Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-2005 Council Packet4 Public A ttendance Meeting D ate ~0S O^COUNCIL □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please fill out the information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) naa ME or number 1. ^0 /WvES 2. 6>fc-reKA tQV&o Ki V ■ SSiS^ I U^\V S. ^<z.\cr ilVb ^ 0 0 hcJ<UrP / s i. )>o ^ »K3ieA^w s 6.. 7.. S-. 9.. ---- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ■ N*MWMilA« m. •>■■■ ■ •j AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 12,2005,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. 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 CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend ^^NCli Dec CffVoF APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Council Meeting ofNovember 28,2005 * 3. Truth in Taxation Hearing of December 5,2005 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M. 4. 2006 Levy Adoption Hearing • Adoption of 2006 Budget and Tax Levy a. Adopt Final 2005 Levy Collectible in 2006 • Resolution b. Adopt 2006 General Fund Budget - Resolution c. Adopt the 2006 Special Revenue Funds Budgets - Resolution PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - JeffSoderstrom, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Travis Winkey, RepresenUtive PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit S Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 5. Charlie James, 425 Old Crystal Bay Road North • Request for Land Alteration Permit for Topsoil Stripping/Stockpiling 6. #OS-3131 Steve Bohl of Bohland Development, Inc. 190 Willow Drive North and 177 Glendale Drive - Preliminary Plat Approval and Rezoning * 7. M)5-3139 Hill School, 2180 North Shore Drive < Conditional Use Permit and Variances - Resolution 8. 805-3152 Bohland Development on behalf of James D. Mackinnoii et al, “3500” Watertown Road - Preliminary Plat Approval MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 9. Accept (Quotation Lift Station Number 21 Pumps CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 10. 2006 Fee Schedule - Ordinance and Sumnuuy Ordinance for Publication 11. 2006 Meeting Schedule 12. Council Liaison to Park (Commission and Planning Commission Meetings in 2006 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 12,2005,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA 13. 2005 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments 14. Authorization to Disburse City Funds for Claims Received 15. 2006 Non-Union Compensation Adjustments - Resolution 16. Appointment of Police Department Office Manager 17. Appointment of Police Department Administrative Support Assistant 18. Approve Animal Impound Contract 19. Approve Animal Control Services Contract 20. Joint Fire Station Account Close Out 21. Resolution of Anderson Claim at 1260 Spruce Place CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 22. LICENSES 2006 Liquor License Renewal Kennel License Renewals * 23. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2005 12/12 - Continuation of Truth in Taxation Hearing, Monday. 7:00 p.m. 12/12 • Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 12/13 - Council Work Session, Tuesday, S:4S p.m. 12/23 - HOLIDAY, Friday, Observance of Christmas 12/26 - HOLIDAY, Monday, Observance of Christmas 2! 01/02 01/03 01/04 01/09 01/10 01/16 01/17 01/23 01/24 HOLIDAY, Observance of New Year’s Day Park Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m. (Council Liaison - Jim Murphy) Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday. 5:30 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Council Work Session, Tuesday. 5:45 p.m. HOLIDAY, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday. 6:00p.m. (Council Liaison - Jim White) Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Council Work Session, Tuesday, 5:45 p.m. MINUTES OP THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mondayt November 28* 2005 7:00 o’clock p.m.1220k ORONO ROLL The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present; Mayor Barbara Peterson; Council Members Bob Sansevere, Jim Murphy, Jim White, and Lili McMillan; City Attorney Rolfe Worden. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaflron; Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA 1.APPROVE/AMEND Items 4,7,8,9,10, and 11 were added to the Consent Agenda. Marphy moved, Saasevere secoaded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14,2005 Marphy moved, Saasevere secoaded, to approve the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of November 14,2005, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 3. APPROVE SALE OF PUBL <C PROJECT REVENUE BONDS AND AUTHORIZE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF M.EASE AND PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS - RESOLUTION NO. 5402 Tom Kuehn, Orono Financial Director, and Mark Ruff, Ehlcrs & Associates, were present. Moorse stated this item is related to a bond issue that is being done through the Orono HRA. In conjunction with the bond issue, a lease purchase arrangement between the City and the HRA will be entered into. Moorse stated they have received bids for the sale of the bonds. Moorse requested the City Council approve the sale of the public project revenue bonds and the lease purchase arrangement. Ruff indicated they did receive bids this morning on the revenue bonds, w ith the w inning bid being submitted by Wells Fargo Brokerage Ser\ices at a true interest rate of 3.8580 percent. Ruff noted these PAGEl MINinXSOFTHE ORONO aiY COUNCIL MEETING Moaday, November 28,2005 7:00 o’clock pm (Sale of PabUc Project Revcaoc Boadi> CoBtiaaed) are revenue bonds and that Wells Fargo did pay a premium for the bonds and the City would not be incurring any fees on the sale. Ruff reported that Moody’s Investors Services has rated the City of Orono as AAA for its general bond obligations. Ruff stated there are only four communities in the United States with a population under 10,000 that have achieved a AAA rating, which is the highest bond rating that can be achieved by a city. Ruff stated the AAA rating denwnstrates that Moody’s feels that the City of Orono is well run financially. Ruff presented the City of Orono with a plaque acknowledging their AAA status. Mayor Peterson thanked Tom Kuehn for his fine financial services to the City over the years. PetersoB BMved, White sccoadcd, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5402, a Resolation approviag the •ale of $1,900,000 PabUc Project Reveane Bonds, Series 2005, and anthorizlBg the execution and dcUvery of a Lease aad Purchase Option Agreement and related docnmcBii. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (The City CoaacU meeting was recessed at 7:13 p.m. to convene the HRA meeting) (The City CouncU meeting was resumed at 7:16 p.m.) PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS > RICK RICE, REPRESENTATHT: Rick Rice, Representative, was not present. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - RALPH KEMPF, REPRESENTATIVE Kempf stated the Planning Commission was impressed with the progress made on the Willow Drive and McKennon Hill projects by Bohlend Development. Kempf praised the developer's ecological initiative on those two developments, and encouraged the City Council to insure that the ecological steps being taken on the projects are protected through the appropriate covenants. PAGE 2 ► ■ hk. r 'I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Moiday, November 28,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Paul Wrobel, 1126 Hollybrook, Wayzata, stated he recently put his townhome on the market for sale and has run into souk problems with the sale due to the home ^ing located in a floodplain. Wrobel stated he did commit himself to a year’s rental at Orono Woods because he thought his old residence was sold. Wrobel stated two weeks after he committed himself at Orono Woods he received a notice from the buyers statmg that they are unable to obtain flood insurance from FEMA. Wrobel indicated he was unaware of the need for flood insurance. Wrobel stated he attempted to verbally cancel his tenancy at the Orono Woods complex. Wrobel stated he was told two weeks later by the management of the Orono Woods complex that he would be held to his lease. Wrobel stated the Orono Woods handbook states that Great Lakes Management would be understanding, adapatable, and flexible with its policy under very different circumstances. Wrobel indicated he was subject to a $3,000 penalty for canceling out of his lease. Wrobel stated Great Lakes Management was not interested in considering his situation other than asserting themselves in enforcing his lease. Wrobel stated in his opinion he did not receive proper ctmsideration by Great Lakes Management of his situation with FEMA. Wrobel requested the City Council speak with Great Lakes Management regarding this situation. Sansevere questioned whether the Council is able to do anything in this situation. Gaffron stated the first issue deals with the sale of the home, which occurred in Wayzata and is not something the City of Orono cam deal with. Wrobel indicated he has dealt with the FEMA issue. Gaffiron stated a private, nonprofit entity owns and operates Orono Woods and that the City is only the underlying fee owiter of the property. Gaffron indicated the owner has a 99-year lease with the City and the City has absolutely no involvement in the day-to-day operation of the apartment complex. Wrobel stoted the way the apartment complex is operated does reflect on the City of Orono. White pointed out Orono Woods is owned by Volunteers of America. White recommended that Mr. Wrobel appeal to the owners of the complex rather than Great Lakes Management. White stated Volunteers of America is in the busmess of providing housing for seniors and that in his opinion they would be approachable. Wrobel commented that private individuals can be quite affected by legal writings, which tend to protect the person or entity that has the document drafted. Worden inquired whether Mr. Wrobel consulted with an attorney prior to the sale and lease. Worden stated he is unable to advise Mr. Wrobel because the City owns and leases the property. Worden PAGE 3 V-; MINUTES OF THE ORONO aTY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 28,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Pnbllc Comment, Continued) suggested Wrobel approach the owners of the complex to see if they can help him or consult with an attorney. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *4. 405-3142 CHRISTOPHER AND EMILY CHAPMAN, 3775 BAYSIDE ROAD VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5403 Mnrpby moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTIO NO. 5403, a Resointion approving variances for the property located at 3775 Bayside Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5. #05-3162 CITY OF ORONO ZONING & SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT: GATE HEIGHTS - ORDINANCE NO. 30,3*“’ SERIES Gaffron addressed the City Council concerning the Zoning & Subdivision Code Amendment regarding gate heights. The Planning Commission did review this ordinance amendment at their November meeting and discussed that the gates should be no taller than the entrance monuments, which have a maximum height of eight feet. Gaffron reviewed the revised language of the ordinance amendment, noting that the monuments and gates are restricted to approved driveway accesses and that revision to Item (8)f was in response to the Fire Marshal’s concerns. Item (8)g states, “When more than one monument is proposed, and serving two or fewer residences, a minimum horizontal width of 16’ is required between them. McMillan inquired what is meant by the language “unless principal structure setbacks are met’’ conuined in Item 2. Gaflron suted the principal structure setback for a lot in a two-acre zone is 50 feet, a one-acre zone is 35 feet, a half-acre zone is 30 feet, and a five-acre zone it is 100 feet. Gaffron stated if the gates meet the pnncipal structure setback, the gates could be higher than what a fence is limited to. Sansevere stated he has a concern that people will have different interpretations for a monument and that some people may call a fence extension a monument. Sansevere noted the City docs have height restrictions on fence and that in his opinion this is something that the City will need to deal with in the future if it is not addressed at the present time. Gaffron inquired how the City should handle a siuiation where a 3.5-foot high fence is proposed to be constructed along with an ei^t-foot monument and an eight-foot gate. Gaffron questioned whether that type of situation would occur and whether the Council wanted to have a minimum size for a monument. PAGE 4 Y 4.-.. It I1TMTI rii wirili il'n iilTit i I i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Moaday, November 28,2005 7:00 o’dock p.m. (#05-3102 City ofOroao Zoalag St Sabdivtiloa Code Ameadmeat, Coatiaaed) Muiphy reiterated that he would prefer to see the gate and would like to ad<h%ss each situation individually, but that in his opinion the post would be attached to the fence and should be considered part of the fence. Sansevere commented that someone could call a fence post a monument unless it is better defined. Gafiron inquired whether the Council would like to have the diameter of a monument defined Sansevere stated in his view the way the language currently reads, a fence post could be considered a monument. Murphy stated in his opinion a fence post is different than a monument. White inquired whether arches are allowed. Gaffron stated arches are not allowed. Gafiron indicated arches have been apfM'Oved in the past through a conditional use permit or a variance. Murphy suggested this ordinance amendment be approved tonight, and that if that situation arises in the future, it could be discussed at that time. Marphy moved. White sccoadcd, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 30,3'*'’ SERIES, an Ordinance amending the CUy of Orono Zoning Code Section 78-1405 regarding noncncroachments. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. d. CHARLIE JAMES, 425 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH - REQUEST FOR LAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR TOPSOIL STRIPPING/STOCKPILING White inquired if the City has the right to stop the hauling if the City determines that the stockpiling of the dirt or hauling is problematic. Gafiron stated in his view the application is incomplete at the present time. Gaffron indicated if the applicant submits the appropriate documents, the City would have a plan for the temporar>' disposal of the fill that will specify the height of the dirt pile and other parameters for the time that the fill is sitting there. Gafiron noted the present plan is not usable and requires more detail and engineering work before it can be approved. White expressed a concern for possible din blowing in the area and other issues that may not have been given much consu’eration. McMillan inquired how long it is anticipated the fill will remain. I 'PAGES i, MINUTES OF THE ORONO aTY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 28,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. (CharUc James, Coatlaued) Gaflnm stated it is Staffs anticipation that the stripping and stockpiling of the topsoil would conunence almost immediately, with fill being brought to the site in the spring. Murphy stated Ames Construction would prefer to haul the dirt to the site here in Orono rather than Delano or Independence. Murphy stated the topsoil would be scraped off the top of this site and moved to the side while the fill is being hauled in. White inquired how the grade on this site would change. Gaffron stated he has not received ample information to address the change in grade and some of the other ctmcems raised tonight. Gaffron stated it could be a few weeks before the appropriate information is provided. Moorse stated the developer has been told that they are not to be filling this lot up high enough to create walkout lots. White expressed a concern about the appearance of the lot while the stockpiling was occurring. Murphy stated he had the understanding that Ames was going to be the applicant and would be paying the fees and obtaining the conditional use permit. Gaffion stated Ames is the applicant. Murphy pointed out that there really is no connection between Ames and the property owner but that this is an opportunity to place some fill in an area that needs to be brought up to grade and provide additional dirt for a berm for screening but that the amount of fill would be controlled. Murphy stated he was unaware of the lack of information submitted. Murphy suted he would be happy to speak with the contractor about this situation. Gaffron stated Ames should work with the property owner on the temporary fill plans for this lot. Murphy stated he is confident that Ames Construction would take the appropriate steps to deal with possible erosion and some of the other issues and that he would be supportive of the permit if Ames Construction provides the required documentation. McMillan inquired what kind of protection the homes in the immediate area would receive. Gaffron stated there are some limits to what protections can be placed on the hauling in of the fill and that there likely are going to be some impacts to the neighboring propierties. Gaffron stated the City can require mulch, seed and hay on the fill, but that there may be times when there is not vegetation growing on the dirt and that there may be an issue witii dirt blowing. PAGE 6 _____ I. L MINUTES OF THE ORONO aTY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 28,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Charlie JanMS, Coatlaaed) White commented the Council should consider this as if this is going to occur in their backyards and what controls they would like to see. Gaifron stated the permit would need to be conditioned on the applicant providing the required information. Gafliim stated he has put together a list of what he feels are reasonable conditions. Sansevere stated he would like Dumas to be notified prior to the permit being approved to give Dumas the opportunity to comment on the application. It was the consensus of the Council to have the neighbors notified of this permit application. Gaffron stated the contractor would be ex(>ected to deal with the erosion, sedimentation, drainage issues, noise, hours of operation, among other conditions. McMillan stated she would like to know where the topsoil would be stored prior to the next meeting. Murphy stated one of the advantages to having Ames do it is that they ha^ e to follow watershed restrictions. Sansevere reiterated that he would like the neighbors notified and that this matter can be looked at again in a couple of weeks. Saasevere inotloMd, McMillan seconded, to table the request by Charles James, 425 Old Crystal Bay Road North, request for land alteration permit for topsoil stripping/stockpiling. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNat REPORT White commended the Public Works Department for filling the potholes in the streets. Murphy stated the Old Crystal Bay Bridge would be open for traffic this Thursday, noting that the ribbon cutting ceremony is scheduled for Thursday at 11:00 a.m. Murphy stated there is a planning meeting scheduled for Tuesday afternoon. Sansevere commended Murphy and Moorse for the quick resolution to the Anderson situation. Sansevere questioned what the school’s plan is for the sign located at the comer of Kelley Parkway and Highway 12. Sansevere stated it was his recollection that the City Council agreed that the bottom portion of the sign could be used for recognition and advertising, with only school activities being displayed on the upper portion of the sign. PACE 7 I .1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 2S, 2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Mayor/CoaadI Report, Continned) Murphy tuted that is also his understanding. Gaffitm stated he would review the resolution approved by the Council for the sign. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *7. ACCEPT QUOTATIONS LIFT STATION 18, CHERRY PLACE EMERGENCY GENERATOR Mnrphy moved, Saasevere seconded, to accept the qaotadoa In the amonnt of $22,950.08 from Zkfler Power Systems, Shakopec, Minnesota, for the Lift Station #18, Cherry Place emergency generator with ftindlng from the Sewer Fnad and approval of the appropriate year 2005 budget adjustment to reflect this expendMnre. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mnrphy moved, Saasevere seconded, to accept the quotation in the amount of $5,250.00 from Electric Resource Contractors, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for completion of the electrical connection work for the Lift Station #18, Cherry Place emergency generator with funding from the Sewer Fnad and approval of the appropriate year 2005 budget adjustment to reflect this expenditure. VOTE: Ayes5,NaysO. *8. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 1 - DICKEY LAKE DRIVE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT Murphy saoved, Sansevere seconded, to approve Request for Payment No. 1 for the Dickey Lake Drive Sanitary Sewer Project to Red Pederson Utilities, Inc., in the amount of $6,779.20. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *9. DAKOTA RAIL TRAIL MASTER PLAN - RESOLUTION NO. 5404 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5404, a Resolution supporting the master plan of the Three Rivers Park Dtetiict regarding the development of a continuous regional recreational trail on the Dakota Rail Corridor. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGES 1, I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Moiday, November 28,2005 7:00 o*dock pm *10. ACCEPTANCE OF A DONATION Marpky moved, Saasevere tecoaded, to accept the doaatioo of Dreamweaver Uhradev foftware from Stcphaaie Graade. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. * 11. REQUEST TO ADVERTISE POUCE OFnCER POSITION Marphy moved, Saasevere secoaded, to approve advertisiag aad testiog for positioa of police officer. VOTE: Ayes S, Nays 0. r w- CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Worden had nothing to report. 12. LICENSES ANNUAL UQUOR UCENSES Clab Oa Sale aad Saaday Llqaor 1. Wayzata Country Club 200 Wayzata Boulevard 2. Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Road Off Sale Llqaor 3. Navarre Liquors, Inc. 3421 Shoreline Drive On Sale Llqaor aad Saaday • Tabled 4. Narrows Saloon (Orono Liquor, Inc.) 3380 Shoreline Mve L PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 28,2005 7:00 o ’clock p.m. (Lkeases, Contlancd) On Sale 3 J Percent Malt Llqnor 5. Lakeview Golf of Orono, Inc. 40S North Ann Drive 6. Orono Golf Course 265 Orono Orchard Road South Off Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor 7. O'Sullivan ’s 2420 Shadywood Road GAMBLING PREMISES PERMIT RENEWAL - RESOLUTION 8. Northwest Tonka Lions Club Narrows Saloon 3380 Shoreline Drive ONE DAY GAMBLING - RESOLUTION 9. Orono pro (raffle) Winter Fun Fest - Orono Middle School 12:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Saturday, February 4,2006 Sansevere stated he has a concern with Item No. 4, the Narrows Saloon. Sansevere questioned whether Police Chief Good is recommending denial on the application because of the incomplete information on the application. Moorse stated it is his understanding that the police chief added the missing information; otherwise she would have had to deny the application. Murphy stated at the time of the initial application to increase the size of the restaurant/bar, the City Council requested a report irom the police chief which had a number of details regarding violations. Murphy inquired what criteria the City follows for denying a liquor license. Murphy stated to his recollection the City denied a liquor license for a different establishment for lesser reasons. White stated his recollecnon of the other esublishment was that there was also incomplete or missing information in the application. White suggested that there be some type of fine imposed when applications are not completely filled out or truthful and that the penalty should be stiff enough to get the applicant's attention. PAGE 10 1^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mo»day, November 28,2005 7:00 o ’clock p.m. (Llceaiee, ContlBacd) Muiphy stated denial of the license would be one option. Sansevere pointed out the form states that “Applicant’s signature on this renewal application confirms the followmg: Failure to report any of the following will result in fmes.” Sansevere stated in his view the police chief should not completing the application for the applicant. Sansevere inquired who levies the fine. Moorse indicated he is not sure at this time which entity would levy the fine. Mundiy stated in his mind the City Council has to be clear on the type of criteria that would result in a deniid of a liquor license. Murphy suggested the iKense application by the Narrows Saloon be tabled to the next Council meeting. Sansevere inquired why the application was not sent back to the applicant, noting that the chief did include language on the form stating that “we are concerned about the inability or unwillingness of owner James Anderst to comply with local and state licensing requirements and it should be noted that continuing concerns will be carefully monitored.” Peterson stated she interprets the language of the police chief as recommending denial of the liquor license. Murphy concurred with Peterson. McMillan stated to her understanding the police chief signed the document indicating that she reviewed the application. Sansevere indicated he interprets the signature of the police chief as endorsing the application. Moorse stated the violation occurred back in 2002, and the police department alerted the City in 2003 that diis violation occurred. Moorse stated to his understanding the police chief, by her memo, is alerting the City of the violation and that there are some concerns regarding this application but that she signed the license indicating that she reviewed the application. Sansevere questioned whether the concerns expressed by the police chief relate only to the 2002 violation or odier incidents. Moorse noted the Council did receive some information from the police chief earlier regarding the Narrows Saloon. Murphy reitereated he would like to know what the City's criteria are for denying a liquor license. Sansevere stated he would like to request that Jim Anderst appear before the Council. PAGE 11 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Moaday, November 28,2005 7:00 o’clock pju. (Liceuce, Coatlaacd) Murphy stated he would like to see the criteria for denial prior to Anderst appearing before the Council. Sanseveie noted die application would need to be approved at the next council meeting or the establishment would ^ prohibited fitmi selling liquor until this situation is resolved. Murphy stated in his opinion each time the City has an opportunity to deal with this applicant the City is required to obtain additional information from other sources due to the failure of the applicant to provide it. McMillan stated diat the City should anempt to work with the applicants in situations like this to clarify what is expected. Sansevere stated the applicant could have thought that the 2002 incident was no longer relevant and it was an oversi^t. Sansevere suggested the enteria be discussed at the work session, and noted that the language reads that a fine would be imposed, not may be. Murphy suggested the City of Long Lake be contacted to see how they have handled similar situations. White moved, Saaseverc seconded, to approve license applications 1,2,3,5,6,7,8, and 9, and to table Item No. 4, the Narrows Saloon, to the Dccendicr Connell meeting. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, McMUbn Abstained. *13. BILLS Mnrphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to epprove payment of the All Funds Account, VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Sansevere moved, Mnrphy seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:34 p.m. VOTE: AyesS,Nays0 ATTEST: '.t - Linda S. Vee. City Clerk lif J* - A* Barbara Peterson, Mavor ■h'- PAGE 12 HP it MINUTES OF THE TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING HELD AT 5:30 P.M. ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 5,2005 IN THE ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS M«mb«ra PrMtnt: Acting Mayor Sansevere and Council Members McMillan. Murphy and White. Staff Prasant: City Administrator Ron Moorse. Finance Director Tom Kuehn, and Assistant Finance Director Ron Olson. Acting Mayor Sansevere called the meeting to order, and noted all members were present with the exception of Mayor Peterson and Council Member White. He opened the hearl^ at 5:31 p.m. There were no members of the public present. Moorse outlined the proposed budget and tax levy increases, and summarized the reasons for the increases. He also announced that the final budget and levy would be adopM at the Final Budget Adoption hearing, to be held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday. December 12. (At 5:37, Council Member White arrived). There being no public comments. Acting Mayor Sansevere closed the hearing at 5:38 p.m. Immediately following the closure of the hearing, a resident arrived for the hearing. Acting Mayor Sansevere res)pened the hearing at 5:41 p.m. Dean Ortemann, of 3779 Casco Avenue indicated he did not have concerns regarding the City's budget or tax levy, but had some questions about the city's tax base, and how that affected his property taxes. Kuehn and Moorse provided information regarding the City’s tax base and the City’s tax rats. Acting Mayor Sansevere dosed the hearing at 6:01 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Council Member Murphy moved, Council Member White seconded, that the msoting be adloumed at 5:01 p.m. Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Nays. ATTEiT: Linda S. Vee, City ClerH Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor CD I ■■■' ®• */ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 9,2005 ITEM NO: 4 Departmeat Approval: Name RonMoone Title City Administiator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Rqwrt Item Description: Budget Adoption Hearing-2006 Budget and Tax Levy Attachments: 1. Tax Levies • Actual 2005 vs. Proposed 2006 2. Tax Capacity, Local Levy, and Tax Capacity Rates 3. Effect of2006 Tax Levy on Property Owners 4. Resolution Approving the 2006 Tax Levy 5. Resolution Approving the 2006 General Fund Budget 6. Resolution >^roving the 2006 Special Revenue Fund Budgets sed 2006 Budget The 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 improvements to the city facilities, as well as equipment replacement and technology upgrade needs. The major long term ciqrital need is street rehabilitation. The budget reflects a measured funding plan th^ nuuiages the impact of the tax levy on property owners. Tax Capacity Rate Reduction Results in Minimal Property Tax impact on Property Owners The City's tax capacity (tax base) for 2006 taxes has increased by 16.65% over the tax capacity for 2005 taxes. Applying the proposed tax levy to the higher tax capacity results in a tax rate of 15.272%, which is a substantial reduction from the 2005 tax rate of 16.22 %. Using this tax rate, the City’s share of the property tax bill on a home valued at S300,000, assuming an 8% value increase, will increase by $8.33, or 1.7%. For a home valued at $800,000, again assuming an 8% value increase, the City’s ^bare of the property tax bill will increase by $39.58, or 2.8%. TlwLfiYY The total tax levy required to fund the proposed 2006 budget is $3,801,960. This is an increase of $340,290, or 9.8 % over the 2005 levy. The General Fund expenditures have the greatest impact on the proposed tax levy. The tax levy required to fund the proposed 2006 General Fund budget is $3,282,710. This is an increase of $277,240, or 9.22 % over the 2005 levy amount. In addition, the Infrastructure levy in the PIR Fund (for street rehabilitation) has been increased frfom $69,950 to $120,000. The City has a number of local roads, not eligible for State funding, that will need major rehabilitation in the coming years. It is important that we increase the funding that is being provided for these types of projects. 7* I Omeral Fund Bud£Ct Exi The proposed expenditures in die General Fund are having the greatest impact on the tax levy. The proposed 2006 General Fund expenditures are $5,544,740. This is an increase of $411,790, or 8.02% over the 2005 budget. The main items causing the General Fund expenditure increase include annual compensation adjustments, a substantial increase in the transfer from the General Fund to the Inqnovement and Equipment Outlay Fund for city facilities repairs and improvements and vehicle and technology replacement funding, election costs, Navarre Fire Station operating coats, and increased fuel costs. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 1. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the tax levy to fund the 2006 budget 2. Motion to adopt a resolution spproving the 2006 General Fund budget 3. Motion to adopt a resolution qiproving the 2006 Special Revenue Fund budgets ^ * 'lii*r mmmm :u*‘.v*-c.-VoV-.iai*i( If 1 ' • > i mf: TAX LEVIES General Infrastructure (PIR) Park Land Acquisition and Development Imp A Equip Outlay Total Levy for Noo-Debt Porposm 1997 Improvement Bond Debt Service 1999 Improvement Bond Debt Service 2003 Imp Refunding Bond Debt Service 1998 HRA Refunding Bond Debt Service 2003 Fire Facility and Equipment Bond Debt Service 2004 Imp Refunding Bo^ Debt Service Big Island Vets Camp Bond Debt Service Total Levy for Bonded Debt TOTAL TAX LEVIES FOR ALL PURPOSES CITY OF ORONO TAX LEVIES Actual 2005 vs Proposed 2006 Actual 2005 $3,005,470 69,950 5,000 Proposed 2006 $3,282,710 120,000 5,000 $18,000 5,000 35,000 250,000 73,250 $3,407,710 SMUM Ui^iOTO 5,0C 35,0C 250,0(1 73,250 16,000 15,000 $394JS0 OJi. $3,801,960. 111 Proposed 2006 Increase (Decrease) From Actual 2005 Amount 277,240 50,050 0 Percent 9.22% 71.55% 0.00% $327,290 (18,000) 0 0 0 0 16,000 15,000 $13,000 $340,290 10.62% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% N/A N/A 3.41% 9.83% h/U If i_- ■ *»,* ■^V fill 3- r . -I TAX CAPACITY Net Tax Capacity (To calculate rate) LOCAL LEVY Total levy all funds TAX CAPACITY RATES General Revenue PIR Inftastucture-Storm Sewer / Roads Paris - Land Acquisition A Development Improve ft Equip - Capital Equipment Debt Service HRA Building Bonds Fite Facility ft Equipment Bonds Debt Big island Vets Camp Bonds Debt Total Local Tax Capacity Rate iTaaCiRlU City of Orono Tax Capacity, Local Levy, ft Tax Capacity Rates Actual 2005 $21^342,000 Estimated 2m __ _ $24,895,440 $3j46l,670 $3,801,960 14.080% 0.328% 0.023% 0.000% 0.272% 1.170% 0.343% 13.186% 0.482% 0.020% 0.000% 0.225% 1.004% 0.294% 0.060% 16116%15.272% 2006 Over (Under) 2005 Amount $3,553,440 Percent 16.65% -i'.r $340,290 9.83% •0.894% 0.154% -0.003% 0.000% -0.047% -0.166% -0.049% 0.060% -6.35% 46.96% -12.68% 17.30% 14.17% 14.22% •0.944%-5J2% A ' i:, -■ Effect of 2006 Tax Levy & Budget on Homes Market Value for 2698 Tiict MOO.OOO 2m 2m 2m 0% incr 8% incr 2m KailMaied Market Valae Tax Capacity (Net) * Tax Capacity Rate Net Tax I2< 3.000 16.216% $486.48 S Increase (Decrease) fhmi 200S % Increase (Decrease) from 2005 S300.000 3,000 15.272% $458.16 ($28.32) -5.8% 5324.000 3,240 15.272% $494.81 $8.33 1.7% $800.000 8,750 16.216% $1,418.90 * Tax Capacity (net)- l%of first $500,000 market value, plus 1.25% of all value over $500,( $800.000 2m 2m 0% Incr 8% incr yjxyjAm 8,750 15.272% $1,336 JO ($82.60) -5.8% $864.000 9,550 15.272% $1,458.48 $39.58 28% .A---------- A 4 r!;V#*. ,r 'i-''-t A t<H) A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL 2005 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2006 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the final 2005 Tax Levy Collectible in 2006, is determined to be as follows: GENERAL LEVY General Fund • Operations PIR Fund • Infrastructure • Roads Paric Fund - Land Acquisition & Development TOTAL GENERAL LEVY $3,282,710 120,000 5.000 $3,407,710 BONDED DEBT G.O. 1997 Sewer Improvement Bond G.O. 2003 Sewer Improvement Refunding Bond G.O. 2004B Improvement Refunding Bond TOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS $ 5,000 35,000 I6JK)0 $ 56.( BONDS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS H.R.A. Refunding Bond 1998 H.RA. Fire Facility and Equipment Bond 2003 H.R. A. Public Project Revenue Bond 2005 $ 250,000 73,250 15.000 TOTAL BONDS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL UNITS $ 338.250 TOTAL ALL LEVIES $3,801,960 The City Clerk is hereby insUucted to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 12,2005. ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Mif ■MIiiA 11 iI — an f latiiai I rV ' '»: A. (f) ‘_______^ ' ':v ■» ' .- !*■ ‘till ■x>: A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 2006 GENERAL FUND BUDGET BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota that the 2006 General Fund budget is determined to be as follows: ESTIMATED REVENUES Taxes > General $3,282,710 Market Value Homestead Credit reduction by State (34,1 70) Licenses and Permits 371,200 Intergovernmental 231,800 Charges for Services 1,494,000 Fines and Forfeits 108,000 Interest Income 70,800 Miscellaneous 20.400 TOTAL S5.S44.740 APPROPRIATED EXPENDITURES General Government $1,103,860 Public Safety 3,260,480 Street Maintenance 534,670 Paries and Recreation 60,180 Recycling Program 86,500 Engineering • Unallocated 11,300 Reimbursable Expenditures 73,790 Special Projects and Contingency Ci4>ital Outlay 123,960 Transfers To Other Funds 240.000 TOTAL S5.544.740 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 12,2005. ATTESl: Linda S. Vet, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor i;1 f,--' ■■ :'■■ ^\v- (£) F-'.n ■‘.mIv r >-V I* .v*< » ?!■> ■iP" V,;' A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 2006 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS BUDGETS BE IT RESOLVEDt by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota that the 200S Special Revenue Fun^ budgets ate determined to be as follows: Estimated Revenues Taxes - General Interest Income User Fees / Loan Payment Park Dedication Fees Transfers from other Funds Use of Fund Balance Total Revenues Park $ 5,000 4,750 Improve & Equip Outlay $ 20,000 10,000 Community Investment $ 68,900 30,1 240,( 10L(6UM » 39.750 ^ 269.500 t 130.000 Appropriated Expenditiua General Government Public Safety Streets „ Parks A Recreation Transfers to other Funds Increase to Fund Balance Total Expenditures 5,( S 141,000 140,000 90,000 130,( 34.750 USLM um i 130.000 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held December 12,2005. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor (\ 'aJ \ \ r\'^ 3152 I y 7 3139 a V^v / C^i A V'.N o / J f AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, DECEMBER 12,2005,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (•j Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in ihe Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend DEC 12Z005 CITY OF ORONO APPROVAL OF .%nNUTES • 2. Regular Council Meeting of November 28,2005 • 3. Truth in Taxation Hearing of December 5,2005 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 7:00 P.M. 4. 2006 Levy Adoption Hearing - Adoption of 2006 Budget and Tax Levy a Adopt Final 2005 Levy Collectible in 2006 - Resolution b. Adopt 2006 General Fund Budget • Resolution c. Adopt the 2006 Special Revenue Funds Budgets - Resolution PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jeff Soderstrom, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Travis Winkey, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 5. Charlie James, 425 Old Crystal Bay Road North - Request for Land Alteratou Permit for Topsoil Stripping/Stockpiling 6. #05-3131 Steve Bohl of Bohland Development, Inc. 190 Willow Drive Nc-^lh and 177 Glendale Drive - Preliminary Plat Approval and Rezoning • 7. #05-3139 Hill School, 2180 North Shore Drive-Conditional Use Permit and Variances- Resolution S. #05-3152 Bohland Development on behalf of James D Mackirmon et al, “3500” Watenown Read - Preliminary Plat Approval MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 9. Accept Quotation Liii Station Number 21 Pumps CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 10. 2006 Fee Schedule - Ordinance and Sammar>' Ordinance for Pubhcaticn 11 . 2006 Meeting Schedule 12. Council Liaison to Park Commission and Plarming Commission .Meetines m 2006 13. 2005 Interfiind Transfers and Loan Payments 14. .Authorization to Disburse City Funds for Claims Received 15. 2006 Nen-UrJon Compe.nsation Adjustments - Resolution 16. .Appointment of Police Depanment Office Manager 17. .Appointment of Police Department Administrative Suppon .Assistant 1 S .Approve Animal Impound Contract 19. .Approve Animal Control Services Contract 20. Joint Fire Station Account Close Out 21 Resolution cf Anderson Claim at 1260 Spruce Piace COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 2 2005 DATE; ITEM NO: S Dcpartmcat Approval: Administrator Reyieis^: Name: Mike GalTron & Ron Moorse Title: Planning Director & City Administrator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Request for Land Alteration Pe^it; Ames Construction, Inc. James Property, 425 Old Crystal Bay Road North Lbt of Exhibits A - Revised Preliminary Grading Plan B - Memo and Exhibits of November 23 C • Rural Oasis Recommendations Drawing At the November 28 Council meeting, the Council discussed a request by Ames Construction to strip topsoil off the James property, at the southwest quadrant of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12, in preparation for bringing fill onto the site. The Council raised concerns about the impact of this activity on the neighboring properties, and staff indicated additional information was needed from the applicant.. Since then, additional information has been provided, neighboring property owners have been contacted, and the request by Ames has been revised to reficct new circumstances related to the Highway project, and to address the concerns of the neighbors. The original Ames request Involved stripping the topsoil from the entire parcel in mid-Dwember, in preparation for bringing in approximately 100,000 cubic yards of fill in February, subject to a land alteration CUP. The application now involves stripping the topsoil from only the south portion of the site, and bringing in 25,000 cubic yards of fill to this portion of the site. This work is proposed to be completed in December and January. The remainder of the topsoil stripping and filling is to be done In February, subject to successful completion of the land alteration CUP review process. The main reason for the plan change is to enable a key element of the stormwater management portion of the Highway 12 project to proceed on schedule. In order to properly handle a large volume of stormwater drainage coming from Orono’s industrial area and the StoneBay development, a large pond is being constructed just to the east of the Morrics’ Bodyworks property. This pond is planned to outlet Into a storm sewer line that takes the stormwater to the east through a series of ponds and into Long Uke. The storm sewer line was initially planned to go through the St George’s Cemetery property. However, both Ames and Mn/DOT have, throughout the Highway 12 project, been taking measures to avoid disruption to the cemetery site. It was determined by all parties that disruption of the cemetery site for the Installation of the storm sewer line should be avoided if possible. The only other location for the storm sewer line is behind the retaining wall that runs along the south edge of the cemetery property. Ames Construction Land Alteration, 425 Old Crystal Bay Road N. December 9,2005 Page 2 The storm sewer line cannot be installed until the retaining wall is constructed. In order to install the storm sewer line behind the retaining wall, the timeline for construction of the retaining wall has been moved up substantially. The construction of the retaining wall requires the excavation and disposal of 25,000 cubic yards of material. Ames needs a place to dispose of this material to enable the project to move forward. Because the need to dispose of this material was not anticipated prior to the recent decision regarding the location of the storm sewer line, Ames does not have a site for the disposal of the material. The interim land alteration plan has been revised to enable the material excavated for the retaining wall to be placed on the James site. This will not require any trucking on public roadways, because the trucks can go directly fix)m the Highway 12 corridor onto the James property. Staff has worked with Ames to revise the interim land alteration plan to limit the land alteration to the southern portion of the site, and to ensure the fill is placed on the site in conformance with the parameters determined by the Council as part of its review of this site during the Rural Oasis planning }»ocess (See Exhibit C). Specifically, other than a berm along the edge of the property, the fill will not be above the elevation of Old Crystal Bay Road. The grading plan attached has not yet been revised to reflect the discussions held on December 8 regarding limiting the land alteration activity to the southern portion of the site. That plan is expected to be in hand for Monday’s meeting. Limiting the topsoil removal and filling to the south end also avoids drainage impacts to adjacent properties to the north and west, which was the key concern expressed by these neighbors. Ames has provided a number of supportive documents which have been forvmded to the City Engineer for review, including the wetland delineation report (delineation is scheduled to be reviewed on site by MCWD staff on Tuesday); copies of submitted permit applications to MCWD and MPCA; and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The City Engineer is reviewing the plan and associated documents to ensure no drainage impacts and determine if there are any engineering issues. He will provide a report at the Council meeting. Rccommcndatioii Subject to the City Engineer ’s report and necessary permits from other agencies, staff is supportive of the Ames request for an interim permit to strip topsoil from the southern portion of the James property, and to fill and grade that portion of the property. CoNMil Actton Requested Motion authorizing staff to issue an interim land alteration permit for topsoil stripping and filling in the southern portion of the James property, subject to the City Engineer ’s review, and the necessary permits from other agencies. I « SCALE DATE joe NO. 93-228 SinXTNO /*^/ •R'v'B REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 23,2005 Item No.: Departroeot Approval: ^ Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffit)n^«^|t^f^<>. Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Deaeription:Request for Land Alteration Permit: James Property, 425 Old Crystal Bay Road North (SW Quadrant of Hwy 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road) List of Exhibits A - Location map B - Submitted Preliminary Berm Grading and Wetland Protection Plan Summary of Request Ames Construction on behalf of property owner Charlie James (representing Thomas L. James Realty LLLP) has approached the City requesting permits to allow site grading and stockpiling of fill on this 17-acre property at the southwest comer of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road. This site is guided in the 2000-2020 CMP for a mix of single and multi-family residential uses at a density of 2-4 units per acre. The property was the subject of a sketch plan review (#04-3027, Brenshell Homes) in 2004, although no developer has made any applications for development of the site at this time. Staff believes that due to the flat nature of this site, regardless of how the site eventually develops, fill will likely be needed at a minimum for building pad construction and for perimeter berming to meet Conservation Design goals. The property owner has been working with Ames Constmetion to procure fill from the Highway 12 Reroute project. The location of the property adjacent to the Highway 12 Corridor is a potential win-win-win for Ames, the property owner, and the City, in that Ames has a location to dispose of earth material that requires little or no trucking and saves costs and time; the property owner acquires fill that will likely be necessary for any future development of the property, at low cost or no cost; and the City foregoes the pleasure of having hundreds of dumptruck trips on its roadways on two occasions (i.e. hauling it out of the City now and hauling it into the James site in the future). Staging, Application Timing, Fill Availability The amount of earth movement proposed, in the range of 123,000 cubic yards in total, far exceeds the 500 cubic yard maximum allowed without a Conditional Use Permit. Applicants propose to do a two-step land alteration process: 1) strip 21,000 cubic yards of topsoil and stockpile it on the site during December, prior to freeze-up, and 2) haul in 102,000 cubic yards of fill material for perimeter berms and potential future development use (staff has indicated that fill to create walkout building pads might not be approved with any future development plan). T ^1 James Fill Request November 23,2005 Page 2 Ames requests special approval to commence Step 1 prior to completion of the CUP review process. Ames would like to be moving fill material onto the site (Step 2) in late January, and the topsoil must be removed prior to bringing in fill. Tl. earliest possible CUP approval would be at the City Council on January 23. The property owner and a Todd Planting of Ames have met with staff, and an application for the land alteration CUP was submitted on November 23. Ames is requesting that staff be authorized to issue a land alteration permit prior to the CUP approval to allow stripping and stockpiling of topsoil. In order for this to occur, the applicant will need to submit to the City for staff & engineer review a detailed plan indicating temporary fill placement and stockpile areas, and provide a stormwater management and erosion control plan. An MCWD erosion control permit will be required. Note that the plan submitted on 11/23 shows perimeter berms at a height of approximately 4 feet. It also indicates a “No Fill in Wetland ” area that appears to not include the entire wetland. This ”No Fill” area will have to be revised, and staff would expect a much more detailed plan by a surveyor/engineer with survey work defining the delineated wetland boundary and required buffers, prior to issuing the initial topsoil stripping permit. Staff Recommendation Due to the existence of wetlands on the property, and because there is no set development plan for the site, care will have to be taken with respect to erosion control, wetland protection, and fimshed appearance of the stockpiles, as we have no indication how soon actual development of the property will occur. However, the benefits of the owner acquiring fill when it is available immediately adjacent to the site, are compelling. Staff recommends approval of a staff-issued land alteration permit for the topsoil removal and stockpiling, subject to the following being submitted and approved by City Engineer prior to issuance of this initial permit: 1) Complete application for CUP. 2) Detailed plan indicating temporary fill placement and stockpile areas. 3) Detailed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) - required because more than one acre of land is being disturbed. 4) MCWD mosion control permit and stormwater plan approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff to issue land alteration permit subject to staff recommendation and the process ^ :ribed above.• -s' mUlaaaiii -im. f: •*yr^ J % « KV V V. •■ •■ • '■ m L ■4 li. . 'i:?S- . ■ iXi» .H<Wr ■—ym*^'4ar. ;J%(9H •Jk.- - a^’ur If’ ^ ^ ^v59 . '*• • < ^ T'« vl}il«p‘V5^,«T!,V ' ft « • I * •" I ‘’‘ • ^ 5• ■ i, tfh -•1 * **:• •.•5»’f--wv-« •. * -ifc - I ^i--;V.-' 1 ■’ -"''.ii* '<t i •« 1'••i- ''^-l .. - r i' •'*1. -----.,.■' ....; t /'rl ■fcj.-* tj'r-f P <* vifl ^ 'TT5.U -acTi^* v W vr^ ^ - . ,.i' - r> ■. >• •'^■! •« r:-A?lA^v. H j .......,;V,‘. rl.. . ,k\^. .1^A^ "rr. ■npi^,NOi#!-V .r* f -^^\J f f =4 •..u-ftv.Jw r ■ ■ .v.^. Vil'^4^.- X^‘*\ /M^^m . .... CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR T;F. JAMES CO. IN SEC. 33-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA itV^^ ‘.s'•* t •mm ••• m \ • • ' I*” • V-- :r • ’ • iif • , ; ■* i* 4 /;% - * • • • • ». * ** . vl-. iwsMrW aso^ _______ •»«._____________________• •. ■■■: •: •■■■' .. 1 Ctyrta.1 IPocu/ W3I/7M rJ-LJ •• .y\r *«.»» >»■ »»»»>»^ |,iw !■ - .^ <» %44rt<’^» e»*<i •.» /V* -i* m***'m^*> o ^—* mm •«••' • W--V.■fc/*** ■»»■ . .J • • •-• • Ai— r’- «»^A J m^i ---1-^ •i#. S.^3'=^-i li 5 I ....................... "ifiMTrn'^^ ,1 :.:.v' - ■"• \fr>« ^: I^iSa !:ia pk \:. . :v .• ^• i-‘ -V. V.-,.\ . i • .■.:,■ .■ C""1a • ♦ \ ,•••/ / \ • • ^ —<- .«l, »w ' *«'l*» *f»^topM ^ Ml *.,. «, • OUMMfy RtVWON OAT1 oeaumoN -.m — ■ --— -..— • i . *•_ . . *..v ...<.. •* * t laiLarf COFnX & GRQ.N'BE RG, INC. ■ ^ i '■' ■ *\' • ^..l;.Jt jj l*!^t M\ ^ X>^yiX>.yC- P,RecT7 0*J . —---------------^itT Ftat.6 fiocie. EPIRM'^ P*A. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR Sc«7c • •». .«•••>. itr -|-tt ».-••* •■« •>-*»<•• «• #V' km0* »r* <•*» «»-»V V"* ••♦».» -r HENN ESOTA bCAU r^so DATl Hie NO 7-/4 7?-22a :44LrT fJl' » ; V • * • • *• I . Inter-Office Memo To: TPK Oaft; 12/12/2005 From: JLH Phono: *4770 Ro: #06*3167 Am«t Conttruction for Charlie James Property Rommrko: Tom. The fbllowing are general concerns I have regarding the proposed land alteration permit request. Please let me know if you have any questions. 1. Indications are made that approximately 16 acres of land will be disturbed. If 10 or more acres of that portion are draining to a common point of discharge, then a temporary sediment basin is required. None are indicated on the included plan. Please clarify and provide drainage calculations. 2. Hauling should commence along Old Crystal Bay road and not along TH 12. This area remains difficult to maintain with street sweeping equipment and off site tracking has been a substantial issue with Ames Construction in the past for the TH 12 project. 3. in addition, if there are any curb and gutter openings along Old Crystal Bay road inlet protection devices will be required. 4. The material is a clay loam soil and therefore turbidity will be an issue. Therefore, absolutely no site dewatering shall be done without written consent by the City Engineer. SWPPP should be updated to reflect this change. 5. Change MnOOT seed mix 150 to at least an updated MnDOT 2000 specification version. Consideration of the 130B mixture should be given. Also, update the SWPPP and erosion control plan accordingly. 6. Indication should be made on the site map exactly where the stockpile of 22,000 cubic yards of topsoil will be made, and what treatments will be provided. Again update the SWPPP accordingly. Careful consideration should be made as to placement of this pile not being in a conveyance for site drainage. 7. How much of the 5' berms will be constructed with the 25,000 cubic yards of imported fill? Also, blanket will need to be installed on those 3:1 slopes, immediately after construction so staples are possible. Clarification on plans and SWPPP should be made to reflect this change. », Inc. SmM14»4IOO inriN Co(9m#i#«ar teioo MNaaaiMIJm nrnrnmMymn fm SI it2r ftoca —r MN 55106 PM 20.2100 FisS07.203:00 saoM }7r23-9NilS Si CM MN Ml PM 320^2St4S63 P» mn\43i2 1MD «M WacfMr SH •#any«#i ulOOai PM 047116.1111 fm 047 016.1712 arr lnter~Office Memo 8. Whal permanent cov«r will be seeded on the berms? MnOOT 150 mix is a 1988 specification and it is a temporary mixture. 0. Change construction entrance details to include a geotextHe liner beneath the rock construction entrance. 10. Change the detail requirement fOr MnOOT Heavy Duty silt fence to include machine type sliced silt fence with metal T poets, 6 ’ (ft) on center. 11. Make sure to indude in the area of inspection, weekly inspection by the city of Orono. in addition, make sure to outline that ail inspection requests will be managed and adhered to by the contrador. 12. Category 3 blanket will be required on ail the berm slopes and any other slopes 3:1 or steeper. The one exception would be the topsoil pile; however, some form of temporary cover will still be required. Clarification to both of these issues should be made in the SWPPP. 13. Any existing vegetation that should be proteded should be outlined in the SWPPP, and marked on the plan sheet. I As long as these issues are addressed and the amendments are made to the SWPPP as suggested, the project plan and SWPPP would be considered complete. Please let me know if you have any questions. JennHdr Hildebrand, CPESC, CPSWQ a t, Inc. QPkPee —□ aCloai:□Canga 1 mmrnip0imM lHKNCtipM\PmrnmMm 1127* IMX K2i23*SeaitS lMONHlk'>a0iMr%to m mmmmam ntmummmm Pimm 20^ Pm 907.aMi« SK3DU8MNM381 Pkene 320>23f<4£5S fm Date AppllcatkHi Received: 6-22-05 Date AppIkatioB CoasMered at Complete: 6-22-05 laltial 120-Day Review Period Expires: 10-204)5 Review Period Exteoded oo 10-6-05 to: 12-194)5 CX)UNCIL MEETING DEC 122005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CTTYOFORONO Date: December 8,2005 Item No.: (j} Dcpartmeiit Approval: Admililitrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director rRWHIUlWE Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-313! Bohland Development, Inc.- Proposed Subdivision for New Lots -177 Glendale Drive (Calvin Presbyterian Church) - 190 Willow Drive North (Keith Williamson) 1) Rezoning 2) Preliminary Plat Approval - (RPUD) Property Area: 10.28 Acres total per surveyor; 10.02 Acres total per Hennepin County: tnillamion: 2.70men$ Churdt (bi Onme): 6.00acres Church (in LL): 1.32acres Proposed uses, gross area (revised): Church: 4.7 acres SFR: 5.6 acres Current Zoning District: RR-1B, 2.0-acre Single Family Rural Residential Proposed Zoning District: Residential: RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development Church: Remain as RR-IB Application Status: Bohland Development is purchasing a portion of the Calvin Presbyterian Church property at 177 Glendale Drive and a portion of the Keith Williamson property at 190 Willow Drive North. Applicant proposes a plat to create 8 new 1/3-acre single-family residential building lots served by a new cul-de-sac road accessing to Willow Drive directly across from Elm I^fie (the street that runs east-west along the north side of Hackberry Park). A portion of the church property is in the City of Long Lake, but all new residential lots will be in Orono. The area is guided in the Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan (CMP) for single- ftmily residential housing at a density of 2-3 units per acre. Because this property has never been rezoned to match the CMP-guided density, the current application includes a request for rerx)ning to RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development. "rilHlr'-----------A- M5-3131 DaccMber 1,2(K^ Ptfcl Lbt of Exhibits A • Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing Dated 11-14-05 B - Revised Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan Dated 11-14-05 C - Notices of PC Action 11-23-05; 10-21-05; 9-26-05; 7-25-05 D - City Engineer Comments 11-21-05 E - PC Memo and Exhibits of 11-17-05 F - Supplementary Information Memo and Exhibits of 11-21-05 G - PC Minutes of July 18,2005; Sept. 19,2005; Oct. 17,2005; Nov. 21,2005 (draft) Background This subdivision was first reviewed on July 18 as a proposed plat for 9 new lots. Pursuant to Planning Commission comments at the July 18 and September 19 PC meetings, applicant submitted a revised 8-lot plan that was reviewed by PC on October 17. In response to that review, further minor revisions were then submitted which were reviewed by Planning Commission on November 21. Planning Commission voted 6-0 on November 21 to recommend that Council grant general concept plan approval and preliminary plat approval subject to the following: 1) Defer to Park Conunission and/or Council for recommendation on whether trails should be installed by applicant and who should pay for the installation. 2) Applicant shall agree to and incorporate into plans all of the recommendations of AES regarding conservation design, etc. 3) Applicant shall provide a landscape plan per AES reccnunendations and per prior Planning Commission discussions. 4) Applicant to provide evidence of MCWD approval for filling wetland in Lot 8. The applicant engaged the services of a consulting ecologist. Applied Ecological Services (AES) to address the Conservation Design goals and objectives. The topics addressed by AES include forest preservation; forest enhancement and expansion; wetland preservation; wetland enhancement and expansion; vegetated buffer establishment, stormwater management; and ecological restoration and management. It would be appropriate and desirable that the developer adhere to the AES recommendations. The City’s wetlaixl consultant, John Smyth of Bonestroo & Associates, has provided comments with regard to wetlands on the site, specifically with regards to the location of homes in relation to wetland boundaries and buffers, and udiether it is apjnopriate that the small wetland in Lot 8 be filled to its 2000 sf doninimus limit to create additional back yard space. Because certain elements of the proposed ponding plan involve fill or excavation in existing wetlands, review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is necessary. mk I MSJ131 December 8,200S Pages I'J 'I*«ed Dcvelopmeiit Parameters Proposed Lot Data (per most recent plat^) (bold typefbee lad kata iKNMoaformity with RPUD staadards) Lsl Dry Area* Wet Area* Proposed Lot 1 (exstg. residence) 36,000 sf — Proposed Lot ? (exstg. Church) 20S,240sf — Proposed Lot 3 (new SFR) 14,150 sf — Proposed Lot 4 (new SFR) Proposed Lot S (new SFR) Proposed Lot 6 (new SFR) Proposed Lot 7 (new SFR) Proposed Lot 8 (new SFR) Proposed Lot 9 (new SFR) Proposed Lot 10 (new SFR) 14,010 sf 18,270 sf 16,060 sf 14,020 sf 19,180 sf 14,090 sf 14,070 sf 1,310 sf 2,740 sf 2,740 sf Proposed Chitlot A (NURP Pond) 14,000 sf± 16,530 sf± Proposed Outlet B (rec area) 11,230 sf — Proposed Road 34.100 sf — 424,420 sf 23,320 sf (9.74 acres) (0.54 acres) Total Area* 38,000 sf 205,240 sf 14,150 sf 14,010 sf 18,270 sf 17,370 sf 14,020 sf 21,920 sf 14,090 sf 16,810 sf 30,530 sf 11,230 sf 34.100 sf 447,740 sf (10.28 acres) Defined: Width Depth 200’ 181’ Req. Min. Rear Yard 460’ 98’ 100’ 90’ 90’ 110’ ISO’ 120’ 158’ 500’ 142’ 114* 118* 118* 115* 180’w I25’w 120*w 36’ 40’ 28’ 23’ 24’ 24’ 23 ’ 40’w 25’ 24’ *Thcac aambera reprcicat approiimatc areas after proposed wetland fill and mitigation w: Tbeee lot depths and rear yards are restricted by ciisting/proposcd wetlands or ponds. Residential Density for RPUD purposes (excl. church): - Inch Wetland and Road: 9 lots at 242,500 s.f. 26,944 sf7lot = 1 lot/0.62 ac. 1.62 units/acre - Inch Rood, Excl. Wetland after filling: 9 lots at 219,180 sf = 24,353 sf/lot» I lot/0.56 ac. 1.79 nnita/acre - Excl. Road, Excl. Wetland: 9 lots at 185,080 sf 20,564 sf/lot« I lot/0.47 ac. ■= 2.12 unlts/acre PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW .\. Conformity to Zoning Dbtrict and Community Management Plan (CMP) The proposed plat is generally in conformity with the 2000-2020 CMP guiding of this area (known as Parcel Group 3: east of Willow, north of Watertown, west of Orono/LL border, south of new Hwy 12 corridor) for single family dwellings at a density of 2 to 3 units per acre. However, tlw CMP currently does not provide guidelines for how a develop*er might obtain the higher end of this density range. The CMP does not address minimum lot sizes. The property has not yet been rezoned to match the CMP guideplan, and is still zoned RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential district, requiring 2.0 dry buildable acres per lot, and a 200’ lot width. The proposed subdivision requires a concurrent rezoning. Planning Commission reviewed the options for rezoning this site and concluded that rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Develoimient (RPUD) is the most appropriate zoning option for development at the guided density. It was also concluded that beca^ RPUD does not allow churches as an allovrable conditional use, that the portion of property to remain in church ownership should remain zoned RR-IB, 2-acre Rural Residential, and continue to operate under existing CUPs. Hdk. i I ii * #0»131 Dcccnibcr 8,200S Page 4 f f B. Rclationihip to Surrounding Development This proposed SFR development for 8 new homes has an average dry buildable lot area of slightly under 16,000 s.f., with no new building lots less than 14,000 s.f. as recommended by the Planning Conunission. This fits into the general range of lot sizes in the surrounding neighborhood. The Hackberry neighborhood directly to the west in Orono has existing developed SFR lots generally ranging in size from 17,000 s.f. to 22,000 s.f. The Glendale Drive neighborhood in Long Lake (southeast of the church) has lots in the range of 14,000 s.f. to 20,000 s.f. The Harrington Drive neighborhood in Long Lake (behind the fire station) has lots ranging from under 12,C00 s.f. to 25,000 s.f. When Parcel Group 3 was re-guided, a density of 2-3 units per acre SFR was chosen, which would be an average lot size of 14,000-22,000 s.f., very similar to the surrounding development. C. Conservation Design Parcel Group 3 is one of the areas reviewed as part of the Rural Oasis visioning study. The City’s planning consultants DSU presented an analysis of i.nportant visual elements about Parcel Group 3 that will help define how Parcel Group 3 should be developed. While specific ordinances are not yet in place, this subdivisdion as a RPUD planned development has been required to address the visual impacts and the elements of Conservation Design. A key element in this plat should be the retention and enhancement of natural views looking northeastward towards the site from Willow Drive. Applicant has provided preliminary recommendations from AES, which Council should review (^Exhibit F). D. Wetlaad Impacts - WCA ConsIdcratioM, Buffers, etc. The southwesterly portion of the property contains wetlands which will be protected by a Conservation and Flowage Easement, save for a portion of a small wetland finger extending into Lot 8. Applicant is proposing to fill a 2000 sf portion of this finge;, the deminimus amount of fill allow^ by WCA regulations without requiring mitigation. Because of this filling. Lots 7 and 8 would not require variances for the wetland buffer setback established in the City’s new wetland ordinance. Applicant will also be requesting that MCWD approve the revised wetland delineation that reclassifies portions of the ditch wetland along Willow Drive as “incidental ” and acceptable to fill for roadway (and future trail) purposes. E. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements and/or Easements Needed The proposed development is required to provide stormwater management systems including a NURP pond which is imposed in Outlot A. The entire property including wetlands and the Williamson residence lot will be subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established for 2005 as $4,160 per acre for the Vi acre zone; no fee has been established for SFR at 2-3 units per acre, but we would expect the above rate to be in the ballpark for the proposed development. Wkaher the dturek piuvd. Lot 3, skooU be exempi/rom the SWSDT Fee is am item for fwtker tUsemssiom. i 1 J ^ • W5-3I31 December 8,2003 Pages F. Lot Layout and Lot Standards (RP'JD) Planning Commission concluded that the RPUD standards for SFR development are generally appropriate for this site, with a few minor revisions. The RPUD standards [Section 78-626(8)] are summarized as follows: -15,000 sf min. dry buildable lot area (PC indicated 14,000 sf min. was acceptable) - 90* minimum lot width at the setback line (all 8 new lots meet this using a 30' street setback...) > 125' minimum lot depth (Lots 4,5,6,7 and 10 are just short of this standard, but these depths are a result of significant tweaking to date, and each lot contains a usable building site with acceptable rear yard. • 40' rear yard or 20% of lot d^th, whichever is less (all lots meet this standard) - 25' front setback on internal streets (30 ’ was used for this plat and will be used for home construction, which allows the lots to meet the 90’ lot width standard) • 50' setback on collector or arterial streets (existing Williamson house at 40 ’ will remain nonconforming...) - 10* side yard on interior lot lines (all lots conform), 15' side yard at exterior of RPUD (eosillHetf Lot 5 proposed at 10\ should revise io 15*; north yard of Lot 3 should increase to IS*; west yard of Lot 6 should revise to IS*) - side yards abutting street must meet front setback requirement (all lots meet this) • 30' max building height (based on proposed grading plan - no need for variances) G. Lot Coverage vi. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Section 78-1403, the 15% Lot Coverage limit, states that the 15% limit applies to ^ zoning districts; it doesn ’t make an exception for RPUD. However, the RPUD District does not specifrcally establish a ‘Lot Coverage by Structures’ limit. Instead, the RPUD standards limit individual lots to 50% hardcover and an individual lot Floor Area Ratio (FAR = gross area of all flo(H9 divided by gross lot area) of 0.5. This means a 14,(KX) s.f. lot is allowed 7,000 s.f. of floor qMce. A 2-story 30 ’ x 70* walkout with a basement, two stories, and an attach^ 3-stall, 1-level 24’ X 30 ’ garage would yield 7020 s.f. of floor area, as an example. The 8 proposed homes range to as much as 25% lot coverage. Planning Conunission reviewed the potential home sizes based on using the 0.5 FAR versus the 15% lot coverage limit, and reconunended that the 0.5 FAR should apply to this development, but not the 15% lot coverage limit This area is not in a shoreland h^cover zone, and hardcover of 50% per the RPUD standards is not unreasonable. H. Road Layout ami Standards The proposed road layout meets the corridor standards of a 50' road right-of-way and 100' cul- de-sac diameter. The access location onto Willow Drive is directly across from Elm Lane, which is appit^ate. The City would normally require that all lots in a subdivision be served with driveways from the new local road rather than from tihe arterial (Willow is deflned in the CMP as M54I3I December <2005 Pm|c6 a *B Minor Arterial”). The only lots proposed to access other than from the proposed new road are the existing church and the Williamson residence. It would not be appropriate to require the church to access onto this new residential street, and the Williamson home is oriented such that re-directing its access off of Willow would be unreasonable and serve no real purpose. I. Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed Planning Commission has recommended that the new road be a private cul-de-sac road. This is reasonable, even though this is becoming an “urban” area of the City, because of the rezoning to RPUD and because only a small number of homes will be served, with minimal potential for connection through to another road. However, underlying City road and utility easements should be granted, so that if the church property is someday further developed and connects a through road to Glendale Drive, the option to make it public will exist. Because this will be an urban development, the City will ultimately own and maintain the sanitary sewer lines (and City water mains, if provided). J. 10% Recreation Area Requirement The RPUD standards in Section 78-626(11) require that "each RPUD development shall provide a minimum of ten percent of the gross project area in private recreational uses for project residerUs. Such area shall he for active or passive recreational uses suited to the needs of the residents of the project, including swimmimg pools, trails, nature areas, picnic areas, tot lots and saunas. Private recreational areas requirements are in addition to the standard park dedication requirements." Planning Commission determined that the church lot is not considered part of the RPUD development, meaning that O.S acre must be devoted to private recreation area. Planning Commission concluded that the 0.26 acre Outlet B, combined with the provision of the applicant ’s proposed public pedestrian and bike trail extending along the private road and through the church property to Glendale Drive, would be sufficient to meet the private recreation area requirement, as long as the developer constructs that trail at the developers cost. A Willow Drive trail crossing fix>m the private toad to Elm Lane should be provided (striping, signage). K. Paric/Trail Easements or Dedication Needed The Orono Comprehensive Trail System Plan indicates a future connection from the Highway 12 corridor trail down Willow to Hackberry Park. It has not been previously determined whether this trail would be on the east or west side of Willow. The Park Commission reviewed this and recommended that a 10 ’ easement be taken along the entire Willow Drive frontage. Whether this trail segment should he constructed now by the devel^r (from the north end of the iwoperty to the private road) is an Uem for further discussion. If so, the developer would likely request a park fee credit. The 8 new lots will be subject to the standard 8% park dedication. The residential Paric Fee is currently established with a min-max fee of $32S0-$SSS0 per lot. L • M0S3I3I Dtccmber 8,200S Pa|c7 L. Utility Locatiou and Availability Municipal sewer service is proposed to come from the existing system in Elm Lane. This sewer system discharges to the Long Lake sewer system and its use will require an amendment to current sewer agreements with Long Lake. Orono does not have City water at this location; the developer is planning to connect to the Long Lake water system in Glendale Drive. M. Utility Assessments or Connection Fees Required The developer will pay all costs of utility construction and installation. It is contemplated that Long Lake will charge unit connection fees for new water connections to their system; these would likely take the place of any Orono connection charges. N. City Engineer Comments The City Engineer has provided comments regarding the application, attached to this memo as Exhibit D. While a number of detailed plans will be requir^ for final plat approval, there are no red flags in Kellogg's comments that suggest issues with the proposal. Issues for Constderation or Discussion 1.Has the applicant provide sufficient information showing how development of the site can meet the City’s Conservation Design goals? 2. Does Council have any concerns regarding any elements of the Planning Commission or Park Commission recommendations as noted in this memo? 3. Are there any other specific concerns remaining unaddressed? Stuff Recommeudatiou Staff finds that this rezoning/subdivision proposal has been revised a number of times and has generally or specifically addressed all concerns raised by staff and the Plaiming Commission. Staff would recommend that Council direct staff to draft a resolution for General Concept Plan Approval for review at your January 9 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review die proposed subdivision, and especially the Conservation Design recommendations of AES. Addrm any remaining concerns or issues which need consideration, and direct staff to draft a resolution for General Concept Plan Approval for review at your January 9 meeting. The qiplicant should be advised to formally request an extension of the Review Period, since the current extension expires December 19. H.4__xj.M V j : • I rT’ ij 1 M<l 1/ ' / GLENDALE COVE f\ PRELIMINARY GRADING. DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN FOR BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT/HICKORY FINE HOMES, AND KEITH WILLIAMSON OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1. BELLE AIRE ESTATES REARRANGEMENT, AND LOT 14. BLOCK 1, BELLE AIRE ESTATES, AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ULMER ESTATES, AND IN THE SW1/4 OF SEC. 34-118-23 _______HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA } * > WILLOW DRIVE L '■r' -------------------------- EXMma HOUK V» i\ _ 'm*- EXISTING nMiiim iOlNQ ICHUIICI9 \ y J i f .J.\____/ / ,1 \ — T —/'.-V —-v-v-A- \ I |i / / ^ ^ y u --------yj y. -----rMur- J ---------f-i------— S \ I a» GLENDALE DRIVE mwA tM lt««l Mim few, fiwwi wm Imftt Mwi m Munw4 fetfem -A A,____ 'i ^• memtomm g Si"'" OtfeNCWfe CALVM PREtfeYTCmAN CHURCH inoiANOAijeowve LONG LAKE. MNNCaOTA 58S« KEHHA¥MLUAII80N IfOfllMUOIA/ORfVC LONG LAML MINNESOTA SaiM DEVELOPS BOICANO DEVELOPMENT STEVE BOHL 1S44 W. WAYZATA BOULEVARD LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA 443M TOTAL AREA ■ 10 3S«-ACRES 1 ogg“-oism|-< §j|i ZBz Si3 100 200 SCAjLE IN FEET II ' I W CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kell^ Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #05-3131 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 23,2005 TO: Bohland Development, Inc.COPIES: Calvin Presbyterian Church 1844 Wayzata Blvd.201 Glendale Drive P.O. Box 815 Long Lake, MN 55356 Long Lake, MN 55356 Keith & Vicky Williamson 190 Willow Drive North Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Preliminary Plat / RPUD Development DATE OF MEETING: November 21,2005 Vote: 6 Ayes, 0 Nays Planning Commission recommended as follows: Recommend that Council grant general concept plan approval and preliminary plat approval subject to the following: Defer to Park Commission and/or Council for recommendation on whether trails should be installed by applicant and who should pay for the installation. Applicant shall agree to and incorporate into plans all of the recommendations of AES reg^ing conservation design, etc. Applicant shall provide a landscape plan per AES recommendations and per prior Planning Commission discussions. Applicant to provide evidence of MCWD approval for filling wetland in Lot 8. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, December 12,2005 - meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Conunission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 612-249-4600. f-j 4 ■? cm OFORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Cryital Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #05-3131 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 21,2005 A i TO: Bohland Development, Inc. COPIES:Calvin Presbyterian Church r 1844 Wayzata Blvd.201 Glendale Drive P.O. Box 815 Long Lake, MN 55356 f Long Lake, MN 55356 •r Keith & Vicky Williamson 190 Willow Drive North • .* Long Lake, MN 55356 ’■V^' T\TE OF APPLICATION: Preliminary Plat / PUD Development :Si •i-DATE OF MEETING: October 17,2005 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Table, to allow the applicant to address a number of remaining issues, including: 1) Provide staff and City consultants the opportunity to review the landscaping plan provided at the meeting. It was noted that due to the high visibility of this site, initial plantings of screening trees should be in the 14 ’ height range at the time of planting. The Paric Commission should review the proposed trail connection through the Church property to Glendale Drive, and make a recommendation as to whether it is appropriate that such connection be public. Planning Commission noted that they have genei^Iy been considering the proposed road as private, and that adding a public trail within the private development may cause conflicts... Park Commission should also recommend whether or how much of the public trail along Willow Drive should be constructed by the developer. The City normally re-imburses the developer for public trails that are constructed by the developer, but not merely for the public trail easements that are reserved for future trail construction by the City. PC also indicated that the combination of Outlot B and the proposed trail connection to Glendale would satisfy the RPUD ”10% private recreation area” requirement, with no park fee re-imbursement for either of these private elements. si -..i NotkeofPCActloa MS-3131 1S-21-S5 Pige2 ■ ► >. Planning Commission suggested that applicant pursue a re-evaluation of the wetland management classification to potentially result in a decreased buffer width requirement, rather dian attempt a buffer set^k variance. The City’s wetland consultant will be asked to comment on the request for relief from the buffer setback for lots 7 and 8. Planning Commission suggeit^ that buffer averaging would be appropriate forexisdngsituations,but th^ are unlikely to support it for new development. VOTE (to table): 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meetings are confirmed as: • Park CoBiaiisioB - Moaday, November 7,2005- meeting begiiis at 7:15 p.m. (Contact Greg Gappa at 952-249-4621 if questions) - Planning Commission - Monday, November 21.2005 - meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. Piease submit any new information at least two weeks prior to the November 21 meeting to allow for review. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available firom the City Recorder after review and qiproval by tlK >ning Conunission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike OaffDon at 612 1600. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box M Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #05-3131 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 26,2005 TO: Bohland Development Inc. COPIES: Calvin Presbyterian Church 1844 Wayzata Blvd.201 Glendale Drive P.O. Box 815 Long Lake, MN 55356 Long Lake, MN 55356 Keith & Vicky Williamson 190 Willow Drive North Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Preliminary Plat / PUD Development DATE OF MEETING:September 19,2005 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Table, to allow the applicant to address the issues brought up on page 4 of the September 15 staff memo, and issues discussed at the meeting of September 19. VOTE (to table): 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Monday, October 17. 2005 - meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. Piease submit new information at least one week prior to the October 17 meeting to aliow for review. If you desire certified copies of the official Plaiming 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 Gaftron at 612-249-4600. REVIEW PERIOD EXTENSION. The 120-day subdivision review period (established by State Statute) for application #05-3131 will expire on October 20, 2005 unless it is extended by the applicant. Bemuse Planning Commission’s tabling of your application until the October 17 PC meeting will not allow for review and final action by the City Council until after October 20, an extension must be requested in writing by the applicant Please sign and return the attached Request for Review Period Extensioa no later than Friday October 7. Failure to return the Extension Request will result in Council action on October 10 to deny the application. -S^- ^ /•2--«, - oj$r CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE; #05-3131 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 25,2005 TO: Bohland Development, Inc.COPIES: Calvin Presbyterian Church 1844 Wayzata Blvd.201 Glendale Drive P.O. Box 815 Long Lake, MN 55356 Long Lake, MN 55356 Keith & Vicky Williamson 190 Willow Drive North Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION; .Preliminaiy Plat / PUD Development DATE OF MEETING: July 18,2005 Plaaning Commission recommended as follows: Tabled for a variety of reasons; - wetland moratorium is still in effect and final outcome of proposed wetland ordinance is still pending... " MCWD has not yet indicated whether tlie proposed wetland filling will be allowed, which significantly impacts the number and viability of lots... - applicant needs to address the issue of conservation design, since the grading plan indicates that virtually the entire site will be graded and all existing vegetation removed... - applicant needs to address a number of the issues brouglit up on page 7 of the staff memo of July 13. VOTE (to tabte): 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Regarding the list of 9 issues. Planning Commission indicated as follows: 1. RPUD is the appropriate zone; church lot may be excluded from rezoning to RPUD. 2. Applicant must address Conservation Design for tliis site. 3. Can’t address buffin' impacts until moratorium is done and MCWD indicates position on wetland filling. 4. Wetlands and ponding should be in a separate outlot to be owned by a Homeowners Assn. 5. No clear direction as to whether some lots will be allowed to not meet certain standards, but Lot 2 needs work, to get it some additional depth back from the new road... Notice of Planning Commission Action July 25,2005 Page 2 6. 7. 8. 9. Planning Commission will recommend that the FAR is the appropriate limitation on how much is built on each lot, and will recommend tliat the 1 5% lot coverage limit not apply. No clear direction as to whether the road should be public or private. The 10% recreation area requirement does apply, and an option would be to make it a perimeter trail system in a perimeter outlot... Let us know status of discussions with Long Lake re: City Water, etc. ^plicanfs next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission —scheduling is indefinite, pending finalization of wetland ordinance; please contact staff to discuss next steps. (Note: Public hearing on proposed wetland ordinance is scheduled fot 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 Oaffion at 612-2494600. 1 ' y ■ Vi (T ^ t Bonestroo Sm Rosene Anderlik& AssodaCes Engingert t Architects 2335 West Highway 36 • St Paul, MN 55113 Office: 651-636-4600 • Fax; 65I-636-I3II wwwisonestroo.com November 21.2005 MikeGefffon Planning Director CHyof Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 • : * f» n• - ynos Giendaie Cove (177 Glendaie Drive/igo WNiow Drive North) Fiie No. 000139-05000-0 Plat No. 05-3131 Dear Mike; We have rev ie wed the revised preliminary plat and revised preliminary grading and drainage plansdatedll- 17-05 for the proposed 10-lot residential subdivision. The site is located in the souttieast quadrant of the Intersection of Gleridale Drive and Willow Drive North. We have the following comments as it relates to engineering matters. 1. Aeoeaa/Streeta: A geotechnical report, R-value recommendation and pavement design was not suKmitted. This will need to be submitted for review and approval. Final plans should include all applicable '-iandard details for street construction. All driveway grades shall be 10% or less. 2. Gradirtg and Erosion Control: Final plans will need to include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Association rules. The street elevations proposed along the church side across from Lots 8 and 9 still show damming water on the church property. The plans will need to be revised to indude storm sewer to serve the church property or the street grades will need to be revised. The plans should also include weUarKl mitigation information for the pioposed wetland impacts. 3. Sanitary Sewer/Waler Main: Final plans will need to include a detailed sanitary sewer design. Plan and prctHe views should be provided for all proposed sanitary sewer improvements. The water main extension from Long Lake should be looped to the existing Orono system to the north. A water main stub should be provided on the west side of Willow Drive across from the proposed road for possible future service to Elm Drive. 4. Storm Sewer/Oralnaga: Drainage area maps and drainage calculations will need to be submitted for review and approval. Plans should be submitted to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review and approval. Final plans should include storm sewer calculations and detailed storm sewer design including plan and profile views of all proposed storm sewer improvements. The final storm water pond design shall meet NURP standards. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTRCX), RGSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIAtES. INC. Tom Cc: OregG^jpa.Cky of Orono SL Paul, S(. Cloud, Rochester, MN • Milwaukee, Wl ■ Chicago. IL AHkmmUm Aukmn/M^iiut OpparmtiHy twpiMyy liMpiMyEt QwmmA J . / \ 1 ( ^ h- Dale AppUcatioN Rccrivcd: 6-22-OS Date Application Cor eidcrcd at Complete: 6-22-OS Initial 120-Day Rev'ew Period Expires: I0-20-0S Review Period Exiended on 10-6-0S to: 12-19-OS lV-0 To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director November 17,2005 Subject:#05-3131 Bohland Development, Inc. - Proposed Subdivision for New Lots -177 Glendale Drive (Calvin Presbyterian Church) - 190 Willow Drive North (Keith Williamson) 1) Rezoning 2) Preliminary Plat Approval - (RPUD) Property Area: 10.28 Acres total per surveyor; 10.02 Acres total per Hennepin County: rntUtmamt: 2.70 acm Church O h O toho ): 6.00 acres Church 0" U2 acres Proposed uses, gross area (revised); Church: 4.7 acres SFR: 5.6 acres Current Zoning District: RR-1 B, 2.0>acre Single Family Ruml Residential Proposed 2^ning District: RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development (for discussion) Appiteation Status: Bohland Development is purchasing a portion of the Calvin Presbyterian Church property at 177 Glendale Drive and a portion of the Keith Williamson property at 190 Willow Drive North. Pursuant to Planning Commission comments at the September 1 9 PC meeting, applicant submitted a revised 8-lot plan that was reviewed by PC on October 17. Further minor revisions have now been submitted in response to the comments resulting from that meeting. List of Exhibits A - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing Dated 11-14-05 B - Revised Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan Dated 11-14-05 C - Comments from John Smyth (City Wetland Consultant) D - Notice of PC Action 10-21-05 E - Park Commission Comments - Gappa Memos 11-7-05 and 11-10-05 F - Draft PC Minutes 10-17-05 G - Landscape Plans &. Photo Depictions Submitted at 1 0/17 Meeting H - Memo and Selected Exhibits of 10-13-05 ___J #05-3131 November 17,2005 Page 2 New Information Revised Plans Submitted November 14. Revised plans were recently submitted. Staff would note the following items of interest: 1. 2. The boundaries of Lots 8-9-10 have been shifted slightly. The amount of proposed filling in the wetland within Lot 8 is increasing from 1600 s.f. to 2000 s.f., apparently the maximum that would be allowed by WCA rules under the deminimus clause. This revision and a slightly revised house layout on Lot 8 results in elimination of the variances to wetland buffer/setback width that would have been required under the prior plan. However, please see John Smyth comments below and in Exhibit C. 3.There may be other subtle changes in the plans which have not been identified. Applicant did not provide a list of all the minor plan revisions made. 4. The City Engineer has not yet commented on the recently submitted plans. Meeting with Adam Arvidson of DSU 11/7/05 Applicant and staff met with Adam Arvidson, landscape architect with DSU, on November 7 to review the Rural Oasis study and its applicability to tliis site. Arvidson indicated that due to its size and layout, this is a difllcult site in which to preserve substantial wooded areas. He indicated that saving individual significant trees along the perimeter and within tl*.e site may be feasible, and he suggested that applicant engage an ecologist to suggest a preservation and augmentation plan for the site. Applicant has since contacted Applied Ecological Services (AES) and is expecting to have their comments available for the November 21 meeting. John Smyth Comments On October 26 staff met with the City’s wetland consultant, John Smyth, to review the potential impacts of the proposed wetlaid filling, and determine if there were options to rearrange lot lines to avoid the need for wetland buffer setback variances on Lots 7 and 8. His conclusion is that the City diould support a potential revision to the classification of the wetland along the Willow Drive frontage of Lot 10, allowing the lot lines for Lots 8-9-10 to shift westward. This could potentially allow for reductions, instead of increases, to the fill in the wetland in Lot 8, which Smyth secs as a more valuable wetland to protect than that in Lot 10 along Willow Drive. W»131 November 17, IMS Page 3 Park Commiuion Comments Please review Exhibit E. The Park Commission reviewed this plan on November 7 and recommended that the trail connection along the private road and through the church property to Glendale Drive should be a public pedestrian and bike trail. They did not further discuss the issue of potential wetland conflicts with the trail easement requested along the entire Willow Drive frontage of the plat. Smyth noted that the applicant ’s wetland delineator did not delineate the wetland boundary along the road; this would be needed if this easement were to be used for trail someday. Note that Planning Commission concluded on October 1 7 that the combination of Outlot B and the proposed trail connection to Glendale would satisfy the RPUD “10% private recreation area ” requirement, with no park fee re-imbursement for either of these elements, even though the trail through the church property will be public. Remaining Issues To Be Resolved or For Consideration 1. 2. Plans should include a 10* trail easement along the west boundary of the entire property. Applicant should provide suitable landscape plans, tree preservation and augmentation plans showing how development of the site can meet the City’s Conservation Design goals. Staff is advised these plans are underway as of this writing, and a letter with recommendations from AES should be available for review at your November 21 meeting. 3.Applicant must provide written confirmation that MCWD will accept the 2000 s.f. wetland filling in proposed in Lot 8. 4. Other concerns? Staff Recommendation Discussion of the above issues should provide applicant and staff with direction as to whether or how the proposed plat should be further revised. Any remaining topics left uiuddressed to date should be brought iq) for discussion. A key factor as to whether this should move forward to Council with a recommendation for RPUD concept plan approval is whether the applicant has satisfied Planning Commission regarding landscaping and Conservation Design. Options for action include: - Table for further revisions and consideration (provide applicant direction). * Recommend approval/conditional appr^'val for the concept plan, preliminary plat & RPUD rezoning. “Other Any recommendation for approval should address the issues noted above and be subject the comments of the City Engineer. If Planning Commission chooses to move this forward to Council, it would be scheduled for the December 12 meeting. 1 J Memo Assoclatci twiwgwi A VCWMIM Proii^etNmif: Glendale Cove Client: City of Orono To: Mike Gaffron. Planning Director File No: Zoning File #05-313.1 BRA: 139-05-000 ' (.7 From: John Smyth, Senior Scientist Oato: 10/21 //aiz f Re: Request for Set-back variance to 10 - feet Lots 7 and 8 or,)• %5 or Oi: Wetland Boundary Following the review of the wetland boundary in the field it should be noted that the wetland boundary along Willow Drive has not been delineated. It would appear to be important to have this wetland delineated and surveyed to more accurately reflect that the wetland does not extend to the edge of the road as It currently appears on the development plans. This will be important if the City is considering a trail along Willow Drive in the future. In addition a portion of the wetland along Willow Drive may not be natural and could have inadvertently formed due to grading for drainage along the road. This is currently be investigated by the developers wetland consultant. Wetland and Buffer Avoidance I would recommend not allowing a variance to the setbacks for Lots 7 and 8. With the position of the wetland being in the backyards of the proposed lots I do not think it is reasonable to assume that people that ultimately live in these homes will be satisfied with a 10-foot backyard. The City created the 20-foot setback in order to insure that people have adequate backyard space prior to the buffer and wetland to eliminate (or a least minimize) encroachment into the buffer. The applicant has shown a plan 'vith a slightly smaller house pad, that works for Lot 7 &.nd thus I am not sure why the variance is requested for this lot. With the submitted layout and the existing conditions that includes a wetland, buffer and setback. Lot 8 appears to be unbuildable, however the applicant may want to explore other lot layouts to maintain the number of lots. Lot 10 is extremely wide and if narrowed Lots 9 and 8 could be shifted to the northwest and potentially minimize or eliminate wetland impacts from Lot 8 and allow for the buffer and setback. If Lot 10 size is *he limiting factor the storm pond could be elongated and thus create greater depth for Lot 10. Following the field review it appears that a portion of the wetland located on Lot 10 may have been artificially connected to the main wetland by excavation for drainage. This will be reviewed and determined by the watershed. If the small wetland on Lot 10 was connected to the main wetland artificially the City could consider having a different classification for tht wetland on Lot 10. This wet'and is predominately reed canary grass (invasive species) and the location next to the road offers little wildlife habitat value. If trie classification was lowered the buffer would be less which could allow the houses and lot lines shift closer to Willow Drive and potentially help protect the Wetland on Lot 8 which is a higher quality basin. BiMissfima Reeene, Anderttk end Aaeecla^. /wc. 2335 West Highway 36 St Paul. MN 55113 -f Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311 j /(-I*?" November 7,2005 To: Park Commission From: Greg Gappa Subject: Glendale Cove Development Trail This is a nine lot Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) located on the southeast comer of the Willow/Glendale Drive intersection. This is an urban density development served with City utilities and a private road. This development is subject to both the City standard Park Dedication Fee/Land requirement and the RPUD requirement that 10% of the land area be set aside for private recreation purposes. The developer is proposing that Outlet B, which is located on the north side of the private road adjacent to Willow Drive be set aside for private recreation purposes. However, this outlet dedication is not large enough to meet the 10% land area requirement. The Planning Commission and Council will need to make a determination if the Outlet designation as private recreation land is appropriate. The Developer is proposing a trail to connect the private subdivision road to Glendale Drive. A private trail would qualify towards the RPUD private recreation requirement. If the trail is public, the Planning Conunission and Council will need to make a determination if the trail can be counted towards the 10% private recreation requirement. Both the Park and Planning Commissions have already made recommendations that a 10 ’ public trail easement along Willow Drive be aicluded in this development. The issue for the Park Commission to discuss is; should this trail should be public or fMivate? My recommendation is that the trail that connects the private subdivision road to Glendale Drive should be a public pedestrian and bicycle trail, and a public easement across the private road for trail users also be provided. There are no sidewalks on Glendale Drive, and this trail would provide a more direct link on a lower traffic volume road to the Elm Lane entrance to Hackberry Park. A Willow Drive crosswalk should also be provided from the private subdivision road to Elm Lane. The Park Commission needs to discuss this issue and make a recommendation on the Public versus Private status of the trail and private road link, through the Glendale Cove Development, between Glendale and Willow Drives. J Page 1 of 1 F t'* Mill* Oaffron u-n-oi" From: Greg Gappa Sant: WMnasday, November 09.200511:08 AM To: Mike Gaffron Subleet: Subject Glendale Cove Development Trail November 10,2005 To: Mike Oaffron s= -.- • From: Greg Oappa Subject: Glendale Cove Development Trail to Connect Glendale Drive to the Private Subdivision Road The Parit Commission discussed this trail connection at the NovemberTth meeting, and their recommendation is that the trail that connects the private subdivision road to Glendale Drive should be a public pedestrian and bicycle trail, and a public easement across the private road for trail users also be provide. There are no sidewalks on Glendale Drive, and this trail would provide a more direct link on a lower traffic volume road to the Elm Lane entrance to Hackberry Park. A Willow Drive crosswalk should also be i»ovided from the private subdivision road to Elm Lane. am ■::rm • V -V 7 4:; 1 1/9/2005 -■ n v; .;r. • ..V. GLENDALE COVE PRELIMINARY GRADING. DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN FOR BOH’JKND DEVELOPMENT/HICKORY FINE HOMES, AND KEITH WILLIAMSON OF LOT 1. BLOCK 1, BELLE AIRE ESTATES REARRANGEMENT, AND LOT 14, BLOCK 1, BELLE AIRE ESTATES. AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ULMER ESTATES. AND I IN THE SW1/4 OF SEC. 34-118-23 ^ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTAoiPHa ^ // WW-W i 7^^'nrnms 3> I ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- •Awnmn—/moamm mat IK or t« 1/4 or «C M>tl§>|4__ or »c j4-n»-zj » I EXMTINO HOUSE -p- nmjm g .Ss N 'I _____ 1*-^ ? t '>! '/ EM8TINQ ^<1 E!i r4Ur^ 4/V^I irMMBUil ilLOtNO (CHUNCN)1 \ ' \ ----rj+—1 10 / •/ / i\ j • V ^ mARRANGiMiNl^^J^l --------------------------\— 4^ V. *wma GLENDALE DRIVE [NOUMilTl • : dmotat trail mthm flKJI! 4 an>*- oalillKf apol atavalhav maon aao lavai dolwn •17 t in*** Mittinf canlair InA maon laa tnol iMiim Baarlny «• tetii vpm m iolum. o< Lj OMNEM CALVm PRCWYTEfilAN CHURCH 177 QIANQALE DRIVE LON0LAKE.MmNE80TA S539B KEITH A VWLLIAMSON 180 MMELOW DRIVE LONO LAKE. MtNNEBOTA 86)M DEVELOPER BOHiANO DEVELOPUENT •TIVEROHL 1844 W ^YZATA BOULEVARD LONG LAKE. IRNNE80TA 44ia0 TOTAL AREA - iOlir-ACRES 1 ts=^ Wigs k5SJ 100 200 SCALE IN FEET i .. -A r" l»>. . 1^ • :•' ^ j. MmM ^^^^v■.."^^^^^"•:--4 mmm ■.•'7' { '.. . ^^ • ' •# e. V ' l;« ,r* ■4 % 1 . •.; f,;I ». ; Ct 4 ^ ‘I Y- a ; ...:1 H, ■5'y.- V f t ♦* ' ^ 4- ‘f^ ?7* ■ ■<? K. ft '- V ’ “>;. '.J. ^^r"-.‘i#,3 » fe^^idg ■ v^mm F» - i ‘'-sBfcf *” ^ * > . • • • > 'jt' 1 ' 1. .. r S' .',.L'! 1 ‘ *• s. ;:’d. *vT '■• ’ .■.' 1 I !t.? ^ tL *-5 »•* # “• V •If'A -V ■■ ^ -:<bf i- ' r- ■. I :.r-f,.:^:}>i'4 mmm!-‘■i •i' •• %• '-• *' '/X,. '-■'■■If' d.'., ( tof •*• 'V4 V. ....... f. v»-,' ■ ■ ■■ ■ '5.. • --M - » -i 1-^,:P:• . ,':f#^i '/•Tt/- , ' -.V . ■ "■ ‘ ^ -T'^'jTv' .. ■ ■••'*'’{ -U"‘;•-■;■■ • .v:?t *'4 • Vf». W 4/*k\ }».' *. 1. i s • i > MUM ImII Si ■f^i ■ -1 feS’5- ::-.;i*ifi fci-*-' ■m,':-.r Ri^' 'f: »=4. ■»fc- . .."ii |iM.W:4 ##!§ iii . "IfN- f..t ’-t 3 K' I W. ^1"' -> > .^/ 'wrwr If wm.im ■ ’ ■ :-:YV^v::^--v^-'r''^^i^--- s- r'1 "»«im0 -^7 seT^: / V. I is • V' ■ V: .... . k\ ^ * * -i.'^ s mm Wu , wrr ^ ------------------------ ‘¥V:O >s —r-Yh- ■ ► IV ^'i’' 4' > »*.< .41.. ‘f 4|K s, '*'• •• 4 ‘ .^‘■Vr-r .'•■TrXv'i^'V' '•;.>i'’j *’ 'V. H' '4^ J.'m Uv f V4 t ^'4.*c.-::r:gai ► ■• -*^i- ■V ^ > -TV' C»- ‘•1-Sr V •. . . ■:"-S:S:-ir3!J'-!- foCSia' / /' . V “ « -.s 1 St :« Ditc Application Received: 6-22-05 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6-22-05 Initial 120-Day Review Period Espires: 10-20-05 Review Period Extended on 10-6-05 to: 12-19-05 M~n~ps' To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Rahi» and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Director October 13,2005 #05-3131 Bohland Development, Inc. - Proposed Subdivision for New Lots - 177 Glendale Drive (Calvin Presbyterian Church) - 190 Willow Drive North (Keith Williamson) 1) Rezoning 2) Preliminary Plat Approval - (RPUD) Property Area: 10.28 Acres total per surveyor; 10.02 Acres to*al per Hennepin County: WUUanaon: 2.70 acres Church (in Orono): 6.00 acres Church (in LL): 1.32 acres Proposed uses, gross area (revised): Church: 4.7 acres SFR: 5.6 acres Current Zoning District: RR-1B, 2.0-acre Single Family Rural Residential Proposed Zoning District: RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development (for discussion) Application Status: Bohland Development is purchasing a portion of the Calvin Presbyteriai; Churen property at 177 Glendale Drive and a portion of the Keith Williamson property at 190 Willow Drive North. Pursuant to Planning Commission comments at the Septembci 19 PC meeting, applicant has submitted a revised 8-lot plan. List of Exhibits A - Applicant ’s Narrative & Request B - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing Dated 10-10-05 C - Revised Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan Dated 10-10-05 D - Sketch - Impacts of 25’ Buffer Plus 20’ Setback on Lots 7 & 8 E - Notice of PC Action 9-26-05 05 hibits of 9-15-05 WS-3131 October 13, lOOS Page 2 New Information Revised Plans Submitted Week of October 10. Revised plans were submitted within the past week. Staff would note the following items of interest: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Lot dimensions remain unchanged from the Sept. 8 plan. More refined house layouts and individual site grading schemes have been added, more clearly indicating those areas where wetland protection requirements limit site flexibility. Water main from Long Lake has been added to the plan, as has a proposed trail connection through the church parking lot to Glendale Drive. The grading plan indicates virtually the entire site will be graded and trees & vegetation removed, save for a 1500 s.f. area at the SE comer of Lot 5, where some pines will be saved. Applicant as of this writing is woridng on some visual depictions of what trees and vegatation along Willow Drive will be saved, and is preparing a site revegetation & landscaping plan 'that will propose (hopefully) substantial plantings on the berms at the rear of Lots 6-7-S-9-10, the row of homes that will be most visible as viewed from Willow Drive. Applicant is requesting wetland buffer setback variances for the homes on Lots 7 and 8, to be setback 10’ f jm the buffer instead of the required 20’. Staff will recommend that John Smyth, the City’s wetland consultant at Bonestroo & Associates, review the request and suggest vdiat course of action should be followed in reviewing the proposal. The required buffer will be established and maintained on all lots, however, so the primary issue is how close the homes on Lots 7 and 8 should be to the unmowable buffer area. A question to consider is whether the 20’ setback requirement should be varied, or whether the applicant should pursue having the wetland re-categorized to only require a 16’ buffer. The buildable area of Lot 7 becomes very narrow (50’ wide) under the 20’ setback requirement; the buildable area of Lot 8 becomes quite shallow. In both cases, this does not necessarily render those lots unbuildable, but the useful footprint is restricted; this does have significant impact on house design options, eqiecially for Lot 7. The stormwater ponding area in Lot 6 is tqiparently a detention (rate control) pond only and can reason^ly remain as part of Lot 6; tte City Engineer will be asked to comment on whether this should be covered by an easement 7" The City EngineQ* has not had an opportunity to review the newly submitted plans. • < MS-3131 October 13,3005 Pigc3 General Comments Many of the comments noted in the September PC memo are still applicable. Remaining Issues To Be Resolved or For Consideration 1 . Plans should be revised to show a 10* trail easement along the west boundary of the property. 2.Applicant should provide suitable landscape plans, tree preservation plans and elevation views showing how development of the site can meet the City’s Conservation Design goals. Staff is advised these plans are underway as of this writing... Does Planning Commission want to consider recommending preliminary plat approval prior to review of landscape plans? 3.Should a 10 ’ variance be granted to the new wetland ordinance 20' buffer setback requirement for Lots 7 and 8? Should the application be tabled until the City’s wetland consultant has had a chance to review and comment on the vaiiance reque:.:? 4.[>oes Planning Commission accept Outlot B as meeting the RPUD “ 10% private recreation area ” requirement? If not, what additional options should rqiplicant consider for meeting that requirement? 5. 6. Have all requirements of the RPUD ordinance been satisfied? Other concerns? Staff Recommendation Discussion of the above issues should provide applicant and staff with direction as to whether or how the proposed plat should be further revised. Any remaining topics left unaddressed to date should be brought up for discussion. Options for action include: - Table for further revisions and considotUion (provide applicant direction). - Recommend approval or conditional approval for the preliminary plat and rezoning to RPUD. > Recommend denial, stating reasons. - Other Any recommendation for iqjproval should address the issues noted above and be subject the forthcoming comments of dm City Engineer. 4 *. • MEMORANDUM To: Mike Gaffron From: Steve Bohl Date: October 10,2005 Rc: Glendale Cove Proposal, Preliminary Plat Application To date, we have submitted the preliminary plat application and have reviewed the proposal before the Planning Commission on July 18,2005 and September 15,2005. These meetings have been helpful to give direction for necessary revisions needed for this plan and anticipating the new Orono Wetland Ordinance. During this time period we have made alterations to the plan following comments by the Planning Commission and staff. In addition, we have received direction on the importance of view corridors in the City of Orono. Alterations to the original plan submitted: 1. Reduced the number of new lots from nine to eight. 2. Moved the road farther to the northeast to reduce impact on the wetlands. 3. Created an out lot for private recreation purposes 4. Allowed for some buffer of trees along the south east comer of the property as requested by some of the neighbors. 5. Reduced impact on the views and maintained trees as you approach the site from the south on Willow Drive. 6. Maintained the 14,000 square foot lot area as designated by the City’s plan for more dense neighborhoods where appropriate. Wetland Ordinance: We are asking for consideration to some aspects of the new wetland ordinance. We believe it is still within the City’s intent as to wetland conservation and maintenance of the buffer areas. We also understand that it is the intention to adhere to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts rules for wetland preservation. It is our goal to comply with the buffer zone and setbacks and other requirements of the MCWD and also the new regulations by Orono. We are, however, asking for a compromise in the Orono structure setback from the buffer requirements for the following reasons: 1. The setback still complies with the MCWD rules and is a compromise between the old and new Orono requirements. The buffer will not change and will be 25’ off of all wetlands according to MCWD. The setback from the buffer area would be maintained on all lots with the exception of lots 7 and 8. The Orono old requirement did not have a setback and the new setback is 20 ’. We would maintain the MCWD buffer of 25’ but are asking to reduce the Orono structure A 1.: f- ■■ setback from the buffer to 10’ on either side of the lot line between lots 7 and 8 and the backyard of lot 8. 2. The intention of tlie setback was to ensure that a reasonable area is left natural surrounding the wetlands, especially when a backyard size is ii~nited due to the buffer and mowing up to the edge has been done following the improvement of some projects. Our proposal has Lot 8 with an adequate backyard and we are asking that the side yard setback off of the buffer be reduced to (10’). This is (10’) more than the old Orono and less than the new Orono (25 ’) requirements which can be maintained without intruding into a backyard. 3. The only wetland affecting our grading and house locations is the small intrusion wetland on lot 8 that is described the same as the larger adjoining wetland. The category of the small wetland has been determined to be the same as the larger wetland when the character and value of these two wetlands are different. This wetland is higher in elevation than the main wetland and the primary reason that it has wetland characteristics is the additional runoff directed to it from the church grading in the walkout and swale from their basement. We are requesting that this wetland follow the same buffer as required by MCWD and that the City of Orono would adjust the new wetland setbaclc A compromise of 10’ appears to be reasonable. Conservation Design: Our recent grading plan revision would allow us to maintain a large portion of the substantial trees that border this site to the southeast. This will maintain a primary view buffer of the existing substantial trees. There will be clearing of the center of the site for construction. The primary vegetation in the core of the site is buckthorn and some smaller second growth elm and box elder. The new landscaping would be a significant improvement to the vegetation type and placement of new coniferous and deciduous trees. Following die completion of the residences, landscape requirements will be enforced to plant and maintain a buffer along the back lots of 6,7,8,9,10 and the backside of the pond in Outlot A. This may be enforced by either association declarations or by a scenic easement placed along those areas of the lots. The landscape plan and material list can be reviewed and approved with input from the City and any consultants prior to the Final Plat approval. A cross section will be includ^ in the final landscape plan. -------- -- n fi Other considerations for approval from the City of Orono: We understand that the ability to create more dense neighborhoods is limited in the City due to sewer/water access and it is a goal to create more of these opportunities. This proposal conforms to this area of Orono and would have a neighborhood feel similar to the density that surrounds this area of Orono and Long Lake. This new neighborhood would provide the opportunity to create lot ffires at 14,000 square feet and would fit Avell into the surrounding area. This proposal offers a private recreation outlot area and it is our recommendation that a trail be created along side the easement for the city water from Long Lake. This can be used for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. This would provide a connection fi’om the Hackberry neighborhood to the west to the more dense area of Glendale etc. in Long Lake to the east. This would tie together an extensive pedestrian/bicycle corridor. We appreciate your consideration of our proposed plan. We have addressed many of the comments by staff and Planning Conunission. During this approval process we have also encountered the change in the Wetland Ordinance and have done our best tc comply. It appears that without the recent changes this proposal would meet the requirements of the City of Orono and the MCWD. We arc asking for a relatively minor compromise to the new ordinance *nd hope that the benefits of this new neighborhood offset these requests. mmmmm• i”.>4:? .f.-:■ 'iV'flhTi'mtl lil p-Jt* I Ill'll ^111 hvfr?: ■•■••.. ;*>yy^.. : V *' •■ '• nm ■ y^e . 1./. v*>‘v;=-»5^- Vwm : ■■: v-^ GLENDALE COVE ^ . PREUMINARY GRADING. DRAINAGE A UTIUTY PLAN FOR BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT/HICKORY FINE HOMES, AND KEITH WILLIAMSON OF LOT 1. BLOCK 1. BELLE AIRE ESTATES REARRANGEMENT, AND LOT 14. BLOCK 1. BELLE AIRE ESTATES. AND LOT 1. BLOCK 1. ULMER ESTATES. AND IN THE SW1/4 OF SEC. 34-116-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA | jl, GLENDALE COVE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT/HICKORY FINE HOMES, AND KEITH WILUAMSON OF LOT 1. BLOCK 1. BELLE AIRE ESTATES REARRANGEMENT. AND LOT 14, BLOCK 1, BELLE AIRE ESTATES, AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ULMER ESTATES, AND IN THE SW1/4 OF SEC. 34-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA J jf. I S ul|i ■ % •I # %l ^ t IN THE SW 1/4 OF S HENNEPIN COUNT D 6f z^' rt^ i <o WILLO’ EMSTWC garage j G Dale Application Received: 6-22-05 Date Application Considered as Conipleic: 6-22-05 120-Day Review Period Expires: 10-20-05 To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaf&on, Planning Director September IS, 2005 #05-3131 Bohland Development, Inc. - Proposed Subdivision for New Lots -177 Glendale Drive (Calvin Presbyterian Church) - 190 Willow Drive North (Keith Williamson) 1) Rezoning 2) Preliminary Plat Approval - (RPUD?) Property Area: 10.28 Acres total per surveyor; 10.02 Acres total per Hennepin County: WttUamson: 2,70 acres Church (In Orono): 6.00 acres Church fln LL): 1.32 acres Proposed uses, gross area (revised): Church: 4.7 acres SFR: 5.6 acres Current Zoning District: RR-1B, 2.0-acre Single Family Rural Residential Proposed Zoning District: RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development (for discussion) Application Status: Bohland Development is purchasing a portion of the Calvin Presbyterian Church property at 177 Glendale Drive and a portion of the Keith Williamson property at 190 Willow Drive North. Pursuant to Planning Commission comments at the July PC meeting, and as a result of MCWD comments, applicant has submitted a revised plan for 8 new lots instead of 9. List of Exhibits A - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing Dated 9-8-05 B - Revised Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan C • City Engineer Comments 9-13-05 D - MCWD Comments re: Wetland Delineation E - Park Conunission Request for Trail Easement F - Notice of PC Action 7-25-05 O - Comments from Neighbor Jim Dillman Received July 18 H - Photos from Exterior of Site I-PC Minutes of 7-18-05 J - Memo and Exhibits of July 13,2005 iL.:. *! «05-3131 September 15,2005 Page 2 New InformatioD Revised Plan Submitted 9-8-05 . A revised plan was submitted September 9. Staff would note the following items of interest: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The proposed cul-de-sac public road has been shitted to the northeast to accommodate additional buildable area within Lot 8, which contains a small wetland. Tliis layout leaves the church with a 60 ’ setback to the road, still meeting its minimum 50 ’ setback requirement. The lot adjacent to the Williamson residence has been converted to an 11,230 s.f. (0.26 acre) Outlot ^^ch satisfies about half of the RPUD 10% private recreation area requirement. Wetland mitigation within the Church parcel (now Lot 2) has been eliminated and the plat proposes 1600 s.f. of wetland filling within Lot 8, which requires MCWD approval. Each of the proposed lots includes at least 14,000 s.f. area as reconunended by the Plaiming Commission. Each lot except for Lot 5 has at least the required 90 ’ of width as measured in a straight line at the propos^ 30 ’ front setback line. Lot 5 has approximately 88’. All but Lots 4 and 7 meet the minimum RPUD lot depth requirement of 125 ’. Lots 4 and 7 are restricted due to the dimensions of the site and the location of the cul-de-sac, leaving them subtly short at about 11 5 ’-120 ’ in depth. The wetland in Lot 8 places some significant restrictions on the functional depth of that lot (see preliminary plat drawing). The RPUD minimum rear yard requirement is 40 ’ or 20% of lot depth, whichever is less. Plans propose a 30 ’ rear yard on Lots 3,4,5,6,9 and 10, which appear to substantially meet the requirement, and 35 ’-45 ’ on Lots 7 and 8, ivhere this greater setback allows the potential to retain or establish a buffer in keeping with the Conservation Design goals (more on this below). The 45 ’ rear setback for Lots 7 and 8 pIso reflects the “Manage 2” wetland protection classification established for this wetland in the new Wetland Ordinance, requiring a 25 ’ buffer and a 20 ’ buffer setback (but see below regarding the combined buffer/setback that is osl being met from the wetland extensions in Lots 7,8,9 and 10...). Each lot appears to have a buildable envelope of 75 ’ x 40 ’ or greater as shown on the submitted plat drawing (this may not be tte case when buffer/setback from wetland extensions is accounted for...). Stormwater ponding is proposed within Outlot A adjacent to Willow Drive, and a smaller pond at the rear of Lot 6. i mm J MS-3131 September IS, 200S Page 3 City Engineer Comments 9-13-05. The City Engineer has provided comments on the revised plans, attached as Exhibit C. His comments relatexl to engineering matters include the standard request for pavement design and geotechnical reports, drainage calculations, and level of detail required in final design plans. Additionally, he notes that in order to maintain appropriate freeboard for the walkouts on Lots 8-9-10, the walkout elevations need to be raised; also, that the proposed street grades will dam water on the church property unless road design changes or a storm sewer is added. MCWD Comments 8-4-05.- The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has concluded (see Exhibit D) that the wetland extension in Lot 8 is not “incidental”, and therefore is regulated under WCA rules. Applicant is ^jparently proposing to fill 1600 s.f. of that wetland to gain more buildable area within Lot 8. Wetland Ordinance Impacts The new Wetland Ordinance designates this wetland, including its extensions into Lots 8 and 10, as being a “Manage 2 ” protection classification, requiring a 25’ buffer plus 20’ structure setback from the buffer. In staffs discussions with Renae Clark of MCWD, she indicated that MCWD would treat tire wetland extensions (i.e. the ditch area in Lot 10 and the small pothole m Lot 8) as part of the main wetland body for buffer purposes. This will have a significant impact by reducing the buildable area within Lots 7,8,9 and 10, which has not been accounted for in the current plans, but is sketched in for discussion purposes on Exhibit A>2. Park Commission Request for Trail Easement. The Park Commission reviewed this plat at their September meeting and recommended that a 10’ trail easement be established within the property along Willow Drive. This easement would allow flexibility in the development of of trail connections to Hackbeny Park. Conservation Desigp. Applicant is aware that the City would like this project to incorporate elements of Conservation Design, as this area adjacent to Willow Drive was the subject of a specific ecological anal3^is by DSU as part of the Rural Oasis Study. Inherent in that is the retention of natural views into the site from the southwest, i.e. from the Hackberry neighboihood and from northbound traffic on Willow. Peihaps the best way to accomplish this would be for the applicant to provide an existing tree and vegetation survey as well as a proposed visual buffer plan, defining what existing visual elements (trees, shrubs, topogn^)hy) will be retained, what will be destroyed via development, and what will be replaced in order to meet the City ’s goals for this site. The prelimiiuuy plat and grading/drainageAitility plans provided to date do not specifically provide the level of information to adequately address Ae visual impacts of this development Gmcral Comments Many of the comments noted in the July PC memo are still aj^licable. Planning Commission reached conclusions on certain topics at the July meeting, as noted in the July 25 Notice of PC Action, including; RPUD is the appropriate zone for this develo|Mnent; based on the current RR-1 B underlying zoning that allows the church use via CUP, the church lot (Lot 2) should be excluded from the rezoning to RPUD. (OK) I r i MS-3191 September IS, 2MS Page 4 Applicant must address Conservation Design for this site. (Not thoroughly addressed yet) Buffer impacts need to be considered once the wetland moratorium is done and MCWD indicates their position on wetland filling. (Under consideration) Wetlands and ponding should be in a separate outlet to be owned by a Homeowners Association (Partially complied with) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the appropriate limitation on how much is built on each lot, and PC will reconunend that the 15% lot coverage limit not apply. (OK) The 10% recreation area requirement does apply, and an option would be to make it a perimeter trail system in a perimeter outlot partial conipl'ance, in tliat Outlet B provides for about % acre of the approximately % acre required private recreation area, based on 10% of the residential development excluding the church property, Lot 2) Remaining Issues To Be Resolved or For Consideration 1.Applicant must provide a suitable plans and elevation vieA^ showing how development of the site can meet the City ’s Conservation Design goals. 2.Plan must be revised to show the 45* combined wetland buffer/setback as it impacts the defined buildable envelope of Lots 6 thru 10. If as a result one or more of these lots becomes fimtionally unbuildable, revisions will have to be made to accommodate that. Alternatively, applicant might take the appropriate steps to challenge the wetland’s management classification and hope for a lesser buffer requirement. 3.Should the stormwater ponding area in Lot 6 be in an Outlot? What is the nature/intent of that ponding area? Does Outlot B meet the 10% recreation area requirement? Whal additional options should ai^licant consider for meeting that requirement? S. Plans should be revised to show a 10’trail easement along the west boundary of the property. Staff Recommendation Discussion of the above issues should provide qjplicant and staff with direction as to how the proposed plat should be further revised. Staff recommends tabling for further plan refinement, but would note that any renuuning topics left unaddressed to date should be brought \q> for discussion. ------- ----- ^ -I III i\ II iiiliiiltitiiii L:- l-A m J Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk& Ivll Associates Engineers & Architects 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 Office; 651-636-4600 • Fax: 65I-636-I3II www.bonestroo.com September 13,200S Mike GafTron Planning Director City of Orono Post Oflice Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323 Glendale Cove (177 Glendale Drivc/190 Willow Drive North) File No. 000139-05000-0 Plat No. 05-3131 Dear Mike; We have reviewed the revised preliminat^* plat and revised preliminary grading and drainage plans dated 9-8- OS for the pn^aed 10-lot residential subdivision. It appeals that the subdivision will now consist of an outlot, 8 new homes, one existing home and a lot created for die existing church. The site is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Glendale Drive and Willow Drive North. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access/Streets: A geotechnical report, R-value recommendation and pavement design should be submitted for review and approval. Final plans should include all applic^le standard details for street construction. All driveway grades shall be 10% or less. 2. Grading and Erosion Control: Final plans should include a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Association rules. The grading plan should be consistent and show swales centered on common lot lines between homes as shown between Lots 4 and 5. The grading plans should provide 2-feet of fieeboard between the high water levels of any pond or wetland and the lowest expos^ opening to any home adjacent to the pond or wetland. This will require raising the proposed walkout elevations to at least 996.1 for Lots 8,9, and 10. The street elevations proposed along the church side across from Lots 8 and 9 will dam water on the church property. The plans should be revised to include storm sewer or the street grades should be revised. The plans should also include wetland mitigation information for the proposed wetland impacts. 3. Sanitary Scwer/Water Main: Final plans should include a detailed sanitary sewer design. Plan and profile views should be provided for ali proposed sanitary sewer improvements. Tlie ability to obtain municipal water from Long Lake should be explored. If municipal water is available final plans should include a detailed water main design including plan and profile views over all improvements. 4. Storm Scwcr/Drainage: Drainage area maps and drainage calculations should be submitted for review and approval. Plans should be submitted to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review and approval. Final plans should include storm sewer calculations and detailed storm sewer design including plan and profile views of all proposed storm sewer improvements. The fuial storm water pond design shall meet NURP standards. 5. Plat: The final plat should provide drainage and utility easements 10-feet wide along all exterior lot lines and 5-feet wide along all interior lot lines. Drainage easements should be provided over all ponding areas, wetlands and drainage ways. 6. Ffnancial Guarantee: When the final plans are completed we will prepare a cost estimate for the site St Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester, MN • Milwaukee, Wl • Chicago, IL ArrinMtIra Ac U mVCW** OpM'tunKy Cm«>l«|rw and Owndd improvements. A financial guarantee of 150% of this estimate should be provided to the city in the form of a letter of credit prior to any work on site. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg' Cc: Greg Oappa, City of Orono i ;■' . ■ ‘ * ■' ■ ■: • • ; • , i*.'-' V Wi'-feaw- - ■ ., • ft, - TTAMii-^mm r ■ > ’ri •. _ jpl s , vJ-.-; •••■.‘ :V;•• :vvv;-. i '■■ ■■ '■ . •-■ -1 '■ •■ ; . • '■’ ‘.4 i ^ •i ,■<? ■' .. ; . . ' ti- »f.A 1.- ’ ♦ •. ^5 «4 LjI --------------------- The Mumdi^a Crttk WttinhedDbtrktb tpmmittmiMA ktdmhiprokiil fntectitig, improying ■ gtUhmnagingIhe mfactmltnand ^IkteJt ’i^miwater mmirets within the Patrkt, Including their ■ rektbmhipsiolht ecMytlemsifwhkh they ‘ are an integral part, ihnagh relation, a^italpnjecu. educatim, coep*rerit>e attkavart, and other programs bated on tauadtdence, inntvativolhiidmg,an infomudanimtiaied eonaihmntjhandihe na^eethemafpiMk /anil. Mimiehalia Greek Watershed District 'b DATE: TO: FROM: RE: Impnving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Established in 1967 MEMORANDUM August 4,2005 Ben Carlson. Svoboda Ecological Resource Mike Gaffron. City of Orono Jane M Byron, District Representative Wetland delineation review at Calvin Church Parcel, Willow & Glendale. Orono I have completed review of the wetland delineation performed on all or Dortions of 190 Willow Dr N. 177 Glendale Dr. 201 Glendale Dr. and 153 Glendale Dr. Orono. Hennepin County. Minnesota. The site is contained 0019 34-118-23-32-0007. and 34-118-23-33-0018.1 have review^ the weUand delineation report and revised report, which were verified In the field on July 17.2005, and deem the wetland boundaries as staked in foe field and submitted In the survey of the existing conditions from April 29. 2005 and June 30,2005 acceptable. On August 3,2005,1 met with members of SER staff to further discuss the possibility that a portion of the delineated wetland on site (wetland 1) might fall under incidental status and therefore be unregulatOT under foe Minnesota V^etland Conservation Act. During the meeting I found no basis for claiming portions of wetland 1 wore incidental. All roof drainage appeared to be Infiltrating In a small Infiltration basin located direaly adjacent to the Church structure. The Infiltration basin appeared laiye enough to treat any and all flow capacities it would receive frorn roof runoff. Additionally. I found no evidence that the infiltration basin was connected hydrologically in any way to wetiand 1: I found no pipe or tie or other artificial connection between the Infiltration basin and wetland 1,or other artificial connection between me inniwanon odsm «iu .w .. there appears to be an elevation disconnect between the infiltration basin and wetland 1. and there were no changes in plant communities or M $ _ __llOlMf INfBS and wenano i. ana mere were no cnanyo* m — dreinageways or other evidence that suggested overland flow was contributing runoff to wetland 1 from the Infillrotlon basin in large enough anfwunts to alter the hydrology of wetland 1. Should the property owner still teel compelled to further explore the possibility that a portion of wetland 1 is Incidental, they will have to apply for Incidental «tetusby submitting the standard water/wetland project application to MCWD. A project may reqiire a Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distnct (MCWD) approved permH. If you have any questions regarding our permitting requirements please feel free to contact me at 952-471-0590. I appreciate you allowing mo the charv^e to review the wetland delineation and look forward to working with you in the future. • moie:l62-471-flbiO • fts 9J^471-08M • «ewr.iiilnnilii»il«W.oil m TOTfiL P.02 Jka. B Mik* Gaffron From: Greg Gappa Sant: Vytednesday, September 07,2005 5:33 PM To: Mike Gaffron; Ron Moorse Cc: Rick Rice (rick.rioeGnmfft.oom); Charles Krogness (ckrognes8@mchsi.com); Irene Silber, Jeff Soderstrom (j.8oder strom@mchsi.com); Michael Huddy (mhuddy9252@aol.com); Paul Pesek Sufejeet: Bohland Development Calvin Church Subdivision #05-3034 To: Orono Planning Comntiesion and City Council The Orono Park Commission reviewed this project, on September 6th, for possible park land dedications and is recommending that a 10' wide trait easement along Willow Drive be dedicated in this subdivision plat. Willow; Drive is a designated trail corridor in the City's 2000-2020 Community Management plan. The Park Commission also recommended that construction of a trail adjacent to the Willow Drive shoulder be included in the development improvements. Thanks Oreg Gappa Direcxtor of Public Services ¥ arl.. r;-' S" m.mm 9^ 9/70 Date Applkatioii Received: 6-22-05 Date Application Considered at Complete: 6-22-05 120-Day Review Period Eipires: 10-20-05 a To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Mike Oaffron, Planning Director July 13.2005 Subject:#05-3131 Bohland Development, Inc. - Proposed Subdivision for New Lots -177 Glendale Drive (Calvin Presbyterian Church) -190 Willow Drive North (Keith Williamson) 1) Rezoning 2) Preliminary Plat Approval - (RPUD?) Property Area: 10.28 Acres total per surveyor; 10.02 Acres total per Hennepin County: WUllamon: 2.70 acres Church (In Orono): 6.00 acres Church On LL.): 1.32 acres Proposed uses, gross area: Church: 4.95 acres SFR: 5.35 acres Current Zoning District: RR-IB, 2.0-acre Single Family Rural Residential Proposed 2^ning District: RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development (for discussion) Application Summary: The applicant, Bohland Development, is purchasing a portion of the Calvin Presbyterian Church property at 177 Glendale Drive and a portion of the Keith Williamson property at 190 Willow Drive Noitii, and proposes a plat to create 9 new 1/3-acre single-family residential building lots served by a new cul-de-sac road accessing to Willow Drive directly across fiom Elm Lane (the street that runs east- west along the north side of Hackbeny Park). A portion of the church property is in the City of Long Lake, but all new residential lots will be in Orono. The area is guided in the Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan (CMP) for single-ftmily residential housing at a density of 2-3 units per acre. Because this property has never been rezoned to match the CMP- guided density, the current application includes a request for rezoning. List of Exhibits A - Preliminary Plat Drawing B - Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan C - City Engineer Comments 7-12-05 D - Application E- Sewer Maps F - Airphotos 0 - Long Lake Preliminaiy Comments 3-17-05 H - Memo and Exhibits of 3-3-OS re: Rezoning fur Parcel Group 3 1 - Memo and Exhibits of 3-17-05 (Sketch Plan Review) J - Plaiming Commission Minutes of 3-21-05 K - Rural Oasis DRAFT Summary Report - DSU, Inc. 3-2-05 L - Plat Map M - Property Owners List iA» MS-3131 Jily 13,2005 Page 2 Req. Proposed Lot Data (bold typeface indicates non-conformity with RPUD standards) Lot Proposed Lot 1 (exstg. residence) Proposed Lot 2 (new SFR) Proposed Lot 3 (exstg. Church) Proposed Lot 4 (new SFR) Proposed Lot 5 (new SFR) Proposed Lot 6 (new SFR) Proposed Lot 7 (new SFR) Proposed Lot 8 (new SFR) Proposed Lot 9 (new SFR) Proposed Lot 10 (new SFR) Proposed Lot 11 (new SFR) Proposed Road Dry Area* *38,000 sf 15,180 sf 208,770 sf 14,050 sf 14,070 sf 17,880 sf 15,470 sf 14,030 sf 14.200 sf 15.200 sf 14,950 sf 31 .100 sf 412,900 sf (9.47 acres) Wet Area* Total Area* 7,000 sf 1,470 sf 2,960 sf 11,520 sf 13,310 sf 36,260 sf (0.83 acres) 38,000 sf 15,180 sf 215,770 sf 14,050 sf 14,070 sf 17,880 sf 16,940 sf 14,030 sf 17,160 sf 26,720 sf 28,260 sf 31.100 sf 449,160 sf (10.3 acres) Defined; Width Depth 200’ 181 ’ Min. Real' Yard 74’ 181 ’ 460’ 500’ 125 ’ 90 ’ 90 ’ 90 ’ 170 ’ 110 ’ 180 ’ 130 ’ 110 ’ 130 ’ 110 ’ 200’w 115 ’ 270’w 140 ’ 320’w 36’ 36’ 40’ 34’ 22’ 36’ 26’ 26’ 40’w 40’w 40’w *Tbctc nunbers represent approximate areas after proposed wetland fili and mitigation w: These lot depthsand rear yards are restricted by existing/proposed wetlands or ponds.. Residential Density for RPUD purposes (excl. church): - Incl.Wetland and Road: 10 lots at 233,390 s.f.« 23,339 sfilot = 1 lot/0.S36 ac. = 1.87 units/acre - Incl. Road, Excl. Wetland: 10 lots at 204,130 sf» 20,413 sfi^ot = 1 lot/0.469 ac. = 2.13 units/acre - Excl. Roa^ Excl. Wetland: 10 lots at 173,030 sf» 17,303 s£Hot» 1 lot/0.397 ac. = 2.52 units/acre PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW A. Conformity to Zoning District and Community Management Plan (CMP) The proposed plat is generally in conformity with the 2000-2020 CMP guiding of this area (known as Parcel Group 3: east of Willow, north of Watertown, west of Orono/LL border, south of new Hwy 12 corridor) for single family dwellings at a density of 2 to 3 units per acre. However, the CMP currently does not provide guidelines for how a developer might obtain the higher end of this density range. The CMP does not address minimum lot sizes. Tbepropoty has not yet been rezoned to match the CMP guideplan, and is still zoned RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential district, requiring 2.0 dry buildable acres per lot, and a 200' lot width. The proposed subdivision requires a concurrent rezoning. Planning Commission has discussed the concept of allowing individual parcels or groups of parcels to be rezoned rather than the entire leguided area being rezoned (See Exhibits H and K). Rezoning via the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) standards is proposed by staff as the most appropriate existing zoning option for development at the guided density. Other options which might exclude some of the nuances of the RPUD District standards would include creating a new “R-lB-1 ” ‘A-acre zone subdistrict, that #05-3131 July 13,2005 Page 3 would allow an increase in density of 50% under specified conditions and standards. Creation of such a district would require some effort and time on behalf of the staff and Planning Commission... Planning Commission should determine whether RPUD is the appropriate rezoning option for this development /banning Commission may also wish to discuss whether rezoningproposdLot 3 (the remaining church property) to RPUD is appropriate, or whether it should remain as a conditional use in the RR-IB zone. The RPUD District does not recognize churches as a permitted, accessory or conditional use... B. Relationship to Surrounding Development This proposed SFR development for 9 new homes has an average dry buildable lot area of slightly over 15,000 s.f., with no new building lots less than 14,000 s.f. as recommended by the Planning commission at the sketch plan stage. This fits into the general range of lot sizes in the surrounding neighborhood. The Hackterry neighboihood directly to the west in Orono has existing developed SFR lots generally ranging in size from 17,000 s.f. to 22,000 s.f. The Glendale Drive neighboihood in Long Lake (southeast of the church) has lots in the range of 14,000 s.f. to 20,000 s.f. The Harrington Drive neighborhood in Long Lake (behind the fire station) has lots ranging from under 12,000 s.f. to 25,000 s.f. When Parcel Group 3 was re-guided, a density of 2-3 units per acre SFR vns chosen, which would be an average lot size of 14,000-22,000 s.f., very similar to the surrounding development. C. Conservation Design Parcel Group 3 is one of the areas reviewed as part of the Rural Oasis visioning study. This study is expected to result in establishment of a set of performance standards that would be applicable to ?ny development within Parcel Group 3, and likely will include a requirement for Conservation Design. The City’s plannmg consultants DSU presented an analysis of important visual elements about Parcel Group 3 that will help define how the Group should be developed. While specific ordinances are not )fet in place, this subdivisdion as a RPUD planned development should be required to address the visual impacts. A key element in this plat should be the retention and enhancement of natural views looking northeastward towards the site from Willow Drive. Applicant must provide a suitable plaiB and elevation views showing how development of the site can meet the City’s Conservation Design goals. From staff s perspective, the visual impacts on the view of this site from the southwest as a result of pond and home construction, vrill be substantial... D.. Wetland Impacts - WCA Considenitions, Buffers, etc. The property contains wetlands at the south end. These would have to be protected by a Conservation and Flowage Easement. Lot 9 and a small sliver of Lot 10 contain a nnall wetland that the developer proposes to fill, with mitigation to occur on Lots 3,9,10, and 11 in order for Lot 9 to be viable. The Cit)r’s current wetland moratorium (expiring August 23) and in-process ordinance changes nuiy have some impact on how this wetland will be treated. The applicant is currently iA ______Ilf 11 MS-3131 Jnly 13.2005 Page 4 exploring with MCWD (Orono’s LGU for WCA regulations) whether this fill/miligation will be possible. Under Orono’spending wetland ordinance revisions, if the wetland basin is between 2,5 and 5 acres as anticipated, the City would require a 25* buffer and additional 20* buffer setback for structures from the wetland, which would have potential significant impacts on house placement and buildabilityfor Lots 8-9-10-11. Staff is also concerned about the location of homes so near the proposed stormwater ponding on Lots 10 and 1 1 . E. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements and/or Easements Needed The proposed development is required to provide stormwater management systems including ponding. Easements for the natural drainageway skirting the south end of the site will be required. The entire property including wetlands and the Williamson residence lot will be subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established for 2005 as S4,l 60 per acre for the V2 acre zone; no fee has been established for SFR at 2-3 units per acre, but we would expect the above rate to be in the ballpark for the proposed development. )^ether the church parcel, Lot 3, should be exempt from the SW&DT Fee is an item for fUrther discussion. F. Wetlands and Ponds: Outlet vs. Individual Easements If this site is developed via the RPUD standards, and depending on whether the road becomes public or private, it may to most appropriate to place the wetlands and ponds into a commonly owned outlot. This would have a definite impact on the gross lot area for Lots 9-10-11 , which severely impacted by the proximity of proposed homes to the ponds and wetlands... G. Lot Layout and Lot Standards (RPUD) At the sketch plan review, Platming Commission concluded that the RPUD standards for SFR development are generally appropriate for this site, with a few minor revisions. The RPUD standards [Section 78-626(8)] are summarized as follows: -15,000 sf min. dry buildable lot area (PC indicated 14,000 sf min. was acceptable) - SK)' minimum lot width at the setback line (all 9 new lots meet this using a 30* street setback...) - 125* minimum lot dqith (all but Lots 2,4 and 5 meet this vriien measured fiom the new road to the midpoint of the opposite lot line; Lot 2’s short side along Willow is technically a firont yard, although the narrowness of the lot and the requirement for access to tihe new road rather than Willow force the south side to function as fix>nt yard, with functional lot depth of 75*-95*, and leaves only a minimally functional rear yard... Lots 4 and 5 stiU have reasonably functional fiont and rear yards...) - 40* rear yard or 20% of lot depth, whichever is less (Lots 2 and 6 don’t meet this standard but won’t be much affected if it it is required) - 25' front setback on internal streets (30 ’ was used on the plat, which allows the lots to meet the 90 ’ lot width standard...) M5-3131 JMly 13,2005 PigeS - 50' setback on collector or arterial streets (Willow Dr. requires 50', plat drawing shows only 30’ for Lots 1,2 and 11, and should be revised; 50’ will not be a problem for Lot 2, but will have some impact on Lot 11; existing Williamson house at 40 ’ will remain nonconforming..,) -10' side yard on interior lot lines (all lots conform), 15' side yard at exterior of RPUD (east line of lot 6 proposed at 10 ’, should revise to 15’; if church lot ends up not being rezoned RPUD, then north yard of Lot 4 should be to increased to 15’...) • side yards abutting street must meet front setback requirement (all lots meet this) - 30* max building height (based on proposed grading plan — no need for variances) H. Lot Coverage vs. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Section 78-1403, the 15% Lot Coverage limit, states that the 15% limit applies to all zoning districts; it doesn t make an exception for RPUD, However, the RPUD District does not specifically establish a Lot Coverage by Structures’ lumt. Instead, the RPUD standards limit individual lots to 50% hardcover and an individual lot Floor Area Ratio (FAR = gross area of all floors divided by gross lot area) of 0.5. This means a 14,000 s.f, lot is allowed 7,000 s.f. of floor space. A 2-story 30’ x 70 ’ walkout with a basement, two stories, and an attached 3-stall, 1-level 24’ x 30’ garage would yield 7020 s.f. of floor area, as an example. The 9 proposed homes range from as low as 10% lot coverage to as much as 25% lot coverage. These were calculated based on using the gross lot area including wetlands and ponding, limiting the 14,000 -15,000 s.f. lots to 15% will result in homes with footprints in the 2100-2250 s.f range, vdiereas these lots are shown with homes of3300-3600 s.f footprints. Planning Commission should discuss and make a recommendation as to whether both the 15% limit and the FAR should apply to this development, or fust the FAR. L Road Layout and Standards T^e proposed road layout meets the corridor standards of a 50' road right-of-way and 100' cul-de-sac diameter, and the radius appears to meet the 275' standard for a 30 mph road. The access location onto Willow Drive is directly across Elm Lane, which is appropriate. The City would normally require that all lots in a subdivision be served with driveways from the new local road rather than fix>m the arterial (Willow is defined in the CMP as a "B Minor Arterial"). The only lots proposed to access other than from the proposed new road are the existing church and the Williamson property. It would not be appropriate to require the church to access onto this new residential street, and the Williamson home is oriented such that re-directing its access off of Willow would be unreasonable and serve ix) real purpose. J. Road Improvcmeati and/or Easements Needed The road to be crated can be public or private iMsed on the CMP guidelines, as it will be of an urban nature but likely in a 'planned' developmenf There is no apparent need for additional right-of-way for Willow Drive. The pro's and con's of public versus private road should be discussed with the api^cant. Because this will be an urban development, the City will ultimately own and maintain the sanitary sewer lines (and City water mains, if provided). fri'.; ' MS-3131 July 13.200$ Page 6 K. 10% Recreation Area Requirement Tim RPUD standards in Section 78-626(1 1 ) require that ''each RPUD development shall provide a minimum of ten percent of the gross project area in private recreational uses for project residents. Such area shall be for active or passive recreational uses suited to the needs of the residents of the project, including swimmimg pools, trails, nature areas, picnic areas, tot lots and saunas. Private recreational areas requirements are in addition to the standard park dedication requirements." Impending on whether the church is considered part of the RPUD development, this means that either 1 acre or 0.5 acre must be devoted to recreation area. This might be accomplished by placing the wetlands and storm ponds into a common outlot, and make them an amenity; or it might be accomplished by leaving proposed Lot 9 as a park lot.. L. Park/Trail Easements or Dedication Needed The Orono Comprehensive Trail System Plan indicates a future connection from the Highway 12 comdor trail down Willow to Hackbeny Park. It is not known whether this trail would be on the cast or west side of Willow. The Park Commission will be asked to review this. The 9 new lots will be subject to the standard 8% park dedication. It is likely that this will be in the form of a fee rather than land dedication, although this will be reviewed by the Park Commission. The residential Park Fee is currently established with a min-max fee of $3250-$5550 per lot. M. Utility Locations and Availability Municipd sewer service is proposed to come from the existing system in Elm Lane. This sewer S3^8tem discharges to the Long Lake sewer s]^m and its use will require an amendment to current sewer agreements with Long Lake. Orono does not have City water at this location; the developer should either plan on private wells, or discuss the possibUity of water co- ion with Long Lake. N. Utility Assessments or Connection Fees Required The developer will all costs of utility construction and installation. It is contemplated that Long Lake will charge unit connection fees for new connections to their system; these would likely take the place of any Orono connection charges. O. City Engineer Comments The City Engineer has provided c Exhibit C. •JIM Ml-?I its regarding the application, attached to this memo as ( MS-3131 July 13,2005 Page? Issues for Consideration or Discussion 1.Planning Commission should determine whether RPUD is the appropriate rezoning option for this development. Planning Commission may also wish to discuss whether rezoning proposd Lot 3 (the remaining church property) to RPUD is appropriate, or whether it should remain as a conditional use in the RR-1B zone. 2.Applicant must provide a suitable plans and elevation views showing how development of the site can meet the City’s Conservation Design goals. 3.Under Orono ’s pending wetland ordinance revisions, if the wetland basin is between 2.5 and 5 acres as anticipated, the City would require a 25’ buffer and additional 20’ buffer setback for structures from the wetland, which would have potential significant impacts on house placement and buildability for Lots 8-9-10-11. 4. '!■ r. If this site is developed via the RPUD standards, and depending on whether the road becomes public or private, it may be most appropriate to place the wetlands and ponds into a commonly owned outlot. Either way, ^e ponds and wetlands severely limit the use of Lots 9-10-11. 5.Planning Commission should review the conformity with lot standards as noted on the table on Page 2. 6.Planning Commission should discuss and make a recommendation as to whether both the 1 S% limit and the FAR should apply to this development, or just the FAR 7.Planning Commission should discuss whether the road should be public or private, and the ramifications of each option. 8.Planning Commission should discuss the options for meeting the 10% recreation area requirement 9.Developer should advise as to whether he will be ptirsuing City water from Long Lake, and advise staff and Planning Commission as to any recent discussions he has had with long Lake in regards to this plat proposal. Staff Recommendation Discussion of the above issues should provide {q>plicant and staff with direction as to how the proposed plat should be revised. Given that there is a wetland moratorium in effect, no actions can be taken on the aspects of the plat that impact wetlands. Staff recommends tabling for further plan refinement. m To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Frdin: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director November 21,2005 #05-3152 Bohland Development, Inc. -[Olc^ale Cbve? Proposed Subdivision for New Lots^ Preliminary Plat 177 Glendale Drive/190 Willow Drive North Applicant has submitted recommendations from Applied Ecological Services dated November 18,2005 with regards to Conservation Design. These comments are and a cover letter by the applicant are attached. The topics addressed by AES include; - Forest Preservation - Forest Enhancement and Expansion - Wetland Preservation - Wetland Enhancement and Expansion • Vegetated Buffer Establishment - Stormwater Management • Ecological Restoration and Management Since this information arrived too late to be included in the packet, and because staff has only had a chance to briefly review the material, applicant should be requested to present the AES recommendations at the meeting. Applicant has submitted a revised Wetland Delineation Report indicating that portions of the road ditch along Willow Drive are **incidentar ’ wetland, i.e. areas of wetland created solely as a result of actions by public or private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland. Applicants are requesting that MCWD declare this portion of wetland as incidental and not subject to a replacement plan. The impact is that the north end of this wetland that would be filled for road, plus additional portions that could be filled to create dry buildable area for Lot 10, would not be subject to replacement and would not be required to have a buffer established or maintained. The revised preliminary plat drawings in your packet reflect a buildable envelope for Lot 10 that incorporates this area as dry buildable with no buffer. Excerpts fix)m the new delineation report are attached. rilM MEMORANDUM To: Miko GaflhiD From: Steve BoM Date: October 10,2005 Re: Plat Application (Revfacd) Revtoioni: November 18,2005 Conmrvation and Rural Oaib; Over the post few weeks we have met with Adam at Dahlgien Shardlow and Uban, Mike Oafifron, and two foUow>up meetinp with Doug Mensing at Applied Ecological Services regarding considerations for the **conservation and rural oasis” interests of the City of Orono. These meetings and subsequent dialogue with Doug Mensing have brought recommendations for responsible practices at Glendale Cove. The earlier findings by AES categorized the area as a “D - degraded area” and with their recommendations we are able to enhance and improve some of these areas. Attached is the letter of recommendation by Mensing. The colored rendering shows existing conditions, areas disturbed, and future enhancement possibilities. The letter has a color code that matches the recommendations shown on the plan. It is our intention following Planning Commission and Council preliminary plat approval that a more detailed enhancement plan be incorporated into our final landscape plan. We have discussed some of the native plant materials and other vegetation that will become port of our plan and Mensing will consulting with our landscaper. The Paik Commission leccNnmendations will be incorporated into the plan. The plan also shows the pedestrian trail over the utility easement for water over to Glendale and the proposed pedestrian crosswalk to Elm Lane. It is our assumption that Orono would be taking care of the crosswalk over Willow Drive. The revised plan shows lots 8,9, and 10 shifted toward Willow Drive in anticipation of MCWD qjjproval the "incidental wetland” classification for the ditch along Willow Drive. The application for this request was prepared by Svaboda Ecological Resources and submitted to MCWD. I have included a copy of the request. We are requesting that with the significant enhancement of the existing areas and OutLot B that this would be adequate ftir our park dedication requirements. pl^%r APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 21938 MUSHTOWN ROAD. PRIOR LAKE, MN 88372 PHONE: (952)447-1810 FAX: (982)447-1920 Bringing the schnoe of ecology to a8 land use decisions November 18,2005 Mr. Steve Bofal BohLand Development, Inc. 1844 Weyzite Boulevard P.O. Box 813 Long Lake. Miimeaote SS3S6 ItB: Oteodale Cove (05*0928) • Preliminary Conaervation Design Recommendations Dear Steve, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. (AES) is plmsed to provide you with our preliminary ccmservation dmign recommendatioas for dte Glendale Cove site. We appl^ your interest to increase the conservation values achieved at this development Intrednetlsn Applied Ecological Services, Inc. (AES) was retained by BohLand Development to provide preliminary conservation design recommendations for the Otendale Cove site located in Orono,Minne80te. BdiLand Development has met separately with Dahlgten Shardlow ft Uban to discun otha* issues associated with Orono's Rural Oaais program (e.g., viewsheds and coiidor diaractar) aa it relates to the proposed Ohmdale Cove site. The site is approximately 4.8 acres. Previous work completed by AES on the project site included gatheri^ and reviewing existing ecological date, conducting a site review, and providing goMial ecological conservation and stormwater managemait recommendations to the City of Orono. Abrief summary of our findings and recommoKlations as dwy relate to the propoaed Glendale Cove project is provided below. SItafIndinp On December 21,2004, u AES ecologist walked the site, viewing the majority of the property. The site’s uplands generally consist of loam, silt loam, and silty clay loam soils and contain old fields and deciduous forest A wetland exists in the southwestern pntkm of the site. This area consists of silty clay loam and peaty muck soils. Surfhce watte fiows through a ditoh on the west side of the site, and then traverses the aouthwatoomte of the site. Offinte, the channel becomes an incised, intermittent osSKi:i lisas lof4 OleMWeCova _JL '' t*:': • drainagewty that flows southeast A swaie was also observed to lead from the adjacent church property onto the site. Plant communities observed on the site include: ■ Old Field - The site's old field contains a mixture of agronomic grasses and weeds, including smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, Canada goldeniod, thistles, and reed canary grass. Red cedar trees exist on the old field's higher ground, while a dense growth of invasive common buckthorn exists in the lower ground. This is not considaed a native plant community. • Deciduous Forest • This forest, primatUy located in the central portion of tte site, was dominated by relatively young volunteer trees (boxelder, American ebn, ami green ash), with scattered mature trees. The shrub layer was dominated by a dense stand of invasive common buckthorn, and the groundlayer appeal quite sparse. An area of disturbed soil was observed in the forested portion of the site, souA of the church. This forest is considered an altered native forest, and would receive a natural community ranking of poor. • Non-native Dominated Wetland • A portion of a flow-through wetland was observed on the southwest comer of the site. This w^and was dominated by invasive reed canary grass; however, narrow-leaved cattail and giant reed grass were aim observed in patches. A row of mature black willow trees and some cottonwood trees were observed on the western edge of the wetland. A channel observed to meander through the open wetland (just off site) and flow into the forest to the east This wetland is not considered a native plant community. On November IS, 200S, AES met wifii BohLand Development and reviewed the proposed development plan for the Glendale Cove site (dated 10-10-05). We understand there is little flexibility in the general lajfout of the new rood and residential lots; therefore, our recommendations are nude in the context of that In general, flu silbh natural resources have been degraded due to past land uses. However, opportunities exist to increase the aeadwtic and conservation vr iues associated with diis development. Thm opportunities and associated recommendations are provided below. Forest Preservation - While the quality of the on-site forest is not high, it still has value as wooded lufoitat, which is relatively sparse in the area. Baaed on the site plan, some forest areas will be preserved. Recommendatioos for additional forest preservation include: • Minimize site grading by working with existing site contours to the extent possible. Thisnuy entail designating look-out homes rather than walk-out homes (which typical^ require additional grading) or custom grading of lots, rather than lot-wide grading. • Ptovide opportunities for stormwater infiltrati(m(roofrunoiT, driveway runoff, etc.) to reduce the sin of stormwater poods (adiich may enable ermservatioo of additional forest areas). Viwmat PiihMiMtnant and RapaiMinn - Due tn Hm pnnr <piatity nf Hu» i« nnnnrtiiniriM to improve the ecological health of preserved fotM areas and enhance its aesthetics for site rraidents Kid thesumundingconununity. Our recommendatioos for forest enhancemoit include: a Remove all non-native wooily vegetatioo (e.g., mostly common buckthorn atul some Tartarian hrmeysuckle). This should be done in a manner aensitive to the forest (e.g., use band tools radier than mechanized equipmenu perform cutting during frozen conditions to protect site soils; do any fr)Uow-up foliar spray in a manner that protects native plants, etc.). • Remove all non-native or invasive herbaceous vegetation (e.g., reed canary grass, garlic mustard) sssmiiisos 2 of 4 'ii . 1 ■ • Replace cut bucktboro aieis with appropriate, local ecotype native vegetation. This may include upland shrubs (e.g., wild plum), wetland edge shrubs (e.g., led-twig dogwood), and native grasses and wildflowers. • Plant appropriate, local ecotype native trees, shrubs, grasses, and wildflowers to restore native Maple-Basswood Forest to Outlot B. This would expand the preserved forest to the cast, making a larger block of contiguous canopy cover. W#!tUiwt pTeacfvation • While the quality of the on-site wetland is not hi^, it still has value and performs important ecological services (e.g., infihratioii, evapotranspiration, filtraticn, floodwater storage, etc.). Ba^ on the site plan, some wetbmd imptKts ate proposed below the de mMmys area; therefore, no replacement is proponed. Reoonunendations for wetiuid preservation include: • Blimhuite the fill proposed on the south side of the on-site wetland. • Shill the proposed home on Lot 8 to die north, which should result in less wetland fill. WgtliMt RnhMiMiniwit and PapaiMimi . Hiin to piwir nf ttw» inrirtiup arw opportunities to improve the ecological health of this habitat and enhance its aesthetics. The site's wetlands are situation the western portion ofthe site, near Willow Drive. Enlumcing these locations would provide an attractive amenity ftardie developmoit to be enjoyed by both residents and passers-by. Our recommoidatioiis fin wetland enhancement indude: • Remove all non-native vegetrUhm (e.g., mostly reed canary grass). This should be done using appropriate methods (e.g., using an aquatic-approved herbicide, such as Rodeo). • Seed and/or plant areas where reed canary grass was removed with appropriate, local ecotype native vegetation (e.g., arrowhead, marsh milkweed, golden Alexanders, New England aster, fox sedge, water plantain, river bulrush, wool grass, iris). • Provide wetland replacement in low-lying areas that already require grading for site construction. Seed and/or plant these areas to expand the natural wetland areas on the site. Venetated Bufler EstahhstmMM** - Vegetated buffers con provide many ecological and aesthetic benefits including stormwater managemen t, wildlife habitat, and visual acreenirrg. Generally, the wider the buffer, the greater the benefits. Buffers are portkiilatly important around wetlands for water qrulity protection. Vegetated buffers should be establMied by removing non-native or invasive plant species and re-planting with appropriate, local ecotype perennial native species. Selecting the appropriate species depends on the eoU, moisture regime, amount of sunlight, adjacent vegetatkm, and aesthetic desires. Stormwater Mti—amMit. One of the most important conwrvation opportunities at the site is to provide for ecologically sound stormwater management Stormwater management is important to protect the exiating oo-eUe wetl arwl as well as downetieam receiving waters, including Long and Lake Mhmelooka. Ptolectiooofaquatic resources often requires techniques beyond or in place of sfendard curb and gutter collection syiSeins and stormwater ponds. The propose d plan provides for rw-lot swales to convey runoff into treatment ponds. Reconuneoidations for additioruil stormwater management techniques include: • Minimixe impervious surfeces throughout the developmenL This con be accomplished by using narrower streets and limiting roof, driveway, and other hard surfiKe areas on individual lots. • Employ rain gatdeia or overtypes of infiltration systems where appropriate. This requires a source of water and slopes feat allow fbr gravity flow of runoff into management areas. Management areas preferably have upland soils wife higher infiltratioo rates. These types of soils exist on the she. Rain gardens can be located and designed to intercept arulmaruige runoff from individual lots, reducing fee capacity required by other stormwater management areas on fee site. An infiltratioo fbtebay may be appropriate in Outlot A to provide infiltration opportunities prior to overflowing into fee proposed Mormwater pood. This approach can result in not only smaller tssnsiiiiSBS 3 of 4 OladUeCsw poodi, but mote effective end more natural itonnwater management, which can greatly benefit aquatic reaouroea both on lite and downstream. • Eatabliah permanent native vegetatioa in the propoeod rear-tot awales. While grassed swales provide co nveyance ofronoft native vegetation in thaw awalea would alflo provide greater opportunity for nmoff infiltrahaa, reducing the anount of water that may rnch a atonnwaler Bcolonkal RaWnratina A MaiiaiilHMU Pmoram - PnmmnA mnA rwatniwH Mtural nn rtu. aim ahniiM be enhanced and managed in a way to enaure that the Gonaeivation and aeathetic objectivea ate achieved. Thiaia commonly done by developing a alte»n>adflc Ecological Reatocatio n A Management Program. Thia plan pravidea detailed inatructiona on what to do, how to do it, and when. A Reatoratioo Plan graphic and aaaociated apecificatlo na outUne reatoration zones, apecific activities for each zone, species lists and ratea for seeding and planting, monttoring requirements, and ongoing management needs. The development and implementaboo of this Ecological Restoration A Management Program ensures that the conservation otdectives and aesthetic visioo of the project are realized. Thank you again ft* the o ppo rtunity to provide you with these preliminary conaervatioo design recoinmtn dation a, We loA forward to working with Bohlamd Development and your landac^wr to develop a landscape plan that achieves the goals outlined above. Ifrequited, AES would also welcon the opportunity to develop an Ecological Restoration A Management Program for the site to ensure proper establishment and maintenance of the natural areas. Pieaae contact me at (952) 447-1919 when you are ready to proceed. Sincerely, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. Doufiu M. Mensini, MS, PWS Senior Ecologist * 4- . ^P awnsitiiaos 4of4 Cm« L J 1 ‘ Calvin Church arce! (Glendale Cove) Oroiio, Minncsola p l^eparcil by Svoboda Rcological Resources for: DcvcJopnu'iitP M/'MS Aerial Photo Review; ^Exemption Standards Project No. 2005-(»iS-OI iBtfd /:• r/' S vOiOO-,/k I*rut tiiifti* thr Sharprr in \nturul H rsftti r('i*s tK’ hn i i rnn rnr n tu I ( t*n^ulhn^ Ecologica l Resources 2477 Shadywood Road • nxcelsior, MN 55331 (‘>52)471.1100 • (952) 471-0007 (Fax) —-- — SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES Providing the Sborper Edge in NoturMi Rerourcer Sc Environmental Conauiting November 17,2005 Mr. Steve Bohl Bohland Development 1844 Wayzata Blvd. PO Box 815 Long Lake. MN 55356 RE:SER Project Name: Calvin Church Parcel (Glendale Cove) - Orono SER Project No: 2005-015-01 Project LocalioB: SW‘/4 of the SW'/« of Sectiou J4, T118N, R23W City of Orono, Hennqnn County, Minnesota Project Descriptioa: Aerial Photo Review; Exemption Standards Dear Mr. Bohl, As requested on November 1,2005, Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) staff reviewed historical aerial photos regarding Exemption Status of the ditch wetland along the eastern side of Willow Drive North (Figure 6). The historical photos were examined to determine whether the ditch wetland should be considered incidental and non-juiisdictional. SITE DESCRIPTION The subiect parcel is approximately 10 acres dominated by northern hardwoods, shrubs, and an emergent vegetation wetland in the southwest portion of the parcel. The topography of the site is described as rolling, die northeast portion having the highest elevation and gradually decreasing in elevation to the south and west. Willow Drive North borders the parcel on the west side (Sec Figure 1). The land-use in the surrounding area consists of single fuiuily housing and open to forested lots. Please refer to the original wethnul delineation rcpoii dated May 25,2005 and the ndtlemleni repost dated July 13,2005 fur detailed information on the original wetland delineation. METHODS The National Wetland Inventor)'(N^ I; maps (I igurc 2). 1 lennepinCcuniy r^ail ourvey maps (1 igiae 3), DNR Protected Waters map (Figure 4) and historical aerial photogrn]ihs (Figures) were reviewed to detennine tlic historical status (wetland or upland; of the area;; of concern. SLR evaltinled 2477 Shadvwood Road • Excelsior, MN 55331 (!).53) 471-1 too • (952) 471-0007 (FnN) nt4:r.k^.! J —It, nnn J ^ . historical aerial (rfiotogr^hy to determine the original extent of uplands and wetlands located on the Calvin Church Parcel. SBR obtained historical black and white aerial photographs for the years IWO, 1945, 1953, 1956, 1957, 1962, 1971, and the 1991 color infrared (CIR) image from the BoicWt Miq;> Library located at the University of Minnesota. The 2003 color image was obtained from the MN DNR Data Deli. FINDINGS Background li^rmation- (Office-Based InvestigtUion) The NWI map (Excelsior Quadrangle) illustrates one wetland basin (Figure 2) within the subject parcel. The t^and basin to the southwest is described as a palustrine (P) type wetland exhibiting emergent vegetation (EM) with a seasonally flooded hydrologic regime (C) being partially drained or ditched (d), or a Type 2, PEMCd wetland on the NWI map. The Soil Survey of Hennepin County, Figure 3, indicates five soil series present on the subject property. These soil series are: Boots, Dalbo, Glencoe, Le Sueur, and Shorewood (see figure 3). The Boots and Glencoe soil series are classified as hydric soils (SCS Hydric Soils of the United States), and are illustrated with blue crosshatching on Figure 3. Soil series descriptions are given in Appoulix C. The Miniiesota Department of Natural Resources, State Protected Waters Map, indicates no protected water-bodies widiin the subject parcel (Figure 4). SER reviewed aerial photos for other features that might have had an impact on wetland conditions. While reviewing images for wetland characteristics SER used best professional judgment when making determinations. Jane IS, 1940 - The aerial photo signature indicates that the majority of the subject property was utilized for agricultural purposes. The southwest comer of the parcel appears to be in hay meadow. A small, wooded area exists within the central portion of the parcel; this area is near where the church currently lies. The quality of the jrfioto is rather poor, exact site conditions are difficult to determine. 194S - Similar to 1940, it qipears the majority of the subject property was utilized for agricultiir.')] purposes. The southwest portion of the parcel no longer ap;x:ars to be used for haying and the wet area is more discemable. October 15,1953 - No signidcunl duingcs from the previous years, poor qualil)* plioto. May 7,1956-No significant changes fioni Ih .* picvious year:;, it appears lliat the wclIanJ liasr.rawn in size. Less of llic area is used for agrieullurc cropping pmjH.ses. May 6,1957 - No significant changes from llie )•■reviou•.; year, pour qualily photo. May 3,1962 - Church building and patking lot liaw been constructed. The wclhind appears .slightly l.iig'.T than in the 1957 image. Muhijde houses hav e been built to the cast of the property. Svoboda Ecological Resources Project No. 2005-015-01 Calvin Church Parcel Bohland Development ! W •V :v; tt 1 ••1 ■5 i I j . Kovcmbcr 9,1971 - Wetland size and shtq)e is similar to the 1962 image, it appears tl;at the wetland has extended along the ditch of Willow Drive North, likely due to increased development. 1991 - Poor quality photo, site conditions too difficult to determine. Original photo scale is 1 :40,000 and e^ar^ very poorly. 2003 - Wetland as staked in the spring of2005 (Figure 5). DISCUSSION SER reviewed historical photos to determine incidental status of the ditch wetland along the eastern side of Willow Drive North (Figure 6). As observed throughout the historical images, SER determined Oud Wetland 1 has steadily increased in size throughout the years. The growth of Wetland 1 is likely due to excess precipitation run-off fiom increased development and impervious surftces. Additionally, typical r^ ditch construction creates lowland areas adjacent to the road commonly resulting in wetland conditions. According to Rule 8420.0122 Exemption Standards Siibp. 5. Incidental Wetlands. A rqrlacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in w^and areas created solely as a result of: C. actions by public or private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland. SER requests that the road ditch portion of the wetland be considered for this exemption. CONCLUSIONS SER oondudes that Wetland 1 has in &ct increased in size and the area indicated on Figure 6 should be considered incidental and exempt from jurisdictional regulation. Total incidental area is 3789 sq ft. Please ftel free to contact Ben Carlson or Frank Svoboda at (952) 471-1100 if you have any questions legurding the infrmrution in this report You will be receiving a follow-up phone call in two to tiuee weeks to see if there is anytiiing else that is needed. SER appreciates the opportunity to assist you with this project and we lordc firrward to serving any future needs that you may have. Sincerely, Svobeda Ecological Resources rianklin J. .Svoboda, CWll, PWS Vice-President Den Cuiluon Wetland Ecologist Svoboda Ecological Resources PrqjectNo. 2005-015-01 Calvin Church Parcel Bohland Development . .f. A yv>. !Kr;<5^'«K^;;-; .U_»Y- 4. J '\*v A- y:‘V? ' h\ r.*r -. *V, > V ^ IV-J.rtV. ... .V..'A}>'-, •.». 1 l‘{■:ti ■ I*'- ■ '-t !^%;':,;:-|i V:f-■•'.’? • .*•.- .I*. • :I. l>^ I Vi*' .IT ‘msi v a;?jr>; s ’. a,^ All.'-t •K ;.] .^T \\/{'MaiSl .' ■.; .'li^^jCi,* ' S'. v:'f. 1 : i* • i£j- t^' ‘V •’r..sf ,j. ^o/SW^oT' d SWV4 •Section 34. lilBN, R23W t^.h\% '■•'■ E(<llOH!Crl Rp\f’un:<“\ Approximate Wetland Boundary And Incidental Area Overlaid on 2003 Aerial Photo 0 150 300 Cah/tn Church Site Figured minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mondiiy, July 18,200S 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05-3130 Stephen and Jean Skoro, Continued) Skoro stated that is possible. Skoro staled the only issue he has with reducing the width of the driveway is for aesOietic reasons. Skoro indicated there is a retaining wall that is abutted by the driveway. Mrs. Skoro stated they would like to retain some area for a turnaround. Skoro stated he is willing to reduce the hardcover as much as possible. Skoro indicated there are a couple of concrete pads that could also be removed but that he is unable to commit at this time to a certain percentage. Skoro stated they would like to retain some of the driveway to help accommodate his elderly parents. Kempf moved, Winkey seconded, to recommend approval of Application #05-3130, Stephen and Jean Skoro, granting of a 250*-500' zone hardcover variance to allow 38.9 percent hardcover where 40.2 percent currently exists in order to construct a 242 square foot screen porch, subject to the removal of the sandbox and a portion of the driveway located near the garage. Jurgens stated he would like the retaining wall also removed. Skoro indicated there would be considerable expense associated with removing the retaining wall. Kenq)f indicated he would like to leave his motion as stated. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 2, Jurgens and Fritzler Opposed. Fritzler stated he would like to see the retaining wall also removed. Mrs. Skoro pointed out there is a significant drop by the retaining wall. Fritzler stated he does not want to see the hardcover reappear on this lot in the future. Jurgens stated he would like tc see further reductions in hardcover. (Recess taken at 8:22 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.) 12. #05-3131 STEVE BOHL OF BORLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC., 190 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH AND 177 GLENDALE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, 8:30 P.M. - 9:24 P.M. Mark Gronberg, Gronbetg & Associates, appeared on behalf of the Applicant. Oaffion stated the applicsnts are in die process of purchasing a portion of the Calvin Presbyterian Church property at 177 Glendale Drive and a p^on of the Keith Williamson property at 190 Willow Drive No^. The applicants are proposing a plat to create nine new 1/3-acre single-family residential building PAGE 18 A MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 18,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl, Continued) lots served by a new cul-de-sac road accessing to Willow Drive directly across from Elm Lane. Gaflron noted a portion of the church prt^rty is located in the City of Long Lake but that all new residential lots would be located in Orono. This area is guided in the Orono 2000-2020 Community Management Plan for single-family residential housing at a density of two to three units per acre. The area has never been rezoned to match the Community Management Plan guided density and the application includes a request for rezoning. The property is currently zoned RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District, requiring a 2.0 dry buildable acres per lot and a 200’ lot width. Gafhron indicated the proposed SFR development for nine new homes has an average dry buildable lot area of slightly over 15,000 square feet, with no new building lots less than 14,000 square feet as reconanended by the Planning Commission at the sketch plan stage. This fits into the general range of lot sizes in the surrounding neighboriiood. The property contains wetlands at the south end, which would have to be protected by a Conservation and Flowage Easement. Lot 9 and a small sliver of Lot 10 contain a small wetland that the developer proposes to fill, with mitigation to occur on Lots 3,9,10, and 11 in order for Lot 9 to be viable. Gaflron stated the City’s cun^t wetland moratorium, which expires in approximately one month, and in-process ordinance changes may have some impact on how this wetland will be treated. The applicant is investigating whether this fill/mitigation will be possible with the MCWD. Staff does have a concern regarding die location of homes so near the proposed stormwater ponding on Lots 10 and 11. Oaffion stated the proposed development is required to provide stormwater management systems including ponding. Easements for the natural drainageway along the south end of the site will be required. The entire property, including wetlands and the Williamson resident lot, will be subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established for 2005. The Planning Commission should decide whether the church parcel and Lot 3 should be exempt from the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee. If this site is developer! under the RPUD standards, and depending on whether the road becomes public or private, it may be appropriate to place the wetlands and ponds into a community owned outlot, which would have an impact on the gross lot area for Lots 9,10, and 11. Gaflron stated at the sketch plan review the Planning Commission concluded that the RPUD standards for SFR development are generally appropriate for this site, with a few minor revisions. The RPUD standards are sununarized as follows: I.A 15,000 square foot minimum dry buildable lot area. The Planning Corrunission had indicated that a 14,0(W square foot minimum was acceptable. 2.A 90-foot minimum lot width at the sedmek line. All nine new lots do meet this using a 30-foot street setback. PAGE 19 ll 1 MINUTES OF THE OEONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 18,2005 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl, Continued) 3. A 125-foot minimum lot depth. All lots but Lots 2,4, and S meet this when measured from the new road to the midpoint of the opposite lot line. 4. A 40-foot rear yard or 20 percent of lot depth, whichever is less. Lots 2 and 6 do not meet this ) standard but will not be affected if it is required. 5.A 25-foot front setback on internal streets. 6.A SO-foot setback on collector or arterial streets. The existing Williamson house at 40 feet will remain nonconforming. 7. 8. A 10-foot side yard on interior lot lines, IS-foot side yard at exterior of RPUD. Side yards abutting street must meet front setback requirement. Gaffron noted all lots do meet this requirement. 9. A 30-foot maximum building height. Gaffron stated the IS percent limit applies to all zoning districts and does not make an exception for a RPUD. However, die RPUD District does not specifically establish a "Lot Coverage by Structures” limit. Instead, the RPUD standards limit individual lots to SO percent hardcover and an individual lot Floor Area Ratio. The nine proposed homes range from as low as 10 percent lot coverage to as much as 25 percent lot coverage. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should make a recommendation as to whether both the IS percent limit and the Floor Area Ratio should apply to this development or just the Floor Area Ratio. Gaffron stated the proposed road layout meets the corridor standards of a SO-foot right-of-way and 100-foot cul-de-sac diameter and the radius appears to meet the 27S’ standard for a 30 mile per hour road. The access location onto Willow Drive is directly across Elm Lane. The only lots proposed to access other than from the proposed new road are the existing church and the Williamson property. It would not be appropriate to require the church to access onto this new residential street and the Williamson home is oriented such that redirecting its access off of Willow Drive would be unreasonable and serve no real purpose. Gaffron requested the Planning Commission consider the following items: 1.Determine whether the RPUD is the appropriate rezoning option for this developnKnt. The Planning Commission may also wish to discuss whether rezoning proposed Lot 3 to RPUD is appropriate or whether it ^ould remain as a conditional use in the RR-IB zone. 2.The applicant must provide a suitable plans and elevation views showing how development of the site can meet the City’s Conservabon Design goals. PAGE 20 I li I Util MINUTES OFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 18,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl, Continued) 3.Under Orono’s .pending wetland ordinance revisions, if the wetland basin is between 2.S and 5 acres as anticipated, the City would require a 25 foot buffer and additional 20 foot buffer setback for structures from the wetland, which would have potential significant impacts on house placement and buitdability for Lots 8,9,10, and 11. 4.If this site is developed via the RPUD standards, and depending on whether the road becomes public or private, it may be appropriate to place the wetlands and ponds into a connnonly owned ouUot. 5.The Planning Commission should review the conformity with lot standards as noted on the table on Page 2. 6.The Planning Commission should discuss and make a recommendation as to whether both the 15 percent limit and the FAR should apply to this development, or just the FAR. Gronberg stated the lot line between Lots 1 and 2 is located in its proposed location due to a row of evergreen trees that cunently exist. Gronberg stated wetland mitigation for the wetland located near Lot 9 is being discussed with the Watershed District and if wetland'mitigation is not allowed. Lot 9 would be eliminated. Gronberg stated if Lot 9 is eliminated, some of the area could be dedicated for park. Gronberg noted he was not aware of the ten percent recreation area requirement until tonight. Gaffron indicated the RPUD standards require that each RPUD development dedicate a minimum of ten percent of the gross project area in private recreational uses for project residences. Lee Aschenbeck, 131 Glendale Drive, stated he would like to see the amount of housing reduced in this area given the number of variances that appear to be necessary. Gaffion stated each specific lot should be looked at in terms of variances and whether any hardship exists. There were no additional public comments. Winkey inquired whether this plan would need to be revised if the Wetland Ordinance applies in this area. Gaffron stated the property does contain wetlands at the south end, which would need to be protected by a Conservation and Flowage Easement. The wetland near Lots 9 and 10 may be impacted by the draft Wetland Ordiiunce and the applicant is currently exploring with the MCWD whether fill/mitigation of this area is possible. Gaffron stated it is possible that a 25-foot buffer and an additional 20-foot buffer setback would be required, which could have a significant impact on house placement and buildability for Lots 8,9,10, and 11. Winkey stated it appears that a majority of the lots would require variances and that it appears a large number of houses are being proposed for this area, which may not be realistic. Winkey inquired whether PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 18,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl, Continued) wetlands have ever been used as passive or active recreational use in order to qualify ibr the 10 percent clause. Gaffron stated the City has only one other RPUD, which is Stone Bay, and that the wetlands on that site were not used as passive recreation in that situation. GafTron noted there is a city park located across the street from this proposed development. Jurgens inquired whether some type of fee could be inqiosed to help improve the park located across the street in lieu of the 10 percent of land dedication. Gaffion stated the RFUD standards do not contemplate a fee. Jurgens stated he would like construction limits demonstrated on the plans, noting that in his view this site is going to be conq)leteIy cleared to allow for construction. Jurgens stated he would like to see what is being proposed for the land to the south and the impact it would have on the roads in this area. Rahn inquired whether Uiere are any lots diat are less dian 14,000 square feet. Rahn stated it is his understanding that the 14,000 square feet was agreed to in order to allow more affordable housing in this area. Gaffion stated one of the goals in the changes in the Conqirehensive Plan was to allow for densities greater than two units per acre, \^ch is a huge change from what it is currently zoned for. Gaffron stated ttie lower square footage allows for higher density in this area but does not guarantee that the housing being proposed for this area would be affordable. Rahn inquired whettier the IS percent would be more restrictive than die floor area ratio. Gaffron stated it would be difficult for the developer to adhere to the IS percent limit given the type of housing being proposed for this area. Gaffron stated the City’s code does not say that an RFUD is subject to the 15 percent. Jurgens stated in his view diis development will end up being a number of large houses on small lots and gives die appearance of a large amount of massing. Winkey steted in liis view ttie 15 percent is too restrictive. Gaffron stated if the develqjer is required to adhere to the 15 percent, it is likely that tuck-under garages would be constructed, which would luve a negative impact on the marketability of the project. Gaffr on stated the question is whether ffiis development would be viable if held to the 15 percent. Rahn questioned whether rezoning of Lot 3 is necessary at this point. PAGE 22 •M-ii o Oil rti n Cl ■ 111) fl IT 4 111II■ M iiT-SOCi rwiinif nil :| fU-ll ■1 HVIih 1 OhTACt] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 18,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05*3131 Steve Bohl, Continued) Oronberg stated the de 'eloper is pursuing city water Com Long Lake, which would be the better option. Rahn noted a tetter dated July 8,2005, has been received from Jim Dillman indicating he would not be opposed to the development if streetlights are not permitted. Bremer moved, Frltzler seconded, to table Application #05-3131, Steve Bohl of Bohland Development, Inc., 190 WiUow Drive North and 177 Glendale Drive. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 9.#05-3126 TODD AND MYSTICOURNEYA, 4620 TONKA VIEW LANE, VARIANCE. 9:24 P.M. - 9:35 P.M. Todd Coumeya, Applicant, was present tlrce^ll attach^ garage. The application includes a request to extend the existi^ f*"*®/''® ^®®* forward and constructing an additional stall to the north, which requires an additional five-foot encroachment on the 25-foot setbaclc garages. Coumeya had nothing to add to Staffs report. There were no public comments reprding this application. I^hn stated he is in agreement with Staff’s recommendation and that it is difficult to approve the in ^ ^ physically located from the road. gwa^ »5 not functional and that he would have asked for an addihonal five feet at the time the garage was onginally proposed had he realized how the garage would be limited in SpACC. I □ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (IW)5-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON, CONTINUED) Rahn stated he sees a number of building code issues with this application that will need to be addressed by the applicants. Frank stated they would meet the code regarding egress and ingress. Sudheimer stated she did have every business owner review their plans and they have indicated they are in favor of the expansion. Sudheimer stated there was one business owner who indicated he is in favor of the expansion but did not want to sign the petition. Sudheimer stated Alisa Butler, owner of The Sign Age, be., has indicated she does not have a problem with (he noise. Rahn stated it is the intent of the Planning Commission to reduce the noise as much as possible. Meyers suggested the City look at erecting a higher fence un the city lot rather than placing the burden on the business owner. Kerapf stated the Planning Commission has to focus on the noise generated from this establishment at tonifi^t’s meeting. Bremer moved, Leslie seconded, to recommend approval of Application 1105-3121, The Narrows Saloon, 3382 Shoreline Drive, granting of a condittonal use permit, subject to the following conditions: One, that the outside seating area not exceed 837 square feet, with a maximum of 32 seats; two, that the hours of operation for the outdoor seating be limited to 10:00 p.m. during the week and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights, which are the current hours of operation that the kitchen is open; three, following that time peonle would only be allowed in that area to smoke and no alcohol is to be allowed in the patio area after those hours; four, no speakers or amplifiers are allowed on the patio area; five, a self-closing door out to the patio area will be installed to minimize the noise; and six, the conditional use permit is subject to a one-year review. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Recess taken at 7:35 p.m. - 7:43 p.m.) 4. 805-3131 STEVE BOHL OF BORLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC, 190 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH AND 177 GLENDALE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, 7:43 P.M. - 8:32 PJVL Steve Bohi, Applicant, and Mark Oronberg, Surveyor, were present Gaffron noted tfiis application has appeared before die Planning Commission previously, with Bohland Development purchasing a portion of the Calvin Presbyterian Church property and a portion of the Keith Williamson property. Gaffron reviewed the revised plan submitted by the applicant, noting the following; PAGE 13 • f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05-3131 STEVE BOHL, CONTINUED) I. The proposed cul-de-sac public road has been shifted to the northeast to accommodate additional buildable area vnthin Lot 8, which contains a small wetland. This layout leaves the church with c 60-foot setback to the road, still meeting its minimum SO-foot setback requirement. 2. The lot adjacent to the Williamson residence has been converted to an 11,230 square foot outlot, which satisfies about half of the RPUD 10 percent private recreation area requirement. 3. Wetland mitigation within die Church parcel (now lot 2) has been eliminated and the plat proposes 1600 square feet of wetland filling within Lot 8, which requires MCWD approval. 4. Each of the proposed lots includes at least 14,000 square feet of area as recommended by the Planning Commission. 5. Each lot except for Lot 5 ha at least the required 90 feet of width as measured in a straight line at the proposed 30-foot front setback line. Lot 5 has approximately 88*. Gronberg noted Lot 5 has been revised slightly and now meets the 90-foot width. Gaffron noted Item 6 states: All lo s but Lots 4 and 7 meet the minimum RPUD lot depth requirement of 123 feet Lots 4 and 7 are restricted due to die dimensions of the site and the location of the cul-de-sac, leaving them slighdy short at about 11S’-120* in depdi. The wedand in Lot 8 places some significant resirictiona on the fimctional dqith of that lot 7. The RPUD minimum rear yard requirement is 40 feet or 20 percent of lot depth, whichever is Ira. Plans propose a 30 foot rear yard on Lotr 3,4,5,6,9, and 10, which appear to substantially meet the requirement and 35 feet - 45 feet on Lou 7 and 8, where diis greater setback allows the potential to retain or establiah a buffer in keeping widi the Conservation Design goals. The 45-foot rear setback for Lots 7 and 8 also reflects the "Manage 2" wetland protection classification established for this wedand in the new Wetland Ordinance, requiring a 25 foot buffo' and a 20 foot buffer setback. 8. Each lot appears to have a buildable envelope of 75 feet by 40 feet or greater as shown on the submitted plat drawing. 9. Stormwater ponding is proposed within Oudot A adjacent to Willow Drive, and a smaller pond at the rear of Lot 6. Gaffron indicated the City Engineer has provided comments on the revised plans, which include the stan^rd request for pavement design and geotechnical reports, drainage calculations, and level of detail required in final design plans. In addition, the City Engineer has noted that the walkout elevations on Lois 8,9, and 10 will need to be raised and that some revisions to the street grades are necessary to prevent water from damming on the church property. PAGE 14 minutes OP THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05-3131 STEVE BOHL, CONTINUED) Gaffim the City’s new Wetland Ordinance designates this wetland, including its extensions into ts 8 and 10, u teing a **Manage 2” protection classification, requiring a 25 foot buffer plus 20 feet sjjichire setback fiom the buffer. In Staff ’s discussions with the MCWD, it was pointed out that the 'S ®8 part of the main wetland body for buffer puiposes. Gaffion ®t September meeting and has recommended that a Drive. This easement would allow flexibility in the development of trail connections to Hackberry Park. Gaffion stat^ the applicant has been informed that the City would like this project to incorporate ecoIogiMl mlysu by DSU as pail of the Rural Oasis Study. The MimL^ry'plaUnd »f “fonn.to to Gafifron stated the remaining issues to resolve include the following; ”“**.*** combined weUand buffer/setback as it impacts the ■"■"“rr of “ bc'-vii-de if «»y«.rfoTbK quabonable wetlands. Gronberg stated havmg the same buffer zones for Type I and Type n wetlands is going to have a great impact <m a number of properties throughout the City. Gaffinn noted the Qty has recently adopted the Wetland Ordinance. Gaffron stated if the City is eoina to be consistent with the Watershed District, those areas w<»uld be considered as one tvne nf weSlnH®onsidered as one type of vretland. Bohland inquired what the Waterahed ’s buffer would be. Oiflron indictod it would be 25 fe«. Oeffion Muled Ibwe it • buffer and e uetlwck from the buffer. BoMend Meled io bit .iew Ibe r^ludom govenlii.t welhndu be. become unr«.oi»bly leMricled mtd m bgulion of wetlandl on site u no longer beini allowed. Bohlund Mated tbe fact dial Ibey ate not ■S- V:: . --J? rT PAG If >■ > J . i l- •' r * [».1 Vi A MINinES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, Soptember 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05-3131 STEVE BOHL, CONTINUED) able to mitigate Oiat wetland on the site, in addition to the setback bufTer, has made it very difficult to develop a number of properties. Bohland stated the restrictions are making good plats become unworkable. Rahn stated die problem is that the Planning Commission cannot disregard that requirement. Bohland requested a 25-foot variance. Gaffron stated the ordinance is untested and has not been applied to any project. GafB'on stated there arc some methods to help deal with this situation, such as buffer averaging, requesting certain variances, and challenging whether it should be classified as a Type I or Type II wetland. Gaffron stated Staff and the applicant could periiaps explore some options to see if a solution can be arrived at. Bohland indicated the homeowners association would be managing Outlet A. Bohland stated he would prefer Lot 6 not be an outlot and that maintenance be done through the association. Gronberg noted that is not a stormwater pond on Lot 6. Bohland stated he sees this area as more of an urban setting than a rural setting. Fritzler inquired how much vegetation is on Outlot A currently. Bohland stated there is a line of trees that would be maintained along the roadway and then a berm would also be created. Bohland indicated there are not very many trees located in the wetland area. Gaffron noted there is a tree delineation contained in the Planning Commission packets. Jurgens noted creation of die pond would pretty much eliminate any trees in Outlot A. Jurgens stated a si^ficant amount of tune was spent on the wetland ordinance and that there arc some pieces of land that will be affected by the ordinance but that the regulations in his opinion are not overly restrictive. Jurgens inquired how the qiplicant proposes to grade within die 1600-foot weUand area. Gronberg stated they could come back a litde further with their grading and that the plans will be revised. Jurgens stated in his opinion the deveirqier is proposing too much for this lot and that perhaps additional land needs to be acquired in order to make this plat work. Jurgens stated in his view the wetland regulations are not too restrictive as they relate to the City as a whole. Gronberg commented that odier cities have greater flexibility in their setbacks. Jurgens reiterated that the developer is attenqiting to do too much with this site. PAGE 16 Iki. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (005-3131 STEVE BOHL, CONTINUED) ^hn stated the City’s Conservation Design Goals allow the City to deviate somewhat. Rahn suggested the developer.discuss that issue further with Staff. Bohland stated it is up to the City to iook at the requirements, but that in his opinion this is a very nice plat with a cul-de-sac that would be approved by a number of cities. Bohland stated in his view this is a reasonable site plan and that the natural characteristics add to the value of the site. Bohland staled he would like to see some adjustment in the setbacks. Kenipf stated he believes the Conservation Design Goals do allow some flexibility if the developer’s ^Is are similar. Kempf inquued whether the applicant has been provided the information relating to the Conservation Design Goals. Ga^n pointed out die study Uwk approximately one year to develop and that it created some specific Si*«^***** **** of the City, which were discussed with the applicant early on in the process. [ stated currmdy there is no ordinance that implements those specific conservation design requirements. Gaflnm stated die existing subdivision code allows the Planning Commission to look at v||gfctetion and other items that have not Qipically been reviewed in conjunction with applications Oaffion st^ the develoj^ has not applied for any variances and have not submitted any landscaping plans. Gafn-on stated in his view the applicant needs to submit those plans as the next step. Winkey inquired whedier other cities look at a 25-foot buffer. Bohland stated a number of cities look at the Watershed District requirements. Winkey inquired whether this lot would be buildablc even if the buffer were reduced. Bohland stated he would request a 25 foot buffer and not a 25-foot setback to the buffer. Wmkey inquired whether the City has the ability to reduce that setback to the buffer. OalR^ stated the reason for the buffer and setback to buffer is to ensure that houses are not constructed "k nwt to M» area that is supposed to be leff natural. Gaffron stated the setback could possibly be changed m certain areas, but diat given the amount of thought that went into the oidinance, the Planning Commission should be careful to deviate from that with the first application that falls under the ordinance. Gaffion stated some formal discussions need to be held and a plan developed on exactly what is desired for this property. b Gaffrw suggested the applicant make a proposal and submit justificaUon for why they want it to be that way. Gaffron requested the review period for diis application be extended. .. V ‘ PAGE 17 Z-f " MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 19,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05-3131 STEVE BOHL, CONTINUED) Bohland stated they would be agreeable to an extension. Rahn stated in his view the applicant needs to discuss fliis application further with Staff and arrive at more specifics concerning the proposed development Leslie stated this ordinance was developed to help preserve the look and character of Orono and it is not intended to make Orono like other cities. Rahn stated as time goes on, there will be less and less desirable land and the wetland ordinance will have a greater impact. Bohland stated he is aware of diat but that there are times when some flexibility should be given. Jurgens inquired where die trail would be located. Oaffiw stated die RPUD ordinance specifically states that the 10 percent private recreation area is in addition to die other paA dedication. OafiStm stated the RPUD is the logical way to develop this parcel of land but that diere might not be enough land available in one spot to make a useful recreational area. Jurgens inquired whedier amenities could be swapped for the 10 percent private land. Bohland stated if an open qiace is created for no purpose, it becomes mainly a maintenance issue and is not really functional. Bohland stated diere are opportunities to extend a trail north and/or a sidewalk over to (be church property. . Rahn suggested the applicant explore viable locations for sidewalks and trails. Jurgens stated he would prefer something that is functional rather than just a piece of land set aside. Jurgens stated it would be a good idea to set diat easement aside for future possibilities. Rahn moved, Fritzler seconded, to table AppUcation #05-3131, Steve BoU of BoMand Development, Inc, 190 Willow Drive North and 177 Glendale Drive, to allow for further revisions. Rahn opened the public hearing. Williamson noted it is 190 Willow Drive North, not south. The public hearing was closed. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGElO T MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2005 6:00 o ’clock p.m./2-'g-C>S" ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with tiie following members present: Chair David Rahn, Commissioners Jim Leslie, Cynthia Bremer, and Ralph Kempf. Representing Staff were Planning Dircciur Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Lili McMillan was present. Commissioner J. Marc Fritzlcr arrived at 6:06 p.m. Commissioners Travis Winkey and Roland Jurgens were absent. Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. #05-3156 SONYA GARNETT ON BEHALF OF KEVIN GARNETT, 450 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD, 6:02 P.M. - 6:03 P.M. Leslie moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #05-3156, Sonya Garnett on behalf of Kevin Garnett, 450 Orono Orchard Road, granting of a conditional use permit for plumbing In an accessory building. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. #05-3131 STEVE BOHL OF BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC., 190 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH AND 177 GLENDALE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, 6:03 P.M. - 6:50 P.M. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, appeared on behalf of Bohland Development. Gaffron noted this application was heard at the September Planning Commission meeting, with tlie applicant submitting a slightly revised plan for the property located at Glendale and Willow Drive. The revised plans exhibit the same lot dimensions but show more refined house layouts and more detailed wetland delineations, fri addition, the water main from Long Lake has been added as well as a trail connection througii the church parking lot out to Glendale Drive. Gaffron stated the revised grading plan indicates that virtually the entire site will be giaded except for some perimeter areas. Gaffron indicated the developer is preparing a site revegetation and land^aping plan that will illustrate plantings on the benns at the rear of I^ts 6 through 10. The applicant is also requesting wetland buffer setback variances for the homes on Lots 7 and 8, to be set back 10 feet from the buffer instead of the required 20 feet. Staff would recommend that Jolm Smyth, the City’s wetland consultant at Bonestroo & Associates, review the request and suggest what course of action should be followed in reviewing the proposal. The required buffer will be established and maintained on all lots; however, the primary issue is how close the homes on Lots 7 and 8 should be to the unmowable buffer area. Gaflron stated a question for the Planning Commission to consider is PAGEl I I ■•w , minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17,2005 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl, Continued) whether the 20-foot setback requirement should be varied or whether the applicant should put sue having the wetland recategorized to potentially only require a 16-foot buffer. Gaflron indicated the stormwater ponding area in Lot 6 is apparently a detention pond only and can reasonably remain as part of Lot 6. Gaffron noted the City Engineer has not had an opportunity to review the newly submitted plans. Gaffron stated tlie following issues would need to be resolved: 1.The plans should be revised to show a 10-foot hail easement along the west boundary of the property. 2.Applicant should provide suitable landscape plans, tree preservation plans and elevation views showing how development of the site can meet the City’s Conservation Design goals. Staff is advised these plans are underway as of this writing. The Planning Commission may want to consider recommending preliminary plat approval prior to review of landscape plans. 3.Should a 10-foot variance be granted to the new wetland ordinance 20 foot buffer setback requirement for Lots 7 and 8? Should the application be tabled until the City s wetland consultant has had a chance to review and comment on the variance request? Does the Planning Commission accept Outlet B as meeting the RPUD “10% private recreation Brea" requirement? If not, what additional options should applicant consider for meeting that requirement? Have all requirements of the RPUD ordinance been satisfied? Gaffron stated the options available to the Planning Commission include, one, tabling the application for further revisions and consideration^ two, recommend approval or conditional approval for the preliminary plat and rezoning to RPUD; or three, recommend denial. Gronberg added tfiat house plans have been submitted and that the developer is comfortable with flie proposed layout of the houses depicted in the revised plan. Gronberg indicated there is an unnatural wetland on Lot 8 that was created by a swale that was constructed to divert the runoff from the church. Gronberg stated if a culvert were added, the wetland would disappear and that it was man-made. Gronberg stated they are requesting a ten-foot variance for this area, and inquired whether a reclassification of tiiat wetland would be the appropriate way to deal with that Gronberg commented that unnatural wetland and required buffer make it difficult to construct a home on Lot 8. Rahn inquired whether the ten-foot encroachment is certain at this time. PAGE 2 M' 'tUtatoailiiiiL mm ’ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17,200S 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl, Continued) Gronberg stated it is possible to design the house to nuikc the encroachment slightly less than tliat, but the developer would prefer to leave ttic size of the house on Lot 8 as is. Gronberg stated the 10-foot variance would be the maximum. Gronbeig illustrated the proposed vegetation plan, noting a row of tall cottonwoods exist in that area, which are proposed to remain. Gronberg stated they arc proposing some spruce trees in that area as well as some other vegetation on the site. Gronberg stated they arc attempting to create a perimeter of trees around the development to decrease the visibility from Willow Drive. There were no public comments concerning this application. Rahn inquired whether the Park Commission has reviewed this application. Gaffion stated the Park Commission recommended a ten-foot trail casement along the western edge of the property. Gaf&on stated he did not know whether the Park Commission looked at the topography of the entire site. Gronberg stated the developer would be willing to grant the easement. Bremer inquired whether flie Park Commission would like the trail to continue down into the development. Gaffron stated to his belief they would be in support of that, but noted the Park Commission has not reviewed the latest revised plan. Rahn commented it appears that there is quite a bit of screening finm Willow Drive. Gronberg stated diere would be screening from Willow and screening for the subdivision. Leslie stated he would prefer to see 14-foot trees planted as a way of reducing the visual impact of the development. Friteler inquired whether Commissioner Leslie would prefer evergreen trees. Leslie commented he would like to see evergreen trees. Gronberg concurred that it is important to get some type of evergreen in that area to help screoi the development. Bremer inquired whether Staff would need additional landscape plans. Osffron stated Stafifhas only seen the landscape plan tonight and that he has not had an opportunity to review it closely. PAGE 3 - ■■ —■—■■ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. V A (005-3131 Steve Bohi, Continued) Oronberg staled the developer is amenable to any recommendations Staff would have in the way of landscaping. Rahn stated in his opinion Staff should review the landscape plan and that he would also prefer that the Park Commission indicate whether diey are in support of the trail extension into the development. Rahn stated the request for the variance for Lots 7 and 8 would need to be reviewed by tlie city’s wetland consultant Gronberg indicated he used to live across the street from this area and that he knows the history of that wetland. Kempf stated he is unsure whether the history would play a big part in determining whether that should be classified as wetland. Kempf inquired what process should be followed to get a wetland reclassified. Gififron stated the City's wetland consultant would review the area and that he would complete a standardized review of the wetland, reviewing the characteristics of the wetland, and would dien determine what preservation class it would fall into. Gaffron stated the code is set up to allow the developer's consultant to do an assessment and that the City's consultant could either reject or accept the applicant's prqiosal. Gaffron indicated to his understanding the process takes approxinutely one month. Kenqif stated he would like to see whether the wetland should be reclassified, and that if it were not reclassified, due to die type of density the City is attracting to achieve in this area, he would not be opposed to a variance. Gronberg indicated a number of cities have an averaging feature to the setback for wetlands. Kempf stated that might not work with buffers. Leslie indicated he is in agreement of seeing whether this wetland should be reclassified, and if it is not reclassified, it would be necessary to look at whether there is a hardship to grant a variance. Rahn inquired whether the City's consultant could take a look at it prior to starting the process to reclassify it. Gaffron recommended that John Smythe take a look at the area this week and then speak with the developer's consultant to see what typ>e of solution could be reached. Gaffron indicated he would prefer to use averaging when there are no other options and diat in this case the developer could reduce the number of lots to avoid the need for a variance. Kempf stated in his opinion averaging die setbacks would be confusing to the ^rious property owners. PAGE 4 » 9 i\ t I i i II MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17,2005 6:00 o’clock p.in. (#05-3131 Stove Bolil, Continued) Bremer stated the quality of the wetland goes to the hardship in her opinion, and that if this is determined to be a true wetland, she would be hard pressed to approve a variance since there arc other options. Gronbcrg noted the required wetland sediacks have increased quite a bit over the past few years. Rahn indicated he likes the proposed location of Outlot B. Rahn inquired whether any picnic tables or anything are being proposed for that area. Gronberg stated not that he knows of. GafIron stated amenities could be added to that area if the developer chooses. Rahn stated the homeowners could also decide what they would like that area used for. Gaffron pointed out die oudot is only five percent of the property and not ten percent. Gronberg stated there is a natural divide in that area which was one reason why tlie outlot was not made bigger. Gaffron stated the location of the road is also a factor and that the road should be in its present location, Bremer commented die walkway could be considered as part of the land dedication. Fritzler inquired wdiat the area of the park is. Gaffron stated it is approximately a quarter acre. Leslie noted diere is a city park located across the street. Kempf inquired whether the developer could donate some land and/or park dedication fee. Gaffron stated the Park Commission typical’y makes a recommendation concerning the perk dedication. Gaffron stated trail easements are typically noi excluded fixim the park dedication fee. Gaffron stated the private recreation requirement is separate fimn the park dedication fee and is set at 10 percent of the total land area of the development. Gaf^ stated functionally the trail would be considered private property if it is located within the development and that the public could be prohibited from using it. Gronberg indicated the trail easement is located on church property. Leslie inquired whedier it would be part of Outlot B. Gaffron stated it necessarily might not be. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bolil, Continued) Bremer noted the configuration of Outlot B is long and narrow, which limits the type of amenities that could be placed in that area. Rahn inquired what the approximate dimensions are of the outlot. Gronberg stated it averages around 70 to 75 feet wide. Gafifron indicated it is 181 feet deep. Gronbo'g inquired whether any portion of the easement would be counted towards the 10% recreation area. Gaffron stated it could be. Fritzler inquired how credit would be given for the easement if it is not located on this site. Oaffron stated the developer is probably paying somethuig nr the easement from the church and that it could be included in die calculation if the Planning Conunisr ion determines that that is appropriate. Gronberg conunented it does not necessarily have to be a private trail. Kenqif stated he is unclear how it could become a private trail and that in all likelihood it would be used by the general public given the location of the public park. Leslie commented a gate limiting access by the public could be installed. Bremn stated it is likely that this development will be short on the 10 percent land donation and that the Planning Commission will need to decide whedier that is acceptable. Gatfron inquired whether the street should be considered a public road or a private road. Gronberg stated the city would still receive easements over the road even if it is a private road. Leshe inquired whether there are any reasons why this road should be a public road versus a private road. Gaffion stated it becomes a matter of maintenance of the road. Gaffron stated Stone Bay has a number of private roads and that in his opinion it should be a private road in order to be consistent with what has been approved in the past for RPUD development Leslie pointed out since there is a cul-de-sac at the end of the road and does not connect to Glendale, it would make sense to have it be a private road. PAGE 6 I j MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3131 Steve Bohl, Continued) Fritzler inquired whether thu reuidents would be assessed for maintenance of that road and whether the City could require them to maintain that to certain standards. Ga^n stated the property owners would need to enter into covenants and maintenance agreements with the City that would allow the City to maintain the private roadway if the residents elect not tc. Bruner inquired whethu the Planning Commission is agreeable that Outlet B and the tail would be sufficient for the 10 percent land dedication. Leslie indicated he flnds it sufficient Kempf stated he finds that there is no other area available without removing a lot. Rahn staM he does have a concern with a private trail, and inquired whether it could be defined as a public trail. Oaffion stated the trail could be classified as public as part of the approval. Fnteler stated the minutes could reflect that concern and that the Park Commission could make the final decision. Hdbnmk Park* ** **** understanding there would be a connection between Hackberry Park and Bremer reconunended the church also be informed that tliat trail could be made public rathu than private. Gronbug inquired whethu the cost of the trail would be deducted from the park dedication fees. Gaffron stated a portion of the trail could possibly be deducted from the park dedication fees, and recommended the Paik Commission decide exactly what they would like to see for this property. ^ie staM since the land dedication is less than 10 percent, he would prefer that the trail not be deducted from the pork dedication fm. PAGE? 6»-"f m.MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21,2005 ^ 6:00 o’clock p.m. f2^ — ^ ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair David Rahn, Commissioners Cynthia Bremer, Ralph Kempf, Travis Winkey, Roland Jurgens, and Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planner Janice Oundlach, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Bob Sanseverc was present. Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. OLD BUSINESS 1. #05-3131 STEVE BOHL OF BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT, INC, 190 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH AND 177 GLENDALE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL, 6:01 P.M. - 6:30 P.M. Steve Bohl, Applicant, was present. Gaffron noted this application has appeared before the Planning Commission a number of times previously, with the applicant being requested at the October Planning Commission meeting to submit certain revisions. Gaffron indicated the applicant has made the following revisions to Lots 8,9, and 10: One, the boundaries of Lots 8,9, and 10 have been shifted slightly; and two, the amount of proposed fill in the wetland within Lot 8 is increasing from 1600 square feet to 2000 square feet, which is the maximum tbit is allowed by WCA rules under the deminimum clause. This revision and a iightly revised house layout on Lot 8 results in elimination of the variances to wetland buffer/setback width that would have been required under the prior plan. Gaffron noted there may be othet subtle changes in the plans which have not been identified by Staff. In addit^km, the City Engineer has not yet commented.... :he recently submitted plans. PAGEl ‘ ^ ja* *u D aim f * IVUNUTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. Gafiron stated the applicant has submitted a revised Wetland Delineation Report, which indicates that the portions of the road ditch along Willow Drive are incidental wetland; i.e., areas of wetland created solely as a result of actions by public or private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland. The applicants are requesting that MCWD declare this portion of wetland as incidental and not subject to a replacement plan. The City’s wetland consultant, John Smyth, reviewed the plans to determine the potential impacts of the proposed wetland filling and to determine if there were options to rearrange lot lines to avoid the need to for wetland buffer setback variances on Lots 7 and 8. Smyth concluded that the City should support a potential revision to the classification of the wetland along the Willow Drive frontage of Lot 10, allowing the lot lines for Lots 8,9, and 10 to shift westward. This could potentially allow for reductions, instead of increases, to the fill in the wetland in Lot 8, which is considered by the City’s consultant to be a more valuable wetland to protect than that in Lot 10 along Willow Drive. Gaffron stated the applicant and staff met with Adam Arvidson, landscape architect with DSU, on November T*" to review the Rural Oasis study and its applicability to this site. Gaffron noted Arvidson’s comments are included within the commissioners’ packets. The Park Commission has reviewed this plan on November 7*^ and is recommending that the trail connection along the private road and through the church property to Glendale Drive be a public pedestrian and bike trail. Gaffron noted the Pa>k Commission did not discuss further the issue of potential wetland conflicts with the trail easements requested along the entire Willow Drive frontage of the plat. The Planning Commission had concluded on October 17"' that the combination of Outlot B and the proposed trail connection to Glendale would satisfy the RPUD 10 percent private recreation area requirement, with no park fee reimbursement for either of these elements, even though the trail through the church property will be public. The Planning Commission should consider the following issues: 1. Inclusion of a 10-foot trail easement along the west boundary of the entire property. PAGE 2 __J W" ' — I •f I 1 ■i ! MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. 2. Submittal of suitable landscape plans, tree preservation and augmentation plans showin^; how 3. development of the site can meet the City ’s Conservation Design goals. Submittal of written confirmation that MCWD wi'.l accept the 2000 square feet wetls nd filling as proposed for Lot 8. Gaflion indicated the applicant has only recently submitted recommendations from Appliec Ecological Services dated November 18,2005, with regards to Conservation Design. Staff has only had a chance to briefly review this material prior to tonight’s meeting. Bohl stated he met with Shardlow & Associates regarding the Rural Oasis corridor and Conservation Plan. Bohl indicated he has submitted the results of the meeting with Doug Mensing, AES, who has written a letter outlining his recommendations for the site. Bohl stated the AES classified the site, which historically has been used for farming, as degraded, and that ecologically the site, especially Ouilot B, can be improved by bringing some of the native plantings back on the site. Bohl indicated the recommendations of the Park Commission would also be incorporated into the plan. Rahn inquired whether the applicant is receptive with the recommendations from AES. Bohl stated he is and that they would be incorporating the AES’s recommendations into the landscape plan. Rahn inquired whether the applicant has received a letter from the Walerslied District approving the fill, E 'hi stated they are requ’rcd to have preliminary plat approval prior to going before the Watershed District. Gaffron stated he has indicated to the applicant that he would be willing to speak with the Watershed District regarding this application and would make the request that the MCWD make some preliminary findings on the fill. Bohl indicated he did receive an e-mail from the MCWD stating they were allowed up to the maximum of 2000 feet of fill on the prior plan. PAGE 3 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. Rahn inquired whether the applicant would be able to revise the landscape plan as well as include a trail easement prior to the City Council meeting. Bohl stated he would be. Bohl stated he has a concern with the trail if he is required to delineate the wetland near the trail. Bohl indicated if he is required to delineate the wetland, he would not be able to have the landscape plan approved until the spring. Winkey inquired if the landscape plan would reflect every item in the report. Bohl stated the AES recommendations would be included in the landscape plan. Bohl noted this site has a considerable amount of buckthorn and other invasive species, which is recommended be removed. Bohl indicated he is in agreement with the AES recommendations. Jurgens inquired whether a developer’s agreement would be entered into on this application. Gaffron stated there would be a RPUD agreement and a separate development agreement that defines what specific items need to be completed by the applicant. Jurgens inquired whether the Council would then approve the development agreement. Oaffron stated the Council would review it and then approve it and that the Planning Commission would not need to approve it. Jurgens inquired whether the applicant is opposed to the ten-foot easement. Bohl stated he is unsure what the City’s expectations are concerning the trail, and questioned who would be maintaining the public trail. Gaflrtm stated if the trail is dedicated to the public, the City would likely maintain it similar to the other trails located throughout the city, but that the Planning Commission could discuss whether it would like the developer to maintain it instead. Gaffron commented it is likely the trail would not be maintained in the wintertime unless die trail needs to be accessed. Rahn noted the Planning Commission spoke last time about the trail helpi.'.g to meet the 10 percent land dedication and not who would be constructing or maintaining the trail. PAGE 4 I I ![ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 21,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. Gatlron suggested the Park Commission review this application again to obtain th.. iccommendations on who would construct the trail and maintain it. GafTron stated if that wetland area near the trail is considered incidental, it would not be an issue. Jurgens stated in his opinion the City should not be purchasing any land or easement for this trail and should not construct the trail. Jurgens stated he does feel, however, that the City should maintain the trail if it is dedicated for public use. Bohl stated in his view it would be fair that he be given credit for the land and the cost of the trail. Rahn opened the public hearing. * There were no public comments concerning this application. Rahn closed the public hearing. Rahn stated he is comfortable with this application, especially since the applicant is receptive to all the recommendations. Kempf indicated he is very pleased with the revisions made by the applicant and the steps he has taken to be ecological conscious. Bremer moved, Jurgens seconded, to recommend approval of Application #05-3131, Steve Bohl of Ihj i Bohland Development, Inc., 190 Willow Drive North, and 177 Glendale Drive, granting preliminary plat and general concept plan approval, subject to the following conditions: One, the Park Commission recommendations are followed with respect to trail easement and trail construction; two, the applicant agrees to fulfill all the recommendations outlined in the AES letter; three, submittal of a landscape plan Incorporating the recommendations of the AES and the Park Commission; four, submittal of written confirmation of the approval from the MCWD, with the understanding that if approval is not received from the Watershed Dbtrict, the application would need to reappear before the Planning Commission. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PAGE 5 ifi rttmia r i ■ ;■ Date AppIkatkHi Received: 6-22-05 Dale Application Considered as Compleic: 10-20-05 60-Day Review Period Expires: 12-20-05 COUNCIL MEETING DEC 1 2?005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO Date: December 6,2005 Item No.: Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-3139, Hill School of Minnesota, Inc., 2180 North Shore Drive Variances, Conditional Use Permit Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR - IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre minimum) 0.58 acres (25,440 s.f.) 106 feet List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice dated 11-22-05 C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 11-16-05 Appiicathtt Sitmmary: The applicant is requesting side yard and side street setback variances as well as a conditional use permit amendment in order to construct an addition to the existing school building, closer than 50* from both the western side yard and the side street of Briar Street. The applicant is also requesting permission to utilize a temporary trailer for ofTlces dunng construction, which can be achieved through a staff permit that establishes a timeline for removal of the trailer. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission at their November 2!. 2005 meeting voted 6-0 to approve the request as submitted. With regard to the staff issued permit for a temporary trailer, the Planning Commission indicated a removal date of fall, 2006. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution granting side yard and side street yard setback variances and a conditional use permit for 2180 North Shore Drive, permitting construction of the addition as proposed on the submitted survey and elevation drawings. .-1 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-418 (1) FILE NO. 05-3139 WHEREAS, Hill School of Minnesota, Inc., a non-profit organization (hereinafter “the applicanO the owner of the property located at 2180 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: Lots S and that part of Lots 4 and 6, lying East of the West 69 feet thereof. Block 3, Markville, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for side yard and side street yard setback variances and a conditional use permit per Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-418 (1) to permit construction of an addition to the north of the existing building to be located less than SO’ from the western side yard and street yard of Briar Street when SO* is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1. 2. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as iZoning File OS-3139. The property is located in the RR - IB, Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 200*. The property contains 0.S8 acres of area and 106’ of defined lot width. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on November 21, 2005 and recommended approval of the variances and condi. nal use permit based on the following findings: Page 1 of 5 __ if. M*'.' I f 4. 5. a. The proposed addition will not encroach any further into the western side yard or the side street yard than what currently exists. b. The use to the west contains the Minnetonka Arts Center, which is also a conditionally permitted use rather than a residential use, alleviating any negative impacts that may result with an adjacent residential use. c. Briar Street to the direct east provides for a buffer from the residentially used properties, which is the intent of requiring a SO' setback from all residentially zoned property. d. The addition will meet all other setback, structural coverage and paildng standards required within the 2k>ning Ordinance. The property is nc* located within the Shoreland Overlay District and is therefore not subject to hardcover restrictions. e. The proposed addition meets all criteria established under Section 7S* S'16 and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the community. 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 and conditional use permit 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 tqsply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances and conditional use permit would not adversely affect trafllc 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(^ and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 I I zm hM CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants side yard and side street yard setback variances and a conditional use permit per Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-418 (1) to permit construction of an addition to the north of the existing building to be located less than SO’ from the western side yard and street yard of Briar Street when SO’ is normally required, subject to the following ermditions: 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. A staff issued permit must be obtained for utilization of a temporary trailer during construction. 3. 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 new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances and conditional use permit will expire on that date (December 12,2006). 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 termimUe any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of 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 property. Page 3 of 5 !•, V, 1 ^ .-.f -■ ' ■ ^ > ^. Adopted by the Otx>no City Council on the n"* day of December, 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 _ Jay of ^ 2005 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City tf Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. T 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 H municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public ■> ■ ► M V . Page 4 of 5 I 7. I ^ IJ •ft STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instniment was acknowledged before me this__day of by Valerie Thies, Director, Hill School of Minnesota, Inc. Notary Public K:^r \ . *■ /A y’* f'-’o : ■I' ■ " ^ ^ • :■ .-^?5 i •■ '•A .A- , .t; .•■ ■.; •■ . ^ A A;: yA.'.. ;. , fc .•;y/.;V: V H' ■■.%'■ '■ ■'' . ’yApAA':' AA^' C/AA - ' AAwS v': ■ -A .-.••■ V"-AAA-A:' AAl ■ i.-.'- ^•••. A A--' A‘A . ; ;....y’...’. ;.v.- ' ■•.. .V’............•'■ ■": • aa„a :‘^’a;a.a . I v*' ' t ■: ■'■'■•»* A’vflMEjft ;iv :. A;; .P '■■■••' . ., -A’’: ■ •> 'WWi ’'Pi^l- ■ < V’A* >•• ^ AT- ->v i \4. •-■ • l^r ■= "t AA/A^yA^ :AA' -:* \ A^ ••, • . -• . ■ • • ■ i ,2005 ii'' •i ?*•:.■ 'V. tfvi^r ^': ■• ■}; &W^lf A t F CITY OF ORONO 2750 KcUcy Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: 05-3139 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; November 22,2005 TO: Hill School of Minnesota, Inc.COPIES: Merry Beth Hovey 2180 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE PJF ^PUCAjnW.........Pennil DATE OF MEETING: November 21,2005 Planning Commission recommended as follows: To <q;)prove the request as submitted. VOTE;FOR AGAINST Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, December 12,2005; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Conunission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlacli at 952-249-4623. • 'IB* - r:. ■ V-;-;- ‘3:'-: v;-y' •• f ■ ‘*4. -.: 'f 4; .4^ W . 4*j mm ^ 'Al ■ ' * ■ ' % ;v ii-'. r ■ • ! r- ; % * - ^ FILE #05-3139 21 November 2005 Page 1 of 5 Date Application Received: 06-22-OS Date Application Considered as Complete: I0-20-05 60-Day Review Period Expires: 12-20-OS To;Chair Rahn and Planning Ccn*j iission Members Ron Moorse, City Adminislra'or From:Melanie Curtis, City Planner Janice Gundlach, City Planner^ Date:November 16,2005 Subject:05-3139, Hill School of Minnesota, Inc., 2180 North Shore Drive, a Side Yard & Side Street Setback Variances • CUP Amendment • Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2-acres/200 ’ width 25,440 s.f. (0.58 acre) 106 ’ I Appiicatiim Summary: The applicant is requesting side yard and side street setback variances as well as a conditional use permit amendment in order to construct an addition to the existing school building, closer than 50 ’ from both the western side yard and the side street f'f Briar Street. The applicant is also requesting permission to utilize a temporary trailer for offices during construction, which can be achieved through a staff permit that establishes a timeline for removal of the trailer. Stqff Recommendauon: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the setback variances and the conditional use permit amendment to permit construction of the addition as proposed. Staff will also issue a permit allowing the temporary trailer for the duration of construction. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-418. Conditional uses. Within any RR-IB one-family rural residential district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses without a conditional use permit: (1) Public schools and parochial or private schools which teach a curriculum similar to a public school, provided no building shall be located within 50 feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an R district and a fence is erected 15 feet or more fiom all street lot lines where the abutting use is for open play, and nursery schools providing 50 square feet of playground space per pupil. List of Exhibits A. Applications B. Applicant ’s Narrative C. Ha^hip Documentation Form ¥1 ■ 1 FILE #05-3139 21 Novefnbef 2005 Page 2 of 5 D. Existing & Proposed Survey for Proposed Addition E. Site Plan Depicting Proposed Temporary Trailer F. Building Sketch G. Elevations of Proposed Addition H. Floor Plan of Proposed Addition I. Aerial Photograph of Property J. Property Owners List K. PlatM^ Background The Hill School would like to construct an addition on the rear of their existing building to accommodate office space, classroom space, and an additional bathroom. The use is conditionally permitted, requiring the City to amend the existing conditional use permit when a change is proposed. Secondly, the existing building does not meet the required SO’ side street setback or the SO* side yard setback, where the addition as proposed will maintain the existing non-conforming setbacks, requiring variances. The property has had approval of several conditional use permits, some of which are not applicable to the current user, and are summarized below: File 2434, Resolution #4187: Permitted a tipi to be located on the property for 12 months File 223S, Resolution #3908. Change in tenancy for the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School (current tenant) File 1923, Resolution #3424: Allowed continuation of the then nonconforming fine arts school by conditional use permit, including a variance for continued use of an open parking area located within a required side street yard (along Briar ST) File 1487, No Resolution: Subdivision of a lot line rearrangement creating separate parcels for the Art Center and the Hill School. File 1365, No Resolution: Request for duplex use LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Arca/Width RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres)200’ Actual 25,440 s.f. (0.S8 acres)106 ’ Setbacks Zoning Ordinance Section 78-418 (1) requires school uses operating under a conditional i e permit maintain a SO’ setback from all residentially zoned property. Although the Minnetonka Arts Center exists to the direct west, a SO’ setback from the western lot line as well as all other lot lines are required due to the RR - IB residential zoning surrounding the property. FILE #0S-3139 21 November 2005 Page 3 of 5 RR-IB Required Existing Propiosed Front 50 ’44’ covered entry No Change Rear 50 ’129’ deck 107’ Side (west)50 ’27’28 ’ Side Street (east)50 ’42 ’41.4’ Stnictunil Coverage Total Lot Arra 25,440 s.f. (0.S8 acres) Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 3,816 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 3,039 s.f. (12%) Hardcover Calculations This property is located outside of the Shoreland Overlay District and therefore not subject to the hardcover regulations of Section 78-1288. Side Yard and Side Street Setback Variances Zoning Ordinance Section 78-418 (1) requires a SO' setback to all property boundaries, as the use is conditionally permitted in the RR - IB zoning district. The applicant has proposed an addition directly off the rear (north) of the existing building, which encroaches 23 ’ on the westen required yard and 8’ on the eastern required side street yard. It is unclear, based on the submitted floor plan, elevations, and survey, whether the addition encloses the stairways shown on the west of the proposed addition (one stairway serves the deck above and acts as an exit for the existing upper story and the other stairway serves the e'^isting basement). Because one of the stairways serves a second story, a SO’ setback is still required, making the level of enclosure inconsequential as it relates to the level of variance. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit C, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /« coHslderiHg appifeathm for vorhmee, the fUmnlmg Commbshm ikaU cotaUer the tffect of the proposei voH ohco mpom tke keohk, ortfety ood wefforo tke ammmhy, existing and anlkipaied traffic conditions, iigktondok, danger of fire, risk to tke pnbiic spfety, ondtke effect on values of property in tke surrounding area. Tke Hanning Commission s*«// consider recommending approval for variances from tke literal provisions of Hte Zoning Code In Instances wkere tkeir strict enforcement would cause undue kardskfp because of circumstances unkpie to tke Individual property under consideration, and skmil recomm end approval only wken k Is demonstrated tkat suck actions will be In keeping witk tke sphk and Intent ^ tke Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds there may be hardships that warrant variance approval. The western side yard setback variance is reasonable as the Minnetonka Arts Center, which is also operating under a conditional use permit, is the adjacent use not a residential home. The side street yard setback variance may also be reasonable due the existence of Briar Street, again FILE iOS-3139 21 November 2009 Page 4 of 5 instead of directly adjacent to a residential home. Also, a side street setback variance was granted under Resolution #3424 for the existing gravel parking area, which is a further encroachment thaii the proposed addition. Conditional Use Permit Analysis Zoning Ordinance Section 78-418 (I) establishes a 50 ’ building setback requirement and a minimum square footage of play area requirement per pupil when a nursery school exists. The SO’ building setback requirement is discus^ above and a nursery component doesn ’t exist, eliminating the IS s.f. play area requirement. Lastly, Zoning Ordinance Section 78-916 allows the Planning Commission to recommend that the Council grant a conditional use permit when evidence is submitted to the City making the following flndings: (1) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and the comprehensive municipal plan; Although setback variances are requested, the degree of variance will not increase due to the location of the existing building. (2) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious ' ' to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and Staff"finds no evidence that the proposed addition would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvement in the vicinity. Further, the City has no record of neighbor complaints and has determined the use to be in compliance with any and all active conditional use permits. r. . (3) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter. Aside from the variance discussed above, the proposed addition meets front and side yard setbacks, complies with structural coverage limitations, and is not subject to hardcover restrictions. A building code review will be conducted by the Building Official at the time of building permit submittal. Required Parkiag # Of Required Stalls: Zoning Ordinance Section 78-1S16 requires one stall per seven enrolled students, plus one stall for each three classrooms. The school has indicated current enrollment at 49 students with a total of S classrooms (including the proposed), requiring the following parking: a FILE MS-3139 21 November 2005 PegeSoTS 49/7 students + 5/3 classrooms = 7 + 1.6 = 9 stalls The gravel parking area along Briar Street allows for parking of approximately 13 vehicles, conforming to the above noted restriction. Required Location: Zoning Ordinance Section 78'S155 (1) restricts the location of open parking spaces on lots to a location other than a required yard (50 ’ in this case), except that such parking may be located in a rear yard to within 10* of an interior side lot line and to within 10’ of a rear lot line. Resolution #3424 approved a variance for parking to be located within the required 50 ’ side street yard (with the same gravel area that exists today) and a 10’ setback is met from the interior side lot line and rear lot line. Issues for Consideration Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Roconiniondation Planning DqMrtment Staff reconunends approval of the setback variances and the conditional use permit amendment to permit construction of the addition as proposed. Staff will also issue a permit allowing the temporary trailer for the duration of construction. ■< "'■■'-if::-' V -.V n I 5 > •1 m X ip j ill City of Orono Variance Appiication street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: . P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Application It 3^3*^ Date Received: Amount Paid: oa. Oo Staff: JuUJrjiTr g Fee: S600 Renewal: $300 After-the-fact: $1,200 Double Fee This appUcation form must be completed in full. App'icant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications wili not bo placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: , . , Site Address: jUofHii iSnV^e. ________ Property Identification Number (PIN): jp ~f/'7^ J/5SI-O09^ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): ° Yes, J own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: □ Residential Oil Zoning District: ___________ / / U-1 I I WYVII \ Other rS^hoPL Phone (home): Address Email APPLICANT INFC^III^TION: (Complete legal na.Tes and marital status required for each interested party) Name: M// SoJi/fivL of JnJfj.._____ ■ ■___________ B (home): ’ ^Phone (work): '8s:^AJ. L^^Lupei tj/AXfZAJjL /yjjQ : irjrj^J^I/S/LhjQOLtnn.OrjL Fax: OWNER INFORMATION! (Compjele legal names c.*d marital status required for each interested party) Name: jJtlf 6cJiooL /nC • J Phone (work):Phone (home): Address: oZ/X Email ' Ph6ne(work): 9SHP'-¥7Sr^. UkufZJL/L /h/u * Fax: -3/00 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:Estimated Project Cost: $ /OO, OOO ' Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets If necessary): ________^1. rxihM/'jkiAL ____________~________________ tmrn'm I 7^3133 i i r: J % r f u REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: j ^ t 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 Comoleted Hardship Documentation Form _ , ^ pppaiiy^X^wne^Tisf - owners witliltrrSO'-oHhe-subject-pfopertyrlabels-and pim map. anfji map may .-be. obtained . from-*Flennepin—County- Department—of—Finance, —Go^Bi IIII lei It Oenterp/VSOa^O-SoutrT'e'** Street.-Minneapolis^ielephone 612-348-591 0 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requireme^nts listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5 x 11 or yr-v il"x 17" 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. ^ 4-7»x Id \ Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x11 or 11 x17)^ Cr Additional Items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: . u n. 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 until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. Applicant’s Signature: 9sjt . tLita I) 1 fr*r r 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 investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature: fl/jlyrAJ 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. >v QQ tLj' £/ Application# Date Received ________ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Ity/ Type of Application to be Filed /> llri^ Property Identification Number(P.I.D.) -2.^ /Zo/ V'Zon-f'^V Sr-l^r K^/^ALSr!^n^~r/l^c Ph0n6 (hOnriG) PKr^n^i^iaiinrt^ Address BO KJ. Phone(work) _____________ City Qnnnc) Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)_________ Address_____________ Date Prnnpiitv Acquired \ QC\ Phone (work) _City_____Zip. (month/year) I (do) rao not) anso own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - $600.00 Residential Accessory Use Pv $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 filMng - 501 cu. yd. or more _____Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore PRD/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 77 ( '’IV- -I . < * ! L QL.> SQUIRED SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 35^1 of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may o^btained 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 for survey Information. 5. _____Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 6. _____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.)_____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" X17" 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________ APPLICANrS 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 correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature 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. uUmittals (Into the ciiApplicant must have all sutfmittals(Into the City offices K bays before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled 'eview 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 meettng. OOi > ' .■) I- ►M fi- i!i! ' ^ i 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 Mailing AMress: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 For Office Use Only: ^ City Planner. CUH(S^ Meeting Date/Time: \Ji/U'U '2'! Ip/iA PC Date: Main: 952-249-4600 Fax: 052-249-4616 What i» tha purpoaa of a pra^appUeatton moating? 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: ^iW I^OVi h OhffyO Property Identification Number (PIN): ________ Zoning District: ___________Size of Property: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: □ Average Setback ^ Side Yard Setback □ Rear Yard Setback □ Front Yard Setback □ Hardcover □ Lot Coverage □ Lot Area □ Lot Width pother: /j(jC. .___________ik ^-a/iva /T^ "60' ^lOCfw k?iAtiding addinjY^ ,w i^eyht. SO' ^lOb' Applicant's - . Initials: (Yf^ HARDSHIP: Applicant 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: *Please note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form will be completed by City staff. Applicant Signature:Date : ifl>lloS !! H .nf f tr ' .>1. .'...V o, >' 1 p. City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.*) For Office Use Onlv:Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 City Planner;MCiahioccaiti Main; 952-249-4600 Fax: 952-249-4616 Meeting DateTTime; _ '^/ PC Date; What is the putpose of a pra-application 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: Property Identification Number (PIN): 1 Q- \ I~1 3/ - Zoning District: Z T Size of Property!~^^|^M K /nO? if 2.^0 □ Res. Access. Use □ Comm / Indust Use □ Other: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Institutional □ Guest House/Guest Apt □ Duplex Credit/Bldg t use □ PRD / PID □ Land Alteration school bUl idlA^ HXpQf\S/0/'1 □ Comm Site Plan Review fP/ir>ppiya.^ -hrarUg poSSlhill^ OTHER INFORMATION: *Please note: Your application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form will be completed by City staff. Applicant Signature:'MaJ Date: Zo aVlT » I 5 /}lUi .*-**4 ■'* v/ r*> f/n r- Opening young minds to their toil potential. June 22, 2005 TO:Melanie Curtis City of Orono Planning Department FR:Merry Beth Hovey, Treasurer 612-805-0080 (cell) RE:Application for Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Variance Melanie, Thank you for your time yesterday. We are turning in our application for the July Planning Commission agenda, with a few outstanding items. Due to the timing of when the school session starts, it would be extremely helpful to have a ruling on this request by early August. Following are the supporting items and when you can expect them • Survey-July 1 • Site and Construction Drawings - July 1 Attached Documents: • $600 Application Fee • Institutional C.U.P. Application • Variance Application • Certified Property Owners List • Hardship Documentation Form • Combined Description of Request and rough drawing of proposed expansion (not to scale). Scale drawing on survey provided July 1. I understand we are not in the zone requiring the hardcover worksheet. Thank you for your assistance. HIU SCHOOL 2180 North ShofC Driv« Wayato, MN 55391 Jj p td: 952-475-3107 tec 952-475-2862 / /! fj emaB: MbOhWschoolmn.orgI ' o _ , / V V, Li .1^ 5 i ♦ h I li Opening young minds to their full potential. -----:----- Description of Request for Conditional Use Permit and Variance 2180 North Shore Drive. Orono Minnesota Hill School, a private non-profit educational organization, is in need of additional space to better serve their current students and staff. The historic school house environment is integral to the success of the school's program and is one of the key reasons parents enroll their children. An addition is planned to compliment the character of the 1892 building, while providing needed office, program resource and bathroom space. The proposed addition is onto the back of the building, as wide as the current structure and projecting approximately 30’ towards the back of the lot line. The current zoning codes were put into place after the building was built, and the width of the proposed addition is outside of the street setback by approximately 8' and the side yard setback by approximately 3’. The variance is requested in order to maintain the character of the building and build an addition that will be aesthetically pleasing to the surrounding neighbors. The proposed addition would be one story and a basement, with a deck over a flat roof The deck and exterior stairs would become the fire escape for the second floor. The siding and paint colors would compliment the existing structure and respect the historical look. Our second request is for a temporary construction trailer to be placed on the backyard lot for approximately one year. to i Q HILL SCHOOL 2180 North Shore Drh« Waysnte, MN 5539i tel: 952-475-3107 fm: 952-475-2862 ahail: infb@Mllsch00lmn.0r9 tinm ifTw J i Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. 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 ia juetlfied. The information the City receives is what is used in determining 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 "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the lar^downer.” ^ireated by the land 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if JJ .4. A' X X X 8. 9. 10. 11. 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 1 16J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony 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 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 peculiar tojsuch property or immediately adjoining property.” . / / / . "The condition do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which s^id land is located." granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial properly right of the applicant "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 /ri a/ unrllKtJLfZ/ Auutj^ . rjV7, '• • ..o ‘; !{ \ dttfVfawtiifw !■? ■- i I ’ t f r. I f . ‘ ■ i t.,,' > i'*' r V •^ i Page 3 of3 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the api^cant, but is necessary to alleyiate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” ^ ^ -y ^ vfe? Oy&A-------- gkrO-z /^OLL^CC. 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 (attach additional sheets if necessary): TiWfnTfWfth jjlTYKKli/iLa, j A. < rva.^ 4dA La^ 0^. 1=^ \ ••’ ■ •• vj-Ai ’ii, . or «*'nc<T m- ••* ■ • w-ir>.» '^gyI■xa^kf•rw^ tL- »_•■»- •kfri* 1 S I "mmm'■•A •. V^-. ,'-■.! .:;>1-*iil V'^ 1 ■;••'■*.^''• •'' ♦. V**.V > <«• 6i I 1 1 1 1 < 1 1 1 , /( 1 • 1 1 f- 2 I • fT Drivei{S • s;? «, 1 -™—. JJ 1 « > i SP In / / W7.2 •HNf, mmm i. _L-------- ^-------------------------)::-----------!~»- 1 --------1 »o*9t portHh} i arwa i 1 ^ 1 1 i r 1 1 1i i:• ii \ I Briar N oom'47' € Street BUILDING SKETCH 2180 North Shore Drive Oiono, Minnesota Requettod bunding tpaoe by Varianoe - * , ", ■ Allowable building space by current zone setbacks. Existing Structure Basement and Two Stories 36*6’ 30’ :: 52’ .. A Covered Entry 6 ’6 ” ■ .. . • ^ •• f,n’6 ” 4/../' s -^1 QO Drawing not to scale 6/22/200S rw" ■,' •*,' fe' ;■. t,'♦ ■ .-■ 'V '■ ’ • \HM School 2180 North Short Drivo Waytatt.MN SS391 ? t M -r Bii ny ^HPT J" ' ' '^'-' ,>^\V V . , ^ ,V ^'- «r iSi..;-:Wi ' '*•'X'-*; A- :>tv It ^rv^ ^ -s' }■• :i\ Miim ISP 1 L=i(. HHt School 2180 North Shore Drive Wayzata. MN 55391 1 '■■'■■' !*. ''V' • .' ,.' ■ i '■ 'v • In-. “■'"Ifc-.;: ;.4 : i ■' ■'‘4--,.' ■-*f' f ■ ^ 4 J 'f 'T ♦• ■>■ ' ■• -. ft V ■ ■ ■>- . • •ivfr t/mui ex. fUs6r-«^f w. ais^lfetL Pi»7^';^ y.t\ iC 'i /-V \ A Vf-. r .t m. tH ¥ .: . B ''•J!‘e: >/ '«W \t^ t lis»^,%l ^'yV -J'aTa-'.-jJ ’V.4 il U5?^ li <AT< -vA /!^ e«f # i k i RUN DATE : ra/200S i HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE: I 31 1011723230004 PROPADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSnNEO OWNER NAME CLARK J WINSLOW ETAL TAXPAYER SHARON R CLARK WINSLOW NAME/ADDR 1203 FRENCH CREEK CIR WAYZATAMN 3S39I 3S I0II7233I0016 PROPADOR 21S0 PROSPECTAVE OWNER NAME M C MAOOIE R M MADDIE TAXPAYER MICHAEL CMADDtE NAME/ADDR 2150 PROSPECT AVE CRYSTAL BAY MN SS323 31 lOI1723310011 PROPADOR 2170 PROSPECT AVE OWNER NAME BOBBY DJOH TAXPAYER BOBBY DJOH NAME/ADDR BOX 123 CRYSTAL BAY MN SS323 38 1011723310019 PROPADOR 2110 PROSPECT AVE OWNERNAME DRKBECKER TAXPAYER DONALD R KATHERINE J BECKER NAME/ADDR 2180 PROSPECT AVE WAYZATAMN SS39I 38 I0II7233I00S0 PROPADOR 1395 BROWN RDS OWNERNAME PFRLKALEY TAXPAYER PHILIP KALEY NAME/ADDR I395BROWNRDS WAYZATAMN S539I 38 1011723310051 PROPADOR 1335 ARBOR ST OWNERNAME BARBARA J GARCIA TAXPAYER BARBARA J GARCIA NAME/ADDR PO BOX 114 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 I0II7233I00S3 PROPADOR 1380 BRMRST OWNERNAME JESSICA A JOHNSON TAXPAYER JESSICA A JOHNSON NAME/ADDR 1380 BRIAR ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723310054 PROPADOR 1365 ARBOR ST OWNERNAME DAVID ALAN SUTHERLAND TAXPAYER DAVID ALAN SUTHERLAND NAME/ADDR 1365 ARBOR ST PO BOX 161 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 1011723310056 PROPADOR 2140 NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAME PCRCDKRAMER TAXPAYER PETER CRCHERIED KRAMER NAME/ADDR 2140 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723310057 PROPADOR 1335 BRIAR ST OWNERNAME GARYMPRINTUPJR TAXPAYER CARY M PRINTUP JR NAME/ADDR PO BOX 175 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 I0II7233I009I PROPADOR 2180 NORTH SHORE OR OWNERNAME LKMTKAENVIRONMEKTALSCHOOL TAXPAYER LK MTKA ENVMONMENTAL SCHOOL NAME/ADDR 2180 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 38 I01I723310I0I PROPADOR 1335 BROWN RDS OWNERNAME CITYOFORONO TAXPAYER CITYOrORONO NAME/ADDR BOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 V.'r' 38 1011723310017 PROPADOR 2160 PROSPECT AVE OWNERNAME ROGER JOHN PIELA TAXPAYER ROGER JOHN PIELA NAME/ADDR 2160 PROSPECT AVE CRYSTAL BAY M'I 55323 38 1011723310049 PROP ADDR 1380 ARBOR ST OWNERNAME HEATHER JO BELL TAXPAYER HEATHER JO BELL NAME/ADDR 1380 ARBOR ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723310052 PROPADOR 1355 ARBOR ST OWNER NAME G C PETERSON St J H PETERSON TAXPAYER GREGORY St JUUANNE PETERSON NAME/ADDR 1355 ARBOR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 1011723310055 PROP ADDR 1385 ARBOR ST OWNERNAME KATHYTLAFAVRE TAXPAYER KAl HY T LAFAVRE NAME/ADDR 1335 BOHNS POINT RD ORONOMN 55391 38 1011723310058 PROP ADDR 2195 PROSPECT AVE OWNERNAME K R VISHERAM VISHER TAXPAYER KYLE R St ANGELA M VISHER NAME/ADDR 2195 PROSPECT AVE CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 1011723310103 PROPADOR 2140 PROSPECT AVE OWNERNAME E ENIELSENR J KX>HNSON TAXPAYER ERIC ER JENNIFER K NIELSEN NAME/ADDR 2140 PROSPECT AVE BOX 54 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 d ■ . • • * i ■ ..:■: i k- 1 I • RUN DATE: 6/22/2005 38 1011723320019 raor AOOR 2240 NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAME ART CENTER OP MINNESOTA taxpayer MINNETONKA CTRPOR the arts NAME/AOOR 2240 NORTH shore drive WAY2ATAMN SS39I '• Vsi' «««■ . •«‘-'fc ? ‘ *- V r. ^ ' it .. ‘ «|V » r r t * t /' •......-T*mms. ^..7 .. m ■ V. ■* V VTTWW^ 7' I-'. -•.•■•■-! M. •■ kv ; •'rcr. ... v -i •■‘t. HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE: 2 38 1011723330006 PROPAODR 2285 NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAME OREQGW/OENISEESTEINHAFEL TAXPAYER OREOOW/DENISEE STEINHAFEL NAME/AIHNt 1 150 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD ORONOMN 55391 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATKM OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HEhMEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICE DEPARTMENT^ TUEBE$T7\ OFMVKNOWUC»«.OBEUEf. DATE ^ ‘ I i W> - V >A *• • 4*. . : •• i . \ V Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department (St i * Wa ^ I * f w‘ Sec. 10-117-23 941$PD *»*r •* II 1 1 tiQ 9 10-117-23-23-0004 ounoTB nmofA (W m CRYSTAL AVE 1400/ ft/ » Pg> ■ </ i«« g6) r» let • • • w;p« KW! I A » •fw J ifj 8 . ? K CO q:ss ce»R» c.:f • .1 ^ -i'- M 1 f. * (51) in ^ Lba nEay a M *t2’(Mia fif 9(s:t) 4 in ma Vi 1 « ifj if.f 1.8 (St) •r n.i 10-117-23-33-0006 1^' C j m Pvc9l Intbnmtfon .V ■•V ••.' V'/, .X- M««l ID 101172931 H oum Numbw 2100 OtTMt N mim north ONOIW DR '•v Wti$notal9gallyf9ooni9dmap. HntinmntaatomfillattonolkiihrmaAon mat 0al»9t)m City, Oouniy. and St$^ read authoriHaa anti ottmaourcaa. J Date Application Received: t-17-05 Date Application ConiMcrcd as Compiete: 11'lS-OS 120>Day Review Period Expires: 3>l7-06 COUNCIL MEETING DEC 1 22005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF OROKO Date: December 6,2005 Item No.: ^ Departmciit Approval: Admiaistrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Oaffiron Planning Director ^ Agenda Section: 2^ning THIe: Item Description: #05*3152 Bohland Development, Inc. • “3500 ” Watertown Road Preliminary PRD Plat - Proposed Subdivision for New Lots Zoning District:RR-IB, 2.0-acte Single Family Rural Residential (2.0 ac. min., 200 ’ width min., unsewered) Property Area:14.28 Ac. Dry 2.43 Ac. WeUand 16.71 Ac. Total List of Exilibits A- Latest Plans, Dated 1 1-14-05 B - PC Action Notice of 11-23-05 C - John Smyth Comments of 11-17-05 D - City Engineer Comments of 12-__^-05 (Pending) E - Staff Suggested Conservation Easement Depiction for Lots 1-2-3 Block 2 F - PC Supplementary Info Memo of 11-21-05 O - PC Memo and Ei^bits of 11-16-05 H - Draft Resolution Background Applicant proposes to subdivide this 17-acre vacant parcel to create 6 single-family rural residential lots. An initial plan was reviewed by Planning Commission in Septemb^ as a Sketch Plan, and a{q)licant was advised to consider a ’clustering ’ concept to allow for presnvation of views in accordance with the Rural Oasis Study results and in line with the elements of Conservation Design. A revised sketch plan was reviewed by Planning Conunission on October 17. All six lots would be served by a new private road extending 700 ’ northward from Watertown Road. All lots would be served by private septic systems and wells. The revised plan eliminated the SB building site previously proposed near Watertown Road, and placed all six homesites in the NW quadrant of the property, on lots ranging from 1.35 acres to 2.56 acres in dry buildable area. Planning Commission recommended that the amended application be forwarded to the City Council for confirmation that the PRD process was acceptable. N05-3IS2 December 6,2005 Page 2 At the regular meeting of October 24,2005 the City Council reviewed the sketch plan and indicated that the PRD process would be acceptable, subject to the applicant addressing the City’s Conservation D^ign goals and objectives, anJ subject to careful review that all standards necessary to ensure a successful development are met. The applicant subsequently engaged the services of a consulting ecologist. Applied Ecological Services (AES) to address the Conservation Design goals and objectives. On November 18, 2005 applicant submitted the ecological findings and recommendations as well as on-site sewage treatment systems information, making the application complete and formally commencing the 120-day review period. The topics addressed by AES include forest preservation; forest enhancement and expansion; wetland preservation; wetland replacement and enhancement; vegetated buffer establishment; stormwater management; and ecological restoration and management. It would be appropriate and desirable that the developer adhere to the AES recommendations. The City’s wetland consultant, John Smyth of Boneslroo & Associates, has provided comments with regard to wetlands on the site, specifically with regards to the location of the existing creek drainage easement as compared to the actual creek location, and with regards to potential impacts to the wetland of the proposed stormwater treatment pond. It would be appropriate that his concerns be addressed as part of a comprehensive stormwater and wetland management plan for the site. Additionally, because certain elements of the proposed ponding plan involve fill or excavation in existing wetlands, review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is necessary. All proposed lots have been tested and found capable of providing suitable primary and alternate sites for on-site sewage treatment systems. For all lots, mound systems will be required. On Lots 1,2 and 3, Block I and Lot 2, Block 2, treatment sites are relatively near the proposed house locations, and may limit the location or extent of potential future amenities. Special precautions must be taken to protect these sites on both a short-term and long-term basis, since municipal sewers are not projected to be extended to serve this area of Orono. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission on November 21, 2(X)5 reviewed the application and recommended on a vote of 6-0 that the Council grant Planned Residential Development (PRD) preliminary plat approval subject to: I) incorporation into plans of all of the recommendations of Applied Ecological Services regarding conservation design, landscaping, etc.; 2) applicant to address comments by City wetland consultant John Smyth; 3) Conservation Easement to be requited over east end of Lots 1-2-3 Block 2 as well as over Outlot B; and 4) additional conditions with regards to covenants for protection of septic sites on small lots, etc. be addressed. Ittsil #0»I52 DcMabcr «, 2MS Page3 luHct for Contidf radon In reviewing the activity to date, staff finds that the applicant has provided substantial information toward making the development feasible, especially in embracing the elements of Conservation Design. However, staff would offer the following issues to be discussed as Council considers granting preliminary PRD plat approval: 1. - * f, ■ V 'Mi A revised stormwater management plan addressing the concept of a linear ponding area, has not been provided. This needs MCWD review and approval as well as City iqiproval, as it makes use of a portion of the wetland for stormwater treatment. The application should not move much further forward until there is some commitment by MCWD to a stormwater plan involving linear ponding within the wetland. Also note that the judicious use of curb and gutter may be required to ensure that runoff fiom the road and driveways reaches the stormwater ponds. Significant fill will be needed to create the road access onto Watertown Road, and this will require substantial retaining walls in Outlot B, requiring engineering... The grading plans for individual homes leaves a lot to be desired. In all three Block 2 lots, the steep slopes result in an immediate drop away from the house, leaving no functional back yard, or the need for substantial terracing and retaining walls to have any sort of flat back yard. The actual grading for each site may end up substantially different than shown on the current plans, and any amenities such as pools, ^rt courts, etc. will be difficult to establish without major topographic changes. These lots may be difficult to market under the proposed layout... Please review the City Engineer ’s most recent comments which if not included as Exhibit D will be added to this packet prior to delivery... Staff is in the process of drafting a Prelimiiuuy Plat Approval resolution, a first draft of ediich is attached as Exhibit H. Please review this draft, which incorporates a number of conditions of approval not discussed above... COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the^ proposed subdivision, and especially the Conservation Design reGommaidations of AES in Exhibit E. Address tlM concerns noted above and any other issues vdiich need consideration, and direct staff and applicant as to whether and/or under what additioiud conditions Preliminary plat approval should be granted. "fc-r •ifiiTiriniriT iTirnSMflSi I l»« I ^ rww ^ > \ \ \ \ \. ffSTfeV^ macki K inon hill PREUMINARY PLAT FOR DHLAND DEVELOPMENT OF OUTLOT A, KINTYRE. AND IN THE SW1M OF THE 8E1/4 OF SEC. 32-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, WNNE80TA ( / y N t RnuMoaiini MMKwmttam mm. MXUi 1 SCALE IN fEET \ \ Vn-Vi\ N, \^\ j ' i V n \ I ^ \rr)^ “FTK ^ ^ U1/ /////y///1 /n / / I / / , /////.I / » / I / i / / / —^-/-A—/—Jx / / ^^rn/ l / I Ilf, I / ; / I i \ / / / / li ./-J.■,^Ai' ihinii ih/'Y^-'^ fil I, / / I / ■' / I / / if' I'\i// ' / / PW> 1! / / / 7 7/ /7 /'/>// /./ / Z'r//7,'7Ti1f\K I / <444{T x vnjny^j^ •/W A Kj !! !! ///////7'^ / /7i>r7\2J.' ' V I>"~A \,vv TT7ttii^Kn’y^ppytj^>r Z’ / /. / / / ^ *5P'Ui7jr^ Lxtssrv^ ' U !/1!n />/, / 1 «i '^Tir' i OiH jg Sis* 7/ IJfiL'ifu! t //WM^/!1 \ \ ^OUTLOT T / ^ *-2»* ACRES /• / / / / / •\ \ y / RiaAoo^ s orsr 32* « 200JOO \ \ \ V. i _i . *,CIH.rt t.... ___ _________/ 3400 WATERTOWN ROAO 42^^ \ ■X'-k■M L\ V; > li//L,/a<r 12^1 /:> T ooc ' "V' m MACKINNON HILL MACKINNON DRIVE PROPOSED ROAD PROFILE ? \ \1 \/ N MM 'i^^\._~z.'sr'"C^—r / / / / y y / y ^ 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET . ^ S3 UJ a Mm •-l<x 0£;Q mm S£ li$ /^■fc 5 1^ ••••r--------- -m . -. *****S***********S***********|******«****|***««tt^«««»ft«*««»««**«•&•••••••♦••«v••«••••••• •*• •••••••••• •«•«•••••• • \ 9* **********%*******•• ^ •$•••••••••••$••••*••••• •••••••••• %p *•••••• m 9 • m m • m • m m » 9 m m m • m * 9 9 0 0 • m ••• • •m............*9 9909009000 90 00m900000m99099090m0m0999990000000^m00009mm00 0^00m0000m00m^0m00000009 090 0000009900^0009900000 ^0 00 pmattmnamuam & %00009090000%i..............................nyiBniwn#«HWiiu.H4ii UiW J WUi itJBTtTtr? •••••••••* 00 9090999090 9^ 9900900090 0^>•••••»•••••••••*•«><:;::::pi> ^W^f^^90 • • • • • ^9 • • ^^^0 009009000 £9 09 , 0 ^ 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 9 0 40 9 9»•#•«•••• ::::;::•••••*•••• ••«••••#«. •••••••■ ......... «•••••«%♦•« lfl1Il|;;.;:;;;;;;;j;;;;;;:;;;;J;;;;:;;;::;j;;;;^ $99999990000009900990000$00999000009^00900^^^^^ 0p^^M9^ 09»^ 09900000000^90 !*••*•............................................. ..........................................................••••«••••••*• •••«••• fPg^^9 9 9 0 0 . 9 0 0 9 0 ^ 9 9 0 0 0................................................................................................ 9 9 0 0 . 0 0 0 9 0 0^ 9 9 9 9 * 0 9 9 0 9 .................................... 9 9 0 0 A 0 9 0 9 9 ^ 0 9 9 9 0 0 9 0 9 9 i. 9 0 •••••••••♦* 1* * »♦••••*• •* > » « /TT •«•••» 909009900990 0^ •»•«*»••••««••••#«• •••••••••#•••*'"*^^^* »* * ••••••• •^••« ••• ^••••••••••^••••••••••^••* • •*•«#•••••«•••• «•»••••••»•••• • • • • • • 00. 00009990 9 ••♦••••5***«*««»««»5*************** ^ « i ^ • ♦ ♦ • » ••••!• •_•• • 00^^^ ••••••• **^**^***»909009000000%0900009000 00 0900909900 0P 9009090000 0^^9999990000^00000990000p99990909900 p9 0999099090 00 09 ••••••••^•••9 9*9009 •••••••!« 4^0 0 0 0 0^ • • • ^0 flS • • « • • A- •#•*•••••■••••■#»«« 9* 999909000^9000900009^9099000900^. 9 10 909000900 .m 909000000 aX* • • • 0^0 • a a a • • • S. A* ......................................................... $9 900009990 900090000 ^^9 0 a • a a ^a BDa • • • • JH» •••a»**««H«**»B»«**fl*«******««H«*«««**«**H**********tf** ^9 0000 00 090 «m 0 9 0 90 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9a 9K • a • a « 91 a a*««*«*«B-***B»«*»X*«»«***»«»V**«*******^**********^** _ • 900009 09 0009000090 9* 990090900 0T0900 0^0 9 9 0 a# • • • 9* 0 0 9 0 •• • a«»*««**»9#»«*J»**#a*%««****«»***^»»«*««»**««5»********»*^**********»5»*««**«»**#5»*»«»*»««*.'!#••» a^ a*a.1p^a«*«»«««««* f•#a«a••••a•t•••••a«•a«al••a•aaaaaaa}a•aX•a«•••i•••••••♦*••^•••••••••••^**•**•••**^**********{‘**********{***********>***********(*******•*•*l•••••••••••f•••••a•••«»} ^ ^ ^•♦•♦••♦••••|•••••••♦••ala• • •9* . . . . . . .«{#•••••••••• ^. . . . . . . . . . . .••^•••••****««(«**«**»«««»|*aa»«*«aaaal<.aa. •••«}**a*a..«*aat nn|% ••••»*««*»*«{««*«a»aaa»«}*aa« 9a aa*#}a«a*^«aaaaal«««««*«**««^*«**S**««»V»«***«****«^**********^***********%***********^***********t*********«*l***« ••a«J>aaaa*a«a aaj ia»a»»*a* #««#•• vaaacaaaafaaaa ••••••€»aaaa##»##«aaa«**»*»»#***«B****«^**»*******»********'***^******** »*♦♦♦«• - - - •♦•••«a«l««aa*«aaaaa|aaa*a«aaaaafaa< • •••••••^ ♦••••a«»*|a«««a««a*«*|««« 0 0 9 0 9 0 9 mf^m^99mw0mm^^mm^rn 9 00 0 0•*«a*««****««*»«*««**»«»«**< • •• • •%••#**«a««aa««*9»«*a«a»»*a***»« 9 a«aala«*a««*«««*|«aaa««**a*«9 » ^ ^0 9 • ••aaaaa|«a«»*«»a«aaf*«aa • • • • ••#«• 09^^^^\ ••a*a»aa0««aa»aaaaa*^«»4 a a a aaaaaft^aaaafaaaaaaaaaaa^aai 00ataaaalaaaaaaaaaaat***********)*** • aaaa*aa#«aaaaa«» vaalaaa aaaaaa aaiaai aaaaaaa#2aaaaaaaaaaaXaaaaaaaaa«aAaa< ••a«aa«*faaaa*aa*«aala*aaaa**aaa|«a< •aa*aaaa^aaaaaaaaa«a0aaaaaaaaaaa^aa4 a*«aaaaafaa***««a**a|aaa«aaaaaaa#aaf •aa«*aaa*a«aaa«aa*aaSaaaaaaaaaaa*a«4 •aa«*aaa|aaaaaaaaaaa|aaaa*aaaaaa|aa« aaaaaaa*«aaaaaaaaaaa«aaaaa»ai*aa*aa4 aaaaaaaa#a«aaaaa«aaa*aa#a«aaaaaaf«ai••••••••{•••••••••••••••••••••••{••a aa«aaa«a|aa«aaaaaaa#|#aaaaaa«aaalaa« •aaaaaaa|aaaaa«aaaaa|aa«aaaaaaa.|aaa • aaaaaaa!aaaaaaaaaaa!aaa«aaaaaaa*aaa Mii^.:.a!»tt::; 9 0 0% 0 0 0 0 9 0 :;}; a 0m i::i. 9 0 0 0 0 0 00 t 90000009 9 0 W 0 • ;;{;: a a* a a a a 4 •••••••«• • • 4 «.a a a a . 90 0000900009 00 0^ 9009009000 0P > a* a • a • I %aaaaaaaaaa a* 0009009 9090 0* 00 000 9^0 0 0 0 0 00000 « I ...............................^ ■ ’••••***?' aaaaaaaa a*a iii • ...........1* ;gi r:;::.... i;;:i.1.03D ;;;;!............ ;i;;i-iD2D iiiij ........... ::::{.10.10 I..;.;;;i.1.0DD i;;:j..... ;:..;:.99Q. •980 Tg 2 9 8 ii IIHSllp^ liiii Q M CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kdlcy Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: ^05-3152 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 23,2005 TO: Bohland Development, Inc. 1844 Wayzata Blvd. P.O. Box 815 Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: James MacKinnon 2430 Meeting Street Wayzata. MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Preliminary Plat - residential Subdivision - PRD DATE OF MEETING: November 21.2005 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommended as follows: Recommend that Council grant Planned Residential Development (PRD) preliminary plat approval subject to the following: Applicant shall agree to and incorporate into plans all of the recommendations of AES regarding conservation design, etc. 2) 3) Applicant shall review and address comments by John Smyth. Conservation Easement to be required over east end of Lots 1-2-3 Block 2 as well as over OutlotB. Additional conditions as discussed at this and prior meetings re: covenants, etc. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City CoMBcil - Monday, December 12.2005 - meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaflfron at 952-249-4600. Wm ■ V '■ -(S- ■ ■.'■•r- 2^^ U OS Memo Bontstfoo Itofenc AndefMift AsfodMS InfMMrf 4 ArcMiccu Pni9etMam9: MacKinnon Hill CHmrt: CKyofOrono To; Mike Gaff^, Planning Oirodor From: John Smyth. Senior Scientlet FUoNo: 139-05-( Oafe; 11/17/05 Ro: Wetland Review m Romorko: 8lta Simunary The development was reviewed for wetland impacts. Currently a wetland is located within the southern portion of the site. A small creek flows into the wetiands under Watertown Road via a culvert. The creek flows through the northwest side of the wetland. There is a drainage easement shown on the plan however the easement location on the southern portion of the property does not reflect the location of the creek and in one location is shown on a slope. I would recommend that the centerline of the creek be surveyed and the drainage easement be modified to more accurately reflect the drainage through the site and also assist in the pond location as discussed in the paragraph below. Proposed Wetland impaeto and Ponding The impacts to the wetland are from a proposed treatment pond. It is my understanding the goal of locating this pond within the wetland was to preserve the wooded area within the site. I have reviewed the pond location with our Water Resource Engineer and here are some items to be considered to further preserve trees on this site. 1) 2) Shift pond slightly to southwest to further avoid trees and potentially the creek. Currently a pipe from catch basin 2 and 3 cut across the wooded area to a manhole and then the treatment pond, ft is reoommerKled that these catch basins be routed along the proposed road to catcli basin 7 so only one pipe crosses the wooded area. Realignment of a pipe from catch basin 7 to the pond could also reduce impacts to the wooded area and could be aligned to discharge at the upstream portion of the pond to provide better treatment. Consideration will need to be made in the pond design and location to insure that the creek does not flow into the pond and reduce its treatment efficiency by flushing it with clean water. oasiiiiiiiiioeicK nil WHH—rTT ISIIWMMtiuonRoad Maquon.WIS30n ■L mT iii III iwn mmrn: F m 3H4I1.4I01 o HIT* OdCK N6 FMw: N7.M-21M Fax tof-m-im MNsaaoi FdORK MMM.NS7 Fac SI0.I1444M 372129*8lrMt8 8t Cloud. MN 86301 PIMW; 3M.aSt.4863 Fax; 330-261.6252 GiayoW«.IL600M Ftana: 647-8464774 rwL 647-5466076 i ‘ V i'i;: ‘I \ Memo 1 ■ormtn AndM AnodM InptaMrtA AfctHM Typically when an applicant indicates wetland impacts are being proposed to protect wooded areas, cities or Wetland Conservation Act LGU's require a conservation easement be placed around the wooded areas to insure they are protected and not cleared. This may not be necessary in this case because it appears that a n of the wooded area is in Outlet 6, however lot 3 also contains a large area of woods.I • Potential WMiand Mitigation It appears that wetland mitigation can be accomplished on-site within Outiot B along the east side of the wetland where the slopes become more gradual. This area is currently open field. I*’ ■• •• . ■■■ . ^ J • J • ^ -Hr*’ .'jiMc; m'’’ - V .r^ 4 ' ;v,.:mm .Aj.i: iv •y* ■: .■« . ui^'t ‘ Mh* /J. * # i’ ML 'ye ;.’LTLiL^ \ »<*t % fjfr- 1! _T.ilK Q9LPeMOmem OUMe: QIWWMMiHlOWMt oaMmoirooii,QVMKmHrOUlM:OSiCImtIOMM:01nmmmHUfrnm^ii27*a»MiNe 20B8M8Mm 372129*akMlS •MUMsevnn end MBBknlv, KM MMS peernm-m^m WW.MN8M01 PhanK aao^4MB7 8lCtoud.MNN301 Ptaw S204S1-4H3 GnyMli4iiw>» Ptim M744I- Ww p " NBMMH.1S11 PiKlM-MktlOO PiKSaS4t4e4H Pacsso^i-sna Pta M7-84MI7« > ASc 1ef OK F ¥ To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Mike Oaffron, Planning Director Date;November 21,2005 Sabject:#05*3152 Bohland Development, Inc. - MacKinnon Hill Proposed Subdivision for New Lots “3500” Watertown Road - Preliminary Plat SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION t) Applicant has submitted recommendations from Applied Ecological Services dated November 18,2005 with regards to Conservation Design. These comments are and a cover letter by the applicant are attached. The topics addressed by AES include: • Forest Preservation - Forest Enhancement and Expansion • Wetland Preservation - Wetland Replacement and Enhancement - Vegetated Buffer Establishment - Stormwater Management • Ecological Restoration and Management''' M this information arrived too late to be included in the packet, and because f has only had a chance to briefly review the material, iqpplicant should be requested to present the AES recommendations at the meeting. On*Site Systems Manager Willie Gibbs has reviewed the septic testing information provided last Wednesday, and has concluded that the sites as proposed are acceptable. His brief review conunents are attached. mf-’*.'-•I: •-'s‘ • C ¥.f€wr:/Xy-' m4 City of Orono tnon Hill »ts inary Plat I Ecological Services [>esign. These comments topics addressed by AES Memo MikeGaffron, Planning Director Wiie Gibbs, ISTS Manager November 16,2005 MacMnnon Nils Propoeed Subdivision Mlw. I have reviewed ihe submiOed soils work and preliminary septic sites information from Rusty Olson. The prsHminaty Infarm a tion indicalBs that all propo^ lots have at least two viable five bedroom septic sites. The house sites have not been identified. The property line setbacks are being measured from (he adsorption width not from the edge of the system. If there are any further questions please let me know. V. the packet, and because I, applicant should be eeting. e septic testing d that the sites as (attached. 5; ■■ifev-v-v .,■; ■■■■ • ■ ■ ■ . •; '■ . ^ V. •• •• : •’ 1 '■} ' a;- »•=. ■'•.E •: "•••V . i- , .51 MEMORANDUM T«! MHu GalDvB Fk«n: Stove Bohl Dele: October 12,2005 Re: MecKfaiMa HW PrepemI, PieUHfauuyPhtAppIkaMoe (Revised) RevtoieM: Nevenber 18,2005 CeaservalieB aad Rarel Oasis: We submitted and reviewed wWi the Chy Council the pr(qx>sed clustering and received tovoiabler We ttien met widi Adam at Dahlgren Shardlow and Uban and subsequent meetings with Doug Mensing at Applied Eccdogical Services. Adam thought that the clustering of the sites was a good alternative to the original plan and thought that the revisions were already a responsible approach to the development. Doug has inspected the property and described some of the conditions, reviewed some of the thoughts we had in die meeting widi Adam, and was able to offer smne recommendations. I have attached a copy of field notes that Doug took during his walk through the site. Tiie idea of using a more ‘*lineai^ storm water pond within the existing wedand appears to be a good solutioiL Mitigafion could occur on the upland areas adjacent to the wedand and an overall improved wetland iqilaoement could be utUized. Cunendy, the portion of the wedand proposed for storm water and mitigation have mostly non-native wetland species and could be inqmved with appropriate plantings and inanagemenL This proposal allows us to keep a grove of lemnant *1iig wood s” where we had pievi^ly shown the storm water pond. Additionally, we would not have to intrude into die forested area excqit for the road and allow us to better maintain the **rural oasis” view buflbr. Doug recommends that the removal of the buckthorn and otho’ non-native vegetation be removed fiom the woods where the rood goes through. There is also the opportunity to rsvegetale the slope in the outlet Mid introduce native species back into the upifliwt «nH wetland. Se ptic SHas: The revised plans show the tested locations for the septic sites. The septic plans have been submitted for your review. I understand that you may not have had time to review 1 h'^- *»■,APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. 21938 MUSHTOWN ROAD. PRIOR LAKE. UN 55372 PHONE: (952)447-1919 FAX: (952)447-1920 •mail: lnfoQapplltd9eo.com BringbglhaaolancaofacologyloaElanduaadaoUona November 18.2005 Mr. Steve Bohl BohLsnd Development, Inc. 1844 Wayzata Boulevard P.O.BOX813 Long Lake, MinoeMta 55356 RE: MacKinnon Hill (05>0929) - Preliminary Conservation Design Recommendations Dear Steve, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. (AES) is pleased to provide you with our preliminaiy conservation deaign leconunendations for the I^Kiiuon Hill site. We spplaud your interest to increase the conservation values achieved at diis devel M -M I Inirodnctlen Applied Ecological Services. Inc. (AES) was retained by BohLand Development to provide preliminary conservation design reconun endatio os for the MacKinnon Hill site located in Orono, Minnesota. Bo hl and Deydopmeid has met separate^ with Dahlgren Shatdlow A Uban to discuss other t«inie« associated with Orono's Rural Oasis program (e.g., viewsheds and corridor character) as it relates to the proposed MacKinnon Hill site. The she is appraximaiely 16.7 acres. Work completed by AES for this project includro gathering and reviewing existing eoologkal data, conducting a site review, and meeting with BohLand Development to discuss general ecotogicaloonoervatian and stormwater management recommendatioos. A brief summary of our findings and recommendatiooe as they relate to the proposed MacKinnon HiU project is provided below. 9HV VHNUJIipi In 2003, the Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources did an analysis of the seveo^ountymmropolHan area in order to idemifyragiaoally significant ecoio^ resources. These typically oonaiat of higher qual<*- "tive plant comnuinities and larger assemblages of natural Imbitat, and folate ranked as low, medium, or nigh quality. The northeastern portion of the MacKinnon Hill ate is cot itained in an area identified as a medium-quality, s^ionally rignificant ecological rmource. This area toii»:i>ises lof5 11 ? ', extends off site to die noctheast, and consists of a manh, and other natural areas. uc of u|dand forests, black ash swamps, cattail On November 17,2005, an AES ecologist walked the site, viewing the majority of the property under li^ snow cover. The site's uplands generally consist of loam and clay loam a^ contain old fields and deciduous forest A flow-through wetland traverses the southern and eastern portions of the site. These wetland areas consist of silty clay loam and loam soils. Surftce wsler enters the site via a ditch in the southwest comer, and then traverses the southern portion of the site and exits into a nursh located in the northeast portion of the site. Plant communities observed on the site include; Old Field • The site's old field contains a mixture of agronomic grasses and weeds, including smooth bnune, Kentucky bluegrass, Canada goldenrod, orchard grass, and reed canary grass. Scattered trees (e.g., green ash, sugar maple, silver maple, catalpa, and American elm) exist in the northwest and other portions of the old fields. This is not considered a native plant community. Deciduous Forest - Hie majority of the site's forests consist of relatively young volunteer trees (green ash, American elm, boxelder) with scattered mature trees (mostly green ash). One majestic bur oak (approximately 36" diameter at breast height, or dbh) was observ^ in the northeast portion of the site, and some younger bur oaks were observed in a forest patch nearby to the west The forest ahruL Iqrer, which was generally sparse but occasionally dense, was dominated by invasive common buckthoriL The forest groundlayer appeared quite sparse as well, and young buckthorn seedlings and invasive garlic mustard were observed. These forests are coiuidered altered luMive forests, and would receive a natural community ranking of poor. Two patches of Maple-Basswood Forest were observed in the northeast portion of the site. These areas contained some moderate f .«d (e.g., 20" dbh) basswood trees, and the sapling-shrub layer contained young basswood trees, ironwood trees, common buckthorn, and gooseberry. The groundlayer appeared generally sparse. This native plant community would receive a natural community nmking of poor, but it does represent the highest quality native plant community on the site. UnmiiiMted WatUnH. xhe flow-tfarough wetland receives water via an off-site ditch. This draiiuigeway flows through what armeared to be a dug chatuiei along the southern edge of a stand ofdeciduoua fimst, just north of the large reed canary grass wetland located in the southern portfamofthesHe. A patch ofdogbane and scattered sandbar willow shrubs were observed in this southern portioa of the wettand. The wetland and its associated drainageway continue downslope to the no itheaet where the drainageway flows into a reed canary grass opening containing scattered Mack willow trees and one weeping willow tree. In this area, the wetland edge was observed to contain aome native wetland planU (e.g., bugleweed, green buhuali, and asters). Further downstream, the wetland flows through a degraded lowl^ forest, and then disch^es into a cattail marsh in die northeast portkm of the site. Due to the dominance of reed canary grass inthesoutheropoitionofthe wetland, this area is not considered a native plant community. The wetland in the northeast portion of the site has a reed canary grass edge, but then becomes a cattail irumrii. Baaed on a visual assessment from a distance, this northmt wetland would likely receive a natural community ranking of poor. PreHnsInary C athw Deelin RecommcndatiMis On November 15,2005, ABS met with BohLand Development and reviewed the proposed development plan for the MacKinnon HiO site (dated 10-1005). We understand there is little flexibility in the genoal layout ofthe new road and residential lots;thaef^,ourrecomnienctatioasaienadeintec(mlextoftlat OSOWillliOS 2ofS MKKioMmltUI m 1 I 1 \ In general, the she's natural resources have been degraded due to past land uses. Howevn ’, opportunities exist to increase die aesthetic and cmservation valiKS associated with this developmenL Th^ opportunities and associated recommendations are provided below. For^ Preservation - While the quality of the onsite forests is not high, they still have value as wooded habitat (especially the remnant stands of MapleoBasswood Forest) and they provide visual screening. The site plan illustrates home placement generally in the old field areas (but outside of the primary viewshed Am Watertown Rood). The plan shows the loss of some forest due to road construction, lot grading, utility installation, and stormwater pond constructim; however, the two stands of Maple-Basswood Forest would be preserved. This is important given that thew are the highest quality native plant communities on the site, and they are located in the northeast portion of the site, identified as part of a medium-quality, regionally significant ecological resource. Rroommendations for additional forest preservation include: • Place the stormwater management pond along the western edge of the southern wetland area. This would sig nifi can tly reduce the loss of forest resulting from pond construction and stormwater ptye installation. Mitigatioo for this recommended wetland alteration is discussed under the Wedand sectiona below. • Pull homesites and lot grading out of the site forests to the extent possible to preserve more contiguous fbrest cover. Plant trees around these new homes and adjacent to the existing forest to create wooded lots over time. Minimize site grading by working widi existing site contours to the extent possible. This may entail custom grading of lots, rather than lot-wide grading. Forest Enhancement - Due to the poor quality of the existing forests, there are opportunities to improve the ecological health of preserved forest areas and enhance their aesthetics for site residents and the surrounding community. Our recommendations for fbrest enhancement include: • Remove all ixm-native woody vegetatkw (e.g., mostly common buckthorn). This should be done in a manner sensitive to the forest (e.g., use band tools rather than mechanized equipment; perfbrm cutting during frozen conditions to protect site soils; do any follow-up foliar spray in a manner that protects native plants, etc). • Remove all non-native or invasive herbaceous vegetation (e.g., reed canary grass, garlic mustard) • Rqdaoe cut buckthorn areas with appropriate, local ecotype native vegetation. This may include upland ahtubs (e.g., wild plum), wetland edge shrubs (e.g., red-twig dogwood), and native grasses a^ wildflowers. • Plant appropriate, local ecotype native trera, shrubs, grasses, and wildflcwers to restore native Maple-Basswood Forest in strategic locations. This can be done to envelop newly graded lots (to create a wooded lot over time), provide additional visual screening, or expand the preserved fbrests, making larger blocks of contiguous canopy cover. The gr eatest ecological benefit from this fbrest restoration would be in the northeast portion of the site, to expand the medium-quality, regiorially significant ecological raource identified there. Wetland Prraervation - While the quality of the on-site wetland is not high, it still has value and performs important ecol^cal services (e.g., infiltration, evapotranspiratioii, filtration, floodwater storage, etc.). Based on the site plan, some wetland alteration would occur in order to construct a stormwater pond. Recommendations fbr wetland preservation iiKlude: • Aa mentioned previously, place the stormwater management ponl along die western edge of the southon wetland area. This would avoid impacts to the slightly more diverse portions of the ♦ Provide opportunities fbr stormwater inliltratioo(roofrunofr, driveway lunofr, etc.) to reduce the size of the stormwater pond (which will minimize wetland aheratioo). MOfSSii lisas 3ofS MadCnnon llitl WatUnd Replacement and Enhincement - It is anticipated that wetland alteration (i.e., grading for the stormwater pond) will require on-site replacement Due to the poor quality of the existing wetland (especially the western portion), there are opportunities to provide a net improvement in the ecological health of this habitat and enhance its aesthetics. Thesouthmportionofthesite wetland is situated just north of Watertown Road. Enhancing this location would provide an attractive amenity for the development to be enjoyed by both residents and passers-by. Our recommendations for wetland replaconent and enhancement include: • Provide wetland replacement in the old field areajusteart and/or north ofthe existing stand of blackwillows. Th^ already low-lying areas are adjacent to the existing wetland and could be converted to wetland with minimal grading. The wetland replacement design could allow fmr relativdy flat slopes to provide gradual transition zones for a variety of vretland and upiand plants. Replacernent wetland areas should be seeded and planted with appropriate, lo^ ecotype rutive vegetation (e.g., fox sedge, river bulrush, marsh milkweed, golden Alexanders, New England aster, wool grass, iris). Care will need to be taken to prevent invasion of reed canary grass into the rqilacement area. • Remove all non-native vegetation (e.g., mostly reed canary grass). This should be done using appropriate metbods (e.g., using an aquatic-approved berbicide, such as Rodeo). • Seed and/or plant areas where teed canary grass was removed with appropriate, local ecotype native v^etation. Vegetated Buffer * Vegetated buffets can provide many ecological and aesthetic benefits including stomiwnter management, wildlife habitat, and visual screening. Generally, the wider the buffer, dw greater the benefits. Buffers ate particularly important around wetlands for water quality protection. Vegetated buffers should be established by removing non-native or invuive plant qiecies and re-planting with appropriate, local ecotype perennial native qtecies. Selecting the appropriate species depend on the soil, moisture r^ime, smount of sunlight, adjacent vegetation, and aesthetic desires. Stormwate r MiMpemewt. Bcologicaily sound stormwater management is important to protect the existing on-tdte wethmd as well as downstream receiving watan, including Stubbs Bay of Lake Minnetonka. Protection of aquatic resources often requires techniques beyond or in place of standard curb and gutter collection syteems and stormwater poods. The profNMed plan provida for the new roadway and atetmwater pqies to convey runoff into a treatment p^ partially located in the willow stand ofthe existing wetland. Reooituneodations fin stormwater maruigenient include: • Minimize impervious surfaces throu^XNtt foe development This can be accomplished by usitig narrower streets and limiting roof, driveway, and othCT hard surface areas on individual lots. • Employ rain gardens or other types of infU^onsysterm where appropriate. This requires a source of water and slopes that allow fin gravity flow of runoff into mana^ment areas. Management areas preferably have upland soils whh higher infiltration rates. These types of soils exist on the site. Rain gatdeiu can be located and designed to intercept and manage runoff fiom individual lots, reducing the capacity required by other stormwater marugrtnent areas on the site. This approach can result in not only a smaller pond, but more effective and mote natural stormwater managonent, which can greatly benefit aquatic resources both on site and downstream. • EataMifo permanent native vegetation in foe proposed rear-lot swales. While grassed swales provide conveyance of runoff, native vegetation in these swales would also provide greater opportunity for runoff infihration, reducing the amount of water that may rrach the stormwater pond. • As mentioned previously, place the stormwater management pond along foe western edge ofthe southern wetland area. This would reduce forest irtgracts as well as avoid impacts to the slightly more diverse portkms of the wetland. te«29:iilHS 4ofS KhcKiimHtl WFl.—« WVMTM ■<».dS 6? r • It nMy be beaefieiallodMifB the Monnwaleriniiiageaieottyiiem such that the existing dndnegewty (originBting off she) does not flow into the proposed stonnwtter management pood This sepietiop would likely fiKilitate treatment of the iite% stonnwater in the pond, from which traMed overfkyw would then enter the drtmigewsy. Ptutinmtemi 9mttiwmHnn A Mufamant Bmgrtp. Preserved snd lestored naturel aieu on the site should be enhenoed end mentgsd in s wey to enswe thet the oonesrvetkm and eestfaetic objectives ere schieved. Tbis is oomnooly done by developing a sHeepedfic Ecological Restofition A Management PiDgnun. This plan provides detailed inatnictionB on whid to do, how to do it, and whn. A Restontion Plan giapte and asso Dia led apecillcationsootlineieatoiationaooes, specific activities for each zone, modes liats and laiss for seediag and |danliag,nionitotiagfequirenienis, and ongoing management ne^ The development and implementation ofthis Ecological Restoration A Management Program ensures that the oonservatioo olgeclives and aesfiwlio vision of the pngect areiealized Thank yoe again for the opportueity to provide you with these preliminary conserva tion design weominendations. We look forward to working with BohLand Development and your landscm«r to develop a landscape plan that addevea the goals outlined above. Ifrequired, AES would also weloonw the opportunity to develop an EoologiGal Reatontioo A Management Program for the site to ensure proper eetoblidimant and maintenance offoe natural areas. Please contact me at (932)447-1919 when you an roaily to peoceed. Sinoetely, Applied Ecological Services, Inc. Douglas M. Mensing, MS, PWS SaniM Ecologist '■ .-r. 'V-1 f V = r i :' . i - n•dkiii *. - *i pw" ■k.: . X . 'iiiifii I illiltoih r • y ! 1 / /ill11M M:d' M. >1 T.1*^ ’LJI^S'MfWtWi^■WM'^4-M ' y Ak I'f '' ^ ff *vfl^kx >i ^01 *»3i \\\ A ■ \ y\ •, m *■ ^’ds r^, '; I ^'T' - i * V ^ ^ '■V" ___ IliC'C ■^■; ; "- 'n^T' ■‘•^"'<^fAA' ETimmm Bm 'i.ix, "■/A iK ■1^. . <4 .*»r*4teS;^•S-- r< s ^ - i/ ' It; '■> ' " .,,y - W . -i / ^ I f Vi-r / . ’'/'Kt = / i( 'y^. / X. '' “j y /fel ,4irA'. ^’V/ ?" / ■ ' .' 'i’^TrF, :u i/- P I % n y WkEH ■-' \ •f mi'Af I V t It iiii«r 1- ^ .. ^ji /" or ' '«£SjcSl !ii,: k j» /a] T].‘ ^ . •i^, "* • «• {“♦.^ * y '.'• ^ ' L I M —'3'^-r ^"V ,v ■ "W^ii-^i • 'A-iil^' Wa^'^' ‘JB >T^" ' r K ■ ':w»\- " 'u 3^»L« f" ' * Pf L- i r 25X I CD m Gr Date Application Received: 8-17-05 Date Application Considered as Complete: (Incomplete as of 9-15-05) (Incomplete as of 10-13-0^ (Incomplete as of 11-16-05) 120-Day Review Period Eipircs: NA To;Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Sobjcct: Mike GafTron, Planning Director November 16,2005 #05-3152 Bohland Development, Inc. - Proposed Subdivision for New Lots - “3500” Watertown Road - Preliminary Plat REVISED CONCEPT PLAN - STATUS UPDATE Property Area:14.28 Ac. Dry 2.43 Ac. Wetland 16.71 Ac. Total Zoning District:RR-IB, 2.0-acre Single Family Rural Residential (2.0 ac. min., 200’ width min., unsewered) Application Summary: Applicant proposes to subdivide this 17-acre parcel to create 6 single- family residential lots. Under the revised plan, all six lots would be served by a new private road extending 700* northward from Watertown Road. All lots would be served by private septic systems and wells. The revised plan eliminates the SE building site near Watertown Road, and places all six homesites in the NW quadrant of the property, on lots ranging from 1.35 acres to 2.56 acres in dry buildable area. TTiis proposal would be reviewed as a Planned Residential Development. NOTE: This a^Uctuitm rtntains iitcouipiete due to lack of septic testing and design reports, as noted to the ap/dicant on August 24,2005. However, it is being brought forward to update Planning Comn^sion on the progress to date regarding oondina options and compliance with Orono*s ^Conservation Design * goals. List of ExhibHi A - Revised Preliminary Plat and Grading Plan Drawings (revised septic sites) B - Draft PC Minutes of 10/17/05 C - PC Action Notice of 10/19/05 D • Council Minutes of 10/24/05 E - Council Action Notice of 10/25/05 F - Moorse Memo to CouncillO/21/05 G - Staff Memo and Selected Exhibits of 10/19/05 n #0S-31S2 November 16,200S Pege2 Council Conceptual Review 10/24/D5 Please review the attached Council minutes of October 24. This item was forwarded to Council for consideration of the clustering concept with substandard lot sizes via the PRD process, and applicability of Conservation Design, llie three Councilmembers present indicated a general support for the concept, but cautioned themselves to be very thorough in tlie review process. They advised the applicant to meet with DSU regarding conservation design and how the Rural Oasis Study addresses this site. No formal action was taken. On October 26 staff met with the City ’s wetland consultant, John Smyth, to review the potential wetland impacts of the proposed stormwater pond design that incorporates pail of the wetland, as well as to consider the pro’s and con’s of a linear pond that would potentially reduce the amount of tree removal uphill from the wetland. Smyth’s comments are expected to be available for the November 21 meeting. Meeting with Adam Arvidson of DSU 11/7/05 An>licant and staff met with Adam Arvidson, landscape architect with DSU, on November 7 to review the Rural Oasis study and its applicability to this site. Arvidson indicated that the current layout has addressed the major concerns for preservation of the long views and wooded bMkdrop, and he suggested tliat applicant engage an ecologist to suggest a preservation and augmentation plan for the site. Applicant has since contacted Applied Ecological Services (AES) and is expecting to have their comments available for the November 21 meeting. Revised Septic Sites The most recent plan revisions, attached as Exhibit A, reflect relocated septic mound sites. As of this writing, applicant has not submitted septic reports for staff review; the acceptability of those sites remains to be reviewed by City staff. Stormwater Pond Applicant is currently attempting to gain confirmation of MCWD acceptance of stormwater ponding located partially within the wetland. He is also exploring the idea of a linear pond, paralleling the creek bed, which could potentially reduce the degree of tree removals needed. Qaesttoos Rcauiining Unanswered 1.What are the recommendations of AES and Smyth with regards to ponding options? Will MCWD accept ponding options that encroach into the wetland? 2.Are the proposed lot sizes and vridths acceptable in terms of a PRD proposal? If septic system sites are confirmed to be viable, is Planning Commission comfortable with the site layout? Does PC have any recommendation regarding development limitations to be addreued in covenants? • V.; iii^ 7?^m ' ^ ’ ** T3 9 M54152 Novcabcr 1C, 200S Pl|c3 3. Is Planning Commission satisfied that the layout address the City ’s Conservation Design goals? ■^v Are there aq)ects of the plan that need further refinement? Staff Rccommeadation Staff recommends tabling this i^)plication pending receipt and review of septic information. In addition to reviewing the four open questions noted above, PC should provide applicant with direction regarding any issues that may be identified as requiring further consideration. ■ ? _ 2t7JI0 I I MACKINNON HILL PRELimNARY PLAT FOR BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT OF OUTLOT A KINTYRE, AMO IN THE SW1/4 OFTHE SE1/4 OF SEC. 32-110.23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA POSSHLE HOUSE srrt OWNER MHCSOJMCMNNON *S*MBnM8tTRECr WKaATA,MNMHt TOTM. DNY/WM-MJS«.1S«n 200 SCALE IN FEET •»v: v i / \ \^34^ ~c." “ —I—4- \ ' IV '\ « \ I I _, \~ M / I I ■— -V —- -— *® > ^ ^2 /r\ / J\ab*7t«»sef / I / r^i I J/jtlI // I V TTYT g|- V m!_ia*fca<—1.1 f I I t ! I I / f I // // ^ //^y''' ^' / / ’ / I ' ^ / '1-A /i i''/—S- !' / / // .. 2.2/l«-ACRESVrOTAL 2J«4-ACRp8l^?<V\ 2.21*-lAckks I'Miy,*?;",!.,.;, 'X/ / / / I f '7 “^ / /i / ' / X- wC-T— -> \ / / / ^-T L 4rr llMlj/y/ m.Wi / _ l ITL_ •imicnMB MNLPfltE iWA^ru ou / / « A C<i9i •I N WikHL \ t / k Am Z s1i ^ (O < 0 2 2 <05 “038 9*1QCB S liJZc CQgi o 5 « u 3 O / , sartr JT « moo N B l(\ \ N HH ' / _ / ___y/ _ y ___/ MOOWATERTCWNROAO \------- i I i s 3.. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, October 17,2005 6:00 o’clock p.ai. fi *• ♦ . 3. WS-3152 BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF JAMES D. MACKINNON, ET AL^ “3500”, 6:50 P.M. - 7:17 P.M. Marie Oronberg, Surveyor, was present. Oaffion stated the Planning Commission has reviewed this application previously. Gafiron noted that Staff has not received final septic testing and design reports on this application so it does not qualify as a complete preliminary plat application. Gaflror indicated the Planning Commission at the last meeting had direct the applicant to explore clustering or eliminate the necessity of building a house down in the soudieast comer of the property. Gafiron stated the applicant is still proposing six lots but instead has created a large outlot near Watertown Road, with all lots accessing a private road. Gaffron noted the lots have been reduced below the 2.0 acre area/200 feet width standards of the RR-IB District. However, the overall dry buildable area of 14.3 acres would calculate to a proposed density of 2.38 acres per unit. Gaf&on stated one positive revision is the possibility of tucking the house on Lot 3, Block 2, into the northwest comer, which reduces the need to do a substantial ar*'junt of grading. The applicant is also proposing to locate the stormwater pond partially within the existing delineated ^and and will require special City and MCWD approvals to allow this location. Staff has preliminarily indicated support for this concept, based on the limitations of the site for other efficient ponding locations. Wetland mitigation might be feasible at the southeast portion of Outlot B to make this plan more ac ;eptabie. Gafiron noted there is an existing drainageway through the site that may need to be relocated. Gaffion recommended the following issues be considered; 1. Is the PFD concept acceptable for this site? 2. Are the proposed lot sizes and widths acceptable in terms of a PRD proposal? 3. Does the layout address the City's Conservation Design goals? Are there aspects of the plan that need further refinementV I OafBxm stated this application was published for a public hearing as the developer intended to move forward; however, because the application remains incomplete, the Planning Commission should review the proposed PRD plat, identify for the developer what issues are most critical to focus on, and receive public comments regarding the revised subdivision proposal. I Staff would recommend that if Planning Commission is comfortable with toe prqmsed concept, the current proposal be forwarded to Council for review of whether Council will support the PRD concept at dus site. If so, then the applicant would be back before the Planning Commission in November for ilete review of preliminary plat documents.•)MI* Rahn stated in his opinion the revised plan is a major improvemnit over the last plan. PAGES MINirrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moiday, October 17,2005 6:00 o’clock p.HL (M5-3I52 BoUaod Dcvdopmeot, Coatiaacd) Gronberg stated diey are exploring relocating the pond a little further southwest to avoid the trees. Gronberg stated five of the six lots have been test^ for septic and those have passed. Gronberg stated it is his opinion diat Lot 6 would also be approved for septic. Gronberg indicated they are looking at relocating the sqrtic sites further to the west on Lots 1 and 2, which would leave more room behind the house to aoctnniuodate abackyard. Kempf stated in his (pinion the revised plan is environmentally conscious and that he is pleased with the revisions dius far. Kempf concurred that there should be covenants documenting the lunitations of the lots. Hahn noted die Park Commission would be reviewing diis qiplication as well. Rahn asked for public comments regarding diis application. Gary Demele, 3400 Watertown Road, indicates be lives to the southeast and that the revised plans are a vast inqiirovement from the original applicaticm. Demele stated most of the elements have been addressed. Demele indicated he does ^ve a concern regarding the NURP pond. Gronberg stated in his opinion that NURP pond could be moved slightly. Demele conourred that the pond should be relocated slightly. Demele stated the woods create the backdrop for this development and serves two functions. Demele stated the woods create a backdrop to the development and provides preliminary screening to the houses and that he would not be opposed to the smaller lots in an effort to preserve more trees. Demele stated it appears likely that Lot 3 would be a three-stoiy walkout, and inquired whether there is a design review process that would be g<me dirou^ pricn: to constructior Demele stated that house would be quite visible from their,property. Rahn stated die City does have height restrictions but dr «s not have a design review committee. Leslie stated City codes would allow vdiat visually would appear as a three-story house to be constructed on Lot 3. Gaffron stated the other lots could also have two stoiies plus a basement or two and a half stories above the basement Gaffron stated the height of a residence is measured from the average of the highest gable and.that the houses will look high to Demele based on the topography of this site. Gronberg inquired vdiether screening along the west lot line would be acceptable. Demele stated it would be, but diat their house is also high up and that sheening across Outlot B would be nice. PAGE 9 i ^ i ' i »i ! MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Momlay, October 17,2005 6:00 o’clock p m. (005-3152 Bohlaod Devdopment, Coatinacd) Oronberg stated they wtmld attempt to preserve as many trees as possible. Gronberg stated if the road were moved, it would likely result in the removal of even more trees. There were no further public comments. J^ritzler inquired bow diis development diflers from Luce Line Ridge. Oaffron stated in that development the lots were approximately three acres in a five-acre zone. Gaffron indicated at diat time diere tvas no attempt to do any buffering of the views. Gaffron stated if the house lots could be moved up furdier, diat might be another option to help reduce the visual impact of the development. Oronberg stated in his opinion the lots might be getting too small to construct a reasonably sized house and that he would prefer the lot sizes not be reduced any further. Leslie indicated he would be inclined to keep the 30-foot setback. Leslie inquired whether Lot 3 has any covenants or restrictions on clearing the trees behind that house. Oronberg stated in his opinion there should be a covenant or a conservation easement for Lot 3 to prevent cutting of ttioae trees. Kempf stated the clustering idea is a rather gray area, but when you weigh the view versus the amount of room, the developer should avoid the feeling of the bouses being crowded. Rahn concurred that the setback should be kept at 30 feet. Bremer stated ttw property owners would not need to build up to their sefr>ack. Bremer stated she personally likes die idea of pushing the lots up a little bit and that she would like to see the trees <m Lot 3 remain. Leslie inquired whether the cul-de-sac could be located more at the intersection of Lots 1 and 2 and whedier diat would help push the lots up further. Oronberg indicated diat is just a tenqiorary cul-de-sac. Rahn concurred the Council should review this qiplicadon to see whether they would be agreeable to this type of clustering concept Leslie stated he would like to see the Council support this application since it helps to preserve the rural ouis feel and still provide sufficient lot sizes. Oronberg sbited in Us view the development will not be very visible from Watertown Road. PAGE 10 II k // MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17,2005 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#05*3152 Bohland Development, Continned) Oaffron recommended the Planning Commission make a motion requesting that the Council review this Opplication conceptually for PRD and clustering concept. Rahn moved, Kempf seconded, to table Application #05-3152, BoUand Development on behalf of James D. Mackinnon, et al, *‘3500” Watertown Road, to allow for council review of the plan to determine If It meets the standards of the Rnral Oasis Plan. VOTE: Ayes5,NaysO. NEW BUSINESS 4. #05-3142 CHRISTOPHER AND EMILY CHAPMAN, 3775 BAYSIDE ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:18 PJM. - 7:39 P.M. Emily Chapman, Applicant, was present. Oundlach stated the applicant is requesting two variances in order to construct a 12* by 12’ shed on the property east of the existing garage. A hardcover variance is being requested to permit hardcover within the 0-250* zone of 30 percent where 0 percent hardcover in the 0-75* zone and 25 percent in the 75*-2S0' zone are normally required and 30 percent in the 0-250* zone was proved by variance in June of 2004. In addition, the applicant is also requesting a street/rear yard setback variance to pennit the proposed shed to be located 21 feet from the property line where 50 feet is nonnaliy required and the existing home was pennitted to be set back 21 feet from the property line by variance. Gundlach noted the property had received variances for the required street (rear) yard setba.k, lake sedwek, and hardcover in June of2004. The property is uniqve in that its area is quite large due to the length of shoreline; however, is very shallow where ^ required street or rear yard setback overlaps with the required 75-foot lake settock. At the time the 2004 variances were approved, the applicant, whe was the builder and not the cunent owner, requested to rebuild on the existing footprint, which was approved as no compliant buildable area existed on the property. ' The applicant had indicated that they would like to remove non-structiiral hardcover, like the sidewalk and driveway, in an effort to obtain approval of the construction of a shed to store lawn equipment and other items. While no elevation views of the proposed shed have been submitted, the applicants have indicated the shed will be constructed of materials consistent with the architectural style of the home. The applicants have proposed to remove 147.5 square feet of non-structural hardcover in order to oe permitted a shed. This would result in a net decrease in the hardcover of approximately 3.5 square feet. Staff finds that the property is unique due to the overlapping street and lake setback requirements with the additional wetland restrictions. Those hardships are documented in Resolution 5198 approved in 2004. The proposal meets the intent of the code, being that no increase in hardcover is proposed, the shed is not located closer to the street than the existing house, the lake setback is met, as well as wetland and side PAGE 11 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kdicy Parkway P.O. box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #05-3152 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; October 19,2005 TO: Bohland Development, Inc. 1844 Wayzata Blvd. P.Q. Box 815 Ung Lake. MN 55356 COPIES: James MacKinnon 2430 Meeting Street Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Preliminary Plat - residential Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: October 17,2005 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Planning C''*nmission reviewed the revised proposal, and voted to table the application because it was incomplete, but recommended that it be brought to Council as soon as possible as a Sketch Plan review for Council consideration of the PRD/clustering concept. Planning Commission also made the following suggestions: - Consider narrowing the eastrly three lots to result in less impact to the central woodland area southeast of the house on Lot 3, Block 2 - Per the suggestion of the neighbor to the east, consider moving the stormwater pond slightly west to preserve more trees at the base of the slope VOTE (to table): 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Connell - Monday, October 24.2005 - meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and ^qnoval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Oaffion at 952-249-4600. 9 T > . I'* MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday October 24,2005 7:00 o’clock p.ni. White moved Actliig Mayor Sansevere seconded, denying the rear yard s^ck and hardcover variance requesto for the residence located at 1860 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PRD PLAT Acting Mayor Sansevere asked the applicant whether he wished to table the application until more .. members of the Council were present to hear his application. Bohland stated that he would prefer to be given comments or have a dialogue with the present members at this time. systems and wells serving the 6 lots all located in the NW quadrant of the property. f ‘ •. Although the application is incomplete due to the lack of septic testing and desi^ r^rts. Gaflron indicat^ that it was brought forward in order to identify significant issues which the applicant must address, and to gain Council insight whether the PRD ‘clustering ’ concept should move forward. Gaf&on pointed out that a major difficulty in rural clustering is the need to identi^ individual septic systems; therefore, it is imperative that individual lots have adequate area for Drimary and alternate septic sites. Furthermore, Gaffircn noted that wiiere the lot siMS are siMll M to limit the ability for amenities such as pools, tennis or sport courts, etc. it would be prudent to establish covenants as part of the subdivision process. Oaffron presented several issues for consideration, including, whether or not the t^uncil supports die ooncrat of a PRD development for this site, on the basis that the PRD would allow development of substandard lot sizes in the rjral zone; does die Council support creation of substandard, unsewered lots in the rural zone to accomplish the intent of Cons^ation Design m meeting die City’s ‘Rural Oasis’ goals for this property; and thoughts regarding limitations on future development. Muruhv stated that he was unsure how he felt about giving up other things in order to meet the conservation design elements as presented here. He questioned why the lots were laid out as virtual squares on this interesting topographical site. Bohland stated that he was driven to lay out the lots in this formation due to access though character of each lot will be realized as development begins and the topography is taken into account as each home is placed on its specific lot. He noted that this is a beautiful piece of land and the actual designs will vary from the simple sketch plan seen here. It is because this is such a beautiful piece of land that Murphy emphasized the need to be extraordinarily careful in moving or grading the site and losing its true character. PAGE 4 of 13 aiil >M MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 24,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. Bohlind pointed out that in his previous development, Providence by the Lake, he was recognized and awarded for his ability to work 'vith and preserve the character of the land and create a beautiful development site. He noted that although the first 200* will require excavation to enter the site, it was not his intent to excavate the character out of the site and any grading for the homesites would not occur until later. He pointed out that the stormwater pond location could go in outlot B or to the east of that Murphy pointed out dut this is one of the first opportunities the city has had at taking a first pass at incorporating the rural oasis study into a development and urged the Council to be thorough. He suggested that the applicant meet with Shardlow, the City’s consultant, to review the plan and comment. Gtffron reminded the Council that there are no Ordinances developed yet that incorporate or inqilement all of the rural oasis study language; therefore, he agreed tlut it would be beneficial to meet widi and discuss the plan with Shardlow, especially, to ensure that the septic layouts will work in this scenario. Bohland commended the Planning Commission for moving this development towards the goals of the rural oasis study. Oaffiron reiterated die need to ensure that the smaller densely clustered lots are adequately sewered and pointed out to the Council diat other concessions might have to be made to preserve the significance of diis parcel. Acting Mayor Sansevere asked the applicant whether he was open to covenants and if he wished to table at diis time. Elohland stated that he would accept covenants, as he had in bis previous development, and that he would table at this time. White conqilimented the developer on his willingness to cooperate widi the City and preserve these view sheds. Gaffron asked what the neighbors view sheds will be an» whether thought should be given to these. Bohland stated that he had been in contact with the neighbors to the north and that they had not voiced any concerns. He acknowledged a willingness to meet with Shardlow and asked for a timeline. Gaffion stated that a meeting could be set up with Shardlow prior to the November Planning Commission meeting in order to give Bohland time to put together a preliminary plat. No action was taken. PAGE 5 of 13 Nbs £-' CITY OF ORONO 2750 KcU^ Parkway P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING nLE: #05-3152 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 25,2005 TO: Bohland Development, Inc. 1844 WayzataBlvd. P.O. Box 815 Ung Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: James MacKinnon 2430 Meeting Street Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Preliminary Plat - Reside;.UaI Subdivision - Sketch Plan DATE OF MEETING: October 24,2005 Council made the following suggsations: Applicant should meet with staff and the City’s ‘Rural Oasis’ consultants to discuss revisions to preliminary plat, with the goal of having a revised plan to be reviewed by Planning Commission on Nov. 21. VOTE (ho action required): - FOR - AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Meetlag with italT and consult.«nt8 - staff will be setting up a meeting with DSU ct al for sometime during the week of October 31 if possible —please advise of any potential conflicts. Planning Commission - Monday, November 21.2005 - meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. If 3^u desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, th^ are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Council. If you have questions, please call Planning Directtnr Mike Oaffron at 952-249-4600. ^ t ■T' ^ ■■■■. ■ .. »v? . 1 Page 1 ot 1 » 4 I F MlktOaffron PnNn: Ron Moocm Smit: Friday. October 21.20051:29 PM To: ‘Barb PetarBon'; Lili Tod McMillan; 'Jim Murphy*; Jim White; 'bob sansevere' Ce: Mke Gafliron Sub|aet: Bohland Development Sketch Plan Review and Rural Oasis Goals The Council agenda for Monday includes a sketch plan review of the development proposal for six lots on 16 acres (14 acres dry) at 3500 Watertown Road. The main element of the sketch plan review is the concept of a PRD, throi^ which the lots would be clustered on one portion of the property to enable the preservation of a signiflcant rural view. While a key to the sketch plan review is the Council ’s general reaction to the PRO/clustering concept, another key is the Council ’s expectations regarding the development proposal meeting rural oasis/conservation design goals. If the Council indicates to the developer that it is willing to consider a PRD, it is important that the council also be clear about its expectations regarding the rural oasis goals. Some key items for the council to consider in relation to its eiqiectations regarding the rural oasis goals are as follows: -Preserve the long view across the property —Height of homes vs, height of existing trees (i.e. rooftops cannot be visible above the existing trees) —This may require innovative lot layout and home design -Maximize tree preservation, both short term and long term -Minimize grading -Design the development to fit tiis land, ncher than vice-versa, -preserve and enhance the current natural drainage pattern -Minimize impact on neighboring properties —Provide substantial vegetative screening where the clustered homes would be adjacent to existing ■i i- ■ ;v:.- •fM.-- - ■'** • 11 % •» 0 Date Application Received: 8>17-0S Date Application Considered as Complete: (Incomplete as of 9-lS-OS) 120-Day Review Period Expires: NA REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION I, Date: October 19,2005 Item No.: -j Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gsffron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #05-3152 Bohland Development, Inc. - “3500” Watertown Road SKETCH PLAN: Preliminary PRD Plat - Proposed “Cluster” Subdivision for New Lot.s Zoning District:RR-IB, 2.0-acre Single Family Rural Residential (2.0 ac. min., 200’ width min., unsewered) Property Area:14.28 Ac. Dry 2.43 Ac. Wetland 16.71 Ac. Total Application Summary: Applicant proposes to subdivide this 17-acre vacant parcel to create 6 single-family rural residential lots. An initial plan was reviewed by Planning Commission in September as a Sketch Plan, and applicant was advised to consider a ‘clustering’ concept to allow for preservation of views in accordance with the Rural Oasis Study results and in line with the elements of Conservation Design. A revised plan was reviewed by Planning Commission on October 17. All six lots would be served by a new private road extending 700’ northward from Watertown Road. All lots would be served by private septic systems and wells. The revised plan eliminates the SE building site previously proposed near Watertown Road, and places all six homesites in the NW quadrant of the property, on lots ranging from 1.35 acres to 2.56 acres in dry buildable area. This revised proposal would be reviewed as a Plamied Residential Development (PRD). NOTE: This application remains incomplete due to tack of septic testing and design reports. However, it was brought forward to the Planning Commission as a Sketch Plan Review in order to identify significant issues which the applicant must address, and Council is presented with this application as a Sketch Plan Review, primarily for consideration whether this PRD ^clustering*’ concept should move forward 1 I. ^ I ■ i-M ■ a ■ ail am A' m ¥ #05-3152 October 19,2005 Page 3 A major difficulty in rural cluster development is (and always lias been) tlie need to provide for individual septic systems. Due to the steep slopes, this site is not readily conducive to a shared or community septic system, and Orono lias never promoted tlie use of such systems for a variety of reasons. Tlie nearest municipal sewer is less tlian 'A mile distant (at Leaf Street to the east and at Eileen Street to the soutliwesO but this area is not in the MUSA and the City has no expectation or intent to bring sewer to this area of Watertown Road. Therefore, it is imperative that individual building lots have adequate area for primary and alternate septic sites. Further, where the lot size is so small as to limit the ability for amenities such as pools, tennis or sport courts, accessory buildings, etc., it would be prudent that covenants be established as part of the subdivision process that will protect the septic sites. For the record, I vowed many years ago that Orono would never create another French Creek, the subdivision just west of die Mimietonka Ai t Center where lot sizes ranged from 1 acre to 1.5 acres. Preservation of septic sites was at best difficult and at worst a nightmare, due to the property owners’ expectations of large homes, patios, decks, pools, tennis courts, loop driveways, and landscaping, all of which in nearly every case resulted ui complicated site plans with less-than-optimum or compromised drainfleld sites. Issues for Consideration 1.Does Council support the concept of a PRD development for tliis site, on the basis that PRD i*- die only way the Zoning Code would allow development of substanuard let sizes in the rural zone? 2.Does Council support the creation of substandard, unsewered lots in the rural zone to accomplish the intent of Conservation Design in meeting the City’s “Rui-al Oasis” goals, for this property? - If so, does Council have any thoughts or concerns about imposing strict limitations on development of the substandard lots to avoid future septic problems? - If not, does Council support 1) pursuit of expansion of the MUSA to allow sewering of rural cluster developments that meet the “1 unit per 2 acres” density standard?; OR 2) reduction of the number of lots in order to meet those goals? COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the proposed subdivision as a sketch plan, and advise applicant whether to pursue the cluster concept as proposed, or to pursue other options. ■ ^ ■ i. #0S-31S2 October 19,2005 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Notice of PC Action, 10-19-05 B - Revised Site Plan Reviewed by PC 10-17-05 C - Original Site Plan Reviewed by PC 9-19-05 D - Memo and Exhibits of 10-13-05 Background Applicant originally proposed a 6-lot standard plat, with each proposed lot meeting the 2- acre rural zoning standards for width and area. However, certain issues with that plan quickly became apparent: - the lot proposed at the southeast comer of the property would have to hug Watertown Road, would result in a separate driveway off Watertown Road ratlier than fiom the new private road, and its 2 dry buildable acres were not contiguous but were split between area NW and SE of the wetland near the front of the property; and - the proposed lot layout had significant negative impacts on the long views from Watertown Road through the site (which were identifie.l in the Rural Oasis Study) by either blocking the open views or by removing the wooded backdrop behind those views. Planning Commission suggested that the applicant consider a “clustering ” concept whereby the long views would not be blocked by a new home, and whereby the loss of th '; wooded backdrop could oe reduced. The revised plan creates lots that are in all cases narrower than the 200’ required by the Planning Commission, and ranging in size from 1-1/3 to 2-1/2 acres. An outlet would be created in the front 1/3 of the site, preserving wetlands and woods, and accommodating the required stormwater ponding. Planning Commission suggested some additional tweaks to this plan, recommending that the 3 easterly lots be squeezed a little narrower if possible to minimize loss and encroachment of the wooded slope at the center of the property. It was also suggested by the adjoining neighbor to the east, Gary Demolay, that the proposed stormwater pond be moved slightly further westward to avoid removal of trees at the base of the slope. PRD & ‘'Clustering*' Concept Because the revised plan incorporates substandard lot sizes and creates a large outlet for conservation puiposes, this application must be reviewed as a PRD. The primary question for Council to address at this Sketch Plan stage is whether there is support for the level of lot size reduction proposed. This proposal is not really "clustering” in the classic sense; it ic relics on individual large lots with their own septic systems, wells, outbuildings, etc., radier than individual house pads grouped togeUier in a small area with the majority of the site in common open space. Date Application Received: 8-17*05 Date Application Considered as Complete: (Incomplete ns of 9-IS-05) (Incomplete as of 10-13-05) 120-Day Review Period Expires: NA To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike GafTron, Planning Director October 13,2005 #05-3152 Bohlaiid Development, Inc. - Proposed Subdivision for New Lots - “3500” Watertown Road - Preliminary Plat CONSIDERATION OF REVISED CONCEPT PLAN Property Area:14.28 Ac. Dry 2.43 Ac. Wetland 16.71 Ac. Total Stoning District:RR-IB, 2.0-acre Single Family Rural Residential (2.0 ac. min., 200’ width min., unsewered) Application Summaiy: Applicant proposes to subdivide this 17-acre parcel to create 6 single ­ family residential lots. Under the revised plan, all six lots would be served by a new private road extending 700* northward from Watertown Road. All lots would be served by private septic systems and wells. The revised plan eliminates the SE building site near Watertown Road, and places all six homesites in the NW quadrant of the property, on lots ranging from 1.35 acres to 2.56 acres in dry buildable area, liiis proposal would be reviewed as a Planned Residential Development. NOTE: This application remains incomplete due to lack of septic testing and design reports, as noted to the applicant on August 24, 2005. However, it is being brought forward to the banning commission as a revised Sketch Plan Review in order to consider the ^clustering* concept HOW proposed and identify significant issues which the applicant must address. List of Exhibits A - Narrative Dated October 10,2005 B • Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing and Grading & Drainage Plans C - Revised Plat Showing Wooded Area Impacts D - Revised Road Plan & Profile E - Notice of PC Action 9-26-05 F - PRD Code Standards G - Memo and Exliibits of 9-15-05 'V-.r - T 1 7 I «ds>3is2 October 13,200S Pegel . ^ Revised Plan Requires Planned Residential Development (PRD) Approval Per the discussions at the September Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing a revis ed plat that places all six proposed residences in the northwesterly quadrant of tlie site. This plan preserves additional areas of existing woodland as compared to the original plan, and preserves the open space character at the southeast corner of the property by eliminating the proposed residence at that site. All six lots will be served by tlie private road, with no separate driveway accesses to Watertown Road. In order to accommodate this layout, individual lot areas and widths have been reduced below the 2.0 acre area / 200 ’ width standards of the RR-IB District. However, the overall dry buildable area of 14.3 acres would calculate to a proposed density of 2.38 acres per unit. This proposal must 'je reviewed as a Planned Residential Development (PRD) per Zoning Code Sections 78-601 thru 78-609. Revised Lot Layout and Lot Standards Note the' the intent of staff and the applicant was to retain the 50’ front/rear, 30’ side setbacks of the RR-IB zone, while making the lots more compact in area and width to allow for preservation of the long views from Watertown Road. Lot 1. Block 1 is at the NW comer of the property, set up for an east-facing walkout with septic sites at the rear comer of the site. This area of the property is an open field with long views to the east t ad southeast. The lot abuts the proposed cul-de-sac as well as the extension of the road corridor to the north boundary, and the house will overlook the cul-de-sac. The east half of tlie lot will be regraded in order to accommodate the front walkout. Setbacks as depicted are appropriate and correct, except that the 50’ front setback should be carried around the ‘temporary cul-de-sac ’ as if it vwre permanent, rather than being measured from the straight section of road corridor. Lot width is defined at 181’ - lot area is 1.47 acres. I.ot 2. Block 1 is directly south of Lot 1. This lot is all open field. Proposed septic sites are in the west half of the lot. Fill and grading is proposed to allow for a driveway access at tlie north end of the lot, as the frontage along the private road gets much sleeper heading south. Setbacks as depicted are appropriate and correct. The defined lot width is 180’ - lot area is 1.35 acres. I .m3. Block 1 is south of Lot 2, Block 1, in a wooded area. Proposed septic sites are in the northwest comer of the property. Grading is proposed at the east and northeast portions of the lot to accommodate a driveway on steep slopes. A portion of the wooded area will be removed to accommodate the house, but still leave a substantial amount of woods along the soutli and southwest sides of the site. Lot width is 188’ - lot area is 1.41 acres. In general, the three lots in Block 1 will liave limited area for amenities such as pools, tennis or sport courts, outbuildings, etc. due to the smaller lot areas wliile still accommodating septic sites and the standard 2-acre zone principal structure setbacks. Special covenants may be needed on these three lots to document the individual site limitations. > '4 «0S-3tS2 October 13,2005 Pa|e3 Lot 1. Block 2. at the north end of the site, allows for a rear walkout with minimal grading necessary to create a buildable pad. Septic sites are downhill to the east, with 2 possible drainfield locations depicted. Setbacks as depicted are appropriate and correct, except tliat the 50* front setback should be carried around the ‘temporary cul-de-sac* as if it were permanent, rather than being measured from the straight section of road corridor. Lot width is 181*- lot area is 2.19 acres dry plus 0.02 acres wetland. Lot 2. Block 2 is centrally located in the property, and is intended to be a rear walkout, with long open views to the east. Septic sites proposed are downliill from the bouse site, on slopes appearing to be 12% or flatter. Setbacks as depicted are appropriate and correct. Lot width is 180* - lot area is 2.18 acres dry buildable plus 0.06 acres wetland. Lot 3. Block 2 has a proposed house location tucked into the northwest comer of the lot, to reduce impacts to the steeply sloped mature woods immediately northwest of the wetland. Due to the existing steep slopes (15-20%), relocation of the house pad from its prior proposed location further southeast, has allow^ for significantly less grading, and significantly less removal of trees as compared to the prior plan. The result is potential retention of more of the woods that provides a backdrop to the long views looking northwesterly from Watertown Road. Septic sites are located at the base of the slope just north of the wetland, and need careful review to ensure they will not impact or be impacted by the wetland. Setbacks as depicted are appropriate and correct. Lot width is 185* - lot area is 2.56 acres dry buildable, plus 0.59 acres wetland. QutlotB Outlot B is 3.72 acres, including the southerly portion of the property most visible from Watertown Road. Outlot B will be commonly owned by a homeowners association, along with the private road, and is intended as an area for stormwater management and preservation of natural amenities in line with the City’s Conservation Design concept and goals. Stormwater Pond The stormwater pond is being relocated to the base of the slope in the center of Outlot B, and if constructed correctly could function as an aesthetic and recreation amenity to the subdivision. The storm sewer system needed to serve the pond will have slight impacts on the woods, and judicious routing of pipes or swales could result in preservation of most trees along those routes. The stormwater pond is proposed partially within tlie existing delineated wetland, and will require special City and MCWD approvals to allow this location; staff has preliminarily indicated support for this concept, based on the limitations of the site for other elficient ponding li-kAfitinnfl — mifiaiifinn mioht af fhm ar\ii#ViAao« n 4^___1__locations - wetland mitigation might be feasible at the southeast portion of Outlot B to make this plan more acceptable. An easement for the existing drainageway through the site was granted when the property was subdivided as a part of the ‘Kintyre’ plat in 1983. Wetlands on the site will be subject to the stuiidard Flowage and Conservation Easement as well as the City’s new buffer requirements. The entire property including wetlands will be subject to the standard Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee. I' MOS-3152 October 13,200S Page 4 Road Layout and Standards The proposed road layout meets the corridor standards of a 50' road right-of-way and 100’ cul- de-sac diameter. The access location onto Watertown Road is at the bottom of a vertical curve and at the inside of a horizontal curve, but is perhaps at the most viable location that will minimize impacts on the wetland in order to access the rear of the property. Applicant s engineer should be asked to analyze the siglit distance at this location. Significant vegetation removal along the north side of Watertown Road may be needed east of the private road entrance to gain adequate sight distance, which can be an ongoing maintenance issue. Construction of the road will require significant grading as well as some wetland filling. Please also see the City Engineer’s comments in Exhibits H-1 and H-2 of the September 15 packet. The TViArA 1C no nnnsirp.nt for additional rieht-of-WaV fotroad to be created will be private. There is no apparent need for additional right-of-way for Watertown Road, which is a City road. Because the property to the immediate north is developable, it is appropriate that the private road corridor be continued to the north boundary of the property as presented, to provide future road access to the neighboring property, with potential “through” connection to Stubbs Bay Road North in the future. ParicfTrail Easements or Dedication Needed The Orono Comprehensive Trail System Plan does not show any future trails along this segment of Watertown Road. The 6 new lots would be subject to the standard 8% park dedication. It is likely that this will be in the form of a fee rather than land dedication, although this will be reviewed by the Park Commission. The residential Park Fee is cmtently established with a min- max fee of $3250-15550 per lot. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. 3. 4. Is the PRD concept acceptable for this site? Arc the proposed lot sizes and widths acceptable in terms of a PRD proposal? Does the layout address the City’s Conservation Design goals? Are there aspects of the plan that need fiurther refinement? Staff Recommendation This application wos published for a public hearing as the developer intended to move forward; however, because the application remains incomplete (septic testing and designs have not been provided) Planning Commission should review the proposed PRD plat, identify for the developer what Issues are most critical to focus on, and receive public comments regarding the revised subdivision proposal. Staff would recommend that if Plamiing Commission is comfortable with the proposed concept, the current proposal be forwarded to Council for review of whether Council will support the PRD concept at this site. If so, then applicant would be back before PC in November for complete review of preliminary plat documents. LLiiHkii r W *- A' MEMORANDUM To: Mike GafTron From: Steve Bohl Date: October 12,2005 Re: MacKinnon Hill Proposal, Preliminary Plat Application Following our last Planning Commission meeting we have made revisions to the proposed plan. We took into consideration the Planning Commission idea of “clustering ” die lots that would create better locations for the house pads and maintain more trees and an improved view corridor along Watertown Road. This would also move the home site and access from Watertown Road tu an interior lot up on the hill with access off of the new road. This change allows us to curve the road coming into the site that will create a more appealing streetscape. Oronberg and Associates has included with the revised plan a colored rendering showing the trees that will not be disturbed. This is a substantial improvement to the previous plan. There will also be a significant landscaping for the entrance to the site that will only enhance the appeal of this area. The outlet area would become an area that would never be developed and left natural. A scenic easement or some other overlay could be established to preserve this area. We hav^ engaged a septic test and design company to review the previou.s located sites and make any adjustments as necessary. I would like to request that if the Planning Commission approves this preliminary plat application that we make a condition of the final plat to have the septic sites confirmed and approved prior to final plat. It is our hope that the City Council also is in frivor of a “cluster” concept for this site. We appreciate your consideration of our proposed plan. The recommendations from the Planning Commission have proven to be an improvement to our previous plan. If you have any other questions please either Mark Gronberg or myself s W'mmrnmmmmmm A m GRADING PLAN FOR bohland development OF OUTLOT A, KINTYRE, AND IN THE SW1/4 OF THE SE1/4 OF SEC. 32-118-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA posanuHoucisiTE 4MCtOJMCiaNNON MaMBrnNsanccTmyzimwMHMwi lONSiAraLMNiam BOtnW»MNW .WW.W TOTAL AraM-Min*-ACI«S SCALE IN FEET / / T'-A. /£^/ f f ^ -'s arrfat- I- K^'' ' r-^ / ^ r‘^-~ *7^ I \ ^^Z.'y'7YVf I I I - aSEOmTERTO^ROAD t.. bta4rf=7~ ?) .^F*r A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3500 WATERTOWN ROAD FILE NO. 05-3152 WHEREAS, Bohland Development Inc. (hereinafter the "Developer") has an interest in the property within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") located at 3500 Watertown Road and legally described as follows: Oudot A, Kintyre, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, on August 17, 2005 the Developer filed an incomplete subdivision application with the City for preliminary approval of a six lot residential plat of the Property; and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.338 et. seq. and the City of Orono 2^ning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Plaiuiing Commission held a public hearing for the application and reviewed it as a sketch plan on September 19, 2005, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2(X)5 the Plaiming Commission recommended a number of revisions to the proposal including that it be processed as a Planned Residential Development (PRD); and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a revised sketch plan proposal which was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on October 17, 2005, at which time the Planning Commission recommended that the amended tq)plication be forwarded to the City Council for confirmation that the PRD process was acceptable; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of October 24, 2005 the City Council reviewed the sketch plan and indicated that the PRD process would be acceptable, subject to the applicant addressing the City ’s Conservation Design goals and objectives, and subject to careful le^ew that all standards necessary to ensure a successful development are met; and Page 1 of 13 i 1 WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently engaged the services of a consulting ecologist to address the Conservation Design goals and objectives, and on November 18, 200S submitted the ecological findings and recommendations as well as on-site sewage treatment systems information, making the application complete and formally commencing the 120-day review period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on November 21, 2005 reviewed the tq)plication and reconunended on a vote of 6-0 that the Council grant Planned Residential Development (PRD) preliminary plat approval subject to: 1) incorporation into plans of all of the recommendations of Applied Ecol >gical Services regarding conservation design, landsciq)ing, etc.; 2) applicant to address comments by City wetland consultant John Smyth; 3) Conservation Easement to be required over east end of Lots 1-2-3 Block 2 as well as over Outlot B; and 4) additional conditions with regards to covenants for protection of septic sites on small lots, etc. be addressed; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the completed Planned Residential Development proposal on December 12, 2005 and hereby makes the following findings with regards to this application: nNDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #05-3152. The property is zoned RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District, which normally requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and minimum lot width of 200' The Property is 16.7 acres in area, of which 2.4 acres is wetland and 14.3 acres is non-wetland area. 3.The property is guided in the 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) for single fiunily residential use at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres. The proposed layout contains 6 lots on 14.3 non-wetland acres, for an overall density of 1 unit per 2.4 dry acres. The Property contains a variety of natural features including wooded areas, open fields, steep slopes, wetlands, natural drainageways, and discontinuous areas of dry buildable land. The property was identified during the Orono Rural Oasis visioning process as having long natural views from Watertown Road of wetlands with a wooded backdrop, that should be |xeserved if possible during development of the property. The Council finds that the best development method for preserving these values is development as a Plaimed Residential Development Page 2 of 13 ..... .. « % % ■ V v) 5. 6. 1. The proposed plat includes six lots. All six lots will be served via a private road to be constructed by the Developer, extending northward along the west property boundary. Each of the 6 lots will have a driveway access from the private road, requiring no new driveway accesses onto Watertown Road. The revised proposal specifically eliminates a building lot at the southeast comer of the property, which would have required a new separate driveway access to Watertown Road, and which would have had the effect of severely interrupting the long natural views into the site as noted in the Rural Oasis study. The potential number of homes to be ultimately served by the private road is more than 6, because the road outlot will extend to the north property boundary to allow for future road connection for development of the property to the immediate north. It would be appropriate to consider whether limiting the paved road width to 24* (instead of the normally required 28 ’ for 7 or more homes) if it can be shown that existing trees that enhance the wooded backdrop can be preserved. The private road will be subject to homeowner association ownership and maintenance, and subject to an underlying Road, Drainage and Utility Easement to be granted to the City. Development as a PRD will allow the creation of an outlot between the wooded backdrop and Watertown Road, litis outlot may contain stormwater ponding to serve the development, and will be covered by a Conservation Easement as well as wetland preservation covenants and easements, wooded area preservation covenants, drainage easements, etc. The intent is to preserve the area of the outlot in as natural a condition as possible with no buildings, roads or other man-made intrusions other than stormwater ponding as necessary to serve the development. Development as a PRT> will allow for slightly smaller lot sizes than nornudly required, which is necessary to allow the relocation of the originally proposed building lot at the southeast comer of the site to a location behind the wooded backdrop. Each of the six lots will have a width of approximately 180’ rather than the 200* RR-IB standard width. Each lot has a proposed building site meeting the RR-IB setback standards (SO* front and rear, 30’ sides). Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 1 will have an average lot area of 1.4 acres rather than the 2.0 acres required under the RR-IB standards. This is in part a result of the need to keep homn on the opposite lots in Block 2 above the steeper slopes to the east to die greatest extent possible, wdiich also results in the proposed road location. Due to the smaller lot areas, the three lots in Block 1 will be somewhat limited Page 3 of 13 I1 - - 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. ►4■■■ f with regard to house location options, as well as in their ability to accommodate additional amenities such as outbuildings, pools, sport courts, etc. These three lots will be subject to special covenants that recognize and take special precautions to preserve the primary and future on-site sewage treatment sites. Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 2 will have an average lot area of 2.3 acres of non-wetland area. While these lots each have a proposed building site located at the minimum required front setback, steep slopes to the east of each homesite result in proposed grading that allows for wdkouts but minimizes the ability for a relatively flat back yard. Lot 3 Block 2 should be subject to covenants that limit the grading and tree removal on these steep slopes in order to preserve the wooded backdrop as viewed from Watertown Road. The Planning Commission has reconunended that a conservation easement be dedicated over the easterly portions of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2, in order to preserve the wetland and wooded areas at the base of the long eastward slopes. This wooded wetland is part of a large 100-acre wetland complex lying northeasterly from the prop^. Due to steep slopes and the proximity to wetlands, it is critical that as much stormwater and snowmelt runoff from the development as is feasible be discharged to the proposed stormwater quality pond to be located within Outlot B. This may require the use of curb and gutter and storm sewers, rather than a rural section, to efficiently collect road runoff. The use of curb and gutter and buried storm sewers may result in less disruption of existing vegetation, especially if this avoids cutting wide swaths through the wooded area to accommodate swales. The City has no current plans for trails or parks that specifically require dedication of land from this property. Because dedication of land for park purposes is not required at this location, a Park Dedication Fee in lieu of land per City Ordinance would be appropriate. The applicant has submitted preliminary recommendations from Applied Ecological Services (AES) dated November 18, 2005 with regards to Conservation Design. The topics addressed by AES include forest preservation; forest enhancement and expansion; wetland preservation; wetland replacement and enhancement; vegetated buffer establishment; stormwater management; and ecological restoration and management. It would be appropriate and desirable that the developer adhere to the AES recommendations. Page 4 of 13 T1 ■ mmmm •*...•• ’•*•■! :;• • . =. i .i.:' ••.■■ ■•- 15. 16. 17. Hie City’s wetland consultant, John Smyth of Bonestroo & Associates, has provided comments with regard to wetlands on the site, speciflcally with regards to the location of the existing sreek drainage easement as compared to the actual creek location, and with regards to potential impacts to the wetland of the proposed stormwater treatment pnnd. It would be appropriate that his concerns be addressed as part of a comprehensive stormwater and wetland management plan for the site. Additionally, because certain elements of the proposed ponding plan involve fill or excavation in existing wetlands, review and ^proval by the Minndiaha Creek Watershed District is necessary. All proposed lots have been tested and found capable of providing suitable primary and alternate sites for on-site sewage treatment systems. For all lots, mound systems will be required. On Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2, treatment sites are relatively near the proposed house locations, and may limit the location or extent of potential future amenities. Special precautions must be taken to protect these sites on both a short-term and long-term basis, since tuunicipal sewers are not projected to be extended to serve this area of Orono. All proposed lots will contain suitable area meeting all established setback, requirements to allow the construction of single family residences. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the ndings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby grants Preliminary Plat Approval for Bohland Development, Inc. for a 6-lot plat per the Preliminary Plat survey/drawing by Mark S. Oronberg of Oronberg ft Associates, Inc. dated 11/14/OS and attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1.Conservation liasements for the protection of wetlands, woo dlands, and open spaces shall be granted over Outlot B and over the following additional areas: a) b) c) East 120 ’ of Lot 1, Block 2 East 200 ’ of Lot 2, Block 2 East 160 ’ and South 40 ’ of Lot 3, Block 2 Pages of 13 ! 1 ! i Applicant shall submit proposed Conservation Easement language for Council review and acceptance, specifying ^ proposed conditions and limitations to be placed on Outlet B and the additional areas not^ above. The easement shall incorporate as a minimum, the following elements: no structures allowed, no fences, no domestic animals (i.e. no horses, sheep, chickens^ etc.), no tree or vegetation removal except by special permit for maintenance or as part of an approved vegetation management plan, no excavating or earth movement; creation and maintenance of non-hardcover walking paths may be allowed. Permanent markers of a design and material acceptable to the Planning Director shall be placed at all points where the Conservation Efuement intersects a lot boundary or v4iere the Easement boundary line changes direction, as noted on attached E.\hibit B. 3.Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall submit an Ecological Restoration and Management Program developed by a qualified ecologist, for city acceptance. Such Program shall be implemented and adher^ to, subject to a Developers Agreement to be executed between the Developer and the City. Limitations on Individual Lots. Accessory structures: Accessory structures may be placed on lots according to City standards, with the following exceptions: For Lot 1, Block I, no accessory structure shall be placed within 150* of the west property boundary, in order to protect tested sewage treatment system sites. For Lot 2, Block 1, no accessory structure shall be placed within 130* of the west property boundary, in order to protect tested sewage treatment system sites. For Lot 3, Block 1, no accessory structure shall be placed within 135* of the west property boundary, in order to protect tested sewage treatment system sites. The lot size for administering accessory structure ordinances shall be the actual contiguous dry buildable lot area; for Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 2, the contiguous dry buildable area contained within tlie Conservation Easement shall be creditable for administering accessory structures ordinances. Page 6 of 13 T n 1*^ •r i f ¥ 5. 6. 7. 8. C.Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 1, ara less than 2.0 acres in area and shall be subject to the lot coverage limitations of Zoning Code Section 78-1403. All areas delineated as wetlands as shown on the preliminary plat drawing shall be subject to the standard Flowage and Conservation Easement, and shall be subject to the wetland buffer requirements of the Zoning Code. General site grading, storm sewer design and individual house site grading shall be designed and completed so as to direct as much stormwater an d snowmelt runoff from the development as is feasible to the stormwater quality pond to be located within Outlet B. Curb & gutter and storm sewers may be established where necessary to collect road runoff. Wherever feasible, individual driveways shall be graded to drain toward the road storm sewer system. Wherever feasible, individual yard areas shall be graded to drain toward the road storm sewer system. Wherever feasible, roof gutter systems shall installed to discharge roof runoff so that it will drain toward the road storm sewer system. Additionally, grading and drainage shali adhere to the recommendations of the City Engineer in his letter dated____________. Approval is subject to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approval and permits as required. Final plat approval shall not be granted until the Developer has provided evidence that all required MCWD permits have been obtained. Developer shall create a private road on the Property providing access to Watertown Road. AmMoval is subject to provision of the standi^ Road, Drainage and Utility Easements to be granted to the City over the road outlot. The developer shall establish the necessary road nuuntenance agreements, etc. to ensure that the private road will be nuuntained to reasoiuble standards at all times by a homeowner's association, and that fiulure of that private group to so maintain their private road will be cause for the City to accomplish needed maintenance and to assess the benefitted properties for the direct cost of such mainteruuice. The private road shall be constructed to a___-foot paved width. The private rood may be designed to preserve existing vegetation, subject to iq)proval of the City Engineer. Final road desi^ plans indicating the extent of the curb and gutter S3^8tem shall be submitted for Council review prior to final plat qjproval. Page 7 of 13 ■ — 9. Development Fees 10. 11. A.Park Dedication Fee. The PRD is subject to the standard Park Dedication Fee requirement Because the value of each newly created lot will be in excess of tlie threshold value of $69,375.00 the 8% park fee cap of $5,550 per lot will apply . Park dedication fee will be 6 lots x $5,550 = $33300. B.Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee. The PRD is subject to the standard Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee of $2,770 per acre x 16.7 gross acres = $46360. City Engineer ApprovaL Approval is subject to recommendations of City Engineer Thomas Kellogg as noted in his comments dated__________, Plans and Specifications. The foliowing plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and iq>proval by the City and other appropriate jurisdictions, to ensure that the proposed plat will accomplish the intended purposes: a)Final plans and specifications for all proposed utility lines and services, including proposed revisions, if any, to existing service facilities. Final grading, drainage and erosion control pian showing existing and proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stormwater facilities and calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Final Plat Approval will not be granted until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has approved the stormwater management plans. c) d) Engineering details and design for any proposed retaining walls. Final boulevard landscaping design plan with planting schedules including numbers and species, in accordance with the boulevard landscaping requirements of the subdivision ordinance. Road construction plans including proposed pian and profile views, typical street section, geotechnical report, R-value recommendation and pavement design. Sufficient detail to meet the recommendations of the City Engineer in his letter of Page 8 of 13 I 12. Other Eaicnciits. a) Drainage and Utility Easements shall be dedicated to the public on the final plat 10* along all exterior property lines, and S' either side of interior property lines, except such easements shall be increased to accommodate drainage where required, subject to City staff approval. b) A Conservation and Flowage Easement shall be granted to the City of Orono over all delineated wetlands on the property. c) A Road, Drainage and Utility Easement shall be granted to the City of Orono over the private road Outlot 13. Developers Agreenent. Developer shall execute a Developer's Agreement for construction of improvements on the Property to ensure all site improvements are installed to the Cit/s specifications and satisfaction. Said Developers Agreement may contain additional conditions not noted in this Preliminary Plat Approval resolution. No land alterations can take place until erosion control is established and the City is in receipt of a final grading and road plan. No improvements can begin until the City Engineer has qiproved all improvement plans. A Letter of Credit must accompany a fully executed Developer's Agreement written to 150% of the cost of the proposed site improvements, including any required landscaping. No building permits will be issued until all drainage facilities and improvements have been installed and satisfactory road base has been installed. PINAL SUBMITTALS The following list of fbial submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 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 (1) copy reduced to 1" *200'. Drawing to include: Page 9 of 13 t i A. Lot lines platted per preliminary plat survey/drawing by Mark S. Gronberg dated November 14, 2005 attached hereto as Exhibit A, except as modifled herein. B.Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10* along exterior property lines and S' along the interior property line. C. Dedication of areas shown as wetlands. D. Dedication of “Drainage Easements" over all drainageways E. Naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: A. B. C. D. E. F. 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 indicate therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. Signed and executed Road, Drainage nnd Utility Easement and Declaration of Private Covenants for Mainteiumce of Same over the private road outlot Signed Conservation and Flowage Easement to be granted over alldelineated wetlands on the plat Signed Conservation Easement to be granted over Outlot B and the other areas noted herein. Signed Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit for construction of improvements. The City Engineer shall establish the amount to be provided in the Letter of Credit. Page 10 of 13 I 4 ■ t Plat approval fees to be paid: Total due: $80,090.00 A. Final plat fee - $280.00 B.Legal review A filing fees for subdivision and associated documents: $250.00 C. Park Dedication Fee: $33,300.00 D. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee: $46,260.00 held this Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting _day of_____, 200_. ATTEST: Linda S.Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Petmon, Mayor .= >' A'XOT 1 V: r; 1* i Page 11 of 13 s ^— - I ’T> I.VV' f / i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this___day of 200__ Barham 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 fon going instrument was acknowledged before me on this___day of 200 __by Lin la S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instru' aent was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public .V \ Page 12 of 13 — - U J Bonestroo £9 Rosene Anderlik& Associates Enginearf & Architects 2335 VHIest Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 Orfice. 651-636-4600 • Fax; 65I-636-I3II www.bonestroo.com December 7,2005 Mr. Michael Gaf&on Planning Director City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota SS323 Re: 3500 Watertown Road Subdivision File No. 000139-05000-0 Plat No. 05-3152 Dear Mike, We have reviewed the revised plans and preliminary plat dated 11-14-05 for the proposed 6-lot subdivision located at 3500 Watertown Road. The proposed improvements include grading, roadway construction and storm sewer improvements to serve the site. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters; • The plat should show 5-foot drainage and utility easements along all interior lot lines and 10-foot drainage and utility easements along all right-of-way frontages and exterior lot lines. • Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all ponding areas, drainage ways and wetlands. • All storm sewers proposed outside of the right-of-way should have drainage and utility easements centered over the pipe. The easement should be a minimum of 10-feet in width and may need to be wider if the pipe is deeper than 5-feet Access easements should be provided to alt structures and storm sewer facilities outside of the right-of-way. • The storm sewer design should be revised so that only one pipe conveys flows to the outlet structure. The proposed pipe between CB-2 and STMH-I should be eliminated and a pipe constructed between CB-2 and CB-7. An additional catch basin should be provided on the west side of the road across the street from CB-7. • Final plans should include plan and profile views of all proposed storm sewers. • Final plans should include a drainage area map, ponding calculations and storm sewer calculations. The pond design must meet NURP standards. • Proposed elevations shown east of the road and west of the pond appear to be incorrectly stated by lO-fcet. The grading plan should be revised so the proposed elevations are shown correctly. • The proposed retaining wall shown east of the roadway near Watertown Road is at least 6- feet high in some locations. All retaining walls that exceed 4-fcct in height or two tiered walls that are not separated by a distance of at least two times the height of the wall require a separate engineered design and detail submittal. Final plans should specify proposed wall materials. • The plans show that the road construction will impact an existing wetland. It appears that St. Paul, St. Cloud, Rochester, MN ■ Milwaukee. Wl • Chicago, IL Alfimiallv* Actlon/BqM«l Op^riimlijf fniplo)f*r untf fmployct Owned \ ' Sv C.V’ the proposed pond construction will also impact the existing wetland. Plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review and approval. Final plans should include details regarding any required wetland mitigation. • Final grading plans should incorporate some type of best management practice to treat the storm water that is not routed to the proposed pond. • The plans indicate grading will be necessary onto the adjacent property to the west to construct the road; this will require temporary construction easements from the neighboring property owner. • The proposed intersection of Mackinnon Road and Watertown Road may present sight distance issues. A sight distance analysis of this proposed intersection should be submitted for review. • The imposed grading on all lots does not provide for any level areas in the backyards. It is unlikely buyers of these lots will be satisfied with the 20% to 25% grades shown across the backyards. It is likely home builders and property owners will construct retaining walls in the back yards to create some useable space. The city should review and consider what is acceptable for the likely grading revisions to all backyard areas. • Most proposed driveway grades are between 8% and 10%. The developer should note that 10% ^iveway grades arc the maximum allowed and should take care when designing and building homes so that the driveway grades do not exceed 10%. • Final plans should include a typical street section along with a geotechnical report and R- value recommendation. • The proposed project will disturb more than one acre and will require a storm water pollution prevention plan (S WPPP) for city review and approval and also for the necessary MPCA permit. • Once the final plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvonents to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLDC & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg C: GragO^}pa,CityofOrono mmmrnmmm mm u >4 1 J yj^/JL t i m COUNCIL MEETING DEC 122005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CTTYOFORONO DATE: December 12,2005 ITEM NO.; f Dcpartmcat Approval: Neat Gregoiy A. Gappa TMIa Director of Public Services Adninistrator Reviewed: Item DescriptioB: Accept Quotation Lift Station Number 21 Pumps Agenda Section: Public Services Director’s Report We recently installed a new HDPE plastic forcemain from Lift Station 21 along Wildhurst Trail to replace a forcemain that went between several houses and across lakeshore yards. This steel pipe forcemain was installed in 1973, and in the event of a forcemain break, access to this area would have been extremely difficult for the completion of repairs. Also, with the forcemain located between homes and close to the lakeshore there was the potential for wastewater spills into the adjacent homes or into Forest Lake from any forcemain breaks. This new forcemain requires increasing the size of the lift station pumps because of the higher pumping head conditions. We are recotiunending acceptance of the quotation in the amount $12,300 from Electric Pump Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota for the Lift Station 21 pumps with funding from the Sewer Fund Capital Budget. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to accept the quotation in the amount $12,300 from Electric Pump Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota for the Lift Station 21 pumps with funding from the Sewer Fund Capital Budget and approval of the qrpropriate year 2005 budget adjustment to reflect this expendihire. mmmrn v‘;-. la ,'S-. A.-. ■, 'V i COUNCIL MEETING DEC 122005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CtTYOFORONO DATE: December 7,2005 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Num LinVee Tin* OtyOeik ppro^Admiaistrator Reviewed: Item Description: Proposed 2006 Fee ScKraule Agenda Section: City Adnunistrator'i Report Attachment: A. Summary Ordinance B. Proposed 2006 Fee Schedule Ordinance The proposed 2006 Fee Schedule Ordinance and Summary reflecting the proposed changes are attached. The proposed changes include: Increase of 3.1% in all sanitary sewer and water connection charges. Increase of 2.8% for storm water and drainage trunk fees. 2.8% increase in sewer rates and 2.7% increase in water rates. 2.8% increase in storm water utility rates. Addition of fee for Easement Creation. Addition of diq;»licate liceirse charge for dog licenses. Addition of temporary licenses for off-sale wine auctions, on-sale wine and on-sale liquor to clarify options for temporary liquor licenses. • Changed foe for accident reports ^m $5.00 to no charge for the Police Department. State statute has changed the maximum charge that is allowed for an accident report to S0.2S per page. Upon review, it was determined that most reports are single page reports and processing $0.25 throu^ the system would not be cost effective, t Increase to various golf course charges. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached ordinance adopting the City's Fee Schedule for 2006 and Summary Oidimmce for publication. r^-r.r~-. irr—rt .'trMi ORDINANCE NUMBER 31, THIRD SERIES SUMMARY APPROVED The Council hereby determines that the text of ±e summary of this ordinance marked "Official Summary of Ordinance Number 31 . Third Series," and a copy of which is attached hereto, clearly informs the public of die intent and effect of the ordinance. The Council further determines that the publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. mmm i SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 31 . THIRD SERIES ORDINANCE NO. 31 . THIRD SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2006 FEE SCHEDULE AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 22, THIRD SERIES The following is the official summary of Ordinance Number 31 Third Series approved by the City Council of the City of Orono on December 12,2005. The following sections have changes, additions and/or deletions: JlfiUEE 2miEE. CODE SEC. ZONING AFFUCATIOWS IA8B1 vTi T CREATION Analicatioo Ei SuhdiYiiiflB ApBliai STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEES i * Ntw Devstapneal Laad U m singia FanOy lleiMleiitial S Acre Zone Family Residential 2 A ck Zone fiiiigie Family Residential 1 Acte Zone Singk Family Residential W Acre Zone Multi Family Residential 4 Umn/Acrt or IMS Commercial or Industrial mm mmmmmmmm Ai«a of Impervions Surface Eipansioti ResMenlial Rodevdopment 0 100 Square Fee 1000*2000 Sqnaie Feet tiiMi 2000 Square Feet 2m timmmmm 2m iim iim S2.S50 fao fee^ S60QJ10 SsUldl reU31. 82. 11200 SL2S& S2.850 X3.700 S£22i S5.13Q SS..990 Commercial or Industrial Rtdcvciopnicnt 2m im I2>330 S2.395 mm S4.78S Ij^niouia jfc MISCELLANROUS CHARGES GUCBNSES pupliente Ueen«c/Tae PoUce Department Administered jfga, WINE A LIQUOR UCTENSES Qff.Sde Wine License fwine f"***«*^Jgmiypfv On-Ssle Wine License_iL4 diXll«[-yp«tnr^nf nn.s«le Lifluor License 11-4 dud) COPY OF ACCIDENT REPORTS I: K. V, - ; » V .‘i .. $5.00 $25.00 each 525.00 each $25.00 each No charyg Sec. 34-42 Sec.J442 Sec. 34.42 Page 1 of4 - :-------V---------A- [RD SERIES S [EDULE SERIES Third Series ^proved by the fnofee^ S60(L00 S2.830 S3.700 S4J75 iLmam S6.840 Trill or ladustrUl I 2m S2J93 K2S2 Ml SE£: Sec. 82.15 82. 112ft) BO each Sec. 34-42 X) each Sec. 3442 90 each Sec. 3442 hugs SEWER PROJECTS By » nr ict • Project 1963 ST-IA, LS-1 A. ST-IB. LS-IB 1964 LS-l A or LS-IB 196SLS-1 1965 LS-IA 1967 LS-1 1969 LS-1 Shore Hills 1969 LS-2 Chevy Chise 1970 LS-1 Saga HiU 1971 LS-1 Dunwoody 1973-1 1980-1 Minnetonka BlufB 1980-1 West Femdak/County Road IS 1980-1 Oiono Lane 1980-1 County Road IS/Marinu 1980- 2 Nofdi Shore Drive/Scotch Pine Ln 1981- 1 North Shore Drive/Highwood 1982- lA Navarre Utilities 1982- lB Navarre Utilities Northern Ave 198S-1 Crystal Bay 1983- 1 Hi^iway 12 Orano-Long Lake-Medina 1989 Highway 12 1992 Shihbs Bay Sewer I Sthbbs Bay NE/NW-Bayside East OBederwood m Bayside North IV Oxford V Cygnet and Leaf 1997 Sewer 97-1 North L.LyL.L.C.C. 97-2 Bracketts Point 97-3 Bay Ridge 1998 • 1999 Sewer 1998 Sboieline/Heritage 99-1 Orono Orchard 99-2 Edgewood Hills 2000 Sewer 2000-1 Webber Hilb 2000-2 Fox Ridge 2000-3 East Long Lake 2003 Sewer 2003-1 North Long Lake Ease 2003-2 Old Long Lake Rd 2003-3 Sixth Ave N/Brown Rd (Phillips) 2004 Sewer 2004 West Farm/Homestesd Unit Cbarac ArtB or Am cimc Credit to Aret 200S 2006 S«i980.00 86.165.00 (1) 86.165.00 (1) 88,980.00 86.165.00 (1) 88,9804)0 86.165.00 (1) 88,980.00 86.165.00 (1) 814,928.00 815.390.00 (1) 881,698.00 S12.035.00 (1) 811,678.00 812.035.00 (1) 811,675.00 812.035.00 (1) 814,938.00 815.390.00 (1) 812,988.00 813.355.00 (1) 830,095.00 S31.030.00 0) 834,085.00 824.830.00 (1) 810,085.00 810.400.00 (1) 830,098.00 831.030.00 (1) 815,490.00 815.970.00 0) S3.390.00 TninV Area 8USOOO 81390.00 (1)Rw a ww w SS50.00 »r5^$.00 S3.675.00 Per Acre m 818,6904)0 S16.155.00 (1) 81,838.00 81.585.00 (I) $6:656 S5.830.00/acre (1) 819,638.00 818.180.00 (5) 829,310.00 828.155.00 (5) 823,120.00 S23.835.00 (5) 833,640.00 833.650.00 (5) 836,398.00 S27.190.00 (5) 833,078.00 S23.685.00 (6) 138,380.00 S39.435.00 (6) 830,430.00 821.055.00 (6) 810,30300 819.890.00 (7) 83843000 826.220.00 (7) 833,315.00 833.315.00 (7) 8849800 88.635.00 (8) 818,488.00 819.060.00 (8) 81409800 815.130.00 (8) 811.395.00 811.645.00 (1) 86,675.00 86.880.00 (1) 88,730.00 msm 0) 66,400.00 86.600.00 (I) \ \ % Page 2 of 4 Ifiii 4^ SIWER PROJECTS 20QS-1 WAher Hilh/S Rroww M Put 20M.2 niA«^ f r>T N l2oiL£taiESL± 200S Ana otAcfcCInc Credit to Area SI0.000.00 S12.000LOO 0) (1) 1M4 PwrcMiMla and Lift Statton #7 Exifltiai PtopettiN/Increase New Bld|e Repbcing Exiiting Bldgs New Residential w/Existing Stub New Residential without Soib Freshwater Biological (Incl. *Mar»ti at Ubyette' Lots) fftJYllft-t iMsoota)S560.oon) tJ4»,OO ffiS560.00n) #7 Forcctnaln td0J.Q 0S625.00 t6Qt.OOS625.00 ttJ30.Q QSl.785.00 UJ3QJ QS1.785.00^4) t680.OOS700.00 (4) Credit to Area (*) (4> (4) (1) and (4) (l)and(4) IMP Gravity Line and Lift Station (see map for affbcted areu) Fixed Charge *■ S225.00 »10 Bv Pass t3JtQJO S3.145 00 Credit to Area (1) WATER PROJECTS By District • Project 1967 LW'l Highway 12/Ciysai Bay Road 1969 LW-2 Chevy chase 1970 LW>1 Navarre Residential 1970 LW*1 Navarre Conanercial 19S2-1A Nav arro 1989 Highway 12 1999 Navarro Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation Unit Charoe +Area/Acreace Front Foot Credit to Area ttJOtJO S5.255.00 ttO0tJQ S5.255.00 t3.t3 0J Q S2.600.00 t3JOOJO S3.905.00 ta^dOOJO ttttJO S430.00 t3?J4 S39.01 (1) (1) •tatat S25.99 (I) t3?J0 S39.07 (1) (1) t0JttQQ .S0.64S.0O/acre (I) (1) PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES MUNICIPAL SEWER RATES by unit; 1st 2nd by flow: municipal water rates NavaireArea Billing R Reedy to Serve Chg Water Usage Rate Unconnected Property Chg Highway 12 Area Billing R Resdy to Serve Chg Water Usage Rate Chevy Chase Ares BillifiA A Rcidy to Scn'c Cngi Water Uage Rate Bulk sale to Minnetonloi Beach for Lsftyene Ridge Ares lOQSFee 88 5 .00 pee quartet t 3.54/1000 gaUoB plus 8 8 i8 5 pee ^waiter per eonneetion 8 26.8 5/^ t 2.27/1000 gal t 3 6.8 5/^ 8 0.75/y 8 3.15/10 00 gal 8 0.75/^lr 13i3 6/1000 gal fno ahanga) t3 6.8 5i<^te billing eharge plus t3.27/iOOO gallew total flow at 2006 Fee S96.55 per Quarter S87.3S per quarter S 3.64/1000 gallon plus S 9.10 per quarter per connection L2L5i/qtr S 2.33/1000 gal S 27.5S/qtr SlO.OO/Qtr S 3.24/1000 gal SlO.OO’Qtr I2i2/1000gal S27.55 qtr billing charge plus S2.33 M00O gallon total flow at border meter Page 3 of 4 MUNICIPAL STORM WATER UTILITY RATES • ' One Residential Unit per quarter Non-Residentisl Unit:Based on Itesidential Based on “Residential Equivalent Factor”Equivalent Factor GOLP COURSE CHARGES • Effective data 2006 Season Monday thra Friday (eaclndlag HoUdaya Begla flay Before 12:00 Noon 20OSFce imiss 1st Nine Holes 1 10.00 S 10.50 10 Pau (12 punchea/9 holes each) S Pass (6 punches/9 boles each) 1100.00 s so.oo S 105.00 S Alter 12KM Noon and Weekend Rates 1st Nine Holes S-4000 S 13.50 10 Pau (12 punches/9 holu each)g t ^ AA S13500 5 Pau (5 punches/9 bolu each)S-6L00 S 67.50 Senior Cltlicn (Over SS years old) Begin Play Before 12:00 Noon • Weekdays 1st Nine Hotes S 7,50 Season Ticket (Soalor Otlsens Only)6»ooe-SI80.00 FALL RATES Wid beglB the third Monday of SaptendMr Weekend Ratn: 1st Nine S4000 S 10.50 WedcdayRatu: 1st Nine f-SOO-S 8.50 Sr. ft Jr.i SlOO I. 5.50 STUDENT RATE (AGES 12 • 17) Begin Play Before Noon Monday • Friday, Excluding Holidays 1st Nine Hotes t-7oe S 7.50 A printed copy of the 2006 Fee Schedule Ordinance is available for inspection by any person at the office of the City Cleric during regular office hours. This ordinance becomes effective the week of January 1,2006. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this I2th day of December, 2005, by a vote of and __nays. ayes ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Cleric Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspapers the week of December____, 2005. 4 4 J n # -r**^ *<»- ^'i *viqnpqnnyijiT i K ufc*>--*-^c6*v’« • •-- 'X**-*^--.'*r* p v-»ppr# 2006 FEE SCHEDULE PIRECTORY Cmpf CkmfgeM Ptige Akdtaiiliilrtnitl®n ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••2® AccMIctit Rc^mv ^s ••••••••••••«••••••«••••••••••••••••• 24 Kmdkg Rcm^Bg IHipllcallMi.-----------2® Biiil®iiif iPlSM copies ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2® C«py Mkr«flclic File - PD.....................24 C«|iy Service - PtMcc DepI....................24 Drivcr'i Liecine Record........................24 iHferniallMi on CD................................2® Rc|irittl Overiiicd D«cMiiie«to On Mtertfllm^.....................................2® Sammary Data Repart 24 Tape DNpIleatiNN (PaHce Dept.) AMdio.................................................24 LktmMtM A Mb€tUmmt9us (Cmmt) Page Hame ^kcapatlaQ dceNse.......*.....***».M«*.... 1® JaiNt Die Daefc Lkease....-----------------—19 KeaNci 21 patollc Daace Uceaie ....... ..mm............. 22 Retarmcd ClMCk CiMrff 20 SallcitatiaB Lkcaie...............................**.*** 2® Tcmpacai^ Tralke/RalldlNj 19 2*abacca DleeNse......».*M«.M......M....*.............. 2® TraNikNt Mcrchaat/Peddkr Lkease........ 2® Maps For Sale Vkka...24 ComatcUaa CMrfes Saaitary Sewer Mlaakipal R^ater Dalt Ad)astaicat PuMU Works Supplies A Serrkas Addrcn Cluuife Driveway Calverts Driveway/Carb Cat PcraiiU 2® 2® . 2® .1® .IS 14 Docuaseuis Caaipretieaiive Gaide Plaa ............. 19 Carnal SCfiel Address Baak................ 2® I labels 21 Ltstlag lafa - ReaNars.........................2® klaN la Pasla|te 4k IfaadNaj^.................. 2® Maakipal Cade/Ordlaaacc.................. 19 Special AssessaieaC Searckes ..............2® Fahe Alarm Vttr Fta Gatf Caanr Chargrs 23 .24 iuspecllous Caatractaal laspectlaa Scrvke ..........1® Special laspecllM Ckarges................. 18 PermHs Afler-TiM-Fact Fees BalMlaRPemdtFees BarataiR Peradls Cert.afOccapaacy DenMyilaa Peradt Fee Hacks: Caaaaerclal............ Residcatiai------------- Fire Pratectlaa FIrewarks Peradt Fee Gradlag, Eicavatlai, FUllaf Laife Asseaddy Peradt Lawa Sprlakkr SyilMB Uadted Trappiag Peradt Meckaakal Peradt Fees MaakipaiHaakUp (Scwer/Waler) Oa-SIte Systean (Septk) ••••••••• ••••••• 5 ® I® .8 ® •99M9999 »• ••• #• 999 ® .8 1® 22 17 22 1® 23 9 99999999#9999999999999999»9999»9»»99999999999 ••••••••9#9«999«999999999999 9999999999999999 9 17 17 Licenses A MisceNameous (S m 0»-SMc SyitCMH) Afler-Tke-Fiict Fees................PlaaddaR Peradt *.****.*****..**..**..*...........*****...* 9 AaiaseaNNSt Devices.............. 22 RetaiaiaR R^aBs.*...*.****...*.....***.*...........*.*..**.8 Aaiaad laipeaad Fees...............Special lEveats 23 Beery Wiac A Lkpier Lkease...Sprlakkr Systeaw- Laaae Reatal Slip*..*...*....**..................**** 19 C>aauBerdal 1® Caaaaefcial Marlaa Lkease...------....... 19 DaR Lkease................................ GaaddiaR/RafOe Lkease.......^..*...**.*«.*.* 2®9 GarlMRe llaalen Lkease........______19 Permits (Cent.) Page Tree Reaiaval............................................ 8 D ader Rrouod Taok Renioval...................*..***9 Vekkk StoraRc.............17 ^^der ®feter Fees............9 Services FiBRerpiintinR (Palke)............................. 23 Master Tura*OfT CkarRe m....................... 2S ^Vater Tiira*Oa CkarRe............................. 2S Sigus Street SiRas f Paklk ^Varks) ..m...........m...... 2® Temparary 4k Perniaaeat......................... 17 Teaip. **Na ParkiaR'* fP.D.)....................w. 24 Teaip. **Na ParkiaR** fP.^V.)...................... 2® Uiility Pates A MisceUmneous Aaaaal Service CkarRe Septic...................M..M.M.............................. 1 7 ®f Mttlcipal Server....*............................... 2S Maaiclpal ^Vater 2S ItecycliaR ^^karRc ..m...m..m.....m.m.............. 24 RecydiaR Replaceoieat Bias.................... 24 Staraiafater Dtility ................................... 24 Zouiug Applicalious Afler-Tke-Fact Fees....-----...---------------5 Aaieadoteats ...................................... 2 Appeal af Adada. Declsloa........................ 4 CaiiiNie rclal Site PhiB«.........M.M.«.......M.M.. 2 Caaiprekeasive Plaa Aaiead...................... 2 Coaditioaal Use Permit Fees.......------— 1 Easeaeeat ^^reatiaa..................................... 3 ladastrial Rcvcaae Baad AppL................. 4 Paik Dedkatiaa Fees.........*........................ 4 PU^l ReaaaiaR 2 RciaalBR Applkatiaa Fee..............----..... 2 Rip Rap Applkatiaa Fee—------------------4 Special laqiraveaieats AppL------------..... 4 Staraiwater/DraiaaRe Traak Fees.......—. 7 Sabdivislaa AppHcatiaB Fee...................... 3 SarckarRe far Staff Espease.....*.<*.**.**.*..... S Vacatiaa Applkatiaa Fees...-----....-----.... 3 Variaacc Applkatiaa Fees I *ladei BcRias aa PaRe 29 I I 11^ I I III I>t I 'I >j]iriit#rfhi #tii ^ n rfH h . *'•%!!»> th- ■■-’if m Bl’.. ■ m■pr %/ Wf iiis S' ORDINANCE NO. 31 . THIRD SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2006 FEE SCHEDULE AND AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 22, THIRD SERIES The City CowMil «f Ihc City of OrMM ordains: SECTION 1. Otdinanata Rantalcd. Ordinance No. 22, TMrO Series, sntiUed 2005 Fee Schcdvle b hereby repealed. Ilie Clly CouncU ofOrano per Section 2-171 of the Mnnicipal Code hereby ordains the following fees effective during the calendar year 2006: SECTION 2. Fees. ZONING APPUCATIONS All fees arc anaMcation fees and are non-refnndabic aflcr staff work has b^nn on the application. Annltcation Type Applicable £Sf|e VARIANCE Bate Fee (AddMonal variances indnded in base fee) Renewal Variance S600J0 $250.00 Sec. 78-42; 78-96 thru 99 Sec. 78-42; 78-96 thru 99 (No change from original application) Ancr-the-FacI Fees Double Application Fee Res. 81306 A F1309 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (One charge per project) Residential Acces sory Use (Animals, etc.) Institutional Use (School, Church, etc.) Duplea Credit (per building) Guest HousofGncst Apartment Commercial/Industrial Use Non-Conforming Use (Finding of Similar Use) Sec. 78-42; 78-913 S600AO $600.00 $600J0 $600.00 $600J0 $600.00 '• < ... '4 ..» ‘ nv ‘ li * r . . IV*' 1 AU 2006 Fee Sckedule-Fage I •< M>NiNC aph .k:ations <cont .\ AonHcattow Tvoe CONDITIONAL USE EERMIT ContlaMcd (One Charfe per Project) Land AltcralioD: - Grading St filling • dcalgiiatcd wctland/floodplaiB - Grading, flding, etc. (over SOO cubic yards) - Sea walls, retaining walls wiiMn f-75' lakMhorc Amend Eiisting CUP Renewal Conditional Use Permit (no change from original application) Conditional Use PermH with Variance (indnded in base CUP fee for 2MM) Ancr-thc-Fact Fem PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RPUD or PRD Applicallon with Subdivision RPUD or PRD AppHration without Subdivision PID Applications (S acre minimum per code) PUD Rcaoning (Highway 12 Corridor Only): RcsMcnHal CommerriaMndustrial COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW ZONING AMENDMENTS INCLUDING REZONING » REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN fvo. if-J SM0.M-I-permit S600.00 $250.00 Double Application Fee Subdivbion Fee plus $35.00 per dwelling unit $ 50J0 per dwelling unit (minimum $600.00) $175.00 per acre (minimum $875.00) $600.00 ^ $40.00 per dwelling unit $I754W per acre (min. $875.00) $600.00 -t- Consultant Fees $600.00 $600 JW — Applicable Code Section Sec. 78^2; 78-913 Res. 81306 & 81309 Ch. 78, Article VI Sec. 78-42 Sec 78-42 Sec. 78-42 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 2 mm ZONING APFLirATIONS ICONT.I AnnlicaHii Type SUBDIVISION Sketdi nan (Class 1, II, & III) BmIc Snbdivisieii Applkaikm (Class IAII SnlHlivIsloiis, Subdivision of a Lot Unc Rcarrangcfiwnt) Prcliniinary Hal Review (Clan III and all non^esMential) Final nal Review (Clan III) Filing Fees: a) Subdivision only b) Subdivision + Easements ACovenants Renewal of Subdivision Approval (Clan I, II A III, and Snbdivbion of a Lot Une RcarrantemenI) (No Change From OrigInai Approval) VACATIONS PubUcRoad Easement Vacatioa with SnbdivMon Appikations Easement Vacations not Associated with Subdivis ion AppUcatloos EASEMENT CREATION Easement Creation with Subdivision Applicalion Easement Creation not Associated with Subdivision Applicalion < •, 'i m Applicable Code Section $3S0.00 $600.00 Sec. 82-05 Sec. 82-112 (a)(b), 82-15 Sec. 82-112 (c)$750.00 + S30.00/lot ($810/2 loto; $840/3 loU; $870/4 lots, etc.) $250.00 Special Legal/Engincering/ Consultant Charges Sec. 82-142 (9) $140.00 Minimum plus any Sec. 82-142 (11) additional costs $280.00 Minimum plus any additional costs $300.00 $ 75.00 per benefiting property ($60040 ndnlmom per applicalion) Sec. 78-42 $180.00 $600.00 Sec. 78-42 Sec. 78-42 (no fee) $600.00 Sec. 82-15 (aX3), 82-112(a) 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 3 ■• V /*> "" r.V‘. ^ ■ ■ ■i-m: •..f.-lV -.VV: •' •.- ZONING APPUCATIOWSICONT.^ Anplkattoii Type SPECIAL IMPROVEMENTS Non-refuiidablc charget for City Enginccr'a review for applicatioiis aad design drawing, including consiruction inspection fees. If improvements are proposed as part of a Subdivision, Review Charges arc payable with Preliminary Plat application. Proposed Private Roads Proposed Public Roads Request for City to accept ciisting private road Request for City to nmintain unimproved public road Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Eitension Proposed Watermain Estension Proposed Storm Sewer System (eaduding culverts) On-Site System - Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) RIP-RAP Staff Review (normal rip-rap) Unusual Rip-Rap: a) New installation b) Repair previously approved APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND APPLICATIONS Minimum Project Valuation: S2SO,OOO.M Appiicalion Fee: a 51 •. >' ’ m'imm ■ <■ ■ -i- ^ ‘r’. Applicable Code Section Sec. 82-213 (4) S6S0.00 plus 504/lineal foot $950.00 plus SiW/lineal foot $950.00 $225.00 $275.00 plus $25.00 per stub $275.00 plus $25.00 per stub $250JM $ 60.00 per new lot proposed for on-site No Charge (MCWD Permit Required) $100.00 CUP review Staff permit “ $100.00 $100.00 See. 78-99 0.1% of project valuation ($250JO ndnimum) plus 55J00.00 deposit for IcgaV administrative cipcnscs 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 4 I iftfAwniiiWiiiiat 'v: , r.v'' • ■ I# 7/)NIMG APPLICATIONS fCONT.^ Anolicalioii Tva« SlIRCHARGe FOR STAFF EXPENSE IN EXCESS OF APPLICATION PEES Per Fee Schedale set forth below: Professhiaal Time Clerical Time Legal/ENgineering CcHUultants Mileage/Copies/Postage/Etc. AFTER-THE-FACT APPLICATION INVESTIGATION FEES (Resolothm 1306) (Applies to all applicalion types indudiog variances, conditional use permits, snbdivision, toning amendments, rip-rap permits, special improvement reviews, grading permits, moving permits, business licenses, kennel licenses, all building permits and alt general permits.) This permit fee may be waived by staff for resident property owners who have not involved a contractor in their work, have no previous history of work without a permU and where snch work does not entail any zoning violations. Whenever any work, use or division of land for whkh a formal application is required has been commenced without first making such application and reedving City approval therefore, a special investigation of the drcumstances shaR be mode during the appUntion process. Because of the eatra administrative coats involved in the special invcstigalton, the ndnlmum application fee for aficr-tho-fact applications shall be twice the fee set Isrth in the bask fee schedule, whether or not the appUcatloa to thereafter approved or denied. Payment of an after-the-fact application liee shall not constitute approval or authorization of the work, use, or division of land, and shaN not conslUntc a penalty or a waiver of the right of the CUy to institute civH or criminal legal actions against the applicani for commencing such work, use or division of land without the required prior approval of the City. Aflcr-llie-racl Investigation Fee Amount: /d Applicable Code Section Sec. 78-42 $ S0.00/bour $ 30.00/hour Actual Billed Cost Actual Cost Equal to aud in addition to the bask fee amount (total fee to twice the basic fee amount).Res. 1306 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 2 iltiKKittmmmmmli ZONING AfyUCATIONS ICONT.^ PARK DEDICATION FEES I |jMd ttedte all — Mlrtimini Area - SuMivMcn thall be required to dcdkete to the City for parkt, playgreMMltt ireHi, epen epacet and ether public pwpeaea aa a ntatawn that perceelace of great laMl area, er ether aecb ameuet aa may bedctemdacd by ibeCHy Ceeecil, aa aet forth below: (1) Rcaidenlial/AgrkidlMral/MulllpIc RcaMeetial Zeaed Laad. Dcdkalton requirement ef S% of the land being plaited or aebdivided. (Eiclntive of let that inclndea an caitling realdcnce.) (2) Commcrciabindaatrial Zened Land. Dcdkaled requirement ef 8% ef the land being platted er aubdivided. Caib Centributteu In I l.anda. In Ibeae intlancea where a cash contribullan it to be made by the anbdivlder. In Hen ef a cenveyance er dcdkatlen ef land, the caah centribution to be coniribuled ahaN be cqnivaknl to the fair market value ef the cquivaknl undeveloped land that weuM etherwbe have been conveyed or dedkated. The City ahali accomit for inch fniidi in a apecial fund named Park Dedkatien FMnde. The City Council baa eetabUebed by rcaolatien a ndnlmam raMcatial park fee of S3.2M per dweliing unit and a mailmnm ef S5350 per dweUngnnlt. Ilie City Council baa ettabUabed by re ae lntie n a mintawm MmnwrdaVIndntrial park fee ef $S,I2S per acre and a maiimomef SI3J7S per acre. Applicable Code Section Sec. 82-227 Rea. 4738 (12-10-01) Ret. 4739 (IMO-OI) iMi 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 6 ZONING APPLICATIONS <CONT.) Fee Applicable Code Section SI'OKM WATKR AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEES Sec. 14-2S1 thru 14.287 SlM-ni water tr H«k fees apply to «ew dcvetopamt awl rc develapiiieat of eiistteg propertiei and provide fundins for the itorm water infrastructure necessary to serve the City. The trunk fee is based on the land use and acreage eftlie property being developed. An equivalency factor multiplier b assigned to each land use type, with a 2-acre residential lot considered as the standard in the City with an equivalency factor of 1.0. The tabic below Usb the storm water trunk fees per acre for the various aoning dbtrkts and land uses in the City. New Dcvtiepiiiciit Tniak Fee/ 1 jigd life Acre Single Family Residential 5 Acre Zone (1) (2)S2.280 Single Family Residential 2 Acre Zone (3)$2,850 Single Family Residential 1 Acre Zone S3.700 Single Family Residcniial Vi Acre Zom $4,275 Mulli Family Residcniial 4 Units/Acrc or Less SS.I30 MuHi Family Residential Greater than 4 Unitf/Acre $5,990 Commercial or Industrial $6,840 (t) Piifftf pMgmoii Rcduclion . For the 5-acfc zoning districi, a rcduclkm of up lo 50% of the trunk fee for the lot will be allowed for the percentage of the lot proleclcd by perimeter and/or drainage way butTcr casements. These buffer easement areas shall remain in a natural condition. (2) Maaimum Fee. For the 5-acre zoning district, any Id exceeding 7.0 grots acres including wetland, shall be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 7.0 acre parcel. Such lot shall remain eligible for the up lo 50% reduction noted in (I) above, such reduction based on the perecnlage of 7.0 acres that is placed in buffer casements. H5 Maximum Fee. For the 2-acre mii^ didricts. any Id exceeding 4.0 gross acres mduding wetland. shaB be charged a maximum trunk fee equal lo the trunk lee for a 4.0 acre pared.* Rcdcvdopmenl prnjccts wiU be dcIlMd u any project to cither remove and replace esbtiog structures or to colargc cibtiog structures. These projects wiX be charged a portion of the base trunk fee adjnsted for the area of cipamioii of impervioas surface above the cibting conditloas. The table below lists the base trunk fee based on the area of impervious surface cipanrion and adjusted for the type of laud use. The trunk fee skaK be determined by nmNiplying the appropriate fee by the acreage of the devdopmenl site. Area af iwpgrvliUf Surface CsiMiatleii af Eilatlai Pevriapaieat Tnuik Fec/Acre Caounercbl or tadustrial Pevelapweat Trunk Fcc/Aere 0-1000 Square Feet SIOOO $2,395 lOUO 2000 Square Feet $1,995 $4,785 More than 2000 Square Feet $2,850 $6,840 2006 Fee Schedule-Fage 7 ■hafiiiftamiii' Ail Wii ----- - ---- —SI* #V ■»•' ir*t« >: i i ,‘?!T' £Q{t ^JIAiliilL*M W.UMITS AND IN81 1^ fMTwit Tve BUILDING PERMIT Applicable Code Section Ord. 2H MininMini Fee Normal Fee Plan Review Fee: Connmrciai ReiMential BniMing Valnation Standard $ :3.S0 (per 1997 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule) (per 1997 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule) 4S% of Building Permit Fee (per Current I.C.B.O. Building Standards/BuiMing Vaiualion Data) ZONING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITHOUT BUILDING PERMIT (change in nw) $50.00 RETAINING WALLS (in cxcctt of 42" alM multipie tiered walla that eicced 42" and not located in lakethore protected area) NOTE: Retaining wall in 0-75'lal(nlMreprMcctcd80iic-aecCond.UaePemdtaection of fee achedule $23.50 minimum (per 1997 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule) TREE REMOVAL WITHIN 0-75* DOCKS - RESIDENTIAL IPermancnt (CUP Required) and Initial Scamnal| $30.00 $30.00 Sec. 7»-2Sl thru 7S-283 CKS - COMMERCIAL DEMOLITION PERMIT Principal Structure Per 1997 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule Ord. 210 Acccaaory Structure tViv*- •-‘V- $ 50 JO Initial inapcction $ 25 JO for each requested or required iaspcction beyond initial inspection $ 30 JO Initiel Inspection ' \ ^ 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 8 t" VIP ! * CONSTRIJCTION fERMITS AND INSPECTION FEES ICONT.) I I rcrmit1> PLUMBING PERMIT MioiitMim Fee for Plunibiiig Permit RcpIacciucMl of reeWcatial flitare or oppUance (mecti code rcquircincBli) MaiMo postage A haadlliig charge MECHANICAL PERMIT RaddaatlaL Maale FawMv A Dimlei hv Ualt Tvoe MMaMM Fee Ihr Mcchaokal Permit Rcpiaccfiicot of resMcotial fiitorc or appliance (meets code rcqnircmcnts) MrtMn postage A handHng charge i tinder Ground Tank Removal CwimicrciaL Industrial A MnRi-Faniiiv Rasideniial bv UnR Tvna MUNICIPAL CONNECTION PERMIT (together with area cMnccItoa charges) ii Water SdT (3/4**i7W) meter A bom tadodlng sales lai 3/4" (3/4"i9") meter A horn indnding sales tai 1" meter A horn inclndlng sales tai larger meter MaM-iai pMtagf A taa ilinf cluirfc (smrer mmI water yerw rfu —ly) i i r.' S.V'VV,-7.' 1.25% of contract price or $ 35.00 minimum per project $15.00 $ 1.50 U5% of contract price or $ 35.00 minimum per project $15.00 $ 1.50 Per mechanical permit fees $ 35 JO minimum fee or 1.25% of contract price $35.M $35J0 $210J0 $250J0 $320.00 quote baste Applicable CodeSectioB Res. #5101 $ IJO 'v--> ■; 'V .V. •' ■■■ ■■■; : 2006 Fee SekeMe-Page 9 s flriiiliia imfi ALL SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assessed or if an improvement project is not deemed tobc required in the sole discretion of the City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment.) lire connection charge for properties wishing to connect to the sevrer or wato but Much are located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be charged the connection fee for that area. Such connections are subject to City Council approval. SEWER PROJECTS By District - Project Unit Charge 4-Area Or Acreage Charge Credit To Area 1943 ST-I A. LS-1 A, ST-IB. LS-IB S4.14SJW Jh__________ 1944 LS-IA or LS-IB S4.l45Ja (1) 1965 laS-l S4.145Jt (1) I945LS-IA_____________________________S4.I4S.M It) 1947 LS-I S4.145J9 _m _______ 19491^1 Shore HIUs $lSJ9tJ0 ni 1949 LS-2 Chevy Chase S12JI3SJ0 m 1979 LS-1 Sana HM S12D3SJM (1) 1971 LS-1 DtMWOody S12JMSJ9 (1) 1973-1 S1SJ99.M m CREDIT TO AREA; (I) Sewer Oparaling (4) 4M-37M1 PIR rwM #7 LS R P( (5) 314-37491 1992 Improve SInbbs Day • ' >■; •. (4) 317-37491 1997 Impiwvei (7) 313-37491 199S-1999 Sewer ImpnvcmenU (t) 314-37491 2M9 Sewer ImprmreinenU 2006 Fee Schedule-Page W nfci'M mi nil !«■# Ln \ 'S' igSpRS*S®:, VA- ■ •. •■ ■ :■'•■/.• •• •: ••• •• •• ..=•■• .••■'■ i-:. .'•••V”V.;' .. .’■ f-'i . . • , ■• f ■" '•>' hikkw^‘ ^ v/:; : ■ \ ,,ryial kl ■; ■ ■’• ';• .J" .•.41*'' ‘ .‘*><3 WV>>«-- ‘rx.-w- -»/v* — • ' inject is not deemed lobe required in the sole he aflected project area shall be charged the AU. SANITARY SEWER AND MUNIOPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assessed or if an improvement project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion cf the City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge may be iu addition to any assessment.) The connection charge for properties wishing to coiuiecl to the sewer or water but which are located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be charged the connection fee for that area. Such connections are subject to City Council approval. SEWER PROJECTS I9S0-1 Minnetonka Bhiffa SI3.3SSJ9 (1) I9M-I West Femdalc/County Road IS S3IJ39J9 (II I9S9-1 Orono Lane S24J39J9 (1) 1989-1 County Read IS/Marinas S19w499A9 (II 1989-2 North Shore Drive/Scatch Pine Lane_____S31J39J9 (II 1991-1 North Shore DriveAHghwood SIS.979.99 (II 1982-1 A Navarre UtiUties S3499J9 Trunk Area S1J98.98 (1) 1982-1 B Navarre Utilities Northern Avenue S5S9 j M (trunk nnit acrc/unlt) $3,975.99 Per Acre (1) 1985-1 Crystal Bay SI9.1S5J9 (II _ CREMT TO AREA; (1) M2-37M1 Sewer Operating (2) 4M-37«91 PIR Fuad «7 LS A Pnrccimln (3) 3I«-37*9I 1992 Improve StublM Bay m;K (9) 317-J7i9l 1997 Imprmwmmls (7) 313^7i91 1999-1999 Sewer tapravements (•) 314-37991 2006 FteSctuihk^age 10 i'i t ? ^ 2006 Fee Schedtde-Page II %^{’h- ' 4. * j ; fm- aai^i^<’ f tRI»^ WaMMBHIIMM AM. SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously assessed or if an improvement project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of the City. 1; tn improvement is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment.) I Ire coiviection charge tor properties wishing to connect to the sewer or water but which are located outside the delineated boundaries of lire affected ptojeci area shall be charged the coiuicclioii fee for that area. Such connections are subject to City COwKil approval. SEWER PROJECTS 19S3-1 Hifliway 12 OroM-Lom Lakc-Mcdiiia $ 138S.00 (1) 1909 Highway 12 $5430/acre (1) 1992 Stubbs Bay Sewer 1 Stubbs Bay NE/NW - Baysidc East $10,180.00 (S) II Bederwood $20,155.00 (5) 111 Bayside North $23,035.00 (5) IV Oifard $33,650.00 (5) V Cygnet and Leaf $27,190.00 (5) 97-1 North L.L./L.L.C.C $23,685.00 (6) 97-2 Bracketts Point $39v43SB0 W 97-3 Bay Ridge $21,055.00 W 1998 - 1999 SEWKR 1990 ShoreUnefHerltage Sewer $19490.00 (7) 99-1 Orono Orchard Sewer $2642040 (7) 99-2 Edgewood Hills Sewer $33415.00 (7) CREDIT TO AREA; (1) M2-37MI Sewer Operallnt (2) 406-37*91 PIR Puml #7 LS 4b Porccnain (3) 316-37691 1992 Improve Slubbs Bay (6) 317-37691 1997 Invrovcmento (7) 313-37691 199B-1999 Sewer ImprevemenD (!) 314-37691 2010 Sewer ImprovcineBD tiOfflSlf 2006 Fee Sckedule-Fage 12 ALL SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (If no! pfcviously assessed or if an improvenienl project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of the City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment.) ■» I 'rtic connection charge for properties wishing to coiuiect to the sewer or water but which are located outside the delineated boundaries of the afTccled project atC3 shall be chaigcd the coiuiection fee for that area. Such connections are subject to City Council approval. SEWER PROJECTS 2000 SEWER 29M-I Webber Hills $t,b3S.M (•) 29M-2 Fok Ridge $19,060.00 (*) 2tMML3 East Long Lake $15,130.00 .(•) 2003SEWER 2M3-I North l<ong Lake East $11>45R0 (1) 2M3-2 OM Long Lake Rd S6,SM.W (1) 2M3-3 Siatb Ave N/Brown Rd S9,000J0 (1) 2004SEWER 2M4 West FamdHomestead S6AOO.OO (1) 2005-1 Webber HHIs/S Brown Rd Ext.SIOROORO (1) 2005-1 DIchey Lake Dr N S12J00J0 (1) CREDIT TO AREA! (1) M2-37dfl Sewer Opcrallng (2) 4M-37«91 PIR Fund #7 LS R FerecMiin (3) 3IA-37MI 1992 Improve Stubbs Bay (b) 3l7-37b9l 1997 ImprmreiiiMla (7) 3l3-37b9l I99S-1999 Sewer Improvements ^ 3l4-37i9l 2tM Sewer Improvements 2006 FetSckedule-Pagt 13 I 11 I—I I II urn I I in - M.h SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIF AL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES (If not previously issessed or if an improvancnt project is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of the City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment.) 11k: coniHxtion charge for properties wishing to connect to the sewer or water but which are located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be charged the connection fee for that area. Such connections ate subject to City Council approval. 1984 Forcemaiti and UN Stnlton #7 upgrade: (An eddhto—»fee Is charged far properties benelitting from the 19S4 forcemaln and lift station (17 upgrade, as follows, see map for affected areas): -------------------------■ ■ ■ -------------------- ■ ■ — #6BvPass-i-#7 Forcemaln Credit To Area S 6253)0 jtfi_____________ New BMp Replacing Eiisting BMgs (If usage increases ------•villilMl i 1 ‘4 j *; ^ , ■ - S 625.00 (4) w/EiistiM Slyb Sl.785.00 (4) New RetMcntial wilhoiit Stub S 560.00(1)51.785310(4)(l)and(4) F*- ohwater Biological (Incl. "Marsh at Lafayette' Lots)$ S60.N (1)$ 700.00 (4) Per unit on connectioa (previously asscoed S2,000facre) (l)and(4) 1989 Gravity Line and Un Station ilf By Pass: An additional fee is charged for properties bcnefllting from the 1989 gravity line and Hll station (no by-pass per Rcsointion #2671: Fixed Charge 4-#10 By Pass Credit To Area (see map for affected areas)5225.M 53,145.00 (1) CREDIT TO AREA: (1) 602-37691 Sewer Operating (2) 406-37691 PIR Fnnd #7 LS R Parcemaln (3) 316-37691 1992 Improve Stubbs Bay (6) 317-37691 1997 Improvements (7) 313-37691 199B4999 Sewer Improvements (8) 314-37691 2888 Sewer Improvements 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 14 iL:.. mm 'I »L'. • • Vi • 'v > ^ ' . • ■ iiiT'— ALL SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES Of not prcvionsly otsetMd or if an improveinent proieci is not deemed to be required in the sole discretion of the City. If an improvement is required, the connection charge may be in addition to any assessment) The connection charge for properties wishing to connect to the sewer or water but which arc located outside the delineated boundaries of the affected project area shall be charged the connection fee for the area. Such connections arr subject to City Council approval. WATER PROJECTS - vr By District - Project Unit Charge +Area Or Acreage Charge Front Foot Charge Credit To Area i967 LW-1 Highway 12/Crystal Bay Road $ 5,2SS.OO $ 39.01 (1) 1969 LW-2 Chevy Chite $54$54W fl) 1970 LW-t Navarre Residential $2,600.00 $ 25.99 (1) 1970 LW-I Navarre Commercial $ 3,90S JO $ 39.07 (1) 1982-lA Navarro $ 2,775.00 (1)i110^1i$9,64S/acre fl) 1999 Navarre Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation* S 430J0 (I) * 1999 Navarre Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation Connection Charge - All properties svithin the Navarre Municipal Water District (the area served with municipal water service via the Navarre Water Treatment Plant) which srerc either not amntrd or not fully assesawd via special assessroent for the 1999 Navarre Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation Project shall pay a connection charge of $399.00 per unit npon connection to the municipal water system. Such charge shall be collected at the time a building permit is issued for new construction, or at the time a connection permit Is issiicd for eiisting structures. CREDITTO AREA; (1) 601-37391 Water Operating 2006 Fee Schedule-Page IS ^ A P" : * fl ;*.■■■' " • 4;: *• 1 *- - V ^ ’ '' .k"'. " ' I-* • •■'1 ^«w-. <r^' ' ’ » r^V4 ^- •>7;':> . V-itK ■■ itVx:'-it ♦ 8EWEK AWtt WATER UNIT MMliSTMENT CHARGES CHARGRS Charccs shall malt from either aa laleasincalloa of aa existlac aoa-residential ase or a aew aoa-resfdentlal use that replaces a former use on a property located withia aa area already assessed and served by municipal sewer and water. CREDIT Credit for previously assessed sewer or water units shall be applied asainst the total number of sewer and water naito established for the new use. UNIT CHARGE Each sewer and each water unit adjustment charge shall be equal to the current Service Availability Charge estabibhed by the Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services or lb successor and shall be payable to the City of Orono upon application for a building permit ■ir. ~ .FS-.ll : y- ■ • ji<^ ♦'I ; 'O' ■ . . i', ‘ " '•:! i'- • . : r V. . ♦ * > ; -A 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 16 eaUBta t ’ONSTRIICnOW raHMITS AND INSPECTION FEES Permii Tvae ON-SITE SYSTEMS DctitM Review Feet SvbdiviikMi Site EvalualiM Report Review RceMeatial Syatem Permit: Repair eibtiag system New/Replacemeat System Now-ResMealial System Permit: New or Total replacemMi Partial replacemcat ARBHal Service Ckargc GRADING, EXCAVATION, FILLING 5M cubk yards or less StI * cubic yards Applicable Code SectioB Ch. 58, Article II Indudcd with permit fees $ M.IMI/per new lot S 50.00 SIOOJO-i-S20.00 per each iBspcction over 3 (iBchidcs oBtbousc oa Big Island) S100.00 4 $20.00 per each inspection over 3 $ 00.00 4-$20.00 per each iospcctioBOver3 $ S03M/system^ear pins an additional $I0M fee for late penalty plus 8% interest for nnpald charges certified $ SO JO (staff pemdl)-*■ actual ea gtoeering fees if required ($I00J0 if cngiBccriag fee accessary) $25J0 per each iaspcctioa over 1st $ SO JO 4^ Conditioaal Use Permit ($IOiJO if cagiaccriag fee aecetsary) $25J0 per each iaspectioa over 1st NOTE: SOI cnbic yards or more requires a Conditional Use Permit aalem approved as part of bnildtng permit SIGNS Temporary VEHICLE STORAGE PERMIT $3SJ0 Per 1W7 UBC/SBC Standard Schednte Miainmm $35.00 $30.00 Sec. 70-lS77(C) * >2006 Fee Sekethtie-^age 17 HP 5- f ONOTRtICTION PERM1T8 AND INSPECTION FEES (COWT.l reriMit Tv DC SPKCIAL INSrECTION CHARGES Site ImpcctiM witbMH permit (when caM by awacr) laipcctloM siircberge far wmrk er •pplicatiMi M Big Iriaml or Dccriaglttaad ReiMpccIhm fee after failure to compiy with Building, Septic or Zoning Code Correction Notice - 3rd trip EIRE PROTECTION Fire Prevention Inspection Eire Code Permits Commercial Fire Alarm Plan Review Fee Fire Sprinkler Systems • Commercial Kitchen Fire Estingubhing System - Commercial LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEM BURNING PERMITS Up to S times per year For Each Reinipcction More than S times per year (fM- aH arganiiatioas and individuats regardless of tai status) CONTRACTUAL INSPECTION SERVICE MoutMy Retainer Fee tincludcs clerical time) Inspectiou Charge Plan Review Charge Clerical Fee (Only charged if clerical use is excessive) Applicable Code Section S30.M $30.00 per trip boat rental if transportation is not provided by owner $ 30 JW per trip$30.00 per hour after 1st hour Ord.223 No Charge $30.00 each Per 1997 UBC Schedule dS% of permit fee $ 35.00 minimum fee or U5% of contract price Surcharge baaed on valuation Per 1997 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule $35.00 No Charge $20.00 $100.00 Per Contract $ 25.00 per month $ 25.00 per inspection Per 1997 UBC/SBC Standard Schedule $ 20.00 per hour 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 18 ei COMMERCIAL MARINA UCENSE AppUcatioa Pee (ialtlal) Renewal Applkatien & Inflection Pee (annual) pl»: Late fee JOINT USE DOCK UCENSE Appliealton Pee (Initial) Renewal Applicalion Pec Plus eaeli slip Late Pee CANOE RACK RENTAL GARBAGE HAULER UCENSE • flat rate • per banler - transfer fee HOME OCCUPATION UCENSE (Level 2) TEMPORARY TRAILERS * BUILDINGS LICENSE ZONING DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS 2ttt-2#2t CemprcIwMivc Plan Mnnklpal CaBe Book - eaaplete (Ch. 1-94 w/rcvWana) Mnnieipal CeBc Book - Pertioos Ck 71 only (Zanint Ce<e) w/reviriani Ch 12 aniy (SaMiv. Cade) w/revMaat Ollier IndivMaal Chapters Bimler Camp. Plan Amendment 42 (Hwy 12) t';*k ^ n , A.Tr, ' v* • AS Applicable CodeSectjoii $340.00 $200.00 $100.00 $50.00 $20.00 $ 2.00 $25.00 $40.00/sUp $50J)0 $15.e0/tnick $30.00 Ch. 54, Article in $ 100.00 Initial Review Fee $ 30.00 (Annual Review Pec) Sec. 20-70 $30.00 $75.00 $ 00 JM w/hindcr S25JW lease $15.00 lease $ .25/page $ 5.00 S 5.00 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 19 i LiCENSES It MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES fCONTA OaEBE CIS aad City Mapt Black St white Calor Tapofraphic InfarmatiM BuiMiag St PlanHliig PubHcatia«s Geacral Admiaiitrattve Lkmw/Fiitca Tobacco Lkcafct Lkcmcc or Employee VMatioM within 24 month period lit OfTciiM lad Offense 3rd Offense & Over Gambling St Raffle Lkense Transient Merchant/Peddler Lke«e General Adminlatrative Docnhients Listini Infsrmatloo Asscs*«nrnt Search - Written (Verbal searches not given) Fas Charge Copy Service (for pnbHc CMy records only) II" s 17" espies IndivMnal copies of Ordinances (1 copy) Reprint of Ovcrsiicd Docnmsnts that BntMIng Plan Coplea w ■ ■/ Infarmstloo Provided on CD Mai! la Postage and HandHng Charge Applicable Code Section 8-Will Ilil7 I7j22 22iH S0J5 $1.M $2.00 S 4.00 $2JW $4.00 $8.00 $16.00 $ I2JM per acre * engineering consultant fee if computer diskette is required As Posted - Prices subject to change $100.00 Ch. so. Article U $75.00 $200.00 $250.00 $10.00 Ch. 38. Article U $100.00 plus actual costs Ch. 30 up to $1,500 $10.00 $ 20.0t/|Mrccl No charge up to 6 pages; $JS each additional page $ .25 each $ 1.00 each No Charge Cost of copying service. Messenger service & Min. Clerical Pee of $5.00 (entire amount to be paid upon request) Cost of Copying, Mmcnger Service dSi Min. Clerical Fee of $5.00 (entire amonnt to be paid upon requnt) S2SJ0 SJS per labri (anwoilnatcly $1S04W) SIOJO per tape SlOJOpcrCD $1 JO 4 actual cost if more than $1 JO 2006 Fee Schethik-Fage 20 LICENSES A MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES (CONT.t PwmntiL.1 General Adwlwiiti Swrcherie ier Staff El PrafentoMl Time mti fC—llBiiedI In Excess of Rcgider Fees CIcrkel Time Legel/EnglMcrint CeasidlMts MUesgc/Csytes/Peslegc/Etc. EIcctrank Labels Rctarncd Check Chartc DOG UCENSES Biaanml LIccase (Issacd in oM years) Annnal License (leaned In even years only) DnpHcate LkenacTrat KENNEL LICENSES Conmicrclal AppMcatlen A Inspectlen Fee <Annnal) RcsMenilal AppBcailen St Inspeellen Fee (Annnal) NOTE:Begs kept In resMentfal hennsh nmst he InilyMnsBy licensed. GS AT LARGE - RELEASE FEE First Oflsnse Sccend Offense Thiri Offense After Hanrs, Weekeni * HoHday Release Charfc ANIMALS at large (Other than dags) • Release Fee First Offense Sccend Offeme Third Offense Trace St Catch Animal Trailer Charge : >^1 CARE OF IMPOUNDED ANIMAL ^ > * (n- ; $St.QMiettr $30.0e/hovr Actual MNcd Cost Actual Cost SS0.00 $20.00 $15.00 $ 7J0 $ 1.00 $IS0.M $25JW $SSJ0 $0540 $7SJI0 $75.00 $55J0 $05J0 $75J0 $35J0fhour $ 5SA0 phM mile (tatal distaacc) Actual Cost Applicable Code Section Sec. 62-131 thru 62-135 Sec. 62-161 thru 62-1S5 Sec. 62-104 Ch. 62, Article I 2006 Fee Schetbde-Fage 21 — fjit- • •. 1 LICENSES MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES iCONT.\ Permit Tvd* PeWce PenartiiiMit A^mtaktercd BEER, WINE * LIQUOR LICENSES Initial Invcstigatiaa 0»Balc/Olf-Sala LiqnarO.2 Beer On Sale/ 3.1 % Mall Liqnar Off Sale/Winc In state investigatien Onl stale inmltgatlnn Off-Sale Liqnar License On-Salc Liqnar License On-Salc Wine License 3.2 % Malt Liqnar Off-Sak (Annual) 3.2 % Mall Liqnar On-Sale (Annual) Setup (Annual) Club l^uor License (weekday) (Sunday) Temporary Set-up Pcnnll (1-4 days) Temporary On Sale 3J% Malt Liquor (1-7 days) Temporary Off-Sale Wine License (wine auction) Temporary On-Sale Wine License (1-4 days) Temporary On-Sale Liquor License (1-4 days) Liqnar VMations 1" Violalion 2*^ Violation 3"*VMallan 4* Violalion AMUSEMENT DEVICE UCENSES Per EstabUskment (Annual) Per Machine Fee PUBLIC DANCE LICENSE (annual) (Individual Permit) LARGE ASSEMBLY PERMIT (over 300 peeple) FIREWORKS PERMIT Display of Fireworks/Pyrotcchuk Special Effects SaCc and/or Storage af Consumer Fireworks P Fee Applicable Code Section SSM.00 per License Caltcctcd at Application Actual cost up to S10,000 Actual cost Cb. 34, Article II $150.00 Sec. 34-^ $5,000.00 See. 34-06 $2,000.00 Sec. 34-77 $ 50.00 See. 34-66 $ 100.00 Sec. 34-66 S 100.00 Sec. 34-126; 34-143 $ 200.00 Sec. 34-66 $ 200.00 Sec. 34-66 $ 25.00/cach Sec. 34-42 $ 25.00/cach Sec. 34-82 $ 25.00/each Sec. 34-42 $ 25.00/each Sec. 34-42 $ 25.00/each Sec. 34-42 $500.00 Sec. 34-41 $1,000 A 3 day liccnie suspension $2,000 A 2 week license tuspenrion Lkense revocation Sec. 38-001 thru 38-003 $100.00 -f machine fee $ 25.00 each $100 JW $ 10.00 Sec. 38-501 thru 38-500 $200.00$00.00 each See 38S01 thru 38-803 additknal day; actual costs up to $1,500 Sec. 70^ $50410 $50JO 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 22 ---------------------------mUtli r - . •^'. J ‘wm ■ ^ i. VU / • V* ’ f Mi LICKWSES A MISCELLANEOUS CHAPCES (CONT.^ Anolkalkm Tyne Poiict Dt—rtwwt AdiwiMi LlLil^ nilEARMS DISCHARGE PERMIT _ OccMtoMi (IMtcd MM) P GaMtt AMlanls (H ih H mI MM) AaHMal (CiMb OMly) ■.■w *»»v , HREARMS PERMIT TO CARRY LIMITED TRAPPING PERMIT SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT (iHclMtfct Panda, N oIk Eionpllmi, Use af PabHc Property) FALSE POUCE ALARM USER FEES First fabe alaroi/calcMdar year Third fake ataroVcaleMdar year Foorth fake atenH/meMdar year Fifth aMd onr fake ataraVcaleMdar year FALSE FIRE ALARM USER FEES First fake aiariHkateadar year Secaad fake alarnYcakadar year Third fake alaraVcalcodar year FoMTth fake aiaraVcaleodar year Fifth A over bke alaniVcakndar year FINGERPRINTING SERVICE v' Li mm L.iHW'' ■m-m w ■nahhfii ha^te 4 AppUcahle Code Section Ch. 70, Artkie in S104W $25.00 $2SA0 $10.00 $20.00 Sec. 70-71 SS0A0or$200A0irover Ch. 66, Artkk VI 200 peopk; actual costs up to $1,500 Ch. 42, Artkk HI No Charge $50.00 $1004)0 $150410 $250.00 Ch. 42, Article 111 No Charge $ 754)0 $2504)0 $350A0 $500JOachcaU $ 25A0/applkation far 2 cards RESIDENTS (N4LY $13 JO each additkaal card (Citiaeaship No Charge) fee SchMule-Fage 23 utaiMAtytMkalfjioavJhlkkMti -ir.r-,snnft*-—> tMTi-rthnir^ I.ICKNSES Ml MISCELI^ANEOliS CHARGES fCONT.^ Analkatioa Tyne r»Mt« Dtpartfl COPY SERVICE - P*Hc« Rtcmrd* FinI Tw« Cf iw AddlliMUil Copic* SUMMARY DATA REPORT m COf\ OF ACCIDENT REPORTS AccMcal PhstiM COPY OF DRIVER'S LICENSE RECORD CTIPY FROM MICROFICHE FILE FfntTw* Caplet AddMieaal Caplet w 'k', '"i.'r.V .1 -NO PARKING ORDER OF POLICE- paper tlgat jsa talk lacladed )14 V. *> 'D AUDIO TAPE DUPLICATION 1 >fnif VIDEO TAPE DUPLICATION 4r-'i< PHOTOGRAPH DUPLICATION From Negativcfl Flram INgilal Caawra t -Ml SECURITY VIIHIO ONTO CD STATEMENTS r r •V • ■■mm Applicable CodeSediOB $ S.0d/firti page $.25 each additional page $ 0.25 each $10.00 No charge $ 25.00 minimum or actual cost $ 5.00 each $10J0 $ JO each $ 1.00 each $10J0aach $50.00 each $ 5.00 plat the actual cost of duplkatioa $10.00 $20.00 $10 JO (Irantcribed copy ar CD when available; subject to Data Privacy Act) 2006 Fee Sekedtde-Fage 24 - -K I V • A • * C^w • • - 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MI58CKLLANEOUS CHARGES ADOlicaliMTVDC UHIHv Servtcg Rato • EnccHvc bcginnint Pint Quarter 20M MUNICIPAI. SEWER RATE by unit: lat 2nd by flow: $ M3S per quarter $ S7J5 per quarter S 3^/1000 talkMi plus $ 9.10 per quarter per connection MUNICIPAL WATER RATES BilHng A Ready to Serve Chg Water Usage Rate Unconnected Property Chg (ready to serve/h^rant chg) Area #1 Area 02 Area #3 Navarre Hwv 12 Chew Chase $27JS/qtr $10.00/qtr SI0.00/qtr S 2 J3/W00 gal $3.24/1000 gal $2.42/1000 gal $27.SS/qtr -0- -0- Fcderally Mandated Safe Drinking Water $ S.21 per year on second quarter billing Testing Program (Charged per service connection) Quarterly Service Charge iar Non-Functlaning $ 50.00 or Inaccessible Water Meter Bulk sale to Minnetonka Beach for Lafayette Ridge Area > Area 01 Rate $27.SS/qtr billing charge plus $2 J3/I000 gallon total (low at border meter. Bulk sale - All Others - $25310 per location plus area rale per/1,000 gallons, ix. Fill swimming pool or watering sod. Penalty for late payment of scwer/waler bM • 0% aRer 30 days ft-om billing dale (applied to the total unpaid balance). lntcr»t at •% on unpaid water/sewer hWs certiBcd. Water Tnm>On Water Turn-off $ 20 JO Minimum $ 20JO Mlnii Water System Rcpair/RcpIacemenI if damage cansed by property owner: Labor - Current Honrly Rate Parts • At Cost Applicable Code Section Ord. 210,2*^ Scries 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 25 r r ■■■ ••• ■ .:/^- : ';. :vi :' ?;>: •••'. -■: :.' •-•••;• •;•. r;V;;. 5- 7^, niBuc: WORKS per artment misceuaneous charges icont .i AnnUcaU— Tvbc Ett Applicable Code Section MUNICIPAL STORM WATER UTILITY RATES Sec. I4-2S1 Uini 14-287 The basic lalciii of storm water rctulatioM ia to mlalmitt the impact *f dcvdepineat on natural drainafc syitcim. Any development in an area wlH chance the natural conditions by increasing the total voinme of runoff and the level of poHutanI loading. The storm water uliUty provides dedicated funds to operate, maintain, manage, consiruci or reconstruct the municipal slorm water drainage system. Residential properties urill be charged one resMenlial unit fee for each residential unit an the property. Non-rcsMcntial properties will be charged the appropriate number of residential unit fees based on the *Rcsldenlial Equivaicnl Factor* for the properly. One residential unit: S 9.S8 per quarter Non-r^dcntial unit: Based on 'Residential Equivalent Factor* w .':i RECYCLING CHARGE Recycling Container - Initial for new residence Replacement Container (incinding sales taa) Wheel KH $ 23.08/year No Charge S 3.00 each 85.00 t ;<»LF COURSE CHARGES - Effective date 2006 Season Monday thru Friday (eaduding Holidays) Begin Play Before 12:00 Noon 1st Nine Holes 2nd Nine Holes 10 Pass (12 pnnehes/9 boles each) 5 Pass (0 pnaehes/9 bales each) % 8 lOJO 8 8.00 8105.00 8 52.50 Afler 12:00 Noon and Wechend Rates 1st Nine Holes 2nd Nine Holes 2nd Nine Holes (Weekday After 12:00 Noon) 10 Pass (12 punchea/9 holes eaeh) 5 Pass (0 pnnches/9 holes each) r 13.50 8 10.00 8 EOO 8135.00 8 07.50 Senior Ctliaen (Over 00 years old) Begin Play Before %2:00 Noon - Weekdays 1st Nine Holes 2nd Nine Holes $ 7Ji 8 1M Season Ticket (Senior Citiaens Only)8100.00 2006 Fee Schedule -Fage 26 r- \ *i; :> J r^- ■'^ w.:;-. ^ ft' PUBLIC WORK8 DEPAmHENT MttCELUmEOUS CHARQES^tC r AiMilteMttoii Tvnt £S£ GOLF COURSE CHARGES - Effective date 20M ScaMB (centlnned) •Kl [J GOLF CART RENTAI. Matartaed: After 12:tt Naaa aad Weekead Rates 1st Niae Hales (After 12:0« it Weekends) 2adNiaeHalca (•Pass (II paackcs/9 kales each) Regia Play Bcfare 12:M Naan 1st NIae Hales 2ad Niae Hales ftPass(ll paaches^ bales each) PaH Carts - Per Raaad Galfdabs - Per Raaad STUDENT RATE (AGES 12 -17) Regia Play Befare Naaa Maaday • FHday, Eidadiag Holidays 1st Niae Hales 2ad Niae Hales FALL GOLF RATES WW hegia the tMrd Maaday afSepteatber. • Weekead Rates: 1st Niae Hales 2ad Niae Hales RMIagCarl • Weekday Rales: 1st Niae Hales 2ad Niae Hales Sr.it Jr. Riding Cart i S 12J0 $ liJi S120JW $ lOJM S SJM simjn S 2Jf S 3Jt *i t S 7.S0 $ 7J0 CONCE NS rM k ( ■ _ s liJo $ MO $ tJO/Fcraiae $ Mt S SJt S S.S0 7.t0tFer aiae Pasted « \ s- Applicable Code Sectiaa 2000 FeeSckethde'Page 27 .. .. ; V :r-rWI < ' ’ I ^KMMIIIIIII^^ V s ' ’ ’ 't ■ PUBLIC WORKS SUPPUES & SERVICES Strtcl «r Traffic Sigm (mIc incliMlct iatlallaliaii) Driveway Ciilvcrtt (mIc only, not inalalled) Water Meter Salee (Sec BnUdlni Permit Section) SUK>.tM/tld. tign On Qnote Basil Temporary No ParUng Signs (without lath)S 1.00 each Driven ay/Curh-Cnt Permito Individual Driveways $ 30J0/(icrmit New Street IntcrMctions (See soning section • Special improvement fees) SSO.OO per addressAddress Change Request by Owner SECTION 3. This ordinance establishing the 2000 Fee Schedule shall be puMisbed as a SniMMary Ordinance in the Laker and Pioneer Newspaper and shall be cflcctlve the week of January 1,2000. Adopted by the City Council of the CUy of Orono on this 12th day of December, 200S. ATTEST: Nnda S. Vcc, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor mi - ^ i % fV A 'jBm m 2006 Fee Schedule-Page 28 COUNCIL MEETING DEC 122005 I ^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: December 7,2005 ITEM NO: 11 Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name LinVee City Administrator's Titto City Clerk r ¥i Report Item Description: Proposed 2006 Meeting Schedule Attachnent: Proposed 2006 Orono Meeting Schedule On the attached schedule, Couacil meetings are scheduled for the 2nd and 4th Monday of the month at 7:00 p.m. As in the past, only one Council meeting is scheduled in December. Council work sessions have been scheduled for the each Tuesday following a Council meeting except for the September 11 Council meeting. Since the Primary Election will be held on Tuesday, Septen^r 12 and no public meetings may be held between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m., no work session will be scheduled. Council may determine an alternate date in the future. Planning Commission meetings are scheduled for the 3rd Monday of the month at 6:00 p.m, January and February are the exceptions because of Monday holidays. In those months, the meetings will be on the third Tuesday. No Planning Commission meeting is scheduled in December. Regular Planning Commission work sessions have been scheduled for the first Wednesday of each month at 5:30 p.m. Park Commission meetings are scheduled for the first Monday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Exceptions are the January, July and September meetings which have been rescheduled because of the New Year’s Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day holidays. There is no December Park Conunission meeting scheduled. The City schedules eleven holidays throughout the year, including 10 regular holidays and one designated floating holiday. The ten regular holidays are New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, i.abor Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day, Friday after Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day. When a holiday falls on Saturday, the offic’al holiday is scheduled for the previous Friday. When a holiday falls on Sunday, the officii 1 holiday is scheduled for the following Monday. Staff is recommending that this year’s designai?d floating holiday be used on Monday, July 3 to make a long holiday weekend. Staff anticipates that July 3 would not be busy as many contractors and residents would also be observing a long holiday weekend. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to amend/q>prove/table the 2006 Meeting Schedule. i 2006 City of Orono Me*^?ng Schedule Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway mm S M T W T F S 1HHHQI 5 6 7 6 9gB 11 12 13 14 ISliH 18 19 20 21 22 2^B 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 S M T W T F S 1 6 7 8 13 14 15 20 21 22 27 28 29 S M T W 9 10GEE 12 l^iii 18 19 23 2^g 26 30 31 T F S 1 6 7 8 13 14 15 20 21 22 27 28 29 .'I 1^. /s‘»»^ Itl* S M T W T F S 5 6 7 11 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 S M T W 12 1 8 15 19||^P 22 26 T 2 9 16 23 F 3 10 17 24 S 4 11 18 25 8 M T 2] Wii 7 ^3 10 14H 16 17 21 223g 24 30 31 T 4 11 18 25 F 5 12 19 26 5 6 13 20 27 S M T W T F S lii 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14S 16 17 18 19 20ig 22 23 24 25 26 27 2^B 30 31 U-Xi S M T W T F S 11101 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 I^H 15 16 17 18 19188 21 22 23 24 25 26 273S 29 30 31 V ’/'t»JMIML i - h: S M T W T F S 1 2 3 im 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 -•x* ••! S M T W T F UIH 2 3 smtu 812^^ liliii s 4 11 18 25 29 30 ’Gererat Election s M T W T F S 3HBWi 7 8 9 10 11J12* 13 14 15 16 17^ 19 20 21 22 23 24 2^9 27 28 29 30 *Primafy Election S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5^1 7 8 9 10 11^Ti3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24!^ 26 27 28 29 30 31 KEY Park Committioa Meeting, 1st Monday, 7:00 pm □ Council Meeting, 2nd A 4th Monday, 7:00 pm 0 PInaniag Commlitlon Meeting, 3rd Monday, 6:00 pm ■ Ofllcial Holiday Q Other Event 5 Council Work Setsioo, 5:45 pm 01 Planning Commitsioa Work Session, 5:30 pm *PLANN1NG COMMISSION > May ;hrougkOctober- letTuceday ban attenintc uMatlng data. Adopted:11/12/05 r- ,’A. 'f jm COUNCIL MEETING DEC 1 22005REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: Droem^r^OOS ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Lin Vee A Tl«e City Clerk Admiabtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Council Liaison to Park CAmmbsion and Planning Commission Meetings in 2006 The following is a proposed schedule for Council Member attendance at the monthly Park Commission and Planning Commission meetings during 2006. SCHEDULE PARK COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date Representative January 3,2006 (Taesday) Jim Murphy February 6 Bob Sansevere March 6 Jim White ^ril 3 Mayor Peterson Mayl Lili McMillan hme S Jim Muiphy July 5 (Wednesday) Bob Sansevere August 7 Jim White Septembers (Twsday) Mayor Peterson October 2 Lili McMillan November 6 Jim Murphy Meeting Date Representative January 17, 2006 (Tuesday) Jim White February 21 (Tuesday) Jim Murphy March 20 Mayor Peterson April 17 Lil. McMillan May IS Bob Sansevere June 19 Jim White July 17 Jim Murphy August 21 Mayor Peterson Sep ember 18 Lili McMillan October 16 Bob Sansevere Novend>er20 Jim White COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to ^>prove schedule for Council attendance at the Park Commission and Plaiuiing Commission meetings during 2006 UaUenSOMaoc - ^ I '' V COUNCIL MEETING UEC 122005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: December 12,2005 ITEM NO: |3 Department Approval^ / Name Tom Kuehn Title Finance Director Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: 2005 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments Attachment: Schedule of 2005 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments Each year the Council is requested to authorize transfer of monies between funds. These transactions fall into two categories: I.) Budgeted Transfers - Items designated in that year’s budget when originally adopted for the purpose of providing support from one fund to another. 2.) Fund Obligations • (a) Payments from one frmd to another to reimburse expenses incurred by one fund on behalf on another. This is generally for City portions of special assessments, for equipment capital outlay. (b) Loan payments from one fund to another. Loans are generally made to construction funds for me purpose of payment of expenses incurred prior to the sale of bonds and the levying of special assessments. In addition certain loans are necessary to fund major undertakings when the fund incurring the expense does not have adequate cash flow available to complete the project. This would include such situations as the loan from the Contununity Investment Fund to the Water Operating Fund for the Navarre water plant rehabilitation project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of transfers and loan payments as indicated on the attached schedule. 1 From FMnd General General General Community Investment Community Investment Water Operating M- Sewer Operating Schedule of 2005 Interfand transfers and Loan Pavmtftfa To Fund Amount Imp & Equip Outlay $ 125,1 Annual operating, transfer for capital equipment purchases, as budgeted. Imp & Equip Outlay $ 4,000 Budgeted annual payment from police operating budget for network improvements. PIR Fund $ 17,100 Budgeted loan payment (#2 of 6) from police operating budget for LOGIS police records system advance. (Loan balance at 12/31/05, $68,367). 1998 Public Facility $1I0,( Refunding Bond Debt Annual operating transfer for debt service support of HRA building bonds, as budgeted. 2003 Fire Hall & $ 10,( Equipment Bond Debt Annual operating transfer for debt service support of HRA fire building and equipment bonds, as budgeted. Community Investment $ 46,900 Budgeted loan payment for Navarre water treatment plant lehabilitation project. (Princ paid, $31,660; int paid, $15,240. Loan balance at 12/31/05, $253,380). 1999 Improvement Bond Debt $ 11,760 Annual operating transfer for debt service support of non-assessed properties, as budgeted. Affordable Housing General $ 95,500 Repayment in full of temporary funding loan. Paric Fund General $ 74,125 Repayment in full of temporary funding loans. 2001 Senior Housing General $ 8,000 Repayment in full of temporary funding loan. WonI PmfedNTow>4emo-Coyi>cil.AamnU60$NlOOltfMMfa»t.oM Ny «nii wprf COUNCIL MEETING DEC 122005 CITY OF ORONO •• iyr:: ■■ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 12,200S ITEM NO: j ^4 Department Approval Name Tom Ktiehn Title Finance Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Authorization to disburse City funds for claims received Typically during the month of December the Cit}’ has only one Council meeting. The second Council meeting, which falls on or near the Christmas holiday, has been canceled. We will have the next scheduled Council meeting on Monday, January 9,2006. We therefore are requesting authorization to do a normal claims processing for the canceled Council meeting. This practice has been done in December each year with the Council then formally iqyproving the claims at the first meeting in January of the following year. HyyJ COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize the City Treasurer to disburse City fiinds in payment of claims received for the December 27*^ Council meeting, which has been canceled, and duit such paid claims be presented for formal iqiproval at the January 9,2006, Council meeting. X: mmm Word FoffKtXTomvAiidlOi* wpd ~‘r k- . t 3 1^ COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 9,2005 ITEM NO: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEC 1 22005 emr OF ORONO Department Approval: Na«c Ronald J. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:n Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description : 2006 Non-union Employee Compensation Adjustments-Resolution romnensation Adjustment Criteria The criteria on which pay and benefits adjustments are generally based include the Consumer Price Index, market comparisons, and the increase in health insurance costs. A. Pay Adjustment Criteria 1.Cost of living increase A. Minneapolis/St. Paul Consumer Price Index; 'e annualized increase from July 2004 to July 200.5 was 3.1%. B. U.S. Consumer Price Index: the increase foi ;he month of October, 2005 was 0.2%. The annualized increase from October, 2004 to October 2005 was 4.3%. 2. Market comparison The average 2006 pay adjustment in cities in the lake area and throughout the metro area is 3%. 3. Health Insurance Contribution criteria The City generally sets its benefit contribution at a level that will cover approximately half of the average health insurance premium increase. For 2006, we have added the high deductible option with the HRA that has a substantially reduced premium. For the family high option, the monthl)- premium has increased by $118.52. For the family Elect and Essential options the monthly premium has increased by $108.32. • For the years 2004, 2005. and 2006, the cost of the highest cost family coverage option has increased by a total of $236.48. Half of this increase is $118.29. Based on the proposed 2006 insurance contribution increase, for these same years, the City's insurance contribution has increased by $115.00. •• -lA • ■ C;- • ■ ; \ ■riiamr? -.i Of' Recommended 2006 Pav and Benefits Adjustments , Based on the factors outlined above, a 3% pay adjustment is proposed for 2006. Also, the City s benefits contribution is proposed to increase from $565.00 per month to $615.00 per month. A resolution reflecting these adjustments is attached for Council consideration. COUNaL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution regarding the 2006 non-union employee; compensation adjustments, including a 3% pay adjustment and a $615.00 per month benefits contribution. / V; ■ - •I * I;.'': • -' 'a; JjH ■ y’‘i‘ ■ ■ - . f‘' •v . ’•f' m V V •. • jp- t ♦. ■ ' ji ^ •• 3iia • ' . ■ •. V . :■■■■■ A tefe'ss! Av f 1 i Wmmmm ■•'.ta>S .\_5nl lUESOLUnON APPROVING PAY PLAN ADJUSTMENTS FOR NON-UNION CITY EMPLOYEES FOR 2006 WHEREAS, the City Administrator is responsible ibr annually presenting pay plan adjustments for City employees, with the exception of employees covered by collective bargaining agreements; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds have been (appropriated in the proposed 2006 Annual Budget to fund the recommended pay plan adjustments and such other matters of compensation as herein specified NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Orono City Council as follows; That a 3% adjustment to the non-union employee pay schedules effective 1-1- 2006 is approved. That the City's cafeteria benefit plan contribution be increased to S615.00 per month. That City employees using their own vehicles for approved work related business shall be compensated at a rate allowed by the IRS (currently S.445 per mile). Adopted by the Council this 12th day of December, 2005 Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk t, ‘fc ■ .daeaJi k ; 1^- 0. J: updated: March 14,2005 A CITY OF ORONO NON-UNION ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT/TECHNICAL/PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN \ POSITION/POINT GROUPINGS FOR 2006 ^txsaaisg Point Range Mill f oIbI Position in Groupittg 1 45-47 46 Community Service Officer 2 49-50 49 Receptionist 3 51-54 52.5 Police Records/Secretary 4 55-58 56.5 Administrative Support Assistant 5 59-61 60 Administrative Support Assistant/Deputy Citj' Clerk Payroll/Utility Billing Specialist Police Office Manager 6 62-65 63.5 lilTifiiaiir' ~ "iri'r- T T— Public Works Maintenance Worker iSiflSlM >:. ■ ■ • > .■ :-V^- ^ V; , ■i- , :v; if::;: :■ i-wIPIIhH ililili® . ••. ;• ■:•■•. ‘ -r-:-.r' ••; •. • ^ .=•• -i V’ ’ ■;••-■’« if.--' - •' 'm.Cunipensji.on 2^t»o rc> doc i '■ ^'-4: •> . Updated: March 14,2005 CITY OF ORONO NON-UNION SUPERVISORY/ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN POSITION/POINT GROUPINGS FOR 2006 CrouDtog Point Range MM Point Position in Grouping (E) - Exempt l 66-69 67.5 2 70 - 74 72 City Clerk (E) Golf Course Supervisor (E) Building Inspector On-Site Septic Manager (E) 3 75-79 77 Asst. Finance Direc»'>r/MlS Coord (E) City Planner (E) Public Works Supervisor 4 80-85 82.5 Building Official (E) 5 80-91 88.5 6 92-97 94.5 Planning Director (E) 7 98-104 101 8 105-111 108 Police Chief (E) Finance Director (E) Public Services Director (E) 9 112-118 115 J 10 119-126 122.5 City Administrator (E) Compensation 2u06 'r^.tkx City of Orono li Gompenuttion Plan Administrative Supporl/Technicai/Pubiic Works Pay Levels and Pay Ranges For 2006 BUDGET :■! V. "i- ■ ■■ : V' ■>•• T*.* ■ .: .‘t ■ vm, Ft » ., * ' . j'-§ '■■r ft ft*; KV Levei Steol Step II Step 111 Step IV Hourly Monthly Hourhr Monthly Hourly Monthly Hourly Monthly 1 I3.3S 2.313.13 14.13 2.449.20 14.92 2.585.27 15.70 2.721.33 2 14.11 2.445.73 14.94 2,389.60 15.77 2.733.47 16.60 2.877.33 7 ' 3 14.99 2.597.49 13.87 2,750.28 16.75 2.903.07 17.63 3.055.87 4 16.00 2.772.81 16.94 2.935.92 17.88 3.099.03 18.82 3.262.13 3 17.20 2,980.53 18.21 3,133.88 19.22 3.331.21 j 20.23 3.506.33 6 18.31 3.220.71 19.67 3.410.16 20.77 3.399.61 21.86 3.789.07 1 T r t ,City of Orono Compensation Plan Supervisory/Adminittrative Employees Pay Levels and Pay Ranges For 2006 BUDGET t* . •- ^ • *’ -• • .*s '■ ■■■'■ ••n.:'''v.->Cv': ■ ■■ x'rj -ifvs ■ .V V 'c^^HvvkV'Vv:! COUNCIL MEETING OEC 122005 ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT CfTYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 12/12/05 Item No: / ^ Department Approval Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Tide: Kurt Erickson Sergeant Item Description: Hiring of Police Oflice Manager m Exhibits: none • .-rr I DISCUSSION: As a result of Sue Bobzien having left the police department there has been a vacancy in the Police Office Manager position. The Orono City Council, at a prior meeting authorized the hiring of a new person to fill that opening. After taking applications, a testing and interview process was conducted. This process evaluated over SO applications. As a result of this process, Ms. Aime Otto was selected to fill the position. Ms. Otto has been with her current employer for nine years running an office and maintaining records for a fitumcial plarming firm in Buffalo, MN. The position has been offered to Ms. Otto and she is willing to accept pending council approval. Ms. Otto is willing to start on Tuesday, January 3,2006 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED! A motion to approve the hiring of Aiuie Otto in the non union position of Police Office Manager at level S, step 2, of the compensation plan which will set her starting wage at $18.21 per hour with a starting date of01/03/06. ^;u.v V ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DEC 122005 CITY OF ORONO Date: 12/12/05 Iten No: J ^ Department ApprovalT”^ Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Title: Kurt Erickson Sergeant Item Description: Hiring of a police Administrative Support Assistant Exhibits: None DISCUSSION; As a result of Stacie Budig having left the police department there has been a vacancy in her position. The Orono Council in a prior meeting authorized the filling of this vacancy. After taking af^lications, a testing and interview process was conducted. A candidate to fill this position was found. This is Ms. Jessica Werder. Ms. Werder is willing to accept this position pending council ^>proval. Ms. Werder is bringing significant computer skills to us that were not available to us in tte past. She has most recently been working as the Administrative Assistant, to the Vice President of Finance, for the Carlson Company. She has also served as a supervisor in the Customer Service Division of the Best Buy Company. We will be placing her in the Administrative Support Assistant positimi. Ms. Werder has asked to start on Monday, January 9,2006. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A motion to ^jprove the hiring of Jessica Werder in the non union po:iition of Administrative Support Assistant in the police department at level 4, step 2 of the compensation plan which will set her starting wage at S16.93 per hour with a starting date of01/09/06. ’ -• \A 1 ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DEC 122005 CITY OF ORONO Date: 12/12/05 Item No: Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Kurt Erickson n/l; Title: |, Sergeant ^ 1 f/ Item Description: Animal Control Contract Exhibits: attached copy of proposed contract DISCUSSION; The police department has for many years used the services of Greater West Metro Humane Society (GWMHS). GWMHS was formerly known as Wright County Humane Society. The police department has been satisfied with the service as provided by GWMHS. As such the police department recommends a^Noval of the annual contract with GWMHS. The police department is not aware of other providm in this area that can offer the same level of service. In fact many local facilities do not want to deal with impounded animals. ACTION REQUESTED; A motion to approve entering into a contract with Greater West Metro Humane Society for 2006 animal impounding and related services in exchange for a base fee of $3,966 plus other specified incidental charges such as emergency vet service or euthanasia as may be need from time to time. 'Rum :qkepter uest metro humrne FPX NO. :6829629 Dec. 07 2005 05:33PM P2 animal control impound contract ____A>ri/m vsnki AN OFFICIAL OF ACITY OR II^JuMdktUm.AHIiitWoi«l«l««l0«ttWii»w --------------- - ANIMALS WILL BE 24 bours/«vcn township covered under A^R TOT houowWch •» eunemiy (exccRi hoHdiys): dm • mA. AAmli win b. 1:00 pm.: SiUdfit lO.OO am. tof w-Au>>Ai«i and Pridmt. MtkiiMtDddaHvMy.Mtkipmed daHvciy . £SHS»=!STSs».t»=ss^ tlpctt tht Propeid Aimuil CoMiMt opiiMi btktw. r*rimA«MMlilot Wired by simiiio M7.U,«ibdivirion2.lopo8tde«»ipriomof tapoun^ In three public plifici wWi taRwetioitt •• to wimre the owMr may claim them. grizay4;^t:g5i4..n^ b, *.«. n®.«». »iB ta cb^ t.«. '1. All »d b, *. W^vb,.™ of OWMH contract option I ^"T "*>*"^* OWMHS biMinna houn, hitito Wet. Md byal vet-tech wain fees. ^Dof(-S01b..) *;j^;-53;;5E3holdln«p#riod '$40 ____^ itfVk-mitdl (« COB) md Bl!h»aria/dln>o«l ($50) neemtary for any imrtottnded animal will be billed additional IW *» ibB com^ aUki b' •» ■'■gelofl CONTRACT OmON 2 mioiusERVicxGotmucT^ -f^crnm lart««dpnw«laffci(tUteipoa«li) ^gi TiiiiWyiwick«Mm(aniii|»Mod.); DoiBS . .r"*?*®* A «________ - - m AAfl billed quartorty, bt|inaing tai April 2006. ----------------------------------------------------- Val Smieitt iOd M«*iertoM: •ewd cb«t« W O'*'*®* » • . fn T»ie above city i|f*a» to impound ____CATS The dbwt «lqr •« ----- WllX ALLOW « ^—WILL NOT ALLOW OWMHS10 eoUeet fcei and ^ on their nwOboraaO mo ehvAownihip lovenwaBi eOloae aw ckxed. Schednle of ibat oaiit be provided. ollle«nwopeoeotho«toi»lH<»J«'‘««5 ----------------------------------- This niiffw* la biodloi OorwPoNtWBf 1.3 UPherpsaqriMy to JMueiy 31.2007 and wilH« icoqptioiad on an aanuel basis. ispoa ttainy (30) dqw writtM notice. City/Toefiuriiip Kspre iKativc Me . h Id udPC'.se S0es ^0 ‘^aa 6296Z89: ‘ON Xbi 34M1H 0»134 iS3n ^»3d0: UOtU DATE: Dcctabcr 9,2005 ITEMNO: /f REQUEST FOR COUNaL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING OK 122005 CITY OF ORONO Dcpartoicit Approval: Naa« Rtmald J. Moorse THte City Administrator Adaniabtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Descriptioa : Aaiaial Control Servi^ Contract 2006 Renewals The Orono Police Departmem provides animal control service to the Cities of Excelsior, Shorewood, and Tonlu Bay on a contractual basis. It is recommended that these contracts be renewed for 2006 with a 3% cost increase. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the renewal of the animal control service contracts for 2006, with a 3% cost increase. A HIPHH ‘ .*1 I* a'-;- ' V-.. h: .-.7, 'f'- • V'"" A^; '• ■ ■' ■? '.J ;;o-- ‘ V J ; / ■ X. •*. T ‘ - ''W; r - •1 COUNCIL MEETING DEC 122005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: December 12,2005 ITEM NO: ^ Der.rt>«rt Adniaistnitor Reviewed: Name Tom Kuehn ^ Title Finance Director Item Description: Joint Fire Station Accot^t Close Out Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report The cities of Orono and Long Lake entered into a joint agreement in 2001 to fund the construction of the replacement Long Lake fire station. A joint account was established to account for the revenues and expenditures related to this project. It was stipulated that any revenues remaining after payment of all costs would be divided equally between the two cities. In July, 2002, it was determined that the project would be completed for substantially less than origiiuUly projected and $850,000 was distributed equally between the two cities at that time. The project costs have been finalized and there remains $518,678 in the joint account as of 1^7/05. It is recommended the amount remaining in the account be distributed equally between the cities of Orono and Long Lake, and that the account be closed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize the withdrawal of the renuuning balance from the Joint Fire Station Account, to be divided equally between the cities of Orono and Long Lake. 5^1 ‘v:.. . V'' • ^ • • \ ■ RMltoM CMMi AMlfriMSVIilii ffit iiiM 4 1 Pi L.;« iSi DATE: Dccenbcr 9» 2005 ITEM NO: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING OEC 122005 CITY OF ORONO DtpartaicBt Approval: NaoM RomM J. Moone Tlilt City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administnior’s Report Item Description: Resolution of Anderson Cbini at 1260 Spruce Place As the Council is aware, the claim related to the sewer back-up at 1260 Spruce Place has been resolved through a settlement in the amount of $30,000. The Council's approval of this settlement needs to be documented through a formal action by the Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the settlement, in the amount of $30,000, related to the sewer back-up at 1260 Spruce Place. mmm y-i' t'* ■ > S' '. ^ • •: T::.- r ’«wk. ■ .' . (Sis? ' R]fnflna5i'> il r, COUNCIL MEETING U£C 122005 REQUEST FOR COUNCTL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: December 9,200S ITEMNO: Dcpartmcat Approval: Naaw LinVec Title City Cleric AdnUaifi^ator Reviewed: //>___________________ Item Deeerlptioa: List of Licenses fer Council Approval ANNUAL LIQUOR LICENSES Ob Sale Liqoor aod Sunday 1. Narrows Saloon (Orono Liquor Inc.) 3380 Shoreline Drive RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE 2. Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin R. Field, III 1729 North Farm Road 3. Colleen Jrf)bour 98S Tonkawa Road 4. LttAnn and D.L. Runkle 2684 Casco Point Road 5. Gayle Talbot 80 Luce Line Ridge COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses Agenda Section: Licenses > . i' CD T of MlnnMola County of Honnopin CityofOrono License No:2006-04 Amount: | $5200.00 >. 0\\ ................• ■■ ■•• • ■' - On Sale Liquor & Sunday tranttowble except by consent of the Issuing authority. Lloefloee Name: Trade Name: Pramiaes Name: Premises Address Commencing: Terminating: Ofono Liquor Inc. Narrows Saloon Narrows Saloon 3380 Shoreline Drive January 1,2006 December 31,2006 Buslnesa Description: On Sale Liquor Establishment Issued by authority of the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota on: December 12.2005 Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Attest: Linda S. Vee. City Clerk V ’ 2780 KaSayPBlwisy.P O.Boites.CfytW Say.58323 Phona: (982)a«S4SQ0/Faic (9S2)24S4S16/«MMr.d.orano.nmjM m 64" ■ r 4\?> f/. ■:;iitfc'.vSS^•£■■ i^^::;)';/i i_. ItSuiifta*. .:■-.- ■ t-.«. ■’ >■ - .'•■ =i ■ »■*» • i ' i";- 2 I T"^-04 jOrono Liquor Inc. 3380 Shoreline Drive The following conditioift have been placed on this license: 1. $2,600.00 (balance of the 2006 liquor license fee) must be paid by December 28,2005 prior to Issuance of the 2006 liquor license. ••'i;' ‘ I: •wwm ffiflW W' ► - -i-it ^ * ' '■ '. V . ,• •• i;*.-^^'.• r. V;. '■ ' '• .'i - ' - - = ‘ . ’h;.* ''irT = . ' 2 . • ' m. ■ 4. -J»■ -JT ■ ^ • t V- '^T ’ ^ > ■ f': . •'■ . . ^ : ■ : -. ..•-•■.V\- . ...:; ■••• Vv r;:• •/■ ... ■ v\'\' ■ V '■. v': •'6rV"-;6: . \:i : 6:;> ■..-■ ■■'. ^ ;Vi.^ v:. •>'. 1-.1 •i'. , • !-. '■ ^ '' ■:.. .'A :6v.vi66i . ..... . ' *.l. ...• i li,;. '.V. .- :. :. • •Je J-?.*'^ I . •.;. - ■ r=- ■■.•.. -iT. . ■ • .. :: ■. ■ ehmmp- Minnesota E)epatiment of Public Safety Alcohtri and GambUnt Enforcement 444 Cedar Street. Suite 133 St Paul. MN 55101-5133 651 -296-6979 • TTY 651-282-6555 • Fax 651-297-5259 canctllatioii. License Code 0^'«55 City/Couniy wltere license approved.Urorto License Period Ending__i£i;ii££l^iD#2581 Licensee Nome Trade Name Orapo Liquov ' Inc. |-4arrow3 Eal<‘On Licensed Location addre.ss Shoreline Dr- City. State. Zip Code ertr^cr. OrOPO, MN J rvi:#!- Business Phone S52/A71-335S MCEWSt FEES: Off Sale s S000. IV?On Sale S Sunday $ ;00,00 m. this renewal rnoflrms the foUourlng; Failure to repffQ ««3V 9t Ul* foWPw jng w«l iff flitfS. I Licensee confirms it has no interest whatsoever, directly or mditectly in any other liquor establishments m Minnesota It* so. give details on back of this application. 4 Licen>ee confirms that duting the past five years it or its employees have not been etted for any civil or «immal liquor law violations. If violations have occurred, please give details on back of th.s ""cwal. then 5 Licensee confirms that dunng the past license year, a summons has not been issued under the Liquor Liability . rN__ci____A te i iAA un-» h nrtach a coov of the r>ummons. then sign below 1 t...ntM has attached a liquor HablliD insurance certificate that corresponds with the license period In cU.y/county License has ^ ^ .e*-uriti«« or 5100,000 surety bond may be submittec in lieu of nquor .labil- 1J» •J.-./a.OCO .. .n »!,. or »«.«0 «« »i.,. n / ^ /o-r t n-^nsee , ■ ------------------------- 'signat-.'.-.C'.c'lifies^almve mtoimau-m t.-^ correct and licen-e has rcer. apptO'ca by c.'.y/'.ounty i ^ CrtV Date / ^linmure ccttihes that uncwal of a liuuur. w,i« ct club l.ceax has been appro- Jo by me city.county as stated above . _____________ D:i^f ______________ ----------------------------------------- Count: ^ 'a;d i"’-«4 ’i.t."«- 'N'- ibigna-ure •.en-'--e- - eligible for hcer'ei DaeJbL / / •'? / / € 0 ^ mJ- — • • 'le M-: 'vc 'e^.T. for an* Mate.'iNCi iiq'-oi IS"- • oiaocn- ! > jttSIlL». 1 i‘i,ghangMorcor ^ pi»yyny«- iiomg addrtnes or telenhont number;; liglow any whatsoever. rt»r*ctW or Indirectly In Other liawr «<a|lM?bm«ntSl ^ k I . a 1 fi A a^Ai K^C iA aou S^ CAOvre ^ %V-«>j8. |Tav C.'^ J ^ , TO<^r.__<?^lva.vA.4»iliU. I^yprtrt hrioiff ^ia>u af Hijuar Uw viotattons icivtl or criminal? h”V^ occum*^ yrithin the >ast. five vcar5...(.0a;g.s, oggtt'iw, |>naa or Other panalttw. liKludint UoMor ContfPt ?«na>Ut^); 7/^ L • IPi halow involving knv liciue r«>«rtions or itv<»vativ»?».i _______________________________________________ iT *-J Orono Police Deparment Memo Tm Mr.Moono PiwiK Chief Good CCS Orono City Cckjncil Dates November 23,2005 lies Narrawt Saloon Liquor Ueeme Rcmwal AppHcatioii The renewal application form for licensir^ in 2006, states in bold print that **ADolicant*s sionatiire on thin feneviffil anniifittiO" «>nfiims the foBowina: Failure to report anv of the fbHowino wifl result in fines" ".louring foepei^^ business) or its employees have not been citied for any civil or criminal law violations.'' On the back of the form there is a space to “Report below detays of liquor law violations (civy or criminal) that have occurred within the last five years. (Oates, offenses, fines or other penalties, including Liquor Control Penalties.r The applc«tt responded “None,* to this question and cerfified the application by signature. On 7/27/02, OPD Case # 023543, the Narrows Saloon foled an underage compliance check. Because of the incomplete information R was necessary for me to make an amendment on the application or make a recommendation that the license be denied. We are concerrred about the inability or unwyiingness of owner James Anderst to comply with local and state licensing requirements and it should be noted that continuing concerns will be carefully monRored. V/i' • f '"a ., • # «ctlont: APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF ANNUAL ‘NTOXICATING LIQUOR. WINE, 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR, AND SETUP LICENSES City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone: (952)249-4600 ftllod out With typswritor or by printing in ink. If the epplicetion is by en individual parson by such person; if by a corporation, by an officer thereof; if by a partnership, toy ofSfe partners; if by an unincorporated association, toy the manager or managing officer. •ntetyp« (check all that apply) ng On Sale Intoxicating Liquor ($5,000.00) Wine ($2000.00)vvino V ‘ Sunday Liquor ($200.00) “ Off Sale Intoxicating ($150.00) □ Club ($200.00) □ Setup ($100.00) □ 3.2% On Sale ($100.00) □ 3.2% Off Sale ($50.00) senee year.2QSS.(January 1 - December 31) Nam* of *pp«e*nlflie*n*ee (name of individual, partnership, association or corporation): Uvov,dx ----- Business Trad* Name KilSAfteuas—vn Business Address — ^ OAtfVeO (Ctyl Mailing Address (if different)(SUMU (Olyl (Zip) Licensee’s Minnesota Tax Identification Number Licensee’s Federal Tax Identification Number. 4» Ml - If the above named licensee is an individual, complete the following; a. Sst^^ ----Totv)' Individual Nana A rv\ (Last) I u i Homa Addftis --------- If the above named licensee is a partnership, association, or corporation, complete tne following for each partner/officer: Oatd of Birth Home Phone a. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (Wo:#7 -r . _____ V • li/i'-ilc ________________data of i:':r Partrt.'-O^tff (Vr.ni. t ...ft a- ^ 1 (2pj r.JfTfl ?P0''a -on* Acarass i5t'4r. stnrrTTnTrirT = 'Itf r: 3 '..as:,C' i w ft‘3 - z n Complete the following for the manager of the above-named business: a- _ inoivMual Nanw CJ*TL C Vvtn^A. (81^ (&«y) (Middi*) Homt AddrtM (LMt)'Date <f I M A A ___, Birth Honie Phone Have tharo been any changes in ownership or control of the licensee or enlargement or alteration of the licensed premises since the date of the last renewal application? (This includes any transfer of stock or change of officers or directors of a corporation.) No; ------Yes. Has there been a change of manager, operating officer or agent in charge of the licensed premises since the date of the last renewal application? (This is defined as the person responsible for day-to- day operating dedsions of the premises.) y. No; ____Yes. If yes, describe the change and the date of City Council approval of the change? Have there been any other changes to the information contained in the original or previous renewal applications which have not been submitted to the City? , ^__No;--------Yes. If yes, describe these changes and/or include floor plan. T Are any real estate taxes, personal property taxes, spedal assessments or other financial claims of the - -- ■ -------------------------------------------------------------------- V No; V«City of Orono delinquent or unpaid for the premises licensed?Yes. If yes, give details.__ Have you received any summons curing the past year under M S. 340.951? (This is a claim for injury resulting from the sale of liquor filed under your dram snop insurance.)____No; V Yes o If yes. attach a copy of each summons received. Applicant and his associates in this aoplication will strictly comply with ai! the laws of the State of Mir-^esota covernina the taxation and the sa'e cf imoxicarng !;ouo' wine, or 3 2 cercert .malt liduo.' beer and the Orcno City Code and I hereby certify that ' nave read the fcegcng Questions and tha: tne answers to said questions are true of my own knowledge nJVJlK I > A* lh» p«r»on executing thi» application for this license. I acknowledge that an investigation vwll be randuc^ for use in dWrmining my qualifkalions. I hereby ®" information which any organization, company or person may have, including information ofj nnnfidantial e»r nrivileoed nature. I hereby release the City and any organization, compan> or person furnishing infomiation to the City, as expressly authorized above, from any liability for damage which may result from furnishing the information requested. The Information requested on this form will be used by the City of Orono in the issuance rsr nrocAssina of vour renewal application. The information that you supply on this form will become public Information when received by the City of Orono. Under Minnesota law ggL may be required to provide the business tax identification number and social security number of each applicant to the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue y pA(LSIFlCATION OF ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WILL RE$ULT IN DENIAL OF THg plication . (Title)ture) stary stamp) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of . 20 OS*. (Notai ilic/City Clerk) iF£ ATTACHIt'ENT FOR ADDITIONAL DOC'JMI.MTS REQUIRED AS PART Or THIS APPLICATION. OiTYUSb : Date Fee Paid: Date Council Approve' Amountt Lkj w r.ecS'Jt No ^ License No Lift.BiMiifaisrrjufntfra^ i f * -y KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 200^ to December 31, 200 a Owner;///-. cxwu.'i,i F’J ^ TIT Property Address;/7^ *7 ^ (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different): Phone: (home) 7^.^ - V 7.3 - (workX RESmENTlAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time; 3 (over 6 montbi of age) Principal Breed;C a VAU Purpose for more than 2 dogs: Pt^n^Lmr^ / rvtp cn-^j cn*. ^A<' Dogs normally kept; inside____tennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must acconq>any application) Name of Business: ___ Business Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:_________________________________ After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are; inside___^outside__both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Councii for 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 the City permission 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 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. d. Applicant Date fffr C/fv Vi€ Only Kennel inspected by ^ Recommends: Approval X Denial Date V K.ii 'f Owner: KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 200 to December 31, 200__;;& • ^TUQggUr Property Address r •i ' c •• (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different): Phone: (home)(work) residential Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) ^ MaximumNo. of dogs to be kept at one time: y (over 6 mooifas.of age) Principal Breed:__ QlPrincipal Breed: 1 (4 I)_______/-----------—-------------f Purpose for than 2 does: | ^ klxJU^ Does normally keot: inside [___keimel sttuctuii^ CDogs nonniUy kept: COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:______________ m Business Activities*. (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:_________________________________ After Hours Contact: (name). (phone). Dog runs/exercise areas are:____^inside ___outside__both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as soecified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel Ucense is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or reeulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the premises pnor to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned aarees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special cor^itions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applicant fQ” ClfV Kennel inspected by Recommends: Approval Dc:e oMl 1 KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Elective January 1,200_to December 31, 200__ Owner; Lti Prowttv Addiea; pitOj CAb^e ft UjAiffOt* .'W/^ SSSHi (include city and up) Mailing Address (if different):^ -Kl% f vorM kysi . f RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompany appUcadon) MaximumNo. of dogs to be kept at one time: (over 6 months of age) . Principal Breed; kIx A4^^ Dogs normally kept: kennel strucmreJU^ COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany applicadon) Name of Business:______________________________________________ « •Business Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, reuil, etc.) Normal Business Hours:__________________________________ After Hours Conuct: (name). (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:____^inside___^outside__^ih The undersigned hereby makes applicadon to the Orono CiQ^ Council for 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 the City permission to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned aarees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applicant Date r/fv Use Only Kennel inspected by DcU II -- Recommends: Approva l V Denial^ KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1,200^to December 31, 200g_ * » Owner; 7^ Property Address: ^ Kf[>(U£ ^ (include city and zip) •Mailing Address (if different):. Phone: niome1^.v^(workl t.JZ BESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompai^( application) \ . MaximumNo. ofdogsto be kept at one time: • •(over 6 months of tge) Principal Breed: N£\^ft>OKiOUi^l> t . EouSXk^_ Purpose for more than 2 dogs: Dogs normally kept: inside____^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (paynoent must accompany application) Name of Business:______________ Business Activities: (example: boardini, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours:________________________________ Alter Hours Contact: (name). (phone) Dog luns/exercise areas are:inside outside__both The undersigned hereby makes appUcation to the Orono City CouncU for 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 the City permission 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 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applicant Dace ntv Use Only Kennel inspected by Recommends: Approval_^^2^ Date // (2S/h 1 \i'' ■Mite CITY OF ORONO 12ANA)51:49 PM &> *Check Detail Register® DfCEMMR2005 Ctweli Aiwt Invotei Comwtwt Page l COUNCIL MEETING DEC 122005 crrv OF ORONO 10100 PrIniMyCMh Paid Chki' 0M071 ‘ 12AW005' 'hENNEPM COUNTY SHERIFF E101-41600-309 JaaChtfOM ($170.77) 805 E101-41000409 JaH Charge* ($75.00) 841 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF ($245 77) Void Cheek #82071 Void Check #82071 Paid Chi# 0S23ia" ' 12/12«665~VOWjbTjACI«^^ E 101-41300-319 Other Prole**ienal Service* E101-41300-310 Olher Prota**lonal Service* E 101-42400-319 Other Prole**lonal Service* E 101-42400-319 Other Prota**ional Service* E 101-41300-310 Other Prol***ional Service* Total YOUNG, JACKIE $170.00 $170.00 $170.00 $210.00 $275.00 $moo 11/29/05 11/29^5 11/29/05 11/29A)S 11/29/05 CC Minute* 11/14 CC Minute* 11/28 Plan Minute* 11/21 Plan Minute* 10/17 CC Minute* 10/10 Paw Ch» 082223 12/12/2005 XCEL ENERGY E 802-49450-381 Oa* 8 Electric ES01-49400-381 Ga* 8 Electric E101-43000-38S Street Ughling E 101-41900-381 Oa* 8 Electric E 101-42110-381 Ga* 8 Electric E 101-42260-381 Oa* 8 Electric E 101-43000-381 Oa* 8 Electric E 101-42110-381 Oa* 8 Electric E61349S30-381 Oa* 8 Electric E 101-48200-381 Oa* 8 Electric Total XCEL ENERGY $1,859.13 $3,541.59 $1,727 83 $1,473 87 $629 02 $386 60 $308.80 $10.31 $156.50 $22 94 5189855701 5180855701 5189855701 5169855701 5189855701 5169855701 5189855701 5169855701 5189855701 5169855701 Electrical Service Electrical Service Electrical Service Electrical Service Electrical Service Electrical Service Electrical Service Electrical Service Electrical Sarvlce Electrical Service $9.896 59 Paid Chiii 082224 ....12/1M005 Wil......... E101-43290-800 Spaclal Project*. Corriingeney $2,317.00 10 TH 12 Turnback Total WSB $2.317 00 PaW CKki 082225 12/12«009 tNBmiOB'l^LEV/iLEln^ E 601-49400-222 VeWcle Equipment 4 Part* $325.83 560159 E 602-46480-222 VehicI* Equipment 4 Part* Telal WESTSnE WHOLESALE TIRE $325 82 560159 Tire* for #712 Tire* for #712 $65165 Paw Chk# 082226 12/12«005 WEST HENNEPIN PUiLIC S^ETY E 101-42110-437 Training 4 Development _ i^?!L ^2«A)5 Total WEST HENNEPIN PUBLIC SAFETY $400 00 Police Coverage-OepI Tmg PaW Chk# 062227 12/12«005 WAYZATA, CITY OF E 101-42200-318 Fire Services Total WAYZATA, CITY OF $11.980 00 11/16X)5 2nd Half 2005 Fire Serve* $11,980.00 paw C*-k# 062228 12/1 2/2005 WASTE MANAOEMENf - RBCYCUNO E 101-43270-318 Contract Recycling Pickup $6.784 96 123952915932 Recycling 12/2005 Total WASTE MANAGEMENT - RECYCLING $6,784.96 PaW Chk# 062229 ^2/^2l2005 VHONG AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER E 101-42260404 Repsir*/Maint-8ldg*/Ground* Total VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER $239.00 105016 Sprinkler System Maint $239 00 PaW Chk# 082230 1M 2/2005 VERIZON WIRELESS £10141900-321 Telephone Total VERIZON WIRELESS $122 88 508128095 Ce* Phones 5122*88 CITY OF ORONO 12/09/05 1:49 PM Page 2 *Check Detail Register® DECEMBER 2009 Amt invoice Comment Paid cm 082231 12/12/2005 VEE. LIN E 101-42110-437 Training & Development Total VEE«UN ftidCW5‘0822M "■’12Ti2^^ ' 0602-19900 PM Anet-Conat. In progreea E 002-49490-443 Repain/Maint-IOI Mudion Total VAUEY-KICHCO 93663 100705 Mileage 936.63 99.500.00 10206 94.225.00 10206 Wildhynt TraH Foreemain Rek) l&ILS»21 19.725.00 Paid ChlS 082233 ^12/12^^ UMirtO STATES POV^ E 101-41900-322 Poetage 966.00 Bon66 Total UMTCO 6TATES POSTAL SERVICE 966.00 Peld'ChIti 062234''‘l2/l2«685 ’Y^ ............... E 101-41900-223 BMg/Orauntfa MeM. Suppliea 9114.64 11/9/05 PO Box Rental Furnace Fillera Total THE HOME DEPOT PeW Chk# 062235 ' 12/l'2«OOS THE*COUmER SOURCE E 101-41900-322 Poetage 9114.64 E 101-41900-322 Poatage E 101-41900422 Poatage E101-41900-322 Poatage Total THE COURIER SOURCE 934.92 09-1045 926.88 10449 936.40 120305 926.40 92405 Oerwety to Boneitroo OeHvery to Bonestroo Ooliveiy to Dept of Emp Delivery to Hinahaw 9124.20 "PiSThki 082236 12/li/i009 TALLEMANDBAERTSCHI E101-41600-306 Logal-Proaecution Total TALLENANORACRTSCHI Peld?hkr662«i7 ' l¥l2/266r iUWRIOR U^^ ....... E101-42260-223 BWg/Grounda Malta BuppNea _ Total SUPERIOR LAMP 995 06 9646 Proaecutiona 11/2005 99906 9446 00 S223694741 Floureacent Lamps 9448 00 PeW CNta'082238 12/12)2009 STAR TRIBUNE E101-42110-340 General Advertlalng Total STAR TRIBUNE 9346.20 1000004610 Adv for Emp - PD Clencal 9346 20 PaWChki 082239 12/i2«0b9 >tA^B LOCklW E 101-42110-221 Equipment Patla 6 Aoceasoriea _ 96390 16352 Total STA-SAFE LOCKSMITH 963.90 Cabinet keys Paid Cnki 062240 12/12/2005 SPRING PARK. CITY OF E 601-49400-387 Intergowemmental Servicaa 916.902 00_ 11/22/05 Total SPRING PARK, CITY OF 916.502.6o~ Purcbated Water - Nav Paid Chki 062241 12/12/2005 SEWER EQUIPMENT OF AMERICA £602-49450-222 Venicle Equipment & Parta 73476 Total SEWER EQUIPMENT OF AMERICA ' 994 22 Pretsure Gauge Paid Chki 082242 12/12/2005 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES E 101-41800-490 Contnbutiont to Cnnc Org's Total SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES J4j270q0 11/1/09 94~270 6b 4th Qtr 2005 Sr Services Paid Chki 0S2243 12/12/2009 SEARS E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories Total SEARS 972.82 11/9n)5 Sockets 972 82 Paid Cnki 082244 12/12/2005 SCS CASES I'fiNih I CITY OF ORONO 12A)9/05 149 PM Page 3 *Check Detail Register® DECEMBER 200S $310.92 Paid Cliwl>e2245 ''' 12/^2««)8't7Wk^ E101-43000-224 Strati Maint. MaMrialt/Supply £101-43000*224 Strati Maint. Matariala/Supply Total SA-AOMC S2.967.98 46796 12.489.76 46828 Sand Sand 15.457.74 Pid cw5 OSM "l2/12«06ii~PRO6Eii^ 0101-21710 Lda IntMrarwa $017$ 90234 G101-21710 Ufa InturarKt $650 40 96234 Total PRUDENTIAL UFE INSURANCE Life Ins 12/2005 Life int 12/2005 S732.18 ■paidChWP 062247' 'i2/li/i^ PRESS* NEWS PUBLICATION £101-42110-340 Oantral Advartleing $147.70 2542613-001 Total PRESS * NEWTS PUBLICATIONS Office Manager 1147 70 PaldChW ‘082248 *121/12/2065 ......... E101-42260401 Ra|»aira/Malnt-Ofnca Equip $150 00 IVC00936 Support 12/2005 Total PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS. ‘Paid Chidi 062249 $150.00 T2/i2J2609 OMEOA INDUSTRIES E 101-43000-403 Rapairs/Maint-Miac. Equip Total OMEOA INDUSTRIES $136.00 7379 Pretaure Washer Maint S138.00 Paid'Cliur 0822M ~12/f2^^^ AIR PRODUCTS INC. £ 101-43000-221 Equipmant Parts * Accassorias Total OIL AIR PRODUCTS INC. $7.39 382149-001 Parts - JO Tractor $7.39 PaidChk* 0622S1 '‘ 12/12/2005 OPPICEOETOT' E 101-41900-201 Offloasuppliat £101-42110-201 Ofllca suppiias E 101-41900-201 Ofllca suppiias E 101-42110-201 OflICO suppiias Total OFFICE DEPOT $77.25 ;> 14866264-00 Offica Supplies $77 24 314666284-00 Offica Suppkas ($39.52) 315266666-00 Offica Suppliat ($39^^315266686-00 Offica Suppiias $7i«5 Paid Ctikf 062252 *12/12^ OCCUPATIONAL'MEOiCINE CONS LTD E 101-42110-319 Othar ProMsslonal Saivioat E 101-42110-319 Other Profsssienal Sanncas E 101-42110-319 Other Protassional Services E 101-42110-319 Other Profaesiorral Sarvicas Total OCCUPATIONAL MEOICINS CONS LTD $17500 8684-00 $175 00 6684-00 $175 00 8684-03 _$1_.0jy8 6884-00 V1T54O 18* Hep A * B Vac Hap A 6 B Vac Hap A 6 B Vac Hep A 6 B Vk Paid ChW 082253 12/12«005 O’SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 E 101-42110-402 Rapairs/Mainl-AutoEquip 11^30/05 Total O'SULLIVANS HOUOAY 647 SlVs 00 Squad Washes Paid ChM 082254 12/12/2005 O’SULLIVANS • HOLIDAY 846 £101-42110-402 Rapalrs/Malnt-Auto Equip ___ Total 0’SULLIVAN8 - HOLIDAY 546 M86 11/30/05 $5 86' Squad Washes Paid Chk# 082255 12/12/2005 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS E 101-42110-221 Equipmant Parts 8 Aatssorlas $702 88 506573311048 Police Ceil Phones E 101-42110-321 Taiephon# . *V.343 45 506573311046 Ponce Ceu Pi^ones Total NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $2 046 33 Pad ChW 082256 12/12.'2005 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS CITY OF ORONO 12A)9/05 1:49 PM P*9*4 *Check Detail Registei® DCCEMBER200S 0101-21710 LM Insurance Total NCPERt GROUP UFE INS Check Amt Invoice Cowifnent 1288.00 67321205 PERA Life 12/2005 1288.00 Pa¥^ChW'0M257'“' NAVARRE HARDWARE E 101-42260-223 Bldg/Orounds Maint. Supplies E 101-42260-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies E 101-42260-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies E 101-42260-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies E 101-42260-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies E 101-42260-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies E101-42260-221 Equipment Parts 8 Accessories Total NAVARRE HARDWARE $86 44 $16.42 $36.15 $47.97 $14.90 $0.58 $17.34 148099 148104 153803 154592 155363 159021 159902 $21980 Paid Chkf 082258 12/12>2065 NAVARRE CTTOO E 101-42260-212 Motor Fuels 8 Lubrtc8nU E 101-42260-212 Motor Fuels 8 LuOfIcants E 101-42260-212 Motor Fuels 8 Lubricants E 101-42260-212 Motor Fuels 8 Lubricants E 101-42260-212 Motor Fuels 8 Lubricants E 101-42260-212 Motor Fuels 8 Lubricants Total NAVARRE CITOO $5206 $42.00 $32.46 $30.00 $25.00 . 57 22 Tl 88.74* 10/13A)5 10/18A)5 11/2A)5 9/16/05 9/16A>5 9/20/05 Wid Chki 082259 "''^12/12/20* MTI WtT CO*. E 613-49630-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldos/Grounds E 613-49830-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Total MT1DI6TCO. $859.45 504825 ($319 00) 506020 $54045 Paid Chki 082260 * ‘ 12/12^2005^ MOROWCZYN6KI. JIM E 101-42110-437 Training 8 Development Total MOROWCZYN8KI. JIM $34.23 10/17/05 $34 23 J>aidChWI *062261 12/*1*2/2bd5 MN CHIEF OF POLICE E 101-42110-433 Memberships 8 Subscriptions $80 00 Erickson E101-42110-433 Memberships 8 Subscriptions 516^ 00 Good Total MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN $245 00 Paid Chki *082262 12/12^ Mjfel6ENASPH^ E 101-43000-408 Coniracted Street Maint. $7.760 00 11/23/05 Total MJ NEI8EN ASPHALT INC $7,760 00 Paid Chki 082263 12/12/2005 E 602-49450-387 Intergovernmental Services Total MINNETONKA BEACH. CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH. CITY OF $M 00_ 206766061 $9600 Paid Chki 082264 12/12/2006 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts 8 Accessories $131 57 833746 E 101-42110-221 Equipment Paris 8 Accessories _ Total MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY $196 50 $64 93 834668 Paid Chki 082265 12/12/2005 MILLER. RICHARD JOHN E 101-42110-319 Other Professional Services 11/21/05 Total MILLER. RICHARD JOHN $6.44600 Paid Chki 082266 12/12/2005 MIDWEST ASPHALT E 101-43000-212 Motor Fuels 8 Lubncants G 10M4101 Gasoline inventory E 101-43000-224 Street Ma»nl Mslsrists/Supply $2.588 22 29896 $4.116 64 29896 $71 95 78587MB Building Supplies • Nav Fire Building Supplies - Nav Fire Building Supplies - Nav Fire Building Supplies - Nav Fire Building Supplies - Nav Fire Building Supplies - Nav Fire Detergent - Nav Fire Fuel - Nav Fire Fuel - Nav Fire Fuel - Nav Fire Fuel - Nav Fire Fuel • Nav Fire Fuel • Nav Fire Irrigation Diagnostics Irrigation Diagnostics Meals • LOCiS Training 2006 Membership ErKkson 2006 Membership Good Pave - Watertown Road Sewer - 2090 Shoreline Oxygen. Acetylene Oxygen Carison AriJitrition 2028 1 Gats - Un!eaded 11260 Gals-Diesel Hand Paten 1, CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 12/0^05 1:49 PM Ptg«5 DECEMBER 200S InvoiM ComwntChwhAmt Total MIDWEST ASPHALT 16.776 61 PirCWS OMflier ** 12/1^^ MEYER’S (Hifoob E 101-45200404 Rapair«Maint-BldgiA3roun6a $2.000 00 2215 Mowing 11/2005 Total MEYER’S OUTDOOR SERVICES $2,000.00 pWcw5ToM26r' T2i2S5m TiBfcouficic E^ R101-39610 MiacoHanooua Rovonuo 0101-20609 SACCIiargotduotoMWCC Total MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER ($626.50) 11/2005 Sac Chatgot • 11/2005 PaM CliW 082269 ‘12/12/2065' MBOIN^'Cin E10142110-437 Training 6 OovotopmoM Total MEDINA. CITY OF CHii 082270 ■ "■ 1 2/ia2005 MECA E 65149910437 Training 6 OovtIopmtnl Total MECA ■paldCWi#'062271 12/12/2665 MCUOOUSA-PHONEBILLS E 10141900-321 Tolophono E 60149400-321 TotopDono E 60149400-321 Tolaphono E 60249460-321 Toloplwno E 101-42110-321 Totophono Tow MCLEOOUSA-PHONEBIU8 rtwci*!'662272" 12/12/2005' LUNOS’ ‘ E 10142110-439 Mooting Enponao* E10142110-439 Mooting Exponaoa E 101-42110-201 Oflioo aupplioa E 10142110439 Mooting Eaponaoa E 10142110439 Mooting Exponaoa E 61349900-093 ConcoaaionaFof Raaalo-Txfel E 10142110439 Mooting Exponaoa E 10142110439 Mooting Exponaoa Tout LUNOS E 10142260319 Othor ProNaaional Sorvtcoa Total LONG LAKE FAMILY PRACTICE $82,650.00 11/2005 Sac Charges • 11/2005 iai.S23.50 . —..., .. .. . ■ • S27585 12/2/C5 Police Coverege-Degl Tmg ~ $275.85 « • $7500 2A)9/06 NPOES Training - Gappa $7500 liLLS $511-65 3013293 Phone Biiis $47.95 3013293 Phone Bills $24.36 3013293 Phone Bills $56.65 3013293 Phone Bins $219.26 3013293 Phone Bills $860 09 W- • ' $11-98 0903 Polloa Acadatny $21.80 0906 PoMoa Acadamy $212 0907 PaNca Acadamy $57 99 0909 PoHea Acadamy $2774 0914 Polica Acadamy $2232 0916 PoHca Acadamy $1913 1885 Polica Acadamy $1347 9741 Polica Acadamy 1176 55 lAcfice • * • a as • ^ $63.00 20519 Hapatmi B - Backar $63 00 PaWChWI 062274 12/120005 LOOIS E 10142110-311 Data Proeoaaing Communioalion E 10141900329 Othor Communicationa E 10142110-329 Olhor Communicationa E 10142110310 LOOiS-Applicaliona E 10141900401 Ropaira/Maint-Offico Equip E 10142110-401 Rapatra/Maint-0«ca Equip Total LOOIS $31.00 $321.50 $321.50 $1,958.00 $9000 $90 00 26427 26427 26427 26427 26477 26477 Hann Cty Connactlon 10/2005 Intarnal -10/2005 intamat -10/2005 Pohca Racorpa 10/2005 OWAWSUS OWA/WSUS $2.81200 Patd ChWt 082275 12/12/2005 LABOR RELATIONS A680C £10142110-319 Othtr Prptaaaional Sarvicaa ..Ji?7.2 00 11/1/05 Total LABOR RELATIONS ASSOC $4,972 00 Artiiratiof'. Sanionly Gnevan Paid ChkP 062276 12/12/2005 KIRVIOA FIRE. INC £10142260402 RapatraAtami4uio Equp $1.941 00 370 Raprra • Engma 31 CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 12A)9A)51:49 PM Pages OiCEMBER200S Check Amt Invoice Comment Total KIRVIDA FIRE. INC PakJ^ChwToaMy? " * ij^lMOOS KEMNrrH PA E23149690-307 Legal-ContuKing Total KENNETH N.POVr8. PA 1>aidChkilia25H kellyTnn ^ ^ $1,941.00 $577^50^ 1Q/20A)5 $577750^ Beito Forfeiture E 101-42110437 Training & Development Total KEUYINN J69.^575 169.44 Lodging-Rutseth S & Sober Paid Chki 082279 12/12/2005 KD A COMPANY E 101-43000-224 Street Maint. Materiali/Supply Tout KO A COMPANY $128.10 14460 Aaphaft Dii posal $128.10 1 12/12/2009 MRNAOYPaid Chki 082280 E 101-42110-228 Training SuppKet lotal HORNAOY $968 24 373110 Duty Ammo *•« - S96824 PM Chkf 0822B1 12/12/2005 HINNEPIN COUNTY THEM • ASSESS......... 0101*15503 PrtpaW Atmting Charges S9.460 00 CA2544 E 101-41550-302 Assasting Sarvicas t47.290 00 CA2544 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TNEAS* ASSESSI Aiseiting Service 1/06 Aaseiiing Service 8/05-12/05 $56,750.00 PaW Chkf 682282 * 12/12/2605 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHEm^ ........... E 101-41600-309 Jail Charges $75 00 841 • . 4 — Jail Charges • 10/2005 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF S7500 Paid Chk# 002283 12/12/2005 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT E 101-42110-414 EOP/Communieattons Equip Rent $2.069 58 25110035 Total HEIMEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT ' S2.069.M Radio Lease-11/2005 PaM ChM 002204^ 12/V2/200S O S K SERVICES E 101-42200-404 E 101-42260404 E 101-43000-226 E 601-49400-226 E 602-49450-226 E 613-49830-226 E 101-41900-404 E 101-41900-404 E 101-41900-404 E 101-43000-221 E 801-49400-226 E 602-49450-226 E 613-49630-226 E 101-43000-226 Rapairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Repairs/Maint-eidgs/Orounds Clothing S personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment CloViing 8 personal equipment Repeirs/Maint4ldgs/Grounds Repairs/Maint-SIdgs/Grounds Rapsirs/Mamt-eidgs/Grounds Equipment Parts A Accessories Clothing S personal equipment Clothing 8 personal equipment Clothing 8 personal equipment Clothing 8 personal equipment Total G8KSERVICES $207.96 1006591822 Mit Servlet • Nav Fire $207 96 1006617055 Mat Service • Nav Fire $96.15 1006634593 Ur)iforms $1600 1006634593 Uniforms $4800 1006634593 Uniforms $6 34 $103.90 1006634593 1006634593 Uniforms Mat Service - PW $62.48 1906634595 Mat Service - CH $70.39 1006634596 Mat Service - CC $37 22 1006640962 Sriop Towels $16 00 1006640962 Uniforms $48.00 1008640962 Uniforms $6 34 1006640962 Uniforms $87.71 1006640962 Uniforms $1014 45 Paid Chki 082265 12/12/2005 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES. INC E 602-4945C-443 Repairs/Ma>nt-I8i Reduction $6^ S6 532222 Total FERGUSON ENTERPRISES. INC $^ 56 Poe >.Sii7 Paid ChKt 082286 12/12/2005 EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT E 101-42260-318 Fre Services $35 781 13 l/ift'05 ToUl EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT S3S78113 4ih Qtr 2005 Fire Service Paid Chki 082287 12/12/2005 EULL'S MANUFACTURING CO. INC. CITY OF ORONO 12/09/05 1:49 PM Pager *Check Detail Registei^ DECEMBER 200S E 691-49910-9B2 Slom Sawar UMHy Coflit E 602-49490443 Rapalrt/MalM-lil RadudlOfl Total EUUtMANUFACTUraNOCO.INC $170.72 Paw Chk# 002288 12/12/2009 EM BROTHERS ft SONS E 80249490443 Rapain/MaInt-llil RaducUoit Total ESS BROTHERS ft SONS $287.95 HH0834 LSi17 $287.59 m • PaW’ChW 0^89'’ 127l2«065 " EiC»«^ E10142260-321 Talaplwna Total ESCHELON $394.01 6429807 Ptfona Service $394.01 Paw Chli#'M2290 ‘“’ 12/r2^r ENOINEEWNO REPlW^^^ .... E 10141900-201 Ofiloa iuppDaa >9»02 119173 Total ENOINEERINO REPRO SYSTEMS I ■ BuiWing Plans $58.02 PMd Chiti 08^1 12/'12«00'9 EMBRO^V’MEOfe*^^^ E 10142110-221 Equipmaol Parts ft Accaasoriaa $107 98 778381 Total EMEROSNCV MEDICAL PRODUCTS. IN $107.96 Latex Glovet Paw ChW 082292 ' 12/1 2«009 EMERGENCY 1^ E 10143000-222 Vahicia Eouipmart 4 Parts $206.43 MC1 12905-1 O851-16420 FtaedAsaat-Olharaquipmanl _ $14637^ ST82909-7 Total EMEROENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH me Ooma Ugnts Llglrts • Swaaper $90.00 i Total EMEROENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH PIC $399.80 'Paid ewii 'osSss '■’'iSnjwW BLEihR^ E101-43000408 Contradad Straat MaWt. Total ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION ft MAIN PaWfchtt ()822M “~i2/ll/^ bOBEWii ROBB ' * ' E 60149400-221 Equlpmant Parts 4 Accassorias Total DOBESH.ROBB Paw Chitf 082295' 12/12/2005 DEMBOUSKI. JAY E 10142110-331 Traval EKpansas Total DEMBOUSKI, JAY PiW ChW 082296 12/12/2009 OCA - WIRE ONLY G 101-21719 OCAflpandWg Accounts Total DCA-WIRE ONLY $90 00 7477 Signal - OC8n'H12 $28^ 148241 $28.27' Socket S5S0 11/23/05 Parking - Court S5.50 jma 39 11/28/05 iaeaio FSA11/28A)5 Paw CWif 082297 12/12«009 OAHLORENSHARDLOWftUBAN E 10143290-800 Special Projads. Contingency E 10143290-800 Special Projaels. ContWgancy Total OAHLOREN SHARDLOW ft UBAN $2.894 32 26233 $819 40 26379 Comp Plan Update Navi'rt Vision $3,713.72 Paid ChW 082298 12/12«009 CURTIS. MaANIB £1014*900-201 OfTioa supphas Total CURTIS, MELANIE $32 21 11/29/05 FrankHn Planner Pages $32 21 Paw Cnkf 082299 12/12/2009 COVERAU OF THE TWIN CITIES E 10142110407 Jamtorlal Semeas Si.139 95 102335 £10141900-407 Janitorial SarvWas $1.904 85 1023BS E 101-42280-407 Jenllonal Services $186.38 102386 Total COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES $2 830 78 Jsnaonal - 12/2005 Janitorial -12/2005 Janitonai - Nav Pire Paw ChW 082300 12/12/2009 COUNTRY CAKE CUPSOARO 1 cmr OF ORONO 12A»/051:49PM Pag* 8 *Check Detail Registei© DCCCIIBEK2008 E10M11104M Matling Ei9*flMa £101*41110439 Macling E«p4«M« T«M COUNTKY CAKE CUPBOARD $12.90 11/3(V05 $11000 198 Pi*a*WS Lunch**, Meat and Che*** • WS $122.90 PaidChkf 082301 1^12/2008 CENTERPOINT ENEROY £61340130481 OeeAEIedho E002-40490-381 OeiAEIeelfle E 60240490*381 GeaAEIectrie E10142110-301 OaeOEIecIrte E 60140400*381 OaeOElectffc E 00140400-381 Qe* A Electric E 10142200*381 Oa* A Electric E 10141000-381 OaeAEIeelflc E 10141000*381 Oa* A Electric E 10141000*381 0*e A Electric TOM CENTERPOINT ENERGY $118.96 $226.44 $18.76 $273.10 $1,236.92 $79.48 $321.08 $333.79 $492.88 $21.27 060006790600 Ge* Service 060006790600 Oa* Service 060006790600 Oa* Service 060006790600 Oa* Service 060006790600 Oa* Service 060006790600 Oa* Service 060006790600 Oa* Service 060006790600 Oa* Service 060006790600 Oa* Service 060006790600 Gas Servic* $3,076.00 Paid ChkO 002302 12/12/2009 BIFFS INC. E10149200419 Other Equipment Rental* Total BIFFBINC. 966.41 W277030 Podabie • Bedervrood $66.41 CofiM-PD Coffiae*CH PaU ChMi M303 12/i2/2tm' ARMAIwllEFi^^ E 10142110*201 Office suppli** $180.49 690237 £10141000*201 Office supplle* $121.99 690238 Total ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES $30240 '«id CM* cijoSe “ 12/120856 MivAN^ E 10141900413 Office EquIpmenI Rental $669.93 047193234 Total ADVANCED IMAOINO SOLUTIONS $699.93 . — I ,.r - ■ r - •*,•••* »••••*•• •>.*.••% ••*',.«• ‘ n • ■••»•* -••••■•• •••• * • • ■ ■*" •• •“ * **•*•■•• Paid ahMi 002309 12/120009 ACCURMT E 10142110433 Membership* A Subscrlptlow $3000 129729120091 Oatabase Aece** 110005 Total ACCURINT Copier Laata -11/15-12/15/05 130 00 10100 Miliary Caati $304.809 90 Fund Summsfy 101 GENERAL FUND 231 ORUG/FELONY FORFEITURE FUND 601 WATER OPERATING FUND 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND 613 GOLF COURSE 691 STORM WATER UTILITY OP FUND 10100 PilmaiyCaih $208,043.49 $577.90 $21,813.00 $13,333.0# $89091 ____W72.40 $304.889 90 .A. .i-Mm i'. •! CITY OF ORONO ch«ck raglttor 12A)1/05 1:20 PM Page l Chedi HuNitoer Imployee Name 06SS34 AN0EN80N. BRUCE L 086M8 BOfUB, SCOTT W. 056836 CORMCK. JAMES L 06SS37 DAY, SUSAN J. 085S3S OEMSOUSKI. JAY C. 0SSS39 PARMOK, CORI^ L 086S40 FI8CHENICH, DAN T 066S41 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K. 056542 MCNICHOL8, OAVU L 086S43 MOROWCZVN8KI, JAMES 066644 RUSSETH.KYLEM 066645 SCHOOMOFF, JOHN B. 065646 STBN8RU0,CHA0R 065647 TOCWE, tOMBERLY 0. 0066M TOMCHECKLAVimENCEF. 06S640 TOMCZVK.MARKW. 066560 WHITE, ANTHONY J. 065661 WITTKE, ANTHONY A. Pay Cheek Ctiaeic PtflOtf Amount Data Cheek statue 24.1 11,540.38 12/1/2005 OutaUnding 24.1 51,053.48 12/1/2005 Outatandlng 24.1 51,694.01 12/1/2005 Outatanding 24.1 5852.00 12/1/2005 Outateflding 24.1 51,476.53 12/1/2005 Outalanding 24.1 51.504.10 12/1/2005 Outstanding 24.1 51.315.50 12/1/2005 Outstanding 24.1 51.571.33 12/1/2005 Outstanding 24.1 5671.15 12/1/2005 Outstanding 24.1 24.1 5770.42 5903.16 12/1/2005 Outstanding 12/1/2005 Outstanding 24.1 51,448.77 12/1/2005 Outstanding 24.1 51,061.08 12/1/2005 Outstanding 24.1 51,103.50 12/1/2005 Outstanding 24.1 51.503.76 12/1/2005 Outstanding 24.1 51.540.39 12/1/2005 Outstanding 24.1 5652.00 12/1/2005 OuWanding 24.1 51,162.64 522,027.41 12/1/2005 Outstanding **l • ■ ■ .. . * • . mmv r . ■ ■ V ■'? t ■» ' •T'—i--.. : ' , . *• I A* VBGn ■ A'■ '' ' fa, * vK ‘ i’-Vv / #'>? • ••-•.•: V- v.< - • •.: >■ 'V'V- ' 'i'i’::'..I iA. !: }• CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® OeCEMBER 200S ChacliAiwt tnvolo Comnm 10100 Rrtiwwft f^atddhkl Cash T2/I/MM PmOT NATIONAL BANK OE LAKES 0101*21701 FMaralWttMMidino $0,661.70 0101-21703 FICATttcWWihoUing $401.49 0101-21703 FICATwWimholdlno T om FmOT national bank of lakes I10.4M.68 FEDERAL W/H FICA& MEDICARE W/H FICA & MEDCR CITY SHARE 4 ll7u5555 MN DEPT Of REVENUE 0101-21702 State WKhhoMIng ToM BMOCFT OF REVENUE $2 41143 STATE TAX WH »??>8.43 FaUCMJ ’dC33S—liu^MU i^tiiLld ^mrLoyees retirement 0101-21704 PERA $3,421.17 0101-21704 PERA $2 ^60.77 TOM PUBLIC BMPLOYEES RETIREMENT $5,701.94 PERA CITY SHARE PERA EMPLOYEE W/H 10100 PrtmafyCaah $18,582.05 Fund SummBry 101 OENBRAL FUND mmr 10100 PrImaiyCaati $16,582.05 $18,582.05 r '•1 I ’ ••'s. -V-.- '/'M ■i- ■ii!*: " . fCf »r--‘. ./v-v--;-.--- :••••• .• .=.^ ••• • ’ : f> . V;-/-. ■■■4, r ■■■■■ ■.*• ' 12/02A)5 7:14 AM Pag* 1 CITY OF ORONO 12A36/05 11;3aAM Page 1 (*' ■4 Chech Number Employee Name MOOR8E. RONALD J. 8ILU8. BARBARA O. VEE.UN0A8. KUEHN, THOMAS M. 0L80N. RONALD J. PETTIT. 8ANDRAK. AN06R80N. BRUCE L BORI8.8COTTW. CORNICK, JAME8 L DAY, 8U8ANJ. DEMBOU8KI.JAYC. FI8CHER, CHRISTOPHER K. GOOD. 8TEPHANV R. MCNICHOL8. DAVID L. OROURKE. ASHLEY NU88ETH. KYLE M. 8CHOENHOFF.JOHNB. 8TEN8RUO, CHAD R TOEWE. KIMBERLY D. TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. TOMCZYK.MARKW. WHITE. ANTHONY J. VMTTKE, ANTHONY A KU8ZCZ.0AVI0A. CURTIS. MELANIE qAFFRON. MICHAEL P. OAPPAOREOORYA. OIBBS. WILLIAM R OUNOLACH. JANICE J. MEYER. VMLUAM C. OMAN. LYLE E. OEBAERE. DONALD L. FA8CHINO. GREGORY P. HANSEN. STEVEN OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G. OBRIEN. RANDY L PALMER. GREGORY A. RATHBUN. BARRY J. dodge . RACHEL M. LESKINEN. DENISE M. BORIS. SCOTT W. BUOIO. STACIE M ERICKSON. KURT R FARMOK. CORREY L. FI8CHENICH.DANT. MADSON. ADRIENNE M MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES PER8ELL. WILLIAM R TOMCHECK. LA\M«NCE F QAFFRON. MICHAEL P OMAN. LYLE E VANG. BRUCE L GREGORY. JAMES D. HANSEN. STEVEN OBRIEN. RANDY L PALMER. GREGORY A RATHBUN. BARRY J 8KREEN. DALE S 004919 004920 004921 004922 004923 004924 004925 004920 004927 004928 004929 004930 004931 004932 004933 004934 004938 004930 004937 004930 004939 004940 004941 004942 004943 004944 004045 004940 004947 004040 004949 004950 004951 004952 004953 004954 004955 004900 055552 055553 055554 055555 000880 055557 055550 055559 055500 055501 055582 055503 055504 055505 055500 055507 055500 055500 055570 055571 055572 PWPeriod 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 chock register Cheek Amount Date Check Statue $2,612.28 $580.15 $1,110.43 $1,409.18 $1,231.13 $1,105.67 $1,917.95 $20.00 $2,046.13 $1,420.25 $2,251.35 $1,775.14 $2,002.79 $1,100.00 $006.51 $1,523.56 $1,647.40 $1,437.93 $1,360.76 $900.00 $1,906.40 $1,433 30 $1,496.46 $472.01 12/7/2005 OutaUnding 12/7/2005 Outatanding 12/7/2005 OuiaUndmg 12/7/2005 Outatanding 12/7/2005 Outatanding 12/7/2005 Outatanding 12/7/2005 Outatanding 12/7/2005 OuUtandIng 12/7/2009 Outatanding 12/7/2005 OutaUnding 12/7/2005 OuUUnding 12/7/2005 OuUtanding 12/7/2005 Outatanding 12/7/2005 Outatanding 12/7/2005 OuUtanding 12/7/2005 Outatanding 12/7/2005 OuUtandH^g 12/7/2005 OuUtanding 12/7/2005 OuUUndmg 12/7/2005 OutaUnding 12/7/2009 OuUUnding 12/7/2005 OuUUnding 12/7/2005 OuUUnding 12/7/2005 Outatanding 25 $1,235.81 12/7/2005 OuUUnding 25 $129.00 12/7/2009 OuUtanding 25 $1,093.99 12/7/2009 OuUUnding 25 $1,19904 12/7/2009 OuUUnding 25 $1,374.77 12/7/2009 OutaUnding 25 S520.57 12/7/2009 OuUUndmg 25 $1,400.00 12/7/2005 OuUtanding 25 $1,654.54 12/7/2005 OuUUnding 25 $1,144.56 12/7/2005 OuUUnding 25 $875.00 12/7/2009 OutaUnding 25 $1,822.06 12/7/2005 Outatanding 25 $550.00 12/7/2005 OuUUndmg 25 $400.00 12/7/2005 Outatanding 25 $200.00 12/7/2009 OuUUnding 25 $1,089.89 12/7/2009 Outatanding 25 $939 00 12/7/2005 OuUUnding 25 $1,536.06 12/7/2005 Outstanding 25 $629 62 12/7/2009 OuUUndmg 25 $1,903.87 12/7/2005 OuUUnding 25 $1,715.25 12/7/2009 Outatanding 25 $1,714.56 12/7/2009 OuUUnding 25 $994 20 12/7/2009 OuUUnding 25 $82489 12/7/2005 Outatanding 25 $1.863 79 12/7/2009 Outatanding 25 $347 68 12/7/2009 OuUUnding 25 $731 14 12/7/2005 OuUUndmg 25 $1,438.95 12/7/2009 Outatanding 25 $356.78 12/7/2005 OuUUnding 25 $1.385 08 12/7/2009 OuUUnding 25 $1,255.23 12/7/2005 OuUtanding 25 $1,227.48 12/7/2005 OuUUndmg 25 $1.034 67 12/7/2005 OuUUnding 25 $993 98 12/7/2005 OuUUndmg 25 $1.28917 12/7/2005 OuUUndmg 25 $1,332 69 12/7/2005 OuUUndmg CITY OF ORONO 12A)e/0S11;38AM Pagt2 chtck ragistBr Check Number Employee Neme p*y Period Cheek Amount Check Oete Cheek Stetue 0S6873 STEFFENHAOEN, RONALD t1.409.23 973,961.90 12/7/2005 Outstanding U> sm I lit ? -m• -MM • r -- F A'-- V ' ' r‘ "A pi! lYroiwISR^'nLSC ill- mm ,*r - ^ '■ id HMSK'.r ^ if, Kit? ' ’^■:‘'■'■ i i t liOU Iilieir" '^------- CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Regietei® 12A)7/0S7:29AM Page l OECEIMER 2008 Check Amt tnvotee 10100 PriiMfy 0101-21701 Federal WkhhoWlno 111.489.06 0101-21703 FICATaaVIOlhholdioo “ 0101-21703 FlCATaaVWhhoWno — TeM FmOTNATtONALIANKOFlAKEt $21,081.66 •^laJrgRaroffiiS---^3/HiOM ICIIARiTIReilWII IRUOi"4$7 0101-21706 Other Retirement — TeM ICMARBTIRBIIENTTRUST-467 81,03662 •pgjlgfjaraESTe—TvfnSSi BiTo^'^RivENue 0101-21702 State iWthholding — TeM MR DSRT OF REVENUE 84.800.61 ■Wh6hk»«g77-----l2/f/2b08 ’HK STAfTRETtREIIEHT SYSTEM 0101-21716 Poet Employment Hee«h ------IMli* TeM MR STATE RBTtRlMFMT SYSTEM 8341.48 Kl^6KttfRSTWliwilOEREtlREMERTSOCUTtOR 0101-21706 Other Retkemeot 0101-21708 388.80101-4ifW W0i«r ---------- TeM NATIOINWOE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 82.028.80 •pjg'gJjSTSJSii-----WlUb/M OlWHARD TRUST CO. fWlSTtocUSf 0101-21706 Other Retirement 83J62^101-21709 umer nmmwitmm -----r-— ToM ORCHAW TRUST CO. TRUSTEEICUST $3,182.68 rsiJSSsrsBsss •mm 0101-21704 PERA 0101-21704 PERA PUtUC LOYEES RETNtEMERT 87,048.98 16.143.10 ToM PUEUC employees RETIREMENT 814,09214 ?^6hk^ 6fig1—uRiiBOWAY 0101-21706 United way ToM UNITEOWAY 886.00 886.00 10100 Pitmery Ceah 846,618.06 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUNO 10100 Primary Cash 146.628 06 S46.618 66 FEDERAL W/H FICA 8 MEDICARE WWH FICA & MEDCR CITY SHARE DEFERRED COMP-302030 STATE TAX W/H poet retirement USCM - ENTITY 2339 OBRA#2343 MR STATE RETIREMENT PERA CITY SHARE PERA EMPLOYEE W/H CHARITY DONATIONS CITYOFORONO 12A)8A>5 3:38 PM Pag* 1 elMck ragister NwmlMr bnploirMNam* 0SSS74 PCTEMtON. BARBARA 04M78 MCMIUAN. ELIZABETH T. 09M76 MOOR8E. RONALD J 0S8877 SANSEVERE. ROBERT K. 09S878 MURPHY. JAMES L. 09S97B VUHITE. JAMES M. P«7 Paitod CiMek Aflieuni ^MChMfcSMM 1Z 12 12 12 12 12 1323.22 t2m.36 S394.20 S268.36 $269.36 $269.36 12/12/2005 OuManding 12/12/2005 Oulatanding 12/12/2005 Outaunding 12/12/2005 Oulatanding 12/12/2005 Oulatanding 12/12/2005 Outaunding $1,794.66 - .M -Mm I ,•mm . f , : , 5 . . .''t' ^ ,./.*• .1 .* • . r ‘ •; J ^ ' V -' r- •V V '.-sf;A ■ .■ 1 ' J.'' i • V V vr 5J. , v..> • -v\ a;-av-V.v.;Vi' a . i ;- y .1: •. ..t; ''.wAk i-'J:. ■kaAAi :W ♦ INFOK^TION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL MEETING DEC 122005 OTYOFORONO % % . . -T • ■ ■' , <s ■> ■"if-J* . II ifcn>T ILiii >, ____ CONDENSED MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE L MEE'TING EDUCATION OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2J|q .j 22005 cny OF ORONO The regular meeting of the Board of Education of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, November 14,2005. Present: Absent; Jack Veach John Malone Dick Lewis Michele Kunz Martha Van de Ven Mike Bash Karen Orcutt Neal Lawson Chair Veach stated, that with the consensus of the Board, Agenda Items F-l and F-2 would be moved to precede E-Old Business. TJPON MOTION by Michele Kunz, seconded by John Malone, the consent agenda was qiproved as follows: approved the minutes of October 17,2005, regular meeting; accepted the resignation of Pat Jones, Orono Middle School teacher on mobility leave, effective December 15,2005; - approved the request of Tara Carlson, Orono Intermediate School teacher, for an extended child care leave beginning March 6, 2006 for the remainder of the year, accepted the resignation of Lisa Curtis, Orono High School guidance ofTice clerk, effective November 4,2005; approved the Early Childhood/Discovery Center Site Supervisor contract for 2005-06; accepted an anonymous donation of SI,000 designated for the Orono Middle School Jazz Band for the 2005-06 contract; approved the bills as covered by vouchers 143817 through 144285. Motion carried. National Merit Scholars Dr. Orcutt introduced and commended Orono High School Principal, Dave Benson, for having nine students being recognized as National Merit Scholars. Mr. Benson ma^ opening remarks and introduced Ms. Brandy Mack, giAed/talented coordinator. Ms. Mack expressed her appreciation to all of those in attendance at this meeting to honor the achievements of these students. Ms. Mack and Mr. Benson introduced each student and presented them with a plaque for their achievement. Each student introduced their family members in attendance and briefly stated what their plans for the future were. Those students recognized were: National Merit Semi-Finalists: Kendra Passow, Jacob Sherman and Cara Swantek National Merit Commended Students: Cortney Ahem, Edward Cashin, William Jaffray, Colleen Lonergan, Ryan Malone and Katie Peterson. Tenure Recognition Following the recognition of students, a Tenure Ceremony was held to recognize those teachers newly tenured. Dr. Orcutt made opening remarks. She then turned the ceremony over to the building administrators who introduced their tenured teachers and 1 their mentors. Each teacher was pinned by his or her mentor in recognition of receiving tenure. Those teachers are: From the High School: Robert Smalling with mentors Marilyn Pedersen and Lori Wooley; Michael Steiner, whose mentor Don Krubsack was unable to be in attendance; was pinned by Mr. Benson. From the Middle School with introductions and remarks from Middle School Principal Dr. Patricia Wroten: Kelly Leibfned with mentor Meghan Grossman. From Special Education with introductions and remarks from Special Education Director Kristi Fchr: Iris Erickson with mentor Jennifer Beck Closing remarks were made by Dr. Orcutt. Chair Veach recessed the Board meeting at 7:40 p.m. for a reception held for the honored students and their families and for the newly tenured teachers and their guests. The regular Board meeting reconvened at 8:03 p.m. Canvass of Special Election Jack Veach introduced the following resolution, waived the reading of the resolution and asked for a motion for its adoption: A COPY OF THE FULL RESOLUTION IS ON FILE IN THE DISTRICT OFFICE MEMBER John Malone moved that the Board declare the results of the election and approve the foregoing resolution. The motion was duly seconded by Martha Van de Ven and upon vote taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: VEACH, KUNZ, VAN DE VEN, MALONE Absent: LEWIS & BASH And the following voted against the same: NONE Thereupon said resolution was declared duly adopted. Motion Carried. Canvas of General Election Jack Veach introduced the following resolution, waived the reading of the resolution and asked for a motion for its adoption: A COPY OF THE FULL RESOLUTION IS ON FILE IN THE DISTRICT OFFICE MEMBER John Malone moved that the Board declare the results of the election and approve the foregoing resolutiotL The motion was duly seconded by Martha Van de Ven and upon vote taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: VEACH, KUNZ, VAN DE VEN, MALONE Absent: LEWIS ABASH And the following voted against the same: NONE Thereupon said resolution was declared duly adopted. Motion Carried. Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Certificaies of Election Chair Jack Veach introduced the following resolution, waived the reading of the resolution and requested a move for its adoption. A COPY OF THE FULL RESOLUTION IS ON FILE IN THE DISTRICT OFFICE MEMBER John Malone moved that the Board approve the foregoing resolution authorizing the issuarKe of certificates of election. The motion was duly seconded by Martha Van de Ven and upon vote taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: VEACH, KUNZ, VAN DE VEN, MALONE Absent: LEWIS ABASH And the following voted against the same: NONE Thereupon said resolution was declared duly adopted. Motion Carried. REFERENDUM - REQUEST FOR ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY RESPONSE: Dr. Orcutt suggested that the Board should contract with Decision Resources to send out a survey to the community for the purpose of analyzing the thoughts of our voters regarding the referendum. A discussion ensued regarding vCost; and when the appropriate time would be to conduct a survey. The Board did not want to approve a survey without gathering more information. The Board recommended that Dr. Orcutt form a subcommittee and report back at the December 6"* meeting. John Malone and Martha Van de Ven volunteered to represent the Board on the subcommittee. OTHER OLD BUSINESS: Member John Malone congratulated the three Board membos who ran for reelection and were voted in for another four-year term. He also thanked Dr. Orcutt and Mr. Lawson for their work in preparing for the referendum. UPON MOTION BY Michele Kunz, seconded by Martha Van de Ven, the meetin<; was adjourned. Motion Carried. Michele Kunz, Clerk Jack Veach, Chair ■■ ^ ..V. x!' • .. ;X ;= . •• v;.: ► • .. ■ ;t. • ... • . • ■ • 7.» •*. kmkmmmm •• • ^ / vv ' !•>': ■ -^5 mmfm.;x: f.f\ -V '-.M m Minnttoli DefMMtmtnt of Trampoit COUNCIL MEETING fltc taaos S' < Ttantportalion Building 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 CITYOFORONO November 21.2005 Mr. Dave Peterson 2625 Fox Street Wayzata,MN 55391 Dear Mr. Peterson; The inconvenience eiqMrienced by yourself and other motorists due to a recent traffic signal Installation at the intersection of Highway 12 and Brown Road In Long Lake is a common issue that arises in conjunction with new signal Installations. Nevertheless, inconvenience is not a desirable result of such Instaladons, and we are sorry for the inconvenience this caused you. Fine*tunlng of traffic signal timing and coordination is an activity best handled under real traffic situations. Subsequently, construction field personnel along with the support of various traffic and signal offices worked through the afternoon and day following signaNzation in an effort to maximize the signal’s function. I encourage you to continue communicating with Mr. Chad Balfonz should you have any additional questions or concerns about the traffic signal, and am pleased to learn of Chad’s helpfulness following attempts to communicate your oonoems wHh others. Since the intersection was signalized initially. I understand that Chad stayed in contact with you through the time during which the signal required fine-tuning. As you may be aware. Mn/DOT. the communities of Long Lake and Orono, and the oonstruction contractor have been focusing intently on opening the new Brown Road. This will benefit the local community, as it eliminates the previous at-grade raikoad track crossing. I hope the recent improvements to this route will enhance your future use of the local road arxJ state highway system. Your past and continued patience during the oonstruction of new highway 12 is appreciated. Sincerely. Carol Molnau Li Gov./Commissioner Senator Gen Olson Representative Barb Sykora Mayor Randy Gilbert - Long Lake Mayor Barb Peterson - Orono