The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-14-2003 Council Packetp JUL 1 4 2003 GUY UH ORONO AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 14,2003,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considercvl 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 CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Council Meeting of June 23,2003 3. Amend Minutes for Council Meeting of April 14,2003 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pauline Bouchard, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Stephanie Zugschwert, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT * 4. #03-2886 Dennis and Diane Killian, 1300 Spruce Place - Variances - Resolution * 5. #03-2889 Ravia Real Estate, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West - PUD Concept Plan - Fonnal Withdrawal of Application 6. #03-2906 Richard Roberts, 1937 Eagerness Point Road - After-the-Fact Variances 7. #03-2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, 3980 Dahl Road - After-the- Fact Variances MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 8. Adopt Assessment Roll for Heritage Drive Sewer Extension - Resolution 9. City of Medina - Medina Momingside Expansion Development 10. Request for Payment - County Road 6 Reconstruction Project CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 11. Request for Pa>ment - Navarre Fire Station 12. Planner Salar>’ Range Correction 13. Accept Bulletproof Vest Reimbursement Grant 14. Police Department Web Site Design Implementation Donation 15. Approve Contract for Service - Teens Alone 16. Appoint Volunteer Ser\ ices Coordinator for Police Department 17. Amendment to Noise Ordinance • i [ AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 14,2003,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ♦ 18. LICENSES Kennel Special Event Permit ♦ 19. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2SS1 07/09 - Planning Commission Work Session, 5:30 p.m. 07/14 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 07/21 - Planning Conunission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 07/17 - Council Work Session, 5:30 p.m. 07/28 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 08/04 - Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. 08/09 - Planning CotiKmission Work Session, 5:30 p.m. 08/11 - Council Meetin^^ 7:00 p.m. 08/18 - Planning Comnission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 08/25 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. A* J t Public A ttendance Meeting D ate 1*4"" (X\ □C ouncil ............. ' ..... □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please filloutthe information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 9. W:VAMakMiH« MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. Co* JUL 1 4 2003 CITY Oh UMONU ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson; Council Members Jim Murphy and Bob Sansevere; Acting City Attorney Sean Simpson; Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaflron, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Council Member Jim White was absent. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approvc/Anend Council members added items ffl 1,12,13,14, IS, and 17*24 to the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Council Meeting of June 9,2003 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 9,2003 as presented. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pat Wolfe Wolfe had nothing new to report, however, would remain for questions. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS • David Rahn Although Rahn had nothing new to report, he indicated that he would stay for questions. LMCD REPORT - LiU McMiUan McMillan reported that the LMCD would be approving its 2004 budget on Wednesday evening ’s Board meeting. She indicated that a 2% increase in the budget was expected, for a total S440,000 budget, accompanied by a $252,000 levy amount. Although she was disappointed to report the increase, she pointed out that additional expenses including a 2004 user survey, boat count survey, and purchase of a barge to assist in the harvesting of exotics impacted the upcoming budge* McMillan stated that Orono’s portion of the increase would be approximately $1,400 to its levy' amount and asked for Council’s comments on the increase. Moorse stated that, due to budget cuts in ail branches of government, the City of Orono would not be increasing its 2004 budget. He questioned why the LMCD was not striving to hold the line on their budgets, given the cutbacks throughout the area. PAGE 1 of 15 J' - > 4 » r f MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (LMCD REPORT, Continued) McMillan indicated that she would relay the City ’s position to the Board at the meeting Wednesday night. She stated that it would not surprise her if others expressed similar concerns. Murphy inquired who would pay the price if the City would not support the expenditures. McMillan pointed out that the LMCD operates at K4% of the state levy limit; however, she believed the LMCD could tap into its reserve budget or put off expenditure for the time being. She noted that both Orono and Minnetonka saw increases due to their higher tax base. Moorse suggested the LMCD consider using resen es for the big ticket items for 2004, that are not in the budget every year. McMillan empathized with the City ’s concerns and reiterated that she would relay those sentiments to the Board at Wednesday’s meeting. She stated that the vote was scheduled for Wednesday in order to turn the budgets around by July for member cities. In addition, McMillan reported that the Grand Opening of the Gray’s Bay access was held. She indicated that its design was modeled from the Maxwell Bay boat access and noted that two ponds were designed to handle the runoff from the excessive hardcover at the access. The City Council reiterated its objection to the 2% levy increase. Murphy maintained that he found it dinicult to support the increase based on the lack of‘hardship’ to support it. Mayor Peterson asked if the LMCD had any connection to the saveminnetonka.com website she had seen advertised recently. McMillan indicated that she had no knowledge of the website; however, she would visit the site to investigate. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 3. #01-2714 FREDERICK PUZAK, 1340 BALDUR PARK ROAD - VARIANCES - REVIEW CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 4720 Gaffron explained that the applicant had requested the Council approve eliminating the variance approval condition requiring connection of his proposed new resi^nce to sewer. Gaffron noted that the new septic system constructed in 2002 for the existing house does not have design capacit>' to serve the proposed 5 bedroom home. In addition to the need for a formal variance renewal (which expired 1 1-13-02), the Resolution language calls for Council review since the sewer connection is not feasible and construction using a septic system is not consistent with the variance approvals. Gaffron stated that the neighbor has failed to file the appropriate sewer easement as requested by the applicant and the City. PAGE 2 of 15 • r MINUTES OF THE ORONO UTY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (#01-2714 FREDERICK PUZAK, Continued) Gaffron shared the stalTrecommendation that the applicant be advised to I) redesign the house to a 3-bedroom configuration, 2) make a new (not renewal) variance application for a revised house plan and connection to the existing 3-bedroom capacity septic system rather than to City sewer. As an alternative, to preserve his S-bedroom design, Gafiron indicated that staff suggested the applicant might again request the City condemn an easement for sewer. Staff would request Council provide direction as to whether there would be support for proceeding with a condemnation. Gaffrca pointed out that an additional alternative would be to allow construction of a S-bedroom home connected to the 3-bedroom septic system, and require that the house be connected to sewer as soon as it becomes available. Gaffron asked the Council to provide the applicant with additional direction. ? I Mr. Puzak indicated that he had been working on this application since 2000 and would like to be given permission to move forward and build his house. He asked the Council to consider allowing him to build more than a three bedroom home. Sansevere asked if there would be any benefit in trying to continue to reach the neighbor, Mr. Franklin, to obtain an easement. If not, Sansevere asked how the City would view condemnation. . \ Gaffron stated that the City, and the applicant, had both exhausted trying to contact Mr. Franklin. He discouraged condemnation proceedings, stating that they would costly and time consuming. Puzak stated that he had received no call backs from Mr. Franklin in two years. Gappa concurred, stating that the Franklins had been unresponsive to two letters and that no easement had been filed. Mayor Peterson asked if there was expansion space for the septic system to allow for a larger home. Puzak indicated that there was an alternate 4-bedroom capacity site on the property that they would be investigating further. He asked if he could be allowed to proceed with the hardcover and lakeshore setback variances that were approved already and continue to work on the septic plan. Given the fact that the municipal sewer requirement would be deleted from the conditions, Gaffron maintained ihe applicant would need to file a new (not renewal) application, since new conditions exist and the variances had expired. He advised the applicant that, in either scenario, he would need to go through the planning process again. Puzak inquired whether an amended application for renewal would take any longer. Gaffron reiterated that it would require the same amount of time to complete the process whetha it be a new or renewal application. In all likelihood, Gaffron stated the application could be put on the August Plaiming Commission agenda, and the City Council agenda later that month. PAGE 3 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Ml-2714 FREDERICK PUZAK, Continued) In order to provide direction to his architect, Puzak questioned whether he could work within the original hardcover and setback variance approvals. There was consensus among the City Council that he be allowed to work within the original parameters of his first application for hardcover and setback variances to construct a 3 or 4 bedroom home, based on the septic information. 4. 403-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, 1100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOimi- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4996 Gaflron explained that the applicants were requesting the following to reconstruct an existing gravel pathway through wetland to access a 1.8 acre island of land on their property: 1. Variance: hardcover within the 0 to 75’ setback zone from the OHWL of French Lake where no hardcover is permined (pathway reconstruction); 2. Variance: grading, filling and excavating within 75’ of the OHWL of French Lake where no grading, filling or excavating is permitted (pathway reconstruction and wetland mitigation); and 3. Conditional Use Permit; movement of more than 500 cubic yards of material within the shoreland overlay district (pathway reconstruction and wetland mitigation). In addition, Gaffron indicated that the applicants were also requesting the following to permit keeping horses on an intermittent basis on the island of land on their property: 1. Variance: agricultural use (grazing of horses) within 150’ of the OHWL of French Lake where no agricultural use is permitted; and 2. Variance: a wire fence within 150’ of the OHWL of French Lake where no fences are permitted. Gaffron reported that the Planning Commission recommended bv a 6 to 0 vote to approve the variances and conditional use permit to reconstruct an existing gravel pathway through a wetland to access an island of land on his property with the following conditions: 1) Permit approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District be required prior to construction on the property 2) Review and approval from the City Engineer is required prior to construction on the property 3) The property owner would have the ability to routinely maintain the pathway, as approv^. However, Gaffron explained that the Planning Commission recommended by a 3 to 3 vote to approve the variances to permit keeping of horses on the island of land on his property on an intermittent basis with the following conditions; 1) No more than 4 horses for a period of two weeks at a time and no more than 20 weeks out of a calendar year w ould be permitted on the island 2) Fencing may be located no closer than 26 ’ from the 011WL of French Lake Gaflron pointed out that an issue for discussion was the status of the wetland as part of the French Lake basin versus merely a wetland with a smaller open water lake in the center of it. Prior to 1992 when the DNR established the lake basin, Gaffron explained that the City had allowed structures to be built up to the 26 ’ wetland setback line. Adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in 1992 established a 150’ setback requirement, making a number of homes nonconforming and severely r.\GE4ofl5 i: < ! MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (#03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued) limiting the ability of sun’ounding properties to develop. Although staff agreed that the argument that this be considered a wetland rather than a lake had merit, Gaffron explained that this argument would be a strong justification for granting the variance only rather than ignoring the established lake boundary. He stated that the resolution contained the finding that the unique geography of the island site as supportive of granting the variance for the fence. While a request for a loafing shed did not accompany this application, Gaffron asked Council to consider vi^ether the granting of a variance to allow the placement of a shed somewhere on the island meeting the 26’ wetland setback, w ould be similarly justified. With regard to the zoning status, Gaflron explained that this property and areas surrounding French Lake are zoned RR-IB (Rural Residential, 2 acre) w'hich allows for animals as an accessory use on the property. He pointed out that when French Lake was classified as a Natural Environment (NE) lake with the adoption if the Shoreland Ordinance in 1992, the property administratively became a lakeshore property but was not rezoned into the lakeshore district (LR-1 A). In LR-1A districts, animals are not permitted outright but only through a conditional use permit, and most of Orono's NE lakes are in the rural zoning districts. Based on this information, Gaflron stated that staff would recommend adoption of the resolution, which agrees with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to permit reconstruction of the gravel pathway since a pathway already exists and will continue to be used regardless of this application. Reconstruction of the pathway will ensure safe passage or access to the island, permitting the property owners to maintain the land as has b^ requested. With regard to the Planning Commissions split decision to allow horses on the island of land, Gaffron stated that staff would be comfortable with the intermittent keeping of horses as proposed in the Planning Commission’s motion for approval with conditions. Mayor Peterson concurred that the Council, too, supported the pathway reconstruction. Sansevere asked why the term intermittent keeping of horses was necessary language. Dr. Gumnit stated that their needs were only on an intermittent basis, thus the reason for the original language. He noted that they had obtained a plan from the Hennepin Conservation District for keeping of horses and caring for them on the island and main propeiiy prior to their application. He stated that he was comfortable with the language in the Resolution, although he would hke to be able to put up a loafing shed later on if he so chooses. Murphy indicated that he had been present at the Planning Commission meeting during which their discussion took place and recognized that the horses were boarded elsewhere which, in effect, would aid in ensuring their intermittent use. While he acknowledged that the City would be unable to truly enforce the terms of the resolution. Murphy indicated that he observed the way in which the Planning Commission grappled with setting some limits to the use for friture insurance. Dr. Gumnit assured the Council that it was not their intent to abuse the island and hill. PAGE 5 of 15 Hifll MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. («03>2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Contioucd) Murphy explained that not all neighbors are as good of stewards of the land as the Gumnits propose to be, adding that he would prefer to see the placement of the shed in advance when they are ready to build it Dr. Gumnit pointed out that, technically, he would have the right to put the loafing shed at the top of the hill without any variances; however, he agreed to approach the City if necessary. Mayor Peterson concurred with Murphy, stating that she would prefer to see the shed placed lower on ^e hill. Dr r: -mnit was hesitant to make any promises with regard to the shed, indicating that he would place it in a low-visibility location <f possible. Sansevere staievl that, in reality, based a the amount of land the applicants own they could keep more than four horses. Murphy believed the code would indicate they could keep up to 7 horses; however, he was hesitant to change the Planning Commission’s recommendation bas^ on their purposeful deliberation. Gafiron stated that staff would be comfortable with 4, but concerned about it being 7. Whereas future new owners might decide to keep all 7 horses all of the time on the island, Gaffron encouraged the Council to honor the intermittent and 4 horse limit language in the Resolution. Murphy questioned whethei the City was offering them less than w hat most of their property could truly support. While these owners may prove responsible, Gaffron was hesitant to remove all restrictions on future owners who might have differing views. Moorse stated that it would not be as difficult to monitor the condition of the property on an occasional basis as it would be to monitor whether horses were being kept on the intermittent timelines. Dr. Gumnit stated that they would intend to rotate the horses to other f»rts of the property, if the Council could support the 26’ setback on the mainland as well. Gaffron felt this to be a new twist and asked the Planning Commission representative whether they had considered this. Rather than an entire Ordinance change that would affect other parts of town, Rahn stated that they chose to look at the applications on a case by case basis. Mayor Peterson reminded the Council that the property was zoned rural, where horses are an allowed accessory use, and not lakeshore. PAGE 6 of 15 1 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (M03-2869 DR. ROBERT Gl>.lNvl, Cootioued) Mrs. Graham stated that, truly, they do not have lakeshore, they have merely wetlands and to be labeled lakeshore is inaccurate. Moorse asked if they have any access to the lake. Gaffron stated that they would need to construct a 600’ dock to access French Lake. Murphy questioned whether this might open the door to other applications and fuel an Ordinance change. Gaffron believed that, if the Council chose to use the fact that this is a wetland, not a lake, as their hardship to support the granting of this application they would have a strong evidence to support it in this case. Murphy moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4996, a Resolntion approving the gravel pathway reconstruction and granting conditional approval for the horse use upon the property located at 1100 Old Crystal Bay Road Sooth. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. 5. #03-2886 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN, 1300 SPRUCE PLACE - VARIANCES Gaffron explained that the applicant was requesting the following variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property: 1) Lot area of 20,300 s.f. (.47 acres) where 43,560 s.f. is required 2) Hardcover within the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone: 274 s.f. (2.47%) where none is permitted 3) Hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone: 3,367 s.f. (36.6%) where 2,298 s.f. (25%) is allowed 4) Grading and filling w ithin 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted 5) Placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted While the applicants wished to have their application heard at the same time as the neighboring property, discussion regarding this application centered on whether there was a hardship to allow new construction to exceed the maximum hardcover permitted in the 75-250’ setback zone. Gaffron reported that the Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 3 vote to approve the requested variances with the follow ing conditions; 1) Grading plans must illustrate contours betw een the house and lie street 2) Plans should show the proposed driveway location and grades that do not exceed 10% 3) Site grading between this parcel and the 1280/1290 Spruce Place lots should be coordinated 4) Erosion control should be installed, inspected, and approved prior to any work on the site 5) No additional hardcover for landings, patios, etc. will be permitted beyond what is proposed on the plan PAGE 7 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COl INCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (#03-2886 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN. Contianed) In addition, Gaflron indicated that the Planning Commission identified the following hardships to support their recommendation for approval: 1) The lot is wider at the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka than at the street due to its pie-shape 2) More than half of the lot area is located within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no structure or hardcover is permitted 3) Due to the shape of the lot, the smaller portion of the lot contains the developable area, restricting development more than if the lot was rectangular Gaffixm pointed out that the Commissioners who voted to deny the application agreed with staffs recommendation that there was no hardship to support hardcover in excess of 25% permitted in the 75-250’ setback zone for new construction on the lot. While Gaffron reported that staff would recommend approval of the requested lot area, hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone, grading within 75’ of the OHWL, and filling in a bluff impact zone with the conditions noted above, staff could not support the requested hardcover exceeding 25% in the 75-250’ setback zone for new construction. Dr. Killian, accompanied by his new architect Kathy Alexander, stated that the existing house sits entirely in the 0-75’ setback zone and it would be his intent to rectify this situation by moving the house back. He believed his proposal to be a more en\irontnentally and aesthetically pleasing plan. He pointed out that, being at the end of the cul-de-sac, his house narrows to 65’ at the street and provides little in the way of parking. He wished to construct a bit longer driveway to accommodate parking and slide the house in order to avoid removing some large trees in the yard. Killian questioned why a smaller lot down the street was granted a variance to build a larger house than he has proposed on his larger lot. He felt there was adequate hardship to support his request and questioned why staff did not support his application. Alexander stated that the house has been placed in its proposed location since the sides slope steeply from side to side and in order to avoid removing some big woods. Gaffron indicated that the Platming Commission had made the point that, if the lot were less pie shaped and more rectangular, the hardcover would closer to 30%, still in excess of the permittet' 25%. He agreed that parking proves to be an issue. Murphy asked how big the house was as proposed. Alexander stated that, after removing the Mck under gange, driveway, sidewalks, etc., the footprint was approximately 1,600 s.f San severe noted that at 2-3 stories, that would equate to a roughly 5,000 s.f. home, a substantial home. Mayor Peterson noted the home would still be a substantial home, still at 30-35% hardcover. She maintained that, in her opinion, the applicants needed to bring the hardcover figure down to 25%. even given the credit for the rectangulv shape. PAGE 8 of 15 i i i j MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. («03-2886 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN, Continued) Murphy stated that, if they were looking for further direction, the Council would suggest they provide the City with a firm architectural plan at 2S%. Killian stated that he had spent approximately $15,000 on designs so far and that he could remodel the current home in its existing location. Mayor Peterson indicated that she would reconunend Killian stick to the 25% allotment, that would include an adjustment or credit for the triangular piece which could be moved back to form a rectangle. Sansever*' agreed the triangular credit would address his hardship as they ’d discussed this evening and as' .d if the applicant could accept that compromise. Killian agreed, stating that he would take what he could get and work with Gaffron to determine the amounts. Alexander agreed it sounded like a reasonable solution. Gaffron indicated that he would bring back the resolution at the next meeting and that he was comfortable with the compromise, acknowledging that it would not set a precedent. Mayor Peterson moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the lot area and hardcover in the 0>75* setback xone variances, grading and filling within 75* of the OWHL and placing fill in a blnff impact zone; however, the Connell would accept no more than 25% hardcover in the 75-250’, taking into account a credit for the trlangnlar section for the property located at 1300 Spmee Place. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *6. #03-2896 BRUCE BOEDER ON BEHALF OF FRANCISCUS BASTIAENS, 665 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4997 Murphy mo> cd, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RKSOLUTION NO. 4997, a Resolati >n granting a Conditional Use Permit for Temporary Guest House Use per Mnnicipal /xtning Code Section 10.20, Subd. 3(G) for property located at 665 Ferndale Road North. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *7. #03-2897 IRFAN ALTAFULLAH, 2520 THOROUGHBRED LANE - CONDITIONAL USE PERNHT - RESOLUTION NO. 4998 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to Adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4998, a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for construction of an accessory stmetnre (swimming pool) on a ’through* lot located at 2520 Thoroughbred Lane. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PAGE 9 of 15 . .. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. *8. #03-2899 TIMOTHY PELLIZER, 520 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 4999 Murphy moved, Sansc^'ere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4999, a Resolntlon granting an average lakeshore setback variance to allow constroctloD of a 1,228 s.f. attached garage addition encroaching 68’ Into the average lakeshore setback for the property located at 520 North Arm Drive. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *9. #03-2900 WM. YALE SMILEY III AND TIMOTHY J. MAHONEY, 2730 AND 2760 PHEASANT ROAD - REARRANGEMENT OF COMMON PROPERTY LINE - RESOL UTION NO. 5000 and 5001 Mnrphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5000, a Resolntlon approving a lot line rearrangement between the two develooed residential lots located at 2730/2760 Pheasant Road; and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5001, a Resolntlon approving the vacation of a dedicated drainage and utility easement withia Lot 2, Block 1, Yale Smiley Addition. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. 10. #03-2901 DENALI CUSTOM HOMES, INC. ON BEHALF OF MELINDA LEE AND THOMAS DEVEAU, 680 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 5002 Gafiron rc|>orted that the applicants have proposed to remove the existing house and construct a new home on the property and are requesting variances to permit new construction on an undersized lot (.54 acre where I acre is required) having a lot width of 64’ where 140’ is required. Gaffron indicated that the applicants had provided a revised plan, proposing 75-250’ hardcover at 3.249 s.f. or 28.6%, slightly less than the original proposal, and a revised grading plan that had not been reviewed as of yet. Generally, Gaffron noted that the Council accepted the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding hardships that support the hardcover variance. He acknowledged that, after visiting the site, the neighbor has significantly impacted the applicants ’ lake views. Gaftron stated that the revised proposal suggests that hardships supporting the 75-250’ zone hardcover of 28.6% could be quantified as follows: 80 s.f. credit for boulder walls needed to su|^rt steep slopes in the 75-250’ zone 127 s.f. credit for stairways needed to traverse steep slopes in 75-250’ zone 192 s.f. of driveway needed in 75-250' zone due to inability to move house closer to road in order to preserve lake view s due to neighboring house location allowed by variance The total credit is 399 s.f which equates to 3,249 - 399 = 2,850 s.fVl 1,360 s.f *= 25% With regard to staff recommendations, Gaftron noted that whtle the City has rarely ever attempted to quantity credit that should be granted for a specific site factor that is considered a hardship, the method used here seemed reasonable. A method that might be. cautiously, applied to the City ’s advantage in future applications. Despite the fact that staff originally recommended denial of the application, Gaftron pointed out that the variance request as presented, appears to be supported by a hardship. He stated that the resolution approves the lot area, lot width, and 75-250’ variance i PAGE 10 of 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (W3-2901 DENALI CUSTOM HOMES, Continued) requests. While they had received a recent grading and drainage plan, GafTron stated that the plan would need to be reviewed by the City Engineer and tweaked further prior to acceptance. Murphy stated that he found the idea of evaluating credits intriguing. Mr. Bieker, of Denali Custom Homes, indicated that he had shared the revised drainage plan with the neighbor. He added that the idea of credits could be useful for future applications throughout the City, as it was in both this and the Killian application. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5002, a Resolution approving the lot area, lot width, and 75-250* hardcover variances, subject to grading and drsiinage review by the City Engineer, to construct a new residence on the property located at 680 Tonkawa Road. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. * 11. #03-2908 NED AND LORN A BU1TERFIELD, 3745 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 5003 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5003, a Resolution granting lot area and lot width variances to allow an existing residence to be moved onto the property located at 3745 Watertown Road. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere stated that ex-Council member Nygard received his monthly check in payment for his service as a Council member at the June 9 Council meeting. This check was for the month of June and he was not entitled to the full check based on his resignation date. Sansevere encouraged Moorse to contact Nygard and ask him to refund the difference, which Sansevere believed he would be more than willing to return, since he would not intend to be unfair to the City. Murphy inquired as to the effective resignation date of Council member Nygard. Moorse stated that the resignation would be effective based on June 16, 2003, when the statement of resignation was received. Sansevere asked for the status of advertising the City Council vacancy. Moorse indicated that the advertisement would be running in both the Laker/Pioneer and the Sun Sailor, and that the City would continue accepting submissions thru July 2,2003. Sansevere noted that the only requirement was that the Council member be a resident of Orono. Murphy reported tliat he had received a letter from Mn/DOT which extended the lease for Gar^lla’s until August 3 1,2003, as requested by the City. He identified numerous individuals who made this possible and suggested a letter of appreciation be extended to those who responded accordingly to the needs of this resident in the process. He acknowledged the countless hours devoted to negotiations and appreciated the extra effort extended to the Gardella’s. PAGE 11 of 15 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL REPORT, Contiancd) Mayor Peterson noted that she would be bowing out of a lunch with the Planning Conunission Chair and an attorney representing several recent applicants for appearance sake. The City Attorney felt that to be the appropriate action in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest Mayor Peterson stated that she had attended the League of Minnesota Cities annual conference and felt it to be one of the best conferences she’d attended in many years. Five presenters spoke and she learned from the City of Minnetonka that they would be providing a seminar for their employees regarding the Conceal and Carry law. Minnetonlu suggested she contact tneir Human Resources person to see if they would consider opening it up to employees of other communities. Mayor Peterson asked for suggestions of how to acknowledge former Council member Nygard ’s service to the City. Sansevere acknowledged his contributions. Murphy believed recognition would be appropriate. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT * 12. UPDATE ON FOX STREET OVER LONG LAKE CREEK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the staff recommendation to match the existing bridge deck elevation and attempt to design a reasonable cost bridge with less depth in order to possibly provide more clearance under the bridge. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. * 13. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT #2 - NAVARRE FIRE STATION SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Request for Payment Number 2, Navarre Fire Station Site Improvements Project to F.F. JedUcki lac. In the amount of SI95.937.76 with the followiag cost distrlbutioa; Fire Station Fund $128359.76, Sewer Fuad $12,676.00, Water Fund $54,902.00. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. * 1 4. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT #I - NORTH LONG LAKE EAST SEWER PROJECT Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve Request for Payment Number I, North Long Lake East Sanitary Sewer Project to E J. Mayers Inc. in the amount of $37302.72. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *15. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT #I - HERITAGE DRIVE SANITARY SEWTR EXTENSION PROJECT Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve Request for Payment Number I, Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer Extensioa Project to E J. Mayers Inc. in the amount of $8,193.75. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PAGE 12 of IS i r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o ’clock p.m. 16. OFFICE WALL IMPROVEMENTS Murphy moved, Mayor Pctersou seconded, to accept a quotation from The Carpenter’s Contracting Inc., Mound Minnesota, in the amount of $3,513.00 for office wall improvements to be ftiaded from the Contingency Account of the General Fund, subject to the additions that the back wall of the Chamber be painted and that the top of the shed at the golf course be painted as well. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *17. OFFICE AIR VENTILATION IMPROVEMENTS Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to accept the quotation from DMter Inc., Medina Minnesota In the amount of $8,700 for office air ventilation improvements to be funded from the Contingency Account of the General Fund. \'OTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *18. PAY REQUEST 84 - NAVARRE FIRE STATION Murphy moved, Sanse% ere seconded, to approve the request for payment In the amount of $48,^2.43 to BKV Group, and in the amount of $4,050.00 to Constructive Ideas, to be funded from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fund. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. * 19. CONTRACT FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING SERVICES FOR THE NAVARRE FIRE STATION Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to accept the proposal from STS Consultants for special inspection and testing for the Navarre Fire Station, at a cost of $4,550.00, and to authorize the City Administrator to sign the contract. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *20. AMENDMENT TO RESOLIITION NO. 4955 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF STONEBAY - RESOLUTION NO. 5004 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5004, a Resolution amending Resolution No. 4955 regarding the final plat of Stonebay. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *21. DECLARATION OF VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF COUNCIL MEMBER- RESOLUTION NO. 5005 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to accept the resignatioa of Jay Nygard from his position of Council member effective June 16,2003, and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5005, a Resolution declaring a vacancy In the office of Council Member. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *22. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNERS Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to appoint Melanie Foth and Janice Waataja to the position of City Planner, at the Level 4, Step 1, salary of $48460, effective July 7,2003. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PAGE 13 of 15 i I ■ I 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. *23. APPROV AL FOR SAFE AND SOBER GRANT APPLICATION Murphy moved, SaoMvere seconded, to approve Police Department application for the Safe and Sober Grant. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *24. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH MN/DOT REGARDING RECONVEYANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the cooperative agreement with the Mn/DOT regarding the Deeding of Mn/DOT right-of-way to the City for the construction of Kelley Parkway, subject to review by the City Attorney, and to autboriie the City Administrator to sign the agreement. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Attorney Simpson had nothing new to report. *25. LICENSES KENNEL LICENSE Jim and Jennifer Matasovsky 1290 Loma Linda Avenue Mound, MN SS364 SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT 1. Applicant: Sharon McGrann Event: Summer Party with music provided by DJ Location: 2120 Fox Street Date: Saturday, July 26,2003 Time: 6:30 p.m.- Midnight Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the special event permit requested by Ms. McGrann. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT 2. Applicant: Judy Shields/Dog Days of Summer Committee Event: Dog Days of Summer Location: Navarre Business Area Date: Time: August 16,2003 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the special event permit for Jndy Shields on behalf of the Navarre Dog Days of Summer Committee subject to staff conditions. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the request to waive the special eveat permit fee of S200 for the Dog Days of Summer event PAGE 14 of IS 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO crrv council meeting Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. *26.BILLS Marphy moved, Saasevcre seconded, to approve payment of the All Fnnds Acconnt. VOTE: Aycs3,Nqrt0. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Peterson moved, Sansevere seconded, to adjourn the Orono CUy COnncll Meeting of Jnne 23,2003 at 8:48 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Cleric Barbara Peterson, Mayor PAGE 15 of 15 I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COfi»t'*..........— JUL 1 L '->1103 CITY OF Oi iwk O DATE: July 11,2003 ITEM NO: 3 Department Approval: Naeic Ron Moone THle City Administfitor Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administntor's Report Item Description: Amendment of Miimtes of Council Meeting of April 14,2003. The minutes of the regular Council meeting of April 14,2003 reflect the receipt of a letter regarding assistance provided to a citizen by a city employee. It has since been determined that the letter was not authentic. It is recommended that Ae minutes be amended to delete all comments related to the letter. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to amend the minutes of the April 14,2003 Council meeting as indicated above. 4400 B 3200 2800 F 2400 G 2000 H I i I 1600 WAYZ a U II.VD wirr u8 •tutT mr. OSSSJS AGENDA FOR COUNCIL ^fEETiNG SET FOR MONDAY, JirLY 14.2003.7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNaL CIIAMDERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA 1200 J 800 K 400 Lr^ 0 n upon by one motion by ihc City Council ’ , I 7 under the Consent llera^ on the agenda. Memos regarding each ofthc Agenda items arc available in the1________\ I * “ ----- - ------------- - ROLL CALL Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in she^ i 4i-IJrm y o i CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 2. Regular Council Meeting of June 23,2003 3. Amend Minutes for Council Meeting of April 14,2003 JUL 1] 4 20n,5 CirYOFORo..o PARK CO>L>nSSION COMMENTS - PauUne Bouchard, Representative ^ PLANNING COMNIISSION COMMENTS - Stephanie Zugschwert, Representative ’ PUBLIC COMMENTS-(Limit 5 Minutes Per PetsoD) f i ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT • 4. 1103-2886 Dennis and Diane Killian, 1300 Spruce Place - Variances - Resolution • 5. #03-2889 Ravia Real Estate, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West - PUD Concept Plan - Formal Withdrawal of Application 6. #03-2906 Richard Roberts, 1937 Eagerness Point Road - After-the-Fact Variances 7. #03-2909 Plekkcnpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McOlynn, 3980 Dahl Road - After-the- Fset Variances MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE Di *i£CTOR»S REPORT 8. Adopt ^essment Roll for Heritage Drive Sewer Extension - ResoluUon 9. City of - Medina Momingside Expansion Development 10. Request fur Payment - County Road 6 Reconstruction Project CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 11. Request for Payment - Navane Fire Station 12. Planner Salary Range Correction 13. Accept Bulletproof Vest Reimbursement Grant 14. Police Department Web Site Design Implementation Donation 15. Approve Contract for Service - Teens Alone 16. Appoint Volunteer Services Coordinator for Police Department 17. Amendment to Noise Ordinance CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT • 18. LICENSES Kermel Special Event Permit • 19. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2003 07/09 - Planning Commission Work Session, 5:30 p.m. 07/14 - Council Meeting. 7:00 p.m. 07/21 - Plaruiing Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 07/17 - Council Work Session, 5:30 pjn. 07/28 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Date AppItQiHM Rcctivtd: 3-I94D Date AppUcatloa Coatklcrtd at Coiqitett: 4>l-t3 laMal M-Day Ravtew Mod Eipirtd: «-l-03 Eiteattea Latter: 9-20413 Eitndcd Review Period Eipira: 7-29413 Co* JUL 1 4 2003 CITY Oh OHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 1,2003 Item No.: ^ Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Adminbtrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2886 Dr. Dennis & Diane Killian, 1300 Spruce Place - Variances - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Council Action C - Draft Council Minutes 6-23-03 On June 23 Council voted 3-0 to approve variances for lot area, land alteration in the 0-75' zone, and hardcover in the 0-75' and 75-250' zones, and directed staff to draft a resolution documenting the conditions of approval established by Council. Such a resolution is attached for council review and adoption. The Notice of Council Action (Exhibit B) documents the process used to quantify the magnitude of the 75-250' hardcover variance. The result is that the 75-250' zone would 'expand' from 9,190 s.f. to 11,160 s. f. and the 25% 75-250' hardcover allotment would grow from 2,298 s.f. to 2,790 s.f. This is functionally a 492 s.f. variance, and hardcover would be at 30.36% of the actual 75-250' zone. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. Proposed Motion: Moved by___, seconded by___, to adopt Resolution No.___a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.24 Subdivision 5B, 10.22 Subdivision 2,10.55 Subdivision 8, and 10.56 Subdivisions 16(J)and 16(L), forProperty [ ocatedat 1300 Spruce Place. Vote: ayes.____^nays. I A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.24 SUBDIVISION SB, 10.22 SUBDIVISION 2,10.55 SUBDIVISION 8, AND 10.56 SUBDIVISIONS 16(J) AND I6(L), FILE NO. 03-2886 WHEREAS, Killian ’s Gate LLC (hereinafter "the applicant"), represented by Dr. Dennis Killian and Diane Killian, is the owner of the property locat^ at 1300 Spruce Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally describ^ as follows: Lots 5 and 6, Block 10, SAGA HILL REVISED. Hennepin County, Minnesota; (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24 Subdivision SB to allow construction of a new residence to replace a pre-existing residence on a lot containing 0.47 acres in area in the LR-IB Zoning District where a 1.0 acre minimum lot area is required; and a variance to Sections 10.22 Subd. 2 and 10.56 Subd. 16(LK1&2) to allow 2.47% hardcover in the 0-75’ lakeshore zone where no hardcover is normally allowed, and to allow 36.6% hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed; and a variance to Sections 10.55 Subd. Sand 10.56 Subd. 16(JK2) to allow grading and filling within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading and filling is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.56 Subd. 16(JX3) to allow filling within a bluff impact zone where no placing of fill is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2886. The property is located in the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, which requires minimum lot area of 1.0 acres and minimum lot width of 140'. The lot has a defined width of 163' at the OHWL and 117' at the 75' setback line, meeting the Page 1 of 6 3. 4. 80% rule of Section 10.03, Subd. 6(AX1) for existing lots of record, but is only 20,300 s.f. (0.47 acres) in area. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on April 21,2003 and recommended approval of the requested variances on a 4-3 vote based on the following findings: a)The property contains an existing residence structure and attached garage, which will be removed by the applicant in order to construct a new residence on the property. The existing residence is partially within 75 ’ of the shoreline. The property is provided with municipal sewer. The lot area of 0.47 acres is suflicient to allow construction of a new residence on the site. The property contains a bluff, and the existing residence is located within the bluff impact zone where no structures are normally allowed. The proposed new residence will be located out of the bluff impact zone, and out of the 0- 75* setback zone. Existing hardcover in the 0-7S' zone includes retaining walls, stairways and landings which are necessary to maintain the steep slopes and provide access to the lake. The applicant proposes to keep 274 s.f. of walls, stairways and Ladings resulting in a 0-75 ’ hardcover of 2.47%. The bluffis a hardship to the property as is the triangular shape of the lot, with more than half of the property within 75 ’ of the shoreline. 8)rilling and grading within the bluffimpact zone and within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone will be necessary to bring the basement area of the existing residence back to original grade once that house is removed. The City Council finds that the only hardship supporting the requested hardcover variance in the 75-250 ’ zone is the odd shape of the lot. In order to determine the magnitude of variance that is justified by the lot shape, the ^>pticant ’s 75-250 ’ zone Page2of6 f 1 It J 5. 6. area should be credited with a triangular portion of the area in the 0-75' zone, based on pivoting the south lot line at its midpoint to create a rectangular or normal shaped lot. The area to be credited to the 75-250’ zone for hardcover calculation purposes is 1,970 s.f.,yieIdingatotal 75-250'area ofll,160 s.f. for calculation purposes. The resultant hardcover allowance of 25% would therefore be 2,790 s.f., the equivalent of an allowance of 30.36% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. 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 variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the 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. 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 10.24 Subdivision 5B to allow construction of a new residence to replace a pre-existing residence on the property containing 0.47 acres in area in the LR-1 n Zoning District where a 1.0 acre minimum lot area is required; and a variance to Sections 10.22 Subd. 2 and 10.56 Subd. 16(LK 1 &2) to allow 274 s.f (2.47%) hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore zone where no hardcover is normally allowed, and to allow 2,790 s.f (30.36%) hardcover in the 75- 250' lakeshore zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed; and a variance to Sections 10.5 5 Subd. 8 and 10.56 Subd. 16(J)(2) to allow grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Miimetonka where no grading and filling is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.56 Subd. 16(J)(5) to allow filling within a bluff impact zone where no placing of fill is normally allowed subject to the following conditions: Page 3 of 6 1. 2. 3. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by die qiplicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the property, applicant shall provide a revised site plan, building plans and site grading and drainage plans for City staff review and approval, depicting a house size, configuration and location meeting all City requirements subject to the parameters of this variance approval. Any elements ofthe revised site plan which are not in conformity with the above will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (July 14,2004). 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 agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant’s heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Cleric Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Ownerfs) Page 4 of 6 i 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 r 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 I proved on the oath/afTirmation 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 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 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/affirmation 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 Page 6 of 6 J CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING HLE #03-2886 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 24, 2003 TO: Dr. Dennis & Diane Killian 400 Highcroft Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: June 23, 2003 VOTE: 3 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: Direct stafT to draA a resolution for approval of the following variances: 1. Lot area of 20,300 sf (0.476 ac) whcie 43,560 s.f (1.0 ac) is required. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone: 274 sf (2.47%) where no hardcover is permitted. 3. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone: 2,790 s.f. (30.36%) where only 25% is normally permitted (see calculation discussion below). 4. Grading and niling within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading or filling is normally pennitted. 5. Placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is normally permitted. Regarding the 75-250’ hardcover. Council indicated they agreed that the pie-shaped lot configuration is a hardship. If the lot was completely rectangular, no hardship would be present, which is what the Council concluded on the Toth site to the immediate north. To quantify the extent of your hardship, your lot shape is redefined ('regularized') as a rectangle by pivoting the angled south lot line at its center point to become parallel with your north line. The triangular area east of the center pivot (which is at approximately the 75' setback line) is then credited to the west portion of your lot, as depicted in the exhibit provided by your architects early in the review process, and as depicted in my confirmative sketch attached. The result is that your 75-250’ zone would 'expand' from 9,190 s.f. to 11,160 s.f and your 25% 75-250* hardcover allotment would grow from 2,298 s.f to 2,790 s.f This is functionally a 492 s.f variance and your hardcover would be at 30.36% of the actual 75-250' zone. A resolution reflecting the above will be drafted and placed on the Council's July 14 agenda for final action. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available fit>m the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. If you have any questions, please contact Mike Gaflron at (952)249-4600. CV«cec4c A=»z>‘?fe-s ' ZO'i'i 6= ty/'/S = o-n'2-r2. '|07_yi/o.r-^2- - Z 01^^ 5 as X 2i 2 - r ^t> > » 2 . S' = t 2-0 O 0 --1HSG. Af ’ III’ -* V? -■ ^ 7 r* ' A^-e'A ^;</sr?AJ&II, Uo 1-C Afrpe k/^sHiP c^2-€£ijT '=lj/VO sf //, /4»0 s-C ( - ' =r~> 3 N (•»- W“7o’^ ^ lf^i(»0 ^S. svMa.*^*rr<^L --452^ J50.42 ho^kOJ-*o^ ®w* iS?o|r V3&.r =»/A oo W *i*\*******'t 1^5 lALW^a /V it?a t I ' / / / ^ i t 9: t * JSS» 'xm. 3t %*a I V I '. ! •i I f > t \l ih;! •‘\\\ I . I» I I; I I I f > » . I ’ I I I i Oil;! I I : 11 I: II I I p 1 • I .' I /- •! « IS?' I» : I’Pi >*» '•••• •»!«••••••*••'T I *i » I » I : ixi• : I• I'ri I /■ I I I• ! I ' I lAJ tI : I . I I L **«• mm. I ^ I I / ^ 1 \V t I I \ tfi \ lilt! ^ f i •; * I • 11 i I I >; • I / I / I I I I» 7. ^ # |M/r / <sf» : <• sl^ ^ / / ^ # / / / / fs \cv \ •x mmmfp'WM I f f f t I f I # ■ife 7^*- __ HAiOCoU^ AuccfThyLt^^ Z,Z‘\t> sP. 2,7^0 •sf. (’2-r/^'> ' 5 A/i-. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. Gaffion felt this t^e a new twist and asked the Planning Commission representative whether they had comidered this. Rather than an entire Ordinwce change that would affect other parts of town, R§lm stated that they chose to look at the applications on a case by case basis. Mayor Peterson reminded the Council that the property was zoned rural; where horses are an allowed accessory use, and not Iweshore. Mrs. Graham stated that, truly, they do n\have lakeshore, have nt^cly wetlands and to be labeled lakeshore is inaccurate. Moorse asked if they have any access to the lake; Gaffron stated that they would need to consmict a 60o( dock to access French Lake. Murphy questioned whether this mipt open the door to othtf applications and fuel an Ordinance change. Gaffion believed that, i^e Council chose to use the fact that this \a wetland, not a lake, as their hardship to support the granting of this application they woul^ave a strong Ait in thiievidence to support it in this case. Murphy moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NOK^ . a Resoh^mn approving the gravel pathway reconstruction and granting conditional an|iroval for the horse use upon the property located at 100 Old Crystal Bay Rbfd. 'OTE; Ayes 3, Nays 0. 5. #03-2886 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN, 1300 SPRUCE PLACE - VARIANCES PAGE 10 of 22 \ J MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. 5aon explaiiKd Oat the appUamt w« reqaesttag Ihe followmg van«>«i to petmit cotiatnictioit of a new residence on the property. 1) Lot area of 20300 a.f. (.47 acres) where 43,560 s.f. is required 2) Hardcover within the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone: 274 s.f. (2.47%) where none is permitted 3) Hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone; 3,367 s.f. (36.6%) where 2,298 s.f. (25%) is allowed 4) Grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted 5) Placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted WhUe the applicants wished to havt theii application heard at the same time as the neighboring property, discussion regarding this application centered on whether there was a hardship to allow new construction to exceed the maximum hardcover permitted in the 75-250’ setback xotie. Gatton repotted that the Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 3 vote to approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1) Grading plans must illustrate contours between the house and the street 2) Plans should show the proposed driveway location and grades that do not exceed 10% 3) Site grading between this parcel and the 1280/1290 Spruce Place lots should be coordinated 4) Erosion control should be installed, inspected, and approved prior to any work on the site 5) No additional hardcover for landings, patios, etc. will be permitted beyond what is proposed on the plan In Gaffton indicated that the Planning Commission identified the foUowing hardship, to support their recommendation for approval: 1) The lot is wider at the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka than at the street due to its pie-shape 2) More than half of the lot area U locamd within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no structure or hardcover is permitted 3) Due to the shape of the lot, the smaller portion of the lot contains the developable area, restricting development more than if the lot was rectangular PAGE 11 of 22 1 I j * ! K| I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o ’clock p.m. Gaffion pointed out that the Commissioners who voted to deny the applicatim agreed with staffs recommendation that there was no hardship to support hardcover in excess of 25% permitted in the 75-250’ setback zone for new construction on the lot. While Gaffion reported that staff would reconunend approval of the requested lot area, hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone, grading within 75’ of tlie OHWL, and filling in a bluff impact zone with the conditions noted above, staff could not support the requested hardcover exceeding 25% in the 75-250’ setback zone for new construction. Dr. Killian, accompanied by his new architect Kathy Alexander, stated that the existing bouse sits entirely in the 0-75’ setback zone and it would be his intent to rectify this situation by moving the house back. He believed his proposal to be more a environmentally and aesthetically pleasing plan. He pointed out that, being at the end of the cul-de-sac, his house narrows to 65 ’ at the street and provides little in the way of parking. He wished to construct a bit longer driveway to accommodate parking and slide the house in order to avoid removing some large trees in the yard. Killian questioned why a smaller lot down the street was granted a variance to build a larger house than he has proposed on his larger lot. He felt there was adequate hardship to support his request and questioned why staff did not support his application. Alexander stated that the house has been placed in its proposed location since the sides slope steeply from side to side and in order to avoid removing some big woods. Gaffron indicated that the Planning Commission had made the point that, if the lot were less pie shaped and more rectangular, the hardcover would be closer to 30%, still in excess of the permitted 25%. He agreed that parking proves to be an issue. Murphy asked how big the house was as proposed. Alexander stated that, after removing the tuck under garage, driveway, sidewalks, etc., the footprint was approximately 1,600 s.f. Sansevere noted that at 2-3 stories, that would equate to a roughly 5,000 s.f. home, a substantial PAGE 12 of 22 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 23,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. home. Mayor Peterson noted, a substantial home, still at 30*35% hardcover. She maintained that, in her opinion, the applicants needed to bring the hardcover figure down to 25%, even given a rectangular shape. Murphy stated that, if they were looking for further direction, the Council would suggest they provide the City with an firm architectural plan at 25%. Killian stated that he had spent approximately $15,000 on designs so far and that he could remodel the current home in its existing location. Mayor Peterson indicated that she would recommend Killian stick to the 25% allotment, that would include an adjustment or credit for the triangular piece which could be moved back to form a rectangle. Sansevere agreed the triangular credit would address his hardship as they ’d discussed this evening and asked if the applicant could accept that compromise. Killian agreed, stating that he would take what he could get and work with Gafi&cm to determine the amounts. Alexander agreed it sounded like a reasonable solutioiL Gaffiron indicated that he would bring back the resolution at the next meeting and that he was comfortable with the compromise, acknowledging that it would not set a precedent. Mayor Peterson moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the lot area and hardcover In the 0*75’ setback zone variances, grading and filling within 75’ of the OWHL and placing fill in a Muff impact zone; however, the Council would accept no more than 25% hardcover in the 75-250’, taking Into account a credit for the triangular section for the property located at 1300 Spruce Place. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PAGE 13 of 22 Date Application Received: Date Application Comp'etc: Initial dOnlay Deadline: 60>Day Eitcniion Notice: Revised Deadline: 3/24/03 3/24/03 5/24/03 5/21/03 7/24/03 JUL 1 4 2005 CITY OF OHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 10.2003 Item No.: S' Departmeat Approval:Admiabtrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gafiron Title: Planning Directo Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2889 Ravia Real Estate, LLC • 2060 Wayzata Boulevard - PUD Concept Plan (Office Condos) - Formal fyithdrawtU of Application 2U>ning Dbtrict: B-6, Highway Commercial District (PUD) Lbt of Exhibib A - Notice of Council Action 6-23-03 B - Letter to Applicants 7-3-03 C - Formal withdrawal received by fax 7-8-03 The applicants on July 2,2003 veibally advised staff that they are no longer proceeding with the proposal for condo offices. 1 also received word from Frank Dunbar that Ravia’s purchase contract for the property has been cancelled. A letter requesting a written letter of withdrawal of the application was sent to Ravia on July 3. A denial resolution was drafted for adoption on July 14 if the withdrawal had not been forthcoming, due to pending expiration of the formal 60/120 day review period on July 24. However, a formal withdrawal statement signed by the owner of Ravia, Amir Marafie, was received by fax on July 8 and is attached as Exhibit C. Therefore, no further action need be taken and this application is considered as formally withdrawn. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED No fonnal action is required. ■)S •mit J ! /( CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 PHONE:(952)249-4600 FAX:(952)249-4616 ZONING FILE #03-2889 NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 23,2003 TO;Ravia Real Estate, LLC c/o Steve Paetzl Mohagen-Hanson Architects 1415 East Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 Copies:Paul Karlson Ravia Real Estate, LLC 2420 E. 117th St. Burnsville, MN 55337 Ulteig Engineers Attn. Richard Revering, PE 5201 East River Road, Suite 308 Minneapolis, MN 55421 TYPE OF APPLICATION:___Variance ___Conditional Use Permit (Renewal) X Subdivision X Other - PUD / Commercial Site Plan Review DATE OF MEETING: June 9,2003 Council motion was as follows: Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded to have staff draft a Concept Plan Approval resolution that incorporates requirements that the applicant move the trash enclosure away from the Sugarwoods properties and that parking must adhere to the recommended 3.5 parking stalls per net 1,000 s.f. using 85% of gross as net. VOTE: 4 FOR AGAINST A resolution for Concept Plan qrproval will be drafted for review by the Council at its July 14 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. Please contact City staff to discuss what specific items should be submitted for review prior to the July 14 meeting. A revised site plan showing how the above requirements can be met would be appropriate, given that meeting the requirements will undoubtedly impact the site layout. If you have any questions please contact Mike Gaffron at (952) 249*4600. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: If you desire certified copies of the offcial Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Council. 1 a ClTYof ORONO Meokipil Offices SInttMdran; 2750 Kdtey Parimriy Orom. MN 55356 MaHitMfftts: P.O. Bn 66 CiysUI Bay. MN 55323 0066 July 3.2003 Amir Marafie Ravia Real Estate, LLC 2420 E. 117th St. Burnsville. MN 55337 Re. File #03-2889 Proposed Lakeview Town Office Park - 2060 Wayzata Blvd. W. Dear Mr. Marafie: We have been advised that you intend to no longer proceed with the above referenced project. I would appreciate if you would send me a brief letter formally withdrawing the ^plication, for our files. As an alternative, please sign and return a copy of this letter with the statement of withdrawal as noted below. State Statutes require cities to take formal action on zoning applications within specified time guidelines. The formal review period for application #03-2889 expires on July 24.2003. If we do not receive your formal withdrawal by Friday. July 11, we must place this on the City Council ’s July 14 agenda for action to deny the application. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-249-4600. Sincerely, yy Michael P. Gaffixm Planning Director cc: Tom Barrett, City Attorney Statement: Ravia Real Estate LLC hereby withdraws City of Orono Application #03-2889 for property located at 2060 Wayzata Blvd. W., Orono, Miimesota. (Signed). iWepboiitgSD UMiBB • mz(»S2)24M414 Ravla Real Estate, LLC Fax Transmittal Ravla Real EstHa, LLC 2438 East IITMi Straal BuraavOla. MN 8S337 PhMia (882)707-1870 Pax (0f2)7B7-18n Sand to: mrnrUnnf 0 / Pc'a.) > 4^^ Prmm Dato PhomHmim (052)707-1870 TmsI paoM Miemaina eevar. 00MMENT8: I — •s ^ t Hi J •V.*, GlTYof ORONO MMlIMmh 27N MI9 PMwir Qram. MN S9SM P.O. la M CnfsWIay. IM S$323 July 3,2003 AmirMnifit Rwiii Roil Elaita, ULC 2420E. inthSt Bumivilli^MN 55337 Re; File#03-2889 . Proposed Lakeview Town Office Park-2060 WeyzateBlvd.W. Dear Mr. Marifie: We have been advised that you intend to no longer proceed with die drove referenced project I would qiprociate if you would send me a brief letter funnally withdrawing the ^ipUcadon, fbr onr files. As an aheniativa, please sign and return a copy ofthis letter with the statement of withdrawal as noted below. State Statutes require cities to take fbimal action on zoning applications within specified time guidelines. The formal review period fbr application #03-2889 expires on July 24.2003. we do not receive your formal wididrawal by FridiV* ^idy 11* ^ tnust place diis on the City Council's July 14 agenda for action to deny the application. If you have any questions, plsoso contact mo at 952-249-4600. Sincerely. Michael P. G Planning Direetmr cc: Tom Barrett, City Attorn^ Statement: Ravia Real Bstate LLC hereby wididrawi City of OtonoAppKi pcopcaty lucalcd ai 2060 Wayzata Blvd. W.. Orono^ Mhaeioia. * K* I #03-2889 for (Signed). wwiui Date AppUeation Received: 5*21*03 Date AppUeation Considered as Compiete: 5-23-03 60-Day Review Period Etpires: 7-22-03 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUL 1 4 2005 CITY OF OflONO Date: July 10,2003 Item No.: tp Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaf&on Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2906 Richard Roberts, 1937 Fagemess Point Road - Variance/CUP List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 6-24-03 B - Draft Planning Commission Minutes 6-16-03 C - Memo and Exhibits of 6-12-03 AppUeation Summary: Applicant requests after-the-fact approval for construction of a retaining wall and stairway system in the 0-75' setback zone, constituting hardcover and structure where none is normally allowed. Pianning Commbsion Recommendation: 1) Denial of variance to allow retaining walls on lake side of street; but OK to construct 4' wide stairway. Obtain staff-issued permit to allow up to 10 cubic yards of topsoil in 0-75' zone to allow that area to become lawn. Re-grade area of new walls to be removed to a stable, maintainable slope and revegetate that slope. 2) Approval of a 2-tiered retaining wall replacement on house side of road, with landscaping/screening to soften the visual impact. (Plans required) VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Staff Recommendation: Denial/partial approval per PC recommendation. Please review the Exhibits if you have any questions regarding this application. Applicant has not provided a plan for the proposed 2-tier wall on the house side of the road. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Take action regarding the retaining wall request for the lake side of the road, as well as for the walls on the house side of the road. Direct staff to prepare a resolution reflecting Council's action for adoption at the July 28 meeting. The Notice of Council Action will incorporate an extension of the 60-day review period since the initial 60H)ay period will expire July 24. L 5 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Cr>tlal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING RLE #03-2906 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 24, 2003 TO: Richard Roberts 193? Fagemess Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: June 16, 2003 Plaoning Commission recommended as follows: Denial of variance to allow retaining walls on lake side of street; but OK to construct 4' wide stairway. Obtain staff-issued permit to allow up to 10 cubic yards of topsoil in 0-75* zone to allow that area to become lawn. Re-grade area of new walls to be removed to a stable, maintainable slope and revegetate that slope. Approval of a 2-tiered retaining wall replacement on house side of road, with landscaping/screening to soften the visual impact. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Please provide a to-scale dimensioned plan for the stairway and retaining wall replacement on the house side of the road for staff review at least one week prior to the Council meeting. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 14, 2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Pla.uiing Director Mike Gaffton at 952-249-4600. ^ MINUTES OF THE ' ^ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING S Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. -7W0-03 a Hawn felt the arolicants were close and could meet staffs recommendations with a more modification! While all could supportViding back the garage and maintaining the 15%/ouctural cover. Chair Smith asked for opinions on the hardcover. Mabusth indicated that she comd support approving all but tl^arage addition. Since it would be staffs recommen^ion to get back;K> the 1999 approvals, Gaf&on indicated that blacktop would need to oe remove^dnd, since 1% is equal to 232 s.f., virtually, the entire garage addition would^eoino be wiped out. Nagel agreed to table the application ip^rder t^ork with staff on specific goals of the plan. She asked whether the Comipresion or staff ft^t the wetland smvey should be pursued. Gaffron could not commrat whether the City Council or Cohunission would wish to use wetland or separate^lhnd as part of lot area calculations. Sincd^e entire code would need to be reconsidercfl; which staff would not support, he didn't belie^it was worth pursuing. Hawn movedf Chair Smith seconded, to table Application #03-2905, Il«(di Nagel, 99S Wildhtwst Trail, for the purpose of review. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#5) #03-2906 RICHARD ROBERTS, 1937 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD, AFTER- THE-FACT VARIANCES, 7:22-7:49 PM. Richard Roberts, the applicant, was present. Gafhon explained that the applicant was requesting after-the-fact approval for construction PAGE 12 of 31 U II t i- I MINUTES OF THE ^ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. of a retaining wall and stairway system in the 0-75’ setback zone, constituting hardcover and structure where none is normally allowed. Staff recommends partial approval only, to allow for a 4* wide stairway but deny the retaining walls on the lake side of the road; and denial or request further design detail for a retaining wall within the property on the north (house) side of the road. The current owner was granted a variance in 1991 to construct a new home on the property to replace an old cabin. That approval required that a cribbed sand volleyball court underlain by plastic sheeting on the lake side of the road be made non-hardcover. The sand area was eventually removed but the cribbing remained in place for a time. This spring applicant was found to be constructing new retaining walls in the 0-75* zone between the road and the lake, and the job was stopped by the building inspector (see letter of 4-15-03). Gaffron noted that the applicant indicated he intended to make the access to the dock safer by adding a stairway. This area where walls are proposed had a slope of approximately 1:6 or 17% for a 10-15* distance, easily maintainable and not requiring retaining walls for support. This area was not hardcover in 1991 and has never been approved for hardcover. Parking boats or vehicles on it would create hardcover by default. It is staffs conclusion that applicant is attempting to create a new flat storage or parking area in the 0-75* zone, as evident from the current storage of a boat trailer noted on 6-11- 03. Gaffron continued, stating that staff has also advised applicant about apparent illegal boat slip rental at the site, as 2 of 3 boats stored at his dock are not registered to this property. In addition, Gafhon stated that along the house side of the street, applicant states he wishes to replace an old retaining wall that is now gone, to hold up the bank and make this area easier to maintain. Replacement of that wall in the right-of-way is not something staff would support. If it is replaced within the property boundaries, this will potentially create a parking area along the street. This is a narrow street, and applicant’s driveway already PAGE 13 of 31 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. has capacity for storing at least 4 vehicles. If this wall is allowed to be replaced, staff would recommend that the area outside of the 3' gravel shoulder be maintained in grass rather than be graveled or paved for paricing area. After reviewing 5 issues for consideration, Gaf&on restated the staff recommendation that the retaining wall system on the lake side of the road be denied, and the applicant directed to remove the offending walls and apply for a building permit to construct a short 5* stairway if pedestrian access is necessary. Furthermore, staff recommends that design detail be provided by the applicant regarding the proposed wall on the house side of the street. If this wall is approved, it should be located within the property, not on the right-of- way, and screened with vegetation to soften its visual impact from the lake. The area between the wall and the road should not be paved, graveled or otherwise allowed to become a parking area, except for a 3* gravel shoulder adjacent to the existing pavement John Thimmesh, 1945 Fagemess Point Road, voiced his support of the project. Mr. Roberts stated that it was never his intent to create a gravel parking area in the 0-75 ’ zone, in fact, he maintained that this was the only parking that accompanied the home when they first bought it. He added that he would prefer it not be there at all. Roberts explained that, last year, they obtained a permit to run water under the road to their lakeshore, at that time, the retaining wall near the home was damaged by trucks, and now he was merely trying to repair the wall not realizing he needed permission to do so. In addition, he had removed some oily old timbers fix)m below the roadway, and replaced them with new near the lakeshore to provide them with safer easier access to die lakeshore. Chair Smith explained that the City is particularly sensitive to lake yard and access work in the 0-75 ’ setback zone and indicated that the lake side retaining wall would need to be removed. Roberts stated that he had completed the retaining wall on either side of the steps at the PAGE 14 of 31 • ! i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. lake and removed the old ties. Gafifron stated that they would recommend that the wall system be removed and the steps only be allowed to remain. He believed the slopes could be maintainable and did not constitute a dangerous slope which required retaining walls. Roberts maintained that the ground at ltdceside was eroding and the timbers helped to give them a stable base to walk on. Hawn recommended the applicant restore the yard to the original grade or slope. Bremer questioned the presence of the house side retaining wall. Roberts indicated that he had spoken to Lyle Oman about placing a 4* high wall there since he would, ideally, like to round the comer and taper it down. Mabusth stated that she believed the retaining wall was necessary based on the topography there. Gafiron questioned whether, if the wall were allowed, the Commission would like to see screening placed in fiont of it. Roberts pointed out that there was a huge tree on the west comer above the retaining wall which would affect its position. He suggested constructing a two tiered retaining wall with vegetation between the layers. The Commission agreed with this suggestion. Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, recommending approval of Application #03*2906, Richard Roberts, 1937 Fageniess Point Road, granting after-the-fact variance PAGE IS of 31 7" MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. approval to construct a tivo tiered retaining wall system on the house side of the road screened with natural vegetation, accompanied by no wider than a 3* gravel shoulder on the north side of Eagerness Point Road; the Commission recommends denial of the retaining wall system on the lake (south) side of the road, with the exception of a boxed stainvay 5* long and 4* wide, and regrading with up to 10 yards of dirt VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.7----- (#6) #03-2907 AND CARA ZIEBARTH, 720 NORTH VARIANCES, 7:49^^^:20 P.M. liRIVE, Cara Ziebarth, the applicant\sras present. / / Gaflron reported that the applica\requests a number of variates to construct a second story addition and attached garage to^e existing residen^^The variances include: 1. Additional structure within a bluffimpact zone, y' 2. Second story structure encroaching wi(hin 0-75’ ^tback zone, 65' from shoreline. 3. Second story structure encroaching 4.3 iMt 6ylm left side lot line. 4. Second story structure encroaching 2.4 fee^om right side lot line. 5. Attached garage addition and grading 4^TeX from left side lot line. 6. Continue existing deck in 0-75’ zone^’ from^orcline) slightly smaller (dimensions not defined by applicant) but probably^11 encroachiXg average setback line 7. Encroachment within 10’ of Cit^ewer line (City w(Jt not vary from the 1 O' requirement). 8. Lot coverage by structur^to remain at existing 1870 s\ (23.5%) where 1500 s.f. is / \ 9. Hardcover in 0-75’ reductions proposed from 1058 s.f(29.4W to 806 sf (22.4%) allowed. where no hardcover is ^owed, by reducing deck and concrete slabVeas. 10. Hardcover in ISASO' zone will be reduced from 2257 sf (51.9%\o 1879 sf (43.2%). Gaffron stated thdt it would be staffs recommendation: PAGE 16 of 31 4 Date AppUcallon Received: 5-21-03 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 5-23413 60-Day Review Period Expires: 7-22-03 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaflron, Planning Director June 12.2003 #03-2906 Richard Roberts, 1937 Fagemess Point Road - Variance/CUP - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2-acre min. 0.39 acres Application Summary: Applicant requests after-the-fact approval for construction of a retaining wall and stairway system in the 0-75' setback zone, constituting hardcover and structure where none is normally allowed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends partial approval only, to allow for a 4* wide stairway but deny the retaining walls on the lake side of the road; and denial or request further design detail for a retaining wall within the property on the north (house) side of the road. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. 10.22,Subd.2: 2.10.55 Subd. 8: 3. 10.56, Subd. 16(L): Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section (i.e. a 20 s.f lock box). Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary highwater elevation of any lake shoreline... Hardcover Limitations. 1. No hardcover or impervious surface shall be placed, located, or constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in the Municipal Code. r , i #03-2906 June 12,2003 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan Excerpt: Orono 2000-2020 CMP, Section 3A - Environmental Protection Plan: Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Management ‘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 will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged (emphasis added) except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation.” List of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement C - Survey and Proposed Wall Plan D - Hardcover Calculation Submitted E - Photos F - Letter to Applicant 4-15-03 G - Staff Memo 8-5-91 H - Resolution No. 3001 1 - Property Owners List J - Plat Map Background The current owner was granted a variance in 1991 to construct a new home on the property to replace an old cabin. That approval required that a cribbed sand volleyball court underlain by plastic sheeting on the lake side of the road be made non-hardcover. The sand area was eventually removed but the cribbing remained in place for a time. This spring applicant was found to be constructing new retaining walls in the 0-75' zone between the road and the lake, and the job was stopped by the building inspector (see letter oi'4-15-03). Applicant indicated he intended to make the access to the dock safer by adding a stairway. This area where walls are proposed had a slope of approximately 1:6 or 17% for a 10-15* distance, easily maintainable and not requiring retaining walls for support. This area was not hardcover in 1991 and has never been approved for hardcover. Parking boats or vehicles on it will create hardcover by default (per City policy, areas that are driven or parked on are considered hardcover even if not paved). It is staffs conclusion that applicant is attempting to create a new flat storage or parking area in the 0-75' zone, as evident from the current storage of a boat trailer noted on 6-11-03. Staff has also advised applicant about apparent illegal boat slip rental at the site, as 2 of 3 boats stored at his dock are not registered to this property. Note that the plans for the walls are essentially non-existent - 3 pencilled lines on the survey... Applicant was advised the walls would likely not be approved absent a hardship. Applicant chose to make the after-the-fact application and pay the after-the-fact fee. r #03<2906 June 12,2003 Page 3 Along the house side of the street, applicant states he wishes to replace an old retaining wall that is now gone, to hold up the bank and make this area easier to maintain. Replacement of that wall in the right-of-way is not something staff will support. If it is replaced within the property boundaries, this will potentially create a parking area along the street. This is a narrow street, and applicants driveway already has capacity for storing at least 4 vehicles. If this wall is allowed to be replaces, staff would recommend that the area outside of the 3' gravel shoulder be maintained in grass rather than be graveled or paved for parking area. HARDCOVER ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Hardcover Total Area in Allowed Pre -Existing Proposed Zone Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0-75 ’3225 s.f*Os.f (0 %) 15 s.f>*. (0.5%) s.f.*** ( %) * Excluding area in right-of-way ** See text: pre-existing retaining walls in r-o-w have been removed, portion in property was about 15 s.f. **""Includes new walls, replacement walls, apparently intended parking area, both within and out of right-of-way Proposed 0-75' Hardcover Line Items: a) Within Property Boundaries: Retaining Walls 38' x 0.67' = 26 s.f Stairway 3' x 4' = 12 s.f. (? Newly created flat area already used for storing boat trailer) 20' x 20' b) In Right-of-Way: Retaining Wall (replace per hardship statement): 25' x 0.67' =17 s.f. (? Parking area) 10'x 20 ’=200 s.f.) Total new 0-75' hardcover apparently being proposed./created: Retaining Walls: 25.5 + 12 + 17 = 55 s.f. Potential parking area: 400 + 200 = 600 s.f. 400 s.f. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. L N03-29M June 12,2003 Page 4 Hardship Analysis /n coMsUerlHg appUcations for vortance, the PloHolog CommbsioH shoU comider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the commanby, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of/Ire, risk to thepuNIc safely, and die effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual properly under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ‘The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." The property has reasonable use without the proposed retaining walls on the lake side of the road. A 4' wide stairway to provide pedestrian access to the shore can be allowed by administrative permit. The wall on the street side of the road is marginally necessary to allow for ease of maintenance. ‘The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." TTte landowner is attempting to create a flat area by using walls that are not needed for slope stability. This is a 'plight' created by the landowner. The wall on the house side of the road may be neededfor slope stability but has the potential to create aflat area of new hardcover for parking if constructed off the right-of-way. ‘The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The shoreline in this area has been in yard area for many tears and creation of tiers by use ofretaining walls that may providefor vehicular storage will have a negative visual impact in the neighborhood and add to a feeling of congestion. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." The applicant has not stated the hardship is economic. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Not Applicable. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located." Not Applicable. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." (Not Applicable) J: s1 r' w #03-2906 June 12,2003 Pages 8.“The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” 27ie limitations on hardcover and the general City policy to avoid retaining walls applies to all other lakeshore lots in the City. 9.“The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The conditions that limit hardcover and retaining walls apply to all lakeshore properties. The characteristics of this site are not unusual and do not support granting of the variances for the walls on the lake side of the road, but may support approval of a wall on the house side of the road. 10.“The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The applicant does not have an inherent right to construct retaining walls where they are not needed to support steep slopes. 11.“The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” The granting ofa variance to allow walls on the lake side of the road would be contrary to the intent of the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” A variance to allow the retaining walls on the lake side of the road would serve only as a convenience to the applicant and are not supported by hardship. On the house side of the road, a low retaining wall may be needed to retain the slope but should not be allowed to create new hardsutfaced parking area. Issues for Consideration 1.Is there any reasonable hardship that justifies the extent of walls proposed on the lake side of the road? 2.Applicant should address whether he has considered if the slope on the house side of the road can be dealt with by rc-grading rather than construction of a wall. 3.If the wall on the house side of the road is approved, should it be screened? The proposed height is unknown, hence a design for such wall might be useful if it is approved... 4.Applicant’s plans are minimal at best, and any recommendation for approval of parts of this request should be subject to submittal of detailed plans... 5. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? i #03-2906 Jaac12,2003 Pa|c6 Staff Recommcidatioii Staff recommends that the retaining wall system on the lake side of the road be denied, and the applicant directed to remove the offending walls and apply for a building permit to construct a short S' stairway if pedestrian access is necessary. Staff recommends that further design detail be provided by the applicant regarding the proposed wall on the house side of the street. It should be determined whether this wall is absolutely necessary or if it can be avoided by minor regrading of the slope. If this wall is ^proved, it should be located within the property, not on the right-of-way, and screened with vegetation to soften its visual impact from the lake. The area between the wall and the road should not be paved, graveled or otherwise allowed to become a parking area, except for a 3' gravel shoulder adjacent to the existing pavement. Proposed Motion Motion to recommend denial of the retaining wall on the lake side of the road, and to either deny the house-side retaining wall or table for further design detail from the applicant. SUM A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received" 03 Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address_______^^>iat Property Identification Number (P.^D.)t~7 - tn - - oo I^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_____e»-a Su.roeay> I (do) Oo 1^^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. ^ .(month/year) Present use of property: X residential ___^otlier (specify). Zoning District:_____________________________________ APPLICANT Name *?icUg^rX Address: d Phone (home) qs>-MT «- ^^^SSjSLCJOUBSkJk Cit^ Phone (work) fo»z - .a o igftono _________Zip: I OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: ^ K«»p>ag^ i To tK>cVu^^ £.T^C& 4r> late. -€>■«- (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED 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 difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^e^irr.f _______________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) -Jim ■// (Ok (Oi jt'ss#2906 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the followin2 ioformatioa must be submitted bv the annlipaHnn deadline date in nrrfor for vour application to be considered complete! __ Completed Application Form — Ccttjfied Prppei^ Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Deparfrnent of Finance, A-603 Govt Center, 348-5^0). ’ — Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8J4" x 11" for reproduction. — Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x 11" for reproduction. __ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 854" x 11"). — List of the lepl names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in die 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 ivish 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 your variance application Is not complete If the above information has not been APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the 2k>ning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses injured 47K review nf thSe __«__..i... . .. supplied is true and c 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicant's Signatiu-e eview of this application, and certifies that the information best of his/her knowledge. OW'NER'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^fjg^iigation 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 Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i7 &7-t A ^ 4 W* w4 Varian cc/Haritatitp mui—t'ferW? Fagerness Point Road, Orono Richard and Collette Roberts Our goal and intent is to make our property and access to the lake safer and we would appreciate your granting us the necessary variance in order to complete this project. Our plan is to simply replace the existing railroad ties that were there to hold the grade in place with some more aesthetically pleasing 6x6 brown treated lumber and to create 4 or 5 steps down to the lake to help some of our family members manage the steep grade down to the lake. The change to the land is very minimal. Safety and safe lake access are the keys here. With these proposed changes, our walkway will be safer for all, making it easier for family members to participate in boating activities thus bringing back enjoyment of the lake to some members of the family for which it has been dificult thc5e past few years. We have several family members with hardships within the famHy Ibat^ wo are trying to address. Collette's mother had a stroke and is unable to see out of her left side and she has also lost some mobility and has sustained nerve damage on her left side thus she has difficulty navigating uneven terrain. Collette's sister has only one eye, so she has very limited peripheai vision and she also has a muscle difHculty which throws off her balance. Both individuals need to be helped or supported while walking, especially on our property and even down our driveway which also has a steep slope. Collette is very close to her family and they come to visit often and of course they enjoy going on boat rides and sitting down by the water when they come to visit. We also had a retaining wall on our property on the north side of Fagerness Point Road, which has fallen down. Prior to it failing down, it bad been leaning into the driveway for a coupk of years. This was a hazard or an accident waiting to happen with our three young boys playing in the yard. Our intent for this area is to replace the 6X6 timbers from that fallen wall with retaining wall blocks to make sure that the wall stays in place and holds the steep giade of our front lawn so as not to erode away. This wall will round the corner from the driveway and go along Fagerness Point Road along the property/roadway line. Thb will enable the property to ftially be repaired and maintain an area that was very difficult to mow and keep up due to the steep grade and slope of the land. The new retaining wall will be stronger and safer Tor all. .V f f V i' I '5 V'L' • r’V__ O B 4 J HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA yI^EMJ SES SURVEYf^: «ind Ltio flcrroLions i.o i follow: Commoncino at .110 exLonsion Southeaslot'Iy lino of Lot 19, fatjcrnoss 10 oi Undor tlio Linden Avenue, I by a judicial l.mdmark; thence 0 minutes Cast a distance ^ lint marked by a luvlicial P^jr inuiny Southerly 21 degrees \ .anco of 11 feet, more or less 'A Minnetonka; thc'nce Southwesterly iko Minnetonka to its intersection y line of said Lot 20. extended Minnetonka; thence Northwesterly ly line of said Lot 20. extended of Under the Linden Avenue; along the Southerly line of said f beginning, according to the plat record in the office of the |d for said County. V*:" / " W '■ It* • * •• I * • ^ i;« fyt j m Hi cniA- Minnc I r"' ' ^ c_j BOUNTY, MINNESOTA I i fi* m c A ; 'V • ■•■ 1^. 't*- ^0(4 \'tJ t k’i.* ‘ SWI- Ur^0* U^.^t i9^ -------- 6W «t line of «-•♦ fo^*-"*^** ?.■»ill: >MjV*r (ur*® v«.’ .J.’?.L'1!SES SURVEYHO: Av MOSS •jrul the accrolions lo 5 rollow: ComtnoncinQ at tlio extension Southeasterly line of Lot 19, Feyerness no of Under the Linden Avenue. (1 hy a judicial Lindmark; thence' / y ,y,e ifOO ; I* **,1 ’ • •* 4 •• .^n\ . t ^ .»*/ iv-jA*; pint nia tinuiny Itance o . ......... Minnetonka; thence Southwesterly ke Minnetonka to its intersection ly line of said Lot 20. extended Minnetonka: thence Northwester 1y V. it^l^v*rr L— t mi yV •ly lino of s»iid Lot 20, extended ' Under the Linden Avenue; M?tiror under the Linden Avenue; \ alony the Southerly line of said 'f hog inning, according to the plat record in the office of the •d for said County. ,»t*-"* Minnciopl^^ ■# O Cl A A .A. • I SETBACK ZONE: EXISTING HARD! A. House B. Garage __ C. Driveway __ D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other PROPOSED HART A. House B. Garage C. DriDriveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other • I >;ardco SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE );^inKALCULATION WORKSHEET 75-250'250-500' A. House Length Width X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pado/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plasdc i. tt X X X IDO G. Other A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 1^0 ' + B + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lenath Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic A' X X X 39 G. Other X 100 X 100 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ____0(2___ + B __stitZ X 100 - 500-11 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. tea 1^0 S.F. I S F. ‘'I S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. KtO* _ S.F. A S.F. B il±3221_% ________________% SI. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. IJO SI. A sj. B ' • •‘V . ' '^2 'S^- ’' - ^->1 » •5«^ *iK ., V"* ''•i'li '~K'\<- \’>i'ii'^* • ;vV.i-..;. ‘ i^..*AK-’: • Wf r Si: ":'r ?/• it;^’i.f|r,.",'.v,2f' T -I. —^- ^ C%V J* - •• v.^ .^VmvVT P P >•. -;t. ..■®'-•-•Vifc*. .. -•' Lff • •*• • *».. .. 3iV ^-,_V -r •>*i-..*.%\-«- ' f..-- •* - . S • .. - ••^^ .. "• ►ts » . r.T^v*'?*>“*’'H:‘-::'‘‘ ^ ‘ v.'^' • ^: r/: : r: v \ (d t; -. '. fe. ». ... v". tr .y?' ‘T.- l-j•V 4> ‘*3 - #1 •» (tl'5 t .. ‘I . 4 .fo-*. J V-^'i -i-..... 1 •V- *d * ’.*4 • ' ^ A9 \ *• .•^- * *•» .*^ V# •. • .' t' '•■' •<■■ ■• -K .r,!-" •• v»T* k %• \ •: ^ ^ ‘ 'A ;■ • '■ ^ * '•» ‘ ^ ■•' i 3 p:*-' ■' '.W- m • • • •*.r‘. 'V ^' ‘ . ^:-;. * i *■ l:^v. 5** • ,i :• •. ^ J .1 V. •• ► ^4’Vr*^' ■*’ '.* • J' ••r. : •,. - A' — •v**>. .*. ..W. •• • •< ••. ' • . . »••; ... I *'.- ‘ ^ • : . » *-.» F CITY of ORONO Mnaldpal Offices StiMt Mints: 2750 Ktllty Pttimay Oram. MN 553S6 MaMilMdrau: P.O. Box 66 CiysUI Bay. MN 55323-0066 Aprill5,2003 Richards Roberts 1937 Fageraess Point Rd. Oiono, MN 55391 RE: Retaining Walls and Fill Dear Mr. Roberts, The City has reviewed your after-the-fact Building Permit triplication for retaining walls and fill. Unfortunately Orono Municipal Code does not allow fill and/or retaining wa!b within 75’ of the lake. Therefore The City must deny your permit application and require removal of the walls and fill already in place. If you feel you have a hardship you may apply for a variance. A deadline of May 5,2003 has been established for removal or variance application submittal. If you have any questions please feel fi’ee to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/dml Enclosure 1UephoBe(952)]4M6M • Fax(9S2)24M<lC mmcLoroBoanuu > ‘ '■ .1 t (i 4 I ? \: i : Tos Mayor Peterson & Orono Council Members John R. Gerhardson^ Acting City Administrator Proa I Dates Michael P. Gaffron# Asst Planning ft Zoning Administrator August 5, 1991 Subjects 11662 Richard & Collette Roberts^ 1937 Pagerness Pt Rd Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR*>1C, % acre# sewered Application - Request for lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence. Lot area Is .39 acre cr 78% of the required 1/2 acre. Lot width Is 74* or 74% of the required 100*. List of Exhibits - A - Resolution B *■ Revised Rouse Location and Hardcover Calculations C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7/15/91 D - Memo & Exhibits of 7/9/91 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of July 9th. Briefly, the applicants wish to remove the existing house and cabin on the property, and construct a new home. The original request showed a 50* street setback, with 27.4% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone. Applicants were advised that only a 30* front setback is required, and Planning Commission also indicated to applicants that they would have a hard time granting a hardcover variance. Applicants have revised their plans to move the house forward to the 30* setback and have therefore been able to reduce proposed hardcover to 24.6% in the 75-250* zone. Planning Cosimission Reconmendation - At their July 15th meeting. Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the lot width and lot area variances subject to limiting 75-250* hardcover to 25.0% so that no hardcover variance is necessary. Justification for the lot width and lot area variances is that this lot was platted prior to the current half acre/100* area and width requirements, and that a residence currently exists on the property. For the record, lot coverage will be approximately 11% under the current proposal and there is no problem with average lakeshore setback. Applicants have been advised that removal plastic sheeting underneath the volleyball court in the zone and replacement with top soil and sod to make that hardcovered yard area, will not require any additional approvals. i/erage val of Jy ! 0-75*-^^ a non- ^ Staff Reco—endatlon - Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution is attached for Council review. I mm CITY of ORONO ^ *v RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3001________ A RBSOLOTIOH GRANTING VARIAHCBS TO MUNICIPAL SONING CODS SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION S (B) FILE #1662 WHEREAS, Richard and Collette Roberts (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1937 Fagerness Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10*25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new single family residence on a lot of 0.39 acres in area and 74' in width, in the LR-IC zoning district which normally requires 0.50 acres in area and 100* width. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1662. 2* The property is located in the LR~1C Single Family Lalceshore Residential Zoning District. 3, The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 15, 1991 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) A single family residence currently exists on the property. B) The property was originally created via a subdivision which occurred prior to the current minimum lot area and lot width zoning requirements. Page 1 of 4 GITYofOROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3001________ C) The lot area of 0.39 acre is large enough that a single family residence and associated sidewalks and driveways can be constructed without the need for lot coverage or hardcover variances. The applicants' original plan requested a 2.4% hardcover variance in the 75*'250' zone* however the Planning Commission finds no justification for granting a hardcover variance. D) The lot width of 74* will accommodate a single family residence without the need for variances to a side setback requirement. 4. The applicants have revised their initial proposal to conform with the Planning Commission recommendstion» and have relocated their residence nearer the road but still meeting the 30' minimum street setback, reducing the square footage of hardcover in the driveway and therefore eliminating the need for a hardcover variance. 5. 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 variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a single family residence on a lot of 0.39 acre and 74' lot width where lot area normally required is 0.50 acre and lot width normally required is 100', subject to the following conditions; Page 2 of 4 ' •> GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • NO. 3001________ 1. Hardcover In the 75-250' zone shall not exceed the normal 25% limit. In the 0-75* zone, applicants shall remove all plastic sheeting hardcover placed by a previous 1/ occupant of the property, however, the existing retaining I, walls in the 0-75' zone may remain in place. No further approval is required for plastic removal and replacement‘s^ 2. No other variances are granted with this approval. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution 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 this variance will expire on that date (August 12, 1992). 4. 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. 5. 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 of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 1991. ATT ST: lor^hy KWlHaiilnx City Cleric Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor PropertyOwnerTs) Page 3 of 4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ___^01 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 88. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of August* 1991* by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin* Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono* a Minnesota municipal corporation and said Instrument was executed on behalf NOTARY^PtmUC'• MWNE80TA HENNEPIN COUNTY My oommiMlon oplrM •■U4I J.oC STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public On this day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ before me a I^tary Public, within and zor\/said county* personally 199 / ^tary PiAlic. within appeared fiichckr^L AaD6rrS . ',oini- known to me to be the per8on(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument* and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. LINDA S. VEE NOTARY PUBLIC • MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My oommiMian wplrM ••1MB Notaby Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) }S8. COUNTY 01 HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 / before me a Notary Public within and tci said county* persc'ially appeared , \o>n ’f’ Aujpt.^______ known to me to be the person(s) descrlbeTdyin and who executed the_ _ _ __ _ person(s) foregoing Instrument* and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ^ LISDA 5. VEE ^ NOTARY PUBUC • MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My coiMnittion iwpIrM ^IMI Notary Publictry Page 4 of 4 t • • • >• • /I f^€%OAMTt»M :ft'SOOl LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYE0; All of Lot 20. Fagerness. and the accretions to sairt lot described as follow: Commencing at the Intersection of tiie extension Southeasterly of the Southwesterly line of Lot 19, Fagerness and the Southerly line of Under the Linden Avenue wh.ch point is marked by a judicial landmark: th^i’ce. Southerly 21 degrees 8 minutes East a distance of 5J 4.5 feef to a point marked by a judicial landmark; thence continuing Southerly 21 degrees \ 8 minutes east a distance of 11 feet, more or less to tho shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Southwesterly along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to its intersection with the Southwesterly line of said Lot 20, extended to the Shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 20. extended to the Southerly 1 f.ne of Under the Linden Avenue; pence Northeasterly along the Southerly line of’said Ayenue to the point of beginning, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County. RUN DATE :VI]/2aiJ M I7II7232J0006 PROPADDR 1920 CY)NCORDIAST OWNER NAME X>HN EOWAt J> WEST TAXPAYER WHNEWEIST NAME/ADOR 1920 CONCORDIA ST WAYZATAMN S5J9I 38 I7II7232300I0 PROPAODR 1921 IAGERNESS POINT RO OWNER NAME D L PETERSON & E M PETERSON TAXPAYER DARRYL L PETERSON NAME/ADDR 1921 FAGERNESS POINT RD WAYZATAMN SS39I 31 1711723230015 PROP ADOR 1932 FAGERNESS POINT RD OWNER NAME BARRYJMARON TAXPAYER Barry j maron NAME/ADDR > 932 FAGERNESS POINT RD WAYZATAMN 3S39I 38 1711723230018 PROPADDR 1945 FAGERNESS POINT RD OWNER NAME 3 P A P 3 THIMMESII TAXPAYER 30HNPAPATn3TMIMMESH NAME/ADOR ■ 94:; FAGERNESS POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 31 1811723140015 PROP ADOR 1905 CONCORDIA ST OWNER NAME NACBERGLUND TAXPAYER NORMAN TENNER BERGLUND HENNEPIN COIWTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROI^EKTY OWNERS LIST n I7II7232J0007 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSK jNED OWNER NAME LLOYD H DRAPER TAXPAYER LLOYD H DRAPER NAME/ADDR 6015 OIRARD AVE SO MPLSMN 55419 38 1711723230011 PROP ADDR 1929 FAGERNESS POINT RD OWNER NAME LLOYD DRAPER TAXPAYER LLOYD H DRAPER NAME/ADDR 6015 GIRARD AVE SO MPLSMN 55419 38 1711723230016 PPl P ADDR 1926 FAGERNESS POINT RO 0>^NERNAME KANDYCIIWIALKOWSKIET AL TAXPAYER RANDY/MICHELLE CHWIALKOWSKl NAME/ADDR 1926 FAGERNESS POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723230028 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME J P R P J THIMMESH TAXPAYER JOHN P A PATH J TMIMMESH NAME/ADDR 1945 FAGERNESS POINl RO WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723230009 PROP ADDR 1915 FAGERNESS POINT RD OWNER NAME DRANDON C STOVERN TAXPAYER ilRANDON C STOVFRN NAMPyADDR 1913 FAGERNESS POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723230012 PROP ADDR 1937 FAGERNESS POINT RO OWNER NAME R D ROBERTS ET AL TAXPAYER RICHARD D ROBERTS NAME/ADDR 1937 FAGERNESS POINT RD ORONOMN 55391 38 I7IP23230017 PROP ADDR 1940 CONCORDIA ST OWNER NAME E A THOMPSON A A FUNKE TAXPAYER ERIK THOMPSON/ANNETTE FUNKE NAME/ADDR 1940 CONCORDIA ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1811723140014 PROP ADDR 1925 CONCORDIA ST OWNER NAME THOMAS MKONAT TAXPAYER THOMAS M KONAT NAME/ADDR 1925 CONCORDIA ST WAYZATAMN 55391 PAGE: 1 LO * N ^^pln Cpurity T«payer # • o Parcel Infdnnatlon .'•* •*- *‘V*:. Pare«l ID 17117232: M oms » MuiwDsr 1237 i % M » * * * •'X; ' *.*/ ms POINT DD )^pMbn of onddalotomCiy. Counfy.anaSioloioodoumoriiimandaltm Date Application Received: S-22-03 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 6-S4I3 60-Day Review Period Expires: 8-7-03 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUL t 4 2005 CITY OH OHONO Dale: July 9,2003 Item No.: *1 Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaf&on Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Descriptloii: #03-2909 Plekkenpol Builders/Tom McGlyim, 3980 Dahl Road - After-the-Fact Variances List of Exhibits A - Draft Planning Commission Minutes 6-23-03 B - Resolution No. 1300 adopted July 27, 1981 (Similar case) C - Memo and Exhibits of 6-12-03 Appiication Summary: Applicant requests aftcr-the-fact variances for reconstruction of an accessory structure (old boathouse) within the 0-7S' lakeshore setback zone where no such structures are normally allowed. A permit was issued for non-structural maintenance ..nd modifications to the building; work proceeded beyond the scope of the permit, iticiuding moving the building off its foundation and reconstructing the foundation. issues for Discussion: 1. Was the building, including its foundation, altered in ways that increase its non conformity per 10.55 Subd. 26(A)? 2. Do the changes to the foundation constitute structural alterations that exceed 50% of the building ’s value at the time it became non-conforming (1975) per 10.55 Subd. 26(B)? 3. Does removal of the building to a location 50* away and rcmoval/reconstruction of its foundation, constitute it being ‘destroyed’ as that term is used in Section 10.55 Subd. 26(E)? 4. Based on the conclusions to the above questions, if a variance is necessary to allow the structure to be placed at its former location, do adequate hardships exist that support the variance request? Synopsis The old boathouse in question has existed on the property for many years (a structure, pertiaps not this boathouse, appears in the City’s 1955 airphotos at this exact location) and was shown on the survey when the current home was built in 1987. Applicants purchased the property in 1993. Applicants in 2002 determined to restore/remodel the boathouse and their builder applied for a permit to do so in March 2003. City staff reviewed the plans and determined that the extensive work proposed was in some respects cosmetic or merely maintenance (which City code does not prohibit). #03-2909 3980 Dihl Road July 9,2003 Page 2 in a few respects structural (which City code severely limits), and some of the work was considered to be expansion (which City code docs not allow for non-conforming lakeshore structures - see 10.55 Subd. 6B). The Building Official clearly marked the plans to indicate which items of work could be approved and which were not allowable. He also met with the builder to explain in detail the extent of work which was allowed. The value of the work was estimated by the builder at $20,000. It was the City’s expectation that the building would remain in place during the restoration/remodel, as any work to repair the foundation would be considered as structural, would not be allowed, and would far exceed “50% of the structure’s value at the time it became non-conforming’’ which the City has long established as January 1,1975 when the 75' setback ordinance was adopted. The value at that time was likely minimal, although it does not appear as a separate entry on assessors records. It has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all such lakeshore structures disappear by attrition; the Code does not allow the construction of new accessory structures within 75' of the shoreline, and clearly intends to limit the ability to make major structural repairs to such structures. After issuance of the permit, it was discovered that the builder had temporarily moved the structure off its foundation and set it up on cribbing approximately 50' to the south, where it was being renovated. It was also found that they had done extensive work on the foundation of the structure, which consisted of posts sunk into the ground with beams upon which the structure sits. They were advised to stop work. Staff contacted the City attorney and conferred as to whether the structure had lost any ‘legal non-conforming’ status it may have had prior to the move. The conclusion was that if it is placed back on the original foundation (which was now laying in pieces on the ground) it would likely retain its grandfathered status. However, in staffs opinion the new foundation clearly is ‘structural alteration’ and undoubtedly exceeds 50% of the value of the structure in 1975. Planning Commission Review Please review the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. The applicant and his attorney disputed the facts of this situation. They claimed that: - The City should have realized that the building would have to be moved offits foundation to accomplish certain items of work which were approved with the pcimit, i.e. installation ol 3/4" plywood sheeting and 8" insulation below the existing floor. - The foundation was not replaced, it was merely rebuilt using mostly existing materials. - The reconstruction of the foundation did reconfigure the post and beam relationships; the beams are now sitting on top of the posts rather than being bolted to the sides of the posts. This results in less encroaclunent of the floodplain, if that is an issue, and makes for a better foundation. - The City Attorney had provided staff with a verbal opinion that if the building was placed back on its existing foundation, it would not lose its legal nonconforming status. J M3-2909 3980 Dahl Road July 9,2003 Page 3 - The wording of 10 S3, Subd, 26(B) suggests that structural alterations or additions that *Vould substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure” are not limited to the 50% rule. - Section 10.55 Subd. 26(E) should not be applicable because the building has not been destroyed, it has merely been temporarily relocated. Planning Commission was not unanimous in its view of this application. However, on a vote of 4-2, Planning Commission recommended that the boathouse be allowed to placed back onto the foundation, on the basis that it is the original foundation, that the work on it was not structural repair, and should therefore retain its legal nonconforming status, and no variance should be required, even though it was temporarily removed. The minority opinion was that this approval is inconsistent with the way the City has historically treated similar applications for repair/replacement of lakeshore accessory structures. Staff Perspective 1. Foundation Alterations. The first issue to resolve is whether the foundation has been altered. Staff believes it has been extensively altered. Staff believes the foundation has been altered as follows: a) The pre-existing beams were unbolted from the sides of the posts and set aside. b) Most if not all of the pre-existing posts were pulled out of the ground (See photos). c) New postholes were dug, Sono-Tubes were installed for some of the posts. d) The old posts were placed into the tubes or holes which were then filled with aggregate to provide stability to the posts. It is unknown whether a concrete pad at a 42" depth was placed; however, such a footing would have been required by building code for a legal foundation replacement. e) The pre-existing beams were then placed on top of the posts rather than alongside them and were held in place by brackets rather than through-bolts. It is staffs opinion that the foundation as it had previously existed was in fact totally removed, and a new foundation was constructed with a combination of old and new materials in a conflguration different than the old foundation. Has it been altered in ways that increase its non-conformity? The building is nonconforming as to location, which is not proposed to change. The building will not increase in size. But it will, as a result of the reconstruction of the foundation, have the potential to remain in place as a nonconforming structure for a much longer period of time. This might be considered as an increase in nonconformity. The actions taken by applicant’s contractors are absolutely consistent with what staff has long considered as structural alterations or additions. We have consistently told people that cosmetic improvements such as re-siding or rerooflng are allowed but that structural improvements are not. The work that is listed above clearly is considered as structural improvement. M3-2909 3980 Dahl Road July 9,2003 Paged 2. Does Structural Alteration Exceed 50% of1975 Value?. The second issue to resolve is whether the extent of structural alterations is more than 50% of the structure’s value at the time it became nonconforming (1975). Staff believes the value of the structural alterations does exceed the 1975 value of the structure. The mere value of the labor involved in the construction of the new foundation probably exceeds the value of the structure in 1975. No value has been formally established for this structure as of 1975. The assessors’ records do not separately recognize or document its existence on the property. Therefore, we must find other metliods to estimate its value as of 1975. The 12* x 20' (240 s.f.) structure could reasonably be equated to a one-stall detached garage, although it has a flat roof and a wood post/beam foundation which would probably reduce its comparative value. Staff found permits issued in 1975 for detached garages on 8 different properties, ranging in size from 440 s.f. to 768 s.f. with valuations ranging from $2200 to S4000. The average permit valuation was $5.06 per square foot. For the 240 s.f. McGlynn boat house, using a 1975 figure of $5 per square foot, the value of the boathouse in 1975 was probably no more than $1200. This would be replacement value, and does not account for any depreciation based on the (unknown) condition of the building at that time. It follows that, per 10.55 Subd. 26B, the boathouse can undergo no more than $600 in structural repairs during its lifetime. Staff believes the costs of reconstructing the foundation, including moving the building off the foundation, have far exceeded the $600 limit. Applicability of 50% Rule. Applicants attorney suggests the reconstruction of the foundation would “substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure”, and therefore the 30% limit of Subd. 26B does not apply. Staff would submit that applicant had no initial intent to raise the building to meet any flood protection requirements, as evidenced by the lack of foundation revisions shown on their submitted plans. In fact, the plans proposed setting the building freestanding on a rock bed with 6x6 skid beams, rather than posts attached to the ground. This work was disallowed by the Building Official as constituting structural alterations (see approved plan sheets). This structure is located in the Flood Fringe District, i.e. the area between the 929.4’ OHWL and the 931.5' 100-year flood elevation. The beams as currently reconstructed would result in the floor being raised to approximately the 932.5* Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation as would be required if the foundation was being reconstructed to meet code. The building previously apparently sat about 6" lower based on the condition and appearance of the posts, but also was open between the floor joists; now it would be closed with insulation between the joists. It’s difficult to conclude that the raising of the building by 6" will ‘substantially’ reduce flood damage potential to the entire building. It apparently sat for many decades at a height that allowed its floor structure to remain intact and functional in 2003. 3. Was the Building "Destroyed"? The City code does not define the term “destroyed” in the context of non-conformity. Section 10.55 Subd. 26(E) indicates that if a non-conforming building is destroyed to an extent of more than 50% of its assessed value, it may not be ‘reconstructed’ except in conformity with the code; but the City #03-2909 3980 Dahl Road July 9,2003 Pages may issue a CUP for reconstruction if the building is located outside the floodway (i.e. landward of the 929.4 elevation contour) and is flood proofed, elevated or otherwise protected in conformity with 10.55. Temporary relocation of the structure was not contemplated by City staff and was not divulged by the contractor during the permit application and review process. Had such a relocation been proposed, staff would have immediately advised the contractor that relocation, even on a temporary basis, would put the entire building in jeopardy. This would have been considered in the discussions as part of a variance review had the proposed temporary relocation been anticipated. The City has long held that if a nonconforming building is intended be moved laterally, that it can and should be moved to a conforming location. For many years, we have insisted that once a structure is removed it is gone. Many decks and accessory structures have been dealt with in this manner. The City has required variance applications for scores of decks located within the 0-75' zone which were intended to be merely ‘maintained’ but which became near-total rebuilds, even though they were essentially replaced *in-kind’ partially using pre-existing materials. We fail to see how the removal of this building is any different than removal of a deck to replace parts of it or rebuild it. The building today sits on cribbing in a location that is more conforming to the lakeshore setback than the original location. It was clearly moved from its location, and while perhaps not ‘destroyed’ in the literal context, it no longer exists at its former non-conforming location. It has gone away. It may as well have been moved 50 miles away rather than 50' away. If a lakeshore structure can be moved off its failing foundation and later put back,, what are the limits as to how far it can be moved? 50 feet? 100 feet? Off the property entirely? How about going to the landfill, getting the pieces and putting it back together? That is why we have always stuck with the easily definable solution. Once it’s gone, it’s gone. And it must meet City Code location requirements in its new location. To return any structure to its old non-conforming location should require Council approval. From a zoning context the building in staffs opinion has lost any legal nonconforming status in terms of its location. 4. Should a Variance be Granted? If Council concludes 1) that the building and its foundation have been structurally altered in a way that increases its non-conformity and 2) that the extent of the structural alterations exceeded 50% of its 1975 value, then it follows that a variance is necessary for the building to remain. If Council then concludes that the structural alterations substantially reduce potential flood damages to the structure, then the 50% rule might not apply. In staffs opinion this would not necessarily void the argument that this building ceased to exist at its original location and putting it bock needs a variance. Assuming a variance is required, should it be granted? The variance must be considered on the basis of hardship and the potential impacts on the neighborhood. There are few if any new impacts to the neighborhood. The building has existed at this location for a long time, and if replaced at its former Issue of Establishing Precedent Allowing this structure to be removed from its foundation and temporarily relocated while the foundation is reconstructed, would have been called out as tequiring a variance before the fact and should be considered no differently after the fact. Similar cases in the past have been treated as requiring a variance. In 1981, John Erickson at 1620 Shadywood Road did similar work on a lakeshore structure and was made to remove the structure. His variance was denied (See Exhibit B). In more recent history, the Council has approved the renovation of some lakeshore accessory structures and denied others. The consistency is that each has had to go through the variance process. City Attomey*s Conclusions City Attorney Tom Barrett initially concluded that if the building underwent no structural alterations but merely cosmetic alterations, it could be moved back onto the pre-existing un-altered foundation without losing its legal nonconforming status. However, assuming the foundation reconstruction is a structural alteration, the legal non-conforming status of the building is negated if the value of the alterations exceeds 50% of the 1975 building value. Mr. Barrett has suggested that this situation is primarily a matter of facts as opposed to a matter of law, in terms of whether a variance is required. The law is clear, the facts need to be resolved. Staff Recommendation 1. Staff concludes that the reconstruction of the foundation constitutes structural alterations in excess of 50% of the structure’s value when it became nonconforming. 2. Staff concludes that the removal of the structure from its nonconforming location cannot be condoned except in the context of a variance, or the City risks claims of inconsistent treatment between similarly situated properties. 3. Staff has not seen convincing evidence that the structure has been or will be changed in a manner that substantially reduces its potential for flood damage, and therefore staffconcludes the exemption in 10.55 Subd. 26B does not apply. 4. Staff concludes that the variance process is the only method via which the structure ^ould be allowed to be replaced back into its former location. r. #03-2909 3900 DabI Road July 9,2003 Page? The Planning Commission did not act on the merits of the variance application or define any hardships; they simply chose to conclude a variance was not required. Therefore, if council concludes that a variance is necessary, the application could be referred back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council is requested to provide direction as to whether an after-the-fact variance is necessary or whether the proposed/completed work meets any of the possible criteria for exemption. If a variance is required. Council must then determine whether a hardship exists that supports granting of the variance. Options for action: 1.Determine that a varianee is required and refer the application back to Planning Commission for fiirther review of whether a hardship exists to support granting of a variance. 2. Determine that a variance is required and reach a conclusion without Planning Commission recommendation as to whether a hardship exists to support granting of the variance. 3.Determine that the structure meets criteria for exemption and does not need a variance to be placed back in its former location. 4.Other CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE #03-2909 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 23, 2003 diL 7-1-03 TO;Tom McGIynn 3980 Dahl Road Mound. MN 55364 COPIES: Bruce A. Boeder, Esq. 1000 Superior Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: June 16. 2003 Planttiag Commission recommended as follows: Motion to recommend that no variance is necessary because foundation was not new materials but just rebuilt fix>m existing materials. VOTE: 4 FOR 2 AGAINST Minority opinion was that this is inconsistent with City past practices in similar situations. The Planning Commission is a recommending body only, and therefore all recommendations by the Planning Commission are advisoiy to the Council. Since City staff believes that a variance is necessary, this item must be forwarded to the City Council for action. Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 14, 2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. *1? MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. A- *7-1 '03 Gaffron stated that, if commercial sales was happening on the site, the applicants would need to file for a CUP to start up, since the CUP had expired 6 years ago. Butterfield stated that the hoop house is till there. Gaffron indicated that home occupation is allowed in an accessory structure and that consideration would be needed to determine what’s happening in this 5 acre district to see if it’s an allowed home occupation or CUP. Rahn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2908, Ned and Lorna Butterfield, 3745 Watertown Road, granting area and width variances to allow an extstikg residence to be moved onto the property, subject to the proof of an adequate septic system capacity and alternate site. Hawn questioned the timeline to place the home, since the neighbors would appreciate a timely placement of the home. Butterfield stated that he had been told that the home would be placed in its desired location and the basement dug out fixira below, taking a matter of 6-8 weeks. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #03-2909 PLEKKENPOL BUILDERS INC. ON BEHALF OF TOM MCGLYNN, 3980 DAHL ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES, 8:40 - 9:35 P.M. Tom McGIynn, the iq^pHcant, and Bruce Boder, his attorney, were present. Gaffron reported that the applicant requests after-the-fact variances for reconstruction of an accessory structure within the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone where no such structures are normally allowed. Gaffion stated that staff recommends denial of the variances. PAGE 23 of 31 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Gaffron shared the ba<rk.ground related to the application, stating that the existing house on this property was constructed in 1987, replacing an older home which had been located in the 0-75' zone. An old boathouse had existed on the property for many years prior to their purchase (a structure, perhaps not this boathouse, appears in the City’s 1955 airphotos at this exact location) and that boathouse was shown on the survey when the new home was built. Gaffron explained that the applicants in 2002 determined to restore/remodel the boathouse and their builder applied for a permit to do so in March 2003. City staff reviewed the plans and determined that the extensive work proposed was in some respects cosmetic or merely maintenance, in a few respects structural, and some of the work was considered to be expansion. The Building Official clearly marked the plans to indicate which items of work could be appioved and which were not allowable. He also met with the builder to explain in detail the extent of woric which was allowed. The value of the work was estimated by the builder at $20,000. Gaffron stated that the City assumed that the building would remain in place during the restoration/remodel, as any work to repair the foundation would be considered as structural, would not be allowed, and would far exceed *50% of the structure’s value at the time it became non-conforming’ which the City had long established as January 1, 1975 when the 75' setback orditumce was adopted. The value at that time was likely less than $500, although it does not appear as a separate entry on assessor ’s records. Gaffron maintained that it has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all such lakeshore structures disappear by attrition; the Code does not allow the construction of new accessory structures within 75' of the shoreline, and clearly intends to limit the ability to make major structural repairs to such structures. After issuance of the permit, it was discovered that the builder had temporarily moved the structure off its foundation and set it up on cribbing approximately 50' to the south, where it was being renovated. It was PAGE 24 of 31 Ik MD^ajTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monvlay, June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. also found that they had replaced the entire foundation of the structure, which consisted of massive posts sunk into the ground with massive beams upon which the structure sits. They were advised to stop work. Gaffron reported that staff contacted the City attorney and conferred as to whether the structure had lost any ’legal non-confonming’ status it may have had prior to the move. The conclusion was that if it was placed back on the original foundation (which was now laying in pieces on the ground) it would likely retain its grandfathered status, but the new foundation clearly would be ’structural alteration ’ and undoubtedly exceed 50% of the value of the structure in 1975. Gaffron explained that the applicants were advised of their options and chose to apply for an afier-the-fact variance to allow them to replace the stracture on its new foundation in the 0-75* zone. Gaffron noted that visual observation at the site suggests that the strucbore was likely within the floodplain and subject to floodplain legulations. After identifying 6 issues for consideration, Gaffron stated that staff recommends that the variances be denied, on the basis that this structme has been removed and should no longer retain its status as an existing non-confoiming structure. Had the structure remained in place and the foundation woric been accomplished without its removal and with the proper permits, it might have qualified as an exception. But, Gaffron believed the foundation work was done without permits and moved 50' away to be restored. He argued that it was moved off its grandfathered location and should be granted no further nonconforming structure status; therefore, the new foundation work should be removed and the ''•truchu'c removed from the property, or relocated on the site to a conforming location. Boder stated that permits were issued and work red tagged. After consulting with the City Attorney, Boder stated that he agreed it would need to be moved in order to place the plywood sheeting; however, it would be incorrect to call the foundation new material, as the old posts were used. Boder pointed out that Lyle Oman, building inspector himself, had concluded that this was old material, not new as Gaffron reported. PAGE 25 of 31 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Boder read definitions of demolition and destroying, which did not match the restoration effort they were involved in. He reiterated that it would be inaccurate to call this a new foundation, and place the boathouse on the mud, since the boathouse never sat on the mud in the past and should not be required to do so now. Boder cited letters from neighbors in support of the application and stated that it was difficult to even locate where the sightlines of the owner who had objected were in the first place. Chair Smith asked whether the posts and beams were old or new. Boder stated the material was old material and merely new brackets and bolts were used to support the material. McGlynn explained that the builder had to move the boathouse from the foundation in order to place the sheeting. He pointed out that the builder refu.«ed to put his workers at risk working with power tools in the water for safety sake. Chair Smith asked if the intent was always to put the boathouse back and whether anything was done differently than originally presented. Boder indicated that the building was the same size and windows were added as allowed by the original plans. Rahn asked why the dimensions differed on the survey from 20X12* to 14X12*. Boder explained that the survey reflected the post dimensions and that the two northerly posts were pulled out entirely, and the building would be cantilevered out. Bremer maintained that, if the City Attorney has made the statement that it is okay to put the boathouse back on its original foundation and maintain its grandfathered status, and Lyle Oman has said it is the original foundation, then the point is moot and she would be in PAGE 26 of 31 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. support of this application. Boder repeated that the posts and beams are original, and that he went to great lengths to confiim this with the builder and the workers to ensure he would have people to testify to this. Rahn questioned why the patio doors exist at the end of the building with no where to go. McGl3mn stated that they were included in the original plans and often times they fish or swim fiom these doors. Gafihon read the ordinance and acknowledged the need to determine the difference between structural change and cosmetic or maintenance needs. He noted that the ordinance does address the value of the improvement being less than 50% of the entire value of the structure. He indicated that both would be difficult to determine. Bremer stated that it made little sense why the vi ork was halted, since the applicants had the right to do what was approved. If the Commission follows the City Attorney reading of the application and the material is old material, Bremer reiterated that the applicants request should be supported. She recognized the need to revisit the ordinance and consider a code change. Gafiron indicated that, upon his initial visit, his conclusion was that the foundation was new material, thus, the reason for it being on the agenda. Since that time, the foundation has been found to be old material. Boder indicated that, prior to restoration, Oman had said the structure was in fairly good sha; and would be there for awhile even without repair. He agreed that, if the intent of the City is to do away with all of these structure by the water, the code does not say that PAGE 27 of 31 i i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Mabusth asked if the Attorney had submitted any ruling in writing to this application. Gaffron stated that he had merely verbal ruling and would need to obtain a written ruling on the matter. Hr reiterated that the City Attorney had said that, if the boathouse were to be placed on a new foundation, it would lose its grandfathered status. In Gaffron’s opinion; however, the restoration had gone further than cosmetic or maintenance requirements. Rahn stated that the pictures submitted by the applicant do support that the foundation is the original foundation. Given the wish of people to maintain these structures, Gaffron stated that the City needs to take a closer look at the ordinance. Chair Smith asked if the existing documentation supports what the applicant has done and what distinguishes it from other applications. Gaffron felt this to be a tough question, in the applicants favor, Gaffron acknowledged that they have the documentation to support the work being done to the building. Until that meeting, Gaffron was convinced that this was new construction, and had since been proven untrue. He questioned the value of the labor to do the work. Hawn stated that it seemed there was no variance necessary for the application if the Commission supports the original approval. She believed the application would be far cleaner if they did not make it a variance application. Gaffron agreed, stating that if the Commission believed the work was not structural in nature, they did have the City Attorney’s support. Hawn stated that they are bound by the City Attorney’s comment and should support what’s been done. PAGE 28 of 31 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNDJG COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. Rahn pointed out that less than 50% of the piers were straightened, merely two were removed. Mabusth questioned whether this would be consistent with past applications. She felt that once the structure was moved from its foundation, it could be considered new construction. She believed the City should revise the current codes. Rahn stated that the code would need to be made more specific and that discussion should take place in a work session. He reiterated that the work that was performed to the structure was permitted, the building is being put back on the original foundation, with merely 25% pier improvement. Gaffron reminded the Commission that floodplain is 932.5’. Rahn stated that once it is put back on the piers, with the floors, the boathouse would likely be above floodplain. Bremer reiterated that the Attorney stated that we are not chan^g the structure by putting it back on the original foundation. Hawn argued that no variance was necessary. Hawn moved, Zugschwert seconded, to recommend that the variance application Is not necessary and that the City Attorney should provide a written ruling whether the application should go forward to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Mabusth and Chair Smith dissenting. Mabusth and Chair Smith, having difficulty deciding whether to support, or dissent, dissented stating that they felt it might be inconsistent PAGE 29 of 31 . « 1 I J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Bremer reiterated that the City Attorney made a mling, the permits had already been approved, and the structure was placed back on its original foundation which allowed it to keep its legal nonconforming status according to the City Attorney. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF MAY 27 AND JUNE 9,2003 Hawn reported that the Planning items of May 27 were on the City Council’s consent agenda. While most of the applications were on consent, Mabusth reported that the Council denied the Toth application and approved the Bastiean application. (#10) OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION There were no other issues. (#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 16,2003 Hawn moved, Zugschwert seconded, approving the Minutes of the April 21, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#12) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JUNE 23,2003 AND JULY 14,2003. June 23 - Rahn July 14 - Zugschwert (Bremer back-up) PAGE 30 of 31 -r V. A THIS ITEM HftS BEEN MlCR®!f|^ of ORONO B -7-9-0^ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. - 13QQ__________ A RESOLUTION DENYING AN "AFTER THE FACT" VARIANCE APPLICATION OF JOHN C. ERICSON FOR MAJOR STRUCTURAL REPAIR TO A NON CON FORMING STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1620 SHADYWOOD ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statute 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and V7HEREAS, John C. Ericson has applied for an "after the fact" variance for major structural repair done without a building permit on a pagota, a non conforming structure, located 15* from the lakeshore; and WHEREAS, the pagota, hereinafter refered to as structure, is located on a property legally described as lots 3, 4 and the south 5 feet of lot 2, Shady-wood, hereinafter referred to as the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission; and comments made by the applicant. NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the "after the fact" variance application of John C. Ericson to permit major structural repairs to a non conforming struc ture based on one or more of the following findings of fact; 1) The property is located within the LR-IC zoning district requiring a minimum of 21,780 sf of lot area. The property consists of approximately 34,375 sf. The zoning district requires 100* of lot width; the property is 125* wide. 2) On May 4, 1981, a stop work order was issued to the applicant for work done on a lakeshore struc ture without a building permit. The following alterations were observed: a) The upper section of the structure was jacked above the top of the lakeshore bank. b) The old foundation had been removed and replaced with a slab of insufficient thickness. c) There were no frost footings. d) There were no foundation walls between the level of the slab and the underside of the wooden second story. A_J Ericson Page 2 -; A "4.^- cIty , », t .;A- CltyofORONO D / RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1300________ The proposed improvement to the structure is major structural repair. 4) Ordinance 31.108 does not permit structural repair of a non conforming structure. If the directive of Ordinance 31.108 had been followed, the applicant would have been made aware of the alternatives available to him at the time of the required staff inspection as follows: If the structure could have been repaired by simple repair (no structural alterations) this could have been done with a building permit. If deterioration of the structure was so severe that removal of the structure is required and applicant is made aware that replacement permits cannot be issued, Ericson could have had the use and benefit of the structure for a few more years until it failed. 6) The structural repairs proposed for the structure will require approval of new building work within 75 ft. of the shoreline; Ordinance 34.201 does not permit this. 7) The proposed major repairs to the structure would perpetuate 234 sf of hardcover within the 75 ft. setback area of the lakeshore which is not allowed per Ordinance 34.202. The complete replacement of the foundation of the structure will extend the life of a non conforming structure; approval of this action would be contrary to the intent and objectives of Ordinance 31.108. 9) Ordinance 31.106 would require the removal of the structure for the assessor's records show the fair market value of the structure at §1,170.00 in 1976. 10) The applicant was in violation of section 69 B .020 of the Municipal Code when he raised and jacked the building without a permit. The work required a licensed housemover. Ericson Pane 3 13) 14) ITC^>;' 2V-, .• .. ciiy of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.1300 11) The applicant was in violation of State Building Code .301 when he moved, altered and repaired the structure without a building permit. 12) The applicant was in violation of State Building Code .305 when he poured the concrete slab without an inspection. The value of this accessory structure has been well amortized in the 60 odd years it has existed without any major changes or repairs. Council has encouraged the applicant to obtain a building permit to relocate the upper section of the structure on a new slab on grade; said structure's new location must meet all the zoning and lakeshore setbacks standards. 15) The granting of the required variances would result in the following violations of Section 32.340 of the zoning code with which the applicant must first comply before the required variance can be granted: The variances would have an adverse effect upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. The value of surrounding properties will be adversely affected. There are no special conditions applying to the land in question which are peculiar to the land or immediately adjoining property. The granting of the application is not nec essary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The granting of the variances would impair the health, safety, comfort and be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The granting of the variances will serve merely as a convenience to the applicant, and is not necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty* except that caused by the applicant himself. The granting of the variances would be adverse to the regulations of the Minnehaha Creeek Watershed District. 1 Ericson Page 4 1 'W-^ An I{ Vi Uv:-CITY roRONo: k'’ 'ii m3 m City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 130P ORONO; •• -JST- i.O|The applicant has not introduced any evidence contrary to any of the above findings of fact nor has he demonstrated sufficient hardship except to state that he was not aware that a zoning inspection and building permit was required before beginning the proposed improvement. FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the foregoing findings that confirm the proposed improvement was begun in violation of the rules and regulations of the State Building Code and the Orono Zoning Code, the City Council hereby requires the complete removal of the lakeshore structure at 1620 Shadywood Road subject to the condition that the applicant obtain the necessary permits to remove the structure and fill the remaining excavation by February 15, 1982. Council would encourage Hr. Ericson to relocate the structure in a location that meets all of the City's lakeshore and zoning setback standards finding that there is adequate area and no hardcover problem for the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota this r37 day of ^ , 1981. ATTEST; Alberta Strom, City Clerk Date Application Received: S*22-03 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 6«8-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 8-7-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator -7 -o3 From: Date: Subject: Mike Gafhon, Planning Director June 12,2003 #03-2909 Plekkenpol Builders/Tom McGlynn, 3980 Dahl Road • After-the-Fact Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1-acre min. 2.30 acres Application Summary: Applicant requests after-the-fact variances for reconstruction of an accessory structure within the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone where no such structures are normally allowed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variances. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. 10.22, Subd. 2:Lakeshore Hardcoverand Land Alteration Regulations. Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section (i.e. a 20 s.f. lock box). 2.10.55 Subd. 8:Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary highwater elevation of any lake shoreline... 3. 10.56, Subd. 16(L);Hardcover Limitations. 1. No hardcover or impervious surface shall be placed, located, or constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in the Municipal Code. 10.56, Subd. 16(CK1)‘ Required structure setback from OHWL on General Development Lake is 75*. I 1 -'Wasti #03-2909 Jhbc12,2003 Pag«2 5.10.56 Subd.l6(CK6):Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this does not ^ply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes. ...The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line cormecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots." 1 0.SS Subd. 26(B): Non-conforming Uses. A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this Section but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Section may be continued subject to the following conditions: A. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity. B. No structural alteration or addition to any non- confonning structure over the life of the structure shall exceed 50 percent of its value at the time of its becoming a non-conforming use, unless the structure is permanently changed to a conforming use or unless the alteration or addition would substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure. 7. 10.55 Subd. 26(E):E. If any non-conforming use is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its assessed value, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Section. However, the City may issue a conditional use permit for reconstruction if the use is located outside the floodway and, upon the reconstruction, is adequately flood proofed, elevated or otherwise protected in conformity with this Section. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Letter of Request/Hardship Statement C - Survey/Site Plan D - Plans & Elevations for Building Permit E - Building Permit Documents F - Letters from Neighboring Property Owners G - Property Owners List H - Plat Map I - Photos J <l^03-2909 June 12,2003 Page 3 Background The existing house on this property was constructed in 1987, replacing an older home which had been located in the 0-75 ’ zone. Applicants purchased this property in 1993. An old boathouse had existed on the property for many years prior to their purchase (a structure, perhaps not this boathouse, appears in the City’s 1955 airphotos at this exact location) and that boathouse was shown on the survey when the new home was built. Applicants in 2002 determined to restore/remodel the boathouse and their builder applied for a permit to do so in March 2003. City staff reviewed the plans and determined that the extensive work proposed was in some respect*- cosmetic or merely maintenance (which City code does not prohibit), in a few respects structural (which City code severely limits), and some of the work was considered to be expansion (which City code does not allow for non-conforming lakeshore structures - see 10.55 Subd. 6B). The Building Official clearly marked the plans to indicate which items of work could be appro\ cd and which were not allowable. He also met with the builder to explain in detail the extent of work which was allowed. The value of the work was estimated by the builder at $20,000. It was the City’s expectation that the building would remain in place during the restoration/remodel, as any work to repair the foundation would be considered as structural, would not be allowed, and would far exceed “50% of the structure’s value at the time it became non-conforming’’ which the City has long established as January 1, 1975 when the 75 ’ setback ordinance was adopted. The value at that time was likely less than $500, although it does not appear as a separate entry on assessors records. It has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all such lakeshore structures disappear by attrition; the Code does not allow the construction of new accessory structures w ithin 75 ’ of the shoreline, and clearly intends to limit the ability to make major structural repairs to such structures. After issuance of the permit, it was discovered that the builder had temporarily moved the structure off its foundation and set it up on cribbing approximately 50 ’ to the south, where it was being renovated. It was also found that they had replaced the entire foundation of the structure, which consisted of massive posts sunk into the ground with massive beams upon which the structure sits. They were advised to stop work. Staff contacted the City attorney and conferred as to whether the structure had lost any ‘legal non-conforming’ status it may have had prior to the move. The conclusion was that if it is placed back on the original foundation (which was now laying in pieces on the ground) it would likely retain its grandfathered status, but the new foundation clearly is ‘structural alteration’ and undoubtedly exceeds 50% of the value of the structure in 1975. Applicants were advised of their options and chose to apply for an after-the-fact variance to allow them to replace the structure on its new foundation in the 0-75' zone. Floodplain Issues. The survey provided by the applicant does not indicate the 931.5* 100-year flood elevation contour. However, visual observation at the site suggests that the structure was likely within the floodplain and is subject to floodplain regulations. Floodplain regulations would tend to have two goals: 1) reduce the potential for damage to this structure by flooding; and 2) mitigate the impact the structure has on the volume of flood storage in the Lake Minnetonka basin. City code would require that the lowest floor elevation of the structure be no lower than 932.5 ’. Mitigation for i l1 M3-2909 June 12,2003 Pa|c4 the loss of flood storage volume would be extremely minimal, perhaps a few square feet, which could be functionally replaced by removing a wheelbarrow or two of existing yard below the 931.5 elevation... Hardcover . Hardcover on the property is within required limits in the 75-250* and 250-500* zones. In the 0-75* zone, the boathouse and a few walkways, steps, and portions of boulder walls add up to 892 s.f. or 2.3% of the zone. Average Setback. The boathouse will encroach iqiproximately 110* past the defined average setback line. However, due to its central location on the property, no neighbor ’s views of the lidee will be impacted by the boathouse. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Arca/Width ; LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f (1.0 acre)140 ’ Actual 100,076 s.f (2.30 acres)400* + Setbacks fBoathouse structure!! Hardcover Calculations; LR-IA Required Existing Proposed Front NA NA NA Rear (Street)30*220*220* Left Side (NorLi)10*200* +200*+ Right Side (South)10*200*+200*+ Lakeshore 75*l’±l’± Average Laiceshore (No Encroachment Allowed)110*±110*± Hardcover Zone Area in Zone (caktilated by itafT) Allowed Hardcover Exbting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75*39,000 s.f Os.f (0 %) 892 s.f (2.3 %) 892 s.f (2.3 %) 75-250*54.700 8.f 13,675 s.f (25%) 12,659 s.f (23.1 %) 12,659 s.f (23.1 %) 250-500*6,400 s.f 1,920 s.f (30 %) 0s.f (0%) Os.f (0%) #03-2909 June 12,2003 Pag*’ Code Interpretation Applicants’ attorney in Exhibit B suggests that the reduction in flood damage potential by raising the structure to meet the 932.5* lowest-floor elevation, should technically allow this structure to remain in place as an exception to the 50% rule of 10.55 Subd. 26(B). If the provisions of 26(E) are considered, it may be argued that the act of temporarily removing the structure from its fonner location constitutes that it has been ‘destroyed by any means’; in that case the City could choose to issue or not issue a CUP for its reconstruction in a manner that addresses the floodplain issues... Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a letter of request explaining the situation (Exhibit B) as well as a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /« coHslierittg applications far variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, exiuing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the puNic safely, and the effect on values of property- in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code._____ Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” The properly can be put to reasonable use absent the variance. 2.“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” The boathouse is perhaps a unique structure although probably not historically significant. The plight is that the boathouse was moved absent prior approval for same, which is a situation created by the landowner. 3.“The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The boathouse has been in placefor many} ears at this location. It has been painted in dark tones during at least the past 25 years which limits its visibility. Replacing it and similarly darkly coloring its exterior would result in little impact on the essential character of the neighborhood. 4.“Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” Economics have not been cited by applicants as a hardship. I I J ____t' “ #03-2909 Juat 12,2003 Page 6 5. 6. 7. 8. **Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Not applicable. "The Eoard of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." Not applicable. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not Applicable “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." All lakeshore lots in the LR-IB zone are subject to limitations on structure and hardcover in the 0-75'zone. 9. “The conditions do not aj^ly generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." The limits on structure and hardcover are applicable to all other lakeshore lots. 10. ‘The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." At issue is whether removal of the structure from its foundation and temporary storage 50' away constitutes loss of any nonconforming stucture status the boathouse previously enjoyed... 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." Granting the variances will result in contuiuation ofa nonconforming structure in a location where any new such structures would ncrmally be prohibited. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." Planning Commission mitst determine whether a hardship has been demonstrated... Imhcs for CoasideratioB 1. Average setback is not a significant issue. 2. Hardcover associated with the boathouse constitutes about one-h^of one percent (0.5%) of the 0-75' zone. iiiiMlttft r i • #03-2909 JiiM 12,2003 P«t«7 3.Granting of the variances will result in the nonconformity remaining in place for a much longer period than if the variances are denied (i.e. if it's put back on its old foundation, which would have to be re-installed using old members, requiring lots of eflbrt but add no new value to the structure... is this un-ringing the bell?...) Cityordinancesasconsistently interpreted by staff allowed forthenon-structural rep irsthat make this appear as an entirely new structure... should the code be revised to further limit the extent of maintenance/remodeling that can be allowed for such structures?... this tqiplicant has been allowed to expend significant dollars on this building but went a little too far in attemptmg to increase its longevity... 5. 6. Please review the letters from neighboring property owners. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the variances be denied, on the basis that this structure has been removed and should no longer retain its status as an existing non-conforming structure. Had the structure remained in place and the foundation woik been accomplished without its removal and with the proper permits, it might have qualified as an exception under 26(B). But, the foundation work was done without permits. The building was moved SO* away. It might have been moved SO miles away to be renovated, it shouldn’t matter. It was moved off its grandfathered location and should be granted no further nonconfonning structure statiis. This is how the City has consistently treated nonconforming decks, etc. The new foundation work should be removed and the structure removed from the property, or relocated on the site to a conforming location. ■ % •j'i •V r >1. MflY-21-2003 15:39 PLEKKEhFOL BUILDERS INC 952 2259 /I Appucation # 03-:^9n^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial ^iplication Fee S2S0.00 • (S50.00 per each additional vaziance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no chanse from original q>plication) Variance for non*confonaing atiuctures $250.00 Afler-the>Fact Fees (Double q^lication fee) Date Received Amonnt Paid ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.LD.)_^ft^u3_- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District: ............................. (mondityear) APPUCANT Name Address:City:. Phone (home) OWNER (if different tha^ applicant) Name ' Address: 2ip : Phone (home) ____ Phone (work ^ zipi^SBCs^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: u ^ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lx)t Area Lot Width /X Setback:X-Side ^ Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difidculty or unusual property conditioi^ preventing compliance withjZoning Code requirements: ‘ ^ C’■ ♦ ’ '•***• % r» an» if «c«4iy) NRY-21-2003 15! 39 • ir»* .;■ • > PLEKKENPOL BUILDERS INC 952 688 2259 P.^3^ REQUnUED SUBMRT a U All of fht foliowtog iwfon—tto0 iMiit b« MbMaitd hv Hkt annUeatf— d—iiHii» 4mtm In for %onr ■yqlle»tloa to bt ca—Mirid epimlit: 1. 2. 3. Completed AppUeetioa Pocb Ccitified Piopcrty Owners List of owners wiihio 150\ Isbrls lod pUl map must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Ceunty Deputineni of Finance A*€03, Govt Center, 348-S910). CeitiAeate of Survey (signed by a lieensed surveyor) and include hardcover mmo AMM 4. calculations as required. ' In additioo, provide ono (I) copy 8)6* x 11" fbr itproduciioo. __ Topographic survey (emstinf and proposed elevatioas) if any changes in existing grade are proposed, b addition, provide one (1) copy 8!6" x 1 1* for rtprodaciioa. 5. Sketches or plana of floor it etevadon views (^vide one (1) copy 8H" x 11"). 6. Lisl ^ i4fai names (inelude marital status) of all persoos with an intmest in the pfopet^. This would inelude nanu(s) of sppUcani(s) if not current owner(s). _ As an addaidum to fliis applkatioa, please attach a separate lift of any other persons •>90 wish notified of this applicition. 8. _ Additional itemi at may be requested by Gty staff The Applicant and Propeny Owner must sign this appUesUon. Please lemembet that yf«r yirigflMJTOUmUfl IS wot CfflBPlctS if the ^ave infemailen he« not been leel^dwl. APPUC>LM*S 6KCNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all iafKination required or requested by the Zonipg Administiaior, a^es lo pay additional fees (staff time net covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of tlus application, and certifies that the information supplied is tiue and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Sipiaiotc Date OWNER'S SIGNA'.___ The owner hereby acknowledgei and agrees to this appUcarion and fiinber auihoriata reasonable Owner's Signs tuiposes or uw^pga Date total P.Bl (Jb D2CPl TOTAL P.03 1 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Attachment No. I The property at 3980 Dahl Road, Orono, Minnesota, has had an accessory structure located at the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, most probably since the 1940’s and, perhaps, earlier than that. The accessory structure was originally constructed as a “boathouse” and was existing on January 1, 1975. Accordingly, it is “grand fathered” as a non-conforming structure under the provisions of the Orono City Zoning Code. The current owner of the property, Thomas P. McGlynn, purchased the property on July 22, 1993, at which time the accessory structure was no longer being used as a boathouse but was being used for storage and as a playhouse. In 2002, Mr. McGlynn and his wife, Toni, determined that certain repairs needed to be made to the structure. They accordingly hired Plekkenpol Builders, Inc., of Bloomington, Minnesota, Minnesota Residential Construction License No. 1797, to make the repairs to the accessory structure. In August 2002, prior to commencing work on the structure, Plekkenpol Builders, Inc., contacted Lyle Oman, Orono City Building Inspector, to discuss making the repairs. On September 10,2002, a meeting was held at the McGlynn residence, at which time Lyle Oman confirmed that the structure was not in such disrepair that it would condemned, and accordingly, repairs could be made on the structure, subject to the issuance of a Building Permit. During the winter. Plans were drawn for the repairs to the accessory structure which were presented to the City on March 18,2003. On March 31,2003, a Permit was issued for the repairs to the structure. Certain of the proposed repairs had been crossed off on the “Redline Plan ” which repairs were, accordingly, eliminated from the contract between Mr. McGlynn and his builder. Revised Plans were submitted to the City Building Inspector on April 10, 2003, which included replacing the windows and installing a new header above the window's. Lyle Oman, on April 10*, approved the revised Plans. Work was commenced on April 18, 2003. As part of the repair work, the structure was moved off its foundation in order to install 3/4 inch plywood sheathing on its bottom, pursuant to the approved Building Plans. The repairs, so far as possible, used existing materials but did, as allowed by the Building Plans, include the installation of certain new material. The new material includes the 3/4 inch plywood sheathing on the bottom of the structure, new insulation between that sheathing and the existing finished floor, new interior knotty pine on the existing plywood and existing wooden studs, new knotty pine ceiling over the existing plywood and existing joists, new exterior cedar-lap siding covering over the existing plywood sheathing and existing studs, and a new single-ply EPDM roof membrane over new ice and water shield on the new 3/4 inch plywood sheathing roof over the existing joists, as well as in«t.ilIation of new windows and doors. B e J APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Attachment No. 1 Page 2 The structure, as existing at the time of the issuance of the Building Permit, stood on eight 6x6 posts. Attached to the posts were 6x6 beams, with the structure sitting on top of the beams. The beams were attached to the sides of the posts and held in place by large bolts. The two most northerly posts were located in Lake Minnetonka, as the lake exists in the summer of2003. It was the intention of the builder to remove the two most northerly posts from the lake, straighten the next set of posts, which over time had moved and were no longer vertical, and also to move the existing 6x6 crossbeams from the sides of the posts to the tops of the posts in order to raise the structure. Raising the structure further above the lake level places the structure in compliance with Section 10.56, Subd. 16(D), Shoreland Management, of the Orono City Zoning Code. As the structure was located within the Shoreland Overlay District, the minimum elevation of the lowest floor must be at least three feet above the ordinary high water level. It should be noted that the materials being used were the original posts, as well as the original 6x6 crossbeams, with the only addition to the foundation being the installation of new metal “L” brackets and bolts to hold the crossbeams in place and prevent lateral migration of the posts when the budding was placed back on the foundation. It is the Applicants’ position that the alteration would substantially reduce potential flood damage for the entire structure and, thus, not be subject to any limitation on costs, as allowed by Orono City Code Section 10.55, Subd. 26(B). It is further the Applicants’ position that the continuing use of the structure as an accessory structure for storage and as a playhouse for their children is a continuing allowed non-conforming use under the City Ordinance. Section 10.55, Subd. 26 states: Non-conforming Uses. A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this Section but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Section may be continued subject to the following conditions:... B. No structural alteration or addition to any non conforming structure over the life of the structure shall exceed 50 percent of its value at the time of its becoming a non-conforming use, unless the structure is permanently changed to a conforming use or unless the alteration or addition would substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure.... APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Attachment No. 1 Page 3 Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit allowing the return of the structure to its foundation, as repaired by Plekkenpol Builders, Inc., and its continuing use as an accessory structure for storage and as a playhouse. Respectfully submitted. BRUCE Brace A. Boeder (9349) 1000 Superior Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone (952) 475-7040 Facsimile (952) 475-7042 Attorneys for Applicants .4Sr, wmmm--: (T) (N) CUSTOM WD. DUTCH OOOR02'X8OrX1-9M") ^ W/ TRUE OlVIDEO LITES. ® IJTES * mtl. barn door hardware . (N) yx3f TI6ER DECK STOOP. FREE STANDINS. {^/kppMOtJ AS A errJc^^'y^ EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = r-0" i2‘-<r Boat House L 2-6’ i nps^ b'-or 1 y-T / t / CITY OF ORONO BUILDlN^ER^llT PLAN REVIEW IMfiPPCTQR _______________. PArE_7:'X:7-0.? Q ~ ?b:.~..:rruo.__ -- 0 Apppc vl:< A3 ;:'w?V! rvcio .B'/pr liovro V.-; r;: cu;. 'orions ao ! :crr;D D I'iOT /'i’f- :vj;:d - c;Cr;,’:o •; ?. fcsusi/iT cc-'.r -n.» k" *, j;f r Ai A^vK Si'di bi tfcftt In li’ t Cn iv‘o: ctv:-;- d z:^fl•n5 C(KH. luu vii•;»: lu;! riotiKJ tiui KEEP Tl iiS PLAT^ dE f ON ill FE AT ALL TIMES 1ST CAi iTT^f^ THS C-AIC>e IT »S A<M cv I5T)/^ /V6a J — stOajctv A^^ tfy.v:»TVM3 ST-WCTV.^ CX-.«W Gut <3o*lcJ»i^ o/^ C\T^ AppA^oA<^ . 4TEST\^ Ot»*S^ OviT” ATOT" AMAO ^0T~ /hjJ-zJf u-» kT>4 '4^15 ^Aw»|t|i7- k/T- WOiiOCif! 2 r' rrCM OOOR(52 ’XM^1*3«“> rrE». JDIN6 DOORS rRUE DIVIDED UTES S 6ALV. IMtDI^lMCE. K STOOP. FREE STANDINS. Cp ^ fl(Bt^»;iA4«’ITV^ W r ^ 1 IV^I^ ORONO iT PLArJ PxEWDM “'’'m :: r NO., C;:o::SAO?:o*Tio .••c ;■ .'•• H::'i'J2;/iT 'V..V Am .Avk «i'c>: tk} dent «f.«J xstin^ co4k l rA>t»1 h Vm ;9nm birb AX AU. TIMES ^ i|T CA> ITTV/^ ex-vbTv^ - C>|rJ IM I? ‘ . XTO'^S f MM 0^OT MT“ ilCOP! 'W ’ ■ i= U. ■ *1- 11*, i2*-(r Boat House 2-6 “ i gSI7//i./Tz^sr 6’-0 “ ! mPtSSSUth I 5 ‘-T > . .IKD h>^--:: -l I / \y ' / y y y A \ /• / / 4^ / CITY OP ORONO BUILD)NGPEI}^liT PLAN P.EVIEW INSPECTOR__alUiObCttv-^______________ DArc_7-^i 03 Q____?t.r„ •:r f^o. JZIZZ 0 Apprcvr.r< a :. ;:l?V!;".c :o -B"APr:?ov^o -V;r:: cof:. *c":o;!o ,\z!:rnid D KOVAl’rpu;:p-r;C:..-,”0: Hn3i;2./iT M.". tC' '* jvf ■ ♦•!-*.!. /\ii .avk si'cit done bi !■.•': •;v!i;:i:ii-.-> t.-.-j-. ;.i ; vc: co:-.;- r.ro codfc Ro?-iir.?fTv.-i;'a liAviiij i:.;r,r. i:.:i ‘f.f;;;i.ii'y r.k.tad in (.'ui iiviMi KEEP Tl US PLAI'I SEf ON St Ffe AT ALL TIMES ^(EC*am S-* Qoic Oia ^ \C UJ I'THtM 0(= THE C-AIC^ IT 13 Aa I eviSTV^ /VOAJ” ^^(=oFV<w^«a ^ STFUictv Aa C^ OuiS-O/ki^ /vOAi — 3tA^C,TUP-a 37 CAt^ fl^A'H'tXlPtNt Qsj^ r»0 o<^ <3o.lcJ*#j^ o/i ^aoc.ToA*'^- (Le:fAirt>ff /V2a ? /^LA/OK^eJ w'TTH C \T^ Co'ir'Ci^ A-ppA*o«A<^ . 4rrEyv\^ C>JT“ AAA5 AFOT" ACA/iKA* fir/\fO MM /^A jOJaJ IA~> kt U /^-^MTUT” / URONOCOPY -UP 4zv 6*-11“ FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = V4)" w>r- T- U. .-,c ■ •■■» 9RONO AN TiEVICW - - -- :: r uo., I »V A» vo*k Sl'ci! dent r.rd co^ in t:-5 rfc AT ALL TIMES OW iTW/A/ ">5 ' SV /VO/J” rs*.iiT-V^ A^OA^-" A/VJ Q-< A»4<Armw^«^ ?o«lc^n^ o/^ €kJ W rrz»v\^ Ayvtf AAAf a'^ot" V i f iliSI HtN6. •rLYV«.0H(E)2)® N)8*BATTINSULR29. 1HE0H®9frn.tV«. SIDIN6 ON (E)V«* IN(E)2N4WO.STUOS rur'^IHSUL.NIl MHEOH{E)WfLYV«>. IT. IROOfHEHBRANEON ELO ON (N) 5W* A^* CENT. 9N(N) SHAKO 2K» ON COM JOISTS 016* 5UL.K35. &StSiGSSi<' 1S^ h/WTP i /dll ■© Efac^oSS S ®® ® ® TYPICAL WALL SECTION 3/4* «1*-0* ^i^«^)tf(xmAirac>i|^^iiEfSfAN0ffi3r (N) 3/4* PLYV40. SHEATHING. W ^ f7) (E) FIN. FLR. OH (E) 3/4* PLYWO. ON (E) 2X5 ^ JOISTS 9 16* O.C. H/ (N) 5“ BATTINSUL. R25. 0(N)WO.BASE. (D (N) 3M* T&G KNOTTY PINE ON (E) 3/4* PLYV4D. '—'ON(E) WO. STUDS. (T) (N)1/7M* CEDAR LAP SIDING ON (E) 3/4* ^ PLYHO. SHEATHING ONCE) 3X4 WO. STUDS e 1b* O.C. W/ (N) 3-1/3* BATT INSUL. R13. (b) (N) 3/4* T4G KNOTTY PINE ON (E) 3/4* PLYWO. ^ ON (E)3Xb JOISTS. 0 (E) 3/4* PLYWD. SOFFIT. 0(E)2XFA6CIA. (N) SINGLE-PLY EPDM ROOF MEMBRANE ON (N) ICE & WATER SHIELD ON (N) 3/4* APA CERT. PLYWO. SHEATHING ON (N) SHAPED 3XS (SLOPE 1/4* PER FT.) ON (E)3X# JOISTS 016* O.C. W/ (N) 6* BATT INSUL R35. '-'VBCKAiRATOR BACU5TER5. » fYvM| O-*. ^ui5^ ZS • _ i.i §3 i 3ZIO O w zIIh &3z !SS CITY OF OROI 27SjUtoll&y Parkway - P( Crystal Bay. Minnesota 5 (952) 2494600 SITE ADDRESS; PID: 08-117-23-23-0001 DESCRIPTION: Proposed Use: Permit Class: Permit Type: Residen Buildinj Additioi DETAILS: Approved per resolution #: Separate permits required: NOTICES/REMARKS: Pemiit vilui rsductl due to r FEE SUMMARY: TO! APPUCANT:Plekkeiqx}! I 401 E 78th I Bloomingtoi THE UNDERSIGNED HEREB\ AND AGREES TO DO ALL WC M1NNES0I<^U1LD1NG COD Cooies: 1-Me APPUC CITY OF ORONO 27Si$lKen6y Parkway - PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 (952) 249-4600 PERMIT Permit Number Permit Type: Date Issued: P06I10 Addition/Remodel/Repair 3/31/2003 SITE ADDRESS:3980 DaU Rd Mound. MN 55364 PID; 08-117-23-23-0001 DESCRIPTION; Proposed Use: Permit Class: Permit Type: Residential Building Addition/Remodel/Repair Construction Type VN Census Code 434 Permit Sub-type(s): Addn/Remodel/Repair DETAILS: Approved per resolution #: Separate permits required; NOTICES/REMARKS: Pemtit value reduced, due to reduction in scope of work FEE SUMMARY:Permit Fee: Plan Review Fee: Stale Surcharge Fee: S 181.25 $ 117.78 S5.50 Valuation: $ 10,000.00 TOTAL FEE:S 304.53 APPLICANT:Plekkenpol Builders 401 E 78th St Bloomington, MN 55420 OWNER;Thomas McGiynn 3980 Dahl Rd Mound MN 55364 THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY REQUESTS PERMISSION TO MAKE THE REAL IMPROVEMENTS SPEGFIED AND AGREES TO DO ALL WORK IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY OF ORONO ORDINANCES AND STATE OF MINNESOirC^LDING CODEJt^UlREMENTS ISS{!L>BYSICHATV11E Cooiei: l<Me/3iv oidrad). l-AoulicanL I-Monthlvlleoaiii. l-AsmsioL l-Fnam P^l ^ Fee; $. ^teredBy: __ « 4 .0^’ ’Td' -BU /)n -i^Date Received; Permit#; Ac^^ktlD______ €'2_ CITY OF ORONO - BUILDING PERNOT APPLICATION All information must be submitted in full before plan review will be started. (please print all information) THE APPLICANT IS; (circle one) OWNEROR^ONTRACTQRD JOB SITE ADDRESS: DptHU ___________ZIP: NAME OF OWNER: jJcJ PHONE: (home), (work).« • IworK;__________________ / MAILING ADDRESS: (2-p CITY: ZIP: CONTRACTOR: CONTACT PERS0N::^3&-t MAILING ADDRESS: ^ STATE LICENSE: #______ ___f PHONT: '''Z2,tS MOBBLE/PAGER; CITY: ZIP: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS:___ NAME: ____________ PHONT: CITY:ZIP: REGISTRATION it TYPE OF WORK: New Move Addition __ Accessory Structure ^ Remodel/Alteration Land Alteration____ PROPOSED WORK (describe in fletail): STORIES:I SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR: NO. OF BEDROOMS:GARAGE STALLS: ATT.DE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): $ 2^f I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the information above is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance with the ordinaiKes and codes of the City and with the Sute Building Code; that I understand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a permit; and that the work will be in accordance with t^ approved plan. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE:DATE: NOTte! Parade of Homes evenwrequire separate permit approved by Police DepaHment and City Council 60 days prior Ut the event. Non-pemdtted events will not be allowed. r-/ k 4 «• 'm .«• • • I • \ Ui.i J c>z -M r/ <1 ■ 1038 Loma Linda Avenue Orono, MN SS364 Phone: (952) 472-6622 ChyOfOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Sirs; In response to the letter you sent us regarding land use application #03-2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, 3980 Dahl Road, Orono, MN, we being the hfcOlynn^s immediate neighbors to tte South have no objections to his after-the-&ct request for relocating and making structural repairs to the boathouse. Robert B. Anderson \jJjAJU M ■ u^ine A. Anderson iiitiMiij]i i '' ••. • :-vv..y. •■'.:• -yr ■■;*'.••• .;v.i 6' - ,j\'oi*c;:o::o \kmjl *^00 V .•. •*., •i*.-^ flyUmjA ■ /. • • i ^ ^ •* I •:*•:.»•• •• ; i . * -.•/•••* I. *»•; ^ ^;; Cr>y4rtA^ ‘ \'V .A amm ^v^ Csryw.Av-««/v'i-coK' ( U jC COC u AA ^ ; 0>>vvs» 6^ QJLAJU^ ^XtA^LCwpO^vA^s (JVw *•*-^' f.‘*'- »■ ’■ •>-. . ; .* • • ^ . (jyt ^ ^0 CtfjpOUj^ CO^A. 4'v-t. \^SbliO 4r1^Ajt" (jjijl tfov ✓::^’Uci<^c^ VjuK Cjkv\^Ui. OlvAL DtXM^A/^><U,<A^^ l^O-V ' ^ '' amJm>IjiJULo^U^ a-5 c^<X oK Qi^^-^-fe- ^ b.C^AxaLM^ LL'\*^0'sVv^C^b(j . • .t .•; •. • . *. * •.**•*• "* '4'^jlWu-o uwjW .(TNJlT^^ WvAj!> ,9V*^ OlS^VWfl (V ^ CJUa^Y^ ^ * ^4aa4 w a u>o^ 4AuuaA V) (U-MLA<xt/? 0Lam >^ C3>-C< OM plUU:-a^ r>tcf>^ GAAflU^A. “Hu^ /\j0v,JCi bvoxXijti/wi ^ AXy<M^f'^^x ■ ' '' ‘ b t^>AlyvJ t WW^ beAj? . ^ K iL^rvN^-^.^nu Ccrv. Uxo b5't\jb Ap\u:>-cr ' A** bA CK Q0irc( cDDCCooxciP Oj^ CxXu^su^ IjJ2u>_4^ ajlc>A h) bA tXuJletA/M^ * LU clv ^ ^)J^Jl^>a Auc».M^^XA ^ jiuuuu:^- CU>n' dle.v«xxu^ t A o- \ • ;• SuU_AAd<^ I^CjjlV 0L>^ ^^xA>ca_ Vlt \|V) RUNDATC:V3Q/}QDJ n Ml 1723230022 rilOPAOM 1045 LOMAUNOAAVE OWNEKNAMB TOOSTERBEROOCiOSTERBERO TAXPAYER UMOTHYQOCRISTIJOSTERBERG NAME/AOOR 1045 LOMA UHOA AVE MOUND MN 55364 31 MI172323002t ROTADDR 1040 LOMAUNDAAVE OWNERNAME LAPELLETTASHPELLETT TAXPAYER LOREN PELLETT NAME/ADDR 1040 LOMA UNDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMAL lUN SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 Ml 1723230023 PROP AODR 1035 LOMA LINDA AVE OWNERNAME RC DROWNR M A BROWN TAXPAYER ROSS CR MELINDA A DROWN NAME/ADDR 1035 LOMA UNDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 Ml 1723230024 PROP ADDR 1038 LOMA UNDA AVE OWNERNAME RB ANDERSONR J A ANDERSON TAXPAYER RBAJAANDERSON NAME/ADOR 1038 LOMA UNDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 Ml 1723230029 PROP AODR 1056 LOMA UNDA AVE OWNERNAME KRTRITZASTRJTZ TAXPAYER KEVIN A SUELLYN TRITZ NAME/ADDR 1056 LOMA UNDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHS DATEONTHE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF . , _ ----/• - X DATEjiY • r PAGE: 2 m - } C')) OJ ii! -------------lAf MM RUN DATE :V30/2QD3 38 0711723110020 PROPADDR 4060 DAHLRD OWNER NAME JAJNEVEJR TAXPAYER JAMES P NEVE JR NAME/ADDR 4060 DAHLRD MOUND MN 55364 38 0711723140001 PROPADDR 4015 DAHLRD OWNER NAME RABHAAPALA TAXPAYER ROBERT J A BONITA L HAAPAU NAME/ADDR 4015 DAHL RD MOUND MN 55364 38 0711723140006 PROPADDR 1029 LDMALINDAAVE OWNER NAME RARKNOX TAXPAYER RALPH B KNOX NAME/ADDR 1029 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 0711723140056 PROP ADDR 1030 LDMA LINDA AVE OWNERNAME LAHUINKERAGWWOLLNER TAXPAYER li>RI A HUINKER NAME/ADDR GARY W WOLLNER 1030 LDMA LINDA DR MOUND MN 55364 38 0811723230006 PROP ADDR 1058 LDMA LINDA AVE OWNER NAME TM A M LSCHAlBLfi TAXPAYER TODD M A MICHELLE LSCHAIBLE NAME/ADDR -1058 LDMA LINDA AVE MOUNDMN 55364 38 0811723230009 PROP ADDR 1082 LDMA LINDA AVE OWNERNAME D R JOHNSON A LM TAXPAYER DEAN R A LBAM JOHNSON NAME/ADDR 1082 LOM A LINDA AVE MOUNDMN 55364 HENNEPIN COLTNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE: I 38 0711723110021 PROPADDR 4040 DAHLRD OWNER NAME JOHN L LEPPLA A WIFE TAXPAYER JOHN L LEPPU NAME/ADDR 4040 DAHL RD MOUNDMN 55364 38 0711723140002 PROPADDR 4025 DAHLRD OWNERNAME LARRYDMCLAIN TAXPAYER LARRY L MC .MN NAME/ADDR 4025 DAHL >JD MOUNDMN 5^364 38 0711723140007 PROPADDR 1025 LDMA LINDA AVE OWNERNAME LAVONNESORENSON TAXPAYER LA VONNE SORENSON NAME/ADDR 4027 VINCENT AVE N MPLSMN 55412 38 0711723140071 PROP ADDR 1000 LOMA LINDA AVE OWNERNAME MARY A ULRICH TA3CPAYER MARY A ULRICH NAME/ADDR 1000 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUNDMN 55364 38 0811723230007 PROP ADDR 1066 LOMA LINDA AVE OWNERNAME CAROLMRADUNZ TAXPAYER CAROLMRADUNZ NAME/ADDR 5505 RIVER BLUFF OR BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 38 0811723230019 PROPADDR 1135 LOMA LINDA AVE OWNERNAME MCTHURLOIk0STHURLO TAXPAYER MARK THURLO A DEBRA THURLO NAME/ADDR 1135 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUNDMN 55364 38 0711723110022 PROP ADDR 4030 DAHL RD OWNER NAME J H GILBERT B M M GILBERT TAXPAYER JAMES K A MARY M GILBERT NAME/ADDR 4030 DAHLRD MOUNDMN 55364 38 0711723140003 PROPADDR 4035 DAHLRD OWNERNAME WILLIAM J ROSETH TAXPAYER WILLIAM J ROSETH NAME/ADDR 4035 DAHL RD MOUNDMN 55364 38 0711723140055 PROP ADDR 1034 LOMA LINDA AVE OWNERNAME M HURNER A B HURNER TAXPAYER mark HURNER A BRENDA HURNER NAME/ADDR 1034 LOMA UNDA AVE MOUNDMN 55364 m T* . 38 0811723230001 PROP ADDR 3980 DAHL RD OWNERNAME THOMASPMCGLYNN TAXPAYER THOMAS P MCGLYNN NAME/ADDR 3980 DAHLRD MOUNDMN 55364 C r 38 0811723230008 PROPADDR 1074 LOMA LINDA AVE OWNERNAME MARGARETEMATTSON TAXPAYER MARGARET E MATTSON NAME/ADDR 1074 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUNDMN 55364 3S 0111723230020 PROPADDR 1127 bOMAUNDAAVE OWNERNAME DALEFROTH TAXPAYER OAIEFROTO NAME/ADDR 1127 U3MA UNDA AVE MOUNDMN SS3M Henno[)in Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department m A a;- - M7- as-(jj) LAKESIDE (70) 1 HEIGHTS ,OMA TT’iy (56) m0t AVE (55) -----------B3 — s 'V 1611 (12) jU0«Mifirv«MC imwT) LOMAUNDAAVE ■w »? LOMA LI (!0)* 0 a a t- re "tfi (26) a 01- / tA>: ; . ] 11 \ i » ? 1 ! » ' i i f pParcel Information B«l ID 081172323 ri^i HbuM Nulnb«r 3980 8tra«l Nam# DAHL HD TNs 1$ not a hg$ty noixded map. ttiapiaaanta a compilation of MoftnaUon and data Horn CHy. County, and Stala mad authofUaa and otharaoureaa. . IS i i X ..if . ^ J iV* , ••,.v • .i» r|- :i>is .W., •<' -gj^V 1 ^'> ■ ’•/ •' ‘’-> ' i 'S?i ii?i Ilk.' rl^v • .w4ud£i * 4 # . - »4 ,._ s»*...r .’r k A* -* *^*T'* I * V ^^ . • :-v. jN r r-^ ••'. '' I.. r-»»* '*♦•»• ' ’ hc'.'T' ::1 ^rrHv'. :■■. ]■% ’<» K ; ■ ♦ * b- ^ . •- ‘ - .::2> ■—.>»-i X J^/.* • ■• I*.. W :...-/.. I I. Np ■ - ■ ;,p ¥ , 4 <2 ■„ - •■ . ■•,. ••;•>,?.•.f. , - -• « / f • ^' * :5r;, •..• ■w ^*' -‘CT; ’.v' J ‘'^S '' ''j. *ri' -^ • ‘'u •V . iVi M' li^-: vr.v>>r,^-:. ' ^'4r . J. p ^ i '''-N.. p*^'- ' I '^sM-. ^ fi»r ^ IV. . - '^- ■ -*i Ci i,e ,SJ1.»^1 .IS! mm •v-> ‘ A rj^i aw ■Mw ■ .r- ^ ■' W it V1^*> 1^/ ffiC^ir; A»^ • >•«. . . .. •' % ^ ^ ^ >< •* r / “v.‘ .*♦ ^ . -.. . A.: ■• ^ •• 5* '% L^J<7- I X X; V . . < ‘. -vW* * t ^ \ i • iJgtSm m sK';*-f^^ K -.v*’*•J ■* r 4;i L.,._.. Ii — J^- jf'r iV: «*' '" "i liik- r '%'> i^aitX'' T-:'.''iii ', h df" f.i’ OIL a 1 ••'».•**■• B Mm Mi 'fl 5T«^ f ,' .•\'*.t /Trap ’■i U' •S '■t# 1 pmti <<wtk ■m ii Mk- ■■ 1 , ■;•» 9^ •**^v^ > " r ■■ ■ " '■-' V-5'. -c ;]« > ' -i V « - ^ fes'-iSiS t" 'i‘^5lttfc>'''5!^ V.:N 'M <• -♦ SSia- 04Jv- . * •» ,• , V y-, >. ^ . V ‘ ■*- •! • ’ l”* • , ; ;^^ f '•■ ■ t, ■> >,* ■ .r* '■ -*.' -i:*:.iV i' '.■ ‘m» i 'r^t«; i .L.. r '» • .•■. • ■^'"' •■‘ V ■'..••• ■ r r:?,f > X . ^ ^ Jj ‘r. ^ ^ 7*^•/V T-'y •<* ^ ifflr // ''^ \- '■ 'C'' - ' . ^.V. ', ; ' i./’.'^-.'^-r- ^:. V ■ . ••• . •. ■ ^^ • r- 4/ -- j •'. '\, - h ^ V.'. K 7' t I '.i' I L ' ^<|r- • i ^ - >• - -V •i- -- ‘ .>■ ^l^ -<>'>y . '^■^-k A;.-;y' .*• ‘l^JiftkkZ i ^ <' ; 1* \ ► I ■%v. - >-y ' *• ^ V ■ ■ > ''. ' ’l-W-H •*'■;■%:,i: ^ -^r ^ i •■/•' ,• ‘ ' -_•;- ., /iv w • I m• a : '.'*1 m '^y.'IPMI^ SagSD8fci^^‘‘’?^ I?" ^ -r; < '■’ . .-J 0^i>t Vy i -U-.V ' 'v I ^ • y v*'■>-'•; *• .»«. . '~. ’"v- r^>'V " - r^ • • / > , ’ ' V . ^ - v\ ‘ > •; ■ - \ , “^ •, . •. \*^ >. . . ' ■ ■■,'• I .>'; ■* * I ’ ^ . L r • ; > < •1; -V'- V I f •''rl'w • . » , •# .t r-- ■ ; c •' •''*'^^ -•,. i- V •'■ , • ^ y^jt V V ► iiV.v? ^aE ?3r^r^- m iiii tW' Cl r?^V" t .‘ i n fev^L^«. •* k "W-^ .•»# ^ * ViL 'S’^X-'i :tV‘ A/i G>Vj I^AJ s. v. ■■h'M 'yv K^: '-'^^ ■' 1^1-^ i *• ‘ i ■ ^•ji:f?>Jsrf r •/. ':^s^:st7 j‘W-'^L* '‘ ' 4 . -T t* *> /'j MO *•} ^ ■ Zo -o3 s? , ^';^r ’:^\v N^-X'. V'-' - -t,r> - ■ V;^^^vt ^ " ^*' '.:■ rs,v L-: in ^-*«. ■ '1 -% i«fc^- -' : V, ■Sr: V. '-■* ^ ._>«.-1 ::_v . ^ ' •^5ii /. • Nf ■-<J^'»' ^ T*'- ’' ' ■'''il?^. ■.■■.■' .T^ i . V »mi ■ ■ Sb5v: * ‘ »At! : >»j - -. »■ ''Vi^-^. V • •. .-??v V. ; * * ^ ^ >1. /.I ^ ^ I. . .fcCi vi **^ r7^ t3/. "ip .: ‘r mm mKt .jWrli'^jP^fJl#igBP^• -•■t T v .v#f;v> mR-/-^'.*--' ^'-‘1Iv'•M.S’L , W^' 'i;'* .Uv.* * * V , _ 1F^' l-iRg is® Ai , #1 5.1'' \ ' 1 ® „■ i '"Tk ’’■J ' A /^42 >i fV - * - . 0 ^ 1 V i ' •. v'T' ^h2 ■SrSg,. «*£? . bt'> ■ V. :«& *-.•<- ,W< >. :^r.<* A ' vt q|7 v' > . -/■ ^ V iK; ’ ,'•- A# , N -'J L\ V'.ji'?';" V ■ • i V ^ ^ <W ■'s.>. ^ -- V - ■ *^' V- ^’•' ' •; x-. - •* . if 5>' #>'' ,J'v . i H'•»i. V - :! tv .■ *5 - 7 -0 0/Vv^ • f'V . V . ■i 71^^ n , • • -'i**' • X ^ * > . <; » . »■ Tf.//.- ; r ' :J V- iV’'- ’■ V'( -<w r«Irf '•■'■ f ' i' ^ . 2^ o '> ft vi^V\j<^ V ^ •'sr' 1^. ” ' ■ : m ^4.*. ,-r, ii:rV-> ' • - . • > '.' , :* ■ ‘ l ''s ' -\ v.>r A \•: fK -■ ■ ^ .^1- - ^\ '^n \ ii *»; ^.^av: tL. -. V t V>^^ V ^ ^ 1 r:-rw • • ‘ r^i N s&lmi ^ - -i-o • o ■> I • #• Confirmation Report — Memory Send TIm Ttl lint Nmt Jun-IS-2003 10:41) IIS22494II6 CITY Of OROM I Job nud)or 445 Doto Jun-li 10:46m To 4T57042 DocuMot pint 006 start tiM Jun-16 10:46m End tiM JunH6 10:46m Paioi tmt 006 Status Job nuibor : 445 OK I ♦ SEND SUCCESSFUL 37SO MCmitmy O. Mm M M€^y, iUE^T 3S.97C f9S2J x: fP3^ inmt irOUSMOXJI^ HM€UUVM 9not/MMCMiym j€mo. JRM.mASm Cj€£M C932J 3*^OM{7^, jaVtCXCXDJQVO TJHIS COVMM SMMMTi 1 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date:if'10,-03. To: Fax:^7S-^"70Wz^ Re: Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE ^ PAGE(S). JNCL UDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL (952) 249-4600. JUL 1 4 2003 OiiruHORoi^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 14.2003 ITEM NO.: 6 Dcpartmciit Approval: Name Gregoiy A. GapfNi Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: Adopt Assessment Roll Heritage Drive Sewer Extension- Resolution Installation of the Heritage Drive sewer extension has been completed. This pressure sewer system extension serves two properties at the end of Heritage Drive. The Council previously approved a $ 14,400 sewer connection fee for this project, and also approved the option for the property owners to be assessed for the sewer connection fee at an interest rate of 6.25% for a fifteen-year time period. The property owners at 1980 Heritage Drive have requested to be assessed for the project connection fee l^d on the terms approved by the Council. The staff recommendation is for approval of the resolution to assess the $14,400 sewer coiuiection fee for 1980 Heritage Drive at a 6.25% interest rate for a fifteen-year time period. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the resolution adopting the assessment roll for the Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer project. _. - ~ 11 11 n r" A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR THE HERITAGE DRIVE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROJECT Whereat, the property owners on Heritage Drive have requested that the City of Orono construct a sanitary sewer extension project to serve their properties. This project has been completed, and the project connection fee, which is based on the project costs, has been established at $14,400 per sewer unit. The property owners at 1980 Heritage Drive have requested that the City of Orono assess the project connection fee over a Hfleen-year time period; and Whereas, the property owner has signed an assessment waiver agreeing to waive any and all rights to appeal the special assessment, with regard to any procedural or substantive rights, rights to a public hearing, rights to any notices under Minnesota Chapter 429 or any ordinances of the city, and the constitutions or laws of the State of Minnesota or the United States; and Whereas, the City hereby authorizes and directs the Hennepin County Auditor to levy the assessment over a nfteen>year time period at a 6.25% interest rate. Such assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of fifteen years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2004 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 2003. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota hereby authorizes and directs the County Auditor of Hennepin County to assess the property identified in the attached assessment roll, made a part hereof, for the amount appearing along with such property, plus 6.25% interest added as directed. Said amounts to be collected along with property taxes beginning in 2004. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on July 14, 2003 ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor r' fr r-V .4r - Assessment Roll for Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer Extension Date: 14- Jaly- 2003 MNNkipality: ORONO Levy Nambcr: Total Project Assessment: $14,400.00 Mnnicipal Code: 3S Levy Description: Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer Eilension Interest Rate: 6.2S% Number ot Years Payable: 15 PID H Addition Code Total Lot nioek Principal Owner’s Name Street Property Address H Mailing Street Address Mailing City Address Units lO-l I7-23-42-0006 SI4.400.00 006 L.V. JR. St B.J. Dayton 1980 Heritage Drive 1980 Heritage Drive Wi^zaia MN S539I 1 Total SI 4.400.00 1 1 . 1: '•f ^2 •‘■V. • inkimttife r JUL 1 4 2003 CITY Oh OHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 14,2003 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: City of Medina- Medina Momingside Expansion Development Introduction In March 2003, we received preliminary plans for the proposed Keller Estates subdivision which is located west of Willow Drive between the Orono City Limits and the existing Medina Momingside development. This proposed subdivision eontains twenty-one 3/4 aere lots on 22 acres, and the property currently has one single family residence located on it. We have sent the City of Medina two letters regarding this proposed subdivision and Council members were provided copies of these two letters in the Council Packet Information Items Section. There has not been any discussions regarding this project at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. A summary of the information provided to the City of Medina in the two letters is provided below for your review. The two letters are also attached The City of Medina has now received a preliminary plat application for this project and the Public Hearing on this application is scheduled for the Medina Planning Commission meeting on August 12*^. The City of Medina has requested that Orono review and comment on this proposed subdiv ision. The Orono property owners north of County Road 6 that are directiv adjacent to the development property should receive notification of the public hearing from the City of Medina. Summary of Informatien in Letters Sent to the City of Medina This proposed development is located west of Willow Drive between the Orono City Limits and the existing Medina Momingside development. The existing Medina Momingside Development was developed in the 1960's and has eighty 1/3-acre lots with both municipal sewer and water. The Momingside neighborhood is the only area in southern Medina in the MUSA and that is designated for higher density residential development, with the surrounding area zoned for large lot rural residential development. This proposed new subdivision contains twent>’-one 3/4-acre lots on 22 Page 1 of 4 acres, and the property currently has one single family residence located on it. The area in the City of Orono directly south of this development is zoned for a 2-acre dry buildable minimum lot size with private wells and septic systems. The higher density of this urban development directly adjacent to the 2-acre zoning in Orono is an issue to be addressed. Sewer and Water Service Our understanding is that Keller Estates will have municipal water and sewer service. The water supply will be from existing municipal wells in the Medina Momingside development with the potential for a future request to connect both the Keller Estates and the Medina Momingside developments to the Orono municipal water system. There is sufficient capacity in the Orono water system should a future agreement between Orono and Medina be approved for the provision of water service to the Medina Momingside and Keller Estates developments. We also understand that this new development will have municipal sewer with a gravity sewer line discharging into the existing Medina Momingside sanitary sewer lift station. The forcemain from this lift station flows south to County Road 6 then west eventually discharging into an Orono gravity sewer in Old Crystal Bay Road. This gravity sewer then flows south and through the City of Long Lake to a Metro Waste lift station. The existing Medina Momingside sewer service through Orono and Long Lake is per the terms of an existing Long Lake/Orono/Medina sewer service agreement dated August 10, 1981. The provision of sanitary sewer service to the Keller Estates development will require modification of the 1981 sewer agreement and approval of the new agreement by the Orono, Medina and Long Lake City Councils. A project to reconfigure the existing sewer system through Orono and Long Lake for the new Highway 12 bypass project is currently under construction. This project will also require revisions to the existing three city sewer agreement. The completion of the new sewer system this summer will provide sufficient sewer capacity for new development and substantially reduce the length of Long Lake municipal sewer that is included in the sewer agreement. The new City sewer will discharge into a Metro Sewer Interceptor at Willow Drive. The only Long Lake sewer in the agreement will be from the Orono City limits to Willow Drive. There should be adequate capacity in the Orono, Long Lake, and Metro Waste sewer systems to handle the additional flow from the proposed Keller Estates development. Traffic Impact Issues Orono City staff has reviewed and discussed the traffic impacts from the proposed Keller Estates Development, and we have concerns about the increased traffic at the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection. Using a typical design value of 10 vehicle trips per day for each home, this development will add 210 vehicle trips per day to Willow Drive with the majority of these trips using the Willow Diive/County Road 6 intersection. Page 2 of 4 J There are already concerns about Irafllc safety at this intersection, as in the past several years there have been numerous personal injury accidents and two traffic fatalities at this intersection. I lennepin County recently completed traffic counts at the County Road 6/Willow Drive intersection, and the traffic counts did not justify a signal at this time. A peak one hour traffic count of 200 vehicles is required on one of the Willow Drive intersection legs. The peak one hour traffic count was 175 vehicles which is 25 vehicles less than the required 200 vehicles. The consensus is that this intersection will meet the traffic signal warrant in the near future. The tentative plan was for Hennepin County to complete another traffic count this fall. The consensus of both the City of Orono .and Hennepin County staff is that the intersection geometries need to be improved to allow for the safe installation of a trafTic signal. Left turn lanes need to be constructed on County Road 6 to replace the existing bypass lanes, and the Willow Drive intersection approaches also need to be improved. The City of Orono has taken the lead role in completing a feasibility study to evaluate the potential for intersection improvements. The tentative plan is for the completion of an intersection safely improvements project with the provision for a future U-affic signal when one is warranted. The schedule, costs, and funding for this project have not been determined at this time. Cost Sharing for the Willow Drive/ County Road 6 Intersection Improvements Hennepin County has jurisdiction on the east and west legs of the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection, and the City of Orono has jurisdiction on the north and south intersection legs. It is obvious that Orono is responsible for the southern leg of the intersection, but the responsibility for the northern leg is questionable. The Orono City limits are located only 600 feet north of the intersection, and there are only three properties in Orono tha» access Willow Drive north of County Road 6.1 hese properties are not subdividable, so three is the maximum number of Orono homes that will ever access the northern leg of the intersection. The traffic on the northern leg of this intersection is virtually all from the City of Medina with substantial traffic being generated by the 80 homes in the urban density Medina Momingside development plus the new church on Willow Drive Our City staff recommendation is not favorable to the construction of 21 additional homes that will increase traffic at the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection without a traffic signal at this intersection. Our recommendation is also that the City of Medina be responsible for the intersection improvement costs on the northern leg of this intersection. Conclusion in Letters to the City of Medina Until the traffic safety concerns at the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection are resolved and the potential impacts of a higher density urban development directly adjacent to the 2-acre density development in Orono are reviewed and discussed by the Orono City Council, Orono City staff is not in favor of recommending modification of the Long Lake/Orono/Medina sanitary sewer agreement to include the proposed Keller Estates Development project. Page 3 of 4 staff Recommendation City staff is requesting the Council to review and discuss this proposed development and provide direction to City staff regarding this project. One issue to be discussed is the potential impacts of a higher density urban development directly adjacent to the 2>acre density development in Orono. The County Road 6/Willow Drive intersection traffic safety issues also need to be comidered. Our staff recommendation is that Orono does not provide sanitary sewer service for the proposed development until the intersection improvements are completed. Our staff recommendation is also that the City of Medina be responsible for 1/4 of the intersection improvements cost because most of the traffic on the north leg of the intersection is from Medina. We can use our Municipal State Aid funding for intersection improvements. The developer has indicated a willingness to fund Medina’s share of the intersection improvement costs. An issue for consideration is that sewer service is needed from Orono for this project which provides us leverage to request cc .>i sharing on the intersection improvements. In the event that this property is developed at a lower density with private well and septic systems, Orono will not have any leverage to request cost sharing, from the City of Medina, for the County Road 6/Willow drive intersection improvements. The traffic will continue to increase at this intersection which will exacerbate the existing safety concerns. There is sufficient sewer capacity in the new downstream sewer system through Orono and Long Lake, so if all of the other concerns can be satisfactorily addressed the provision of sewer service is a relatively simple administrative issue. Another issue for Council discussion is Orono’s participation in the Medina public hearing and approval process for this project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review and discuss this project and provide direction to City staff regarding the issues outlined above for this project. ■PHrlir Page 4 of 4 • t I CITY OFMmm 2052 County Road 24. Medina. MN 65340 July 3,2003 Greg Gappa Director of Pubic Services City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Dear Mr. Gappa, I understand that Mr. Dean Johnson has been speaking to you regarding providing Municipal sewer to what is known as the Keller property at 1255 Willow Drive in Medina. Mr. Johnson has made application to the City of Medina for a 21 lot subdivision at that location. The preliminary phit will be heard at the August 12,2003 Planning Commission meeting.. I am providing you with a copy of the preliminary plat. Staff believes this proposal will be approved by the Medina City Council If sewer can be provided to the site.. Please review and comment on the plat and the status of providing sewer to that location. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call at 763-473-4643. Sincerely, Planning and Zoning Administrator cc: Chad Adams, City Administrator LK/sl Administration • Planning and Zoning • Public Works Phone: 763'473-4643 • Fax: 763-473-93S9 www.cl.me4lna.mn.ua Public Safety Phone: 763-473-9209 • Fax: 763-473-6939 J m: f = ••- ■■■ . •■.Irt . ^ V . f :•■•• :;•' " A .V ' i.. HF.DIHA HORffiHOSfDE FU<ST AUUmON iu EWSAIMG ^AFl3^MP^ PEL'UOFMVUT 90 • >/3 ACHE L015 ff N/tv7'l''1'1 ---------I--—r-——. 4^^m- JT.l^ TA1.FHDIN 4- 4 Ac rOHEIkT mmmm "36Ac 1 •1 1 1 1 1 m i i El j 1 IF 1 I 11 I 1 1 11 __———1 1.......1..........* “ SIXTH 1j RUN S.T Ac CB — H I KELLER ESTATES €t/ty 0t itmMmm Mmnnmpin Cornify, ttbm»Bota ueu Bncmpttott / mSamm^mWfm !•< #*i rtfMm «■>•••*«■• • mt mmrn a STTm*n0»k 9mm B9tmmmmmmmmm»mmmrnf*n mmm9mm9*mmmmmmm9tmm9rn >0mt SMCtf MMiflMMV I* to ^ ifli « • «i MflMM tf «■ toiwatototovtotofltotftottot*toM 0 mm mm mmmMtotototo«tot «M( watoMtototf MIMtM «MMtoWto»tontoi •toMBto* toMtotoi Mtoam •‘totok to«i mm0m0i09 0m* mm K mm 0*0 t to* « totoitoaHto* uarwLjfAF Crz-^v omar .* O a *J m 41 m 9f wnufT 9} mam I PRELIMINARY fiOT POR OOMITIIWSTWW 1 r • too >to*iiitoiaai4«Jto|^ iSsSE^ili KBLUm ESTATBS ‘^-----------4 HTDINA HORMWOSBfi S' rWST AWMTKMI 79i«Hi sm MM f §:£«•«. : »ar *.tfrrs.s^,u. ;p;».-...-.u» 89m€M m mm mmrn « mm PREUMINARY MOT Ron OOMTIRfOflOII I* • i«f H XiOM mmam mm *, HCDWA HOWNIHOSnir; FIRST AIMMTIOH V 63 ~j •/*t/»£ 1 y I *•* f •<• h Ui : • ffflSBf fiCfeilPi I rmR ajI tv-A FASrHOW 7'-f!Sji» / MiiwA r "r‘--7-"r"' :::%; / / / ! I 1 \ W'.W'f '\x i 1 1 FOREST !wnjiow !J RUN i!! 1 ! 1 ! 1 ! 11 1 1 ! 1; i1 1 ! 1 i1 i i •1 i! 1 ! 1 ! 1J 1 •mm i ■ I 1 5«r rr/ncr typical HOCK COnSTHUCnON KHTHANCg KBUER ESTATES CAy^fAhdAur HmnnEpIn Coun ty, k mssotm mtAAl aUMmjBTttL u umaw^ 5-jaS« ?X2ft3!Sf5*4L?^^ tfgWr ■ Uwl iM jounwiywwwi PREUMINARY %• m mf . i;s,..i'i KELLER ESTATES Mmnnmptn mkmrna^ta laCfiVPr HroiNA HORHwonrDt 5 MUST A0DITH)N crwu tmmmcmn mms '^'S^SSS^ sT- i i ................................................^------- SIXTH .............11^;*-"—'PRELIMINARY NOT POM oonmucnoN r • tor Hdii, 4 j l-': /'J ^-.l: <* ... - , , : ..• ;■ • '...-' V- V-, ■:• V ^ i :'.r^^ r■^ BSv' : , ■• ’ • lifer ••'.A ^ JI T i • ' ^0 ;:V I‘f- r yr;S *c .is’'* tk^■M5'-■■.?;.: ..SI pSiM;: * i Mr.-, < ^'!*..|w:, :.S%:' 1<»' s>' . • • ¥ HHOMA HORHIH{}SK>i: FIRST AODITIQH KBLLER eSTATeS fdtnm JMnmi0«Cv UCtHBr uau Bnaumm mfSMSSS! l•••f ^•asssss^^ njMawsMra »•• « M ft ■■ M fnito « 1M4 aS S5R ftISft ftBSSSJS—uaiftrftMift—ftft»<— I «fti aMMaan Miaitoa ftM PREUMfNARY f* • ►, ■*.^wrnmrnmmmmmm^ <■^5; V a '> i o • I»!CITYoT I :ii NO '//Municipal Oflkcs .'7 StTMt AMrtU: 27SO Kelley Parkway Oroflo, MN 55356 MaHag Addreu; P.O. Boi 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 May 23,2003 Mr. Chad Adams City Administrator City of Medina 2025 County Road 24 Medina MN 55340-9790 Dear Chad; In March 2003, wc received preliminary plans for the proposed Keller Estates subdivision which is located west of Willow Drive between the Orono City Limits and the e.xisting Medina Momingside development. On March 1 3th, I had sent Loren Kohnen a letter with comments on this proposed subdivision, and the contents of this letter arc included below for your information. March 13th Subdivision Comments This subdivision contains 21 lots on 21.8 acres with typical lot size of 30,000 s.f. The area in the City of Orono directly south of this development is zoned for a 2-acre dry buildable minimum lot size with private wells and septic systems. The higher density of this urban development directly adjacent to the 2-acre zoning in Orono has the potential to be a significant concern. Sewer and Water Service Our understanding is that Keller Estates will have municipal water and sewer service. The water supply will be from existing municipal wells in the Medina Momingside development with the potential for a future request to connect both the Keller Estates and the Medina Momingside developments to the Orono municipal water system. There is sufficient capacity in the Orono water system should a future agreement between Orono and Medina be approved for the provision of water service to the Medina Momingside and Keller Estates developments. Page 1 of 4 lUci >c (952) 249.46M • Fax (952) 249-1515 urwwxiarouoJBn.u« inaa 1 We also understand that this new development will have municipal sewer with gravity sewer discharging into the existing Medina Morningside sanitary sewer lift station. The forcemain from this lift station flows south to County Road 6 then west eventually discharging into an Orono gravity sewer in Old Crystal Bay Road. This gravity sewer then flows south and through the City of Long Lake to a Metro Waste lift station, llie existing Medina Morningside sewer service through Orono and Long Lake is per the terms of an existing Long Lake/Orono/Medina sewer service agreement dated August 10,1981. The provision of sanitary sewer service to the Keller Estates development will require modification of the 1981 sewer agreement and approval of the Orono City Council and Long Lake City Council. A project to reconfigure the existing sewer system through Orono and Long Lake for the new Highway 12 bypass project is currently under construction. This project will require revisions to the existing three city sewer agreement. My understanding is that presently there are sewer capacity issues in Long Lake and the completion of the new sewer system this summer will eliminate the sewer capacity issues and substantially reduce the length of Long Lake municipal sewer that is included in the sewer agreement. The existing sewer with Orono and Medina flow goes all the way through Long Lake to the Metro Sewer lift station located in eastern Long Lake. The new City sewer will discharge into a Metro Sewer Interceptor at Willow Drive. The only Long Lake sewer in the agreement will be from the Orono City limits to Willow Drive. There should be adequate capacity in the Orono, Long Lake, and Metro Waste sewer systems to handle the additional flow from the proposed Keller Estates development. Traffic Impact Issues Orono City staff has reviewed and discussed the tralTic impacts from the proposed Keller Estates Development, and we have concerns about the increased traffic at the Willow Driv&'County Road 6 intersection. Using a typical design value of 10 vehicle trips per day for each home, tliis development will add 210 vehicle trips per day to W'illow Drive with the majority of these trips using the Willow Drivc/County Road 6 intersection. There arc concerns about traffic safety at this intersection, as in the past several years there have been numerous personal injury accidents and two traffic f.italities at this intersection. The City of Orono recently completed a traftlc management study in this area, and the preliminary two- hour traffic counts at the Willow Drivc/County Road 6 intersection indicate that a traffic signal may be warranted. The City of Orono has requested that Hennepin County complete an eight-hour traffic count at this intersection to evaluate the feasibility of installing a traffic signal. Th>.' possible schedule and funding for the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection is unknown at this time. However, it is a certainty that the installation of a traffic signal will require cost participation from the local units of government as all new signals on Hermepin County Roads require local cost participation. Hennepin County has jurisdiction on the east and west legs of the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection, and the City of Orono has jurisdiction on the north and south intersection legs. It is Page 2 of 4 r- obvious that Orono is responsible for the southern leg of the intersection, but the responsibility for the northern leg is questionable. The Orono City limits are located only 600 feet north of the intersection, and there are only three properties in Orono that access Willow Drive north of County Road 6. These propertie.s are not subdividable, so three is the maximum number of Orono homes that will ever access the northern leg of the intersection. The traffic on the northern leg of this intersection is virtually all from the City of Medina with substantial traffic being generated by the approximately 90 homes in the urban density Medina Momingside development plus the new church, on Willow Drive, that is currently under construction. Our City staff recommendation is not favorable to the construction of 21 additional homes that will increase traffic at the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection without a traffic signal at this intersection. Our recommendation is also that the City of Medina be responsible for the local share of costs, on the northern leg of this intersection, for the installation of a possible traffic signal. Conclusion Until tlie traffic safety concerns at the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection are resolved and the potential impacts of a higher density urban development directly adjacent to the 2-acre density development in Orono are reviewed and discussed by the Orono City Council, Orono City staff is not in favor of recommending modification of the Long Lake/Orono/Medina sanitar>* sewer agreement to include the proposed Keller Estates Development project. May 24th Project Update Hennepin County recently completed traffic counts at the County Road 6AVillow Drive intersection, and the traffic counts did not justify a signal at this time. A peak one hour traffic count of 200 vehicles is required on one of the Willow Drive intersection legs. The peak one hour traffic count was 175 vehicles which is 25 vehicles less than the required 200 vehicles. The consensus is that this intersection will most likely meet a traffic signal warrant in the near future. The tentative plan was for Heimepin County to complete another traffic count this fall. The consensus of both the City of Orono and Hennepin County staff is that the intersection geometries need to be improved to allow for the safe installation of a traffic signal. Left turn lanes need to be constructed on County Road 6 to replace the existing bypass lanes, and the Willow Drive intersection approaches also need to be improved. The City of Orono has taken the lead role in completing a feasibility study to evaluate the potential for intersection improvements. The tentative plan is for the possible completion of an intersection safety improvements project with the provision for a future traffic signal when one is warranted. The schedule, costs, and funding for this project have not been determined at this time. Our previous recommendation that the City of Medina be responsible for the local share of costs, on the northern leg of this intersection is still valid Page 3 of 4 r Summaiy We have had several conversations with the developer, Mr. Dean Johnson, regarding the proposed project, and he is aware of our concerns about this project and the letter that was previously sent to Medina. However, the request for sewer from Orono has only been communicated to us by Mr. Johnson with no formal request from the City of Medina yet. The City of Orono believes that rather than continuing discussions with the developer regarding this project it is in the best interests of both Cities that any future discussions regarding this project are conducted between representatives from the two cities. This project has significant land use and utility issues for both cities and communication between the Cities of Orono and Medina is necessary for this project. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact us at 952-249-4600 regarding this issue. Sincerely; Director of Public Services Copy; Mayor Barbara Peterson and Orono City Council Members Ron Moorse, Orono City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Orono Planning Director Tom Kellogg, Orono City Engineer, Bonestroo Engineers Jerry Smrcka, Hennepin County Public Works Page 4 of 4 r ^ *1 • f 1 .. 5 J *.----- *» 2i • . »V>iWrf?.' ■ . ■ r:\>-.u.^ 3 \ * .‘ '• . —* nj KELLEff ESTATES eny9iat9dlna Hmnn^On eomfy, Minnesota jtm. MTfMMA NOHHMgSK)€ rMSif AI)0ITK)M :srmizstTz if.? 1 T"^^';i»Or Ui -----------------1----------------r--------- t / hiJhha / 7'—V—r-'T Ml . ; ! ! ! ISRSiSJK mXZSTj sns^rars: uetrmfMiM snt— taschoin FOREST w«,iow i S'tfi I OTtftnnn I O Af Al SIXTJI^/WWC^MQflM.......................................................................J eg&iai^ li \t i '*■ eamik ••- ' ’ »'X V I^ .' k\ r CITYoTORONO Municipal Offices Strati Addrati 2750 Kelley Partway Orono. MN 55356 Malting Iddrttt: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 March 13,2003 Mr. Loren Kochnen City of Medina 2025 county Road 24 Medina MN 55340-9790 Dear Loren; We are in receipt of the preliminary plans, dated March 7,2003, for the Keller Estates subdivision which is located west of Willow Drive between the Orono City Limits and the e.xisting Medina Momingside development. This subdivision contains 21 lots on 21.8 acres with typical lot size of 30,000 s.f. The area in the City of Orono directly south of this development is zoned for a 2-acre dry buildable minimum lot size with private wells and septic systems. The higher density of this urban development directly adjacent to the 2-acre zoning in Orono has the potential to be a significant concern. Sewer and Water Ser\ ice Our understanding is that Keller Estates will have municipal water and sewer service. The water supply will be from existing municipal wells in the Medina Momingside development with the potential for a future request to connect both the Keller Estates and the Medina Momingside developments to the Orono municipal water system. There is sufficient capacity in the Orono water s> stem should a future agreement between Orono and Medina be approved for the provision of water service to the Medina Momingside and Keller Estates developments. We also understand that this new development will have municipal sewer with gravity sewer discharging into the existing Medina Momingside sanitary sewer lift station. The forcemain from this lifi station flows south to County Road 6 then west eventually discharging into an Orono gra\ ity sewer in Old Crystal Bay Road. This gravity sewer then flows south and through the City Page 1 of 3 lUcphooe (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-46K wwweLoroaojBjx.as 1 of Long Lake to a Metro Waste lift station. The existing Medina Momingside sewer service through Orono and Long Lake is per the terms of an existing Long Lake/Orono/Medina sewer service agreement dated August 10,1981. The provision of sanitary sewer service to the Keller Estates development will require modification of the 1981 sewer agreement and approval of the Orono City Council and Long Lake City Council. A project to reconfigure the existing sewer system through Orono and Long Lake for the new Highway 12 bypass project is currently under construction. This project will require revisions to the existing three city sewer agreement. My understanding is that presently there are sewer capacity issues in Long Lake and the completion of the new sewer system this summer will eliminate the sewer capacity issues and substantially reduce the length of Long Lake municipal sewer that is included in the sewer agreement. The existing sewer with Orono and Medina flow goes all the way through Long Lake to the Metro Sewer lift station located in eastern Long Lake. The new City sewer will discharge into a Metro Sewer Interceptor at Willow Drive. The only Long Lake sewer in the agreement will be from the Orono City limits to Willow Drive. There should be adequate capacity in the Orono, Long Lake, and Metro Waste sewer systems to handle the additional flow from the proposed Keller Estates development. Traffic Impact Issues Orono City staff has reviewed and discussed the traffic impacts from the proposed Keller Estates Development, and we have concerns about the increased traffic at the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection. Using a typical design value of 10 vehicle trips per day for each home, this development will add 210 vehicle trips per day to Willow Drive with the majority of these trips using the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection. There are concerns about traffle safety at this intersection, as in the past several years there have been numerous personal injury accidents and two traffic fatalities at this intersection. The City of Orono recently completed a traffic management study in this area, and the preliminary two- hour traffle counts at the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection indicate that a traffle signal may be warranted. The City of Orono has requested that Hennepin County complete an eight-hour traffle count at this intersection to evaluate the feasibility of installing a traffle signal. The possible schedule and funding for the installation of a traffle signal at this inteisection is unknown at this time. However, it is a certainty that the installation of a traffic signal will require cost participation from the local units of government as all new signals on Hermepin County Roads require local cost participation. Hennepin County has jurisdiction on the east and west legs of the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection, and the City of Orono has jurisdiction on the north and south intersection legs. It is obvious that Orono is responsible for the southern leg of the intersection, but the responsibility for the northern leg is questionable. The Orono City limits are located only 600 feet north of the intersection, and there are only three properties in Orono that access Willow' Drive north of County Road 6. These propen ’ ‘s are not subdividable, so three is the maximum number of Page 2 of 3 1 I J Orono homes that will ever access the northern leg of the intersection. The traffic on the northern leg of this intersection is virtually all from the City of Medina with substantial traffic being generated by the approximately 90 homes in the urban density Medina Momingside development plus the new church, on Willow Drive, that is currently under construction. Our City staff recommendation is not favorable to the construction of 21 additional homes that will increase traffic at the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection without a traffic signal at this intersection. Our recommendation is also that the City of Medina be responsible for the local share of costs, on the northern leg of this intersection, for the installation of a possible traffic signal. Conclusion Until the traffic safety concerns at the Willow Drive/Count>' Road 6 intersection are resolved and the potential impacts of a higher density urban development directly adjacent to the 2-acre density development in Orono are reviewed and discussed by the Orono City Council, Orono City staff is not in favor of recommending modification of the Long Lake/Orono/Medina sanitary sewer agreement to include the proposed Keller Estates Development project. Please advise as to the City of Medina’s perspective regarding responsibility for funding the north leg of a semaphore and necessary intersection improvements related to the semaphore. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact us at 952-249-4600 regarding this issue. Greg Gappa Director of Public Services Copy: Ron Moorse, Orono City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Orono Planning Director Tom Kellogg, Orono City Engineer, Bonestroo Engineers Michelle Morse, Long Lake City Administrator Page 3 of 3 ! 5: !i ! Li PI ■it^M •mI KELLER ESTATES L= Hsnnspbt Coun^, MtUMSifU HTOMA M«flMHOSR>£ riliiT AUlMIKiH ■S'- M^Cai L ^.«-girTTTT"! , tj I / / i- ^Tu■r ‘tir- i * *fnrrif ■ .» ! * It I I SSWSuS^ •SL'SSSS^'m SSmCS^CmmS »s e ^KfF^ li »} V 4U i --------------AVtMOE_HO«TM _______________•lliiLJ’i_________________________-----------«--——-rr.T"*^ itlci-AM ho i, hat V ^ I PREUMINARY NOT NM OCMtmiCTIOII REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ____—•mO JUL 1 4 2003 CITY Ul- OflONO DATE: July 14,2003 ITEM NO.; | Q Department Approval: Nant Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: H Agenda Section: Public Services Director’s Report Item Description: Request for Payment, County Road 6 Reconstruction Project We have received a final invoice from Hennepin County for the County Road 6 Reconstruction Project. Per a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Orono and Hennepin County, the City is responsible for 50% of the Right of Way acquisition costs and a prorated share of the costs for several other items including design and construction engineering, traffic control, concrete curb and gutter, and project mobilization. These costs are eligible for reimbursement from the City's Municipal State Aid funds. We will apply for reimbursement of these funds after payment to Hennepin County is made. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve request for final payment of $12,097.95 to Hennepin County for the County Road 6 Reconstruction Project. :v, % u : JUL 1 4 2003 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION UltVOHORONO DATE: Jiity 11,2003 ITEM NO: // Dcpartmeot Approval: Nam« Ron Moone Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: Payment Request Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report Navarre Fire Station The City has received an invoice from Constructive Ideas for project management services related to the Navarre Fire Station in the amount of $3,240.00. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the request for payment in the amount of $3,240.00 to Constructive Ideas, to be funded from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fund. Date:July 1,2003 To:City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Orono. MN 59323 Date May 2003 Description Navarre Fire Station Construction Phase - June Billing Total amount this invoice: Invoice No: 4258 Date Due: 8/1/03 CnJobNo: 03-018 Account No: 342 Mrs. 1I.S. Amount 3.240.00 ■EE2E3 anatom ti REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Co..... JUL 1 4 CIlYOh OHONO DATE: July II, 2003 ITEM NO: /2^ Department Approval: Name RonMootse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administnitoi's Rqwrt Item Description: Planner Salary Range Correction The agenda for the June 23 Council meeting included the appointment of two City Planners. Although the specific starting salary of S48,306 reflected in the agenda memo was correct, the salary range level was incorrect. Rather than salary range Level IV, the Planners should be at salary range Level III. Action is needed to reflect the correct salary range. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the starting salary of the new Planners at $48,306, which is approximately step 2 of salary range Level of the Supervisory/Administrative pay schedule. • NtLkiw. Ii: z' . a « »»»• r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: JiiL . s iCOJ CHY OF OHO no 7/14/03 Item No: I3 Dqiartment Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Item Description: Police Department - Accept Bulletproof Vest Reimbursement Grant Exhibits: None DISCUSSION The Orono Police Department applied for and has been approved for a grant through the United States Department of Justice Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program. The grant allows the Orono Police Department to be reimbursed S0% of any ballistic vest which is purchased in the next four years up to $13,650.54. Manufacturers recommend vest replacement every five years. Standard vests cost about $1,000. This grant will allow the police department to replace vests as required, outfit new hires with new vests, and to purchase specialized ballistic entry vests as deemed necessary. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve bulletproof vest reimbursement grant. I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 7/14/03 .JUi.,.1 4 <:i'W CITY OF ORONO Item No: j tj. Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Title: Stephany Good^J Chiefof Police Item Description: Police Department Web Site Design & Implementation Donation DISCUSSION A major goal of the Orono Police Department (OPD) in the past two years is to improve its relationship with the community by providing quality services. Discussions with members of the community have shown that citizens do not have access to knowledge about Orono police activity and services. Discussion also has shown that the police department could improve service through more frequent positive contacts with the public. In 2001, Officer Scott Boris designed a web site for the police department which was the beginning of a way for the Orono police to exchange information with the people they serve. Beginning in November 2002, Orono resident Stephanie Grande volunteered her expert services in redesigning the web site. She spent over 346 hours meeting with other members of the community and the police officers to publish a web site that contains over 110 original .html pages with about 70 relevant links and 15 downloadable .pdf files. She custom designed all of the navigation, layout, logos, images, and graphics for the site. Ms. Grande stated that she decided to use the motto of the OPD (Fairness, Service, Pride and Quality) as central themes for the site and as she spent time talking w ith the staff and riding with officers on duty. She said, “I came to realize these truly are the guiding principles of the work the police officers do in the community.” Normally an employer would charge S80/hr consulting fee for this t>pe of work. The total value of this donation could be calculated at over S20,00C. The Orono Police web site is located at http;//www.oronopoIice.org. It is linked to the City of Orono Web Site. Ron Olson, Orono's Assistant Finance Director provided technical assistance on the project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to accept donation of time and expertise from Stephanie Grande for building the new Orono Police Department web site. i i, ,.. « * •4 V ___-^»mG REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUL 1 4 2003i CllVUh ORONO Date:7/14/03 Item No: Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Stephany Good^ Chief of Police ' Name: Title: Agenda Section: Item Description: Approve Contract for Service - Teens Alone Exhibits:None DISCUSSION The City of Orono contributes yearly to the Teens Alone program. The 2003 contribution is $800. The Teens Alone program covers counseling and other services to families in Orono and the surrounding area. Services may be accessed by individuals and by referral from the police department. Teens Alone provides an important resource for police in dealing with family conflict issues. A formal contract is needed to satisfy auditing requirements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve contract for services with the Teens Alone Program. •y, , I ‘; j1 mm i CITY OF ORONO HUMAN SERVICFS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and executed the 24"' day of July, 2003, by and between the City of Orono, located at 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 and Teens Alone, located in Hopkins, Minnesota. WHEREAS, The City recognizes the benefit of counseling and mediation services that support residents with special needs who are unable to access services by other means that focus on prevention and early intervention, build on strengths and resources of families, and that are culturally diverse and locally available; WHEREAS, The Provider provides <uch services and City desires to hire Provider to perform such services. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows: I.Term and Termination: 1.1 Term: The term of this Agreement shall be one year commencing on January 1, 2003, (“Commencement Date") and terminating December 31,2003, (“Termination Date”.) 1.2 Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by City upon thirty (30) days notice to Provider in the event that the City determines that funding for the services provided by Provider are no longer necessary or in the public interest. This Agreement may be terminated by City, at its sole discretion, without notice if Provider breaches this Agreement in any way. If this Agreement is terminated for any reason. Provider shall be paid for services rendered up to the date of termination. Provider's Duties: 2.1 Services: Provider shall provide the services as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2.2 Sn.'urance: Provider shall maintain insurance, as spieciried in this Section 2.2, for the term of this Agreement. Prior to the commencement date of this Agreement, Provider shall submit to City certificates of insurance. All required insurance policies shall list the City as an additional insured and provide that the policies shall not be terminated or modified unless the City has first been notified in writing thirty (30) days prior to cancellation or modification. ------- Provider’s Duties Continued: 2.2.1 General Comprehensive Liability Insurance: Provider shall maintain general comprehensive liability insurance in the amount of at least $300,000.00 per individual and $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. 2.2.2 Professional Liabilit)' Insurance: Provider shall maintain professional liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. 3. City’s Duties: City shall pay Provider $ 800.00 for the services rendered by Provider for the term of this Agreement. Payments shall me made in four equal installations on a quarterly basis. To receive payments. Provider shall submit an invoice detailing the services provided for the quarter uhich shall also include the following signed and dated statement: “I declare under penalty of perf urv that this account, claim or demand is |ust and correct and that no part of it has been paid.” 4. Miscellaneous Provisions: 4.1 Independent Contractor: Provider shall at all times be an independent contractor. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall in any way create or be construed to create a partnership, an agency relationship or an employment relationship between City and Provider. 4.2 Data Practices Act: The Provider shall at all times abide by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, MN Statute 1301 , et seq., to the extent that the Act is applicable to data and documents in the hands of the Provider. 4.3 Audits: The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the Provider or other parties relevant to this agreement are subject to examination by any person(s) with legal authority to audit City records or on behalf of the City for a period of six years after the Termination Date. 4.4 Income Tax Withholding: No final payment shall be made to the Provider until the Provider has submitted satisfactory evidence to the City that the Provider and each of its subcontracts has complied with the provisions of MN Statute 290.92 relating to withholding of income taxes upon wages. A certification by the Commissioner of Revenue shall satisfy this requirement. Miscellaneous Provisions Continued: 4.5 Conflicts: No salaried or employee of the City shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this contract. The violation of this provision renders the Contract void. Any federal regulations and applicable state statutes shall not be violated. 4.6 Discrimination: In performance of this contract, the Provider shall not discriminate on the grounds of or because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation or age, against any employee of the Provider, any subcontractor of the Provider or any applicant for employment. The Provider shall include a similar provision in all contracts with subcontractors to this contract. The Provider further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, MN Statute 363.01 ct seq.. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities act of 1990. 4.7 Whole Agreement: This Agreement and the attached Exhibit A constitute the final and complete agreement of the parties and shall supersede and replace any prior oral or written agreements between City and Provider. Any subsequent modification must be in writing signed by both parties. 4.8 Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed and construed under the law of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have hereunto set their hands as of the date set forth above. CITY OF ORONO By; Mayor By; City' Administrator PROVIDER By; Title .1 % iy>ps\w^tii6(Albrim\HiamafiSmiccsAff«cflicntwpd IKONICO FAX 1991.0S-21 I t I N C I N fi AuftUSl 16,2002 F A M I I I I S I 0 G I 1 H f « 0S«27OM «172 P.02/04 Kon Moorw CUy ol Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 5W23 0066 H i^vaanj 6'xV.av't "A" fill th.il nm! Collalmralivc and school district p^nnel year history serving more than 3000 youUi ai^d 1000 parents living in the Eden 1 rairie, Hopkins, St Louis ^rk aiul Wnyxata school uistrlds and asked to become part of our organisation. Asquest from all the communities we serve, we arc asking the municipalities served by t e were Orono School Ulslricl to contribute to Teei« Alone. Nm//or fjic in the Teens Alone service area reported 393 runaways, almost onc-thiref fewer than 2(100. Teens Alone is committed to helping youth who *'**''® away and slrivcs to help prevent a rim from hapjiening in the first place. be adecrease in runaways is that Teens Alone is commilted to be a more preventative «n«. .ha. mo« 0«.. .rfnintt. g,,don.ro.I?J^S h.v<- n.n airay a. W-i. one «o«. AlUwush P-J'-Xw have dcrrea.scd, Student Survey respondents show an B% mcre.ise from the 199B Survey. Ihe costs of running away are gic.it for young people and their faimlies. Runiiways, X . suburban youth who run into the urban areas, arc at high nsk of sexual exploitaliw, nbule hu4er/ "iminal victimization. Ihe family, too, is al-n.sk for permanent S:;?e a teen has left home-and the irmger they arc out on their parents have adopted Ihis mcntalily, lliinking the only solution l.s to ktik the Urn out of the liousc significant way in which Teens Alone has evolved in its eleven-year history is that our primary fcSis is no longer just working with runaway and and other usersof Teens Alone services refer families in crisis or connict m order to prevent the dissolution of a family. Teens Alone youth tell us; • 66% are experiencing failing grades • 42% Iwvc trouble communicating with their parents • 35% admit to using chemicals (and 15% are concerned about their parent s u. ) • 33% nwuUon f^otne kind uf fiuixily violwicc, or pc^ • 30% arc truant FROM iKONiCP FPX 1991.08-21 0Sf28PM #172 P.03/04 County Dtifa Teens Alone receives Ainding from Ilennepin County as one of three County agencies Uiat "finwn/ youth homeleaaness" Teens Alone bills the County based on outcomes—the number of youth who arc not in out-of*home placements after working with Teens Alone. Of 163 closed ca.scs (i.c. youth wiUt whom we had not had contact for 30 days), 181 arc not in out^oAhume, county-paid placements. hvaluHtion Teens Alone evahuites Its program by measuring results as they apply tu our mission. An indcivodcnt evaluator telephones former clients asking if our Kvrvicc helped tlrelr family. The feedback is positive: a 87% of young people and 69% of parents report ttreir ability to manage rnnflict increasra. □ 85% of youth and 73% of parents saw an improved family relatiunslup. u 967o of youth remained at home. 0 86% of parents reix)rl that their child was still enrolled in scliool and that Teens Alone; helped their chllcl st.iy in school U 937o of crisis calls were retiuned within 24 hours, u 97% of Teens Alone clients ranked tire service goodor nccrllnif Hinv thr Community Hcntfits: u Youth and family have free, easy, early access to coordinated scrvia ‘6 u Increased number of at-risk youtli will remain In their home community thus increase their likelihood to slay in school O Improved chances of reconciliation resulting in stronger families Q l^uced number of young people living in luuupervlscd situations a Cost-effective prevention and early interventiun (e.g. abuse/chcmical use, prostitutkm, disease, pregnancy, criminal activity, and himger) □ A .stmirger, safer community. u Reduced cn.stN assodalcd willr incarceration and other problLms resulting from youth living in unsupervised living situatioits. u A local resource for yimth and families in need and a resource for the Police Department. Target Pppulatitm I'cens Alone's target population is youUr and Ureir parents who live in the Orono School Dislricl and arc cxpcrieiKing family crisis or conflict and who may (or already are) at-risk of becoming runaway, abandoned, or homeless. Most west suburban referral.s arc through the schools and the police. However, many young people and adults call us directly. No one needs a "formal" referral. Ciiy Funding Currently, Tccn.*i AIoih : Is ftmded by a wide variety of sourcuK-^tcludiitg Heimepin County, municipalities, corporations, found.ttinn.s, and inmviduals (list attached). Municipalities in our service area who fund Teens Alone: Eden Prairie $8000 Minnetonka $2000 Orono $800 Plymouth $2UUU St. Louis Park $2000 PfbM it«3NIC0 pnx 1991.08-21 05128PM N172 P.04/04 TK!ns Alone appreciated Onmo'K donation of $600 in 2001. On behalf of the Teens Alone Hoard of Directors, we are asking the City of Qrunu to contribute $800 lids fiscal year to support the Teens Alone program, already active In your community. (Teens Alone's fiscal year is Jtdy* June). Daily, we hear fitMn people who tell us the Teens Alone service makes a difierenoe in Ihdr community. We rely on the financial support of nur dfies and police departnnenta in order to continue to offer communities a hist. free, and effective crisis and counseling service. We are luippy to serve youth and families who live in the Orono School District and would appreciate an $800 annu.il oontributinn. If you have questitavs, I can be readied at 952'988-4086. Sincerely, Lydia Klhm Kxecullve Director * \ “‘‘I v>: ■t- 4 V-;..f'i ••V »:....: ’ .1.' 1 Coi ------ JUL 1 4 2003 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO Date:7/14/03 Item No: \(p Department Approval: Name: Stcphany Good Title; Chief of Police Administrator Reviewed; Agenda Section: Item Description: Appointment of Police Department Volunteer Services Coordinator DISCUSSION 1) The Orono Police Department (OPD) would like to create and maintain a coordinated, effective approach to volunteer programming which integrates available local resources with the needs of the department and the community. THE OPD would like to accomplish this through the appointment of a volunteer services coordinator who would provide these services on a volunteer basis. 2) The plan to achieve this objective will include the following tasks: • Survey peer organizations’ approaches to volunteerism including reserves, internships, and other volunteer programs • Seek input from community resources who have expressed interest in involvement with the OPD, and engage them in an ongoing volunteer effort where ig>propriate. • Survey officers and staff of the City of Orono in a formally prepared survey and in follow-up discussion regarding the existing reserves program and prepare recommendations for any program changes • Prepare documentation of purpose, expectations and training material for any additional volunteer programs created through this effort The project deliverables will include new or updated bylaws, training materials, and/or statement of purpose for all volunteer efforts, distribution of surveys and revisions of roles and expectations, revision implementation. 3) The measures of outcome will include a follow-up survey of officer satisfaction with support services provided by any volunteer/reserve program, and a volunteer survey to detennine whether there is a clear understanding of expectations or to identify specific needs for further clarification. 4) The police department seeks council approval in appointing Orono resident, Stephanie Grande as the volunteer services coordinator on a pilot project basis for one year with continuance based on positive evaluations. No salary and no benefits are offered for this volunteer position. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to appoint Stephanie Grande as the Orono Police Department Volunteer Program Coordinator. L Km ___^iis^G JUL t 4 2003 REQUEST FOR COimaL ACTION ClirOFORONo DATE: July 11,2003 ITEM NO: H Department Approval: Naaic Ron Moorse Title City AdminisUator Adminbtntor Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Amendment to Noise Qrdinance The City code allows a residential property to have one "oversized" vehicle pariced on the property. This enables a person who has an oversized vehicle necessary for a business use to park the vehicle at the person ’s residence. The f .irking of oversized vehicles can have a negative impact on neighboring residential properties, due to noise and odor-particularly if the vehicle has a diesel engine. The City’s current noise ordinance does not include language specific enough to adequately address tliis issue. The attached amendment to the noise ordinance adds language that limits ^ time a truck can be allowed to idle at the residential property to five minutes. This will limit both the noise and odor impacts of oversized vehicles on adjacent residential properties. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached ordinance amending the City’s Noise Ordinance. J ORDINANCE NUMBER . SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9.24, SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE GOVERNING NOISE CONTROL The City Council of the City of Otono ordains: SECTION 1. Ordinance Amended. Ordinance Section 9.24, Subdivision 4, is hereby amended by adding a sect’on with the following language: **D. Oversize Trucks. The Council flnds that the starting and idling of oversize trucks in residential areas unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life and property and unreasonably disturbs the peace, quiet and repose of persons of ordinary sensibility. Accordingly, any otherwise permitted parking of an oversize truck in a residential area shall be allowed only if the truck is started and idled for the minimum necessary time period, not to exceed five minutes, before being driven off the property.” SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and shall be effective upon approval and publication. ATTEST: Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 14th day of July, 2003. Linda S. Vee, City Cleric Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor JUL 1 4 2005REQUEST FOR COliNCIL ACTION CITY OH OHO no DATE; July 10,2003 ITEM NO: jg Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed; Item Description: List of Licenses lor Council Approval Agenda Section: Licenses KENNEL LICENSE 1.Tony and Mary Becker 259 Hollander Road Wayzata,MN 55391 SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS 1. 2. Applicant:Bruce .Cienke Event:Wedding and Live Music for 150 Guests Location:541 North Stream Road Date:Saturday, July 26,2003 Time:6:00 p.m. - Midnight Applicant:Robin K. Olson, Vice President/Toumament Director Event:Minnesota Bass Federation Club Tournament Location:Maxwell Bay Public Access Date:Sunday, August 17,2003 Time:Sunrise to 3:00 p.m. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. A KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1,200_to December 31,200 Owner: (At\wT_ ^^\T Property Address; <;q l\ 1 \ aV\\ci 00 r\ • \\Q)VJ 2 aVfo M \ Anri Pin^ ' Mailing Address (if different): (include city and zip) Phone; (home) Q (work) - O ^ ^ "T11^\[ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee; $25.00 C'^iU 1 •‘ 6M <) '\ (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: ___________________________ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: L "=•.______________________________________ Purpose for more than 2 dogs: I c\tr r\(Vl■^■c^^^lh Va.\W^v*^) Dogs normally kept: y inside____^kennel structure ^ COMMERCIAL Kermel 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. <^Vv-Nni >.. ■ Applicant ^ ~ 1- Q Date For City Use Only Kennel inspected Date Recommends: Apprafat X’ Denial fV> CITY OF ORONO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Date luucd: Date of Eveat: Time: July 15,2003 Saturday, July 26,2003 6:00 p.m. -12:00 p.m. Midnight Name of Person(s) And/or Organization Sponsoring this Event: Bruce Kienke 541 North Stream Road Orono, MN 55391 A Phone:952-473-7621 Location of Event: 541 North Stream Road Type of Event: Wedding and dance with live music for approximately 150 guests The following documents arc required and on file at the City Administrative Ofllccs: • Certificate of General Liability Insurance • Approval from Orono Police Department The following conditions have been placed on this event: • This special events permit is subject to immediate revocation by the Orono Police Department upon violation of any City Ordinances or identification of hazards to safety of the public. • A noise exemption will be granted for live music which is played between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. Midnight. • Notification of the event to be provided to the neighbors with '/i mile, indicating the hours the band will play, purpose of the party, and the date of the event. • Parking is restricted to one side of North Stream Road and Spring Hill Road. Approved at City Council meeting on: July 14,2003 (City Seal) Ronald J. Moorse, City Administrator 2750 Kelley Pukwiy. P.O. Box 66. Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone: 952-249-4600 / Fax: 952-249-4616 / www.cI.arawAwi tw I w >V> CITY OF ORONO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Date Issued: Dale of Event: Time: July 15.2003 Sunday, August 17,2003 Sunrise to 3:00 p.m. Name of Penon(s) And/or Organization Sponsoring this Event: Robin K. Olson, Vice President/Toumament Director Sportsmen Bassmasters 10219 Zenith Lane Bloomington, MN 55431 Phone:952-832-0836 Location of Event: Maxwell Bay Public Access Type of Event:Minnesota Bass Federation Club Tournament - approximately 15 boats with weigh-in at Maxwell Bay ramp at 3:00 p.m. The following documents are required and on file at the City Administrative Oflices: • Approval from Orono Police Department • Approval from Orono Building and Zoning Department The following conditions have been placed on this event: • This special event permit is subject to immediate revocation by the Orono Police Department upon violation of any City Ordinances or identification of hazards to safety of the public. • This permit is subject to approval of this event, if required, by the DNR, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol. • Participants must follow the rules and regulations posted by the DNR at the Maxwell Bay Public Access, including no use of alcoholic beverages. • Cleanup of tournament related items and debris after the tournament such as signs, garbage, etc. • Sound system shall be regulated so as not to disturb nearby residential properties. Approved at City Council meeting on: July 14,2003 (City Seal) Ronald J. Moorse, City Adminis^or 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN SS323 Phone; 952-249-4600 / Fax: 952-249-4616 / www.cLoraoo.nm.us CITY OF ORONO _________________ *ChGCk Detail Register® ^ ^ 2003 CITY Of- OHONO 07/11/03 8:28 AM Pag« 1 & JULY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Primary Cash PaidChk# 0>6182 6/27/2003 E 101-41500-301 Auditing and Acefg Services Total GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN $350.00 2002 2002 Certificate $350 00 PaidChk# 076163 7/2/2003 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE E 651-49910-322 Pottage $196 26 7/3A33 E 602-49450-322 Postage E60M9400-322 Postage Total UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE $196.27 7/3/03 $70.51 7/3/03 Postage • 2nd Qtr UB Postage - 2nd Qtr UB Postage • 2nd Qtr UB $471*04 Paid Chk# 076164 7/2/2003 INTER-TEL (MCLEOD USA) E 101-41900-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip Total INTER-TEL (MCLEOD USA) $55.0 0 $55 00 1089497 Phone Suppoft-VM Set Up VM Chk« 076195 7/14/2003 ACCLAIM BENEFITS E 101-41900-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges E 101-41900-469 Other Miscellaneous Charts ToUl ACCLAIM BENEFITS $100 50 $137.75 336043 336044 COBRA Adm-6/2003 FSAAdm-6/2003 $23825 PaidChk# 076196 7/14/2003 ALL STAR PRO GOLF E 613-49830-201 Office supplies Total ALL STAR PRC GOLF $400.00 156653 Pencils $40000 Paid Chk« 076197 7/14/2003 ANDERSON, KRISTI E 101-42400-319Other Professional Services $260 00 7/7/2003 Planning Min - 6/16 E 101-45200-319 Other Professional Services $200.00 7/7/2003 Park Min - 7/7 E 101-4130C-319 Other Professional Services $165 00 7/7/2003 Council Min - 6/23 Total ANDERSON. KRISTI $62500 PaidChki 076198 7/14/2003 AT S T WIRELESS SERVICES E 101-41900-321 Telephone $27.72 3419397 Cell Phone E 602-49450-321 Telephone $10.19 3419397 Cell Phone E 601-49400-321 Telephone $10.19 3419397 Cell Phone Total AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES $48.10 Paid Chk« 076199 7/14/2003 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF E 613-49900 093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $56.12 17576 Hot Dogs. Hamburgers E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl __$36.8^18231 Hot Dogs, hamburgers Total AUGIES MOBILE CHEF $9296 Paid Chk# 076200 7/14/2003 BIFFS INC. E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $76.91 W192183 Portable • Bedenwood E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $141.82 W192184 Portable • Summit E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $121.82 W192185 Portable • Hackberry E 613-49830-415 Other Equipment Rentals $6091 W192186 Portable - GC E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $6091 W192187 Portable • CB Ptaygmd E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $21691 W192188 Portable • Navarre Plygmd Total BIFFS INC.$679 26 Paid Chk» 076201 7/14/2003 BKV GROUP E 425-40945-304 Engineering-Consulting $11,122.32 20583 Navarre Fire Station E 425-48945-304 Engineering-Consulting $48.992 43 20663 Navarre Fire Station Total BKV GROUP $60,114.75 PMChM 076202 7/14/2003 ^BONESTftOO ROSENE E ASSOC. A r ( mi k . CITY OF ORONO 07/11/03 8:28 AM Page 2 *Check Detail Register® JULY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-303 Engineering-Retainer O 802-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress E 402-48030-304 Engineering-Consulting E 402-48036-304 Engineering-Consulting G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const, in progress G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const, in progress O 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress E 406-48736-304 Engineering-Consulting E 425-48945-304 Engineering-Consulting E 425-48945-304 Engineering-Consulting E 425-48945-304 Engineering-Consulting Tout B0NE8TR00R08ENE ft ASSOC. $4,585.89 $174.00 $50.00 $930.90 $365.12 $174.00 $21325 $308 45 $159.47 $1.140 32 $19,776.30 $5,084.46 $664.00 97776 97776 97776 97777 97778 97779 97780 97781 97782 97783 97784 97785 97790 Ap{plicetions - April Convert Contours Council Mtgs April 2003 SCADA 04/2003 CR Rd 19 Sidewalk Wnk)wn>112 Left Arrow NLL Swr Ext • John Makay CR15 Foproemain Imp-Spates Heritage Dr Swr Addn Femdale Rd Bridge Replace Nav Fire St ft Util Imp Nav Fire St ft Util Imp Nav Fire Site Pien Review $33,826.16 PaidChki 076203 7/14/2003 BUDGET PRINTING E 101-41900-201 Office supplies ToUl BUDGET PRINTING $31.56 26944 Stop Work Orders $31.56 PaidChIdr 076276 7/14/2003 CARLSON TRACTOR ft EQUIP CO. E 101 -43000-221 Equipment Parts 8. Accessories ($2.68) 2008541 E 101-43000-221 Equ^)ment Parts ft Accessories ToUl CARLSON TRACTOR ft EQUIP CO. $67.31 2010095 Exchange - Backhow teeth Cylinder. Kit - Backhoe $64 43 PaidChk# 076277 7/14/2003 E 101-43290-800 Special Projects. Contingency Total CARPNETER'S CONTRACTING INC CARPNETER*S CONTRACTING INC $3.513 00 2423 Office Wall Imp $3.513 00 Paid Chk« 076278 7/14/2003 CENTER POINT ENERGY • GC E 613-49830-381 Gas ft Electric $21.56 539004161700 Gas Servl^ Total CENTER POINT ENERGY-GC $21 56 Paid Chki 076279 7/14/2003 CENTERPOINT ENERGY E 601-49400-381 Gas & Electric E 601-494(X)-381 Gas & Electnc E 101-41900-381 Gas & Electnc E 101-42110-381 Gas & Electnc E 101-41900-381 Gas ft Electric E 602-49450-381 Gas ft Electric E 602-49450-381 Gas ft Electric $897 $302.70 $53 82 $53 01 $64.77 $26.91 $11.98 060006750600 Gas Service 060006750600 Gas Service 060006750600 Gas Service 060006750600 Gas Service 060006750600 Gas Service 060006750600 Gas Service 060006750600 Gas Service ToUl CENTERPOINT ENERGY $522.16 Paid Chk« 076280 7/14/2003 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO E 101-42110-402 E 101-42110-402 E 101-42110-402 E 101-42110-402 E 101-42110-402 E 101-42110-402 E 101-42110-402 E 101-42110-402 E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $79227 $112.43 $5224 $251.05 $78.48 $2800 $31.24 $54 33 $6848 23884 23906 23918 23926 23932 23936 23944 23981 24004 Fuel pump.Vent Control i192 Bracket-M16 8185 Oil. Fuse 8191 Oil. Brakes 8195 Oil. Make Plate 8196 Gun Lock Switch 8185 088193 OH. Mount tires 8188 Oil. Butt Plate 8197 ToUl CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO $1.468 52 Paid ChldT076281 7/14/2003 CITYVIEW PLUMBING ft HEATING E 101-42110-404 Repairsft4aint-Bldgs/Grounds $1.10000 22985 Holding Cell toilet Repair CITY OF ORONO *Check Detiil Registei<§> 07/11/03 8 28 AM P«0«3 'I i JULY 2003 Chtck Amt Invoice Commtnt ToUl CITYVIEW PLUMBING A HEATtNO $1,100.00 Paid Chki 076282 7/14/2003 CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS E 425-48945-^^04 Enginaaring-Consutting E 425-48945-304 Enginaaring-Consulting Total CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS $4,050.00 $3,240.00 4244 4258 Navarre Fire Station Nav Fire Station-Juna 2003 $7,290.00 Paid ChkS 076283 7/14/2003 CROWN MARKING INC. E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $53 79 110709 Total CROWN MARKING INC. Name Plates $53.79 Paid ChkS 076284 7/14/2003 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resate-Txbt E 613-499004)91 Beer For Resale Total DAY DISTRIBUTING CO. $54 40 $36 60 225244 225244 Concessions fbr Resale Beer fbr Resale $91.00 Paid Chki 076285 7/14/2003 DCA • WIRE ONLY G 101-21709 Dental Insurance G 101-21719 OCA/Spending Accounts Total DCA-WIRE ONLY $304 85 $716.76 6/25/03 Spending Accts - 6/25 7/8A)3 Spending Accts - 7/8/03 $1,021.61 Paid ChkS 076286 7/14/2003 DELL E 101-42110-570 Offlc« Equip and Furnishings $1.218 35 389604894 Optipiex GX260 Total DELL $1.21835 PaidChk# 07626/7/14/2003 DEMBOUSKI. JAY E 101-42110-437 Training & Development $1000 6/11/03 Meal - Chamber Mtg Total DEMBOUSKI, JAY $1000 Paid Chki 076288 7/14/2003 DEPT OF AOM - INTERTECH GROUP E 101-42110-311 Data Processing Communication $37 00 DV03050321 PVC Circuit Total DEPT OF AOM • INTERTECH GROUP $37.00 Paid Chki 076289 7/14/2003 DEX MEDIO E/tST LLC E 613-49630-340 General /tdveilising $263.10 15132611000 Yellow Page Adv Total DEX MEDIO EAST LLC $263 10 Paid Chkii 076290 7/14/2003 DIAMOND MOWERS E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $6932 7532 Bushing ToUl DIAMOND MOVVERS $69 32 Paid Chk# 076291 7/14/2003 DOBO'S E 101-41110-439 Meeting Expenses $113 07 5161 Food • Work Sessions 4/14.5/6 Total DOBO'S $113.07 PaidChka 076292 7/14/2003 DONALD SALVERDA S ASSOCIATES E 101-41300-437 Training & Development $15416 CDSCMCMo>10.Books-Eff Mgmt Program Total DONALD SALVEROAS ASSOCIATES $154.16 Paid Chki 076293 7/14/2003 E-Z RECYCLING E 101-43270-316 Contract Recycling Pickup $6.409 20 5364 Recydtng 6/2003 Total E-Z RECYCLING $6.40920 E 10.-43000-224 StrMiMaM. Matoriats/Supply Totel EARL F. ANDERSON t ASSOC. $630 23 84230 St^S«n« 1630.23 CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 07/11/03 8:28 AM Page 4 m JULY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment ’aid Chk# 076295 7/14/2003 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE E 613-40000-091 Beer For Resale E 613-40000-091 Beer For Resale Total EAST SIDE BEVERAGE $217.60 413504 $136.00 419605 Beer fbr Resale Beer for Resale $353.60 Paid Chki 076206 7/14/2003 EASTMAN KODAK CO E 101-41000-201 Offioe supplies Total EASTMAN KODAK CO $59 64 104923023 Toner - Microfilm Reader $59.64 PaidChki 076207 7/14/2003 OSKSERVICES E 613-40830-226 Clothing & personal equipment ToUl OSKSERVICES $1001 515667 Uniform - Steffenhagen $10.01 $1.600 00 9904 $1,600.00 0904 Paid ^hki 076298 7/14/2003 GOLF CAR mOwST~~ E 613-40830-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 613-40830-415 Other Equipment Rentals Total GOLF CAR MIDWEST i^aidChki 076299 7/14A003 GOVERNMENT TRAiNINO SERVICE E 101-42400^37 Training & DavalopmenI $107.00 10476 Gotf Cart Lease S/2003 Golf Cart Lease 6/2003 $3,200.00 Landuse Workshop-Zugschwert Total GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE $107.00 PaidChk# 076300 7/14/2003 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT E 101-42110-414 EDP/Communications Equip Rent $1.541.89 23068021 Totol HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT Radio Lease 6/2003 $1,541.89 Paid Chki 076301 7/140003 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREA8 • SURVEY E 101-42110-201 Offic* Buppliaa $254.00 383 Ariel Photos Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS-SURVEY $254.00 PaidChk# 076302 7/14/2003 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-JAIL E 101-41600-309 Jail Charges $1.297.00 30 Room & Board 5/2003 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-JAIL $1,297.00 PaidChk# 076303 7/14/2003 HENNIPIN CTY TREASURER - PW E 402-48022-590 Street Construction $10.252 50 TRAN00620 E 402-48022-304 Engineering-Consulting . Total HENNIPIN CTY TREASURER • PW $12.097.95 Final Construct PW 53-08-96 Final Eng PW 534)8-96 Paid Chk* 076304 7/14/2U03 HINSHAW S CULBERTSON E 10143280-307 Legal-Consulting $3,007.16 10305335 Applications April 2003 E 10141600-307Legal-Consulting $36 00 10305336 Employee Fraudulent Acts E 10141600-307Legal-Consulting $48 00 10305336 Police Disability E 10141600-307Legal-Consulting $21236 10305336 Wireless Towers E 10141600-307Legal-Consulting $14270 10305336 Old Metro Legal Invoices E 10141600-307Legal-Consulting $299.00 10305336 Cable Property Matter E 10141600-307Legal-Consulting $806 00 10305336 Hollander Matter E 10141600-307Legal-Consulting $1,375.24 10305336 City Lake Lots/Docks/Easements E 10141600-307Legal-Consulting $143.00 10305336 Nelson Easement E 10142110-307Legal-Consulting $325.00 10305337 Dtedpkimg Hearing E 10141600-305Legal-Retainer $1.33000 10305338 Cound Mtgs April 2003 E 10141600-307Legal-Consulting $65.00 10305340 OR/LL Walar imwcofMMCt Total HINSHAW A CULBERTSON $7.78946 PaidChki 078305 7/14/2003 HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE E 613-40830404 RapairsAlaint-BldgsAkwinds $25.66 834127 Mat Ssfvioa • OC I i CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register© 07/11/03 8 28 AM Pages JULY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total HUEB8CH RENTAL SERVICE $2566 Paid Chk« 076306 7/14/2003 lAARS E 101-42110437 Training & Development Total lAARS $30000 Anderson $300 00 2003 lAARS Conf • Anderson Paid Chki 076307 7/14/2003 IFP TEST SERVICES. INC E 101-42110319 Other Prof^sional Services Total IFP TEST SERVICES, INC $700 00 S/9/03 $700 00 Psych Exams - Officer Candidat Paid Chk« 076308 7/14/2003 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOC E 101-42110319 Other Professional Services $756.00 5/1/03 Total LABOR RELATIONS ASSOC Disctplir>e Matters $756 00 PaidChk# 076309 7/14/2003 LAC AL EQUIPMENT INC E 101-43000221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Total LACAL EQUIPMENT INC $72^ 7302 $72.04 Pulley. Brackets Paid Chk# 076310 7/14/2003 LMCIT-BERKLEY ADMIN E 703-49960-379 Insurance Deductibles Total LHClT dERKLEY ADMIN $699 09 11044503 Sewer Back Up $699.09 ~ Paid Chk# 076311 7/14/2003 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts &/Accessories $2569 47111 Safety Chain Tout LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT $2569 PaidChk# 076312 7/14/2003 MEDICA G 101-21706 Hospitalization/Medical Ins $8,941.91 G 101-15998 Non-Employee Health Ins $1,693.92 G 101-21706 Hospitalization/Medical Ins $2,191.74 G 101-15998 Non-Employee Health Ins $4,213.54 G 101-21706 Hospitalization/Medical Ins $8.694 07 Total MEDICA $25,735 18 103182102552 Medlca High-7/2003 103182102552 Medica High-7/2003 103162122585 Medica Low-7/2003 103182125488 Medica Elect-7/2003 103182125488 Medica Eiect-7/2003 Paid Chk# 076313 7/14/2003 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER R 101-39610 Miscellaneous Revenue ($38 25) 6/2003 G 101-20809 SAC Charges due to MWCC $3.825 00 6/2003 Total MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER SAC Charge 6/2003 SAC Charge 6/2003 $3.78875 Paid Chk# 076314 7> 14/2003 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS E 602-49450-383 MWCC-Current Charges $22.5 68.00 7588944 Total MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS $22,568 00 Wastewater • 8/2003 Paid Chk# 076315 7/14/2003 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO E 613-49900-092 Soft Drinks For Resale $154.40 62435190 E 613-49900-092 Soft Drinks For Resale $268.35 64977177 Total MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO $422.75 Soda For Resale Soda for Resale Paid Chk# 076316 7/14/2003 MIDWEST FUELS G 101-14101 Gasoline Inventory E 101-43000-212 Motor Fuels & LubricanU Total MIDWEST FUELS $2.77223 14319 $80678 14319 1926.5 Gals Unleaded 754 Gits Diesel $3.57901 Paid6hk# 076:^17 V/14/2003 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $15 34 RI06030875 Oxygen Cylinder Total MINNEAPOUS OXYGEN COMPANY $1534 CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 07/11/03 8:26 AM Pag«6 E 602-49450-387 Intergovernmental Services $96 00 2 JULY 2003 Checli Amt Involee Comment • •III 576606 Sevier • 2090 ShoreQne Total MINNETONKA BEACH. CITY OF $96 00 Paid ChkO 076319 7/14/2003 MOTOROLA E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts & Accessories Total MOTOROLA $135 79 86343863 $135 79 Radio Clips Paid Chk# 076320 7/14/2003 MTOF E 613-49830-437 E 613^983(M37 Training & Development Training A Development Totel MTOF $15 00 Sleph«nh«gen Turf Tour-Steffl»nhag«n $75.00 Stephenhagen Phosporus Tmlrtg-Sloftenhagon $90 00 Paid Chk# 076321 7/14/2003 MTl OIST CO. E 613-49830-223 E 613-49830-223 E 613-49830-403 E 613-49830-223 E 613-49830-404 Bktg/Grounds Maint Supplies Bldg/Grounds Mamt Supplies Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Total MTIDISTCO. $155 49 361072 $53 42 361072-01 $162 82 361197 ($25.03) 362477 ($125Wj 363996 $221.70 GC Supplies Cup Dispenser Sharpen Greens Movmr Credit Credit • Irrigation Billing Paid Chk# 076322 7/14/2003 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS G 101-21710 Life Insurance G 101-21710 Life Insurance ToUl NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS $272.00 6732703 $144.00 6732703 PERA Life 7/2003 BalDue 6/2003 $41600 Paid Chki 076323 7/14/2003 NEOPOST E 10*-^2110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Total NEOPOST ^13^0^41391621 Rate Change Prof $139.00 PaidChk# 076324 7/14/2003 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS E 101-42110-321 Telephone Total NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $638 09 506573311-01 Police CeU Phones $638.09 PaidChk# 076325 7/14/2003 NORTHERN E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories ToUl NORTHERN $63 89 8310894 Bottle Jack $63.89 Paid Chk# 076326 7/14/2003 OFFICE DEPOT E 101-41900-201 Office supplies E 101-42110-201 Office supplies Total OFFICEDEPOT $144 03 209182518-00 Office Supplies $117 85 209182518-00 Office Supplies $261 88 Paid Chk# 076327 7/14/2003 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl ToUl OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. $11 34 $11.34 6000887 Chips fPrRatalt Paid 6hk# 076328 7/14/2003 ORONO ROTARY E 101-42110-433 Memberships A Subscriptions $127 00 137 2nd Qtr Rotary - Good Total ORONO ROTARY $127.00 E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies Total OTTEN BROTHERS $98 92 6/30X13 $16 83 6/4X)3 Annuals Sod $115 75 Paid ChMf 076330 7/14/2003 PEPtl-COLA rr-p*-- V ' CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 07/11/03 8 28 AM Pager JULY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 613^0900^2 Soft Drinks For Resale E613-499004)92 Soft Drinks For Resale E 613^9900^92 Soft Drinks For Resale E 613^9900^2 Soft Drinks For Resale ToCM PEPSLCOLA ($408.25) 36936355 $250.75 45088384 $147.50 47274785 $147.50 50042188 Credit on Account Soda for Resale Soda for Resale Soda for Resale $137.50 ^akf ChkS 076331 7/^4/2003 PIONEER E 601.49400-352 Printing & PubUthlng $274 62 629 Drinking Water Report E 101-42400-340 General Advertising $95.52 647 Applications E101-41900-352 Printing & Pubtehing $167.16 657 Ordinance 226 E101-41900-352 Printing & Publishing $563.17 659 Ordinance #227 Total PIONEER $1,100.47 Paid Chkt 076332 7/14/2003 PLYMOUTH ROOFING E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $1.730 00 7/2A)3 Roof Repairs-CH ToUl PLYMOUTH ROOFING $1,730.00 Pb^ Chk# 076333 7/14/2003 PRAIRIE OFFSET E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $265.14 118912 Business Cards Total PRAIRIE OFFSET $265.14 l^ald Chk« 076334 7/14/2003 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC. E 101-452CXM04 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $348 50 61728 Spot Moering • Fr Creek Present Total PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC.$348.50 Paid ChkS 076335 7/14/2003 PROTECTION ONE E 101-41900-489 Other Misoallaneous Charges $179.00 12677951 Quarterly Alarm Service ToUl PROTECTION ONE $179.00 ^akf Chk# 076336 7/14/2003 QWEST E 613-49830-321 Telephone $59.42 9524739904 Phone Service Total QWEST $59.42 ^aid 6hk# 076337 7/14/2003 REED VENDING E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $82.30 4013 Snacks for Resale Total REED VENDING $82.30 Paid Chk# 076338 7/14/2003 RICKS SUPERVALUE E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $58 05 6/13A)3 Insect Repellant/lbuprofen E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $19 07 6/19ri)3 Insect Repellent E 613-49830-223 Btdg^rounds Maint. Supplies $4.25 6/23A)3 Plants E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $^E5 6«3rt)3 Condiments Total RICKS SUPERVALUE $90.92 Paid Chk# 076339 7/14/2003 SBC PAGING E 101-42110-321 Telephone $30 58 202691007031 PoUa Pagers Tout SBC PAGING $30.58 Paid Chk# 076340 7/14/2003 SCHOENHOFF. JOHN E 101 -42110-226 Clothing & personal equipment $9105 6/11/03 Ballistic Vest Cover Total SCHOENHOFF, JOHN $91.05 Paid Chk# 076341 W14/2003 SHERWIN-WILUAMS E 101-45200-223 BMg/Orounds Maint Supplies $4045 5661-0 WoodFbiWi Total1 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS $40.45 Paid Chki 076342 7/14/2003 ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS i CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 07/11/03 8:28 AM Page 8 JULY 2003 E10M2110-340 General Advertising Total ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS Check Amt Invoic^Comment $472.35 2494600CfT Adv for Emp. Polico $472.35 ^id ChkO 076343 7/14/2003 STAR TRIBUNE E 101-42110-340 General Advertising $413.10 86685001 Adv for Ernp - Officer Total STAR TRIBUNE $41310 l>«id dhWI 07ei44 7/14«003 STATE OF NHNNESOTA • BCA ------------ E 101-42M0-311 Data Processing Communicalion $510.00 MN02715003L CJDN Connect-2ndCHr2003 Total STATE Of MINNESOTA-BCA $51000 Paid Chk# 0>«345 R101-39610 G 101-20802 7/14/2003 STATE TREASURER Miscellaneous Revenue Due to govts-State Total STATE TREASURER ($225.98) 6/2003 $5,649.40 6/2003 $5,423.42 Surcharge - 2nd Qtr 2003 Surcharge - 2nd Qtr 2003 Paid Chki 076346 7/14/2003 TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI E 101-41600-306 Legal-Prosecution $394.00 9646 Prosecutions 5/2003 Total TALLENANDBAERTSCHI $394 00 Paid Chk# 076347 7/14/2003 TEENS ALONE E 101-41800-490 Contributions to Civic Org's $800.00 5/19/03 2003 Teens Alone Contract Total TEENS ALONE $800 00 ^aid Chk# 076348 7/14/2003 THE HOME DEPOT E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Orounds Maint. Supplies $74.33 6/10A)3 Potted Plants ToUl THE HOME DEPOT $74 33 r^ald ChK# 076349 7/14/2003 THE SION AGE E 425-48945-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $1,065 00 12580 Signs Total THE SION AGE $1,065 00 Paid Chk# 076350 7/14/2003 THORPE DIST CO. E 613-49900-091 Bear For Resale $214 05 301587 Beer for Resale Total THORPE DIST CO.$214 05 Paid Chk# 076351 7/14/2003 TKDA E 402-48032-304 Engineering-ConsuKing $1,342 84 62354 OCB - TH12 to Fox Total TKDA $1,342.84 Paid Chk# 076352 7/14/2003 TOLL OAS • WELDING SUPPLY E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $124 3^ 254633 Welding Supplies ToUl TOLL GASS WELDING SUPPLY $1*24:34 Paid Chk# 076353 7/14/2003 UDOA ENTERPRISE E 613-49830-340 General Advertising $349 95 8376-3361 Directory Advertising Total UDOA ENTERPRISE $349 95 f^aid 0^^354 7/14/2003 UUNE E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $167 66 7270015 Radosabla Bags Total UUNE $167.66 E 101-42110-226 Clothing & personal equipment E 101-42110-226 Clothing & personal aquipment Total UNIFORMS UNUMITED $144 35 $116.76 170790 181199 Pants, Shirt - Carlson Unifonn • Erickson $261.11 1 CITY OF ORONO 07/11/03 8 2S AM Page 9 *Check Detail Register® enJLVaOQ) Cliectt Amt tH¥Oiee Cotmwewt VERIZON WIRELEU E 601-49400-321 TeleplK>ne E 602-49490-321 Telephone E101-41900-321 Telephof^e Total VERIZON WIRELESS $14.13 10034565141 Utility CeN Phone $14.14 10034565141 UUNy Cell Phone $391.39 10035922056 CeN Phones $419.66 PaUChki 7/14/2003 WAVZATA.CITYOF E 60M9400-387 Intergovenunefllal Sefvioea Total WAVZATA.CITYOF $3,152.94 2ndQtr Purcli Water 2nd Qtr 2003 $3,152.54 ^aUCIM 076358 7/14/2003 WE8TONKA GLASS SERVICE E 613-49830-404 RepainAtoint^MgaASrounds Total WEtTONKA GLASS SERVICE $97.20 361463 Windoer Repair - GC $57.20 Paid Chki 076359 7/14/2003 WRK3HT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC E 60249450-361 Gas S Electric E 10143000-381 Gas S Electric Total WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC $21.19 3113009200 $29.64 3113009200 Electrical Service Electrical Service $50.83 T33 Ciiki 076360 7/14/2003 XCEL ENERGY E 10143000-366 Street Llghtir>g E 60249450-381 Gas S Electric E 61349630-381 Gas S Electric E 60149400-381 Gas & Electric E 10141900-381 Gas S Electric E 10142110-381 Gas S Electric E 10143000-381 Gas S Electric E 10145200-381 Gas S Electric E 10142110-361 Gas & Electric Total XCEL ENERGY $1.326 03 $1.74813 $87362 $4,033.04 $1.370 71 $60967 $45887 $24.12 $9.42 118059677718 Electrical Service 116059677718 Electrical Service 116059677718 Electrical Service 118059677718 Electrical Service 110059677718 Electrical Service 116059677718 Electrical Service 118059677718 Electrical Service 118059677718 Electrical Service 118059677718 Electrical Service $10,453.61 Paid ChMI 076361 7/14/2003 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS E 10143000-221 Equipment Parte & Accessories $381.00 90903 Ssreeper Brooms Total ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS $361.00 10100 Primary Cash $238,977.42 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT 406 PbRMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVE 425 NAVARRE FIRE STATION PROJ FUND 601 WATER OPERATING FUND 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND 613 GOLF COURSE 651 STORM WATER UTILITY OP FUND 703 INSURANCE FUND 10100 Primary Cash $87,268.12 $13,979.91 $1.140 32 $94.194 51 $7.87470 $26,304.88 $7.31963 $196 26 $69909 $238,977.42 v; L CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail RegiateKS) 06/25A)37:24AM Pagtl JUNE 2003 Check Amt Invoice Coiwmnl 10100 PrimaryCesh #>ald ChlS 0W72 M5/03 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION G 101-21711 Credit Union $10,685.00 Total CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION $10,685.00 Paid Chki 076174 6/25/03 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 0 101-21705 Other ReOrement $300.00 Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 $300.00 Paid cm 076175 6/25/03 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE G101-21707 Union Dues $548.16 Total LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE $548.16 Paid Chki 076176 6/25/03 MN DEPT OF REVENUE G 101-21702 State Withholding Total MN DEPT OP REVENUE $3.87992 $3,879.92 Paid Chki 076177 6/25/03 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION G 101-21705 0th r Retirement $2,337.00 G 101-21705 Other Retirement Total NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION $176 86 $2,513.86 Paid Chki 076178 6/25A)3 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST G 101 -21705 Other Retirement $2.789.68 Tout ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST $2,789.68 Paid ChMr076l79 6/25/03 PUBUC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT G 101-21704 PERA $6,570.76 G 101-21704 PERA $5.092 50 Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT $11.663.26 Paid Chki 076180 6/25/03 UNITED WAY G 101-21708 United Way Total UNITED WAY Paid Chki b>61S1 6/25^3 WISCONSIN SCTF G 101-21712 Other Deductions Total WISCONSIN SCTF $65 00 $6500 $184 62 $184.62 10100 PrlmaiyCath $49,956.70 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 10100 PrimaryCash $49,956.70 $49.956 70 SAVINGS W/H S TRANSFERRED Paid Chki 076173 6/25X)3 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES G 101-21701 Federal Withholding $8,677.94 FEDERAL W/H G 101-21703 FICA Tax Withholding $4.32463 FICA S MEDICARE W/H G 101-21703 FICA Tax Withholding $4.32463 FICA A MEDCR CITY SHARE Total FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES $17,327.20 DEFERRED COMP UNION DUES STATE TAX W/H USCM - ENTITY 2339 OBRA DEFERRED COMP MN STATE RETIREMENT PERA CITY SHARE PERA EMPLOYEE W/H CHARITY DONATIONS JOHNSON i 0002756898 CITY OF ORONO chtck register Oe/25/03 7:26 AM Pagel Chteck Nuffibar Employaa Nama 052672 DODGE. RACHEL M, 052973 LESKINEN. DENISE M. 052974 MOORSE. RONALD J. 052975 SiLUS. BARBARA G 052976 VEE, LINDAS. 052977 KUEHN. THOMAS M. 052978 OLSON. RONALD J. 052979 PETTIT, SANDRA K. 052980 ANDERSON. BRUCE L 052981 ARNESON, JOSHUA A. 052982 BOBZIEN. SUE A. 052983 BORIS. SCOTT W 052984 BUDIG. STACIE M 052985 CARLSON. MICHAEL B. 052986 CORNICK. JAMES L 052987 DEMBOUSKI. JAY C. 052988 ERICKSON. KURT R 052989 FARNIOK. CORREY L 052990 FISCHENICH. DAN T. 052991 FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K 052992 GOOD. STEPHANY a 052993 JOHNSON. JEFFREY 052994 MADSON. ADRIENNE M. 052995 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L 052996 MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES 052997 PERSELL. WILLIAM R 052998 RUSSETH. KYLE M 052999 SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B. 053000 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. 053001 TOMCZYK.MARKW 053002 WITTKE, ANTHONY A. 053003 HERMAN. JOHN R. 053004 LEE. JOSEPH P. 053005 BOLTERMAN. MATTHEW A. 053006 GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. 053007 GAPPA. GREGORY A. 053008 MABUSTH. JEANNE A. 053009 MEYER. WILLIAM C. 053010 OMAN. LYLE E 053011 VANG. BRUCE L 053012 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F 053013 DEBAERE. DONALD L 053014 GREGORY. JAMES D 053015 HANSEN. STEVEN 053016 06ERAIGNER. SCOTT G. 053017 OBRIEN. RANDY L 053018 PALMER. GREGORY A. 053019 RATHBUN. BARRY J. 053020 SKREEN. DALES 053021 ABRAHAMSON. FREDW. 053022 HAMBRO. MARSHALL J. 053023 JENSEN. RODNEY W. 05C024 MARSELLA. DAN G 053025 MCINTYRE. WILLIAM E 053026 OAS. DANIEL O 053027 PEICKERT. GARY J 053028 POLLEY. MIKE A. 053029 ROSS. JOHN A. 053030 SMYTH. KATHERINE R. Pay Chack Chack Pariod Amount Data Chack Status 13 $1,031 08 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $864.60 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $8592 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $464 96 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.243 61 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1,037.77 6/25A)3 Outstanding 13 $11382 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $43357 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $47624 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $925.50 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $783 18 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1,450 30 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $637.60 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $535 40 6/25/03 OjHt^nding 13 $1.445 57 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.736 84 6/25/03 Outrtandi^^ 13 $1,624 33 6/25A)3 Outstanding 13 $1.855 86 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.684 27 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $231 81 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1,941.39 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1,527.39 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $61925 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $651.17 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1,755.45 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $324 13 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.16574 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.534 58 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $495.01 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.470 55 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1,404.91 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $859 23 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $45921 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.098 45 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.41939 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.81096 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.004 94 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $66617 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $21255 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1,361 47 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1,386 03 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.029 22 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $799 97 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1,217.02 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $694 43 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.17364 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $741 01 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.104 00 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $1.065 05 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $14221 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $112 48 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $304 46 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $32696 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 •280.66 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $18416 6/25/03 OutsUnding 13 $359 87 6/25/03 Outstanding 13 $8357 6/25K)3 Outstanding 13 $128 50 6/15/03 Outstanding 13 $36.28 6/2S/03 Outstaneng m i CITY OF ORONO check register (M/2SA>37:2eAM P«gt2 dwek Number Employee Name Pwy Period Chock Amount ChMk Oato Chock Statiio 093031 STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD 13 $1,377.35 6/25/03 Outotonding 053032 STORK. JOHN T.13 $28814 6/25/03 Outstanding $53,351.18 «K < *v '3 ♦ ■«a«- i i ■■■ ' ■•••••: •#.v v’% '. •. ‘ j ^ V ■f*r •'*' '>"■ fr' 4:;-^ - '. m- A. Ch9ck Nimib«r Employ#* Nam# 053035 053036 053037 053038 053039 053040 053041 053042 053043 053044 053045 053046 053047 053048 053049 053050 053051 053052 053053 053054 053055 053056 053057 053056 053059 053060 053061 053062 053063 053064 053065 053066 053067 053063 0530C9 053070 0530 n 05307: 053073 053074 053075 053076 053077 053078 053079 053080 053081 053082 053063 053084 053085 053086 053087 053066 053089 053090 053091 053002 053003 DODGE. RACHEL M. LESKINEN. DENISE M. MOORSE. RONALD J. SILUS. BARBARA G. VEE. LINDAS. KUEHN. THOMAS M. OLSON. RONALD J. PETTIT. SANDRA K ANDERSON. BRUCE L. ARNESON. JOSHUA A BOBZIEN. SUE A BORIS. SCOTT W. BUDIG. STACIE M. CARLSON. MICHAEL B. CORNICK. JAMES L DEMBOUSKI. JAYC. ERICKSON. KURTR FARNIOK. CORREY L FISCHENICH. DAN T. FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER 1C GOOD. STEPHANY R. JOHNSON. JEFFREY MADSON. ADRIENNE M. MCNICHOLS. DAVID L. MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES ORTENDAHL. CHRISTOPHE PERSELL. WILLIAM R. RUSSETH. KYLE M. SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F. TOMCZYK.MARKW. WITTKE. ANTHONY A. HERMAN. JOHN R LEE. JOSEPH P. BOLTERMAN. MATTHEW A, GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. GAPPA. GREGORY A MABUSTH. JEANNE A MEYER. WILLIAM C. OMAN. LYLE E VANG.BRUCE I 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 ABRAHAMSON. FRED W HAMBRO. MARSHALL J. JENSEN. RODNEY W. MARSELLA. DAV G. MCINTYRE. WIUL^M E, OAS. DANIEL O. PEICKERT. GARY J. POUEY. MIKE A ROSS. JOHN A. Pay P#riod CITY OF ORONO check register Clwck Amount $1,031.08 $864.60 $85.92 $464 96 $1,243.61 $1,037.77 $113.82 $48357 $831.51 $836 00 $783.18 $1,514.71 $682.81 $337.18 $1,716.73 $1,680.70 $1,623.33 $2,301.92 $1.634 57 $266.66 $1,941 39 $1,508.59 $783.58 $648.14 $1,784.11 $36 94 $77307 $1,206.10 $1.627 02 $487 68 $1,548.73 $1.558 65 $859.23 $28280 $1.098 45 $1 419 39 $1,610.96 $97653 $658 90 $21255 $1,481.10 $1.386 03 $1.626 28 $98361 $1,057.79 $75565 $973 12 $1.338 00 $1,203.49 $1,261.25 $112 26 $58.06 $17416 $279.96 $23576 $151.82 $432 52 $10303 $204 30 Ch#cl( Dit# Ch#ck Static 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9^3 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9A)3 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 OutstaiYding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7 *9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9K)3 OuUtanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstancfing 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstancfing 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9/03 Outstanding 7/9A)3 Outstanding 7/9A)3 Ou^Mnding 07/08/03 12:19 PM Pagol cmr OF ORONO check register 07/06/03 12:19 PM Pago 2 Chock Numbor Employoo Namo Pay Parlod Chack Amount Chack Data Chack Status 053094 SMYTH. KATHERINE R.14 $166.82 7/9/03 Outstanding 053005 STEFFENHAOEN. RONALD 14 $1,377.35 7/9/03 Outstanding 053096 STORK. JOHN T.14 $264.40 $56,404.20 7/9/03 Outstanding H t 1 ’ t i ^oit • V- ' -r ^ 1 »r^v. >i '■ *"4 V - •. . ./ /./. / • ■-i-. ■ • 1 i V ji < ' ‘i V ^ . , ' ■ , u . ^ *■ t vi**' -V^1