HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-2002 Council Packet/ ■ c
1
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 8,2002,7:00 P.M.
ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA
(*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council
under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the
Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in sheet.
ROLL CALL
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approve/Amend JUL 0 8 2002
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
* 2. Regular Council Meeting of June 24,2002
CltYur UfiONO
PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Andrew McDermott, Representative
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sandy Smith. Representative
PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person)
3. Minnetonka Art Center
4. Barb Sykora. Candidate for State Representative
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
* 5. #02-2780 Olten Brothers Nursery, 2350 West Wayzata Boulevard - Amendment to PUD
Agreement #1 - PUD Amendment and Resolution
6. #02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road - After-the-Faci Conditional Use Permit and
Variances
7. #02-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 Wa>-zata Boulevard - Commercial Site Plan Review and
Conditional Use Permit - Resolution
8. #02-2796 Mark and Gina Kosek, 1875 Shad>Avood Road - Variance
9. Extend Telecommunications Tower Moratorium - Ordinance
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
10. Easement Orono Orchard Road, Long Lake Creek Culvert
Ha. L f ■'‘j Siu. J y /u(,‘cr\
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
11. Pay Requests - Long Lake Fire Station
12. Appointment of Ron Hendricks to Full-Time Police Officer Position
12a. Interviews for Planning Commission Alternates
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
13. LICENSES
Special Events
* 14. BILLS
J
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 8,2002,7:00 P.M.
ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA
UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS
2002
07/08 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
07/09 • Joint Council and Planning Commission Work Session, 5:30 p.m.
07/15 • Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m.
07/22 - council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
08/05 • Park Meeting, 7:15 p.m.
08/12 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
08/19 - Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m.
08/26 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
Public A ttendance
Meeting Date ‘7- X, .
^ CouNcn.
□ Planning C ommission
□ Park C ommission
□ Other
Please nix out the information requested
BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS
jjj/ ‘Cf~ ^
i f
1
NAME OR NUMBER
t f 1 r> i) H (/
3. ^ \ 7- (kvcLCifV 0^^}/___________
4. /Lot^* >/'**' , /^yv)ayy>’/Cif C7 JV,'>>f .
». ^L->ArX iT Afsi r^oN-Mr<£' y Ma) ■
6..
7..
8..
9..
10.
11.
12.
13..
14.
15.
XiVDMa\A4iBliitoniha Snppwturna • OM)\fORMS\ft1UCJlTT
.J .. t J
mcPT\N^
JUL 0 d 2002
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o*clock p.m.
RO6^f0fOHU«O
The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present; Mayor
Barbara Peterson; Council Members Bob Sansevere, Jim White, and Jim Murphy; City Attorney
Thomas Barrett; Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaflron, Zoning
Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public
Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson.
Absent were Council Member Jay Nygard and City Administrator Ron Moorse
Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
I. Approve/Amend
Items 6 • 13, IS and 16 were added to the Consent Agenda.
Item 5 was removed from the Consent Agenda.
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote:
Ayes 4, Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
*2. Regular Council Meeting of June 10,2002
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council
Meeting of June 10,2002. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PRESENTATION
3. Legacy Foundation
As there were no representatives from the Legacy Foundation, the presentation was postponed.
PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pat Wolfe, Representative
Pat Wolfe was not present, therefore no comments were provided by the Park Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jan Berg, Representative
Berg stated that she had nothing to report.
PAGE 1 of 17
)
(<
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
4. #02-2780 Often Brothers Nursery, 2380 West Wayzata Boulevard - PUD Amendment
ClifTOtten, Applicant, and Don O’Reilly, Oltcn ’s Garden Center Manager, were present.
Weinberger explained that Otten Brothers had applied to amend PUD Agreement #1 that was
executed with the approval of the East Willow Woods in 1990. The proposed amendment is to
permit a restaurant use on the property and to lift the exception clause within the PUD agreement
that limits the number of B-l permitted uses on the property.
PUD Agreement #1 defines standards and conditions for how the property may be used. The
permitted uses for Lot 1 (which contains the building and greenhouses) include the nursery and
office use of the existing building and property. Other permitted uses included items listed as
permitted in the B-6 zoning district and B-I zoning district. Both lot I and 2 of the Otten
property are zoned PUD with an underlying B-6 designation. Any changes to the PUD, or to the
zoning of the property to add new permitted uses needs to be done carefully, and in a way that
ensures the use of the property fits into the City’s plans for the broader Highway 12 area.
Weinberger reported that Otten Brothers is also requesting that Class I Restaurants be listed as a
“permitted use” to include restaurant use beyond the existing "Daisy Diner ’’. Prior to 1996, Class
1 Restaurants were listed as permitted uses in the B-6 district. The Daisy Diner is open to the
public, but docs not have any exterior building signage. The restaurant is accessory to the
nursery use of the property.
Additionally, Weinberger noted that other issues including noise and screening need o be
addressed.
The Planning Commission recommended that the adjacent property owners and Cliff Otten seek
mediation to resolve the ongoing issues. Weinberger pointed out that the City of Orono can
facilitate the mediation, but the mediation itself will be conducted by an outside service. A
condition of the PUD Amendment should be to begin the mediation process.
With regard to restaurants, in general, as a permitted use to the PUD Agreement, the Planning
Commission recommended denial of the request. They recommended denial of the request to
include all B-1 uses as permitted uses as well.
Mr. Often stated that the Daisy Diner is a trial of sorts to see if the market will support this effort.
Don O’Reilly toured the country in an effort to gauge the demand for such an addition and found
it to be effective in other locations. Mr. Otten questioned why Class I Restaurants, allowed prior
PAGE 2 of 17
t .... r
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 oVIock p.m.
(#02-2780 OTTEN BROTHERS NURSERY - Continued)
to 1996, were omitted from the permitted uses of his PUD and asked if they could be put back
into the agreement. In fact, he questioned the rationale of many crossed out items on the PUD
Agreement, and even some that were not. As stated in the staff report some such uses “could be
seen as detrimental to the City of Orono..”, Mr. Otten questioned realistically how could his
allowing a book store to occupy his property be detrimental to Orono. He asked why he had also
been told that he ca.nnot advertise his Daisy Diner, if it is to be suecessful, the diner must
advertise its existence.
There were no public comments at this time.
White asked if Mr. Otten ’s objections surrounded the ban on advertising.
Mr. Otten stated that he also questioned why he could not have a waitress serve coffee or bring
people their orders after they’ve placed them.
Murphy questioned staff if anyone could recall the rationale behind many of the stricken items
being crossed off the list in the first place. He added that his only reservation in allowing
restaurants would be that a fast food service might move in.
Gaflfron indicated that Murphy made a good point, no one could explain why some of the items
were crossed off, while excluding others, like liquor stores.
Weinberger noted that the diner is an accessory use to the garden center. If a freestanding
structure or restaurant were proposed, the parking shortage would cause an issue. In fact,
Weinberger indicated that if a restaurant were built, it would be subject to public review.
Sansevere stated that he had no strong objections to allowing the diner as a permitted use and
asked why anyone might object to having a waitress bring them a cup of coffee.
White questioned what would be wrong w ith a tasteful neon sign in the window advertising the
diner. He stated that bookstores and others offer coffee etc. for spouses or visitors to enjoy as
they browse, and asked what the problem would be with that here.
Mr. O’Reilly mentioned that most of the comments he has received are from people who have
stopped for a cup of coffee or bite of lunch elsewhere, and then said if they had only known
Otten ’s Daisy Diner existed they w ould have waited to buy it there as they shopped.
Murphy asked if Otten has been limited from advertising in the paper.
Sansevere reiterated that he saw no conflict with allowing a restaurant at that location. He added
that across the street there already are venues, fast food, coffee, etc. and this would not impact
the intersection greatly.
PAGE 3 of 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o^clock p.m.
(#02-2780 OTTEN BROTHERS NURSERY-Continued)
Mr. Often stated that he would like to be alIo\% ed many of the crossed off items on his PUD, so
that every time he has a potential lessee, he does not have to come in front of the Council to
make changes.
Mayor Peterson stated that Mr. Often would like to make Class I Restaurants a permitted use and
be allowed the advertising to support one.
Mr. Often maintained that he could not understand why the class I restaurant use was crossed off
in 1996 in the first place.
Murphy questioned if they might be opening a “Pandora's box”, by allowing restaurants and
asked staff if they foresaw any major issues with doing so.
Weinberger saw no issue w'ith the Class 1 Restaurant permitted use and stated that prior to 1996
it was an allowed use.
Sansevere indicated that if they tried to increase the size of the restaurant, the parking issue
would limit what they could do, and a freestanding structure would be subject to public review.
Weinberger and Gaffron agreed that restaurant use should be reviewed on a case by case basis.
The concession style stand that Often proposes is an accessory use to the business.
Sansevere repeated that he did not foresee an increased amount of trafnc due to the diner
business and pointed out that a great deal of traffic already exists at that intersection.
Murphy asked if the whole building would be allowed to support restaurant use.
Weinberger stated that a restaurant could be allowed anywhere on lot 1, however, if an accessory
building were built then they would have to come before Council once again.
Murphy asked Mr. Often if the City allowed the use as accessory to the nursery, was that
acceptable to him.
Mr. Often pointed out that by limiting his PUD agreement, the City continues to diminish the
value of his property, however, increasing his taxes nonetheless.
Mr. White argued that Mr. Otten ’s statement was unwarranted.
Mayor Peterson asked for the definition of a Class I Restaurant.
Weinberger read the following definition: Class I Restaurants are sit down restaurants where
food orders are generally taken at a table, or a restaurant where food is ordered cafeteria style
PAGE4ofl7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MoDday, June 24« 2002
7:00 o*clock p.m.
(U02-2780 OTTEN BROTHERS NURSERY-Continued)
and taken to a table for consumption. This would include most any restaurant except those that
might serve liquor or have live entertainment available, which would be classified as Class II
Restaurants.
Mayor Peterson asked if it could be a McDonalds or an Arby’s etc. that moved in.
Weinberger clarified that a fast food drive in style restaurant would be a Class II Restaurant
Sansevere stated that it is not far away that a fast food chain is allowed and he had no problem
with the Class I Restaurant use allowed here.
Murphy asked if Otten ’s property could now be a subject of a restaurant or coffee chain.
Weinberger replied that would be the case.
White asked if this would be the time to address the other issues and build them into the
negotiation.
Weinberger indicated that he would like to see the other issues be discussed and then a motion be
put forward which might set the condition to allow and seek mediation as a part of it.
Weinberger explained that there have been a series of issues that have gone on for years,
essentially, since the business began operation. As noted on the plat map, the residential
properties of East Willow Woods are located immediately to the north of the nursery. Issues
regarding screening and noise have been ongoing since its inception, particularly, the types of
equipment used and the hours of their operation. Weinberger reported that the Planning
Commission heard from neighbor, Mr. Walvatne of 710 Dickey Lane, regarding some of the
issues and the City felt because how long this had gone on, that the Plaruiing Commission made
a recommendation that the City seek a mediation service to discuss issues on both sides in order
to help the two sides come to a resolution. Staff had since contacted the North Hennepin
Mediation Program based out of Brooklyn Center, who would be willing to work on this
situatron.
White believed that in order to be a good neighbor, the problems should be addressed before
allowing the rezoning change.
Mayor Peterson reminded the Council that Otten Brothers is in compliance with the original
PUD.
Weinberger affirmed her statement.
PAGE Soft?
>*Pir
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o*clock p.m.
(M2-27M OTTENBROTHERS NURSERY- Continued)
Sansevere was hesitant to tie the rezoning changes to the issues with the neighbors. He asked
for clarity whether Otten Brothers needs to be in compliance with the City’s requirements or the
neighbors.
Murphy asked for more specifics, stating that he had heard about the ongoing struggles, and
questioned if the two were willing to undergo mediation.
Mr. Walvatne, 710 Dickey Lane, stated that he did not have a problem with mediation.
Mayor Peterson acknowledged that other property owners to the north have expressed their
objections to the noise level, as well as, Mr. Walvatne.
While Mr. Otten had no objection to mediation, he stated that the “airport scenario” rings true in
his situation. A few of the neighbors have moved in after Otten Brothers, knowing full well what
to expect, only now are complaining about the noise etc.
Murphy reiterated that Mr. Otten seems to be in full compliance, and asked staff to confirm this.
White asked if the equipment that the neighbors object to is running during business hours or
after.
Mr. Walvatne stated that the front loader runs all day, from 7AM to 8 PM.
Murphy asked if those were the hours that his business is allowed to operate.
Mr. O’Reilly stated that the front-end loader runs during evening business hours unloading soil.
Mayor Peterson asked how much the equipment is used.
Mr. Otten stated that it runs probably S times an hour.
White pointed out that the hours of operation are normal and within City rules.
Murphy stated that although he would like to encourage these individuals to be good neighbors,
the City should avoid getting involved in their issues. He added that he was hard pressed to
understand why the City is involved at this point.
Mr. Walvatne stated that the original screen required by the City was inadequate and several of
the trees were placed on his property.
Weinberger asked if there wasn ’t an agreement for the original screening.
PACE $ of 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2780 OTTENBROTHERS NURSERY- Continued)
Mr. Onen stated that, at one time, he and the neighbors were civil, and the trees he placed along
the property line to create the screen were for both he and them, and he had felt at the time if
they overlapped this was not an issue.
Mr. Walvatne objected to the choice of trees used and pointed out that some have since died over
the past 1 0 years.
Mayor Peterson stated that in the City’s view. Mr. Otten has done what was requested of him and
is still willing to seek mediation.
Sansevere reiterated the question, why this issue is before the Council if Mr. Otten is in
compliance. He believed it was not the Council ’s place to get involved.
Mayor Peterson again stated that white Otten Brothers is in compliance, the argument is, if
initially, the PUD should have gone further.
Mr. Walvatne maintained that the equipment creates excessive noise.
Sansevere repeated that this has nothing to do with the application and should not be part of the
PUD amendment.
Murphy asked Mr. Walvatne if he would like Otten Brothers to get rid of their front-end loader.
He asked what the underlying issues might be.
Mr. Walvatne maintained that after monitoring, the front-end loader exceeded acceptable decibel
ratings by 1 decibel, and stated that he would like to see Ottens get a new loader.
Murphy argued that the average person cannot distinguish between three decibels.
Mr. Walvatne stated that, in 1989, the noise that might potentially be generated by the front-end
loader was a concern even upon its approval. He slated that the noise is constant and can be
heard even within his home. Mr. Walvatne questioned the need for a piece of equipment that
size.
Mr. O’Reilly maintained that a bobcat would not suffice and would take ten times longer.
Mr. Otten suggested checking to see if the reverse beeping mechanism volume could be changed.
Mr. Walvatne stated that he is not alone in his complaint.
Murphy pointed out that he was the only one present. Murphy then asked who would pay for
mediation services.
PAGE 7 of 17
-IW.--------
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o’clock p.m.
(U02-2780 OTTEN BROTHERS NURSER Y - Continued)
Weinberger indicated that the mediation service is a nonprofit organization, who enters into an
agreement with the City.
Weinberger stated that the neighbor at 725 Dickey Lane had voiced complaints relative to the
screening as well.
Muiphy maintained that, as long as Mr. Otten is and has been in compliance and is willing to
enter into mediation, these other issues should not be tied into the CUP amendment.
Mr. Otten agreed to enter into mediation; however, questioned if what is resolved will satisfy his
neighbors.
Mr. Walvatne handed out a photo of the screening that was placed along the property lines 10
years ago and felt it did not meet 100% coverage, especially since some of the trees are dying
today.
Sansevere and Murphy felt the 10-year-old photo did not give a clear picture of what was there
today and maintained that even what was planted has likely filled in.
Mr. Walvatne stated that a fence would be most desirable.
Mayor Peterson asked if the two parties would agree to mediation and the outcome of it.
Mr. Otten and Mr. Walvatne agreed to both beginning mediation and accepting the outcome as
binding.
Mayor Paterson advised staff to handle the process and notify Council of the resolutions.
Mayor Peterson asked for further comment regarding the PUD amendment.
Muiphy believed the Daisy Diner would be an attractive ancillary part of the Otten Brothers
business and had no problem with the diner. He did admit to feeling a bit uneasy over opening
up Highway 12 to restaurants overall and asked staff if this would create problems in the future.
Gaffron stated that B-I allows restaurants and, in general, he did not view this to be a problem.
Sansevere, once again, stated he had no objections.
Murphy moved, to accept the Planning Commission recommendation with the provision;
however, that the City does allow restaurants in B-1.
PAGE 8 of 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(M2-2780 OTTEN BROTHERS NURSERY- Continued)
Gaffron reminded the Couneil that the property is in the B-6 district and they are amending the
PUD that zones just this property. He cautioned the Council that they do not want to give the
impression that they are rezoning the B-1 district.
White indicated that he did not oppose additional signage, but did not want to see it all over.
Murphy asked Mr. Otten if they would like to advertise that the restaurant exists.
Mr. Otten indicated that they would like to include the diner in their signage and in their ads.
Weinberger stated that the Planning Commission felt the advertising could refer to the diner
subtlely, without large additional signage that would attract traffic.
Mr. Otten suggested scratching items #1,3, and S from the Planning Commission and staff
recommendations.
Attorney Barrett suggested omitting items 1 and 5 since a Class 1 Restaurant is beyond the
cafeteria style proposed here.
Murphy withdrew his earlier motion.
Murphy moved. White seconded, to approve the request to amend the PUD Agreement to
allow a concession stand style restaurant to operate within the building as an accessory use
to the nursery retail, subject to the Planning Commission and staff recommendations,
omitting items 1 and 5. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
Sansevere moved. White seconded, to allow Class 1 restaurants, in general, to be added as
permitted nses to the PUD Agreement Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
Murphy suggested scheduling a work session to look in greater detail at the PUD list and make
recommendations or changes to the line items.
Mr. Otten inquired over the legality of the City to continue to revisit and change the PUD
Agreement.
Attorney Barrett stated that it is permissible and within the zoning power of the City to make
changes to the agreement.
•
Weinberger noted that the changes to the PUD Agreement will be on the July 8,2002 agenda for
adoption of the amended documents.
PAGE 9 of 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
LICENSES- revisited
Jonathon Tomhave, 1200 Orono Oaks Drive, stated that he recently obtained a firearm liLC^se
and wanted to share with the City the great lengths he had to go to obtain the license since
9/1 1/OI. He stated that he had been interviewed by the department of treasury for I 1/2 hours,
in addition to many other interviews and background checks. The thoroughness was
extraordinary in contrast to S-6 years ago when there was little background checking. He
cautioned the Council to take a closer look at the people who have been grandfathered in versus
those who are new licensees.
Sansevere stated that he had a greater concern over those who carry firearms and do not possess
firearm licenses at all.
5. #02-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS, 250 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST,
PRELIMINARY PLAT, RESOLUTION NO. 4826
Brad and Carol Pass, Applicants, and Chuck Alcon, Project Manager, were present.
Weinberger explained that the applicants have applied for a preliminary plat to divide the 14 acre
property into two building sites, a shared driveway, and a conservation outlot (Outlot B). Outlot
B is part of a much larger conservation easement area that will be dedicated as conservation land
to the Hennepin Conservation District. A variance is required for a wetland crossing to provide
driveway access to the properties. The driveway access is the only acceptable location on the
property as provided by Hennepin County.
Hennepin County has also requested a land dedication that would include a right-of-way
dedication for all land 60’ from the centerline of C.R. 19, the purpose of which is for a
designated bikeway.
Weinberger noted that the proposed plan meets the requirements of zoning and subdivision
ordinances, and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the staff findings and conditions,
the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the subdivision.
Project Manager, Chuck Alcon indicated that the Pass’ had questions with regard to two of the
fees to be paid and the right-of-way request.
First, with regard to the storm water access fees, they questioned the $2,300 per acre storm water
and drainage trunk fee as it pertains to wetland and non-sewer and water lots. At approximately
$12,000 per lot this figure seemed high and Mr. Alcon suggested the wetland area be discounted.
They also questioned the $5,300 park dedication fees and asked for comments.
PAGE I0ofl7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o’clock p.m.
(n02‘27SS BRAD AND CAROL PASS - Continued)
Finally, Mr. Alcon suggested that the City consider 33’ right-of-way, which would be consistent
with what has been previously dedicated along the corridor, in fact, to go wider the wetlands will
be adversely impacted.
Attorney Barrett asked who currently owns the additional 20 acres that is to be granted the
conservation easement.
Mr. Pass indicated that his wife’s family owns the property and they are in negotiation to obtain
the property in order to conserve it.
Barrett questioned how access will be gained to the land.
Weinberger explained that since there w'ill be conservation land dedicated on most of this land,
there is no need to improve the current access road.
Barrett pointed out that the land docs not yet belong to the Passes and more needs to be done to
ensure that the land will be accessible if the sale does not go through and development ensues.
Mr. Alcon indicated that the final plat will not be filed until they own the property. He continued
that due to a “like exchange swap’’ they are negotiating, they cannot do more at this time that
might jeopardize them.
Murphy questioned if the Council could simply limit the development on that property.
Barrett suggested including such a development limitation in the motion.
Mr. Pass pointed out that the City docs have the ultimate control over what is developed on those
20 acres. He reiterated that they are buying the property to save it from development.
Barrett recommended that he be allowed to work with the applicant’s attorney to identify the
appropriate number of homes to limit the development to if need be.
Mr. Alcon gave Attorney Barrett a draft letter of intent for his review.
Mr. Barrett felt this was a good start.
With regard to storm water and dedication fees. Mayor Peterson asked for comment.
Gaffron stated that the storm water fee rationale was based on properties 2 to S acres and the
costs associated with developing and doing plans for these larger parcels.
PAGE 11 of 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o*clock p.m.
(M02-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS - Continued)
Public Service Director Gappa stated that storm water trunk fee figures were based on an
analysis of 10 different parcels in the City that were currently undeveloped and could possibly
develop in the near future. The costs for storm water system facilities to serve these larger
parcels were divided by the total acres in each parcel to determine an average cost per acre for
storm water facilities. The average cost per acre for the 10 different parcels was $2,700. The
intent of the fee is to include both wetland and nonw ctland areas in calculating the fee for a new
lot.
Mayor Peterson asked if there were questions regarding the park dedication fees.
Mr. Pass stated that these additional fees make it difficult for them to afford the whole project.
He added that they are not wealthy people, and simply have good intentions, he hoped that the
City might consider eliminating the wetland portion of the land in their calculations.
Sansevere stated that while he empathized with their situation, it would be precedent setting to
alter the fees.
Murphy inquired over the possibility of the City giving consideration to dry versus w et land.
Mr. Alcon stated that the Passes were hopeful that an exemption for the w’etland could be made.
Gappa stated that both wetland and nonwetland areas were used in determining the trunk fee.
The cost for storm water facilities is fixed and if only nonwetland areas had been used to
determine the fee, the trunk fee would be higher beeause there would be less area over which to
spread the storm water improvement costs.
Mayor Peterson explained that the City needs to treat everyone equally, therefore, they could not
make the exception the Passes were looking for. She inquired over the park dedication fees.
Gaffron stated that this is not a new sale, therefore the park dedication fee may be less than the
$5,300 cited, but not less than $3,200.
Mr. Pass reminded the City Council that they are working to give the City a park, an area of
conservation forever, and asked what the City could do for them to make it possible.
Gaffron suggested they discuss the right-of-way issue. Recently, Gaffron explained, the County
changed its philosophy with regard to trail access. Today, if the County requests R.O.W. and
builds a trail, and the City did not originally mandate the R.O.W., the City is required to
purchase the R.O.W. that was not acquired when the lot was sold.
Murphy questioned, if not for this situation, what the park dedication fee was meant to help
offset.
PAGE I2ofl7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 oVIock p.m.
(#02-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS - Continued)
GafB-on asked if the Park Commission had looked at this as a potential trail.
Gappa indicated that the Park Commission recommends taking the easement dedication on roads
where a future trail is planned. County Road 19 is a planned Hennepin County trail route and is
a crucial link in trail network around Orono.
Mr. Alcon questioned whether it made sense to run a trail thru the wetland in the first place.
m
Mrs. Pass felt that if a trail were to be constructed it would make more sense on the opposite side
of the street versus running thru the wetland.
Gappa argued that this corridor could provide a valuable link for a bike path if it is meant to be.
No matter which side of the road the trail is located on there will be difficult areas.
GafTron pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan indicates a R.O.W. requirement of a total of
100' for a major collector road, like McCullcy Road. He believed that 33* was probably not
enough, while 40 ’, or better yet 50 ’ would be consistent to what’s been done up north. GafTron
felt that 60 ’ was excessive and would recommend 50 ’.
White tasked what impact this might have on the placement of the potential home site.
GafTron noted that the home would likely be on the other side of the wetland.
White suggested reducing the storm water fee for the R.O.W portion since they are donating a
larger portion of their land for the R.O.W.
Mr. Alcon asked for the attorney’s comment regarding the letter of intent.
Barrett indicated he would meet with the Pass attorney to work out details and suggested Council
make a motion subject to City Attorney approval.
White moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4826 approving the preliminary
plat for the property located at 250 North Shore Drive West and a variance to permit
wetland alteration subject to staff conditions and City Attorney approval. Vote: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
*6. #02-2792 PAUL T. AND KAY K. STUDEBAKER, 250 RUANN ROAD, VARIANCE,
RESOLUTION NO. 4827
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4827 approving a lot area
variance to construct a new- residence on the lot located at 250 Ruann Road. Vote: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
PAGE 13ofl7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday* June 24* 2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
*7. mi-n94 CHRIS AND GAIL BOLLIS* 200 STUBBS BAY ROAD* VARIANCE*
RESOLUTION NO. 4828
Murphy moved* Sansevere seconded* to adopt Resolution No. 4828 allowing a variance to
permit a storage building to be located between the principal structure and the street for
the property located at 200 Stubbs Bay Road. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
White ’reported that he had recently attended the League of City Meeting in which he picked up
an application for a grant to aid staff in developing historic preservation ordinances. The
deadline for application is July 25. He also viewed a fire safety video, which suggested the
installation of residential sprinkler systems. The systems were costly, but cost effective in the
long run.
Sansevere noted that the Summit Beach access at Long Lake had been closed for health reasons
over the weekend. He asked how often the County performs tests to ensure no bacteria are
present in the lakes.
White indicated that Hennepin County performs random testing, which can be impacted by many
things.
Gappa stated that two people were reported ill on Saturday after visiting Summit Beach and due
to the excessive rains it has been difTicult to obtain an accurate sample for testing.
Sansevere asked if any changes will be made to the no parking signage along North Shore
Boulevard in order to avoid further misunderstandings.
Gappa stated that the poliee department sent a letter to the County requesting different signage,
but have not heard from them yet.
Sansevere stated that people are parking cars and trailers here and causing safety hazards on the
road and in the channel. He suggested the newspaper people pursue this stor>'.
Murphy reported that MNDOT is working to resolve issues with homeowners for the proposed
Highway 12 access and recommended Council invite the R.O.W people to come in to give a
status report to them regarding any outstanding issues. He indicated that there are questionable
issues outstanding pertaining to some residences.
Mayor Peterson urged the Council members and public to walk thru the new Minnetonka Center
for the Arts. The grand opening was held over the weekend and it looks great.
PAGE 14 of 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT- Continued)
Mayor Peterson read a letter from Paul Kade, a developer, who complimented zoning
administrator Wendy Bottenberg for her professionalism, understanding, and clarity in handling
his questions. He applauded the City on such an effective employee. The Mayor acknowledged
Ms. Bottenberg and complimented her and staff on their ongoing efforts.
*8. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to authorize the completion of a State Aid Funded
pavement reconditioning project on Old Crystal Bay Road from TH 12 to Fox Street In
conjunction with the new TH 12 bypass project. Project plans and specifications to be
completed by TKDA Engineers with project construction administration by MNDOT.
Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to authorize the completion of a feasibility study, by
Bonestroo Engineers, for a State Aid funded pavement reclamation project on Crystal Bay
Road from TH 12 to County Road 6. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*9. CITY PARTICIPATION IN STORMWATER PERMIT GUIDE PLAN
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve City Funding of $5,000 to the League of
Minnesota Cities for the development of a Guide Plan for the NPDES Phase II Storm
Water Permit Application. Funding to be from the Storm Water Utility Fund with a
budget adjustment to the year 2002 Storm Water Utility Fund Budget to reflect this
expenditure. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*10. LONG LAKE FIRE STATION CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND SEWER FUND
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve Change Order No. 1 for the Long Lake
fire station project in the amount of $82,220 for the expedited installation of sewer and
water lines to serve the fire station, and to amend the 2002 sewer fund budget to reflect the
expenditure. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*11. PAY REQUESTS - LONG LAKE FIRE STATION
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the requests for payment in the amounts
of $12,507.50 to Kirk Program Management, and $17.41 to Benco Messenger Service, Inc.,
and $74,359.90 to Rochon Corporation to be funded from the Joint Fire Station Fund.
V'ote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PAGE 15ofl7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o'clock p.m.
*12. PAYMENT FOR REPLACEMENT OF WELL ON THE ED MILLER
PROPERTY
Murphy moved, Sansevcre seconded, to approve the payment of $7^72 to Mr. Ed Miller
for the replacement of the well on his property, and to amend the General Fund budget to
reflect the expenditure. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*13. CONTRACT FOR SQUAD CAR REPAIR
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to award contract for public safety vehicle
maintenance and repairs to Chunk's Lakeshore Auto for the period of July 1,2002 through
June 30,2003. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
14. SCHEDULE WORK SESSION
The work session will occur on Tuesday, July 2,5:30 P.M.
Gaflron asked to schedule an additional work session in which the Council would join the
Planning Commission as they preview a revised presentation by Dahlstrom Development. The
proposed work session will occur on either on July 10 or 11 at 8:00 A.M , Gaffron will advise.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
None.
*15. LICENSES
GARBAGE HAULER
1. Veit Container Corp.
1400 Veit Place
Rogers, MN 55374
HOME OCCUPATION LICENSES
1. Jonathon Tomhave
(sales of historically signifleant firearms)
1200 Orono Oaks Drive
Orono, MN 55356
PAGE 16 of 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 24,2002
7:00 o*clock p.m.
(LICENSES - Continued)
SPECIAL EVENT LICENSES
1.Applicant: Rick Recker
Event: Com Days Annual 4 Mile Run
Race Route: Hackberry Park at Willow Drive, south to Brown Road, north to Orchard
Lane, west to Holbrook Park
Date: August 11,2002
Time: 11:15 A.M,
2.Applicant: Judy Daghmer/Dog Days of Summer Committee
Event: Dog Days of Summer
Location: Navarre Business Area
Date: August 10,2002
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Murphy moved, Sausevere seconded, to approve all licenses. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
* 16. BILLS
Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account Vote:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor
PAGE 17 of 17
a
ono, Minnesota
g Index Map
au»e.
WK<•« north Ziz:
RCVUEOi.
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 8,2002,7:00 P.M.
ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA
(•) Asterisk items arc considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council
under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the
Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in sheet.
ROLL CALL
CONSENT AGENDA
I. Approve/Amend
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
* 2. Regular Council Meeting ofJune 24,2002
JUL 0 8 2002
CITY UH OHONu
i ••• un, wr. r, iffp
a.f M iuac IP,Mt AM t.
m,mm t. itti
M. ir.lMf
PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Andrew McDcnnott, Representative
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sandy Smith. Representative
PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person)
3. Minnetonka Art Center
4. Barb Sykora, Candidate for State Representative
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
• 5. #02-2780 Otten Druthers Nursery. 2350 West Wayzata Boulevard - Amendment to PUD
Agreement #1 - PUD Amendment and Resolution
6. #02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road - After-the-Fact Conditional Use Pennit
and Variances
7. #02-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 Wa>'zata Boulevard - Commercial Site Plan Review and
Conditional Use Pennit - Resolution
8. #02-2796 Mark and Ginii^ Kosek, 1875 Shad>'wood Road - Variance
9. Extend Telecommunications Tower Moratorium - Ordinance
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT
10. Easement Orono Orchard Road, Long Lake Creek Culvert
CITY ADMINTSTILATOR S REPORT
11. Pay Requests - Long Lake Fire Station
12. Appointment of Ron Hendricks to Full-Time Police Officer Position
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
13. LICENSES
Special Events
* 14. BILLS
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 8,2002,7:00 P.M-
ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA
UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS
2fifi2
07/08 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
07/09 - Joint Council and Planning Commission Work Session, 5:30 p.nt
07/15 • Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m.
07/22 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
08/05 - Park Meeting, 7:15 p.m.
08/12 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
08/19 - Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m.
08/26 - Council Mcetinc. 7:00 p.m.
JUL 0 6 2002
qty or- om O n O
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: July 1.2002
ITEM NO.: i?
Departroent Approval:
Name Paul Weinberger
Title Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description;#02-2780 Otten Bros. Nursery
2350 West Wayzala Boulevard
2nd Amendment to PUD Agreement No. I
Zoning Dbtrict:
Lbt of Eibibib:
B-6/PUD
A PUD Agreement - Amendment No. 2 Document
B Resolution
C June 20,2002 Council Memo
Review
Otten Bros. Nursery has applied to amend PUD Agreement #1 that was executed with the
approval of the East Willow Woods in 1990. Council directed staff to redraft the PUD
Agreement approving the concession stand use and to include a Class I Restaurant as a permitted
use on Lot I.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends Council adopt the attached PUD Amendment allowing a concession stand use
on the property subject to the conditions noted below, and to add Class I Restaurants as a
permitted use for Lot I.
I.Primary access to the concession stand area shall be from within the existing retail
nursery space. No separate access shall be permitted that would be intended to be the
primary' access.
Any request to expand the concession stand use beyond a cafeteria use shall be reviewed
as an amendment to the PUD Agreement.
3.Expansions to the concession stand use would be any increase to the seating capacity
beyond 44. dedicating more than 500 s.f of the floor area of the building to public
seating area or devoting more than 900 s.f. to the restaurant use.
4.The hours of operation of the concession stand shall be limited to the normal operating
hours of the retail to which it is accessory.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve Amendment #2 to PUD Agreement No. I allowing a concession stand use
within the nursery area and adding “Class I Restaurants ” as a permined use for Lot I.
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. I AGREEMENT FOR
East Willow Woods
Clifford L. Often Developer
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered in this day of 2002,
by and between the City of Orono, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State
of Minnesota (hereinafter called "City") and Clifford Otten, his heirs, successors and assigns
(hereinafter called "Developer").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Developer entered into an Agreement dated April 23,1990 (hereinafter
called "Agreement") to develop East Willow Woods as a Planned Unit Development on all the
terms and conditions set forth in that certain Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Developer entered into Amendment No. 1 on October 12,1998 to allow
construction of a greenhouse addition adjacent to the existing principal structure, to allow for
construction of a loading dock within Outlot C, East Willow Woods, and to allow the entrance
monument construction within Lots I and 2 East Willow Woods at the site entrance from Highway
12;and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested Amendment No. 2 to allow a concession stand
use on the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has granted approval for such Amendment 2. after a public
hearing and consideration and recommendation by the Planning Commission,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of the mutual conditions
hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows:
1.Property description : Property description for Amendment 2 is the same as that for the
Agreement.
2.Zoning : Property continues to be zoned as a Plaiuied Unit Development under the
Orono planned unit development ordinance with underlying B-6 zoning.
3.Permitted Uses: Amendment 2 permits Class I Restaurants on Lot 1 and allows the use
of the property for a concession stand style restaurant as an accessory establishment to
the nursery use of the property on Lot 1 subject to the following conditions.
Page 1 of 5
A
i
A.Primary access to the restaurant area shall be from within the existing retail
nursery space. No separate access shall be permitted that would be intended to
be the primary access for concession stand customers.
B.Any request to expand the use beyond a concession stand use shall be reviewed
as an amendment to the PUD Agreement.
C.Expansions to the use would be any increase to the seating capacity beyond 44,
dedicating more than 500 s.f. of the floor area of the building to public seating
area or devoting more than 900 s.f. to the concession stand use.
The hours of operation of the concession stand shall be limited to the normal
operating hours of the retail to which it is accessory.
4.Conditionally Permitted Uses: The Conditionally Permitted uses shall remain in
compliance with the Agreement.
5. Site Access: Site access remains unchanged from the Agreement.
6.Building Design and Construction: The building design and construction are unchanged
from the Agreement.
7. Height: The height is unchanged.
8. Signs: No exterior signage is permitted to exclusively advertise for the restaurant use.
Other signage shall be in conformance with the Agreement.
9. Compliance: The obligations of compliance in the Agreement are extended to include this
Amendment 2.
10. Binding Effect: The binding effect of the Agreement is extended to include this
Amendment 2.
11. Notices: The notice provisions of the Agreement are extended to include this Amendment
2.
12. Incorporation bv Reference: The provisions of this is extended to this Amendment 2.
13. Disclaimer bv Citv: The Disclaimer in the Agreement is extended to this Amendment 2.
14. Hold Harmless and Indemnification: The Hold Harmless and Indemnification of the
Agreement is extended to this Amendment 2.
Page 2 o£ 5
1
1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have caused this agreement to be
duly executed and to become effective on the day and year first above written.
In Presence of:CITY OF ORONO
BY:
(Mayor)
BY:
(City Clerk)
DEVELOPER
Clifford L. Otten
Reviewed for Administration/Date
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this th day of
, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota
municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
day ofThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ______
________________, 200____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a
Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
Page 4 of 5
■
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of ..20
personally appeared before me,
who is personally known to me
whose identity I proved on the basis of
whose identity 1 proved on the oath/affirmation, 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 5 of 5
---
A RESOLUTION DENYING AMENDMENTS TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. 1
FILE NO. 02-2780
WHEREAS, Clifford L. Otten, President of Otten Bros. Nursery, (hereinafter "the
applicant") has applied to the City of Orono for an amendment to Planned Unit Development No.
1 located at 2350 West Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and
legally described as follows:
Lot 1, East Willow Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the
property"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Orono approved PUD Agreement No. I for the property
setting parameters for the use of the property as a commercial site and nursery; and
WHEREAS, the Clifford Otten has requested to amend the PUD Agreement to
include all uses permitted within the B-1 zoning district and to allow all restaurant uses as permitted
in the PUD; and
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing on May 20,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard
concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota;
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2780.
2.The property is zoned PUD/B-6. The standards by which the PUD is permitted are
defined in PUD Agreement No. 1 and Amendment No. 1, dated October 12,1998.
Page 1 of 3
3.The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended
denial by a vote of 7 to 0 based on the following findings;
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
The City created the B-6 zoning district specifically for the commercial areas
on the north side of Highway 12. The district was developed to limit the
intensity of retail uses, and to provide for uses that are compatible with the
residential uses to the north.
Both lot 1 and lot 2 of the Otten property are zoned B-6. This is a large
amount of property, the development or redevelopment of which will have
a substantial impact on the character of the Highway 12 area.
Any changes to the PUD, or to the zoning of the property to add new
permitted uses needs to be done carefully, and in a way that ensures the use
of the property fits into the City's plans for the broader Highway 12 area. If
the property is opened to all B-1 uses, the property could be changed to a mix
of uses that is incompatible with, or detrimental to, the plans for the Highway
12 area.
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of a concession stand
style restaurant for the property to include a concession stand that is located
within the retail and garden portion of the building. The concession stand
operates with a limited menu and is open generally at 8:00 a.m. and closes
one hour before the nursery closes. The area where this use operates is
approximately 900 s.f. in area. A total of 10 tables and 44 chairs are located
next to the concession stand.
In 1996 the City of Orono removed Class 1 restaurants as a permitted use in
the B-6 district.
Any proposed uses not currently permitted within the PUD document can be
reviewed independently as an amendment to the existing PUD. Parking on
the site, access, and other site plan issues should be considered when
reviewing a use that is not permitted in the Highway 12, B-6 District.
Page 2 of 3
. ‘»Tr*
CONCLUSIONS. ORDER. AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies the
request to amend PUD Agreement No. I to add all B-1 uses as permitted uses.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on
the 8th day of July, 2002.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Cleric Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor s
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of July, 2002 by
Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said
instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
day ofThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ______
___________, 200____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 3 of 3
^ — .ft. !- -
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: June 20.2002
ITEM NO.: ^
Departmeot Approval:
Name Paul Weinberger
Title Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description:#02-2780 Otten Bros. Nursery
2350 West Wayzata Boulevard
Amendment to PUD #1 Agreement
Zoning Dbtrkt:B-6/PUD
List of Exhibits:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
PUD Agreement - Amendment No. 2 Document
Resolution
Application
Letter of Application (Clifford L. Otten - April 15,2002)
Plat Map
Property Owners Notification List
1990 Approved Site Plan
Site Survey
Building Floor Plan and Exterior Parking Parking Facilities
General Diner Area Floor Plan
PUD Agreement# I (1990)
Application
Otten Bros. Nursery has applied to amend PUD Agreement #1 that was executed with the
approval of the East Willow Woods in 1990. The proposed amendment is to permit a restaurant
use on the property and to lift the e.xception clause within the PUD agreement that limits the
amount of B-l permined uses on the property. Otten Bros, has recently opened a self-contained
concession stand, known as “Daisy Diner ” to be located within the building and permanent
greenhouse. Daisy Diner has been in operation for about a month and operating under a
Transient Merchant License that allows it to remain open until July 2, 2002. The license will
expire on that date.
PUD Agreement # I defines standards and conditions for how the property may be used. It details
permitted uses on the property. The permitted uses for Lot 1 (which contains the building and
greenhouses) include the nursery and office use of the existing building and propert>-. Other
permined uses include those Items listed as permined in the B-6 zoning district and B-l zoning
district permined uses, except arts and school supplies stores, barber and beauty shops, books,
magazines, record shops, drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosmetics and other usual drug
store merchandise, dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations including incidental pressing and
repair, jewelry shops and repair, laundromats, music, newsstands, pipe and tobacco shops, retail
foods, tailor shop, and wearing apparel.
IV02-2780 Often Bros. Nursery
2350 West Wayzata Boulevard
Page 2 of S____________
it is the excepted clause that Otten Bros, is requesting to have removed from the PUD agreement.
Removal of the exceptions would mean all B-l permitted uses would be then be permitted uses
on Lot I.
The PUD Agreement was amended in 1998 to permit construction of a outdoor loading dock
located at the north end of the property and construction of the green houses east of the building.
B-l uses
The City created the B-6 zoning district specifically for the commercial areas on the north side of
Highway 12. The district was developed to limit the intensit>' of retail uses, and to provide for
uses that are compatible with the residential uses to the north.
Both lot I and lot 2 of the Otten property are zoned B-6. 1 his is a large amount of property, the
development or redevelopment of which will have a substantial impact on the character of the
Highway 1 2 area.
Any changes to the PUD, or to the zoning of the property to add new permitted uses needs to be
done carefully, and in a way that ensures the use of the property fits into the City's plans for the
broader Highway 1 2 area. If we simply open this property up to all B-l uses, the property could
be changed to a mix of uses that is incompatible with, or detrimental to, the plans for the
Highway 1 2 area. Also, if we add B-I uses to this B-6 zoned area, we would get pressure from
the owners of the property on the northwest comer of Willow and Highway 1 2 to do the same for
them. They are already pointing to the existing retail uses on the Onen property as a reason to
allow intense retail uses on their propert)'.
Restaurant Use
The current restaurant use includes a small portable concession stand that is located within the
Otten building. The concession stand operates with a limited menu and is open generally at 8:00
a.m. and closes one hour before the nursery closes. The area where this use operates is
approximately 900 s.f. in area. A total of lO tables and 44 chairs are located ne.xt to the
concession stand.
Otten Bros, is also requesting that restaurants be listed as a “permitted use” to include restaurant
use beyond the existing “Daisy Diner”. Until 1 996 Class I restaurants were listed as permitted
uses in the B-6 district and would have been permitted to be located within the building prior to
that time. Class I restaurants are now a conditional use in the B-6 district.
The Daisy Diner is open to the public, but does not have any exterior building signage. The
restaurant is accessory to the nursery use of the property. Additionally, there is no direct access
to the eating or ordering area from the outside. A customer actually has to enter the nursery to
access the restaurant.
#02-2780 Otten Bros. Nursery
2350 West Wayzala Boulevard
Page 3 of 5_____________
PUD Agreement Permitted Uses
The property Is zoned PUD with B-6 as the underlying zoning district. The permitted uses are
those uses listed as permitted in the B-6 district and those uses permitted as B-I, except those
items as listed on page I of this memo and page 2 of the PUD Agreement. With the underlying
zoning district of B-6 the only permitted uses available on the property are;
I. Offices (business and professional)
. 2. Banks and financial institutions
3. Libraries
4. Motels and hotels
For Lot I only, the PUD Agreement also lists permitted uses for this property as the nursery and
garden center. Because of the retail nature of the shopping center a number of B-I uses were also
allowed to be located within the building. The permitted uses in the B-I district are listed below.
Those items crossed out are those items that were excluded from the B-I uses allowed on the
property.
1. Arts and school supplies store;
2. Banks and insurance companies.
3. Barber and beauty shops;
4. Bicycle sales and repair.
5. Books, magazines, record shop.
6 . Drugs, candy, ice cream. soft-dfinks,-cosmetics and other usual drug store merchandise.-
7;-Dry denning and laundry piek-upstations including incidental pressing otKl repair;
8. Garden supplies, florist shop.
9. Gift or antique shops.
10. Hardware store, paint store.
11. Hobby shops, camera and photographic supply stores.
12. Jewalry shops and repair.
13. Laundromats;
14. Locksmith.
15. Music; radio, TV. appliance soles and repair stores.
16 . Newsstands:
17. Office supply store, office machine store.
18. Pet shop.
49 . Pipe and tobacco shops.
20. Plumbing, electrical, heating, housewares, furniture, carpet store.
21. Postal substation.
22. Real estate sales.
23. Retail food of all varieties and home supplies.
24. Sewing center and yardgoods.
25. Sporting goods store.
2 6 . Tailor shops.
27. Temporary sales such as Christmas tree lots.
28. Travel bureau.
29. Variety store.
I .a-r *
IV02-2780 Otten Bros. Nursery
23 SO West Wayzata Boulevard
Page 4 of 5___________
30. Wearing opporel store, shoe store:
31. OfT-sale Liquor Store
32. Home and garden equipment rental.
33. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered
to be an office use.
Any uses not permitted arc required to go through the PUD Amendment process for approval.
Other Issues
Over the years since the property was developed there have been comments from surrounding
residential property owners about the operation of the site in relation to noise and screening.
There is no standard that limits the types of equipment that can be used on the property. The
zoning ordinance regulates uses, but does not regulate the types of equipment that would be
allowed with a particular use.
Operation of the nursery and production facilities includes bobcats, dump trucks, a front-end
loader, and other incidental equipment. The ordinance that can be applied to the use of trucks and
equipment on the property is the Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance can be diflicult to
enforce because the actual noise production may have ceased by the time the City can respond to
a complaint.
The City has never researched the decibel ratings on equipment used by commercial and
industrial users to determine whether they exceed noise standards. One ongoing issue with noise
is the sound of the back-up beepers on larger vehicles. This is an OSHA safety requirement and
is exempt from noise standards.
The primary piece of equipment the City has received comments on is the use of the front-end
loader. Mr. Otten has stated they use the front-end loader for faster loading of materials that
would take much longer to do if done with a smaller vehicle, such as a bobcat. The front-end
loader is used primarily during the daytime hours and stored within a building before 6:00 p.m. It
is also used sparingly on weekends.
The production facilities on the property required screening by planting of trees located north of
the property to separate the commercial from the residential uses. The trees were planted in 1990.
In most cases the trees have prospered and have begun to provide better screening. However,
they have never provided full screening of the property.
This particular application is an opportunity to resolve some issues that have risen since the
property was developed. Possible solutions may be by setting limits on the extent of activities
and equipment allowed on the property and improving screening. City Staff is willing to mediate
that discussion between Otten Bros, and surrounding property owners.
Staff did a comprehensive review of the site to check compliance with the original PUD and
determined Otten Bros, landscaping and the uses on the property are in compliance with the past
PUD approvals.
#02*2780 Onen Bros. Nursery
2350 West Wayzata Boulevard
Page 5 of 5_______________
Staff does agree that the area of the site visible from Dickey Lake Drive, especially near the
parking lot and north of the rock bins, needs attention in order to provide more effective
screening. Lot 2 is fairly well screened to both the lots to the north and Highway 12. However, a
significant amount of the screening of the Walvatne property (710 Dickey Lake Drive) is by
vegetation on the adjacent property vs. the evergreens initially planted by Otten.
The Planning Commission recommended the adjacent property owners and Cliff Otten seek
mediation to resolve the issues as noted above. The City of Orono can facilitate the mediation.
The mediation process will be handled bv an outside mediation service. A condition of the PUD
Amendment shall be to begin the mediation process.
Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended by a vote of 7 to 0 to approve the request to the amend
the PUD Agreement to allow a concession stand style restaurant to operate within the building as
an accessory use to the nursery retail. The restaurant approval would permit the operation to use
900 s.f. of area with seating for 44, as currently available on-site. Staff recommends the approval
subject to the following conditions;
I.No exterior signage is permitted on the building or property to exclusively advertise the
restaurant use. There is a concern about the adequacy and amount of parking available
on-site. Exterior advertising would bring additional vehicles to the property.
Primary access to the restaurant area shall be from within the existing retail nursery
space. No separate access shall be permitted that would be intended to be the primary
access for restaurant customers.
3.Any request to expand the restaurant use beyond a cafeteria use shall be reviewed as an
amendment to the PUD Agreement.
4.Expansions to the restaurant use would be any increase to the seating capacity beyond 44,
dedicating more than SOO s.f. of the floor area of the building to public seating area or
devoting more than 900 s.f. to the restaurant use.
S. The concession stand use shall only permit ordering of food at a counter.
6.The hours of operation of the concession stand shall be limited to the normal operating
hours of the retail to which it is accessory.
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request to allow restaurants in general to be
added as a permitted use to the PUD Agreement. Any such request to locate a restaurant within
any part of the building shall be reviewed independently as an amendment to the PUD Agreement
through the normal public hearing process.
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request to include all B-l uses as permitted
uses. Any proposed use not listed as permitted by the existing PUD Agreement should be
reviewed independently as an amendment to the PUD.
V.
1n
t i
i i
- -—1
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. I AGREEMENT FOR
East Willow Woods
Clifford L. Ottcn. Developer
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered in this day of 2002,
by and between the City of Orono, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State
of Minnesota (hereinafter called "City") and Clifford Otten, his heirs, successors and assigns
(hereinafter called "Developer").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Developer entered into an Agreement dated April 23,1990 (hereinafter
called "Agreement") to develop East Willow Woods as a Planned Unit Development on all the
terms and conditions set forth in that certain Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Developer entered into Amendment No. 1 on October 12,1998 to allow
construction of a greenhouse addition adjacent to the existing principal structure, to allow for
construction of a loading dock within Outlot C, East Willow Woods, and to allow the entrance
monument construction within Lots 1 and 2 East Willow Woods at the site entrance from Highway
12;and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested Amendment No. 2 to allow a concession stand
use on the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has granted approval for such Amendment 2, after a public
hearing and consideration and recommendation by the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of the mutual conditions
hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows;
1.Property description: Property description for Amendment 2 is the same as that for the
Agreement.
2.Zoning : Property continues to be zoned as a Planned Unit Development under the
Orono planned unit development ordinance with underlying B-6 zoning.
3.Permitted Uses: Amendment 2 allows the use of the property for a concession stand style
restaurant as an accessory establishment to the nursery use of the property subject to the
following conditions.
Page 1 of 5
-***.•-
6.
7.
8.
9.
A.No exterior signage is permitted on the building or property to exclusively
advertise the concession stand use. There is a concern about the adequacy and
amount of parking available on-site. Exterior advertising would bring additional
vehicles to the property.
B.Primary access to the restaurant area shall be from within the existing retail
nursery space. No separate access shall be permitted that would be intended to
be the primary access for concession stand customers.
C.Any request to expand the use beyond a concession stand use shall be reviewed
as an amendment to the PUD Agreement.
D.Expansions to the use would be any increase to the seating capacity beyond 44,
dedicating more than 500 s.f. of the floor area of the building to public seating
area or devoting more than 900 s.f. to the concession stand use.
E. The concession stand use shall only permit ordering of food at a counter.
F.The hours of operation of the concession stand shall be limited to the normal
operating hours of the retail to which it is accessory.
ronditionallv Permitted Uses: The Conditionally Permitted uses shall remain in
compliance with the Agreement.
5. Site Access: Site access remains unchanged from the Agreement.
Building Design and Construction: The building design and construction are unchanged
from the Agreement.
Height: The height is unchanged.
Signs: No exterior signage is permitted to exclusively advertise for the restaurant use.
Other signage shall be in conformance with the Agreement.
Compliance: The obligations of compliance in the Agreement are extended to include this
Amendment 2.
10. Binding Effect: The binding effect of the Agreement is extended to include this
Amendment 2.
11. Notices: The notice provisions of the Agreement are extended to include this Amendment
2.
12. 1 ition bv Reference: The provisions of this is extended to this Amendment 2.
Page 2 of 5
■.
13. niMlalmer bv Citv: The Disclaimer in the Agreement is extended to this Amendment 2.
14. Hold Harmles55 and Indemnification: The Hold Harmless and Indemniflcation of the
Agreement is extended to this Amendment 2.
15. Remedy for Default: The Remedy for default in the Agreement is extended to this
Amendment 2.
16.rniurolliinf Ayreement : The terms of this Amendment 2 will first control its reading,
and it shall be read together with the terms of the Agreement The documents
shall control to the extent that there is any difference or ambiguity between them and
* other agreements between the City and the Developer.
Page 3 of 5
I
1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have caused this agreement to be
duly executed and to become effective on the day and year first above written.
In Presence of:CITY OF ORONO
BY:
(Mayor)
BY:
(City Clerk)
DEVELOPER
Clifford L. Otten
Reviewed for Administration/Date
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _____th day of
, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota
municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
day ofThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this
______, 200____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a
Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
Page 4 of 5
^ %
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of .20
personally appeared before me,
who is personally known to me
whose identity 1 proved on the basis of
whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation, 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
f 5
i \
Page 5 o£ 5
i
B
A RESOLUTION DENYING AMENDMENTS TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. I
FILE NO. 02-2780
WHEREAS, Clifford L. Otten, President of Often Bros. Nursery, (hereinafter "the
applicant") has applied to the City of Orono for an amendment to Planned Unit Development No.
1 located at 2350 West Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and
legally described as follows:
Lot 1, East Willow Woods Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the
property"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Orono approved PUD Agreement No. 1 for the property
setting parameters for the use of the property as a commercial site and nursery; and
WHEREAS, the Clifford Otten has requested to amend the PUD Agreement to
include all uses permitted within the B-1 zoning district and to allow all restaurant uses as permitted
in the PUD; and
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing on May 20,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard
concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2780.
2.The property is zoned PUD/B-6. The standards by which the PUD is permitted is
defined in PUD Agreement No. 1 and Amendment No. 1, dated October 12,1998.
Page 1 of 3
3. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended
denial by a vote of 7 to 0 based on the following findings:
A. The City created the B-6 zoning district specifically for the commercial areas
on the north side of Highway 12. The district was developed to limit the
intensity of retail uses, and to provide for uses that are compatible with the
residential uses to the north.
B. Both lot I and lot 2 of the Otten property are zoned B-6. This is a large
amount of property, the development or redevelopment of which will have
a substantial impact on Uic character of the Highway 12 area.
C. Any changes to the PUD, or to the zoning of the property to add new
permitted uses needs to be done carefully, and in a way that ensures the use
of the property fits into the City’s plans for the broader Highway 12 area. If
the property is opened to all B-1 uses, the property could be changed to a mix
of uses that is incompatible with, or detrimental to, the plans for the Highway
12 area.
D. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of a concession stand
style restaurant for the property to include a concession stand that is located
within the retail and garden portion of the building. The concession stand
operates with a limited menu and is open generally at 8:00 a.m. and closes
one hour before the nursery closes. The area where this use operates is
approximately 900 s.f. in area. A total of 10 tables and 44 chairs are located
next to the concession stand.
E. In 1996 the City of Orono removed Class I restaurants as a permitted use in
the B-6 district.
F. Any proposed uses not currently permitted within the PUD document can be
reviewed independently as an amendment to the existing PUD. Parking on
the site, access, and other site plan issues that should be considered when
reviewing a use that is not permitted in the Highway 12, B-6 District.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS
Page 2 of 3
1
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies the
request to amend PUD Agreement No. I to add all B-l uses and restaurants as permitted uses.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on
the 24th day of June, 2002.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing insUounent was acknowledged before me on diis 25th day of February, 2002
by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said
instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _______
.. 200____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota
day of
municipal coiporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
Page 3 of 3
a
Applkiition U OJt • JI7>0
Date Received
Amount Paid
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
ooitf
APPLICAN
Name L. 044<jr\
Address tJ.
Phone (home)
Phone (work)
City tjontj I^Ka. fnn Zip
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name____________________
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
Address City Zip.
Da(e_ Property iAcquired mo (month/year)
also own the adjacent parcels of land. «
Otori one po.'rxxx
FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -
_____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application
_____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use
_____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
_____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
_____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg
_____$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use
_____$250.00 Land Alteration
____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more
____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore
\
PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule
$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application)
After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee
OTHER APPLICATIONS
_____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees)
_____$300.00 Vacation
_____$200.00 Easement Vacation
$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision
$350.00 Rezoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule)
$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
$100.00 Appeals
Other • see Fee Schedule #2780
REQUIREP SUBMITTALS
1. ✓^C___ Completed Application Fonn.
2. Describe request in detml.
3. Certified Property Owners List of owners witlun 350', labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Droartment of Finance,
A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). SH?'
4. ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey
information.
____Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
a/ZA- Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve
chwges in elevation (grades).
7. List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the
property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s).
8- Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements).
9. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this application.
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY
FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS
SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be
submitted.)
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your
application is not complete if the above information has not been included.
Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete.
Initials of Clerical Staff:__________________________Date___________
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information
supplied is true and correct ^t^ftie be^t of his/h^ knowledge.
Applicant's signature /Date
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable
entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council
members for purposes op^vestigation and verification of this request.
DateOwner’s signature
/ T
Applicant must have all /immittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting.
Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all
scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a
scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the
Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
#2789
D
NURSERY & LANDSCAPING INC
‘OVTR 45 YEARS OF QUALITY SERVICE*
APRIL 15 2002
MIKE GAFFRON
CITY OF ORONO
2750 KELLEY PARKWAY
ORONO, MN 55356
DEAR MIKE:
OTTEN BROS. NURSERY & LANDSCAPING INC. IS APPLYING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO
OUR PUD TO OPEN OUR NEW “ DAISY DINER “. THE DINER IS A SELF CONTAINED.
CONCESSION TYPE TRAILER WHICH WILL BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE GARDEN
CENTER AND THE GREENHOUSE. THIS WILL BE A RELAXING. CONVENIENT SPOT
FOR OUR CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE FOOD. BEVERAGES. A VARIETY OF GOURMET
COFFEES AND TASTY SNACKS WHILE THEY SHOP. ALSO. HANDY FOR OUR
EMPLOYEES FOR THEIR BREAKS OR LUNCHES.
FOR THIS USE AND OTHER POSSIBLE USES THAT MAY COME UP IN THE FUTURE. I
REQUEST THAT THE EXCEPTION TO THE B-6 ZOI^^G BE LIFTED FROM MY PUD.
WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATE INSPECTED AND HAVE STATE LICENSED
PERSONNEL ON STAFF TO OPERATE THE DINER.
OUR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY IS NOT INCLUDED BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ALTERING
THE LAND AND ARE PLACING THE DINER UNDER EXISTING COVER.
WE ARE NOT INCLUDING A CONSTRUCTION PLAN BECAUSE THE DINER IS SELF
CONTAINED AND PORTABLE AND BEING PLACED UNDER EXISTING COVER.
FFORD L. OTTEN #2780
2350W.WAYZATABLVD. • P.O.BOX 249 • LONG LAKE. MN 56356 • (952)473-5425 • FAX • (952) 473-7232
im-^r>9»r
1 "*V4 T
\ «
i
mv
MTtli M
E ADON 1
t
m
m
1 i2)
— m
if)
I
r*»fif
jun
'CJ
JOt
tn
fERCIAL : L 5
a
t
tS9t -
^ i
s *s ^ 1 « S SI
)
(Ml 1
!
(BOI
m
i*t
r^ti
DANIELS
-IND
>m$
USTRML PARK
Iff a Hf • • •
an iMi 1
••»
/
^2' **
«U
1
all ««
RUN DAtC
iATCN 5tS
NENNCPXN COUNTY PROfCRTY XNfORNATXON SVSTCH
fROfCRTV OWNERS LXST
REPORT NO. PX4S5AA1
PAGE 4
PROP ADOR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
PROP AOOR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/AODR
PROP ADOR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/AODR
PROP ADOR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NANE/AODR
PROP ADOR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/AODR
PROP ATOR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/AODR
SO SS-llt-2S 11 iOiS
••iSO ADDRESS UNASSXGNED
ORONO PLAZA
ORONO PLAZA
C/O REXERSDORO LAW OTFICE
4§t0 44TN ST W
NPLS NN 5S424
SO 54-110-2S 22 OiOS
••701 OXCXEY LAKE DR
P i K PUOH
PATRICK I KAREN PUON
725 DICKEY LAKE DR
LONG LAKE HN 55S5A
SO S4-110-2S 22 IMY
••7S5 DXCKEY LAKE DR
P O SKOOO I S L SKOOO
PAUL A SHERRY SKOOO
7S5 DICKEY LAKE DR
LONG LAKE NN 55SS4
SO S4-11S-2S 22 OflA
f2SSf WAYZATA OLVD W
CAL OTTEN
CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN
iOX 244
LONG LAKE NN 55S56
SO S4-110-2S 22 AA14
M71I DXCKEY LAKE DR
J 0 WALVATNE A 0 F WALVATNE
JOEL A DIANE WALVATNE
710 DXCKEY LAKE DR
ORONO HN 55SS4
SO S4-110-2S 22 fOlY
•2251 PINE RIDGE LA
CAL OTTEN
CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN
P 0 iOX 244
LONG LAKE NN 55S54
SO S4-110-2S 22 0020
•••SO ADDRESS UNASSICNED
CAL OTTEN
CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN
OOX 244
LONG LAKE NN 55S56
72 SS-110-2S 14 AEZS
•241• XNOUSTRIAL OLVD W
SYSTEN CAPITAL REAL PROP CRP
NC DONALDS CORPORATION
P 0 OOX 44207
ANF OHARE
CHICAGO XL ••••A
72 S4-110-2S 2S •••!
•2S44 WAYZATA OLVD W
GEORGAYN C KRANER
GEORGAYN C KRANER
2440 SUNNER SET LA
LONG LAKE NN 55S54
72 S4-110-2S 2S •••2
•2SA5 WAYZATA OLVD W
R E A 0 N HAUGEN ET AL
OSCAR SEYEO A NOURZ HAKINI
54R5 DERNARD PL
EDINA HN 554S4
72 S4-110-2S 2S AOZS
•2225 WAYZATA OLVD W
PERRY*S VENTURES INC
PERRY-S VENTURES INC
2205 W WAYZATA OLVD
LONG LAKE NN 55S5A
72 S4-110-2S 2S 0044
••572 TANARACK AVE
RHEA CONPANY
RHEA CONPANY
15725 NAIN ST
ROGERS NN 55S74
#27
SO S4-110-25 22 ••••
••725 DICKEY LAKE DR
P P PUGH A K L HAGELEE
P PATRICK A kAREN PUGH
725 DXCKEY LAKE DR P
LCNIG LAKE NN 5555A
SO 54-110-25 22 AOIS
•••SO ADDRESS PENDING
CAL OTTEN
CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN
OOX 244
LONG LAKE NN 55S5A
•>
SO 54-110-25 22 OOIO
•••SO ADDRESS UNASSICNED
CAL OTTEN
CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN
OOX 244
LONG LAKE HN 55554
72 55-110-2S 14 ••24
•2444 INDUSTRIAL OLVD W
SPEEDWAY SUPERANERICA LLC
SPEEDWAY SUPERANERICA ILC
C/O PROPERTY TAX RECORDS
5S4 NAIN ST S
FINDLAY OH 45040
72 54-110-23 2S SOOS
•2S45 WAYZATA OLVD W
R E A 0 N HAUGEN ET AL
OSCAR SEYEO A HOUR! HAKINI
5405 OERNARD PL
EDINA NN 554S4
72 S4-110-2S 2S 0045
•2S25 WAYZATA OLVD W
RICKARD R RUUD ET AL
ELITE AUTO X RICHARD RUM
2S25 W WAYZATA OLVD
LONG LAKE NN 55S54
___iiirtOiiiiii
. . --K 111
: k^wmi
J'M'i: >
■UN UATf •4/U/02
■ATCN SfS
n M-iii-2S 2S tm
f224S NAVZATA iLVD Ifctirroio l otten
TAUfAVitmm/mm P 0 MIX 27A
UMO LAKE MN 55S5A
HENNEPIN COUNTY PiOPEiTV DiEOffHATION SYSTEN
PfOPERTY OMNEIIS LIST
REPMT NO. PXAUAtl
PACE S
72 SA-llt-2S 2S ••57
•2245 NAYZATA iLVD U
CLZFOiD L OTTEN
CtlFORO L OTTEN
P 0 MX 2A5
tONO LAKE m 55354
TOTAL iATCH 543 •••24
I CEETIFY THAT THE FACTS EEPHESENTED AKE AN ACCUEATE AND TEUE
EEPEESENTATXQN OF INFOEfUTION AS IT APPEAES TNZS DATE ON THE EECOEDS
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPAETNENT OF PEOPEETY TAXATION^ TO THE/OEST
OF NY KNONLEDOE AND EELIEF.
DATE
in
t *
Ui^
• #•J
1
\ i
“)
‘ i
k.
«il=
—3 R **TOo»r,
W?H.es«2h
J6^<
!»•
osaoc5j
>•«
inf
!i!i
^l!
ip
|!!
)
<kw
IM « S [ SS I mmm0 •• •»« a* «m u* « »*aM« , « — *-—-(Um •«• «Mi» ■!»»■ M ra M •ra# aa «a • a» •aw# • ••• ^ •• •* «ar aw
SO n
SCALE M
2Q0
rccT
\i
Ka ai#«af aww la mm mm i
« «m w a»wi w *w »»
• #aa raw*. •• •• •i»» •» «aw«
llA«
...■«»«. ...............................................................................^^•'■■•i.-A.-iii'-^ ■-^■^... .^^w, i^ititii—^rnTTiTii
City of Orono
Document Form
Revised 10/87
K
CITY OP ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. I AGREEMENT FOR
East Willow Woods
(Name of Development)
Clifford L. Ottcn
(Name of Developer)
NOV 1 9 1990
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this 23rd day of
April, 1990, by and between the City of Orono, a municipal
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota
(hereinafter called ''City*'), and Clifford Otten, his heirs,
successors and assigns (hereinafter called •Developer*').
WitNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Developer has made application to the City
Council for approval of a Planned Unit Development rezoning
application (PUD) and resolution no. 2692 of the City that
granted preliminary approval of PUD, subdivision and plat
approval for East Willow Woods, and commercial site plan
approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has granted approval for such
development on the condition that the Developer enter into this
agreement to provide for conformance with the City's Planned Unit
Development ordinance (PUD), all on the terms and conditions
hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of
the mutual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is
hereby *>reed as follows:
1. Property Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Outlets
A, B, C and D, all East willow Woods, according to the
plat thereof on file in the office of the Registrar of
Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (sometimes herein
referred to as the •Property*').
2. Zoning; The Property is zoned as a Planned Unit
Development under the Orono planned unit development
ordinance with underlying B-6 zoning. The Property may be
hereinafter referred to as PUD-1.
3. Permitted Uses; The buildings and the signs shown on the
site plan attached for which the Developer has requested
Page 1 of 6
Initials of Developer
Initials of City ClerlT^^^^^Ji^
4#
Lo^ (
4.
first^floo?™f^thrSain buildiSgr*includiig its^Jee^ouSe
portion, has approximately 24,644 square feet of space
with the Developer initially proposing to use
approximately 14,244 square feet for his business, leaving
approximately 9,600 square feet of rental space. The
second floor of the main building has approximately 9,600
square feet of space, of which the developer will use
approximately 5,040 for his own business, leaving
approximately 4,560 of rental space. The storage
building, including covered storage, has approximately
7 200 square fee^ of space. The production greenhouses
(approximately 4,920 square feet) are also sho%m on the
site plan attached. The Developer's uses of Lot 1
specifically include sales, service and rental uses for a
landscape and garden business, including yard and garden
equipment, and supportive and related uses.
The permitted uses of Lot 1_ include the Developer's above
described specific usesTthe zoning district B-6 permitted
uses, and the zoning district B-1 permitted uses ?XQ.ep.t
arts and school supplies stores, barber and beauty shops,
books, magazines, record shops, drugs, candy, ice cream,
soft drinks, cosmetics and other usual drug store
merchandise, dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations
including incidental pressing and repair, jewelry shops
and repair, laundromats, music, newsstands, pipe #nd
tobacco shops, retail foods, tailor shop, and wearing
apparel. Other uses may be allowed subject to an
amendment of this PUD.
Lot 2 may be used for the storage of plant, garden and
fdn3scape related supplies and materials in conjunction
with the Developer's use of Lot 1. Lot 2 may also be used
for zoning district B-6 permitted uses. In conjunction
with Lot 1 use and under same ownership, ^t 2 may be
improved with structures subject to city issuance of a
conditional use permit and commercial site plan approval
so long as such structures ®re built of the same materials
and of the same quality as the developer's structures on
Lot 1 and so long as such structures are greenhouses wnich
are auxiliary to the Developer's business on Lot 1. Such
conditional use permit shall require appropriate screening
of the structures irom Highway 12.
Users shall be obligated to conform to all applicable
Orono ordinances and to the provisions of this PUD
Agreement. The foregoing uses are permitted pursuant to
this PUD Agreement.
^ite Access; The present access to Lot 1 is via Highway
12 and Willow Drive. For the purposes of this PUD Lot 2
only be accessed through Lot 1 and the ingress only
access via Highway 12 and only so long as Lot 2 is owned
' • Initials of Developer
Initials of City Clerk
Page 2 of 6
5.
6.
7.
and used by the o%mer of Lot 1 as part of the landscape
and garden business on Lot 1.
For special assessment purposes relating to the
construction of a road ioprovenent on Outlot C, the
Developer agrees that benefit to Lot 1 from the road will
not take into account the presence of the existing Willow
Drive access; the City agrees that the construction of the
road on Outlot C will not require the Willow Drive access
be closed.
The present access from Highway 12 to Lots 1 and 2 is
approved as part of the PUD for ingress only. In its sole
discretion the Orono city council by a three member vote
nay approve the right of egress but only upon the request
of the owner of Lot 1.
If Lot 2 ceases to be owned and used by the owner of Lot
1 in conjunction with the use of Lot 1 or is developed
independently, then Lot 2 shall be obligated to develop
access via Outlot C unless the City in its sole discretion
determines that alternative access is adequate.
Building Design and Construction; The improvements on
said Lot 1 shall be constructed according to the plans on
file with the City of Orono. The building plans show a
main building with a partial second floor and an
accessory building, and production greenhouses, all on
said Lot 1. The exterior of the building shall be of a
combination of tan and dark brown concrete blocks with
split-face stone finish with trim of dark brown and green
to match anodized aluminum with clear glazing used through
area where plant materials are maintained. All accessory
structures shall be of the same exterior finish and
exterior colors as shown on elevation plans attached to
this agreement.
To the extent Developer builds structures on Lot 2 for use
in conjunction with his business on Lot 1, such structures
on Lot 2 shall be constructed of the same materials and of
the same quality as those on Lot 1.
Height; The portions of the flat roof are at a height of
30' or less. The two story portion of the building with
the gabled roof is 32'6" to the peak, 21'8» to the eave,
and 27' to the mid-point. The height of this building to
the peak not to exceed 32'6" is permitted pursuant to this
PUD Agreement.
signs; The signs and signage in said Lot 1 shall conform
to the Sign Plans (4 pages) dated April 5, 1990 on file
with the City and are permitted pursuant to this PUD
Agreement. In consideration of the fact that the said
sign plans permit Developer's pylon sign to be closer to
Page 3 of 6
Initials of Developer .
Initials of City Clerk^^^lT
8.
9.
10.
12.
Willow Road than is otherwise permitted by ordinance.
Developer agrees to relocate such sign at any tine that
either Willow Road is upgraded and such road upgrading in
the opinion of the City nakes the said pylon sign location
a hazard, or prevents normal and customary road
maintenance.
Compliance; At any time and from time to tine the
Developer nay request that the City provide the Developer
a certificate certifying that the terns and provisions of
this Agreement have been complied with and that this PUb
Agreement is in full force and effect with respect to the
development for the purpose of facilitating sale,
mortgage, insurance, or other natters. To the extent that
there be any bona fide defaults in such compliance, the
Developer shall be afforded a reasonable tine to bring the
development into conformance, and thereafter the city
shall be obligated to provide such certificate.
Binding Effect; The terms and provisions hereof shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs,
representatives, successors and assigns of the parties
hereto. References herein to Developer, if there be more
than one, shall mean each and all of them. This agreement
at the option of the City shall be placed of record so as
to give notice hereof to subsequent purchasers and
encvimbrancers of all or any part of the property.
Notices; Whenever in this agreement it shall be required
or permitted that notice or demand be given or served by
either party to this agreement to or on the other party,
such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or
mailed by United States certified mail (return receipt
requested) to the addresses set forth below. Such notice
or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered
personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance
with the above.
Notice to City
City of Orono
Clerk/Administrator
p. o. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Notice to Developer
Clifford L. Otten
P. 0. Box 249
Long Lake, MN 55356
11. Tncorporation bv Reference; All plans, specifications
and contracts for the improvements furnished and let
pursuant to this agreement shall be and hereby are made a
part of this agreement by reference as fully as if set
out herein in full.
pisclaimer bv City; It is understood and agreed that the
City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of
the City shall not be personally liable or responsible in
any manner to the Developer or Developer's contractors.
Page 4 of 6
Initials of Developer
Initials of City Clerk^^^^^
13.
14.
15.
subcontractors, naterialmen, laborsrs, or any other
person, fim or corporation, for any debt, clai«, demand,
damaoes, actions, or causes of action of any kind or
character, arising out of or by reason of the execution
of this agreement or the performance and completion of tne
improvements.
Wftirt Harmless and Indemnification; The Developer shall
indemnify and hSd harmlesrthe^ty, the City Council,
and the agents and employees of the City from and against
all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including
attorney fees, which the City, City Council and agents and
employees of the City may suffer or for which it may be
held liable, arising out of or resulting from the
assertion against them of any claims, debts or
obligations in consequence of the performance of this
agreement by the Developer, its employees, agents or
subcontractors, whether or not caused in part by a party
indemnified hereunder.
pomadv fnr Pa fault: Default by the Developer of any of ^
the terms of this agreement shall automatically result xn
the suspension or withholding of all permits, licenses,
occupancy certificates or other authorizations *5^
the City in connection with the property included in this
development. The remedies afforded to the city under this
Section shall be in addition to any other remedies to
which the City may be entitled by law or other agreement.
Default by the City shall entitle the Developer to seek
injunctive/mandatory relief through the courts, together
with other relief as the law may provide.
centrollina Agreement. To the extent that there xs any
difference or ambiguity between this Planned Unit
Development Agreement and other agreements between the
city and the developer, this Planned Unit Development
Agreement shall control.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have
caused this agreement to be duly executed on the day and year
first above written.
In Presence of:CITY OF ORONO
0 .1 f
V . ^ . -r f
' / /
. r I THERESA L. NAAS
NOTARY RU8U0 . MMMfSOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
1
. .RV! 1 il i
Page 5 of 6
Initials of Developer
initials of City
m
•9:
masssas^^mmm^.
r«r«ra*v«
ro4«i«
rixm
ro4«i«
K.
< U‘;
r
ORONO
OTTEM
PUD AGREQfENT
Uffi£2{
1.
2.
3.
4.
Plat of East Willow Woods
B-6 zoning standards
Plans:
Connarcial Site Plan (with internal signage) dated 4/5/90
Grading, Drainage & Soil Erosion Control Plan printed 4/6/90
Slope Analysis printed 4/6/90
Landscape Plans 6/23/89
Elevations of nain building/accessory building plans 1/4/90
Ro&d and Utilities Easenent over Outlet C
» ftff .tk .» m.. ..n«r r-« r- ^ ^.i. . .. . -tf i- . .'^L Ji*^ ^’"If-S. ^ :.. ■■ - ■ - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -•n-'i-*
D
0
10.45
SECTION 10.45 8-5 BIGSWAY COKKEBCXAL DISTMCT
Subd. 1. Putpose. The putpote of the B-6 Bighwey
CoBsezclel Diftrict Is to provide a cosaezcial district
specifically tailored to acconplisb \be coanercial dcvelopsent
objectivas of the Bigbvay 12 Corridor Study Section of tbe Orono
Conprebenslve Flan.
Subd. 2. Application. All applicants for a building
perait*in any *B-6* Highway Business District aball be reviewed
by tbe Council and referred to tbe Planning Coanission for
review.
Subd. 3. Feraitted Uses. Within any *B-«* Highway
Business District, no structure or land shall be used escept for
one of tbe following uses or uses deeaed siailar by tbe Council.
A. Offices (business and professional).
B. Banks and financial institutions.
C. Libraries.
D. Motels# and hotels.
S. Bestaurants (Class 1).
Subd. 4. Belationship with Chapter 10.51 Planned Unit
Developaent. Other types of coaaercial uses and aised use
developaents nay be applied for through the planned unit
development process. Applications that include cossercial uses
within the Bighway 12 Corridor shall assuae the District as
the underlying soning district.
Conditional Use
A. Within any *B-6* Bigbvay Business District, no
structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses
eacept by conditional use perait:
1. Any business listed as a peraitted use in the
tone that includes a drive-thru condition.
Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any •B-l* Bighway
m
9
10.45
Business District, the following uses shall be permitted
accessory uses:
A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-l"
Business District.
Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirenents
and Design Requireoents. The following niniaua requireaents
shall be observed subject to additional requireaents and
exceptions contained in Section 10.52 of this Title.
i
ft
two acres
100 ft.
. A. Lot Area
• B. Lot Width
C. Setback - Principal Structure
Front
Side Interior
Side Street
Rear
D. Setback - Accessory Structure
Front
Side Interior
Side Street
Rear
Z. Setback - Parking
Front
Side Interior
Street Side
Rear
residential districts.
•30 (35) feet or 1 1/2 tiaes the building height
whichever is greater in deteraining front setbacks
for principal and accessory structure only.
F. Drainage. Ho land shall be developed and no use
351-2
30 (35)ft. *
10 (35)ft.
30 (35)ft.
30 (35)ft.
30 (35)ft. *
10 (35)ft.
30 (35)ft.
30 (35)ft.
15 (20)ft.
5 (10)ft.
10 (15)ft.
10 (10)ft.
adjacent to all
mm ,m
• --.IV *• ••
':-'V
•• ;/
• m m m •# W %» ^w».i •# C•«.••• #1^^
10.4S
•h«ll be peraitted that resulte In «iater runoff ceucin9 floode,
erosion, or deposits on sdjscent properties, site end drslnsge
pisns shall be subaitttd by the applicant In such detail as
required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the
City engineer before aubalsslen to the planning Coaaisslon and
Council for approval. Such runoff say be required to be properly
channeled Into a natural water course, ponding area, atora drain
or other publie facilities. Any change in grad* affecting watar
runoff-whether onto adjacent property or otherwise nust be in
conplianee with the Surface water Nanageaent Plan and shall be
consistent with ether applicable regulations or City Code
previsiena and subject to the approval of other agencies having
jurisdiction' ever the area affected by the drainage.
C. Height, po structure or building shall eseead 2-1/2
stories or thirty feet in height eseept as provided in Section
10.75.
B. At least twenty five percent (25%) of the land area
Shall ba landscapad with grasa, approved ground cover, ahrubbary
and trees. At laaat thraa pereant (3t) of the land area within a
parking araa shall ba landscaped.
The following aininua elsee ebaXl be required at the
tlae of planting!
Qveretory Deciduous Traea 2-1/2 Inches in diaaeter
Ornanental Treaa 1-1/2 inches in diasatar
ConifarouB Traae € feat tall
Hajor Shrub Plantings 5 gallons
X. All traab and traeh bandllag aquipsant shall be
stored within the principal structure, within en attached
structure eecesslble tcom wltbln the principel atcucture* or
totally ecraenad fron cya-leval vlev frea public atratta and
adjacent residential propertlas. If accessory atructurea are
proposed, they shall be constructed of the ease building mstarial
as the principal structure and be readily served through swinging
doers.
J. Canges, accessory atructurea, screen walls snd
r
■
4
•tr I' _____
. I
«
10.45
exposed •xxftv of sotBSnln9 vallx shall bo of %it i'lor typo#
quality ond appoaronct to tho principal otructurt.
K. Tho ground level view of oil oechonieol utilltico
■ball be coapletely ocsttned frea eontigueut properties ond
adjacent •treeta# or dealgned to be coapotible with the
architectural treataent of the prinelpol structure.
. L# External loading and oetvice ateoo auot be coapletely
■creened from the ground level view from contiguous residential
or coaaercial properties end adjacent streets# except at
points#
M# The light from autoaobile headlights and other
■ourcea shall be screened whenever it aay be directed onto
adjacent reeidential windows.
3S1-4
I
OS?
• (
»M<
• I
jO
J~ 4) i.jf Lp=?‘\
\
X>.si." ' %
I -:••
M
“I I
I --~• ••••-^ ••
I i^—
r [T“: sizr"
• «• *
tm MJU4 MOTES
' *“**SS5Ts5L-
o^
1
*•*«*.«^»%
o!Il
.<
M J»
S*"lS£!
zuj:II
lozt
-
V
us HCK.VOT WO. M
‘^V STTEPLAN
^1 sa?B»Vc&—
^ TifTTirrihiimT
0 •
• •«•>• ■•a'4 sAmBoa
4toto«to *ij U MA i«
• to>a^w •« to# ««
«to«A<k • ••# 1 •
------- 1
/ *>i«> ••••«% ••••• » ■«>.- ••
/ (M —1» «■ M <»*•<«•
/ <W^«. ■» ■*■^■1 • »«« •#•%•
^ «r>s
\ / I
> »«»««««• «A^»«k.««
#«*•«*■*» W»« «wA •«•«••*
• m*wM
»A. ^»«A ••««*• M -AA
to •• •« *to«A •••• •
_‘-r:~L*.T ’—
fsioeTM
4RADlUa .PRAIUA4C. \ LROSlOU COUTKDU
K,A%r ««IC«jOW woco*MO*.
trdk.^iMlTk fikiiAlh
w •»«i«
**•• » ••9m ma rnt•• ••
n-rr-5
1IfeH5LOPC AMAl.y6l&
CAST WIWLOW WOOP>
#«#«»•, 00t»0lM§0f*^1M»* ■
000*
•rrcAT #4foj.
00000009 0 000000
*13 Lm
€mm f*«H •
J9^^
------------
X
iiii
I' Xr^
g—■?.—^ ----®
>'^Mm^
I ,..i|.^M< «r>n I t> • M l
' '' Ic- i ^ A. LSi----^
^ *• ... j^^i* ??*.'! ^ .««^f_ •‘* ^-Y c i t> ^
r.
5D3, T
>17.. ~ ».»’.>.>.y..J-. "> -. _.»l ------------- ----------------------------------------------------
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TC
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. I AGREEMENT FOR
East Willow Woods
Clifford L. Ottcn Developer
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered in this day of 2002.
by and between the City of Oror.o, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State
of Minnesota (hereinafter called "City") and Clifford Often, his heirs, successors and assigns
(hereinafter called "Developer").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Developer entered into an Agreement dated April 23, 1990 (hereinafter
called "Agreement") to develop East Willow Woods as a Planned Unit Development on all the
terms and conditions set forth in that certain Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Developer entered into Amendment No. 1 on October 12,1998 to allow
construction of a greenhouse addition adjacent to the e.xisting principal structure, to allow for
construction of a loading dock within Outlet C. East Willow Woods, and to allow the entrance
monument construction within Lot.> 1 and 2 East Willow Woods at the site entrance from Highway
12:and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested Amendment No. 2 to allow a concession stand
use on the property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has granted approval for such Amendment 2, after a public
hearing and consideration and recommendation by the Planning Commission,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of the mutual conditions
hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows:
1.Property description: Property description for Amendment 2 is the same as that for the
Agreement.
Zoning : Property continues to be zoned as a Planned Unit Development under the
Orono planned unit development ordinance with underlying B-6 zoning.
3.Permitted Uses: Amendment 2 allows Class 1 Restaurants as a permitted use on Lot 1.
Amendment 2 allows a concession stand use as an accessory establishment to the nursery
use of the property on Lot 1. The concession stand use is subject to the following
conditions.
Page 1 of 5
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
A.Primar>' access to the concession stand area shall be from within the existing
retail nurser>- space. No separate access shall be permitted that would be intended
to be the primar>‘ access for concession stand customers.
B.Any request to expand the use beyond a concession stand use shall be reviewed
as an amendment to the PUD Agreement.
C.Expansions to the use would be any increase to the seating capacity beyond 44,
dedicating more than 500 s.f. of the floor area of the building to public seating
area or devoting more than 900 s.f. to the concession stand use.
D. The hours of operation of the concession stand shall be limited to the nomial
operating hours of the retail to which it is accessory.
Conditionally Permitted Uses: The Conditionally Pcmnilted uses shall remain in
compliance with the Agreement.
5. Site Access: Site access remains unchanged from the Agreement.
Buildinu Design and Construction: The building design and construction are unchanged
from the Agreement.
Height: The height is unchanged.
Signs: Signage on the pronertv shall be in confonnance with the standards established for
the B-1 zoning district.
Compliance: The obligations of compliance in the Agreement are extended to include this
Amendment 2.
10. Binding ElTect: The binding effect of the Agreement is extended to include this
Amendment 2.
11. Notices: The notice provisions of the Agreement are extended to include this Amendment
12, Incorporation bv Reference: The provisions of this is extended to this Amendment 2.
13. Disclaimer bv Citv: The Disclaimer in the Agreement is extended to this Amendment 2.
14. Hold Harmless and Indemnification: The Hold Harmless and Indemnification of the
Agreement is extended to this Amendment 2.
Page 2 of 5
•1
. V*
1 5. Remedy for Default: The Remedy for default in the Agreement is extended to this
Amendment 2.
16, Controlling Agreement: The terms of this Amendment 2 will first control Its reading,
and it shall be read together with the terms of the Agreement. The documents
shall control to the extent that there is any difference or ambiguity between them and
other agreements between the City and the Developer.
Page 3 of 5
•i I' K riiliii
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have caused this agreement to be
duly executed and to become effective on the day and year first above written.
In Presence of:CITY OF ORONO
BY:
(Mayor)
BY:
(City Clerk)
DEVELOPER
Clifford L. Otten
Reviewed for Administration/Date
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ,th day of
, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota
municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
day ofThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ______
________________, 200____by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a
Mirmesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
Page 4 of 5
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this day of ..20
personally appeared before me,
who is personally known to me
whose identity I proved on the basis of
whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation, 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 5 of 5
Complete Date:
60 Day Deadline:
6/10/02
8/9/02
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
JUL 0 8 2002
CITY Oh OflOJvO
DATE: July 2. 2002
ITEM NO.:
Department Approval:
Name Paul Weinberger
Title Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description:#02-2793 Revis Stephenson
1850 Fo.\ Ridge Road
After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variance
Lbt of Exhibits
A Notice of Planning Commission Action
B Draft Planning Commission Minutes (June 1 7,2002)
C Side Elevation • Cross Section
Background
In November. 2001 the Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for land alteration on the property over
500 cubic yards. The project required clear-cutting the slope and depositing of3,280 cubic yards of fill. The
purpose was to create a gradual slope rather than the existing steep drop from the immediate back yard of
the house.
During routine inspections of the property it was determined that the amount of fill placed on the hillside
exceeds what was allowed by the Conditional Use Permit. A new survey completed by Gronberg and
Associates, dated 6-6-02. confirms the land alteration not only encroached beyond the project area, but is
beyond the property lines onto two adjacent properties. Staff also has identified areas where there is fill that
has been added within 26' of the protected w etiand. Staff mailed a letter on May 2,2002 ordering corrections
to the property. Staff initially requested corrections last winter and spring, but due to road restrictions and
the mild winter trucks to transport the fill from the property were not allowed to legally use Fox Ridge Road.
A May 16. 2002 deadline was established to correct the problem. Mr. Stephenson contacted Staff and
requested the opportunity to apply for after-the-fact permits rather than correct the problem at that time.
The application under consideration is to permit additional land alteration in e.xcess of 500 cubic yards and
an after-the-fact variance to permit fill to be located within 26' of the wetland. The CUP process allows the
City to notify surrounding propert> ow ners w ithin 350* and requires City Council approval for such proposed
projects.
Please refer to attached exhibits that compare the pre-existing, approved and actual elevations of the hillside.
The elevation of the back yard is 966'. Tlic lowest elevation at the wetland is approximately 938'. The total
drop of the hillside is 28'. The approved plan indicates an overall slope of 4:1. Typically, the City will
require grading projects have a finished slope of at least 3:1 . The existing slope with the additional fill
#02-2793 Revis Stephenson
1850 Fox Ridge Road
Page 2 of 3____________
indicates a slope of less than 3:1. This would not be consistent with the general recommendation that
Finished slopes not have less than a 3:1 slope.
Wetland Setback Variance
Below the hillside is a large wetland. The City of Orono requires a 26’ setback to wetlands for any land
alteration activities. A final wetland delineation was submitted following the project and wetlands were
staked. The fill has been located as close as IT to the edge of the wetland. The average distance the base
of the hill is to the wetland boundary is between 20-25'.
Planning Commis.sion Review and Recommendation
The Planning Commission had been given information that the application to permit fill on the adjacent
properties had not been applied and new applications would be required to be submitted. Mr. Thomas
Barrett, City Attorney, has reviewed the application and has determined the application is legal as presented.
That determination is based on the fact that the adjacent property owners did not do the land alteration and
were not aware that the work had occurred on their properties until after the alteration had occurred. The
conclusion is the adjacent property owners are not required to obtain permits. However, the adjacent
property owners after-the-fact consent is vital to the request.
By a vote of 6 to 0 the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application. Denial of the
application would require the applicant restore the property to the elevations previously approved by the
2001 Conditional Use Permit.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the application to permit an after-the-fact variance and
conditional use permit for land alteration w ithin 26* of the wetland, the denial includes any alteration beyond
the previously approved elevations. No recommendation was provided regarding the land alteration over the
property lines and on the neighboring properties. This resulted from the information that was provided
regarding the legality of the application.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the follow ing:
I.The variance request to allow encroachment of the base of the hill to within 26' of the wetland be
denied. Section 10.55. Subdiv ision 8 of the zoning ordinance prohibits any land alteration within
a wetland and within 26' of wetlands. A variance requires a hardship and no hardship is justified in
this case. The additional fill located w ithin the 26' setback was done to extend the base of hill and
there is no unique situation that exists that should require an encroachment into the setback.
Additionally, any approval of a variance to permit land alteration to occur within 26' of a wetland
without demonstrating a hardship would be precedent setting.
1
#02-2793 Revis Stephenson
1850 Fox Ridge Road
Page 3 of 3 ____________
2.The portion of the aftcr-the-fnct pemiit for the existing grades is not consistent with the City’s
general recommendation (hat newly created slopes not be less than a 3:1 slope. The point on the
property where the flat area of the back yard begins to slope is less than a 3:1 slope and should be
corrected.
The original plan to fill tlie back yard was to make the back yard safe by eliminating the steep drop
only 30* from the back of the house. The fill changed the slope of the back yard from a very steep
drop to a gradual slope. Hie existing grades have extended the back yard an additional38. This is
very clear on the illustration attached as E.xhibit C. You can see how the proposed plan would
eliminate the very steep slope, but not extend the yard. Staff is not opposed to this change in the
plan, however the grades should be changed to not be less than a 3:1 slope and remove the base of
the hill from the 26' wetland setback.
3.Staff has requested the Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property owners Join him in this
application since the request is to allow the land alteration beyond the property lines. The legal
notice was mailed including those two properties as part of the new application. Both property
owners have consented to the project.
Knowing the issues relating to the finished grades, tlie property owner did seed the hillside and plant some
trees. If the grades have to be changed to be in compliance with the previous plan, or to reflect a change to
the grades based on the excessixe slope, it max require the hill to be reseeded and replanted.
Any recommendation shall include the folloxx ing conditions:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
All slopes shall be restored xxith a minimum of 4-inches of topsoil and seeded or restored
with some type of ci iwion control measure, erosion control plan shall be approved by the
MCWD and Citx Eneineer.
The silt fence shall be relocated to be a minimum of 26' to the edge of the delineated
xxetland, and anx 111! shall be removed from within 26' of the wetland (unless a variance to
permit till xvithin the xxetland setback is approved).
All soils xvithin 26' of the xxetland shall be decompacted following construction activity.
The City Engineer >hall reviexv and make recommendations on the plan prior to any
additional construction activities and corrections.
No portion of the hill shall not less than a 3:1 finished slope.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to direct Staff to draf) a resolution of approval or denial based on the findings and conclusions made
by the Council.
The final resolution for adoption will be presented to the Council July 22,2002.
V
A
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
PHONE:(952) 249-4600 FAX:(952) 249-4616
ZONING FILE W2-2793
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION
DATE OF NOTICE: June 24,2002
TO: Revii Stephenson
1850 Fox Ridge Road
Long Lake, MN 55356
TYPE OF APPLICATION;_Variance
X_Conditional Use Permit
__Subdivision
Other
DATEOFMEETING: June 17,2002 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Approval as submitted
Approval subject to conditions noted below
X Denial for reasons noted below
__Tabled for reasons noted below
__No action required
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The existing fill should be removed from within 26* of the wetland boundary.
The finished grades are not consistent with the grades approved with the previous CUP.
The grading is over the property lines where no grading was initially proposed.
The City Attorney should be consulted to determine the extent to which the CUP and
variance applications apply to the adjacent property owners.
The finished grades do not meet the recommended 3:1 slope.
You are scheduled to appear before the City Council on Monday, July 8, 2002. If you have any
questions please contact the Zoning Department at (952) 249-4600.
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.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o’clock p.m.
alteration on the property over SOO cubic yards. The project required clear cutting the slope and
depositing 3,280 cubic yards of fill, the purpose was to create a gradual slope rather than the existing
steep drop from the immediate back yard of the house. The source of the fill was the Orono Woods
apartment building located at the northwest comer of Highway 12 and Brown Road.
At the time of the approval, Weinberger explained that the property owner stated that some existing less
maturejrees would be removed with the intent to replant once the fill was placed on the hillside.
Additional trees were to be added to the property where existing trees could not be used. The hillside
was not to be a maintained lawn area that is mowed, but was to be left to restore itself naturally.
Weinberger noted that during routine inspections of the propert>' it was determined that the amount of fill
placed on the hillside had exceeded what was allowed by the Conditional Use Permit. The City of Orono
requested the property owner have a new survey completed to indicate where the land elevations had
changed and by how much. The new survey completed by Gronberg and Associates, dated 6/6/02,
confirmed the land alteration not only encroached beyond the project area, but went beyond the property
lines onto adjacent properties. Staff also identified areas where the fill had been added within 26’ of the
protected wetland.. Weinberger continued that staff sent correspondence ordering Mr. Stephenson to
correct the property; however, the May 16,2002 deadline was not met. MCWD also had issued a stop
work request. Instead, Mr. Stephenson requested the opportunity to apply for an after-the-fact conditional
use permit to permit aoditional land alteration beyond the previous approval, combined with a joint
application including neighboring property owners, and an after-the-fact variance to permit the deposit of
fill within 26’ of a wetland.
With regard to land alteration, Weinberger referred to Exhibits B, C, and D that illustrate what the land
alteration conditions are comparing the pre-existing, approved, and actual elevations of the hillside. The
elevation of the backyard is 966 ’, with the lowest wetland elevation of 938’. The total drop of the
hillside is 28’. Weinberger stated that the approved plan indicated an overall slope would be decreased to
a 4:1 slope, pointing out that t>'pically the City requires grading projects to have a finished slope of at
least 3:1.
Since the City of Orono requires a 26 ’ setback to wetlands, Weinberger stated that the proposed grading
PAGE 15 OF 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
plan did not impact the wetland or wetland setback. Currently however, the fill is located as close as 17’
to the edge of the wetland, with an average distance from the hill to the wetland boundary of between 20-
25’.
(»02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON ID, Continued)
Weinberger expanded on the three recommendation proposed by staff.:
1) The variance request to allow encroachment of the base of the hill to within 26’ of the wetland be
denied.
2) The portion of the after-the-fact permit for the existing grades is not consistent with the City ’s general
recommendations that newly created slopes not be less than a 3:1 slope. In essence the applicant had
extended his back yard an additional 38 ’.
3) Staff has requested that Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property owners join him in this application
since the request is to allow the land alteration beyond the property lines.
- Comments from the adjacent neighbor to the north, Toby Jason, state that he has no issues with
the project and is in full support of it. He views it as an improvement to the property with regard
to safety and believed the drainage was improved. A late fax submitted by neighbor Robert Hare
supported the results of the project.
Weinberger then cited 6 conditions in his report that should be included as part of any recommendation.
Mr. Stephenson questioned Weinberger whether his intention was to approve the sideyards as long as
neighbors voiced their support.
Weinberger indicated that with neighbor support, it would create a better scenario; however, the
questions regarding slope variances and wetland alteration remain.
PAGE 16 OF 42
r
IVUNUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAN7S1NG COMNHSSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o*clock p.m.
Mr. Stephenson maintained that the land alteration on the overhead slide had been corrected. 1 he
e.xisting grade is currently 2.9, since much of the fill tends to settle by one third over time. He believed
the silt fencing in place as of late had worked effectively in containing the fill. He asked if the sides
could be approved if the current slope is 3:1.
Although feedback from the Cit>' Engineer had not been collected, Weinberger stated his desire was to
SchedlUe the issue for this evening in order to prevent any further imrpovements from being done.
Mr. Stephenson stated that, early on, the construction people did not have adequate silt fencing and
dumped more dirt than he had originally intended. Mr. Stephenson questioned their motives to get rid of
as much fill as they could and new silt fencing was constructed to replace the old after going over it. In
conclusion, Mr. Stephenson argued that more damage would be incurred by the wetland if the City
required him to change the new buffer zone that had been created. The new buffer zone has cleaned out
much of the buckthorn and other undesirables and been replaced with native grasses and trees.
(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON HI, Continued)
Mr. Stephenson added that the seeding he had done had to be in order to avoid erosion problems during
April and May rain showers.
Smith asked Mr. Stephenson to help her understand how all of these errors evolved. She questioned
whether he was there giving the crew direction or if someone else was the general contractor.
Mr. Stephenson replied that at the outset, there had not been the wetland delineation that came later, nor
did he feel the crew listened to his direction. He maintained that they had a copy of the plan in their
possession but just did not listen to his requests for silt fence installation and fill limits.
Smith stated that the project was under his direction and he should have managed it as such.
Bellows pointed out that in any construction project, if the silt fencing is not up, they don’t dump. She
maintained that the City was very clear from the start that they were not pleased. She stated that it was
PAGE 17 OF 42
-----
1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o*clock p.m.
obvious to her that the applicant thought he would get away with it, and even went so far as to plant trees.
More than simply erosion control was done. She felt the applicant was not being totally upfront with the
Commission, the area was once a densely treed spot, and now the applicant had created a grade almost as
steep as before with no trees to stop the slope.
Dave Peltin, 1950 Fo.x Ridge Road, a current eleven year resident and childhood resident, believed the
project to ^ improvement. Mr. Peltin stated that the drop off created a scary scenario, even as a
child himself there years ago. He disagreed that the removal of the old vegetation created a more
dangerous situation, stating that previously the only thing to catch one from falling off the cliff were
stumps. He felt the newly created buffer was 100 times more valuable than what was there before.
Eric Galatz, of Leonard, Street, and Deinard, was in attendance representing Richard Chalfen of 350
Brown Road South. In addition to information provided to staff and the comments by Commissioner
Bellows, Mr. Galatz asked to add a few remarks. He reminded the Commission that since no hardship
previously existed, Mr. Stephenson had only created a hardship for himself at this time. On Jan. 4,2002
Mr. Stephenson was notified by MCWD to install double silt fencing. On February 22,2002 the City of
Orono asked Mr. Stephenson to stop work on the project until conditions improved, furthermore, Mr.
Stephenson was responsible for obtaining a wetland delineation prior to commencing his work as
required by the original permit. Through their unauthorized grading and filling project, Mr. Galatz
pointed out that the Stephenson's have added nearly 40 feet to their back lawn area, as well as, built a
new deck and driveway. Mr. Galatz maintained that these facts disclose the Stephensons' failure to
follow terms and conditions of existing permits and prior stop work orders.
(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON HI, Continued)
Mr. Galatz continued, that his client Mr. Chalfen, greatly appreciated his natural setting and privacy,
which have now been significantly impacted. He stated that the City had granted variances that would
have preserved that natural setting there originally, only now that has been compromised. Mr. Galatz
encouraged the Commission to require that the applicant restore thef landscape. In fact, Mr. Galatz stated,
the applicant has not made any apologies to his neighbors or the City for his indiscretions.
PAGE 18 OF 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o’clock p.m.
Mr. Stephenson asked to respond to each of Mr. Chalfen’s issues independently. First, with regard to the
driveway and deck, Mr. Stephenson stated that he had received a permit for the deck and has not changed
his driveway in any way. Second, he indicated that he is apologetic to both his neighbors and the City.
He questioned the need to file permit for his neighbors overflow fill amounts which are less than 100
cubic feet of fill therefore not requiring permit. Finally, Mr. Stephenson stated that he disagreed with the
view issues as put forth by the neighbor due to his proximity to the property.
Bellows questioned if Weinberger could provide the Commission with a survey of existing conditions
since the completion of the work.
Gaffron noted that by comparing Exhibits B and D this is displayed well.
Bellows felt that the two exhibits were dramatically different and asked if it would be possible to
quantify the amount of extra fill that was used.
Smith inquired about the typical amount of settling one can expect.
Weinberger stated that over a short period of time a little settling is somewhat common.
Bellows reminded the Commission and applicant that the quantity of fill that is approved is for an
amount only, not that which is needed to maintain a certain level after settling.
Mr. Galatz stated that by extending the ridge out 38 feet, Mr. Chalfen’s side hill view is now blocked by
an 8 foot tall filled in hill, which obstructs his view to the woods beyond.
Rahn felt it would be pertinent to obtain the City Engineer’s opinion before making judgment and
believed that when an applicant goes way beyond what has been permitted, there are additional issues to
consider.
• ••
Mr. Galatz urged the Commission to take action now since Mr. Stephenson has already been on notice
for six months.
PAGE 19 OF 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o’clock p.m.
(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON HI, Continued)
Rahn expressed his empathy to the neighbors who would be subject to a new series of trucks disrupting
their lives this summer, who, of course, feel it is an easier course of action to let it all go.
Smith asked for Mr. Stephenson's feedback regarding page 3, of the staff recommendations.
Mr. Stephenson stated that item #3 of page 3 had been addressed by providing adjacent property owner
support. Item #2, with regard to the grade, Mr. Stephenson maintained that the 2.9 grade is e.xtremely
close to the 3:1 slope that was approved and should be allowed. In reference to item #1, wetland
encroachment, Mr. Stephenson stated that he would be more than happy to remove the fill that had
overflowed into the wetland area without having to shave the whole hill back.
Fritzler questioned if the applicants crew was running equipment beyond the silt fencing and w hy.
Mr. Stephenson indicated that small machinery had been used.
Fritzler then asked how far into the wetland the applicants property extends and what he removed.
Mr. Stephenson stated that his property extends 100’ into the wetland and that he removed much of the
buckthorn at his own expense.
Smith referred to page 4, the remedies to settle the issues, and asked for comment.
Weinberger reiterated that the entire project exceeded the approved SOO cubic yards of alteration and in
order to maintain the required 3:1 slope the entire slope will need to be shaved in order to pull the hill
from the wetland. Currently at 36, versus the required 33, Weinberger questioned how the Commission
felt about the encroachment into the wetland.
Mr. Stephenson asked what could be done to keep the restored wetland buffer in tact.
PAGE 20 OF 42
1
4
i
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Weinberger repeated that the City protects wetlands within 26’ thus ensuring that citizens do not disturb
the wetland.
Mr. Stephenson stated that MCWD had indicated to him that permits are available which allow fill back
to a wetland as long as the natural buffer is restored, much like the golf course had done.
Since |he variances Mr. Stephenson referred to were never obtained, Mr. Galatz repeated that the
hardship was his own doing and the edge of the ridge must be moved back.
(M2-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON IH, Continued)
With regard to the neighboring properties, Gaffron stated that each wilt need to apply for their own
permit to have the fill remain, Mr. Stephenson cannot apply for permits on behalf of his neighbors.
Bremer questioned whether the letters and correspondence that have been received are enough to satisfy
issue #3 for the City.
Bellows maintained that no letter can suffice to support the CUP.
Fritzler voiced his opinion, stating that the crest of the hill needs to be backed up to what was originally
approved in the CUP. Too much has been done and it is on the onus of Mr. Stephenson to correct the
problem. Frtizler maintained that the integrity of the 26* wetland setback needs to be restored. He added
that, in his opinion, he would vote to deny the variance, deny the CUP, and require the applicant to move
the slope back..
Bellows requested that item U6 of the conditions on page 4 of the report be stricken since the neighbors
are not co-applicants in this request.
Smith stated that she concurred with the thoughts laid out by Fritzlilr.
Rahn indicated that in his view the applicant had been negligent of what was originally approved and
PAGE 21 OF 42
f ^
9
ir
(
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o*clock p.in.
agreed with removing item #6.
Berg concurred.
Bremer stated that it was unfortunate that the applicant would need to destroy the work he had done;
however, he had created this for himself.
Bellows agreed with Fritzler and struck item U6.
Mr. Stephenson stated that had he known the neighbors would need to apply for the permits themselves,
he would have had them do so.
Smith asked staff if anything could be done to minimize the disruption to the neighborhood.
Bellows pointed out that none of this disruption would have had to occur if the applicant w ould have
followed the letter of the law right from the start.
(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON ID, Continued)
Weinberger stated that, in the applicants defense, he had asked for neighbor consent to the co-
application.
Mr. Stephenson expressed his disappointment and referred to the Orono Mission Statement which he felt
encouraged the City to do what's best for the environment and the majority of its citizens support. He
stated that he did not mean to create this mess and could pull the overflow fill out of the wetland buffer
rather readily and reseed at his expense. Mr. Stephenson maintained that it did not make sense for the
City to order him to do something to the neighbors property now after they have recommended their
support of the project.
Berg stated that the project needs to revert to what was originally approved. What he has done was not
part of the original plan, and therefore needs to be removed. Even if the neighbors love what he has
PAGE 22 OF 42
lar—JT.. lArM.Jj
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mooday, June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
done, they did not file an application or join in the application.
Mr. Stephenson questioned the purpose for an after-the-fact application in the first place if the City does
not approve them.
Berg stated that they are available in order to allow the City to correct what was done improperly.
Mr. Stephenson coated that had he not filed for the after-the-fact application he would be continuing his
work today.
Rahn clarified that by not filing the application, Mr. Stephenson would not be excused from correcting
the problem, in fact, the City had sent him notice to do so.
Mr. Stephenson argued that the reasoning behind his denials are not due to the fact that they are not
reasonable, but that they were not approved ahead of time. He questioned if he had come to the
Commission with his neighbors to apply for a CUP to clear and fill the area originally would he have
been granted approval, he argued yes.
Smith disagreed, and stated that the Commission likely would not have approved the way it was done.
Rahn stated that the approval had required a IS’ setback to the sides, and he is currently in his neighbors
property, which already reflects a 30’ encroachment without ever going to the neighbors. For this, and
other reasons, he argued that the Commission would not have given approval to the variances as Mr.
Stephenson believed.
(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON ID, Continued)
Bellows moved, Fritxicr seconded, to deny the Aftcr-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variance
for Application #02-2793, Revis Stephenson m, 1850 Fox Ridge Road, for additional fill to be
added to bis property at slopes beyond wbat was recommended and the placement of soil on
neighbors property. It is further recommended that all three staff recommendations are followed
PAGE 23 OF 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o’clock p.m.
and items #1 • 5 of the subsequent staff conditions. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 8:58 - 9:05 p.m.)
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M.
(89) 802-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS, 250 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST, PRELIMINARY
PLAT 9:05 p.m.- 9:42 p.m.
Brad and Carol Pass, Applicants, were present.
Weinberger explained that the applicants have applied for a preliminary plat of the 14 acre property at
250 North Shore Drive West allowing it to be divided into two building sites, shared driveway, and
conservation outlot. >Miile the property owners own 20.5 acres immediately east of the property, for a
total of 34.5 acres, if the potential exists for future development a right of way should be considered.
The general site plan meets all requirements for a front lot/back lot subdivision. Weinberger continued
that the shared driveway also meets the minimum requirements. He added that outlot B is planned to be
part of a much larger conservation easement area that will be dedicated to the Hennepin Conservation
District. The Hennepin Conservation District would maintain and manage the conservation area.
While Hennepin County has requested a land dedication totaling 60’ from the center line of C.R. 19, the
City has not always required the land dedication for additional right of way. In fact, Weinberger
explained, that no other areas along this right of way are dedicated more than 33’, and this might infringe
on the current wetland area.
Weinberger stated that a variance is required to permit land alteration in a designated wetland for
driveway construction. Dave Zetterstrom, Entrance Permit Coordinator for Hennepin County, has
reviewed the plans and noted in his letter dated May 21,2002 that the proposed driveway entrance if the
only location along the roadway frontage where access can be permitted for the property.
PAGE 24 OF 42
g»«.^
Conpletc Date:
Deadiiac:
6/11/02
8/10/02
TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE:June 11,2002
SUBJECT:#02-2793 Revis Stephenson III
1850 Fox Ridge Road
After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variance - Public Hearing
Zoning District:RR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre)
Lbt of Exhibits:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
M
1
J
Application
Approved Land Alteration Plan
Cross Section
Existing Grades
MCWD Permit (12/06/01)
MCWD Letter (1/4/02)
City of Orono Violation Letter (2/22 02)
City of Orono Violation Letter (5/2/02)
Planning Commission Minutes (11/19/01)
City Council Minutes (11/26 01)
Application Background:
In November, 2001 the Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for land alteration on the
property over 500 cubic yards. The project would required clear cutting the slope and depositing of
3,280 cubic yards of fill, the purpose was to create a gradual slope rather than the existing steep drop
from the immediate back yard of the house. The source of the fill was the Orono Woods apartment
building located at the northwest comer of Highway 12 and Brow-n Road (Dunbar Project).
At the time of the approval it was stated by the property ot^ner that some existing less mature trees
would be removed with the intent to replant once the fill is placed on the hillside. Additional trees
were to be added to the property where existing trees could not be used. The hillside will not be a
maintained lawn area that is mowed, but is to be left to restore itself naturally.
A conditional use permit was required for land alteration of greater than 500 cubic yards. The slope
is Qot located within a shoreland area, where trees and existing grades on slopes are protected. The
CUP process allows the City to notify surrounding property owners within 350' and requires City
Council approval for such proposed projects.
•02-2793 Rois Stephemon III
IS50 Fox Ridfc Road
Page I of 4 1
Status of the Project
During routine inspections of the property it was determined that the amount of fill placed on the
hillside has exceeded what was allowed by the Conditional Use Permit. The approved site plan
indicated an area down the hill out from the center of the property would be the location of the fill.
The approved grading plan indicates that there would be no land alteration closer than 15' to a
property line.
The City of Orono requested the property ovsner have a new survey completed to indicate where the
land elevations had changed and by how much. Staff believed the amount of land alteration
exceeded what was allowed by the Conditional Use Permit. The new survey completed by Gronberg
and Associates, dated 6-6-02, confirms the land alteration not only encroached beyond the project
area, but it went beyond the property lines onto adjacent property lines. Staff also has identified
areas where there is fill that has been added within 26' of the protected wetland. Staff mailed a letter
on May 2,2002 (please read Exhibit H) ordering corrections to the property. Staff initially requested
corrections last winter and spring, but due to road restrictions and the mild winter trucks to transport
the fill from the property were not allowed to legally use Fox Ridge Road. A May 16,2002 deadline
was established to correct the problem. Mr. Stephenson contacted Staff and requested rather than
correct the problem at that time he requested an opportunity to discuss the item as part of an
amendment to the previous CUP. Staff informed Mr. Stephenson the only option he would have
would be to request an after the fact conditional use permit to permit additional land alteration
beyond the previous approval, combined with a joint application including neighboring property
owners, and request an after the fact variance to permit the deposit of fill within 26’ of a wetland.
Land Alteration
Please refer to Exhibits B, C and D that illustrate what the land alteration conditions are comparing
the pre-existing, approved and actual elevations of the hillside. The elevation of the back yard is
966'. The lowest elevation at the wetland is approximately 938 ’. The total drop of the hillside is 28'.
The approved plan indicated an overall slope will be decreased to a 4:1 slope. Typically, the City
will require grading projects have a finished slope of at least 3:1.
The existing slope with the additional fill indicates a slope of less than 3:1. This would not be
consistent with the general slope the City recommends. As of the date of this memo the City
Engineer has not had an opportunity to review the plans to comment on the slope.
Wetland Impacts
Below the hillside is a large wetland. The City of Orono requires a 26' setback to wetlands for any
land alteration activities. The proposed grading plan did not impact the wetland or wetland setback.
A final wetland delineation was submitted following the project and wetlands were staked. The fill
is located as close as 17' to the edge of the wetland. The average distance the base of the hill is to
the wetland boundary is between 20-25*.
102-2793 Revis Stephenson Ul
1850 Fox Ridge Road
Page 2 of4
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the following:
1.The variance request to allow encroachment of the base of the hill to within 26* of the
wetland be denied. Section 10.S5, Subdivision 8 of the zoning ordinance prohibits any land
alteration within a wetland and within 26* of wetlands. A variance requires a hardship and
no hardship is justified in this case. The additional fill located within the 26* setback was
done to extend the base of hill and there is no unique situation that exists that should require
an encroachment into the setback.
* Additionally, any approval of a variance to permit land alteration to occur within 26* of a
wetland without demonstrating a hardship would be precedent setting.
2.The portion of the after-the-fact permit for the existing grades is not consistent with the
City ’s general recommendation that newly created slopes not be less than a 3:1 slope. The
point on the property where the flat area of the back yard begins to slope is less thuu a 3:1
slope and should be corrected.
The original plan to fill the back yard was to make the back yard safe by eliminating the steep
drop only 30* from the back of the house. The fill changed the slope of the back yard from
a very steep drop to a gradual slope. The existing grades have extended the back yard an
additional38. This is very clear on the illustration attached as Exhibit C. You can see how
the proposed plan would eliminate the very steep slope, but not extend the yard. Staff is not
opposed to this change in the plan, however the grades should be changed to not be less than
a 3:1 slope and remove the base of the hill from the 26* wetland setback.
3.Staff has requested the Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property owners join him in this
application since the request is to allow the land alteration beyond the property lines. The
legal notice was mailed including those two properties as part of the new application. Both
property owners have not yet consented to the plan. If there is no official consent received
by the City the fill should be removed from those two properties immediately and the
property be regraded to match the plan approved in November, 2001. If the neighbors do
consent, the grades will have to be confirmed that they do not exceed 3:1 and the City
Engineer shall approve the plan from an engineering perspective.
Staff placed this item on the Planning Commission agenda for June to avoid any delay in resolving
this matter. The survey indicating the finished grades was not delivered to our office until June lO***.
Knowing the issues relating to the finished grades, the property owner did seed the hillside and plant
some trees. If the grades have to be changed to be in compliance with the previous plan, or to reflect
a change to the grades based on the excessive slope, it may require the hill to be reseeded and
replanted.
102-2793 RevU Siephemon m
1(50 Fox Rk)|C Road
Page3of4
•a . . y-
Any reconunendation shall include the following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
All slopes shall be restored with a minimum of 4*inches of topsoil and seeded or
restored with some type of erosion control measure, erosion control plan shall be
^proved by the MCWD and City Engineer.
The silt fence shall be relocated to be a minimum of 26' to the edge of the delineated
wetland, and any fill shall be removed from within 26' of the wetland (unless a
variance to permit fill within the wetland setback is iqiproved).
All soils within 26' of the wetland shall be decompacted following construction
activity.
The City Engineer shall review and make recommendations on the plan prior to any
additional construction activities and corrections.
No portion of the hill shall not less than a 3:1 finished slope.
Consent to the application shall be received by adjacent property owners if any land
alteration is approved beyond a property line.
102*2793 lUvte Stephenson 111
IISORMRidieRoKl
f9gt4oi4
L
Applfaition#
PatcRccdvcd
Amount Paid ItATO
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address O fiot.
Type of Application to be Filed
W
AN%^4iu/\ - f
Property Identiflcation Number (P.I.D.) Oi-in-ZI iX nacS
APPLICANT
Name R^i
Address /Urb f>-»L
Name L.
Phone (home) *v7C.
______ Phone (work ) \its. yRil
City (*)rc>»e. _______Zip <r«rac~c.
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
Address City Zip.
Date Property Acquired
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.i^01 (month/year)
FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -
$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP applicatioif / s*
_____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use
_____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
_____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
_____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg
_____$325.00 Commercial/Indu^^trial Use
___-*-$250.00 Land Alteration Js~^ O
Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more
___ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore
PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule
$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application)
After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee
OTHER APPLICATIONS
_____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees)
_____$300.00 Vacation
_____$200.00 Easement Vacation
_____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision
_____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule)
_____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_____$100.00 Appeals
Other - see Fee Schedule
#2793
/
i v_;
required submittals
1. 1^ . ..
2.
3.
Completed Application Form.
Describe request in detail.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
t^scnoe request m detail.
^ obuin J**?" »n<l pint nup Cywi
A-603, Government Center, 348-3271) ^ ounty Department of Finance,
~ “ '*“"««• . „f„ ,0 h^dou, for «.,v.y
Z Ctipt «» » survey.
changes in elevaUon (grades) contours) if land alteraUons involve
^"Tal°" '' fo?r;^i?emfn^r
persons you "wiT notiJl^ STfappiicar^^
*^**R odu Ston p documents or copy
applitMion is no. “"’pKf S
SS“i“fS«lL'^sSf^ ■•'= con.ple.0.
--------------------Date
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
and/or unusual expenses incuned in review of »lT ?“ '* f« payment)
suppued is foie and eom*. ,o foe best of bister Zwled^”'* Wbnnabon
Applicant ’s signature
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
:Sr“rs:;;t: “
members for punmses of investigation and ve„T?caS« S“" ““
Ownei's signature ^Y .<,') TTi
Date
#27Q5^
tA\
FOX
• RIDGE
; ROAD
LEGAL OeSCRPTlON OF PREMSES:
Lot 4. 6k>ck 1. FOX RDGE
Thli •urvey intend to show the boundorlee o# ^ obove
dbecrfted gryerty.^^o^ilww *5hif
Jmr>rr»v#m^nN or ^nrfooohmoot
•-a*' »
. - V -
.'S' ,
—6r«i4j ac 4»fb|oz^
fjy*
«»
tr*
Wf*
H*’
H*»*
' *fc.<
«
^ *
’In •
«rtta -I,.. j»-tm -f > -ift ---------iT[i r > if
■.
I I
I I
I I
I I f •
•• ? .
N..
•.'••.SVJ.*- .
iM i'Al'' ^ y\ \ ■
■' i.T / A'i’.>^\•i •.;! \. / \ /\ •. \5j;r. •,»•. 'A
\ •. A\ \ : 1
/
1
•A I 'll
FOX
RIDGE
ROAD
I
/»f|PRO\IEO
A|P-^^i
COC£ or KKETtAM)
"AS OCLtCATtD
WETLAND ST^
'by 0T»CRS (lyp)
LEGAL OESCRPTION OF PRESSES:
Lot 4, Block 1, FOX RCX«E
■^n-.v
----^kia^Jmm m
SEC-«7*-2001 16t46 Mtl^CHPHP CREEK URTERSHED
OnyFraatMDHCfnIlf
Hi9iLlSt1f.NMn
lU
2500 CaJlfwoJ Raid
GmW0(MNSS3S1^
ptMM:iin)4n-0690
RK(96Q<n*06l2
End:
■MnflnfevdtiihiGMkQiS
«M8b:
wmuniMMMhwwiLOiB
Board alMiragtrc
taMtaOiBbt
jMiNtCalaa
UncaRthw
MorieaGnn
Bcolt Thomas
lUeoImfWd
Hobart Sdmifar
• -
HiDieliaha Creek
6124710682 P. 02/02
^ater8hed District
JmpnvingQuaJi^aflbter, Quaii^rfLifi
Pf^OC. ts ST*. t^fLAS:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D. and on the basis of statements
and information contained In the per^ appOcabon. conrespondenoe. plans,
maps, and an other supporting data submitted by the applicant ad of which are
made a part hereof by reference. PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to the
applicant named below for use and development of land bi the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District
Issued to: Revis Steohaenson Permit No: 01-445
i! 1850 Fox Ridoe Rd. Orono
Purpose: Rules B: Erosion Control
Date of Issuance: 12/06/01 Date of Expiration: 12/06/02
By Order of the Board of Managers
Michael WVatt
District Technician
This permit is not transferable, and b valid to the date of expiration. No activity b
authorized beyond the expiration date. If the permittee requires more time to
complete the project an application for renewal of the permit b required.
The appficant b responsible for compDance \Mth all Dbtrict Rules and for the
action of their representatives, contractors, and employees.
Conditions: Project to be completed as described In plans submitted to ttie
MCWD office on November 30.2001 and according to the
provisions of this permit
• Property Install and maintain aO reqtdred MCWD Rub B,
erosion control measures unto the disturbed areas are
restabilized
• Silt fence must be orange in color
• When the sKe b restablilized and the MCWD staff has
performed a final inspecUon. an silt fences must be removed
• No filling or excavation activities may occur within the
boundary of the delineated weUand
(Statement concerning fees for inspections. viotoQons, etc... on reveria)
JflN-04-2002 11:43 MINKEHPHP CREEK URTERSHEO 6124710682 P.Z2/22
Minnehaha Creek Watershei District
Improving Qjudity ofWater. Quality ofL^
GnyFrailNi^Oinlv
Hnyf.1Sli9.NMm
Mao:
2S00 K«dywod Road
EBaUK MN 56331^9678
Mena: (952) 471-0690
riw (952)471-0682
BnaU:
adminftrtnnahahaereak.oni
tai-U 3HB#
wmfliinnehahaci«ek.org
Board of Managan
Pamela Q. BOH
JamaaCaldnf
LanoaFWMr
Monica Qrass
BooItTlieinas
Malcolm Raid
RobartSduoadar
Revis Stephenson January 4,2002
1850 Fox Ridge Road
Orono, MN 55356
Mr. Stephenson:
During routine inspections by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWO) Staff, we found a number of violations of the provisions of the
MCWD Rule B permit for erosion control. At the location cited below,
violations were recorded on January 4,2001:
• pArmit iflSQ Fo^ Ridge Road: Grading has been initiated
without the necessary erosion control measures in place as indicated
on the erosion control plan submitted to MCWD. It also appears as
though soils near the wetland area have been heavily compacted by
construction equipment and a portion of the wetland may have been
Inadvertently filled from construction activity.
In order to avoid penalties from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District which may include fees and the delivery of a Stop Work
Order, these violations require prompt and Immediate attention. All
violations should be attended to and fixed immediately. Work should
not continue until the necessary repairs have been made. A deadline
of January 8,2002 has been given in order to resolve these issues.
The permit holder is thereby required to:
• Install silt fences to MCWO specifications on all downhill slopes and
around stockpiles
• Silt fence must be maintained in order to be effective and up to
MCWD standards
• Wetland delineation flags must be maintained in the original locations
for reference to wetland boundary
• No impacts to wetlands may occur with this project: if impacts are
unavoidable, MCWO Board of Managers approval will be required for
the project
• Soils must be decompacted in areas within 25 feet of the wetland
boundary following construction
A MCWD representative will inspect the required repairs made to the
construction sites later in the week. Thank you for your prompt
cooperation and immediate attention to this matter. If you have any
questions please call 952-471-0590.
Sincerely,
Michael Wyatt
District Technician
GITYoT ORONO
Municipal Ofllcts
Straat Mtfrats:
2750 Keltey Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Mailiat Mdrati:
P.O. Boi 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323^6
Revis Stephenson
1850 Fox Ridge Road
LongXake, MN-55356
Mr. Stephenson:
During a routine inspection with the City of Orono and MCWD we found a number of issues related
to the land alteration on the property. The violations are noted below and require immediate
attention. All violations are required to be corrected by March 5, 2002. This date is especially
important as the mild winter causes great concern over erosion that will occur since the ground has
not frozen.
1.
3.
4.
3.
The silt fences have not held and should be replaced or repaired.
The fill has been located within the required 26* wetland buffer and must be removed. No
fill or land alteration is permitted within 26' of a wetland.
Soils must be decompacted in areas within 26' of the w etland.
It appears some land alteration has occurred beyond what was approved by the City and
MCWD. The City of Orono is requesting you submit a survey showing finished elevations
on the property to indicate the amount of area on the property that has had changes to the
original elevation, and to indicate any land alteration that may have occurred beyond the
property boundaries.
The hillside should be disced from side property line to side property line. The e.xisting
hillside has been disced top to bottom. The top to bottom discing has created many channels
for water Uiat will wash fill down the hill towards the wetland area.
The corrections must be competed by March 5,2002. Please contact the City when the above are
complete for an immediate inspection. Shortly after they are complete the required 4" topsoil shall
be added and the hillside seeded so the vegetation can establish itself.
Please feel free to contact me as soon as possible to discuss this matter. I can be reached at 952-249-
4600.
Sincerely,
Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator
lUcphoiie(952)24MM0 • Fax(9S2)249^1i
wwwxLomwJBiun
CITY of ORONO
Municipal Offices
Stmtlddnss:
2750 Kelley Parliway
Orono, MN 55356
MaHtaf Mirtts:
P.O. Box 66
Ciystal Bay, MN S5323-0066
May 2,2002
Mr. Revis Stephenson
18S0 Eox Ridge Road
Long Lake. MN SS3S6
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
I am writing this letter as a followup to our previous correspondence and meetings relating to the fill and
regrading of the hillside on your property. As of April 30,2002 no progress has been made on the violations
noted below. Road restrictions have been lifted and the City of Orono is requesting all violations be corrected
immediately.
I.
0
3.
4.
The silt fences have not held and must be replaced or repaired.
The fill has been located w ithin the required 26* wetland buffer and must be removed. No fill or land
alteration is permitted within 26' of a wetland.
Soils must be decompacted to the standards set forth by the MC WD in areas within 26' of the wetland.
It appears some land alteration has occurred beyond what was approved by the City and MC WD. The
City of Orono is requesting you resurvey the property lines and identify any changes to the final
grading not consistent with the approved plan.
We also noticed the e.xisting hillside has recently been seeded. The Conditional Use Permit required the
finished grades match the approved grading plan approved by the Council. Additionally, 4" of top soil is
required to be placed above the finished grades prior to seeding.
Please contact the City for an inspection as soon as finished grades are established. Once finished grading is
approved, the required 4” topsoil must be added and the hillside seeded so the vegetation can establish itself.
As soon as seeding is completed, a second inspection is required. These corrections must be completed by
May 16,2002, or the City may initiate legal action.
Please feel free to contact me as soon as possible to discuss this matter. 1 can be reached at 952-249-4600.
Sincerely,
Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator
Cc: Michael Wyatt, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Renae Schubert, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Mike GafTron, City of Orono
Wendy Bottenberg, City of Orono
1hlcplioiic(952)24Md00 • Fn(9S2)24M61<
wwwxLoronojniLits
n1
■I
i
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19,2001
6:30 o’clock p.m.
(tVOl-2730 Ace Properties, Continued)
Palm stated he would like to have it tabled.
Stoddard moved, Mabusth seconded, to table Application #01*2730, Ace Properties,
3375 Crystal Bay Road, to allow the Applicant time to revke bis plans. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#5) #01-2732 REVIS L. STEPHENSON, ID., 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE
PERAUT, 7:30 p.m. - 7:58 p.m.
Revis Stephenson, Applicant, was present.
Weinberger stated the Applicant has requested a conditional use permit to permit land alteration over
SOO cubic yards on the property located at 1850 Fox Ridge Road. The project would consist of clear
cutting the slope and depositing approximately 3,280 cubic yards of fill. The purpose of the project is
to create a gradual slope rather than the existing steep drop from the immediate back yard of the
house. The source of the fill is from the Orono Woods apartment building located at the northwest
comer of Highway 12 and Brown Road.
Weinberger stated a conditional use permit is required for land alteration greater than SOO cubic yards.
The slope on this lot is not located within a shoreland area. Weinberger stated some existing less
mature trees would be removed w ithin the intent of the Applicant to replant once the fill is placed on
the hillside. Tlie Applicant is also proposing to plant additional trees and natural grasses. Weinberger
stated it is not the intent of the. vpplicant to maintain this area as lawn but as a natural area.
Weinberger stated approximately 300 truck loads of fill will be delivered to the site. The source of the
fill is from the senior apartment building site located at Highway 12 and Brown Road. The City
Engineer has e.xpressed some concerns about the potential damage to Fox Ridge Road, which is a City
street, given the number of truck loads that will be traveling over this road. Staff is recommending the
property owner provide some type of financial guarantee that could be used to correct any damage
caused by the contractors’ activities.
Weinberger stated a utility easement is located through the property, w hich was granted in the 1970s as
part of a Metropolitan Council project. The sew er main line was never constructed and portions of the
original easement located over the 20 acre property north of the Luce Line Trail was vacated years ago
when it was determined the line would not be constructed. The easement located across this property
and other lots in the Fox Ridge neighborhood has not been vacated. Staff is requesting input from the
Metropolitan Council on the future use of this easement and whether it can be vacated.
Staff is recommending approval of the application based on the following conditions:
I. A determination is made by all agencies with rights to the utility easement that 12 feet of fill can
be located over the easement.
2. A letter should be submitted by the property owner indicating that two silt fences would be
installed to protect the existing wetland, and that the silt fence would be installed prior to any tree
removal or land alteration.
PAGE 7
MBWTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19,2001
6:30 o’clock p.m.
(#01-2732 Revis Stephenson, Continued)
3. The MCWD shall issue an erosion control permit prior to issuance of a land alteration permit.
4. The flushing station located on the property shall be protected by fencing to ensure it will not be
damaged during the project.
5. All slopes shall be restored with a minimum of four inches of topsoil and seeded or restored with
some type of erosion control measure, erosion control plan shall be approved by the MCWD and
- City Engineer.
6. The property owner provide some type of financial guarantee that could be used to correct any
damage to the road caused by the contractor's activities.
7. Fox Ridge Road is a residential street. The contractor shall place signs on Fox Ridge Road alerting
other users of the road where the work will be taking place.
8. Temporary fencing shall be Installed around the construction activity to separate the land alteration
activity from the surrounding property.
Stephenson stated he Is adamant about protecting the wetlands in this area and is agreeable with most
of the conditions listed in the Planner’s Report. Stephenson requested clarification of Item #6 relating
to the financial guarantee. Stephenson commented he was informed by the contractor that the road
should not be damaged, noting the road currently is in poor shape. Stephenson stated the neighbors are
supportive of this project since it will eliminate the steep slope, and that his intentions are to plant
native grasses and trees in this area to help restore the area back to its natural state.
Mabusth suggested the Applicant discuss the financial guarantee with the contractor.
Weinberger stated the work is not expected to start until mid December, and If the ground is frozen by
then, the hauling of the fill will not be as big of a concern.
Stephenson indicated he has no control over when the fill will be brought in, with the project expecting
to take between five and six davs.
Smith inquired whether the impact on the wetland over time would be better or worse w*ith this project.
Weinberger stated the City Engineer has indicated that the rate of water runoff will slow down by
changing the grade in this area. In addition, vegetation will be planted in the areas where currently
there is just dirt, which should help prevent erosion.
Hawn recommended a deadline of May 30,2002 be required for the landscaping and planting.
Stephenson stated he does not have a problem with that requirement.
Smith inquired w hether the Applicant would be planting the same number of trees that will be
removed.
PAGES
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19,2001
6:30 o’clock p.ni.
(M)l-2732 Revis Stephenson, Continued)
Stephenson stated he would like this area to be well-forested and intends to plant natural prairie grasses
as well as pine trees, oaks, maples, and apple trees. Stephenson stated that currently the majority’ of the
trees consist of bo.x ciders that will be removed as part of this project as well as two maple trees.
Stephenson reiterated that the road presently is in poor condition and that he has a concern regarding a
financial guarantee.
Lindquist stated the City needs to have a letter of security on file prior to the commencement of this
project.
Stephenson inquired what amount the City would be requesting.
Gaffron recommended the City Engineer and the Public Works Director meet with the Applicant to
discuss the current condition of the roadway and document any existing problems. Gaffron
recommended this item be left up to the City Engineer and the Public Works Director to determine
what the appropriate amount of security would be. Gaffron suggested the Applicant speak with Gappa
following the hearing.
Stephenson stated he is agreeable to do that.
Gaffron inquired when the Applicant is proposing to place the black dirt on the property.
Stephenson stated he would like to do that at the time he does the planting.
Gaffron recommended the deadline for completion of the planting be moved to June 30"* to a\oid
problems with winter road restrictions.
Fritzler inquired whether the entire fill would be spread this year.
Stephenson stated the fill would be spread in conjunction with the dumping.
Fritzler expressed a concern that the dirt may freeze before the contractor would be able to spread it.
Frizter suggested the Applicant also advise the contractor to do periodic cleanup of the road, noting
the contractor is prohibited from leaving anything on the roadway.
Stephenson indicated they would comply with the applicable laws.
Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2732,
Revis L. Stephenson, III., 1850 Fox Ridge Road, granting of a conditional use permit to permit
land alteration over 500 cubic yards on the property located at 1850 Fox Ridge Road, subject to
the conditions outlined in the November 13,2001 Planner’s Report, and further subject to total
restoration of the area being completed by June 30,2002. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
PAGE 9
jtaAsitstus
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19,2001
6:30 o’clock p.ro.
(#6) «01-2734 MARGIE NEWTON, 505 ORCHARD PARK ROAD, VARIANCE,
7:59 p.m. - 8:09 p.m.
Margie Newton, Applicant, and Thomas Bren, Contractor, were present.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a variance to permit an existing horse bam to remain on
the property located closer to the front property line than the new proposed house. Orono’s Zoning
Ordinance prohibits accessory buildings from being located closer to the front property line than a
principal structure.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to construct a 621 square foot addition to the bam. The
proposed building would be l,70D square feet. Any building over 1,000 square feet is considered an
oversized accessory building. The bam location meets standards required for special setback
regulations that apply to private bams and stables. The Applicant currently has two horses on the
property that she would like to retain.
Weinberger stated new soil testing and septic design has been submitted by the Applicant and approved
by the City’s on-site septic manager for a four bedroom house, which could be e.\panded to a five
bedroom is needed.
Staff is recommending approval of the variance to permit the oversized accessoiy' building to remain on
the property based on the existing building location, the best building site on the lot is located behind
the bam, and it allows for a walkout at the highest lot elevation.
Mabusth noted the riding arena would also be subject to the principal structure setbacks.
Bren indicated the paddock area would just be used for pasture. Bren stated at this time they do not
intend to use it for an>lhing but pasture.
Hawn recommended the Planning Commission grant a variance for accessory use to the land.
Rahn inquired whether the original house has been removed.
Weinberger stated the house was removed a couple of weeks ago.
Newton indicated the addition to the bam would be used for storage, noting she has a camper she
would like to store inside.
Bren stated the principal residence would be constmeted prior to the addition to the bam.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval.of Application 801-2734,505 Orchard
Park Road, granting of a variance to permit the oversized accessory building to remain on the
property without a principal structure, subject to the construction of the principal residence
located behind the tom occurring prior to the addition to the bam, and granting of a variance
permitting accessory use of land. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
PAGE 10
1
' MINUTESOFTHE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Mondayt November 26» 2001
________7;00o*c!ock p.m.
*(#7) MI-2729 \V. GREGORY AND KATHERINE COWARD, 1950 HERITAGE DRIVE -
CONDITIONAL USE PEHVHT - RESOLUTION NO. 4"28
White moved, Flint seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4728, a Resolution
Granting a Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of two accessory buildings on a
through lot for the property located at 1950 Heritage Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(MX #01-2732 REVIS STEPHENSON HI, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE
PERIVnT - RESOLUTION NO. 4729
Revis Stephenson, Applicant, was present.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit land alteration over
SOO cubic yards for the purpose to fill a steep slope area and have an improved finished grade for the
backyard. The property is located at 18S0 Fo.\ Ridge Road, with the lot having only 20 to 30 feet of
yard area before the lot has a steep drop. The project would require clear cutting the slope and
depositing 3,280 cubic yards of fill. The source of the fill is from the Orono Woods apartment
building located at the northwest comer of Highway 12 and Brown Road.
The Planning Commission reviewed this item at their November meeting and recommended approval
subject to the conditions outlined in the November 20,2001 Planner ’s Report. Weinberger noted a
financial guarantee is being requested on this project because Fox Ridge Road is a public road and
there is some concern with the number of trucks and amount of fill that will be transported to this site.
Weinberger stated the purpose of the financial guarantee is to insure the current condition of the road
would be maintained.
Weinberger stated Staff is also working w ith the Applicant regarding restoration of the vegetation in
this area. The Applicant is proposing to plant some maple and other hardwood trees in place of the
box elders and brush that currently exist.
Stephenson stated he has nothing to add to Staff s report.
White moved to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4729, a Resolution Granting a
Conditional Use Permit to permit land alteration and fill of3,280 square feet of material to the
rear of the property located at 1850 Fox Ridge Road, subject to the conditions outlined in the
November 20,2001 Planner ’s Report.
Stephenson stated he would like to discuss the financial guarantee.
Weinberger stated Staff would be meeting with the Applicant to discuss the current condition of the
roadway as well as the financial guarantee.
Stephenson stated he does not want to have to fmance construction of a brand-nev/ roadway since the
current condition of the roadway is poor.
PAGEO
MINITTES OF THE
ORONO CITV COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, November 26,2001
________7;00 o’clock p.m.
(M)l*2732 Revis Stephenson, Continued)
Mayor Peterson stated the Public Works Director and City Engineer would be meeting with him to
discuss the current condition of the road.
Gappa stated if the hauling of the Till is done after the ground freezes, they should not have a problem.
Sansevere suggested the Applicant consult with an attorney as well regarding the financial guarantee.
Moorse stated Staff should be able to narrow down a number for the financial guarantee.
Sansevere seconded the above motion. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*(«9) #01-2733 WILLIAM B. AND LYNAE PETERSON, 420 ORCHARD PARK ROAD -
VARIANCE RENEWAL - RESOLUTION NO. 4730
White moved, Flint seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4730, a Resolution
Granting a Renewal Variance to permit the renewal of a variance to lot area and to grant a
variance to ic ermit the property located at 420 Orchard Park Road to be developed with a single
family residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*(#10) #01-2734 MARGIE NEWTON, 505 ORCRARD PARK ROAD - VARIANCES -
RESOLUTION NO. 4731
White moved, Flint seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4731, a Resolution
Granting Variances for the property located at 505 Orchard Park Road.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#11) #01-2735 AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14,
STRUCTURAL LOT COVER.\GE
Gaffron stated under the proposed amendment, in-ground pools and their associated grade-le\el patios
would no longer be considered as structures for the purpose of calculating “lot coverage by
structures”. The original lot coverage ordinance adopted in 1989 did not include pools in the
calculation of lot coverage. The ordinance was later amended six months after its adoption to include
pools and their associated patios.
The Planning Commission did review this amendment and was pretty evenly divided on the issue.
The four Planning Commission members in support of this change would like to see it accompanied
by a new hardcover limitation on all non-Shoreland residential lots under two acres in area. The three
Planning Commission members against the proposed amendment feel that pools and their associated
patios/decks should continue to be calculated as lot coverage by structure, and suggested that decks
regardless of height should also be considered for inclusion as lot coverage.
PAGE 7
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
PlOriSSIONAL ASSOCIATION
June 13,2002 Eric H. Galatz
612-335-1509
eric.gaIatz@leonard.coni
HAND DELIVTRED
Orono Planning Commission
c/o Paul Weinberger ^
Zoning Administrator/Planner
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parlway
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Re: Stephenson Application for Amendment of CUP and Variance at 1850 Fo.x Ridge Road
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We represent Richard Chalfen who resides at 350 Brown Road South in connection with the
referenced application by Mr. and Mrs. Revis Stephenson III for an amendment to a conditional
use permit (CUP) and variance at their property at 1850 Fox Ridge Road. The amendment to the
CUP and after-the-fact variance requested by the Stephensons are completely unacceptable under
City ordinances and other governing law and we therefore urge the City Planning Commission to
reject the Stephenson ’s application and order restoration of the property consistent with the terms
of the existing CUP.
The Background Facts Disclose the Stephensons * Persistent Failure to Follow Terms and
Conditions of Existing Permits and a Prior Stop fTork Order
We have previously written several letters to the City to express Mr. Chalfen ’s serious concerns
about the Stephensons ’ obvious violations of the CUP, City ordinances, and other laws.
Unfortunately, despite Mr. Chalfen ’s efforts to ensure that the Stephensons are made to comply
with applicable conditions, ordinances and other laws, Mr. Chalfen has seen no improvement in
the Stephensons ’ troubling activities.
As our previous letters and the enclosed Affidavit of Richard Chalfen demonstrate, the
Stephensons have, since their filling and grading project began, heeded few, if any, of the terms
of conditions attached to the CUP and have flat-out ignored a Stop Work Order. Even more
troubling, the Stephensons have conducted extensive finishing work (e.g., seeding in grass and
replanting trees on the filled grade) even after repeated notiflcations by the City that the Ailing
and grading work had to be corrected. This irresponsible and cavalier pattern of behavior is
offensive to the City ’s authority and has simply aggravated the degree of damage to the
environment and to neighboring properties. Mr. Chalfen trusts that if the Stephensons complain
150 South Fium Strikt Suiti 2500 Minniafolis, Minnesota sS40i Til 6i2-33s«I500 Fax 6ii-335-i657
LAW QIIICIS IN MINNIAFOLIS, lAiNT PAUL, MANKATO, SAINT CLOUD AND WASHINGTON, D.C.
2226428vI www.lionaid.com
Orono Planning Commission
Page 2
June 13,2002
about the cost of correcting the conditions that the City fully recognizes that the Stephensons
have created the problem for themselves.
The Stephensons started clear cutting trees and importing fill before any silt fencing was
installed, in clear violation of the CUP. The Stephensons were ordered to stop work on their
filling and grading project in early January following an inspection by Minnehaha Creek
Wate[shed District (Watershed District) that disclosed violations of the erosion control plan for
the project. Undaunted by Watershed District Order, the Stephensons have continued their work,
which has included, among other things: (1) further heavy equipment use and other prohibited
work in the wetland setback (and, in some cases, within the delineated wetland itself); (2)
planting of grass and trees after receiving notices from the City that City staff had concluded that
portions of the fill material the Stephensons had imported would have to be removed or re
graded; and (3) the addition of steps leading from an expanded back deck to tiie existing (altered)
grade in the back yard.
From these facts alone, it is obvious that the Stephensons intend to complete the project however
it is they see fit, whether or not that is consistent with the terms and conditions imposed on them
by the (ility or the Watershed District. Mr. Weinberger’s June 2002 report to the Planning
Commission provides further evidence that the Stephensons have acted without regard to the
original plan they submitted to the City. Among other things, Mr. Weinberger reports that the
Stephensons have added nearly 40 feet to their back lawn area (that is the flat part of their yard
near to the back of the house) through their unauthorized grading and filling project. As a result,
the Stephensons have more than doubled the size of their usable back lawn area, while leaving a
steep grade (that is, less than three to one) down toward the wetland at the back of their lot. The
result is completely at odds with the Stephensons ’ earlier claim that they wanted to create a more
level grade throughout the back yard to make it safer for their children.
The Actions Taken by the Stephensons Violate the CUP
The record demonstrates that the Stephensons have breached the terms and conditions of their
existing CUP and the erosion control plan in the several material ways enumerated below:
1. Required silt fencing was not installed before filling work commenced, leading to
unnecessary risk of erosion and sedimentation to the nearby wetland.
2. The silt fencing that was installed was not a double fence as the CUP required.
3. Even after the inadequate silt fencing was put in place, the Stephensons continued to
perform work in the wetland setback area. As the Mr. Chalfen’s testimony and the
photographic exhibits vividly demonstrate, the Stephensons moved mechanical
equipment extensively in the wetland buffer area after the silt fencing was installed. This
2226t2ivl
,wff I !
Orono Planning Commission
Page 3
June 13,2002
work violated the wetland setback condition in the CUP and jeopardized the natural
resources that the silt fencing and setback requirements were intended to protect.
4. The fill imported by the Stephensons is clearly more voluminous than what is permitted
in the CUP. Mr. Weinberger’s report (including the attached cross section diagram) is
entirely consistent with what Mr. Chalfen has observed, as recorded in his affidavit. The
current grade profile creates a much bulkier hillside throughout the cross-section profile
, than what was approved by the City. Therefore, it is almost certain that the Stephensons
violated the volumetric limit for imported fill established in the CUP. See also item
eight, below.
5. The record also demonstrates that the contours created by the Stephensons are much
higher than the accepted contours as originally proposed by the Stephensons. Both Mr.
Weinberger’s report and Mr. Chalfen’s affidavit and the attached photographs show that
the relatively flat grade at the back of the Stephenson ’s house now extends out an
additional thirty-eight feet fi-om where tire pre-existing grade began its steep descent
toward the back of their lot. This extended “table” of new fill is very noticeable in
various enclosed photographs, and as the cross-section diagram attached to Mr.
Weinberger’s report shows, this feature has caused a significant departure from the
accepted contours in the Stephensons ’ original plans. The resulting landscape is
unnatural in appearance and impairs the view shed from Mr. Chalfen’s property. Further,
the extended “table” grade has, naturally, caused the remaining slope to be steeper than
the recommended three to one grade, despite the fact that the Stephensons extended the
foot of the hill into the wetland buffer.
6. The record shows that the Stephensons have violated the twenty-six foot wetland setback
by placing fill within the buffer zone. When that fill is removed, as it should be, it will be
necessary to re-grade the remaining hillside to maintain compliance with the slope
guidelines.
7. Although they did not identify it In their plans submitted with the CUP application, the
Stephensons have added a sloped driveway area on the north side of their house. This
slope was apparently created using imported fill and was used to enable heavy equipment
access to the Stephensons ’ back yard. The creation of this slope is clearly a part of the
overall filling and grading project and therefore the fill contained in that slope should be
included in the calculation of total fill volume for the project and it should be removed
following completion of back yard fill removal and re-grading as the City may require.
8. The Stephensons have inexplicably broadened the area of fill not just beyond the side
yard setbacks that were incorporated into the original contour plan, but w ell beyond their
side lot lines into adjacent properties! Fill in these areas, depicted in an overhead-view
diagram attached to Mr. Weinberger’s report, was completely unauthorized by the City
and further contributes to the inescapable conclusion that the amount of fill brought in by
the Stephensons far exceeds the volume approved by the City. Though it is not clear
2226428V 1
Orono Planning Commission
Page 4
June 13,2002
from Mr. Weinberger’s report, it is probable that the grade extending laterally down the
face of this illegal “side-lot" fill exceeds slope guidelines as well and, even if some is
allowed to remain, this fill must be re-graded accordingly.
The Stephensons Actions Have Caused and Will Continue to Cause Adverse Natural Resource
Impacts that the City Must Not Endorse
The Miimesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 116B.09, (“MERA”) requires the City
to consider any alleged impairment, pollution or destruction of air, water, land or other natural
resources and provides that the City may not approve any conduct that has, or is likely to have,
such an effect on natural resources, so long as there are reasonable and prudent alternatives
available consistent with the legitimate and reasonable health, safety and welfare concerns.
MERA does not allow economic considerations alone to justify conduct that is likely to cause
impairment, pollution or destruction of the state’s natural resources.
Here, the Stephensons have violated the Watershed District’s Erosion Control Plan, incorporated
by reference into the CUP. That violation led to the issuance of a Stop Work Order, which the
Stephensons simply ignored. In addition, as noted, the Stephensons began filling and grading
work before silt fencing was in place, thereby jeopardizing downstream ecological resources due
to uncontrolled sediment erosion. The Stephensons have also performed work, including the use
of heavy mechanical equipment, in the wetland setback, which is obviously intended to serve as
a buffer to protect the nearby wetland habitat. According to the Watershed District staff, the
Stephensons ’ work “heavily compacted" soils near the wetland area and that inadvertent wetland
filling may have occurred as a result of the Stephensons ’ violations of the erosion control plan.
Further, since the existing grade of the filled hillside is not consistent with the contour plan
approved by the City and the slopes and volumes of new material (presumably more susceptible
than native materials to erosion) may not be consistent with the sound engineering principles that
presumably underlie the City ’s approval of the plan prepared in accordance with the original
CUP application, further impairment of the wetland may be expected unless the inappropriate
grading and volume of fill are corrected.
Finally, the enclosed photographs support Mr. Chalfen’s observations and his belief that some of
the Stephensons ’ work (particularly tree and brush removal) was carried out within the
delineated wetland (that is, not the wetland buffer, but the wetland itselQ. There is no evidence
in the record that the Stephensons received any authorization to perform work within the wetland
itself.
2226428vl
A
( •
Orono Planning Conunission
Pages
June 13,2002
Together, the facts in the record reveal that work performed by the Stephensons has caused
environmental impairment, pollution and destruction and, unless remedied, is likely to cause
further adverse impacts in the future. Reasonable, prudent alternatives have been and are
available—i.e., following the conditions in the CUP would have prevented potential adverse
impacts to natural resources and strict compliance with CUP conditions moving forward (by, for
e.xample, removing excess fill and adhering to the contour scheme approved in the CUP) will
help prevent future impacts. Even if the Stephensons complain that adherence to the conditions
of their permit will cause financial expenses, the City should not be influenced by the claims, as
financial considerations alone cannot justify the Stephensons ’ requests.
The Planning Commission Should Recommend Denial of the Requested CUP Amendment
and Variance and Should Recommend an Order Requiring Strict Compliance with the
Existing CUP
Mr. Chalfen concurs in most significant respects with the conclusions and recommendations
contained in Mr. Weinberger ’s report to the Platming Commission.
With respect to the first staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the fill must be removed
from the wetland buffer area and the soils in that area must be decompacted. Mr. Chalfen
believes that, to the extent possible, pre-existing vegetation in the buffer area and in the wetland
itself should be restored.
With respect to the second staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen agrees that the slope of the filled
grade must not exceed the recommended three to one slope and that the foot of the slope must be
removed from the twenty-six foot wetland setback. In addition, Mr. Chalfen would like to see
some clarification in the record that this steepness of the slope must not be exceeded along any
radius extending from the pre-existing back lawn area of the house. Thus, if the Stephensons are
required, as they should be, to remove all fill extending beyond the side lot setbacks, they should
be required to remove and re-grade the remaining fill as may be required to ensure that the slope
extending along the edges of the permitted fill areas does not exceed the recommended slope.
Finally, with respect to the third staff recommendation, Mr. Chalfen believes that the only
conclusion is that the fill must be removed from the adjacent properties and from the side yard
set back areas within the Stephensons ’ property. Mr. Chalfen therefore disagrees with the staff
suggestion that the Plaiming Commission may accept “the consent ’’ of the neighboring property
owners as effectively authorizing amendment to the Stephensons ’ CUP.'
' To the extent that the adjacent property owners fail to consent to the addition of flit to their property, Mr. Chalfen
agrees with the conclusion of the staff that the fill in question should be removed. However, as explained in the
222fr428vl
----
Orono Planning Conunission
Page 6
June 13,2002
As Mr. Weinberger’s report notes, City staff requested that “Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent
property owners join him in this application, since the request is to allow the land alteration
beyond the property lines.” The record is inconclusive, however, as to the volume of fill that has
been illegally placed on the adjoining properties. Therefore, it is unclear whether or not the
adjacent property owners may themselves require a conditional use permit for “land alteration on
the property over SOO cubic yards.” If either adjacent owner would have required a CUP to place
the fill on his property that the Stephensons have placed there without authorization, then it
stands to reason that the Stephensons ’ illegal actions should not obviate the need for separate
CUP application(s) to be made by the adjacent owner(s). To allow such land alterations without
the process requir^ by the City’s code would likely be a violation of the due process rights of
those persons usually afforded notice and opportunity to comment as a part of such a process.
Mr. Chalfen would also like to see the City require adherence to the e.xisting CUP requirements
that the fill be removed from the side lot setback areas within the Stephensons ’property (that is,
not just from the adjacent properties). There is no basis In the record for effectively amending
the CUP to allow more fill than was previously authorized. In other words, the Stephensons
should be required to meet the three to one slope ratio throughout the limited fill area permitted
in the CUP, even if this means removing more fill from the center line of the fill area to enable
compliance with slope limitations of the grade extending laterally toward the side lot lines.
The Staffs Legal Analysis is Limited^ Bui is Essentially Correct in Concluding that the
Stephensons Do Not Meet the Test for Either an Amended CUP or for a Variance
Both the requested amendment to the CUP and the requested after-the-fact variance fall far short
of meeting legal requirements and they must therefore be denied. Further, granting either request
would be contrary to sound public policy as the Stephensons ’ behavior in flaunting the City’s
and the Watershed District’s authority should not be rewarded.
An application for amendment to a CUP should meet all threshold requirements as though the
application was for issuance of a original CUP. A CUP or variance "may be denied for reasons
relating to public health, safety, and general welfare ” even if those concerns are not embodied in
ordinance or statute. Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d
335,340 (Minn. 1984); see VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503,508-09
(Minn. 1983) (city has broad discretion to rule on variance request); Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283
Miim. 192,195-96,167 N.W.2d 45,48-49 (1969) (city has broad discretion in deciding on
main text, Mr. Chalfen disagrees with the reasoning the staff applies to arrive at the conclusion, particularly the
premise tlut having the adjacent property o^^ner's consent should make any difference in the result
2226428VI
Orono Planning Commission
Page?
June 13.2002
CUP). Where a permit request is denied, the applicant has the burden of persuading a reviewing
court that the reasons for the denial either are legally insufficient or are not supported by the
record. Hubbard Broad., Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757.763 (Minn. 1982).
To establish the type of hardship required to qualify for a variance, a property owner must satisfy
each part of the test laid out in the code, including that the property own^s plight is due to
circuinstances unique to his property. The record here provides no support for the requested
amendment to the CUP or for the variance. The Stephensons ’ plight is not due to any
circumstance unique to their lot; rather, it is due to their own decision to deviate substantially
from the approved contour plans in the existing CUP.
Conclusion
The application is patently without merit and must be rejected. For all the reasons stated herein.
ait the conditions of the existing CUP must be enforced to protect the environment and the
interests of adjacent property owners, including Mr. Chalfen. Mr. Chalfen therefore urges the
Planning Commission to adopt the staff recommendations, with the following clarifications: (1)
any damage caused by the Stephensons ’ work to the wetland itself must be mitigated; (2) all
slopes must not exceed the three to one slope, even if that means the Stephensons need to remove
more fill than the City expects; and (3) ail fill must be removed from the adjacent properties and
the side yard setback areas, regardless of adjacent property owner consent.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
Eric H.tiafatz
Christopher M. McGlincey
Enclosures
cc: Richard Chalfen
Hugh M. Maynard, Esq.
Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
Ronald Moorse, City Administrator
222MUvl
[
i
. . .A
-
• • I .
PHOTOGRAPHS
EXHIBIT B
nf nrfii - a A> .J
ninK M.K \rns l AKI N
IN I \M \KV 2002
I
. • . >;/ / ■
J ...vi*
•55.-;
> .. !«;
^ -VU>> T'/tr’----, . . '
■:?--
iff. ■Wi i
iv‘i '• .
Hi
'aex-' VBk.le-
f
i'
t f ;| . >" s
Xr'iJi'X?/| '^ . ^-:pl ()i
' »V k ^
- ^' -S'—- -S *- » iS®.|'P
e
i in »i < H .u \rii> l AKi N
IN I \M \H\ :002
m ■rjK a w fWmmW'
i* i. . ! *
8;
/ I I
■am"S S«agisir •"!"'v-
•*.St’
■;.v'
i *.
MT'*'
f
■:
i'k • . ■
^^ -4lX‘. ^•'-
. ^;¥•"
' . * \^. y; >
M’lls l AKKN
IN .1 \M AK\ 2002
Wtsf / ■,..■ VN'f-i'] A -\i:
V
/
» . ' . ».* N' *• ' /u5),p
m-'
¥■'/
•: m »»«<«•«
i’iiohm ;kai *iistaki ;n
IN .1 \M \KY 2002
Br' '
f ■ (
^v-
\
‘•V NV
m4
HP'mt
tmIf-ife
tV)5
■til'.
\
—'• , ^ - *;: ki
3p
•;»S?W T"
</
& iLal Wmwm
. .■.r-vpi: •
-Jtsw S
i
runH M.K mmis i aki n
IN I \ M AKV 2002
- n;. »pi
•-V-C^
1*110 roCUAl'IlS TAKEN
IN I I HUl ARY 2002
n if V.
ihV W
f !_■» " .!•i'. h-.
*T:‘ . '^1'
iWi hi
‘ vi* ^-i-mfyV '1-
'i %* • ■ ^
i
*.
»
'0m #1|k,-1
^ -i«i 1 k W9
i«Wilit!
iii^.
mm
mm
mHi
fi 1 ' JkfL' ‘:-?'^'’i’
ili1^ ■•Wjf
>1^. ^
s/jj_
^ 1%
NK) I ( k ;K Al'IIS TAKEN
IN l EHIU ARV2002
o *-
a*» .. ^
I®r f ■ ■ •• ■
'K* I'kS; w •■'vi'i■iiri
^ki Axs. fumU .:• i!;."
If ‘if|
It' 'n ■• *i‘;W. /
PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN
LN FEBRUARY 2002
\\ ^ ^
ih’:
SM
j '-* *■ * * S'
♦ ^
/
it• M •«
,.s .• r
• w
I IIOKM.K M'lls I a KKN HV
I I n\ \KI). SI Kl I I AM) DKINAIU)
-fit-*
^ V*
4 MJrii
^>x
V. •
till
'■ V• ~-f '5-V. iTMtC ::.i
I. *x-
am2*
fh iV!^ ■
Is
^ ••
rtf - M
' - I
ipif.
» IT
W «
ra;-,'»^
n
f f :•lit
:v... v;^: "* A;. - ’.:.-;' -•:'■•-• ; • -A •; .-/* ^^ , .v ':>r-r V;:
; -- ^'5 ■ • - !^
, V* • ’ : ^ ^ ^ ^ V ; V1> • , • * f .
rilnliH.UM'iisTAKKN BY
11 ON \Ki». M Ku r AM) i)i:i.N \m>
•• •
• ■
. ^ ’ •' - <!:>.*. ^'i-'I
'■rSn^
•• i ‘.-•.:
’V>^
•■' <t:
M
PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
< rv «
\^r’- ' ’ v'
VV.' <’ . . c-
V • ir
• •• >.
’ ' * ^ (T
i '
■ W'mi-iTr A •-
* f
e S .
• V
“ •=>fer w.'
h A b IT-I 'nr I ifritiii^biiMh ;L:^
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ■■
1
.1 • .•
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
In the Matter of
Stephenson Application for Amendment to
Conditional Use Permit and for Variance
AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD CHALFEN
Richard Chalfen, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states as follows:
I. All matters sworn to in this affidavit are made based upon my personal knowledge or upon
sound information and belief.
2. I am a resident at 350 Brown Road South, Orono, Minnesota. I purchased my residence on
November 1,2001.
3. My residence is situated on a parcel of property (“my property”) about twelve acres in size.
My property is roughly in the shape of a backwards letter “L.” A significant portion of the
upright leg of this backwards L consists of a wetland ?rea. That leg of my properly e.xtends
along the entire eastern boundary of a residential property located at 1850 Fox Ridge Road,
which since sometime in 2001 has been owned by Mr. and Mrs. Revis Stephenson III (“the• •
Stephensons”). The Stephensons’ back “yard” includes a small portion of that wetland that
extends throughout most of the upright leg of my property. The Stephensons’ back yard is
plainly visible fi-om various parts of my property, including the area around mv residence.
•1 At the time I purchased my property, I was unaware of any plans or pending applications by
the Stephensons to perform any work on the back yard of their home. I soon learned.
however, that the Stephensons had significant filling and grading plans for the back yard.
The way I learned of it was by observing great mounds of dirt being dumped in their back
yard and bulldozers uprooting dozens of mature trees and pushing the fill around the ruined
landscape.
5. In December 2001 and January 2002,1 observed many truckloads of dirt being dumped in the
back yard before any silt fencing was installed on the lower reaches of the Stephensons’ back
yard, where upland vegetation gives way to wetland vegetation.
6. As my concern grew about the growing pile of dirt in the Stephensons’ yard, 1 started
inquiring of the Stephensons and the City about the nature of the project and only then
learned that the City had i&sued a conditional use permit (CUP) for the project. As it turns
out, the CUP was issued weeks after I purchased my property but I was never notified of the
Stephensons’ pending application for the CUP. Sometime after I began making inquiries and
raising objections to the Stephensons’ project, the City commenced its investigation and
looked into enforcement of the CUP. 1 continued to lodge objections to the project which I
made directly and through my attorneys. Most of rny objections were made before any
seeding and landscaping were carried out.
7. As the filling and grading project progressed, I observed many things that I found troubling.
A single silt fence was installed well after the project was underway. The Stephensons never
installed the double fencing as required by the CUP. Both before and after silt fencing was
installed (which as 1 understand it is required by ordinance and watershed district regulations
to protect the neighboring wetland) I observed heavy mechanical equipment, e.g., a large
bulldozer, as well as a Bobcat^" loader, operating all over the back yard, including the zone
between the edge of the wetland and the silt fencing location. I also observed many trees
being uprooted or cut down (some of w hich I believe were within the delineated wetland)
1
, •
and I saw copious amounts of dirt either placed or spilling into areas immediately adjacent to
my property and into the wetland boundary.
8. My observations stated in the preceding paragraph are substantiated by the observations of a
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District staff member who inspected the Stephensons’ property
in early January 2002 and issued a Stop Work Order based on observed violations of the
erosion control plan issued by the watershed district. A true and correct copy of that Order,
which I obtained from the City, is attached as Exhibit A. I also took several photographs in
early January and, again, in early February 2002 to document the deplorable site conditions.
I have attached true and correct color photocopies of these photographs to this affidavit as
Exhibit B, with brief captions. I saw no slowdown, let alone stoppage, of work, including
work in the wetland setback area, as a result of the Stop Work Order.
9. In addition to my observations of the illegal work being carried out on the periphery of the
Stephensons’ back yard, infhnging into side setback areas and the wetland setback area, I
was also shocked to see the size (and unsightliness) of the mound of dirt that the Stephensons
had placed in their back yard. As it continued to grow in size, I came to realize that there
was no way the volume of dirt I was seeing could be made to fit the contours that the
Stephensons had proposed in their plans and which the City apparently accepted in granting
the CUP. My perception of this has not changed since the huge mound of dirt was graded in
early spring and planted by the Stephensons in late April. From my vantage point, it appears
that the graded surface of the filled landscape extends vastly beyond the contours indicated in
the plan submitted by the Stephensons. I believe that the volume of dirt imported and used as
fill greatly exceeds the allowable volume under the CUP.'
>1 I rimtrr
10. The greatly changed landscape in the Stephensons’ back yard is unnatural in appearance and
is aesthetically displeasing. It presents a stark contrast to the preexisting landscape. In the
seven-plus months of the year when the foliage is off the trees, I have a clear view of this
altered landscape. The Stephensons have created a large hill, in essence. This new hill
significantly impedes my view along the formerly continuous hillside or bluff line,
particularly during the seven-plus months when there is no foliage. I consider this dramatic
and decidedly unnatural change in the landscape to be offensive and I believe it will have a
negative impact on the value of my property. I also believe that significant erosion and
sedimentation have occurred and will continue to occur as a result of the Stephensons’
activities which may impair the wetland and may thereby impact my property and its value,
since a large portion of the wetland at issue is located on my property.
Further affiant saith not.
" \
'
'-" .w"-
'*}»?- ♦•^« ‘i'»w
'■V■ 'tr
■*» -' ., *v
»W-» »^'
V > ■<- ■• i ■
•r'''•*'»«ir?:iM.t:
k M
t.
|M<« '
■ -IS.w'>.
* •;
?»-l ,
\v ■^J -m'*‘
* _-r, , • «W». f .- , ‘•••'^y. oT . . ,, « ,.
' ■. .'* ■• »"-V ‘' *' ■ ' ■
VI *i ■ >. iJ. ii'i
;.w
•'■" -' ■’5i- V
■ t9; . 'i i-
&
* • T
»•.
T:. **’ MNMN HP. I TPlTl RNT J Tl i riH.-l
7
d
’ T Ti r:. '-b NMtJN HPl I ,'Pfi RNT'd i"i I nn.-i
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, R A.
Attorneys and Advisors
Minncjpuh^
London
Waihin^on, DC
AtTiliMfs
Mexico Cin*«
Wifiaw
Montreal
Toronto
V'ancouver
1 lOO International Centre
900 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3397
(612) 347-7000
F.*\X (612) 347-7077
UAVA. frcdlaw.com
Direct Dial No.
(612)347-7146
gmunson(a fredlaw com
July 3.2002
Barbara Peterson, Mayor
City Council Members
Attn: Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator
2750 Kelley Parkway
P.O. Box 66
Orono.MN 55323-0066
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I represent Revis Stephenson, III with respect to his application for an amended conditional use
permit relating to fill placed on his property, and with respect to his variance request to address
fill which arguably encroaches in the wetland buffer area.
Initially, the City of Orono granted Revis a conditional use permit to conduct a fill project in his
backyard to eliminate steep and dangerous slopes, both for safety issues, and to avoid excess
erosion and runoff. Upon completion of the project conducted pursuant to the CUP, it became
apparent that some of the fill encroached on the previously delineated wetland buffer, and
beyond his property line, and that th'' final slope was very slightly off the 3 to 1 ratio required.
Therefore, this request for an amendment to the CUP and for a variance is before you.
ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT FACTS
Afier obtaining the required CUP for the proposed fill project, Revis undertook and completed
the project. Upon City inspection, discrepancies were noted between the completed project and
the approved project.
1. Wetland Buffer: Under the approved project, no fill was to be placed within 26 feet of the
adjacent wetland, as required by City Code. VV'hile some fill was unintentionally placed within
the buffer area associated with the previously delineated wetland, it has now been determined
that no encroachment exists. The initial wetland delineation was performed during the winter, a
time which environmental scientists concur is inappropriate for such a delineation due to the
frozen conditions. Revis recently retained Peterson Environmental Services to confirm the
previous delineation of the wetland. The recent delineation is not totally complete, but initial
work suggests that the wetland, and the related buffer area, lie substantially further towards the
wetland, and aw'ay from the fill area than indicated in the first delineation. That result suggested
J
FREDRIKSON fit BYHON, FA.
Attorneyi anj AJtwn
Barbara Peterson, Mayor
City Council Members
July 3.2002
Page 2
despite performing the delineation in a month with near record rainfall. If the final revised
delineation confirms initial observations, then no fill lies within the actual buffer area, and in
fact, the re-seeding performed by Re\ is has substantially increased the size, and improved the
quality, of the natural buffer. With confirmation of our expectations, no variance w'ould be
necessary. Revis has decided that rather than immediately withdraw ing the variance request, he
would prefer that the City Council authorize City staff to meet on site to review the refined
delineation when it is complete. Assuming relevant staff members concur with the refined
delineation, the variance request relating to encroachment in the buffer area would be withdraw n.
2. Breadth of Fill: The City inspection revealed that some fill has been placed beyond the
approved “w idth” for the project, and in fact, has in part been placed on the immediately adjacent
properties. Both impacted property ow ners have consented to the placement of that fill, as
indicated in letters previously submitted to the City. The primary purpose for the expansion of
the fill area was to improve drainage for alt parties involved, and to avoid excessive lateral run
off. Given the logical rationale for the expansion, and the adjacent property owners’ consents, an
amendment of the CUP to allow the completed project to remain is the most prudent alternative.
At a minimum, it is requested that the City Council direct the City Engineer to examine the
relevant areas to assess this asserted improvement to the initial plan, and if found acceptable, the
requested CUP amendment could be addressed at the next scheduled City Council meeting.
3. Final Grade of Slone: The City inspection further revealed a slight discrepancy to the
required 3 to 1 finished grade. That result was unintended. The finished grade appears to be
approximately 2.9 to 1. Revis admits that the result does not comply with the initial CUP
requirements, but it should be recognized that the slope is a significant improvement over the
pre-project slope, and the discrepancy is minor. As the slope settles over time, it is likely that the
grade w ill reach or exceed the required 3 to 1 ratio. Additionally, the natural grasses planted on
the slope have “taken” quite well, and the slope has remained very stable despite dramatic recent
rainfall. More recent results examining the final slope will hopefully be available for the July 8,
2002 Council meeting. Any re-grading at this point may risk destabilization of the slo»'‘^, and the
end result would provide little difference. The proposed amendment to the CUP, under the
circumstances, is reasonable.
Previous correspondence to the City has painted Revis as a devious landowner, but that is simply
not the case. Revis recognizes that he is responsible for the project. He has remained in contact
w ith the adjacent landowners and City Staff throughout the project. He has not filled the
wetland. He has not violated a “stop work order”. He has complied with his proposed
landscaping plan, and has improved the safety and aesthetics of the yard. He has enhanced the
natural w etland buffer, improved the quality of forestation, and improved the drainage in the
area. While Revis recognizes tliat he may not be “entitled” to the requested amendment to the
J
f
FREDRIKSON & BYRON. P. A.
Attomeyi tnJAdviion
Barbara Peterson, Mayor
City Council Members
July 3.2002
Page 3
CUP and variance, the relevant facts support their approval. Revis encourages the City Council
to act affirmatively on his requests, or at a minimum, to direct staff to conduct a site visit to
observe and analyze the revised wetland delineation, and the improved drainage.
The approval of the requests is within the clear authority of the City Council, even with respect
to the variance (if ultimately deemed necessary).
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has reviewed Minnesota’s variance standard as stated in
Minnesota Statutes § 462.357 on numerous occasions. In interpreting the statutory variance
standard, the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated:
“The first (hardship) requirement is that property cannot be put to a reasonable
use without the variance. This provision docs not mean that a property owner
must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. In
such a case the constitution would compel a variance regardless of the statute.
(Citations omitted). The statute is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to
grant variances in cases where the constitution does not compel it. Thus, we read
the first part of the definition of “undue hardship” as requiring a show ing that the
property owmer would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is
prohibited by the ordinance.” (Roswell v. Board of Adjustment of the City of
Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. Ct. App. 19S9).
That reading of the language substantially clarifies a common misinterpretation of tl c variance
standard in Minnesota.
In 1995, the Minnesota Court of Appeals again restated the standard. The City of St. Paul had
granted itself a variance to construct a dome over baseball fields that exceeded by five feet the
maximum structure height allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. This was challenged by the
ow ner of apartment buildings located adjacent to the proposed dome site. In determining
whether the property “cannot be put to a reasonable use” the Court stated:
“This court has previously construed this language to mean the landowner would
like to put the land to a reasonable use, but that the proposed reasonable use is
prohibited under the strict provisions of the code,” (Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul,
529 N.VV. 2d 488 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995).
Finally, in May, 2000, the Minnesota Court of Appeals heard Xolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610
N.W.2d 697 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). The property owner sought numerous variances to
accomplish a subdivision of its property into three residential lots. The granting of the variances
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, R A.
Attomeyi and AJvticn
Barbara Peterson, Mayor
City Council Members
July 3,2002
Page 4
was challenged by an adjacent landowner. In once again alTirming the granting of the variances,
the Nolan Court stated,
“In Rowell, this court squarely addressed the question and explained that the
statutory undue hardship requirement ‘does not mean that a property owner must
show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance.’ Rather,
the undue hardship standard requires a showing that the property owner would
like to use their property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by ordinance.”
The Minnesota Court of Appeals’ consistent application of the interpretation it first announced
in 1989, provides much more flexibility to municipalities in granting variances. The apparently
rigid “undue hardship” standard is less onerous thim many think. Rather than proving that no
reasonable use at all exists for a property without the variance, under this standard a landowner
must only prove that the proposed use which is disallowed under the controlling regulations is
reasonable.
Revis has accepted that the result of the project is not precisely what was contemplated,
however, reasonableness and logic dictate that the project be accepted by the City as is, through
the granting of the variance, and amendment of the CUP as requested. The project has been
completed in a quality fashion. Great care has been taken to seed the disturbed areas. The
advanced growth of the new seeding is depicted in the photographs attached hereto. That new
coverage provides significant benefit to the nearby wetland through elimination of erosion and
runofT. Revis’ neighbors whose properties are directly impacted by the fill have consented to
this result and support it.
Revis has proposed a reasonable use of his property, one which significantly enhances the
relationship betw een his property and the adjacent wetland, through elimination of runoff and
erosion. The project has rendered the property significantly more safe. Your thoughtful
cc:Revis Stephenson 111
Ron Peterson J.D./PWS Peterson Environmental Services
I™**-*---
r
t»
Compklt* Date:
60 Day Deadline:
6/7/02
8/6/02
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
QnM6*^i| »#CCTJN0
JUL 0 8 2002
CITY OF OHUuo
DATE: July 2. 2002
ITEM NO.: T
Department Approval:
Name Paul Weinberger
Title Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description:#02-2795 WJM Properties LLC - Morries Automotive Group
2605 West Wayzata Blvd.
Commercial Site Plan Review
Conditional Use Permit for Outside Storage and Open Sales Lot
List of Exhibits
A
B
C
D
E
Site Plan
Proposed Building Elevation Views
Notice of Planning Commission Action
Draft Planning Commission Minutes (June 17, 2002)
Planning Report
Application
WJM Properties has applied for a Commercial Site Plan Review for changes to the use of the property
located at 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard (formerly Washington Scientific). The request is to locate a
wholesale distribution facility primarily serving the retail automotive operations under the Morries
Automotive Sales Group. The building is proposed to be used for auto prep, a body shop, storage, a central
parts warehouse, offices, and a 32,800 s.f. indoor auto sales showroom for fleet sales and leasing.
A Conditional Use Permit is required for outside storage of vehicles that would be located in the south and
southeast parking lots. The outside storage would be for damaged cars and cars “in process". The outside
storage area would include the parking areas south and southeast of the existing building. Cars on which all
body work has been completed will be staged in the east parking lot for immediate delivery . The cars will
be delivered to dealerships or buyers.
A second Conditional Use Permit is required for an “open sales lot" the outside storage/display of v ehicles
for the fleet sales and leasing operation. As noted in E.xhibit E-3, the intent is to have these vehicles av ailable
to licet or business customers for demonstration or test drives. This facet of the operation will use 40 parking
stalls, 15 of which are in the north end of the existing parking lot, and 25 of which would be part of a new
45-stall lot to be developed at the north end of the existing building. T he north end of the building will
become the primary entrance for the “fleet sales" portion of the business. An entrance would be constructed
and 4 large w indows will be added
1
L___
#02-2795 WJM Properties LLC - Merries Automotive Group
2605 West Wayzata Blvd.
Paye 2 of 3 ----------------------------------------------------------
Additional changes to the property include the addition of a 200 ’ X 200 ’ parking area at the south end of the
building and a service driveway that would be located west of the building connecting the new north and
south parking areas. This driveway will require additional rc\ icw of the site grading because there may be
some impact on minor wetlands and a retaining wall will have to be constructed west uf the scr\ ice drive.
The key issues related to this application arc screening, landscaping, lighting, stormwater drainage, and
prohibition of retail sales. The Planning Commission recommendation includes conditions w hich address
each of these issues.
Plannimf Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the site plan and conditional use permits
for the outside storage and display of automobiles subject to the following conditions;
I. The outside storage area located on the south side of the building shall be completely screened w ith
a 6’ fence around the perimeter of the storage area. This is the area where all vehicles intended for
bodv work will be stored when not within the building.
The individual storage area devoted to the parking of new vehicles and finished vehicles ready for
deliver) to dealerships shall be limited to 250 parking spaces. 1 he area should be limited to the
southeast end of the parking lot since .adequate screening will not be located directly within the
parking area. The total display parking for vehicles shall be limited to the 40 at the north ends of
the parking lots. Such parking shall be 25 parking spaces north of the building and 15 spaces
northeast of the building, as proposed on the site plan.
3. The parking lot shall have 6 planting islands located within the east parking lot per the
recommendations. With the intent to separate areas for display, customer parking and employee
parking from the parking for vehicles that are intended for processing.
4.rhe display areas arc proposed to use the existing trees that are on the property for screening. The
new parking area on the north side of the building w ill require remov al at least one substantial tree
on the north side of the building. The site plan indicates some of the trees will be relocated between
the parking lot and the highway. Additional screening in the form of a berm (a minimum of 3’ in
height) with planting of junipers. The required screening shall screen the display parking areas from
view to Highway 12.
5. The existing light poles in the c.ist parking lot shall be removed and 4-twin head light fi.xtures on
poles not to exceed 25 ’ in height arc permitted to be constructed to provide enough lighting to
prov ide security and lighting to the property.
6. 5-tvvin head light poles, not to e.xceed a height of 20 ’ are permitted to be installed at the north end
of the display parking area.
7. All lighting futures shall be a “shoe box ” style light fixture with a recessed light source, not
allowing the light sources to be visible from any property line.
i
i
L-„
#02-2795 WJM Properties LLC - Morries Automotive Group
2605 West Wayzata Blvd.
Page 3 of 3__________________________________
8. Because new areas of impervious surface are proposed, engineering information regarding the
drainage area and rate calculations must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the City
Engineer prior to Council review of the application. Applicant is advised to contact the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District to determine what approvals may be required.
9. Applicant shall be placed on notice that future access to the property may change and applicant
agrees to discuss the issue of access at such time the City or adjacent property owners initiate such
discussions.
10. The industrial zoning district does not permit retail sales in the industrial distict. Such approvals
granted within this site plan and conditional use permit allow only wholesale operations, body work,
and warehousing with intent to distribute product. Such use would include fleet sales of automobiles
to a commercial or corporate customer and w holesale trade of parts from the site. No advertising,
lighting, or displays are permitted when the intent is to attract drive-by customers.
1 1 . The signage is approved as submitted. Any additional signage shall require additional review.
12. Noise of the operation shall be in conformance with the Noise Ordinance.
13. Hours of operation shall be limited to hours as such that would be consistent w ith the fleet sales
operation of the business. Applicant shall provide additional information as it relates to hours of
operation of the site.
14. Such conditional use permit for outside display and outside storage shall be subject to periodic
review as deemed necessary' by the City of Orono.
Staff Recommendation
Although the proposed development plan is short of the redevelopment to high tech'medical
envisioned in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the proposal is compatible w'ith the surrounding
land uses, and the applicant has been cooperative in terms of addressing issues that w ill affect
the appearance of the site. Staff supports the conditions set out in the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to direct Staff to draft a resolution for adoption on Council July 22, 2002.
I
NDM
ORIVIWAY
(24* WiOi)
CXIST1NC
TREE
(REMOVED)
NEW LP.\,
TYP. 1
(5-THUS)^Y6 o
(4) ^TMC
OCATCD
SHOWN
« PUMIM K)D
NtW /
WSPLAr '
(J5 SPACES)
! VJ
......................... ......— -----------------------------------------nrr rm
i: ^«•«« O O
X7 57 57
\
75* SETBACK
tor BCTM A PUMTtg KD
Tcr or nc tor aANnc ko
K M* A80W 1MC
rMKBC SURrCC KtTM)
« rUNTMC BUMPS (4-THUS
IMOi BUW 10 K 10^ mmt lew aMi SBCS- tvp.
9
CnSTINC
TREES-
0
0
%0fe
/
/
f
jAu
IT. POU nSTWe PARKMC AREA
/
/elJ
OIS1WC
LT. POU
/
/
e:/I1 •-
ooooo
(3) NEW
O.M. DOORS
NEW
O.H. DOOR
EXISTWC TREES
AND PLANTINGS
TO REMAJN- TYP.
existing bldg.
(ONE- STORY)
176.247 S.F.
NEW
O.a DOOR
NEW SIDEWALK AND
PLANTMC AREA
(10 FEET)
(20 SPACES)(2) NEW
O.M.DOORS OX DOOR
^ h
EXISDNC
BUILDING
EXISTING
FENCED PA
75' SCTBAOC
: SCHEDULE
NEW BITUIIMOUS
DRIVEWAY
(30 FEET mX)
ry or w*u R.
iy y «n« a. im -4*
JT MOM ixTim
14* MON iCtTtn
/
— «i00wc4St
■mmM UUMM4HO urm
POmM mu VMS me 40»nic r«cts
MOUITCO ON V1L iua«4r
“ OUST ICT4I. PMCL
1 1 . \ i___1____i \
2606 i
_ —1..MORIRIIES^ AinoMonvE^nouPi\1
CD CD c-J CD ZDD CD CD
rti aoop a ioo*-o*!
-------1------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1 f
rosT BPo- im P4MT NTO POCrMSKO «0«. rHAMC
«/ MSUATCD CLASS
/
PARTIAL NORTH ELEVATION
MDi Aiuy ANO aASS
STOKfniONT CMTirr 0009S
MV PocrMSMCO m niAMC
V/ ttSU-ATCO AASS
TtPCAt
D5T BUCK
f/r • r-r
TOP or wAu a. »i4*-a*
TOP y ON OQOP CL tio‘-o*
CM. aoop tL. loo’-o*
COST, ox OOOi
•V
\
T\ PWHAt CAST EUVATIOW COST KM y ANO m - Nti PAMT V NC« O N 0000- pucriN.
(typcal)
^ 1/r • i*-or
MtAl v» CiMI- MTOMAL tiUlMATQN
»4‘-0* /
/ '
^ 10*UTTUS /
M 0 H hH !
• 1
1
t*
DISTRIBUTION CENTER-
BODYWORKS
V.Ai
i
AUlO PMP
1BJ0Q
T\ NEW felONUUCNT SIGN
1 I
B
NEW (EXIST EAST LOT)
INTERIOR LOT AREAS - (2) THUS
OOUMX UMNAMC
vowno AS 1VM UMTS ON SOUAM POOS - 30*
400 MAH MCTAL NAlCC LAMP (t-CACM)
NEW (PROPOSED NORTH LOT)
FRONT OISPUY AREAS - (5) THUS
oouMi lumum
MOMUD AS IM UMtS ON SOUAM PQUS - 2S*
tOOO MAH MCTAL NAUM LAI# (UlAOO
AUTO SALtS
S2.000
PAPTS •AMMOusr p omcts
•2.700
STOPAOC
T7JQ00
OOOV SHOP
4S.400
PREUM. BLDG. PLAN
r - ao*m-i PLAN N0O1M
ft ^ill }
235
§
DATE: 5/22/02
REV: e/06/02
h’’
, «»>■]
•'A 1■■■ -t;.
CITY OF ORONO
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
PHONE:(952) 249-4600 FAX:(952) 249-4616
ZONING nLE #02-2795
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION
DATE OF NOTICE: June 19,2002
TO:Peter W. Johnson
1055 East Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 300
Wayzata, MN 55391
Fax (952)475-0311
TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision
X_Other (Commercial Site Plan Review/CUP)
DATE OF MEETING: June 17.2002
Planning Commission recommends the following:
Approval as submitted
X Approval subject to conditions noted below
__Denial for reasons noted below
_ Tabled for reasons noted below
__No action required
NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the site plan and conditional use
permits for the outside storage and display of automobiles subject to the following conditions:
1. Th^ outside storage area located on the south side of the building shall be completely
screened with a 6 ’ fence around the perimeter of the storage area. This is the area where
all vehicles intended for body work will be stored when not within the building.
2. The individual storage area devoted to the parking of new vehicles and finished vehicles
ready for delivery to dealerships shall be limited to 250 parking spaces. The area should
be limited to the southeast end of the parking lot since adequate screening will not be
located directly within the parking area. The total display parking for vehicles shall be
limited to the 40 at the north ends of the parking lots. Such parking shall be 25 parking
spaces north of the building and 15 spaces northeast of the building, as proposed on the
site plan.
3. The parking lot shall have 6 planting islands located within the east parking lot per the
recommendations. With the intent to separate areas for display, customer parking and
employee parking from the parking for vehicles that are intended for processing.
4. The display areas are proposed to use the existing trees that are on the propert>' for
screening. The new parking area on the north side of the building will require removal at
c
J
r’* ^
least one substantial tree on the north side of the building. The site plan indicates some
of the trees will be relocated between the parking lot and the highway. Additional
screening in the form of a berm (a minimum of 3’ in height) with planting of junipers.
The required screening shall screen the display parking areas from view to Highway 12.
5. The existing light poles in the east parking lot shall be removed and 4-twin head light
fixtures on poles not to exceed 25’ in height are permitted to be constructed to provide
enough lighting to provide security and lighting to the property.
6. S-twin head light poles, not to exceed a height of 20’ are permitted to be installed at the
north end of the display parking area.
7. All lighting fixtures shall be a “shoe box ’’ style light fixture with a recessed light source,
not allowing the light sources to be visible from any property line.
8. • Because new areas of imperv' uus surface are proposed, engineering information
regarding the drainage area and rate calculations must be submitted by the applicant and
approved by the City Engineer prior to Council review of the application. Applicant is
advised to contact the Miimehaha Creek Watershed District to determine what approvals
may be required.
9. Applicant shall be placed on notice that future access to the property may change and
applicant agrees to discuss the issue of access at such time the City or adjacent property
owners initiate such discussions.
10. The industrial zoning district does not permit retail sales in the industrial distict. Such
approvals granted within this site plan and conditional use permit allow only wholesale
operations, body work, and warehousing with intent to distribute product. Such use would
include fleet sales of automobiles to a commercial or corporate customer and wholesale
trade of parts from the site. No advertising, lighting, or displays are permitted when the
intent is to attract drive-by customers.
11. The signage is approved as submitted. Any additional signage shall require additional
review.
12. Noise of the operation shall be in conformance with the Noise Ordinance.
13. Hours of operation shall be limited to hours as such that would be consistent with the
fleet sales operation of the business. Applicant shall provide additional information as it
relates to hours of operation of the site.
14. Such conditional use permit for outside display and outside storage shall be subject to
periodic review as deemed necessary by the City of Orono.
If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from
the City Recorder after review and approval by the Plaiming Commission. This application is
scheduled to appear before the City Council on July 8,2002 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Orono
Council Chambers. Please note additional engineering work must be completed for the site drainage
and wetland impact of the west service drive.
r
MDrUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COM>nSSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o*clock p.m.
written assurance.
Mr. Alcon asked if proceeding to City Council to present the final access of conservation at the
time of final plat could be added. Bremer seconded. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#7) WJM PROPERTIES, 260 WAYZATA BLVD. WEST, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN/CUP
9:43 p^. -11:20 p.m.
Attorney Peter Johnson and Steve Fichtel were present representing the Applicant.
Weinberger reported that WJM Properties has applied for a Commercial Site Plan Review for changes to
the use of the property located at 2603 West Wayzata Boulevard (formerly Washington Scientific). The
request is to locate a wholesale distribution facility primarily serving the retail automotive operations
under the Morries automotive sales group. The building is proposed to be used for auto prep, a body
shop, storage, a central parts warehouse, offices, and a 32,800 s.f. Indoor auto sales showroom for fleet
sales and leasing to corporate customers.
Weinberger noted that a conditional use permit is required for outside storage of vehicles that would be
located in the south and southeast parking lots. The outside storage would be damaged cars and cars **in
process”. The outside storage area would include the parking areas south and southeast of the existing
building. A second conditional use permit would be required for an “open sales lot ” the outside
storage/display of vehicles for the fleet sales and leasing operation. The intent of which is to have these
vehicles available for fleet or business customers for demonstration or test drives.
D
Weinberger reminded the Commission that the Orono zoning ordinance does not permit “retail sales” in
the I, Industrial zoning district. Retail use of the property for general customer visits for the purposes of
purchasing a vehicle or parts, is not permitted on the property. However, proposed uses such as the body
shop, auto processing, and wholesale of cars and parts are permined uses in the district. The I district
lists “automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender Work, upholstering, tire recapping and
sales when completely enclosed within a building.
PAGE 28 OF 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o’clock p.m.
(#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued)
Weinberger noted that the body shop would be in an area of approximately 45,000 s.f. and the auto prep
area would occupy 18,300 s.f, both within the building and permitted within the 1 zoning district.
Mr. Johnson indicated that the property would not be used as a dealership and parts would be sold only
as wholesale at the eastern portion of the building consisting of approximately 6,2700 s.f.
Weinberger referred to the outside storage and the proposed use of berming, plantings, and many existing
trees along the north side of the parking section to give screening to that area.
With regard to signage, while retail use relies on advertising signage to attract customers, wholesale
operations normally provide signage to identify the site. Weinberger maintained that the proposed
signage did not suggest that the building was a retail auto dealership, but rather identiFied the user of the
facility.
Weinberger indicated that the proposed lighting was not consistent with what had been approved as part
of site plans for properties along the Highway 12 area. Staff encouraged lighting similar to that of City
Hall, with poles that stretch no taller than 25*27’ and diffuse light to the ground.
Weinberger stated that staff recommends approval of the commercial site plan based on the 5 findings on
page 5 and subsequent conditions 1-7 on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report.
Mr. Johnson shared a revised section drawing based on earlier conversations with staff that afternoon
which reflects revisions in lighting and berming. He reminded the Commission that Morries is an
independent user who will maintain a professional appearance and provide the architectural lighting,
screening, and berming that the City is looking for.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Smith asked to be given a sense of the level of traffic to be generated by this property.
PAGE 29 OF 42
'’I
J
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COM^^SSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that the interior sales floor only makes up 20% of the whole building. While
there needs to be a small outside display area for potential buyers to test the vehicles. Monies will not be
marketing a specific brand of automobile and rely less on advertising. He added that the buyer they will
be focusing on will be the commercial or fleet buyer, or commercial leasing customer.
Smith inquired whether an individual could stop in to buy or lease a car.
Mr. Johnson stated that while the individual could purchase a car, the City could monitor this and
reminded the Commission that these are not the concentrated market.
(WI2-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued)
Bellows questioned why the building needs cars placed front and center if the object is not to attract
customers from the street. She asked if this parking area could be eliminated altogether and the cars
moved to the back, thus eliminating the need to be lit up at all times.
Mr. Johnson contested that Morries wants to put their best face forward and these cars are placed near
the front door where desired customers will enter. If reversed, the body shop would be in front, rather
than screened and situated along the lower west boundary. He reiterated that this will be a post sale, car
sales operation, but very much a sales operation whose goal is to sell or lease automobiles.
Bellows stated that she didn’t believe the screening wrapped around the sides of the building adequately.
She continued by voicing her concern over how the building sounds more and more like retail sales. If it
looks anything like a car dealership, she maintained that Orono does not want it here.
Mr. Johnson indicated that Morries had proposed a S’ high screen and reduced the level of lighting, after
meeting with staff to determine how the lights should be situated and directed. He insisted they’ve made
an effort to create a clear professional appearance for the site on Wayzata Blvd.
Berg inquired over the lit signage and hours of operation.
PAGE 30 OF 42
lii rtniWIi
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o’clock p.m.
Mr. Johnson stated that the sign will be lit from behind r id in preparation for this proposal the hours of
operation were not required.
Berg noted that as a shopper, this looks like a sales operation to her. Ttie hours of operation are going to
tell us if this is truly a retail or wholesale operation.
Mr. Johnson reminded the Commission that they have the ability to dictate this since the applicant needs
their approval.
Smith believed that if she could be provided with the hours of operation, she and the Commission might
gain a better understanding of which this is geared for.
Mr. Johnson asked for clarification over what it was that was triggering the concern that the building is a
retail sales operation versus wholesale, was it the outdoor display.
Bellows maintained that the display is triggering a use that they don’t approve of, and in addition to,
hours of operation, the Commission needs to determine if this will result in a destination operation.
(#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued)
Rahn inquired where transports would be unloading vehicles.
Mr. Johnson indicated that cars would be unloaded on site outdoors.
Berg inquired over the number of cars on site in the eastern parking lot at any given time.
Mr. Johnson stated that no changes would be made to the e.xisting parking lot size, which currently holds
340 parking spaces, including 40 employee stalls.
Bellows asked how many cars would t>‘pically be on site at one time.
PAGE 31 OF 42
ilnl'll 1011 fiiHiiiiilii
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Mr. Johnson estimated that an average of 2S0 cars would be on hand in the overnight storage area, with
upwards of400 on site at any given time.
Mr. Fitchel interjected that due to fluctuations in excess inventoiy this is a difficult number to predict.
Rahn questioned whether the proposal skirts the retail zoning ordinance and in essence still is retail. He
stated that the Commission obviously has little objection to the other uses, such as, the automotive shop,
prep etc.
Bellows maintained that the original intent, as indicated in the letter Exhibit D, still is to provide a retail
sales operation.
Berg questioned the loading and unloading distractions near a residential area at all hours. She went on to
inquire who the customer is specifically.
Mr. Johnson reiterated that the operation is designed to attract the commercial customer who shops for a
company.
Smith noted that according to the information provided by Morries, on average 10 visitors a day will stop
by the showroom.
Berg asked if the average sole buyer would be • ferred out to this location in order to obtain a specific
model
Mr. Johnson indicated that, in fact, the opposite would happen, the car would be sent out to the buyer ’s
dealership location.
(#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued)
Rahn inquired whether this would be the centralized location for all of the dealerships as their off-load
location. He could envision an awful lot of transports were this the case, and asked how many typically
PAGE 32 OF 42
inratiTini
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COM^nSSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o^clock p.m.
arrive per month.
Mr. Fitchel indicated that they average 10 transports offloading per month, adding that the furthest
locations would not use this for their centralized drop off site.
Bellows questioned whether the proposed berming and landscaping were in lieu of fencing.
Weinberger stated that the City will almost always prefer landscaping to a 6* high fence.
Bellows then questioned the safety issues that might arise with transports turning at the trafTic light.
Weinberger stated that the City reserves the right to look into a future service road for the area, with a
light.
Mr. Johnson e.xplained that access issues have been discussed at length and Morries is willing to respond
to proposals when they are made. It is their intention to work with the City to provide better access.
Smith clarified the figures, 10 customers a day, 10 transports a month, adding that all that is left to be
determined is the hours of operation. She asked how the Commission could manage this application
further to ensure that si.\ months from now, the applicant has gone beyond what is been pictured.
Mr. Fitchel stated that in his estimation, the fleet sales hours of operation may require some evening
hours, while the wholesale hours may be more broad.
Rahn stated that fleet sales could feasibly operate like normal business hours, 9AM to 6 PM t>pically,
with a Saturday 9AM to noon schedule as a reasonable addition.
Fritzler maintained that the body shop industrial operation would need to be open later.
Bellows argued that if the parts and body shop are wholesale, it should not be necessary for them to be
open at odd hours.
PAGE 33 OF 42
!
s
I
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o*clock p.m.
Fritzler inquired where trade*ins would be staged.
Mr. Johnson stated that the body shop cars would be staged in the fenced in area.
(#02-2795 >VJM PROPERTIES. Continued)
Bellouts reminded the Commission that if 120 cars are coming in, and another 120 are going out, along
with the body shop, it seemed to her to be a more intense use than they had assumed.
Bremer stated that the numbers of cars on site didn’t concern her, due to the fact that the facility was
built to hold that many cars, cars for the employees coming and going twice daily. These cars will not be
coming and going with that frequency. With regard to the body shop, it is an allowed use which she had
no issue with either.
Bellows repeated that she could not support a retail trade and asked for the definition of that term.
Gaffron distributed a series of definitions, which defined retail trade as “establishments engaged in
selling goods or merchandise to the general public for personal or household consumption and rendering
services incidental to the sale of such goods”. In addition to the hand-out, Gaffron stated that, if the
Commissioners were concerned over the traffic and noise level, this is the middle of an industrial area.
He added that a mere dozen transports per month is low in comparison to other trades and reminded
everyone that far less traffic is being proposed than was there before. To Gaffron. the remaining issue
the Commission seemed to be wrangling with was whether the general public might come in off the street
to buy a car or part.
Rahn stated that as a conditional use, the Commission could monitor the operation.
Smith suggested adding an opportunity to revisit the conditional use after an amount of time if what was
pictured today is vastly different six months from now.
Bremer reiterated that the parking lot was built to adequately hold the proposed number of cars sitting
PAGE 34 OF 42
1
!
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.in.
there.
GafTron asked the Commissioners to give thought to the other uses they could get into this industrial area
that could be worse. He questioned where this land of use should be located within a city if not the
industrial area.
Bremer cited the “comment” section below the retail trade deHnition that identifies the important
characteristics of retail trade, including; the establishment is usually a place of business engaged in
activity to attract the general public to buy and sells to customers for their own personal or household
use. Neither of which fit this operations intentions as they’ve discussed it
(II02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued)
Bellows asked if the applicant could de-emphasize the display function as retail even further by
increasing the screening or moving the vehicles. She stated that she would be more comfortable with the
proposal if the hours of operation could be limited, lighting altered, and screening increased.
Bremer maintained that the Commission was presented with a legitimate application, which fulfills the
City's desire to get people into the industrial area.
Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant is well aware that huge restrictions will accompany approval of this
site and they are willing to work with the City to come to an agreement.
Berg asked if the applicant would be opposed to more screening.
Mr. Johnson asked if the Commission would find the screening acceptable if the berm were one foot
higher and wrapped the comer.
Smith asked the Commission to further define the findings and work through the parameters.
Wid) regard to item J2, the planting islands, Mr. Johnson pointed out four islands detailed in his initial
PAGE 35 OF 42
1
i
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, Jvne 17,2002
6:30 o’clock p.m.
hand-out.
Smith again asked how many cars would be on hand at a given time.
Mr. Johnson stated that 250 would be an approximate overnight figure.
Smith believed that an additional two Islands, for a toul of six planting islands in the eastern lot, would
be acceptable.
Item #3, Smith asked staff to work with the applicant to devise an effective screen of berm and
vegetation.
In reference to #4, Gaffron maintained that light posts do not need to exceed 25 ’.
Bellows suggested a height of 20 ’ in the display area and 25 ’ in the overnight parking lot.
All found item US acceptable.
Gaffron stated that item U6 in regard to future access, it will need to be acknowledged that the applicant
has committed to work with the City on revisions.
(#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued)
Bellows stated that item #7, conversion to a sales dealership, will not be allowed any time ever.
Bremer added condition #8, which limits the number of display spots to 40.
With regard to #9, hours of operation, Fritzler stated that he had no problem allowing 9 AM to 9 PM as
general hours of operation.
Gaffron suggested requiring the applicant propose their hours of operation to the City Council for their
PAGE 36 OF 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o*clock p.n.
discreUon.
Since hours set the stage for the operation, Rahn felt it important to be specific.
Smith suggested a guideline of Monday • Friday 9AM to 6PM, Saturday 9AM to 12PM be sent to
Council.
Mr. Johnson maintained that restricting the hours of operation for the body shop and parts would reduce
and limit the efficiencies.
Bellows reiterated that the idea is to limit the retail or walk in business.
Then Mr. Johnson to please address the hours of operation as they pertain to the showroom or auto sales
only.
Gaffron advised the Commissioners, while they cannot limit the industrial side of the business, they
certainly are within their jurisdiction in limiting the showroom side.
Bellows inquired whether the City Engineer has reviewed the area to ensure access for semis loading and
unloading freely within the site and in order to avoid standing on highway 12.
Mr. Johnson stated that if parking spaces need to be eliminated in order to allow for easier access they
will.
Smith inquired what if any changes to the exterior would be made.
Mr. Fitchel pointed out that exterior paint will be completed after the roof repairs are made to eliminate
the moisture problems. The brick and panel will remain on the east facade.
Gaffron stated that all parties would like to see a higher quality than has been there to date.
PAGE 37 OF 42
tha Imirimii jarwMfiaMTiii
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(<>02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, ConHnued)
Smith asked if the City would like to limit transports.
Weinberger noted that this would be too difficult to monitor.
Bellowjt repeated earlier suggestions to review the entire operation after a certain amount of time. By
reviewing the application for compliance at the City’s discression at a certain point in time.
Smith moved, Bellows seconded, to accept Application #02-2795, WJM Properties, 2605 West
Wayzata Boulevard, a conditional use permit for outside storage and open sales lot, having
reviewed the staff recommendations on page 5 and found them acceptable, having reviewed,
modified and added to the suggested conditions for approval on pages 5 and 6 as noted in the
minutes. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#8) MARK AND GINA KOSEK, 1875 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE ll:21p.ro.-I2:00 a.m.
Gina Kosek, Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg explained that the applicant had applied for a variance to construct two lakeside decks and a
walkway. The variance request is to allow hardcover of 5,882 s.f. (34%) where 3,745 s.f. (22.13%)
exists and 4,230 s.f. (25%) is allowed. There will be two decks, one at ground level and the other being a
second story. Currently there are three patio doors on the lake side of the home with no means of e.xiting.
The second stoiy has a 9’ door and the ground level has a 9’ and 6’ door. The second story deck will be
over the lower deck and slightly smaller thus resulting in no additional hardcover.
In 2000, Bottenberg e.xplained, the applicant removed the old residence and built the current residence.
At that time the applicant applied for a variance to allow a deck to be located within 75’ of the lake
Bottenberg noted that the Planning Commission denied the application and the applicant withdrew the
application.
PAGE 38 OF 42
Application Date: 617102
Deadline: 8/6/02
TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator
DATE:
SUBJECT:
June 13,2002
/#02-2795 WJM Properties LLC. - Monies Automotive Group
2605 West Wayzata Boulevard
- Commercial Site Plan Review
- Conditional Use Permit for Outside Storage and Open Sales Lot
List of Exhibits:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Application
Plat Map
Property Owners Notification List
Letter of Application
Supplemental Infonnation Regarding Property Uses
Site Survey
Site Plan
Elevation Views
1969 Site Grading Plan
1969 Storm Sewer Plan
1970 Storm Sewer Plan
Industrial District Standards, Code Section 10.50
Application
WJM Prooerties has applied for a Commercial Site Plan Review for changes to the use of the
sales and leasing.
parking lot for immediate delivery. The cars will be delivered to dealerships or buyers.
#02-J795 WJM Pfopertiw LLC. - Monies Automotive Group
260S West Wtyzau Boulevard
Pase I of 6
^J^sixia^sssswit a‘.T ’‘“•■“■■m.».!««»
new north and south parking areas. ^ ^ ^ building connecting the
Buildfog Modiflcations
not. Ihe building fafudc will be repaimed. (See sheel ^1'^“''''*"®- P'ans also
Definitions
g.ne«l defiS°b^'S"S^S orn'i^p^ ^ Ci.y has used a
pc^onal or household e«S l»Sgse^^^^^^
An imnnH!inf __?_.a»
. ui suen goods.”
^ r —> ■ •“» -o.™their own personal or household use. ^ ^ ^ ‘ establishments sell to customers for
mereha„disr.orelailersfto^^^^ Primarily engaged in selling
to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers -a u ’”or
merchandise to, such individuals or eompanies." ^ merchandise for, or selling
Code Review - Automobile Sales and Parts Sales
use of the property f« ^mSlh^Tn'lhrcte^^^^^ '’""‘"8 <‘i«rict. Retail
purposes of purchasing a vehicle or oartts ic n«. sense, i.e. general customer visits for th..
““,'T ^ —-.processes that would be allowed in the district Processing’ are a list of types of
manufacturing, fabneatio.stomg.orwholesa.ingoSrfdlsS^^^^
W2-2793 WJM Properties LLC - Mntr!^ a
2m West Wayrau^levml ^ Automotive Group
f**e2of6
■ --
truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering, tire recapping and sales when
completely enclosed within a building.” This would allow auto sales as a wholesale operation.
Peter Johnson is representing the applicant. Mr. Johnson has stated the property would not be used
as a dealership that would be affiliated with a named manufacturer. Monies has also indicated the
parts would be sold only as wholesale. A wholesale parts warehouse and associated offices would
be located within the east portion of the building and consist of approximately 62,700 s.f Parts sales
are primarily sold by phone and are delivered to customers by employees. They do plan to have a
call ahead service where customers could pick up their parts at a wholesale parts counter.
Exhibit E-2 and E-3, submitted by Mr. Johnson indicate that the proposed “Auto Sales Showroom”
at the north end of the building will involve 32,800 s.f. within the building in addition to an outside
open sales lot with stalls for 40 cars on display and for demonstration or test drives, all as part of the
fleet sales and leasing operation. The operation of the showroom and open sales lot as described by
Johnson would meet the definition of a wholesale operation. This outside display area is also
considered as outside storage and must be screened, as discussed below.
Code Review - Body Shop, Auto Prep, Storage, and Office
The body shop and auto prep areas are permitted in the district. The body shop would be in an area
of approximately45,000 s.f. completely within the building. Vehicles stored waiting for body repair
or for delivery would use the proposed outside storage areas.
The auto prep area will occupy 18,300 s.f. of building area. All auto prep will occur inside the
building. Monies expects to receive approximately ten incoming loads of new automobiles per
month. New automobiles will be unloaded and will be stored outside and delivered to dealerships.
Total outgoing vehicles are estimated at 120 per month.
The storage area of the building comprises approximately 17,000 s.f. Storage will be for internal
operating uses, owner storage, and storage of facility related equipment. The office is incidental to
the operation of the facility. Both storage and office would be allowed as “incidental” uses of the
building to the operation of the entire facility.
Total employees on the site are estimated to be between 30 and 40.
Code Review - Outside Storage
The areas anticipated for outside storage include the sales area at the north end of the paricing lots
and the areas of the east and south parking lots where vehicles would be stored for the body shop and
prep work. The Industrial district standards for storage requires all items to be stored within a
building; or shall be screened by a fence or wall not less than five feet in height and not less than
50% opaque. Staff would recommend a 6 ’ fence be constructed to fully screen the parking facilities.
Such fence should be located with new tree planting outside the fence to break up the general linear
appearance of the fence. This is similar to the required fencing that has yet to be installed at the
Western Steel property. All vehicles that are delivered to the site that would use the body shop area
should be designated to the parking area located at the south end of the building. New vehicles could
#02-2795 WJM Properties LLC. - Morries Automotive Croup
2605 West Wayzata Boulevard
Page 5 of 6
be staged in the proposed east parking lot areas when space is not available in the south parking
facilities.
No plans for the fence or detailed landscaping plan have been submitted. The fence should
completely screen the storage areas and should be of quality materials acceptable to the Council,
such as masonry or wood that provide the clean, professional appearance visualized for this area.
Retail Uses in the Industrial District
In the 1980s Northern Hydraulics, a retailer, had plaimed to move into the industrial park but were
not permitted to operate. They had proposed a retail/warehouse operation within the building that
is now occupied by Western Steel. Staff had determined the use of the property was retail in nature
and WM not allowed. Northern Hydraulics appealed the decision to the City. The Planning
Commission and City Council concurred the use as retail is not a permitted use in the district.
There is no district in the City of Orono that would allow a car dealership. Automobile dealerships
tend to be located in large planned commercial districts where large scale retail establishments are
located. Areas such as this do not exist in Orono. The proposed use as presented by the applicants
is not a car dealership; however, the City should carefully structure any conditional use permit
approvals granted to make it clear that conversion to a retail sales dealership will not be allowed.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages a conversion to uses such as light industrial and high tech
medical that have a clean, professional appearance and are compatible with the planned office park
on the north side of Highway 12, and the plaimed residential development west of Old Crystal Bay
Road. The re-use of the WSI property is an opportunity to begin to set the character for the Industrial
District in terms of use and appearance.
Signage
Retail uses rely on advertising signage to attract customers, while wholesaling operations normally
will provide signage primarily to identify the site. The signage that is proposed for the site includes
a 65 s.f. monument sign to be located at the entrance to the property from Highway 12 (Monies
Distribution Center Body Works) and building lettering totaling 117 s.f (Morries Automotive
Group). The proposed signage does not suggest that the building is advertising for a retail auto
dealership, but rather only identifying the individual user of the facility.
The sign lettering is designed to have internal illumination through acrylic letters. This would be
the case for the monument sign and building sign.
Lighting
The individual lighting in the parking lot is proposed to include two 30’ high tw in-head light poles
in the east parldng area and five 25 ’ high twin-head light poles to cover the front display areas. The
proposed lighting is not consistent with what has generally been approved as part of site plans for
properties in the Highway 12 area. The Orono City Hall parking lot has a series of lights that are 14’
#02-2795 WJM Propotlcs LLC - Morries Automotive Croup
2605 West Wayzau Boulevard
Page# of 6
high and of a lower wattage. The light structures proposed by applicants are of the style generally
accepted by the City. (See Exhibit H)
There are two existing light structures in the east parking area of the Monies Site. Each light pole
is at least 30’ in height and has 4 lights attached to each pole. The zoning ordinance prohibits light
fixtures that expose the source of the light at the property line.
The height and location of the poles is the primary issue. Orono is a residential community with a
rural character. The City has discouraged lighting that would be located on high poles with high
wattage bulbs. The City would rather have more lights at lower height, with less light output. The
five li^ts proposed to be located at the north end of the building are proposed to illuminate a sales
area. **
Lighting on this site should be limited to an amount sufficient to provide safety and security to the
site. The lighting should not be bright enough to attract the attention of passing motorists to the
property.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the commercial site plan with the following suggested findings and
conditions:
Findings:
1.The uses of the property as staging area, body shop and auto prep as a general processing
center are permitted uses in the district.
2.
3.
The wholesale trade and distribution of vehicles are permitted uses in the district.
The general use of the building for storage and office is incidental to the permitted uses
proposed for the property.
4.Direct retail trade is not permitted in the Industrial zoning district. Retail sales would require
a zoning code amendment to the Industrial District standards to permit retail sales of
automobiles as a permitted or conditional use.
5.The proposed use as presented by the applicants is not a retail car dealership, but is primarily
a fleet sales and leasing operation, which is considered as a wholesaling operation and
therefore allowed in the I District.
Recommended Review Parameters and Suggested Conditions of Approval
1. The outside storage area located on the south side of the building shall be completely
screened with a 6’ fence around the perimeter of the storage area. This is the area where all
vehicles intended for body work will be stored when not within the building.
- r,' '■ . 1/i 1 I ; ,I -
I *
#02-2795 WJM Fro|)€rttcf LLC. - Morrics Automotive Group
2605 West WiytiU Boulevird
Page 5 of 6
[>'/'Jo J f '■ ‘'‘
A
f'
f •r.
\ ‘
r I
. T^® applicant should provide additional information to the Planning Commission regarding
the actual amount of storage area devoted to the parking of new vehicles and finished
vehicles ready for delivery to dealerships. The area should be limited to the extreme
southeast end of the parking lot since adequate screening will not be located directly within
the parking area. The applicant should be asked to comment on the potential of creating
planting islands for trees within the parking lot.
i
\
The display areas are proposed to use the existing trees that are on the property for screening.
The new parking area on the north side of the building will require removal of some fairly
V substantial trees on the north side of the building. The site plan indicates some of the trees
_ will^^SIBlfic^ed between the parking lot and the highway. Additional screening in the form
Jfcnce'is also required by code for those outside areas that will be used for vehicle
^^,>^display, or anything other than general employee and customer parking.
4.The existing and proposed lighting should be reviewed and plans submitted to ensure the
lighting fits the rural character of Orono and does not illuminate beyond the prooertv
boundaries. •; ; ,v . - - .
5.Because new areas of impervious surface are propose^ engineering information regarding
^ drainage area and rate calculations must be submitted by the applicant and approved by
\jO the City Engineer prior to Council review of the application. Applicant is advised to contact
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to determine what approvals may be required.
6.Future access to the site has not been discussed in this memo as the current access to
Highway 12 is not profrased to change. The applicants have been advised that the City would
like to discuss possibilities for access revisions for the entire industrial park area in the
future. i c. rr • •• ’ . ’ ■ > *,
I I
7.The City should carefully structure any conditional use permit approvals granted so as to
make it clear that conversion to a retail sales dealership will not be allowed. ,
)
1 •/ •-
. /
Planning Commission Options for Action
1. Approve with conditions as noted or with additional/revised conditions.
2. Deny (state reasons). - ,
3. Table.
y
#
/ f * •
. r
4.
I, • j
Other Action,'I
Va. »
V
t c ♦^a
! •'
. • • I I >i'
I ■
r V '' . ' € '* *• •
. a*
' V
■ :»■
•.
V /:• 7, ■
('
.
1 • *•
it' ■
/;>•/ ■' •
I ^ M2-2795 WJM Properties LLC. - Morries Automotive Group
2605 West Wayzata Boulevard
Pafe 6 of 6 VttC
io C
• #
I
A
I
Applkatfon #
DateReoeKcd S-ZZ-02.
Amount Paid
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
Bni.lPvTrH, fimnn, MinnffBntA Type of Apphcauon to be Filed ConHlMnn,i nc^ V
Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) 33-n«-7vi i-nnis
APPLICANT
Name WJM Properties, LLC Phone (home)
..Address 12520 Wayzata Boulevard
__ Phone (work ) 952-797-1340
C>*y ^ Minnetonka. MN Zip 55305
OWNER (if different than applicant)
MiifTie » LLC_________
Phone (home)
Address 1100 International rpnt-r^
A'
Phone(work ) 6i2-347-7nnn
------------------------------------ City Minneapolis. MN Tin SSAn?yuu second Avenue South ----------^^—2d2}i£------_ ^ Attn; David Busch
Date Property Acquired________June. 2001*______________________ (month/year)--------^-------^---------,-------------_ w
« • Purchase Agreement dated
FEfiS - dbNDITIO.NAL USE PERMITS -
______S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application
$175.00 Residential Accessory Use
_____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg
$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use
____$250.00 Land .Alteration
_____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
------- Grading and filling - 301 cu. yd. or more
Grading, seawall, retaining walls wthin 75' of lakcshore
PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule
$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application)
After*the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee
OTHER AFPUCATIONS
$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees)
______$300.00 Vacation
_____S200.00 Easement Vacation
_____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision
_____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule)
_____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_____ $100.00 App^s
_____Other - see Fee Schedule
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Completed Application Form.
Describe request in detail.
Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’, labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map firom Hennepin County Department of Finance
A-603, Government Center, 348 33W).
Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed suiveyot) - refer to handout for survey
information.
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve
changes in elevation (grades).
List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the
propeny. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not cunent owner(s).
Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements).
As an addendum to this application, please attach n separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this application.
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY
FOR REPRODUCTION (ir* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS
SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be
submitted.)
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your
application is not complete if the above information has not been included.
Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete.
Initials of Clerical Staflf:^______________________ Date
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or unusual e.xpcnscs incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information
supplied is true and cortect to the best of his/her knowledge.WJM Properties, LLC *
Applicant’s signature »^///V/V Z/l/f/y'/’/' i- ‘^^ Date
btaurlc^ J. .;waietier, bvAbo^s ML z^appia ■
2002
OWNER’S
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable
entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, end Council
members for purposes investigation a.nd verification of this request.
_________Date 2002Owner's signature
David R. Busch, Its authorized officer
Applicant must have all tubmituls Into the City oifices 25 days before the Planning Ccmmlaiion Meeting.
Plaoning Commission Meedags are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all
scheduled review meetings of the Planning Co.nmission end Council If an applicant is unable to anend a
scheduled meeting, please make airangemenis to have an authorized agent anend in your place arid advise the
Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
I
- II?'
if i Wk Parcel Infonnatlon
arc«l ID 3311823130015
H oum Numb«r 2608
SUMt Nam« WAYZATA BLVD W
TMs ^nota lagatty laeordad map. H rapnaants a eompOation ofhfomtatian
and data tmmOly,Couaty. and Slata mad authariUaa and otttaraounas.
L....AimaAi ^ ff. ■ •nMrrtM3MPsMt%e>aai>\jdWftiA k
RUN MTC iSm/RR
RATCN 5RS
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY H^ORHATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY ONNERS LIST
PROP ARDR
OMNiR NAME
TAKPAYCR
NANE/ADDR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADDR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADDR
PROP ADOR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADDR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADOR
PROP ADDR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/ADDR
5A 5S-11S-29 11 AiiS
•••M ADDRESS UNASSXCNED
ORONO PLAZA
ORONO PLAZA
C/O REXERSOORD LAW OFFICE
A5f• 4ATN ST W
NPLS NN 5S4ZA
58 5S-lia-2S 12 •••a
82745 KELLEY PKWY
WILLOW PROPERTIES
WILLOW PROPERTIES
C/O ALRERT • YNOVE
45S5 aXO RICE LAKE DR N
RENER NN 5AA72
sa SS-lia-29 19 8811
82745 WAYZATA DLVD W
VEDA INC ETAL
VEDA INC
PO aOX 975
LONG LAKE NN 55954
58 99-118-29 19 8812
88458 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N
VEDA INC
VCI CAPITAL INC
PO BOX .575
LONG LAKE NN 55554
98 99-118-25 19 8814
82725 WAYZATA BLVD W
VEDA INC
VEDA INC
PO BOX 975
LONG LAKE NN 555S4
58 55-118-25 19 8815
82485 WAYZATA BLVD W
DRB 88 LLC
DRB 88 LLC
C/O. BUSCH/FREDRICKSON/BYRON
488 2ND AVE S 1188 INTRNL CT
NPLS NN 55482
98 95-118-29 52 8882
88898 ADDRESS UNASSIOIED
BURLINGTON NORTNERN INC
8 N t SANTA FE RR CO
PROPERTY TAX DEPT
PO BOX 441884
FORT WORTH TX 74141
58 95-118-25 41 8814
88525 WILLOW DR N
GLENN I SANDRA 6R0NBERG
GLENN N GR0NBER6
525 WILLOW DR N
LONG LAKE NN 55954
58 59-118-29 42 8819
88858 ADDRESS UNASSXCNED
RICHARD 8 PATRICIA NEYER
NXCHAEL HXL8ELXNK
85 GOLDEN VIEW DR
LONG LAKE NN 55554
72 55-118-25 14 8885
88481 WILLOW OR
CHURCH OF ST GEORGE
CHURCH OF ST GEORGE
159 BROWN RD N
L»IG LAKE NN 55954
72 99-118-29 14 8815
82498 INDUSTRIAL BLVD W
ETCO PROPERTIES INC
ETCO PROPERTIES INC
15588 WAYZATA BLVD 8754
WAYZATA NN 55541
72 99-118-29 14 8818
82495 INDUSTRIAL BLVD W
NETROTECH PRODUCTS LLC
NETROTECH PRODUCTS LLC
5852 BAKER RD
NXNNETONKA NN 55945
« 1
%X
\ 1
i I
J ^
i
REPORT NO. PI495481
PAGE 18
58 95-118-29 19 8882
82487 WAYZATA BLVD W
ACE PROPERTIES LLC
ACE PROPERTIES LLC
5588 ANDERSON ESTATES RD
NAPLE PLAIN NN 55954
98 95-118-25 19 8819
82485 WAYZATA BLVD W
VEDA INC
VEDA INC
PO BOX 975
LONG LAKE NN 55954
58 95-118-25 91 8018
80898 ADDRESS UNASSXCNED
CN RV CO
B N 8 SANTA FE RR CO
PROPERTY TAX DEPT
PO BOX 441884
FORT WORTH TX 74141
■i
58 55-118-25 42 8888
82488 SILVER VIEW OR
SPEAK THE WORD CHURCH
SPEAK THE WORD CHURCH
515 JERSEY AVE S
GOLDEN VALLEY NN 55424
72 95-118-25 14 8811
82448 INDUSTRIAL BLVD W
ETCO PROPERTIES INC
ETCO PROPERTIES INC
15588 WAYZATA BLVD 8754
WAYZATA NN 55541 i
72 55-118-29 14 8814
82445 INDUSTRIAL BLVD W
HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND
CITY OF LONG LAKE
1444 PARK AVE
LONG LAKE NN 55554
MM BATE tS/tA/BE
BATCN SBS
HENNEPIN COIMTV ntOPEHTY ZNEUNATION SVSTEH
PHOPEETY ONWES LIST EEPOET m. PZASSAEl
ease II
ONNEE NAME
TAEPAVEE
NAHE/ADDE
72 SS-UE-2S lA ••21
E2AU INBUSTEIAL BLVD H
LAETCN DEVELOPMENT CO
PECO NANUS
IMU NEST OAES
NOMETONEA mi USAS
72 SS-110-25 lA im
E2AAS DMUSTEIAL OLVO H
LAETCN OEVCLWNENT CO
PEED NANUS *
ISOEl NEST OAES
laNNETONEA NN 55SA5
TOTAL lATOr*StS •••2B
EEPEESENTEO AEE AN ACCUEATE ANO TEOE
^^^EESENTATION of INTOENATION as IT APPEAES THIS OATE ON THE EECOOBS
V THE HENNEPIN COIMTV DEPAETNENT OP PEOPMTV TAEATION/TOm iSP OP HV ENOMLED6E AND BELIEF. TO TIM BEST
datbJSVT^ZL
A
J
.. 1
• i
■)
Z A i‘ r IA
1.1 \'a 'ii\
M El' \ KEl' I
& I).
i I I 1 M • - f » ■ \ I
C lark M. Iverson
Steven H. Berndt *
James A.H euer ,Jr .**
Thomas M. Zappia *
Joel T. LeVahn
Deno W. Be^dt
Trent C. Jaeger
PAR.^LEGALS
Julie A. C arter
M.MIY A nn C hristlans
Jill R. Holmes
Lalr .a Ingebrigtsen
Shelley Lovejoy
Megan Moen
Tr -acy Puchtel
Laurel M. ELandall
Margo Sopahl
941 Hill«'ind R d. N.E
Suite 301
MlNSEAFOLlS, MN
55432
Tel: 763-571-7721
Fax : 763-571-7734
•Riu Pro «rty Law
SreciAUiT C ertifieo by the
Minnesota Ear A5KX1 atx >i
••.ACMiTTED IN Wisconsin
D
May 20, 2002
(Writer’s Direct Dial 763-502-710S)
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
RE:2605 West Wayzata Boulevard
Orono, Minnesota
Applicant: WJM Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company - Conditional Use Pennit/General Land Use
Application
Our File No.: 21586
To Whom It May Concern:
Our office represents WJM Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company (“WJM") with respect to the Conditional Use Pennit/General Land
Use Application regarding the above-referenced “Site”.
WJM Properties, LLC is a Minnesota limited liability company which was
organized on May 13, 2002. The sole member/govemor/chief manager of WJM
is as follows:
Maurice J. Wagencr
c/o Morrie’s Subaru
12520 Wayzata Boulevard
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305
Phone: 952-797-1340
The requested uses of the Site are as follows:
(i)Outside Stora2c of Vehicles in Transit. Mr. Wagener is the
Chief Executive Officer of Morrie’s Automotive Group. The Site
will be used to store and prepare new vehicles for delivery to the
various dealership sites.
(ii)Outside Storage/Dlsplav . Outside storage and display of
vehicles for sale.
i/ j tC V)
A,•V
#
i
•V J
City of Orono
May 20. 2002
Page 2
(HO Parts Warehouse. The site will be used as a central warehouse for
automobile parts and accessories. There will be wholesale sales and, if
permitted, limited retail sales.
(iv)Pody Shpp. The work-in-process vehicles will be stored in the existing
enclosed (fenced area) in the rear of the building.
(v) Office General office use for the Morrie ’s Automotive Group. It is
anticipated that there will be approximately 30-40 employees at the Site.
I have enclosed the following documents:
1. City of Orono, General Land Use Application.
2. City of Orono, Data Privacy Advisory.
3. Power of Attorney (Mr. Wagener is out of town this week).
The other documents and information will be submitted by the following architect for the
Project.
Steven Fichtel
Fichtel Architect
4959 Olson Memorial Highway
Minneapolis, MN 55422
Phone: 763-544-3633
FAX: 763-544-8274
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours.
ZAPPIA, LeVAHN & HEUER, LTD.
Thomas M.
TMZ:jrh
Enclosun.'s
cc: Maurice J. Wagener
■ - »
*1
:(
J
Sent by: LAW OFFICES 4750311 +;06/07/02 9:04; lilEu>#341 ;Page 1/4
PETER W. JOHNSON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Thb sMraM by eppaietiMRl ti^PImm SirM aD cemia«i4tMcAaq«biel let
33U COMMWCS MtlLCVARO
hound . MINNKAOTA SS3M
mcraoNE (MU 4M-t«ie
rAr»MIU(M3H7M4«
lass KA»r WAV2ATA MHflXVAllD. SUITK JM
WAYZATA. MINNESOTA SSMi
TEUCrHONE (MU 475>IS1S
PACSIMIIS (MU A7fr«lll
CMAII. - PJOHN80Nl9WAYZATALAW4X>M
DIRECT DUL: (612)275-7963
June 7.2002
BY FAX 952-249^16
Mr. Paul Weinberger
Zoning Administrator/Planner
City of Orono
2750 Kelly PartCDiay
Orono. Minnesota 55356
Re: WJM Properties, LLC - 2605 W. Wayzata Blvd. - Zoning Appliration #022795
Dear Paul:
Thanks for taking wie lime to speak with me regarding the pending Application.
Attached is a Narrative Summary describing proposed uses of the property, including a
description of the manner in which each part of the property and building will function.
Steven Fichte) has provided you with additional details concerning lighting, screening,
drainage, and property signage.
From our last meeting. I'm aware that your file contains the certified survey prepared by
Jack Bolke of Egan, Field and Nowak Surveyors for DRB #8. LLC (current owner).
WJM has received the permission of the current owner to submit the sun/ey to the City
of Orono. The survey is certified through June 22,2001. We are not aware of any
changes to the site since that date.
L
Sent by: LAW CFFICE8 4750311 4-;06/07/02 0:04; 341:Page 2/4
Mr. Piul Wanberger
Jum 7,21
PagtTVw
WJM does not intend to make any material change to existing grades or drainage. We
believe that drainage is adequate using existing grades and drainage tedthies. K you
are aware of existing problems with drainage on site, please let me know. I note that
your Applealion Form requires a topographic survey of existing and proposed contours
only if land alterations involve changes in elevations. Since WJM*s application does not
indude any changes to elevation, we are hopeful that the existing survey and the
drainage plans described in our other submittals meet your requirements.
In any event, we wish to have WJM's Application presented to the Planning Commission
on June 17,2f
Obviously, if you need specific additional infbrmabon on any aspect of WJM's proposal,
please let me know.
Johnson
PWJ/pm
enclosure
cc: Maurice J. Wagener
TomZappia
Steven Fichtel
C:Wy D0ewn«riPAapiS4cflM«WJM PR«MrttaWMinbaf^
Sent byr LAW OFFICES 4750311 +;06/07/02 9:04; ^|£ul_#341 ;Page 3/4
WJM PROPERTIES, LLC
Description of Proposed Uses - 260S W. Wavzata Blvd,
Zoning Application #02-2705
WJM Properties, LLC proposed to use the facility at 2605 West Wayzata
Boulevard as a wholesale distribution facility primarily serving the retail automotive
operations owned by Maurice J. Wagener.
The location within the building of each respective function is identified on the
Preliminary Building Plan previously submitted to the City of Orono. Functions located
within the enclosed building are more fully described as follows:
The Bodyworks body shop will be located within an area of approximately
45.400 square fMt in the southeastern portion of the building. Body shop activities will
be fully enclosed. Outside storage of damaged cars and cars "in process" will be
completely fenced in parking areas South and Southeast of the building. Cars on which
all body work has been com^. eted will be staged in the east parking lot for immediate
delivery or pickup. Body shop facilities and fenced outside storage are allowed uses. A
new fenced bituminous parking lot is proposed southwest of the building. The proposed
tot is 200 feet by 200 feet, would follow existing grades, and would not materially alter
the existing drainage plan.
Parts Warehouse and Offices
A wholesale parts warehouse and associated offices will be located within the
east/center portion of the building and will consist of approximately 62,700 square feet.
Parts sales are primarily sold by phone and are "route delivered" to customers by
employee/drivers. Limited "will call" wholesale customer visits are expected and will be
accommodated at a wholesale parts desk. While limited retail sales were referenced in
the o^inat Conditional Use Application, that proposed use is being withdrawn,
incoming deliveries will average 1 to 2 delivery trucks per day. Outgoing route delivery
departures and arrivals will number 3 to 4 per day. Wholesale warehouse is an allowed
use. Customer parking in the east lot vrill be very minimal. Related parking lot uses will
be primarily for employee parking, and delivery vehicle parking.
Auto Prep Area
The Auto Prep Area will occupy 18,300 square feet within the northeast portion of
the building. All auto prep activities en;ept truck unloading will occur Inside the building.
WJM expects to receive approximately ten incoming loads of new automobiles per
month. New automobiles will be unloaded and will be stored outside perxling
Sent by: LAW OFFICES 4750311 +;06/07/02 9:04; ft|£tt_«341 ;Page 4/4
preparation for delivery to a new dealership. After preparation, cars will be driven to
Morrie ’s dealerships located in Minnetonka. Outgoing delivery volume is estimated at
120 cars per month. Auto "processing" is an aBow^ use.
Autp Salee Showroom
An auto sales showroom will occupy approximately 32.600 square feet In the
northwest portion of the building. Customer visits are expected to number
approximately 10 per day and customer parking will be provided on the north side of the
building immediately adjacent to the building. An outside open sales lot for 40 cars is
propo^. The proposed lot consists of 25 auto spaces for the north side of the building
and 15 auto spaces in the east parkitig lot. The new bituminous parking facility on the
north side of the building will substantially follow existing grading contours. No material
changes to grading are anticipated. The area where new bituminous is to be located is
already served by a large catch basin which carries drainage flows to the eastern
boundary of the property. ‘Enclosed Auto Sales ” is an allowed use. Outside open sales
lots for motor vehicles are allowed by Conditional Use Permit
Sterage
The east central portion of the building will include a storage area consisting of
approximately 17.000 square feet Storage will be for internal operating uses, owner
storage, and storage of fadlities-related materials and equipment The storage facility is
not expected to add any additional traffic to other site uses. Storage is an allowed use.
Office
Office uses will be ancillary to the primary uses described above. WJM expects
that 30 to 40 fulltime employees will work in the building. Management, supervisory,
sales, and secretarial support will occupy office spaces within the building. Office space
ancillary to allowed industrial uses is presumed to be an allowed use.
Outside Storage
Outside storage of vehicles associated with auto prep and body shop operations
(finished vehicles only) will occur In the east parking lot. Outside storage in the east
parking lot will consist of new and used vehicles awaiting delivery to car dealerships and
delivery vehicles maintained in conjunction with facilities operations. Existing landscape
screening along Wayzata Boulevard will remain. The east parking lot is set back from
Wayzata Boulevard approximately 1 SO feet and is set back from the east property line
approximately 65 feet. Outside storage will not include nonvehicle items and will not
include any unrepaired or partially repaired vehicles on site in relationship to body shop
uses. Outside storage is allowed by Conditional Use Permit
OWy Dacufncfib\AapH)AcS«eWJM Prap«lia\N«TgM.Ooc
DESCRIPTION OF AUTO SALES PROPOSED BY WJM, LLC
Auto sales as proposed by WJM. LLC for the site at 2605 West Wayzata
Boulevard in Orono is an allowed use. The proposed 32,000 square foot indoor sales
showroom will house for display a number of different brands of new and used
automobiles. Morhe Wagener intends to transfer his fleet sales and leasing operation to
the Wayzata Boulevard facility. This sales and leasing operation focuses on sales or
leasing of automobiles to fleet operators and other business users. The fleet leasing
and sale operation is expected to account for a large share of overall sales and leasing
volume at the site. Consequently, the volume of customer visits is expected to be low
compared to overall projected sales volume at the site. The Applicant has estimated 10
customer visits per day.
Automobiles maintained for display on the showroom cannot effectively be
utilized for demonstrations or test drives. The showroom will not provide space for an
adequate inventory of available styles and models. Consequently, the indoor showroom
will function in coordination with a limited outdoor display of vehicles held for resale or
lease. Outdoor display of vehicles is allowed by Conditional Use Permit.
The outdoor vehicle display area, consisting of 40 auto spaces, will occupy
approximately 8,000 square feet on a site which exceeds 1,000,000 square feet.
(Prepared by Applicant 6-12-2002)
C:\My Documants\AapwjActiv«\WJM PropertiM\DescripAutoSalcs.doc
-•> ~~ irji it~i ‘I* I'l iru Ti illii iK*>ri i ■ wi i
S4TE PLAN
I* • IT
r4AA)
■ I Tf MiliniHir r y 1^11 ll I ■ ■ ll ■ f . .1
-c-*J**.-V-iJrvf *4rf.-*>r-Jj^-^A-*'-A ’-■ ^ . *- i*B
i 1
, ..ft.
§ 10.50
SEC. 10.50.1 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Subd. I. Application. Alt applications for a building permit in any "I” Industrial
District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for
review.
Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "I" District, no structure or land shall be used
except for one or more of the following uses:
A. Processing, Etc. Conducting a process, fabrication, storage, manufacturing
or wholesaling operation or providing of a service as listed hereafter:
1. Apparel.
2. Artificial limbs.
3. Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender
woric. upholstering, tire recapping and sales when within a completely enclosed building. The storage
of automobiles or trucks in process of repair shall be w ithin a fenced area. Open sales lots shall be
subject to a conditional use permit.
4. Baker>', commercial.
5. Bicycles and toys.
6. Boats and marine products.
7. Bus, truck and contractor's terminals and maintenance yards.
8. Cabinet and carpentry shops, lumber yards and millworks,
electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning shop.
9. Camera and photography.
10. Canvas and cloth products.
11. Ceramic and cloth products.
12. Ceramic products.
13. Cork products.
14. Drugs, cosmetics, phamiaceutical and toiletries.
15. Electric motors, generators, electric products.
16. Engraving and printing.
17. Ice and cold storage plants, bottling works.
18. Laundries, commercial.
19. Machine shops.
20. Metal polishing and plating.
21. Musical instruments.
22. Novelties.
23. Paper products.
24. Pharmaceutical products. .
25. Products made of glass, cellophane,leather, plastic, wood.
26. Shoes and footwear.
ORONO CC 352 (4-1-84)
L.i
§ 10.50
27. Sporting equipment.
28. Television, radio and appliances.
29. Tools, hardware and small metal products.
30. Warehousing.
Subd. 3. Conditional Uses.
r.u -rn • ^ no Structure or land shall be used for one or moi
of theToIlowmg uses except by conditional use permit:
1. Accessory structures.
2. Farm equipment sales, repair and storage.
3. Heliports as an accessoiy use for that property.
4. Motor fuel stations.
5. Open sales lots.
6. Outside storage.
7. Public service structures.
8. Railroad switch yards, team tracks or freight houses.
9. Research laboratories.
pami««iuseorcondi,io„aI J"' '» »
personnel employed in lha(
12. Planned Industrial District as regulated by Section 10.51.
Source: Ordinance No. 172
Effective Date: 1-1-75
on ttie Mniejoi and eiuioiimily inideiilal tiVuUu toi is uui
the hci^U a>f the juitciuu aUuctui, dues iiut exceed 65 fret and Uic mutnna stiuctuit is set luu k ......
any lot lint a Jlstsaatce at least equal to the total height of Uie antcima shuctuie.
(Source. OidinanctNo. 177,
Efieetive Date: 0 -5 -75)
Deleted via Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series
Adopted: 5-27-97
ORONO CC 353 (4-1.84)
1
§ 10.50
Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "I" Industrial District, the following uses shall
be permitted accessory uses:
A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-1District.
Subd. 5. Area, Height, Setback and Design Requirements.
A. Lot Area. The minimum lot size shall be two acres.
B. Building Area. Each individual building shall have a gross floor area (not
including basements) of not less than 5,000 square feet when designed for a single tenant nor less
than 15,000 square feet when designed for multi-tenants.
C. Lot Coverage. Not more than 30% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel
of land three acres or less in size may be covered by buildings or other structures. Not more than
45% of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land more than three acres in size may be covered
by buildings or other structures, except that when the total building floor area on a site is contained
within a single building, and when the total area used for loading terminals, docks and berths is
completely enclosed within the same single building, a lot coverage of not more than 60% will be
permitted.
D. Height. No structure or building shall exceed three stories or 40 feet in
height e.\cept as provided in Section 10.75.
E. Building Setback and Yards.
1. Street Setbacks. All buildings and structures must be set back at
least 75 feet from the right-of-way of any highway or street which has been designated as limited
access, freeway or expressway; and 50 feet from those designated as thoroughfares, collectors, minor
or secondary streets. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District there shall be a building
setback from that street of not less than 75 feet.
2. Side Yards or Rear Yards. Any building or structure required by
any building code adopted by the City to have openings in the rear wall, shall be erected no closer
than 30 feet to a rear property line. WTiere rear wall openings are not required by any such code, and
the rear wall has no openings, buildings or structures may be constructed to within 10 feet of a rear
property line. No building or structure shall be erected any closer to a side property line than a
distance equal to one and one-half times the average building height. Where the district abuts or
adjoins an "R" District, the side or rear yard abutting such residential district shall be not less than
100 feet.
ORONO CC 354 (4-1-84)
§ 10.50
F- Building Design and Construction. The In addition to other restrictions of
this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the
district shall meet the following standards:
I. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be:
(a) Face brick; or,
(b) Natural stone; or,
. Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaceshave been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture; or,
(d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel
construction, if the panel matenals be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above, glass
prefinished metal (other than unpainted galvanized iron) or plastic; provided that if any wall of the
building or structure faces a street or abuts an "R" District, then that wall shall have at least one-third
of Its surface of materials other than prefinished metal and the remaining walls shall have at least
one-finh of their surfaces of materials other than preflnished metal; or.
Combinations ofsuch materials Shan beV?!"”'' “ Council.
2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the
erection of an onginal building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those
used in the onginal construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original
architectural design and general appearance. ®
3.Nobuil<iingorstntclureofatcmporaiycharaclcr,trailer,basemenl,
lent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessoty to and
during the construction of permanent buildings.
Parking. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter,
off^stree parking areas of sufficient size to provide parking for patrons, customers, suppliers, visitors
and erriployees shall be provided on the premises of each use. Parking areas shall be surfaced with
a hard, all-weather durable, dust-free surfacing material and shall be properly drained and
landscaped, and shall be maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition. No parking area shall
occupy any required setback except on lots, tracts, or parcels having two or more street frontages
On lots, tracts, or parcels having two or more street frontages, 50% of the required setback from one
of the streets designated ns a thoroughfare, collector, minor, or secondary street and not adjoining
a residential distnct, may be occupied for parking purposes only, provided, however, that parking
shall not be located within the required setback area in front of the building. No parking shall be
parking space shall have a minimum width of nine feet and a minimum depth of twenty fwt
exclusive of aisles and maneuvenng space. All parking areas containing more than six spaces which
ORONO CC 355 (4-1-84)
i
§ 10.50
face either a public street or residentially zoned property shall have a solid wall or fence of not less
than four feet nor more than six feet in height along such facing. Such fences or walls shall be so
designed that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the lot. A screen
planting approved by the Council may be substituted for the required wall or fence.
H. Loading Facilities. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all
loading or unloading into or out of trucks in excess of three-fourths ton capacity or railroad cars,
shall be conducted at facilities specifically designed and designated for that purpose. Those facilities,
hereby designated as "loading facilities", shall be subject to the following regulations:
1. Amount Required. Loading facilities of sufficient number to provide
for the requirements of each use shall be provided on the premises of each principal and accessory
use. The exact number required will depettd on the nature of the principal and accessory use and the
type of transport ser\ ice used, but in no event shall there be less than one truck transport loading
facility for each 50,000 square feet of building floor area or major fraction thereof.
2. Design. A loading facility includes the dock to or from which the
transport vehicle is being unloaded or loaded and the berth for the vehicle while it is being loaded
or unloaded, and the maneuvering areas needed to maneuver the vehicle into or out of its berth. All
docks shall be located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use and
they shall be completely enclosed except for the opening needed for access to a vehicle during the
time it is standing in the berth. All berths shall be screened from view from the property’s street
frontages by a solid wall of not less than ten feet in height. Such walls shall be so designed that they
are architecturally harmonious with the principal structure on the lot. At least one and not less than
50% of the required number of truck transport loading berths shall be not less than 50 feet in length,
14 feet in width and 15 feet in height. All truck transport berths and maneuvering areas shall be
surfaced with a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material properly drained and
maintained in a sightly and well-kept condition.
3. Location. Loading berths shall not be located on a street frontage
unless located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use. Where
located on a street frontage, they shall be completely enclosed. No berth shall be located within the
required side or rear yards. All berths shall be physically separated from areas used for off-street
parking except for connecting driveways or aisles. No maneuvering area shall be located within ten
feet of a side or rear property line.
I. Storage. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all raw materials,
supplies, finished or semi-flnished products and equipment shall be stored within a completely
enclosed building; or shall be screened by a fence or wall not less than five feet in height and not less
than 50% opaque; provided, however, that motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal
use and of not more than three-fourths ton capacity may be stored within the permitted parking areas.
ORONO CC 356 (4-1-84)
§ 10.50
J. Landscaping. All open areas of any site, lot, tract or parcel shall be graded
to provide proper drainage, and except for areas used for parking, drives or storage, shall be
landscaped with trees, shrubs or planted ground cover. Such landscaping shall conform with the
planting plan approved by the Council at the time the building permit was issued. It shall be the
owners’ responsibility to see that this landscaping is maintained in an attractive and well-kept
condition. All vacant lots, tracts or parcels shall also be properly maintained.
K. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that
results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage
plans**shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans
shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council
for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course,
ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff
whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water
Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions
and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the
drainage.
Source: Ordinance No. 172
Effective Date: 1-1-75
SEC. 10.51. PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to establish provisions for the
granting of a conditional use permit to erect a multi-building industrial facility in relation to an
over-all design, an integrated physical plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures
as provided hereafter.
Subd. 2. Submission of Plans. The owner or owners of any tract of land within an "I"
District may submit to the Council for approval a plan for the development and use of such a tract
of land for a Planned Industrial District for commercial or other uses permitted in the district within
which the land is located by making an application for a conditional use permit authorizing
completion of the development in accordance with the plan. The plan for the development shall
conform to the requirements of the district within which it is located except as herein amended.
Subd. 3. Size Required. The tract of land for which a development is proposed and
a permit requested shall not be less than five (5) acres.
Subd. 4. Sewer and Water. The tract shall be served by the City water and sewer
system when available and fire hydrants shall be installed according to a plan approved by the Fire
Chief as to type and location.
ORONO CC 357 (4-1-84
•■rcrflNG
Application Date: 6/13/02 JUL 0 6 2002
Completion Date: 6/13/02 ,..tv r^c r»
60 Dav Deadline: 8/12/02
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Department Approval: DATE: 7/2/02
Name Wendy Bottenbcrg ITEM NO.: o
Title Zoning Adminsirator/Planner Agenda Section: Zoning
Item Description: 802-2796 Gina Kosek
1875 Shad>A\ood Road
Variance
Zoning District: LR-1C One Family Rural Residential District (.5 acre)
List of Exhibits:
A Site Plan indicating hardcover to be removed
B Staff Report and Exhibits of 6/17/2002
C Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting - June 17.2002
Pertinent Code Section:
1 . Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(1.) (2): Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75-
250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a
hardcover variance to allow 5,882 s.f (34%), where 3.745 s.f. (22.1 3%) exists and 4.230 s.f (25®'o)
is allowed.
Application Summary: The applicant has applied for a variance to construct two lakeside
decks and a walkway. There will be two decks, one at ground level and the other being second
story. Currently there are 3 patio doors on the lake side of the home with no means of exiling. The
second stor> has a 9' door and the ground level has a 9' and 6* door. 1 he lower deck w ill be slightly
longer than the second story deck due to the 2 doors at that level. The ground level deck^walkway
will be 3 ’ X 13' and 3' x 20' w ith the center rounding out to 5’ for a total approximately 110 s.f The
second story deck will be over the lower deck and slightly smaller resulting in no additional
hardcover.
Discussion:
1 he applicant purchased the property w ith the thought the residence would be remodeled, however,
after review of the foundation and structural limitations it was determined it should be tom down. In
2000. the applicant removed the old residence and built the current residence. At that time the
applicant applied for a variance to allow a deck to be located w ithin 75' of the lake, at the same
location of an existing deck. Planning Commission denied the application and the applicant
withdrew the application.
The building plans that were reviewed and permit issued met both lot coverage by structures and
hardcover requirements. The hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone was calculated at 3,745 s.f
or 22.13%. T^e setback zone will allow 4,230 s.f, which would have left 485 s.f unused.
However, since the house was completed a year ago (The Certificate of Occupancy was issued
July 2001), the driveway and retaining walls have been constructed. The driveway is larger than
what was shown on the original sur\ cy, and the retaining walls were not shown. The retaining
walls were constructed to aid the change in grade for the driveway. Also, a small retaining wall
was constructed on the lake side of the residence. When the retaining walls were constructed the
applicant did not know they were considered hardcover. Additionally, the second driveway on
the property has not been converted to grass as required.
With regards to the house, the approved building plans indicated 2 windows and a patio door
where the 3 patio doors are now located. This change in plans by the applicant apparently
occurred during construction.
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 2 vote to allow the two decks and walkway w ith
the following conditions to bring down the amount of hardcover on the property:
1. Remove south driveway and replace with grass.
2. Remove shed located in 0-75 ’.
3. Remove all stone borders.
4. Remove all unnecessar>' boulder walls.
The minority opinion did not support the two decks and walkway for the following reasons:
1. Two of the patio doors were not on the approved building plans.
2. The driveway is larger than needed to enable driving out onto Shady-wood Road, allowing
room for parking miscellaneous items.
3. The new residence is appro.ximately 1 year old and considered new construction.
4. There is no inherent hardship.
Engineer Discussion:
The applicant agrees the south driveway will be removed and replaced with grass and the shed and
all stone borders will be removed. The last condition of Planning Commission approval states all
unnecessary' boulder walls be removed. The applicant feels the other retaining walls on the property
are necessary and needed for erosion control. City Engineer, Tom Kellogg, did visit the site to view
the retaining walls and determine there necessity for erosion control. Exhibit A in this report
indicates the hardcover being removed. Also, indicated on the plan are three small areas the engineer
thought were not necessary for erosion control. These three areas arc: A- the loop around the tree
(20 s.f.), B - retaining wall by arborv itae (20 s.f.) and C - small portion of wall by walkout (10 s.f.)
for a total 50 s.f. (.29%).
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval following the majority opinion of the Planning Commission plus the
three areas indicated on Exhibit A. The applicant shall remove the shed, south driveway, rock
borders and the three areas (A, B, C). to reduce the hardcover on the property. Total hardcover in 0-
75 ’setback area will be 88 s.f. (.46%) and hardcover in 75-250 ’ settmek area will be 4,872 s.f.
(28.08%).
♦Staff would like City Council to consider a 2’ x 60 ’ sidewalk be constructed from the driveway to
the front door. A sidewalk does not exist at this time. A sidewalk of this size would increase the
hardcover in 75-250 ’ setback area by 120 s.f. to 4992 s.f. (28.88%).
Council Action Requested:
To direct staff to draft an appropriate resolution for the July 22.2002 City Council meeting.
ion SU M M
t\waul
y'
\
:/
^|>ORTAaC
SICO
%
^ o
*«•-V
\ \ S,l>"
EXISTNG
HOUSE
1%'
LAGOON •O'
•tT' •
'(LAKE MINNETONKA)
ftfW ««us.«
\
ItUfI
^ r% ! /- *.
\ 1
\'
#Cf‘V£. ‘i V
47.34
89«56'30" W
UJ
^ #
legal oescbption or premses ;
ntKiW >•"« »f ■"**• *)*?* f*^'slih,ily ennwf ol aiJ Ti..<.i H, iho>«
IIIK*. 107.J« f€€« 7^1 Kt leel. I7 :'".e J<ll«i.»!j lu
S»Hhc*M«cl7 M * «»w •"•>* >«“•<* 47 74 1441 llKiicc «*''»•' •• •
Ik* l«tt 7« «• * ?4^^ fee/wiHt 0f'l«% lu U* w«...lyrt|M 31 f“'. ,kt.K. E*I1«. "I**'tto.a N... ta);
Dnc «rP»ch SlKtl, M «<*«i «o the L'»u.>ly e«n«r ol
point oftKipnoin*. ■* Swiion l7,Tu»*"»hip IH. *»"t® 1
\
y s»4 » ^
Sq'^0',
\
\
V..10. >N 89*56'30" W 125.21
pOini IH laiJinninm *
ReCilliM Of Tirttl (Towcni Piopeny)
111.. p«..fCov<.oo..o.U^^|«;;J W
Ho* de«t M follot^ L« J; ihone* Wen 77 rodr.
F4i>i lid.* of Wid Lot. *•> f«<b N*^ of «•*« ®f l«4 to be detcnbcd;
fcci 10 Ih« point or bcK«»ninc (AMuitt Pfopcly)
T.KtC.R*!,i.t...d Lond-Wy No 624. Fda of Rcti««r «H .tic. I l..n..p.n County.
Mini*«»ou. {;rotttn%PtupKny)Minitciou. 11 Offcn» rrwpsi.7#
2S>v.‘
o : doooles iron morkcr
oeoflnqs 5ho*n oie bosed upon on ossumed dolum.
SUrof
5ui«r?» po‘“t“o'f »5*'"‘*
. MadLcAtod tn tiu pl*t of Sh* y intomoctIon witti tP®
tJi foVtVrVy lln. ot ..Id «.d « «», *»tis: s::;k rt**.! .f ..i- u.t...nc «..t
th® point of ll•Mlnnlnl|r
H. i« .ho. Ihe boundaries ol it>e obove deseribod properly.
This survey «t ends ^ ^ ^ o, o. visd-e “bordcover-
ih« location of on custinQ house ono »r*c»j ____
Ihereon. II does not purport lo sbo- ony other improv.m«tls or encrooehn, .
foE^wTo Rcvim
UflAON
02-265
OATC
0CSCfW»IOM GRONBERC 4 ASSOCIATES, INC.
•cowaiie iNMfOB. ia® suwttons. 7tt ramcw
445 MORIH *UW ««V£. LONG lAkt, HI 55356
052-473-4HI «■** 952-473-4435
■s;r.i."Ksr«~?sriSr" •*
0A1C msjmSinMSKM. /^7JX-
^ecJcL
if 03
SCAUt
0AIt~
6/12/02
dOO NO
02-265
" (LA
I %
I
%•6* •
LEGAL OESCI
‘flMt ptfl of Co
SouiKcostCfly It
T.ilci. 107 59 r
Soui^tcnsUf iy •<
lh« UA7t dc(ri
n|;ht antic 32 T
line Air«rk Sui
lltciica Nonht%o
Mttd Traci R; th
point oi'laipnn!
Subject to any r
premiiei or any
ReciitfafofTit'
‘IliaipartofCo'
line Jescribed a
Fast tid.* of tai(
Ihenct Nnnh 61
thence conilmiii
Street (now Gh
thence Sovibcai
feet to iha point
Tract G, Rei(i»ic
MinncKita (Tr
Tracti 0. C, 0 a
Henn<p«n Cooni
4U0,
That part ol
Ran9« 2) wi
follous:,.,, r
distant 49 I
West a dist
North a disi
foot to tho
and dodicati
cho woatarl
lino drawn
roda North
ths point o
Ui'yUCU RCVISOi Of
UHAWN
OCCKCO
02-265
%%«
LAGOON
T
t
r^.
• \ m%mrn • •»•
t \ t \
m
-•
, • '
"(LAKE MINNETONKA)
k
I.V «
LEGAL OeSCRPTION Or PRCMSES :
Tlwl pan of Covemmcnl Lot). tloiii'jcd a» follows: neginiiinu *i o poii l on lUf
S4)uiScaitCfty line of TiscI F., kegittcncd laind 5*ufv<y No. 021, files ol ihc lIcgiHfAf of
107 59 feci NoflhciftSfCfly ffom itic most Southerly comer ofsaiil I'favi thente
Souihcasicfly at a nghl angle lo said Souihca'ie.My lirto 7I.RI I'eci. ll :'H.c OcMcciiitg lu
th« un 71 degree' 41 minutes 50 sccoruli, a dittsnee of 47.54 kci. thence Nurtii at a
rsghi angle 32 fed; iKencc East al a righl angle V2.11 feel, more oi Iwis tu the Westerly
line ntTafIc Slreel, a» yitown on the pld of “Shady Wood** (now County Koed Ni». I*)|,
llicnce Nonh»«<yicrly. along the Wetwily Ime of said street Co the n* »il Isasierly comer of
said Traci F; thence Socihwcsicrly along the Southeaitcrly line of said TmU \i to the
polni of Urginning, in Section 17, Township 117, Range 2)
N 89°56'30" W 125.21
Subject to any roads, highways or figliw*of*way no** ‘aid out or esisimg »in nr across said
premises or any pomw«i iliercof, as referred to In • ">c No 194 132. files oi
ReciiUar of Titles (Tofrens Propeny)
lliai pan of CovemnrciU Lot 5, ii» Section 17. Township 117. Range 25 Iwundcd by a
line dcKfibed as follows: Cnmirrenclng on the lake shore of Lake rdinneionkn on the
Fan tid.* Afsaid Lot. 40 rnds North of the South line of said Lot 5. thcr>ce West 27 todr.
thence North 61 feet to Uit actual point of beginning of tract nf Ui«d to tenbed.
thence coniimiing North 52 feet; thence Cast 92.11 feel to the W.*sic:l) hne id Park
Street (now County Road No. 19) as laid out and dedicated in tlie plat nf .Sliady Wiwd;
thence Southeasterly along the Westerly line of uid road .53 7 led. i’mes W. ,t 102 66
fcci to the point nf hcgiiminc. (Ahtlrad Propcily)
Tiki E, Regrsuted Land .Survey No 624. Tiles of Registrar ufl lllcs llcin«rp*n Couniy,
Minnesota (Torrens Property)
TrKU 0, C, O and I*. Registered Land .Suf»ey Nn 1216. Fdcs of Rcgicirat ol I iilcs.
Hennepin Couniy. Mmrietoia (Torreiis Piopcily)
That part of Covernnant Lot J, Sect tors 17. TmrnaMp
Sana. 21 Woat of the 6th Principal Hnrldlan. uoacrlbed aa
followa: .Connenclnrj on the lakeahoro of Uko ”^^”*5®”***
distant 49 rods Horsh of the South llr.a of said Lot 3, thoi -e
wist a dlatanco of 2) rods to the point of Uerjlnnlmj; ^honco
ir”th a distance of 60 foot; thence Ea.t a distance r. 102 66
feit to the Woatorly line of County Road Muebor 19 ac
and dedicated In tHu plat of Shadywoodi thence Sauthorl/ olenc
JUo weateriy Hno of said road to U. intaraqctlon with the
line drawn Meat fro* the point on the Inkeahoro dlstnn. 49
r^a north of the South Uno of said Lot 3; inence Moat to
the point of beqlnnlnq.
o ; dervoles iron morkcr
Oeorinqs shown ore bused upon on ossumed dotum.
This survey intends lo show the boundorics of the obove described property.
the locotion of on esisllnQ house ond shed, ond the local*on of oH visible **hordcover
Ihcreon. It does not purporl to show ony other improvements or encroochmenls.
ORWfflCflPY koj^K .
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEEl 7-S-
Qz
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)
FXISTINC VARPCOVER IN ZONE
A. House_____________
75-250*250-500-
ao
9'*-oo
500-1000*
Lcnfth Width
B. Garage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E. Pario/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
G. Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _______ + B X 100
. pBnpn<;F.n hardcover in zone
A. House •____________ X
Length Width
B. Garage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E. Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Uoderlain
By Plastic
G. Other
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
____________ + B____X 100
37
^44-
7^
S.F.
5.F. -$rON£ V.
..F.
S.F. -SW£C>
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F. -V/tSiO ow
1397 S.F. A
I?. 120 t S.F. B
•7 3./ %
S.F.
€S S.F. TTtAJf uJ.
7 7 S.F. U/4
g/ S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S6 .S.F.
S.F.
/ro S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
A73 S.F.
/9/2/> S.F.
t.l€ %
A
B
OROHOiK huo/ivu^c
A'oseK ApprvJixJ
VER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
Qi
7^S-oo
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)
• •
FXfSTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE
0-75’L75.250V 250-500*
A.House X •1437 S.F.
LtnxOi Width
X S8 S.F.
X sz S.F.
X n S.F.-PdU< (
B.Carole X S.F.
C.Driveway AU/ieo jfioetj X 1214-S.F.
X sr S.F.
D.‘Sidewalk X B2 142.S.F.
• «X SS S.F.
E.Patio/Deck X cs 204 S.F.
X m S.F.
F.Landscape X zz SZ S.F.Underlain X S.F.3y Plastic X KZ S.F.
G.Other X
•
S F.
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE «
m 3 14-e S F. A. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A ^ n
m 1^7^201 S.F. B
X 100
^//Z/c
hardcover f:ALCULA'UUiN WUKK^HEEl
Ihosfh^fl (y^poitc!OL-ZhS
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) /^-75*75-250'250-500’500-1000'
EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE
A. House • _______
Length Width
X
X
X
B.
C. Driveway __________
3>C 31
X
X
‘ffS
0. Sidewalk X
X
E. Peiio /Peck
{. ^
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
C. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A • t/CA -r B X 100 ■=
r/o4
MJ70
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House X
Lcnfih Width
X
X
X
B. Garage
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Patio/Deck X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
O. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _ _ __ + B .X too -
S.F.
S.F.
S.F. •
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.*
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.P.
■ « 4
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
%
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F. .
S.F.
S.F.
A
B
• S.F.*' A
“ S.F. B
%
H-
r aa !■ f lrti*#i I a«r mLJMt l
rflO- t|#'
Pd>P05^
HARDCOVER CALCULAlIliiXVVUKKbMJj,lil
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* CjS-2S^ 250-500’ 500-1000’
EYISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE
A. House •
Length Width
X
X
B. Carafe *
C; Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk 3 X
X
E. P«te/Dcclc —X
X
WALU5
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plasiic
Or Fabric
9a
/<t2-
4-0
X
X
X
/•*}
C. Other
PROPOSED HARDCOVER [N ZONE
A. House X
Length Width
X
X
X
B, Garage
C. Driveway X
X
D. Sidewalk X
X
E. Paiio/Deck X
X
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
X
X
X
C. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A • + B .
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A- 0772- -r B /7B30 % 100
X 100
130^S.F.
7Z S.F.
1 S.F.'
S.F.
• « 1.
S.F.
S.F.
S/X-O S.F.^'
Z<D S.F.
• •'S.F.
/d-O S.r.
S.F.
/9Z S.F.
2}S S.F.
S.F.
•
S.F.
577Z
»
S.F.
/72AO S.F.
^5.40 f.
(/c c
It.
• • •• m
S.F.
SF.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
•S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
•
S.F.
<S.F; .
S.F.
•1 »•
S.F.
• • •"S.F.*'
S.F.
%
• »
A
B
A
B
'f 1/
i
X-
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 1
City of Orono
Building and Zoning Department
Dale Approved:7/6/2001
SITE ADDRESS
P.I.D.
0\VNER
1875 Shadywood Road
17-117-23-24-0002 APPROVED OCCUPANCY
Mark & gina kosek
ZONING DISTRICT LR-1C
FIRE DEPAR TMENT Mound
POST OFFICE
BUILDER
Wayzata 55391
TYPE: Residential VSE: Single Family
Permitted Use
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: 1
Mark & Gina Kosek
ADDRESS 1875 Shadywood Road
Commercial Structures: This certificate of occupctncy shall
be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises and shall
not be removed except by the Building Inspector.
Wayzata, ..In 55391
BUILDING PERMIT NO.
TYPE
P02959
New
Residential Buildings: Need not post this certificate of
occupancy.
DATE ISSUED 9/18/21
SEWER
SAC UNITS
P03237 SEPTIC
WATER
A/* change In the use is allowed prior to obtaining new
certificate of occupancy
1 P03237 REMARKS:
PLUMBING
MECHANICAL
FIREPLACE
P03353
P03409
P03495
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
For any police, fire or medical emergency - Call: 911 Posting of your assigned street number is required
In purchasing a new home, file for your homestead at the On ojfices Register your address for voting, drivers license and automobile registration
Oty water and sewer is billed quanely. Septic Inspection fees are billed annually. Permiu are required for any additions or alterations on wur
property or for construction of any garages, deck, dock or other accessory structure.
Special rcgidations prohibit any excavation, /tiling, grading, dredging, tree removal, or construction of any kind v,ithin 75 feet of any lakeshore or
within 26 feet of any wetlands.
This is to cert if that / hene inspected the premises at the above address
and that the budding substantially conforms to the requirements qf the
ordinances of the City applicable to neuly constructed buildings, or to
such alterations or repairs as were covered by this building permit
number and that the construction, alterations or repair has been
substantially completed in accordance with the plans upon which the
building permit required by ordinance u oi Issued
Building ^ffeta!
Zoning Administrator
Friday, July 06,200!llhiu: Ouwtr/Bulld*' Canprj: Asststor Rink Fmanet Gotdmrod: Strt*l Flk
,
J
TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
City of Orono
Building and Zoning Department
J-
DATE APPROVED:03/27/01
SITE ADDRESS 1875 Shadywood rd
OWNER Mark
P.I.D.
BUILDER
1711723240002
Kosek
MAILING ADDRESS 1855 Shadywood Road BUILDING PERMIT:
NO. P02g59 DATE ISSUED 03/27/01
THE FOLLOWING ARE NOTED AS INCOMPLETE OR MISSING. THESE MUST BE CORRECTED OR
completed and reinspected within 90 DAYS OR THIS CERTIFICATE WILL BE VOID.
Failure to correct these deflciencies will cause occupancy violation citiatlons to be issued.
1. Complete exterior siding
2. Provide final grade
3. Permanent front landing
4. Keep rear doors secured shut until decks are complete
I hereby agree to make the above corrections and to call for reinspection within the time allowed:
Owner/Contractor Date Z:S Id I
START BILLING FOR: City Sewer
City Water
Budding Official
Tkttdtty, March 27,2001 WhUt: OmtrfBuUdtr Gn*x BOtmgCkrk YtUaw: fUr
A .1
f
■4kku ■ ■ ' ' ■
>v ■• - . .>,"fe-. •
w-'
, 4* ,
> '■' % * ^
- •v #
^•': K
H •f^l-
uM^i->w
jf;v
Tw
.t9>1 Jt ^
■
i 'v -r'
♦' ^ 'J ^
<, >
1-1V.'
»
■'-y^
5l '.
L
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday* June 17* 2002
6:30 o*clock p.m.
draft
(M02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued)
Smith asked if the City would like to limit transports.
Weinberger noted that this would be too difficult to monitor.
Bellow.s‘repeated earlier suggestions to review the entire operati^after a certain amount of time. By
reviewing the application for compliance at the City’s discrcssion at a certain point in time.
Smith moved* Bellows seconded, to^ct^Application <1102-2795, WJM Properties, 2605 West
Wayzata Boulevard, a cond}tio6id use permit for outside storage and open sales lot, having
reviewed the staffr^co^meiidations on page 5 and found them acceptable, having reviewed,
modified a|ui 6^ded to the suggested conditions for approval on pages 5 and 6 as noted in the
mimit6sT^'OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#8) MARK AND GINA KOSEK, 1875 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE 11:21p.ra.-12:00 a.m.
Gina Kosek, Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg explained that the applicant had applied for a variance to construct two lakeside decks and a
walkway. The variance request Is to allow hardcover of 5,882 s.f. (34%) where 3,745 s.f. (22.13%)
exists and 4,230 s.f. (25%) is allowed. There will be mo decks, one at ground level and the other being a
second story. Currently there are three patio doors on the lake side of the home with no means of exiting.
The second story has a 9’ door and the ground level has a 9’ and 6’ door. The second story deck will be
over the lower deck and slightly smaller thus resulting in no additional hardcover.
In 2000, Bottenberg explained, the applicant removed the old residence and built the current residence.
At that time the applicant applied for a variance to allow a deck to be located within 75’ of the lake.
Bottenberg noted that the Plauning Commission denied the application and the applicant withdrew the
application.
PAGE 38 OF 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mondayt June 17,2002
6:30 o^clock p.m.
DRAFT
At the time, the hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone allowed 485 s.f. unused. However, since the
house was completed, Bottenberg stated that the driveway and retaining walls have been constructed.
The driveway is larger than what was shown on the original survey and the retaining walls did not show
up either. Additional retaining walls were constructed to aid the change in grade for the driveway and as
edging that the applicant did not realize added to hardcover totals.
(#02-2796 GINA KOSEK, Continued)
Bottenberg stated that staff recommends denial of this application for hardcover. Even if the applicant
removed the old south driveway (as required to by the original permit), all rock/retaining walls except
one row around the north driveway it would still be over by 357 s.f. at 26.5%. If denied, the question
regarding the patio doors remains, as well as, the requirement to remove the unapproved hardcover.
Ms. Kosek stated that the driveway has not been enlarged from the original plan because it has always
been there. The driveway may not have shown up on the survey, but it has been there all along, it has not
been changed. With regard to the lakeside retaining walls, Ms. Kosek maintained that they also have
been there since they purchased the home, and no one said anything about them. Prior to August 2000,
there was an old existing deck. As she redesigned the home she moved the deck design out of the 75
setback area in order to add it later utilizing the additional 400 s.f. of h.irdcover they believed to have had
remaining.
She stated that even in conversations with Weinberger, she was not aware that the retaining walls around
the driveway used up this precious square footage until she filed a permit for her deck.
Smith asked the applicant how they could help to make things right in order to obtain the variance.
Ms. Kosek maintained that what she has proposed currently would hardly constitute a deck, it is more
like two sidewalks with a spot for a chair, not even a table. She stated that originally two separate
building sites, they combined them to one in order to create a home.
There were no public comments.
PAGE 39 OF 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6:30 o’clock p.m.
DRAFT
Smith questioned how the applicant could get back closer to what was approved and why the 2nd
driveway was not removed. She inquired about the retaining walls.
Ms. Kosek stated that their intention was to remove and sod the old driveway after finishing their
landscaping. She and her husband had done much of, if not all of the work themselves, from the design
to the cdnstruction, and it takes time to do this on your own. Ms. Kosek maintained that she had been
told that no permit was required for retaining walls under 3* in height, but never was sK’ told that they
counted toward her hardcover when she made the inquiry. She added that if the retaining walls were
removed near the driveway the grade would wash away, as would the side retaining wall if it were
removed.
Smith asked about the patio doors.
Ms. Kosek stated that the plan was to slide the doors out of the 75’ setback, w hich w ould have worked
with the e.xcess 400 s.f. they had allowed if it weren ’t now used up.
Smith inquired how the hardcover could be brought down to compliance.
(#02-2796 GINA KOSEK, Cootioued)
Ms. Kosek found it difficult to accept that she could be denied the 28% hardcover variance she was
requesting with a conforming lot, when earlier in the evening a nonconforming lot was granted a variance
to allow 37% hardcover. She questioned the rationale and indicated that if hers wtere a nonconforming
lot it might be easier to obtain the variance she so seeks.
Rahn stated that he had visited the site and spoke to the applicants about getting rid of an old shed within
the 75’ setback, removing the stone borders in front, and any nonessential retaining walls, although the
majority are serving a need, and obviously the old south driveway.
Bellows stated that she did not like the issue with the patio doors and believed the applicant had brought
the hardship upon themselves. The original deck was denied.
PAGE 40 OF 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING
Monday, June 17,2002
6*30 o’clock p.m.
Ms. Kosek indicated that the patio doors were not added intentionally to cause trouble, they were moved
with the thought the square footage was available.
Bremer indicated that she did not have a problem supporting the request based on what had been
suggested by Commissioner Rahn. The nonessential rock and old driveway need to be removed. She
agreed that it was difficult to allo'v a 37% variance for a nonconforming smaller lot and not allow this
more reasonable request.
Berg concurred.
Rahn believed the driveway could not be reduced and safely allow the applicants to access Highway 19,
he was in support of the application and believed it to be a minimal request,
Frtizler indicated that he did not wish to see additional hardcover on the property and believed the
retaining walls should have been built into the original request.
Smith felt more concessions needed to be made before she could support the application.
Ms. Kosek concurred with Commissioner Rahn that the old shed ought to be removed, in fact, she had
suggested to him herself.
Rahn moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the hardcover variance for Application #02-2796, Gina
Kosek, 1875 Shadyw'ood Road, on the condition that the old shed be removed, all stone borders and
nonessential bonider walls be removed, and the original south drivew ay as required «>y the first
permit. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2. With Fritzler and Bellows dissenting for reasons expressed
earlier.
(#4) #02-2 PIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, RENEWAL VARIANCES
Smith moved. Bellows seconded, to table AppTlcatioQ^2-2776 Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline
Drive, as no representatives for the Applicant were presentTVOTEt^yex 6, Nays 0.
PAGE 41 OF 42
■O'c'.'Ac IU-" c«'''Vt-
Ui.
Z.'/IO
n -?cc7- -Cue. Si'll'-'■^■'^3 ■£te<.i^
^HCor^D ^LdOp.
9.0 Os
i /; (i
I
• * V ^ ■' .- •
Hinrfumiir^iiii
»♦. 4»
Complete Date:
Deadline:
6/13/02
8/12/02
TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM:
DATE:
Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner
June 13,2002
SUBJECT:iV02-2796 Gina Kosek
187S Shadywood Road
Variance - Public Hearing
Zoning District:LR'IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre)
Lot Area:36.040 s.r. (.82 acre)
List of Exhibits
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
Analysis Worksheet
Application
Letter from applicant
Site Plan/Survey
Building Plans
Lakeside View of Plans Approved
Hardcover Calculations • Approved for new residence
Hardcover Calculations - Existing and Proposed
Certificate of Occupancy
Photo of Property
Pertinent Code Section:
I. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.S6, Subd. 16 (L)(2); Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 7S>
250* of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a
hardcover variance to allow 5,882 s.f. (34%), where 3,745 s.f. (22.13%) exists and 4,230 s.f. (25%)
is allowed.
Application Summary: The applicant has applied for a variance to construct two lakeside
decks and a walkway. There will be two decks, one at ground level and the other being second
story. Currently there are 3 patio doors on the lake side of the home with no means of exiting. The
second story has a 9' door and the ground level has a 9' and 6* door. The lower deck will be slightly
longer than the second story deck due to the 2 doors at that level. The ground level deck/walkway
will be 3' X 13’ and 3* x 20' with the center rounding out to 5' (See Exhibit E) for a total of
approximately 110 s.f. The second story deck will be over the lower deck and slightly smaller
resulting in no additional hardcover.
m-2796 Gina Kosek
1875 Shadywood Road
6/13/2002
Page I
i
Lot summary:
The applicant purchased the property with the thought the residence would be remodeled, however,
after review of the foundation and structural limitations it was determined it should be tom down.
In 2000, the applicant removed the old residence and built the current residence. At that time the
applicant applied for a variance to allow a deck to be located within 75* of the lake. Planning
Commission denied the application and the applicant withdrew the application.
The building plans that were reviewed and permit issued met both lot coverage by structures and
hardcover requirements. The hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone was calculated at 3,745 s.f
or 22.1-3%. The setback zone will allow 4,230 s.f., which would have left 485 s.f. unused.
However, since the house was completed a year ago (The Certificate of Occupany was issued
July 2001), the driveway and retaining walls have been constructed. The driveway is larger than
what was shown on the original survey, and the retaining walls were not shown. The retaining
walls were constructed to aid the change in grade for the driveway. Also, a small retaining wall
was constructed on the lake side of the residence. When the retaining walls were constructed the
applicant did not know they were considered hardcover. Additionally, the second driveway on
the property has not been converted to grass as required.
With regards to the house, the approved building plans indicated 2 windows and a patio door
where the 3 patio doors are now located. (See Exhibit E). This change in plans by the applicant
apparently occurred during construction.
Statement of Hardship:
The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit C. The applicants should
also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
Issues for Consideration:
1. There is justification for the driveway to be wider because Shadywood Road is an arterial
street and carries much more traffic than most residential streets in the City. The applicant
should have the ability to turn around and drive out onto Shadywood Road rather than backing
out onto Shadywood Road.
2. Should the patio doors have a means to exit the home or should they remain securely
locked/blocked?
3. Should retaining walls or some of the driveway be removed to bring the amount of hardcover
in the 75-250' setback zone more into conformity?
4. The lot is conforming but unusually shaped.
5. The structural coverage on the lot is below the allowed 15%.
m-2796 Gina Kosek
1875 Shadywood Road
6/13/2002
Page 2
I iXtrm
6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of this application for the hardcover variance requested. Granting of a
hardcover variance would be inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance.
The hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone is proposed to be 5,882 s.f. (34%) including the 110
s.f. for the proposed decks. Even if the applicant removed the south driveway, all rock/retaining
walls except one row around the north driveway it would still be over by 357 s.f. at 26.5%.
If the Planning Commission recommends denial, the question regarding if the patio doors should
remain securely locked, removed, or other directions, needs to be addressed. Also, applicant
should be advised to remove all hardcover that is not approved with this request of with the
building permit issued 2 years ago.
Options for Action:
1. Recommend approval of variance.
2. Recommend denial of variance, stating reasons.
3. Table, giving applicant direction.
4. Other action.
U02-2796 etna Kos0k
1875 ^tadywood Road
6/13/2002
Pages -vV
T'-
■'V
I
L
• •
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Area:
Structural Coverage;
Hardcover Calculations:
LR-IB Lot Area
Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre)
Actual 36,040 s.f. (.82 acre)
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage
36,040 s.f.Allowed: 5,406 s.f. (15%)
Proposed: 2,496 s.f (6.9%)
Distance from
shoreline
Total area in
setback
Allowed
hardcover
Existing
hardcover
Proposed
hardcover
0-75’19,120 s.f 0 s.f
(0%)
433 s.f
(2.26%)
433 s.f
(5.76%)
75-250'16,920 s.f 4,230 s.f
(25%)
3,745 s.f
(22.13%)
5,882 s.f
(34%)
The existing hardcover calculations are those which were on the survey used to issue the building
permit.
r<.
naJlr^CHfidh;Mk miA4aieariti*iea, aTm.,
* • * 4^
I |r infill M I I . i) ■ ir 111 ii.i kk.
£>
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
Applicationi!
Date Received" x
Amount Paid 435; .^
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address pT^i^/j
(Eh.a)__rProperty Identification Number
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey ~
DrtePrope;^ Acquired—^\M0Q
I (do not) also own the iidjacent parcels of land. '
Present use of property: ^^residential ___pother (specify)
Zoning District:____________________ ______________
APPLICANT
Name _______
Address: Citv:
Phone (home)
Phone(work)_ Giq
____________ __Zip:_________
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name
Address:. City:,
Phone (home).
Phone (work)
Zip:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
iv\ (X.
w s%jj\gvK.i3t Estimated Corutruction Cost $
Descri^ request in detajh ^
V\. ^ ^ \r< n
|i*^‘ (attaclr additional sheets if neressnrvt
4 NAI a )
(attacif additional sheets if necessary)
"3
VARIANCES REQUIRED
___Lot Area ___Lot Width V^ardcover Lot Coverage
Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
HARDSmP/DESCRIPTpN OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual,property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__^jf£__^ . _________
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
#27 ess^i
REQUIRED SUBtVUTTALS
All Bf Ihc follny lng inferm.lion mu.t h. ...h-inTtf by H., .nnii,...,.,
order for vour application to he foinIdi»red fftmp|f(g7 Hwgimg qan in
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Completed Application Form
of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of
Fmance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). f oj
Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover
?iSjmduS.“ ^ for
To^graphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
f ■ (*) oopy 8'/," X 11” for reproducUoiL
Skeuhes or plam of noor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11")
?! ^ of applicant(s) if not current owner(s)
As an addend^ to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this application. ^
Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
—-nfMS “l!'Tl'^?Slirrilr Pl'«« .hat yaat
uvMicr ncrcDy acKnowicoges ana agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable
memb«ff**" City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council
members for purposes investigation and verification of this request.
Owner’s Signature Date
i / • ^
H- ■*=• •/ir.1
4;si
-
a
1875 Hardcover Variance
We are again applying for a variance so that we can build a deck off of our house at 1875
Shadywood Road. We currently ha\e no deck. Our last variance application, which we
applied for in the fall of 2000 when we were about to begin building our home, was
denied at the Planning Commission level. We withdrew our application at that time, at
the suggestion of the Planning Commission. As a side note, one of the reasons we
withdrew our application - aside from the fact that it seemed to be a losing battle • was
that a member of the commission suggested that we could receive a partial refund, which
we never received.
••
Our new' plans for a deck stay beyond the 75-foot setback, which was the issue in our
first variance application. At issue now is the 25'Jo hardcover pjIc for the 75 to 250 area.
We thought we were under the 25^o requirement, but as it turns out we are at 29%. The
additional hardcover comes in two main areas: our retaining walls (which we didn't
realize cr'unted as hardcover) and our driveway.
The proposed deck, which is less than 1 50 square feet hardcover, would be acceptable if
we did not have so much hardcover tied up in our driveway and retaining walls.
Our driveway may seem large, and it is admittedly larger than what was on our original
plan, but it has been this large throughout the entire building of our home, so we weren’t
hiding anything from the city, and we feel strongly that it needs to be this size for our
safety as well as the safety of our visitors.
When we originally applied for the driveway. Dale Zetterstrom came out to review the
site. He was concerned that w e have room for a turnaround of some sort so that we
wouldn’t have to back out onto County Road 19, which is an increasingly busy road. As
such, and also due to our experience with living in this area for 6 years, we designed our
garage to be a side-entry garage, leaving plenty of room for us to turnaround in our
driveway. Another concern with the driveway was the number of visitors we have. As
there is a no-parking rule on 19, there is no place for our gusts for park, and a regular
driveway does not have adequate space. We lived previously at 1855 Shady'wood Road,
which IS right next door. We had what I would describe as a “standard” drivew'ay. It was
difficult, especially in the winter with the snowdriRs, to back out, and some of our guests
received tickets for parking on the side of the road. We both come from rather large
families (6 and 5 children respectively, most of whom live in the Twin Cities) so large
gatherings is a fact of life. In addition to parking concerns for our guests, my husband
works in construction and often drives a truck with a large trailer attached. Without our
current driveway, we simply would have no place to park the truck when the trailer is
attached.
The retaining walls, most of which were not on our original plan, were added because we
needed them, not because we wanted them. We needed to hav e a retaining wall for our
drivew-ay, and we made it two-tiered so we could have a level of plants in it and also so
#2796 1
we could avoid going over four-feet in height on any one level, which would require
assistance from a mechanical engineer.
The south side of our home needed retaining walls as well. There \vas previously a
carport in this area. Its removal left a large bank of dirt that was washing aw ay w ith every
rain shower. Again, we built a 2-tier retaining wall to avoid going over four feet in height
on any one level and also to create an area for a potential patio, since we still had no deck
and were unsure of what was going to happen on that score. On the west side of this area
we built a small retaining wall just to keep the dirt from washing away.
In addition to the retaining walls, we have several garden areas surrounded by rows of
small field stone. Again, we weren't thinking about hardcover when we did this, we were
just trying to make our landscaping more appealing. These can be removed if absolutely
necessary for the construction of our deck. We also didn’t include the walkway from our
driveway to our front door on the original plan, simply because we didn’t know what we
were going to do.
We don ’t feel our driveway or retaining walls are egregious in size oi nature, and our
reasons for building them as they currently stand were based primarily on safety and'or
necessity.
The deck, which is too small for a dining table and chairs, is basically to allow us to exit
the west side of our home, wtich has nvo 9-foot patio doors and a 6-foot patio door. We
feel we are asking for something very reasonable - especially compared to our first
variance application and what we had originally hoped to do. Frankly, what we want to
build can hardly qualify as a deck - it’s more like an elevated walkway on the first level,
and a balcony on the second.
I would like to stress that this home is not extraordinarily large, and we don ’t have a
disproportionate amount of hardcover. We owti nearly an acre of land, plus several
adjacent lots that are wetlands; unfortunately a rather large percentage of that is non-
buildable. We reduced the hardcover in the 0 to 75-foot area significantly, and feel that
everything we have done to this property has been well within reason and has
significantly improved the overall appearance of the properly and the area in general. We
have tried to do >vhat we felt was best for this piece of property, as well as the safety of
our family and the people in the surrounding area. 1 designed this house and all of the
landscaping, my husband built the house and executed most of the landscaping plans.
This is the place we want to raise our family and spend the better part of our life. We are
not trying to make a buck, we simply want to live our lives in peace. We hope you will
allow us to do that.
Sincerely,
Gina Fii^ Kosek
#2796
A (
1.11
Application ^ 7
Date Receh'ed 4^// Xj/Mt
o Amount Paid
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATIOlWfvC
Initial Application Fee S250.00
(SSO.OO per each additional variance) ^
Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 .
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures S2S0.00
After«the>Fact Fees (Double application fee)
v7
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address Kc“15> ^\\xJjrx,McrA _________
Property Identification Number^ (P.1.D.V (Cet^ ivyir -ii ji’
Af^a/«h \»aa\ H^crrintinn to anniication if not included or
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) (Cpg^ [vyi?.i’uC.\ -rv: l~l~in~-2S
Attach legal description to application if not iiicluded on required survey/ ^ *
Date Property Acquired 9s 30 Ob (month/year)
I (do not) also own tHe adjacent parcels of land, (i^ss .Slv.st4^^;ca)
PresMt use of property: .X" residential ___pother (specify)______________________
Zoning District:^________________________________________________________
2A
applicant
Name C^\v\ry^
Phone fliome^ "1C79
Phone (work)_______________
Address:
0
OW'NER (if different than applicant)
Name _____________________
City:Zip: I c —K w:
Phone (homeX
Phone (work).
Address:City:.Zip:.
*.•^
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S
Describe request in detail: yj&AAl ^ cjgr/c
19C* Wi-W\\va
V\ (attac¥i additional sheets if necess^)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area _
v/5etback:
___Lot Width
Front Side
Hardcover
Rear
Lot Coverage
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: W.^ An£, KuM/liV « ^
tevV^\u\
V'f TfV
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
1.
2.
3.
All cf the following Information must be submitted bv the application dgadlinc date in
order for vour application to be considergd completer
Completed Application Form
___Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labels and map frorn Hermepin Coutity Department of
Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910' •
Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for
reproduction. (y\ W\^v<^i
Topographic survey (existing add proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy iVz” x 11" for reproduction.
Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8*/j" x II").
List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in
the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s).
As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other
persons you wish notified of this application.
Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
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 included.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or consultant e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the
information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant's Signature Date 1^
OWTS'ER'S SIGNATURE 'Z
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable
entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Comtnission members, and Council
members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request.
Owner's Signature Date
Applicant must havd^Il submiitals into the Citv- oflices 25 days before the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Mond^ 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 a.Tangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
uiP A/I.L—190 A- W? viA# /vj i
1
Z of
r^. ..cETltiO request FOR COUNCIL ACTION
JUL 0 d 2002
w* * • ORONO
DATE: July 3, 2002
ITEM NO.:
Department Approval:
Name Paul Weinberger
Title Zoning Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Zoning
Item Description:Extension of Interim ^Moratorium Related to the Siting of Wireless
Telecommunication Facilities and Structures • Ordinance
On November 13, 2001 the City of Orono initially adopted a moratorium on the granting of any permits
relating to the siting of wireless communication facilities in the City of Orono. The current expiration date
for the moratorium is July 11, 2002. The City is continuing to study issues related to telecommunications
towers, and to review its telecommunications regulations to ensure the City's regulations continue to be
adequate. It is recommended the interim moratorium be extended to December 10, 2002. An ordinance
adopting an extension to the existing moratorium to December 10, 2002 is attached.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the attached ordinance extending the moratorium to December 10. 2002.
r-.s"
Iliitltti mlilli ............. f RaiMlillli t I
ORDINANCE NO.* SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING AN INTERIM MORATORIUM ON
THE GRANTING OF BUILDING PERMITS, LAND SUBDIVISIONS,
REZOMNG APPLICATIONS, CONDITIONAL OR SPECIAL USE PERMITS,
VARIANCES, OR OTHER AUTHORITY RELATING TOTHE SITING OF
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND STRUCTURES
IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF ORONO
The City Council of Orono does ordain:
SECTION 1. Statement of Policy. The purpose of Orono Municipal Code Chapter 1 0 is to provide
for the-orderly development of commercial and industrial activity so as not to unreasonably conflict
with the primar>' residential and agricultural character of the City.
SECTION 2. Extension of Interim Moratorium. To facilitate the purpose stated in Section I the
City Council on November 13, 2001 imposed a 120 day interim moratorium, and extended such
moratorium on March 16, 2002 an additional 120 days, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
462.3S5, Subdivision 4, on the granting of building permits, land subdivisions, rezoning
applications, conditional or special use permits, variances, or other authority relating to the siting of
wireless telecommunication facilities and structures in all zoning districts in the City ofOiono. This
moratorium was imposed to allow the City time to study the issues relating to telecommunications
structures and to make any necessary changes in its current ordinances. Because the City has not yet
completed the study of telecommunications zoning issues, this moratorium is hereby extended to
December 10,2002.
SECTION 3. Telecommunications Facilities. For the purpose of this Section the words used herein
shall have the following meaning:
1.Telecommunication • the wireless transmission, emission or reception of energy or
communication impulses by cable, microwave, satellite or radio signals affecting
radio, telephone, telegraph or television communication or medical or industrial
energy transmissions.
2.Facility - any antenna, tower, or structure associated with the transmission, emission
or reception of telecommunication signals.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective after the date of approval.
iiii II im ■ I ■
a vote of
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 8th day of July, 2002, by
ayes and ___nays.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
Published in the Laker and Pioneer newpapers the week of July 13,2002.
vV
m -
I •
JUL 0 a 2002
Oi I» 'Jf' ORONO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: July 8,2002
ITEM NO = 10
Department Appruvsil:
Name Gregory A. Gappa
Title Director of Public Services
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Public Service Director’s Report
Item Description: liasement Orono Orciwd Road, Long Lake Creek Culvert
rhe street and util ity w ork for the Highway 12 bypass project includes the reconstructiot of Orono
Orchard Road from Watertown Road in Long Lake to the intersection with the new Fleming Trail
Road. The majority of titis road is in the City of Long Lake with only the southern 300 feet of the
road in Orono. This project includes the reconstruction of Orono Orchard Road, with the
installation of a MCES sanitary sewer interceptor, watermain, and a new culvert at the Long Lake
Creek crossing. The road will be constructed to a 32-foot width with concrete curb and gutter.
In order to complete this project, it is necessary’ for the City to obtain 2,312 square feet of permanent
easement and 1 ,730 square feet of temporary easement. These easement areas are shown on the
attached E.\hibit A. I he permanent easement is to provide City access for the future maintenance of
the culvert. The temporary easement areas are for construction of the new road and will expire upon
completion of the construction project.
Myself, and Jim Murphy have met with Mr. Rydell to discuss this project. The property owner
requested that the City investigate the possibility of obtaining fee title to the approximately 4,800
square foot area of the property that is located adjacent to Orono Orchard Road, and north of the
centerline of Long Lake Creek. This area is separated from the main 40 acres of the property and is
not usable or easily accessible from the remainder of the property. Mr. Rydell was interested in this
option because about I,.'00 feet of the northwest property line already follows the centerline of Long
Lake Creek, and this minor change to the northwest property line would result in a more logical
property boundary. This option is shown on the attached Exhibit B
In the past, the City has generally paid $1.00 per square foot for permanent easements, such as for
trails. At a cost of $ I .UU per square foot for the 2,31 2 square feet of permanent easement and S0.2S
per square foot for the temporary easement, this would result in total compensation of $2,7S0 for the
minimum necessary casements. According to Hennepin County records this property is valued at
approximately $1,400,000. The land only component of the property valuation is about $1,000,000,
which equates to a land value of $0.60 per square foot.
Page 1 of 2
The other option, which the property owner requested to be considered, was for the City to obtain fee
title to the 4,800 square feet of property north of Long Lake Creek as shown on the attached Exhibit
B. We still need to obtain 1,000 square feet of permanent easement south of the creek for the
installation and future maintenance of the culverts, and 225 square feet of temporary easement for
construction of the new road. This option provides for a more logical north boundary for Mr. RydelPs
property. Although there is limited advantage for the City to own this property, we are recommending
consideration of this option in order to provide a more logical property teundary for this property,
and to facilitate the easement acquisition process. The City’s offer for this option was $4,000. This
results In a value of $0.70 per square foot for this property and easement acquisition which is
reasonably close to Hennepin County’s valuation for this property. The property owner has stated that
he will accept the City’s offer for this option.
Our staff recommendation is for approval of the option for the City to obtain fee title to the 4,800
square feet of property located north of Long Lake Creek, and 1,000 square feet of permanent
easement and 225 square feet of temporary easement south of Long Lake Creek a t a cost of $4,000.
Our recommendation is that the costs for this property and easement acquisition be funded from the
Storm Water Utility 1 und.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve payment of $4,000 of to Edmund Rydell, 135 Orono Orchard Road North, for
easements for the l ong Lake Creek Culvert on Orono Orchard Road. Funding to be from the
Storm Water Utilitv Fund year 2002 budget with a budget adjustment approved to reflect this
expenditure.
Page 2 of 2
0)1
3i'u;i\)F 1WP.Y)
CtJIvICtLtU
ccin* Gc<TO
OlOiO g>|LC^K)LV) q?KimMCl)^N
C9M m rt€\ MMur s or IK '
: souTKAsr s • tccrioi |4
•Uf KUli lieiT
•TtKeaKr usmiit
Ctl>T|«.tiC OR CRCwtfo aoAO
rcammcnt casocnt
•UST IM or UCTIOI S4
>sovni«iir COMO 9 m •aurwur *««or H4iSfTSur s^ttcriOM u
SCALES 1*«200*
rw
f
V—icvtka ST COMO or IM witMcur sor rK .laincuT s* ucriai u
‘•oncAir COHO or im *
MUIKMT SOT IK
ioifiKars*Mctioi s«
fuwf UK or ucttos j4
DATE
3-5-02 .J3BP EASEMENT
ORONO ORCNARO ROM). LONC LAKE. MN
IMPROVOlEiiiT CONTRACT NO. XX-XXXX
n.e NO.
LOtCLOOOj.OC
ORAWMC
NO. I OF 1
r ^ r •
JUL0 6 2002
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ciTY OF ORONO
DATE: July 8.2002
ITEM NO.: /0
Department Approval:
Nine Gregory A. Gappa
Title Director of Public Services
Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Public Services's Directors Report
Item Description: No Parking Sandy Beach Neighborhood-Resolution
We have received complaints from residents in the Sandy Beach Neighborhood about overflow
parking from the North Arm and Maxwell Bay boat landings in this neighborhood. This concern has
been expressed previously, but it was a minor problem. However, this past holiday weekend there
were numerous vehicles with boat trailers parked in this area. The main problem that this is creating
is that people launch their boats, at the landings, then park the car and trailer close to Sandy Beach
and use the beach dock to load and unload passengers from the boats. This is creating a safety hazard
with the swimmers at the beach. This past weekend boaters were yelling at the swimmers at the
beach to get out of their way, so they could dock and pick up passengers. This parking in the
neighborhood is also resulting in trash and noise problems and additional traffic on the narrow
residential streets in this area.
The City staff recommendation is for approval of the resolution prohibiting vehicle with trailer
parking in the Sandy Beach Neighborhood. Similar signs were installed in the Fagemess Point and
Bohn’s Point areas several years ago.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of the resolution to install and maintain "No Parking Vehicles with Trailers - Tow Away
Zone"signs on the City streets in the Sandy Beach Neighborhood.
rfTTrt- liM ai^r -T r
of%
m
GITYofORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. _______________
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
THE INSTALLATION OF SIGNS
PROHIBITING BOAT TRAILER PARKING
IN THE SANDY BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD
WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal organization under the laws of the State
of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, requests have been received from residents in this area for signs
prohibiting boat trailer parking to address problems associated with vehicle and boat trailer parking.
This parking is the result of overflow from the Maxwell Bay and North Arm boat landing areas.
Problems include safety of children in the area, damage to lawns, trash, noise, and boat docking at the
Sandy Beach dock for the loading and unloading of passengers; and
WHEREAS, the street widths in this area are substandard for on-street parking of
numerous vehicles with trailers; and
WHEREAS, the docking of boats at the Sandy Beach dock for the loading and
unloading of passengers is creating a safety hazard; and
WHEREAS, the County Roads and other City Streets in the vicinity of the North Arm
and Maxwell Bay boat landing areas are posted for No Parking thus intensifying the parking problems in
the Sandy Beach Neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby
authorize and direct the Orono Public Works Department to install signs indicating "No Parking for
Vehicles with Trailers, Tow Away Zone" along Cherry Avenue, Maple Place, and Minnie Avenue, for
the entire lengths of these roads.
Approved by the Orono City Council at a regular Council meeting held on July 8,2002.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
•■t m TB ^ ^
•'•iwrn »*ccT'”'»
JUL 0 d 2002
CtTY OF UHui«u
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: July 3,2002
ITEM NO: / /
Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Nanc RonMoorse City Administrator's
Title City Administrator
_____________^_________________________
Report
Item Description: Payment Requests-Loi^ Lake Fire Station
There are two invoices related to the joint fire station project presented for payment . They are as
follows;
-BKV Group (Project Architect): This invoice is for work completed through June 25, 2002-.
$9,149.41
-Laker and Pioneer: This invoice is for the advertisement for bids for the fire station project*
$254.38.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve the requests for payment in the amounts of $9,149.41 to BKV Group, and
$254.38 to the Laker and Pioneer, to be funded from the Joint Fire Station Fund.
J
BKV
G Z O fj f
AfchilMfwra
W*<4orD«(igA
bigioMriny
Boormon
KroM
Vofcl
Orotop
Inc
Neflh Sacand SlrtM
MnnMpoU(,MN 55401
Vtfkcm tHU»3fS2
foamat> 50339^212
www.bkvgreup.eoinfoe
BUIIfeg Creap 102 T*uli:
€00/200*4 09{9i
Invoice lovdca NuinbarSOOOS
Invoice Date: June 25.2002
QcvefLonaLake
P.O. Box 606
Lone Lake. MNS53S6
Anenrion: Michelle Morse
Project: 1515.01 City of Long Lake
Professional Services throuah 6/25/02
Billing Creep:
Conmett:
Fire Statloa Pee:
AialMilance Service
$222^
TOTAL PEE:
$ 2.S00
$235,100
Contract AfflOunL*
Percent Complete;
FeeEaraed:
Prior Fee Billings:
$225,100.00
89.00%
$200J39.00
$191,335.00
Cunem Fee Total:$9,004.00
Billing Qroup Total:
Biillae Croup: REIMB
Contract#:
$9,004.00
ax\n OKoi io xiio ZZ96 91.1 Z96 Zt:60 ZOOZ.SZ’Nnr d
Project: 1515.01
BOliBf Grovp EBIMB Totals:
June 25.2002
Pa|e2of2
Reimbursables
Expente Charyq
Ct^PapaS 1/2 X11 60.75
Oelivety Service 31.15
Express Mail Services 28.05
Fax 3.00
Long Dist Telephone Chrgs 1.60
Postage 20.86
Reimbursables Totals
•
$145.41-
Billing Group Total:S14S.41
Project Totals:
Invoice Total ***$9,149.41
Outstanding A/R:12,087.68
Balance Due;$21,237.09
By: David Klnos
Billiog Summary Prior Xfltt
Professional Services S9.004.00 $181,833.20 $190,837.2C
Reimbursable Expenses:S145.41 S13.482.99 513.628.4C
Outside Services:S0.00 S9.S01.80 $9.S01.8(
Other Services and Fees:S0.00 S0.00 SO.OC
Enance Charges:S0.00 $0.00 so.a
Taxes:S0.00 S0.00 $0.0(
Total:S9.149A1 $204,817.99 5213.967.4C
Aged Receivables:
91-110 DavE Over 110 Div
0.149.41 S4.63I.I3 S7.466^so.oo $0.00
e00/€00*4 09S9I unn oMoi JO Jiixo 2296 9l» 296 2i:60 2002iS2'Mnr
•»
■LMlWa UK
AND
S«fVing Westonlui vm including Mound. Minncirisia,
Spring Park, Navarre, Orono. Long Lake, Maple Plain,
and adjoining communities
P.O. Box 82,2365 Commerce Blvd., Mound, MN 55364
(952) 472-1140 Fax: (952) 472-0516 Invoice No: 946
Date: 3/2/02
Sold to:City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay« MN 55323
* «> ■ * % a . ^
ATTNj RON MOORSE
Customer
Account Number 1901
Special Instructions
Laker/Ploneer Legal 2/23 & 3/2/02
Section 00031 Ad for bids
cot. INCH
RATE
NUMBER OF
INCHES
AMOUNT
DUE
13.75 18 1/2"$254.36
•
L
Affidavit of Publication
tECTKM OOnt
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BOS
AdvtitiMmeni lo< Bid Paekag* K
0«nMl Conmdortor Vw o«w Long
' laka Flfo Station Proiact Bid Padiaga
I *2, Long Laka. Minnaaola.
WORK BY OTHERS UNDER SEPA
RATE CONTRACT TO THE OWNERS
Tha Owntf win hava othar Contracts
, bayoni this Building Padcaga — for work
I such as radio communication syslams.
* lalaphona systams. computar aystams,
* aacurtty aystems. Fumtiura. audioMsual
ayatama. and lha work ol Bid Packaga it.
An contracon bidding tha work of this
packaga must coordinata thair work wkh
' thasa olhar saparata Owners Contraoors.
I
BID PACKAGE it: CIVIL SITE-
WORK miCKAGE
^ Tha Ownan have already awarded a
' CMVSita work packaga. (Bid Package
* at), which providas for. but is not necas-
^ tartty Iknitad to tha following:
I. Sita daaring and grubbing.
* 2. Sita gradng
* 3. An r^rad son corractiona.
4. Topsoi stripping A stockpiling on
* sSa.
' 5. Rock construction antranca (1).
' 6. ErcKiion control. (Silt fenca).
7. An misc. undassiriad axcavatlon.
8. Provida. ptaca arid compaction of
* granular borrow.
9. TVaa ramoval.
* 10. Watland mitigation.
Tha loHt corraction and anginaarad
' fUl portion of Bid Packaga at hat baen
complatad. Tha contract for Bid Packaga
•1 final paymant win ba mada prior to
^ award ol Bid Packaga a2. Tha awardad
* biddar ol Bid Packaga t2 ahaH aaauma
(ha responsibility o( removing aicata
overburden arvl importing spadfiad mate-
* nal necessary to correct the foundation for
^ tha building to finished floor elevation as
shown in bid docur ents
BID PACKAGE «2:
The Dties of Long Leke. Orono. and
* Madina request sealed bids lor the con
struction of the new Long Lake Fire
Sufion Facility and an asaoctatad M
work to ba located dkactly south of tha
new Highway 12 expansion on lha fast
.. side of WOiow Drive in Long Laka.
Mkviasota. Biddir>g to ba Sirigla Prime
Contract with combined Oanaral.
. Machanicai and Electrical Bids.
! ... Saalad bids will ba racaivad at lha
. Dly Administrator's offict at Long Laka
. cay Hal. located at 1964 Park Avenue In
Lo^ Laka Minnasota. 55356. untt 2.*00
* pin. Tuesdays March 19. 2002 CST. Bids
‘ racaivad altar this timawii not ba accept-
I ad. A public bid opening wB taka place in
. SwCounal Chambers, cay ol Long Laka.
M964 Park Avanut. In Long Laka.
. Minnaaota. 65356. at 2:00 p.m. on March
. 10.2002.CST.
«
* Copiat of documents shal ba avait-
'abi# on or about February 20.2002, at Via
I AichHacfs Office: Boarman Kroot Vogal
Group, Inc.. 222 N. Second Straal.
Minneapolis. MN. 55401. Documents also
are availabia for public Inspection at
Mmrtaapoiis Builders Exchange. SL Paul
Buildari Exchange. St Cloud Buidars
Exchange. F.W. Dodge Plan Room, and
Constniction Markat Data in New Hope.
Prime Contractors. (Ganaral,
Machanicai A Electrical), may obtain up to '
three sets of documents from tha
ArcMtacTs Office tor a rafundabia deposit
of S12S par sat and a nonrafundabla mail
ing Me of $15 (aaparaia checks) N a
bonafida bid is submittad and documents
are returned withing Ian (10) working days
of tha bid opening, provtdad tha docu
ments are complete, in dean and usabit
condition, and fret from marks nr other
dafacamanLTha cost ol rapiacmg messing
or damaged documents will ba daduc iad
from tha deposit. Bidders awarded a
Contract may retain lha Bidding
Documents and thair deposit will ba
refunded. Purchase of irtdMdual drawii>gs
or specifications pages are availabia at
tha cost of printi^ Ho rafunds will ba
mada on this purchase Subcontractors
and material supptiars requesting draw-
ir>gs or specificauons must purchase
items required ($2 50/sheet and
$0 35/page).
Bid Bond. Proposals shall ba accom-
paniad by a sabstictory bidders bond or
cartifiad check in tha amount of 5 percent
of the base bid proposal payabia to the
Dty of Long Laka. Tha amount oMha bid
will ba forfaited to tha Dty in the event that
the successful biddar tails to enter into a
contract The Cities ol long Laka. Orono
and Medina reserve tha rH^ to retain the
deposits ol tha three lowest bidders tor a
pa^ not to exceed forty-five (45) days
after tha data and time sat lor tha b*d
opening. No bids may ba withdrawn lor a
period of forty-five (45) days sflar tha date
and time sal for the b«d opening. Alttmata
pricas to ba held lor sixty (60) days afltr
tha lima sat lor tha opanmg ol tha bids.
Performance and Paymant Bond.
Prime Contractors shal furnish to tha
Owner a Contract Performance and Labor
and Materials Payment Bond (AIA Form
A311) lor the full amount of the work. Cost
of Bond Shan be identified on the propos
al form in the spaces provided. Cost of the
Bond shafi be paid by the Contractor.
Rejection and Bid Award. The Cities
ol Long Lake. Medma and Orono reserve
the nghi to reiec: any or al bids and to
waive Informalities and Irregularities
therein in the bidding. The Cities further
reserve the nghi to award the Contract in
their own best interest. The successful
bidder will enter into a oontract with the
Cities of Long Lake and Orona Alternates
mey be selectively accepted or rejected in
any order at me Owner's discretion.
AO Contractors are to hold all bids
vsTid Ibr sixty days. This project has a
seven-day prior approval dausa.
Michelle Morse
City Administrator
City of Long Laka
(Published in The Laker and Pioneer
FebL23a^March2.2002)
state of Minnesota. County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he
is an authorized agent and employee of the
publisher of the newspaper known as THE
LAKER. Mound. Minnesota, and has full
knowledge of the facts which are stated below:
A. ) The newspaper has complied with all the
requirements constituting qualifications as a
qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable
laws, as amended.
B. ) The printed Section 00031______
Ad For Bids
which is attached was cut from the columns of
said newspaper, and was printed and published
once each week for 2 successive weeks.
It was first published Saturday
the 23 day of February 2002,
and was thereafter printed and published
every Saturday, to and including Saturday.
the 2 day of March 2002;
Authorized Agent
Suscribed and sworn to me on this
2nd day of ^arch . 2002.
Notary Public
KRISTI H0Lf.t
NOrARmWC'MN^SSOTA
uyComrlRlanEiptw 3i. :.*s
Rate Information
(1) Lowast classified rate paid by commercial users
for comparable space: $15.50 per inch.
(2) Maximum rata allowed by law tor above matter $15.50.
(3) Rate actually charged tor above matter: $7.96 per inch.
Each additional successive week; $5.79.
JUL 0 6 2002
CITY 01- Unoi«0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: July 3,2002
ITEM NO:IX
Department Approval:
Name Ron Moorse
Title City Administrator
Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
City Administrator ’s
Report
Item Description: Appointment of Ron Hendricks to Full-time Police Officer Position
The City currently has a full-time Police OITicer position vacancy, due to the retirement of ORlcer
Brad Johnson. Ron Hendricks has served as a full-time Community Service Officer and a part-time
Police Officer for the City. Based on his performance in these positions, it is recommended that he
be appointed to a full-time Police Officer position effective July 9,2002. Officer Hendricks will be
placed into the Police Ofllcer pay schedule based on his hours worked as a part-time Police Ofiicer.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve the appointment of Ron Hendricks to a full-time Police Officer position effective
July 9, 2002, and to place him into the Police Officer pay schedule based on his hours worked
as a part-time Police OfHcer.
1
COMfc'''”
JUL 0 8 2002
CITY OF ORONO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: July 3,2002
ITEM NO: cl^
Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section:
Name Ron Moorse City Administrator's
Title City Administrator __M_____Report
Item Description: Interviews for PlannitKg Commission Alternates
Anached are two applications for Planning Commission alternates received in response to a recent
advertisement. Also attached are four applications for the Planning Commission received in early
2001. The Council interviewed these four applicants in 2001. Staff will schedule interviews for
the July 22 Council meeting with the two recent applicants, and the additional four applicants if
Council wishes. If the Council wants to interview more than two applicants, the Council may want
to start the meeting earlier than 7:00.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to schedule interviews to fill the Planning Commission alternate positions, and to start the
interviews prior to 7:00 if so desired.
! i
tjo a loxuxJ«n-25-»02 ll:4Hi trorwm ««-*-
APPUCATION fob CmZH* ADVISORY COMMISSION
caTToff ORONO
Mo^pdOflUn
SVtclMM
.2jM Wl«l
Ofom. MN 8S3S6
IldDfli IMibsk
pAloilQ -
OyitalBv. MN SS32340(S
A !=«,• □ p»k» cominhslon I? Plwnlnp Coimrilfioii
C«mnOrtI«. ApplylW ^^T-rtPore. ------------:--------------
Namt
Addrasa
PoftOffica&ZlpCoda_ (tlfiufld j
mTaltphiMW fv 7°^—
Reddent at Orono _,£2— — ywr*'
WoiK Exptrianoa:il/.niA.-----l«?T^ -
Edueadon:
piag.«le^
Civie «>d VolunMW Aetl«dfl.» lp»« “"I P'“^=
__B.
f~rsft__pr flO
£0/^*d 9^28 10^ Z19 so9d BMtfninos 6E:2I Z002-iZ-Nnr i
jHiflS>t002 n:4l« f torClTY OF OWIO 4lS124l4ili |**7f ? • •••
mmrttrn on thl» Commln^o"* CWtMf
vow _____
What is
I undortww* iW» »PI«*«^ b. dl«—- « •
7/
g;yHKt<
r=>^-o-a--
Dtci
. Radius tnd phoo* »«»*•'
EB/ZB'd 9^28 TOt' ZI9 so3d axtfHLnos 6c:zi ^Bee-^^>Nn^
Jun 24 02 03:05p JOHN ZUGSCHUERT 1952472B838
T-502 f Ml/CM
P-2
0«X» -------------
application fob cinzEM advisory commission
CITY of ORONO
Moaldpal OSlcM
Itnit IMrus:7i» fOn fariwv
Oranii H* ISIM
Hamai Minst:
fA. lot 61
tttiM lay, MH SSS21MU
Cominlsrton Apply.^ c^„,uni^T»kVorw ---------------
oThmisslon
Name ,u 2ru^scUnA^^'fc’
AHtIf «1 - ^-------- ----------------— ------ , .
PoetOfficeRZipCoda ^ --------------
Telephona «H)
R..M.M «f OMIW 5~ Tr\<rfr^^^S_ v*»<-
Work Ejtparience:
------------- -------------1---------
il/jtimcp-1 Cmua4^ ^sf. Ctui
^Mfrio/ /i>iUMJL.--------------
Education k,\<M
• '^■/4. ^ _ S'/*- -------
\rm<
n .n+jrxJ ..j^-ffrjaTXTJSSrw ^
*hu dujcJlopC^'sahiiJ,
Jun 24 02 03:05p JOHN ZUGSCHUERT
J»n-*4-20W OT:M»i FfW-C'TV Of QKM
19524726838
r*902 f Ml/DO F*ni
p.3 I
{Mhl OVf
i^viaMa.a*^^S<s
r * OM- ■
p 4!^ ^^ >^r>i iH M tfi(k({('''j
Uyygi(mrirnTr-Tn- - t ~gfc y^r r--—------------------
o^c^-r.rf>^-T^ri£r7ri
^;,.|.i..„ .Ao cW4 t»ir^
1 und«r^ipolntmant ins]
JJTSOe^
public mcoting.
(plt-Hlo
~i Dm
•NOTE;vuluiiMr eomaUsslon member ’s nems. addreee end phone number
wUt beeeme pubHe tnformeden*
•MM*.*
Jun 24 02 03:05p JOHM ZUGSCHUERT 19524726838 P.^
STEPHANIE R. ZUGSCHWERT
Mo—
(452)472-4513
SUMMARY
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
i;-.».-^.n.n.l<Me«lofP«l»ll«S«fc«3r,SI.H.I.Mi. ____
S.B., -a Dri«r * Vd-iC
^ • _Services*
. T«iW, «.a «i*wd »-lb™™-.
i.___r-- -a impk —utio. rfO.~«» An,, c^'. fcjiddjveoim. anIM
• Assisted in oevelopmeiH, pun^e m« ,•,- initiatives to legislstors and committee chairs
prevention propams and supervised criminal extradition
MiDBCSOU State Senate
Lccialativc Aoalyat, St. Paul, Minnesoto. January - May 1996
. p«Ana iciWdi" “>a «bill. h«a to Crin» p»«toi». J»a.ci«y. Dd. «««,
C—imitimt and related subcommitteo . . ....
media CCntflCtS ^ a ____^ *«nmUim;« nParetee ler luebv
. SSl^^!:2IJT-.«lto««na«l«-«.to-l--to|to.«.^
J
Jun 24 02 03:05p JOHn ZUGSCHUERT 19524726830 p.5
avid —hwy "“***”• In dvil tnd crimiiuil molioos and iriab
. Co-maoagd case load ofapproxiinalely 110 civd cases
Atloroey Goaeral /vtoh«i093
Law Ckfk, HfaHh DiviaioB, St. Paul. Minnesota, June 1993 - October 1993
• Attended various sute agency and legislative comnuttee meetings
. Researched and analyaed various litigation, empleyment. wd business legal issues
a Wrote legal memoranda and drafted litigation documents for attorneys
• Discussed and summarized legal research and conclusions with attorneys
education
William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota
7(1^ Doctor - Janiaiy Admitted to Practice m Minnesota - June 1»J
ta«m. M.o--n. J.o« M-
concisions with Judge, and drafted orders and legal memorandum
LegWatlv. Advocacy Inters Lagal AM - oncyear course. 1991-1992
• Assigned to work with a lobbyist represeoting devetopmentally di-Med; attended meetings, legislative
LoodonPfocramtolataroalkmalLaw -Summer 1991
St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota
Bachelor of Arf» - Ecoaomlea - May 19I»
SeawsIfrAbeoad. City ofLondoo College-Spring 1987
Planning Commission Applications from 2001
III hrt iiaaiiai iriT'iii imr I . ^ ^1 nanir«*ii ill
(fl *. 3*3
APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
'^y-i V Z,CITY of ORONO
Municipal Offices
U u V..- Mailing uinu:
27S0 Kelley PerVway
Orono. MN 5S355
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 5S323 0066
Commission Applying For: □ Parks Commission JiCPIanning Commission
|D Commiy^ty Task Fyce (N^e)
Pnat Office&ZiDCod tt^/^
Telephone (H)
Resident of Orono
Work Experience:
Education
wia n^ MSiJkHf Ai
1^# ^
TdcpbdSe 912) 47»-7357 • FAX
—4f_ 9n€yr. yfewaupw.-^assi>k<fi^. £:urrael-lii'senixf <. oi^yi'-
FAX 473^10
Please state your reasons lor wanting to serve on this Commission. {Please be as
spe.
Q*<^)
Ct^o yii
rur9f OrJno a^
—-----------^ —7-77-^—77 -t^ have^ m^. .^7^ ^
if/t o^o ^ f 'hii <4v/fe ^
iiJtWxT/^A'^Totii y^jwff amvn^
flfl/Ufilui*^ u/jA nrfo^f y<fe-«’^as*^ 07^ /^
flSf'<6ati^
Other Comments: {Use this space to include any further information you would like
the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the appointment you are
............ '' “ to consider.)
'/i>
yA.,/
I underst ay be^is^ssed at a public meetii^g
//m/
Signaturt
••NOTE: Volunteer commission merif^er*s name, address and phone number
will become public information.
040tStJ
■AMU
APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
¥j.CITY of ORONO
Municipal Offices
Strut Address:
2750 Kellty Parkway
Orono. MN 5S3S6
Mallini Address:
P.O. fin €6
Crystal Bay. MN SS323 0Q66
Commission Applying For: □ Parks Commission
□ Community Task Force (Name)__
/&3G' A'^
lanning Commission
Name
Address
PostOffice &2ip Code /m f
Telephone (H)^/
Resident of Orono /-3
(W) ^'7/r \
years.
WotSSm. ArA - A.
~ S/U^fC. ^OjL£^.
Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and preser^
^^uSr//f\/LLO ^^zCxcM _______________
(QZiiXi 7^ X ^
/^, // - A^y
^ • - • *r«ioffifkaM 4n.71S7^«Tdcpbone (fU) 473*7357 • FAX
Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {P/ease be es
specifiG ss possible. Use additional,sheet If ne^ssary.)
rrhi hjtytJU -7^^__
::lA
"/Jaw A
/nJ /,-viaor-Aj-/rQ/W//.r -t4) ^ 7h,,'a.UpoTSLlm!n‘-’.~^/7
Jin r i / ~7~^ - / ^ i-^. ....... r " y j'"^------------ j
•^77 /:IjJ j
/A lJ//iv^-L
yr^yfiOr^^
'W/hJrj/M ■
iapJ)^::frC/?\ o-f
y^ ' ft
Other Comments: {Use this space to Include any further Information you would like
the City Council to consider, or that you feel Is relevant to the appointment you are
seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.)
I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting
r\
tfgnatuft Dau
NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phone number
will become public Information.
040itt^
•s P/A
APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
vif
! 3 4u01J.
CITY of ORONO
Municipal Ofllccs
CUVO.0c.0«0S»«^»^.^
Orono. MN SS3S6
Mallini Address:
P.O. Sot 66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066
Commission Applying For: □ Parks Commission Bl Planning Commission
□ Community Task Force (Name)_________________________
Name f'<^
Address O 0 Jyp SAcyy^
s~s'y9/
Telephone (H) /o /^ ~ ^ ~ IW) ~ ^
Resident of Orono_______l_______years.
Work Experience:
2 5L
±n -t /Pf ftnoc/if* /t v's as y/tjcAi,AL/C4 /LA-Uro^
j- Pfi'iytxTe
Education:
r^e^,' /c/,'ft^ Sf^SjT>ecr/'o,n TecLA rt/y/eyg sy______
iXcj^ i’L //enney^yA C. rj/,'*
Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present):
^'Onr- --------------------------------------------------
TdcpIiOM (6U) 473-73n • FAX 473-0510
11^1
Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {Please be as
specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.)
7a rAar /'s mctiA ...
,'^f t/try a/'f C/1U r?Aa*nr^s /V?—
pock rA& r^s/' o/ (?f. ^
//t /'r^ ------------------------------------------------------
What is your view of the role of the Commission?
yV O^jrSt.^ tke Jt f»^ja —o/ Q/~./32---/TJikkf^
Other Comments: {Use this space to include any further information you would like
the City Council to consider, or that you feel Is relevant to the appointment you are
seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.)
yrj* Aft yf C/'r,'c5 ar^fc/.
ro r^CctcA-----gt CQrflC.—^£L—tk£-
r.rfnnnnAjc *n /rkk^Ci
I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting
/
NOTE;
Signaturt
Volunteer commlsst^ member's name, address and phone number
will become public Information.
-.30
APPLICATION FOR CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSION
r.
.IV- } i'.yji
JS8H<^
tjl I Y Ui- Of iiJi'.’O
Street Address:
2750 Kelley Perttwiy
Orono, MN SS356
CITY of ORONO
Municipal Offices
‘ i.
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066
Commission Applying For: □ Parks Commission M Planning Commission
□ Community Task Force (Name)_________________________
Name*tlu.ie, lA^. *)^Av\v\rx«•Q'ToI
Address iXXO ^rA,c>i^'tfs
Post Office &ZipCode Oro'f^o ^ lAA^_____(
Telephone (Hi ST3 0^*7*?
Resident of Orono __
(W> (>1^ ^*<1
years.
Work Experience:
l^gl rAJLAjxiAfdJLi
>• ^ lA4pl.S _
IM/d U A a /J! O^C(Ty^AA^ » l/Wp^ .
Education: * • O /) '
‘9, A 4
•JO {jCiJtL^y^dcLtU 6ll.^lrAA^
Civic and Volunteer Activities (past and present): . t > /i a %
iAj jAA»A.^z^/Ji.a ULJy[^AAAjtt^ r C/fO Kli-
1W^ ^ iW4fev4 ^iAAMjUi, ^ St.^auJ
(WJU^ Qi)ut^fcxd r \Jjug. (^MaJ/l ^ i^HO^Ip
]/^oAAffx. (Wiavi/maV jU^(nA^ CirmmiMu ^ S^. ^ /l^r- ‘iB
Tdephoae (6Uh47>7357 • FAX 4734510
Please state your reasons for wanting to serve on this Commission. {P/ease be as
specific as possible. Use additional sheet if necessary.)
% I m I .A ^ A
k A<L» /iAA^ oJ- ^.AA aa -^
!UJ^ j h? AA»~dMju
QAS^dtr^AJIfvdtA^i^ lrz> /Iaaaj 6tfW/W-fWlAA^ — k>
S<NW.g3fc(w>^ ^otdi^ Ip^ U>U^ /Vw^ (!/rvv\Avvi^Avvilf
What is your view of the role of the Commission? j a
'To l\LArilA^r' 6(^AA>u£^^ cUAfC^<rp-<^»s.lvCA'----
()xJaa ACKAA.<JI^ . l/t)iA^<AAA^/d. J p^Ajwi^ ^ .
Other Comments: (f/se fft/s space fo /nc/i/t/e e/iy further information you would like
the City Council to consider, or that you feel is relevant to the ap,'ointment you are
seeking. You may also attach other materials you would like the Council to consider.)
I understand this appointment may be discussed at a public meeting
Q/u(t 1(a- ^
f Signatura Data
••NOTE: Volunteer commission member's name, address and phono number
win become public information.
e4o«««^
\-|d-uc ^ bjnVN, CJ0v\A^^(tiA,p^AJ/\ s I
i
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
'• McirriNG
JUl 0 5 2002
Cl.. wFORo^O
DATE:July 2,2002
ITEM NO:/3
Department Approval:
Name LinVee
Administrator Reviewed:
Title City Clerk
Item Description: List of Licenses for Couitcil Approval
Agenda Section:
Licenses
SPECIAL EVENT LICENSE
Applicant
Event:
Location:
Date:
Time:
Tim Jaynes
Corporate Party with Live Music
1121 Elmwood Avenue
July 27,2002
11:30 a.m. - 9:30 p.m.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approvc/deny the above listed licenses.
l!
J
CITY OF ORONO
SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT
Date Issued:
Date of Event:
Time:
Location of Event:
Type of Event:
July 9. 2002
Saturday. July 27.2002
11:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.
1121 Elmwood Avenue
Corporate Party w ith Live Music
Name of Person(s) And/or Organization Sponsoring this Event:
Tim Javnes
Northern Lights Mortgage
1121 Elmwood Avenue
Orono, MN 55364
Phone: 952-472-8142
The following documents are required and on file at the City Administrative Offices:
1. Certincate of General Liability Insurance
2. Approval from Orono Police Department
3. Approval from Orono Building and Zoning Department
4. Site Plan
The following conditions have been placed on this event:
• No parking allowed on Elmwood Avenue. Grandview Avenue, Loma Linda or Park Avenue.
• Parking to be restricted to one side of County Road 151 only. Vehicles must be parked
entirely to the right of the fog line.
• Live music requires ‘noise standards exemption'. Music to be directed away from the water
and will be allowed from 4:00 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. The Police Department shall retain the
right to stop the band/music if they are creating unreasonable levels of noise as determined
by the Police Department.
• Mennepin County SherifTs Water Patrol should receive courtesy notification about the
number of boats that may be expected in the area.
• Written notification of the event should be given to all neighbors and households located on
Forest Lake. This letter should give the date and time of the event, as well as w ho to contact
if there arc any objections.
• Liquor not to be provided to anyone under 2 1 years of age. Access to liquor areas will be
controlled and bartenders/servers are instructed to check ID's of anyone appearing to be
under the age of 35. Guests to be informed in advance of ID requirement.
• This special events permit is subject to immediate revocation by the Orono Police
Department upon violation of any City Ordinances, identification of hazards to safet>' of the
public, or non-compliance with permit conditions. Police may issue citations for any
violations of City Ordinances or permit conditions.
Approved at City Council meeting on: July 8,2002
(City Seal)
Ronald J. Moorse, City Administrator
2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Phone: 952-249-4600 / Fax: 952-249-4616/www.ci.orono.mn.us
UL
JUL 0 8 2002
CMYOhOHONO
CITY OF ORONO
Check Detail Reglster<§)
07/03A)211 25 AM
Page 1
JULY 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
10100 Primary Cath
Paid Chki 073796 6/24/2002 PRESS A NEWS PUBLICATIONS
E 613-49830-340 General Advertising
ToUl PRESS A NEWS PUBUCATIONS
($253.33) 5/24A)2
($25333)
Void Check #73796
Paid Chk* 073831 VBt2002 ANDERSON, KRISTI
E 101-45200-319 Other Professional Services $135 00 June/Juty Park Commision 7/1/02
E 101-41300-319 Other Professional Services $160 00 June/Juty City Council 6/24/02
E 101-42400-319 Other Professional Services $420 00 June/July Planning Com 6/17/02
Total ANDERSON, KRISTI $71500
Paid ChkiH 073832 7/8/2002 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES
E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $132 00 6013-260619 Coffee
Total ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES $13^00
Paid Chk« 073833 7/8/2002 AT A T •
E 601-49400-321 Telephone $1651 3419397 Cell Phones
E 602-49450-321 Titephone $16 52 3419397 Cell Phones
E 101-41900-321 Telephone $2886 3419397 Cell Phones
Tout ATAT-$61 89
Paid Chk« 073834 7/8/2002 BANYON DATA SYSTEMS
E 602-49450-401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $250 00 9124 UB/POS Conversion
E 101-41900-401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $100 00 9124 UB/POS Conversion
E 601 -49400-401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip $250 00 9124 UB/POS Conversion
Total BANYON DATA SYSTEMS $600 00
Paid Chk« 073835 7/8/2C02 BUDGET PRINTING
E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $15 97 21190 Stamp
Tout BUDGET PRINTING $15 97
Paid Chk# 073836 7/8/2002 CITY OF EXCELSIOR
E 101-41500-437 Training A Development $25 00 7/17/02 MCFOA Meeting - Pettit
E 101 -41300-437 Training A Development $2500 Vee MCFOA Meeting - Vee
Total CITY OF EXCELSIOR $50 00
Paid Chk# 073837 7/8/2002 CITY OF MOUND
E 101-42260-318 Fire Services $27,474.75 1095 3rd Qtr 2002 Fire Service
Total CITY OF MOUND $27.47475
Paid Chk« 073838 7/8/2002 CORNICK, JAMES
E 101-42110-340 General Advertising $52 90 6/23/02 Open House Supplies
Tout CORNICK. JAMES $52 90
Paid Chk# 073839 7/8/2002 CULLIGAN
E 613-49830-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip $51.49_ 5/31/02 Softener Service
Tout CULUGAN ”$5149
Paid Chk* 073840 7/8/2002 DEPT OF ADM • INTERTECH GROUP •
E 101-41000-321 Telephone $37.00 DV02059950 PVC Circuit - May 2002
E 101-42110-321 Telephone $46 58 W0205612 Phone Service
E 101-41900-321 Telephone $108 66 W0205612 Phone Service
Total DEPT OF ADM-INTERTECH GROUP $192.26
E 101-43270-316 Contract Recycling Pickup S6.317.64 3907 RecydinQ 6/2002
^0
CITY OF ORONO 07/03/02 11 25 AM
Page 2
*Check Detail Register®
JULY 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
ToUl EZ RECYCLING $6.31764
Pa»d Chk« 073842 7/8/2002 EARL F. ANDERSON A ASSOC.
E 101-43000>224 Street Maint Matenats/Supply $1.676 97 47988
E 101-43000*224 Street Maint Matenals/Supply $1.465 43 48071
ToUl EARL F. ANDERSON A ASSOC. $3.142 40
Street Signs/Brackets
Signs • Stop. Stop Ahead
Paid Chk» 073843 7/8/2002 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
E 613-49900-091 Beer For Resale
ToUl EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
$212 00 258072
$21200
Beer for Resale
Paid Chk« 073844 7/8/2002 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $761 43 11139
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $162 84 11263
ToUl EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC $924 27
ControllerA/Vindow Bars #184
Window Bars #192
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITYPaidCtik# 073845 7/8/2002
E 101-42110-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges
ToUl FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
U625 681426
$46 25
Monitors • PD
Paid Chk# 073846 7/8/2002 FORTIS BENEFITS
G 101-21712 Other Deductions
Total FORTIS BENEFITS
$1,016 87 4019825-1
$1.016 87
LTD Insurance 7/2002
Paid Chk# 073847 7/8/2002 G A K SERVICES
E 101-41900-404
E 101-41900-404
E 101-43000-404
E 101-41900-404
E 101-41900-404
E 602-49450-226
E 101-43000-226
E 101-43000-221
E 613-49830-226
E 601-49400-226
E 101-41900-404
Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds
Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds
Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds
Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds
Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds
Clothing A personal equipment
Clothing A personal equipment
Equipment Parts A Accessories
Clothing A personal equipment
Clothing A personal equipment
Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grojnds
Tout GAKSERVICES
($49.34) 132406
($49.34) 132408
($13 82) 216205
$4934 243882
$49 34 243884
$27 02 250812
$63 04 250812
$47.18 250812
$7.72 250813
$14 08 250814
($9686) 931057
$54 36
Credit - Dup Pay
Credit • Dup Pay
Credit • Overpayment
Mat Service - CH
Mat Service - CC
Uniforms
Uniforms
Shop Towels
Uniform - Steffenhagen
Uniform - Rathbun
Credit - Billing Error
Paid Chk# 073848 7/8/2002 GENUINE PARTS CO.
E 101-43000-224
E 101-43000-221
E 101-43000-221
E 601-49400-221
E 101-42110-221
E 601-49400-222
E 101-45200-223
E 101-43000-221
E 101-43000-221
Street Maint Materials/Suppty
Equipment Parts A Accessories
Equipment Parts A Accessories
Equipment Parts A Accessories
Equipment Parts A Accessories
Vehicle Equipment A Parts
Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies
Equipment Parts A Acoessones
Equipment Parts A Acoessones
ToUl GENUINE PARTS CO.
$1383
$915
$851
$34 18
$1372
$1404
$2842
$1264
$1918
692268
692867
693035
693231
693345
694568
694568
695203
695485
Shop Supplies
Cleaner
Splash Gaurd
Flasher. Cleaners
Misc Supplies
Switch
Cable Ties
OU Filters
Shop Supplies
$153.67
Paid Chk# 073849 7/8/2002 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE
E 101-42400-437 Training A Development $133.00 9975 Land Use Wrkshp-Fritzler
ToUl GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE $133 00
Paid ChKi 073850 7/6/2002 HACH CHEMICAL CO.
E 601-49400-216 Chemicals and Chem Products $198.60 3100517 Water Testing Supplies
CITY OF ORONO
Check Detail Register®
07/03/02 11 25 AM
Page 3
JULY 2002
Check Amt invoice Comment
Total HACH CHEMICAL CO.$198 60
PaidChk# 073851 7/8/2002 HAWKINS CHEMICAL
E 601-49400-216 Chemicals and Chem Products
Tout HAWKINS CHEMICAL
$1.979 92 444307
$1,979 92
Chlorine/Flourine
Paid Chk# 073852 7/8/2002 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT
E 101-41900-329 Other Communications $71.79 22057178
ToUl HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT $71 79
Database Access 5/2002
Paid Chk# 073853 7/8/2002 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF
E 101-41600-309 Jail Charges $185 80 1-138-212
ToUl HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF $185 80
Booking Fees - 5/2002
Paid Chki 073854 7/8/2002 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN
E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $1,195 04 2002-06-13
E 101-41550-302 Assessing Services
Total HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN
$54.283 60 CA2215
$55.47864
Traffic Tickets 2002
2nd Half Assessing 8/1-12^1/0
Paid Chk« 073855 7/8/2002 HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE
E 613-49830-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $25 07 643594
ToUl HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE $25 07
Mat Service
PaidChk# 073856 7/8/2002 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT
E 101 -43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $12.20 35216 Starter Rope - Cut Off Saw
E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $66.91 35229 Mowing Supplies - GC
E 101-43000-212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants $2973 35596 Bar Oil
ToUl LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT $108.89
Paid Chk# 073857 7/8/2002 MAGIC CLEANERS
E 101-42110-319 Other Professional Services $10 97 11563 Blanket Cleaning 4/02
E 101-42110-319 Other Professional Services $1316 11563 Blanket Cleaning 4/02
Tout MAGIC CLEANERS $2413
Paid Chk# 073858 7/8/3002 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER
R 131 -39610 Miscellaneous Revenue ($24 00) June 2002 Adm Fee 6/02
G 101 -20809 SAC Charges due to MWCC $2.400 00 June 2002 SAC Charges 6/02
Tout MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER $2,376 00
Paid Chk# 073859 7/8/2002 MIDWEST ASPHALT
E 101-43000-224 Street Mamt Materials/Supply $260 77 70040MB Hand Patch
E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Materials/Supply $265 98 70075MB Hand Patch
ToUl MIDWEST ASPHALT $S26 75
Paid Chk# 073860 7/8/2002 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO
E 613-49900-092 Soft Ormks For Resale $532 75 63423088 Soda for Resale
Total MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO $53275
Paid Chk# 073861 7/8/2002 MIDWEST FUELS •
G 101-14101 Gasoline Inventory $1.896 53 91905 1527 Gals Unleaded
E 101-43000-212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants $841.87 91905 951 Gals Diesel
G 101-14101 Gasoline Inventory $2,113.4992702 1725 3 Gats UntearUd
ToUl MIDWEST FUELS $4,851.89
Paid Chk# 073862 7/8/2002 MOBILE RADIO
E 101-43000-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip $891.54 110811 Repair Base Radio
CITY OF ORONO 07/03/02 11:25 AM
Page 4
*Check Detail Registei^
JULY 2002
Check Amt Invoice CofiMnent
ToUl MOBILE RADIO ENGINEERING INC.$891 54
Paid Chk# 073863 7/8/2002 MTIDISTCO.
E 613-49830-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldga/Grounds
ToUl MTIDISTCO.
$280 00
$280 OO’
135148-00 Start Irrigation System
Paid Chk« 073864 7/8/2002 NAVARRE CITGO
E 613-49830-40..Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip $2600 6/21/02 Tire Repair
ToUl NAVARRE CITGO $26 00
PaidChke 073865 7/8/2002 NAVARRE HARDWARE
E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Materials/Supply $1331 100011 Bulk hardware
E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $7.43 100032 Enamel. Lacquer
E 101-43000 224 Street Maint. Materiats/Supply $14 15 100252 Misc Hardware
E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $42 57 100298 Flcnt Bulbs. Drill Bits
E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $6 17 100346 Masking Tape
E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $43 81 100384 Rope. Misc Supplies
E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $1521 100416 Bulk Cham
E 101-42110-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $8 50 100458 Fluo Bulbs
E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies $1960 100647 Misc Hardware
E 613-49830-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip $196 64 100647 Power Washer
E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $19 05 100741 Roundup
E 601-49400-227 Utility System Maint Supplies $8 83 100750 Connector
E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $9 36 100800 Anti Seize Compound
E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $0 83 100964 Bulk Washers
E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies $168 101155 Conduit
E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $11 75 101188 Bulk Hardware
E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $51 79 101260 Shop Supplies
E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Materials/Supply $3 20 101265 Bulk Nuts
E 613-49830-223 Bkjg/Grounds Maint Supplies $17 02 101278 Bird Seed - GC
E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $9.57 101310 Caution Tape
E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $1209 101319 Brushes. Enamel
E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint. Supplies $16601 101332 Locks - Swr
E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Materials/Supply $317 101350 Markers
E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Materials/Supply $28 76 99417 Wood Lath Strips
E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $4 24 99487 Key
E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $1766 99499 Enamel. Brushes
E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $54 35 99720 Paint/Enamil. Bulbs
E 601-49400-226 Clothing & personal equipment $23 42 99724 Knee Pads
E 101-41900-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies $1657 99752 Soap. Batteries
E 601-49400-227 Utility System Maint Supplies $19 14 99793 Marking Paint
E 1C1-42110-201 Office supplies $9 77 99854 Tissue. Cleaners
E 1C1-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $1471 99856 Ext Cord
E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $871 99870 Open House Supplies •
E 613-49830-223 Bkjg/Grounds Maint. Supplies $3529 99923 Cleaning Supplies
E 601-49400-227 Utility System Maint. Supplies $6230 99981 Wire
ToUl NAVARRE HARDWARE $976 66
PaidChk# 073868 7/8/2002 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS
G 101-21710 Life Insurance $240 00 6732702 PERALife
ToUl NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS $240 00
PaidChk# 073869 7/8/2002 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
E 101-42110-321 Telephone
Total NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
$661.96 506573311 Police Cell Phones
$66196
CITY OF ORONO 07/03A)2 11.25 AM
PagaS
*Check Detail Register®
JULY 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
Paid Chk# 073870 7/8/2002 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE CONS LTD
E 101-42110-507 Legal-Consulting $809 00 104615 Pre Employment Exam
E 101-42110-307 Legal-Consulting $847.M 104621 Pre Employment Exam
Total OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE CONS LTD $1.656 50
Paid Chk# 073871 7/8/2002 OFFICE DEPOT
E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $12386 161229714 Office Supplies
E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $151.38 161229714 Office Supplies
Total OFFICE DEPOT $27524
Paid Chk« 073872 7/8/?002 ONE STOP AUTO SERVICE
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equ^$5622 10642 Repair Elec Conn #191
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $3754 10653 Soder connection #189
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $95430 10682 Brakes. Rotors. Oil #188
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Mamt-Aulo Equip $632 10 10684 Oil. Shocks. Tie Rod #185
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $49.80 10731 Pwr Pulse #190
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $3658 10783 Oil Change #192
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $16363 10789 Flush Radiator. Belt #184
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $92.71 10791 Oil. Connection #190
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $10421 10792 Oil. Connection #187
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $18998 10826 Tire Rims
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $79168 10834 Rotors. Tune. Wires #189
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $54868 10835 Rotors. Pads #187
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $16.10 10841 Headlight #188
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $15334 10853 Trans Gear Pin #189
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $49 97 10861 Bleed Brakes #190
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $31 15 10862 Flush Radiator #190
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $573 79 10874 Rotors. Pads Oil #191
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $52.15 10877 Siren Head
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $6667 10879 Oil. Radiator #188
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $35 53 10923 Oil #193
E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $65.49 10924 Brake Swilch #188
Total ONE STOP AUTO SERVICE K701 62
Paid Chk» 073874 7/8/2002 ORONO ROTARY
E 101-42110-433 Memberships & Subscriptions $13000 154 Quarterly Dues 7-9/2002
Tout ORONO ROTARY $130 00
Paid Chk# 073875 7/8/2002 PEPSI-COLA
E 613-49900-092 Soft Drinks For Resale $93 25 25888387 Soda for Resale
Total PEPSI-COLA V9*3 25
Paid Chk# 073876 7/8/2002 PRAIRIE OFFSET
E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $605 71 117590 Purchase Order Forms
ToUl PRAIRIE OFFSET $M571
Paid Chk# 073877 7/8/2002 PRECISION TURF
E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $964.63 19194 . Fertilizer. Fungicides
ToUl PRECISION TURF $964 63
Paid Chk# 073878 7/8/2002 PROTECTION ONE
E 101-41900-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $179 00 12677951 Alarm Service 7/1/02-9/30/02
Tout PROTECTION ONE $179 00
Paid Chk« 073879 7/8/2002 PRUDENTIAL UFE INSURANCE
0101-15998 Non-Employee Health Ins $1.65 July 2002 Life Intu'ance 7/2002
CITY OF ORONO
*Check Detail Register®
07/03A)2 11:25 AM
Page 6
JULY 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
G 101-21710 Life Insurance
G 101-21710 Life Insurance
Total PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE
$89.70 July 2002
$686 50 July 2002
$777 85
Life Insurance 7/2002
Life Insurance 7/2002
Paid Chk# 073880 7/6/2002 QWEST
E 613-49830-321 Telephone
E 601-49400-321 Telephone
E 613-49830-340 General Advertising
Tout QWEST
$58 74 6124739904
$103.00 6124739904
$240 80 6124739904
$402 54
Phone Service
Phone Service
Directory Adv
Paid Chk# 073881 7/8/2002 RADISSON ARROWWOOD RESORT
E 101-41500-437 Training & Development $210.88 Kuehn
E 101-41500-437 Training & Development $210^8 Olson
Total RADISSON ARROWWOOD RESORT $421 76
Lodging - GFOA Conf
Lodging - GFOA Conf
Paid Chk# 073882 7/8/2002 REED VENDING
E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $98^5 4142 Snacks for Resale
Total REED VENDING $98 65
Paid Chk# 073683 7/8/2002 RELIANT ENERGY
E 601-49400-381 Gas & Electric $55344 060006750600 Gas Service
E 101-41900-381 Gas & Electric $81 44 060006750600 Gas Service
E 101-41900-381 Gas & Electric $5432 060006750600 Gas Service
E 602-49450-381 Gas & Electric $11.28 060006750600 Gas Service
E 101-42110-381Gas & Electric $4^5 060006750600 Gas Service
Tout RELIANT ENERGY $744 93
Paid Chk# 073884 7/8/2002 RELIANT ENERGY - GC
E 613-49830-381 Gas & Electric $21.07 539004161700 Gas Seivice • GC
Total REUANT ENERGY-GC $21.07
Paid Chk# 073885 7/8/2002 RICKS SUPERVALUE
E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $18.09 5/7/02 Popcom.Condiments
E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $1632 5/9/02 Popcorn - GC
Total RICKS SUPERVALUE $34 41
Paid Chk# 073886 7/6/2002 RYDELL. EDMUND W.F.
E 651-49910-513 Easements & Rights of Way 54.000.00 7/1/02 R/W Easmnts • LL Crk Culvert
Total RYDELL. EDMUND W.F.$4.000 00
Paid Chk# 073887 7/8/2002 SIGNS OF THE SEASON
E 602-49450-222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts J15J98 604 Sign Gas/Dieset
Tout SIGNS OF THE SEASON $1^98
Paid Chk# 073888 7/8/2002 SNYDER DRUG STORES
E 101-42110-201Office supplies $10.16 5/10/02 Kleenix
E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $26.26 5/15/02 Batteries
E 101-42110-201Office supplies $2553 5/28/02 VHS Tapes
E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $111.245/8/02 Film. Batteries
E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts A Accessories $5950 S/9/02 Poloroid Film
Total SNYDER DRUG STORES $232.69
Paid Chk# 073889 7/8/2002 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC
E 101-42400-212Motor Fuels & Lubricants $30 60 5/20/02 Unleaded Gas
Tout SPEEDWAY 8UPERAMERICAUC $30.60
Paid Chk# 073890 7/8/2002 SUTHERLANDS
-------
CITY OF ORONO 07A)3A)211 25 AM
Page/
Check Detail Register®
JULY 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
E 41048912-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges
Tout SUTHERLANDS
S800.00 6/17/02 Tree-Heritege Drive Swr
$600 00
Paid Chk« 073891 7/3/2002 THORPE DIST CO.
E 613-49900091 Beer For Resale
ToUl THORPE DIST CO.
$66^ 265851
$6625
Beer for Resale
Paid Chk# 073892 7/8/2002 UNITED RENTALS
E 10143000415 Other Equipment Rentals
Total UNITED RENTALS
$10544 361854
$105 44 ~
Barricades
Paid Chk# 073893 7/8/2002 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
E 10141900322 Postage $1.800 00 89549067
Total UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE $1.600 00
Postage for Meter
Paid Chk# 073894 7/8/2002 US FILTER
E 65149910227 Utility System Maint. Supplies
ToUl US FILTER
$388 40 8421171
$388 40
PVCPipe
Paid Chk# 073895 7/8/2002 VERIZON DIRECTORIES
E 601-49400321 Telephone
E 60249450321 Telephone
ToUl VERIZON DIRECTORIES
$14 22 10034585141
$14 23 10034585141
$2045*
Utility Cell Phone
Utility Cell Phone
Paid Chi*# 073896 7/8/2002 VERIZON WIRELESS
E 10141900321 Telephone
ToUl VERIZONVRRELESS
$461.7^ 10035922058 Cellphones
$461 70
Paid Chk# 073897 7/8/2002 VILLAGE CHEVROLET
E 10143000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories
ToUl VILLAGE CHEVROLET
$17 46 373578 Separator
$17.46
Paid Chk# 073898 7/6/2002 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC
E 10143000381 Gas & Electric $25 29 3113009200
E 60249450381 Gas & Electric 3113009200
ToUl WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC $45 62
Electrical Service
Electrical Service
Paid Chk# 073899 7/8/2002 XCEL ENERGY
E 10143000381
E 60149400-381
E 10142110381
E 10145200381
E 10143000381
E 10142110361
E 61349830381
E 10141900381
E 60249450-381
Gas & Electric
Gas & Electric
Gas & Electric
Gas & Electric
Gas & Electric
Gas & Electric
Gas & Electric
Gas & Electric
Gas & Electric
Total XCEL ENERGY
$394 30
$3.747 84
$9 42
$1531
$167.14
$608.42
$711 52
$1,431 92
$1.75623
144950072616 Hwy 12AA/ittow
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Allocation
Electrical Service
Electrical Service
Electrical Service
Electrical Service
Electrical Service
Electrical Service
Electrical Service
Electrical Service
$8,842.10
10100 Primary Caeh $138.271 63
CITY OF ORONO 07IOV02 11:26 AM
Pag«1
*Check Detail Register®
JUNE 2002 to JULY 2002
ChecliAiiil Iwvotee Comment
10100 Primafy Cesh
Paid Chk# 073731 6/12/2002 WINTERNHEIMER, AUSSA
E 101-41300-319 Other Profdttional Servicet
Total WINTERNHEIMER. AUSSA
$135 00 30 Council Minutes 5/13/02
$135 00
Paid Chk# 073827 6/26/2002 MN DEPT OF REVENUE
O 613-20606 Due to Govts-State Sales Tax
O 101-20806 Due to Govts-State Sales Tax
R 601-39610 Miscellaneous Revenue
R 101-34210 General Taxable Sales/Servlce
Tout MN DEPT OF REVENUE
$1,711.00 5/2002
$73.00 5/2002
$29.00 5/2002
$28.00 5/2002
Sales Tax - May 2002
Sales Tax - May 2002
Sales Tax-May 2002
Sales Tax-May 2002
$1,841 00
Paid Chk# 073828 6/26/2002 ROCKVAM BOAT YARDS INC.
E 101^2400-415 Other Equipinent Rentals $10544 6W02
Total ROCKVAM BOAT YARDS INC. $105.44
Boat Rental - Annual Lake Insp
Paid Chk# 073829 6/27/2002 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN
E 101-41500-301 Auditing and AccTg Services ^
Total GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN $35000
2001 Certificate
Paid Chk# 073830 6/27/2002 STANTON GROUP
G 101-21719 DCA/Spending Accounts
Total STANTON GROUP
$337.97 6/25A)2 Spending Accounts 6/25/02
$337.97
10100 Primary Cash $2,769.41
. J
CITY OF ORONO
chock roglttor
07/02A)2 10:19 AM
Pagel
Chtcli Pay Chtck Chock
Numbtf Employe Hunt
nu
Parlod Amount
1s01051388 PETERSON. BARBARA 7 $32322 7/8/02 OutstifMling
051389 MOORSE. RONALD J.7 $346.31 7/8/02 Outstanding
051390 SANSEVERE. ROBERT K.7 $269.36 7/8/02 Outstanding
051391 MURPHY. JAMES L.7 $269.36 7/8/02 Outstanding
051392 NYGARO.JAY 7 $269 36 7/8/02 Outstanding
051393 WHiTE. JAMES M.7 $26936
$1,746.97
7/8/02 Outstanding
CITY OF ORONO
*Check Detail Register®
06/26/02 6 56 AM
Page 1
JUNE 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
10100 Primary Cash
Paid Chk« 073815 6/26/02 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION
G 101-21711 CreditUnlon $10.48500
ToUl CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION $10,485 00
PaidChki 073817 6/26/02
G 101-21705 Other Retirement
Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457
$300 00
$300 00
Paid Chk# 073818 6/26/02 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE
G 101-21707 Union Dues $52b00
Total LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE $528 00
Paid Chk# 073819 6/26/02 MN CHILD SUPPORT PMT CTR
G 101-21712 Other Deductions $290 72
Total MN CHILD SUPPORT PMT CTR $290 72
Paid Chk# 073820 6/26/02 MN DEPT OF REVENUE
G 101-21702 State Withholding
Tout MN DEPT OF REVENUE
$3,991 04
$3,991 04
Paid Chk# 073821 6/26/02 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST
G 101-21705 Other Retirement S2,289_W
ToUl ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST $2,289 68
Paid Chk# 073822 6/26/02 PEBSCO/OBRA
G 101-21705 Other Retirement
Tout PEBSCO/OBRA
$20^93
$20993
Paid Chk# 073823 6/26/02 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS
G 101-21705 Other Retirement $2.322 00
Total PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS $2,322 00
Paid Chk# 073824 6/26/02 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
G 101-21704 PERA $6.595 77
G 101-21704 PERA 55.1?®:®°
Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT $11,732 57
Paid Chk# 073825 6/26/02 UNITED WAY
G 101-21708 United Way $50 00
ToUl UNITED WAY $50 00
Paid Chk# 073826 6/26/02 WISCONSIN SCTF
G 101-21712 Other Deductions
ToUl WISCONSIN SCTF
$184 62
$184 62
10100 Primary Cash $51.045 61
SAVINGS W/H & TRANSFERRED
Paid Chk# 073816 6/26/02 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES
G 101-21701Federal Withholding $9.867 23 FEDERAL W/H
G 101-21703FICA Tax Withholding $4.39741 FICA & MEDICARE W/H
G 101-21703FICA Tax Withholding $4.39741 FICA & MEDCR CITY SHARE
ToUl FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES $18,66205
DEFERRED COMP
UNION DUES
MOROWCZYNSKI #0014456477
STATE TAX W/H
MN STATE RETIREMENT
OBRA DEFERRED COMP
USCM - ENTITY 2339
PERA CITY SHARE
PERA EMPLOYEE W/H
CHARITY DONATIONS
JOHNSON # 0002756898
j
CITY OF ORONO 06/26/02 6 58 AM
Page 1
check register
Chtcic
Numbtr Employe Nam«
051367
051325
051326
051327
051326
051329
051330
051331
051332
051333
051334
051335
051336
051337
051336
051339
051340
051341
051342
051343
051344
051345
051346
051347
051346
051349
051350
051351
051352
051353
051354
051355
051356
051357
051358
051359
051360
051361
051362
051363
051364
051365
051366
051367
051368
051369
051370
051371
051372
051373
051374
051375
LARSON. NELL E
DODGE. RACHEL M.
JOHNSON. MARY ANN
LESKINEN. DENISE M
MOORSE. RONALD J
VEE. LINDAS
KUEHN. THOMAS M
OLSON. RONALD J
PETTIT. SANDRA K
ANDERSON. BRUCE L.
BOBZIEN. SUE A
BORIS. SCOTT W
BUDIO. STACIE M.
CARLSON. MICHAEL B
CORNICK. JAMES L
DEMBOUSKI. JAYC.
ERICKSON. KURT R
FARNIOK. CORREY L
FISCHENICH. DAN T
FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K
GOOD. STEPHANY R
HENDRICKS. RONALD J.
JOHNSON. JEFFREY
MADSON. ADRIENNE M.
MCNALLY. STEVEN A.
MCNICHOLS. DAVID L.
MOROWCZYNSKl. JAMES
PERSELL. WILLIAM R
SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B.
TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F.
TOMCZYK MARK W
WITTKE. ANTHONY A.
ARNESON. JOSHUA A
LEE. JOSEPH P.
BOLTERMAN, MATTHEW A.
BOTTENBERG. WENDY C.
DAVIS. MARC L
GAFFRON. MICHAEL P.
GAPPA. GREGORY A.
MEYER. WILLIAM C.
OMAN. LYLE E
WEINBERGER. PAUL E
BRINKHAUS. JOHN F.
DEBAERE. DONALD L
GREGORY. JAMES D
HANSEN STEVEN
OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G.
OBRIEN. RANDY L
PALMER. GREGORY A.
RATHBUN. BARRY J.
SKREEN. DALES.
ABRAHAMSON. FRED W.
Pay
Ptflod
131
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
Chtck
Amoiifit
rrsx.
$291.97
$947.99
$771.01
$79174
$7 60
$1.194 99
$990 31
$10207
$43936
$1.11626
$727 79
$417.69
$77925
$26206
$1,971.61
$1.646 34
$1,460.77
$2.256 46
$1,519 16
$25774
$2.036 04
$1,099.46
$1.11661
$55226
$57633
$60221
$1.342 33
$11272
$1.440 51
$404 09
$1,401 11
$1.363 62
$673 94
$27426
$1,016 13
$1.122 64
$1.066 22
$1,351.13
$1.760 33
$71358
$153 98
$1.443 56
$1,319.70
$1,159.75
$606.77
$1,071 63
$67011
$95231
$61506
$1,264.63
$1,060.56
$166 62
Chtck
Data Chack StMua
6/2StQ2 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26^02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26A)2 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 OutstandkHi
J
1
CITY OF ORONO
check register
0«26n26.MAM
Page 2
Chacii
Number Employee Name
Pay
Period
Check
Amount
Check
Data Check Statue
051376 GOLDSMITH.PAULI.
051377 HAMBRO.MARSHAUJ.
051378 JENSEN. ROONEY W.
051379 MARSELLA. DAN O.
051380 MUNTYRE. WILLIAM E.
051381 OAS, DANIEL O.
051382 PElCKERT.GARYJ
051383 ROSS. JOHN A.
051384 SMYTH. KATHERINE R.
051385 STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD
051388 STORK. JOHN T.
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
$6828
$139 99
$33956
$238.69
$268 84
$111 31
$32302
$84.72
$10591
$1.349 62
$265 20
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
6/26/02 Outstanding
$52.22865
information
••'ACTING
0 d 2002
ITEMS
COUNCIL MEETING
JUL 0 8 2002
OF clIVUfOHONO
/
June 26, 2002 *^ fI
Ron Moorse
City Administrator
City of Orono
2750 Kelly Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
M 0 8 2002
CuYUh OHO/VU
Subject: Parking on lake access road between to 1098 Loma Linda Ave and 1100 Loma
Linda Ave. This access road Is approximately 100 feet In length and 40 feet wide.
Dear Ron,
I wish to summarize our m-'^ting of June 26, 2002 for those who were not able to
attend. In attendance were Bill and Nancy Bockman 1100 Loma Linda, Anne Stevens
and Robert Gountanis from 1098 Loma Linda, with Barbara Peterson, Mayor (on a
conference call) and Ron Moorse representing the City of Orono.
This meeting was precipitated by an Incident during the last week in May. Two pickups
were parked on the access road In such a manner as to prohibit any one else from
using the launch area to put a boat in or take a boat out of the water. I asked Anne to
call the Police to have the vehicle owners informed not to park on the access road.
After much discussion, the result was that the Police could not do anything about the
situation because there was no sign posted to the effect that it was illegal to park there.
Next came the letter from Gregory Gappa. The essence of which Is that it is OK to park
in the access area (closing sentence in second paragraph of Mr. Gappa's letter to Ms.
Stevens, dated May 30,2002).
History
When we first purchased the property at 1098 Loma Linda in 1995 there was a No
Parking sign near the telephone pole at the southwest corner of the property. This was
validated by Bill Bockman who has lived in the neighborhood for the last 50 years. The
No Parking sign disappeared in late 1997 or early 1998.
Approximately two to three years ago there were a series of incidents involving
teenagers or young adults congregating at the public dock until 2 or 3 A.M. doing drugs
and being generally unruly. The Police were called several times and upon the arrival
of the Police the group would scatter. These series of incidents were brought to the
attention of the City Administrator and the Police. The result according to Officer Dave
McNIchols, who acted as liaison between ourselves and the City, was to make the
access road a City Park. Shortly afterward the City posted a sign which reads "Park
closes at 10 P.M.". In addition, three more signs were posted all of which read Parle or
City Park. These latter three signs did not last very long, a month or two at the most.
M
T
The purpose for designating the access road as a City Park was to take advantage of
the statutes already on the books, (§ 9.31 Items C. and D, page 217). This iliows for:
• the launching of boats, canoes and personal watercraft,
• snowmobile and fish house access to lake, and
• access to the public dock.
In addition to the above mentioned items. Item A prohibits Park entry between the
hours of 10 P.M. and 6 A.M., no more midnight parties. One additional point is animal
control as stated by Items E ^ru H.
The intent is not to limit people launching their boats or fishing off of the dock but to
make sure that a path to the lake is dear of vehicles so that people can launch their
boats. There is plenty of parking for vehicles and their trailers on the public street,
Loma Linda. Also, it is intended to deter the late night congregating at the dty dock for
doing drugs and planning illegal escapades (as so happened in the past).
The recommendation by the residents of Loma Linda are:
• Post a *No Parking* sign at the entry to the access,
• Prohibit access to the public area during the hours of 10 P.M. to 6 A.M.,
(The currently posted sign is acceptable.)
• Post a '*No Pets* sign unless animal is under control of owner (on a leash),
and owner has in his possession at all times equipment for the removal of
any feces deposited by his/her Pet.
Thank you for the meeting today, we greatly appreciated your time. One other item,
would you please distribute a copy of this letter to each person listed below. Thank
you.
Robert 3. Gountanis and
Anne Stevens
1098 Loma Linda Ave
Orono, MN 55364
Copy:
^ Barbara Peterson, Mayor
Mike Gaffron, Planning Director
Stephany Good, Police Chief
Gregory A. Gappa, Director of Public Services
Jack Brinkhaus, Public Works Superintendent