Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-27-2003 Council Packet
r ^ 3 !' {/ V AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 27,2003,7:0C P.IVl. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL Oa-% CONSENT AGENDA I. Approve/Amend APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 2. Regular Council Meeting of January 13,2003 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pat Wolfe PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Dave Rahn LMCD REPORT - Lili McMillan PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 3. #02-2753 Wesley Byrne, 281 7 Casco Point Rv-ad - Plan Revisions 4. #02-2789/02-2840 Dahlstrom Development LLC, “2550” Wayzata Boulevard West - a) Request for Final Approvals b) Sales Trailer Approval * 5. #02-2850 John & Patricia Walker, 1318 Spruce Place - Variance - Resolution #02-2852 Jennifer & Troy Koopman/Patty & Dwight Affcldt, 4753 Tonkaview (2ourt & 4765 Tonkaview Lane - Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution 7. #02-2S?4 Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagemess Point Road - Variance and Conditional Use Pennit #02-2855 Kevin Garnett, 450/480 Orono Orchard Road South - Renewal Variance and Conditional Use Permit - Resolution #02-2856 Andrew & Tracy Rascher, 4705 North Shore Drive - Variance - Resolution 10. #02-2857 Cynthia Piper, 1125 Spring Hill Road - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution II. #02-2860 Sunstatc Concepts, Inc., 1955 Heritage Drive - Variance - Resolution 6. 8. 9. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 12. North Long Lake East Sewer CITY ADIVIINISTRATOR'S REPORT 13. Pay Requests - Long Lake Fire Station 14. Application and Certificate for Payment No. 9 - Long Lake Fire Station 15. Declaration of Reimbursement Intent for Police Vehicle Costs - Resolution V.t; AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY* JANUARY 27,2003,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA 1 6. Declaration of Reimbursement Intent for Navarre Fire Station Costs - Rcs<'tution 1 7. Approve Invoice for 800 MHz Radios for Long Lake Fire Department 1 8. Request for Reconsideration of the Council’s Action Regarding the Appeal by the Narrows Saloon of a Liquor Violation Penalty 19. Personnel Matter I CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT 20. LICENSES Kennel License Renewals Tobacco License Renewals * 21. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2m 01/27 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 01/30 Council Work Session, 5:30 p.m. 02/03 - Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. 02/10 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 02/17 - HOLIDAY, Presidents’ Day 02/19 - Planning Commission. Wednesday, 6:30 p.m. 02/24 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 03/03 - Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m 03/1 0 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 03/17 - Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m. 03/24 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. AiiiAllBaai Public A ttendance Meeting Date i H Council □ Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other Please fill out the informationrequested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. 1.T . j’rj/*? r tti, f 2. f^ 3.r^r 4. o ^ >u Ai# Z- ^ 1/^ A<-* t C'-y ^ S. t {(M t ^ ~}C'^Ay J!> L ■ ^ 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.. Xigmvi wiiwwtKi iupptMr— • oii>\fom»niiucArr PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER ox-yjj- i O c - 0:7 o:^ 7 ‘■t L ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING ^ MONDAY, JANUARY 13,2003 r/^. ROLL JAN 2 7 2003 ' CITY Or unOoijj The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following rn’embers present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Bob Sanseverc, Jay Nygard, Jim White, and Jim Murphy. Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaf^n, City Attorney Tom Barrett, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Alissa Wintemheimer. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Jim White arrived at 7:04 p.m., aAcr the Consent Agenda motion. CONSENT AGENDA I. Approve/Amend Items 5,6,8,9,10, II, 13,14, 15,16,17,18,19,20, and 21 were added to the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the consent agenda as amended. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Council meeting of December 9,2002 Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of December 9,2002. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPEAL 3. Appeal of Narrows Saloon Liquor Violation Penalty Fee Mr. Anderst was not present so Item 3 appears after Item 20. PROCLAMATION 4. Appreciation to Gabriel Jabbour Mayor Peterson asked Mr. Jabbour if he had anything to report to Council, as he had been asked to attend the meeting to deliver a report. He stated that the City is doing a phenomenal job, that Orono is almost out of debt and in excellent condition. -»•«. I' ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 13,2003 4. Appreciation to Gabriel Jahhour —Continued Mayor Peterson invited Council to make comments. Sansevere stated that Mr. Jabbour has made the CounciPs job cosier with his outstanding commitment to the City, which benefits each Orono resident. He stated he appreciates all that Mr. Jabbour does. Murphy stated that he agreed with Sansevere. He stated that he sees Mr. Jabbour doing things personally for people in the community and that he's never seen anyone so generous. He asked Mr. Jabbour to please continue his relationship with the city. Orono has a philosophy, different from most conununities, of inviting its citizens to contribute, and he wishes that more citizens would help the way Mr. Jabbour docs. White stated that the residents of Orono arc the big benefactors of Mr. Jabbour ’s work. Mr. Jabbour has taught them all to think of City issues on a full-time basis. He stated that Mr. Jabbour ’s time and effort on their behalf were outstanding gifts to the City. Mayor Peterson thanked Mr. Jabbour for making her job easier and stated that he has accomplished things no one else could have. Mayor Peterson read the proclamation in recognition of his devotion to the City and his hard work on the community ’s behalf to Mr. Jabbour and presented him with a signed copy. Mr. Jabbour stated that he feels fortunate Orono allows him to seire the community and is proud of the Council and the way they represent the City in the larger community as responsible, good friends. Shcrokee Use stated that the attitude about Orono has changed and she feels that Mr. Jabbour is a big part of that change. She stated he is her role model for the most patriotic citizen. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS —SHEROKEE ILSE, REPRESENTATIVE Use stated that she has rejoined the Parks Commission for another term. She reminded Council that the Commission would like to see an ice rink installed near the new fire station, and stated that the planning for the ice rink should be done at the same time as the fire station site plan development in order to minimize costs. She stated they were planning on a work session on January 30,2003. 9 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MFETING MONDAY, JANUARY 13,2003 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS—SHEROKEK USE, REPRESENTA TIVE- Continued The Hackberry ball fields were handled in the fall and are finally done properly thanks to City staff. Moorse stated that although Mr. Anderst had not yet arrived. Police Officer Kurt Erickson had to leave to attend another meeting. Council decided Officer Erickson was not needed for Item 3 as his memo was sufficient in explaining the case. Pl.ANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *5. #02-2753 Wesley Byrne, 2817 Casco Point Road—Plan Revisions—Refer to Planning Commission Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to re-open application #02-2753 and refer it to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Vote: Aves 4, Navs 0. • ^ W *6. Adoption of Stonimater Management Plan—Resolution No. 4911 Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4911 adopting the City of Orono Surface Water Management Plan. V’ote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 7. Consideration of Old Long Lake Road Sewer Request Gaffron stated that they were looking for direction from Council. Mr. Jacques bought a substandard lot with a bad septic system. He tore down the home and made the necessary applications for variances to rebuild, then found that there would be problems with getting septic onto the site. The system he could use, w ould not meet the needs of the size house he plans to build. His request for septic system approval for the new residence was lit i^dhiwinifiii 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 13,2003 7. Consideration of Old Long Lake Road Sewer Request—Continued rejected based on the inadequacy of the site to support standard primary and alternate systems for the proposed house. Staff reviewed possible solutions and determined that the an extension of sewer to the property may be possible. A pressure system with individual grinder stations could serve 645 Old Long Lake Road w'ith capacity to serve the one house east and two houses west of Jacques site. The area is outside MUSA, but near enough to the existing system to suggest a MUSA expansion would be reasonable. Metropolitan Council indicated such a MUSA expansion would be a minor amendment because it is less than 40 acres in area and would have no impact on metro systems. Staff had not yet looked at the cost or proposed the plan to neighbors. White stated it would be a minor amendment in order to protect the lake. Gaffron stated that the area is totally boxed in and could not grow any larger than the proposed project. Sanscvcrc stated that Jacques would burden most of the cost since he requires the project. Jacques stated that he was aware of that and though he did not yet know the cost of the project, he had requested it be done to service his property. Moorse stated the item was exploratory to see if Council was interested in pursuing the plan. Mayor Peterson asked if the City incurred expenses doing a feasibility study, and then Jacques backed out, who would shoulder the cost of the study. Moorse stated they could come up with a ballpark figure without incurring any significant cost. If the cost seems reasonable, then they could pursue it further. Gaffron stated that they would contact the neighbors and post a public hearing date, but first would need to establish an estimate of cost. Murphy stated he was in favor of the plan. White moved, and Mayor Peterson seconded, to direct staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Metropolitan CounciL including holding a public hearing for that amendment, and provide Council with additional Information regarding costs, assessments, neighborhood interest, etc. to provide a sewer extension to 645 Old Long Lake Road. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 13,2003 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Murphy stated that he had met with the Long Lake and Excelsior Fire Chiefs with Gabriel Jabbour concerning the effort to help Long Lake provide fire serv ice to the Navarre area. They discussed the necessary manpower, equipment, etc. Excelsior’s fire chief has a good attitude and is helping with the effort. Murphy stated he went to the Met Council trails and waterways meeting to testify against Minnetonka Beach's Comprehensive Plan. As a result of his and Jabbour's testimony, as well as that of others, Met Council talked with the Minnetonka Beach Mayor about their plan and the Council disavowed that portion of the Minnetonka Beach Comprehensive Plan. Sanseverc stated that the City had a new City Planner working before the hiring came before Council. He asked what would happen if the Council disapproved of a hiring alter the person had already started work. He suggested they give hiring authority to the City Administrator. Barrett stated that Orono is a Plan A City, meaning the legislative and administrative both come before Council. Council could not delegate the authority to the City Administrator to approve hiring without their final approval. Mayor Peterson stated she had received a letter concerning the Safe and Sober Award. Chief Good had nominated Sergeant Correy Famiok for the award. Although he did not receive the award. Mayor Peterson wanted to recognize his nomination for a job well done. PUBLIC SERV ICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT *8. Request for Payment No. 1—SCADA System Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Request for Payment #1, SCADA System project to Automatic Systems Company in the amount of $105,571.60. \’ote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINLSTRATOR’S REPORT *9. Pay Requests—Long Lake Fire Station Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the requests for payment as follows: BKV Group in the amount of $1,320.37, Diversified Security in the amounts of $6,351.10 and $719.00, G3IE Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $2,676.88, Kirk Program Management in the amount of $18,736.60, Metro Fire in the amount of $5,619.41, Quality Warehouse Installation, Inc. In the amount of $350.00, LMC ORONO CITY COUNCII. MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 13,2003 *9. Pay Requests—Long Lake Fire Station—Continued Insurance Trust in the amount of $495.00, and Knox Company in the amount of $192.00, to be funded from the Joint Fire Account. \'ote: Ayes 4, Nays o. *10. Application and Certificate for Payment No. 8 —Long Lake Fire Station Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Application and Certificate for Payment No. 8 from Ruchon Corporation in the amount of $392,448.00, to be funded from the Joint Fire Fund Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *11. Change Orders Number 3 and 4—Long Lake Fire Station Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Change Orders Number 3 and 4 for the Long Lake Fire Station Project in the amounts of $13,214.50 and $16,210.00 respectively. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 12. Annual Appointments—Resolution No. 4912 White stated that he would like a slot on the Dakota Rail Committee. Mayor Peterson stated they would remove Rick Meyer and replace him with White. Mayor Peterson moved, and Murphy seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4912 designating annual appointments for 2003, %vith the amendment that Rick Meyer is removed from, and Jim White would be added to, the Dakota Rail Committee. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1 (Nygard). *13. Selection of Date for 2003 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to establish Wednesday, April 23,2003 at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for the 2003 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting. Vote: Aves 4, Navs 0. *14. Animal Control Contract Renewals Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the renewal of the anirial control contracts for 2003 with a 3% fee increase. V’ote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 13,2003 *15. City Recorder Fee Adjustment Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the following fee schedule for 2003 for the City Recorder, effective January 1,2003: Meeting length, hours: Fee: 1- 2 $135.00 2- 3 $165.00 3- 4 $200.00 4- 5 $225.00 5- 6 $250.00 6- 7 $430.00 Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. * 16. Appointment of Planner Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the appointment of Jennifer Chaput to the position of Planner at the Level 3, step II salary of $48,000, effective January 6,2003. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *17. Special Assessment Deferral Renewal—Reapplication From Stubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer Project—Resolution No. 4913 Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4913 approving the reapplication of special assessment deferment for Patty Lou Clapp. \'ote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *18. Amend 2003 Calendar Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to amend the 2003 Calendar/Meeting Schedule. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *19. Street Banners in Navarre Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve additional City costs related to the Navarre banner program. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *20. Consultant Engineer 2003 Fee Schedule IVIurphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the proposed rate schedule for engineering serv ices for 2003. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 13,2003 Item 3 appears after Item 20 because Council waited for Mr. Anderst to arrive. 3. Appeal of Narrows Saloon Liquor Violation Penalty Fee Moorsc stated that in a memo from Sergeant Erickson he explained how an employee of the Narrows Saloon had told alcohol to a minor, which resulted in a S500 fine. Anderst had already paid the fine, but wanted to appeal it. Anderst stated that the violation occurred at about 3:40 in the afternoon. His waitress admitted to making a mistake. Shc*d seen the City’s CSO around touTi in uniform and didn’t think an>lhing of bringing him his beer when he ordered it. The waitress was fined S400 and pul on a year's probation. Anderst requested Council drop his $500 fine. He stated he knew they made a mistake, but other bars in the area, like Red Rooster, have had fines dropped for first offenses. Moorse stated that the City’s part-time CSO went to the bar. Murphy asked if people had complained about the City using a uniformed representative in the checks. He stated it may have been a bad choice to send the CSO. He also stated that he believes they need to do more to keep alcohol away from minors, and that Anderst should be supportive of the City’s elTorts. Anderst stated that they deny customers that have valid ID’s that have been illegally obtained. He stated his waitress never seiA’cd the beer. She’s not a bartender. She carried the beer across the room and he ticketed her without ever receiving the beer. Nygard stated that she technically could have asked for ID before putting the beer on the table, and he was not therefore ser\ cd. Mayor Peterson asked why the waitress pled guilty to the charge. Anderst asked that Council forgive the $500 fine because it was a first offense. He claimed they bend over backwards to do things right. He had four staff not make the meetings on carding issues and he took them off the schedule until they attended the meeting. He stated the City should not send officers into bars to do compliance checks when his staff recognizes them as police officers. Sansevere stated that someone ’s occupation shouldn't matter because one is underage or not. He asked what would happen if they forgave the fine and there w as a second offense. Mayor Peterson stated they could forgive the fee, but not the offense, so a next offense would still count as the second offense with a $1000 fine and 3 day license suspension. 8 t ij ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 13,2003 3. Appeal of Narrows Saloon Liquor Violation Penally Fee—Continued Barrett stated that Council could waive the fine, but should get a uTitten agreement from Anderst stating that he understands the offense would remain and a second violation would carry the appropriate penalty. He stated that because Anderst was not present at the time, his testimony is hearsay, and the waitress pleaded guilty to the charge. Murphy stated that because the waitress failed to card the officer, there was a violation of the law. She paid her $400 fine. He asked where the bar's responsibility came into it. Anderst stated that he has spent more than $500 to insure against such incidents. Mayor Peterson stated the bottom line is that she didn't card the officer. Anderst stated the report claimed the bartender scrN C I the drink at the bar, which is untrue. He stated the waitress is a college student who preferred the fine and probation to fighting the charge in court. He stated he only wanted the fine against the bar excused. He admitted it happened and understood that the second offense would carry a stiff penalty. Barrett stated the City should prepare a document to be signed by Anderst stating that he admitted to the violation and understood the consequence of a second violation. He asked what precedent waiving the fine would set. Murphy asked if Anderst would share the refunded fee with his waitress. He replied he would not, because it was her mistake. Moorsc asked if the Narrows staff had attended Orono Police w orkshops before the incident. Anderst replied many of his staff had, but the waitress in question had not. He was not sure if she had attended one since. White stated he supports the City's program and the fines. He asked if the City could hold his check for 6 months, and if there are no violations within that period, return the $500 fee then, but if there is another violation, then the $500 check would be cashed and the fine for the second offense would be implemented. Sansevere stated that would set a precedent that bars could avoid paying fees on first offenses. Mayor Peterson stated that she received a call from Stephanie Grand asking that the City not let Anderst go w ithout paying the fine. Anderst stated he had 3 of her bad checks. Murphy stated that he has been sober for 20 years and had mixed feelings about the issue. He stated he w ould vote in favor of it, but wanted Anderst to be a complete advocate for the City's efforts to prevent underage and over-drinking. miiii iini r . ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JANUARY 13,2003 ^tooac>c CoOr>*\ Ir * resiriuttu ««C«»Ol w. w. .. Oo****^“ JAN 2 7 200J CITV Or OMO.,^r was an aerial survev shoreline inventory conducted in 1996 including 2002 by Clear Air. Inc. This differs from the most recent surveys ■Conckisions^re^s-. i" Ihe lexl under TRENDS LMCD below. Overall Watercraft St^ryflo reduction of 155 Boat Storaae Units fBSU'O casing of Gray’s Bay Marina, a Alban’s Raw riruTlr» 1? u ^ ^ reduction of 24 BSU’s on St However, these decreases Boatyards to St. Alban’s Bay Villas. (11). Shorewood S Club sL^^^ H^rtx)r in^2000*to*^’.oS*i^^W2”A category, up34%from811 from 490 In 2000 to 559 in 2002 Fi^no boatT 7^^ '" Pontoon category, increasing 14% 2000 to 1 008 2nn2 tL . increased In number, up 24% from 764 In with less than 1% increase fronr20001^2002^^* Cruiser and Runabout remained constant. 3 BoaV4 Boat Storai^a has^5i9nlficantlJ!?c'^^*'j^IjyS*^[n°2^^^^ ^s*bcted watercraft ihcre are two ways to addrws^hte inSea^ Staff believes pmacive approach ,o evaluate wheOter these s»es Z7 Storage and ownership of watercraft In order to acoompfish this, there would probably be a n^ to increase LMCD staffing levels. Second, the Board couM evaluate LMCD Code relating to bo^ storage and ownership of watercraft to determine whether any changes should be made ton. Currently, staff evaluates these situations on a public inquiry or complaint basis. Bay bv Bav Storage I>ay8, the storage of watercraft on Lake Minnetonka has increased yni^ntly from 2000. This is primarily due to the 21% increase in the number of watercraft stored at riparian residences in 2002 (6.006) compared to 2000 (5.721). Some of the bays that stand out as having the most significant increases in riparian watercraft storage In 2002 compared to 2000 include: ^Priests Bay (25%) *Cooks Bay (44%) ^est Upper Lake (25%) *South Upper Lake (27%) ‘Phelps Bay (29%) ‘Carmans Bay (26%) ‘Harrisons Bay (1 1 3%) ‘Jennings Bay (76%) ‘Crystal Bay (45%) ‘North Arm (26%) ‘Stubbs Bay (29%) ‘Maxwell Bay (26%) ‘Lafayette Bay (34%) ‘Robinsons Bay (45%) ‘St. Louis Bay (43%) ‘Echo Bay (38%) e. CONCLUSIONS staff is contxm^ with the increase in the number of vvatercraft being stored at riparian rwldences in 2002. To further investigate the outcome of the 2002 Lake Minnetonka Storage Count, staff recommends that it be conducted again during the 2003 boating season. Year Runabout Cruiaer Sailboat Pontoon Houseboat Charter Fishing PWC Aircraft Misc.Total 2002 2842 3135 723 560 24 30 i007 1086 8 1089 10509 2000 3867 2097 773 490 25 29 764 811 4 659 9519199937881592719477312678563927388797 1998 3269 1917 720 461 32 20 732 644 4 809 8608199629073117102141348261135796410081047519942629 2812 874 439 47 26 1202 448 8 875 93601993305620168393814024126331869128855199228362117840386352512452739881864719913258135089034937251210243870080701990'^606 2206 784 304 44 0 824 157 4 720 66491989165325687482606208060 7 707 6811198819832876966236700816055677519198721342771106423961010090572380061986^2512 2816 1238 286 99 0 1047 0 3 795 8796 1985 2882 2186 1056 271 104 0 1022 0 3 644 81681984263821531182321940107504724819119832930195812073268909060541678371982260716991294351^ 91 0 1106 0 r 5 297 7450198125191/65 1512 342 105 0 848 0 4 681 77761980263216301135394118051105483690819792694154913723911130995055437662 1975 3259 1074 1648 448 156 0 1621 0 0 917 912319743309872128855714701850009038926197315435289845061010154300609581419711620320535364910132600_a 255 4511 L m ...................................... 2 7 200} xouctL ™;'SEW AGENDA Approvc/Amcnd rcr::-— '’t^BUCC0MA,K,^TS , ^OM‘Vc admi .nkt "' ^ j- W2-275j ‘ v S/b'"®report .Li —*^uint •* ;r«» i5':^?"'"'‘~’ «■» OR,CODNCa DEEOKr ““'-Si7'“'°" S?f”®sota Tr~^^ / I--Jr^--- I' J^nrk--j- • A *-asi .^cwer " ”T'V^ Apptaiion and&*''"“' S“l»n Dcclaraiion ofRcinih 9 r agenda FOR cou^c,^^^"‘'"ORONO CODN?a £' . ' «TINC set for ,,„r “ • "■ J«»ovc ?mSr»r'"”'"'™ l» N„„. r ''«‘'«SOU'■ ' «• Rcqucsf f„, o': ^^H2 Rad.„. rJ.. ^'rc Slulion r..., . „ -‘•aro.ionofp . PAlUaVAV op^* ^00: ■» VArroiivP...._ gtw«fg- -i~ s*5S js’i-r ■'■“ ~*aa S'*,IK WVATTOavEv.SD„o,tT 7A ■ _____20. licenses &oco'S"“»'"~P'. License Renew,,5 2I.B/LLS ^'co .>„no «sdesan „e,.,ats22iy ^^1 •• •Af# 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 7 2003 Cl IY Or U mun O Date: January 24,2003 Item No.: Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02-2753 Wesley Byrne, 2817 Casco Point Road - Plan Revisions - Variance Review List of Exhibits A - Memo and Exhibits of January 15,2003 Summary of Request The applicant was granted a 75-250' hardcover variance in March 2002 for major additions to the existing residence. The variance was granted based on a finding that the existing residence building and foundation would not be altered as part of the remodeling, and that no lot arca/width variances were necessary because the existing house walls and foundation will remain, without structural repairs. A condition of approval was that if it is determined the existing foundation is required to be replaced or repaired, all variance approvals will be withdrawn and a new variance application submitted. Not discussed in the approvals was the fact that a portion of the existing house was 6' from the side lot lino where a 10' setback is required. Unclear during that review was that the rooflinc in the substandard setback was intended to be raised, requiring a side setback variance which was not addressed in the approval. Applicant was issued a building permit in June 2002. The building inspector recently noted that the second story of the existing residence had been completely removed, including the portion encroaching past the side setback. Further, it has been determined that the portion of foundation below the first stoiy wall with substandard setback is not adequate to support the first floor without major repairs, much less replacement of the second story. Replacement of the removed second story in the substandard setback clearly requires a variance. Furthermore, per the approval resolution conditions, the removal of portions of the existing house and the need for substantial work on the foundation, triggered the need for further City review. The underl>ing issue is whether the remodel ing/add it ion process has resulted in removal of so much of the existing residence that the project should be considered as a total rebuild, requiring all setbacks to be met. On January 13 Council re-opened application #02-2753 and referred this to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. j #02-2753 Byrne 28 17 Casco Point Road January 24,2003 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed the issues at a public hearing held on January 22. The neighboring property owners were notified. The adjaeent neighbor nearest the structure in question made comments in support of the applicant. Planning Commission reached the following conclusions: 1.Both applicant and the City bear some responsibility for the misunderstanding of what additions were intended and what roof expansions were actually being proposed during the 2002 review. 2.were 3. 4. The Planning Commission did believe that during the 2002 review process they »cic primarily approving additions to the existing residence, and that the existing residence would not change substantially. Planning Commission believes that the extent of removals now far exceeds what they expected to occur, and docs legitimately pose the question as to reconstruction into the side yard. The applicant ’s structural engineer has indicated verbally that the foundation below the remaining first floor requires renovation to continue to scr\'e the first and second floors if they are constructed/reconstructcd. To allow applicant some relief given the history of this application, Planning Commission recommends that within the 10' side yard, applicant should be allowed only to retain and/or replace structure within the envelope of the original house walls and roof. Therefore, the building plans will have to be revised to match (or not exceed) the original spaces that pre existed, and the 2nd story roof may not be raised or expanded beyond what previously existed. The vote on the above conclusions in the form of a motion was 6-1, with (Alternate) Cemmissioner Jule Hannaford in the minority, of the opinion that due to circumstances the applicant should be allowed to construct the expanded 2nd story as shown on the plans. The Planning Commission recommendation functionally results in the granting of a variance to allow construction within a side yard. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. Staff will draft a resolution for adoption at your February 10 meeting documenting the setback variance and the approval conditions. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Grant approval per the Planning Commission recommendation, direct staff to draft a resolution for adoption on February 10, and direct the applicant that he may proceed with construction under the parameters established by the Planning Commission recommendation, subject to submittal to the Building Official of revised plans for the affected portions of construction, for review and approval. h ^0 TO:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Mmebcrs FROM: DATE: Mike GafTron, Planning Director January 15,2003 SUBJECT: #02-2753 Wesley Byrne, 2817 Casco Point Road - Plan Revision Reconsideration of Variances - Referral from Council Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One-Family Lakeshorc Residential (Vz acre) 16,750 s.f. (0.38 ac.) Summary of Issue Removal of the pre-existing second story in a substandard setback triggers the Resolution condition requiring further review of this in-progress remodeling/addition project. The inspections department also has concluded that substantial foundation work will likely be necessary, also triggering further review. List of Exhibits A - Applicants Letter B - Resolution No. 4768 (March 11,2002) C - Sur\'cy D - House Plans & Elevations E - Current site photos (1st week of January 2003) F - PC Minutes 2/19/02 G - Staff Memo & Selected Exhibits 2/14/02 Background The applicant was granted a 75-250’ hardcover variance in March 2002 for major additions to the existing residence. The variance was granted based on a finding that the existing residence building and foundation would not be altered as part of the remodeling, and that no lot area/width variances were necessary because the existing house walls and foundation will remain, without structural repairs. It may not have been clear during the February 2002 review that the plan as approved required raising of the second story roof a few feet. A condition of approval was that if it is determined the existing foundation is required to be replaced or repaired, all variance approvals will be withdrawn and a new variance application submitted. Not discussed in the approvals was the fact that a portion of the existing house was 6* from the side lot line where a 10' setback is required. Applicant was issued a building permit in June 2002. The building inspector recently noted that while the additions arc progressing, the second story of the existing residence has now been completely removed, including the portioi • crouching past the side setback. The applicant has provided documentation of the circumstances leading to this remo\ al (Exhibit A). Because the inspections department is questioning the integrity of the portion of foundation below the first story #02-2753,2817 Casco Point Road January IS, 2003 Page 2 wall with substandard setback, the applicant is hiring a structural engineer to review the situation and we anticipated having his analysis available for your January 22 meeting. Replacement of the removed second story in the substandard setback clearly requires a variance that was not addressed in the original approval. Furthermore, per the approval resolution conditions, the removal of portions of the existing house and the n<*ed for substantial work on the foundation, triggers the need for further City review. The underlying issue is whether the remodeling^addition process has resulted in removal of so much of the existing residence that the project should be considered as a total rebuild, requiring all setbacks to be met. Please review the original staff memo and minutes from the February 19, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Staff Recommendation Staff has allowed the applicant to continue work only on those portions of the house and additions that are structurally unrelated to the encroaching portions of the existing house. The primary issues that need further City review are: 1.Whether a variance will now be granted to allow the second story encroachment to be replaced at the 6' setback; 2.Whether the first story encroachment should be allowed to continue at the 6’ setback, assuming that its foundation needs to be repaired or replaced. Staff is treating this as a re-opening of the previous variance approval application. In order to expedite the review process, at staffs request Council has referred this back to the Planning Commission for consideration at your January 22 meeting, with the intent to have this back on Council ’s January 27 agenda to consider the PC recommendation and take final action. The neighboring property owners have been notified by mail that this application is being further reviewed should they wish to comment. ^ • A rO: Orono Planning Commission FROM: Wes and Brenda Byrne (homeowners) SUBJECT: “Plan Revisions ” at 2817 Casco Point Road This memo is written to dtKument additional issues related to the “Plan Revisions ” to our building project that might nowr require an additional variance application. I) There was never any attempt to skirt conditions of the currently approved variance and building permit. Orono inspectors have frequently been brought in to mspcct the progress of w ork so as to try to prevent the types of problems that are now halting the project. 2) The house plans have not been changed. The approved plans clearly indicate that a new roof would be constructed on an 8 foot wall to integrate the new and old sections of the house. The problem is related to the fact that the old house had a low roof. On the north side (si.x feet from the property line), the root was set on a second floor wall whose height was less than 5 feet, Originally, we had mistakenly thought that we would be able to build olTthat existing wiill. But when our carpenter (Roger Roy) got to the wall, he knew that sucii an extension would not meet code. In fact, there was no way to legally construct the new wall except to build it from the first floor ceiling up This necessitated removal of the existing short w all. But w hetj the inspector saw that the old second floor wall had been removed, we were not allowed to replace it. Here the question could be raised, “What should we have done dilTerently'’” But there is no correct answer to this question. With the low second-floor walls of the old house, the variance and building permits should never have been granted as worded, because the conditions could never have been met. The house could never have been built os planned. 3) As an additional problem, concerns arc now being raised as to whether the foundation on the north side can support a two-story house. Yet this same foundation was available for inspection la.st year, and has been inspected on multiple occasions during the building priKcss. Everjone knew that it was questionable, but what makes it difficult to judge is the fact that it has successfully withstood 60 years of holding up two stories and a roofline. In addition, work performed by our foundation contractor (Paul Berquist) on the new parts of the house will improve the long-term integrity ol the old foundation. For example, our new ba.sement will allow heat into the old foundation and surrounding ground. I herc will also be better drainace and insulation around it. 1 he new rooflines will shift roof weight to the front and back of the house, and away from the side with the old foundation. T<tr the foundation to now become a reason for preventing, completion of the planned project .seeim terribly unfair. It should be noted that we were originally hoping to use as much of the old house as possible to save money. We are working with a very limited amount of money. We are not trying to escape our responsibility for this problem. However, if someone a year ago could have just noticed the low second floor w'all on the north side, or let us know that the old foundation could be used at any time as a project-stopper, we would have designed a diflerent house. If we now are forced to move the entire wall in 4 feet, we will have to endure substantially greater costs, we will lose over 200 square Jeet of living area, and the outer appearance of the new house will be compromised (which will affect resale value). 'I 4 L e CITY of ORONO 3**8*105 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.—4JZ6 8__ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10J2, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) 2 FILE NO. 02-2753 WHEREAS, Wesley Byme and Brenda Byrne, (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2817 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Attached “Exhibit A”, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEIWAS, the applicants have applied for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) 2 to permit 3,564 s.f. (31.3%) hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshorc setback where 4,155 s.f. (36.5%) exists and 2,873 s.f. (25%) is allowed, to permit additions to the existing house; 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 February 19,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 9 This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2753. The property is located in the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where */j acre is the minimum lot size and 100 feet is the minimum lot width. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0 based on the following findings and hardships: Page 1 of 7 ____ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ____4.7 tt 8 4. 5. A.Planning Commission finds that a lot width and lot area variance is not required since the existing house walls and foundation will be used, without structural repairs. If the walls or foundation are found to require structure repair or replacement, the property would require an application for additional variances to lot area and lot width. B. The Planning Commission recommended the total lot coverage by structure shall not exceed 1 5%. C. The proposed additions do not require variances for location or size. D. There is a large driveway and parking area on the property that would be reduced in size. The total hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback would be reduced by 591 s.f. E. The existing house is located 72 ’ from the street property line requiring a longer driveway to serve the property. An existing garage is being removed to allow for construction of a new garage. F.Applicants have requested to add to the e.xisting house rather than build a new stnicture on the property. Owners have stated the existing foundation and building will not be removed or altered as part of the remodeling plan. 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 will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty, is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in ^eping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehen.sivc Plan of the The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of? k:1. J GITYof ORONO CSHO^ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4768NO. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) 2 lo permit 3,564 s.f. (31.3%) hardcover in the 75-250 ’ lakeshorc setback where 4,155 s.f. (36.5%) exists and 2,873 s.f. (25%) is allowed, to permit additions to the existing house subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final inspection. 2. Final drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure drainage is properly directed. 3.The property shall be developed in conformance with the site plan attached as Exhibit B. 4.If it is determined the existing foundation is required to bf replaced or repaired, all vari^ces approvals shall be withdrawn by the City of Orono and a new variance application shall be submitted by the applicants. 5.Authorities granted by the variances run with the property not w ith the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (March 11,2003). 6.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the variances shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7.The undersigned owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 7 %mT<(*i GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4768NO. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesotn st n regular meeting held on the 1 1th day of March, 2002. ATTEST: /■/j Linda S. Vee, City Clerk ^ 'S. Applicants STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 1 1th day of March, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was e.\ecuted on behalf of the City, No STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN « MyConrisienExp;:}j*L3t,aooi Baaaaaa The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this / * day of -i.)- ^ ^^-----* 200 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was e.xecuted on behalf of the City. I RACHEL DODGE I UWX.'OTA I Mr C«nffliuioa Eipim Jm. 31. »os /. \ RACHEL C I . } KOTA.irPl*UC. \!. .V ‘MrC«fflffliuioaE«;<n f Notary Public ggftar.aa Page 4 of7 GITYof ORONO E8HO' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 476ft STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this /O day of _ personally appeared tefore me, who is personally known to me . 20 6Z, vdiose identity I proved on the basis of AA*J Oi- ___whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation____ witness .a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. . J STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public .20^2. trended AOn this / O day of _ personally appeared before me, ____who is personally knowTi to me whose identity I proved on the basis of ^ ____whose identity I proved on the oath/afHrmation______ witness D-NiSEkUESK- NorMvruue-MM* .a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledge that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. ✓ ^ '"'TL // /r f L- - .. ISOTA i Notary Public DENISE M.IE8NNENNQT/«m«c-iMaom Page 5 of? • • • •, * • • 4768 r'z .• LECAL OESCWIPTION OF PRE.IISES ; Mlnn«lonfeo, occording to"th« piol thi?iof on'fliror'SrricSrd in the office of the Reoister of Deeds in ond for said Henneoin^univ utht^h lies Southeasterly of o line running parallel with on§ 5 fe«t^S:«7nn»^MAr>h westerly fror, lhe"soulhe«lerly linS Sf .oldYMl^Sd the'^lewiin th2?«t: S!!5^Sit'-nrllKfK'?Sn5%l;twi:s':ji3^iSsur;ieSie'-sl;5f!:r;hS;^Minnetonka lying between thte tide lines of sold Lot 119 eslended^>o°th«°^k«,.of Loke Mlnnetonko, occordin« to the recorded plot“thereof. • • Pi8e6of7 ■yuUuuliii * ! I i I i y 4768 c, If ^S;66«29-00- E ^3.49^ LAKE 14 / (\ SHORE \ AVPMAVENUE ilfimimTih taktim /s» .•* I 6e< ^-2 and V/— hen ’■?9' / s/ Oo // § E)«5^ GARAG^i V V . Mr««4 •'*'ts? ??o!*S- •« Ipastnc teo>I ■fifd-I I PRO^/.^ 0LACKTV )S£?) 0»VE'"^ / / (9W®>/ •I (:v jf/# j » XI •••••: nhjt / [x»ST(NG ./......«C'I» *n« ®* I ^ I I S' # I li 5^' / -r*»5 extsTit^ hovjse / / ' / ; -" / C4/W «v/i ii' ADOmON orof m » : if /il ..'P4 “^9- t'iUfvio Oo- /s SA i"' .4 /••--• >•***•. f 1{ /i 4 : /• « / L J i >•) r>/ I HOUSE ■~W *^ .»• 7- . > ‘’ • ..».• s. . .. -*V ■‘■' ■..>W'*-, jl,’i' ‘ --------------- <S)*5 1 « I I I • I • >'• t *'•I • » I III I I < I mmiliMM -A........... I ll 111 III 311 III III3II III m^i yi . EH □m "BEBIII III 1 _-.-.l^rzir.} FRONT ELEVATION 9m ! i » **••••••• 4 » •• REAR ELEVATION ft»i »fM ,!3IpllA I * .'■' -; •••••••**••♦••• left SDE ELEVATION 1 h L, / ^•• T. ••'<»^ i/ 'c? 1 1 TT' BOST.1IlL. deck ;1X—1 ,10''-4:' II II II t)-2. EXI;S I PROPO^i AcmnN r y^v’7 ((, r< P/ Pc./ if"/ IV \ ’ J . II .,1*^ ^ ^ ? f•'•r • *w^s i ! -V \ . I, .' ;-•.- :'•. . -I ' ■\ i ,^' .1 ■H."? .« 'gJ 1 •fP • « f. (I )|iiM (' '^SSS iiV^ I / '. 'j ^ j' h, :••: ; fs * l»r i I \ \ 7. -h « 11 - t ifl- liPMil n r 7^**• % V.•• » • f / (.' / ■sw i'* I M I 5^^ liraSiiiil-s im'K #!>;•,<; %Q^«! :3^:T>1 ♦ -. I -. :^:i i* • ■ ‘A* • • \ v Vf A' V •*5r '*< ^ \C' r* - %-;)'>' -1 SMI , ■ - / 5pfcr.^ "•■r''' ’■ V■ ■^‘ ■' f y' j^y y^s V* *>%.;% »*4ir »f /; . I***v H-4/i i; '.I ■ ■■ w i ' '/ . • * V ^ 'ii I - U’.T *' i SliL \ ‘few .^ -/i •-J» ^ . ■ ■ ■• !■> M '■: - /iT '— - Wy *• • ,'. •*» . ■; mm ^'i^AMWXAiAL r ' < 4 •O. J • < K i ! V.-iI ' ^ : i ;■ * ^ jJ^ ^'V i5?2 ife^^*.---‘V,'• : r‘: :'?* «f; F‘- ’ • •^• V;' *5 •" ;’>V'■ ii)M> ,?•» ;V > ■ ■ •• ' ' t .'L j ' ■ ■ •> ^ > .< V IJj. f I f. #^ • -I ; , 'rv/': '. ■■•■.,,'/• v-'/> < /■>•-'••''V;r>^ V,«^v'.:i V.f >'l: ' ■* ■ mfm r >V^ umWfW^ ■ flil '.i »-\ V.-^ ’. If *V. ’■'-*' f \* " /•. ' .* fi - !‘ . :■:f I ‘ :■.' «y i f ('a j'i fIcr.rC Vf t * ; .6 p 'f^ •^'1n^ ’: ^ • *^^®!lfflr".’'v,‘. •* :'■»; • . <;ffl ; > I \l i ■rV i ]:-^mf^-^:'- ’'^■•- -■ V ''••\uk. ■' i’ /*^- * V • ' \\ '“• “' ■ ^f**'*"' * • 4' -.'<«. '.' \tu ■■ fS if<^t\' A ,'.BS ;'<c [ffl 'V 'Jj S « M« I,.;-'. .;■" 'i-i^ aHf-' V ■’ ‘^0’’ O'M umS-- i')-' 'V ' I '7• ' 7-' '■ f i V/ /*'^7 ' / ■■ ■ '\( ';V> /m vfk'. Tfl iji / n / y »/ / . («•, r.;» li' . . ■.,N ’. < l''%v rA'»S I^ V r. • 1 i:. m:/ , \^:Pkf ■ 'i/' i' .1 r,v *.-.J ‘ ^. | .~T3 '■ ".X r.^-lV -* v: 'Srf-'n -':: • ,: ■ r . K»3j« TW* ' ?7^-w* •: .e HBI f' . 1 (». i> ^ t ^ \', ifefc \131S^• !t# • ^ ^ m-f.^4 -'I ( I (tii t]! ri -•>: ' b , ^ ^ .. Si ■ J- «v;< •‘'V.,j|J -^.-Cv-. •'. ■■■%• >■?»* ’ ■ * t -^ » .•*•!’ . ;li 4''r;^r *■ ''■ ■ J «;arr4^|■jr^r ' -r '*^ ' • ■■ •• ' 'ir*/ ^r'' §•* •« * I- 4.W|frV.^;..-t*f>!^-5?;iy—;■ > ' M U. Cv. '•t -■ ri. .•*-<.* V*: • ••■ • • r'T -,• . f\( m / :'- r- f ?■> fA > '4®5a'm - i < ^ ’ # i ? V . • • *• ♦a. . •s • ^ ■ A . . t^:. ■ .Ia- ‘l ^ 5-^ V' ^ ! ^ B*r • j>!T^i. *^.*.^^ • '* '.M J i^*» .*, m ‘.. ^<*#.1^ •• ♦• .•>9... ■ i— -V ^eiiP.1. «-o»i.2ftiJISHlli L 0 ('(• ./•( ''' ^ /'* !0 * >. * •■4^*’ S'\ m m (/a fi.rsS1S£/. 0 > ■'. % ^ w^rnm^mWm \W%^: .WfBSt ^<e.-;v . ?5S!:.i*-:pTr..11 iL.vi I fr. 11 v?I gr"I \\J 1 ■ w '■<’ < ■' '■' v! f.':'^f\ '•* '; v^ • i •w■•» 'J__ "... Vm ' *.v aiW^J*** 4o>^«--^!— :. — ^ . 'Sl'J ' / 'Vl/ j ^ I I » ^ t ( //'iff r ’r- K N V ikaI t V >4t \ »»• % #.» ^1SiS I i# N • * %. y* ■» *r. ..-■V40 ^4 A / 4’\ Y ^ ^ L. V-S -'/ {'0 .<■< ■"'( ‘■5 M If" , r.'v ■>'7 i‘0\('(tti '»• A'- - rj^ * _ ^ I Vi-. If - V ‘ ’ 15 MINin ts OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o ’clock p ju. (002<2751 Mark Welch, Contluucd) Weinberger stated that is yet to be determined Jfirt te^econunend approval of AppUcation 00^2751, r^dence on Ia# grtntlng of varimices to permit coDstmction of a newsnr.7.' iiTi, lirdcw b l«tag r«l"«rto rd«.ll»l on>, W«u I, M, u !m “™^* ”” •^'NT road , variance , Wesley Byrne, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. additions onto the house. ^fim wiSd [^quested would allow for two stoor addition. The second ad<«^^„ wodd^ a located above the garage The nrooertv numirc« i ^^ attached garage with future living space “? prop^y. Ti« dri«w.y hardcover would still be ovw th#* • r • ^ Weinberger noted the total requesting 32.1 percent hardcover Weinterg^noTed **k*!!i°** ®*‘*“®*^ Applicants Applicants are alTproposinrto mdu^e^t^^^ o?Sie lak^iH® street A sidewalk and wood plapter box wonlH «ic klf remove a shed located near the A variance is also require^to S"a 9 7* ^ removed from the west side of the property, northeast comer of the new house. residential addition located at the ««rifyu.cir final cIcuM^s dccmuna fi.c 99 «,ua,e to mJ?TS^c JZ, “ ** *«''>« t"“™>P“"« 'o P">t«t» 80-y, scibacksand mccl Ihe Is’^'rcZ 1«cow^c by siicn!Ir“"" )“<< PAGE 32 jMa lUlUlID - iiflTtllBiti MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.in. (#02-2753 Wesley Byrne, Continued) Byroe stated it was his intentiim to meet the 10-foot setback and that apparently an enor was made on the plan. Byroe stated he does not have a problem meeting the 10’ setback. Byrne indicated he would be able to meet the IS percent structural coverage limit by eliminating the outside stairs to the proposed garage and reducing the size of the house somewhat. Byrne stated they can also reduce the size of the stairwell. Hawn inquired whether those changes can be reflected on the plan prior to appearing before the Council. Byrne stated they can be. Smith inquired about the use of space above the garage and separate access. Byroe commented that would be a guest bedroom, noting there is access to the second floor of the house. Byroe noted he will be removing the stairway to that bedroom. Hawn stated the only variance required would be the hardcover variance. Weinberger noted the Applicant has indicated he intends to keep the original foundation, attd recommended that if any w’ork needs to be done to the existing foundation that this issue be revisited. Fritzler inquired how old the residence is. Byrne stated it was constructed in 1940. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2753, Wesley Byrne, 2817 Casco Point Road, granting of a variance to hardcover In the 75-250’ setback area, with the understanding the hardcover In that area will be reduced from what enrrentiy eilsts; and contingent upon the fact that if the existing foundation needs to be replaced or repaired In any substantial amount that the variance granted be withdrawn and that the plans will be resubmitted to the Planning Commission and viewed as new construction; and further with the understanding the side yard setback will be 10* instead of 9.7’ and that structural coverage will not exceed 15 percent. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#14) #02-2754 MATTHEW AND KATHY DOLLIFF, 2680 PHEASANT ROAD, VARIANCE, 11:42 p.m. -11:44 p.m. Matthew Doliiff Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to construct a 467 square foot addition and 164 square foot entryway and walk to the residence. The addition and the walk will be located in the 7S-2S0’ setback area and will be on the street side of the residence. The addition will increase the hardcover in the PAGE 33 ^3 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator February 14,2002 SUBJECT: «02-2753 Wesley Byrne 28 17 Casco Point Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrici:LR'IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/S acre) Lislof Eibibits: A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Survey/Existing Property Conditions Survey/Proposed Property Conditions Elevation Views Main Level Floor Plan Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Property Owners Notification List Application Summary Property owners have requested variances to permit additions and remodeling to the existing house. There are two proposed additions to the house. The first would replace an existing attached garage with a 32' X 35' two story addition. The second addition would be a 20' X 30' attached garage with future living space located above the garage. The property owners only intend to keep the existing house and foundation. The open porch, garage, and deck arc being removed to make room for the new additions. Pertinent OrdinanccsA'arianccs requested 1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2). Total proposed hardcover exceeds allowed hardcover by 813 s.f. 75-250 Lot Area = 11,375 s.f. fxisting Hardcover = 4,155 s.f. (36.5%) Proposed Hardcover® 3,657 s.f. (32.1%) Allowed Hardcover = 2,844 s.f. (25%) As a result of the proposed plan the total hardcover on the property would be reduced. There is currently a large driveway andparking area on the property that would be reduced in size. The total hardcover is still over the 25% limitation in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback requiring the variance. 0O2-27S3 WesteyBynw 2117 C asco Point lUtd Febfiiafy 19.2002 Pile I of 4 2. 3. Other hardcover removals include reducing the size of the lakeside deck removal of a shed located near the street, an open porch on the streetside of the house would be removedfor the garage addition, and a sidewalk and wood planter box would be removedfrom the west side of the property. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B). To permit a 9.7 side setback for the residential addition located at the northeast comer of the new house. 'ighth , 9 • • • r caused the corner of the house to encroach into the required setback. It was not until after the house was designed and drawn on the survey that the encroachment was discovered. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C). The proposed lot coverage by structure is 2,612 s.f (15.6%). The Zoning Code permits up to 15% of the lot area to be used for structure on the property. The total lot area is 16,750 s.f, which allows a total of 2,513 s.f (15%) of lot coverage by structure on the property. Lot coverage by structure ordinances were adopted to preserve space between buildings and regulate the massing of structures. Additional structure also contributes towards additional hardcover which can negatively impact water quality by not allowing storm water to run across natural ground surface The concept is to allow storm water to be slowed and to infiltrate into the ground. Staff had requested Gronberg and Associates, surveyor/engineer, to re verify their final calculations to determine the actual size of the proposed house. The total structure confirmed to be 2,612 s.f. which is 99 s.f. more structure than the property is allowed. Statement of Hardship Applicant has included a hardship statement that is included as part of Exhibit A. To summarize the hardship the property owners state they are expanding the house to be comparable to other houses in the neighborhood, and they are adding to the existing house closer to lake rather than towards the street to protect an 80 year old oak tree. Site Drainage Staff received the final site grading and drainage plans on February 14'" and have not had an opportunity to complete review as of the date of this memo. Any recommendation of approval shall require additional City Staff review of the plans prior to any Council action. «02-2751 Wcsky Byroe 2117 Casco Point Fcbnivy 19.2002 Pife2or4 If PLANNING COMMISSION OPTIONS FOR ACTION I. Approve variances noted above 2.Table 3. Deny, stating reasons 4.Other Action Staff Recommendation StafThas recommended the applicants reduce the size of the house to not encroach into the side yard setbacks. Staff also recommends the additions be reduced in size to not exceed 15% lot coverage by structure. Staffs opinion is the hardship statement does not support a structural lot coverage variance and a side setback encroachment. As noted above, the City looks at vdiat is best for the long term plan for the City. When ordinances were adopted for structural lot coverage the City adopted this to limit the amount of development in neighborhoods, and create space between buildings. Additional structure also contributes towards additional hardcover which can negatively impact water quality by not allowing storrr water to run across natural ground surface. The concept is to allow storm water to be slowed and to infiltrate into the ground. Property owners and Planning Commission may want to consider additional hardcover removals on the property, notably the 0-75' lake setback zone. A review of the final grading and drainage plan will determine if the lot can accommodate the proposed additions. A copy of the plan has been forwarded to the City Engineer for comment. •02-275} Watty Bynw 2117 Coco POtMRoid Fcbniaiy 19,2002 rip}or4 -------* *— ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Arg«; LR-IC Lot Area Required » / Actual 16,750 s.f. (0.77 acre) Structural Coverage; Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 16,750 s.f.Allowed: 2,512 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,044 s.f. (12.2%) Proposed: 2,612 s.f. (15.6%) Hardcover Calculation: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75’4,875 s.f.0 s.f.462 s.f. (9.4%)462 (9.4%) 75-250’11,375 s.f.2,843 s.f. (25%)4,155 s.f. (36.5%) 3,657 s.f. (32.1%) 250-500’500 s.f.150 s.f. (30%)138 s.f (27.6%)119s.f Q3.8%) M2>27S3WMl*y Byrne 2117 Cam PoiM Roid FcbnMiyl9.2002 Pi«c4or4 I M mmarmstm REQUIRED SUBMITTALS M oflht follftTyin g information murt bt ffiifrmitttd bv the applicai on i- order for vour annlica Hon to hg cnnaidgr^it fftmpleti.".......sui_siiamm£.flai£_Jii 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Prope^ Owners List of owners within 150*. labels and plat map (you must hst. laWs and map from Hennepin County Department of Fmance. A-603 Govt CcMf. 348-5910). 4v. ./ - X, cX! Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and incIuJe hardcover calculations as required. Ip addition, provide one (1) copy g'/i" x 11" for reproduction. i* lur To^graphic survey (ex:-tir.g and proposed elevations) if any changes m existing grade are proi»sed. In addiUon, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 854" x 11"). List of the leg^ 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Applicant's Signature Date A J, 3 -6jl. OWNER'S SIGNATURE Owner's Signature ^Date "Ox. Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning nmssion Meeting. Planmng Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of ^a<»h ftyrA«. © ‘7 / J r V ; .a 1 C 'li. wr-v; •, —• • pVj<X#li&^OTlil ;; H»mV ia it >‘x-' u---A.'Jtvc ’_*. V ^. / ... -V 2<s-//7-2 3-<3^ - *«. v^lt *J •! f *S ^ '•J ^arteUnfomiBtfi !U ^ .. „^iD 20117233 '‘'- ’""st^'ilaiiM CAOSli f*SfS^ ^^^liikk'Mttkgifyneofdmliimp. Itnpttiinlsi «t AntfrfMiAomCXb^ CMffKy ’.witfSMtefoodMMia f V'* vi'rr^ iiAl CcNcral CoBCcpl Plan Approval Date AukuiI 26.2002 (Resolution M8S2) Concept Plan Approval EfTective Period: August 26,2002 - February 26,2003 Final Development Plan Approval Application Date: September 18,7002 initial 60-Dny Deadline: November 17,2002 Euended Deadline per Applicant ’s 10-28-02 Letter: December 10.2002 Council Action to “Approve Language of Draft Resolution”, etc.: December 9,2002 •MG JAN 2 7 2003 CIT Y Or Utnj/vcj REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: January 24,2003 Item No.: Department Approval;Administrator Approval: Name:Michacl P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: «02-2789/02-2840 Dahlstrom Development, LLC, “2550 ” Wayzata Blvd. - Proposed Residential Development - “Stonebay ” 1. Request for Formal Adoption of Resolution for Preliminary Plat Approval and General Development Plan Approval 2. Request for approval of placement of temporary Sales Trailer on site List of Attachments A - Dahlstrom Letter of Request B - Revised Plans: 1 - Landform Letter Summarizing Revisions 2 - Revised Site Plan 3 - Revised Wetland Impact Plan C - Landscaping Summary Memo D - Resolution for Prelim. Plat Approval and General Development Plan Approval L -1 emporary Sales Trailer Depiction and Site Plan Council Action of December 9 On December 9.2002 Council voted 5-0 to ‘approve the language ’ of the Dniil “Resolution Granting Preliminary Plat Approval and General Development Plan Approval for Planned l.'nit Development No. 4 for Dahlstrom Development LLC - File #2 789/2840“ and of the Draft “Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code ofOrono and Amending the Official Zoning Map by Rezoning Certain Property Within Outlot B, WUlow Properties Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesotafrom RR-iB Single Family Rural Residential District to RPL'D Residential ntMue^VnilDexelopment District and.iddingSection 10.53 Subdivision! I Regarding Planned V,tit Development So. 4- Hie U02-2789/02-2840" with final Council adoption of the above documents to occur when MCWD approvals have been granted and any remaining engineering issues have been resolved. #02-2789/02-2840 January 24,2003 Page 2 The motion also included approval of the development fee structure as set out in the staff memos of December 4,2002 and December 6,2002. Council additionally noted that the City would provide applicant a letter defining the City’s support of the project, at the applicant’s request. Council also agreed to the applicant’s request to have staff review the requirement for adherence to all aspects of the Wallace Case landscape plan review letter dated 1 1/6/02. Staff, Case and the applicants met on January 14 and have reached agreement on which of the specific recommendations will be incorporated as requirements (E.\hibit C). Request for Adoption Relates to Purchase Option Expiration Applicants have requested that Council grant General Development Plan and Preliminary Plat approval at your January 27 meeting by adopting the Resolution attached as Exhibit D, subject to conditions necessary to give the City assurance that the City’s interests in the project arc protected. Per the letter from Terry Dahlstrom, the bank has suggested that City approval is key to completion of the financing for purchase of the land. The purchase must be closed by the February 7 option expiration date. Affordable Housing Contribution The Stonebay Development property is one of a small number of areas the City has guided for higher density residential development to enable a broader range of housing options. Late in the development review process, the issue of providing a number of units at an affordable cost level was introduced. The developer proposed to subsidize a small number of units to substantially reduce the price of th units. This subsidy was going to cost the developer between S200.000 and $300,000. The Council ’s response to this proposal was that it would only be a token effort to make a small number of units more affordable It was suggested that the funding that was to be used to subsidize the cost of the units, instead be paid to the City to be placed into in affordable housing fund to be used to a.ssist future affordable housing projects. At that time, the developer indicated he would be agreeable to that as long as the City had a program in place, and was not singling out this development for the affordable housing payment. The Council was unclear about the role of the City in the housing issue, and determined that a housing workshop be held to enable the Council to gain a better understanding of the issue, prior to making any decisions .about a housing program. In a recent meeting with the developer, he indicated he had gotten the impression from the Council that the issue of any funding for affordable housing in relation to the Stonebay development had been taken oITthc table. There is no funding related to a contribution toward affordable housing built into ihc financing for the project. ■;» if*'' 1 «02-2789/02-2840 January 24,2003 Page 3 It is staff s recommendation that the Stonebay developer should make a contribution toward affordable housing with the following conditions; - The developer does not need to make the contribution up-front. The timing of the contribution can be worked out between sttif and the developer. - If the City has not put in place a program to assist the development and preservation of affordable housing within one year, the contribution does not need to be made. Latest Site Layout Revisions - Setback & Wetland Variances; Parking Impacts It would be fair to say that the site layout has remained mostly unchanged since it dropped from 167 to 162 units in November/December. However, the minor changes that have occurred are a result of the wetland discussions bet .veen the developer and MCWD staff The newest layout of the northerly roads and townhome units reflects anticipated approvals and disapprovals of specific proposed wetland impacts. Two significant changes to consider are shown on Exhibit B-2 and include: I) because it is expected MCWD will not approve wetland fill for creation of Northwest Lane, developer is proposing a bridge over a 100' finger of wetland that was originally proposed to be filled; and 2) because it is expected that MCWD will not approve certain minor wetland buffer encroachments along North Lane, the latest layout shows 3 rambler townhome units encroaching into the required 35 ’ setback from the north boundary of the property. Specifically, Unit 27 is proposed at 20 ’ from the north boundary and the attached Units 28-29 are proposed at 15’ and 10’ respectively from the north property line. With this 10’ setback. Unit 29 does avoid encroaching into the 10’ plat perimeter drainage easement. However, an issue of potential concern is whether sufficient vegetative buffer exists or will need to be added in this area to protect the separation to the homes in Willow View (which arc 300 ’ away). Council must reach a conclusion on whether the setback variances should be granted. Staff believes a 20 ’ minimum setback should be attempted in this area. Other more subtle but significant changes resulting from the revisions include: The number of units with driveway access to Northwest Lane increases from 19 (all ramblers) to 20 (18 rambler, 2 two-story) units. At the same time, designated on-street parking in Northwest Lane is reduced from 17 stalls (12 parallel and 5 head-in) to just 6 stalls (all head-in). Capacity for driveway parking appears unchanged. The shape of the Northwest Lane cul-de-sac raingarden has become slightly more elongated. The character and feel of North Lane becomes much more ‘open’, as the number of units with driveways accessing North Lane reduces from 16 to 12 (all ramblers). On-street designated parallel parking remains at 9 stalls. t r » . #02-2789/02-2840 January 24,2003 Page 4 Shed B-2 depicts the proposed encroachments of the 26'Orono wetland setback by buildings, roads and trails. These encroachments are generally minimal, and do not have any greater impacts on the actual wetlands themselves as compared to the approved concept plan. We again note that grading within the 26* wetland buffers is likely to occur as a result of construction where units or roads closely abut the buffer; and would expect the buffers to be returned to vegetation during the landscaping process. Regarding the wetland impacts, staff does not have a problem with the minor wetland and'or buffer impacts proposed. The actual wetland impacts are now reduced from 1.45 acres to 1.05 acres, while mitigation area remains at 1.45 acres. The magnitude of proposed impacts to Orono’s 26* protected buffer zone is minimal, a fraction of a percent of the entire required buffer area. Variances to allow the proposed impacts appear necessary in order to maintain the spacing and orientaticn of dwelling units based on the location of the wetlands, and to provide the appropriate building separations and street setbacks without loss of additional dwelling units. It should be noted that per Exhibits B-2 and B-3, there are some areas where variances to MCWD buffer requirements will be requested of the MCWD by the developer. The MCWD buffers are depicted on B-3. These variances are for the few locations where buildings will encroach the MCWD-rcquircd buffers, which vary in width from 20-35 ’ on the plans. From my recent discussion with Mike Wyatt of MCWD regarding their buffer requirement, the buffer variances arc the only part of the current plan for which he is uncomfortable predicting the outcome. 1 also learned that MCWD will require that their buffers be “non-maintained"; i.e. not mowed. The impact of this is that where MCWD buffers abut or are within a few feet of dwelling structures, those structures won’t be able to maintain a mowed yard. This is not an issue for the City, but it illustrates the impact of MC WD’s buffer requirement on the landscaping for many of the rambler lownhomes. Drainage Kmergency Overflow Issue Resolved The City Engineer had asked for an overland oC’et to accommodate back to back superstorm events, rather than relying on culverts which could be plugged and cause potential flooding of walkout levels in this development as well as affecting homes in Willow View, the Middle School, and City ofllces. The applicant has revised plans to show such an overflow across Kelley Parkway west of the main entry road, and this design is satisfactory to the City. MCWD Approvals Pending After discussing the latest site plan and wetland impact/mitigation plan (Exhibits B-2 and B-3) briefly with Mike Wyatt of MCWD, it appears he is in support of the current plan. It w ill not go before the MCWD Board for action until February 27. He believes the wetland buffer variances are the main issue the Board w ill discuss at any length. ! <»02-2789/02-284L January 24,2003 Pages The MCWD also has yet to grant stormwater/drainage plan approval, although Wyatt also indicates that with the City’s emergency overflow issue resolved, he believes there arc no major concerns with the plan. At this time we cannot predict with great certainty whether MCWD approval will result in changes that impact the plat layout, but it seems likely that such changes would be relatively minor. General Development Plan Approval with Conditions The Concept Plan Approval resolution stated that General Development Plan approval, including preliminary plat approval, would not be granted until MCWD permits are in hand. Council has the option of adopting the General Development Plan & Preliminary Plat Approval resolution subject to conditions. The most important conditions to include from staffs perspective are: 1.If MCWD approvals result in revisions to the site plan and preliminary plat, the changes arc subject to review by the Council and the Council has the option to not accept the changes. 2.A firm commitment is needed from the developer regarding the payment of the various development fees based on the amounts or formulas as defined in Council’s approval of staff recommendation December 9. 3.A firm commitment is needed from the developer regarding payment of a contribution toward the City’s affordable housing program in lieu ofproviding affordable units within the project. 4.If for whatever reason (such as other agency requirements, inability to obtain other required approvals, developer-driven revisions for any reason, etc.) there arc significant revisions to the site plan, the amenities or any other aspects of the approved plan that staff finds to be not in keeping with the City approved plans, the City Council rcscr\ cs the • 'ght to further review and accept or reject those changes. Council should specificallyrevicwpageI4ofthe Resolution, whiche.stablishesconditions that must be met before final plat approval and/or before the rezoning will occur, and which provide the City the ability to approve or reject future changes to the plans as approved at this time. The developer has indicated he is willing to sign a waiver of any vested rights he may have accrued by obtaining preliminary plat approval, to give the City an additional level of comfort with granting the approvals requested based on plans that may need minor revisions prior to rezoning and final plat approval. i «02-2789/02-2M0 January 24,2003 Page 6 Temporary Sales Office Applicant has requested approval for a temporary sales office trailer to be located on the commercial outlotat 12AVillow for approximately 1 year until models units are available or it can be moved into the site north of Kelley f j-kway. The site plan appears to be reasonable and the trailer as depicted will not be an eyesore. Staff would recommend approval subject to approval of the Public Services Director as to a temporary curb cut to Willow Drive, with access relocating to Kelley Parkway as soon as Kelley is ready for traffic, and the trailer being relocated to the north side of Kelley as soon as feasible. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the fact that a majority of the pending issues have been resolved or are expected to be resolved, and based on the inclusion of various disclaimers, caveats and waivers discussed above and appearing in the Resolution document. Staff recommends adoption of the attached “Resolution Granting Preliminary Plat Approval and General Development Plan Approval for Planned Unit Development No. 4" subject to any additional conditions Council feels are appropriate. Note that the rezoning and final plat approvals, as well as the Development Agreement will not be acted upon at this time. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Take formal action regarding the affordable housing contribution issue. Take fonnal action regarding the setback variances and wetland encroachments. Take formal action regarding the Resolution. Take formal action to approve the location of the temporary sales trailer. Dahlstrom Development LLC January 22,2003 Mayor Barbara Peterson City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Request for Conditional Approval of Rezoning, PUD General Development Plan and Preliminary Plat for StoneBay Dear Honorable Mayor, I am writing this letter to request approval of the preliminary plat, rezoning and PUD general plan for StoneBay, subject to the conditions in the resolutions drafted by the Planning Director. While the Council did state their support for this project on December 9, 2002, no formal project approvals were given. The City did approve the draft language in the approval resolutions, with final approval to be granted when Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approvals have been obtained and the outstanding engineering comments have been addressed. We requested conditional of approval of the project in December because we were concerned that our lenders would have concerns about funding a project that did not yet have City approval. We were hopeful that the approval of the language in the resolutions would at least show general City support for the project, but the lender has expressed serious concerns about the lack of formal City approval. The complex financial transaction, which has been approved by the Marshall Investment Corporation, requires participation from numerous banks in Minnesota and surrounding states. We cannot assume that they all have the ':apacity to evaluate the intent of the current approvals granted to Dahlstrom Development LLC by the City of Orono. The complications resulting from the delay of watershed approval, despite our Company ’s effort to cooperate in a timely manner, are not implicit in the approval. On the contrary, the current approval sends a signal that after nine months of cooperative effort by the City Council, the City Staff and Dahlstrom Development LLC, the City Council may not be in support of this development proposal. I cannot stress the seriousness of this dilemma enough. Multiple items, of which Council approval is one. are converging that may scuttle this project. Because we have not been able to extend our option with Mr. Gilbert Braun beyond February 8, 2003, 'he Council meeting on January 27, 2003 is the last opportunity to obtain City approval, even if conditional. It would be disastrous to see all the effort everyone has contributed dissolve over what is a watershed technical issue. The lender may not understand, and Mayor Peterson Page 2 Re: StoneBay January 22. 2003 we will not be given an opportunity to explain, that the language approval granted by the City Council in December was the direct result of the watershed delays. Please give your support by voting to approve this project, subject to the conditions in the draft resolution, thereby eliminating one of the few remaining items that stand in the way of what is sure to be a great housing project for Orono. Our development team has been working on a devebpment proposal for this 51 -acre parcel since November 2001. In April 2002, after months of negotiation, we finally obtained an option agreement from Orono Plaza, the owner of the property. An undivided interest for the southeast 7.41 acres of the properly has been conveyed to Gilbert C. and Anna Lou Ella Braun Charitable Remainder Trust, pursuant to an unrecorded deed. Mr. Braun is also a partner in Orono Plaza. We obtained a separate option agreement from Mr. Braun for his portion of the property. On April 17,2002, we submitted an application for approval of a PUD concept stage plan, commercial site plan, sketch plat, rezoning and land use guide plan amendment for the property. Our request was for approval of mixed-use development with 235 housing units and 38,000 square feet of commercial development. The Planning Commission and City Council did not support the land use guide plan amendment to allow a mix of residential and retail uses south of Kelley Parkway. On June 10, 2002, the City Council meeting denied our request for u land use guide plan amendment. The requested amendment would have allowed residential and retail uses south of Kelley Parkway In an area currently planned for office uses. Neither the City Council nor the Planning Commission reviewed our applications for the requested rezoning, PUD concept plan and sketch plat. The City Council directed us to revise our plans to comply with the existing Community Management Plan and schedule a workshop with the Planning Commission to review the revisions before bringing our application back for formal City Council review of those items. On June 24, 2002, we withdrew our applications for a land use guide plan amendment and commercial site plan approval. We revised our rezoning, PUD concept plan and sketch plat applications to comply with the Community Management Plan. We also granted the City a 60-day extension to the review period. The City Council recommended approval of the concept plan and sketch plat on August 26, 2002. The City Council also approved the rezoning subject to approval of the final plat. In August of 2002, the issue of affordable housing was raised the first time in this review process. Our application complies with the City of Orono Community Management Plan definition of affordable housing, which is defined as owner occupied townhome units developed at a density of six units per acre. However, the development team did agree to work with the City to address this issue and offered several tools for the City to use to ensure that new development meets the City ’s housing needs. We met numerous times with the City Council and City staff to discuss Mayor Peterson Page 3 Re: StoneBay January 22. 2003 this issue. We provided private financial data to the City financial consultant (Mark Ruff at Ehlers & Associates, Inc.), in order to prove that the developer ’s contention about the land and construction costs for this project were accurate. The City consultant concurred that the land costs would make It virtually impossible to provide affordable housing without subsidies. The City indicated that they would continue to work to better define how they would meet the community needs for affordable housing. On September 18, 2002, we submitted an application for approval of RPUD Development Stage Plan, Preliminary Plat and Phase I Final Plat consistent with the RPUD concept plan approval granted by the City Council on August 26,2002. On October 28 “*, we extended the City review period for this application on December 10. 2002. At staffs request, we agreed to postpone our request for final plat approval of phase I until after we obtained all of our approvals from MnDOT and the MCWD. At the December 9, 2002 City Council meeting, the Council expressed support for our project, but concern about the lack of MCWD approval. Our plans were submitted to the MCWD in September 2002, but the MCWD did not review our application in a timely manner. We were hopeful that they would schedule us for review and approval In December or January, which have allowed us adequate time to get back before the City Council for fir^l review prior to expiration of our option agreement. Unfortunately, watershed staff did not schedule us for either of those meetings. We are continuing to work with MCWD to finalize all outstanding issues arxl we believe that we have staff support of the current plan. A revised site plan was submitted tc the City this morning for review. We believe that we have finally reached agreement with MCWD staff arxl have their support for the revised plan. We are scheduled for MCWD review on February 27,2003. Landform staff met today with the City er>gineer to finalize the key engineering Issues. City engineering staff agreed that the major Issues had been addressed. We agreed that the remaining details could be finalized with the final application, which will be submitted after receipt of MCWD approval. As noted earlier, our option with Gilbert Braun expires on Febmary 8, 2003. We have requested an extension of this option agreement, but Mr Braun has refused. His representative has indicated that they have other interested parties and will not extend our option beyond February 6*'. When we entered into this agreement in April 2002, we never imagined that we would not have a conditional City approval by this time. Our repeated attempts for an extension from Mr. Braun have been denied. Mayor Peterson Page 4 Re: StoneBay January 22. 2003 In short, if this project is to move fonward, we must close on January 31, 2003, as is scheduled. Our lender has expressed serious doubts about our ability to get funding of the project without City approval. Therefore, we requested that staff place this item on the January 27** City Council agenda. Our request is for conditional approval of the preliminary plat, rezoning and PUD general plan, subject to the conditions outlined in the draft resolutions. The resolutions were written by staff to ensure that ANY change in the plan would require the developer to come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for a PUD amendment. Approve! of the resolutions drafted by staff would ensure that the developer addresses all of the issues noted by staff. Plann^ Unit Developments and other larger developments are generally approved by cities subject to a number of conditions. It is very unusual for a city to approve language in draft resolutions. This unusual action by the City Council on December 9, 2002, has raised red flags vrithin the finance community and is threatening our ability to get funding, close on the property this month and constaict the project. We have made every effort to work with the City to address your needs and desires. We will continue to work with the City to construct this project, but we need your help. If we are unable to get approval of the preliminary plat, rezoning and PUD general plan, subject to the conditions in the resolution, it is quite possible that we will be unable to secure funding for this project. It would be a terrible waste of over one year of work by the developer and nearly one year of work with the City If this project could not be built. The opportunity to provide quality, life-cycle housing In Orono as part of unified development may be lost. Our project provides the City with a guarantee of an integrated, high-quality development that fias been refined through nearly a year of work with the City. Frankly, the proposal you receive from another developer may not meet your goals or vision for the community. We believe that the approval of the resolutions (subject to the conditions drafted by stafO will ensure that the proposed devetopment is constructed according the plans reviewed by the City and the any changes to these approved plans would be reviewed by the City through the PUD amendment process. Furthermore, the Developer ’s Agreement, which must be approved with the final plat, can also be used as a tool to address any outstanding issues. The developer will be required to provide a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the developer's agreement. With these guarantees, the developer assumes all risk, in that any changes to the current plan would require additional City review. The developer accepts these risks and we request approval of the resolutions approving the PUD general plan, preliminary plat and rezoning. If the City Council approves our request on Monday night, we can close on the properly on January 31*'. It Is our intention to make any minor refinements to the plan after MCWD approval on Febmary 27**, re-submit for phase I Final Plat approval March and begin construction in April. id Mayor Peterson Pages Re: StoneBay January 22. 2003 We look forward to your continued support on Monday night. As always, our development team is available to meet with City representatives at anytime to answer questions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 763.639.2701. Sincerely, President. Dahlstrom Development LLC COPY: Council Member Jim Murphy Council Member Jay Nygard Council Member Bob Sansevere Council Member Jim White City Administrator Ron Moorse Planning Director Mike Gaffron City Attorney Tom Sarrett Steve Johnston. Landform Bruce Malkerson, Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP w ■mm LANDFORM MINNCAPOLIS'PHOCNIX MEMORANDUM 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH. MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE; 612.252.9070 FAX; 612.252.9077 DATE January 22.2003 TO Mike Gaffron, City of Orono FROM Chris Cunnington. PE COPY RE StoneBay Site Plan revisions Attached is a revised site plan exhibit that represents what we believe will be the final StoneBay layout. These changes are in response to an email from Mike Wyatt of MCWD that stated... “A/OFD has received your revised plans documenting your efforts to avoid impacts to wtlands on the site from the proposed development. After evaluating the avoidance and the proposed plans, it appears that some of the proposed impacts are avoidable. In accordance with 8420.0520 Stthp. 3, the following impacts haw been determined by MClVD staff to be unavoidable: 1. Impacts to wetland #1 and wetland U2 from Kelly Parkway. These impacts are the result of the proposed road location which has been requested by Orono City staff and Council. 2. Impacts to wetland U2 from the creation of a roadway access of minimal width as designated in the "Alternative Design"plan. 3. Impacts to the ditch-type wetland south of wetland U7 and wetland US. MClVD has the ability under IVCA to incorporate flexibility' into the analysis of the wetland impacts, particularly in an area where th* wetland has been altered and currently shows minimalfunction and public value Impacts and on-site replacement in this situation will most likely provide for increased function and value on-site. 4. Impacts to the ditch-type wetLnd north of wetland U7 and wetland US for the same reasons cited in item U3. All other impacts to wetland basins U2, 7 and 9 must be ehminated in order for MClVD staff to recommend approval to the proposed plans for wetland impacts. You are encouraged to make Pagel January 22. 2003 any necessary revisions to the size, scope andfiguration of the proposed project in order to accommodate these necessary changes. If you are unwilling to make additional changes to avoid wetland impacts on the site, this item may be heard before the MClVD Board of Managers, however, the recommendation of staff will be to deny the application The items of note that have changed the most from the previous site plan are: • The introduction of a bridge along Northwest Lane to provide access to the upland areas in that part of the site without impacting certain wetlands that Mike Wyatt at Minnehaha Creek has deemed avoidable. • Subtle changes in building layout especially near the round about. The removal of many of the wetland impact areas previously proposed made it necessary to alter the layout of many units. This includes replacing some rambler townhomes with two-story townhomes northwest of the round about. • Unfortunately, with this layout, some variances from the City setbacks are required. First there are some small encroachments into the City’s 26-foot wetland buffer setback area. These encroachments Include driveways, streets, and building pads. These minimal encroachment areas are highlighted on the attached plan and are necessary to maintain the maximum number of rambler units In the project while simultaneously saving as much quality wetland as possible. As we have discussed previously, these rambler units are what provide the economic return necessary to maintain the high level of amenities proposed for this project. Second, due to the location of the large wetland between Northwest Lane and North Lane, it Is necessary to place portions of three units within the 35-foot building setback to the north property line. We previously proposed to fill some of the wetland to allow for the proper grading of driveways and building pads, however the watershed will not agree to this. We are attempting to set up a face-to-face meeting this week with Mike Wyatt of MCWD to verify that watershed staff is accepting of this layout and that there are no further Issues that would jeopardize watershed approval. Preliminary phone conversations with Mr. Wyatt suggest that staff would support this plan. We are sending under separate cover a sketch of our solution to the emergency overflow issue to both Greg Gappa and Tom Kellogg. We are confident that we have a solution that works for everyone and will be available to discuss this issue at any time. All other engineering, landscape, and planning issues as noted In DPI L Bonestroo. and City staff memos have been addressed and will be reflected in the final plans to be completed by February 6 (the submittal deadline for placement on the next watershed board meeting agenda). STONEBAY REVISED SITE PLAN - • ZM^rz 6-2^ ^ i % / /// $........... <i ,«• / ' ",y ^ '"■■ i'...... i'\ u j| /;—; L. //'V / y) > V ^^ ''•'/ \ I f * < /V 'tw i ^ • »*:>•; »r*A4i —V# * r \ t ^ \ *, ^ I / ........^ ^ ' ''1■ IN. r . I ' / \ . ' If ■ Mrin «tn*»p z. i».»> -----•roa Mtf i\ !• *t <»» ------1---------zJ I *m ?A •MW KWCMMIt V/ NM MliM« mucm * \ W' ll~"-/t^—L,_. / vin«« •OMIMIV V /I 'nrrn^(P^[rmrti /..T .';■ :V. r—--------------iis A — W •» CTf wruw« sirawt ;\\V/ IPLAN SUmiARYI t««UC fMMMS i4»f9 (0«w «7 t«r« \X X. a\. tpmR 1 r;~::z::z::z::x;::'ir"""... r -:z. Sli HMf A'- ‘fpjji. A <WUMO KIMM VMMMn itAMP 2S. ~'^v**................■*■■“fc-w Jiia ........^ -• -a ........- -.....................^ -..*»■ -j — „ , *acm ; »nio mjMUf , \ MSULL zzntr Qt?r ■■¥ ■4U^ . -------------------------- / •’ lii ’ »_j lOO SCMl flfT I mrnmmtm EXHIBIT STONEBAY ORONO TQ0tf02 OI/24R0 h H m«t%artj tJkmmi omoer tmorj tOmmi PWC roaorjiAMBi Mt«*roa rtoor^fAMiJ «toa«> 109*4. r*Orrj tj^m* 1 70§9 049 QMO OJO 9.7JJ* 0 •*9.009 009 M40 073 > mrrn) %Jf»00 “•M09*• «• «•J» om -•J99* om*009 004 0*74 093 •1 t*i^)•.fsr Off*--030 014 OJM 090 }if/HT mjffn 4 40 7930 009 -4i9n.L09 toon 4*0 •l(W^)J0« 00*--9.9U 001 *309 oo «9(^0VIP«J iM .--99i«tf 190 •-.--90*9 009 90*9 009 --.104^ IJ4 • tMI m --044J CM - **•#4: AH 40300 IO» 1 l»JOI A#}01J04 140 >M400 t»9 01/2Q/2003 MON 19:37 FAX 612 282 9077 LANDFORM ENGINEERING CO 81001/004 I C LANDFORM It-FM FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 610 FIRST AVENUE NORTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX; 611252.9077 OATERNE 20-Jan-03 NAME COMPANY PHONE MeGMfon CityofOrono 852.249.4622 952.249.4616 Tom Korby, RLA 612 252 9070 SUBJECT Meeting Minutes - OSU comments PAGES (Including cover) PROJECT OronoVIHage PROJECT NUMBER TDOll U6SSAOE Mike, Attached are the directions per each oomment as discussed in the meeting held on January 14. 2003. The statements reflect our understanding from the meetir)g and we will proceed as stated in memo. Please review and comment on any direeiiona given in memo. Ifnoresponse is received or given we w!l assume your acceptance of this memo and the statements represented. TjndTbnn Engineering Compeny doing bueineae as Lendlonn. IP TRANSmtlON IS INCOMPLETE PLEASE CAU ME AT StamsgTO coNFioenuLny The infomiaiioo contalnrd ia this mnsmisiion is legslly privileged and coofidamial inrormation inundad unly for die use of die mdividusl or entity named above. If die reader of diis tnnwmltsion is not the intended recipient, you are hereby noUned that any dissemination, distriburion or copying of diis tnasmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transnisiion in error, please notify tat imiDcdiatcly. 1 01/20/2003 MON 13:37 FAX 612 2S2 0077 LANDFORM ENGINEERING CO 121002/004 LANDFORM MlNNtAf»OLIS-FMOKM|X MEMORANDUM 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX; 612.252.9077 DATE January 17,2003 Mike Gaffron — Planning Director City of Orono PNOM Tom Kerby, RLA COPY Stephen Johnston. PE ^ Landfbrm Chris Cunnington, PE - Landform RE Meeting - Review of DSU comments from Final Development Plan (November 6.2002) Attendees: Mike Gaffron-City of Orono Wallace Case, ASIA ^ DSU Chris Cunnington, P.E - Landform Project Manager Tom Kerby, RIA, ASIA- Laridiiorm Se^Designer The following Kerns represent the review and understanding of site and landscape Issues as presented in DSU's review memo of the Final Development Plan* (November 6,2002), and the direction given during the meeting that took place on January 13,2003 with the above-mentioned attendees. The Kerns are numbered to reflect the numbering as detaileo in the original DSU review memo. Item 6. Utility trenches will be held back an average of 6' from the back of curb. Item 7.The 3' wide walks represented In the Final Development Plan set as reviewed by DSU were designed to express a more private walk In contrast to the 5 ’ wide public walks. The final direction will be to update the 3' walks to a 4' wide walk to maintain the design intent of private verses public space, and to also improve accessibility. Hem 8.The deck supports shown in the townhome sections cn sheet C2.2 will be reviewed and updated per further archKectural design and detailing of the townhome units. Pagal w 01/20/2009 MON 19:97 PAX 612 252 9077 LANDFORM ENGINEERING CO 121009/004 January 20. 2003 Itenn 9. Section 1 on sheet C2.3 shows a slope of 3:1 from first floor elevation to walk out elevation along side yards. It v <bs already determined by landform that terracing would be necessary in some instances to mitigate erosion or for areas that will be difficult to establish turf. These areas will be detemiined as each housing site is developed. item 10. Landform will amend all parking areas adjacent to retaining waHs to, as shown in section 2 on sheet C2.3, to have barrier plantings for safety purposes. This will apply to any wall heights over 30” in relation to potential walkable areas. Item 11. Curb section will be updated for rain garden islands to show a proper slope to rain garden. Alternates to Vibbon curb' may be considered as well. item 12. The intent of walking surface in rain garden is to be an informal turf path to bench area. This was acceptable to OSU. Item 13. Retaining viralls are to be constructed from iimestone rock. The concern of the 'standard' pattern to boulder walls will not be an issue with this type of material. It is the design intent that the limestone walls look more knitted together than just stacked per geometric size. item 14. Tree protection will be detailed to drip line of trees to be saved. When possible, more area will be given to trees to be saved. Item 15. Design comment that required no direction. Item 16. Walk system to Lofts area will be updated per new architectural layout for Lofts. Item 17. The driveway conflict between two-story townhomes 11 and 12 will be revised to allow parking in both drives. item 18. Sheet C3.4 will be revised in relation to retaining wall locab'on per watershed comments and for improved safety reasons as mentioned. A couple of options were discussed to reduce overall wall height, but the final layout and detail will be determined by watershed comments. Item 19, Concrete crosswalk sections will be amended to have an 8” concrete thickness. Item 20. Additional trees will be added along the NE «de of Kelley Parkway to complete boulevard planting. Item 21. Additional trees will be added at pond overlook ansa. m Ql/20/2009 MON 19:97 FAl 612 282 9077 LANDFORM ENGINEERING CO 121004/004 Item 22. It was discussed that an extended maintenance program would benefit and ensure the successful establishment of this landscape plan. It is an options that Landform will discuss with the Client Item 23. Design comment that required no direction. Item 24. irrigation design will be developed as design build and comments will be incorporated. Item 25. AM plant material will be locally grown and supplied to this project. Final landscape material will be chosen per hardiness, suitability and availability In coordination with Landscape Architect and Contractor Boulevards are sloped to streets to allow runoff to streets. Landform will be overseeing construction to ensure proper adherence to proper landscaping. Any drainage issues and soil conditions will be handled prior to planting by collaboration of Landscape Architect and contractor. Soil conditions will be tested prior to planting to determine pH conditions and amendments to plantings will reflect pH results. NIobe Willows will be adjusted over trail to mitigate overhanging of branches. Adjustment may include planting more Red Maples or Swamp White Oak. The use of Fleeceflower will be minimized. Item 26. Landform will review and adjust planting rates per proper coveraae and establishment for each seed mixture type. ^ ^ ^ ^ Item 27. There is a concern about potential walkable areas in the entry median. Landform will add some plant material In strategic areas to mitigate desire to walk along median, but still allow for viewing. It was also discussed that a loop walk be created at the southern end of entry median around the falls. Landform will look at this opportunity. Item 28. Mike Gaffron Is to verify with Sheldon Johnson for his understanding and approval of entry design. Item 29. Design comment that required no direction. 3 k vs •It) lfzr?/o%> /ucr<i., Third Draft 12-6-02 / Updated I-23-03 A RESOI.UTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY Pl.AT APPROVAL AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 4 FOR DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT, LLC - FILE #2789/2840 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hcrcinaHcr “City Council") has adopted land development regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, Dahlstrom Development, LLC ("the Developer”) has an interest in property located at *2550' Wayzata Boulevard and legally described as: Outlot B, Willow Properties Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except Parcel 201 and 201a Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-57. (hercinaOer the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application by the Developer for development by the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process of the Property; and WHEREAS, on August 26,2002 the City Council adopted Resolution No, 4852 granting General Concept Plan Approval for the proposed development, which approval inclu jed the following elements; 1. Rezoning of the portion of the Property north of Kelley Parkw ay from RR-1B Single Family Rural Residential District to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District for construction of 167 residential multi-family dwelling units on a portion of the site comprising approximately 41 acres. Page 1 of 17 2. Creation of two commercial outlots on the remaining 10 acres to be rezoned and developed at a later date. 3. As part of the residential development, construction of Kelley Parkway as well as construction of municipal sewer, water, and storm sewer systems to ser\e the proposed development; and WHEREAS, the applicants have submitted a Preliminary Plat and General Development Plan for approval by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission on November 19,2002 pursuant to public notification held a public hearing on the application for Preliminary Plat and General Development Plan approval, at which time all persons wishing to comment on the project were provided the opportunity to comment; and W'HEREAS, on November 19,2002 the Orono Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the General Development Plan, including the proposed rezoning to RPUD, the various elements of the Plan, preliminary plat approval for the entire plat, and final plat approval for the portion of the Plan designated as Phase 1, subject to a number of conditions; and W'HEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings regarding the General Development Plan: 1 The Developer has provided a Development Plan for the residential portion of the development that substantially conforms to the Development Standards for Attached and Multi-Family Dwelling Structures for the RPUD District per Zoning Code Section 10.33, Subd. 5(G) and has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council that all RPUD standards have been met or will be met, and has demonstrated where such standards arc not met, and has satisfied the City Council that non- compliance w ith said standards is remedied in a manner acceptable to the Council. The Developer has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that the RPUD standard ot 10% of the gross project area has been set aside for private recreational uses. The Developer has agreed to install a Tot Lot as one of the private park & recreation amenities of the development. Page 2 of 17 bf 3.The Developer has provided a landscaping plan and a proposed ‘strectscapc’ for Kelley Parkway tiiat has been reviewed by the City’s consulting landscape planner and by the City Council and has been found to substantially meet all of the requirements of the RPUD District and is satisfactory to the City Council subject to conditions to be specified in this resolution. The landscaping plan provides for a “parkway” character through substantial landscaping along Kelley Parkway. 4.The Orono Fire Marshal has reviewed the General Development Plan and finds it generally in accordance with applicable codes and standards. The Plans include a provision for emergency vehicle access between Kelley Parkway and East Lane. 5.The Developer has demonstrated to tl satisfaction of the City Council that the development as proposed is in compliance with all the wetland protection and mitigation requirements of the Minnehalia Creek Watershed District as administrator of the WCA regulations on Orono ’s behalf. 6.Tlie Developer has provided market study information confirming that the proposed residential units at the proposed pricepoints are marketable and will provide housing options generally needed within the Orono area. 7.The Developer has submitted a Preliminary Plat providing for the creation of Lots, Outlots, drainage and utility easements and public right-of-way dedications generally in confonnance with the approved General Concept Plan. WHEREAS, the Applicants have agreed to e.xecute Planned Unit Development No. 4 Agreement providing for the installation of certain public and private improvements as a condition of General Development Plan approval, which agreement will additionally documents the general and detailed conditions for use and development of the Property; and WHEREAS, the Developer has completed or has agreed to complete all other requirements of the Zoning Code and related Ordinances of the City including but not limited to: 1.Provision of evidence to the City of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) permit approval for the grading and stomiwater management facilities plan for the development of the Property. Page 3 of 17 2. 2. Provision of evidence to the City of Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) drainage permit approval for construction of the regional storm water pond within Mn/DOT right-of-way, and of Mn/DOT permit approval for construction of public street, street amenities and utilities within the Mn/DOT right-of-way. Payment to the City of Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fees for the development of the Property in the amount ofS - : established in the Development Fees Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3. Payment of Sewer and Water Connection Charges in the amount of-S^ established in the Development Fees Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B. Payment of Park Dedication Fee in the amount of-5;established in the Development Fees Schedule attached hereto as Exhibit B WHEREAS, the City Council, City staff and consultants have reviewed the plans for this PUD application and hereby specify approval of each attached plan Plan Sheet attached within Exhibit F and identify them as part of the official record for Planned Unit Development No. 4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the findings of Resolution No. 4852 and on the findings enumerated in this Resolution, the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby grant Preliminary Plat Approval and General Development Plan Approval for Planned Unit Development No. 4, subject to the following conditions; 1.General Development Pian Approval is granted subject to conditions established w ithin Resolution 4852 and enumerated herein, and subject to the conditions to be established within the Planned Unit Development No. 4 Agreement and other pertinent documents. 2. RPUD Development Standards and General Conditions. a)The total number of residential dwelling units shall be 162 units including 62 Lofts units, 47 two-story townhomes and 53 rambler townhomes, as configured on the approved site plan. Sheet C5.1. Page 4 of 17 Street lighting along Kelley Parkway adjacent to the property shall be provided by the Developer and shall be of a style, number, height and location approved by the City Council. Public street lighting along Kelley Parkway shall be installed and maintained by the utility company through a standard agreement between the City and the appropriate public utility company. Interior private street lighting shall be at a low level consistent with the surrounding rural residential character while providing the necessary level of security. Such lighting shall be of a style, number, height and location approved by the City Council. Interior street lighting shall be maintained by the homeowners association. Final decisions by the Developer regarding colors, t>pes and qualities of building materials shall be subject to City staff approval, and shall be in conformity with the sample colors, types and qualities documented by reference in Exhibit C. Final building designs shall be reviewed by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance with the architectural standards of the RPUD District. The separation distances between townhome buildings are acceptable as shown on the approved General Development Plan, with the majority being at least IS' at the nearest point with greater separation as the building walls diverge. Within each Phase of development, if any changes to plans result in separations less than 15', such plans shall be subject to review by the City Council and Developer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that suitable architectural styling, building orientation or other methods will be used to mitigate the lack of separation. Any revisions to building separations, hydrant locations or fixture si/es/tvpcs deemed necessary by the Orono Fire Marshal as required for fire-protection purposes shall be made by the Developer. The berm along the Public Works site east boundary may be extended eastward as shown on Sheet_____to assist in establishing a bulTer to the Lofts; however, any buffer walls, plantings or other improxements shall be located on the Lofts site as shown in the approved General Development Plan. The Developer shall take extraordinary efforts to minimize impacts on existing vegetation and enhance screening and buffering in the area northwest of the Lofts west building. The City’s Public Works operation may be a 24- Page 5 of 17 g) i) j) hour operation dependent on weather and other emergency situations. A disclosure regarding the Lofts buildings proximity to Public Works shall be required of Lofts buyers to help limit the expected complaints about City activity and noise from the Public Works site. All residential buildings including the Lofts shall have pitched roofs as shown on Sheet___to maintain a rural residential character. Roofs for the Lofts units shall be low-pitched rather than steeply pitched to decrease the impact of excess building height. Developer shall submit proposed conditions for development of the commercial outlets to maintain the natural amenity values of the pond and protect the perimeter of the pond from encroachment by commercial development. Final landscaping plans shall be subject to the recommendations of Wallace Case as enumerated in his letter dated 11/6/02 as revised or amended per the Memorandum bv Tom Kirbv dated January 17. 2003. The pertinent Homeowners Association(s) shall be responsible for permanent maintenance of landscaping per the Landscaping provisions of the RPUD District. As a condition of the PUD No. 4 Agreement, Developer shall provide landscape performance security as required in the RPUD District standards. The following variance to the RPUD development standards is hereby granted: Building height variance for Lofts building from 30* to 38' defined height (measured from final average grade at high side). 3. Transportation a) Kelley Parkway shall be platted and constructed by the Developer as a two- lane public roadway with appropriate turn lanes per the design and specifications as shown on the approved design. Sheets___. Appropriate traffic control and parking signage on Kelley Parkway shall be installed b>’ the developer subject to the City Engineer's review and approval. Developer shall also be responsible for construction of public road improvements to Willow Drive as shown on Sheet___. The City Engineer shall inspect all road construction at the appropriate stages to ensure specifications are met. Page 6 of 17 f The Developer shall provide a 12-ironth warranly on all street construction including utilities, sidewalks, landscaping and lighting. On-street parking will be allowed on the north side of Kelley Parkway only, within the 8' parallel parking ‘bump-outs’ as indicated on the approved Plans. The final road design shall ensure ease of maintenance for snow removal. The interior street system and sidewalks within the common areas of the residential portion of the development shall be privately owned and maintained, with the exception of the Public Trail located along Willow Drive. The appropriate City standard private street and utility easements .shall be required over all streets and utilities within the common areas. Maintenance ofthe private streets and sidewalks will be the responsibility of the Developer or an incorporated homeowners association. The interior road system shall be constructed per the specifications as shown on the approved plans. Sheets______. Appropriate traffic control signage for all interior streets shall be installed by the developer subject to approval of the City Engineer. There shall be no parking on interior streets except at designated parking areas. The emergency-use-only connection between the Fast I.anc cul-de-sac loop and Kelley Parkw.iy shall be constructed, maintained and signed to ensure emergency vehicle access is maintained in all seasons while physically prohibiting general traffic use. Final design shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. An 8’ wide bituminous surfaced public pedestrian, bicycle trail shall be constructed by the Developer within Outlets B, C, F and G in a cuia ilinear fashion as depicted on Sheet C2.1. This trail system shall be constructed in conjunction with Phase 1 ofthe development. An 8' wide bituminous surfaced public pedestriaabicycle trail shall be constructed by the Developer within Outlot A along Willow Drive in conjunction with Phase 1 of the development to ensure that the area designated for trail use is not commercially developed. Page 7 of 17 h) An 8' wide bituminous surfaced public pedestrian/bicycle trail shall be constructed by the Developer or his successors in ownership within Outlets A and D along Highway 12, eonnecting to the trails constructed in Phase I. The consimetion of the portions of said public trail adjacent to Highway 1 2 within Outlets A and D may be deferred until a determination is made whether the Highway 12 boulevard area will be converted from a rural section to an urban section and/or until Outlets A or D are developed for commercial uses.. The trails along Highway 12 may be located within the Highway 1 2 right-of- way if a 20' separation is maintained from the traveled roadway of Highway 12, and if MnDOT approval is obtained. Portions of the trail may be located within the right of way of Kelley Parkway north of the stormwater pond. The trail shall provide a continuous connection along Highway 12 from the cast boundary of the property to the west boundary; connection across the stormwater pond area may be along Highway 12 or may jog up to and back down from Kelley Parkway along the stormwater pond perimeter. i) The City shall be responsible for maintenance of the public trails upon their completion and acceptance. Public casements including a suitable shoulder width shall be granted overall the public trails not located in dedicated right- of-way. j) Sidewalks along both sides of Kelley Parkway shall be provided by the developer as depicted on Sheets_______, including 5* concrete sidewalks separated from back of curb by 8' to accommodate deciduous trees and landscaping in boulevard. k) All trails and sidewalks, whether public or private, shall be installed concurrently with the residential development phases and prior to occupancy of residential units. l) Maintenance responsibility for the sidewalks within the right-of-way of Kelley Parkway shall be the responsibility of the Developer or the homeowners or commercial maintenance association(s). Page 8 of 17 Utilities and Stormwater Management a)Developer shall construct municipal sewer and water lines as shown on Sheets ______, subject to final design detail approval by the City Engineer. The Developer shall provide a 12-month warranty on all utility construction. The City will own and maintain the sanitary sewer and water mains within the development. The City will inspect these systems during their construction to ensure proper installation. Developer shall grant Drainage and Utility Easements to the City of Orono over all municipal sewer and water lines and facilities, including the rights of way necessary to maintain same. Applicants' architect shall submit final development plans to the Metro Council Environmental Services to determine the exact number of SAC units to be charged at the time of the issuance of building permits. Developer shall construct stormwater management facilities as shown on the approved plans. Sheets______. The stormwater drainage system will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Developer shall construct a regional stormwater pond within Outlots B and C and within the MnDOT right-of-way per the designs and specifications as shown on Sheets______, subject to Developer obtaining the appropriate permits for such use from MnDOT. The regional pond is intended to accommodate stomnvater runoff from the development as well as for the entire upstream watershed. The regional stormwater pond shall be maintained by the Developer during all phases of development, after which the Stonebay Community Association shall be responsible for maintenance. In the event that MnDOT approvals require that the City be responsible for maintenance of the regional stormwater pond, the aforesaid Association shall accept the financial obligation for such maintenance. Developer shall provide record plan sets for all utility construction in a timely manner. Page 9 of 17 rCjfeitlk r Welland Impacts Orono ’s 26' wetland setback requirement (Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subd. 8) which disallows filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, wells or other construction, is in effect on the site. Final grading and site plans. Sheets ___, indicate those locations where grading or filling within the 26 ’ setback is necessary to accomplish the Plan. A variance to Section 10.55, Subd.8 is hereby granted to allow the minimal filling within the 26' wetland setbacks where buildings abut the 26 ’ setback line as shown on the approved plan sheets. However, no encroachment of buildings, retaining walls or other constructed features into the 26 ’ wetland setback will be allowed. 1 he City speci fically acknowledges that ____acres of City protected wetland are to be filled or othenvise impacted as part of the project. The Developer shall comply with ail requirements ofthc MCWD in regards to mitigation and protection of wetlands on the site. 6. Grading, Erosion Control a) Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas". b) The Developer shall comply with all conditions enumerated in the Erosion Control memo by Bonestroo & Associates dated October 3,2002. c) All erosion control measures as required by the City and the MCWD shall be in place, inspectetl and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing c.xcavation on the site. d) All such erosion control measures shall be maintained in working order prior to, during and after the project until released by the City Engineer, subject to weekly inspection or as necessary until the site is revegetated. Page 10 of 17 I'i 7. Due to the Phasing of the project and the resultant lengthy period of time the site wilt be under construction, the Developer shall as a condition of the PUD No. 4 Agreement provide an escrow (amount to be dctemiincd) to cover the inspection costs of ongoing erosion control inspections. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits (including but not limited to NPDES, MCWD and MnDOT permits) from the appropriate agencies for erosion control prior to commencing c.xcavation on the site In the event that the Developer ’s NPDES pemiit requires a Best Management Practices Plan, such plan shall be submitted to the City prior to commencing excavation on the site. The construction limits shall be clearly marked with adequate fencing to prevent any construction damage or disturbance of any trees and vegetation outside of the construction limits area. Prior to commencing excavation on the site. Developer shall identify trees to be preserx ed, shall mark them on a site plan, and shall take extraordinary measures such as fencing, signage, etc. to ensure they are not disturbed. Other Cicneral Conditions Monument signs as depicted in Sheets___may be provided by the dcv ’clopcr at each entrance to the RPUD development site. The signage shall be limited to a development name and'or logo and street address on the monument signs. Any changes to the final design/materials of monument signage from those shown on the approved plans shall be subject to approval by the City Council. Any design, material or specification revisions from the approved plans involving streets, utilities, stomi sewer facilities, grading or the regional pond shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to implementation of such changes. Any design, material or specification revisions from the approved plans involving dwelling unit design guidelines, architectural styles, building location, site landscaping, and other approved'requircd site amenities, shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director and may be subject to review and approval by the City Council at the discretion of the Planning Director. Page 11 of 17 I J 8. Prior to release of the final plat. City Attorney shall review and approve the covenants and documents describing the creation, structure, rights, obligations and responsibilities of the various homeowners associations serving the development. The covenants shall include conditions of this resolution that have not been met as of the release of the plat, provide common access easements for each lot that receives access from a shared private street or driveway, and shall provide for maintenance of all common areas. Preliminary Plat Approval. Preliminary plat approval is granted for the entire plat. Final plat approval will be granted for each Phase of the residential development upon submittal and approval of the required final plat documents for that Phase, including final engineering plans for all improvements. The required submittals for Final Plat Approval are as follows: a)Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: I.Lot lines platted per preliminary plat drawing by Landform, Sheet C5.I, dated September 18,2002. II.Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" over the common lots within each Phase of the residential development as the Phases are brought forward for final platting. III.Dedication of 10' drainage and utility casements along all perimeter lot lines of Outlots A and D. Dedication of a 30' drainage and utility easement along the south lot line of Outlot D. IV.For approval of Phase I, dedication of 10 ’ drainage and utility easements over the north and east boundaries of Outlots F and G, and along the west boundary of Outlot D. Legal documents required: I.Title opinion addressed to the City. Ait owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. Page 12 of 17 9. II.Certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. iii. Final copies of Master Declaration and individual Community Declarations pertinent to the phase being final platted. iv. Standard private road easement document over the private road ways within each Phase, granting the City the right to maintain said roads (may be incorporated into the Declarations). Final plat approval fees to be paid for each Phase: Final Plat Review Fee...........$250.00 minimum plus incurred legal, engineering, and planning consultant charges Document Filing Fees............$220.00 minimum plus incurred costs Development Agreement. General Development Plan approval is contingent upon the successful execution of a PUD No. 4 Agreement between the applicant and the City. 10. Financial Guarantee. The PUD No. 4 Agreement shall include a financial guarantee by the applicant to ensure the completion of site improvements. The City Engineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, including but not limited to public and private streets, curb & gutter, stormwater management facilities, landscaping, grading, erosion control, utilities, driveways and parking areas, trails, sidewalks, and retaining wall construction. Developer shall provide to the City a financial guarantee of 150% of the improvement costs prior to commencement of construction for each Phase. At no time during any Phase will the financial guarantee be reduced to to less than $ 100,000. This amount shall not be released until all improvements and obligation covered by the financial guarantee have been completed, including delivery of record plan sets to the City. Page 13 of 17 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Upon the final approval and execution of this resolution and the Planned Unit Development No. 4 Agreement, the City Council shall formally approve an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the City to rezonc the portions of the Property north of Kelley Parkway to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development, and amending the Orono Zoning Code by adding language establishing Planned Unit Development No. 4 (PUD-4) to include all portions of the property. Upon approval of this Resolution the City Council shall direct the Mayor and Clerk to execute other documents required by this PUD rezoning, including but not limited to the “Planned Unit Development No. 4 Agreemtrt*”. all subject to approval by the City Attorney. Minor changes in the location, placement and height of structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved and filed w ith the Zoning Administrator. Changes in uses: Changes to the approved final development plan deemed by the Planning Director to be significant maybe made only after a public hearing conducted by the Council. Any changes shall be recorded as amendments to the recorded copy of the final development plan. Ifsubslantial development of Phase I has not occurred within one year after approval of PUD No. 4 as set forth in the Planned Unit Development No. 4 Agreement, the City Council may declare the approvals granted within this resolution and within said Agreement as null and void. Approvals for any future Phases for which substantial development has not occurred within four (4) years after the date of approval of PUD No. 4 as set forth in the Planned Unit Development No. 4 Agreement, may be declared by the City Council as null and void. 1 he approvals granted in this Resolution shall not become effective until such time that the Developer successfully completes purchase and provides evidence suitable to the City Attorney of ownership of the Property. The approvals granted in this Resolution shall become effective only when all coi: ti‘«otis of approval requiring actions by the Developer have been satisfied. Page 14 of 17 F i- \ M. uwi ►f Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 27th day of January, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vec, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Developer (On behalf of Dahlstrom Development Corporation LLC) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of ,2003 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 STAl E OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 2003 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 *1 Page 15 of 17 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ..20 personally appeared before me, ____ who is personally known to me ____ whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity 1 proved on the oath/affirmation of a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that hc/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .20 personally appeared before me, ____ who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affinnation of a credible* witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/hcr/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 16 of 17 F LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Preliminary Plat Drawings (Sheet C5.I dated 12-2-02) Development Fees Schedule Schedule of Approved Building Materials Phasing Plan Drawing Retaining Wall Sample Photo Depiction Approved Plan Sheets Reference Page 17 of 17 I V, V' .*•’“ ■ •;i-IV^. -<%* »•• : r -y 'i, Application Deadline; 10/22/02 60 Day Deadline: 12/20/02 Extended Deadline: 02/17/03 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Wendy Bottenberg Title: Zoning Administrator JAN 2 7 2003 Cn y Or OrtUlvO DATE: ITEM NO. ^ Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:^02*2850 John and Patricia Walker 1310 Spruce Place Variances Exhibits: A Resolution B StafTReport and exhibits of 11/18/02 Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B): Rear Yard Setback: To permit a deck/steps to be 23’ from the rear lot line where 30’ is required for the LR-IB zoning district. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250 ’: Within 75-250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 4,277 s.f. (34%), where 4,277 s.f. (34%) exists and 3,137.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicant has requested rear yard setback and hardcover in 75-250* setback variances to construct a 216 s.f. deck to the existing residence. Discussion: This application was heard at the November, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The application was tabled with direction given to the applicant ’s representative. The applicant submitted a new design which included that the Planning Commission recommended that the hardcover in the 75- 250 ’ setback zone remain at existing level - 4,277 s.f (34%). The applicant redesigned the deck, remov ed the steps and remov ed a portion of the driveway, entire lower patio, and eliminated the brick paver walk in favor of a wood chip pathway. The hardcov er in the 75-250 ’ setback zone is proposed to be 4.277 s.f (34%). Rear Yard Setback: The proposed deck will be 216 s.f. The deck will be located 23’ from the rear property line, where 30’ is required in the LR-IB zoning district. The rear property line is Grant Street. Grant Su-eet is an unimproved right of way. It serv es primarily as a drainage way and a pedestrian way, and the city has no plans to improve it. r Lot Coverage by Structures: The lot coverage by structure is currently 1,913 s.f. (13.4%). The proposed deck will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 2,129 s.f. (1 4.9%) where 2,142.1S s.f. (1 5%) is allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: Approve application as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. L.- rt «ii t 9. K A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L); AND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. 02-2850 WHEREAS, John Walker and Patricia Walker, (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1310 Spruce Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lots 9 & 10, Block 10, Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants submitted an application requesting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit 4,277 s.f. (34%) hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback, where 4,277 s.f. (34.%) exists and 3,137.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed; and a variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit a deck to be 23’ from the rear lot line where 30 ’ is required in the LR-1B zoning district; 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 Comnii.ssion held a public hearing on January' 22, 2003, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2850. The property ’s located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 1 acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately .33 acres. Page 1 of 6 I t ( 3. 4. 5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 22,2003 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A. The existing residence was built in 1974. B. The property is unusual that it is surrounded on two side by platted, but undeveloped right of ways. C. The City is unlikely to vacate Summit Avenue or Grant Street, therefore there is not additional land to obtain. D. The topography of the property changes from the front to the rear of the property, necessitating retaining walls. E. The deck will not obstruct views of adjacent neighbors. F.The property is wooded, at the end of the street, and surrounded by two undeveloped right of ways, therefore the deck location will not have any negative visual impact in the neighborhood. G.The hardcover in the 7S-2S0' setback zone is not increasing, fhe applicant will remove a lower deck, a portion of the driveway and a brick paver walkway to maintain existing hardcover levels. 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 will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air. nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 r Ir^ IN— CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal 2k)ning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit 4,277 s.f. (34%) hardcover in the 75-250 ’ lakeshorc setback, where 4,277 s f (34.%) exists and 3,137.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed; and a variance to Section 10.24, Sub»jiv ijion 5 (B) to permit a deck to be 23 ’ from the rear lot line where 30 ’ is required in the LR-IB zoning district, subject to the following conditions: I.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.The following hardcover shall be removed from the property prior to final inspection of the deck (indicated on Exhibit A): Entire lower patio (42 s.f.), portion of the driveway (111.2 s.f.), and brick pavers (63 s.f.) walk turned to wood chip pathway. 3.Authorities granted by the variances run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (January 27, 2004). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the variances 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 owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 27''* day of January, 2003. Page 3 of 6 5 r ATTEST: Linda S. Vec, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Applicants STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27*** day of January, 2003 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 ______ ___________, 200 ____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota day of municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 i aCtlA n ii .Am . STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ..20. 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/afTirmation witness ,a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ,20 personally appeared before me, who is personally known to me whose identity 1 proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation witness . a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 itiiiiiaiiiiifiiiiiiriiri ■ Exhibit A a >rz: xa -3 rt t?d •-3 AVENUE Pfige 6 of 6 1 • TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Conunission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January 15,2003 SUBJECT:#02-2850 John and Patricia Walker 1318 Spruce Place Variances - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 14,501 s.f. (.33 acre) Exhibits: A Survey B Hardcover Calculations C Minutes from November 2002 Planning Commission Meeting D Planning Report and Exhibits from November, 2002 Application Summary: This application was heard at the November, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The application was tabled with direction given to the applicant ’s representative. The applicant has submitted a new site plan with those changes. The applicant has met all the conditions. The variances are listed below and the new changes are proposed. Planning Commission directions for the applicant: 1. Maintain hardcover in 75-250’ setback zone to 4,277 s.f. (34%) by removing existing hardcover. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B): Rear Yard Setback: To permit a deck/steps to be 23’ from the rear lot line where 30’ is required for the LR-IB zoning district. I hc setback was increased to 23’ from 17’ due to the deck being redesigned and is smaller than previously proposed. Also, the stairway to the ground level was eliminated. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (LX2): Hardcover in 75-250’: Within 75-250* of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a ha"dco\ er variance to allow 4,277 s.f (34%), where 4,277 s.f (34%) exists and 3,137.5 s.f (25%) is allowed. The hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone was reduced to 4,277 s.f (34%) by removing a portion of the driveway, the entire lower patio, reducing the size of the proposed deck, and eliminating the brick paver walk in favor of a wood chip pathway. #02-28S0A John Walker 1318 Spruce Place 1/15/2003 Page I of2 1 J n Staff Rccommcndatioii: Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback and hardcover variances in 7S-2S0’ setback zone to construct a ^k on the rear of the residence. IV02-2850A John Wilker IJISSpnice Place 1/15/2003 Page2of2 i '.i '. . HARDCOVER CALCULimOBf^ORKSHEET SETBACKZ<»<E: (CIRCLE<K<E> 0-75* ^7^0*3 250-500* '/airi 500-1000*6 re HARDCOVER PfgQNE A. House Lmu A 'I > ■ •• * B. * ’Oanje «* • •• • C. DtivVvay D. Sldewdk £. Psdo/Deeic F. X X X 3^1 168.1 • / . bfliuiMiu oeiifL^viA. ie^k. ______ jCuAi^ 7^3") * ■ X ' ____ * oc .\Q|A n ^v . P^*no V2- X TATto cewovfcp io Dfei'/fc X ZZIZ__?' " _______________ X_____________ ** O. Other feoAOtggS TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - • . •■ + B xlOO PROPOSED HARDCOVra IN 20N5 ' A. House _____________ X Lcosft B. Ganse C. Drivewy D. Sidewalk^ • E. Pailo/Deck F; Landscape Uoderiila By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X O. other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ’ A _______+ B .XlOO nzi.«(g S.F.41su 5c / ^*7 S.F.g>6i^ «« YXJix(/» S.F. _________S.F. 1.\^ 60 mV S.F. • ni '6>-g -s.F.g^* -S.F. # _s.F.e*-*«J _S.F.c«^»< _ S.F. pfnr _ S.F. (fee.* S.F.*'^- - _ (sc<. S.F. ^oo S.F. S.F.r. t I S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ♦S.F. S.F. • • S.F. •S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.- •S.F.|^»c. ■ 'S S.F.fe^^ <=\0 S.F. A \n'ba S.F. B 6.Z 55 p .7 ” —It..- Wendy Bottenberg > 111802 Orono Planning Finat.doc ? i \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 16,2002 6:30oack)ci( pm Hunt indicated that the cupola would be sealed olT with no access to it. Loraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road S. questioned what other types of homes were in the neighborhood currently. Neil Trainor, 1675 Concordia Street, stated that he had attended the meeting to learn whether the home was going to possess a widow s peak or not. Wit>i regard to the character of the neighborhood, he indicated that there was a mixed bag of styles throughout the area and he saw no problem with the cupola fitting in. Rahn asked whether the railing around the top of the home was usable or a single wire. Hunt stated it was merely a single wire rail for safety not a usable deck area. Hawn moved, Mabusih seconded, to recommend Application #02*2847, James Nystrom, approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of the 4DX4D cupola on the top of the residence located at 1725 Concordia Street. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#7) #02*2850 JOHN AND PATRICU WALKER, 1318 SPRUCE PLACE, VARIANCES 7:21* 7:37 P.M. Ron Anderson. General Contractor for the Applicants, was present. Bottenberg reported that the applicants had requested rear yard and hardcover in the 75* 250 setback variances to construct a 258 s.f. deck/steps to the existing residence. The proposed deck would be 258 s.f. and located 17 ^ from the rear property line, where 30~ is required. The rear property line is Grant Street, an unimproved right*of*way. which the City has no plans on improving. There have not been any variances granted for this property. Bottenberg noted that the property is located within the 75*250.. hardcover zone. The addition of the steps and deck increase the hardcover from 34% to 36%. While the lot coverage by structure is currently 13.4%. the addition of the steps/deck would result in an increase in the structural coverage, which meets the 15% allowed. Mr. Anderson had nothing to add. There were no public comments. Although she was at a loss to make a suggestion, Mabusth asked if the applicant had considered the removal of any hardcover to maintain the 34%. She believed removal of blacktop might be difficult. PAGE 6 of 2* Page 6 j -O Wendy Bottenberg • 111802 Orono Planning Final.doc MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 16,2002 6:30 oodock p.m. Anderson noted that they had removed rock and plastic, however, could not remove the existing retaining walls. Chair Smith questioned the potential for removal of the patio block on the side of the residence. Mabusth indicated that there was a rear door located at that spot Bremer stated that little would be gained with its removal. Rahn stated that he believed more work could be done with regard to the driveway to further reduce hardcover. He pointed out that the Commission, typically, requires removal of hardcover when adding hardcover in order to maintain and not increase hardcover amounts, which are already in excess of 25%. («7)#02-2850 JOHN AND PATRICIA WALKER, 1318 SPRUCE PLACE, Continued GafTron stated that the slab is 8 :X8 Hawn stated that she could not identify a hardship, other than the odd shape and size, which don t necessarily constitute a hardship. Anderson maintained that the driveway eats up a good portion of the allowable hardcover and is difficult to maneuver in and out of, other than backing straight out into the roadway. Chair Smith reasoned whethei the driveway constitutes adequate luudship. Mabusth agreed, stating that the driveway contains more hardcover than the house itself. Rahn asked if the small turnaround portion of the Iriveway were usable, and if not. suggested it be removed to reduce hardcover. GafTron indicated that it abuts the drop off and would give the ISO s.f. or more of hardcover to work with. Since the owners own the two lots ne.xt to one another, Hawn suggested they consider a lot line rearrangement to create a bener driveway situation. Anderson stated that the applicants had attempted to do just that several years ago and had been denied. He added :!uu loarranging the lots could be difHcult. GafTron agreed that it could be difllcult to rearrange the lot lines so as not to adversely affect the property closer to the lake. He cautioned the rearrangement could merely PAGE 7 of 26 V-' P»>e7j -. o i Wendy Bottenberg • 111802 Orono Planning Final.doc MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEET.NG Monday, November 18.2002 6:30 oodock p.m. succeed in making both lots more nonconforming. Anderson indicated that they had looked into the potential of Grant Street being vacated. Gaffron noted that it would be unlikely Grant Street would be vacated. Chair Smith stated that the Planning Commission would prefer the hardcover be maintained at the current level, 34%, without an increase. Anderson slated that he would speak to the Walkers about the removal of portions of the driveway and patio. (#7) «02-28S0 JOHN AND PATRCIA WALKER, 1318 SPRUCE PLACE, Continued Fritzler suggested they look at the sidewalk to the front door also. Mabusth stated that her feeling was that the applicants could maintain the 34%, through a combination of removals they could build the 2S8 s.f. deck. Chair Smith stated that the Commission could stipulate removals and move the application forward to Council. Anderson stated that through a combination of removals and reconfiguring the deck they could maintain the 34%. Rahn suggested that the decorative boulder walls be removed. Bremer indicated that she would be more comfortable with tabling the application in order to allow for redesign and removals and asked if this would hold up the applicant s process to return in January. Although they would begin work inside, Anderson stated that the deck work would not begin until spring, therefore, his returning in January would not affect the contract he has. Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application 802-2850, John and Patricia Walker, 1318 Spruce Place, for the purpose of redesigning the proposal VOTE: Ayes 6, .Nays 0. (#8) 802-2853 AULIK DESIGN CORPORATION, 955 TONKAWA ROAD, VARIANCE 7:38-8:11 P.M. Gary Aulik, of Aulik Design Group, and Russ Schumer, property owner, were present. Bottenberg e.xplained that the applicant was requesting an average lakeshore setback PAGE 8 of 20 Pages c. TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:November 15,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2850 John and Patricia Walker 1318 Spruce Place Variances -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 14,501 s.f. (.33 acre) Exhibits: A Application Survey Topographic Map Letter from Applicant Hardcover Calculations Elevations Photos of Property Plat Map Property Owner’s List B C D E F G H I Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B): Rear Yard Setback: To permit a deck/steps to 17’ from the rear lot line where 30’ is required for the LR-1B zoning district. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (LX2): Hardcover in 75-250’: Within 75-250* of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 4,535 s.f (36%), where 4,277 s.f. (34%) exists and 3,137.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicant has requested rear yard setback and hardcover in 75-250’ setback variances to construct a 258 s.f. deck/steps to the existing residence. Discussion: The existing residence was built in 1974. There have not been any additions just upgrades to the existing residence. A new roof has been put on the residence and the basement has been remodeled. There have not been any variances granted for this property. #02-2850 John Walker 1318 Spruce Place 11/15/2002 Page I of3 7 ---— Rear Yard Setback: The proposed deck will be 258 s.f. The deck will be located 17' from the rear property line, where 30' is required in the LR-IB zoning district. The rear property line is Grant Street. Grant Street is an unimproved right of way. It serves primarily as a drainage way and a pedestrian way, and the city has no plans to improve it. The topographic map (Exhibit C) indicates the elevation change from front to rear of the property. It also shows where the subject property lies in relation to Grant Street. Hardcover: The property is located in the 75-250* hardcover zone. The existing residence and the proposed deck/steps increase the hardcover from 4,277 s.f. (34%) to 4,535 s.f. (36%). The property currently does not have a deck, therefore a deck is not included in the existing hardcover numbers. Lot Coverage by Structures: The lot coverage by structure is currently 1,913 s.f (13.4%). The proposed deck/steps will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 2,170 s.f (15%) where 2,175.15 s.f. (15%) is allowed. Again a deck is not included in the existing lot coverage by structures because currently one does not exist. Statement of Hardship: The applieants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The existing residence was built in 1974. 2. The hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone is increasing to 36%, above the allowed 25%. Is there any existing hardcover that can be removed to make the property more conforming? Note that the location of the house necessitates a long driveway which uses up a large percentage of the hardcover allowance. 3. The property is unusual that it is surrounded on two sides by platted, but undeveloped right of ways. 4. The City is unlikely to vacate Summit Avenue or Grant Street, hence applicant cannot obtain additional land. ff02-28S0 John Walker 1318 Spruce Place 11/15/2002 i^e2of3 5. The topography of the property changes from the front to the rear of the property, necessitating the retaining wtdls. 6. The deck/steps will not obstruct views of adjacent neighbors. 7. The property is wooded, at the end of the street, and surrounded by two undeveloped right of ways. 8. The deck/steps increases the lot coverage by structures to 1S%. 9. The property is undersized for the zoning district, but was granted a variance to lot area in 1974. 10. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: If Planning Conunission concludes that the unusual conditions and configuration of this property are hardships that support approval of increases in hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone and rear yard setback variances to construct a 258 s.f deck/steps to the existing residence where no deck currently exists, then a reconunendation for approval may be appropriate. Options for Action: 1 . Recommend approval of variances requested. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. I’t #02-2130 John Walker 1318 Spnice Place 1 1/15/2002 Pate3of3 r‘. Lot Area: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 14,280 s.f. (0.33 acre) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 75-250 ’12,550 s.f.3,137.5 s.f.4,277 s.f. (34%) no deck 4,535 s.f. (36%) 250-500’1,730 s.f.519 s.f.90 s.f. (5.2 90 s.f. (5.2%) Structural Lot Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 14,280 s.f.Allowed: 2,142 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,913 s.f. (13.4%) Proposed: 2,170 s.f. (15%) ITT^I • * # • • J ‘ • » I # OZ'ZSSV CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Received /Q -22.-0 2. Amomt Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address -t L q Propeity Identification Number (P.I.D.) ll*7 - nni^_______ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 'De.C.e.m-t^g.r _______________(month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: > residential Zoning District: /^ - tft_________ other (specify). APPLICANT Name L^. VxJa 1 kp Phone (home) 9531 Mn-ntni Phone (work) _____________ Address: City: Drono Zip:^5’5feV ,pWNER (if different than applicant) Name**Rt-i«-ic.icw(^rQ^’Vkg.fv^Li)a \ki Phone (home). Phone (woric)_ Address: ^^ ^City: Droifto - Zip;_.gSSfa«j. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $, Describe request in detail: Sc-g, a±tAo ko A_______________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width y Hardcover y Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side X Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements : Sec, etttk _________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) JJm 7T ^ O A ► •L r n REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ^ «f ftt ftlliwlig iDfonmllBB mult In mBmlncd bv iht «m.lic.iion ftrdcr for vour aPDlication to bt fiin<idgr«>rt rn»»,p|etg; „„„ 2. 'v 3. 4. N 5. \ 6. X Completed Application Form Certified Prope^ OwiiTO List of owners svilhin ISC', labels and plat map (you Cemficale of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. To^giaphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing gr^e are projwsed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/," x 11" for reproductioiL Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11") List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest iii foe property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of anv other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour yarlinct application b not complete if the above information has not heen APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE -The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by foe Zonine Administrator agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that foe information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Lp, IOckM^U 7. 8. Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to lliis application and fiirther authorizes reasonable enuy onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's SignaturC^^^y'i<v/» v(r all subm Date \0» jn - A /o-21~02l. ^Applicant mwt h^d^all submittals into the City offices 25 days before ^e Pluming Commssion Meetmg. Planning Commission Meetings are held on foe 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 man^ments to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zomng Office of this change prior to foe meeting. II ■■ .• •••V, r' *4 W 4 - ^.s <\ :/ V V- y iO 00 01o / *« *1 me •t KM 6 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN WALKER OF LOTS 9 & 10. BLOCK 10. SAGA MLL REVISED HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA •<A|7 / - - s srM' J«" * — GRANT STREET LtCiM. OCSCWiPTiCN or P^MiSCS Lott 9 9t*4 to. S094 Hill fttvittd • tt t* tAf fitl $«9« Mill Ktvifid §••'•**^1 art boftJ Mf* Qttsrmi fA.t •«•••? •» t**# d«tef*fc#d pfodd'lj ItCat'ftA ®* fiitt'Af A3„l# ««'« lA* ItCttiOA «f ¥•••••• -Ad^dCd*#' I! dA«t rt®t ®w»eoM I® fAc* 9^f ttAtf («*^re«V*Wf«l9 Mf ^ I • |A# lAff#0« »•««mc^e*GRONBOG k ISSOCUTEa MCGRONBOGti:f-V M MM%% miam oa vMS « auov oa u«c UMC <it SdJM HtMtt f « • t * At* la f diAt>Mi#tt un ^jiin l••ly PT •-yr-02 HENNEPIN COUN .... 6 rl *S 87*33' 29" w / * A 1 ^ » 9 * 10. BLOCI HENNEPIN COUN .... 6 O. k ’h ' 29" W 88.50 MiIS! ■ IH BiHi HUwWm mmmil eI ■u^ %^76)\Q^ t* • • I 55 X A*X •■*' 0 K0 (7) \ 145 <Mr-6 4 f %(8)^5 ^/.S ^ C KSr ) §S X ^ 10 ^5 ^ (77) 5o «& n ^78) '1^^ / <?I «,. •0'^ «/ /CC^f'’<0/ H ^/ / ^/ f/ ‘2 *- / / / ^ '5'JC, ^ •-•A* ^(50) <v/ 20 ® ^/ 19 ^^1 18 XI' Pff \A (51) —493^ I(l2i r 3^\s '"TJ^ .fl •■ (16) ' V\*V T60/ IOJIa>'9/^• / V ) ft 17 « • ^-A.. §0.2 (53) \ (52) SB3. « • * 229 3 • !•-I Ir^ I # •Jb-' 66 1**78.85 8*041/ 0 (26) 226 <5^234.8 *; : HH. 230.8 234.5 ’15l^ », :-48J8 (23) » *. Attachment: Variance for 1318 Spruce Place Applicant John W. Walker 1310 Spruce Place (952)471-7171 Deacrlptlon of Request Estimated Construction cost $8,000 This request for construction of a 294.4 square foot deck, is the first step of a significant property upgrade, which will transform an ordinary modular ranch style house of the 70's into a modem stylish residence comparable to other houses In the neighborhood. All of the improvements and upgrades, other than the deck, will be contained with the existing footprint of the house. All work will be carried out under Ron Anderson, Residential Dream Builders, Plymouth, MN, a Minnesota licensed contractor. Hardship/Description of unusual property conditions This non4akeshore property is located at the dead end of Spruce Place and is surrounded on two sides by platted, but undeveloped city streets (also known as paper streets) (Portland and Grant streets.) Three of the four borders of the property are curved, not straight lines, resulting in an extremely unusual lot configuration. Consequently, the house, which was built prior to the passage of the current ordinance, is oriented in a unique fashion. The average elevation of the property varies by more than an estimated 20 feet from the front to the rear and 10 feet from side to side. The applicant has built several boulder walls to contain the property, and minimize the impact of watershed runoff. A timber wall protects a large oak tree from land shift erosion. The 250' lakeshore setback line falls just inside the we ‘'tern boundary of the property. The only adjacent neighbor is the applicant who lives at 1310 Spruce Place. M. D 1 HAKDCOVER CALCULA' SETBA.CK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*^S-2S^ ORKSBEET 250-500' Lttfdl 0.1 X X X midi 1 B. ' 'Gini'e 9 * • •• • C. Dtivevwiy m •• • X X D. Sidewilk X X E. Pxcio/Deck X X F. twdsokpe U^ain B//nutIc ‘^e _______________ppivc: X Wa U ' ^OL> v /a U-1.I6>~1 6ggrgg^ TOTAL HARDCOVER !N ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • ■ _ _ _ _ _ + B xlOO » PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE • A. House _______ X Lcofch Wid(h X X X sz ts B« Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Uadetlaln By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE' A ____ ___ + B XlOO « •iililitiiiiii //- /2 -02- 500-1000' ■ -nzi S.F. 4^ouse : i _ S.F,e>feM S.F. S.F. .S.F. . S.F. S.F.ii>!>.iV-T<p S.F. lfi> 42. Z63 S.F. ^'<£12. S.F. S.F. pAr o ; S.F. 5“ ^,30c _ S.F. fo'.c<,.« •SJ. -3,-• W 4-5 S.F.t^-'-ttC;^ _ S.F. A 12.10^^ S.F. B _______55 4.6^ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i S.F. I S.F. S.F.i .•H •___ HARDCOVER CALCULATI SETBACK ZONE: (CmCUE ONE) 0-75* EXISTING hardcover IN ZONE A. House Leofdi X X X ^ • B. ' ‘Qinige • • • •• • C. Driveway • 0 •V.: X X D. Sidewdk X X E. Faclo/Deck X X F. Landscape Uodedain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •• • ■ ______ + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7.QNT. • A. House Leased X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. PatioHDeck X X F. Landscape Undertaia By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER DC ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AR^ IN ZONE * A ________• + B • ON WORKSHarer-^ ?-2S0' (^50-500’^ /* — /Z —cz. S.F. S.F. S.F. • •• •• • .s.p. S.F. S.F. S.F. S= cs S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. IboencjL^ ----------S.F. XlOO 5.2.^ S.F. S.F. A B S.F. • Width S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ! S.F. XlOO S.F. S.F* 55 Jl pr v\. ^fTfifiliiiiBiiiiirit^ Til lllll Hill 11111111111 JO^ I PAT miKBR ccNimcTEO BT fCftoeiTUL omm ojLcxm nc. o^nmuMr c t mbs ft fw\ & GL \D Si 0. V -i<;‘Ii fe'M’ • '»• ► v*» V-V^ • ^IV i^.y w-$ if''* j ^ *rf :#sj--f-;,? ■<*> --JT ^* *^'^* •* ^ ^'*f' i *• t-^ ' . 'ikir.wMvi^vik mu. r- tj -••» * * \ if‘ \ • . -^ <*-1. m^j~‘ ii T'-> '■>■■•■? yv ** V:; '-X-rf;}^?''' .# -V '-- ■:? '> > fj ' '**■*' * i- ' - •Jl':Gb 8*ce &j^^y- ^m-. - ■ ^ y«*;'i....... pjj-yi* ' *-• •> ■ ' .-^r '■ y-^--y^ -4' ' f J,>- / ' ■/, 'k‘#r«^ ’ v . »S> - ■\ \ :;^ • V ^ l> • ( ' 'T y .^r. •» ’• ' -K . :.: :5 V r'^- iferX ~:^ 'i % I 6 6- ipf-' :? -'r - r- j'.-'- iikt 4/ # > i.' I V > - • V ^•7^ . • " ?>V,.?^:^;*'-C ’-:vf ■ • ■' t. ■,r-f^y<’^:'-''•• o': / ‘- ' • r% ' o• u O u C / - r j ^ wmB - ^ /•' '”j 111 111 — ■,L a?*>. , ^ ' ■••/vr ®^;-- ^'♦x'.lA‘^<-•A "“I.' ' * — w> • <4:|Li> -^Msi fi‘t' "->■ ;*-• ~ . v^.V' •■'■■',. :X J •' \ j •*«' iriif ^ * & i ^ , r^iiSr" ■■'6 V' ;F-v-,,;V' -i F- ' .' k__^2^1 • i .-.'it- ptc G ■H- Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Departnieht ^2 237 7 1 'J Stl s (21)a St 2J7 5 234 9 4 «: ii a St (22) / /a St 2309 9 234 S 'f “ ”•%•a .1 7 2\2 • a PRUCE PL ~fJ9 ;• (21) 8 • •43H ___-1 »* 4 e I i I 4^ ••• i-V? 'v Parcel Information r • Parcel ID 0811723320018 Hohm Numbar 1318 8traat Nama SPRUCE PL V- . >■ • ; •. < * » ‘ ■ .• f • — TNs is not » hgaty nconM map. H n p rm0nls • comfiU allon otMonnuScn and fMatmn City. County, and SMa mad authorUas and ciharaourcas.. .riaa -M w mm DATE lE/f7/f2 iATCN SOI HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPEDTY XHFODHATXON SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PACE 1 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP APOR OWNER NAIIE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADOR OWNER MAKE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAIIE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR Sa •7-117-2SA1 ftSI •1SA5 SPRUCE PL CLAYTON R FUCHS CLAYTON R FUCHS ISIS SPRUCE PL HOUND HN S53l^ sa I7-117-2S 0152 •1371 NORTH ARN DR WXLLIAH E DOWEN WXLLIAH E BOWEN AO PARK LANE HPLS NN 55AU sa 07-117-23 A1 0076 01295 SPRUCE PL HENNEPIN rCiRFEITED LAND CITY Of ORONO p 0 BOX as CRYSTAL BAY NN 55S2S sa Oa-117-23 32 0019 0I2a0 SPRUCE PL P J I S J SCHUELLER PAUL J I SUSAN J SCHUELLER 12ao SPRUCE PL HOUND NN SSSOA 3a Oa-llT-ES 32 0015 01290 SPRUCE PL RICHARD F t KATHLEEN A KYLE RICHARD F a KATHLEEN A KYLE 1190 TONKAWA RO ORONO NN 55359 36 06-117-23 S2 0016 01300 SPRUCE PL RICHARD F KYLE RICHARD F a KATHLEEN A KYLE 1190 TONKAWA RD LONO LAKE HN 55356 sa 06-117-2S 32 0017 01310 SPRUCE PL JOHN W WALKER JOVH W WALKER 131 SPRUCE PLACE HOUND HN 55369 36 06-117-23 32 0016 OlSia SPRUCE PL PATRICIA A CROETKEN PATRICIA A WALKER 1310 SPRUCE PLACE HOUND HN 55369 36 06-117-23 32 0029 01375 CHERRY PL KRISTIN SEIBOLD KRISTIN SEIBOLD 1375 CHERRY PL HOUND HN 55369 36 06-117-23 32 0026 01330 CHERRY PL JANES 6 BULL JR JANES 0 BULL JR ISSO CHERRY PL HOUND HN 55369 TOTAL BATCH F'9 Q; t CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEiRIEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO Tl« REST OF HY KN0NUD6E AND BELIEF. AMUR r N Application Deadline: 11/15/02 60 Day Deadline: 01/13/03 Extended DeadI ine; 03/13/03 2 7 2005 C"^C>^OHU/vo REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Wendy Bottenberg Title: Zoning Administrator DATE: ITEM NO. (j? Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02-2852 Jennifer/Troy Koopman - 4753 Tonkaview Court Patty/Dwight Affeldt - 4765 Tonkaview Lane Lot Line Rearrangement Exhibits: A B Resolution Staff Report and Exhibits of November 15,2002 Summary of Request: The applicants are owners of properties located at 4753 Tonkaview Court and 4765 Tonkaview l^me in the City of Orono. Currently, the Koopman's garden and their driveway are located within the AlTeldt property at 4765 Tonkaview Lane. They are proposing a Subdivision of a I.ot I.ine Rearrangement to correct this problem. The need for the lot line rearrangement stems from the 1985 vacation of a portion of “Park Avenue" (recently renamed Tonkaview Court) in which tlic former owners of Koopman ’s property (Mr. & Mrs. Caples) intended to acquire both the south half and the north half of the portion to be vacated. While the City ’s vacation approval resolution required the Caples to legally combine the entire vacated portion with their homestead, apparently the County .saw it differently and followed their standard practice by splitting the vacated road between the two adjacent property owners. I he Koopman's and the Affeldts have acreed to do the lot line rearrangement to clear up this problem. jpertineni Ordinances: Section 10.24 LR-IB One I'amilv Lakeshore Residential District Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard I acre 140 feet 35 feet 10 feel 30 feel ■laAtdiaadlAdiiiiiifli t► Lot Area and Width Standards Existing Proposed 4753 Tonkaview Court Area 0.55 Acres 0.58 Acres Width 190’210’ 4765 Tonkaview Lane Area 0.94 Acres 0.91 Acres Width 160’140’ Note that Koopman ’s width is measured at the 35 ’ setback from their North Shore Drive frontage, and the AlTeldt’s width is (technically) measured along the 35 ’ setback line from the short side of their comer lot, i.e. their North Shore Drive frontage. Both properties were originally developed prior to the adoption of the current zoning standards. 1 he lot line rearrangement would meet the intent of the comprehensive plan because it would not increase the existing density and would not create additional building sites. Hardcover: 4753 Tonkaview Court The properly lies within 250-500’ of Lake Minnetonka. Propo.sed Lot size: 25,264.8 s.f. (approx- ,’\cl- North Shore Drive R-O-W) Allowed IIC: 5,070 s.f. (30%) Proposed Hardcover: 2,417.22 s.f. (14.3%) 4765 Tonkaview Lane I'he property lies in two setback zones. Proposed Lot size: 39,639.6 s.f. 250-500*: 1,500.6 s.f. - No Hardcover in area 500-1000’: 38,139 s.f. Alloued HC: 11,441 s.f. (35%) Proposed Hardcover: 3,108.65 s.f. (8.15%) I lardcover is not an issue for either property. Status of Tonkaview Court: Tonkaview Court is a privately maintained shared road/driveway within dedicated City right-of- ways. The 5 or 6 ow ners who gain access from this road share in the maintenance costs. In 2001 at the request of the residents and the Police Department the City revised addresses (some of which were on North Shore Drive with no access from that side) and formally renamed the private road as Tonkaview Court to make it easier for visitors and emergency ser\ ices to find the properties. PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commi5sion recommended by a 6 to 0 vote to: Approve application as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. it, \A •» .t.‘ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4753 TONKAVIEW COURT AND 4765 TONKAVIEW LANE FILE ^02-2852 WHEREAS, the City ol'Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Orono (hereinafter “City Council”) has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic imd safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement by Jennifer and Troy Koopman and Patricia AITeldt and Dwight Affeldt, (hereinafter “the subdividers'') of properties legally described as: i;xhibirA ” WHEREAS, the properties consists of two developed parcels owned by the subdividers shown on Exhibit “A"; and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. scq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning ('ommission held a public hearing on November 18,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for a metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for division and combination purposes, resulting in the relocation of the common lot b<nmdar>' between the properties, as shown in '.he sur\ey attached as Pixhibit “A" resulting in a new' legal description for each lot as shown in F.xhibit “B”; and ill WHEREAS, the intent of the rearrangement is to locate the driveway and a garden onto 4753 I onkaview Court. WHEREAS, both lots were substandard prior to and aAer the lot line rearrangement, they still meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Orono by not allowing additional building sites not meeting the permitted density. Page I of 5 NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the lot line rearrangement of the above referenced property by the subdividers as shown on the certificate of survey by Mark S. Gronberg. a licensed surveyor of Gronberg & Associates, dated and revised November 1 5,2002, as attached in Exhibit “D", subject to the following conditions: I. Applicants shall provide a title opinion for the property confirming ownership and encumbrances. 2. Applicants shall dedicate to the public an appropriate drainage and utility easement along the new property line. 3. The aforesaid division shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before July 27.2003 together with a certified original copy of this resolution. 4. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be nccessar>' to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this a?*** day of January, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 2 of 5 . f Ij STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of January, 2003 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 January, 2003 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 Mis® Ik Page 3 of 5 v;>' r % l&dHia P- oHi '■ ->“* •.,.’?. ^v: •■9 - ■••X / [■^afrv'T ■ > >'I ■ r % ' ■ ■ , ^ - - ' - ' ' c * * * ■■ -■ ' ■.. i&ifci •!■'■■ -■ ..iJ M V PROPOSED LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR TROY it JENNIFER KOOPMAN. AND DWIOHT k PATRICIA AFFELDT •jO«TNillQAl OttCMPTM ItOQPMMiMOPWrv UM« «ii Mt M t MRf N •Mt ui t mm n ------------ • laaiMl riMtf _________ ____ ft m»iM9n9mmmi MB M t 'T.Vl'iiS-—T**.t MB Mb rtfMMUaAalM* * ^ Mi ui • MM »»iw* ^ I A MttMO PM. HMMi e*, AiPROTPMPI iMA tM »• pBBtf Ml ■»m7^ iMMtf M mV i^« MMSM M u. *A C mM MbMM l«M iMIMIM«*M ittmi ,mrn0tmmr MKT TOM tmmikm •MMaiMiHiK iKM ~ J MOil Mum TO ■OOPMK riMKMMiPMAi (A' I IBM iMKUlAbMAtMicrrr':'=rir=r:rrr:3 AaBMMM Mi K ••• LM A M » M mMMM • _jPr* M IBlU* I MM Of AO»MT*OMi am* TMMP NOOMWMMOftNTV tM tBBMM«M*KUII%Mtl MM tM • MBNf m ■ BM • P I -------------------T------ • . _____ ___________ M AMM MMB* M WM LM t M M MMtM • MMM ’» Mi .—■■■.^ > ^ UMIMMI A bmmucmm MMMlmI •>•*>?!. I2?EI?2^tl t!l M Si « MMBr MiM»*A AMM BiMMi MA fi* A* - H ^ ML90 TMpMlMb rMMMUll.tfM* rMM' MlMf.MM MJO UMtMM T.IMOM lAiMMM rMMMlMA GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC. CMA.1M OMm IX« tURvrrOM. m PtAMCM 44S Mim< ouov em^ iomb ua . ia »m»* • I}>471-4I41 mmt wo MJM mIi • M B AM* lAMO "iTTTA—1 IMWIi «•• tMM mtmma wnmm m mi • MMM4 si yrf MM 09-473 i^a.-aso'0-r JRdc'c/ 1(16/0 ■A. yti OQ (ft O L 4^ PROPOSED LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR TROY ic JENNIFER KOOPMAN. AND DWIGHT & PATRICIA AFFELDT IN BLOCKS 2 A 3. BERGQUirT AND WICKLUND'S PARK HENNEPIN COUN I’Y. MINNESOTA Cjo«rwavMM.i UXPMM<HIQPt«rv tn f ------ ---------------------- $01 0 H« 14* ml 00 MMMli . 0m tm 0 «*« •• M _ _ m00mmm0000»0rn0»^t009mmmm 900^009^0 0^^' $mmm0mmiM%.mrn'90$0mhtm$00$Pm Mm0f PHOPUITV tMl M ■Ml. $0i00»t00m00H000^ 0t000m «4JO 0»0imui$00m»mm0»0 c««*».mmwm imm» * V«» • tM mmmm$00m m C0 H0t0l0 $rnm 1 MM riMM PMTf foV liMK tMi C«. I1IMMI TlMIMMMt MIOMiMVtlOt TO IIMOMM iMMi ■ U* •! • §mm m •• ■HiMMllJI ■ ■MUI?. ■HIMK ■ •■MM IIIMI M « ■• MtaMN MMMM mam 00 0 «M A rMlMl ____ SmrSmltLm*. 00iMMlMT.IMi MN«*MML« WMtMtll >mmmimo tmH0mam$00tm9 mm lm t aamm «• mm MwrMlMf M« >040 tM • ■ M««■■■■■ •mb •• tM«% MMM M MM IM • M • A ••••M#* P«M, •■■■MM €•, lOiM M.IO fm $01 0am I r MMMMMI lM$00< rv Mb A mi ■M.MMM S a- rr •MBlMt ****"**------MM MM Mi mm IM • MM I Mb M BBMH IMIM >BL BMMmMUIA 00t MMiMMlMT.i lAI 4MmOT IMt tMi M •MMMMMM sr2riSS5a5T!s5s MJO UBI M* T. !••• IMM liMMi mmm iMMMli ■■■■■■«■ MB U« L Ml r BM ■« M T. MB • m» MbBMMBmMMBUB • mmt. M ***M^LMBlSoVriM 2S m3 M MM tTTiSLMB ' r4MI M M 'f*«M iMtMiUlB 1 MM. 1 Iff " ■ GRONBERG Sc ASSOCIATES, INC. ultmq dmou lam mcvm. m puimrs 449 iCtfH OMC IM UM. M ttSM t1>-4f»-4t4l Date Application Received: 10-23-02 Date Application Considered as Complete: 11-12-02 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 1-11-03 60-day Review Period Extended on 12-5-02 to: 3-12-03 -riKiG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 7 2005 Cl I y ut- UHu/vo Date: January 24,2003 Item No.: V Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GalTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: ^02-2854 Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagemess Point Road - Variance/CUP List of Exhibits A - Memo and Exhibits of January 16,2003 Application Summary Gustafson Design, Inc. on behalfof Kevin & Janet Manley, owners of 1973 Fagemess Point Road, has applied for approval of a boulder retaining wall system and landscape plan for the westerly lakeshore bank of the property. The proposal requires a conditional use permit and variance for land alteration and hardcover within 75' of the shoreline. Three plan options were submitted for review. Ptease review the memo of January 16 for additional information. Planning Commission Recommendation On January 22 Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the request. Planning Commission on a vote of 6-1 recommended after the fact approval for certain items of grading in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, and recommended adoption of the staff recommendation, as follows: Approval of Option I, with the addition of the gutters and downspouts, because it brings the walkout level elevation back to what it was originally. Note that while Option 1 raises the grade to its original elevation, it does not restore the sideslopes. 2.Applicant and his contractors shall strictly adhere to the revegetation and planting plan to ensure adequate screening or softening of the w all system as well as the building facade, and to provide long temi soil stability. 3.Construction of the boulder wall system shall be by a highly quali ficd contractor and'or under the direct super\’ision of same. 4.The construction shall adhere to the required grades, and proper construction of the “first- flush” system and installation of gutters/dow nspouts to result in the degree of water quality control the plan intends to accomplish. J J 1 «02-2854 January 24,2003 Page 2 Planning Commission added t\vo additional conditions: 5.Applicant shall ensure that the ongoing work is subject to qualifled inspection during the construction process.I 6. The landscape plan shall incorporate additional tree plantings in the lakeshore yard to help soften the visual impact of the retaining walls and exposed house facade. The minority vote was Chair Smith, who indicated she was in favor of a plan that would also result in restoration of the sideslopes. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for adoption at Council ’s February 10 meeting will be drafted to reflect Council ’s final action on this application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Take a formal action to do one of the following: 1.Approve the request per PC recommendation, direct staff to draft a resolution for review on February 10. 2. I'abic the request, provide further direction to the applicant and staff. 3.Other r Dale Application Received: I0-23-02 Date Application Considered as i^oniplclc: I l•l2-02 Initial 60-Day Review Period Eipired: I-II-03 60-Day Review Period F.itension Notification: 12-5-02 Current 60-i)ay Review Period Kipires: 3-12-03 To; From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Mike Gaflron, Planning Dircctor^^ January 16,2003 #02-2854 Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagemess Point Road - Variance/CUP - Public Hearing Application Summary Gustafson Design, Inc. on behalf of Kevin & Janet Manley, owners of 1973 Fagemess Point Road, has applied for approval of a boulder retaining wall system and landscape plan for the westerly lakeshore bank of the property. The proposal requires a conditional use permit and variance for land alteration and hardcover within 75 ’ of the shoreline. This is a newly remodeled house for which no Certificate of Occupancy will be required. Application Status On November 18,2002 Planning Commission suggested that the applicant request tabling to allow staff opportunity to review the recently received plans in detail. Applicant indicated he preferred to move along to Council absent such review, hence Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the application. Council reviewed the proposal on December 9, 2002 and tabled the request, referring it back to Planning Commission. List of Exhibits A - Plan Options 1,2 and 3 B - Notice of Planning Commi.ssion Action 12-5-02 C - Notice of Council Action 12-13-02 D - Draft November 18 Planning Commission Minutes F - Council Minutes of December 9,2002 F - Memo and Exhibits of November 16,2002 G - Memo and Exhibits of December 5, 2002 Council Referral to Planning Commission On December 9 Council reviewed the application including the various utiresolvcd issues aside from the retaining wall request and provided applicant witli the following additional direction: 1. The shed at the easterly shoreline within the 0-75' setback /one tnust be removed. 2. Applicant is advised to apply for a variance to detemiine the extent of parking area that may remain in the 0-75' setback zone between the road and the easterly shoreline. (Staff is advised that application wilt be submitted in time for February meeting). Applicant is advised to apply for a variance to determine whether the deck in the westerly 0-75’ zone may remain. (AppticatioH expeaedin time for February meeting). ^» «02-2854 1973 Fagcrncss Point Road January 16,2003 Page 2 4.Public Services Director will review the sidewalk/steps near the gar4g^ to determine whether their encroachment within the right-of-way of Fagemess Point Road is a problem. (Public Service Director has concluded the steps are npl an issue). 5.It appears that the issue of the location of the lot line between the Manley and Ekiof accretions will be resolved outside the purview of the City Council. Review of Proposed Boulder Wall Landscaping Plan The initial topographical survey and boulder wall plans were received on November 12. The City Engineer’s initial comments were attached as Exhibit L of the November 16 memo. Prior to the December Council meeting, 3 Optional plans were submitted. Each Option includes a cross section sheet and a plan view. Each Option involves the use of boulder retaining walls to retain the lakeshorc bank, with variations primarily in the amount of fill replaced where the ground was removed by applicant or his predecessors to enhance the walkout situation. Each Option incorporates a stairway system to provide continued access to the lake. Each Option contains a “first flush” drainage system (a rock- filled trench) behind the top of the boulder wall to allow retention and natural filtration of nutrients and toxins at the onset of a rain event. This will have a positive effect on the quality of runoff reaching the lake. Option 1 creates a half-oval depressed area at elevation 937.5 (just below the current 938.0 ’ walkout door level) next to the house, then re-establishes the pre-existing walkout elevation (939.5 ’) with a ‘step-up ’ wall 3-6’ lakeward from the house. The grade then slopes to an elevation of 938.5 ’ at the top of the shoreline boulder wall. An underground drainpipe is proposed to remove runoff from the depression area next to the house, outictting just below the crest of the shoreline boulder wall. Option 2 omits the depression area, but establishes a slope starting at the walkout door elevation (938.0 ’) dropping to 937.0 ’ at the shoreline boulder wall. This avoids the depression next to the house but docs not re-establish the pre-existing grade levels. Option 3 also omits the depression, but establishes a slightly flatter lawn slope than Options 1 or 2, and somewhat changes the shape and orientation of the lakeshore stairway. Like Option 2, Option 3 docs not re-establish the lakeshore yard elevations that existed previously. Option 3 docs result in slightly more removal of the lakeshore bank as it seeks to sofien the linear impact of boulder walls. However, the elevation views as seen from the lake suggest that once vegetation is established, the differences in visual impacts between the 3 Options is relatively minimal. #02*2854 1973 FigcrncM Point Road January 16,2003 Page 3 The hardcover impacts of Options 1,2 & 3 are shown in the following table: 0- 75' Hardcover: House Stone Steps and Landings Boulder Walls Total 0-75' Hardcover 0-75' Zone Area 0-75' Hardcover Percentage Option 1 983.7 sf I73.4sf 382.5 sf 1,539.6 sf 5,860.7 sf 26.6% Option 2 983.7 sf 173.4 sf 337.5 sf 1,494.6 sf 5,860.7 sf 25.5% Option 3 983.7 sf 173.4sf 211.5 sf 1,368.1 sf 5,860.7 sf 23.3 % After review ing the three Option, slaffand the City Engineer concluded that only Option 1 meets the goal of restoring the flat part of the lakeshore yard back to the prc-c.xisting walkout elevation. However, it may be that no reasonable plan will put back the sideslopcs to their pre-existing grades without adding more retaining walls or reducing the soil instability inherent in those former slopes. Staff and City Engineer also concluded that while Option 1 may be the best of the three plans in terms of restoration of grades, creating the depression next to the house potent iaily creates a drainage issue, if the drainpipe plugs or is frozen. We suggested to applicants’ designer that a narrow meandering swale be incorporated into Option 1 to allow an overland drainage outlet for the depression, as a safety measure. The designer has responded with an alternative of adding gutters and downspouts to the house to catch rainfall and direct it past the depression, thereby minimizing the potential amount of runoff that will collect there and reducing the likelihood of a significant backup. Another attractive aspect of Option 1 is that it provides vegetative screening across the facade of the house to help soften and reduce the vertical nature of the amount of house wall exposed >o lake view. However, none of the Options proposes any tree plantings that would further soften the facade as viewed from the lake. Issues for Consideration Notwithstanding the obvious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further erosion, the 3 Options require Planning Commission consideration of goals for this site in order to reach a recommendation. Planning Commission should consider the following in reviewing the proposed boulder wall / landscaping plans: 1 -______J tf02-2854 1973 I'igernest Point Rood Joubory 16,2003 Paged 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Docs Planning Commission conclude that the walkout grade elevation should be restored, as would result from Option 1? Should the sidcslopcs also be returned to their pre-construction status as part of the boulder wall project? The impacts of this arc that: a) A much narrower exposure of the west facade will result, but possibly at the expense of less stable, not-as-maintainable slopes, or the addition of even more retaining walls. None of the 3 Options bring the sideslopes back to what we believe was the pre-existing condition as shown in the photos. Maintenance of the restored steep slopes may require special attention. If the sideslopes were restored to the pre-existing condition suggested by the photos, the walkout level windows would likely have to be changed out. The result of filling the sides of the west facade would be to leave a narrow walkout corridor, perhaps at an elevation that will drain to the lake, i.c. the width of a w alking path. This w ould be similar to what existed prior to the grading work, but 2-3' lower in elevation due to the low ered doorway. It should be noted that the 1998 topographic sur\ cy does not reflect the walkway that is shown in the photos, nor docs it reflect the short retaining wall along the north side of the old walkout level. b) c) While Option I restores the walkout level grade, it also results in the mo-’t hardcover, but only by a few percentage points... Does Planning Commission find that the perspective as viewed from the lake will be better if one Option is chosen over another, or are they so similar that this is not important? Is Planning Commission satisfied with the nature of the proposed plantings between the shoreline and the house? Should there be some trees added to the plan to help soften the factadc as view ed from the lake? Finally, docs Planning Commission agree w ith the general concept of bou;lder walls in the 0-75* /one for this property, or should grades be changed to minimi/c the need for walls? Remember that the CMP states in Section #3A, Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Management, as follows; “2. Rctentioii of natural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake. Building heights w’ill be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts w ill be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserv ed on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which ease they w ill be screened with natural vegetation.*’ Preservation of the lakeshore bank as it has long existed may in fact require retaining walls of some sort, be they w ood timbers, boulders, keystone blocks, etc. Other methods for .aadkl I A «02-2854 1973 Fagerness Point Road January 16.2003 Pages maintaining the shoreline might be possible, including vegetative plantings, for instance. However, more intrusive methods to ensure no future slump of the lakeshore bank would entail a wholesale reshaping of the shore with a gradual slope from the house to the lake incorporating layered fabric. This method would not be in keeping with the goal ol preserving the character of the shore. Staff Kcrommendatioa If Planning Commission concludes that the boulder wall system is appropriate for restoration of this site, staff recommends approval of Option 1, with the addition of the gutters and downspouts, because it brings the walkout level elevation back to what it was originally. While from a precedent standpoint staff would prefer that the sideslopes also be restored, the negative aspects of such restoration may outweigh the positive maintenance and stability (and safety) aspects of the more gradual slopes resulting from Options 1-3. Aspects of the proposed landscape and boulder wall design that are important to the success of this project should be noted in any recommendation forthcoming from the Planning Commission, and should include as a minimum: 1. Strict adherence to the revegetation and planting plan to ensure adequate screening or soAening of the wall system as well as the building facade, and to provide long term soil stability. 2. Construction of the boulder wall system by a highly qualified contractor and/or under the direct supervision of same. 3. Adherence to the required grades, and proper construction of the “first-flush” system and installation of gutters/downspouts to result in the degree of water quality control the plan intends to accomplish. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation and add any additional conditions you feel arc appropriate. 2. Table for further information (specify). 3. Recommend denial (stale reasons). 4. Other. Note that the remaining issues on the property will apparently be on you February agenda for review. It would be staff s intent to bring the boulder wall to Council as soon as possible for action so that the applicant can begin restoration work this winter if feasible. rT.TTTVT •. r-crvc?.':? I - TWI*.T-; i g^.': A-/t /■} ^ID i{l alllt|ji|| Hsfli S Hit m II I It s ^ ^ ^ -o & <1 ■lpll liiaii mmmmm \ lliiiiliiiiiiiiSs:sjsm:»:«;;5^ l';li ^ ililitetiiii i •Si&Sir!«j|te i 0 0 l|s IS m 0®* ® PI I A \ I V 4 V v^-» — » «D f \••%«•V J__%% Si 4 » ♦ S i* ;!«"'''^K~ I R)iWm ptii liiiii ::^v:\<^<^vA-s:;-:vi |lfelii*ii ffiiwsiiiiiigaii i*llBi* Si'}«S:®*BiWi«!if ,8W few ! iliillMi •g w SisS s@ © 111 5 f\'^k 8 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Cr>stal Bay, MN 55323 952-249-4600 ZONING FILE #02-2854 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: December 13, 2002 TO:Kevin Manley 1973 Fagemess Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Kevin Manley 4179 Ethan Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Eduardo Suarez Gustafson Design 1845 Wisconsin Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 53427 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance / Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: December 9, 2002 Council took the following actions: Motion to refer the application for CUPA'ariances for lakeshore restoration and retaining walls back to the Planning Commission. Vote: 5 in Favor, 0 Against Council provided applicant with the foliowing additional direction: 1. The shed at the easterly shoreline within the 0-75' setback zone must be removed. 2.Applicant is advised to apply for a variance to determine the extent of parking area that may remain in the 0-75' setback zone between the road and the easterly shoreline. 3.Applicant is advised to apply for a variance to determine whether the deck in the westerly 0-75' zone may remain. 4. Public Serx'ices Director will review the sidewalk/steps near the garage to determine whether their encroachment within the right-of-way of Fagemess Point Road is a problem. 5.It appears that the issue of the location of the lot line between the Manley and Eklof accretions will be resolved outside the pur\iew of the City Council. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; Planning Commission - Wednesday, January 22, 2002; meeting starts at 6:30 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 Plarming Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 612-249-4600. I r CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box M Crystal Bay, IVIN 55323 952-249-4600 ZONING FILE #02-2854 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: December 13, 2002 c TO:Kevin Manley Eduardo Suarez 1973 Fagemess Point Road Gustafson Design Wayzata, MN SS39I Kevin Manley 4179 Ethan Drive 1845 Wisconsin Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55427 Eagan, MN 55123 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance / Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: December 9, 2002 Council took the following actions: Motion to refer the application for CUPA/^arianccs for lakcshorc restoration and retaining walls back to the Planning Commission. Vole: S In Favor, 0 Against Council provided applicant with the following additional direction: 1. The shed at the easterly shoreline within the 0-75 ’ setback zone must be removed. 2. Applicant is advised to apply for a variance to dctcnninc the extent of parking area that may remain in the 0-75 ’ setback zone between the road and the easterly shoreline. 3. Applicant is advised to apply for a variance to determine whether the deck in the westerly 0-75' zone may remain. 4. Public Services Director will review the sidcwalk/stcps near the garage to determine whether their encroachment within the right-of-way of Fagemess Point Road is a problem. 5. It appears that the issue of the location of the lot line between the Manley and Ekiof accretions will be resolved outside the pur\ iew of the City Council. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Wednesday, January 22, 2002; meeting starts at 6:30 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 Planning Director Mike Gaflron at 612-249-4600. / MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^^SSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 0:30 o ’clock p.m. copies they would require of the applicants. Gaffron explained thafthqapplicants could obtain certified copies oXthetf^ements from abstracts or titles held at the Bremer moved, Rahn seconded, tojDOcdmme^tkqDproval of Application #02*2852, Jennifer and Troy Kooprapir^^SJ Tonkaview C ou H'RI^ Patty and Dwight Affeldt - 4765 Tonkaviewjiiaif^rgronting the subdivision of a Lot LinVRMrrangement subject to the threp^c6nditions summarized in the staff report dated Novem^bs 18,2002. VOTEfAyes 6, Nays 0. (#9) #02-2854 KEVIN AND JANET MANLEV, 1973 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING PLAN 8:51 • 9:30 P.M. Kevin and Janet Manley, Applicants, were present, as was Ed Gustafson, their consultant. Gaffron explained that Gustafson Design, Inc., on behalf of Kevin and Janet Manley, owners of 1973 Eagerness Point Road, has applied for approval for a boulder retaining wall system and landscape plan for the westerly lakeshore bank of the property. The proposal requires a conditional use permit and variance for land alteration and hardcover within 75 ’ of the shoreline. This is a newlv remodeled home for which no Certificate of Occupancy would be’ required.• *. » Gaffron reported that at least four prior zoning applications accompany this property. A *' hardcover setback variance to construct a garage and addition was filed in 1979 without resolution. In 1999, hardcover/ width, and area variances were granted to replace the existing house, although grading in the 0-75’ was denied and the house was never constructed. In 2001, domrer w indows, a deck above the garage, and the existing house was remodeled based on setback variance approval. Finally, in 2002, a setback variance PAGE 19 of 28 j p*------- 8^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November It, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. for roof line expansion was granted; whereas variances for greater than 25% hardcover in the 75-250’ setback and greate*’ than 15% lot coverage for a tunnel deck were denied. Gaf&on pointed out that there are a number of unresolved issues related to this property which he enumerated as follows: 1) 8X8 Shed illegally constructed/located near the east side of the road, within 2’ of shoreline 2) Gravel parking area (20’X32*approx.) constructed within 75 ’ of shoreline along east side of road, without City approvals and constituting illegal hardcover. No evidence on file suggests this was formerly a parking area, photos suggest a minimal single grassy paridng space at best 3) 2002 Surveys show property located on the east side of Fagemess Point Road, which consists of “accretions”. Manley is intending to claim the areas surveyed east of the road via a land title registration (torrens) process. Although stafTs understanding is that the neighbors to the immediate north will be disputing this claim. 4) Concrete stairway alongside garage is constructed within the road right-of-way, and may be hazardous for road maintenance 5) Deck (approx. 5X10) constructed on the west side of the house without zoning approval, constituting 0-75’ structure encroachment and excessive hardcover. Deck was not shown on plans or surveys used in approvals for prior zoning applications. Deck first appeared oh a plan used to obtain a permit for basement remodel and deck over garage in February 2002, however, was not park of that plan review. Staff maintains that this deck exists illegally and should be removed. Although a 160 s.f deck existed in the past, it was completely removed prior to or during the remodeling PAGE 20 of 28 . f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 6:30 o*cloek p.m. process, and construction of a new deck has never been addressed. An alternative mighPbe to applj^for an after-the-fact variance. The deck constitutes additional hardcover and lot coverage above the previously approved amounts. 6) Grade of the walkout level in the westerly 0-75 ’ zone has been lowered by approximately 2’, in violation of denials in 1998. This grading work was not covered by any permits issued to date and has never been approved as part of any prior zoning application. This grading was apparently done to create a better walkout situation. Old and new surveys and photos clearly show that the entire west lakeshore yard has been excavated and the west facade of the house has been opened up to a much broader width wd height than the original house. Gaffton pointed out that the grading activity to date on the west side of the house has left virtually no vegetation intact and 90% of the lakeshore yard in a state of bare unprotected soil. Staff and MCWD have required that hay bales and silt fencing be in place during the past few months until proper plans were submitted and approved. 7) Gaffron noted that undercutting of the lakeshore bank due to high water wave action may be a separate issue from the work that has been done to the lakeshore yard. However, the bank at the immediate shoreline is very steep, 60% slope with little vegetation to stabilize it. Without riprap and some method of shoring it up, this bank has the potential to erode and/or slump off in the foreseeable future. With regard to the proposed boulder wall and landscaping plan received on November 12, 2002, Gaffron indicated that the City Engineer has had little time to comment, however, ' his initial comments were as follows: 1) the plans should include existing and proposed contours 2) hardcover calculations should be included with the submittal 3) Section 1A-1 should include the existing grade, along with 10’ on either side PAGE 21 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. 4) plans should identify the boulder sizes and types to be used for retaining walls 5) proposed plant types should be identified on the plans 6) elevations should include the proposed native plantings to review the amount of screening provided 7) all tree and plant removals should be identified on the plan 8) more detail, including materials, drainage area served, storai event sizing, etc. should be provided regarding the ‘Tirst Flush Drain Zone" 9) plans should identify erosion control measures proposed to protect the lake during construction 10) plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review and comment Gafiron pointed out that the proposed boulders will add a significant amount of hardcover to the west 0-75’ zone (39.5% per the submittal calculation). Gaffion maintained that the current proposal appears to continue the applicants’ apparent goal of creating a wide yard that walks out from the new door elevations where a narrow, higher yard previously existed. He encouraged the Planning Commission to review the pre- and post- construction photos, which further show the amount of clearcutting that has resulted from the grading work in the west 0-75’ yard. Gaffron displayed a sketch depicting the grade changes that had been made. Notwithstanding the obvious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further erosim, Gaffron noted that the current plan has a number of aspects, which require Plaiming Commission consideration so as to, direct the applicant how to proceed. Gaffron encouraged the Commission to consider the following three options or questions when reviewing the boulder wall/landscaping plan. 1) Should the grade be returned to their pre-construction status as part of the boulder wall project? Impacts of which would be PAGE 22 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMDVHSSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. a) a narrower exposure of the west facade * b) outside below grade landing and steps would be required to enter/exit the walkout door; a short retaining wall system would be necessary to retain walkout window exposures. Or perhaps the windows should be replaced with windows that are not so low to the ground, and the grade be brought back up against the house where it was originally c) maintenance of the restored steep slopes may require special attention 2) An option worth considering would be to allow a nanow walkout corridor at an elevation that would drain to the lake, i.e. the width of me walkway path. This would be similar to what existed prior to the grading work, but 2-3’ lower in elevation. 3) Does the Plaiming Commission agree with the general concept of retaining walls in the 0-75 setback zone for this property, or should grades be changed to minimize the need for walls? Gaflfron reminded the Commissioners of the CMP, Section #3 A, Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Management which reads that “Retention of natural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake”, and further defines natural resource management. Gaffron acknowledged that preservation of the lakeshore bank as it has long existed may in fact require retaining walls of some sort, be they wood timbers, boulders, keystone blocks, etc. However, other methods for maintaining the shoreline might be possible, including vegetative plantings, for example. Gaffron maintained that more intrusive methods'tj^; ensure no future slump of the lakeshore bank would entail a wholesale reshaping of the shore with a gradual slope from the house to the lake incorporating layered fabric. He ' reminded the Commission, that this method would not be in keeping with the goal of preserving the character of the shore. While staff would prefer that the shoreline restoration be completed as soon as possible, Gaffroit relt that staff was not in a position to recommend approval of this plan due to the PAGE 23 of 28 F 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETD^G Monday, November 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.ni. fact that the City Engineer ’s comments had not yet been suitably addressed and suggested that the Planning Commission table the application. Gaffron laid out a series of seven recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider: 1) Gaf&on suggested the Planning Commission table the application to allow staff and City Engineer time to consider whether the plan is appropriate, and to allow staff, applicant and the applicant’s consultant time to confer. 2) Commission should provide direction as to whether the grades on the west lakeshore yard should be restored 3) Commission should provide direction as to whether the deck on the lakeside of the house might be approved if a formal variance request was made 4) Gaffron maintained that any forthcoming approvals should be conditioned on timely removal of the illegal shed in the eastern 0-75’ zone, and removal of the gravel parking area in the same zone, returning both to grass. The applicant had been ordered to remove the shed back in July but to date has failed to comply. GafB*on indicated that staffs perspective would be that the variances for these improvements, if applied for, should not be granted as there is likely no hardship to support such variances. 5) Applicant should be advised to work with adjacent property owners in reaching a suitable cdnclusion in terms of ownership claims regarding the “accretions” cast of tK^. road 6) The survey should be revised to verify the encroachment of the concrete stairway into the City right-of-way. Gafhon questioned whether angling the stairway toward the driveway might avoid the encroachment Because it is likely the necessary work would not take place until spring, the applicant PAGE 24 of 28 •*i n -TrfTA . r . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG Mondiy, November 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. should be advised to maintain erosion controls on the site as necessary to avoid " sedimei^tation to the lake or road. Silt fencing along road and adding to silt fencing along the west shoreline With regard to the unresolved issue item #7, Chair Smith asked what constituted the foreseeable future. Gaffron indicated that staff really had no idea when the undercut bank of the shoreline could erode or slump off into the lake, it could be next week, this winter, next spring. lie stated that he had no clear answer to when the foreseeable future might happen. Chair Smith asked why the Planning Commission was reviewing this application at this time, in light of the numerous unresolved issues. Gaf&on stated that the City published that the public hearing would happen tonight e.xpecting to have a plan well in advance to review, but it was a bit late to call the neighborhood and s-'y don’t show up. There was also the situation here that if there were issues that could be resolved which could direct the applicant towards some resolution prior to January he would like to do so. While thanking City staff for their understanding and polite demeanors, Mr. Manley stated that the process has gone very slowly. He indicated that he first submitted his applications in April 2002 after purchasing the property in February and did not get return phone calls regarding his application for several months. He maintained that he hadn’t removed any soil since purchasing the property and was only responsible for what’s happened since April. He maintained that the only thing he’s done WTong was to construct the 8X8 shed ’’ across the street, which could be removed. He had already ripped out the illegal retaining walls built by a previous owner. Manley reiterated that he has had little luck getting the City to tell him what he can and cannot do on the property. Chair Smith reminded the applicant that, as the current owner, ultimately, he may be held PAGE 25 of 28 3I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 6:30 o’clock pm responsible. Rahn asked whether the previous owner had been the applicant's broUier. Manley confirmed Rahn's statement, however, did not see any significance in that fact. Manley continued, stating that the City Council had given him permission to lower the lower level and construct two decks - one on the front and one on the back. As far as the sidewalk, Manley could not understand what the problem was with his stairway as opposed to others in the neighborhood. With regard to the parking lot area, Manley asserted that I the gravel parking area had always been there, and that neighbors could attest to this. He indicated that the City Council had already stated they would give him approval for a parking lot across the street as soon as he got it in his name. As a building contractor, Manley reiterated that he could not understand the delay and was concerned about getting a decision made after six months of waiting. He asked to be allowed to move forward and be given direction. Chair Smith asked if the applicant had shared these concerns with staff. Manley stated that he had absolutely shared his concerns and had received a return call finally after approximately ten attempts. He suggested they go down the unresolved list one by one. First, the shed, Manley stated that he would remove the shed only after the City agrees to give him some sort of resolution. While he understood that he had been asked to remove if several months ago, he maintained that he had asked the City to do many things six months ago. \V ith regard to the gravel parking area, Manley reiterated that the parking area was not new, it had always been there. All of the neighbors have and use parking areas across the PAGE 26 of 28 I II' MmiTESOFTHE ORONO PLANTiING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. road and theirs may have been overgrown. Again, Manley stated that the City Council artd Weinberger had given him the indication that they would approve his parking area once it was put in his name. Having been before the Commission in February asking for additional hardcover, Rahn asked the applicant whether the parking area was included in any of the hardcover calculations. Since the hardcover figures had been looked at in such detail in order to allow construction of the deck, he wondered where this additional hardcover had come from. Nianley stated that the parking area had not been used in any hardcover calculations in February since it was not in his name at that time. % Rahn asked if he had built the shed on the property, even though it was not his. Manley indicated he had done so. Janet Manley stated that no one owns the property and they are in the process, as is one other neighbor, of claiming it through the state. Gaffron indicated that property owners can take action to lay claim to property, then it goes through a process where people can respond to their claim, and the Hennepin County courts decide who owns it. Manley stated that the property claim process was not part of the proposal. Manley maintained that the only reason they were before the City today was because they had the City come out and recommend Ed Gustafson to design a layout for the shoreline. Manley stated that this proposal is what the City and Ed came up with. Gaffron disagreed, inte^'ecting that the City, at the applicant’s request, recommended PAGE 27 of 28 I .IT MINinrESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Novembtr 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. someone who could design a plan for him. Gaffron stated that the City supplied him with a name^nothing further, they did not suggest to Ed he design a boulder wall, they merely asked him to give the City a plan that might work. The City got a plan, we are starting to react to it, and we are now asking the Planning Commission whether this is a plan that will function aesthetically, and from an engineering standpoint, if this is a plan they could support. Ed Gustafson agreed that there were many issues to resolve and that he had been working with MCWD and the City to design a plan. He pointed out that the plan suggests boulders as a technique of dealing with the erosion problem. Manley explained that, previously, there was no riprap along the shoreline and when he approached the City to obtain a permit to restore the shoreline, the City told him to get a permit from the MCWD. He indicated that they had obtained the MCWD permit and began restoration using riprap until the City told them to stop and obtain a permit from them as well. Since that time, several staff members have met at the site and advised Gustafson and the applicant on the design plan. Manley indicated that he had assumed the entire project would be done this year, as he was sure the neighbors had hoped as well. He asked whether they should continue to go through each item. Chair Smith agreed that they could attempt to w ork through each item, however, she was uncertain how much could be decided this evening because so many of the issues required further discussion with staff. Based on the applicant’s earlier acknowledgement. Chair Smith noted that the shed would be removed. With regard to the gravel parking area, Hawn stated that it should not be included in the discussion since it was not his property. PAGE 28 of 28 A i rr.• I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 6:30o*clockp.m. Gaffron shared photos from 1998 depicting the gravel parking area at the time, a much smaller jirea. Chair Smith stated that she was personally familiar with the property and parking area as it looked in 1998. She agreed that they should not include this in the discussion until the County decides whether to combine the parcels. With regard to the stairway, Chair Smith asked for opinions on the concrete stairway within the right-of-way. Gaffron stated that he could not find the stairway on a site plan and was imsure whether it was approved. • « Hawn asked whether this could be put on a to do list to investigate whether the stairway was built as a specified part of an approval. Next, Chair Smith asked about the deck built on the west side of the house, apparently built without plans or surveys. Hawn stated that Mr. Manley claims to have a stamped plan, but it was not permitted as a part of this process. Manley reiterated that he has a permit for two decks, and the City should have record these as well. Gaffron stated that staff believes that there hasn’t been a permit issued for a deck on the west lakeside of the residence. Chair Smith suggested this item be put on the to do list for both parties to further investigate. PAGE 29 of 28 , ? MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2042 6:30 o’clock p.m. Rahn stated that this would be easy enough to confinn after the City has looked at the pennit record description. Manley stated that if the City were willing to allow him to keep his small west lakeside deck he would reapply through the variance process. Hawn stated that the west lakeside deck would fall within the 0-75 ’ setback, which if he came before the Commission for approval, she suspected they would be reluctant to grant. She was hopeful that things could be determined based on previous applications. Manley reminded the Commission that the home possessed a huge deck on the lakeside of the residence before his remodel. Manley stated that one way or another he would like the Commission to give him a decision this evening. He asked them to make a decision based on what was in front of them in order for him to move on to City Council. Chair Smith stated that the Planning Commission could, indeed, act on what was in front of them, and not table the application if the applicant so chose, although she was hesitant to do so. Bremer suggested the Commission finish their discussion so that the City Council, atileast, would have enough information and direction from this evening to base their decision. Once again, Rahn was hesitant to discuss specific hardcover issues without concrete numbers. Manley stated that he wished for riprap to restore the shoreline and a 3:1 slope to proude a mere path to his boat. He thanked City staff and consultant Gustafson for their helpfulness. PAGE 30 of 28 i i w r ■m MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. Rahn reiterated that the City would either locate a permit for the deck or not, and if not, the applicant would have to apply for an after-the-fact variance. With regard to the unresolved item #6, Hawn stated that, while she believed the applicant had not committed this himself, she believed this to be the most offensive of the violations. Manley reiterated that he had not changed the plan or grade, and in fact, his original proposal stepped up the grade. Hawn wrestled with the fact that in 1999 the application to grade in the 0-75’ setback was denied, and here today, it has been done anyway. • « Manley, again, maintained that it was a previous owner who had committed this wrong. Bremer pointed out that, it is only at times when homeowners come before the Planning Commission, that the City is given the opportunity to correct these past indiscretions. Rahn stated that the shoreline and riprap restoration projects are different issues than the grading. To be consistent, Rahn felt the grade should be restored to its original state. Gaffron stated that VV^einberger had believed the grading was done illegally and not according to code when the property was purchased. Manley reiterated that he never did any of the grading and questioned why the City allowed him to put in his windows and door and step down basement if they had a problem with it. Rahn stated that the Planning Commission was attempting to give the applicant the guidelines he so desired. PAGE 31 of 28 fjimiiiitMni aiilii 1 MEETING for the deck or not, and if not, the while she believed the applicant e most offensive of the violations. le, and in fact, his original 0 grade in the 0-75’ setback was ho had committed this wrong. ners come before the Planning ect these past indiscretions. :ts are different issues than the ^stored to its original state. ir'as done illegally and not questioned why the City n basement if they had a problem to give the sqjplicant the MINUTES OF THE OHONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 6:30 o’clock pjn. Chair Sgiith stated that it seemed to be the consensus of the Commission that the shoreline be restored and, hopefully, there were some creative measures that could accomplish this without some major reconstruction. She inquired whether the applicant should be given further direction with regard to maintaining the erosion control throughout the winter, item While erosion control was necessary, Gaffron could not predict when the shoreline might fail. Gaffron had no further recommendations other than to ensure the erosion control measures stay in place. Hawn asked if the Planning Commission couiu nprove the riprap portion of the application if something other than boulder walls were proposed. Gaffron indicated that the City does not, technically, get involved in the riprap part of the application, however, the riprap becomes an integral part of the whole proposal. He indicated that he would check with the City Engineer to see if he thought the applicant could do riprap without doing the rest of the work that’s needed out there. Although separate issues, these all fit together as part of the system that goes together. Manley agreed that, likely, the entire issue would need to be resolved together. He asked, once again, for someone to tell him what he could do. « * Rahn stated that he could not vote on a motion without knowing hardcover figures. *1 Gustafson stated that the hardcover figures were included on one of the survey proposals and that he intentionally left off the deck in the calculations due to the controversy around it. Manley asked what the City considered an acceptable slope, 3:1 or 2 1/2:1. PAGE 32 of 28 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffi-oi\.indicated that he would not identify what the right slope would be for this application before spending considerable more time with the Engineer. He stated that, now that the City has a plan to work from, they could move forward in addressing its points. Manley asked whetlier they could put a deadline on the discussion. Bremer stated that the next City Council meeting would be December 9,2002, if they could address the concerns by then. _ ■% Manley repeated his frustration over the lengthy process. Chair Smith stated that she had difllculty believing that this many issues could get resolved by December 9. She was hesitant to move this forward to Council with so many open ended issues. Hawn reminded the Commission that the applicant had asked them to vote up or down on this incomplete application tonight. Rahn stated that, specifically, #6 would need to be changed a great deal if they wanted City Council support. Chair Smith cautioned the applicant that the City Council might send the application iatk to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Bremer stated that the applicant would not be losing any time by moving forward to Council at this time, since the Planning Commission would not be meeting again until mid January. Gaffron questioned whether the work would begin during the winter months even if the PAGE 33 of 28 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG Monday, November IS, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. applicant were to get approval. Gustafson indicated that it would depend what work and which contractor the applicants chose to do the work. He believed a reputable contractor with the right equipment, who knew how to use boulders could begin sooner than later. Manley inquired whether he should give the City Council two options to review, one with boulders and one with slope. Council Member Murphy aakeJ slafT what they viewed as most important, getting the riprap on the shoreline first or getting the outstanding back issues resolved so that the shoreline could be restored. • • Although not an engineer, Gaffron believed that in order to do the riprap, potentially, additional damage would be done to the shore that you need to be working on immediately following that. One would need to be working fiom the bottom up sequentially. He didn’t believe they could just do tlic riprap without causing impacts that would need to be immediately followed up on elsewhere. Gary , 1965 Fagemess Point Road, stated that he believed that the riprap could be done from the shoreline or off of a barge from the water. He indicated they could do the work from above, however, they would totally destroy the shoreline with a bobcat. Gustafson pointed out that he had reviewed the site with a contractor who believed the work could be done from the ice, or if the right person were to do the job, the same could be accomplished with a backhoe fix)m above. Bill Delay, 19 Fagemess Point Road, commended the applicant for his beautiful building and for keeping the neighbors in the loop. He did, however, have issue with the gravel parking area as it encroaches over his property. He noted that the 8X8 shed impedes his PAGE 34 of 28 { H ^^NUTES OF THE ORONO ^LAN^fING CO>I>nSSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. views of the lake and should be removed also. Mr. Delay felt the deck over the garage ^as done w£ll, but voiced concern over the steep grade created by the proposed boulder wall. As a parent, he felt this could be hazardous. Chair Smith asked the applicant, once again, if he would rather the Commission table or vote on the application. Manley asked for a vote. Hawn moved, Frltzler seconded, to deny Application #02-2854, Ke' !!: Manley, •• application to increase hardcover and put hardcover in the 0-75’ setback to construct a combination boulder wall and riprap system for the purpose of containing the bank. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 AND NOVEMBER 12,2002 October 28 - Fritzlcr reported that the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer application was approved. As of the October 28 meeting the Professional Properties of Orono wetland delineation issue was unresolved. November 12, 2002 Chair Smith and Gaf&on reported that the MCWD had ruled tot the wetland on the proposed Professional Properties of Orono site was an incidental wetland and did not require additional mitigation. Council liaison Murphy reported that Council representatives had approached MnDOT about the construction of the trail within their right-of-way casement. Although the City feels this to be the best location, MnDOT has its reservations, however, agreed in principal that if the highway were returned to the County, they would likely support this location. Murphy indicated that the City would still require easements from the applicants as a back PAGE 35 of28 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 9,2002 9. #02*2854 Kevin Manley, 1973 Eagerness Point Road—Varlance/Conditional Use Permit Kevin Manley and Ed Suarez of Gustafson Design, landscape designer, were present. Gaffron stated that the applicant had serious erosion problems with the lakeshorc on his property and was applying for approval of a boulder retaining wall system and landscape plan for the westerly lakeshore bank of the property. The proposal requires a conditional use permit and variance for land alteration and hardcover within 75’ of the shoreline. The house was newly remodeled and several out of compliance issues had been brought into compliance. There were, however, a number of unresolved issues with the property. The Planning Commission offered to table the proposal, but the applicant requested that a recommendation be forwarded to the Council. Planning Commission recommended to deny the request and did not address specific issues concerning what they might approve were it to come back. Staff had not had adequate time to review plans for extensive boulder walls. The grade has changed since the owmer before the last had the property, and the grade change had not been approved. They are therefore looking into potential restoration. There is concern about the slope and stability of the lakeshore bank. They received new plans for 3 different options shortly before the Council meeting. Gaffron suggested it may be appropriate to table the application to allow staff and the City Engineer time to review the new plans. He suggested Council provide direction as to whether the grade should be restored to what it was before remodeling began, whether the deck might be approved if a formal variance request was made. The deck had not been approved by the City and was encroachment in the 0-75’ lakeshorc setback zone, and additional hardcover. Any forthcoming approval should be conditioned on the removal of an illegal shed on the east side of the property and removal of an illegal parking area in the same zone. He stated a survey should be conducted to determine if the stairway encroaches into the right-of-way enough to be an issue with plowing. Work on the lakeshore could occur in the spring, and erosion control would have to be maintained in the meantime. Gaffron stated staff s recommendation was to table the application. Mayor Peterson asked Manley if he would have a problem with tabling the application. Manley asked if they could w ork through some of the issues. Gaffron stated that all the factors need to be dealt with, but most were separate issues from the lakeshore erosion. Murphy stated that the applicants had done an incredible job on the house. He felt that the Manley’s had hurried to get the application past the Planning Commission and to the City Council, and stated he was not prepared to review^ the plans w ithout the staffs input. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 9,2002 9. U02-2854 Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagerness Point Road—Variance/Conditional Use Permit—Continued Murphy added that he had no problem with the deck, wanted the shed moved, and the sidewalk issue resolved. The lakeshore issue would have to be tabled. Sansevere asked if all the neighbors had gravel drives. Gaffron stated that if you drive on it, it is considered hardcover, regardless of whether it is permeable. The drive wasn’t there before and would require a review process. He stated he did not know if any of the neighbors had their drives approved. Murphy asked about the issue with the riprap. Gaffron stated that the property has a vertical slope with waves undercutting it and trees in danger of falling into the lake. Manley stated that five of his neighbors had received an estimate to do the riprap along the lakeshore all as one job. He is the only person dealing with the City, while the neighbors are dealing with the Watershed District. White stated he preferred not to deal with the issues ad hoc. Manley stated he would like the Council’s opinion on the plans. Sansevere stated he would like to hear from staff and the engineer before giving an opinion. Manley asked if the application would have to return to the Plarming Commission. Mayor Peterson stated it would, in all fairness to him, because Council relies on the input of the Planning Commission, staff, and the engineers. She added that the Planning Commission hadn’t seen the new plans yet and may approve the application based on one of them. Gaffron slated that on page I of item B there was a list of unresolved issues. Regarding the shed that was illegally constructed and located within 2’ of the shoreline. Mayor Peterson, Murphy, and Sansevere agreed it must be moved before the project is completed. Regarding the parking area, Manley stated that it had been increased in size, but had always been in that location. He slated it had been overgrown and had railroad ties bordering it. He removed the ties and widened it to allow for 3 cars. Mayor Peterson asked if he needed a variance. Gaffron staled he did because it was new hardcover with no indication of what had been there previously. Manley asked if applying for a variance would be a waste of time. Sansevere stated it looked like everyone in the neighborhood had similar parking areas. Gaffron stated they needed review process because of the specific parking needs for that road. Mayor Peterson instructed ^Ianley to apply for the variance. Regarding the accretions, Gaffron stated that Manley’s attorney, Mr. Bishop, claimed that f'L:^11^1111^1^^. 1 iti iirtriirrf'Hfll i. Hit? nil til III i ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 9,2002 9. U02-2854 Kevin Mantey, 1973 Eagerness Point Road—Variance/Conditionai Use Permit—Continued the Manley’s own the accretions. The City’s concern is with where the property boundary will end up. The actual area Manley owns within the east 0-75 ’ lakeshore yard was at that time unkno\vn. Regarding the concrete stairs alongside the garage, Gaffron stated that they extended into the road right-of-way, but the City had never received a complaint about them. He stated he would defer to public works concerning any issue with the stairs. Murphy stated that if staff felt the stairs were a problem, then Manley should correct them. Sansevere suggested Gappa look at the steps and determine if they would be a problem for the plows. Concerning the deck on the west side of the house, constructed without zoning approval, Gaffron stated that there had been a deck there that was tom off and replaced with a new one. There had been one building plan for the basement remodel that showed the deck, but it was never approved. The deck is within the 0-75 ’ zone. Mayor Peterson stated the deck had to go through due process. White stated the City had to be consistent to meet State law. Manley showed Council a site copy of the plan with a City stamp on it that showed the deck both before and after the reconstruction. He stated that they had reduced the deck size and amount of hardcover. Mayor Peterson stated that the grade of the walkout level and undercutting of the lakeshore bfflik issues would be tabled, along with the proposed boulder wall landscaping plans. Murphy asked if tabling it would keep the applicant and his neighbors from installing the riprap. Gaffron stated that if they received a Watershed District pemiit, and it wouldn ’t affect the rest of the property, then Manley could proceed with the riprap. Murphy asked if there was an advantage to doing it with the lake frozen over. Manley stated it would probably be a spring project, done with a backhoe. Barrett suggested they direct the applicant back to the Planning Commission with no motion needed. Gaffron stated they had the ability to extend the deadline to March 12,2003. If Manley submits the new variance applications by December 18,2002, he could be finished in March of 2003. Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to remand the application for conditional use permit and variance for land alteration and hardcover within 75 ’ of the shoreline back to the Planning Commission. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 8 Dale Application Received: 10-23-02 Date Application Considered as Complete: 11-12-02 60-Day Review Period Expires: 1-11-03 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Directoi; November 16, 2002 #02-2854 Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagemess Point Road - Variance/CUP - Public Hearing Application Summary Gustafson Design, Inc. on behalf of Kevin & Janet Manley, owners of 1973 Fagemess Point Road, has applied for approval of a boulder retaining wall system and landscape plan for the westerly lakcshore bank of the property. The proposal requires a conditional use permit and variance for land alteration and hardcover within 75’ of the shoreline. This is a newly remodeled house for which no Certificate of Occupancy will be required. There arc a number of unresolved issues related to this property which will be enumerated in this memo. Prior Zoning Applications Affecting Property No. ADplicant Type Resolution Date Subiecl #524 Backstrom Var (No rcsululion)1979 IlC/sciback var. for new 20.\28 del gar and 8.x28 addn. #2410 Boynton Var No. 4.'»28 1999 IlC/width'arca vars. to replace house; 0-75 grading denied; replacement house never constructed #2668 Kurti.s Manley CUP No. 4661 2001 Setback vars. for dormer windows, deck above garage; existing house remodeled 2001-2002 #2778 Kevin Manley List of F.xhibits Var No. 4788 2002 Setback var. for roof line expansion; denied variances for greater than 25% 75-250' llC & greater than 15% lot coverage for tunnel deck A - Application B - Topographic Survey Dated November 5, 2002 C - Topographic Survey Dated July 20, 1098 / Revised 9/22/98 / Revised 12/16/98 D - May 2002 Sur\ey - Proposed retaining Walls (Plan abandoned, never approved) E - Proposed Boulder Wall & Landseaping Plan F - Beforc/After Photos of Site Ci - Building Plans 11 - Staff Sketeh - Cross Section 1 - Lyle Oman Letter 7-25-02 re: Violations J - Assessors Records Showing Prior Deck K - Plat ma|Vproperty owners list L - City Engineer Comments November 15,2002 Unresolved Issues 1. Shed (8x8) illegally constructed/located on east side of road, w ithin 2* of shoreline 2. Gravel parking area (20' x 32 ’ approx.) constructed within 75’ of shoreline along east side of road, without City approvals and constituting illegal hardcover. No evidence on file that this area was formerly a parking area; in fact, photos in file suggest a minimal single grassy parking space was all that was previously here... r M2-2854 1973 Fagerncfs Point Road November 16,2002 Page 2 3. 4. 5. 6. The most recent (2002) surveys includes property located on the east side of Fagemcss Point Road, which consists of “accretions ”, i.e. land that has been created since Fagemess was platted in 1886. Manley is intending to claim the areas surveyed east of the road via a land title registration (torrent) process. It is staffs understanding that the neighbors to the immediate north will be disputing this claim. Therefore, the actual area Manley owns within the east 0-75' lakeshore yard is at this time unknown. Concrete stairway alongside garage is constmeted within road right-of-way, may be hazardous for road maintenance, other options may exist... Deck (approx. 5x 10) constructed on west side of house without zoning approval, constituting 0-75' structure encroachment and excessive hardcover. Deck was not shown on any plans or surveys used in approval of prior zoning applications. Deck was not shown on any surveys or plans used to obtain the remodeling permit in September 2000. Deck first appeared on a plan used to obtain a permit for basement remodel and deck over garage in February 2002, however, the deck was not part of that plan review and the fact that it appeared on the plan is inconsequential. Staff maintains that this deck exists illegally and should be removed. Staff can confirm that a 160 s.f deck existed in the past (see Exhibit J, assessors records) but it was completely removed sometime prior to or during the remodeling process, and construction of the new ileck has never been addressed. An allemative would be to require that an after-the-fact variance be applied for; PC may wish to provide applicant with direction on this matter. The deck constitutes additional hardcover and lot coverage above the previously approved amounts. This deck is not the subject of the current application, and given the May 2002 hardcover and lot coverage denials for th*s property, it would seem to be unlikely this would be approved. Grade of the walkout level in the westerly 0-75' zone has been lowered by approximately 2', in violation of denials ii> 1998. This grading work was not covered by any permits isued to date and has never been approved as part of any prior zoning application. This grading was apparently done to create a ‘better ’ walkout situation. Old and new topographic surveys as well as old photos of this side of the house clearly show that the entire west lakeshore yard has been e.xcavated and the west facade of the house has been opened up to a much broader width and height than the original house. This activity flies in the face of long-standing City policies and ordinances which prohibit 0-75' land alteration to create a walkout situation. The grading activity to date on the west side of the house has left almost no vegetation intact and 90% of the lakeshore yard in a state of bare unprotected soil. Staff and MCWD have required that hay bales and silt fence be in place during the past few months until proper plans were submitted and approved. f M02-28S4 1973 Fagcrncss Point Road November 16,2002 Page 3 7. Undercutting of the lakeshore bank due to high water wave action is to some extent a separate issue from the work that has been done in the lakeshore yard. The bank at the immediate shoreline is very steep, approximately 60% slope (steeper than 2:1) with little vegetation to stabilize it. Without riprap and some method of shoring it up, this bank has a potential to erode and/or slump off in the foreseeable future. Review of Proposed Boulder Wall Laudscaping Plan The current topographical survey and boulder wall plans were received on November 12, leaving staff and the City Engineer little opportunity to react to them. The City Engineer's initial comments arc attached as Exhibit L. While the proposed boulder wall design does not include proposed contours, it does define proposed spot elevations at critical points. The boulders will add significant amounts of hardcover to the west 0-75' zone (39.5% per the submitted calculations). The Engineer has asked for a number of additional details to clarify the plan. In general, the proposal appears to continue the applicants' apparent goal of creating a wide yard that walks out from the new door elevation where a narrow, higher yard previously existed. Please review the pre- and post construction photos attached as Exhibit F. The photos also show to some extent the degree of clearcutting that has resulted from the grading work in the west 0-75' yard. The staff sketch (cross section at survey line) attached as Exhibit H depicts the grade changes that have been made. Notwithstanding the obvious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further erosion, the current plan has a number of aspects which require Planning Commission consideration so that the applicant can be directed as to how to proceed. Planning Commission should consider the following in reviewing the proposed boulder wall / landscaping plan: 1. 2. Should the grades be returned to their pre-construction status as part of the boulder wall project? The impacts of this arc that: a) A much narrower exposure of the west facade w ill result. b) An outside bclow-gradc landing and steps will be required to enter/exit the walkout door; a short retaining wall system within a few feet of the house may be necessary to retain w alkout window exposures (the new windows are much closer to the ground than the original w indows) (see photos and staff sketches). Perhaps the w indows should be replaced with windows that are not so low to the ground, and the grade brought back up against the house where it was originally. c) Maintenance of the restored steep slopes may require special attention. An option to consider is allowing a narrow walkout corridor at an elevation that w ill drain to the lake, i.e. the width of a walking path. This would be similar to what existed prior to the grading work, but 2-3' lower in elevation. It should be noted that the 1998 topographic survey does not reflect the walkway that is shown in the photos, nor does it reflect the short retaining wall along the north side.of the old walkout level. «M>2-2854 1973 Fagrrness Point Road November 16,2002 Paged 3. Does Planning Commission agree with the general concept of retaining walls in the 0-75' zone for this property, or should grades be changed to minimize the need for walls? Remember that the CMP states in Section #3A, Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Management, as follows: “2. Retention of natural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts wilt be provided with prohibitions against clcarcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation.” Preservation of the lakeshore bank as it has long existed may in fact require retaining walls of some sort, be they wood timbers, boulders, keystone blocks, etc. Other methods for maintaining the shoreline might be possible, including vegetative plantings, for instance. However, more intrusive methods to ensure no future slump of the lakeshore bank would entail a wholesale reshaping of the shore with a gradual slope from the house to the take incorporating layered fabric. This method would not be in keeping with the goal of preserving the character of the shore. Due to the last minute nature of the submittal, the City Engineer’s comments have yet to be suitably addressed. While staff would prefer that this shoreline restoration be completed as soon as possible, we are not in a position to recommend approval of this plan as of this writing. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1. Table the application to allow staff and City Engineer time to consider whether it is an appropriate plan, and to allow staff, applicant and applicant’s consultant to confer on the plan. 2. Provide direction as to whether the grades in the west lakeshore yard should be restored to match those that existed prior to remodeling in 1998. 3. Provide applicant with direction as to whether the deck on the lake side of the house might be approved if a formal variance request is made. 4. Any forthcoming approvals ultimately should be conditioned on timely removal of the illegal shed in the eastern 0-75' zone, and removal of the gravel parking area in the same zone, returning both to grass. The applicant was ordered to remove the shed in July but to date he has failed to comply. A variance should not be granted for these improvements if applied for, as staff believes there is likely no hardship to support such variances. #02-2tS4 1973 Fagcrncu Point Road November Id, 2002 Pages 5.Applicant should be advised to work with the adjacent property owners in reaching a suitable conclusion in terms of ownership claims regarding the “accretions" east of the road. 6. The survey should be revised to verify the encroachment of the concrete stairway into the City right-of-way. Could this stairway be angled toward the driveway to avoid this encroachment? 7.Because it is likely the necessary work will not happen until next spring, applicant should be advised to maintain erosion controls on the site as necessary to avoid sedimentation to the lake or to the road. This means adding silt fence along the road and beefing up the silt fencing at the west shoreline. Note that as a remodeling project, no Certificate of Occupancy is required, so that occupancy is not a tool the City can use as an incentive to resolve the outstanding issues. However, continuing work on this project has become disrupti%’e to the neighborhood, and needs to come to a timely closure. to. ■ • -J ^ iimiMi *r'y /I Application # Date Received Amount Paid OO CITY OF'DRONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION . Site Address j hA^iryyjt^c ______n—<- Type of Application to be Filed Clip 0- 7 ^ c^i^c/ ^ li-era.i> Property identifleation Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT Name ‘^jAg.cya A. Address \«2,4«s Avir iJ City Phone Phone (work) '7L*,- S44- 4zie: _ Zip SS^2-*7 OWNER (if different than applicant) Nam e MA nl ^«v Address Phone (home)_ Phone (work). City Zip. Date Property Acquired 1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES^ CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application $175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more K Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation ________ $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals _____Other - see Fee Schedule #2854 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ____Completed Application Form. ____Describe request in detail. ------Certified Proj^rty Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance -A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). ’ ------Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survev ------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 wo^d include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ------Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ------As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notifi^ of this application. -SI! REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY ^ SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SraimrrED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicmt and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your applicauon is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that L'^nd Use Application is complete dnitials of Clerical Staff:_____________________ Date 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Admimstrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied IS true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signature Date oc^ S'L. OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date Building A Zoning Office Of ihU Change prior 10 the meeiing.I • * CQ II EXISTING DWELUNG / >\6^ I y- -V I tUP c4A 0 Vf ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO, 5300 S. Hwy. No 101 Minnetonka. MN 55345 Phone(*?52)474 7964 Fax (952)474 K267 SURVEYOR KEVIN & JANET MANLEY___ DRAFTED; November 5,2(K)2SURVEYED November 2002 LEGAL DESCRIPTION; _____________ Lot 7, FagcmcN>. Hennepin Count>. Minnesota, ami the accretionN to saul loi lyiiiy between the cxtcnNioiiN siiutheasterly to the shore of Lake Minnetonka of the northeasterly and southwesterly lines of said lot and MHiiheastcrly of tne southeasterly *inc of Under the Linden Avenue, os dedieated in said plat, which southeasterly line is 40 feet southeasterly, as measured at right angles, from the southeastcriv line of said lot. LIMITATIONS A: NOTES. 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description you furnished. 2. Showing the Uicinuin cf existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark Uie comers of the property. 4. While we show proposed improvements to your property, we are no; as familiar wit*, your plans as you are nor are we as familiar witli the requirements of governmental agencies as their employees arc. We suggest that you review ilie survey to confirm that the proposals ore what you intend and submit the survey to such governmental agcneies as may have junsdiction over your project to gam their approvals if you tan STANDARD SYMBOLS A: CONVENTIONS Demres 1/2** ID pipe with plastic plug bearing Slate License Number 9235. set. unless otherwise noted. / X944. 944.22 )4085 M566 l^93a^V W47 9 I hereby certily that this plan, specification, report or .survey was prepared by me or under mv direct superv ision and that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and Protcshioiwl Surveyor under ihc laws i f jhc Suic of Minnc>ota n_. -uU—LJanyiiA, /.ini^ H. [*afKer I* E K P S No. 92.^5 V ).3i jv X941. -X 948.7a 948.46 f944 03 X943.11 P43.27 n'' : 934 20 r (933.60 133.97 (32.98 832 29 GRAPHIC SCALE • at / # :933.S0 / / X932.72 93Vf4 XV / X931 48 931 61 f//.'/ : 929.71 arjnr jrmuAT £UKirKWsg3ti4S C -.’I ______ DWG. JVO. 0D050S \ I' K»,947.36 I I \^27 sort ?s. +. ^ o V •'^ o ^ \ O r»i V. /!'/*/ * *s .\fo‘ ^ \ I\ N I '»V5 \ I \ -'»>C!^'^ I / \ ^Ot^- to7 u: 2 s / I f iDVANCB SURVEYING A ENGINEERING CO. 300S.Hwy.No.l0i Miniwlonko. MN SS34S PboM (932)474 7964 Fn (932) 474 0267 URVEYFOR: KEVIN A JANET MANLEY URVBYED: Mv ,20Q2 X DRAFIED: Moy22,20Q2 '.BVISBD: Aaw 4,2002 to odd prapoMd icMiidiig (by odm) HOALDBSCRirrKm: ^ ot7.Pipnnii,Hoaii«ptoCo«i».MiiaeioM.iadft»occilioiu>OMMlomdasbotw«endic »>Miii»«W MOiilh«Hertylo<boihofoofLokeMinaoloQlaofdiBaort>cortBlyidMuftiwM>BlyMiiMof aid lot and lottihooitafty of tbo MiithcMHrly N m of Uidor dM Undoi Avobm . H dodkaiad in Mid play. /hidiaoalhaMaerty lina U40fbotaoufltaa«t^. umaaauiodatiiilitangki, fromflioioutheaftfrty line faaidlat IMITATIONS A NOTES: Showing the IcDgih and dinctioo of boundaiy UiMt of the k|al dcfciiptiaa you nwiibad . Shoinag die location of oaiatinginipfovcnientsaMdeeaMdiinpoctanL . ScdingaewinoaunMaii or verifying old moomnants 10 maifctteconen of the mgaiqr. . Whila wo ahow prepoead inpnvoaieaia to your pnfNtfy. aw an not as bfflUiar with our plana aa you an nor an we as fbmiUar widi die nquiicmeats of govenmenlal geneiaaaBAatrenployanam. Wosaggeatdiatyaunviewdiaiuiveytocoofinndiatthe npoaala an oAal you inlaad and aitait the sumy to an^ govemmanttl agencies as may avajnrisdictioa over your prqicct to gain thdr approvals if you can. A ^ TANDARD SYMBO.S A CX>NVEN7IONS: 9^ Daaolas 1/2” □> pipe wiA plastic phig bearing State License Number 9233, set, unleu dtenriaa noted. y 937.39X "1ST, hodiy certify dint this plan, specificadon. rqiort or survey aras prqiaied by me or Oder my direct supervisioo and that I am • licensed Pnftsskmal Engineer end ro&ssional Surveyor under die lean of the Slate of hiinnesots. g.-.-HTQ.a,.. ^ H. Parker P.E. A P.S. No. 9233 GRAPHIC SCALE dtOSlKA J?WG. NO. OeOSOt « «-««s sr i i2S^- -i I iMM HI11 n 1 feA'iSS m :if<r:i m3m Plv^ilSp I • m■ t < r* I .f— 0) .0) x:o CM O O CM 00 0) COo O) 0) XDo t)o e ? 0%^ID *N t-l ^ Sa> "in g iID 1?^' ? ~ s ^>-i§& .r S ^ g» I i«' CM Tns 0 (O 1 01 o c s ins - - • O VX *r** • • \_ F-'6 I . '% >. •■» V- ■ -y>^r: J i- \jr \ i ( f’I'. . ^ . ■ j i ^ m isrr *. rV' ..^--J V ' .i V . ^ ..A*i h:r • \ \‘'V’’) (.-. y.p-s. t" Y-0 M • »* 1 i’» 'AW^m 1973 (■gwTWM 3.JPG LI w i973figtmei8 6.JPG »tk ' -1 ^ • 1973ragtmn«9JPG ■ . X 1973 fagemess 4 JPG •V- vv-ffi 1973 fagemess 7. JPG ^ H iiJ . ^ r ^ *v X' 1973 fagemess JPG 1973 fagemess 5 JPG -> m ■ O'i'RCrr-<^ JPO 1973 fag«fness-2 JPG J:.1. .. I ■ , .-v;’ ■ . 'ii'i '. * V ...•I '■ • V . A. • • • ^ tv 'T-'fWrpi 1 ^ ■« '■ - .. . :.r >j5^i ?', S r. •* ■?> ."!,!:• -V i \ H'K :»%*7-.'<v .fj-..? I ff < . 4,' •: • I f /O ' 5^66. Cenj/y‘.>X‘ • -y ----- ------*> i ; '• I . ..... . « • I I* ■fi 'NhX. ttc PA.T LfC; l>4-' - fV □J -rtu; - - J ' HCH f^MX flFFJtj easiqb s I IIIIWI^ I ai HPili ■ml ■! l■l^^ »I ■ I ■ iffcfc I III I !!■ IIII M HUB I I III m ^i— iTn ^ 11 - - - - -■- - - ^ - - . - ^ . . _. , (VIDeTREATCDPLATCS WHEN LAYEDONOONOieiB 6-V V- * 0 O' '/•/ /-?-ot-Ku ^-11 i/r txwTi& aw 6TtPS T£? PC RC»«MP 0 H icu cr 6C1. t>CPi4rjs. n rwc WIN PC6crcp a MAXMlyt S^?L POIRN& PRE^OF PSP AM> A LATtFAL 4s P(T rr wtL PC T>r RKP(Wet-inr OTCK$ TO VCRTY ncsc r<^>^:irc6 TO ALL RC4MF»CNr6 - b IH^56 S#^^G> eCli?VV. ca^CRCTT KVST ffl/Cti T>t: raxOHHb fTFMTT^S CT II- PAY OJ^TOSSM: 6TKCM>ni (r PCTPRC MAY KL WKKM RCTAt^HCf WALL TO FTPOT^ tCN fiiSi^H c aiUlC.TiC^i WIT o nc o:NrRAc>r^ srvu. vr>' PY rtIP OtLOAs. ALL 6i^6. PMnsk^. arvAf^w. LA^fkJNS. tr^. <r ClD4!Nr6 I DOPnNP / RELAflVC TO nc fCW COHSnfUOT^ b Aa PfyCN54^W NVO-V^JO f nrw& wrp or &tAc»ci CX»6TND a?NSTKli^r^4 SIVU f rnp oTu^ PY nc ^^ntka AM? rw#6icp nc WOOmU^TOR PRkM TO r/€Rk:^r^ cr ant work m VCFrCP PM3^S^Pi 9VLL A^^ AH> ft NPTU? A6 ni swp PRAwury orMniT c nc CMjtCXX MA6 AdSlMTkW 6<WCFNPtf Hf T>C E»6rNt> eup»« AM> near As^wTi THAf rm purtc? wa 6 PC6ieWP AM? ONSrPlfcOP »4 owPFMinr wTT>i eox> CONSTRUCTION FHACTkZ^S T>C C^(TRACTOR flhALL TAWl omowp^ARY fKcAjncm CONCOMNb PRC3ERNATW CF ' fUPPO rU(MP COA^rTK^ ATI FCW C^^^STRUCTlOi WORK n.F' rC StRLL AORtZ TO Ai^OAC A RC^P^^i^ecfTir rcm. nc FW^CRVAf^ or nf6 d nc COHTRJCTOR OVLL nc AROfTt^r/tN&bflP M^CPIATHY or AMY PKCPCP a *. err^CTN QOUNZNTS AM? fCJ? COklTT^TNS CRS fUL Dosnp 1 HigBR n m vr - r-r V ?7.> ' 9*f6 - ms ‘1 ioo"^ - «}3t> ‘T‘/t-.B ’VA.yt ^20 5 <«.•-41 fR^-^lJl7WC. Cl^OSi-SfCT70/0 ^T" 5vi|e</eV - . fcft- '‘Vi'a* Sufiue-r ..........i ^ CA^SS.- S^c:n0/0 4/A»r /: A/j>\yT fh^:^\ mat^^imamaL I CiTYoT ORC Municipal Offices Strait Mdrats: 2750 Kelley Parliway Oram. MN 55356 MaOiag Addrau: P.O. Boi 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Kevin Manley 10778 Alison Way Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 RE: Work Without Permits - 1973 Eagerness Point Road Dear Mr. Manley: It has come to the attention of this department that you have recently done work on your property at 1973 Eagerness Point Road that is beyond the scope of the permits that have been approved. A shed has been placed on the property which is located where no structures or hardcover is allowed. A deck has been added were no structures or hardcover is allowed. Grading has occurred within the 75 ’ of the lake where no grading is allowed. This letter is to require you to remove the shed and deck from the property and restore the grade to the ori^nal elevations. A deadline of August 5,2002 has been established for compliance. If this deadline is not met the City will forward the matter to the City Attorney for legal action. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Building Official Cc: Kevin Manley 1973 Eagerness Point Road & Wayzala, MN 55391 4179 Ethan Drive Eagan. MN 55123 1Uephoiic(9S2)24MiOO • fhx(9S2)24M«16 BUI LDINQ PERMITS DATE NUMBER TYRE AMOUNT RENTALS-SALES OATC CONSID.BUYER RENT S OATC MOIITQAGgS AMOUNT MQNTGACQW Extras: Fireplace Fireplace Range-Oven Dishwasher Baths_____ Tile.Dimensions Finished Bsm't.^ W.O. Bsm't_ Air Cond----- )S‘0O Brick or StofM Trim. Drive _______ y X X X X _______ X _______ Value Totals ■ 9 r4roai * Total Extras:s._Ayao I LAND: Lendtcapini ^gio Tout Land PARTIAL Q Value of Iffiprevofflent Total Replacement Le» Depreciation: liOOO Physciat Functional Economic Net Value Other Buildings Total Value Improvements Land Value Total Estimated Market Value LSI 7^5-00 /y- m- 23 Parcel Information I W|# W ^ tf *Vi PMOtl 1010117191 1979 Filoomiiii oomr wo Thi$ ii not § t900fd$d itupL iii^yMifiCi # coffyNMIOff cf Mbniiilfiofi /7A» o r” WM BATe tS/IS/tZ MTCN sas OWira NMC TAItPAVEB NAIK/AMR BROf ABDR ONNfR NAtK TARRAVIRmm/uKm ’®**”’* XHFaRtiTlOM SYSTEMRROfCRTY OWNERS LIST M 1R-117-2S 14 ata* *iy*. WIMT ROJRHM K RUROY tTRL >MNM K r^URDY 1Y71 RAMRNESS RT RO HAYZATA NN S5S4I ss xa*ii7<2s 14 aaa9 «!*?'"*** •» 0 L EKLOr A C F LEE ■ CARY ERLOF / CATHY LEE IMS FAOERHESS RT RO HAYZATA NN SSS91 % >‘:r -i I sa ia-ii7-2S 14 aaa7 WIMT RO IL.S * KLAYI. a LORI A OEUY 1971 FAOERHESS Remr RO HAYaTA HN S5591 sa ia-ii7-2S 14 aaia !*; ” J5s*risy^*sss ST'; HAYZATA NN 5S391' ' RERORT NO. RZ4S54ai PACE S . sa ia-117.23 14 aaaa HANLEY RROTNERS CONST INC AM LERIE CT EAGAN HN S512S total BATCH 592 aaaas i«sss;.ss: s'w'ss.nsrjir.^Ls jss'iiil"" "«Z I!'.SrS2"OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND RELIEF. •'wwrtwTY TANATION« TO THE REST DATE THE I a • ■1 • • 1 • '• ( 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\|| Associates Engineers & Architects •onttiroo. Roicne. Anderlik and Aisoditci^ fnc Is «n Arfirm«ily« Acilori/iRud Oppdfluniiy Impfoytr and Employee Owned Principali: Orto G Bonestroo. PE • M.ifvin L SorvaM. PE • Ck*nn P Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicht, PE • Jerry A BoufiJon, Pi L Senior Coniullanti: Robert W Roiene. PE • Joseph C Arderiiii. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Suian M Eberlin. C PA, AisocUtc Principals: Keith A. Cordon PE • Robert R Pfcfferle, PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota. PS • Mark A Manton PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field, PE • Kenneth P Anderion. PE • Mark R Roifi. PE • David A Bonestroo. MB A • Sidney P Willia-nson. PE. IS* Agnei M Ring. MB A • Allan Rich SchmieJt. PE • Thomas W Peterson. PC • James R Maiand. PE • Miles B Jens * * • L Phillip Gravel tU. PE • Daniel J Edgerton. P£ • Ismael MMtirie/. P£ • Thomas A Syfko. PE • Sheldon J Johnson • Dale A Grove. PC • Thomas A. Roushar. PE • Robert J Dewery PE November 15,2002 Offices: St Paul, it Cloud. Rochester and Wilimar. MN • Milwaukee Wl • Chicago, li SMbslie: www bonestroo com Mr. Mike Caffron Planning Director City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: .Manley Propctly File No. 139 02-000 Plat No. 02-0000 Dear Mike: V.'c ha\e reviewed the proposed landscaping plan for the Manley property at 1973 Fagerr.css Point Road. The proposed landscaping is being considered to stabilized an eroding shoreline. We have the foiiowipg comments in regarde to engineering matters. 1 . Till* pl.uis should include existing and proposed contours. 2. ITardcovct calculations should be included with the submittal. Section I A ■ i :;hould include U;c crusting grade. A minimum of two additional section; wimin lO-tev: of cither lot line sliould be provided. d. Hie pl.in3 .should identify the boulder sizes and types to be used for the ret.»ining walls. 5. Proposed plant types should be identifted on the plans. 6. Elevations should include the proposed native pUuitings to review the amouiit of serrening prov iJed. 7. Ail ttee and plant removals should be ide.ititicd on the plans. 8. More detail, including materials, drainage area served, storm event sizing, etc. should be provided regarding the "Fint Flush Drain Zone". ‘* "1 he plans should identify erosion control measures proposed to protect the lake during constiuction. iO. Plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distiicl foi review and comment. Please <*ontau me at *.651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours .eiy truly. BONESTROO. ROSF.NF.. A.NDF.RLIK & A8.'»OCL\TES, INC. Tom Kellogg Ce: Gieg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 Dale Application Received: 10-23-02 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 11-12-02 60-Day Review Period Expires: 1-11-4)3 60-day Review Period Extended on 12-S-02 to: 3-12-03 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: December 5,2002 Item No, Department Approval: Name: Michael P. GaiTron Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: ^#02-2854 Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagemess Point Road - Variancc/CUP List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 12-5-02 B - Memo and Exhibits of November 16,2002 C - DraA November 18 Planning Commission Minutes Application Summary Gustafson Design, Inc. on behalf of Kevin & Janet Manley, owners of 1973 Fagemess Point Road, has applied for approval of a boulder retaining wall system and landscape plan for the westerly lakcshore bank of the property. The proposal requires a conditional use pcmiit and variance for land alteration and hardcover within 75' of the shoreline. This is a newly remodeled house for which no Certificate of Occupancy will be required. There arc a number of unresolved issues related to this property which are enumerated in the November 16 staff memo. Planning Commission Recommendation On November 18 Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the request. Although Planning Commission offered to table the proposal for further review and potential modification, applicant requested that a recommendation on the current proposal be forwarded to the Council. Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny the request for the reasons noted in the minutes and did not formally address each of the issues noted in the staff memo. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the application as proposed. The initial 60-day deadline is January 11, 2003. Council ’s next meeting is January 13,2003. If Council denies the application, a resolution for denial w ould not be presented for adoption until after the 60-day deadline. Therefore, the 60 day- deadline must be formally extended, which staffhas done in the Notice of Planning Commission Action. If Council chooses to tabic the application for revisions and/or further review by the City Engineer, then Staff recommends the following; #02-2854 December 5,2002 Page 2 J.Table the application to allow staff and City Engineer time to consider whether it is an appropriate plan, and to allow staff, applicant and applicant’s consultant to confer on the plan. 2.Provide direction as to whether the grades in the west lakeshore yard should be restored to mateh those that existed prior to remodeling in 1998. 3.Provide applicant with direction as to whether the deck on the lake side of the house might be approved if a format variance request is made. 4.Any forthcoming approvals ultimately should be conditioned on timely removal of the illegal shed in the eastern 0-75' zone, and removal of the gravel parking area in the same zone, returning both to grass. The applicant was ordered to remove the shed in July but to date he has failed to comply. A variance should not be granted for these improvements if applied for, as staff believes there is likely no hardship to support such variances. 5.Applicant should be advised to work w’ith the adjacent property owners in reaching a suitable conclusion in terms of ownership claims regarding the “accretions" east of the road. 6.The survey should be revised to verify the encroachment of the concrete stainvay into the City right-of-way. Could this stairway be angled toward the driveway to avoid this encroachment? 7.Because it is likely the necessary work will not happen until next spring, applicant should be advised to maintain erosion controls on the site as necessary to avoid sedimentation to the lake or to the road. This means adding silt fence along the road and beefing up the silt fencing at the west shoreline. Council also has the option of sending any revisions back to the Planning Commission. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Tc’<e a formal action to do one or more of the following: I Deny the request, direct staff to draft a resolution of denial for review on January 13. 2. Table the request, provide direction to the applicant and staff regarding items 1-7 above. 3, Table the request, provide direction to the applicant, and refer back to Planning Commission for further review. /4 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay» MN 55323 952-249-46CA ZONING FILE «02-2854 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: December 5, 2002 TO:Kevin Manley 1973 Fagemess Point Road VVayzata, MN 55391 Eduardo Suarez Gustafson Design 1845 Wisconsin Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55427 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance / Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: November 18, 2002 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Motion to recommend denial of application ^02-2840 Vote: 6 In Favor, 0 Against Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, December 9, 2002; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. Extension of 60-Day Review Period Minnesota Statutes §15.99 requires that the City must approve or deny zoning applications within 60 days of receipt of the completed application. The statute also provides that the City may extend the review period for an additional sixty days upon written notification to the applicant. Your application was received on 10-23-02 but not deemed complete until 11-12-02. The initial 60-day period will expire on January-11, 2002. The City of Orono hereby e.\tends the review deadline for application #02-2854 an additional 60* days to March 12, 2003. The reason for the extension is that the City Council does not have a second meeting in December, hence final action on the application cannot occur until after the initial 60-day period expires. If the application is tabled on December 9 and'or rcfcired to the Planning Commission for further review of revised plans, the Planning Commission docs not meet again until January 22, 2003, after expiration of the initial 60-day review period. The normal course of the review process will not allow the City to complete its review and take final action within the initial 60-day timeframe. 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 Planning Director Mike Gaftron at 612-249-4600. Application Date: 12/02/&2 60 Day Deadline: 1/30/03 Department Approval: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Planner REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Item Description: #02*2855 Kevin Garnett 450/480 Orono Orchard Road Renewal Variance/CUP .MG JJN 2; mj DATE: ITEM NO.: AgendaSection: Zoning Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) 637,806 s.f. (14.73 acre) List of Eshibits: A Resolution B Stair Report and Exhibits of 1 /22/2003 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting to renew a variance and conditional use permit to permit construction of a new “guest house” on the property. The lot is approximately a 14.73 acre site. There were two residences on the property. I he principal residence and barn are addressed at 450 Orono Orehard Road. The caretaker house and detached garage are addressed 480 Orono Orchard road. The two properties were legally combined in the late 1970’s with the different addresses remaining. Staffs re.search has concluded that no conditional use permit was granted for the residence and garage at 480 Orono Orchard Road when the property was legally combined. The applicant applied for and was granted the variance and conditional use permit in May 2001. fhe plans presented for this application are the same as were approved in 2001. The existing caretaker house and garage (480 Orono Orchard Road) have been demolished. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: Approve application as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: I'o adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3 (G); AND A VARIANCE TO SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (C) (2) FILE #02-2855 WHEREAS, Kevin M. Garnett (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the properties located at 450 and 480 Orono Orchard Road South within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Attached ‘Exhibit A" (hereinafter "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 January 22, 2003, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G) for a guest house and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2) to permit more than one oversized accessory building on the property. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 0 This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2855. The property is located in the RR-1 B Zoning District, where 2 acres is the minimum lot area. The property consists of 14.7 acres. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 22, 2003 and recommended by a unanimous vote of 7 to 0 recommended approval of a conditional use permit and variance. Page 1 of 7 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: 7. A. The guest house will not exceed the “2 acre per dwelling unit" density for properties in the RR-IB zoning district. B. The guest house meets all required principal building setbacks. C.A septic system was replaced that is designed to handle the wastewater for both the principal residence and guest house. D.The justification for allowing the second oversize accessory structure is that detaching the garage would meet the letter of the code but would result in greater visual impacts due to a less compact guesthouse/garage combination. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow a guest house will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 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 tralTic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve iis a convenience to the applicant, but is necessar> to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to pre.serve 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. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the elTcct of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 7 VI CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, tlie Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G) for a guest house and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2) to permit more than one oversized accessory building on the property, subject to the following conditions; 1.The guest house shall be used and occupied by persons who would otherwise use the primary residence on the property, such as domestic help, guests and relatives. 2.The property owners shall file a restrictive covenant on the property agreeing the guest house will not be used as a rental unit and will not be used for a home occupation except to the extent that such use may be allowed by City code. Further, the restrictive covenant shall alert current and future property owners that the property does contain two oversized accessory structures and any future subdivision of the property would require City review of the status of the oversized accessory structures in terms of lot area requirements. 3.The guest house shall be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted by the applicant on file with the City of Orono and shall be developed in accordance with the site plan attached to this resolution as “Exhibit B". 4.Authorities granted by this resolution are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (January 27,2004). 5.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. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of January, 2003. Pstgc3of7 ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of January, 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said insuiunent was executed on behalf of the City. Notaiy Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of Januar>\ 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City ofOrono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .,2003,j)crsonaIly 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 he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this__day of appeared before me. ,2003,.personally who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity 1 proved on the oath/affirmation of credible witness ..a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 Exhibit A Lots 5 and 6 Auditor’s Subdivision No. 307 and Lot 15, Block 12, Minnetonka Bluffs, Hennepin County, Minnesota Page 6 of7 ii / Exhibit B . yr ' DETAIL % . i \ ; I •• I • • ^■35 \ •: - # Ctif . • •“’.‘rrT^. • l • A ^ 4T » W . A ^ 4 1 y I. « • ^ / * t » *: \ ..%a‘ •• - • • / ' 1 ' */ 11 \ * V • ------------- ^^ / / • % % \ ' ,_________\ \ \ ' • ••• / • i ^ \ Page 7 of 7 I’ TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:January IS, 2003 SUBJECT:#02-2855 Sharratt Design Company on behalf of Kevin Garnett 450 & 480 Orono Orchard Road Variance/Conditional Use Permit Renewal — Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 637,806 s.f. (14.73 acre) List of Exhibits A Application Site Plan/Survey (Proposed) Elevations/Floor Plans Plat Map Property Owner ’s List Staff Report May 23,2001 B C D E F Application Summary: The applicant is requesting to renew a variance and conditional use permit to permit construction of a new “guest house" on the property. The lot is approximately a 14.73 acre site. There were two residences on the property. The pnncipal residence and bam are addressed at 450 Orono Orchard Road. The caretaker house and detached garage are addressed 480 Orono Orchard Road. The two properties were legally combined in the late 1 970's with the different addresses remaining. Staffs research has concluded that no conditional use permit was granted for the residence and garage at 480 Orono Orchard Road when the property was legally combined. The applicant applied for and was granted the variance and conditional use permit in May 2001. The plans presented for this application are the same as were approved in 2001. The existing caretaker house and garage (480 Orono Orchard Road) have been demolished. Site Analysis: The property contains about 14.73 acres of which over 13 acres are contiguous dry buildable land. Lots in the RR-1B district require two acres for the site to be considered buildable. A guest house CUP requires an additional two acres to maintain the zoning requirements and comprehensive plan density of not more than one dwelling unit per 2 acres. The RR-IB zoning district requires the following: M2-2855 Sharratt Design Company 450 and 480 Orono Orchard Road VarumcefCUP lUnewai l/l5/200i-P.lcfS iiM I RR-IB (2 acre) Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Adj Street Rear Yard Required 2 acres plus 2 add. acres for a guest house 200’50’50’50’ Existing/ Proposed 13+acres 663'95’50’700+ The property does meet the minimum area and width requirements for a guest bouse. Further, the guest house and principal residence will be separated by more than 60’, i.e. more than double the required side setback. Guest House Variance: Guest houses must meet minimum principal building setbacks. The guest house does meet this requirement. Also, Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (D) states that an accessory structure (guest house) shall not be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. The proposed guest house is proposed to be the same distance to the front lot line as the principal structure. Therefore a variance is NOT required. However, a variance is required for a second oversized accessory structure. An “Oversized Accessory Structure” is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet. Only one oversized accessory structure is allowed on a property. The intent of this is to reduce visual massing of buildings on a site. Section 10.03, Subd 9 (C)(2) states: Lot Area Max Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Areas on Property Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas on Property 9.01 acre or more 3,000 s.f 6,000 s.f The proposed guest house is approximately 1 ,500 square feet and the existing bam is approximately 2,000 square feet. The guest house and bam are both accessory structures, however the intent of the guest house is to be a separate dwelling on the property for people to reside. While the letter of the code might be met by constructing a 1 000 s.f guest house with a 500 s.f detached garage, on this site the separated garage might add to a perception of clutter on the site whereas the proposed layout with attached garage is relatively compact. il02‘2S5S Sharrat Design Compare 450 A 480 Orono Orchard Road Variance/CUP Renewal 1/I5/2003-P.2 0/3 La Septic: A new on-site sewage treatment system was installed on the property in October, 2000. One treatment system is currently used for both residences. The treatment system is sized for eight bedrooms. The main residence has five bedrooms, leaving three for the guest house. The proposed guest house is two bedrooms. An alternate location wilt need to be located on the property per a letter provided by the treatment system installers. (See Exhibit E). Hardship: The justification for allowing the second oversize accessory structure is that detaching the garage would meet the letter of the code but would result in greater visual impacts due to a less compact guesthouse/garage combination. Staff Rcconmcndation: Staff recommends approval of the requests subject to the property owner filing a restrictive covenant in the chain of title of the property that would limit use of the guest house to occupants of the principal structure and their non-paying, guests or domestic employees, and that the guest house could not be used for a home occupation. M2 ‘28SS Sharrat Design Comfxa^ 450 A 4W Orono Orchard liooel VarkmceX:UP Kemmd I/I5/2003-P3of5 ittW • •A ^plkatioii# Date Received I'Lr^'OcT' Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^So HH-onO Sft . 6?^k»o ^ /vi<J. Type of Application to be Filed h<p- P^e.Mrr________ Property I^tification Number (P.I.D.) OZ«n"7-2.3- ^ _________ APPLICANT . Name lC^\/ihl A1. ^OS.f Phone (home). _ Phone (work) •lli'l Address Uol CAa.cSe»a TbtjgAS Sff>U»Citv MiMhigTPMitJk Zip 5S30S~~ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired 1 2-| 2.'h\^£(mouth/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.3c44 FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - J ^ ' _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Ouest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling • designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining w^s within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change firom original application) Afier-the*Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ___ $100.00 Appeab _____Other - see Fee Schedule j lb * t ‘ tV % i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS I* — Completed Application Foim. Describe lequest in detail. «««« 350-, labeb and plat map (vou «>i« iBl. and map fern, Hetmapm COun^ Depattm^ ofRnaw A-603, Ooverament Center, 348-3271). / k- «Hwrinance, sutveyor) - refer to handout for survey 7. naniM Onclude marital status) of all persons with an interest in the 8 J ^1 appUcant(s) if not current owner(s). 0 ^nstructoon plan, if apphcable (see staff for requirements). ^ 9. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. FOR ^pSd ISSoJ V ^ J? documents OR COPY sS?m5Sed SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS subntitteA)™* documents, plans, etc. to be ^e A^Ucmt and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour apphcahon is not complete if the above information has not been included. CiJrii stg ^ “ ““P'-e. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE 2r?iSS£:?St3 Cl!Jn:.3Z5r.rSSS£B5S,"'— Applicant's signature _Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE lilT^ “»*«*«« to this appUcadon and fiulhar aulhoiirnd member, fop •8“b. commisaion member., and Councilmembers for puiposj^f mvesti^on and verification of this request. Owner’s signature Iv/lr-N Date I i» 7. 1-0^ AppUcut mutt have all subminab Into the City offices 2S dav« k.Av» a - naonln, CcauuMan Meedap ... held «. I. Comu*d«. Me«ia» Building A Zoning Office of thb^S^ ^ ^ *" P*"* md «lvbe the iN IMAiIiiaa . ^lU lA uauK'hfMs witi M \fur effta THursd^ ^ UsU*! *f ^ Uk. *riu \n ¥■rSSl .’irv^ C & ..................................................................... 4^ OMO n^oneeo ^esiHoJiba oa^Je.%'•\'-o'‘ AM» tM^oe»#U? C8S|@|4 0». 4/21|0| I^*- Smi H eiAMo4 g-T eJecT HoJee 6 -*ftt^o\ $* crt M.T X -«*• ww •k*/ fi CPT. too mt. . CT^O Fifci<^Hl.O tf*U- \ 6<»MD dsCua«J9 $ f^XiU McJki. •♦•JPfoftTS f>liiTEC> ' «r^ir. «-\.. c W#ft •< sAiw/ omnowcnco C3Ctic« EtpMCo & ^oc/Utoe ,9e^^6 ib fM ^ lAU 1 c«^«MALiEa 6(^re»att*J <rf«n» M4j»nmo TO :iEtci: EitvtasM i — I \ r\r'£^'3=^ ^ I. mMA cpr. KOO ALT^\Au'fL !■*»w aacah tm;uu 4 • r I ^AesJAA A*kai^ MALI 1.-^BAJtkA VML mu, i^^Tiq «»f. - ~~ r--------- «« • . I.ll--------,„Jt___lt_ ^--------------------jJ-_____________r-:--------------__________________________________________________________________________ H ^iiwMSiA.6 • eueviKnoviSr ~* QtKdC. :..ofTiD^:A:^ fc.. iii^ r ..» ' '<V) g^gsg 1* GK ,V'i -r I--—^-nr- ^ --------- * ^ rrg-ririinif ^' • ;^ ’tr <' TH ElE/K-ncU . .‘/Vr* ^ •. )l.»ii f44ETT HC>Xe 50 0 ’-«tJ0 0fk:HA<*-O “owe MWl :?fS§^ sJEfeTwoiA/^«50i4AL.r 6cfl^Le V& -I'-O CO. ArML- '2.1)01 \yirft: ^iJE-sr eup/Kiv>M ^as 'sa RUN DATE 11/21/02 BATCH 50A HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 02-117-23 13 0006 00315 WOODNILL RQ W W MCCUXRE 8 N M MCGUIRE W M MCGUIRE 8 N M MCGUIRE 315 WOODNILL RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 23 0006 00387 ORONO ORCHARD RD S D D 8 K M MACMILLAN DAVID D MACMILLAN P 0 BOX 5628 MPLS MN 55960-5628 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 02-117-23 29 0009 01260 WOODNILL AVE COM MAILE CHARLES W 8 MARLA C MAILE 1260 WOODNILL AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 29 0010 00355 WOODNILL RD W W NCCUIRE 8 N M MCGUIRE WILLIAM W 8 NADINE M MCGUIRE 315 WOODNILL RD WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 02-117-23 31 0003 00980 RUSSELL AVE JOSEPHINE B CARPENTER JOSEPHINE B CARPENTER BOX 659 C980 RUSSELL AVEl WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0005 00590 ORONO ORCHARD RD SANDRA S LARSON SANDRA S LARSON PO BOX 596 WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 02-117-23 31 0019 00521 HANLON AVE C P CURLER 8 D CURLER CHARLES P CURLER 521 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0015 00537 HANLON AVE R V 8 M E KOEHNEN ROBERT 8 MICHEL KOEHNEN 537 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 02-117-23 31 0028 00539 KEENE AVE D H BOYD 8 C K BOYD DUSTIN H BOYD 539 KEENE AVE WAYZATA MN 553^1 38 02-117-23 31 0036 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENI^PIN FORFEITED LAND 1027-NC PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 02-117-23 31 0038 00520 HANLON AVE KONRAD C KRUGER KONRAD C KRUGER 9831 NANITOU RD TONKA BAY MN 55331 38 02-117-23 31 0039 01295 DICKENSON ST SCOTT ALLEN HAGE SCOTT A HAGE 1295 DICKENSON ST ORONO MN 55391 ^ S ^n REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 8 38 02-117-23 29 0006 00360 ORONO ORCHARD RD S 8 H OSBORN STEELE B OSBORN 360 ORONO ORCHARD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0002 01230 DICKENSON ST W W MCGUIRE 8 N M MCGUIRE W W MCGUIRE 8 N M MCGUIRE 1230 DICKENSON ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0006 00550 ORONO ORCHARD RD S PAULETTE PICKARD STUURMANS PAULETTE PICKARD STUURMANS 550 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0027 01255 DICKENSON ST MARION J DETTLOFF MARION J DETTLOFF 1255 DICKENSON ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0037 00530 HANLON AVE L W THIES ET AL TRUSTEES LUCILLE WOODVILLE THIES 530 HANLON AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0090 01205 DICKENSON ST AMY L KLAERS 8 JOHN KUERS AMY L KLAERS 8 JOHN KLAERS 1205 DICKENSON ST WAYZATA MN 55391 RUN DATt U/21/R2 MTCH SM HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PACE 9 PROP ADOt OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO R2-117-2S SI IMl RRSS9 RUSSELL AVE J P NCALPIN INN NCALPIN JOHN P I NICNELLE N NCALPIN 5S9 RUSSELL AVE WAYZATA HN SSS91 SO 92-117-2S SI 1992 •tSM KEENE AVE DONALD E I JOANNE K DAVIDSON DONALD E I JOANNE K DAVIDSON 2020 SLACK OAKS LA N PLVNOUTH HN SM97 SO 02-117-2S SI 0040 M5M BARRETT AVE R T JAFFRAY I V N JAFFRAY R T I V H JAFFRAY 540 BARRETT AVE HAVZATA HN S5S91 • I PROP ADfW OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR SO 02-117-2S SI 0047 00450 ORONO ORCHARD RD S KEVIN OARNETT KEVIN OARNETT 401 CARLSON PKWY 0415 NINNETONKA HN 55305 SO 02-117*2S 31 0040 01225 DICKENSON ST B N YOUNG TRUSTEE W/L EST FAYE LILKE 1225 DICKENSON ST WAYZATA HN 55S91 30 02-117-2S 31 0049 00500 ORONO ORCHARD RO S S S I J E WEBSTER STEVEN S I JO ELLEN WEBSTER 500 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 30 02-117-2S 31 0050 00290 WOOONILL RD JOHN C 0 LOIS A O'NALLEY JOHN C I LOIS A O'HALLEY 290 WOODHILL RD WAYZATA HN 55391 SO 02-117-23 31 0051 00500 HANLON AVE P A I H N BENNETT PAUL A 0 HECAN N BENNETT 500 HANLON AVE WAYZATA HN 5SS91 SO 02-117-23 32 0001 00405 ORONO ORCHARD RD S EDWARD H HAHH TRUSTEE EDWARD N HAHN 400 ST PETER ST B4S4 ST PAUL HN 55102 PROP ADOR OWNER NAHE TAMPAYFR NANE/AOOR 30 02-117-23 42 0011 OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSICNED CITY or ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY HN 5SS2S SB 02-117-2S 42 0012 OOOSO ADDRESS PENDING wooohill country club WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 WOODHILL RO WAYZATA HN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 504 00029 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE !. r rt •MG Application Deadline: 12/9/02 60 Day Deadline: 2/6/03 JAN 2 1 2005 Lur ur OHOfVO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Jennifer Chaput Title: Planner DATE: January23.2003 ITEM NO. 9 Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#02-2856 Andrew and Tracy Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variance Exhibits: A Resolution D Staff Report and exhibits of 1 /22/03 Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore: The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(1): Structure within 75’: Structures shall be .set back a minimum of 75’ from the OUWL (929.4 ’) of lakes classified as General Development. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(1): Hardcoverwithin 75’: Within 75’ of the shoreline there shall be no e.\cavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. Application Summary: The applicants have requested the following variances in order to replace an existing 288 s.f. second story deck, built in 1968, attached to the principal structure: 1) To permit an encroachment of 71' into the average lakeshore setback; 2) To permit a .structure to be located 67 ’ from the OMWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75’ is required. 3) To permit 806 s.f. (5.12 %) hardcover 75’ from the OlIWL where no hardcover is allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: Approve application as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: I'o adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. t H’ k. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B) AND SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C) #1 AND #6; SUBDIVISION 16 (L)^l, FILE NO. 02-2856 WHEREAS. Andrew and Tracy Rascher, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 4705 North Shore Drive, within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Loti, Block I, TRISTANA COVE, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter “the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B)and Subdivision2; Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C) 1 and #6; Section 1 0.56, Subdivision 1 6 (L) ^ 1 to allow an existing second story deck to be rebuilt 67 ’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75 ’ is required, allowing 5.12% hardcover within the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover is permitted and encroaching 71 ’ in' j the average lakeshore setback in the LR-IB zoning district; 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 January 22, 2003, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2, This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2856. 1 he property is located in the LR-1 B Zoning District, where 1.0 acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately 0.69 acres. Page I of S 3. 4. 5. 6. B. C. D. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 22 ”>003 and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The house and deck were constructed in 1968 at this location and require salety improvements as a result of the age of the structure; The replacement of the deck as it currently exists will not increase the existing square footage of hardcover, change the setback from the OH WI nor the average lakeshore setback; The deck is necessaiy to provide a landing for the two sliding glass doors located on the lakeside of the house; and The neighlwring views of the lake are not negatively impacted by the reconstruction of a deck as it currently exists. 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 v^i^ces will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff. commSts^v CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS the 0 Minnetonka where 75' is required, with 5.12% hardcover w ithin 75 lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover is permitted and encroaching 71 • into the Page 2 of 5 ,-iV - C. P. average lakeshore setback in the LR-IB zoning district. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (February 10,2004). 3.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. 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of January, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 3 of 5 i r STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of February, 2003 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 January, 2003 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public On this day of .,2003,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/afTirmation of. credible witness .^a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA Notary Public Page 4 of 5 and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their act and deed. Notary Public !| Pages of 5 i. TO: FROM: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DATE January 7,2003 SL’BJECT:#02-2856 Andrew and Tracey Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variances — Public Mearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 30,063 s.f. (.69 acre) Exhibits: A Analysis Worksheet Application Sur\ey Deck Plan Hardcover Calculations Average Lakeshore Map Plat Map Location Map Property Owner’s List Permit Record Photos of Property B C D E F G 11 1 J K Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. I (B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (CX6): Average Lakeshore: The average lake.shore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakcwurd protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. Variance Request: I'o permit a variance to encroach 71 ’ into the average lakeshore setback. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(1): Structure within 75*: Structures shall be set back a minimum of 75 ’ from the OHWL (929.4*) of takes classified as General Development. Variance Request: To pennit a structure to be located 67’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75 ’ is required. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LXl): Hardcover within 75*: Within 75 ’ of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporaiy or permanent structures. Variance Request: To pcmiit 806 s.f. (5.12 %) hardcover where no hardcover is allowed. *02-2856 Andrew and Tracy Richer 4 70S Sorth Shore Drhv I/2JQ00J Page I of J r A ANAI.YSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IA Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acres) Actual 30,063 s.f. (0.69 acre) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area , in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 ’1 5,750 s.f.0s.f. (0%)806 s.f. (5.12%) 806 s.f. (5.12%) No Change Setback from OHWL: Required structure setback Existing Setback Proposed Setback from OHWL of GD Lake 75 ’67 ’67 ’ No Change AveraKC Lakeshorc Setback: Existing Encroachment Proposed Encroachment 71 ’71 ’ No Change Andrew and Tracy Rascher 4'^OS i\'orlh Shore Drive l/N'200i Page 3 of 2 __i ^>1/2. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $2S0.U0 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SlSO.tX) (no change from original application) Variance for non>conforming structures S2SO.OO After-the>Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received" i^'^-OzZ Amount Paid ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION j Site Address /i/tn /r> SAtvur c Property Identification Number ff.l.D.) //*?"* ^J OO^'fsf Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_________OZ. |_____________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residentiiJ ___^other (specify) Zoning District: LP - (fi> ________________________ APPLICANT I Name d**?^^*-*i Address: M7^5^/t/-w 7>-^ Phone (home) 2- ^ ZZC ____ Phone (wx>rk)^^Z. City: ________Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (\vork)_ Address:City:,Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST 'estimated ConstrucUon Cost $ U.CKto_______ Describe request in detail: (ZiplcKC^.^e^ •^■1 IC / rrlAt p(eU^/-i,ui. 4-c c>-(-J o i . (attach additional sheets if necessary) 0,,y\c^ -- rXi.jp X VARIANCES REQUIRED * ° Lot Area Lot Width Lot Coverage Setback: K Front X Hardcover _ Side __Rear X Average Lakeshore Other (specify) ilARDSHlP/DESCRlPTlON OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CO.NDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: TTrylui-j c4- eiaX cx.n^ ref*!.* f tij!.cJcir\c^ fo /Or) *<£0 n r\a.il5 f>c Ot ^ k is /xt’-C->»->iVv. t.c^&rv;fo u [attach additional sheets if necessary*) • t e> . 4. f\^<cl required submittals *• , Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within isn* loKjaie ^ i ^^gniphic survey (cxisling aud proposed elevations) if any rh,-... r. , grade ate proposed. In addition, provide one (I) coDv g'/."Vll"fcfl J .^* 5. ,y/ Sketches or pla« of noor & eleLon vie J& 1 0^/” -4<C List of the legal names (include marital status) of all oerson^ witK^o • : the property. This would include name(s) of applicant^ if not m ^»*”**”*i\" 7. ^ AS an addend™ to tlUs application. ‘iLI ZT person you wish notified of this application. ^ ^ ®‘ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application Pi»ac« — u i. Mrlnntc inrlltgllMi h nttl fttmplclc If Ihe above inform..i.n h,,, APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide ali information requited or requested bv ih. 7„nln. Adnumstrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time no?covered bXrwL L and/or consultant e,xpenses incurred in review of ihic i- .• ^ tee payment) infomiation supplied is true Md correct to the best of hisAief loiowledg^ certifies that the Applicant’s Signature ___________ll-l-QZ. OWNER’S SIGNATURE e^;Trr;X““s^sTa?fr^^^^^ ztTo members for purposes'on„ve«iga.i™ and ISTrf to « /I Owner's Signature ----Date ^ 7 - O Z. Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 dav« Hefors. tu ot • Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Mondt* Cotml,,fo"n**“rCor^^^ aTenTa^JJl^Td”' ^**""^* 0 v^Lt^ini y uiruv^ZA\ u E ^\r ^y^iniWEIf X^PCJt^ ^ r rjr. 1*^ 3ANKEN 4705 North Shore Drive OCSCRPTKM Lot I. tM I. 1«STAMA COWC N«*»ipte UmXf. IfirwcMl. o Omrn— kofi LOT AttCAa 10*Okl ^.r Clip iM«ui» *33) c.r DfttVKv/Av T i.ni^ «*r. SiOIMiftktIl * 76<l rx. ^•.Ii((r Aloes cr ftiMMIA UelUi » Aid f t8^0;»o « KH TWIA. CMTAII L5rtL22i2Li"r*^ A'tMr*! Ay m« «r «A«tr m» *mi ^ I ••«• Uw t Mm sum Sfcol«: 1*CtfvfPMf ' n.11%Swt*#;);-.JlQOi.4^___ 0140 mm # BRANDT CNOBCERINQ A 8URVEYINQ 1600 West 143rd Stre'" Suite 206 Burnsville, MN SS306 (612) 435-1966 iW^iilritittiii Pro Floof, Inc. Deck Division (651)633^113 Tue Nov 26 15:24:17 2002 The materials for this project V ‘le saved as: C:\PROGRA-1\CADQUE-2\DESIGN-1.1\FiLES\RASCHER5.DEK# VlOW ^ 0. t. / ^ , -cJ ii um Pro Floor. Inc. DeckCivteion (851)633-6113 Tue Nov 26 16:29:34 2002 The materials for this prc^ec*.3300.46 Toe Spacing " 3 3/4" {(slllng Height • 36"#28 I I f • # iT •BAIO)CO'V£ SEIBA.CK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) £A. Boon JEtARDCO^gR culation worksheet 75^0' 250-500*500-1000'e- ItUSilE LiailOi 10-^^vnui X X X B. * *Gariie* . ••• •• • C, IMvtway •• / •/*• • •• X X ^ • • • # • • • • • .• D. Stdewdk X X E. Pac!o/D«ck X X £ F. Ixadseijie Uaderl^ By Flude - Or FAdc X X X O. 0(c«c TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL FROPERTT AREA IN ZONE A '* • •- •♦. B X100 .« 7^ FROFOSTOHARDCgyiroiNZQNT. > A. House : Ltasii 10^0- VUih X X X B. Garage C. Dnvewiy X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pielo/Dcck £ F; LiadsMpe Uoderlala By Flutlc Or Fabric X X X mKl^‘ 3i&.i S.F. S.F. S.F. -S.E. :s,F. 5.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 5.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. ••sj. S.F. S.F. A S.F. Br. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER Of ZONE * TOTAL PROPERTY AREA Of ZONE * A __fiOir ♦ B Igyg) xlOO - •» • S.P. 5i up AVaeA^ tA{<«sffope H tra;is ENO CIA Ukcyiew";^ AEO OAX JU-Boroau Btiw am $a SEE MAP 61 came ear ** ^est © LakCj <sr M S J «/.»«M $ot «» ^ wiTzGOO m «j 1 Em 10 Jennings Bay WoodUn4\ S: pr^Omser:^': WEST BA AM CH AD SCO 14AAAS0I U ^Harrison forest baamdview UWe. Skogsbtrg Point »jy»/»ooo West g“ • ORONC Arm m.. •IM trottn I inwooD \ Shadjmckxl Point 'f^ BlDEERJNa Kvo UATW ^^AELME Bl»0* ”“® I 00 A024005 JLJi SBRjtlG OTTMU >J5/1 • ^:;*A0 - itmjr «UJ rs— ISLAND T^l Fa^cr/iMj Pc !• ttOlWliH ^ ADaOTlMAkt r ilTOi/ -HiSJMAn ■fAtT«S BAAf.SIT... r i-m/tf u J-tHkMUil tfj -- I c«»ait liff V / XimOAll AO Bay MOUND mmm A* tt' j n] '■JM B SfiM^th Fe«d ShMts^*^ « 38 0*»-l 17-23 32 0002 J* ’ioutman & K J Houtman . J Rest Point Lane Mound, MN 55364 3807-117-23 32 0009 Long Yang & Anjer Yang 4736 North Shore Dr. Mound. MN 55364 3807-117-23 32 0017 JPHeniy 4725 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 3807-117-23 320025 Richard O. & Julie A. Roelfs 4625 Tonkaview Lane Mound, MN 55364 38 07-) 17-23 32 0039 Larry & Sharon Grabill 1"*^0 Rest Point Rd. I Jid. MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0054 Joshua D. Uran 1345 Rest Point Lane Mound, MN 55364 3807-117-23 32 0061 Kenneth W. & Renee G. Eggert 1371 Rest Point Lane Mound, MN 55364 rA MiWKf Additss Labtls 3807-117-23 32 0003 Earl & Terry Christianson 4641 Tonka View Lane Mound, MN 55364 3807-117-23 320014 Larry A. Greenhagen 4739 Tonkaview Lane Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 320019 Hentum Crawford 4745 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0026 James R. & Dawn Abrahamson 4629 Tonkaview Lane Mound, MN 55364-9631 3807-117-23 32 0052 Kevin J and Susan K Grover 1315 Rest Point Lane Minnetrista, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0058 Andrew H. & Tracy K. Rascher 4705 North Shore Dr. Moimd, MN 55364 oa- Use template for 5160® IVi 38 07-117-23 32 0004 Stuart V. Whitman 4735 Tonkaview Lane Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0016 Dennis A Meyer 4680 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0020 Loren Pellett 4753 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0038 Kirk Anderson 1373 Rest Point Rd. Mound, MN 55364 . 38 07-117-23 32 0053 Holly J. & Richard R. Schaad ' 4685 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0059 Stephen C. & Joanne A. Ward 4695 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 Laser 5960^ L. ■M: '-. .^ « --. r*- » MM SATE •&a7/«l BATCH SM HENNEPIN COUNTY WOPtHTY INFOHHATION SYSTEN III IWHUmif ^ SB 07>U7-BB S2 •«» MA7B ■HTOOIX TAXPAVn MWB/ABMI 4ABS NOBTN SMBE BE miMD MN BBSA4 M •7«117*’ES BE AAM •XSAS BEST POINT U ^olhT. JBSMMDUBAN 7 ^ i /t jffffffft MMScA(\«.c^■1S4S BESTPOINT U HOUND HN EBSM SB B7>U7-BS SE BBEB B47BS NOBTN SNOBE OB TAEPAVEB NANE/AOOB ANMMH H E TBACT K BASCNEB A7BE NOBTN SNOBE OB HOUNBIM EBSM SB B7>U7>ES BE BlSf B4BfS NOBTN SNOBE OB STEPNMI C B JOANNE A HABD STEPHEN C HABD 4A9B NOBTN SNOBE OB HOUND NN SS3M PBOP ABOB TANPAVn NANE/AOOB TOTAL BATCH Sn NBE4 ; • 'rt BEPOBT NO. PX4SSAII PA6E E B7-117*EVS2 BBS* SNOBE OB BIN aSl^rHiOBDIN' tkM NOBi:!'SHOBE OB HftUNO EfcSM SB B7«U7-ES SE BBBl B1S71 BEST POINT U KENNETH N A BENEE 0 E66EBT KENNETH N B BSNfE 0 ECOERT 1S71 BEST POTtV U HOUND NN S5SM X CBBTXPV THAT THE FACTS BEPBESENrEO ABE AN ACCUBATB AND TBUE BEPBESENTATXON OP XNPBBHATXBN AS XT APPEABS THIS DATE ON THE BECOBOS OP THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPABTNENT OP PBOPEBTV TAXATION* TO THE SEST OP NY KNONLEOOE AND BELXEP. ’ ^ I * % ' » . „ SB*r- \\ ’-/I*' W : •/ Klf*l»v « S. A . yA*A»' • s * . . t 3 in Oo C)- f-KTiW-V ‘rMi ' a 'd tSCT'Vjf^ i&ifi’S: tCs H «M I . tS/17/M MTCN Ml HEMiEraN COUNTY fROTERTV UNumUTlON SVSTEH raOfCRTV ONNERS LIST SO R7-I17-2S 32 RROa SK^'JJKJa. iJi.'Tsr^is ir^ nOUNO NN MSM M •7*117*2S 32 RRR3 •472S TONKAVXEM U E I T CNRISnANSON EARi • TERRY CNRUTXANSON 4MI TONKA UXKN UNE MMNB NN SS3M . TROT ARM OMNER mm TAXPAYER NAHE/ARM M R7-U7-2S 32 RMf M7S« north snore m •CHRMTXNe-J -SOWmNiACN VctfNfV '' MXSTXNE J SLNANEENRACH— /»n,«r H^u 473* NORTH SNORE M ^ NOUNO NN S53*4 M 07-U7-2S 32 00X4 •473* TONKAVXEN U URRY A OREENNAOEN ET AL L MEENNAOEN I V OREENNAOEN 4739 TONKAVXEN LANE NOUNO NN 5S3A4 ONNER NANR TAXPAYER NANE/ARM M •7-U7-23 32 OUT •472S NMTN SNORE M J P HENRY STM J P HENRY 472S NORTH SHORE OR NOUNO NN SS3*4 SO "07-U7-27 32 ORJ OENNXS A4*00 north snoresdr 5S3*4' PROP ARM ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOM SO 07-n7>23 32 002* •47S3 NORTH SNORE OR2«»^T ^rco aUcH- 47S3 NORTH SHORE OR ORONO NN 5S3*4 *7-117-23 32 002S PROP ARM TAXPAYER nane/aom TONKAVXEN LA ^‘cKarcl V ^N SNEITON O N * SIgLTON- Ji/jlC n • JLJI. SHELTON A4Mr-SHEtT0N n ir 4*2S TONKAVXEN LA R Oe I u(-J NOUNO NN 5S3*4 REPORT NO. PACE M *7-117-23 32 **** •4735 TONKAVXEN LA STUART V NHXTHAN STUART V NHXTHAN 4735 TONKAVXEN LA NOUNO NN 553*4 M *7-117-23 32 **1* •4731 NORTH SHORE OR OENNXS A NEVER OENNXS A NEVER 4*** NORTH SIKME OR NOUNO NN 553*4 5* *7-117-23 32 *819 •4745 NORTH SNORE M HERNAN CRANPORO ETAL NERNAN CRANPORO 4745 NO SHORE MXVE NOUNO NN 553*4 M *7-117-23 32 **2* •4*29 TONKAVXEN U J R ARRANANSON/0 ARRANANSON •MNES R a OANN ARRANANSON 4*29 TONKAVXEN LA NOUNO NN 553*4-9*31 M *7-117-23 32^0 ••*•» TONK^M^Tu * NEVER 440rNORYirSHORE OR NN 5S3M M 07-U7-;•*29 unassxcneoNEVn rER ^ !• NORTN^'aNORE OR /NOUNO NN U! M *7-117-23 32 **3* *1373 REST POINT RO KlRK^SmON* * * ****** 1373 REST POINT RO NOUNO NN 553*4 PROP ARON TAXPAVn Mm/AflOR M f?-117-23 32 **39 •13M REST pomr RO i • S RRAOXU LARRY R SNARRN ORARXLL 135* REST POINT RO AiSM 5R •7-117-23 Jt9$n SNORE OR A NEVER snore OR « • f* *• •7-117-23 32 **52 •1315 REST POINT U K J OROVER ASK OROVER KEVIN J OROVER ANO SUSAN K OROVER 1315 REST POINT U NXNNETRXSTA NN 533*4 :'"vVvi-i rMWQi 1 • J ao ATXQN SmElt T T At wmmH f2icl>arc( tfv i"A • ™ RoeUf^ REPORr NO. PMSMtl PAGE I s* RP-Ur-^S SR •••« H7SS TONKAVIEN U STUARr V MNXTIMN STUART V NNITHAN A7S5 TONKAVIEW U tM 553M SR RP-Ur-RS SR RUA RAPS! NORTH SHORE OR ■OWES A NEYER knnis a HEYER A4RR NORTH SHORE OR mound NN SSSAA SR RP~UP*RS SR RRIO RAPAS NORTH SNORE OR HERNAN CRANFORD ETAL HERIMN CRANFORO APAS NO SHORE DRIVE mound NN SSSAA SR RP-llP-RS SR OORA RAARR TQNRAVIEN U •i R ADRANANSON/D ADRAHAHSOH JAMES R I DAMN ADRAf AAR9 TONRAVIEN LA mound HN SSSAA-9AS1 1 ' ’ I » BMED SR RP-UP-RS SR ARSD R1S7S RIDT PUNT RO kim ^and Eb Sh * * “ ISPS REST POINT RD “■ SSSAA SR RP’UP-RS SR RRSR RSStf DPT FUMT U R J RNRVU ASK RROVER REVn J RRDNIR and SUSAN K ORDVER ISIS REST POINT U NUMETRISTA HN SSSAA rm. ^7oS /Oor^ •PERMIT RECORD Persiit No.Date Type of Permit /ItUJ ^Jlin . _________ Llj <JJL ^ laig \iJA f\ (f aa # 3481 98(i>o 8 -/v-73 sju}^ 41II hk^L Ii(i69 _________ SD3 0 -9o 3oi(J “7-I(9-9o 3oM 1'H- % k' 1 /P/J- JVC- / PoT.S'i^7-S-oc)‘s//f f-----------------------------------------------------------------------——3 // •A • iM±9iO^ Viev^ CF f .'^! 13?? I g>. - il '<)tm }kP/fh ^ •# 1^' :i. • %.^ I ,T iri f ii -li? r.l7’l‘^llliHi( • i '13?' . SS,' ;.'^. *.j f, itij^ ii .jJLSU w. I 1 ^7’3»SE.m s . •» - ^itlii ‘’i ■ ^'Ti '■ ■ ■ ’ !T*i r .1 > ; , . i ^ 2/7- 6U)se- uf sF secaJD sroe v-ft ■ . T' m * v^*;/5:- ;W-- 3ialHU» V If •'v ' .,1 *‘ - »i.^.!. ^ 7.il.*.' •• pipwpa r. jj^- i ""'V' *'«,» r — *■ • '.‘t ’v'fii.^J . V.; *. • •« mm.^m • . ■ ♦ I _ I ii:' • ■*■ 5’,u.;-,.iSsSitM0 « « w . % ^ J 1 ^ ^ ^-Wm 1 > « ♦ 4 pr* -'., 1* -» r . •MG Application Deadline: 12/12/02 60 Day Deadline: 2/10/03 JAN 2 1 2005 VII YUt UHO/VU REQUKST FOR COUNCII. ACTION Department Approval: Name: Jennifer Chapiit Title: Planner DA I B: Januaiy 23.2003 riT.MNO. lO Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#02-2857 Cynthia Piper 1125 Spring'Hill Road Conditional Use Permit Exhibits: A Resolution B Staff Report and exhibits of 1/22/03 Pertinent Code Seetions: 1. Section 10.20, Subd. G: Non-rental Guest Apartments: An apartment within the principal residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including thei: domestic employees or non-paying guests. There shall he at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns t»f parking, sewage treatment. entr>Avay and interior access method. Such apartments shall rrot have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a sep.irate street address. Application Summary: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to permit a guest apartment within the primary residence. PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 7 to 0 vote to: Approve application as presented. S TAKE RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: fo adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. 1 J r A RESOLUTION (;RANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMiTAS STATED IN MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBD. 3 G, FILE NO. 02-2857 WHEREAS, Cynthia Piper, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1125 Spring Hill Road, within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally deseribed as follows: Exhibit A” attached, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter “the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a conditional use permit, as stated in Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 G, to permit a guest apartment within the primary residence in the LR-1A zoning district; 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 January 22. 2003, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2857. The property is located in the LR-IA Zoning District, where 2.0 acres is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximate!)’ 6.6 acres. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 22, 2003 and recommended approval by a vote of 7to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings: Page 1 of 6 A. B. C. D. i:. 1'. Access to the apartmr r.t is provided by a primarj’ access within the principal structure and a second from the exterior of the garage; Adequate parking is provided to ser\e residents of the principal structure and guest apartment; The property is served by a compliant septic system which is adequate for the four bedroom home proposed; The guest apartment will not be rented out and is only for use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests; The utilities will not be metered separately from the principal residence; and The guest apartment will not ha\e a separate address. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, .safety or general welfare of the public, will not adversely affect light, air nor pose a tire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping w ith the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicants and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety , and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDKR, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants ap|iioval to permit a guest apartment within the primary residence, as stated in Municipal Zoning Code Scvtion 10.20. Subdivision 3 O for the property located at 1125 Spring I fill Road. Approval is subject to the follow ing conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan and building plaadayout submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the approved plan may require further Planning Commission and City CouncM review . 2. Approval is subject to the following: a) The apartment w ithin the principal residence is for use by occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-pay ing Page 2 of 6 w 3. 4. 5. guests. No rental of the guest apartment shall be permitted. There shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure and findings shall be made to permit the access to the guest apartment from the c.xterior of the structure. More than one e.xit should be available to the occupants of the guest apartment area for fire safety purposes, especially since the apartment area is located over the garage. Utilities shall not be metered separately from the principal residence utilities and the apartment shall not have a separate street address. Authorities granted by this conditional use permit run with the property not with the applicants, but are pennissive only and must be c.xcrciscd by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this conditional use permit will expire (February 10,2004). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this re.solution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of I'itle of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of Januai>’, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, Citv Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mavor Property Owner (s) Page 3 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of Januar>’, 2003 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 aeknowledgcd before me on this_____ 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota munieipal eorporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. day of January. Notary Public S TATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this dav of .,2003, appeared before me, ____ who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of .personally .a____ whose identity I proved on the oath/aflirmation of_________________________ credible witness and w ho executed the foregoing instrument, and acknow ledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/hcr/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 T , 2003,personally S l A I i- OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this__day of______ appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of___________ ____whose identity I proved on the oath/affinne ’on of credible witness and who executed the foregoing instmment, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. ..a Notary Public Pages of6 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Thai part of Govcmmcnl Lot 2. Section 26, Township 118 North. Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Northerly of creek and Westerly of the following described line and its Southerly extension: Commencing at the Northwest comer of the Southeast quarter of said Section 26; thence on an assumed beanng of South I degree 03 minutes 45 seconds West along the West line of said Southeast quarter a distance of 1168 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence South 45 degrees East a distance of569.03 feet; thence Soutli 54 degrees 35 minutes East to a point of intersection with ihe East line of the West 619 feet of said Government Lot 2; thence South I degrees 03 minutes 45 seconds West a distance of 304.38 feet; thence South II degrees 30 mimites East to the Southerly line of said Govenunent Lot 2, and there ending. EXCEPT that part thereof lying Westerly of the following described line a^ its Southerly extension: Conunencing at the Northwest comer of the Southeast quarter of said Section 26; thence on an assumed bearing of South I depee 03 minutes 45 seconds West along the West line of said Southeast quarta a distance of 1168 feet to the point of beghmingofthe line being described; thence South 45 degrees East a distant of448.54 feet; thence South 8 degrees 06 minutes West a distance of 610.58 feet; thence Soudi 5 degrees 54 minutes East to die Southerly line ofsaid Government Lot 2, and there ending Paged of6 ♦ i J TO: FROM: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moouc, City Administrator Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DAIK January 9,2003 SHB,IKCT: «02-2857 Cynthia Piper 1 125 Spring Hill Road ('onditional Ifse Permit — Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: l.R-l A One I'amily I.akeshore Residential District (2 acre) 6.6 acres (287.596 s.f.) Exhibits: A Application Survey I louse Plans Plat Map ihiilding Permit Propert) Owner’s List H C n i: V l*ertincnt C'odc Section: I. Section 10.20, Subd. (i: Non-rental (iucst Apartments; An apartment within the principal res- lence structure i»n a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. There shall he at least one access door to the apartment trom within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of p.irl.ing. sewage treatment, entryway and interior access method. Such apartments shall not ha\c utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a .se|i.irate street address. Application Summary: I he a|iplicant reipic.sts a conditional use |x*rmit to permit a guest apartment within the primary residence. Ilisiorv: On .April 8. 2002. the (’ity Council (following a unanimous vote by the Planning Commission) granted the applicant the folhwving variances and conditional use permits for this prop .y for ct»nstruclion of a new luui.se (/oning rile »02-276l; Resolution «4785): 1. Variance to |H'rmit a pool house to lx lixatcil 9.3' from the principal structure where 10" is required; 2. Variance to permit construction of a screen porch which encroaches 15* into the average * ('ynihiii Pijvr / ;.t MKl I'iigtf I of 3 r- lakcshorc setback; 3. Conditional use permit to allow a guest house as an accessory structure on the property; and 4. Conditional use permit to allow plumbing in the accessory structure. The above-listed approvals were intended for reconstructing the existing home. Since that time, the owners have decided to tear down the original house and rebuild. The footprint of the new home is located behind the average lakeshore setback line and within the 250-500 ’ hardcover zone, fhe house meets all setbacks, structure and hard cover requirements. The existing house has been demolished at this time. A building permit has been issued but the applicants are aware that the gue.st apartment can not be constructed without Planning Commission approval. Similar Applications: By unanimous vote of the City Council (following the same by the Planning Commission), similar application was approved in Zoning File /t02-2758 (Re.solution it 4778). Robert Pieper. 3‘)‘)5 North Shore Drive on March 25. 2002. Mr. Pieper was granted a conditional use pcmiit after-the-fact for a non-rental guest apartment above the garage with one access from the interior and one from the exterior of the principal structure. l)i!teu.ssion: The guest apartment is located above the most westerly of the two garages (as showr. on the upper le\el lloor plan) for the u.se of gue.its. Interior Access & Fntrv Wav I'here is a total of two entry ways into the ap;u1ment. One acce.ss door to the apartment is from within the principal structure. The apartment is accessed by a spiral staircase in the mudroom on the main floor of the principal structure. The door to the apartment Is located at the top of the staircase, entering into the kitchen of the apartment. I he Ordinance states that the door from within the principal structure must be the primary access to the apartment. 1 he second access to the apartment is from an exterior door le..aing up a stall way. located on the fri'nt of the garage. This exterior access could be considered the primaiy access to the apartment. Parking fhere are two two-car garages planned as part of the principal structure. I here is al.so a considerable amount of driveway to park other vehicles, if necessary. Sewage freatment Ihe projH'rty has u septic .system. ujHlated in 1997 and currently compliant. The current system permits up to six bedrooms on the same sy.stem. 1 he proposed plan, including the guest apartment, has four l>edrooms. a02 ’2S57 Cynihiii Ptfhr 112} Itpritij; Hill RihuI 1/21200} Pagt' 2 of } Ii Issues for Consideration: 1. Is the outside door to the apartment an issue? Should the access door from outside of the garage be closed so that the interior door is the principal access? Docs a spiral staircase have the capability to function as a primary access? (In terms of moving furniture, for instance, it may not be very functional). 2. Resu iciivc covenam siiouid be recorded on chain of title (as part of the CUP icsolution) stating that the apartment is within the principal residence and is for use by occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. No rental of the guest apartment shall be permitted. 3. The utilities must not be metered separately. 4. The guest apartment must not have a separate address. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendations: Slafl'recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a non-rental guest apartment, conditioned upon the following: a) The apartment within the principal residence is for use by occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. No rental of the guest apartment shall be pemiitted. b) There shall be at least one acce.ss door to the apartment from within the principal structure and findings shall be made to permit the access to the guest apartment from the exterior of the structure. More than one exit should be available to the occupants of the guest apartment area for fire safety purposes, especially since the apartment area is located next to and o\ cr the garage. c) Utilities shall not be metered separately from the principal residence utilities and the apartment shall not have a separate street address. Options for Planning Commission Action: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. 2. Recoil*mend ilenial. stating reasons. 3. Table. 4. Other action. U02-2S5 ’’Cvnihia Pi:vr 112S Spring HiU R iiJ l/2S:00i Page 3 of 3 A 1/2. AppUcation # CkS. -3L%f^7 Date Received ^ CITY OF'ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Amount Paid PROPERTY LOCATION . Site Address ll^lp Spn 11 I—o Vv.aJ<a. Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 2 C n ^ APPLICANT Nam e (*ww4-Ujl_a. V^t _______ AddresT^feg-u3tlltri;i JP^ • City , M.M. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)(^^^)J±3;:^^^ -iL3 Phone (work)________________ Zip. Address Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Cit>' Date Property Acquired I (]|Q)D. wo n^ also own the adjacent parrels of land.Mijacent pi FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PER^^TS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP appIica:ion _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) y $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments __$200.00. Duplex Credit/Bldg __$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use __$250.00 Land Alteration ____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 $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule #00 Zip. (month/year) m ■; IH«I ?*l»»«« ••MM*« »••»*• M*% 4DI A.\C£SVMt£m<; A £>0/.V£X/CMG' CO, •MI%N«»lk.lM liMlI |>| riMkl««Mt4»<»l iMfKlir^Okt MliUliA. tad a Ci\Dy FSPLM UVIMU ^MMWU pL\um ifiiAi ntMiniMN r%aiMW«<t If itKi V»«—» t.^*» tjiyi »Hwfc»JMiiaw l*«f w»»«' ai >a ■■«»« 4‘«>Mk<4 kw *i4«. Vak<4. « .<■»<••« ^ t»ui abx •«««•« .aai wm M •• a 4»«Miat«Mn a**« «*■*•»« »*—*«■» ^ IM aM«« W*4« *9Wtl jit«4Ma« •rffMaiWx *ia« <>«* U*^a« «aiaa «MoxMa*iN <•*•«■■* !•« 1 W* I iww* •* IM MIh « ^a« W •• ii^ «■—*»!**«»•» Wi»wlffcfla««* I —mwlaf.aJOa «««■« %<4nH af Iti Uka«|*«n<M<ka mti m wiwik ■ a «••■(• «4 a %n*aa «a«V.iM(> ibo « a a «■ laad ttmmt < 4*»« t.»aaa.«« -aaa l*ai ar %.«« k—«4 a«4 > ka»i I a «>»**»*—» W II— la«a«aaaa>4 a«aM««««a ka a*4t 4t»faia *ia« W* «* *aa«l* • *4««a< •< AM U 4«m« WA**Ma«aMaMa »M*4«MaMAMM«M aMa VmA * 4r«** M mma * l«« a aa k mMwA k—Maa>«.MaaMlMi ai Mot «mm I IkmATa«k»A la atia alM mnmm A« ^ i < klAaaa«A >a^aa»a»aaMAawAa> ha. ^ Mr Ay^ 4 «A*A Ma A 4 : I ki kaaAa Ml M iwa M|w naaaa. aaaa Ana* a i»»aM« ara^ At a« Aaa—a teMlua; raMMMpa a«aa a* aaaMa M auMaif N«M^ *MMaa« a aMk aa (aaa> ^ M. |MfaM| • AM-»a»«kwaf <ma $»r»mmi aa«ia a A—nAr»aa AifciakaaM «a * 4Wa •« 4a« * aawA Wa»« a a* Asa w a a* *« lawla »«A «h » A»« lAaB w *a »aatka.< Mt^laA«a»* « %■» aw faa*al Aaaa> a M »—a M aw A— a* mM m«4» »a«A ai a — 4a 4a aarA »aw |A m» Wfca n ■ ant— Mfww Ala at m* a* a »■■*•• a* k«a -Mi a aw Ukl>wi>aag«MAaa«»»aa|[w<iw.gta4ai —waa lA aa a dwa a». «a*t aiwa Miktaw a a« ^>kia a<i a» fewM a>Maaa ai» Aw Iwaw mM a aa( a« a»a w»w i>a»»d» M»a A 4« ha« ^Ma4d •taaMaiA A« pwwa aMAAaaMtAwMMBiwtawMaaaMaawA •« aa MakMM «a'|^IBUl4 *********** IWkaA«AwMwa«4alM>aAMA«laaM«aAaaMaiM» a »*r»aa .•WA«N.I.I \1 iAI*( ■ Nk aaaaa a wf «ai I i4m i4»* «i tpatiikMaM irra a tako •«* |at|n»>i< ^ aa a* acwlit KM 4m«a 1 Mfwrtukia aMi U mi I mu a iKnaarf l>wfrMMaMl L««iiwa ami !*• 'MAMMil Wki-a* MAlTk iK liM* al ilia Mm, mi MmoraMa M Tmam f l 4. r > s« a;jl • • ««• /» .*’^1 *.’'^1 r/ ^ aJ ti 1 I I « n LI i- »WRC :/v:w? zini^Ltiitivi: -ifiiiitiiit 1*■ r ^ izcccmj III! III!lilMTf kiiD • **• *«t4t WNT &ivATid4 •CALS' V4*« r<#«/-IflBJk-ip r .*• .*4 1 ’ i .' 4v . IX dtei o !«»■>mmtrn ^3= IMt-H l«QMr ELEVATION §CMM»yr* r-#* I oo;i;i;i;i;iv :.^>.f :?:j^ ■a r~r 7•jf hrj U MOi Mitebii I n ii irii ‘ - — r —10-’ <r Vi /SSiRIU V.W'.'lv.fyA. • t LiTT eUEVATICN •C4U. MH r^ #2S57 1. k •’^ f,»; ^A.l «l r 5: U' enpY/Exgwciee noc^ ecc acALBt i/4’ • r.r itcnoN .11 •u=;V. y - . > . : 'j / y r'V:i> V. ^ i ■ «i [■; r il ■ •’ i' •■ J jj- O o .'T ’<y itfuitiAi I If V Q .r w M W. M H ••_______ I » •« ■lafiSlRFai w 7 r .• r LlVtlL yt^CW fUiM N#1 M«MP icjkLCi W4* • r«# 1. •k Tr — ,-----------C.C------------ ®&-TO iSUl^ MWtTIWK\fr VHV ff^MD Sa*VV 6-0^ APAlzri'rtjS^- V «4 /- ^'>) {';7^ •■^•' " #C? O' c3 6 ‘I • •■’f,4 ' • V- ,.• ■ ' ^ A ■ 5T AmAammcnoH tmM Pii/4* • fmrn jj. o *r> ' -■' w 1w o o 7 I iv»'5;? J2 Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Departme^nt - /le -^3 — Parcel Information Parcel ID 2611823431 ?-{T*3 fe^^Mouaa Humbar 1128 5 < _ 'maa-itripreMraeoan^pMlionefMbni^^ and data City, County, »ndStaltn$dmMhetti99tndolh»r$ourc0$. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway - PO Box 66 Cn/stal Bay, l^rfesota 55323 V 1) 249-46(i0 PERMIT Permit Number: Permit Type: Date issued: P05787 New Structure 12/17/2002 SITE ADDRESS:II25 Spring Hill Rd • Wayzata.MN 55391 PID: 26-118-23-43-0004 DESCRIPTION: Proposed Use: Permit Class; Permit Type: Residential Building New Structure UBC Occupancy RJ Construction Type VN Census Code 101 Permit Sub-typc(s): New Home - Single Family DETAILS: Approved per resolution «: Separate permits required:Piumbing Mechanical Firepiace irrigation Eicciricai (aaie) NOTICES/REMARKS: EE SUMMARY:Permit Fee:S 5,923.75 Valuation: $ 1,100,000.00 Plan Review Fee:$3,850.28 State Surcharge Fee:S 540.50 TOTAL FEE:S 10,314.53 APPLICANT: Steiner & Koppelman 18340 Minnetonka DIvd Deephaven, MN 55391 OWNER: Addison & Cindy Piper 1125 Spring Hill Rd Wayzata. MN 55391 APPUCA V^‘tR^•^rtL SIONATL’RE ISSUDBVSIGNAILREo r U# Cooicl; 1-File/Si^aAunnAriniina^. l-AoDlicuii 1-MootMv Reoorts. I-Ascuns. 1-Finaice P^I m0 RUN DATE 12/RA/R2 U-aATCH B$9 NiHN£PIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEM) PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435^ni PACE 32 AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 3« 24-110-23 34 ORES •1135 SIXTH AVE N CHINS SPENCER EOSON W • HARRIET S SPENCER 1135 SPRING HILL RO LONG LAKE NN 55350 30 20-110-23 34 OOQO •1105 SIXTH AVE N JOHN S NACKAY ET AL ROBERT J STRUYK DORSEY S WHITNEY LLP 50 SOUTH SIXTH ST 01500 HPLS HN 55002 30 20-110-23 02 OOOO 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB 700 SPRING HILL RD WAYZATA HN 5539X PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR SO 20-110-23 02 0005 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB SPRING HILL GOLF CLUO 700 SPRING HILL RD WAYZATA HN 55391 30 20-110-23 03 0001 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB 700 SPRING HILL RO WAYZATA HN 55391 30 20-110-23 03 0000 01125 SPRING HILL RO A L PIPER 1 C PIPER ADDISON 3 CINDY PIPER 1125 SPRING HILL RO LONG LAKE HN 55350 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 30 20-110-23 03 0005 01025 SPRING HILL RO HBOC BROOKS TRUSTEES BROOKS ASSOCIATES INC 1050 U S TRUST BLDG 730 2ND AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55002 TOTAL BATCH 509 00007 L I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS w ¥ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 7 200} CilYUh UHO^(J Date: January 24,2003 Item No.: \ \ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02-2860 Sunstatc Concepts, Inc., 1955 Heritage Drive • Variances- Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre min. 1 .008 acres gross; 0.78 + acres net dry buildable Application Summary: Applicant requests lot area and side setback variances for cor struction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. It has been determined that a front setback variance is technically also required. Planning Commission has recommended approval of the lot area and front setback variances and denial of the side setback variance. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Memo and Exhibits of 1/13/03 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of January 13. Briefly, the applicant is planning to build a 2- story residence (for resale) on the foundation of the 1 -story house W'hich existed on this site from 1963 until a few weeks ago. The 1-acre lot was re/oned in 1975, so an area variance is required in order to rebuild on the site. A front setback variance is required based on the location of the publicly maintained road / cul-de- sac which exists merely via prescriptive easement within the SW comer of the lot. A side setback variance is requested by applicant to allow the existing 4-car detached garage to be reconstructed as a 2-story attached 4-stall garage. Additional factors addressed in regards to the application include location of the w etland as it may affect the proposed deck on the NE comer of the house, and the status of the septic system vs. potential connection to municipal sewer. mm w Li / '!» * #02-2860 January 24,2003 Page 2 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed the requested variances and site issues at a public hearing held on Wednesday, January 22. One n«;ighboring property owner was present and asked a number of specific questions but did not ct*ject to the proposal. Planning Commission recommended as follows: a) Approval of the lot area variance. Dgnislofthe side setback variance, indicating there is insufficient hardship to justify granting of the variance. Approval of the front setback variance relative to an ‘alternate’ plan which results in no side setback variance, and a defined front street setback of approximately 35’. Planing Commission recommends that the new home be connected to municipal sewer rather than reconnected to the existing septic system, on the basis that the rebuild will otherwise result in a virtually new residence with a 20-year old septic system. Planning Commission recommends that the applicant have the wetland delineated prior to construction of the 2nd-story deck to ensure it meets the minimum wetland setback. b) c) d) Staff Recommendation Staff is in complete concurrence with the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution reflecting the PC recommendation is attached for your adoption. Note that the applicant may wish to address the side setback and sewer issues, therefore this is not placed on the consent agenda. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. f A RESOLUTION GRANTING AND DENYING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23 SUBDIVISION 6B FILE NO. 02-2860 WHEREAS, Sunstate Concepts, Inc. (hereinafter "the applicant") is tl’iownerofthe property located at 1955 Heritage Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 4, Foxbill, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23 Subdivision 6B to allow construction of a new residence to replace a pre-existing residence on a I.O acre lot in the LR-IA Zoning District where a 2.0 acre minimum lot area is required; and to allow said new residence to encroach into the required front and side yards. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2860, 2.The property is located in the LR-1A Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, w hich requires minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and minimum lot width of 200'. The lot contains 1.008 gross acres, but is only 0.78 acre in buildabic area after deduction of the wetlands and public cul-de-sac existing on the property.. 3.The property contained an existing residence structure and detached garage originally built in 1973, which have been recently removed by the applicant, leaving only the foundations, on which a new 2-story residence with attached garage is proposed. Page 1 of 6 I 4. 5. 6. The existing detached garage foundation is 23' from the west side lot line, conforming in setback for a detached garage but where a 30' setback is normally required for an attached garage, requiring a variance for reconstruction of the garage as an attachment to the residence. The west side lot line abuts the Dakota Rail corridor. It is expected that this corridor will eventually become a regional trail. The cul-de-sac exists within the southwest comer of the property and by City code a line drawn 10' from the edge of this public right-of-way defines the front lot line for zoning purposes. The detached garage foundation is 28 ’ from this front lot line defined by the cul-de-sac. The required front yard in the LR-1A Zoning District is 50*. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on January 22,2003 and recommended approval of the lot area varainacc, denial of the side setback variance, and conditional approval of the front setback variance, and made the following findings: a)The lot area of 0.78 acres is sufficient to allow reconstruction on the site, where a residence has previously existed for many years. Removal ofthe existing residence and rebuilding using the existing foundation clearly is considered as new construction requiring that ail lot standards must be met. There is insufficient hardship to support the requested side setback variance. The lack of storage area due to lack cf a basement suggested by the applicant as a hardship, can be ameliorated by constmetion of additional space meeting the required side setback. The cul-de-sac is apparently not platted nor dedicated to the publie via known easement, but exists as a public prescriptive casement outside of and in addition to the adjacent platted right-of-way the and is therefore considered as a hardship to the property, in this unique situation, that justifies some measure of variance to the front setback requirement. Page 2 of 6 7. 8. g) The Planning Commission recommends that an attached garage meeting the 30' side setback but as near as 35' to the front lot line is appropriate for the site. Because the property is in the MUSA, because this is considered as new construction, and because there is no alternate drainfield site available on the property for future use, he Planning Commission recommends that the existing conforming septic system not be re-used because 20 years of its useful life has already been expended and its re-use results in a new home with a 20-year-old septic system, which is inappropriate for new construction. Due to the proximity of the wetland to the proposed deck on the northeast comer of the residence, a wetland delineation should be required of the applicant prior to approvl of construction of the deck to ensure the required setback is met. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant 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 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 pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 3 of 6 aI i CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23 Subdivision 6B to allow construction of a new residence to replace a pre-existing residence on a 1.0 acre lot in the LR-1 A Zoning District where a 2.0 acre minimum lot area is required; and to allow the attached garage of the new residence to be located 35' from the front lot line where a 50' setback is normally required, but denies a variance for side setback for said construction, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Council approval is based on the revised site plan submitted by the applicant and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. The new home be shall ultimately be connected to municipal sewer rather than reconnected to the existing septic system. Applicant shall work with the City to bring sewer to the property during the construction of the new residence. Should sewer not be made available by the time the residence is ready for occupancy, the existing septic system may be used on a temporary basis until sewer is made available.. The applicant shall have the wetland delineated prior to permitting or construction of the deck at the northeast comer of the residence to ensure it meets the minimum wetland setback. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but arc pcmiissivc only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Counci I approval, or the variance will expire on that date (January 27, 2004). 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. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant's heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 6 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of January, 2003 ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of ________, 2003 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 _________, 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 iiii^ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .2003. personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me _____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of, whose identity 1 proved on the oath^afTirmalion of, a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public li Page 6 of 6 i ^ I 1 s_ S Date Application Received: 12/18/02 Dale Application Coniidcred as Complete: 1/8/03 00-Day Review Period Eipiret: 3/8/03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Com.nissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Mike GafTron, Planning Director January 13,2003 Subject:#02-2860 Sunstatc Concepts, Inc., 1955 Heritage Drive - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1A Single Family Lakcshorc Residential, 2-acrc min. Lot Area: 1 .008 acres gross; 0.78 + acres net dry buildabic Application Summary: Applicant requests lot area and side setback variances for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. It has been determined that a front setback variance is technically also required. Pertinent Code Sections: 1.10.23, Subd. 6B: Minimum lot area required » 2.0 acres dry buildabic. Existing lot area: Gross = 1.008 Acre (per Hcnn. Co.) Area of wetland = 0.18 acres ± Area of public cul-de-sac = 0.04 acres + Net dry buildabic area = 0.78 acres + 10.23, Subd. 6B: Side setback required = 30' Existing/proposed side setback (attached garage) = 23.7' 3.10.23, Subd. 6B: Front setback required = 50' Existing/proposed front setback relative to cul-de-sac ~ 28' List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat map C - Existing & proposed survey/site plan D - Alternate survey absent setback variance E - Septic information F - Zoning Disclosure Fonn G - Property Owners l ist H - City topography map I - Foxhill/Crystal Bay sewer system map J - Proposed House Plans & Elevations U02-2m January 13,2003 Page 2 Background This lot was originally platted in 1965 as part of the Foxhill subdivision and was zoned for 1-acre minimum lot size at that time. The existing house (a 3-bcdroom one-story “patio” home, i.e. no basement) was constructed in 1973. The zoning was changed to 2-acre minimum in 1975. A swimming pool was constructed north of the house in 1976. A new drainfield and pressurized distribution system was installed to replace the original trench drainficld in 1982. The site is currently served by well and septic, as the prior owner chose to not have the house scr\ cd when the Foxhill area was sewered in 1998/99. The applicant has recently purchased the property and intends to tear down the superstructure and re-use the existing footings and slab foundation. This requires a lot area variance and a setback variance to replace the 4-stall garage In the substandard side setback abutting the Dakota Rail corridor. The house will be enlarged to incorporate a second story, including a “bonus room” above the garage which adds a second level of encroachment to the side setback. A proposed second-story deck extending from the cast side of the house will have to meet the required wetland setback. The property is partially within the 500-1000' hardcover zone and partially outside the Shoreland. Hardcover is not an Issue. Lot coverage by structures is proposed at approximately 3250 s.f. or 7.4%, well below the 15% maximum. Lot Area Variance At approximately 0.8 acres dry buildablc, the lot contains about 40% of the required area for the LR- 1 A District. Removal of the superstructure constitutes complete removal of the residence for zoning purposes. However, this is a lot of record and has contained an existing residence for nearly 30 years. Many other developed lots in the neighborhood have similar lot sizes and characteristics. Granting of the lot area variance would be reasonable and consistent with past City practice as long as all other City codes are met. Side Setback V'ariance The existing detached garage is located 23.7' from the west side lot line, which abuts the Dakota Rail corridor, it is expected that this corridor will eventually become a regional trail. Orono has other existing structures near to the trail corridor, primarily in the Navarre area along Crystal Bay Road. The existing 932 s.f. garage as a detached structure actually meets the 15' property line setback required for detached accessory structures; w'hen attached to the house as part of the proposed rebuild, it will become port of the principal structure. From staff s perspective, there is little hardship that supports the side setback variance. The attached garage could just as easily become 3 stalls rather than 4. The house/garage could relatively easily i //02-2860 January 13,2003 Page 3 be reconfigured to provide for additional storage behind the garage next to the pool, while meeting the 30' setback requirement. Based on the 1973 building plans, the slab has a perimeter footing; this would have to be modified to support the west garage wall if the variance is denied, although it might be feasible to save the remainder of the slab as an outdoor grade-level non-covered parking area if the applicant so chooses. Applicant has provided a second survey which indicates a proposed house/garage location meeting the 30' setback should tlic side setback variance be denied. Status of Cul-De-Sac; Front Setback Variance Required For zoning purposes the publicly used and maintained cul-de-sac existing upon the S\V comer of the property has been deleted from the lot area calculation. The City is unaware of any dedication or existing casement for this cul-de-sac. Per Municipal Code Section 6.01, Subd. I(L) the definition of public road, “Where traveled public roadways exist in a location not shown on the platting map, the right-of-way shall not be less than ten (10) feet wide on each side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surface.” Also, per the Municipal Code definition of "property line" (11.03 Subd. 2.43), “Regradless of the legal description, the property line to be used for purposes of compliance with the Zoning Chapter., .shall be...thc edge of the right-of-way...”. Therefore, a line 1 O' from the edge of the pavement of this portion of the ‘public road’ must be used as the front property line for front setback dctemiination. The proposed attached garage will be approximately 28' from the defined “front lot line” related to the cul-de-sac, where a 50' setback is required. Under the ‘Alternative Plan', where the garage meets the 30' side setback, the front setback relative to the cul-de-sac is 35' where 50' is required. There is no current plan to remove or discontinue use of this cul-de-sac; however, the City Kngineer in his 1999 County Road 15 Trafllc Study suggested that a future method to make 15 safer would be to eliminate the 1 Icritagc/1 5 intersection and redirect neighborhood traffic to Brow n Road South across the rail corridor...such a rerouting could eliminate the cul-de-sac and hence the setback issue. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. 26* Wetland Setback for Proposed Deck The existing and proposed house appears to be setback appro.ximately 39' from the w etlaiid, more than the 26' w etland setback required by City code. However, the wetland has not been fonnally delineated, and staff is rel>ing on the provideii topography to estimate the wetland boundaiy'. A second-story deck of unknown dimensions is proposed to extend from the northeast side of the house. It would be appropriate to have the applicant get the wetland boundary' delineated prior to construction of the deck to ensure it meets the required setback. 4» «02-2860 January 13,2003 Page 4 Sewer vs Septic The existing residence per the original plans is considered as a 4-bcdroom home. The existing septic system has served the residence well but its actual fhsign capacity is unclear based on a lack of information from the drainfield replacement done in 1982. The City has considered this as a confoiming system, and it has been functioning well under the prior owner’s usage pattern. It appears unlikely that the property contains an alternate site meeting setback requirements from lot lines, structures, well and wetlands. Therefore, applicant has indicated that it would be most appropriate to connect the residence to the municipal sewer. The property is in the MUSA and has two possible options for connecting to sewer: 1) installing a 700' pressure line eastward under Heritage Drive to the existing Foxhill sewer; or 2) installing a 250' pressure line under the Dakota Rail corridor to the existing Crystal Bay sewer. Either option has the potential to involve cost sharing by neighboring properties, and it is unknown at this time which option is most cost-effective. It may be reasonable to allow the new structure to be reconnected to the existing septic system for the time being; however, the lack of an alternate site suggests that the applicant should work toward getting sewer connected as part of the rebuild, rather than forcing that cost onto a new buyer if the old system should fail. If the existing system is rc-usca, it will need a thorough analysis to confirm it meets all current City and Stale standards. Issues for Consideration 1. 3. 4. 5. Is there sufficient justification shown for granting the lot area variance to construct a new home to replace the existing home on the property? Is there sufficient hardship demonstrated that supports the side setback variance for the attached garage with “bonus room” above? Should the future potential use of the Dakota Rail corridor as a regional trail be a factor in detennining appropriate setbacks from that corridor? Should variance approval(s) be subject to connection of the new home to municipal sewer? Docs Planning Commission have any issues with continuing the existing substandard setback from the cul-de-sac? Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation u) b) c) 0 d) Staff recommends approval of the lot area variance. Staff recommends denial of the side setback variance. Staff recommends that the front setback variance be approved relative to the ‘alternate’ plan but not for the proposal that requires the side setback variance. Stall recommends that the new home be connected to municipal sewer rather than reconnected to the existing septic system. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to have the wetland delineated prior to construction of the 2nd-story deck to ensure it meets the minimum wetland setback. A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U Date ^/3 Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address K1 bn\/^ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) ”/t> Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Proper^ Acquired *^7-^ ^ ^ I (do) (doj^ also own the 'adjacent parcels of land. PresentusFofproperty: residential .(month/year) Zoning District: L^{(\ other (specify) APPLICANT Phone (home ) Name "T^g/gV C^ocr _____ Phone (work) Address: u)<x-k^ City:Zip: yS'/jjy OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Cai^Ce^erf^. Jd<L. Phone (home). _____. ____________ Phone (work ) ASTf Address:LpA,4^r~s City: ________Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $ ^C, coo (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED V Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover .Lot Coverage / Setback:Front ^Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difTicuI^’ or unusual property conditions preventing compliance widi Zoning Code requirements: ThiS I j- /'a ^ s**1.1 o-P 'hfjj. fe~/~ andi tTLf £l iCtf > •f~ C~7~ S jo ^ I (attach additional sheets if necessary) B860 I REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form ^ Certified Prope^ Owners List of owners within 150 ’, labels and plat map (you u- must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-S910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11" for ^ reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing fA grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/a" x 11" for reproducUon. ^ ' Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (prov'ide one (1) copy 8V4" x 11") 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour yarlancc aPDlkation is not complete if the above information haa not h^Pn 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 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. Applicant's Signature Date O-(fi-OQ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date___ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Panning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent anend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. .1 fI ^ %• e •• I ^ I t Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department ~ ——————— ——------------------------------------------------------------------------------—-----------------I'ji __ f j w —^ Mr- w. JX« -.V, y V-. / a /()“ //7- 2 3- *V~ ‘i* 1 fj 9M •l?S5X I *\ • *' ‘ ' * V* * rV '? \J) \J^arcellnformation Parcel ID 1011723130014 House Number 1985 Street Name HERITAGE DR TN$lsnol9l»ga»yt9cofd9dm$p. Hf9pr»s»nt$»conipMionofMonnst/on and dMa eoffl CHy, Courier, and Slito road aueioriiM antf otfwr MurcM. Q2I2U IVI1703 SUN STATE OmCEm ADVANCE SURVEYING A ENGINEERING CO. S300S.H«y.No. 101 MinaelDaka. MN SS34S Ffcaat (932)474 7964 Fax (932) 4741267 SURVEY FOR; SUN STATE CONCEPTS SURVEYED: Oclobar,2002 DRAFTED: Ortobcf 14.2002 MinBCiott. SOOFEOFWORR: 1. Showh^Vtlingih and diitctioB of bouadity Unaa of Ow abova legal Jaacriptica. Tlw aoogaorawaafviceadoaa is! incliida daniminiin wtal you own, «4ikh b a matter. FlaaaedMckiw legal deacripiioowiOi your laearda or cooiuh with competaat legal coMaael.if Btnitiij. 10 iM»r» sure that it ia correct, and that any malttn of record, such ai casemenb, that you wtah ahowB oa Ve aurvey. have been riwwii. 2. Slwwi«dMlocaiioaorexiatii«iiBpfovcaieolawedecaudfanpoitaiit 3. Seaa^aewmoauaMBiaorvefiiyjagoUmoaBDMataloaiatklbeeomeTaoriheptopeiV- STANDARD Sr : !•: ►‘T lAiliXBaiiL • “Dcnoiea 1/2* ID pipe with plaatic plug bearing State LioeaieNuniber 9233, act, unleaa I henby ceitiiy that tiiis plan, apeciflcation, report or survey was prepared by me or tag direct supervision and that 1 am a licensed rrofcssionsl En^eer and Professional Surveyor under the laws of tbe State of Minnesota. CL.-. >1 (P-A, H. Parker P£. & P.S. No. 9233 / .1 'f*v V / GRAPHIC scale 6?<;sr/A'6 \;Iio2.7e. 6*7M’10*5 BViO'30 ^ Heritage O ^ ..Ji- •\ Drive Dwg. No. 021288 UA4**/# lurii#/^ diAii&cwi>iccri^ ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 93MS.Hwjr.No.IOt MiOMttokN MN 99343 Ploot (093) 474 7904 Fax (993) 4741207 SURVEY FOR: SUN STATE CONCEPTS SURY DMfote2002 DRAFTED: December 12.2002 REVISED: December 17.2002 to dwiradditioa to mideofie. UQAL DESCRIPTION: Lot I. Blodi4, FoKhiU, Hennepin County, Minneiotn. SCOPE OF WORK: 1. Showing the leagih end direction of boundwy lines of the ibove legil desci^tioa. The scope ofourterviecs does got include detennining what you own, which it a matter. PlMse check the legal description with your records or consult whh competent legal counsel, if nacessaiy, to make suit that it is coaec^ and that any matteis of iceor^ such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the locatiomtfeaiaiHgimptovmeBta we dMwiwilnuinrt^nri 3. Setdag new monuments or veriiying old monuments to maik the comets of the property. 4. Showing elevatioiis on the site at selected locatioos to give some indicatioooflhelopognphy of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the bcnchmaik provided on this survey. Usethat bendimaik and check at least one other feature shown on the map when deieimiiiing nHigfHevat ionsfet use on ihb siu. standard symbol A CONVENTIONS: *•* Denotes 1/2'ID pipe wilhplastic plugbearing State License Number9233, set,ualess odMtwise noted. • Ibmt^ccmiy that thb plan, fpedficitk»p report or iufveywu prepared twine or 1^ direct lupeiviiioo and that 1 am a liccosed Prolcsaiooal Epgi^ Profbtkioal Survqronmder the lawi of the State of Minnesota. H. Father P.E. A P.S. No. 9235 i ' 55 y \ / M»0^ /Irhcw f90J ^ / WM X / / / y / r / ^40.9 ^ / / / / / *orago aMMSi t4U /A 4a$y . \ NWf \ Xf3*.f BTNCPMtAlfK^ropormia£v»9M.oa ^ ^ ^ ^ -Jm f story BrkA t ysm>. XW34 X9SS4 ‘ Concfwtw ^ * I \ • / V A.xwsa \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \u \ Xi«e \ \ V £49^ Cf §iiumtl0ytCfjp) \ >.^X»4»4y xV- \ ^ \ GRAPHIC SCALE a ^ svr^ PMAl > \N ' Heritage Xfsae XWM 5 $vX‘30 ” Drive WrmCUMENTCARAGS DWG NO. 021477 ni4n lOrilTQ) SUN STATE CONCEPTS ADVANCE SURVEYING A ENGINEERING 00. OOOEII«ry.NAlOI MlnatMIlAMN5SMS PboM(M3)4741964 F«(933)4746267 iuEVEvtoE: SUN STATE CONCEPTS DcccnibcrlOOZ DRAFTED: December 12.2002 /y December !?• 2002 to show additiofi to lesideace. ^ALDESCRiroON: Jtn !• Block4, FoRhill, HenocRm County, Miniicsoli. SCOPE OF WORK: I. Showing the length end diiectaon of boundiiy Unes of the above legal description. The icopeofoiir services does not include determiniog what you own, whi^ is a legal matter. Nease check the legal description with your records or consult with competent lq|al counsel, if lecessary, to make sure that it is collect, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you vish shown on the survey, have been shown. L Showing the locatkmofexistingiiiiprovemcnts we deemed irnportam. I. Setting new monuments Of veriiying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. I. Show^ elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication ofthe topography of he she. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Usethat ^adnaaik and check at least one other feature shown on the map when determining other elevations for use on this site. rTANDARD SYMBOLS fe CONVENTIONS: '•"Denotes 1/2* IDpipewitii plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, uoleu i hereby oertiiy that this plan, gwdfication, report or survey was prepared by me or mder my direct supervisioo and that 1 am a licensed Professional Engineer and Mhssional Surv^ under the laws of the State of Minnesota. \V xysiji s / ' 4^-.. X Xtes •H 53S2 Parker P£. 4 P.S. No. 9235 0 xTf / X BCNCHUAM.■s^srjst XniM fM’^ na • Story Brick 5 uu 940i \ xm* \ i ^ ' ' I—.w\ ' y Xy / XWSJ \XHU CotietBtB Pati^fjpy / \ \ \ Xsm \ £dg€ 9i 9*tymincyt(Tjp) ^ \\N GRAPHIC SCALE > #2S60 \N * Heritage xnij xnussrso ’jo^ Drive wrmsBwcARAct DWG NO. 021477 SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTOR Y Address: 19SS Heritage Dr. Building Type: residence PID: 10-117-23 13 0014 BRs Install'd for: In Musa: Yes Permit#: 6867 Date of Permit: 11/3/82 Installer: Widmer Bros., Keidi Cla System Type: standard trench Experimental: no Appliances: Indry SYSTEM CONDITION Conformity: I Tank Condition: 6 DF condition: 11 Failure Pot: medium SEPTIC TANKS Material: concrete block Setback to Bldg: 12 Capacity: 1000,1000,1000 Cesspool: no DRAINFIELD Length of Lines: 2S0 # Lines: 3 Trench Width: 10 Treatment Area: 750 Type of Filter: rock Soil Boring: yes Tile Size: 4 Under Tile: 6 PercRate: 15 Setback DF-Bldg: 10 DFHt above Wt: 3 Soil Type: sand, clay loam Limitations: none WELL DATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks: 50 Pump Type: subm. Well-DF: 75 Report in File yes Depth: 115 Diameter: 4 Method: drilled INSPECTION RECORD DATE 11/1/78 •83 •84 8/7/87 7/12/90 10/2/92 6/13/94 4/13/98 7/26/00 DESCRIPTION compliance added new drainfleld no surfacing no surfacing no surfacing no surfacing no surfacing-punip tanks no surfacing no surfacing, pump tanks PUMPOUT RELORD COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS c 11/18/81 4/7/82 5/1/91 10/21/99 2800 8/14/01 1000 1000 1600 2000 f ;■ I I i fr 4ir4o^ / / / /< / / ✓ A X //V"7»V /4^‘2>S‘ <s 2S‘<*‘ /i “ P‘S*r. lAJ€TtAAJt> I It Principal Dnelling Demolition Permit ZONING DISCLOSURE & DECLARATION r To the property owner: Demolition of the principal dwelling stitfcture on a property may automatically terminate certain rights which may have accrued to the property by virtue of the continued existence of that building. >Rcbuilding on a substandwd lot of record (i.e. a lot that does not meet the zoning district required lot area or %vidth standards) will, with few exceptions, require variance approval by the City Council, and such approval is not automatic nor guaranteed but requires that a hardship be demonstrated. >Additionally, all current zoning standards will have to be met by the new principal dwelling including setbacks, lot coverage by structures, hardcover (impervious surface), height limits, etc. >Where municipal sewer is not available, provision of two (2) sites for a conforming on-site sewage treatment system is mandatory. >Unless specifically approved by the City, all accessory structures must be removed at the time of principal dwelling demolition. The following information is presented for the purposes of advising the property owner of the implications of removal of the principal dwelling on the property: 1. Property Address ,PINS» /3 ^0/‘^ 2, Zoning DistrictRequired Lot Area 2 Ac Actual Lot Area /• 0 Ac- ^ Required Lot Width * Actual Lot Width 25*5’ “ pfu>;^T~ Lot area variance IsZ-lwiiOt required. Lot width variance is not required. ReardO.Side3. Required Setbacks: Front (Street) O Side S^Bt Average Lakeshore Setback:/ is not applicable . 4. Lot Coverage by Structures: limited to ISV d ofiot area /-i m 1 L Xm .J *J itot •> a «ewa» 5. Hardcover limitations: arc applicable / a re nal a iwi1ienfcU> 75-250' zone ■* 25% allowed 2S0-S00' zone » 309^ allowed 0-75* zone * 0% allowed ^^00-1000' zone ■ 35% allowed 6.___Municipal sewer is available. X Municipal sewer is not available; on-site system testing and design must^ be provided confirming that rtvo conforming drainfield sites are availabl^ -^/a ; /i. //o op sir^ The undersigned property owner hereby acknowledges receipt of the above information. Staff Initials /P-/7- 09 P. operty Owner’s Signature Date 'rdw.m (Oriflaal: Street FDe; Copy: Pnptrfy Owner) sm ■i. HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST TAXMTBt mm/ASM 31 10 117 33 11 0002 30 ADMtKtS tOUSOXONIO NMUnM 00 MOIONAL M AUTH lOMBPlN CO UOXONAI. Ml AVIH «1T STM ST M 0320 NZMMtAfOUS Ml SS401 CQHDMN t 30 10 117 33 13 0014 loss K8RXTA0B OK BAS CLAIUC JK SUOSNB 4 SHARON CLAIUC JR loss HSRITACB DRIVB MAYZATA Ml SS301 CONSMI I 30 10 117 33 13 OOlC llOS HBRITAOS LA roSHlLL ASSN rOXMILL ASSN NANCY RJERKK 103S HBRITAOS LA MAYZATA Ml 5S301 COMOMI S TAXPAYZR MAHB/ADOR 30 10 117 23 43 0004 lOSO NBRITAOB DR L V DAYTCM JR 4 • J OAYTOM L V DAYTON JR 4 ■ J DAYTON IMO NBRITAOB DR MAYZATA Ml SS3S1 OOHOMI I 30 10 117 23 42 0019 19S0 HBRZTAOB DR N ORBOORY COHARD JR N ORBOORY COHARD JR 19S0 HBRITAOS OR MAYZATA Ml 5S391 OONDMI f PROP AOOR ONNBR MAM TABPAYBR NAMB/ADOR TAXPAYZR t/i an I CERTIFY THAT THE PACTS REPRESENTED ARB AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATZMI OF INFORMATION AS IT APPBRAR8 THIS OATS ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY XMONLEDOS AMD BELIEF k5L »• DATE - / 7-« F F G.\ s —i 1 « 1 pj ;==rrrrTi£5;V rixirRE T \ -r-------! Ki ,\ -.1. V I 1 FOX STREET r r^ Lc.ke Rd V ,A \ FRENCH lAKEi V <. • ^v' ^ . . ♦ . UXE *■ • • . / i'. yi \\ ft '. : •: •• V I Irn r ‘ ■..••*' ‘ ^ ’5 V\ \-- . •':■• " 1. » ;.-' .* ■ . ' 7'^' ..* • .■■f7v • 1 jVM--: r^tM. ■; -j ^ SMITH .... ..... •• -V ^ ..'.‘Cr-'i '• ’ >••> .■•-•.«'•>-/^' I ■/ •T* z^’ - \ * I ■> A **r\ ' :.* \ 1 * ■ • * • ft'% 1 ♦ . • . , -I*': -.p ‘ V* . V ^ ■* /♦ . . • ^ • ‘ i ': r.r.. .• . ?• / ■ * i ••■ . : * • '<•• •• » $ « •' * *.' 4* • •* '> • • **^ . » J Ift^/\:: : ■.;• V :v< ^ • vp . ' :*‘T<Ay . ’;' ' f/. / ■ . >. :v‘ >N * r , ; .. • . / .V .*•• i- • • - * - ► . ^ 7 * ' ‘ ■ .'. I ■ /“ ‘ .. •• vr-irV'^p- sc*. * '• » #> • . .' • ’ • • V .■I:-,'-•% *? \ . • • • • :if : -.. ' .V ..• V. * > A I* I -.fc , -. tC* • . * •i ' :: _ ■- >>r, - '■'. ■ >■■.-■;.■ '■■■ ■ ■ ■ . , . :• • ' - %r.V .y.i • -S •» '•. V '( . • =■■•'• . • ..i'V*.". .'"v ^ V > \ V*. . . • ' T*- •;• - - r •. * • #lAi^ V , .. MPDWC I ’ ■ PW$- -^■: ■ m k • ——»-<ng M 2 7 2005REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION t;i I r uh ohono DATE: January 27,2003 ITEM NO.: / Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: North Long Lake East Sender Extension Background MUSA Expansions The 2000 Comprehensive Plan MUSA area expansions included the lakeshore on the northeastern portion of Long Lake. This area is in the 2-acre zone and has larger lot sizes for which septic systems are generally a viable solution for treatment of sanitary waste. However, the replacement of existing nonconforming septic systems on these properties could result in the loss of trees and yard space, and on a small number of lots it may be difficult to find adequate septic sites to allow for redevelopment of the property. The intent of adding these areas to the MUSA was to provide the option of having sanitary sewer installed if the property owners were willing to be assessed for all of the project costs. These are larger lots and the cost of gravity sewer and City owned lift stations becomes cost prohibitive with project assessments in the range of S30,000 to $40,000 per unit, and very expensive connections to the gravity sewer. The installation of a pressure sewer system is a more feasible and cost-effective option for this area. For this type of system, the property owners own and maintain their own individual residential grinder pump stations which is the same concept as private ownership of septic system pumps. North Long Lake Sewer Project Connection Charge A review of the attached maps shows the 2000 MUSA expansion area is located east of the North Long Lake Boulevard neighborhood that was sewered in 1997. The North Long Lake neighborhood was one of the ten existing neighborhoods that were included in the 1996 MUSA expansion. These ten neighborhoods were added to the MUSA because of the number of failing and nonconforming septic systems and inadequate replacement septic sites available. These were considered forced sewer projects that were mandated by the City and in the two most difficult neighborhoods North Long Lake and Orono Orchards the City subsidized the projects to keep the assessments at a sustainable level. The actual sewer project costs were S19,000 per unit, but the property ow ners only assessed S14,000 per unit. The connection fee for this project I Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 4 January 27, 2003 North Long Lake East Sewer Extension was SCI at $19,000 in 1997. Sewer connection fees arc adjusted for inflation on an annual basis resulting in 2003 connection fee of $22,085 for the North Long Lake project. These connection fees are normal ly charged for properties within the project area that connect to sewer at a later date. The property owner for 1405 Sixth Avenue North, which is located adjacent to the North Long Lake sewer project, has sent a letter to the City requesting sewer. The property owner is remodeling and enlarging the house which requires replacing the existing noncon forming septic system or connecting to sewer. Sewer installation for this new neighborhood will be via a connection to the existing North Long Lake sewer system. In initial discussions with the property owner, he was told that getting sewer would require payment of the current connection fee of $22,085.00 plus the costs to extend a pressure sewer from the end of the existing sewer to his property which is a distance of about 200 feet. The property owner, John Crottcau, raised concerns about the fairness of paying the $22,085 connection fee plus the costs for extending sewer to his property based on the fact this fee is normally used for properties within the project area that have a sewer across or along the street in front of the property. He submitted a letter requesting that the connection fee be credited the amount it co.sts to extend a sewer connection stub to the property in a reasonable location for hookup as if the property was in the sewer project area. Another issue for consideration is that the North Long Sewer connection fee was for gravity sewer service to the property, and his property will be served by a pressure sewer system. This reduces the value of the sewer because the property owner is responsible for the purchase, installation and maintenance of his own grinder pump station. Our staff opinion is that Mr. Crottcau raises a legitimate issue in his letter that merits consideration by the City. Consideration to the property owners comments are addressed in the next section. East North Long l.akc Sewer Project - Phase I 1 he 2000 MUSA expansion area, south of County Road 6, along the northeastern shore of Long Lake contains 10 homes between the east end of the existing North Long Lake sewer and East Long Lake Road. This area can logically be divided into two separate areas for possible sewer projects as there is a distance of 1,000 feet and a creek and a large wetland separating the areas labeled A and D on the attached aerial photograph. Sewer would have to be extended across area A before Area B could obtain sewer, but Area B should logically be considered a separate project with its own project cost and unit assessments or connection fees. Request for Council Action continued Page J of 4 January 27, 2003 North Long Lake East Sewer Extension In area A, Mr. Crottcau has requested sewer and there may be interest in sewer for 1 145 Si,xth Avenue North which is the easternmost property in area A. Our understanding is that this property is currently for sale and persons interested in purchasing the property may be interested in sewer. 1 lowcver, sewering of this property would require installation of sewer across the entire area A. 1 he property has a nonconforming four bedroom septic system. The property has limited possibilities for replacement septic sites, because of steep topography and wetlands, which may limit the ability to enlarge or remove and replace the existing house. We have not received an>lhing in writing regarding this property. My understanding is that Mr. Crottcau, 1405 Sixth Avenue North, has talked to several of the neighborhood residents and there docs not appear to be a strong interest in a sewer project from the three residents in the middle of area A. We have prepared a preliminary cost estimate for the installation of a pressure sewer system across area A. The estimated cost for this project is SI6,000 per unit. Cost Allocallon Options - Crottcau Property There arc several options for the connection of Mr. Crottcau ’s property to sewer, or sewering of the entire area A. Our recommendation is that because area R is a separate project area, and none of the property owners have cxpres.sed any interest in obtaining sewers, that this area not be considered for a sewer at this time. The initial option that was discussed with Mr. Crottcau w as that he would pay the North I ong l ake 2002 connection fee of $22,085 plus pay the costs for his plumber to install a pressure sewer to connect to the end of the North Long Lake Project. Based on further study of this option, we arc not recotnmeiuling this option for two reasons. The first reason is the issue that the property owner discus.ses in his letter regarding the fairness of this approach. We believe that he docs raise a valid concern about paying the lull connection fee plus the costs for his plutnhcr to exteiul the sewer to his property. I he second reason is that the extension of the sewer will require work in an ea.sement area on the adjacent property. It would be better if this work was completed by a contractor hired by the City, .so we can have more control over the work. In order to address the fairness issue regarding the costs to obtain sewer for Mr. Crotteau ’s property, and the concern about his plumber working on the adjacent property, the City could complete the sewer extension project and then deduct these costs from the North Long Lake Connection fee charge. The staff recommendation is that this is not the best option because this is a new project area and should be considered separately with it’s own connection fee. If the property owner pays a fee related to the North Long Lake project, and the remainder of the neighborhood is sew ered fora low cr per unit cost, this raises another fairness issue. r t Request for Council Action continued Page 4 of 4 January 27,2003 North Long Lake East Sewer Extension Staff Recommendation Our recommendation is that the costs for sewering the entire area A be used to determine an appropriate connection fee for Mr. Crotteau, and that the City complete a project to extend the sewer across his property with a service stub for the property. The property owner would pay the project connection fee of $16,000 plus provide easements, at no cost, for extension of the sewer across his property. The property owner will then be responsible for the costs in hiring a licensed plumber to install a grinder pump station and connect to the scr\ ice stub. Mr. Crotteau i.s currently working on his house addition and will need sewer this spring. Hast North Long Lake Sewer Project - Phase II Completion ol Phase I of the area A sewer project would provide sewer service for Mr. Crotteau this spring. The easternmost property owner has expressed an interest in obtaining sewer. However, sewering of this property would require installing sewer across the entire Area A. Without participation from the property owners in the middle of the project area; either the easternmost property owner has to pay the entire cost for the sewer extension to his property, or the City would have to pay for the project and hope to recover these costs through future connection fees. Phase II Cost Allhfwtlon RecomnuMidaHoii Our rectinunendation is that it is not in the best interests of the City to be rcspansiblc for the holding costs to complete this project without any a.ssurance of recovering these costs. In order to sewer the entire area A the eastern most property owner would have to pay the entire cost, or convince the neighborhood residents to request an assessment sewer project. COUNCIL Al l ION RKgUKSTKI) 1. Review and discuss possible options for the extension of sewer to serve the North Ixrng Lake hast MUS.A e.xpansion area and Mr. Crotteau ’s request for extension of sewer service to I40.S Sixth Avenue North. 2. Motion to approve the statTrecommendation regarding the allocation ofcosts to the Crotteau pro|K*rty for the extension of sewer service. A«.fA 4 A B ► sewc^' ^ '■' I UOlWMOH^'"'' Lam sn^fi flOJfCT f^gvtf(v» eX^<(KS\oh prBper1\ 1405 . ITKjJi'TioP^M r Property to^ Ci\/^po5cw-\# c^<ff>ipfr 1^0 I 1200 !/■ Lonn Lake *u sii^«n <• rr ^ ^ ISP «• "N ■ " 1 •• 1_____/ ■ /^. 1 t ^mmmrn ir ■l II V . ■'-fr •>.'•K' i ■ ■7/rr;- l: & ' ,\v . 4 4 >Vi' y/< ilRiM! .i ^>i <^i i*s VV' '»■ • Su7r^T;w.?;7?^-^;: S/’I 'wi rmrn^rn '/V » ''Mm -■!fn* *1 ,^‘: jv’*-' .*^>1;' V V /lA, C \00 tOd Jju/iXL ' . . ./ ’♦ Vi''*'’ Esivt-V \6 W'M-' Mmrf In Ai'^r *<t ; * * ' • '• r»».»* *• ^ r #'*!?' ,ftj. S' '■■ IV; .'-I ^/viqlle- i trt s€ig-lic oio Md at Ctft liUtrtM fcsj lt>VlijO»^> and [nW^ -¥\iOC 1 L Memo: Date: lamxn Tk Orono CHy Council Promt John and Donna Crotteau 1405 County Road 6 Orono, Mn 55356 Mb I would like to request that the City of Orono allow us to hook up to the Municipal Sewer System at a total cost to us that is equal to what Ihe other home owners on the street paid (acljusted for the cost of living). My request is based on the foct that the line stops on the lot next door. Per my discussions with staff, rather than involving the City to extending the Hne. it would be more cost effoctive if I contract the work of attaching to Ihe system and then receive a credit against the permit fees from the City. This would make my total cost equal to aB others who are using the system. Please can if you have any question . Thank You for your time and consideration 612-968-1121 Cen "Ikl- roy. Memo Bonestroo Rosene Ander1ik& Associates & Arcfut#<tl TO: Greg Gappa FROM: Tom Kellogg (651) 604-4863 DATE OF REPORT: January 23« 2003 RE: East Long Lake Sewer Extension Cost Estimate: Attached is an itemized cost estimate for the sanitary sewer extension to serve the five properties east of the Lund property along the north shore of Long Lake. The cost estimate is for all work necessary to construct a pressure sewer and provide curb stops to each of the five properties. I he costs assume the project would be constructed in two parts. The first part would be the installation of approximately 600-fcet of 2 ” HOPE to serve the former Flint property. The remaining 1200-feet would be installed sometime in the future. The cost estimate assumes an alignment on the lakeside of the Flint property and then north of (in back oO the four homes to the east. The final alignment will require a meeting with all property owners to determine conflicts and acquire the iiecessaiy' ca.sements. The estimated construction costs do not include any allowance for easement acquisition. Based on the estimated total construction cost the assessment to each of the five property owners would be about $15,900. For planning purposes you can assume the same assessment to serve the property immediately north of the Flint property. Keep in mind that each home will require an individual grinder pump and connection between the home and the curb stop. This work is not included in the cost estimate and will need to be completed by a licensed plumber. In addition, existing septic systems will need to be abandoned in accordance with City regulations. Costs on past projects for the grinder pump, connection to the home and abandonment of the septic system have ranged between $6,500 and $10,000. These costs should be added to the cost estimate to give the property owners an indication of what their total costs might be. Please let me know if you need anything else or have any questions. Bon^ttroo, Ro$im, AnthrBk and AsmcMM, Inc. 2335 WMt Highway 36 ♦ St Paul. MN 55113 4 Phone; 651-6364600 ♦ Fax: 651-636-1311 S CITY OF ORONO North Long Lake Sewer Extension Preliminary Cost Estimate BRA File No. 139-03-125 Preliminary Cost Estimate ITEM UNIT EST. QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 2* HOPE SDR 11, directional bore Sanitary service, incl. curb stop Flushing station connection Air release manhole Connect to existing manhole Seeding incl. topsoil, mulch, fert. Estimated Construction Cost •fS% Contingencies LF EA EA EA EA AC 1800 5 2 1 1 1 +20% Legal, Engineering and Administration •!-5% Capitalized Interest and Bonding Total Eattmated Coat Preltminary Cost EstinMOe (1-23-03).xi8 $17.00 2.500.00 2.500.00 8,000.00 1,000.00 3,000.00 EST. COST •II • $30,600 12,500 5.1 8.1 1,000 3,1 • • • • II $60,100 3^005 $63,105 12,621 $75,726 3,786 $79,512 jd i • ....... -timq REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ ^ Cll Y Of ORONO DATE: January 24, 2003 ITEM NO: / 3 Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Nanc Ron Moorse t, /y City Administrator ’s Title City Administrator /rt Report Item Description: Payment Rcqoests-Long Lake Fire Station Attached are three invoices for equipment and furniture for the Long Lake Fire Station. The invoices are all within the amounts previously approved for these items. -General Office Products Company for furniture, including office modules, chairs for all office areas, and tables and chairs for the training room, in the total amount of $49,500.72. E. Weinberg Supply and Equipment for washer/extractor for cleuning turnout gear, in the amount of S3,491.07. Municipal Emergency Services for SCBA refill system, in the amount of $3,001.00. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the payment requests from General Office Products Company in the amount of $49,500.72, E.Weinberg Supply end Equipment in the amount of $3,491.07, and Municipal Emergency Services in the amount of $3,001.00, to be paid from the joint fire station account. Ill It ifitttiiUni i CITY OF LONG LAKE » f u FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET PXOM; MicheUeE.Moise OOMTAKri DATC; rAXNUlUR:TOTAL jl£Ms3. OF Tack iNdut THONI NlMtaRt INaUDlNC GOVCK Pn0t4ENUaM; 952-473-6961 ^ . )rAXNUHMIkiPAXNUiailki □ URCENT □ FOR REVIEW □ PLEASE COMMENT □ PLEASE REPLY □ PLEASE RECYCLE NOnS/OOMMENISi lti« PARK avenue LUNCLAKI.MN SS15* 100*4 tllOt lEVl ONOl 40 Alio ZEOS 9LI Z96 S0:0l COOZ.ZZ’KVC ijfelSkKAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY 4521 highway Seven Minneapolic, MN 55416-4098 Phone (952) 925<7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 fqual Opponuniiy 6mploy«r www.gopco.com Invoice Pago: 1 llulmber n *. • T . . • . .. .1, j . K»'. 1 • - .tuelbiMf QNer NmhNr V ^ .• J , v.;-v : •*. ’bfdertle.v^pbiil*-• ■ .: ■; ACCtKlflt .• -v"r-:. .::>c; ;:'ReiNMeniBiM(;'• ■ 213972 01/16/03 •157747 01/16/03 RON RERHAI SOLO TO: KICHfiLLS B M0R8B LONG ZJUUI CITY OP 1964 PARK AVB P 0 BOX 606 LOm lAfCB.MH 69^56 UflitBd Bcatoe SHIP TO:MZCHBLLB B MORSE LONO UJCE CITY OP 1964 PARK AVB P 0 BOX 606 LONG LAKB.MN 56356 United Bcates Pt9S2.473.6961 Terms: NBT is PROM ZNV DATS P:952.476.9623 138785 117483 Umi'. »*.QUBnfKy 40.00 TS0 For: 20.00 Tag Pori Ceti4oo Ntinrtier/^offpMoinV: -• ' • ^ • r -m • m ■ . ■ ♦ TOBAUB/US KRUBGER TorsionOo armchair* uph back and seae, grade 2A Aerial fabric 6SP0SIT0 004 MARBLE BLACK FRAME Training/Communciy Room SKAOK-L HOWE 24 X 60 Folding baca cable with storm wheel. Laminate edge and vinyl edge. LAMIWATBt FORMICA 7265-58 EOOBt BLACK BASE I BLACK Training/Community Room SALES Please Pay 'End of Invoice* UnItPrie# 283.75 468.50 Sub Tocal KC 6.5% (MW) Thie Amount ibtteQded Amount 11.3S0.00 9,3-70.00 30,730.00 1,346.80 23.066.80 TIILi 06 OOOOa HEREIN OEaCRIBEO OR REFERRfiO TO it RfiTAMEO lY OENIRAl OFFICE ntOOUCia COMMNY until INTIIIE nURCHASg AND SAUa TAX H6N1 MEN PAID IN FULL. a.lM MpiMMU ttM WR« (M*Mi to to. pfctocEon mttim atMtof Uia a.>towiiw».«8>.a.ivtowia»¥wwtaytotolw.etoa Ri>aaRjiyta>wM«e*4liaaieaaia(ila»gto Fair LaEor aiaitearet Act . « 1936. at aiMiMtoA MERCHAN0<$e OF tFCCiAL OUNIN OltPIRCANNOTBf CANCILIECOR RETURNEO. Plaaaa ratum invoict oopy wOt your miiNainca. Lalo cTuwBt of 1 33% on paaf euttoeeunto. 100*4 <!Rfl09 ixvi ONoa io mo ZZii 9L} ^56 50791 COOZ.ZZ'MVC OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY 4321 nignway 3even Minnuapolis, MN S5416-409B Phone (952) 925-7500 w (952) 925-7531 Equal Opponwnliy Ennployer WWW.gOpCO.COm Invoice Pago: i invokR MUfAbM :inv^«#.r..♦ .0 r.' , , r •« ’ * u« iivrB»Birv OrBBrNo. r g .i.l r # • • SMpOslR^ i- ■. . ■A'i.-i*■ ; f 213973 01/16/03 •157748 01/16/0)RON PERHAI SOLO TO: MXCMtLLS E MORES LO»IQ lAKB CITY OF 1964 PARK AVE P 0 BOX €06 LOBC LAKX«MN SS356 Unicod Scatea SHIP TO: MICHELLE S MORSE LOHQ LAKE CITY OP 1964 PARK AVE P 0 BOX 606 LONQ LAKE.MN 5S3S6 United States P:953.473.6961 Terms: MET 15 PROM INV DATE 136765 F:9S2.476.9632 117115 Quantity 1.00 B Tag Pori 1.00 B Tag For: 1.00 Taq Pon 1.00 B Tag port 1.00 B * ^ L ' * *CetUeg Numbor I OescripUoh ■ ' BW-16 NATL CYLINDER BASE WOOD 16W X 27«1 /2H ^^EKEER BASE SELECTION AC AUTUMN Chief CW-422 NATL 42** ROUND TOP - VENEER HILAND PILLAR SDOE HXLAND WOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Chief 3S-3636BO NATL BOOKCASE 2 SHELVES 36 X 26 ECOE/PULL SELECTION 3 REED EDOE/BAR PULL HILAND WOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Chief NATL3S«2448UW BRIDGE 24 X 46 EDGE/PULL SELECTION 3 REED mOM/BMi PULL HILAND WOOD FINISH SELECTION AC AUTUMN Chief NATL 21 X 36 3S-2136L2 LATERAL FILE 3 HIOH BOQE/PULL SELECTION 3 REED EDGE/BAR PULL HILAND WOOD FINISH SELECTION UsH Pride 334.15 484.62 331.38 209.06 526.92 briendedAm^iint 334.15 464.(2 9)1.36 309.08 538.62 TlTLf Of OOOOS HMKIN 0UCNI8S0 OR REFtRMIO TO » RETAMEO BY aENERAL ORRICIRROOUCTS COMPANY UNTIL ENTIRE PURCHABC ANO BALES TaX NAME BEEN RAID IN FULL Bator nptm—Mt Wiai wUh rMpMl to m. pi.6iieii.ri of 61. miWm aoEAr 61. aorlMmano. af 6m MrvleM .Maroa by 8tla Inwaica. 6 KMfi% Mtnp6.4 «66» Boe6on t3(ol M6i. Nir Ubor BtanOMd. Aoi el 1636, as am.r«6Mi. MIRCHANOlBe OF BFfCIAL OEilON ORDER CANNOT BE CANCELLED OR RETURNED. PI6M6 ritum Invoice copy wHti your lomiliance. Laio «ur^ of 1 33% on pool duetooounti. coo ‘4 sunn MVl fiNOl JO Alio ZZ96 9Lf Z9i 90:91 C00;.22*MVr 1 .ucr(Ciu%L OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY 4521 Highway Seven Minneapolis, MN $5416^8 Phone (952) 92S-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 Iqual Opponuntiy Impleyar www.gopCO.com Invoice Page: « -'CMilPMa.-i:\: u r. 'i-* :..: .»r*! i;*,MCSUIlt. 1;:: i.a 1313973 01/11/03 e 1S7748 Ol/lC/03 nos PCRRAl a.00 saiax-aa sxtowxt Bxecucive cask ohalr, adjuscabla height am. site 2 wich synchro concrol. grade a fabric. PAUXCi 0904S434 OARRISOM CHARCOAL SAL8S ‘ Please Pay 'tnd of Invoice' . y -A ■' r ' - i. ?. 'fe £ ... j.. 411.39 Sub Total AX S.5% (Ml} This Aflieune 822.78 10s0€4.20 654.17 10,718.37 TrTL£ Of GOOOi HIACIN DUCfllKD OH HtftHHiO TO IS StTAJNtO 9f OSNIHAL Of FICS PHOOUCTS OOMmMy UNTlt fllTISi fUSCMASI AND SAUS Xa OSfM ‘ % SMOMnUL. e»dMiwinBe«»ei«MMiesisvsieSaySililrn>e>M.aimaia^wiwslssiiehtiiS»siaCrt<nae Hk uaw S«iieere« M «f ism , as enweSM. HMCHANOiet OP SPfCIAL OtSldN ORCnCANNOTMCANCELLfOOnRtTUlUifO. PiMM ratum invetoe eepy ivShyeurremNisnos. Late chaiga of I J3% on paO 900 ‘d 91101 IXVT ONOT iO Alio IZH 911 Z96 90^91 COOZ.ZZ'NVf J ^ jbfcNfcKAL OFFICE ntODUCTS COMPANY 4521 Highway Seven Minneapolis, MN 55416-4098 Phone (952) 925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 Equal Opportunity Cmploytr WWW.gopCO.COm Invoice : 1 O^Ho.• • J . . 1 213974 01/16/03 0 1S77S0 01/16/03 ROK PERHAl SOLO TO: NZCKILLB B M0R3B LOKO LKICB CITY OF 1964 PARK AVB P O BOX 60« LONO LAKB.KN SS3S« united statee SHIP TO:MXCHBLI.E B MORSE LORO LAKE CITY OP 1964 PARK AVE P 0 BOX 606 LORO LAKE.NR SS3S6 united statee Pi9S3.473.6961 Terms: sx i» from inv aiTS 13878S Pi9S3.476.9623 117310 Uiifi 'ij Mnwpript-ExteRdqd iM^nt X 3.00 treissis REVEST 129.20 387.60 1 Bin-Scoragc. Panel Supported, 1 Door, 14 7/0 X 45 X It* 5/8 Tag For:Opar. a 3.00 99C MVS9T 45.22 135.66 B Cantilever, Shared, tVon Handed Tag Fort Opan 3 3.00 9I11S RBVBST 252.32 756.96 E PAWEL-TACKABLE ACOUSTICAL, 4SX53 HXN06 tSOOO BLACK 8URP-1 tP120 ARCHITRAVE SURP-2 tP120 ARCHITRAVE TRXH :4€00 PAWN Tag For:Open 4 4.00 912X8 RBVBST 294.86 1,179.52 £PANEL-TACKABLB ACOUSTICAL, 45X65 HINOE 16000 BLACK SURF-1 tPl20 ARCHITRAVE SURF-2 tPl20 ARCHITRAVE TRIM 14600 DAMN Tag Fort Open S 3.00 N8BSP3S RBVBST 149.72 449.16 B Pedestal. 3 box/tlle drawer Tag Fori Open 4 3.00 Hsrrss REVEST 149.72 449.16 B Pedestal, 3 file drawer TiTu OP Qoooe hcrein oeacRiBco or reperreo ro is retameo by oeneral OPPICE PROOUCTS COMAANY UNIU ENTIRE PURCHASE AND SALES TAX HRYE KEN PAIOINPULL. SelenepwMnis«iaiMttirMpeeiie9wpraduoeen4<iwenieiM8raPMSie p>rf4HW8ec4 4r8me«vte>4oeveie69y»l»lnwloe.ai>etfU8»n«wpledWMimeim3(a)e«llie feir Utar StoneMde Act of iSSS. to ewtndtd MCRCHANDISS OP SPECIAL DSSiON ORDER CANNOTMCANCELUDOR RETURNED. Pleaeo return Invoice copy «vtoi your lemiMnee. Late clietBe of ISM on pe« dueaecounta. L00‘E 5810*EXVl 0N07 iO AlID ZZ96 9Lf Z96 S0:9I €00^.^^*NV^ jucntriML OFFKX PRODUCTS COMPANY 4521 Highway beven Minneapolis, MN 55416*4098 Phona (952) 925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 fqual Oppoftunliy Empleyw www.gopco.eom Invoice Psga: 3 213974 Ol/lC/03 .187780 Ol/lC/03 RON PBRKAZ j • *'v 11 .*T.C r!-' ‘ t • •mm ■ii. i; ■! tag Fori Open B Tag Port 3.00||firCR224S60 RSVSST Borkiurfact^ comer extended, laminate,as X as X 4S X 40 open B Tag Fort 1.00|imS235 REVEST Workeurfece, atraighc* laminate, aS x 3S Open S.OO B Teg Port 1.00 B Tag Fort a.00 B Tag Fort 2.00 Tag For: 1.00 B Tag Fort 3.00 E Tag Fort 3.00 B 3.00 MWS24S RBVB8T Borkeurface, etraighc, laminate, 2S x 48 Open S871SP REVEST Bracket, wall actachement, conventional, 83H Open S8714P REVEST Bracket, wall attachement, conventional, 4SK Open 9B719P REVEST Wall channele, vertical, pair, 6SH Open 98X845? REVEST Tackboard, 45 x 18, Special Open WTL-34-6BB GARCY/SL Teak light, Electric ballast, 25 watt, 9 * cord FINISH! BXACK Open 4211H-A2X SZTONXT Task chair, else 1 with multi function control, grade 2 febric PABICi 09048424 GARRISON CHARCOAL T87CL 8TLCSS TITLE OP GOODS HiREIN DEBCRIBEO OR REFERRED TO IB RETAMEO BY GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMHANY UNTIL ENTIRE PURCHASE AND BALES TAX HAYB BEEN PAID IN FULL Betof repfeaeOt tiet vAh raapect la tt e emducBae of Bn siSelM enMr me peWiafmeneae>maiaivfceacevaiieeymlaln¥atea.eheaMyaeeipiaewimBaeeaeH(a)afmt Feir LeSai mefidinla Ad ef lB3e. ea amaedad. MERCHANDISE OF SPECIAL OESiON ORDER CANNOT 8ECANCELUO OR RITURNEO. : UhHPfWv;w*. i. V . . ^ \. 147.44 72.20 85.12 24.70 28.12 28.12 48.64 121.20 384.00 126.7S 442.32 72.20 425.60 24.70 56.24 56.24 48.64 363.60 1,062.00 380.25 Pteese raUim Invoice copy wlh yeur ftmHtenee. Lets cherge ot 1.33% on past dutaooeume. 800*8 9BI00 ITil ONOT iO AIID ZZ96 9Lf Z96 90*91 €00E.ZE*KVr iliatta •.. • OFFICi PRODUCTS COMPANY I nignway Mven Minnaapotis, MN 55416-4098 Phone (952) 925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 OppMUinhy (matoyw WWW.gopco.COrn Invoice Paga: 3 m 3ii»n . \ 'I •Mtir.-::' Ol/K/03 y:liSi Orrftflfa: 1S77S0 Ol/lC/09 '•'•Vr 'iJ•^Ha:-V>^lRB4aMiit??g?;h4:--i RON PERKAI A Tag Port 1.00 A Tag Pori ;.--v -C Open TR?RPL Leg-Single poet Open STLCSS SALSS ' Pleaee Pay ^md of ZAVoiee' 40.30 Sub Total ^AX 6.5% (KN) This Amount: ■<v. i0r(afn^4m 40.30 6,330.15 411.46 6,741.61 mi OP0000$ Hcncw ocacnieco oa aipcaaio to » ormnio or otNiiuL oppicf PAOoueTaeoMMNV untx tnnaf puacHAit ANoaMjaiAX n/m biin ftWD m njLL $>*$wa<ai.n ■wwii laaw aw ■ia.wimw.yti.—M»Miwpli6i»1 tmiiiiaw>P>* NIr Ubw AM M ttSt. m inwwt.<. MiaCMANOMt OP 8PICIAL MaiONoaoiR SANNOTKCANCfuf ooa afTuaaia PIMM raaim involM copy wthyawnmltlanct Late ehaiige of 1 J3% ofl paat tuoaocouRla. <00*4 00801 tXVl SNOl iO AIXO ZZ9< 9il Z$6 90:9T COOZ.ZZ’NVf OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY MinncjpoUfj MN 55416^098 Phone (952) 925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 Cqu»l OpfWfiuniiy Cmptoyw www.gopeo.eom Involco Pagia: i Nimbar 21397S I'X-'V r.n: • r -.-y y *• tecMflt* * V* ‘n’. i' it.'* yy'i :■>: • .V"': 01/16/03 •1S9434 01/16/03 RON P8RHXX SOLO TO: Micnujc I MORSE LOMO LAKE CZTY OP 1SC4 PARK XVt P O EOX 404 LOSU LAKS.MX 5S3SC united Ser.tei Pi9S3.473.mi SHIP TO: MICHELLE S MORSE hom LAKE CZTY OF 1964 PARK AVS P 0 BOX $06 LOMO LAKB.MN SS3S6 united state* Terms: mbt is from ziiv date 138785 Ft952.476.9622 117148 1 4.00 4071 HON 250.00 1,504.8088oc of c%#o Scacking arm guesc chairs« fan back daaigni Sneer# Grada 3 fabric: BE26 Hoaayauekla Finiehi T Black •Tag fori Praakroom 2 2.00 CS90R-S0 FLEXSTES 330.00 1,060.00ARecllnar, E98-50 Fabric Tag For:Breakroom 3 3.00 C3060-302 FLSXSTEE 798.00 1,596.00ASofa. 78 X 39 X 33. £94-41 fabric FINISH: MAPLE / HONEY - 3 1 Tag For:Braakroom 4 OOe204-36 FALCON p 48.75 137.50ATabla bate. 36 spread. Finish: Black Hrinkla BlOO Tog Port Breakroom S 3.00 13000 FALCON P 150.70 301.40A4i" round tabla top. Poxmica 7493*58 laminate. Black edge Tag Pori Breakroom $2.00 33016.6 FALCON P 409.20 818.40AProvenance oeo Tol, square 30W X300X16H Hood Finish Selection (HBFIOO) HOOOTONRS HBF112 FZH: dolden Hoodcone Sub Total S,418.10 TITU OF OOODS HEREIN OESCRISEO OR REFERRED TO IS RETAiNEO BY OENERAl OFFICE PROOUCT8 COMPANY UNTX ENTIRE PURCHASE AND SALES tM HA/f SEEN p»iMtimwc^»eM(vte4eo«wieeaySileliiwloe.mie»M»eow»l46<SliSicSinl3to)or»e am ef 4S8S. •• enwndM. MERCHANOIM OP SPECIAL 8E«m PMiae Mum btvolee copy iMith your ramHtonee. Late ohaii^ on .33% Oft psH dueeoeeunia ORDER CANNOT BE CANCELLgOOR RETURNEO. OTO‘4 SII09 SXVT 9N01 iO Alio ZZ96 Zi6 90:9T COOE.EE'NVT MinneapoliA, MN 55416^098 PhoM (952) 925<7500 rouPAKiv F« (952) 925-7531OppwttJrtiiy fAptojrtr www.gopoo.eom OFFICE PRODUCTS Invoice * Pago: 3 #i£ a;3»7s . • 4 T*. • Ol/lC/03 ;’y<: -Ky.-•D ISM34 mmi: Ol/XC/03 80V PBSKAZ .'.1 FLKX£TBS ntxsnE SALES PlM6« Pay 'find of Invoiei ZQHT CRAROt I(»T CKARGI AX S.8% (Ml) This AAOunC: ' «. . "T. 'CxtliidsdAmM SSI.00 $50.00 311.10 5,924.70 S’sjKSfe2iirc.“.» •raw Plt«M ratam iRvoto. copy wtti y«ur miHWanea. Lata 1 AwMeotfiti, no*3 5810#8:m ONOl iO AXZO ZZ96 9Lf 886 90:9I COOZiZZ'NVf {AJ OFFICE PRODUCTS MtniMapoUs,MN 55416^5 Phone (952) 925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 COMPANY fqiMi oppoRunliy twfkytt www.flopco.eom Invoice Paoa: 3. aiJ97( |oi/i(/oa IMdarNo. 1C0743 Ol/lC/03 -r>. ti r--AX -::>• v:.V';. >«• ROV PBRIUX SOU) TO:MIOIII.LB t NOMI tOMO XJ09 CITY Of lf(4 fAlUC AVS f 0 BOX <06 IONS tAXB.MN M3S6 Utoitafl fltacaa SHIP TO:HZCH1U.B B MORSB LORO lAXe CITY Of 3944 fMUC AV8 f 0 BOX <06 LOMO tJUCBiMN 59356 Onlcaa Bcacaa Pi9<3.473.69<l ft 952.476.903 Tarma: mbt 35 non itnv date i3a7as 3200C4 a.00 • 9 • f TQMBM HOm Table Qmddy Truck• herdiiood base, black enaMl finish. Holds S-S cables on edge. SMaSS Please Pa/ *taad ot Invoice' c: MMHPfiod f 492.60 Sub Tocal AX 6.5% (MN) This Aioounci EkIehteidAfhbuM 965.20 966.20 64.04 1,049.24 TITU Or OOOOa NmilN OIBCHMO oh HiFEHHfO to is H6TAIN60 BV 06M6HAL omet MOouerseoMmMv uNTi iNTim puhchasi and sAusiAXiM/t uin - ?H'- psHeiiv OROfR CANNOT BtCANCiuaoonilfTURlIIO. POaia maim kiwio. copy wMh your lamMoneo. Uio cNari^ of 1.33% OA poO duoaooouno. Z10*4 SllOi axvi 9N01 iO 3113 7Z96 91» Z96 90S9T COOZ.ZZ'NVf OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPANY MInrwapolla, MN S5416-4WS Phone (952) 925-7500 Fax (952) 925-7531 Equal Oppononiiy Cniployar WWW.gopcO.COm Invoice .»* Past: 1 NuMber 3X3977OX/lE/03 • U43SX 01/16/03 ............. • • • ,• •.*napi^'irtaUv g:'I • • • •* ROV PBSHXI $0L0T0: MICHtU,! X MORSX 1<0II0 lAXB CITY OP 1964 PARK AVI P 0 lOX 606 totro uua.m 86366 UBicad leaeas SHIP TO: Pi 963.473.6961 MZCHILLI S NORSI LONO LAKE CITY OP 1964 PARK AVI P 0 lOX 606 LOHO LAICS,KM 66366 unicad scacaa Pi963.476.9633 Tanra: mr is pxoh inv oats 13979S 13399S m *r?:i XaOO GCP Labor CO deliver and inatall fumieure. OOP SAL£3 * AX € . S« (HN) Pleafe Pay 'Bnd of Invoice' 3«000.00 Bub Total 17SA TOGGLES Thia Amounct KMMdadilmeunt 3.000.00 3.000.00 $13.60 19S.S8 3.309.48 TITU OP OOOOa HEREIN OERCRKO OR REPERREO TO « RE1AMEOIV OINERAl. ORPCE PRODUCTS COMPANY UNT a ENURE PURCHASE AND SALES TAX N/t/E SEEN paiMmna4M6>a8»MMa80w<»69y9iNlw»olca khMMM Al3(a)«raia Pair uaar SMwaarai Act at liSS. aa awin4i6. MERCIAN OWE OP RPSCiAl OSMN ORMR CANNOT IE CANCEUEO OR RETU RNEa Plaaaa lakMn fenoiot copy «HEi your fHiMinea. Lata cRaiga of 1.3311 oa paN Eutaflceum. tI0*E ElEOf IX>n 9N01 iO Alio ZZ96 9LI Z«6 90^91 COOZiZZ'MVf V 1 Wm E f, INVOICE MUNtaPAL IMmOEIICY SERVICES db« ME8 • MINNESOTA 314 W. 8STH ST. SUITE 102 BLOOMINGTON, MN 66420 402-6SS-22SS PAX 402-66S-227S mm. iw r -^44^ P ^ ^ - ji; w: BiK -*'■ #' ■ 'M S'V*I.. - * V • **%% ^ •«••«»» 4» iS4 ' BM« » • ,* ^ ^ ^ ^ ♦ 44MI LOMO ».0. 1»(4 LOMO 200082 XAXB FD BOX «e« PMUe AVS. LAKB. rar SS3S8-0C00 d Kzn noMPsoM ir^ 12/08/03221 TOM BVBKSO fc.rX'^^iia^'ageoAr^ii-Tgaa^ aS»s-i ,., -r 108308 12/08/02 TXMP LOMO lAKX TIM DIPT T40 MZLLOH DRXVr>) 'CAXldNtf-‘SS256-080S 20 DAYS SSS-280-NOR SOI-SDV-BS 8CBAS 8000PSZ CA8CADB SYS S7AMDAXD N/0 SACK 8CBAS BACK 6 CYLZNDBA BACK BAG PLBASt SCKXDOLB FOR DBLZVfRY NBBX OP OBC 2MO 2002 CALL 402-280-0317 FOR DEL! OBLXVXR 3RD PARTY BILL YE ACCOUMT •2378$0028S4fi49 €c B A C 0€ aoL^-t^ ' /^c vny low PImm remit to: lAMKirAL IMIXGENCy inVlOtt rALATPOULitiSi m§ MHOOO I *« , ^ '0^ 07i2t0 BXIL fJtT,:.u3SSiib •A*- BEST NAY M V • r .4 2483.00 398.00 3493.00 398.00 • •' V ^iKwailO* 'll ■■ ^ » 8*4. • 1 ^ • • B* 4 «-4 t%B -% • * aiti.oo .00 .00 .00 110.00 aool.oo Thank You For Your Older I too/coo‘8 CCIO#txn oKoi 10 1110 zz9i 911 rs6 To^ao coor.at'Mvr 74dAw.mH$TMir iNNI/#OlAMNM p^ont;(9aa)taootM ••« E.WEINiEHO SUffLY & lOPlYMlMT 1 K wmm • • • • • •• • • t«l(t ntM. OCPfillTMNT i9Mij(^y(S«e SHIP TO: lOMI tm 6(tsc • ,1ft \ A 1.66 1.66EACH l.M 1.66EACH 1.66 . 1 1.66each UASCOHAT U63S U/E 223/1/60. 36ft S/N iftSSS/tiftSSSS Itart. ; v' uppi)suppay-oom V* 2763.66 176.66 466.66 2763.C 176.6 466.6 fOCIQNQ T •« 'I L l ... . .•ORIGINAL INVOICE • 6 6 ’4 w' ,ili lQO/ftOO‘4 CCtOf 13VI OliOT Id UID 3166 911 3S6 lO^IO C003.9rKVi' L Oo* '• (Mat • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACI ION 2 7 2003 DATE: JaMii)^4^aQ«i) ITEM NO: / ^ Department Approval: Naaic Run Moorse Title City Adminislrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Item Description: Application and Certificate for Payment No. 9-Long Lake Fire Station Rochon Corporation, the General Contractor, has submitted Application and Certificate for Payment No.9 in the amount of $244,541.07. This application has been certified for payment by both the .Architect and Project Maiuiger, and a lien waiver related to the amount of this payment has been provided. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Application and Certifleate for Payment No. 9 from Rochon Corporation in the amount of $244,541.07, to be funded from the Joint Fire Fund. # . BKV o « o j r Architecture tetehor Design Engineering 222 North 2nd Serstt Minneapotif, MN S540I Phone6l2039-37S2 Fix 612039.6212 Date: January H. 2003 Attention: Michelle Morse .• Address: City of Long Lake 19M Park Avenue P.O. Box 606 Long Lake. MN 55356 Re: Long Lake Fire Station Project No.: 1515.01 11 WE ARE SENDING YOU: Q Shop drawings CD Prints Q Phns CD Samples CD Specifications CD Copy of letter CD Change order ^ Other TRANSMITTED VIA: CD m»B D Messenger Q Fax CD Other COPIFS OArp NO ''X.w --------DESCHfPTION ^ i 2 Applkation and Certificate for Payment No. 9 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ID For approval I] For your use I] As requested I] For review and comment □ FOR BIDS DUE _____ Approved as submitted Approved as noted Returned for corrections Other Resubmit Submit_ Return copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints Qliy'NTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS: Enclosad ara two copies of Application and Certificate for Payment Na 9 for work performed on the Lopg Lake Fire Station Project This application has been certified k. the anraunt of $264.541.07. Please process for payment to Rochon Corporatioa I A M J I**. 11 it K 11 w *• J Thank you. Nan Gustafson ! / • CM t w.- v.nu. -A COF^ TO: Bill Wolters. Constructive Ideas. 901 Jefferson Avenue. Suite 300. St Paul. MN 55102 Bill Hays. Rochon Corporation.3650 Annapolis Lane North. Plymouth. MN 55447 ROUTE COPY TO: CABK. 1515.01 Q'PROflStS4>l\aUPCw^l27-««MMr.)it-a*9dpe If •fidoturM art not as Roaad, kMljf notify iit ac onct.Frtnmd: f/i4A)3 aacifii WAIVER OF CONSTRUCTION LIEN, PAYMENT BOND AND LIEN FUNDS January I, 2003 For good and valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby irrevocably and unconditionally waives and releases any and all (a) rights and claims for a construction or other lien on land and buildings being consnucted. altered, erected or repaired and to the appurtenances thereunto, (b) rights and claims on any payment bond(s) furnished in conjunction with said constmetion, alteration, erection or repair, and (c) rights and claims for lien on money, bonds, or warrants due or to become due to the prime contractor therefor. The property covered by this waiver is owned by City of Long l.ake (owner), is located at 340 Willow Drive. Lonit Lake. MN is described as Lonu Lake Fire Station and this waiver pertains to a portion of the work to be pcrfomied by Rochon Corporation (prime contractor). This waiver covers all labor, material and supplies for construction, alteration, erection, and repairs furnished by the undersigned under a contract with City of Lonu Lake through the date of this waiver in the amount of TWO HUNDRED TWEN~n^ FOUR THOUSAND FIVF HUNDRED FORTY ONfa & 07/100 DOLLARS ($224,541.07). Tliis lien waiver is not valid until the amount listed above has been received. S•• » .....................••••••. AAAfl . . :‘-.“DT I . • i • t.;if..-$o*A ^r V Cc.nm, Eip.rca Jen. 51. 20C5 ^ — ./xv; Contractor Waiver Fonn Company Name Rochon Corporation fllman Its Vice President P" a ' ■» ' • . I 1. 6' ^ APFtiCATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT (SUtSTITUTE AIA DOCUMENT 0702) o-m o« 2 TOIOWMRJ IM4 Pt0t A,0n^ Co*-* U*# MN FPOJICT: Un« Uk« nra ftlaioii 340 Onv« UngUk* MN SS1&6 AmiCAnoNiio f PfMOO TO jl Ok 02 MOMfCODlTIUCTOIIl: Moihon C«»pKtl«A 3450 l«n« Nonti. ti4l« 101 Mf«nowlf> MN S344 7 VU UMCMITECT): MV 0«Mp 323 2nd SlvMl Mmjpoi4. MN 33401 AMCHITfCr t MOJCCT MO;131301 COMTIUCT POM; OmmI C4 CONTfUCr OATf • CONTRACTOR S APfUCATION FOR PAYMENT CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY Ct sngt OiPAit »P0tO¥9A 0* p»0tmu$ Aw 0«n«« 10TA4 A(>0>o««O !►»•* Mt>o(h 0«l« *#KOv«4 12 4 2007 12 3.2002 13/31/2002 lOTAiS AOC«r.OMS 10« 3«2 M 13 214 30 13 2*0 00 39 322 00 39.293 30 UOUCTiONS 000 Ch0ng» bv CK4nb« OdKt 202.339 36 Th« undvbiOnad C«n|f«ClOf 6«rij|«t IKM to Iho botl el lt»« ConifKtOf 't knoMMdbO mlormMMn «nd bbbol l*«e Wo«% oewod by tn« AoobcMion to* bbymonf hot boon cotnoMtod m occotOonco <n«n itio Contfoct Oocumbott if^bt Ob omeunti h«»o boon poid by mo Cenifocior ta» Wo«3 tot •«rt«n o*ovOH<o Co«iil<oto« to* boymoni oro«o »touod ond poyfnonts rocowod tfom mo Qoioo$ §0\O mot cuMont poymoni tAoMm ho*po« •• npnr dvo COMTMAp90r"Socbo^e»poti«oo Jonuory 1. 2003 R *,**••••# • • • • • ^ WAJ C‘ ' ::vr.0T ^ -• ;.:::o A ^ ;j .’i.T. 51. :OOT. AppbCibon is mad# lo« Ppyfnent. at sAonm b«*onr. m conn«ct>on yyitn me Contract. Contmwaiton Snoot. SubsKtuta AIA Oocumeni G703 IS atucned I. OMKiMAl COMTMACT SUM ........................ 3 1.930.920 00 2 N»t CAonao by CAonpo Ordoro ... .................... 9 202.339 36 2 CONTMACT sum 10 OATl lUM 1 *.'-3i • 2.1M.3/9 36 0 TOTAt COM»n.IT«D 9 STOMTO TO OAT6 ........... I 2 062 302 34 iCoo^nn G or G203I 3 MfTAINAGC a el Cenipioted We** iCalUnvi 0 • I en G203i b _% el Stored Macanol iCeiumn P on G203I Told Aotantaao (Lmo 3« • 3b or Toljl M CoAimn I el G203I ................ ... 9 3 total EAMNCOUSSMCTAlftAGf ....... 9 lljno 4 IBM Itfto 3 Teiab 7 USS fMCVKXlS CEMTdiCATtS POM FAVMCNT a^io 3 Mam pner CarMcaial......... 9 3 CUMMfNT FAVMtMT DUf .............. 9 9 3ALAMCE TO PiMSM FlUS MITAJilAOl ................ 9 __________ILxo 3 Mm 1*10 6t State el Mmscoou Coi^v ol Hormopm Suboenbod and tteom to botoro mo tiwa Itt day ol January. 2003 99 031 23 1.993.431 06 1.263 909 99 224 341 02 193 323 30 •V .Motary FubK Ji Si. M> Zomnwon rvpirat January 31. 2003 Mem mo amouif appaad lei I AMOflTICT 3 CtNTiPiCATI POM FAVMINT ac4u*da*Ka m4A ma Ce Mia^t rw:.u*no>Ma baaod e*i on mo obao*vata>nt oro tn« data comi^««^ me abovo appacaten mo A ic Mki co*i<i«* to mo 0«««»* ifiei to ma bat* a* ma Arcnaact • ar«.«iaiiaa ••«am<«*«n and eotaf ma T% y* na« p*aa*aa»*d at «id<aiad ma eua* iy at lAo We«* •* « accardanca rt<m mo Contract Oeci^namt and ma Contractor « am«tiad to paymaro if me AMOUNT CCMiriCD AMOUNT CIMTmtO.......................... lAtiacA aapi^tanan if amour* cort>fed Al*ors Mem mo i^MOUNT Cf^Wtf 0 e payabto or*y to ma Contractor raamad Aar» * taouanca poymont and acceptance at payment are «MAawt propidco U any ngAft of ma 0«M«ar or Centrar jr imdor tAit Contract ‘ 1 PAGE 2 OF 2 CONTINUATION SHEET Subttilul* AIA Ooctimtnt G703 LONG LAKE FIRE STATION AmiCATIOM MUMMIU AmiCATlON OATI; KMOOmOM: TO CONTRACT CM S fROJtCT NO. f 10m 02 91 Om02 0200 cool o»ooc 02200 02«'X) 024U C24I5 0249C OiOCO M-»'r 0420C 014%0 UbtOU oseof.) OolOJ 0«200 0640< 0^5 JO on«c 079C»/ oaioc 08J0<i uaj60 C4Jf> OSQI 092^0 C'iJU) 09biX 09BOO 09900 103^0 lOlflt 1080( • OVA! '02» » • 0^2' '(.MC' >0444 ' »bi A <24^ I 26 A 1 JiOt nnt • SV>' • ^404 tbM • 6(XV ocicnrTOK OlN I ROMTS ftOKD caathwora VTt UTitiTilS asphalt PAVtNG VTC CONCRtll VU£WA lANOSC APING CUNt.lCTI »tir*-AST coNCwr^r masonry ARCH PRtCASr sun fAQRlCATtON STfiL fRfCTtON cARPtNlHV rAR#»fNTRV MAT LS MlllMORA ROOTING ^AUHPROOTiNG CAUiliING MMOOOAS.HOWR ACCiSS OOORS SiCT OVCRHfAUOOOR COILING OOORS WOOD VWiNtX)WS va ASS UA/ir.u DRVNAU/fifS CLHAMiC OUARHY flit acoustical CfiLiNO Tl CARPIf/V»NrL till IP04Y TlOOP PAlNllNO.V(NYl riAG POilS TOiUT PARTITIONS TOafT ACCESSORYS LOCa ERS iOoVfAS MRf |AT>N(<UISH€NS MA14 tac * boards LXNTil VING DEVICES rtlSiDiNTlAi fOLWP .ViNDOW BL^AJS UOOR MATS VEHICLE CURTAiN PROJECTION SC REIN MV AC nuMB«NO ItME protection KICTIBCA i Subtotal hti total KHIOUIIO VALUE •4 914 9B 1SE02 00 193 004 31 116 413 00 If 031 75 18 129 2Z 47.800 00 84.400 00 171 663 00 116.350 00 5 87700 74.517 00 27.954 00 35.061 55 9 740 00 31 224 00 120 077 70 530 00 7 165 00 24.524 00 256 67 40.000 00 3 165 OC 29.740 07 14 280 OC 55 200 00 13 795 00 8.776 00 22 797 00 30 000 00 31.380 OC 1 837 50 2.766 00 2 734 00 21 <’5 00 1 Ovj <c 458 00 1 11200 J 855 80 1 625 20 2 C82 00 2 315 Os 2 695 66 181 05 122 725 00 1 77 35' 29 31 026 6C 188 968 45 2 087 083 78 tot 745 58 : tsa a:v J6 PRtVMUS APPiCATION 64.041 74 15 607 00 127 71700 103 16700 58 910 22 10 744 00 10 385 00 04.400 00 1 73 663 00 Ilf 150 00 • 877 00 71 5 70 00 76 547 00 28.266 00 9 285 92 4 000 00 120 077 70 510 00 3 58100 23 514 00 256 67 40 000 00 1965 CO 27.398 40 9.500 CO 51 350 00 10 000 00 8 776 OC 10.000 00 000 29.000 00 000 9.766 00 2 734 00 21 675 00 1 09: 00 458 00 000 000 8U60 000 0110 2 595 OC »81 05 103 240 01 184 000 00 30.528 80 181 164 70 I 781 829 83 97 288 12 • 858 9’5 75 lH!f AmjCAToa 92 813 44 000 85 287 31 11 248 00 000 955 80 14 245 00 C OC OOC OOC 000 947 00 1.40700 5 950 00 000 15 000 00 000 000 1082 00 1 01000 000 000 000 2 341 87 4 780 00 3 850 00 3 795 00 000 1C 152 00 30 000 00 2 380 00 1 817 50 000 000 000 000 000 1 11200 3 855 80 81260 2 082 00 2 11500 ’00 68 L TO 20 484 97 2 140 29 000 7 803 75 233 588 S9 0 00 213 588 59 8TORU7 MATIRML 000 000 000 000 C DO 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0 00 OOu 000 000 000 000 000 OOC 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0 00 000 000 000 OOC 000 000 TOIA l TOOAff 78 855 18 15 80700 193.004 31 lie 41300 58 910 72 11.699 60 24 610 00 84 4/.7 00 1 73 661 00 116.350 00 5 877 00 14 517 00 27.954 00 34 218 00 9 285 97 19 000 00 120 07 7 70 530 00 8.865 00 24 524 00 256 67 40 000 00 3 865 00 29 740 07 14 280 00 55.700 00 • 3 795 00 8 778 00 20 152 00 30 000 00 31.380 00 1 837 50 2 788 00 2 734 00 21 875 1*0 » 095 to 458 01) 1 H20C 3 655 80 1 825 20 2 082 00 2.315 00 2 895 88 181 C5 123 725 00 168 140 29 30 928 80 198 968 45 1 999 218 22 97 288 12 2 C *2 502 34 91 too IOC IOC 69 65 57 ux- IOC IOC lut 100 98 95 61 100 IOC 91 10( I Of IOC 10(. IOC ICC IOC icy 1(X 8B 1« lOv IOC ICX ICC IOC •cc IOC too IOC • OC IOC •Of.: • OC • cc 00 «4 ta uc lALANCI TO HtPiM 8.059 80 000 000 OCO 26 128 53 6 429 60 22 870 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 845 55 454 oa 12.224 00 000 030 600 00 000 000 OOC 000 000 000 000 0 00 000 2 645 00 0 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0 00 000 000 000 11.211 00 100 00 000 91 887 96 4.898 48 98 327 02 HTTAMAOt 3 842 7S 780 35 7.037 72 5 820 65 2 94S 51 584 98 1 231 50 4 220 00 8 683 15 5 817 50 293 85 3 725 85 1.397 70 1.710 80 484 10 950 00 6 003 89 28 50 333 25 1 226 20 i2 93 2.OC0OO 193 25 1 467 00 714 00 7 780 00 6B9 75 438 80 1 007 60 1.500 90 1.569 00 75 60 138 JO 138 70 1 081 75 COO 22 90 55 60 • 82 79 i1 26 104 10 115 75 129 75 905 3 300 96 8 307 01 1.528 33 f 448 43 94 186 98 4 884 32 99 061 29 kf! if L riMG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 7 2003 Cl IY Oh OHONO DATE: January 27,2003 ITEM NO: /$" Department Approval: ^ Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Tom Kuehn ^'fe^ Title Finance Director Item Description: Declaration of Reimb Resolution City Administrator ’s Report ent Intent for Police Vehicle Costs - Attachments: Resolution Declaring Intent To Reimburse Police Vehicle Costs With Equipment Certificate Proceeds. This year the City is purchasing three squad cars for the police department. These vehicles are replacing three current squad cars. The City will issue equipment certificates to finance the vehicle costs and to reimburse any City expenditures for these vehicles. The attached resolution is required for the purpose of complying with treasury regulations to permit the reimbursement of expenditures prior to the sale of the equipment certificates. The resolution also establishes the Council meeting of February 24,2003 to consider those proposals solicited. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached Resolution Declaring Intent To Reimburse Police Vehicle Costs With Equipment Certificate Proceeds. Wori NifcuvYom\Mi— «fd i ’V . i I *. ( A ^ i ^ ^ ‘ A RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENT TO REIMBURSE POLICE VEHICLE COSTS WITH EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATE PROCEEDS BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota as follows: I. The City is acquiring thiee police cars for use by the Police Department. 2. This Council expects that a portion of the acquisition costs and related expenses will be reimbursed from the proceeds of equipment certificates of indebtedness to be issued by the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.301. The maximum principal amount of certificates to be issued for this purpose is $75,000. This resolution is for the purpose of declaring the City’s official intent for purposes of Treas. Reg. §1.1 S0«2. 3. The Finance Director shall solicit proposals for the sale of the certiflcates from available financing sources for consideration by this Council at the regular council meeting on Monday, February 24,2003. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held January 27,2003. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Word Nrf^TOMtlU .POVafe.lUi ofd (T*^f REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 7 2003 CllYOI-OflONO DATE: January 24,2003 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Rep«t Item Description: Resolution and Declaration of Official Intent Regarding Reimbursement of Costs Related to the Navarre Fire Station The Navarre neighborhood fire station will be financed through the issuance of bonds. The City will incur costs related to the fire station prior to the sale of the bonds. These costs will initially need to be paid from a source other than the bond proceeds. In order for the City to be able to reimburse itself for these costs with bond proceeds, it is necessary for the Council to adopt a resolution and Declaration of official Intent regarding the reimbursement. The resolution and Declaration of Official Intent are attached for Council adoption and authorization. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing procedures relating to compliance with reimbursement bond regulations under the Internal Revenue Code, and authorizing the City Administrator to sign the attached Declaration of Official Intent. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES RELATING TO COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE BE rr RESOLVED by the City Council in and for the City of Orono, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: 1.Recital^. (a) 'fhe Internal Revenue Service has issued Treasury Regulations, Section 1. 150- 2 (as the same may be amended or supplemented, the "Regulations"), dealing with "reimbursement bond" proceeds, being proceeds of the City's bonds used to reimburse the City for any project expenditure paid by the City prior to the time of the issuance of those bonds. (b) 1 he Regulations generally require that the City make a declaration of intent to reimburse itself for such prior expenditures out of the proceeds of subsequently issued bonds, that such declaration be made not later than 60 days arter the expenditure is actually paid, and that the bonding occur and the written reimbursement allocation be made from the proceeds of such bonds within 18 months after the later of (I) the date of payment of the expenditure or (2) the date the project is placed in service (but in no event more than 3 years after actual payment). (c) Ihc City heretofore implemented procedures for compliance with the predecessor versions of the Regulations and dc.sires to amend and supplement those procedures to ensure compliance with the Regulations. (d) The City's bond counsel has advised the City that the Regulations do not apply, and hence the provisions of this Resolution arc intended to have no application to payments of City project costs first made by the City out of the proceeds of bonds issued prior to the date of such payments. 2. Ofllcial Intent Declaration. The Regulations, in the situations in which they apply, require the City to have declared an official intent (the "Declaration") to reimburse itself for Page 1 of3 previously paid project expenditures out of the proceeds of subsequently issued bonds. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Administrator of the City to make the City ’s Declarations or to delegate from time to time that responsibility to other appropriate City employees. Each Declaration shall comply with the requirements of the Regulations, including without limitation the following; (a) Each Declaration shall be made not later than 60 days after payment of the applicable project cost and shall state that the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for the expenditure out of the proceeds of a bond issue or similar borrowing. Each Declaration may be made substantially in the form of the Exhibit A which is attached to and made a part of this Resolution, or in any other format which may at the time comply with the Regulations. (b) Each Declaration shall (I) contain a reasonably accurate description of the "project," as defined in the Regulations (which may include the property or program to be financed, as applicable), to which the expenditure relates and (2) state the maximum principal amount of bonding expected to be issued for that project. (c) Care shall be taken so that the City, or its authorized representatives under this Resolution, not make Declarations in cases where the City does not reasonably expect to issue reimbursement bonds to finance the subject project costs, and the City officials arc hereby authorized to consult with bond counsel to the City concerning the requirements of the Regulations and their application in particular circumstances. (d) 2 he City shall be advised from time to time on the desirability and timing of the issuance of reimbursement bonds relating to project expenditures for which the City has made Declarations. Reimbursement Allocations . The Jesipnated City officials shall also he responsihle lor making the "reimbursement allocations" described in the Regulations, being generally written allocations that evidence the City ’s use of the applicable bond proceeds to reimburse the original expenditures. 4.Effect . Tliis Resolution shall amend and supplement all prior resolutions aniTor procedures adopted by the City for compliance with the Regulations (or their predecessor versions), and, henceforth, in the event of any inconsistency, the provisions of this Resolution shall apply and govern. Page 2 of3 L J r. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held January 27,2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 3 of 3 r [■i CERTIFICATION The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Administrator of the City, hereby certifies the following; The foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution on file and of official, publicly available record in the offices of the City, which Resolution relates to procedures of the City for compliance with certain IRS Regulations on reimbursement bonds. Said Resolution was duly adopted by the governing body of the City (the "City Council") at a regular or special meeting of the City Council held on January 27,2003. Said meeting was duly called, regularly held, open to the public, and held at the place at which meetings of the City Council arc regularly held. Council Member ______________ moved the adoption of the Resolution, which motion was seconded by Council Member __________________. A vote being taken on the motion, the following members of the City Council voted in favor of the motion to adopt the Resolution: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The Resolution is in full force and effect and no action has been taken by the City Council which would in any way alter or amend the Resolution. WITNESS MY HAND officially as the City Administrator of the City of Orono, Minnesota, this ___day of ___________, 2003. .(Title) 'i ■•■ING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ‘^AN 2 7 2003 CITY Oh OFiONO DATE: January 24,2003 ITEM NO: f 7 Department Approval: Nanc RonMoone THk City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: Long Lake Fire Department IWhase of800 MHZ Radios Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Attache'*, is a letter regarding the proposed purchase of 800 MHZ radios for the Long Lake Fire Department. The Fire Department is requir^ to purchase the radios as part of the upgrade of the Hennepin County public safety communications system to the 800 MHZ system. The radio quantities reflect the replacement of existing non-800 MHZ radios currently in use The cost of the new radios is $98,080.23. Orono’s share of this cost is $74,923.48. The Long Lake Fire Advisory Commission has reviewed the purchase request with the Fire Chief, and is recommending approval of the purchase. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the proposed purchase of 800MHZ radios for the Long Lake Fire Department, and the payment of the City 's $74,923.48 share of the cost, to be funded from the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund, and to amend the 2003 budget to reflect the expenditure. f t ! 1 January 8,200^CITY OF LONG LAKE Mr. Ron Moorsc Orono City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Mr. Jim I^nc Councilmcmber City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Re: 800 MH Radios Dear Ron and Jim: As part of the 2002 Fire rJcpartmcnt operating budget. $80,000 was approved for the purchase ol the 800MII radios. The Fire Department delayed purchasing the radios earlier this year in an effort to secure better pricing from additional vendors approved by Hennepin Ctiunty. This was done after the Department determined that the cost to replace the radios could be os high as $120,000, based on the initial radio pricing provided to the Department from the County. Recently, the Fire Department received the attached final quotes for the radios. The total cost of the radios, including batteries and chargers, is $98,080.23. Based on the 2003 budget allocation, the total cost of the radios would be divided amongst the cities as follows: Orono (76.39%): $74,923.48 I.ong Fake (15.62%): 15,320.14 Medina (7.99".i): 7,836.61 $98,080.23 I he pur|H)se of this letter is ti> request approval from Orono and Medina for the purchase ot the 800 Ml I radios for the Long Lake Fire Dep.-irtment, Please contact me with any que.stions at 952-473-6961. Sincerely, Michelle F. Morse City Administrator ! I%4 Poik Avenue* • PO. Box 606 • I iki|; MinncMvij 5M.S6 • 47h (fix) • hnp7Avwv%.ci.lung-lake run us LONQ LAKE FO RADIOS eOUIPMENT U8T ■ i LIASE Mbo> Murnbf A Dwcftw^aw El r D04UJFii Ga06: MBS A$mO Ot^O^Mion 0361; Pn#d26MOOifa6TainliinB 081;8mirtZoMOpirBitan 0173; SnurtZm Omnlink Opmitoa 024:2 Ymt 66P ter Totai ol 3 Ymi ServlOB 0114:0g(tan00teptey V«8; CONTROL STATION OPERATION 9 9 9 total MOBW y 9 9 9 1 HllUCPiPVio N; MoM IIXTSMOO (Prior Locfcod in Prtct) Q8(»; IMM ASTRO Olfliil Opifilten 0361; PlteiMl2S9600 9«idTmnMng H38: Smutitefii OporoSon 0173; 8m«t2onB OmrUUnli Operaten H14;OigtelOOiipiap PLT^ RiOBvSM HoMteo H223RUQO: ALTi Btetery MCAO PM ApprMd 1629 (iiAH fteggiB HISS; 2 Ytif ESP ter ToM of 3 Yon Sorvto 044;RFAtfapiifSMMi auMottl 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 18 16 16 H16IX:P0PW7N: MoM m XTSI060 (Prior to^id In prtei) 0166; IM96 ASTRO OlQltel OporMlon 0361; tepiiol26l6QOSiy6Truiildno H36; SmMtZPno OponlQn 0173; Smorizm omniunfc optfMten H14;0||MK)0tepliy ’“"**«•* 044; RF Adapter SiMlch 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SuMotel 2 total POHTABLfiS 20 Prolglii tndiiOid par CoMraM 29 '7 ' h« •#, S2.n7 00 10.00 to.oo SQ.OO MOO M9.00 Ml .00 0299.70 92.909.00 M.00 MOO M.00 M.00 501.00 siTaoo 931.90 941.00 98.00 99.209.70 99.107.00 M.00 MJ» M4W M.00 • M1.00 SITOilO 931.98 941.00 9000 93.407.70 920.44100 MOO 90.00 M.OO M.00 9441.00 9400.00 929170 920.030.70 999.184.00 90.00 M.OO M.00 M.00 9910.00 99.00000 9970.20 9730.00 9122.40 990.30710 M.91400 M.00 M.00 M.OO M.OO 910100 9340.00 90312 90100 913.N 90.910.02 900.409,» OOMIOli TOTfiL P.B2 1 i Jan UJ 03 Ol:09p OTV 10 1 20 2 2 e 0 1 1 1 1 Randa Beach 763-428-7886 p.a MCOM Randy M. Btach 763-42S-7884 (Ofice) 763428 7W6 (Fan) PltrandybOaotcom COMMUNICATIONS INC TECHNICAL CENTER INC 1800 EAST Cliff HOAD. SUITE 17A BURNSVILLE MINNESOTA SALES #52^8a)33 SERVICE 0S2-8O8.7S99 FAX 952-808^)0^ PREPARED FOR: Lang Lake VoAffiieer Fire Dept 1964 Pane Avenue Long Lekei MN 95366 Mb%. : Tony Roe Ref: 000 MaBo Syetem Aocesorlee Date: 1/203 Plwna: 7B5479-2S01 062-404 Ext 367 XTS9000 Ratmaa Spaakar Mca (Nolaa CancaRng) Motofolo eix UnK Rapid Rata Charger (Nl-Cd and NIMH) Motorola Skigla Unit Rapid Rate Chargar (Trl ChamMry) David Clark Headaato (Dual Muir, Behind the Head) XTX6000 PTT Radio Adapter Intarfaca Box XTX9000 Exta Battery Packs - Ruggadized 1525 mAh Ni-Cad Spring Action BMt CIpa for Exta Baltedea Motorola Pcxwer Supply and CaMe Mokxoia Base Microphone OaaMray Baae Antenna Package 81.00 f 610.00 567.00 6 967.00 94.50 S 1.680.00 291.00 s 562.00 215.00 6 430.00 102.00 3 612.00 9.75 9 50.50 269.00 S 269.00 149.00 6 148.00 6900 $68.00 96.00 S 85.00 Spare Battertee (NTN6297AR) Pricing 1 ■ S106.(X). 5 ♦ S102.00,10 ♦ S87.00 TOTAL SHIPRNG TAX96.SH PROGRAM MISC GRAND TOTAL S S.531.S0 S 65.00 S 363.77 S s S 5.960.27 If you have any quaMions plaaea faal free to c^l me at 763-«26-TS84. Thank you. Randy Beach E-mail anccm®pcank,jont gVEHSiTE. mmancomoi^(g) L kliB-fii'liiffli liTt ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:01/27/03 Hem No: / ^ —______•NG JAN 2 1 2005 oi nr uc oflo/vo Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Title: Kurt Erickson Sergeant Item Description: Request to reinstate alcohol compliance civil penalty. 9 Exhibits: A - Buyer Report, B - Officers Offense Narrative, C - Prosecutor’s Letter’s, D - Seminar Sign Up Rosters, E - Stephanie Grande E-mail, F - Long Lake First Offense Disposition, G - Long Lake 2"^ Offense disposition with Red Rooster DISCUSSION! Since the fall of 2001 Community Service Officer (CSO) Joe Lee, has participated in 50 alcohol compliance checks with the Orono Police Department. In these checks he has been asked for identification (ID) 44 times. On 3 occasions the ID wasn ’t read when presented and sales occurred. In 6 incidents he wasn ’t asked his age or for ID. One of these failures was at the Narrows Saloon. When CSO Lee, made the check of the Narrows Saloon on July 26,2002 he entered the bar from the rear door at about 3:35 pm. I le walk towards the bar and had a .seat on a stool next to the drink rail near the bar. in the area of the pool tables and a pillar. 1 le has been instructed to produce his “ under 21" driver license if asked for ID. CSO Lee. was approached by a female who asked him what he would like. CSO Lee, who was in plain clothes, ordered a Bud Ute tap beer. The female went to the bar. CSO Lee, watched her pour the beer and carry it back to him. She charged him $3.00 for the beer which he paid. She then went onto other business. She never asked his age or for ID. (Exhibit - A) CSO Lee, then stayed at his scat and called Officer Wittke by cell phone to inform him that the sale was made. Officer W'ittke, then entered the bar. Officer Wittke, was in uniform and clearly identifiable as a police officer. CSO Lee, pointed out to him who had made the sale. Officer Wittke, then approached the female to identify her. CSO Lee, then confirmed she was the right person that had made tlie sale. (Exhibit • R) Ofllcer Wittke, upon identifying her, advised her that the prosecutor would be sent copies of the police report and she would be charged criminally for having sold alcohol to a minor. CSO l.ee. at the time of this incident was 20 years of age and looked younger than 21. This is evidenced in part by the number of business's that did require him to show ID. (44 of 50 checked) No citations were issued at the scene. Sale of alcohol to a minor is a gross misdemeanor offense which can only be charged by formal complaint through the prosecutors office. Because of the gross misdemeanor nature of the offense some cities make a physical arrest and jail the employee . In Orono we have chosen to ID the offender and work through the prosecutors office. Mr Anderst asserts that his waitress had seen CSO Lee around at O’Sullivans at closing time and recognized him. CSO Lee, works mostly weekends only. He spends a lot of his time in the South Lake Area covering our contract time with them. He only works 16 hours per week and is a Maple Grove resident who does not come out here when not working. CSO Lee, generally does not work later than 9 pm. Mr. Anderst contends he was recognized from being around at closing time. CSO Lee, does stop at O’Sullivans to meet with other officers on break from time to time. CSO Lee, had done 48 compliance checks without having been recognized. When the check was done at O’Sullivans there was no indication that the employee recognized CSO Lee. John O'Sullivan within a few days raised the issue giving credibility that in fact his employee had recognized CSO Lee and was influenced into make that sale. The matter was discussed with the prosecutor, Ken Potts. Mr. Potts took the position that even if CSO Lee was recognized it didn’t matter as the clerks job w’as to verify the age and not to assume. Should a clerk assume someone working for a liquor vender, UPS, or the police is 21? A persons job shouldn ’t decide if you are going to check ID. But as a matter of business we don ’t want to be misleading in any attempt to do compliance checks. We did not refer the sale at O’Sullivans for civil penalty and the clerk did work with the prosecutor to have all charges dismissed if there were no same or similar charges in 1 year. In speaking to Ken Potts about Mr. Anderst assertion that his employee KJf' recognized CSO Lee, Mr, Potts told me that KJT never mentioned this fact during the court process. KJT had simply admitted she made a mistake and apologized for that. KJT was asked by the judge if she wanted to say anything before a sentence was imposed in response to her guilty plea. KJT again, to the judge said she made the mistake and assumed full responsibility. No mention was made of feeling entrapped or tricked into making an illegal sale. (Exhibit - C) Given Mr. Anderst’s claim coming almost 6 months after the fact, the employee not raising the issue in court to the judge or prosecutor, CSO Lee’s limited time in the area, and Mr. Anderst contention that CSO Lee was recognized from being at O’Sullivans around closing time, I have reason to question if CSO Lee was recognized. 1 believe that Mr. Anderst had heard about how we resolved the issue as raised by Mr. O’Sullivan and wished to take advantage of it. Other than John O’Sullivan, and now Jim Anderst, no one has raised any concern. Mr. Anderst, had told the council how his waitress had not even served the beer and no money had even exchanged hands. Mr. Anderst, stated his waitress was ticketed and the CSO was out the door before he had even been served. Based on the police reports, inteniews with the officers, and prosecutor I believe it is clear that the sale had occurred and no ticket was written. (Exhibit - A&B} Mr. Andcrst, raised the coneem about his staff questioning false ID's and the police telling him they arc valid. Without specific incidents it’s hard to give specific response. I would oiTer though that during the training seminars put on by Orono Police that legal ID is discussed. There are five forms accepted under state statute. These are; a valid state driver’s license with photo, a valid Canadian license, a valid state ID card, a valid passport, an active military ID w/green printing and insignia on either side of the photo. If an officor encounters an ID and tells the bar it is acceptable, it is an afllnnativc defense for the bar if they then sell and later find it was false. 1 he bar still has a right to refuse the ID if they chose to do so. To my knowledge the Narrow's has never called to have ID’s checked. If they have I’m not aware of it and it would be a seldom occurrence. I'he police would be willing to assist if called to do so. Mr. Anderst. claimed most of his staff has attended the training put on by the police department. In reviewing the sign up rosters for the seminars from 05/30/0 1 .07/26/01 ,09/24/0 1 ,06/06/02 I found nobody signed up from the Narrows Saloon. Mr. Andcrst, had contributed $20 toward the e.xpense of the 09/24/02 seminar but nobody attended. After the violation of 07/26/02, another seminar was held on 10/28/02, in which .several Narrows employee’s attended, (fixbihii - D) These seminars have been informative to merchants in the past. During the seminars we review compliance checks. We talk abi>ut why and how they arc done. We review with the merchants our suggestion that they use an, “under 30" policy for carding. It’s hard to make a 21 mistake if you are ID’ing under 30 people, but ea.sy to make a mistake if you are guessing if someone is 21 or not. In response to Mayor Peterson, saying she had a call from Stephanie Grande, about wanting to see the civil penalty upheld Mr. Anderst, stated he had 3 bad checks from Stephanie Grande. I called Mr. Anderst, and otTered to collect those checks for him. Me told me he had been confused and the checks were fiom someone else. 1 also asked Stephanie Grande, if she had ever given Mr. Andcrst or the Narrows Saloon any checks. She stated she does not know Jim Anderst. She has never been to the Narrows Saloon. She has not given them any checks. (Exhibit - E) Mr. Anderst. also alleged that the City of Long Lake had waived a first oflense violation for the Red Rooster for an alcohol compliance violation. In fact Long Lake did impose a $500 fine on all business’s that failed the compliance checks on a first violation. (Exhibit - F) When the Red Rooster came before the council on a second violation the owner appeared before the council and e.xplained the nature of the violation from his perspective. The Long Lake Council listened to what he had to say. 'I hey then imposed a $1,000 civil penalty and waived the one day suspension of his license on the condition he brings his staff together and hire a outside presenter to go over responsible beverage service program at his cost. The Council felt the educational aspect was worth the trade olf. considering the owner would be paying his stall'to attend and paying the presenters cost. Long Lake has not simple waived any civil penalties to any of the merchants that have failed. (Exhibit - ii) I he City of Spring Park has taken the same approach and has imposed the $500 fine on all of the merchants that have failed. There have been no second violations in Spring Park to date. r . f COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED! It is requested that the Council reconsider the waiving of the civil penalty and impose the full amount of $500 for a first offense violation. (* 3rf>4 itfji ? ' I am ! , X \apps^«lputn60^wpdocs^OPDdocllmcnts^Councll ActionVCouncit Actmn form ii ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT ICR * BUYER REPORT Date of Attempt: / Time in: iS~ SS^ Time out: /J~VX^ ______A/rrcirfS Sct }qu h__________Name of Business: Address: My name is ♦^5^0 -f^r^ ^*trerr^_ .. I am “ZQ years of age. My date of birth is: / # # PURCHASE \ I , o Cff I purchased. 00 wV-C ~ p an alcoholic beverage and paid S X. to the seller described below. I was □ was not ^questioned as to my age. I was □ was not Q asked for an ID. REFUSAL TO SELL I attempted to purchase an alcoholic beverage, but the seller: □□□ refused to sell to me. asked for an ID and when I gave my e.\ciise for not having an ID, refused to sell to me asked my age and when I said my true age, refused to sell to me. SELLER DESCRIPTIO.N' The clerk/cashier/waitperson/banender is: (Describe) Male □ Female^ Hair color: 1 • Shirt-Top cpl r LoW^ Trousers dress.'bonorr. color: R'llC .A.pprc.\. ace: "2,0'S Omer (ID name badge. e:c.); J______—___________________________ in 1 I have read the above rtatemer.i and all facts are true and correct. UITNESSINTOFFICER PRINT N.VNtE -Qd- • g.>-N - At S 7/zi^ Me. ' Cl^ NARRATIVE OF LNCIDENT: S<^rvcr - ^ , vT* T u »'C Mp\^ MaJ ST^//(/ iir^nMriRii\rffR«ocr:>^r- ■■ T1 v:":V:-';-^.;i Orono Police Dcpartmcat Supplemental Alcolml Compluincc Report - Ret 02 3543 01/20/3003 Officer T.WHtkc/SI 8 lliis officer assisted by CSO J. Lcc/566 conducted an alcohol compliance check on July 26,2002 at the Narrows Saloon located in the City ofNavarre. This officer parked on the North side of the building and observed Ixn: enter the bar. Both officers had Nexlel cellular phones which would be ased for quick contact if Lee was sold an alcoholic beverage. Approximately three to lour minutes after Lee entered the bur, this officer was contacted Lee in the bar stating he was just sold an alcoholic drink (tap beer). This officer entered the bar and observed Lee silting on a bar stool near the pool tables around a large pillar. Lee was able to point out the Icmnle server and had a pored top drink in front ofhim. I^ro stated he never left his drink and advised me of tlie cost. S3.(X). This officer verbally identified the server as K J Ti DOR /<* /80. After completing the check, the drink wa.s poured down drain by the bartender and both officers continued additional compliance checks. Clear FOLLOW'VP/CONTINIJATION REPORT Offense Case # g> Complainant.Phone (Address, City, State, Zip) Additional Dotailt ot Ottanaa, Prograaa of Xnvaatigationa, Etc. [7 t^4L.^ *XT Uum^ 7^ ^.o. SL^ _____^o. ^ ■ArVi^ , f — A-. ^ a s4s^ (• ^U«4t y/^/>/ sC^c 4^:r 4___<^U-^ /t/•^^d0aJ i <g ^pn^^€.U^aA 4^"^.fc/ I KENNETH N. POTTS, P.A. Attorney at Law SIOI Thimsen Avenue Suite 200 MINNETONKA. MINNESOTA 55345 TELEPfiONE (952) 474-4240 TELECOPIER (952) 474-0987 January 16,2003 Sgt. Kurt Erickson Orono Police Department P.O. Box 86 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: State v. K J T Case No. 02-3543 Dear Sgt. Erickson: I enclose a copy of a letter I wrote to Mr. Moorse in regard to Ms. T. ’s court appearance which occurred on September 24, 2002. 1 remember meeting with Ms. T prior to her entering a plea of guilty and discussing the case with her. At no time did she indicate that she felt entrapped or Aat she in anyway recognized Joseph Patrick Lee, the person to whom she made the illegal sale. She told me that she simply made a mistake and apologized. As is custom in all criminal cases, when the court asks a person to speak before the court imposes sentence, Ms. T. once again assumed foil responsibility for her actions and did not mention anything about feeling that she somehow was entrapped or tricked into making this illegal sale. If you have any questions concerning this please give me a call. Sincerely, /CAP Kenneth N. Potts KNP/sb © I I ••Minnesota Department of »^ubi;c Safety Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division Alcohol 4 SmbCm gaifc—i>m | Traiains Dat Trainins Location: Alcoh ol Compliance Checks Attendance Roster ^/30. Name (Pnat Lesibly)Orsanizotion j rlVlNf B iAlx >WAS V\ar\- ^er\J e\r !M«nhL4DnltA. G>1 0 H “Ca cl ctY\(x/^i I 'So.rreAi ‘( I’ # M / I fl/YNLj rn)^ fiui?kb€(^~ov.^px H\^:k Tpyij lO n TVyrvbvn^yAic;^ rer I ^^■^s4■ Qr<^"h tcksi" An J onr/ih pAiWS'Sm?-) Ali'iJ' I 4ie ^fSo/1 M k"^. Q tiHI o \yir¥)0'lT 'm. Ih^td cleric L c f\.\ kT PvpX t\WA (V\\^T~' jffiu 5^,r> -= X. ;> fbr / c: /^ / (L>k^ cyy O/^O a^ PD Fa"? Minnesota Department of Public Safeiy Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division AteaiMi & 8«mklifif EflfcfMVMm Alcohol Compliance Checks Attendance Roster TrainingDat? 5~~ ^ / Training Location: Name (Print Legibly)Organization k)^ h y\ /"77 ^ j n n IS >4 // c 7^/y uSn^rhsB^r :^0*4rJ AU-St A^ /» 4/a^(';ck /1/lYw fl«r' 6 ml II ‘1 Q.CUT(\Qtx.Ajt9 • 1 / «5_ Yn A ^^^7/ jjfy-^ 1 Wait/- fwren fc'/ p to/ //P.Z l4\ \dtiujDf. Xn(L>^ L-'i ff.juLpir r l/oHk IWoDh^ UF’tO 1 X 1 T?" 1 v-'x fc< ^k!F? V fill L:&>ht ^KV/i/o 1 f y \ L A !^j4/a/4'3 ryyy^. /<5rlt<52, 1 ^ /^9^/C f,m<XU<!Z^'L P^lsrt*^iKCk 1 LJcffvju -Ht’IIum -L&ed RjL-kJxjU^ Py y' —^ /} / / r(jL^6 '/^h IclJL/^ . ! V \ ____________________________ \ I k V\^ KJaJo^ X Page I Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division iUcgM I aunfcttn wtm AlcohoLComDiiance Checks Attendance Roster TraioiBSDate.^ Ol 0\ Traininj Location Name (PHnt Lcfibly)Organization .(IfV a vv7 \ V ^^12)L A k C*^ 1 C^hnuA (LoomAS Mu/zarki^ c c ! / ^dfiJ/nh ^Afyja^C- C ^ 1 CT CT fhAc.,,\i)o./26CT r^c.' i Vfl 5"C<olr TTAa4/11 . ■ 1 i • / ^ Ufin KlheJK Un hnSoy^Rnr J^Oour) T^’^f ^/dc^ch Jav^ r j• 1 \ • \ \ ! • ! .. \i i 1 j• j __ ^ •■ I Page fiSiL mm^ VJZyWfv^ 4^<ui M//^€ yC/A/AA/e/Z. wv^ ^^^'CA^Cyis^V\ •:? Jen \W CO-\A ------------ »•• • ;i <^i V^'rY\\cJi /Wxi-c-ricn ............. . /cU^ Y^l '(^Ab / t ...... ^'M (Bu]ljYot'*'S^—■ ....... ^\Q^\<eY ------------- ...! C3^ ^-5 Ro t~*^y______ 'Ta^^w- poc-t'\/’Jr .— .-. Sl'C’i/i l^ni cluybocitt^ ^alfcK ...... jC'/cr —feoT\ ....... ' i 0 iu^ ..; V-ixA-e So.‘"v _ t/6^? C/^Ay> CXcx^lo 14 C\Jo L^Kc Si dc Uj »<lii ^ S^.»' I << fr M • •» f L^O.f^c.-^'Csf'^ didz; _ /f(/S>ifS 5^/Ts 6^/^ fZ./‘<- /•//'() C‘^C, :^5 ig&ggii,.®■:? - -^- 7^ ____________________________ _____________________________________________ - . y' ------------H ____Aufthi JitlkW______!>of?.ri .6.£rc-H e(\i ___.,fe}<!L^.lWc(._._ ._ ...........z::: mt Ar .fte Ofeul \5> yc.^-- \ j AA a ^ islayt^ ____________ ______________ ' ___________ _______________ ___A__________ . .M'f\^. mil^.________________ M+-k:^ . AAvSTT.... . .......... -,!?T,<S^pC^________ M» •• •••••( __tee> - ._ .. 'T^od ..C^pa^.l„. C d ...-.'=J £>T ’<^QoR}i.^-. AM- - IV ■ n ‘ » •• « » mm m- w Vi M^'IUuL^ Mbcv |u A\y\ '5^rv’ 1^ Uys^ JE.i<>feli.ecS....... I\ V V O H-D V? b &,0 .................... A*..®.Vw*—cjk.3^ .. ............... • • Alcohol Sales Trainin Monday, October 28, 2002 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. Presented by: Miles Canning, MBC Presentations -Cfle^ As ^ Sign-In Sheet ■»??- 25- 9S3l- 4/0/. 2^ ~3 -^179-3 if! ^yXjLLa. ^S^^yJCSi. L.C/L£S ICf/^ri&x.,1.^0^_;X^3 \/Joc;c» S 7^5' ^0U (jpo75 HoV\c:^ riVs m3 ") 'Xn f\ 313-0 / M S ifeflinxl 'id 6 - Lsre-ik) L -dooic 2^±-V7 ‘?-/7g — <^^■€.1^. \ c?>w (joiM). O'^'oy^o %SSzX23zZZo/ fs^- S;\.\lcoholL\>nip|jmceLcttcrs\Sign In 102302 Alcohol Sales Trainin Monday, October 28, 2002 4:00- 5:30 p.m. Presented by: Miles Canning, MBC Presentationssentations ^ Sign-In Sheet __fOr \joKe ')■>*/77- _rafc(r:S>A;au&a^ H'lSi? HrMjdioi , 1 73 ~ —_________^/7 (- ^/<Jc? > W' ---/c/f^ ,\a,g ^ 7TV b^ArTC p:^ c.r Cc^ .^c so^/ Hn^ m-7^- 4>qk: ^dJLS-iILlLh /fT/r >3^ /^j4^ ___7^^ d,s^Z'^pr^ ^3 -j-cco Li^O/CcaAT" y 2a M)V h^la-ki(s ygu?-5//^ •<,w, />VL -rro-'»<!» 7 g --------------^M.n.t-,/ “fSX Y7<r f 7</ 7 IS_____________^Zl^JAAt S:\AlcoholCornplainceLetters\Sign-In i02802 Alcohol Sales Trainin Monday, October 28, 2002 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. Presented by: Miles Canning, MBC Presentations Sign-In Sheet Nainc/Busiiie.s.s Address I^tDUdr_l^---------------------^PO HCdvrvg. SA~ M ._______ iWi GkvN/\r ~ 4^---------- __________________________ Phone ^7S-‘97s^'> Cut »-(0l6?\ idk Baiter.___^ahJA^^L_ i^-Js-aa. g-TQ-zsz-'x. mm 55356 Vv ^V/l Si^p^3.£iciclC\e\.^D|tX)±Llj3n .26-5^4 — VwZK s A nNv \ AV a /C ''__'' t-lec<M£ MeiE^ _ ^S>-V7/'35' U»11 r, _ 3llu WtsLixifjLi^l.'i.d '’^‘ _43a- i/^rr ■"-4<’ f^\ So~^^|yV\lculu/lC oinplamcrl c(tcrs\Sign III 102802 *\l V»\ f\0 I \r ^ Vnt\cx « I ••tJ ;r4. ^■77^. I , I *) -»(•• / M2C iTw«arcc3 *2U CC ZtCvCn'cr Bivd. • Zxuld:r, .\£S* 55331 * 612-47C‘-?CC5 Eapl^rcc Count Coapiction and Attendance Lbt dw; PVtidlNUlC I. N/imjIUi Date Faitici|MBt i«. Date 30. Management VetificatM Date: f > Kuft Erickson - Narrows Saloon ■h From: To: Data: Subjaet: "Stephanie Grande'____ <kerickson(g|ci.orono.mn.us> 1/17/03 9:20AM Narrows Saloon Sgt. Erickson: I was quite surprised to hear from you this morning that I have been accused of bouncing checks at the Narrows Saloon in Orono. I have never been in the Narrows Saloon, do not even know where the bar Is located In Orono, and, for the record, do not bounce checks anywhere. The statement made by the owner of the Narrows Saloon to the Orono City Council about me was a total, unconditional and absolute untruth. Stephanie Grande II*.» i/* 5' .4, r..,. ' ' tv - • . mm • / !>' CITY OF LONG LAKE November 7,2001 Mr. Kurt Erickson Patrol Officer Orono Police Department P.O. Box 86 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re; Long Lake Liquor License Compliance Checks Dear Mr. Erickson: Last evening, the Long Lake City Council took administrative action against the liquor license for each of the establishments in Long Lake that sold alcohol tc an underage buyer on August 24,2001. Attached is a copy of the staff report and agreements with the establishments. A $500.00 fine has been paid by each of the businesses to the City of Long Lake. Please contact me with any questions at 952*473-6961 . Sincerely, Michelle E. Morse City Administrator ii ■a .fs f 1964 Park Avenue • P.O. Box 606 • Long Lake. Minnesoia 55’5o • 95:-4T3-69M 952-476-96:: ifaxi • hcip://»»» ci long-lake.mn.us Acenda Item No. l.A 'fefMai^^tfONG l.A^^ Cixy COUNCljLl^^^Wf?’ Subject:Liquor License Violations Prepared By; Michelle E. Morse, City Administrator On August 24, 2001, the Orono Police Department conducted an underage compliance check of businesses in Long Lake and four of the businesses sold alcohol to underage buyers. These businesses are Red Rooster, D’Vinci’s, Liquor Bam and Lakeside Liquor. In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance 1000.02 4(g), Long Lake shall either suspend the license for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days, revoke the license, or impose a civil fine on the license not to exceed $2,000.00 for each violation. v' At the October 16, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council directed the City Administrator to meet with licensee and to enter into an agreement that waives the hearing and imposes a sanction for the violation. All of the establishments have signed tlie agreement and provided the Citv with a check in the amount of $500.00! ’ ------^— Staff recommends that the City Council approve the agreements. By entering into the agreements, the City will save the expense of what is essentially an administrative law judge hearing. CITY COlINCil. ACTION REOIfKSTFn Motion to authorize the City Administrator to sign the Conditional Admission and Waiver of If earing agreements with the Red Rooster, D’Vinci's, Liquor Bam and Lakeside Liquor for selling alcohol to an underage buyer in s’iolation of Minnesota Statutes §340A-503. I Sf CITY or LQNOLAXE MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING Ausust 20,2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p jn. it* l^yor: Schaefer; Council: Benson 7:00 p.m., Hultmann, Hammerschmidt, Pierson; City Administrator: Morse; Public Woiics Director: Wurzer; City Plaimer: Goldstein: City Clerk: Sullivan Qlben ft^ent: Dan Box, City Engineer, Stephany Good, Police Chief; Kurt Erickson, Orono Police Department None APPROVE AGENDA A motion was made by Hultmann, seconded by Hammerschmidt, to approve the Asenda as presented. Ayes: all CONSENT agenda Schaefer read the Consent Agenda aloud as follows: ■ Supplemental MnDOT Agreement - Replacement of Well No. 1 (Resolution 2002-8-4) ■ Application for Payment No. 4 (Final) $5,657.25 - Well No. 1 Construction (Tram WeUs) ■ TEK Products Minor Plan Change (Resolution 2002-8-5) • Minutes of August 6, 2002 City Council Meeting • Claims Paid July 2002 ,i motion was made by Hultmann, seconded by Pierson, to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ayes: all. Open Correspondence JCC 'ZZt'e. 9toC#SXVl CKZZ £Z Al-a zras z;g errr.ir-trvr City Council Meeung August 20, 3002 Pas«3 S1.300 fme and suspcndins their licenses for one day. In addition, the businesses should be required to attend training provided by the Police Department. Sergeant Kun Andersm were present to answer questions and explained the process and purpose of the underage compliance checks Chief m 2001 and that one session had been held in 2002 to-date. He noted that the training covered Seclo^^**^ **°*“^® Department would use in performing underage compliance on . Sanmtoy. Mr. Lundborg noted he ato bar n,onUJy nteedns. Jth hS ^Xees discuss issues such as underage drinking compliance checks and procedural changes such as Lundberg stated he understood it was his responsibility to insure that his staff was trained He cxplamcd that the beverage server did ask to see the license of the person when the conphmee check w« done. However, she miscalculated when dctennimng his age which was bov^ge refers co XT fh« d° lu^l Benson noted that the beverage server would still have to look at die driver’s license to make "Hinc' 'vas under G 2>:\Z C.\'CT A-. . J T5g 9* » ?ZA y t • • Ciiy Couocil Meeting August 20, 2002 Page 4 Ms. Johnson, the beverajse server who sold to an underage person, wa.s present and stated Mr. Lundberg has always stressed the importance of carding persons and that she made a mistake when calculating the age. She thought a card reader machine would have Jiclped. Schaefer asked Chief Good if it was satisfactory for Mr. Lundberg to arrange with the State for his employee's training. Chief Good indicated it was. Sergeant Erickson recommended Mr. Lundberg contact Miles Canning, who was a state licensed trainer the Police Department has used in the past Schaefer stated that she believed Mr. Lundberg was striving to improve his compliance record. She did not believe it was appropriate to suspend Mr. Lundberg's liquor license because Jtat would have an adverse affect on other employees, i.e., cooks who bad nothing to do with tlie liquor violation. She beUeved that mandatory training should be required and that the fine should be reduced to $500. Benson stated he appreciated Mr. Lundberg and Ms. Johnson coming forward and stated he did not believe there was any criminal intent when Ms. Johnson sold to the underage person. He stated Mr. Lundberg was taking steps to avoid his staff making mistakes in the future, including additional beverage server training. Benson suggested lowering the fine to SSOO or SI,000 and that the suspension be waived. Hultmann suggested training be required within 90 days with documentation provided to the City. If documentation is not provided within 90 days, he suggested the one day suspension be enforced. Hultmann was in favor of the $1,500 fine. Pierson agreed with Hultmann. Hammerschmidt tniggested a SI ,000 fine, with the one day suspension waived if the mandatory training is conducted within 90 days. If training is not completed, be suggested the fine be $1,500 and the one day suspension enforced. A motion was made by Hammerschmidt, seconded by Hultmann to direct the dry Administrator to meet with licensee and to enter Into an agreement that waives the hearing and imposes the following sanctions: Ravellos: $500.00 fine Liquor Bam: $1,500.00 fine, one day license suspension, and mandatory training Red Rooster: $1,500.00 fine, one day license suspension, and mandatory training. however, if training is documented to the City within 90 days, the fine will be reduced to 51,000 and the one day license suspension waived. Vote: Ayes: all. 1 City Council Meeting August 20,2002 Page 5 Pitrson asked if the 90 day period would start on Au£ust 20.2002. Morse indicated the 90 day period would start on August 21,2002. the date that she would mail the agreements to the aiiectsd businesses. Lundgren Brothers - Fleming Trail Development *■ “'5' proved the Pint Amendment to the Pm^e Agreement with Lundgren Brothers, which extended the closing date under Section 2 ol the Purchase Agreement by an additional 42 days. On May 7, 2002. the City Council purchase agreement setting the closing date for no later than bept^ber 30,2002. The purpose of the second extension was to allow the City of Long T ^)cp, no latwr than December 2,2002. The reason for Luadgren's r<jquest was due to the environmental delay which caused them to stop their due diligence process and corporate ojidiysis* Schaefer was not comfortable with granting yet another extension. Hammerschmidt and Hultmann concurred. Benson stat^ that the fact that the MPCA had not completed the no action required letter accounted for the delays. l^eteOT s^d that until the corporate attorneys from Lundgren have the no action required letter the IVff CA. tiiey may not aUow the closing to move forward. Dieizcn slated that the initial delay was the environmental issues, however, Lundgren may be stretching the closing at this pomL He alM noted that from a Lundgren perspective, they may wish to delay the closinf since they cannot break ground until spring 2003. Morse noted that based on what the MPCA had told her. the no action required letter should be received by the City in September. Morse siated^t if the City Council was uncomfortable approving the extension, she would recommend they table this issue to give staff an opportunity to contact Lundgren to express the Council s concerns and to resolve some of the contingency issues that are still outstanding. Dietzen concurred. Highway 12 Utility Project Bid Awards - Phase I (Resolution 2002-8-7) and Phase D (Resolution 2002-8-8) Morse reported that bids were received and tabulated by the City Engineer on August 20.2002. see 'JCC’c i W • •2-* rrrr., REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 'JAN 2 7 2005 ClIYUh Oh DATE: January 24 ITEM NO: £ ^ Department Approval: Name Lin Vee i’ Title CilyCIcik Administrator Reviewed: rrfj Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for CouncilApproval KENNEL LICENSE 1. David and Heidi Hust 45 Smith Avenue TOBACCO IJCENSE 2. Grant Wenkstem Lakeview Golf of Orono, Inc 405 North Arm Drive LeRoy Koehnen 3,Navarre Citgo LeRoy Koehnen 3360 Shoreline Drive Daniel Scherven Navarre Lanes, Inc. 3425 Shoreline Drive 5.Navarre Liquors, Inc. Steven Corl 3421 Shoreline Drive C’OUNCil, ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approvc/ileny the above listed licenses. 6. 7. 8. Richard Bloomquist Rick's Super Valu 3333 Shoreline Drive Kenneth Galloway Wayzata Country Club 200 Wayzata Boulevard Cindy Dehn Western Convenience Store 2160 Way/ata Boulevard ifrtinilnijrtir----------- KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1,200__ to December 31, 200, Ownec\^">:x\J\^tA ____________ Sa+ - I L'cccl Property Address: Mailing Address (if different): (ioclude city and zip) / Phone: (home]^ 5S CO M (work) F<^^2sJo^ licatiopT^-------^ ^ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Ft (payment must accompany application Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: ______ Purpose for more than 2 dogs:\Nuvy>\\. o Dogs normally kept: “V inside^>C kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions Imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applicant Date \ i For dry Use Only Kennel inspected Date Recommends: Approwl < Denial % APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (Ordinsinrr No M»4. Sfioml Serif* • \(lo|itciJ 12 UM ‘***) Make check payable to: Mailing address: City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ' ? ? T ‘ FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31) 1. Applicanfs Full Name 6raAi" nr<si /I 2. Applicant's Home Address __'IfO__S>V\«afe ___ ’’ ' "'suw'tTr f^OUAci. P? M f'20-03, • • ■ ‘“’'■‘OiVo DATE lAsr <?C1- ^7^ . CITY STATE ZIP 3. Applicant's Business vool A (3uurs •«- auiTYPE OF BUSINESS /val(eo<ct»^ GoIL ti Qroop, Jlhc BUSINESS NAME 0 ' • "7/0 • JShO'O Ar* U) • PlCiA0\t4 MAILING ADDRESS ^7^- 3^S^l J'hc. . BUSINESS PHONE Vor /O./frm /)c • a STREET ADDRESS Drono.SSSi,*/ CITY Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee takes place. 'to ^M^ciuuo <? 'iobacfo «/uc4~ • 74 */<g| noi’ i Sr t Cc«»»t<** U! H Oif^ Qtvf~ 4^l)<«fcc> piaclut.^ II ^rCiyy CK. fA-C ■ / HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO. TOBACCO PRODUCTS. OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ORONO. M y v/ l-20-O-i Signature Date The issuance of a license under this ordinance shaO be considered a privilege and nol an abaoiute right of the applicant and shad not entitle the holder to an automatic renewal of the license. iS^^d¥o;^7Cry$tUBv.>lN55323r^^^ / Fax: ;45-;u. .>>¥W.ci.ofono*.inn m 1. 2. 3. 4. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (OrUiiuncc Nu. 164. Second Srricf - Adopted 12 08.^>7) Make check payable to: City of Orbno Mailing address: FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31) P.O. Box 66 2 p Crystal Bay, MN 5532^,|^^ * /- o DATE Applicant's Full Name HRSr MiOULc:LAST Applicant's Home Address CLn sQ.<i ______ HOUSff h*STREET 7^3 ¥79-6,^79 HOME PHONE IV7 STATE ZIP Applicant's Business c:rt»TipK/ TYPE OF BUSINESS BUSINESS PHONE 4/^//^iei2tg- BUSINESS NAME MAILINO ADDRESS \ Of O /-/fj ^ STREET ADDRESS ZIP Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee takes place.___________________________________________________________ I HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO. TOBACCO PRODUCTS. OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY Dale Dm ifivancc or# Nevnsa unOif (Ml onMnanca aAaff M consfttorad a prM*t0a and nor an aftsoTuM (liOftr ortfw aPP<*canr and $hMtnol9rMltth» holder to »n automatic i9f»ynl of th»Sc»ns9. M Mi m APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (Orilinjiicc Nu. 164. SconiJ Series 12 OS )*| Make check payable to: City of Orono Mailing address:P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 1. 2. FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31) Applicant's Full Name FIRS MIDULE Applicant's Home Address g<7.-y RQ OUSF NUMDFR STRfcFF AAOVAaJ I> CITY STATE ■SS36<^ P'S DATE LAST (rTt/? lair cjwiriKic: " *"HOME PHONE 3. 4. Applicant's Business i^OV>Ol \ aJ<^ TYPE OF BUSINESS BUSINESS NAME Po S\ MAILING ADDRESS BUSINESS PHONE STREET ADDRESS CITY S 2^ ZIP Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee takes Place. Coc^A^TfEilZ^_______________________ / HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO. TOBACCO PRODUCTS. OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY !'•' 7^0 c^3 Date )7id tuuanc9 oF J Hcem^ unthr tN$ ot^n§nc9 $hsB b& conM$md $ piMhQ^ §nd not §n §t$olut§ right of Iho oppCcsnt ond Mhori not onhtio tho hotrior to on mriomsttc rone wot of tho Mconso Bty, Mn p53. XL iJi 1. 2. 3. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (OrUiiiaincc No. 164. Second Series • Adopted l2/08/97| Make check payable to: City of Orono Mailing address:r.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay; MN 55323 FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31)\ DATE Applicant's Full Name . ^ c Vi v\d afii •s FIRST 0 -Df \ LAST Applicant's Home Address HOUSE NUMBER STREET CoM' CITY \ Tiv HOME PHONE FATE Applicant's Business Vjt>cv> S ovoov* TYPE OF BUSINESS DUOimcoo mv/m c BUSINESS NAME -------------------------- - --------- BUSINESS PHONE STREET ADDRESS iESS CITY^: ^ Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or ^ ’ between the customer and the licensee or employee takes y ^ VvtX.\*a^ 0 JO Vf J.Y <6^Place. L •^*0 <> V C> VK.TJC S| / HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO. TOBACCO PRODUCTS. OR TOBACCO RELA TED DEVICES A T THE ABOVE LOCA TION SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ORC Signature Date Th9is$t/anaof»Ban$tunO»rthlsor^tane9ShaOb0consia6ndapavife^snanot»nabaoluhrigMoflt)9$pfi6aKii ^ ' and $haU not antith tha holder to an automabc ranawal of tha Ucanta. .CITY Ur UnUviO ] 1. 2. 4. Co^ APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (Ordinmcc iNo. 164, Sccoml 5>cf if» • Adupred I^U8/97| Make check payable to; City of Orono Mailing address:P.O. Box 66 Cr>stal Bay, MN 55323 FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31) DATE Applicant's Full Name \ichri)LC>j£ FIRST MiODLE LAST HOUSE NUMBER Q STREET ^ ^ HOME PHONE CITY STATE 3. Applicant's Business :^2 SS /TYPE OF BUSINl SS • ^ I J___ BUSINESS N/^ ;P./9. BUSINESS PHONE /} / /) S^rLeV/^-r STREET ADDRESS AUyf>e^^ -SS3^2- MAILING ADDRESS CITY Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or . . . _____«u..^..^»^»,AranHtkAlirAnftAAnrAfnnloveetakeS a tf ^'^^^^^^^e ^by ^ake ^I^lication for u^ense to^sell tobacco , tobaccoI HEHtBY MAI\tz I\JIM r\jn PRODUCTS OR TOBACCO related DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OFORO^^ Signitt Date T^• .sauaoce o!» fc*ns* undtr Out ottHnUK* $hanb*contki»ntt • prtvil«0* v^nol an absolutn right oflha appSerinl and shall not anUtta tha hofdar to an automatic rarmwat of tha licensa 1. 2. 3. 4. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (Ortlinancr No. 164, Second Series • Adopted 12/08/97) Make check payable to: City of Orbno Mailing address: .•Ait X 1 Box 6b 11 Oi Ciystal Bay, MN 55323 FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31)f-fi-03 DATE Applicant's Full Name C aJU FIRST MIDDLE LAST Applicant's Home Address HOUSE ^4UMBER ^ ^ M. u e. fi'f'f STREET HOME PHONE Uti- /hJ X^r/fo CITY STATE Applicant's Business YPE OF BUSINESS BUSINESS NAME 9.9.4i^ la BUSINESS PHONE Ua%k%f4^A/4i \ESS 0^. MAILING ADDRESS STREET ADDRI Alt Uiv CITY Describe how the actuai physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee takes place. fbk,Lm.t.trb _________________________________ / HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO. TOBACCO PRODUCTS. OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ORONO. Signature Th» IssuuKt of» tC0ns» under tNs onSnence shell be considefed e privilege end not en ebsolute right of the eppbeent end sh^ not endOe the holder to en eutometic renewel of the Soense. r r • .^ J APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (Ordinance No. 164, Second Series • Adopted I2/J8/97) Make check payable to: City of Oronu Mailing address:P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 '■P 1. 2. 3. FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31) DATE Applicant's Full Name FIRS LsjL MIDDLE LAST Applicant's Home Address (nil f r\a r\ «SIrnel" hOJSi NU.MBEtt mio 3 rH2£» 7&?>-¥3ihS57/ HOME PHO.\E <55303 CITY STATE Applicant's Business nnvniPrMprvrp. Sfor€^ rp£ OF BUSINESS BUSINESS PHONE CJLhOt \.Tt\c IQpgJkfn fonopnieoc g. >-3l/eO I iVii/ZtI^Ta- BUSINESS NAME ^ • STREET ADDRESS I ____________ liVvTLAb, HK) CITY 13 ZIP ftO/Rox UI d _____________ MAILING ADDRESS Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee takes place. f)eW\n^ •Vfttoo.cro » f»Ji^OLfe,Hes trv a. ^onocrvip rvcc . / HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO. TOBACCO PRODUCTS. OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ORONO. _A J/n ’dS Oite Th0 Issuance of a bcense under tNs ordinance shaO be considered a privdege and not an absolute right of the appbeant a nd Shan not entitle the holder to an automatic renewal of the license r- Jdik REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION M 2 7 m Cliy Oh OHO/VO DATE: January 24, 2003 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name RonMoorse THk City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Personnel Matter The Council will be asked to lake action regarding a personnel matter. The information regarding the personnel matter is confidential. The information has been provided to the Council under separate cover. The information regarding the Anal disposition becomes public aAer Anal action is taken. The process to be followed in addressing this matter is to close the meeting for discussion of the matter, then reopen the meeting for action on the matter. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the staff recommendation regarding the personnel matter. CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 01/08/03 10 33 AM Page 2 JANUARY 2003 Check Amt Commeni Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 10100 Primary Cash _ $51.718.40 $51.71840 CITY OF ORONO check register 01/21/03 9 48 AM Pagel Clwck Numbor Emptoyoo Namo 052315 052316 052317 052316 052319 052320 052321 052322 052323 052324 052325 052326 052327 052326 052329 052330 052331 052332 052333 052334 052335 052336 052337 052338 052339 0S234U 052341 052342 052343 052344 052345 052346 052347 052348 052349 062350 052351 062352 C 2353 062354 052355 052356 052357 052358 052359 052360 052361 052362 052363 052364 052365 DODGE. RACHEL M LESKINEN. DENISE M. MOORSE. RONALD J VEE. LINDA S ZIMMERMAN. MARILYN L KUEHN. THOMAS M OLSON. RONALD J PETTIT, SANDRA K. ANDERSON. BRUCE L. BOBZIEN. SUE A BORIS. SCOTT W BUDIQ. STACIE M C/ RLSON. MICHAEL B. CORNICK. JAMES L DEMBOUSKI. JAY C ERICKSON. KURT R FARNIOK. CORREY L FISCHENICH. DAN T FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K GOOD. STEPHANY R HENDRICKS. RONALD J JOHNSON. JEFFREY MADSON. ADRIENNE M. MCNICHOLS. DAVID L MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES PERSELL, WILLIAM R SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F TOMCZYK. MARK W WITTKE. ANTHONY A ARNESON. JOSHUA A HERMAN. JOHN R LEE. JOSEPH P BOLTERMAN. MATTHEW A BOTTENBERG. WENDY C CHAPUT. JENNIFER L GAFFRON. MICHAEL P OAPPA. GREGORY A MEYER. WILLIAM C OMAN. LYLE E VANG.BRUCE L BRINKHAUS. JOHN F DEBAERE, DONALD L GREGORY. JAMES D HANSEN. STEVEN OBERAiGNER. SCOTT G OBRIEN. RANDY L PALMER. GREGORY A RATHBUN. BARRY J SKREEN. DALE S STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD Pay Check Chacli Parlod Amount Date Check Statue 2 $1.02013 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $80446 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $12.18 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.22906 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $533 95 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.01446 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $126 32 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $534 67 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.60674 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $769 81 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.38943 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $65302 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $657.19 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1,313.76 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.465 33 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.528 42 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1,574.73 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1,424 18 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $94 62 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.877 33 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1,331 52 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.220 58 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $545 80 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $570 29 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.359 40 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $471 40 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.462 62 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $445 53 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1,395.12 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1,321 50 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $666 11 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $845 58 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $312 17 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1,023 55 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.363 41 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.196 81 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.388 64 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.74669 L72/03 Outstanding 2 $648 07 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $19774 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.299 96 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.372 67 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.200 95 1/22 03 Outstanding 2 $796 60 1/22.03 Outstanding 2 $1,044 42 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $680 78 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $96910 1/22A33 Outstanding 2 $1.089 25 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.090 06 1/22/03 Outstanding 2 $1.092 80 1/22/03 Outstandmg 2 $1.362 54 1/22/03 Outstanding 151.142 64 I t ■ IT f'- 1 CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® Ot/22/03 7 38AM Page 1 JANUARY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Pflmaty Caeh Q 101-2170'j Other Retirement roUl ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-4S7 >ald Chki 07^220 H72J03 G 101-21707 Union Dues Total LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE $300 00 $300 00 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE $583 16 $583 16 PeldChk# 076230 1/22/03 MN CHILD SUPPORT PMT CTR 0 101-21712 Other Deducllons $242 27 Total MN CHILD SUPPORT PMT CTR $24T27 T«i/03PeWChka 075231 1/22/03 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 0 101-21702 Stale Wlthhotdina $3,695 68 Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE $3,C95 68 PaidChk# 075234 i/22/03 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 0 101-21705 Other Retirement $2,237 00 $2,237 00Total PEBSCOAJS CONF OF MAYORS huKlCihka 075235 1/22.13 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIHEMENT 0 101-21704 PERA $6,749 03 0 101-21704 PERA $5762 93 Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT $ 12,011 96 PaiUChka 0762Jli 1/22/03 UNITED WAV 0 101-21708 United Wey Total UNITED WAY $75 00 $75 00 PaidChk# 075237 t/22/03 WISCONSIN SCTF 0 101-21712 Other Deductions Total WISCONSIN SCTF $184 62 $184 62 Peid Chk» 076238 1/22/03 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST G 101-21705 Other Retirement $2,789 68 $2,789 66Total ORCHARD TRUST CO, TRUSTEE/CUST PaidChk# 075239 1/22/03 PEBSCO/OBRA G tOI-21705 Other Keliiemeni Total PEBSCO/OBRA $0 00 $0 00 10100 Primary Caeh $51,750 74 PaldChk# 0/5226 i/22/03 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 0 101-21711 Credit Union Total CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION $10,685 00 $10,68500 SAVINGS W/H & TRANSFERRED PaldChk# 075227 1/22/03 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES G 101-21701 G 101-21703 O 101-21703 Total Federal Withholding FICATaxWtthholdIng FICA Tax Withholding FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF UKES $9,596 17 $4,575.10 $4,57510 $18,746 37 FEDERAL W/H FICA & MEDICARE W/H FICA & MEDCR CITY SHARE DEFERRED COMP UNION DUES MOROWC2YNSKI 40014456477 STATE TAX W/H USCM - ENTITY 2339 PfcRACITY SHARE PERA EMPLOYEE W/H CHARITY DONATIONS JOHNSON a 0002756898 MN STATE RETIREMENT OBRA DEFERRED COMP CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 01/23703 439 PM Page 1 JANUARY 2003 Chech Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Prlmaiy Cash Paid Chki 075240 1/27/2003 A.P.W.A. E 602-49450-433 Memberships & Subsaiptions Total A.P.WA $143.75 $143 75 131203 2003 APWA Membership-Gappa Paid Chkil 075241 1/27/2003 ANCHOR PAPER E 101-41900-201 Office supplies ToUl ANCHOR PAPER $520 89 $520 89 143141301 Copy Paper Paid Chki 075242 1/27/2003 ANDERSON. KRISTI E 101-42400-319 Other Professional Services E 101-45200-319 Other Professional Services Total ANDERSON, KRISTI $430 00 $165 00 $595 00 1/22/03 1/22/03 Plan Minutes • 1/22/03 Park Minutes • 1/6/03 PaidChk# 075243 1/27/2003 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $110 40 E 101-42110-439 Meeting Expenses $109.00 E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $166 30 Tout ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES $385 70 6013-296400 Coffee 6013-296400 Coffee 6013-296401 Coffee-PW Paid Chki 075244 1/27/2003 AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES E 101-41900-321 Telephone $2279 E 601-49400-321 Telephone $11.93 E 602-49450-321 Telephone $ 11 93 Total AT 4 T WIRELESS SERVICES $46 65 3419397 Cen Phones 3419397 Cell Phones 3419397 Cell Phones Paid dhki 075245 1/27/2003 E 101-42110-437 Training & Development Total BCA • FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB BCA - FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB $200 00 1036381 $200 00 Intox Hendricks Paid Chk# 075246 1/27/2003 BETTER ROADS E 101-43000-433 Memberships & Subscriptions Tout BETTER ROADS $2400 $24 00 36142 2003 Better Roads Subs 075247 1/27/2063 BOLTERMAN. MATT 0 101-20200 Accounts Payable E 101-42400-437 Training & Development Total BOLTERMAN. MATT $16 56 $17 25 $3381 1/8A)3 1/8A)3 Mileage - Training Mileage - Training >aid Chk« 075248 1/27/2003 BUDGET PRINTING E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E 101 42110 201 Office supplies Total BUDGEl PRINTING $2 27 24682 $33 65 24763 $35 92 Paper Self Inking Stamp Paid Chk« 075249 1/27/2003 CYS UNIFORMS G 101-20200Accounts Payable $104 50 15334 Uniforms Roms • Wlltko Total CYS UNIFORMS $104 50 Paid Chki 075250 1/27/2003 DCA • WIRE ONLY G 101-21719 DCA/Spendir>g Accounts $1.135 00 1/18703 Flax Sptnding • 1/16/03 Total DCA-WIRE ONLY $1.135 00 Paid Chki 07521^1 1/27/2003 DELTA DENTAL G 101-15998 Non-Employee Health Ins $54 50 37220072 Oantal 2/2003 G 101-21709 Dental Insurance $1.428 76 37220072 Dantal 2/2003 Total DELTA DENTAL 11.483 26 0 f CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 0iy23A)3 4 39 PM Page 2 JANUARY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment - m ^ p $6.409 20 4660 $6.409 20 075252 1/27/2003 E-Z RECYCLING E 101-43270-316 Contract Recycling Pickup Tout E-Z RECYCLING t^aid Chki 075253 1/27/2003 EGAN-MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRCTR E 10M3000-408 Contracted Street Maint $235 00 JC3006540 Total EGAN-MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRCTR $235 00 Recycling 1^003 Signal Light • Hwy12/CR6 rAid[£hkil 075254 1/27/2003 ELECTRIC RESOURCE CONTRACTORS 0 101-20200 Accounts Payable 0 101-20200 Accounts Payable 0 101-20200 Accounts Payable G 101-20200 Accounts Payable O 101 -20200 Accounts Payable Total ELECTRIC RESOURCE CONTRACTORS $157.54 21402 $284 60 21402 $92 34 21402 $467 87 21402 $1.512 33 21402 $2.514 68 Repair Light • Det Office Outlets - CH Parking Lot Light Light CC Hallway Wall Light. Light Pole -PD Paid Chki 075255 1/27/2003 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC E 101 42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $10158 14148 Total EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC $101 58 tgn Override Paid Chki 075256 1/27/2003 G A K SERVICES E 101-43000-226 E 101-43000-221 E 602-49450-226 E 613-49830-226 E 601-49400-226 E 101-43000-226 E 602 49450-226 E 613 49830-226 E 601-49400 226 E 602-49450-226 E 101-43000-226 E 101-43000-221 E 613 49830-226 E 601 49400-226 Clothing & personal equipment Equipment Parts & Accessones Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & perbonal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Equipment Parts & Accessones Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Tout GAKSERVICES Paid Chk# 0:5257 1/27/2003 GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOCIATES 0 101-20200 Accounts Payable $950 00 6858 ToUl GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOCIATES $950 00 $66 69 445501 Uniforms $49 97 445501 Shop Towels $28 72 445501 Uniforms $7 88 445502 Uniforms - Steffenhagen $14.43 445503 Uniforms - Rathbun $6087 452534 Uniforms $26 09 452534 Uniforms $7 88 452535 Uniform - Steffenhagen $1443 452536 Uniform - Rathbun $28 75 459530 Uniforms $67 08 459530 Uniforms $S1 32 459530 Shop Towels $7 68 459531 Unifomi • Steffenhagen $1443 $446 72 459532 Uniform - Rathbun Evaluation - McNichols PaMj Chk# 075258 G 601-20200 G 601 20200 G 101 2020U G 101-20200 G 101-20200 0 101 20200 0 101-20200 1/27/2003 GENUINE PART^ CC Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Accounts Payable ToUl GENUINE PARTS CO. $7 53 723838 $542 723862 $12 27 723996 $212 725611 $40 46 725694 $59 94 725799 $36 74 726709 $164 48 Thermostat *431 Thrmostat Light. Lens Cable ties Misc Supplies ShopSuppites Shop Supplies Paid Chkf 075259 1/27/2003 GERRING'S CAR WASH 0 101-20200Accounts PsysMt $95 95 11/30rt)2 Car Washes ToUl OERRINO'S CAR WASH $95 95 r CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register© 01/23/03 4 39 PM Pages JANUARY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment 0 002-20200 Accounts Payable 0 001-20200 Accounts Payable Total OOPHER STATE ONE-CALL $0.96 $09 7 $13.95 2120011 December Locates 2120611 December Locates PaidChk# 075261 1/27/2003 HENDRICKS, RON E 101-42110-437 Training 0 Development ToUl HENDRICKS. RON $3947 $39.47 1/6A)3 Meals • Training Paid Chk# 075262 1/27/2003 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE E 101-43000-226 Clothing 0 personal equipment Total HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE $10 63 Misc Supplies Paid Chk# 075203 1/27/2003 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $73 52 22127178 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT $73 52 Data base Access -12/02 Paid Chk# 075264 1/27/2003 HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-TAX PYR SRV G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $632 02 12/30/02 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TR-TAX PYR SRV $632 02 TNT Notices Paid Chk# 075265 1/27/2003 HTCIA E 101-42110-433 Memberships & Subscriptions Total HTCIA $50J30 Olo: 14600 2003 HTCIA Mbrship-Schoenhoff $50 00 PaidChk# 075266 1/27^3 HYDRO SUPPLY CO. E 601-49400-227 Utility System Main! Supplies $2,202.40 Total HYDRO SUPPLY CO. $2,202 40 l>aidChk« 075267 1/27/2003' 22851 Meters for Resale mVL CONF. OF BLDG OFFICIALS E 101-42400-433 Memberships & Subscriptions $85 00 739664 Total INFL CONF. OF BLDG OFFICIALS $85 00 2003ICBO Mbrship - Oman PaidChk# 075268 1/27/2003 KOEHNEN'S AMOCO E 10M2110-212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants $2320 1/1/03 Unleaded Gas E 101-42110-212Motor Fuels & Lubricants $1950 1/1/03 Unleaded Gas E 101-42110-212Motor Fuels & Lubricants $16 53 1/1/03 Unleaded Gas E 101-42110-212Motor Fuels & Lubricants $1225 1/1/03 Unleaded Gas E 101-42110-212Motor Fuels & Lubricants $25 41 1/2/03 Unleaded Gas ToUl KOEHNEN S AMOCO $96 89 Paidt 5# 075269 1/27/2003 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $167 73 Total KUSTOM SIGNALS INC $167 73 147284 Radar Repair PaidChk# 0/5270 1/27/2003 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOC G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $294 00 12/31/02 LELS Mediation ToUl LABOR RELATIONS ASSOC $294 00 PaidChk# 075271 1/27/2003 LAKESHORF WEEKLY NEWS E 101-42110-340 General Advertising ToUl LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS $126 00 $126 00 25872 Emp Adv - PT Polioe Paid Chk# 075272 1/27/2003 LOGI8 G 101-20200 Accounts Payable G 101-20200 Accounts Payable G 101-20200 Accounts Payable G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $183 00 $1.035 00 $183 00 $30 00 22545 22545 22545 22545 Internet 12/02 Polioe Records 12/02 Internet 12A)2 Henn Cly Connect 12/02 r CITY OF ORONO 'Check Detail Register® 01^3A)3 4:39 PM Page 4 JANUARY 2003 0101-20200 Accounts Payable Check Amt Invoice Comment $146 75 22609 Police Website Total LOGIS $2,179.75 ^ald Chk# 075273 1/27/2003 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $22 63 42650 E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $29 01 42673 E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $13.96 42733 Total LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Chain Carb Cover Shut Off Valve $65.62 Paid Chki 075274 1/27/2003 MEDICA G 101 -21706 Hospitalization/Medical Ins G 101-15996 Non-Employee Health Ins G 101-21706 Hospitalization/Medical Ins G 101-21706 HospitalizaUon/Medicat Ins G101 -15996 Non-Employee Health Ins Total MEDICA $8.407 60 $1,693 92 $2,191.74 $10,246.66 $643.47 103032102552 Medica High - 2/2003 103032102552 Medica High - 2/2003 103032122565 Medica Low - 2/2003 103032125466 Medica E> Jt-2/2003 103032125466 Medica Elect - 2/2003 $23,163.61 Paid Chk# 075275 1/27/2003 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS E 602-49450-363 MWCC-Current Charges $35,160.67 749565 G 602-20803 Due to govts-Metro $3,500.00 749705 Total MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS $36,660 67~ Wastewater Charges 2^003 Relcate Lift Station Paid Chk# 075276 1/27/2003 MINN COMM E 602-49450-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 601 -49400-415 Other Equipment Rentals Total MINN COMM $32 35 48300501037 PW Wof» s Pagers $32 35 48300501037 PW Works Pagers $64.70 Patd Chk» 075277 1/27/2003 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $3169 RI12020897 Total MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY $31 69 Acetylene. Oxygen Paid Chk# 07527L 1/27/2003 MINNESOTA BOOK STORE E 101-42110-206 Books & Periodicals Total MINNESOTA BOOK STORE $7966 1/17/03 $79 66 Code Books Paid Chk# 075279 1/27/2003 MINNESOTA DEPT. OF REVENUE G 101-20200 Accounts Payable $6 00 G 101-20200 Accounts Payable G 101-20200 Accounts Payable G 601-20200 Accounts Payable Total MINNESOTA DEPT. OF REVENUE $900 $1900 $2900 $63 00 12/2002 12/2002 12/2002 12/2002 Sales Tax 12/2002 Sales Tax 12/2002 Sales Tax 12/2002 Sales Tax 12/2002 >aid Chk# 075260 1/27/2003 MN DARE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION E 101-42110-433 Memberships & Subscriptions $35 00 Mbrship Total MN DARE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION $35 00 2003 MN DARE - Schoenhoff Paid Chk# 075281 1/27/2003 MN DEPT OF PUBUC SAFETY E 101-42110-437 Training & Development $150 00 Erickson E 101-42110-437 Training & Development $150 00 Good Total MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY $300 00 Emg Mgmt Conference-Erickson Emg Mgmt Conference - Good Paid Chk# 075262 1/27/2003 MN GOVT FIN. OFFICER'S ASSN E 101-41500-433 Memberships & Subscriptions $40 00 Kuehn E 101-41500-433 Memberships 6 Subscriptions MO 00 Olson Total MN GOVT FIN. OFFICERS ASSN $60 00 2003 MNGFOA-Kuehn 2003 Mgfoa Membership Paid Chk# 075283 1/27/2003 MN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION ; r f CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 01/23/03 4 39 PM Pages JANUARY 2003 Invoice Comment E 601-49400-437 Training A Development E 601-49400-437 Training A Development E 601-49400-437 Training A Development E6u1-49400-437 Training A Development ToUl MN RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION $100 00 $100 00 $100.00 $100 00 2003 Conflerenoe - Palmer 2003 Conference • Obrien 2003 Conference - Gregory 2003 Conference - Skreen $400.00 Paid Chk« 075284 1/27/2003 MN WEIGHTS A MEASURES E 101-42110-319 Other Profettional Services $200 00 65406-12698 Calibrate Scales Total MN WEIGHTS A MEASURES $200.00 Paid Chk« 075285 1/27/2003 MTIDISTCO. E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories Total MTIDISTCO. $8045 337956 $80 45 Filter Paid Chk# 075286 1/27/2003 NATIONAL WATERWORKS E 601-49400-227 Utility System Maint. Supplies $1.396 31 9055935 ToUl NATIONAL WATERWORKS Hydrant Par^ $1.396 31 Paid Chk# 075287 1/27/2003 NORTHERN E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories Total NORTHERN $11 70 07528726 $2^0 07551916 $41 50 Cotter Pins Cotter Pins. Cabinet TaidShki 075288 1/27/2003 OFFICE DEPOT C101202CHJ Accujf'tt Payable G 101-20200 Accounts Payable E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E 101-41900-201 Office f upplies E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E 101-41900-201 Ofna. supplies E 101-41900-201 Office supolies E 101-41900-201 Office supplies Total OFFICE napoT $17596 $14398 $309 49 $37825 $94 32 $115.27 ($62.42) ($76 28) $1,078.57 189543329-1 189543329-1 190889114-00 190889114-00 190889114-00 190889114-00 191234646-00 191234646-00 Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Return Return Paid Chk# 075289 1/27/2003 PIONEER G 101-20200 Accounts Payable G 101-20200 Accounts Payable Total PIONEER $63 68 $50745 $571.13 457 469 Ordinance #223 Ordinance #224 Paid Chk# 075290 1/27/2003 PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE G 101-21710 Ufdinauranca G 101-15998 Non-Employer> Health Ins G 101-21710 Life Insurance ToUl PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE $599.25 1/2003 $2585 1/2003 $8775 1/2003 $712 85 Life Insurance 1/2003 LIfb Insurance 1/2003 Life Insurance 1/2003 Paid dhk# 0^5291 1/27/2003 RICKS SUPERVALUE E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories E 101-42110-437 Training A Development E 101-42110439 Meebng Expenses Total RICKS SUPERVALUE $1.59 1/13A)3 $558 10mA)2 $1246 12/13A)2 $500 12/27/02 $24 63 Bait - Moustraps Cleaning Supplies Reffeshmenta-Training Cookiat - WatMSa Mig Paid ChMi 075292 1/27/2003 SEWLIKIENEW G101-20200 Accounts PayaMa Total SEWLIKENEW $19868 2002 $19866 2002 ASarabons/patches Paid Chki 075293 1/27/2003 SNYDER ORUQ STORES CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 01/23/03 4:39 PM Page 6 JANUARY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Commant __________... . . G 101-20200Accounts Payable $554 12/12A)2 Photo Processing ~ G 101-20200Accounts Payable $7 87 12/15/02 Calculator G 101-20200Accounts Payable $425 12/17/02 Cleaner G 101-20200Accounts Payable $1.99 12/16/02 Photo Processing G 101-20200Accounts Payable $6.37 12/19/02 Batteries G 101-20200Accounts Payable $37.65 12/31/02 Film Total SNYDER DRUG STORES $63.67 PaidChk# 075294 1/27/2003 ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS E 101-42110-340 General Advertising $317.09 2494600CIT Emp Adv • PT Police Total ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS $31769 Paid Chki 075295 1/27/2003 STA-SAF*: LOCKSMITH G 101-20200Accounts Payable $106.50 14176 Ignition Key ToUl STA-SAFE LOCKSMITH $106 50 Paid Chk# 075296 1 /27/2003 STATE OF MINNESOTA -BCA G 101-20200Accounts Payable $510.00 MN02715003F CJDN Connection-4th Qtr 02 Total STATE OF MINNESOTA.BCA $510.00 PaidChk# 075297 1/27/2003 STREICHERS G 101-20200Accounts Payable $69 90 329415 2 Shirt - Fisher G 101-20200Accounts Payable $159.90 330478 2 Outershell - wittke G 101-20200Accounts Payable $7.40 335000.1 Flashlight Holder - Herman G 101-20200Accounts Payable $34 61 335305 1 Unifonn Items - Personius G 101-20200Accounts Payable $457 90 335305 1 Siren Amplifier G 101-20200Accounts Payable ($457 90) 335445 1 Return - Siren Amplifier G 101-20200Accounts Payable $146 81 336139 1 Flashlight w/charger G 101-20200Accounts Payable $235 10 337329 1 Uniform Supplies G 101-20200Accounts Payable $29.61 338385 1 Cleaninn Kit G 101-20200Accounts Payable $9 53 338389.1 Cleaning Kit G 101-20200Accounts Payable $7.40 339139 2 Name Tag E 101-42110-226 Clothing & personal equipment ($19 06) 340397 1 Credit - Cleaning Kits E 101 -42110-226 Clothing & personal equipment $42 55 340766 1 Holster - Fischer ToUl STREICHERS $723 75 Paid Chk# 0/529S 1/27/2003 SWENSON ELECTRONICS E 101-42110-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip $100 00 6561 Replacement Monitor E 101-42110-403 Repaira/Maint-Misc. Equip $125 00 6561 Replacement Monitor Total SWENSON ELECTRONICS $225 00 Paid ChkA 075299 1/27/2003 T.L. STEVENS G 101-20200Accounts Payable $994 97 12^1/02 Reparis - Hackberry Weil Total T.L. STEVENS $9^97 Paid Chk# 075300 1/27/2003 THE BERRY COMPANY E 613-49C30-340 General Advertising $123 00 9524739904 Directory Adv - Mound Total THE BERRY COMPANY $12500 Paid Chk# U75301 1/27/2003 UNITED RENTALS G 601-20200Accounts Payable $100 64 585249 Wtr Break - CR 19 & Mpl Rdg Total UNITED RENTALS $100.64 Paid dhk# 075302 1/27/2003 US BANK HA. WIRE ONLY E 311-47000-611 Bond Interest S34.40S.S3 02012003 Debt Due 2/1/03 E 314-47000-601 Debt Srv Bond Principal $45.00000 02012003 Debt Due 2/1/03 E 314-47000-611 Bond Interest $21.508 75 02012003 Debt Due 2/1/03 CITY OF ORONO 01/23/03 4:39 PM Page? Check Detail Register© JANUARY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 313-47000*601 Debt Srv Bond Prindpat E 313-47000-611 Bond Interest E 312-47000-601 Debt Srv Bond Principal E 312-47000-611 Bond Interest E 312-47000-611 Bond Interest E 311-47000-601 Debt Srv Bond Principal E 306-47000-601 Debt Srv Bond Principal E 308-47000-611 Bond Interest 0 312-10102 Cash-w/trustee Total US BANK NA-WIRE ONLY $65,000.00 02012003 $25,833.75 02012003 $310.000 00 02012003 $43.57221 02012003 $2.350 29 02012003 $100.000 00 02012003 $145.000 00 02012003 $26.452 50 02012003 ($^3M 29) 02012003 $816.862 84 Debt Due 2/1/03 Debt Due 2/1/03 Debt Due 2/1/03 Debt Due 2/1/03 Debt Due 2/1/03 Debt Due 2/1/03 Debt Due 2/1/03 Debt Due 2/1/03 HRA Trust A/C Cash 2/1/03 Paid ChkA 075303 1/27/2003 VALLEY-RICH CO 0 601-20200 Accounts Payable Total VALLEY-RICH CO $1^^3^6613 $1.61360 Wtr Bfeak-Cty Rd 19 Paid Chkf 075304 1/27/2003 VERIZON DIRECTORIES E 613-49830-340 General Advertising Total VERIZON DIRECTORIES $210.00 105126898-00 Directory Adv - Lk Mtka $21000 Paid Chk« 075305 1/27/2003 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE E iOI-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $15 00 507860 Total WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE $15 00 ^•l(iChk« 07S306 Tire Repair 1/27/2003 WINTERNhEIMER. ALISSA E 101-41300-319 Other Professional Services ToUl WINTERNHEIMER, AUSSA $155 00 38 $165 00 CC Minuter -1/13/03 10100 Primary Cash $910,696.68 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 308 1992 IMRPROVEMENT BONDS FUND 311 1997 IMPROVEMENT BOND 312 1998 HRA REFUNDING BOND FUND 313 1999 IMPROVEMENT BOND 314 2000 IMPROVEMENT BOND 601 WATER OPERATING FUND 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND 613 GOLF COURSE 10100 Primary Cash $48.80817 $171.452 50 $134,405 63 $353.572 21 $90.83375 $66,598 75 $5,649 34 $38,939 24 _ $43709 $910.896 68 1 •information t <items COUNCIL meeting i4 CAi !•!#%•• JAN 2 7 2003 CITY OF ORONO OF % « . f :■'“ '■' '■ ■' ■mwM t^sSi O'^ O''"* »J» "**<*•• .»♦*••# ' 9 >-*> ‘Ms^ “K) '^fl.