Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-2004 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27,2004,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Astcnsk items arc 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 couiilet neat the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend PRESENTATION 2. Fire Rescue Vehicle Purchase - Navane SEP 2 7 2004 CITY OF ORO.\'0 APPROVAI, OF MINUTES • 3. Regular Council Meeting of September 13,2004 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Irene Silber, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Ralph Kempf, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. //02-2830 City of Orono, Building Heights Code Amendments - Ordinance * 5. (#04-3049 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Road - CUP - Rcsolutior. • 6. (#04-3050 Mike McClelland, 2170 Minnetonka Avenue - Variance - Resolution 7. ((04-3051 Kevin and Julie Fit/patrick, 356 West Lake Street Variances - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 8. 701 Dickey Lake Road - Request for sewer 9. Approve Purcha.se of Vactor Truck Remote Hose Reel 10. Approve Rehabilitation of Lift Station ((27 Partenwood Road CITY ADMINIS I RATOR’S REPORT 11 . Accept Grant for Homeland Security Training 1 2. Accept Resignation of Part Time CSO 13. Hwy. 12 Turnback Consultant Scope of Work and Contract 14. l.ettcr to LMCD regaiding Tributaries Resolution 15. Appointment of 2004 General Election Judges - Resolution Cn Y ATTORNEY'S RI-:PORT * 1', BiL! « UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27,2004,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCII. CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA 2004 10/04 - Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. (Council IJaLson-Jim White) 10/06 - Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 10/07 - Council Work Session, Thursday, 5:30 p.m. 10/11 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 10/18 - Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Council Liaison - Mayor Peterson) 10/25 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. i Public A ttendance Meeting D ate SS C ouncil □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please filloutthe information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1.. 2.. 3. V\I r ( < i)v\A*v| . .w> j____CC I I C'( 4 , hS'^^Pf/W I]A<^/A/J L c . c O'-! 'io f 5.. 6.. 7. SiH O'iJC' — IVrf A/. xr.o Vitff f 8. 9. 10. It. 12.. 13.. 14. 15. II ;\Admf isirntitt i«pfnrfHFanM|sr«Mto iMwianu mp4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 23,2004 ITEM NO: ^ •<rcT(MQ SEP 2 7 2004 CITY OF 0R0\0 Department Approval: Name Ronald J. Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Deseription: Purchase of Rescue Vctncle for Navarre Fire Station Agenda Section: rity Adminislralor ’s Report The plans for the Navarre Fire Station included the acquisition of two pieces of fire apparatus—a pumper and a light rescue vehicle. The pumper has been purchased, and is in service. Bids have been solicited for the rescue vehicle. The rescue vehicle is used for response to medical/rescue calls, and carries the extrication tools used at accident scenes when people are trapped in vehicles. Please see the attached materials showing the design of the vehicle. A presentation will be made at the Council meeting regarding tlie design and capabilities of the rescue vehicle. Bid Process In response to the advertisement for bids for the rescue vehicle, the City received two requests for the vehicle specifications and bid documents, but only received one bid. The total bid for the truck and chassis, including a number of equipment options, is $ 1 56,501 . This price is recommended to be reduced by $13,470 by eliminating two equipment options-an SCBA bottle fill station, and a light tower. In addition, a discount of $3,250 is available if a 90% downpayment is made at the time of acceptance of the bid. These price reductions result in a final price of $ 139,781 . Fundinc The funding is propo.sed to be $30,781 from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fund, and $109,000 from the Long Lake Fire Equipment Replacement Account in the City's Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund. This will use most of the current balance in the Account. To enable these funds to be used from the Fire Equipment Replacement Account, the Long Lake Fire Department is delaying the planned replacement of two capital items. Tliis will enable the Equipment Replacement Account to be replenished through normal annual funding prior to the need to use funds from this account for capital purchases. Based on the revised Long Lake Fire Department equipment replacement schedule, and the projected Fire Equipment Replacement account funding levels in the coming years, it appears there will be sufilcient funding for the City's share of upcoming Long Lake Fire Department equipment replacements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to accept the bid for the rescue vehicle in the amount of $139,781 , reflecting the $3,250 discount for the 90% prepayment; to be funded $30,781 from the Navane Fire Station Construction Fund, and $109,000 from the Fire Equipment Replacement Account I of the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund, and to amend the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund budget to reflect the expenditvire. / // ’ - * ‘ ^ r* RESCUE VEHICLES OFIOWMrmfL i'.T' 909 So. East Street, PO Box 151, Rock Rapids, IA 51246 Phone: 712-472-4725 ~ Fax: 712-472-4727 e-mail: Sales RVifljRockRapids.net Toll Free; 800-843-4288 <r 0(“ Light, Medium, Heavy Duty Rescues, Hazmat 8i Specialty Vehicles Long Lake Fire Dept. The City of Long Lake The City of Orono, MN Dear Committee Members: Rescue Vehicles of Iowa Proposes for the delivery of One (1) Amtech Emergency Products 2005 Ford F-550 Fire /Rescue Vehicle In exact accordance with your published specifications. 2005 Ford F-550 4X4 Diesel Powered Chass $37,266.00 Amtech Custom Rescue Conversion with all Options Requested__$119,235.00 Total Net Price F.O.B. Rock Rapids, Iowa $156,501.00 Delivery time is 90 days After Receipt of Chassis The following Listed Below is the cost for the options that are included in the Total Bid Price Danko Ready CAPS 100 Gallon Foam System._______________$14,955.00 Two Bottle Cascade System with Fill Station Panel ___________—^$9,470.00 Super-Vac 1500 Watt Light Tower -----------^$4,000.00 Honda 6500 Watt Generator with Remote Start.$3,695.00 The above listed options may be deleted if desired and the cost of the option may be deleted from the Total Net Price. Thank you for the opportunity to quote this vehicle and your continued interest in our products. If you have any Questions, Please feel free to contact our office at 800-843- 4288 espectfully *auT 1l Spano Regional Sales Manager Rescue Vehicles of Io>va Amtech Emergency Products 1 rr VhCLEIN 70 LED SERIES INTr^sECTIDN LlGht-- rrlRE RESCAftCH FOCUS 1000 WATT TRIFOD ObARTZ LIGHT rCOKMAND LIGHT MODEL KL<35 LiGhT TOWER RECESSED IN ROCF -e CASCADE BOTTLES MOUNTED IN ROOF COMPARTMENT rJ6'W X FO' 4. SLIDING WINDOW ^ * 1209 SOUTH UmON-P.O. BOX 29-ROCK RAPiPS. Ik. &1240-0029 {QI'TE CI:' 712)472-3700 - TAX; 712)472-2658 TOLL FUSE: 800)843-4288 AMTECH EMERGENCY PRODUCTS PROPOSAL FOR: CITY OF LONG LAKE FIRE DBPARTUENT a*STOMER APPgOVUD BT: yLHiOl TYPi ________B SCALE CHAW.ASSS. DAAWN imi APPgQ^D BViff )AH-471672004 ^ NO UlNCLAJCEIOi 4I4 Y NAfL ALUMMUM______ 3KX)V lENCT m iBO' K»r STY l E ^eV90N. ZJ m >V /CC'uC 1* NA'J.IH/ leofl 80UTO UKION-P.O. BOX 2B-R0CK RAPIDS. lA 6!84«-008« {A MTECH) 712)472^3700 - Fa X_71_2;472-a55 ii TOLL FREE: 800)843-4288 AMTECH EMERGENCY PRODUCTS sitxidi m.RE8CV£ _ __ 3TRt«KfSIDEm __SCMI PROPOSAL FOR; CUT OF LONG LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT___ a*sToytt Approve: by prASaS fQHQ f. Y IfNCTl! 160*____ 5ra »n by KRf 5ieinr;U)HCiiXElD< iPPftO^D 3VACP f sme pSTDRAGE rOK 4 SCfiA HOTTEt-S rSTDKES BASKET STOftAGE -STOSAGE rCR 3 BACK BOARDS rDANKO HI-E.NERGr REDI-C/vS ir !■ op--- i-T Jfa nnLU I r I r~ ! iBi \iSm .-------- ^mSZ* X. ■J ^---------^ \ L. - - __'•• k :a Lon DA 6500 WATT GENERA!DR QN SLIDE GUT TRAY >-N[3TCH GL’T IN COMPARTMENT FOR CHASSIS Sf=RlNG SRAv,KCT '‘-DUAL aiREXTlON SLIDE DUT TRAY -NtnCH OUT IN COKF<''RTMEM FOR CHASSIS SFHiNG BRACKET ASCACL fill panel -hYPRLS KPL4500--I \ bottle FILL STATION I20g ioura umon -p o box 26-rock rxptos . u em«-ooas -------------PHOKS. 712)472-3700 - FAX- 712)472-2656 AMTEUO toll FHt'E: 800)843-4288 "I [^«0«E8 iPPHOVtC BY- AmfcH RMERGENCY PRODUn'S PROPOSaTfOH: Cin OF LONG LAKE FIRE^^PARTMF^T^_____ ^^t^-I^^-nm^E'COMPAHTliPfr LArQl»T. SCAll WTS TiTTeyiaoM 5ir: NC: IjOXCUKEXy pTAsas. m IJOirjyiin-.iL! >OOY 'JNC-IM IfM ~SppB0\tt>' gvic’ ■300V Yfnt «CS5oi*'____ jiii___ I rSTOR“CE “3R -• • • ! i-’JtDKES ■ t .. j-.-r— . .-i-a— * “■ T** T** 'll nil - Jr* *PL •pJ^w14 liPiii®®^ I *M-^• * - -- * *-* * “‘I I; I ■A.-r-”_-|l -a. *4 -f »• ■ sl!DG dl 'T hdsc Bf:r-' notch O'JT in CDKPARTMCNT FDR CHASSIS SPRINO-* DUAL DIRCCTIDN SLlDC OUT TRAV adjustable SHClF-* lover CDRPARTMCNT If DFCP ‘•'DR ^JLL * SLIDE DuT tool Hi A-'i'-' vertical JIVI'.Ta •VATCR RESCUE SLIT STORAGE Wilh EAR FDR SA\C.L'f r«. «»^ 1208 SOUTH UHION-P.O. BOX 28-ROCK RAPIDS. lA 51240-0028 rri, ~-;Mn 7>i:)TT2-3700 - fax. 7l2)4r2-2«55 (AMTECID toll FREE: 800)843-4288 ]! aiSTOUCR appscttj bt \ 111 1 L. v/iAi lULL rnr^j:^^ ovi//u -ro AMTErtf EMERGENCY PRODUCTS PROPOSAL FOR; CITY OF LONG LAKE FIKF. DEPARTMLKT ^Mirjf TYPC.RESCai _________________ CQMPARTlffJfl_UYQyi SC AH ^RA»»> Bt KRl !fTS jOQY liNCTW 180 __________ DATt LONG nriX JAW POD^ 0\CU 00>' si>u. M§Ok MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. COl'Mr'II •*CCTI^JQ SEP 2 7 2004 CITY OF ORONQ ROLL I'he Council met on the above-mentioned date with the tollowing members present; Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Bob Sansevere, Jim White, and Lili McMillan. Representing Staff were City Attorney Thomas Barrett, City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planner Janice Gundlach, Public SeiA’ices Director Greg Gappa, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Jim Murphy was absent. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approvc/Amend Items #6, 7, 8,9,11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 were added to the Consent Agenda, while Item #3 was removed. Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. RECOGNITION 2. Jeanne Mabusth - Resolution This item follows the Mayor/Council Report. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Regular Council Meeting of August 23,2004 McMillan requested the minutes be corrected under the Mayor/Council Report to read as follows: “McMillan stated that the Stubbs Bay feasibility study was complete and the MCWD would be contacting the City to schedule a presentation." McMillan moved, White seconded, to approve the minutes of the August 23, 2004 Orono City Council meeting as corrected. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Rick Rice - Representative Representative Rick Rice appeared before the City Council and stated the Park Commission at its August meeting met over at the Navarre Park to look over the newly acquired property on Lyric Avenue. Rice indicated concerns were expressed by members of the Park Commission over the anticipated costs associated with relocating the bam structure on the Lurton property, with a meeting with the Lurtons being scheduled in the near future in order to discuss this issue. Gappa indicated a meeting has not yet been arranged. Rtcc stated the Park Commission also discussed the Lydiard Beach situation as well as placement of posts on the sand to eliminate parking in that area. Rice inquired whether that work would be completed next spring. Gappa stated the work could possibly be completed this fall, Rice indicated the possibility of installing a T*dock and milfoil removal at Lydiard Beach was also discussed. In addition, the Park Commission discussed acquisition of access to Lowry Woods, which consists of 14 acres, with no defined access being arrived at. Gappa noted two residents of the Navarre Park neighborhood were also present at the park. Gappa indicated the Park Commission had suggested a t« w of spruce trees that are blocking out some maples be removed to help clean the park up und to make it less secluded. Gappa stated the slab under the garage is in good shape and could possibly be used for another purpose such as a half-court basketbad court. Peterson inquired whether the tw'o neighbors had expressed any concerns or input regarding the park. Lois Hudlow, 3438 Lyric Avenue, stated she would like to sec more picnic tables to accommodate adults who may visit the park as well as more green space. Hudlow indicated there is one neighbo, who has expressed a concern about people walking through his driveway to access the park. Hudlow stated she would like a higher fence installed if a ball park should go in that area. Peterson commented that it is not likely that a ball field would be created at that park. Hudlow pointed out the street is not clearly marked for no parking. Hudlow indicated her concerns arc that no one park in her flowerbeds and that her oak trees arc not trimmed during the growing season. Hudlow requested the neighbors be kept informed of any possible improvements to the park. Sanseverc noted the Park Commission cha>r’s term limit is up at the end of the year. Sansevere suggested the Council consider eliminating the term limits. Sansevere recommended the Park Commission try’ to arrive at a consensus for a new chair. McMillan noted the Park Commission used to have a vice chair in the past, and suggested that some consideration be given to recreating that position. PAGE 2 !> t !< I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Roland Jurgens, 111. Representative Jurgens stated he docs not have any comments on tonight’s applications, but requested the City Council provide the Planning Commission Nvith some input on the large vehicle storage amendment. Sansevere noted the situation may have resolved itself since the resident in question is in the process of selling his truck. Gaffron indicated Staff, at the request of the Council, had reviewed whether large vehicle storage should be |x:rmitted with a conditional use permit. Staff has concluded that a conditional use option would not be a good option and that this item would be on this month’s Planning Commission agenda. Sansevere commented that in his opinion the rural character of Orono should be preserved and that people who have lived here for years and have utilr/ed work vehicles should not be pushed out because of complaints from residents of newer developments. Gaffron stated he is aware of appro.ximatcly 12 situations where there may be similar complaints in the future. PUBLIC COMMENTS None ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 4. JAMES RENDER, 1335 TONK.\WA ROAD - BUILDING HEIGHT - .APPEAL OF ADMINISTIUVTIVE DECISION James Render, Applicant, and Allen Barnard, Attomey-at-Law, were present. Gaffron stated the Applicant is appealing Staffs interpretation of the City’s building height ordinances and policies as they have been applied to his protrosed residence located at 1335 Tonkawa Road. A building permit has not been issued because Staff believes the proposed building height exceeds the 30’ height currently allowed by City codes. GalTron stated the primary issue is the interpretation of the terminology “average height of the highe.st gable of a pitched or hipped roof’, and how the City has interpreted it from a policy stand|H>inl. A .second issue before the Counc.l is whether the low point of measurement must be the current existing grade or a grade proposed when the subdivision was approved but never created. Gaffron explained the City’s code specifies 30’, with a high point and a low point being defined within the code. From Staffs perspective, the defined height of the proposed house is 36.6 feet, or 6.6 feet higher than allowed by code, and was derived at based upon methods that Staff feels arc consistent with the code and with policies that have been established and refined over the past two PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) decades. Gafiron indicated in order to meet the City’s height standard, the peak of the house would need to be reduced by 12 feet. Gaffron indicated the Applicant’s architect feels the City should go by the strict wording of the code and ignore the policy as well as use the grade that was proposed but never created at the time of approval of the subdivision. Gaffron stated if the City follows his method of deterrmmng the high point, the defined height would still be 32.4 feet or 2.4 feet higher than allowed by code. Gaffron stated this property was the middle lot of a three-lot plat created in 1998. The three lots were then replatted a year later to relocate lot lines and incorporate additional land to expand the two westerly lots. A grading plan proposing the creation of a built-up building pad for this lot was provided with the initial subdivision. Sansevere inquired whether the grading would need to be cliangcd once the lot lines were changed. Gaffron stated a revised grading plan was not required or provided at the time of the rcplatting. Sansevere inquired whether the City’s policy concerning height is t>'pically provided to applicants or their representatives. Gaffron stated if Staff receives a call from someone who is interested in finding out how the City ascertains building height, they would be given the City’s policy that was created in November of 2002 Gaffron stated if the person relies solely on the code and their own interpretation of the code, they may not be aware of the policy. Gaffron indicated Staff docs not recall receiving a call in this particular case from the architect requesting clarification of the City’s defined height ordinance. Sansevere inquired whether the policy should be made an addendum to the code. Gaffron stated there is no question that codes are supported by policies that are written and unwritten, and noted that the policy in question here was written two years ago but is not included in the building permit packet given to applicants. Gaffron indicated the Cit>' also does not provide its hardcover policy routinely to people unless it is reo-.sted. Sansevere inquired whether there is any notation on the City’s web site that says a person is to contact the City for the various policies. Gaffron stated he does not believe that language is currently on the City’s web site and that Staff is looking to incorporate the height policy specifically into the code. Gaffron indicated this issue has started to become more regular in the past year given the complex roof systems being designed ’oy architects today. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission would be addressing this matter at their September meeting. Gaffron pointed out the architect in this case did not have the benefit of the City’s policy for determining height. Gaffron stated based on the Applicant’s current submitted survc>, the imtial grading plan to raise the grade to 939.5’ for the middle lot was never fully accomplished, either as part of the subdivision or later. The exiitmg grade at the east end of the site is approximately 936.2 ’ where it tapers aw'ay from PAGE 4 L. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) the home next door. Gaffron stated the existing grade where the house will be placed ranges from 932.9 ’ to 936.4 ’ per the Applicant ’s survey, which suggests that portions of the lot were filled between two to tlirec feet when the home to the cast was built. Gaffron stated the City’s building height definition in the code reads as follows: ’’Building height means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level ___” “Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height.’’ Gaffron stated approximately ten years ago that last sentence was incorporated into the City’s code .specifically to force people to use the existing grade and not artificially build a mound w'lth a structure being constructed on top of it. Sanscverc inquired whether the architect would prefer the current existing grade or the proposed grade be utilized in defining the height. Gaffron stated the architect is utilizing the proposed grade of 939.5 ’. Gaffron stated in his view the existing elevation of 936.3 ’ should be used. Utilizing Exhibit G. Gaffro:. explained Staffs analysis of the defined height. Gaffron stated using the gable located on the lakeside of the house and ignoring the City’s policy for a moment, the average point is lower than the one the Applicant proposed. Gaffron indicated the proposed residence has a number of hip roof features and gables, which has made it difficult for Staff to determine which one is the highest gable. Gaffron stated this problem has routinely arisen in the past ten years, with the Planning Commission suggesting that the visual perception of a roof system should help dictate what is the highest gable. Gaffron stated that suggestion has become part of the City’s policy. Gaffron stated in determining the average height Staff has, as a matter of policy, considered that the ceiling of any usable space within a gable that contains a window will be considered as the low point of the highest gable for height determinations. Gaffron noted this policy has been in place and administered for many years, but it has never been fomially added to the code nor adopted as part of a policy resolution. Peterson inquired whether the City has a policy on when the approved grading as part of a subdivision would expire or whether that approval would continue indefinitely. Gaffron stated in general Staff feels that w hen the letter of credit has been released and all the improvements have been accepted on the property, that they do not expect changes to occur after that time. Gaffron indicated a road was constructed as well as a storm water pond and some grading was completed with the first home, (iaffron stated the lot to the west was constructed without much change in the grade. McMillan inquired when subdivision grading is approved, whether that creates a new baseline for height. McMillan also asked if a portion of a subdivision is filled, whether Uiat then resets the elevation for building height. PAGES litiiiii&ft MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) Gaffron stated it does, citing Willow View as an example. Gaffron stated the grade in this particular subdivision was raised and then left there for a number of years. Gaffron stated in his view it is unreasonable and inconsistent to use a grade that used to exist on this property as existing grade. Gaffron stated the defined height in Staffs perspective is the difference between the upper measuring point of 972.9' and the lower measuring point of 936.3', resulting in a defined height of 36.6’, which exceeds the 30' limit. Gaffron noted if the architect ’s analysis is used and they are given all the benefits of the doubt without the policy being applied in this case, the defined height would be 29.2 ’. Gaffron indicated Staff does not agree with the architect ’s analysis. Gaffron stated in his opinion the real issue before the Council tonight is to decide whether the proposed height of the residence is acceptable or not and whether it meets the intent of the code and the intent of the policies. In Staff s perspective, the height of the proposed residence is too high and does not meet the criteria for a hardship. Gaffron indicated one option discussed has been changing the peak to a cupola design, which might qualify for a conditional use permit if there arc no negative impacts with the excess height. Render stated it was not his intent when he first started the process of designing this house to bend the rules or try to do anything unusual. Render stated in his opinion the City ’s policy docs not fit this particular situation. Render explained they attempted to design a house that would look like it had been there for a long time and would blend in with the rest of the neighborhood. Render stated his architect worked within the information that was available to them and designed a house that they felt fit within the guidelines as they understood them. Render gave a brief history of the property and the grading that has occurred within this subdivision. Render noted the property was originally platted in 1907. At some point in the mid 1950’s, three lots w ere combined and a home was built upon them. Render indicated he purchased the property in late 1997, and approached the City requesting that the one lot again be replatted into three lots, which was approved in 1998. In July of 1998, the existing home and foundation was removed. During the demolition of the structure, some bad soils were encountered and extensive soil correction was completed on the property. Render noted approximately 3000 cubic yards of poor soils were taken ol’f the site at that time. In September of 1998, the City requested a letter of credit, which w as provided, for the site improvements with the first addition called Tonkawa Shores Addition. Render indicated approximately SI0,000 of the letter of credit was for importation of fill and grading of the site to the approved grade at that point in time. In November of 1998, construction began of the house located at 1350 Tonkawa. In September of 1999, the City requested an extended letter of credit, w hich was provided, because the road and grading had not been completed. In late September 1999, a fourth lot was purchased, w hich then became 1355 Tonkawa. Render stated an application was made to the City to make the four lots into three lots, which w'as approved. PAGE 6 ' r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) Render stated in November of 1999, he moved into the residence located at 1315 Tonkawa, and in order to get the certificate of occupancy, the first liA of asphalt was put down on the newly built private road. Render indicated at that point in time they were proceeding ahead and replaning the property into Tonkawa Shores Second Addition. Render noted the improvements to the First Addition were not yet completed at that time. Render indicated he had discussions back in that time period with City Staff and City Engineer Kellogg regarding the fresh asphalt and the anticipated construction. Render stated to his recollection they had agreed that it made good sense to utilize the empty lot for the storage of e,xccss fill. In February of 2000, Render indicated the newly created lot was sold, with the contract stipulating that extra soil from the construction would be accommodated on his vacant lot as long as the area was flattened out and able to be mowed once the construction was completed. Render stated in May of 2000, the City approved the second addition plat. In June of 2000, the street construction was completed, with the last lift of asphalt being laid. In July of 2000, the City recorded the plat of the second addition. Render indicated there was no developer's agreement in place, no request for a grading plan, or anything else requested prior to the plat being recorded. In September of 2000, the letter of credit that was provided with the first addition expired. Render stated he inquired of the City on how to get the letter of credit reduced but was never given an answer. Render explained that in March of 2001, construction began on Lot 1,1335 Tonkawa Shores. Render indicated he again agreed at that time that the contractor could use the empty lot for the storage of any excess fill. Render stated no excess soil was generated from the construction but that some soil was actually removed from the vacant lot and put on Lot 1. Render stated the lot was never brought back up to the highest elevation that it was approved for under the first addition because he did not realize he was required to. Render stated he now finds himself in the situation where he is debating what the grade is with the City on this lot. Render stated in his opinion an understanding has to be reached on the grading before building height can be addressed. Render distributed information to the Council concerning the grading on the lot. McMillan inquired whether it was an oversight that no grading plan was included at the time of the second plat. Render indicated he just assumed that he had approval to go to those elevations that were approved with the first plat since all they were doing were making the lots bigger with the second plat. Render stated he was never informed that he would lose his approved grade if he did not complete it within a certain period of time. Render indicated he has researched the City ’s codes in an effort to determine when final grade must be established on a platted lot and was only able to find that final grade must be established prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Render stated he did not find an>lhing that indicated that his approved grade would expve after a certain period of time. Render stated in his view there are four different grades that could be discussed on this propert>', with the fir.st being historical grade. Render indicated a drawing prepared by the City clearly shows PAGE? 4 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) an elevation at 940’ projecting substantially into the area of where the proposed house is to be located. Render stated this historic grade was in existence for approximately SS years but was changed at the time of the construction in 1998. Render stated another type of grade for this property would be approved grade, which in his view would be 939.5 ’. Render stated that number was arrived at in a meeting with Staff but that he would argue his approved grade should be 940.S’. Render indicated the 939.5 ’ in his opinion would be the lowest elevation and that he should have the right to the highest grade, which would be the 940.5’. Gaffron stated the issue is what grade exists today. Gaffron noted that the survey from the Applicant shows nothing higher on the property than 936.3, which was the elevation he used rather than a proposed elevation. Gaffron indicated the City Council could elect to use one of the other grades, but that he is not able to make that conclusion based upon what the code directs him to use. Render inquired where the 939.5 ’ elevation came from. Gaffron stated that number did not come from him and that he is unsure where that number was derived from. Gaffron indicated the only number he is comfortable with is the 936.3’, which is the existing grade. Render inquired whether Moorse recalled the 939.5 ’. Moorse stated it was his understanding the 939.5 ’ w'as the elevation that was previously approved with the subdivision. Gaffron indicated he understands the rationale for Render wanting to use the 939.5 ’ but that the code directs him to use the existing grade. Render stated a third t>pc of grade that could be used for this property is a common sense grade of 943.6’, which is derived by taking the elevations of the property on either side of this lot and calculating the difference bens ’cen the two elevations in order to arrive at an elevation for this lot. Render indicated the 943.6’ elevation is pretty close to the elevation they are requesting. Render stated the existing grade would make sense in a situation where the house was being tom down, but in a situation where there has been construction on either side of the lot and soils have been borrowed back and forth from the lot in question, the existing grade is different month to month depending on the construction and w ould not really reflect what the actual grade of the properU' is. Render commented he is unaware of a time deadline in which the lot had to be graded to 940.5’. Sansevere inquired what date the historical grade was from. Render stated that grade was established when it was platted in May of 1998. Sansevere inquired whether the 940.5’ is in dispute. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) Gaffron stated the 940.5’ is probably accurate, noting that there is a survey from the City that reflects that elevation. Gaffron commented that any time grade is proposed to be changed on a property, technically the City requires a filling or grading permit for any changes in elevation or changes in grade on the property. Gaffron stated any filling of over 500 cubic yards requires a conditional use permit and any filling between 0 to 500 cubic yards is a staff-issued permit. Gaffron indicated he is not aware of any permits being granted for filling of this lot or of any interim grading plan being submitted to the City. Sansevere inquired what answer the architect gave to the applicant for why City Staff was not contacted to verify that their interpretation was correct. Render stated he engaged the architectural firm of TEA and was told someone from their staff obtained the City ’s code book and had also researched the City ’s web site situation for any modifications to the code. Render indicated he has spent approximately 15 months in the design process, but did not become aware of a problem with the height until the City informed his architect that they would not issue a building permit. Render noted the architect has prepared an exhibit that is before the Council tonight that looks at it from the City ’s perspective as much as possible. Sansevere inquired whether the architectural firm ever discussed this matter with City StafT. Render indicated he is not aware of whether they talked with City Staff over this issue. Sansevere stated in his opinion there should be accountability on both sides and that the City of Orono should consider putting language on their web site saying that you must contact City Staff for any relevant policies. Sansevere commented that it is difficult to believe that Orono is the only city where interpretation of city codes is an issue and where the architect docs not bother to get a clarification. Sansevere inquired w hether architects routinely contact City Staff to get clarifications of city codes. Gaffron stated Staff is contacted almost on a daily basis concerning these types of issues. Render stated the architect has explained that they have never encountered a situation like this in another city where a policy is not part of a city ’s established printed code and is different than the Uniform Building Code. Render stated City Staff informed him that this policy is not made available to applicants unless specifically requested. Sansevere stated the lack of contact by the architect with City Staff is the gap in this situation. Barnard staled in his opinion if there was .some ambiguity in the ordinance, that the architect would then have a duty to talk to the City, but w hen the ordinance tells you how- to define the height of a building, then there is not reason to ask for clarification. Sansevere inquired if the historical grade of 940.5’ was used, along with StafTs interpretation of the code w'lthout the policy, what the defined height would be. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) Gaflron indicated his interpretation of the code is based upon the City’s policy. Gaffron stated he arrives at a defined height of 33.4 ’ using the historical grade of 940 ’. Gaffron stated in his opinion there is ambiguity in the code since Staff came up with a significantly different highest gable than the architect came up with. Gaffron stated in his opinion the highest gable is located on the rear of the house, and if the elevation of 940 ’ is utilized, based on Staffs interpretation of the code, the defined height of the structure is still 2.4 ’ higher than what the City allows. Render noted his architect arrived at 29.2 ’. Gaffron suggested the City Council, in order to reach a conclusion on how to define building height in this situation, look at, one, where the lowest measuring point is; two, decide whether to accept the use of this policy by Staff; and three, if the policy is not used, whether the architect’s or the City’s interpretation of the low point and highest gable should be used, and then determine whether or not they exceed the building height requirement. McMillan commented she has some reservations with the conditional use permit option since the peak is not an accessory architectural feature like a chimney or a cupola but is more a feature created by the rooflines of the house. McMillan stated it is not defined that specifically in the code, but in her opinion the peak is unusable space as far as living space goes and is more of an architectural feature in this situation. McMillan indicated in the future she would prefer a conditional use permit not be used for an architectural feature that is created with rooflines. McMillan stated since it is not well defined in the code, she would be willing to consider a conditional use permit in this situation. Gaffron stated Section 7813.66 reads that the height limitations imposed by other provisions in this chapter may be increased by conditional use permit by 50 percent and apply to the following structures: church spires, belfries, cupolas and domes which do not contain usable space, monuments and fire towers, fire and hose towers. Gaffron noted the City denied a conditional use permit for the fire station for a tower. Other structures include observation towers, flag poles, chimneys, smoke stacks, parapet walls extending not more than tw'o feet above the height of the building, cooling towers, elevators, and penthouses. Gaffron stated the City recently approved a conditional use permit for excess height for chimneys for a property on Brackett ’s Point but denied excess height for some screening above the art center. Gaffron noted the code does not provide a definition of a cupola. Peterson inquired what the height is from the base to the very peak of the residence. Gaffron stated the height on the lakeside is 49.0 feet Render suted he had his proposed residence compared with the neighboring house, with the builder doing an analysis and determining that the peak of his house is within a foot and a half of the height of the neighbor’s chimney. The City Council reviewed scaled versions of building plans for the tw'o adjacent properties and the proposed residence. Gaffron noted the peak for the proposed house is approximately 12 feet higher than the Applicant ’s existing house and is approximately two to three feet higher thw the chimney. PAGE 10 I LAJ ^ ft' L r - I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) Render stated his builder, who also constructed the neighbor’s residence, informed him that there is a foot and a half difference between the peak of his proposed house and the neighbor’s chimney. Sansevere stated in his view what would be fair would be to look at the historical grade. Sansevere stated the City Council cannot apply the architect’s interpretation of the code, but that he would be willing to entertain looking at the historical grade since that one is the one that was in existence the longest. Render indicated that grade was there for approximately 55 years. McMillan stated if the City went with the 940 ’ and used Staffs interpretation of the ordinance, the defined height of the building would still c.xceed the maximum by two feet. McMillan commented she would rather consider a conditional use permit. Sansevere stated it is up to the Applicant to decide how to reduce the height of the building but that he personally would not be in favor of a conditional use permit at this time. Peterson indicated she is in agreement with Sansevere. White commented in his view the common sense approach is the most compelling, which would give this lot a similar elevation to the two adjacent properties. White indicated he would possibly be in favor of a conditional use permit because the majority of the proposed residence is 12 feet lower than the adjacent residence. White recommended the City ’s policy be incorporated into the ordinance. Sansevere inquired on what basis the city would grant a conditional use permit. Sansevere stated he docs not see the justification for it. White stated in his opinion there is ambiguity in the ordinance. McMillan commented in her opinion it is an architectural feature of the house. Peterson agreed that the peak of the house is an architectural feature, but inquired whether it could be reduced by two feet. Render stated he is not an architect and is not sure how that could be accomplished. Sansevere stated in his opinion it would be inconsistent to grant a conditional use permit. Sansevere indicated he would be willing to use the 940 ’ with staffs interpretation, but noted the Applicant would still need to reduce the height of the residence somewhat. Peterson noted the City has always concurred with the policy that is being applied in this case. White indicated he would be willing to consider a conditional use permit. Peterson indicated she would not be in favor of a conditional use permit. PAGE 11 ii‘iiifiiiiliirii 1 i iiinitiJiiiftiiniii n ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) McMillan stated she is a little sympathetic to the Applicant since this policy is not contained within the code book. McMillan commented that she understands Staff has applied this policy very consistently in the past, but that the code needs to be tightened up, especially relating to issues on architectural features. McMillan recommended that rooflines not be used in the future to create an architectural feature, but noted that is not currently contained in the City's ordinance. McMillan stated she would be willing to entertain a conditional use permit on that basis. White commented he docs not recall another instance similar to this, and inquired what impact that would have on other applicants that the City has denied. McMillan stated in her view an architectural feature is not livable space. Peterson stated the architect should have contacted the City for clarification. Sansevere inquired whether Staff would interpret the ordinance the same way they do now without the policy or whether they apply the policy to interpret the ordinance. Gaffron commented he would contact the City to find out what the highest gable would be, noting there arc at least five possible different interpretations that could be reached with the design of this house. Render stated in his view, using even the strictest interpretation of the code, they arc still under the City’s height restriction. Gaffron indicated he is not in agreement with that view, and that if you look at the rear side of the house, the average elevation is 972.9 ’. Moorse commented he would like to clarify the initial meeting at which the 939 ’ elevation was originally discussed. Moorse noted the meeting involved Lyle Oman, the City’s building official, rather thm Mike Gaffron. Moorse inquired how the common sense grade compares to the existing grade. Gaffron said in his view existing grade is what exists at the site today, and noted that the City’s code reads that “Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height.” Gaffron noted the grade on this lot has changed several times, and inquired at what point in time Staff should define grade. Gaffron stated in his opinion the ordinance would need to be worded more clearly if the Council w ants to consider a proposed grade or a historic.'il grade. Sansevere pointed out the existing grade is a result of the construction on the lot next door, but that he w ould be willing to give the Applicant the benefit of the doubt and use the historical grade in determining the height of the structure. Sansevere inquired whether Staff would prefer the historical grade or a conditional use permit in this instance. Gaffron indicated he would be comfortable with the 940 ’ if the Council found that the ^ade on this lot has changed over the years due to the movement and placement of soils on this lot. Gaffron PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) stated in his opinion that would not set a precedent. Gaffron stated the City ’s sur\ey reflects a grade of 940' in 1992. Render stated he would be comfortable using the historical grade. Gaffron e.xplained that the defined height of the structure would be 32.9 ’ using the historical grade, but that there would still have to be some design changes in order to meet the maximum height allowed. White inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to change the design slightly to make this section of the house look more unique and separate. Gaffron indicated the Applicant has submitted plans showing different peak designs. Render stated in one of the plans they created a metal band around the peak to make that area seem mo'c like a cupola. Gaffron pointed out a cupola would require a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated if the peak is lowered to the point where the average from the windows to the peak yields a 30 ’ number, then it would be reasonable to grant a conditional use permit for a cupola. Gaffron .stated in his view it presently is not a cupola. Barrett stated in his view Gaffron’s proposal would create no precedent, but that if the City granted a conditional use pennit for a cupola on this residence, they would need to grant a conditional use permit for other applicants that meet the same set of conditions. Gaffron stated a hardship would not need to be shown with a conditional use permit. Jurgens suggested the Applicant consider cutting off a band through the peak, leave the area somewhat like it is but square off the peak and add some windows around it. Jurgens stated in his mind It would create a peak, be a projection of the roofline, and create an architecmral feature that could be considered a cupola. Gaffron concurred in that instance it would be considered a cupola as long as it is not an extension of the roofline. Garrett stated the applicant would need to submit an application for a conditional use permit to allow the cupola and appear before the Planning Commission. Garrett stated the appeal could be tabled to allow the Applicant time to redesign that section of the house. Peterson inquired whether a motion approving the 940 ’ elevation is necessaiy. Garrett indicated the issue before the Council tonight is whether a building permit should be issued, and if the Council determines, based upon the present design, that the building permit should be denied, then a motion denying the appieal would be appropriate. PAGE 13 IvnNUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o ’clock p.m. (James Render, Appeal of Administrative Decision, Continued) Render stated he would like to have approval of the 940’. White moved, Sanscvcrc seconded, to deny the appeal of administrative decision by James Render, 1335 Tonkawa Road, relating to measurement of building height. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Sanseverc moved, Peterson seconded, that the sense of the council was that the grade elevation could be set at 940’ for the lot located at 1335 Tonkawa Road. White pointed out the Council is accepting the 940’ elevation for tliis proposed residence only. Barrett suggested staff draft a resolution of denial. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 5.1104-3010 THEODORE CAPRA, 3534 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES White moved, Sansevere seconded, to table Application #04-3010, Theodore Capra, 3534 Ivy Place, at the request of the Applicant. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 9:00 - 9:07 p.m.) *6. #04-3044 .lENTSTFER SIMON, 3925 CHERRY ANTNUE - VARIANCES - DENIAL RESOLUTION NO. 5224 Sansevere moved, White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5224, a Resolution Denying a Variance to allow a rear yard setback of 20 feet when 30 feet is normally required for the property located at 3925 Cherry Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *7. #04-3046 ROBERT AND BRENDA MACDONALD, 2480 Old Beach Road - CUPA'ARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 5225 and RESOLUTION NO. 5226 Sansevere moved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5i'25 and RESOLUTIO.N' NO. 5226, Resolutions granting an after-the-fact side yard setback variance to permit the detached garage to remain 8.4 feet from the side lot line when Id feet is normally required for the property located at 2480 Old Beach Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COl NC IL REPORT Sansevere stated he would tike to discuss at a work session the decision made last year by the Council concerning the half-a-day time off that Staff gets if they need to attend three evening meetings in a month. Sansevere stated he would like the time of^ to be based on the need to attend evening meetings period. Sansevere suggested ratlicr than requiring attendance at three meetings in PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Mayor/Councii Report) one month before any lime off is given, the policy should be one-half day off for each two or three evening meetings attended. Peterson indicated she recently attended Orono’s first ever Citizens Police Academy, which is an eight week program that was developed by the Orono Police Department. Peterson commended the Police Department for their efforts in developing this program. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *8. PURCHASE OF BRUSH CHIPPER Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve the purchase of a Public Works replacement brush chipper from Vermeer Sales & Service, Burnsville, Minnesota, at a total cost of $20,460, to be funded from the year 2004 Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund Budget. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *9. REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT - STUBBS BAY PROJECT Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve Request for Final Payment, Stubbs Bay/ Watertown Road Erosion Project, to Minnesota Native Landscapes, Inc., in the amount of $3,168.35. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. RECOGNITION 2.JEANNE MABUSTH - RESOLUTION Peterson moved, White seconded, to table the Resolution of Appreciation to Jeanne Mabusth. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 10. ADOPT PRELIMINARY 2005 TAX LEVY AND BIDGET - RESOLUTION NO. 5227 AND NO. 5228 Moorsc staled the Council is required to certify the City’s preliminary lax levy to the County by September 15. Moorse indicated once the preliminary tax levy is certified, that levy is reflected in the truth-in-taxation statements sent out by the county. Moorsc noted the truth-in-taxation hearing has been scheduled for December 6, with the final levy adoption hearing being scheduled for December 13. Moorsc stated based on the proposed budget and tax levy, and the substantia] increase in the City’s tax capacity, the City’s share of the property tax bill for Orono property owners will only increase by PAGE 15 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIl. MEETING Mooday, September 13,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Adopt Preliminary 2005 Tax Levy and Budget, Continued) l.l percent. Moorse stated a significant portion of the tax base increase is due to new construction and redevelopment occurring within the City. White moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5227 and RESOLUTION NO. 5228, Resolutions approving the preliminary tax levy to fund the 2005 budget. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. White moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5227 and RESOLUTION NO. 5228, Resolutions approving the preliminary 2005 budget. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *11. SELECTION OF DATES FOR TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARINGS Sansevere moved. White seconded, to schedule the Truth in Taxation Hearing for 5:30 p.m., Monday, December 6, and the continuation or subsequent hearing for 7:00 p.m., Monday, December 13, with both hearings to be held in the Council Chambers. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. * 12. DONATION AC CEPTANCE - ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT Sansevere moved. White seconded, to approve the donation of a Shearing Universal Microchip Rc.der by Dr. Patricia Waples of the Excelsior Animal Hospital for use by the Orono Police Department and thanking her for the generous donation in the interest of pets and their owners. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Sansevere thanked Dr. Waples for her generous donation. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None LICENSES *13. KENNEL 1.James Bull 1330 Cherrv Place PAGE 16 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2004, 7:00 P.M ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Anieiid n^frcTlMQ SEP 2 7 2U04 CITY OF ORONO PRESENTATION 2. Fiic Rescue Vehicle Purchase - Navarre APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 3. Regular Council Meeting of September 13, 2004 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Irene Sllber, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Ralph Kempf, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING rVDMINISTILVTOR’S REPORT 4. /t02-2S30 City of Orono, Building Heights Code Amendments - Ordinance #04-3049 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Road - CUP - Resolution #04-3050 Mike McClelland, 2170 Minnetonka Avenue - Variance - Resolution • 5. • 6. 7. #04-3051 Kevin and Julie Fitzpatrick, 356 West Lake Street - Variances - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 8. 701 Dickey Lake Road - Request for sewer 9. Approve Purchase of Vactor Tnick Remote Hose Reel 10. Approve Rehabilitation of Lift Station #27 Partenwood Road CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 11. Accept Grant for Homeland Security Training 12. Accept Resignation of Part Time CSO 13. Hwy. 12 Turnback Consultant Scope of Work and Contract 14. Letter to LMCD regarding Tributaries Resolution 15. Appointment of 2004 General Election Judges - Resolution CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT • 16 BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS f 1 StP ^ 7 ‘.^U04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ciiyohomono Date: September 21,2004 Item No.: ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlachy^' Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02-2830, City of Orono, Building Height Code Amendments - Ordinance List of Exhibits A - Ordinance per Planning Commission Recommendation B-PC Memo of 9-16-04 Application Summary: The City of Orono is requesting that the current building height code be amended to reflect the current policies which have been in place since 2001 or earlier and which have been written as a policy statement since November of 2002. The proposed new building height language will clarify the lollowing; 1. Height shall meet the l-'A story limitation AND the 30 ’ limitation, 2. A definition for half-story is added, and 3. The measurement of the highest point is clarified where dormers and w indows exist within the roof system. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the code amendment be adopted in an attempt to clarify for the public how building height is determined and because these current policies are already being enforced. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt the proposed code amendments as presented by staff. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Ordinance amending Section 78-1 and Sections 78-78-230 (A), 255 (A), 305 (A), 330 (A), 350 (A). 370 (A). 395 (A). 420 (A), 44 (A), 502, 572,646 (1), 672 (A), 707 (N). 736 (1), 766 (I), 797 (7), 825 (D) regarding building height. kL ORDINANCE NO___THIRD SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1 AND SECTIONS 78-230 (A), 255 (A), 305 (A), 330 (A), 350 (A), 370 (A), 395 (A), 420 (A), 44 (A), 502,572,646 (I), 672 (A), 707 (N), 736 (1), 766 (I), 797 (7), 825 (D) REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHT The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section I: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1 regarding the definition of building height is hereby revised as follows: Sec. 78-1. Definitions. Building height means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the top of the cornice of a fiat roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch-type roof, or the average median height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height. For a pitched or hipped roof situation, rceardless whether the highest living space in a bu ilding is a half-storv or full story, if the highest living space contains windows fex '^lviding skylights ’! the unner measurine point for defining building height shall be the ■nedian height of the top of the highest window and the highest peak of the roof Section 2: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1 is hereby revised to include the following definition: Sec. 78-1. Definitions. Half story means the uppermost floor of a building in which fil the intersection of the exterior wall and the roof is not more than three (31 feet above the floor elevation, and (ii) not more than 60 percent of the floor area w ithin the exterior walls of the uppermost floor exceeds five tSl feet in heiaht as measured from the floor to the rafters. Floors exceeding these parameters sh.all he deemed a full storv Section 3: Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-78-230 (A), 255 (A), 305 (.A). 330 (A). 350 (A), 370 (A), 395 (A), 420 (A), 44 (A), 502, 572, 646 (1), 672 (A), 707 (N). 736 (1), 766 (1), 797 (7), 825 (D) regarding the building height requirement are hereby revised as follows: Sec. 78-230. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the R-1A district shall exceed 2Vi stories Of and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. k a i- M r Sec. 78-255. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the R-ID district shall e.xceed 2'/i stories m and shall not exceed 30 feet in height e.xcept as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-305. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-1A district shall exceed I'A stories er and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-330. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-1 B district shall exceed 2'/j stories ef and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-IC district shall exceed IVz stories 0f and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-370. Area, height, lot wiuth and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-lC-1 district shall exceed IVi stories of and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-395. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the RR-1A district shall exceed 2'/z stories er and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-420. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the RR-IB district shall exceed 2'/2 stories OF and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-444. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the RR-lB-1 district shall exceed 2'/j stories of and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-502. Height. No structure or building in multiple-family planned residential (MFPR) project shall exceed 2'/2 stories of and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-572. Building height. Within any RS seasonal recreational district, no structure or building shall exceed 2'/» stories of and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78- 1366. Sec. 78-646. Area, height, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements. (i) Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2*/a stories eF and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. t Sec. 78-672. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in any B-1 district shall exceed 2'/j stories and shall not exceed 30 feet in height. Sec. 78-707. Area, height, yard, setback and design requirements. (n) Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2Vi stories &r and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-736. Area, height, lot width, yard, setback and design requirements. (i) Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2*/j stories er and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-766. Area, height, lot width, setback requirement and design requirements. (i) Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2'/j stories of and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-797. Area, height, lot width setback requirements and design requirements. (7) No structure or building shall exceed 2Vi stories w and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-825. Area, height, setback and design requirements. (d) Height. No structure or building shall exceed three stories w and shall not exceed 40 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Section 4: This Ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and shall become effective upon approval and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 27*’’ day of September, 2004 by a vote of___ayes and____nays. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspapers the week of ., 2004. 1 1 W2-2830 September 20, 2004 Page 1 of 4 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Janice Gundlach, City Planner^ September 16,2004 02-2830, City of Orono, Building Height Code Amendment - Public Hearing Application Summary: The City of Orono is requesting that the current building height code be amended to reflect the current policies which have been in place since 2001 or earlier and which have been written as a policy statement since November of 2002. The proposed new building height language will clarify the following: 1. Height shall meet the l-Yi story limitation AND the 30 ’ limitation, 2. A definition for half-story is added, and 3. The measurement of the highest point is clarified where dormers and windows exist within the roof svstem. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the code amendment be adopted in an attempt to clarify for the public how building height is determined and because these current policies are already being enforced. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections A number of code sections are affected by the amendment. Section 78-1 which contains the building height definition will be amended to include the 2 main policies which have been in effect since 2002. Secondly, each zoning district section where building height is clarified will be amended to state “...shall not exceed 2- '/i stories and shall not exceed 30 feet in height...” rather th,nn the current language of “...shall not exceed 2 'A stories or 30 feet in height...” This is a change from including this clarification in the building height definition. Staff feels this method is a better “fix ” as it would be clarified in each zoning district section of the Code rather than only in the definition section. Also, note that the language for Section 78-825 (d) lists a height of 40 feet. Tnis is not a typo as this section regulates the Industrial District which allows for 3-stories/40 foot height. Staff thought it was appropriate at this point to clari.y the 3 stories and the 40 feet restriction. New language in Section 78-1 will define a half story. The current code allows for half stories however, staff has been struggling with what defines the actual half story. This definition was compiled from other published half story definitions and written to most accurately reflect the discussion on this topic by the Planning Commission over the last two years. i ^02-2830 September 20, 2004 Page 2 of 4 And lastly, the new language will further clarify the measurement of the highest point. The new language specifically addresses dormers and windows within the roof structure of a story or half story. Through many work session discussions the Planning Commission and Council determined that dormers and windows create a visual appearance of height when within the roof system, therefore a stricter standard should be followed. Section 78-1 will be amended as follows: Sec. 78-1 . Definitions. Building height means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the top of the cornice of a flat roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch-type roof, or the overage median height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height. For a pitched or hipped roof situation, regardless whether the highest living space in a building is a half-storv or full storv. if the highest living space contains windows (excluding skylights) the upper measuring point for defining building height shall be the median height of the top of the highest window and the highest peak of the roof Half story means the uppermost floor of a building in which (i) the intersection of the exterior wall and the roof is not more than three (3) feet above the floor elevation, and (iil not more than 60 percent of the floor area within the exterior walls of the uppermost floor exceeds five (51 feet in height as measured from the floor to the rafters. Floors exceeding these parameters shall be deemed a full storv. Sections 78-230 (a). 255 (a), 305 (a), 330 (a), 350 (a), 370 (a), 395 (a), 420 (a), 44 (a), 502, 572, 646 (i), 672 (a), 707 (n), 736 (i), 766 (i), 797 (7), 825 (d) are amended as follows: Sec. 78-230. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the R-1A district shall exceed 2'/i stories ef and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-255. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the R-1 B district shall exceed 2Vi stories or and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-305. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-1A district shall exceed 2Vt stories OF and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-330. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-IB district shall exceed 2 ‘/2 stories er and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. l?«9LL ^02-2830 September 20,2004 Page 3 of 4 Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-IC district shall exceed 2 ‘/j stories w and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-370. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-lC-1 district shall exceed 2Vi stories ef and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-395. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the RR-IA district shall exceed I'A stories er and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-420. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the RR-IB district shall exceed I'A stories er and shall not exceed 30 feet in height e.xcept as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-444. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the RR-lB-1 district shall exceed IVi stories or and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-502. Height. No structure or building in multiple-family planned residential (MI PR) project shall exceed 2'/j stories of and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-572. Building height. Within any RS seasonal recreational district, no structure or building shall exceed 2'/j stories or and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78- 1306. Sec. 78-646. Area, height, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements. (i) Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2'/: stories of and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-672. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in any B-1 district shall exceed 2V2 stories of and shall not exceed 30 feet in height. Sec. 78-707. Area, height, yard, setback and design requirements. (n) Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2'/j stories er and .shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-736. Area, height, lot width, yard, setback and design requirements. (i) Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2'/i stories er and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. 1 M2-2S50 September 20,2004 Page 4 of 4 Sec. 78-766. Area, height, lot width, setback requirement and design requirements. (i) Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2'/j stories ©f and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-797. Area, height, lot width setback requirements and design requirements. (7) No structure or building shall exceed 2'/i stories or and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-825. Area, height, setback and design requirements. (d) Height. No structure or building shall exceed three stories of and shall not exceed 40 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Issues for Consideration 1. Docs the Planning Commission have any issues with the proposed amendments and their impacts on development? 2. Is the Planning commission interested in establishing a peak height maximum of 40 feet, to be included in a future amendment? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Sections 78-1, 230 (a), 255 (a), 305 (a), 330 (a), 350 (a), 370 (a), 395 (a), 420 (a), 44 (a), 502, 572, 646 (i), 672 (a), 707 (n), 736 (i), 766 (i), 797 (7), 825 (d) to clarify for the public how building height is determined. Staff would also reconunend that the Planning Commission continue to discuss the building height issue at work sessions in an attempt to possibly adopt a maximum peak height as well as additional height restrictions on substandard width lots. V. •ft Date Application Received: 8*16*04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 8-16-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10-15*04 COltMr'M •«trcTIMQ SEP 2 7 2004 CITY OF ORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: September 21,2004 Item No.: S Department Approval: ^ Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P-Gaffron/y*^^^^ Title: Planning Director ^ Agenda Sec*lon: Zoning Item Description: W04-3049 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Avenue - - CUP Amendment: Temporary Office Trailer - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9-21-04 C - Memo and Exhibits of 9-16-04 Application Sumnuiry: Applicant requests approval to place a temporary office module (trailer) near the tennis bum during major remodeling ofthe Club ’s main buildings which are in Way/ata. The trailer will be in use for approximately 9 months and then removed. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval as presented on a vote of 6-0. Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. Please review the memo and exhibits of September 16. Approval is subject to removal ofthe trailer by June 30, 2005, and subject to meeting any building/liandicap access codes that may be applicable. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution. . a 1.1 i .u i i u .. 1 4 ..n i. mm i i« m 111 i i I A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO WOODHILI. COUNTRY CLUB FOR A TEMPORARY OFFICE MODULE TRAILER FILE A04-3049 WHEREAS, tlieCily ot Orono (hereinafter "the City") is a municipal corjwration oigani/cd and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, theCityCouncil oftheCityofOrono has adopted zoning and other regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, Woodhill Country Club (hereinafter "applicant" or "the Club"), a Minnesota non ­ profit corporation, is owner ofthe property addressed as 200 Woodliill Road, a portion ofwhich is located within the City of Orono, such portion being legally described in Exhibit A attached and refened to hereinafter as "the Property"; and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City for an amendment of its 1968 conditional use pcimit (CUP) per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-418(4) to allow the temporary placement and use of a modular oflicc trailer for a period of9 months during remodeling of the main Club facilities in Wayzata. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: HNDINCS 1. 2. 3. This application was reviewed as Zoning File No. 04-3049. The profKTty is located within the RR-1 B Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. Tlie Planning Commission reviewed tliis application at a public hearing held on September 20,2004 and recommended approval of the temporary trailer placement and use based on the following findings: Page 1 of 5 Within the RR-1B zoning district, golf courses and country clubs arc a permitted use via conditional use permit (CUP). Woodliill Country Club operates under a CUP originally granted by the City on September 13, 1968. Tire proposed temporary placement and use of a modular office trailer during remodeling ofthc Club’s mam facilities in Wayzata requires an amendment of the Club’s umbrella CUP because it temporarily establishes a use not covered under the existing CUP. The trailer will be located along the west side of the “tennis bam”, a site approximately 450' from the nearest property boundary and more than 600' from tlie nearest residence. Only minor grading will be necessary to establish a level pad for the trailer. During tlie club remodeling, club functions arc expected to be reduced to relatively low levels, willi minimal food services and office activities operatuig out of tlie tennis bam and temporary ofllce trailer. It is anticipated there will be no new impacts on neighboring properties as a result of the relocated office activity. The trailer is intended to be in place for a period not to exceed 9 months, with removal expected by the end of June 2005. F) The trailer will not have plumbing, as the tennis bam provides this necessity. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more ofthc above findings, the City Council ofOrono, Minnesota hereby grants to Woodhill Country Club an amendment to its 1968 Conditional Use Permit to allow the temporary placement and use of a modular office trailer for a period of 9 months during remodeling of the main Club facilities in Wayzata, subject to the following conditions: 1.The trailer will be required to meet any applicable building code and handicap accessibility standards similar to a construction trailer, and shall not be used as a residence. 2.The trailer shall be removed from the property no later than June 30,2005. Page 2 of 5 \ 3. 4. Authorities granted by this conditional use permit run with the property not with the applicant. Violation ofor non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the tenns of this resolution and on behalfof the applicant and the applicant’s heirs, successor's and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of tlie City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of September, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor APPLICANT ACCEPTANCE Authorized Representative of Woodhill Country Club Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of .,2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota munieipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Tlie foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of .,2004 by Linda S. Vec, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal coiporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City, Notary Public Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of 2004, personally appeared before me, ____ who is personally known to me ____ whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of. credible witness .,a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that hc/shc/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed, acting on behalf of Woodhill Country Club. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 mtm I: B CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 _______ ZONING FILE #04-3049 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 21, 2004 lO:Mark Albrecht, General Manager Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Road Way/ata, MN 55391 COPIES: Betsy Massie 2640 Marshland Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Mr. Phil Ordway 1550 Sixth Avenue North Orono, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: CUP Amendment - Temporary Trailer DATE OF MEETING: September 20. 2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Motion to recommend approval of requested amendments to CUP to allow temporary trailer. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, September 27, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. If you desire ccilificd copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600.■i J 1 Date Application Received: 8*16-04 Date Appilcation Considered as Complete: 8*16-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10-15-04 c To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator 0 Mike Gaffron, Planning Director^^^,^A September 16, 2004 #04-3049 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Avenue - - CUP Amendment: Temporary Office Trailer - Public Hearing Zoning District: Zoning Status: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre min. Golf courses, country clubs and tennis clubs arc allowed as a Conditional Use within the RR-IB zoning district. Woodhill' Country Club is authorized to operate a golf course and related country club activities via a Conditional Use Pemiit issued by the City Council in 1968. The Club has obtained a number of additional conditional use permits for various improvements or activities since 1968. Property Area: (Portion in Orono): Approximately 135 acres Application Summary: Applicant requests approval to place a temporary office module (trailer near the tennis barn during major remodeling of the Club ’s main buildings which are in Way/al: trailer will be in use for approximately 9 months and then removed. Staff Recommendation: Approval as presented. . The List of Exhibits A - Application & Letter of Request n - Survey / Site Plan C - Depiction of Trailer D - Photos of Proposed Location E - Plat Map F - Property Owners List Pertinent Code Section Section 78-418; Conditional Uses in the RR-IB Zoning District: “Within any"R-l A" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: (4) Clubs, Camps, etc. Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimming pools serving more than one family, scout camps, YMCA camps, YWCA camps, church camps, or private non ­ profit parks, playgrounds and other similar uses. The principal structure for any of the idrove listed uses shall be 100 feet or more fiom any abutting lot in an "R" District, and accessory structures shall be a minimum of fifty feet fiom any lot line.” iii i r A h mm" «04-3049 Woodliill CC Stptcmbcr 16,2004 Page 2 Discussion Woodhill Country Club is requesting approval for temporary placement of a trailer to be used as an office during their major remodeling of the main Club facilities. The trailer will be located along the west side of the ‘‘tennis bam”, a site approximately 450' fiom the nearest property boundary and more than 600' from the nearest residence. The tennis bam is located in the west-central portion of the Club property along the driveway extension of Woodhill Avenue cast of the maintenance buildings. During the club remodeling, staffis advised, club functions will be reduced to relatively low levels, with minimal food services and office activities operating out of the tennis bam and temporary office trailer. Witli the nrinimal operations occurring, staff anticipates there will be no new impacts on nei^boring properties as a result of the relocated office activity. Staff and the applicants would have preferred to approve the trailer tlvough some other method than a Conditional Use Pennit, perhaps as a temporary license, as the CUP goes with the land and is intended lor uses that arc relatively pennanent. However, the Zoning Code provides no license option, and because Uic Club is a conditional use, any new activities or construction requires an amendment to their current CUP. Thu trailer is intended to be in place for a period not to exceed 9 months, which suggests it will be removed by the end of June 2005. This is a condition that could be placed on the CUP i f the applicants agree, to eliminate the potential for it to become a permanent fixture. Tire trailer will be expected to meet handicap accessibility standards similar to a constmetion trailer, and cannot be used as a residence. Our understanding is that it will not have plumbing, as the tennis bam provides this necessity. Issues for Consideralion 1.Does Planning Commission have any speci fic concerns with the temporary placement and use of the proposed trailer? Will there be any impacts to the sumounding neighborhood if this temporary use is approved? Staff Recommendation Staff reconunends approval of the CUP amendment to allow the use of the proposed trailer office module to be located adj acent to the tennis bam for a period of 9 months, with the trailer to be removed by June 30.2005. r 4& 'M V'"‘?-.-^“ ■^* iytfW■wv^aw m:/A - V ^ ^ •. . H l\ .„ I y ssiafc^,- .*• I* y/v■-^A /•-*.• >* ***. j ?•»r.' - ^ ^ * v I •F*i*^V* • Vi^.• /. ' 9F' . , -• ;'. ■-riT'■.'”‘”'*"C • 'i,A •‘•4h' a^' -‘ .* -' U' ■• '4^^.....: ^ -V *-^ -<!. .* - . A^ . t,» - . ■-*: .. *-^ i t-\a.v G*’ ^ v\^tx ________________________________^...............................- ___________________________________________________________ :mhs V ' ,A- '.T I S _4i( p. •V-. ftir r • »'f 4 k < k yr ^ » .V Hrt *» % -\^V * . r' ’ “r.,-‘V^ ■„ . . liirM .■'* ^ '^\' ' . '^ ■ ■ •• • \ - • ■!• L ' ■' • ‘-.‘.-V ■- ■.•.*■■*?■:... .t-Vw • ■ v-'--^ >'V/‘';« ■^ •. ■■'*■*' '' d. ' ^ •-..If'. '! .-'44 kr‘V i!’.;' ’ Vf' AA '. f• '» * %•--» t 4. ^ . ^i. >< r \ * a<Mi .4 ■# |M»#* K1 \ ’V '*^' -r*' ■'H; * H.■V ’ :-4 ^ f«Ra« .« niMy ^jT7S-T7Trrr ' rf ^ r ^'T iv‘ ;v ■ X\ •^i'*‘'v »:<^i *s.- * T. rmfiilA .*•’ "wrf Hi wm s |-.^r'*('' 7'l .?^' ''■'^' miiii ■.(&>■ 1 M :! ;1 t »:-i - . SI > I ■ f * w ■ ■ 1 >’t ’ * -f" •4 # • *;• H***.v’ >•--W:%>*• ‘*T» ♦♦♦V ♦» V’' . V’-*, 4 f'*; U L ,■•• ,■;■"■ ... .:■ ... • ■ ■■':Ui<if5sf*f},- t'»' ,'vI"'* ■^*^'' ■■ ;*.»-..•.>•■ '^'ifc; ■• ■• »•* .V* \l%tr ^ f ' '•' ’■' ' ' ■'.*; ,'V.-riy*; '.^ . '■“ ^ i'.^-.'* ■ **.'•<* N ifckil'if : I 4..•*;«'■ *■ ^ 4 ■ ii*'* lO r i -• '■tv.-i ■ — m ^'*5 ^ V A »/• <4 :r • -‘i-'Sf..-i, 4^ • ’ -f ;i % / 3* 4 i •tn I aiaim ! i:«2 V. ia'JiiiHi?mm IS pi Mu ^ :..v. , SS222 .4 Jv^Vi: V;-t<,rf Lij'ifci'., ,-^V ' 1 ■■I &/-'.-:'ii. V -^ ' Li V ■ • ^ ■ * ■^ •r \w\ .ma-s 5§a ^=^'.Vll•^.^;-i•^ 'f-aPt-l! ':ii.: i< ■ •!,■ t'J’/ f" I ■ V''*‘ ' v.‘ » 'iv ‘ J' ^. i' ' f ♦ I M •T' 'f ^■;;f.*T?f.i,l 'I»'.ii^'i/■•1*^-' is lV ‘j it '-?-'-Vti’ r - 'I;!! i;.! *y V .‘ V '■ .7^ % ten tu' ■;.vt.w.:-^’''5' ^ ic .. .tCw'SliV ^‘.. . ------;l • t. ' • ‘ -X* - ■ rS \'.m,M ..V'/■** < s tf'.'irv ■', * 4 V 'i *4V. ...J*w» i - - v^. » r \ -*r^'>» '■ ' 4Sr^ h , :/AtV V i » . \ • '-PI: W # % " fw . .47 ? - • - .''» •*.V.' :;f V • r* ' ; I ' t r^'.4» V 1 lAdk NlMhl CITYC PROP! Site Ad Type o Proper APPLH Name_ Phone Addres OWNE Name_ Phone Addres Date Pi I (do) (c FEES- A-l CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application# CM - ^ Date Received -QM Amount Paid (Voo, to PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2C>0 Type of Application to be Filed /r.«T-V) I Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Name V/0 SV C—-^ >-« v -^-w Phone (home)_____________ ' Phone(work) ^ Address 1 GA OWNER (if different than applicant) Name City Y j 4 .V, Zip_XiliSLi Phone (home). Address Date Property Acquired Phone (work) _ City______Zip. I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS $600.00 Residential Accessory Use _ $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _ $600.00 Guest House/Guost Apartments $600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ____$600.00 Land Alteration + Permit _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more 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 #304 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1 . / Completed Application Form. 2. Describe request in detail. 3. _____Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center, A-603 300 South 6“* ✓ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910). “y Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Vlfi Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ✓ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). / List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would Include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current . owner(s). ✓ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). J As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS AND 1 COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17** OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above Information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT’S 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 d ■6"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. Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting 'TT V» V .k' .4 Q,•r-a WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB :00 WOOPHILL ROAD W A^ZATA. MIN'NtE^OrA “12 m “52 /4'2- August 12, 2004 To: Plaiuiing Commission and Orono Council On September 7'", 2004 Woodhill Country Club will be closing its main clubhouse approximately nine months for a major remodel. During this period of time activity at Woodhill will be less than if the clubhouse were open. Woodhill needs to rent modular space to have the phones answered in the vicinity r>f where the Members will be. The Modular Space would also be used for an employees break area. Members will be at the barn to play bridge, paddle teimis and other activities. With the clubhouse closed there will be less activity at Woodhill, yet we would like to have an area for the Members to gather. This request would be for a period not to exceed 9 months. A small area by the barn would be graded flat with it restored to the original grate after removal of the trailer. I have enclosed pictures of the area we would like to place the trailer. /^i E JUL 2‘J 2004 175 20 FR TO 9524730113 GE Modular Space -v» ,__________I _^ ' * /•' '‘I'lliL- I' i>r:i'>ii '(.»'1(; t Miri t: I rfrtifl ;■ ' I i li!i l!‘ I., Jiu __ JhjI Jni*'• V»*, i! f „ ; P.01 To: Company; Phone: Fax: FAX COVER LETTER Mark Albrecht Wood Hill Country Club 952-473*0113 From:Phil Veorm.n GE Modular Space 1350 Now Bri^tton Blvd Minneapolis, MN 55413 612-331-4:54 direct phone Cl 2-331-4509 fax E-Mail: Philip.veerinan@gu.com Weo: www.modspace.com • Date: July 23.2004 : * Pages: ^ (including cover letter) Mark: Per our conversation over the phone, attached is the lease agreement for the 10x44 mobile office. PIcaco review, sign, and fox back to mo as soon os you can If you havo any questions, ploase don’t hesitate to call mo. We appreciate your business. Ttianks. Phil phllip.veerman@ge.com CE Modular 8pac« provIdiM many VALUE ADDED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES Indudlne: $t«p«, tablM, chain, msuranca, •toras# contnlnan, portabl* tollat*. aoeurtty predueta, and botSad watar dlapanson. K«m#mb#r that you can obtain all your modular apaca naada on-lina by Joining our PREMIER SERVICE MCfiDERSHIP by vl&lting our ¥»ab alia at www.modepacaxom r M iUMOATC iriVMM 1% oj ifniNOii MOf AOO« I6» tOCfcWOOO MILLS «0 OWNLRNAMt VA«TKCSMf»HUMItA)« tAXPAYW VAtTKtS M CMMMAAN KAME/ADO« l•«lOCtWOOOMILL»0 WLVIAIAMH 5»»l fACt I It O7iimi]»>04 ttO^AOOfl 121 WOOOMILLW) OWNtt KAMI CP«A I PAULUCCI TA.XPAVL* c#<A I PAi i.ucn NAMt/AOOt 120-WH'atD WArrAtAMH 35)91 )| QlilTlllMOOS HCP ADOl )» WIWILL to OM'XCKHAAte (XNAI PAULUCCI rAXPA>eil CINA I PAULUCC! NAXC/AC30H I**® MtX)OHlLL HD WAVZa TAVH 33)91 r )| 0211*2)1)0009 PtOFAOOt JI3 WOLOHILLtO OWnttMAMC »f W MCI LUtt 4 N M MCOUItf TAkPAVU ^ M Vicomti »• N M UCGUin NAMt/AOOIt )') i*t)OOMILL W) way /a Iamm 53MI )| 0!ll??)l)Oeol PtOPADOt )l AOOWSSlAIAASiCMtO OWNCtMAMC WOOOMULCOUMTtVCLLm TAXPLVCt WOOOMILL COUNTRY CLU» NAMfMOOR 200WOOOMJURO WAYZ a Ta MN 31)91 )1 0211 K)t 9*1001 PROP ACOP 9%) EOCCWOOO MIUS tO 0\»Y«£IMAA*C TAICACUSCR TA VP AVER THOMAS CUtAK Sa VF^a DOR 0C3 lOCl’^OOD mills Ri) WA3 7ATAMN S319! II o.Mi72»:'ooes PROPAOOR imiVMAMAVC QWMCR MAMt C P PtSCK 1 R M PCSCK TAVPAYf R C PAUL 4 RAC M PtStK hAMr/AOOR 12)3 LYMAN AVtt WAVZATAMN S))91 )l 011111)210009 PROP ASXM 110 OROPfO ORCMAAO RO1 o\ynprnaml william W 4 mawncmmccuirc TAXPAYLR 39IIUAM W 4 NAOWE M MCCUIRC ItAMDADOR )l5«OOOHJLLRO ORONOMN 33191 It 0211)2)210009 PROPAOOR 1213 OMAN AVI owner name c p prsnc arm prstic IAXP a YE* CPAUL a RAt M PESCA H.V>lC/>»OOR mSLVMANAVf S WAVZ-ATAMK 5»9I yi 021172)210010 PROPADOR .tOORONOORCIbXRDRDS OWKUl KAME JOSEPH M ROKAt El AL TAXPA3ER JOSEPH A! 9IWX HAME/AOOR IIOOROOOiCMARORO WAV7ATAMN 33)91 !l OillUJiiOOQl PROPAOOR 12)0 WOODHILLAVC OWNER NAME MiCMAtLOWOOO TAVPA3 ER 0 * MICHAEL 0 WOOD NALIE/AOOR I2JOWOOOMRLAVC WAYZAlAMN 33)91 )t 021112)210021 PROPAOOR IIMLVMAHAVg OWNER NAME M 14 I T MCMILLAN TAVPa SIR HOWARD 4 EUZa BCTH MCMILLAN NAMI/AOOR 121) LYMAN AVf WAVLa TAMN J3I9I )t 021112)210021 PROP AOOR MO SMIIM AVI OWNER NAME IMOMAtCMUNT Ta VPAVER IHORIASCMUHT namcmoor 140 smith AVE WAV/AfAMN 33)91 M 0?l112)2l00.*9 PROP ADOR liO SMITH AVC OWNER NAME M H 4 M K NiCOLL TAYPAVER MATTMEW N 4 MARY K NICOLL H.Mt/AOC .-S«m.AVt WAYZ a TAMN 33)91 )t g!M 12)2100)0 PROP ADD* » AOTRFSS LWASSlONtO OR’NER name MICMAEL 0 WOOO TAXPAYER MICHAEL 0 WOOO N a ME^a DDR I2M) WOOOMILL AVE WAYZAlAMN 33)91 )| 011111)2100)3 PROP ADOR )■ AUORIS1 UNASSICNEO OWNER NAME 0 MARC YYIIITEMf AO El AL TAXPAYER C MARC WMITCHEAO NAMFMOOR JOSWrULLEHTONPICWY CHICAGO )L 00914 )l 02lll2'2l»)6 PROPAOOR )| ADORrSSLNASSlCNEO OWYltAHAUf CMAiCWMrrEHFAOETAL taxpayer omarcwmitimcao NAK.MAOOR K)3WH)lltRrONP»;WY CHR'ACO IL909M >1 onii:)2MOui PROP AOOR 1230 WWOMILL AVf owner NA*^lt UNITED HCALTHCARC INS CO TAAfAYtP UNIUDMEALTHCARCINSCO NAMt/.AOtJP MN00tTJ9O ponov 1439 llIPUMNvV'*^'' '*<0, ••3*V # ♦ V .•-I f RUHOAU VIVKW 99 011112)22000) PROP ADOR 490 WAYZAf A Bl.VO W OWNER NAML ClI Y OP WAVZa TA TAXPAYER LlIYOrWAY/ATA NAME/AOOR MW RR C ST WAYfATAMH 53)91 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPCRTV OWNERS LIST PACE I *9 011112*2)0001 PROP AOOR 901 CORD NOD OWNER NAME RfODOUn LCNTRYCLUB taxpayer WOODHRL CNTRY CLUO nami /ador XMWOODHILLRD Wa YZAIA MN 33)31 99 OIII)2J:)OOUJ PROP AOOR 301 CURD NO 13 OWNER name WOOOHIL CNTRV CLUI) T.VNPAYLR WOODIHLL COl^«IRY CLLW NAN.E/AOOR 100 WOOOMILL RO WAVZATAMN 33191 91 011112)240003 PROPAOOR 401 CO no NO IS OWNER NAME HENNEPIN CO RXCONAL RR AU1M TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO RLOWNAL RR AUlM NAMF*A01)R 411 3TM ST HP 110 MINNEAPOLIS MN 33401 99 0111221)20001 PROPADOR 90ICORONUD OWNER NAME WOOOMRI CNiRVaiRl TA.\PAYLR WOOOMIU CMTR rrU« nami /ador 200WOOOMIURO WAYZAlAMN )3)9I 99 011112)240004 PROPAOOR 401 CORD NOD OWNER H*Mt uURUNCrON NORTHERN INC Taatay ti B1* 4 Santa Ff rr co NAMLADOR rnaPIRTY TAX DCPr POOO\99ICt9 fORTIRORIHIX Tkl9t 99 0nill))20002 PROP AOOR SOI CO to NOD OWNER NAME WOOOMIU CNTRY CLUO taxpayer WOOOMIU CNTRY CLUO NAMC/AtX)R 200 WOOOHILL RO WAYZAT a MN 33191 99 011112)110010 PROPAOOR 411 PI AVIV LA OWNER name RCt.UtULRSARALU€Or»S Taxpayer RiCMARt' c 4 ^APiN a lltocrs MAME/a ODR 48IPEAVIYL' w^Y/AIAAin JYJ9I 99 0111)21)20009 PROPAOOR 401 H)U SIDE DRW OWNER NAME »MMM4IV0lfMC EANSUR TAXPAYER JOHNMAIUOilMCfANSUR NAMF/AOOR 302 MILLSiOf la WAYZATAMN S3I9I 99 0111121)20001 PROP AOOR 30! HILISIOE LA OWNER NAME J0IINN4 lUWTNCrANSLZR taxpayer JOHNHRIUOnNCEAldUR HAMC/AOOR MiLLSIOt LA WAVZATAMN 33)91 99 OiiDiDlOOOt PROP ADOR 999 MIILSIOE OR W OWNER name wniUMBZlTON TAXT a STR RR>0 NAMDAODR *99 hillside OR W WAVZATAMN 5))9I 99 0ml2))20020 PROP AOOR 300 HILLSIDE OR W OWNER KAMI CHRISTOPMER R VOLIRATH CT AL TAXTAVER CHRISTOPHER R VOLLRATN namc /ador 200 kills:DC OR W WAYZATAMN 33)91 99 OllllIDIOtll PROPAOOR lOOMLLtnfORW 03P9XlNAMf PHVELS BARTON TAX9AVU PMYUJIB BARTON NAMI/AODR 400l«LLllOtORIVf WAVZATAMN 33)91 99 011112)120012 PROPAOOR *30 MRjLSiOf OR w OWNERNAME 1 R BUR44 * S L GALE TAXPAYER TRUJRRf 4SLCAU name /aoor 4)iimAji0f0Rw WAYZATAMN 33191 99 OlllllinOOOl PROPAOOR 200 WOOOHIURO OWNERNAME WOOOMIU CNTRY CLUO TAXPAYER WOODMOL CNTRY CU* NAMC/AOOR lOOWOOOMiaRD WAYZATAMN 33)91 )0 Biiinjilonj PWlPAOOR M AOORSSSIRIASSKSNKI) OWN81NAMI BURUN0T0NN0RT1«BHRY TAXPAYfR •NwtANTAFlRRCO PtnPtRTY TAX OCPT POBOrt 911009 PORT WORTH rX Hltl ^ 99 oiiinjnoooi PBOP AOOR JIO WAVZATA OLVO W OYENTR NAME CITY OP WAYZATA taxpayer CITY op WAYZATA NAM^AOOR lOORCEfT WAYZATAMN SSStI M BZlinSlIQOBl PROPAOOR 200 WOOOHIURO OWMWNAMI WOOOMRXCOLIWTRV CU» TJ09AYER WOOOMIU CNTRY CU* NAMiTAOOR 200WOOOMRXRD WAYZATAMN 31)91 k- V* RUNDATt imOCDI II 02l|}2>4!000l fROf AOUK SM RUUeUAVt OWHtJlNAMe TlMOfllV W KNUtkOW TAXf AYW TttlOTMV W KNIITSOM NAAIE/AOOR SJikUWEUAVE WAY2ATAMN SSlfl II O2II72I42O0IM RROPAOOR IMS COCtWOOO HILLS AO OWHIRNAME ANNtllUTE YAXRAYU ANNL LAAkCN SIMOASQH MAMf/AOOR IMS COCtWOOO HILLS AO wav /a Tamn SSIYI Jt 02ll?23«?0001 PAOf AOOA M AOOAISS UNASt«Hin OWNUl MAilt THE NATVAf COHJf AVAKCV TAYAAStA HATimCCOHStAVAHCV HAHt/AOOR imSTNSSSE tCiTt 114 MALI MM SS4I4 II OIIII2I4MOI5 •AOr AOOA 1201 SHOAtUNC OA Owmcanaml iaymiackuvctal tAXTAILA lAV A MAtV lACKUY fiAMl/AOOA I MS SMOAf L Wt OA wav /atamm 11)01 II 1)11121)40011 fAOf AOOA 1210 IYMAM AVt OWNER WAMt M T SWtLNLV ACC iwllNtV TAXMVLA MICMAtL A D a MULA SwrrKtV NAMI/AOOA 1210 I VMAN AVI WAV/a TAMN I'lOl )• )Slii2)4)0024 f AOP AOOA 1)00 iYAt AN AVQ OWNER NAME A A GMSOri A L A C»S0H lAXfAlEA AICMAAOAAUSAACIDSOH NAMC/ADOA 1200 L> man AVt WAV/ATAMN IIW RUNOATf IMV20M II 021172324000^ rAtWAmH IMO WOOOHlLLAVt OWNFf* NAMT CAM AIAAC TAXFAVtR CMARILIWA MARLA CMAIIt MAMC/AOi)R l/AOWOOCJHtlLAVI WAV/ATAMN 11)11 II 0211721240011 fROf AOCMl II AOORLAS UNASSlO*>LO UWNUHVME LUCY C MItl Mf il tT Al. TAXfAYLK lUCYCMITCHttl. hAMUADUA imWOOOMlUAVt WAVtATAMN 11)11 II 0211721)10040 fRORAOOR im IMCKINIONIT OWMtRNAMl AMY LKLALAS A )OHN U.ALRS TAAfAlER AMY LlUy^lRSAIQHN hairy NAMI/AOOR 1205 OR.KLSSON ST WAV/ATAMN 15)11 II OiimiHOIMt FROF ADOR 410 ORONO ORCHARD RO S OWNER NAME KEVIN CARNCn TAKFAYIR RtVINCARNin NAMTMOOR Ml CARLSON FRWY Mil MINMtTUNRAMN llJOl Of 02lt)214iUUUl r Jt AOOR too HtLLSUK OR W OWWLR HAMt CHRISTOFMIR R vOll R4TM H AL TAXf AY U CMUmOFHf R R VOLLRATM NAMi/AOOR MO HILLSIOC OR W WAV/ATAMN 55)11 f1 0211)1141000’ FRDFAODR 700 CORONOI1 OWNER NAMi TNI NAUMeCONSeRVANCY IAXFAVRR HAT\JRICOHltRVANCV NAML/AOOR IIUITNSTlI tUfTtlll MFLIMN 51414 HEhfNEFIN COUNTY FROFERTY rNFORMATtON SYSTEM FROFERTYOWNERSLIST FACE I II 021172)420002 FROF AOOR 105) tOCEWOOO MILLS RO OWNER NAME 0 ELORfOGC lAClCSON III ET AL taxpayer OEAKIUACKSONOI NA>IE/A00R lOllEOGEwOOOIliURP WAY/.ATAMN 11)11 11 0211)2)420001 FROF AOOR 450 WOOOHIU.ro OWNLRNAME Rf FrTERROSfNStROET AL TAXF A VCR C F FETPR ROUNRERO A NAME/AOOR CrClUA m rounqirq 450 WOOOHIU.ro WAY/ATAMN 55)11 II 021172)420005 PROF AOOR 125 WOOOHILLRO owner name GINA I FAUIUCCI TAVFAVrR CINAIFAinUCCI NAM IJA l>OR )20 AtXlDMRX RO WAV/ATAMN 51)11 51 021171)4:0001 PROF AOOR II AOORISS UKASS iGMO OWNER NAME THE NATURE COMSIRVAMCV VAVFAVER nature conservancy KAML ’a DOR iH.MTHtTSE SUITE 114 MPLSMN 1)414 U 02IU214.HXH1 FROTAOOR n ADDRESS UNASSlG.VtD OWNER NA)4C tty OP ORONO TASIAIEJI LITI OP ORONO NAMI/AOOR »ORO\44 CRYSTAL RAVMN llj:» )| 02IIT2)4?00I2 FROF AOOR II ADDRESS IMASSIOM.O OWNER NAME WOOOMIU COUNTRY CLUO TAXPAYER WOOOMILL COUNTRY CLU® NAMG a OOR 200 WOODHIU RO WAV/ATAMN llHI )l e2IIT2>4)00!5 PROPAOOR III) PERKOALEROW owner NAME K RWY MAN JUC WYMAN! TA-XPAYIR ILATMRIN A JAMES WTMa M NAMI/AOOR IIDPERAU a LERDW WAV/ATAMN 55)11 II 0/ll)2)4M)0)« PROP AOOR 1161 PtRNOAlf ROW OWTitR NAME 8 C 90W54AN IIR M J DOWMAN TAKPAYlR MARY J A BRAOUV C 80WMAN !l NAME/A DOR lllSICRNOALERnw WAY/AIAMN 55)11 II J5lii:))400ll FIOFAOOR II21LVMANAVE 0W*NCRNAME JOMNQMUNSiCUiCI AL TAXPAYER lOHNOWMSlCiaJI NAME/AOOR 1220 LYMAN AVE WAVZATAMN ?.'H! M ))tif:)4)ogiM PROPAOOR H AOOR/M UNAXSlTNtO Q»5T4tRNAME STAHOPMINN lAXP VVER ONR REAL tUA11 MOMT Na MD a ODR AHN Of »mi CURTIN SOOLAPAVLni RO ST PAUL MN 5)15) J| 151112 ) 00026 PROF AOOR .'I ADDRESS UNASSICNEO OWNER NAME BURLINGTON NORTHERN TAXPAYER 0 NR SANTA PE RRCO NAMfuOOR PROPERTY TA.X OtPT POBOX1«lOi1 FORT WORTH TX 7GI6I )| ))lll2>«>oe:i PROPAOOR ll)t) LYMAN AVt OWNER NAME RJT MARU R R LYNN R **MUlIPS RICHARD R A LYNN R PlllLli*S NAMU-ADOR 1170 LYMAN AVI WAY/RfAMN SS)9I I. fc * MChWlN COUNTV PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST page I 1 )R 0:il)212400l0 PROPAOOR 155 WOOO»1IU.RO OWNER name WWMCClRRtRNM MCGUIRE TAXPAYIR WILUAM W A NAOtNF. M MCOU«l NAME/ADOR 115 WOOOMILL Pi1 WAY/-ATAMN 5)111 )l 02i1721240012 PROPAOOR 124) WOOOMai AVt owner name w w MCOumi R n m mcouire TAXPAYER WILUAM A NAOINt MCCUIRl HAME/AOOR 1WOOOMIU AVt WAYZATAMN 15291 11 02in2))ionoJ PlinFAOOR 1250 DICIUNSONST OWNIRNAME W W MCCmRt A N M MCGUIRE TARPAVCR W W MCu LIRE A N M MCGUIRE NAMUAOOR I2MOARU lONSr wai /a Tamn 55)11 02li)2)JiOin) PROP AOOA 410 RL»SSUL AVE OWNtR NAME JOStFHRiC 8 CARPENTER Ta VFa YTR lOnfMRit B CARFENTU NAML. 4DOR po BOX 651 WAVZ a TAMN 55)11 )i o:»i)2)‘ioo4i PAOPAOUR 551AUSSLUAVE OWNIRNAME PG PETERSEN A T2CNST AO TAXPAYtR PGAAVPETEAStN N a MI/AOOA 551AUSSIU AV§ wayzatamn 15111 tt 0211)21)10642 PAOPADLA Sa KEENE AVE owner N/04E OOHAEU t A JOANNE K 0AVI08ON taxpayer OONALO E A lOANVf K OAVIOSON NAME/AOOA laREtNtAVC WAV/ATAMN 51)11 It 0211)21)10041 PROPAOOR 122) OtCKENSONST OWNER HAMt 8 M VOUNC TRUSTEE W/L EST I/LXPAYIR ‘ AVE LILKE NAME/a OOA »DICKENSON $T WAY/ATAMN 55)11 )t 02M)21)I00.*0 PROP AOOR 210 WOOONILL AD OWNER NAME KlHNCALOa AOMAUIY Taxpayer lOMNCRLOiSAaMALLEY NAMt/AUOR J18 WOOOMIU RD WAY/ATAMN )5)9l )t 02II7714I0002 PROPAOOR HI EDGE WOOO MILLS RD OWNIRNAME MARY JEANNE VeOWLN TAXPAYER MARY JtANNC V BOWES NAMI/AOOR 1)5 UTTLE MAR80ER LN NAPLES IL MI02 II 0)117:141300) pmjpalx }r 1045 EOCfwoodhiluro OWNER KAMC KATHAWNIKIACKSON taxpayer KATHARINE K IACKSON NAMr/ADOt 10)5 tOGEWOOO HRJ. RD WAV/ATAI4N 5SJ1I 91 0211)11410001 PROP AOOR TOO MILISIOC DR W OWNU KAMI CHRItTOPMER R VOELAATM RT At TAXPAYER CHRISTOPNEA R VOLEAATN I2AKI/A00A TOO HILLSIOC OAW WAYZATAMN S5J1I If 0)1172)410001 FROF AOOR )• AOOAUl UN a SSiONI 0 OWNER name HENNEPIN CO RECONAL RR AUTH TAXFAVER MtHNEPfS CO RIOONAL RA AUTM HAWE/AOOA 41TrrMSTN*»20 MINNFAPOUSMN 1)401 V I?" RUHDAni/lVWM MENNCPIN COUNIY PRUPFRn* INFORMATION 5V5TCM PROPCRTY OWNIilS LIST PACC J )■ »llt214)OOM PROPADOR 11)0 LYMAN AVC OWNLIIHAMli RCSNOWOBLiMTW TAXPAYU RATMIRIHtCSMOW NAMUAOOII •' W LYMAN AVtMlT OtOHOMN 11VII II )iiii;i4)oo)0 MOPAOOR )l ADOtlS^UNAWK-.NfO OWNtRNAME ClfYOfOROK) TAXPAYPR CiTVOfORONO NAMt/ADOR P 000X60 CR'SfALRAV MN 5U7) It PROP AUD* )l ADLXrAS UN a SSKNIO Qwuin HAM* MCNNfpiN roRfriTio I ANO TAVpAVri MtNMPCNfORKlUOLAhO NAMr.'AODR fOR VALt TO AOIACINT pROrr»nt ownironly Of ))|fl)U40QOi PtOP AOOR SCO WAYZATA OLVO W OYYNtRNAMl ClTYOr WAYZATA TAYPAYIR aiVOf WAY2AIA NAMl/AOOR S10 WAYZATA W.VUW WAYZATA MN 51191 Of OinTU2«OOOI PROPADOR 401 C0R0H0I5 OWNl R NAME MCNHfPIN CO RLCIONAL RR AUTM Ta XPa YTR MCNNffIN CO regional RR AUTM NAWI AI«R 4mTMSTNi)M MINNLAPOUSMN 51401 M 07imn4uii4 PROP AOOR M ADORISS UHAMiGNf 0 OANLRNAML HlNNfcPJNfORtOIONAlRRAUTN Taxpayer htnni pin co riorinal rr auim HAMGAOOt 4i7 5T>4S7Nf)» AlINNf APOLUMN )140I lORTirY THAI THE TAOS REPRESEKTEO ART AN ACCVRATf ASP TRUEREPRLSENlATlONOFIhifORMATTON AS IT iXPPEARSTMIS DATtON THE C0W» OF THE ME.’W4tPlN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DE PARTMENTJ^O Tl^BE^ OfMYKNOWlEIXIEANDBEUEF^^^^^^^^^yr .TENT. TOTHEBLSL y ^ m • ;/7; i^Mfcitimriililmtri ..........Jk i r b 1 Date Application Received: 08-17-04 Date Application Complete: 08-31-04 60-Day Review Period Expiration: 10-31-04 tJccTifvjG SEP 2 7 2004 CITY OF ORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: September 22, 2004 Item No. ^ Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis ^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Item Description: #04-3050 - Mike McClelland - 2170 Minnetonka Ave — Variances — Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 acrcs/200’ 0.56 acre (24.397 s.f.) 175 ’ List of Exhibits: A — Resolution per Planning Commission recommendation B - PC Action Notice dated September 22, 2004 C - PC Memo & Exhibits of September 1, 2004 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new single family residence on a property within the RR-IB, 2-acrc zoning district. Planning Commission Recommendation On September 20, 2004, Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of die lot width and lot area variances. Planning Staff Recommendation Approval of the variances per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached Resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-420 SUBDIVISION B FILE NO. 04-3050 WHEREAS, Michael P. McClelland and Jcanie L. McClelland, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants") arc the owners of the property located at 2170 Minnetonka Avenue withiti the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 4. 5, and 6, Block 8, Monterey on Minnetonka EXCEPT the North 12.00 feet of said Lots 4, 5, and 6, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Otono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 Subdivision B for the construction of a new single family residence on a lot 0.56 acre in area and 175’ in width where 2 acres in area and 200’ in width arc normally required. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. ■) This application was reviewed as Zoning File ##04-3050. The property is located in the RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 2 acres and a minimum lot width of 200’. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on September 20, 2004 and recommended approval of variances based on the following findings: a. The applicants ’ property is 0.56 acre in area and 175’ in width. Page 1 of 5 ‘ b. The applicants ’ proposed home will meet RR-IB Zoning District standards with regard to hardcover, setbacks and lot coverage, and no variances other than lot area and lot width arc required. c. No additional land is available for acquisition by the applicants to make the property conforming in area or width. d. The property is served with municipal sewer and contains an existing residence. e.The property is located within a small lot neighborhood in the RR-IB Zoning District and is similar in size to many of the lots in this neighborhood. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other prt perty in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neigliboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a ’emonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the On City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 Subdivision B to allow a new single family residence to be constructed on a lot 0.56 acre in area and 175’ in width where 2 acres and 200’ are normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any Page 2 of 5 liiui amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Plamiing Commission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone shall be limited to 2,185 s.f. or 25% and hardcover within the 250’ - 500’ setback zone shall be limited to 4,637 s.f. or 30% as permitted by City Code. Applicants are advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover above the allowed limits will not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover. 3. Applicants shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their pemieability as non-hardcover surfaces. 4. Required removals of structure and hardcover shall be completed by the footing inspection. 5.Authorities granted by this resolution nin with the property not with the applicants, but arc pemiissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building pemiit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (September 27,2005). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically tcmiinate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 27”* day of September, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 3 of 5 Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instalment was acknowledged before me on this 27*’’ Jay of September, 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Mimiesota munieipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Publie STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of _______, 2004 by Linda S. Vee, Citv Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 I STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of by Michael P. McClelland, husband of Jeanie L. McClelland. ,2004 Notary Public STATE OF MTNNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This ins ’nunent was acknowledged before me this__day of by Jeanie L. McClelland, wife of Michael P. McClelland. ,2004 Notary Public Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JEANIE McClelland !N LOTS 4, 5, & 6. BLOCK 8, MON^^EREY ON MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA o ! denotes iron marker (961.B)* denotes existing spot devotion, meon sea level datum denotes existing contour line, mean sec level dotum BeoFings shown ere bosed upon on assumed datum. Lot oreo = 24,200 sq. It. This survey intends to show the boundcr'es of the above described property, and the proposed location of o propascc nouse thereon. It docs not purport to show any other improveme.nts or ircro :chrrcnts. _____ Ie:GRONBERa AND ABBOCIATEa, INC. uoNBULTiNa CNaiNCcna. LAND •UBVCYOAS, ANO BITK ^LANNBRB 449 N vyruow onve lono lake , m 99mtS2^S414l I hffifey c«nrfy triat tfui »ufv«y wai prwptnd oy fr§ tx undtr trry direct lupCArtior. I'U that I am a duly ra^nd Ctvii Ergnetr and LM Sijrvayor order the iWRt of tna ^te of Mux^ateta. SCAU 1"-3C' DATE 8-16-04 Mam S Qronbarj Matntiai^ Ueartta NunOtr *2755" JOt^O 04-337 L * • {f. I f f I FILE #04-3050 Septemben. 2004 Page 1 of 3 Date Application Received: 08-17-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 08-31-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10-31-04 To;Chair Rahn and Planning C'^mmission Members Ron Moorse, City Adninistratoi From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis, City Planner September 1, 2004 CONSENT 04-3050, Mike & Jeannie McClelland, 2170 Minnetonka Avenue, - Variance - public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 acrc/200* 0.56 acre (24,397 s.f.) 138’ @ Briar Street/175 ’ @ Minnetonka Avenue Application Summary: The applicants are requesting lot width and lot area variances in order to rebuild a new single family residence and detached garage on their 0.56 acre propertv within the RR-IB. 2 acre zone.__________________________________ Slajf Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the lot width and lot area variances as requested. Hardship: The width and area of the lot are an existing situation; there is no land available for the applicants to acquire in order to make their lot c onforining. ___ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Seetions Sec. 78-420. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b> Lot /\ica (acres)Lot Width (fccO Front Yard (feet) Side Yard (fee:) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) Rear Yard (feet) 2 200 50 30 50 50 List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcov er Calculations F. Resolution No. 4694 (Fci.ee within 50’ of right-of-way) G. Property Owners List H. Plat Map i FILE #04-3050 September 1. 2004 Page 3 of 3 along Minnetonka Avenue measures 175’ in width. RR-IB Standards The proposed house and 988 s.f. detached garage meet all setback, lot coverage, and hardcover standards of the RR-IB district. Driveway “curb cut” The proposed angled driveway, while 20’ wide in section, is about 28 ’ in width where it crosses the lot line and will have to be slightly modified in width or orientation to meet the 20’ limit. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis ht considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safely and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traf/k conditions, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety^ and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is detnonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code, Staff finds that as the lot is similar in size with the lots in the immediate neighborhood, and that there is no additional land for the property owners to acquire in order to make their lot conforming in area and width. Issues for Consideration 1. Although a variance was granted, does the Planning Commission feel that the accessory building located within the right-of-way should be removed as part of this review? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot width and lot area variances with the following stipulation; 1. The new construction will be required to conform to the hardcover, lot coverage, and setback regulations. City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mam 952-249-4600 tax: 952-249-4616 Meiling Address' P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-3066 Application # CXj — 3^50 Date Received. /7-0^ Amount Paid; %Lfi(DO' OQ Staff A-A<c^r:<_n.r«^ Fee. _ S6C0 ______ Renewal;S300 After-the-fact SI.200 Double Fee This application form must be completed m full. Ape leant will be notified within 15 days as to the status o^ the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: . Site Address: OO iTllTl/ru Ht>€ Property Identification Number (PIN): (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): flua .HaO □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: D^Residentiar □ Other __________________________________ Zoning District: ____________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal na-es and marital status required for each interested party) Name: fYliJ^ DQeCMfUOm Phone (homej: Address; m4k'n . Email; Phone (work): Pb-Cjcr 2.0^M0o5> pr> C r uj5fo.l Olr\• ^3 3^ 3 Fax: ^ OWNER INFORMATION: (Comclete legal names a'd manta! status required for each interested party) Name; ry|;^» ITlcrJeH^^na Phone (home); fCs_______Phone (work): Address; 3inQ rryVl^i . Pr^ fV'vq^ T Email: _____ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost; $ llO.CCf^i Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): __________________________ kZ) u>adLt>Yir. rLmrJ tpaiii/nQ . l[)QUTri -------------- REQUIRED SUBMITTALS; All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. X0^ inance. □- □ -R□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject proper^.JahfiIs_and plat map List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County .''Department'oT^'Fin Government Center. A-603 300 South 6'” Street, Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 ) Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). meeUnj_^l Jhejrequirem.ents listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8 5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet) Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11 ’ or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17 ’). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project * APPLICANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the onqinal fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information suopiied 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: ljL /a ^^ Applicant’s Signature: pf\nOS,(j!rxA) Date: Date:5- 't 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. Date: Date:&.rjAp ■ nj 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 bo 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 assignee to your project. #3050 I Page 1 of 3 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 / requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in 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 uncer conditions allowed by the official controls.” /■ ■ _______________________________________________________ 2.“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essentia! character of the locality. 0 h .. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." »^ t \ ^____1 OA P^O 5. Page 2 of 3 Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct systsms. VaHances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd 2 when in harmony with this Chapter." ’ ^ 6. 11. variance any use that is noTp^rS^Ser°this Cha°^^^^^ zone where the affected person's land IS located." ly m me zone 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 to such property or immediately adjoining property." whieVsTd la°nl '' application is necessary for the preservation and enjoymen* of a substantial property right of the applicant." ^ ^ “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health safetv comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the iment of the lonmg At ' Page 3 of 3 12."The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." Hardship Statement ^ *u Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing cofi.pliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): 32 J>J . ■ # ; V iI Fl'^t of H'lJn'cy f’rx' Ch'irloa J. Sr'.re.r. 8eiSij£,^. of Lotr. /, nr.rt f., r-lcrk f, Kcrt-rroy on VUsiCUnVjx H<^rnc '1 r. C^* Vinty, Xi;.n*.-?sc's 17$' 4 ’ '*ZI t iC^ ---------iari*' ••• - '• *——« li 5* •- I .-.J ?%r ■i___ujl eX(*‘Sir^A o 2 c»w> liJ X> n -A' q ••#7^ o h^mt4E TONKA Ave SP£C UocA' o/j; l'f^Of.ir‘ e/ ;^;r Iji/'.' L.er^*,-f ^■■ : no Hi fr,*' ; ^r'//'- 1 >(f.• : '.V:fifi QL-AiT hcrcpsq C-rli'‘irKt-c of 3v ’-» oy: 1 Vi"jv'bv rc rti fy t'’i.‘»t tM? ir a iru? ond correct represenl-atlon of B £\ir\'»^!v of the l-oundtricc of Lotc- 4, 5, aod 6, Block 8, ViCnt«-rty on I'.lr.rotonV^, *pd of the Icostion of ell bnildinrs thereon, end aU visible er.rrccirhne.nts, if any, fron cr on r.-ic land. This survey is tnHce only In ccnm-rticn with a rortfapp loan row *;*jinp placed on ’-he prorerty; end no llebllity is assuned excert to the holder of such r-ortcapo or any other Interest amuired b/ reaoon of such r.crtp,npe. It is understood and apreed no nonurents have t-rcr placed for the purocae of astoblishinp lot lines cr brun^>ry cri-nors. Scale: 1" = iO* Date I 1A-V^75 ro.ficGn H. Coffin 6CCcrcon Lend Surveyor and Planner Long Lake^ Kinneeota 6r*64 mm ■fc*.• ^ . •*” - • .*»r_>;a: T, ^ffc4< r t• iv*\ ^ * iy -• 11*»•• * 'f'. •yV^c=::r —“ t' . . . -■ --r™ »».-^, " ■iH k.;;r: .-li:^^ "4V«V •■ ,-^- i l ii P ' • T— •* ' ^kr.V - ' *rX / -i- ■ I® BEDROOMS • 3 • BATHS • 1-3/4 • LIVING AREA • 1,400 SO. FT. Depth • 28 ’ • length • SO' wsm (4JI0I imr^^ir r?"mn ■' .1 f • -~- il <.« • .*.O il k > %S^‘ — \J eaniE IM \^\.ooc t fAotiXViiy o.'k f^r HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House __________ 0-75' X Length X X X B. Garage •• • C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. OLher TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA FN ZONE A - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE* A. House X Length X X X B. Garage C. Dnveway X X D. Sidewalk £. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc X X X G Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ B 75-250* Width Width \ 250-500'500-1000* X100 - xlOO - i' « V,./ : 'A i •V .*• \71Z Z150 £2 iLft53. f f*. I SF. S.F. SF. SF SF S.F. SF. SF. SF. SF. S.F. S.F. SF. SF. S.F. S.F. A B •/o SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF. SF. S.F; SF SF SF SF SF. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. A SF. B V. I t • • • JeAwte A^c Clellaho UUUCK. I MoNTfScY Obi /Vln HARDCOVER CALCULATIQiiWORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House ___________ 0-75' Leng*it X X X B. Garage • »• C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ___________ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE/ A. House ____________ X Length X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B Q5-250p 250-500’500.1000* WidUi m m X too Width t= as xiOO - 1 • 1Z&. 256 WOO >2.^8 SF. SF. SF. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. SF. SF. SF. S.F.' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. SJ. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. V. A B i... ii \\r<> CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 9 4 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15 FILE NO. #^01-2708 WHERE.AS, Michael McClelland and Jeanie McClelland, (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2170 Minnetonka Avenue within the City ot Orono (hereinafter "the City") and is legally described as follows: Lots 4, 5. and 6. Block 8, Monterey on Minnetonka, except the Nonh 12 feet of said Lots 4, 5, and 6, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 17, 2001, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon, and WHEREAS, the applicants applied to the City of Orono for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 to permit a 6' privacy fence to be constructed within the 50' side yard adjacent to the street setback where a 3 ‘/i’ fence is permitted. NOW', THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 1 This application w'as reviewed as Zoning File #01*2708. The property is located in the RR-IB (2 acre) One Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 17, 2001 and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 2 for a variance based upon the following findings and hardships: Page 1 of 5 oT o\\CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 9 4 4. A 6* fence was constructed in 2000 to replace a 6’ fence that had existed on the property line. The City had notified the property owners the fence could not be replaced in the existing location because the fence was non- conforming due to the 6 foot height in a street yard. B.Fences are not permitted to encroach into the public right-of-way. The variance application does not include a request to locate the fence off the property. C.The Municipal Code permits fences as a non-encroachment within required yard areas, however the height of a lence ca.nnot exceed 3 */: feet if located in a street yard. The applicants’ property is defined as a comer lot with two street \ards. Properties in the RR-IB zoning district have a required setback of 50 feet to the property lines. A 6 foot fence could be constructed but only it constructed 50 feet from the property line. The fence is located adjacent to a street that is partially undeveloped. The Minnetonka Avenue right-of-way separates the applicants’ lot from an adjacent lot to the south. There are no plans by the City of Orono to extend or fiirther develop Minnetonka Avenue. The City Council has made the following findings to support a hardship to permit replacement of a 6' fence along the south property line: A.The fence is replacing a fence that had been located along the property line for many years. The fence received damage when a tree had fallen and destroyed several panels of the preexisting fence. B.The fence is Ic :ated adjacent to a street that is panially undeveloped and not open to vehicle traffic. The Mirmetorika Avenue right-of-way separates the applicants’ lot from an adjacent lot to the south and the right-of-way functions the same as an interior lot line. Page 2 of 5 liMI i o\Jr^ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 9 £% The total width of the Minnetonka Avenue right-of-way is 40’. The fence will be located no closer than 40' to the property located to the south of the subject lot. D. E. A portion of the preexisting fence is still located on the property. The lot is unique by the fact it is one of only a few lots in the Crystal Bav neighborhood that is located on a comer lot with one ot the two streets being undeveloped and the City of Orono does not use the street for public utility purposes. In addition the City does not intend to open Minnetonka Avenue to extend the road. Minnetonka Avenue can not be e.vtended because the French Creek lots are platted without the provision to extend the right of way in the future. 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serv’e as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered '.lus application including the findings and recoir.mendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, co.T.rr.enis by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby erants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 15 to permit a 6' privacy fence to be constructed within the 50' side yard adjacent to the street setback where a 3 ‘/i’ fence is pemiitted, subject to the following conditions; I. No portion of the fence shall encroach into the Minnetonk:a Avenue right-ot-way. Paee 3 of 5 m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 9 4 The fence shall be constructed with the finished side of the fence (the finished side is the side cf the fence without structural supports) towards the right-of- way. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but arc permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 24, 2002). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. D.The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the temis of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of September, 2001. ATTEST: s y . * w. *. Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Property OwTier (s) '(J Page 4 of 5 fo\ &CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 9 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24-^ day of September, 2001 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf ot • 1 RACHaOODGE | NOTAKV WBUC • MNNErOTA b My ComnWon Expires Jan ST.\TE OF MINNESOTA ) Notary Public ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of _____, 20 before me a Notary Publi^vithm^and forOn this o day OI *ociurc me a V 4 said county, personally appeared ^— known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged li nil-1) pTnUn^i^toaTir rf-hif (their) free act and deed. f.'RACHEL DODGE MCrTARYPUBUC-M^^OTA M|^LlonEipMJ«t3l.2005 | STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ___________>_A- c—» C Notary Public COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. On this iH!lday of C C- tc r^e.t______. 20jN_ before me a Notary Publk within^^d for said county, personally appeared -3c-c:vrx icr: ^\ iir^iTi known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(thcy) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notar>' Public Page 5 of 5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) /y! / a________of y (print name(s)] [print address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 1/7/? 4\f also referred to as Land Use Application No ---------------• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) avi^r^f the ipl^provement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use reqi^^es'C^ncil aSfifroval./^ Propetty-0^er Date Properly Owner Date I (we) < / *)-/.• I' t'__( [print name(s)l ___of 77. ': ' [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at_________________ also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. • • * I*f >% » * V j' RUN DATE :V(»00« 3S 1011723210004 PROPADOR 3B ADDRESS UNAS'ilUNBI) OWNER NAME C1>RK J WINSLOW ET AL TAXPAYER SHARON*CLARK WINSLOW NAME/ADDR 1205 PRENCH CREEK CIR WAY2ATAMN 55391 38 1011721310018 PROPADDR 1270 BRIAR ST OWNER NAME JOHN GRANGE TAXPAYER JOHN GRANGE NAME/ADDR POBOXI05 GRYSTALBAYMN 55323 38 1011723310073 PROPADDR 1245 ARBOR SI OWNER NAME KAREN E BJERKENO TAXPAYER KAREN b BJERKENG NAME/ADDR 1245 ARBOR ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 lOI1723310093 PROPADOR 2170 MINNETONKA AVE OWNER NAME M A J MC CLELLAND TAXPAYER MICHAFL P MC CLELLAND NAME/ADDR 2170 MINNETONKA AVE N POBOX45 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 18 1011723320005 PROPADDR 2235 FRENCH CREEK CIR OWNER NAME DS&JSIKKA TAXPAYER DAUIT&JASWINDERSIKKA NAME/ADDR 2235 FRENCH CREEK CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE: I 38 1011723240010 PROPADUR 1233 BRIAR ST OWNER N/VME T E FRANK A D L FRANK TAXPAYER THOMAS A BARBARA FRANK NAME/ADDR 1233 BRIAR ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723240031 PROPADDR 1185 ARBOR ST OWNER NAME SARCARLSON TAXPAYER STEPHEN C A RANDIJ CARLSON NAME/ADDR 1185 ARBOR ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 IOII7233ICOJ9 PROPADDR 1250 BRIAR ST OWNER NAME UURIb A PEARSON TAXPAYER UURIE A PEARSON NAME/ADDR ' 250 BRIAR ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 IOII7213I0O42 PROPADDR 1261 BRIAR ST OWNER NAME GALPRINTUP TAXPAYER GARYMPRINTUP NAME/ADDR PO BOX 104 GRYSTALBAYMN 55323 38 1011723310074 PROPADDR 1224 BRIAR ST OWNER NAME JAMES I- HILLIF.R TAXPAYER JAMES F HILLIER NAME/ADDR 1224 BRIAR ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723310075 PROPADDR 1212 BRIAR ST OWNER NAME RAJKIEMEN TAXPAYER RICHARD TKIEMEN NAME/ADDR 12I2BRIARST WAYZATAMN 55391 ‘V. ) CO 38 I0II7233I0I02 PROPADDR 1251 BRI a RST OWNER NAME R J ROIH A TQUAST TAXPAYER ROBERTA JEAN ROTH NAM F/ADDR P O BOX 159 GRYSTALBAYMN 55323 38 1011723320004 PROPADDR 2220 FRENCH CREEK CIR OWNER NAME ROBERT W FAYFIELD TAXPAYER ROBERT W FAYFIELD NAME/ADDR P O D^X 34 MPIJiMN 55440 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS ROPRESENTTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT /VPPEARS THIS DATEONTHE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMEhULH) THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. o DATE ^ 6'^/ by Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department * !L .•. f40 SO-90'^ 8| : 140 1 SO-St< - *40 ** (h «r*. 4 5j« 140 1 ^ .40 ^ ’• 9 a *. f40 « f)e /«• a *. 8 2» /8 ^'•.*40 «! ^ /* /7^ ^^2 (m ..«SO50ft- .0 8 *40 10 " (741 9 - O 8 O *40 * 15 .j a# «bg) 9 9 O-'»40j * (7?) 140 MINt Elro/vM / mmj, oco CQ q: <S) «i-.Vs 140 jj, Ui. ’ ' (32) * . J »«0q |2 *733; AVE (37) 9 190. (36) 7 140 (3% 6 (35) K CO q:o GQ QC »«aj5 12 •/ fSOf 157 a r ^^ 15* 99(30} 5i ,4^33 ^21 s •/ 7 143 6^ t40 0y » » MTKA' 1J5 39 9 a (2fl) • / 4 »3^ 55 9 ^ J2J 5_iW ^ (27) « M«« / f »• n' S (44) 8 122(00 « »*» 1 (16) M- / ouTLore10 / XM S (J9) 5 1 (Tfl) 8 (17) CRYSTAL AVE I ID 1011723310093 Hous« Number 2170 V StTMl Nmim MINNETONKA JIVE j ■ V ‘ ima lit not • togeAy noouM m^. It npnaenis a compHafion of Infomatlan i and data (romaty. aMu^. and Stata mail autltptnias and other aounes. r'rM Date Application Received: 8>18-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9-15-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11-14-04 5EP 2 7 2004 Cl I Y OF ORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Rate: September 2 1,2004 Item No.: 1 Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Gundlach ^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: t/04-3051, Kevin & Julie Fitzpatrick, 356 West Lake Street Variances - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - I A, One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (2 acre min.) 0.643 acres (28,017 s.f.) 50.50 feet the shoreline and 75* setback List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 9-21-04 C - PC Memo and E.xhibits of 9-17-04 Application Summary: Applicant reque.sts the following variances in order to construct a new residence on an exi.sting lot: 1. Lot area variance to permit construction of a residence on a lot that is 0.643 acres in size when 2 acre.s in normally required. 2. Lot width variance to permit construction of a residence on a lot that is 50.50* in width at the shoreline and 75* setback when 200* is normally required. 3. North and south side yard setback variances to permit side yard setbacks of 10* when 30’ is normally required. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances as a house has existed on the 50* wide lot since 1957, the applicants are not able to acquire any other land, the lot was legally formed at the time it was platted, and if the 30* side yard setbacks were enforced the lot would have no buildable area. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Comm.ission voted 5-1, with Commissioner Jurgens voting against, for approval of the plans as submitted. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution granting lot area/width and side yard setback variance for 3S6 West Lake Street. nit I 'li'iifiWiiiir II I A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-305 (B) FILE NO. 04-3051 WHEREAS, Kevin A. Fitzpatrick and Julie Fitzpatrick, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants”) are the owners of the properly located at 356 West l.ake Street within the City ofOrono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block I, Hillside Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “properly”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 (B) to allow construction of a new residence on a lot that is 0.643 acres in size when 2.0 acres in normally required, is 50.50 feet in width at the shoreline and 75 ’ setback when 200’ is normally required, and north and south side yard setback requests to allow 10 ’ side yard setbacks when 30’ is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1 . This application was reviewed as Zoning File #04-3051. The property is located in the LR - lA zoning district, which requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres. The applicant ’s property is 0.643 acres in area. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on September 20, 2004 and reconunended approval of the variances based on the following findings: a. The lot was legally created as a 50 ’ wide lot at the time of platting. Page 1 of 6 b. A residence has existed on the lot since 1957. c. If the required 30’ side yard setbacks were enforced the lot would become unbuildable as its total width is only SO'. d. City requirements of structural coverage, hardcover, average lakcshore setback, lake setback and building height have been met with the proposal. c. Non-conforming hardcover within the 0-75’ zone will be removed. f. A reduction of 10% hardcover is proposed within the 75’-250’ zone. g. An existing non-conforming side yard setback of 6’ will be increased to 10’. h. Tliere will be an improvement of neighborhood drainage despite significant natural topography that currently drives water to neighboring lots. i. The applicants have an inherent right to develop their property at a time they so chose. Ihc City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commi.ssion, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of Uic proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor po.se a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 (B) to allow construction of a new residence on a lot that is 0.643 acres in size when 2.0 acres in normally required, is 50.50 feet in width at the shoreline and 75' setback when 200 ’ is noiTnally required, and north and south side yard setback requests to allow 10 ’ side yard setbacks when 30’ is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as B.xhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall not increase above 0%. Hardcover in the 75- 250 ’ zone shall be limited to 25% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increa.se hardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover. 3. Approval is subject to the most recent grading plan which was submitted and approved by the City Building Inspector and Engineer on file with the Planning Department. 4. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. 5.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new con.struction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (September 27,2005). 6, Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, .shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 6 7. The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of tliis resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 27* day of September, 2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this __ day of _______, 2004 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of _______, 2004 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public I Page 5 of 6 State of Minnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this __day of ,2004 by Kevin A. Fitzpatrick, husband of Julie Fitzpatrick, husband and wife. Notary Public State of M i nnesota ) ) ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this __day of 2004 by Julie Fitzpatrick, wife of Kevin A. Fitzpatrick, husband and wife. Notary Public Page 6 of 6 winicyrjpw*»ww>^"« [•. h; P» L EXHIBIT A, .EXISTING BUILDINGS /TO BE REMOVED i.m:-. I IIOU'J. 0-75'Zone Os.f. 0% vt.*‘ -I J>-5 \ ,CRAPE SWALE TO.DRAIN- 53;0)Xv- --^ '’ IP '/ ' I-.a' ■ ■..•T’'- ■ k J V f, K^PVt ..-------r/fo S; •• '•• rviCTIMl'l • ♦i^ • ■' V T954L -Tgi^)isrrMYg5^.Q)g — 76t).a. 8,• ','pROPbsED . , !P wve S FIT^PA TR/Ck '.V/A1 ..M c^^REStDENCE jaso). S'-EXISTING ;„)/o)‘ ;./SliE0 1 1 9Lt / ■f,^. ■,f’' rj-=^~ ---------- 'I a»QwW?®//|l •rpROPOSDD STE'’*^-^ ' ’I I 506.50 GRADE ^^WALETO DRAIN SAVE TKEJIS 75'-250' Zone House = 1420 s.f. Porch = 80 s.f. Garage = 624 s.f. Driveway = 1520 s.f. Sidewalk = 140 s.f. Patio = 72 s.f. Deck = 128 s.f. Out-Building = 120 s.f. TOTAL = 4107 s.f. 4107/16500 = 24.9% IN 4.,» t I BENCHMARK --------- TOP IP ELEV = 9ol.1 'a! ' ' - - . ! ff /, PROPOSED ELEVATIONS GARAGE FLOOR=956.8 TOP OF FOUNDATION =957.1 LOWEST FLOOR=948.4 I • ''^ . : '. EXHIBIT A 1^ ki A: ?ci ^ / SJ TR=93f'.5 SAN MH ■ ki 250^-500 ’ Zone Driveway = 2020 s.f. Out-Building = 230 s.f. TOTAL = 2250 s.f. 2250/7604 = 29.6% 5 89^48' W'E 513.63 LiJ«5 LiJ c» • ..-.V J--’• Y "** • '* *1 ’ ^..••••■ I1 ^ i ' .*3 . . [ h=-----rr-^ 1 o / ^11tn ) 1 ■!]. — ■cr —fVhO ../'GRADf SWALE . TQ DRAIN .cS' *' /V 89^48' W •»*' k! '•* 9!w \ CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 ZONING FILE: 04-3051 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: September 21,2004 TO: Kevin & Julie Fitzpatrick 18483 85'*' Place N Maple Grove, IvTN 5531 1 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Lot AreaAVidth & Side Yard Setback Variances DATE OF MEETING: September 20,2004 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval as requested. VOTE FOR AGAINST Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, September 27,2004; 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 Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Gundlach at 952-249-4623. tr i 4 7^ M04.3051 September 20,2004 Page 1 of 5 Date Application Received: 8-18-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9-1S-04 60-Day Review Period Expires; 11-14-04 To: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From; Janice Gundlach, City PlannerJ^^X Date: September 17,2004 Subject: #04-3051 , Kevin & Julie Fitzpatrick, 356 West Lake Street - Side Yard Setback, Lot Area, Lot Width Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width; LR - 1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre min.) 0.643 acres (28,017 s.f.) 50.50 feet @ the shoreline and 75 ’ setback Application Sinunutry: Applicant requests the following variances in order to construct a new residence on an existing lot: 1. Lot area variance to permit construction of a residence on a lot Miat is 0.643 acres in size when 2 acres in normally required. 2. Lot width variance to permit construction of a residence on a lot that is 50.50’ in width at the shoreline and 75 ’ setback when 200’ is normally required. 3. North and south side yard setback variances to permit side yard setbacks of 10’ when 30’ is normally required. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances as a house has existed on the 50’ wide lot since 1957, the applicants are not able to acquire any other land, the lot was legally formed at the time it was platted, and if the 30’ side yard setbacks were enforced tlie lot would have no buildable area.___ __________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-305. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area (acre)Lot Width (feet) Front Yard (feet)Side Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) Rear Yard (feet) 2 200 50 30 50 50 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Existing Survey Exhibit D - Proposed Survey Exhibit E - Hardcover Calculation Worksheets i H04-30S1 September 20,2004 Page 2 of 5 Exhibit F - Proposed Elevations Exhibit G - Proposed Floor Plans Exhibit H - Engineer Comments Exhibit I - Memo from City Building Inspector Bruce Vang Exhibit J - Neighbor Comments Exhibit K - CMP Excerpts - Land Use Plan: Lakeshorc Residential Land Use Policies & General Land Use Policies Exhibit L - Additional Applicant Comments Exhibit M - Property Owner’s List Exhibit N - Plat Map Background The applicants have recently acquired the property at 356 Westlake Street and intend to tear the existing house down and construct new. The applicants have worked with staff, including the City Engineer and Building Inspector to propose a grading plan that works with the constraints of the narrow lot. Based on precedence, City staff advised the applicant that 10 ’ side yard setbacks would be a reasonable request because the required 30 ’ side yard setbacks would make the property unbuildable. The applicants have submitted their proposed plan on tliat basis. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot ArcaAVidth LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)200’ Actual 28,017 s.f (0.643 acres)50.50 ’ Setbacks LR -1 A Required Existing Proposed Front N/A N/A N/A Rear (street)50 ’ 272’(shed) 324.5 ’ (garage) 392.5 ’ (house) 283.5’ (outbuilding) 354.5 ’ (house) Left Side (north)30 ’ 5.5 ’ (shed) 9.9 ’ (garage) 6.0’ (house) 10 ’(house) 15 ’ (outbuilding) Right Side (south)30 ’ 33.4 ’ (shed) 12.7’ (garage) 8.2’ (house) 10 ’(house) 11 ’ (outbuilding) Lakeshore 75 ’100 ’ (deck) 10 ’ (shed)119 ’ (deck) «040051 September 20,2004 Page 3 of 5 Average Lakeshore N/A (no house is adjacent - see text)N/A N/A Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 28,017 s.f. (0.643 acres)Allowed: 4,202.6 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,588 s.f. (9%) Hardcover Calculations Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 3,913 s.f.Os.f (0%) 50 s.f.* (1.28%) Os.f. (0%) 75 - 250 16,500 s.f.4,125 s.f. (25%) 5,838 s.f.* (35.35%) 4,104 s.f. (25%) 250 - 500 7,604 s.f.2,281 s.f. (30%) 671 s.f.* (8.82%) 2,250 s.f. (29.6%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lot Area Variancc/Lot Width Variance The applicants are proposing to tear down the existing home and rebuild on the lot. The lot is 28,017 s.f. in area or 0.643 acres and 50.50 ’ in width at the shoreline and 75’ setback. Tlie lot is located in the LR - lA, One Family Lakeshore Residential zoning district requiring two acres and 200 ’ of width for all new construction, therefore, a lot area and lot width variance is required. Side Yard Setback Variance The lot located at 356 West Lake Street is 50 ’ wide at the road and 50.50 ’ wide at the shoreline and 75’ setback. The LR - 1 A zoning district requires side yard setbacks of 30’ in which case no buildable area exists. Therefore, the applicants have proposed side yard setbacks of 10 ’ to yield a 30’ wide building pad. This requires variance approval. Average Lakeshore Setback The home is proposed at a location slightly further from the lake than the existing house and slightly closer to the lake than the adjacent home to the north. The adjacent lakeshore lot to the south is vacant. The proposed location seems very appropriate to staff in that it will not impact existing neighbors lake views. If it was moved further from the lake this would have a negative impact on the average setback line for a future home to the south. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a Hardship Documentation Form in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. M04-30S1 September 20, 2004 Page 4 of 5 Hardship Aiialvsis In considering applications for variance^ the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literat provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions wilt be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code, Staff finds a hardship to allow a house to be rebuilt on the existing lot. The lot is considered a legal lot of record and can therefore, be built on without meeting the two acre minimum requirement. The existing house has existed on the substandard area and width lot since 1957 and the lot was legally created in accordance with the platting process. The proposal for the house meets all other Zoning Ordinance requirements with the e.xception of the side yard setbacks. Tire lot is also sewered and not subject to primary and alternate septic site locations, as would normally be a concern with rebuild situations. Staff would recommend approval of the lot area and lot width variance as the lot is a legal lot of record and has stood on its own since 1957. Staff also finds a hardship to warrant approval of the 10 ’ side yard setback requests. The lot is not wide enough to meet the required setbacks. The Planning Commission and Council have consistently approved side yard setback requests of 10 ’ for existing 50 ’ lots on the lake regardless of the zoning district. The hardship criterion specifically calls for reasonable use. In staffs view, a 30 ’ wide building pad is reasonable. The Plarming Commission may want to discuss the reasonableness of anything significantly less than a 30 ’ width home. The applicants have been working with the City Engineer and Building Inspector in order to provide a grading plan which will not negatively affect adjacent properties. City Building Inspector, Bruce Vang has submitted a memorandum in Exhibit I indicating the plan submitted meets all requirements of the Building Department and City Engineer. Neighbor Comments The neighbors to the south hive submitted a letter objecting to the proposed variances. The letter outlines the pattern of development along West Lake and the acquisition and combination of 50 ’ wide lots in order to create larger, more conforming lots. The letter indicates that the applicants should wait to redevelop until the other two 50 ’ wide lots to the north can be acquired for one large lot, so that redevelopment more closely matches the 2-acre zoning standards. While staff agrees with the neighbors’ position in theory, the struggle of a property owner’s right to develop inevitably clashes with this theory. Since the City of Orono’s inception as a municipality, no active City initiative has existed with the intent of forcing property owners to wait to redevelop until they have acquired more land. In fact, the City has several small lot neighborhoods where the zoning doesn’t match and some owners have chosen to acquire more land where others have not. Staff recognizes that the West f^04-3051 September 20,2004 Pages or5 Lake neighborhood may be more actively moving towards larger lots but would beg the question: Should they be forced? Staff would find it “out of the ordinary” for the City to deny this variance request based on the position taken by the neighbors. Issues for Consideration 1. Are 10 ’ side yard setbacks yielding a 30 ’ wide building pad reasonable? 2. Would the proposed house be out of character with the neighborhood? 3. Should the applicants be required to wait to redevelop so that additional land can be acquired? 4. Please review the Comprehensive Plan exceipts. Exhibit K. Does the proposed redevelopment of this lot generally conform to the “Lakeshore Residential Land Use Policies”? Does it conform to the “General Land Use Policies”? 5. Arc tlicre any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Approval of the requested variances as submitted. ty 11 i EXHIBIT A City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.*) Street Address: ?750 Knilny Parkway OiOMO. MN S535B Mailing Address: P O. Box G6 Ctysti)! Bay. MN 533?3-00G6 For Offict» Use Onjy City Planner; Meeting Dalertimo jy/7 Main; 952-249-4600 Fax 952-249-4616 PC Date. n\ccHn^ What IS tho purpose of a pro-application mooting? 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; Sito Address; S'/-____________________ Property Identification Number "(PIN); O^Ul I'S' Zoning District; ^-/A______Size of Properly: ^ i.8 ,033 DESCRIPTION 01- REQUEST: n Avt»r;irje Solback ^JxtCSidn Yard Snth.ar.k FI Ro.nr Yard Sottaack n Hardcover □ Lot Coverage jSlTLot Area □ Other: □ Front Yard Setback Mt-ot Width Applicant’s ^ Initials: HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must bo completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION: •please note; Your variance application wi’il NOT be accepted 'thout a pre-application meeting during wl'.ich this form will be completed by City staff. Applicant Signntiiro:(Lir J Date:qL- IT---------V-/L/' C r '•^ ... Of / • .T }~?L "T ”4 •• *' v>.A-R:4 r=r-.. City of Orono Variance Appiication EXHIBIT A 2. Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 fax; 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Cryslol Bay. MN 55323-0066 Application tt —^OS) I Date Received; p~- I rni-f Amount Paid: f'pQO. OV:> Staff; Tn nlca?... _____ Fee;$600 Renewal; $300 After Ihe-fact: $1,200 Double Fee This application form must be completed in fult. Applicant will be notiHed v/ilhin 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: 55 Ij \JD^<o4 UOuVLgy e-C.-V t)v'on & , TH Property Identification Number (PIN): p<5\ \ "1 "L 5 T-^5 o C>\*=> (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): o ~l | □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: QSi Residential □ Other____________________________ Zoning District: L-iP.\A __________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete tegal names and maritat status required for each interested party) Name: ___________________ Phone (home): ~l\o5 - tW»A- - 4-o<=\c>________Phone (work): Address: \9>4-<^5 P\qpp. fs), (arovle., V___________ ___________ Email: AcjAt^ g. eAr-V-in UnVc . ng_4-__________Fax: (caa\ aJnfajC) OWNER INFOjRMATION: (Complete legal names and rnnriia^status rec^ulre^for each interested party) Phone (home): 4-44 - d-D4<^ Phone (work): ~1 - Ho4 -~in5 'T— Address: SL*^-VV^ Pta(>g. N . brcNf,. 553 \ \_______________ Email: ^ eiLrVV\\\nY..ne>_________Fax: -444>4-d4^ f igj\ QJn^A±) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ 45c>.bC>0 Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): 5C4bOrA^VCLnOLnce^ to CYrA<>A>-4-n —bvijQdL^-PY\ 4V\iF> rmrrrryA 5o_4ttd4 \n-\-. TV\e^ 4tm4 ‘6c4ba-eAo i:gj:|.ujLy:ej rYT4^4 in 4bt 2-(LtLx-g^ mcLkie.*^ +bt<=» •5>4€.^ o^bu , nfiiii ri«f>airfiiri EXHIBIT REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. G3^o' 1^ (2l O'□ □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150 ’ of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center, A-603 300 South 6'^ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or ll" X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11” x 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. Applicant’s Signature: Applicant’s Signature: Date: Date:tto\o^ OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT; The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the properly by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request Owner’s Signature; Owner’s Signature: _< Date: Date: 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. #3051 EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 3 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 r der for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must bo 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 os clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining n denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not bo considered. Please address each of those hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply). 1 “The properly in question cannot be pul to a reasonable uso if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." _ \ -V C _ AjLXi\?Vul dLO-b . VCq\.c.'^ JL_f!?t rVb ______ __^l-OuCLOlOTLse,^^__iSi- .e^OL-QrtSLcC__ “The plight of the landowner is duo to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." nourreno \ o 4 \ icn b lU) dix-b\ U-n \ - 4>t4-yiA.o^lo ^P^COlJoA.^________________________ “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." T\ryg^ voW\ bg. fg 42\QJL<-qL.^ \AJt4h (.U. \rv 4Vv-e^ nei(xWbDrhtrDdL^^Li^J^\\\.‘4& L^m4T7Cm^^ (U\ o4-V\-C<" tUOdC T^C\V»Jlfc<T\-CA4S . “Economic considerations alorie shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter “ \M(4\ntru A- Vajrv0u oe.o 'VW-Ctre^ no egfl^mncUr?\e^ ___ __U£?2Li _(2£D-^ieJc4xy ___________________________________ r.(' t \ i [r. \\ y r..K* ♦ O'! c.tk! EXHIBIT B Page 2 of 3 “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." __Q.t)±-0lf.p\ 1 _______________________________ “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 " __no-V Q-^p\igflL>o\e^___________________________________ 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one*family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” _ Hb-V Qiyp\ i OQ Jp\g J___________________________________________ 8."The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or Immediately adjoining property" —__\p-V voWtcLtn __flL vourtfu->c.<j \’n ordgj--V-n buJtldl. 9. 11. “Tho conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." rvo-V y>\^j__________________________________________ "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." 'VciLi C^OjQrbtafX. D-f AK^_^b^bCLlJk> N/QurvOi^ tS At) Ocn<l \iv^. crrt \ n-V- . "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 Code" —CiUr)\0> — t)\KjT ntftn U^‘i\\______ CjDYvPrrrm -Vo cul o4-Vt.pjr Qjb(kf. ______ i! 1 EXHIBIT B Page 3 of3 12.“The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty ‘ ’Ty\\<h r-xainr f j Y~Q ouiart dly \n cyAgjr -V'To bvcA\oL^ 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); Cltjur p\r^/t \o\\\ CvCYv^Wm -Vti out \ qAAif v finrip. vtt-auli^prp'PrvV^ V)g.^vd <>5=^SJfLx'V0Lng.?_, -'Tht<j u:)\\\ d-n lymprovie^m o I ^ ^ ^. jk I I. \V.«. . J - - - 1 I -1 -t . ■ I ft I A \ . I6>-VrVLeJt\JUre-»=b> toVv'voJrt rjjsrv^-V -Kxa V v-^_ <U7tY> U: •» ft :su % /.i ;c.j V. L VB \ CERTIFICATE OF SUI. _Y FOR KEVIN FITZPATRICK OF LOT 8. BLOCK 1. HILLSIDE PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA '7 / S 89 “48' 16" E 51363 »<W1C OCCf 52: GAL OESCRPTION OF PREMISCS : I 8. Block 1. HILSIDC PARK : denotes iron morker oringe shown ore boted upon on ossomed doli*n m X is iurvsv intends to show the boundoilss of the obove described property, • 4*.w •# Mvtf>tm<s Ki»iiH#nrt*x cvirt fill viffibic **ho^<Jc0vcf lh®fcon* (^U‘r H o liibiiiilCteAiMiHdIkh I-.. EXISTING BUILDINGS /’to be removed •I • . • • 3' 16"E ?J / —«mm^Rage^ BUILOING/J I • ? • I • • : ll ^• • -^4/ ^: r \,of^;32f/^: / / // o'.,, f) REilpVE ;,Jj in •■» “ rviC-TIWi; '\/ ^'grace ?^wale drain SAVE TKEJTS XISTING ;,i / o)‘ /.•y - ..'./fCNCE //‘^ ' rtTPRORO^D’steps /.' ^ 506.50 r ! i' ». i ^NCHMARK-------:------- TOP IP ELLV -- 9ol.l I / / / PROPOSED ELEVATIONS garage FL00R=956.8 TOP OF FOUNDATION =957.1 lowest FLOOR---948.4 d N xifliHxa lA •HCO :d> <!o^ A/ 0^07'E 50.00 s>.tn '. 'ir WESTL A K'iSS fREE T f4 HARD SETBACK ZONE; {CIRCLE ONE) DpQVEF(J-75^ \JCrX ■& I ?0ucV, ER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000'EXHIBIT E EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X S.t , ! 1 Length X Width s S.F.1 ShccL-l.T^ X 6. Id mm *4o S.F.i B. Garaqe X a S.F. i C. Driveway X S.F. i 1 J X S.F.1 D. Sidewalk X S.F. X =S.F. E. Patio/Deck X mm S.F. X =S.F. F. Landscape X S F. Underlain X mm S F. By Plastic X mm S F. G. Relalnlnq X mm S.F. Walls H. Other «£1 O S.F.— Woo<A \n10l\\ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE m 60 S.F. A i TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 4- B X100 = S.F. B \. T-« % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X mm S.F. Length X Width -S.F. X mm S.F. . 0. Garage X mm.S F. C. Driveway X S S.F. X S F.n D. Sidewalk X SS S.F. X s SF. E. Patio/Deck X es SF. . ••• X X s S.F.• . '5 F. Landscape X S.F. m . , / Underlain X mm S.F.• ■ • By Plastic X mm S.F./t G. Retaining X S.F. y*\ Walls H. Other X S.F. . • ■ • '* '- A • • -J• TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S F. A t TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -S.F. B **•-* I • A + B xlOO =O %• • -I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET Ub-t* » Ol 0(L,V^ \ VViWsvcAc.fburNc SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 0-75* Length on.A B. Garage C. Driveway VI. \ D. Sidewalk E. Palio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Retaining Walls H. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ____5 O_______ Lo fbrch Longth __8. 13 Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Palio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Retaining Walls H. Other X X X X X X X X X X X B X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A________________+ B LCULAI 250-500* 500-1000* EXHIBIT £2^ Width mm 54r S.F. -hSVL&O S F.- trr\ s F **>*><*a ^ •vv. \ S M s i3 s mm X 100 WidUilo mm a = tr a 3 x100 S.F. 't<mt..i(3rcrr\ A<.S.+ -Vb aCLTOLA S F —OvrO-Mt\ dr\>Jo ^ S.F ■' hLO S F.-Ccr>c.TJ(X.\V. S.F.—S>Vcmt SF-AtcVi. S.F. S F SF. SF. nn.S F.- 3^^ Wood\uint. wxu\ ^ \ \pov d tVg6\tfl S.F. SF. A 0 \ MrO-O S.F. S.F. SF. [0%^S.F. SF. SF. mo S F. SF. nv-SF SF PoJr'io t>€.cVL SF. S.F. SF S.F 1jUO___sf.- ow.4bu.J\dinc^ «iio4 we 00 SF. SF. A B 'Uk.*\% tJ Ai S r- ^34* %I ■ Airtrttl mniiiiitfn i.# • * i HARDCOVER CALCULATION W SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House __ 0-75' Length X X B. Garage C. Driveway ---(Vtrn-V X X 0. Sidewalk X X E. Palio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Retaining Walls H. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY' AREA IN ZONE A B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length X X Q. Garage C. Driveway X X O. Sidewalk X X E. Palio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Retaining Walls H. Other 75-250' MEET UD-r ^ OlOtLVL- I VAnW‘=.\de, PourW. 250-S00'500-1000*EXHIBIT E. SF. Width I o -U> S.F. S.F.- SVit^A S.F.1 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ♦ B T >:• s 6 7-U.S.F.-«-\ dUrv'l tioflu mm S F. S.F. mm S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i' r bn \ s F tD X 100 nigo*4 __S.F. A _S.F. 0 .9 -Z- % S.F. Width mm S F. S.F rz S.F, S.F S.F. SF. SF. SF. S S3 S.F. SF. SF. S.F.- OVjVbvutdUni 'U'U3o SF. A xlOO = -M- O #' \ff ~.T^ ' t. ■r..- • .-i i l-ILOM S.F. 2,1. o • f X"..£5' V-. J i ;'6^4 U'^r'^ .r iMiffi z:^\:z:~ V" — V;4^nai«—vui^tSi^iXA^.r*'-;''^ «*/» ^ X >> --»> ^ • EXHIBIT F 'S' '• 4-. ' ' .-v ■ • ’ TTiVf i iV^f • ^• Mu^ •‘.i >mr - — TC? 1^*'. - • • -Vl'V • :• j l>wn> j A-r<rvlW*»*. _:i flitj 1 mM ’TT 1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55II3 OHice: 651-636-4600 • Fax. 651-636-1311 wwwbonesuoo com EXHIBIT H Engineers & Architects August 30, 2004 4i/(? j Ms. Janice Gundlach Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 ^004 Re;356 West Lake Street File No. 139-04-000 Plat No. 04-3051 Dear Janice: VVe have reviewed the plans and visited the site for the proposed improvements to 356 West Lake Street. The proposed improvements include removing an existing residence and constnicting a new home. The home construction will require some site grading to control and direct drainage. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters; The proposed house elevations provided do not agree with the proposed grading plan. The lakeside house elevation shows a proposed two stoi7 home with a full basement. The grading plan shows grading to provide a lookout on Ihe lakeside of the home. The grading necessary to construct a lookout will likely encroach into the 75-foot setback and wc would strongly discourage this. The proposed top of foundation is approximately 2.5 feet higher than the existing house to the north. This will create difficulty in grading a swale along the noilh side of the proposed home. Wc recommend that the proposed top of foundation elevation be revised to be no higher than 955.0. The final grading plans should include side yard swales to direct water towards the lake. Wc did not notice any steps to the lake when we visited the site. The slope to the lake is steep and heavily vegetated. Plans should include step construction to the lake and provisions for stabilizing disturbed areas where the steps arc constructed and the site where the existing shed will be removed. Final house plans should include gutters and downspouts that direct roof drainage to the side yaid swal.Vj. The silt fence should be installed at the 75-foot setback from the lake. All erosion control measures should be installed, inspected and approved by city staff prior to any work on site. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4S63. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. 7 Tom Kellogg Cc; Greg Gappa, City of Orono Bruce Vang, City of Orono • St. Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester. Witimar. MN • Milwaukee, Wl • Chicago, IL Affirm^fivc Acfion/Eqw«l Opportunity Employtr Owned bv i-t i* EXHIBIT I .0.4’ CITY of ORONO Municipal Ofllccs Street Address: 2750 Kelley ParVway Ofono, MN 55-'i56 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 September 15,2004 To; Orono Planning Commission Re: 356 Westlake Street File no. 04-3051 The residence proposed on the long and narrow lot at 356 Westlake Street presents some difficvrltie.s in dealing with water runoff. Fortunately more than half of the lot slopes toward the street and has very little hard surface, allowing water to soak in. Fhc area around the house with its hiaher concentration of hard cover will demand attention to details. Here, drainage swales on the north and south piopcily lines will carry runoff eastward to a relatively Hat area before it runs to the lake. These swales and rough grade must be installed and inspected at the time of the foundation backfdl aird maintained tlvroughout the project. Before excavation begins, silt fence must be installed along both property lines as well as at the 75 foot lake setback. Tom Kellogg and I reviewed the original plan and our comments were incorporated in the final design. With some extra care by the builder and oversight by the homeowner there should be minimal impact on the neighboring properties and on Lake Minnetonka. Bruce .Var;g Building and Zoning Inspector Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us 1 EXHIBIT J COMMENT ON APPLICATION #04-3051 BY KEVIN AND JULIE FITZPATRICK TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH AND SIDE YARDS AT 356 WESTLAKE Wc, the owners of the adjacent property to the south of 356 Westlake request the City Planning Commission find the requested variances unreasonable and oppose the granting of the variances as not supported by the required findings for these reasons: 1. The Reasonable Expectations for Redevelopment Along Westlake frutit the History of Development. The last home on Westlake built on a 50 ft wide lot was constructed over 50 years ago. The established pattern is private consolidation of the underlying 50 ft lots (sec Exhibit One) into larger parcels either prior to redevelopment or in anticipation of redevelopment (sec Exliibii Two). For example; 309 The existing home was expanded after consolidating the front and back lots to create the buildabic parcel with 150 ft of frontage 341 In anticipation of redevelopment the underlying lots have been consolidated into a significant parcel, also with 150 ft of frontage 349 This lot has 100 ft of frontage on Westlake 365 This lot was combined with 373 to provide 100 ft of frontage on Westlake in anticipation of redevelopment with additional consolidation 3S9 1 las 150 ft of frontage on We.stlake 372 The owner of 372 acquired the home at 36^ and combined the sites in 1999, creating a more conforming parcel, and removed several nonconforming structures and constructed a new home on 372. 364 Acquit cd and made available for redevelopment after a lot line rearrangement with 372 356 Traditional 50 11 lot 348 Traditional 50 ft lot 340 Traditional 50 ft lot 332 100 ft wide lot 3895 150 ft wide lot assembled prior to present development EXHIBIT J The pattern of development along Westlake, and the character of development along Westlake has not been redevelopment of the underlying 50 ft lots. The pattern has been to continue the reasonable use of the existing homes while patiently and expensively consolidating at least two, and typically three lots prior to redevelopment to approach the standards of the LR-1 A District The property in question, pending consolidation with adjacent parcels can be put to a reasonable use; these circumstances are not unique to this property but have been applied to ail other properties along Westlake. It was not an undue hardship to continue the use of the home prior to redevelopment and has been the reasonable use of each property prior to consolidation and redevelopment of the immediately adjoining property This pattern encouraged by the LR- 1 A zoning designation along Westlake has applied generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. Denial of the application to permit redevelopment of this substandard lot is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and is consistent with the experience of other properties. Granting the application will serve as an exception to the pattern of redevelopment established along Westlake and is solely a convenient' and windfall to the applicant. Granting the application will discourage the pattern of consolidation consistent with the Code along Westlake, and establish a precedent, which when extended to 340 and 34S. will alter the essential emerging character of Westlake. 2. The Reasonable Expectations for Redevelopment Along Westlake from the History of City Approvals. A number of variance requests have been approved and denied along Westlake The consistent pattern of these actions has been approval of lot width and area variances if accompanied by a consolidation of the existing 50 ft lots, and very careful scrutiny and denial of side yard variance applications. Recent applications have included: 1. 1996, 372 Westlake, Loren Brueggemann, lot area, lot width and side yard variances to allow a large (2 acre) single parcel to be divided into two buildable lots Denied 2.1998, 365 Westlake, Joe and Mary Fiedler, lot area, lot width and side yard variances to allow replace an existing residence. Tabled, then withdrawn This property has since been consolidated with 373 in anticipation of redevelopment after additional consolidation. 3.1999, Robert and Lisa Erickson. 364/372 Westlake Lot Line rearrangement, lot area and lot width, NO side yard variances. After acquiring an adjacent home on a 50 ft lot and consolidating it into the laiger parcel at 372 Westlake, sec 1 above, granted 4. 2003,332 Westlake, Blake and Mary Dichanich, lot area, lot width and side yard variances to allow replacement of an existing residence. Lot area and lot width variances granted for this parcel of two lots. Side yard setback variance denied. Atii EXHIBIT J3 No variance has been granted for redevelopment on a 50 ft wide lot on Westlake. Variances for lot width and lot area have been granted when a 50 ft lot has been vacated and consolidated prior to or as part of the redevelopment. The approval of this application would be an exception to the City ’s action in previous similar applications on Westlake, 3. The Reasonable Expectations for New Development at 340, 348 and 356 Westlake The only remaining 50 ft wide two thirds of an acre lots on Westlake reflecting the original platting are at 340, 348 and 356. All other lots have been expanded by consolidation prior to or in anticipation cf redevelopment. Each of these 50 ft wide lots is occupied by a home that is livable, and could be remodeled, if desired. The decision of the Commission to deny tl is application will reinforce, encourage and reward the stow, patient and expensive invest»ncnts made by homeowners redeveloping this block in a way that approaches the requirements of the zoning code. It wilt reinforce the larger tots and adequate side yards that arc emerging as the character of Westlake consistent with the LR-1A District. Granting the variance will reverse this pattern. It will immediately end the opportunity to combine 356 with any adjacent lot. And, the precedent you will have established will end any incentive to do the hard, expensive and patient work of as.sembling 340 and 348 and 356 prior to redevelopment. The development of these three lots individually and at 50 ft in width and with 10 ft side yards, which will surely follow approval of this application, will introduce a very different character to Westlake. A change in character we oppose. The required findings on whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use, the plight of the landowner, its circumstances unique to this property at 356, the effect of the variance, if granted, in altering the essential character of the locality, the finding special conditions apply to the stracturc or land in question that arc peculiar to suen property or iir mediately adjoining property, the conditions not applying generally to othei iand or staictures in the district in which the land is located, and the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, should be made in the context of the all three of the remaining traditional lots on Westlake. The impact of any decision will extend beyond this newly acquired property of the Fitzpatricks. Approval of the requested variances eftcctivcly represents a rc/.oning of 356, and by the extremely attractive precedent it creates, 340 and 348. to the LK-IC district and a windfall to those individual owners. Wc oppose this fundamental change in the rules and pi opc:ty rights that have applied to all other redeveloped and anticipated to be redeveloped properties on vVesilake 4. The Reasonable Redevelopment of 356 Westlake A Effective south side yard is not increased but is reduced Technically, the minimum south side yard is 8 2 ft. This occurs along 6 6 ft of the south side of the home, and is in the form of an elevated planter area and a very small greenhouse that continues the slant of the mansard roof, see photos one and two. The remaining 39 ft of this 45 ft long home, the wall of the house, presently provides an approximately 12 ft setback from the south property line. It is true that while 13% of the setback area will be increased by the proposed plan, 87% of the present setback on this side will be reduced, not improved. And, the .1 exhibit J, This standard is not met by this application. The plight of this landowner, proposing to redevelop a very nonconforming traditional lot with a modern home by greatly increasing the height and bulk, ' too much house ”, is of their own making and design. This "plight", created by the application of the LR-1A district requirements to the development and redevelopment on Westlake, was and is shared by all other landowners on Westlake AU other landowners on Westlake have successfully resolved this by acquiring additional lots prior to proposing redevelopment. Redevelopment of individual lots has been delayed until this could be accomplished. This is the history of development and the record of City approvals and denials of similar applications on Westlake Absent the requested variances the landowner may be economically inconvenienced and be inconvenienced by delay of their desired schedule, but even if this rises to the stam ’ard of "undue hardship", it is not a unique hardship. It is an inconvenience and an economic cost, shared by, and enforced by the City on, all other landowners redeveloping property on Westlake. There arc no unique conditions or unique expectations that support consideration of granting this variance. The required severity findings are. (1) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. (10) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant This standard is not met by this application. This is not a 1920's cottage that is falling apart. It is a livable home, similar to others waiting redevelopment on Westlake It has the reasonable use of continuing to be reasonably occupied as a home, though perhaps not by the applicant ’s family, until the patient and careful process of lot consolidation can occur At that time a variance consistent with the history of devclopmein along Westlake can be provided. The applicant docs not have the substantial right to unreasonably redevelop this property The restriction is not severe, has been and shared by all propcttics on Westlake, and has been successfully resolved in many instances In the context of Westlake, this does not meet the standard of a severe restriction on the long-term use and enjoyment of the property. The second basic question is “Will the result o ‘*granting tire variance be compatible with *.he use and enjoyment of the surrounding properties and their normal and orderly development? The required compatibility findings arc; (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality (1 1) I ho granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter This standard is not met by this application. The pattern of development of Westlake, while not in full conformance with the LP.-l A, is not that of the LR-IC district, which is the result of granting the requested variance. It will permit unreasonable development of the lot with no 1 EXHIBIT Jip offscuing benefit to the City or the neighbors. It is counter to the emerging and carefully developed ciiaracter of Westlake. And, by the extremely attractive precedei.t granting the requested variances would establish, will reverse the trend on Westlake of redevelopment at densities and building placements approaching the standards of the LR-1A District. Granting this variance will alter the character of Westlake both by the features of the proposed redevelopment at 356, and by the standard it would set for the redevelopment of 340 and 348 Westlake Alteration of this essential character of Westlake will occur and will be contrary to the general welfare and therefore .he intent and spirit of this chapter and the ordinance. The proposed redevelopment permitted by the granting of these variances, and the inevitable similar variances that must be granted to allow redevelopment of its neighbors, will be incompatible with the character of the locality and will be of a character most similar to redevelopment permitted in the LR-IC district, rather than the standards of the present LR-IA district. 6. Assuring the Reasonable Redevelopment of 356, and 340 and 348 Westlake If the requested variances are denied, we offer to purchase the property at 356 Westlake from the Fitzpatricks for the price they have paid for it We will rent the home for a limited time, make the property available for consolidation and redevelopment with 348 and potentially 340, or eventually remove the home and combine its property with our parcels to expand our homesiies Respectfully. NrichacI and Janelle Shields 3575 Christine Dr. Orono. MN owners and soon to be residents of 364 Westlake Robert and Lisa Erickson 372 Westlake Orono, MN owners of these additional properties on Westlake 365 Westlake 341 Westlake September 10, 2004 ik. > >K CPf^TH r^rJ "tJ- .. r ■■ \3 0 a •• .(»7 AC.X 0 [j .(,U^<^ X ■■ 3 ll ^ U 037-2 r V 1*5XX EXHIBIT TWO 5 H . ..vu. *, •»f ttt Ct. JB.‘r»7'^^Ji<V^1T'.^:t■.> .-• V*;iA V.' '■.j' v ’i V*•■ V »*' * #• i. *j< V^-A* « fy'fi^. ^ r,rr ; ..* . : fe-WSlM® >‘:iiS‘!-:v>;’:" r’f*'’ •':! V''' i ' \ r ^ y V "\ i</i tfm^ ,T^n. ''• fe';.' xi >''p^=^si':.v;u.U'fl . •-■‘^ fs Ji'''4' *i ' ' tf 11.•s: i'flft .. I t;.' Vi- .Vrf U .*. ^ •'* ' 'i' •’*•?! •* V *Hi. ;, • * . ... # , .•A.- ;k >^ * • # ^ ’V.* .1^ J. ♦ 1 • r • t •» ... . • V • , •♦• •-•■.•■. *t ' .* » m - • • «K. . i *• ^ * ’••. './•» ^ • .^ t .* A : J ' *• * • • • >.’,... <*•» . * '• 4 ^ ' .. • ?;V V.r •♦ wr’ ^ ‘ / r . 4^ , <-. ’• ' 'V* •-. PHOTO ONE «g 4 tVB# v-‘ ■•= I tti] % C A*-• V f' y- . > L ' r'^- ^..m . ^'•>'** •1^.%«^-'kk . * f *. . PHOTO TWO •V'^ '*»r'V • •V o ^ ACA :.■ .-iSi'-. Pw W 7 ^ V AmA4WM ,|Ti ''If V r ' jr^ k! -♦" *s ■ *,*< t L ' ...i-'■>*i -.:' '^v ^ ■ V-’-’v4*^?^p** #. * i*^ r*^ * "‘V'-i t ‘ _ ■ tsTt*^‘4' ^*V^'"*; ^■*.,:/. V* >^^«-iU(-^j' i''>; ^,; .^. •«» ■ ■••ft •■# i. ^• ■.■?■■ .■nuiftrj ^ t'^> c-r ••r V 4 • PHOTO THREE "* ’7? EXHIBIT K CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan [ LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE POLICIES^ Although Orono’s lakeshore has a wide range of diversity in lot size and home size, the predominant character of Orono’s lakeshore is natural. This is due to much of the lakeshore being historically developed as large estate lots with homes set back a substantial distance from the lakeshore, or being developed as moderate homes on moderate lots leaving substantial open space. The exception to the natural lakeshore is the areas where historically small cottages were built on small lots close to the lakeshore. These cottages have been updated, remodeled or expanded into year-round homes. The key goal of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is to protect Lake Minnetonka, which includes the preservation of the natural character of t'ne lakeshore and the water quality of the lake. As the demand for, and value of, lakeshore property has dramatically increased, so has the pressure to expand or replace small and not so small older homes with much larger homes. This pressure has the potential to substantially alter the natural character of the lakeshore, and the more open and natural cnviroitment enjoyed by property owners along much of the lakeshore in Orono. The following policies will guide the City in addressing development on tire lakeshore. 1. Lake Minnetonka shall be protected as a natural and recreational resource . 2. t lie natural character of the lakeshore shall be preserved, and when possible, enhanced. 3. The views and open space currently enjoyed by lakeshore property owners shall be protected 4. The size of a house to be allowed on a lot shall be determined based on the size cf the lot, as well as tiie shape and topography of the lot. 5. The increase in massing of structures on the lakeshore shall be limited. City of Orono Community Management Plan Scpttoibcr 2000 Page 3B-24 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan EXHIBIT K|^ LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES Orono's Land Use Plan is based upon the following goals and policies which in turn have been actively developed and fostered by Orono residents over the last 23 years. LAKD USE GOALS 1. To reinforce Orono's environincnini protection commitment, with special emphasis on the protection of Lake Minnetonka and Orono's other lakes. 2. To maintain the historic identity and character of the separate urban and rural neighborhoods. 3. To provide appropriate places for a variet)’ of local residential, educational, recreational, industrial and neighborhood commercial activities. 4. To protect neighborhoods from encroachment of incompatible land uses.- 5. To coordinate Orono's land usc.s with that of neighboring communities. 6. To coordinate land uses and developed density with the financial and physical capabilities of the City and its citi/ens to provide the ncccssar}- public facilities and services. \ GENEItAL LAND USE POLICIES 1. The boundary between Orono's Urban and Rural Areas is fixed. Orono’s Urban Area will not be strictly defined by the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary or future expansions of the MUSA boundary but will be fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Management Plan. Orono's defined Urban and Rural Areas are best described by the planned development types and densities. Areas where the zoned density allows no .more titan 1 unit per 2 acres is deemed Rural; areas where the zoned density allows more than I unit per 2 acres is deemed Urban. Orono’s Urban and Rural areas arc depicted and fixed by Map 3B-2. CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan EXHIBIT > 2. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) wiil define the areas of Orono where municipal sewers may be extended. The MUSA will incl ideall parts of Orono's Urban Area and may include parts of Orono's Rural Area where appropriate. 3. Orono's land use plans will be based upon environmental protection policies. Land use and development must assure the conservation, protection and preservation of sensitive environmental resources in accordance with the goals and policies of the Environmental Protection Plan. Land use policies will encourage the wise use and management of natural resources while prohibiting their misuse, abuse, overuse or exploitation. 4. Development density will be limited throughout the city to a level which will not overload the natural surface wafer drainage and filtration system. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. To the extent that it is practical and feasible, the City will supplement existing natural assimilation capacities with man-made ponding areas, but will not allow increases in development density beyond the defined rural density as a result of such supplementation. 5. The wetlands and marshlands of the city will be protected and preserved as wildlife habitats, as unique upen spaces, and as the only economically practical and truly effective method of flood protection and storm water runoff filtration. Wetlands, diainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, c.xcavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowagc eascmeiits for conservation of these lands. 6. Protection of lake resources will allow reasonable access, U.SC and enjoyment while preventing overcrowding and excessive encroachment. In conformance with Orono's Shorcland Management regulations, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will continue to be developed and fine-tuned to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. CMPPnrt3B. Land Use Plan EXHIBIT 7. 8. 10. 11. ■¥: 12- 1 Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Shorcland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shorcland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. Development or alteration of flondplnins will be restricted. Most of the City ’s identified floodplains arc located along the shoreline or wilhm designated marshlands and will be protected by regulations applicable to those arcus. In addition, where floodplains do exist on otherwise dry build able land, construction, filling or alteration will be strictly controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions, to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers. Natural resource investigation will be required as part of all development proposals. I his will include topogrupliical information, soil analysis, drainage plans, vegetation plans, erosion control measures and similar site data ielated each project, whether public or private. Orono's land use plan will promote the prc.scrvatinn of open space, light and air. Suificient oocn spaces will be provided in each neighborhood and on each lot to prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light, air and recreation for all residents. Private stcwurdsliip of land and resources is preferable to inflexible public control. Private ownership, maintenance and .stewardship of the land, including open space and many types of improvements, is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most bcncfi':ial interests of the property owner and the public, providing for more intimate, responsive and economical land management. All land owners must have equal land use opportunities. No land owner should be denied the right to develop liis land by any staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy, provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and requirements of the Community Manage .nent Plan. EXHIBIT CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan 13. Future development must enhance the community. Land development should respect and enhance neighboring properties and existing developed character of the neighborhood and the City, preserving the value of the land and the integrity, stability and beauty of the community. 14. Future development must enhance the environment. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does who'esale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density. IS. Physical improvements required to accommodate new development must be provided by the developer. Whenever required, improvements must be provided by the developer. Because the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition, this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or dcvic'.’s in the case of unusual land uses or building configurations, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situ.it ions. 16. All phy.sical improvements must ''oni’oim to city standards. Physical improvcinenls related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, p.ath vays, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform. City-established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans. 17. Developers must dedicate lands required for public use. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence increased demand for numicipal services, will Ijc expected to include public dedication of lands necessary foi additional road rights cf way, parks, playgrounds, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities kre diicctly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. CMP Part 3B. Land Use Flan If the individual development's density increase or impact is relatively small, or the layout is not conducive to public land dedication, then in lieu of lands the developer may be required to contribute funds for the municipal purchase of such lands or the improvement of such facil ties proportionate to the cumulative effect of such density increase from multiple small developments. ts.No land will be developed unless Us location and characteristics arc suitable for the proposed use in accordance with this plan. Land to be developed must be of such size, character and location that it can be safely used for the intended purpose without danger to health, without peril from fire, flood or other occurrence and without undue impact upon neighboring propciiics. No land will be permitted to be subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazards, inadequate drainage, soil formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water s ipply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. URBAN LAND USL POLICILS 1. 2. The nnjority of Orono*.s urban area will be reserved for residential land use. Orono's urban residential neighborhoods will provide the oppoilunity for a variety of housing types and price ranges. Many urban residences will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions. Medium censity (2-6 units per acre) multi>family residential uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and transportation services, but will not be appropriate within 1,000 feet ofthc shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. Limited commercial areas will be provided for neighborhood service businesses. The primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural residents. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation arc available Commercial development of a regional nature (i.c. "big box" retail) which would increase traffic, particularly on collector streets serving low censity residential development, will be discouraged. EXHIBIT 4 MAMfJ raimii nirsinirsTi^ " i EXHIBIT L 2. Iniprovcments to the lot: With the counsel of Tanicc and Tom, we have come to understand the rationale and support the cities development philosophy. Our submittal and intent deinonstiales our commitment to improving this propert)* and protecting the lake consistent with Orono’s vision. This property was listed and sold by the previous owners as a “knockdown” because of its age and condition. We are exiled, however, to be able to help improve both the neighborhood appearance and character with our changes. A partial list of improvements we will complete includes: o Removal of all hardcover and an existing boat house in 0-75 ft zone, o Reduction of hardcover in the 75-250 zone from 35.35% to 24 9%, o Improvement of side lot setback from approximately 6 feel to 10 feet, o Improvement of neighborhood drainage despite significant natural topography that currently drives water to neighboring lots, o Improvement of the energy efficiency and safety of the home itself while sustaining the essential external character of the neighborhood, o Restoration of our eroding lakcshore in cooperation with the neighbors to the north and the relevant I^ke Minnetonka governing agencies Preservation of neiithborlioods: As we were considering various Twin Cities areas for relocation, the neighborhoods and schools of Oiono quickly raised to the top of our list. Several of Kevin ’s colleagues at General Mills described Oiono as very family focused and a community that valued having a \ ai icty of family types along the same streets because of their scattered development approach. This diversity is important to us as we raise cur children. We agree with the city’s Community Management Plan wiicn it says: “A/oi/ of Oruno*s exist iiif^ urban neighborhoods arc a homogenous mix of newer and older homes intermingled with an occasional vacant lot or a larger, divisible lot There is no sini*le ncifihhorhood which is in need of complete renewal or rehabiUtation ’ We feel the dominant land ownership along one street and programmatic and complete renewal of Westlake is contrary to this intention. As we hopefully begin raising our three small children on the lake, we look forward to preserving the traditions of our neighborhood. The essential character, we believe, has moic to do wi;h the people of Westlake than a developer ’s vision. Families like the Anderson’s, Olson’s, and the Hauer’s have lived there for decades, raised himilies, and defined that character We have already spent hours under our backyard trees talking willi them and were instantly offered the use of their docks for this summer as ours is in disrepair. For us. that is the essential character of Weslakc, and of Orono, that is in need of preservation. We arc blessed to have the opportunity to picserve this neighborhood as one of homes and families of many types and sizes We lespcctfiilly request your support in domg so. Best regards, Kevin and Julie Fitzpatrick Maple Grove, MN run DATE ' S/. 38 0511723210013 ROPADDR 340 WESTI>KE ST IWNERNAMB CKHARRERATRHARRER 'axpayer cvnthiak a timothy r marker IAME/ADDR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511721230023 .ROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIONEO )WNERNAME ROBERT D ERICKSON •AXPAYER ROBERT D ERICKSON MMBAODI. «0 WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0511723230027 •ROPADDR 389 WESTLAKE ST 3WNERNAME JANET DONALDSON fAXPAYER JANET DONALDSON 4AME/ADDR 389WESTUKEST long LAKE MN 55356 38 0511721210043 *R0PADDR 364 WESTLAKE ST JWNERNAME JKSHIELOSrt4R SHIELDS TW tAXPAVelt JAN60EA MICHAELSHiaOS xambaow 5I25CORD 101 »2I0 MINNETONKA MN 55145 HENNEPIN COEjnV EROP^ 38 051I72J230CI4 PROP ADDR 348 WESTLAKE ST OWNER NAME ROBERT A OLSON taxpayer ROBERT a OLSON NAME/ADDR 3<8 WESTLAKEST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723230024 PROP ADDR 341 WESTLAKEST OWNER NAME ROBERT D ERJCKSON taxpayer ROBERT D ERICKSON NAME/ADDR 600 TWELVE oaks CTR dr 4654 WAYZATAMN 55391 18 0511723230039 PROP ADDR 332 WESTLAKEST OWNER NAME B M OICHANICH A M B JANSSEN TAXPAYER B M OICHANICH & M B JANSSEN NAME/ADDR 332 WESTLAKEST LONG LUCE MN 55356 38 0511723210044 PROP ADDR 372 WESTLAKEST OWNER NAJ.1E ROBERT D ERJCKSON taxpayer ROBERTD ERJCKSON NAME/ADDR 15500 WAYZ a TA BLVD*754 WAYZATAMN 55391 vformation system JUST PAGE; I 38 0511723730015 PROP ADDR 356 WESTLAKEST OWNER NAME EC ANDERSON CTAL Taxpayer dokna m anderson NAME/ADOR 10287 tenner aye SE DELANO MN 5532S 38 0511723230025 PROP ADDR 349 WESTLAKEST OWNERNAME CRMC.NAB&RGMCNAO TAXPAYER ROBERT A CYNTHIA MCNAB NAME/ADDR 177 PENINSULA ROAD medicine LAJCEMN 55441 38 0511723230042 PROP ADDR 365 WESTLAKEST OWNERNAME ROBERT D ERICKSON TAXPAYER ROBERT OERiCKSON NAME/ADDR OW TWELVE OAKS CTR DR *654 WAYZATAMN 55391 r t OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMEJiLJO OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF.^^^^ t t REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ‘"ACTING 2 7 2004 ' y OF ORONO DATE: September 27,2004 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: Request for Sanitary Sewer 701 Dickey Lake Drive This is a vacant lot in the Dickey Lake Drive subdivision that has never been built on. This subdivision was plated in the 1980's. Since the wetland regulations have changed after this lot was platted, a wetland delineation was recently completed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. This lot is 2.40 acres in size with 0.15 acres of wetland and is confonnance with the 2.0 acres of dry buildable land zoning requirement. There are no suitable septic sites, on tliis property, that conform to the current septic regulations, so the provision of sewer service for this lot has been requested. This area was added to the MUSA in the City’s recently approved yea; 2000 to 2020 Community Management Plan and is eligible for sewer ser\'ice with the property responsible for payment of the total cost for the utility extension. Sewering of this lot will require a City project for the installation of500 ’ of 8” diameter gravity from the existing sewer on the west side of Willow Drive to the eastern side of the lot. We are recommending that the sewer be Jacked or directionally bored under Willow Drive in order to maintain trafllc on Willow Drive. The sewer will be installed in the street right of way on the north side of Dickey Lake Drive. The estimated cost for this sew er c.xtcnsion is $61,000, and the property owner will need to sign an assessment waiver requesting to be assessed for the total cost of this project before installation of the sewer is completed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the provision of sanitary' sewer service to 701 Dickey Lake Drive contingent on the property owner signing an assessment waver agreeing to be assessed for tlic total project costs for a City project to extend sewer to the parcel, with the sewer under Willow Drive to be jacked or directionally bored in order to maintain tralTic flow on Willow Drive. I 9 u r WILLOW Omi/F ’ <fi /V/; * ' ‘ w V'T •* >. , .w e f ^ y • X • ’'>1 r’X i •-.- - ■ k ■’ '> ' 'A '» V, 'S .. ^ M ' /• ' .y' // OKlcf) LMcf tK b> ,. -I ■» •?«-«)i:»'yf r> i ^ f ' ! -.'I*-'*’'<- ..iir:sfM "> U.u ^ m «^axSrx'-sai^*'4 ' ' N ; -i;^ i • ! 600 Feet ktr-AnWMitfS-w. Ml III Mir ruth f^»Mr iri AillaiaS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ••CCTIKJQ SEP 2 7 2004 CITY OF ORONO DATE: September 27,2004 11 EM NO.: 9 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: Approve Purchase of Vactor Truck Remote Hose Reel The 2004 Sewer Fund Capital budget includes $25,000 for the purchase of a remote hose reel for the sewer cleaning Vactor truck. The City has a lot of sanitary sewer located through lakeshore yards and other offroad areas that are not accessible for the Vactor truck, or if it is accessible it is difficult to get the large truck into tliese areas without causing lawn and other property damage. This remote hose reel machine which is light weight and designed for off road travel will allow access to sewer lines through yards in which it not possible to use the Vactor truck. We have researched several different types and brands of this equipment and are recommeiiding acceptance of the quote for a Sreco brand machine from Flexible Pipe Tool Company. We have talked to other area cities tliat have this same machine, and they have been very satisfied with its performance. Sreco EMSP-6 Self Propelled Hose Reel with 500’ of Hose 6.5% Sales Tax Total Cost COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: $19,500 $1,280 $20,780 Approve purchase of a remote hose reel for the sewer cleaning Vactor truck from Flexible Pipe Tool Company, St. Cloud, Minnesota at a total cost of $20,780 to be funded from the year 2004 Sewer Fund Capital Outlay Budget. > * .' V,i- •• r 7.•>•••'■ ] 2-n .!I - YUuZL. A. Overall Height............. 553/4 B. Wheel Base Length------------------39” C. Overall Length------------------------- 733A 0. Overall Width................................ 333/4 standard Hose Reel Holds 600' of 1” Hose. Narrow Design for Easy Level-Wind Operation 360 Degree Turning Radius Power Steering Hydraulic 4-Wheel Drive-Variable Speed (No Chains) Forward, Neutral, and Reverse Hydraulic Controls 20 H.P. Air Cooled Engine Uses Nozz'es & Root Cutters Hose Guide Easement Rollers Available Outrigging Stabilizers Optional Dual Tires Optional Footage Counter The sleek, trim line of the (EMSP-6) Self Propelled Easement Machine makes it easy to maneuver through standard 36" gate openings. Its low center of gravity and side to side balance make it one of the safest machines to operate. • ‘..r . ‘..'jt-. . ’ t .* ■■ P O BOX 1441 LIMA.0H4Sa02U.S A. 419/991-206S 800/S37-3592 FAX 419/999-230 i FLEXIBLE<D P.O. BOX 2957 CULVEB CITY. CA 90231 U S A. 213/301-900! 800/852-n2V ilNSlOE CA) FAX 213/301-6232 aOO/421-6936 (OUTSIDE Ct #• ^ •1 r ’• W -1 y «4 . . « w ■ w ^ '* - y. . » -UthQ. in U S A r ^j< r. wtr:• Cni »M/^H ••r-frXIigQ SEP 2 7 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: September 27.2004 ITEM NO.: /D Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Director’s Report Item Description: Approve Rehabilitation o*f Lift Station ^11 Partenwood Road Lift Station Number 27. which is located at the end of Partenwood Road, w as constructed in 1973. The top of the station is set too low and during heavy r.''ins water ponds on top of the station resulting in stormwater flow leaking into the lift station contributing to the City's I&I problem. Tliis station also has Model 3110 Flygt pumps which are not being manufactured anymore, so everv' year it is more expensive and difficult to repair and service the pumps. Over the last several years, we have been working on a program to upgrade the.se older lift station pumps to recent model pumps. The original control panel in this station is nearing the end of its service life and also does not have any room in the panel to add SCADA to this lift station. The most practical and economical solution would to complete a project to raise the top of the lift station, install new access covers, upgrade to Model 3127 Flygt pumps with a new guide rail system, and install a new control panel with provisions for the future installation of u SCADA system module. Our recommendation is for acceptance of the quotation for rehabilitation of Lift Station Number 27 from Flectric Pump. Minneapolis Minnesota in the amount of $33,200. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Approve rehabilitation of Lift Station Number 27 by Electric Pump Inc.. Minneapolis. Minnesota at a total cost of $33,200 to be funded from the year 2004 Sewer Fund Capital Outlay Budget with approval of a budget adjustment to reflect tliis expenditure. \ , • i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION »/iCCT|fyJQ oEP 2 7 2004 DATE; 9/27/04 cry OF ORONOITEM NO: ^ ^ ™ Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Stephany G Tide: Chief of Police Item Description; Accept 2002 Minnesota Anti-Terrorism Grant Exhibits: DISCUSSION; The Orono Police Department participated as a partner in a multi-agency joint anti-terrorism training exercise hosted by the Medina and West Hennepin Department of Public Safety in conjunction with the Hennepin County Division of Emergency Picparedness on June 21, 2004. The grant covered the cost of overtime for training and back-filling shift coverage in the amount of $461.68. COUNCIL ACTION REOUF^TED; Motion to accept Minnesota Anti-Terrorism Training Grant in the amount of $468.98. i TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST Course: 800 MHz training Table Top Exercise / Terrorist Training Date(s) : June 21, 2004 Department Orono Police Department Overtin* Reimbursement Requestedi NAME RATE HOURS TOTAL Steohanv Good 159.85 $239.40 Scott Boris $39 $156.00 Backfill Cost Reimbursement Requested: NAME RATE HOURS TOTAL William Persel1 $16.57 $66.28 Grand Total Reinibursement Requested: $461.68 Jurisdiction: Orono Police Department Contact person: Stephany Good Phone: 952.249.4700 Elmail: sgood@ci .orono.mn.us PLEASE RETURN TO WAYNE NEHRENZ AT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Fax 763^78-4001 or wayne.r.nahrenzOco.hennapin.mn.us Hennepin County Public Works Administration Hennepin Emergency Preparedness Division 1600 Prairie Drive Medina. MN 55340-S421 763-745-7625. Phone 763 478-4001. Fax 763-478 4030.TDD www.hennepin*u5 August 16,2004 Ms. Stephany Good, Police Chief City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Dear Chief Good; We have received the final round of reimbursements from the 2002 Minnesota Anti-Terrorism Training Grant. You’ll find enclosed a check in the amount of $468.98. I want to thank you for taking advantage of this unique funding opportunity for first responder training. If you have any questions about this reimbursement, please contact me at 763-745-7623. Sincendy, Wayne Nehrenz Emergency Preparedness Coordinator WN:ea cc: Ms. Barbara Peterson, Mayor An tmtoi Ot>poftunnv tnypijyff Re^ nfea r Series 62 IF QUESTIONS CALL PAY ENTITY VENDOR DATE CHECK NUMBER | 612 348-2976 GADD *C11140203 00 08/12/2004 I 62478751 DATE INVOICE CREDIT MEMO TYPE DESCRIPTION GROSS DISCOUNT NET 080404 A659738 468.98 TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT (2002 MN TRAINING GRANT) TOTAL 468.98 0.00 0.00 468.98 468.98 k $ 6 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 \\1 , • 1 1i i 1 1 .. NON-NEGOTIABLE (DETACH BEFORE DEPOSITING) ■r-- HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA XIROWCjIDION THEjfAGC AND.AN-ARTinGlAryMri PMAnKs 0EOTAT AN ANGt t TO VIt ^ MONTWOAY/YEAR 08/12/2004 I PAY FOUR HUNDRED SIXTV-EIGHT DOLLARS NINETY-EIGHT CENTS 62478751 17-2«10 TO . ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT THE PO BOX 86 ORDER CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 OF i •»' -T» > • ■ 4^* ■ > •*r Amount 4o5 •SMI I ( CHAM. BOARD U COUNn COMMISSIONERS U 8.BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ISnnMpollf, ISnnMola r^XlNfr AOMMiSTHAT j «*& 21.78 75 i:0<UOD00 2 2i: 40i«7 7 5a&b ! REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COHM/^II ••r-i-xiMQ SEP 2 7 2004 DATE: 9/27/04 ciTY Of OHOno ITEM NO: /Qu Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: StephanyGoc Title: Chief of Police Item Description: Accept Resignation of Part Time CSO Joseph Patrick Lee Exhibits: DISCUSSION: Part Time Community Service Officer Joe Lee has served Orono and the seven contract cities since October 2000. Joe performed animal control duties, support to the City of Orono, and a wide variety of duties to which contributed to the support maintenance and daily operations of the police ctepartment. Joe has taken a full time job in the private sector. He plans to work until October 3,2004. The police department requests permission to interview eligible candidates from an existing list which was established ^ !arch 2004, and to extend an offer of employment to one part time CSO candidate pending the completion of a successful background investigation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED : Motion to accept resignation of Part Time Community Service Offer Joseph Patrick Lee. Motion to extend offer of employment to FT CSO candidate based on existing list, interview, and background investigation. i ;5 I i September 17,2004 Sgt. Kurt EricksoD, 1 regret to inform you that 1 have accepted a fiiU time job outside of law enforcement. I begin the job immediately. The last day I will be available for work at OPD is October 3, 2004. 1 do want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to work with the Orono Police Department. It has been a wonderful place to work. I have learned so much from the ofGcers I worked with and supervisors that I have worked with. Please understand that this was a hard decision to m^e to leave Orono Police. 1 am still aspiring to become a police ofiDcer in the future, and know that Orono Police will be the first department I think of when 1 complete school. Again, thank you for the opportunity to work with the Orono Police Department. 1 will greatly miss the job. ITiank.s again. 7= Joseph P. Lee REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 24,2004 ITEM NO: |3 »«crrTING SEP 2 7 2004 CITY OF ORONO Department Approval: Name Ronald J. Moorse THIc City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: Highsvay 12 Turnback Consultant Scope of svork and Contract 'I'hc joint Long Lakc/Orono Highway 12 Turnback Committee has been meeting nearly every Monday morning for the past nine months to gather inforniatiou and identify the key issues related to the turnback of current Highway 12 from the State to the County when new Highway 12 is completed. The Highway 12 turnback provides a unique opportunity to rethink the function and design if this roadway to match the types of land use envisioned along Highway 12. The Turnback Committee has held three open meetings to obtain input from public officials, the business community, and the general public regarding the key elements of a vision for the Highway 12 corridor. The ne.xt steps are to translate this vision into a roadway design, and an aesthetic (landscape/streetscapc) design, and to work to obtain County approval of the design. This process requires specialized engineering and landscape planning expertise and capabilities. The Committee has interviewed three engineering consultants to provide the necessary e.xperiise. 'The Committee is recommending WSB, who has partnered with Hoisington Koegler, an urban planning consultant, to provide the necessary technical assistance. A copy of the scope of work and budget for this assistance is attached. The total cost for the consultant work is $79,430. Orono and Long Lake will share the costs of the consultant equally. One-half of the costs will be paid in 2004, and one-half will be paid in 2005. The 2005 budget includes funding for these costs. The 2004 costs will be funded from the General Fund Contingency Account. COUNCIL AC T ION REQUESTED Motion to approve the hiring of W.SR and Hoisington Koegler to provide consultant services related to the turnback of Highway 12, as set out in the attached Scope of Work, at a cost of $79,430, these costs to be shared equally by Orono and Long l ake, and to be paid one-half in 2004 and one-half in 2005; and to authorize the Ma\ or and City Administrator to sign the contract with WSB and Hoisington Koegler. subject to review by the City Attorney; and to approve a budget adjustment to reflect the $20,000 expenditure in the General Fund in 2004. August 18,2004 Preliminary Scope of Work Long Lakc-Orono TH 12 Turnback Project INTRODUCTION WSB and HKGi have put together a preliminary work program based on our understanding of the Cities’ objectives for the TH 12 Turnback Study and our understanding of the data and information that will be available to conduct the study. It is our understanding that the objective of this study is to put together an overall concept plan (layout) for old TH 12 through Long Lake and Orono that will facilitate the long­ term land use visions of Long Lake and Orono for this con idor and that utilizes the funding sources available in the best way possible for implementation of the plan. The concept plan would include two components: a roadway layout plan and a landscape/aesthctic design plan. The roadway layout plan will show numbet and widths for through lanes, location. length and w idth of turn lanes; shoulder w idlhs; median locations and widths; boulevard widths, trail and sidewalk locations and widths; existing and proposed right-of-way; location of traffic signals; construction limits; and location of retaining walls. The landscape/aesthetic design plan would show proposed land.scaping or treatments for the area behind the curbs and if appropriate w'ithin the medians on the roadway. The roadway layout plan would incorporate the access, features and space that would be needed to facilitate the cities* land use vision for the con idor while meeting County design criteria. This would be accomplished tluough an iterative design process involving ihc Cities and County. The land use overview/vision would provide the framework for development of the roadway layout plan by defining where access is needed, where trails or sidewalks are appropriate, and the type of space needed for landscape or ae.sthetic design treatments. An initial roadway layout will be de\ eloped incorporating these elements while attempting to meet County design criteria. WSB and HKGi would work with the I II 12 Turnback Committee to develop this initial layout. Once an initial plan is developed it will be presented to the County. It is anticipated that se\eial iterations of the roadway plan will be needed to get to a plan th.it both the County and the Cities can approve, fhe landscape/aesthetic design will be refined as consensus develops on the roadway layout. Project costs will be developed and refined throughout the process along with potential funding sources for different project elements to provide a basis for City and County decision making. Listed below are the tasks we believe are needed to accomplish the above objectives. 1. Data Collection 1 It is our understanding that most of the data that would be required for the project is available from the cities, Hennepin County or Mri/'DOT in GIS and/or CAD formats. Data that would be required include the following: MnDOT Traffic forecasts and documentation including existing traffic counts (We will need forecast turning movements at signalized intersections) Hennepin County ’s Access Management Plan City’s Priority List of Features and Access Needs Memorandum of Understanding/Tumback Agreement TH 12 Plans - General Layout City Comprehensive Plans Long Lake Downtown Master Plan Current Aerial Photo of the Corridor Topographic Map of the Study Area with minimum 2 foot contours Deliverable: Summarv of Existing Conditions and Goals and Objectives 2. Best Practices Assist the Cities in identifying best practices in the areas of corridor planning and turnback process. The purpose of this task is to identify what has worked and what hasn ’t in the area of downtown redevelopment and turnback projects. WSB and HKGi will identify other similar projects that have been implemented over the last 10 years and the key feature' of those projects that arc relevant to the TH 12 Turnback project. Specific projects that will be considered include but are not limited to Shakopce TH 169 turnback, Cambridge, TH 3 in Rosemount, and TH 96 in Ramsey County. Specific items that will be documented arc project improvements (number of lanes, access, etc.), project amenities provided, project costs and funding (broken down by elements), agency receiving jurisdiction over road, impact on existing development (what businesses succeeded and what businesses moved), redevelopment that occurred and why, things that worked out very well and things the city would have done differently, WSB and HKGi will work with the Cities of Long Lake and Orono to identify other items relative to these projects lliat are of interest to the cities. Deliverable: Summary of elements of other similar projects 3. Review MnDOT traffic projections and challenge assumptions as appropriate Tlie purpose of this task is to review the basis for MuDOT’s traffic projections for old Til 12 and determine if the traffic projections are appropriate as well as what measures can be taken to keep tlirough traffic volumes on old TH 12 from increasing. The traffic forecasts will be modified if appropriate and used to determine the type of facility needed on old TH 12. The review will include consideration of other routes such as CSAH 6 that are a potential alternative to TH 12. a. b. c. d. c. f. Obtain projections and reports from MnDOT and Hemiepin County supporting traffic projections for TH 12 Corridor. Obtain Hennepin County travel model and review assumptions and projections in model for the study area. Review land use and trip generation assumptions used to develop projections and determine if these are appropriate. Review transportation network assumptions relative to speeds, capacity, other links in the system and centroid connections to determine if they are appropriate. Where appropriate modify land use. trip generation, and network assumptions to determine the impact on traffic volumes. Develop final set of traffic projections that can be presented to MnDOT and Hennepin County along with assumptions .supporting the projections. These projections will form the basis for the proposed improvements on TH 12. Deliverable: Memorandum documenting recommended traffic forecasts and basis of assumptions for the forecasts. 4. Land Use and Aesthetic Improvements Overv iewA'ision The purpose of this task is to verify the validity of existing planning documents and past planning actions. The result of this effort will be the validation or modification of the land use and aesthetic goals that have been identified in the past, particularly as stated in the Long Lake Downtown Master Plan and Redevelopment Guidelines. HKGi will: a. b, c. Review the existing market analysis (Maxfield). Orono and Long Lake Comprehensive Plans, and Long Lake Downtown Master Plan, and Plaiming Commission input. Meet with the Turnback Committee to review directions and confirm baseline planning and design assumptions. Where appropriate, assist the cities in clarifying long-term land use visions for '1H12, particularly between May Street and Old Crystal Bay Road. The land use review will include the identification of property acce.ss options and their impact on resulting land use patterns. The land use/acccss information will be used as an input to Task 5 (c). Assemble a concept plan that examines future land use scenarios and explores varying means of implementing the identified aesthetic goals for the conidor. Create a set of streetscape vignettes that depict varying means of implementing the aesthetic goals for the corridor. The vignettes will focus primarily on the areas that lie outside the curb. They will depict differing levels of improvements along the corridor depending on existing and future land uses. Prepare preliminary cost estimates for the impro\ cments shown in each of the vignettes. Cost information will be generalized (dollars per lineal foot) f. allowing a comparison of level of improvement and overall project costs for landscaping and aesthetic elements. Meet with the Turnback Committee to review the land use concept and the landscape/aesthetic improvement vignettes to define preferred directions. Deliverable: Updated future land use concept for lands adjacent to the corridor. Series of streetscape vignettes and associated costs. S. Development of Roadway/Traffic Concept Plan The purpose of this task is to develop a roadway/traffic concept plan that incorporates the access, trails, sidewalks, and boulevard space required to meet the land use aesthetic vision for the corridor while meeting the critical County design criteria. a. b. c. d. e. f. Review traffic forecasts and county access management plan to understand the counties vision for the corridor. Review the cities priority lists, land use and access plans, and vision for the corridor. Identify access options and develop access plan to serve cunent and future land uses along TH 12. Prepare an initial roadway layout showing proposed typical cross-section and access points that incorporates cities desires and meets critical County design criteria. Meet with City Turnback Committee. City staff, Hennepin County and MnDOT and refine roadway layout as appropriate to address issues and concerns raised by various groups. Prepare preliminary cost estimates for different project elements and identify potential funding sources for each element. Deliverable: Approved Roadway/Traffic Concept Plan Along with Preliminary Cost Estimates 6. Provide On-Going Guidance and Advocacy in Working w ith Hennepin County and MnDOT on the follow ing: The purpose of this task is to get Hermepin County and MnDOT to favorably consider the cities’ plans for the corridor and assist in funding to the greatest extent feasible. This will be accomplished by presenting information developed in this study to MnDOT and Hcmicpin County. WSB and HKGi will also provide advice and recommendations to the cities regarding other effective lobbying opportunities during the process. Deliverable: Advice and recommendations on plan elements and funding sources. 7. Assemble Landscape/Aesthetic Elements Concepts r Coordinated with the traffic plan prepared in previous tasks, HKGi will prepare the final landscape/aesthetic concept. The concept plan will be prepared by combining the vignette plans assembled and reviewed under task 3 into a continuous concept for the entire corridor. The concept plan will depict general locations and types of improvements that are planned behind the curb as well as in median areas as appropriate. P.ie plan will call out the locations of plant material, lighting, walkways, trails, retaining wal' i and landscaping. Refine preliminar>' cost estimates as needed. Deliverable: Corridor-wide landscaping and aesthetic elements improvements plan. 8. Public Involvement/Plan Approval The purpose of this task is to provide a process for involving the planning commissions and city councils along with businesses into the plan development. It is our understanding that there has been good involvement in the project so far and that the Joint TH 12 Turnback committee will have the primary responsibility for communication with businesses, plaiuhng commission and city council members relative to the plans that arc being developed. WSB and HKGi will provide the committee with the information and graphics needed to explain and illustrate concepts and plans. In addition. WSB and HKGi will prepare for and hold a general open house to explain the process and plans as well as a joint meeting of the Long Lake and Orono planning commissions and city councils. These meetings will be held after the initial land use and roadway/traffic plan are developed but prior to finalizing the plans. If additional meetings are necessary they would be billed on a per meeting basis. Deliverable: Public input and plan approval. 9. Prepare Final Report A final Corridor Report will be prepared documenting the information developed in the previous tasks. The purpose of the Report is to document the plan and the reasons for tlic different plan elements for future City Councils to refer to. so that the plan can be implemented over an extended time period. Deliverable: Final Corridor Report and Plan Documentation ^ss ifi Associates, hie. Work Plan and Estimate of Cost TH 12 Turnback Cities of Long Lake and Orono Hennepin County. Minnesota Estimated Hours | Cost 1 t i 1 Sr. Engineer Principal , /Planner Project Engineer | /Planner t Sr. Tech/ Graduate Engineer Engineering Tech Clerical Total Hours Tiuk ifcMtnptittn 1_________1 B 1___________1__________1 1 DATA COLLECTION 2 8 _____1 -i__14 $ 1.240 00 1 ________LT^ 2 BEST PRACTICES 8 1 16 40 i 4 68 S 5.704 00 ■ IB 1 1 J TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS 24 i 16 \16 96 4 156 $ ___13.02400 1 4 LAND USE OVERVIEW/VISION L _________: . .----------$ " 5 ROADWAV TR/\FFIC CONCEPT PLAN 24 i 16 1 44 ' 112 8 204 $_____16.718^00^ ^ ■! 1 i ! » _______i--------------- 6 ON-GOING GUIDANCE 1 n S .............................................. .. . 7 LANDSCAPE/AESTIIETIC FINAL CONCEPTS i_ 1 5 ’S ‘4“.l3r2'00 . .. 1 ____ 8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/PLAN APPROVAL 16 1 16 8 40 M . ■ ■ ■■■■ 1- _1 TT final corridor report 16 1 8 24 32 1 4 84 $ 7.212 00 1 1 1 ! IT oIiiI Hour*90 ' 80 92 1 280 1 24 566 llhniHy Ouh 11600 1 101 00 82 50 74 00 1 50 00 1 -----L—------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RT oIb I Labor ICmiElKIMIiEi]S7390.00 1 J20.720.00 | SI.200.00 $48,030.00 iReproduction .\ 1,500 00 S 2.000 00 $3.500 00 It OTAL WSB COST S5L530.00 1 $27,900.00 $79,430.00 r H K Work Plan and Estimate of Cost TH 12 Turnback Cities of Long Lake and Orono Hennepin County, Minnesota r. TtMG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: September 24,2004 ITEM NO: / ^ SEP 2 7 2004 CITY OF ORONO Department Approval: Name Ronald J. Moorse Tide City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: Letter to LMCD Regarding Tributaries Resolution Attached is a letter from the LMCD requesting input from the LMCD member cities regarding a draft resolution related to the LMCD’s loss of jurisdiction over three tributaries to Lake Minnetonka. At its recent meeting, the LMCD Board heard comments regarding this issue. Orono was represented at the meeting by Lili McMillan and Deb Halvorson. Gabriel Jabbour also attended the meeting. The message the City would like to give to the LMCD is that while Orono supports the work of the LMCD in protecting the lake, the issues related to the tributaries are best handled at the City level, and Orono has demonstrated a commitment to protecting its natural resources. 1 am working with Lili and Gabriel to draft a letter to the LMCD. The letter will be provided to the Council prior to the Council meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to authorize sending a letter to the LMCD related to the tributaries resolution. ; i BOARD MEMBERS Tcm Skramstad Chair, Shorewood Katy VanHercke Vice Chair. Minnetonka Jose Vaidesuso Secretary, Excelsior Paul Knudsen Treasurer. Mmnetrisla Bob Ambrose Wayiata Doug Babcock Tonka Bay Oiv Burma Mound Miles Canning Greenwood Ben Foster Deophavcn Debbie Halvorson Orono Pete Nelson Victoria Torn Scanlon Spring Park Torn Sountjens MinnotonKa Beach- Herb Suerth Woodland o S0% R«cvd«a Conlini 20% Putt Cw!'W)tai ^Mie LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1B338 MINNcTONKA BLVD • DEEPHAV6N. MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 952/745 0789 • FAX 552/745-9085 Cfcgory s. Nybeck. executive Director August 12.2004 Mr. Ron Moorse City Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 c;' .■ ■ — 1.-• lV.i Dear Mr Moorse: In June 2002, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Directors adopted LMCD Ordinance 178. This ordinance prohibits the use of motorized watercraft on Six Mile Creek. Painter's Creek west of County Road 110, and Long Lake Creek upstream from the railroad trestle. Electric trolling motors are allowed in these parts of Lake Minnetonka as long as they comply with the specifications outlined in the ordinance. Enclosed is a copy of this ordinance. Laws of Minnesota 2004, Chapter 225, Section 43 was recently passed by the state legislature that stripped the LMCD of its jurisdictior in Six Mile Creek. The legislation was sponsored locally by State Senator Gen Olson and Representative Steve Smith and was done without consulting the LMCD, the City of Minnetrista, the MN DNR, the MCWD, and a variety of other interest parlies. The LMCD is currently thinking about how to react to this legislative decision. At its July 28.2004 Meeting, the LMCD Board of Directors discussed a draft resolution relating to the jurisdiction of the LMCD and supporting the repeal of Laws 2004, Chapter 255, Section 43. Although the LMCD Board of Directors took no action on the draft resolution at this Regular Meeting, further discussion is planned sometime in the next 60 days. In the meantime, the LMCD Board of Directors would like input and comments on the two enclosed draft sample resolutions from the 14 LMCD member cities. One sample resolution has been prepared for review and comments by the 14 LMCD member cities. As noted earlier, the second sample resolution will be considered by the LMCD Board of Directors in the next 60 days Please forward the sample resolutions for review and comments by your city council during the month of August. If possible, the LMCD would like to have comments back from the 14 LMCD member cities by Tuesday, September 7,2004. Please feel free to contact LMCD Executive Director Greg Nybeck if you have questions or concerns relating to this matter. Sincerely, Tom Skramstad. Chair LMCD Board of Directors Web Page Address: hi1p://www.lmcd.org E-mail Address: imcd0imcd org LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT STAl E OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. .L78 AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE USE OF MOTORIZED WATERCRAFT ON CERTAIN PARTS OF LAKE MINNETONKA; ADDING NEW SECTION 3.022. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LAKE MINNETONTCA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ORDAINS as follows: Section I. LMCD Code is amended by adding new Section 3.022 as follows: Section 3.022. Use of Motorboats Prohibited. Subd. 1. Prohibition. No person, other than authorized law cnforceinent personnel or eovcnimental resource management personnel in performance of their dulies. shall operate a motorboat using propulsion bv machinery in anv of the following areas; a) Six Mile Creek from the mouth of the creek (located at a line between Latitude 44° 54.844* Noilh. Longitude 93° 42.166’ We.st and Latitude 44^^ 54.831 ’ North. Longitude 93° 42.13S* West) unstream to the right of wav of State lliuhwav 7. b) Painter’s Creek we.st of Countv Road 110 (located at Latitude 44°. 57.723* North. Longitu de 093°. 30.931* West) jipsLieaill to the contour line at elevation 929.4 NGVD. ^ L-ftnfi-l ^akc Creek from the railroad trestle (located at a line between Latitude 44°. 57 793* North. 1 oneitude 093°. 33.860* West and Latitude 44°. 57.806* NoQh._Lqngi tude 093°. 33.842* West), upstream to the contour line at elevation 929.4 NGVD. Subd■ 2. Aiils to Navigation. If such areas in which use of motorboats usim; propulsion bv machiners' is prohibited are delineated by signs, buovs. markers or other aids to navigation bv the District or by the County, the location indicated by such aids to navigation .shall control. S.uud, 3. Exception. The prohibition in Subdi\'ision 1 shall not apply to anv watercraft that is 24 feet in leneth overall or less and that is being propelled bv a single electric motor that has only a single propeller and is not capable of generating more than 60 pounds of thrust at its maximum operating voltage. Length o\ crall means the horizontal measurement from the foremost to the aftermost points of the watercraft, including all equipment and attachments in their normal operating positions. CLL-2!64Uvl ixno-4 1 Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective the day following its publication. Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors this 26'*^ dav of ATTEST: Albert O. Foster^ Chair (R. Lili McMillan, Secretary Date of Publication: July 2.2002 Effective Date: July 3,2002 (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CLt-2l64S3vl UCIIO-4 L r STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF________ CITY OF___________ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND SUPPORTING THE REPEAL OF LAWS 2004. CHAPTER 255, SECTION 43 WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (“LMCD* or “the District") is a special purpose political subdivision of the State, created pursuant to Laws 1967, Chapter 907 and Laws 1969, Chapter 272, later codified as Minnesota Statutes. Sectiotis 103B.601 through 103B.645; and WHEREAS. Minnesota Statutes. Sections 103B.641 and 103B.611 grant to the LMCD the powers to undertake research to determine the condition and development of Lake Minnetonka (“the Lake'), to develop a comprehensive program to eliminate pollution, to regulate the types of boats permitted to use the Lake and the use of various parts of the Lake, and to regulate the construction and maintenance of docks on the Lake: and WHEREAS, over the last thirty-seven years the LMCD has developed a comprehensive regulatory program governing the use and development of the Lake to protect and preserve the Lake as a vital environmental and recreational resource of the State; and WHEREAS, in 2002, the LMCD began a detailed review of the effect of the present and future use and development of Six Mile Creek, Painters CreeK and Long Lake Creek; and WHEREAS, this review was a well publicized, open, public legislative process that took nearly two years; and WHEREAS, the LMCD solicited and carefully considered evidence and testimony from cities around the Lake, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Department of Natural Resources, the Lake Minnetonka Association, the Halsteds Bay Preservation Group, Three Rivers Park District, water quality experts and concerned citizens and landowners, many of whom were represented by legal counsel; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the conflicting or differing interests of the Lake ’s ecology and wildlife, riparian landowners, developers, and recreational users of the Lake, the LMCD adopted Ordinance No. 178 on June 26,2002; and WHEREAS. Ordinance No. 178 prohibits the use of gas motors on certain parts of Six Mile Creek, Painters Creek and Long Lake Creek, thereby limiting the use of those areas to canoes, kayaks and similar craft and boats using electric motors; and WHEREAS. Ordinance No. 178 represents a compromise that preserves these sensitive wetland areas for the quiet enjoyment of boaters, protects wildlife, and substantially reduces the increased Dow of nutrients into the Lake caused by gas motors sirring bottom sediment into the water column moving into the CLL-25IOIJvl LKI10-4 1 i STATE OF MINNESOTA UKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.______ A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND SUPPORTING THE REPEAL OF LAWS 2004, CHAPTER 255, SECTION 43 WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ("LMCD ’ or ‘the District') is a special purpose political subdivision of the State, created pursuant to Laws 1967, Chapter 907 and Laws 1969, Chapter 272, later codified as Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B.601 through 103B.645; and WHEREAS. Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B.641 and 103B.611 grant to the LMCD the powers to undertake research to determine the condition and development of Lake Minnetonka (‘the Lake"), to develop a comprehensive program to eliminate pollution, to regulate the types of boats permitted to use the Lake and the use of various parts of the Lake, and to regulate the constructbn and maintenance of docks on the Lake; and WHEREAS, over the last thirty-seven years the LMCD has developed a comprehensive regulator/ program governing the use and devetopment of the Lake to protect and preserve the Lake as a vital environmental and recreational resource of the State; and WHEREAS, in 2002, the LMCD began a detailed review of the effect of the present and future use and development of Six Mile Creek. Painters Creek and Long Lake Creek; and WHEREAS, this review was a well publicized, open, public legislative process that took nearly two years; and WHEREAS, the LMCD solicited and carefully considered evidence and testimony from cities around the Lake, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Department of Natural Resources, the Lake Minnetonka Association, the Halsteds Bay Preservation Group. Three Rivers Park District, water quality experts and concerned citizens and landowners many of whom were represented by legal counsel, and WHEREAS, after consideration of the conflicting or differing interests of the Lake ’s ecology and wildlife, ripanan landowners, developers, and recreational users of the Lake, the LMCD adopted Ordinance No. 178 on June 26.2002; and WHEREAS. Ordinance No 178 prohibits the use of gas motors on certain parts of Six Mile Creek, Painters Creek and Long Lake Creek, thereby limiting the use of those areas to canoes, kayaks and similar craft and boats using electric motors; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 178 represents a compromise that presences these sensitive wetland areas for the quiet enjoyment of boaters, protects wildlife, and substantially reduces the increased flow of nutrients into the Lake caused by gas motors stirring bottom sediment into the water column moving into the Lake, while still allowing reasonable use of these areas for watercraft owned by riparian owners using electric motors; and CU--:5I324*I LKIIO-4 1 r 1 \ WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature adopted Laws of Minnesota 2004 Chapter 255 Section 43, which removed Six Mile Creek from the jurisdiction of the LMCO; and WHEREAS, Laws of Minnesota 2004, Chapter 225, Section 43 was passed by the Legislature wittiout consultation with the cities around the Lake, the Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Lake Minnetonka Association, the Halsteds Bay Preservation Group, or the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District or any of its directors, and was passed without legislative heanngs; and WHEREAS, the LMCD is better able than other state or local agencies to devote the necessary time to the unique issues presented by Lake Minnetonka, afford appropriate protection to the environment and the pubfic health, safety and welfare, adopt and enforce regulations on a uniform lake-wide basis, and mediate the conflicting interests of the many stakeholders in Lake Minnetonka; and WHEREAS. Laws of Minnesota 2004, Chapter 255, Section 43 deprives certain areas of the Lake of the benefits and protection of the LMCD and its regulation of development and use of the Lake; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District that: 1,It would be in the public interest to repeal Laws of Minnesota 2004, Chapter 255, Section 43. 2.The District's legislative delegation is urged to repeal Laws of Minnesota 2004, Chapter 255, Section 43 at its earliest opportunity. The Chair is authorized and directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to the members of the District's legislative delegation and to take such other and further steps as deemed reasonable and appropriate to communicate the support of the District for such repeal. Adopted by the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District this ___day of _________2004. Tom Skramstad, Chair ATTEST; Jose Valdesuso, Secretary CLL-25I324VI LKIIO-4 I \ •iiTCTiMG SEP 2 7 2004 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: September 20, 2004 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name LinVee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City AdministratoYs Report Item Description: Appointment of 2004 General Election Judges • Resolution Background State Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2 states that election judges for precincts in a municipality must be appointed by the governing body of the municipality. Recommendation It is staffs recommendation that Council adopt the attached resolution listing the names of qualified persons who have indicated their willingness to serve as election judges at the General Election on November 2,2004. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution appointing election judges for the November 2,2004 General Election. A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 2,2004 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono is required by Minnesota Election Laws 204B.21, Subd. 2 to officially approve the appointment of election judges; and WHEREAS, the Orono City Council hereby appoints the judges listed on Exhibit A, hereto attached, as the official judges for the November 2, 2004 General Election, with the understanding that amendments may be necessary to the appointments in order to fill vacancies and meet party splits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono that the names listed on Exhibit A, hereto attached, are the official Election Judges for the City of Orono, General Election, November 2,2004. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held September 26,2004. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 1 of2 1 Exhibit A Election Judges for General Election on November 2,2004 Argabright, Barbara Jcllison, David Argabright, Jessica Jcllison, Susan Budig, Stacie Iordan, Matjic Butterfield, Loren Kielley, Donald Byers, Carolyn Krause, Nancy Carlson, Judy Landberg, Gale Carlson, Kenton Leskinen, Chelsea Carrier, Wayne Leskinen, Denise Connors, Kathy Long, Jennifer Cosgrove, Ann Mabustli, Jeanne DcBacre, Don McKee, Melvin Doherty, Mary Lou Menzel, Gretchen Doshan, Cheryl Mignone, Frank Ericson, Barbara Mussmann, Sara Essendrup, Raymond Nelson, Dawn Ferril, Eleanor (Lou)Oas, Daniel Finn, Doris (Doric)O'Brien, Randy Fitzpatrick, Joan O'Malley, Ph>llis Hagberg, Andrew Parten, Daniel Ilagbcrg, Marie Pettit, Sandy Hanning, Julie Printup, Aaron Hanson, Harold Pyle, Shirley Hawn, Elizabeth Rinehart, Dixie Haydock, Elaine Saiki, Emiko Henderson, Jeanette Sherf. Julie Hillstrom, Mark Silus, Barb Holm, Ame Thome, Maril>ii Hommeyer, Ann Toward, Helen Hommeyer, Charles Tritz, Suelbn Houtman, Katie Jo Twidwell, Nancy Houtman, Kristine Warolin, Nicole Houtman, Skyler Weaver, Janette Isle, Sherokee Wolverton, Wes Page 2 of2 IC^ CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register© rni iMr'M »4rr:Tl?\j(5/23/C4 1 49 PM Page 1 SEP 2 7 2004 CITY OF ORONO SEPTEMBER 2004 Chock Amt invoice Comment 10100 Primary Cash ......... Patd Chk# 078426 9/15/2004 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS E 101-41900-403 Repairs/Mainl-Misc Equip __(S774 35) 23223629 Total ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS ($774 35) Void Check ^78426 PaidChkl^ 078624 9/15/2004 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS E 101-419C0-413 Office Equipment Rental ($774 35) 23223829 Total ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS ($774 35) Void Ck #76624 Paid Chk» 079173 9/13>2004 PRAIRIE OFFSET E 101-45200-404 Repaifs/Mamt-Bldgs/Gfourds Total PRAIRIE OFFSET (S277 26) 93183 Void Check 79173 ($277 26) Paid Chk« 079212 ' 9/27/2004 A.J. GALLAGHER & CO OF MN. INC E 613-49830-370 F 101-42110-370 E 101-41900-370 E 602-49450-370 E 601-49400-370 Total A.J. Insurance Agent of Record Insurance Agent of Record Insurance Agent of Record Insurance Agent of Record Insurance Agent of Record GALLAGHER & CO OF MN. INC $7500 $910 00 $550 00 $185 00 $80 00 29407 29407 29407 29407 29407 4th Qtr Ins 4th Qtr ins 4th Qtr Ins 4ih Qtr Ins 4lh Qlf Ins Agent Fee Agent Fee Agent Fee Agent Fee Agent Fee $ 1.800 00 Paid Chk# 079213 9/27/2004 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS E 101-41900-403 Repaifs/Moint-Misc. Equip $760 40 027343102 copier lease 9/15-10/15/04 Total ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS $760 40 Paid Chk# *079214 9/27/2004 ALL AMERICAN GOLF E 613-49900-095 Pro Shop Items For Resa'c Total ALL AMERICAN GOLF $37 50 81891 Pro Shop Merch $37 50 Paid Chk# 079215 9/27/2004 AMERICAN SECURITY CABINETS E 601-49400-240 Small Tools and Mmor Equip E 602-49450-240 Small Tools and Minor Equ p Total AMERICAN SECURITY CABINETS $845 84 7264 $84584 7264 Payment Drop Box Payment Drop Box $1 691 68 Paid Chk# 079216 9/27/2004 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES E 101-41900-201 O^ice supplies $61 95 6013-405223 Coffee - CM Total ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES Paid Chk# 079217 ^ 9/27/2004 ARGABRIGHT, BARBARA E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular $61 95 $42 00 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION &TRA1N1NG Total ARGABRIGHT. BARBARA 9/27/20()4 ‘ aUGIES MOBILE CHEF $42 00 Paid ChWf 079218 E 613-49900-v 3 Concessions For Resale-Txpl ToUl AUGIES MOBILE CHEF $71 46 7516 Hot Dogs. Hamburgers $71.46 Paid Chk# '07921*9 9/27/2004 BCA/FORENSicYcfENCE LAB E 101-42110-437 Training & Development _____$45.00 6045655 ToUl BCAH^ORENSIC SCIENCE LAB $45 00 Inlox Recert • J. Johnson ’?»aid’ChkfroT9f20 ^9/27/2004 BlFFSlfTc. E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 101 -45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment RenUls E 101 -45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $199 62 $199.82 $124.82 $62.41 $62 41 $258.91 W233300 W233301 W233302 W233303 W233304 W233305 Portable • Portable • Portable - Portable • Portable - Portable Bederwood -Swmit - Hackbeny -GC • Crystal Bay -Navarre CITY OF ORONO t • 09/23/0< 1.49 PM ^ Page 2 Check Detail Register® SEPTEMBER 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment r ^1 Total BIFFS INC.$908.19 Paid Chk# 079221 9/27/2004 BIX. MILTON E 101-41410*104 Temporary Employees Regular Total BIX, MILTON $14 00 0914C4 PRI^MRY ELECTION &TRA1MNG $1400 Paid Chk# 079222 9/27/2004 BONESTROO ROSENE & ASSOC. E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-303 Engineering-Retainer E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting E 651-49910-304 Engir^eering-Consultlng E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 402-48030-304 Engineering-Consulting E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting E 406-48736-304 Engineering-Consulting E 406-48736-304 Engineering-Consulting E 402-48037-304 Engineering-Consulting E 402-48037-304 Engineering-Consulting G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const, in progress E 602-49450-304 Engineering-Consulting E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting E 601-49400-304 Engineering-Consulting E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting E 234-45680-304 Engineering-Consulting Total BONESTROO ROSENE & ASSOC. $163.76 111124 $9,918.64 111124 $50.00 111124 $268.66 111124 $1,240 80 111124 $2.094 00 111124 $290 00 111124 $99 00 111124 $397.66 111124 $235.23 111125 $168.00 111126 $887.00 111127 $12.248 16 111128 $2.790 50 111129 $10,36000 111130 $346 50 111131 $53302 111132 $6.21560 111134 $594.00 111135 $2.104 05 111136 $1.377 00 111137 Mileage 4 M;sc Exp June Stonebay Plat 02-2789 Council Mtg 7/12 Creekside Plat 04-3016 1925 Lakev ew Terrace 04-3007 Hwy 12-Morries Auto Drainage 1045 Willow View Rd Drainage Survey Wetland Overflow-PW Kelly Ave Plat 04-3032 Co Rd 19 Sidewalk-7/20C4 Stubbs Bay Rd erosion Ir^p Ferndale Rd Bndge Replace Ferndale Rd Bridge-Plans Fox St Bridge Replace Fox St B'idge Plans/Specs Phillips Swr Record Plans Hecmestead Rd Swr Record Pians Birchvicw Storm Sewer Nav Tower Reconditioning Casco Cove Storm Sewer Evaluate Barn Moving $52,381 58 Paid Chk# 079223 9/27/2004 BOYER FORD & TRUCK E 101-43000-222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts Total BOYER FORD & TRUCK $85.90 31933R Parts #426 $85.90 Paid Chk# 079224 ' 9/27/2004 BUTTERFIELD, LOREN E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total BUTTERFIELD. LOREN $119 00 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING $119 00 Paid Chk# 079225 9/27/2004 BYERS. CAROLYN N E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular ToUl BYERS. CAROLYN N ^ « 4 • M , $70 00 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING $70.00 Paid Chk# 079226 9/27/2004 CARRIER. WAYNE E. E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total CARRIER, WAYNE E. $115 50 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING Repair Kit $115 50 Paid Chk# 079227 ’ 9/27/2004 ClTYVIEW PLUMBING S HEATING E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $130 84 25218 Total ClTYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING $130 84 Paid Chk#'079226 9/27/2004 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION E 234-45680-412 Building Rentals $1.200 00 T79 213L2772 Lurton Lease 9/2004 E 234-45680-412 Building Rentals Tout COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION S1.200 00 T79 213L2772 Lurton Lease 1 C/2004 $2,400.00 Pay ciik# 079229 « A -mm 9/27/2004 COSGROVE. ANN E 101-11410-104 Temporafy Employees Regular $66.50 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING r i CITY OF ORONO 09/23/04 1:49 PM Page 3 Check Detail Register© SEPTEMBER 2004 Total COSGROVE. ANN Paid Chk# 079230 9/27/2004 DCA - WIRE ONLY G 101-21719 DCA/Spending Accounts Total OCA. WIRE ONLY $472 63 9/15/04 Flex Spending • 9/15/04 S472.63 Paid Chk# 079231 ‘ *9/27/2004 ’ DELTA DENTAL G 101-21709 Dental Insurance G 101-1599B Non-Employee Health Ins Total DELTA DENTAL $1,486.50 3722C072 $5670 37220072 Dental Ins - 10/2004 Dental Ins« 10/2CC4 $1,543 20 Paid Chk# 079232 9/27/2004 DERBY, LORIN E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total DERBY. LORIN $63 00 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING $63.00 Paid Ch'k# 0792331 ’9/27/2004'' OIESEN) MARTHA E. E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total DIESEN, MARTHA E. $1400 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING $14.00 PaidChk« 079234 9/27/2004 DOCK & LIFT INC E 651-49910-404 Repa.rs/Maint-Bidgs/Grounds $1,950.00 6706 Rip Rap - Cty 19 Lake Access Total DOCKS LIFT INC Paid Chk# 079235 9/27/2004 ' DOHERTY, MARY LOU E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular $1,950 00 $63 00 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION &TRAINING $63 00Total DOHERTY, MARY LOU Paid Chk# 079236 9/27/2004 DONALD SALVEROA & ASSOCIATES E 101-41300-437 Training & Development $300.00 P-9335-1B July-Dee 04 Effect Manage Prog Total DONALD SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES $300 00 Paid ChkJ 079237 ' 9/27/2004 EARL F. ANDERSON & ASSOC. E 101-43000-224 Street Mamt Materials/Supply Total EARL F. ANDERSON & ASSOC. $188 88 62009 Street Signs $188.88 Pa*d Chk#* b7'9233 9/27/2004 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE E 613-49900-091 Beer For Resale ToUl EAST SIDE BEVERAGE • « • : « -A $139 50 224515 Beer for Resale $139 50 Pald Chk# 079239 9/27/2004 “^EGAN MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRCTR E 101-430CO-224 Street Mainl. Materials/Supply Total EGAN MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRCTR $222 63 Paid ChR# 079240 9/27/2004 ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE E 101-41410-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $50 25 542475 $222.83 JC3015670 Hwy 12 Cty 6 L gnts Pulltite Seals Total ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE Pa’d Chk#"079241 * '' 9/27/2094 ERICSON, BARBARA E. E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular $50 25 $127.50 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION &TRAINING Total ERICSON. BARBARA E. 'Paid £hk#’l)79242 "&27t206i "e SSENDRUP, RAYMOND E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular $127 50 $70 00 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION ^TRAINING Total ESSENDRUP. RAYMOND Paid Chk# 079243 ^ ’ 9/27/2604 FITZPATRICK. JOAN E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular $70 00 S125 50 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION &TRAIMNGSPHO CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 09/23/C4 1.49 PM Page 4 SEPTEMBER 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment Paid Chk# 079244 G 101-21713 LTD Insurance Total FITZPATRICK. JOAN 9/27/2004 FORTIS BENEFITS SI 25 50 1.Total FORTIS BENEFITS Pa d Chk# 079245 9/27/2004 G & K SERVICES E 613-49630-226 E 601-49400-226 E 101-43000 226 E 602-49450 226 E 101-43000-226 E 101-41900-404 E 602-49450-226 E 613-49030-226 E 601-49400-226 E 101-43000-226 E 613-49830-226 E 602-49450-226 E 601-49400-226 Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equiprrent Clothing & persona! equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Total G&KSERVICES Paid Chk# 079246 9/27/2004 GOLF CAR MIDWEST E 613-49830-379 Insurance Deductibles E 613-49830-415 Other Equipment Rentals Total GOLF CAR MIDWEST Paid Chk# 079247 9/27/2004 GS DIRECT E 601-49400-201 Office supplies E 602-49450-201 Office supplies Total GS DIRECT Paid Chk# 079246 9/27/2004 HAGBERG. ANDREW E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total HAGBERG. ANDREW Paid Chk# 079249 9/27/2004 HAGBERG. MARIE E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total HAGBERG. MARIE Paid Chk# 079250 9/27/2004 HANSON. HAROLD R E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total HANSON. HAROLD R Paid Chk# 079251 9/27/2004 HENDERSON. JEANETE E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total HENDERSON. JEANETE SBC4.50 4019825-1 S804 50 LTD Premiums - 10/2004 $5.75 10C622C082 Unifo'rrs $12 05 1006220".82 Uniforms $72 33 1006220C82 Uniforms $36 15 10C6220082 Uniforms $78.27 1006226511 Uniforms $98 96 1006226511 Mat Service $39 12 10C6226511 Uniforms $5 75 1C06226511 Uniforms $13.04 1006226511 Uniforms $72 33 1006232986 Uniforms $5.75 10062329S6 Un'forms $36.15 1006232986 Uniforms $12 05 1006232986 $487.70 Uniforms $164 06 401777 Golf Cart Repair $1,600 00 9904 Golf Cart Lease - 8/2004 s’! .764 06 t ^ . - • • • • p . $87 44 188680 Paper/Ink - Plotter $87 44 188680 Papar/lnk - Plotter $174.88 $42 00 091404 $42 00 - « • « PRIMARY ELECTION &TRAINING $14 00 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING " $14 00 $119 00 0914C4 $11900 PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING ... . ^_________m- r - rr , —------- $70 00 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING $7000 Paid Chk# 079252 ""’9/2772004 '"MENNEmN COUNTY INFOR DPT £ 602-49450-406 Repairs/Mamt-Swr Imes/lifls ToUl HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT $52 35 24088C63 800 Mhz Radios-PW $52 35 pVkI Chk# "079253 ' 9/27/2004 HENNrplN CTY* TREASURER - PW' ‘ E 651-49910-406 Repairs/Ma nt-Swr l.nes/lifls $297 66 DTCP00159 Pump sum Wlf - 647 Tonkawa Total HENNIPIN CTY TREASURER • PW $297 65 Piid Chh#*By9^‘ 67f73S04 "~H'fN8HAVV i CULB'ERTSON 1 CITY OF ORONO 0973/04 1:49 PM Page 5 Check Detail Register® SEPTEMBER 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting E 101-416CC-307 Legal CorsuUing E 101-43280-307 Legal-Consulting E 101-43280-307 Legal-Consulting E 101-41600-307 Legal-ConsuUmg E 101-43280-307 Legal-ConsuUing E 101-43280-307 Legal-Consulting E 101-43280-307 Legal-Consulting E 101-41600-305 Legal-Retainer Total HINSHAW & CULBERTSON S2976 S252 00 SI.149.96 S541 C8 S397 50 $364 00 S532 C0 S397 50 SI.300 00 10402274 10402274 10402275 1C402275 10402275 10402275 10402275 104C2275 10402276 Nelsoa'Ca'lson vacated Ca< Pi Pagoms boa*, dcck/2740 Cradyv.o 40 Stubbs Bay Rd subd Rev ew & process apc’«c res Dan DemutrvStonebndge v clat' Good Shepard Church Maxwell Bay Estates sbd Lazntarz CreeVside subd council mig 6/14/04 S4.963.0O Paid Chk# 079255 9/27/2004 HOLM, ARNE ' E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total HOLM. ARNE S145 00 0914C4 PRIMARY ELECTION &TRAlN‘NG&PHO $145.00 l^said Chk#‘079256 9/27/2004 HOMMEYER. ANN ’ E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular S59 50 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING Total HOMMEYER.ANN Paid Chk# 079257 9/27/2004 HOMMEYER. CHARLES E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular S5950 Total HOMMEYER, CHARLES Paid ChkJ# O792S'0 9/27/2004 HOUTMAN, KATIE JO E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total HOUTMAN, KATIE JO Paid Chk# 079259 9/27/2004 HOUTMAN. KRISTINE E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular $70 00^091404 $70.00 ** PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING $70 CO 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION ^TRAINING S70 00 I * . ^ • • S59 50 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION 8.TRA1N1NG Total HOUTMAN, KRISTINE Paid ChK# 079260 ' 9/27/2004 HOUTMAN. SKYLER E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular SS9 SO j $38 50 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION Total HOUTMAN. SKYLER $38.50 WldChk#'079261 9/27/2004 HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE • • » • E 613-49830-404 Repairs/Mamt B dgs/Grounds Total HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE $26 76 142560 Mat Service - GC $26-76 Pa;d Chk# 079262 9/27/2004 ILSE^ SHEROKEE E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular ToUl ILSE. SHEROKEE *• • $49 00 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING $49 CO Paid Chk# 079263 9/27/2004 J a» R RADIATOR CORP. E 101-43000*221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Total J & R RADIATOR CORP. $213 75 Radiator Repair - Bcbcat $213 75 Paid Chk# 079264 9/27/2CC4 JELLISON, SUSAN E 101-41410-104 Ten-porary Employees Regular Total JELLISON. SUSAN S7C00 C91404 PR.MARY ELECTION &TRAIN’\G $7000 Paid'c ’hk# 079265 ' ‘*^*9/27/2004 * * JIM HATCH SALES CO. E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Matertais/Supply $92 38 6220 Asphalt Rake Tout JIM HATCH SALES CO. Paid Ctii5"0792W ‘ ‘ 9/27/2004 ~ JORDAN,'liOwbiE E 101-41410-104 Ternporary Employees Regular $92.38 $98 00 C91404 PRIMARY election iTRAiNlNG CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 09/22/04 1 49 PM ^ Page 6 SEPTEMBER 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total JORDAN. MAROIE $98.00 PaidChki 079267 9/27/2004 KENNEDY A GRAVEN. CHARTERED E 234.45680-307 Legal-Consulting $449 65 62356 E 101-43290-800 Special Projects. Contingency S74 85 62356 E 234-45680-307 Legal-Consulting $762 86 62695 Total KENNEDY & GRAVEN. CHARTERED MNDOT vs Lurton matter MNDOT vs Borgert matter MNDOT V Lurton Matter $1.287 36 Paid Cnk# 079260 9/27/2004 KIELLEY. DON E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular S115 50 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION ATRAINING Total KIELLEY. DON $11550 Paid Chk# 079269 9/27/2004 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOC E 101-42110-319 Other Professional Serv ces Total LABOR RELATIONS ASSOC $1.722 00 0901C4 arbitraticn prep/Union ag reene $1.72200 Paid Chk# 079270 9/27/2004 LACAL EQUIPMENT INC E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Total LACAL EQUIPMENT INC $154 50 26357 Mower parts $154 50 Paid Chk# 079271 9/27/2004 LANDBERG. GALE R E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total LAN JBERG. GALE R Paid Chk# 079272 9/27/2004 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES E 101-41110-433 Memberships & Subscriptions Total LEAGUE OF MN CITIES Paid Chk# 079273 9/27/2004 LESKINEN. CHELSEA E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees $119 00^091404 $119 00 PRIMARY ELECTION ATRAINiNG _ $5.430 00 09012004 2004LMC membership $5.43000 $70 00 091404 Total LLSKINEN. CHELSEA Paid Chk# 079274 9/27/2C04 LMCIT - BERKLEY - PO BOX E 703-49960-379 Insurance Deductibles PRIMARY ELECTION ^TRAINING $70 00 Total LMCIT - BERKLEY - PO BOX $1.000 00 PaidChk# 079275 9/27/2004 LMClf-C/0 BERKLEY-STREET AD $1.000 00 11043583 Sewer Backup Claim 11040503 E 703-49960-361 General Liability ins Total LMCIT- C/O BERKLEY - STREET AD $13.546 00 17135 Ccmp Munic Cov Pymnt #4F $18.546 00 Paid Chk# 079276 ' 9/27/2004 ’ MABUSTH. JEANNE E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular ToUl MABUSTH. JEANNE Paid Chk# 079277 " 9/27/2004 MCKEE. MELN^N E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular ToUl MCKEE. MELVIN PaidChki 079278' "9/27/2004 ■ MEDICA' G 101*15998 Non-Employee Health Ins G 101-21706 Hospita!ization/Vied!cai Ins E 101-42110-135 City BeneLt Contribution G 101-21706 Hospitaiization/f.tedical Ins G 101*15998 Non-Emptoyee Health Ins G 101*21706 Hospitalization/Medical Ins G 101*21706 Hotpttalizahon/Medicai Ins $91 00 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION iTRAiNlNG $91 CO $63 00 091404 pflrrary election & training $63 CO $1.175 12 104275102552 Medica High • 10/2004 $11,100 31 104275102552 Medica High -10/2004 $374 75 104275102552 Medica H,gh • 10/2004 $1,760.70 104275122685 Medica Low -10/2004 $731.11 104275125488 Medica Elect - 10/2C04 $10,090 32 104275125488 Medica Elect • 10/2004 $731.11 104275134225 Medica Essentia's 10/2004 CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® C9^3'04 V49 PVI Page 7 SEPTEMBER 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total MEDICA S25.953.42 Paid Chk# 079279 9/27/2004 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS E 602-49450-383 MWCC Current Charges $30,797 67 781046 ToUl MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS * S30.797.67 PaidChk# 079280 9/27/2004 MID-MINNESOTA WIRE E 425-48945-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip Tout MID-MINNESOTA WIRE Paid Chk# 079281 ’ * 9/27/2004 MIDWEST ASPHALT E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Materials/Supply ToUl MIDWEST ASPHALT Paid Chk# 079282 9/27/2004 ' MIDWEST FUELS........ E 101-43000-212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants G 101-14101 Gasoline Inventory Total MIDWEST FUELS Paid Chk# 079283 9/27/2004 MIGNONE. FRANK E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular ToUl MIGNONE. FRANK $3 025 75 C4C0301 $3,025 75 $149 70 72473M0 Wastewater Chgs -10/2004 storage tccke ’’s'FD Hand Patch S149.70 S786 84 10813 $fC9963 10813 $4,866.47 $119.00 090404 498 Gals Diesel 2449 Gals Unleaded PRIMARY ELECTION & TRAINING S119.00 Paid Chk# 079284 9/27/2004 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessor es E 101-43000-224 Street Mamt. Malenais/Suppiy Total MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY $70 46 793393 $33.63 RI06040665 Paid Chk# 079285 9/27/2004 MN DEPT OF REVENUE R 601-39610 Miscellaneous Revenue G 613-20806 Due to Govts-State Sales Tax R 101-34210 General Taxable Sales/Service Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE Paid Chk# 079286 9/27/2004 MUSSMANN, SARA E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular _ Total MUSSMANN. SARA Paid Chk# 079287 ' ’ 9/27/2004 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS G 101-21710 Life Insurance Total NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS "Paid Chk# 679288 “^V/27/2004 * NEOPOST'*......... E 101-41900-401 Repairs/Maint-OffiCC Equip _ ToUl NEOPOST S104.14 $32 00 6/2004 $2.153 00 8/2004 $24 00 8/2004 $2.209 00 $119 00 091404 Medical Oxygen Cylinder Renta) Sale Tax 5/2004 Sale Tax 8/2004 Sate Tax 8/2004 • • . 0 PRIMARY ELECTION & TRAINING $11900 $304.00 67321004 PERA Life - 10/2004 $304 00 $439 20 41753433 Malnl Contract 9/27-9/26/05 $439.20 >atd“Chk#^079289 “ "9r27/2004 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS E 613-49830-321 Telephone E 101-41900-321 Telephone E 602-49450-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone ___ ToUl NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS >ald Chk# 079290.....9/27/2604** ’ NORUNG’S^ E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounos E 651 -49910-406 Repairs/Mamt-Swr lines^lifts E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs^^Grounds $45 62 326180427-01 cek phones $256.37 326180427-01 cellphones $138 13 326180427-01 cell phones $138 13 326180427-01 cellphones $578.45 $135.76 19458 $390.00 19456 $547 50 19491 Fertilize CB Park Culvert - 3400 Tonka FefliilzeA/Veed CB Park CITY OF ORONO 09/23/04 1:49 PM Check Detail Register© Page 8 SEPTEMBER 2004 E 101-419C0-404 Repairs/Mamt-Bidgs/Grounds Total NORLING'S CheckAmt $407.00 In^ice Comment 19492 CH Landscape MaiOt SI.980 26 PaidChk# 079291 9/27/20C4 ' NORTH MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE E 101>42110*437 Training A Development $1000 2453 Total NORTH MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE Paid Chk#‘ 079292 ^ 9/27/2004 O’MALLEY. PHYLLIS E. E 101-41410-104 Temporary Err^ployees Regular 1st Responder - Huise S10CO - • -* •• $115 50 091404 Total O’MALLEY. PHYLLIS E. $115 50 Paid"Chk# 079293 ‘ 9/27/2C04 ’ * O’SULLIVANS - HOLIDAY 546 ‘ " PRIMARY ELECTION ATRAINING E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Total O’SULLIVANS - HOLIDAY 546 $17 57 8/31/04 August Car Washes $17.57 Paid Chk# 079294 9/27/2004 O’SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip __ Total O’SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 $256.12 0/31/04 August Car Washes $256 13 Pail ChV# * 079295 9/27/2004 OAS. DANIEL O. E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total OAS. DANIEL 0. $14 00 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION ATRAir^ING $14.00 Paid Chk# 079296 9/27/2004 OAS, MADONNA E 101-41410-104 Temporal Employees Regular Total OAS. MADONNA Paid Chk# 079297 9/27/2004 OFFICE DEPOT E 101-41900-201 Office supplies .... $7 oT6 o 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E 101-41900-201 Office supplies E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E 101-41900-201 Office supplies Total OFFICE DEPOT $11.66 $11 66 $54.64 $54.64 ($40 70) 254482181-00 254402101-00 255466481-00 255466401^0 255466820-00 Office Supplies Off.ce Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies $91 90 Paid Chk# 079298 9/27/2004 OMAN. LYLE............. E 101-42400-331 Travel Expenses E 101-42400-331 Travel Expenses E 101-42400-331 Travel Expenses E 101-42400-331 Travel Expenses E 101-42400-331 Travel Expenses E 101-42400-331 Travel Expenses E 101-42400-331 Travel Expenses E 101-42400-331 Travel Expenses ToUl OMAN. LYLE S27 37 $33.75 S31 87 $34.50 $3375 $3375 $2662 $28 50 010604 060204 061004 072204 072604 072804 C91304 091604 mileage reimbursenrent mileage reinnbursement mileage rcmburserrent mi’cage reimbursement mileage reimbursement mileage re-mbu^sement mileage reimbursement mileage reimbursement $25011 Paid Chk# 079299 9/27/2004 ' ORONO ROTARY E 101-42110-433 Memberships a, Subscrpticns Total ORONO ROTARY »•* $148 50 10 Quarterly Dues 7-9/04 • Good $148.50 Paid Chk# 079300 9/27/2004' ^ PHOENIX TECHNOLOGVsOLUtVdNS. E 101-42260-401 Repairs/Maint-Offjce Equip $150 00 1778 Total PHOENIX TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, •• •• m PC support 8/2004 $150.00 ■paid “Chk# 07930r '9^7/2004'"^ PRAIWE RESTORA^^^ E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Mamt-BWgs/Grounds $277 26 93183 Pratrle Maint • Fr Crtek Pre MU CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register© 09/23/04 1:49 PM ^ J Page 10 SEPTEMBER 2004 Check Amt PaidChk# 079315 9/27/2004 TWIDWELL, NANCY E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total TWIDWELL, NANCY $14.00 Comment PRIMARY ELECTION STRAINING $14 00 PaidChk# 079316 9/27/2004 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED E 101-42110-226 Clothing & personal equipment E 101-42110-226 Clothing & personal equipment Total UNIFORMS UNLIMITED • * m » 0 $1375 S65.95 236048 236048 Commendation Bar - Good Shoes - Tomcheck S79.70 Paid Chk# 079317 9/27/2004 US BANK* ^ CM9690 E 312-47000-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees E 315-47000-620 Fiscal Agent s Fees E 313-47000-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees Total US BANK • CM9690 $750.00 SI.000.00 S201 25 1380546 138C617 1380671 98 HRA Bond Fees 2003 HRA Bond Fees 99 GO Bond Fees $1,951 25 Paid Cfik# 079318 9/27/2004 WAROLINrNICdLE E 101-41410-104 Temporary Employees Regular Total WAROLIN, NICOLE $138 75 091404 PRIMARY ELECTION &TRAINING $13875 Paid Chki 079319 ‘ 9/27/2004^'"WESTSIOE WHOLESALE TIRE E 101-43000-222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts $422 11 k • • • • 537327 Tires #422 Total WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE $422.11 10100 Primary Cash $181,451.18 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 234 LURTON PARK 312 1998 HRA REFUNDING BOND FUND 313 1999 IMPROVEMENT BOND 315 2003 PUB FAC REV BOND 402 m INICIPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT 406 PI-RMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVE 425 NAVARRE FIRE STATION PROJ FUND 601 WATER OPERATING FUND 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND 613 GOLF COURSE 651 STORM WATER UTILITY OP FUND 703 INSURANCE FUND 10100 Primary Cash $71,575.15 $4,989.51 $75000 $201.25 $1,000 00 $13,385.73 $13,135.16 $3,025 75 $1.018 26 $33,270.95 $4.47335 $14.27207 $19,546 00 $181,451.10 CITY OF ORONO C9/22-'C4 1;50PM Page ^ check register Check Number Employee Name 054459 054460 054461 054462 054463 054464 054465 054466 054467 054468 054469 054470 054471 054472 054473 054474 054475 054476 054477 054470 054479 054460 054481 054482 054483 054484 054485 054486 054487 054468 054489 054490 054491 054492 054493 054494 054495 003675 003676 003677 003678 003679 003680 003661 0036G2 003683 003684 003665 003686 003687 003688 003689 003690 003691 003692 003693 003694 003695 003696 DODGE. RACHEL M. LESKINEN. DENISE M. ANDERSON.BRUCE L BOBZIEN. SUE A. BORIS. SCOTT W. DEMBOUSKI. JAY C ERICKSON. KURT R FARNIOK. CORREY L. FISCHEN’CH. DAN T. MAOSON. ADRIENNE M. MCMICHOLS. DAVID L MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES PERSELL. WILLIAM R. TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. TOMCZYK. MARKW. WHITE. ANTHONY J. GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. MEYER. WILLIAM C OMAN. LYLE 6. VANG. BRUCE L. GREGORY. JAMES D HANSEN. STEVEN OBRIEN. RANDY L PALMER. GREGORY A. RATHBUN. BARRY J. SKREEN. DALE S. ABRAI lAMSON. FREDW. HAMBRO. MARSHALL J. JENSEN. RODNEY W. MCINTYRE. WILLIAM E. OAS. DANIEL O PEICKERT. GARY J. POLLEY, MIKE A. ROSS. JOHN A. SMYTH. KATHERINE R. STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD STORK, JOHN T MOORSE. RONALD J SILUS. BARBARA G VEE. LINDA S KUEHN. THOMAS M OLSON. RCNALO J. PETTIT. SANDRA K. ANDERSON.BRUCE L BOBZIEN. SUE A. BORIS. SCDTTW. BUDIG STACIE M. CORNICK. JAMES L DAY. SUSAN J FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K. GOOD. STEPHANY R MCNICHO^S. DAVID L. RUSSETH. KYLE M. SCHOENHCFF. JOHN B. TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. WITTKE. ANTHONY A. LEE. JOSEPH P. PHARO. CHRISTOPHER M. BOLTERMAN. MATTHEW A. y Check lod Amount 3 $1,266.63 9 $833-69 9 $441.02 9 $47 02 9 $1.543 46 9 $1.455 80 9 $1,579.66 9 $2,584 76 9 $1.592 49 9 $664.79 9 $516.11 19 $1,691 05 19 $860.02 19 $611 22 19 $1,451 41 19 $1,041 44 19 $1,426.53 19 $568.59 19 $64 72 19 Si.323 53 19 $861 98 19 $87350 19 $724 57 19 $745 10 19 $1.108 34 19 $1,070 35 19 $133.52 19 $61.04 19 $23498 19 $251.79 19 $91 34 19 $314 83 19 $65 56 19 $114 95 19 $172 29 19 $1.343 17 19 $297.57 19 $2.33649 19 $564 57 19 $1,038 54 19 $1,328 20 19 $1,161 81 19 $1,080 10 19 $1.135 00 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 Check Date Check Status $830 00 $20 CO $810.78 $1,921 61 $1,249 86 $1.683 25 $1.994 94 $1,100.00 $1,754 52 $1.766 96 $900.00 $1,374.21 $546 85 $85356 $758.45 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2C04 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2C04 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/20C4 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding S/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2CC4 Outstanding 9/15/2C04 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/20C4 Outstanding 9/15/2CC4 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding S/16/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15.'2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/13/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 3/1V2C04 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstand ng 9/15/2004 OutsUndmg 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/1S7004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding 9/15/2004 Outstanding ■ /-A" ■i.■ ■mm CITY OF ORONO check register 09/23/C4 1:50 PM Page 2 Check Pay Check Check Number Employee Name Period Amount Date Check Status 003697 CURTIS. MELANIE 19 $1,142 84 9/15/2004 Outstanding 003698 GAFFRON. MICHAEL P.19 $125 00 9/15/2004 Outstanding 003699 GAPPA. GREGORY A.19 $1.810 50 9/15/2004 Outstanding C03700 GUNDLACH. JANICE J.19 $1,253 61 9/15/2004 Outstanding 003701 OMAN. LYLE E.19 $1,400 00 9/15/2004 Outstanding 003702 DEBAERE, DONALD L.19 $1,18425 9/15/2004 Outstanding 003703 HANSEN, STEVEN 19 $77500 9/15/2004 Outstanding 003704 OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G.19 $1,203.46 9/15/20C4 Outstanding 003705 OBRIEN. RANDY L.19 $500 00 9/15/2004 Outstanding 003706 PALMER. GREGORY A.19 $350 00 9/15/2004 Outstanding 003707 RATHBUN. BARRY J 19 $200.00 $66,213 23 9/15/2004 Outstanding .. 4 f 5 ^.•1 f I u1 CITY OF ORONO *Che-:k Detail Register© 09/15/04 7.49 AM Page i SEPTEMBER 2004 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Primary Caih ________________ ____ Paid Chk# 679202 ■ '*9/1 5/2004 ’'FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES G 101-21701 Federal Withholding 59.76647 G 101-21703 FICA Tax Withholding 54,666.57 G 101-21703 FICA Tax Withholding 54.666.57 Total FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FEDERAL W/H FICA & MEDICARE W/H FICA & MEDCR CITY SHARE 519.10361 Paid Chk# 079203' '97l'W2004 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST • 457 G 101-21705 Other Retirement $951 62 DEFERRED COWP-302030 Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 5951.62 Paid Chk# 079204 9l\ii20M LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE G 101-21707 Union Dues Total LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 5581 26 UNION DUES #40 & #168 $581 26 Paid Chk# 079205 9/15/2004 MN DEPT OF REVENUE G 101-21702 State Withholding __ Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE STATE TAX W/H $4.07071 Paiit Chk# 079206 9/15/2004 * MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM G 101-21718 Post Employment Health $302 85 ToUl MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM $302 85 Paid Chk# 079207 9/15/2004 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION G 101-21705 Other Retirement $1,902.00 G 101-21705 Other Retirement 5139 35_ Total NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION $2,04135 Paid Chk# 079208 9M5/2004 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEBCUSf G 101-21705 Other Retirement __$3,562 66 Total ORCHARD TRUST CO TRUSTEDCUST $3,562.68 PaiVChk# 67920'9' ■ "9/15/2004 " 'PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENf G 101-21704 PERA $7,188.31 G 101-21704 PERA $5,576 57 Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT i ••m e • # • « post retirement USCM - ENTITY 2339 OBRA #2343 MN STATE RETIREMENT PERA CITY SHARE PERA EMPLOYEE W/H $12,764 68 Pad Chk# 079210 ' 9/15/2004 UNITED WAY G 101-21708 UniiedWay Tout UNITED WAY $70 90 CHARITY DONATIONS $70 00 10100 Primary Cash $43,448 96 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 10100 Primary Cash $43,448 96 $43.44896 infobmation ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING ««cpting SEP 2 7 2004 OF CIT r OF ORONO % * __ I OIL COROOIIATION I f^O**’^*'^** r^cctING /-^ SEP 2 7 2004 I. 4 CtTY OF ORONO hcn^-c • /» ; 2 2 2004 i. . •.. i..', I 1 LUi^C^'CsL^c <Q <4-( / ■^8^ o <^Ji''c^<u.u.Q^ j —6<—X o,>^/K^<;(L£-- iO>~e^x,u8jJZ ^ 408 St, Peter Street, Suite 434 Stint Paul, Minnesota 55102 (651)227-6675 Field Office: 6300 Ridglet Place, Suite 904 Fort Worth, Texas 76116 a i zu^'ta /-f /jC Cn^ijX-/ / ) Z^-L^ / (/i (u:l <76&: \ ) /6^ ■ (^COL^y cc^ / ^ ct(C<- > »