Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-2002 Council Packet6 V / AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 12,2002,6:30 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 of July 22,2002 OATH OF OFFICE 3. JoshAmeson, Part-Time Police Officer ''■^tTriNQ PUBLIC HEARING • 7:00 P.M. 4. North Arm Paving Project A. Order Preparation of Plans and Specifications for North Arm Lane Paving Project - Resolution PRESENTATION 5. Westonka Schools - Lcv7 Referendum PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sherokee Use, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jeanne Mabusth, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 6. #02-2789 Dahlstrom Development LLC - “2550" Wayzata Boulevard West - PUD Rezoning and Concept Plan Approval 7. #02-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fo.\ Ridge Road - After-the-Fact Variance and Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 8. #02-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West - Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permits - Resolution * 9. #02-2805 Carson Erickson, 3415 Eastlake Street - Variances • Resolution 10. #02-2808 James and Jean Echtenkamp, 2800 Pheasant Road - Variances • Resolution 11. #02-2810 Brad and Carol Pass, 250 North Shore Drive West - Final Plat of Idvllvale Farm- Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 12,2002,6:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 12. Bid Approval of Telephone System - Long Lake Fire Station 13. Appointment of Alternate Planning Commission Members 14. Appointment of Planning Commission Vice Chair 15. Appointment of 2002 Primary Election Judges - Resolution 16. Appointment of Full-Time Community Ser\ ice OlTiccr 17. Appointment of Part-Time Police Officer 18. Request to Advertise, Select - Part-Time Police Officer Position 19. Amendment to Appointments - Resolution CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT • 20. LICENSES • 21. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2002 08/12 - Council Meeting. 7:00 p.m. 08/15 - Council Work Session, Thursday, 5:30 p.m. 08/19 - Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m. 08/26 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 08/27 - Candidate Filing Opens for November 5 General Election 08/29 - Council Work Session, Thursday. 5:30 p.m. 09/02 09/03 09/03 09/07 09/09 09/09 09/10 09/10 09/16 09/23 HOLIDAY, Labor Dav Resume Regular Office Hours. 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Park Meeting, Tuesday, 7:15 p.m. City Offices Open for Absentee Voting. 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. City Offices Open for Absentee Voting until 5:00 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. PRIMARY ELECTION. Tuesday, 7:00 A.M. - 8:00 P.M. Candidate Filing Closes for November 5 General Election, 5:00 p.m Plaiming Commission, 6:30 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. ; Public A ttendance Meetlng D ate Y- / ^ ■ J.<-< C ouncil □ Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other Please fill out hie information requested BELOW FOR our CITV RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1.n iWCtCVi,.^^ Q.nuc K*'CUj 4w<: ^;'r-n'w 2.?)„ 1. l^fiOrC^Q :T;vr//i ih/lli 3.i/d/ itt f/^^f / » ' / ?VC sv •/ S ') ITL/V^/Z 4.Ml nff^•^NwMrVtJ L' ^ 'f ‘ 5.0 C'1 7£.c V’/\/-» .'V') 1''/^ c e ( \c Ac( l^^ Q"U Jo ^7 6. ------UUJ ------ -f- ------ }/ ^1/^ > ?l f < 1 [i 1 ^ \ "h'r\ k. Ci^ Li r 1 ^/,7 S IC/ 7.L*/77 £*6 «e- L7 73 8.-^\yVl5^i\lA K!c IL5ca J Ncrnlf *A<hV\ L /Vi'^’AMt-y i 9.^inijVIW ^ \, ^:>n ^i'/- •-1 ?3 10.^>S d a< i,L s ALk 77/ < S~C>5? 11. 13. ^V>^;]?hLU 14. ' ^ - 'to vKt_AiA' y^T -. I^l ‘1^ 4» ‘M/nr 15. pAKifr- X:VD«UVA4MMitt«tlvt t«ffMtV(Fiv(r«f^ • OM)\fokMSJtr A ^ \ .*BUC.A1T rovox Lj-.«^Lr»*—- -i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. J? ROLL AUG 1 2 2002 C»TY Oh OftONO The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson; Council Members Bob Sansevere and Jim Murphy; City Attorney Thomas Barrett; Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Absent were Council Members Jay Nygard and Jim White Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. *1. Planning Commission Interviews Mayor Peterson welcomed the four of five applicants present for the interviews and invited the first applicant to be seated while the others remained in the lobby. Nancy Moe, Applicant - Sansevere asked what interested her in the Planning Commission alternate position. Moe, a resident of Orono since 1964, stated that she was very' interested in how the land is used and would like to be a part of the process. Sansevere asked if she had experience in planning for other communities. Moe stated she did not. Sansevere asked if she had seen the Comprehensive Plan. Moe indicated she had not. Sansevere asked if she were to become an alternate would she be available or interested in becoming a regular member. Moe stated that she would be available. Murphy asked what she found attractive about Orono. Moe stated that she believes Orono is a gorgeous community, one they seldom leave even for vacation. It is accessible to the metropolitan area, has something for everyone, and the parks are beautiful. PACE I of 35 j MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCTL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. 1. Planning Commbsion Interviews - Continued Mutphy asked if she had any concerns for the future. Moe indicated that her concern is to protect the assets of the community and still be consistent with the planning for the metropolitan area. Murphy Liked if she had questions. Moe inquired whether alternates receive packets as well, or if they generally attend meetings to keep abreast of the issues. Gaf^n noted that alternates do receive packets. While they are not required to be present at meetings, Gaffron indicated that it is helpful for alternates to attend and become familiar with the issues the Commission is facing. Sansevere asked if Moe had any preconceived notions of the roll. Moe stated that she would work to be consistent as possible. Sansevere questioned the acronyms of the organizations to which she belonged. Moe stated that AAUW stood for American Association of University Women, the PTSA was the PTA for Southwest High School, and WAMSO was the Women’s Association of the Minnesota Orchestra. Sansevere pointed out that, on occasion, openings occur on the Park Commission and he asked if she were not chosen for the Planning Commission at this time, would she have interest in serving on the Park Commission at some point. Moe stated that she had familiarity with the Cit>- Council and Planning Commission, but would find that acceptable. Stephanie Zugschwert, Applicant - Murphy thanked her for coming and asked what she found attractive about the Oro no area. Zugschwert stated that she felt Orono had many attributes, the country rural aspect, the privacy, and the water or lakes within its boundaries. Murphy asked what she foresaw as future problems for Orono. PAGE 2 of 35 .k. ------ MINITTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. /. Planning Commission Interviews - Continued Zugschwert felt the biggest problems facing Orono were development and encroachment, ns well as, water quality and ecology. Murphy asked how important it is to know the area. Zugschwert indicated that although she had not lived here long, she was familiar with the area since most of her family lives in Orono. She grew up in Minneapolis and was familiar with Orono growing up. Sansevere asked if she had experience with planning. Zugschwert stated that, while she was not familiar with planning, she has been involved with government at the state legislature level. Sansevere asked what wns attractive about this position. Zugschwert stated that after stopping work several years ago, and since moving, she wanted to get involved once again and embed herself in the community. Sansevere asked if she had seen the Comp Plan for Orono or had any preconceived notions about the position. Zugschwert felt it would be important to weigh each proposal on its own merits based on the zoning ordinances. Sansevere asked if she had any conflicts attending meetings or if Park Commission openings occurred would she be interested if this does not work out. Zugschwert stated she would have no conflicts and would look at the Park Commission. Jule Haunaford, Applicant - Sansevere asked if the applicant had any problem with becoming a regular member if need be later. Hannaford stated that he has interest in the long term. Sansevere inquired as to what sparked his interest to serve on the Planning Commission. PAGEJoHS ! i minutes of the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. /. Planning Commission Interviews - Continued Hannaford ideated that he would like to give back to the community. We live here and want to see the quality of our community improve. Sansevere asked what he liked most, or least, about the course that Orono was taking. Hannaford stated that he is veiy open minded and that his interest lies most in preserving a community with great residential and outdoor qualities. Murphy asked what quality of life means to him. Haiuaford indicated that he would not have time to answer the question adequately, however, in his view, quality of life relates to living near the lake and using that resource, living near downtown, and wanting to preserve these things as the community grows and traffic impacts the area. Murphy agreed traffic to be an issue and asked what he would do about Highway 15. Hannaford acknowledged that there is too much traffic there, without a definite answer, he might try to divert it. . With regard to density and zoning, Murphy asked how he would like to see Orono develop over ’ • the next 10-15 years. Hannaford stated he would like to see it develop slowly. Sansevere asked if a position on the Park Commission opened and this one did not work out would he have interest in that. * Hannaford stated that he would be willing to sit on the Park Commission. Rick Windenburg, Applicant - Having expressed interest on serving once before, Sansevere asked why the applicant had done SO once again. Windenburg stated that he would like to become more involved in the community and monitor the community expansion as well. Sansevere asked what he liked and disliked about Orono. PAGE 4 of 33 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. /. Planning Commission interviews - Continued Windenburg stated that he cannot pinpoint anything he doesn't like about Orono and has the most issue with the LMCD. Some issues deal with dock rentals by individual homeowners. Sansevere inquired whether he would be interested in serving on the Park Commission if things don't work out here or taking on a regular position on the Plaiming Commission. Windenburg stated as an alternate he would be willing to move into a permanent role on the Commission and attend some regular meetings in order to be up to date on the information being discussed. Murphy asked if, as someone in the building business, he was pleased with the rate of development in Orono. Windenburg stated that he owns a maintenance business, and is no longer in the building or inspection business. He felt the rate of development seemed to be going at a good pace and control needed to be maintained. Murphy asked what he felt the strengths of Orono to be. Windenburg stated that the building department is very helpful and knowledgeable. Murphy asked what his concerns for the future might be. Windenburg emphasized the need to stay with growth the City can handle, not too fast. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend Items 16A and B, 18,19,21, and 22 were added to the Consent Agenda. Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Council Meeting of July 8,2002 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 8,2002. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PAGES of 35 I • Si Cm t’K • .... MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.in. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Debora Halvorson, Representative Nothing new to report. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sandra Smith, Representative Nothing new to report; however, would like to see the City Council appoint a new Vice Chair when ready. PUBLIC COMMENTS Michael Kuruvilla, 290 Ridgeview Drive, Wa>-zata, Director and owner of Orono Montessori School, he stated that as owner of Orono Montessori School, which lost its home when Sl Andrews Church burned do\^ii this spring and had been temporarily located in Wayzata Community Church, they are hoping to relocate to Highway 12 and County Road 6 August 1, 2002. Their current temporary location runs out on July 31,2002. The building they propose to occupy was previously run as a Little Acorns preschool, however, since vacant for more than si.x months, he found out new paperwork needed to be filed when he stopped by City Hall. Mr. Kuruvilla stated that this past year has been very difficult for him and his students. They have a school, and children to think of. He urged the City Council to waive the lengthy paperwork in order for them to move in on August 1. Gaffion confirmed Mr. Kuruvilla’s statement, indicating that the building had been vacant for eight months. Built as a preschool run by Open Arms and then Little Acorns, the Montessori school proposed to occupy this space until the Church could rebuild. Since the previous CUP lapsed at six months, the new school will be required to file for a new CUP, however, the City Council would not be able to grant formal approval for that CUP until its August 28th meeting, well after the Montessori school has lost its current lease. Gaffron indicated that the City Council could allow the Montessori school to move in while they go through the CUP process. Gaftron added that Lyle Oman had visited the building and saw no obvious problems with the CUP. He continued that this short-term use would be good for the community, the children, and, since the Church will be rebuilding over the next 1-2 years, this space offers a good location for the school. In fact, Gaffron noted the Often building will be taken as part of the Highway 12 expansion in 1-2 years anyway. Murphy questioned whether Gaffron foresaw any imminent reason to reject the CUP request. Gaffron stated that this proposal provides a good potential short-term use for this facility, which unfortiuiately w'as caught up in the paperwork. Attorney Barrett reminded the Council that the ordinance states that the applicant must still go through the CUP process. Sansevere asked if they could allow the school to occupy the space while they were in process. PAGE 6 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Continued Barrett stated that while it could be allowed, the Council needs to make it clear that the permit could still be denied if something showed up unexpectedly. Sansevere indicated that, while emotionally he wanted to do what he could for the kids and the school, he needed to learn what the legal suggestion would be. Barrett stated, once again, that the City Council had employed the right to waive the paperwork temporarily to allow the applicants to move in, but required the permit to be completed in a timely f'^hion. Murphy asked if staff could foresee any code problems. Gaffron indicated that the proposed Montessori School meets all the zoning requirements, the building allows 60 students, while the school has S6, they are not offering a school lunch program, there will be no changes to the facility, and the school found all conditions acceptable. Mr. Kuruvilla stated that all of the inspections are underway in order to meet the move in date of August 1,2002, and so far the Fire Marshall and building inspections have been okay. Mayor Peterson stated that she had no problem allowing them to move into the building in 10 days while they go through the CUP process. Murphy pointed out that the City finds itself in a unique situation and has been given the rare opportunity to do something for the kids. Murphy moved, to grant a temporary Conditional Use for the purpose of opening the Orono Montessori School pending approval of the formal process, with the understanding that if the City Council determines not to grant the permit this temporary' use may be revoked. Mr. Kuruvilla asked under what condition the school might be asked to move. He reiterated that this past year had been very difficult, losing their home to arson and then being asked to move from a temporary location. He stated that they had been through quite a bit and would like to feel comfortable that they have found a semi-permanent location. Murphy indicated that it is the City Attorney’s job to look out for the City ’s interests, however, he believed the Council w*as committed to doing everything they could to lessen the burden for the school. Mayor Peterson seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PAGE 7 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *(#4) #02-2769 MARK AND PAM PALM, 1447 PARK DRIVE, VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 4831 Sanscvcre moved, Murphy seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4831, a Resolution granting hardcover variances in the 75-250* zone and 250-500* lakeshore zones, and variance to permit a 5* setback where 10* is required for the construction of a new 22*X34* detached garage to replace an existing garage on the property located at 1447 Park Drive. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#5) #02-2776 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE - RENEWAL VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4832 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4832, approving variances and a conditional use permit for Hennepin County to construct a 7,200 s.f. salt and storage building and a stormwater management pond on the property located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#6) #02-2786 JOHN R. JONES, 3490 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4833 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4833, a Resolution granting variances for lot area, lot width, and hardcover in the 75-250* setback to exceed 25%, the Resolution also approves a 20* wide driveway and 60 s.f. sidewalk to the west-side entrance, to permit new construction on the property’ located at 3490 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#7) #02-2791 DAVE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4834 Weinberger reported that the applicants have applied for variances to permit construction of a 24 X 24’ attached garage. The addition would include enclosed walkways intended to attach the proposed garage to the house. Variances are required to permit new structure and hardcover within 75 ’ of the lakeshore and additional hardcover within the 75-250’ lakeshore setback. Previous variance applications for Rahn included; a 1997 variance to allow additional hardcover for an addition within the 75 ’ setback, since a finding made at that time found that a large portion of the center of the property was within the floodplain, and a 1998 variance for a detached garage. Weinberger explained that in October 1998, Jim Hafher, a Technician for the MCWD found that the property was not directly connected to the 100-year floodplain. PAGE 8 of 35 I 8 i- MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (H7) m-2791 DA VE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued Weinberger reported that the Planning Commission approved the application 6/0, subject to removal of the old driveway, stairway, and concrete walk. In the Planning Commission ’s opinion the property was fully developed. Staff observed that the new proposal w as a net increase in overall hardcover of 866 s.f. over that which exists, and 1106 s.f. over that which was allowed by previous approvals. Weinberger pointed out that the application is, essentially, an increase from 30% hardcover, where 25% is normally allowed, to 41.9% after even the removals recommended by the Planning Commission. While the Planning Commission and staff agree that an attached garage is a reasonable proposal, staff was imclear why the Planning Commission did not require that the existing detached garage be removed in order to keep hardcover on the site at a minimum level. Staff recommended approval of the variances for the new addition per Planning Commission ’s recommendation, but given the history of the pr >pert>', questioned whether there was valid hardship for allow ing the existing 400 s.f. garage and 80 s.f. of apron to remain. Sansevere observed that staff had used strong language in its recommendation, and questioned Sandra Smith, Planning Commission Representative, what transpired at the last meeting with regard to this application. Smith stated that the 6/0 vote came after lengthy discussion, and reworking of the hardcover percent, after removals, to 25.3% within the 75-250 ’ setback. The Commission found this acceptable, especially in light of the floodplain findings of 1998. The Commission ’s view was that because the City had told the applicant of the floodplain, they rushed into development, and did not propose what they might have had the floodplain not been there. Rahn added that the walkway between the house and existing garage are actually mulch. He pointed out that he is below the 15% allowed structural coverage and not looking for a structural coverage variance. The home, with 168 s.f of small decks, has no concrete patios, and no need for structural coverage variances. Rahn maintained that the only applicable variance is the one proposed for additional hardcover. He stated that in 1997 they were limited in design by what they thought was a floodplain, and that is w hy the home is on one side of the lot and the garage on the other. Sansevere asked staff if the original garage had been attached and the applicant was asking for a 24X24 ’ addition to that garage, how would staff have handled that and would it still have been a hardcover issue. Weinberger stated that there would still be a hardcover issue. In fact, to clarify the hardcover, the 25.3% hardcover was for the entire lot, and you are allowed 25% in the 75-250 ’ setback, so PACE 9 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.u. (UT) U02-279I DAVE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD ~ VARIANCES ~ Continued actually, the area as proposed is about 41%. To answer the question, would staff have supported this, there are other approvals in the neighborhood that have more hardcover than this lot, with somewhat recent approvals within the past five years. However, in most of those cases the propel^ owners did not actually increase the amount of hardcover on their property, but instead were likely allowed to trade existing hardcover, that existed prior to the ordinances, in order to trade-off for new hardcover. This said, Weinberger stated that st-iT would not necessarily have recommended approval just because they did not have 15% structural coverage. Weinberger maintained that hardcover and massing are important elements to think about, because if every lot were allowed to develop to 15%. there would be no need for the hardcover ordinance. Murphy asked why, in past variances, were they told in such strong language they could not have any additional hardcover ever. Murphy asked how the applicant planned to use the existing garage that would become a shed. Rato indicated that it was his intention to remove the existing driveway. The garage would maintain its overhead door and likely become storage for a car or boat. Green space or mulch would occupy the space where the driveway had been and they would bring the boat or car out a couple of tunes a year. He stated that the driveway was class 5 and would likely be difficult to remove even after digging down three feet, but they would do so. Murphy asked if class 5 was considered hardcover. Weinberger stated that class 5 is considered hardcover, if It is driven on and compacted by vehicles. The applicant would be required to remove the class 5 and replace it with grass. Mu^hy asked if the garage would still be considered a garage and hardcover as a function of the applicants continued use. He questioned whether the City allows a garage to sit in the middle of a property with no bituminous roadway to it, but allow access to it, and the access not be considered hardcover. Weinberger staled thal these exist, as in the case of pole buildings. The idea is that if the building have a driveway, the City has not considered it a garage and it has not been a concern. With the sit^tion on this property, and m past history, where you have a garage that looks like a garage, the City has found that people will tend to plow them in winter and use them as dnveways and garages. That would be staffs concern. He noted that if the building were actually converted to something else, without a garage door, that would eliminate that concern. Murphy asked why it was stated that no additional hardcover shall ever be allowed. PACE 10 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (»7) U02-279I DA VEAND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued Mayor Peterson stated that although she was present at those meetings, she remembers most vividly the discussions of 1998. She believed that when he last came before the Council there was an animated discussion with regard to the detached garage around the floodplain. She had voted in favor of the additional hardcover for the detached garage in 1998, with the stipulation that she would not allow any more hardcover on that property. She stated she would stick to that position tonight and not vote in favor of what he was proposing. She stated that she would be more agreeable to his proposal if he were removing the e.xisting garage and driveway, and replacing it with the new garage attached to the home. Rahn asked to e.xplain what he believed happened, with regard lo the approvals, but first, he reminded the Council that he had not been the one to consider this property in the floodplain, but it was the City that had determined it on their topography map. The City had informed him it was a floodplain, which is one reason ne iiud been limited in obtaining his IS% structural coverage. The other reason, he believed, was that the property was presented as a minimum square foot lot. The house and lot were planned at 1490 s.f., to fall under the ISOO s.f. allowance, when in fact, Rahn maintained the lot should be allowed 2200 s.f. He stated that the lot next door was built just last year and was allowed 700 s.f. more hardcover on a lot that is 2000 s.f. smaller than his. Rahn disagreed with Mayor Peterson's position that she did not support his proposal, when in his view, there were totally new findings since 1997 -1998 with regard to the floodplain. If this were a 1500 s.f. property, Rahn felt the approvals and limits made sense, however, Rahn maintained that the property should have been viewed as 2200 s.f. in light of the new' findings. He asked what part of the zoning ordinance he was missing which limits structural coverage beyond the 15%. Mayor Peterson maintained that she did not think they were talking structural coverage, but hardcover. Rahn stated that they were asking him to remove structural coverage and not hardcover. Mayor Peterson stated that her issue was with the fact that they have more than 25.3% hardcover. Rahn pointed out that, if the issue was hardcover, the City should take a look at his neighbors. Thu new ne.xt door home to the south was allowed a total lot cover of 23.5%, almost a full % more than he was proposing at 22.6%. He maintained that, in fact, if he took the same percents tliat were allowed on the lot next to him, and used them on his lot he would be allowed 34.45%, when what he is proposing is 31.4%. The home across the street was allowed 29.8% total lot hardcover, whereas this is proposed at 22.6%. He added that the home down from him was allowed both 31.4% cover and to exceed his structiual cover by 500 s.f., when in fact, the lot is smaller than his by 1500 s.f and has 700 s.f more hardcover. He stated it was never indicated during any of the meetings he attended that the neighbor’s proposal had excessive coverage. PAGE 11 of 35 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Jufy 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (it?) M02‘279I DAVE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD ^ VARIANCES- Continued With this in mind, Rahn stated that, frankly, the strong language used in his approvals surprised him as well in comparison. If anyone should have been allowed more hardcover or structural coverage, Rahn maintained that it should have been his lot. As stated in the ordinance, hardcover limits are set to stop the rapid runoff of water, his lot has the required low-lying area to catch the runoff properly. He believed that the home next door and his, truly, should have been flip flopped with regard to what should have been allowed. Rahn continued that the homes next door and across the street tower above his in mass by 20 ’. He could not understand why he had been allowed a mere 1000 s.f footprint, while all of the homes around him had been allowed to tower above his. He stated that what he was hearing from the Council was that he would not be allowed the structural coverage that everyone has and more. Rahn reiterated that he would like to be allowed the same rights as his neighbors. He stated that because he has nothing else to remove from his property, no excessive hardcover, porches or patios, the City is now asking him to remove structural coverage. Murphy stated that he did not feel he was asking the applicant to change the existing shed, but now that he ’s been told that they plan to use it as a garage, he questions the applicant’s intentions. Rahn stated that the shed would be used in that regard. His intention is to keep the shed for storage, storage of snowmobiles, boats, whatever is necessary. Now the City is telling him that he cannot store his property there or drive on his lawn. He indicated that he pulls on the lawn to wash his car and that is not considered a driveway. Sansevere asked if there were any change in staffs position after hearing Rahn ’s statement. Weinberger stated that there was not necessarily any change in staffs position, and maintained that when some of the previous approvals were done and these homes were allowed to go up a certain percentage, they often had to remove hardcover to do so. Mr. Rahn seems to be requesting to be allowed 15% lot coverage and whatever hardcover is necessary to support it. Weinberger noted that the neighboring lot the applicant referred to had included the combination of two lots and removed driveways etc.; he agreed the current home does exceed 15% and hardcover limits. Weinberger asked if Council ’s position is going to be that everyone is allowed up to 15% of their lot area to be structure, regardless of the hardcover impacts. Sansevere asked if the neighbor would have more hardcover than he does if the shed remains. Rahn stated that the neighbor is at 23.5% and he is at 22.6%. Rahn maintained that his lot is larger than the neighbors, but yet the neighbor has been allowed more than he has. Rahn reiterated that for a long period of time this lot was viewed as a 10,000 s.f. lot, due to the PAGE 12 of 3S MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (»7) U02-279J DAVE AND JODJRAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued floodplain, when in fact it is a 15,000 s.f. lot, and one of the largest lots on the street. He repeated that, in comparison to the most recent variance, he should be allowed at least what the next door neighbor had been given. Murphy asked if the applicant had water problems or if water accumulates on his property. Rahn stated that in heavy rains, the water ponds near the lake. During heavy periods they have been able to pump the water into the lake. The water near the garage runs down the gutters, goes thru the drain tile, and is sent down the street. Gafiron pointed out that anything removed needs to be filled with dirt and grass, and reiterated that the issue Council is dealing with here is purely the issue of hardcover, it has nothing to do with lot coverage. Lot coverage is not a privilege, it is a limit you are held to, IS % on a lot less than two acres. You are also limited by percentage of hardcover, and are not guaranteed 15% lot coverage at the expense of having hardcover in the range of 30-40%. There may be a number of applications that fly in the face of that. He questioned whether Council were comfortable with increasing from 30% to 41-42% hard surface in the combined 0-75’ and 75-250’ setbacks. Gaflron stated that the applicant made a valid point that if all his drainage runs to a spot on his property where it has to soak into his property he is probably meeting the ultimate intent of the hardcover ordinance. The City needs to keep in mind the original intent of the approvals, the applicant has come to the City asking to add an attached garage, but let me keep the old one. From staff perspective, this is adding hardcover that is perhaps urmecessaiy and could be mitigated by adding more storage space by making the attached garage addition a little bit bigger. Gaffron stated that not removing the existing garage, seemed inconsistent with what the intent of the City’s hardcover ordinance had been in the past. Rahn asked if the Council was requesting that he remove the overhead door and limit the garage to storage of things that could not be driven in. Although that would be Murphy’s recommendation. Mayor Peterson stated that she would rather see the structure removed. Rahn asked why he would tear dowm 800 s.f. of garage only to be replaced with a 20 ’X20 ’ new garage. He would be giving up significant storage space. Rahn reiterated that had the floodplain designation not existed, the house would likely been moved to different location, or rebuilt elsewhere with an attached garage versus the detached garage. Sansevere empathized with the applicant’s position, asking whether the Council should take the floodplain designation into account when considering this application. He believed the detached garage was built in its current location due to the floodplain concerns. PAGE 13 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (U7) U02 ‘279l DAVE AND JOD! RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD-VARIANCES- Continued Rahn insisted that he had supplied the City mth new findings with regard to the floodplain to support his application for the attached garage and urged the Council to factor this into their consideration, ^en he first applied for variances, it was the City’s own topo map that indicated the fl^plam, therefore, he designed his proposal around that feature. He asked what would lead him to question the City’s topo map, he believed the City had supplied him with accurate mformation. Only when he looked into purchasing flood insurance and invited the MCWD to look more closely at his property, did he learn that there was obviously no connection to the lake which coupled with the elevation did not equate to a floodplain. He questioned whether it should be the resident s responsibility to challenge the City’s resources. Severe asked staff if there had ever been any precedent set where a resident had built usina misinformation, and if so, what had been done to right the situation. Gaf^n stated t^t he had reviewed the minutes from the 1997 and 1998 meetings, and argued that the application started out as an addition and rebuild. He questioned the intent of leaving the home in its current location all along. Rato ar^ed that he tod looked into other possibilities, but once he had learned of the floodplain delmeation, why would he have proposed the house in a location the City would not have allow^ him to build. Rato questioned why he would have ever been willing to swap the high ground for the low ground, thinking there was a floodplain. ^ ^ Weinberger asked what prompted Rato to contact Hafner of the MCWD. Rahri repeated that he had begun to investigate the need for flood insurance and found out that the elevation alone did not define floodplain. He questioned how the floodplain delineation was never resolved back when City staff visited the ptoperty. Rahn could not understand why staff didn t make the connection when they walked the property back in 1997. Sansevere asked for Administrator Moorse’s comments. Mooi^ stated that first it w^ an addition to a small cabin, and then the applicant needed a etached g^ge, both of which maxed out the hardcover. Now the applicant would like a second garage without removing the existing garage. ffltWs'Im ^rmiie"^* "^'^information about the floodplain should be factoredmor th^oUicr g^^e**"** attached garage, Moorse questioned the hardship for keeping PAGE 14 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (»7) U02-279I DA VEAND JODtRAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued Rahn stated that the hardship was the hazardous condition backing out of the driveway created. Sansevere asked what the hardship was for keeping the existing garage. Rahn stated that, up until the very last minute of the 1998 meeting, Rahn had believed that he had an additional 1000 s.f. At the last minute, Gaffron asked that hardcover in the 0-7S ’ setback be added to the 7S-2S0 ’ hardcover when factoring hardcover. Rahn pointed out that the home meets the average lakeshore setback and at that moment, he lost 1000 s.f. Murphy questioned why the City ever allowed the garage to be put where it was if it were in such a dangerous position. Obviously, the garage was placed there to avoid the floodplain, but Murphy asked why it was moved up the hill. Rahn stated that they moved the garage to the top of the hill in order to allow for storage underneath. Sansevere asked if the current garage is still considered impractical and unsafe. Rahn indicated that the garage/shed would be used for storage. There is a definite lack of storage on this property, and in this area, he questioned how he could remove the garage or make it unusable when it was valuable space. Valuable space that many smaller neighboring lots have been allowed. Rahn asked if he could change his proposal by removing the proposed driveway and calling the proposed garage, simply, an addition instead, whereby keeping the old garage. He stated that it is the need for a new lengthier driveway, which puts him over on the hardcover, not the structure itself. Mayor Peterson asked how this would affect his hardcover in the 0-75 ’ and 75-250' setback, respectively. Weinberger noted that they would lose 2’ in the 0-75 ’ setback (19.5%) and the 75-250 ’ setback where it is at 16% now, would be at 25.3%, an increase of 703 s.f. Rahn stated that he could supply them with comps from across the street if the Council was interested. Sansevere asked staff ^^re there was consistency, by allowing the shed to remain would they be consistent, or would this be precedent setting. PAGE IS of3S n MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Jfnty 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (U7) U02-2791 DAVE AND JODI HAHN, 1385REST POINT ROAD- VARIANCES- Continued Rahn stated that this is an unusual case, one that you might see once in 20 years. Ga^n maintained that the City had typically held people to 25% in rebuilds in most cases, ^le they had gotten away from the 25% figure for a time, over recent years the Council has ^n much more strict. He stated that, obviously, they were not as strict on the neighbor next door, however there are nuances and exceptions to eveiy application. Since his comment from the minutes became part of the resolution, Gaffron felt it would be in the City ’s best interests to **thA disappear. Consistency, in this case, must rely on replacing the old garage Murphy Mked if the new garage addition could be reconfigured to add additional storage space that might be lost by removing the old garage. Rahn stated that it would be difficult to build enough space into the addition to justify the removal of the two-story garage. h^n whether, the City had been more lenient on his neighbors than they Gaffron stated that, if forced to address that question, he would have to say that considering what • argued that he had presented the City with a huge finding with regard to the floodplain that affected more than 1/3 of his property. He stated that this originally was a rebuild, but even so, it met and meets the average lakeshore setback. ap^caf “ a Planning Commissioner, whether he would have approved this impact. Murphy asked if the 25.3 % hardcover figure reflected the removal of the driveway. PAGE 16 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (»7) U02-2791 DAVE AND JODI RAH^. mS REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES- Continued reasonable. Gaffron stated that it is up to the Council to decide where he has met the reasonable standard and because the City has been inconsistent within the past few years with what it did the past IS years before that, it was difTicult in his mind to treat this as something that happened two years ago when there were commitments made on it five years ago. Rahn asked how the City could look at he and his neighbor's lot, which is a couple of hundred s.f. less than his, and say that he was not being held to a higher standard than they were. Mayor Peterson asked for clarification whether the project had started out as a rebuild or a renovation. Gaffron noted that this started out as a renovation and came back in as a rebuild. Rahn stated that, what it boiled down to, was that there was not much left worth sav ing, and the foundation would have required a great deal of engineering. Gaffron stated that it was concluded at that time that there was no other place to put a house, so they were told to go ahead and finish it oR* rebuilding it in the present location without a garage. A year later the City was asked to allow them to build a detached garage out of the floodplain on the hill with a short driveway that minimized hardcover etc. Sansevere asked if the applicant was still operating under the misinformation. Gaffron stated that they were. Since then, now that they have learned the floodplain is no longer floodplain, he has proposed a new driveway and new garage, that in the City’s mind replaces what was approved in 1998, but he is not willing to remove that in exchange, due to storage and value it has to him. Gaffron pointed out that the question remains, is the applicant over in hardcover and are there things that could be removed. It would be consistent to remove things that are considered excess hardcover. If the Council concludes that the 20X20* garage itself is not excess hardcover, or although precedent setting, he could mitigate the impacts of runoff from the garage structure by letting it soak into the low spot in the ground that doesn’t get directly to the lake but gets filtration before it gets there, then there is some logic in leaving it there. Sansevere stated that he was grappling with the fact that the garage was put there based on information about the floodplain. Now with new information, the applicant is trying to relocate near the house, where it would have appropriately been put originally, had they not believed it were a floodplain. Rahn stated that he was correct. PAGE 17 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (»7) U02’279I DAVE AND JODIRAHN, ms REST POINT ROAD • VARIANCES- Continued Sansevere stated that the applicant went to an expense and a cost based on the infonnation he was supplied with. If it had stayed a floodplain, the applicant would not even be here today. Rahn reiterated that the whole design in concept would have been diflerent from what has been done, if the floodplain had not been there. He stated that, quite obviously, they had planned everything around the floodplain and were bound by it. Sansevere asked what the Planning Commission felt with regard to the floodplain. Smith indicated that the floodplain became an integral part of their discussion. In fact, she stated that her closing conunents were that the Commission had learned quite a bit about floodplains in this application and will hopefully not have to face this difficulty again, but will have a better understanding if they do. ^^'hile it didn’t resolve this applicant’s particular situation, she stated that it was part of their discussion. Sansevere stated that, while he might not have voted to allow the additional 20X20 ’ garage today had he been granted the attached garage back in 1996, the fact that he built the existing garage based on information he was given from the City, added a gray area for his consideration. Weinberger stated that because he had limited hardcover to work with in 1998, this was another reason the garage and short driveway were built in that location to begin with. Weinberger contended had they looked at the position of the driveway today, they may have reconsidered its location due to the difficulty in maneuvering. Sansevere questioned the City Attorney if it would be out of line to use the gray area pertaining to the misinformation when considering this application, or should he put this issue completely aside and only consider the hardcover issue of keeping this garage. Legally it may have nothing to do with the fact that, because he was given bad information, the garage was put there in the first place. Barrett stated that the floodplain argument might distinguish a decision from other ones, but the question of whether the garage should be removed or not, with respect to hardcover, is one that offers a pretty strong argument, and one that has been adhered to in order to keep to hardcover limits. Legally if you do decide to do it, you could cite the floodplain error as the reason. Otherwise Barrett suggested they require the old garage be removed before the new one is built with regard to hardcover, and not structural coverage. I Rahn stated that the Planning Commission only recently approved a hardcover variance across the street from him. 1 PAGE 18 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. r#7> m-2791 DAVE ASD JODI RAHN, ms REST POINT ROAD ‘ VARIANCES- Continued Barrett stated that he was unfamiliar with the application, but guessed there might have been some mitigating factors that allowed those variances. Mayor Peterson asked, with regard to consistency, whether at some point couldn’t everyone in the City come back and say you let my neighbor do this twenty years ago. Weinberger noted that he had looked at appro.ximately six neighboring properties, and noticed that in most cases there were mitigating factors. Rahn stated that although the Council was aware of the neighboring properties, the question remains whether the City will allow 15% structural coverage when you have minimd hardcover. He stated that he could have drawn the application with excessive hardcover in order to allow them to have something to remove, but he didn’t do that. He felt that he drew the plan based on the bare minimum, which was where the struggle was, there isn’t really anything for the City to remove other than structural coverage, which goes back to his argument that it is the structural coverage that he believed he is short on. The footprint on the house is barely 10,000 s.f, whereas the neighbor’s home is towering above h-m right off the property’ line on a smaller lot than his. Originally he was approved to do some remodeling and realized that the work required much more, Weinberger questioned what impact the floodplain had on his decisions. Had he known the floodplain did not exist, and he needed to move the home further from the lake, would that have been a consideration for him. It would have reduced hardcover to do that. Rahn stated that had they known this, even though it met the average lakeshore setback, they would have likely moved the home 20’ back, so as not to be crowding the lakeshore, and had an attached garage. Rahn stated that to not consider the floodplain debate an issue would be unfair, since it is obvious that the floodplain impacted the whole design. Murphy stated that he struggled w ith the value of tearing down the shed, although he found the hardcover issue compelling. In exchange for leaving the existing shed, from his position, Murphy was inclined to leave the shed and invite Rahn to come back with a reconfigured shed, unusable as a garage, but still valuable storage area, with the overhead door and hardcover around it removed. Sansevere asked how this would impact hardcover. Rahn suggested removing the apron, a mere 100 s.f. PAGE 19 of 35 r. <1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. m U02-279i DAVE AND JOD! RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD ~ VARIANCES- Continued Sansevere asked if this would be acceptable to staff Gaffron acknowledged that this slightly affects hardcover. Murphy stated that this is the nearest compromise Rahn will get. If the floodplain issue had not been part of the equation, Murphy stated that he would have supported staffs resolution. Sansevere stated that he still grappled with the floodplain issue. Rahn questioned whether it was Council ’s intention to maintain a 10,000 s.f. standard for a nwly 14,000 s.f piece of property and literally just have the footprint of the house and maintain the 25% hardcover, that seems unrealistic. He maintained that, over the past five years, the City had not denied lots their 15% structural coverage. There may have been applications that have come in that have not requested their full 15%. He questioned whether an applicant should be penalized for not building their lot up to its potential the first time through. Mayor Peterson agreed that they should not be penalized, but this situation has to do with the hardcover issue. ^ain, Rahn stated that the lot next door has a higher percent of total lot hardcover that drains into the lake. His lot has a lesser percent of hardcover, that’s held in a storage area, which a section in the zoning code encourages ponding. While he could not identify the section, he reiterated that the code encourages just what he has, water storage areas. Mayor Peterson asked if Rahn were not agreeable to going back and coming back with a redesigned garage. Severe questioned whether the City encourages its residents to sump pump water into the Rahn indicated that sump pumping does occur. Murphy moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt Resolution No 4834 granting variances to aUow an attached garage and walkway to the existing residence, with the conditions that the existing garage he reconfigured in such a way, to City staffs satbfaction, that it will not serve as a garage, hut as storage only. Furthermore, all runoff hardcover wiU he directed to the low level area of the property where it will he allowed to soak in, and finally, all existing hardcover around the huildhiE will he removed to City’s satisfaction. PAGE 20 of 3S !- ♦ J MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (»7) U02-2791 DA VEAND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES Continued Mayor Peterson asked Mr. Rahn if this would be acceptable. Rahn felt he could at least work with staff to make it feasible. Sansevere asked how difficult this decision will make other decisions and applications that come before the Council when residents cite this property, for instance, in order to be held to a different standard. He questioned whether they could site the floodplain misinformation in the resolution and wondered how many more of these cases there might be. Gafffon maintained that this property is unique. Barrett suggested that the two things they have cited, which are the rerouting of the water via ponding without sump pumping into the lake, together with the conclusion that the hardcover is going to be varied here in view of the error with respect to the floodplain, those two circumstances help mildly distinguish the result. Weinberger indicated that there are always going to be unique circumstances. Smith asked if more hardcover lends to the dilemma of accumulating water in the water collection area. Rahn stated, as indicated in the code, that a suitable level of ponding would be required to manage floodplain management. Sansevere had further concern with regard to sump pumping. Weinberger stated that between now and the August 12th meeting Rahn and staff will need to determine how much runofl* will head to the low area, what the capacity is, and if it is determined there is too much capacity, then there might be a hardcover issue. Weinberger noted that the resolution could be contingent on the results of this evaluation. Sansevere stated that he based his vote solely on the misinformation about the floodplain VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 1, Mayor Peterson dissenting for reasons cited earlier. PAGE 21 of 3S MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (#8) #02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES As Council was familiar with the background for this application, Weinberger indicated that he would share with them the findings since the last meeting. Weinberger reported that this item was tabled by the City Council on July 8,2002, at the request of Mr. Stephenson to allow his consultants to review the location of the wetland boundary. Ron Peterson, of Peterson Environmental, was hired by the property owner to do the wetland delineation and analysis. Weinberger noted that Mr. Peterson acknowledged that there had been areas on the property where an encroachment on the 26 ’ wetland buffer occurred, however, Weinberger did not have copies of the report in time to include them in the packets. According to the most recent findings, Weinberger stated that Mr. Peterson depicted the wetland delineation further to the east than that of the December report. Although they were waiting for verification by MCWD, Weinberger believed the analysis to be accurate due to the December snow cover. Weinberger pointed out that, previously, it looked as if the entire width of the property had impacted the buffer zone. If the new delineation is accurate, only the mid point sl^ «ff<^cted. He added that due to settling, the slope is closer to the approved *3:1 Weinberger indicated that the property owner had installed all the vegetation for erosion control on the actual grade, including grasses appro.ximately 1 ’ tall that have been reestablished from the end of the yard to the buffer zone area. He stated that when he recently visited the property he counted approximately 18 trees planted in the back yard so far averaging a height of 10-12*. \\ einberger stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application on a 6/0 vote to permit an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit for land alteration within 26 ’ of the wetland, the denial included any alteration beyond the previously approved elevations. As the slope is closer to a 3:1 slope, the minor impact to the wetland buffer is a mere 300 s.f Weinberger stated that there are four options for City Council to consider: approving the application as is with the addition of e.xtensive planting and screening for neighbors; approve an amendment to the conditional use pennit requiring the applicant to remove any fill that had been added withm 26 ’ of the wetland and move the hill back; approve a combination of option 1 and 2; or deny the application and require the finished grades to match the approvals granted in the onginal Conditional Use Permit. Weinberger stated that Rene Schubert of MCWT) was present. They had talked about, if the grades were app roved as they exist, staff would rec^end that there would be fairly intensive vegetation plantings on the property and hillside. While the grasses work pretty well for erosion control, Weinberger contended that PAGE 22 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (U8) »02‘2793 REVIS STEPHENSON, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD-AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - Continued additional trees would certainly help the erosion control issue and give a more natural appearance to the area and also recommended more intense plantings in the flat area leading to the neighbors. He reminded the applicant, however, that if any plantings would be considered that go over neighbor boundaries, they need to get consent from those individual neighbors. This might help to mitigate some of the concerns that need to be addressed. Weinberger explained that part of the problem is that they have a conditional use permit approval, which approved a certain gradmg plan. He asked if the Council would have felt any differently, if back in 2001, the applicant came in and said “I would like to do this, but I don't want to leave the large gulleys that are left, or areas where you are going to have low spots on the sides of the hill, but rather I would like to tie those elevations in to existing elevations on neighboring properties." Weinberger asked if Council might have approved that application, and indicated that staff probably would have supported such a proposal, because by connecting existing contours to neighboring contours, it has created drainage areas that follow the property line versus keeping the drainage pooling on the property. Mr. Peterson stated that since his meeting with Weinberger and Schubert on Friday, he had supplied the City with data sheets and letter as to the revised delineation. He had sdso performed a GPS delineating the locations and boundaries from both before and after the project. He handed out the GPS data and reminded the Council that the original delineation was done in December, when snow covered the ground. He noted that the line, for the most part, was located further to the east except right in the center portion where the encroachment occurred. Sansevere asked when the aerial was taken. Peterson stated that it was taken in 2000, before any alteration occurred. Sansevere stated that, apparently, the neighbors on either side have indicated they were satisfied with the work, while there is one neighbor where there seems to be some conflict. Although it would not be up to the neighbor what Council decides, Sansevere asked if any of these scenarios would seem acceptable to attorney Galatz’s client, Mr. Chalfen. Mr. Galatz stated that, what his client would e.xpect, is that the plan would revert to what was originally approved in 2001. With respect to extensive planting, Galatz asked what the City considered extensive to be. He maintained that what he saw planted, mere 10 ’ tall trees, was insufficient. He felt that Mr. Chalfen had no objection to the gulleys if the neighbors like them, however, Chalfen does object to the fact that Stephenson pulled the crest of his hill into the wetland an extra 30’ beyond what was approved. By doing so, he created the gulleys and was forced to widen the All. Galatz argued that there was nothing accidental about this application. PAGE 23 of 35 J MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. m M2-2793REnSSTEPHENSOS, l»S0FOXUDGEROAD-AFTER.THE FACT CONDITIONAL VSE PERMIT AND VARIANCES ■ CoH^ AFTER-THE-FACT ^ possibility existed to come to a cesolutioti that evetyoite could be satisfied T.SL Ho hositant to inconvenieiKe the neighborhood fiirther and disturbing the wetland turther by requmng eveiything to be removed. He wished that the neighbor, Mr Chalfen were present personally to discuss the issue. Murphj^tated that there was. obviously, no denying that the project got out of control He ripS^^ ou^'' ® reconstitute the forest without going bade and Gdate argued that Mr. Stephenson would never have been allowed to do what he has done He had brought in twice as much fill as allowed, and e.xtended his yard by 38 ’. Mur^intoropted and ar^cd Mr. Stephenson what he planned to do about it and what he proposed to do for mitigation. 1^. Stephenron stated that he would be willing to plant whatever he could get down the hill which would be somewhat limited by the grade itself. He added that he wodd restorTthc^buffer buclX°m hi hid* encrMched with oaks, birch, apple trees, etc., far better than the buckthorn he had removed. This would only improve the situation for the wetland He hiTa^^Md *Td" ^*“**i’ ““*** manually get down thelull a tw spade simply could not make it. He indicated that he would be willing to work with staff; his nei^bors, Mr. Chalfen, and the City Council to accomplish this. He stated that what he has planted thus far, is beautiful and full of native flowers, grasses, and trees He indicated that he would be willing to plant whatever Mr. Peterson, an expert in reconstructive buffers suggested and believed it to be a mistake to tear it up. "h'"* were w ith regard to this proposal of adding addiUonal Weiob^er Slated that staff would be comfortable with that. He pointed out that what has been pimied and removed has been positive for the weUand. The bucicthom was removed and pw unh^ihy growth on the south side was replaced with new vegetation. He agreed with the ^ appitcant tot the siae of the trees would be limited by what cLd be brough^Wto Ml however, he would recommend additional plantings. Wes. and undemo^ gntoT Murphy asked how the City could ensure that this happens. PAGE 24 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Jufy 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (M) U02-2793 REUS STEPHENSON, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD -AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - Continued Mr. Stephenson volunteered the suggestion that the City hold his $S,000 in account until they would be satisfied with the project. Sansevere stated that it would be nice if Mr. Chalfen could come to see the Council for himself. Galatz maintained that his client should not have to be here. Mr. Chalfen was the one who was inconvenienced by the modifications and is forced to view a hump 8 ’ higher than what was approved, rather than the forest he so enjoyed. Sansevere reiterated that the City was attempting to make a compromise, and asked if Mr. Galatz had been authorized to do so for Mr. Chalfen. Galatz indicated that if the hump were 8 ’ lower and covered with plantings and trees far bigger than those presently being planted, which would take 50*60 years to mature, that might be acceptable. Sansevere asked staff if there was a mandate in the original application requiring the applicant to plant his kill, was he bound to do what we are now asking. Galatz contended that there was a landscape plan submitted with the application. Weinberger pointed out that there were no tree preservation mandates included in the application. Sansevere explained to Galatz that if the City requires Mr. Stephenson to remove the fill and return the hill to its original location, Mr. Chalfen may be even worse off than he is now. Sansevere maintained that if the hill were completely removed, the applicant would not be required to plant any additional trees. Not only would Mr. Chalfen have lost his original view, he would be in worse shape. Weinberger stated that the applicant, in the original proposal, would have been required to add approximately 12 trees with no real size requirement. Sansevere asked about screening or if the applicant was incumbent to put a certain number of trees on the hump. Since no tree preservation requirement really exists, Sansevere argued that, if Chalfen forces the applicant to shave back the hill, there might not be any trees at all. Galatz indicated that his client would like the hill to go back to what was approved and not worry about the screening because it would grow back. PAGE 25 of 35 --- MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Jufy 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (M) U02-2793 REViS STEPHENSONp 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - Continued Sanscvere asked how this could be acceptable if Mr. Chalfen ’s biggest objection is the lack of screening. He wondered how it would grow back without being planted. Galatz stated that in terms of what it would take to satisfy his client, Galatz argued that it is not okay to break the law and then ask for permission. He believed this to be a bad precedent for the City. His client insists that the applicant do what the City told him he could do, and nothing more, even if that means restoring the hill and wetland. Sansevere asked if staff was uncomfortable with what is existing. Galatz stated that even in its most lenient recommendation, staff asks for some extent of modification. Assuming that Mr Peterson ’s wetland delineation is correct, Weinberger stated that staffs recommendation is that there be no fill within 26 ’ of the wetland and that slopes don ’t exceed 3:1. Weinberger pointed out that thru settling the slope might get to 3:1 and questioned whether It would be worth making the modification to the whole hill for 300 s.f. impact. He stated that the question now is whether the further environmental impact on the weUand is worth mitiaatinc for 300 s.f. ® * Murphy indicated that the longer the process goes on the luckier Mr. Stephenson looks. The slope is settling to 3:1 etc. In his view, the City has a couple of real options available. He would propoM that they always have the fall back option 1, to remove and undo everything he did but doesn ’t solve much. Option 2, allows the applicant to come back with an actual landscape design that would incorporate everything that we have talked about, and although Mr. Chalfen would not have final authonzaUon on it, Murphy would like to invite him to review the plan as well as ms attorney , staff, and Council. The fall back position is always present, but he felt it would behoove the interested parties to consider other options. Galatz nwintained that Stephenson had already been allowed six months, and the City continues to allow him more and more time to get further into it. Sansevere stated that they were attempting to acquiesce to his client ’s concerns. If issues had not bwn rased at the last meeting, Sansevere indicated that they might have been done with this already. Muyhy contended that he drove out to Mr. Chalfen ’s property and sat in the driveway, and was hwd pressed to see how awful this is. This being summer, Murphy recognized that the view might be somewhat different in the winter but not necessarily to the degree Galatz asserts Murphy reiterated that everyone was well aware of the baseline, and would like to give the PAGE 26 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (U9) m-2793 REVtS STEPHENSON, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD • AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL VSE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - Continued applicant another shot at making it work. Murphy indicated that he would prefer not to make the applicant remove it all. Galatz stated that he would appreciate reviewing the landscape plan. Sansevere repeated that the Council is striving to be sensitive to the neighbor ’s concern. Gappa noted that the 60 day deadline would be August 9,2002. Weinberger stated that an extension would be needed. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to table Application MI2-2793, Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road, at the request of the applicant pending a landscape design to be reviewed by staff and neighbors. Sansevere suggested Mr. Stephenson make a point of talking to his neighbor, Mr. Chalfen, about the design. Peterson stated that he anticipated the issue would be tabled, and stated that he would work with the applicant on a design. Although everyone is aware that the project got carried away, Murphy suggested Mr. Stephenson do an>1hing he can about it and include lots of green, trees, plants, etc. Galatz stated that, in his opinion, the wetland variance issue was separate from the hill. Stephenson indicated that he was willing to do what he could. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (89) 802-2796 MARK AND GINA KOSEK, 1875 SHADV'WOOD ROAD - VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 4835 Ms. Kosek stated that she and her husband have one issue with the proposed resolution. The rock wall surrounds a red maple tree and the applicant was concerned about the tree, tree roots and erosion as a result of removing the rocks. The portion that loops around the tree constitutes approximately 20 s.f. Engineer Kellogg stated that he visited the site and also had concern about the tree, but felt with topsoil and additional grading the tree could be fine. On the other hand, Kellogg suggested Council could allow the 7-foot boulder wall to remain. PAGE 27 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Jub' 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (U9) *02-2796 MARK AND GINA KOSEK, 1875 SHADYWOOD ROAD- VARIANCE- Continued Saascvcrc moved, Murphy seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 4835, requiring the removal of the shed in the 0*75* setback, removal and sodding over of the southern driveway, removal of stone borders and unnecessary boulder walls with the eiception of the 7* boulder wall around the red maple, the allowance for a 2* X 60* sidewalk from drive to front door, and granting approval for additional hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone at 4,992 s.f.. for the property located at 1875 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#10) #02-2797 JAMES MURPHY AND SANDRA SMITH, 30 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4836 Weinberger reported that the applicants had made a request for a conditional permit to allow m additional horse on the property, making a total of three horses on the property. While 5 acres is requi^ to permit 3 horses as an accessory use on the property when pasture land is required for feeding, the applicants have 3.6 acres and do not require pasture for feed purposes. Regardless of the size of the pasture, Weinberger pointed out that a proper manure management program is vital to the protection of nearby wetlands and elimination of odors. Jeremy Geske, of the University of Minnesota Extension Service, determined that due to the size of the operation and the way it is managed, the impact to the wetland from runoff from the site is extremely minor. Weinberger reported that the Planning Commission included a sunset provision within the Conditional Use Permit allowing the property to be used for three horses for a period often years. Two neighbors spoke in favor of the application to allow an additional horse, while other comments were attached, including one objection. Weinberger indicated that staff recommends approval of the application to allow three horses to be permitted on the property, since one additional horse will not significantly change the character of the property, and the applicants own the property that has the most impact. Sansevere asked why the Planning Commission felt compelled to attach a sunset date for the third horse. Although arbitrary, Weinberger stated the Commission felt they should choose an adeouate time frame to allow for the third horse. Sansevere stated that the Kokesh property was granted a CUP allowing 19 horses on 13 acres only recently. PAGE 21 of 3S a MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (UIO) m-2797 JAMES MURPHY AND SANDRA SMITH, SO ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- Continued Jonathon Tomhave, a neighbor at 1200 Orono Orchard Road, stated that the bam has been a pre­ existing condition that has housed many horses for nearly half a century. He maintained that every neighbor who moved to this area knew it was there, and in fact, it housed many more than the three proposed horses we’re considering today. Mr. Tomhave indicated that odor has never been an issue and that he believed the presence of the horses added to the value and charm of his neighborhood. He used an example from 9/11/01 in which the fundamental change felt at ground zero reverberates across the country into an acute sense of community. He added that the Council had a unique opporttmity to say they support and understand the need of these residents. Sansevere maintained that Orono was once rich horse country. Although fewer remain today, Orono needs to preserve the flavor of having horse country. Sansevere was in favor of allowing the third horse and questioned the rationale of the 10-year sunset date. Mayor Peterson stated that she believed the CUP should run with the property owner. Sansevere felt this w*as a reasonable assumption. Smith stated that she would like some latitude in keeping two or three horses, since one never knows what the future holds, and she was given the opportunity by her father to take in a third younger horse. Mayor Peterson agreed that it was enjoyable to see horses in Orono, and that she did not want to lose that aspect of the community. Sansevere reiterated that Orono has the unique opportunity to offer both horses and the lake to residents. Smith stated that on many occasions people make a point of asking to see the horses. Murphy stated that one of his neighbors along Watertown, whom he only recently met, has ridden his bike with his son to look at the horses every day over the past seven years. He thanked Murphy for keeping them and said how much he and his son would be missing them as they would be moving soon. Murphy stated that it is not his intention to impose on his neighbors, but he would like to keep the third horse. Sansevere asked if the policy should be reviewed based on this and the Kokesh property. Weinberger stated that each case should be evaluated on an individual basis versus the ordinances. PAGE 29 of 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (UlO) §02-2797JAMES MURPHY AND SANDRA SMITH, 30 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- Continued Attorney Barrett indicated that the permit needs to run with the property and not with the property owners and suggested making the CUP a renewable thing allowing three horses without a time limit. Sansevere moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4836, a conditional use permit allowing three horses to be permitted on the property located at 30 Orono Orchard Road North and approving the Planning Commbsion recommendation with the exclusion of the 10 year time limit, leaving the CUP open ended. VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 0, and Murphy abstaining. *(#11) #02-2798 FRED SHEARER, 1405 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4837 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4837, granting variances for side yard and front yard setbacks, and hardcover variance in the 75-250 ’ tone to permit construction of an attached garage to the existing residence located at 1405 Park Drive. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#12) #02-2799 TERESA KOCH, 2225 BAYVIEW PLACE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4838 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4838, granting variances for lot area, lot width, and hardcover in the 250-500 ’ setback to permit construction of a new residence and additional driveway for the property located at 2225 Bayview Place. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#13) #02-2800 MARLYS MCCARTY, 225 TONKA AVTNUE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4839 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4839 granting variances for front yard, rear yard, lot area, and lot width for the construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property located at 225 Tonka Avenue. VOTE* Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#14) #02-2804 PHILH* AND CONSTANCE MARTIN, 1230 ARBOR STREET - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4840 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4840, granting variances for front yard and side yard setbacks to construct a front poroh and an attached garage to the existing residence located at 1230 Arbor Street. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PAGE 30 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. *(#15) #02-2809 RICK AND KRISTINE STERLING, 1300 VINE PLACE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4841 Sanscvcrc moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. , granting an average lakeshorc setback variance to replace a portion of the existing upper level lakeside deck (8* X 42*) and to construct a 2 ’ X10* addition on the lakeside of the residence located at 1300 Vine Place. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sanscvcrc stated that he had spoken to residents of Minnetonka Beach with regard to dock usage issues. Moorse indicated that he was awaiting an email for further guidance on the issue. Sanscvcrc stated that he had spoken to Mike Gaffron about boats that don’t belong at the docks. He suggested this issue be put on a work session agenda for further investigation since there are rules about dock usage. Murphy wished to discuss the arbitrary laws that Minnetonka Beach puts into effect. Mayor Peterson reminded the Commission about the upcoming Park Tour on Monday, July 29, at 5:30 P.M. and asked if any Council members, beside her, would be present. While Sansevere could not attend, Murphy indicated that he would check his calendar. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *(#16) NORTH ARM LANE STREET PAVING PROJECT A. ORDER FEASIBILITY REPORT • RESOLUTION NO. 4842 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 4842, Ordering Preparation of a Feasibility Study for the North Arm Lane Paving Project. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. B. ACCEPT FEASIBILITY REPORT AND SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 4843 Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 4843, Receiving Report and Calling for a Public Hearing on the North Arm Lane Paving Project set for August 12, 2002, at 7 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PAGE 31 of 33 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#17) ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION - LEE CARLSON BALLFIELD EXPANSION PROJECT - TRAIL Gappa explained that the Orono Baseball Association was granted a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an additional baseball field at the Lee Carlson Complex in September 2001. A trail connection is needed across this property to connect the existing dead end trail from the Willow View Subdivision to the Old Ciystal Bay Road trail. Gappa noted that a retaining wall will be needed between the top area at the top of the hill and the county highway. While the original plan reflects the retaining wall and trail as part of the ballfield project, the baseball association has received quotations from contractors for the project, and the cost for the additional trail and wall was approximately $100,000. Gappa stated that the association has raised a little more than $200,000 for the entire ballfield project, money needed for the new field and related improvements construction, so they do not have adequate fimds to complete the trail portion of the project. Gappa reported that several options exist for potential fimding for the construction of the trail portion. First, one source could be Park Dedication Funds, which are available for use in constructmg new park and other recreational facilities. Gappa pointed out that currently there are not sufficient funds to complete the project. Another fimding option is Hennepin County cost sharing fimding for trail construction. Gappa explained that in this program, the County provides fimding for 50% of trail construction costs with the City responsible for the remaining 50% of the cost. Conversations with Hennepin Coimty staff have indicated that this Uail is on the County Trail System Plan and would be a high priority project, and fimds may be available in 2003. Gappa pointed out that a possible fimding option for the City’s share of trail costs would be to use Municipal State Aid Funds, which should be adequate when Countv cost sharing fimds are available. Sansevere asked if Hennepin County is willing to give 50% and state aid dollars provide 50% could they approve the project for OBA (Orono Baseball Association) contingent on receiving these fimds. In addition, OBA would be asked to leave enough dirt for the trail portion as they Moorse stated that the only question that remains is to be sure we get the grant. He reiterated that if the City does not get the grant fimds, they don’t have the retaining wall or trail. Sansevere stated that he would not support holding up the ballfield project contingent on getting the fimds. o © PAGE 32 of 33 It MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (»! 7) ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIA TION - LEL CARLSON BALLFIELD EXPANSION PROJECT- TRAIL - Continued Moorse concuned, stating that due to construction, Holbrook Park might be out of commission next year and the new field needs to be available to handle the demand. Sansevere reiterated that the construction of the fields should not be held up. Dumas, of Orono Baseball, stated that in reality the Association never really expected to raise enough money to complete the trails and wall, but were told they needed to include them in the plans. Moorse asked if the City could grade in the area of the ballfield. Gappa stated that the City would request that the OBA store all the graded dirt up in the berm to use later on the trail area. While he was in support of the ballfield construction, Sansevere asked what the OBA would do if the Council said they need more money and could not get approval without it. Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, that the Council is willing to allow the construction of the ballfield independent of the construction of the retaining wall and trail, and the Council is willing to consider partial City funding for the trail, contingent upon OBA’s stockpiling of dirt on the berm. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *(#18) PAY REQUESTS - LONG LAKE FIRE STATION Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the requests for payment in the amounts of S4,625 and S4,660 to Kirk Program Management, to be funded from the Joint Fire Station Fund: SM54.55 to SEH, to be funded 50% by the City of Orono and 50% from the Joint Fire Station Fund, and $300 to the Hennepin County Surveyor to be funded 50% by the City of Orono and 50% from the Joint Fire Station Fund. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(I9) APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT NO. 3 - LONG LAKE FIRE STATION Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to approve Application and Certificate for Payment No. 3 from Rochon Corporation in the amount of 5103,750.50, to be funded from the Joint Fire Fund. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PAGE 33 of 3S t MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Jufy 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#20) JOINT FIRE STATION ACCOUNT - EXCESS FUNDS Muiphy stated that the time has come to split the difference of the estimated $850,000 kOover in the account between Long Lake and Orono. The Fire Station looks great and has come in within budget. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to authorize the withdrawal of $850,000 from the Joint Fire Station Account, to be divided evenly between the Cities of Orono and Long Lake. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#21) RENEWAL OF MAPLE PLAIN FIRE AGREEMENT Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to authorize non-renewal of the Maple Plain Fire Service Agreement for 2003, if the City of Maple Plain docs not agree to hold the 2003 lire service costs to the contracting cities at the 2002 level. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *(#22) RESIGNATION OF MARC DAVIS, BUILDING INSPECTOR Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to accept the resignation of Marc Davis from the position of Building Inspector effective July 9,2002. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#23) AGREEMENT FOR BAD CHECK PROGRAM Sansevere asked if it was a good idea to submit names of first time bad check offenders into the program automatically. He stated that first time offenders often have inadvertently written a bad check and it would not be right to subject them to this program. Moorsc agreed, stating that the program seemed somewhat severe for someone who writes one bad check. Attorney Barrett questioned whether an offender would be someone who has already been charged with a misdemeanor and then put into the diversion program. Sansevere asked if Barrett was familiar with this program. Barrett acknowledged that he was unfamiliar with this diversion program and recommended holding off on enrolling until further investigation could be completed. Mayor Peterson moved, Murphy seconded, to table the bad check program agreement VWe"A^***3*N* ***J ‘**‘*®" Associarion and the City of Orono untU further InvestigaHon. PAGE 34 of 35 i4 >1 itii AO ..................................... 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mooday, July 22,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#24) SCHEDULE WORK SESSION Mooise asked that a woric session be scheduled before August 2,2002 to discuss the boat/slip dock issues. He stated that he would send out potential dates and times. Moorse added that the Council should also schedule a work session the week of August 12th to begin the budget review process. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None. *25. LICENSES There were none. Sansevcre moved, Murphy seconded, to approve all licenses. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *26. BILLS Sanscvere moved, Murphy seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 P.M. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Petenon, Mayor PAGE 35 of 35 co» •*• •! AUG 1 2 ?fl02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION I CITY ur DATE: August 12,2002 ITEM NO.: ij. Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Tilk Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Smices Director’s Report Item Description: Public Hearing for North Arm Lane Paving Project- Resolution We have received a petition from three residents on North Arm Drive requesting that an assessment paving project be completed for this street which is currently a gravel surface. There are seven residences that have access from North Arm Lane. The City Engineer has completed a Feasibility Study for this project and the estimated project costs are $31,835 which results in an assessment of $4,550 per property. The annual cost at 6.5^b interest over a 10-year time period is approximately $650 per year. Since receiving the petition, we have sent a letter to all seven of the property owners with the proposed project costs and assessments based on a 5-year time period, four of the seven ow ners are interested in the project. Another owner may be interested in this project, but thought the annual costs were too high. We have talked to several other owners and are they are agreeable to a 1 0-year assessment time period to reduce the annual costs. The annual cost at 6.5% interest over a 10-year time period is approximately $650 per year. One of the elderly residents was not interested in the project, but this person may be eligible for the Senior Citizen Deferment. No comments have been received from the seventh property owner who lives out of state. The residents in favor of paving this street are very' interested in attempting to move forward on this project. Several of these residents have a lot of gravel and dirt from the road washing into their yard and driveway which is not a desirable situation. At the July 22"^ meeting, the Council accepted the Feasibility Study and scheduled a Public Hearing to be held at the August 12"* Council meeting. A Public Hearing Notice was sent to all of the property owners, and a Legal Notice of this hearing was published for two consecutive weeks in the Laker/Pioneer Newspaper. I’hc Council needs to conduct the hearing to obtain resident input on this project. If a favorable response is received from the neighborhood residents, the next step in process would be for the Council to adopt the resolution e rdering preparation of plans and specifications for this project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve/ Not Approve Resolution Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the North Arm Lane Paving Project A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR NORTH ARM LANE PAVING IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Miimesota; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared a feasibility study to determine the feasibility of paving North Arm Lane; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2002 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4843 receiving the feasibility report and calling for a public hearing for the North Arm Lane paving improvement; and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 12th day of August 2002, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby direct the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the paving of North Arm Lane. Adop: ■> by the City Council at a regular meeting held on August 12,2002 by a vote ayes and____nays. ATTEST: Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk M NOS U-IA 460 S«9*4r39*C 27U72 I 290 St9*49‘39*C (13) 314.93 234.76 23LS s 2 (14) 9I9.4S Nsy4a-39m A3.2I •10.95 36SJ mobttm awm E*TATEe F®U«T« ;*»»«i. |S 3«5J ‘ ^ <^rf'■''»»» r (go) 425.05 192.67 2T.95 I92J7 027.95 192.65 4O3J0 2653.17 RES J J/ J Bonestroo Rosene Afidciiik & ^ I Associates Engineers & Architects July 17.2002 Pon«str»o. ffoicnt. Andcfllh and Aiioclatai. Inc. Ii an Amriiiaflva Aciion/Cdual Opportunity fa^loyar and ifftployaa Ownad Prlnclpaii: OlCo G Bonailroo. P£ • Marwirt L SorvalA Pf • Glenn » Cook. PC • Pobert G Schunicht. PC. • Jerry A Bourdon. PC Sanlor Comultanii: PoOert W Posene. PC • Joicpb C Anderhk. PC • Picnard C Turner. PC • Susan M CberUn. C PA Atseelate Principals: Keith A Gordon. PC • PoOert P Pfefferie. PC. • Pichard W Potter. PC • David O. Loikota. P* • Mark A Hamon. PC • Michael T Paucmann. PC • Ted K field. PC • Kennech P Anderson. PC. • Mark P Potfs. PC • David A Boneirtoo. MBA* Sidney P Winiaimon. PI. IS* Agnes M Ping. MBA* ANan Pick Schmidt. PC • Thomas W Petersoa PC- • James P Maiarsd. PC • Mites B Jensen. PC • L Phinip Gravel IP. PC. • DarWal J. fdgerton. PC • Ismael Mariir>er. PC. • Thomas A. Syfka PC • Sheldon J Johnson • Dale A Grove. PC • Thomas A Poushar. PC • Pobert J Oevery. PC. Offices: Si Paul. St. Cloud. Pochetter and Wilimar. MN • Mitaraukee. Wi • Chicago. IL WiBilte: bonestroo com Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono POBox66 Crystal Bay MN 55323-0066 Re: Feasibility Report North Arm Lane File No. 139-02-000 Dear Mayor and Council: As directed by City staff we have reviewed the existing conditions on North Arm Lane in Orono. The roadway is located north of North Arm Drive in the northwe.st quarter of Section 6. North Arm Lane is a public dead end street. 14-feet wide and approximately 950 feet long .serving 7 properties. The southerly end of the roadway is paved from North Arm Drive to approximately 300 feet north, the remaining length is gravel. Several residents have expressed an interest in improving the roadway. Proposed improvements include paving the existing gravel surface to 14-feet in width. Work would include patching several potholes in the gravel road and reclaiming the existing bituminous surface at the south end. The roadway would be graded and paved with 2-inches of bituminous base and 1 Vi inches of bituminous wear course. Once the paving is completed 2-foot wide gravel shoulders would be installed to protect the edge of the bituminous road. The street improvements on North Arm Lane are feasible from an engineering standpoint. The project is necessary to provide a safer and more uniform driving surface. The capital cost as well as operation and maintenance costs have been considered in determining that the project is cost effective. The costs of these improvements are interrelated and should be assigned equitably to the adjoining property owners. The following recommendations are presented for consideration by the Orono City Council: I. That this Report be adopted as the guide for improvements to North Arm Lane. 2.That the City conduct a legal and fiscal review of the proposed project prior to the public hearing. 3.That a public hearing be held on the proposed improvements. The total estimated project cost of $31.835 should be incorporated in the public notice. The total estimated cost of $31,835 includes a 5 i>ercent contingency, a 25 percent allowance for design, inspection, legal, and administration costs, and a 5 percent allowance for capitalized 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN SSI13 • 6Sr636-4600 • Fax: 6St-636-l31f interest and bonding costs during construction. The per unit assessment would be $4,548 based on a total of seven units. The project will be constructed within the City right-of-way and no easement costs are anticipated. A detailed cost estimate for the proposed improvements is attached for your review. We would be pleased to discuss this report further with the City Cbuncil or City staff at any mutually convenient time. Respectfully submitted, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLDC & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Thomas P. Kellogg Date: July 17.2002 ig,P.EJ\^ Reg. No. 26917 ' ' v ' S:- ^ ' » jaaaSsiuL^ V, : kC /r- •lecrifiG AU6 1 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OH UHONO DATE: August 7,2002 ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval: Name Lin Vee TMc City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Westonka Schools - Information Regarding Levy Referendum Attachments:1 . Letter from Gwenn M. Spence, Westonka Public Schools 2. “Questions and Answers” Fact Sheet 3. “Operating Levy Reerendum” Information Handbook Representatives of the Westonka School District will attend the August 12 Council meeting to provide information regarding the upcoming school levy referendum (see attached), and to answer any questions the Council may have. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action required. 1 2 2002 CITY OF ORONO i hrticrt fir Lifclii{ IciriUf August 6,2002 Orono City Council Members P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN SS323 Dear City Council Members, I am writing to provide some background for a short presentation at your August 12 Council meeting. ' ’ On September 10, voters in the Westonka School District will choose between two options of budget cuts that are required to balance the School District’s operating budget. The vote reflects a serious situation. We believe it’s important that everyone, including leaders in the cities served by the School District, know the facts about the operating levy referendum so that they will fully understand the choices in front of voters this September. Enclosed are two items that explain the proposed operating levy referendum: 1. a detailed Levy Information Handbook was mailed in late July to all district residential households; 2. for your convenience, the main points found in the Levy Information Handbook have been summarized into a brief Question and Answer sheet. At your meeting on August 12, an Orono resident and volunteer with the citizens’ campaign supporting the levy will share some comments on behalf of the ’’Yes Westonka” committee. In addition, a representative from the Westonka Public Schools will be present to speak, very briefly, on behalf of the District. If you have any questions about the levy, either before or after your Council meeting, please call the District’s Levy Hotline at 952.491.8443, or e*mail welisten@westonka.k 12 mn.us. A school district staff person will respond promptly. Thank you for your consideration of this important topic. Sincerely, . Gwenn M. Spence IndtpoidQitldiiwI Ik Alt ^.kaiki ■ '.«tMirr JHfl '''in Questions and Answers about the upcoming levy referendum Why Is ths levy rsfsrsndum nsesssary? The School Board is taking steps to balance the budget, which means that $1.1 million of cost reductions must be made unless other funding is made available. Passage of the levy will bring additional operating funds to the school district, reducing the amount of projected budget cuts required in the future. The proposal asks voters to choose between two levels of cuts: 1) A successful levy vote will provide an estimated $800,000 in additional revenue for 2003-2004. The School Board has identified the remaining $300,000 in cuts that would result in a balanced budget for 2003- 2004. These cuts will take place even if the vote passes. 2) An additional $800.(MX) in budget cuts will be required to balance the budget if the levy fails. The School Board has identified those additional cuts and is now taking steps to communicate the information to the public to help voters make a decision. How much will it cost? The owner of a home valued at $100,000 will see an estimated School District referendum levy tax increase of $33 in 2003 ($2.75 per month). Maiket ValuB $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $500,000 Current Ref. $100 200 300 500 EsL Proposed EsLPtopoeed M TA»p«9nf« Ref. TaxM 2012 $133 $137 266 274 399 411 665 685 (Figures assume 5.5% annual increase in property values and no net gain in number of students.) Why Is ths vots schsdulsd for Primary Elsetlon Day? The law permits school districts that are in statutory operating debt (like Westonka) to hold levy referendum elections outside of the General Election Day. Primary Election Day was the earliest a vote could be scheduled. What ars ths District ’s soincss of opsratiiifi rsvsnus? Federal Local Aid Revenue 4% 7% Local Levies State Aid 42%i Note: figures are for 2000-2001, the most recent audited data available. Local Revenue = food serx ice sales, tuition, gifts, interest Where can I get mors informstion about ths levy? • Check the District Web site, www.westonka.k12.mn.us • Call the Levy Hotline at 952.491.8443 • E-mail welisten@westonka.kl2.mn.us • Attend one or more of the Levy Question and Answer sessions: •1\iesday, August 20,10 a.ni., at the Gillespie Center •'hicsday, August 20,7:30 pjn^ at the Early Childhood Center. Hilltop Primary, Shirley Hills Primary, Grandview Middle School, and Mound Westonka High School •Monday, August 26,7:30 pjn., in the Little Theater of Mound Westonka High ^hool (in conjunction with School Board Study Session) •Wednesday, September 4,7:30 pjn., at Hilltop Primary, Shirley Hills Primary, Grandview Middle School, and Mound Westonka High School over iTfriwii III ■llllll^l^lTni^alll Why is ths School District In dsbtT There arc two interrelated reasons the District has carried various levels of debt since 1990. 1) In 1988. and again in 1994. local operating levies failed, which meant a loss of approximately SI million annually in operating funds. 2) Open enrollment became available in 1989. creating competition among school districts vying to offer educational programs that would meet their community's demands. After the local levy losses in 1988 and 1994. the School Bv-ard faced difficult choices. In order to survive in an open enrollment environment, the Westonka Schools needed to remain competitive by offering as many educational opportunities as possible. Doing so, however, would come at a price: taking on debt that would take years to eliminate. Believing it would be easier to recover from debt than to lose students to open enrollment, the Board chose to preserve as much of the educational program as possible. Budget cuts were made, but they were made in areas that were considered to be the least harmful to the educational program. The School Board has been on u debt reduction plan for the past several years. In 1999. the Board adopted financial principles, one of which requires yearly balanced budgets, llie School District is committed to paying off all debt by 2005, and is continuing to work within balanced annual budgets. How will tho Wootonka Schools cImmhio if tho proposod oporatlnp lovy falls? The major changes you will see include: • larger class sizes • fewer course offerings • longer student walking distances to bus stops and schools (primary students will walk up to one mile; middle and high school students up to two miles) • reduced co-curricular opportunities • higher numbers of students qwn enrolling to other districts • teachers and other employees looking for more stable opportunities in other school districts Doaa Wastonka eompata with iialghborina school districts for now famllios? Yes. Many families choose a school district before they shop for a specific home, so a competitive academic program is important. The choices that relocating families make regarding where to enroll their children directly affect the property values in the communities where they buy —or don’t buy —their new homes. Local operating levies help pay for a strong academic and co-curricular program, which is one way the School District stays competitive. Simply stated, the School Board believes that the Westonka Public Schools need to be as excellent as possible so that students who live here will choose to attend here. Hew has the Scheel District Impreved In reeent years? The Westonka School District of today is quite different from that of IS years ago. The best evidence of change can be found in the bright and talented students who graduate every year, but here are some other examples: • High tMt tcorss. A detailed research analysis by the Star Tribune found that Westonka students had higher- than-predicted passing rates on sute tests. • Acciiiimsd achools. Grandview Middle School and Mound Westonka High School were nominated by the State of Minnesota for the Blue Ribbon School of Excellence Award, the highest national recognition possible. • National racognitlon. The Westonka School District has earned the “What Parents Want” award from SchoolMatch. a national school research, performance auditing, and consulting firm, every year since the award’s inception. • Talantad staff. Westonka can boast of the 2000 Minnesota Music Educators Association Teacher of the Year (Mary Gorder), and the 2001 Principal of the Year, representing more than 250 schools in Hennepin and Carver Counties (Gene Zulk). • Growing posHlvs rsputation. In a recent sun-ey of area realtors who attended Westonkc’s annual “Realtors Day” workshop, 100% of the respondents said the Westonka Public Schools provide a high quality education. 96% said the District is developing a more positive reputation. 83% said they consider die Westonka Schools an asset when they list a home in the area. A Fall 2000 survey found that 86% of Westonka residents agree that “high quality public schools increase property values for homeowners in the districL” ThisfHMifaiion wasprtparedaiklpaiJfitrtyliidtptmitMSeliootDuihct277. WeucnJta Ptibik Schools. u> thart bfformaiioti wiik eommmitji rtsidmU. Jhb ptMletaUm is mu eirmUutd on bthtdfcf my cmdidak or ballot qutsiicn. ^U( Operating Levy Referendum September 10,2002 Information Handbook A message from your School Board and Superintendent of Schools (I lo rt: School lloiml itu tnht rs Chuck Wulcrius. John Johns. J. Ned Dow. liruce Clumm: Superintendent Gene Ztdk; ScliPid Hoard Chair David Holts. Not pictured: Hiuinl nieinhers Holt Hittle and Ro.iter Hredeson. This Operating Levy Referendum Information Handbook contains important information about the future of your local public schools. On September 10. voters in the Westonka School District will choose between two options of budget cuts that a. e required to balance the School District's operating budget. This vote reflects a serious situation. We believe it’s important that you know all the facts about the operating levy referendum so that you will fully understand your choices when you go to the polls. This booklet provides answers to many common questions and spells out. in detail, the financial impact of the proposed local levy. Does this booklet contain too much information? Probably. But we heard from voters after the last election that the school district did not provide enough information about the vote. This time, we re providing as much as possible. Should you have a question, please don't hesitate to write or call. The contact information is at the bottom of every page. If you provide your contact information, vve wilt get back to you promptly. We can't emphasize enough how important this election is to the future of the Westonka Public Schools. By design, Minnesota's system for funding education relies heavily on local support for local schools. We believe this levy referendum is the right step to preserve the hard-earned excellerKe of the Westonka Schools. Please read the information, attend the information meetings, and ask any and all questions. Thank you for your consideration. David Botts Roger Bredeson Chair Vice Chair Bruce Charon John Johns Treasurer Director Bob Bittle Chuck Walerius Director Director J. Ned Dow Gene Zulk Director Superintendent Questions? Please call 952.491.8443 or e-mail welisten9we5lonka.k12.mn.us 1. Why (s tiM l«vy r»fT»ndum iMC*ssaryT The Sch(M>l Board is taking steps to balance the budget, which means that $1.1 million ol cost reductions must be made unless other funding is made available. Passage of the levy will bring additional operating funds to the sch(M)l district, reducing the amount of pn>jected budget cuts required in the future. The pn>po.sal asks voters to choo.se between two le\ els of cuts. 1 ) A .succe.ssful levy vole will provide an estimated $8(N).(NX) in additional revenue for 2(KM-2(K)4. The School Board has identified the remaining $.t(Kt.O(K) in cuts that would result in a balanced budget for 2003-2004. These nils will lake plat e even ij ihe vole passes. See Appendix I) for the list of the Stage One cuts totaling $.3(M).(KX). 2) An additional S800.(XX) in budget cuts will be required to balance the budget if the levy fails. The Sch(H)l Board has identified those additional cuts and is now taking steps to communicate the information to the public to help voters make a decision. .See Appendix H for the list of the Stage Two cuts totaling S8(X).000. 2. Wlwr» can I gat mora inffarmatian abaut tha lavy? • Check the District Web site, www.westonka.kt2.mn.us • Call the Levy Hotline at ‘).S2.4m .8443 • E-mail welislen(^wesunika.k12.nin.us • Attend one or more of the Levy Ouestion and Answer sessions: •’Hiesday, August 20.10 a.m.. at the Gillespie Center -'niesday, August 20,7:30 p.ni., at the Early Childhood Center. Hilltop Primary. Shirley Hills Primary. Grandview Middle SchtHil. and Mound Westonka High SchiHil •Monday, August 26,7:30 p.m., in the Little Theater of Mound Westonka High SchiKil (in conjunction with Schmil Board Study Session) •Wednesday, September 4,7:30 p.m., at Hilltop Primary. Shirley Hills Primary. Grandview Middle SchiMil. and Mound Westonka High Schinil i 3. How imich will it coot? The owncrof a home valued at SIDO.IKM) will sec an estimated Sch(M>l District referendum levy tax increa.se of $33 in 2(X)3 ($2.75 per month). Estimated tax impacts for the first and finel years of ’ the levy arc below. i Market CufrentRef.EsL Proposed Esl Proposed vyuB Ta?«2QQ2 Ret. Taxes 2(X)3 $100.(XX)$100 S133 $137 S200.000 200 266 274 S300.(X)0 300 399 411 $500.0(X)500 665 685 (Figures assume 5.5% annual increase in properly values and no net gain in number of students.) See Appeiulix 4 for tleiaih on esihnaletl levy refeienthtnt Ul\ increase payable in 2lK).f See Ap/H’ihlix H for esihnaletl levy referentinni tax ineretises year by yettr over ilie ten-year levy periotl. 4. Why io tho lovy roquoot for ton yoaro? A ten-year levy, the maximum permitted by law. allows school dLstricts to inject some stability into long-term budget planning that is highly dependent on short-term (two-year) state funding cycles. 5. What happons H tho otato providoo incroasos in oducation fundbigT Tlie proposed levy is designed to accommodate state funding increases if and when they are approved by the Legislature. As state funding changes, the state- imposed limit on local levies ("the levy cap") changes, as well. This proptisal allows the local levy cap to adjust (or “float") along with state funding increares. The ScluH>l Board recognizes its duty to use levy authority responsibly. 6. How many iocai lovios and bonds arc in placo now? Whon arc thoy up for il? year 1993 Type 20-year bond for building and technology projects ExiJires 2013 Plans for Renewal no 1995 10<year operating levy 2005 yes 1999 6*year operating levy (brought up to levy cap) 2005 yes 2001 5-year bond 2006 yes for maintenance and technology Questions? Please call 952.491.8443 or e-mail wellsten@we5tonka.k12.mn.u5 3 The 1993 bond provided, jim«*iig others: new media centers at b«»th primary schtH>ls and retiuxlclcd media centers at (Jrandview and the high schind; a new cal'clena at Hilltop; a major inlliix ttl teehnology. including a computer in every classroom, communications inirastructure (Internet and e-mail access, and voicemail capabilities); remmleled classriHHiis at the high schind; and additional major remodeling projects at all sch*H»l buildings, ranging from new window s to upgrades of electrical aiul fire sprinkler systems. The 1995 operatine levy provides approxitnatcly $1 million of operating funds per year. Its renewal in 2tM)5 will provide continued basic tunding lor day-to- day operations. The 1999 uperiilint; levy allowed the scI uh)I district to collect the full amount of revenue, up to the cap. that had been authorized by voters in l'W5. The Board's intention in I9 ‘W was ti» combine the IW.'^ and Ilevies into one renewal date in 200.S. The 2001 mainlenance and leehnology b«md was designed as a five-vear bond, with a list of projects to be completed over those five years. In 2(K)6. a new set of prttjects that caniun be completed witlumt additional funding will be presented to voters fi)r another five-year b»>nd request. Tliis approach was recommended by a citizen-stall advisory c»»mmiltee and fi)llows the financial principles adopted by the .Sch»H>l Board in 1999. which call lor a five-year btmding cycle to fund regular facilities and grounds maintenance. Citizens can monitor pn»gress on bond project c»)mpletit»n by visiting the District Web site at WWW westonka.k12.mn.us. 7. Why is ths vots schsdulstf for Primary Eloction Day? The law permits selun>l districts that are in statutory o|K*rating debt (like Weslonka) to hold levy relerendum elections outside of the General Election Day. Primary Election Day was the earliest a vote could be scheduled. The School Board believes that by holding the referendum election on Primary Election Day, the SclnH>l District will be able to communicate the reasons for ihe levy request more clearly than if it were to compete with the hundreds of non-kKal election messages that precede General Election Day. Questions? Please call 952.4918443 or e-mail welisten&westonka.k12.mnMS 8. Whan would tha now taxas ba laviad? 'I he new referendum would affect pro(vrty taxes payable beginning in 2()03. It would begin providing funds for the 2(K)3-2(M)4 scI uhiI year. 9. EThy doas tha ballot say $S70 par pupil? The ballot indicates the maximum amount «*f additional d«»llars per pupil that the .ScI hh)I District could collect </iin>i,e the tenth itml ftnul yenr of the levy. The b;illot language allows the local levy to be tied to state funding for a ten-year period, saving the cost of running an election every time state lur.ding changes. (See Question for othlitionul infornuition.) Here’s how it works: State law limits the amount of money a school district can collect through a liKiil o|x,*rating levy. The local levy "cap" is tied to per-pupil tunding from the state. When state funding increases, the levy cap increases, as well. During the first year of the levy, the SchiHil District will have permission to collect up to the first-year levy cap of $274 per stiulent. I•;lch year after th;it. as state funding increases, the levy cap w ill increase in direct pro|iortion to the state funding increase, giving the ScluH)l District pemtission to collect more than the previous year. Increases in levy revenue aa* not automatic, however. Everv vear. the School Board reviews the budget at a public meeting, and determines the levy amount, according to state law. to collect the following year. The graph «mi Appendix C shows bow much the ScluH)l District would have permission t«> c«>llect. year by year, over the ten-year period. The graph show s that the levy cap would gradually rise as state funding increases, to a maximum i»f S.^vVO per pupil. The ballot question reflects that maximum, final-year levy amount of $570. However, if state funding increases are less than expected, the Schwl District will have ivrmission to collect only up to a lower levy cap. Regardless of what Ihe Legislature does w ith education funding, the School District will have permis.siun to collect only the amount of local levy allowed by law. i M \ 1 J Of note: the w<»nJing on the ballot is dictated by law. The ScluH)l District is not allowed to change the wording, even if doing so would make the ballot question easier to understand. See Appendix C for a year-hy-year view of current and proposed leiy amounts per pupil. 10. What doas •tatutory oparating dabt maan? Haw did tha Sehaal District gat inta statutary aparating dabt? "Statutory' Operating Debt” is reached when a school district's fund balance is a negative amount that exceeds of its operating expenditures. Statutory Operating Debt requires annual debt reductions t«» bring the accumulated debt to zero. The Westonka School District went into statutttry operating debt in 1‘W.S, the year after a ItK'al levy request lost by 11 votes. The Fall 1994 levy referendum loss presented difficult choices for the SchiHil Board. The Board believed that taking $1 millton of cuts would essentially gut the educational program, resulting in high levels of open enrollment and a loss of talented teachers to other .sch(K)l d"'trict.s. The Board knew that it would take years to rebuild after se\ere cuts to programs. Cuts were, therefore, made in areas that were considered to be the least harmful to the educational program. Believing it would be easier to recover from debt than to lose students to open enrollment, the Board chose to preserve as much of the educational program as possible, and went back to voters w ith another levy request in 1995 (which passed by a wide margin). The ScluH)l Board has been on a debt reduction plan for the past several years. In 1999. the Board adopted financial principles, one of w hich requires yearly balanced budgets. The SchiK)l District is committed to paying off all debt and ct)ntinuing to work within balanced annual budgets, even though doing so requires budget cuts. Tlie School District has not had a financial reserve (undesignated fund balance) since 1989. 11. This Isvy rsqiMst dsscribss chIs for 2003*2004. Why woro cuts also mado for noxi school year, 2002* 2003? More than $7(X).(KK) in cuts were required for 2002- 2(K).^ because the November 2(K)I operating levy failed. The cuts were needed to maintain a balanced budget for 2(K)2-200.^. (See Appendix El 13*2004 a12. Is tho list of cuts for 2 throat or a reality? Stage One cuts (S.^(M).(XK)) are a reality and w ill take place by July 2(K).^. regardless of the levy vote. Stage TwDcuts ($S(X).()00) w ill take place if the levy fails. The Sch<H)l Board realizes that determining budget cuts can be a subjective call. The Board and ScIum>1 District administration are extremely ctmscious about being as straightforward as p«>ssiblc about the proposed cuts. The ScluH)l District solicited and received broad c«>mmunity input into the analysis of expenses and reci>mmendati(»ns for proposed budget cuts. See Appendix O for StOf(e One cuts for 200.1-2004. See Appendix E for Staye l\u> cuts for 200J-2004. 13. Why does tho district have to cut toachors and incroaso class siso? Can’t tho cuts como out of administration and other areas? Cuts are being taken in virtually every program area, including administration. No department or program is immune from budget cuts. For 2(X)2-2(X)3. administrative reductit>ns of approximately $75.(XX) have already been made. (.See Appendix El Another SlOH.tXX) in administrative cuts will be made for 2fX).3-2<X)4, regardless of the outcome of the levy vote. StaKr One cuts and fee increases </^age share of total reduction amount): Classr<'<mi lnstructi(»n 42C? Administrative and Support Staff Supplies and Materials 14'-f Athletics and Co-curricular Activities Facilities l‘/?' Total l(X)‘rc- Questions? Please call 952.491.8443 or e-mall welisten&westonka.k12.mn.us 5 StaKtf Two cuts and fvc iniTvasifi (fi-age share of total reduction amount): ClassriKHM Instruction 62‘/{ Administrative and Siip|>ort Staff 20% Transportation Athletics and Q)-curricular Activities 5 ‘f' 1 ‘acilities 2% Staff Professional IX’vcIopment I % Parking l-'ee Increases___________________1% HH)% Some areas, such as ftHnl service and community educatit)!). are fimdeil separately by the state. Both prt)grams also charge lees, and pr«>vide service within the revenue available. Cuts in these programs w ill not affect the .scImh)I district «)|x.*raling budget, which pays for classrtmm instruction. 14. Why doMnt th« district require wage freeses or wage cuts to meet the shortfall? The ScluH»l District cannot unilaterally require wage f'•e■.ves or cuts. In order to change any aspect of emi’loyee contracts, the schind district and the employee group (or individuali must negotiate and agree upon the chattge. The ScluMfl District is committed to maintaining talented staff (see School Board financial principles, page 12). 15. What will be the classroom Impact of the Stage IWo cuts ($800,000} for 2003.2004? Kindergarten I. All-day. every-other-day kindergarten will mean: —C'urrent class si/es (average 20) will be preserved, but will require a longer scht>ol day for kindergartners. -Revamping lesson plans, taking into consideration the effects of a h»nger Sv-hmtl day for five- to si.v-year-olds (e.g.. shorter student intention spans in the afteriUMin). (•rades 5>7 I. If moving from an 8- to 7-period day with staff reductions: —Average class size will be 27, with a range of 2.*»-.^2 students per class. —Reduced course of ferings. i 2. If maintaining an S-pcritKl day with staff reductions: —Average class si/e will be 30. with a range of 28-35 students per clas.s. 3. Loss of administrative intern position will mean: —Less time to spend with students and parents dealing with discipline issues. —Less support lor principal to dt) teacher evaluations and curriculum development. Crudes K*12 1. If moving from a 7- to b-period day. with staff reductions: —Average class si/e will be 32. with a range from 27-37 students per class. —Reduction in both required and elective curriculum trfferings. —('ollege-lxiund students w ill not be able to schedule every college-bound course, plus 4 years »>f music. w*>rld language and/or advanced placement offerings. .Students who are college- bound or who simply want a broad-based education will take 6 classes, and w ill not have a study hall that pn'vides access to the media center. —Some classr«H)ms aren’t large enough to hold 37 desks, so some teachers wciuld need to move from r«H)m to nH>m. and would not have bixvks and materials in <»ne r»H>m. —There will be less riK)m ft>r student error in meeting graduation requirements. —Teacher retention may suffer if op|x>rtunities w ith smaller classes and a stable curriculum exist in neighboring districts. —There would be higher probability of students open enrolling to other listricts of fering more c«>urse options and smaller classes. 2. If maintaining a 7-period day w i(h staff reductions: —Av erage class size would be 35. with a range of .30 ti> 40 students per class. —^Theie would be less individual instruction and a reduction in the number of complex research, writing, and sfvaking presentation project.s and papers that could be assigned and corrected. —Course offerings with lower student registrations would not be offered, hav ing a dramatic impact on some elective and advanced placement offerings. Course offerings with registrations under 25 w t>uld be at risk. r; Questions? Please call 952.491.8443 or e-mail welislen&westonka.k12.mn.us 6 / —Classrcxmi space tor 40 desks in most nnims would be a challenj*e and lor some impi)ssible. —Teacher recruitment and retention would be at serious risk. —Open enrollment loss of students would be a strong |H>ssinility. All grades (K-12) I. Hliminalion of media assistants w ill mean: —Less individual assistance lor students usin^ the media centers. —I.onjier b<H>* -«!shelviny cycles and longer priK-essing .e lor new lHH>ks and materials. 16. If tiM tovy |Mss#s, will thmwm cofitiniw to bo budgot cuts ovary yoor? The School Board has adopted an aeeressive approach to schiK)l budgeting. \\ hen revenue decreases (due to .state funding decisions or fewer students), the sJiot)l budget must rellect the revenue ilecrease, as well. Assuntiitfi no chanf^es in current projections of student enrollment and state funding, the School District will need to make $265,000 in budget cuts in 2004*2005 and every year after that. On the other hand, if student enrollment and/or stale funding come in higher than projected, the ScIuh>I District could preserve more programs. Our ho|x* is m student grow th and increased stale funding, l-oi e\eiy 10 new high scIuh)I sliulenls w luicome to VVestonka, approximately S70.(K)0 in more revenue comes, as well. 17. Why not uoo tho monoy ?7om incrooood proporty voluoo and now homos to covor tho doficit? Unlike city and county funding. scIuhiI funding is based on the number of students, not on pmperty values. As new homes are built and property values increase, each taxpayer's share of the total tax burden decreases, but the schools don't receive a penny more in new revenue. Stale funding i*- Provided according to the number of students enri'licd. so new homes might bring in additional ^••jJcnis. which would result in additional funding. I 18. What aro tho District’s sourcos of oporating rovonuo? i Note: figures are for 2(XX)*2001 . the most recent audited data available i Federal Local Aid Revenue 4% 7% State Aid 42% Local Levies 47% w/ 'S-V5 J hn ul Rrvfntir - jiuni \rn7i r sales, imtian, iiifts, interest 19. Doos Wostonka compoto with noighboring school districts for now famllios? Yes. Manv lamilies clunise a scIuhiI district before they shop lor a s|xvific home, so a competitive academic program is iiii|>ortanl. I'he choices that reltxaling families make regarding where to enroll (heir children directlv affect the pmjxTlv values in the cominunilies where ihev buy--or don't buv their new homes. Local operating lev ies help pay for a strong academic and co-curricular program, which is one wav the .ScluH)l District stavs comjxtitive. Simpiv stated, the ScIkhiI Hoard believes iliat the Westonka Public ScluH>ls need to be as excellent as possible so that students who live here will clunise to attend here. 20. Now has tho School District improvod in rocont yoors? rite Westonka SchiMil District cd tcnlay is quite different from that of 15 vears ago. fhe best ev idence of change can be found in the bright and talented students who graduate every year, but here are some other examples: • High test scores. A detailed research analy sis by (he .Star Tribune found that Westonkii students had higher-lhan-prediclcd passing rales on state tests. Questions? Please call 952.491.8443 or e-mail welisten&westonka.k12.mn us 1 • AcciaimMi tcbools. Grundview Middle School and Mound Westonka High Schtx>l were nominated by the State of Minnesota for the Blue Ribbon Sch(X)l of Excellence Award, the highest national recognition possible. • National racoflnitlon. The Westonka Sch(H>l District has earned the “What Parents Want ” award from Sch(X)IMatch. a national school research, performance auditing, and consulting firm, ever)' year since the award's inception. •Talantad ataft. Westonka can boast of the 2000 Minnesota Music Educators As.sociation Teacher of the Year (Mary Gorder). and the 2(X)I Principal of the Year, representing more than 2.S0 sch«H)ls in Hennepin and Carver Counties (Gene Zulk). • Qrowing poaHiva raputation. In a recent survey of area realtors who attended Westonka’s annual “Realtors Day" workshop. 100^ of the respondents said the Westonka Public Schools provide a high quality education. said the District is developing a more positive reputation, compared to previous years. 8.1'X said they consider the Westonka Schotils an asset when they list a home in the area. A Fall 2(XX) survey found that 869r of Westonka residents agree that “high quality public schtH)ls increa.se property values for homeowners in the district." 21. DMn*l tiM stat« tak« ov«r tiw eosk of oducotlon so n would corns off ptopsrty IohosT H sOi why is tho school district going to voters for on oporating lovyT Education funding is designed to be a share between local ta.\paycrs and the state. In the past, general education aid was made up of a mi.x of state and local property tax money. The property tax reform legislation of 2(K)I shifted the cost of basic education aid to tbe state. For many years, the Minnesota Legislature has sought to maintain or increase basic funding for schixils. Legislators have been highly successful in ensuring that public education funding has been spared from state budget cuts. Westonka's local legislators. Sen. Gen Olson and Rep. Steve Smith, have been vocal advtK'ates of fair funding for public schixils. Sen. Olson and Rep. Smith have advised, however, that basic funding from the state is not intended to cover all the costs of providing public education. LiK-al levy referendums allow taxpayers to support programs that raise the bar from a “basic” education to one that is 'ruly outstanding, including art and music, co-curricular programs. Advanced Placement classes, and a wide range of high schtxil electives. Rep. Alice Seagmn. chair of the Minnesota House K-12 Education Finance Committee, described the relationship between tax reform and funding for public .schixils as follows (as published in the Star Tribune. 11/4/01): “IPIroperty nat'.v //iuve Iwamel more purely local /arev.... makiny ihe sysleni simpler ami more accountable. Umil communities will he responsible for decisions alumt their property taxes and the level of sers'ices they expect from their cities, counties and public schools. So, for o community that wants increased funding for its scluwls, residents have the option of raising that money at the sclutol district level, within limits set by the legislature. ” Questions? Please call 952.491.8443 or e-tnail welisten^westonka.ki2.mn.us 8 aukiia. 22. How dM tho district spend its operating fund in >2001? (see descriptions next page) ■ V- 'll These are the figures found on the Dept, of Children, Families, and Learning web site: http://cfl . state, mn. us/FIN/0 1 distprofiles. him! ■Classroom Instruction 56.5% Breakdown: Elementary and Secondary Education $7,229,373 40.7% Special Education $2,738,490 15.4% Vocational Education Instruction $427,506 2.4% —Operation of Site, BuHdings, and Equipment $1,737,069 9 8% Distrkt/Schooi Administration $M95,128 6 7% —Transportation Services $1,096423 6.2% District Support Services $939,777 53% —Pupil Support Services $807,856 4.6% —Food Services $771,891 4.3% Instructional Support Services —Other Fixed Charges $678,823 $144,308 3.8% .8% Qux Uons? Please cal! 952.491.8443 or e-mail weHsten9westonka.kt2.mn.us 9 I > AHA., a. Ik. A ^^Mllt^lUQiri.U « >.iiAi4a.i . A.Maiftfiiarff/> * r >; •« *.irk afuai.M.a l.oki.'34'.«> ;iri 23. How did tho district spend its oporathid fund In 2000*2001? These are the figures found on the Dept, of Children, Families, and Learning web site: http://cfl.state.mn.us/FIN/01distprofiles.html. Kkmentar>' and Secondary $7J29,373 40.7 Expenditures for elemeniar) and secondary classroom regular instruction instruction, not including vocational instruction. Includes salaries of teachers. classrkH)iii assistants, coaches, and e\|)enditures for classr(M>m supplies and textb<Ktks. Special l>:ducation $2,738,490 15.4<^c Expenditures for instruction i*f students who. because of atypical characteristics or c»)nditions, are provided educational prt)grams that are different from regular instructional programs. Includes expenditures ft*r special instruction of students who are emotionally or psychologically disabled, or mentally handicapped: for students with physical, hearing, speech, and visual impairments: and for students with special learning and behavior problems. Operation of Site, Buildings. $1,737,069 9.8<^^ and Equipment Expenditures for operation, maintenance and repair of district's buildings, grounds and equipment. Includes expenditures of custodians, fuel for buildings, electricity, telephones, and repairs. Dlstrkt/School Administratim $1,195,128 6.7<7r ExpiMuliiures for the .SchtHil Btnird and for the office of the superintendent, principals, and any other administrators who su[K‘rvi.se stalY. Transportation Services $i,0%,423 6.2 Expenditures for scluxil bus trans|M)rtation. including special trans|X)rtation arrangements for students w ith special needs. District Support Services $939,777 5.3^^ Expenditures for central office administration and operations iu>t included in district and schiHil administration. Includes expenditures for business services, data processing, legal services, personnel office, printing, and the school census. Pupil Support Services $807,856 4.6% Expenditures for all non-instructional services prm ided to students, not including transfH)Hation and f(MKl. Includes expenditures for attendance an siK'ial w’t)rk. counseling, guidance, health services, and psychological services. Food Services $7713191 4J% Expenditur.-s for the preparation and serving of meals to students. Instructional Support Services $678,823 331% Expenditures for activities intended to help teachers pn*vide instruction, not including expenditures for principals or superintendents. Includes expenditures for assistant principals, curriculum development, libraries, media centers, audio visual support, staff development, and computer assisted instruction. Vocational Ed. Instruction $427,506 2.4% Expenditures in secondary schools that ore related to job skills and career exploration. Includes expenditures for home economics, as well as industrial, business, agriculture, and distributive education. Other Fixed Charges $144,308 .8% Expenditures for pro)x*rty and liability insurance. Total Expenditures:$17,766,643 100% These category names and descriptions are defined by the State of Minnesota, and can be found on the Dept, of Children, Families, and Learning web site: htp://cfl.state.mn.us/FIN/01distprofiles.html t Questions? Please call 952.491.8443 or e-mall wellstenOwestonka.kl2.mn.us 10 k 24. Now do Wootonlui'4 oporatinfp oxpondituros eompaio with othor school districto? *Now: estimated operaiinii expenditures for 2001-2002 and 2002-200d assume no chani'es in current projections of student enrollment and/or state fundinf;. OraK-Ck. 12 TOTAL OKfUTIIMI EXPKNDITURtS 2000*2001 Sources: Dept. ofChildren, FamiliesS I eamirtg "SchoolDistnet Profiles 2000-2001’. httpj/dtstatemn usFIMOtdistprolileshtml 'Schod Board-adopted budgets Student count Minnetonka' 7.613 Orono’ 2.626 Westonka I 2 357 1 1 Westonka esi. 1 2001-2002 j Westonka est I 2002-2003 Dist & Sch Admin $2,957,986 50%$906,083 48%$1,195,128 6 7%S892.584 4 7% ! S812341 4 3% Oist Suppoit Serv 2.694,731 45%672.284 3 6%939.777 53%872.680 4 6^0 879.553 4 7% Reg instruc 26.757.409 450%9.256.820 490%7.229.373 40 7%8.177.520 42 8»o i 8.176.754 43 5% Voc Instruc 1.503.459 2.5%305.018 1.6%427.506 2 4%435.704 2 3%356 547 1 9“o Spec Educ 8.715.473 14.7%2.601.171 138%2.738.490 15 4%2.984.009 15 6%i 3.014.301 16 0% Instruc Support 3.239.438 5.5%630.028 33%678.823 3 8%692.287 3 6%634.216 34% Pupil Support 2.739.018 4.6%403.881 2.1%807.856 4 6“o 832.504 44%860.775 4 6% Op & Main!4.719.538 8.0%1.839.772 97%1.737.069 98%1.910.340 100%j 1.870.647 10 0% Food Serv 2.651.005 4.5%850.799 45%771.891 4.3%816.944 4.3% 820.123 44% Pupil Transp 3.216.120 5.4%1.369.451 73%1.096.423 6.2% 1.258.945 66%i 1.102.639 252.000 • 59% Other operating 204.925 0.3% 48.192 03%144.308 08%220.015 11%1 3% TOTAL Operating Expenditures $59,399,102 100 0%$18,883.4991000%$17,766,644 100 0%$19,093.5321000% j ; $18 779 896 100 0% 2S. How do Wostonka*0 odministrotivo staff costs comparo to othor districts? Administrative Stalt Costs Per Pupil Minnetonka $223 Westonka $277 Orono $283 ‘2001-2002 data, based on research regarding comparable stall positic • The ScluHiI Board is keenly aware of the public's desire for lower administrative costs, and it has alrcady taken steps to reduce costs for 2IH)2-2IK)3. Regardless of the outcome of the levy vote, additional administrative cuts will be taken for 2(K)3-2(K)4. 26. Why is tho district building athletic facilitios and an Kducatlonal Sorvico Cantor whon it Is facing budget cuts? in the late '60s. the Schinrl District's plan was to have athletic fields liKated at the new high schm)!. The sale of the downtown propeny in 2000 provided the funds to move Haddorff Field to the high schix)! and to create two additional irrigated practice fields. The sale of the dowmown property provided funds to move district offices u» a new ItK'ation on the high schtH>l site, as well. 1 he new building will lx; more efficient and less e\pensi\e to ojvrate than the foiincr Communitv ('enter. There are seseral additional reasons why the athletic facilities and l-dticational .Service Center projects should go forward: 1 ) Stale law pnihibils the mixing of funds fnmi building projects to operating budgets. I:\en if the schtMil district had chosen not to use the funds all(K'ated for the prryect. it would have Kvn prohibited from spending them, or the interest accrued on those funds, for educational programs. 2) Construction costs will continue to increase. 3) The School District has entered into legal, binding contracts with vendors working on all parts of the project. HaddorfI' I'ield. the twi> additional practice fields, and the Educational Service Center are proceeding on time and under budget, requiring no additional funds from taxpayers. Questions? Please callX2.491.8443 or e-mail welisten9westonka.k12 mn.us II II Mill la ■ I « iL This profKtscil operating levy will not pay for liaddorff Field, the two additional fields, or the r.diieational .Service Center. 27. WlHH« will tlw moiwy com* from to pay th* oporating cost* of th* Educational S*rvic* Contar? The Schm»l District's ojvrating budget (General I'und) will be used tt* pay the o|xrrating costs of the Fducational Service Center (FiSC). Projected annual operating costs lor the ESC are as follows. Total costa Electricity S24.700 Custodial 8.(XX) Natural gas 5,000 Properly insurance 2.500 Water and sewer __60 0 Total $41,000 New. out-ol-pocket costs Electricity $20,200 No new custodial 0 Natural gas 5.(XX) Properly Insurance 2.5(K) Water and sewer 800 Total $28,500 Actual new, out*of-pocket operating costs for the KSC will lie $28,500. Some of the costs attributed to the ne building (such as electricity) will reduce the operating costs of other sch(H)l buildings that currently house district offices. For e.sample. when the copy center moves to the ESC. the electricity costs at Mound Westonka High ScI uk)I will he reduced. In addition, no new custinlial hours will be required because current custodial duties will be reassigned, incurring no new labirr costs. 28. What is th* School Board’s hudgot stratogy? In l‘)‘W. the Westonka SchrHd Board adopted financial principles to guide all future budget planning. These guidelines are reviewed annually. 1. Base decisions on what is best for learners, and what will provide the highest student achievement. ?. Assure that expenditures shall not exceed available revenues. 3. Maintain an adequate fund balance to protect against unforeseen fluctuations in revenue. 4. The goal of all compensation packages is to attract and retain the best-qualified individuals. 5. Employee compensation includes salaries and all benefits, including FICA and TRA/PERA contributions, health and dental insurance costs, as well as long term disability, life insurance, tax shelter annuity match, workers compensation insurance, and unemployment costs. 6. Plan and fund facilities and grounds maintenance to include a five-year bonding cycle. 29. What do taxpayors got for thoir moiiay? Results: High achievement levels by students The only uniform measure of slikleni achievemenl statewide is results of state tests in grades 3, S. 10 and 11. Westonka students* scores on the state basic standards tnath and reading tests have been at or above the state average every year since ! W8. V'estonka student scores on the tenth grade w i iting test have been above the stale a\ erage every year since the test was implemented. Results for third-grade and fifth- grade accountability tests (Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments in reading, math, and writing) have run significantly higher than the stale average every year since the tests were begun. A recent Star Tribune analv sis found that Westonka sliidenls scored higher than the predicted passage rates on all the tests included in the study. Fiscal accountability Everv >ear. school district finances are audited by an independent audit firm. Hie audit te|X)rt is made to the School Board in October of ever> year. Accountability Tor .schtml improvement Westonka participates in the rev iew process sponsored by the North Central Association for accreditation of K-12 schools. Westonka is one of a small |x*rcenlage of districts in Minnesota in which all schools are accredited. 30. Why do private schools spend less per student than the public schools? There are iwii primary reasons why private scI uk>I s are able to show lower expenditures than public schools: J) private schools are not required to meet state and federal mandaies for senices • Private scI hhiI s are not required to provide serv ices to students with special needs. Public schiH>ls, however, are required by law to do so. West.mka spent 15ri of its total operating budget on .special education in 2(MK)-2(K)I. • By law, the Westonka Public Sch(x>ls must pmvide the opportunity for non-public schools to participate in federal and state grant programs, including Titles I, II, V; Safe and Dmg free Questions? Please call 952.4918443 or e-mail welisten&westonka.k12.mn us 12 •^7 't k ScIhh)!;*; aid u» m»n-public schiwls. If ihe non- puhlic sduH>l chiH)scs U* panicipalc. the public school must include m)n-public Mali input to write the grant. Ilte public schtH)l district nuist manage the funds, process the purchase orders, and arrange payment Idr staff and/or materials to be purchased with federal funds. 2) private school expenditure Jigures do not include the costs of services provided hy the Iwal public schttoldistrict. Fi»r example: • By law. the Westonka Public ScIuh)1s must provide staff, testing and tutoring tor non-public students w ith special needs. • By law. the Westonka Public .ScIuk)1s must provide and administer sch«H)l bus transportation for non­ public students. .Some additional differences that help keep private sch(M)l spending down: • State labor relations laws do not require private scluHtls U) have unionized employee groups. • Private scIum)Is are not required to use licensed teachers, which often lowers their pay roll. • Private scIuh>Is do not need to meet as many government mandates, such as state graduation and schiml accountability requ rements that call h»r testing in grades .k 5. S. 10 am: II. • Private scIuhiIs can choose which studetits enter their classr»H)ms. narrow ing the range t>f student academic. siKial. and emotional needs. Please note: this informatitm is pri>vided only to help citizens understand differences iK'tween costs for public and private education. The Westonka ScIhh>I Board recognizes and alTirms the right of parents and students to cluHise public, private, or homescluHiling. 31. What wiU tha ballot say? APPROVAL OF SCHOOL DISTRICT REFERENDUM REVENUE AUTHORIZATION The School Board ol Independent School District No 277 (Westonka Public Schools) has proposed to increase its general education revenue by S570 per resident marginal cost pupil unit The additional revenue will be used to finance school operalions and Ihe properly lax portion thereof will require an estimated referendum tax rate ol approximately 0 04539*o of Ihe referendum market value of the Westonka Public School District lor taxes payable m 2003. Ihe first year it is to be levied The proposed referendum revenue authorization would be applicable lor 10 years unless olhenwise revoked or reduced as provided by law 32. Wh«r« do I voto? .M Ihe lime of this printing, \oiing loiaiions have not yet been determined by the respective cities in the SchiMil ITisiricl. For more information, contact your lival city office: Independence 1920 County Rd 90 Maple Plain MN 55359 Phone; 763-479-0527 Fax; 763-476-9622 or 763-479-0514 QrODO 2750 Kelley Pkwy PO Box 66 Crystal Day MN 55323 Phone 952-249-4600 Fax 952-249-4616 MinneLriStfl 7701 County Rd 110 West Mmnetrista MN 55364 Phone 952-446-1660 Fax; 952-446-1311 Shpieaecd 5755 Country Club Rd Shorewood MN 55331 Phone; 952-474-3235 Fax: 952-474-0128 MOPOd 5341 Maywood Rd Mound MN 55364 Phone 952-472-0600 Fax: 952-472-0620 Spring Park 4349 Warrer Ave. PO Box 452 Spring Paik MN 55364 Phone 952-471-9051 Fax; 952-471-9055 How do I voto by absontoo ball?!? You may vote by absentee ballot if: • you are going to be absent from the precinct on election day. September 10. 2002 • illness or disability prevents your going to the polling place • religious discipline or observance prohibits your attendance at the polling place • you are an election judge in another precinct Absentee ballots are available 30 days prior to the slate primary on September 10. 2002. You may pick up an application for an absentee ballot in person or request the application by mail from the Election Division of your city clerk (see list of cities above) or print an application by going to the State of Minnesota Elections web site at www.sos.state.mn.us/election/absentee. You may also vote in person at the Hennepin County Government Center during normal office hours, on the Saturday before the election from 10 AM to 3 PM. or on the Monday before the election until 5 PM. Apply early so you will have time to receive the ballot and mail it back before election day. Batots received after election day will not be counted. Appendix A Westonka School District No. 277 Analysis of Tax Impact for Potential Increase in Referendum Revenue May 15.2002 New Referendum Revenue $570.00 Per Pupil Unit Est. Market Value Rates (for Referendum Only) Taxes Payable in 2002 0.09996 Estimated Taxes Payable in 2003 Without Taxes for Total Change in Proposed Proposed Referendum Taxes. 2002 Levy Levy Levy to 2003 0 08763 0.04539 0.13302 The figures in the table are based on school district taxes for the referendum levy only, and do not include tax levies for other purposes Tax increases shown above are gross increases, not including the impact of the state Property Tax Refund ("Circuit Breaker") program. Many owners of homestead property will qualify for a refund, based on their income and total property taxes. This will decrease the net effect of the referendum levy for many property owners. NOTE: For agricultural homestead property, the taxes would be based on the value of the house, garage, and one acre only. prepared by Ehlers and Associates Questions? Please call 952.491.8443 or e-mail welisten&westonka.k12.mn.us 14 Type of Property Taxable Market Value Estimated Taxes for Referendum Only* $80,000 $80 $70 $36 $106 $26 90.000 90 79 41 120 30 All Property Except 100,000 100 88 45 133 33 Agric. Homestead,125,000 125 110 57 166 41 Disabled Homestead,150.000 150 131 68 200 50 and Seasonal Recre­175,000 175 153 79 233 58 ational Residential 200,000 200 175 91 266 66 250.000 250 219 113 333 83 300,000 300 263 136 399 99 400,000 400 351 182 532 132 500,000 500 438 227 665 165 750,000 750 657 340 998 248 1.000,000 1,000 876 454 1,330 331 2.000,000 1,999 1.753 908 2,660 661 N. \ I Appendix B Estimated tax impact of proposed referendum levies for taxes payable 2003-2012 Estimated Tax Impact of Referendum Levies over 10-year period for Sample Properties, assuming annual 5.5% increase in property value School District referendum levies Estimated School District levies payable in subsequent years if proposed levy passes payable in 2002 2003 2004 2005.2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 20.11 2012 Home Value $100,000 $100 $133 $133 $134 $134 $134 $136 $136 $137 $137 $137 $200,000 200 266 266 268 268 268 272 272 274 274 274 $300,000 300 399 400 401 401 402 409 409 410 410 411 $500,000 500 665 665 670 670 670 680 680 685 685 685 Please note: This chart shows only School District referendum levies. City and county taxes are set separately by those government entities. This estimated tax impact chart was prepared by Ehleis and Associates, an independent financial advisor to the School District. SI 200 $1100 $1000 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 □ Pfoposod ■ Cuffoni Appendix C Westonka Public Schools Current and Proposed Referendum Levy Amounts Per Pupil _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1- - -1 - - - - - -,K' "— - ■ • 11 1 1 1 1 I II 11 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 ~ ] 1f 1 t Pay 2003 Pay 2004 Pay 200h Pay 2006 Pay 2007 Pay 2008 Pay 2(K)9 Pay 2010 Pay 2011 Pay 2012 S274 S303 S332 S363 S396 S427 ?461 S496 S532 S570 S5G3 $d63 S563 S563 S563 S563 S563 S563 S563 S563 For taxes payable Current Q Proposed JL 1 AgHI*iMllx D stage 1: Mandatory Cuts and Fee Increases of $300,000 for 2003«2i AsMiminf( no changes in current student enndintent firojections, and no changes in the current state funding pmjections for 200J-2004 Classroom Instruction —Reduce three teaching positions K-12 —Eliminate sch*H>l funding for K-4 Held trips (all field trips will become fee-based) Administrativo and Support Staff —Eliminate one Buildings and Gotunds administrative pt)sition —Restructure Human Resources director positum —Eliminate supp<*rt p«»sition in Human Resources department —Eliminate one attendance clerk positi«m at the high schiH)l Supplios and matorials —3'f reduction across the bt>ard (including classriHitn. t)ffice. media center, ciistodia., .•'•curricular) Athlotlcs and Co^urrlcular Actlvitios —Reduce number of coaches and co-curricular advisors —Increase activity fees (estimate based on participation) Faciittlos —Increase facility use fees for a>mmunity groups (estimate based on current use) (increase fees charged to Community Education Dept, for custodial services) Total mandatory euU and foo Incroasos for 2003-:*1 $128,000 $I20.(XX) $108,000 $5().(KK) S20.(K)0 SI.3.000 S25.(MK) $43,000 S4.3.(XK) $20,000 $I0.(X)0 $10,000 $4,000 $4,000 $300,000 Questions? Please call 952.491.8443 ore-mil welistenCwestonka.k12.mn.us 17 Appendix E This list Is the choice for voters on Sept. 10. If the levy passes, these cuts will not be made. If the levy fails, these cuts will be made by July 2003. Stage 2: Levy-Dependent Cuts and Fee Increases of $800,000 for 2003-2004 As.simins: no chatiKVs in current student enroUment projections, and no chanf^c.s in the current state fundinf! projections for 200^-2004 Classroom InstrMction Impicmcnl all day. cut > olhor day kiiulcrjiaricn (climinaic mid-day bus routes) Reduce 7 teachcr-licenseil jxisiiions at hiiih sclund. I bis reduction wdl require that sc Iuhi I admihi .trators ch(H>se one of the following scenarios: Increase class sizes mitler one oi two options: 1 ) change from 7- to (> ixTitnl ilay at high sc Iuki I with an average class size of 32 and a range of 27-37 students |x*r class QK 2) keep 7-|x*riiKl day but have average class size of 35 and a ra:.^;? of 30-40 students per class. - Reduce 4 teacher-licensed positions at middle schend Increase c Lisn sizes under one of tvu' options. 1 ) change from S- to 7-(Hrriod da> at middle school with an average class size of 27 and a ranee of 25-32 students per class QR 2) keep S-period da> but have average cla.ss si/e of 30 and a range of 28 35 students per class. $492,000 $.‘>2.(XK) $280,000 $INI.()00 Administrativ* and Support Staff —Reduce activ ities director j'H'sititm to SO' i —I limmate intern principal (Htsition at middle schend —Idiminate four media center assistant |>ositions (one per building) —I.limmate schtnd psychologist |>osition (lunding for this fxisitiim is shared between the lival schcHd district and the federal government. I•.llnunating the pi>sition elimiiKites the hval schiH>l district share of the costs.) $160,200 $14,200 S.46.(KX) $90.0(X) S20.(XK) Transportation —Increase walking dislanees to I mile Ipriiiurs sehiHtl) and 2 miles (middle high school); eliminate twii bus routes $70,000 S70,(MK) Athlotics and Co Curricular Activitios - Reduce co curricular cdlerings. supplies, equipment, and materials (eliminate up to 4 programs, most likelv those with the smallest numbci of participants .Among the first to be considered could be cross-country', girls’ golf, girls’ hiKkey, and cheerleading team.) $41,600 $41,800 Facilitios -Reduce annual t*ivracing costs of shimming rKH'l (close pool in Dec/Jan/l-cb) - Increase facility use Ices Orr community groups (estimate ba.sed on current use) (increase fees charged to Community liducution Dept, for cu.stodial sers'ices) $18,500 SI0..S(K) $8.(XM) $taff Profaasional Davalopmant — Idimmate tundmg for out-(d-iiisirict vvorkshi'ps and conferences $10,000 $10,000 Parking Faa Incraasas Increase studer.i parking lc*es from SKTO/yr ('02-'0.4) to SI25/yr r03-'04), bu.sed on .400 vehicles $7,500 $7,500 Total $taga IWo cuts $600, Questions? Please call 952.491.8443 or e-mail welistenCimtonka.k12.mn.us A 'i \ Appendix F Westonka Public Schools Budget Cuts for 2002-2003 7h090 cuim hmw mkmmdif b —n mmd9 tor tho coming year and mro not rolmtod to the opomilng lowy roquomt. \ Classiaom Instruction Cut three leachinf! positions FJiminate siii'wl Jistrict funding for student tutoring in math and reading at Hilltop Discontinue kindergarten classnnnn assistants Savings from two unanticipated mid-year (’Ol-’OJ) retirements Eliminate paid time for uacher review of teaching materials Eliminate paid time for teacin r planning of chttnges in materials % Other catsgo fias Special Educatitm program adjustments Reduce tuition costs for students placed in out-of-district prograttts Discontinue membership in Shared Decisions Alliance i24e.S92 $201,400 Transportation $125,< Increase walking distances to 4/10 mile (for primary) and 6/10 mile (CMS <S MWHS) Consolidate bus stops Note: implementation of these changes began 4/15/02 Administrative and Support Staff Reduce school funding for Human Resoun es Director Reduce legal fees Reduce costs for office staff, classroom assistants, bus drivers, and substitute teachers Charge overhead to federally funded programs Reduce school funding for conferences and workshops Facilitios Increase charges for custodial serx'ices and utilities for Community Education and Food Sen'ice: turn off lights to conserx e energy $76,135 $45,( Athletics and Co<Curricular Acthritlas Reduce co-curricular budget by 5% Increase /Hirticipalion fees Parking Fee Increases Increase student parking fees from $24/yr to $IOO/yr $27,645 $21,000 Total cuts for 2002>2003 $742,712 Ouestions? PIme call 952.491.8443 or e-mail mHstenOwestonka.k12.mn.us 19 Important and Time Sensitive Information This Operating Levy Referendum information Handbook contains important information about the future of your local public schools. This booklet provides answers to common questions and spells out, in detail, the financial impact of the proposed local levy. Should you have a question, please don’t hesitate to write or call: welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us; 952.491.8443. 0 i Iiidcpcndcnl Sch<K>l District #277 Wcstonku Public Scluxils 2450 Wilshire Boulevard. Suite A Mound MN 553f>4 Wcalonka Board of Education H CTujfix-f'-Ki RufCf UfciicMiri Vice C hair Bruce Chouei Ireavurrr Non-Profit Org. US POSTAGE PAID Pennit No. 51 Mound MN R<4> Rittle J NVilIXm Jtihii h«hn> Ouick Walcrus Mor> l^iiilberit Clerk Ckne /ulk SuivrinlriHleni of Si.ho«»K \ Prepared and paid for by Westonka Public .Schools ISO 277. This publication is not Circulated on behalf of any candidate or ballot question.* * * * ♦ ECRWSS * * Residential Customer City of Orono, Minnesota Street Numbering Index Map • UMCI ‘ teidlto*. norih He Vitro* ten l^Mt Mrr. ?, If torco i^tat M t. lit! m/9i m,mm e.»tt ir.vto AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 12,2002,6:30 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 Counc; wider the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items ate available in il. 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 of July 22,2002 OATH OF OFFICE 3. JoshAmeson, Part-Time Police OfRcer COU>"^** ••'r'CTiNG AOG 1 2 2002 CITY UF ORONO PUBLIC HEARING • 7:00 P.M. 4. North Arm Paving Project A. Order Preparation of Plans and Specifications for North Arm Lane Paving Project Resolution PRESENTATION S. Westonka Schools • Levy Referendum PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sherokee Use. RepresenUtive PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jeanne Mabusth, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit S Minutes Per Penoo) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 6. 802-2789 Dahlsirom Development LLC - “2550'' Wayzata Boulevard West - PUD Rezoning and Concept Plan Approval 7. 802-2793 Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road • Aftcr-thc-Fact Variance and Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 8. 802-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West - Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permits - Resolution • 9. 802-2805 Carson Erickson, 3415 Eastlake Street-Variances-Resolution 10.802-2808 James and Jean Echtenkamp, 2800 Pheasant Road - Variances - Resolution II. 802-2810 Brad and Carol Pass, 250 North Shore Drive West - Final Plat of Idyllvalc Farm- Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 12,2002,6:30 P.M ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 12. Bid Approval of Telephone System - Long Lake Fire Station 13. Appointment of Alternate Planning Commission Members 14. Appointment of Planning Commission Vice Chair 15. Appointment of2002 Primary Election Judges - Resolution • 16. Aj^intment of Full-Time Community Service Ofliccr • 17. AppoinUnent of Part-Time Police Officer • 18. Request to Advertise, Select - Part-Time Police Officer Position 19. Amendment to Appointments - Resolution CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT • 20. LICENSES • 21. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS Ofilili V Applicaiioii Date: April 17,2002 Initial 60-Day Review Eipiration: June 16,2002 5/29/02 - City Notineil Applicant of 60-day Review Period Eitension to August 15,2001 PIaii Annliralinn Jun# 14. 1002Revised Plan Appllcallon Dale; Juae 24,2002 Revised Initial 60<Uay Review Eipiration: A urus I 23,2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MirpTINQ 12 m ‘='"O'=0«0to Date: August 9,2002 Item No.: Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02*2789(Rcviscd) Dahlstrom Development, LLC, “25SO** Wayzata Blvd. - Proposed Residential Development • Revised Concept Plan: 1) Rezoning to RPUD 2) PUD Concept Plan Review List of Exhibits A - Draft Planning Commission Minutes July 15-17,2002 B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 8/1/02 C - Updated Fees Estimate 8/1/02 D - Revised Plan Distributed by Applicant to PC on 8/17/02 E - Draft Park Commission Minutes F - City Engineer’s Comments re: Transportation G - TrafTic Study Proposed Scope of Services H - CMP Excerpt: Housing Action Plan I - Planning Commission Memo & Exhibits 7/12/02 Summary of Request and Status of Review Summary. Applicants have submitted a Revised Concept Plan to develop portions of this SI-acre site via the Planned Unit Development process. Proposed uses include a mixture of residential housing types to be located north of Kelley Parkw ay, including 56 rambler townhomes, 48 two-story townhomes, and 64 lofts (condominium units). The proposal would create two commercial outlets south of Kelley Parkway for future development. The Revised Concept Plan docs n2l require amendment of the Community Management Plan (CMP). Status. Following Council’s denial of the initially requested CMP amendments on June 9, this revised application was submitted on June 24, 2002. The developer made a presentation of the Revised Concept Plan to Council and Planning Commission on July 9. Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on July 15-17. The Revised Concept Plan was also reviewed by the Park Commission on July 29. 4 d k..A #02-2789 (Revised) Dahlstrom Development LLC August 9,2002 Page 2 of? Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised application on July 15, 2002. After approximately one hour of discussion, in order to complete the remainder of its agenda. Planning Commission continued this review to a reconvened meeting on July 17. The draft minutes of the July 15-17 meetings are attached (Exhibit A). On a vote of 5-0, Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Revised C oncept Plan. The detailed recommendations of the Planning Conunission are documented in Exhibit B which contains 7 general comments/recommendations and 17 specific comments/recommendations on various aspects of the Concept Plan. Park Commission Recommendation The Park Commission reviewed the Revised Concept Plan with the applicant prior to the Park Tour on July 29. Park Commission unanimously made 4 specific recommendations in regards to public or private parks & recreation aspects of the proposal: 1.Park Commission favors a bituminous bike/hike trail along (but separated from) Highway 12 along the south side of the commercial outlets, primarily to provide a westerly continuation from the intersection of 12AViltow, which will have no driveway crossings for users to contend with. Park Commission noted this trail is likely to connect we<t to the Lurton park property in the future. Park Commission also supports the proposed trail extension along the east boundary from the Willow View subdivision to the intersection of Willow/12. 2.Park Commission recommends that the developer install the Tot Lot as one of the private park/recreation amenities of the development. 3.Park Commission recommends that all internal trails, whether public or private, be installed concurrently with the development phases and prior to occupancy of residential units, to avoid neighborhood resistance to trail development at a later date. 4.Park Commission concluded that there are no identifiable public parkland needs at this location other than the trail extensions, but that the development of this new housing will generate additional use ofexisting City park facilities in the area. Park Commission therefore recommended that, on the basis of developers statement that the public trail easements would be granted without requesting a park fee reduction, that no park lands need to be dedicated and the park dedication should ^ in the form of a Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands as allowed by the Municipal Code. Park Commission briefly discussed the need for sidewalks along both sides of Kelley Parkway but did not make a formal recommendation on this topic. #02-2789 (Revised) Dahlstrom Development LLC August 9.2002 Page 3 of? Additional Information Concept Plan Detail Depictions. Applicants have displayed a number of boards depicting various aspects of the Revised Concept Plan but have not presented the City with copies for review. Any such depictions which Council wishes to reference in approving the Revised Concept Plan should be submitted so that they can be referenced in the Concept Plan Approval Resolution. Updated Fees Estimate. At the request of the applicant, staff has drafted an updated Estimate of Fees (Exhibit C) that relate to the application and development stages of the process. Traffic Study. Transportation Issues . StafThas met with Shelley Johnson of Bonestroo & Associates regarding a transportation study for the Highway 12 area from County Road 6 to the Burlington Northern tracks, from Willow to Old Crystal Bay Road, and including the Dumas/James properties west of Old Crystal Bay. He has submitted a proposed scope of services (Exhibit G) to complete a comprehensive traffic/transportation study involving seven specified tasks including: data collection & field reconnaissance, intersection analysis (6 major intersections in the study area), access management, Kelley Parkway Planning, Dahlstrom proposal review, and area roadway plan, with all the above documented in a report form. Johnson’s specific comments regarding the Revised Concept Plan were received on August 8 and are attached as Exhibit F. Council should review these at the August 12 meeting, especially in regards to 1) interior road widths and design to accommodate various needs; turning radii; turn lanes 2) main entrance design; 3) roundabout features and limitations; 4) parking; 5) Kelley Parkway design issues. Applicant has indicated a willingness to pay for the portions of the traffic study which are related to the proposed development. Staff notes that certain aspects of that report will potentially have an impact on transportation elements of the Revised Concept Plan, and any approval should be subject to the recommendations of the traffic/transportation study. Density and Housing Goals. The Planning Commission was relatively pleased with the mix and types of dwelling units offered in the Revised Concept Plan, although they expressed some concern as to whether the anticipated price points actually ser\e the needs of this market. The developer has not provided the City with any documentation as to a market analysis, and Planning Commission again requested that this information be provided. Planning Commission noted that in terms of density, the overall plan is at 6 units per acre (168 units on 28 dry buildable acres) accounted for by 104 towmbome units on 24.5 dry acres (4.2 units per acre) and 64 Lofts units on 3.5 dry acres (18 units per acre). Overall density in the range of 3-6 units per acre is contemplated in the CMP as acceptable, and such density is probably necessary in order to begin approaching our housing goals. The City’s housing goals are enumerated in the table on CMP Page 3C-18 (see Exhibit H) which indicates a goal of 160 affordable owner-occupied townhomes being provided between 2000 and 2010; “affordable’ is defined for purposes of the CMP #02-2789 (Revised) Dahlstrom Development LLC August 9,2002 Page 4 of? as units developed at a density of at least 6 units per acre. This definition acknowledges that meeting the Met Council’s $170,000 price-point for affordability is extremely difficult if not unlikely in this area, but that the density at 6 or more units per acre will provide the most affordable units that could reasonably be expected. In the CMP’s Housing Action Plan (Exhibit H) six “implementation policies’* arc presented. Policy 3 on Page 3C-25 reads as follows: •3.Orono will encourage developers to provide a variety of housing types and cost ranges. Whenever a multiple family or clustered housing development is proposed. Orono will actively encourage setting aside a reasonable number of units for large families and/or for low and moderate income families. Orono will participate and assist developers in applications for loan guarantees or other suitable forms of housing subsidy aids which may be available. Orono will also consider proposals for lifecycle housing options for sites which have not been guided for such use. but where such use may be appropriate if developed in a manner that is sensitive to the surrounding land uses and has the necessary services available. Such areas may include property that is currently guided or zoned for more intense uses such as commercial or industrial, or may include sites adjacent to existing higher intensity uses.” Plying Commission has requested that the Developer suggest methods for making a number of the units available at price points nearer the Met Council’s ‘affordable’ standard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. Cooformlty with 2000-2020 Community Management Plan 1.The proposal is consistent with the CMP guiding of the property north of Kelley Parkway for attached residential dwelling use, and for commercial office uses south of Kelley Parkway. 2.The proposal locates Kelley Parkway consistent with the CMP intent for a single tier of commercial office uses between Kelley Parkway and Highway 12, with no direct access to Highway 12. 3.It is staffs opinion that the proposal meets the intent ofthe CMP in terms of housing density, housing types, and mix of units. The proposal provides for multi-family attached dwelling units at a density of 6 units per acre which meets the density guidelines proposed by Orono and accepted by the Metropolitan Council for the creation of ‘affordable’ owner-occupied housing. #02-2789 (Revised) Dahlstrom Development LLC August 9,2002 Page 5 of? B. Reaoning 1. The entire property is currently zoned RR-ID Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre minimum lot size. Rezoning the portion of the property north of Kelley Parkway to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development is appropriate based on the multi-family residential nature of the proposal. Actual rezoning should occur only upon Development Plan Approval. 2. Because the property south of Kelley Parkway is guided for commercial office use, that property should be rezoned consistent with the intended use. Such a rezoning is technically required within 9 months of the date the CMP was approved (October 2001), i.c. rezoning will soon be overdue. At this time the applicant does not have a specific proposal for development of the commercial office outlets. The most appropriate zone for the intended commercial office uses is B-6 Highway Commercial District. The B-6 District was specifically created to accommodate the uses guided by the CMP for the Highway 12 corridor. The B-6 District primarily allows non-retail uses such as offices, banks, libraries and motels/hotels, and allows Class I restaurants only as a conditional use. Rezoning the two proposed commercial outlets to B-6 would be appropriate at the time of Development Plan Approval, regardless whether the outlots have been proposed for specific uses at that time. C. Revised Concept Plan Elements 1 . Staff concurs with all seven of the Planning Commission’s ‘General Comments’ as noted in Exhibit B, and recommends that these comments be incorporated as findings or conditions (as appropriate) within the Concept Plan Approval Resolution to be drafted. 2. Staff concurs with items 1 thru 9 of the Planning Commission’s 17-point ‘Specific Comments’ as noted in Exhibit B. Staff also concurs witli items 12 and 14 thru 17 of the Planning Commission recommendation. 3. Regarding items 10,11 and 13 ofthe Planning Commission’s‘Specific Conunents’regarding transportation issues (streets, sidewalks, trails, etc.), additional discussion by Council is needed to reach a conclusion, as the various reviewing entities and the developer each have somewhat divergent views on road w idths, trail and/or sidewalk locations, parking needs, etc. Staffs recommendation on transportation matters can be summarized as follows: a) Kelley Parkway: Platted Width : 60'minimum Paved Width : 32' fc/fc (face of curb to face of curb) minimum, with no on-street parking: #02-2789 (Revised) Dahlstrom Development LLC August 9,2002 Paged On-Street Parking: If additional parking is desired to serve the residential development, it should be developed within the residential commons of the development, not on Kelley Parkway. However, if Council desires on­ street parking on Kelley, minimum width should expand to 36* fc/fc, and accommodate parallel parking via striping and signage rather than bumpouts which are difficult for winter maintenance. Turn Lanes : Per Shelley Johnson recommendations. b) Interior road system: Main access : Design should be revised to a normalized standard intersection with maximum median width of 20* to accommodate landscaping and water feature but not impact traffic flows. Increasing median to 30' may be marginally acceptable, SO' is not acceptable. Road Widths: Two-way interior roads: 24' minimum fc/fc One-way interior straight roads: 16' min fc/fc One way curved roads, esp. at roundabout: 18' fc/fc Entry roads to Lofts: 28' fc/fc In General: All curve radii should be reviewed to ensure that moving vans, garbage trucks, firetrucks, etc. are accommodated. Roundabout: Landscaping features that attract pedestrian traftlc should ost be included; the roundabout concept for vehicular traffic is excellent, but adding pedestrians to the mix is not recommended; i.e. omit sidewalks, benches, etc. Parking: No parking on interior streets except at designated bumpout areas. Add parking to West Lane area. SE Access: A connection between the east lane circle loop and Kelley Parkway is not necesszry from a general traffic standpoint; ‘emergency vehicle only’ access would be desirable. c) Trails and Sidewalks: Interior sidewalks : Omit within roundabout. Add as feasible along West Lane. N. side of Kelley Parkway : 6' concrete sidewalk or 8' bituminous trail separated from back of curb by 8' to accommodate deciduous trees and landscaping in boulevard. S. side of Kelley Parkway : Same dimensional parameters as for N. side, except if trail goes on north side then sidewalk should go on south side, or vice-versa. Boundary of Development alone Willow Drive and Highway 12 : 8'bituminous trail, curvilinear along Willow as shown in Revised Concept Plan drawings, continuous along Highway 12 from east boundary of property to west boundary; separation of at least 20' from traveled Highway 12 is desired, which potentiall) piaces trail within property boundaries; connection across stormwater poi.d area may be along Highway 12 or may jog up to and back down from Kelt ^y Parkway along pond perimeter. A r. #02-2789 (Revised) Dahlstrom Development LLC August 9,2002 Page? 4. Staff concurs with the 4 recommendations of the Park Commission. 5. Staff concurs with those still-applicable general engineering comments provided by City Engineer Tom Kellogg in relation to the original Concept Plan review and which are included in the Planning Commission ’s July 12 packet; the appropriate comments and conditions should be included in the Concept Plan Approval Resolution. 6. In regards to landscaping within the development, final landscaping plans will be developed during the Development Approval process and will be reviewed by the City ’s consulting landscape planner for conformity with the RPUD standards. Landscaping plans for the commercial outlots can be deferred until those sites are developed, unless Council wishes to have certain perimeter features dcveloped/installed at some earlier development stage. D. Summary Recommendation. Based on the above, staff recommends approval of the Revised Concept Plan as presented to the Planning Commission on July 15-17 subject to the comments, standards and conditions as described in this memo. Staff recommends that Council direct staff to draff a Resolution of Concept Plan Approval incorporating the appropriate recommendations of the Planning Commission, Park Commission, staff and City consultants, referencing all specific plan details provided by or to be provided by the applicants which accurately depict the Concept Plan as understood by the Council, and describing all necessary City commitments as well as actions, submittals and commitments to be made by the Developer in order to gain Development Plan Approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct staff to draff a Resolution for Concept Plan Approval for consideration and adoption at the August 26 Council meeting. 60-Day Review Period Extension Required. The applicants on June 24 granted the City a 60-day extension for review of the Revised Concept Plan. That 60-day period expires August 23, prior to the August 26 meeting at which resolution adoption would occur. While it could be argued that the initial 60-day clock was restarted on June 24 (and that the City merely needs to notify applicant of an additional 60-day extension to October 23), it may be prudent to formally request that the applicant grant this additional 60-day extension to avoid any misunderstanding. Absent agreement to such a further extension, Council’s options include taking action on August 12 to deny the application. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. A-1 Melin agreed. Smith moved, Mabusih seconded, to table Application #02-2801, Kathy Melin, 3309 Crystal Bay Road, to allow the applicant time to explore other options for their proposed porch. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 8:43 p.m. - 8:53 p.m.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING - 8:30 P.M. (#16) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW, GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL AND REZONING FROM RR-IB SINGLE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 8:54 p.m. - 10:29 p.m. Steve Johnston, Carolyn Krall, and Kendra Lindahl of Landform Designs, and the applicant Mr. Dahlstrom, were present. Gaffron reported that the Applicants had submitted a revised proposal to develop portions of this 51-acre site via the Planned Unit Development process. Proposed uses include a mixture of residential housing types to be located north of Kelley Parkway, including 59 rambler townhomes, 43 two-story lownhomes, and 66 lohs (condominium units). The proposal would create two commercial outlets south of Kelley Parkw ay for future development. Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission met with the City Council and representatives for the developer last week in a joint work session to familiarize themselves w ith the new proposal. The required approvals include: Proposed rezoning of the residential area north of Kelley Parkway to RPUD. PUD General Concept Plan Approval is the first stage of the two-stage PUD review process in which the Planning Commission and City Council review all conceptual aspects of the proposed development. Finally, the PUD Development Plan Approval will be sought as the final stage in which the developer w ill provide detailed plans for implementation of the approved General Concept Plan, as well as preliminary and final plat documents. As part of the Concept Plan Review phase, Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission should focus on both general and detail aspects of the development plan. By identifying issues and concerns, and defining both positive and negative aspects related to the Concept Plan, the Commission’s goal should be to provide specific direction to the applicant as to how’ resolve the issues. Such direction could result in one of two actions; revision and submittal of the concept plan to reflect all required changes or insertion of the direction into the concept plan approval resolution as a condition to be met before the City will grant final development plan approval. Gaffron pointed out that some difference of opinion has occurred between staff and the applicant’s consultants regarding at what level of the review process concept plan approval PAGE 16 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. should be granted. This is in part due to conflicting wording and intent between the PUD and RPUD ordinances. The applicant’s consultants have to some extent treated the concept plan approval as equivalent to the sketch plan stage, whereby the City has merely been providing direction thus far. The City, in fact, is reluctant to grant concept plan approval without having all the details worked out, in turn the developer is hesitant to commit his resources to providing great detail without some expectation that the project will be approved. Gaffron encouraged the Commission to include discussion with regard to the proposed land use and density. The density guidelines for the area north of Kelley Parkway were refined as part of the 2000-2020 CMP update, resulting in a density standard of 3-6 units per dry buildable acre, without limitation on the number of units per building allowed in this area. Therefore, Gaffron noted that the developer has a reasonable expectation based on the comp plan, that a proposed development with a density of 3-6 units per acre will be approved. Because this is PUD and rezoning request, the Commission has the ability to determine whether the density is appropriate in the context of the type of the mix of the various dwelling units, as well as, their mass and layout and site circulation etc. Due to the RPUD standards, Gaffron pointed out that the district allows higher densities than contemplated in the CMP, only in areas “currently zoned and guided for commercial use”. With regard to the use of Kelley Parkway for Density credit, Gaffron noted that the applicant’s proposal is at a density of 6.0 units per dry ’uuildable acre if the northerly half of Kelley Parkway right-of-way (not including the portion within the MnDOT pond) is allowed for density credit. Gaffron stated that he had no problem with offering the credit. He added that the current proposal for 168 residential units, plus the two commercial outlots, will fall within the capacity needs range anticipated by the 2000-2020 CMP. In terms of location for Kelley Parkway, which is the other significant initial starting point for discussion, Gaffron referred to two concept plans for the areas north and south, between Willow and Old Crystal Bay Road, set up as a guidelines for discussion. Studies A and D became the City’s standard discussion guide for developers inquiring about the property, but did not become part of the CMP. Gaffron pointed out that the applicants have suggested that the routing of Kelley Parkway in their revised Concept Plan “follows your comprehensive plan”. Gaffron noted that this is not accurate, as the CMP does not define routing for Kelley Parkway but merely indicates it will be “300-500 feet north of Highway 12". Gaffron suggested additional discussion addressing staff’s concern about the applicants’ proposal to locate a segment of Kelley Parkway within the existing MnDOT stormwater pond right-of- way take place, never suggested as a feasible or preferred configuration. Gaffron stated that Public Service Director Greg Gappa discussed this with Ben Timerson of MnDOT, who indicated that while such a reconveyance to the City would be feasible, it would not be a priority and would likely take 6 months to a year to process. Staff believed it would not be in the City’s best interest to pursue such a request on behalf of the applicar.ts. While City support and partnering in gaining approval for the use and expansion of the MnDOT pond right-of-way for regional stormwater purposes is one thing, Gaffron maintained pursuing a swap for road PAGE 17 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July IS, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. purposes is quite another and does not rise to the same level of importance. The City is currently working closely with MnDOT to ensure that the Highway 12 project proceeds as smoothly as possible, whereas MnDOT does not have the resources to deal efficiently with requests such as this. Gaffron suggested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation, as to whether the applicant and City should pursue use of the MnDOT pond area for Kelley Park\\ ay. Gaffron supplied the Commission with a punchlist of 8 various topics along with an outline of the site plan elements that should be considered prior to making a recommendation to Council on the Concept Plan. GaHron indicated that the Planning Commission should first concentrate on whether this concept plan generally achieves the purposes of the RPUD District. Next, consider whether the mix and spatial relationships of the various unit types within the development and in relation to each other as well as the surrounding uses, is appropriate. He added that discussion whether the lack of a defined proposal for the use of the outlots will cause potential issues in terms of whether the outlots can ^ used for their intended purpose is warranted. The issues regarding location of Kelley Parkway in the MnDOT pond r.o.w. also seems to be a critical factor to staff in determining whether the entire concept plan can move forward. Smith invited Steve Johnston, of Landform Designs, to make a brief presentation in order to familiarize the public with the proposal. Following the presentation. Smith asked that public comment be made and discussion among the Commissioners be limited to approximately an hour, specifically addressing the punchlist provided by staff. Mr. Johnston shared schematic drawings of the units in order to provide the Commission with a feel for the scale and mass of the units, and how they would be laid out. Johnston pointed out that the two unit buildings would be approximately SO-60 A wide. An additional drawing reflecting site amenities with trails and sidewalks and an expanded linear park was displayed as well. Based on trip calculations, Johnston pointed out that the applicant felt 110 trips daily did not warrant the need for sidewalks on the cul-de-sacs, as recommended by the planning consultant. They have proposed an open green space area with gathering spots with benches, a gazebo over a water feature, and water treatment which flows through a series of rain gardens north and south. He believed the development would not necessarily warrant a tot lot. Ms. Krall, Landform Architect, pointed out that additional green buffer space exists than is reflected in the display boards, the boards were intended to feature the larger open space and linear park system. Johnston stated that an entrance feature with a waterfall and coordinating green space for a bus stop with benches across the street was being proposed. With regard to the numbers, Johnston pointed out that public green space makes up 2 acres, the private open space equates to approximately 2.2 acres, with trails comprising another 1-2 acres, 13.7 acres or 33% of the land area is wetland, all totaled equates to 45% open space, and 55% developable land area. Johnston stated that the applicant was not at all concerned with the developable land parcels south of the PAGE 18 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July IS. 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. development and with the City’s support, they would work out the road scenario with MnDOT. Gaffron asked, if the development was forced to move, whether the applicant had an alternate plan or were prepared to lose the half circle entrance. Johnston demonstrated on a separate plan, that without the road change the development would likely lose 8 townhomes, however, it would still have an entry marked by some feature. He stated that he would be willing to take questions, but wanted to point out several elements to the Commission before he began. First, the proposed road widths were admittedly more narrow than the City had suggested, simply because the developer felt the 28’ standard was too wide. He asked if a middle ground could be found. Johnston stated that they would be willing to landscape a parkway, but would like to see it 28’ wide to handle the traffic volume, whereas the roads within the project are shown at 20’, which meets fire code. He added that, studies have shown, narrow roads tend to keep speeds down. Curb and gutter were also proposed for all streets. There were no public comments. Smith stated that the Commission had been presented with two scenarios, along with 8 punchlist items to discuss, starting first with item S, the proposed housing types, site layout, functionality, etc., continuing to item 7, the development of Kelley Parkway. Smith questioned if the Commission felt the dwelling units, design, layout, and overall concept of housing types, at 6 units per acre, seemed to meet the City’s RPUD as they would envision it. Hawn had difficulty accepting the 6 units per acre figure, even though allowed 3*6 units by code per acre, she was more interested in a lower density. She stated that she would like to see even more green space and/or wider streets or sidewalks to truly make this a “walkable” community. Furthermore, Hawn felt that the bundled parking was not sufficient to what she felt the number of housing units would require. She also had concern that cars would be piled up on Kelley Parkway waiting to get into the development. Mabusth stated that she had issue with the loft units. She questioned whether any findings to allow 3 story lofts also cited a better location other than the southwest comer that would not impact neighbors. She had concern regarding the encroachment onto the MnDOT property and asked if others found issue with that. She had no additional concerns related to item 5. Fritzler stated that, in his opinion, the houses were too tight, the streets too narrow, complaints would come fi^om residents of the lofts about the public works site, which was there first, and ftnally, he saw issue with three stories in general. Smith indicated she had little more to add other than traffic concerns. She questioned how having the school nearby impacts the development. Smith wondered if direction could be given that 4>S units per acre works better than the 6 proposed. PAGE 19 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.ni. Mabusth slated that she would not support a northeast access to the development. Rahn felt it would be derelict to allow the loA units so close to public works when we know there would be complaints. He also questioned traffic volume. Smith asked the Commission if they could suggest an alternate location for the loft units. Rahn suggested that the loft units supply the spot to reduce density. He questioned how many on site parking spots were allowed per unit. Johnston stated that there are 4 s(>ots per unit, with additional on street parking within the bump out areas. Krall pointed out that the development has provided substantially higher parking ratios than required. Rahn staled that he liked the proposed water feature. Berg stated that she understood the use of the space to the north, but believed the lofts were way too dense. She could support the site for the lofts, however, felt there were too many. With regard to traffic, Berg slated that the Commission needs to decide what Kelley Parkway will look Bremer stated that if there are to be lofts that Is where they need to be, from an economical standpoint she could sec the logic. She had less issue with the density than she did with 3 stories in general. Bremer contended that since the code allows 3-6 units per acre, the Commission should have no difftculty with 6. She complimented the applicant for their efforts in reworking the design, emphasizing the need to keep the low’er price point for Orono to encourage diversity in housing. Mabusth added that the watenvays are attractive and do much to enhance the plan. Bremer stated that parking to her was not a big concern and she could not support more parking at the cost of greenspace. She felt less parking might cut down on the amount of extra people Johnston pointed out that without the loft units as part of the equation, the project is at a 4 unit per acre figure. He maintained that if the City was not going tot develop this property at 6 units per acre, they should not have said 3-6 units per acre in the code. With this being said, Johnston stated that the applicant would like to find a solution that is good for everyone. He added that the loft units are 60’ from the ptoperty line, well within what the ordinance requires. In fact, he stated that if the City had concerns alKiut locating housing near public works, they should have turned the building so that the ugly side faced the City Hall. With regard to a 3-story loft unit building versus a 2-story loft building, Johnston pointed out that either requires an elevator. PAGE 20 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. Krall added that 3-story loft buildings were proposed because elevators will be added, and are costly. After examining the area, Krall stated that neither of the proposed 3-story loft buildings will be as high as the new senior building being built down the way. She added that the applicant does not want something obtrusive either, in fact, since they are mixing style, they propose the steps up in scale are very gradual. They have proposed continuity in their design, and have deliberately stuck to virtually the same widths throughout. Krall maintained that the lofts give people options and answer a genuine need in Orono in keeping with a high amenity design. Rahn asked why the townhomes start 1/2 story off the ground. Krall stated that the townhomes are designed to be accessed by steps, unlike the loft homes, which need to be kept at or near grade. Rahn asked if the three storied start at grade. Krall indicated that the underground parking allows lliem to start at or just off grade. Smith inquired about possibly tilting the loft buildings slightly. Krall stated that, currently, the proposal places the driveway to the underground parking at the end near public works in order to avoid giving residents views of public works. The applicant would prefer to avoid that scenario and use a wall or fence with landscaping to further shield the facility. Johnston stated that, from an engineering standpoint, the townhomes are designed to sit up slightly so that people sitting on their porch are at eye level with those walking by. Rahn asked about the intended parking for the townhomes. Jolinston stated that the applicant would like to see parallel parking on Kelley Park\vay, which would allow 28’ plus parking. Rahn inquired whether the street width could be expanded without undue burden. Johnston asked if it was truly necessary to widen the streets at the loss of greenspace. Krall roted that if the streets were much wider, you would encourage people to cut around each other. Johrston stated that they have tried to conserve as much green space as possible. Krall asked if a compromise of 21’ to 22’ would be possible, noting that 28’ or more would be difticult. PAGE 21 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. Weinberger stated that staff has concern about public works vehicles on the Parkway and access for bike traflic. Johnston stated that providing bituminous trail for bikes on one side and sidewalk on the other is very doable. Lindahl indicated that, in order to avoid turning Kelley Parkway into a speedway, one needs to narrow the street and add landscaping and/or a canopy. While some numbers were provided at the work session, Krall stated that the traffic figures have demonstrated that approximately equal trips are taken whether it be this mixed unit development or single family residential. She added that higher senior densities provide a broader peak period as well. Mabusth asked Public Service Director Greg Gappa to comment on the Park Commissions view. Gappa noted that while the Park Commission had not commented on specifics, they would likely suggest a wider parkway since no one knows what will develop across the street. Mabusth asked if any standards exist for a parkway. Gappa stated that no standards exist, however, 41’ was suggested perhaps due to the public works trucks. Gaffron stated that the CMP merely designates scenic parkways along the lakes, and the City has gone no further than naming this parkway. The 60’ corridor was platted when this was designated single family residential. In his thoughts. Consultant Case stated that 41’ is very wide for a road that doesn’t have any real standard, adding that 28’ may be appropriate. He suggested that the City review the Engineer’s report when available. Bremer asked if a turning lane into the development could be added. Berg reminded the Commission that there will be commercial across the street and thought needs to given into what might go there. She maintained that, likely, half of the people in the development will be coming and going during peak times. Johnston noted that even without a traffic study, it still seems likely that 41 ’ and two lanes would be appropriate at either end of Kelley Parkway; however, he questioned the need for 41’ the entire length. Berg stated that consideration needs to be given to people traveling at peak times and off peak times, in order to be proactive and avoid problems. PAGE 22 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July IS. 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lindahl stated that many of the issues related to tralTic would likely be worked out with staff when the traffic study becomes available. As a former City Planner, to her knowledge, 28’ was a pretty standard road width in most communities, and the applicant would defer to the traHic study as far as road width is concerned. They simply question whether 41 ’ makes any sense here or if it just loses green space. Berg stated that the City needs to be proactive. There are many places where road ways have been built, and many developments, that tend to impact what’s happening and the number of accidents that are happening. Berg stated that the Commission ne^ to be thinking about the future, not necessarily Just what was being proposed here. Smith inquired when the traffic study numbers would be available. Gaffion noted that in the beginning development stage the traffic study will provide them with the appropriate details, but he encouraged the Commission not to let this holdup the concept plan. Gappa stated that the road will fall within the minimum 28’ and maximum 41 ’ range. Smith reviewed that the discussion had covered quite a few areas, including the 4 unit per acre issue, the consistency of diversity and lifestyle, 3-stories as acceptable, and the dynamics of the plan. Berg m. 'ntained that 36 units was a very large unit development, by cutting just one unit they could provide more space between property lines and everything. She stated it would be very helpful to her if they could remove three units. Krall pointed out that it is far easier to produce an even number of units within each building making a smaller size unit, than it is to remove units. Because they are built in pairs and bays, when you get to the end you can’t take out three without removing six. They could change the ends of the buildings to 2-stories be removing two units on the top floor. Berg stated this would not change unit size floor to floor. She assumed most plans would acconunodate removing units. Krall suggested that they drop the end to two stories to soften the look of this building. Similar to the senior building that tried to do the same thing. Berg asked they not compare themselves to the other development. Krall indicated that because it is currently under construction it is shaping peoples image of what this could be. PAGE 23 of 3S MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. Johnston stated that in order to cut down on the complaints, a disclosure statement could be provided for renters of the lofts stating that they are aware they are near public works. These end units would also be subject to thicker walls and triple glazing to reduce disturbance. Fritzler suggested placing the stairways or offices at the end near public works versus rental units. Krall agreed that would be done to the extent possible. Gaffron noted that the Commission hadn’t discussed separation yet. Mabusth asked for Planning Consultant Case’s opinion. Case stated that while 10’ setback or separation is not unusual in a village context, the Conunission needs to realize that they have 2 1/2 story buildings approximately 28’ tall with a separation of 10’. In the revised plan most buildings are flat side to flat side, but it can depend on the architecture. As one walks by a ten foot setback can feel like a significant setback, but from a roadway, the setback can look altogether different. Krall added that landscaping can also effect that dramatically. Johnston pointed out that, in reality, most of the setbacks are IS’. Based on how some of the buildings are angled, Johnston noted that at one end there might be IS’ separation, while there is a separation of 22’ or more at the other. He indicated that they arc looking for the flexibility to go down to 10’, otherwise the comers can get tight, and other ends with setbacks of 60’. Krall observed that, in their experience, the side yards are not used extensively. They provide nice separation and greenspacc but for the most part people don’t use those narrow yards but they do provide screening from the next unit over. For the sake of trying to w rap up the discussion for the evening, Johnston stated that, on a plan, they will provide the Commission with what the proposed exact separations are for consideration during their next discussion. Case asked if any circulation would be provided from the parking side to the other. Krall stated that there will be wider spaces provided to access the front and back. As a result of the last discussion, they added those areas. Smith stated that they had covered many items, including proposed housing and how it relates to the RPUD, they touched on Kelley Parkway and transportation, and access in and out as it relates to paildng. Many items they had not covered need to be discussed and she asked Gaffion if there was anything that should be covered yet that evening to provide direction to the applicant. PAGE 24 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. Gaflron suggested they either spend another hour wrapping up discussion or scheduling a follow-up meeting for another time. Bremer suggested a second meeting soon. Johnston concurred, slating that they have a timeline they are trying to meet and would like to continue discussion soon. It was agreed that a meeting would take place on Wednesday, July 17,2002 at 5:30 P.M. Mabusth asked when the wetland delineation report would be ready for review. Johnston stated that the study was concluded and he awaits the paperwork. Gaffron encouraged the Commission that, if they had enough detail to grant concept plan approval on Wednesday night, to do so. (#12) #02-2804 PHILIP AND CONSTANCE MARTIN, 1230 ARBOR STREET, VARIANCES 10:29 p.m.-10:49 p.m. Philip Martin, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg reported that the applicants have requested front yard and side yard setback variances to construct a front porch and an attached garage to the existing residence. The existing single car garage will be converted to living space, the existing driveway would be removed, and a new one will be located in from the new garage. While located within the two acre zoning district, Bottenberg stated that the neighborhood is more in character with half acre zoning standards. If half acre zoning standards were applied to this property the existing residence would meet the 30’ required front setback. The proposed front porch and the front of the proposed garage would encroach 4’ into the front yard setback. The side of the proposed garage would meet the required 10’ side yard setback. With regard to the history of Arbor Street, Bottenberg pointed out that most of the properties in the area are half acre lots and the property to the south has been vacant for many years. Bottenberg maintained that if the Planning Commission concludes that the addition as proposed would be in character with the neighborhood, and not detrimental to the neighborhood, and adequate hardships are present, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Mr. Martin stated that his only hardship is that he has no character out front, most of his neighbors have front porches out front, and his has absolutely nothing. While the average setback is 40’, what he has proposed does not change the character of the street, in fact, the neighbors have indicated their support. PAGE 25 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 S:30 o’clock p.m. -z 9-02- Rahn suggested that the deck dimensions remain undetermined and that the applicant simply adhere to the 300 s.f. coverage. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, granting approval of Application #02-2805, Carson Erickson, 3415 Eastlake Street, variances for lot area, lot width, front yard setback, side yard setback, and both 0-75* hardcover and 75-250* setback variances, noting that the structure is within the 1,500 s.f. allowed and the deck size is no more than 300 s.f.. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING FROM MONDAY JULY 15,2002 CONTINUED FOR DISCUSSION (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, REVISED PLAN FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW, GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL AND REZONING FROM RR-IB SINGLE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. 5:44 p.m. - 8:14 p.m. Gafiron stated that the applicant had worked through a few of the line items from the staff memo on Monday night in which the Commission had started their discussion with regard to the housing types, layout, and functionality. He questioned whether the Commission had addressed their concerns with regard to item S of the staff punchlist, the proposed housing types, site layout, functionality, etc. Smith indicated that she felt other comments relative to housing still needed to be heard. Once again, she asked the Commission to give the applicant as detailed suggestions as they could, in order to supply them with adequate direction. Gaffron noted that the applicant had already addressed several of the suggested changes from Monday evening’s discussion and wished to hand out a revised plan. Johnston highlighted the changes, noting that the most significant change was that the new plan contained actual dimension between the townhomes for the Commission to look at. As shown on the revised plan, Johnston pointed out that the closest towmbomes are 11’ apart, while many are as much as 23 ’. Smith felt the revised plans reflecting the dimensions were very helpful. Johnston indicated that they had also taken out three of the rambler style townhomes and replaced those with five smaller two story townhome units in an effort to open more space behind them. Johnston pointed out that they had removed the third level loft units ftom the end of the first building as well, creating a softer two-story look near public works. He suggested that building a berm near public works would help greatly in screening the end units. Other than those few changes, the unit count was still at 168, and Johnston stated that they would like to get PAGE 2 OF 22 uLMdifeMli MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock pm vX A past this planning level and address the r.o.w. issue with MnDOT as soon as possible in order to continue in a timely fashion. Johnston shared board sketches, which reflected the relative heights of the various unit types. Based on the existing grade, all three buildings were similar in height, including the loft units depicted at 32* with a flat roof, which he stated could be readily changed to a low-pitched roof. Krall pointed out that the grade varies l-'A feet to 2 feet along the loft building. o \J C Gaffron inquired what the elevation of the loft unite;v«ls in the garage Wvel in comparison to the ^ ' wetland. Johnston stated that the garage is located approximately abo\;&tKe wetland. . With regard to the relationship between public works and thp^d^^lopment, Gaffron noted that. ^ ^ ulwilBpiinait jj at *7^relative to height, Kelley Parkway is at 1022 elevation,-,. ...i—.. w Wc_ approximately 1025, which allo\vs for a 3’face of the garage showing, followed by three stories and^wproposed 4/12 rooOlWfc f ^ „ /s .i n Krall stated that they had hoped that no more than 2’ to 2 Vi ‘^«^ld show. Gaflron asked the Commissioi^of^hdr comments regarding a flat roof or pitched roof design. While the design with a flat roWi^elatively near they^height of public works, a pitched roc 1..Ucould be an extra 10’ higher. Rahn asked if the elevator doghouse could extend into the 30’ roofline. Gaffron stated thaythc Commission ■SeV^ha oode^ 30^. . extend jilfo the Rahn stated that he believed a sloped roof would look much better than an exposed elevator shaft on a flat roof. Krall stated that ^2 is the lowest pitch they can give to a sloped roof. Whereas the base building height of the loft unit building is just above 30’, the other buildings are below 30’. She added that the loft buildings cannot be three stories tall and fall under 30’. Bremer asked how much above 30’ the loft unit building w ould be. Krall felt the loft building would fall within a 31-32’ range for height if it had a flat roof, however, a parapet would need to be added so that people do not fall off the edge. On the other hand, if there is a sloped roof you gain an extra 9-10’ of roof height without the parapet. Smith stated that she could not imagine a flat roof PAGE 3 OF 22 m MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 S:30 o ’clock pm % V V Gaflfron noted that the number^ere based on the finished grade as the starting point for measuring height, 0 \ • •^ / • Krall stated that, assuming the Commission would prefer a sloped roof, the slope would start at about 31 ’ above finished grade. Gaffion quastionet^he amount of fill needed to make this happen in the front. In the back, Gaffron was concerned that a great deal of fill would be necessary near the wetland to ease the transition^ e.y!sr'^ ^^? 1/ ? ^ , Johnston stated that, based on the grading plan, they would come out to the same grade relationship that is proposed in the front with sidewalk and retaining wall at the wetland. Gaffron felt that this suggestion made sense, in order for the garage level to avoid beingconsidei«l..aslory.^lowgrade. , ^ j. . /• ,j. j,,, ^ a Krall stated that they wanted ground floor units to possess easy grade level access off the porches. Gaffron noted that a large retaining wall would be necessary in relation to the wetland since they are so close to the wetland buffer. If this proves to be too great a challenge, forcing the building to move forward, Gaflfron acknowledged the applicant might have to deal with other issues. Krall stated that the applicant would be prepared to make the building 1-2’ narrower if need be. Gaffron stated that he drew his sketches in order to compare what he saw, to what the applicant was proposing on Monday evening. He agreed with the applicants’ comments that, with a flat roof, they are close to the height requirement. Rahn asked if Gaffron had noted how far it was to the peak of his illustration with the potential sloped roof.p'f Vc.^ s difference. ^llo wuTg about a 13’ P.«.lVc • t Rahn asked what the total height of the building would be with pitch. Gaffron stated that the total height of the building, measuring from existing grade to the midpoint ^ would be 40’. The visual perspective would probably be 40-41 ’ ^ . f]*^**'Ht8^way 12, or up to 47 at some qf theJpwjsrpoiniSTrftllCTtJtJftiiiruu the backside. /r f,: ViCyOofr Krall stated that there will be fill to offset the height in certain areas. PAGE 4 OF 22 feTnrItin MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 5:30 o’clock p.m. Gaffron indicated that fill will help, however, one will see the retaining wall on the backside. Smith stated that apparently, in order to get a pitched roof, the Commission would need to allow an additional 10*. Mabusth stated that she would like to see, for design purposes, a pitched roof. Prior to their discussion, Mabusth stated that she had only considered a flat roof, however, now believed that a pitched roof would conform better to the design. Hawn and Smith stated they preferred a pitched roof. Rahn stated that, while he was not thrilled with the height, he preferred a sloped roof to an exposed elevator. Krall indicated that they might come back with a design combination. She stated it was their desire to keep the design elements of all the housing types similar. Berg had no comment. Gaffion asked if the Commissioners could support a three-story building. Mabusth could accept the three-story de& n with the tapered end two-story units. Hawn asked how many fewer units the tapered design meant to them. Krall stated they lost two units. Berg stated that she would still like to see them remove 6 units. Smith asked if there were comments regarding housing diversity. Mabusth stated she liked the diversity. Smith was concerned by traffic and transportation issues. She believed the parking still was inadequate, especially during the winter months when people would want to park near their destination. She added that there would be the chance they would lose stalls due to snow storage. Mabusth asked precisely how many stalls the rambler units were allotted. Johnston stated that it was pretty clear to see which units had 2-3 car garages, supplemented by a driveway space outside the garage. He acknowledged that some driveways were longer than others, with the exceptions of units 11 and 12, and 29 and 30, who were wide enough for three car garages but had driveway access to only ^vo of the stalls with added storage. Johnston PAGE 5 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 3:30 o’clock p.oL indicated that they allowed for ample parking within the extra designated parking areas located throughout the development. In fact, Johnston pointed out that code merely requires 336 parking spots, whereas they have provided 672 on their plan. Smith was concerned that the two story ramblers were not supplied with enough adequate parking nearby. She felt large parties could not be served. Johnston stated that it was not a supply issue, but a distance question. The parking servicing those homes was the furthest away in the development. While she understood there was a delicate balance between parking and greenspace. Smith believed people would not want to walk great distances to their cars. Hawn stated that without sidewalks, people would be forced to walk in the road during the winter. Rahn reminded the Commissioners that the three car garages are supplied with an additional three spots for parking and questioned why this would not typically be enough. Smith asked what it would take to put parallel parking near the townhome units 17 and 18,,«ast iane totmtE • Johnston stated that, once the street width issue is resolved, you might have potential parallel parking along Kelley Parkway. Smith asked for the proof of parking figures. Johnston pointed out that the applicant could add an additional 10-15 stalls, if needed, near the lofts. Smith asked where these proposed spaces would be added. Johnston noted that residents of the lofts have t\\ o stalls of underground parking, which could be bumped up if necessary. Krall explained that everyone who enters the loft units do so by one main entrance, so the parking should be convenient to the main entrance. ^ Hawn asked how mucl^arking was provide^ not including on-street parking. Counting them up. Johnston indicated that in the-tewn^MHo area-alone, there were 41 spaces.not- / counting driveway spaco. ^ Mabusth asked how wide they viewed Kelley Parkway. PAGE 6 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17.2002 S:30 o’clock p.ia Johnston stated that they had allowed for 28* driving lanes, accompanied by 8* bump-outs for parking. With regard to punchlist item #5, Smith noted that complaints would be unavoidable since the lofts are so close to the public works facility. While they could not be lost altogether, she asked if they could be moved,te the aimejted ai am / u 'fd-c o-r Mabusth cautioned against this scenario since the City had promised the residents^north 'a X ^ avoid any such circumstance. J rotM_c£- 'Coo-P 1 Mabusth stated that if proper berming was to be achieved to screen the public works facility, the City would need to cooperate in providing a shared berm, fenced and landscaped by the developer. Rahn inquired how wide the base of the berm would need to be. Johnston indicated that they would propose coming off of the public works slope, broadening it by S’, and rolling back down into the ditch. Gaffron asked for Commissioner comment with regard to this proposal. While the plan would not impact the City’s operation, Gaffron stated that it would require use of City property. Smith asked if it would ever impact operation. Gaffron indicated not. He asked how removing the entry to the underground parking from the en^would impact the development. Johnston stated the entry is hidden at the end versus the front, and because of noise, it is typically put at the end to avoid additional problems. Rahn asked what might be put on top of the berm. Johnston indicated that a rough poured concrete wall with climbing plants and additional landscaping would sit atop the berm. Rahn stated that those things would need to be placed on the applicants’ side of the berm. Johnston argued that, in order to achieve maximum height, the wall etc., would need to be placed on the City side. Rahn stated that he clearly had issue with the wall and landscaping on the City side of the hill PAGE 7 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 5:30 o ’clock p.m. and would not want this to become the City’s problem or maintenance responsibility. Gafiron noted that the top of the wall would be ceiling height of the first story. Mabusth added that the end units would only be two story loft units. Hawn suggested they plant tall mature trees. Berg maintained that the loft unit building was still too tight, necessitating removal of additional units. She felt it was too cramped and additional room from the property line was necessary. She stated that she would not support the underground door in the middle of the building. Krall asked if the applicant were able to narrow up the building to obtain additional room, whether the Commission would find that to be adequate, rather than losing additional units. Berg stated that she didn’t feel the City was asking too much for them to remove an additional 4 units. The magnitude of the project and tightness they propose were too much in her estimation. Smith stated that, according to Commissioner comment, the berm would need to be on the developer ’s side of the property. She asked for comment regarding City property. Hawn asked why it should even be considered to be put on City property at all, no hardship exists to compel it. She reminded the Commission that if this were a regular property owner they would not permit them to build on City property. Gaffron asked w here the property line fell with regard to the berm. Johnston stated that the property line falls along the ditch. Gaffron suggested letting the applicant extend the berm, to avoid an up and down hill appearance. While she would support allowing them to extend the berm, Berg stated that everything that happens on the berm would need to happen on their side of the concrete fence. Krall felt this could be accomplished. Rahn stated that the applicant was already borrowing square feet from the street, and now would be encroaching on City property in order to meet density, which was already at six units per acre. He questioned whether there were too many units being proposed for this site. Johnston stated they understood the City’s perspective. Gaffron asked Berg to clarify her request to remove units. Would she accept them moving the PAGE 8 OF 22 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. July 17,2002 5:30 o’clock pm building iurther from the property line. Berg stated that she thought removing 4 units would give the City more space from the lot line. Gaffron clarified that the setback fit>m the lot line would be 80’ versus 60 ’. With respect to greenspace and separation between buildings, Berg stated that she would not find it acceptable to simply move the building down, in lieu of losing 4 additional units. Smith appreciated the clarification, stating that the Commissioners would not like to see the building moved. Mabusth stated that the removal of units would be more appropriate and asked which would go. Berg stated that she had suggested they remove a whole block of units, 6 to be exact. They already removed two by tapering the end units to 2-story ’s, and she suggested they remove those units as well. Thereby the end units go back to 3-stories, just moved in one set. Gaffron stated that the City would obtain an 85’ setback by requiring those units to be removed. Krall asked if they could address the City’s need to expand the 60 ’setback to 80’, and separately address, how many units the city believes the property needs to lose overall. She stated that she would rather not have the City determine the details of how wide the units should be, or take a certain number of units off an end, when she can work within parameters set by the City to achieve the desired setback goal. Smith felt she would be more comfortable giving the applicant that direction. Her thought was, if they could figure out a way to keep it tiered and still achieve setback, she thought that would be acceptable with everyone. Rahn stated that the removal of four more units made the most sense. Mabusth asked the applicant if they felt they could do all that they’ve discussed with the berm and wall using an 80’ setback. Johnston insisted that simply removing units would not necessarily solve some of the problems. In fact, he believed less costly solutions could be accomplished without the removal of additional units. Smith asked how many feet could be lost to make a difference. Krall stated that mass or height has a greater impact than moving the structure back 10’. She suggested that the roofline be designed to deflect sound. PACE 9 OF 22 itflISL...i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 5:30 o ’clock p.m. Berg maintained that sound or noise was not her only issue and that she was more concerned with obtaining setback. To her an 8* wall wasn’t of interest. Hawn disagreed, stating that an 8 ’ wall could be appropriate. Smith reminded the Commission that the applicant was looking for direction with regard to setback to the lot line only. Rahn stated that a 30 ’ setback for parking and an 80 ’ setback for the lofts were what they would like to achieve. Mabusth stated that as a group, the Commission is aware that they have a public works facility currently located very close to where a proposed loft unit will be and were worried about the complaints regarding lights and noise coming from public works. She continued that it is important that the applicant know that whatever they are proposing with regard to landscaping, they have to do on their side and the City should not be brought into trying to solve those issues. Smith clarified for the applicant, that the City would like at least 10 ’, or better yet 20’, additional setback. Moorse suggested that the Commission look at the space allotted for the proof of parking north of the units and consider making the setback space wide enough to add one lane of parking along the edge. Parking there, would suffice to meet the proof of parking and avoid the removal of the trees to the north, if the building were pushed back far enough. Krall stated that, while this parking location may not be as preferable to residents, this suggestion would work and allow the applicant to keep the line of trees intact where the proof of parking had been proposed. Smith indicated that, Commissioner Ha^\’n had suggested, the proof of parking be relocated to the side lane, thus improving the views for those units on the north backside. Mabusth reiterated that the Commission was requesting an additional 20’ setback. Smith recapped and asked if item 5 had been covered in great enough detail. She stated that, as Johnston pointed out, the development is at merely 4 units per acre when the loft units are taken out of the equation. Although she would have liked to have seen more greenspace and parking, she stated that this is an innovative and new concept to Orono. She added that she still needed convincing that this was the right spot for a development with this many units, and wondered why truly walkable communities like Wayzata or Edina had not been considered. Smith stated that she was getting closer to viewing the development as a 4 unit per acre site, if the applicant could meet some of the City’s other issues. She stated that she could support the lofts where they were and the diversity of the rest of the development, once other items were PAGE 10 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 5:30 o’clock p.m. addressed, such as sidewalks, west lane and north lane, etc. Krall stated that the current plan did reflect 4 units per acre excluding the lofls. Berg reiterated that other than losing the aditional 4 lofl units, she was okay with the development. Rahn stated once again, that the code allows 6 per acre and this property is slated 6. Although he felt this to be rather dense, if it was slated for 6 then he didn’t have a problem with that. GafTron explained that this piece of property was slated for 6 because the City could meet the Met Council and housing diversity requirements. According to the Comp Plan, there were few other places in Orono, beside this location, that warrant this kind of development. In order to meet our housing goals and satisfy Met Council, 6 units per acre made the most sense here. Gaffron reiterated that there were no other places in Orono this would work, Navarre would not 4ugliiijy*md-mdufitFktlr. iy -f /V' 13I'Z- A-9 0!.^ cO. ! i f Rahn stated that he felt better knowing that there wasn ’t any other location guided for this type of development.I # ^ Smith stated that this site was one of two or three sites within the entire City where this development would be allowed, therefore one would not sec this running up and down Highway 12. Krall pointed out that, when you look at the level of amenities that you have so close around this site, the way it’s placed, the way you have retail placed, and the way you have City facilities and school facilities placed, when you look at the comp plan this is the one place where it makes sense for Orono to meet some of the housing needs. It provides a unique situation, and offers the only place that functions that way within Orono. Smith added that this docs not mean that there are not issues surrounding parking, Kelley Parkway, traffic, and its impact. Hawn stated that she needed to leave soon and wanted to address a few concerns. She stated that, initially, what she thought was driving the higher densities for this location was the need to set up spaces for affordable housing, and this isn’t it. She indicated that affordable housing was something that mattered to her. With regard to the proposal, on one hand the applicant has asked Orono to make some concessions for their plaruiing, on the other hand Orono would like to see their help in addressing the area of affordable housing. Johnston pointed out that the affordability issue was difficult. The units that could meet the affordability number were the lou units, and the way that they can do that is through a finance program through the federal government. The City has to be a partner in requesting that PAGE 11 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17.2002 S:30 o'clock p.m. financing, but once it is put in place, it is essentially a buy down of the interest rates that makes those affordable units. Mr. Dahlstrom added that, initially, the first plan that they had provided with 235 units had the potential for more of the affordable housing units, than the current proposal. By removing 60 units, pricing flexibility is greatly impacted. He stated that they are not opposed to working with the City on the affordable housing issue and trying to do accomplish some cost shifting to meet the need. Smith stated that considering price points today, the whole issue of affordable housing is a very difficult subject to try to do a good job at. Dahlstrom pointed out that by incorporating affordable mortgage programs and funding more can be done to accomplish the task. Berg asked if they could incorporate this request for funding fi’om the federal government into their plan. She insisted that City’s are very much on the forefront of asking developers to come to them with affordable housing. She found it hard to believe that these price points would meet affordable housing standards. In fact, Berg asked to see lower priced units or townhomes as part of the proposal. Johnston stated that the homes they had provided meet the medium range of affordability. Hawn added that, with regard to affordable housing, she would like to see the data that makes this possible or not possible. Krall stated that the Met Council provides data with regard to affordable housing standards on a region wide basis, as well as, the west metro area, and for differing levels of income in different places. They may find that they are unable to meet some affordability standards, but able to meet others. She pointed out that write downs, grants, and TIPS offer one way to help meet standards. Smith indicated that the applicant seemed to be creative, innovative, and open enough to pursue further exploration of affordable housing. Krall stated that they could compile the information, and perhaps, schedule a separate discussion on what constitutes affordable housing, identifying a regional goal, and how to accomplish it. Hawn stated that she was hesitant to dictate how many units per acre would be required, but instead preferred that the needs of the design drive the plan. She stated that she would like to see sidewalks along the townhome streets, more parking, more greenspace, and look at market research. Hawn felt the one story townhome price points were quite steep for the area, and wanted to see the data to support those, as well as, data supporting the overall location. She believed that Orono could not provide the local amenities to attract adequate buyers. She would I PAGE 12 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 S:30 o ’clock pja not want to see them build a development that wasn’t going to succeed, therefore she was curious to see the data to support that. She argued that, there are developments in other locations with more amenities and similar price points out there, and questioned why buyers would buy here. Fritzler stated that he could support the development, if enough distance for the loft building could be found. Fritzler continued that he was satisfied with the amount of greenspace and did not see the need for a playground. Gaffron asked for opinions v th regard to tot lots versus picnic tables. Rahn stated that, in his view, he would support congregation areas or smaller sitting areas stylized after the main entrance. Mabusth asked if the Park Commission would preview the plan. Gappa suggested they take a look at the proposal briefly on July 29,2002, prior to their annual Park Tour. Smith indicated that she would like to get the Park Commission involved in the process sooner than later. Since the City Council will likely ask for their comments, having them weigh in on the design might be useful at this point. Gaffron stated that they would not be making a judgement, but merely previewing the trails etc. since the project is not public parkland. Gaffron agreed that Council would likely want to hear their thoughts. Mabusth asked that Gappa make sure the Park Commission understand that this is private open space. Mabusth stated that she could support the 6 units per acre, since the wetlands and the amount of dry usable space, limit the applicant. In her view, Mabusth liked to look at the project as 4 units per acre plus the lofts. She was pleased with the amount of diversity and wished to see the wetland delineation report soon. Johnston stated that the fieldwork on the wetland delineation had been completed, however, he still awaited the paperwork. To his knowledge, the boundary itself had not changed. Smith asked what further needed to be discussed this evening. Virtually, item 6 had been addressed, however, questions regarding item 4 remain. The transportation, traffic, and development of Kelley Parkway were areas for discussion. Gaffron stated that in terms of traffic generated by this development, and how it effects intersections on the north side, were issues to be addressed with development. As the planning ! PAGE 13 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17.2002 5:30 o’clock p.m. progresses, Gaffron noted that direction will need to be obtained from the Engineer ’s report before deciding on internal road widths, addressing turn lanes, considering the widths of Kelley Parkway, and parallel parking, etc. Currently, Gaffron noted that the applicant had proposed widths of 20’ for Kelley Parkway with 8 ’ bump outs for parallel parking. Hawn left the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Johnston noted that the widths would be 22’ .(tw Gappa stated that code requires 28’; however, the Commission would be trading valuable greenspace for wider roads. He agreed that 28’ widths were not necessary on the internal spaces, and could find 22-24’ acceptable, with the exception for the 28^bump outs. Krall repeated that studies had shown narrow streets tend to slow traffic down. Smith felt that 22’ to 24’ would be acceptable. Johnston pointed out that there are many rural roads, like Crystal Bay Road, within Orono who carry very high volumes currently and are merely 24’ wide. He asked the Commissioners to take into consideration the amount of traffic these rural streets are able to handle versus the level of traffic that would take place in the cul-de-sacs. Mabusth asked if school buses or emergency vehicles would need to travel through the development, would there be room. Gappa stated that school buses would likely pick up at the entry to the development, much like other developments in Orono. He stated that fire code is 20’ and all that is required for access by emergency vehicles. For comparison purposes, Gappa pointed out that County Road 6 is 24’ wide and is a high-speed road. He believed 20-22’ would be adequate. Rahn agreed the wide roads would be promoting speed. Smith asked where the issue of sidewalks fit into the discussion. Krall stated that if the roads could be kept more narrow, sidewalks could be considered. Mabusth indicated that she would support sidewalks in order *o keep people off the roads and encourage a truly walkable community. Johnston stated that the traffic study of Willow View, where lie resides, estimated 260 trips per day and no thought was put into sidewalks there. There are two cul-de-sacs without sidewalks and a wide road. He questioned the need for sidewalks when the trips per day would be even less than Willow View. He did not want to pave more than needed at a loss of greenspace. PAGE 14 OF 22 1 AlUi MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 , 5:30 o’clock pm »I V'S ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Case stated that there are hundreds of milK^und Orono where there aren ’t sidewalks. He believed it to be a convenience issue^that^courag^social organizing, and suggested that a single sidewalk would not be a bad idea for a way to lead guests to their cars in the winter. Mabusth agreed, suggesting a sidewalk be run on one side of the street. Fritzler pointed out that a sidewalk would adversely impact many driveways. They would virtually be taking away parking by adding a sidewalk in the cul-de-sacs. Fritzler stated that sidewalks were no big issue to him on the north or west cul-de-sacs for this reason. He maintained that people would prefer to walk in the street, uninterrupted, than to continually dodge bumpers in driveways. Rahn stated that his first inclination was to require the sidewalks; however, if they affect car stacking and greenspace, he could not agree. Gaffron aske^f 50’ lots and no sidewalks worked for the Cemmisjion. ^ I/'f'«•(; c<^ 4-0 I• Rahn stat^ that he lives on a narrow road and it works for them. Mabusth indicated that she too had supported sidewalks, but cannot do so in lieu of the additional problems they will create. Krall stated that she supported sidewalks, however, not if they impact other areas. She indicated that the applicant would do their best to work them in, if possible, but unde>stood the Commission would be satisfied if they were not a part of the plan. Fritzler stated that new issues arise with having to plow the sidewalks. Mabusth stated that she could support a compromise on Kelley Parkway as well. Gappa indicated that 41’ would be necessary at Willow and other intersections, and recommended that striping be used to delineate the entire Parkway. He favored the fle.xibility a 41 ’ parkway would allow. Fritzler asked if Johnston had included the parallel parking spaces on Kelley Parkway in his parking calculations. Johnston indicated that he had not included those spots in their required parking estimates. Fritzler felt the parallel parking spots provided on the city street could adequately serve the development as well. Johnston argued that speed would not be slowed down effectively by striping. He suggested that each end of Kelley Parkway remain 41 ’, and something less along the rest of the parkway. If PAGE IS OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 5:30 o’clock p.m. turn lanes needed to be added later, he pointed out that the applicant would need to do so. Johnston also suggested that the parking along Kelley Parkway be delineated to give the visual impression of a more narrow road. Gappa asked how the parking spots could be plowed. Krall indicated that, in other communities, standards exist in order to addess that question, and the applicant would help to research those Rahn asked if ther Parkway could have a true parkway feel with a middle berm and landscaping at a mere 4P width. Case pointed out that it is more complicated to plow; however, makes for a nicer street. With regard to the Parkway feel, the trees and landscaping would need to be S-6’ off the road, require T + feet for growth. Although the City could easily have no parking on one side of the street and retain a 16’ berm median. Case indicated that there would be maintenance issues and costs associated with these medians. Mabusth asked whether the Commission wanted to encourage this kind of median on public roads. Krall explained that there are typically two ways to achieve the parkway look. The first, which they had been discussing is comprised of two lanes with a 15’ green space between them, mostly found in suburban areas, thus eliminating parking. The other, would be streets lined by trees and landscaping on either side between the street and sidewalk. Smith stated that, to her, the later of the nvo made the most sense for Kelley Parkwa>, especially since the middle green space would require heavy maintenance. Case added that these middle berms do not normally provide much usable space. Krall suggested adding a bituminous bike trail next to the sidewalk. For review. Smith indicated that the Commission seemed to be moving away from the required 41’ and divided parkway, and moving toward a lesser width and c.uiopied parkway. Rahn asked if the parking spaces should be defined. Gappa stated that he could see that he would not get a 41 ’ road; however, wanted to retain enough right of way. ^ Gaffron stated that a 60’ nadway would be tight but workable in a residential/commercial area. Since this was not designated as a collector street in the code, Johnston believed 70* to be PAGE 16 OF 22 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. July 17,2002 3:30 o’clock p.m. excessive. In the code, collector streets require 70\ there is nothing in the code with regard to commercial industrial. Gafiron noted that it was originally platted at 60’. G^pa stated that they normally take 50’ and if he is given 60’ he would find that acceptable. Smith asked if all the Commission had asked for could be achieved with less than 60’ of roadway right-of-way. Gappa indicated that with merely 10’ on either side of the road, there would not be much separation with an 8 ’ trail on both sides. Krall stated Uiat the 8 ’ trail might not be necessary on both sides. Mabusth suggested the bike trail be located along Kelley Parkway and not along Highway 12. Gafiron indicated that, originally, they had discussed that sidewalks along Kelley Parkway would be concrete sidewalks, and bituminous trails would run along Highway 12 and considered bike trails. To now change, and add bituminous along Kelley would be a new twist. Gappa stated that with a 40’ roadway, you could have a 5’ sidewalk and 5’ boulevard on either side. , ‘ Gaffron stated that the Karl Ber^roject had already been required to add sidewalk along Kelley Parkway and trail along Highway 12. He maintained that the Commission needed to be consistent with what had been previously approved. Mabusth asked when the trails were slotted for construction. Gaffron notcu that, as in the Berg case, the segment of trail would be built at the time of constructior^46-* c^CjTrrr . Berg questioned whether the trail would be built over the commercial outlet as W'ell. Gaffron indicated that it would?- skj^ , Johnston suggested, as a resident, that a trail along Highway 12 would be a waste of time. In his view, Johnston wondered why anyone would bike along the highway when they could bike along the Parkway instead. He suggested an 8 ’ bituminous trail on the south side of Kelley Parkway and a 5 sidewalk be placed on the north side for walking. If a standard 28’ roadway were used, there would still be an additional 8-10’ for parking (at a 37-39 back to back ratio). Gappa agreed that many would prefer to bike along the Parkway versus the highway. PAGE 17 OF 22 fenut r —fc. , t MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. Smith asked if there would be a connection to Willow. Berg noted that the proposed bikeway would run along the commercial side of the parkway, and asked if safety were a concern. Would individuals heading to the commercial area be competing with bikers, cars, or people. Gaflron stated that he would recommend an uniterrupted solid bike trail along Highway 12. Johnston inquired as to the logic of three proposed trails w ithin 300’ of one another. He wondered whether resources should be committed to such an effort and suggested removing the sidewalk from the south side entirely. Krall indicated that, likely, the commercial areas would supply their own on-site parking and would not require notched parking along thenwth side of Kelley Parkway. Case pointed out that, depending upon the commercial use of the outlets on Highway 12, the trail along the highway may be limited. Gappa agreed that less conflict exists to the south where it is currently wide open. To review, Krall stated that the Commission had identified a more narrow street within the 60* platted area, notched parking along the north side of Kelley Parkway, a trail on Highway 12, sidewalks on both sides of Kelley Parkway or simply along the south side, and that additional work be done with regard to the widths of the roadways. Smith inquired about the proposed bus stop. Johnston stated that they have proposed a bus stop at the main entrance across the street, if allowed by MnDOT, which would consist of a widened out sidewalk and benches. Fritzler asked about the need for a shelter. Krall indicated that they had merely proposed benches in the design, but that a shelter could be added. Smith pointed out that the wetland delineation report would need to be provided. Gaffron stated that the plaiishows a 20* wetland buffer, where the Orono ordinance requires a 26’setback. Smith questioned utilities. Gaflron asked if power lines could be buried. PAGE 18 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. July 17,2002 S:30 o'clock p.m. Gappa indicated that it is extremely expensive and cost $100,000 on the Dunbar project. Johnston stated that it would not be cost effective. Gappa stated that the east lane cul-de-sac was very long and an emergency ^eSwo Jld need to be designated. { Fritzler asked what the water main recommendation was. Gappa stated that they will be recommending 8“ for utility pipes. Fritzler asked if this would be adequate. Gappa indicated that a larger trunk main will be necessary and looked at closer during development. He recommended 8” throughout the development and 12" along Kelley Parkway. Johnston stated that they would not argue with 8". Gappa indicated that the applicant may need to bore a connection loop under the wetland. Johnston felt this would be difficult. Smith asked for discussion with regard to the proposed landscaping and signage. Gaffron stated that dollar amounts will be determined; however, the City would like to see the applicant beef up the landscaping plan similar to what was shown early on. Mabusth asked who would decide the character of Kelley Parkway. Smith indicated that it would start with the Planning Commission. Johnston stated that if the Commission agreed, they would be happy to put together a proposal for the parkway, its street lights, etc. He promised not to disappoint the Commission. Gaffron stated the design would need to meet standards. Smith asked if anything further should be discussed. Gaffron stated that the Commission had hit all of the items on his punchlist and that he would like to be given time to put on paper what had been discussed. Within a week’s time, Gaffron would circulate the report for their review, ask for comments, an^take the ptupos al to Council.]^ Krall asked if the results of his analysis could be shared with them to ensure they had not missed any key issues. PAGE 19 OF 22 •I A • # # • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesdiy, July 17,2002 3:30 o’clock p.m. Smith stated that the tiaflic study would need to be performed soon, and a review of the market study would be interesting to ensure that the development will succeed. Johston agreed. Smith asked the applicant to compile a list of other places, somewhat similar to their proposal, which the Conunissioners could visit on their own time. Gaffion inquired as to the type of lighting proposed within the development. Johnston stated that they would light the main drive, and use security lighting along the other roads. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Fritiler seconded, recommending the approvai of Appiication ii02-2789, Dahlstrom Deveiopment LLC, 2550 Wayzata Boulevard, based on the discussion of July 15 and July 17,2002, and preceding, and based upon approval of the written report that Planning Director Gaffron wUI be preparing, the Commbsion would like to recommend based on that report a recommendation to the City Council that they would move forward on this application as presented in the write-up. Recommending Concept Plan Approval subject to final documentation. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to close the Public Hearing at 8:14 P.M. VOTE* Ayes 5 Nays 0. • j * ADJOURNMENT Berg moved. Smith seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 P.M. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M. Sandra Smith, Chair PAGE 20 OF 22 —<iin III s CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952-249-4600 ZONING RLE #02-2789 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: August 1, 2002 TO:Dahlstrom Development LLC 7745 Polaris Lane Maple Grove, MN 55311 LandU/rm 510 First Avenue North #650 Minneapolis, MN 55403 COPIES:Orono Plaza Attn: Tom Reiersgord Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP Reiersgord Law Firm Suite 1500 AT&T Tower 4500 West 44th Street 901 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55424-1001 Minneapolis, MN 55402-3205 TYPE OF APPLICATION: PUD Rezoning / RPUD Development - Concept Plan Stage DATE OF MEETING: July 15 & 17, 2002 Planning Commission recommended as follows on a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays: Motion to recommend concept plan approval per the site plan presented to the planning Commission on July 17, 2002 subject to the following comments, conditions and revisions: A. General Comments 1. This is the only area of Orono guided for a density range of 3-6 units per acre. To put this development in perspective, if the Lofts were excluded, the proposed density of 1-story and 2-story townhome units as currently designed would be 4 units per acre. With the Lofts, proposed overall density is 6 units per dry- buildable acre (including use of the north half of Kelley Parkway for density credit), still within the 3-6 unit per acre range established in the Community Management Plan (CMP). 2. The Lofts arc a type of housing needed to meet the City ’s housing goals. There is probably no better place in Orono to locate this type of housing than the proposed location, where it will have the least impact both visually and in many other respects, and where it is in close proximity to amenities such as public transportation, retail, services, schools, etc. #02-2789 Notice of PC Action 8-1-02 Page 2 L 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The proposed mix of units and pricepoints (approximately 1/3 rambler townhomes at $450K-pIus, 1/3 two-story townhomes at S325-350K and 1/3 Lofts at $225- 250k) provides housing options generally consistent with the City ’s intent for this propeity and consistent with the Community Management Plan (CMP). However, Planning Commission notes that the low-end units are still priced significantly higher than the Metropolitan Council’s definition of “alTordable” housing. The developer should be required to seriously propose methods to price at least a small number of units within the “affordable” price range, under Met Council or other criteria, given that the overall density requested is at the very top of the City ’s intended 3-6 units per acre density range. Planning Commission also expressed some serious concerns as to the validity of applicarit’s market research regarding price points. Developer should be asked to provide rnarket study information to confirm that the proposed units at the proposed pricepoints are marketable and will indeed meet housing needs of this area. The potential use of the MnDOT stormwater pond right-of-way for Kelley Parkway preserits an unknown factor which could change the nature of the Concept Plan if such use is not feasible. If Kelley Parkway must move northward to avoid the MnDOT pond property, then a revised Concept Plan will have to be reviewed and approved by the Plamiing Cortunission and Council. The City Engineer should conduct a traffic study as soon as possible to determine the impacts of this plan on roads and intersections outside the development, as well as to review internal circulation, and make recommendations as to specific issues or necessary revisions or roadway improvements. Developer has indicated a willingness to pay an appropriate share of the costs of this study. Park Commission should review the public trail proposal and any other public park features proposed. The proposed open space areas within the development will be private open spaces, and will be maintained by the homeowners association. Platting of the portions of the property south of Kelley Parkway as outlets for future commercial office use as guided in the CMP is acceptable given that the developer has no specific users identified at this time. The Developer’s schematic drawings showing how the outlets could feasibly be developed should become a part of the record as an indication of the viability of said outlets for their intended use. Developer and City in making decisions about the nature of Kelley Parieway should keep in mind that future uses south of Kelley Pailcway will be non-residential in nature. J I m-im Draft Notice of PC Action 8-1-02 Page 3 B. Specific Comments 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. All residential buildings including the Lofts should have pitched roofs rather than flat roofs to maintain a rural residential character. The Lofts should be setback from the west lot line a minimum distance of 80* to allow for a more effective buffer to the Public Works site, and the two 3rd story west end Loft units should be omitted as proposed to allow for a reduced building profile. However, the separation between the two Lofts buildings should not be decreased to accommodate these changes. Plaiming Commission recognizes that to be financially feasible the Lofts must be 3 stories in height and will exceed the 30' RPUD height limit for multi­ family buildings. The estimated visual peak height with a 4/12 pitch would be approximately 40' above finished grade as viewed from the south. The 'defined height* would similarly be approximately 40'. Planning Commission accepts this but would recommend a low-pitched roof (4/12 or S/12) in order to reduce the visual impact of the excess height. The berm along the Public Works site east boundary may be extended eastward to assist in establishing a buffer to the Lofts; however, any buffer walls, plantings or other improvements should be located on the Lofts site. The area designated as "proof of parking” should be relocated along the west boundary of the Lofts site to minimize impacts on existing vegetation in the area northwest of the Lofts west building. A disclosure regarding the Lofts buildings proximity to Public Works should be required of Lofts buyers to help limit the expected high number of complaints about City activity and noise at the PW site. The separation di.^tances between townhome buildings are generally acceptable as shown on the plan, with the majority being at least IS' at the nearest point and a greater separation as the building walls diverge. It is recommended that any separations less than 15' be reviewed to determine if a greater separation is feasible. The proposed private road connection betw’een the Lofts and the southwesterly two-story townhome units should be required; an emergency-use-only connection between the East Lane cul-de-sac loop and Kelley Parkway should be included in the final development plans. The proposed overall level of parking at 4 stalls per unit (including garage spaces, driveway spaces and on-street defined parking) is double the amount required by code. Nevertheless, Planning Commission suggests that guest parking should be maximized where feasible. Parallel paridng spaces should be added along West Lane. A ^ViKvniriHiri •■v.nii.'aiiiiirii wmiiwiwi] roaw [tTt I i MO ■ ct] ctwi ii iTii Ml I tH W B •VM 4V/tP>i Ctl ftV/j 11 iTi] r«] «7i lit] I («4 [titl r«r^vt^ niviivi] rticiiii [•innioovift p.»iWW*p. • P.rin RWJTiTT^T*»il r«r/iT«i RllM VOK •HiriVtMt r« W ■ C^rtWiJTlTi iTiTi tllTnriW lOOltli f rutTlIMiWtl •JKUC^f Vtia«iijKTrri i I'. I.IIWKW?i wiiriiwip.1 ri fFi Kri Ti TtjmjuicA TfUimnnmnTTti T» I mt 9 £'-m i w mH9i 9 fwti f$]wu9tw^n\ r#7fr^AW#j UTf tmmnmwtp tm immMmmTTwmn]WaVltVWtTiTH ^AinriiiUTii r^V'^w tin 1-41 rtiTir»«iT*Ttr«u:#i - - J 1 m-im Draft Notice of PC Action 8-1-02 Page 5 II. 13. 14. 15. 16. Developer ’s proposal to omit concrete sidewalk in favor of a bituminous trail along the south side of Kelley Parkway should be reviewed by Council and Park Commission. This is not consistent with what the City is requiring of the dental office proposal at the west end of Kelley Parkway. 12. Developer should make a proposal to City regarding the streetscape of Kelley Parkway. The general Planning Commission was to not have a center median in Kelley Parkway. Interior street widths at 20-22' (rather than 28' as required by City code for private residential streets) are potentially acceptable but should be reviewed by City’s traffic consultant. It is noted that keeping the internal roads narrow with no parking except in designated areas, could allow for development of sidewalks for greater walkability in the the two northern cul-de-sac roads; however. Planning Commission recognizes the constraints of having many driveway crossings, as well as maintenance issues. Therefore, the Developers should add sidewalks to North Lane and West Lane in locations where they will provide defined walkability without conflicting with driveways, etc.; such as providing connections to the on-street parking. Interior private street lighting should be at a low level consistent with the surrounding rural residential character while providing the necessary level of security, and will be maintained by the homeowners association. Public street lighting along Kelley Parkway will be maintained through standard agreement between the City and the appropriate public utility company. In regards to utilities, the water mains should be looped near the north end of the site. It should be possible to accomplish this without impacting wetlands. All internal watermains should be 8" rather than 6" and that in Kelley Parkway should be 12". The 8" sanitary sewers are acceptable. City will own and maintain the sanitary sewer and water mains within the development. The stormwater drainage system will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. AH of the streets and sidewalks north of Kelley Parkway will be private, with the appropriate City standard private street and utility easements required. Maintenance of these private streets and sidewalks will be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Kelley Parkway will be a public street with street maintenance being the City’s responsibility. Maintenance responsibility for the Kelley Parkway sidewalks needs to be discussed further by Council. #02-2789 Draft Notice of PC Action 8-1-02 Page 6 17. Developer should ASAP provide City with a list of developments similar to the proposal for Planning Commission and Council to visit. ^plicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, August 12, 2002; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available fiom the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. c GlTYor ORONO Municipal Oflkcs Strati Mints: 2750 Kelley Perhwey Orono. MN 553^6 MtHing Miratt: P.O. Box 66 CiysUl Bay, MN 55323-0066 11 j Steve Johnston Landfonn 650 Butler North Building 510 First Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55403 Re: File #02-2789 - Updated Fees Estimate Dear Mr. Johnston: Enclosed per your request is an updated estimate of application and development fees associated with the Dahlstrom Development project in Orono. Please feel free to contact me at 952-249-4600 if you have any questions. • j Michael P. Gaffron Planning Director end. TdcplMNic(i52)24MiOO • Fax(«S2)24»-M14 xnrwxLoroiKMiUMts II. ....................an^jhaamirirfRlniiiihiilUfciMi ■ ■ i i.iii ii UPDATED FEES ESTIMATE - #02*2789 Dahlstrom Development-August 1,2002 This estimate of fees is divided into three categories: l. Base application fees per City Fee Schedule, intended to cover City costs of processing the application n. Development fees per City Fee Schedule, related to the costs cf providing infrastructure paries, sewer & water system, stormwater management) m. Ancillary administrative costs (based on pass-through legal, engineering and planning consultant costs incurred by the City) I. Application Fees a. Initial application fees Commercial Site Plan Review......................................... 5 250.00 PUD Rezoning ................................................................ 375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment................................... 375.00 Sketch Plan Review....................................................... 275.00 $1,275.00 Amount Paid 4/17/02 (Receipt # 17664) 1,225.00 Balance Due 5 50.00 b. Development application fees Note: Fees in column A are/were due with Concept Plan Application; unpaid fees from column A and fees in column B based on approved numbers of units or footages will be due upon Concept Plan Approval. _A_ ____B_____ PUD / Rezoning : Residential Portion ................................................ S375.00 (pd) plus S40.00 per unit 168 units X $40.00 »= $6.720 Commercial Portion .............................................. S175 00 /acre (Defer until Outlets are replatted/developed) Preliminary Subduision Application...................... $400.00 $400 Special Improvement Fees: - Proposed Public Road (Kelley Parbvay)............... $950.00 plus $0.50 per l.f. $950 + (1,950 l.f X $0.50) = $1,925 - Proposed Private Roads ................................. $650.00 plus $0.50 per l.f. (i.e. private roads that are not individual driveways) $650 + (5,400 if X $0.50) = $2,550 - Proposed Storm Sewer System......................... $250 00 $250 - Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension .......... $275.00 plus $25.00 per stub (Res. only) $275 + 168 units x $25.00 = $4,475 - Proposed Water Main Extension ....................... $275.00 plus $25.00 per stub (Res. only) $275 + 168 units x $25.00 “ $4,475 - Future Commercial Sewer & Water (Same unit rates as residential, totalfee dependent on number of units required by future commercial development) Page I of 3 Application Fees Sammary: Item t £S£Amt Pd. Estimated Amount Due Balance of initial fees $ 1,275.00 $1,225.00 $ 50.00 Residential PUD/Rezoning $ 7,095.00 375.00 6,720.00 Preliminary Subdivision $ 400.00 400.00 Special Improvement Fees $13,475.00 13,475.00 ($1,925 + $2,350 + $250 + $4,475 + $4,475)— Total Application Fees Due $ 20,645.00 (Future commercial PUD/Rezoning and S&W stub fees deferred until commercial outlots are ^veloped and final unit counts established) II. Development Fees Additional fees you should expect when the application proceeds to the development stage include: a.Park Dedication 1. Residential 8% of Land; or Cash Contribution in Lieu of Land (Council Discretion): 8% of Predevelopment Fair Market Value (Subject to min. fee of $3,250 per dwelling unit, max $5,550 per dwelling unit per Resol. #4738 and 2002 Fee Schedule) Estimated Land Pre-Dev Fair Market Value: 41.55 acres @ $3.50/s.f. - 41.55 X 43,560 X $3.50 = $6,335,000 Estimated Residential Park Fee - 0.08 x $6,335,000 = $507,000 Check: $ 507,000/168 units « $3,01 8/unit (below required min-max range) Minimum Fee applied: 168 units x S3,2S0/unit = $546,000 2. Commercial 8% of Land; or Cash Contribution in Lieu of Land (Council Discretion): 8% of Predevelopment Fair Market Value (Subject to minimum fee of $8125/acre, maximum $ 13,875/acre per Resol. #4739 and 2002 Fee Schedule) Estimated Land Pre-Dev Fair Market Value: 9.90 acres @ $6.00/s.f. =» 9.90 X 43,560 X $6.00 = $2,587,500 Estimated Commercial Park Fee = 0.08 x $2,587,500 = $207,000 Check: $207,000 / 9.90 acres = $20,910/acre (over required min-max range) Maximum fee applied: 9.90 acres x $13,875/acre « $137,400 Page 2 of3 Local SewerAVater Connection Charges 1.Sanitary Sewer Connection Charges 1989 Highway 12 Area............................ $5,320.00 per acre Residential Portion: 41.55 acres x $5,320.00/acre = $221,046 Commercial Portion: 9.90 acres x $5,320.00/acrc = $ 52,668 2.Municipal Water Connection Charge 1989 Highway 12 Area ............................ $8,795.00 per acre Residential Portion: 41.55 acres x $8,795.00/acre = $365,432 Commercial Portion: 9.90 acres x $8,795.00/acre = S 87,070 c. Storm Water aod Drainage Trunk Fees Multi-Family: 4 or fewer Units/Acre .................... $4,860.00 per acre Multi-Family: Greater than 4 Units/Acre ............... $5,670.00 per acre Commercial:..................................................... $6,480.00 per acre Residential Portion: 41.55 acres @ 6 unils/acre = 41.55 x 55,670 - 5235,600 Commercial Portion: 9.90 acres x 56.480.00/acre = $64,152 Development Fees Summary Residential: Commercial: Park Dedication Fee.................................$546,000 Sanitary Sewer Connection Charge............221,046 Municipal Water Connection Charge........365,432 Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee..........235.600 Residential Total $ 1,368,078 Park Dedication Fee................................$137,400 Sanitary Sewer Connection Charge.........52,668 Municipal Water Connection Charge.......87,070 Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee.........64,152 Commercial Total $341,290 ill. Ancillary Administrative Costs* R?^7^w Fee........................S250.00 minimum plus incurred legal, engineering, and planning consultant charges* Document Filing Fees....................... 5220.00 minimum plus incurred costs* Residential Administrative & Legal*.......................... S 25,000 Commercial Administrative & Legal*.........................$ 10,000 *Thi$ is a very rough estimate of legal/engineering^planning consultant charges not covered by application fees, inclusive of the concept plan and final development plan suges of the review process, and is insetted for discussion purposes only! Note: Costs of improvements to be provided by developer (subject to the Development Agreement yet to be drafted) are not addressed in this document. Page 3 of 3 // Mi 7c^»a»<%iua. * **' # MTo rvd CM CMUCf tMM CM CMMt ontvM stAus Su»*ct ^MIMC l^W) l^»0) 1^201 t^K) ttOOMi ttOM VATM Po»e X -2? Wf Aci __ ^ ii i ‘~i~-.-,— —— "■ZZr~.’=-t^-Sz-^;:" T " r-.z---rr-zr->z-r-Jz \~.zz-~z------- - - “JT r -r —• ‘ I' Xd-.-—--- n^fforr two CM CMMt 1.«M CM CMACI 0«M%AT tlAUf %mhCt pmutc i^TOJ i^TOt t%JO) OTTEN BROS tmn f«0 9f AUS «M &Mf %m»e» #MKMC lKMCia«« MO0» 9 AMWe l^W) l%?0> t%20) t%20| CONCEPT 3UOK JUNE 24. 20C 10T«i ^MUC STAUJ MMMO ruuccTi PROPOS DEVELOPM Orono, Minn •m.L, ^-mk • i j-'. V: VACANT, Acwrw A. rA I; -' M *U««Af«WCA Us* - '• •: I 4 v-i • # • 4>l EXlSTINfl MCrU D-3 I SETBACK SUMMARY CWONMCt OUKNtM. /I M0NT mn ItUBV ^AMtWAY BXtim 90IS J9* 39 99T 39T — * •w T3 srfliif •UUNC ai^MunoN OHMUioemofVL DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT UC f.sroRY A¥««A£B 9i#ACAfldN dm W* f*i TmYDAHLVIHOM n^SraUMSLANC MAPLE GW>VC.M!«5B3II mmtxan tm • fkmat»mt r /y/ fV AREA SUMMARY MirM ^ • EXISTING MOM5 I mtvtfio mftvi0U9 •ULOMC I.MJ93I IP. 9^. m» IP. 7K HE total (4155 Ac)100^777 9P.lOOK CMl SHEET MPCX ROW LOT AttA TOTAL (4d Ac.) 03 Ac. 4J Ac. CAI CU Cvj 0M. mu Mit ctforma SM mm,rm faO 80V lOT AttA TOTM. (5.1 Ac.) 03 Ac. 4A Ac. CU CU w% Km Ctf CU Cli C«f li1UC8»VCCt uunr AM AAV kck ;* V-ICANT PLAN SUMMARY NORTH 07 ONTMLid aATOLfR T0VUCT85 7 5T08T TOWmOrtS C AM. 5« 40 M.A UMTS U4T5 UCT5 REMSiONHaTory ’ LOftS Wi ^ M mmm mm •1 . .....TOTAL INTS.tfO •TOTAL AREA:4L55 Ac. MTLAfd A8iA tf« Ac • «»4 • • •^ • i^LACd ARiiL 70.0 Ac. IPLUO Pft«arTY:00 WMTS/Ac. f^?7^PAPVIWr. RTIUVARYfA v">' J •• • • ► *••• *• I'ARRMC RtOtttO rtOMDtO ••* • lAHBLfi mr..................IT TVO CAR CARACl {^70)M (A.r • .1 .T»«H CAR CARAa t^70)70 lA. I • •ORVfVAY STAU5 (^20)M4 lA. : 1- -•; •SuOPACt PARtNC (W)« lA. OriEN BROS 904 »A. > <f_1V0 storr TVO CAR CAAAC8 (^70) 60 50 lA. THBtt CAR CARAa (%20)54 lA.r 1 ORAdVAY STAUS (^70)104 lA. SURPAa PARINC (5i70)14 tA. 777 lA. 10PT9 .OTTEN BROS TVO STAUS PiR iNf (^20)07 75 lA.autPAa raremc iW) UdERCtOAd (^20)05 lA. RROOP OP PARIMC (%20)0 I A. * • rnmm MO tA. ■M m TOTAL PARUiC STAUS PROVOfO 390 lA.077 lA. 11-• • n- -•• -CM............................. ^ , ___... . 1 ____ L*TI M/ry/ct 010 M/U/CI «•« tA NU nUUECTMANAOCIUtEVM CEXIViCATION CONCEPT ©UOMITTAL JUNE 24. 2002 IKOUKTi PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Orono, NTInnesota ■ NWJiVWildi|l PARK COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES WERE NOT AVAILABLE AS OF 8-9-02 i J ^ 1 Bonestroo gjg Rosene V ■ Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects •oiMtiroo. flottfw, tkn^rnm antf AtMclalts. Inc. It an Afflrifiaevt Acllo«WEqyal Of)f»ortyntty Cifiployar §n4 Imptpyaa Ownad Prificipala: Otto Q eonatiroo. PC* Matvln L Soivala. PE* QIann R Cook. PE* Robart 0 Schufwchi. PE* Jaciy A Bourdon. P E Bonier Conaeltanta: Robed W Roteno. P E • Jotopn C Andociiii. PE* Richard E Turnof. PE *SutanM EbOftm.CPA Aoaaclala Prificipala: KadtiA Qordon.PE * Robed RPftfftffo. PE * Richard w Fottor. PE* Davtd O Lotliola. PE * Modi A. Hanoon. PE* Michaol T Rautmann. PE* Tod K Field, PE* Konnoth P Andonon. PE* Mark R. Rolft. PE* David A Bonestroo. MBA* Sidney P Wdiamson. P E . L S * Agnes M Ring. MBA.* Alan R»ck Scturadl. PE* Thomas W Peterson. PE* James R Maland. P E * Miles B Jensen. P E * L Ptvllfp Gravel ill. PE* Daniel J Edgedon. P E. • Ismael Mamnei. P E. * Thomas A. Syfko. P E * Sheldon J Johnson * Dale A. Grove. PE* Thomas A. Rouahar. P E. * Robed J Devery. P E Offices: St Paul. Si. Cloud. Rochester and Willmar. MN • Milwaukee. Wi • Chcago. IL Website: www bonestroo com F ‘0’2^ MEMORANDUM TO:Mike Gaffron FROM Sheldon J. Johnson DATEi August 8,2002 CORY TO: Dahlstrom Development Site Plan Traffic Review & Kelley Parkway Design Concept PROfECT#: 13902-000 Pursuant to your request, an analysis of the Dahlstrom Development Residential Site Plan (dated June 24, 2002) has been reviewed with regard to traffic operations issues. The second part of this memorandum will provide a discussion of various design issues as it relates to Kelley Parkway. site Plan Review The site plan review that has been conducted makes various comments that are noted on the copy of the site plan that I received from you. This marked up plan was given to you at our meeting of August 8. General comments are noted below: ■ The main access design should be revised to consist of a normalized standard intersection. This will vastly improve in/out traffic operations. * The main entrance/exit road leading to/from Kelli:;v should consist of 16-foot roadways (measured face-to-face of curb). ThdJJ^ftx)t width will not function well for fire vehicles, moving vans, and during the winter months this roadway could well be narrower due to ice and snow buildup along the curb lines. An'lT^oot width does not allow for passing of a stalled vehicle. ^ • The roundabout design may not be of sufficient roadway width to accommodate fire vehicles, school buses, garbage vehicles, and moving vans. Developers need to produce turning vehicle evidence to support the concept design. It does need to be noted that the roundabout concept is applauded as a way to efficiently accommodate traffic operations. 2335 W09t Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 * 651•636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 Pedestrian access should not be allowed to/from the center of the roundabout. Pedestrian crossing of the roundabout roadway, in areas where vehicles arc circling is hazardous and increases the pedestrian/vehicle accident potential. The general internal roadway network of 20-feet is a “bit" too narrow to safely accommodate two-way traffic. Winter operation may be tenuous. Fire vehicle operation should be discussed with the fire chief. Suggest a width of 24-feet for better traffic operations. Except for parking .utouts", parking should not be allowed on any internal street. ■ Need for parking on Kelley Parkway adjacent to the site is questioned. The roadway would be safer if parking is not allowed. A small parking area is needed somewhere along West Lane leading to the cul-de-sac (Northwest part of site). The roadway on the south side of the 34-unit loft must be a one-way westbound roadway. ■ Vehicle turning radii, particularly for expected truck types, needs to be checked by the developer to ensure that movements can be accommodated. • The driveway on the south end of the 30-unit loft should be 28-fcet wide from face-of- curb to face-of-curb. Suggested access to the potential commercial areas on the SW and SE comers of the site is noted on the site plan. Full movement access can be allowed along Kelley Parkway and right in/right out access can be allowed along Highway 12 for the SE parcel and full movement access, with Highway 12 improvements can be allowed for the SW parcel at the location shown on the marked up site plan. A right in/right out access can be allowed along Willow for the SE parcel. ■ An exclusive left turn lane should be constructed along Kelley Parkway at the intersection with Willow Drive. The left turn storage length should be 200 feet. • The access location and number of access drives shown on the plan are acceptable. Traffic generated by the proposed development is esiimaicd to K as follows: Land Use No. of Units AM Peak Hour In Out PM Peak Hour In Out Daily (2-way) Residential Townhome & Lofts 168 985 The volume of traffic can be efficiently accommodated by the access proposed on the site plan. 2335 W§§t Hlghwgy 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 651 •636-1311 4> Itoiley F«»fcwv The width of Kelley Parkway, as scaled from the Dahlstrom site plan, is 28 feet. We recommend a minimum width of 32-feet with parking being prohibited. The face-to-face of curb width of 32-feet is felt to be necessary to accommodate future volumes, which could range between 2,000 and 4,000 vehicles per day. Additionally, this east-west facility will accommodate numerous short trips that won ’t have to utilize Highway 12 with a more continuous Kelley Parkway. We would suggest that a trail be developed along the north side of Kelley Parkway which could extend to Old Crystal Bay Road and connect to the trail on the east side of that roadway. The trail could, in the future extend east to Willow and beyond Willow to Brown Road. A connection of this east-west trail could be constructed along the west side of Willow Road to provide access to Highway 12. With tho off-road trail along Kelley Parkway, a sidewalk along the south side is not necessary, but would be advantageous for pedestrian usage. Within the area of the Dahlstrom plan, turn lanes are not required to the proposed access. A left turn lane should be provided at Willow. The traffic control at the intersection of Kelley Parkway, with Willow Drive should consist of stop signs on Kelley Parkway. Any stop control along Kelley Parkway, other than with intersections with public streets, such as Old Crystal Bay Road, should not be necessary. Parking should be prohibited along Kelley Parkway in order to increase the safety along the facility. There shouldn ’t be any necessity to allow parking along this roadway. Access along Kelley Parkway can be granted “more generously ’’ than along an arterial roadway. This is due to its’ function which is like a collector roadway. However, access must be kept to a level “as required" for each land use development since the more access given, the crash potential increases and the roadway service level decreases. Access consolidation should be considered, when applicable, for new developed parcels along Kelley Parkway. Should a median be desired, for parkway and streetscape purposes, right-of-way and roadway widths will have to be reconsidered. 2335 W0st Highway SB • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-635 ’4600 • Fax: 551 ‘536-131 1 # BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK R ^6516361311 08/01/02 11:54 0:02/04 NO:256 & S-')-oz. cmr or orono SUB AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY The following provides a work scope and cost estimate for a iraffic/transportaiion study of a specific sub urea in Orono. The sub area is bordered by County Road 6 on the north, the rail trackage south of Highway 12 on the south, Willow Drive on the east, and Old Crystal Bay Road on the we.si. What is known os the Dumas property, which lies west of and abuts Old Crystal Buy Road will also be included in these analyses as will the roadway system that abuts Willow Road to the east. The study becomes necessary for purposes of examining the roadway sy.Mem in the .study area due to increased development ociivity and to devise a roadway system that will accommodate near term and long-term land use conditions in this study area. Pursuar.t to our meeting on July 2.1, which consisted of a discussion of issues that needed to be addrcs.scd, we have prepared the following suggested Scope of Work for this project. Task I - Data Collectlon/Flcld Reconnalisaiicf We will collect, from the City, County and State any data that is available and appropriate for this study. We will visit the site in order to view existing traffic operations on the areas primary roadway system. If (ulditional traffic counts are deemed necessary, wc will conduct those counts a.s a pan of this study. Taak 2 - IntcniecUon Analyacs Thera are .six intersections that will be analyzed as a part of this study. These arc lisied below: m County Road 6 and Old Crystal Bay Rood County Road 6 and Willow Drive Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road Highway 12 and Willow Drive Kelley Parkway and WiPow Drive Kelley Parkway and Old Crystal Bay Road Existing conditions will he analy7.ed to determine if existing lanes and tralfic control are able to accommoduie present day and future conditions. Analysis will include intersection level of .service calculations, future conditions will be hosed upon year 201.1 volume projections prepared us a part of the Highway 12 improvement project. Dependeni upon the analysis results, racommcndtilionx will bo provided. • • BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK R 96516361311 08/01/02 11:54 S:03/04 NO:256 Talk 3-Acccm Manogfinent The xegment of Old Crysial Bay Road from Highway 12 to Chunty Road 6 will be analyzed with recurd lo access lo/from Uic schools and Cily facilities. Access to the Duma.s property located in the southwest quadrant of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road will he analyzed with respect to potential future development. Task 4 - Kelley Parkway Planning Kelley Parkway will ultimately be extended from Old Crystal Bay Road lo Willow Drive. The Dahlstrom developmcni plan will be reviewed in conjunction with the Kelley Parkway extension. Elomems that will he reviewed and commented upon include the following; • Roadway Width • Access • TrafTic Control ■ Lane Requirements ■ Parking • Bike Lunes/Ped Requirements • Streetscope pros/cons Task 5 - Dahlstrom Proposal Review The proposed development plan submitted by Dahlstrom Development will be reviewed with regard to the following: • Access to Kelley Parkway ■ Internal street system layout and widths • Turn lanes to property along Kelley Parkway • Access design concept Task 6 - Areo Roadway Plan The existing area roadway system, in conjunction with the proposed roadways, will be analyzed with regard to their ability to accommodate future trip desires in an cfficienl manner. Proposed roadway connections, if deemed advisable will be discussed with appnJpriai; cily staff. Task 7 - Documentation A draft report will be prepared for review by the city. Appropriate revisions will be made and a final report submitted. .: * I* I • m, • BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK R 9 6516361311 08/01/02 11:54 0:04/04 NO:256 $9,500. We luggeet a budgclof|9.500. Thli tacludce the com of conducting additiontl irafTic counts for this project. The COM e*Um«c does not include any coil for presenting the project resulU to Ww Commission or City Council. We ere availsble to do that, at your Jirection. and such worh would he billed as additional services. ✓ I* CMPPart^. HoasioePlan While Orono did not conunit to any specified numeric goals within the context of the Livable Communities Act, the City is required to identify numerical goals in response to the Land Planning Act. The City’s housing goals in terms of affordability, li fe-cycle housing and density for new sewered development in the period 2000-2010 appear in Table 3C-9. Tible^C-9 OronoIndex (Existing) Met Council Benchmark City Goal for Sewered Development for 2000-2010 (Estimated409 total uniU to be developed) AfTordabiUty Ownership 30%60-69 %160 A ffordable To wnhomes (1) (±52% of309 ownership Units) Rental 18%35-37 %120 Affordable Rental Units (2) (+29% of409 total units) Life-Cycle Type (% non-SFR detached) 2%35-37%280/409 - 68% Owner/Remcr Mix 91/9%(67-75)/(25.33)%289/120 «71%/29% Density Single Family Detached 0.9/acrc 1.8-1.9/acre 2.1 units/acre (Of +100 anticipated new sewered SF homes, one-third will be new sewered infill SF detached in '/»acre and 1 acre zones averaging 1.2 units/acre, and two-thirds will be new sewered SFR in newly guided Highway 12 areas averaging 2.5 units/acre: overall the mix is anticipated at about 2.1 uniis/acre) Multifamily 6/acrc 10-14/acrc 1 ____i.iT___j Rental; 10 units/acre Ownership; 6 unils/acre ^ • --------............................Ui UCIUliy Q1 ICuSi (2)Afrofdablc rental defined as attached MF rental units developed at a density of at least 10 units per acre ^ To address the need for additional lifecycle housing options, Orono is guiding new areas within the northern portion of the City near the Highway ^ 12 corridor for medium density residential use. This will include a mix of single-family and multi-family development at densities ranging from 2-6 units per acre (see Map 3B-7). Development of these new areas for lifecycle housing will pose a number of significant challenges. First, creation of appropriate housing varieties in certain of these areas will require acquisition of enough individual parcels to accomplish cost-efficient development. There must be willing sellers within a reasonable time-fiame, selling at reasonable prices. City of Orono Community Manafcaicnt Plan Stpfember 2M0 / Rinritfd Scpitiiibtr 2001 Page 3C-18 ■* ^ffPjrtS^^oustog^^ HOUSING ACTION PLAN Orono's Housing Action Plan is a set of implementation policies designed to achieve the above stated Housing Goals and Planning Policies. As has been indicated, the dominant land use in the City of Orono is primarily that of single-family residential homes. There is very limited industrial-conunercial development or opportimities for employment and shopping within the City. Orono residents have always relied on the historic town centers in adjacent communities for shopping as well as employment. The general lack of commercial and industrial development and the limited availability of city services such as municipal sewer, water and mass transit will limit the opportunities for. and make it difficult, if possible at all, to provide opportunities for the range of housing types required to meet the affordability and lifecycle goals in many areas of Orono. However, several areas in Orono have been identified which can provide an adequate level of public services to support the development of new lifecycle housing opportunities. A top priority in Orono must be improving the housing conditions of persons who are presently inadequately housed and eliminating substandard housing. There are deteriorated and dilapidated housing units located throughout the City. Most of Orono's urban dwellings have been upgraded from seasonal cabins through either private or public rehabilitation programs. Others remain in need of attention. Thus, while pursuing where possible the construction of new life-cycle and affordable housing units in the City, Orono's Housing Action Plan is aimed principally at improving the condition of Orono's older homes, both urban and rural, and improving the housing conditions of Orono's many low, moderate and fixed income residents. 1.Orono will cooperate with neighboring cities to fulflll area-wide housing needs. Most apparent is the need of many senior Orono residents who desire to live in the immediate area, but who cannot find available senior housing. Orono will actively participate with nearby munici{.' ‘lities to facilitate the provision of senior housing at locations that are near to home yet also convenient to necessary shopping, transportation and medical facilities. 2.Orono will participate In housing rehabilitation subsidy programs. Many Orono residents, both urban and rural, are occupying older housing that has code-related structural, safety or health hazards, substandard living conditions or energy inefficiencies. They would like to improve their housing condition and their nei^boriKX)d's appearance, but are unable to because of insufficient income. In many cases, older couples are forced to choose between City of Orono Community Management Plan StpliiOtT 2Me/R«vlM«S«pl(Mb*rMei Page 3C-24 I i CMP Part 3C. HoostaePbn heat or food or leaving their place of long residence. Orono will continue to actively participate in Community Development Block Grant and Minnesota Housing Finance Assistance programs designed to help these citizens meet their very inunediate housing needs. 3. Orono will encourage developers to provide a variety of honsing types and cost ranges. Whenever a multiple family or clustered housing development is proposed, Orono will actively encourage setting aside a reasonable number of units for large families and/or for low and moderate income families. Orono will participate and assist developers in applications for loan guarantees or other suitable forms of housing subsidy aids which may be available. Orono will also consider proposals for lifecycle housing options for sites which have not been guided for such use, but where such use may be appropriate if developed in a manner that is sensitive to the surrounding land uses and has the necessary services available. Such areas may include property that is currently guided or zoned for more , intense uses such as commercial or industrial, or may include sites adjacent to existing higher intensity uses. 4. Housing construction will be subject to uniform state building code requirements but will not be burdened with unnecessary zoning requirements. Orono does not intend to require arbitrary minimum dwelling sizes or minimum amenity installations as these artificial standards only drive up the cost of housing while limiting the buyer’s freedom of choice. Zoning standards for lot area and lot density will be based strictly upon environmental concerns and public facilities availability. Zoning performance standards will be based upon minimum health and safety standards such as fire protection and open space availability. State Building Code performance standards will be enforced to ensure structurally sound, weather resistant buildings providing adequate health and safety protection for the future occupant and for the general public’s welfare. 5. Orono will encourage community pride. Private initiative has always been a characterstic of Orono residents. Programs will be pursued to encourage continuing maintenance and upkeep of all properties and to promote the privately financed rehabilitation of older and under-used properties. 6. Orono will promote energy conservation methods and procedures. The Building Inspection Department will actively keep abreast of all new systems and products and will assist all homeowners in auditing and improving the energy efficiency of their homes. Orono will actively pursue and advertise all available programs for energy conservation funding. City of Orono Conunanlly Management Plan ScpteMktr 2000/amMScait«bcrMOI Pagc3C-25 Applkatioa Date; April 17,2002 iBitlal M-Day Review Eipiratloa: Jane 16,2002 S/29/02 - City NotUlcd AppUcaot of 60-day Review Period Exlcailoa to Ausust IS, 2002 Revised Plaa Applkatioa Dale: June 24,2002 Revised loillal 60-Day Review Eipiratloa: August 23,2002 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Hawn & Planning Commission Members Mike Gaffron, Planning Diiector^^M^^k July 12,2002 #02-2789(Revised) Dahlstrom Development, LLC, “2550" Wayzata Boulevard - Public Hearing for Proposed PUD Development: 1) Rezoning 2) PUD Concept Plan Review Summary of Revised Proposal Applicants have submitted a revised proposal to develop portions of this 51 -acre site via the Planned Unit Development process. Proposed uses include a mixture of residential housing types to be located north of Kelley Parkway, including 59 rambler townhomes, 43 two-story townhomes, and 66 lolls (condominium units). The proposal would create two commercial outlets south of Kelley Parkway for future development. Property Owner: Orono Plaza, a Minnesota general partnership Applicant/Developer: Dahlstrom Development, LLC Planner/Engineer/Suneyor: Landform Kjolhaug Environmental Services Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP Wetland Consultant: Attorney: Dahlstrom Development LLC has provided letters from property owners authorizing submittal of the application. List of Exhibits A - Excerpts from 1980 and 2000-2020 Community Management Plans (CMP) B - “Study A” and “Study D” C - Applicants Revised Submittals: 1 - Cover letter 6-24-02 2 - Revised Plan Sheets: CO.l - Title Sheet Cl.l - Existing Conditions Cl.2 - Existing Slope Analysis & Drainage Pattern Plan C2.1 - Concept Plan C3.1 - Concept Excavation & Embankment Plan C3.2 - Concept Wetland Impact Plan C4.1 - Concept Utility Plan C5.1 - Conceptual Plat C5.2 - Phasing Plan #02-2789(Rcvised) Dahlstrom Development LLC July 12,2002 Page 1 of 13 D - Original Application Documents 1 - Application forms 2 - Property Owner Authorizations 3 - 350* List of Neighboring Property Owners 4 - Plat Map 5 - Concept Stage Required Information 6 - Letter to MnDOT (Timerson) re: Stormwater Pond Expansion 7 - Sionrwatet Pond Memo E - Selected Architectural Conceptual Elevations from Original Submittal F - City Engineer’s Original Comments G - Notice of Council Action June 10,2002 I. Summary of Required Approvals The revised proposal does noj require amendment of the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. However, the Developer’s interpretation of the CMP in terms of the location of Kelley Parkway in relation to the MnDOT pond, requires some discussion (see Item II below). The required approvals include: 1) Rezoninf. The entire site is currently zoned RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential. The area south of Kelley Parkway which is guided for commercial development is proposed to be retained in its current RR-1B status until the owner proposes a development plan, or until the City rezones it to conform with the CMP guide plan. The residential area north of Kelley Parkway is proposed to be rezoned to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District. Planning Commission is asked to review and make a recommendation regarding whether RPUD is the appropriate zoning district for the residential uses that will be allowed, and whether any proposed uses are inappropriate or require special conditions or limitatio's based on the standards for the RPUD district. Planning Commission should also consider whether allowing the area south of Kelley Parkway to remain zoned RR-IB is appropriate absent a development plan, or whether it should be rezoned to B-6 (or some other commercial district) concurrently with this application. The application is being processed as a Planned Unit Development per Section 10.53, and actual rezoning to PUD with the RPUD and B-6 as underlying districts, would not occur until completion of the Development Plan Approval stage. 2) PUD Genera! Concept Plan Approval. The first stage of the two-stage PUD review process is the General Concept Stage, in which Planning Commission and Council review all conceptual aspects of the proposed development. This is similar in scope to a combination of the sketch plan and pref minary plat phases of a standard subdivision process. General Concept Plan Approval is the City’s formal commitment to the development if specified conditions and goals are met. These conditions and goals will be documented via a Council resolution, hence all significant issues and concerns must be identified at the General Concept Plan review stage, and clear and concise direction must be provided to the applicant and documented in the General Concept Plan Approval Resolution. PUD Development Plan Approval. In this final stage the developer will provide detailed plans for implementation of the approved General Concept Plan, as well as preliminary and final plat documents. Rezoning and formal amendment of the CMP w ill occur as part of Development Plan approval. A Development Agreement will be e.xecuted by the developer and the City to formalize all aspects of the approval. Development may then go forward as soon as a final building and site plan is submitted and found to be in substantial compliance with the with the approved Development Plan. #02-2789(H«vbed) Dahbirom Development LLC July 12,2002 Page 2 of 13 11. Concept Plan Review Process GOALS OF CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW Planning Commission's concept plan review on July 15 should focus on both general and detail aspects of the development plan. The developer has presented the City with a concept plan that includes a level of detail which should allow Planning Commission to begin to visualize and understand the various plan elements. Planning Commission ’s goal should be to identify issues and concerns related to the Concept Plan, and define for the applicants (and for the City Council) the positive and negative aspects of the plan. It would then be appropriate to define a goal or intent for each aspect. These goals and should then be discussed with the intended result that you provide specific direction to the applicant as to how the issue should be resolved. For example, in identifying issues, you might conclude that “the concept plan doer not provide adequate separation between buildings". There might be a variety of functional and aesthetic reasons for that conclusion, ranging from the need to provide sidewalks for adequate pedestrian access and landscaping around the buildings, to the concept of maintaining an ‘open’ feel that is so central to Orono ’s primarily rural character. In addressing these is.^ues, the City needs to provide the developer with clear direction as to how’ you expect the issue to be resolved. Such direction could result in one of two actions: 1) revision and resubmittal of the concept plan to reflect all required changes, so that the concept plan that is approved already incorporates the changes that have been directed and is completely acceptable to the City; or 2) insertion of the direction into the concept plan approval resolution as a condition to be met before the City will grant final development plan approval, such as ‘ In order to gain final development plan approval the developer shall provide a plan that shows the separation between the two-stor>' townhome units at 25 feet rather than 10 feet”. WHEN SHOULD CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAI. BE GRANTED? Staff and the applicant’s consultants have had some difference of opinion regarding at w hat level of the review process concept plan approval should be granted. This is to some extent due to conflicting wording and intent between the PUD and RPUD ordinances. The basic divergence of opinion is to what extent the City has committed to the development upon granting of Concept Plan Approval. Staff sees it as similar in scope to the preliminary plat approval, based on the wording oi the PUD ordinance (10.53) and discussions with the City’s planning consultants. 10.53 Subd. 8 clearly states that the concept plan approval requires a public hearing by Planning Commission and a 4/5 vote by the Council. Contrast this with the classic subdivision sketch plan review, w'here no hearing is held and no vote is taken. M)2-27S9(Revi$ed) Dahlstrom Development LLC July 12,2002 Page3ori3 To confuse the issue, the RPUD ordinance (10.33 Suhd. 6A) treats the Concept Plan Review as a very infonnal process. Planning Commission and Council merely make comments to the developer, no hearing is held, no vote is taken, and the comments of the Planning Commission and Council are “for guidance only, and if positive, shall not be considered binding upon the planning commission or city council regarding approval of the formal RPUD application when submitted”. Applicant’s consultants have to some extent treated the concept plan approval as equivalent to the sketch plan stage, whereby the City is merely providing direction, “so you can go ahead and grant us concept plan approval and all the details will be worked out later”. The result of this divergence of perspective is the City’s reluctance to simply grant concept plan approval without having all the details worked out, and the developer not wanting to commit his resources to providing great detail without some expectation that the project will be approved. The scope of this development necessarily places it under the umbrella of the Highway 12 PUD process. The RPUD element is secondary, given that the 50 acre property is guided and intended to be more than just a residential development. The mere determination of the route for Kelley Parkway has significant impacts on development outside the RPUD site. For these reasons, staff sees the granting of Concept Plan Approval under the PUD process as functionally equivalent to granting Master Development Plan approval in the RPUD process. Staff would argue that the level of detail and refinement needed for the Council to commit to this development may be somewhat greater than the applicants initially expected. 111. Comprehensive Plan Conformity A. PROPOSED LAND USES The proposed multi family residential use north of Kelley Parkway is in keeping with the provisions . the CMP for this area. The variety of dwelling types will provide lifecycle housing options that are in keeping with the City’s housing goals. The proposed Outlets for future commercial use south of Kelley Parkway likewise .generally meet the CMP guidelines and would allow for the development of office uses as intended. The proposed location of Kelley Parkway wi'! have some impact on the flexibility of these sites for future use, as noted below. Planning Commission should consider whether there are any concerns or negative impacts with allowing the commercially guided property to remain in an outlot status. B. DENSITY Background. The 1980 Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) guided this property for single family residc.itial use at a density of one unit per 2 acres. By the mid-1980's, support was growing for widening of Highway 12 in-place, to accommodate growing traffic levels. In anticipation of development pressure along the Highway 12 corridor through Orono, a study was commenced in 1985 that resulted in an amendment of the CMP in 1987. The amendment brought this area into the W)2-2789(Rcvised) Dabtetrom Development LLC July 12,2002 Page 4 of 13 I MUSA, and it was reguided to aPow a single tier of commercial uses along 12, to be accessed via a frontage road with no direct acce >s to 12. Per the 1987 amendment, north of the frontage road and up to the north line of Section 33 (i e. the north boundary of the Dahlstrom property), multi-family uses at densities of up to 10 units per acre could be allowed via PUD. 2000-2020 CMP, The density guidelines for the area north of Kelley Parkway were refined as part of the 2000-2020 CMP update, resulting in a density standard of 3-6 units per drv buildable acre (CMP page 3B-34). The 2000-2020 CMP does not place any limitation on the number of units per building that are allowed in this area. RPUD Standards. Prior to creation of the RPUD District standards, the only zoning option which would have allowed 2, 3 or 4 attached units was the M-6 District, and no zoning options were available that would have allowed a 66-unit condo building. The RPUD District allows higher densities than contemplated in the CMP, only in areas "currently zoned and guided for commercial use”. The applicants ’ original proposal for the loAs/condo buildings was legitimate in part because they were south of Kelley Parkway in the area guided for commercial use. The revised proposal now places the loAs building north of Kelley Parkway, and absent commercial guiding/zoning, the density request is acceptable only in the contc.xt of the overall residential site density. RPUD does not place a limit on the number of units that can be attached, it merely requires that the guided overall site density limits be met. Use of KeUey Parkway for Density Credit. The applicants ’ proposal is at a density of 6.0 units per dry buildable acre if the northerly half of the Kelley Parkway right-of-way (not including that portion within the MnDOT pond) is allow'ed for density credit. Staff initially had concluded that no portion of Kelley Parkway should be allowed for density credit, because the CMP language (CMP page 3B- 34 and Map 3B-7) states that property “north of.. Kelley Parkway ” may be developed at a density of 3-6 units per acre. The PUD procedural standards in the zoning code are silent as to whether right-of-way credit should be allowed. In past applications of the PRD ordinance, in most cases newly created interior roads were allowed for density credit. In the only rcsid'^ntial PUD the City has processed (Orono Woods Senior Housing), density credit was given for interior roads serving both the senior housing and the office uses. It would not be inconsistent to allow the density credit as the applicants have requested. If density credit is given for the portions of Kelley Parkway as requested, the current plan is at 6.0 units per acre. If such credit is not allowed, the area of dry buildable decreases by approximately I acre, and the density increases to 168/27.0 - 6.22 units per acre. The number of units would have to be reduced by 6 (to 162) in order to meet a 6.0 units per acre standard. Density Not Limited by Sewer Capacity. The guided densities in this area w ere originally keyed in part to planned sewer capacities. This area was expected to require 300 to 450 total sewer units under the adopted plan amendment in 1987. A concept plan provided during the 1985 study by the Orono Plaza partners would have required up to 1200 sewer units; that intensive plan was considered to have the potential to place excess've burdens on sewer capacities, and w'as rejected. Four other schematics which varied the mix of commercial and multi family uses w ith much lower sewer M>2-2789(Revl$ed) Dahlstrom Development LLC July 12.2002 Page 5 of 13 capacity needs were considered as feasible. The current proposal for 168 residential units, plus the two conunercial outlots having the capability of perhaps 75-100,000 s.f. of office space, would in total likely have a sewer unit requirement of no more than 200-225 units, generally within the capacity needs range anticipated by the 2000-2020 CMP. Density Relationships. The CMP indicates that the area north of Kelley Parkway may develop at a density of “3-6 units per dry buildable acre”. What does this mean? First, this should be taken as an overall density for the area north of Kelley. Second, it suggests that an overall densit> of less than 3 or more than 6 units per acre would not be appropriate. The developer has a reasonable expectation based on the CMP that a proposed development with density in the range of 3-6 units per acre will be approved. However, because this is a PUD and rezoning request, the City has the ability to determine whether the proposed density is appropriate in the context of the type and mix of the various dwelling units, as well as their massing, layout, site circulation, site amenities, etc. Density Numbers. The applicants’ revised proposal is at 6 units per acre (including Kelley Parkway r.o.w. credit), and includes three types of dwelling units: 54 rambler townhomes, 43 two-story townhouses, and 66 loAs/condo units, a total of 168 units on 28 dry buildable acres. To understand the density impacts, note that: - At a density of 5 units per acre, the total number of allowed units would drop to 140 - At a density of 4 units per acre, the total number of allowed units would drop to 112 - At a density of 3 units per acre, the total number of allowed units would drop to 84 Note that ‘Study A* included approximately 75 units on roughly the same diy buildable area as proposed by the deveioper, for a density of 2.7 units per acre. ‘Study A’ would not have produced development at the minimum density for which this area was ultimately guided. Limiting density has its impact' both for the developer and the City. The developer’s fixed costs (land, street construction, utility construction, etc.) likely increase on a per unit basis, tending to increase the price points. These increases can be minimized to some extent by varying the mix of unit types, their locations, and the length of streets and utility lines. As costs go up, the developer will tend to reduce the package of amenities, such as eliminating trails and landscaping features. From the City’s perspective, reducing density may have both positive and negative impacts. The opportunity for a decreased massing of buildings may be created, although the t>pe of units and layout of the development may have a greater effect on limiting massing. For instance, at 6 units per acre the developer might build three 66-unit condo buildings that leave a very large portion of »* t site in open space; but this probably would not meet the intent of the City to provide a wider range of housing options. Remember that Orono has made a commitment to providing a wider range of lifecycle housing options, ar1 this is one of only three areas in the Ciiy where the 2000-2020 CMP allows for the higher densities necessary to allow lifecycle housing to happen. In terms of theConcept Plan review. Planning Commission must attempt to reach a conclusion on whether the proposed density of 6 units per acre is appropriate, especially taking into account whether the type and mix of the various dwelling units, their massing, layout, site circulation, site amenities, etc. places the density on the land in an appropriate manner. #02-2789(Revi$ed) Dahlstrom Devetopment LLC July 12,2002 Page 6 of 13 i C. LOCATION OF KELLEY PARKWAY CMP Does Not Define Kelley Parkway Routing. A few years prior to completion of the 2000-2020 CMP the City had its planning consultant, DSU, draft concept plans for the areas north and south ofKelley Parkway as a guideline for discussions (see Exhibit B). Two of the concept plans, “Study A” and “Study D”, became the City ’s standard discussion guide for developers inquiring about the property. However, although these concept plans were described in the CMP as created “to show how townhomes and a small number of commercial sites might be developed" (CMP page 3B-34), these concept plans did not become part of the CMP. The applicants have suggested that the routing ofKelley Parkway in their revised Concept Plan “follows your comprehensive plan”. That is not accurate, as the CMP does not define a routing for Kelley Parkway but merely indicates it will be “300-500 feet north of Highway 12" (CMP page 3B-34), and on Map 3B-7 suggests an easterly terminus directly across from the platted potential future service road behind the Oitcn property. The point of this discussion is intended to address staffs significant concern about applicants’ proposal to locate a segment ofKelley Parkway within the existing MnDOT stormwater pond right- of-way. Although Study A docs show a similar configuration. Study D docs not, and it was never suggested »o the applicants that a routing through the MnDOT pond right-of-way w as preferred or feasible. Public Services Director Greg Gappa discussed this with Ben Timerson of MnDOT on 7- 10-02. It was Tinierson’s opinion that such a reconveyance to the City, though potentially feasible, would likely take at least 6 months or even a year to process, and would not be a high priority for MnDOT. Staff believes it would not be in the City ’s best interests to p’^-^ue such a request on behalf of the applicants. City support and partnering in gaining approval foi fc .ndcxpan.Mon of the MnDOT pond right-of-way for regional stormwater purposes is one thing; pursuing a swap for road purposes does not rise to the same level of importance, especially when equally feasible and less complicated road locations arc possible. The City is working closely with MnDOT to ensure that the Highway 12 project proceeds as smoothly as possible. MnDOT does not have the resources to deal ct ficiently with requests such this, and likely will not give it a high pnonty. The City should not make any requests that jeopardizes its relationship with MnDOT. As a secondary issue, the applicant’s development timeframe may be severely impacted by waiting for a MnDOT reconveyance process to be completed. Thirdly, while applicant has shown conceptual sketches how the two commercial outlots might be developed, the Kelley Parkway routing through the MnDOT pond area would seem to make those commercial sites somewhat more restricted in terms of flexibility. We need to ensure that the location ofKelley Parkway does not significantly restrict the ability to develop the outlot parcels for office use. Planning Commission should make a recommendation, ijpossible, as to whether the applicant and City should pursue use of the MnDOT pond area for Kelley Parkway. #02-2789(Reviscd) Dahlitrom Development LLC Jul> 12,2002 Page 7 of 13 IV. GENERAL SITE PLAN REVIEW The following punchlist on various topics should provide Planning Commission with an outline of the site plan elements that should be considered prior to making a recommendation to Council on the Concept Plan. 1. Site Natural Features: Existing topography of the site is indicated on Sheet C1.1. The high point of the site at elev. 1025 is at the far SW comer; the lowest point at elev. 1013 in the ditch just north of the MnDOT ponds. The site contains approximately 13.6 acres of wetland, of which 1.4 acres will be filled or excavated per the revised plans. Wetland types being impacted have not been disclosed as of this writing, since applicant has not provided the Wetland Delineation Report requested in prior memos. The full wetland delineation report must be submitted for rex'tew by staff and City Engineer. Staff would note that portions of certain City-protected wetlands on the site will apparently be impacted: filling of portions of a wetland are required for Kelley Parkway at its east end, a second is filled near the center of the property to create building pads and driveways, and a third is slightly impacted by fill to create a driveway for the four townhomes at the NE comer of the site. All wetland impacts will be subject to WCA rules as administered by the MCWD on the City ’s behalf Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed wetland impacts are reasonable in the context ofthe proposed uses and mitigation (see Plan Sheet C3.2). Plan Sheet C1.1 appears to indicate the extent of wooded areas and significant trees (no key is given to define what types of individual trees were included). Should a tree survey be required for areas to be disturbed? This is not a specific City requirement, but is alluded to in Subdivision Code Section 11.60... the applicant should do some degree of review of existing stands of trees to confirm the extent of woodlands to be impacted and determine if any should be preserved... 2. Stormwater Management a)Applicants plan to expand the MnDOT stormwater pond outside the MnDOT r.o.w. to manage stormwater quality and quantity. #02-2789(Rcvlscd) Oahbirom Development LLC July 12,2002 PifeSofU 3. b) Staff has some concerns about the impact of direct runoff to wetlands. A relatively small amount of storm sewer is shown on the plans (Sheet C4.1). Applicants have indicated verbally that they will manage stormwater runoff via raingardens distributed throughout the neighborhood. The plans do not indicate whether or where rural or urban road sections will be used to transport runoff. c) It is assumed that the piuposcd MnDOT pond expansion will accommodate flows from portions of the watershed outside the property. This is a positive aspect of this development. d) The plans appear to provide buffers around all wetlands. It appears that a few proposed dwelling units as drawn may encroach within Orono’s 26* w ctland setback requirement. c) The applicants should address snow storage/removal, as the site layout appears to have minimal areas which could provide for snow storage. Utilities Looping of water mains will be necessary across the northerly tier of the property. All water mains should be 8 ” diameter rather than 6"; 12" required in Kelley Parkway. The issue of burying existing power lines along Willow and Highway 12 should be discussed... especially if the commercial outlots won’t be developed for a while... Sanitary sewer capacity to ser\’e the development is lacking until MnDOT replaces lines downstream and City replaces certain segments south of Highway 12... 4. Transportation The City Engineer in his preliminary comments indicates a traffic study should be completed. Staff and Council discussions are needed to establish who will complete this study and what the scope will be. The applicant has offered to pay his fair share of this study. The City Engineer is recommending that the right-of-way width for Kelley Parkway be 70* as defined in the subdivision code for a public commercial street (the portion of Kelley Parkway that exists has a 60 ’ right-of-way; remember that it was platted at a time when this entire area was still guided for 2-acre SFR). The development plan Sheet C2.1 shows a 60* right of way. Note: Conceptual Plat Sheet C5.1 does not dedicate Kelley Parkway. Kelley Parkway must be platted as a public road on the final plat. #02-2789(Rcvbcd) DahUlrom Devdopment LLC July 12,2002 PagcOom i) The City Engineer is proposing that the 41' width (back of curb to back of curb) of existing Kelley Parkway be continued at that width eastward to Willow Drive. Sheet Cl. 1 shows a 28* road. The City has not previously stated that 28' was acceptable, only that 28* was the minimum required for MSA funding. The probable use by Public Works vehicles and commercial office traffic suggests that the 41' standard is reasonable. Interior private roads to serve the 102 townhome/townhouse units are shown at 20' width. The City standard for a private road serving 7 or more units is 28' width. The segments of one-way roads should be at least 14' wide if they are approved. Staff views the half-circular main entrance off Kelley as confusing and awkward as a main entrance to the site, and it should be reduced to a simple divided entrance. The one-way roundabout is an interesting feature with some potential to be a unique public space if developed with that concept in mind. g) Where parallel parking is proposed the road width should be at least 32'. Increasing the road widths will impact the setbacks between buildings and the road; the RPUD district does not set a standard for separation of buildings from interior private roads, only from streets abutting the site (10.33 Subd. 5G). Staff is concerned that 102 units will be served by a single road access point; this reminds us of Casco Point. For safety and emergency purposes, staff recommends a connection between the SE loop and Kelley Parkway. A connection between the LoOs driveway and the adjacent townhouse driveway should be considered as the hammerhead backup may be inadequate. However, the downside of making these two connections is that they will bring much traffic past many homes on what was intended as a private neighborhood loop road. Perhaps having an entrance at both ends and eliminating the middle entrance would help. This might also place more homes across from the storm pond which could become a visual amenity for more homes... In general, circulation in some areas also needs additional attention by the developer. A logical street name/house numbering system will be critical to making this development visitor-friendly. While the driveway serving the 4 homes at the NE comer would ideally be 150 ’ south of the driveway across Willow and to the north, othci factors such as limiting wetland impacts how headlights may affect the home across Willow, suggest that the proposed location is probably suitable. Planning Commission should look closely at the locations where sidewalks are and are not provided. The proposal does not include sidewalks for the two northerly loop roads...is it the City ’s goal to make this development easily walkable? M)2-2789(Rcvised) Dahlstrom Deveiopment LLC July 12,2002 Page lOoflJ J n) o) Where will the MTC busses stop? Please review the City Engineers original comments (Exhibit F), much of which still is applicable to this revised plan. His comments address issues regarding sanitary sewer; water main; storm sewer; streets and trails; traffic; and flnancial guarantee. S. Proposed Housing Types, Site Layout, Functionality, Etc. Plaiming Commission should discuss the 3 types of dwelling units proposed and consider whether they provide the appropriate types and mix of housing in keeping with the City’s housing goals. Is the compactness of building design and layout a positive or negative aspect? Does it contribute Ic the lack of a sense of open space? Additional separation is needed between the 2 story tou nhome buildings. Staff would recommend 20-25' rather than the 10* proposed...under the current layout, from most visibility angles, groups I-11 and 22-30 will still look like a 300' long building... Although the units generally appear to meet the setback and separation standards of the RPUD district, should there be some minimum standard established for setbacks between buildings or between interior streets and buildings? Arc the dwelling unit door accesses and driveways functional or awkward for pedestrian and vehicle circulation? There are some driveways that conflict and buildings need to be re-oriented. Each townhome unit needs a ser\*ice entry adjacent to the garage... the townhomes adjacent to Kelley Parkway would seem to be at risk for having public walking the sidewalks right in their front yards due to sidewalk placement... City would prefer sidewalks nearer the street for maintenance and public use reasons. The Lofts are proposed at three stories; the RPUD standards limit building height to 30'; now that they arc proposed in an area that was not guided or zoned commercial, the 3-story allowance does not apply. Because this is a PUD, the City has every ability to accept or reject the concept of 3-story buildings if they don ’t meet the 30' height limit. The larger issue is whether 3-story buildings are appropriate or acceptable in the context of this development at this location... Staff remains in opposition to the placement of dwelling units so close to the public works facility. The current plan shows the lofts overlooking Public Works. We anticipate never-ending complaints about the noise generated by the City uses. The 20' separation between the lofts parking access drive and the Public Works site would seem to leave little room for establishment of suitable buffers, and we aren’t excited about using City property as part of that buffer system. In terms of the general site development, the cut/fill plan does not really provide a sense of how much topographic change will be happening and how that will impact M2-2789(Rcvbcd) Dahlstrom Development LLC July 12,2002 Page 11 of 13 L the character of the various dwelling units. A preliminary grading plan would be extremely useful, as would conceptual elevation drawings of the various dwelling types, in this new setting as opposed to the Village setting... g) Staff suggests you review the purpose of the RPUD District: Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) district is to provide a district which will allow for the implementation of certain residential housing goals established in the 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan (‘CMP’ or ‘Comprehensive Plan ’). The RPUD District is established to accommodate the densities and types of residential development contemplated in the CMP by incorporating the principles of the Planned Unit Development concept. 'Ihc Rl’UD District will encourage the following: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; provision of housing to meet lifecycle, and affordable and moderate cost housing needs; energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses; preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, poor soils and trees; high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city; and development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Recreation and Open Space What portions or areas of the residential development are devoted to the 10% private recreational areas required by the RPUD ordinance? I’his must be exclusive of the areas devoted to public park dedication (8%). Staff v ould suggest that mere wetland protection does not satisfy the 10% requirement; but trails around the wetlands might help satisfy this requirement for “active or passive uses suited to the needs of the residents of the project, including swimming pools,, trails, nature areas, picnic areas, tot lots...”. The current plan appears to contain no private recreational amenities that would satisfy this requirement. Does Planning CommIssio. • cept developer ’s suggestion that tot lots, tennis courts, and other recreational amenities are unnecessary for this development? Staff w ould suggest that reliance on existing City facilities 1/4-1/2 mile away will not necessarily serve the needs of the proposed inhabitants of the various housing types proposed... The public sidewalk system proposed needs to be examined carefully as to location and connectivity to serve this neighborhood and the general public. #02-2789(Reviscd) Dahbtrom Development LLC July 12,2002 Page 12 of 13 h d) The only public trail proposed in this revised plan is along Willow Drive north of Kelley. Staff is greatly concerned that if the trails are not initially constructed within or adjacent to the conunercial outlets, it will be difficult to obtain them later... 7. Development of Kelley Parkway: a) Does the applicant’s proposal provide the “parkway” character intended by the City? Since Orono has not strictly defined the characteristics (landscaping, lighting, pedestrian walkways, bikeways, etc.) for Kelley Parkway, some attention should be given to this topic as part of the concept plan review... 8. Landsctq>ing, Etc. a)The final development plan will have to demonstrate conformance with the RPUD landscaping, screening and buffering standards, as well as lighting, signage, architectural compatibility, etc. Proposed street lighting, entry monument signage, etc. will have to be depicted and approved as part of the final development plan review process. Staff RecommendatloB Planning Commission should first concentrate on whether this concept plan generally achieves the purposes of the RPUD District. Next, consider whether the mix and spatial relationships of the various unit types within the development and in relation to each other as well as the surrounding uses, is appropriate. Also discuss whether the lack of a defined proposal for the use of the outlets will cause potential issues in terms of whether the outlets can be used for their intended purpose. The issues reg^ing location of Kelley Parkway in the MnDOT pond r.o.w. seems to staff to be a critical factor in determining whether the entire concept plan can move forward Finally, review the many detail issues as outlined above, and make a determination as to what level of detail you believe should be shown on the Concept Plan that is ultimately approved, in the context that Concept Plan Approval is a commitment on the City’s part very similar to that of a preliminary plat approval, under the PUD ordinance requirements. i02-27t9(Rcviscd) Dahlstroin Dcvdopmcnl LLC July 12,2002 Page 13 of 13 ■uadtiiiiniiii rni< CMP Part 3B. Land Uie Plan extent limited by environmental constraints, each such development must be analyzed and reviewed on an individual basis. The properties identified for residential development at densities of 2-6 units per acre include properties guide-planned for such use as a result of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 in 1988, as well as properties heretofore planned for single family development at rural densities. All identified properties are located relatively high in the Lake Minnetonka watershed, allowing ample opportunity for effective stormwater management. These properties are detailed in the following tables and maps. Site Description: SITE A (Parcel Group 1, Map 3B-7) SO-acrc parcel located north of Highway 12 between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road Background, Site Characteristics A number of potential development schemes for this parcel which included townhomes and commercial development were reviewed in 1987 which became the basis for CMP Amendment #2 adopted May 23.1988. This site was not subsequently developed, with the exception that the City of Orono municipal facilities were developed at the west end of the parcel in 1991. A development option for the vacant parcel was generated by the City's consulting planner, DSU Inc., in 1998 at the City's request, taking into account new information including the new MnDOT stormwater pond; City's new topography maps suggesting greater areas of wetland than previously anticipated; and the initial development of Kelley Parkway that established a service road corridor at the west end. The intent of this plan set was to show how townhomes and a small number of commercial sites might be developed. Planned Development Parameters The result of the 1987 study was adoption of a plan with the following components: a. An east-west service road will be developed connecting Old Cry'stal Bay Road and Willow Drive, located approximately 300-S00 feet north of Highway 12. This service road will allow for one tier of developable lots between the service road and Highway 12, such lots to have access to the service road but not to Highway 12 due to trafRc considerations. b. The portion of the property between Highway 12 and the service road may be developed with one tier of commercial uses, to potentially include professional office as well as limited service uses, and retail uses accessory to the office use. c. The portion of property* north of the service road may be developed for residential uses, potentially a mix of single family and multi-family uses at a density of 3-6 units per dry buildable acre. d. Conversion from 2-acre rural zoning to to the mixture of uses described above will be subject to strict performance standards which were added to the Orono Zoning Code in 1989. City of Orono Community Management Plan Scpicabcr 2000 Page 3B-34 CMPPartSB. LaadUwPlaa /«'- 2. -7 HVJ-f)' more compact community scale retail area matches |he lign of new Highway 12 with no interchanges igLake. 9.Limits the impact on north/south roadways (i.e. i trafnc\md activity levels) as compared to the mop^ intense "big bo»* retail uses. 10. Maintains a^lower activity level in the area ynst of Willow Drive. 11. Would create 1^ pressure for providipg an access from new Highway 12 to tne retail area. Accordingly, this area shouRl be develops with a mix of commercial uses including retail, servic^nd ofrlce components. Access via a service road paralleling High\ra)Nlz should still be required rather than direct access to Highway UL since existing traffic levels along Highway 12 are expected to remainyat a level which makes direct all­ way access difficult and dqrlgerous? The Highway 12 re-rop(e ("proposed Highway 12") when completed in approximately 2q6 i will have a sigiUfr^t impact on access for this area, becauspxurrent Highway 12 traf^levels are expected to increase between now and 2007, then should mop dramatically when the Bypass However, traffic levels on "r^Highway 12" after 2007 are eif^cted to again creep upward, and the nmg-teim need for a servi^oad may again manifest itself. For this r^on, it is in the best bneiests of the City and the business communi^Uo preserve at leasfa partial service road corridor between Brown Roao^d Willow future use, that vdll provide all properties with acc^ options ^ther than direct access from Highway 12. The City sup^rts the development of a "mid-pomt" connection to Highway 12 t^mtly across from Brimhall Avenue, such access to be at least a ri^t-in, right-out configuration. Further, if and when the service road is constructed, all other existing accesses directly to Highway 12 should ultimately hg rt»mnv^H Property abutting the north side of existing Highway 12 from Willow Drive to Old Crystal Bay Road. This area (shown on Map 3B-7 as the ‘commercial* portion of Parcel Group 1) currently is vacant property, comprised of 3 tax parcels with some 2600 feet of Highway 12 frontage. As part of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan amendment, the City guided the portion of this area directly adjacent City ofOroao Coamualty Msaageneat Pba Page3B-39 CMPPartSB. LandUfcPIaB to the noith side of Highway 12 forcommeicial development Atthat time, the City was not clear about the type of commercial development that should be planned for this area. Through joint discussions with the City of Long Lake regarding devel<^ment along Highway 12, the City has determined that the optimum development in this area would office development Office development can provide services for Orono residents, can provide fiKilities for businesses owned by Orono residents, and can provide quality employment opportunities. The development of this area for office use versus retail use enables the Highway 12 retail area to remain a mote compact pedestrian-friendly retail area versus a non-cohesive extended strip of retail development Access to all office uses will be via a service road connecting Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road, with no direct access points onto Highway 12. Development of this service road began in 1991 with the extension of Kelley Parkway eastward from Old Crystal Bay Road. The City's intent is to have a single tier of office uses between Kell^ Parkway and Highway 12, with primarily residential uses north of the service road. Due to construction of a stormwater retention pond by MnDOT midway between Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow, and the City's intent to develop the area north of the service road residentially at a density of 2-6 units per acre, the opportunities for large office sites are limited. As many as six 2-2.5 acre office sites can be developed along the Highway 12 frontage while still allowing the intended residential development to occur. This area is guided for office use with minor retail and service uses allowed only as accessory uses to the office use. “Big box" retail uses will not be allowed within this area. City of OroBO CoBwaalty MaaB|CBcat Piaa aiM Paft9B-40 Study A - Maximized Multi-Family ► 45-75 townhome units on 45 acres » Four 2-plus acre commercial sites along Hwy 12 ) JWdlaM* B-2- Wcllaa^f ciij or Ot^m^ L«€ I Lot 3 22 Ac. omce 25.000 Sq. Ft • 2 Slones 132 Parking Spaces 34% Green Space Lot4 2J Ac. Office 21.000 Sq. Ft 114 Parking Spaces | 43% Green Space KtllV rartwy 8 H ® Lot 2 _____* . Lot 3 OODOO OOOOO llulllj^e Family Residpdtial Welland* WelUatfs m ' '^p [iUmI Wctlatd Miligatioa ..S2BL..Lot S Lm« y Woftaia Bl*d.U.S. Hwy. 12 Lois 2.2 Ac. Office 22.000 Sq. Ft • 2 Stories 111 Parking Spaces 32% Green Space Lot 6 2.7 Ac. Office 19,000 Sq. Ft 117 Parking Spaces 2S% Green Space City Of Orono Hwy. 12 Study D 9 m tm Study D - Minimized Commercial Area: Office Uses Four 20-25,000 sf office buildings on 2.5-acre sites Multi-family residential north of road is undefined, but more area available than in Study C ► ► ■ LANDFORM June 24.2002 .: j Michael Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 •• • .w* RE: Revisions to Orono Village PUD Concept Plan and Rezoning Request Dear Mr. Gaffron, On behalf of our client, Landform is pleased to submit these revisions to our development application for property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Willow Drive aruJ Highway 12. We have revised our plans based on the comments received at the June 10, 2002 City Council meeting. At that meeting, the Orono City Council denied our request for a land uses guide plan amendment. The requested amendment would have allowed residential and retail uses south of Kelley Parkway in area currently planned for office uses. Neither the City Council nor the Planning Commission have reviewed our rezoning, PUD concept plan and sketch plat. Consequently, the City Council directed us to revise our plans to comply with the existing Community Management Plan and schedule a workshop with the Planning Commission to review the revisions before bringing our application back for formal City Council review of those items. The revised plan proposes no development south of Kelley Parkway at this time. While we continue to believe that retail uses are the best use at the northwest corner of the intersection of Willow Drive and Highway 12, we are not requesting any changes at this time. We understand that the Community Management Plan allows office uses and we will continue to work to find uses that are appropriate for this area. Because we are not currently proposing any development south of Kelley Parkway, we do hereby withdraw our previous applications for a commercial site plan and rezoning south of Kelley Parkway. The existing RR-1B zoning would be retained south of Kelley Parkway until either the City rezones the property consistent with the Community Management Plan (as required by State Statute) or until the applicant proposes development. Upon approval of the PUD concept plan for the area north of Kelley Parkway, we would prepare a preliminary plat for the entire site for review and approval. The area south of Kelley Parkway would be platted as two outlots. At some future date, development will be proposed south of Kelley Parkway and the applicant will be required to submit the necessary applications for site plan review. 650 BUTIER NORTH BUIlOlNG 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 9077 www landform.n«l Michael Gaffron Page 2 Re: Orooo Village Revisions June 24. 2002 We have reduced the number of units in this development from 235 homes to 168 homes. The area north of Kelley Parkway is planned with a mix of 59 rambler townhomes. 43 two-story townhomes and 66 loft units. The proposed density in this area is six units per acre, which Is consistent with the City of Orono Community Management Plan. We are continuing to request a rezoning from RR-1B to RPUD for this area. The RPUD concept plan complies with all ordinance requirements and the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Urban Residential Medium Density land use classification identified in the Community Management Plan. Our proposal continues to include construction of the planned Kelley Parkway in the first phase of development. The revised alignment of Kelley Parkway Is consistent with the alignment shown in the Community Management Plan and allows us to reduce the amount of wetland Impact. The sketch plat shows the townhomes platted as envelope tots surrounded by a common lot and the loft buildings would be platted on a single lot. As noted earlier, the property south of Kelley Parkway would be platted as two outlets to be developed at a later date. Upon City approval of the requested rezoning, PUD concept plan and sketch plat, we would prepare the required PUD master plan and plat applications for development of the site. Any City comments on the PUD concept plan and sketch plat would be incorporated into the PUD master plan and plat, which would be submitted for City review and approval in August of this year. We continue to request that City Council approval of the rezoning, PUD concept stage plan and sketch plan be contingent upon filing the final plat. It is my understanding that this item will be scheduled for Planning Commisston review on July 15, 2002. We request that a joint Planning Commisston/City Council be scheduled for the week of July 8*^ to allow both the Planning Commission and City Council to review the revistons prior to taking action on the request in mid-Juty. As requested by staff, we hereby grant an additional 60-days to the City review period for the rezoning, PUD concept plan and sketch plat. As always, our development team is available to meet with City representatives at anytime to answer questions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Steve Johnston or me at 612.252.9070. Sincerely, LANDFDRM* Ira Linda Planner COPY: Terry DaWstrom. Dahlstrom Development LLC Bruce Malkerson, Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP *Laodform Engineering Company doir>g business as Landform 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612 252.9077 www.lendform.net c^npsiCN CONTACTS F:^.1 . • *w '■ ■ '<k SdlVKC COWfAfdCS COKTACn ••OMCMC •«C atfrtM 9*t«4 MM*0« #9 «« «t ktmjm «i*w nu r*) 91*01 • *A 4a-«»-«c»? tM^ •>» •b*vi« i«rf-. mjk ML* MiortcnM .•« •' *>%M NOata »K9 43-W-W m n»c**M. M-m-Mrt ' ubc»ar<Tcma m'tMul'M ^ Mor«c«u», «9c An.M «on^ «« *<9u« K*a*»o< m 99*0} 490 AnM Marx 9« •* MAM MaM »A0 «7-m*<CT0 .MMMMl m M«M 4*4. M-ni-MT* CMM l Ai «M ATOM MrK 9# «t *«AM •«■«»«A9 ♦c-m^o MMMCM »A 9M09 ♦M. *7-W-MTt •9AIM9AI AU mC ««MI'*i U# 9AO •>«saM9M v4€«i,«M «9M« 4» nMOttn ft«AM faMMAA fA MM9 fAl 40-9*4-«M n1 NNCA^OL 1 s AMoe M1 X MB Bi *5»<55Sr HAHAiM mOJKt>A ID0W08 DQ9TM0 C0N0m0N6 Cl.l / •i A, / / 1 I I / 1 z^^y c* r^rsc? - V J ^t " —• -^'* **" — — ^ttS; i ^ -n 9 /-.^-s* ,i v.^*s? / • *, # • *, "* ~* ' ~ ■^•" ’I ■* I < I / I >- I / sV*. f* •* / ^ 1II >- v^"*/ ' .1 ' ,, / ,.,.^1 I 1 V - 4^- ^'^-^-i-^:__\ < CEBDLEGAL DESCRIPTION ^■. jv; Ki«a;»;aroi*^jr>«ai (Vn^ • ^om*M MvnM *^ok. m< «0 ic«m«g»* C»»xr*^«* <» «D«f t» vk* mo r-j» ■ '/ ' ' /{ ' P C3 NOTES I f /\', / S'S-Vi^^tE K'J / / • ’ / r :.. .1 I 3 4j¥f‘ ,oyy— C'T-r •'<dl , ..•/;;.; ;)S>swoo ••• J ■ r. • *•: .-.lA^ V>- • •. . *A - <tt^O V -.V ~s £y e*SO -Ct-g K uaao0io0 tooirtnn «*um mn ^ m««t <««kv «otr EMMV* •■Mniiv KB ^ MMaC* ^0*TCM^ •BOrwnffi MM «*s MMBo at Ti« eyoo* or? 0» oacM mo at*a *nco»f*s ^rur? kocanoo ?d •§ ««o«o aan «o t«CM**«M/coom<«o» » MO oBciMMCva am «tio ?,« iigma MU10 M r*«a»rii? «ot»«c ko mtsu-ro? 2. «t*UMO» «M OaiME'VC t« LAiMuC HMOOB mTM mo voc«no t? kMO»ovi o»MA.? ai fiirow. mm mo «64m m WClfOM. MCt CI3KEY( r*: \..v '*.v. - •*.- •. -i * • > ••*' ' •■ • V l» V» 1 ‘ *J ' . • •*. . 07i •*• !h: •>: s • •• ----------- h A ^ ivva j rT.....r<.i »• f u -___^ - “?r»->w C’*E'< ss^: . S05J6 ' ZT /^Br05'l0'‘E S00r0»'4B • ^ tr * ^ % mom mmmm rntm ^ ^ ^ ^ , QC .1 Ev.i^rs __srV n d»»«ri oa^x ta 1—--------- r.i CBMUd MB?,11 - • uA?Mc art • 02 Aoaia V ;, .V H i: OiX* t -. •* - :r t. .^: i* I 3—T-n__Il_2L3'^lr^^ p- ‘ S„... • ^at %am • a«* %om • oataM Hca #«tu«« SCAU LN FttT QumMjfMmanM. DAHl5niOMDEVELOIWllJC rVMII OAMJIHOM r/« Rjums ukH. »a.\fu aimi. MB stii iit»iaa»«H flam n CMiS»«rraca ttVMMMVTOKr 0»fm/mt MM M/M/M *« { nuun MAWloiit tfww cnimcAtuN CONCEPT SUW^ITTAL JUNE 24. 2002 noMa. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Orono, Niinnesota LANDFORM HINNCAOOL i S ^HOCMIII PUMac oopoomao ftojuTNa fpwooi DQ9TM0 6t0ft AMALYSa A UKAMAGC fATTEKN flAN Cl.2 ■ tm • 1 ' m\»ir 4. * • • — /- I ' I • ' /-------! ---------------d_/._____------ -----------^-rrrrr-rrisr DAHUTKMKVEUmNTllf ,.— 1-1 I ^ ',1 ^-------' B E>^:8^N5**r^ ’S I • I 7 • »^* » *.,»,% • 0 • » ,• I * •« • •^* • ' % *-■•.•♦» •'« X, t • • • •■"• • « • • \ • • • • •’ .♦• • ■ ■‘ -vl ' ,1^ ViC:iN* • • ^ 4 f * *.->•! • X<H n"n1-:^v -V~tr^T u Jv ___ '.'ijr'.-. -.'-•yx*. **;:<TlV\!v:rX • • * •* I , /'• Ay-. / • . •' \ //////'^> <y yy:‘; 'ym *• 0* m f —. ..< *. C^*S h -*v-- -• Ik-V - *. NWHtr*) ti __ CC^S rc«LiA8 •1 V r 9CS 4 SJL» :i. nJMMOAMjmm rr4iUJkflRiLBN; iMfu ODIUMS am •l mm •w mm * ‘ T m»,0fm «4I »- - - ^/'' >, - ■ ■f«a«cri !1\ \ ' 0.'m •• __ ttvacN»«roKy mm mmm •• *■ • Appliaition# ^L-1 Date Received Amount Paid /^^.Qo CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION!- Site Address ^ Mtfh Type of Application to ob Filed fttbTb____ ________________ Ptopeity Identification Number (P.1.d!) - </ g “ 33 [filtJ, IM. <Sot (month/year) APPLICA^ Phoae(home ) ^V3D-3^S7 Name J>xh\^OM Pev^fc^cyty\el^T LLC Phone (work) Ui^-Q7S"-^3f?L Address__/in4g Potatrr<> luine. City fjjplp Zip ) I OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Nam e ^rnno P\a-zal /^aUniToM Ae\cr^id \Pbone (wotk) *!SZ- ^2Z- ^IN Addxess_£^Itr^frd Mtofr.vrvi city h\:r\r\PaOo\:C^ Zip^5VZV -/CO/ ia:^p+' t^ek~ Date Property Acquired__________________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMitS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ____1_ $325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ■ (jrading and ^ling - 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 » X $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) y $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 App^s ______Other - see Fee Schedule •#o ^i REQUIRED SUBMITTALS *• *:^Complcted A|^Ucation Foim. ✓ Describe request in detail.2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. __j^ Certified Prop^ Owners List of owners within 350*, labels and plat »nap (you must obtain Ais list, labels and map fiom Hennq>in County Department of nnance; A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey ' informatioiL• • JSW’ Attach legd description to application if not included on requited survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contoun) if land alteratioos involve changes in elevation (grades). -------List of the le^ names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in foe property. ^ This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). - Comtruction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). _As an addendum to fois iq>plication, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish oodGed of this applicadon. VOU ARE REQUIRED TO fiUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR repr oduction (11» X 17'* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) fhe Applic^t and Property Owner must sign this applicatioiL Please remember that your application is not complete if foe above information has not been included. ^ • Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete, initials of Clerical Staff;____________ Date • • APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE fhe applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by foe Zonirig Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not coveted by original fee payment) ind/or unusual eiqienses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that foe information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature'll]^^*Date DWNER'S SIGNATURE fhe owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reamnable :ntry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council nembers for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's ^______Date B r ^ Vpplicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting, ’tanning Commission Meetiogs are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicantt must be present at all cbeduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council If an applicant is tq tw»n 4 a «heduled meeting, please make amogemenu to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building A Zoning Oflice of ihb change prior to the meeting. • ^ Applicatioof Date Recdred2SZS£ZAmount Paid |a^ ♦ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCAHO Sileeddress Pippecty Identification Number (PID) ~ll- OOcr> Please check one - Property jiC abstract or ____torreu? Attach legal description to application. APPUCANT Nam e*jji^ V^\ ug.1 np. Addtess^*i4gT Lflt^City rnoLple Phone (home) Zip^SSlLPhone (work) “^OWNER (if different than vplicant) ‘ v Name Orotio PMq*Z<I. ‘T2>M fig/grsoorA 3 Addn^jMgqj vLIf i\L\^ i^e.e,\ City (attach list if more than one) ---------------le (home)________ Zip5^Phone (work) <?5^-9a 3 “11H EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / Present use (check) Present 2k>ning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Lanid Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify) PROPOSAL ________ Division for Tax Purposes ________ Lot L’ne Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) y Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites ______^ Existing Units New Units Total Units •I. r. ^3? Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) 6± ^ • 9 __Units perms' Acres ___Sq.FtDryBuildableLand ___Residentid X___Other (spectfvV go MMgiK/' loA i • • ■^Additional Owner: ' Nam*! n-llh • % Name: Gilbert C. and Anna tou Ella Braun Charitable Remainder Trust' Address: c/o Fredrlksbn 4 Byron (Attn? Greg Munson) 900 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1100, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-347-7146 MDOMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION ' y Pqrmeiit of fees (refer to "appUcadoa fees" listed below. y. Completed application form. y helifflinaiy plat information on Certificale of Survey. A/ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 3S0* (you must obtain this list fiom Hennepin County Dnartment of Fmance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). & ‘As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list ofany other persons you wish notified of this application.' *ZooingOfficiars Signature _____________________________________ Dale_____• MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and paric fees if qrpkable). Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit Zoning Official’s Signature _____________________________________ Date______ L APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check pC] tiiose which appty) A, ^plication Base Fees: X Sketch Plan Review fClass I. n & im S275.0D _____ Subdivision ofa Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $400.00 + $30.00/lot (Class m & all non-residentiaO _____ Final Plat Application (Chiu m) $225.00 ______ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $100.00 ___ Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Totals Paric Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class 1 and n Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivbion Application $200.00 (No change from btiginal-qrplication) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $650.00 + $ JO/lineal ft; _____ Proposed Public Roads $950.00-i-$J0/lineal ft;. Un.fLx.50-$ lin. ft X .50 *■ $ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $950.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $275.00 $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $275.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural su^vision applications) $60.00/per lot x _____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $ 100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivbion $35.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process thb application and further agrees to pay all additional fees establbhed by Applicant’s Signature ^*^^^^x^t^^^^ Owniet's Signature Date S’"’2.*^'-______ Date J-X Applicant must bave^^%ln^11t ^^%^C^ORic%'273^/(%elore ftM^ing Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all sdteduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant u unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make amogemeats to have an authorixied agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zon'mg Office of thb change prior to tiie meeting. } M ‘A hi GITYor OR0NO Mantripal tOHXUimat lliOMkiHtknt OroM, MN S5356 P.O. ta 66 Oystil Bit. MN 5S3234066 DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with M.S. 13.04, Subd. 2. "Rights of subjects of data", we would like to inform you that your request for a pennit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2.You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3.The information may be shared with other local, strde or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5.You have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. First Middle Last Address City roue M*0 State S'S3/l LI 3-31b- i:>% Zip Phone I understand my rights as stated above. /^Sigaattixe v*** /•> '=^Zl TekpliOM«U)2494( -7-1Z-02- March 11.2002 Michael Gaffron CityofOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Orono Village Submittal Dear Mr. Gaffron: I hereby authorize and agree to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members and Council members for the purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Sincerely. Orono Plaza, a Minnesota general partnership Owner's Signature:Date ■y/f/c #2789 nfcriifi iggiit .-iRr*- iv. W' -----------------=—IT March 11.2002 Michael Gaffron City of OrorK> 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 RE; Orono Village Submittal Dear Mr. Gaffron: I hereby authorize and agree to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members and Council members for the purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Sincerely, Gilbert C. Braun Gilbert C. and Anna Lou Bla Braun Charitable Remainder Trust Owner's Signature:Date ^^ 2^ m -*^-^U4 » •• 4--.« i. 'C L C c. C c Rf^ MTC n/l7/92 Ira SM HfNNEPIM COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORNATZON SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PZOSMEl PACE M A « TAXTAVER NAME/AWI 5t 27-llt-2S 33 aiM •§7At DXaCCY LAKE Ml AiRANAH TNONAS AIRANAN THOMAS 74E DICKY LAKE OR L0N8 LAKE MN SS554 S3 27-11E-23 33 mt ••77t DICKEY LAKE DR C D LEUKUHA i J H LEUKUNA CHARLES D E JILL H LEUKUHA 77t DICKEY LAKE DR LONO LAKE HN 5535A 33 2a-llS*23 43 tOtS •077t OLD CRYSTAL SAY RO N ZNO SCHOOL DZST R27S COROMOI ATTN SUf CRZNTENDENT ZNO SCHOOL DZST R27S lORONO) ASS OLD CRYSTAL SAY RO N LONO LAKE HN 55354 EROf AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 3S 2S-ZIS*23 43 tfS^ OOiQ •fStS OLD CRYSTAL SAY RO N ZND SCHOOL . DZST NO 27S ZNO SCHOOL DZST NO 27S ADHZN OEFZCE*SUEERZNTENOENT 4tt OLD CRYSTAL SAY RD N LONG LAKE HN 55354 3S 2S-lia-23 44 4402 40S45 HZLLOH VZEH DR D S SANS S N J SAHS DOUGLAS S t NARY J SAHS ZZS5 LONA LZNOA AVE ORONO HN 55344 36 2S-1ZS-23 44 4443 44625 HZLLON VZEH DR LE6RAN CORE LE6RAN CORE 1521 44TN LA N E SLAZNE HN 55449 EROf AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 36 26-116-23 44 4444 44645 HZLLON VZEH DR HZLLOH VZEH OEVELOPER5 LLC HZLLON VZEH DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 94TN U N E HELS HN 55449 36 26-116-23 44 4445 44645 HZLLOH VZEH DR HZLLON VZEH DEVELOPERS LLC HZLLOH VZEH DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 94TH U N E HELS HN 55449 36 26-116-23 44 4444 44665 HZLLOH VZEH DR HZLLOH VZEH DEVELOPERS LLC HZLLOH VZEH DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 94TM U N E HELS HN 55449 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 36 26-116-23 44 4447 44945 HZLLOH VZEH OR HANS P SERGH/SHARON P SERGH HANS P 6 SUSAN P SERGH 14649 CHATHAM CT N SURNSVZLLE HN 55337 36 26-116-23 44 4416 40436 ADDRESS UNASSZGNED HZLLOH VZEH DEVELOPERS LLC HZLLOH VZEH DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 94TH U N E HPLS HN 55449 36 26-116-23 44 4424 04436 ADDRESS UNASSZGNED HZLLOH VZEH DEVELOPERS LLC HZLLOH VZEH DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 94TH U N E MPLS HN 55449 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 36 33-116-23 11 4403 44436 ADDRESS UNASSZGNED ORONO PLAZA ORONO PLAZA C/0 REZERSGORO LAN OFFICE 4544 44TN ST H HPLS HN 55424 36 33-116-23 12 4007 42744 KELLEY PKHY H R A CZTY OF ORONO H R A CZTY OF ORONO 1335 SROHN RO S HAYZATA HN 55391 36 33-116-23 12 4446 42745 KELLEY PKHY HZLLOH PROPERTZES HZLLOH PROPERTZES C/0 ALSERT 6 YNGVE 4535 SIG RZCE LAKE DR N E REHER HN 54472 4 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 36 33-116-23 13 4442 42467 HAYZATA SLVD H ACE PROPERHU LLC ACE PROPERTZES LLC 5544 ANDERSON ESTATES RD MAPLE PLAZN HN 55359 36 33-116-23 13 0414 42725 HAYZATA SLVD H VEDA INC VEDA INC PO SOX 375 LONG LAKE HN 55354. 36 33-116-23 13 4415 42445 HAYZATA SLVD H DRS 66 LLC DRS 66 LLC C/0 SUSCH/FREDRZCKS0N/6YR0N 944 ZNO AVE S 1144 ZNTRNL CT HPLS HN 55442 #27 mm DATE tl/17/f2 •ATCN 5tA HEIiNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INPORNATXm SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PZA5M91 PACE 37 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR IC SA-UO-23 22 fRCS ••7iX OICREY LAKE DR P 1 k PUGH PATRICK I KAREN PUGH 72S DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE NN 5S35A Si 3A-1IG-23 22 MI9 •f7SS DICKEY LAKE DR T G ESAU SNA ESAU TERRANCE G I HARY A ESAU 7S5 DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE NN 5535A 3S 34-11G-2S 22 OQlt 9074S DICKEY LAKE DR JANES PENSKE JANES E PENSKE 74S DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE NN 55354 c PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 34-IIG-23 22 0014 02350 WAYZATA DLVD W C I L OTTEN CLZPPORD A LOUISE OTTEN DOX 249 N LONG LAKE NN 55354 36 34-116-23 22 0016 00636 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED C 6 L OTTEN CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN DOX 249 LONG LAKE NN 55354 36 34-116-23 22 0020 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CAL OTTEN CLIFFORD A LOUISE OTTEN DOX 249 LONG LAKE NN 55354 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 72 33-116-23 14 0011 02440 INDUSTRIAL DLVD W ETCO PROPERTIES INC ETCO PROPERTIES INC 15500 WAYZATA DLVD X754 WAYZATA NN ^5391 72 33-116-23 14 0012 02420 INDUSTRIAL DLVD W LOSE AND SON INC SAFEWAY STORAGE INC 2420 W INDUSTRIAL DLVD LONG LAKE NN 55354 72 33-116-23 14 0015 02430 INDUSTRIAL DLVD W ETCO PROPERTIES INC ETCO PROPERTIES INC 15500 WAYZATA DLVD 6754 WAYZATA NN 55391 L PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 72 33-116-23 14 0020 02455 INDUSTRIAL DLVD W LARTCH DEVELOPNENT CO FRED HANUS 15601 WEST OAKS NXNNETONKA NN 55345 72 33-116-23 14 0021 02445 INDUSTRIAL DLVD W LARTCH DEVELOPNENT CO FRED HANUS 15601 WEST OAKS NINNETONKA NN 55345 72 33-116-23 14 0025 .02410 INDUSTRIAL DLVD W SYSTEN CAPITAL REAL PROP CRP NC DONALDS CORPORATION P 0 DOX 44207 AHF OHARE CHICAGO IL 40444 C PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 72 33-116-23 14 0024 02400 INDUSTRIAL DLVD W SPEEDWAY SUPERANERICA LLC SPEEDWAY SUPERANERICA LLC C/0 PROPERTY TAX RECORDS 539 NAIN ST S FINDUY OH 45640 72 34-116-23 23 0001 02399 WAYZATA DLVD W GEORGAYN C KRANER GEORGAYN C KRANER 2990 SUNNER SET LA LONG LAKE NN 55354 72 34-116-23 23 0002 02345 WAYZATA DLVD W R E i D N HAUGEN ET AL OSCAR SEYEO 6 HOURI HAKINI 5905 DERNARO PL EDINA NN 55434 L C PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 72 34-116-23 23 0003 02345 WAYZATA DLVD W R E 6 6 N HAUGEN ET AL OSCAR SEYED I HOUR! HAKINI 5905 DERNARD PL TOTAL DATCN 504 00034 EDINA NN 55434 L L (, RUN BATE Rl/ir/M BATCH 5M 28 28-118-23-43-0011 2680 KELLEY PKUY CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHAHON SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIASSMli EASE SB I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFOHNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OCPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATSON* TO THE BEST OF NY KNOHLEOOE AND BELIEF. ^_ DATE ^jLLl If tfc PUD CONCEPT STAGE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS -7*1^ • oa We have reviewed the PUD concept stage plan submittal requirements as outlined in Section 10.53 of the Zoning Ordinance. In order to simplify City review of the submittal, we have noted each submittal requirement and identified where this infonnation can be found or, in cases were the information is rx)t yet available, when the information will be submitted. 1. Preliminary plat and infotmadon required by subdivision Title. A sketch plat has been prepared to provide the City with a general idea of how the property will be platted for this development; however, the preliminary plat is not included In this submittal p>ackage. Following City Council approval of this application package, Landfonn will prepare a preliminary plat, final plat and PUD development stage plan application for review and approval. 2.General Infonnation The landowner's name and address and his interest in the sub^ property. The subject property is owned by Orono Plaza, a Minnesota general partnership. The landowner may reached at: Orono Plaza Attn: Tom Reiersgord Reiersgord Law Firm 4500 West 44" Street Minneapoys, MN 55424-H i1 An undivided interest for the southeast 7.41 acres of the property has been conveyed to Gilbert C. and Anna Lou Ella Braun Charitable Remainder Trust, pursuant to an unrecorded deed. Mr. Braun is also a partner in Orono Plaza. b. The applicant's name if different from the landowner. Dahlstrom Development LLC is the applicant. c.The names and addresses of all prc^essional consultants who have contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor. Jl J ./ 650 BUTLER NORTH BUIUMNO 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAr>OUS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 WMwiandfOffltJWl ..A.-,.- Mtohaet Gaffron Page 2 of 6 Re: PUD Concept Plan Stage Submittal Requirements Aprfl 17. 2002 Planner Landform 510 First Avenue North, #650 Minneapolis. MN 55403 Phone: 612.252.9070 Fax: 612.252.9077 Wetland Consultant Kjolhaug Environmental Services 28105 Wild Rose Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone: 952.401.8757 Fax: 952.401.8798 Engineer Landform 510 First Avenue North, #650 Minneapolis. MN 55403 Phone: 612.252.9070 Fax: 612.252.9077 Attorney Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP Suite 1500 AT&T Tower 901 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-3205 Phone: 612.344.1111 Fax: 612.344.1414 Surveyor Landform 510 First Avenue North. #650 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: 612.252.9070 Fax: 612.252.9077 Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the property to effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement oA all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting die subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of titie or registered property report, and such other evidence as the City attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the subject property. We have attached a letter from the property owner authorizing the applicant to submit this and any other required applications. Present Status a. The address and legal description r^the property. The vacant property does rwt yet have an address assigned. The legal description is as follows: Outlot B, Willow Properties Addition, except parcel 201 and 201a Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-57. eSO BUTLER NORTH BUILOtNO 510 FIRST AVSNUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.2S2J070 FAX 612.252.0077 «Miw.lwidlonn.nM Michael Gaffron Pace 3 ol 6___ Re: PUD Concept Plan Stage Submittal Requirements April 17.2002 b.The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within 1,000 feet offhe property. The subject property is currently vacant and zoned RR*1B. The property to the north and east is guided Rural Residential, zoned RR-1B/RPD and RR-1B, respectively, and developed with single family homes. The property to the east, south of Kelley Parkway extended, is guided commercial, zoned B^ (Highway Commercial) and develop^ with commercial uses including CXten Brothers Nursery. The property to the south, across Highway 12 in the City of Long Lake, is guided Commercial and Industrial, zoned B-2A, I-1 and 1-2 and developed with a mix of retail commercial, service retail and industrial uses. The property to the southeast, across Highway 12 in the City of Orono, is guided Industrial and zoned Industrial. The property to the west is guided Public/Semi-Public and Commercial and is zoned RR-1B. The property guided Public is developed as Orono City Hall and Public Works and the property guided Commercial is currently vacant. We have included sheet C2.0 in the submittal package to identify the existing uses, land use and zoning on the surrounding pHoperty. c.A map depicting the existing development of the property and all land within 1,000 feet therec^ and indicating the location of existing streets, property linos, easements, watermains and stonv and sanitary sewers with invert elevations on and within one hundred feet of the property. The subject property is currently vacant. We have included an existing conditions map in the submittal package (sheet C1.1). d.A written statement generally describing the PUD and the market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing its relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. A nanative describing the Orono Village project is included in the submittal package. e.Site Conditions. Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions on a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet. The existing cortditions map is included on sheet Cl .1 of the attached plans. f.Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and corrmon open space, residential and <^her land uses.t'-The PUD concept stage plan/site plan is included In this submittal package (sheet C2.1). 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612 252.9070 FAX; 61Z252.9077 wwwlatHjfonn.net -H:: _________________ Michael Gaffron Page4of6 9 Re: PUD Concept Plan Stage Suhmittal Requirements April17.2002 A statement of the estimated Mai number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use e)g)ressed in acres and as a percentage of the total project area, which shall include at least die following: i. Area developed to residential uses. Orono Village would include 235 madtet rate homes in a variety of housing styles. Approximately 42 acres of this 51-acre parcel will be devoted to townhomes, rowhouses and the Lofts. The remainder of the site is dedicated to streets and limited, neighborhood commercial. //. Area developed to residential by building type. Approximately 30 acres of property north of Kelley Parkway are planned for 41 townhomes. 8 acres of property in the center of the site are planned for 82 rowhouses. and 4 acres of property in the southwest comer of the site are planned for 112 units in the Lofts.m Hi. Area devoted to common open space. We have provided a Town Square in the commercial area and a Village Green near the Lofts. Both of these common areas are intended to encourage use by the residents of the neighborhood and visitors. The Town Square will be a community gathering space where Orono residents can linger over a cup of coffee or ice cream and visit with friends and neighbors. The Orono Village association would maintain both of these areas, which total approximately 0.6 aaes. Our concept plan and sketch plat includes common lots over the wetland areas and surrounding the townhomes. as well as outlets for the private drives and private streets. The total area for the ^ common open space areas, common lots and outlets is 28.5 acres. ( A/^ iv. Area devoted to public open ^ce. No public open space is proposed. The current plan shows a large portion of the site as common open space with private trails and sidewalks throughout the development. While these traits will be maintained by the Orono Village, they will be open to use by the public. Given the proximity of a number of public spaces at the City Hall complex and school facilities, a large public open space within this development would be redundant. However, we have provided public trails along Kelley Parkway. Willow Drive and Highway 12. Additionally, we have retained large wetland areas within the development and have provided private trails around those features. The private trails and sidewalks within Orono Village will be maintained by the HOA. QO ►I - 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612 252.9070 FAX; 612.252.9077 nMNw.lwvjfonn.nel Michael Gaffron PageSof 6 Re: PUD Concept Plan Stage Submittal Reguiremenls April 17. 2002 V. Approximate area devoted to streets. Appioximately 2.8 acres of the property would be dedicated to Kelley ^ > Parkway, a public street, and 2.8 acres would be devoted to the private C r ^ streets located in the proposed outlets. vi.Afv>roximate area devoted to, and number of. off-street parking and loading spaces and related access. The concept plan shows general compliance with City’s minimum parking standards. The townhomes and rowhouses have a minimum of two parking stalls for each unit as required by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the two dedicated parking stalls for each unit, additional guest parking is provided in the townhome driveways and 46 on-street parking spaces on the private streets adjacent to the rowhouses. The commercial area would also comply with the City parking requirements. The Lofts would have one underground parking space per unit plus surface parking. We believe the proposed parking would be more than adequate for this use. The concept plan shows 99 surface parking spaces at the Lofts and 271 surface parking spaces in the commercial area. The total area devoted to these surface parking stalls is approximately 1.5 acres (exclusive of access aisles and drives). We have proposed screened loading areas for the larger commercial building. This loading area for the grocer would be screened from Willow Drive. Smaller vehicles would likely serve the smaller commercial buildings and loading would take place through the front door. Trash enclosures would be designed to be an integral part of the principal building. Access to this development would be provided from Kelley Parkway. There would be no direct access to Highway 12 or Willow Drive. vii. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses. The concept plan shows approximately 39,000 square feet of complementary retail space in the southeastern 5.6 acres of the Orono Village mixed-use PUD. viii. Af^roxlmate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office uses. No industrial uses are proposed. Office uses may be located in the retail buildings. .1 'v ■m ( 650 BUTLER NORTH BUIIOING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.25^9070 FAX: 612.25^9077 www.lindfom).net is I Mktiaal Gaffron Page6of6 Re: PUD Concept Ptan Stage Submittal Raquiramanls Apft117.2002 h.When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single constniction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the appmximate beginning and complerion date for each such stage or unit and the proporrion of the total PUD pubSc or common open space and dweWrtg units to be provided or constructed during each such stage and overall ^ironology of development to be fdfkmed from stage to stage. If the planned development Is approved by mid-summer, the developer would begin construction in 2002. However, if approvals are delayed, the proposed scheduled would also be delayed. The initial phase would include construction of Kelley Parkway, several townhomes and rowhouses in the central portion of the site in 2002/2003. Phase II would include the remairxJer of the townhomes and rowhouses in 2004/2005. The Lofts and the commercial portion of the site may be constructed as anytime. A graphic representation of the proposed staging plan is included in the submittal package as sheet C5.2. /.the pn^x)sed PUD indudes pro\risions for public or common open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. Maintenance of the common open space, private drives, private sktewalks/trails and community spaces will be the responsibility of the Home Owners Association (HOA). Covenants will be drafted and submitted to the City with the PUD development stage plan and filed with the title to the property. The City will maintain the public trails along Willow, Highway 12 and Kelley Parkway. j.Any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to the property included in the proposed PUD. Landfbrm will prepare development standards that will be included in the covenants for the property. A draft of those documents will be submitted with the PUD development stage plan and filed with title to the property. The PUD concept stage plan nanative provides a general description of the development ptan. k.Schematic utility plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and storm sewers. The schematic utility plans are included in this submittal package on sheet C4.1. r o K >« • * • 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILOINO 510 FIRSf AVENUE NORTH MlNNEAr>OUS OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX 612.252.9077 www.tandtonn.n«t isfii^SS403 iv)^ f ..V • •• •h-i LANDFORM -7-17 'D* January 16.2002 Ben Timerson Minnesota Department of Transportation 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville. MN 55113 Mr. Timerson. I spoke with you earlier this week about the possibility of expanding two existing porxJs located in a MNfDOT easement for use in a proposed mixed-use devetoprrmnt near the northwest quadrant of U.S. Highway 12 and Willow Drive in Orono. You responded with a phone call stating that typically MN/DOT does rwt reach this type of agreement with private developers, but would be receptive to a proposal from the City to expand the ponds as long as they are designed to accomnKxlate all drainage from surrounding developments that may enter the porKis in question, and that maintenance and construction responsibilities are transferred to the City or their representative. I would just to take the time to thank you for your response arxl notify you that we will be pursuing this issue with the City of Orono in hopes that it agrees that the use of these poTKls is beneficial to the proposed development and surrounding area arxl will take the proper steps to get MN/DOT approval for these actions. If I have, in any way. misunderstood or misinterpreted your phone cali or if you have any questions in general about this issue please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely. LANDFORM hris Cunni M /H) ';rf O Q HR^AVCNUe NORTH MINNCAPOUS. MN SS403650 BUTLER NORTH BUtLDINQ B|0 OfFICE: BI2.252.f070 FAX* Bi2.252.f077 www.lBfiOfoflll.flft LANDFORM MEMORANDUM 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH. MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 DATE April 17. 2002 Michael Gaffron, City of Orono FROM Steve Johnston COPY Terry Dahlsirom. Dahlstrom Development LLC Regional Pond Feasibility - Orono Village Feasibility Report for Orono Village Regional Pond The Orono Village project will require construction of a regional pond that would serve the site and other developed and undeveloped properties north of US Highway 12 and east of Old Crystal Bay Road. This 104-acre area, as determined by topographic information obtained by Landfcrm and the City of Orono, is comprised of a large amount of woods, wetlands, open fields, 1-2 acre residential lots, city offices, school district facilities, public works facilities, and two existing MN/DOT treatments ponds. The proposed regional pond will provide NURP standard treatment of storm water as well as runoff rate control for the lOO-yr storm event. The regional pond will be constructed within MN/DOT right-of-way in essentially the same location as the existing ponds. Preliminary correspondence indicates that MN/DOT would be receptive to allowing construction within the right-of-way if the City initiates the request. Preliminary hydrologic studies have shown that the pond volume necessary to meet NURP criteria is approximately 8.2 acre-feet. The current Orono Village concept pond has a volume of approximately 8.5 acre-feet. Furthermore, the runoff rate for the existing drainage basin is approximately 33.5 cfs through a 24” culvert under Highway 1 2. The new pond will be limited to this discharge rate under fully developed conditions within the watershed. To detain this runoff and not flood the Orono Village project it will be necessary to lower the normal water level of the pond. This can be accomplished by jacking a new 24” culvert under Highway 1 2 approximately three feet lower than the existing culvert. The new pipe will act as the primary pond outlet with the existing culvert providing for emergency overflow purposes. Pagel *2789 April 17. 2002 A breakdown of the major constniction costs associated with the regional pond and trunk storm sewer is shown on an attached exhibit. The trunk line will provide service to the two undeveloped lots to the west of the Orono Village site. The natural drainage patterns of the remainder of the basin will remain largely unchanged as storm runoff is routed through the new regional pond. We req)ectfiilly request tfrt the City assist us in our negotiations with MN/DOT for the construction of these facilities and that Trunk Storm Sewer fees be used where appropriate to fund this project. 2 r rj r\..J5 L__. == • i k rr—-•« !! ; 1 ij!*! I’’ i 5-‘ V.-.: j i <—1 1 f•••••■••••» i • i i i • 0* i L...] jM. • t L....J 1• 1 J 1 r\z------ r ,lJ| I! '1,1J it" f'j’--------•',__________'zzd.____r !J-----r~! 1 r*! j EKHi^ir A [j $ * Orono Village Row Houses / Lofts \,n .x' Sw’i' r b? m vfyt^ur- >i^i ■■'■1 II h IM/; >:t>\:k '••m Ik^^i i!!(^[islp I hrIlili>ii3iltelim1^ I’liulil •i '' ^r.«‘'''' ^ 5 >X 1 •'*'> - -< »■»• . X v^- 'i^^i >. ! I..-; '^•‘ ^ • 4^ *5 ilifS:* isn ^i&^’!ikli ?»- : Pii r^ C Trfrlli J WJ J*LT ‘ 11 M? JtifH f*r*^ ■ <>:/vjr;.<v' -.V fif ■=•••■-• r;-s.£ "i , ^PlS& ^ iiHi mi mimmlIBft •f^J if U tiili !i B h- :iT^-.t:i T %i •ir * T ^1' ' r» *-,•o.»: •Smi - - ■ V .» *r.rS*'V. V r.o LANDFORM \ >r» 'Vi.iI* \-'SS^±. <' ^4 Li ^ i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects May 9. 2002 Mr. Mike Gaffron Planning Dircclc; Ciiy of Orono Posi Office Box 66 Cr>s(ai Bay, MN 55323 Orono Pla/a PUD Concept Plan File No. 139 02-000 Plat No. 02-2789 FBonetiroo. Roienc. Andcrlik sna AttocMirs. Inc. I& «n Affifm^tive Aclion/CquaJ Opporiumiy Employer ond Employee Owned PrincipeU Quo G BonolfOO PE • l Sorv.iU PE • GIrnn R Cook PE • RvOrrt G Scnuniclil. PE • Jerry A Bourdon PI * * Senior Contulienlt; Robc'l W Roicne. PE • Jojepn C Andrriik Pi • Rich.ird C Turner, PE • Sui.«n M EDcrhn C PA AssocloLf Prlncipeli Kc<tn A Gordon PE • Robert R Pfcflerle. PE • RicM.ird W Eoiier. PE • O^vid O Loskoi<t PE • M.«rk A H.inion PE • Micnael T R.*urm.win PE • Ted K Field PE • Kenneth P Anderton PE • Mark R Roift PE • Oavtd A Boncklroo MB A • Sidney P Williomton PE . L S • A^nei M Ring MB A • Allan Rick Schmidt PE • Thomas *JU Pe»erion. PE • i.«m«‘. P M.»/.»nd PE • Miles B Jenien P£ • L Phifiip G».»vel III. P£ • Oanjci J Edqerton PE • Ismael Martinet PE • Thomas /• >/lko PE • Sheldon j Jorvison • 0.«Je A Grove PE • Thomas A Roush.ir. PE • Robert J Oevery PE Offices: St Paul. St Cloud. Rochester ,»nd Wiiirrar. MN • Milw.suk.e Wl • Chicago II WMrbiile: www bonestroo com /N,Tttrx, /ZF~/KerC^ Dear Mike: We have reviewed the PUD concept plan for the proposed Orono Pla/a dcvdopincnt. The site is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Willow Drive and TH 12. The proposal provides for a mix of residential housing and commercial development. We have the following comments .n regaid.s to engineering matters. 1. Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary .sewer flows from the site will be routed to an existing saniiar. sewer along the north side of TH 12. The existing sanitary sewer then flows southerly under TH 12 through a line just west of the Golf Dome property. This line serves an area north of TH 12 including the public schools along Old Crystal Bay Road, the Willow View subdivision and the Medina Morningsidc ncighborhoixJ in Medina. Prior to the construction of the new Orono Middle School this sanitary line was nearly at capacity . The City recently constructed a bypass lift station along the south side of T H. 12 to provide temporary relief for the additional flows generated by the school During pc.ik flow limes the bypass lift station pumps into an existing .MCES forcemam along the south side ofTH 12 The lift station was an interim measure and will remain in operation until the dowTisircam infrastructure is upgraded to provide the necessary capacity. Currently the system is at capacity and cannot accomm^xlate the additional flows generated by the proposed development until the system is upgraded downstream from the bypass lift station. Improvements to the existing sanitary' line between the bypass lift station and the railroad tracks to the south would need to be a City project The applicant should review c%isis for these improvements with the City. It is our understanding the system along the railroad tracks and to »he east w *11 be upgraded as par. of the proposed .MN<1X)T TH 12 improvement project. MN/DOT should be consulted io determine when the proposed sanitary' sewer improvements will be completed and to verify that the necessary capacity will be provided Sar.iiark sevver shall be in installed in accordance with City standard details. Final plans should include plan ar.d profile views of all sanitary scAcr. 2. Water Main: The proposed water mam from west to cast should be 12*'DIP. The alignmeniefthe 12 ’main should follow the alignment of the proposed Kelley Parkway. Water mam design thro* ghoul the .cs: of the project appears acceptable. The two water main laterals serving the units north of Kcilcv P.».kway should be looped. Final plans sh.'uld include plan and profile views of the proposed water main, vvo^r mam doiails and scivicc locaiituis 3. Storm Sewer: The draft version of the City ’s Surface Water Management Plan (S’kVMP) sh^ms that this sue lies w i:hm the Long Lake drainage district. The narrative provided with the application proposes to expand the existing M.VDOT ponds along the south side of the sue. As part of the expansion the improvements propose to lower the normal water level of the pond by installing a new outlet pipe approximately 3-fcci lower than the existing outlet pipe The existing pond outlet pipe discharges on the south side of TH 12 Storm water then flows overland through a drainage ditch along the west side of the Golf Dom.e property. The drainage ditch is very flat and the Golf Dome experiences occasional flooding during heav y rain events. The developer should prov ide additional infomation as to where and at what elevation the proposed outlet will discharge south ofTH 12. A minimum of 2-feciof freeboard should be prov ided between alt basement elevations and pond high water levels. The City has storm sewer near the proposed wesicriy pond. Additional details such as connections to the City storm sewer, proposed emergency overflows and discharge points should be provided for the pond along the west boundary. All storm sewer within 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul MN 55113 • 651636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 • 90' City right-of-way or under pavement shall be RCP. There doesn't appear to be any proposed storm sewer to serve properties north of Kelley Parkway. Plans should include storm sewer provisions for this area. All ponds should meet NURP standards. Ponds should have a 10:1 aquatic bench at the pond's normal water level (NWL). All ponds should have an outlet structure and provided a minimum of I-foot of skimming to remove floatables and debris. Riprap should be provided at all inlets and outlets. Final plans should show plan and profile views of the proposed sewer and include storm sewer details. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for our review. It is critical that an effective erosion control plan be included with the final plan set and implemented during construction due to the magnitude of the project and potential off-site impacts. Final plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for their review. 4. Slrccts/TraUs: Kelley Parkway is a municipal state aid (MSA) road. At a minimum, Kelley Parkway should be designed to meet MSA standards and should provide room for parking or distressed vehicles for both east and west bound uaffic. A median could be incorporated into the design to provide a parkway appearance, provide traffic calming and accommodate consuiiction of turn lanes. The design of the connection at Willow Drive should incorporate left and right turn lanes for eastbound traffic. Horizontal and vertical alignments should meet a 30 mph design speed. All sueets within the project should have concrete curb and gutter and meet City standards for public or private roads. The proposed turnarounds on the north end of the two private streets north of Kelley Parkway do not appear to be adequate for emergency vehicle turning movements, plans should be submitted to the fire chief for review and comment. A geotechnical report, R-value recommendation and pavement design should be provided for review. The applicant should anticipate typical street sections that include select granular material and draintile because of the poor soils. The proposed bituminous trail should be extended southerly from Kelley Parkway to TH 12 and along Kelley Parkway to the west boundary of the site. The City should consider whether a bituminous path or concrete sidewalk is appropriate along TH 12 between Willow Drive and the west property boundary. 5. Traffic: The proposed land uses will generate approximately 5,200 trips per day. We have concerns regarding the intersections at Kelley Parkway and Willow Drive, Kelley Parkway and Old Crystal Bay Road and at Willow Drive and TH 12. At a minimum we recommend that the applicant commission a traffic study to determine whether improvements are necessary at these intersections. Additional concerns include the spacing of Kelley Parkway from TH 12 and access management along Old Crystal Bay Road 6. Financial Guarantee: Whei final plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to deternine the amount of the financial guarantee required. The developer will also be responsible for all pertinent City charges including, but not limited to, mink sewer, trunk water, storm water area charge, and park dedication fees. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTR(X), ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSCXTIATES, INC. Tom Kelloj Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono cm cvr 7.C\ Wa n> Cn«*i lt*^. M> 2\WAV»>V, > AM W'W WttVNN r^ ^*»T \M NO>1V> >..«v* A ,NVC TVX rUiJusrr.'c: A'^-^ivcar.S! liC ?\.Vyc^ '.&?< \Upwf VlN 5^^v>''I * v. !iv*,v >;»' J'tt'sA V\v\J>^' Vvv?!! <WV Mwwh.N'C'^v NA v 'I.'A c'oru^'lAocX' Atm T^xr X?:.*rs;^v»i Kftcrs.jwvl li« V'vv.*. 4>A' 44:^ :^v« N»:r.:v4iv>.s. NtN >MN ‘.vV^ \u’Avx>\v% v(jnA\)i(k \ \r AA' \V,^\ A". V.Avi.xstv \\\^Vi^.' Nt-.'.vw\.v' v Ni\ "«C. ^V' T\ PE OK APPl U'WION: i\'4'.'4'PlAi\ Pl'l'^o:\Mu»V)i SulsU\ui*v< I'l l' l\*\ c Ivy ;*.uhu vViKxV* S*..Viv DATK OF MEETING: hvAc U\ .'vV.' Council Action: 1.Motion to support the tViuprdu*im\o I’Uu Anu iuluuut uspu'xt loi ^ou \»mm»»h “conuncnrial otVicc" use to "uuihtt.itutK tv'MtleiUi.ir‘ uno t^iut tw'omuii tlom KU U* to RPl'D) foi the .uca between llie,ltwa\ I' aiul KeH ‘ Paikwax Vole: 2 Ayes tSai\se\eic. Nvijauh, t Na\v ^VVbHr, Muiplvv. l\’U’!?o<\t Motion Failoil Motion to deny the Coinpiehensixe IMan Aineiutineni i(H|iu<«t loi «on\t<i«ion Uon* “commea'ial otVice" use to *'imi)iiliumt> lesulentiar tise land Uoni M? lit b» RPIIP) for the aiea between Highway 12 and Kelley Paikwav Vote: 3 Ayes iWhitc. Mutphy, Pclcison), I Nav (Nvganl). I AbMetillon (Nunw v»ii>) Motion Carrietl Tiiesc Council iictions leileet llial the • oneepi IMan an pioponed in nol ne< rpiabir- l ‘iiitiu |l made no further motions. Some Couiu ilinenibeis individihillv toiinnenled M'gaidinn ilnii prcfcacd level or ty|>es of retail uses lhal inipjil be allowed nl llie soiilhraM loiiioi ol llti property, but suggested that no eoiiiniilinenl would be loillii oiniiiK nniil applii anin aint iid lbi<ll application and provide u revised concc|)l plan lot tonnideialion 1 % Notice of Council Action June 13, 2002 Page 2 Council ’s denial of the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment will obviously result i^ significant changes to the concept plan proposal, i.e. essentially a new proposal. Rather than requiring you to make a completely new application. Council accepted the idea that you can amend your current proposal, and start anew with the Plarming Commission. This will necessitate a re-starting of the original 60-day clock in terms of the statutory review period, begirming on the date your revised concept plan is submitted. Please provide the City with a letter acknowledging the re-start of the initial 60-day review for your complete application (PUD Concept stage plan, commercial site plan, sketch plat, rezoning and land use guide plan amendment). Absent such a letter, staff will recommend that Council take formal action regarding the complete application that would require a new application submittal rather than a referral back to Planning Commission. From a scheduling standpoint, please be advised of the following: 1.The Planning Commission meeting tentatively suggested for the week of June 24-28 will not be held. 2.Once your amended proposal is received, it will be brought forward to the Plarming Commission for a public hearing, as was your first plan. Deadline for submittal of items for the July 15 Planuing Commission regular meeting is 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 24 in order for the City to meet Its legal notice publication deadline. 3. Assuming you meet the June 24 deadline. Planning Commission will likely want to meet with you in a work session the first or second week of July. * We will be reviewing the status of application fees and will advise you of any additional fees due as the amended application moves forward. If you desire certified copies of the oflicial Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Plarming Commission. If you have questions, please contact Plarming Director Mike GafTron at 9S2-249-4600. Councilman White provided staff with an 11-point “scorecard” he devised for rating the strong and weak points of th*'s development proposal. I’m including it here to assist you in reaching some conclusions of youi cwn. Use it as you see Hi. 1 Scorecard 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 I) Mix of land uses 2) Take advantage of compact building design 3) Create housing opportunities and choices 4) Create walkable communities 5) Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place 6) Preserve open space and natural beauty 7) Strengthen and direct development toward existing community of Long Lake 8) Provide a variety of transportation choices — 19^ Make development decisions I \ iCdictable, fair and cost II effective 10) Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions 11) Open Public Space ________________________________________________ : : I • \ J Complete Date: Deadline: 6/10/02 10/8/02 AUG \ 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: Augusts,2002 ITEM NO.: y Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#02-2793 Revis Stephenson 1850 Fox Ridge Road After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variance List of Exhibits A B C D E F DraA Resolution Side Elevation • Cross Section 2001 Approved Grading Plan Landscaping Plan/Planting Schedule Peterson Environmental Site Findings and Recommendations (July 17, 2002) Letter of August 2,2002 (Eric H. Galatz - Attorney for Property Owner of 350 Brown Road South) Review This item was last reviewed by the Council on July 22,2002. Ron Peterson, of Peterson Environmental, had been hired by the property owner to do the wetland delineation and analysis. Peterson Environmental has found the actual wetland boundary is located further to the east than the boundary located last winter. This is an important finding since it has now been determined the actual buffer encroachment in much less than initially believed. The total impact is approximately 300 s.f. There is no fill or land alteratioi in the wetland area. The application w ill still require an after-the-fact variance to permit land alteration within 26 ’ of the wetland and does still require the change to the Conditional Use Permit to allow all the additional fill that is on the property. Council has several options to consider: I.Approve the application as is, including the tree planting as shown on the attached Exhibit C. This option should require extensive, tree planting to screen the visual impact of the larger hill and »o provide better erosion control. The plantings would also provide more protection for the wetland. The benefits to this option is there would be no fill »hat would be hauled away from the site. Also all existing vegetation that has esublished itself would not have to be destroyed. The concerns w ith this option would be that it would be somewhat inconsistent with the ordinances that protect the wetland buffer areas, and would be inconsistent with the general recommendation that finished slopes are not steeper than 3:1. a.--*- #02*2793 Revis Stephenson 1850 Fox Ridge Road Page 2 of 3 _________ 2.Approve an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and not variances. This option would require removal of any fill that has been added within 26’ of the wetland. This would require a portion of the hillside to be regraded since the toe of the hill would have to be moved further from the wetland. Ultimately, this would require some fill to be hauled away from the site. 3.Deny the application and require the finished grades to match the approvals granted in the original Conditional Use Permit. Proposed Restoration Plan The Council requested the applicant submit a full landscaping an'* restoration plan. The purpose being to establish natural regrowth and encourage planting that will provide screening of the new hillside and long term erosion control. The proposed restoration plan attached to this report was submitted on August 6th. So as in past submittals staff has had linie time to review the plan. The direction provided by Council was to plant species that were consistent with existing species on adjacent properties and include understory growth to provide a more natural growth pattern especiLlly for the initial time period when the new trees are very young. Planting provided include the following variety of species, most appear on the DNR list of plants common to the forest types familiar with this area. Trees th.it have recently been planted Mature Height Mature Width Freemani Maple 40-70'45* River Birch 40'30 ’ Crabapple 30'30' White Pine 50-80'20-30* Red Oak 60-70'30* Proposed Trees Silver Maple 40-70'45' Green Ash 35-40'irregular Ironwood 50*30' Big-Tooth Aspen 60'30' Red Pine 70' Swamp White Oak 60'30' Red Oak 60-70'30' Total of Newly Planted Trees and Proposed Trees = 21 Planted + 12 Proposed = 33 Trees #02-2793 Revis Stephenson I8S0 Fox Ridge Road Page 3 of 3____________ Proposed New Shrubs Gray Dogwood Red Dogwood American Highbush Cranberry Ail thnib iradcrgrowtli is conccntnitcd in the south end of the property Staff Recommendation to the tree planting schedule The existing trees that have been planted are of an adequate size. Staff would like additional information in regards to the size of a tree that Is transported to the site in a S-gallon container. The trees should be trees with a minimum truck width of 2"-3". The City ’s Subdivision Ordinance requires new tree planting alongThe City ’s Subdivision Ordinance requires new tree planting along roads to be trees with a minimum 2" diameter measured 12" above the ground. The trees typically have had a 10 • I S' height when planted. Trees planted at this height have been successful in their long term survival. The locations of the trees indicate the concentration of trees being at the north and south sides of the property. A few trees should be moved to the center of the property. More trees on the site would eventually create a full canopy cover. It may not be the ultimate solution to have a full canopy cover since a full canopy would block sunlight and not encourage new growth. The fact that there was limited ground cover under the trees is part of what had contributed to the erosion that had occurred in the past. Due to the limited amount of time to react to the planting schedule staff has not been able to have the City Forester review the plans and provide final recommendations and comments on the site plan. Staff has drafted an approval resolution that allows the final grading as currently exists on the property and also has provisions that allow some final “tweeks” to the planting locations, species, and trees sizes based on the comments of the adjacent property owner and City Forester. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED To either adopt the resolution attached to this memo table requesting the application continue to work with staff and the adjacent property ow ner and to allow ime for review of the plan by the City Forester. Council Exhibit A A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 AND AN AFTER THE FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19-21 FILE NO. 02-2793 WHEREAS, Rcvis Stephenson III and Meghan Stephenson, (hereinafter "the applicants") arc owners of the property located at 1850 Fox Ridge Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 1. Fox Ridge. Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, during routine inspections of the property it was determined that the amount of fill placed on the hillside exceeds what was allowed by a Conditional Use Permit that was granted by the City of Orono to permit 3.280 cubic yards of fill on the property. A new survey completed by Gronberg and Associates, dated 6-6-02. confirmed the land alteration not only encroached beyond the project area, but is beyond the property lines onto two adjacent properties. Areas where also identified where fill had been added within 26' of the protected wetland. The property owners were sent a notice 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 StalT and requested the opportunity to apply for after-the-fact permits rather than correct the problem at that time; and WHEREAS, the applicants applied for an after the fact conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to pennit land alteration and fill of beyond the 3.280 s.f. of material that was approved in 2001 and an after the fact variance to permit land alteration within 26' of the wetland; 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 June 17,2002 at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Page i of 7 Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2793. The property is located in the RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 17, 2002 and recommended denial by a vote of 6 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following flndings of fact: A. 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 vard of the house. D. The Platuiing Commission recommended denial of the application to permit an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit for land alteration within 26' of the wetland, the denial includes any alteration beyond the previously approved elevations. C. The slopes on the property did not meet the general recommendation of 3:1. D. No recommendation was provided regarding the land alteration over the property lines and on the neighboring properties. This resulted from the information that w as provided regarding the legality of the application. E. There was no clear indication that the application was legal since there was new information that had been discus ’on by the Planning Commission that they may have to review the issue of land alteration on adjacent properties as separate permits. No recommendation was considered that included any land alteration in regards to ‘Jie adjacent properties. Page 2 of 7 5. The City Council reviewed this item and has made the following findings of fact: A. A revised wetland delineation was submitted by Ronald P. Peterson, Peterson Environmental that indicated the actual wetland boundary that had been conducted in December, 2001 , under winter conditions was not accurate. Mr. Peterson indicated the previous delineation report referred to snow cover conditions obscured much of the herbaceous vegetation. B. The Planning Commission had reviewed a plan that indicated a ver>' substantial violation of the wetland buffer had occurred. C. The new delineation report completed by Peterson Environmental moves the actual delineation line further to the east resulting in a total impact to the wetland buffer area of only ^00 s.f. The encroachment is only in the center of the property. D. The hillside has been completed seeded with native grasses to prevent erosion. The grasses have been successfully established and the wetland buffer area has also had natural revegetation occur. Any regrading on the property would require removal of established vegetation. E. The Planning Commission had been given information that the application to permit fill on the adjacent properties had not been applied for 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. F. The City of Orono has received written documentation that both adjacent property owners consent to the changes on their properties. G. The Council has requested, in order to ensure the new slope has adequate erosion control in place, that a full landscaping plan be incorporated. The property owners have planted 21 trees since the grading was completed. An additional 12 trees have been proposed to be added to the hillside. Page 3 of 7 Accompanying the new trees is a series of shrubs to replace a patch ol garlic mustard. Garlic mustard is listed as a prohibited no.xious weed in Minnesota. H. The remainder of the bufler areas did not have much under story growth prior to the land alteration project due primarily to the box elder trees and buck thorn (another noxious plant in Minnesota) that had completely formed a canopy over the buffer area. Mr. Peterson has indicated on the wetland fringe of the bulTer native wetland plants (such as lake sedge and blue flag) have started to establish in the remainder of the buffer area so seeding is not necessary in those areas. I. According to the recent site topography that was completed by Gronberg and .Associates (dated June 6, 2002) the slopes do not meet the generally recommended 3:1 slope. The additional plantings and successful establishment of trees and ground vegetation will act as further mitigating factors for long and short term erosion control. J. Short term monitoring of the site should be conducted to ensure the vegetation and grasses continue to thrive and signs of erosion are not occurring on the site. K. With new site developments the Orono Sub(Mvision Ordinance requires trees planted w ith a 2 ” diameter measured 12 ” from the base of the tree. L. The Zoning Ordinance does not require replanting of trees because this is not a subdivision. 1 he trees that had previously oeen located on this property are not protected. The applicants have agreed to provide more trees for erosion control to provide some screening to the hillside to neighboring properties. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, will not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 4 of 7 6. 1 he City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air. nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or ditficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensi’e Plan ofthe City. 7. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff, comments of the applicants and adjacent property owners and their agents, and the affect of the proposed use on tlie health, safety, and w elfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby an after the fact conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 1 0.03. Subdivision 19 to permit land alteration and fill of beyond the 3,280 s.f. of material that was approved in 2001 and an after the fact variance to permit land alteration within 26’ of the w etland subject to the follow ing conditions: 1. The City shall accept comments from adjacent property owners and a forester on behalf of the Ctiy in relation to the proposed pianting schedule 2. 1 he number and species shall be reviewed prior to any additional planting. 3. fhe new trees shall be spread out to include planting of two additional trees in the center of the property, and each new tree shall have a minimum diameter of 2 measured 12 ” above the base of the tree. 4 . The City of Orono shall reserve the right to inspect the property for the first three years following this approval to ensure the successful establishment of all vegetation and to ensure erosion is not occurring on the hillside. 5. Authorities granted by the conditional use peimit and variance run w ith the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (August 12,2002). Page s of 7 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit approval shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12'’’ day of August, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owners STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26lh day of November, 2001 by Barbara A Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said insmiment was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 6 of 7 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 SI ATE 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/afiim. ,. » witness .. a credible and who e.xecuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/sbe/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .,20. _ personally appeared before me, ____ who is personally known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of ____whose identity 1 pioved on the oath/affirmation witness a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the some as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 7 of? —tirt I m 1 m M 1 mi inliMM>ifWi<B ihilitinifffliitii . ;-J ........ % FOX RIDGE ROAD » 9 LEGAL OeSCRPnON OF PREMSCS: Lot 4. Bock 1. FOX RDGE *fO^. 91 JDiw oc 9e U Peterson Environmental Council Exhibit £ Consulting, Inc. July 17.2002 Mr. Paul Weinberger City ofOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Subject:Wetland Buffer Observations Revis Stephenson Property Orono, Nlinnesota PEC Project No 2002-037 Dear Paul: Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (PEC) has field reviewed an alleged wetland buffer encroachment on the Revis Stephenson property at 1850 Fox Ridge Road. We specifically reviewed the magnitude of the alleged encroachment and the quality of re­ vegetation and erosion control efforts on the property. As discussed at the Orono City Council meeting on July 8, 2002, we found it necessary to refine the winter wetland delineation done on the property by EnviroData, Inc., from which the 26-foot buffer was measured. Our observations and recommendations are as follows; Observations and Recommendations The previous delineation was too conservative (an understandable result given the conditions under which the delineation was performed) and encompassed a strip of upland along most of the wetland boundary. The rationale for the refinement of the delineation is provided below. • The wetland fringe appears to be partially due to the depressed elevation of the wetland’s outlet structure under the Luce Line Trail. • With the refined wetland boundary, the total area of grading that occurred within the 26-foot buffer totals less than 300 square feet. • The entire slope has been successfully stabilized with erosion control fabric, herbaceous vegetation and silt fencing. Minimal erosion and sedimentation has occurred since the site was re-vegetated, despite record storm events in June of 2002. 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 100 MendoU Heights, MN 55120>1112 Tel 651-6g6*0131 Fax 651-686-0369 leww.petersonenv.com Mr. Paul Weinberger July 17.2002 Page 2 PEC Project No.2002-037 The buffer is slightly depressed topographically, creating an effective trap for sediment before it reaches the wetland boundary—no visible sediment deposits have traversed the buffer to reach the wetland. • The grading along the north and south property boundaries appears to have reduced the potential for gully erosion in these areas. In particular, on the south boundary the grading has correct^ a pre-existing gully that was previously delivering sediment downslope toward the wetland. Early indications are that the buffer has been successfully re-vegetated with native vegetation. Most of the buffer is densely vegetated with a nurse crop of annual rye, with native grasses and wildflowers just becoming visible. The upland slope has also been re-vegetated with native plants, which are not as dense as in the buffer but appear to be well established. • Given the very small amount of buffer encroachment and the substantial erosion risks associated with re-opening the slope, we recommend that the slope and buffer be left undisturbed. Vegetation is sparse on the wetland fringe on the waterward side of the buffer. This appears to be due primarily to the removal of a number of box elders (Acer negundo) and common buclahoms (Rhamrms cathartica, a restricted noxious plant species in Minnesota)' that were shading out herbaceous vegetation. Native wetland plants such as lake sedge (Carex lacustris) and blue flag (Iris versicolor) have started to move into this area so additional seeding does not appear warranted. However, some additional native shrub plantings (e.g. red osier dogwoods - Comus stolonifera) would be desirable in this area. Buckthorn stumps should be treated with Roundup^ herbicide to minimize re-sprouting. At the south end of the property, a patch of garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata; a prohibited noxious weed in Minnesota) has become established^. We would also recommend herbicide treatment in this area and post-treatment plantings of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. Refinement of Wetland Delineation During our initial field review of the Stephenson property, we noted that the wetland boundary appeared to be too conservative (i.e. encompassing some areas that we did not appear to be jurisdictional wetland. The previous delineation was carried out on ' See Minn. Rules 1530.0732. ^ See Minn. Rules 1530.0730. Mr. Paul Weinberger July 17,2002 Page 3 PEC Project No.2002-037 ' I December 2.2001 under winter conditions. The delineation report indicated that “snow cover obscured much of the herbaceous vegetation ”. The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers directs delineators to exercise caution in performing wetland delineations outside the growing season: *Tt is possible to conduct wrtand delineations outside of the growing season, but severe limitations are often encountered.” (emphasis in original) . the attached data sheets document in detail the basis for our re-delineation of the twundary. A graphic is being provided that depicts both the original and refined delineations and the resulting change in the buffer boundary. A small portion of the original delineation was not changed. In the central part of the boundary, two of the original flags were left unchanged. With the buffer measured from the refined boundary, the constructed slope encroaches 6 feet into the buffer at one flag and 8 feet at another. The slope does not encroach into the buffer at any other location. The resulting encroachment totals under 300 square feet in area. We look forward to reviewing the refined delineation and buffer with you and staff from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distria on Friday July 19,2002. At that time we would also like to obtain your concurrence on the recommendations provided above. Please feel free to contact our office with any questions. Best regards, Petenon Environmental Consulting, Inc. Lonald P. Peterson President Professional Wetland Scientist No. 1118 cc.Revis Stephenson Greg Munson - Fredrickson & Byron Mike Wyatt/Renae Schubert - MCWD ^ Guidelines for Submitting Wetland dclincatioM to ftc St Paul Diiirict Coipt of Earincm and Local Units of OovenMnem In the State af USAGE Public Notice 96-01078-SDE. AptU 17, 1996, Page 5.I Council Exhibit F LEONARD, STREET AND DEIN mOttSStONAL ASSOCIATION August 2,2002 Eric H. Galatz 612-335-1509 VIA U.S.MA1L Mayor Barbara Peterson and City Council Members c/o Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono 2750 Kelley Park%vay Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Stephenson Application for Amendment of CUP and Variance at 1850 Fox Ridge Road Dear Mayor Peterson and Members of the City Council: We are writing to express our concern about the direction the City of Orono appears to be taking with respect to the Stephenson Application for an Amendment of CUP and afler-the-fact variance for work performed at 1850 Fox Ridge Road in violation of the CUP the City of Orono issued to the Stephensons in November, 2001. At the July 22 City Council hearing, the Mayor and Council instructed Mr. Stephenson to prepare a landsc^e plan for review by the City. At that hearing, members of the Council encouraged Mr. Chalfen, through me, to meet with Mr. Stephenson and come to agreement about a landscape plan that would be acceptable to Mr. Chalfen in lieu of re-grading the site to conform with the November 2001 CUP. Mr. Chalfen appreciates, and will avail himself of, the opportunity to review Mr. Stephenson’s landscape plan. As 1 stated at the hearing, however, Mr. Chalfen objects to the apparent decision of the City to permit Mr. Stephenson to provide landscaping in lieu of re-grading for the following reasons: 1. Mr. Stephenson should be required to re-grade and landscape in accordance with the 2001 CUP. Had Mr. Stephenson complied with the 2001 CUP, his hill would be 38 feet further from the wetland and Mr. Chal fen’s front door, 50% of the woods Mr. Stephenson removed would still exist and Mr. Stephenson w ould be required to re-plant the portion of his property he had permission to de-forest. 2. Landscaping will not mitigate the intrusion on the wetland setback. Mr. Stephenson presented a revised wetland delineation report from Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. at the July 22 hearing. That report noted that “the constructed slope encroaches six feet into the buffer at one flag and eight feet at another.’’ Peterson reported that the total 150 South Fxpth Stiiit Suirt ajoo Minniapolis , Minnisota 55401 Tu 6ii*335-t5oo Fax 6i2*335*x657 2:44227vl LAW orncis IM MlNNIAPOtlS, SAINT PAUL AND MANKATO Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 2 August 2,2002 encroachment based on his refinement of the wetland delineation totals under 300 square feet in area. On page 4 of the comments appended to the Peterson report, under the heading “Disturbance Factors," Peterson notes that “removal of woody vegetation along central part of wetland boundary has made delineation more difTicult in this area." Under “Soil Factors," Peterson reports that “soil compression appears to have occurred within the wetland buffer." These comments indicate that Mr. Stephenson ’s unlawful activities within the wetland buffer influenced the “refined" wetland delineation. Whatever the Watershed District and City ultimately certify as the current wetland buffer, the City should require Mr. Stephenson to decompact the buffer and remove any encroachment on the buffer and pull the base of the hilt back to the location the City approved in 2001. 3. Mr. Stephenson ’s unlawful earth work has not improved conditions for the wetland as compared to conditions existing before Mr. Stephenson commenced his work or conditions that would have existed if Mr. Stephenson had performed his work in compliance with the 2001 CUP. In its July 17,2002 report, Peterson Environmental notes that “some soil compression appears to have occurred within the wetland buffer." Peterson does not attribute the compression to Mr. Stephenson ’s unlawful activities within the buffer. Peterson does try to present this compression as a positive event by noting that the compression “has created a concave buffer that traps surface drainage before it can flow into the wetland." The truth is that Mr. Stephenson ’s activities within the wetland buffer have replaced loose permeable soil with compacted soil and his unlawful and excessive placement of fill has replaced 70 - 75 feet of flat shallow slope between the base of the hill and the wetland buffer with a slope that is steeper than 1 to 3 and comes to the edge of the buffer. Mr. Stephenson has also replaced a dense woody canopy with a grass-covered compacted fill slope. These changes will increase the speed at which runoff will reach the wetland and substantially decrease the amount of runoff that will be absorbed by the soils before the runoff reaches the wetland. The City should require Mr. Stephenson to move the slope back away from the wetland buffer to the location the City approved in 2001, decrease the slope of his hill, and decompact the buffer itself. 4. Whether or not the City requires Mr. Stephenson to cut back his hill before landscaping, the City should require Mr. Stephenson to landscape his hill in a manner that is consistent with the natural condition of surrounding slopes and survivability of his plantings. At a minimum, the City should require the following; • Plantings of sugar maple, the predominant species in the surviving woodlands south of Mr. Stephenson ’s deforestation. Trees should be a minimum caliper of 4 inches, planted 15-20 feet apart. The City should require Mr. Stephenson to analyze the composition of fill soils and provide soil amendments as necessary to insure survivability. 2244227y|J II ntiW Mayor Barbara Peterson Orono City Council Page 3 August 2,2002 • If the City requires Mr. Stephenson to cut back his hill, the City should require Mr. Stephenson to place 4 inches of topsoil on the new grade. If the City does not require Mr. Stephenson to cut back his hill, the City should require Mr. Stephenson to place or confirm that Mr. Stephenson has placed 4 inches of topsoil on the current grade as he was required to do under the November 2001 CUP. The City should require Mr. Stephenson to provide a letter of credit or other security for performance under terms that will (a) provide the City with funds and the right to perform the landscape work in accordance with the approved plan if Mr. Stephenson fails to perform the woric within 60 days of issuance of the permit, (b) guarantee replacement of any tree planted by Mr. Stephenson that does not survive one year after planting, and (c) require replacement of any trees that die within three years of planting if more than 10% of the trees plant^ die during that three-year period. In light of Mr. Stephenson ’s history of noncompliance, it would be appropriate for the City to require security in the amount of 150% of the estimated cost of the work. On August 1, Mr. Stephenson contacted me and offered to discuss his ideas for landscaping with Mr. Chalfen or me before he prepares his landscape plan. We asked Mr. Stephenson to prepare his plan first and submit it to us for review. As I stated on behalf of Mr. Chalfen on July 22, we do not think it is fair for the City or Mr. Stephenson to ask Mr. Chalfen to endorse or forgive Mr. Stephenson ’s violations of his CUP, just as it is inappropriate for the City to require Mr. Chalfen to insist on enforcement of that CUP. Very truly yours. LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD [ricH.^Utz cmaUleonard^m 2244227vl I Complete Dale: Deadline: 6T7/02 10/5/02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION •CITING 1 2 2002 t;ny uroHowo DATE: August 5, 2002 ITEM NO.: 9' Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Re\-iewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:«02-2795 WJM Properties LLC - Morrics Automotive Group 2605 West Way/ata Blvd. Commercial Site Plan Review Conditional Use Permit for Outside Storage and Open Sales Lot List of Exhibits A B C D Resolution Site Plan Proposed Building Elevation Views Drafi City Council Minutes (July 8, 2002) Applieation WJM Properties has applied for a Commercial Site Plan Review for changes to the use of the property located at 2605 West Wawata Boulevard (formerly Washington Scientific). The request is to locate a vvholesale distribution facility primarilv 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 east parking lots. The outside storage would be for damaged cars and cars “in process*. 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 vehicles for the fleet sales and leasing operation. The intent is to have these vehicles available to fleet or business customers for demonstration or test drives. This facet of the operation w ill use 40 parking stalls, 15 of w hich 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 dev eloped at the north end of the existing building. The north end of the building w ill 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. #02-2795 WJM Properties LLC - Morries Automotive Group 2605 West Way^ata Blvd. Pafte 2 of 3 _________________________________ Council Review tJulv 8.2002) The Council conceptually approved the Morrie's Auto use of the property and site plan subject to the conditions noted below: 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. 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 east end of the parking lot since adequate screening will not be located directly w ithin 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 1 5 spaces northeast of the building, as proposed on the site plan. 3. The parking lot shall have 6 planting islands located within the cast 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 arc on the property for screening. The new parking area on the north side of the building will require removal at least one substantial tree on the north side of the building. The site plan indicates some of the trees w ill be relocated between the parking lot and the highway. Additional screening in the fonn of a berm (a minimum of 3‘ in height) with planting of junipers. I'he 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. 5-twin 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 fixtures shall be a “shoe box" style light fi.xture w ith a recessed light source, not allowing the light sources to be visible from any property line. 8. Because new areas of imperv ious surface are proposed, engineering information regarding the drainage area and rate calculations must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer. Any required permits must be received from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to occupancy of the property. 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. #02-2795 WJM Properties LLC - Monies Automotive Group 2605 West Wayzata Blvd. Page 3 of 3__________________________________ 10. llie industrial zoning district does Qst 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 ^''m 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 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. 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. IS. Application shall submit a financial guarantee in the amount of 150% of the improvement costs as determined by the City Engineer. Staff Recommendation Although the proposed development plan is short of the redevelopment to high tcch/medical envisioned in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses, and the applicant has been cooperative in terms of addressing issues that will affect the appearance of the site. Staff supports the conditions set out by the Planning Commission and City Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the resolution approving the site plan and conditional use permits for an automobile distribution center and staging area, fleet sales operation, repair, and outside storage per the conditions noted above. i,iiai^a4air Council Exhibit A A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS PER SECTION 10.50, SUBDIVISION 3 A AND INDUSTRIAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FILE NO. 02-2795 WHEREAS. WJM Properties. LLC. has an interest in, (hereinafter "the applicant") and DRB #8. LLC is owner of the property (hereinafter “the owner”) located at 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit “A” attached, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.50, Subdivision 3 A to permit use of the property for a wholesale distribution facility, repair, parts warehouse, and fleet sales lot; 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 June 17,2002, 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. 2. 3. 4. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2795. The property is located in the I, Industrial District. Automobile repair and wholesale operations are permitted uses in the I district. Open sales lots, when a wholesale operation, and outside storage are conditional uses in the 1 district. 5.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 17, 2002 and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0. Page 1 of 10 Council Exhibit A ALUSE ^ 3 A AND L , (hereinafter "the applicant") ocated at 2605 West Wayzata lly described as follows: er "the property"); and onal use permit per Municipal he property for a wholesale d notice in accordance with Codes, the Orono Planning 11 persons desiring to be heard eon. the City Council of Orono, ^95. nitted uses in the I district, iide storage are conditional uses tUcation on June 17,2002 and 6. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The Planning Commission finds the sales allowed on the property as a Permitted Use would be sales associated with a wholesale operation. In the Code under the general heading of‘Processing’ are a list of types of processes that would be allowed in the district. Processes would include conducting certain manufacturing, fabrication, storage, or wholesaling operations. The 1 district lists “automobile and truck painting, major repair, body ;m.v‘ fender work, upholstering, tire recapping and sales when completely enclosed \vithin a building.” This would allow auto sales as a wholesale operation. B. The Orono zoning ordinance does not permit “retail sales” in the I. Industrial zoning district. Retail use of the property for automobile sales in the classic sense, i.e. 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 permitted uses in the district. C. “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. 1 he operation of the showToom and open sales lot as proposed would meet the definition of a wholesale operation. D. The body shop and auto prep areas are permitted in the district. The body shop would be in an area of approximately 45,000 s.f. completely within the building. Vehicles stored waiting for body repair or for delivery would be stored in the outside storage area south of the building. E. The auto prep area will occupy 18,300 s.f. of building area. All auto prep will occur inside the building, Morries 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. Page 2 of 10 F. 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. G. The Conditional Use Permits for the outside sales lot and outside storage would are subject to any storage shall require 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. The Planning Commission finds a berm, not less that 3’ in height shall be constructed north of the outside sales lots shall be constructed with plantings with a height of 3'. The intent is to provide some visual screening to the outside sales area to not give the appearance of a retail sales lot. It is the understanding of the Planning Commission the outside display area is for the fleet customer test drive and viewing, but not to attract the general public to the site for individual purchase of vehicles. H. The Orono zoning ordinance does not define retail sales and wholesale sales. The City has used a general definitions book titled Tlie Illustrated Book of Development Definitions. I) Retail Trade “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.” An important characteristic of retail establishments is that they are usually a place of business engaged in activity' to attract the general public to buy. Retail establishments sell to customers for their own personal or household use. 2) Wholesale Trade “Establishments or places of business primarily engaged in selling merchandise to retailers; to industrial, commercial, institutional, or professional business users, or to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for, or selling merchandise to, such individuals or companies.” Page 3 of 10 . •v-fc’v- I. 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 planned 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. J. 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 (Morries Distribution Center Body Works) and building lettering totaling 117 s.f. (Morries Automotive Group). The Planning Commission finds the proposed signage Hoes not suggest that the building is advertising for a retail auto dealership, but rather only identifying the individual user of the facility. 7. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, will not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City, 8. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and conunents of the applicants and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby approv es a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section Section 1 0.50, Subdivision 3 A to permit use of the property for a wholesale distribution facility, repair, parts warehouse, and fleet sales lot subject to the following conditions; Page 4 of 10 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. 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 east 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 recommendatiop" With the intent of such plantings is 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 e.xisting trees that are on the property for screening. The new parking area on the north side of the building will require removal 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 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. 5-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 v isible from any property line. Page 5 of 10 8. Because new areas of imperv ious surface are proposed, engineering information regarding the drainage area and rate calculations must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Engineer. Any required permits must be received from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to occupancy of the properly. 9. AppI icant shal 1 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 licet 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. II. 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. 1 3. Hours of operation shall be limited to 9:00 am. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. 1 4. Such conditional use permit for outside display and outside storage shall be subject to periodic review as deemed necessar>’ by the City of Orono. 15. Approval of the site plan is subject to the applicant submitting a final guarantee in the form of a letter of credit for 150% of the improvement costs, per e.xecution of a developers agreement. Upon final approval of the site plan the City Engineer will provide an estimate of the total improvement costs. 16. Authorities granted by the conditional use permit run with the property not with the applicants. 17. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit approval shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 6 of 10 n 1 8. The undersigned owner and applicant have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and flggigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2002. ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor I Property Owner(s) Applicant STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of August, 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 Page 7 of 10 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 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 witness ., a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 8 of 10 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 witness ,a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ..20. personally appeared before me, who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/aflirmation witness ,a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 9 of 10 J Exhibit A l£GAL of tho South Half of tho Northooot (kiortaf of : lie, Smq^ 23. which IIm Eo»t of tho Eool ll»y of • Pork ond Its oxtonsloni. end Wost of tho Woot lino of tho plot of lonQ unco West InduotrkN Pork ond Ito OKtdnolono. Honnopin County. MInnoioto. uS*1 through 12. Induolvo. Block 1. Orono Induotrlol ^ Uncolii Drivo. voedtod os shown on tho plot or aoM Orono Induotrlol Pork. Page 10 of 10 00 s ■au eU lS*Sp«*£. n •» o o o imiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiliiiiillliimijillilllliiiiiilllliiiiiiTilliilllilllllilliiliiiiilllimiiiiiiiiiiTn ,JT*V''If T X / A/«r4H NOTE * ssssr^ssnrssittr^’ »• wr ■» KM m* Hit SITE P r • Mr PLAN ©1 I. L U •UTim P<o<bi*A T4AAJ IiS. I f I ipinI jifIIIeii »«ti. vn/tt (3) NEW O.H. OOORS EXISTING TREES AND PLANTINGS TO REMAIN- TYP. NEW LP. TYP. (5-THUS) ^ NEW SIDEWALK AND PLANTING AREA (10 FEET) PLANING SCHEDULE COMMON NAMC/Spec'm SIZE/MOOE A. ARCADIA JUNIPER / Juniperus Sabina 'Arcadia* 15/POT B. JACKMAN POTENTILLA / Pontenfillo Fruticoso 'Jackman' f2/POT C. LOCUS MPERIAL / Gleditsio Triancanthos 'Imperial' 2 l/2'/BB D. BLACK HILLS SPRUCE / Piceo Ctouco Oensato 5FT./BB E. COLORADO SPRUCE / Piceo Pungenr 4FT./BB F. PINE, MUGHO / Pinus mugha mughas 15/POT G. DOGWOOD, RED TWIGGED / Cornus Stolonifero boileyi NOTE: #2/POT 1. All planting beds sholl be covered with borrior ond 3" deep mulch. fabric weed NEW PARKING (20 SPACES) 2. Border planting beds «ith heovy vinyl edge os reguired. 3. All oreos of disturbed soil sholl be nee sod. (2) NEW O H. DOORS « CWB'tew cuia TOP OF THE NEW PLANT1NC BED SHALL BE 36' ABOVE THE PARKING SURFACE BEYOND 75* SETBACK Q > J H < NJ •cv*Arv« uiMinru / I in rrlTf rrrmrfn . «r itn IT - ■ rfcnfrfii if~i ~•'M i k --■***^- --------------' - -•" ■ .. , .1. i u 11 o mU 3 O U 1 1 _____[ 1_______ 2N0S 1 ___L_l_1 1 1 \1 «.e««JILS:£. MeJkJCdt. ^ ^ ai.a»aS=« /•'•«• ««•> JL •jaibtfelES Aim»K>TivcaRour!' T Mi CM* M( •t ptfnti laiiN orvAUM V£/ %0»t^ ^------------V_« iQ* V Mi-O^***-#* SLfLSLlRLJL^SJt. ajg I 1 Ml M --------------------J__________________________________________________________ __L\"I I ■I 14+-44-44 t 1 r«iui CAST firvAnoH «r*r^ DISnUBiniON CENTER"-' BODYWI t : < rcz3 L_3""CZ] . sunuiir. 01 laOiliiOil If: I i il • m T\ miML BLOC. PUN mn. S ill •fiI I •mm ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Exhibit _0 MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 6.'im^279S Revis Stephenson, 1850 Fox Ridge Road—Afier-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variances—Continued Planning Conimi^hiQQ if the alteration was significantly different from what they understood it to be. Galatz stated that the Council C( hill back from there. decide Stephenson start fix>m the wetland and cut the Murphy stated he would feel better if the cont^M^^^was there to admit his fault in the matter. He felt that Stephenson was too knowledgeSNcwd intelligent to not have had any idea what the contractor was doing. Sansevere statrali^isagreed since people are inclined to trust hired experts. Dayton stated that he had witMS^d the whole process and it was impossible to know how much dirt was going in until after iHi^ been graded. Mayor Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to table the applicatlw the-fact CUP and variance for 1850 Fox Ridge Road. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ir after- 7. #02-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard—Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Morrie Wagner, owner of Monies Automotive Group; Steve Ficktel, architect; and Peter Johnson, attorney, were present. Weinberger stated that WJM Properties had applied for a Commercial Site Plan Review for changes to the use of the property located at 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard (formerly Washington Scientific). They wanted to locate a wholesale distribution facility primarily' serving the retail automotive operations under the Monies Automotive Sales Group. The use would be consistent with the cunent zoning. The building would be used for auto prep, a body shop, storage, central pans warehouse, offices, and an indoor sales showroom for fleet sales and leasing. Weinberger stated that parking would be added on the south and west sides and a new service road off of Highway 12 at the front of the building would also be added. New vehicles for sale would be kept at the front of the lots, and vehicles brought in for body work would be parked at the rear lot, within a fence. The outside storage of vehicles required a CUP. A second CUP was required for an “open sales lot” for the leasing and fleet operation. The fleet sales operation would require 40 parking stalls, 15 at the north end of the existing lot, and 25 in the new 45-stall lot to ow developed at the north end of the existing 8 1 A ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 7. U02-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard —Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit—Continued building. Also, a new entrance and 4 large windows would be constructed. Weinberger stated that wholesale, or fleet customers, would fit under the current industrial zoning. Also, staff was supportive of the Planning Commission recommendation. Some changes that had been recommended were to screen the property with the installation of a berm with plantings. Other changes involved lower lighting at a 20* height that would display the front end of the building. Current light poles would be removed and 4 new ones would be evenly installed with no part of the light visible from neighboring property lines. Signage would be limited to a monument sign at the Highway 12 entrance. Johnson passed out information to Council on the site plan changes, demonstrating that they had complied with the Platming Commissions requirements for better screening. Johnson stated that the outdoor storage parking restriction of 2S0 spaces should refer only to the east, exposed lot, and not to the fenced lot at the rear. Sansevere asked if customers would bring their own cars to the site for repair work. Wagner stated that repair cars would be delivered by staff from the dealerships, and they would have some insurance adjusters visiting the site, but not customers. Also, there would not be a gate at the entrance, so delivery trucks could enter and unload at any hour without backing up traflic on Highway 12. Nygard asked about the daily traffic flow. Johnson stated that there would be 40 full time employees on site, plus trucks and cars being delivered. The site would primarily be used by the dealerships along 394. Nygard stated he does not want Orono to be the center of Monies Automotive Group. Wagner stated that the site would be used by only two dealerships, as the others have adequate room on-site. Mayor Peterson asked if there was a turn lane into the property. Weinberger stated fliere was not, but there was no median in front of the site. Murphy asked if the landscaping was acceptable to the applicant. Johnson stated it was. Murphy asked if the fleet cars would have signs and banners advertising their sales. Johnson stated that they would be selling to professional corporate buyers, indicating they w'ould not use such on-site advertising as is typical of car dealerships. Weinberger suggested Council consider the hours of operation. Johnson stated that the sales component would operate from 9-9 Monday through Friday, and 9-6 on Saturday. Sandee Smith stated that the Plarming Commission felt the hours were too broad for a wholesale operation. Wagner stated that they needed to be flexible to meet the time constraints of their clients. i ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 8,2002 7. M2-2795 WJM Properties, 2605 Wayzata Boulevard —Commercial Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit—Continued Moorse asked if the planting islands would contain any over-story trees. Ficktel stated they would only contain evergreens because they needed trees that would not be affected by the exhaust of the cars, and also that would not drop sap, etc. on the cars. Sansevere moved, and Murphy seconded, to approve the site plan review subject to the Planning Commission's recommendations, with the clarifleation that parking restrictions noted in item 2 referred to the east lot only, and directed staD to draft a resolution for the next City Council meeting. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. 8. #02-2796 Mark and Gina Kosek, 1875 Shadyivood Road, Variance Gina Kosek was present. Bottenberg stated that the application was to construct two decks and a walkway. One deck would be at ground level, and the other off the second story. Currently there are 3 patio doors on the lakeside of the home with no means of exiting the house. The total of the decks would equal approximately 110 s.f Bottenberg stated that the applicant had bought the property with the intention of remodeling the existing house. After reviewing the foundation and other structural limitations decided to tear dow^ the house and then applied for a variance to allow a deck within the 0-75’ lakeshore. The request was denied at the Planning Commission level. The applicant then submitted building plans. At that time the hardcover complied at approximately 22% in the 75-250’ setback zone, leaving 485 s.f of hardcover to use. The driveway and some retaining walls were constructed after the house was completed and the certificate of occupancy was issued. The retaining walls were constructed to aid in the change of grade for the driveway. When the applicant constructed retaining w'alls, she did not know they were considered hardcover. There was also a second driveway on the property that has been converted to grass at the instruction of the Platming Commission. The Plaiuiing Commission voted to allow the two decks with the following conditions to reduce the amount of hardcover on the property: 1. Remove the south driveway and replace with grass. 2. Remove shed located in 0-75’ setback. 3. Remove all stone borders. 4. Remove all unnecessary boulder walls. Bottenberg stated that Kellogg had visited the site and determined that umiecessary stone wall removal would result in a hardcover reduction of 50 s.f (.29%). « % L_ «icp 7(NG Application Deadline: 6/19/02 60 Day Deadline: 8/18/02 flUb \ 2 2002 CMYOJ- OHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Wendy Bottenberg Title: Zoning Administrator DATE: ^ ITEM NO. S Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02’2S05 Carson Erickson 34 IS Eastlake Street Variances Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) 10,200 s.f. (.23 acre) (9,987 s.f. excluding area in 929.4 ’) List of Exhibits: A Resolution B Staff Report and exhibits of 7/17/02 C Staff Report and exhibits of 7/15/02 Application Summary: The applicant owns the subject property and is requesting variances to construct a new residence on the lot. A residential structure exists on the property. According to Hennepin County records the structure was built in 1910. The residence will be demolished and replaced by the new structure. The new house would be a two story/four bedroom house with a two stall “tuck under” garage space. This application was heard at the July 15,2002 Planning Commission meeting. The application was tabled to the July 17,2002 Planning Commission continuation meeting in order for the applicant to redesign according to their recommendations. The Planning Commission heard the revised plan and felt the applicant's proposal accomplished everything they had asked and recommended approval (6- 0) of the application. Below is a summary’ of pertinent ordinances that require variances review. 1. Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B): Lot Area: The property is 9,987 s.f. (.23 acre) absent the area below the 929.4 ’ where 2 acres is required in the LR-1A zoning district for construction of a new residence. 2. Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B): Lot Width: The property has a defined lot width of 100’ at the lakeshore and structure setback where 200’ is required in the LR-1 A zoning district for construction of a new residence. 3. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, Section 10.22, Subd. 1 and 2, and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (L) 1 and 2: Variances requested for hardcover and structure within 75 ’ of the 929.4 ’, where no hardcover or structure is allowed and hardcover in excess of the allowed 25% in the 75-250 ’ setback zone. Total Area 0-75 ’« 7,500 s.f. Allowed 0-75 ’ = 0 s.f. ♦ > !i ii I% * »• Proposed 0-75’ =• 1,219 s.f. (16.25%) Structure = 919 s.f. Total Area 75-250’ = 2,487 s.f. Allowed 75-250’ = 621.75 s.f Proposed 75-250’ = 760.5 s.f (30.5%) 4. Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B): Variances requested to allow encroachment into the 50’ front yard and side yard setbacks. To permit front yard setback to be 1 3.0’ where 50’ is required and side yard setback of 28.29’ where 30’ is required. PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 6 to 0 vote to: To approve application as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6(B), SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 & 2; AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L)(l & 2), FILE NO. #02-2805 WHEREAS, Carson Erickson and Franklin Fox, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 3415 Eastlake Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: The west 50 feet of the East 100 feet of Lot 2, Block 8, Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka, also the West 50 feet of the east 150 feet of Lot 2, Block 8, Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B), Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (LX 1 and 2) to permit new residential single family construction on a lot that is 100 feet wide where 200 feet is required, on a lot that the area is .23 acre where 2 acres is required, a front yard setback to be 13’ where 50’ is required, a lakeside setback of 50’ where 75’ is required, a side yard setback to be 28.29 feet where 30’ is required, 919 s.f. of structure within 75’ of OH WL where 0 s.f. is allowed, 1,219 s.f. (16.25%) hardcover in 0-75’ setback zone where none is allowed, 760.5 s.f. (30.5%) hardcover in 75-250’ setback zone where 621.75 s.f.(25%) is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2805. 2. The property is located in the LR-1A Zoning District, where 2 acres is the minimum Page 1 of 6 required lot area. The property consists of appro.ximately .23 acres or 10,200 s.f. (9,987 s.f. absent the area below the 929.4 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July IS, 2002 at which time the Planning Commission tabled it for revisions. The applicants revised the application which revisions were reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 17,2002, at which time Planning Commission recommended approval of the revised proposal on a vote of 7 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The property has been developed with a residential use since at least 1958. B. Approximately 75% of the property lies within the 0-75 ’ setback zone, and a residence cannot be constructed on the property without encroaching substantially into the 0-75' zone. C. There is no additional land to combine with the property. The properties surrounding this lot are also undersized, are residentially developed, and do not meet the required area in the zoning district. D. The residence meets City ordinance standards for structural lot coverage. The residence has been located to provide an acceptable street setback while minimizing driveway hardcover. E. The property can not be redeveloped unless variances are granted. F. The lot is provided with and has been fully assessed for sanitary sewer. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or dilTiculty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; Page 2 of 6 and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B), Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1 and 2) to permit new residential single family construction on a lot that is 100 feet wide where 200 feet is required, on a lot that the area is .23 acre where 2 acres is required, a front yard setback to be 13' where 50 ’ is required, and a lake setback of 50 ’ where 75 ’ is required, a side yard setback to be 28 feet 2 ‘/i inches where 30 ’ is required, 919 s.f. of structure within 75 ’ of OHWL where 0 s.f is allowed, 1,219 s.f. (16.25%) hardcover in 0-75 ’ setback zone where none is allowed, 760.5 s.f. (30.5%) hardcover in 75-250 ’ setback zone where 621.75 s.f (25%) is allowed. Approval is subject to the following conditions; 1 . Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (August 12,2003). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicant have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of Page 3 of 6 this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of August, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of August, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Miimesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA Page 4 of6 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .2002, personally appeared before me. who is personally known to me whose identity I |Hoved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation , a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her /their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of , 2002, 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/afllrmation , 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 S of6 cti*^ EAST LAKE IBM STREET IMM) NM. M GHAVa ________ 4J •H •H •C X U) . - - -«- 8 § n n. M PROPOSED HOUSE 1465+- SJ. i MMI# sK I (*>U) I'l PROPOSED \ /> iti«4i (M«4) (BIIJ 2 fMtn IMtJI / S\ fWMl ^iui * • • , CRgEK 8 IMo 0> 00 cd 04 lltM 8 8 I I 10 If s wroiroo* w loouoo TO; FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner July 16,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2805 Carson Erickson - 3415 Eastlake Street Variances — Public Hearing O Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) 10,200 s.f. (.23 acre) (9,987 s.f. excluding area in 929.4’) LbtoT Exhibits: A Revised Site Plan B Analysis Worksheet Application Summary: Application was heard at the July 15,2002 Planning Commission meeting. The application was table with direction given to the applicant’s representative. The applicant has submitted a new site plan with those changes. The applicant has met all the conditions. The variances are listed below and the new changes are new proposed. An additional variance for side yard setback is required. Planning Commission directions for the new residence: 1. Be 13’ from street property line. 2. Be 50’ from 929.4’. 3. Be up to 20’ from side yard property lines. 4. The deck to be a maximum of 300 s.f./10’ from house/42’ from 929.4’. Variances required: 1. Section 10.23. Subd 6 (B): Variances requested to lot area and lot width to permit construction of a new residence on the property in the LR-1 A district less than 2 acre and 200’ width. The defined lot area is 9.987 s.f. absent the area below the 929.4’. The defmed lot width is 100’ at the lakeshore and at the defined structure setback. 2. Section 10.55. Subdivision 8. Section 10.22. Subd. land 2. and Section 10.56. Subd. 16(L1 land 2: Variances requested for hardcover and structure within 75’ of the 929.4’, where no hardcover or structure is allowed and hardcover in excess of the allowed 25% in the 75-250’ setback zone. Total Area 0-75’ = 7,500 s.f. Allowed 0-75’ = 0 s.f. Proposed 0-75’ = 1,473 s.f (19.6%) •♦New Proposed 0-75’ = 1,219 s.f (16.25%) Total Area 75-250’« 2,487 s.f Allowed 75-250’-621.75 s.f Proposed 75-250’ = 710 s.f (28.5%) ••New Proposed 75-250’» 760.5 s.f (30.58%) J *Theproposed house would be 1,472 s.f. *The new house is proposed to he located 50 ’from the lakeshore. *The deck Is proposed to be located 42 ’ to the lakeshore. 3. Section 10.23, Subd 6 (B): Variances requested to allow encroachment into the 50’ front yard and side yard setbacks. Required firont setback SO’ Proposed - 9.0’ ♦•New Proposed * 13.0 ’ Required side setback = 30 ’ ••New Proposed = 28’2 1/2” - ------......................... VAI^NCE f«aUE5TH? IW T>C FOU jOHIN© STUBBS BAY CRfflC SET BACK OF 15* LOT AREA OF 2 ACRES AH? LOT HimH OF 200 FRONT SETBACK OF 50* RE<«« SET BACK OF 50' 3415 EAST LAKE STREET EAST LAKE STREET SIDE SET BACK OF 30*• *•« ! u.****«* PROPERTY LINE .1x1 I02j0' / m^yr J500SF. ^.DRIVEKAY^ 1500 SF DE5I6NB0BUI I4T20 5, PECK 300 SFJ I SiSg HRSr FUWR B£\^. <e2A' PROPERTY LINE m^yr r STUBBS BAY CRSK <CM.4' SITE PLAN iw .. ' 8 F 8 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IA Lot Area Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) Actual 9,987 s.f. (0.23 acre) Hardcover Calculations: Structural Lot Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 9,987 s.f.Allowed: 1,500 s.f. Proposed: 1,472 s.f ’ 1 Distance from Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Proposed hardcover shoreline 0-75 ’7,500 s.f Os.f 1,219 s.f (0%)(16.25%) 75-250 ’2,487 s.f 621.75 760.5 s.f (25%)(30.5%) I M 13 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/Planner July 11,2002 SUBJECT: ^02-2805 Carson Erickson 34 15 Eastlake Street Variances -- Public Hearing ft.' f 1 / n «a* , a\^ ^ t i Zoning Dbtrict: Lot Area: LR'IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) 10,200 s.f. (.23 acre) (9,987 s.f. excluding area in 929.4 ’) List of Exhibits: A Application Site Plan Hardcov er Calculations Floor Plans/ Views Topographic Map B C D E Application Summary: The applicant owns the subject property. The applicant has worked very hard with the city to best meet city ordinances and construct a new house on the property. The plan before you is plan number 3. The latest changes were made as this report was written, therefore the site plan (Exhibit B) is included and not a survey. The applicant has requested variances to permit removal of the existing house and construction of a new house. The new house would be a two story/four bedroom house with a two stall “tuck under” garage space. According to Hennepin County records the existing house was constructed in 1910. The house is about 350 s.f. in size. The new house would allow the property owners to have additional living space and a two stall garage. The proposed house will use the same driveway but will be closer to the road than currenth located. Please refer to the attached site plan that shows the location of the house. Due to the small size of the lot and zoning standards, it is not possible to rebuild on the property w ithout requiring variances. Below is a summary of pertinent ordinances that require variance review. 1. Section 10.23. Subd 6 (B): Variances requested to lot area and lot width to permit construction of a new residence on the property in the LR-IA district less than 2 acre and 200’ width. The defined lot area is 9.987 s.f. absent the area below the 929.4 ’. The defined lot width is 100’ at the lakeshore and at the defined structure setback. #02-2805 Carson Erickson 3415 Eastlake Street 7/8/2002 Page I of4 2. Section 10.55. Subdivision 8. Section 10.22. Subd. land 2. and Section 10.56. Subd. 'k land 2: Variances requested for hardcover and structure within 75 ’ of the 929.4 ’, where no hardcover or structure is allowed and hardcover in excess of the allowed 25% in the 75-250 ’ setback zone. Total Area 0-75 ’ = 7,500 s.f. Allowed 0-75 ’ = 0 s.f Proposed 0-75 ’ = 1,473 s.f (19.6%) Total Area 75-250 ’ = 2,487 s.f Allowed 75-250 ’ = 621.75 s.f Proposed 75-250 ’ = 710 s.f (28.5%) Hardcover is decreasing in the 0-75' setback area and increasing in the 75-250 ’ setback area. The applicant is removing the spa, shed and other accessories item. The size of the existing house is 350 s.f and the proposed house would be 1,498 s.f The existing house was built on the east 50'parcel in 1910. The west 50 'parcel was legally combined with it in 1996 creating a 100'x 102' lot minus 213 s.f below the 929.4'>=9.987 sf Still well below the required 2 acres. The property was connected to sewer in 1998. The land elevation is about 2' higher than the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka. City of Orono ordinance requires the lowest level of the residence to be 3' higher than the 929.4 '. The lot cannot accommodate a basement. The site plan shows the first level elevation would be 932.4'. The new house is proposed to be located 50' from the lakeshore where a 75' setback is required. The proposed deck is closer to the lakeshore, 37’. Both adjacent houses are approximately 50’ from the lakeshore. City of Orono ordinance requires 75 ’from the lakeshore and the DNR requires a minimum 50 'from the lakeshore. 3. Section 10.23, Subd 6 (B): Variances requested to allow encroachment into the 50’ front yard setback. Required front setback = 50’ Proposed = 9.0 ’ The proposed house meets side yard setbacks. The adjacent houses are located approximately 12 ’ and 19 'from the Eastlake Street. Other houses on Eastlake Street are setbackfrom 9 ’-l3' (See Exhibit F). #02-2803 Carson Erickson 3415 Eastlake Street 7/8/2002 Page 2 of 4 L History of Eastlakc Street: Eastlake Street is zoned LR-1A (2 acre), however, most of the properties are .11 or .12 of an acre. Most of the residences in the area were built prior to the current zoning classification. Because of this, variances are needed to further develop the properties. Staff researched Eastlake Street and four were found to have been granted variances. 1. 3403 Eastlake Street -1991. (.27 acre) Approved to permit construction of detached 2 stall garage which is 39 ’ from the street lot line (SO* required), 37’ from side street (SO’ is required), hardcover in 7S-2S0’ setback over the allowed 2S% and Ae building is located in the flood fringe. 2. 340S Eastlake Street - 1987. (.114 acre). Approved to permit construction of three season porch IS’ from front lot line (SO’ required) and 1 l.S’ from side lot line (30’ is required). 3. 346S Eastlake Street - 1996. Entire lot in 0-7S’. Approved to permit reconstruction of roof on house. The rear of the house is located 69 ’ from 929.4 ’ and the side is 22’ from 929.4 ’. 4. 3424,3444 and 3464 Eastlake Street - Approved to permit construction of an accessory building without a principal building on the outlot. S. 3464 Eastlake Street-(1986) (.46 acre). Approved to construct brick patio in 0-7S’(80 s.f.- 1.2%) and 7S-2S0’ (4,187 s.f. - 32.9%). Additional hardcover in 7S-2S0’ was approved ^cause of the low elevation in relation to the lake level, the residence has no basement, hence increased bulk and hardcover above ground was necessary to construct a suitable residence on the property. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. Recapping the main hardships: The lot is extremely undersized for the zoning district. Approximately 75% of the property is within 75’ of the 929.4 ’ water level. The setback requirements are such that variances are required in order to build on the property. Issues for Consideration: 1. The lot has an existing residence on the property. 2. The properties surrounding the applicant's lot are also undersized and do not meet the required area in the zoning district. Most lots on the street are 50' wide. 3. Almost 75% of the property lies within the 0-75’ setback area. #02-2805 Carson Erickson 341S Eastlake Street 7/8/2002 Page3of4 ! M'eiHAxA i 4. A house could not be constructed on the property without requiring variances. 5. The proposed development would conform to side yard setback requirements. 6. The lot is provided with sanitary sewer. 7. There is no additional land to further combine with this property. 8. Does Plarming Commission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal? Survey Changes: Due to last minute changes the survey of the subject property is not included in this report, only the site plan. If the Plarming Conunission recommends approval of this application a condition would be to have a new survey with proposed development submitted to die City prior to going forward to the City Council. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the required variances to construct a new single family residence on the property. Options for Action:H 1. Recommend approval of variances requested. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. #02*2805 C^on Erickson 3415 Esstiake Street 7/8/2002 Page4of4 - IS ■ 11 ^ 18 / fdfc •" fA 1 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IA Lot Area Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) Actu&I 9,987 s.f. (0.23 acre) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75 ’7,500 s.f.Os.f. (0%) 1,473 s.f (19.6%) 75-250 ’2,487 s.f.621.75 (25%) 710 s.f (28.5%) Structural Lot Coverage: Total Lot Siize Total Structural Coverage 9,987 s.f.Allowed: 1,500 s.f Proposed: 1,498 s.f V • 1 I CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U 0^ Date Rcceivcdl (pf i^lo^ Amount Paid PROPERTY INFO Site Address [NFO^IATION Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ______________________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential other (specif/) ...UP-(A ____________: .(month/year) Zoning District:, APPLICANT Name CAMStS ISgtiJIC^ki Phone (home). _________________ Phone (work)(Sr/^ - Address: ICitv: /•IBOJO UU Zip:_________ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:,Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: VAXAil^O ^E$UB0 ■IT feUKO A kl6>kJ I4t7»ng CM (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED 7s Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover .Lot Coverage Setback: Front Side 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: /UT AUP li/lCTi fdOT AMO o» euvte /.vr. w/e. canfixun tf> m (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARAINCE RCOUESTED FOR 1>E FOLLOHn^ SfSSrilSg'i^SJ'.SSS* E«T LAKE SWEET FRONT SETBAOC OF 50' REAR SET BAO»C OF 50!PROPERTY LINE 3415 EAST LAKE STREET |oo.O' . i‘.*,-iikTaay t I HABDCOVER calculation IVORKSHEETERCALCUL SCTBiLCKZONE: (CDtClXONE) JtLZfiiffi 75450’250-500* rOHAHDC A. House __ Li0|i^WIddi X X X • • B. Oanie •*._ >• * ••• • • • • ^• • • • * ^ ., •• •• • <i. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk . Af(2oo»3 . X X E. Petlo/Dcck X X Fo Uedsc^e Uodectaia By PUstle Or Fiibdc X X X ClO. O, Oiner ^frJi££St^B Pif TOTAL HABDCOVERIH ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • ■ • B .•• ^ proposed hardcover in zone A. House ____________ Tf- Lis|di X X X B. Garage C. Drtvewey X X D. Sidewalk X X £. Patto/Dwk X X F; Ixodseape Uodedaln By Plastic OrPaibfle X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 500-1000* • • S.F. V 4C)S.F. • n /nSL S.F. m S.F. • • • BB >^/7.S.F. • • • • • • •• r^* «** - * • • # • • S.F. S.F. ;2it^ • • S.F. _S.F. • S.F. M S.F. • JZS'S.F. m /a -S.F.V S.F. • 3^ ^_S.F. • S.F. S.F. f. A ^ • • Ci4C)S.F. S.F. S.P. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 533 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ------|*P —* \ • J• •• ^ I HABDCOVER CALCUL^ingSLWORKSHBET SETBACK Z<K4Et (ClRCtXONE) 0-75* HSO-SOO'500*1000' rC HARDCOVER IM ZONE A. House ______• . X LiasA X X X B. ‘Oanse • . •••• %.• • • C, Driveway • • • « > •V. 3C • ___ X ‘___ ■• •• • D. Sidewalk X X E. Pado/Deck X X .^o F. lAndscssie _ Uodeclaln ____ By Plasde _____ Or Fabric Hc&ZiSSftCc PIT O. Cflief _____ X X X 0.7 cin. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • * • ■■ •_____________. B .f xlOO F^I^OPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ' A. House _____________ X Lc:|:h Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway lip X X G D. Sidewalk X X E. Patlo/Dwk X X F; Landscape Uuderl^ By Plastic OrFibrie X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - : TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE- A niO * B ^^^7__ xl00 - S,F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. • •• •^ • . S.F. 5.F. • • . • •S.F. •S.F. S.F. S.F. lU S.F. /V S.F. • S.F. S.F. ^l3 S.F. S.F. Ir 1 % S(o0 • S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. • /.73L S.F. S.F. •■ S.F. •• •S.F. • ■ . ' • .. • • S.F. S.F. S.F. •------------------“S.F. ------------- S.F. • • S.F. S.F. S.F. % 1 ^ -i '7^'^O %J ft SHINGLE ROOF WOOD SIDING 30’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT WOOD LAP SIDING FAST FI FVATIONI ________ A2 NO XAlt SOUTH FI FVATION A2 NO SCALE ■ V ■jKMMtlL* MJ> V *■ *J* ■■■■■ V* M * V ■ MI .1 .................... MM<****f ■III! Biiii^ ■•■BOBaaaB(■BBBBBaaiBI■■■■••■■■■alaaaaaaaaBBj aaaaaaeM 11laaaaaaalM Bl AVAV.VA'AyrA^VAV^^ llJ^aajiaBABaBaiitaaaaaaIH(i!^BaaaBBaaaaJiaaBaaBi 1-n SifiSSSEBSSQS n ffl 30' MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHINGLE ROOF WOOD SIDING WOOD LAP SIDING aaaaaMaaaaBB laaiiaairBaaBavaaaaBBMaav^AVAVAl^»VAWA*A*A*AV. B«Aaa\aVaBair*B«*aBaB«B/IBBBaaMBBBiMaBaBBMBV/A BBaaa a aaajiBXaaaa a aaaa a/i aaaaAaliaaaaaalNia/* la laBiTBaiMaaaa^aayfl ai aaOaaaaaBBaMl/a I la laaaaai laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaai NORTH FLFVATION A2 NO 'jCAU; WFS A2 NO jCAIX VATION l!!!!!!S! ^ rA I ui biIsi A-2 i ..u.u • « > I /-----f r;.l> f / • .*• /• _ • * ,• • 'A I- V > >. / r-**r-r MAXIMI BUONC FOOT PMNT 1500 SJ. I MAIN FLOOR PLAN k-t\ NO SCALE > SFCQND R QQR PI AN aTi no scale jAkk lllllllll i I <o 2 !>!1! il A-2 Complete Date: Deadline: 6/19/02 8/18/02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AUG 1 2 2002 CilYUhUHONg DATE: August S, 2002 ITEM NO.: j O Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#02-2808 Jim and Jean Echtenkamp 2800 Pheasant Road Variances Lbt of Exhibits A B C D Resolution Site Plan Planning Commission Minutes (July IS, 2002) Supplemental Application Materials Letter of Application Addendum to Application Letter of Request/Hardship Statements Existing Site Survey Proposed Site Plan Floor Plans Building Elevation Views Neighborhood Photographs Application The Applicants have requested a hardcover and an average lakeshore setback variance to permit redevelopment of the property. They intend to remove the existing residence and construct a new residence. Variances: I.Section 1 0.22, Subd. 2 and Section I0.S6, Subd 2 16 (L): Hardcover in excess of 2S% in the 75-250' Setback 0-75’ Existing 2,785 s.f. (4.2%) Proposed 1,802 s.f. (2.7%) 75-250' Existing 7,856 s.f. (34.9%) Proposed 8,810 s.f. (39.2%) The total allowed hardcover was approved at 7,988 s.f. or (35.5%) for the 75-250' setback based on variances granted in 1990. Adding the 2,785 s.f. that had e.xisted equaled a total hardcover of 10,773 s.f onthepropert) . Total hardcover iii the 0-75' setback would be reduced by 983 s.f The remainder of the hardcover within 75' of the lake is primarily due to the seawall that surrounds the property. i #02-2808 Jim and Jean Echtenkamp 2800 Pheasant Road Page 2 of 2 ___________________ 2.' .on 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (6): To permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. PlanniHg Commission Recommcndatioii The Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to approve variances based on the following findings: The property is a 2 acre lot in a I acre zoning district. 66,046 s.f. of the lot is located within 75’ of the lakeshore, and only 22,497 s.f. is located within the 75-250' lakeshoi-e setback. 983 s.f. of hardcover that e.xists on the property within 75’ of the lakeshore will be removed based on the new house’s location outside the 75’ setback. A variance is justified due to the disproportionate amount of land located within 75’ of the lakeshore. All the property within 75’ of the lakeshore would provide adequate absorption area. The total hardcover devoted to the house and drivewav areas would not increase from e.\isting levels. A variance to permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback based on the fact the property is a peninsula lot and there is no suitable building site on the entire 2 acres without a variance. The proposed house is located further from the lakeshore than the e.\isting house. Staff Recommendation Staff can support the rationale in allowing additional hardcover beyond 25% in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback based on previous approvals of hardcover on the property in 1990. The total hardcover does not exceed what currently exists on the property. The property owners have worked with staff over the past several months to reduce as much mass and hardcover as possible. The version of the plan for review' has been revised and hardcover reduced as a result of some of those discussions. It should be noted that while the structural lot coverage standard does not apply to this 2+ acre lot, lot coverage is only 5-6% as proposed. Any such approval is subject to the house not c.xceeding the 30’ height restriction. Applicants shall be placed on notice that the elevation sketches arc somewhat rough and are very c*osc to exceeding the 30’ height limitation based on the roof design, (llie sketches do indicate a building Ke.ght of 30'. Variance applications only require sketches that can, on occasion, vary slightly from final pla:is.) When more detailed architectural plans are submitted for a building permit the height will have to b^ reviewed again to ensure that it meets ail standards. No height variance would be supported by staff. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the resolution approving variances to permit 8,8 10 s.f. of hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback, approving 1.802 s.f. in the 0-75’ setback, and approving the location of the house closer to the lakeshore than the average distance of the two adjacent lakeshore residences. Please carefully review the findings to ensure they reflect Council’s position. 1 w~ Council Exhibit A f A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10J2, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L); AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C) (6) FILE NO. 02-2808 WHEREAS, James Echtencamp and Jean Echtenkamp, (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2800 Pheasant Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Attached “Exhibit A” (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants submitted an application requesting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit 8,810 s.f. (39.2%) hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback, where 7,856 s.f. (34.9%) exists and 5,624 s.f. (25%) is allowed; and a variance to Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (6) to permit an an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback; 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 July 15,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard conc'^ming 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 #02-2808. 2. The property is located in the LR-1B, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where I acre is the minimum lot size and 140 feet is the minimum lot width. Page 1 of8 The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0 based on the following findings and hardships: A. Continued use of the property as residential is consistent with the zoning district and with the development of the surrounding properties. B C. D. The City of Orono had approved variances in 1 99 ‘"‘ allowing total hardcover on the property at a greater amount than what the applicants have proposed on the site. The actual property hardcover will decrease as a result of the redevelopment. The property is a 2 acre lot in a 1 acre zoning district. 66,046 s.f. of the lot is located within 7S* of the lakeshore, and only 22,497 s.f is located within the 7S-2S0' lakeshore setback. 983 s.f of hardcover that exists on the property within 75’ of the lakeshore will be removed based on the new house's location outside the 75’ setback. A hardcover variance is justified due to the disproportionate amount of land located within 75’ of the lakeshore. All the property within 75’ of the lakeshore would provide nd - joate absorption area. The total hardcover devoted to the house and driveway areas would not increase from existing levels. E. A variance to permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback is justified based on the fact the property is a peninsula lot and there is no suitable building site on the entire 2 acres without a variance. The proposed house is located further from the lakeshore than the existing house. 1 he Council makes these additional findings of fact in regard to this application: .A. This prt erty is uniquely situated such that reduction of the 0-75’ hardcovei below the proposed amount is not feasible, i.e. the small portions of driveway within 75’ of the shore is necessary to access the property, and the extensive length of seawall is necessary to prevent shoreline erosion. B. >MuIe limiting hardcover in the 75-250’ zone to the 25% standard is feasible, such a limitation would result in the construction of a residence that would not be in keeping with the character of the existing Page 2 of8 5. 6. C. neighborhood and surrounding homes. The property is effectively surrounded on three sides by lakeshore. Therefore, the square footage of pervious surface (lawn) that is located between the proposed hardsurfaces and the lake is significantly greater than that of typical lakeshore lots. A typical conforming 140 ’ wide, 310 ’ deep LR-IB lot would be allowed 10,400 s.f. of hardcover whose runoff would be absorbed over a 10,500 s.f. 0-75’ zone, or about a 1 :1 ratio. On this property, however, based on the location of proposed hardcover and the topography, the runoff from 8,800 s.f of 75-250’ hardcover will be absorbed by an area 75’x350’ or 26.000 s.f within the 0-75’ zone that is directly downhill from the hardsurfaces. This results in a “hardsurface-to- ftmctional-absorbtion-area” ratio of about 1 :3, i.e. much greater functional absorbtion area than a typical lot. This phenomenon is unique to this lot and the very few' similarly situated lots in the City, and acts to mitigate the impacts of hardcover in excess of the 25% normal limit. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district: that granting the variances w ill not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit 8,810 s.f (39.2%) hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback, where 7,856 s.f (34.9%) exists and 5,624 s.f (25%) is allowed; and a variance to Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (6) to permit an an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback, subject to the following conditions: Page 3 of8 L. Final drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure drainage is properly directed. Final plans include providing a new survey indicating all existing and proposed grade levels as well as all proposed site changes. All such drainage is required to be directed to the low area of the property. 2.The property shall be developed in general conformance with the site plan attached as Exhibit B, including removal of all hardcover as noted on the site plan. 3.Authorities granted by the variances run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (August 12,2003). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the variances shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of diis resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12'*' day of August, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Applicants Page 4 ofS STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12* day of August, 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 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/atTirmation witness .a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/lhey executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of8 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .,20 personally appeared before me, who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation witness a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 6 of 8 L r Exhibit A lOM BP PRgMlSES • . *Let 13 wid <h»t port of Lojk 14« Thtoi^t* L««n*« AserKo^ os. folloosi BtoInnina ot -tho •SoulhMOttrly or i*oo| (osiorly wmT of Lot 43 h soU *P>w«aont Loimfi th«ne«r Morthoortorty olooQ tho tfvhino Uno botooon Lots 13 ond .14 to the liarthfosterly or nest NortheHy comer ‘ of sou Lot 13i thence, eostfrty defiec^. ot.‘sn onjQle of 127 deof*** IS 'idnutes to the right' fren Wst dtsc rUed course, o ^toncf of 120 fcetj thence southeostcrty porOUet'elth the dhUb^j line heteeen soU Lots' 13 ond 14 o Ustonoe £08 feeti tfonee eost^y deflectinQ' ot on of 34 degrees no finuteo to the left fton lost descrfc ed 'course* o- Ustonce of 385 feeti thence ot o right ofule. southerly 73 feet* nore 'or. less* to the shore of Loke Mnneteraioi thence eesterly olong the shore pf soU loke to the pbut of JMglnnlno*.occordb^ to the.plot thereof m fie ond of record U the office of the RegMror of Titles. In on for soU County (soU Cpunty ond ftote.* Page 7 of8 i V > ■ <: I I Exhibit B Council Exhibit A <939.4 CONTOUR LIN K 'E .-if Lrc u. ^ ^ .. JUMT mm mmrn- m >« ecHTBMMMr MILS SMI4 Page 8 of8 L MINUTES OF THE fS ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEE Council Exhibit Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. to support (he^tpijlication as long as the deck were changed. Weinberger noted that tn^a^age commercial parking stall is 20’ deep. Based on a 20’ street setback, RalmTktlKr suggested the applicant maintain SO’ on the rear, 42’ from the creek, and 20’ total from the sid^ Hellier stated that he would take this information, spbak^o the owmer, and hope to turn it around in time to attend the Wednesday night meeting. Rahn suggested hearing this item first, prior to the Dahlstrom Develo{>mrat piece. Berg moved, Bremer seconded, to table Application #02-2805, Carson Eastlake Street, at the applicants request in order to allow them time proposal. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ^ (#14) #02-2808 JIM AND JEAN ECHTENKAMP, 2800 PHEASANT ROAD, VARIANCES 11:21 p.m. >11:30 p.m. Weinberger reported that the applicants have requested a hardcover and an average lakeshore setback variance to permit redevelopment of the property. The intention is to remove the existing residence and construct a new residence on the property. Variances approved in 1990 established a maximum allowed hardcover of 35.5% in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback area. Weinberger pointed out that the total hardcover in the 0-75’ setback would be reduced by 983 s.f. with the proposed design. The property is two acres in size with approximately 1,600’ of shoreline and includes a peninsula. Because the lot is on a peninsula, views from adjacent residential buildings are not directly affected. The new house is being moved further from the lake leaving more lake view for the house to the north of the peninsula. Weinberger noted that staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance based on the fact that the property is a peninsula lot and there is no suitable building site on the entire 2 acres without a variance. Staff could also support allowing additional hardcover beyond 25% in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback based on previous approvals of hardcover on the property in 1990. Weinberger added that the property owners have worked with staff over the past several months to reduce as much hardcover as possible. Mr. Echtenkamp complimented Weinberger on his summary, aiding that after years of mistreatment, their goal is to restore the property to the outstanding piece it once was. He stated that they are taking a nonconforming property, making it conform and asking for a variance to do so. Echtenkamp believed this to be a win-win situation for both parties. There were no public comments. PAGE 29 of 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. The Echtenkamps stated that their neighbors, the Smileys were in attendance, however, due to the late hour they had departed with their chil^en earlier. Smith acknowledged that they have a very unique lot with evident limitations. Mabusth stated the hardships were evident and she had no problem supporting approval. Bremer, Rahn, and Berg concurred. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve Applications #02-2808, Jim and Jean Echtenkamp, 2800 Pheasant Road, granting hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances permitting new construction not to exceed the amount of existing hardcover on the property. Althongh large in acreage, the propert>* is compromised by the fact that it is a peninsula and surrounded by water and virtually all of it is in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback, which limits its buildability. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 17) Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on June 24>«nd July 8,2002. Berg statbd that on June 24 the Daisy Diner was discussed, neighboring issues were addressed to which median is beginning. The Council did vote to allow Class I Restaurants as a permitted use. Gaflron noted that if N;^staurant does move in, it could do so without further approval, as long as parking is met. Berg reported that the Pass’s coihervation easement passed. Smith reported that during the July sSiMting, she learned that there are six potential planning commissioner alternates to choose from. stated that the fill at Fox Ridge was contested, as the applicant brought his own engineer ’s repoKand legal team to address the Council. Weinberger added that they will be reverifying the wqtland delineation report. Smith explained that the Kosek ’s, on Shadywood Road^mt only received their variance, but were given a lock box and sidewalk by the Council who belied she would only ’->e back to ask for them later. Berg noted that the old driveway was removed and replaced by sod and>gardens. She added that it looked very good. Smith reported that the Park Commission will be taking an annual park tour Moraiqy, July 29, at 5:30 P.M. in lieu of their August regular meeting. PAGE 30 of 35 v.'Z* M. Council Exhibit _D_ June 19.2002 Mr. Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planning Ms. Wendy Bottenbcrg, Zoning Administrator City ofOrono Dear Mr. Weinberger and Ms. Bottenberg' Attached is our application requesting a hardcover variance to reduce 983 square feet of non-conforming hvdcover in the 0-75’ zone and increase the existing hardcover in the 75-250’ zone by the same square footage. The requested variance would create no change in the overall hardcover and would bring the property dwelling in compliance with set back requirements. Our application reflects the direction provided to us beginning with an initial meeting with Mr. Gafifron, our subsequent meeting with both of you and our follow-up meeting shortly before submission. As a direct result of your feedback we have made additional revisions to our plans: 1. Reduction in main floor plan of our home from 3,800 square feet to 3,600 square feet. 2. Reduction in the garage width and length by about four feet each way. 3. Downsized turn around on the driveway, bringing the driveway into the build able cone (it is currently in the 0-75’ zone) and reducing its hardcover. 4. Elimination of steps and walkway from mair.' level to iower level patio on the lakeside, leaving that area in grass. We have attempted to be good stewards of this site and balance what is reasonable for the property while maintaining the spirit of the zoning ordinance. The plan reflects a much- improv^ site in terms of set buCk, hardcover in the varying zones and safety issues that currently afiect both our property and our neighbors. Thank you for your consideration. »'t I • * ----irif I i ■ ■ Addendum to variaact »mAt uL'ii for 2800 PheniMt Road This addendum to the hardcover calculation worksheet clarifies the hardcover associated with the existing dwelling. The existing hardcover in zone submitted with our application u accurate in terms of total existing hardcover. However it is misleading in that the hardcover listed for category A- House, calculates only the foundation hardcover. The calculation minimizes dwdlipg hardcover by i^)plying the hardcover created by overhangs and decking to underlying patio and sidew^. To illustrate this, the hardcover calculation on file with the City dated 1990 lists category A House hardcover in the 0>75* and 75>2S0’ zones as 3,103.7 square feet, exchisve of dwelling deckmg and a four season porch that was constructed after the calculation. This is an irnportam clarification since we are referencing the approximate dwdling hardcover of the existing home at 3,500 feet. ^ < 1 BEfilXSl To obtain a hardcover variance for ihe reduction of983 square feet of non*confonning hardcover in ihe 0-75’ zone and increase the existing hardcover in the 75-250’ zone by 954 square feet. The requested variance would create no change in the overall hardcover and would bring the property dwelling in compliance with set back requirements. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY 2800 Pheasant Road consists of 88,543 square feet of land of which 66,046 square feet is contained in the 0-75’ zone and 22,497 square feet is contained in the 75-250’ zone. The property is bordered by 1,600 feet of shoreline, which nunimizes the build able zoi.e. Overall hardcover on the property is 12.01% leaving 88% in a vegetated state for absorption and run-ofif. Currently, 983 square feet of the existing dweUing is non-conforming hardcover located in the 0-75’ zone In cooperation with governing agencies, a seawall was constructed ^ound the peninsula in the 19?0’s to protect against shoreline eroaon. The homeowner is responsible for maintaining the seawall on an ongoing basis. The existing dwelling, built in the 1940’s, has been unoccupied and not nuintained since 1998. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The spirit and intent of the zoning code is to ensure that the development and use of land is consistent with the goab of the Comprehensive plan. The variance procedure allows the law to be modiHed when: 1. A unique situation exists; 2. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship; and 3. The end result would be within the intent of the comprehensive plan ou i 1 Unique Situation The two-acre property is bordered by 1600 feet of shoreline and includes a peninsula. Within the property ’s total square footage of88,543 feet, three quarters or 66,046 square feet are located in the 0-75’ zone. This results in a property where the average lakeshore setback line is outside of the property boundaries. The actual build able area, within the 75-250’ zone, comprises a relatively small proportion of the total lot area. In addition, the long and narrow configuration of the build able zone requires disproportionate use of hardcover for property access. While the property is well over 300 feet deep, the wrap around effect of the peninsula precludes a 250-500 foot zone where 30% hardcover would be allowed. Both the attached survey and pictures illustrate the uniqueness of the lot. Undue Hardship Section 10.08 subd. 3 of the zoning ordinance set forth examples of “undue hardships”. Those ^ifically set forth and which apply directly to 2800 Pheasant include the following; 1. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Three-fourths of the dry acreage is in the 0-75’ zone. Adjacent properties with smaller lot sizes have sufficient depth to allow for build able area in the 250-500’ zone where 30% hardcover applies. However the ''ue nature of our lot, with lakeshore wrapping all around it, precludes having a 250-5 ..o. The circumstances of a 600-foot long, 75-foot wide peninsula arc wholly unique to this property. In addition, the narrow aspect of the build able zone requires a disproportionate use for the driveway access hardcover, compromising hardcover allocation for the dwelling. By way of example, if the Lakeshore did not wrap around the property and a noniud 10’ side yard set back applied. our property would qualify for over 10,000 feet of hardcover in the build able zone, even with 800 feet of water on the iakeside and the peninsula, which unique in and of itself It is the last 300 feet of lagoon lakeshore that creates the unique circumstances and hardship to our property by minimizing and eliminating the 75 ’-250 and 250’-500’ zones. 2. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will result in 0 net hardcover change and reduce the non-conforming hardcover in the 0-75’ zone. Our proposed home is similar in size to neighboring properties. The Pheasant road neighborhood currently has two remodel additions and one new home under construction. Two doors down our neighbor is constructing a new home with dwelling hardcover of over 4,700 square feet. Even though it is on a lot one-half the size of ours, it requires no hardcover variance. Our current dwelling hardcover is approximately 3,500 square feet. The new home will be 3,600 square feet for the home and 1,100 for the attached garage. In comparison to the home under construction two a! K.l' L__ C. I rv doors down, our proposed dwelling hardcover is 5.3% of our total lot compared to our neighbor’s new dwelling hardcover of 10% of their total lot. 3. Economic consideration alone is not the reason for tins request. Economic considerations really have no bearing on the request. Should a varia.ice not be granted, the applicant would be required to rd>uild on the existing foundation. The resulting hardcover in both the 0-75’ and 75-250’ zone would be unchanged from today and would result in the continued non-conformity with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive plan. Alternatively, if the variance is granted, it will be somewhat more expensive to set back a new home and foundation within the 75-250’ zone, but the result will be a reduction in hardcover bringing conformity to the 0-75’ zone, no net increase in overall hardcover, and a structure that more fully complies with the Comprehensive plan and spirit of the zoning ordinance. 4. The special conditions applying to the land are peculiar to such property and the condition does not generdly apply to other land in the district. As stated, there is no other property in Orono that is two acres, peninsular, has one and one-half dry acres in the 0-75’ zone and approximately 1,600 feet of shoreline resulting in the average lakeshore setback line outside the property boundaries. This condition reduces build able zone by significantly reducing the size of the 75-250’ zone and eliminating the 250-500’ zone that is available to lakefront neighbors who have much smaller lots. 5. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 2800 Pheasant has been vacant for over three years. We believe that the primary reason for this inactivity was concern that a new house could not be constructed via a variance request. In this case, a 25% hardcover limitation, combined with the difficult driveway access, would result in the inability to construct a reasonable dwelling structure. In fact the resulting available hardcover available for this two-acre site, after driveway access, would be approximately 2000sf, inclusive of overhangs sidewalks, landscaping and patio. Such a limitation effectively deprives the applicant of it’s property right to construct a reasonable dwelling unit on their land. 6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. In fact, the granting vrill bring the property more within the spirit of the zoning ordinance by decreasing hardcover in the 0-75’ zone and significantly increasing the grassed surface for run off in the 0-75’ zone when the dwelling structure is moved back into the 75-250’ zone. In addition, the improved access to the house will promote safety by redirecting on street parking and imfM’Oving traffic flow to and from the home. »# •- .V ‘••A.;’$ . ^ • *.’4 ' *.»I. 3 / 7. The granting of such variance is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship. The identifiable hardships to our site are: a) Reasonable and safe access to our home; and b) Available dwellutg hardcover in light of the large amount of rite area that is not covered. The current driveway is only eight feet wide and has a small apron that is partially in the 0*7S' zone. The proposed home includes a small circular drive that would be moved efttirely within the 7S-2S0*zone. We bdieve that the circular drive is important for access and safety reasons. The drive would allow for off street parking by visiting velucles to the property. The neighborhood is currently served by the fire hydrant at the entrance to 2800 Pheasant. This area of the street also serves as parking for approximately six summer docks Currently, dock owners and visiting vehicles tend to park in the cul<de-sac and on the street, limiting access and emergency vehicle parking and turn around in the area of the hydrant. In addition to the parking issue, the existing driveway style is hazardous and un^e, forcing guests to back out a considerable distance. In our plan, we have minimized dwelling hardcover in order to do the right thing in terms of safety for our family and neighborhood by allocating one-third of our requested hardcover for a safer turnaround access. This has been a challenge but we think we have achieved a safe and positive balance without increasing hardcover. It is preferable and important for vehicles to drive out rather than back out firom the property. The proposed turn around effectively eliminates the safety concerns while using approximately the same hardcover as the existing driveway, provides much better traffic flow and is aesthetically more attractive. Another hardship is the relatively small size of the build able zone for a two-acre rite. Neighboring properties of approximately one acre achieve about 10,000 feet in the build able zone without variance. At 25% hardcover, our rite would be allowed just S,S00 of hardcover. As noted above, if a normal ride yaM set back applied, our rite would qualify for over 10,000 feet of hardcover and a variance would not be required. With this limitation, we have attempted to present a plan that improves upon the rite with no change in overall hardcover. In addition, the instructions to the variance application require a hardship to be: a. Uncommon; b. Run with the land; And further the instructions provide examples of such hardships including: a. Lakes; b. Existing structure locations; aiKl c. Unusually shaped property without adjacent vacant land. The above instructions are directly on point with 2800 Pheasant. • • •.. • . •V . I f I t [ ♦ i J Comprehensive Plan Our request for variance also is consistent with the goals and spirit of the Comprehensive plan: 1. Impervious surface within the 0-75’ zone is being reduced with no net increase of overall hardcover. 2. Grassed surface is being increased in the 0-7S ’ zone, providing for additional area for rainfall nin-off not only from 2800 Pheasant, but also the adjacent property which lies on higher ground and drains to the 0-75’ zone of 2800 Pheasant. 3. The proposed structure is not nearer the shoreline than the neighboring residence (in fact it will be set back some twenty feet further than currently exists) and is in keeping with the Character of the locality. 4. No Lakeview enjoyed by nei^boring property will be affected, other than positively. In fact, view encroachments to our westerly neighbor will be decreased. 5. Granting the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air and will not pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property. The turn around drive will actually improve traffic conditions and reduce fire hazard and visibility related dangers to the neighborhood. Structural Mass The proposed home will fit well with the site and the neighborhood. Where an older home has sat vacant in a family neighborhood for several years, our goal is to build a home that will add to the nei^borhood and where we can raise our family. It reflects many of the aspects of turn of the century lake properties. Visually it will fit well on the large site. The new home will be of similar width and depth to neighboring properties. The proposed width is actually less that the exiting home. While the two and one-half level home results in more finished square feet than currently exists, it utilizes the same overall hardcover. We are not requesting a height variance. Our home will comply with the maximum height-zoning ordinance. \6BX In sumnuiry, while we are requesting a variance from the 25% hardcover ordinance, our application addresses the sigriificant hardships associated with the property while more fully complying with the intent and spirit of the zoning ordinance than the exiting structure. Our new home will conform to and improve the conditions of the neighborhood and result in a residence that will be a part of Orono for many years. Finally, our request addresses the exact circumstances that Section 10.08 subd. 3 of the zoning ordinance contemplate. 4:.* • rv^v?<” CASANT ROAD LuanricATc or survcy for JAMES ECHTENKAMP IN LOTS 13 t 14. PHtASANT LAWN HCNNCPIN COUNTY, HINNCSOTA L A K MINNE TONKA I R M -- H -- •# •» ■R •• • t r. r-J!B4-!'A i. i AD " ^ ?/®8M79 05'30' E —6027 &t{* ^----* Jn* ffTIACX LHC CONCUCTOSSKV^ $€liL UMHX\ \ CXISTINC BOAT SHELTER \ \ ;iiSl ro O'a\ tR ^29.4 CONTOUR LINE A K ._U- .W— • • m 99 »•«- - < -«. ,t- ‘y }’ ^ y' "I < •■• I' C '• i’ i: y V*..-' v_>' : I • i \ \ *.f --------------------------------- s m L nn g.| ■:« - • •• . « .»• :0 ■'■'j • A •- ■> u •■* • • •- ■ ■ •,' • • z\'s:*J^i^^~^.9-^~^'^‘**‘ -------** *' V huMMMi g? r •■ ‘^r C'. V t;- * . ' , i D Omv-> w CQ =Jfe ✓ • ' ‘I r ni nil [^ M ag \ • • - + # \ St*«• oo V / #.Tuu CQ •»» I•S.S* * !>. ( J M »i •dl *W__ ^ » . . . >'l (0. I ■ ilf ~i II11 ,. ^ ■■ ■all 4-^F • __________________________________ •■|jj®jj^,.r^i,v;''i'Ri< iiingliijfil m^’:" " lififlr. 1^‘iB «>-*■; 'a; > '• 4 mMMMm UIm. €i^«C>•4^ -4 ClH 11 r 4 Lifs: .'H & ' I ll I kl i|'f«l ■ ' ^fnlTi'fmmtSlmi^ :r iiIII •• El ifei sscsi:y iMii »i II r^.r^'s sacB ir .wAi'i aijiJikjuLJijuiiAti il ^0 -^urH eu^s/A--ri^:?M 1/^'- I'-O** i' k: i -Xr'-'' ■. X.:-'. ' - vVi I •I r^a^TC-’-' vv - *#»» ♦♦•• <- •u4->«A^9: V -♦« v>^-*4l> V f •V •- I j 5g!|, r?iy t - mmm^ 'frUiZt ii !;■ i £ '‘S ^/iS ✓*ii m wmm feuev/^TioH -&-ru^si^ l/j&*a r-o'* . . ' • • • .. . •• H<«-/ *ipc- S . !« H^Mfe. Wnjot-t KJ «•« » •«« » • 4 /Iu » <*•• H iwiBiiiiirffMlil'iit'iiliili^^ **• ------------- -JlT V " 'J ~ " r^~ ' .^^!t~ J - -,«-*• <r • .v>^. as -■ ! • ^ ^ i 4r * k-± * ^ iHitUiuii ,1 m. 1* ■' i‘'- ^ Wjs;^1 * MMXC.^--4 V •i ^ ’ l!■ r \.'* ’S' » «■'' , ■4'-c . md |d||ifa|||ij|^|^||| /'' . .^ > f ^ r vfyy*^ — V’t-- ^ i-»I ■ j,. . -ti-^ vv Ji r •»- .- ••-NT • ¥ i - *. a^ ;•' v.v; •*•:♦>• ►V r». M f/orv, ^ ryo*^~ pw;. „' —iJ C»*\- V • ;r •■; r kLJf 5'' ‘ ^ '1 • ^*t! ^ • * IPI^;-:-; •„'Vi- ■ 1-.0 0 j< I {..ju f I v\^ >\ ktor •-'-'Wii I ex. i;. : iNC,’- 'aPf , «2 •i S,1k" •-i' 1 w L.ooHi^ (F^f i^esf- ’1 ^ • p ^ • * M ■ \“ft ’ * 'Jm y' r«*-*r' »t ^X'Sf-^ *2j ^UyCKy y .• y ' -/*“ nyof^*\ 7>» D V'/uCu/^ 'SI finiL ■ill !LM E IIIm iii4^ L ov. ( q/Q ^ 1) •^' • A~^ )^ ® vv\^s ■ ;i ' ... j 55i» -‘ / u. o •''■'Ctj /Qc ^ ■ 11•J ■ . ' ^ I pn _ I 'I 'jr V- *<. h?'^ ‘ 4*. > *i2j |*wc'\^^-ii ^«• .j) 4 i V'j 'T^ 4. . o O'H t.- *-. •%.■> •>' - V, * -V'^ iJ -.-. ♦: .. -t':^ f'f u .w ‘:.'\ is % ' ^MTi V! ^ :MfcJc0- S?’ A '•.•( vr ‘ST tj / ' ‘* '■■> .J.V rJ:^ V' ^ "’Vr*'*' P'' M? v\^ . ^ V. \f': mKi .*•. * -^. **'>«>■••: ;4 -.■ "^1^ TF^y^"%P AUb- 1 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CilYU»-OHOiu DATE: August 7,2002 ITEM NO.: /( Department Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Admiobtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:^02-2810 Brad and Carol Pass 250 North Shore Drive West Final Plat of Idyllvale Farm Lbt of Exhibib: A B C D Resolution Final Plat Layout Conservation Easement Agreement Resolution No. 4826 • Approving the Preliminary Plat Application: The applicants have fulfilled all conditions and provided all necessary submittals as set forth in Resolution No. 4826 that granted preliminary approval of the two lot subdivision. The plat includes two outlots in addition to the two building sites. Outlot A is platted as a Conserv ation Outlot that will be maintained and monitored by the Hennepin Conservation District. T>pically, a conservation easement has been granted to the public through the City of Orono This easement is dedicated to District. The intent is to have an ongoing preservation plan in place and protect the existing maple/basswood forest. The easement document establishes how the management plan will work and describes what activities arc allowed by the District. Regardless of the conditions and agreements made within the conservation easement document the property remains subject to all local, state, and federal regulations. Outlot B is platted as a shared driveway access to the property and will be owned equally by the property owners of Lots I and 2. The driveway has required a variance to permit a slight wetland impact to allow driveway construction. The plat approval requires the driveway be constructed prior to issuance of any building permits for Lots I and 2. To accommodate the variance for the wetland crossing a small amount of wetland will be added to the north side c>f the existing wetland on Lot I. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution approving the final plat of Idyllvale Farm. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Idyllvale Farm subject to the conditions as noted in the resolution. 1 Council Eihibit A A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF IDYLLVALE FARM FILE NO. 02-2810 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a 2 lot residential development by Bradley J. Pass and Carol Ann Pass for property legally described as: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5* Principal Meridian, lying north of the South 854.5 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property")(hereinafter "the subdividers"); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all the standards of the RR-1B zoning district and meets all standards for a front lot/back lot subdivision of land, finding each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence; and WHEREAS, the subdivision includes the creation of an outlot (Outlot A) for conservation purposes, the intent being that Outlot A will permanently remain undeveloped; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of requirements of Resolution No. 4826, the resolution granting preliminary approval of the Class III subdivision. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. Page 1 of 5 3. 8. Dedication to the City of a Flowage and Conservation Easement over those portions of wetlands and conservation outlots as depicted on the plat. 4. Establishment of a private driveway outlot shown on the plat as Outlot B. 5. Execution of a Shared Driveway Maintenance Agreement. 6. Approval of the grading and wetland mitigation plan by the MCWD. 7. Each lot has demonstrated one primary and one alternate drainfield site. Outlot A has been protected by a Conservation Easement to the benefit of the Hennepin Conservation District. The intent of the Conservation Easement is to have an ongoing preservation plan in place and protect the existing maple/basswood forest. The easement document establishes how the management plan will work and describes what activities are allowed by the District. Regardless of the conditions and agreements made within the conservation easement document the property remains subject to all local, state, and federal regulations. 9. Dedication on the plat of the west 50* for public right-of-way and future trail expansion. 10. Payment of Final Plat fee of $225. 11. Payment of legal review and filing fees of $200. 12. Pa>inent of Park Dedication fees in the amount of $10,600. [$5,300 per lot for Lots I and 2.] 13. Payment of Storm Water and Drainage Trunk fees in the amount of $23,301. This amount was reduced by $621 based on the additional 17* of land dedication along C.R. 19. Outlot A is not being developed and has Qot been charged a Storm Water and Drainage Trunk fee. Page 2 of 5 ■iTTtrtllnimT-— NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Idyllvale Farm, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Copy of Plat is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A), subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. The subdividers agree the City of Orono will not release the plat for filing until such time the MC WD permit is issued for the final wetland mitigation and a copy is on file with the City. Any future revisions to the Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to release of final plat for filing. Erosion control shall be maintained over all disturbed areas until natural groundcover is restored, adhering to guidelines found in 'Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas’. No building permits for Lots 1 and 2 shall be issued prior to construction of the driveway and approved by the City Engineer. No building permits for Lots 1 and 2 sh I be issued prior to installation of fencing acceptable to the On-Site Systems Manager of the City of Orono. 4. Outlot A shall remain permanently undeveloped. All easements, restrictions, covenants as referred to in Orono Resolution No. 4826 and this resolution shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording of the Plat. Documentation of title to the property shall be submitted and accepted by the City Attorney prior to recording of the Plat. All requirements of Resolution No. 4826 and this resolution shall be completed prior to recording the plat. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either Hennepin County Recorder’s Office or a Registrar of Titles’ Office on or before February 12, 2003 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of easements, covenants, dedications, and agreements noted above. Page 3 of S Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 12th day of August, 2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vec, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of August, 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 instnunent 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 of5 •TJ P> OQ O i-h . '- 4 - irj? ^ M 4- ^ '5- r IDYLLVALE FARM iLTjncjia M»tzr7sriSr?i Ltti 1 Ht-f-l_I SCALC • I IN _ j» taa rzzj i»ii( Naa«i« Ml tlMllWOI ■»........... •fAltW. caMWf gr~_^f^ Nw<ra^—»—L»lMiaM*» .«t«. tiomndr .*9 •%< Intel itetaa|Ute«l mmdim IMMaaMtetetelMMa—MMK—Mtei iMteM tente ai tea Mate M teM. teteMteai IM VIUIMI MM M tte gM • • < Maflte te a M tete M MiaaMte tM •lattOi iateteat orrt M- M» IOMOf< IMtevW Mtetepte MteteKteM to MM tut MiMMP Mte wotetiteteMwn M Ml III ri n MMnitei __ I Ma« «m M M •■ aMte «M te MiteM P«M M M • (.Mii. IMIlMt CROMBERC k ASSOCIATE IWC ua wrwn mma w N:rH*or H- ft |-"r-|~H*r *iiT^ i~l'flh~~rrTr I ~t-TVliriJfltTTlf^T “'^J ftriltifiTh^Rtiittlt^ Council Eihibit B IDYLLVALE FARM 100 200 400 SCALE FEET T Mif • fM bi wmk witm -Trilii i o : OfnplM Iron at! • : OmIm irpfi mmk&r found ro uaOnntfMi t:v : V - i -.V V-' ^ ■ 4'^’,: '*■ Council Exhibit C CONSERVATION EASEMENT This is a CONSERVATION EASEMENT granted by Bradley J. Pass and Carol Ann Armstrong Pass, husband & wife, (collectively the ^Owner**), owners In fee of property located In Hennepin County, Minnesota, to the Hennepin Conservation District (**HCD”), a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. RECITALS: A.PROTECTED PROPERTY. The Owner is the current owner of a parcel of real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The parcel, legally described in attached Exhibit “A”, is the “Protected Property.” B.HENNEPIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT. The Hennepin Conservation District is a qualified conservation organization under Minnesota Statute, Section 103C.331, et seq. and under Internal Revenue Code Section 170(h), with a primary purpose of preserv'ation and protection of soil, water and open-space conditions. C.CONSERVA'i ION VALUES. The Protected Property has the following natural, scenic and open space qualities of significant importance: The significance of a conserv ation easement at this location is the opportunity to preserve a remnant of the Maple/Basswood forest conununity for future generations in a quickly developing area. In addition, a conservation easement and management plan will provide potentially restorable wetlands, flood control, and enhanced water quality for Lake Minnetonka. Also, wildlife habitat will benefit as the result of this easement & management plan. Collectively, these natural, scenic and open space qualities of the Protected Property comprise its “Conservation Values." These Conservation Values have not been and are not likely to be adversely affected to any substantial extent by the continued use of the Protected Property as authorized by this Easement. The specific agricultural and open-space values of the Property are documented in an inventory of relevant features of the Property, dated June 17th, 2002; $170160 D. on file at the offices of the HCD and incorporated by this reference (“Baseline Documentation ”). The inventory consists of reports, maps, photographs, and other documentation that the parties agree provide, collectively, an accurate representation of the Protected Property at the time of this Easement and which is intended to serve as an objective information baseline for monitoring compliance with the terms of this Easement. CONSERV'ATION POLICY. Preserv ation of the Protected Property through this easement will further those governmental policies established by applicable Minnesota Statutes and Internal Revenue Code Sections. E. CONSERVATION INTENT. The Owner and the HCD are committed to protecting the Conserv'ation Values of the Protected Property in perpetuity through the creation and implementation of a conservation easement consisting of the terms and conditions set out herein. CONVEYANCE OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT; In consideration of the facts recited above and the mutual covenants contained herein and pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, the Owner hereby conveys and warrants to the HCD, a perpetual conservation easement over the Protected Property. This conservation easement (the “Easement”) consists of the following terms and conditions: 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Easement is to preserve and protect in perpetuity the Conserv'ation Values of the Protected Property identified above by confining the development, management and use of the Protected Property to activities that are consistent with the preservation of these Conservation Values, by prohibiting activities that significantly impair or interfere with these Conservation Values, and by providing for remedies in the event of any violation of this Easement. The terms of this Easement are specifically intended to provide a significant public benefit by the preservation and enhancement of the open and natural characteristics of the Protected Property. Thereby resulting in reduced environmental impact due to additional development effecting Lake Minnetonka and the associated costs of that development in terms of water quality degradation and soil loss. 2. LAND USE RESTRICTIONS. Any activity on or use of the Protected Property that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement is prohibited except as specifically permitted in paragraph 3 below and without limiting the general prohibition above, restrictions imposed upon the Protected Property expressly include the following: 517016^3 I 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 in 2.8 5I70IW Industrial ai>i Commercial Activity. No industrial or commercial use of the Protected Property is allowed except for that use specifically permitted in paragraph 3 below. Agricultural Use. No agricultural use of the Protected Property is allowed. This includes tilling, plowing, commercial cultivation of row crops, livestock grazing or production, haying or feedlots. Forest management and habitat management as defined in paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4 shall not be considered to be agricultural use. Residential Development. No residential use or development of the Protected Property is allowed. Right of Wav. No right of way shall be granted across the Protected Property in conjunction with any industrial or commercial use or any residential development of land other than the Protected Property. Mining. No mining, drilling, exploring for or removal of any minerals from the Protected Property is allowed. Subdivision. The Protected Property may not be divided, subdivided, or partitioned. The Protected Property may be conveyed only in its entirety as a single parcel, regardless of whether it consists of, or was acquired as separate parcels or is treated as separate parcels for property tax or other purposes. This provision does not prohibit the division of the Protected Property when a portion of the Protected Property is being conveyed to a conserv ation organization described in paragraph 7.1 of this Easement. Density . No portion of the Protected Property may be used to satisfy land area requirements for other property not subject to this Easement for purposes of calculating building density, lot coverage, or open space under otherwise applicable laws, regulations or ordinances controlling land use. No development rights that have been encumbered or extinguished by this Easement may be transferred to any other property. Structures and Improvements. No temporary or permanent buildings, structures, roads or other improvements of any kind may be placed or constructed on the Protected Property except as specifically authorized in paragraph 3 or as set forth below: a. Utilities. Utility systems and facilities may be installed, maintained, repaired, extended and replaced only to serve uses and activities specifically permitted by this Easement. This includes, without limitation, all systems and facilities necessary to provide power, fuel, water, waste disposal and communication. Utility systems and facilities shall be installed or constructed with minimal grading and disturbance to vegetation. Following construction, the surface shall SI70I6/3 be restored to a condition consistent with the conservation puqposes of this Easement. b. Signs. No billboards or other signs may be placed or erected on the Protected Property except for small, unlighted signs for informational or interpretive purposes. c. Trails. Existing trails may be maintained or improved but may not be widened or relocated without the prior written approval of the HCD. Unpaved paths or foot trails may be established on the Protected Property for recreational purposes. No other roads or other rights of way may be established or constructed on the Protected Property without the prior written approval of the HCD. d. Fences. Existing fences may be maintained, improved, replaced or removed. Additional fences may be constructed and maintained, improved, replaced or removed to mark boundaries, to secure the Protected Property, or as needed in carrying out activities permitted by this Easement. No fences may be located or constructed in a marmer that interferes with established wildlife corridors. 2.9 Topography and Surface Alteration. No alteration or change in the topography of the surface of the Protected Property is allowed. This includes no ditching, draining, filling, excavation or removal of soil, sand, gravel, rock or other materials except as incidental to activities or uses specifically permitted herein. 2.10 Vegetation Management. No removal, cutting, pruning, trimming or mowing of any trees or other vegetation, living or dead, is allowed except as follows: a. In conjunction with the habitat management plan as speciflcally pennitted in paragraph 3 below. b. To prevent or control insects, noxious weeds or invasive vegetation, disease, fire, personal injury or property damage. c. To remove downed and dead timber for firewood for personal use on the Protected Property. d. To enhance or restore wildlife habitat or native biological communities. No non-native species shall be introduced on the Protected Property. Native species may be introduced in conjunction with the restoration or enhancement of wildlife habitat or native biological communities. 2.11 Water. No alteration or manipulation of natural watercourses, lakes, shorelines, wetlands or other surface or subsurface bodies of water is allowed except to ifc.i liinflii 3. restore or enhance wildlife habitat or native biological communities or to improve or enhance the function and quality of existing wetlands. No activities on or uses of the Protected Property that cause erosion or are detrimental to water quality or purity are allowed. 2.12 Dumping. No trash, non-compostable garbage, hazardous or toxic substances or unsightly material may be dumped or accumulated on the Protected Property. This does not prohibit burning or composting of excess brush or other plant material resulting from activities permitted by this Easement. 2.13 Vehicles. Limited off-road use of motorized vehicles is allowed for agricultural or timber harvesting operations or for habitat restoration or enhancement as permitted in paragraph 3. RESERVED RIGHTS. The Owner retains all rights associated with ownership of the Protected Property that are not expressly restricted or prohibited by this Easement. The Ovv ner may not, however, exercise these rights in a manner that would adversely impact the Conservation Values of the Protected Property. Additionally, the Owner must give notice to the HCD before exercising any reserved right that mi^t have an adverse impact on the Conservation Values associated with the Protected Property. Without limiting the generality of the above, the following rights are expressly reserved and the Owner may use and allow others to use the Protected Property as follows: 3.1 Right to Convey. The Owner may sell, give, lease, bequeath, devise, mortgage or otherwise encumber or convey the Protected Property. Any conveyance or encumbrance will be subject to this Easement. The Owner shall reference or insert the terms and conditions of this Easement in any deed or other document by which the Owner conveys title to the Protected Property. The Owner will notify the HCD of any conveyance within fifteen (15) days after closing and will provide the HCD with the name and address of the new owner and a copy of the deed transferring title. 3.2 Forest Management. The Owner may remove timber and other wood products and otherwise manage the vegetation on the Protected Property in accordance with a management plan approved by the HCD in writing. 3.3 Recreational and Educational Uses. The Protected Property may be used for hiking, cross-country skiing, horseback riding, camping, nature observation and interpretation or study, and other similar low impact recreational and educational programs or activities. Minor rustic structures such as tents, and trail barriers may SI70I&} i 4. be placed on the Protected Property in conjunction with these activities. The Protected Property may not be used for more than minimal commercial recreational purposes. 3.4 Habitat . The Protected Property may be used to maintain, restore or enhance habitat for wildlife and native biological communities. HCD*S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. In order to accomplish the purposes of this Easement, the HCD shall have the following rights and remedies: 4.1 Right to Enter. As provided below, the HCD has the right to enter the Protected Property at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the following 4.2 SI70I60 purposes: a. To inspect the Protected Property and to monitor compliance with the terms of this Easement. b. To obtain evidence for use in seeking judicial or other enforcement of this Easement. c. To survey or otherwise mark the boundaries of all or part of the Protected Property if necessary to determine whether there has been or may be a violation of this Easement. Any survey or boundary demarcation completed under this provision will be at the Owner’s e.xpense. d. To otherwise e.xercise its rights under this Easement. In order to enter the Protected Property, Owner grants to the HCD an easement for ingress and egress limited to foot or light ATV passage by the HCD personnel or agents over a portion of adjacent land owned by Owner as legally described in attached Exhibit “B”. Right of Enforcement. The HCD has the right to enforce the terms of this Easement through appropriate judicial proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction and to seek remedies as set out below: a. Notice. No judicial action may be initiated until the Owner has been given notice of the violation, or threatened violation, of this Easement and a reasonable opportunity to correct the situation. This provision shall not apply if, in the sole discretion of the HCD, immediate judicial action is necessary to prevent or mitigate significant damage to the Protected Property or if reasonable, good faith efforts to notify the Owner are unsuccessful. b. Remedies. Remedies available to the HCD in enforcing this Easement include the right to temporarily or permanently enjoin any violation or threatened violation of this Easement, to require restoration of the Protected Property to J 4.3 4.4 SI70I&3 its condition at the time of this conveyance or as otherwise necessitated by a violation of this Easement, to seek specific performance or declaratory relief and to recover damages resulting from a violation of this Easement or injury to any Conservation Values protected by this Easement. These remedies are cumulative and are available without requiring the HCD to prove actual damage to the Conservation Values protected by this Easement. The HCD is entitled to seek expedited relief, ex parte if necessary, and shall not be required to post any bond applicable to a petition for such relief. c.Costs of Enforcement. The Owner shall be responsible for all reasonable costs incurred by the HCD in enforcing this Easement, including without limitation costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and costs of restoration. If, however, the Owner ultimately prevails in a judicial enforcement action, each party shall be responsible for its own costs. d.Discretionary Enforcement. Enforcement of the terms of this Easement is solely at the discretion of the HCD. The HCD does not waive or forfeit the right to take any action necessary to assure compliance with the terms and conditions of this Easement by any delay or prior failure of the HCD in discovering a violation or initiating enforcement proceedings. e. Acts Beyond Owner’s Control. The HCD may not bring any action against the Owner for any change to the Protected Property resulting from causes beyond the Owner’s control, such as changes caused by fire, flood, storm, natural deterioration or the unauthorized acts of persons other than the Owner or the Owner’s agents, employees or contractors or resulting from reasonable actions taken in good faith under emergency conditions to prevent or mitigate damage resulting from such causes. f. Right to Report. In addition to other remedies, the HCD has the right to report any environmental concerns or conditions or any actual or potential violations of any environmental laws to appropriate regulatory agencies. Signs. The HCD has the right to place on the Protected Property signs that identify the land as protected by this Easement. The number and location of any signs are subject to the Owner’s approval. Limitation on Rights . Nothing in this Easement shall give the HCD the right or ability to exercise physical control over day-to-day operations on the Protected Property or to become involved in management decisions involving the use, handling or disposal of hazardous substances or to otherwise become an operator of the Protected Property within the meaning of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. >MkTl ..-It* -- --------------------------------^ 5. 6. 7. PUBLIC ACCESS. Nothing in this Easement gives the general public a right to enter upon or use the Protected Property or the ingress and egress easement granted in paragraph 4.1 where no such right existed prior to the conveyance of this Easement. DOCUMENTATION. The current uses of the Protected Property, the state of any existing improvements, and the specific Conservation Values of the Protected Property that are briefly described in this Easement are more fully described in a property report on file at the office of the HCD. The Owner and the HCD acknowledge that this property report accurately represents the condition of the Protected Property at the time of this conveyance and may be used by the HCD in monitoring future uses of the Protected Property, in documenting compliance with the terms of this Easement and in any enforcement proceeding. This property report, however, is not intended to preclude the use of other information and evidence to establish the present condition of the Protected Property in the event of a future controversy. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 7.1 7.2 517016/3 Assignment . This Easement may be assigned or transferred by the HCD only to a conservation organization which is a qualified organization under Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations and which is authorized to hold conservation easements under Minnesota law. As a condition of any assignment or transfer, the HCD shall require any future holder of this Easement to continue to carry out the conservation purposes of this Easement in perpetuity. Amendment . Under appropriate circumstances, this Easement may be modified or amended. However, no amendment or modification will be allowed if, in the sole and exclusive judgment of the HCD, it (i) does not further the purposes of this Easement, (ii) will adversely impact the Conserv ’ation Values protected by this Easement, (iii) affects the perpetual duration of the Easement, or (iv; affects the validity of the Easement under Minnesota law or the status of the HCD under Sections 501(c)(3) and 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code. Any amendment or modification must be in writing and recorded in the same manner as this Easement. 7.3 Extinguishment . This Easement may be extingui.<!hed only through judicial proceedings and only under the following circumstances: a. This Easement may be extingui^ed only if (i) unexpected change in the conditions of or surrounding the Protected Property makes the continued use of the Protected Property for the conservation purposes set out above impossible or impractical or (ii) pursuant to the proper exercise of the power of eminent domain. b. The Owner recognizes the fact that uses of the Protected Property prohibited by this Easement may, in the future, become more economically viable than 8 7.4 7.6 in 7.8 S170I6/3 those uses permitted by the Easement and that neighboring properties may, in the future, be put entirely t? not permitted by this Easement. The parties believe that such changes in the use of neighboring properties will increase the public benefit provided by this Easement. Therefore, it is the intent of the parties that such changes are not unexpected changes and shall not be deemed to be circumstances justifying the extinguishment of this Easement as otherwise set forth above. Proceeds . If this Easement is extinguished or terminated in whole or in part, the HCD is entitled to a portion of any proceeds of a sale, exchange or involuntary conversion in an amount equal to the fair market value of this Easement at the ♦ime of the extinguishment but no less than an amount equal to the proportionate value that this Easement bears to the value of the Protected Property as a whole at the time of this conveyance. The HCD shall use its share of any proceeds in a manner consistent with the conservation purposes of this Easement. 7.5 Warranties. The Owner represents and warrants as follows: a. The Owner is the sole owner of the Protected Property in fee simple and has the right and ability to convey this Easement to the HCD. b. The Protected Property is free and clear of all encumbrances other than those subordinated to this Easement. c. The Owner has no actual knowledge of any use or release of hazardous waste or toxic substances on the Protected Property that is in violation of a federal, state or local environmental law and will defend, indemnify and hold the HCD harmless against any claims of contamination firom such substances. Real Estate Taxes. The Owner shall pay all real estate taxes and assessments levied against the Protected Property, including any levied against the interest of the HCD created by this Easement. The HCD may, at its discretion, pay any outstanding taxes or assessments and shall then be entitled to reimbursement firom the Owner. Ownership Costs and Liabilities. The Owner retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to the ownership, operation, upkeep and maintenance of the Protected Property. The Owner agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the HCD harmless from any and all costs or liability for any personal injury or property damage occurring on or related to the Protected Property or the existence of this Easement. Notice and Approval. Whenever notice or approval is required by this Easement, a notice must be given or a request for the required approval must be made in writing and as set out below: 7.9 7.10 7.11 SI70I(»3 a. Delivery. The notice or request for approval must be delivered personally or sent by first class mail or other nationally recognized delivery service to the Owner and the HCD at the following addresses (or to any other address specified in writing): To the Owner:To HCD: Bradley J. Pass and Carol Ann Pass 2536 18"* Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 Hennepin Conservation District 6900 Wedgwood Road suite 140 Maple Grove, MN 55311 Timing. Unless otherwise specified in this Easement, any notice or request for approval must be delivered at least 30 days prior to the date proposed for initiating the activity in question. b. Content. The notice or request for approval must include sufficient information in sufficient detail to allow the HCD to make an informed decision on whether the activity is consistent with the terms and purposes of this Easement. At a minimum this would include (i) the nature and scope of the proposed activity, (ii) the proposed use, design and location of any building, structure or improvement and (iii) the potential impact on the Conservation Values of the Protected Property. c. Approval. The HCD may withhold its approval if it determines that the proposal is inconsistent with the terms or purposes of this Easement or lacks sufficient information in sufficient detail to allow the HCD to reach an informed decision. The HCD may condition its approval on the Owner’s acceptance of modifications, which would, in the HCD’s judgment, make the proposed activity consistent with the Easement or otherwise meet any concerns. Bindine Effect. This Easement shall run with and burden the Protected Property in perpetuity and shall bind the Owner, all future owners and all other parties entitled to possess or use the property. This Easement creates a property right immediately vested in the HCD that cannot be terminated or extinguished except as set forth herein. Termination of Rights and Obligations. A party ’s rights and obligations under this Easement terminate upon transfer or termination of that party ’s interest in this Easement or the Protected Property, provided, however, that any liability for acts or omissions occurring prior to the transfer or termination will survive that transfer or termination. Recording. Owner will record this Easement in a timely manner with the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County, Minnesota. The HCD may re-record this Easement or any other documents necessary to protect its rights under this Easement or to assure the perpetual enforceability of this Easement. ■ r ■ ■ 7.1 2 Dermitions. The term “Owner" as used in this Easement includes, jointly and severally, the current owners of the Protected Property identified above and their personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns. The term "HCD" includes the HCD and its successors and assigns. 7.13 Controlling Law and Construction. This Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota and construed to resolve any ambiguities or questions of validity of specific provisions in favor of giving maximum effect to its conservation purposes and to the policies and purposes of Miimesota Statutes Chapter 84C. 7.14 Severability. A determination that any provision or specific application of this Easement is invalid shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions or any future application. 7.1 5 Entire Agreement. This document sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect this Easement and supercedes all prior discussions or understandings. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above-described Conservation Easement to the use, benefit and behalf of the HCD, its successors and assigns forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner has executed this Conservation Easement on the _____day of.________________, 2002. OWNERS: Bradley J. Pass Carol Ann Armstrong Pass STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this___day of 2002, by Bradley J. Pass and Carol Ann Armstrong Pass, husband and wife. DRAFTED BY: Office of the Hennepin County Attorney A-2000 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0200 Notary Public My Commission Expires; 5I701W r 1 ! I ACCEPTANCE The HCD hereby accepts the foregoing Conservation Easement this day of .2002. Hennepin Conservation District By: Title: STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___day of_______ 2002, by________________________, the __________________________of the Hennepin Conservation Distnct, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of the subdivision. Notary Public My Commission Expires: 5170160 J Legal Description of Protected Prq>erty in Hennepin County, Minnesota: OUTLOT B, IDYLLVALE FARM, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I Registered Land 5170160 ■1 K^n»*** ^ ■hl<H Ml f EXHIBIT B Legal Description of Ingress and Egress Easement in Hennepin County, Minnesota; The South 30 feet of the West 313.03 feet of all that part of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, Township 117 North, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, bounded by a line described as follows; Commencing at the Southwest comer of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 6; thence South along the West line of said East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 to a point distant 8S4.S feet North of the Southwest comer of said East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4; thence East parallel with the South line of said East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 to a point distant 22 rods East of the West line of said East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4; thence North parallel with the West line of said East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 to the South line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence West along said South line to the point of beginning. 317016/3 III Council Exhibit D CITY of ORONO ’ I ’II RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ 482 6 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 250 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST PID 06-117-23 23 0001 FILE NO. 02-2788 WHEREAS, Bradley Pass and Carol Pass, (hereinafter "the subdividers'') on April 17,2002 filed an application with the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") requesting subdivision of property located at 250 North Shore Drive West within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the S"* Principal Meridian, lying north of the South 854.5 feet of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 17,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on June 24,2002 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact; FINDINGS The layout of the lots meets the Zoning Code requirements for a front/back lot subdivision. 1. The proposed use of the land is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 2.The conservation easements over the east 5 acres and the eastern property would eliminate the need to create a road extension since the total addition^ building sites would only add one to North Arm Lane. The North Arm Lane corridor is not fully developed to t>pical road standards. When the east property develops with an addition^ residential lot the condition and upgrading of the road will have to be determined at that time. Page 1 of 6 I. J CITY of ORONOmRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _48 2 6 The properties to the north and south are either fully developed or have future access planned for new lots. 4.The variance for the w'etland crossing is justified based on the fact the wetland crossing is required for access and the access minimizes impact on the wetland and wetland buffer area. The variance also is required based on the proposed driveway entrance being the only available entrance that meets the sight distance requirements. 5. Each lot has demonstrated two septic sites for each lot meeting local and state standards. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for Bradley and Carol Pass per preliminary plat drawings by Mark Gronberg, Land Surveyor, Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., Land Surveyors dated 4-23-02 (attached to this resolution as Exhibit A), subject to the following conditions: 1.Subdivider shall pay the standard Park Dedication Fee and Stormwater Trunk Fees per Cit>* ordinance for two building sites. 2.Dedication of drainage and utility easements S' along interior lines and 10* along the perimeter boundaries. 3.Drainage Easements shall be dedicated over the protected w’etland and drainage way on Lot 1, any areas required for wetland mitigation by the MCWD, and Outlet A. 4.Prior to residential construction on Lot 1, all preliminary and alternate septic sites must be fenced off prior to any construction activities. 5.The City will grant the necessary variance for the wetland crossing for the driveway to serv e Lots 1 and 2, subject to mitigation of wetland fill on site and buffer preservation per the MCWD's permit requirements. 6.Outlot A is intended as a corridor for a shared driveway serving Lots 1 and 2 and shall contain no primary or accessory structures. A driveway maintenance agreement shall be executed with the final plat. 7.Outlot B is intended for permanent preservation via a conservation easement, and shall not be used for residential purposes. Page 2 of 6 i T CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ S 2 6 8.Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval uill expire one year from the date of Council preliminary plat approval. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City ’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1” » 200'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. dated Apt il 23,2002, on file with the City of Orono. B.Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and S' along the internal lot lines, and over Outlot A, per the attached drawing. C. Flovvage and Conservation shall be granted over the wetland on Lot I and shall be shown as "drainage easements” on the final plat drawing. 2. D. Naming of plat. Legal documents required: a.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b.The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. Page 3 of 6 I'lKS GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 482 fl c.Revised and executed Conservation and Flowage Easement reflecting legal description changes as noted above. The applicant must provide a shared driveway maintenance agreement for the shared driveway widiin Outlet A. e.Conservation easement over Outlot B providing for the maintenance to the Hennepin Conservation District, and easements shall be recorded that provides access to the conservation area. 3. Fees to be paid. a. b. c. Final plat fee » S225.00 Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents » S200.00 *Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair maiicet value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as Assessor’s report has been filed with City. Park dedication fee shall be based on 8% of the fair market value of the land, maximum park dedication shall not exceed $5,300 per lot based on the 2002 fee schedule. Park Fees are due for Lots 1 and 2. d. Storm Water and Dnunage Trunk Fee: amount is determined by number of acres being developed (8.86) X $2,700 per acre = $23.922 . Outlot B is not being developed and is not being charged a Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee. Page 4 of 6 GlTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. -----482 6--- Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 24th day of June, 2002. ATTEST: iAciwU'/i. (jy Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of June, 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. % QfVOORYAQAPPA wonrPMue*MMmi STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Th^foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of ______20 0 ^ 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. RACHEL OOOGE Notary Public Page S of 6 m Xcr o- H* ft r*iXrr cr H* ft •Ti •8 ON o On PRELIMINARY PLAT OF IDYLLVALE FARM FOR BRAD & CAROL PASS IN THE SW 1/4. NW 1/4, SECTION 8-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA HUH-JT wtsasw:,'—*• LmTs STI iS SCALE fCCT iii«* •• ita m mmitmm t«f. H 8M ^ Nat 9t M «• ;ws if1e 1]]0imi uo ' '-. 7 >-^tUZ,'-» - i« *4^•I • •-cTtNQ 1 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cur ut- ohonu Date: August 8,2002 17-Item No. Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: PUnning Director Agenda Section: City Administrator Item Descriptioa: Long Lake Fire Station - Telephone/Paging/Security Systems Bid Approval Please review the attached memo from Michelle Morse regarding the Fire Station phone/paging system and a security system, and provision of the necessary voice and data cabling. The Long Lake City Council approved the proposal by Diversified Security, Inc. at its August 6 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to accept the proposal fiom Diversified Security, Inc. for Phone/Paging System, Voice/Data Cabling, and Building Security in an amount not to exceed S28,638 plus tax. ■ fir.M I ^ J ! I - \ i 1 I * ■3 ■ i , i .^1 - 1 crry op long lake FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: MjkeGafikon nioM. Michelle E.Motse COk. NYi UA3W 8/7/02 ^AXNUMIIUI:TOT aL^^^ACBS IMCLUOblC COVSIt PHONSNUMSaat raoNn NUMBta.- 952-473-9691 lU^*FAX Nutaeaii 952-476-9622 □ UBOCNT □ FOR REVIEW □ PIBASK COMMENT □ PI.RASR RRPLY □ PIJtASR RECYCt.E NOTtu/coimian'!i: Mike, Ron Moonc scquetted thtt I £uc ihii to you. Please call with any quetdone. Thitwaa iq>peoTcd by tbe LL City Coiinril last evening. 19S4 PAIK AVINVB LONG lAKB. SIN ISSSS l.ZO/100’4 OlOLf 9N01 JO Alia ZZ96 9LI Z96 tZ:90 aOOZiLO'SnV a in-*K<ggru^*i-'»i>fr^»j*Q. .g4< .vs-.-^-r.-T-— — ■—V II *~ ~ !■ I arJi *i ■ i i AgcadaltoraNo.7 m o( i si roK \( I io\ I < >N(. I VKI ( 1 n ( ()1 \( II Xu'-iisi (>, 2(11(2 Subject:Fti« StatioB - PhoBC/PagiBg Syitcm, Voicc/Data Cabllogi aad Bnildlac Sccarfty Prepared By: Michelle E. Mone, City Administretor The cities of Long Lake and Orono need to purchase a new fdione^ging system and a security system for die new Fire Station building and provide the necessary voice and data c^Ung. These items are outside of die general contract for the project and are qiecified for purchase by die cities. Attached is the project budget reflecting the allowances for die purchase of these items. The Fire Department solicited proposals for die purdiase of these items on bdialf of the cities. CopiaaofAepropoialsalongunththeDq>artniftnt*gTeeAiwiwaiMtMHftnyuprfncloffd IneSSCnce, die Fire Department is recommending diat the cities hire Diversified Security, be. to provide the nione/Pag^ System. Voice/Data Cabling, and Building Security. Representatives finm die Fire D^artmem will be present at the meeting to review the proposals with the City Council. If the cities of Long Lake ^Orono accqit die proposals, a contract will be signed with Diversified Security, be. COUNCIL ACnON REQUESTED Motion to accept the proposal from Diversified Seenrity, Ine. for Phonc/Pagbg System, Voiec/Data Cablbg, and Bnildbg Security b an amoaat not to exceed S28,d38 pins tax. t.ro/zoo‘4 oiOLf sum ONOl 10 AIXO zzu 9Lf ZS6 sriso roor.t.o*9nv Lone Lake Fire Station Budget ¥s. Projected Cost PROJECT NAME: LONG UKE FIRE STATION PROJECT COSTS )17329 LjBUDGETED 1 PROJECTED $206,966 $225.100s15,000 S 15,000 $75,330 $75.330 $3.200 $3,200 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 s 10,000 $35,047 8,000 $8,000 s 329,496 $376,677 s 2,318,080 $1.981.000 In Above In Above $269,000 Li 225,500 s 2,987,080 $2406.500 $• s • $20.000 ±55,000s20,000 $■■PHTmITI s 20.000 $20,000 s 5,000 s 10,000 s •s 5,000 $•$10,000 $10,000 s 15,000 $5,000 $15,000 s 15,000 s 15,000 s •i.5.000 s SSJXM s 95,000 s • $• s 200,000 $200.000 s 150,000 s 150,000 s 10,000 $10,000 $•$• $1,000 s 1.000 s 5,000 $5,000 s •$• Ll 7.000 $7,000 $373,000 s 373,000 %• s 3458,576 s 3,106,177 s 129,354 s 88,260s57.150 I 52.476 f 20447 f 187.37 1 FEES ARCH./ENQINEERING ARCHITECTURAL RClMBURSIBLES OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE & RElMB. OWNER'S REP. REIMBURSIBLES SURVEY SOIL BORINGS WETLAND MITIGATION & SITE ISSUES OWNER SPECIAL TESTING 2 CONSTRUCTION COSTS BUILDING COST FUTURE STREET CONSTRUCTION COST WETLAND MITIGATION SOIL CORRECTION • ALLOWANCE 3 FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT FURNITURE. FIXTURES, EQUIPMENT 4 SPECIAL FEATURES VOICE DATA WIRING AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT PHONE EQUIP. /MOVE PAGING MISC. EQUIPMENT SECURITY (Cemerat, etc.) SIGNAGE MOVE ALLOWANCE S OTHER OWNER COSTS LAND SEWER & UTILITY COST- ALLOW. SPECIALS BUILDER'S RISK PERMITS legal MISC. SAC/WAC SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL S SUBTOTAL $ PROJECT SUBTOTAL PROJECT CONTINGENCY (4% ON ITEM 2) PROJECT CONTINGENCY a.5% ON ITEMS 1,3.4.S(LANB NIPT TOTALS PROJECT COST PER SQUARE FOOT : f Prepared by KPMl/Cll Date of Report: 2/05/02 L20/C00*4 OlOti SXVl SNOl JO AilO ZZ96 9L9 Zi6 IS<90 Z99Z,LO'OCN Long Lake Voluiiteer Fbe Department LoAt uah* Vsi«MMr n« OapcnnwM 1M« A vaau * i«ioLM«.MN. mm July 30.2002 MiehaOe Morse, Attached are the proposals for the Phone/Paging System. Data and Voice CabTing. Oosed Circuit T^ision and Access Control System (both part of the Securily for the faculty). Baaed on a review of the bid propoeale, I would recommend the following be accepted for IrataJiation in the new Long Lake Volunteer Fira Station located at 340 Willow Drive. Phone and Paging System (Budget ■ $i S.000) Vendor Oiversilled Security. Inc Bid Proposal: S11.890 (plus appiicabie tax) Data and Voice Cabling (Project Budget =S20.000) Vendor Divertitled Security inc Bid Proposal: S4.045 (plus applicable tax) Security; Closed Circuit Televisien (Project Budget with ‘Security* s SIS,000) Vendor Oivereffled Security. Inc. Bid Proposal: S8,114 (plus applicable tax) Security: Aeeeea Control (Project Budget within 'Security* ■ SISJlOO) Vendor Diversified Security. In& Bid Proposal: $4,289 (plus appRcable tax) I would request that (he City Coundls of Ororw and Long Lake approve the recommendations for the above work. In addition, IVe attached a spreadsheet showing the specific Iterra that the Fire Department membership has been asked to dkectty manage during the construction of the new Long Lake Volunteer Fire Station. Sincerely, Steve Persian Fire Chief. Long Lake Voluntew Fire Department U0/f00*4 OIOLi ixm 9N07 JO Alio 2396 9L9 2S6 flZreO 2002.Z.0*9HV I DIVERSIFIED SECURITY INC. PROPOSAL Julf22,2002 Pxopeity Locanon: Long Lake Fixt Dept 340Villo«Dt. Long Lekc. Mn 55356 Dmcaifiad Saoimj, lac piopoces to ptenda aad inscall d»c fiaUowiag equipAaac ead devieet fiocdiePhooe end Paging STStem. 1 2 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 4 2 Ptaasooic Advanced Digiad Hybad Sjmem Exteostoa Pon Bxpaadm CO Module Maatar Digied Spcakaplioec Td^hooo Digital Spoaketphooe Telqiboae Voice Ptoceasing Syaum 32 Houia Voice Scoxage Bogui Page Controller Bogan Phone Incrtface Bogaa 3 Zone Module Bo^ Povex St^pplj 220^tt Amplifitt Ceiliag Mount Speaker vidi Volume Control VaQ Mount Speaker Adjustable Volume Control Dida For die turn of flLWOAO plua applicable sales tax, payaUc SOVa t^on acoepoace of diis pmpoed and the balance payable upon co^leBoo of the irutaSedoa, and as a precondition of d>e aedvadoo of the ^tam. Maintenance ia not in this proposal / </< OIVBXSIPIED SCCUKITY. INC. 2:9 LAKSVIEW AVE. LONG LAKE. MN >S)9* (a$2) «e«-e030 PAX (952) 249.9SSS (.20/900*4 OlOit tEVl fiMOl iO AII3 2ZP6 9L» 296 I2<I0 2002iiO*SRV DIVERSIFIED SECURITY INC. PROPOSAL July 22.2002 Pfopeny Locsnoa: LoflgLake Pit«Dipc 54OVl0«Dt. Long Lakt. Mo SS356 Divuaafiad Sacuaty. loc propoMt (o pcovide and intall A« following c^u^menc and devices fas die Voice and Data Cabling. 23 10 33 10 1 1 6 1 3 2 1 Voice Only plates Voke/Dau pUtea Cat^iy 3 l^um Voice Cable Categozy Se Plenum Daa Cable 12 Port Cat 5 Patch Panel 40 Port Cat 3 Patch Panel RJ4 Cable TV Cable 6-way Cable Sphttec RJ 66 Block Panel S-Video Cable’s Labor ■ For die sum of $4,044.70 plus applicable sales tax, payable 50% upon acc^tance of dus and die >**l*nge payable i^on complcdon of du instaDatioo, and as a precondition of die aettvadon of die system. Maiaccnaace is not included in this psoposaL / y/2 - DiveasmsD secutiTY. INC. 21s lakbvuw ave. long lakb. mn ssssa (952) 404-0020 FAX (9S2) 249.f)SS ie0/900*4 OIOl*aion 9M01 JO Atxo ZZ96 91.1 ZS< 6Z:80 Z00Z.1.0‘OnV A DIVERSIFIED SECURITY INC. PROPOSAL Ju^22.2002 Pfop«fqr Location: Long Lake Fite D^t 340ViDowDr. Loot lake, Mn551S6 Diveaifiad Seouity, lao pcoposcs to provide end inctaU die foUoariflt equipaicnt and devices for die Closed Ciccuit Video SuevetUanee Sfstem. 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 I Toshiba Digiial Higji Rciohanoa Day/Ni^t Cameras CooBputu 3.0-R0 mm Auto las Lenses Pelco 6** Ootdobs Saaoke Dome endosuses widi Hcaean Toshiba SO GB Siajj|e Channel Difital Video Recorder Sensonnatie Digital Color Quad Mulppleses Peko 4 Channel Powet Siyply j j All Wise for romplete mstsUanon ^0 Labor and Training /*^^* *^ 3d0 All 120 Volt to be sillied by customet For che sum o£ S841d.OO plus applicable sales ox, payable SO*/* upon accsptance of this proposal and the balance psyable upon con^lenon of the insolladon, and as a preeendidoo of the activanon of the system. Maintenance is nor included in ^ pcoposaL OlVSaSIFlEO SBCUllITy. INC. 2IS UAKEVIBW AVH. LONO LAKB. MN 15354 (9S2) 404.0030 FAX (5S3) 24S.935S 1.20/1.00*4 0I01.«2XV7 SMOl 40 JUZO n• 1 » 1 I V : % i ZZ96 9Lt Z96 Z00SiL0*d/tV DIVERSIFIED SECURITY INC. PROPOSAL Jul7 22,2002 Fcopctqr LocMion: Long LiJw Fixe Dept 340VHlowDr. Long Lake, Mn 5S356 t : ! . Dxvoaified Secunty, Inc. proposes to ptoside end inscall the {dllowing t^oqpment aad devices fox ihe Access Coaocol System. ■! J : 1 C t 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 Passpoint Access Main Logk Cofitxol IfueUigent Distributed Powcx Doot Control Module Passpoint ^Express” Windowa>based Sofevace Package Essex ICTP TluaUne 23C6 Mulhoa Moimc KcTpada HES Low Profile Elecmc Strikes Po«rer>Soflie 12 Vole 7 AH Back-Up Battety RS 232 Cable lbs PC CoonecrioB 18 VAC SO VA Tansfonner All Wise for Complete Insnllarieo Labor and Training All 120 Volt to be supplied by custo For the sum of phis applicable sales tax, payable SOVs upon acc^canee of this proposal and the balance payable upon completion of the mstaSarion, and as a ptecondirioti of the aazvarion of die system. Mamtcnance is aoc induded in this proposal DlVKtSlFlED SECURITY. INC. 2l9 LAKEVIEV AVE. LONC LAKE, MN SS1S6 (952) 404.0050 FAX (992) 249.9555 i.zo/800'a 0101.#lEVl SNOl iO AIX3 ZZ96 9i» ZS6 6Z:eO ZOOZiLO'dAV tSAdbUom Aiif«l2.20Q2 VP itt^itqMil,fh*Mdiiwtaa«dSJOO(lDS%4l^toipctalBal4"eolorMotar. TbaBaailorfa Unakyoii. t20/<00*4 OlOLt IWI 9M01 JO UI3 2Z96 9LI ZS6 6{<e0 Z00Z.t0*91TV iii' DIVERSIFIED SECURITY INC. PROPOSAL Ju^22.M U. Loqf laki PiwD^ 34O^rai0vDc: LoatUI^Mii553S6 DiftiMfirfS<c>aiq;lftc.p»poteittoptoyidttadini*Bl] AcfalkmiBg wylipnMntaad dericM Sac die Quied Cfamh Vid*o Saryolknce System. 4 4 4 t 1 1 1 1 1 T<NfaO» Digittl Higib Rnoloiioo 0«f/N^ Cameiw Cooipibtt 3.0^ J fitt Antt> Im LmiM Pdeo P* Oucdooc Smoke D om •odocym widi HttMs Todbibe 80 GB $0^ Chaaaii DiiiBfd Video Keoosder Cti]nt Quad Mnltipleter Pdco 4 Chennd Power Sifp^ AU VI m £or cooplcSB iflitiSitioo leboc end Tain^ 14” Color Mookor AB120 Volt eo be n^pliad by cmfiooier Poe dm mm of 8MN40 pha mltetble ttlm Hs, pipable 50% 1^00 Me^ruce of tbit pcopeeel end the bekaet peyible opoo oon^leBoa of die kMdedoo* tad es e ptMoadki of Ae ecdvetioa of die ^etam. Muattoeace Is ook ioduded a dai propouL DIVBKS1FI8D tBCUftITY. INC. 31t LAKSVUV AVB. I.ONO LARS. MM SSSSS (•IS) 404-0030 PAX (fSO) 249 >0111 t.ZO/010'4 010L9 2X\n 9NCn iO XllO THTfll O ZZH 9Li Z$6 OZ^OO ZOOZ.tO'OHV lOSHIBASKURlIY PROOuaS GROUP OiGiiAi o;.y,iiiGHi i;.uGii:c IK-644A Digital Day/Night Color Camera Affordable Toshiba IK-C44A. Ddivtrs High~end festures without the High-End Price, including Digital DaylNtght Imaging. 3 tux Sensitivity, 460 Line Resolution When it comes to value for your CCTV dollar, nothing can couch the new Toshiba IK*^44A, one of the most advanced ~ and ifTordable - digital color surveillance cameras on the market today. • D igital D ay /N icht engineering automatically converts the camera from color to black &c white imaging in low light, plus enables the installer :o fine-tune day/night conversion threshold • Advanced -/i-ir.ch IT CCD delivers high resolution widi 0.3Lux @F1.2 semiriviry • 50 dB signai-ro-notsc raric nakes this camera (figitfil G^BCOrder iSeady • £Z Backfocus means .^ascer ^ justments and installations • Automatic shutter for the best image capture, along with ultra wide autowhite balance from 2500'K: to :0.000*K • UnivcfsaJ CS Mount TOSHIBA LZO/nO’d OIOL#3)i\n €>:oz 10 Alio ZZ96 9/.» Z56 6ZiB0 ZCOZ.LO'SnV JL sitoiri »Ji Toshiba IK‘644;|piqital Camera Specificatjons .♦if' u.. JDSamali • •••••a** uMMMfen t«aa**«****a» MMmum SubJ»€tM AWBHmg* LtnaMotutf • •••a«#**Va«a BaeulglU Companattlon S/Mltef«o W^MOUMUt • ••••••aewuiMf • •••%#• • ••• •••••••## 4wM IlMtranIe Mmw 406 AmMtmnt rmmpmmntf^ • ••••ft ••• AmMMHumUHjf CiWM Mountkm MtUiaB Pomat Supfi$]f (•••••••••••a Fowi0f COfIMMfipifM ••••••••••a#* 11%/fAr • ••••••••• • ••#••••Oa)f/NlgtH PuncOon • • •••••• aa/aiy SuitdarP • ••••••a tmiutoA StM6«a • • • • • • • • • • •#•••• • I : • • f • • j• r • ••‘at* • • • - • • • *. ! 1 • • •< a^ •* • .. V'/ • • • • • « V • • • • •••*• • • • • • • • • t • • • • • • •' : ••• • • ^ I • : ». V#' • r- ^ • »• •« aia«i fmmmNaiiftOT IASS .Mftft* Lzonio^d ototi camera rear view • • • '*M**a • • Vi• • rt'Vi’ a;# • • . t. * * v« ^ • • • • t i«i #. #•»•H*a. #. »• I rrj(;v*’ m- 5 «t • ««• ,i>\ • . V* • a* • . »• y * • • • • • • ) ■!.••.• • • # • 1 . •. :•»\9*» • •'•••••• 5f • • vlSTiX ; '-W: .r • » * • • • • • • • * at* • ' a ••*.»• • • • • •*%• •. • . •*. *• . ...J- *. • ••••»••• • • • • ^ • • • • • • -T.S.; a • a a^i.|a ai*a, • *. .V a a a •* # a • • • : • • • • . . . . . •a • • • *^r3fw f*»«* • • • • «A,wv • • • .*• • ' • •i-:*v.''vi‘.‘.:,; a a • V 3\|.a% * a a ata^y • • • a a a a a • ^.Vv-^d=‘ • • • fT. *w_* *1 •' ’•* %^r • a a a • ,af * • • Toshiba Am#nca infomioooo Svsttms, Inc. In Touch with Tomorrow TOSMBA ixvi c.s'oi io Alia ZZ96 9i.» Z96 6Z:eO ZOOZ.i.O*snV -V. r.^-. •■■.>—• •‘•. ;-^v • - *' r-tt> > - ^ -**{^tf* • ■•♦7; ' J' ?■;> > • • < _ ■• -.: '■• >'•« ■ ’> • •• * .f ■ ^., *^ ^'j \ }'■ •■*■ .• ■ •»'■•v--:-f- - ■V«%.•^ fc«>^ The first real altematiw to «timebpse VCR; Directly replaces timelapae VCRs, so there Is no reason to spend Thousands to upgrade ar^alog customers to cigital • Massive orvboard storage: The KV-H001A can be purchased with up to 240GB orvboard Unlirrutad Storage: Just punzhase the number of removable hard disks you need The KV*HO01A is oompatible Mirh meet multiplettrs cn tne rrariet *.od»y. However, lo maiimite tre return on your inwes vnent 31%] cr«»te the utimate system synergy, It is reoonvneodad that you use the Toshiba JK-MX1EA /nulL'piexer. This 16<lwnel unit offers stenn'ess ntegraton with the KV-i 'OlA.asweilaslmw!ightervuncem«fl: technology, direcuvial motion detection and image quabey that can only come from Toshiba • Ofboard removable meda with Standard floppy dbk drive: You can extract irnportyit images to review on your PC without additional softwe • Faster than realtime; The IO^4HD01 A captures 60 pictures per second (PPS). Coupled with afour channel multiplexer it will pfovi^ video at a rate of 15 PPS per camera, or twice aa fast as a tiraditionai multiplexar/VCR oombo «Incredibiy Sknple to Operate & Program • Network Ready: Works with LANS. WANS and thelrrCBmec • Works with most multiplexcfs on the market KV-tiDOTA Did 1 Reid Upgradeable Sof^eee: Built-in floppy disk drive enables fUoure versions of sofewm thas^tam In Touch wich Tomorrow TOSHIB/ izo/nc*a oioif IXYl CKOl iO AlID 2296 9L» 2S6 62500 20C2.iO‘OnV ■'i ' ! —4r' ^ • - ? T' . ‘.u • ’ 1 • :v- , •*'»-. -i. J ., * ^ ^ ^ ^ • FEATURES \ i II f i • / \ 1 A WU i',\ Mil '\i {;< )i.i )i< Du .11 \i Qi \\) Wl 11 I I’l AA lt,\( K •• MV8/ > . The indu^oys highest resolution. • • ^Enhanced playback features. Operational ftmcdons that users demand most. The premium MV87 offers the performance, flexibility and control demanded by today's security professionals. 9 ' View uo to four live cameras ^ * \ simulttneously, sequence r4;' through all or selected cameras. i or select one camera for full­ screen display while recording to u.^. yCR in quad format. On *«»% » • Unmarcbvd clarity unib 1024 \ 512 resolution digital pixel images to display monitor and VCfi • Enhanced playhaeh improves display of recoraed image Use freeze o< enhanced 2X zoom for further examination of recorded etents Time, date and camera title displays on both live monitor and recorded image 3C fielJs/second real-time refresh rate Comprehensive alarm features ’^ybadc, zoom image up co 2X. eeze frame and enhance images for detailed even: analysis. Comprehensive alarm features Aiindude full screen display of 0 : lalarmed camera, programmable d'Jiatlon, alarm disable, alarm output and audible alert. Quickly access time, date, camera title arid other funenons via two- V? ...screen set-up menu. And remote ■ control of up to 9 quads is easy via RS-232 lines. .'U.. piita univ€nal alarm and ^ .Adtoln<ttca,bn:: ^ SKurtty Ixk ■ «>!“““« pUytKk. high . msoludon and high perfomaanee. I LZO/ilO‘d 0101.#a>t>n ONoi io Alio 2296 9Lt 2S6 O€S0O 2002,1.0'SnV Premium color quod wifh cniianced playback features r r ■* Tiui Mv«7 «amMMi'mc M0iia')«u <BMt wtth SM lacoito 4liAl'pieceMiag altmAMMloM. AiM'itM MvnSu ihi^ «pMibMal haui«i -‘4i«Mdd ^10^^ fi and aMitl^aUmi dlma opmior 0 the aiaim. Viir can dafto* abim fdC0f4 U am efuodoa > « * ..u. bedidiipUy I AaecoAds CO S9 minute or oominuoua ^MMCpr mpeoda. o^^ml rumtandy ooniml up 10 9 quada ^ B2*)lte aod DB9 eeoAtesot lUmoc* Hfliplt MCm» .MU. ««p<»««««»ASai iAdependenc looplaf vidno ompuv. The KVi7 .. . unmaichdd pteurr di/Uy gmni&ror K-kdybonrdmmocdConifoL *-^*Uats same comoaod aat as Itobor inuUipterfs. pctmiumpUybte fbacurca I; -I'e VMM Ma ConM Individual oonuol for oadi PIATUAU Hlipllifiado fteoliiltaiiaiidltel^Tlmo maaimac imodo ouaUcy. Afloat bocK Uvt . :{s4FK • ':ii r‘rr\ and rocorddd image. y OHScfoan AlomiteVldooLoaalndkodon \ ^Vhon vldto ted from eamert is Inccmipicd FlCAJftt art rtfirtthod ai 30 Adds por aecoq^t lost. MV87 displays on^aorten mMoaft Iasi eamm laaait.In AlUte\ colon or 04 diadta of pvy. Piad ready lion 10 display mcoittc iod tiMMM< W»*Mlr aps Imp row* and cnhMcc iba ovoall appemnee' .'■) . . ■■ . ■'. t SSe n«u iKm ID diMt>U ftom p»Ml eoiMfDUandpwvotfufluMhoitaMapwadoo. focordtd tvema.Mono Often titHIp Proemo^mini *wlr All jyiaam teddooa are ujcv-pfOfpmmtbleTlmn, Dou and CnmoraTIten Tb« tiffl., dai. and -«#» Intemadooteoidcaltuanu.* . * DteN tad Cammo anmcllpii .4 ') Vteoscandte .. NTSOeiA: fsa Sdat. 00 teda/Meond Aite^ im^kMfkd display of quad pagn im each camera at Ml amoni. me end iAd;'V PAL/CClA: 026 lineta 60 teda/aeeond ieleeuon of aequaoflsd cameras la user pfOfraoMiiable. Video Input Pour. 1.0 V p-p cempoiili i6deo or aequtnetd lufM oo Ite, Monitor Output 1.0 V p^poompemvidoo Display qy^ aomoa 000 camoa vcRinpuc i.ovp-p,76ctet.aNc m »aMM Oiapnyi» AMwi '' i.ovp<«cempoaaa:76ot«na.BNC OuftAf alarm the MV97 bonga die alacnied cnoofm Ml noon on (ho lacngor alardog ueeie to aUmi aoiiWnr. wbib V A 1 ibud format. " ^ * •• vvi?:* por aMfong 1024 1 $12 piaaiB imt KMan to dbpiay ano ven (if M UtfMb M alMdM of giop i$4U'CN«<M. i$.000.00free(oio on paiana yr- t*, >• wT. ' I • .V, •* • • !:!>••:• -S Sensdrmatic Alannlnpyf POuf. Pmgraifimam at Rormalty Open o# Normally Ctoood. inoMo/DiaaDio Alarm MOM input ID VDC or CMDS/TT l aoovo High Aloffn Output PdrmC.2A#30VDCoruM I2SVAC. AoiMwi Alarm I/O Ce One. DOS Alarm Ouronon ProgrimmoMa 0 aoeonda lo 16 minuloa or eoncinuouf. 4 eooond ooten Opofaung 12 VDC. 16 noBO 2.tmm Pin JOdi UnnwoifM dJlba.(iJl^) ShlpDlnodiWolti r.0K.(2.1i«.) 1.76 ln.Hx6Ain.Wa1Z39 m.O (44mm a glimm « 3i imm) Opmilfifl Temporoluro 32* 10 116* P(0* to 46*0 StSTINimAOAAM 3 IrMr: jj ■r OlOm UdMRMATION MV67 MV67-1 NTSCMrpon noL version For more iotemabon, conoct Scfyofffla iic coU-rreo aL 1 aOO 5di-7262o maasaeae aaialii raav be SooaocmacU Beoiunte Goipocaiion ?S1 Yamaio load, ftoca teen. FloriM 39431. U3.A. ToIophoMi (5dD «*9.7000 Ibil Pnoi OUOi MB-72$3 visn OUT web «to &i iaMpJ/wwwjMsotaiauiccoiQ C€ U2 I.20/9I0*d OTOii EXVI SNOI iO Alio ZZ96 9Lt ZS6 0C«*80 ZOOZ.lO'OnV 1 <I Ul%T>w ^ _ PURCHASE AGREEMENT P«gt 1 July 19.2002 :esd)doir SquIpauDt to be iaitiUad ir LtmgLake Firt Department 340 Willow LeDcUke,MNSi40) 612-990*9100 1 1 1 1 8 25 1 1 1 1 Q 1 2 23 10 3 fltfffwTe/ ^igpCTi /•f f ^ mtofwTol Antess 04 4 x 10 packooaivitti'MH mount bK and exfivnol modem on • TKM4 cwlten. Suppoite up to 64 Oevioee. PaeXago InctudOK KSUMMmMy 4 amp. power supply CPU 64 26un6v6.0Pal DKSC164 card 4«poft trunk card 4 port voioa mail card witn 100 houra of storage 62 maitbox unit Pal • standard dIglUl keysets Tl card. Indudsa onboard C6U and auto gain control Network Clock Can! AMxeaa 0K8C*16«. 16 dreult digital phone card, indudea OSP far 10 switohad apeakatphonea. Aiotasa SLA two port airtgle Une adapter. Providaa 2 porb for alngla^ne daMcaa or 2 O.IX). trurtks. ftaquirea AC power oudat Activata aystam Jock durtrvg normal buslnaas hours. Acflvetaaystam jack for modem or bu. No training (a raquirad. AetNellon during nornni buainesa twura. Aedvato non-eyatam Jack during normal ouslneaa hours. Pro 320 batlary backup astern 15 watt paging ampUOar wilh music muting artd night Iona. Ceiling paging spaakar. Ineludaa(1)w(rerun upto 100' Calling paging apoakar with built-in volume eonoel. Indudea (1) wire run up to 100r Ceiling apaakor with lop hat. Indudos chain to auapond apoakar from ooMngartdwIra run up to 100* Wall mounted paging bona or apoakar volume control, indudea (1) ariro run up to 100* Single wire tuna Dual wins runs Additional 100' single wire run KUOCoiam raacow. um. rwai irf^ae i tlWi» (OMiTt)ps«WW»yu«WW Orka • GMn lilii wrk «m • rApUMrfifrltfdOtO • /MM4k;7aMS><nt --•r votes:d ai<s Ml I or iit;l LZO/LlO‘i OIOL#8XV1 SMOa iO A1X3 ZZ96 9LI Z96 OC^SO ZOOZ.LO'SHV PURCHASE AGREEMENT Pllt2 hOf l».2m i^eschdon' Eqoipfflcmto b* insttlloi at: L0itf Lake Fire Department 340WiUow Lrag LakOt MN 55401 612-990-9100 Inter-TelJff*olume Svetem 33 3 10 e 6 3 32 4 paSf, CitcQory 3. planum v^e A jack, up to 100' 4 pair. Catagory 3. plenum a^re. additional 100* 4 pair. Category 6. plenum wire A Jack, up to 100* Single eoax eabla njn R66. plenum ooax with P oonnadora 48 po^ 4 pair. Catagory 5a. veioa or data patch pend 7*. 4 pair. Catagory S. patch com Yareheaa Invaciaaeac, 520.204.00 with tcnna u followa: 56.062.00 Down F^pnat, SIO.IQIOO ’Jpea daliwy, S4.040.00 Upon complatfan,p/ut ux. AMYAoomofaTQTmsGoxrnecTmj.MaeLeDATSTiMDMO'nmsAMyArenieLSMTa. THEStAOomafamj.ee pneaemDroTHecusToyanoftANABomofafoaenoheFomroeeArmaveomoiirxiCOfaiefKBe^orme nMomt eesToaiiNacmeaesmj.AeFtrTVAiLsreaM.oPOffiAMOcusTOieaeDPeooueT9. auajccTTooNBMT APMAMU ff CaCHlLOM TSlfCOM. INC. (HERaMAPTCR IMf ‘OOMPANT) AND AU OP THE TEMMS AND CONOlTIONB SCT MMrN ON THE raVERSC CldC OP THia DOCUMBNT. THE CUSTOMEn AQaCESTO PUNOlASeTHI AaOWB EQUaMENT mOMTNE COMPANY ATTHE PfaOEa ANO ON THE TERMe SOT EOnm HCaetN. •Mcwtcal AueM AM. iT nx lAny «pAraid AC Dm MnAtaMur. Utli pnipiiwl wrE> Meiaw w Ayfagn ltA Tiliiw. Iwa ir«ictiiflA»pl«tf wWHw N>4aiP (flA*1Ta)MpcitWMltLimaNiNMiiliNWi>_P) Aeeaptad (Firm Name)Cuatomar ESCHELON TELECOM, INC. $>CPmre«adTlatSiaBaoiraudTttb Oaa UMCttMaffiliPriTe • CoUwVtihxMhiiNateSSitf • IMpUmr M1-74SMOO • WnyTeWOTi voice If 313 inicrnci 4.ZO/0IO*a OTOLi axvi ONOl iO X113 ZZ9S 9Li 396 U:S0 3003.L0*enV J Long Lake Fire Station CONFIGURATION The fbHowing represents an overview of Connectivity's proposed Inter«TeI solution. Tho System will be equipped u follows: fl6^ Piaital Ports eensistine of: 1 8 0 0 Executive Digittl Phones (2-wey Spiff.. 6x16 LCD Display & 12 Programmable Buttons) Standard Digital Phones (2-way Spiff.. 2x 16 LCD Display St 12 Programmable Buttons) Basie Digital Phones (2-way Spkr. A 8 Programmable Buttons) DSS/BLF (Direct Station Select / Busy Lamp Field) fl6 Analog Ports; (Analog Phones. Modems & Fax Machines) fO) 24 Channel T1 Interface (Digital Telephone Sendee) f 1^ 4 Fort CO Trunk Interface (Analog Tniaking A l&nergency Bypass) f n 4 Port VoicameiyAtttoAttendant with 100+ Hours of Storage St 32 Mailboxes ((^ler ID Compliant, Record-SrCall & Up to 200 Mailbox Expansion) (Optional NT Platform - Features Integrated Messaging; Email, Faxes Sc VM) ri3 Complete Voice A Data Cable Plant (34 cabled locadofu: 10 voicc/datodt 24 voice only) Complete Andio A Video Solution (Includes: Overhead paging, Preseotatton, Cable TV) System Inemltetion- Program«q iTiy Verification (All systems will be provided via Connectivity employees) ivapeseo by: Kenneth D. Owen Connectivity Solutions. Inc 0M1VD2 CONnOENTlAL LZO/ilO'i 0101.1 8XV1 9H07 iO XXIO zzn 9LI Zit ie:80 Z008il,0*9flV is / I , i I il L L Long Lake Fire Dept AXXESS64 SYSTEM l - Inter-Tel Axxess System telephone system equipped as follows: Digital Stttion Poru Aiuleg Station Pens Analog Trank Pons Tl Inter&ees Remote Maintenance Voiccmail/AutoAueodant Channels 16 16 4 0 I 4 vyired Growth •16 •64 -16 m •8 m •1 m I 8 • Please note: The Inter-Tel AXXESS pUtfonn utilizes a univerttl backplane, which allouj for the placement of any interfeee cards in any open slot. The proposed system has 3 open slots. My equipped conflguraiion is only an estimate and actual configuration will depend upon your needs. Quantitv Titt tfintleii »Hce 1 8 0 0 Praprietary Cempenents: Inte*-Tcl Ajoccm Platfonn Sofbearc v6.0 axxess Cabinet 4AmtPowerSi9ply CPU 6>- Kit 2S Uoii t'4L- System Sofhwarc Ideh. DKSC. - Digital Stadoa Card I6ch. SLC • Aoalos Station Card 4ch. Analog Tniek Card 4 Pon EVMC - Voicemail/AutoAnendanl. 100 houtS A 32 mailboxes Remote Maintenance Acceu Desktop: Executive Digital Tel^hooes Standard Digital Telepbooes Basic Digital Telephones DSS/BtP W PCDPM iMtalladen: Tneiatl and PiOfrini Telephone System MlsecUaneeus: Receptionist Sl Siadon User Training Pint Day Supervision 2 yean pare md I year labor warranty 1 !i 1 ^ ;• T«uJ Syttem Prict:S104H.00 • Applicable salea tea hae aoc been included. • CSI has atsumad chat the cable planl U uatallcd and will lio fUnhef woric • Th.w quote is valid for thirty days. Proposed by: Kenneth O. Owen Connectivity SnluHnne* Inc. OC/09/02 CONnOENTIAl LZO/OZO'd OIOLi axvi ONOl iO AXID ZZ96 9L» Z96 li-%0 Z00ZiZ.0*onV Optional AXXESS Pricing Omaritv JPtscripHoa IfKtysut Modeled after Inter*Ters Execotive Telephone. Providn 6 line by 16 character LCD diapUy, 20 progi immable buKona and handsfree speakerphone. Ako comes equipped with an integrated passive hub for conneciion to your PC. JFK^MtCard Inter-Tel’s Internet Protocol Station Card. This card will provide a 10/100 eenneetlon to the data network. Allowing for seamless telecom and dau imegmion for endusers via IP connection. Requires IP Keyset Terminal. DifUat Corittss Phont: INT2000 POOMhz digital cordless phone comes equipped with LCD display, t programmable buttons and headset e^bility. Includes: 2 batteries charging stand ft base station. Batuiy Back'Up (1 ffour) APCBP1400 Will provide sufficient battery to back up fully loacM two cabinet Axxess with Voicemail Inside Treek CmU AteounSutf Inter-Tel’s telecommumeationa management tocl. Allows endusers to track call volume and print system reports. Requires a PC running Windows with 486 or hi^er, 4Mb RAM. 4S Mb on Hard disk ft available COM port. Headsets: CSI provides a wide range of wired ft wireless headsets. Binaural. Monaural and Combinations. Price S795.00 S!,640.00 S599.00 S688.00 S770.00 S 165.00 to S600.00 InstallaBon has not been calculated in optional pricing proposal. PcepoMd by: Kenneth O. Ow«n Conneetivliy Solutions. Inc. O^lOVCtt CONHOENTIAL IZO/TZO’4 OIOLi IHVI 0.S01 iO A1I3 ZZ96 911 Z96 teteo zooz.io’snv VOICBDATA CABLING SCOPE TYPf QP LOCATION Veict/ 0«u • new 1*4pr c«l3 plenuin for voice (SPLIT 2pfl2pr) and Mpr caLSe plenum cable for dala. Volet Only • new 1-4pr ca(.3 plenum for vosce (SPLIT 2prt2prj Voice Only (WALL) • rtew Mpr ee(.3 plenum for voice TOTALS Kern Oatcriptlon Cable note; all cable qty'< x 1 HOmZOWTAL VOICE/DATA CABLE 2 6 4'pair Category3 Plenum vocecebie 3 2 Category Se Plenum data cable a VOICE FEEDER CABLE FROM PBX ROOM 11 0 25 Pair Category 3 Plenum Voice Feeder Cable 16 WORKSTATION 23 A*porl Faoeplaie angled AMP almond 23 RJ-11 voice jack tesert AMP 40637S-ALMONO, 23 RJ*11 voice jack insert AMP 40637S43RAY. 10 RJ AScaLSe data jack insert AMP 406372'8LACK. 59 Bterdc insmt AMP almond ■ 11 RJ*11. Wail Phone Jadi & Plate WIRE CLOSET 0 19* X 84' Equipment Rack mercommbe 0 Verlieal Wire Mgmt Panel Homaoo 3* 0 HorteontalWre Minder I9's 13M'mercommbe 04* r4‘ Plywood Backboard (painted Pre retardent gray) 6 86M1«S0 Bloek w/8M bracket station tetminalion 1 66M1-80 Btack w/B9o bracket voice feeder terminaCon 1 2pr. CiOM-connect (tor approx 56 v-locadons) 112 port cats 586b Patch Panel AMP 406S1Vl,«r Wall Mouni 0 Shed, 90*degree, rack mount MMdte APanu 56 PATCH CORDS (Yellow, White, Gray, Black 8 Slue) 56 0 3*. CatSE. Booted 57 OS. CatSE. Booted 62 CABLE SUPPORT IN CEIUNQ 63 40 2* J4lpokwilhvvjri and possible beam damp 64 1 Misc.sieeves/life slop caulk, putty 65 1 ShlDping 66 TESTINGILABEUNG 18 24 25 26 27 28 34 35 38 39 40 41 42 43 47 51 67 68 69 71 72 76 1 CS10 test au caiegrjrv 5 data cable for CAT.5 link, ell 0 category 3 voice ca..es for ooniinuily, label acoordinghr Cable Proposal Oof Voice Dau Iocs cables cables 10 10 lu 13 13 0 11 11 0 34 34 10 UnH Extended 66.60 411.60 189.00 376.00 504.00 0.00 1.83 42.16 Z4S 56.35 2*5 56.35 4.34 43.40 0.00 4,41 48.51 133.00 0.00 78.40 0.00 21.00 0.00 36.00 0.00 840 50.40 i > f 840 58.00 70.00 30.80 2.21 2.SS I4S 70.00 55.00 aoo 0.00 maten'ai labor Total SI .444.19 S3.108.00 Sates Tax Not indudeii 84482.19 Proposed by: Kenneth D. Owen Connectivity Solutions, Inc. 04/05/02 CONFlDEN’riAL i 9.40 56.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 98.00 70.00 S&OO 0.00 0.00 1444.19 LZO/ZZO ’i OlOif 3XVI ONOT iO A1I3 ZZ96 9L» Z96 IC:80 ZOOZiLO'SHV ■'omliSTr i iknfheVk'awnrM.M. Audio/Video Proposal AN PruBOKil scope TYPEOPLOCATtOW TV • RG*6 (2*Traifling & Mounga) Each TV/VCR... will also have ou(pul capabiiib'es lo me prejector cef locattons 3 Calling Mount Speaker • flush mount with volume control tor use in drop tile areas Soundsphcrc • Cham mouni with (t) wal vohme oonlroltoruscin hay area MIC & Projoctor • XGA, S-Video/Ainfio A Ccmposila AudioATideo * Connectivity has assumed the reuse of an existing projector and mounting kit. _ TOTALS Description: Connectiviiy has proposed a oompleie AN soiu^on to meet ne immeoiaie and future needs of toe Long Lake Tire Station. The video solution will provide all required '^necthrrty itar cable access to (3) TVs. Our video soiuiion will also provide me appropriam oonneaMiy to a eu3to:.ier provided proj'ector with the intcgraiien ability of auidary video aid data. The sound portion of our proposal wi? provide communication to (18) fluahmount ceiling speakers and (4) Soundsphere speaker in toe Bay Area. This system will <}c aole to integrate with toe Fat Station's emergency radio service. All standard ceiling speakers will have integrated volume ccntrois t^iie toe Traning Room & Bay Area will be contmtied by voD mounted volume eonkoi. There wM be two page xones; one tor the Training Room and one all other areas The system win also support an ALL CALL for emergency situations. ASSUMPTION.' The ambient noise level in the bay area is appro* ■ ' lOdb. A waiMerminatedMte port wM be located at or rvear toe customer designaMd podium area. This microphone pon will lie into toe over head speakers tor presentation capabilies. A mic has not been propoe^. However. Connectivity oKm a wide range vwred end wireless mice. Qiy Hem Oeeeripbon Unit Cost Extended Cable note; ail cable qt/s x 1,008 CABLE TV 0.5 RG*SAJ Coaxial Cable Plenum 504.00 252.00 6 P • Connector bulkhead TV insert AMP almond 4.70 28.22 OVERHEAD PAGING 1 18 Gage. Plenum, i pair. Shielded 105.00 105.00 18 AUasdounoolierSVi<7speaKer/baflleA/C wito volume 22.47 404.46 control 18 Alias Soundolier 81-8R Tile bridge 3.71 66.78 18 Alas Seundoliar 96-8 Backbox 6.66 119.95 1 Waii Mount Vblume Control, Training Room, Ivory. 8AT10ASI 15.96 15.96 4 Seundsphare 110-B Radial Speaker 210.00 840.00 0 Soundsphere Q8 Radial Speaker 413.0C 0.00 4 Soundsphtre Spyder Chain Mount 10.50 4200 4 Sounds^ere 1 lO-B Oust Screen 28.00 112.00 4 Soundspnare TX«30 70v Transformer 30.80 123.20 1 Wafl Mount Volume Control, Bay Area. Stainless Steel,26.60 26.60 IAT10QA Proposed by: Kenneth O. Owen Conneefivify Solutions, Irte. O^/OSj/02 CONROENTIAL LZO/tZO'i OIOLi aXVT SNOl iO kilo ZZ96 9L» Z96 IC^aO ZOOZ.LO'SnV Mat S Libor S Tow T 2.M7.SS 19I2L00 2I47.SS 9.I29.SS OoM not indude tales lax. Proposed by: Kenneth D. Owen Connectivity Solutions. Inc OVOV02 CONROENTIAL t20/l20*d OlOti mi SHOl iO Alls ZZ96 9t» Z96 ie:aO ZOOZ.tO'OOV titco /Kr»«mt$nat Tn^MafK0m$ 3»U,it Miom xmjzMM*-/ Suita 700 tfMMVdo* M7 m»r tsi'^y^oo^o XtaC 7a>7A2->7aSl Aowr«77^C«*f S.(A«0B«iMnESWMt rOMJMJtM *M •trnMimt'm Im my mmmi» aM£Utwti4i aflO^ar aCMaj^/Ui^ r- r*»f* iio^amzim l» Umn^ S iii'ua. i# s»a Hs0i«10a.J aa* *^*"^*?y*^-— jiaiatitajy. J»a» • • • site fJ^i^/soOi- OssQMagr /. o**t^ Cs-^^ 37^17*^ Itpoe Me. “/3 jJO lyxm ^/££, Sd^eet CXJTV Me.o^pegie^ -^ftoo . 7?/ii /i 777 b C/9/97^J /S>«. 7^V£ />«is TTaT/'o'^. pi»)S.£ CaU. uJJm fiA/y CpuesT^K/s . ^A ;/ UO/920‘4 OlOii ax\n oNoi 10 aiio Z296 9tl Z9€ IC:80 Z002.L0*SHV CUMIMIIClAi Mill mOMiAL/AOMtMeilT AOT 8«€un)r Sen^cac. me rACr*) ^ ^>1/ ^5V«JC* T#(C« CSh9n-0CCO A,atj(r ^*A£ '3o4 UjiUoUf hAi^ A^ATA Uk£^/TJ^f. SS3SC> f^STStA PdAZ^AA lOMf j Office UOCATtOM ^ C^uA^ $t $VlM|0 XuJf 3.3 tej/MO. CoLa A>TTVyU> VMiifbeiU^ Of 0»—I («v u AOT mmf m ««mi vr^tn wtict •• irt C«M«IA b #. LA MtdA at III itft ail <wiii>. mNiM AMUnnaiaft—,uj/r>*\Pik7^ /v.A<^7t:a£ 3 I - _ _ ia/a»<i»i<at>nnHAr<y Lilianainar^iia ■ScA/^ /^-g/^geP /Jkaih^ SAtmktmmm tafafaaai mar’# , ciAff)MAA^»/^7"rf^xiA /^^>a,vu> anrjaaianafmt lean iMaovM. jaa lAa alMAflwiMaiAai a Mwai ai «• ami •• N» • NAi fraaiAaa tCniiO^ _________f <^ Oj^jyw Omu TL^ iSaKy^ {[EtSrlttXV &itMCaafl«iaata<iai f Cyl «..................... g DO NOT WRITE IN # rHIS AREA# i/««M Trastr 6>lO 93>a4 ^wiioowM •MtHQlNgt OONTACT OtfONMATKOI MAM8 riL^NM2? national ACCOi KTM 8V9rSiym^ MMca > 1^ U lM nif iMMft ,Ca« \/Ufi BUM Avaudner A s a w otjiNOcvae coNNieneN fQ TIU mSABSSION I4TL a COT m4s C om <ic»4ouiJgo IMffTJLltOATe mjmvi»ON (?KUCSOtOT AUlMnmANCt UMTACr MA*I8 ^ t7SK£^A«/.tV OAVTMePMOaOcJUdJr 7#cao AsmtSAONae MAWtr«DOu» ^»^bo NOf MifE IN THK tZ0/920*a OIOLI aMVl SKOl iO AXI3 ZZ96 9LI Z96 ZC:80 ZOOZ.LO'OnV r* O CMO•o$ o 1^ IMo XHMu CM CM o% U> CMmo% CMm CMoo CM o I Long Lake Fire Station Project Fianlura Voice OaUitMrino ] j Budgeted | $ SS.000.00 $ 20XX».00 I Variance I Commenfe J [Vendor I $ 4^SJ0l $ 15^.00 DfvejsiOed Seemly. Inc. Aufflo Visual Equipment I 10.1 Phone Equ||menl/Mowe $ S.000.00 I $ 11.891.00l $ (6.891.00)DivarsMad Security, lie. Pagino I Li J t iOfiOOM induded with Phone Equ^Jinent Bid Dlwrdlled Sacurty, Inc. MiBcelanaous Equipment Security (Camera ’s, etc) $ 15.000.00 $ 15.000.00 1 1 12.403.(^ $ 2.S07.00 tnetudes CCTV and Access Control DtversMed Saoirily. Inc. Stonsge $ 15.1 Move Allowance I 5.000.00 Total Projects S 150,000.00 Other Considers not on list Ptiysial Training Equipment Art Work Teisvision REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AUt 1 2 2002 ciryuf-oftOMo Dale: August 7,2002 item No./3 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaf&on Title: Planning Director ’ Agenda Section: Planning & Zoning Item Descriptioii: Appointment of Planning Commission Alternates The Planning Commission currently has two appointed alternates, Dan Kluth and Maureen Bellows. Council has indicated that the number of Planning Commission alternates should remain at 4 individuals. Council recently interviewed potential alternate candidates. Council Action Requested Motion to appoint two additional Planning Commission alternates. fi crriNQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 1 2 2002 ciiyuhORcxyo Date: August 7,2002 Item No.: jlj. Dcpuiawnt Approval: Adminiitrator Approval: NaoM: Michael P. Gaffron Tide: Planning Director /’ Afcnda Scctioii: Planning & Zoning Item Description: Appointment of Planning Commission Vice Chair The Planning Commission currently does not have an appointed Vice Chairperson. In order to allow the Planning Commission to operate efficiently in the absence of the Chair, a Vice Chair should be sqipointed by the Council. Council Action Requested Motion to rqipoint a Planning Commission Vice Chair. r ■ ■ r 'aaAtuifi • * REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AUb' 1 2 2002 ClfVOFOflONO DATE: August 9,2( ITEM NO: Department Appi^val: Nenic LinVee THk City Clerk Adminbtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator's Report Item Description: Appointment of 2002 Primary Election Judges -Resolution Background State Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2 states that election judges for precincts in a municipality must be appointed by the governing body of the municipality. Recommendation It is staffs reconmiendation that Council adopt the attached resolution listing the names of qualifled persons who have indicated their willingness to serve as election judges at the Primary Election on September 10,2002. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution appointing election judges for the September 10, 2002 IMmary Election. \ .• H n i \ M f: i 1 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION TO BE HELD SEPTEMBER 10,2002 BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Election Laws 204B.2I, Subd. 2, the following persons are appointed as election judges for the Primary Election to be held September 10,2002: Milton Bix Sherokee Use Ann Cosgrove Trevor Use Judy Carlson Donald Kielley Wayne Carrier John Larson Martha Diesen Gale Landberg Mary Lou Doherty Jeanne Mabusth Barbara Ericson Ralph Miller Eleanor Ferril Phyllis O’Malley Dorie Finn Aaron Printup Joan Fitzpatrick Shirley Pyle Amy Fuhr-Hamberger Emiko Saiki Inez Gantz Paul Schueller Tresa Gardella Susan Schueller Bowman Gray Julie Sherf Debora Halvorson Pat Spilseth Mark Hillstrom Kari Steinke Ame Holm Mary Stinson Julie Hanning Cherry Stubbs Harold Hanson Helen Toward Kristine Houtman R. William Toward Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held August 12,2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 1 of I tacCTiNQ AUf 1 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: ^ ■ "7- ^ Item No: /(^ Dqjartment Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Title: Stephany Good Chief of PoWce^t Item Description: Request to Hire Community Service Officer (CSO) Exhibits: DISCUSSION: The Orono Police Department has completed a selection process for a full time community service oflicer. The duties of the CSO include animal law enforcement, responding to emergency call-outs for animal impound, numerous deliveries including council packages, communications equipment, evidence, transportation of squad for maintenance, police and city support duties as assigned. The police department advertised for this position and received approximately 40 applications. Fourteen candidates were interviewed and participated in a written test. John Ralph Herman was selected as the top candidate. He was given a conditional offer of employment and has accepted. Mr. Herman is originally from Bismarck, North Dakota, has a BA in history from the University of Minnesota and resides with his wife in the New Hope area. He is hoping to make law enforcement a career. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the hiring of Mr. John Herman as a full-time Community Service Officer at the beginning wage of $11.86 per hour, to include benefits, effective August 13,2002. • 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 1 2 2002 CirVOFOflONO Date: August 12,2002 Item No: j *y Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Title: Stephany Good(^ Chief of Police Item Description: Request to Hire Part-Time Police Officer Attachment: Resolution declaring that the part-time position held by Josh Ameson is that of a police officer. DISCUSSION An opening exists for a part-time police officer within the Orono Police Department. The part-time officers are a valuable aid to the department. At present, we have two part time ofHcers with an authorized strength of four. Josh Ameson has been employed by the City of Orono since August 2001 as a Community Service Officer (CSO). Mr. Ameson has done an exceptional job serving as a CSO. We would like to hire Josh Ameson, to the part-time police officer position. He is eligible to be hired as a part time licensed police officer in a temporary position. According to Minnesota Peace Officer Standards and Training mles, Orono may add another part time licensed officer for a period of time up to 18 months beginning April 30,2002. At the end of the 18 months he must be fully licensed as a peace officer in Minnesota. Mr. Ameson anticipates being eligible to be licensed in June 2003. He has successfully completed all police department and Minnesota POST Board requirements for a part time police officer license. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to hire Josh Ameson as a part-time police officer at a pay rate of $14.00 per hour, no benefits, and to adopt the attached resolution establishing his eligibility for coverage in the PERA Police and Fire Fund, effective August 26,2002. ? i .. \ RESOLUTION TO DECLARE THAT THE PART-TIME POSITION HELD BY JOSH A. ARNESON IS THAT OF A POLICE OFFICER WHEREAS, that Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund excludes part-time police officers unless resolution is adopted by the governing body to establish eligibility for coverage in the Police and Fire Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota effective August 26,2002, the position Josh Adam Ameson holds is that of a police officer as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 353.64, Subdivision 2, pursuant to which said employee shall become a member of the Public Employees Retirement Association Police and Fire Fund. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held August 12,2002. ATTEST:Barbara Peterson, Mayor Linda S. Vec, City Cleric REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION •••ACTING *<« I 2 2002 Date: August 12,2002Cit y uh o«o«,u Item No: / ^ Dq>artment Approval;Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Title: Stephany Good Chief of Police Item Description; Request to Advertise, Select • Part Time Police Officer Position Exhibits:None DISCUSSION An opening exists in the police department for a POST licensed police officer to work part time. The police department wishes to advertise for this position, screen applications, conduct in person interviews, and extend a conditional offer of employment to the most qualified candidate. A ba^ ^Tound investigation including psychological and physical fitness testing will then be done. Upon successful completion of these requirements, the candidate will be reconuncnded to council for hiring. This process is expected to be completed by mid October. At the present time, the police department has three part time ofGcers with an authorized strength of four officers. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTED Motion to approve advertising for and selection of a POST licensed police officer to work part time beginning at the pay rate of $ 14.00 per hour. (i m 1 2 2002 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CirYUFORONO DATE: August 2,2002 ITEM NO: / ^ Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Nanc RonMoorse L City Administrators THk City Administrator Report Item Description: Amendment to Appointinents Resolution At the suggestion of Council members Murphy and Sansevere, the Council, at its July 30 work session, agreed to amend the annual appointments resolution to designate Council member Murphy as a City representative on the Long Lake Fire Commission and as a City represenUitive to the Mound Fire Department. Council member Murphy replaces Council member Sansevere in these roles. A resolution reflecting this amendment is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt the attached resolution reflecting the appointment of Council member Murphy as a City representative to the Long Lake Fire Commission, and to the Mound Fire Department, replacing Council member Sansevere in these roles. i iitfir Jki rv SMa • A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE DESIGNATION OF SELECTED APPOINTMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2002 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota that the appointments and designations for the year 2002 are as follows; APPOINTMENT/DESIGNATION Acting Mayor Planning Commission Rep. to Council Planning Commission Chair Parks, Trails, and Open Space Commission Chair Representative to Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Legislative Liaison AMM AMM Legislative Contact Lead Attorney (Civil) City Attorney Firm (Civil) Alternate Attorney Lead Prosecuting Attorney City Prosecuting Attorney Firm Lead Consulting Engineer City Engineering Firm Auditor 2002 Bob Sansevere Alternating Sandy Smith Andrew McDermott Ronald J. Moorse Fiscal Agents Insurance Agent of Record Weed Inspector Assistant Weed Inspector Transportation Committee Emergency Preparedness Director Data Practices Compliance Official Southwest Sanitary Sewer District Suburban Health Nursing Service West Hennepin Recycling Commission Ronald J. Moorse Barbara Peterson Tom Barrett Hinshaw & Culbertson William Soth, Dorsey & Whitney Kenneth N. Potts Kenneth N. Potts Glenn Cook Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates Malloy, Montague, Kamowski, Radosevich and Co., P.A. Ehlers & Associates Carl Bennetsen, R. L. Youngdahl & Assoc., Inc. Barbara Peterson Greg Gappa Greg Gappa Stephany Good Stephany Good Stephany Good Ronald J. Moorse Ronald J. Moorse Lin Vee Page 1 of 4 r APPOINTMENT/DESIGNATION 2002 Mayor's Association Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Suburban Rate Authority Westonka Senior Citizens Long Lake/Orono Joint Fire Station Construction Committee Long Lake Fire Commission Representatives to Mound Fire Department Building Code Board of Appeals Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization North '1 onka Crime Prevention Coalition Highway 12 Appointments: Official City Representatives Highway 12 Aesthetic Design Review Committee Policy Committee Highway 12 Design Review Committee Barbara Peterson Lili McMillan Greg Gappa Ronald J. Moorse (Alternate) Barbara Peterson Gabriel Jabbour Jim Murphy Ronald J. Moorse Barbara Peterson Jim Murphy Ronald J. Moorse Barbara Peterson Jim Murphy Ronald J. Moorse Loren Kohnen, West Metro Services Tom Anderson, Hopkins Building Official Maureen Bellows, AIA Architect Kenneth Roelofs, Building contractor Vacant Position Ronald J. Moorse Stephany Good (Alternate) Stephany Good Barbara Peterson Jim Murphy Gabriel Jabbour Jim Murphy Andrew McDermott Ronald J. Moorse Moorse Barbara Peterson Ronald J. Moorse (Alternate) Edward J. Callahan, Jr. J. Diann Goetten Jim Murphy Ron Moorse Page 2 of 4 APPOINTMENT/DESICNATION 2002 Official Depositories/Investment Vendors (continued) Safra National Bank of New York, New York, NY Key Bank USA, Cleveland, OH Branch County Fed S & L, Coldwater, Ml New South Fed Savings Bank, Irondale, AL Direct Merchants Bank, Phoenix, AZ Parkway Bank & Trust, Harwood Heights, IL First Alliance Bank, Jacksonville, FL Owen Conununity Bank, Spencer, IN Cross Country Bank, Wilmington, DE Crusader Savings Bank, Philadelphia, PA New South FSB, Irondale, AL Equitable FSB, Wheaton, MD Barrington Bank & Trust, Barrington, IL Libertyville Bank & Trust, Libertyville, IL Providian National Bank, Tilton, NH E-Trade Bank, Arlington, VA Capital One Bank, McLean, VA Independent Bank, Ionia, MI TCF National Bank, Minneapolis, MN Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held August 12,2002. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 4 of 4 n IIIi j «.cir^|f4Q REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ 2 2002 CH Y Of ORONO DATE: Augusts,2002 ITEM NO = :io Department Approval: Neew Lin Vee Title City Clerk ^ Adminbtrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval SPECIAL EVENT 1.Applicant: Event: Location: Date: Time: Mike Koester/LeGran Homes Fall Parade of Homes 950 Willow View Drive September 7-29,2002 Noon - 6:00 p.m., Thursdays through Sundays COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. i ^ CITY OF ORONO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Date Issued: August 13,2002 Date of Event: September 7 - 29,2002 Time: Noon - 6:00 p.m. Thursdays through Sundays Name of Penon(s) And/or Organiiation Sponsoring this Event: Mike Koester LeGran Homes 152194*LnNE Blaine, MN SS449 At! Phone:763-780-5756 Location of Event: 950 Willow View Drive Type of Event:2002 Parade of Homes The following documents are required and on file at the City Administrative Offices: • Certificate of General Liability Insurance • Approval from Orono Police Department • Approval from Orono Building and Zoning Department The following conditions have been placed on this event: • This special event permit is subject to immediate revocation by the Orono Police Department upon violation of any City Ordinances or identification of hazards to safety of the public. • Notification of this special event is to be provided to the residents in the Willow View subdivision. • Parking is to be limited to one side of the street. Approved at City Council meeting on: August 12,2002 (City Seal) Ronald J. Moorse, City Administrator 2730 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66. Crystal Bay. MN 33323 Phone: 932-249-4600/Fax: 932-249-4616/www.ci.orono.mn.us CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 08A)M2 8:33AM Page 1 AUti \ 2 2002 QlYtM-OflONO 10100 PrkiMfyCMh PaidChkO 07M22 8/120002 ALBERSTE^^ E 101-42110-319 Other Professional Services ToCel ALBERS JEWELRY AUGUST 2002 Check Amt $75 00 30111 $75.00 Appralsat - Case 02-2060 Paid Chki 074023 8/12/2002 ALUED BLACtaOP CO E 613-49830-404 Regairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds Total ALUED BLACKTOP CO $2,300.00 5425 Pave i8 Cart Path $2,300.00 Paid Chki 074024 8/12/2002 ANDERSON. BRUCE E 101-42110437 Training & Development ToUl ANDERSON. BRUCE $51.00 060102 $51.00 Training Mileage Paid bhk# 0740is 8/12/2002 ANDERSON, KRISTI E 101.42400-319 Otttar Profeaaional Seivioea E101-45200-319 OMwr Professional Satvioas E101-41300-319 Other Professional Servioas E 101-42400-319 Other Professional Servioas Total ANDERSON. KRISTI $195 00 7/2002 $195.00 7/2002 $250.00 7/2002 *325.00^7/2002 $965.00 Plarwiing Minutes Planning Minutes Planning Minutes Planning Minutes PaidChM 074028 8/12/2002 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES E101-41900-201 Office supplies E 101-42110-439 Meeting Expenses E 101-41900-201 Office supplies E 101-41900-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip Total ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES $54.50 6013-265757 Coffee $56.06 6013-265758 Coffee $111 81 6013-265759 Coffee $94 68 6013-3262982 Filter - Water Fountain $317.05 Paid ChMI 074027 8/12/2002 AT S T WIRELESS SERVICES E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 602-49450-321 Telephone E101-41900-321 Telephone Total AT ST WIRELESS SERVICES $6 86 3419397 $6 86 3419397 $30.27 3419397 $43.99 Call Phones Call Phones Can Phones PaidChk# 074028 8/12/2002 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl Total AUGIES MOBILE CHEF $42.54 31682 $4254 Hot Dogs. Cheeseburger Paid Chk# 074029 8/12/2002 BATTERIES PLUS E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint. Supplies ToUl BATTERIES PLUS $117.34 121251 $117.34 LS Batteries Paid Chki 074030 8/12/2002 BIFFS INC. E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 613-49830-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Refftals Total BIFFSINC. $140.52 $140.52 $140.52 $6091 $451 78 $954 25 W164169 W164170 W164171 W164172 W164173 Portable-bederwood Summit Beach Hackberry Park Portable-GC Portable • Navarre Paid Chk# 074031 8/12/2002 BONESTROO ROSENE S ASSOC. E 101-43170-303 Engineenng-Retainer E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting E 602-49450-304 Engineering-Consulting E 225-45219-304 Engineering-Consulting G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const. In progress $100 00 $3.89298 $138.00 $540.11 $1.358 84 $12,473 17 88887 88887 88887 88888 88889 88890 Council Mtg May 2002 Applications May 2002 Seuss Ponding/Grading Heritage Sewer Dr Nav Park Imp-Close Out SCADA Award/Contract CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register© 0amA)2 8 33AM Page 2 AUGUST 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 0SM9910-304 Engir>eerir>g>ContuKing E 402-40030-304 Engineering-Consuittng E 101-43170-304 Engineering-ConsultirHl E 101-43260-304 Engineering-Consuiting E 101-43170-304 Engineerir>g-Consuiting E 406-4673S-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-303 Engineering-Retainer E 101-43170-304 Engineenng-Consulting G 613-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress E 602-49450-304 Engineering-Consulting G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress E 402-40030-304 Engineering-Consuking Total BONESTROOR08ENESASSOC. $709.84 $1.630 65 $2,951.22 $2,935.42 $2,542.00 $41400 $100 00 $37 00 $904 00 $100 36 $109 50 $3.177 00 00091 00092 00093 09540 09548 09540 09540 09540 09540 09549 09550 09551 Highwood Storm Swr CoRoad19Sidewal( Rest Point Rd Paving Applications June 2002 Delineate Wetlands • PW Bldg North Arm Lane Pavii>g Council Mtgs June 2002 Gen eng Relocate Green #1 Heritage Dr San Sevver SCAOAJune 2002 Co Rd 19 Sidewalk $34,114.11 Paid Chk# 074033 0/12/2002 BOTTENBERO. WENDY E 101-42400-221 Equipment Parts 0 Accessories ToUl BOTTENBERO.WENOY J74^ 072202 $74.44 ' Lens Cover. Smart Media Paid Chk« 074034 8/12/2002 BUDGET PRINTING E 10M2110-201 Otncaaupplles $1.89 22323 Paper E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $58 04 22384 Color Copies E 101-42110-322 Postage $8 63 6/7/02 Shipping Charges E 101-42110-322 Postage $7.65 7/31/02 Shipping Charges ToUl BUDGET PRINTING $76.21 E 601-49400-216 Chemicals and Chem Products Total CARGILL SALT $2,127.40 513312 Solar Salt $2,127.40 Paid Chk# 074036 0/12/2002 CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH E 602-49450-307 Intergovernmental Serviots $96.00 Total CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH 2090 shore Sewer Service 2090 Shoreline $96.00 Paid Chk# 074037 0/12/2002 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH E 101-42110-212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants $5.00 E 101-42110-322 Postage $7.00 Total CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH P0001202 PD001202 Gas Certified Mail $12.00 Paid Chk# 074030 0/12/2002 CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ELEC. E 602-49450-227 Utility System MainL Supplies Total CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ELEC. 7114 Lights $11.22 Paid Chk# 074039 0/12/2002 CULLIGAN E 613-49030-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip Total CULLIGAN $65^0 $65.10 09003676-4 Softener Service f^aid Chk# 074040 0/12/2002 E 101-43200-304 Engineering-Consulting ToUl DAHLGRENSHARDLOWOUBAN DAHLGREN SHARDLOW 0 UBAN $004 50 23175 Orono Village #02-2709 $004 50 Paid Chk# 074041 0/12/2002 OCA - WIRE ONLY G 101-21719 DCA/Spending Accounts Total DCA-WIRE ONLY $590 63 0/6/02 Flex Spending 0/6 $590.63 Paid Chk# 074042 0/12/2002 DELTA DENTAL G 101-21709 Dental Insurance $1.232.20 37220072 Dental Premiums • 0/02 CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Registei^ 08A)9A)2 8 33 AM Page 3 AUGUST 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment ToUl DELTA DENTAL 11.232.20 Paid Chk# 074043 6/12/200r DEPT OF ADM - INTERTECH GROUP E101-41900-321 Telephone $37.00 DVD02061040 June 2002 PVC E 101-42110-321 Telephone $40.11 W02060610 Phone Seivlce 6/2002 E 101-41900-321 Telephone $93 57 W02060610 Phone Seivlce 6/2002 Total DEPT OF ADM-INTERTECH GROUP $170.68 Paid Chk« 074044 8/12/2002 DIAMOND MOWERS E101-43000-221 Equipment Paits S Accessories Total DIAMOND MOWERS $17.64 4841 $17.64 Sheave Bushing Paid Chk# 074045 8/12/2002 E-ZRECYCUNG E101-43270-316 Contact Recycling Pickup Total E-Z RECYCLING $6 .31764 4008 $6,317.64 Recycling 7/2002 Paid Chki 074046 8/12/2002 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE E 613-498304)91 Beer For Resale ToUl EAST SIDE BEVERAGE $106.00 277443 Beer fbr Resale $106.00 PaidChk# 074047 8/12/2002 EGAN-MCKAY ELECTRICALCONTRCTR E 101-43000^08 Contracted Street Maint. $2 57 50 3007529 Total EGAN-MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRCTR $257 50 Repair Signal Light Paid Chk« 074048 8/12/2002 ELECTRIC PUMP E 602-49450-406 Repairs/Maint-Swr Nnes/lifis Total ELECTRIC PUMP $2,932.39 20996 $2.932 39 Pump-LSi8 Paid Chk# 074049 8/12/2002 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC E 101 -42110-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Total EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC $4 63 27 12088 $^327 Siren Light Control PaidChk# 074050 8/12/2002 ENPOINTETECHNOLOGIES E 101-42110-201 Omce supplies $115 57 1006381 E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $19^ 39 1006381 E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $244 95 1006381 Total EN POINTE TECHNOLOGIES $555 91 Inoculate IT Inoculate IT Adobe Aaobat 5 0 Paid Chk# 074051 8/12/2002 ENCHANTED GARDEN FLORAL G 101-19999 Suspense Account $35.63 1644 ToUl ENCHANTED GARDEN FLORAL $3563 Plant - Meyer Paid Chk# 074052 8/12/2002 ERICKSON. KURT E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories ToUl ERICKSON. KURT $1917 072302 Evidence ConUiners $19.17 Paid Chk# 074053 8/12/2002 EULL*S MANUFACTURING CO. INC. E 101-45200-223 Bkjg/Grounds Maint Supplies $106.50 36196 FounUin Base - Navarre ToUl BULL'S MANUFACTURING CO. INC.$106 50 Paid Chk# 074054 8/12/2002 FCRTIS BENEFITS G 101-21712 Other Deductions ToUl FORTIS BENEFITS $1,016.87 4019825-1 LTD Insurance - 8/02 $1,01687 Paid Chk# 074055 8/12/2002 G S K SERVICES E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds E 602-49450-226 Clothing & personal equipment $103.86 $26.61 188429 271543 Mat Service - PW Uniforms CITY OF ORONO 08^^8:33 AM Page 4 Check Detail Register® AUGUST 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 10M3000-226 E 613-49830-226 E 601-49400-226 E 101-43000-404 E 602-49450-226 E 101-43000-221 E 101-43000-226 E 613-49830-226 E 601-49400-226 Clothing A personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Clothing & personal equipment Repairs/Maint-DIdgs/Orounds Clothing & personal equipment Equipment Parts A Accessories Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Clothing A personal equipment Total OAK8ERVICE8 $6206 $7 88 $1443 $92.85 $27 93 $49 21 $65.15 $7.88 $1443 271543 271544 271545 271546 278454 278454 278454 278455 278456 Uniforms Uniform - Steffenhagen Uniform - Rathbun Mat Service Unifbrms Shop Towels Uniforms Uniform - Steffenhagen Uniform • Rathbun $47229 Paid Chk# 074056 8/12/2002 GENUINE PARTS CO. E 101-43000-221Equipment Perts A Accessories ($89 33) 700280 Credit E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint. Supplies $25.30 701348 Otl E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts A Accessories $36 50 701682 Gasket Tone Set E 61349830-402Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $40 82 701762 Plugs. DIst Rotor E 61349830402Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $57.77 701764 Belts, Filters E 61349830402Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $63 88 701765 Plug Wires E 61349830-221Equipment Parts A Accessories $4.35 702538 Saews E 60249450-221Equipment Parts A Accessories $12.65 702582 OU E 10143000-221Equipment Parts A Accessories $27.07 702837 Air Filter E 10143000-222Vehicle Equipment A Parts $2883 703133 Fuses. GoJo E 60249450-221Equipment Parts A Accessories $1884 703470 Light • Vactor E 10143000-221Equipment Parts A Accessories $1903 703531 Air Fresh. GoJo E 61349830-221Equipment Parts A Accessories $16.10703892 Misc Supplies ToUl GENUINE PARTS CO.$261.81 Paid ChM 074058 8/12/2002 GOLF CAR MIDWEST E 61349830415Olhar Equipment Rentals $1,740.00 9904 Golf Cart Lease 7/02 Tout GOLF CAR MIDWEST $1,740.00 Paid ChM 074059 8/12/2002 GOPHER STATE ONE.CALL E 602.49450.489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $54 25 2060611 Locates - 6/02 E 601.49400.489Other Miscellaneous Charges $5425 2060611 Locates - 6/02 ToUl GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL $108 50 Paid Chki 074060 8/12/2002 KAMEL BUILDING CENTER E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies $2807 3 90799 ToUl HAMEL BUILDING CENTER $280 73 Enclosure - Nav Playground Paid Chki 074061 8/12/2002 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE E 613-49830-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies $200 17 24739 Total HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE $200 17 Sunny Mix Seed Paid Chki 074062 8/12/2002 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN E 101-41600-309 Jail Charges $217.75 620 ToUl HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-GEN $217 75 Rm and Board 6A)2 Paid ChkP 074063 8/12/2002 HENNIPIN CTY TREASURER - PW E 602-49450-489 Other Miscellaneous Cherges $50.00 UtiKX)265 Tout HENNIPIN CTY TREASURER - PW $50.00 UtUity Permit Paid Chki 074064 8/12/2002 HUEB8CH RENTAL SERVICE E 613-49830-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Orounds $25 07 659533 ToUl HUEBSCH RENTAL SERVICE $25.07 Mat Service - OC PaidChk# 074065 8/12/2002 HYDRO SUPPLY CO. CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Registei® 06m/02 8:33 AM Pages AUGUST 2002 Check Amt Invoice Conenenl E601-49400-227 UUMy Sy<(«m MaM. SuppKM Total HYDRO SUPPLY CO. $1,636.77 $1,636.77 21507 Mater • Senior Building Paid Chk# 074066 6/12/2002 LAKE MTKA CONSERVATION DIST. E 101-41110-433 Memberships A Subscriptions Total LAKE MTKA CONSERVATION DIST. sio,:>3i.i4 $10,331.14 2002 Lvy 3rd Otr 2002 Levy ^•Id Chki 074067 6/12/2002 LESKINEN. OEMSE M. E 101-41300-437 Training A Development Total LESKINEN. DENISE M. $104.70 $104.70 080202 Mileage • Training Paid Chka 074068 8/12/2002 LOOIS E 101-42110-329 Other Communicaliont E 101-41900-311 Data Prooesaing Communication E 101-42110-310 LOGIS-Applications E 101-41900-329 Other Communications E 101-42110-401 Repairs/Maint-Ofnce Equip E 101-41900-401 Repairs/Maint-Ofhce Equip Total LOGI8 $183.00 $30.00 11.635 00 $183 00 $8500 $85.00 22015 22015 22015 22015 22066 22066 Internet 6/02 Henn Cty Connection Police Records 6/02 Internet 6/02 Arcserve Issues Arcserve Issues $2,201.00 Paid Chke 074069 8/12/2002 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $3.94 36803 E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $10.64 36956 E 613-49830-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip $332.25 37465 ToUl LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT $346.83 Throttle Trigger Mixed Oil Weed Whip PaidChk# 074070 8/12/2002 LOWELL'S AUTO PARTS E 101-41900-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Supplies Tout LOWELL'S AUTO PARTS $6 28 5-345928 Enamel $6.28 Paid Chk» 074071 8/12/2002 MEDICAL GAS EQUIPMENT E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $250.62 20069 Demand Valve - Resuscitator Total MEDICAL GAS EQUIPMENT $250.62 Paid Chk# 074072 8/12/2002 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER R 101-39610 Miscellaneous Revenue G 101-20809 SAC Charges due to MWCC Total MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER ($132.00) 7/2002 $13,200.00 7/2002 $13.068 00 Sac Fees-7/2002 Sac Fees • 7/2002 PaM Chk# 074073 8/12/2002 MIDWEST ASPHALT E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Materials/Supply $389.42 70164MB Hand Patch E 101-43000-224 Street Maint Materials/Supply $127.27 70249MB Hand Patch Tout MIDWEST ASPHALT $51669 Paid Chk# 074074 8/12/2002 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTUNG CO E 613.49900-092 SoR Drink* For Ratale $458.75 63447103 Soft Drinks for Resale Tout MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTUNG CO S45875 Paid Chk# 074075 8/12/2002 MIDWEST FUELS E 613-49630-212 Motor Fuel* 6 Lubricants $910 88 92656 Diesel A Unleaded Tout MIDWEST FUELS $91088 Paid Chk# 074076 8/12/2002 MINN COMM E 101-42110-321 Telephone $32.73 20261008021Police Pagers Total MINN COMM $32 73 Paid Chkf 074077 8/12/2002 MINNEAPOUS OXYGEN COMPANY 4 CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Registei® 08mA)2 8:33AM Pages AUGUST 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Acoesiories E 101-43000-415 Other Equipment Rentals E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories Total MlliNEAPOLlS OXYGEN COMPAHY $15 34 RI06020927 $3169 RI07020933 $15 85 RI07020934 $62.88 Cylinder Rental Oxygen. Acetylene Cylinder Rental Paid Chk# 074078 87T2/2002 MINNESOTA CONWAY E 101-42110-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip ToUl MINNESOTA CONWAY $M0_3^ 312994 $330.39 Annual Ext Inspection - PD Paid Chki 074079 8/12/2002 MINNESOTA SUPPLY CO E 227-45500-580 Other Equipment ToUl MINNESOTA SUPPLY CO $1,655.01 F25924 $1,655 01 Electric Chain Hoist Paid Chki 074080 8/12/2002 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION E 101-43000-208 Books A Periodicals $90 00 MN MUTCD ToUl MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION $90 00 Traffic Control Device Manual PM Chk# 074081 8/12/2002 MN STATE BAR ASSOCIATION E 101-42110-437 Training A Development $310.00 70888 E 101-42110-437 Training A Development $310.00 70690 ToUl MN STATE BAR ASSOCIATION $620 00 Cnm Just Inst • Erickson Crim Just Inst • Fischenich Paid Chk# 074082 8/12/2002 MOTOROLA E 10M2110-240 Small Tools and Minor Equip ToUl MOTOROLA $3J9B.OO^ 13255278 Accessories 800mhz Radios $3.198^00 l^aid Chk# 074083 8/12/2002 MR AUOIES COFFEE SERVICE E 613-499(XM>92 Soli Drinks For Resal# $49.50 21547 ToUl MR AUGIES COFFEE SERVICE $49.50 Coffee for Resale Paid Chki 074084 8/12/2002 MTIDIST CO. E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories E 613-49830-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip E 613-49830-221 Eq'jipment Parts A Accessories E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories ToUl MTI DIST CO. $424.92 $186 42 $64 61 $188 33 $864 28 3150094X) Gearbox 315139 Sharpen Green*s Mower 318680 Steering Wheel 318977-00 GC Grounds Supplies Paid Chk# 074085 8/12/2002 NAVARRE CITGO E 613-49830-403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip Tout NAVARRE CITGO $25.00 8/1/02 $2500 Tire Repair Paid Chk# 074086 8/12/2002 NCPERS GROUP UFE INS G 101-21710 Life Insurance ^^9!^ 6732802 ToUl NCPERS GROUP UFE INS $240 00 PERA Life 8/2002 Paid Chk# 074087 8712/2002 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS E 101-42110-321 Telephone $658.56 506573311 Police Cell Phones Tout NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS $658 56 Paid Chk# 074088 8/12/2002 NORUNG LANDSCAPE A GRADING E 101-43000-408 Contracted Street Maint $1,800.00 17605 ToUl NORUNG LANDSCAPE A GRADING $1.600 00 Repair Bank Erosion-Olive Av Paid Chk# 074089 8/12/2002 OFFICE DEPOT E 101-42110-201 Office supplies E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $269.17 176611675-00 Office Supplies $328.98 176611675-00 Office Supplies CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 0a/09A)2 833 AM Pager AUGUST 2002 I1UComment Total OFFICE DEPOT $998.15 Peid Chk# 074000 A/12/2002 OFFICE ENVIRONIIEIIT BROKERS E 227-45500-240 SmaN Toolt and Minor Equip $443.04 15457 4 Drawer Lateral FSa Total OFnCCENVmONMEflT BROKERS $443.04 Paid dhidl 074091 8/12/2002 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. E 613-49900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl $17.64 206023 Chips for Resale ToUl OLD DUTCH FOODS INC.$17.64 PaidChk# 074092 8/12/2002 OMAN.LYLE E 101-42400-331 Traval Ejqwnaas $33 61 052802 Mileage E 101-42400-331 Traval Expansat $22.08 061302 Mileage E 101-42400-331 Traval Expanaat $32.43 062602 Mileage E101-42400-331 Traval Expansaa $31.39 070202 Mileage E 101-42400-331 Traval Expantas $19.34 071802 Mileage E 101-42400-331 Traval Expanaat $27.25 072202 Mileage E 101-42400-331 Traval Expanaat $14.14 072402 Mileage E 101-42400-331 Traval Expanaat $44.16 092002 Mileage Total OMAN, LYLE $224 60 Aid bhk# 074093 8/12/2002 OTTEN BROTHERS E 601-49400-227 Utility Syatam MainL Suppiiaa $21.03 262605 Sod - Fagemess Point Total OTTEN BROTHERS $21.03 j Paid Chki 074094 8/12/2002 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY .! E 101-43000-221 Equipnianl Paita & Acoataoriaa $17.64 668238 Weld Gives, Disc 1 Total OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY $17.64 PaidChk# 074095 8/12/2002 PANERABREAD E 101-42110-439 Maating Expanaat $177.60 8/15/02 Lunch-RMSX^OMtg Total PANERA BREAD $177.60 PaidChk# 074096 8/12/2002 PETTIT,SANDRAK. E 101-41500-331 Traval Expanaat $34.50 7i2V02 Mileage Reimbursement Total PETTIT. SANDRA K.$34.50 i Paid Chk# 074097 8/12/2002 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. E 101-41900-407 Janitorial Services $931.34 9170 Janitorial 7^002 t E 101-42110-407 Janitorial Services $762.01 9170 Janitorial 7/2002 Total POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC.$1,693.35 Paid Chk# 074096 8/12/2002 PRECISION TURF E 613-49830-223 BldgA3rounda Maint Suppliat E 613-49830-223 BMg/Orounda MainL Suppiiaa ToUl PRECISION TURF $775.56 19518 $79 88 19637 $855.44 Fungidde Fertifizer Paid Chk# 074099 8/12/2002 PRUDENTIAL UFE INSURANCE G 101-21710 Life Insurance $686.50 8/2002 Life Insurance 8/2002 G 101-21710 Ufa Insurance $87.75 8/2002 Life Insurance 8/2002 Tout PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE $77425 PaidChk# 074100 8/12/2002 QWEST E 613-49830-340 General Advertising E 613-49830-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone $240 80 6124739904 $58.74 6124739904 $103.00 612E440016 Cj Advertising Phone Service Phone Service CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 08mA)2 6:33 AM Pages AUGUST 2002 Check Amt Invoke Comment Total QWEST 1402.54 Paid Chki 074101 6/12/2002 REED VENDING E 613^9900^3 Concessions For ReMle-Txbl £613^9900093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl Total REED VENDING $92 20 4266 $95 30 4279 Concessions I6r Resale Concessions for Resale $167.50 Paid Chki 074102 8/12/2002 REUANT ENERGY £602-49450*361 Gas 6 Electric £101-42110-361 Gas & Electric £101-41900-381 Gas 6 Electric E10M1900-361 Gas & Electric E 601-49400-361 Gas 6 Electric E 613-49830-381 Gas 6 Electric Total RELIANT ENERGY $11.25 060006750600 Gas Service $34.16 060006750600 Gas Service $41.74 060006750600 Gas Service $69 28 060006750600 Gas Service $498.00 060006750600 Gas Service $15 98 539004161700 Gas Service-Golf Course $670.41 Paid Chki 074103 8/12/2002 RICKS SUPERVALUE E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Total RICKS SUPERVALUE $12.49 8/1/02 Misc Supplies - GC $12.49 PaidGhki 074104 8/12/2002 RUMPCA CO, INC E 101 -43000-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges Total RUMPCA CO, INC $60 00 mm2 Brush Disposals 6/2002 $60.00 Paid Chki 074105 8/12/2002 SA-AGINC. E 101-45200-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies Total SA-AGINC. $161 64 250302 $161.64 Beach Sand Paid Chki 074106 8/12/2002 SCHARBER S SONS E 613-49830-221 Equipment Parts 6 Accessories E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts 6 Accessories Total SCHARBER S SONS $5981 2027914 $5.57 274846 $65 38 6<r Blade Parts - Flail Mower Paid Chki 074107 8/12/2002 SECURITY RESPONSE SERVICES E 101-42110-401 Repairs/Maint-Offioe Equip $46.25 124517 ToUl SECURITY RESPONSE SERVICES $46 25 PaidChk# 07410^ 8/12/2002 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES E 1 Cl-41800-490 Contributions to Civic Org's $3,907.50 8/1/02 VCR Repair 2002 3rd Qtr Sr Services ToUl SrENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES $3,907.50 Paid Chki 074109 8/12/2002 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES-TRAN E 101-45200-331 Travel Expenses $5000 8/2A)2 Bus 6 Driver - Park tcur Total SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES-TRAN $50 00 Paid Chki 074110 8/12/2002 SHAUGHNESSY. COLIN E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds ToUl SHAUGHNESSY, COUN $2,065 72 Park Mowing 7/2002 Paid Chk« 074111 8/12/2002 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS E 101-41900-223 Bldg/Grounda Maint. Suppliaa E 101-41900-223 Bldg/Grounda MalnL SuppHai ToUl SHERWIN-WILLIAMS $10.22 3424-5 $11.57 3425-2 S21.79 Paint Brush l>aid Chkd 074112 8/12/2002 SNYDER DRUG STORES E 101-42110-201 Offico suppliaa $4.52 W02 Fikn Processing E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts S Acoessonea $63 52 6/8A)2 Batteries. Film CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Registei® 0M9A)2 8;33AM Page 9 AUGUST 2002 Check Amt invoice Comment Total SNYDER DRUG STORES $68.04 l^aldChMi 074113 6/12/2002 STAR TRIBUNE E101-41900-352 Printing & Publishing $346.600127570C3 Adv For Emp Bldg Insp Total STAR TRIBUNE $346.60 Paid Chk« 074114 8/12/2002 STEFFENHAGEN. RON E 613-499004)95 Pro Shop Hems For Resale $180 95 B/SJ02 Golf Bans for Rasala Total STEFFENHAGEN. RON $180.95 Paid Chki 074115 8/12/2002 STERUNG FENCE INC. E 101-45200223 Bldg/GrourKis Maint. Suppttet $1.147 47 18872 Spin Rail Fandng • CB Playgr Total STERUNG FENCE INC.$1,147.47 ^aid Chk« 074116 8/12/2002 THE HOME DEPOT E 61049830223 Bldg/Oroundt Maint. SuppUet $81.81 62602 Flowers • GC Total THE HOME DEPOT $81.81 i’aid Chki 074117 8/12/2002 THORPE DIST CO. E 61049900091 Beer For Resale $7025 268075 Beer for Resale Total THORPE BIST CO.$70.25 Paid ChMI 074118 6/12/2002 TOLL OAS S UVELDINO SUPPLY E 101-43000415 Other Equipment Rentals $605499905 Cylinder Rental Total TOLL GAS S WELDING SUPPLY $6.05 Paid Chki 074119 1^12/2002 TRANS UNION LLC E 101-42110319 Other Professional Services $6 00 8/6/02 Credit Check-CSO Total TRANS UNION LLC $6 00 ^aid Chki 074120 8/12/2002 TRJ STATE PUMP E 602-49450-406 Repairs/Maint-Swr Knes/Wls $2.43215 21284 Pump Repair-GSi9 Total TRI STATE PUMP $2,432.15 Paid ChMI 074121 8/12/2002 UNITED RENTALS • ST LOUIS E 651 -49910227 Utility System Maint. Supplies $896 68 26598974-001 Pump Rental-Highwood St Wtr E 651-49910227 Utility System Maint. Supplies $93 72 26599099-001 Highwood Road Stm Wtr ToUl UNITED RENTALS • ST LOUIS $99040 Paid ChKf 074122 6/12/2002 VEE.LIN E 101-41110-439 Meeting Expenses $1020 080202 Ice Cream-Work Session E 101-41410331 Travel Expenses $1553 08020:Mileage Reimbursement E 101-41300331 Travel Expenses $17.94 080202 Mileage Reimbursement Total VEE. UN $4367 Paid Chki 074123 8/12/2002 VERIZON WIRELESS E 601-49400321 Telephone $16.83 10034585141 Utility Cell Phone E 602-49450321 Telephone $16.84 10034585141 Utility Cell Phone E 101-41900321 Telephone $423 48 10035922058 Can Phones Total VERIZON WIRELESS $457.15 Paid ChMI 074124 8/12/2002 VESSCOINC. E 601-49400227 Utility System Maint. Supplies $45 48 26886 1/2 pipe. Joint ToUl VESSCO INC.$4548 Aald ChMI 074125 6/12/2002 WAYZATA BAY CAR WASH E 101-42110-402 Rapaira/Maint-Auto Equip $532 50 7/17/02 too Car Washes 1 cmroFORONO 0MW02 8:33 AM Page 10 ^ChecK Detail Register® AUGUST »02 dMchAml InvoiM Coiwiiaiit Total WAYZATA BAY CAR WASH 1532.50 PaM CtMP 074126 WHITE, JIM E 101-41110-437 Trainifig & Development Total WHITE, aim $195.80 080202 LMC Coffifiienoe $195.80 Paid Chki 074127 6/12/2002 WRIGHT HENMEPIN ELECTRIC E 602-49450-381 Oat 6 Electric $1920 Eladrical Satvioa E 101-43000-381 Gas & Electric $26.25 3113009200 ElacWcal Saiviea Total WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC $45.45 M 074125 8/12/2002 XCEL ENERGY E 601-49400-381 Gas 6 Electric $4,172.64 Allocation ElacMcal Saivioa E 101-42110-381 Gas & Electric $9.42 A 11----------Aiiocauon Elactrieal Satvioa E 101-45200-361 Gas 6 Electric $15.31 Allocation Electrical Satvioa E 101-43000-381 Gas & Electric $94.54 Allocation Electrical Satvioa E 101-42110-381 Oat & Electric $738 05 AUoceUon Elactrieal Satvioa E 613-49830-361 Gas 6 Electric $697.54 Allocation Eladrical Satvioa E 101-419LO-361 Gas & Electric $1,628.12 ASocation Elactrieal Satvica E 602-49450-361 Gas 6 Electric $2,010.82 Aiocation Eladrical Satvioa E 101-43000-361 Gas & Electric $142.20 Hwy12 Highway 12MViliow E 101-43000-366 Street Ughting $1.305 56 StUghts StraatUghUng 7/2002 Total XCEL ENERGY $11,014.22 10100 Primary CMh $129,156.84 * -yt i CITY OF ORONO ch«ck rtflittor 0amAna:43AM Pag* 1 CfMCk Numbar EmpiojfiM Nam* KT»*a.'MMCf. --.I. Cbaek Amount Chock DalaChackSialua PETERSON. BARBARA a $323.22 a/12AaOulMMainQ MOOR8E. RONALD J.a S34a.31 a/12A» OMMinding 8ANSEVERE. ROBERT K.i $269.36 a/12/02 OulstirNing MURPHY. JAMES L a $269.36 a/12AI2 OutstandkiQ NYQARO.JAY a $269.38 a/12AI2 0u»afidbig WHITE. JAMES M.a $269.36 $1,746.97 8/12A» Oulttancing :? ■ J CITY OF ORONO 08A)6A)28:37AM P0g«1 Clitck Number Employe Namt 051517 051518 051510 051520 051521 051522 051523 051524 051527 051528 051529 051530 051531 051532 051533 051534 051535 051536 051537 051538 051539 DODGE. RACHEL M. JOHNSON.MARYANN LESKINEN. DENISE M. MOORSE. RONALD J. VEE. LINDAS. KUEHN. THOMAS M OLSON. RONALD J. PETTIT. SANDRA K. 051525 ANDERSON. BRUCE L 051526 BOBZ1EN.SUEA. BORIS. SCOTT W. CARLSON. MICHAEL B. CORNICK. JAMES L OEMBOUSKl. JAYC. ERICKSON. KURTR FARNIOK.CORREYL FISCHENICH.DANT. FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K. GOOD. STEPHANY R. HENDRICKS. RONALD J JOHNSON. JEFFREY LARSON. NELLE. MADSON. ADRIENNE M. 051540 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L 051541 MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B. TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. TOMCZYK.MARKW. WITTKE. ANTHONY A. 051546 ARNESON. JOSHUA A. 051547 LEE. JOSEPH P. BOLTERMAN. MATTHEW A BOTTENBERG. WENDY C. GAFFRON. MICHAEL P. GAPPA. GREGORY A. KANGAS. JAMES K. 051553 MEYER. WILLIAM C. 051554 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. DALE S. 051565 ABRAHAMSON.FREDW. 051566 GOLDSMITH. PAUL T. 051567 HAMBRO.MARSHAUJ. 051568 JENSEN. RODNEY W. 051542 051543 051544 051545 051548 051549 051550 051551 051552 051555 051556 051557 051558 051559 051560 051561 051562 051563 051564 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 1 1 ch«ck ragistor Ctwck Amoiifil $991.69 $630.71 $791.74 $7.80 $1,194.99 $990.31 $102.07 $439.38 $1,075.99 $746.11 $1,294.78 $13173 $1.51254 $1,476.85 $1,845.65 $1,622.76 $1,431.39 $242.57 $2,038.04 $1,217.53 $1,322.61 $669.38 $885.20 $592.33 $1,545.41 $1,446.39 $875.10 $1,407.71 $1,270.35 $657.80 $444.45 $1.01613 $1.122 84 $1,351.13 $1,760.33 $955.38 $730.09 $153 98 $1.44358 $1,319.70 $1,004.23 $907.01 $1,033.18 $680.01 $1,224.34 $1,125.75 $1,168.70 $1,068.59 $137.61 $88.78 $88.78 $255.98 Chacii DM* Cliacli Siaii» 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 OutstandinQ 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outetanding 8/7/02 Outstandkig 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 OutstancSng 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstamfing 8/7A)2 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7A)2 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstandkig 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7A>2 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstandkig 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 OuGtanding 8/7/02 Outstanding 8/7/02 Outstanding t J CITYOFORONO 0am«2t:37AM clMck rvgistor ClWCll Nuifibir ImploifM Nmm 1^ Pay Partod 051SM MM8ELLA.OANO. 061970 MCINTYRE. WILLIAM E. 091971 OA8. DANIEL O. 091972 PEICKERT.QARYJ. 091973 ROSS.X)HNA. 091974 SMYTH. KATHERINE R. 091979 STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD 051976 STORK. JOHN T. Chack Amount rawr-gawF?' ~ S294.90 $203.44 $165.45 $350.92 $91.28 $175.08 $1,349.92 $243.40 Chack OsM Chack Slalua 6/7/02 Oulalmidlng 6/7/02 Outatanding 8/7/02 Oulstandkig 8/7/02 OMiMfldhlO 6/7/02 Outstanding 6/7/02 Outstandkig 6/7/02 Outstanding 6/7/02 Outstanding jJm. $52,391.17 i LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ...... 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. AUb \ 2 2002 Deephaven, MN 55391 . . (952) 745^789 CU t ur- ohonO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER Gregory S. Nybeck July 17.2002 UUCP Ordinance Number 178; For a number of months, the LMCO Board considered a number of potential ordinance amendments to protect wetland areas on certain parts of Lake Minnetonka. Three areas were included in the Board discussion on wetland protection. They include; 1) Six Mile Creek from the mouth of the creek upstream to the contour line at elevation 929.4' NGVD., 2) Painter ’s Creek west of (^nty Road 110 upstream to the contour line at elevation 929.4' NGVD, and 3) Long Lake Creek from the mouth of the creek, located at the railroad trestle, upstream to the contour line at the elevation 929.4' NGVD. At its 6/26/02 Regular Meeting, the LMCD Board adopted an ordinance that prohibits a person from using a motor boat in these three areas of Lake Minnetonka; however, it does not apply to any watercraft that is 24’ or less in length that is being propelled by a single electric motor that has a single propeller and is not capable of generating more than 60 pounds of thrust at its maximum operating voltage. Buoys and/or signage will be installed in these three areas in the near future to inform the public of this ordinance, with an educational effort planned in the near future. Lake Minnetonka Water Patrol Project: In 2001, increased Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka was coordinated with the member cities and Hennepin County by adding two additional full-time Hennepin County Sheriffs Office Water Patrol Deputies for five months from mid May through mid October. Funding for the program in 2001 was 50% from Hennepin County, 30% from the LMCD Member Cities, and 20% from the LMCD ’Save the Lake* Fund. Feedback on the program in 2001 was that it was a big success and it has been coordinated in 2002 for generally the same time periods with approximately the same funding formula. The LMCO is currently seeking a long-term funding commitment from Hennepin County for 2003 and beyond. Solar Light Buoy Protect; In March, the LMCD Board authorized the purchase of solar lights to be installed on top of existing red and green navigational channel buoys for the 2002 season as a pilot project. Three areas of Lake Minnetonka were chosen to participate in this 2002 pilot project. They include; 1) both ends of the Areola Bridge and the immediate area of the western part of Smiths Bay le^ing from the Areola Bridge, 2) both ends of the Narrows Channel, and 3) the southeast side of Spray Island on the western section of E. Upper Lake. The solar lights were installed on the red and green navigational channel buoys in these areas in May, with a press release coordinated virith the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office Water Patrol for educational purposes. Preliminary feedback on this pilot project has been encouraging. Lake Minnetonka "High Water Declaration": A 'High-Water Declaration ’ on Lake Minnetonka w» made on Tuesday, 7/16/D2. LMCD Code Section 3.021 requires the Executive Director to make this declaration when the Lake elevation is at or above 930.0' NGVD for a period of eight consecutive days, or has reached a level of 930.25* NGVD. Lake levels on Lake Minnetonka were at or above 930.0' NGVD since Sunday, 7/6/02. In order to terminate the 'High-Water Declaration', lake levels need to fall below the 930.0' NGVD and remain below for three consecutive days. During a 'High Water Declaration', it is unlawful for a watercraft to operate at more than a Minimum Wake on Regulated areas and the remainder of Lake Minnetonka. A Minimum Wake is required for the entire bay or area in Regulated Areas on Lake Minnetonka. Regulated Areas include; Emerald Lake, Libbs Lake, Seton Lake, St. Louis Bay, Black Lake, Coffee Cove, Big Island Passage, Robinsons Bay, Tanager Lake, Forest Lake, Carsons Bay, i EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER, 7/17/02, PAGE 2 Excelsior Bay. Priests Bay. St. Albans Bay. Grays Bay. Stubbs Bay. and Jennings Bay. A Minimum Wake is required for the remainder of Lake Minnetonka within a distance of 600’ from the shoreline. A Minimum Wake means the wake moving out from a watercraft and trailing behind in a widening V is of insufficient size to affect other watercraft or to be detrimental to the shoreline (no more than 5 M.P.H.). Update Oh "Left Keep Zebra Mute^ Out of Lake IBnnetonlM*'Dfoiect The LMCD has been working with the Lake Mmnelonka Assoaation (LMA) since last fan to establish a program to keep zebra mussels out of Lake Minrtefonka. At its S/8/02 Regular Meetfog, the Board authorized the altocation of $8,000. with a mnimum rrtatch of $8,000 from the LMA. to implement a pilot inspection program in 2002. This program caks for one or more public bo^ launch ramps to be staffed with MNONR watercraft inspector(s). The LMCD is proceeding with the program while the LMA works to get the matching funds. Results will be documented in a Report at the end of the season. 2gfi2 lyraslan WaterwJtfoil (EWM) Harvesttna Pronram; The 2002 EWM Harvesting Program commenced on fi/11/02 with the launchir^ of the harvesting equipment at Spring Park Bay. Harvesting is planned through mid Ai^u^, with the possi)ility of late season halting depending on growth and economic variables. Harvesting priorities are based upon impedimmt to public boat navigation on the open water, which is consistent with past years. The Lower Lake North Option has been implemented in 2002, with the first round of harvesting completed in the Lower Lake arto the majority cornpieted in the Upper Lake. High growth areas wHI be harvested twice, timepermitting. W? VMPR Bydget: In May, staff prepared the draft 2003 LMCD Budget for review by the Board and the 14 member cities. In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 1036.635. the Board must on or before July 1 each year prepare a^ submit a det^led budget of the Districf s needs, for the next calendar year, to the governing body of e^ municipality in the District with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. The LMCD Board reviewed the draft 2003 LMCD Budget at its 5/22«)2.6/10rt)2, and 6/24/02 Regular Board Meetings. A meeting with offioals from the 14 member cities was coordinated In the District office on Wednesday, 6^2. to receive input and comments on the draft 2003 LMCD Budget. The Board adopted the 2003 LMCD Budget at Hs 6/24/02 Regular Meeting and forwarded It to the 14 member cities before the July 1“ deadline. IBfefrPw: The LMCD's WebPage address is; http7/www.lmcd.org. SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 10709 WaynrtaBlvd.. Suite 111. Mlfuwlonta. MN 8S308 Phona: (902) MM010 PAX: (902) 041-0041 BOAAOOPOIfteCTORO Franda Hagan Pftaidtnl SobSaan farWcaP/asNteif JohnC. Boadar 2nd Vk9 RrmidmH OerdonHughaa Tnuuiwr Qlorla Jehnaon Snctwtaty Dr. CMnyara (Iw) NJaka PutPmaktnnl Pater Coyto Mtomter-ar-La>gt Dotty O'Brian Utmtm-MUMrgt JotmOray Marty OurHi Alko HIguchl DwIgM Jehnaon Marvin Johnaon Laurla Lafontalna John Lawson Rap. Ann LancnaraU Sattator Oan Olaon CurOa A. Paaraon Mary Tambomino Laonard J. ThM Thontaa Thorflnnaon TomTIcan Banjamln P. WIthhait ExtcuUvw Orectort CEO, PflOORAMS • MulU-Purpoaa Sanlor Cantara • Sanlor Outraach • H.O.M.E. • Transportation A Founding Khmbtr ol Eldotcvt Partnta AUnNaSWay July 17.2002 Mayor Barbara Peterson and Council City of Orono 1335 South Brown Road Orono. MN 55356 1 2 2002 Uiir unoMUrvy Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Members: Senior Community Senrices is requesting $16,100 (a 3% increase) from the City of Orono to continue supporting the operation of programs serving the local frail and elderly population in the 2003 calendar year. This amount will allow us to maitain the current level of services for the Senior Outreach Program. theTamarak (Long Lake) Senior Center, and the Westonka Senior Center. We look fonvard to continuing the relationship of cooperation including local church congregations (St. George's. Calvin Presbyterian and Trinity Lutheran). Westonka Rides Transportation and Dial-a*Ride. Westonka Seniors Inc.. Westonka Community Services . local businesses, individuals and cities in order to provide the best services possible to area seniors. As in the past we will continue to raise matching funds from the United Way. civic organizations, businesses and private individuals to support the local programs. Sincerely. j Ron Bloch Program Administrator cc: Ronald Moorse. City Administrator cc: Tom Kuehn. Finance Director J