the City Recorder after review aixl qiproval by the Plaiming Commission or CounciL If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. ■ iik mmmm rr’^. '-I'M4- r •. If' MS-3150 September 19,2005 Page I of4 Date Applkatlon Received: 8-17-05 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9-9-05 60-Day Review Period Eipircs: 11-8^15 To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Gundlach, City Planner September IS, 2005 OS-3150, Hm Powers on behalf of Kevin Grell, 1945 Fagemess Point Road, Rear Yard Setback Variance, Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('A acre min.) 0.52 acres (22,564 s.f) 152’ @ shoreline; 152* @ 75* setback ApplicatioH Summary: Applicant requests the following variance in order to replace a deck on the west side of the home with a smaller deck: 1. Rear yard setback variance to permit a rear yard setback of 13.6’ where 30* is nonnally required and 13.6* currently exists. 2. Hardcover variance to permit 26.3% hardcover within the 75*-250* zone where 25% is normally allowed, 31.7% currently exists, and 28.6% was permitted by variance in 1997. SU^ ReeoamiaHdattom: Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance with the condition dial no stair access be permitted into the rear yard in an effort to eliminate unnecessary further encroachment The Planning Commission should discuss what level of hardcover is appropriate within the 75*-250* zone given the following facts: • A reduction of 225.5 s.f. of deck hardcover could place the property into conformance, still leaving 306.5 s.f. for construction of a replacement deck, • A v’*nance in 1997 permitted 28.6%, and • The proposal results in a net reduction of 396 s.f from the 1997 approval ____ PciHacut Zoulug Ordlwmcc Sections Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shal be observed: Lot Area (acre)Lot Width (feet)Front Yard (feet) Side Yard (fto)Itear YarS (ftat)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) 0.3 100 30 10 30 15 (Code 1984, § 10.25(6); Old. No. 18 3rd series, § 3,9-27-2004) List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Hardship Documentation Form n i I : { 'i - 4 September 19,2005 Past 3 of 4 Lakeshore 75’132’ house 125’ old deck 136’deck Average Lakeshore Shown on Map Conforming Conforming Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 22,564 s.f (0.52 acres)Allowed: 3,385 s.f (15%) Proposed: 2,841 s.f (12.6%) Hardcover Calciilatiom Hardcover Zone 0-75 75 - 250 Total Area in Zone 5,330 s.f. 17,234 s.f. Allowed Hardcover 0s.f (0%) 4,308.5 s.f. (25%) Exuting Hardcover 0 s.f * f0%l 4,085 s.f • (23.70%) w/Old IDeck: 5,460 s.f (31.7%) Proposed Hardcover 0 s.f (0%) 4,534 s.f (26.3%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastiC'lined landscape beds Bear Yard Setback Variance The applicant has proposed to construct a 14* x 38’ (532 s.f) deck on the west side of the home in an effort to replace the 1,375 s.f deck that existed but has since been removed due to safety concerns. Due to the location of a door on the westerly facade of the home, the applicant wishes to construct a deck that will align with the north line (or rear line^ of the existing home. Because the home is setback 13.6’ from the property boundary, a rear yard setback variance is required to locate the proposed deck at the same setback, as 30 ’ is normally required. If the deck were close enough to grade so as not to require a railing (30 ”), Zoning Ordinance Section 78-1405 (3) could allow for a 2’ setback to both the rear and side lot lines. 7S*-2S0* Zone Hardcover Variance In addition to the rear yard setback variance request, a hardcover variance for the 75’- 250 ’ zone is needed tu accommodate the 532 s.f of hardcover associated with the replacement deck. The applicant has already removed the 1,375 s.f. deck and will also be removing the 83 s.f. shed located in the northwestern comer of the property. Following these removals, the requested hardcover percentage remains above 25% at 26.3%, requiring approval of a variance. Hardship StatenMnt Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and diould be asked for -1 M>S-3I50 September 19« 200S Page 4 of4 additional testimony regaiding the application. Hardship Analytb /« comkkrlHg apflkalloH$ for vorionce, the nomlHg CommbsloH shell consider the ^ect of the proposed vorkmce upon the heohh, sefety end welfore ef the conununlty, existing end ontklpnted trejfk conditions, l^hl end ok, denger offke, risk to the pnblk spfety, end the effect on velues of property In the surrounding ereo. The Henning Conunlsshn shell consider recommending epprovel for verleneesflom the Utero! provisions of the Zoning Code In Instences where their strict ertforcanent would cenu undue herdship beeeuse of clrcumslences unique to the Individuel property under consUerotloH, end shell recommend epprovel only when It b demonstreted that such ecHons wUI be In keeping with the spirit end Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds there may be a hardship to allow replacement of a deck at the non-conforming setback of 13.6* whcx 30’ is normally requir^. The existing home currently maintains the same setback and the previous deck encroached to within 8* of the lot line. Also, the variance resolution from 1997 indicates that in 1980 the deck was conforming and City records show a permit was obtained for a deck in June of 1981. Lastly, the west side of the residence contains a sliding glass door for access onto a deck. With regard to the 7S*-2S0’ hardcover variance request, staff finds that the fmdings of the 1997 variance remain in place, which permitted 28.6% hardcover, however some of the conditions on the property have changed, that being the proposed deck square footage being reduced. The applicant is proposing a hardcover percentage of 26.3%. Staff finds that there may be alternatives to decrease hardcover on the property which the Planning Commission may want to consider. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the rear yard setback variance proposed reasonable? 2. Does the location of the existing house, patio door, 1997 variance approval, and 1981 building permit approval of the deck justify, or create hardships to warrant approval of a variance to the rear yard setback? 3. Should the q>plicant be subject to the 1997 variance approval at 28.6% or could further reductions be made with the new deck? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recoamendation Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance with the condition that no stair access be permitted into the rear yard in an effort to eliminate unnecessary further encroachment The Planning Commission should discuss what level of hardcover is appropriate within the 7S*-2S0’ zone given the following facts: • A reduction of 22S.5 s.f. of deck hardcover could place the property into conformance, still leaving 306. S s.f. for construction of a replacement deck, • A variance in 1997 permitted 28.6%, and lii • The proposal results in a net reduction of 396 s.f. from the 1997 approval. 1 City of Orono Variance Application A Stfset Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway OrotK), MN 55356 Main: 952-24M600 fax: 952-249^16 Mailing Address: . P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Application # 05~‘3/S 0 Date Received: j8»//7 Amount Paid: Staff: . lAAflCl._______ Fee: $600 Renewal: $300 After-the-fect $1,20r Double Fee This application form must tre completed In full. App'icant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applicatione will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address: _____ Property Identification Number (PIN): ON: ^ ^ C\ - \ n 0 (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): ljt>^ C] Yes, I own the adjacent parcels,rioni Present use of property: ^ Residential ' ’ □ Other Zoning District: ________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complata legal nares and marital status rertuired for each interested party) fTw\Name: Phone (home): Address: Email: — -.3UlC~uq40 yno!>xr, C Phone (work): faf rfyAVos. , rr\rv / Fax: ** OWNER INFORMATION: (Completp legal names s.'^d marital status required for each interestad party) Name; KOJth __________________ Phone (home):____ Phone (work): Address: VI Email: ^ Fax: (oVZ,- 3b9 nv<\ ^^^2. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ g, ^ Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary^ iLisisL (attach i AilJUC\.WSA dlflfclg ,a VOOV CJC/Y\LV- >>UC\D ____ ^ vCLv 0 iyj<- AVvoJ^ r, ^ <e<)o /vCyU (^CeOv6oS> •»A\j ■ r I . 'i \ ’> REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following Information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. ^ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. □ Completed Application Form □ Completed Hardship Documentation Form □ Certified Property Owneis List - owners within 15^* of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South 6“' Street, Minneapolis, telephone ^2-348-5910 Q Original Certificate of Surrey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting~3tr the requirements listed within this packet. Including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X17" for reproduction. Q Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). □ Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. 6 Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5"x11"or11"x17"). □ Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she Is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it untii it Is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless qfjts potential merit Applicant's Signature: Applicant ’s Signature: Date: Date: OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigatioryfind verification of this request. Owner’s Signature: . I4ujt4f\ _______ Owner's Signature: _____, , ______________________ Date: Date: Q n. 05 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. ^8150 City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form it to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.*) Street Addmas: 2750 Kelley Parkway Ororto, MN 5S3S6 MaSIng Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 For Office Use Only: . City Planner Meeting DateTTirw: PC Date: Main: 952-249-4600 Fax; 952-249-4616 \Miat i9 Vf purposm of a pn-appiteation meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. Site Address; PROPERTY INFORMATION: M , _____ lumber(PlKl); /7-//7“ Z3~2.'b-00!^__________ ZoS.^ District: Tie Size of PropJrtv: li, sViS f (O'^ Property Identification Number (PIN): DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: □ Average Setback □ Side Yard Setback j^Rear Yard Setback llUfardcover 75-2^ ? □ Lot Coverage □ Lot Area □ Other: ______iJpdaJ/ CdJCU □ Front Yard Setback □ Lot Width icant ’s Q ils: ~'l Applicant's InKials HARDSHIP: Appiicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION: ________________________________________________ Applicant Signature: *Please note: Your variance appfidation will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this fomy^ beye^mpleted by City staff. m , ____________Date: #3150 . ----------------.:^rm ----- Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This fonn is a required submittai for ALL variance appiications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. ____ Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO i PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is Justified. The information the City receives is what is used in deteimining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1."The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." , ^, . 2."The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” «4 to Sdr.WcVv U3<VS-. wViVv ^ \o Quytytt/C 3. "The variance, if granted, wiil not alter the essential character of the locality.""The vanance, if granted, will not alter the essential c OI>g i*> «* f vmoo\L \3* L*‘ Econormc considerations alor>e shail not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." OLgcei.>. 9o<c.y me lerms or me ^.oning ^napier. V\u Cl AIxaV iOOlV. A& ^ #3 H3 I :! I MiaMaiw J 5. 6. 8. 9. Page 2 of 3 ■Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony.with this Chapter.” __oUt -----—— ------------------------ ■The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ■The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” ___________________________________________________________________________________ ■The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are pecuiiar to such property Of^mediately adjoining property.” . . . 6L.H^Varc/»i.cj>h.\ Ko _______________ ■The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.”rv\fV_____II_________________________ ■The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.”f a substantial property ngnt or the appiicant.' -V> OLecfi&s UrfcJk- (L^Ai. ”The granting of the proposed variance will not In any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to tho intent of the Zoning Code.” fy .H .if- O 1 c-f ,fl n i I I 1 Page 3 of 3 •*n>e granting of such variance will not merely senre as a convenience to the applicant, but is n^ssary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.' . vo>.\X. V>o. a=^ - ■ ‘ ^ ^ - -----*JX h0D(6tboeA/ Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (atta^ additional sheets if Ao emti< eotiiXvV^ov. >wVac;P. OooV. AecU,. U>vM^ otAji r\■c^OL^crft gJb^V'g % /w. »r- V- -VU ! * M • ' T ' ’ SHBOfDU ^ N 69®I5 ’30' E 150.44 1 ^ u. r"'t?-0 \ '///f IVT H.7 '2 30.1 ' j5^ ■ I fl I I'J J I ■■ ^•21S!!ack line A *^=667.28 _Tg^S POINT ROAD -----linden AVENUg) f —?/O'NT roa . ----^^^!)!g!giHg linden AVENUg) 'f I SA .1 ?V % Crfo 1*4^ (S^ ‘■°fT, A^tf>, <r »o*.. Mii&. k i p 152.47 R«727.28 | 8 •• . ’•</ / ‘*X*. contour UC m/nnetonka V1fc„.•»«R ew 4«. I 6,t ■ ■ >e . •• 0 I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVKR IN ZONE A House Lnifih X X X B. Oirage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E Patio/Deck • • •• F. Landscape Undertain ByPlastie Or Fabric X X 0. OUier TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ___ + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN Z A House X X E Otrafe C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X B. Palio/Deck X X F. Underlaiii ByPlaatie Or Fabric X X X 0. Other • •TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______ B 75-250'250-500'SOO-1000* Wi«h isl ]Q) S330 X100 -1.84 widui ti ■i xlOO - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. " S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. s.f; S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. S.F. SP. SP. S.F. S.F. S.P. • S.F. SP. S.F. SP. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. -A S.F. B K aViaa i n1j HARDCOVER CALCULATlQfOVORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CORCLEONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House 0-75' Lmgdi X X X B. Oarige • M •• • C. Drivewty X X D. Sidewalk X X E Patio/Deck • • • F. Lendscepe Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____________ ♦ B PROPOSED HARDCOVRR IN ZONE* A Houae ________ x X X E Oara|c C Drivawqr .•••w • •« •* X X D. Sidewalk X X E Patio/Dedc X X ^ F. Landscape Underiain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN20NE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ + B 2S0-S00' Width 6.3 xlOO Width (Srtrf. XlOO - SOO-1000' 73e?*t S.F.»Hgv$e 3T7 IZ. ^34 1 “ S.F. s!k f MFO S.F. ,%iACteroP Off'WCiua) S.F. - /«WdK» S.F.-weuhtATf S.F. sF.pBacwlpoi S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. - IVtP Cor*C, pel S.F. - WAl\. S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. • • S.F. S.F. S.F AlCW S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. -A S.F. B K TITi-Ji r'- TT^r'i^ li 1 't Uo <*» w~ I n* e~ .............. <5n-------1 } t mf ^Dose 4* H ^ V 1 \V p — ito' 5 .’.' lU )WV m t I* t* X !- -*~ , .t ' ~i ' ». >>>^>\»< t J -77-Try \ ■"% iLit cJ rr—k’^.—•»•* K .:^ .*4.-'M.J ■j V.^** <;> ^ U ' -X • I. 6f I GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 ft H « A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO rWNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6, SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (Q FILE NO. 2217 WHEREAS, John Thimmesh (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1945 Fagemess Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter 'the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Fagemess Oieen, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the ixopoly"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6, Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.02, Subdivision 14 (C) to construct a storage addition adjacent to the ewsting garage that would be 18' X 28' v^re a hardcover variance and structural coverage variance are required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS i 1. This application >vas icviewed as Zoning File #2217. 2.The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where one*half acre minimum lot sLe is required. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following unique findings and hardships: The lot area is .39 acres. The lot size is substandard. Page 1 of 4 TRANSFER ENTERED COUNTY TASPAYSa BiRVIOM • 'ni MAY 16 thi •ili GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 8 8 ^ B. C. The applicant will combine the two tax parcels into one parcel. The deck and pool were constructed in 1980 and were conforming at the time of construction. However the deck and pool exceed the 1,000 s. f. requirement and are not in conformance with cnrrent side and rear ya.d setback requirements. D.The City has received no comments from the property owners notified of the proposed improvement The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do rwt apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not advmely afifect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning C<^e and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City CouiKil has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Plaiuing Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon or>e or more of -he above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a stnic**jrai coverage variance to increase structural coverage fium 3,259 s. f. or 14.44% to 3,680 s.f. or 16.33% vdiere 3,384.6 s.f. or 15% is allowed; further, the applicant shall remove the shed in the northwest comer of the property after the storage addition is constructed; further, a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area to increase hardcover firom 4,509 s.f or 26.15% to 4,930 s.f or 28.60% where 4,308.5 s.f. or 25% is allowed, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 4 f 4 I , iVj V .V GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 8 8__ V Autfiorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the i^plicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire or. that <Lte (April 28, 1998). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Mirmesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of April, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy 9X 4Ll ^ I*pdperty Owner (s) S. ^1 Page 3 of 4 I. = v"' ■m iK.5*.. I wm fe VJ i i r A \* Ji GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. R ft R R STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of April, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. ■' L Mwarwuc lawiBOiaMMVW COUNTY MirCBwiinloiMNiJv 31.2XC0 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of____, 199 t_ before me a Notar>' Public within and for said county, personally appeared ',kJ 1 ’:.'*-^*'^ '"^ known to me to be die person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged duU he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. cwahaseman®asr* i •> ! /T. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of___ and for said county, personally qipeared known to me to be the petson(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. . 199 before me a Notary Public within NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 Ilh- & RESOLUTION If 3 8 8 8 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF ORONO CwoSrf the City of Oiono with the orijinil tecoBl of »uAon poceedtag. of .^d Ciq- Co««a .. ‘ “Correct ^ of t«id”4^tadoa doiy idopted b7nid City CouncU >t nid meeting, day of In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this---iJih Mgiv __________________________________-• —• roihy M(Hmi^ City Cleric (SEAL) • f .. ‘f ; p»j--■ W-fir . - .ir 1 1 Wvm ' '.H?"sf^r w\ !._i^ % \» If :• y ‘ ^» »>S W ' V. / • ■'*'*-S 1 ^r I V W . , f},gBi"'«i, iliii r^ •" .'3b. '.-■}'^ J*'‘i'J' rtl ,t>A '’'ivS’^.s^:'*-;'^''’-fr-. ^ • , "•■ 'w. •> V >5«^J<'5=^ 'rS'-i ».* -r.ff: ■' '•3 »JL [jT-T W -V /n-- '".''../S- ,'-'.?i u' . ‘'^1 - • : -j M, : 'V 5 '#.iilj3r .. .■ -^t-' ■ ■ jV'-'*;? ' jfjj li- ’M'- • d >•■ V f . . V ■ # ^“1 ' ' ‘ ■■ '« *HC ' .1 •: - ■• ^. -^,^h ■' '- : ■. • ■5. « ' 31 ' ^ A S 5^ i ; ii :?x.i ir ■• ’ll, ‘ATV y>Vjl I . I.■'/v£.,J' ?s w-.-r-‘ [' i ' h:^M.*v- vX-J.v 09/14/2005 I »■# >"•', JA/v •^. Wm f KUNOATB:tn7/3atS HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 31 1711723230006 PROPAOOR 1920 CONCORDIA ST OWNER NAME JOHN EDWARD WEST TA3CPAYER X3HNBWEIST NAMEJAOOR 1920OONOORDUST WAYZATAMN SS39I 30 I7I172323001I PROPAOOR I«2» PAOERNESSPOINTRD OWNERNAME IXOYDDRAPER TAXPAYER LU3YD H DRAPER NA34WADDR 60ISGIRAROAVESO MPUMN SS4I9 31 I7I1723230017 PROPAOOR 1940 CONCORDIA ST OWNERNAME CATHOMPSON AAPUNKE TAXPAYER ERBCTHOMPSON/ANNETIBFUNKE NAMEJAOOR 1940 CONCORDU ST WAYZATAMN 33391 31 1111723140011 PROTADOR 1931 OONCOROIAST OWNERNAME JEWAU3RONRLHWALDRON TA3CPAYER JOHN B R LYNN H WALDRON NAME/AOOR 1931 CONCORDU ST WAYZATAMN 33391 3S 1111723140014 PROPAOOR 1923 CONCOROUST OWNERNAME 1MCMAS M KONAT TAXPAYER THOMAS M KONAT NAME/AOOR 22273 BRACKETTS RO EXCELSIOR MN 33331 31 1711723230007 PROPAOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIONEO OWNERNAME LLOYDHDRAPER TAXPAYER LLOYD H DRAPER NAME/AOOR 60I3OBURDAVESO MPLSMN 33419 31 1711723230012 PROPAOOR 1937 FAOBRNESS POINT RO OWNERNAME RDROBERTS ETAL TAXPAYER RICHARD D ROBERTS NAME/AOOR 1937 FAOERNESS POINT RD ORONOMN 33391 3S I7II7232300IS PROPAOOR 1943 FAOERNESS POINT RO OWNERNAME JPRPJTHIMMESH TAXPAYER JOHN PR PATH iTHMMESH NAMB/ADOR 1943 FAOERNESS POINT RO WAYZATAMN 33391 3S IS1I723I400I2 PROPAOOR 1943 CONCOROUST OWNERNAME RWRAOATZRJIRACATZ TAXPAYER RICHARD WR JILL RAGATZ NAME/AOOR 1943 CONCORDU ST WAYZATAMN 33391 3S IBII723I400IS AOOR 1903 CONCOROUST OWNERNAME NRCBEROLUND TAXPAYER NORMAN TENNER BEROLUND NAME/AOOR 16 WATER OAKS WAY NAPLES PL 34103 . lx 38 1711723230010 PROPAOOR 1921 FAOERNESS POINT RD OWNERNAME DLPETERSONREMPETERSON TAXPAYER DARRYL L PETERSON NAME'AODR 1921 FAOERNESS POINT RD WAYZATAMN 33391 38 1711723230013 PROPAlXMl 1932 FAOERNESS POINT RD OWNERNAME BARRYJMARON TAXPAYER BARRY J MARON NAME/ADINl 1932 FAOERNESS POINT RD WAYZATAMN 33391 38 I7II72323002S PROPAOm 3S ADDRESS UNASSIONEO OWNERNAME JPRPJTHIMMESH TA3CPAYER JOHN P R PATTI J THIMMESH NAME/AOOR 1943 FAOERNESS POINT RO WAYZATAMN 33391 3S ISI1723140013 PROPAOOR 1933 CONCORDU ST OWNERNAME RKKALOW RC AKALOW TAXPAYER RK KALOW RCA KALOW NAME/AOOR 1933 CONCORDU ST WAYZATAMN 33391 3S I8II723I400I6 PROPAOOR 1930 CONCOROUST OWNERNAME WFRK A PETERS TAXPAYER WILLIAM PR KARAN A PETERS NAME/AOOR 1930 CONCORDU ST WAYZATAMN 33391 FADE: I » /■ ‘U*- •’miill* ^V'' .*■• •• ;;.•-• •■■' i. V.■•'..•’•V V’;■ i-y':; , ■: ■ KUNIM1B;l/17^ [• :, ' t 0 ■ '■ hennbwn county property information system PROPERTY OWNERS LIST I CERTIFY THAI THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATTCm OF INFORMATION AS TT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OTTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SI ' (H'MYKNOWLEIXS AND BELIEF. <?/i-7 DATEO / / /> * 'W '*■ = 1 }XIX f Inf %J>’ li V •< M .., • > •'(■ ■ -■ i**' V ■ ‘>v ,v fy I ,s PAGE: 2 im AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATEONTHE RECORDS * lER^CESnPARTMEip^TlffiBESlV -------^^ ' .• . 1 P J ,-:x;." ♦; T.i^- County taxpayer Services Department .1 •• . <’l \ h'niu'pin ..i^^ '^,,;t ■ K f •. r ^ •« ■ - \ .' »>• r ' ';-?;V' iV'"?' '■ • .'‘'{<l*f. ........ - ■- . 1 4--v*» ' .'•• #J#« . 4 V ^ V -. •i.'S :pii^#IIM)|Mri V I COUNCIL MEETING SEP 262005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CflYOFORONO Date: September 23,2005 Item No.: 10 Dcpirtneot Approval: Naait: Michael P. GaffitNi TMk: Planning Director AomiiAdministrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Proposed MUSA Amendment: Orono Rural Oasis List of Exhibits A - PC Memo and Exhibits of 9>14-0S DSU Inc. has provided-draft language for the Rural Oasis CMP Amendment. Planning Commission reviewed this at its September woric session. Pursuant to published legal notice the Planning Commission then held a public hearing on September 19 and subsequently on a vote of 7-0 recommended approval of Ae proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Amendment #3 to 2000- 2020 CMP) reg^ing the Orono Rural Oasis Study. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Amendment per the revisions noted in the memo of September 14. These revisions will be incorpon:ted into the final Amendment document. Council should review the Amendment language and exhibits, and discuss \riiether this amendment as drafted and revised meets CbunciPs goals and intent for documenting the Rural Oasis Study. If so, Council should take action to conditionally approve the proposed amendment subject to Metropolitan Council review and comment, and direct staff to fcnnally submit the amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Note that the next step toward implementation of the Rural Oasis Study findings will be dmfting of zoning ordinance language requiring Conservation Design, which staff intends to commence immediately. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the following motion: Moved by __, seconded by __, to conditionally approve 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment fl3 regarding the Orono Rural Oasis Study, subject to review and comment by the Metropolitan Council, and direct staff to formally submit the amendment to Metropolitan Council. Vote:■yes.nays. MEMORANDUM To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike GafTron, Planning Director September 14,2005 #U5-3 !54 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Orono Rural Oasis Review Draft CMP Language - Public Hearing Lbt of Exhibits A - Public Hearing Notice B - Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Figures 1-lS (August 2005) C • Draft Summary Report of Rural Oasis Study (March 2005) Attached as Exhibit B is the recently submitted draft CMP Amendment (August 2005) provided by DSU for the Rural Oasis Study. Also enclosed is the Draft Summary Report (March 2C05) Mdiich on pages 4 thru 6 provides an o utline for the zoning ordinance to implement the CMP changes. Note that no ordinance has been drafted, and review of specific ordinance language will not be an element of this hearing. Planning Commission reviewed the CMP Amendment language at a work session held on September 7,2005 and suggested the following revisions: 1. Remove the editorial comment at the top of Page 6 2.At the top of Page 7, reverse the order of Goals U1 and #2 to ref.ect that preservation and enhancement of the existing “rural cl nacter” of the city should be the primary goal. 3. 4. On Page 9, include “Views of powerlines“ in the list of Negative Views. On Page 5, with regards to the creation of a Master Plaiming Requirement, revise the language to require that “...any subdivision or multi-unit development greater than 5 acres or guided for urban density to follow the parameters of the Conservation Design Ordinance.” The intent of this revision is to clarify that construction of a single-family residence on a lot larger than 5 acres should not trigger Con^rvation Design. 5.On Page 17, with regards to Applications and Procedures, reorganize and re-word the bullet points as follows: I I I. . #05-3 1 54 CMP Amendment - Rural Oasis September 14,2005 Page 2 a) Review and respond to the Orono Natural Resource Systems Master Plan. This Master Plan (CPA Figure 16) was prepared....etc. b) If the site exists adjacent to a documented corridor in the Rural Oasis Project, review and respond to the existing analysis. if the site is not adjacent to a documented corridor, have a qualified consultant prepare a similar analysis and submit it to the City for review. This analysis should include the documentation of views, conidor enclosure, and landmarks through a pian analysis and photographs. Pay a standard fee (possibly pcr-acre, to be established in the City Fee Schedule) to cover the expenses of the City in hiring a consultant to review the ecological site analysis. d) Additionally, submit a natural resources inventory of the site, includirp a tree survey, a wetland inventory, and a survey of existing drainage patterns.” The intent of the revision as shown in item c) is to establish that the City intends to review the ecological analysis' of applicants' consultants, rather than having the City prepare such analysis*. Planning Commission should consider whether this CMP Amendment should be further revised. Note that upon PC recommendation, the amendment will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration and preliminary approval, then forwarded to Met Council for review and acceptance. This will be forwarded to adjacent cities for comment, and is not expected to be controversial so Met Council approval would be anticipated relatively quickly. The final step would be drafting of the Conservation Design Ordinance to implement the Plan. This is expected to be a task staff will bs working on over the next few months. Staff Recommendation Hold the public hearing, accept public comments on the proposed amendment, and subject to the above noted revisions and any other changes you conclude are warranted, recommend that the City Council adopt the CMP Amendment. Executive Summary Overview Throughout its history, the City of Orono has identified the protection and enhancement of the environmental health of Lake Minnetonka as its primary goal. Secondary, but closely related goals supported pioneering efforts to manage hard cover and maintain the rural character of the community. As the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area continues to grow, Orono has recognized the need to strategically intensify its efforts to protect these values. Beginning in August 2004, the city initiated the “Rural Oasis Project.” Tliis project represents the city’s innovative appr ach to maintain and enhance both its ecological health and rural aesthetic, while accommodaMng development. There arc many good examples of communities who have successfully pursued studies to promote community aesthetics. There are a growing number of communities that have embraced conservation design principles and botli of these important community objectives have been implemented through ordinances, guidelines and other tools. The Orono approach is unique first in its recognition of the fact that these two objective! are inextricably linked, and second in the manner in which the implementation of its plan coordinates, ecological and aesthetic requirements. These guidelines encourage the use of Conservation Design to conserve and enhance aesthetic and ecological elements of the landscape. At the beginning of the project, a visual preference survey was conducted to identify the positive and negative effects of development in Orono. Simultaneously, Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) data and ecological fieldwo.K were compiled to produce a natural resources inventory for potential development sites within Orono. These aesthetic and ecologici:! components were then combined to ensure that the resulting development guidelines would address both natural resource conservation and scenic value protection. At the end of the Rural Oasis process, the City of Orono determined that the approach used in the project would mitigate the impacts of growth, while improving the rural diaracter and environmental health of the community and its environs. The purpose of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) is to: (1) describe the Rural Oasis process and findings, (2) establish Goals and Guiding Principles, as official city policy to guide future development, (3) explain and illustrate the desired results of suggested design standards when applied to potential development sites, (4) provide procedures and ordinances to implemrat the Guiding Principles in the City of Orono. The adoption of this amendment will be the first step in establishing a set of Community Design Standards to achieve the desired outcomes of Orono’s Rural Oasis initiative. City of Orono OrqftCFA DSU. bic August, 2005 8 f. i Dcflnltioni Sevotil terms relating to Conservation Design and ecological fieldwork will be used, throughout this document. The following definitions are provided to promote understanding. Conservation Desifn:A two-phased approach to design and development that maintains or improves ecological assets, provides infiastructure that works with the land, and incorporates peoples* instinctive desire to experience nature. Some Conservation Design strategies include: identifying and avoiding sensitive, natural features, planning roads along contours, allowing lots to border natural open space, integrating ecological stormwater management, using smaller lots, and educating developer and buyers about the ecological values of the landscape. The first phase entails an inventory and analysis of the potential development sites natural features, existing land uses, and wetland delineation. The second phase entails analyzing the design implications of the findings fix>m the initial phase, alternative stormwater design, and a conceptual design for road and lot layouts. Minnesota Land Cover CtaM\ftration System m££Sl: The Mirmesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) displays data on natural/semi-natural and cultural cover types at ^ hipest level of classification. The next four levels of classification each reveal further specifications such as plant types, soil hydrology, impervious surfaces and plant species. Using MLCCS data is the first step in producing a natural resource inventory of a development site. Ecological fieldwork . The on-site work of an ecologist to determine the types of conditions of natural resources in a specific area. Ecological character. Elemoits of the natural landscape unique to the City of Orono, Lake Minnetonka, and its environs - including wetlands, native vegetation, topography, etc. Ecological communities : Natural and semi-natural areas that provide a variable degree of wildlife habitat and ecological services/functions based on their species composition, vegetation structure, and level of disturbance. CityofOni Di^fiCPA DSU, Inc August, 2005 ■ I Ecological connections: Natural and semi-natural corridors that con provide wildlife habitat connections for animal travel and se^ dispersal, natural stormwater conveyance and management services, and opportunities for trails and other passive recreation. Aesthetic character:Elements of the Orono landscape affiliated with natural areas, rural land uses, and historic landmarks. Corridor enclosure:The nature, appearance and relative degrees of screening provided by roadside vegetation. Rural Oasis Project Background The City of Orono is blessed with more Lake Minnetonka lakeshore than any other community. The residents and elected officials of Orono have long recognized tliis important asset, and have a history of working to maintain lake quality througli, primarily, the strict control of “hardcover.” Hardcover, is considered to be all impervious surfaces (driveways, sport courts, rooftops), which rush water toward the lake without the benefits of infiltration. Historically, Orono has regulated hardcover by preserving most of its land area in large-lot 2- and S-acre zoning districts. More recently, however, the city has guided certain areas toward higher densities, opening the door for a variety of new possibilities - both positive and negative. On the positive side, Orono can now consider working with developers toward “conservation development," which can have benefits for Lake Minnetonka beyond merely the reduction of hardcover. On the negative side, higher densities can be a threat to both the ecological (large wetlands. Lake Mitmetonka water quality) and aesthetic (pastureland, landmarks, views) diaracter of the city as a whole. With proper planning however, the negative effects can be successfiilly mitigated and the ecological health of the community can actually be improved. In late 2004, the City of Orono placed a moratorium on development within the city, and hired Dalhgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. (DSU), to lead a process to determine and develop strategies to protect the aesthetic and ecological character of Orono in the face of new development pressures. DSU’s planners and landscape architects, along with ecologists tom Applied Ecological Services, Inc. (AES), facilitated two evening meetings with city staff and elected and appointed officials, evaluated specific “rural corridors” to discover, analyze, and define aspects of rural character in the city, performed ecological assessments, and product generalized concept development schemes for three pilot sites. Through this process, Orono city leaders were challenged to carefolly examine what makes their city special, and the DSU team provided guidance on City of Orono Draft C?K DSU, Inc August, 2005 how to conserve and protect tliese unique attributes through changes to the city’s comprehensive ptan» zoning ordinance, and public education. Process Phase t - Identifying Key Issues The first major task of the project involved identifying the key attributes of the Orono Iandsciq)e that are affiliated with the community’s rural character and potentially affected by growth. First meeting. August 10. 2004 : At this workshop city council members provided responses to a questionnaire prepared by the consultants. Tliis purpose of the questionnaire was to identify and prioritize the community assets that these policy makers wanted to protect and reach consensus about the adverse effects of development that threaten the image and character they support.. Tliese questionnaires were tabulated and presented to the council and the subsequent discussion guided the direction of the remainder of the study. Visual Preference Survey. August. 2004 : Orono city officials were given disposable cameras and instructed to take photographs ol I mages and elements that they want to maintain and those that captured features and characteristics they did not want to see in the city. Each participant used one camera for positive photos and another for negative. The cameras were returned to the consultant, who developed, compiled, and arranged the images for presentation and discussion. The above stqis were essential in establishing a fi:amework for the anal3^is, concept development schemes, and design standards described in this CPA and related documents. Phase U-Anafysis By combining the comments from the workshop, results of the visual preference survey, MLCCS data, and ecological fieldwork, the consultants were able to establish a methodology for analyzing the Orono landscape. The second phase of the Rural Oasis project entailed an aesthetic and ecological analysis of significant undeveloped parcels in the city. The analysis focused on 3 potential development sites and 10 important roadway corridors that were selected by city staff. Second Meeting. January 12. 2005 : City Council members. Planning Commission members, parks and Recreation Commission members, and city staff attended a workshop that covered the following topics: • A discussion of the background and purpose of the study. • A summary of the study process for the Rural Oasis Project. • A presentation of the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) as it applies to Orono, in order to establish a baseline ecology for the city and execute an ecological analysis. City of Orono DntfiC?A DSU, Inc HiW August, 2005 • An overview of the principles of Conservation Design, in order to describe an ecologically sound alternative to traditional large-lot zoning. • Presentation of an analysis of the relative rural aesthetic character of 10 corridors. (See CPA Figure 1). Analysis included examination of these factors: o Adjacent land uses o Corridor enclosure: open, varied, edged, tunneled o Landmarks and unique, cliaracter-giving spots • A detailed ecological analysis of 3 pilot sites within the community, selected hrom a group of potential development sites (See CPA Figure 6). • Presentation of visual preference photos taken by city officials, residents, and staff grouped into categories by the consultant. • Open discussion of all items presented. The assessment of the aesthetic and ecological features of potential development sites served as the initial stq) in applying Conservation Design techniques to areas in the City of Orono. Phase III - Development Concepts In the third phase of the Rural Oasis Project, Conservation Design strategies were applied to the candidate development sites in order to propose new and infill development that would protect the resources assessed in Phase II of the project. The sites and considerations mentioned below are furth^ discussed under Development Concepts. Third Meeting. Fdmiary 10. 2005: The city council, planning commission and staff attended another workshop fiicilitated by the consultants. The focus of this workshop was on the developmoit ooncq>ts prepared for the 3 pilot sites (See Figure 2) and covered the following topics: 4 • A review of the project process and purpose. • A discussion and review of what was shared at the previous meeting. • An aesthetic/ecological analysis of each pilot site, considering the following items: o Ecological “off-limits ” areas o Ecological opportunities o Ecological possibilities o Miyor connections o Local landmarks o Existing land uses o Site edge character o Key view o Critical issues and developable areas City of Orono DrqftC?K DSU, inc August, 2005 mmm ti- ..>i~i> .) [what is the difference between an ecological opportunity and a possibility? Sounds like designoese to me] • Presentation and discussion of concept development plans for each pilot site. • A brief discussion of the comprehensive plan, zoning code, and subdivision ordinance, and how findings from the Rural Oasis Project can be incorporated into them. lliis phase both summarized and applied the intentions of the Rural Oasis Project, allowing for the implementation of the aesthetic and ecological approach to future development in Orono. Phase IV - Implementation and Design Standards The first three phases of the Rural Oasis process indicate that the City of Orono can ensure the protection of its rural character and environmental health through Conservation Design strategies. To do so, the project’s objectives must be officially incorporated into adopted city policy, and be implemented through the adoption and enforcement of appropriate ordinances. Implementation Workshop. Fd?ruarv 24. 2005 : The consultants met with City Administrator Ron Moorse and Planning Director Mike Gaffron to discuss alternative ways to implement the study. The ways in which these approaches wo ild affect the city’s plans and ordinances were reviewed and evaluated. Prom Phase III it was determined that the first step in implementing the approach used in the Rural Oasis Project was to develop an amendment to the city’s comprehensive plan. This CPA promotes the process of the Rural Oasis Project by applying it to fbture development in the City of Orono. Goals and Guiding Principles Maintaining the rural character and environmental health valued by Orono residents requires the establishment of goals and guidelines and the enforcement of procedures and standards that will reinforce existing community ideology and incorporate newer methods introduced by the Rural Oasis Project. These goals and guidelines are compatible with the goals in the city’s current comprehensive plan (Community Management Plan, Sq>tember 2000). Goals The purpose of modifying the existing comprdiensive plan is to make certain that the documoit requires future develoinnent to achieve the following goals; CityofOnmo Drt^CPK DSU, Inc August. 2005 HT C?oal To pronote the conservation and enhancement of the quality of surface water and wetlands throughout the city, particularly Lake Minnetonka. This goal reflects the intentions of the first goal in the city’s comprehensive plan and reaffirms the city’s long time commitment to protect Lake Minnetonka, its water quality, and its recreational assets. Goal #2; To ensure the preservation and enhancement of the existing **rural character” of the city. This goal will ensure that the aesthetic elements valued by Orono residents and identified in the Rural Oasis Project will be maintained and improved. Guiding Principles In order to guarantee that future development will achieve the above goals, it is necessary to implement a set of ’’Guiding Principles” for development in the City of Orono. The Rural Oasis Project identified 6 factors that contribute significantly to the success of the above 2 goals. Therefore, it is imperative to provide a plan that will emphasize and implement these factors through the following Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1 ; Promote ecologically sensitive stormwater management. Applying an ecologically-based stoimwater management system will improve ecosystems by reducing both reliance on manmade infiastructure and reducing downstream runoff of contaminants. Nr j Guiding Principle #2; Establish and maintain native ecological communities. Conserving and improving natural and semi-natural areas will provide wildlife habitat and support natural ecological functions (i.e. drainage, filtering, buffering, etc). Guiding Principle #3; Establish and maintain ecological connections. ■.i-y ■ City of Orono DniftCPA Creating ecological connections will enhance stormwater collection and conveyance, promote ecological and wildlife corridors, and provide recreational opportunities for residents. DSU, Inc August, 2005 i Guiding Principle #4: Preserve and augment corridor enclosure. Maintaining and improving the extent of roadway corridor enclosures will promote community aesthetics associated with the city’s rural character. Guiding Principle US: Preserve views. Mitigating the visual impacts of development will also preserve the aesthetic elements of the landscape. Guiding Principle #6; Preserve and maintain landmarks and unique points of local character. Preserving distinct cultural features will maintain a familiar sense of place in the community. Development Concepts The Development Concepts presented by consultants at the third workshop serve as case studies for a new method of designing and reviewing development in the City of Orono, based on the techniques of Conservation Design. This method was developed in the Rural Oasis Project and applied to potential development sites within the city. In general, the two- part process first considers the water quality, adjacent corridor character, views, and housing types/character of a potential development site. Next, a concept design is created specifically for the site bas«l on the findings of tlie initial analysis and the Guiding Principles established above. Analysis of the development site entails the assessment of both its ecological and aesthetic resources, which will be described in detail throughout the following paragraphs. An integral component of this method was the examination of the edges of the sites, which greatly influence the character of roadway corridors throughout the city. Corridor Study To ensure that Goal U2, promoting the rural character of Orono, is effectively achieved in new development, it was necessary to determine what elements of the landscape define rural character in Orono. This was done by analyzing areas that had been identified as being rural.. In the second phase of the Rural Oasis Project, city staff selected 10 corridors in the city as examples of Orono ’s rural character (CPA Figure I). For the purposes of this CPA, it is not necessary to review each of the 10 corridors analyzed in the Rural Oasis Project It is important to provide a comprehensive understanding of the methods and conclusions of the corridor analysis. To do this, the following four corridors have been chos«i as case studies: County Road 6 West (Brown Road to Highway 12) City of Orono Draft CPA 8 DSU, Inc August 2005 • Watertown Road (Willow Drive to the city’s western boundary) • Fox Street (Leaf Street to Orono Orchard Road) • North Shore Drive (County Road IS to the Noerenberg Channel) To better understand and articulate the rural attributes of these corridors, the consultants examined factors that contribute to the character of a roadway including adjacent land uses, positive and negative views, and corridor enclosure. A graphic representation of eadi corridor was created to show these enclosures, uses and views, as well as any landmarics or unique character giving spots. Traffic levels and the undulation of the road were also noted in the study. These graphics and corresponding keys are included in each case study discussion.' Further definitions will also be helpful in understanding this portion of the Rural Oasis Project. In particular, focus was given to the following types of corridor enclosures: Open enclosure:Long views beyond the right-of-way, no real sense of corridor enclosure. Ed fed enclosure:Solid wall of vegetation along roadside, views focused along corridor. Tunneled enclosure:Vegetation begins to completely enclose roadway, above and sides, creating a “small scale ” roadway experience. Varied ench Enclosure changes rapidly along corridor, short stretches of open, edged, and tunneled corridor. Views were also categorized as positive and negative in the study. Because the purpose was to identify components of rural character, rural and historical uses were given a positive connotation. This is summarized as follows: Positive views:Views of natural areas, water bodies, established parks, wetlands, rural land uses. Nefative vU Views of structures, particularly residoitial, institutional, and commercial and industrial uses. CmeStudy #/; CettidyMoad6 West-Open Endasure Cerrider County Road 6 West (CR6), between Brown Road and Highway 12, was chosen as a study corridor widi predominantly open enclosure (See CPA Figure 1, Corridor B). The City of Orono Drift CPA DSU, Inc August, 2005 .. iT’..'. V ■-------T'T—rr ■•t: -----------'S'—^ -------»— 4 I graphic and images on CPA Figure 2 show both the character of the corridor and the consultants* assessment of its attributes. The corridor analysis of CR6 revealed that because open enclosure provides long views bey''nd the right-of-way, the rural feel of an open enclosure is tied to views of natural landscapes and amenities. Examples of these types of views along CR6 include views of Baker Park Natural Area and a hilly pasture, both along the north side of the road. From the analysis of the CR6 corridor and other corridors in the Corridor Study, it can be concluded that threats to this type of rural character along corridors with open enclosure include views of **non-rurar land uses such as new residential and industrial structures. Examples of these threats in the CR6 corridor include views of unscreened residential areas south of the road, between Old Crystal Bay Road and Brown Road North. Another threat to rural character in open enclosure corridors is the degradation ot natural viewsheds. As development occurs, views of natural areas can be obstructed or altered, as can the quality of the natural area itself. Considering this threat, one area of concern in the CR6 corridor would be the views and quality of Lake Classen, across CR6 from Baker Park. While analyzing opoi enclosure corridors for the Corridor Study, it was determined that threats to rural character in the face of development can be remedied by specific ecological and development measures. One measure is the screening of non-rural uses to avoid negative views, which can be done with berming, landscaping, and planting techniques. Zoning standards can be implemented to ensure the use of these techniques in new development, as well as promoting development patterns that are complimentary to the maintenance of desired corridor character. The preservation and enhancement of natural viewsheds can also be implemented to mitigate the degradation of viewsheds such as Lake Classen. Case Study U2: Watertown Road - Edged Enclosure Corridor Between Willow Drive and the city’s western boundary. Water Town Road is an example of an edged enclosure (See CPA Figure 1, Corridor E). The graphic and images on CPA Figure 3 show both the character of the corridor and the consultants* assessment of its attributes. Watertown Road undulates both up and down through this moderately trafficked corridor, allowing for key rural views of a varied landscape of pastures, small single family homes, and woods. There are several negative views along the corridor where edged enclosure gives way to varied or open enclosure. These views include unscreened residential east of Leaf Street to the north of Watertown Road and residential areas with visible parking lots between CR6 and the city’s western boundary. Screening techniques and zoning standards discussed in Case Study #1 can be used to remedy such views. In the context of tlw Watertown Road corridor it is important to note the value of edged enclosure for maintaining rural character and positive views. The existence of edged enclosure along key places of road mitigates the visual impacts of development on the rural character of CityofOrono DniftCPA DSU, Inc Au^tSt, 2005 the area. These instances occur around the intersections of Leaf Street and Watertown Road and Willow Drive and Watertown Road, .vherc residential land uses are prevalent. Threats to such edged enclosure include the degradation of quality and the removal of vegetative buffering along roadsides. These impacts can be seen in areas where the edged enclosure along Watertown Road give way to the more spotted vegetation associated with varied or open enclosures (i.e., between Willow Drive and Leaf Street). Promoting preservation and enhancement of roadside vegetative buffers will help maintain the rural character contributed by edged enclosure. Corridor guidelines could be implemented to ensure that development adjacent to roadsides will maintain and preserve Uiese buffers. Case Study #3: Fox Street — Tunneled Enclosure _____ Fox Street, between Leaf Street and Orono Orchard Road, has predominantly tunneled enclosure (See CPA Figure 1, Corridor H). CPA Figure 4 depicts the street’s rural residential feel and indicates the consultant ’s analysis of its attributes. Thou^ development along the corridor consists of a variety of housing types, the forested road edge screens these views and creates an enclosed, narrow corridor. Attributes associated with positive views such as wetlands and landmarks are visible through the tunneled edges around the intersections of Willow Drive and Fox Street and Brown Road South and Fox Street where there are wetlands, and at the intersection of Old Crystal Bay Road and Fox Street where there is an old church. ITie rural residential feel of the Fox Street corridor is susceptible to the same threats edged enclosure. If the roadside vegetation is removed, the tumiel enclosure will be lost and negative views of non-rural land uses would appear. Prevention measures, similar to those described in Case Study it2, could be implemented to preserve and enhance the vegetative buffers associated with tunnel enclosure. Case Study #4; North Shore Drive — Varied Enclosure From County Road 15 to the Noerenberg Channel, the North Shore Drive corridor alternates between open to edged to tunneled and varied enclosures. Its enclosure is predominantly varied. The images and graphics on CPA Figure 5 depict this changing landscape and hi^ilight its rural attributes. Views from the corridor are predominantly positive. Residential neighborhoods near the intersection of Brown Road and North Shore Drive are screened by varied and edged enclosures. Pastoral and natural views contribute to a natural feel along the corridor and include views of the Noerenberg Gardens, undeveloped land between Old Crystal Bay Road North and the Noerenberg Channel, wetlands northeast of Old Crystal Bay Road, open pasture land, and Smith. Maxwell, and Crystal Bays. City of Orono Draft C?A DSU, Inc August, 2005 n{. Because varied enclosure is a combination of the enclosures discussed in Case Studies #1, #2, and #3, impacts from development on varied enclosure are similar to those discussed above. In particular, areas of open enclosure may provide unwanted views of new residential and industrial/commercial land uses. Other areas, where the enclosure is edged or tunneled, may suffer from degradation of vegetation quality. To mitigate such threats, varied enclosure requires the combination of standards to require the screening of non-rural uses where necessary and preserve and enhance roadside vegetation. CorrUor Study Conclusions Analyzing the characteristics of 10 corridors allowed the consultants to determine the essential attributes and potential threats to the rural character in the City of Orono. A general assessment of the Corridor Study revealed that views from the road, types of roadside development, and corridor enclosure are tlie most important factors in determining the rural character of a corridor. Through this process, threats to rural character (specifically to enclosure) wa*e identified. These threats (discussed in Case Studies #1 - #4) include: • Views of “non-rural" land uses: (i.e. new residential, industrial, commercial). • Degradation of natural viewsheds. • Low quality roadside vegetation. • Removal of vegetative buffers and roadside vegetation. The Corridor Study also provided initial mitigation strategies to counteract the effects of the above threats and to promote the objectives of Goal #2, the preservation of the city’s rural character. These remedies include: • Preservation/enhancement of neural viewsheds. • Screening of non-rural land uses. • Land use controls to ensure development placement or screening. • Corridor guidelines to preserve and enhance vegetation. • Pres^ation/enhancement of vegetative buffers. • Corridor guidelines to ensure that adjacent development preserves key buffers. Dcvelopneat Site Analysis and Concept Site Design To promote development that will fulfill both Goals U\ and U2 by retaining and improving the rural and environmental identity of Orono, it is important to assess potential development in an aesthetic and ecological context. The Corridor Study established a surveying technique for aesthetic resources in the community, particularly in regards to rural character. Next, it was important to incorporate ecological factors related to the environmental health of the community into the analysis. A comprehensive City of Orono Drqft CPA DSU, Inc August, 200S site analysis was conducted at potential areas of development throughout the city using MLXDCS data and fieldworic. Three potential sites for development were chosen; • County Road 6 at Old Crystal Bay Road • (Old) Highway 12 at Old Crystal Bay Road • East Hackberry Site - Willow Drive north of Watertown Road In each area the following factors were analyzed: • Ecological “off-limits ” areas • Ecological opportunities • Ecological possibilities (difference?) • Major connections • Local landmarks • Existing land uses • Site edge character (corridor enclosure) • Key view • Critical issues (Preservation and augmentation of views, natural areas, corridor edges) • Developable areas The site analysis serves as the first phase of development y-' the Rural Oasis project. By examining the above issues, the analysis identifies bcL. die existing ecological and aesthetic conditions and further opportunities for their conservation and improvement. This inventory is then used to create development concept designs appropriate for the character of each site. The analysis provides groundwork for implementing development standards and procedures that promote the goals of the city outlined earlier. Because this portion of the Rural Oasis Project is intoided to set a standard process for new development in the City of Orono, it is important to show how site analysis and concept design was applied to the three development sites. The following paragraphs describe, in detail, how the ecological and aesthetic analysis was conducted and how the Guiding Principles were implemented for each potential development site. Development Site U! - County Rood 6 at OU Crystal Bay Road A parcel along County Road 6, east of the Homestead Trail, provides an excellent example of developable property with opportunities for promoting the rural character and environmental health of the city (See CPA Figure 6, 7). Using MLCCS data and an ecologist ’s field assessment, existing ecological factors were identified and assessed within the boundaries of the site (CPA Figure 8). These factors included the “off-limits ” City of Orono Draft C?k DSU, Inc August, 200S \ wetland area and corresponding natural drainage functions and ecological connections following the drainage ways east to Baker Park Natural Area and west to Wolsfeld Woods. Views and corridor enclosures were examined to assess the aesthetic resources of the development site. Edged enclosure is predominant on the western and southern edges of the site, with a section of varied enclosure along Homestead Trail. Views of pasture land and a wooded hillside can be seen from the southern portion of the site along County Road 6. With the existing conditions established, the consultants went on to analyze opportunities for the preservation and enhancement of these ecological and scenic features. By examining areas of ecological opportunities such as existing drainageways from the wetland, development can be designed to augment these functions. Ecological possibilities at the site include low-lying areas south of the wetland that can be used for natural storm water management areas. Critical areas were also identified to highlight existing conditions to be considered for maintenance and improvement in future development. These areas at the County Road 6 site include the existing medium quality woodland in the southwest comer of the property, views of pastures, and the screening functions of edged corridor enclosure and a wooded hillside on the east side of the existing wetland. The development concept shown on CPA Figure 9 shows how the ecological and aesthetic analysis can be incorporated in site designs for new development. The design uses spaces identified as “developable areas" in the site analysis. Within these areas. Conservation Design techniques and the Guiding Principles are applied to create a cohesive and ecologically sound plan. Key features of the concept design are: the uUlizadon of the low lying areas for natural and ecologically sound stormwater drainage areas, the enhancement and improvement of drainage ways as ecological connections for wildlife and plant species, and the augmentation of existing medium quality woodlands to both improve habitat and provide screening against bad views, the treatment of the wetland as an “off limits" area, and the preservation of the vegetative buffer of the edged corridor. These features directly reflect the Guiding Principles and consequently the intentions of the goals described in this CPA. Development Site U2 - (Old) Highway 12 at Old Crystal Bay Road Development Site #2 is located between Old Highway 12 and New Highway 12, west of Old Crystal Bay Road (See CPA Figure 6, 10). An ecological assessment of the site revealed that there are two “off-limits" areas on the site: there are two existing wetlands, one of low quality, with general water flow between them. This existing drainage provides an ecological opportunity while low-lying areas around the existing wetlands provide stormwater management potential or ecological possibilities. The larger, existing wetland in the western half of the site provides connections to Lake Klassen and Baker Park to the tKMth and to a wetland complex to the east. At this site, consideration of existing land uses and landmarks is imperative to development plans (CPA Figure 11). Any concept design must incorporate the existing CityofOrono DrpflCVk DSU, Inc August, 2005 orchard/fatm market and residences in the north and southeast comers of the site. Existing aesthetic conditions include varied enclosure along Old Highway 12 and edged enclosure along the southern boundary of the site. There are also three predominant views - one negative and two positive. The negative view is of an unkempt pasture from Old Crystal Bay Road, just east of the smaller, low quality wetland. The two positive views are of the eastern ^ge of the larger wetland which is semi-wooded and of tlie wetland complex that continues beyond the sites western border. Views of the semi-wooded land, the unkempt pasture, and existing land uses were deemed critical areas within the site. Witli the large wetland to the west, it was determined that the eastern portion of (he site was predominantiv developable, excluding the critical areas. A concept design was created for the site to incorporate critical areas and utilize developable space (CPA Figure 12). Key points of the design include a 29 lot, community-style development with trails, open space, and water amenities. The design follows the Guiding Principles discussed earlier by utilizing existing low areas for natural stormwater management and enhancing the drainage way to promote ecological cormections and natural drainage. Viewsheds are preserved and enlianced in the design, which creates edge enclosure to block negative views of the unkempt pasture and preserves the vegetative buffer on the southern edge of the property, lire design also indicates the establishment and restoration of prairie communities near the orchard and augments the wet area containing the low quality wetland. Development Site #3 - East Hackberry Site (Willow Drive north of Watertown Road) Because the East Hackberry Site is predominantly developed, it provides a unique challenge to Conservation Design development (See CPA Figure 6, 13). Existing land uses, including a fire station, several residences, and a church and Glendale Drive limit the developable area. As a result, any plans for the site must use infill development to promote the city’s goals throughout the area. The only ecological **off-limit" areas are a wet meadow along the western edge of the site and two drainages crossing the middle of the site. As seen in previous development site analyses, these drainages provide ecological opportunities for natural stormwater management. The fringes of a wetland and some low lying areas present ecological possibilities for stormwater management as well. Other ecological possibilities include tlie augmentation of two isolated patches of degraded forest. (CPA Figure 14) Corridor enclosure is affiliated with both the site edges and the Glendale Drive corridor within the site. Varied enclosure shields the residences along Willow Drive and Watertown road and edged enclosure is found on the north side of Glendale Drive and a small section of Willow Drive. The one notable view is that of a forested edge flanking residential development in the southeast comer of the site. Because the site is predominantly built out, potential areas for development are smaller and more isolated than in the previous two sites. Some portions of this developable area must be considered critical areas because of the visual impact of street front homes and the questionable nature of the land next to the fire station. City of Orono DrqfiC?K DSU, Inc August, 2005 Because of the existing development conditions, the concept design for the East Hackberry Site is a compromise between Conservation Design measures and existing buildings and infrastructure (CPA Figure IS). Lots are laid out adjacent to existing residential areas, with similar lot sizes. The plan utilizes the existing swales and stormwater cells near the fire station for stormwater management, as well as incorporating the wet meadow and adjacent drainageway for more natural techniques. Buffers are also maintained along Glendale Drive and added along Willow Drive. Deveiopment Site Analysis and Concept Design Conclusions The highlighted corridor case studies and concept designs illustrate how the goals and guidelines outlined in this CPA can be implemented in future development in the City of Orono. The methods that were developed and applied in the Rural Oasis Project display how future development in Orono can be planned to both protect and promote the city’s environmental health and rural character. Hiese techniques first require the completion of an aesthetic and ecological site analysis to identify existing conditions to consider while developing, as well as opportunities for t!'e improvement of the natural landscape and site character. Further development planning can then start, giving strong consideration to the Endings of the initial phase of the process and the Guiding Principles for development. Implementation Plan An implementation plan is necessary to ensure that future development in Orono adheres to the Guiding Principles discovered and applied throughout the Rural Oasis Project. Through the use of city regulations and additional resources, this plan will ensure the preservation of both the ecological quality of Orono ’s lakes, wetlands, and other open spaces and the scenic value of the entire landscape. The plan includes the following steps: 1. Establishing a Public Purpose, Amend the Comprehensive Plan This will establish a statement that accurately represents the Endings from the Rural Oasis Project and provides the foundation for zoning standards. It will support each of the main points/development guidelines of the Rural Oasis Project and will become an official amendment to the Orono Comprehensive Plan.. 2. Adopt a Zoning Ordinance Amendment The Zoning Ordinance will be modified to address the new development goals outlined above. Provisions to be included in this amendment will be a Master Planning requirement andthe incoiporation of incentives through the potential modiEcation of the base density and the provision of density bonuses in the R-1 District and the R-2 District. 3. Create a Master Ptanniug Requirement A Master Planning requirement will be incorporated into the zoning ordinance amendmmt and require any subdivision or development greater than 5 acres or City of Orono Drqf»CPA DSU,Inc August, 2005 LJ-* ‘ k. guided for urt>an density to follow the parameters of the Conservation Design Ordinance. 4. Establish a Conservation Design Ordinance The Conservation Design Ordinance will establish application requirements and procedures for all new development described by the Master Planning requirement. This process will ensure that potential development is analyzed and planned according to the methods and Guiding Principles described in this CPA. The Conservation Design Ordinance will also promote the preservation and improvement of the landscape by establishing basic ecological and scenic standards for development. An important component of tlie ordinance will include design techniques alx)ve and beyond the basic Conservation Dcsigir requirements. If developers incorporate these perfonnance/bonus requirements into development, they will have the opportunity to increase the base density in the urban density areas. S. Applications and Procedures In order to promote the ecological and scenic goals of the city, new development must follow procedures that will consider the objectives of the Guiding Principles and the standards contained in the Conservation Design Ordinance. The following procedures will be required of any developer proposing plans that qualify under the Master Planning requirement: Review and respond to the Orono Natural Resource Systems Master Plan This Master Plan (CPA Figure 16) was prepared by an ecologist to display the ecological connections within and Iwyond the city Orono. The plan is designed to be used as a reference by sudividers and developers to initiate an ecological survey of potential development sites. If. the site exists adjacent to a documented corridor in the Rural Oasis Project review and respond to the existing analysis. If. the site is not adjacent to a .locumented corridor, prepare a similar analysis and submit it to the city for review. This analysis should include the documentation of views, corridor enclosure, and landmarks through a plan analysis and photographs. Pay a standard, possibly per-acre. fee allowing the city to hire a consultant to prepare an ecological site analysis. Submit a natural resources inventory of the site, includinp a free survey, a wetland inventory and delineation, and a survey of existing drainage caHana. 6. Preserve Open Land through Assurances City of Orono Dnrfi CPA DSU, Inc August, 200S V. P;-’ '-■» ‘-'.' f I-' I I' The completion of the above process not only highli^ts developable areas, but also rev^s areas of development sites that should be left as open land for ecological benefits such as corridors, connections, and drainages. It is important to ensure that these open lands are preserved as Orono grows and develops in the fiu* future. Assurances such as conservation easements and deed restrictions could be used to secure the status of these spaces. Transfer of ownership fiom the devdpper to agencies such as the Minnesota Land Trust, the Nature Conservancy (in file interest of rare and significant ecological features) or to the city through dedication are also measures to ensure the preservation of these open lands. 7. Provide Public Edacation There are many resources available for Orono residents who wish to improve the ecological health and scenic character of their own lots using Conservation Design techniques. The following resources can be accessed through the internet, local libraries, or City Hall: Forthcoming - resources for Rain Gardens, Native Landscaping, Conservation Design, DNR, others? < ^ V t . mmmmm T ,V V ■ City of Orono DngfiCfA DSU, Inc August, 2005 i • A 4< =3----1=4 t T • — > ■U «.Im '|U.! Ii. i tf) MMm■■■■ii i.'»m Pn ■'' • *'i'l *• •' ' ’’' ..i.C tn city of r' Long Lake - i Iiliiw4«i«y,.><,;t •V ti:' .! ! V / i ,4^ \n .• •A'>'.Vr-;5»'; ■WWt.Auft; I'-/'.' mm^’' "•rt imXB«r *n , "N ]HV4 ' • I -» • f K BiiikH •U.'!'ll& i» t 7 tr. V 5 •»r« 1^\/ ---------j>- o l £i S-'l i' iWi.' It^ VSt !? Corridor Study Orono Rural Oasis Project City of Orono Minnesota 9 Recreational Trail r J Open Water CT Right-of Way ] Railroad Rigtn-of'Way Corridors •> .1 Corridors: A: Co. Rd. 6E (Femdale Rd to Brown Rd) ’ S‘* ^v * • « ' M •• ' \ 7 ' ■ ^ . • Minnetoiiika Kintr^ rniw •a: r-. M ■V V B: Co. Rd 6W (Brown Rd to Hwy 12) C: Hwy 12 (Old Cryslal Bay Rd to Cily Boundary) D: McCully Rd/N Shore Dr,'6th Ave (West Branch Rd to Hwy 12) E: Watertown Rd (Willow Dr to City Boundary) F: Bayside Rd (N Shore Dr to Leaf St) G: Old Crystal Bay Rd (Hwy 12 to N Shore Dr) H: Fox St (Leaf a to Orono Orchard Rd) I; Brown Rd (City Boundary to Wniow Dr) J: North Shore Dr (Co Rd 15 to Noerenberg Channel) CPA Figure 1 rfttt'fw*" * —-.-I Corridor Enclosure Open - long views - undefined edge Variable. - edge undulates - use/screening variety Edged: - generally solid wall of vegetation - views focused down road Tunneled - strongest sense of enclosure 0 t ■.'■'fr i .'-r\ djacent Uses ^ NaturalArea/ J Lake 1 Pastoral/ § Agricultural M Institutional / I Recreational Residential Commercial / Industrial Landmark >v-'':om2 \ N \ 0 6 1- 0 /LAKE CLASSEN 5»4I b9 1 •J T'.'^__ ^3--J —© arena 5por'..5 pr J i Lw ;! 1 i II...._t£ V li1 O f * . r- 6 '"'m. W f- '} n // Ui’cn \ 6 If*.: 6 •4 ^rT3 ^ JK » 'm positive -VI kL. Key view terminus and description haa^'m \L' / Key view origin point negative IRONO Rimil Corridor Analysis: general character B: CQ,ualy .EgJi±d.(fifXMaEp.9djQ±Uglmgyj^ January, 2005 j^yH 'Unpin • vr^i" ■ ■ ' ' >. •~5urv^__- J f- . ■■•-' -':i 1 liaise . : ■ * ■'.- ‘•*' .. . ■ • ^^^' ■ .•* ■ *’ • * ^ .* ^ V ' “ ^ 1 ^ ; w -A •• 1 1 mi I .': .\,:s‘-. '’i:: .■-•3?v MM _j*>siaKr%y ik¥L ;■;'. •■-'-r* v"'*‘ M • >,v-v * V ''’'til ‘ v'-*. •\ ^ •f •». 1*-V; -.■1^ :V-' m’"'i CPA Figure 7 Development Site #1 - Site Boundary ■‘a * •; ;.v_ r i V • :‘i.< . ‘. i-j , , -5>‘-4. ^ %, , . *. t •' h ^ •rt‘ f»** (-i*** •••••• <«•■•••••«-^ ^ • • «» I— ♦ «r » • • • • •« » . ' ♦ ♦ i ^ • • • ■«• W* t«^r% I * »i» ♦! I. . M % •••* ■^1 •» «* «• • «* •«-• • •*• »«• Critical and Developable ... • •' ■ .J. ' ' ■' II ^ 'yii 9 •■•■•■’■■ - ■■ •■' ■ ; ■ ■-'k^'5-- '*■ i-> i VV^'-m V. ' •' ¥KE»fU>«- ! .; 'A - > .-^.X;. it Jrf ii 'r-^•■ '2 r-i^:-L'-" 5 ••9^ • .' OMHMMMMOcmv...fl'-W- •« UMimoaatA* rotWMir vvoaumfr* M«*uuKMc*.r _ Aluvjir/rMioiU'f lAfcJON \ »• .* lerAVr/ *3 f*fai.n:';MTF,vjo« CAJiltfiO SC4U-»I«a3 Ai vi:v; :cn ••rjs \ •*• % L^i ::o- **fff •‘•t**SATiOfi Of *miti OLVCtpr c<- ANC ACS r ?■. •••jCMil r cAi^r *1 i orrt o* iwKyi np a: •:♦, • tV/1 Ck*.»»c> *?» I 'miQiy ^ *• <2>C3 ** t -.• • . - } i" • » * ifT i . '■ ■.:.;i . .* • •. 4v. - i * V V: ; . :• .11; f.rS >» V.1? .^.1*'? 1’t?.' »' ^r> n '4 ...^v . ^ u AKHP PRESERVE WOODS AT WETLAND EDGE TO MAINTAIN VIEWS •/'^;- • v.-.v-s *>%« *. ••. u5 (O $2 r K!snr;G ah i and <k A, n*iTt county road 6 t 9 AIJGMENT DRAINAGI;WAY .A.^ . - ‘r^' ■*'• - > . 4 fr^w •V ;!:4. ''. 'Vi- ■ . • ■. EXTEND FOREST TO PRESERVE VIEW FROM EAST SET HOMES OUTSIDE FOREST EDGE AND “ADD* TO THE WOODS WITH ADDITIONAL RESTORATION UTILIZE LOW AREAS NEAR DRAINAGEWAY FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRESERVE BUFFER TO ENSURE “EDGED' CORRIDOR CHARACTER i.< Ik*, i vim. APIpnmn r FlnfiVWMPf- MAH;\firwi Nl -A CPA Figure 9 Development Site #1 - Concept Design (OID) H)GH\^12 '■^:. / P" < VV ’'• ua: §St,-vs1~»' , '4«'r. .-ix r' -- • * ' •■ ■' ■ • . i. . A •., ; J VA-S. ’. • *kV*.t *xT* '. >A..' '>. . . '.T- m■ ;r^ s '^ihVu-:r-^ri:K--.~ •<■■’ ____■ • 4 . 1* < ^ •I ■ ?. ’': irj-^ •“ V . » - -?'•■ ,-i ■-•* *..v%mn CPA Figure 10 Development Site #2 — Site Boundary fc’ T»*‘ ■ I r«| * M I I •■ *•> •• •« ■ M- *«•• , *.. . ( !*••••• »■■♦ ••• ••«••■. « ««»»» » ••.% —• - W*»l • xxr -• '-Lm-urnim ^•ii\ ^ >■-. - ■ > motMOMami} .’..... : :^J?,'^y^' -. ■ ■ .;- t ■ ♦»,• 4' _, ' **_• V i • X*K- q* Jl£22S?.'#«tr: i-'- ‘ ■ ■ r«.i.^.*tM<.-r|4>» inr<UAxwi,V'j, «•< ,yf v' •;* “Ai.ii^v:/ X‘’‘n:iv» V ; r /v v.r'- . ..iv. ■/ W^''^ r ' "v-*’ '^V,' ^ 3 CfMr *1 »-I.* ■ mms!mm ■...'■' y:y yO a'' > V ';- .A'^y ■ ifc-tej ........................••••••<*'i.v:...*/:,^u.......... ^ ; /;v . . 7 .V . ■ • .1' f 1 ■ ’ • :■ U . > ‘ V !• ■ ■ . • ^ *• ■ ■m ■■ ■■ •• : ■ ■ :.V- : «•r, - (OLD) highway 12 I AVr l.( P.» r.i nnitp ENHANCE WOODS AT WfcILANU ElKiElO PRESERVE VIEW . f • I . ■ ■•? & DRAINAGE WAYS AND TRAK. CORRIDORS IN •ALLEY'SPACE NEW GUFFER TO ENSURE -EDGED' COHHIDOM CHARACTER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AI^EA ON FLAT LAND NEAR I EXISTING WETLAND AUGMENT WET AREA Wir-f' railroad / NEW I IIGfIWAV 12 PRESERVE BUrrER CPA Figure 12 Development Site #2 - Concept Design CPA Figure 13 Development Site #3 - Site Boundary I Kf k. %.vt*. . u » ^ n: ' u t .Jmm; '■. I d *■' : KS’ -'. •>;*l i i*l ^1^ V. } • A‘'■■■I'. Bs®i ?' hrI ■■^: !^- -::V^ :*» . -V H’ntJkM 1 I f'- <v* - -■ ^*'1.*' *. / w- ».^;^^-.-tly" >ii •- -atef; *i ;• ■ 7 j" h '^%'rjs'>- " " •*i if •vf'^ '^■* V -t'^it' 1 , • ■' ■^. ,,^- t »■ i‘0 "•" ■'I I M ' *1^*“• - ■ i‘> •--- 1. I -t-M^Kifkrtlirf till II liilii I II11 aiiia rtm riid CPA Figure 7 Development Site #1 — Site Boundary '.-.K..,-><,yv'" --■'- s^r.s'.’si's.rl'"' ■ Cvw^mm» ■ ■-?'>■: >4 rlx’v; :v ir-A 1' ■ ’ ';■’ ‘ ;Jfv Vv' y-'vn. fw «h7ii j'*«v««ir« ^ tatAiMM'«ut ^-.-. ;v;.►r Critical and Developable Areas .« •***^ ' f t t .»'! v:t4* ‘! v • ' • »uTc. -rfr-vj* ...... ►.♦•H »ir,?,tA'4. »-4? *•« «^ •» A*l > > \ •A- K^' L 'vr- ' <y -.- ^ - p ’ ■ ^ ' 7 ‘ • •' \9t''Sf^ 'W - V V :. ;■':■ • = .--■“ ■.-i - '♦. 4 • ' '-■,: :‘r -Cf-1 k'-.^» V > v,i-'v:^ .;:i. CPA Figure 15 Development Site #3 - Concept Design V,: . • ' •- .-v'; /* . V.V.- rtk ■■’■’J - -■ '. *^ - ./ ..rTt ?T' ■.'Sis-- ■ :■• -fA*^ ! . * ■ f.- % PO»:>iik£ Ta:V*^HC«CS - EX1ENO MARfWCTOH ORf.'E k, -- K./4 VN * m"'. i: '► ‘ ' J* . \* • MAfNf AIN Er'SriWO (W»f FER 10 Tcwfr ooicnCK.»f? ClfATMCTCR AL0:HJ OCENO.AU: L Orono Rural Oasis an ecological and aa^hath approach to planning DRAFT Bummarv rnort The City of Orono is blessed with more Lake Minntonka lakeshore than any other community. The residents and elected ofTicials of Orono have long recognized this important asset, and have a long history of working to maintain lake quality through, primarily, the strict control of “hardcover.” Hardcover, is considered to be all impervious surfaces (driveways, sport courts, rooftops), which rush water toward the lake without the benefits of infiltration. Historically, Orono has regulated hardcover by preserving most of its land area in large-lot 2- and S-acre zoning districts. More recently, however, the city has guided certain areas toward higher densities, opening the door for a variety of new possibilities - both positive and negative. On the positive side, Orono can now consider woriting with developers toward “conservation development,” which can have benefits for Lake Minnetonka beyond merely the reduction of hardcover. On the negative side, higher densities can be a threat to both the ecological (large wetlands. Lake Minnetonka water quality) and aesthetic (pastureland, landmarks, views) character of the city as a whole. With proper planning, however, the negative effects can be successfully mitigated and the ecological health of the community can actually be improved. In late 2004, the City of Orono placed a moratorium on development within the city, and hired Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc. (DSU), to lead a process to determine and develop strategies to protect the aesthetic and ecological character of Orono in the face of new development pressures. DSU’s planners and landscape architects, along with ecologists from Applied Ecological Services, Inc. (AES), facilitated two evening meetings with city staff and elected and appointed officials, evaluated specific “rural corridors ” to discover, identify, and define aspects of rural character in the city, performed ecological assessments, and produced generalized concept development schemes for three pilot sites. Through this process, Orono city leaders were challenged to carefully examine what makes their city special, and the DSU team provided guidance on how to conserve and protect these things through changes to the city ’s comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and public education. Process 1.First Meeting — Guiding Principles: At an August 1 0,2004 workshop, city council members provided responses to a questionnaire prepared by tlie consultants. Responses and subsequent discussion were recorded, and these framed the remainder of the process. 2.Survey of Visual Preferences: Orono city ofTicials were given disposable cameras and instructed to lake photographs of things they liked or disliked in the city. Each participant used one camera for positive photos and another for negative. The cameras were returned to the consultant, who developed, compiled, and arranged the images for presentation and discussion. Orono Rural Oasis DRAFT Mummmy nport OSU, Inc. March 2,2005 7 C 4 > aiiwiii ii'?l t Wiilillitiiw 3.Second Meeting - Analvaia: On January 12,2005, City Council members. Planning Commission members. Parks and Recreation Commission members, and city staff attended a workshop that focused on an aesthetic and ecological analysis of tlie city. The meeting covered the following topics: • A discussion of the background and purpose of the study. • A summary of the study process for the Rural Oasis Project • A presentiUion of the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) as it applies to Orono, in order to establish a baseline ecology for the city. • An overview of the principles of Conservation E)esign, in order to describe an ecologically so.ind altemative to large-lot zoning. • A detailed ecological analysis of 3 pilot sites within the community, selected by city staff from a group of potential development sites: o Site B: 41 acres north of County Road 6 at Old Crystal Bay Road o Site D: 72 acres at the southwest quadrant of Highway 12 (old alignment) and Old Crystal Bay Road o East Hackberry Site: 30 acres east of Willow Drive north of Watertown Road • Presentation of an aesthetic analysis of 10 corridors with some “rurar character, chosen by city staff: o Corridor A: County Road 6 from Femdale Road to Brown Road o Corridor B: County Road 6 from Brown Road to High 12 o Corridor C: Highway 12 (old alignment) from Old Crystal Bay Road to the western city limit o Corridor D: McCully Road / North Shore Drive / 6** Avenue from West Branch Road to Highway 12 o Corridor E: Watertovm Road from Willow Drive to the western city limit o Corridor F: Bayside Road from North Shore Drive to Leaf Street o Corridor G: Old Crystal Bay Road from Highway 12 to North Shore Drive o Corridor H: Fox Street from Leaf Street to Orono Orchard Road o Corridor I: Brown Road from Willow Drove to the Long Lake city limit o Corridor J: North Shore Drive from County IS to the Noerenberg Channel Analysis factors examined included: o Adjacent land uses o Corridor enclosure: open, varied, edged, tunneled o Landmarks and unique, character-giving spots o Views • Presentation of visual preference photos taken by city officials, residents, and staff, grouped into categories by the consultant. • Open discussion of all items presented. Third Meeting - Development Concepts: On February 10,2005, the city group attended another workshop finilitated by the consultants. The focus of this third workshop was on development concepts prepared for the 3 pilot sites. The meeting covered the following topics: • A review of the project process and purpose • A discussion and review of what was shared at the previous meeting Orono Rural Oasis DRAFT tumnmry npoit DSU.Inc. March 2.2009 ■4;,.itT ■ & t-^ • An ecological / aesthetic analysis of each pilot site, considering the following items: o Ecological “off-limits*' areas (wetlands and required buffers, historic drainage) o Ecological opportunities (existing degraded drainagcways, existing degraded ecosystem remnants) o Ecological possibilities (areas suitable for stormwater treatment) o Major connections, both ecological and pedestrian o Local landmarks o Existing land uses o Site edge character: open, variable, edged, and tunneled o Key view termini o Critical issues and developable areas • Presentation and discussion of concept development plans for each pilot site. • A brief discussion of the comprehensive plan, zoning code, and subdivision ordinance, and how findings from the Rural Oasis Project can be incorporated into them. 5* Impl^ent ation Workshop: On February 24,2005, the consultants met with City Administrator Ron Moorse and Planning Director Mike Gaffron to discuss alternative ways to implement the study. The v/nys in which these optional approaches would affect the city’s plans and ordinances were reviewed and evaluated. 0. Summary ReporL Guidelines, and Next Steps: Based on the consensus developed at the Implementation Woricshop, the consultant prepared this summaiy report. It outlines the process, a general outline for implementing the findings, and a list of next steps for the city to consider. Fiadings In order to establish a strong and legally defensible foundation for an ordinance, a public purpose must be established. In addition, some specific goals must be considered, and then addressed by the ordinance. As a result of the Rural Oasis Project, the general public purposes for modifying Orono ’s existing plan documents are: • conservation and enhancement of the quality of surface water and wetlands throughout the city, particularly Lake Minnetonka * preservation and enhancement of the existing “rural character*’ of the city Through the Rural Oasis analysis process, the following six factors were found to contribute significantly to the success of the above two goals, and should therefore be addressed specifically by ordinance: drainage and water quality management ecological communities (both type and quality) ecological connections throughout the city corridor enclowire (edged and tunneled types are principally desirable) views landmarks and unique points of local character Orono Rural Oasis DRAFT $umnmynpoit OSU. Inc March 2,2005 ImpleaMatatioii and GuMdiacs Based on discussions during the Implementation Workshop, the following summarizes ways of addressing the six (3 primarily ecological and 3 primarily aesthetic) considerations listed above. The Comprehensive Plan The following items should be incorporated into die city ’s Comprehensive Plan: • A Goals and Guiding Principles statement that illustrates and describes the “Rural Oasis” community vision. This statement could be an adaptation of the findings section listed above • Documentation of the Rural Oasis process, consisting of this summary document, and the a.ssociated graphics prepared by DSU and AES with regard to ecological mapping, corridor analysis and conclusions, and concept development plans for reference. • An Implementation section, which outlines how the city intends to effectuate the plan, and oisure that the Guiding Principles are follow^ for new development. The following items may be included in the Implementation section o Establishment of the Public Purpose o Modification of the zoning ordinance to address new development goals o Inclusion of a Master Planning requirement for all developments and subdivisions greater than S acres or at urban density (R-1 and R-2 zones) o Establishment of a Conservation Design Ordinance, including incentives and design standards, which would be triggered by the Master Planning requirement o Policy statements associated with the extension of the MUSA line for Conservation Design projects o A listing of application procedures o Documentation of possible conservation easements, trusts, and other methods of perpetually preserving the open land in Conservation Design projects o A public education section, listing resources available for other Orono residents wishing to improve their own properties, even if not subdividing or developing • A map, prepared by an ecologist, of the ecological connections within and beyond the city of Orono, for use as a reference for subdividers and developers. The Zoniny Ordinance The Zoning Ordinance must begin with a statement of public purpose. Based on discussions among city staff and the consultant, the following statement may accurately represent the Rural Oasis Project’s findings, as well as provide a basis for zoning: The City of Orono finds that there is an intrinsic link between the natural systems and the valued scenic character that exist throughout the community. The following requirements are meant to preserve and enhance this ecological/aesthetic character by requiring the a) protection and enhemcement ofdrainagfways and water quality, b) protection and enhancement ofecological communities, c) rebfbrcement and establishment of ecological connections thoughout the city d) Orono Rural Oasis DRAFT mmumey npait DSU. Inc. March 2,2008 f augmentation aid preservation ofenclosure and buffering, e) preservaion and improvement of views, andf) preservaion or reinterpretation of local landmarks. The Zoning Ordinance should include the following provisions; • A Master Planning requirement for any subdivision or development greater than 5 acres or guided for urban density. • A statement of base density versus density bonuses for performance items listed in the Conservation Design Ordinance o R-1 District; base density 2 units/acre; bonus density 3 units/acre o R-2 District; base density 2 units/acre; bonus density 4 units/acre The Conservation Design Ordinance This ordinance would be a new document, triggered by provisions on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In essence, any development or subdivision {greater than 5 acres in size, or existing within the urban density area will be required to follow the parameters of the Conservation Design Ordinance. This is true even when no density bonus will be provided (i.e.; outside the urban density area). Within the urban density area, developers have the opportunity to increase the base density by, essentially, going above and beyond the base requirements of the Conservation Design Ordinance. This ordinance must, therefore, clearly establish its basic requirements and its additional, performance requirements necessary for a density bonus. The Conservation Design Ordinimce should include the following items • APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES; o Developer must review and respond to the Orono Natural Resource Systems Master Plan (described in the Comprehensive Plan section, above) o IF, the site exists adjacent to a documented corridor, the developer must review and respond to the existing analysis o IF, the site is not adjacent to a documented corridor, the developer must prepare a similar analysis (documenting views, corridor enclosure, and landmarks through plan analysis and photographs) and submit it to the city for review o Developer shall pay a standard, possibly per-acre, fee so that the city can hire a consultant to prepare an ecological analysis similar to those prepared for the three pilot sites. o Developer must submit a tree survey o Developer must submit a wetland inventory and delineation o Developer must submit a site survey showing existing drainage patterns • BASIC REQUIREMENTS; o Consideration of the existing drainage system o Establishment of a stormwater management system, using multi-cell treatment principles o Removal of invasive species and diseased trees o Protection of significant tree stands and woodlands that support scenic and/or ecological goals, including mitigation of any such stands to be impacted by development activities o Protection of existing wetlands, including augmentation of buffers, mitigation of impacts, and enhancement of degraded systems Oroiio Rural Oasis DMFT summay lufiort DSU. inc. March 2.2006 o No impact to ecological communities of quality levels A and B o Maintenance of ecological connections through site design, as shown on the Orono Natural Resource Systems Master Plan o Maintenance and protection of existing views o Preservation or reinterpretation of existing landmarks o No modification of ecological community, as described by the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System • PERFORMANCE / BONUS REQUIREMENTS: o Reforestation beyond existing woodland limits (including definition of extents required) o Water quality improvements (including definition of improvements required) o Improvements in ecological grade of existing communities (including methodology for proving that proposed improvements will have the desired effect) o Upgrading of edge buffering to maximum, or tunneled, character o Major preservation or enhancement of existing landmarks • DEFINITIONS: o Corridor edge types o Ecological quality levels o View analysis o Landmark preservation and enhancement o Minnesota Land Cover Classification System • RESOURCES: o Approved plant lists for ecological enhancement and restoration o Conservation Design references, texts, articles, and trained professionals Next Steps The consultant and city staff will be presenting this summary report to elected and appointed officials at a City Council work session. Suggestions and revisions will be incorporated, and then this document, along with graphics previously provided to the city, will stand as the official summary of the Orono Rural Oasis Project (for the purposes of satisfying the study requirement of the current moratorium and future plannmg changes). Once this document is accepted, thereby completing the Rural Oasis Project, the city should begin modifying its plans and ordinances as outlined herein. CoaclasioB Through extensive analysis, both aesthetic and scientific, the Rural Oasis Project determined that ecology and scenic character are intrinsically linked and equally valuable to community residents. This project is the basis for future planning efforts, which will codify the ideas presented herein. In orter to preserve both the ecological quality of Orono’s lakes, wetlands, and other open spaces, as well as secure the scenic value of the city-wide landscape. 6 key items must be considered: corridor enclosure, view/viewsheds. local landmarks, drainage and water quality, ecological communities, and city-wide ecological connections. By addressing these six items through city regulations, fiiture developments are far more likely to be more consistent with Orono’s scenic and ecological goals. Orono Rural Oasis DRAFT mmimmy npoit DSU. Inc March 2.2006 J I i-: J-:S' i i CCXJNCIL MEETING SEP 262005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CTTYOFORONO DATE: September 26,2005 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa TUIc DiKctor of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: ix Agenda Section: Public Services Director’s Report Item D«Kr*p**ft»- Accept Quotations 755 l^key Lake Drive Sewer Extension The property owner at 755 Dickey Drive, has a failing septic system, and has requested sanitary sewer because of inadequate sites for the installation of a new septic system. This is an existing developed property that is within the MUSA. The property owner hw requested a City project to extend sewer service to the property and has signed an assessment waiver agreeing to be assessed for the costs to complete the project. The sewer extension project is to directional bore a sewer forcemain from the existing gravity sewer on the west side of Willow Dnve along the south side of Dickey Lake Drive to serve the property. Plans and specifications have been completed, and we have sent a Request for Quotations to three directional boring contractors that have previously completed City projects. The estimated construction cost for this project is less than $50,000, so the soliciution of quotations is an acceptable method to select a contractor to complete this project. We arc recommending acceptance of the quotation in the amount of $7,490 from Red Peder^n Utilities Inc. Hopkins Minnesota. There is an adequate cash balance in the Sewer Fund to pay for this project, and our recommendation is to fund this project from the Sewer Fund and the project assessment revenues be deposited in the Sewer Fund. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to accept the quotation in the amount $7,490.00 from Red Pederson Utilities Inc. Hopkins, Minnesota for completion of the 755 Dickey Lake Drive Sewer Extension project with project funding from the Sewer Fund and approval of the appropriate year 2005 budget adjustment to reflect this expenditure. COUNCIL MEETING SEP 262005REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION OTYOFORONO DATE: September 26,2005 ITEM NO.: Dcpartneat Approval: Nibm Gregoiy A. Gappa TMk Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director’s Report Item Description: Authorize Advertisemeht for Bids North Farm Drainage Improvements Project. This is an erosion control project to repair a ravine with extensi ve erosion on a property located at 1 669 North Farm Road. The erosion is damaging large trees and is also resulting in movement of the chaiutel closer to the house. The ravine is 700’ long with a grade of 7%, and is located in a densely wooded area with minimal ground cover vegetation because of the shady conditions. The bottom of the ravine is located only 100’ from Long Lake. The ravine drains a 25 acre area located along North Farm Road and Dakota Avenue. The Dakota Avenue area was developed in the 1940*s and the North Farm subdivision was developed in 1 970’s, so this area does not have an engineered drainage system that would required if the site was developed today. When this area was developed, the drainage was simply directed into the ravine without any provisions for erosion control. There are two basic methods to correct this problem, either construct a ripraped channel or utilize native vegetation for channel stabilization. We are recommending using riprap channel stabilization techniques for this project because of the steep channel slope and shady conditions that would make establishment of vegetation very difficult. The City now is required to have a NPDES stormwater permit, and this permit require agencies to establish a program for the implementation of Best Management Practices. The correction of this erosion problem will provide the City credit towards meeting the goals for our NPDES Stormw ater Permit. Our recommendation is that completion of this project with stormwater utility ftmds is appropriate because of the substantial amount of erosion occurring which is damaging large trees and if this erosion is not stopped will result in damage to the house. This property is substantially impacted by the large amount of storm water drainage flowing through the middle of the property. The priority ranking for stormwater utility-funded projects is in this order; first structure damage problems, second erosion problems, and third areas with poor drainage that is not threatening structures or causing erosion. Page 1 of 2 The estimated cost for this project is $85,000 so advertising for sealed bids in the Construction Bulletin and the Laker/Pioneer newspaper is required. The proposed schedule is to open bids on Tuesday October 18* at 2:00 p.m. and award the contract at the October 24"' Council meeting with project construction this fall. The staff recommendation is for Council authorization to advertise for sealed bids for this project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a motion authorizing advertising for bids for the North Farm Drainage Improvements project. >JU' *•*■*’ *■ ^ \ -V wmem ••■a:.- Page 2 of 2 't:' -■ y h I fAm 1LD/J& OKAIIlAgE fRflJga t61 . , ,# / \ y •■ r* • ’-^y ■'V* • A H -» Al/f m ^ 1000 Feet OHAIMACf A«.fA* 2SACAW H? ■ ./? \ ^ •• . •o: > ;• m:y.M \ >flNOlCAT£S TRfC REMOVAL NOTES 1 ACCESS SITE EROU LONG LAKE BLVO 2 INSTALL SILT EENCE AS directed by ENONEER y REVIEW TREE CLEARING WITH ENONEER 4 restoration or access POINTS incidental TO PROJECT l^ONG LAKL blvd , _ 2^, / I...:- DESIGN PROFILE ; ’ , I , , , ixiSTiliG pRoncc 970 i -ri^i - Hi -.T-. 950 8 u.lg -a —-R esign pRontE ExlSTINIf PROFILE r •' -i -T. 11"!::®:;::iii; : Y;:!. . .... ^ <1 960 ‘I 1970 960 MS ^Xh 28 0'S! 14-QQ 74-no atoa C5.0 jy i V . ^ .u REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: Scptcabcr 23,200S COUNCIL MEETING SEP 262005 CnVOFORONO ITEM NO: Dcpartacnt Approval: Naat Ronald J. Moone TMt City Administrator Admintetrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Deterip«a» ^ A Rev bed Resolution Aotfcoririag the City to Submit Information to the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and to enter into a Grant Agreement for the pnrehase of the Big Ittond Veterans Camp Property The Council has previously approved a resolution related to a grant agreement to enable the City to receive the funding approved by the State Legislature for the Big Island Vets Camp property purchare. This resolution did not include an authorization for the City Administrator to sign the grant agreement. The attached revised resolution includes that authorization. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the attached revised resolution Authorizing the City to submit information to the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and to enter into a grant agreement for the purchase of the Big Island Veterans Camp property, and authorizing the City Administrator to sign the grant agreement :-:v : ■ • n.-T' ■ ' V . 1: • 5 ■ ■ V. • • '.-Ui* ■** V.-. ^ . 4';'. . J RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ORONO TO SUBMIT INFORMATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TO ENTER INTO A GRANT AGREEMENT FOR FUNDING TO ASSIST THE CITY IN THE PURCHASE OF THE BIG ISLAND VETERANS CAMP PROPERTY WHEREAS, under the provisions contained in Minnesota Laws of 2005, Chapter 20, Article 1, Section 23, Subdivision 3, the 2005 Legislature appropriated $2,000,000 for a one-time grant to Ae City of Orono to assist the City in the purchase of the Big Island Veterans Camp property; and WHEREAS, to receive this money, the City must submit required information and enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Develo|mient. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Orono has the legal authority to apply for the grant, and the financial, technical, and managerial capacity to ensure proper construction, operation and maintenance of the project for its design life. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono that the City of Orono is authorized to enter into a grant agreement with the State of Minnesota for $2,000,000 for the funding of the purchase of the Big Island Veterans Camp property, and that the City Administrator is authorized to sign the grant agreement. I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the Orono City Council on September 26,2005. SICNED:WITNESSED: Barbara A. Peterson Mayor of Orono Linda S. Vee City Clerk Page 1 of 1 COUNCIL MEETING SEP 262005REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: Sq)tcinSS^2Sr ITEM NO: j Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Dlle City Clerk Admiaistrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE 1. Kim Hanson 2408 Casco Point Road At their September 12 Council meeting. Council tabled the kennel license application for Kim Hanson for further clarification on how the dogs will be housed and managed. The attached memo from Community Service Officer Ashley O’Rourke provides additional information for Council review. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licoise. % .. . - • V . -ivrv- V ■ T, vv ■ ». K. ‘■ V- : ;v .C-V; /'■ ,..V V; * *■ ' ’ ' T -ill til ■lali I iilr~»- ■Original Message- From: Ashley O’Rourke Sank: Thursday, Seglember 22,2005 3:39 PM To: Stephany Good Subjacb Kennel Application on Casco Point In regards to the Kenrrel License Application pending on Casco Point: When I %vent to the residenoe the four dogs appeared healthy and well cared for. I was told they are mostly kept inside the house, from what I couid see they are kept in the kitten and dining areas mainly. They are gated into this area and have bedding, water, and food out for their convenience. I was told they often go into the garage and backyard area as well. They have a fenced in backyard that while it is not large, provides space for the dogs to go the bathroom and such. It appeared to be clean, with little feces in the yard. Alt four dogs are friendly and interacted well with the two homeowners in the residence. From what they told me I understand the living condition to be a mother and her son, with a roommate. Each own a dog but I am not sure who the fourth belongs to. I have only received one complaint of the dogs, which simply stated there were a lot of dogs at the residence. No barking complaints or have I seen, or had reported, of any of the dogs ever being at large. I recommend the approval of the kennel license application. 9/22/2005 KENNEL LICENSE APPUCATION Effective Januuy 1,200_, to December 31,200__ Owner; Vs‘-V/v^'" Property Address; PT 0<"Ov.\^-n c (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different);________________^_____________• ________ Phone; fliome) (work) ^3 ~ *7 5^3 % 3» RESIDENTIAL Kennel Ucense Fee: $25.00 (payment must accooq>any application) MaximumNo. of dogs to be kept at one time (over 6 tnoodu of age) ime; ^ Frinc^Breed; 9'AAooV.\. *^ita-^vnctc^ UL><»k,v^. U6> c-wv>K . >jcv^^gcf Purpose tor more than 2 dogs;L'lCW o ^ Dogs normally kept; Lx^tnside____^kennel structure l i S O. ■ <1 e>c.^ COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee; $150.00 (payment must accompany applicatioiO Name of Business;________________ Business Activities; (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours;__________________________________ After Hours Contact; (name)_ (phone) Dog tuns/exercise areas are;inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to toe Orono City Council tor a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants toe City penmssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter S.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Cl.^■ZC-c\ Applicant Date For City Use Ontv * Kennel inspected by Recommends: Approval^ O03UfkA. Date jnSi enial m CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 09/22/051:53 PM Page 1 COUNCIL MEETING SEP 262005 SEPTEMBER 2005 Chaek Amt Invotce Comment CITY OF ORONO 10100 Primary Cash l»al^hk* 001724 9/26/2005 A J. OALLAOHER S CO OF MN, INC E101-42110-370 Ineurance Agent of Record $1,060.00 32531 E 101-41900-370 Insurance Agent of Record $640.00 32631 E 613-49030-370 Insurance Agent of Record $90.00 32631 E 602-49450-370 Insurance Agent of Record $21500 32631 E 601-49400-370 Insurance Agent of Record $95.00 32631 4th Qtr Ins Agent Fee 4th Qtr Ins Agent Fee 4th Qtr Ins Agent Fee 4th Qtr Ins Agent Pee 4th Qtr Ins Agent Fee Tout A.J. OALLAOHER A CO OF MN, INC $2,100 00 Mid Chwloms ^9^ooT "aop scRiiNiNO i ■select Tcn srv E 101-41900-409 Other Miscellaneous Charges $30^ 029522 Total AOP SCREENINO S SELECTION SRV "V/2®2005 Drug Testing $30.00 pZTChi5r001728^ AlUIIUWi REF&"^^ SERViCES" “ E 101-41900-201 Office supplies *< 95 6013-490360 E 101-42110-201 Office suppHes E101-41900-201 OfOoe supplies ToUl ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERViCES $110.95 6013-490369 $110.95 6013-490370 Coffee-PW Coffee-PO Coffee - CH $242.05 $50.76 25057 $50.76 ’PBidlihiiS~6oi72'7 9/26/2005 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resalo-Txbl _ Total AUOIES MOBILE CHEF Mid ChwiWfSo—9^om‘‘'automa 'w^^ E 601-49400-405 Repalrs/Moint-Watarmains.'plant S291.00 16951 E 602-49450-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip $265 50 16952 Total AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO. Hot Dogs, Cheesburgers Softener Valves SCAOA Maint $556.50 Paid Chk# 081729 9/26/2005 BEROERSON-CASVtfELL INC. E 601-4940CM05 Regaift/Maint-VWWtrmains/plant S2.0S5.00_ 15748 Total BEROERSON-CASWELLINC. $2,055.00 Weil «3 Paw chw oaTriT’ 9/2M005 biffs inc . E 101-45200415 Other Equipment Rentals fc 101-45200415 Other Equipment Rentals E 10145200415 Other Equipnneiit RenUis E 61349830415 Other Equipment Rentals E 10145200415 Other Equipment Rentals E 10145200415 Other Equipment Rentals Total BIFFS INC. $132.82 $132 82 $132.82 $66 41 $66 41 $738.19* W267634 W267635 W267636 W267637 W267638 W267639 Portable 8/2005 Portable 8/2005 Portable 8/2005 Portable 8/2005 Portable 8/2005 Porubie 8/2005 Paid ChMI 0817^1 " 9/26/2005 BUDOET PRINTING E 10143000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories ToUl BUDOET PRINTING $16.44 5890 UPS package $1644 >aid Chki 681732 ’* 9/26/2005 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC E 10143000-224 Street Maint. Materials/Supply E 602 49450-433 Memberships & Subscriptions Total BUFFALO BITUMINOUS INC. $335.09 3477 $1110 71 3477 $2.445’80 Ashpalt Ashpalt Paid Chk# 081733 9/26fil605 CARLSON. ROBERT R101-3A420 Cond Uaa-Vananca-Oav Faaa Total CARLSON. ROBERT $600 00 05-3148 Appl»catK>n 05-3148 Refund $600.00 Mid Chk# 081734 9^6/2005 CONNELLY INboSTRIAL ELEC. E 602-49450-406 Rapaira-Mamt-Swr lin#t/lifl» $274.41 8305 Wira Lift SUtwn CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 09/22A)51:53 PM Page 2 Total CONNEUY INDUSTmAL ELEC. SEPTEMBER 200S OtackAiijt Invotea CommanI $274.41 K53cSk»‘681735 9?26^5 COUNTRY CAKE CUPBOARD E lOMIIKMSS Mooting Expenaat $110.50 091005 Total COUNTRY CAKE CUPBOARD 8/11 & 9/8/05 council ws $11050 PaIJChti~08^^ 9/26/20(5 COVER a LlOF THE TWIN CITIES E 101-42260-404 Ropalfo/Moint-BWgs/Groundo $186 38 99574 Total COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES $186 38 Janitorial • 9/2005 - Now Firo uB 0m- *TaiTa^i»^BT737'" 9^^ E 101-43290-600 Speda! Projects. Contingency $1,104.23 26138 E 101-43290-800 Special Projects. Contingency $4,868.98 26139 E 101-43290-800 Special Projects, Contingency $3,269.88 26140 Navarre Vision James Property Concept Comp Plan Update Total OAHLOREN SKAROLOW 6 UBAN ’ $9.243 09 pjid'cf>ki*081738**" 9/26/2006'* OAY'DISfRfWTmd £613-499004)93 Concessions For Resaie-Txbl $39 80 329569 E 613-49900-091 Beer For Resale $36.60 329569 E 613-49900-092 Soft Drinks For Resale $44.00 330628 E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-TxW ($36 80) 330628 Total DAY OISTRlBirriNO CO. $83.60 Snacks for Resale Beer for Resale Water for Resale Credit ■p5idThi5'‘6ei739 »26«005 oca -wire only 0101-21719 OC/VSpending AccounU Total OCA-WIREONLY $564.09 9/16/05 $554 09 FSA 9/16/05 >airChk« 081740 906/2005 DtEBAERE.OON E 101-43000-331 Traval Expenaea $27 43 091305 Mileage & parkmg/seminaf Total OEBAERE.DON $27.43 plid'ChIdroeifir" 9«6«005 DEEP ROCK W^ER CO E 613-49830-221 EquBment Paris 8 Accessories ToUl DEEP ROCK WATER CO $34932 81099500 $349 32 Cone Cups l>iid Chkr68i742' '""9/26«005 ’ OIAMONO MOWERS E 101-43000-221 Equiprnent Parts & Accessories ToUl OIAMONO MOWERS $3702 19769 $37.02 Mlsc parts Paid Chk# 081743 ' 9/26/2005 EARL F. ANDERSON 6 ASSOC. E 101-43000-224 Street Mamt Malerials/Supply __ $100.11 67558 Total EARL F. ANDERSON & ASSOC. Sign Plates $88 50 229234 $88 50 $100.11 Paid CniT«*()8*17^ ~ WMOOS ^ST SIDE BEVEMGE E 613-49900-091 Baer For Rataie ToUl EAST SIDE BEVERAGE PaidChiTa'081745 ■"9/^^ 'electo 'icresourc Vcontra ^^ ' G 802-16500 Fixad/Uaal-Conal. in prograaa $7.875 00 52309 E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-BldgsrGfounds $246 00 53006 TottI ELECTRIC RESOURCE CONTRACTORS $8,121 00 Paid ChW 081746 9«6/2d0*5 ENOINEERING REPRO SYS fEMS ‘ E 101-42110-201 Office aoppliea ____$3516 110853 ToUl ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS PaS cl3lf''08i747 Iwwoos “ eschelon Bear for Resale Dahl Road LS Blower Motor 4545 Watertown-reprints $3518 ■ ■r— CITY OF ORONO 09/22/05 1:53 PM Page 3 *Check Detail Register® SEPTEMBER 2005 E 101-42260-321 Tetephone Chaej^mt invoice S3S3.94 6425807 Conunent Phone Service Tout E8CHELON $353.94 p PVidThiy 081748 9«8«005 ESS BROTHERS & SONS E 602-49450-443 Repain/MaH45l Reduction Total ESS BROTHERS B SONS . *' ,:h PaidChki 081749 "O/^OOS OSKSERVICES E 101-42260-404 Repairi/Maini-Bldge/Grounde E 613-49830-226 Clothing & penonal equipment E 602-49450-226 Clothing & personal equipment E 101-43000-226 Clolhing & personal equipment E101-43000-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds E 601-49400-226 Clolhing & personal equipment E 601-49400-226 nothing & personal equipment E 602-49450-226 Clothing S personal equipment E 61349830-226 Clothing & personal equipment E10143000-226 Clothing & personal equipment E10143000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories E 60149400-226 Clolhing & personal equipment E 61349630-226 Clothing S personal equipment E 10143000-226 Clolhing & personal equipment E 60249450-226 Clothing & personal equipment E 10143000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories E 60249450-226 Clothing & personal equipment E 10143000226 Clothing & personal equipment c 60149400-226 Clolhing & personal equipment E 61349830-226 Clothing & personal equipment E 6C 249450-226 Clothing 8 personal equipment E 61349830-226 Clothing S personal equipment E 10143000-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds E10143000-226 Clothing & personal equipment E 60149400-226 Clothing & personal equipment Tout G&KSERVICES Paid Chi«V(Sl75C' 9«6«0b5 “ GENUINE PARTS CO. E 10143000-221 Equipment Parts & Accesso'ies E 10143000-22 1 Equipment Parts & Accessories E 101-43090-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories E 19143000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories ’ E 10143000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories E 10143000-222 Vehicle Equip.ment & Parts E 10143000-222 Vehicie Equipment & Parts E 10143000-222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts E 10143000-222 Vehicia Equipnnont & Parts Tout GENUINE PARTS CO. $399 38 1 $399 38 HH4464 External Seats $206.92 1006516040 Mat Service - Nav Fire $6 34 1006533500 Uniforms $33.60 1006533500 Uniforms $67.14 1006533500 Uniforms $141.98 1006533500 Uniforms $11.20 1006533500 Uniforms $14.64 1006539832 Uniforms $4392 1006539832 Uniforms $6.34 1006539832 Unifbrms $87.79 1006539832 Uniforms $37.22 1006539832 Shop Towels $14.26 1006546172 Uniforms $6.34 1006546172 Unifonns $85.52 1006546172 Uniforms $42.78 1006546172 Uniforms $37.22 1006552501 Shop Towels $43.89 1006552501 Uniforms $87.77 1006552501 Uniforms $1463 1006552501 Uniforms $6 34 1006552501 Uniforms $47.40 1006558754 Uniforms $6.34 1006558754 Uniforms $104 20 1006558754 Uniforms $94.76 1006558754 Uniforms $15.80 Vi .264.34 1006558754 Uniforms $2528 8435/8 brush & fuses $49.23 844337 oil fitters $21.24 844672 oil fitter $16.16 844820 hyd filter $47 40 845482 vehicie parto $38 3 846728 beanng $12 66 848077 oil fbter $102 23 848120 oil filter supply $4888 U8656 misc supplies S361.39 Paid Chki 081751 ’ * 9/2WOOS'" GOLF CAR MIDWEST E 61349830415 Other Equipment Ren*al$ Total GOLF CAR MIDWEST $1^ 00^ 9904 $1,600*00* Golf Cart Lease 8/2005 Paid Chki 081752 9/2W605 GONZALEZ. M. OIWCIELA E101421I0-319 Other Professional Services $-.25 00 August3l 2005 CSC suspect interview ICRW54 ToUl GONZALEZ. M. GRACIELA ~ $125 00 PaidChki ’081753 9/26/2005 GOPHER STATE'6 nE-CAl L ariii a*.^ i ^. CITY OF ORONO 09/22/05 1 53 PM Page 4 Check Detail Register© SEPTEMBER 2005 Chock Amt Invotco Comment E 602-494S0-480 Other MMOtlUnMUt Charge* E 601 •49400-409 Other MtsceOerwoui Charge* Tout GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL S4S7 30 5080661 5467.30 5080661 August Locates August Locates 5974 60 pildChk* 061754 9/26«005 GRAINGER E101-43000-221 Equipment Part* & Acoesaorles Total GRAINGER 566.16 495-994337-6 Wheel 566 16 'paid Chki 061755* 9/26/2005 OMNOE, STEPHANIE E101-42110-409 Other Mlsceltaneou* Charge* Tout GRANDE, STEPHANIE 523 53 9/16rt)5 523 53 Citizens Police Academy 9/26/2005 HANSEN, STEVEN C.Paid Chkf 061756 E 101-43000-226 Clothing S personal equipmen; ToUl HANSEN, STEVEN C. 5125 00 09012005 steel toes lx>ots/200S hi $125 00 PtidChWii'081757^ MMOdb HENNEPIN CO^P SEED EXCHANGE E 601 -49400-223 Bldg/Groundi Mainl Supplies E 101-41900-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies E 601-49400-223 Bldg/Groundt Maint. Supplies E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies E 601-49400-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies E 601 -49400-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies Total HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE $48 94 106693 $21 51 107514 $21.51 107514 $4894 107858 $97.87 107928 $97.87 107928 misc supplies San misc supplies Grass Seed misc supplies Grass Seed $336.64 iSSSoos hY nnew ^^PaidChkS 081758 E 601 -49400-321 Telephone E 101-41900-329 Other Communications E 101-42110-414 EDP/Communicatlons Equip Rent Total HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT $53.49 090605 $89.10 25087177 $6.719 97 25088033 telephone Database Acces.* Radio lease 8/2005 - PO $6.862 56 Paid^kToSlTsT *9/26/2005 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF E 101-42110-319 Other Professional Services ToUl HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF $75 00 768 Jail Charges 8/05 $7500 Paid c¥k¥W760 INFINITY WIRELESS E 101-42110-221 Equ.pment Parts & Accessories ToUl INFINITY WIRELESS $136 72 13776 Charger $136.72 m s»Paid cftri 081 TeP *9fiMW005 INTERST/iTE BATTERIES E 602-49450.222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts Tout INTERSTATE BATTERIES S17 6 68 20028595 517966 Batteries Paid Chk# 081762 9/26/2005 IRRIGAtrON*MANA'GEMEN^ E 101-41900.404 Repair*/M*int-Bldg*/Gfound» __ ’5923 ToUl IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT 5441.70 Sprinkler Syslem Repair Paid Chk* 081763 9/26/2005 ITRON E 601-49400489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 5566 72 275316 Hardware/Sofhware Mainl Tout ITRON *366 72 Pan) Chk* 061764 9«6/2005 KENNETH N. POTTS, PA E 231-45650-307 Ltgal-ContuHing Tout KENNETH N. POTTS, PA PaidChk* 661765 ' 9^^ KIRVIOA PIRE.'lNC B101-42260402 R«paira/Malnt-Auto Equv 5126 00 261 S4;^1O0 8/2/05 5441 oo' Cox f orfeiture Chk Oil Leak - Pumper CITY OF ORONO 09/22/05 1:53 PM Page 5 *Check Detail Register® Total KIRVIOARRE.1NC SEPTEMBER 2005 ChjckAmt Invoica Cowuntirt 5126 00 TP(iid<:hwr5ei*75S ‘mifiooi....kLMENOINEERING, INC 0 601-16500 Ftxad A»Mt-Con>t. in progtatt 54.569 00 2798 Navarra Wlr Twr Rehab Total KLM ENOINEERINO, INC 54.569.00 WMWOS'Paid Chk# 081767 LAKE BUSINES'S SUPPLY £613-49830-201 Offieaaupplie. ____Addirrg Machine Tape Tout LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY 522.18 PaldChkP 081768 55,648.00 09012005 LMC Mbrshp - 9/1/05-06 9^005' LMOUEOFMN CITIES E 101-41110-433 Membershipi 8 Subsctiplione 55.648 00 l»iVChkT08i769 Total LEAGUE OP MN CITIES wSuiobH LMCif-lc/oTERkLEY^ E 602-49450-379 Insurance Oadudiblet Total LMCIT-C/0 BERKLEY-STREET AO 5635.45 11052888 Oeduclible - Oberanger/Milier 5635.45 Paw'Chk#"08i770 W2(U200i LUBES UNLIMITED E 101-43000-212 Motor Fuelt & Lubricants Total LUBES UNLIMITED _S5q4^ 10082 550.45 PaWChk# 081771 * 9/26/2005 MEOICA G 101-21706 Hospnalizatlon/Medical Ins G 101 -15998 Non-Employea Health Ins G101-21706 HospMHzation/Madical Ins G101-2170C Hospitaiization/Madtcal Ins Total MEOICA 51.760.70 106274122585 Medica Low -10/2005 5731.11 105274125488 Medica Elect -10/2005 511.381 77 105274125488 Medica Elect-10/2005 5731 11 105274 134225 Medica Essentials -10/2005 514.604S9 TiSd'6hWl)8i772 "9/2MV20Ss MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SWS E 602-49450-383 MWCC-Curront Charges 525.338.15 806265 Wastewater Charges -10/2005 Total MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 525.338 15 ■^aid Chk'i 681773 ’VWioaS MIDWEST ASPHALT E 60249450-433 Memberships & Subscrtplions Total MIDWEST ASPHALT 5485 62 75642MB Asphalt Pald^iKk# 081774 548562 9tW2obf~’momsr couT bottl Tno c 6 E 61349900-092 Soft Dnnks For Resale 7t-‘el MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO 5163.95_ 81035169 5163.95' Soda for Resale I Paid Chka 081775 * 6/26/2005 MIOI^ST FUELS 0101-14101 Gasoline Inventory E 10143000-212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants G 101-14101 Gasoline Inventory E 10143000-212 Motor Fuels & Lubncants Tout MIDWEST FUELS 55.463 81 27903 S2.927.01 27903 S5.449 93 28744 51.154 70 28744 '514.995.25 2190 Gats - Unleaded 1290 Gals-Diesel 2229.1 gals unleaded 513 2 gals diesel PaidCh'kV 6ei776* 9/26>2005 "'MINNEAPOLIS OXY'oEN COMPANY E 10143000-224 Street Maim Malerials/Supply ___RI08050772 Total MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 533 68 Paid Chki 081777 9/26/2005 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC. E 10142110-201 Office supplies ____ Total MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC. 547 93 Paid Chki 081778 9/26/2005 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Cylinders Forfeiture Forms 1 CITY OF ORONO 09/22A)5 1;53 PM Page 6 *Check Detail Register® SEPTEMBER 200$ CtMckAmL toyolci. Comment G613-2080fi R 601-3961J R101-34210 G 601-2080$ R101-34650 Due to Govt»-Stble Sale* Tax Mlaeenanaous Revenue Generel Taxable Sales/Service Oi e to Govta-State Sales Tax Police Reports Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE $1,899.00 e/2005 $35.00 8/2005 $14.00 8/2005 $7.00 8/2005 $2000 8/2005 Sales Tax 8/2005 Sates Tax 8/2005 Sales Tax 8/2005 Sales Tax 8/2005 Sales Tax 8/2005 $1.975 00 Paid *Chk« 08*1779 9/26/2005 MT10I8TCO. E 813-49830-221 Equip«n*nt Part* & Accessories ToUl MTtOISTCO. $137 58 477415 Belts $137.58 Wi’clKiW780~*li56«6^ E 602-49450-223 BWu/GfOunds Memt. Supplies E 101-43000-224 Street Maint. Materials/Supply E 601 -49400-405 Rep*ir*/Maint-\W*t*rmaln*/plant E 101-43000-221 Equipment Part* & Accessories E 101-43000-224 Street MainL Materials/Supply E 601-49400-227 Utility System Mamt. Supplle* E101-43000-221 Equipment Part* A Accessories E 613-49630-223 BWg/Grounds Main!. Supplies E101-42110-201 Office supphe* E 101-42110-201 Office supplie* E 101-43000-224 Street Maint. Matertals/Supply E 101-42110-221 Equipment Part* & Accessories E 101-43000-221 Equipment Part* A Accessories E 602-49450-443 Repairs/Maint-IAI Reduction E 101-43000-221 Equipmeni Part* A Accessories E 613-49630-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies E 602-49450-227 UtRty System MainL Supplies E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint. Supplie* E 601-49400-227 UtHity System Meint Supplies E 602-49450-443 Repsirs/Msint-lAi Reduction E 602-49450-443 Repalfs/Maint-IAI Reduction E 602-49450-221 Equipment Part* A Accessories E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E 601-49400-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies E 101-45200-221 Equipment Part* A Accessories E 101-43000-221 Equipment Part* A Accessories Total NAVARRE HARDWARE S2340 156594 Filters. Paint $383 156601 Anchors $15.06 156854 Hardware $22.34 157193 Batteries $957 157269 Rake $967 157386 Pipe Compound. Paint $7.75 157432 Sealant. Starting Fluid $20.09 157444 Rake. Ice Blocks $1323 157458 MDC Cleaner $6 79 157495 MDC Cleaner $34 06 157594 Rake $2494 157642 Keys $9.35 157657 Fuse. Battery $7.65 157667 Concrete Mix $615 157701 Brush. Rust Inhibitor $14 37 157706 Washers. Cleaner $563 157907 Paint $26.73 157917 Padlocks $28.72 157917 Padlocks $10.51 157930 Sealant $12.75 157945 Mortar Mix $1064 157965 Neoprene Gloves $3.72 156013 Glass Cleaner $6.16 158502 Pvc pip & socket $639 158535 misc bolts $11.25 158585 Batteries >ue $35275 Paid''Chke *681781*' 9^6^605 NEOPOST E 101-41900-401 Rapairs/Mainl-Office Equip Tout NEOPOS1 Paid ChW» 081782 ‘ tf/ie/WOO" ■■ NORLINO'S E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Ground* $439 20 42064825 /Vinual maint 9/26/06 $439 20 20303 S498 19 Landscape Maint - Nav Park Tout NORUNG'S Paid Chk# 081783 9/26/2005" NORTH MEMORIAL CUNIC-OCC E 101-42260-319 Other PfOfo**ion*l Service* 43010 Total NORTH MEMORIAL CUNIC-OCC HEAL $2,398 00 Paid Chk# 081784 9/26/2005 O'SULLIVANS - HOLlbAY $48* E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $1172 aufl3l.2Q05 Fire Fighter Physicals •• •»' Car Washes i- Tout O'SULLIVANS • HOLIDAY 548 $11.72 CITY OF ORONO 09/22/05 1:53 PM Page 7 *Check Detail Register® SEPTEMBER 200S Chack Amt Invotca Commant Paid Chki 081755 912612005 O’SULLIVANS HOLIDAY M7 E 101-42110-402 Repalri/Maint-Auto Equip $235.28 083105 Total O'SULLIVANS HOUDAY 847 $235 28 carwashes f/augOS PaW ChMI 081*786 9/26/2005 OWCEOETOT E 101-41900-221 E 101-41900-201 E 101-42110-221 E 101-41000-201 E 101-42110-201 E 101-41900-201 Equipment Parts & Acoessorlas Office supplias Equipmant Parts S Accessories Office supplies Office supplies Office supplies ToUl OFFICE DEPOT $206.57 304739789 ($206.57) 304909177 $98 21 305777161 $14.72 305777161 $21 44 306135987 $21.45 306135967 $155~82 Keyboard Tray Returns Linksys Switch Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Paid Ctiwil* 081787 9/26/2605 OMAN, LYLE E 101-42400-331 Travel Expenses E 101-42400-331 Travel Expanses E 101-42400-331 Travel Expanses E 101-42400-331 Travel Expenses E 101-42400-331 Travel Expanses E 101-42400-331 Travel Expenses Total OMAN, LYLE $36.45 $38 47 $72.49 $40.09 $40.90 $2592 5/18/05 6/14rt)5 6/2A)5 7/11/05 7/25/05 7/28rt)5 Mileage Mileage Mileage Mileage Mileage Mileage $254.32 pWChki'08i788 9W2005 ORONO ROTARY E101-42110-433 Memberships & Subscriptions ToUl ORONO ROTARY $139 00 5 July • September Meetings $139 00 PaidChMi'OSiTag 'W^OOt PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, E 101-42260-401 Repairs/Maint-Offico Equip $15000 IVC00625 Support • 9/2005 ToUl PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,$150.00 PiidChkaWooT 9/26/2005 PIONEER E 101-41900-352 Printing & Publishing E 235-45690-352 Printing S Publishing Total PIONEER $1,074.60 8205 $262 68 8605 Summary Financial Report Annual Tax increment 8/6/05 $1,337.28 8 Piid Chki’ 681791" ■'9/26/2665 PROTECTION ONE E 101-41900-469 Other Miscellaneous Charges Total PROTECTION ONE $164 40 091205 $184.40 Alarm senrlce Paid Chka 081792 9/26/2005 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC. E 602-49450-406 Repairs/Maint-Swr lines/iifis __52.803.7 9 15913 ToUl QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC. $2.803 79 Maintenance LS #1 i Paid Chk# 081793 'S^OOS' RDO FINANCIAL SERVICES E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts 8 Accessories $145 64 148234 E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts 4 Accessories ($123 40) 148333 TOU. RDO FINANCIAL SERVICES $22.24 Chipper Parts Chipper Parts rtwChka 08*1794 '' * 9/26/2005 RICKS SUPERVALUE E 101-42110-201 Office suppkes E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txoi ToUl RICKS SUPERVALUE $2 12 9/14/05 $16 38 9/9/05 '$'1850 Card - Cheswick Candy for Resale Paid Chki 081795 9/28/2605 SAFEHT SIGNS E 602-49450-415 Other Eouipment Rentals E 602-49450-4 15 Other Equipment Rental! I B • . eew < *e A e « • $181 58 051924 $214 60 C51925 bamcadet barncades/signs CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 09/22/05 1 53 PM Pages SEPTEMBER 2008 Cheek Amt Invoice Comfnent b 602-49450-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 602-49450-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 602-49450-415 Other Equipment Rentals Tout SAFETY SIGNS S214 60 051926 SI 21.27 051965 S181 58 51520 bamcades/signs barncades/signs Barricades $913.63 PaicfShk# 681796 9/26/2005 8AMARATAN TIRE E 101-42110-402 Rapaira/Maint-Auto Equip Total SAMARATANTIRE $684 56 264115 $684 56 Squad Tires Paid ChMi 081797’"™ 9/26/2005 SCHARBER 8 SONS E 613-49630-403 Rapaira8Maint-Mitc. Equip E101-43000-221 Equipment ParU & Accettories Total SCHARBER a SONS $77 43 2051162 $2.47 2051907 $7990 Mower Parts mrsc part Pj« ChWr'68T798“ 'W6/2665 SCHOEMHOFF. JOHN E 101-42110-437 Training 6 Oevelopment Total SCHOENHOFF.JOHN $7.55 9/12/05 $7.55 Meals • Driving School "iSaidChki 081796 ' WSSOOS SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT LABS F iniu2i 10-221 Equioment Parts & Accessories $60.27 390042 Total SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT LABS $60 27 Crime Scene Supplies PakTChk# 081800 WZKOm SNYDER DRUG #5025 E 101-42110-201 Offloa auppliet Total SNYDER DRUG #5025 $3 93 9/8/05 $393 Card - Bill Weeks ftaw Chi!#'68i66’r" 0/26/2605 streichers E101-42110-402 Rapaira/Maint-Aulo Equip E101-42110402 Rapaka/Maint-Auto Equip E101-42110-402 Rapaira/Mainl-r.jlo Equip E 602-49430-240 Smait Tool# and Minor Equip Total streichers $544.00 11289873 $544.00 1287145 $27200 1291866 $117 10 1292221 $1,477.10 MDC Install MOC Install MOC InttaH Flashlight ?i«Chk#"08186r" WWiiM SUPERIOR WITLESS COMMUNICATIO E 801.49400-403 Raoalf»/M8int-Miac Equip $3500 11181 Earpiece Total SUPERIOR wireless COMMUMCATIO $35.00 ■piid ciSrMiToT'" wewoos toll gas a weloing supply E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parti 5 Actaffones $108 10 375409 E 101-43000-224 SlrMl Mamt. Malanali/Supply » 45 483145 Total TOLL GAS a WELOING SUPPLY $114 55 Regulkl^ Cylinder Invoice '^.dthk#™08V8‘64^' "9)26/200*5 VESSCO INC. E 60149400-227 Utility System Maint Suppl«s E 60149400405 Rapairs/Maint-Watermaini/plant Total VESSCO INC. $184 54 34665 $124 05 34713 "$300^59 Pump Head Parts Paid^W»*Wr805 “ ' W26/2 E 61 ^49830*489 Other Mitcetiar>eous Charges E 101 -4190C-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges E 10M1900-489 Other Mtsceliar>eous Charges E 101-42260-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges E 101 -45200-319 Other Professional Services E 101-45200-319 Other Professional Services 6 101-45200-319 Other Professional Services ToUl WASTE MANAGEMENT -TC WEST $78.26 $9249 $106 72 S7826 $78.26 $7826 $2^M.14 $768 39 1169813-1593 1169814.1593 1169815-1593 1169816-1593 1169817-1593 1169818-1593 1169819-1593 Solid Waste • Solid '*'aste - Solid Waste - Solid WasiO - Solid Waste • Solid Watte - Solid Waste • GC 9/2005 CH 9/'2005 PW 9/2005 Nav Fire 9/2005 Bedened 9/2005 Surrwne 9/2005 Parks 9/2005 CITY OF ORONO 0d^2/0S 1:S3PM Page 9 *Check Detail Register® SEPTEMBER 2005 ChaekAmt Invoice Comment Pidthwirosisoe o26«oos wwst.kathy £101*42260-221 Equipmoflt Partt S AccMMflet Total WEIST, KATHY S28.30 7IWS $28.39 pIfidChk# 081807 9M/20M VWITE.TOMY E 131*42110*437 Training S Otvalopmartl Tout VIMITE.TONY $95.76 W12A)5 $95.76 w26/2bo5 wm £101-43290*800 Spodai Pro|oc(a. Contingency E 101*43290400 Special Projoets, ConUngancy Tout WSB $4,884 27 $4.884 27 $9,768.54 P5dat0r?6il55 wSSwSr xcelemeroy £101*42280*301 OaaS Electric E 101*42110*381 GasSEIecIrte 6101*43000*386 Street Lighting E 101*41000-301 OasOEIestric E 101*43000*381 Gas & Electric £101*45200-381 Gas 8 Electric E101-42110-381 Gas & Electric £801*49400*381 Gas & Electric E 802-49450*381 Gas & Electric £813*40830*381 Gat 8 Electric Total XCELEMEROY $480.02 $810.04 $1,441.05 $1,791.03 $370.54 $22.95 $9.42 $4,587.71 $1,583.08 $065.39 5169855701 5169855701 5169855701 5169855701 5169855701 5169855701 5169055701 5169855701 5169855701 5<j9855701 $12,043.03 PaSchko ooloid o«8«bo5 yellow book usa £813*49830*340 General Advertising ToM YELLOW BOOK USA $65.00 303866 $85.00 10100 Primary Cash $146,712.12 Fund Summary m 101 GENERAL FUND 231 DRUG/FELONY FORFEITURE FUND 235 SENIOR HOUSING TIF FUND 601 WATER OPERATING FUND 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND 813 GOLF COURSE 10100 Primary Cash $82,708.78 $441.00 $282 68 $13.487 14 $43.992 60 $5,819.92 Storage Units • Med Supplies Meals, Lodging - MNSANI TH 12 Turnback TH 12 Turnback •■■'Vi f.' ■ ■ f Electrical Senrice Electrical Service Electrical Service Electrical Service Electrical Service Electrical Service Electncai Senrice Electrical Senrice Electrical Service Electrical Servloe Directory Adv - GO S146.712.12 mmm -• - c:-v J CITY OF ORONO C9/14/05 7.14 AM Page 1 check register r- Clwck Number Employee Name k 004679 004660 004681 004682 004683 004684 004665 004686 004687 004688 004689 004690 004691 004692 004693 004694 004699 004696 004697 004696 004699 004700 004701 004702 004703 0C4704 004705 004706 004707 004708 004709 004710 004711 004712 004713 004714 004715 004716 004717 004718 004719 055346 055347 055348 055349 055350 055351 055352 055353 055354 055355 055356 055357 055358 055359 055360 055361 055362 055363 MOORSE, RONALD J. SILUS, BARBARA G. VEE. LINDA S. KUEHN. THOMAS M. OLSON, RONALD J. PETTIT, SANDRA K. ANDERSON, BRUCE L BOBZIEN, SUE A BORIS, SCOTT W. CORNICK, JAMES L DAY, SUSAN J. DEMBOUSKI, JAY C. FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K. GOOD. STEPHANY R. MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. PHARO, CHRISTOPHER M. RUSSETH. KYLE M. SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B. STENSRUD. C.M3R. TOEWE, KIMBERLY D. TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. TOMCZYK.MARKW. WHITE. ANTHONY J. WITTKE. ANTHONY A. KLISZCZ.OAVIDA. O'ROURKE. ASHLEY CURTIS. MELANIE GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. GAPPA. GREGORY A GIBBS. WILLIAM R. GUNOLACH. JANICE J. MEYER. WILLIAM C OMAN, LYLE E OEBAERE. DONALD L. FASCHING. GREGORY P. HANSEN.STEVEN OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G OBRIEN, RANDY L. PALMER. GREGORY A RATHBUN. BARRY J PETERSON. TAYLOR F. DODGE. RACHEL M LESKINEN. DENISE M. BOBZIEN. SUE A BORIS. SCOTT W ERICKSON. KURT R FARNIOK. CORREY L. FISCHENICH. DAN T MADSON. ADRIENNE M. MCNICHOLS DAVID L MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES PERSELL. WILLIAM R TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F GAFFRON. MICHAEL P OMAN. LYLE E VANG BRUCE L GREGORY. JAMES 0 HANSEN STEVEN OBRIEN. RANDY L. •y Chock riod Amount 19 S2.389.44 19 $580.15 19 $1,110.43 t9 $1,409.18 19 $1,231 14 19 $1,095.99 19 $1,818.19 19 $855.00 19 $20.00 19 $2,350 29 19 $1,459.40 19 $2,086.63 19 $2,067.36 19 $2.00280 19 $1,100.00 19 $1.344 64 19 $1,478.27 19 $1,963.93 19 $1,441.22 19 $1,372.18 19 $90000 19 $1.46900 19 $1,350.54 19 $1,724.75 19 $386.02 19 $834 27 19 $1,244.94 19 $125.00 19 $1,893 95 19 $1,010.13 19 $1.374 77 19 $620 57 19 $1.400 00 19 $1,339 63 19 $1.490 79 19 $87500 19 $1,631.53 19 $550 00 19 $400 00 19 $200.00 19 $36 87 19 $1,089 89 19 $93900 19 S215.61 19 $1,538.06 19 SI.772.92 19 $2,17956 19 $1,643.01 19 $98521 19 $701.92 19 $1.829 11 19 $462 50 19 $552 15 19 $1.438 95 19 $356 76 19 $1,385.08 19 $906 59 19 $260 24 19 $447 15 Check Date Check Statue 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outetanding 9/14/2005 OuUtanding 9/14/2005 Outsta.'.dlng 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 OuUtanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14.'200S OuUtanding 9/14/2005 OuUtanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 OuUtanding 9/14/2005 OuUUnding 9/14/2005 OutsUnding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 OuUtanding 9/14/2005 OutsUnding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 OutsUnding 9/14/2005 OutsUnding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 OuUtanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 OuUUnding 9/V/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/200: OuUtanding 9/14/2005 OuUtanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 OuUtanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 OuUtanding 9'14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 OuUtanding 9/14/2005 OuUtanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding 9/14/2005 OuUtanding 9/14/2005 Outstanding CITY OF ORONO check register 09/14/0S7.14AM Pag«2 Clwck Numbtr EmployM N«m« PALMER. GREGORY A. RATH8UN. BARRY J. SKREEN, DALE S. EIDUM, PHILIP JENSEN, ROONEY W. MCINTYRE. WILLIAM E. PEICKERT.GARYJ. ROSS, JOHN A. SCHNEIDER. LLOYO SMYTH, KATHERINE R. STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD STORK. JOHN T. 0SS3S4 0S5365 0SS366 05S367 09S368 05S369 055370 055371 055372 055373 055374 055375 Pay Chtk Clwck Ptrlod Amount Date CfMck Statu* 19 1603 94 9/14/2005 OuttUndlng 19 $1,393.61 9/14/2005 Outstanding 19 11.132 29 9/14/2005 Outstanding 19 $150.69 9/14/2005 Outstanding 19 $192.33 9/14/2005 Outstanding 19 $23161 9/14/2005 OuUUnding 19 $269 97 9/14/2005 Outetanding 19 $211.28 9/14/2005 Outstanding 19 $247.07 9/14/2005 Outstanding 19 $139.91 9/14/2005 OutsUnding 19 $1,409.23 9/14/2005 Outstanding 19 $192.51 9/14/2005 Outstanding $75,172.73 'O.,. O' CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register© 0W14A)57:S0AM Page 1 SEPTEMBER 200S Cheek Ami Invoice Comment 10100 PfImefyCeeh__ >eidChki MfTs S FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 0101'21701 Federal VWhhoWIno $11,533.36 0 101-21703 FICATaxWIthholdlno $5,039.09 0 101-21703 FICATei Withholding $5,039 Og FEDERAL W/H FICAS MEDICARE W/H FICA S MEDCR CITY SHARE Total FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES $21.61154 l»aid ChW^fl'e' »14/2d05 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 467 0 101-21705 Other ReUrement $1,106 62 Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 «iTCWdr0817if DEFERRED COMP-302030 $1,16862 g/l4lf20W SwTENroRCMENf L^^^ 0 101-21707Union Dues so.oo Total LAW ENFORCMENt LABOR SERVICE $0.00 IpiMChkt'deTflS 9/140005 MNOEPT OF REVENUE 0101-21702State Withholding $4,801.42 Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE $4,601.42 p5dcTKil)6i7iT ' g/T4(2&>5 mn state retirement system 0 101-21718 Post Emp4oyri.ent Health $321.94 Total MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM $321.94 PaidChk# 081720 “i?14Sdd5 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 0 101-21705 Olher Retirement $1,990.00 0 101-21705 Other Retirement $144 53 Total NAT«3NWI0E RETIREMENT SOLUTION $2.134 33 PaMChii# 68f721 9/14/2005 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEEWUST 0101-21705Other Retireinent _$3.032 68 Total ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEEA:UST $3,032.66" Paid Chk# 061722 ®/14/2005 PUBLIC EKIPLOYEES RETIREMENT 0101-21704PERA $8,056.75 0101-21704PERA $6.182 95 Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT $14,239.70 Paid ChwT 08i723'"971472005 UNITED WAY Q 101-21708 United Way $86 00 Total UNITED WAY $86 00 10100 Primary Cash $47,416.43 UNION DUES «40 S #168 STATE TAX W/H post retirement USCM - ENTITY 2 >39 OBRA #2343 MN STATE RETIREMENT PERA CITY SHARE PCRA EMPLOYEE W/H CHARITY DONATIONS Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 10100 PnmaiyCavi $47.416 43 $47,416.43 \ ^ s ••• . ^• •INFORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETIN G COUNCIL MEETINO SEP 26200S CnYOPORONO % % w m i ? ^ HINSHAW s, c " L <■* t I' T i O N 111' .'^EClEJVfrC* Sqjtember 16,2005 1 6 2005 Mayor Barbara Peterson Mr. Ron Moorse Mr. Michael Gaffron City of Orono City Hall P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0510 ITV OE ORONO ATTomanr* AT uiw 222 jth Ninth Street Suite 3100 Minneapolis. MN 55*102*3336 612 333-3434 612-334-8888 y/ww.hinsha. com Dear Mayor Peterson. Mr. Moorse and Mr. Gaffron: Thank you for taking the time last Monday to discuss with me the Citys interest in an RFP for legal services. 1 gather from Mr. Moorsc's comments that the decision to send out an RFP has been made at an administrative level and by the Council as well. After thinking about the meeting, 1 would like respectfully to suggest that the City set out an RFP process which allows it to have in place a decision on representation by the end of this year so that the new contract is in place as o*“the first Council meeting in January of 2006, when the Council traditionally appoints foe City Attorney. I will plan to continue to represent the City on foe terms of our current fee contract for the remainder of foe year, or less, if foe City were to select a different attorney before then. 1 am, of course, available to discuss further any policy or factual issues you may have with respect to foe duties of foe City Attorney and I look forward to reviewing foe RFP when it is issued by the City. m Very truly yours. Banctt • * a:/-:.- mm $1 ^ . I' i:ui9«5%l 753031 1- I h 1 YOO'BE DAKOTA OBRIOOR OPEN HOUSE Please join Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority on Wednesday, September 28 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Mound-Wcstonka High School Cafeteria, 5905 Sunnyheld Road East in Minncirista for an update on the Three Rivers Park District master planning effort for the Dakota Rail Corridor. The Dakota Rail Regional Trail Draft Master Plan will be on display and representatives from Three Rivers Park District and planning consultants will be available to answer questions regarding the Draft Master Plan and the proposed Dakota Rail Regional Trail. For more information, contact Boe Carlson, Governmental Relations Administrator, Three Rivers Park District, by e-mail: bcarlsoii@threeriversoarkdistrict.org. 9 s>/it'-.- \ f * '..V ^ \!'/// • * fr * ^V=- ^ 'V pi I HmM 3%. V OPEN HOUSE DATE: Wednesday, September 28 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. LOCATION: Mound-Westonka High School Cafeteria 5905 Sunnyfield Road F^ist Minnetrista f 4, A map of the Hennepin County segment of the Dakota Rail Coirictor is on the back side of this flier. isvaii I lOorr^r ilLJ Oram in W • • y. HMMpiii Cowly Mfnml of dw Dikota Rail Comdor r ♦ 0 A I/- :.-‘‘‘--y, ..fH •.. t # .•:; V- IhofiwuodHfi w 91 VtP V Z } ‘c«0'i0 ’ . 'f f i f , f, K aren Orcutt SUfCRINTCNOCNT N eal J. Lawson A ssistant Superintendent A aron M. ruhland D irector or Learning a ACCOUNTABILITY Orono Public Schools D istrict no . 278 • DISTRICT OFFICe 685 Old C rystal B ay ROAO N orth , P.O. Box 46 Long Lake , MN 55356-0046 telephone BS2-44B-B30 FAX 9S2-448-B3M ANIOUAL OPPORTUNirr IMPLOVER September 14,2005 '«m ^'’^OFOROfvo Ms. Barbara Peterson P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Barbara: I’d like to take this oppoitunity to infoim you about Orono Schools upcoming operating, technology and bond referendum vote on November 8. We appreciate any efforts to support our referendum. The Board of Education and District administration have worked diligently to careAilly manage the District budget and have painstakingly made $3,630,311 in budget reductions over the past five years ($699,336 in 2000-01, $829,925 in 2001-02, $1,014,550 in 2002-03, $712,500 in 2003-04 and $374,000 in 2004- 05). We know you are aware of school revenue concerns and are working diligently in your positions to provide adequately and fairly for your constituents. This year we are taking the opportunity to ask our public four qu.:stions that will include operating funds, technology revenue, and two renovation bond revenue questions (see attached). We obviously believe strongly in the value of education and the need for stiong public schools, as well as the role our school plays in all communities we serve. We appreciate your efforts and want to keep you informed about what is happing in our district this November. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call me or any of the board members listed on the back of the attached document. Sincerely, Karen Orcutt, Ed.D. Siqierintendent of Orono Schools Cc: Orono Board of Education Enclosure: September 13,2005 Press Release 1 m rORONOl miw ORONO SCHOOLS COMMUNICATIONS omcE • 9S2-449-83IS 952-449-8399 (F) ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT NO. 278 • DISTRICT OFFICE 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH P.O. BOX 46 • LONG LAKE, MN 5S3S4-C046 • TELEPHONE 952-449-8300 FAX 952-449-8399 www.oraao.kl 2.IBD.III AN EQUALoraoanmmr EMPiom 9/13/05 PRESS RELEASE OroDo School Board of Education Passes Referendum Resolution for the future of Orono Schools The Orono Board of Education, on September 12, passed a resolution to ask its residents four questions. When Orono school voters visit the polls on November 8 they will have an oppcrtunity to enhance the future of Orono Schools. The board has based their questions on planning for the future that irKludes detailed analysis of financial, facilities and technology needs. The four questions will include operating funds, technology revenue and two renovation bond revenue questions. Additional local control was part of the 2005 state legislation public education finance bill, providing scboo. districts the ability to serk additional local dollars for local use. The operating referendum would provide additional dollars for day-to- day school operations. It would permit the Orono schools to provide the same level of qualit>* education for the 2006-07 school year without making reductions and allow for some ability to make minor restoration of past reductions. Technology committees with strong community resident leadership have studied plans for over five years. A second question posed to the voters will ask for specifically designated dollars for technology. These dollars would be capital project dollars funded by the community for ten years. In addition to these two questions, the Orono public will be asked for two separate bonds to provide renovation projects in facility improvements. The bond referendum is based on detailed analysis and projective planning. In 2004, the school district commissioned Wold Architects and Engineers to develop a full analysis of Orono facilities. The analysis indicates $26,185,000 of needed maintenance proj jcts within 0-5 years and an additional $4,965,000 of maintenance needs within 6 to 10 years. The following chart shows the estimated firumcial impact on homes valued at $100,000 to $1,000,000 for 2006 property tax purposes. For example, the owner of a $300,000 home would pay $257 more a year. Martwt Value ol $260. Operalifig Rafarantfum ($620 par atudantl Technology $760,000 por .000 65 I I III I I 285 $26.185.000 Bondlasua 110 412 $4J65,00( BondlsBuo Total Par Year $128 $172 $215 $257 $342 $429 $043 Hie levy referendum questions will be presented to voters in special election held on November 8,2(X)5. Additkmal information and questions can be answered in person by calling 952-449-8315 or at an Orono School Board public meeting on October 10,7 p.m. in the Orono High School cafeteria. Mel I >Utan Council 1 i r-i.; September 12,2005 SEP 1 ^ '-^OOb CITY OF ORONO Ms. Barbara Peterson, Mayor City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Peterson; Enclosed are documents that are intended to help your community update its comprehensive plan, The Metropolitan Council is providing these documents as required by state law. St^e law also requires that communities submit their updated comprehensive plan to the Council three years from the date this material is received. The documents comprise your “system statement,” which shows how changes in the Council's sgional system plans for transporution. water resources management and regional parks specifically affect your community. The system statements contain: • Key changes in transportation, aviation, water resources and parks policy plans. • System plan considerations aflecting your community. Forecasts at densities to help achieve regional policy goals. The complete text of the Council ’s regional plans, our new Local Planning Handbook and other helpful materials can be found on line at »!//www.met]-f«rninM;il orifyolanning/framework/timeline.htm. Paper copies are available by calling the Council ’s Data Center at 651-602-1140. The Council will hold a series of outreach meetings in October to assist communities with questions regarding system statements and comp “ehensive plan updates (see encl^d schedu e). You can also contact the Council sector representative who ’s assigned to work with your community with any questions (see enclosed map with contact information). We recognize that updating your comprehensive plan will require considerable time and effort. At the same time, we believe it is a valuable opportunity for local officials, community leaders and concerned citizens to take stock of where you are as a community' what your neighbors arc doing and how your local plans fit into those of the region. Sincerely, Tom Weaver Regional Adminisbator i %»ww m#tfncouncl! org Metro into Une 230 EmI Filth Strc«l • St Paul. Mlnne*ol« 5510MH26 • (651) 602-UHl'l • Fax60.’-1550 • TTYjSI^rAM g*aaaMi<.i System Statement City of Orono Following the January 2004 adoption of the 2030 Regional Development Framework, and the more recent adoptions of the Transportation Policy Plan, the Water Resources Management Policy Plan, and the Regional Parks Policy Plan, the Metropolitan Council is issuing system statements pursuant to state statute. Receipt of this system statement and the metropolitan system plans triggers communities* obligations to review and, as necessary, amend their comprehensive plans within the next three years. The complete text of the 2030 Regional Development Franmvork as well as complete copies of the recently adopted metropolitan system plans are available for viewing and downloading at httti:y/¥Ww.metrocDunal.oiWD>areTitKi/framewpfk/lime^ Paper copies are available by calling the Council’s Data Center at 651 •602-1140. Metropolitan system plans are long-range comprehensive plans for the regional systems - transportation and airports, wastewater services, and parks and open space, along with tlic capital budgets for metropolitan wastewater service, transpoilution and regional recreation open space. System statements explain the implications of metropolitan system plans for each individual community in the metropolitan area. They are intended to help communities prepare or update their comprehensive plan, as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act: Within three years following the receipt of the metropolitan system statement, every local governmental unit shall have prepared a comprehensive plan in accordance with sections 462.355, subdivision 4, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 and the applicable planning statute and shall have submitted the plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to section 473. / 75. Local comprehensive plans will be reviewed by the Council for conformance with metropolitan system plans, consistency with Council policies and compatibility with adjacent and affected governmental units. The system statement includes forecasts at densities that assure regional growth is achieved consistent with adopted policies. These forecasted densities help ensure regional services and costly regional infrastructure can be provided as efficiently as possible, and that development and growth within the metropolitan area occur in a coordinated manner. The system statement also contains an overview of the transportation and aviation, transit, wastewater, and regional parks system plan updates, and system changes affecting each community. Forecasts. The following forecasts are part of the 2030 Regional Development Framework (adopted January 14,2004 and updated on August 24,2005). They are used by the Council to plan for its regional systems. Communities should base their planning work on these forecasts. However, given the nature of long-range forecasting, the Council will maintain an on- w r^J u going dialogue with communities to consider any changes in growth trends or community expectations about growth that may have an impact on regional systems. Forecast of population, households and employment: Population Households Employment 1990 7,285 2,613 980 2000 7,538 2,766 951 Revised Development Framework 2010 8,300 2020 3,200 9,500 1,230 3,950 1,420 2030 9,800 4,100 1,500 The Council forecasts growth at appropriate densities for communities in order to protect the efficiency of wastewater, transportation and other regional system investments, and to help ensure the metropolitan area can accommodate its projected growth by the year 2030. Growth management The Regional Development Framework sets an overall minimum residential density standard of 3 to 5 units per acre in developed and developing areas where urban service is located or planned. The average minimum standard of 3 units per acre is important to the efficient use of regional systems, including wastewater system investments. Communities that significantly over>utilize or under-utilize regional systems can cause inefficiencies in the use of regional resources. Additionally, achieving housing at these density levels may help communities meet their obligations under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act to plan to and address their housing needs. Geographic planning area. The city of On>no is designated partially as a “developing community” and partially as a “diversified rural” geographic planning area in the 2030 Regional De\ elopment Framework. Geographic planning areas are shown on the 2030 Planning Area map. The planning area sets overall densities that the planned development patterns in your community can be expected to achieve. (If there are discrepancies between the 2030 Framework Planning Area map, and the metropolitan systems plans because of adjustments that occurred subsequent to the adoption of the 2030 Regional De\'elopment Framework document, communities should follow the specific guidance contained in this system statement.) As Orono plans for current and future residents, it should focus on protecting natural resources, ensuring sufficient public infrastructure, and developing transition strategies to increase density and encourage infill development. Developing communities are also encouraged to preserve areas for post-2030 growth, where appropriate. Specific strategies for developing communities are found on page 28 of the 2030 Regional De\>elopment Framework. The portion of Orono designated as diversified rural area should plan to be consistent with regional forecasts, at densities of no more than 1 housing unit per 10 acres. Specific • 'k ! i UV strategies for the diversified rural planning area are found on pr2c 32 of the 2030 Regional De\’elopment Framework. System statement review process. If your community disagrees with elements of this system statement, or has any questions about this system statement, we urge you to contact your sector representative, Robin Caufman, 651 602-1457, to review and discuss potential issues or concerns. The Council and local units and districts have historically resolved questions about forecasts and other components of the system statement through discussions. Request for hearing. If a local governmental unit or school district and the Council are unable to resolve disagreements over the content of a system statement, the unit or district may by resolution request that a hearing be conducted by the Council's Land Use Advisory Committee or by the state Office of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of considering amendments to the system statement. According to Minnesota Statutes section 473.857, the request shall be made by the local unit or district within 60 days after receipt of the system statement. If no request for a hearing is received by the Council within 60 days, the statement becomes final. Svatem itatemeat Iisue date! The official date of the issuance of this system statement is September 12,2005. Mw-'' ■ 4^* d Transportation System Statement — Orono Key Changes in the Plan The revised Transportation Policy Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Council in December 2004, is the metropolitan system plan for airports and transportation with which local comprehensive plans must c<Niform. This system statement summarizes significant elements of the metropolitan system plan and highlights those elements that apply ^cifically to your community. In addition to reviewing this system statement, your community should consult the entire Transportation Policy Plant the 20S0 Regional Development Framework and other pertinent regional planning and policy documents, including the Aviation Policy Plan, to ensure your community ’s local comprehensive plan and plan amendments conform to the metropolitan system plans. A PDF file of the entire revised Transportation Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the Local Planning Handbook and other regional planning and policy documents of the Metropolitan Council are available online at the Metropolitan Council ’s Web site: http://wvyw-meiiocouncil.oni/Dlanninit/framework/timeline.htm . The Aviation Policy Plan, adopted in 1996, is not available electronically, but a copy can be obtained by contacting the Metropolitan Council ’s Data Center at 651-602-1140. The revised Transportation Policy Plan incorporates the following changes: • The planning period has been extended from 2025 to 2030 • No significant increase in the level of transportation funding was assumed. • The expenditures shown in the Transportation Policy Plan must be constrained by the level of funding that is anticipated. However, the revised plan also examined two alternative scenarios - what could be built if highway revenues were increased by 30% over the next 25 years, and what it would cost to provide enough additional capacity to hold congestion to the 1998 levels. • The highway expansion projects shown in the plan have changed little since the 2001 plan, due to this lack of additional resources. (See Fig 4-11 for highway expansion proposals.) Metropolitan Highway System Plan investment priorities no longer contain the “Improvements” category. Most improvement corridors are now designated “Management ” corridors. • The new investment timing provisions arc contained in the Plan. Table 4-11 contains projects in Mn/DOT’s Highway Work Plan (scheduled in 2009-2013) construction, reconstruction, and bridge replacement greater SIO million. Table 4-12 contains Regional Priority Project to move into the 10-Year Highway Work Plan, if there arc resources available in the 2005-2009 time period. • Funds have also been allocated to obtain right of way for new crossings of the Mississippi River between NW Hennepin and Anoka Counties and of the Minnesota River in the vicinity of Chaska. Construction'dollars fiir these projects are not foreseen before 2030. • 5 new policies and procedures on managing the scope, cost and revenue sources of projects to insure that sufficient resources are available to implement the region ’s tran^rtation priorities as shown in this plan. This includes procedures to manage the use of -T. 1- Federal High Priority Project (HPP) funds and matching funds for these federal dollars. The Council and Mn/DOT will monitor scope and costs to ensure major projects continue to meet regional objectives in a cost effective manner. The plan envisions significant improvements in the bus syston, including new express bus routes, arterial corridor enhancements, suburb-to-suburb service, transit stations, park-and* ride lots and other features. The goal is to increase transit ridership SO percent by 2020 and double it by 2030. The plan proposes additiorral express commuter bus corridors as well as enhancement and expansion of existing bus service in freeway corridors. Within each corridor, expr^ bus routes will be supported by park-and-ride facilities, circulator networks, and “transit advantages.” The plan includes construction of five new “transitways” on dedicated rights-of-way by 2020 to help slow the growth in traffic congestion and improve mobility, and three additional transitways by 2030. Unlike the 2001 plan, the technology for each corridor was not identified in the Plan; rather the most appropriate and cost-effective mode for any given corridor is best determined after extensive study of the individual corridor. Figure 4-2 (attached) shows the 2030 Transitway System and Express Commuter Bus Si's!?!!!. The plan now includes detailed information on the facilities needed for transit passengers, such as stations and park and ride lots, as well as facilities needed to support the transit system, such as garages and bus layover sites (Figures 4-5 and 4-6). Communities should plan for development and redevelopment around stations and park-and-ride lots. Policy 18 (previously policy 1?) on transportation and land use elements in local comprehensive plans was rewritten and more detail provided in some strategics as to what the Council expects in local couiprehensive plans. The TPP now includes references to the regional aviation system as defined in the Aviation Policy Plan. The 1996 Aviation Policy Plan remains in effect with the exception of the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise. These guidelines have been updated and included in the TPP as Appendix H. System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community 1. Metropolitan Highways Metropolitan highways and regional highway investment priorities for 2030 are shown in Figure 4-11. The city should refer to Tables 4-9 through 4-12 for major highway projects and proposed timing. TII1^ the only metropolitan highway located within Orono, is currently bcirag #> UUled. 2. Transit Routes and Facilities Orono is within the Metropolitan Transit Taxing District. Orono is within Market Area III. Service options for Market Area UI include peak-only express, small vehicle circulators, midday circulators, ^>ecial needs paratransit (ADA, senion), and ride^haring. •T-2 Orono stiould identify existing tnuisit service (available on the Council’s w^itc) Md desired future transit service options consistent with the Transportation Policy Plan’s transit system service areas (Table 4-1 and Appendix M). Dial-a-ride service is provided by Wcstonka Rides. Orono should list transit corridors (express commuter bus corridors and dedicated right-of-way corridors) and identify opportunities to promote higher density initiatives along dedicated transit corridors (see Figure 4-2). ono should identify existing transit passenger and support facilities and ftiture improvements to and expansion of these facilities. Passenger and support facilities include shelters, transit centers, stations, and park-and-ride lots. An existing park-and-ride lot is located at Navarre Center. 3. Aviation Plan and Facilities The TPP/APP includes policies and text on protection of the region’s airqiace resources. The airmace policy states that both Federal Aviation administration (Fi^) and MnDOT Aeronautics safety standards must be a major consideration in the planning, design, maintenance and opettfioo of air transportation fecilities and services. There are no fisting or plann^ aviation fafilitwt within Oremo. However, each community has a responsibility to include airspace protection in its comprehensive plan. The protection is for potential hazards to air navigation including eiectiooic interference. Airspace protection should be included in local codea/ordinances to control height of structures, especially when conditional use permits would apply The comprdiensive plan should include policy/text on notlllcatioa to the FAA as di%n^ under code of federal regulations CFR - Part 77, using the FAA Form 7460-1 ’’Notice of Piopoaed Construction or Alteration". Instructions can be foimd at www.faa.gov/ani/ace/patt77 .efin. Flying in the metro region involves all types of aircraft including amphibian and float-equipped planes, ro**^"""^**** should recognize, for purposes of safe use of surface waters and con^atible land use, that certain public waters within the seven-coitntv metro area are designated by MnDOT Aeronautics as permitted seaplane use areas under stote Rules. For a listing of operating areas and other relevant information please refer to the following web site: r//www.revi«w.leg.state.mn.us/aru le/880(V2800.html. •‘T I 2030 Transitway System Figure 4 • 2 Transitways on Dedicated ROW mi NorthsUr NortIwMSt Cedar Avenue lOSW Central SKi Red Rock Rush Line Southwest - /----------- Transitways on Dedicated ROW Express Commuter Bus System August 2004 J . -i Ftflur«4^ Arts of Potential Transit Sarvica Expansion Taxing Ortfcict c;3) PdanlM TrwK Expiniion Anas J 20 Mat J ! - •-X? ..'.■■W./ Au gist 2004 -f i t !tjW>i:W*^ ^^• - S.-T-. i \ i ■ ’% . Vv A*. ' .. Figure 4*5 Transit Passsngtr Facilltits AalMPali A RM*Ci|^ay (11/nM) > L«fit«rtlOO o 100 -fOO Ortalif SOO ii; »fogrtaiait<^w% tfMl(a005»aOO) o Ct«r«n (S Plwnad Trandl Carttr and Pwt A did# f tol?v OalMiSMltm O CMOt • fulupd • Caiini • Fididd TwdiCMtCeOt y^v.'K • t ^ ^ h ^Ju OoMmownMamaapoliA) » ^ Y • • * ’ 4 ^ a «'.Z'" ft” ^0 .•» / •1 ‘ ( '• ■ » ' ■' . ^ i ' ^ \ : 5 Mt + S' ’7^1 f i 'V I r-4 i. ? tf* I 1 ta^’ %ta mmimm^mmi -s ttttM* 1 SMlSlflM i OMp .• »ra»s»tiMnMi « FttaiSMp flfMS* B FWiPSMp «— IPVSII • •••i B MMMlfVSSB •KISH « ^ TMtOratMOMSt i Figure 44 Transit Support FscilWss ii[‘■’v,' f " ; f ■ i j..: . W ■**7i * i < .--* = ;'t.‘ V . •* . -ie#, Vi -- I< c I i udlUl.rJaaA ’ill tr<T*«lkt rfSnVfcTVSrih^-if ■Irti WtUilLaMh^Sifc Figur«4-11 2030 Constrained Metropolitan Highway System Pian investment Priorities llghwey mvestmenl Friertties Mat • MM T» Au9jst2004 0 3 i i3MiM I t I t » « « « I y. Table 4-9 Mbfof lllfltiway Projects Under Way or Included In 200S»2008 Transportation Iniprovenient Program £nlcd ■a d Bridge Cast E»IIbmHw (Mil) Cemst prognwi yean AjtteMed year open to traflk Project DcecriptioB States in 2001 TPP Slates and Other Comments 1. TH 12 $60.(2003 2. I-3SE.ftomTH13 toShepanIRd. $33,1 2002 200S Constnict new limited access 2-lane hi^way between Wayzata Blvd. to CR 6 in Onno. Parallel to existing TH 12. In 2001- 2004 TIP Contracts let Replace and Expand Miss. River Bridge. Project let 3. I-3SW, HOV lane, from 66* St. to 42** St. Bridge in 2001- 2004 TIP Contracts let $206,(2010 Reconatnict TH 62 and I-3SW and add the HOV lane. Stage I (1-494 to 60* St) contiacts let 4/99 In 2001- 2004 TIP Project redesign required byl legislamre, to be let 2006 4.. TH 36, St. Croix Bridge $5,(New 4-lane bridge and approaches. Negotiation process underway. Request for high priority funding has been made In 2001- 2004 TIP S. TH 55. Hiawatha Av. $l29,i 2003 2004 Reeonstract the 4-lane arterial from Crosslown to 1-94. S5M placeholder in *05-’08 TIP. Mediation process underway. MN cost estimates from SI50-$227M The cost recorded here is 'A of the average. 6. TH 100. from Olenwood Av. to eSAH 152 $146,1 2003 2004 In 2001- 2004 TIP Contracts let Coiisiniction underway to rebuild as 6 lane fmwaj'. In 2001- 2004 TIP Contracts let 7. M94mi6l iaiavdMHiflB, TH 61/ local access $250,1 2002 2009 Replace and widen 1-494 bridge, reconstruct interchange, reconriruct TH 61. Provide local access. First contract let In 2001- 2004 TIP Contracts let. i ¥ Tabte 4-9 (continued) Major Highway Projects Under Way or Included In 2009-2008 Transportation Improvement Program ECfiJfd m»iww •ad Bridet 8. 1-94, ftom Weaver Lake Rd. to Humboldt Av. 9. 1-94 from McKnight loTH 120 10. 1494 from THSto THIOO II. TH6IOfromTH 169 to CR 130 12. TH 169 from Minnesota River to Valley View Rond 13. 1494 from TH 212 toTH55 14. TH 212 from eSAH 4 to % mile west ofCSAH 147 IS. 1494 from west to east Junction I-35E (unweave the weave) TH169SoofCSAH8l toNo.ofCSAH 109 TOTAL Ceet Estimates $n.( $74,( $26,750 $104.( $130,( $259.( il37;i 141.510 IL692J30 Cnrrsnt program years 2001 2005 2003 2004 2005 2004 2004 2007 Attumed year open to tralBe 2005 2007 2005 2005 2008 2006 2007 Project Description Reconstruct, add general use 3*^ lane from Hnniock to Brooklyn Blvd._________ 3 lane, bridge widening Ruth St. to Ramsey Co. line Add 3” lane, first contract let Continue construction of new 4-iane freeway on new alignment Reconstruct three intersections as interchanges and reconsiract interchange with 1- 494 Widen 1494 to six lanes Construct new four lane freeway on new alignment Reconstruct and add lanes to eliminate bottleneck Construct faiterchan(,e Bridge Statu in 2001 TPP In 2001-2004 TIP Expansion Corridor In 2001-2004 TIP Expansion Corridor Corridor study recommended •03-‘06 Status and Other Comments Contracts let Contract let Described as 1494. from TH 212 to THIOO Expansion Corridor Expansion Corridor Expansion Corridor Improvement Corridor Described as 1494. from TH 212 to 1-394 Described as TH 212. from eSAH 4 to old alignment Described as 1-694, from W jet I-35E to E jet. I-35E TaM«4-10 Malropolltaii Highway SyttMn Expansion Prq}scts 21 HJfhway From To Lnglli (Bdkt) Total (■dBIOM) 2001TPP Coanacnt Recommended Fadlity Improvement I-35E THllO TH5 2.3 39 ImproveoiODt to be Defined Bridge Under Construction. Add 3*^ I.ano. I-35B**1-94 1-694 5.6 197 Subarea Study Needed Add 3*^ and 4* I^e. Connect Phalen Corridor. Reconstruct Cayuna Bridxe I-35W**46^ SL 1-94 5.3 309 Improvement Corridor Add HOV/ transit priority lane and Lake Street interchange M94 TH55 1-94 5.5 176 Descriptioa was 1-394 to 1-94 Add 3*^ Lane 1494 TH77 TH190 5.1 628 Description was from TH 77 to THIOO Build in Accordance with FIS Completed in 1997 I-094**I.35W W.Jctl- 35E 5.6 180 Add 3" Lane 1-694 Eict.I- 35E TH36 5.5 86 Corridor Study Needed Add 3"* Lane TH36StCMx Bridao* I.O 201 New- four lane bridge and mitigation TH36** I35W I-35E 5.3 118 Descriptioo was I35W to USE Add 3*^ Lane TH41 THI69 111212 3.0 10 Rigbt-of-Way Preoetvatioo Preserve Riglit-of-Way dler alignment is defined New Mias. River Cfoerinc THIO 1-94 or TH 610 2.0 10 River crossing need recorded Preserve R/W after alignment is defined THIOO** 1 36"St Cedar LakeRd. 1.0 1 104 Add3"'Lane TH252 I 73«- Av. TH6i0 2.9 127 Corridor Needs Unclear 1 Convert to 4-Lane Freeway TH610 CRI30 1-94 5.0 148 Complete 4-Laiie Freeway TOTAL 46.8 $2,322 a ^ ...... Mssani it k my nrtiM~ ‘------“*—**AB or p«t of teM «» Id ibe Mid)OT10-yte« (2004-2013) Woffc Flm :N^ Jk. 1 TaM«4-11 MnDOT Highway Work Plan, 2009-2013 Mi^Conatniction, Raconatniction and BrMgaRaplacamantOraalar Than $10 Million ••A. M Prelect Cost Estiautes Hllhway nrt|Mt Prograai Ceastractiea Ftocal Year Dcsl|a Eetfraate (SOOO) RAV Esthnate ($000) Year«ef> Coastractioa Estiamte (SOOO) CoastractlaB Eaflaccrlag Estiaute ($000) Total Project Cost ($000) 35E l<94toMafylaDd Ave. n St PtuI, fiadlBi, inrfiKing. bn..dc., iiKiiidiiif Ciyu|BBr.aad PhalaaBlvd. coamctioo MC 2010 7,687 Limited 76,755 6,140 90,571 35W At Lake St in MiiwwapoHi, rccofistnKt lolcr- dlMMtPlLn MC 2009 1,160 Contiii* uous/ Major 11,600 928 13,688 35W At Lake St ia Mjeawpnlii, lecoanwctiater- dHaaa(Ph.2) MC 2010 1,785 Contin* uous/ Major 17,850 1,428 21,063 36 AtLcxIagloa Ave..tailUMevtUe. itplace Br. 3723 and recooitnict iaMchaBBa MC 2009 U80 Limited 13,804 1,104 16489 100 1 1 36* St to Cedar Lake 111 la St Louis Park, gndiag, surftciiii, Bn„ etc. fbr 6>laM freeway MC 2011 6,150 Coatio* uous/ Major 61,500 i 4,920 72,570 169 NearCSAH6ia Belle Plaine, gnulias. surikdag. Br.,eie.fiiraew MC 2010 1,904 Limited 19,040 1423 22.467 694 BofDSWiB AedaaifillitDEof Ledagtea Ave.. ia gndlBifr aaftctag, Ba^eie.iaadd dMIaaeaai eenaelaaeMai TH10/51 MC r » ’ 1 2012 i i ' 6,960 1 ^ . i - Li Minimal/ Spot 69,596 ■ ■ A 1 5468 0 0 82,123 TOTALS 27,019 27(M^21,611 318,771 TaM«4-12 Rtglonil Priorlly Prq|«cto to Movt into 10-Yow Mgliway Wortc Plan, 2008-2009 Hialmay I-35E M94 TH610 Project DMcriptira THllOtoTHS.through lane TH 55 to 1-94. add one through lane CSAH 81 to 1-94, Complete four-lane freeway Total: $ 300 million Ma ■■X XX? xx. AAr:'^Wsm mmfi • • •; ••.. = ■•: 7:.. 7'‘ ' X- * ■' J ■ : y •• 7; ■. 7'-ia ••: I-,■.',?r‘.-:.-r ; ■,> • .... •.=. •.• • -J". >* ■■'• ■.■ .••■■•• ;■: V.'. ■*• •’• '■ ."1-.' , Iv- 'i^-V mm■;v !.:■ ' m:. ■ ‘ i,’.’ 11 11 n li ill I M •< n-' A aw'«>»’UK'\4 4*v' • Wastewater System Statement — Orono Key Changes in the Plan The revised Water Resources Management Policy Plan, adopted by the Metropolitan Council in March 2005, is the metropolitan system plan for metropolitan wastewater services with which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement summarizes significant elements of the metropolitan sy-stem plan and highlights those elements that apply spccifleally to your community. In addition to reviewing this system statement, your community should consult the entire Water Resources Management Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework and other pertinent regional planning and policy documents to ensure >uur community's local comprehensive plan and plan amendments conform to the metropolitan system plans. A PDF file of the entire Water Resources Management Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the Local Planning Handbook and other regional planning and policy documents of the Metropolitan Council are available online at the Metropolitan Council’s Web site: http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/ frameworlc over\iew.htm. The rcN’iscd Water Resourees Management Policy Plan incorporates the follow ing changes: A coordinated approach to water supply planning in the metropolitan area w ith the goal of providing for a sustainable, reliable and secure supply of higit quality water to support orderly economic growlh and maintain the region’s high quality of life. An approach to surface water management that tics together the control of pollution from point and nonpoint sources. Local surface water management plans will be review ed for impacts on the regional wastewater system. A policy under which the Council will consider acquiring and operating local wastewater treatment plants in rural growlh centers upon request where enough growth is projected to make it economically feasible for the Council to become involved. • A plan that provides for cities to reduce excessive inflow and infiltration til) of clear w ater into the metropolitan sewer system. A financial ussistancc'surcharge pr(*gram is included that: w ill provide a fimding mechanism to help solve the I I problem. A policy that continues to require inspections of individual sew age treatment systems (ISTS) at least once every three years by trained individuals. In addition, the Council has addexi further clarification on what is needed in a community’s local ISTS management program. m l": , ' .*W- I •s''•4 . M. „ .r' if J llitifiiih i«4..VU W VWf'WVat* • ' i f hs ’ System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community 1. IVIctropolitan Sewer Service As shown on the 2030 Regional Dewlopment Framework Planning Areas Map, portions of Orono are to be guided for either diversified rural or as a developing community. TIic diversified rural area needs to accommodate growth to not exceed the CounciPs forecasts for unsewered development and cluster development not to exceed one unit per ten acres. Forecasts: The forecasts of population, households, employment, and wastewater flows for Orono as contained in the adopted Water Resources Management Policy Plan are listed below. These forecasts are for sewered development. The sewered housing forecasts were estimated based on SAC data, annual city reports, current trends and other information relating to your community. The wastewater flows are based on historical wastewater flow data and the projected scwca*d housing and employment data. Table 1 Year 2010 2020 2030 1 Sewered Population 5.800 7.000 7.300 Sewered Households 2.256 2.950 3.020 Sewered Employment 1,230 1.420 1.500 Average Annual Wastewater Flow (MGD)0.63 0.7 0.71 Allowable Peak Hourly Flow (MGD)2.14 2.31 2.34 The flow projections represent the Council's commitment to a level of service, assuming that the Council ’s underlying demographic forecasts arc maintained. Adjustments may be required based on verified growth or lack of grow th. The city should contact Council statT to discuss any proposed adjustments. Flow projections do not represent an allocation of interceptor capacity except in the event a temporary sy stem constraint occurs. The community must strive to keep its w et weather flows within the allowable peak hourly rate. At a minimum the Council will reevaluate flow projections every five years. Moreover, the Council will also continue to monitor each city’s flow on a continuous basis and note any significant changes. The Council will use thc*sc grow th and wastewater flow forecasts to plan all future interceptors and treatment work needed to serv e your community. The Council will not design future interceptor improvements or treatment facilities to handle peak hourly flows in excess of the allowable rate for your city. Orono, through its comprehensive planning process, must decide the location and staging of development, and then plan and design its local wastewater collection system to serv ’e this de%clopment. W. 2 If you plan a total wastcu ater flow from your community in excess of the Council's forecasts, your assumptions wilt be analyzed by the Council for their potential adverse effects on the capacity or operation of the metropolitan system. You should also note that urban development at overall densities that arc substantially lower than identified for your community in the Council's Growth Management Strategy Section of the Systems Information Statement will also be analyzed by the Council for their potential adverse effects on the cost of providing metropolitan sewer .service. Description of Metropolitan Disposal System Serving your Community: The attached map shows the location of the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) scr\ ing your co.nmunity. The following paragraphs contain information on the existing and planned metropolitan facilities serx ing your community. The wastewater flow from the City of Orono is treated at the Blue Lake WWTP located within Shakopce, MN. There arc many projects schedulcxi for the Blue Lake WWTP through 2030. These projects will provide additional capacity at the plant as well as improve its ability to meet rc*quircd permit standards. The City of Orono is servfd by Council interceptor 7018. This intereeptor currently has an available capacity of 1 .33 mgd to provide for the long-term needs of the city. The Council has scvtTal proposed interceptor improvement projects entitled Orono-Wi'ay/ata. They were scheduled to support the long-term needs of the city, llie current schedule for these improvements will begin with the feasibility studies starting in 2006-10. Design and construction is scheduled to follow in 2010-2020. The city ncx'ds to verify its long term needs as part of its comprehensive plan update. If nccc*ssary, detailed information regarding metropolitan facilities is available from the Council's Municipal Serx ices Sc*ttion by calling the staff at (651) 602-1005. Increases in growth rates and rc'sulting increases in flow beyond those shown in Table 1 may result in short-term capacity limitations xvithin the MDS. Inflow/Infiltration Reduction Coal The Council's Water Resources Sfanaffcmcnt Policy Plan states that the Ci>uncil will establish L I goals for all conununitics discliarging wastewater to the MDS. Communities that have excessive l/I in their sanitary sewer systems will be required to eliminate the excessive 1/1 by 2012. The Council w ill begin the implementation of an I-1 assistance/ surcharge program in 2007. The money collected from the communities with excessive I/I may be used by those communities to remove 1/1 from their systems. The Council will limit increases in service within those communities that have not met their LI goat(s) starting in 2013. The Council will meet with the community and discuss this ritemative before it is im|demented. This time period may be shorter if excessive IT jeopardizes the Council's ability to convey wastewater without an overflow occunring. In W- 3 fi ^ ! this case the Council may limit increases in scr\ ice within those communities that have excessive l/I immediately upon notification to the community. The Council plans to implement a wastewater rate demand charge program, starting in 2013, for those communities that have not met their 1/1 goals. 1 hese revenues will be used to help defray the cost of providing attenuation within the MDS to recover the capacity lost to cxcessi\ c 1/1. The I/I goal established for the City of Orono is the allowable peak hourly flow rate as shown in Table 1 and varies based on annual average (low. The Council's metering program shows that the city ’s 2(X)4 annual average tlow at mcier M435 was 0.4 mgd thus the current L'l goal for this connection point for your community is an allowable peak hourly flow of 1 .4 mgd. The current annual average flow at meter M43 1 is 0.062 mgd thus the current I/I goal for this connection point for your community is an allow'able peak hourly flow of 0.25 mgd. Specific Reqairemciitt for the Sewer Element of the City ’s Comprehensive Plan The Council has completed a review of the current infonnation in the city's existing comprehensive plan and has determined that the following information is needed to update the sewer element of the city's comprehensive plan/local sewer policy plan: A sewer map showing the city ’s existing service area and proposed trunk sewer sy stem through 2030 and ultimate sewer service area. A table showing the projected population, households, employment and (low forecasts for the city for 2010,2020 and 2030. A description of the city ’s I/I program. What elTorts docs the city make in the maintenance of its sanitary disposal system? Docs the city prohibit the connection of sump pumps, rain leaders and passive drain tile from the sanitary sewer sy stem? 2. Management of Individual Sewage Treatment Systems The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires the .sewer element (local sewer policy plan) of the local comprehensive plan to describe the standards and conditions under w hich the installation of individual sew age treatment systems will be permitted and to the extent practicable, the areas not suitable for public or private systems. The new ifo/cr Resources Management Policy Plan states that the appix^priate density for development with individual sewage treatment systems depends on the suitability of the soils to treat wastewater and whethcT space is a\ ailablc for a primary and back up drainfleld. It is the Council ’s position that all municipalities and counties allowing individual sewage treatment systems should incorporate current MPCA regulations (Miim. Rules Chapter 7080) as part of a program for managing individual sewage treatmoit systems in the sewer cicmcDt of their local comprehensive plan and implement the standard in issuing permits. Orono should adopt a management program consistent W. 4 4.: ^J with state rules. An overview of Orono's management program must be included in the community's local comprehensive plan update. If adequate information on the management program is not included; the comprehensive plan will be found incomplete for review until the required information is provided to the Couneil. 3. Management of Private Wastewater Treatment Plants (Cluster Systems) Small private treatment plants are located throughout the metropolitan area serving such developments as individual industries, mobile home parks, and other urban type uses. The Council will not provide financial support to assist communities if these systems fail. Orono should include in the sewer element (local sewer policy plan) of its local comprehensive plan the conditions under which private treatment plants would be allowed. The use of private wastewater treatment plants must be consistent and compatible with *he long-term regional wastew'atcr system plan. 4. Surface Water Management In 1995, Minnesota Statutes section 473.859, subd. 2. was amended to make the local surface water management plan required by Minnesota Statutes section I03B.2.35 a part of the land use plan of the local comprehensive plan. Section I03B.235 provides that a local surface water management plan should be prepared once a watershed plan for the area has been approved. Section 103B.235 also generally identities the content requirements for the plan. The local surface water management plan must be submitted to both the watershed management organi/ation(s) within whose watershed the community is located and to the Metropolitan Council for its review. For guidelines on the contents of local surface watc*r management plans, please refer to Appendix B2-b of the Council's ff'atcr Resources Management Policy Plan. Couneil records indicate that On>no is in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (see attached map). The Minnehaha Creek watershed plan was approved by BWSR in 1997. Orono updated its local surface water monagemcm plan in 2001. The city should be ad\ iscd that they will need to review their current local surface water management plan against the policies and required elements of the IVaier Resources .Management Policy Plan. If thcTC are discrepancies, the city will need to revise its local surface water management plan. The plan should be submitted to the Council fur its review concurrent with the re\ iew by the watershed district. Failure to have on updated local surface water management plan consistent with the local surface water management plan content requirements scxrtion in Appendix B2-2 of the iVater Resources Management Policy Plan w ill result in a metropolitan system impact. The Council also updated its priority lake list that was first developed in the 1980s us part of the Water Resources Management Policy Plan update. There are two priority lakes. Lake Minnetonka and Long Lake, in Orono. The Council uses the priority lake list to focus W- 5 IT- i ; huf ,V^. its limited resources. The list is also used in the environmental review process. Where a proposed development may impact a priority lake, the project proposer must complete a nutrient budget analysis for the lake as part of the environmental review process. Advifories 1. Water Snpply Planning Minnesota Statutes section 473.859, subd.3 requires cities with a municipal water supply system to develop a water supply and conservation plan and submit it to the Council for its review. Communities serving more than 1,000 people are required by .Minnesota Statutes section 1030.291 to submit the emergency and conservation plan to the Department of Natural Resources. The guidelines for water supply plan updates were released in 2005. Orono needs to update its local water supply plan consistent with the new guidelines and submit the water supply plan to the Council for its review. For contents of local water supply plans, please refer to Appendix B2-c of the Council’s IVaier Resources Management Policy Plan. • * y • j- -i 4,«'> ' c. , / T'-‘ I u Hr ' } ^ '■ i ' 4 4^- •• t t t'a;. ..'T ;' 'i' .■'r .i?V V r W - 6 )► Orono / Long Lakt mrmMmf ' 'wT^; r •* ■ imi V- •'w»=- r *^»>, - vr -' •4- • MCESM««r M«torSll*d ------MCES tiiMrcaplor Sfij M42M FfMigwrti 2030 fll M430 »• LT~]***3* 0Mr«(MRtftl BB PDtenBil Scfvict Af«a v\ S <»* *• W- 7 - . % * • «> V- » **»» . ' ‘’ * * » •', V • • W ■« ^ Orono / Long Lake j fL--» ^ ■■■ A . • k♦!i. • ,. Vi I K.t ‘r f :;V. >V*^V. j , r.., * • ;> I ■'?5: 'l. 1^ * I' *'*-•' h VI Jrnlhi. i " :J-.. ^H^Wttsnhed Management 111111 nwiilyWUer Features f t Communnv Bowtaiv f^vcet Soundafy luCi' ; W. 8 Regional Parks System Statement City of Orono Key Changes in the Plan The 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Council in June 2005 is the metropolitan system plan for regional recreation open space with which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement summarizes significant elements of the metropolitan system plan and highlights those elements that apply specifically to your community. In addition to reviewing this system statement, your community should consult the entire 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework and other pertinent regional planning and policy documents to ensure your community's local comprehensive plan and plan amendments conform to the metropolitan system plans. A PDF file of the entire 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan, the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the Local Planning Hamihook and other regional planning and policy documents of the Metropolitan Council are available online at the Metropolitan Council's website: http:'/www.metoKouncil.org'planning fnimcwork timcline ium. To meet the needs of the region in 2030. the 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan includes the fo ’'owing changes to the current regional parks systc*m. ^ Designate two exbting county parks and three trails as "regional." ♦ In Washington County. Pine Point Park ♦ In Ramsey County, Tony Schmidt Park ♦ In Ramsey County/St. Paul, three regional trails - Trout Brook. Summit Avenue, and Lexington Parkway ^ Acquire and develop three new parks. Search areas include: ♦ Northwestern Anoka County ♦ Empire Township in Dakota County. Please note that the Metropolitan Council approv cd a park master plan and a boundary for the park has been established. ♦ Blakeley Township in Scott County ^ Acquire and develop seven new trails. Search areas include: ♦ The Crow River, in Carver County and Three Rivers Park District * Both a north/south and an east west trail trav ersing Dakota County • An east/west trail traversing Scott County e In Three Rivers Park District, a trail connecting parts of Baker Park Reserve; a trail connecting Baker and Crow-Hassan Park Reserv es; and a trail connecting Crovv-Hassan and Elm Creek Park Reserves Acquire land within the current boundaries of 30 existing parks and four trails, ^ Acquire natnnd-resource lands adjacent to six existing parks and six existing trails. P-I To meet the needs of the region beyond 2030, the Council proposes four new regional parks or reserves and three new trails be acquired. These parks and trails would not be developed until after 2030, but the opportunity to acquire them will likely be lost if the lands aren't identified and purchased before 2030. The goal is to complete the acquisition of the regional park system and secure opportunities for future generations. Search areas include: ^ Parks - MOIcr Lake area and Miucsota River Bluff and Ravines in Carser County; sonthwestem Dakota County; and Cedar Lake area in Scott County. Traill • northwcitcm Anoka County; central to south Carver County; and Minnesota River to Spring Lake In Seott County. ■ A4n. .'V. r'3T.. '• , * •' ; 1^,. j1.‘ * - '’V T'. .jW:* . p U(M» ,0 ■ - -k.w% . ■■ t #. • ‘V ; V"'* ■: •• : C«t* . -V- if* f'♦■f. . •- P-2 -------- i r i *• ■f ■1. Figure 1: All additions and changes to Regional Park System Plan Mii. ■ ..-.ik__m. Figunf. Fafk$ SialmnM 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan 2005 mrAMhi • y- anMeam« r - » ~ ^“1" ’ ^ ^oamParl • I ,'.ofe f:£ ♦ i -f-* CA#.1 F^\V .'^ ..>vV r '^''1 : . . , -ri-!* — -■•.;i'rv\; w -f ••l- • DMon ■*~l ’Jr't »ai tnirrti Ciwtanfi *Its UM* Ml Uhiat o O -:*i ^SMitaaPi NMUM m ornf^m ■an ima t^apfcds iofnMiSpi"i ■ HelFS^yMl.lM C^fkcU ► *. ■) V VTT ' . • W a >■ *- , ■• %■’-. P-3 . .1#- « <|i|» -- - ^--------------------r2E { F 5 1. Regional Park System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community Regional parks and trails in your conununily The following regional parks and trails within Orono as contained in the adopted 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan ore listed below. TaMe 1: Regional Parks and Trails in Orono Regional Park or Trail Unit Name Master plan boundary of unit is set. Comprehensive plan should acknowledge boundary .Master plan boundary' is not set. Comprehensive plan should acknowledge general location with final boundary or alignment subject to park or trail master plan Morris T. Baker Regional Park Reserve X Big Island Regional Park X Norenberg Gardens Special Recreation Feature X Northwest Hennepin Regional Trail X Dakota Rail Line Regional Trail X Morris T. Baker Regional Park Reserve - This is an existing regional park resers e with an established park boundary. The park boundaries as show n in Figure 2 should be acknow ledged in the city’s comprehensive plan. Three Rivers Park District is rcniponsible for Regional Park System facilities in Orono. Jonathan Vlaming is the contact person. He can be reached at 76.^-694-7632. Big Island Regional Park • This park has an established park boundary. The park boundaries as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the city’s comprehensive plan. Tlvee Rivers Pork District is responsible for Regional Park Sy.stcm facilities in Orono. Jonathan Vlaming is the contact person, lie can be reached at 763-694-7632. Noreaberg Gardens Special Recreation Feature - This is an existing Special Recreation Feature with on established boundary. The boundary os shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the city’s oomprehemsix e plan. Three Rivers Park District is responsible for Regional Park System ^lities in Orono. Jonathan Vlaming is the contact person. He can be reached at 763-694-7632. Dakota Rail Line Regional Trail - This is a proposcxl regional trail that would follow the existing railroad corridor. Rail service is no longer provided on this line. The Hennepin County a Regional Rail Authority, Hennepin County Public Works and Three Rivers Park District are working with the city and others to explore the option of developing a trail along the corridor. The Regional Trail does not have an approved master plan yet Consequently the general alignment of the trail as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the city's comprehensive plan. Three Rivers Park District is responsible for Rcgioiud Park System facilities in Orono. Jonathan Vlaming is the contact person. He can be reached at 763-694-7632. Northwest Hcoacpfai Rcghmal Trail - This is an existing regional trail that is open to the public. The trail alignment as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the city's comprehensive plan. Three Rivers Park District is responsible for Regional Park System facilities in Orono. Jonadum Vlaming is the contact person. He can be reached at 763-694-7632. State lands The Luce Line State Trail provides outdoor recreation opportunities and natural resource conservation for the pidriic and are considered part of the regional recreation open space s>'stcm. The trail is owned and managed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The alignment of the Luce Line State Trail as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the city's comprehensive plan. For more information about this DNR site call 651 -296-6157. Figure 2 shows the location of all parks aiul trails listed above in Orono, plus any parks and trails adjacent to the city's border. IK jV X, • .r# •».»* . * ^ ■■ P-5 mm Figure 2: Map of Orono with regional parks and trails in and adjacent to the cit>' 1^-. >- 4, "TV ’ ■ / ffVfatk Mtnruitonka Beach i v X J,-; 1*1^1^ ■ ' . 0**phaven ’ ! Tonka pay j —: Shorowood ,(jf ecn wooh 0 Of 2 2i )If 4 4i iS Ifion «ai © Oa % MMtNWJ * LihMieidllitw + nMopMof NntlM i